[0:07] For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete the form, located at the entrance or at the rear of the council chambers and please pause it with the planning and housing commission secretary.

[0:20] Welcome to tonight's planning and housing commission meeting. Commissioner Longwell will lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

[0:51] persons wishing to address the commission or requested to state their name for the record.

[0:56] This portion of the agenda is intended for public comment.

[0:59] State law prohibits the planning and has in commission from discussing or taking action on items

[1:03] not listed on the agenda.

[1:05] The planning has commissioned appreciates your cooperation in keeping your comments brief.

[1:10] Please observe a three minute limit to communications.

[1:13] Ms. Capia, did we receive any speaker cards or written comments from the public for items

[1:18] not on the agenda. No chair, Woody. All right, very good. Next we will consider the minutes

[1:26] from the planning and housing commission meeting of August 12th, 2024. Did we receive any

[1:33] speaker cards or comments from the public on the minutes? We did not. Have there any comments from

[1:40] the commission? All right, then do we have a motion? All motion for approval of the August 12 minutes.

[1:49] And then I will second

[2:05] the meeting minutes are approved.

[2:09] Next, we will turn our attention to public hearings, which are items that have been publicly

[2:15] advertised to review and consideration by the Planning and Housing Commission.

[2:20] And the first public hearing is for the 2020-003 application to request a variance from section

[2:30] 17.060 and 17.28.070A of the coronavirus municipal code to reduce the minimum

[2:40] lot area requirement from 14,400 square feet to 10,125 square feet and the minimum lot with

[2:47] requirement from 95 to 75 feet for the property located at 1765 Bobbot Avenue in the R1 14.4

[2:56] single family residential zone. The applicant is Carlos Padilla from PFT properties and we do have

[3:04] Ms. Lopez here to present the item, but I was going to ask my commissioners, fellow commissioners, with, you know, other items that are of significant public importance, if, if commissioners are open to

[3:21] tabling this item until a future meeting so we can get more attention to the other items.

[3:34] In that case.

[3:35] If I, I think we should hear the item. All right. And then we will proceed with the item.

[3:41] And then we'll hear from Ms. Lopez.

[3:46] Thank you, Chair Woody. Good evening, Chair. Members of the

[3:49] Planning Commission. And of the staff and the audience tonight. The item before us is a request by

[3:57] Mr. Padilla for a variance.

[4:04] And the request is for variance from the sections of the coronavirus

[4:10] is precode pertaining to the R-1-14.4 zone.

[4:16] More specifically, from Section 17.0, 0.0 and 0.070A for a reduction in the

[4:28] lot size of 14,400 square feet to 10,125 square feet and a reduction in the

[4:36] lot with from 90 feet to 75 feet.

[4:41] This is a view of the locational map.

[4:45] The property is located south,

[4:47] approximately south of Foothill Parkway,

[4:49] an east of California Avenue.

[4:52] It is in the more rural area of the city.

[4:57] And the existing property, as mentioned previously,

[5:01] currently measures 10,125 square feet.

[5:05] It is surrounded by single-family residential

[5:07] to the south of the parcel, to the west of the parcel and there is vacant land to the

[5:17] north of the parcel.

[5:22] To give the plant commission a little bit of background information,

[5:26] the property has an ER or state residential land use designation. The parcel was illegally created

[5:33] by Deeds back in 1926 by the original property owner,

[5:40] the project or the parcel, in order

[5:43] to legalize the property, does require a COC or a certificate of compliance,

[5:50] and the

[5:50] variance must be approved by the Plan Commission prior to the city approving the COC.

[5:57] The existing parcel measure 75 feet wide by 135 feet deep and the applicant is proposing a single story, excuse me, a single family, two story home of approximately 1620 square feet.

[6:15] This is an exhibit of the lots that are adjacent to this particular parcel.

[6:21] that upper summary table on the right-hand corner

[6:25] indicates the existing four parcels.

[6:29] The parcel that's in the gray is the subject parcel.

[6:33] And as we can see from a lot area,

[6:35] each of those four parcels measure 10,125 square feet.

[6:40] It has an average depth of 135 feet

[6:43] and a width of 75 feet.

[6:46] So, the subject parcel is identical to the adjacent parcels in terms of the lot area, the lot width and the lot depth.

[7:02] This is a view of the APN or assessor parcel number map.

[7:06] This is obviously mapped prepared by the county assessor's office for tax purposes.

[7:13] The yellow areas or parcels show the 10,125 square foot lots.

[7:20] We see that the subject parcel is second from the corner of how in Bobbitt Avenue, there

[7:26] are numerous lots along House Street in Nelson Street that are reduced a lot or substandard

[7:33] legal lots that currently measure 6,750 square feet.

[7:38] on those particular lots, there has been recent new home construction, and so this particular

[7:47] granting of a variance would be very consistent with the adjacent parcels along Bobby Avenue

[7:54] as well as House Street and Nelson Street.

[8:00] And here's a view of Nelson Street and House Street,

[8:03] just south of Liberty Drive. These are the six parcels that were previously shown. They are approximately

[8:11] 6,750 square feet each and they have recently received building permits for the construction

[8:18] of two story homes.

[8:21] The lots are also, again, there are substandard and size, so they have five foot side

[8:26] yard setbacks on each side and let's go to the next slide.

[8:34] This is a view looking onto the subject site.

[8:37] Again, it's currently it's a vacant property.

[8:40] There is a corner home that has the same

[8:43] white size 10,000, approximately,

[8:46] little over 10,000 square feet as well.

[8:53] And looking at the California Environmental Quality Act,

[8:55] this project was deemed categorically exempt

[8:58] under the small class 3,

[9:01] a small construction structures.

[9:07] Next slide.

[9:10] Staff has looked at the findings

[9:11] that are applicable within the Corona Municipal Code for the granting of a variance and has made

[9:18] all of the positive findings for this variance to be granted. One of the findings that is

[9:28] very obvious is that this particular parcel has the same characteristics of other parcels

[9:34] in the surrounding neighborhood or vicinity with exactly identical

[9:39] lot area as well as lot with and lot depths and the proposal of a single

[9:47] family home is it uses permitted in the R1-14 point for zone and therefore the

[9:54] variants will not have adverse impacts to the surrounding neighbors.

[9:58] next slide. At this point in time, staff is making a favorable request or recommendation

[10:07] that the planning and housing commission find the project exempt from the SQA requirements

[10:12] and adopt the resolution 2644 granting variance 2020-003. That concludes my presentation tonight.

[10:26] All right, thank you very much, Mr. Lopez.

[10:29] Commissioners and questions for staff regarding the sign-up.

[10:37] Do the other parcels that are adjacent to them?

[10:40] Do they already have variances, such as this,

[10:44] or are they considered illegal as well?

[10:47] Was it our not built on?

[10:49] At this point in time, because there's already existing homes

[10:53] on those properties, staff was not able to verify

[10:57] if those properties were legally created or not.

[11:02] And will this be the time that this project comes forward,

[11:05] or will we see it again with variances for setbacks, et cetera?

[11:09] Yes, that's a good question. Thank you for asking that.

[11:12] This property, if you look in your packet, it's exhibit four.

[11:18] It's essentially the proposed site plan shows the outline of the home.

[11:22] And to answer the question, the property is being designed

[11:25] to comply with all the setback requirements and the high limitations and so forth.

[11:31] So it will not come back to the planning commission.

[11:36] It's long while you asked three of my questions and thank you.

[11:40] The only thing, what was the reason for the four years from the initial application,

[11:45] the variance to almost almost four years in November?

[11:48] Is there any special circumstances there that we should be aware of?

[11:52] You know, when I started here with the city consulting, it was beginning of 2022, it was previously assigned a previous planner and I know that I believe the delay had to do with the legality of the parcel and the chain of the title reports and so forth.

[12:13] I know our development services team is here and might be able to shed a little bit more light as to the complexity of the certificate of compliance and that application.

[12:28] My only concern was that there's some odd, continuous,

[12:32] accentuating circumstances, but doesn't sound like that was the issue.

[12:36] That's efficient, thank you.

[12:41] Yeah, I mean, I guess I'd like to hear a little more about that too, because I was kind of struck by the slow process of this particular application,

[12:54] you know, from the beginnings of it, and then even the letter submitted with the application from the applicant was two years old at this point. So I'm just kind of like to get a little more context on that.

[13:16] I can talk a little bit about the certificate of compliance review.

[13:19] It takes some time to get all the information and do the review.

[13:23] I can't remember if that led to any specific delays,

[13:26] but that was a pending item for a little while.

[13:28] But what we've got now, we've got all the information we need to understand the project and how to move forward.

[13:36] And so then there was mention about whether there were some legal questions,

[13:40] what can somebody is able to go into more detail about those questions and how they were subsequently resolved.

[13:49] Yeah, so there's two different things, there's the variance for the setback and then there's the legal lot issue which basically that just means that the land was subdivided without being in compliance with the subdivision map act and the local ordinances.

[14:07] So the solution to that is to grant them a certificate of compliance and they will merge the properties together.

[14:14] So we will end up at the end of the day with just as many lots as they would have been

[14:20] a lot to create in the first place.

[14:28] So I guess I'm not clear on that because if this predate, I mean, because the

[14:35] lots were split, I guess, in 1926, if I understood correctly and I'm not really, I'm sure

[14:42] I know the details of how that was done and then recorded if it was not a legal

[14:48] creation of the lots. There's two lots. One is the original lot that was created with the map.

[14:55] I think that might be the 1926.

[15:00] Another law, which is half of one of those original lots, I believe it was subdivided in the 50s or the 60s.

[15:09] So it was a little more recent that is just out of date with our requirements for doing it, doing a subdivision by deed, which is what occurred.

[15:23] Okay. And then so there was a mention that there were other homes under construction, something

[15:30] about verb building permits that were issued recently. And I know that, I mean, where

[15:36] were those homes that are now being built? Because in the picture actually in the exhibit,

[15:41] it looked like the lot immediately next to this one was under construction. So I mean,

[15:49] there, you know, I don't believe that has come any of those lots came before the commission

[15:55] in the last few years. So if do you have any of the history of the other lots?

[16:00] The one that's on the corner that looks like it's under construction, it's an older home

[16:04] that's being remodeled. So it looks like there might be, you know, I don't know, they're doing

[16:09] redoing or, you know, adding new stuff. Oh, I believe it was a wood siding previously if we can go back

[16:15] to the, let's see, we see.

[16:27] Yes, this song you're talking about, it's a corner.

[16:31] Yeah, that's an existing older home.

[16:36] So then the ones that you said were under construction

[16:38] with recent permits, were those on what house street?

[16:43] Mm-hmm.

[16:44] Correct.

[16:44] Yes, and those do look like there legal lots.

[16:48] They don't have any dashes between them,

[16:52] so.

[16:52] But those are also, those are legal lots.

[16:54] So this is how this came about.

[16:56] We cannot issue a building permit if we know it was a legally created.

[17:00] We somehow have to get it legally created.

[17:02] So what you see out there today, those were legal lots.

[17:05] This law, in particular, was created by deed due to its date.

[17:09] So we just have to correct it.

[17:11] We do a several certificate of compliance.

[17:14] That is not subject to the review of this commission.

[17:16] It's actually done by a separate board.

[17:18] But because of the fact is, is that the zoning designation is our 114.4.

[17:23] we have to approve a lot size that is less than 14,400 square feet. We have to come here

[17:30] and get a variance on that lot size. So they can continue to move forward.

[17:35] Had the lot been legally created, regardless of the lot size, they would be allowed to move

[17:40] forward. So we're just trying to correct the fact that we're going to be signing a certificate of

[17:45] compliance on a lot size that is less than the zoning minimum lot size requirement.

[17:50] So

[17:53] would that have been that what that didn't apply in the case of the other houses because you're saying those lots were create that is correct that is correct.

[18:02] And so then in that case the zoning restrictions don't don't really apply.

[18:07] That's correct because they were legally created if whatever the zoning designation is in terms of the minimum lot sizes not applicable because it's a legally created lot.

[18:18] Okay, and then do we know the history of the ownership of this I mean what's is the applicant the you know

[18:24] Was it in in the applicants, uh, you know family ever since the the lot was created in 1926

[18:31] I don't believe so I believe that they've acquired it probably within the last

[18:36] Five or so years, but applicant is in the audience tonight and can help answer them

[18:42] question

[18:42] Okay,

[18:49] well, do we have other questions for staff from the commission?

[18:55] Then, I guess we will open the public hearing and do we have any speaker cards or written

[19:01] comments regarding this item, Ms. Capia?

[19:08] I do not have any. No chair would.

[19:11] Okay.

[19:13] I do see someone in the audience who looks like they may want to speak. If you would

[19:18] like to speak, you can come up to the front

[19:29] over to the middle.

[19:37] No, there is a microphone

[19:38] over their little father. Thank you. It's a new set up right here. Right in the center. There you go.

[19:45] And just please tell us who are. It's new to us too. Yeah I'm the home owner for at 1780 Bobbid Avenue.

[19:54] So you can see on the Bobbid Avenue all the houses are bigger lots. So it appears that this lot

[20:02] is only half of the size of, you know, the other lots. And the comparison they're trying to compare

[20:10] is on the house street. So, actually, I don't think it confirmed with, you know, Bob is street.

[20:20] That's first of all, by reducing the size and making a much smaller house, smaller lot

[20:27] with like smaller front-to-edge and also we notice on this lot you can search whether they have

[20:35] great increments. They have been lost of trucks dumping, there's or de-breeds, building de-breeds

[20:42] and when we confront the driver and ask whether they have permits and they just run away. So I suspect

[20:51] this might be the problem. The grading has been changed substantially, possibly without

[20:57] grading permits. And we've been noticing when they're dumping, there are no water spreading,

[21:04] so that there's everywhere. So it's very bad for our children, for the house, you know,

[21:10] and the environment. So that's why I do have concerns of approving this, not, you know,

[21:18] be consistent with how this field is. And if this person can do this pretty much everybody

[21:24] concept divide, and it's probably not good for the overall

[21:29] religious state, for the street, et cetera.

[21:34] And also, where are the homeowners who actually paid for two?

[21:40] Because with those vats, everybody is supposed to improve

[21:44] the street in front of them.

[21:46] But their end up, nobody is doing that.

[21:49] So where are the only homeowners who actually improve the

[21:52] France and on both sides, so even though we are not reliable for that, so we got a full permit,

[21:59] finalized it, and we noticed when they dump tons of, you know, birds, they turn around running

[22:06] on the streets above, you know, in front of us, and it brings lots of dirt on the streets and

[22:12] actually, possibly, breaking, you know, the road.

[22:16] So, that's also our concern, because inevitably they will be turning around on our side of the road, which we paid in a lot of money to do, getting city permitted, doing it right.

[22:34] There is no objection to the homeowner. It's just the concerns. Maybe the homeowner probably is not present, so maybe he or she doesn't know about the situation, but we are the neighbor at the one who was suffering.

[22:50] And I think that's about it.

[22:53] Any more questions from other people?

[23:05] I have her husbands.

[23:07] Well, basically another problem is a house tree.

[23:10] You know the house tree is only one land.

[23:13] It's very dangerous.

[23:14] The other side is a creep.

[23:19] So the house tree city never do anything for last 10 years.

[23:26] Bobby never do anything for 10 years.

[23:28] They made us to pay $50,000 to fix the road.

[23:34] And the city asked me, have an engineer to do the engineer from

[23:40] beginning the house street to the end of the house street.

[23:45] Just engineer someone engineer, I have been asking,

[23:49] cost me $50,000 for silver engineer.

[23:51] I have been what was CD with my guy because my guy is fixing the wrong freeway, for five years

[24:02] I finally get a proof just do my section, and even my section I only required to

[24:10] half my height to set the row, but nobody wants to do anything, right? So I have to do the

[24:17] side. So right now, if this is a proof, okay first, are they going to make a role

[24:26] better? Are City going to make a house street better? Because the house that she

[24:33] mentioned about that building, the house, see there for a couple years, at least three years.

[24:40] I don't know why, because I guess maybe the role is that they don't fit. If you're a

[24:47] you will drive over you see that. Another problem I want to speak out if you

[24:53] reduce this lot, okay, I am trying to buy a lot crossed by house. The four

[25:00] acre lot at the end of corner, I had been told that 14, 400, okay. If someone, by

[25:11] that that lot already, I know I can't talk about already, if you approve this

[25:15] house, are they going to build many houses there? For that four equal, I don't know. I don't think

[25:24] the house still, whatever this, because I spent 50,000 euros. I don't want this truck coming

[25:31] illegal dumping. They dumped, not just that lot. The next to me, her not a lot, is dumping

[25:42] construction, charge, dumping, many things, I have tech pictures, I sent to city and city

[25:51] firing company to start them to down. So, this is what I want to know. If city wanted

[25:59] to approve people to do this, I don't mind they built in the house, they do a great

[26:03] thing, they get for me, they do it correctly. But look, for the last 10 years, I'm the only

[26:10] house in the house street, Bobbi. My house is the only the my house of

[26:19] havekella. My house next to me is havekella. Okay. Around the corner

[26:57] there's

[28:05] one

[28:15] Okay, good.

[28:16] Thank you.

[28:17] Thank you again.

[28:17] Thank you for your comments.

[28:21] Ms. Capita, do we have any other cards that looks like we have someone else maybe wanting to speak?

[28:28] And if those who spoke or planning to speak could also before they leave check in and just give a fill out a card for us.

[28:37] appreciate that.

[28:41] Good evening council. My name is Kenneth Warfield. I'm sorry I didn't

[28:45] know about the cards that we had to fill out. But I live on that old house that sits

[28:48] on the corner right next to this lot. And I'm trying to get like a permit to build like a

[28:58] patio cover and they said there's a 10 foot setback requirement for my property. So I don't mind

[29:04] if you build something on it but is there going to be that 10 foot setback for this house also?

[29:11] And also, those three homes that you saw, or actually four homes you saw on the picture,

[29:17] they kind of like stick out like a sore thumb because they don't really kind of conform to the

[29:23] homes that are in the area.

[29:26] Also, there's that house that is new and has been sitting vacant for two, three years,

[29:34] and we're not sure what's going on with it.

[29:36] Um, I know the fire marshals come by and had them clear out the weeds, you know, several times.

[29:44] Um, what else anything else?

[29:48] Um, that's just my concern.

[29:49] It's just, if they're going to have to follow the setbacks that I have because I don't really want a house that's like sitting five feet from my house.

[29:59] So.

[30:00] My house was built, actually in 1927, and it was moved to that spot in the late 50s.

[30:07] So, it's all like I've got. Thank you.

[30:09] Just had a curiosity. Where was the original site that your house was?

[30:14] I'm not sure. I guess everything was burnt, and I guess there was a big fire.

[30:19] Sometime in the 20s or 30s.

[30:22] Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your comments.

[30:27] And then it's a, that's the last of the potential speakers.

[30:32] Do you have any other cards or any written comments from the public?

[30:35] I do not sure.

[30:37] So then without we will close the public hearing and we'll bring it back here for discussion

[30:43] among the commission.

[30:46] I'm just wondering if maybe we could hear Miss Lopez or other staff.

[30:50] I'm regarded the public comments about how the shared payment to improve the streets as part of the development and how that could impact both current residents in future, maybe what the timeline looks like for that.

[31:06] Yes, I will defer that question to the our development services team.

[31:16] Good evening, commissioners. The project is actually responsible to improve their

[31:21] half-worth plus 10 of fronting their lot. That will come in later with the grading plan

[31:27] at this time board just reviewing the variants. After the project goes through a certificate

[31:33] of compliance, they will be required to submit a grading plan and improve their plans. That

[31:38] will show the improvements for the street as well. And that's only for obviously this one

[31:43] parcel, and then we are, and then as each parcel gets developed, then each of those 10 foot.

[31:50] We'll be required to do that.

[31:52] Is there a point by percentage that says if half or 75 percent of the homes on that street

[31:58] are complete that the rest is done or does it have to go through all of the parcels before

[32:04] the streets improved? Is there a formula for that or?

[32:09] So, since this is not being processed as a builder subdivision, which you're normally used to,

[32:15] you have a builder that comes in, is going to build, you know, 25, 30 lots at one time.

[32:20] So, those street improvements are all done at one time. These are individual lots,

[32:25] so you have individual people going in their building custom homes. So, you're getting the

[32:29] improvements as each lot's developed. So, it's a little bit more piecemeal than what you're

[32:33] used to seeing when you have builder subdivisions.

[32:38] You only come and I have, I think,

[32:40] that it's appropriate to prove the variance,

[32:43] because it does allow this parcel to be developed

[32:47] and for home to be built and improvements of the street.

[32:51] I mean, it does sound like there's some compliance,

[32:54] construction compliance, and development issues

[32:57] that exist in the general area, and not this parcel,

[32:59] but just listening to the public feedback

[33:03] that staff may want to look into unrelated to this approval.

[33:07] And my mind, I think this variance is sensible to allow for development.

[33:13] I would approve that.

[33:17] And I would offer a motion to approve the variance V2003.

[33:23] I'll second.

[33:25] And then I'll just comment.

[33:27] I'm not in agreement with the fourth finding.

[33:30] So I'll be voting against

[33:53] motion passes.

[33:55] Our next public hearing is for CUP 2020.

[34:00] 4-002. This is a conditional use permit for a 515,565 square foot fire station and a 944 square foot

[34:12] apparatus building. On 1.71 acres located at 225 East Harrison Street in the fire zone station

[34:19] and commercial retail district of the North Main Street specific plan. Applicant is Tracy Martin

[34:27] from City Public Works Department, and then we have assistant planner, Mr. Daldi, here to present the item.

[34:37] Thank you, Chair.

[34:39] Good evening, Chair.

[34:40] Members of the Planning and Housing Commission.

[34:42] Brendan Daldi, assistant planner, please represent the item.

[34:44] Before you tonight, for conditional use permit record number 2024-002.

[34:50] It's going to be a fire station number two rebuild project located at 225 East Harrison Street.

[34:58] Tonight, we have the request for our conditional use permit consisting of a multi-phase rebuild.

[35:04] A primary fire station building will be approximately 15,565 square feet.

[35:11] And then a fire apparatus building located north on the project site at 9,44 square feet.

[35:17] And then it's going to be located on two different parcels.

[35:20] I'll get into that a little bit later throughout the presentation, but it's located on a 1.7-1-acre site.

[35:29] I wanted to give the planning commission a bit of background on the project, so the existing

[35:35] fire station right now, that's out there. It's 11,600 square feet and serves as a

[35:39] logistical hub for the community in the surrounding area. There's originally constructed

[35:43] back in 1961 and then further expanded in 1996. The proposed expansion will be proposed on

[35:51] two different parcels. The adjacent 3.49 acre site is a commercial zone property and

[35:59] That's at 3-9-1 North Main Street.

[36:02] Additionally, it's going to be expanded and intended

[36:05] to accommodate for the anticipated future growth

[36:07] that the fire station anticipates in the next two to five

[36:11] years, and that'll include additional staffing

[36:14] needs and equipment for the site.

[36:18] Furthermore, as more background, city council reviewed

[36:23] various different elevations back on December 6,

[36:26] of 2023, that was done by an administrative report from our fire chief.

[36:30] They voted unanimously to endorse option C, which is going to be located on the elevations

[36:35] that we'll get into later on,

[36:43] timeline and funding.

[36:45] So majority of the funding for the project will be from the American Rescue Plan Act, also

[36:49] known as ARPA, so as they act done back during the COVID years, and so we're going to be using

[36:55] majority of those funds for this project about 10 million to be exact, so federally

[37:01] funds need to be encumbered by December 31st of 2024, that'll be quarter four of this year.

[37:08] Quarter one, 2025, we'll see phase one commenced, it's about two months.

[37:13] That'll be the construction of all the areas up to the north of the parcel or project site,

[37:18] and that'll be the construction apparatus building the temporary living quarters and some parking areas for the time being.

[37:24] Quarter two of 2025 will include phase two, approximately 18 months.

[37:29] I don't include the demolition of the existing fire station building in grading,

[37:33] and then in quarter four of 2026 we'll see the completion of the building.

[37:37] That'll be the construction of the primary building to the south portion of the parcel or project site

[37:42] and all the other landscaping, fencing, access, et cetera.

[37:47] Another timeline note that I want to do include is that these ARPA funds need to be fully

[37:54] six to seven, but 31st, they would need to be fully expanded.

[38:01] Location on zoning map, so it's located at 225 East Harrison Street, it's located just

[38:08] off the north eastern corner of North Main Street in East Harrison Street.

[38:12] It's also located within the North Main specific plan.

[38:16] And so indicated here, I wanted to highlight two different areas, the yellow, highlight

[38:21] is the 1.71 project site on the northern portion, the off-red portion.

[38:27] that you see up there is 0.67 acres of the project site that's also owned by Rexco, that

[38:33] parcel actually expands over to that 391 north main address I was alluding to earlier, so

[38:39] it is a deed, it's a 30 year deed, I'm sorry, a 30 year lease-owned option at the end,

[38:47] and then located to the south is that fire station zone. So it is two different zones,

[38:51] it's fire station to the south, and then the commercial zoning district to the north.

[38:55] So it's going to be a little unique in that aspect, and I can get a little bit more in the explanation on those allow users and development standards here.

[39:04] So, for our municipal code, the fire stations allowed in all zones with the approval of a conditional use permit, that's why we're here today.

[39:12] In addition to that, the design would be consistent with what the most applicable development standards would be in, in this case it's a community serving facility.

[39:20] So, C3 general commercial zone is what the development centers we compared this project to.

[39:27] It's also unique in a sense that there's no parking requirement for fire stations.

[39:31] It is silent and our municipal code and so that goes at the discretion of the fire chief,

[39:37] based on the needs of the site and the anticipated staffing that's going to be there.

[39:43] I also wanted to note right now just for the record that there's a 22 parking space,

[39:48] call out in the staff report that number should have been 35. So I just wanted to clean that up.

[39:52] There's 35 existing spaces on the site.

[39:57] Next we have landscaping.

[40:00] Approximately 19% of the property is going to be landscaped.

[40:04] I don't equate to a 14,367 square feet.

[40:08] Project will also include landscaping of 24 to 36 in box trees and then shrubs.

[40:14] Just provided to soften the massing of the building.

[40:17] And those trees and shrubs will be located throughout the duration of the site on the project boundary and the front yard just to again soften up that massing of the building to the front.

[40:30] Moving forward.

[40:32] Break down the elevations and site plan and phases. So starting with phase one.

[40:37] This will be on the northern portion of the Rex cone property to the north.

[40:41] We'll start off with the apparatus building.

[40:43] About 9,44 square feet and we'll also include a temporary living quarters for the time being that will be 2,304 square feet.

[40:52] That temporary living quarters is just for temporary purpose of the construction of the fire station to the south.

[40:59] So you will see that be removed and face three's completion.

[41:03] And until the right we have our apparatus building floor plan.

[41:06] This is just going to be used to how's a couple extra reserve engines, a parade engine, an off-road vehicle also for their search and rescue vehicles I believe, and then that building's storage area is going to be about 7,484 the vehicles and then the remaining square footage will just be for various PPE storage and and just other storage space.

[41:31] Moving forward with phase two, phase two will include the construction or the grading and

[41:39] demo of the fire station to the south there, so you'll see that kind of moving forward.

[41:44] In addition to that, in that time being the operations on the north, we'll have a temporary

[41:49] axis that'll run through Rex goes property to the west, so that'll be indicated there and

[41:54] you'll also see that go away in the next slide in phase three.

[41:59] Phase three will include the complete buildout, that'll include landscaping walls, fences,

[42:04] is trash and closures, et cetera.

[42:07] I don't include the apparatus building

[42:08] to the north portion of the project site.

[42:11] The fire station to the south,

[42:13] the two permanent primary access points off of Harrison

[42:17] straight indicated lower on the left and right

[42:20] of the project site's plan.

[42:22] And then the temporary living quarters up

[42:24] on the north eastern corner of the site

[42:26] will also be removed.

[42:27] And this would be your completed anticipation

[42:29] of quarter four, 20, 26.

[42:35] here are elevations and renderings.

[42:43] These elevations and renderings are consistent with

[42:45] what city council had selected back in December 6th of 2023. This was the option C recommendation

[42:52] at the time. They went for the traditional fire station look which will include your traditional

[42:57] brick veneer tile roofing and then off-white and gray plaster accent walls. On the top here

[43:04] you have the south elevation. This is what it's going to look like from East Harris in the street

[43:08] looking at the project site and the fire station. The second one there will be the North

[43:13] Elevation. That will be more of the internal look of it from essentially where the

[43:18] apparatus building will be looking down towards Harrison. So this will be the back side of that

[43:22] building. And then the east side elevation will be where the commercial business park offices are

[43:31] located on the right side of the fire station. It didn't include the west side. That one's

[43:36] be pretty screened and there's not too much on that west elevation that would pop out.

[43:41] There's a lot of vegetation and trees on Rex Cohen.

[43:44] The other adjacent public site that will provide adequate screening for that one.

[43:52] Additionally, this will be the elevations for the apparatus building located on the northern portion of the site.

[43:57] They're proposing a standing seam at a roof brick veneer and then painted metal walls.

[44:02] It'll be consistent with what the primary fire station's color scheme is today.

[44:07] So we'll ensure that compliance at the building submittal, but just to kind of give the commission a brief look over of what we're going to be looking at moving forward.

[44:20] And recommendation. So staff's recommendation is that the planning and housing commission.

[44:24] Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

[44:27] to SQL Guidelines section 15332 and adopt resolution number 2646, granting CUP 2024-002 based

[44:37] on the findings contained in staff report conditions of approval.

[44:42] With that, thank you.

[44:43] Myself and the rest of staff are available for any questions you would have.

[44:48] All right.

[44:48] Thank you, Mr. Doldi.

[44:49] So yes, let's start with Commissioners questions for staff.

[45:04] I guess my question is a little bit about the timeline and the three different phases of the project.

[45:13] And I don't know if planning or the fire department would be the best people to speak on it.

[45:25] But because we have the phase two is when the current fire station is being torn down and replaced.

[45:35] And so I guess what will there be impacts to service and how will that be adjusted for?

[45:52] That may be a question.

[45:53] We need to ask the fire team.

[45:55] I don't know necessarily what staff they need to have allocated for that site.

[46:00] I'd like to say that the temporary living quarters that they have in the current set up, they'll have that phase two transitioning into phase three will be able to accommodate the services for the surrounding community, but just to confirm when the applicant comes up, they can probably further expand on that.

[46:18] Even chair and commissioners, that is correct. That is the exact reason of the temporary housings there. So there is no impact to service delivery in that immediate area.

[46:27] And then where we're all, you know, all the large equipment being, you know, when the station is demolished.

[46:33] So that's exactly why the outbuilding is being built simultaneously as a temporary housing.

[46:39] So all the apparatus will move into that metal outbuilding in conjunction with the temporary housing.

[46:45] So they will respond out of those two buildings while the demolition takes place.

[46:50] And then after and maybe maybe Mr. Daldy covered this and I just didn't quite take it all in.

[46:56] but then when the the new station is completed then what will the primary use of that

[47:03] apparatus building be it it'll be for primarily specialty resources as well as relief apparatus

[47:10] so so the biggest significant impact is our urban search and rescue resources right of

[47:15] there are swiff on a rescue team are use our assets and those in tail a lot of

[47:20] rolling stock if you will and then additionally will have relief apparatus in there as well so

[47:26] our aerial trucks which you've seen around town are very large. One of those will be stored in there as well.

[47:32] Okay, great. Thank you for for answering those questions. Any other questions for the fire department?

[47:41] All right, thank you. And then I guess I guess I had a question kind of going back to planning

[47:49] on this.

[47:56] And now it's escaping my mind.

[48:04] So so then we're tonight we're just considering

[48:07] a CUP and I mean will there be other parts of this project that come before the commission

[48:15] later or is that all you know what's the procedure with with the rest of the project?

[48:29] No so this this is the only role that the commission will play is the approval that conditional

[48:33] use permit and that is it. Because then the the buildings that are going there conform with

[48:43] with everything, all those you know zoning and land uses. Okay perfect. And then I guess I was hoping

[48:50] you could explain a little more about that. A joining land you said the 391 north main like which

[48:58] It's not entirely clear to me which area that is and and specifically what you were saying it was going to be used for here.

[49:07] Sure, if I could get the power point back up, I'd like to go back to the location on zoning map.

[49:19] Okay, so if you look here, the yellow highlighted portion.

[49:26] That box there is 1.71 acres. That includes the entirety of the project site.

[49:31] If you see in between the dark red and then that lighter pink light within that yellow highlighted area that's approximately 0.67 acres.

[49:42] And so that 0.67 acres belongs to the adjacent property owner that's outlined in green there.

[49:50] So that 0.67 acres portion is a lease buy option that Rexco and the city have in place for 30 years.

[49:56] And so we're going to be utilizing that portion of the property, although it's not city owned property currently.

[50:02] It'll be underneath a lease agreement for the time being.

[50:08] So with that being said, that green highlighted portion is actually a part of a larger parcel owned by Rexco.

[50:16] And we're only occupying the 0.67 acres of that green highlighted area.

[50:21] Okay, that helps so yeah, it's the office building there and but then the parcel kind of has a jigsaw shape and the back part is is what we're currently using a storage right now and then that will be a long-term lease and do you know has it is it and I know that the staff report said there was an option to purchase that at some point but is there I'm just curious the advantage of not.

[50:50] purchasing it now and potentially, you know, having that long lease.

[50:57] We explored some of those options with Rex Code or negotiations, and we thought that this was the best way to navigate.

[51:05] We do believe that it's best interest of the city to own the parcel, just for any future expansion or anything that needs to be done.

[51:14] So.

[51:18] And so then it is entirely up to the city down the road, the option. It's not like the city would have to, you know, get some sort of secondary approval from.

[51:31] Right. So it's already built into the terms of the lease. We do have an option agreement that's been recorded with that. So there's no, you know,

[51:39] the state and what could happen, and we do have the option after the first 10 years to purchase the property.

[51:45] Okay, good, thank you.

[51:51] All right, any further questions for staff before we open the hearing?

[51:56] All right, then we will open the public hearing.

[52:01] And do we have a speaker card's miscapia or any written comments from the public?

[52:08] We do not share.

[52:10] Okay.

[52:13] And then it sounds like there's no need to hear from the applicant, which is the city we've

[52:20] already gotten that part clear and cleared up so then I guess at this point I will close the

[52:27] public hearing and we will let the commission make comments and make a motion.

[52:33] I just, my, my comment is I've been following this process, I think it's at least two years that

[52:40] the city has been working to develop this new fire station.

[52:44] I think public safety is critical and important.

[52:49] I recall the recsco agreement back when there was a land swap with recsco, which we

[52:56] part of so it's great to see it finally coming to this fruition and also a plan to make

[53:01] sure that it's paid for and completed by 2026 so that it can be built with federal funds.

[53:10] So who doesn't like a fire station and I think this is a great use of the land and I believe

[53:18] that the CUP wants approval.

[53:24] Okay, yeah. I'll just chime in. I, yeah, it's great. I know there's a lot of, a lot of time,

[53:31] a lot of discussion to try to find the best plan for the city going forward and this definitely

[53:37] looks like a great, a great resolution to that. So, you know, I'll just compliment the fire department

[53:46] and planning and every public works, everybody else who has involved in that. I'm glad to hear

[53:50] that it sounds like all the details and eventualities have been considered and worked out.

[53:58] And yeah, I'm happy to support this and let's get it built.

[54:05] I'll make a motion then to approve this CUP.

[54:07] Oh, second.

[54:29] All right, motion passes.

[54:30] Next, we have a HDB 2023-0001, a density bonus housing agreement application for 35 single

[54:43] family residential units proposed for the east side of Guards and Avenue approximately

[54:49] 530 feet south of Santana Way. The applicant here is Warmington residential.

[54:59] This item

[54:59] is related to the following items on the agenda, item number five for TTM-38495, tentative

[55:08] track map application to subdivide 9.33 acres into 35 single family residential lots at

[55:16] that location and item six, PPE-2023-009, a precise plan application covering the site plan

[55:25] architecture, walls, and fencing, landscaping, and other features associated with the project.

[55:31] Since the three agenda items are related, staff will provide a presentation covering all three aspects.

[55:40] Commission will then ask questions regarding each item separately, at least to the best of our abilities and then act on each item separately.

[55:51] So, with that being said, I will turn it over once again to Ms. Lopez our consulting planner.

[56:01] Thank you, Chair Woody. Okay, as you mentioned, Chair Woody mentioned this item is for

[56:09] John items four, five and six of tonight's

[56:13] final commission agenda.

[56:17] The applicant is an audience tonight and this is

[56:20] Wormington residential.

[56:21] Wormington residential is requesting

[56:25] entitlements for an affordable housing density bonus

[56:28] agreement with the city of corona for 35 single family homes.

[56:35] The applicant's also requesting a tentative track map to

[56:38] divide the 9.33 acre parcel into 35 single-family residential lots, and then finally the last

[56:48] application is for a precise plan for the review of the site plan architecture landscaping

[56:53] and other development features of the project.

[56:58] This is a view of the current 9.33 acre parcel,

[57:04] which is currently vacant at this time.

[57:07] The parcel has a dual zone.

[57:10] It's split in dual zone with the front,

[57:14] 20, 25% of the property.

[57:17] Fronting on to Garrett's and Avenue being an R1-20.

[57:22] Zone and the remaining 70, 75% of the rear portion of the parcel.

[57:27] Being an R1-14.4 zone.

[57:29] The R120 requires minimum 20,000 square foot lots and the R114.4 requires a minimum 14,400 square foot lots per the city's zoning code.

[57:45] The property is rounded to the north by another minimum 14,400 square foot parcel, which actually it is approximately four to five acres to the north.

[57:59] The parcels to the west of this particular vacant property is an R1A zone.

[58:07] They are a little over one acre parcels.

[58:11] The parcels to the south of this particular property are zoned R1-20,

[58:19] which require minimum 20,000 square feet and they're approximately half acre in size.

[58:25] The parcels to the immediate east of this property are zoned our 1, 7.2 which require a minimum of 7,200 square foot lots.

[58:38] So the property is surrounded by single family residential on all sides.

[58:46] So this map shows the split zone as we just identified and the previous slide.

[58:53] the parcel is 9.33 acres. It's currently vacant. It was formally used for agricultural purposes.

[59:02] The current zoning, as mentioned again, is R120 and R114.4.

[59:07] The parcel has a general plan, a land use designation of ER, which is in the state residential.

[59:14] And that permits one to three dwelling units per acre.

[59:18] the parcels also located within South Corona,

[59:21] community facilities plan, within state residential

[59:25] land use, and that has a more strict, strict,

[59:29] or stringent land use density of up to not to exceed

[59:35] 1.47, dwelling units per acre.

[59:40] The state density bonus law, which

[59:43] has been enacted by the California State Legislature

[59:47] under government code 65915, essentially is a state-mandated law, which allows developers

[59:55] of eligible housing projects to receive an increased density and order.

[1:00:00] For other benefits by right to help a developer build the housing project at the density that the developer

[1:00:06] seeks. The project, this particular project qualifies as a project under the state density bonus law

[1:00:15] because a project has agreed to sell to the single family homes to very low income households.

[1:00:23] Looking at the state density bonus law, the zoning essentially, even though the zoning

[1:00:31] has a limitation or has a minimum lot size in this case 20,000 square feet and 14,400 square

[1:00:38] feet under the state density bonus law, the applicant can actually take the highest range

[1:00:45] of the General Plan Languys range, in this case, 3-0 units per acre.

[1:00:53] So the applicant has admitted an application to provide two of the units to very low income

[1:00:59] households, and that under state law allows the applicant to have 28 units in addition

[1:01:07] And because the applicant is providing a 22, approximately 22.5 increase or a 2 affordable

[1:01:16] units, they are allowed by the state density bonus law, a 22.5% increase in density

[1:01:23] or an additional 7 units.

[1:01:26] And so therefore, the applicant or this particular project proposes 35 volume units.

[1:01:35] I wanted to note that approximately nine of the single-family homes are going to be located within

[1:01:45] R120 zone and the remaining single-family homes will be in the 14.4 zone.

[1:01:53] It's approximately 26 is the balance.

[1:01:57] Again, under state density bonus law, the applicant does not have to apply for a change of zone as well.

[1:02:07] As previously required prior to state density bonus law,

[1:02:14] the Plan Commission is also asked to look at the tentative track map or approve the tentative track map.

[1:02:20] The tentative track map proposes 35 numbered lots for the single-family residential purposes and five lettered lots, which essentially are for the private street, the water quality basin and landscape lots.

[1:02:34] The lots range in area from 7,350 square feet up to 19,674 square feet, the five parcels that are located along the southern portion of the map are essentially ranging from approximately 15,600 square feet to the 19,600 and 74 square feet.

[1:02:59] These parcels are located essentially, but the half acre parcels located to the south of the, of this particular property of interior parcels are going to range approximately 7350 to approximately 8650 square feet, 8,600 and 50 square feet and the parcel essentially or the project proposes an interior street that takes access from Garrett's an avenue.

[1:03:28] And this is shown as a lot A.

[1:03:32] The street will essentially be approximately 36 feet in width.

[1:03:38] It will allow for one side street parking.

[1:03:41] It has an overall right away of 46 feet as well.

[1:03:49] This is view of the site plan that's being proposed.

[1:03:54] The five lots that are located to the south of the map or the site plan will be all

[1:04:00] consisting of one story homes, the remaining interior parcels, which are essentially 30

[1:04:08] single family lots, and those will consist of two story homes. There is a water detention

[1:04:14] basin, a lot B, which is the very north west corner of this particular site plan, and there is

[1:04:23] proposed homeowners association that will maintain the private street, the basin, and common areas.

[1:04:31] There's three proposed plans for this particular project.

[1:04:37] This is a view of the first and second floor of plan one,

[1:04:41] which is essentially four bedroom three and a half baths.

[1:04:45] Approximately 32, 31 square feet.

[1:04:48] It includes a multi-gen suite,

[1:04:51] which has interior access.

[1:04:53] Essentially it's kind of like a grandmother's

[1:04:56] or, you know, an added suite for the residents, it's not an ADU because it does not provide permanent cooking facilities.

[1:05:08] This is a view of Plan 2, the first and second floors.

[1:05:13] This plan proposes five bedrooms, four and a half baths at 34 or 65 square feet, also includes a multi-gen suite on the first floor.

[1:05:25] And then plan three is the single story or the one story plan.

[1:05:30] This is the biggest of the three plans at 3,901 square feet.

[1:05:36] With five bedrooms, four and a half baths includes a den with an option of a multi-gen suite.

[1:05:44] And all the plans do feature a minimum two car garages with storage areas.

[1:05:52] This particular plant-three features a three-car garage.

[1:05:57] The applicant is proposing three distinct architectural styles, a modern prairie, a cottage, and a farmhouse,

[1:06:06] and these are essentially going to feature shutters along the exterior,

[1:06:13] what-plank sighting, exterior details, elevations, as well as in-set windows.

[1:06:22] This is a view of the landscape plan approximately 17.5% of the interior of the project will be landscape.

[1:06:33] The landscape is required to meet the city of Corona's landscape design guidelines for residential homes.

[1:06:41] I also want to note that the elevations also meet the city's residential design guidelines.

[1:06:49] the public right away improvements that are proposed will be along

[1:06:53] Guarants in Avenue. They will continue the public improvements that are currently

[1:06:57] located to the south of this particular property. They will include sidewalk

[1:07:03] interior sidewalk landscape adjacent curb or landscape adjacent sidewalk.

[1:07:13] And the interior street essentially will be constructed for access to each of the individual homes as well.

[1:07:25] The applicant is proposing a perimeter split face six foot high wall, a long entire perimeter of the project site.

[1:07:33] Because the project is located within South Corona facilities plan.

[1:07:38] they are required to have a village to South Carolina theme wall, which includes a brick

[1:07:44] cap and stucco CMU wall along Garrett's in Avenue.

[1:07:48] The project will also feature two monument entry signs into the development and they will

[1:07:57] also have masonry walls throughout the interior of the lots or the parcels and they will

[1:08:04] also have their proposed six-foot high pedestrian gates to all the backyards.

[1:08:15] As mentioned previously under state density bonus law, in the California Housing Accountability Act,

[1:08:22] the state mandates allows developers to receive waivers from certain development standards

[1:08:27] or essentially unlimited waivers from the development standards within the coronavirus

[1:08:33] municipal code as long as they're proposing affordable housing units in this particular case

[1:08:39] applicant proposes to a very low or affordable housing units proposed to very low income households

[1:08:48] as a result of that the the per state density bonus law the applicant is eligible for

[1:08:55] waivers and this and essentially the way state laws written it's unlimited waivers

[1:09:00] So long as the city can essentially state that there is no preponderance of evidence to deny the waivers.

[1:09:15] A density bonus agreement is required with the city, per the Corona's Municipal Code, as well as per state law.

[1:09:23] and the affordability restriction on the two homes would be for 45 years, and so there will be two units that will be affordable and the remaining 33 homes will be market rate homes.

[1:09:41] And the app against is seeking several waivers from the Toronto Municipal Code development standards to build the project.

[1:09:54] Some of the waivers that are being sought and are included in your packet in the density bonus agreement include reduced lot area for nine of the.

[1:10:10] lots within the 20,000 square foot areas, so they are proposed at 15,546 to approximately

[1:10:18] 1976, 74 square feet within the R114.4 zone, the lawns are proposed at 7,352,862 square feet,

[1:10:34] a reduction in lot with of 100 feet from 100 feet to 70 to 75 feet

[1:10:39] for most of the lots within the two zones, particularly in the R1-14.4 zone,

[1:10:51] and

[1:10:51] 90 feet from the R1-14.4 to 70 to 80 feet, reduced setbacks.

[1:11:00] The code requires in both zones, a minimum front yard setback of 25 feet.

[1:11:04] The applicant is proposing 15 feet for most of the lots, as well as reduction in two of the corner yard setbacks.

[1:11:18] And from essentially the yard setbacks are required at 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other.

[1:11:27] And the applicant proposes a reduction of 5 feet for one of the side yards and an increase of 10 and more feet on the other.

[1:11:34] as well.

[1:11:38] The applicant is also requesting an increase in lock coverage from 30% for two story homes

[1:11:45] to approximately 35%.

[1:11:53] The applicant has provided a justification for the waivers being sought and that's also

[1:12:00] in the Planning Commission's packet.

[1:12:03] Essentially, the applicant is stating that the current zoning standards prevent the

[1:12:08] the housing project, the density, the density proposed is necessary to balance the construction

[1:12:16] costs, current zone standards make the cost of the project unaffordable and under state

[1:12:23] density bonus law. As mentioned previously, it does permit unlimited waivers when the

[1:12:28] projects offer a component of affordability in their units.

[1:12:36] Under state law, the city

[1:12:37] The state law has made it very clear that the city has to provide a

[1:12:41] preponderance of evidence to be able to deny the waivers.

[1:12:45] Staff has looked through the project, looked at the proposed

[1:12:49] development, the roads, access, setbacks, and so forth.

[1:12:57] And the city, the various city departments, including fire,

[1:13:00] engineering, as well as planning, have determined that there are no

[1:13:06] adverse impacts to the project is proposed, in that there is adequate accessibility, there is

[1:13:14] adequate connection to water sewer utilities,

[1:13:19] and the fire department has reviewed the project

[1:13:23] and has essentially agreed that the roadway, the private roadway, does provide adequate

[1:13:31] access for fire out access to each of the units under the California Environmental Quality Act,

[1:13:39] a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project, and it is also included in your

[1:13:44] packet.

[1:13:47] At this point in time, staff has analyzed both the Corona Municipal Code and more importantly

[1:13:55] the state density bonus law which essentially the plan commission is aware that the city

[1:14:04] essentially is you know kind of subjected to these new laws, these new housing accountability

[1:14:11] acts and so forth and so based on on that information staff is recommending that the planning

[1:14:20] housing commission adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approval of the

[1:14:26] affordable density bonus entitlement as well as the 10 of the FRAC map to the city council

[1:14:33] based on the findings containing the staff port and the conditions of approval and that the

[1:14:37] planning and housing commission adopt resolution number 2643 granting the precise plan for this project

[1:14:44] also based on the findings containing the staff report and the conditions of approval and that

[1:14:49] concludes my presentation. I do understand that the applicant is an audience tonight to

[1:14:54] help answer any questions that the commission may have.

[1:15:00] Okay, thank you, Ms. Lopez. Very thorough report there. And then I guess so, commission, we will start with questions for staff, as much as possible dealing with the housing density bonus application.

[1:15:23] Miss Lopez, thank you, it was a lot of information.

[1:15:28] Could we start with the low-income calculation method?

[1:15:34] So understanding that this proposal is to provide only two low-income units out of the 35.

[1:15:42] How is that minimum and how does the calculation work that we get to two units?

[1:15:54] Okay, per the state density bonus law, the calculation essentially the applicant has proposed

[1:16:02] two very affordable units and under state density bonus law there is essentially a formula

[1:16:10] that essentially states that based on their proposal of two affordable units, it equates to 22.5%

[1:16:19] of an increase, and that is a formula that's already established by state law.

[1:16:25] Is the applicant we're proposing a greater number of units, it would allow for a higher density of the bonus units.

[1:16:35] So in this particular case, the 22.5% of what's being proposed for affordability allows a seven units essentially above the 28 that's permitted

[1:16:50] for the General Plan land use maximum.

[1:16:55] So to dig a bit further, so to get to, if they chose to do one low-income unit, the ratio of 22.5 would be less.

[1:17:06] Is there a scale that says there's a minimum number of low-income units that need to be provided for?

[1:17:13] I'm just curious how they got to two units out of the 35.

[1:17:22] I believe it is a requirement to have a minimum of two in order to get that density bonus.

[1:17:39] Sorry, I'm just kind of going through this year.

[1:17:46] Actually, they could have had a 5% total, which would have allowed them a density bonus of 20%.

[1:17:58] But I believe that may have equated to one unit, it would have dropped their density, of course.

[1:18:07] But I think the applicant can help explain that a little bit better than I can.

[1:18:12] Okay, we can defer to them on that.

[1:18:15] And then further to that is their language in the SDBL that discusses the ratio of what classifies as low-income versus the rest of the unit.

[1:18:28] that are in with that same development.

[1:18:31] So in this case we have two low-income housing units

[1:18:35] amongst very large estate size, multi-layered and dollar homes.

[1:18:40] And I'm wondering what language in the SDBL speaks to that?

[1:18:45] And I just want to clarify, it's not low-income,

[1:18:47] it's very low-income.

[1:18:48] Yeah, low-income.

[1:18:50] Yes, that's correct.

[1:18:52] So is there any language in the state law that talks

[1:18:56] about that disparity of types of units within the same development?

[1:19:00] Yes, it is based off of the households median or household in this particular case, it's

[1:19:11] very low income household, and so they are qualifying residents based on the requirements

[1:19:18] pursuant to the state density bonus law, which essentially if I'm not mistaken, it's

[1:19:26] of 50% to 70% of the area median income of the county.

[1:19:31] And so, as the applicant had explained to us to Ms. Coleta and I, it's, once they have

[1:19:40] that formula, they essentially put it in their model calculation and that essentially generates

[1:19:47] a maximum for sale of those two particular homes.

[1:19:52] And I think he'd be able to explain that a little bit better.

[1:19:56] Yeah, I guess what I'm trying to understand is the ratio of low-income versus the balance

[1:20:05] of the homes that exist within the development, specifically if there's any language in this

[1:20:12] STBL that states what should be part of that development.

[1:20:17] If yes or no, and I understand it's a complicated law, but I'm very curious as to how that could exist with low-income mixed within clearly not low-income balance of development.

[1:20:33] So the law does not state bad, you know, it doesn't go into looking at each specific project and saying,

[1:20:41] If you have a project of market rate units that you think are going to go for a certain price,

[1:20:46] think you're limited to this kind of affordability level, it's really up to the developer

[1:20:50] to decide which level of affordability they want to apply.

[1:20:55] And in this case, the applicant is applying the very low income category.

[1:21:00] So it's going to be their responsibility on how they are going to sell those two units.

[1:21:07] They've done this before, so I do, I'm sure we will hear from them and they can explain this process.

[1:21:15] If at the end of it all, if they cannot sell these two units, they will then sell to a non-profit,

[1:21:22] who will then likely have to rent them out, and that is another option.

[1:21:27] But this is how the law is written.

[1:21:29] So, based on the 6% that they have chosen to use according to the law, they get that 22.5% density bonus increase.

[1:21:39] So that is how the formula works.

[1:21:42] Yeah.

[1:21:42] So, 6% 6.35 and you get 1.8.

[1:21:46] That's right.

[1:21:46] That's good.

[1:21:47] Yes.

[1:21:50] One other question, and we may have to defer to the applicant, but we can help here.

[1:21:53] the calculation method for the low-income house housing units.

[1:22:00] Is that described within the state law?

[1:22:04] Or is that method of how you're going to sell a home,

[1:22:09] which there's actually the two low-income homes,

[1:22:13] are the same floor plans that exist on the balance of the project?

[1:22:17] And so as such, does the law describe how that low-income homeowner is able to purchase

[1:22:26] this home and does it specifically describe for the 45 years, how that method is going

[1:22:35] to work?

[1:22:35] Again, it's where the developer is going to have to incentivize it.

[1:22:42] That is where they are trying to fill in the gap.

[1:22:44] So whether they are going to be seeking funding, or are they making up that loss by building the additional market rate units.

[1:22:57] So it's really being incentivized by them in order to sell it at a lower market value.

[1:23:03] So that's what's going on. But yes, the units will look identical.

[1:23:07] So I would really like to have them come up and explain it since they're in the industry but this is how this is how this is going to work on a foresell because it is a little bit different that are for rent unit, which is what we're familiar with.

[1:23:20] Okay, so we can defer that for the applicant.

[1:23:24] I have several other questions but I'll defer to the commission and then we can move through the applicant as well.

[1:23:34] All of my questions are in line with Greg's questions.

[1:23:37] Yeah, as our mind, so I really wanted to understand a lot more detail about the low-income

[1:23:44] units and the calculations and the process of those units going to very low-income households

[1:23:55] and what that looks like for the duration of the agreement.

[1:23:59] So, yeah, that's, I guess, at this point it would probably make sense to open the public

[1:24:06] hearing and hear from the applicant, okay.

[1:24:11] So then we will open the public hearing.

[1:24:13] We have other cards from the public, but the commission would like to hear from the applicant

[1:24:17] first.

[1:24:27] Good evening.

[1:24:28] My name is Joe Offdalee with Warmington Residential.

[1:24:30] Thank you to the chair and commissioners for having me.

[1:24:34] I'll go straight to answering some questions.

[1:24:35] the calculation to get to the unit count is your acreage times the highest available density in your general plan,

[1:24:45] in this case it's 3. So it's 9.33 acres times 3 gets you to 27.99, 8 state density bonus law,

[1:24:53] you round up on everything. So that rounds up to 28 and you multiply that by a percentage of affordable

[1:25:00] units that you're going to provide, and that equates to a density bonus that you will

[1:25:05] like achieve. So 28 is our date based density. That's the key number to know there. So you

[1:25:10] multiply 28 by 5%, that could see the 1.4. Again, we round up. So that's the 2 affordable.

[1:25:16] And then the 28 times the 22.5 gets the additional density on top of that.

[1:25:24] So that's how you're

[1:25:26] to wrap you then just so since with the calculation be different if they were not if that was

[1:25:33] not the very low income but rather you know low income or moderate income.

[1:25:39] Yes sir it has a there's a big chart has a scale of what you can provide and the density allowed to do

[1:25:44] that. So you provide up to you can get a hundred percent density bonus depending on how many

[1:25:50] affordable units you provide a percentage of that. So it's a sliding scale and five percent is the

[1:25:55] is the amount you can select per unit to get to the density bonus.

[1:26:00] Okay, thank you.

[1:26:03] I think the Director-Cletty answered your question regarding the discussion of whether there's

[1:26:08] state density bonus law regarding a balance of the affordable compared to the market rate.

[1:26:12] There's nothing in the state law that discusses that in terms of the affordability level,

[1:26:17] compared to the market rate, price of the homes.

[1:26:20] It doesn't get into that at all.

[1:26:25] Regarding how we price the homes so state law there is ACD does require it's a calculation is a formula that provides us that it's based off of

[1:26:33] Am I an area median income for the county so they take that I think in reverse I county it's

[1:26:38] By 85,000 is area median income and they take a percentage of that and apply that to all the costs that it goes into owning a home utilities HOA all that and it kind of spits out

[1:26:49] a number that we can sell that particular unit for and maintain affordability for the 45 years.

[1:26:57] So, it's not a exact science, it has like a full-performer and a bunch of inputs that

[1:27:03] gets approved by the city before we can sell those homes.

[1:27:10] Could you go very basic on that and explain to me a home that I think plan to

[1:27:18] I think it's a 1900 square feet, so a 1900 square foot home in Corona would have to sell for at least a million dollars.

[1:27:27] I'm just picking that number.

[1:27:30] Can you describe then the actual process that someone that has an AMI of $85,000,

[1:27:36] how they would be able to purchase a million dollar home? Can you kind of chart that out?

[1:27:41] It's subsidized by us, so they don't pay, I'm not sure the number of 100,000 for them.

[1:27:46] So you buy down the million dollar home, we just incur the cost, but we get all the benefits of the waivers and the additional density of offset that.

[1:27:56] Can you then take that out?

[1:27:58] So I'm the homeowner I've lived in this home for 10 years and the home is now worth a million five.

[1:28:06] One of the affordable units, yes.

[1:28:08] And I sell it.

[1:28:10] So how does that process work?

[1:28:12] Explain that.

[1:28:13] Sure.

[1:28:13] how if you could. Yeah, so there's a de-distriction that's recorded on the house. So it's gonna

[1:28:16] run with the land, run with the home until for the 45 years. So when you go to sell that house,

[1:28:22] they'll be a de-distriction that includes the density of bonus agreement and all the restrictions

[1:28:26] that are going with that, including a limit on the equity that you can increase your

[1:28:30] sale of that house. It's like 3% annually. So if the prices go up and you want to sell it for more,

[1:28:36] you still have to provide it a sale to someone that qualifies for the very low. So it maintains the

[1:28:41] affordability for that entire 45 years.

[1:28:43] There's no huge market gain until that 46th year.

[1:28:47] So if it was a main dollar home,

[1:28:49] and I was able to get it for $100,000

[1:28:51] because of the buy-down.

[1:28:53] And in 10 years, it's now worth $150,000.

[1:28:56] It's still has to qualify to an applicant

[1:28:58] and that applicant can only buy it

[1:29:01] at the buy-down rate of $150,000.

[1:29:04] That's correct.

[1:29:06] Exactly right.

[1:29:07] And that occurs for 45 years.

[1:29:10] And who is the compliance of that is, is it?

[1:29:16] We have a, what is that process that Wormington is the developer,

[1:29:21] but 10 years from now Wormington sells to someone else

[1:29:25] walk me through that process.

[1:29:27] So it'll show up on titles.

[1:29:28] Anyone that tries to sell a house when they receive their title report,

[1:29:31] mortgage companies will see that it has that de-distriction.

[1:29:34] So they wouldn't be able to sell that house legally without complying with that.

[1:29:37] that's also why we have the affordable housing agreement with the city. Those qualified buyers are required to

[1:29:43] go get approved through the city as it income qualified buyer.

[1:29:48] So we do all the leg work. We give all

[1:29:50] that information the city to get the thumbs up then we can sell that house. Same thing we go for

[1:29:53] future homeowners. So someone at the city has to monitor this long term.

[1:30:00] During the tenure of the agreement for the forty-five years.

[1:30:06] And they don't have to monitor it, it's just that if there's some of the cells, they would have to approve the sale.

[1:30:11] I

[1:30:15] have more questions, but I'll defer to them.

[1:30:20] I'm sorry. Mr. Osterley was.

[1:30:22] I'm sorry.

[1:30:23] Off to Lee.

[1:30:23] Off to Lee, okay. Thank you. Sorry.

[1:30:25] That's enough.

[1:30:25] Or we didn't.

[1:30:26] So it's tough to say.

[1:30:27] Okay.

[1:30:29] We'll talk later.

[1:30:34] Could you maybe describe the thought process of, again, I'm looking at Exhibit 2, which shows

[1:30:42] the largest state homes at the bottom and then the various other homes throughout.

[1:30:50] The thought process of wanting to place two low-end, very low-income homes within a development

[1:30:59] that would have a state homes in the same development.

[1:31:04] And in the context of the commission has had before us,

[1:31:09] several applications recently, of low-income, very low-income

[1:31:14] density, where the development has a preponderance of low-income.

[1:31:19] And the entire project could be seen as a low-income housing

[1:31:24] development which benefits the community by having a very high density. You can build a lot of

[1:31:31] low-income housing units which allows it to be built. So I'm just kind of curious if you could

[1:31:36] explain the thought process of mixing low-income with the state-sized homes in the same development.

[1:31:45] Sure. I think we're comfortable with mixed-income communities. We've done it throughout California.

[1:31:49] We've done an incinita, Santa Ana, Ventura, a lot of higher-end cities as well.

[1:31:54] Incinius, for as a good example.

[1:31:57] These homes, I think there's maybe a misconception about what the affordable home will be.

[1:32:02] This isn't going to be any less than the homes that are going to be surrounding it.

[1:32:06] These are going to be people that are qualified to buy a home.

[1:32:08] They just don't have the income at this point in time.

[1:32:10] Often, the one in incinius, for example, we sold to a pastor that worked at the church

[1:32:14] next door.

[1:32:14] So, these are people that are already in the community that just haven't had the ability to get into a home.

[1:32:21] So, mixing in the incomes to us is not a problem.

[1:32:25] I think you're still going to be able to buy a market home if you can afford it in this community,

[1:32:28] but it's also going to provide for those that are in the community that they can't afford the home.

[1:32:32] But it's not going to be maybe what is typically perceived as affordable housing or something of section A or the projects or Barrio.

[1:32:41] Those aren't the type of things that we're bringing into the community.

[1:32:45] There's just two houses driving through the neighborhood.

[1:32:47] You wouldn't know the difference.

[1:32:52] What percentage of projects that you've done like this have you sold versus sold to non-profits to become rentals?

[1:33:02] We've sold all of them. We haven't sold these non-profits.

[1:33:07] Would Wormington be developing on this site if the new SDBL and zoning laws went into place?

[1:33:18] Would this same development be before us for 28 homes?

[1:33:24] Maybe I don't understand the question.

[1:33:27] Well, so you are utilizing a new state law that allows you to identify low income housing,

[1:33:35] which then allows you to build more homes on a parcel

[1:33:38] than the zone normally would allow for.

[1:33:42] Plus, we haven't even talked about the exceptions

[1:33:44] but then the myriad of exceptions that you're asking for.

[1:33:48] And so my question is, would this been a viable development

[1:33:51] if you had not been able to utilize the very low income housing

[1:33:55] on this?

[1:33:56] No, it would not have been viable.

[1:33:57] And we wouldn't have been able to even build 28 homes

[1:34:00] based on the existing zoning and the restrictions of those zones.

[1:34:05] Thank you.

[1:34:11] Do we have any further questions for the applicant at this time?

[1:34:15] Not at this time.

[1:34:17] Then thank you very much, Mr. Opsley.

[1:34:20] We will hear from our other public speakers,

[1:34:24] and potentially if we need to have you come back

[1:34:28] to answer more questions.

[1:34:30] So I do have several cards.

[1:34:36] And the first one looks like it.

[1:34:41] I can read the first name Donna, and the last name Heber, maybe perhaps I, okay, just my luck.

[1:34:54] And then have another card here from

[1:35:04] Mr. Nakh. So that would ask them to come. Mr. Nakh, there we are.

[1:35:25] Hello, good evening. I live on CL Fleming Circle which is right next to the development and it's on the south of the development which is proposed.

[1:35:37] I think with the project proposed, I'm very concerned that the area will have huge traffic issues with 35 homes being built in this small area and not only that.

[1:35:52] I mean, to me, it looks like with this kind of all homes being jammed into this area,

[1:36:02] my home price is going to die a big time.

[1:36:05] So those are my serious concerns, and I would like to bring it to your attention.

[1:36:09] Thank you.

[1:36:13] All right.

[1:36:14] Thank you, Mr. Nick.

[1:36:15] Then we'll go back to Ms. Heaver.

[1:36:20] Oh, there she is.

[1:36:21] Great.

[1:36:22] Perfect timing.

[1:36:32] Very much.

[1:36:32] I'm not a public speaker, I'm a little nervous, I'll try and articulate.

[1:36:39] I worry about that extra low income.

[1:36:43] No doubt, Corona probably needs low income housing.

[1:36:48] But even if you were able to give a low income resident that home, it's expensive to maintain

[1:36:55] it, to put furniture in it, to put a backyard, I'm pretty sure you're not going to build

[1:37:01] back yard. So, and what about the property taxes? Are they able to afford the property taxes?

[1:37:09] Is that, do they get property taxes on say 100,000 versus a million dollar home? I just

[1:37:16] don't think it's affordable. I don't think it can do for that neighborhood. My house

[1:37:32] backyard in again, it's a hundred thousand dollars. It's expensive. So, I would concern that whoever

[1:37:39] purchases that home can't afford that home in that area. I have other concerns. I'm sure they're on the other two portions here. I'll get back up for that. So that's my point. Thank you.

[1:37:53] Okay, good. Thank you for your comments. Next I have a Mr. Bill Miller followed by Charlotte Stone and

[1:38:07] Mike Rossi, our Mickey Rossi.

[1:38:11] Hey, I'm Bill Miller.

[1:38:13] I think before you consider proving this or whatever, you do something about the parking

[1:38:18] problem that the mosque creates a Friday from 12 to 3.

[1:38:22] You're getting a good bit of adding more cars on that street.

[1:38:25] I drive that at least twice a day every day.

[1:38:28] I grew up on that street.

[1:38:29] So, it's all the part, the parking and the traffic first.

[1:38:37] Okay, thank you, Mr. Miller.

[1:38:57] Good evening. My name is Charlottes Stone.

[1:38:59] And my concerns about these projects is, number one,

[1:39:03] there's since not capable of handling the amount of traffic that's going to be generated

[1:39:06] by the 35 proposed houses.

[1:39:09] I have pictures of carrots in that area.

[1:39:12] It's two lanes. It's reddit.

[1:39:15] It's pitted.

[1:39:16] it's uneven pavement. It's terrible condition.

[1:39:23] There's that nothing should be a

[1:39:24] proof I agree with Bill until the Moss parking is dealt with. It becomes a

[1:39:28] real traffic hazard on Fridays.

[1:39:33] I was going to say we didn't receive any of

[1:39:34] the attachments which we were able to get, but we've not been provided a copy of

[1:39:39] the initial study prepared by CECA that may have potentially significant effects

[1:39:45] as well as the city prepared mitigation negative declaration.

[1:39:50] We don't provide it or that wasn't provided to us.

[1:39:53] I'd like to know what they see as negative versus what we see back in March of 2022,

[1:40:01] warming to propose 41 homes there at the meeting there at the mosque.

[1:40:06] And we told them, there's no way these are all half-acre and one acre lots.

[1:40:12] These are million and multi-million dollar homes.

[1:40:16] It's ridiculous to try to put something in on less than 14,000 square foot.

[1:40:23] Lots, it's ridiculous.

[1:40:25] Now we're talking 7,000 square foot lots.

[1:40:28] It's just not in that area.

[1:40:30] That street is magnificent.

[1:40:33] The houses on it, they're old, they're stately, they're some new.

[1:40:37] But they're all of the same general level.

[1:40:40] So, like I mentioned to Wormington back then, my $2 million house is going to go to $1.5 or less.

[1:40:48] The property tax issues and other things, are they going to get a variance on the property taxes?

[1:40:53] That I don't get. I paid for a property taxes, are they? My property taxes are $15,000 a year. Can they be that?

[1:41:03] And then I heard mentioned they're going to have one side street parking in this project

[1:41:09] because of how narrow the streets are.

[1:41:12] I look at how big horn drive is when I drive up, it's about to fold it and foot in

[1:41:17] a parkway.

[1:41:18] And that's wall to wall cars, who's going to police them not parking on both sides of

[1:41:23] street, and that tracked another big question. Are these very low income home buyers going

[1:41:37] to be able to rent these houses out at marker baits instead of residing in them? And who's

[1:41:43] going to place that? Thank you.

[1:41:48] Okay, thank you for your comments. Next, Mike Rossi.

[1:41:59] Sure, there was a gentleman who had to leave.

[1:42:03] Okay. Okay.

[1:42:04] Maybe.

[1:42:05] Then I have two more cards beyond that.

[1:42:08] Joe Morgan and Rufus Rosser.

[1:42:22] This is fun.

[1:42:24] So went to the meeting at the mosque when this first came up.

[1:42:28] And to call these guys shady.

[1:42:30] They're just they're kind of like the guys from Taylor and Citron.

[1:42:34] Same sort of a deal.

[1:42:35] Um, as these guys are using the the fig leaf of low income housing to increase their own incomes,

[1:42:45] um, you know, it doesn't, I think a couple of speakers have addressed this before.

[1:42:49] Um, the the low income development right next door and then the one that was previously approved here,

[1:42:56] uh, the bulk of those are 70% AMI.

[1:42:59] They're, they're in the same kind of income.

[1:43:01] So rent would be about a thousand bucks or something, 11, 1200 bucks a month.

[1:43:06] Except, you know, in this house, you know, and these guys don't give a crap about low-income residents.

[1:43:13] They're just doing this to jack their own pockets.

[1:43:18] The smallest floor plan I can see is 32-31.

[1:43:22] It's a two-story house.

[1:43:25] And we have a 14 hundred square foot house.

[1:43:28] You know, you guys don't need me to tell you, you know, what the utilities cost for kind of an average house in Corona.

[1:43:35] And, you know, and they're going to be in a HOA as well, you know, and it's just, I'm not sure what we can do really do about this, except for just call these guys the dirt bags that they are.

[1:43:46] You know, they could use this same, you know, generosity and actually help people, maybe do what C&C does, they could actually build something low and come if they were in that business, but they're not.

[1:44:00] You know, I mean, what's going to happen with the H.O.A.

[1:44:03] I mean, they, they, they, they, in the H.O.A. part of the whole thing.

[1:44:07] And, and I am really curious about the, the LMDs and CFD in the area.

[1:44:12] How that's going to work.

[1:44:13] There's a city bound, you know, by any of these low-income agreements,

[1:44:20] to give waivers on, on their, on the charges that they, that they assess,

[1:44:26] you know, for this area.

[1:44:27] Thank you very much.

[1:44:29] Okay, thank you Mr. Morgan and Mr. Rosser.

[1:44:36] Thank you.

[1:44:37] Rufus Rosser, 2785 Guardson.

[1:44:40] I'm kind of building on what my neighbors were asking earlier.

[1:44:45] There's a concern about the traffic, especially if you're going to have

[1:44:48] a mother in law suite or multi-generation possibility of

[1:44:53] multi-generational occupants in the home on-screen parking is a concern.

[1:44:59] So...

[1:45:00] So we'll overnight on-screen parking be prohibited in this development, is a question that I have or a suggestion that I'm making to ease the traffic flow.

[1:45:14] If the developer can maybe give us an estimated cost per square foot, an average cost per square foot for these homes that give us some idea of, you know, what quality homes will be placed on these lines.

[1:45:30] will if the finishes be basic or they're going to be executive level, you know, what impact

[1:45:36] will it have on the existing properties? As my neighbor said, the rest of the homes there are

[1:45:44] at least on a half a good lot and they're worth or value right now between 1.5, 2.5 million dollars.

[1:45:56] Okay, good. Thank you, Mr. Rosser. And since we've heard from, well, it looks like we have

[1:46:05] one other, sure. One other member of the public, I'd like to comment.

[1:46:11] Effect, I'll grab it right here. Conrad, PDM at 2511, Rosser Drive, which is right there.

[1:46:16] Phil Stone was a developer when we bought there. And those houses, fortunately, I'm on one

[1:46:21] houses there that's on one acre and which is which is fantastic because ultimately it's true that

[1:46:27] that entire area are million dollar homes two million dollar homes enough and my feeling on it is

[1:46:34] we've got the parking problem with the park we've got a parking problem with the traffic problem

[1:46:41] with the mosque and now we're gonna add even more to that area that that area and if you look at

[1:46:46] the roads around there it really wasn't designed for that type of traffic and it's true.

[1:46:50] If we were to decide to sell our house and when somebody wants to come and look you're going to be like they're going to look around same look at all this traffic

[1:46:57] Look at all the traffic around here. I want to I don't want to buy this house and so I think that there is some there needs to be some thought into slamming 35 homes in an area where a builder is going to come in and they just want to make money and I get its businesses business, but we live there.

[1:47:12] So I'm hoping that there's some thought put into this and slamming 35 homes in there when most of the homes in the area when you drive around I mean

[1:47:19] there they're not on small lots. So I really do hope that the city puts some

[1:47:24] some thought into allowing them to just slam a bunch of homes in there.

[1:47:28] Oh, thanks. I'll fall off the card.

[1:47:31] Okay, good. Thank you for your comment, Mr. Pidea. Then that is all of our speaker

[1:47:38] cards. Whether any written comments from the public that were submitted to the

[1:47:47] No chair, Woody.

[1:47:49] And that would the commission like to hear from the applicant again to ask for their questions?

[1:47:54] Yes, I would.

[1:48:02] Okay.

[1:48:02] I promise not to miss up the name, Mr. Offerley.

[1:48:05] Offerley.

[1:48:06] Offerley.

[1:48:07] I missed the D.

[1:48:10] There was some interesting comments by the public that I think are our pertinent in kind of further

[1:48:17] help understand the process of the two homes that are very low-income.

[1:48:24] So what an landscape and came up as an option, what is the intent of what's being provided

[1:48:31] to those homes, both front yard and back yard, how are the property taxes handled?

[1:48:39] And yeah, I think there was a comment about rental or what is the other option to do a vacation

[1:48:47] home VRBO.

[1:48:49] So just curious what is tied to those homes?

[1:48:54] Yes, so the starting with the landscaping, so they're required like any other home buyer

[1:48:58] in our development to landscape their rear yard within six months of purchasing their home.

[1:49:01] So they have that requirement whether it's just saw or gravel or something less desirable

[1:49:06] than that.

[1:49:07] to be landscape. So it has to have some sort of completeness as to can't just be a dirt in the back.

[1:49:14] But you don't provide that. That's, you do not. That's a requirement, okay.

[1:49:19] Regarding property taxes, CFD, M&MDs, those are all incorporated into the sales price of the

[1:49:26] homes. So they have to factor all that in before we can decide what we can sell that particular

[1:49:30] home for. It works out that they have to about 35% of their income can go towards housing,

[1:49:35] Of course, the purchase of the home, the rest you have to make sure that they have enough money and their budget to account for HOA property taxes, which are assessed by the assessor, all the normal things that you would have to do it all if I for home and own a home.

[1:49:48] You have to back those into the calculation in terms of what we could sell the home for what they can afford.

[1:49:53] So the taxation is based upon the assessed value, which would be market value not low-income.

[1:49:59] Every county kind of does a little different.

[1:50:00] but it would be on the full value of the home not whatever the

[1:50:04] assessor determines the value is yeah right which means full value not

[1:50:08] to be yeah yeah they're not taking into account the hypothetical 900

[1:50:13] thousand dollar deduction that some counties do some counties do but not

[1:50:17] all counties okay and I don't know riverside up top of my head I bought okay

[1:50:22] and what about rental options and there is that there are lots of rented out just

[1:50:26] like a non-profit would be able to not rent it out for the afternoon out to

[1:50:29] of a qualified renter, so like someone that has the same income restrictions as they do.

[1:50:34] I see.

[1:50:35] And that's all indicated in the agreement and the de-distriction.

[1:50:41] You mentioned the HOA and the LMDs.

[1:50:45] I'm sorry this is in the other.

[1:50:47] This is in the tentative track now, but I think it's pertinent.

[1:50:51] There is a proposal to have an HOA with 35 homes.

[1:50:54] Yes, sir.

[1:50:57] We've done a lot of analysis and seen a lot of very small HOA's of this size that it's very difficult even in these large homes to have an effective HOA.

[1:51:11] Have you analyzed that and can you speak to that?

[1:51:15] Yeah, there's not a whole lot of maintenance on these.

[1:51:17] There's every homeowner is responsible for the maintenance of their own exterior home and we are yards each way will maintain the front yards

[1:51:24] The streets and the water quality is really the big issue on

[1:51:28] H-way maintenance, so that big kind of based in the front. There's not a whole lot of maintenance to annual

[1:51:33] So we feel that it's more than enough to handle

[1:51:36] But if a farmer call correctly these this is private streets not city streets, so the proponents the H-O-A would be maintain the street

[1:51:44] Yeah, so they'll have a main schedule. I make sure that they're having up money and they're reserved to

[1:51:49] Resurface that on the regular schedule, which is either I think eight years.

[1:51:57] That's questions for now

[1:52:03] Commissioner Longwell anything further

[1:52:06] Yeah, I think

[1:52:08] Commissioner Sickle and

[1:52:10] Asked a lot of the things that I know I was thinking about and and maybe for a Commissioner Longwell as well

[1:52:15] Yeah, I mean, I didn't even think of VRBO honestly and when you said it, it just gave me like a headache

[1:52:22] How does that get monitored?

[1:52:24] I mean, who's responsible for babysitting something like that?

[1:52:29] At the end of the day, there's an HOA that would also look at that, but that the city would be the one that would be required to do that.

[1:52:35] And I do want to remind the commission we do not allow short-term rentals here in the city, and we actually work with the company that provides us daily monitoring.

[1:52:45] But we prohibited that last year and so we constantly monitor that and if something pops up,

[1:52:52] we immediately get on them and issue them and notice.

[1:52:56] All right.

[1:52:57] Thank you for the context there, Ms. Clota.

[1:53:01] Any further questions or we will close the public hearing?

[1:53:07] No.

[1:53:07] Then all right.

[1:53:08] Thank you, sir.

[1:53:09] Thank you for your time and your information.

[1:53:11] So then we are closing the public hearing.

[1:53:13] And we'll bring this.

[1:53:15] I'm so sorry to interrupt, we do have Mr. Morgan, who turned in a speaker card for this

[1:53:19] item as well.

[1:53:20] And the next.

[1:53:28] I had a card for four, and then I just put one in for five, because I had a question

[1:53:31] along the lines, because we have had quite a bit of discussions about each away, so this

[1:53:35] would be the TTM item.

[1:53:38] I mean, we have.

[1:53:40] So, we've, in this room, my collective, we, you guys did it, but I was just here, definitely

[1:53:48] said that a 35, a 35 home age away is not particularly viable over water retention basins

[1:53:58] and street maintenance. It's a pretty huge, it's a pretty huge obligation for a small

[1:54:05] age away. And so there's definitely been some that haven't been able to pay the bills, had a lot

[1:54:10] drama. I heard a whole lot of H.O.A. horror stories from smaller H.O.A. in 18. So, you know,

[1:54:21] you have, you have weighed in on this before, and I would encourage you to weigh in on it.

[1:54:28] Again, if nothing else, maybe to, to, maybe have it be part of an L.M.D. where at least

[1:54:35] the cost can be contained and the liability can be spread out to make it, you know, make

[1:54:39] where this is, you can't, you can't have these little boutique H.O.A.s and then I'm fail and then the

[1:54:44] city ends up having to fix them anyway. So thank you very much.

[1:54:50] Thank you. So we'll definitely

[1:54:53] close the public hearing that I guess that comment was more intended for the next item. So we will

[1:54:59] just kind of take that into our consideration at that time. But yeah, with this particular item,

[1:55:10] I mean, I think there are a lot of details that came up during the hearing, you know, things

[1:55:17] that I hadn't even thought of ahead of time, some that I had, and for me, it's kind

[1:55:26] of raised more questions, you know, that I just want to know answers to, to, you know, be

[1:55:33] able to determine,

[1:55:38] you know, if the conditions, you know, surrounding the agreement are

[1:55:45] having met.

[1:55:47] So that's kind of where I'm at right now in the, you know, for a big picture.

[1:55:53] And I guess my concern is that we've got a developer that's providing the minimum amount

[1:55:58] affordable housing to get the maximum out of variance in benefit, and it feels like

[1:56:05] maybe this is a question for the city that we don't have the ability to say no,

[1:56:11] that it's just a given, and it's kind of a courtesy ask.

[1:56:19] So if I can, I understand,

[1:56:22] It's a painful topic because it's a topic where we have lost some of the ability to regulate based on our normal standards and it is unfortunate.

[1:56:37] Staff has spent a lot of time on this project.

[1:56:41] As unpopular as it may come off, there was a lot of time spent looking at the waivers that they proposed.

[1:56:48] looking at the private street standard.

[1:56:52] We do have a private street standard, and a developers allowed the option to use it.

[1:56:58] We assess that with the fire department when they came in with that standard.

[1:57:05] So it's a difficult thing to digest, and I hate to say, no, it's not a blank approval.

[1:57:13] But I can tell you that we did look at it from every aspect that we are required professionally to look at.

[1:57:22] The setbacks, the distance criteria.

[1:57:26] So it's a single family development, which is single families surrounding this entire community.

[1:57:33] They did listen to staff in terms of trying to match the number of lots along the adjoining property lines.

[1:57:39] So to the south, you have five lots, they said,

[1:57:42] we'll do five lots.

[1:57:43] To the east, there are seven lots.

[1:57:45] They lined up six lots.

[1:57:47] So they were trying their best

[1:57:48] to at least buffer the existing homes.

[1:57:52] When this was previously approved,

[1:57:54] you had about four homes that cited on Garrett's set,

[1:57:57] and now you have three homes.

[1:58:00] So the design is similar in nature,

[1:58:02] but yes, the lot sizes were larger.

[1:58:04] So they are getting more lots,

[1:58:07] But everything that they're doing is internaled to the project.

[1:58:11] And I do want to let you know, this was previously going to be an elementary school.

[1:58:15] It was the Crona Norco Unified School District that determined that they were not going to build a school on here.

[1:58:22] So development on this property was intimate one way or another.

[1:58:26] So if it was not going to be a school, then it was going to fall back on being residential.

[1:58:31] And over the years, the mosque ended up buying the adjacent property which was originally part of this development and they ended up taking it for their purpose.

[1:58:42] So it was never not going to be developed.

[1:58:45] Granded this situation came along and with the state making all the changes in density bonus.

[1:58:50] These are new avenues that we all have to navigate and that's exactly what we're doing.

[1:58:54] The agreement is there to hold them accountable and to make sure that the project is being built according to the standard.

[1:59:03] But yes, if the losses they only get to due to units and they get unlimited waivers, we have to evaluate those waivers.

[1:59:11] And when staff looked at them, the waivers did not really change anything in terms of providing an issue with regards to public health and welfare.

[1:59:21] I mean, the homes are still going to look like the setbacks of other homes.

[1:59:25] It's really just the fact that it's more noticeable because we have to draw attention to it.

[1:59:30] Ms. Clevdick, maybe you could help me understand,

[1:59:35] I had always known the adage to there's

[1:59:37] the letter of the law and there's the intent of the law.

[1:59:41] And the applicant has done a great job of documenting everything legally that allows this

[1:59:49] theory to work on paper, but it's very apparent that this is not intended to provide low-income

[1:59:55] housing.

[1:59:56] It is merely a vehicle to put more homes on.

[2:00:00] Council, hands down. When you have 4,000 square foot state homes in the development, that will probably sell

[2:00:08] an excessive $2 million mixed with very low income housing. And believe me, I am all foreloin

[2:00:16] come housing. It gets fabulous. I think the project that we recently approved right here is a great example of what

[2:00:24] can happen. My question is when it's very apparent that this is an applicant that's using

[2:00:30] the law to the advantage. I would think that there is the ability in the city's done an

[2:00:37] amazing job of documenting every piece of it. But isn't there an ability here to question and

[2:00:43] say, what is the intent of the law? I'm sorry, what is the letter of the law and what is the

[2:00:54] as an approval.

[2:00:55] I understand what you're saying, but it's subjective at that point.

[2:00:58] I agree with you.

[2:00:59] It's the way we write ordinances.

[2:01:01] My ordinance can say one thing, and it says, and you we can always scrutinize, but was that

[2:01:06] really the intent?

[2:01:07] And it's like, well, we're telling you, like, offense can be six feet high, but was that

[2:01:11] the intent?

[2:01:12] So, it becomes subjective.

[2:01:14] And staff can't get into that role because it's never going to be a consensus and what

[2:01:19] everybody wants it to say or what everybody wants it to think.

[2:01:23] So, it is an uncomfortable conversation.

[2:01:26] I could tell you in speaking with Warming 10, you hear the verbage low income, but given

[2:01:31] with the price of housing in California, this can be workforce housing.

[2:01:36] You have government employees that can't afford to buy a home.

[2:01:40] You have working nurses that can't afford to buy a home, and they would actually fall

[2:01:45] within this category.

[2:01:46] There are people that are working in our contributing to society, but that option is just not

[2:01:51] for them to purchase. And that's what this does. I don't think the state had any intent of

[2:01:57] saying, well, if you do one project, it's got to be all affordable. I think in their mind,

[2:02:02] they do want integration, they do want mixed income. And that's how it should look. It should

[2:02:07] not be a project that's isolated and constantly stands out out of zone. And everybody points to it

[2:02:12] and says, that's an affordable project and that's not. I clearly get that and I understand that.

[2:02:20] There's just such a disparity between what's classified in here is a low, very low-income home,

[2:02:30] which in a clearly understand.

[2:02:31] It's the exact same home that's going to sell for a million plus brand new.

[2:02:36] I get that.

[2:02:42] I'm just not comfortable with that and understanding that it's our role to ensure that the city is falling

[2:02:50] the law, but then it's also important to identify and say there's problems here.

[2:02:56] And if this is an example that needs to be highlighted, that the laws were developed to

[2:03:04] truly increased density to allow for more housing, to allow for more low income housing,

[2:03:12] and they checked all the boxes to get there.

[2:03:14] And that's,

[2:03:18] I just have, tough, it's tough for me to support something that, in theory, we

[2:03:24] don't really have a choice on.

[2:03:27] And so you're going to have to offer guidance on how we would perceive it that.

[2:03:30] Well, again, as we state that it's going to come down to us and we have to have sound justification.

[2:03:39] So, because that is what the developer is going to use in their arguments.

[2:03:43] on the state of that and the application with their

[2:03:46] so it's got to be what is it other than yes visually

[2:03:50] or in concept or the intent I don't like it is not really

[2:03:55] a preponderance of evidence arguments so that is

[2:03:58] the law was very clear on that they were whoever wrote the law

[2:04:01] was very clever in that so it's got to come down to

[2:04:05] that there is something that we have overlooked to where

[2:04:09] There is evidence that there's something that we can hang our hats on.

[2:04:16] Well, I guess what I would just say at this point is I think part of at least from my

[2:04:25] my hesitation is because this is new for us. I mean, we've dealt with other

[2:04:32] you know, density bonuses and low-income housing, you know, projects, but this particular

[2:04:42] style of project is new to this commission, and you know, the idea of, you know, the nuts

[2:04:51] and bolts of the law, how it applies to this. I think that's from the questions we've

[2:05:00] And asking, I think we all want to be able to drill down into those details a little more.

[2:05:07] Or, I mean, it sounds like Commissioner Sickwell and Dozen, and I do, and Commissioner Longwell

[2:05:14] is nodding her head a little bit there too.

[2:05:19] So, you know, and our staff is fantastic here, and Ms. Khaled is constantly educating all of

[2:05:26] on finer points of different, you know, state laws and city ordinances and codes.

[2:05:35] So I have no reason to doubt the staff's work or Ms. Collette is signing off on that,

[2:05:43] but I think, you know, the whole point of it coming before this commission is we have

[2:05:49] to sign off on what they're doing, and, you know, for me, I'd like to be able to get into

[2:05:55] more details to be comfortable to affirm the findings that staff have made, which 99.5 times

[2:06:07] out of 100 are ironclad, but I think I'd like to have more time to look into that more.

[2:06:25] I miss a question from a legal standpoint, clearly you and the staff have gone through each point.

[2:06:40] Is there a position from the city attorney that validates or could help us understand the questions that we have before us?

[2:06:58] I, I'm trying to understand the questions really because the model agreement that you have before you is the model agreement that the city came up with based on our ordinance and the state law.

[2:07:11] This is not an agreement that came from the developer. This is our agreement. So we have a model agreement for four selling units and we have a model agreement for rental units.

[2:07:21] So this is the agreement that we present to applicants when they submit an application for an affordable housing density bonus project.

[2:07:35] Which they're clearly using every bit of the law to get this development as it's documented before us.

[2:07:44] That's correct.

[2:07:46] I mean, I really do think that it is providing the minimum amount of affordable units to get the maximum amount of

[2:07:53] variances, and there isn't a way to say no,

[2:07:59] whether we like it or not. And I say that just as much for the benefit of the people that want to say

[2:08:06] here also.

[2:08:12] So the option before us is in protest supporting an application before us. I

[2:08:24] mean that's. Unless there's something in the development standard or in one of the

[2:08:29] waivers that you have serious concern about that you want us to go back and take a look at.

[2:08:38] I mean, I mean, I mean, I'll tell you I spent our packet this week was 500 pages including

[2:08:44] M&D. I certainly can't profess to know every legal end of what was provided to us. I have

[2:08:54] to trust that and it absolutely is clear that they have that staff has tried to answer every single

[2:09:02] request for variance and where it would fit and I don't question it at all. So ultimately,

[2:09:08] it comes down to if the city is making a recommendation that is backed up by clearly thorough

[2:09:19] documentation, then the decision has to be made based upon that.

[2:09:27] Yeah, the only thing I don't think that we discussed, but was definitely asked by residents

[2:09:34] on multiple, by multiple residents was the traffic, and the traffic that it brings, it wasn't

[2:09:41] part of the presentation, but I'm sure as part of the analysis, that's something that we can

[2:09:48] It's actually part of the other two parts of the application that we have, so yes, before

[2:09:53] those apply.

[2:09:56] So, those questions can be answered next.

[2:09:58] Yeah, so, like I said, I mean, I understand what you just mentioned that, yes, we

[2:10:06] We are taking the staff at their word and have no reason to doubt them, but my point was,

[2:10:15] I wish I had more time to really get into the details and to verify that all those conditions

[2:10:22] have been met.

[2:10:24] And I mean, we get this for three and a half days or so.

[2:10:34] So I don't know.

[2:10:35] I would rather take a little more time just to be comfortable.

[2:10:39] Maybe I would be 100% behind it.

[2:10:41] Once I had the chance to explore that and verify everything for myself.

[2:10:48] For me, I don't think 100 days would make a difference.

[2:10:51] Am I opinion to be really honest?

[2:10:52] Yeah, it's not going to change the dynamic of the, of the application.

[2:11:00] Right.

[2:11:03] The other point here is a recommendation by us does move to council.

[2:11:11] And in that time council has greater visibility and more long-term visibility than the commission has

[2:11:21] to also weigh in with appropriate staff between a recommendation should it go forward tonight

[2:11:28] ultimately it has to be approved by Council.

[2:11:31] So that's another discussion to have.

[2:11:35] Another point to add to this.

[2:11:39] Well, I understand your point,

[2:11:41] but I think we also don't want in the past we've not wanted to just kick something to the Council

[2:11:48] without giving it our all and giving them a true voice from the commission.

[2:12:00] I agree with that, but what we have done has been very specific to the council,

[2:12:06] items that we've moved forward that we have concerns with that we did approve,

[2:12:10] but we approved with very specific watchout things to be educated by and for staff

[2:12:17] to provide follow-up information so that when they make a decision, they clearly understand

[2:12:24] the concerns that this commission had.

[2:12:28] It's not, we're not passing our job to counsel what we're doing is noting what concerns

[2:12:37] we have and for them to also review that and help make an informed decision that not only

[2:12:48] allows for the application to be asked, but there are obviously very strong legal ramifications

[2:12:56] of everything related to this.

[2:12:58] This is all.

[2:12:59] I mean, every bit of the documentation we receive spoke to the state and city code.

[2:13:09] My thought is that I don't think deferring this to for us to get more details is really going to change the points that we'd surface is if we option to move it forward with specific recommendations of our concerns and doing that.

[2:13:32] I'm just throwing that out for discussion.

[2:13:44] And I would just add, this is, in a sense, one of the first tests that we've had before

[2:13:50] us where the application is clearly using the law to develop something that's of the benefit

[2:13:58] of the development versus improving housing low income and moderate income housing.

[2:14:07] And I guess that goes to my point is, if I had better understanding of the law, then I would be able to say, okay, well, I feel like it does meet the requirements of the law and I can confirm that what staff is telling me is true and valid and I can get behind the finding.

[2:14:38] Yeah, I mean, from that standpoint, I'm sorry, Mr. Woody, I know this respect, the complexities

[2:14:44] of these laws are such that it would take a lot to learn the specific details and the

[2:14:53] risks that we would take or not taking doing that, and I'm not saying that we would be better

[2:14:58] informed if we came back.

[2:15:00] But ultimately, in this case, I know and assume that the city staff and the legal within the city have reviewed it.

[2:15:10] Well, I guess looking through the city's agreement, you know, the HDB itself, you know, it was, I was surprised that it was only 15 pages.

[2:15:24] And, and some of the details that we discussed tonight, I didn't really see represented in there.

[2:15:29] You know, I, you know, some of the details of the affordability aspect, you know, property taxes.

[2:15:36] You know, the, you know, the landscaping of somebody's yard.

[2:15:43] So, you know, that's what I'm, some of those things were not really in that agreement.

[2:15:50] And like I said, that's partly why I hadn't even considered some of it beforehand.

[2:15:57] Point ballot on that.

[2:16:01] So I mean, does an agreement that doesn't have all of those specifics in it, you know,

[2:16:11] does there need to be more specifics in it?

[2:16:13] I don't know.

[2:16:14] And I'm just saying, you know, if there was time to think of that over and, you know, determine

[2:16:21] and why there were maybe here from the city attorney on that, I don't know.

[2:16:35] Ms. Colletta, I know the city attorney is named on the agreement,

[2:16:43] anything you could

[2:16:44] add to that in terms of some of the items at Mr. Woody mentioned relative to some of

[2:16:50] it.

[2:16:51] So.

[2:16:51] I'm in feedback.

[2:16:51] Yeah.

[2:16:52] The density bonus agreement talks about the reservation of the affordable units and the waivers.

[2:16:58] When it comes to just like any other property, when it comes to maintenance after the fact,

[2:17:04] it falls within our realm of property maintenance to make sure the property is being maintained

[2:17:09] according to laws.

[2:17:12] Front yard, the developer is required to install the front yard landscaping that's with every

[2:17:16] development, regardless of the income.

[2:17:19] Backyards, the HOA's have their own set of rules, so we don't get involved in people's

[2:17:25] The only time co-compliance will get involved if there is an issue, where the maintenance

[2:17:32] is so bad, to where it is impacting adjacent residents.

[2:17:36] You know, some people are hoarders, there's garbage, there's extensive storage that really

[2:17:42] shouldn't be housed on a residential law.

[2:17:44] That's when we get involved in going into someone's backyard, saying, look, this is excessive.

[2:17:50] if you need to clean it up, it's causing an impact to your neighbors, it's causing, you

[2:17:55] know, for a mentor run around. So we do take care of the street facade and the exterior

[2:18:02] facade. That's part of our property maintenance. But if an HOA has a stricter rule, then

[2:18:08] it's going to be on the HOA on how they balance that. We don't do that for any other property

[2:18:14] I have the city.

[2:18:25] Well, I'm of a mindset to offer this motion that,

[2:18:35] frankly,

[2:18:38] on my motion would be that

[2:18:45] council upon our recommendation for approval of this, be aware of an understanding that

[2:18:55] This is truly a test of the laws, and a direct result of a developer utilizing those laws to their benefit, and how can the city, at the same time, look at this, from a legal standpoint, and question of the validity of using low-income housing to develop 4,000 square foot plus homes.

[2:19:23] on a higher density parcel, and I'm sorry I can't put that into fire

[2:19:30] written words into emotion, but I guess this is a test of the laws that the state

[2:19:36] passed and that the city was required to endop, and now we're having to weigh in and

[2:19:44] make a decision on a very complex matter that is not black and white, and we don't

[2:19:50] put the city in legal harm, but at the same time it doesn't mean that we can't question

[2:19:59] the law, and that we can't question the intent versus the letter of the law.

[2:20:07] And so my motion would be that that this panel move forward with a recommendation for approval

[2:20:13] under protest, identify in those items of concern to council.

[2:20:19] That would be.

[2:20:21] Okay, yeah, I mean, I would rather be able to hear

[2:20:25] from the city attorney, but I think your ideas

[2:20:29] probably the, you know, in lieu of not having

[2:20:34] the city attorney present and not able to answer our questions,

[2:20:38] not able to, you know, know if there's any sort of finer points of the law that work

[2:20:51] to our concerns and that, you know, I don't know.

[2:20:59] Yeah. I would rather be able to talk

[2:21:02] to the city attorney, but in here from them, but I think your idea may be the best we can

[2:21:09] unless because it doesn't sound like anyone else besides myself wants to delay this.

[2:21:16] No.

[2:21:16] No, I would second that motion.

[2:21:20] And I do want to...

[2:21:23] The city attorney at the same town is going to say the same thing.

[2:21:28] Unless this body has something that they can specifically point to that,

[2:21:35] there are some issues with the waivers themselves that is a concern

[2:21:40] that we need to know what that is and what that evidence is and why we how we come back that

[2:21:46] up that's that's strictly where the law pushes that because if the city is able to come up with

[2:21:53] evidence why a certain waiver shouldn't be granted and that does affect the design of the project.

[2:21:58] So, well, I mean, I mean, I don't want to sit here and he's not going to be the same

[2:22:05] as us.

[2:22:06] There's not this rabbit.

[2:22:07] We're going to be able to plot our hats.

[2:22:09] So we same with us, we look at it and we're trying to look at all of the facts in front

[2:22:14] of us and what is it can we accept with these waivers or can we not accept that?

[2:22:19] I understand that, but I also don't think that the planning commission should just be

[2:22:23] ever stamped, approving an item because it's the law.

[2:22:28] And certainly I am not, I don't believe we're questioning anything that the City staff

[2:22:32] I think they have put an amazing amount of effort into this and I'm sure that's 110% accurate.

[2:22:38] That is not my position all.

[2:22:40] What I'm saying is if we are asked to weigh in on hundreds of pages of documents in an application,

[2:22:48] It is not our place to be able to know every fine detail of the law and make a opinion based upon what's presented to us.

[2:23:00] And that's all.

[2:23:01] Our concern is expressed in the motion, is that just because it's the law,

[2:23:07] doesn't mean that we have to turn over and accept it exactly the way that it is.

[2:23:10] We still have the right to question what's before us and in my opinion in my motion.

[2:23:17] I'm saying that this is clearly a vehicle that somebody smartly is using the law to their advantage.

[2:23:27] And it's well put together, I can't question that, but it doesn't mean that it's still completely right.

[2:23:32] And so that's my intent of recommending to counsel that I'm recommending a motion to approve it,

[2:23:39] because it is the law, but for counsel and legal staff, to question it and say,

[2:23:45] is this really the intent that we want to just always represent follow these. And we have a

[2:23:50] city of developments of 4,000 square foot estate homes with low income housing just to get it approved.

[2:23:58] And I don't want to be in that position going forward in the commission.

[2:24:02] And that's why I'm stating that in the motion.

[2:24:08] And what, what the council in city attorney want to do

[2:24:13] without, that's, that is their prerogative

[2:24:16] and they're privy to do that.

[2:24:17] I just want to make it known at least for my standpoint,

[2:24:21] what my concern was.

[2:24:25] Okay, so then we have a motion from Commissioner Sikuland

[2:24:32] to approve the density bonus housing

[2:24:37] agreement with reservations that should be communicated to Council and to the city attorney

[2:24:49] to see if there's, you know, just as as the final points were studied and used in the application

[2:25:00] if any of them might be used to alter the agreement before it gets found.

[2:25:12] End or end or to just raise a question that is this the application that the law was intended to out.

[2:25:23] Okay, so then that is the motion.

[2:25:26] And we have a second.

[2:25:31] Yeah, so we had to do that for a second,

[2:25:55] and so the motion passes, I would have rather had more time to look into it.

[2:26:00] So then we'll move on to our next public hearing.

[2:26:04] We've already heard the presentation on it.

[2:26:06] This is for a tentative track map 38495 for subdividing the parcel, the 9.33 acres into 35 single family residential lots.

[2:26:20] And as I mentioned, we've heard the presentation and then let's go to questions for staff regarding the tracked map.

[2:26:40] So this is one where it is appropriate to bring up the HOA conversation.

[2:26:47] Ms. Lopez and staff was there a recommendation or analysis to do an LMD based on just as such a small HOA.

[2:27:02] I don't believe there was, but I don't know of Chris would like to help answer the question.

[2:27:10] Well, to BLMD cannot maintain a private street, that's not allowed.

[2:27:16] So, the LMD cannot maintain a private street.

[2:27:19] No.

[2:27:19] That's the reason they have to assume full responsibility for their street.

[2:27:26] And is there, I'm sorry, it's been a while on the H.O.A.

[2:27:31] Is there any requirement when the development is being developed to estimate what the H.O.A. costs are going to be?

[2:27:41] So is that, you know, because it's a city, which is pretty substantial to maintain,

[2:27:46] it's Larry Seale and repair and stripe and all that.

[2:27:49] Is there any calculation it has to be done?

[2:27:51] That's something it's not a requirement of ours, so it's something that the developer has to look into.

[2:27:58] If really if it's an HOA that they're really just concerned about maintenance and the responsibility is street maintenance, street lights or water quality basin,

[2:28:08] there's really not a lot for that HOA to do other than ongoing maintenance.

[2:28:11] And why was this not a dedication of public streets?

[2:28:19] What would be the rationale in the public works that is because of the narrow street that it's not a waiver?

[2:28:27] It's the waiver.

[2:28:29] I mean, essentially a public street would have required 56 foot right away if I'm not mistaken.

[2:28:35] or 60 is what I'm being told, and so they are proposing 46 foot overall right away.

[2:28:44] And getting back to the waivers, I know we didn't, they were in the previous application,

[2:28:50] but there is no definition of what can be asked for or waived, right?

[2:28:56] So in this case, in theory they could have done a 20 foot wide street with a single lane and

[2:29:03] no parking, right?

[2:29:04] I think at some point, as long as it passed fire, I think, right?

[2:29:09] Right, correct.

[2:29:10] Yeah, right.

[2:29:16] Okay, that's for me.

[2:29:19] May I have more?

[2:29:26] Yeah, I don't know that I have any questions at this point.

[2:29:29] I mean,

[2:29:31] you know, I'm concerned about the HOA issue too.

[2:29:38] And the idea of the public versus private streets.

[2:29:45] So, I don't have questions.

[2:29:47] Oh, just to clarify. I'm sorry. Is the HOA in exception?

[2:29:53] Was that listed as an exception to do an HOA?

[2:29:58] No, thankfully not.

[2:30:00] So just by default, because it's a private street, you can't have an LMD. Correct. Yes. So again, we're kind of forced.

[2:30:09] We're forced there.

[2:30:12] Okay. I believe, as the Commission may be aware, it's not uncommon for like an HOA. I mean, even if this were a street that met the requirements of the city standard, it's not uncommon for example, like the water retention basin to be maintained by an HOA.

[2:30:28] Yeah, good point. Thank you, Mr. Lopez.

[2:30:45] Okay, then let's open the public hearing.

[2:30:52] And I know we had one speaker already who was speaking toward this particular item.

[2:31:01] And then do we have other cards for this item?

[2:31:06] None other than the ones you have that mentioned that three items together.

[2:31:12] And then would we, would the commission want to hear from the applicant on any issues relating

[2:31:20] to the tentative track map?

[2:31:35] I'll have this time for me.

[2:31:46] Then I guess with that, we'll close the public hearing.

[2:31:52] Yeah, if we can have public speakers,

[2:31:56] the hearing is open.

[2:32:04] I'm sorry, I don't understand how it divides the three sections, so what you talk about.

[2:32:09] So we'll concerned about the design of the homes and all those homes of the two-story or two-car garage.

[2:32:16] And you have a 3,500 square foot house, multi-generational.

[2:32:21] And I do think maybe there's a law. This has two cars or enough.

[2:32:25] But from a practical standpoint, if you have multi-generations, you have more than two cars.

[2:32:31] And not such a long driveway.

[2:32:34] And if you don't have much parking on the street, where are their cars going to go?

[2:32:39] And as a homeowners association, are they the ones that determine who gets to park on one side of the street?

[2:32:45] Like, if I own this house, do I get to park?

[2:32:48] But because it's so crowded, my neighbor doesn't get to park on the street.

[2:32:52] This is a homeowners association address that.

[2:32:55] And are they people that they can't park in there?

[2:32:58] Are they going to be trying to park on Garrett's?

[2:33:00] Like I said, I'm on the, I have the smaller size homes.

[2:33:03] I'm on 20, my house backs up to a lot.

[2:33:06] I can hear cars drive down, Garrett's in so fast, probably every night, every single night.

[2:33:14] And it is, I feel like it's a safety hazard there.

[2:33:19] So I'm worried about how many cars are going to be parked on the street in the track,

[2:33:23] and the track, and of cars are going to go there.

[2:33:26] And I do think they need bigger grudges for those two-story homes.

[2:33:29] If you're going to have that many people, you know, that size of a house.

[2:33:32] You've got a lot of people living there and extra cars.

[2:33:37] Okay, thank you, and then that is our only other public speaker, so we'll close the hearing

[2:33:43] and bring it back here to the Commission, and actually I'm glad she spoke, because that

[2:33:48] kind of was one of the issues that I think had come up to in my mind in the previous, when

[2:33:56] we were talking about the previous item, but this Commission has a couple years ago, we spent

[2:34:02] a lot of time about parking and parking requirements and I don't believe I noticed a reduction in the

[2:34:15] parking requirements in the in the entitlements.

[2:34:22] So, how is it that there was only, you know,

[2:34:26] the two-car garage,

[2:34:31] you know, for a, you know, a three-year four-bedroom home, isn't it?

[2:34:35] It's in our guidelines to require a higher amount of parking than that.

[2:34:40] We up to four-car garages on these. What's that? There's one-of-the-floor plans as a four-car garage.

[2:34:48] So, possibly three, three, three to four. Yeah, I mean, they're actually exceeding the minimum for that one,

[2:34:53] But for the other units, there's only a two-car garage.

[2:34:58] And then the entitlements eliminate driveways on some of them.

[2:35:03] So let me clarify.

[2:35:05] So the parking standard that you are referring to when it comes

[2:35:08] to number of bedrooms is for multi-family units.

[2:35:11] This is single-family.

[2:35:12] Only single-family units are required

[2:35:14] to have a two-car garage minimum.

[2:35:17] So options for third and fourth ones are just additional.

[2:35:21] So it's not based on bedroom.

[2:35:22] They are not reducing or eliminating their driveways when Rosiel spoke of the 15-foot.

[2:35:29] It's actually to the front of the house, but the driveways, most of them, I think, except

[2:35:34] for one shot to verify, was 18 feet, but most of the driveways were 20 feet in depth.

[2:35:40] So it was the pop out of the house that came to the 15 feet and then the driveway, the garage

[2:35:46] was the one set back.

[2:35:49] And to speak to the public comment, we have struggled with parking and along with all of these

[2:35:56] housing laws, it also included parking, in fact, correct me if I'm wrong.

[2:36:02] In some developments, we don't even, we can't even, if there is no parking at all, it's

[2:36:08] still has to be approved.

[2:36:10] And so there's just an amazing amount of hand tying that's been made.

[2:36:14] In this case, they requested a waiver, which allows the

[2:36:20] in-street parking, which goes back to the same conversations

[2:36:23] we've been having this evening.

[2:36:28] And I believe step, parking is limited to one side of the

[2:36:31] street, correct?

[2:36:34] That's correct.

[2:36:35] So the street will have to be noticed that they can only

[2:36:39] park.

[2:36:39] And so the developer, the builder will make it the decision

[2:36:42] on where the no parking will be listed in the development.

[2:36:46] But since it's a private road, then the compliance of that is not on the city?

[2:36:53] No, it's on the H.O.A.

[2:36:54] But if our fire department happens to go in there, they can also notify them as well.

[2:37:01] But to her point, there's nothing stopping if all of those spots are filled that are on the

[2:37:07] curb that it could flow out into Gertzen. Do we allow parking on Gertzen?

[2:37:29] Well, we'll talk with our traffic division to see what that is.

[2:37:38] And then I don't know, perhaps staff, Mr. Horn can speak to the traffic on carrots and just in general.

[2:37:50] I know this to the residents nearby, this potentially adds a lot more traffic on that stretch of carrots.

[2:37:58] But what was there a study done regarding traffic on garrison?

[2:38:05] I can speak to that.

[2:38:07] So a traffic study analysis was done for this project and that was done by licensed traffic engineer.

[2:38:15] And the project is projected to generate 25 trips during the AMP peak hour and a 33 trips during the PM peak hour.

[2:38:25] And the study was reviewed by our city traffic engineer and this increased traffic was considered to be to not be significant.

[2:38:37] And so Garrett's in there is that considered then like a collector street or

[2:38:43] Yes, it's a collector street.

[2:38:52] Ms. Lopez, can you pull up the site plan that shows the homes in the streets?

[2:39:01] I think it was exhibit too.

[2:39:10] There you go.

[2:39:12] So we talk about ADUs and AAHUs on this.

[2:39:19] So I know there's, unless I'm, I'm very correct,

[2:39:22] I didn't see any mention in application about ADUs or AAHUs.

[2:39:27] Nor was it discussed in the presentation,

[2:39:30] but I'm assuming looking at these lot sizes that AAHUs and ADUs

[2:39:36] They're also available for the homeowners, without the correct.

[2:39:42] Well, that would be correct if at some point in time somebody wanted to propose a detached

[2:39:50] accessory dwelling unit, not to exceed 1200 square feet or an attached to you at this point

[2:39:57] in time this project is not proposing any ADUs.

[2:40:01] Right, but that is, um, that is by right in the future.

[2:40:08] I would assume, correct.

[2:40:10] Correct.

[2:40:16] Thank you.

[2:40:29] Okay.

[2:40:29] It looks like we have more comments from the public.

[2:40:34] So, um, I will open the hearing.

[2:40:45] The multi-generational suite.

[2:40:47] That's more than one family.

[2:40:49] It could be my children, my adult children and myself.

[2:40:52] That's two families in a single home.

[2:40:58] All right. Thank you again.

[2:41:03] So back to the commission.

[2:41:47] All right, but what do we have anything to discuss here?

[2:41:57] There's nothing on it that I can question that's not already falls within the exemptions and the requests for the exemptions.

[2:42:06] on my legal risk expertise, which is minimal, I don't know how to speak to anything that

[2:42:14] is any indifferent than the conversation we had on the earlier item.

[2:42:42] What do my colleagues have to say?

[2:42:46] Yeah, I mean, I'm more comfortable with this than with the other item, because we've dealt with plenty of tentative track maps.

[2:42:56] And I want to understand the HDB law, as it pertain to this type of development better.

[2:43:08] And so, yeah, my concerns are more with that.

[2:43:14] But the HOA issue, I think, still is overhangs this, because of 35 unit numbers.

[2:43:23] member HOA, you know, is maybe not feasible.

[2:43:31] So I don't know.

[2:43:34] If I could, the only common I have, and Heidi brought that up, that's one of the things

[2:43:38] that was kind of just, I've bought two homes, both were new homes, and yes, the developer, they

[2:43:47] did a great job.

[2:43:48] They told me how soon I was able to do all the great things with it, when the development

[2:43:51] that was done two years later, you would never know that you bought the home from.

[2:43:58] And the HOA is an entity that is legal in and of itself, and it's just putting a lot

[2:44:05] on an HOA to manage that and the ability of a deed to be able to reinforce the rights

[2:44:14] of the very low-income housing units.

[2:44:19] I guess, it's a concern, it's a reality,

[2:44:24] but there's a lot of trust, and then unfortunately

[2:44:26] the city has to, maybe that's an item, Ms. Colleta.

[2:44:30] The city has to start enforcing these and observing them and policing these items as they

[2:44:36] continue to grow.

[2:44:38] It's a lot for the city to take on, and maybe that's an item that could be questioned.

[2:44:45] I'm not going to say no.

[2:44:45] So, since we've talked about HOA sizes here, you know, as they relate to certain developments, I guess they're currently as no or.

[2:45:05] That's correct. And so, if the commission or the council has questions about something like that, then that, you know, because I know we've had other developments. What was that? One that was maybe nine or ten units that proposed?

[2:45:25] Yeah, but you have to remember on that one, the streets were public and so it was only the water quality basin and it was a valid

[2:45:36] Conversation to have about why are you just creating an HOA for the basin and so the LMD can absorb it and the developer was willing to do that annex into the CFD add that to the cost of the home that was reasonable, but it was a public street, so that made sense.

[2:45:53] We would do that same thing here, but the issue is that it's a private street and it's a standard that does not meet our public street standard.

[2:46:08] Okay. Well, yeah, we continue to discuss where we come up with a motion.

[2:46:18] I mean, I wonder if if the track map with the private streets, because I mean, I didn't see the way.

[2:46:33] but that's kind of what necessitates the HOA.

[2:46:38] And I don't know if the waiver, the waiver of,

[2:46:42] well, those streets, that, that will rates the fact

[2:46:45] that it makes in a private street, which then requires it

[2:46:49] to be an HOA.

[2:46:50] So I wonder, he was by right, because of the state law, right.

[2:46:54] And so I wonder if the viability of that, you know,

[2:46:58] I mean,

[2:47:02] because obviously

[2:47:07] there's also the selling point of not wanting the HOA fee to be

[2:47:14] any higher than it needs to be, but is this, is that a legal issue?

[2:47:23] Because those HOA fees

[2:47:24] would be put on to the low-income buyers as well as the parking lot buyers.

[2:47:29] low income units. That's the

[2:47:32] prohibitive of the home buyer. If they

[2:47:34] want to buy a house that has

[2:47:36] for X amount of $2 million in the

[2:47:40] HOA is $1,000 a month, that's their

[2:47:42] choice to do that when they buy it.

[2:47:45] You know, I'm kind of separating the

[2:47:46] density agreement and all that, just

[2:47:48] looking at it as a development. If they

[2:47:51] can afford it and they choose to do that,

[2:47:55] then that's there. I guess what I'm saying is

[2:47:57] the HOA, when it starts out and everything's brand new, they're their liability, their exposure

[2:48:08] is low, but sure, two, three, four, ten years down the road, then you have that's when you

[2:48:15] have an assessment and you have a one time assessment or an annual increase in the HOA,

[2:48:21] and again, that goes back to, unfortunately, only in a home, you do know that going into

[2:48:27] that you had that question. Is it disclosed to the other 33 homeowners that there are potentially two homeowners that might not be able to carry their weight in the HOA?

[2:48:42] I, that's not a requirement of the city. I don't know what the builder is doing, but I do not believe that that is something that has to be.

[2:48:51] It's actually not a requirement that it be noticed to other buyers.

[2:48:57] And the way it was explained was that the HOA costs are not worked into the affordability aspect, the calculations.

[2:49:13] Oh, I thought they were, but like, special assessments when they have to do something, eight years from now probably aren't.

[2:49:20] Yeah, it was mentioned that the HOA would have be reduced amount for the low income.

[2:49:30] But the taxes is a regular assessment because that's done by the county that has nothing to do with the city or the developer.

[2:49:44] Okay. Well,

[2:49:50] do we want to make a motion with a similar,

[2:49:56] you know, writer attached to it?

[2:50:05] So, I guess that would be, if we're following the model from the last item that we would make a motion to approve the tentative track map with the, you know, the note that

[2:50:29] that there are potentially some pitfalls here with the.

[2:50:34] Yeah, I think you could just state that

[2:50:37] Although that made it go more toward the housing agreement when you when you get down to most of the waivers are related to the tenant TTM

[2:50:46] right it's setbacks lot sizes and so forth and so just

[2:50:51] I don't know I'm not telling you how to do your motion, but

[2:50:54] the recommendation is that this is now the intended track map is now the

[2:51:00] reality of the

[2:51:03] 13

[2:51:07] I guess

[2:51:15] we made the commission the motion that passed with the agreement had the objections in it and it's sort of redundant attaching it here.

[2:51:28] I think so.

[2:51:30] Okay.

[2:51:31] I'm not speaking for you.

[2:51:34] Yeah, as I said, I mean, I'm more comfortable with the idea of this track map, even though

[2:51:42] I wasn't comfortable with completely agreement, but I understand the process of creating

[2:51:49] the track maps better.

[2:51:51] And so in the context of that the agreement has been approved and recommended to Council,

[2:51:59] I will make a motion to approve the track map.

[2:52:02] All second that. Okay, then we'll vote.

[2:52:21] Okay, motion passes next. We have the precise plan item number six.

[2:52:28] Pp 2023-009. We did hear from Ms. Lopez on that as well. Although I guess I would like to maybe revisit that part of the presentation since it's been quite a while.

[2:52:44] and we've had quite a bit of discussion just to,

[2:52:47] for a bit of a refresher if you don't mind.

[2:53:00] Do you want to go back all the way from the beginning

[2:53:02] or maybe start at the site plan?

[2:53:06] Oh, yeah, this isn't really just architectural design

[2:53:09] and layout, right, that part of it.

[2:53:12] OK.

[2:53:14] So as we commissioned May recall, this is a 9.33-acre parcel,

[2:53:20] and it is being subdivided into 35 single-family

[2:53:24] lots with lettered lots for the water quality basin for the private street as well as for the landscape portions.

[2:53:35] Five of the lots of fronting or toward the southern portion of the site plan will be reserved for approximately 15,600 to

[2:53:47] 19,500 square foot parcels and these homes are approximately 39,301 square feet and they consist

[2:53:57] of one story dwelling units. The remainder of the 30 homes will essentially be two story homes

[2:54:06] and they will average from 32,31 square feet to approximately 34,100 square feet.

[2:54:20] Let's see if I can

[2:54:21] last. Okay, here we go. So this is the plan one that was being proposed and this is one of the two

[2:54:29] story homes. It features four bedrooms, three and a half baths and it includes as a multi-gen

[2:54:37] suite. There's an option also of the buyer does not want the multi-gen suite and it would be a

[2:54:50] or it sees me planned too is also a two-story home and it includes five bedrooms with four and

[2:54:57] half baths. This one also includes a multi-gen suite. However, there's the option of having a

[2:55:06] den on the first floor and this one includes a two-car garage and they call it another parking

[2:55:18] One car garage, however, does not meet the minimum parking stall size of 9 by 20.

[2:55:25] So it is essentially, I believe we do have a condition in there, the conditions of approval

[2:55:30] that the applicant re-worded that to a storage area, because the municipal code does not

[2:55:38] for compact parking for residential in residential garages. And then this plant three, which is a

[2:55:47] one story, this one actually does feature three-car garage with a tandem fourth parking space.

[2:55:54] So this one would be essentially equipped with a four-car garage. And this includes a den on on the

[2:56:03] floor plan with an option of a multi-gen suite.

[2:56:07] This particular square footage is 3,900 square feet.

[2:56:13] These are the elevations there.

[2:56:15] The applicant does propose in the city of Corona,

[2:56:19] residential design guidelines, does require

[2:56:22] at minimum three different elevations or floor plans.

[2:56:27] And so the applicant is proposing a modern prairie,

[2:56:31] a cottage, and a farmhouse design.

[2:56:33] and your packet also includes within the precise plan,

[2:56:38] a color materials sheet, identifying the types

[2:56:43] of materials, the roofing material will, of course,

[2:56:46] be all light concrete tile roofing,

[2:56:50] the cottage elevation features brick sighting,

[2:56:56] the farmhouse features,

[2:57:01] faux wood sighting, or it's kind of a board and baton type of sighting, the entry door.

[2:57:10] It has different colors, of course, throughout the various elevations.

[2:57:16] There are different roof colors as well to match the exterior colors of the home and

[2:57:24] the trim as well, modern Prairie elevation features the stone veneer, as well as light concrete

[2:57:33] tile riffing, horizontal sighting, and Steko, just colored Steko exterior, on all three

[2:57:44] of the elevation.

[2:57:50] This is a view of the landscape plan. So the landscaping does have to

[2:57:55] comply with the city's landscape design guidelines, the city's residential landscape design

[2:57:59] guidelines which essentially feature front yard landscaping that's drought tolerant

[2:58:07] per the state of California requirements include shade trees and within the density

[2:58:16] or it exceeds me within the water detention basin on Lot B, the applicant is proposing

[2:58:23] outside of the tension basin, a barbecue area for the residents. It would also be a kind

[2:58:30] of a passive green space there on Lot B for the residents to utilize. Some of the street improvements

[2:58:39] are part of the street improvements along Garrett's and Avenue are going to be that the applicant

[2:58:44] and provide full improvements, which includes sidewalk landscape parkway as well as a landscape buffer

[2:58:53] between the parcels, the three parcels within the track and the sidewalk.

[2:59:03] The plan also features a stamped entry, stamped and stained entry areas or driveways within the private street.

[2:59:12] and let's see if I have within the, oh, I didn't, okay, it was omitted here from our slide, but

[2:59:22] see if I have my pointer works, oops, sorry. I was just going to point out, I think my pointer is

[2:59:29] not working, but I was just going to point out that at the entrances of both private streets,

[2:59:36] there is a low wall. I believe it's the total of, uh, not to exceed two feet thereabouts,

[2:59:41] So it's just an entry name for the, for this particular development.

[2:59:47] But the walls would be all split face around the perimeter, around the interior of the parcels as well.

[2:59:54] And then of course, along Garrett's in Avenue, it would be a decorative wall to match the...

[3:00:00] The wall that's on the south of the, of this particular property, which is the village too wall in the South Carolina Community Facilities Plan.

[3:00:12] I think that was pretty much it.

[3:00:17] Okay, good. Thank you for walking us through that. Again, I'm just one, one thing that came up when you were looking at the landscaping there.

[3:00:30] So, we have the lot B at the front of the complex, which is, I guess, a common area for all the residents, and then we have that other green space in the back.

[3:00:42] But I'm guessing that is essentially the front yard for house number 10. Is that it?

[3:00:53] House number 10 is that the lot that's adjacent to the parcel B?

[3:00:57] though the one at no up in the back corner there the top right corner is

[3:01:02] a house number ten I think okay that is actually yes that is the

[3:01:07] it's a little bit interesting but that's part of the front yard of that lot

[3:01:11] ten so that's not that is enjoyed only by lot ten so that's what I've shared

[3:01:16] green space right that's what I thought

[3:01:20] so they have that one house gets a big big front yard okay

[3:01:25] do we have any questions for that slide up so the retention basin top left corner item 19 so that

[3:01:33] is a clear fried that's a usable area so is it a grass retention area that can be used for

[3:01:38] plain and oh it is okay so it's not just a retention basin and correct it's a multi multi use so if you

[3:01:45] look at the tentative I know it's a tentative track map but on sheet two of the tentative track map there

[3:01:51] is a detail that shows that that detention basin will be underground, so there will be grass

[3:01:57] on the top, and then the actual detention basin is located below the proposed sod.

[3:02:06] And so that's also then that's the main team, the HOA.

[3:02:10] Correct.

[3:02:11] Part semi-park area.

[3:02:20] Miss Lucas, and maybe this is also the applicant.

[3:02:25] you mentioned about the non-standard garage size.

[3:02:33] Why would that not be a requirement instead of

[3:02:37] renaming it? Why wouldn't we stipulate that that be made in official garage?

[3:02:44] You know, it was mentioned previously by Ms. Coleta and the Commission. The code only requires a two-car

[3:02:54] garage. And so, I think while the applicant's intention was good, in terms of calling it

[3:03:02] a tandem parking space or garage, it doesn't meet the code requirements. And the applicant

[3:03:10] did not request a waiver to reduce that. And so, you know, we are essentially just stating

[3:03:17] that they keep it as a storage, because they do have the option of either a tandem or a storage.

[3:03:22] But because they were meeting the minimum code requirements,

[3:03:27] we didn't stipulate that they had to make it a full-sized garage.

[3:03:31] We just notified them that it couldn't be used technically.

[3:03:36] They couldn't use the term tandem garage or tandem part.

[3:03:39] That even means on the assessment, they could not count it as a garage.

[3:03:42] That's correct.

[3:03:44] Thank you.

[3:03:55] Any questions for staff?

[3:03:57] No questions?

[3:03:58] Okay.

[3:03:59] I've had all my questions answered, as well, but actually, so I guess what I was one thing

[3:04:07] I noticed was the three styles of homes for the ex-seriors, and to me, the farmhouse

[3:04:18] style seemed very unusual for what we have in Corona.

[3:04:22] I don't maybe other commissioners, do you recall that seeing that on other developments in

[3:04:28] years.

[3:04:32] Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't matter that much. I think that's just one minor point on

[3:04:40] on this, but I just caught my eye. So I have no further questions for staff and then I guess we will

[3:04:46] have a public hearing. Were there any items specifically? Do we have cards turned in? Or speakers

[3:04:54] who have not turned in cards should make their way to the front to be able to speak about this?

[3:05:09] I could even encounter my name as Tom Cardina Si, live right up against, I live on CL

[3:05:15] Fleming, right up against the project, my only concern that they haven't really discussed

[3:05:20] it is about the fencing,

[3:05:24] what I understand, looking at the plans, it's going to be inside

[3:05:27] the wall that we have, the existing all around the perimeter.

[3:05:31] So we need to look from my side, you can see two walls, which is not going to look good.

[3:05:38] And also, if it's going to be a gap, which I think there is, there could be critters and

[3:05:44] verments or whatever of living in there, and the wall is only going to be six feet tall, and my wall is about five foot four.

[3:05:54] So it's going to be a little bit higher, but it's not going to look, you know, aesthetically look good.

[3:06:00] So I'm proposing if they do put the inside wall, which will look nice, they should remove all the

[3:06:07] all around it. And that way a little look good for everybody and for the neighborhood and

[3:06:14] everybody would like that better. That's all I'd say. And oh, and the wall should be higher

[3:06:19] than six feet. At least I'm my side. There are going to be single story, but maybe at least

[3:06:27] like seven feet, I would say, but it's up to the engineer and them to look at that.

[3:06:35] So that's my

[3:06:39] If I could ask you about the fence, you're your wall, I guess, what is your wall made out of what Masonry and Stucco, or it's block, block.

[3:06:50] So the other option would be if they had an engineer to come out there and maybe build it higher, but I don't know.

[3:06:58] It looks solid, but you have to be engineered, but with what they're proposing.

[3:07:03] if they want to put a wall all the way in the inside and then leave the rest of the existing wall,

[3:07:09] you're going to have two walls for all the residents to look at from that. That's what I'm saying,

[3:07:15] and it should be higher. I'm curious why are they not sharing that wall? Why are the site?

[3:07:22] I mean, the site is at a lower elevation. So this project site is going to be lower than the

[3:07:33] like your property wall should just be matching the existing.

[3:07:36] They should all just be a buddy like we do.

[3:07:38] There's no reason to build two of budding walls.

[3:07:45] So yeah, that's a good point.

[3:07:46] I mean, it's just looking at it.

[3:07:48] I don't know if these were individually developed homes

[3:07:51] or if the joining ones were developed.

[3:07:52] They were, I believe, frame right homes.

[3:07:56] And then they would have been built to the standard

[3:07:57] for the community.

[3:08:34] So Ms. Lopez, do you know, then are there walls already

[3:08:39] then on all three sides of the of the of the project along and fliming along

[3:08:50] twinly freight and then on the north side or of which which about the other house.

[3:08:57] I believe they're they're existing walls along the southern and the eastern property lines

[3:09:02] along the northern property line. I believe I recall seeing chain length fencing.

[3:09:08] Well, there's just, I think the one, one house, maybe.

[3:09:17] Probably pull up the, oh, we didn't have a street view.

[3:09:22] Yeah, I believe the northern part, the northern, the northern property line is just a,

[3:09:31] it's an, if I'm not mistaken, I believe it was part,

[3:09:36] CMU wall, and then chain link, if I'm not mistaken.

[3:09:41] Okay, so I guess specifically on the, it would be more of an issue along the houses on Fleming

[3:09:51] and potentially on Twin Leaf because we don't know the elevation, although it probably goes

[3:09:59] from higher lower as you move more.

[3:10:02] The way that this grading line looks, the project site is going to be lower than the

[3:10:11] So what I would, if you can allow us to do that, really, if there are existing perimeter

[3:10:17] block walls that are already constructed by prior developments, those get to stay in place

[3:10:21] and they get to be utilized along the north property line, if there is no block wall, then

[3:10:27] they will be adding a block wall, which makes sense.

[3:10:30] So let us go back and take a look at that and then it's the side yard walls that will match

[3:10:35] to the existing walls.

[3:10:39] The return walls will match to the perimeter wall.

[3:10:42] Right.

[3:10:43] Okay.

[3:10:44] I understand.

[3:10:46] But these houses are lower, so they do have a sloping condition to wear.

[3:10:50] These paths are going to be lower than the adjacent paths.

[3:10:53] Understood.

[3:10:55] Okay.

[3:10:58] And so then we heard from the one public speaker where there are any other public speakers at this point.

[3:11:05] We have the applicant coming back.

[3:11:09] to just to speak on the walls. So there is no wall on the northern property line. There's some

[3:11:15] chain link fence and then it's open for probably the last two thirds of it, so we'll build

[3:11:18] building you all there. The wall along CL climbing is actually really short on our sides,

[3:11:23] I think you can see right over it, so our proposal is to build that up to a six foot standard.

[3:11:26] I don't think it's at a six foot standard at this point, which is why I think Mr. Cardions is asking

[3:11:30] for a taller wall. So we don't control the property on either sides, so we want to build

[3:11:35] are well inside those areas, a lot of those property owners have landscaping, they also have

[3:11:42] other pictures that are up against those walls that we don't want to mess with when

[3:11:46] it turns out to take them down. So that's why we're proposing the wall solely on our property.

[3:11:50] If those property owners want to take their wall down at that point, it would be totally sound,

[3:11:53] but we don't want to mess or add to an existing wall from the engineering perspective.

[3:11:57] We want to kind of build within our own property line. So if they took their wall down,

[3:12:01] And they'd actually probably get six or 12 inches of extra yard space when they do that, but

[3:12:06] we'll build the wall.

[3:12:08] So there's also, if we're lower, we might have to retain a little bit of that soil.

[3:12:12] So that's why we need to build the walls.

[3:12:14] It would be odd, though, as the public commons stated, to have a gap.

[3:12:19] That's just not a standard practice.

[3:12:22] I think this should be an item that planning that you and planning could work out.

[3:12:28] In the past, we've had, you know, it may make sense for all of the homeowners that are on LCLO to work with you to come up with an agreeable plan, or then have to get all the walls treated, right?

[3:12:42] That's been a normal practice.

[3:12:44] Right, we've had this come up before where we, you know, we're not thrilled with the idea of two walls, whether they're a budding or a gap between it, and it's understandable that the residents are concerned.

[3:12:57] So. Yeah.

[3:13:00] Okay. Anything else we want to know from the applicant,

[3:13:03] Molly's here? No. Okay. Good. Then we will close the public hearing. I guess we

[3:13:09] have another another speaker who would like to speak.

[3:13:14] So we'll keep the public

[3:13:15] hearing open for one more speaker.

[3:13:22] Good evening. Oh, it's a good night now. So I

[3:13:26] live in CL Fleming. My concern is same. We are both neighbors and our

[3:13:31] in the same like if they're making up we already have a wall it's like just this

[3:13:36] height it's not that tall but if we have a tall wall then we have two walls yeah

[3:13:41] and that wall is now it's a block wall but I don't think it's that strong to build a

[3:13:45] wall on top of that and like he's saying that he's gonna build up a wall and then

[3:13:49] we can take around that's more money for me to put that on to call somebody to take

[3:13:55] that we all down, because aesthetically, it's not going to look good.

[3:14:00] And those houses at sea of Fleming are mostly the houses that has all the view of the mountains.

[3:14:07] So we are already losing the view, but now we have to look at two walls.

[3:14:13] So that's what we're concerned.

[3:14:15] Thank you.

[3:14:16] Good.

[3:14:16] Thank you.

[3:14:18] All right.

[3:14:19] So we will close the public hearing.

[3:14:20] Okay, no.

[3:14:28] Are you in the seeker?

[3:14:30] I'm on Twin Leaf.

[3:14:32] Our block wall goes up from the base about this high.

[3:14:39] And that's where their properties at,

[3:14:40] and it goes up six feet.

[3:14:43] I wouldn't mind sharing my wall with the developer.

[3:14:46] I really don't want space in between,

[3:14:48] because there is a ton of critters coming off that field.

[3:14:52] And once you give them space in a place to live,

[3:14:54] you're never going to get rid of it. So just share my wall.

[3:15:01] And I think my other neighbors might feel the same way, but you have to check that out. Okay.

[3:15:07] Okay. Thank you.

[3:15:12] All right. I think everybody's spoken. Who's still remaining? So we will close the public hearing.

[3:15:18] And then let's talk about it here. The issue of the walls.

[3:15:23] I mean, I mean, maybe there's a way to have the developer work with the neighbors to connect their walls to their brand new wall or something like that. I don't know, it's throwing that out.

[3:15:39] Yeah, I think that's appropriate. I think that I don't even know if it needs to be a condition of approval, but I just think it should be a watch out, as we've done in the past that the developer needs to directly work with every single neighbor that they're adjoining.

[3:15:52] and to develop a plan at developers cost to address those concerns.

[3:16:05] All right, Ms. Collette, is that enough for you?

[3:16:13] And then do we make the motion that, as is, that doesn't need any further that can be handled by staff?

[3:16:20] Or do we need any some conditions?

[3:16:22] I just want to add it as a condition.

[3:16:24] and then you can make that motion with the condition or if you're giving us that information.

[3:16:30] All offer a motion to approve the precise plan in 2023-09, but the condition that a

[3:16:39] a minimal agreement between the developer and all the joining neighbors in Twin Leaf and I think

[3:16:45] you said LCLO or C L Fleming? Yes, C L Fleming that it is a reasonable plan.

[3:16:54] I was like it. Okay, we have a motion that's been seconded in and we will vote.

[3:17:07] Okay, motion passes.

[3:17:08] So that, that is all of our public hearings for the night, miss,

[3:17:21] have we received any, have

[3:17:28] we received any written communications from persons providing information or seeking action from the planning and housing commission?

[3:17:36] We have not sure, Woody. Okay.

[3:17:38] Um, um, they're in, uh,

[3:17:41] this miscola to have anything else to share with us tonight.

[3:17:44] No other items.

[3:17:46] All right. Anything from other commissioners or myself?

[3:17:50] No.

[3:17:52] Okay. Well, then, uh,

[3:17:54] with that, we will be adjourned. Our next planning housing commission scheduled for Monday, September 9th.

[3:18:01] Let's all.

Planning and Housing Commission on 2024-08-26 6:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript