[0:22] testing.

[3:09] Oh yes.

[4:06] All right. Good evening and welcome to

[4:09] the uh Tuesday, January 27th planning

[4:12] commission meeting. Uh we'll go ahead

[4:13] and call this meeting to order and we

[4:15] will begin with the pledge of

[4:17] allegiance.

[4:23] I aliance to the flag of the United

[4:26] States of America and to the republic

[4:29] for which it stands. One nation under

[4:32] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[4:36] justice for all.

[4:46] » Roll call, please.

[4:48] Commissioner Connelly

[4:50] » Here.

[4:50] » Commissioner Rhoden

[4:52] » Here.

[4:52] » Commissioner Marlo

[4:53] » Here.

[4:54] » Commissioner Kogler

[4:55] » Here.

[4:55] » Commissioner Neil

[4:56] » Here.

[4:57] » Mr. Christensen

[4:58] » Here.

[4:58] » Chairperson Kar Rubius

[5:00] » Here.

[5:01] » All present.

[5:02] » Staff introductions please.

[5:04] » Marcy Renoso and Jessica Ferguson.

[5:06] Permit technicians.

[5:08] » Warren Fr. Community development

[5:10] director.

[5:19] and Sarah Locklin, legal counsel with

[5:20] BBK.

[5:24] » Good. All right. Moving on then to item

[5:27] E. Are there any general public comments

[5:30] regarding matters not on the agenda?

[5:35] Seeing none in the audience? Marcy, any

[5:38] callers?

[5:40] » No callers.

[5:41] » Thank you.

[5:44] Moving on to uh agenda items proposed to

[5:47] be tabled or rescheduled.

[5:50] » Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um item one, the

[5:53] Beachwood specific plan development

[5:55] agreement amendment. Um the applicant

[5:58] has requested that be continued to a

[6:01] future meeting um date to be determined.

[6:03] It will be renoticed. Um we do know

[6:06] there's a few folks in the audience that

[6:09] were interested in this item. Um I would

[6:11] suggest that we still allow public

[6:13] comment on this but we will there will

[6:15] be no staff report and no um decisions

[6:17] tonight on that item.

[6:19] » Okay, understood. All right, so the

[6:22] first item, the Beachwood specific plan

[6:24] development agreement amendment um has

[6:26] been uh postponed and will be

[6:28] rescheduled. If there are anybody uh

[6:30] participants in the audience that would

[6:32] like to make any comments regarding this

[6:34] particular matter, please feel free come

[6:37] on up, state your name.

[6:44] There's a podium over here to our right.

[6:49] » Good evening, sir. Go ahead and state

[6:51] your name.

[6:52] » I'm David Anderson. I'm a resident of

[6:54] Hassel Rebels. I live at 925 Oral Way.

[6:58] I'm very close to the development um

[7:01] that's under consideration here and I

[7:04] have some concerns. I was in agreement

[7:06] with the um original plan from 2020.

[7:08] These revisions to me uh seem kind of

[7:11] extreme. Um specifically the segregation

[7:15] of the workforce units going from being

[7:18] kind of spread throughout the community

[7:19] to being 91% located in one portion of

[7:23] the development right off of uh beach of

[7:26] metalark road.

[7:28] Um

[7:31] now uh Harry Po I understand is the

[7:35] prime developer here. Is that correct?

[7:38] Okay. And u I have I live in a Herod

[7:40] home. I know my carrot um and I like the

[7:44] Herod the work that they do, but I do

[7:47] have some concerns about the way it's

[7:50] been proposed

[7:52] as opposed to what was originally um

[7:55] agreed to. So if we look at the

[7:58] Beachwood Pacific plan sub areas, you've

[8:00] got Herod A B C1,

[8:03] C2, CH, excuse me, H, J, well Herod all

[8:07] through J through four and the Herod

[8:09] owned subtotal is 46 units of the

[8:12] workforce housing. And here at A

[8:14] originally 5% of that number, the 46 was

[8:18] to be um workforce housing. That's about

[8:22] 11% of the total. Herod B was supposed

[8:24] to be 22% 10 units. Herod C combined was

[8:29] 24 units or 52%.

[8:32] Herod H seven units at 15%.

[8:35] Uh for your amendment, we're looking at

[8:38] 42 units of Herod C1. 91% of all units

[8:42] be located in that one specific area. I

[8:45] don't think it's a big area. One of my

[8:47] big concerns is and I I live in the area

[8:49] there obviously and um what comes to

[8:53] mind to me is what could result there

[8:56] with this kind of concentration is what

[8:59] you have in what's called Crestston

[9:00] Courts. Is anybody here familiar with

[9:01] Crestston Courts? Crestston Courts is at

[9:04] the other end of Beachwood where it

[9:06] intersects and goes to from Pebble Creek

[9:08] up to Crestston up to Crestston there.

[9:11] Uh these were similarly designed to be

[9:13] four units off a central little driveway

[9:16] with a twocar garage for each. Now these

[9:19] are all owner units on Crestston Courts.

[9:22] And uh if you've ever driven down it at

[9:25] night, there is not a parking spot to be

[9:27] found. If you ever driven there during

[9:29] the day, especially garbage collection,

[9:31] it's really tedious because there's

[9:34] always it's always overcrowded with

[9:36] parking. One of my questions to the

[9:38] eight to the group here is, is there

[9:40] going to be public parking on the

[9:42] streets of this development? And if so,

[9:46] how are you going to accommodate folks

[9:47] that can't have loaded their garages

[9:49] with personal equipment, uh, cars that

[9:52] they don't drive necessarily or other

[9:55] things that they've accumulated, which

[9:57] is what's happened at Crestston Courts.

[10:01] So,

[10:10] Um,

[10:12] » Okay.

[10:13] » Thank you.

[10:26] » Good evening. Thank you for letting me

[10:28] speak. Uh Doug Toby uh 510 Cool Valley

[10:32] Drive as a uh 35 year resident of past

[10:36] roles. Something concerns me is the

[10:39] consolidation of the workforce housing

[10:41] in a smaller area. The original plan as

[10:44] I understand as the gentleman just seems

[10:46] to affirm is that it was going to be

[10:48] spread throughout the complex

[10:50] in the [sighs] with with my knowledge of

[10:53] various projects in the community.

[10:54] There's been attention to how those new

[10:57] projects affect the existing. The

[11:00] original plans seem to take that

[11:01] consideration. Nobody wants lower income

[11:04] housing in their backyard, but I

[11:06] understand that's a necessity. And for

[11:08] the benefit of the community, we need to

[11:09] do that. By consolidating all in one

[11:12] area, it seems to benefit only the

[11:14] developer, reduces construction costs,

[11:17] my own assessment, and takes little

[11:20] regard for those people who will be

[11:21] impacted. and and again the gentleman

[11:24] who just spoke has uh reflected my

[11:28] concerns also. So uh I would appreciate

[11:31] concern being taken for those people who

[11:33] are already in the area and how it would

[11:35] impact them and their property values.

[11:39] Thank you.

[11:43] » Anybody else? Yes, ma'am.

[11:51] » Hello. My name is Terry Dyn. I do live

[11:53] on Deer Springs Drive, so right across

[11:56] the street from the uh proposed uh

[11:59] amendment one.

[12:02] And I have the same uh concerns that the

[12:04] last two gentlemen uh have stated in

[12:07] detail. Um I do not agree that this is

[12:11] justifiable

[12:13] uh by Herod. [clears throat]

[12:16] uh the reason to put a negative impact

[12:18] on the existing nearby housing which is

[12:22] directly across the street from me. So

[12:25] by condensing all of these units from

[12:28] the original plan to the amendment again

[12:32] would be 42 units for about 4 and a half

[12:36] acres. That's very very condensed.

[12:39] Um

[12:41] I feel like uh the community outreach

[12:45] was insufficient for this. Um some of

[12:48] the neighbors that I spoken with uh

[12:52] received the card January 14th the

[12:55] notice as I did. Uh some of the

[12:58] neighbors did not even receive the

[13:00] notice. Another issue was the there was

[13:04] only one posting um on uh the corner of

[13:08] Beachwood and Metallark in regards to

[13:12] this meeting unlike the last meetings we

[13:16] had. The postings were placed all the

[13:19] way down Metallark.

[13:22] This is going to affect uh the middle of

[13:24] Metallark, all of those housing uh that

[13:28] development. So, I think that the um the

[13:31] notices should be there should be more

[13:33] notices for the next meeting. So, that's

[13:35] that's what I would like to see. My

[13:38] concerns going back to my concerns um

[13:41] would be if the workhouse housing

[13:44] remains the same as it was in the

[13:46] original development agreement. This

[13:48] would be less impact on nearby homes.

[13:52] And by going through with agreeing to

[13:54] amendment one, I think it would affect

[13:57] um the the value of the homes uh that u

[14:02] directly is around that area as far as

[14:05] appraisal because the appraisal value if

[14:08] you're going to sell will reflect that

[14:11] work horse house um housing as well. So

[14:15] it it it it should be spread out within

[14:18] the area, the full area other than the 4

[14:21] and 1/2 acres. Um it's just not

[14:24] justifiable what he's asking. Thank you.

[14:30] » Thank you, ma'am.

[14:38] » Yes, sir.

[14:40] » Good evening. Thank you for the

[14:41] opportunity to speak. I live on the

[14:43] corner of Deer Springs.

[14:45] » Name, please.

[14:45] » Uh, good evening. My name is Chris

[14:47] Clemens. I live on the corner of Deer

[14:49] Springs where the supposed new

[14:51] roundabout's going to be going on. And I

[14:53] was just wondering if there's any

[14:54] consideration of the increased traffic

[14:56] and street parking due the increased

[14:58] workforce units are going to be

[14:59] consolidated just into the one small

[15:02] section of the entire into the one small

[15:05] section of the entire project instead of

[15:07] being equally distributed throughout the

[15:09] original project that was as planned.

[15:11] and just concerned backing out of the

[15:13] driveway if there's going to be that

[15:14] much traffic with the roundabout. Is it

[15:17] going to be safe to get out of the

[15:18] driveway and where all these people with

[15:22] the condensed housing are going to be

[15:24] able to park? There's going to be on

[15:25] street parking, off streetet parking,

[15:27] carports.

[15:30] And unfortunately, I just didn't think

[15:31] there was much awareness of what's

[15:32] potentially happening because there

[15:33] wasn't any signage. I had to walk by

[15:36] actually I actually walked by the sign

[15:37] of the meeting three times and didn't

[15:39] even see it. unfortunately and got a

[15:42] postcard in the mail, but that was sent

[15:44] on the 14th and I didn't receive it to

[15:46] the 16th and that was less than 10 days

[15:48] of this meeting. So, I was just hoping

[15:51] if there is going to be another meeting,

[15:52] there might be an opportunity for more

[15:53] people to be able to know what's

[15:56] potentially happening.

[15:58] Appreciate that. Thank you.

[16:01] » Thank you, sir.

[16:02] » Thank you.

[16:07] Looking in the audience, any other

[16:10] comments?

[16:12] Okay, seeing none. U Marcy, any callers?

[16:16] » No callers.

[16:17] » Okay. Okay, Warren, then uh we'll

[16:20] continue this.

[16:21] » Yeah, so this item's continued. Um it

[16:23] does need to be renoticed. We understand

[16:26] um the comments we heard about the the

[16:28] noticing issue and some of these other

[16:29] comments are useful information. We'll

[16:31] make sure that's conveyed to the

[16:32] developer as well. So, thank you. We can

[16:35] move on to the next item.

[16:36] » Okay. I believe Commissioner Koger, did

[16:38] you have a Do we need a motion?

[16:39] » Uh, I don't do We don't need a motion to

[16:42] postpone it or do we?

[16:43] » Yeah, we should have done that. Let's do

[16:44] that right now.

[16:45] » Yeah, we want to do that. Okay. Um, I'll

[16:47] take a motion to post postpone item

[16:49] number one, Beachwood Specific Plan

[16:51] Development Agreement Amendment.

[16:53] » So, moved. Can I get a second?

[16:56] » I'll second it.

[16:57] » So, seconded. Uh, roll call, please.

[17:00] Who is the second? [clears throat]

[17:03] » Marlo.

[17:04] » Marlo.

[17:07] » Commissioner Kogler.

[17:08] » Hi.

[17:08] » Commissioner Marlo.

[17:09] » Hi.

[17:10] » Mr. Broden.

[17:11] » Hi.

[17:11] » Mr. Connelly.

[17:12] » I.

[17:13] » Commissioner Neil.

[17:14] » I.

[17:15] » Commissioner Christensen.

[17:16] » Hi.

[17:16] » Chairperson Kar Rubius.

[17:18] » I.

[17:18] » Motion passes.

[17:20] » Okay. Thank you. Moving on to item two,

[17:23] development plan 25-15 for the Highland

[17:26] Senior Affordable Housing Development.

[17:29] Is there staff presentation?

[17:42] Thank you, Chairperson Kov Rubius.

[17:47] Um, so as you said, the next project is

[17:50] uh for a a 100% affordable project uh

[17:53] located at uh 298 Nibckt Road. We've

[17:56] been calling it the Highlands Senior

[17:57] Affordable uh Apartments.

[18:01] So location, um like I said, 298 NibLick

[18:04] Road. This is uh just east of South

[18:06] River Road on Nibck Road. Uh you can see

[18:08] a few landmarks there. Walmart in the

[18:10] bottom left corner, Albertson's in the

[18:12] top left corner, Kennedy Club down there

[18:14] towards the middle bottom. Um, so this

[18:16] is as you climb up Nimble Road from

[18:18] South River Road, there's a vacant

[18:19] parcel. Um, it's it's got some slope to

[18:22] it. Uh, there's uh we'll talk about some

[18:24] of the site features in the next slide.

[18:28] So, the site is uh just over two acres

[18:30] in size. Uh, there is a jurisdictional

[18:33] creek that runs through the property. um

[18:35] this project actually completely avoids

[18:37] um any impacts to that creek. There's

[18:39] also an open space easement that was

[18:41] created by a previous parcel map. Um the

[18:44] the open space easement spans from um

[18:46] both the property that we're talking

[18:48] about this evening and then onto the

[18:50] property to the south which uh is part

[18:51] of the Highlands commercial center uh

[18:53] there where Highlands Church is there at

[18:55] the bottom of the screen. Um and so this

[18:57] is an open space easement. No

[18:58] development, no grading is allowed in

[19:00] this green area. Um it is largely to

[19:03] protect that creek and then also um to

[19:06] uh protect the oak trees. There is in

[19:08] addition a pedestrian bike and

[19:09] pedestrian path. Um I referred to it as

[19:12] the Highlands path in the staff report.

[19:14] Um my understanding is the uh high

[19:16] school cross country team refers it to

[19:18] that. I don't know if it has a a more

[19:19] official title. Um the property is in

[19:22] the regional commercial zoning district.

[19:24] That is a a strictly commercial zone.

[19:27] However, uh the um mixeduse overlay has

[19:30] been applied to this project in 2020 as

[19:33] a part of the um housing element update.

[19:36] Uh the uh mixeduse overlay was applied

[19:38] to the site as were 20 surplus uh

[19:41] surplus density units uh were allocated

[19:44] to the site by the city council. So in

[19:46] 2020, the city council decided that this

[19:48] was an appropriate place for residential

[19:50] for a residential development. Um and

[19:52] they did allocate 20 residential units

[19:55] to the site.

[19:57] So, the project that we're here to

[19:59] consider this evening um is, as I said,

[20:01] a 100% uh rentrestricted affordable

[20:05] project. Uh the uh project will be

[20:07] limited to seniors over 55 years of age.

[20:10] They will be um uh no more than 30 to

[20:13] 60% of what's called the AMI, the

[20:16] average Oh, I got myself into this.

[20:18] Average median income. Um and so uh they

[20:21] by state law are um they have uh they

[20:25] are entitled to an 80% density bonus and

[20:28] five concessions per state law.

[20:30] Concessions are uh forgivenesses

[20:32] essentially for development standards

[20:34] that will reduce the the cost and make

[20:36] it more feasible for a developer to to

[20:38] build affordable units. Obviously

[20:40] they're going to be getting less rent

[20:42] over time. And so the idea is to

[20:44] incentivize these developments and um to

[20:46] make them more affordable for the

[20:48] developer. Um so as I said they are um

[20:51] eligible for an 80% density bonus. The

[20:54] applicant is requesting a 50% density

[20:56] bonus. So they are uh looking to have 30

[20:58] residential units on the site. The units

[21:01] would be um and there's the open space

[21:03] easement. That's that animation there.

[21:06] Um there is one building proposed on the

[21:08] site. It's a three-story building.

[21:10] Inside that building there would be 25

[21:12] one-bedroom units and five two-bedroom

[21:14] units. Um the applicant is requesting

[21:17] five concessions which they are entitled

[21:19] to by state law. The first would allow

[21:22] the building to be taller than what's

[21:24] allowed in the zoning district. Uh the

[21:26] second would allow the foundation

[21:28] height. We in our hillside uh grading

[21:30] standards, we have limitations on how uh

[21:32] tall exposed foundations can be. And so

[21:35] this project uh requests a concession

[21:37] for uh how tall that foundation height

[21:39] is. In addition, there's a request for a

[21:42] parking reduction, a request to reduce

[21:44] the amount of shade that needs to be um

[21:46] provided to that parking area, and then

[21:49] also a reduction in the amount of open

[21:51] space. I think something to keep in mind

[21:53] as we go through this project is uh that

[21:55] this is a senior project. So, the folks

[21:57] who are living here are, you know, more

[21:59] mature individuals and uh over 55 in gen

[22:02] over 55. Um and so uh um like I said

[22:06] more in general more mature um uh

[22:08] population.

[22:11] So uh the first concession is about

[22:13] building height. So um in the regional

[22:15] commercial zoning district maximum

[22:17] height of 32 feet are allowed. Um the

[22:20] building from the foundation the

[22:22] finished floor to the top of the

[22:23] building is uh uh 37 1/2 ft tall. Um the

[22:27] way we measure height though is to take

[22:28] the average uh from where the building

[22:30] touches the ground from the the lowest

[22:32] point to the highest point and then we

[22:34] take so the average of that to the

[22:35] highest point of the building. So the

[22:37] red line on the right is actually how

[22:39] the zoning code would um describe the

[22:42] height of this building which is uh 44

[22:44] feet and 7 and 12 in. The fire

[22:47] department has analyzed this building.

[22:49] We've got other buildings in town that

[22:50] are taller than this building. Um the

[22:52] fire department can fight a fire here.

[22:54] they can respond to emergencies. It just

[22:56] happens to be taller than what's allowed

[22:58] in this commercial zone. Um you'll

[23:00] notice we're looking um uh in the top

[23:02] right at that site plan, you can see

[23:04] more or less where we're looking at this

[23:05] building. So this is we're looking from

[23:07] Niblick Road at the building. Um the the

[23:10] the building will you the most of what

[23:12] you'll see from the building the massing

[23:14] of the building from N Neibuk Road will

[23:16] be that shorter elevation the 37 uh feet

[23:18] 6 inches just a small portion of the

[23:20] building um is going to be that taller

[23:22] that taller height uh that will uh be

[23:24] somewhat hidden by the hillside.

[23:28] So the second concession that is

[23:30] requested is for the exposed foundation

[23:32] height. Um the exposed foundation

[23:35] basically below the finished floor. The

[23:37] average height of that foundation is 11

[23:40] feet and 8 in. Um 9 ft is what is

[23:43] allowed by the code the average height.

[23:45] So this is taller than what would be

[23:46] allowed, but you can see in the site

[23:48] plan up to the top right that that um

[23:50] that elevation does not face a street.

[23:52] It faces the oak tree. So this is going

[23:54] to be an elevation that's largely hidden

[23:56] from public view. In addition, you'll

[23:58] notice that that foundation um has uh

[24:01] some steps [clears throat] front,

[24:02] forward, and back. This is not a a solid

[24:04] plane um where the building just has a

[24:07] you know, immense massive feel because

[24:08] of a a large foundation wall. Um and so

[24:11] this is the second concession that the

[24:13] applicant is requesting. Um the second

[24:15] of five that they are entitled to.

[24:19] The third and fourth concessions are

[24:21] related to parking. um 54 parking spaces

[24:24] would be required for a market rate uh

[24:26] project of this size uh for the number

[24:29] of one and two-bedroom units and the

[24:30] guest parking. Um as you'll recall,

[24:32] there are 30 units proposed and there

[24:35] are 38 parking spaces. Um uh um the

[24:38] applicant is proposing 38 parking

[24:40] spaces. So this would be one of their

[24:42] concessions. Um I I believe when the

[24:44] applicant is um uh comes to speak,

[24:46] she'll provide some um some parking

[24:49] statistics. the uh Pastor Robus Housing

[24:52] Authority and the Affordable Housing um

[24:54] development corporation operate two uh

[24:57] senior uh apartment complexes in town.

[25:00] One recently finished the Riverwalk

[25:02] Terrace which is in the Walmart center.

[25:04] So they've got some um really up-to-date

[25:06] parking data on what these projects uh

[25:08] the parking demand actually is for these

[25:11] projects. Um they've also the Pastor

[25:12] Robels Housing Authority has been

[25:14] operating the Cetaughter Apartments up

[25:16] on Park Street near the Oak Park um

[25:18] apartments for many years and so they've

[25:20] got some longerterm parking data for

[25:22] that project as well. Um so those are

[25:24] both uh deed restricted uh um senior

[25:27] housing projects we have here in Pastor

[25:29] Robels. We have real data on how much

[25:30] parking is required and so this is the

[25:33] amount of parking that the applicant um

[25:35] feels that uh the project will demand

[25:37] and that is their request. Um the fourth

[25:39] concession, the uh municipal code

[25:41] requires shade trees in our parking

[25:44] lots. Um they are meant to provide 25%

[25:47] shade at at five years. Um this project

[25:50] uh as the trees are proposed would

[25:52] provide 17% uh shade at maturity, which

[25:56] is longer than five years. Um the

[25:58] applicant did point out that the

[25:59] building will shade um that the kind of

[26:02] more eastern um parking area uh you know

[26:05] from a lot of the afternoon sun because

[26:07] it is a relatively tall building.

[26:11] So the fifth and final concession is

[26:12] related to open space. Uh multifamily

[26:15] projects in the um mixeduse uh overlay

[26:19] are required to have 100 square feet of

[26:21] private open space per unit and 100

[26:24] square feet of common open space per

[26:26] unit. This project uh uh provides about

[26:28] half of that space. Um each unit has a

[26:31] private patio. They're about 50 square

[26:33] feet in size. And then there is some

[26:35] shared space uh in the darker green

[26:37] color. Uh there's an indoor um uh

[26:41] meeting room and and reading room. And

[26:43] then there's an outdoor patio uh where

[26:45] the the the uh residents will be able to

[26:48] uh congregate and and recreate. Um as

[26:50] I've mentioned several times, this is a

[26:52] senior project. And so, um, while the

[26:55] open space is, uh, reduced, uh, this is

[26:59] an older population, it's also, um,

[27:01] close to the bike and pedestrian path to

[27:03] the south of the creek, um, relatively

[27:05] close to Larry Moore Park and also the

[27:07] river, uh, the riverwalk along the

[27:09] Selenus River.

[27:13] So, now jumping into the elevations of

[27:14] the building, this is the front

[27:16] elevation that uh, that faces north. Um,

[27:18] is somewhat oriented to to Niblick Road.

[27:21] Um, you can see this is a well

[27:22] articulated building. A lot of window uh

[27:25] window and and uh balcony openings um uh

[27:29] and different uh sighting materials.

[27:30] There's both shingles and horizontal

[27:32] sighting on the on the sides.

[27:36] This is a look at the side elevations.

[27:38] We've already seen the elevation on the

[27:40] right side. That's the west that kind of

[27:41] faces Nibl Road. uh the building uh the

[27:44] elevation on the left would face to the

[27:46] east and would not be visible from uh

[27:48] very many vantage points offsite. And

[27:51] then finally, this is al we've also seen

[27:53] this elevation. This is the re rear

[27:55] elevation. Um this will face the oak

[27:58] trees along the creek. And so this isn't

[27:59] an elevation that that will really be

[28:01] visible from um from offsite for the

[28:03] most part.

[28:07] Colors and materials. uh the applicant

[28:09] has, you know, it's a relatively muted

[28:11] uh attractive mix of colors, some uh

[28:14] browns and and tans and then the doors

[28:16] would be blue in color. Um and so um

[28:19] don't have much to share on this, you

[28:21] know, but this is the color scheme that

[28:22] we would we we will expect.

[28:27] So, uh with the 2024 zoning code update,

[28:29] the planning commission made

[28:30] recommendation to council to adopt

[28:32] objective design standards. Um and so

[28:35] the way our objective design standards

[28:37] work are depending on the size of the

[28:39] building both the number of units and

[28:41] the length of or you know the the size

[28:43] the literal uh uh width of the building

[28:45] there are a number of of standards that

[28:48] have to be met and so the standards are

[28:50] broken into different tiers and then

[28:52] depending on the size of the project um

[28:54] the num it dictates how many of those

[28:57] design standards you have to meet. The

[28:59] idea is with smaller buildings, they

[29:00] don't tend to be quite as massive if

[29:03] they aren't the um the most artic art

[29:05] articulated building or the most or

[29:07] ornate buildings. Um they're smaller in

[29:09] scale and so they're you know uh they

[29:12] are uh less visible from offsite. So

[29:14] bigger buildings have to provide more of

[29:16] the uh the standards. So for a project

[29:19] of this site of size uh they have to

[29:21] provide all of the tier one standards

[29:23] and those are things like uh the

[29:24] orientation of the front porch in the

[29:26] building. uh they have to provide window

[29:28] openings of a specific percentage 15% in

[29:31] this case. They have to break up walls

[29:33] so we don't have large massive walls

[29:35] with uh no articulation. Um they've got

[29:38] to provide in the tier 2 um uh standards

[29:41] they've got to provide two strategies.

[29:43] You can see them listed there. Um the

[29:45] applicant is providing balconies and

[29:46] some vertical wall elements. Um, I'm not

[29:49] going to belabor going through each of

[29:50] these, but suffice to say that the

[29:52] project uh meets uh uh each of its

[29:55] objective design standards.

[30:03] Um the project is on a site that has

[30:05] quite a bit of slope and so I wanted to

[30:07] go through some of the um the sections

[30:09] the the uh the uh um the grading and how

[30:12] the project will look um uh as after

[30:15] it's constructed. So in the bottom right

[30:17] we see the grading plan and then um I'm

[30:19] going to hone in on this section here.

[30:21] So this red line is cutting through the

[30:23] building in the parking lot and we're

[30:25] going to look like we're going to look

[30:26] at what that grading will look like. Um

[30:28] so here we see on the left um we're

[30:30] looking at a cross-section through the

[30:32] building. Um in blue is the is the

[30:35] building. Um you can see that there is

[30:37] quite a bit of um there is some cut. Uh

[30:40] there is a maximum cut of 15 feet in

[30:42] height to create the parking lot. there

[30:45] is a um a fill of 14 feet in height. Um

[30:49] those those are really restrained though

[30:51] to where development is occurring. There

[30:53] aren't many uh fill slopes. Um they're

[30:55] using retaining walls to really restrain

[30:57] how much grading needs to occur um to

[31:00] provide these 30 units. Um you'll also

[31:02] notice that the site uh is pretty

[31:04] balanced. Uh the amount of cut and fill

[31:06] are pretty close. They will need to

[31:08] import a little bit of soil. Uh I think

[31:10] it looks like about 300 cubic yards, a

[31:12] little less than that. um but relatively

[31:15] balanced site.

[31:17] I will also note uh on the right uh the

[31:20] retaining walls shown there in yellow uh

[31:22] those are each six-ft retaining walls

[31:24] and those do meet the maximum height uh

[31:26] and separation for retaining walls. So

[31:29] those uh uh retaining walls do meet our

[31:31] standards. Um when we jump into

[31:33] landscape uh um requirements, um you'll

[31:36] see that staff is recommending um some

[31:38] trailing plants, possibly rosemary at

[31:40] the top of that upper retaining wall to

[31:41] kind of break up its appearance. Um and

[31:44] so those are the retaining walls I'll be

[31:45] talking about when we get to

[31:46] landscaping.

[31:48] Looking at another um uh section. So now

[31:50] we're looking through the that kind of

[31:52] upper parking lot looking back towards

[31:55] the building. Um this section just

[31:57] misses the building. So, you can see

[31:58] that there'll be a fill slope between

[32:00] the building and the parking lot. Um,

[32:02] and some fill there. I think I've got an

[32:04] animation. That's where the little patio

[32:06] is. And there is some fill. Oops. Below

[32:08] it, it looks like my animation didn't

[32:10] work. But um, so again, there is some

[32:12] fill, but it really is constrained. You

[32:14] can see on the um

[32:17] um on the left is where the sidewalk is

[32:19] located. The building will be pretty

[32:21] close to at the same grade with the with

[32:23] the with the uh with Nibck Road and with

[32:25] the adjacent sidewalk.

[32:29] And finally, uh there is also a section

[32:32] uh provided through the the long parking

[32:34] lot and then closer to the driveway

[32:36] entrance. Um you can see there uh there

[32:38] is some fill um but it is uh compared to

[32:41] the size of that parking lot and the

[32:42] slope of the lot. It is relatively uh uh

[32:45] um it is a relatively small amount of

[32:48] fill slope that we'll be seeing um when

[32:50] this project is complete.

[32:54] Um jumping into the landscape plan. This

[32:55] is the plan that the applicant had uh

[32:57] had brought to the the development

[32:59] review committee. Um one of the

[33:01] questions staff had for the DRC was is

[33:03] this adequate landscaping. We do have

[33:05] standards in our municipal code that

[33:06] require unused areas, yards that don't,

[33:09] you know, aren't covered by parking lots

[33:11] and buildings and so forth or hidden

[33:13] behind fences that they are meant to be

[33:15] landscaped. Um and the the development

[33:17] review committee felt like it would be

[33:18] appropriate to have some oak tree

[33:20] plantings in the more natural areas that

[33:22] aren't going to get formal landscaping

[33:24] in order to comply with that landscaping

[33:26] requirement. Um staff prepared this uh

[33:29] this uh exhibit uh that is provided in

[33:31] the staff report. This is just to try to

[33:34] um capture what we heard from the DRC.

[33:36] Um, and so there is a condition of

[33:38] approval that would require, I believe

[33:39] it's 15 oak trees to be planted in

[33:42] clusters and kind of natural clusters on

[33:44] the undeveloped portions of the lot.

[33:46] It'll help to soften the appearance of

[33:48] those and be relatively easy to

[33:49] maintain. I mentioned um that there are

[33:52] some retaining walls along the east side

[33:53] of that eastern uh uh um parking area.

[33:56] And so you'll see that the trailing

[33:58] plants are recommended above that upper

[34:00] retaining wall. And then there was a

[34:01] little landscape planter adjacent to the

[34:04] garbage enclosure that should also be

[34:05] included in the landscape plan.

[34:09] Um, here's a quick look at the floor

[34:11] plans. As I said, this is a mix of one

[34:13] and twobedroom units. So, this is the

[34:15] first floor. There is an area where it's

[34:18] a residence center. There's an outdoor

[34:19] deck that uh points towards the uh oak

[34:22] woodland. They'll provide a nice space

[34:24] and there's a reading room. So, there is

[34:26] um some nice indoor shared recreation

[34:28] space. There's also a laundry room on

[34:31] the first floor. The second and third

[34:33] floors are relatively similar. Um, and

[34:35] so there is um there's no common open

[34:38] space on the second and third floors,

[34:39] but there is laundry on each floor. And

[34:42] so there will be uh laundry facilities

[34:44] for for um residents on each floor.

[34:49] Um there was a pre previous iteration of

[34:51] this project that was approved I believe

[34:53] in 2021. Um that project was 20 uh units

[34:57] that would have been market rate units.

[34:59] Um at that time the project included a a

[35:02] secondary driveway that would have

[35:04] required alterations to the creek. It

[35:07] would have required uh the removal of an

[35:08] oak tree and it would have also um a lot

[35:11] of grading, biological impacts, an oak

[35:14] tree removal and then also would have

[35:15] been a somewhat awkward egress um that

[35:18] would have gone through the Highlands

[35:19] Church parking lot. the applicant had

[35:21] the right to do that, but it was a

[35:22] fairly awkward uh solution. This project

[35:25] would eliminate that uh that secondary

[35:27] egress and instead uh it will be

[35:30] restricting uh um left turns in into and

[35:34] out of the site. So to enter this site,

[35:36] you would have to be traveling eastbound

[35:38] and make a right turn into the project.

[35:40] When you're uh exiting the site, you

[35:42] have to make a right turn. I think I've

[35:44] got um some um animations there. If

[35:47] you're leaving the site, you need to

[35:48] make a right turn and head east. Um, as

[35:51] I've stated multiple times, this is a

[35:53] senior population and so we hope that

[35:54] we'll see good compliance with these

[35:56] rules. Um, but there will be a median.

[35:58] You see it in yellow there. Um, that

[36:00] will be um, [clears throat]

[36:02] uh, required to be installed. It will

[36:04] restrict movements for cars. Um, there

[36:06] is a requirement that the median be

[36:08] mountable for fire trucks, garbage

[36:09] trucks, big trucks that need to come on

[36:11] to the site and provide emergency and

[36:13] other services to the site. But regular

[36:16] cars will have to um make right turns to

[36:18] to get inside and out of the project.

[36:22] And that's due to sight distance. There

[36:24] is uh you're of course climbing NibL

[36:26] Road here and it starts to turn uh off

[36:28] to the uh kind of southeast or more west

[36:31] I suppose it is. Um uh and so it's uh

[36:35] there is limited sight distance and so

[36:37] for folks entering and exiting the site

[36:39] this is to ensure safe movements.

[36:43] Um we did receive two public comments,

[36:46] written public comments. Um the

[36:47] [clears throat] first had a list of 11

[36:49] items. Um the second uh uh comment was

[36:52] uh exclusively about parking, which is

[36:54] the second comment that the uh written

[36:56] comment u made. I've uh got them listed

[36:59] here. Um and so we can um dive in as

[37:01] much as the planning commission would

[37:03] like to. We've also got the city

[37:04] engineer here this evening and she can

[37:06] explain the the traffic and greeting um

[37:09] better than I have. Um the first public

[37:11] comment was that the entry in egress is

[37:13] flawed and dangerous. We have vetted

[37:15] this with the fire department with the

[37:17] um with our transportation consultant.

[37:20] Um we explored a lot of different

[37:22] options, different ways to provide

[37:24] egress and ingress in this site and and

[37:27] really it's come down to this pork chop

[37:28] and it being the most uh feasible

[37:30] solution. Um and it has been determined

[37:33] by the engineering team that this would

[37:35] be would create safe movements into and

[37:38] out of the site. Um the second uh uh uh

[37:41] um comment was about having inadequate

[37:43] parking. As I mentioned, the second

[37:45] comment letter we got was also about the

[37:47] parking exception. Um the applicant will

[37:50] provide us some parking numbers, but

[37:51] they um I was surprised how low um she

[37:54] she provided the numbers at the

[37:56] development review committee meeting. Um

[37:58] and they're they're they're they're

[38:00] quite low. um and the parking uh rate

[38:03] that that would be expected uh they'll

[38:05] be covered by the the spaces that are

[38:07] provided. But more importantly, state

[38:09] law does say if the applicant requests

[38:11] this concession, they are entitled to

[38:13] this concession. Um the third comment

[38:15] was about excessive grading. I've

[38:17] provided some slides about how the the

[38:19] project has constrained grading to the

[38:22] degree possible. You can see on the

[38:23] right there, this is a sloping site. Uh

[38:26] also constrained um by the oak trees. Uh

[38:29] so there was limited room. uh the

[38:30] applicant kept the building on the some

[38:32] of the least uh steeply sloping part of

[38:35] the lot and um compared to the project

[38:37] that was approved uh five or so years

[38:39] ago um this project actually is quite a

[38:41] bit less grading. The previous project

[38:43] actually was going to lay back that

[38:45] upper hill and um and put some

[38:48] additional structures uh closer to the

[38:50] apartments to the east.

[38:53] Um the uh excuse me the uh public

[38:55] comments uh uh made a a comment about

[38:58] the creek setbacks. Um, this project

[39:00] stays completely outside of the open

[39:02] space easement which was the setbacks

[39:04] that were established for this uh site.

[39:07] Um, the applicant, excuse me, I keep uh

[39:10] misspeaking. The public uh comment um

[39:13] mentioned that storm water runoff has

[39:15] been inadequately addressed. At this

[39:17] time, we do have preliminary storm water

[39:19] um uh calculations um that the

[39:22] engineering team has has uh um reviewed.

[39:25] Um those do get refined as we go into

[39:27] grading and building permits. Um but uh

[39:30] the city engineer has determined that it

[39:32] is feasible to address uh the storm

[39:34] water that will be generated by the

[39:36] project. Um the uh public comment was

[39:39] concerned that there are too many units.

[39:41] As I said, the city council did allocate

[39:43] 20 units to the site and state law says

[39:46] that this applicant is entitled actually

[39:47] to even more units. If they wanted a

[39:49] larger uh density bonus, they could have

[39:52] requested an 80% density bonus. They

[39:54] just they uh develop they designed a

[39:57] project that um got as many units as

[40:00] they possibly could, but it it actually

[40:01] didn't maximize the number that they

[40:03] could uh request. Um the uh public

[40:07] comment uh claimed that the community

[40:09] has been unable or is unable to absorb

[40:11] the all the rental housing that's coming

[40:13] onto the market. I believe the applicant

[40:15] will provide some numbers, but the two

[40:17] uh projects that came online last year,

[40:20] the Riverwalk Terrace and the Sunrise

[40:22] Villas um are entirely uh uh occupied as

[40:26] I understand, those are both um

[40:27] affordable projects and there are long

[40:29] waiting lists to get into those

[40:31] developments. So um uh you know, the

[40:34] city's understanding and the applicant's

[40:35] understanding is that there is is

[40:37] certainly demand for affordable housing

[40:39] in our community. The public comment uh

[40:43] uh uh stated that the um that the the

[40:46] lands might be Native American ancestral

[40:48] lands. As I mentioned, there were um

[40:51] there was a previous project on the

[40:52] site. That project included uh impacts

[40:55] to the creek and so there was a

[40:57] mitigated negative declaration prepared

[40:58] for that project. one of the mitigation

[41:01] measures that um or there was an

[41:03] archaeological report created for that

[41:05] project and the archaeologist found no

[41:08] evidence of of any uh um Native American

[41:11] cultural um artifacts or any impacts

[41:14] there on the site. Um there was a

[41:16] mitigation measure that required a a

[41:18] Native American tribe or an

[41:19] archaeologist to monitor uh ground

[41:22] disturbance. That mitigation measure was

[41:24] inadvertently left out of the the the

[41:27] proposed resolution. So staff will be

[41:28] recommending that that requirement to

[41:30] monitor will be readded to the uh to

[41:33] this project um and to address any

[41:35] potential impacts to um Native American

[41:37] cultural uh artifacts. Um the applicant

[41:40] or excuse me the p the public comment

[41:43] mentioned that the project would be

[41:44] unsightely from Highway 101. Um I've got

[41:46] some slides we'll jump into um and the

[41:48] the next slide that try to give an idea

[41:51] of what the what the uh this the project

[41:53] would look like from um the freeway.

[41:55] It's a little hard to assess, but um we

[41:57] can certainly look at that. Um the uh

[42:01] project actually eliminates all oak tree

[42:03] removals. There will be no oak trees

[42:04] removed as a part of this project. The

[42:06] previous iteration did remove one oak

[42:08] tree. Um and actually the project will

[42:10] be planting at least 15 oak trees on the

[42:12] site. Um so there'll actually be a net

[42:15] benefit in oak trees. And then there was

[42:18] a claim that the um the view that there

[42:20] was a viewshed that's a protected

[42:21] viewshed to the south of the site. As I

[42:23] mentioned, there is an open space

[42:24] easement, and that uh easement is uh

[42:26] both to protect the oak trees and the

[42:28] the seasonal creek. It also houses the

[42:30] pedestrian path that's to the south of

[42:32] the creek. Um there was no viewshed uh

[42:35] um uh limit on that. There was no

[42:37] protection of the view. Um and the

[42:39] portion of the of the lot not in that

[42:41] open space uh was left for development.

[42:45] So, this next slide uh is intended to um

[42:48] looks like I've got an animation I

[42:50] didn't intend. um is to to give an idea

[42:52] of the um relative height. The the

[42:55] comment came from uh one of the owners

[42:57] from the Alder Creek condominiums. Um

[42:59] this project would have a finished floor

[43:01] of uh at 760 ft. The building is 37 and

[43:06] 1/2 ft tall from that finished floor. So

[43:07] you can see in blue that's um the

[43:09] maximum height of the building will be

[43:11] at 797 and 1/2 ft. the Alder Creek

[43:14] Apartments approximately at 781 feet

[43:18] judging by uh the the the topo lines and

[43:20] the grading plan. So, um uh the roof of

[43:24] the building will be, you know, a little

[43:25] taller than the the foundation of Alder

[43:28] Creek. Alder Creek's about it's a

[43:29] two-story building. I don't know how

[43:31] tall those buildings are, but largely

[43:33] the uh this building will actually be

[43:35] below um the Alder Creek uh apartments.

[43:38] Um the red line, the red dotted line is

[43:41] definitely not to scale. The width of

[43:42] the the horizontal uh dimension is not

[43:45] to scale um in this this image, but the

[43:48] uh vertical scale is is to uh to scale.

[43:55] This is my attempt. So this is a Google

[43:57] Street view. I didn't go out on onto the

[43:59] freeway exit. Um but this is a Google

[44:01] Street view so we can kind of get an

[44:03] idea. Um the few uh points of interest

[44:06] you can see to the far right that's the

[44:07] Kennedy Club building. Um a a building

[44:10] that sits you know close to this

[44:12] building. Um and it is it is a

[44:14] prominently uh visible uh building from

[44:16] the freeway. Um I don't know the name of

[44:18] the condos that are at the top of Oak

[44:20] Hill but that's them there um towards

[44:22] the middle of the image. the Alder Creek

[44:24] apartments there are pointed to and then

[44:27] the the site where Highlands will uh be

[44:29] located and we've already seen they'll

[44:31] be lower than the Alder Creek uh

[44:32] apartments by a bit but they're there to

[44:35] the left. So certainly they will add to

[44:37] what you can see on the hillside. Um but

[44:39] there are a lot of visual visual impacts

[44:42] that that exist. Um

[44:45] so here's a look at the street view of

[44:47] the actual site. You can see the

[44:48] Highlands Church there on the right and

[44:50] then the Alder Creek apartments are

[44:51] there on the far left.

[44:55] So, um, jumping into what's in the

[44:57] resolution, um, there are a, you know, a

[44:59] laundry list of conditions of approval.

[45:01] These are just summaries and they don't

[45:03] include all the conditions of approval.

[45:05] Those are in the draft resolution in

[45:06] your staff report this evening. The

[45:08] sixth and seventh uh conditions of

[45:10] approval require um affordability

[45:13] agreements that are related to um

[45:15] restricting these units to uh low-income

[45:17] households. Those in the 30 to 60% um

[45:21] AMI, the uh average um I keep I

[45:25] shouldn't put myself in that position

[45:26] where I have to think about what the AMI

[45:28] is is the average um mean income. I

[45:31] think I've got that wrong. Um but the

[45:34] the project will be required to go into

[45:36] agreements with the city that the units

[45:37] will be um affordable for 55 years. Um

[45:41] there is a requirement that the project

[45:43] comply with the city's um new dark sky

[45:45] lighting requirements. Um they'll have

[45:48] to provide adequate laundry facilities

[45:50] for the project. Uh retaining walls will

[45:52] need to be mason mason masonry material

[45:55] uh textured concrete or similar. Um we

[45:58] discussed the landscaping uh that they

[46:00] need to include 15 native trees that

[46:02] will be uh scattered on the site. Um

[46:05] some trailing plants above the retaining

[46:06] wall and landscaping adjacent to the

[46:08] garbage enclosure. They will need to

[46:10] plant some additional street trees. Um

[46:12] there's uh um some existing landscaping

[46:15] and irrigation that is maintained by the

[46:16] city, but it's got some gaps and so um

[46:19] conditions 13 and 14 would require that

[46:21] landscaping and irrigation to be uh

[46:24] repaired. And then um the applicant does

[46:26] intend to put some signs on the site. We

[46:28] didn't get details of those. So when

[46:30] those come in um with building permits,

[46:32] we'll bring those back to the DRC for

[46:33] their review.

[46:36] Um the then this slide here has some of

[46:39] the engineering conditions. There is a

[46:41] long condition related to circulation.

[46:43] We talked about the fact that the turn

[46:45] movements will need to be um limited.

[46:47] They'll need to make some ADA

[46:48] improvements and some signage and um

[46:51] striping and so forth. Um, they will

[46:53] also need to replace the median

[46:55] landscaping and they'll need to provide

[46:56] a new surface for the driveway entrance,

[46:58] the kind of turn pocket that enters the

[47:00] site. As I said, this is not a

[47:02] comprehensive list that is there in your

[47:04] draft resolution.

[47:07] Um, there are findings that the planning

[47:09] commission needs to make. A lot of them

[47:11] are about the project being consistent

[47:12] with the goals and policies of our of

[47:14] our city, the general plan, the zoning

[47:16] ordinance, um the uh any other plans and

[47:20] and standards of the city. Um there are

[47:22] condition or excuse me, findings

[47:24] provided in the resolution uh that the

[47:26] the planning commission can use to

[47:27] approve the project. In addition, um

[47:30] you're finding that the project

[47:31] accommodates the aesthetic quality of

[47:33] the city and that it's compatible with

[47:35] the existing scenic and environmental

[47:37] resources.

[47:40] Um the project uh staff is recommending

[47:42] that the project be found exempt from

[47:44] environmental review as a class 32

[47:46] categorical exemption. These are

[47:48] exemptions for infill development. They

[47:50] have to be on sites less than five

[47:51] acres. They have to be substantially

[47:53] surrounded by other urban uses and not

[47:55] have any um significant impacts to

[47:57] things like traffic, noise, air quality,

[47:59] and water quality. So there's a what's

[48:02] called a notice of um exemption that's

[48:05] provided in the resolution that goes

[48:06] through all the reasons why this project

[48:08] is exempt from SQUA.

[48:12] As always, the planning commission has

[48:13] options. The first would be to approve

[48:15] the project by adopting the draft

[48:17] resolution. Um uh that and the project

[48:19] would be approved based on findings and

[48:21] subject to the conditions of approval.

[48:23] Uh the planning commission could approve

[48:24] the project with modifications uh to the

[48:27] conditions of approval or to the project

[48:29] itself by adopting the u by amending and

[48:32] adopting the draft resolution. If you

[48:34] feel you need more information, you can

[48:35] refer the project back to the DRC or to

[48:37] staff. Um or you could deny the project

[48:40] by adopting findings of denial. Um

[48:45] uh staff is making a recommendation for

[48:47] option two, which would be to approve

[48:49] the project. We are recommending a an

[48:51] additional condition of approval that

[48:53] would require monitoring of uh grading

[48:55] of the site. Uh would be u a a

[48:59] professional archaeologist would need to

[49:00] help create a cultural resource

[49:02] monitoring plan. And then there would be

[49:04] uh folks on site to make sure that

[49:07] nothing is uncovered during during

[49:08] grading and construction.

[49:11] And I believe that is uh that ends

[49:13] staff's report.

[49:16] » Thank you Katie. That was a lot. Um,

[49:20] we'll get there. So, before before we

[49:23] get into questions, um, would the

[49:25] applicant like to make some comments?

[49:28] Yeah, absolutely.

[49:38] » Hi, good evening. My name is Lori Doyle.

[49:40] I'm executive vice president of

[49:41] Affordable Housing Development

[49:43] Corporation. Um, we are the proposed

[49:45] co-developer of the Highlands 298 Nibble

[49:48] property that you're seeing in front of

[49:49] you this evening. We're also partnered

[49:51] with the Pastor Robels Housing Authority

[49:53] and their new executive director, Nick

[49:55] Rasmmanson, is here with me tonight as

[49:56] well. Um, we have I' I've met with a few

[50:00] of you in the DRC meetings, but um, we

[50:03] have been a part of this community for a

[50:05] better part of a decade. We were uh

[50:07] partners with the housing authority for

[50:09] Oak Park 3 and four as well as Sunrise

[50:12] Villas and Riverwalk Terrace which Katie

[50:14] talked about earlier. Um most of these

[50:16] projects were um I say um a majority of

[50:19] the project uh but all those projects I

[50:21] mentioned were made possible because of

[50:23] the cities both are political and their

[50:25] funding support um of the city of Paser

[50:28] Robas. So it was a partnership between

[50:30] my organization as well as the housing

[50:31] authority and the city as well. We

[50:33] always call the city our partner. Um, as

[50:36] Katie mentioned, um, we were

[50:37] recommended, um, unanimously by the DRC.

[50:40] So, we're here for your approval of our

[50:42] final entitlements for this project. Um,

[50:44] I did want to mention two, uh, I think

[50:46] I'm going to answer two questions, um,

[50:49] regarding parking and, um, absorption of

[50:51] affordable housing. So, I'll start with

[50:53] parking. Um, I'll start with Riverwalk

[50:56] Terrace, which I think most of you are

[50:57] probably most familiar with. And this is

[50:58] kind of our sort of phase two of

[51:00] Riverwalk because it's just across South

[51:02] River Road from um the 79 units that

[51:05] Riverwalk Terrace is. So that property

[51:08] has um 79 units and 82 parking parking

[51:13] stalls that are dedicated to that

[51:16] property. And um we do what we call like

[51:19] parking studies, parking counts. So we

[51:20] go out, we survey how many cars are out

[51:22] there. We we actually our managers

[51:24] become very close with our residents

[51:25] anyway. So we kind of know who's driving

[51:27] what and we do surveys like during the

[51:29] day, during the weekend, during the

[51:30] night to figure out how many cars are

[51:32] actually on site. So there's about 50%

[51:34] of those um spots are empty all the

[51:36] time. Um so out of the 82 spots, there's

[51:39] only about 40 or so that are actually

[51:41] full all the time. Um the housing

[51:44] authority is also a part of the CED

[51:46] daughter pro project which is um over

[51:50] off of I forget what number street it

[51:51] is, but it's south of Oak Park one. Um,

[51:54] so over on that on the north side of

[51:55] town and that has 40 units total and

[51:59] they only have 34 spaces. Granted, that

[52:01] project was approved a long time ago and

[52:03] they're about at the same type of um

[52:06] open or um resident use [clears throat]

[52:08] or residents that have cars and guests

[52:10] that have cars. So about 50% of the

[52:12] stalls are open most of the time. Um,

[52:14] and then here we're actually, as you

[52:16] know, we're proposing 30 units and 38

[52:19] spaces. So, it's actually more than both

[52:20] of those um both of those projects that

[52:23] I just referenced and we would expect to

[52:24] have the same type of um parking

[52:27] situation there. So, I operate um

[52:29] affordable housing all over the state of

[52:30] California. I'm just giving you examples

[52:32] here because it makes most sense to you

[52:34] all. Um but this is what we're seeing

[52:36] throughout our senior communities

[52:37] throughout the state of California as

[52:38] well. So, it's about 50% um have cars in

[52:42] 55 and older communities. And in family

[52:44] communities like Sunrise Villas, that's

[52:46] about 1.5 cars to one. So just for a

[52:49] little bit of perspective. And then

[52:51] relative to the weight list and the

[52:53] absorption of affordable housing, I

[52:54] think we're all aware that we we need

[52:56] more affordable housing. We need as much

[52:58] as we can get. Um Riverwalk Terrace,

[53:00] again, I'll compare the seniors. Um that

[53:03] property was fully occupied within a

[53:05] weekend. Um as soon as we opened it, all

[53:08] 79 people wanted to move in one day. We

[53:10] had to spread it out. So, we had to make

[53:11] it 3 or 4 days so it wasn't overwhelming

[53:13] for everybody. That property has an

[53:15] almost 700 person waiting list right

[53:17] now. So, we are um expected to utilize

[53:21] that wait list when we open this

[53:23] property as well. Sunrise Villas, I know

[53:25] this is a big one. This is family. Um

[53:27] there's 1500 people on our waiting list

[53:29] there. And Oak Park, um three and four,

[53:31] which I'm involved in, have over 700

[53:33] people on their weight list. So, those

[53:35] are family projects. But just giving you

[53:37] some perspective, we have no doubt that

[53:39] we will absorb these units very quickly.

[53:42] And um also just to point out as part of

[53:44] our financing mechanism, we have to do a

[53:46] third party market study that they will

[53:48] come in and they will put it in writing

[53:50] as to and they'll they'll do um kind of

[53:53] an audit of all the affordable housing

[53:55] and what's available and the need and

[53:56] they'll put this into into writing for

[53:59] us for our financing um mechanisms that

[54:01] we get from the state. So I think that's

[54:04] um all I have. I'm here for questions.

[54:06] Um Nick is as well. And um yeah, thank

[54:09] you for letting me be up here.

[54:13] » Thank you. All right, if you'll stand by

[54:15] close in case there are questions

[54:16] directly for you.

[54:17] » Thank you.

[54:18] » Um so we'll bring it back to the

[54:19] commission and uh we'll start over here,

[54:22] Commissioner Connley.

[54:27] » Okay. Yeah. Um it was good that you went

[54:30] over the parking situation that it's

[54:32] similar development. It's only 50%.

[54:35] Um I'm wondering how much guest I mean

[54:38] uh staff parking there would be uh for

[54:41] this if if there's staff on on site that

[54:44] could take up some of the 38 parking

[54:47] spaces that are available.

[54:49] » Um the applicant may have more

[54:50] information. One of the units on of the

[54:53] 30 will be a manager's unit and then

[54:55] there are two offices shown but uh one

[54:58] of the like I said one of the the staff

[55:00] will live on site so there'll be one of

[55:01] the 30 apartment tenants. Um but I uh

[55:04] you know there's 38 spots. My

[55:06] understanding is they don't intend to

[55:08] designate spots for any particular

[55:09] person.

[55:11] » Yeah. And also the parking discussion

[55:13] was somewhat good to hear that a similar

[55:16] type of senior living uh isn't full, but

[55:19] I was concerned about overflow parking

[55:22] with guest parking potentially to the

[55:24] Highland church area or parking that's

[55:28] down the grade a little bit. But I I

[55:30] think uh the concern was alleviated with

[55:32] your comments. Uh wanted to ask uh about

[55:36] the the trash enclosure. I know it's a

[55:39] small thing, but I didn't see any

[55:40] architectural treatment for that. I

[55:42] assume it's going to be similar to the

[55:45] to the main building. I saw the location

[55:47] of it.

[55:49] » Yeah. I apologize for not including a

[55:51] slide. It is included in the the the

[55:53] resolution. Um it is um uh there it's

[55:56] block. It is um and I'm the type of

[55:59] block is is is giving me split face.

[56:02] Thank you very much. Split face block is

[56:04] the exterior of the the garbage

[56:05] enclosure.

[56:07] » Um this being a senior living community

[56:11] just for my own education. uh what

[56:14] prevents someone uh that's not a senior,

[56:17] maybe has kids

[56:20] uh maybe under 55 from from uh occupying

[56:25] these these units.

[56:27] » Um as I said, there is an on-site

[56:28] manager. Um Lori, that's probably a

[56:30] better question for you. How how that

[56:32] gets managed?

[56:36] So, in our lease, in the lease that they

[56:38] sign, um there's like affidavit that

[56:41] they have to sign that and obviously we

[56:42] we we check the dates and all that stuff

[56:44] of their year, birth and all that sort

[56:46] of thing. Um there haven't been, again,

[56:48] I I do operate senior um housing

[56:50] throughout California. There's very few

[56:52] instances where um I I've heard people

[56:55] be worried about like grandparents

[56:56] raising children and things like that.

[56:58] That typically doesn't happen in in um

[57:00] in in the communities at least that we

[57:02] operate. Um, and if there was like a

[57:04] long-term like a I don't know, for lack

[57:07] of better terms, a squatter, like a kid

[57:08] squatter or something like that, there's

[57:10] the the manager on site is very aware.

[57:12] Um, as you can imagine, especially with

[57:14] a small project like this, um, the

[57:16] manager will be very um much familiar

[57:19] with everybody and their and their

[57:21] guests and their okay families.

[57:23] » Yeah. I just didn't know how. It's

[57:24] really it'd be a lease violation if

[57:26] there was anything that we found and

[57:27] then we would be able to

[57:29] » I assume that there's a like the oaks

[57:31] and other places have that same concern.

[57:35] » Okay. Mhm.

[57:35] » Um and the only other minor concern is

[57:38] uh I noticed the retaining walls on the

[57:40] top of cuts um may have to have some

[57:44] safety rails and be concerned about the

[57:47] architectural treatment of that as well

[57:49] as we mentioned additional landscaping

[57:52] but staff presented something that I

[57:54] liked on that but the safety rails on

[57:56] the retaining walls might be needed and

[57:58] the architectural treatment of that. So

[58:01] that those are some things that I I'm

[58:04] concerned about. Thank you.

[58:08] » Thank you, sir. Commissioner Rhoden.

[58:10] » Thank you, Chairman.

[58:13] Um I think I I think the thing that

[58:15] stands out for all of us that I brought

[58:17] up even at DRC was the the parking. I

[58:20] think you um attempting quite well

[58:24] eliminating some of those concerns. The

[58:26] only thing I would say the difference

[58:28] possibly is that at some of the other

[58:30] sites there's other parking nearby that

[58:33] it's is accessible. I think this is

[58:36] pretty isolated so that if you did have

[58:40] a lot of visitors during holidays or

[58:42] whatever that it might

[58:44] might be an issue where it is in other

[58:46] places just to keep in mind. Um and it

[58:50] it looks like on Nibck Road there's only

[58:52] a right turn in and a right turn out. Is

[58:55] that correct?

[58:56] » Correct. There is currently a turn

[58:58] pocket and and a right only right turns

[59:00] in the uh pork chop median that's shown.

[59:03] There you go. Yes. Only right turns will

[59:05] be allowed uh when you're leaving the

[59:06] site.

[59:07] » Is there going to be a guard in the

[59:10] center lane that prevents people from

[59:12] turning from that center lane?

[59:16] » The the lane going west.

[59:19] » Sure. The no the So there is a road and

[59:22] unfortunately the images we see here

[59:23] don't show it. uh quarter horse lane is

[59:25] just immediately to the north and we did

[59:27] explore I believe it's called a worm

[59:29] median where it would really funnel the

[59:31] traffic and and and restrict those those

[59:34] turns but it would impact the existing

[59:36] neighborhood to the north and so that

[59:37] that solution was um was taken off the

[59:40] table and the um the pork chop which

[59:43] will only impact this project and not

[59:45] the rest of the city um was was selected

[59:47] as the solution. So, I see what what

[59:50] happens out on Highway 46 with when we

[59:54] partitioned it to where you're not

[59:55] supposed to make a left turn on on

[59:57] airport on the 46. I can't tell you how

[1:00:00] many trucks have been turning in front

[1:00:01] of me going east on 46. So, that that

[1:00:05] was one of my concerns that people

[1:00:07] aren't going to want to go down to the

[1:00:08] light, do a U-turn in both directions.

[1:00:11] » Commissioner Rhoden, I can speak a

[1:00:13] little bit to the pork chop as well. Um

[1:00:15] during design, a traditional pork chop

[1:00:17] was proposed uh by the applicant.

[1:00:19] However, the applicant then worked with

[1:00:21] the city's traffic consultants to have a

[1:00:23] more defined pork chop that really

[1:00:26] funnels traffic to the east because that

[1:00:28] was our traffic consultants concern as

[1:00:30] well. And

[1:00:30] » Is there a shaking finger there for

[1:00:32] people who

[1:00:35] » Uh yeah, it was identified during the

[1:00:37] planning entitlements and then will be

[1:00:39] further pursued in construction

[1:00:40] documents to make sure that the um

[1:00:42] appropriate pork chop geometry is

[1:00:44] installed there.

[1:00:45] » Thank you. I like the project. As you

[1:00:48] know, we have limited rentals in this in

[1:00:51] this town. Very limited limited senior

[1:00:54] and lowincome rentals. Um, I like the

[1:00:58] area of where it's being proposed as

[1:01:00] well.

[1:01:01] That's it.

[1:01:04] » Thank you, Commissioner.

[1:01:06] Commissioner

[1:01:08] Commissioner Marlo.

[1:01:10] » Good.

[1:01:10] » All right. Uh, just a couple questions.

[1:01:13] So, [clears throat] the you guys, the

[1:01:16] city is requesting in addition uh to the

[1:01:19] approval

[1:01:21] more requirements around an

[1:01:23] archaeologist.

[1:01:25] Um what can you and you probably said it

[1:01:27] but can you run me through the thought

[1:01:28] process there because I think the

[1:01:31] purpose of concessions and reducing

[1:01:33] parking and all these things are to keep

[1:01:34] construction costs down which allows the

[1:01:36] affordable housing and I've been on

[1:01:38] projects with a full-time arch

[1:01:40] archaeologist on site and it's extremely

[1:01:42] expensive and I've in my career never

[1:01:45] actually found anything that not to say

[1:01:47] that it wouldn't be justified to a

[1:01:49] degree. So could you walk me through

[1:01:50] that because

[1:01:51] » Yeah, as I stated with the previous

[1:01:53] iteration, we did prepare a mitigated

[1:01:55] negative declaration and there was an

[1:01:56] archa a report prepared for the site.

[1:01:59] The archaeologists who went out did not

[1:02:01] find any artifacts or evidence uh you

[1:02:03] know of of cultural resources being

[1:02:05] located on the site. Um but we did

[1:02:07] receive a comment from the Native

[1:02:09] American community and that was a

[1:02:10] request. Um and so uh we've worked with

[1:02:13] the applicant and they are comfortable

[1:02:14] with the with the condition and are

[1:02:16] ready to accept it. Um and so it would

[1:02:19] require you know monitoring when they

[1:02:20] first break the ground open and are

[1:02:22] doing that grading. Um but it is in re

[1:02:24] in response to a previous comment that

[1:02:26] re received from the tribes.

[1:02:28] » Okay. I understand. And and the

[1:02:31] applicant you guys are okay. All right.

[1:02:33] I know that can get pretty expensive. So

[1:02:36] um the only other thing is um the trash

[1:02:39] enclosure. Don't love where it's at. I'm

[1:02:42] not sure if there's a lot of other

[1:02:44] options. seems like it's just kind of

[1:02:45] hanging out there. But, uh, not really a

[1:02:47] question, more of a comment. But my only

[1:02:49] other thing would be like maybe you

[1:02:51] could tuck that into the hillside or

[1:02:53] something a little more creative. But

[1:02:54] aside from that, um, oh, just just one

[1:02:57] more thing with with these um

[1:02:59] concessions, just what I was doing quick

[1:03:01] quick research, unless it provoke from

[1:03:03] my understanding propos uh is a major

[1:03:06] safety or health issue, we really that's

[1:03:09] pretty much entitled, right? Like they

[1:03:11] because of what they're providing.

[1:03:13] » That's correct. the city would be

[1:03:14] exposed to legal challenges if if we did

[1:03:17] not uh you know accept the the density

[1:03:19] bonus requested and those concessions.

[1:03:21] » Where's that line at? Because you know

[1:03:23] we're less parking. I I get the point.

[1:03:27] Probably never going to be full. Is

[1:03:29] there like a cost analysis done where

[1:03:32] like well actually we could get two more

[1:03:34] or four more spots for little to no

[1:03:36] money? I'm just curious like where the

[1:03:38] line is on that, right? because

[1:03:40] » For for for $5,000 they could get all

[1:03:43] the spots. I'm not saying that's true.

[1:03:44] Like where is that line drawn? And

[1:03:46] » There is some language in state law that

[1:03:48] addresses that. Um it would be the onus

[1:03:50] of the city to provide that

[1:03:52] documentation. It's not the

[1:03:53] responsibility of the applicant and so

[1:03:55] it would be a financial burden on the

[1:03:57] city to do that. We do have the city

[1:03:58] attorney on the line and if she wants to

[1:04:01] to chime in um I'm sure she has knows

[1:04:04] the law better than I. Yeah, I was just

[1:04:05] I was just curious because so it's it's

[1:04:08] on us to say, well, actually it wouldn't

[1:04:10] cost you that much more money to do it

[1:04:11] is what you're saying. Okay. All right.

[1:04:14] Well,

[1:04:16] that's all I had. Thank you.

[1:04:19] » Thank you, Commissioner. Looking over to

[1:04:21] my right, Commissioner Kogler. Mr.

[1:04:24] » Chair, thank you. Um, my site related

[1:04:26] questions have already been asked and

[1:04:28] answered thanks to my peers and Katie's

[1:04:30] responses. I'm just curious for the

[1:04:32] applicant. You said you have a marketing

[1:04:34] study that's going to be done. Since the

[1:04:36] housing redevelopment authority is a

[1:04:37] component of this project, will that be

[1:04:38] public and available to us to look at

[1:04:41] when it's completed?

[1:04:42] » Okay. I think that would be really

[1:04:44] informative for this group and others

[1:04:45] within the city to have updated data.

[1:04:48] Thank you.

[1:04:50] » Thank you, sir. Commissioner Neil,

[1:04:53] » I was on DRC when this came forward and

[1:04:55] I quizzed the group extensively, so I

[1:04:58] think I had most of my questions

[1:05:00] answered.

[1:05:00] » Great.

[1:05:02] Good. Okay.

[1:05:04] Okay. Most of my questions Well,

[1:05:06] actually, you know what? I'll I'll ask

[1:05:08] just for clarification purposes. Um, you

[1:05:11] mentioned improvements.

[1:05:13] Sidewalks.

[1:05:15] I think it had Does it have sidewalks

[1:05:17] now?

[1:05:18] » Sidewalks are existing. I think there's

[1:05:20] a few spots I think some accessibility

[1:05:22] improvements, but the you're correct.

[1:05:24] The there is curb gutter and sidewalk

[1:05:26] surrounding uh both the north and west

[1:05:28] side of the lot. So when it comes to

[1:05:30] what because there's a lot of water that

[1:05:31] runs down Nibck during that you know

[1:05:34] during our storms is there going to be

[1:05:36] added drainage?

[1:05:37] » I'm going to defer to the city engineer.

[1:05:41] » There's a big piece.

[1:05:43] » Yeah.

[1:05:43] » Um there are drainage um proposed for

[1:05:47] the project um at the the left or excuse

[1:05:52] me the right turn in and right turn out.

[1:05:56] Edith, could you identify yourself,

[1:05:58] please?

[1:05:58] » Edith, could you identify yourself?

[1:06:00] Thank you.

[1:06:02] » This is Edith Lim with North Coast

[1:06:04] Engineering.

[1:06:06] » Um,

[1:06:08] and there is currently um a a cross

[1:06:12] gutter that goes across the existing

[1:06:15] driveway turnin.

[1:06:18] So, with the the little right hand turn

[1:06:21] in, right hand turn out, um there will

[1:06:25] be

[1:06:26] um an undersidewalk drain specific for

[1:06:29] this project to keep that water flowing.

[1:06:33] » Okay, thank you for that.

[1:06:34] » And and I would add to that is that um

[1:06:37] storm water would continue to flow in

[1:06:39] current conditions.

[1:06:41] » Okay.

[1:06:41] » As it does today.

[1:06:42] » As it does today. Okay.

[1:06:44] » Thank you very much. Um question Katie.

[1:06:48] So Highlands and the big parking lot is

[1:06:50] behind it to the uh to the south,

[1:06:54] correct? Is there going to be pathways

[1:06:56] and everything to that side of it or

[1:06:58] does does the restricted area, the creek

[1:07:01] prevent anything from going that way?

[1:07:04] » Yeah, any pathway would require grading

[1:07:06] within that uh within the the creek um

[1:07:09] or the the seasonal drainage. Um uh so

[1:07:12] if folks wanted to utilize, you know,

[1:07:14] the Highlands, if they wanted to to make

[1:07:15] the hike, um they would be going down

[1:07:17] the sidewalk and down that unnamed road

[1:07:19] that's to the west of the site.

[1:07:21] » Okay. And I'm sorry, I'm going to ask

[1:07:23] one more question. I I keep looking at

[1:07:25] my notes. Um there was a mention about

[1:07:27] kids. So in my understanding, it's so

[1:07:30] it's a 55 and older,

[1:07:33] not to say 55 year olds don't have

[1:07:35] children.

[1:07:37] Is it is it children restricted or

[1:07:40] children are acceptable

[1:07:43] on site living?

[1:07:46] » It's the size of the unit.

[1:07:48] » You can you somebody come up to the mic

[1:07:50] and answer that for those that are

[1:07:52] hearing listening.

[1:07:56] » It's just public comment.

[1:07:58] » So this So there's a majority of onebs,

[1:08:02] right? 25 onebedrooms and um the rest

[1:08:05] are two bedrooms. So the units

[1:08:08] themselves don't really lend themselves

[1:08:10] to having anyone really else in there.

[1:08:12] And typically the two bedrooms are

[1:08:14] occupied with couples or one and a

[1:08:17] caregiver. Um which it's typically

[1:08:20] couples if anything. Um at least that's

[1:08:22] our population that we're seeing at

[1:08:23] Riverwalk. So like I said in the lease

[1:08:25] it's it's pretty clear. Um, we're um

[1:08:29] with fair housing laws, there are

[1:08:31] exceptions that need to be made. Um, I

[1:08:33] can't like tell you exactly what the

[1:08:35] fair housing laws are. I don't have

[1:08:36] those memorized, but um, we really

[1:08:39] haven't come up with that instance where

[1:08:40] there's young children or even children

[1:08:43] living with them. It's usually like

[1:08:44] visiting if anything.

[1:08:46] » Okay.

[1:08:47] » It's it's hard to guarantee not, right?

[1:08:49] I can't put that stamp of guarantee on

[1:08:51] it, but it's not what what we've seen.

[1:08:53] It's not what's at chat daughter. It's

[1:08:54] not at Riverwalk Terrace. Well, and just

[1:08:56] to confirm, there's no fencing between

[1:08:58] Nibck Road and the property itself.

[1:09:00] Right. Correct. So, the concern I was

[1:09:02] thinking is if there's children

[1:09:05] and they start playing out in the front

[1:09:08] and

[1:09:10] happen to wander on towards Nipick, that

[1:09:12] could also be very dangerous.

[1:09:13] » And there's a um I don't know if we

[1:09:14] could put the site plan up real quick.

[1:09:16] Um the the building is set pretty far

[1:09:20] off as far as we could get it um from

[1:09:23] Niblick. And so it's there's a pretty

[1:09:25] large area there. I don't know the exact

[1:09:27] dimensions, but you know, the parking

[1:09:28] lot is there and and uh it's not like

[1:09:31] the building's right on top of Niblick.

[1:09:32] I'm not making any, you know, I'm not

[1:09:34] saying people can't walk, but that is

[1:09:36] that was the point.

[1:09:38] » Okay.

[1:09:38] » Yeah.

[1:09:38] » All right. I appreciate that.

[1:09:39] » Yeah. No problem.

[1:09:40] » Thank you very much.

[1:09:41] » Of course,

[1:09:43] » Sir. Uh on the mic, please, if you're

[1:09:45] going to make a comment.

[1:09:47] » I don't think are you are you speaking

[1:09:49] on behalf of the applicant or you public

[1:09:52] comment?

[1:09:53] We're almost to public comment. Just

[1:09:55] give me two seconds.

[1:09:58] Sorry, I thought he was with you guys.

[1:10:00] All right, no other questions. Then

[1:10:03] we'll go ahead and and then now go

[1:10:05] ahead. You don't have to sit. We're

[1:10:06] going to move this to public comment.

[1:10:07] We'll start with you, sir, if you'd like

[1:10:09] to come on up.

[1:10:17] » Housing authorities.

[1:10:18] » Go ahead and state your name, please.

[1:10:19] » David Anderson. Okay. And um the rules

[1:10:23] are that uh for seniors, you can have a

[1:10:25] guest for up to 10 days or nights over

[1:10:28] the course of the year. You get 10 in a

[1:10:30] row, but once you can't get past the 10,

[1:10:32] you can't have any more. You can't have

[1:10:34] overnight guests continuously beyond the

[1:10:36] 10 days. And that typically is counted.

[1:10:38] I tell you who tells on their their

[1:10:40] neighbors tell on them. So that's how

[1:10:42] that works.

[1:10:43] » Okay?

[1:10:43] » But also, our leases are all

[1:10:45] month-to-month. So there's no

[1:10:48] protections for long-term leases here.

[1:10:50] And when a ten is in violation, it's not

[1:10:53] difficult to document it and then move

[1:10:56] them on if necessary.

[1:10:59] » We we we strive to keep peace in the

[1:11:01] valley. Uh it gets difficult sometimes,

[1:11:04] especially with older folks who are kind

[1:11:05] of in their way and uh um little things

[1:11:09] will set them off. Noise or vibration or

[1:11:11] you know your dog barked and didn't like

[1:11:13] it. So things like that come up and it's

[1:11:15] uh we just try to keep that all under

[1:11:17] under control.

[1:11:18] » Okay.

[1:11:20] That's it. Thank you, sir.

[1:11:23] Any other public comments?

[1:11:25] Seeing none in the audience, Marcy, we

[1:11:27] have one caller.

[1:11:37] » Caller, can you state your name?

[1:11:40] » Hi. Uh, my name is Joseph Collins.

[1:11:45] » Go ahead.

[1:11:47] U I have u been in and out of Pastor

[1:11:52] Robels

[1:11:54] uh since 1971

[1:11:58] and we've owned the Alder Creek

[1:12:00] apartments for I don't know 25 years or

[1:12:05] around that and in recent times we've

[1:12:08] seen a lot of development in town uh

[1:12:11] some affordable

[1:12:13] uh some market Um, I heard the comment

[1:12:17] earlier that uh uh that you just needed

[1:12:23] a lot more housing in Pasarobos. Uh,

[1:12:26] well, that may not necessarily be true.

[1:12:29] If you do a study, you'll find out that

[1:12:32] uh, Arrive, one of our newer

[1:12:35] communities, has 15 vacancies. Blue Oak,

[1:12:39] uh, also a fairly new, has 10 vacancies.

[1:12:42] We at Alder Creek have 10 vacancies,

[1:12:44] beautiful rehabilitated apartments, no

[1:12:48] takers. We can't fill them. Uh there's

[1:12:50] not enough people in the community to

[1:12:52] occupy

[1:12:54] the market apartments and we're happy to

[1:12:58] show our community and for that matter

[1:13:00] the other communities. But anyway,

[1:13:02] having said that, we're dealing with

[1:13:04] this the affordable housing. Now, uh I

[1:13:08] wanted to address a couple of issues

[1:13:09] there. uh the the architecture

[1:13:14] it looks to to me you come to pass robos

[1:13:17] because you've got open space you've got

[1:13:19] hills it's beautiful it's amazing it's

[1:13:22] wonderful and uh this architecture is a

[1:13:27] glob of dwellings

[1:13:29] set on this parcel

[1:13:33] and then in order to facilitate that

[1:13:36] you've got to cut the bluff and then

[1:13:38] you've got to

[1:13:40] uh support the the bluff. Well, the

[1:13:43] bluffs

[1:13:44] are one of the most amazing things about

[1:13:48] the community. But uh you know that

[1:13:53] be it as it may, I want to talk quickly

[1:13:56] about the parking.

[1:13:58] I'm 76 years old. I think I'm certainly

[1:14:02] uh uh qualify for 55 and older. I still

[1:14:06] drive. my wife still drives. Uh I think

[1:14:12] uh saying that these folks are not going

[1:14:15] to drive is inappropriate because they

[1:14:18] will and there's not enough parking on

[1:14:22] site to accommodate their visitors to

[1:14:26] accommodate them. And uh so these folks

[1:14:30] are going to have to park someplace

[1:14:31] else. They're going to go down and park

[1:14:34] in the church parking lot, the shopping

[1:14:35] center parking lot, and that's going to

[1:14:38] be a problem. They're going to come up

[1:14:39] and park with us when we've got plenty

[1:14:41] of parking. And so I I think that

[1:14:47] the parking

[1:14:49] is a factor. It's a big factor with this

[1:14:52] community.

[1:14:54] Uh that I wanted to also address.

[1:14:56] » Sir, your your time is up. Stay locked.

[1:15:02] » Sir, you

[1:15:04] » Yes.

[1:15:04] » Your time is up.

[1:15:19] » Are we good?

[1:15:22] » One more caller.

[1:15:24] » Caller, can you state your name?

[1:15:27] » Oh. Um, my name is Sheila Kurs

[1:15:30] and um I have a a problem with um the

[1:15:36] parking also. Um I'm have many relatives

[1:15:40] that live out of town and in their

[1:15:43] communities um

[1:15:46] there are um

[1:15:49] apartments or senior living with no

[1:15:52] guest parking. So when these guests come

[1:15:55] or if you have an additional parking,

[1:15:57] you're parking in the street. Niblick is

[1:16:00] sloped.

[1:16:02] And I my question is, is there um does

[1:16:05] Niblick allow street parking in this

[1:16:09] zone?

[1:16:11] Um because guests will park um on the

[1:16:15] street.

[1:16:16] And if you've got another senior coming

[1:16:19] in the community and visiting, they're

[1:16:21] going to want to park in the parking

[1:16:23] lot. So, if there's no guest parking, I

[1:16:26] understand it's it's free for all. It's

[1:16:28] first come, first serve parking, but

[1:16:31] you're you're you're going to want to

[1:16:34] have um over time more additional

[1:16:37] parking. Um, and I also, um,

[1:16:43] you know, agree with the the the

[1:16:45] structure, the look of the building. It

[1:16:47] doesn't look like it belongs in Paso. It

[1:16:51] looks like it belongs

[1:16:53] in Southern California

[1:16:56] um, in a bigger in a bigger town. Um, so

[1:16:59] those are my comments is I I really

[1:17:02] think that there is going to be a

[1:17:03] parking problem here. Um and um the

[1:17:08] building really doesn't fit the

[1:17:11] community.

[1:17:21] » Thank you caller.

[1:17:51] caller.

[1:17:52] » Good evening.

[1:17:52] » Can you hear me?

[1:17:54] » Yes.

[1:17:55] » Go ahead. You have three minutes.

[1:17:58] » Hi, this is Linda George, U 3126 Spring

[1:18:01] Street. I have to echo about the

[1:18:04] parking. It's really interesting

[1:18:06] project. Um the parking I have been in

[1:18:11] the longest parking war

[1:18:14] uh ever in my existence. has been

[1:18:16] ongoing for 60 days. And this is

[1:18:18] something that I approached uh Chief

[1:18:20] Nord about because there are no real

[1:18:23] experts on parking or neighborhood

[1:18:26] disputes, so to speak. And that's one of

[1:18:28] the most common problems um with people

[1:18:32] is parking. So, I didn't get to hear if

[1:18:37] there's street parking on Nibblet, but

[1:18:40] for me, I mean, maybe I don't understand

[1:18:43] why there would be oak trees when there

[1:18:45] could be more parking, but you guys

[1:18:48] limited parking on a mixed use per

[1:18:51] resident. Now, I understand with the ADU

[1:18:54] laws that that came out, not this last

[1:18:57] legislative session, but the one prior,

[1:18:59] that you guys are not requ uh that you

[1:19:01] can't require um I don't know if it's

[1:19:04] ADUs or buildings in general to um

[1:19:07] provide parking. Um, so I don't know how

[1:19:11] you guys work that conflict when you're

[1:19:14] uh designing these uh these buildings,

[1:19:18] but just take it from somebody who's

[1:19:20] having the last 60 days plus of hell and

[1:19:23] trying to go through 8 CD, that kind of

[1:19:26] stuff that those things really matter. I

[1:19:29] know you get density bonuses and bonuses

[1:19:32] here, etc., etc.,

[1:19:34] But we're everyday people and we like

[1:19:37] our little territory that we pay for.

[1:19:39] And I'm always afraid I'm working in in

[1:19:42] nursing homes and things like that back

[1:19:44] in the heyday why you guys would put

[1:19:46] seniors in a three-story building. Um I

[1:19:50] could see rescue efforts women or people

[1:19:52] in wheelchairs disabled because

[1:19:54] generally I'm 58.

[1:19:58] um if I went to go live there, I would

[1:20:01] be upset if my my grandchild can stay

[1:20:04] longer. What if my son was in the

[1:20:05] Marines? That kind of stuff. But just

[1:20:07] remember when it comes to parking, when

[1:20:10] I worked at Agnes Developmental Center,

[1:20:12] we had a res a staff shoot somebody over

[1:20:15] it and died. So, please keep that in

[1:20:18] mind. Thank you very much.

[1:20:32] Okay. All right. I think we're good.

[1:20:34] Good. Thank you, Marcy. Okay. I I think

[1:20:37] of all that I probably one thing,

[1:20:39] Warren, the the parking on Nibcktick,

[1:20:42] there is no parking right directly in

[1:20:44] front of the development on Nibble.

[1:20:46] Correct.

[1:20:47] » Yeah. Let's have the city engineer come

[1:20:49] up and Leslie can answer the questions

[1:20:52] about Nibck best.

[1:20:55] » Sorry, I missed one caller. It looks

[1:20:57] like there's one more that made it in

[1:20:58] right before public comment.

[1:21:08] » Hello.

[1:21:09] » Hi. Go ahead. State your name. You have

[1:21:11] three minutes.

[1:21:13] Hi, this is Trevor Collins and I wanted

[1:21:16] to ask if they've done any studies. If

[1:21:18] you go up to Nickerson,

[1:21:20] I everybody's going to go up and do a

[1:21:22] U-turn up there. Have we done any

[1:21:24] traffic mitig mitigation for that

[1:21:26] location?

[1:21:28] And then also I wanted to mention that

[1:21:30] uh the u um occupancy the state law says

[1:21:36] that you can put two plus one into an

[1:21:39] apartment. So, in the one-bedroom

[1:21:40] apartments, you can put three people. In

[1:21:43] the two-bedroom apartments, you can put

[1:21:44] five,

[1:21:46] and people do. And so, uh, I think that

[1:21:49] parking is going to be a really big

[1:21:51] issue. And then the traffic, there's

[1:21:54] going to be a lot of U-turns up there,

[1:21:56] and we need to address that or somebody

[1:21:58] needs to address that U-turn location

[1:22:01] because it's going to be backed up all

[1:22:04] the way all the way down the street.

[1:22:18] Okay, that is the last uh public color.

[1:22:22] » Is this on?

[1:22:23] » Thank you, Mercy.

[1:22:24] » Is this on? There we go. Um, so to

[1:22:27] address uh the condition on Nibck, um

[1:22:30] there is no existing on street parking

[1:22:32] in Nibcktick right now and none is

[1:22:34] proposed. Uh currently the geometry of

[1:22:37] the street, you've got two through lanes

[1:22:39] that are eastbound, two through lanes

[1:22:41] that are westbound, and then class 2

[1:22:43] bicycles on each side. Uh into the site,

[1:22:46] there is a designated right turn lane as

[1:22:48] well. And again, there is no parking

[1:22:50] within Niblick currently. Um regarding

[1:22:53] the call, uh the caller that addressed

[1:22:56] the concern with the no U-turns, that

[1:22:58] was also evaluated by the city's traffic

[1:23:00] consultant. They identified the same

[1:23:02] concern and there will be a no U-turn

[1:23:04] sign placed at Nickerson.

[1:23:10] » Okay, thank you for that. So, with that,

[1:23:12] we're going to go ahead and close public

[1:23:14] comment, bring it back to the commission

[1:23:16] for last questions, comments, or I would

[1:23:20] entertain a motion.

[1:23:22] Commissioner Connley.

[1:23:24] » Thank you. Um, I'm looking at the

[1:23:26] traffic study and uh I don't know if it

[1:23:28] has to do with the uh allowing for over

[1:23:32] and above what's uh been analyzed, but

[1:23:34] uh it's based on uh less than 30 units.

[1:23:39] I think they have 24 lowincome housing

[1:23:41] units uh as the basis for the traffic

[1:23:44] study. Um

[1:23:48] and um I don't believe that even given

[1:23:52] that there was a major impact on uh

[1:23:55] Nibck Road, but would that need to be

[1:23:58] addressed uh because of the number being

[1:24:01] 30 instead of 24?

[1:24:12] » There you go. Okay. Um I don't believe

[1:24:14] so. uh because of the the trip

[1:24:16] generation was already calculated in

[1:24:18] there and and as you already mentioned

[1:24:20] and observed that um the trip generation

[1:24:22] was well below any any significant

[1:24:25] impact.

[1:24:26] » Yeah, I thought it was pretty ne

[1:24:28] negligible. Um just a comment I I think

[1:24:31] the access off of uh restricted to off

[1:24:35] of NibLick is better than having access

[1:24:38] to the parking lot below. I think that's

[1:24:41] a good point. And I think the elderly uh

[1:24:44] community, the senior living is a good

[1:24:47] use for this site. I mean, this is a

[1:24:50] difficult site to to to use that space

[1:24:54] because it's so limited. So, I really

[1:24:57] like this project as far as the type of

[1:24:59] use and the fact that the access is

[1:25:01] limited to NibLick. So, I would be

[1:25:05] willing to entertain a motion unless

[1:25:07] other have have comments.

[1:25:10] Looks like Commissioner Marlo has

[1:25:12] » No, I'd like to make a motion. There's

[1:25:14] no other comment.

[1:25:14] » I love it.

[1:25:16] » We got a comment by Commissioner

[1:25:18] Christensen.

[1:25:19] » Go ahead.

[1:25:20] » Thank you. I just wanted to make a

[1:25:23] comment in the sense that um my first

[1:25:25] concern was parking and so I hear the

[1:25:28] public's comments. I think that they

[1:25:30] have to also consider is that this is a

[1:25:32] low income. the concessions take a lot

[1:25:35] of that out of the city's hands in a way

[1:25:37] that kind of handcuffs us to a certain

[1:25:40] extent. So staff tries to do the best

[1:25:42] that they can to mitigate whatever is

[1:25:44] possible and I think they've done a

[1:25:46] great job doing that. Uh we do have a

[1:25:48] turn lane there already. So I understand

[1:25:50] the concern from the traffic standpoint.

[1:25:52] I think that that will get cars out of

[1:25:53] traffic's way. Um the ingress egress

[1:25:56] there's really that's probably the best

[1:25:58] solution rather than down from below

[1:26:01] where you're going through a parking lot

[1:26:02] where pedestrians are and you're

[1:26:04] crossing a pedestrian and bike trail

[1:26:07] which was a concern of mine as well from

[1:26:09] the original um approval when I saw

[1:26:12] that. So I hear the public's comments.

[1:26:14] Um I really do. I'm I'm one of those

[1:26:17] commissioners that that takes that as a

[1:26:19] a very large concern when I'm looking at

[1:26:21] these projects. But at the same time, I

[1:26:23] am familiar with the senior housing

[1:26:26] developments in town. Uh I have friends

[1:26:29] and family that live in some of those

[1:26:30] and I can tell you that um um I I don't

[1:26:34] think that parking's really been an

[1:26:36] issue for them. I should know my mom

[1:26:37] would call me first thing if there was

[1:26:39] an issue. So just want to be clear on

[1:26:41] that. Um so I like the project and I

[1:26:44] just wanted to uh put my two cents in on

[1:26:46] the parking. So thank you,

[1:26:48] » Commissioner Christensen. Thank you.

[1:26:49] Well said. I'll enter I'll I'll

[1:26:52] entertain a motion if there are no other

[1:26:53] comments or questions.

[1:26:54] » Yeah, I'd like to make a motion. Is it

[1:26:56] possible to put the uh additional

[1:26:59] condition up there for for me? I don't

[1:27:01] have that one memorized.

[1:27:04] Okay. I'd like to uh move to uh approve

[1:27:09] development plan 25-15 for a 30 unit

[1:27:12] multifamily residential development

[1:27:14] including an affordable housing density

[1:27:16] bonus by adopting draft resolution

[1:27:19] PC26xs

[1:27:21] xxx based on findings with amended

[1:27:24] conditions of approval to include and

[1:27:26] the qualified uh principal

[1:27:30] investigator defined by as an

[1:27:32] archaeologist just reference what's on

[1:27:34] the that one. [laughter]

[1:27:35] » I wasn't going to say the whole thing. I

[1:27:37] was just going to do a summary.

[1:27:38] » Oh, don't. I was going to cut them off.

[1:27:39] » Yeah. No, we were getting there.

[1:27:40] » We got a first on the table by

[1:27:42] Commissioner Marlo. Do I hear a second?

[1:27:43] » I'll second it.

[1:27:44] » Seconded by Commissioner Connley.

[1:27:48] » Roll call, please.

[1:27:52] » Commissioner Marlo.

[1:27:53] » I.

[1:27:54] » Commissioner Connley.

[1:27:55] » I.

[1:27:55] » Mr. Rhoden.

[1:27:56] » I.

[1:27:57] » Mr. Kler.

[1:27:58] » I.

[1:27:59] » Commissioner Neil.

[1:28:00] » I.

[1:28:00] » Mr. Christensen.

[1:28:01] » Hi.

[1:28:02] » Chair Person Karubius. I motion passes

[1:28:05] 70.

[1:28:06] » Congratulations.

[1:28:08] » All right, moving on to discussion

[1:28:10] items. Consent calendar for the DRC

[1:28:13] minutes uh for December 15th, 29th,

[1:28:16] January 5th, and the planning commission

[1:28:18] minutes from January 13th. Are there any

[1:28:21] changes, comments? If not, I will I will

[1:28:24] ask for Oh, Commissioner Neil.

[1:28:26] » I move approval.

[1:28:27] » Thank you, sir.

[1:28:28] » Second.

[1:28:28] » We got a second by Commissioner Kogler.

[1:28:30] I believe that was first by Neil,

[1:28:33] seconded by Commissioner Kogler.

[1:28:36] Roll call, please.

[1:28:38] » Commissioner Neil,

[1:28:40] » I.

[1:28:40] » Mr. Kogler,

[1:28:41] » I.

[1:28:42] » Commissioner Christensen,

[1:28:43] » I.

[1:28:44] » Commissioner Connelly,

[1:28:46] » I.

[1:28:46] » Mr. Rhoden,

[1:28:47] » I.

[1:28:48] » Mr. Marlo,

[1:28:48] » I.

[1:28:49] » Chairperson Cob Rubius.

[1:28:50] » Hi.

[1:28:51] » Motion passes 70.

[1:28:52] » Okay. On to other reports. Housing

[1:28:55] Constraints and Opportunities Committee.

[1:28:58] Yes, we're working on an agenda for

[1:29:00] February. Is it February 12th? February

[1:29:04] 12th, 2 p.m. will be our next housing

[1:29:06] constraints committee meeting. Um the

[1:29:08] main focus will be looking at some

[1:29:11] proposed changes to the city's um

[1:29:14] development fees. Those are the cost

[1:29:16] recovery fees that we charge um

[1:29:18] applicants to process permits in the

[1:29:20] city. Those haven't been updated in 20

[1:29:22] years. There's been a consultant working

[1:29:24] on that for the past year or so. So,

[1:29:26] they're going to be presenting um the

[1:29:28] proposed new fees to the housing

[1:29:29] constraints committee. Housing

[1:29:31] constraints committee will make a

[1:29:32] recommendation to the city council. City

[1:29:34] council will have the final say. They'll

[1:29:36] hold a hearing on that in uh March.

[1:29:39] Thank you. Thank you for that, Warren.

[1:29:41] All right. DRC committee uh rotation

[1:29:44] schedule. Any comments, changes?

[1:29:48] None. Seeing none. Okay, we're good on

[1:29:50] that.

[1:29:54] Okay, moving on to any final planning

[1:29:57] commissioner comments. I see

[1:29:59] Commissioner Kogler reaching for the

[1:30:00] mic.

[1:30:01] » Yeah, one quick one, Mr. Chair. Um, when

[1:30:04] the public calls in, they talk somewhere

[1:30:05] from the heavens. I've tried to figure

[1:30:07] out where it's coming from or just

[1:30:08] bounces around in here. I don't know if

[1:30:10] it's possible to get any better

[1:30:12] acoustics, but I truly find it hard

[1:30:14] sometimes. And I noticed all of us were

[1:30:15] straining to hear and comprehend some

[1:30:17] things that were being said. So, I know

[1:30:18] we're temporary, but I don't know if we

[1:30:20] can get some kind of improved acoustics,

[1:30:23] sound system, whatever. Thank you.

[1:30:26] » Thank you, sir. Seeing no others.

[1:30:29] So, I I want to thank Katie, that was a

[1:30:32] lengthy presentation. Want to thank you

[1:30:34] for all of that. Um, you may update us

[1:30:37] on this, Warren, but I was just curious,

[1:30:39] how are the improvements going um at the

[1:30:41] city? Thanks.

[1:30:44] Yeah. So, we're there's basically a

[1:30:45] two-phase process going on at city hall.

[1:30:48] So, phase one is the remodel of the

[1:30:50] second floor, the city hall space. Um,

[1:30:53] that's going very well. Uh, we are we'll

[1:30:55] be moving back in in February. So,

[1:30:57] there'll be a formal um public service

[1:31:00] counter. We have additional conference

[1:31:02] room space. And then the whole kind of

[1:31:05] layout of cubicles and offices has been

[1:31:07] modernized. All the paint and carpets

[1:31:10] been refreshed. So, it's going to be a

[1:31:12] much more efficient work area. It'll

[1:31:14] look better. It'll accommodate more

[1:31:16] staff members, which will be a benefit.

[1:31:18] So, you'll know right now that half of

[1:31:21] our staff is working in the council

[1:31:22] chamber. So, by the end of February,

[1:31:25] they'll be moved back upstairs, which

[1:31:26] will then open up the council chambers,

[1:31:29] which is the next phase of the remodel

[1:31:31] process. So, that will then be a couple

[1:31:34] of months process. I don't think we have

[1:31:36] a, you know, formal timeline on that. So

[1:31:39] I believe we will be here at least till

[1:31:42] summer sometime best case.

[1:31:44] » Okay.

[1:31:45] » Well, you knew where I was going with

[1:31:46] that question. Okay. Through summer

[1:31:48] maybe. All right.

[1:31:51] » Staff comments.

[1:31:53] » Yeah. So we're in the middle of um

[1:31:56] recruitments for planning commission. Um

[1:31:58] we'll council is going to be doing

[1:32:00] interviews in February. So Marcy, you

[1:32:03] want to give us just a quick update on

[1:32:05] the deadlines and how that's going to

[1:32:07] work out?

[1:32:08] Yes. So, we are accepting applications

[1:32:11] until the end of this week. Um,

[1:32:13] everything is done online via our

[1:32:15] website. Uh, the interviews are

[1:32:18] tenatively scheduled for

[1:32:23] I think it's February 11th. The 11th.

[1:32:25] Yes, sorry. February 11th. So, um once

[1:32:28] we have the inner the application

[1:32:30] process closed, we'll have more of an

[1:32:32] idea of timelines for those applicants.

[1:32:35] um and we will reach out to them with

[1:32:38] that information.

[1:32:41] » Very good. And then after um our

[1:32:44] appointments by the council of

[1:32:47] commissioners um those those seats

[1:32:50] become active in March. So we do our

[1:32:53] traditional reorganization dinner. So

[1:32:55] Marcy, you want to tell us about that?

[1:32:57] » So that is scheduled for Sunday, March

[1:33:00] 1st. Um we are

[1:33:03] can I go ahead and say where?

[1:33:05] » Yeah.

[1:33:05] » Oh, so we are scheduled to be at Calos

[1:33:08] in the patina room like we did a few

[1:33:10] years back. Um so we are finalizing all

[1:33:12] of the agreements and things with that.

[1:33:14] So more information to come to you guys

[1:33:17] uh with timing and you know

[1:33:19] possibilities to bring a plus one and

[1:33:21] how that all normally goes. So uh you'll

[1:33:23] hear from me about that.

[1:33:25] » All right. So Sunday, March 1st. Okay.

[1:33:28] Um we also have another special meeting

[1:33:30] coming up. So um we're working on a

[1:33:33] joint session meeting that'll be between

[1:33:35] the city council, the planning

[1:33:37] commission and the airport commission um

[1:33:40] to review basically the um spaceport

[1:33:43] project and discuss kind of next steps

[1:33:46] moving forward. I think there's some

[1:33:48] major decisions to be made on funding

[1:33:50] additional processes and studies. I

[1:33:53] think the pl the city council is very

[1:33:55] interested to hear from both the

[1:33:56] planning commission and the airport

[1:33:58] commission before we kind of take the

[1:34:00] next formal steps in the spaceport

[1:34:02] process. So that's going to be

[1:34:04] Wednesday, March 4th, 6 p.m. here in

[1:34:08] this noisy room. Um so mark your

[1:34:11] calendars. Um try to keep that date and

[1:34:14] time you know open so that you can

[1:34:16] attend as well.

[1:34:20] We expect it to be at six o'clock, which

[1:34:21] is the normal council time.

[1:34:25] » You'll send out a notice though.

[1:34:27] » Yeah, it's going to be a formal meeting,

[1:34:30] but I just wanted you to get that on

[1:34:32] your calendar so you're not surprised at

[1:34:33] the last second. Okay. So, other

[1:34:36] projects, um, your next meeting is

[1:34:39] February 10th and it looks like a pretty

[1:34:43] busy agenda. So, I think there's going

[1:34:45] to be a multifamily

[1:34:48] um duplex uh subdivision project that

[1:34:51] we're working on on Crestston Road. We

[1:34:54] need to do some updates to our cannabis

[1:34:57] uh delivery ordinance. So, that will be

[1:35:00] before you. You'll be making a

[1:35:01] recommendation to council on that. We

[1:35:03] also need to update our temporary signs

[1:35:06] in preparation for the next election

[1:35:08] cycle. So, that's another ordinance

[1:35:10] you'll be making a recommendation to

[1:35:11] council on. Um there's a small um

[1:35:14] amendment to the ravine water park that

[1:35:17] we expect to be on that agenda as well.

[1:35:21] And then let's see next meeting February

[1:35:24] 24th uh the Pasarobus Youth Arts Center

[1:35:28] expansion is pencled in for a hearing as

[1:35:31] well as an expansion a fairly major

[1:35:33] expansion to the Aligretto Hotel on Bua

[1:35:36] Vista. Um so we're working on that. So I

[1:35:39] think February looks like it's going to

[1:35:40] be fairly busy. We talked about the

[1:35:42] reorganization dinner. We're still

[1:35:44] trying to get a hearing date kind of

[1:35:47] schedule pulled together on the landing

[1:35:49] project. We're getting really close, you

[1:35:51] know, on final conditions and

[1:35:53] development agreement points. Um, but we

[1:35:55] don't have a formal date, but start, you

[1:35:58] know, start going through that EIR so

[1:36:00] you don't cut yourself too short on

[1:36:02] time. Um, so I think those are your

[1:36:04] major things and be happy to answer any

[1:36:08] questions. That concludes staff's

[1:36:09] report.

[1:36:10] » Thank you, sir.

[1:36:11] Okay. If there are no other comments,

[1:36:14] questions, then I'll take a motion to

[1:36:15] adjurnn. So move.

[1:36:17] » So moved. All in favor?

[1:36:19] » I.

[1:36:19] » We are adjourned.

Development Plan 25-15 for the Highland’s Senior Affordable Housing Development - Planning Commission

Transcript