Good evening, everybody.

I will call to order the Elk Grove Planning Commission regular meeting Thursday, August 24th at 6 p.m.

I'll start with the land acknowledgement.

We honor, respect, and acknowledge Elk Grove's first inhabitants, the Plains of Miwok, who lived as sovereign caretakers of this land and these waterways since time immemorial.

We commemorate and advocate for their descendants, the Wilton Rancheria tribe, the only federally recognized tribe in Sacramento County who endure because of the bravery, resiliency, and detrimentation of their ancestors, tribal members, and leaders.

Please silence your electronic devices.

And Sandy, will you please read the customary greeting?

The Elk.

The Elkgrove Planning Commission welcomes, appreciates, and encourages participation in the meetings.

The commission reserves the right to reasonably limit the total time for public comment on any particular noticed agenda item as it may be deemed necessary.

If you wish to address the commission during the meeting, please complete a speaker card in the back of the room and give it to the clerk prior to consideration of the agenda item.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioners Sandra Poole, present.

Verinder Singh is absent.

Present.

And Chair Juan Fernandez.

Present.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Thanks to the Republic for which it has a individual changes.

And will you please join us in a moment of silence?

Moving on to the approval of the agenda, do I have a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

And Chelsea, do I need to mention the documents?

Thank you.

I move to approve the agenda as presented.

Moved.

Seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

None.

Agenda passes.

I will now open the opportunity for the public comment.

Members of the audience may comment on any item not on the agenda that is of interest to the public and within the jurisdiction of the planning commission.

The planning commission cannot take action on non-agendized items raised under public comment until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda as an action item.

Sandy, are there any general comment cards?

We do not have any cards currently.

No general comment cards.

I will close the public comment.

We do not have consent calendar items.

Good evening, Mr.

Chair, members of the planning commission.

Joseph Dagamin, associate planner with the community development department.

This is the Elkgrove Sports Center Retail Building and Map Project.

Tonight's project consists of a major design review for the construction of a single story commercial building, totaling approximately 19,700 square feet, along with associated parking, landscaping, and lighting improvements.

Construction of the building will occur on building pad C of the Elk Grove Sports Center Complex.

Also included as part of this project is a tentative parcel map to subdivide one existing parcel into two parcels.

I'll make note and I'll mention in the presentation later.

The new building will be located on a separate parcel.

And this project will be subject to the climate action plan for non-residential development.

The project site is located at 3443 Laguna Boulevard, the north side of Laguna Boulevard, approximately 300 feet west of Dwight Road.

The Elkgrove Sports Center complex consists of two parcels.

Parcel one is approximately 20.88 parcels acres, and then parcel two is approximately 2.83.

The complex is currently developed with an approximately 188,000 square foot building, along with parking lot, landscaping and lighting improvements, as well as pads for future building construction.

Surrounding the project site include the Sacramento Sacramento Asian Sports Foundation and the Apple Campus to the west, a drainage facility to the north, industrial uses and vacant land to the east, and residential to the south.

Just a little bit of background history of the site.

The site was initially developed in 1997 prior to the city's incorporation.

It was approved and constructed with that 188,000 square foot building.

At the time, it was approved as an industrial building for manufacturing and distribution, which was occupied by JVC Electronics.

In 2002, the property went vacant.

Going to 2007, the city approved a rezone for the from light industrial to general commercial, which allowed for more commercial uses to occupy the building.

Currently, the building is occupied by a number of fitness, sports, and entertainment uses.

And then finally, in 2009, the planning commission approved the Elk Grove Sports Center project.

The entire site, the site plan layout is shown before you on your screen.

This included the design review for site improvements, future pad buildings, the expansion of the paved parking lot, landscaping improvements and lighting improvements.

It established the locations for six future buildings, including the project site, which is outlined in red, totaling approximately 63,000 square feet.

And then all future buildings were required to obtain subsequent design review approvals.

I'll make note that all site improvements have been completed, but none of the six future buildings have obtained design review approval to this date.

This one is the first of the six that is seeking design review approval.

Just uh some existing conditions of the site.

Um, the project site is the area that is outlined in red, currently graded as a pad, and then the image on the top is what the current Elkgrove Sports Center building currently looks like on site.

So before you use the site plan, as I mentioned, the um the project site will be developed with an approximately 19,700 square foot retail building on the Pad C location, located near the northwest corner of the site, along with minor uh parking lot landscaping and lighting improvements.

The area of development is approximately 1.6 acres.

Access to the site will be provided through the existing driveways on site, which is one on Laguna Boulevard, two on High Tech Court, and one on Dwight Road on the adjacent parcel of the complex.

The site improvements approved in 2009 have been constructed.

There are no proposed changes to the on-site circulation except for some minor uh changes surrounding the new pad building and proposed that is proposed with this application.

In terms of the landscaping and lighting and uh parking lot improvements, um, as I mentioned, they have been uh completed, including the landscaping on the rear property behind building pad C.

The landscaping will remain as constructed except for minor on-site maintenance and modifications to the parking spaces within the development area to meet the parking lot shade requirements.

In terms of the architecture, the proposed building elevations include a variety of colors, materials, and textures.

The building facade will be primarily consist of CMU block with aluminum window storefronts along the east and front elevations.

The metal awnings will be installed over the central, the central storefronts, the smooth plaster uh arcade element adds depth and breaks up the front facade.

Surface doors and metal roll-up doors will be located to the rear of the uh located on the rear elevation.

Uh multiple plane changes, parapet heights, and design elements are utilized to indicate tenant entry locations.

The proposed elevations provide high-quality materials, detailing and colors which are carried over to all building elevations.

Um and the building elevations are compatible with the existing building on site as well as the surrounding development.

So now we'll get into the discussion about the tentative parcel map.

Uh, this exhibit was omitted uh was inadvertently omitted from the staff report packet.

So it's included as uh green sheet supplemental information number one.

So this project includes the tentative map to subdivide the 20.88 acre parcel into two parcels.

Parcel A, which is the uh parcel with the 188,000 square foot building, will become 19.2 acres, and parcel B, which is um where this new building is being proposed, will be 1.6 acres.

Um the tenant of parcel map is for retail purposes only and will not affect the overall layout of the Elk Grove Sports in our complex.

Uh condition of approval has been included that requires the applicant to enter into a covenant agreement with the city for reciprocal access and parking between the resulting parcels, including but not limited to the common ownership and maintenance to the satisfaction of the city.

So there's two green sheets that were sent your ways.

Number one was the tentative uh map exhibits, and then number two is um staff and the applicant had discussed have had discussions about the drainage and stormwater quality submittal requirements for improvement plans based on that this um this pad building was factored into the original project approval back in 2009.

So with that, um, staff is recommending the deletion of condition of condition of approval numbers 23, 25, and 26, and making a modification to condition of approval number 24.

The project is uh no further environmental review is required pursuant to state CECO guidelines section 15183.

The project is consistent with the general plan zoning and community plan.

So, with that, staff is uh recommending approval of the project uh with the map exhibits in the supplemental sheet number one, and the deletion of conditions 23, 25, and 26, and amendment to condition number 24 in the supplemental sheet number two.

This concludes my presentation.

Staff and the applicant are available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Do any of my colleagues have any questions for Joseph?

No, I do have one.

Um in reviewing the green sheet and the change to the conditions of improvement.

Um, will the new lighting code that we um implemented last year be applicable to the parking lot improvements, or is that already been done?

It will be any changes to the lighting improvements will still be applicable to the the today's zoning standards.

Okay, so these will be the first uh lighting that I'm aware of that will um adopt the new lighting code with the I can't remember the vernacular, but the full cut or full shade um for parking light code.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Um I don't think we have any other questions.

Mr.

Chairman, if I could for a moment, I think the residential you're talking about the residential lighting standards.

It included um commercial lighting as well.

I have to go back and look.

I don't know that it fully did that because there were a couple different sections we were touching there, but keep in mind much of the parking lot already exists, right?

Right.

There's not a requirement for them to go back and retrofit the existing light standards, but any new lighting that would be installed.

Well, in the exterior of the building would be required to meet the new lighting code.

To the extent that there's a standard applicable, yes.

Right.

Okay, and I I believe there was for a commercial building, but anyway.

Um thank you for the clarification.

Okay.

So following Joseph's report, I will declare uh public comment opportunity open.

Thank you.

And invite the applicant to speak if they are here.

Good evening.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Craig Myers.

Uh, Craig Myers and George Scott Architects.

I'm the architect for the project representing the client for this meeting.

Um, I'm just up here to answer any questions if you have any.

We have no objections with the green sheets that got modified.

And thank for staff for addressing those at that time.

Thank you, Mr.

Maris.

Any questions?

No.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Sandy, is anybody registered to speak on this item?

See, there are no speakers.

There are no further speakers, therefore, there's no further public comment.

I will close the public comment opportunity, and we will move to commission deliberation or action.

Any thoughts on this, Dr.

Singa?

I believe we move.

We should move forward with the motion.

Okay.

I will move then.

So I move that we adopt a resolution finding that no further environmental review is necessary under CEQA pursuant to the state secret guidelines, Section 15183, and approve a major design review and tentative parcel map for the Oak Grove Sports Center Retail Building and Map Projects.

PLNG 24-030 and PLNG 25-010.

Based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval included in the draft resolution with the map exhibits in supplemental sheets one and the deletions of conditions 23, 25, and 26, an amendment to condition 24 in supplemental sheet number two.

So moved.

I second.

Seconded by Vice Chair O'Connor all in favor.

Any opposed?

None.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sandy, will you please call item 5.2?

Item 5.2 is T Mobile Racket Court Amendment.

It's Project PLNG 25013.

Good evening, planning commissioner.

Sarah Kirchkessner, senior planner.

The T-Mobile Record Court Amendment project consists of a conditional use permit amendment to remove the existing 55-foot slim line pole wireless facility and replace it with a new 75-foot tall monopine within the existing lease area.

New T-Mobile equipment will be installed on the monopine.

And the project also includes an exception to the 55 foot height limit to allow the 75-foot tower.

The project site is located at 9570 Racket Court within the Laguna Creek Racket Club site.

There's an existing mono, excuse me, there's an existing 55-foot tall tower and equipment within the project site.

And surrounding land uses include single unit residential development to the north, south, and west, vacant land to the east, and the Good Shepherd Church and St.

Elizabeth and Catholic School to the northeast.

A personal storage facility was approved by the city council immediately to the east of the project site, and building permit requests for that personal storage facility are currently under review by the city.

The planning commission originally approved the T-Mobile facility back in 2001.

So it has been existing on the site for approximately 25 years.

Here is the site plan of the existing enclosure area.

The proposed wireless antennas will be mounted on a 75-foot tall monopine tower within that existing 240 square foot lease area, which includes the tower, the equipment, and it's surrounded by a wrought iron fence.

Here is the elevation, the proposed 75-foot monopine tower is proposed as a pine tree in order to camouflage the tower in with the existing landscaping.

The modification also increases the height of the tower from 55 feet to 75 feet, and it would install 15 antennas within that tower, including six panel antennas, six remote radio units, antennas, and three hybrid antennas.

Here is a photo simulation of the site looking north-northeast from Elk Road Boulevard.

The proposed 75-foot tower will improve service in the area and reduces the need for future standalone facilities in that area as it provides an opportunity for future co-locations.

The applicant did provide a coverage comparison, which illustrates the coverage with the proposed tower as compared to the coverage if the site was removed.

The project site is exempt from CEQA pursuant to state SQL guidelines 15303.

Staff recommends that the planning commission find the project exempt from CEQA and approve the conditional use permit amendment.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available for questions.

The applicant Arvin Naruzi is also in the audience tonight to answer any questions that you have about the project.

Thank you, sir.

Glad you're feeling better.

Any questions?

Not a question per se, but maybe a comment that I raised in our staff meeting.

This is I don't know if this is the second or third that we've approved the exemption to the height standard to 75.

And I'm just wondering if that's a trend for the higher towers so that there could be coexisting cell towers built with them.

And if if it is a trend upward, if we might consider just changing our standard.

It definitely is um a goal of the zoning code encourages co-locations.

And I think it is a trend in terms of providing opportunity for future co-locations.

So I think that's noted, something we can consider and look at.

The other thing I noted when you showed the picture in comparison, the trees are a lot taller now, they're more mature, so it's not like it's standing out, you know, that gets really high.

So it just would seem to blend in with the rest of the landscape.

Yeah, I noticed that as well.

It actually is a visual improvement to how it is now.

Any questions?

I have one, which relates to the coverage comparison.

It says with sight with the tower in place.

And the other one says without site.

That is assuming there is no tower at this point.

But that is a tower.

In the case that this project is an amendment, not a new tower.

The comparison was to show if the planning commission doesn't approve this project and the tower is removed.

So it's a it's it's a comparison of if the site were removed and there was no site there compared to what the proposed coverage is to show.

But there is no plan to remove the monopole at this point.

What is there?

Maybe the applicant can answer that.

I mean, I'm just curious.

Well, I think the plan is to remove it and replace it.

Okay.

Thank you.

I had the same exact question.

Why would they show a null value versus the existing value as the comparison point?

That didn't seem I caught the same.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

We can ask the applicant.

Any Oscar, anything first?

No, my questions were answered on my staff meeting, but I just like the way those look.

You know, they just blend in.

There's one over there by the golf course that unless somebody points it out to you, you don't know it's there.

So it's it looks better than just a pole standing there.

Technology for the win.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

I will now open the public comment opportunity, and I will invite the applicant to speak.

Good evening.

Good evening, commissioners.

Arvin Naruzzi with the Derner Group on behalf of American Tower and T-Mobile.

Um, we have gone over the staff report, and all conditions are acceptable, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Just one quick question.

What is the coverage distance difference between a 55-foot tower and a 75-foot tower?

How much further does a 75-foot tower cover in whatever end diamond or whatever in distance from the from the site?

That's specific to the frequency.

I wouldn't be able to answer that as a non-RF engineer.

It would be very specific to the circumstances of the facility, the surrounding area, other buildings.

All of those would be detailed in the coverage maps.

Okay, because I mean that's one of the reasons I think we're going higher because you get greater coverage.

So the question is.

Correct, and the fact that it would allow for a second co-locator in the future.

Okay.

Thank you.

And we will let you off the hook.

I think we have this issue of why we have no coverage with a monopole yet being in place.

But I guess as you're not the engineer, I will not ask you that question.

I guess thank you.

Thank you.

Last chair?

Any questions?

So I did find that data point is is interesting that uh that Dr.

Singer caught as well.

Um, why was the comparison the monopole versus no poll there whatsoever?

But um just provide that feedback back to the person that prepared the material for um the that comparison.

Um then uh by removing the existing pole and replacing the pole, it'll get obviously new equipment.

Um, and you mentioned that there will be an opportunity for a second carrier to be able to co-locate there, so that's double bubble bonus.

Um I was just uh curious.

Is it a like going from 4G tower cell equipment now to 5GE?

Do you have that level of detail?

Is that in the possibly in the staff report?

Um, um not necessarily only going for from 4G to 5G, but that would typically be in the EME report, which is the radio frequency report.

Uh the details for each antenna and their respective technologies would be included in that report.

In the EME report.

And is that an attachment that goes to the staff report?

It is, correct?

Okay, Sarah, I'd like to take a look at one of those sometime.

Thank you.

Welcome.

I don't have any other questions.

Are we all good?

Okay.

Thank you, Arvin.

Thank you.

Okay.

The applicant has had the opportunity to speak, and I will ask if there are any other speakers.

There are no speakers.

No cards submitted.

Okay.

I will then close the public comments opportunity, and we will move to staff.

I'm sorry, commission deliberation or action.

My questions were asked uh answered in the staff meeting, so I don't have any further questions.

Get you up then, Mr.

Chair, I adopt to a resolution finding the project exempt from CEQA pursuant to state SQL guidelines section one five three zero three and approve the conditional use permit amended to TMO record court amendment project PL and G25-013, based on the findings and subjects of the conditions of approval, including in the draft resolution.

I have a motion.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, motion passes.

I have to let you guys do some of the reading as well.

I was losing my voice in the first one.

All right, Sandy, will you please call item 5.3?

Item 5.3 is milestone two, GPA rezone and map.

It's project PLNG 2408.

Good evening again.

This project, the Milestone 2 project, consists of a general plan amendment, community plan amendment, a rezone, tentative subdivision map, subdivision design review, as well as determination of consistency with the general plan for the abandonment of existing right-of-way.

The project site is located at the northwest corner of Wayne Heinth Street and Wyland Drive.

It is a little over 10 acres.

The site is currently undeveloped.

The project is bounded by Wyland Drive to the east and Wayne Street to the south.

Surrounding existing uses include single unit residences to the north, east, and west, the planned unity park, single family residences, and a trail to the south across Wayne Heinz Street.

The project site was first identified as a school site with the adoption of the East Oak Grove Specific Plan, which was originally adopted by the County of Sacramento in 1996.

The City Council repealed the East Elkgrove specific plan and incorporated that prior specific plan into the Eastern Elk Grove Community Plan with the adoption of the 2019 general plan.

The Elk Grove Unified School District has determined that the site is no longer needed as a school site, and therefore the applicant submitted the current application for the development of single unit residential development on the site, which requires a general plan amendment and community plan amendment, as the existing land use designation is public services.

The applicant is requesting this general plan amendment and Eastern Elk Grove Community Plan Amendment to modify the land use designation for the project site from public services to low density residential.

The project is also proposing a rezone from RD5 to RD6.

And the proposed project includes 56 residential lots, which would result in a residential density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with that density range for the RD6 zone.

The project is consistent with general plan policies LU 2-3 and LU 2-4.

Here is the proposed tentative subdivision map.

It would subdivide the project into 56 single family lots, and the project also includes a stormwater treatment facility on the southwest corner of the site, which is called out as Lot A.

Lot A also includes a pedestrian easement to provide for pedestrian access from A Street to Wayne Heint Street, as well as a crosswalk equipped with a rapid flashing beacon at the northeast northwest corner of Wayne Heint Street and Mile Post Circle, which would provide for future access to the park site and the trail system to the south.

The map is consistent with the general plan, the Elk Reb Municipal Code, and design guidelines with the proposed amendments and rezone.

As I mentioned, the project includes a determination of consistency with the general plan for the abandonment of existing right-of-way.

There is existing right-of-way that was previously dedicated for both Waynehind Street and Wyland Drive.

Due to the change from a school use to a single unit residential, the street cross section has changed.

So while the school site required a certain cross section and street frontage, which included eight feet of attached sidewalk, the new section for residential development is different.

So there is existing right of way that needs to be abandoned for that.

The project was reviewed by the public works department, and they determined that the excess, the excess public right-of-way can be abandoned, and it would not affect pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular circulation.

Therefore, the proposed abandonment is consistent with general plan policies.

An initial study mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project, which determined that the project would not result in a significant environmental impact that could not be mitigated.

Mitigation measures were incorporated to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant impact.

Four comment letters were received during the public comment period, and the comments do not alter the conclusions of the initial study mitigated negative declaration.

Staff recommends that the planning commission recommend city council adopt the initial study mitigated negative declaration and MMRP prepared for the project and approve the general plan amendment, community plan amendment, rezone, tentative subdivision map, subdivision design review, and determination of consistency with the general plan for the project.

Subject to the conditions approval and based on the findings.

That concludes my presentation.

I'm available for questions.

Rod Stinson with Rainey Environmental Planning and Management is also available to answer questions and the applicant team.

From uh an individual reading the issue of the elementary school.

And I noticed in the document on page five, it clearly states that the Elkro Unified School District has since determined that the school site is not needed at this location.

That's correct, right?

Yes, that is correct.

Given that they are an independent uh administrative entity, we have no control over their decisions and why they reach certain decisions.

All we need to know is then they have no intent of building a school there.

That's it.

That's correct.

Thank you.

That was basically my question, too.

That is not up to us.

It's the school that said we don't want to have anything there anymore.

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I think we all had the same question.

Um, what was the determinating factor for deeming it not needed as a school?

Um I don't have any further questions.

I think I got all of my questions answered in my staff report.

Um, but um don't go anywhere we may have some more questions.

Thank you.

Okay, I will now declare the public comment opportunity open, and I will give the applicant the opportunity to speak.

And I will make note that there was some additional written correspondence to the um on the staff report as well.

Thank you.

I'm Jay Pollock from Taylor Morrison, and I just wanted to take a second and thank staff and Rainey for all their hard work.

Um, it takes a lot to get through your mouthful of the recommendation at the end.

I I feel for you there's a lot in it.

Um, for a little site with just 50 something units, there's a whole lot that went into getting to this point.

So we appreciate everybody's effort, and I'm around if you've got any questions.

Thank you, Jay.

Sandra, gentlemen.

Nope.

Okay.

Um, applicant has spoken, and I see we have one individual sign up to speak.

Mr.

Bruce, Stephen Bruce Nelson, would you like to come up?

Good evening.

Good evening.

Is this working?

Yep, all right.

I'm not used to speaking through a microphone.

Hi, my name's Stephen Bruce Nelson.

I go by Bruce.

Um, just a couple contextual facts.

So in uh January of 2005, I bought lot 51, 9340, Healing Way in the Newton Ranch development, which will now abut lot seven and eight in the proposed milestone too.

When I purchased that lot, I knew it was gonna be a school lot.

We also had a functional airport in the area.

The functional airport has been closed down by the county based on the proposed school that was supposed to go there.

Another agency you don't have control over, then now the school lots gone away, pardon me.

And now we want to rezone to an even higher density.

I live in a single story home.

I've had a clear view of the horizon for 19 years and 10 and a half months, and now we want to build two-story homes right behind me.

I'm not that uh excited about a two-story home going.

When you look at the curve in the street, um, I'm a commercial builder, I understand how these work.

Once the lot goes deeper, you generally go two stories.

So I would be opposed to going from RD5 to RD6.

The other thing I I don't know is when you use the words like propose and tentative, those sound loose words to me, which means that maybe uh if we go to RD6, they uh swap in and they go to the full 62 lots.

I don't know if I'm allowed to ask questions.

Can anyone answer that one?

The tentative map is for 456 lots.

In order to go above that, they would need to file a new application.

Okay, so it's tentative, but yeah, in theory, unless they reapply, this is what they're going with.

That's correct.

Yeah, and I have several questions for the builder.

I received a letter approximately nine months ago with an email from a Ryan Hathaway.

I've made multiple email attempts.

I have cold called the Taylor Morrison, and as of yet, they've been completely unresponsive to any of my questions.

So I would propose that we keep it RD5.

With your remaining time, do you want to state what the questions were?

Because I'm gonna invite the applicant to address them when you're finished.

Yeah, I would like to know is lot seven and eight could be a single story or two-story.

A single story would bother me a lot less.

I fully acknowledge I do not own the the acreage, but yet in my mind, they're my neighbor, Taylor Morrison's my neighbor, and all of their subcontractors until the homeowner moves in.

And they haven't been very neighborly.

I would have questions of what happens to my fence.

Um, you know, what about when uh they hire an earthware contractor and they start scraping the earth?

I guarantee you my house is gonna get really dirty.

So, you know, but I figured that was more builder questions than city council members.

Right, but I think there are um city guidelines on how much dust can be generated and obviously which working hours.

So if you have questions that have gone unanswered, they need to be answered.

So I'll ask the applicant to address them.

So you mentioned your fence, um, because if I read the map correctly, you directly abut the the development.

Yeah, lot seven would probably align with let's just say 80% of my property line, and then lot eight would take the the balance, but you know, lot six, seven, and eight.

If they build all two stories, boom, now I have two-story houses looking in my backyard, and after 20 years, I've had nothing.

And mind you, when I bought it, it was gonna be a school lot, and the school would have been built at the front near the road.

I would have probably had a soccer field, or a concrete wall, or a potentially a concrete wall.

Yeah, but I would have ejected that too.

I hear you.

Um, okay, so the fence in specific and earth work.

Um, thank you for your questions.

I will ask the applicant if he can address those tonight.

And uh uh if lot seven, did you say would be a two-story home if there's that level of detail yet in the tentative parcel map?

Yeah, okay.

All right, thank you for your time.

Jay, I believe it was.

Can you possibly uh respond?

This is your opportunity to respond to public comment.

Yep.

Thank you for the opportunity to come up and respond.

Um, we typically do a mix of single and two-story houses.

We don't typically pick the lots that they would be on at this point in the time.

Um, dust and noise and all that, we comply with all the city ordinances, so it's plenty of water to keep the dust down.

Um working hours and all the things around that.

I think it's 7 a.m.

to 6 p.m., 7 a.m.

to 7 p.m.

I don't remember off the top of my head, I'm sorry.

Um fencing uh where we abut existing residents, we always approach the residents to replace the fence at no cost to them.

So they get a brand new fence if they want it.

If they don't, we we install a new fence parallel to that.

Um, is that answer the questions for the most part at least?

I believe those were all three of them.

Yeah, we're happy to be uh a good neighbor.

I'm certainly sorry if you didn't get a call back.

That's never our intent.

Um we've been out in the community for the last we've been building an elk grove since before Elk Grove was a city.

Um and we intend to build here for a long time to come.

So we certainly want to be as good a neighbors as we can be.

We could ask nothing more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Are there, well, actually, um that was the applicant response to public comment.

So I will now call the public comment opportunity closed unless there have been any other cards submitted.

Okay, the public comment is not closed, and we will move to commission deliberation.

And or action, Sandra um i don't have any questions i do appreciate the applicant um the commitment to to reach out to um the folks that are impacted by this um i think that's always a good thing so i didn't have any other uh questions with this one no yeah i will just state i lingered a long time on the school question why um is there no longer a need for a school in that area um any kids in this neighborhood will have to go up to edna beatty um but uh fortunately there is mostly greenbelt and safe passage for them um i don't have any other questions of staff or the applicant and i thank the uh public for commenting um do i have a motion i move that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt the initial study slash mitigate it negative declaration and medication mitigation monitoring and reporting program and approve the general plan amendment rezone tentative subdivision map subdivision design review and determination of consistency with the general plan for the milestone to GPA rezone and map project based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval included in the proposed resolution have a motion second and a second all in favor aye any opposed motion carries and um one other question um mr jay if you could make sure that um the speaker will uh has the correct contact information make sure the fence gets addressed thank you okay moving on um director's report evening chair commissioners uh so a couple items for you first off our next meeting would normally be September 4th however we have no items scheduled for you so the chair's concurrence we'll go ahead and cancel the fourth I concur excellent and so our next meeting will then be uh September 20 and sorry 18th September 18th um we are working on a couple of matters for you including the Maverick fueling station project and the lazy boy design review and map project a couple other items to note there was a zoning administrator hearing on Monday of this week where the administrator approved the Sheldon Farms North Departments complex complex which included a tentative parcel map uh for residential purposes subdividing the lot into two as well as the approval of the apartment complex it was a streamlined approval um pursuant to state uh law under some of the recent provisions uh SB 35 in particular for that project um we'd have another zoning administrator hearing coming up on September 15th with two items listed on your sheet the Amazon delivery station accessory structure it's essentially a guard house building and then um the extension of the hotel at Sheldon Place project council items coming up for your reference in September include the annual growth reports as well as the recent item you heard this evening for milestone two that should make it on for the September 8th or sorry September 10th planning city council hearing uh concludes my items happy to answer any questions you may have um where is the sheldon farms north departments located so that's on Bruceville just south just north of Laguna Creek uh the Sheldon Farms North project um proved many years ago at this point uh the residential was developed I believe by DR Horton um just to the north of the site is an adult daycare facility in the dialysis center at the corner of Sheldon and Bruceville.

So this is the vacant five acre lot just to the south of it, so at the corner of Mashpee and Bruceville.

Got it.

I remember there's a huge setback on that dialysis in adult daycare center because of the anti-robe to delight rail corridor.

Yeah.

Okay, I remember that.

All right.

Thank you very much.

I have no questions.

That was our director's report.

And with that, I will adjourn the August twenty-first meeting of the Oak Road Planning Commission at 6 44 PM.