Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Calling meeting to order. Uh let's uh start with the pledge of allegiance. Commissioner Caukins is going to lead us. All rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Let's start with the roll call. Uh, Miss Le, please. Thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners and staff. I will take attendance starting with Commissioner Castillo. I uh Commissioner Brown is absent. Commissioner Kulkins here. Commissioner Awasti here. Commissioner Golong, Commissioner Kong here. Uh and oh, I'm sorry, Vice Chair Kong and um Chair Gupta here. Thank you. Thank you. Last time for conflict of interest declaration. Attorney Gree, please.

Thank you, chair. I ask the chair and each other member of the Mus Plan Commission whether he or she has any financial or personal conflict of interest related to any of the items on tonight's agenda. Commissioner Castillo, no. Commissioner Kulkins, none. Commissioner Austi, none. Commissioner Galong, none. Vice Chair Kong, none. Chair Gupta. None. Thank you. I further ask the chair and each member of the Milpace Planning Commission to please disclose any campaign contributions of $100 or more received within the last 12 months from any of the parties entering into contracts with the city on tonight's agenda or contributions received from development project applicants for development projects on tonight's agenda. Commissioner Castillo, none. Commissioner Kulkins,

none. Commissioner was none. Commissioner Galong, none. Vice Chair Kong, none. Chair Gupta, none. Thank you. Let the record reflect no reported conflicts. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Attorney Creech. Uh, next item is approval of the minutes for April 8th. Sorry, approval of the agenda for today. Uh, so by let's start with the motion. Uh, anybody to approve the agenda for today? I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for today, April 22nd, 2026. I second that. Commissioner Castillo. Hi. Commissioner Kulkins.

Hi. Commissioner Wasi. Comm I. Commissioner Galong. Hi. Vice Chair Kong. I. Chair Gupta. I. Thank you. Approval of the minutes for April 8th, 2026. Uh, is there a motion to approve the minutes, please? I'll make the motion to approve the minutes of April 8, 2026. I'll second that. Thank you. Commissioner Castillo I. Commissioner Hawkins I. Commissioner was I. Commissioner Golong abstain. Um, Vice Chair Kong I. And Chair Gupta.

Hi. Thank you. Okay, moving along. Are there any announcements uh from the planning commissioners? Uh how about Mr. Lee?

Thank you, Chair Gupta. Uh I do have a couple of announcements. So, just want to announce that we uh are holding a special meeting of the planning commission on at 6 p.m. here in the same location on May 6th. Um so this is in addition to our two regularly scheduled meetings for May. So it's a lot of meetings. Uh we typically um have the well the regular meetings are on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month. So um we will continue to have those and those will be at 7:00 p.m. at this location as well. Just wanted to clarify that this meeting is in addition to the regular meetings that we have um just because of the number of of items. When is that meeting again? Sorry I missed the date.

May 6th which is also a Wednesday. Okay. The first one of the month. So we have we have three meetings in May. Yes. So that will be the same time seven. Yes. 6 p.m. for the special one on May 6. Okay. Any other announcement Mr. Lee? That is all. Thank you chair.

Okay. Now we are into public forum. Um, so members of the public are invited to speak on any item that does not appear on today's agenda. Comments will be limited to 3 minutes or less at the chair's discretion. When called to speak, you are encouraged to state your name for the record. As an item not listed on the agenda, no action can be taken. However, the planning commission may instruct the staff to place the item on a future meeting agenda. Is there any miss any anybody from the public? Chair there are no speaker cards for the public forum.

Okay. Thank you. Now we're going to start the public hearing. That's the main item we are here for. Uh this is regarding zoning map and text amendment for SB79. Uh may I invite uh project manager Miss Lillian Vanho to principal planner to make the presentation please. Good evening chair, vice chair and commissioners and fellow staff and members of the public. My name is Lillian Van Hois, principal planner with the city of Malpus. Uh can I have the presentation up please? Oh, it's on your screen. Okay. Oh, I can still start if or unless we want to wait for the the broadcast to catch up. I'm not Does it matter? Oh, okay. Great. Okay. Um, so, so tonight, uh, I'm presenting a zoning map and text amendment for Senate Bill 79, um, and which is P-Za26-002. Um, next slide, please. The Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, also known as Senate Bill 79, was signed by the governor on October 10th, 2025.

SB79 takes takes effect on July 1, 2026 of this year. This law supersedes local zoning to allow qualifying private housing developments with a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre uh near major transit stops. It applies to sites zoned for residential, mixed use, or commercial within 1 half mile of major transit stops. It significantly limits local discretion over land use near transit. And it also allows local governments to adopt an ordinance to make their zoning code uh consistent with Senate Bill 79. Thank you. Oh, I think we're going way too fast. Sorry. Okay, great. Uh so why is a local ordinance necessary? So SB79 is the law but it is silent on many local details. U absent a local ordinance qualifying housing projects that invoke SB79 on commercially zoned lands would only be subject to the minimum development standards listed in the state legislation itself with no local with no additional local direction or specificity. Without the local without this ordinance, the city loses its ability to shape how SB79 projects are built. So, commercial or non-residential properties within the 1/ half mile of a major transit stop could be converted to residential use under SB79's baseline standards alone with no control over design, density, or compatibility. Um, and the city is not endorsing SB79. it is trying to manage its impacts. As stated in the proposed ordinance, the city adopts this amendment without

waving its objection to the legislaturator's decision to override local control and planning. The goal is to regulate um the development that SB79 permits in a way that best serves the community. Next slide, please. So, the city of Militus has three major transit stops affected by Senate Bill 79. We have a one tier one station, which is the Militus BART station. Um, and then a tier 2 uh two tier 2 stations, the VTA Great Mall light rail station and the uh Alder light rail station. There's approximately 3,500 properties citywide that could be impacted uh by this legislation. Um and uh properties must be zoned for residential, mixed use, or commercial to qualify. Next slide, please. So, here are the minimum and maximum development standards under SB79 based on the parcel's proximity to the TOD stop, which also varies based on the tier. So, for example, if a project site is located within 200 feet of a tier one station or the Militus um BART station, they could be allowed to have a higher maximum height and density than a project that is further away. So, but within the half mile um distance from the same BART to stop. Next slide, please. It's important to also recognize the work that the city has already done to increase housing densities um near transit. So since 2002, the city has adopted two specific plans supporting higher density near transit. Gateway Main Street specific plan, formerly the Midtown specific plan, and the Militus

Metro specific plan, formerly known as the transit area specific plan. The metro plan already permits densities consistent with SB79 uh in some areas up to 250 dwelling units per acre and building heights up to 275 ft near the BART station which is considered a tier one uh station under the this legislation. The gateway plan also permits densities ranging from 12 to 65 dwelling units per acre in the halfmile area surrounding the Great Mall light rail station which is a tier 2 station and many properties adjacent to both transit stops have already been redeveloped with multif family residential. Next slide please. And so staff is proposing to create a transit oriented development overlay district to implement SB79. Here is staff's proposed to overlay standards. The bolded text on the table is what staff is recommending that is different than what is set forth under the law. So while we cannot lower the minimum and maximum densities allowed under SB79, we can increase them. staff is proposing a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre in the TOD overlay with the varying maximum development standards set forth under state law remaining the same. Staff is also proposing that all projects must follow the development standards of the R4 Metro Zoning District. And for parcel zoned R16 or single family residential, the minimum density will remain 30 dwelling units per acre and they must follow the R4 uh zoning district standards. Next slide, please.

So next I'm going to explain the basis for the proposed zoning amendment. Um if commercial land is being converted to residential under SB79, the city should ensure that this conversion produces meaningful housing yield and raising the minimum density floor will help the city better meet its RENA obligations or our regional housing needs allocation numbers and also advance the state's housing production goals. The ordinance directs projects to follow R4 Metro and R4 standards and these zoning districts are a locally uh tested framework for highdensity residential development. This approach reflects the city's long-standing commitment to transitoriented higher density development near major transit stops. Next slide, please. So, in order to be eligible for SB79, projects must include at least five dwelling units. The average unit size must not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet. Projects over 85 ft in height must meet state labor standards, and they cannot demolish rent controlled housing occupied within the past seven years. And it also cannot be located on a site where rent controlled units were demolished within the last seven years. Next slide, please. And in order to be eligible for SB79, projects will be subject to the following affordability requirements. So, it applies to developments of more than 10 units. The projects must comply with one of the following on-site affordability options. So either at least 7% extremely low income, at least 10% very low income, or at least 13% lower income. The rental

units must remain affordable for at least 55 years. And ownership units must remain affordable for 45 years. And if the city's affordable housing ordinance requires a higher percentage or deeper affordability, the city's requirement will apply. Next slide, please. So, specifically, the proposed zoning code amendments are as follows. It adds a new section B uh 20.040 transit oriented development overlay zone to title 13 chapter B.20 of the Milpedus Municipal Code. It implements California government code sections 65912.155 through 65912.162 SP79. It establishes applicability definitions and minimum residential and height standards for qualifying housing projects. The TOD overlay is applicable to any zoning district on lands within 1 half mile of a transit oriented development stop. And the section is operative only while SB79 is in effect and it shall have no force or effect if SB79 is repealed. Next slide please. So here is the proposed zoning map amendment. The TOD overlay applies to like I said all parcels within the halfmile area surrounding the three major transit stops. Um next slide please. And this is a closer look at the TOD overlay applied to the city's three TOD stops. The smaller circle with the hatched area is the quarter mile distance from the TOD stops and then the

larger circles are the halfmile distance from the TOD stop. The proposed zoning text and map amendments are statutoily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Government Code section 65912.16 C2. This is an ordinance that is implementing Senate Bill 79. Next slide, please. A notice was published in the Militas Post and at city hall as well as the city's website. No comments have been received to date. Staff has confirmed that the project meets the findings associated with zoning map and text amendment for the proposed SB79 ordinance as set out in the Militus Municipal Code. The project is consistent with the city's general plan goals and policies. Is also consistent with the Mro and Gateway Main Street specific plan goals and policies. It will not be detrimental to public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. It is compliant with SQUA. It does not reduce residential density, and it will not result in a net loss of potential housing units. It is internally consistent with other provisions of title 13. and the affected sites are physically suitable to accommodate proposed densities and intensities and they will be compatible with the character of adjacent residential neighborhoods. And those findings have been discussed in the staff report and are addressed in the resolution. So, in closing, staff recommends that the planning commission open the public hearing to receive comments and move to close the public hearing and that they adopt resolution 26-008 recommending that the city council

approve zoning text amendment number ZA26-00002 adding a new section B20.040 040 to title 13, chapter B.20 of the Militus Municipal Code to create a transit oriented development to overlay zoning district implementing Senate Bill 79 standards development standards. Thank you. Thank you, Lynen. Nice presentation. Um, are there any questions or comments from the planning commissioners? Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you for covering the reasoning behind the changes that you want to make to it and I do appreciate the fact that you guys were considering the reena goals that we have for Militus um with that. So I just wanted to say good job on incorporating that into this. Anybody else any questions?

Vice Chair Kong. Thank you Lillian for the presentation and I also wanted to extend my appreciation for the uh briefing that you have given to all of us uh you know before this meeting because that helps us to really understand the context of this uh ordinance. But I do still have a couple of question. I think you brought up in your presentation about the metro plan where we do have um um guidance for density up to 250 dwelling units per acre as well as height up to 275 ft. Can you point out where that maximum um where that metro plan might overlap with this to overlay and if if the applicants have a choice to choose between the original metro plan versus the tod overlay?

Sure. Can I have um slide the slide 13? Yeah. up on the screen. I think it's slide 13, the second zoning map. Um, slide. So the far right circle on your screen, that's the well, I guess both both circles kind of overlap onto the the metro specific plan, but so the the the center circle and the right circle are uh both within the gateway plan and the metro specific plan. Um, so the the high densities that um I alluded to, um, so those zoning designations that allow for up to, you know,

200 50 dwelling units per acre. Um, those are the like they're within the quarter mile um, distance to the Militus BART station. And so in theory, a a developer who is who is proposing a project within that area, um they they could go with either, but because we already allow for high density, like higher densities that are even above SB79, they don't even need to invoke that that legislation. There there's really no incentive for a developer to you utilize that law. um if the zoning already allows for housing there. Yeah. Okay. At at even higher intensities than what is than what the law permits. Yeah.

Okay. So, at least that helps us to understand that they the choice is left to the developer which um you know which zoning and so on they want to follow. Right. Correct.

Thank you. Um and then I wanted to also um you know kind of express that I am very concerned about u the erosion of employment and you know employment opportunities in the city especially with the location of the VTA um station on the left side of on the I would say west side of the city. And I appreciate that you guys have put that language into the uh resolution that you know this overlay does not include industrial zones. Um but I do hope that um this is also coming out from the conversation that we have had during the briefing. I just want to reiterate this for the benefit of the rest of the commission members is that there was a mention that other cities that are doing this uh ordinance update Oakland has worked in the language in their proposal and I know we do not want to do that at this point but in the event that they are able to get that clarification that industrial land is totally not or is exempt from this SP79 I hope we can find a way to update the ordinance at a later date. So that's what I wanted to express. Thank you.

Any more comments or questions? Oh, okay. So I have a couple questions. One, um, I want to clarify SP79. I think the main thing is whether you are in full compliance with SB79. So SP79 does it specify minimum density and the maximum density? I understand that it only specify one number and that number is minimum density like 160 dwelling units or 140 dwelling units. So can you clarify that? So the the the law says it sets forth a minimum density and then maximum densities and we and jurisdictions cannot go lower than their specified minimum or maximum. If so if the so if the range is 30 to 160 for example we cannot we cannot go to 129 and 159 for for I'm just putting numbers out there but

yeah it does specify 30 the number 30 minimum. Mhm.

Chair may I may I clarify? So what the um what the statute actually says is it has provisions that say the minimum density will be 30 or such the minimum density as specified by the local agency. Um and then it says um for the maximum density depending on the um type of project and its distance and other kinds of factors it says agencies will not impose a maximum density less than and then provide specified numbers. Okay, I understand. So the maximum density because you're exceeding maximum density like in your metro plan like was mentioned earlier. So so that's really what SB79 specify is not really the absolute maximum density. It is the minimum maximum density.

Yes. Okay. Okay. That that makes it more clear. Yeah. Okay. So it looks like you are complying in that case. Um also SP79 I understand specifies objective standards in terms of design. Uh or are you meeting that criteria or you still have some discretion in terms of whether you follow objective standards?

So we're utilizing our existing development standards. So, for example, the R4 Metro Zoning District um has uh sets out criteria for objective design standards um that we've already adopted. Um and so projects that um invoke SB79 would have to be in conformance with those standards. Okay. So, you are complying with objective standards of SB79, correct?

Okay. And uh okay, next question. Uh have you done infrastructure capacity analysis whether what will be the impact of this ordinance on different things like traffic and schools and utilities uh etc. We have not. Will can that create some kind of an issue? It could. It could with with the state or could with the public

with the public but few so I I just want to also clarify that uh projects that invoke SB79 there's no um SQA streamlining that is part of this legislation. So when they just like with most projects that are submitted to the planning department, we will have to um well the the applicant will have to comply with SQA, right? So unless they are eligible for some of the other streamlining provisions that are set forth by state law. Um so in in those so it'll be evaluated on a case-byase basis. So I guess another way to say this is although the ordinance is not as part of this ordinance we don't have to um do SQL analysis because we're just trying to implement state law. Uh on a project bypro basis we can still do that analysis. Uh chances are um if you are seeing areas not um studied for residential now being proposed to have residential development um the chances of having impacts are I think I can generally say greater. Um so you know like we all our other plans like the general plan our specific plans we've already looked at where we think residential development will go. We analyze those impacts. So deviating from the plans that we've already put in place and the analysis that was already done. These future projects would not be covered by that previous analysis. So new analysis will need to be done and um I I can't say right now like exactly what that path will be but there will need to be SQL analysis.

Okay. Thank you. Um so if a developer comes in and says I have a project for based on 30 develop develop developing units which complies with SB79 and your minimum is 40. Will will the city consider that uh project or will reject? If the city council adopts this ordinance then the project would not be considered compliant with our ordinance. Okay. Because you are still complying with SB79 which is 30 is above 30. Correct. All right. Got it. Okay.

No further questions. Um are there any comments from the public?

Yes, chair. We have one speaker card from Triana Grayton. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Trana Cryin. I'm a senior transportation planner with the VTA, but also a Militus resident, but I'll be wearing my VTA hat for this comment. Um, so I just wanted to make a general supportive public comment to also so to also compliment the Militus staff, Jay and Lillian specifically. Um, so VTA has been following SB79 as well since its passing and very closely and we're very interested in continued dialogue with all of our jurisdictions who are affected by SB79. We've been participating in a variety of different jurisdictional meetings as well as individual meetings with the affected um jurisdictions to try to understand together the legislation as well as um how it's going to affect cities, how it's going to affect traffic, what it means for VTA as a transit agency as well as trying to be a resource for the cities whether it be um understanding legislation, looking out for other resources as well as um some of the things that are happening on the technical side such as mapping. So we are trying to provide those resources and be a good partner to our affected jurisdictions. We believe that SP79 can play an important role in creating more vibrant complete communities around the rail stations in Militus, generating transit ridership, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the solo auto trips, things like that. But we do recognize that the implementation implementation of SB79 is really complex and there are many nuances to the law that we're still trying to understand and there are cleanup bills incoming and we're all just trying to figure it out together as we go along. And with that, just closing, VTA staff stands um ready to serve as a resource and a partner to Militus and our other SP79 agencies.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any further questions or comments from the commissioners? No, no, chair, not from um the public. Yeah. Uh this is for our attorney breach. Uh when when uh we were just told that uh uh the minimum uh we have 30 apartments but the ordinance passes and then the ordinance takes effect and SB79 is the law. So can we invoke our own ordinance uh against the law?

Uh the answer is yes and it's because SB79 specifically recognizes that what will apply what SB79 does functionally is it allows residential in areas where it may not be allowed by local law. And so what SB79 does for the minimum density is it sets a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre um because there may not be such a setting at local law. but then says it will be either that or that minimum density as established by the local jurisdiction. So by militus stepping in to establish a minimum density for this new residential that had not otherwise uh would not otherwise allow in those zones is merely taking the invitation that SB79 gave for local jurisdictions to set that minimum density um for itself.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay, if there are no other questions or comments, uh can we have a motion uh for accepting this zoning map amendment

and and chair, I understand you two have closed the are you closing the public hearing? Okay. Um so at this point, I'd like to close the public hearing and we move on to the to the motion to approve this. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Oh, sorry, Commissioner uh Golong. We we no longer need a motion to close the public hearing. The chair can do it at the chair's discretion once uh public testimony is done. I'm looking for a motion to approve this amendment. Yeah, you can make a motion. Yeah. Um it's not on the screen.

It should come on the screen.

They make a motion. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Like to make a motion to adopt number 26-00008 recommending that the city council approved sewing text amendment number Z26-00002 adding a new section B 20.040 040 to title this 8. Oh, 13. Chapter B 20 of the Malpas Municipal Code to create a transit oriented development overlay zoning district implementing Senate Bill 79 development standards.

Is there a second, please? Yeah, you can second. Can I make a I can second that. Vice Chair Kong has something to say.

I wanted to ask clarification from the uh attorney. Earlier I was making a comment if we can add the recommendation that in the event that the language is allowed to codify the exclusion of industrial lands from this uh transit overlay. We would I would like to recommend the addition of that language when we feel that it is something that um can work in the but can do the revision in the future not today but um at least take account of it for future revision of this ordinance. So, I understand the the comment to be um asking about potentially a um uh a friendly amendment to the motion that you want to propose to make the motion. Um I'd like to give you a little bit of legal context on that to help. Um the ordinance does as SB79 states. Um the SP79 says that it the standard the residential it allows will be in um areas zoned for uh commercial, residential and um mixed use. Uh our ordinance tracks that language. Um and uh does not as currently stated states very clearly by exclusion that it does not apply to properties that have been zoned for industrial. and moreover in its um recital indicates and clarifies the different zones that are in the areas indicated by the to um that are not um zoned uh for one of those three indicated uses um and are zoned for other kinds of purposes. So there is already clarifying language within the um draft ordinance that's before you for consideration tonight as well as an indication the body of the ordinance itself that it does not apply to industrial properties just as SB79 um states that it only applies to areas

zoned for those three those three. So I I guess what I'm telling you is is that um there is already language clearly stating that fact.

Okay. Thank you. Because I think coming out from the briefing, I was under the impression that it was not added to the ordinance yet. It was just added to the resolution portion. Can you point out where it is in the ordinance? My apologies for holding back the

So, commissioner, in terms of where we talk about and specifically identify in the proposed ordinance um the different zones and which will apply and which will not as in the recital um not sure if I can count how far down, but you will see recital um that state among other things that whereas pursuant to C's general plan, the imple zoning ordinance, the following zoning districts are zoned for res are are not zoned for residential, mixed or commercial development lists the applicable zones that would be within that area and and clarifies that that intent that those are not um uh areas zoned for that. And then in terms of what the ordinance, it's the body of the ordinance that is the portion of it that would be codified. Um it also it it also specifically says only applies to um residential uh commercial and uh mixeduse zoned properties and by exclusion of industrial does not include those within its contours.

So I want to add something to that. So based on the briefing I also got the impression that SB79 may be amended to include industrial in in the future. If uh that happens uh how will it affect uh our ordinance changes in the law if the law was to change it may require amendments. It would depend on what is passed by the legislature. Okay. Thank you. Kong.

Um I mean I cannot find the text here but I accept what attorney crit mention. So no amendment to the motion. Guys,

can I have there's already a motion. So can I have a second to approve this amendment, please? I second that. Okay. Can we have a roll call, please? Yes, Chair. Commissioner Castillo. Commissioner Kulkins. I. Commissioner Westy. I. Commissioner Golong. I. Vice Chair Kong. I. Chair Gupta. Hi. Thank you.

Okay. The amendment is passed. Congratulations. Uh Vivian, great presentation and nice answers to the questions. Um is there next item is new business. Is there is there any new business? There are no items on the agenda for new new business. Uh at this point uh I will read uh something I'm supposed to read. Any person agreved by any final decision of any any board, commission or department head, the city of Malpas may appeal the decision to the city council by filing written notice of the appeal with the city clerk within 12 calendar days of the date of set decision and paying the required fee. This time limit shall be strictly enforced. So with uh this meeting is ajourned. Thank you very much.