[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:10] Planning Commission meeting. Today is August 21, 2024, and it is 6.30, and I am calling the meeting to order.
[0:20] Our first item on the agenda is roll call, and can the record please show that all commissioners are present this evening. Our second item on the agenda is the pledge to the flag, and I would like to ask Commissioner Lobb to lead us in the pledge, please.
[0:37] To
[0:41] 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.
[0:54] Thank you.
[0:56] At this time, we will be at item number three, the public comment period.
[0:59] This is a period of time for anybody wishing to make a comment on something that is not on the agenda currently.
[1:06] Any, are there any individuals interested in making a comment on any item not on the agenda this evening?
[1:16] Seeing none, I will now close the public comment period.
[1:22] Item number four is the consent calendar.
[1:27] I will now open the floor for public comment on the consent calendar.
[1:32] Is there any individuals interested in making a comment on the consent calendar?
[1:38] All right. Seeing none, planning commissioners, are there any discussion for any items on the consent calendar?
[1:48] Move approval.
[1:51] We
[1:54] have a motion in a second.
[1:57] All commissioners in favor of the consent calendar?
[2:01] Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[2:07] That is a final of five unanimous for the consent calendar.
[2:13] Public item hearings, public hearing items, item number five, we are going to be taking
[2:18] these out of order if that is okay with the rest of the commissioners. We'll be taking item
[2:23] B ahead of item A. Is that okay? All right. We will now hear from the planner
[2:33] for the Ashbury Apartments project.
[2:39] Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission, staff, and members of the audience.
[2:45] My name is Ryan Lennhart, I work in the Planning Division, and
[2:48] presenting the Ashbury Apartments SB 330 project this evening.
[2:53] I'm going to start with some background.
[2:56] In June of 2020, the applicant submitted an application under Senate Bill 35 for
[3:03] or a 313 unit affordable housing project on three parcels.
[3:09] Staff issued an approval of that project in 2021.
[3:14] On September 12th of 2023, the applicant submitted an amendment to that project to reduce its size from 313 units to 183 units.
[3:25] Because that project was no longer financially feasible according to the applicant.
[3:30] staff also issued an approval for that amended project.
[3:36] While those applications were being processed, the applicant also filed an application for a use permit,
[3:44] density bonus with one concession, or incentive for a reduction in the amount of private and common open space,
[3:52] tree removal permit, and design and site review.
[3:55] And so that's the subject of our meeting this evening.
[3:58] That project includes a proposal for a 183-unit apartment project with 11% of the total units as affordable to very low income households,
[4:12] which qualifies for concessions and covers the inclusionary requirement.
[4:20] The applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting in February of last year.
[4:24] Neighbors did attend that meeting and raise concerns regarding inadequate parking compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood, historic drainage issues along Ashbury Drive, and a lack of amenities for the project.
[4:41] The applicant later filed their preliminary application under SB 330 in July of 2023, and that is associated with the project we're discussing this evening.
[4:53] Under SB 330, a project can only be subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the time that that application was submitted.
[5:05] In on October or August of 2023, the application was deemed submitted.
[5:10] The Design Review Board reviewed this project last year and recommended approval.
[5:18] So we'll talk about the project description.
[5:19] As I mentioned, the project consists of 183 apartment units,
[5:25] a six-story building consisting of five stories of living space over a podium level with an on-grade garage.
[5:32] There's approximately 19,000 square feet of amenity space, which includes a fitness center on the ground floor of this project.
[5:40] Two podium court yards that have access to club rooms, lounges,
[5:46] is a computer lab and flex space.
[5:49] Pursuant to state density bonus law,
[5:52] the applicant is requesting one concession or incentive
[5:56] to reduce the private and common open space requirements
[5:59] for residential development in the DMX district.
[6:04] They are also requesting a reduction of parking
[6:07] to 5.5 spaces per unit,
[6:10] which is allowed under state density bonus law.
[6:13] And one waiver of development standards
[6:15] to reduce the bicycle parking style dimensions, which I will discuss later.
[6:21] The site is located at the intersection of Amador Avenue and Ashbury Drive.
[6:26] The site consists of one parcel, its own downtown mixed use and is surrounded by residential uses.
[6:32] The building would be oriented east toward Amador Avenue.
[6:39] Vehicle circulation is proposed in a one-way direction,
[6:43] in a counter-clockwise fashion around the building off of Aminor Avenue.
[6:49] Vehicle access is proposed at a gated entry, which is identified by these two arrows here.
[7:01] The trash pickup and moving area is located at the northwest corner of the site.
[7:09] To clarify for the commission, the row of darker parking stalls is actually
[7:14] accessible off of this loop road. It's only the stalls that are in this lighter color
[7:20] that are accessed through this gated entry. That was a little bit difficult to understand
[7:27] in the plans, but I wanted to call that out to your attention. 93 parking stalls are proposed
[7:33] for the project, the majority of which are located in the garage. 89 of those stalls are in
[7:38] in 4 or on the loop road at the northwest corner of the site which is indicated in 4 red boxes.
[7:48] Tenant access is in 2 locations at lobbies at the corners of the building.
[7:55] Again amenities are proposed primarily at the 2 podium level courtyards which are identified in the center of the slide,
[8:03] along with the dog park and picnic area at the northwest corner of the site.
[8:09] The building architecture references modern styles.
[8:13] The building is prominent with massing that creates varied proportions.
[8:17] There are a variety of building colors, articulated roof planes.
[8:21] This site is located outside of the downtown Concord design guidelines core areas, therefore
[8:28] no specific architectural style is mandated for this project.
[8:34] The applicants proposing a mix of studio one and two bedroom units that range from around
[8:40] 420 to 880 square feet in size in seven different floor plans.
[8:46] Eight of the units have patios that are adjacent to the podium courtyard areas.
[8:55] This is the proposed building design.
[8:57] This is the East elevation facing Amador Avenue.
[9:03] Again, this is one of the lobbies and leasing area on the northeast corner of the building.
[9:13] This is the South elevation, so this faces Ashbury Drive.
[9:21] Again, you can see the two courtyard areas that sit on top of the podium deck that are shown here.
[9:28] This is the west elevation, the second lobby at the bottom left hand corner of the site of the slide, and then this is the north side of the building which faces the Galindo House Museum and Gardens.
[9:44] Again, the parking spaces I was referring to that are accessible off the loop road are in this area here with access to the garage here.
[9:52] The
[9:55] general plan designation of downtown mixed use is intended to allow high density residential, commercial and office uses, and a density range of 33 to 100 units per net acre.
[10:07] The proposed density for this project is 102 units per net acre, so just over the maximum that's allowed.
[10:14] But, pursuant to state density bonus law and the amount of affordable housing that's proposed, the applicant actually qualifies for
[10:23] are a 35% increase in density, although they're only proposing a 2% increase above the maximum, which is typically allowed.
[10:34] The project will provide housing opportunities in the downtown and is consistent with applicable general plan policies related to residential development.
[10:43] The downtown specific plan provides a vision for how to integrate housing, jobs, retail and
[10:50] transportation linkages and this project is consistent with those policies that encourage
[10:55] a variety of living opportunities in the downtown by way of three unit types across seven
[11:01] different floor plans at different rental rates. The project's also consistent with strategies
[11:07] to increase the number of residential units in the city's downtown. Zoning allows these
[11:13] types of uses, multi-family uses with the approval of a used permit, as condition the project
[11:19] the application meets the applicable requirements of the code in effect at the time that the application was submitted pursuant to SB 330.
[11:28] The city hired fair and peers to prepare transportation analysis to evaluate traffic operations and site access.
[11:36] And that report concluded that the existing pedestrian and bike facilities are adequate for this project.
[11:43] And that the project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the surrounding transportation network.
[11:52] The Planning Commission approved a use permit amendment in 2018 for the Orion Academy,
[11:59] which is a college prep school for students on the autism spectrum in grades 9 through 12.
[12:05] And that approval included a requirement to provide 49 parking spaces on their site,
[12:12] right, as well as eight additional spaces on the project site.
[12:17] So this is an aerial view of where the Orion Academy is located in relationship to the
[12:23] project we're discussing this evening.
[12:25] So they share a property line, and at one time the two parcels were owned by the same entity,
[12:30] which was the Church of the Nazarene.
[12:33] The Orion Academy owns their own parcel now, whereas the developer owns the project site.
[12:40] So
[12:43] the project will maintain pedestrian access between the two properties, which was a requirement of your approval in 2018 via a walkway through the proposed dog park and picnic area.
[12:58] Shared vehicle access is no longer being maintained as part of this project, but parking will be.
[13:03] So right now there's a driveway that links the two properties that will go away and just a pedestrian link will be provided.
[13:13] And the project has been designed to accommodate the eight parking spaces that are required as part of that parking and access agreement between the two properties.
[13:25] The plans that the Commission received do not show this detail.
[13:30] This is a detail of where the applicant is proposing to locate those eight parking spaces,
[13:36] which are along the west property line.
[13:39] Planning staff along with the Transportation Division staff have reviewed this concept
[13:45] and are confident that the parking can be accommodated.
[13:49] and will not interrupt vehicle circulation access to the site, landscaping can be maintained as well as emergency vehicle access through the property.
[14:02] Staff is proposing a condition of approval number 10 that requires that the applicant can provide parking for the apartment project which consists of 92 spaces,
[14:13] It's required by State Density Bonus Law and an additional eight spaces for use by the Orion Academy for a total of 100 spaces.
[14:24] And we are suggesting that the details of those additional eight parking spaces be worked out as part of the construction document phase of the project should move forward.
[14:36] A bike parking is also proposed in excess of what's required by the code.
[14:43] The project exceeds the required combined number of spaces for a multi-family use.
[14:50] In staff's report, it's noted that the applicant is requesting a waiver from the bike parking
[14:57] dimensions that are required.
[15:00] Under our code, however, subsequent to publishing the report, the applicant was able to resolve that issue by relocating their long-term bike storage to another location in the parking garage so that waiver is no longer being requested. This is a proposed layout of what those parking stalls would look like. So essentially, the short-term parking by school parking has not changed.
[15:29] It was located next to the leasing area, so this is just a large of view of what that looks like,
[15:37] along with the dimensions that satisfy the city's code requirements.
[15:42] But the long-term parking was relocated from the bottom left corner of the parking garage
[15:49] to the bottom right corner of the parking garage adjacent to a short-term parking.
[15:55] By doing that, the applicant has removed one parking stall.
[16:00] So they were proposing 93 stalls, which was a surplus of one, but by converting this one stall to accommodate the long term bike parking, they've reduced that total number from 93 to 92, but that still complies with state density bonus law.
[16:19] The project must also provide a private and common open space consisting of 175 square feet for each unit, 60 square feet of which must be a private open space like a patio.
[16:32] The project does not meet that requirement, but under state density bonus law, they can request a concession given that they're proposing affordable housing.
[16:44] So that's one of the concessions we are asking the commission to consider this evening.
[16:52] As I mentioned, multi-family uses are conditionally permitted in this district.
[16:56] State density bonus law allows for a density bonus and concessions to reduce parking which
[17:02] we've discussed in open space with the inclusion of very low income housing which is proposed.
[17:08] The project will not be detrimental to the public's health or safety.
[17:12] The project is consistent with the objectives of the downtown specific plan and objective design standards in effect that the in effect at the time that the application was deemed submitted under SB 330.
[17:28] With respect to the trees on site, the applicants, Arborist identified two protected trees, one of which is on the property.
[17:39] It's a black, California black walnut.
[17:43] It's located on the West property line, but it's in poor health.
[17:45] It's been topped.
[17:47] There's no real value to maintaining the tree, plus it conflicts with the proposed loop
[17:52] road and landscaping at that location.
[17:56] And a second protected tree, which is actually on the Glendo House site, which shares the
[18:02] North property line.
[18:03] It overhangs the project site, but it will not be removed or disturbed as part of this project.
[18:14] The code requires that the applicant provide three replacement trees for every one protected
[18:18] tree that's removed.
[18:19] The applicant is doing that by providing 34 trees for the project.
[18:28] And then staff would also like to note that we hired rainy planning and management to prepare
[18:35] a modified initial study community plan consistency checklist pursuant to CEQA to determine whether any further environmental review was required for this project.
[18:46] And that study determined that the project is consistent with the existing zoning general plan and specific plan policies.
[18:56] And that it's exempt from further environmental review because it's consistent with the downtown EIR that was prepared.
[19:02] specific plant IR that was prepared for the city.
[19:10] I'd like to discuss site contamination and remediation.
[19:15] The site is pretty much been cleared or raised of its previous buildings.
[19:21] There are some remnant building pads located on the site.
[19:24] The commission may recall that a classroom building burned in 2021.
[19:30] It was located on the west side of the site.
[19:33] That building has been removed.
[19:35] But as a result of that, the applicant voluntarily entered into a cleanup agreement with the department of toxic substances to study any residual soil contamination that may have occurred.
[19:50] A removal action work plan is being prepared that will identify the means and extent of onsite remedial activities subject to DTSC's approval.
[20:01] Staff is proposing condition of approval, number 15, that would require the applicant to secure approvals from DTSC prior to issuing the first permit for development.
[20:15] There have been a couple of pieces of correspondence that have been benched this evening for your consideration.
[20:22] DTSC reviewed the CEQA document and requested revisions that are included in a Rata sheet that was prepared by Rainey.
[20:31] That a rat-a-sheet makes clear, the sequin analysis is conservative and will cover what is being proposed in the action plan.
[20:43] The revisions that are included in the rat-a-sheet do not affect the adequacy of the previous environmental analysis.
[20:49] It's more just to clarify DTSC's comments.
[20:53] We also received late correspondence from the California Housing Defense Fund, which is a non-profit corporation that advocates for increased access to housing for Californians.
[21:06] With that said, staffs recommending adoption of Resolution 2413, approving the use permit, the density bonus with one concession or incentive,
[21:16] three removal permit and design and site review for 183 apartment units with 20 affordable units located at 1650 Ashbury Drive.
[21:28] We have representatives from engineering and transportation this evening if there are questions as well as the applicant's team.
[21:35] And with that I'm happy to answer any questions the commission may have. Thank you.
[21:42] Thank you very much for the presentation it was very thorough.
[21:45] So do I have any, there isn't going to be a presentation unless there's questions for
[21:56] the applicant, is that correct by the way?
[21:58] The applicant has a brief presentation, specifically the applicant's architect.
[22:05] The developer's also available to answer questions as necessary.
[22:15] Are there any commissioner questions for staff at this time?
[22:25] Oh, it's very lit up.
[22:25] Commissioner, Mr. Tani?
[22:28] I'll defer to Commissioner Logs, I think I heard him click a second before I did your file, are you sure?
[22:36] Thank you for the presentation, Ryan.
[22:38] I did have a clarifying question.
[22:40] Slide 14 in the presentation mentions that there is a request for variance on the bike parking and
[22:49] And then slide 44, you said that that was worked out.
[22:54] So I'm assuming that slide 14 can be, the second bullet can be deleted?
[23:02] Yes, I think that was probably one of the introductory slides that I presented.
[23:06] Correct.
[23:06] Yes, I only mentioned that because it was in the staff report and
[23:11] then clarified that that issue had been resolved.
[23:14] Yes.
[23:14] Okay, and then I was curiously looking at and trying to pay attention at the same time, was there a condition of approval associated with that so later on when we make a motion, do we have to make a clarification on the conditions of approval as well?
[23:31] Not regarding bike parking now. Okay, thank you.
[23:39] Thank you, Ryan.
[23:41] Very thorough.
[23:42] I wanted to get a little bit of additional context or color on the fencing.
[23:49] So understand on the north side, tubular metal fencing is proposed and on the west a wooden
[23:58] six foot high fence, right?
[24:00] Yes.
[24:01] I just wanted to understand kind of why the difference in what the thought process was.
[24:06] Representatives from the Galindo House attended the design review board meetings and
[24:11] requested that a different fence material be installed along the North property line.
[24:16] Apparently, they're having a lot of difficulty with vehicles damaging that fence, which is currently wood.
[24:24] And so they felt a tubular steel material would withstand potential vehicle damage.
[24:30] and the applicant agreed to that request.
[24:35] Okay.
[24:38] All right, and then there was mention of in the community meeting historical drainage issues on Ashtbury, is staff aware of anything?
[24:50] We are and we have a representative from engineering.
[24:52] If you have specific questions, I would like to defer to Ms.
[24:55] Abkinari, who is familiar with that?
[24:58] Yeah, it may not be a project issue, but I just wanted to get a little bit of more information on what the issue is and just making sure that this project isn't going to exacerbate the issue.
[25:09] What I can tell you is that to best of our knowledge, this project will resolve those historical water ponding issues of water in the street at the southwest corner of the property, which is the low point of the site.
[25:23] Okay. That's good to hear. I think that was all the questions. Thank you.
[25:35] Thank you very much for the presentation. If that's all for Commissioner Questions,
[25:39] I'd like to open it up for public comment. I do have blue speaker cards, but they are
[25:45] individuals that are from at the Asherbury project. There's a seraphine.
[25:54] Through the chair, do you want to take the applicant's presentation first just before you take public on it?
[26:02] Sure, yes.
[26:27] Just waiting on.
[26:28] Are we good?
[26:42] Good evening commissioners.
[26:44] My name is Serif and Maranan.
[26:45] I'm a partner at AO and architectural firm in Orange County.
[26:49] We are proud to present for your consideration to Ashbury.
[26:52] This is a podium project, as Ryan had said, consisting of five stories of residential living over one story of parking underneath, and parking desk slope across this slope, as you will see later in one of our drawings.
[27:13] This is a site plan that you also have seen perhaps in a different graphic layout.
[27:19] Ryan did point out that there are two courtyards that are probably featured on the project.
[27:25] There is a clubhouse in the middle of that two courtyards, which we felt was a very important part of our design because it allows this clubhouse to really be an interface both courtyards at either end, so that was a very important part of our design.
[27:40] then we have residential units that really just wrap around the site.
[27:48] These are the elevations that are not quite the most updated at this point.
[27:53] But what really was important here was based on meetings that we've had with the RB.
[27:58] There was concern about landscape buffering along the perimeter of the site.
[28:03] So we worked very diligently with the landscape architect to make sure that the landscape buffers and
[28:09] and planting our sufficient and does provide buffer in layering as one walk walks onto the site.
[28:20] This is a perspective along Ashbury that show the project in a more complete illustration.
[28:29] I do want to also point out that the rendering is a bit not quite up to date because there is no pool in that courtyard.
[28:39] But there was one pool that was considered.
[28:41] These are now two passive courtyards that now take precedence on the two courtyards.
[28:46] But the elevations do still remain the same, can the same consideration for planting and
[28:52] screening, especially along the parking was something that DRB and
[28:56] our planning and consulting team really worked hard to achieve, which is shown on this perspective.
[29:04] This is a very unique site.
[29:06] As you can see it does reveal the parking structure that is on grade, and it does slope down from east to west.
[29:16] And we are able to still create a very dynamic project with five stories of residential living over the podium.
[29:23] There is a bit of an interesting step down as you can see on the west side, because again, that's the lowest part of our site.
[29:30] were able to actually split the building so there's five stories inbound and five stories outbound and it
[29:36] does create a more dynamic step massing along the rear part of the project.
[29:43] This is the perspective off the intersection of Amador and Ashbury.
[29:47] The project, as Ryan has said, is contemporary but obviously it's more of a
[29:52] as a Mediterranean flare to it but it does have the modern leanings of a very
[29:57] disciplined and a very controlled type of art.
[30:00] The architectural language that speaks some of the more contemporary leanings, but with a Mediterranean flair to it.
[30:09] This is the project of this project looking southwest from Amadour Avenue, looking onto our leasing and some of our amenities at the base ground floor of the project.
[30:25] And the same thing here, this is the back side, or we should call it, the rear side of the project. And the DRB and
[30:33] AO really worked hard to make sure that the elevation is 360 degree consistent and we just
[30:39] re-sticated stuck along the base. So the same care and attention to detail was shown
[30:45] at the rear side as it would be on the more formal or more public-fronting elevations.
[30:51] These are the material, these are the colors that we chose, again a variety of earth tones
[30:57] that really speak of some of the more modern Mediterranean and but still have some modern
[31:02] and type of approaches to how we're applying colors throughout the project.
[31:07] We wanted to obviously break down the massing with creating different color schemes that really create different proportions and different accents.
[31:16] And lastly, this are some of the samples or features of the buildings, whether it's the trims or the cornices or the awnings, the canopies, the type of stucco that we're using.
[31:27] in some of the Scort Stucco and the Lovert Shades that are prominently allocated and strategically placed along the project.
[31:38] And with that, I conclude my presentation, thank you.
[31:45] Are there any commissioner questions for the applicant,
[31:55] Commissioner Mitsitani?
[31:56] Thank you, Sarah Finn, for the presentation.
[31:59] I'd add a couple questions.
[32:00] One is on the plans.
[32:02] There are parking spaces that are designated for EV-ready spaces.
[32:10] How do those differ from regular, the regular parking spaces?
[32:14] And they're not as big and they don't show a charger like the EV spaces do, can you?
[32:22] The EV stalls were required at the time of this submittal 40% of all stalls would be EV.
[32:30] either EV ready or EV capable, so some have actual power installed at day one.
[32:37] And there are some that are built for future charging capability.
[32:42] But they are all at some point going to be EV capable or EV ready.
[32:47] Okay, and then my second question is the plan to show a computer lab.
[32:52] What is that space design design?
[32:55] Yeah, it's one of the amenities that we're offering to our residents as part of an idea to maybe there's an opportunity for some co-working or some use of it that is more to the tech savvy residents that want to use that space for their own personal or maybe perhaps business use.
[33:15] Okay, thank you.
[33:19] Vice Chair Barbara.
[33:21] Thank you, Chair.
[33:23] I have a couple of questions.
[33:25] When I look at the layout of the road around the building, and it's one way.
[33:33] And as you exit the parking garage, it seems like it would be better to make a right turn out of there rather than go around the whole building.
[33:46] And it seems to me that that's what people will do.
[33:49] which would be going against two people coming in.
[33:53] What was the thinking behind not having too a traffic?
[33:58] When we thought of the layout of the project, we had enough room for two lanes.
[34:05] And one of the lanes as you can see from what Ryan had said,
[34:07] the inside lane does afford the opportunity for the cars to park before they enter the building.
[34:16] And we were concerned that if they were to back out, I think a much cleaner routing would be one-way traffic.
[34:23] So it also presents opportunities for fire and trash, the trash pervay are to also come in from the same route as opposed to multiple routes going in and out of the project.
[34:36] Okay. Thank you. The other question is does the building have downspouts or do they are internal, sir, because I remember you beat me up on that at the DRB multiple times and I have a lot of scars for that. But yes, they are internal.
[34:51] Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
[34:54] So, my question.
[34:59] Are there any other questions? Commissioner Lau.
[35:04] Thank you. Question on the parking on those parking stalls, the eight ones that were
[35:11] added on the west side. If I know we're really close on like the landscaping percentage.
[35:18] So if the addition of those wipes out enough landscaping and then the landscaping is not
[35:24] not compliant. Do you think you have room inside the garage to get a space or two?
[35:30] Or we will have to look at that. As you know, that was a last minute add on to the project.
[35:36] We obviously want to comply at every turn. So we will continue to look at that where obviously
[35:41] still in process. But for sure, we will look into that.
[35:45] Okay. All right. Thank you.
[35:47] Sure.
[35:51] If there are no other commissioner, oh, Commissioner Mutzitani?
[35:55] Sorry, I did have another question about the bike parking, and it pertains to the bike racks that were shown on the drawing.
[36:05] So I understand through Ryan's presentation that the waiver, the request for the waiver has gone away.
[36:13] But are the bike racks that were shown on the plans?
[36:17] Are those still the intended bike racks or is there a different style or type that is being proposed with the new layout?
[36:24] Because other than a slide thing that's been resolved, I don't have any details on how it was you had.
[36:31] Yeah, no, these are standard specs that we use for manufacturers that do create efficiency.
[36:37] Because we obviously have a limited amount of space so they are either in pairs.
[36:41] So there's an ability to lay it out in a very efficient manner, given the score footage of space that we're allocating to.
[36:48] And I did go to the bikeparking.com website, I couldn't find the specs on the, I kind of matched the photos with what's on the website, and I didn't see any specifications on the bike racks.
[37:01] So are they designed for e-bikes?
[37:05] That's a good question.
[37:07] I'm not sure, I think they were, Ryan, maybe I can have you discuss that.
[37:13] We were just reacting to the requirement for by-store.
[37:16] Because no e-bikes were shown on the website, on the bikeparking.com website.
[37:21] Through the chair, our code requires that the bike parking stalls be two feet wide.
[37:26] It doesn't differentiate between acoustic versus electric bikes, if you will.
[37:34] Okay.
[37:34] It just requires a minimum dimension of two feet wide by six feet deep.
[37:39] So that might be something for
[37:41] to address in a future code cleanup.
[37:44] I'm not sure, yeah, so I would request that because an e-bike weighs around 45 to almost a hundred pounds with a large battery.
[37:54] And if you're asking someone to lift a bike on that's most of the racks on the plans, you're showing the two tier bike racks.
[38:03] And you're never good, you and I are never going to lift a hundred pounds that high up in the air.
[38:09] And with the reduction in parking spaces, I'm all four e-bikes replacing cars.
[38:17] And I know people are going to look at the 0.5 parking spaces per residence, but
[38:23] people aren't, we want people to commute by bike.
[38:25] E-bikes are changing that, that it is now possible to not own a car.
[38:29] But you're not going to be able to lift a hundred pound bike up for feet in the air.
[38:40] Through the chair, I just wanted to go back to a question that Commissioner Mizutani asked about a condition specific to the modifications to the bike stall dimensions.
[38:51] So we actually have a standard condition of approval.
[38:55] It's actually condition of approval number 50 that requires all parking to comply with our standards, including parking dimensions.
[39:01] So that condition should have actually been modified if there was a waiver being requested for
[39:06] the bicycle-stalled dimensions, but since that's not being proposed, that condition would hold,
[39:11] and that's how we're going to require and make sure that that gets satisfied.
[39:19] Commissioner, Mr. Tony?
[39:20] So, so when we make the motion, we do not need to alter any conditions.
[39:25] And staff's opinion, condition number of approval, number 50 covers that.
[39:29] Thank you.
[39:32] All right, thank you very much.
[39:33] Thank you.
[39:35] Okay, now at this time, I will take public comment if there's any public comment on this particular item.
[39:46] And thank
[39:53] you,
[39:56] it's the set for how much time is it, three minutes,
[40:04] thank you.
[40:05] I can say good evening, my name is Ramona Maral.
[40:09] I'm a field representative for the North Cal Carpenters Union, local 152, which covers Concord.
[40:16] I stand here before you today as a proud member of the North Cal Carpenters Union deeply committed to supporting the development of affordable housing, recognizing the pressing need for homes and our community.
[40:27] And we are ready to contribute our skills and labor to make this vision a reality.
[40:33] However, while we support the idea of this project, we must oppose it in its current form.
[40:39] The developer has a history of choosing and bypass responsible contractors opting instead for
[40:46] those who do not pay fair wages or provide essential health benefits.
[40:51] This decision undermines the very foundation of our community.
[40:55] Workers who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.
[41:00] This project has a potential to do something truly great.
[41:03] But only if it is bill on the principle of fairness.
[41:06] Yes, we are the developer to reconsider their approach and commit to using responsible contractors who will ensure the workers building these homes are compensated, justly and given the benefits they need to care for their families.
[41:21] Let's build a future with housing projects, uplift our entire community, starting with who builds the in.
[41:29] Thank you.
[41:29] Thank you.
[41:33] And just because I have the cards, I just want to be sure, Brad Dickerson, did you have any commenter?
[41:41] Okay, and Angela D'Arosa?
[41:44] Okay, all right, thank you so much.
[41:46] At this time, that's okay, thank you.
[41:54] Is this just comments or can I ask a question?
[41:58] It's just comments, it's public comment here.
[42:00] Okay, so public comment, I do disagree with the amount of parking, 0.5 spaces per unit is going to overwhelm the neighborhood, single family home neighborhood that exists around it with they're not going to be able to park their own cars in the front of their houses.
[42:16] So I just want to be on record that that is how I feel.
[42:20] What I don't understand, and I haven't seen the plans in a while, is there's a parking lot across the street at 1661 Ashbury.
[42:27] And it used to be as part of the plans, I haven't seen it in quite a while, though.
[42:32] And now it's not mentioned at all, so I don't know where that went.
[42:36] Or what's happening on that parking lot.
[42:43] Thank you.
[42:46] Vice-Chair, Barbara.
[42:48] I wonder if I could ask the architect to come back up just for a minute.
[42:52] I have a question.
[42:59] What I-
[42:59] Do you want to talk about the parking?
[43:01] No, the fence.
[43:02] Oh, the fence.
[43:04] Did I miss the detail of the tubular fence?
[43:08] Did you show that?
[43:10] That was not on my drawings, those were landscape drawings only, not actual fence drawings.
[43:16] So we don't know what that tubular fence is going to look like.
[43:19] I believe there were other drawings that were part of the submittal that showed that, but probably not on this submittal set.
[43:30] Through the chair, the applicant has not submitted a detail of the tubular steel fence.
[43:38] Okay.
[43:40] Thank you.
[43:40] Other than a reference on the plan that says six foot steel fence.
[43:44] All right, thank you.
[43:50] At this time, I'll take Commissioner Comets.
[43:55] Are there any comments from any commissioners?
[44:04] I will go first, then.
[44:08] Thank you very much for the information on the environmental piece.
[44:12] That was something that was a couple of my questions that were that were
[44:17] with me, we're around the environmental and also the bike, because I two had the question on the e-bike
[44:26] configuration knowing that the type of housing that's going to be there, it's likely that residents are going to be utilizing that mode of transportation.
[44:35] So I appreciate that.
[44:38] You know, the project seems to be quite the project and
[44:48] I'm interested in hearing what my other commissioners have to say about the project and what their thoughts are.
[44:56] Mr. Love.
[44:58] Thank you, Chair.
[45:00] Yeah, I had several questions and clarifications with staff before the hearing, which were very helpful, and then a few more this evening. I'm in support of the project. I think the parking I'm generally in support of, you know, reduced parking, lowering our parking. This, though, I think is the first time we've seen the .5 per unit implemented,
[45:29] And it feels like a lot.
[45:32] It feels very low, it will be very interesting, I think, to watch, to see how the marketability
[45:41] of this project goes, and then if they're spilling over into the neighborhood.
[45:47] I think the only way that we can avoid it as a local jurisdiction is by jumping through
[45:53] a bunch of hoops that the state has put out in terms of, you know, a specific parking study and things, but yeah, it feels very low, but I don't think there's anything we can do about the parking.
[46:08] So I will be in support of the project.
[46:15] I like Commissioner Laval being support of the project, I think you heard through my bike parking comments sort of where I stand on that.
[46:28] I also agree that the 0.5 parking spaces per unit is going to be interesting to see how that manifests, I can tell you that anecdotally with I check things with my family a lot.
[46:43] That my son went to school in a very bike-centric, very progressive university town that supported lower parking ratios.
[46:54] And he said, yes, sometimes he would park in neighborhoods when there were complexes where his friends lived and there was inadequate parking.
[47:04] So he would in and date those neighborhoods.
[47:06] That being said, as Commissioner Lobb said, the state governs that.
[47:12] This is one of many, I think SB 330 projects that we're going to see.
[47:18] And so that becomes the standard at which we have to evaluate the parking at.
[47:24] It's a trade-off, so we're getting some affordable units.
[47:30] And the trade-off is going to be from the developer side, the marketability.
[47:35] with the limited parking, and then I believe there will be impact in the neighborhoods.
[47:41] To counter that, I think people have heard, and Ryan, thank you for recognizing.
[47:47] I know it's not for us to decide here, but at some point, I think we do need to look at people are commuting by e-bike and
[47:56] our bike design standards may need to accommodate that.
[48:01] But overall, I will be supporting the project.
[48:07] Thank you.
[48:08] Any other?
[48:11] I have one.
[48:13] Commissioner Krasal.
[48:16] I have just a clarification or I support the project at the first place.
[48:23] But only clarification I was looking for is first this project was a 313 unit and went
[48:31] I went to 183, but the parking space went down so much, and I'm concerned about that only.
[48:48] Vice Chair Barbara?
[48:49] Yes, thank you, Chair.
[48:52] Can I ask staff a question?
[48:55] Yes, absolutely.
[48:57] Mr. Reinhardt, Mr. Reinhardt, sorry, Mr. Reinhardt, first and last.
[49:04] But the two names together.
[49:06] On this fencing, I hate to beat up the applicant on fencing.
[49:10] That probably was so brutal with the downspouts.
[49:14] But I want to ensure that it's a quality fence.
[49:17] I know they'll maintain it.
[49:21] I don't think we have a standard for tubular fencing.
[49:27] It's just whatever is put up.
[49:29] I don't
[49:34] want to send this back to the designer to design review board for the fencing item, would staff take that on?
[49:46] Yes, and the commission can request that a condition be included that the applicant can provide a detail of the proposed fencing along the north property line to be approved by staff prior to the issuance of the first permit or something to that effect.
[50:00] That was easy, thank you.
[50:03] Okay.
[50:10] With that said, if there are no more commissioner comments, would someone like to make a motion?
[50:18] Through the chair, if we make a motion, would we grasp the resolution?
[50:22] We do want to mention that there is a finding under section seven, finding number three that pertains to the
[50:29] request for a concessionary waiver for the bicycle parking stalls, which we proposed striking out since that's no longer requested.
[50:37] And that would be the only suggestion we would make.
[50:43] And then as I mentioned earlier, the condition of approval number 50 does cover sort of that requirement to make sure that the bicycle parking stall dimensions comply with our code.
[50:54] But if you want to add something more specific to address the situation that you heard this evening, you can do that as well.
[50:59] So,
[51:05] commissioners, are there additional language or requirements for this item with regard to the bike parking?
[51:20] All right,
[51:24] I'm buttoned happy over here.
[51:26] Commissioner Mitsitani?
[51:28] I don't feel it's, I think the bike parking issue that I brought up, I think, it's just a artifact with the city's code.
[51:39] I don't know how to change that or if it's fair to ask them to change that.
[51:49] Perhaps Frank can help.
[51:51] The parking design meets the city's standards currently and so anything beyond that would
[51:59] be inappropriate in this half-sippant.
[52:02] Yeah, so I think it's beyond what we can really hold them to, but
[52:09] Frank, if you could, if you could repeat what the clause that we would strike in the motion
[52:15] for the parking. Yep, and I could read it into the record if you want.
[52:21] It is, it would be at the top of page 10 of the resolution.
[52:46] I'm referring to section 7, title, development code and state density bonus law, and finding
[52:54] number 3, which reads density bonus incentive and concessions, the applicant is requesting
[53:01] a waiver to reduce the dimensions of the bicycle parking stalls, and so it would be that entire
[53:08] there, sort of number three finding that could be stricken out of the resolution since the planning commission will not need to make that finding.
[53:19] Thank you.
[53:27] Are you complete?
[53:28] I'm complete. I'm ready to make a motion.
[53:31] Okay.
[53:33] And so
[53:38] I commission our musutani.
[53:42] Move adoption of resolution number 24-13 PC.
[53:47] Proving a use permit, density bonus, and one concession or incentive, and I guess it's not a waiver, and no waiver of development standards.
[53:59] For you, the chair, just for clarification, there is still a concession requested on the open space requirement.
[54:06] And let me rephrase that, I'll start over again, I Commissioner Mizutani, move adoption of resolution number 24-13PC.
[54:15] approving a use permit density bonus with one concession or incentive and one waiver of development standards.
[54:22] Tree removal permit and design and site review for a 183 unit apartment project at 1650 ashberry drive.
[54:34] And including striking out finding number three of the resolution.
[54:43] Through the chair of friendly amendment to the motion made, which would also include a condition added
[54:49] for staff to review the seal fencing on the northern property line.
[54:54] Yes, so if you could include that in my motion, thank you, and I'll second that.
[55:01] There's a first and a second, all those in favor, please say aye.
[55:06] Aye.
[55:09] The vote is unanimous.
[55:18] Through the chair, if we could just take a short recess, maybe five minutes to set up the next
[55:21] presentation. Thank you and through the chair um oh yeah you can I do it now
[55:29] when we come back when we come back okay
[1:03:18] Item 5A, Concert Village Apartment. Through the chair, I am going to recuse the applicant file, a preliminary application, under SB 330, for a 230 unit apartment project. Again, under SB 330, a project can only be subject to the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time. The application was submitted. And it was deemed submitted in June of last year.
[1:03:49] The Design Review Board reviewed the conceptual building design in August of 2023 and provided comments on the building massing, design elements in the corners of the building and the proposed materials and colors and recommended approval with conditions.
[1:04:07] On October 10, 2023, the applicant filed their formal use permit and design and site review application.
[1:04:15] We also conducted a neighborhood meeting and surrounding businesses attended that meeting and were generally supportive of the project and that questions about how quickly it would take to build and when the applicant was going to start construction.
[1:04:33] The application was deemed complete in March of 2024.
[1:04:37] So again, the project includes 230 apartment units in a five-story building wrapping around a parking structure with approximately 13,700 square feet of amenity space.
[1:04:51] The site is located in downtown and is surrounded on all sides by streets.
[1:05:00] Salveeel Street to the north, Willow Pass to the south, East Street to the west and port Chicago to the east.
[1:05:07] It's a 2.3 acre site consisting of three parcels, zone downtown mixed use and is located in the city's outer core.
[1:05:17] The building is oriented to the south west, which is the intersection of Willow Pass Road and East Street.
[1:05:23] That's the primary facade of the building.
[1:05:28] Vehicle access is proposed off of Port Chicago Highway, by way of a left in and left out only driveway.
[1:05:38] Since Port Chicago Highway is one way along this side of the project.
[1:05:43] There's also a moving area and a location for trash pickup along the Port Chicago side of the project as well.
[1:05:51] Tenant access is through two primary lobbies at the Northwest and Southwest corners of the building.
[1:05:59] The parking is located inside a parking garage, which includes 350 parking stalls along with bike parking.
[1:06:11] There are five ground floor courtyards, two of which are accessible from the exterior of the project on East Street and
[1:06:19] Alveil Street, these amenity spaces include a swimming pool, a spa, lounge seating, outdoor
[1:06:29] barbecues, and exit landscaping.
[1:06:32] There's also a rooftop deck on level five, which also has an outdoor kitchen, shade
[1:06:39] structure, barbecues, and affords views of the downtown for residents and their guests.
[1:06:45] The building design incorporates cement plaster finishing, finishes in a variety of earth-tone colors.
[1:06:53] There's brick veneer along a portion of the ground floor arcade,
[1:06:58] and metal railings are used on the upper floors of the facade.
[1:07:03] Studios one and two bedroom units are proposed, ranging in size from approximately 450 to 1,250 square feet.
[1:07:11] In 21 different floor plan types, in 210 of the units have patios or balconies.
[1:07:21] This is one of the primary facades along Willow Pass Road, so this side of the building faces
[1:07:29] south.
[1:07:32] Again, one of the lobbies is located here, the southwest corner of the building.
[1:07:39] This is the west side at the time that the SB 330 application was submitted.
[1:07:46] The city hired W trans to prepare a transportation analysis to consider traffic operations, site access
[1:07:59] and parking demand for the project.
[1:08:01] The study concluded that the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities are sufficient in an
[1:08:07] around the project site and that it's not expected that this project will have an adverse
[1:08:13] impact on the surrounding transportation network.
[1:08:17] That said, this study did identify a potential queuing issue in the downtown, specifically
[1:08:26] vehicle traffic heading in a southbound direction on Galindo Street, turning east on Willow Pass
[1:08:32] Road toward the project site.
[1:08:34] And the study identified that there's a potential for that queuing along Galindo Street to back up during the peak PM hour.
[1:08:49] And the recommending that adjustments to signal timing occur along Galindo Street or that a signal system along Galindo Street be upgraded to an adaptive system.
[1:09:03] And if the commission has more specific questions about what that means, we have someone from transportation that can respond to that question.
[1:09:12] The study concluded that the 350 parking stalls for the project will adequately accommodate residents, employees and visitors to the site, and that it's appropriate to allow a 25% reduction in the number of stalls, which is allowed by the code.
[1:09:30] given the project's proximity to BART and the fact that they applied for a use permit with a parking study to justify a lower parking count.
[1:09:42] The project must provide private and common open space, specifically 175 square feet per unit, 60 square feet of which must be provided as private space such as a patio.
[1:09:58] 133 square feet is proposed with 57% of the units meeting the private open space requirement.
[1:10:06] The commission may modify that open space requirement.
[1:10:11] If it finds that the site is physically constrained or the quality of life accommodated by the project will not be compromised.
[1:10:18] Or the residents will benefit from other amenities nearby such as parks or the Toto Santos Plaza downtown,
[1:10:25] which is within a couple of blocks of the project site.
[1:10:29] Multi-family uses are conditionally permitted in this district, and
[1:10:33] the project informs to applicable standards related to density design and
[1:10:37] operating characteristics.
[1:10:39] Therefore, the project will not be detrimental to public health or safety.
[1:10:46] The design is consistent with the objectives of the downtown specific plan.
[1:10:50] Again, because this is located in the outer core, the project may use architecture.
[1:10:56] that is less prescriptive and more reflective of Spanish or mission styles.
[1:11:03] The applicant has incorporated arched elements in tile accents with detailing along the ground floor to contribute to high quality design.
[1:11:15] As part of the design review board's recommendation to the commission,
[1:11:19] the requesting that you comment on one of the architectural treatments along the ground floor at the intersection of Willow Pass Road and East Street.
[1:11:32] They cannot build consensus at their meeting or were ambivalent about the following and that is the use of tile along the ground floor at the entrance to the building.
[1:11:42] And so I've highlighted that in red.
[1:11:46] So they would like the commission to decide whether or not the developer should move forward
[1:11:51] with option one which essentially extends the brick veneer around the corner of the building
[1:11:58] or option 2, which is staff.
[1:15:00] And the applicant's preference, excluding the red brick veneer at the corner, which allows the five story tower to make a more of a statement and stand out from the use of the brick veneer flanking that element. So we need your direction with respect to that design element. The board also review the project's conceptual landscape.
[1:15:29] a plan and recommended that it be peer-reviewed and presented to the design review board after
[1:15:35] the planning commission's action on the project. The plan wasn't fully developed at the time
[1:15:39] that the board sought, but was comfortable with it and recommended approval with this condition.
[1:15:46] As I mentioned, the project is adjacent to BART's elevated tracks, and so BART is requiring the
[1:15:53] applicant to apply for a construction permit through their agency if any construction
[1:15:59] occurs adjacent to those tracks and there's a condition of approval that the applicant
[1:16:04] comply with that requirement which they have agreed to.
[1:16:09] Assign package will be submitted prior to the applicant receiving a building permit before
[1:16:15] any signage is installed at the project site.
[1:16:20] If staff determines that the number of signs that are proposed would trigger the preparation
[1:16:26] of a master of sign program, which typically requires your review, you may defer that
[1:16:34] review to staff and the design review board.
[1:16:38] Staff is included a condition of approval which gives you that flexibility if you're comfortable
[1:16:42] allowing the board to make recommendations to staff regarding signage.
[1:16:50] No further environmental review is required for this project because it's essentially
[1:16:55] the same project that you approved in 2018 for which the mitigated negative declaration
[1:17:05] and mitigation monitoring program was adopted.
[1:17:10] Like the last project, we also received Lake correspondence, which has been benched for your consideration from California Housing Defense Fund, which is an advocate for for Californians.
[1:17:24] And with that, staffs for recommending adoption of Resolution 24-12, approving the use permit and design and site review.
[1:17:32] Applications for our 230-unit apartment project, the 2400 Salvea Street, thank you.
[1:17:38] Happy to answer any questions and again, we have representatives from other staff divisions and the applicants team present.
[1:17:46] Thank you very much at this time, are there any questions for Ryan?
[1:17:52] We can move forward with the presentations, thank you.
[1:17:56] Okay.
[1:17:57] Thank you.
[1:18:25] Good evening again, commissioners.
[1:18:28] My name is Serif and Moranon, partner at AO.
[1:18:32] I want to announce to you the sequence of our presentation.
[1:18:35] There will be more than just me presenting for this part portion.
[1:18:39] I will speak to discuss the concepts and aspirations of the project.
[1:18:44] Paul Maxie is our landscape architect and he will go next to go over the many areas and
[1:18:49] the outdoor landscape concepts.
[1:18:50] Finally, Dan Lay, who is seated next to me,
[1:18:53] is the project manager of the project,
[1:18:55] and he will go over the DRB comments very quickly,
[1:18:58] but more importantly, go through that one important discussion item
[1:19:01] that we're directed by DRB to discuss with you all
[1:19:05] regarding the corner treatment of the project.
[1:19:08] So with that, I'll start.
[1:19:10] We are proud to present for your consideration
[1:19:12] the Concord Village Project.
[1:19:16] The project embodies the rich cultural legacy
[1:19:18] of Concord, which was known as Toto's Santos, or All Saints, but also it sets its sights
[1:19:25] towards the future. The site is located adjacent to the Bart Line, but it's also a few blocks
[1:19:32] away from the Toto Santos Plaza, as you can see from the picture here, so the juxtaposition
[1:19:38] allows the opportunity for us to do something special with this project. The city celebrates
[1:19:44] It's heritage that we saw in the Spanish-inspired arches that you can see at the right-hand corner of the picture here, especially in its more popular gathering spaces as a predominant theme.
[1:20:00] So we wanted to carry those arches into architecture and that is part of the deliberation that we're going to be having later tonight.
[1:20:06] tonight. You can see that you can see very clearly in this exhibits that this part of the
[1:20:14] city vibe and in the lifestyle images how predominant the Spanish themes and the arches
[1:20:19] are. So we wanted to see if that could be incorporated or integrated into our project.
[1:20:25] On the other side of the site is the Bart Line where the city directly connects to the
[1:20:30] rest of the Bay Area bringing more energy, more figure, more opportunities for growth,
[1:20:35] with more power that really can stand proud on its own at the corner.
[1:20:39] We believe this is the most appropriate way to, for us, execute our vision.
[1:20:43] But then we also obviously wanted to create a contemporary architecture that wraps around the entire project.
[1:20:52] We also are very mindful of the pedestrian scale that we are treating here.
[1:20:58] So there are protrusions and articulation at the base, especially on the top left corner.
[1:21:03] Also on the bottom left corner, again, those arches in one story brick veneer would provide the certain
[1:21:12] pedestrian scale and proportion to the project, but on the other side on Port Chicago Highway,
[1:21:21] we're up against the Bart line, so the scale is different.
[1:21:26] The composition of the building is different with more of a linear type of movement
[1:21:31] that really depicts to the to the part line coming through to our project.
[1:21:39] We also are very mindful of the corner of East Street and Salvia Street.
[1:21:45] We want to recall some of that brick veneer, the traditional sensibilities at the corner.
[1:21:51] So that's what's shown here, but obviously this is a secondary entry into our project.
[1:21:58] I guess with that, I would like to hand it over to Paul.
[1:22:07] Good evening, my name is Paul Maxi, I'm the Landscape Architect on this project.
[1:22:12] And I just want to take you through some of the key features that were designed into
[1:22:16] the landscape.
[1:22:18] Starting with the resident amenities.
[1:22:21] As you can see here at the ground level, we have three internal courtyards that at the bottom
[1:22:30] left we have a pool courtyard with a pool spa, two cabanas, chase lounges,
[1:22:37] sun deck, and then we also have kind of a breakout space outside the clubroom,
[1:22:41] which features fire pit and lounge spaces as well. The middle kind of upper
[1:22:47] middle courtyard, we're calling that the fire side. That's more of a quiet space so
[1:22:53] we can have a dual-sided fireplace there, two lounge spaces on either side, a couple
[1:23:00] of barbecues as well as a botchi court, and then at the top right corner, this is courtyard
[1:23:06] number three, and that's called the mixer, and this is more of a social space, so it
[1:23:12] has more of a, it's got a sit-up bar with barbecues, shade structure, TVs, and more of a dining
[1:23:20] experience, and it's meant to have, and there's nine total that we're preserving, and then you
[1:23:26] You can see that the rest of the streetscapes we've been able to include.
[1:30:00] All of these comments. There was one item previously mentioned by Ryan that we would like to touch back on, which is in regards to Willow Pass and E Street corner. Since I will kind of just skip through these. Just briefly explaining to you the comments and the responses. There was enhanced elements on the ground floor, the brick veneers.
[1:30:30] This is the item number three, which is the comment that Ryan had spoke about earlier
[1:30:34] that we can kind of speak to about at the end of the slide.
[1:30:39] There are additional images that we would like to present and go through.
[1:30:45] Again, we are comments regarding enhanced enhancements of exterior facades that we've addressed
[1:30:54] based on all the DRB comments and so additional facades around corners of
[1:31:03] Australia and Port Chicago that we've addressed. There were alignment and
[1:31:11] adjustments were also along east streets. Along Port Chicago there were some
[1:31:18] Some color comments that we've also addressed and felt that we've redesigned and applied appropriately to the project.
[1:31:32] Comment 8 is similar to comment 7 regarding color treatment, horizontality of and the design along the bar station.
[1:31:43] There was just briefly comments regarding coverage, which we now have brewed.
[1:31:49] Number 10, there is no image for it, but there is downspouts and it's going to be internal.
[1:31:57] Number 11, there was fencing comments regarding transformers and screening, which we've applied to that.
[1:32:05] And lastly, the corner that was just addressed by our landscape, we've enhanced.
[1:32:11] And also, I believe the main comment was in regards to adding handrails or guardrails to prevent any or discourage unwanted activities of people sleeping or playing on their outdoor furniture types.
[1:32:29] Here is a perspective off of Willow and E Street.
[1:32:35] This is the, like our colleague, Serfen had mentioned.
[1:32:39] This is our preferred and current design.
[1:32:42] We think that this help kind of book with the arches and
[1:32:46] the brick veneers, help book in this corner and have this
[1:32:50] dominant stucco facade.
[1:32:54] But there are alternates that we thought, well, the DRB wanted us to address which was to add more brick facade on that corner, which we've done here in this image.
[1:33:08] And so those are the conclusion of my presentation and thank you.
[1:33:19] If you have any questions, please let us know.
[1:33:21] Well, thank you very much for the presentation.
[1:33:27] Are there any questions for any of the presenters at this time?
[1:33:40] Commissioner Miss Utani?
[1:33:42] Yes.
[1:33:44] I have a question regarding it.
[1:33:46] We've been asked a way in on that the South East corner and this might be a question for both the architect and perhaps staff as well.
[1:33:57] So, I've heard several terms, I know that you showed the slide with the different arches and I think the arches that don't change, but I also in the staff report, I read the description of the specific plan and the goal to try to mimic or match really California architecture.
[1:34:22] And I guess the question is, and then another was input from DRB.
[1:34:29] Are we trying to match early California or
[1:34:33] mimic early California architecture in what period is that pre-gold rush?
[1:34:42] So, IE Spanish, under Spanish Mexican time period, or early California.
[1:34:51] It could be just fine as a week, because we have other downtown buildings like the Bacon Block that do have brick on them.
[1:34:59] So can you just describe what you're trying to match?
[1:35:04] Yeah, well, thank you for your question.
[1:35:07] In our mind, we're not trying to be literal about what these arches represent.
[1:35:12] I think it's more of an association with a Spanish-style architecture that are associated with these arches.
[1:35:19] And obviously, the material of brick is synonymous with that.
[1:35:22] So we're not looking for an exact vernacular or time period.
[1:35:26] It's really more of a concept of tying the old with the new within the modern language that we're establishing here.
[1:35:33] If that makes sense.
[1:35:37] Okay, and I think the deliberation is really, and I know Vice Chair Ray would speak to that.
[1:35:45] There was no consensus of what the final outcome of the elevation would be.
[1:35:50] So, it was suggested or directed by Derby to have it be taken upon by the Planning Commissioner to help figure out what direction we would like to pursue moving forward.
[1:36:04] Vice Chair Barbara?
[1:36:08] Anticipated that.
[1:36:10] Thank you very much.
[1:36:11] Yes, I think I was a trouble maker into the R.B.
[1:36:17] I can live with the arches, of course I.
[1:36:22] like the square it off kind of building that's kind of it's the it was called the arch and it's across street being built.
[1:36:33] I felt that that kind of set the tone but I can I can definitely live with these arches I can also live with the presentation we see here on the screen.
[1:36:44] If
[1:36:47] I had a second chance at the ERB, the three windows on the corner, I would make those
[1:36:54] square windows and then I'd put a band at the top of there with the brick around it
[1:37:01] and split up the mass of that side.
[1:37:06] And I proposed that, I'm not proposing that, I would, if I was back in the ERB, I would propose
[1:37:13] is it to do that because of the building across the street is a modern building with no
[1:37:21] arches.
[1:37:25] Now on the streets adjacent to this building, there's no arches. But I don't
[1:37:32] set policy. Policy set by the council and we had input on it. So I'm okay with this. And
[1:37:45] And I appreciate you taking the time with us in DRB and put up with us.
[1:37:50] It was painful at times.
[1:37:53] Well, it was very important, to be honest.
[1:37:57] We cannot just be our own advocate of our design.
[1:38:02] Sometimes it takes other opinions that help fortify our concept to see if actually there's merit to it.
[1:38:10] So we don't have any problems with other opinions being factored into the mix.
[1:38:14] Thanks.
[1:38:14] Thank you.
[1:38:17] Commissioner Miss Utani?
[1:38:18] I guess I still need direction.
[1:38:20] I'm still confused.
[1:38:22] So, Sir, if I know you said, I thought I heard you say bricks were synonymous with the
[1:38:28] mission style, but I think Adobe and Stucco, not brick.
[1:38:33] I see brick is more post-goldrush, and now I'm hearing from Commissioner Vice Chair Barber
[1:38:43] that the arch, it sounds like the arches might be in question because you said you're
[1:38:47] okay with the arch, was that where the, what is the, I'm okay with the arches.
[1:38:55] I'm also okay with the brick veneer because if you remember, the arches has that.
[1:39:02] So they kind of reflect each other in some ways in a good way.
[1:39:09] And I think it's important, especially on this corner, that we have that veneer on it.
[1:39:16] So I'm very much in support of the arches.
[1:39:21] And the arches are not just Spanish, you know, they're Mediterranean.
[1:39:28] There's a lot of the older houses that were built and conquered.
[1:39:33] And if you go back and look, there's different styles of windows.
[1:39:36] And there are windows in Conqueror from there were built in early Conqueror's time with arched
[1:39:48] arches in the window and also all around a huge porch.
[1:39:54] And I kind of get that feel in this area that's activated like that.
[1:39:59] It's kind of that feel of early California, and I'm talking about the 20s,
[1:40:06] early California, where you had the big ports around the house and around the building.
[1:40:14] So I'm very much in favor of this design.
[1:40:19] I'm still confused because I know you, vice chair Barbara, you said you like the brick facade, but
[1:40:25] then you said you like this design.
[1:40:29] So, our job here is to uphold the general plan, the down house
[1:40:35] personnel, all the plans that that's our goal is to make sure
[1:40:38] that whatever we, our decisions are based on those.
[1:40:42] Bless you.
[1:40:43] And I want to go back to the down town specific plan.
[1:40:47] So, and what was in the staff report was really Californian.
[1:40:52] Now, I like that style to the big porch.
[1:40:55] That's also considered early California.
[1:40:58] So I'm looking for guidance as to what takes President in helping our decision.
[1:41:06] Is it the Mediterranean slash mission style?
[1:41:11] Is it a brick facade, a post-Goldrush style?
[1:41:17] Well, what specific part of the early California nomenclature that was referenced in our downtown specific plan,
[1:41:29] are we trying to make sure that we are in sync with?
[1:41:35] I think that's what we're going to ask us to do.
[1:41:40] Well, if I'm right, so as I said earlier, maybe I can help try to make myself clear.
[1:41:50] The architecture, we have, there's some artistic license, I should say, with what we're
[1:41:55] doing here.
[1:41:56] We want to be able to create a modern sensibility, be honoring the past, have some maybe a reinvention
[1:42:04] of or reinterpretation of what that is, yet still have that recollection.
[1:42:09] So I think it's, we're not trying to be literal with our execution.
[1:42:14] I think we want to be almost abstractly recalling an idea more than actually trying
[1:42:21] to force feed a certain archetype, if that makes sense.
[1:42:26] So I think what you're seeing here is an architects interpretation of
[1:42:34] Recalling the past, reinventing it to suit a more modernized sensibility, but still honoring it through a more traditional material, such as brick, interpreting it in that way.
[1:42:48] But that is really saying that that is the early Spanish because after that stucco.
[1:42:53] So I think it's really, we weren't seeking a direct definition that meets an intent.
[1:42:59] that we were looking for a more kind of artistic expression that still is in the spirit of the code.
[1:43:07] That's very helpful, thank you.
[1:43:09] If I may, the utilization of the brick, I mean, it's also a red brick, the color, the warmth.
[1:43:17] And so that kind of plays on with the stucco, there are doby.
[1:43:23] And that's why we kind of utilize that in order to kind of, like you said, it's not a literal.
[1:43:28] Well, utilizing break also has that texture, so it gives it more dimension.
[1:43:36] So my only question with this is I'm assuming this image is just for the sake of having this conversation,
[1:43:44] but the true end result will have that more courtyard at that corner.
[1:43:50] That would be, that's correct, this is just to be able to see the, okay, correct, okay.
[1:43:55] There would be a landscape, because that I think that elevation actually
[1:44:01] demonstrates more of what you're referring to, of alluding to that the older
[1:45:00] It's so successful in establishing a firm, proud, corner treatment, but still honoring the brick on either side. It's supposed to, it's supposed to this. So those are the two options, I think that the RB had asked us to put forward for your consideration. Commissioner, it's Adani. Well, since we're struggling how to provide input, I'll just provide my input.
[1:45:26] I think the original design,
[1:45:29] The current design with the stucco would meet, tick all my boxes as far as from the different goals are trying to achieve.
[1:45:43] Vice Chair Barbara.
[1:45:45] I'm good.
[1:45:47] I'm good.
[1:45:48] I'm good too.
[1:45:50] The current design is fine by me.
[1:45:53] Decided.
[1:45:54] In good way.
[1:45:57] Through the chair.
[1:45:58] Based on that discussion and should you move forward with the motion this evening's staff is going to suggest that condition number 11 be amended to reflect that direction.
[1:46:11] So what that will essentially require is that some additional language be added to the end of that condition number 11.
[1:46:19] Through the chair, I'm sorry, Ren, I do believe I'm not sure that we actually have taken public comment yet.
[1:46:25] And so before we get to taking any action items, I know that there's been a lot of discussion and clarification at this point with the questions of the applicant if we could move to public comment.
[1:46:36] Thank you.
[1:46:38] I will now open public comment on this item.
[1:46:42] Are there any individuals in the audience that would like to make a comment on this?
[1:46:50] Seeing no movement to the podium, I will now close public comment,
[1:46:58] and now for Commissioner considerations or comments.
[1:47:03] Any commissioners would like to make a consideration or comment?
[1:47:13] All right, well, I'll make mine then.
[1:47:18] So it seems as though there's a lot of care, there's a lot of documentation, a lot of care to what this will look like.
[1:47:27] Most of my questions on the project were already answered by the planner, so I'm sufficient.
[1:47:35] I will be in support of the project, and thank you so much.
[1:47:44] Commissioner Mitsutani.
[1:47:46] Thank you, Chair Corio.
[1:47:48] I know this project has been in the works for quite some time, and I know previously there was concerns about
[1:47:57] but just viability of this project can seem like every project in Concord, so I'm assuming that because it's before us, those issues are behind us, this lot has been empty for a long time and I think a lot of thought has been continued to be poured into the project since I'm going to support the project.
[1:48:26] And like, again, I just hope it gets built.
[1:48:33] Vice Chair Barbara.
[1:48:35] Yes, I would like to address the applicant and the owner of the property.
[1:48:41] That corner, it's been a struggle getting something built there.
[1:48:47] Still not built, but I'm in hopes it will be built.
[1:48:51] But I'm so thankful that the applicant and
[1:48:56] on the owner allowed the property to be used while the former was formally called the
[1:49:04] urgent is being built and sure it helped the builder.
[1:49:10] It also made for less congestion in the downtown area.
[1:49:16] There was still congestion and bumps in the roads but we would have been a lot worse off
[1:49:24] How he not made his property available.
[1:49:28] And on top of that, we've had to fight before to get lots cleaned up.
[1:49:35] And today when you go by, there's not a bunch of chain link fencing.
[1:49:41] It's a nice, rot iron fencing.
[1:49:43] And that's a huge thing for me when I look, when I drive through our city in our downtown.
[1:49:50] So I wanted to thank you very much for that.
[1:49:53] Thank you, sir.
[1:50:01] Commissioner Cassalty.
[1:50:03] How many?
[1:50:05] You know, I'll support this project, and I want to thanks to the, basically, the owner
[1:50:13] are the developer, and this is a great project, and doing what concrete needs for the housing,
[1:50:23] resolving a lot of problems, and I appreciate it for that.
[1:50:27] At
[1:50:33] this time, would a commissioner like to put forward a-
[1:50:37] Through the chair.
[1:50:39] Would you like to hear from Mr. Lenthard again the proposed condition to memorialize the year, the commission's preference on the two options?
[1:50:48] Yes, Mr. Chair.
[1:50:49] Thank you, Madam Chair.
[1:50:50] So again, should the commission decide to recommend approval of the design that's on the slide here titled Current Design Staff would recommend that condition number 11 be amended?
[1:51:01] because it doesn't reflect what's being proposed here.
[1:51:05] By adding the following language at the end of that condition,
[1:51:10] the new language would read excluding the five story,
[1:51:15] taupe-colored tower element,
[1:51:19] to the language would remain with the addition of that statement.
[1:51:22] The very clearly indicate that the center tower will not include the brick veneer.
[1:51:28] Mr.
[1:51:37] Leonard, would you mind just reading the entire condition as modified?
[1:51:42] Condition number 11 would be modified as follows.
[1:51:47] Incorporate a red brick veneer along the ground floor, colon odd band, adjacent to the arched windows, and this is the new language, excluding the five story, taupe colored tower element.
[1:52:32] And Chair Corio, if I may, I have a question for the so condition 11 that we're modifying
[1:52:39] where is that?
[1:52:42] It's attachment one to stance report.
[1:52:45] That's OK.
[1:52:46] Thank you.
[1:52:47] Specifically, exhibit a,
[1:52:51] page 18, I'll just refer to that then, under general conditions.
[1:53:01] Chair Corio, I might make a motion.
[1:53:03] Thank you.
[1:53:05] Mr. Seed.
[1:53:06] I Commissioner Mizutani, move adoption of resolution number 24-12PC, approving a use permit and design and site review for a 230-unit apartment project, at 2400 Salveo Street and 2401 and 2471 Willow Pass Road with the condition that
[1:53:34] That conditional 11 of attachment one of the staff report be modified as, can I just refer to, as absolutely, as modified by Ryan Lennart.
[1:53:55] I'll second that motion.
[1:53:57] Thank you, all those in favor, all those in favor say aye.
[1:54:03] All those in favor say aye.
[1:54:05] That's four I's, the resolution passes.
[1:54:16] We will now move on to item number six.
[1:54:19] Commission considerations.
[1:54:21] Are there any commission considerations at this time?
[1:54:28] Item seven staff reports and announcements.
[1:54:30] Are there any reports and announcements?
[1:54:33] Yeah, I'd just like to announce what you have on your upcoming meetings.
[1:54:39] So the next regularly scheduled hearing is actually going to be canceled.
[1:54:43] the one for August 28th. After that, there are a regular meeting for September 11th.
[1:54:51] We have potentially, I'm sorry, looking at the wrong, your meeting of September 4th is canceled.
[1:55:01] Excuse me, the next meeting after that, September 18th, we have potentially three items.
[1:55:07] One is for a hearing on a design review amendment to consider modifications
[1:55:16] that's actually going to our design review board tomorrow night, but because the planning commission was the decision-making body on the use permit, which also includes design and tight review application, that amendment is going to have to go back to the planning commission because the landscape modifications are fairly significant.
[1:55:33] The other item that we have potentially is an amendment to a minor exception that was approved at the zoning administrative level, and then lastly, an extension for the Walnut Grove Major subdivision.
[1:55:51] And that is all I have for announcements, thank you.
[1:55:54] And that included the future public hearing items that item 9, yes, that was the future public hearing item 9.
[1:56:02] Yes, yeah, yeah.
[1:56:03] And we don't have anything scheduled for the meeting following the first meeting October 2nd, so there's nothing to announce there.
[1:56:12] Thank you very much.
[1:56:13] We are now on item 10, adjournment.
[1:56:15] We are adjourned.