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

[0:08] 2-1.
[0:11] All right, we'll call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Antica. September 3rd, 2026. Roll call, please. Commissioner Sock.
[0:23] Here. Passack. Here. You're here. Vice Chair, he minutes. Chair Coleman. Here. Thank you. That takes us to flag salute. Commissioner Sock, would you lead us today?
[0:55] Thank you. All right, that takes us to a gender review and supplemental reports. Madam Clerk, are there any chair?
[1:02] There are no changes to the agenda or supplemental reports tonight.
[1:04] Chair Coleman, there are no changes to the agenda and there was a total of five supplemental reports provided for item D2 with a supplemental to as well.
[1:13] Supplemental reports were provided to the Planning Commission prior to the start of the meeting.
[1:17] Copies are on the table, located to the rear of the council chambers and available to the public.
[1:21] Thank you.
[1:23] All right, that moves us on to public comment.
[1:25] This portion of the agenda is reserved for persons desiring to address the commission on matters not listed on the agenda tonight, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the planning commission.
[1:34] Speakers are limited to three minutes consistent with city policy regarding public comment and brown act meetings.
[1:40] Prior to public comment, the commission by motion and vote may extend or shorten the length of public comment consistent with city policy regarding public comment and brown act meetings.
[1:48] The law does not permit commission action or any extended discussion on any item not listed on the agenda.
[1:55] If commission action is requested, the matter may be placed on a subsequent agenda subject to commission consensus.
[2:01] Madam Clerk.
[2:04] We did not receive early submissions for public comment.
[2:07] Chair at this time you may call for public comment via Zoom webinar or in person for items not on the agenda.
[2:12] Public comments can be made on Zoom webinar by using the raise your hand feature or by pressing star nine on the line.
[2:19] All right, thank you. Do we have any hands raised on Zoom tonight?
[2:26] We do have one hand raised on Zoom chair. It's Sitalker. Thank you.
[2:33] Sorry, Sudakar.
[2:36] Sudakar, can you hear us?
[2:39] Yes, are you able to hear me?
[2:45] Yes, we'll start your three minutes.
[2:47] Okay. Yeah. Hi. Good evening. Planning Commission and fellow residents. Thank you for the
[2:55] opportunity. Today, this is regarding the June 18th Planning Commission meeting that happened
[3:04] for a 0.82 acre of PQP to HDR conversion. At that time the city representative said it was
[3:17] the school district that is giving the land to the private developer that city is just executing
[3:26] the agreement between this school district and the planning commission. So I raised a
[3:34] The public request in the city of Mantika website, but it was requesting that agreement
[3:44] on what basis the zoning conversion is being happening.
[3:49] But the request was closed with updating only the agenda item documents, not any agreement
[3:57] between the school district and the private apartment developers.
[4:03] and I called the city and reopened it, but it was closed again the same time.
[4:09] Why is the transparency and accountability missing when in these transactions that is
[4:19] a public site and also I request to have a new zoning code for MUSD versus the PQP city.
[4:33] So that people will transparently know what land is actually getting reduced.
[4:40] It was said that PQP is increasing. If PQP is increasing, it should increase by 2 a care, not by 1 a care.
[4:49] because fire station is two acre land that means it should be 15.87 plus two 17.87 but what is happening
[5:00] The PQP of MUSD is getting reduced from 15.87 to 14.87, and then the two acres getting added for the fire station. Since the city always claims that MUSD is a different entity, let's have a different zoning code for PQP MUSD and PQP.
[5:29] city so that people have a transparent and information that is available. Thank you for your time.
[5:40] Thank you.
[5:43] I don't quite do we have any other hands raised on Zoom.
[5:47] And no Chair, we do not. We have no comment cards. No comment cards, Chair. Okay.
[5:52] Anyone in the audience wish to address the planning commission on any item not on the agenda?
[5:56] that may do so right now, all right?
[6:00] Being no hands, we'll move on to item B,
[6:04] disclosure of ex-partake communications.
[6:07] At this time, we ask the members of the Planning Commission
[6:10] to disclose any communications they have had
[6:12] with project applicants or members of the public
[6:15] regarding items on this evening's agenda.
[6:18] All right, thank you.
[6:20] Do any commissioners have any items
[6:21] to disclose as part of ex-partake communications?
[6:25] We'll start with Commissioner Sock.
[6:28] No, Commissioner Fiori.
[6:30] No.
[6:31] Commissioner Paslach.
[6:32] No.
[6:33] Vice Chair Jimenez.
[6:34] No.
[6:35] And I have none as well.
[6:36] Thank you.
[6:38] All right.
[6:39] Exist on to consent items.
[6:41] Matters listed under consent are considered routine
[6:43] and will be enacted by one motion and one vote.
[6:46] There will be no separate discussion of these matters.
[6:48] If discussion is desired, a member of the audience
[6:51] or a commission member may request
[6:52] that an item be removed from consent.
[6:54] And it will be considered separately.
[6:57] Madam Clerk, do we have any requests from the public to pull the consent item tonight?
[7:01] No, Chair.
[7:02] We do not.
[7:03] Thank you.
[7:04] Any commissioners wish to pull the consent item tonight for discussion?
[7:11] I will pull the consent item tonight for discussion.
[7:13] The consent item is item C1-26-342, review and approve the planning commission meeting minutes
[7:19] for August 6th, 2026.
[7:22] Commissioner Sock was not in attendance for that meeting, so I just want to confirm for
[7:27] the record, Commissioner Sock, and be able to vote on this item, have you confirmed
[7:31] that you've read the minutes and watched the meeting from August 6? No? Okay. Thank
[7:38] you for confirming that for the record.
[7:42] At this time, if there's no other discussion
[7:45] on this item,
[7:48] okay. And we'll call for a vote. Is there a motion and a second to approve
[7:51] all items listed under the consent calendar as presented?
[7:58] We have a motion by Commissioner Biori and a second by Vice Chair Jimenez to approve the consent item tonight. All those will vote in favor. We'll say aye.
[8:07] Aye.
[8:09] Any opposed? Any abstentions?
[8:14] Commissioner Salkin, you confirm your vote. Sorry.
[8:18] Okay. Motion passes 5-0. Thank you.
[8:27] All right. It takes us on to the public hearings. Madam Clerk, item D1.
[8:30] Item D1 24-416 planning commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution
[8:37] of proving a one-year extension for site plan and design review SPC 23-04 and conditional
[8:45] use permit UPJ-23-05 for the Cottage Court storage project located at 1280 Cottage Court
[8:53] APN 208-260-22, Associate Planner, Tobin Barman will be presenting this item.
[9:01] Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the Commission.
[9:05] Associate Planner, Tobin Barman, the request before you, this evening is a four-a-one-year extension
[9:09] of an approved entitlement of Site Planner Review and Conditionary Use Permit for the Cottage Court Storage Project.
[9:15] A quick overview, this is a one year extension request for the approved 311 unit personal storage facility with a manager's office in an RV trailer parking area.
[9:28] Project site's 4.29 acres 55,000 square feet of structure on that site and it's located at 1-280 cottage court.
[9:36] should be noted at this time that during the review the entitlement extension request staff identified an administrative discrepancy
[9:46] between the approved planning commission staff report and resolution and which and pardon me, which was dated June 20th, 2024
[9:55] and the approved project plans.
[10:00] After an extensive internal and external review of the plans submitted with this extension application, it is the determination of staff that the plans are identical to the plans that reviewed and approved by resolution of the City of Manthiga Planning Commission on June 20, 2024. And therefore it's in substantial conformance. Further description and analysis of this whole process and the review is available in the agenda report for this item. The requested entitlement, again,
[10:29] is a one-year extension of an approved site plan and design review, specifically site
[10:34] plan review 2304 and conditionally used permit UPJ 23-05.
[10:42] This is a glimpse of the site plan,
[10:44] it's a personal storage facility with 10 standard parking stalls and 72 RV stalls 311 storage units,
[10:53] perimeter and frontage landscaping and a motorized front gate for security.
[10:58] So the recommendation from staff is that the planning commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution approving a one-year extension to the site plan and design review and can initially use permit for cottage court storage project.
[11:11] That does conclude my presentation. The applicant team are available by Zoom this evening.
[11:18] They were not able to make it to the chambers but they are attending virtually and staff is here to answer any questions you may have.
[11:24] Thank you. Thank you. Any commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff tonight before we hear from the applicant?
[11:33] No questions?
[11:35] All right. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation via Zoom tonight?
[11:43] Chair, I don't see them online via Zoom.
[11:46] Very good.
[11:51] They are on the other end.
[12:12] Chair, to my understanding, there are three members of the applicant team who are attending virtually in the waiting room for Zoom.
[12:21] Do
[12:37] you pack are you able to hear us
[12:42] if
[12:49] the applicant's online if you which just be at this time you may do so we'll begin your five minutes you
[13:07] don't have to be admitted.
[13:09] Sorry chair. We're just having issues the hands raised on that screen are not represented on mine so I'm not able to pull them up on my end as it right now.
[13:16] All right, very good. We'll just hold tight a minute here
[13:59] Jim David or us if you can hear me there is also a phone number available in the link that you'll provide it. I believe you might be able to call in if you want to try that option.
[14:22] Okay, we're in receipt of the message saying that they're going to try to call in.
[14:26] We'll hold on a second here and wait.
[14:34] here. Perhaps we can move on to comment within the audience and then return to the zoom
[14:39] if we can facilitate the process.
[14:46] We can do that. We have to open the public hearing
[14:47] first before we hear comment from the audience. That correct, city attorney. Yes. Very
[14:53] good. All right, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing in this item at 6.15 pm while
[14:57] I'll be waiting for the applicant to get them.
[15:00] Online. Do we have any, there I ask, hands raised on Zoom for comment or any, any comment, cards?
[15:13] Sorry, Chair, we have no comment cards for this one. I'm meeting.
[15:22] All right,
[15:38] is the applicant available? Can you hear us now? Please enter the meeting passcode, followed by a pound. We can hear you guys, but you guys can't hear us. We can hear you now. Yes.
[15:50] all right David you're up buddy they can hear us now can you hear me we got you
[15:58] we'll start your five minutes go ahead okay hi I'm David Spago part of the
[16:04] applicant team we concur with everything that was presented by staff we are
[16:13] asking for the one-year extension the project has taken a lot of time it has
[16:19] has been especially difficult because of the water storage that was there.
[16:25] We only recently had the plan approved.
[16:28] We are currently working with Oak Valley Community Bank on a construction loan.
[16:34] The development team has used them before.
[16:37] We are highly confident that we'll be able to move forward.
[16:41] The lender needs all of the approved plans.
[16:44] remaining project documents before ordering the appraisal. Once the appraisals
[16:50] received we and all of our paperwork has been turned in for personal
[16:55] information. We anticipate approximately 90 days to process the construction
[17:01] loan. We anticipate aggressively fourth quarter, probably more realistic first
[17:09] quarter of next year to get it done.
[17:14] In addition to that, we've had, you know, numerous delays
[17:19] in plan check, complexity of the project, significant underground drainage systems, cross
[17:25] approximately 50 percent of the property. It took additional engineering, special attention
[17:31] during the plan review. We've utilized MCR engineering Marshall Swift, who's a local engineer
[17:38] who is familiar and he was the second one that we use because he has more specialty with
[17:46] the issues that we had. And after numerous years, we think we're there just subject to
[17:54] getting the extension from the planning commission.
[18:00] Very good. Thank you, sir. This is real quickly what we have. You can, you confirm that you've read
[18:06] the conditions of approval for this project that remain on your agreement with those conditions.
[18:10] Yes, we are. Very good. Thank you, sir. While we have the applicant, are there any questions from any commissioners for the applicant tonight?
[18:19] No questions, no questions. Okay, hang on the line, sir. While we open the public hearing for public comment, just in case we need you. Okay, sure. Thank you.
[18:27] All right, we've already opened the public hearing in this item. So we have any new hands raised on Zoom.
[18:35] No chair. I have no new hands raised on Zoom. Okay.
[18:38] Any members of the audience wish to address the commission on this item may do so now.
[18:45] All right. Seeing no hands, thank you very much. Since there's no hands and no public comment,
[18:52] we'll go ahead and there's no need for applicant rebuttal so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing
[18:56] on this item at 6.19 p.m. We'll bring it back to the commission for any other questions for staff
[19:03] at this time. Any other questions, staff from Ms. Neymar?
[19:10] Just to confirm, Mr. Bronham for the record, have the conditions of approval changed since the original approval in this project?
[19:18] There are some amended conditions, primarily formatting and timing language in the planning side.
[19:27] There are some additional, I believe some additional language from the engineering as well.
[19:30] All those have all been reviewed by the applicants and agreed upon by the applicants.
[19:37] So most of the revisions were primarily formatting and timing related.
[19:41] Okay.
[19:42] Very good.
[19:43] Thank you, sir.
[19:44] Mr. Fiori.
[19:48] If the scenario comes up again with the app, and there needs to be another extension, what
[19:55] would be is there of the possibility of another extension, in other words, in how long-
[20:00] How long would that be? Yeah, thank you, Mr. Fiori. There is, you can only get one, one year extension on your approved entitlement. That's per code. However, it toward the end of that time, if the applicant or developer wanted to modify their site plan to some extent, they could apply for a revised, do a revised site plan, or a modification of the site plan, which would then potentially give them an additional two years.
[20:30] but that again would have to come for the commission for approval so it's not an administrative
[20:35] type of a change. So that's the only option beyond the one year for an extension.
[20:41] Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff?
[20:47] So, John, the conditions are approval to take access in red. Is that considered a change?
[20:53] Those are the, that's the revised language, yes, Mr. Baslak. So anything in red would be revised
[20:58] from the original.
[21:01] Very good thank you. All right anything else can we call for a vote?
[21:06] All right
[21:11] very
[21:16] good okay thank you very much this time we'll call for a vote
[21:21] is there a motion in a second to adopt a resolution approving a one-year extension for site plan
[21:25] the desire review SPC 23-04 and conditional use permit UPJ-23-05 for the cottage court storage
[21:33] project located at 1280 cottage court APN 208-260-22. All right we have a motion for approval from
[21:46] Commissioner Paslach and a second from Commissioner Fiori all those in favor of votes say aye.
[21:52] Aye. Any opposed? Okay motion passes 5-0. Thank you very much. Thank you.
[22:03] All right Madam Clerk
[22:04] that takes us on to item D2.
[22:10] Item D2, 26-418, Planning Commission conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution
[22:16] approving a modification to the site plan and design review SPA-21-15 for the Union
[22:24] Crossing Apartments Project located at 13-08 West Atherton Drive, APN 226-160-44, Associate
[22:34] We get Planner Tobin-Barnam will be presenting this item.
[22:38] Good evening again, Chair, Vice Chair, Commission, Associate Planner Tobin-Barnam, this request is a site plan modification of an already approved entitlement that being a force union crossing apartments.
[22:54] In overview of the project, this is again a request for modification of an approved entitlement.
[22:58] The site is 12.78 acres with 300 residential units proposed in 15 multi-family buildings.
[23:06] The site also includes a clubhouse and a fitness center.
[23:10] The locations at 1308 West Atherton Drive, which is on the Southwest corner of the intersection of West Atherton Drive and South Union Road.
[23:20] The adjacent uses are seen here, single-family residential to the west, to the south, and across the street to the east, living spaces to the north.
[23:28] And then to the Northwest would be the Chevron gas station and the prominent shopping center and then further east along Atherton is very toss elementary school.
[23:39] The general plan designation and zoning are the same HDR general plan and are three high density residential zoning.
[23:47] They both explicitly call out high density residential as the preferred use so the project is approved and consistent with both zoning and designation.
[23:58] Requested entitlement, again, site plan modification.
[24:02] This is a previously approved site plan and design review entitlement SPA 21-15 to allow cosmetic changes to the clubhouse and fitness center exteriors and then to relocate the maintenance building and the dogwashing station from the entrance area to sites within the gated community.
[24:21] This is a glimpse of the proposed relocations, yellow is the maintenance building moving
[24:26] it east from its proposed from its approved location, pardon me, to a little bit further
[24:31] inside and away from the main entrance, and the red is the dogwashing station, which
[24:35] would move due south right up against where the dog park is located.
[24:41] And the resulting entrance change will look like this, it will be converted to open space
[24:47] toward the entrance.
[24:48] These
[24:52] are the approved elevations for the clubhouse and the fitness center.
[24:56] Very similar architecture to the apartments themselves.
[25:00] And this is what is proposed, sleek, and kind of mid-century modern type style, fresh, and fits with the overall aesthetic and the experience that developers hoping to provide for their residents and tenants.
[25:16] The project was originally approved by Planning Commission on June 16th, 2022, and extended for one year by Planning Commission on August 15th, 2024. The project and proposed changes are consistent with the general plan, the zoning for
[25:32] the site and with CEQA Article 10 Section 15162, Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations.
[25:40] On Tuesday, September 1st, staff received a written objection to the requested entitlement
[25:47] extension, citing inconsistencies in the resolution and some of the project descriptors.
[25:52] Staff carefully reviewed this letter and found it contains substantive insights that required
[25:57] a thorough response.
[25:58] The staff has provided a revised resolution and a memorandum as a supplement to this agenda item to address these concerns.
[26:06] The inconsistencies, although worthy of addressing, do not indicate a major change to the site plan or any of its critical elements or to the overall operation of the project.
[26:17] Additionally, there's no impact on the project's
[26:19] adopted secret documentation or analyses.
[26:22] The project, as presented, is consistent with the approved,
[26:25] with the exception of the requested modifications.
[26:29] And it meets all the findings to support staff's recommendation or approval.
[26:34] So with this in mind, staff recommends the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing,
[26:39] approve a modification to site plan and design review,
[26:42] SBC 21-15, or the Union Crossing apartments project located at 1308 West
[26:47] Atherton Drive that is at APN 226-160-44. That concludes my presentation.
[26:55] Staff is here for any questions you might have and the developer team is in the
[26:59] chambers with us this evening as well. Thank you, Commissioner.
[27:04] Thank you, sir. All right, at this time before we hear from the applicant do any
[27:09] commissioners have any clarifying questions for staff.
[27:20] I think I'm going to ask a couple
[27:21] now and then I have more later.
[27:25] Mr. Barnum, on the conditions of approval,
[27:29] page one,
[27:30] it lists the project expiration date of September 14th, 2026. It's in 11 days from now.
[27:39] And you confirm is that a typographical error? Should it be September 14th, 2028?
[27:48] the expiration? No, that is that's correct. December, please what it says. Chair, if I may
[27:57] help Mr. Barnum, that was a typographical error. The intent was that the correct expiration date
[28:04] would be the 2028 date. Okay, because it did reference that date on page two, I just wanted to confirm
[28:10] for the record that we have an accurate conditions of approval document. The approval date obviously is
[28:15] today pending approval of this modification today, but the expiration date will be 914-28.
[28:24] So if we seek passage of this motion, we will need to pass it with amended conditions of approval with a corrective date.
[28:31] That is correct, Chair.
[28:33] Thank you.
[28:37] You said it in your presentation, but just to confirm, the request here seems to be very narrow in scope.
[28:44] It keeps the previously approved 15 building apartment projects and tax changes simply the clubhouse and fitness center exterior treatment and relocating the maintenance building on the dog watching a state station.
[28:57] That's in summary. That's the just that's the essence of this modification. That is correct or cool and there's no there are no other modifications proposed.
[29:04] Oh, it's okay, very good.
[29:06] All right, I think those are the ones I want to ask
[29:08] before we hear from the applicant.
[29:11] The applicant, if you're available,
[29:13] we'd love to hear from you at this time.
[29:24] Thank you, sir.
[29:25] If you could state your name and title for the record, too.
[29:27] Appreciate it.
[29:28] Chris Kelly, architect with LPS Architects,
[29:32] representing Legacy Homes.
[29:37] Overall, it's really the same project as in the fact
[29:40] that it's 300 units yeah very tall overall it's it's similar in the fact that
[29:53] it's 300 units it's comprised of 15 buildings each with 20 units all with
[29:59] So
[30:00] Under garages, organized in much of the same way. We did revamped the entire, I guess, front entry elements, which is the clubhouse fitness building based on current desires from legacy homes as far as how they want to serve their residents. As Tobin stated, we moved the maintenance building to the back of house, and then also co-mingled the pet wash with the dog park.
[30:27] I think it's been a little while since I worked on it, but we increased the size of the
[30:34] amenities, we increased the size of the open space, but overall it has the same character.
[30:40] The architecture is a little different in appearance, there's more color added to it, but it's
[30:46] still a mix of plaster, exterior plaster, and then horizontal siding.
[30:53] As Tobin mentioned, the clubhouse building and fitness buildings are radically different.
[30:59] I didn't necessarily put together before and after, but in some of the documents you
[31:03] kind of see what was entitled and what was currently stated today.
[31:07] But we're available to answer any questions you may have.
[31:11] Thank you.
[31:11] Okay.
[31:13] Quickly off, right away, I just want to confirm your agreement with the conditions of approval
[31:18] for this project.
[31:19] Have you read them and you're confirmed to be in agreement with us?
[31:24] Yes, assuming obviously with a modified corrected expiration date of 2028, September.
[31:33] Can you just elaborate briefly on the reason for the change of the maintenance building and
[31:39] the dog station?
[31:41] What was the reason for the modification?
[31:42] Sure.
[31:43] I'd say it was originally designed by a different architect.
[31:46] So, just in conversations with ownership as far as property management, it was best to have the maintenance building kind of back of house away from the front entry away from leasing property management fitness clubhouse kind of your social amenities and to have it as more like a detached garage it's about a 400 square foot building.
[32:11] So think of it as a two-car garage as far as it made it's built in.
[32:17] And the original approval was four years ago.
[32:20] We had an extension and now a modification that will extend the time further.
[32:24] Is there a timeline for development that you're working with at this point?
[32:29] It
[32:35] takes you two of us to answer all the questions.
[32:37] Sure.
[32:38] Garrett with GHBR.
[32:40] For the timeline, I mean, obviously we still have a lot of code updates to do on our construction
[32:46] and drawings. The plans we currently have, we had full construction drawing sets under
[32:52] the 2022 code, never submitted them to the city because we obviously ran into some hiccups
[33:00] with some SSGID relocations. That's taken two seasons now and it took about 18 months to
[33:08] get a plan approval for that, which was required to be completed before we pulled from it.
[33:13] So with this modification it would allow us to complete the irrigation work this
[33:20] winter we would submit for building plans, construction drawings, start site
[33:27] development hopefully late next year and be able to pull a building permit either
[33:32] late 27 or early 28.
[33:35] Okay, thank you, sir.
[33:38] Any other commissioners have questions for the applicant tonight?
[33:40] All
[33:45] right. Very good. You're called. Chair Coleman, could I ask a clarifying question? Could you for my purposes show me exactly where that type of is on to make sure I get that clarified or cleared up on the condition of one in the conditions?
[34:00] Yeah, it's in the header section where it says approval date and a project expiration.
[34:08] So it says September 3rd, 2026 is the approval date, the day's date, and then project expiration, September 14th, 2026,
[34:17] right below the project location address.
[34:30] Okay, thank you, Chair Coleman, appreciate it. We're able to locate.
[34:34] Okay,
[34:38] thank you very much.
[34:41] This time we're going to go ahead and open the public hearing at 6.34 p.m.
[34:48] Madam Clerk, do we have any hands raised on Zoom tonight?
[34:55] Chair, I do have one hand raised on zoom.
[35:00] Okay. That is. Suit a car again. I will allow him to speak. Suit a car. Can you hear us?
[35:09] Yes. Are you able to hear me? Your three minutes starts now.
[35:15] Okay. Good evening. Commission and thank you for the opportunity. So I see that the HDR is located right beside the single family homes.
[35:32] Like the one on the apartments, I think it's other than apartments beside the Bass Pro
[35:41] Shop and that has a setback from the single family homes around 125 feet.
[35:51] This will, I think there should be a redesign of the, I think three or four buildings that
[35:58] are right beside the single family homes, I think those four should be having a setback
[36:08] of 125 feet and a redesign would have the privacy issues resolved, otherwise it will be
[36:19] be a privacy concern for the nearby apart single family homes.
[36:26] Thank you.
[36:28] Thank you.
[36:30] All right.
[36:31] Do we have any other hands raised on Zoom for this item?
[36:36] No, Chair.
[36:37] We do not.
[36:38] And do we have any comment card?
[36:40] No, Chair.
[36:40] I do not.
[36:41] Okay. Thank you.
[36:42] Anyone in the audience wishing to address the commission on this item?
[36:46] May I do so now?
[36:49] Please come on up.
[36:50] Hello
[36:56] everyone, my name is Emma crunchker and I'm in sixth grade and I got a
[37:02] Verdes Elementary and my concern is where you guys are building the parking
[37:09] law for the complex is my bedroom area so when I go to sleep the parking
[37:16] law spotlight will shine through my window and I don't think I'll be able to go
[37:22] Thank
[37:26] you very much. Thank you.
[37:30] Right.
[37:31] Anybody else wish to address the commission on this item?
[37:34] Please come on up.
[37:38] Hello. Good evening.
[37:40] My name is Avinash.
[37:42] Basically, we are living in the same community that am I living around?
[37:47] My concern is because there will be school nearby and a lot of new residents
[37:54] will be coming into the community that is being built.
[37:58] There will be a big traffic problems around that.
[38:02] The schools are in the morning,
[38:04] it's right now having a lot of traffic problems
[38:08] and this will go into raise more cows around the community,
[38:13] around the schools as well.
[38:18] Thank you, sir, thank you.
[38:22] Staff for the record.
[38:23] Again, up for consideration tonight
[38:25] as a modification of the site plan.
[38:29] The project to confirm has already been approved
[38:32] Is that correct?
[38:33] That's correct, sir Coleman, and extended.
[38:35] And if I may add as well, on the initial approval,
[38:39] Mantika Unified School District was a part of the review process.
[38:42] They assessed the site for compliance, they assessed schools,
[38:45] assessed schools nearby for capacity.
[38:48] There were no concerns expressed.
[38:49] I should add also with the matter of traffic.
[38:53] The main entrance to the site is condition to be signalized.
[38:57] So any traffic issue will be mitigated prior to the buildings
[39:01] things even be occupied. And adding additionally, the entire frontage will be approved with sidewalks
[39:08] and striping curb gutter sidewalks. So, it will be safer all the way around mitigate traffic.
[39:17] With regard to light, there's a photometric plan approved as a part of this site plan package.
[39:23] Landscaping around the perimeter is vertical to help screen and lights are required by code to be
[39:30] be shielded and downward cast, so light trespass is a significant issue.
[39:35] It's addressed in the SQL document, so there is no anticipated concern for light trespass
[39:42] or giving people a tan in their bedroom as they're trying to sleep.
[39:47] So, and that signal is that, Atherton, is the main entrance point?
[39:51] Atherton, yes.
[39:52] Very good.
[39:53] That's correct.
[39:53] It'll be due south of the living space's project for property.
[39:58] Okay.
[39:58] Thank you, sir.
[40:00] All right, anyone else in the audience, wish to address this? Please come on up.
[40:09] Good evening, sir. This is Mahesh. I live into the same community. We purchased this house about, you know, three years back, looking at, you know, where it has school is nearby. And also, you know, we travel to work and along with this project, right, what we are seeing it around 300 houses, right, or the 300 apartments, considering one kid per apartment, where it has, or maybe you
[40:36] know at least 0.75. It will bring you to the total of about 200 kids getting added into
[40:44] where it is which is really difficult right now as well where it is to extend with the
[40:49] current population and the development what we have seen into the full day, West Arthur
[40:54] and as well on to the side of the West Woodward. It is already bringing us into the complications
[41:01] where we are not able to accommodate or the quality of the kids education is hampered right now.
[41:09] And with this, I recommend kind of, you know, this things need to be kind of postponed
[41:13] and being set back to the proper MUSD, considering these governing bodies are different,
[41:19] different holding patterns, they have different approval rating, they have different ways to study this.
[41:25] We need to send this message to them as well and wait for their due diligence to be done.
[41:32] Thank you, sir. Thank you.
[41:37] All right. Anybody else in the audience wish to address? Please come on up.
[41:47] Good evening, Chair Koleman. Thanks for giving this opportunity. I sent a written email with 31 points
[41:54] objections and here is a confirmation from Deputy Director, Justice Orakos. I hope somebody from
[42:03] the commission is going through all those 31 points. My name is Ravi Kiran Karanchukur. I'm the
[42:09] resident of 1662 Centrelinger venue, which is the boundary with the applicant's property,
[42:15] which is coming in.
[42:18] I have a couple of questions based on the attachment we have for today's changes.
[42:26] The first one is if I look at the landscape plan, sheet L.1A, it labeled as CMU wall along
[42:35] the property line.
[42:37] If you look at that property line, there are 10 houses, first two houses has the
[42:42] legendary wall, rest of the houses has fins, but in the .1AL, it has CMA wall along the
[42:52] property line.
[42:53] But condition of approved number 34, it requires only 24-inch box trees.
[42:59] I have read every condition and I cannot find a wall anywhere in the term.
[43:03] So, my question is, is a masonry wall required along the property line? Yes or no? If yes, which
[43:12] condition number requires it and at what height? Usually the masonry line or the walls are supposed
[43:20] to be 8 feet tall from the tallest point of the base, I do not see that anywhere in the plan.
[43:28] And if it is required to be built, I would expect that to be done first before any activity
[43:35] start including grading, because all the dust particles, noise and everything we want
[43:40] that to be stopped first, even before any work starts.
[43:47] I still have one minute.
[43:49] I had a point about the dates which you already asked to correct, so thanks for that.
[43:54] As some follow-up items on the illumination point of view, I don't see any study in
[44:00] all the attachments about the lighting. And I think what the question that little boy raised,
[44:05] I really worry how many small kids would be impacted because of that because the height of the
[44:10] buildings is 40 feet and there is a pathway in between which has the parking lots. And I don't know,
[44:19] we cannot control at what time people come to their homes and go, we definitely don't want
[44:23] younger kids to awaken the middle of the night.
[44:29] I still have it in seconds.
[44:30] When last question is about the five phases, the project was originally approved in 2019,
[44:38] then some entitleness were brought in 2021, 2022, and now we are extending to 2028.
[44:44] So I don't encourage this, and then we won't be able to continue this forever.
[44:49] We need to have some deadline.
[44:51] And there are more questions in my email.
[44:53] I will take questions on email reply.
[44:56] Thank you.
[44:56] Thank you.
[44:56] Thank you.
[45:00] A question for staff. The public commenter does note that there's no CMU wall requirement in
[45:10] the conditions of approval. However, on the project plan set on attachment five, it does
[45:15] specifically state CMU wall in part of the design. So can you clarify, is a CMU wall part
[45:22] of this project? CMU wall, thank you Chair Coleman. CMU wall, my code is not a requirement
[45:27] between housing, between multi-family and single-family.
[45:31] It's not a requirement.
[45:32] It is a nice amenity where the folks who live in those single-family homes,
[45:36] especially if they were there first, but it is not a requirement.
[45:40] If the developer has provided a CMU wall on the plans and the plans are approved,
[45:44] then that is what the developer will be held to construct a CMU wall.
[45:48] Per code, the maximum height for CMU wall in the city of Antigas 7 feet,
[45:53] unless it is a sound attenuation wall next to a severe noise
[45:59] a generator like a highway, for example.
[46:02] But in this case, a 7-foot wall would be the maximum height allowed.
[46:07] Thank you, sir. And then there was a comment made about
[46:11] what ostensibly amounts, I believe, light pollution adjacent to the property.
[46:17] You had referenced lighting earlier in the clarification comment
[46:22] And it was addressed, I believe, in the original SQL evaluation with the original project approval.
[46:28] That's correct.
[46:29] That is correct, Chair Coleman.
[46:30] And there is a photometric plans, a mandatory part of every site plan review application.
[46:34] So it would be in the original plan set that is assessed as a standard part of every site plan review.
[46:42] The requirements per code or that, but foot candles as measured from the property line should be essentially zero.
[46:48] or the equivalent to the brightness of a full moon on a cloud this night, not
[46:55] poetic, but that's the measure at the property line and again the standard
[47:01] for lighting fixtures is shielded downward cast with a cone no greater than 60
[47:07] degrees in spread. So I can tell you staff is on top of these things recently we
[47:15] We had a project that was a self-sourced facility that was adjacent to homes that installed
[47:19] fixtures that was blasting the homes behind it with light and we went out to the site
[47:25] and we required them to replace every single light on the facility and that was a lot
[47:31] of light fixtures.
[47:33] So we are on top of those things.
[47:36] And as part of that approval, should the development be in violation of the approval, the conditions
[47:42] of approval with respect to the lighting, this is an example of what the city can do to enforce that
[47:47] state. That's correct. Absolutely, Chair Coleman. We go out on site typically if a planner who
[47:53] gets a, takes a project to hearing is still on staff at the time that the construction is completed
[47:58] and inspection occurs, that planner then goes back out. That was the case for me with that,
[48:04] because that self-sort facility I took it to planning commission. I then was the planner to go out
[48:09] do the inspections on site and found those light fixtures was able to work with the neighbors
[48:14] and get those light fixtures changed.
[48:16] So it is very much planning is very much involved in the process before, during and after
[48:20] construction.
[48:21] Okay.
[48:22] Thank you, sir.
[48:24] All right.
[48:25] A question.
[48:26] Go ahead.
[48:26] Sorry.
[48:27] A little bit clarification for the wall.
[48:31] It's in the plans, the plans are approved.
[48:33] Should that be then in the conditions of approval?
[48:36] It can be but again, it's not a requirement per code, so the time when planning would condition it if we felt there was a substantial reason to require it say, for example, if there were a hazard on the other side of the property line, a reason to create such a substantial barrier.
[48:56] It is a big cost increase for the developer to require a wall in addition to the construction cost.
[49:04] There's the engineering involved so to oblige them to something that is not required by code is not a practice we like to we like to get into
[49:15] But if the applicant the developer wants to provide a wall that is definitely something that we appreciate
[49:22] Development is better for it the neighborhood is better for it
[49:26] But it is not conditioned because it is not a requirement and there is no inherent danger or reason to create a more substantial barrier between the site and the adjacent
[49:37] Thank you.
[49:38] Any other members of the audience that haven't spoken yet wish to address us on this item may do so.
[49:47] Okay.
[49:48] All right.
[49:49] Seeing no more hands.
[49:51] We'll go ahead and have our applicant rebuttal period begin at this time.
[49:55] You're welcome to come back up if you'd like to address any of the concerns that were brought up.
[50:00] From any of the comments, tonight.
[50:06] I think the biggest thing was the wall. There is a wall shown on the approved landscape plans part of the application submittal. And that's what our construction drawings actually show. Can I tell you exactly how high, but it is a senior wall. Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. Mr. Fury, if you may, a point of clarification. In addition to that fence, what is a requirement by code between multi-family and single-family?
[50:33] is a 10-foot wide landscaping buffer with vertical trees.
[50:37] So that is there in, against between the parking area that the young man spoke of and the
[50:42] property line.
[50:43] There's a 10-foot wide minimum landscape barrier with vertical trees that over time will
[50:48] get taller.
[50:49] So could that combine with the light shielding, the downward casting, and so on will provide
[50:54] them with no light trespass onto their properties?
[50:58] Thank you.
[50:59] Well, the public here is still open. Do we have any other questions for the applicant before we close it?
[51:11] Okay. All right. At this time, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on item D2 at 651 p.m.
[51:19] We're bringing back to the commission for any follow-up questions for staff or discussion amongst us.
[51:26] The other follow-up questions for staff.
[51:27] All
[51:36] right, no one else does anything.
[51:39] I'll go ahead and start a few things that I just want to clarify for the record.
[51:47] Just to confirm, there was some talk about items related to the original sequel approval, especially lighting.
[51:53] And there was a mention in the public comment, a supplemental we received as to the EIR being stale.
[52:01] Is it correct that the age of the EAR does not necessarily buy any relevance here at this point?
[52:09] All the protections from the original EAR are still in effect.
[52:13] Yes, sir.
[52:15] Sure. If I may answer that question.
[52:18] Yes. The SQL remains valid up until the project is deemed expired since the commission is considering action on this project.
[52:28] As long as any of the original provisions remain in place, the secret in this is an effect.
[52:36] Chair Kohl, if I could add to that too.
[52:39] That should be noted, the secret document is not pertinent specifically to just this site.
[52:46] This part, this property is part of a plan development, which is a much larger area.
[52:50] It includes the land to the north and some land to the east as well.
[52:53] So the EIR document is a large document covering a large area of land and this is just one piece of that so all those other developments that are happening that are a part of that are also covered in that EIR document the addendum that's right that's identified as specific to this project due to an increase in the number of
[53:14] of apartment units with this application versus what was originally approved.
[53:20] So there was an increase from 281 to 300 units.
[53:23] The addendum came to account for those additional apartment units.
[53:28] Okay.
[53:28] Thank you, sir.
[53:30] There was a part of the supplemental.
[53:32] There was some confusion about exactly what kind of plan set was being proposed or approved.
[53:38] I think if I'm, if I'm understanding correctly, attachment five in the publicly disclosed item for D2 tonight has the proposed modifications plan says that correct.
[53:50] Yes, Chair Coleman, that's correct. There is a site plan showing the relocation of the two accessory structures and then there are architectural color rendering showing the color changes and the architectural changes to the pool house and the community building.
[54:05] Okay. And that's the document I was referencing earlier that list to CMU wall that the applicant
[54:11] spoke about that is listed in those proposed modification documents. It does list the title
[54:17] of Trillium Apartments on that plan set. Is that a previous name for this project or that name
[54:23] is actually just a new brand that it was originally approved as union crossing. Therefore we brought
[54:29] the extension forward as union crossing because that is the name that was on the approval, the initial
[54:34] approval, trillium is just kind of a brand. And so that I'm assuming is connected to the
[54:43] freshening up of the two accessory structures and the color changes. Okay.
[54:48] There was concern about the project boundary. Did the project boundary change from the original
[54:53] approval on this? Or is it the same exact boundary? No, Chair Cole, there's no Coleman, there's no change to any
[55:00] The boundaries, any of the points of ingress, egress, number of units, height of building, placement of the buildings, internal circulation, landscaping, other than more landscaping where the accessory structures will be moved from. Okay, thank you very much. So yeah, thank you. The original project was when this was originally approved, was this lot zoned as general commercial and did it change to HDR after approval?
[55:29] your knowledge. That is correct. It did change to HDR at some point down the road.
[55:36] Actually,
[55:40] it was actually zoned PD before, which is kind of a not ideal way to handle PD zoning,
[55:49] but that's the way it was handled before. We had it was actually zoned PD, and then it was changed when we did a zoning cleanup later on to HDR,
[55:57] which is what's consistent with the general plan and the approved uses.
[56:02] So our approval tonight on modification would be consistent with the general plan today,
[56:06] which is the NHDR, bad scratch or cold and good. Very good.
[56:13] Let me see if I have anything else.
[56:24] In the response by the planning department to the supplemental item number four,
[56:31] there was discussion about phasing or this being a phase development up to five phases.
[56:35] Is there any expectation on a timeline for those phases at this time, or is it too preliminary
[56:44] to understand the timing for phasing?
[56:48] Chair Coleman, I would defer to the developers for that question.
[56:51] I have not been informed of any timing, but I would let them answer that question.
[56:54] We can't.
[56:54] Public hearings close.
[56:55] That's right.
[56:56] I apologize.
[56:56] I apologize.
[56:57] Thank you.
[56:58] I should have asked it with the public hearings open.
[57:00] That's okay.
[57:01] My apologies.
[57:03] no problem. This was curious. The revised resolution was received by the Planning Commission.
[57:13] The revised resolution from my interpretation substantially clarifies this project,
[57:21] this specific approval in a meaningful way. And it does specifically list the proposed modifications
[57:27] included as attachment five of the agenda report to confirm the updated modified site plan and design.
[57:36] So I, at least with that, it kind of removes that discrepancy that was existing, I think, with the original resolution that was published.
[57:46] Or that was a comment, not a question.
[57:52] There's one more I have. Let me find it.
[57:54] There was
[58:07] a discrepancy on, but I just wanted to clarify for the record to make sure I'm
[58:11] understanding correctly as it relates to, I can find it in my large sheet of notes here.
[58:23] The revised conditions refer to a January 24th, 2021 plan set, and then it was dated December
[58:29] 22nd, 2022.
[58:33] And now we have modified proposed conditions with or excuse me, proposed modifications with today's date.
[58:44] Is there a discrepancy between the 2021 and 2022 modifications or conditions?
[58:53] Thank you, Chair.
[58:54] The difference is the original plan set has the 21 date on it.
[59:00] Okay, the approved the modified site plan has the 22 date on it.
[59:06] Okay, so although they were not originally submitted together with the original approval and title and approval,
[59:14] they are now combined, provided the commission should approve, they would be combined.
[59:21] And so the dates wouldn't quite match.
[59:23] That's actually not a very uncommon thing
[59:25] when you have plan sets submitted.
[59:27] You'll have the landscape plan,
[59:28] design the landscape architect with one date on it,
[59:30] and you'll have the photometric plan,
[59:32] you'll have the, all the different pages,
[59:37] many different pages will have different people
[59:40] who draw them so the dates might be different,
[59:42] but that's the discrepancy.
[59:44] Very good.
[59:47] Are there any other questions by any commissioners or staff?
[59:51] No. Good? Okay. I empathize with the impact.
[1:00:00] That's the fact of, you know, the quantity of children that will be part of this development. You know, I think Manticca Unified has 25,000 plus students right now. That's essentially a quarter of the population of the city goes to one of our schools. It continues to be a challenge. It is absolutely not within the purview of the planning commission to consider any of that. Unfortunately, I do believe that.
[1:00:30] This project timeline still seems multiple years out as far as further development and I'm optimistic we obviously we can't predict the future, but I'm given the fact that my ticket unified did not present any concerns.
[1:00:44] I'm hopeful that they will continue to address the need south of the 120 as someone that lives south of the 120 myself I understand with a child in school south of the 120.
[1:00:55] So, with that being said, if there's no other comments or deliberation, I think we can call for a vote, is there a motion in a second to adopt an amended resolution submitted as supplemental item five item number five approving a modification to the site plan and design review SPA-21-15 for the Union Crossing apartments project located at 1308 West Atherton Drive APN 226-160-446.
[1:01:24] 4-4 as amended with amended conditions of approval project expiration date as September 14th, 2028.
[1:01:36] In motion to approve.
[1:01:38] Your e-seconds.
[1:01:40] All right.
[1:01:41] We have a motion for approval from Vice Chair Jimenez and a second from Commissioner Fury.
[1:01:47] All those of vote in favor say aye.
[1:01:49] Aye.
[1:01:50] Any opposed?
[1:01:52] All right.
[1:01:53] Motion passes.
[1:01:54] 5-0.
[1:01:55] Thank you.
[1:01:57] All right.
[1:01:58] That takes us on to staff comments tonight.
[1:02:04] Good evening chair commissioners. I just want to thank all of you who were able to attend last evenings recognition dinner.
[1:02:12] We were all pleased city staff was all pleased to see many of the various volunteers from various boards being attendance. We appreciate that and I just want to update you that we will be meeting on the 17th of this month.
[1:02:28] That completes my report.
[1:02:32] Thank you, sir.
[1:02:34] All right.
[1:02:34] Commissioner comments.
[1:02:35] Anything from the commission tonight?
[1:02:39] Yes, I do.
[1:02:40] Commissioner Fiori.
[1:02:41] I'd like to thank everyone that came in attendance here.
[1:02:44] I appreciate that you show up and you voice your concerns and it's always impactful for us to
[1:02:50] hear because we don't and we don't want to get the comments from social media.
[1:02:54] So thank you for taking the time out of your day to show up.
[1:03:00] Any other comments?
[1:03:02] I'd like to thank Commissioner Sock for stepping in tonight.
[1:03:05] Appreciate you being here.
[1:03:07] I want to thank the staff for,
[1:03:11] again, continuing to be outstanding support for us and answering
[1:03:16] all of our questions and professional and we appreciate all the hard work that you guys
[1:03:21] do for the city.
[1:03:22] And we truly appreciate being a part of the dinner last night.
[1:03:26] It was a wonderful experience.
[1:03:30] We'll see you on September 17th in two weeks.
[1:03:34] We'll adjourn the meeting tonight at 7.03 p.m., thank you.