Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The fire.

The fire.

I will now call the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, 08/19/2025 to order, and I'll ask the clerk to please take the role.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners. Chair Lightfoot?

Present.

Vice Chair Wilkinson?

Present.

Commissioner Braggis? Commissioner Banta? Here. Commissioner Beaumont? Commissioner Dingmann? Here. Chair, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. I'll ask everyone please stand with the pledge allegiance, and I'll Thank you, Commissioner Banta. So we will now move on with regular business starting with communication. At this time, I'll ask Director Morris if there's any communications announcements for this evening's meeting.

Thank you, Chair Lightfoot. We have no supplemental communications or announcements.

Thank you very much. So next we'll move on to item number four, the approval of this evening's agenda. Do I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda?

I'll move.

I've got a motion from Commissioner Beaumont and a second from Commissioner Banta. Could I please have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Banta? Commissioner Bamont?

Yes.

Commissioner Dingmann?

Yes.

This portion of the agenda is available for the public to address the Planning Commission on any item that's not on the agenda this evening. There'll be a limit of three minutes per speaker. And I welcome anybody who wishes to address the commission regarding a topic that's not on the agenda to please approach the podium. They're going to turn that on. Here we go. Thank you.

Yes. Commissioners. I'm Joan Wilsey, and I've lived in Vacaville for, like, eighteen years or so. I wanted to just ask some questions about development in Vacaville, very general things. And what I'm about to say, probably these are not new questions or ideas, but I'd just like to bring them up, make sure they are continually brought up about in front of you and other decisive bodies in the city.

Pardon me. So the Vacaville city staff and city leaders, house builders, residents, we all ask how we can provide affordable housing. And often it's very personal, like where will

And And

we're of areas a that

we're

aspects of things like we're trying to track like the biotech businesses. I'd like to know if housing mixed with commercial properties is possible in Vacaville, if it's being considered. Is the community development department talking with architects and developers who offer projects maybe where there's an upper story built above a store? I know that we have a lot of, I think, opportunities for that in Vacaville if we could pursue it. Also, can the city support more Habitat for Humanity builds?

There have been three in Solano County, two for veterans, one in Dixon, one in Rio Vista, and there's been a project in Fairfield. And I know there's one planned for Vacaville. So combination of funding that Habitat uses through grants and personal sweat equity for the people that live in the houses eventually is a model that perhaps we could use more of. And they're small projects,

but maybe if the city could support in the way of grants or other funding, they could be enlarged. We could have some opportunities there for people to help get their own houses built.

And The traditional models of houses houses may no longer be appropriate in these times of high cost to build. Are we thinking creatively about housing solutions? Thanks for listening.

Thank you very much. I'll close business.

Sir.

Tom Filippi, Filippi Engineering. Here for two reasons. As of 09/22/2025, I'm going to be retiring. Most of you don't know me, and I have some friends here on the planning commission, and I've had my business here in Vacaville just down the street for forty two years. And I've been doing land development projects.

And I absolutely adore what this back at all. I've been doing things here for forty six years, and I just wanted to make that announcement. Matt Ellis, who's one of my engineers, is going to be addressing the council on my matters tonight. But I just wanted to say goodbye. This is my last Planning Commission meeting. And it's been a lot of fun and a great ride. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have anybody else that address commission? Okay. I'll close business from the floor. And next, we'll move on to the consent calendar. So it's now time to for the consent calendar, we'll have one item on consent, which is the minutes from the 07/15/2025 meeting. Does anyone from the commission or the public wish to pull the consent item for discussion? Seeing none, can I please have a motion and second to approve the consent calendar? I have a motion from Commissioner Banta and a second from Commissioner Beaumont. Can I please have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Banta? Commissioner Vermont? Commissioner Dingmann?

Yes.

Vice Chair Wilkerson?

Yes.

Chair Lightfoot?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you very much. So next, I will move on to comment. May we please have the staff's presentation.

Good evening chair, members of the Planning Commission. This is Albert Enoch with Community Development Department here to present to you tonight the McMurtry Creek Estates subdivision. Specifically, this is a request to annex 15.73 acres of unincorporated Solano County land located north of Preserve Lane and McMurtry Lane into the city of for the purpose of creating 20 lots for single family residential development. This project includes an environmental assessment, which is the certification of an environmental impact report, a general plan amendment, annexation, pre zoning, tentative subdivision map, and the plan development overlay. The map on the left hand side shows the project site in the Northwest corner of the city.

There are two lines of importance associated with this map. The orange line is the city lemma line, and the pink line is the sphere of influence. As you can see on the map on the right hand side, the subject site is comprised of approximately 33 acres. And they're looking at subdividing the site to bring parcel A into the city's limits. And you can see that orange line meandering around the right hand side of that parcel a.

Parcel b would continue to reside within unincorporated Solano County, and you can see, there's a pink line there. And then just underneath that pink line is a green dash line, which is urban growth boundary, the outermost extent of the city's growth until 2028. And so the this particular project site is located within our sphere of influence, which means at some point in the future, we had anticipated that development would occur around this area. Some relevant background for the commission for tonight's public hearing is that this whole thing started in 2019 when the city council initiated a general plan amendment. It started with a formal application that was filed in 2021 and city staff worked with the applicant to refine the tentative map and the application exhibits.

We held a scoping meeting for the draft environmental impact report, which means things that we needed to include in that environmental analysis. And then we held another neighborhood meeting because that was another component that we needed to hear back was the neighborhood's comments about the particular proposal. There's a big chunk of time in between 2023 that we were processing the development project and holding a public review for a draft environmental impact report. But we held in 2025 a public hearing to consider that draft EIR, which I'll cover a little bit more in my presentation. This map shows the location of the proposed improvements that would be done with the map.

You'll see that remainder parcel be on the left hand side that would stay in unincorporated Solano County. And then the realignment of the city limits on the western most extent of that portion with a future annexation application with Solana Lavco. This is intended to identify exactly how they're going to get access to this project site would be through an extension on Preserve Lane that would go a northerly to provide an additional street. And then you'll see on the eastern side of the project site is a separate fire lane that will provide emergency access to the existing fire lane that's surrounding Cheyenne, which dumps into Whitestone Court. An additional access point would be provided over by McMurtry Lane, which is located just west of Preserve Lane.

And it's located right there on McMurtry Lane right there. So that would remain as an emergency vehicle access point. So this project, it's a very sizable project because it involves a variety of different use entitlements as well as an environmental assessment in order to be able to evaluate the impacts associated with the project and what changes have to be done. I mentioned this can include the general plan amendment annexation pre zoning to subdivision up in a plan development. But what does all that mean?

Well, they're looking at changing our general plan, which is designated right now as hillside agriculture to residential states. The annexation would be for that 15.73 acres to bring that into our city limits. The pre zone would apply zoning now in time through an ordinance city. That there is zoning that would be applied to the project and the proposed zoning that's being requested is R. E.

12. Which means that the lot sizes have to be a minimum 12,000 square feet in size. The tentative map is for subdividing that 15.73 acres to create 20 lots as well as fire lane access routes and some setback landscaping that's necessary because of its location in a hillside area. The planned development is also necessary in order to be able to build in an area that's geologically unstable. We do, as part of the environmental assessment, have a geotechnical report that shows how the engineer will need to perform the improvements across the project site to make it safe.

And then something else notable about this particular project is that the fire lane areas as well as the setback landscaping surrounding the project Would be maintained by a homeowners association As in addition to water a detention basis. This exhibit shows that general plan amendment where the idea areas identified as hillside agriculture and they're gonna be looking at changing it to residential states. And here is the proposed zoning. There's no zoning now because it's not in our city limits. So should it be annexed into our city limits, RE 12 would be applied to that 15.73 acre site.

So when the city receives applications like this, our job is to determine whether or not the proposal is going be compliant with a variety of different Regulatory documents. And so it starts with our general plan. They're proposing to amend the general plan map. To change that. We reviewed their proposal and found that the proposed lot sizes location where it would be at.

Compliance with the applicable general plan policies. The annexation request it's we we the evaluation for that component is whether not existing city services could be available to serve those future residents. Preserve Lane is right there and the water sewer street and public access could be extended into that area so that evaluation was confirmed by- a variety of different departments within the city that the city could at some point in the future serve- project site. We should note that that annexation application would be subject to a separate subsequent application submitted to us a little LAVCO. And as part of that application, the city would have to establish a tax sharing agreement as well as- prepare a comprehensive update to the city's municipal service review before the annexation- can be submitted.

Once an application is submitted to salon a lot co. We don't know what the timing would be will be subject to their timing on how they process those applications. And right now we don't have a timeline for when we would- engage on the negotiations for a tax year agreement. Salon County hasn't notified any the cities within the county about when that would occur. The pre zoning I mentioned it would be added for residential states 12,000 square foot lots.

Once the property is annexed in, we do have existing development standards within our municipal code that would be applicable to that upon future developments and we confirmed through the tentative map that the proposal would comply with those existing development standards. Tentative subdivision map is required it would be effective once annexation. Is complete- they're looking at creating 20 lots it would be for future custom home development. And the H. O.

A. I mentioned would be responsible for maintaining the setback landscaping surrounding the project as well as the emergency vehicle access roads. Plan elements required due to the because there's a small portion of the project site that's within the hillside area. And so The project can be required to implement those recommendations for improvements on that are required in the geotechnical report. All in all we looked at all the entitlements and concluded that it does comply with the general plan.

And policies as well as the- landings and development code and meets the required findings. The second component of this is the environmental impact that it would poses on- the project poses on the environment. Environmental analysis is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. The purpose of this environmental review is to disclose impacts, identify whether or not there's alternatives and to avoid those impacts and maybe even mitigate those impacts to lessen significant level. In this particular instance, the city determined that an environmental impact report was needed for one particular aspect related to transportation and traffic.

Specifically, area this of land was never identified for development within our general plan at the hillside agriculture so. That adds vehicle miles traveled to our city and that represents a significant impact for traffic. And there's no feasible mitigation measures. And so when that particular instance, you have to disclose that to the public that it's a significant impact. There's no way to avoid it.

And so we did that. We published a draft environmental impact report for forty five days ending on April 21. And we see public comments from a variety of different agencies as well as the public- then we published a final environmental impact report to address those comments- there weren't any major comments to the draft environmental impact report. So we didn't need to recirculate that document. All the only we found that there are findings that could be made- and that there is a statement of overriding consideration that could be made that- warrants at this project provides executive housing.

And that is supports the city's economic development strategy for those reasons that that this project is the overriding benefits of this project outweigh the impacts created by the vehicle miles traveled. This project had to go before the County Airport Landings Commission for review because it's located within Zone E of the Travis Air Force Base compatibility plan. We took that to the airport Landings Commission on April 10, and they found it consistent with that compatibility plan. Along the process, we conduct public outreach starting in September 2022 where we sent out a new project notice to residents located within 600 foot radius. We held a scoping meeting in June 2023 as well as another neighborhood meeting in July 2023.

And we held a planning commission meeting on the draft environmental impact report earlier this year, and then we also set up a notice for this hearing. What we heard from residents were that many people were concerned about traffic noise from construction activities, whether or not the project could be served by water, the type of grading whether it would create an issue within the hillside area. And then there was concern about loss of green space and wildlife. There was concern about the lots a important very

I that's

And that's twenty AM and twenty PM peak hour trips being added. We I found that noise would be mitigated through existing conditions of approval where they wouldn't be able to conduct construction activities beyond a certain point. They wouldn't be able to go before earlier than 7AM, no later than I think 7PM. Water can be able to be served by the site. We were able to confirm that with our utilities department as well as sewer and storm drain as well as vehicle access to the project site.

But that leads us to the conclusion I want to share with the commission which is- ultimately staff to support this proposed project- we found that the environmental impacts can be mitigated to a new less than significant impact with the exception of the VNT. We understand that VMT signet those are significant impacts, but they can be overridden due to other considerations. We found that the project could be served by existing improvements near the project site and that meets the required findings for approval. It's consistent with the general plan, zoning as well as state law and would comply with those existing development standards at a future point when it does get built. So with that, our recommendation for the commission is that you would recommend to the city council approval of the project.

That concludes my presentation. The applicant's engineer is also here to answer any questions, and the city's consultant with LSA is available to help elaborate on any questions related to the impact report. Great.

Thank you very much. Do we have any commission questions?

We'll start with Commissioner Beaumont. Thanks Albert. Appreciate it. The HOA is strictly for the 20 homes that are being built. Is that correct? Correct. And the MSR hasn't been updated yet I assume?

We're in the process of that right now.

Okay. And I think he tried to explain it to me and I read it in the report that 20 homes is going to cause significant and unavoidable impact to traffic. The percentage of base year traffic is 0.00037 and that's significant and unavoidable.

That's correct. And it is a small amount. It is just 20 lots that are adding twenty hours like during the peak hour when people are moving, coming and going from their homes. You expect to see 20 trips per hour in the AM and then 20 trips per hour in the PM. But the vehicle miles traveled thing is that because the project site was identified as hillside agriculture, we never anticipated that there was going be.

Single family homes built there and so when we- did a supplemental environmental back report 2021 we said we understand our general plan. Creates vehicle miles traveled. Fortunately at this time this project wasn't identified as residential state so the idea is that it adds a brand new vehicle miles traveled to that analysis and that's the component that we have to disclose the public. It's just brand new it's being added- But the commission can make that finding that the benefits of the executive housing as well as the goals that the city is trying to achieve outweighs that potential significant impact.

So basically unless your car don't own a car and live next to a transportation center and you're outside the city, it would always have that significant impact?

Correct.

Okay. The ingress and egress for this is off McMurtry. Is that right? All construction and everything else?

Correct. Yes. Construction will be off of McMurtry.

Okay. And that's going be improved or is it going to be like it is? I went up there and looked and I

would rely upon the applicant to elaborate a little bit more about how they intend to get construction activity to that location.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Beaumont. Commissioner Wilkerson. You for the

presentation. Albert, can you pull up the map or line the

next

line question line of the the John

to

get access road?

Yes, they could use the city Fire Access Road. Could use McMurtry Lane. We looked at the prospects of widening McMurtry Lane, but because of its proximity to the hillside, they would have to cut into the hillside, build a very large retaining wall, which

from I the I Thank you. The The applicant answer can answer is those yes. Other questions for me.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner Wilkerson or Vice Chair Wilkerson. Commissioner Banta.

Thank you for the presentation. I

got you.

All right. Thank you for the presentation. What other areas or neighborhoods in the city of Vacaville have the residential estate land use designation as well as the RE 12 surrounding neighborhoods land use designation as well as the zoning designation?

So for this one, would illustrate on the map of the existing general plan versus the proposed. The surrounding area located in Cheyenne as well as Preserved Lane and Bentree Lane, all of those areas are designated residential states. So they meet an area directly next to this project. Other areas, I took a quick cursory look. There are other rural properties that are located along Browns Valley Road that rural properties, they're also residential states.

For zoning, the comparative zoning next to the sites has a variety of residential estates, 21 acre lots. I realize there is a textual issue with the map down below. It says RE1. It's actually RE 12 along Preserve Lane. I'll write down there at the bottom. Let me see if I can. Put it up on the map for you. Right there so that's actually it should say RE 12 so I apologize for that. But that is the adjoining zoning so the proposed zoning would be proposed general plan and proposed zoning would be consistent. With the neighborhood next to it.

Awesome and then kind of similar to vice chair workers question. How could increased executive housing impact or attracting businesses to our city to impact economic development?

That's a very big question. So. The main attractor for the city being able to help improve on a variety of different things is getting high paying jobs. And you get high paying jobs for attracting businesses by manufacturing industrial type of businesses. Research and development. But a lot of those are run by CEOs and executives and they need a place to live. And so what this does it fills that unmet need of the executive style housing for people that are looking to establish their company maybe in the city of Akwa. They have a place to maybe build their custom home.

Thank you. And then the proposed timeline says that this needs to send an application to LAVCO in the 2026. Think it's in the report. What does that timeline look like for the LAVCO approval as well as for that master tax transfer agreement approval?

We're actively working with Solana Lavko right now on the MSR update. It's necessary in order to be able to get the annexation to be considered. But once that's complete and we submit that application with Lavko, it's really in their hands. They're in charge of the processing timeline for that one. I won't be able to answer on that.

Okay. And then this development proposed to have specific housing plans or are they all custom built? You may have already answered that.

They'd be custom built.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Banta. Commissioner Dingmann, do you have any questions?

Thanks, Chair. Appreciate that. And Albert, great presentation. Really good questions that have already come up and answered two of mine already. I do have a question just in general on future annexations. And could you tell me or big picture anybody that's out there, would approving this project that expectations for more annexation, whether it's in Northern Backville or McCormick Lane or Northward. And being a new commissioner, just how should we evaluate these cumulative impacts? So this is executive housing. I understand that it's only 20 units for the 15 acres that's there. But could you just talk a little bit about that for me, please?

Yes. The annexation of the well, the approval of this project doesn't create a surge of annexations around the city. This is a- located in an area that's on the Northwest corner of the project side it's a very extent. Of our city limits and on on the map. Shown on the screen- that shows a location where urban growth boundary isn't so there's not much more growth that could be done.

Beyond that location so- so there's that for the Kim cumulative impacts I might rely on the city's consultant maybe elaborate more technical expertise on that one but- the overall addition of these lots can be served by those existing infrastructure improvements on the site. As I mentioned earlier that the- most notable invisible type of impact that you might see is the additional vehicles that are traveling along the roadways. And what we identified as part of the potential impact created is that it would see noticeable twenty AM and twenty PM peak hour trips. Those are vehicles moving back and forth. The overall cumulative impacts is that what we found is that it's not going to result in a significant impact that our existing roadway is a small project in our existing roadways, our existing water sewer and infrastructure can accept this type of project.

Copy. Thank you very much. No other questions.

Thank you very much. Can I bring up the applicant to discuss some of the questions that were brought up?

Philippi Engineering, and we are representing the project tonight. First of all, I'd like to thank staff on a wonderful presentation and working with us on putting together a great project and the condition's approval in the EIR. I believe your question first was about McMurtry Lane and improvements. There are no major improvements planned. That will be the primary ingress egress for construction.

Obviously, during construction, things get worn out and things, so they may have to do some repaving, some things like that, but nothing significant in regards to reconstructing McMurtry Lane. But that will be the primary ingress and egress. I believe it's condition of approval number seven requires that the project provide a construction management plan, and we will work with the community development department in getting that approved prior to commencing construction. And I believe commissioner Wilkerson asked a couple of questions. The first one was about the phasing of the project or how it all be built out.

These are intended to be custom lots. They are high end, large lots. I kinda liken it to the project at the very end of North Alamo that took I grew up in that area. I believe it took quite a few years to get completely built out. Could people come in and build all that.

The half 20

do do to And I believe you have one other question, Commissioner Wilkson. Forgive me.

Access.

Oh, the emergency access. So if you look at the map there, obviously, the primary ingress, egress will be through Preserve Lane, but McMurtry Lane will remain as a emergency vehicle access and emergency access for the residents there. We are also constructing a second egress emergency egress that goes down to Whitestone Court. So there are actually three areas of egress. We work directly with the fire department.

We know this is a higher, high hazard zone area for fire. So we work directly with the fire department to provide them and, access to the site and the 20 residents' accesses leaving the site in case of emergency. Also, we did work with them to provide adequate landscaping around the area to keep fire danger down. So it's not like it's gonna be a big dry field. There is a area where it transitions from residential housing to the existing natural habitat, which has irrigated landscape that will be maintained by the HOA as Albert mentioned.

Once the lots are built and a think,

of

there may be a one or two thing where there's a sense vehicle to to that can't make it there, it may be a little too narrow or what have you. There may be some and that would assume require additional discussion with the building and community development department for those special circumstances if that does arise. But with three areas of egress, two of them not being the primary residence, I don't see it as being a significant issue. Are there any other questions?

Commissioner, Dingmann, do you have any questions? I think we're good.

There are two lots that require one story building. Can you explain that with the water level and the water pressure?

Yes. So as you can see in the image there, there is a sense to we'll of with next what

be

going get a a of what sense And a to so I

able

sense

of 20. Of happy to answer them later on. Thank you. Thank you very much.

So now we're going to move on to public comment. Well, I'm going to ask everybody to take in public comment. And if there's any items that come up within public comment that we'd like to see staff address or you want more clarification on, go ahead and bring it up, and we can have staff respond. And then we'll go through the list of all the questions or anything that staff wants to include at the end. So I'll now open up public comment. Is there anybody that would like to speak? Please approach the podium.

Excuse me?

Yes, ma'am.

Hello hi I'm my name is Britney Myers- I actually live- on Preserve Lane so this development directly impacts me and my family. So hello. So I know this project has been in the works for a while. We've kind of gone back and forth. You know, with Albert about the information, all the information's so a couple of things I just wanted to point out.

When I say a couple, kind of mean several. So, one I do. So we've already established that this development is very necessary. Correct. Yes have we established that that is very necessary. Oh that's not how this works

so we're not going to we can't address back and I'll give you some. Okay. Fine.

This my

first one. Make sure that staff.

Yes.

Okay. So based on the statements that were previously made, this development is very necessary. It is need for the city. We talked about The benefits. Lots of benefits. I may have heard one. I'm just going to be honest. One specific, benefit, and that's because we want to draw in, lots of business, the CEOs that we want to bring in so that way they can bring their business and it all just fuels the city. While I do understand that and I do support that, I would implore you to think, who are these people? I'm just curious.

Since we know that this project is that urgent and it's that necessary, I would assume the project wouldn't need to go in phases since There's 20 CEOs waiting to buy these lots to move into Vacaville. Outside of that, also wanted to ask some follow-up questions. But we can ask you.

So anything that you want to have answered will make sure that staff.

Okay. Okay.

I got you.

Let's see here. Okay. So one thing that I noticed when the city. But it does, however, establish a precedent. So while I understand that if we say no, necessarily or hypothetically, this is not a cause and effect type thing, it establishes a precedent within the city.

So. Yes. So I just feel like if we say there's not a significant impact based on what data That's if we can drop that down. I've heard a lot, you know about the details of certain projects but in a almost hypothetical way or very. Laissez faire But again where's the numbers where's the data we don't even know how high it is until the water pressure is affected.

So, yeah, that would be I'm just putting that out there. The data that supports we need this housing. Currently, and because I live on this street adjacent to Cheyenne, I can tell you, there are several homes. While they may not be 20,000 square feet or whatever the case may be that established in this new development, they're sitting empty with a for sale sign up front. I would assume the CEOs could potentially move into there.

There's several vacant homes within Cheyenne that are currently still on the market. The CEOs could maybe look at those listings. So when we talk about how needed this project is, it sounds a bit like it comes off as it's beneficial for who? That's how I guess I just don't understand. So yes, it's needed.

It's very beneficial. You stated that this aligns with Vacaville's general Project proposal whatever the case may be However when that was originally established and it's reviewed. Every so often. This. Parcel or this agricultural hillside. Location. It was never at that time annexed within the city limits. So at that time somebody didn't think it was that important. So okay sorry.

Give you just thirty more seconds. Okay,

so it's also stated this project improves executive housing initiative in back Vacaville, but the city has recently come out stating that the focus was for more affordable housing. So that just seems kind of contradictory. So if I can get more elaboration and context on that, that would be good. It was discussed about the noise and traffic during construction, but what about those factors after construction. If we can get clarification on that.

Thank you very much.

Yes. Thank you guys.

Do we have any other public comment?

I thought I would address some of the issues that she's raised. First of all, benefits there through can I have the Albert, we have the site plan up there? As representing the applicant, I might need a minute or two more since she

took two or three minutes. Maybe five minutes.

So why don't old Court, there's going to be a water line extending up through that area and providing a loop. So there'll be a fire access loop of water to improve the firefighting capabilities in that area. We've worked with chief Preciado, who used to be the fire chief here at backfill, lives in Cheyenne, and he is very excited about this very needed access. We are also providing access trail from White Oak over to this to provide a loop for pedestrian access. If you lived in a long time like I have, there's a propensity of fires to come from the north and into this area.

The entire area on the north end of that subdivision is going to be irrigated landscaping. So this subdivision will help protect the homes on Preserved Lane. So these are just a number of the benefits that will be afforded here. Also, if you've lived in Vacaville a long time, you'll know that there are virtually no custom homes that can be built on. So in terms of the city's over overall plan, this is a difficult time to build homes right now.

And sure, there might be a couple of vacant homes on her street. But we need desperately in this community custom homes. We don't have any. And I've nobody's been more involved in that line of business in Vacaville than I have, and we don't have engineer for the Cheyenne project twenty plus years ago. We included this property in those initial plans.

There was concern about things and it took us quite a while. And we actually submitted an application in 2019, three years before she moved into her house. So we've been planning this for quite a long time. It's needed. It's a benefit. And I really would request your vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like public comment?

Hi, my name is Chris Whittaker. I've lived in Mackinac for nine years. Family has been here for over forty years. I'm going to put my farm preservation hat away today and try to be more planning specific with some of my questions. As far as some of the compliance with the housing element, I think this this housing gap that that was identified for this executive component.

But are there any guarantees that these executives are actually gonna work in Vacaville? I mean, they could be in Sacramento. They could be in Fairfield or Napa or wherever. There's no is there any guarantee that these executives are actually going to be for Backerville benefit? The other part of that too is, are there any other places like Lagoon Valley that closed that gap on the executive housing?

And who's tracking that? Right? Who's who's monitoring the compliance of of when you're in compliance with that housing gap? The other thing as far as the LAFCO orderly growth to discourage urban sprawl, I'm wondering how this project complies with that. And aside from the check-in the executive business housing gap box, how will this benefit? Like, not as a will it benefit, but how will this benefit the community of Vacaville? Thanks for your

talk.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to address commissioner staff? I'll now close public comment. And would anybody like to address any of the comments that they'd like staff to address? Commissioner Dingmann, do you have any comments about that you'd like staff to comment on?

No, thank you.

Okay. Our.

Well, there were just a few questions. I think I could help clarify on.

Sure.

Does Lagoon City does monitor it and provide a annual report about compliance with the housing element where we do track. How we're satisfying our numbers and what areas are we providing for executive housing.

And is executive housing a part of the numbers or do we track or track specifically what is considered an executive house?

It's above moderates, and then low income housing. On a regular basis we do track it and I see Director Morris has pinged to provide some additional information.

Thank you, Treleigh. So it was really Vacaville's housing strategy which preceded our housing element where the need for executive housing was really documented. And this was not a state of California driven housing study. This was a Vacaville driven housing study. And really it was looking at the nexus between our economic development goals, the kind of businesses we're trying to attract here to Vacaville, which are all kinds of businesses and they're not just high end executives, there's also retail service workers and others.

And then what kind of housing does Vacaville need to align with those needs created by the jobs that we have and the jobs that we want. And that's really where I would say the focus on and wasn't just a focus on executive housing, the focus on all of housing serviced, but executive housing in particular because as Mr. Felipe points out, we don't have custom lots of Vacaville right now. Lagoon Valley will provide some in some future phases that are not yet under construction and are not yet ready to go. So it is a need and it has to I don't know that we do track our above moderate production.

We've met all of our above moderate needs for this housing cycle and still have several years to go. With regard to executive housing, I actually believe it's really less quantitative than the other kinds of housing. Will be its value would be demonstrated when we do attract those large companies, when we see the expansion of companies like Lonza, when we see them moving people to our area and that they're able to purchase a home here and build a home here in Vacaville. So it's a little squishier than the low income housing numbers and the other things that we can track more meticulously. Thank you.

Just a couple more for the There was a question about does the project comply with LAVCO for not allowing urban sprawl? And I would say yes because on our map, you'll see on the screen that the pink line as well as the green line, those are the outermost extent of where we had planned to see growth occurring. The urban growth boundary in green was adopted in 2008 by the city council, and the sphere of influence in pink was adopted by Celina Lavko in 2017 so we're not going beyond that limit we're still within that boundary. And then I think it the director mentioned the benefits to vacable associated with the executive

to market. What in And And to then, areas were designated of out the sphere of influence, correct? And we discussed that?

I think our Director has a pretty good timeline for the commission.

Thank you, Albert. Thank you, Sheriff Lightfoot. So the city's as Albert said, the city's urban growth boundary was established in 2008 and it remains in place unless the voters change it through the year 2028. So both the project that's before you now and the project that will be here later are all within the urban growth boundary. They're within the city sphere. And so they're not it's not, for example, in some of our adjacent counties where cities are planning like well outside, where this is all inside the lines. So the catalyst for these projects is unique to the applicants that are bringing them forward at this time. But fundamentally, again, they're not coming in with a site that's randomly outside of Vacaville. Let's talk about bringing it into Vacaville. It's outside of Vacaville now, but it's within our ultimate boundary.

So and the urban reserve site that's later which we'll talk about, there's probably more we can explain more when we get to that item about Great. Why

Thank you. Anybody else have a question for staff?

Commissioner Bobon? I have a final comment if you don't mind. Sure.

Yes, that's fine.

I had a couple of concerns and one of them was the size of the project and the size of the project is small compared to what it could be. And so being developed through already developed area 20 lots to me is not substantial. And I think keeping everything off Preserved Lane is the main thing that I was worried about that McMurray would be used as a bypass to keep the residents' street clear of all construction equipment, people, whatever. So as long as that's done, I have no problem with approving this project.

Commissioner Dingmann, you have

take it. Okay. Simple motion recommended to City Council. Okay.

So I have a motion from Commissioner Beaumont and a second from Commissioner Banta. Can I please have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Banta? Yes. Commissioner Bamont? Yes. Commissioner Dingmann?

Road. We'll now move on to 7B. This is public hearing on the fields at Alamo Creek Subdivision. So we'll first hear presentation by staff followed by commissioner questions and then we'll open up public comment. We'll let staff get settled and we'll be ready to hear their presentation.

Good evening chair, planning commissioners, and members of the public. This item before you tonight is the fields at Alamo Creek Subdivision. So the request before you tonight is to annex 33.6 acres of land located in unincorporated Solano County, located South of Hawkins Road and approximately half a mile east of Leisure Town Road into the city of Vacaville in order to create 241 lots for detached and attached single family residential development. The specific entitlements before you tonight include an environmental assessment, specifically a supplemental environmental impact report, an amendment to the general plan, an annexation request, a pre zoning request, a proposed development agreement, an amendment to the previously approved Farm At Alamo Creek specific plan, and then also a tentative subdivision map to subdivide the land into the 241 lots. So this map here shows the location of their project in relation to the city.

The project's located at the eastern edge of the city just outside city limits. The map on the right shows the location of the project in relation to the previously approved Farm Alamo Creek project. As you can see, it's located to the South of Hawkins Road, North of Elmira Road, north of the constructed Brighton Landing neighborhood out there. And then in purple, you can see what was the previously approved Farm At Alamo Creek project. So for some background on this project, in 2015, the city council adopted a comprehensive update to the city's general plan outlining what the future of Vacaville would look like up until 02/1935.

And in that general plan, this project site was designated as urban reserve. The urban reserve land use designation is used to provide flexibility for areas that the city anticipates annexing in in the future, but wants to provide flexibility, as to what the specific land uses are. The project was also designated a portion of it was designated agricultural buffer, and this is due to general plan policies that specify that an agricultural buffer should be created between the city and existing operations agriculture in Solano County. In 2018, the city council approved the neighboring project, is the farm at Alamo Creek. This consists of 768 attached and detached single family homes, along with seven and a half acres of neighborhood commercial land, an 11.2 acre community park, the existing play for all park that you see out there, along with seven and 7.2 acres of private parks and also 28 acres of open space and agricultural buffer.

In 2021, the city council initiated a general plan amendment for this project, is the fields at Alamo Creek. And in 2022, the applicant submitted a formal development application after receiving that initiation by city council. So this map here shows the location of their project site along with the subdivision layout. The project will create 241 lots for single family homes along with a 0.6 acre parcel for a future privately maintained pocket park and also an acre for open space and agricultural buffer. So this project contains a number of different entitlements.

The first is a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from urban reserve to residential medium density to facilitate that new housing development. The project would also annex 33.6 acres of land from Solano County into city of Vacaville city limits. The project would be pre zoned to residential medium density along with public facilities with an agricultural buffer overlay for the open space portion. The project site would be subdivided into 241 lots, 153 of which would be for detached single family homes and 88 of which would be for duets, which are single family homes that are attached in pairs. There would also be a 0.6 acre parcel for a privately maintained pocket park, and then a 7.2 acre water detention basin, that would also serve as an agricultural buffer.

It would also contain passive recreational amenities for future residents such as trails. This map here shows the proposed general plan change. On the left, you can see that the project site is designated urban reserve, and that would be changed to residential medium density. And then for this project, because it's located outside city limits, there's currently no city of active zoning. And so once annexed in, the project would be zoned residential medium density and public facilities with an agricultural buffer overlay.

And so as part of staff's review of the project, we have to evaluate all the different entitlement applications to ensure consistency with various city policies and regulations. For the general plan amendment, the project is proposing to convert the land from urban reserve to residential medium density and also to amend general plan policies that relate to development in the East Of Leisure Town area, which this project's located in, specifically related to development East Of Carroll Way and near the agricultural buffer. The project would amend the also amend the policy that requires lots adjacent to the agricultural buffer to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet. And so staff is supporting the proposed amendments because they will help to facilitate the development of additional missing middle housing, which the city has a documented need for in our housing element. The project also includes the annexation request.

And based on staff's evaluation, the project can be served by existing utilities that would be, constructed as part of adjacent farm Alamo Creek project. After if this project were to be approved, a subsequent application would need to be submitted to Solana Lavco in order to annex the project into the, into the city, and the city would also need to enter into a new tax sharing agreement with the county and finalize the update to the municipal services review. And then once the project is annexed in, the the project site would be pre zoned or would be zoned residential medium density and public facilities. And the existing development standards that exist for those for those zoning districts would then be applied to future development at the site. The project also includes a tentative subdivision map, so the land would then be subdivided once the project is annexed into city limits, and that includes 241 lots for the detached single family homes and the duets.

And then a homeowners association would be required to maintain the Pocket Park parcel. And so and upon reviewing the development application, staff has found that the project does comply with city's general plan policies and meets the required findings for approval. The project also does contain a development agreement, and the development agreement is a mutual agreement between the city and the applicant, to assure different obligations. On the city side, the city will honor the project approval for fifteen years, and within thirty days of approval of the city's MSR update and the new master property tax sharing agreement with the county, the city will then submit that annexation application to LAFCO. And on the developer side, the developer will annex the project into a community facilities district using the city's adopted methodology for calculating a project's fiscal impact, and this is due to general plan policies.

The project will also be annexed into a lighting, landscaping, and maintenance district to take care of the open space, agricultural buffer parcel. The prop the applicant is also required to preserve and create one of agricultural land for every acre of agricultural land being developed into residential properties. And then the applicant will also be fully constructing and improving the agricultural buffer site with the detention basin and also the trails. As part of the development agreement, there are a few items related to parks. Specifically, the general plan, all city owned neighborhood parks must be at least six acres, and so the DA affirms that because the park pocket park is not meeting that six acre requirement, the pocket park will be privately owned and maintained.

And then also the applicant will be contributing via park development impact fees towards the need for a neighborhood park. The pocket park that the applicant is proposing is not eligible for fee credits because it does not meet that neighborhood park standard of six acres. And then pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act or CEQA, the city has to disclose any environmental impacts associated with the project, identify alternatives, and also identify potential mitigation measures that could be used to reduce those impacts. So the city prepared a supplemental environmental impact report to the previous environmental analysis that was prepared for the farm at Alamo Creek. And in that report, we identified that there would be a significant unavoidable impact to transportation and traffic specifically related to vehicle miles traveled, and that there are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce that impact to less than significant.

The document was published for public review, and the planning commission did hold a study session on that document. And the city did prepare a final SEIR in order to address those public comments and did prepare also findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations to, regarding that unavoidable impacts of vehicle miles traveled, specifically that the project would provide more diverse housing for the city, including missing middle housing. It would extend the agricultural buffer between the city and the county, and also would incorporate sustainable design features such as all electric homes. Because the city's or because the project's amending the general plan and the zoning map, the project also has to be referred to the airport land use commission for consistency with the Travis Air Force Base consistency compatibility plan. And the commission did find the project consistent with the plan subject to some conditions of approval regarding the design of detention basin and also notice regarding airport operations to future homebuyers.

As with any project, the city did conduct many much public outreach for the project. In March 2023, the city issued a notice of preparation for the environmental impact report. In April 2023, we held a virtual scoping meeting to find out what topics the public believes should be included in that report. In July 2023, due to changes in the project, a revised notice was sent out, and another a revised notice was sent out. In February 2024, we sent out a mailing saying that the draft environmental impact report was available for comment.

And then in July, we mailed out a public hearing notice for this public hearing before the planning commission. And so to conclude, staff does support the proposed project because it does increase the variety of housing types and sizes within the farm at Alamo Creek specific plan area. The environmental impacts can be mitigated to less than significant except for that BMT significant impact, which can be overwritten due to the considerations that were mentioned earlier. The project will also be served by those future improvements that will be constructed as part of the farm. And so with that, the project does meet the required findings for approval.

It will be consistent with the general plan, zoning, and state law, and it will also comply with the development standards in the specific plan. And so staff is recommending that by simple motion, the commission recommend that the city council approve project. And so that concludes my presentation.

We'd be

happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do you have any commissioner questions? Commissioner Beaumont.

Thank you. Thank you, Noah. Appreciate the briefing. Remind me again the farm, is it going to start being built before this because it has to the improvements have to be done in the farm before this can be built, right?

That's correct. So the farm does have to be built so that way those future improvements can be extended to the fields.

So they could just put the improvements in and build this and then do the farm afterwards, right?

The public improvements are necessary to be built with the farm. To be extended to the periphery of this project so. The phases in the farm have to be built and then the field would be able to proceed.

Okay. Thank you. And this is an all electric development. Is that right? That's correct. So excuse me, but I'm old, back in the sixties we tried this and the people that own those homes got electric bills that were unbelievable. And I think it's a bad deal to do all electric homes even though we're ecologically trying to be right with this. I believe that's a bad thing for this city to do. That's just my opinion. I see the duets are in one cluster. Normally when I see the projects that have duets, they're spaced around the development. Is there some reason they're in a cluster?

We do have a representative of the property owner who can answer that question.

Okay. I see there are some disagreements here with fees and with the pocket park. How does that get resolved?

The applicant has stated that the that they are agreeable to the development as proposed. There were some issues that came up as part of the development agreement negotiation process that we did want to highlight. But the applicant has indicated that they do agree with the development agreement as included in the staff report packet.

Okay. Does that include the pocket park or is that still a problem?

That includes the pocket park being privately maintained,

yes.

So that will be an HOA problem for them?

That's correct.

Okay. And I noticed the size of the lots are fairly small. So the housing, guess, is supposed to be a little smaller than what would be normally we would see. 600 square feet and 2,000 for duets?

That's correct. The smaller lot sizes and then also the proposed development standards would result in smaller house sizes.

So is that going to fill in our gap of low to medium arena housing?

It's expected that the project or the future home designs will be smaller houses that can accommodate different housing needs identified in the housing element.

Okay, great. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Beaumont. Commissioner Banta.

Thank you for the presentation. I appreciate the proposed project, especially with the residential medium density. On page two ninety six, it talks about the summary of the development standards. Is the residential medium for the single family lots in the duets that consistent with our other residential mediums projects in the rest of our city? Or is this are there differences?

So this is table one.

Table one on two

ninety six. Those development standards.

Can you repeat the question?

Are these developments in as consistent with other residential medium density projects in the rest of our city in our standards or is there something different here that's being proposed?

It's consistent with our existing standards. I would say that over the years our zoning standards have changed so if you get something that's built in the sixties. Or seventies- our standards have been modified to try and encourage that kind of involvement will see parking standards differently setbacks. Building height standards have changed over time.

Okay. And then that would kind of lead to my next question is which other projects or neighborhoods in the city are residential medium. That may be similar to this project?

So the closest anticipated area that would have something similar to would be in the farm, and that's identified on the screen in front of you. It shows a residential high medium right there located over on Elmira Road and then further within the side. So that'd be the closest area to the south. You're you're seeing a lot of residential low medium density residential low density that. Part of the reason why this is. Identified for medium is because the surrounding areas are lower density and we're trying to fill in that gap of missing middle.

Awesome thank you. I had a similar question to commissioner Beaumont about the proposed plan for the disagreement on the park in the fee credits. My question is I believe I saw that there was a clause in there that they may just be able to take the park out is that still stand.

That's correct that's still in the development okay.

And then my third question is on April 2023, there was a virtual meeting held. How many people participated in that meeting? Was there participants? Usually it's noted in there, wasn't it?

There were a few participants in that meeting. I don't remember the exact number, but it was about three to five ish.

Very low. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Banta. Commissioner Dingmann, do you have any questions?

Yes, I have a couple. Thank you very much Noah for the presentation. Appreciate it. Understand how much work goes into these. The first one has to do with traffic congestion on Leisure Town and Hawkins. Obviously, there's been a lot of construction on Leisure Town. I just want to know with this housing development taken into consideration with the expansion of the Leader Town and all the stuff that's been built back there. Obviously, I'm the new guy on the commission. But just wondering if you could explain and talk through that a little bit. Does that from Ullattice to Hawkins, Little Bend and Leader it's a pretty dangerous place right in there. Just want to understand that a little bit better.

Commissioner Dingmann, this is Albert Enalt. The Farm Alamo Creek will need to perform frontage improvements along Elmira Road in order to be able to build out the extent of the project as well as Long Hawkins Road. So there are some plans to improve the roadways along those two areas. The other portion along Leisure Town Road was completed as part of the phase two of Gypsum Parkway and there look that component of the project is still continuing north- will be approved along the frontage of Green Tree also. So with those particular improvements- once those are improvements are in place then the project

were discussed in this proposal. And with the other housing areas and this one, obviously, that's going to be that's being proposed, is that being addressed? And could you speak to what we're doing about the impact of more students and the quality of schools and what we can expect here in the future?

Yes. As part of the development review process, we did reach out to the Vacaville Unified School District to make sure that they were involved in the development review process and review this proposal. As part of this project, it does involve a somewhat small area of 241 units. And so in this particular case, when the developer doesn't is unable to provide the land, it's a pretty small area, there's another alternative to mitigate for the impacts created on schools- which is- allowed through as the- SB 50 and that is for the development to pay for school impact fees and the school will decide exactly. All- they'll use those funds to improve maybe their existing facilities to be able to serve those future residents.

All right, Albert. I appreciate that. And this last question is similar on the same lines, but there is no mention of gross services obviously or expansion of retail or grocery options in this. Is there a plan for this into the future? I understand that some of these things are market driven, but just understanding that there is not a lot of So So

not to

couple of commercial that. Areas. We're One's located, I think, it's already been built at the corner of, Leisure Town Road and Elmira, the Jefferson Center. And then there's another commercial area that would be built closer to Hawkins Road, that would that's intended to serve the farm as well as the fields project.

Okay. But nothing as far as like a a major grocery store or anything like that in that area, just the smaller, like, gas station and smaller retail?

Not not in this plan. There is more development located north within the Cream Tree development that anticipated much more commercial that would be that would include tenant spaces for anchor tenants such as grocery stores.

Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I have.

All right. Do we have any other questions?

No.

Commissioner Beaumont.

I forgot to ask a real stupid question, but since this is all electric. Do they put gas lines in that development.

That's an excellent question for the applicant I think would be a great opportunity to bring them up and elaborate what their experience has been with that.

Okay Thank you.

So let's do that. So if the app can up, we just have I have two questions that I wrote down.

Good evening. I'm Chris Robles on behalf of GNW W Holdings, the property owner. I do have some comments. I can go to your questions first if you want. Please. Our comments first.

Chris, go ahead.

I appreciate your comment regarding the questions on the park. There are still some areas that we would like the Planning Commission to consider. This project we initially submitted in April 2019. So for the person that was concerned about a rush of annexations, I don't think it's going to be in a super hurry. So we are very excited to actually be before you present this project.

Initially, we had really targeted this as a first time homebuyer project working with staff. We have incorporated some revisions into the project to hit the missing middle target area that staff and city have identified as important. We believe we meet that requirement now. We have reviewed the lack of public parks within the East Allegiantown area. And so we'd like to address those.

Both of these matters pertain to really equality and parity in projects. We want to make sure that this project is equal footing with other projects and does not have a commercial disadvantage to being able to bring this project to market, an unfair advantage. And we also are concerned that we don't create an unfair burden for the future homeowners or residents in parity. The project right before you did not require a development agreement nor a fiscal analysis. So there are some uniquenesses with this project.

And so we are comfortable with the development agreement. We just don't want it to put us at a commercial disadvantage to being able to bring this project to market and fulfill the obligations that have been provided. The first of the two issues, as I mentioned, is the community facilities district assessment. We presented a project with our application identified as per our description. We would participate in community facility District number 8 to pay for police and fire services.

We provided a fiscal analysis that identified that the project was fiscally positive and that the augmentation from CFDA was just that augmentation above and beyond the required services. That did not satisfy city has received four fiscal analyses probably in the last ten years. Those include North Village, Green Tree, Southtown apartments and the fields project. With North Village, the project was found to be fiscally positive for the city, but it also participated CFDA and that made the project actually provide a augmentation of revenue above and beyond service needs. Green Tree was found to be fiscally positive and the city did not require any CFD for services for fire, police or any other city services.

Southtown Apartments, pretty unique project in this particular case, did a fiscal analysis. I don't know that anybody really saw it, but the applicant did agree to a one time fee for offsetting project costs. But they were identified as fiscally positive. And then on ours, we identified it was identified initially as fiscally positive and the intent was to provide participation in CFDA. So we would provide augmentation over and above what our minimum obligation was.

Staff was not satisfied with that. They started to change some of the parameters on which the project was evaluated in fiscal analysis rather than having proportional share of police and fire costs attributed to the project. They moved it to 100%. They also added 100% of parks parks and and public works as well at 100% of the cost. That just is contrary to the fact that the city is comprised of about 55% of the land area is residential and 45% is nonresidential.

Those nonresidential areas, that 45% also has a demand for public services, police, fire. And it also is land

COVID-nineteen

the

COVID-nineteen the

against police and fire and And staff was moving it to 100%. So we're we're concerned with the methodology that staff is using on the fiscal analysis. And the way the project development agreement is structured is it's deferring it to a future study. And we're concerned that we're writing an open check as to what this future study may be. We would like to be measured at the same parameters that the prior projects North Village and Green Tree were established.

We feel at a disadvantage with Green Tree in that they have no CFD for police or fire service. So and these costs are going to be borne by our residents to move into these homes. They will be paying the annual people,

yet we're putting a burden on them that the people,

the the residents residents and in Green Tree don't have to pay. So we're really rewarding the folks that aren't paying for police and fire service and we're burdening the folks that are paying for it.

So You don't mind me interrupting? Hey, Commissioner. So

I just wondered.

Yeah, so I let's let the applicant finish and then I was going to go to director Morris and she's I'm sure she's going to address it and we'll we'll get into it.

I'll take that right. Yeah, I would say yes, it is in your purview because it's a component of the development agreement. And you're recommending body to the city council. So it's a matter of recommendation, not an action. It's not going to be holding any standing that will be going forward. It's merely a recommendation Planning Commission. I would appreciate your input and recommendation to them. So in regard to the fiscal and the CFD, we absolutely want to pay a CFD for police and fire service. We think it's very important. We would just like to have it established at a set amount.

That set amount, we believe, is CFD eight. It pays more than our fair share. And so that is a component that we would like to have incorporated into the development agreement. Additionally, you brought up the parks. The parks we're concerned with the parks in that we wanted to bring an element to this community that was community building. We looked around. Roberts Ranch has stroller parks. Half acre park that is a wonderful element to those neighborhoods. If you think about it, how do we meet our neighbors? We meet our neighbors through our kids.

And so that park is phenomenal community building. And we wanted to bring that to this project as well. So the difficulty is Roberts Ranch received park credits and reimbursements for that park and it's city owned. So we're being challenged in that this park has to be developer developed and paid for and now homeowner association maintained. We would like parity with Robert's Ranch and to be able to receive park credits or reimbursements for building that park.

We're also kind of double jeopardy in that we have to pay park fees. And right now the city is considering park fees in the neighborhood of $27,000 This project, just these homes would generate $6,500,000 in park fees to the city. So for us to have to build a million dollar park and pay $6,500,000 in park fees, we don't feel is an equitable position to be in. We'd like to provide the park. We think the best way to do it is with a reimbursement and have the city maintain it rather than that burden falling on the residents through an HOA.

So we think that's the most efficient. It's the most equitable. And it's been done before. So these are really the two items that we have questions about or concerns with. I would like to have the Planning Commission's recommendation to counsel is it appropriate to identify the CFD amount and do that in the development agreement now so we don't have an unanswered question in the future?

Also, that we have the opportunity to have the parks be done as a public park and reimbursed through the city. We do have an element in there that allows us to delete the park if the developer chooses to do so. And I can tell you, if we have to pay $6,500,000 in park fees, there is no way the project will support development of a million dollar park, much less the burden putting on the homeowners with additional HOA cost. So those are my comments on that. I appreciate your time on that.

I want to thank Noah and his work in this project over the past six years. We've had seven different staffers from planning and community development on it. And I'm confident if it wasn't for Noah, I wouldn't be here tonight. So I thank you, Noah, for that. Appreciate it very much. We'd request your favorable recommendation to counsel. And I've got some answers for some questions that were brought up, if there's anything else.

So one was the design of the had 19. First

of outside of the project, it's really inefficient in the subdivision construction. So frankly, it costs more. And so we were looking for an element how do we incorporate it into the neighborhood, not put it just on the edge, but have it as a component of the old neighborhood. That is the design we came up with. I can't tell you that there is something magic to it, but that was efficiency and incorporation into the overall project.

There was a question regarding improvements. Yes, the farm would have to develop first or this project could go concurrently with the farm. There is a potential that this might sell to the same developer that purchases the farm. And if that's the case, they may choose to do it all at one time. The all electric, I appreciate your concerns on that. I can tell you that there is some improvements on electric. Heat pumps are more efficient. And with the solar, it really tempers what improvement costs are going to be. Solar is going to be is mandatory now on new homes. So I think that those bills can be drastically reduced.

The project will not have gas within the subdivision itself. So it's just not a component of it. Let's see. There was a question regarding the RENE allocation. These units are not in the city right now.

So they're not part of the RENE, but the city could utilize them as a future RENE allocation. And I'm sure Aaron will probably certainly use that to make their case for a future allocation. The standards that we have are actually the same as what's already in the farm at Alamo Creek. So the setbacks and development standards are just a replication of what's already existing out there. The question is, is there any other projects?

The Portofino project and Portofino and Butcher. So these are existing duplexes that are already in the city. So the component in the farm replicates that and this does it as well. I would add those are attached units. The zoning allows for a detached product as well.

And there is detached product that would fit on these. Staff had a preference for an attached product, so that's what we provided. I answered your question on the park ability to delete. Damon's question regarding Hawkins and Leisure Town. The farm does have an obligation for realignment of Hawkins with Ulytis. There will be a signal light there. So right now those streets are offset. Those will be realigned to bring that to a standard four way intersection on Hawkins. They will improve Hawkins along the frontage of their project and we will do on the frontage of ours. Schools, I hear the concern on that.

It's ours as well. The project would be within a proximity of the Kairos charter school for preference. So we have that as well as the public schools in there as well. And shopping, we'd love to have that in our neighborhood as well. But it's just putting it on the edge of town just doesn't make a

lot of sense.

So any other questions, I'd be happy to

take them.

I thought you said did

you say that the projects,

the farming fields could go concurrently? Yes. And if it's to that?

Absolutely. Yes, absolutely. Because there's common infrastructure So on if you had a master developer that purchased both projects, then they could just handle all as one development project. So and I think there was a question is could we build the infrastructure through the farm? Yes, we could do a private agreement to build that infrastructure to the farm. Financially, the project can't support that. So we're going to we'll be waiting in line or go concurrently.

So I'll ask

a question on a turn.

My apologies. You very much.

Anything else? Thank you. And if you have another

able get

to

19. Get the right answer And

I And

we what do. And

for establishing CFDs is something that has risen to the city council's level. There is a recognition that over the last twenty to thirty years the city of Vacaville has used an inconsistent methodology almost on a project by project basis in establishing the method for the fiscal impact analysis, the inputs and therefore the outcomes vary a lot. So a lot of this project and what took us a while to get here was going back and forth about the fiscal impact analysis and the methodology starting with a study from a professional that had an error in it. And then Mr. Rebel submitted multiple studies he prepared himself.

At the end of the day in order to not hold up this project, staff structured the DA and going into this meeting we believe the applicant was in agreement that they wanted to move forward with the DA as written that allows the project to go through a fiscal impact analysis once the City Council of Vacaville has adopted methodology. So we have this really old and thin CFD policy in Vacaville and that's actively in the process of being updated by my staff and the Finance Director in our City Attorney's Office, who may be sitting to my right, a city working group is basically working on bringing forward a revised study, a revised methodology with a revised and clear fiscal approach that would go to the development community in September for their review, discussion and input and our goal is to get to counsel for a study session and an adoption later this year. So there is an option for this project to be put on hold until such time as that gets resolved. I did want to point out that the GreenTree project doesn't have a CFD, but the GreenTree project also has a 299,000 square foot shopping center.

And so it's not an apples to apples comparison because of that commercial component. The North Village AP2 project is not conditioned to do a specific CFD, it is conditioned to do a fiscal impact analysis at a later time. So it's not quite they're not quite fair comparators to this project but if the applicant wants to put the project on hold and wait for the fiscal to get resolved that's something that's an option. On the topic of the parks, staff generally believe that this project benefits from having a small park. Early on the applicant talked about market disadvantages or advantages and that's not really staff's bailiwick, but the farm has a private swim center and two small parks.

So the staff felt that the inclusion of a small in the farm or in the field would be great. However, really in an effort to be flexible and to allow this project to move forward when the applicant requested the DA allow that park to be dropped out of the project, we said, okay, we want to move this project forward. So we feel like we've been flexible on that point.

If you have any

other clarifying questions about fiscal impact analyses, I don't have the finance director here, but I can try to answer them.

So I think let's just tackle that. We'll just get everybody here that's here present. Does anybody have questions about specifically the park fees or the CFD on this project?

Are we qualified to make that?

So I think we are qualified to amend the development agreement in this

meeting, You can make recommendations to change the development agreement that would be considered by the council.

Yes. So and so we can discuss it, correct. The I think that it's our job as a commission inside if it's something that we feel like we can undertake. I'm of the opinion that there's a lot more that goes into it than what we've been presented within this meeting and this packet. Me, myself, is the answer is no.

But we can discuss it for sure. To me myself and you correct me if I'm wrong, we so we can approve it as is. I mean, the that's what was the So current situation. About situation.

A questions disagreements, correct?

So The

commission is recommending on the development agreement and all the other project components. This project is headed towards City Council. So the commission can recommend on all the different project components consistent with staff's recommendation, you could recommend something different than what staff's recommending. You have really the full purview to make recommendations on all the components of this project. And those will go to the council and they'll hold another public hearing. They'll be making the final decision about the DA and the other

pieces. Yes.

Because we have staff didn't want to hide them from the commission.

Agreements continue on between you and the act? Or does that go to the city council and then it gets resolved?

The city council will resolve this when it gets

to them.

That makes sense. Commission so right now let's just talk about those two things and then we can get into any other questions and then anything else can become brought up in public comment. Commissioner Banta?

Yes. So with the community development impact fee, that's what we're talking about, right?

There's a development impact Development So impact

this project also has to go through LAVCO still because it has to it's unincorporated. So there's still a timeline that may take longer than when the city council decides the community development impact fees in September. So this project could potentially be pinned until they've finished those discussions in September to have a consistent development impact via green pit, correct? And this can move forward to LAVCO or is that not what the applicant wants to do? They don't want to continue forward to LAVCO until we have that decided?

That's my first question. And my second is more of a comment about the park fees. I really like that it's residential medium and typically when we do the missing middle and it's residential medium and they're smaller lots, those are targeted towards lower income, medium income community levels. And I think that it's really difficult that we take parks and quality of life benefits out of things that are for lower income communities or that we make it difficult for developer to put in the park for a low income community or then we require the low income community to have HOA fees on top of the fact that they're already low income to pay for their parks. So we know that quality of that park is probably going to be lower just because of the fact of the demographic of the income level, the person that we put that is able to buy that home.

So I wonder if there is anything that we can do to incentivize developers to still want to build affordable housing or low income housing without making it so difficult to have community benefits in the neighborhood. And so I don't know if that is a question or just a comment, but that's my thought on that.

I just want to clarify, Commissioner Banta, the city's development impact fee program is not before the commission. It has not been decided yet. The council is going to be considering policy options, even the amounts being shared by the applicant, those were amounts from some couple months ago. They're not necessarily the final amounts. So we understand the staff and you probably understand as commissioners that of course developers are constantly running math on their projects based on best available information.

But that's not before the commission tonight. The decision before the commission is about this project, this development project. And the other piece is the duet housing is not deed restricted affordable, it's more like affordable to households at certain levels based on sort of natural market forces. So it may or may not result in low income or below income below moderate income folks actually being in this neighborhood. It's more about the smaller starter homes that.

Anybody else have any questions about CFDs or hurricane pack fees? Commissioner Dingmann, do you have any input?

Nothing else to add.

Thank you. Okay. So we can move on from those items right now, but we can bring them back up at the end and when we go to have commissioner deliberation. Sound okay? Good?

Yes, that's right.

It's good? Sure. Okay. So now let's open it up to public comment. And we'll take public comment. I'm going allow everybody five minutes, and we will start public comment.

I needed to correct something that the director indicated. That Green Tree development, I've read that development, the CFD, it excluded the CFDs not because of the commercial. That is not true. Staff had that report analyzed for housing only. And that's what we looked at. F. D. S if you want to get affordable housing. You want to get some things built here in this town. We've got to do something about C. F. D. S I know this commission can't make that. Determination but C. F.

D. S are killing projects in Vacaville. They are absolutely killing the affordability. We have the trifecta of killing housing in this community with inclusionary zoning that we've talked about, the fees, the latest fee that staff presented to us and it's not been approved yet $124,000 all in for a single family home in back. 100 you might as well make it a million dollars. Why stop at a 124,000. It's absolutely what we're doing here. We are doing everything we can to stop development here in Vacaville. These two projects tonight. Six years.

They were both applied for six years ago. Staff will say it's the applicant's fault. We'll say it's staff's fault. It doesn't matter. Six years. Both of them were applied for in 02/2019. We I have been quoted as saying there's a war on housing. Tonight's two projects are indicative of that. These projects were set up. The one project that's on the docket right now, the field was set up for more affordable housing.

You've added six years of costs, holding costs and other costs. That you cannot do affordable housing projects and take six years. It's and the and the environmental stuff we go through is crazy. This community was a vibrant, wonderful community when I moved here in 1980. It is being strangled economically with processes and fees and time.

It's just maddening. It really is. I didn't want to come here tonight and be real real negative but I have to say something. I love Vacaville. I want houses built here. I want everybody. None of my kids live here. I have five kids. Dad, we can't afford to live in Vacaville. That's a it's a refrain and over again and tonight is indicative of why that is. So it the CFDs is one arrow in the heart of development and timing and processing and everything else. We are killing Vacaville. That's my opinion. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else like to.

Hi, Chris Whitaker again. Think just some of the points that I or questions that I had is as far as an urban reserve, what what was it before that? What was it zoned before that? That was 2015 it was changed to an urban reserve?

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. The other part of that with the lot sizes at 3,600 square feet as well as the reduced road width, I don't see where that's community building. I think that's going to squash everybody back into their houses. Also squawking about the parks. Come on. Really? You know, look at places like like, Birchall Hill in Oakdale. Look at, Bridal Ridge in Oakdale. Those all have the parks going congruently through them. This is just housing.

This is not what Vacaville needs. But on the other end of this, you know, how many single story homes are we talking about? Are any of these homes gonna have porches so we could have that community engagement? Or is everybody just gonna lock themselves inside and sit on their smartphones? You know, again, I mentioned the LAVCO thing before, you know, about discouraging urban sprawl.

Now this very well may be in the green zone, but what about preserving ag land? You know, again, if this was ag land before, if it's what it is right now today, even though it might be zoned urban reserve, how does this project comply with that? Again, I think some of this thing thank you, Albert, earlier for mentioning the annual report on tracking. But the other part of this, and I know it's the neighboring area, and there are some ag buffers, but what is this project gonna do for helping with recharging recharging the groundwater? What about any ecological and pollinator corridors that might be impacted by this?

As far as public outreach, I thought that was really interesting. I don't know if anybody really thinks about what 600 feet is. That's two football fields with no end zones. That's not very far. And you're sitting out in ag land. I mean, how many mailers did you send out? Probably a handful, maybe. So it's not surprising that you didn't get any comments. And the other thing is I I did notice in the, the document in the agenda that there were no public comments attached. If there were a handful of people at any of the other meetings, I'd love to see, what those comments are.

I think the last thing and maybe this is a little bit more of a personal thing, but I'd really love to see some of these developments not use dead names. And by that, you drive on 80 and you see a sign that says come live in a nature preserve. But that's not a preserve anymore. You're developing that. Right? There's no farm anymore when you put homes on it. There's no fields anymore when you put put farms on it. So I'd I'd love to to just quit with the dead names and some of this creative marketing. People wanna fantasize about what you're demolishing. Not cool.

You know, I I mentioned that I moved here in Vacaville nine years ago, but I grew up in the city of Orange. And it was named because of orange groves, seas of orange groves.

In fact, it

was originally called Richland because of the soil, later became orange because of the orange grubs. Any guess on how many orange grubs there are now in Orange? One. It's at the back of a park backed up against the 22 Freeway. So that's where Vacaville is going. So I think this this project needs some some revisit. It sounds like it's got some holes in it. I think the design is boring. I think it's flimsy and I don't think it's community building. So thank you.

Thank you very much.

If I wanted to follow-up on Tom's comment regarding GreenTree, both GreenTree and North Village very specifically call out that they're only analyzing the residential component of those projects in the fiscal analysis. So it did not give any revenue generation consideration towards the commercial component in either of those projects.

They

were basically analyzed on a 100% residential. Where we're at right now, GreenTree has no CFD, has no obligation for it in the future. And it's identified in the development agreement for GreenTree that it's going to generate $700,000 annually in fiscal revenue for the city. Now we initially utilize that same methodology as what GreenTree did on our fiscal analysis. Staff has morphed the assumptions to the point where if you utilize the same assumptions that staff is asserting for the fields on GreenTree right now, it would be negative $1,500,000 annually necessarily in your direct purview.

We would request that you take action on the project tonight. We would appreciate your support. We request that. If the commission believes that a park should have some sort of reimbursement, please include that in your action tonight. If you don't think that's warranted, that's fine.

We'll accept your recommendation. On the CFD, we'd like to memorialize that as specific number and in that regard if your recommendation to the council were to identify that number at this point in time rather than continue to kick this can down the road. We've been working with the city for three years on a fiscal evaluation for this project and have yet to come to terms on what that is because of moving assumptions. I think the city wants a particular number but yet the metrics don't bear it out. So again, I ask for your your support and recommendation on the project going forward.

And if you are inclined to support our position on the park and CFT, we would really appreciate that. If it's not something that you feel is appropriate, we accept your recommendation

on that as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any other one that would like to make a public comment? So seeing none, I'm going to close public comment.

So

let's bring this back to staff. I think that is there anything you want to address first, Director Morris?

The urban reserve question from Mr. Whitaker has to do with where does that designation come from. That site, that's not a zoning designation, it's a general plan designation. So this goes back to when the general plan update started maybe in around 2011. This land and other land around it was actually shown as planned for residential development and prior to the adoption of the general plan there was a council decision to pull this land out of the general plan, not put it as a residential designation but rather put it in the urban reserve with the idea that over time as Vacaville had a more need for more housing land, this site would convert or could convert from urban reserve to housing.

So and that is actually part of what took this project quite a while to get here was going through an analysis the staff prepared sort of along with this project and some other projects in the area to look at was it time to open up the urban reserve and that's something that went to council and the council ultimately said yes. So it's actually pretty complicated. It's not just zoning. It's actually broad public policy. It's codified in our code and that was part of the gears that got us to this point. If there's other questions, I bet you my team over there can answer them.

The question about public outreach, there were a number of different public notifications and it's not a symptom of not doing public outreach. It's more of a symptom of maybe there's just not interest in the project as a possible reason for it. But just a few examples of things that were provided to the public. We do have a public outreach strategy that obligates our team to be able to conduct certain sequencing for public outreach at certain phases of the project. And so just to recount some of the stuff, from the very beginning of the project when we were looking at, figuring out what to analyze in the environmental document, we held a, we sent out a notice of preparation to solicit comments not to all residents, not just residents and property owners within vicinity of the project, also regulatory agencies that need to review this.

US Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Caltrans. All many different agencies were involved in this we also held a scoping meeting to consider these things it was online recorded meeting solicit comments back. On on that that that's another public notification associated with that. Environmental document was available for review we sent out another notice to public and published also online that it was available for people to be able to look at and then we held a public hearing for the planning commission that was also noticed saying we have this document ready. And then also for this particular meeting, newspaper notice was conducted, for both the the planning commission meeting that we held, earlier this year as well as the one for this one.

So, I I would say that it is unfortunate that we don't have a lot of public comments associated with it but I wouldn't say it was because we didn't send out notification or we didn't make an effort to try and reach the public.

Do you have anything other notes that you want to go over? Are you good? So let's talk about the park requirements a little bit so. In this proposal we are suggesting that there is a park paid for by the developer with a choice fees. Did you understand the the thought process that Commissioner Banta brought up that for targeting low income housing and we're bringing it and we're burning that housing with an HOA fee. Tell us the process that went into deciding your factor in what it is you came up with in the development agreement.

So I wouldn't say that we're targeting low income housing because there's no restriction within development agreement. We're trying to target affordable by design. Smaller homes means a lower price point still dictated by the market overall. So whatever the market can bear for the sale of those lots. I will say the comparison of of this we we worked with our park planners over in the parks and recreation department and so.

What we try to do is maintain good consistent methods that are consistent with the general plan as well as a parks and recreation master plan. And so in this particular sense is that when you have new developments that generates- certain need of park size as well as location of park. There's a couple different options either you can design a park size that meets our general plan within the development. Or you can pay park development impact fees. And so with this project side being 33 acres.

And up to 241 units the amount of size that would be needed would be six acres for a neighborhood park. Well the displacement of six acres within their development Down the number of units that they could have. And so the alternate solution is to pay the park development impact fees which is consistent with what we've done. To allow a park. That is less than the city standards of six acres.

Then for which they were able to get park impact fee credits would be inconsistent with our general plan policy can't do that. To the question about consistency with other development Robert ranch was brought up. Robert ranch the amount of unit development that was required of that that generated the need for park. They were able to accommodate the park within their development and that's the- park that's located along the eastern edge near the train tracks where they've got the small dog park in the large dog park. And they've got an a number of different phases.

That is how they addressed their park need was a satisfied the park by. Allocating land within their development. The difference with Robert's ranch is that they the developer at that time said we are going to go above and beyond we're going to provide a public benefit. They provided those stroller parks in the five stroller parks within their and they did not get credit for those. Those are parks that are less than the minimum neighborhood park size of six acres. That was at a benefit to the- community and it was part of their- public benefit and advertised to city council. So the the idea is that we are being consistent with existing policies which is we don't provide credit for parks that don't meet our general plan policies and that don't do not comply with our parks and recreation master plan.

Commissioner. Deleting the pocket park and just adding more housing.

The way that the project is going to satisfy its obligation for parkland is by paying park development impact fees.

So either way they have to pay the fees?

Correct. Okay.

Is there any other commissioner comments or questions? Commissioner Dingmann do you have anything you'd like to add?

No, don't. Thank you.

Okay. So my disposition on this is I stated a little bit there's a lot that went into park fees and CFDs I'll the over

things that they'd like to bring up? I'll

Commissioner Beaumont?

I guess what I'd recommend is that we approve this as brought forth to us with the disagreements, the two disagreements. And in the meantime, before it's given to the City Council, staff can come up with more explanation for the CDF fees and the park fees so that City council has more information than we do to make the decision. That would be my recommendation.

Anybody else have any comments on that? Vice Chair Wilkerson.

Can you pull up the map of the area please, Noah? Let's find another one that has the potential of be in the area and how far of a distance are they? Thank you. So we're going to then of to we're straight straight up across where the says Carroll Way, there'd be another park right there as well?

Yes. So the the two smaller parks rectangles, those are the future private pocket parks that would be developed

Hawkins? But how many you got like what, two or three other streets in there or how many? Yes. Yes. Three

blocks. Blocks.

Three blocks. So not that this is the Parks and Rec meeting, but don't we there is a code that a community park and a neighborhood park are supposed to be a certain amount of distance away. Is that correct? And does that fit? And then we're saying, no, it doesn't fit. And so we're trying to change and giving the allowance. Do you follow me?

This project will be served by the community park that is going to be built within the farm at Alamo Creek.

Okay. And so in the current agreement, if the developer chooses not to develop part, then that's the professional choice, correct?

Correct.

Okay. I'm good. Thank

you, Vice Chair Wilkerson. So now I'll ask, does anybody have anybody like to make a motion or any further questions? Commissioner Beaumont.

I'll make the motion by simple motion to recommend the City Council approve project. Second. So

I have a motion by Commissioner Beaumont and a second by Vice Chair Wilkerson. Can I please have a roll call?

Commissioner Wagas? Yes. Commissioner Banta? Yes. Commissioner Vermont? Yes. Commissioner Dingmann?

Yes.

Vice Chair Wilkerson?

Yes.

Chair Lightfoot?

Yes.

Motion passed.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we're going to move on now to item number eight. This is business items. We'll proceed with the director support. So whenever you're free, Director Morris.

Thank you, Chair Lightfoot. We are getting our presentation up as we speak over there. Thank you very much Pimon. So this is our director's report for the month of July. Let's go to the next slide.

So at City Council last month on July 22, I presented the development review process improvements initiative and this is the action plan for once and for all improving our development review process for the benefit of expediency and efficiency. So if you're interested in that item, you're welcome to watch the presentation. We also have a project information page that will provide updates on the implementation of the action plan on a minimum a quarterly basis. On July 22 the council also introduced an ordinance to update the city's development impact fee ordinance. This is not the fees themselves, this is the methodology for applying the fees.

Probably the most notable thing is that the new ordinance has a section that allows the council to by resolution implement fee deferral programs, fee reduction programs and any other tools that the council feels is necessary to incentivize the types of development that are desirable to Vacaville. On to the next slide. We actually have a lot of future Planning Commission items, so please count on attending Planning Commission meetings for the rest of the year. We're hoping to serve you something every month. Soon we have the dog stop zoning text amendment and conditional use permit that will be coming here for public and recommendation to the council.

We are working on scheduling a battery energy storage system study session for the city's ordinance that needs to be adopted before May March, April, May of next year. And then we have a myriad of other projects some of which we'll touch on the advanced planning report that are in our queue and that are coming. Let's go to the next slide. Our building division continues to be busy, maybe not quite as busy this month in terms of fees collected, but in terms of permit activity. I think I've said this every meeting, mean in 2024 we had unprecedented amounts of residential building permits issued and final.

And over two months this summer we had the highest levels of issuance and finals we've had in years. So it's been very busy and in a positive way. So let's continue on to the next slide. This shows overall building permits since last July. And again, we're trending very solidly and still looking pretty solid through the month of August as well.

Of

course. Does the building permits include the ADUs that are being?

It includes everything. It includes the ADUs, includes actually non residential. This is anything that comes in water heaters and for the whole year though every month tallying up all those building permits that were reviewed.

Got you.

Thank you. Of course. And then let's go to the next slide. We continue to be very busy in building inspection as well. You see that in June there was this massive spike and only in October '24 did we do more building inspections. And a lot of this was with our in house staff. You can continue, Pimon, thank you. Solar permitting continues to trend along with other building permit activity, residential building permit activity. So we're still getting building permits for solar and a lot of those are automated approved on the spot through our AI solar permit review system. Let's go on to the next slide. Yemen will take this slide and then the ones that follow-up.

Thank you. Good evening, Commission. So for current planning activity, actually this should be Independence at Vaca Valley, not Independence in Vacaville. This is a $2.42 for rent unit project on Allison and Vacaville. So that project was submitted.

We had a new project submitted also for the farm at Alamo Creek to modify the development agreement and the specific plan and then also Vacaville Auto Exchange off of Callon. District 3, we received a minor application for perimeter fence. More importantly, we approved the Lubyne Brewery Company off of Peabody, which should be good use for the city and then also the Vacaville Boys and Girls Club at their new location on Peabody Road as well. No new activity for Districts 4 And 5 and for District 6, we received an application for a 18 units projects on Park Court. And then we also approved some modifications to the Leisure Town self storage facility.

For advanced planning, just some updates. To these two first items, we had a study session last meeting. We're headed to City Council on these as well to present similar study session and we will share the commission's thoughts and sort of hopes for those two projects. Our downtown lighting setting is also scheduled for August 26 to hopefully present the final report. Battery energy storage systems ordinance that's something that we're working on right now and we'll have a number of study sessions and community outreach with that.

Pro housing designation, I'm sure how familiar this is a program that ACD has. Cities that are given pro housing designation are sort of get preferential treatment I guess for if you will for funding grants things like that for housing. There are certain qualities and characteristics jurisdictions have to have. We feel we have those sort of a checklist and point system. One of the first steps to do so we took this council, council seemed interested in the idea.

After that, the next step would be to reach out to the public which we're doing and then we would schedule that for and we need a council ordinance supporting the Pro House designation before we can complete our application date CD. So that's also in the works. Our annual code update typically would see this sooner but once we got rolling there just more things that we want to clean up and we talked to other departments they'd like to see certain things in the code update as well. I think we're going to just we've stopped that now and try to put all that information together when you go to airport landings commission to run it by them and then we'll be coming back to the planning commission then on the city council. We talked about the municipal services review that's ongoing as well and as well as the CFD policy update.

So those are all the advanced planning projects that we have going right now. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Is there an update coming to us in any time in the near future in the Northeast growth area or study session?

Think the short yes, there is something yes, we are working on. That project is also underway. I don't know if I have a specific date for we had an outreach, I don't know, two weeks ago, I think. So that was our first one. So we're just working on continue to work on that, but that was I don't know if there's anything else up in the schedule right now.

I will take us through the final pieces unless there are other questions.

Good to go. Thank you.

Okay. I just wanted to touch on another topic which is the development impact fee update not on the agenda but it's another topic of interest. Currently the plan is to take the third council study session of sorts on September 23 and that is when staff will be presenting the evolution of the development impact fee maximum amount available and a lot of policy and project options. So that is coming to council and the goal is to get that back to council for final action maybe in October if we get clear policy direction in September. So that's important because it really affects our development projects across the city.

And then staffing updates, unfortunately we're losing another assistant planner, one of our newer long range planners. It's a good help is hard to find and then it's also sometimes hard to keep good help. So we are in recruitment mode to replenish our assistant planner ranks. So I think that's my only staffing update at this time. And I think that concludes my presentation. Thank you all.

Thank you very much, Director Morris. So now we'll move on to commissioner comments. Commissioner Beaumont.

Yes. I'd just like to thank Tom Felipe for forty plus years of working for the city and improving the city overall more than anybody probably knows how much he touched in this city for development and just making it a better city. So thank you, Tom.

Commissioner Banta.

I just wanted to thank staff for the two presentations tonight. I enjoy that they were both very different projects. One was medium density, one was a state density. I think it's really important. I know I advocate a lot for low income, but I think it's nice to have a we have to have a healthy range of of housing, and I think that it was really nice to see that this evening. So I appreciate that.

Commissioner Parks, do have any?

Yes, thank you very much for

the presentation time and effort. My apologies for being late. I had to coach my son's basketball game then take them to soccer practice. That's an assumption. Did they win?

They did not. No, it was a tough game.

But nonetheless,

it was fun.

So my apologies for being late.

Vice Chairwolf. Yes. I want to thank staff for the two presentations tonight. I also want to echo the words of Commissioner Beaumont regarding Tom Filippi and his forty plus years of service in the city of Vacaville. We're all passionate about housing in different ways, but I just appreciate all of his work. Recently, I traveled to Chicago for National Association of Realtor Conference, and what we're seeing in Vacaville isn't isn't particular to us. This is a nationwide issue. There's a unit shortage. There's affordability problem. And so it's going to continue to play out, and the bridge is going to have to be stewards here.

Also, a key component of all of that that we're also seeing is infrastructure. And I remember being a kid in a new community my parents lived into, houses were streets were already built out. And so just wondering, you know, when we'll see that again because right now it's really piecemealed on the streets, but sometimes I remember seeing developments being built, house not necessarily on it, but the streets were already there. And so I also specifically want to thank chair Light for his words last last meeting about the new arrival from my family. So I apologize for missing the meeting last last week, but we yeah.

We and so I hope there's one meeting that commissioner Dingmann and I will attend at the same time. Thank you.

Commissioner Dingmann, do you have any comments?

Yeah, thanks. In advance, I'll just apologize for not being in person. I'm in San Antonio. I appreciate staff's extra effort and works to make sure that I can remote in and be a part. I also want to just thank the staff for the two great presentations and Director Morris for update as well.

Echo everybody's comments on Tom, Felipe, thanks Tom for your forty years and what you've done for Vacaville. The reason why my family and I moved back seven years ago because we love Vacaville, we want to see it continue to thrive. And it's exciting to see two developments that are going to meet different needs to add. Commissioner Banta's comments, I mean two different types of developments but we got to do this together. They're not always going to be perfect but we are all trying to do the right thing to make sure that Vacaville continues to thrive, grow and do it responsibly. So again my apologies for not being there but appreciate the support so I could do this remotely. That's all I have.

Thank you, Commissioner Dingmann. So I want to thank everybody up here. I mean we I like the continuity we have. The different views of opinions and perspectives I think is really important in what it is that we do. Having a very a varied output or outlook benefits the city brings up more discussion. I think that's all very important. I think everybody did a very good job this evening, and I'm proud to be part of this team. You guys are awesome. So with that, I will end tonight's meeting. Good night,

Yeah. It was a tough game. What was what

was it?