Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I will now call the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, September 15th, 2026 to order, and I will ask the clerk to call the roll.

Good evening, Planning Commissioners. Chair Wilkerson?

Here.

Vice Chair Banta? Here. Commissioner Vagas? Here. Commissioner Vermont? Here. Commissioner Damon? Commissioner Hampton?

Here.

Commissioner LeRoy?

Here.

Chair, we have a roll.

Everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, and I will ask Commissioner Hampton to please lead us in the speech for our flag.

If you'll follow me, please.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with We will now move on with our regular business standing, starting with communications. At this time, I will ask Assistant Director, it didn't prep me on this one, but have it, if there are any, yeah, let's go with Piedmont, are any communications or announcements for this evening's meeting? We move on to the approval of this evening's agenda. Do I have a motion and then a second to approve the agenda? Motion? Second. Second. Motion by Beaumont, second by LeRoy. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Next item is business from the floor. This is the portion of the agenda is available for the public to address the planning commission on any issue that is not on our agenda. There will be a limit of three minutes per speaker. I welcome anyone who wishes to address the commission regarding a topic or issue that is not on the agenda this evening to please approach the podium. Seeing none, I will close public comment, I mean, business from the court. Now it's time for the consent calendar. We have one item on consent, which the minutes from the August 18, 2026 meeting. Does anyone from the commission or the public wish to pull the consent item for discussion? Do I have a motion and a second to approve the consent calendar? I'll second. Motion by Hampton, second by Beaumont. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. We move on to our public hearing this evening, which will receive a presentation on the Farm and Alamo Creek Specific Plan Amendment and the Development Agreement Amendment. We will first hear a presentation by staff, followed by commissioner questions, and then we will open up for public comment. Before we proceed, I would like to ask if anyone of the commissioners have received ex parte regarding this matter. No. Great, may we please have the presentation.

Good evening, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. This item before you tonight is the Farmer Alma Creek Specific Plan and Development Agreement Amendment. Specifically, this is a request that came to us to amend the farm at Alamo Creek specific plan and the development agreement to allow a couple of things. One is to allow a new project specific community facilities district in lieu of existing requirements in the specific plan to annex into CFD number 11. And the second request is to extend the development agreement term by four years from January 11th, 2029 to January 11th, 2033. The map on the left shows the aerial view of the city of Aqaba with the city limits in orange. The project is located within our city limits on the eastern edge of the city, fronting along Leisure Town Road and Elmira Road. On the right-hand side of the screen, encompassed in blue, is the project boundary that shows existing general plan designations. This project was originally approved and adopted by city council in November of 2018. Annexation later occurred in March of 2019 by LAFCO. March of 2020, the city entertained and approved a minor modification that was to change some of the layouts of where underground improvements needed to occur within the project. On October 2024, the city originally received an application to amend the city's general plan and the specific plan to remove a couple of small private parks and replace it with residential development. However, after deliberations with the applicant and discussions about how to proceed with that application, the applicant decided to just withdraw that request and instead submitted the specific plan and development agreement amendment that we're discussing tonight. The farm at Alamo Creek is a large development that originally included general plan and zoning map amendments, but also annexation, a brand new specific plan, a development agreement, and a tentative subdivision map. The project itself encompasses 210 acres for a total of 768 residential units. There are 19.4 acres of community park land, 7.4 acres of neighborhood commercial land. The development agreement that was adopted includes a number of different obligations, including phasing and requirements for the developer and the city, but the key point for tonight's discussion is that there is a term of 10 years, which would set the project to expire on January 11th of 2029. The DA does require annexation into a community facilities district, but the specific plan provides a specific district, which is CFD number 11. The existing general plan shown on the left hand side of the screen shows an assortment of residential developments in yellows and browns, parkland in greens as well as open space in darker greens and then commercial in a neighborhood commercial pink color at the corner of Eulatus and Leisure Town Road and Hawkins and then another commercial area that if you were to drive out there right now is called the Jepson Center at the corner of Leisure Town Road and Elmira Road. The right-hand side is showing the zoning that was implemented as soon as the project was annexed into the site. The CN, again that pink, is the commercial PR and OS, or that connectivity of open space and parks throughout the development. And the tentative map that was approved with the project looks something like this. It shows the splitting of residential lots primarily within the development. We're looking at primarily single-family detached homes. with, again, those commercial areas and then community park area located along Elmira Road. Bottom right-hand side of the project is a detention basin identified as Parcel A. Well, this project proposal I mentioned was adopted and approved in 2018. Unfortunately, the project has faced some delays and obstacles in proceeding. One of those obstacles was the obligation to annex and deceive the number 11. The applicant is proposing amendments to remove that obligation to annex the project into that district. For reference, that community facility district has levies an annual fee per single family residential lot of 2,152.48 cents that has to be collected for taxation purposes that goes to funding additional municipal services, police and fire services for that subdivision. Well, the way that the city goes about doing this is that in order to be able to determine the type of impact that a project might have on the city, we need to develop what's called a fiscal impact analysis. And that fiscal impact analysis looks at the amount of tax generation that would be provided by a project through property taxes, through sales tax and other things, and then also what kind of services that it would be pulling on. You're looking at your police, your fire, your storm drain, maybe your street maintenance and park maintenance. And so that's what occurred for this project. In order for us to be able to proceed on to the next step of determining what type of community facility district needs to be applied for this project, the applicants started work on a fiscal impact analysis that needed to be consistent with the city's recently adopted goals and policies for preparing those types of documents. And that was recently approved and adopted by city council in December 2025 and are available on the city's website. Working with our finance department, what we found was that the report of the findings were far more precise as compared to just a arbitrary annexation into CFD number 11. And what those findings found was that per single family detached home, an approximate levy would be about $604. For the higher densities, might be the attached products would be 567 per unit. Those are your duplexes. And then a 0.23 per square foot, 23 cents for commercial development, which is substantially less than the 2,100 that is already adopted for CFD number 11. For reference, other projects that are currently in CFD number 11 includes Brighton Landing, Roberts Ranch, and areas within Southtown and Vanden Meadows. Whenever we look at these types of amendments, we have to look at what the original obligations and benefits might have been towards the city and determine whether or not this would be beneficial for the city. And so what we found was part of this was needed for helping with the housing delivery. What we found working with the applicant was that the amendments would help reduce financing uncertainty for the project. That could result in delay of construction of the approved housing. And that's precisely what has occurred as part of the project and why we haven't seen development occur since 2018 when the project was developed and 2019 when it was annexed. The recent analysis confirms that there is some protection for the general fund because the new CFD provides ongoing revenue that would be designed to offset the project's estimated municipal services shortfall. And what we also found about this was that this approach is fair and it's a supportable funding mechanism for the project. The update that's provided with the fiscal impact analysis ties the actual proposed maximum rates for the project to the anticipated services costs that would be provided by the city once the project gets developed. And then there's also some allocations within the development agreement for the construction price index escalation, material changes and provisions, should there be a delay in the creation of a community facility district and the formation and annexation of the project. Well, once we determine all of this for the project, our job is to review the amendments from the specific plan and the development agreement and determine whether it's consistent with our general plan and our municipal code. So what we found is the textual changes that are identified, I believe it's Exhibit B to the subject resolution, that those text changes to remove the reference to annexing the CFD It doesn't really change the land uses or any of the other designs that are identified within the specific plan, that those changes still require the applicant to annex, to create and both annex into SCFD. And that those changes still allow the project to meet the findings that are required for approval for an amendment. The development agreement amendments, again, would extend the term by an additional four years. It establishes that maximum annual special tax based off of a fiscal impact analysis. All the other obligations would remain effective within the development agreement, and the amendments would provide certainty for moving forward with that project. Those amendments also meet the findings required for approval. In a project like this, we have to conduct environmental analysis to determine whether or not the proposed changes would change that original analysis. That was done for the project. Under section 15162, there's a reaffirmation provision within the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. which states that if there's a proposed change to a previous analysis, like, for instance, the environmental impact report that was done, that no subsequent analysis is necessary if the activity that's being changed is within the scope of the previous EIR, that there's no new significant effects and no new mitigations, that the previous statement of overriding considerations can still be applicable to the project, and that the previous mitigation measures are still applicable to the project as they were adopted. And so we found all those things to be true, which is why we're suggesting that we just reaffirm the previous environment impact report for the changes to the specific plan development agreement. We did public outreach for this project on September 2nd, mailed out a number of notices to all owners and occupants within 600 feet of the project site. We also published within the city's website in the back of a reporter. On-site posters were installed at the project site and also were holding the public hearing for tonight's meeting. No comments have been received to date. In conclusion, staff supports the proposed amendments to the specific plan and development agreement for all the reasons that you see up on the screen here and that are cataloged within the city's staff report to the Planning Commission. And with that, staff has a recommendation for the Commission to entertain for tonight, and that's by simple motion that the Commission could recommend to the City Council to adopt the resolution and introduce the ordinance for tonight's meeting. That concludes my presentation for tonight. We also have a representative from the applicant's team available should you have any questions.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

Commissioner Beaumont. Thanks Albert for that presentation. My first question is what does a developer actually have to do to meet the amendment by January 11, 2033 to be in compliance and not ask for another amendment?

Well, it's not uncommon for developers to ask for amendments or extensions. The key provision when looking at amendments or extensions is whether or not those obligations are changing. And so usually when development agreements are negotiated, they're negotiated in favorable balance for both the applicant and the developer, the developer and the city. And so that's one of the things that we look at is when there are amendments that say this particular development agreement, is it at a disadvantage to the city or does the city stand to benefit from these changes? In this case, we do stand to benefit because it provides that certainty for providing more housing, which is one of those things that we do need. So amendments aren't, they're not a bad thing. They do happen. It's a result of changes in the economy and the market and the ability to be able to provide. A lot of the things that affect development that has led to delays in construction has to do with inflation and the cost of materials. Developers have to balance out the projects return on investment with those construction costs. And so that's part of the reason why we see extensions like this is that 10 years and let's see how it goes. Even if they were to start midway into construction and they're unable to keep up with the pace of the market, it's not uncommon for developers to come back to the decision makers and ask for an extension and provide a forecast of when they think that the development will actually be completed.

Okay. Thank you. This has a clubhouse and a pool associated with it, and I think I read that it's going to be private. So when does that clubhouse and pool have to be built in this development? Do so many phases have to be there in order for it to be?

I could not tell you that right now. That's a very good question. We can look into it and hopefully provide that information to the city council. Okay.

And my last question is, we had a project a couple months ago that only had electricity going to it. Is PG&E going to put both electricity and gas, all the developments in this project?

Another great question that I don't have the answer to. I am not familiar with current state requirements for the California Building Code and what is, what's that shift going? Because I know that we were heading to shift on requiring all electric for homes. I just don't have a definitive answer for you to say it was adopted on this state and now it has to be implemented for any future homes.

Yes, I'm one of the few people that lived in the 60s that had all electric homes and it was a disaster with people getting their electric bills and going, holy, you know what? that they just couldn't afford it. And so I'm one of these people that I just do not really like all electric. It gives you no alternatives, especially when you don't even have gas underground. So those are my questions. Thanks, Albert.

Any other commissioners? Yeah? Okay, I will actually open it up for public comment. Okay, I will close with a comment. Now it's time for us commissioners to deliberate and provide feedback to staff.

Anybody? Commissioner Beaumont. Well I take it since no one has comments that everybody's okay with just the amendment and the part of it. So I'm all for asking to make a motion.

Okay. I got a motion. I'll second. I got a second from Vargas. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Bagas?

Yes.

Commissioner Vermont?

Yes.

Commissioner Hampton?

Yes.

Commissioner LeRoy?

Yes.

Vice Chair Banta?

Yes.

Chair Bilkiston?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Fantastic. We do not have any business items this evening, so we will proceed to our direction report. Please go ahead, Assistant Director.

Thank you, Chair. Albert's going to help me with the presentation. So, Albert, first slide, please. So, in terms of City Council actions on August 25th, we had the second reading for the GPA street-lining text amendment, and Director Morris presented a sort of study session on the process improvement initiative that we've prepared and undergone as part of our Commitments to City Council. On September 8th, the Ag and Navy mitigation fee update was presented by Acting Planning Manager Enault. Next slide. In terms of upcoming Planning Commission items, we'll have a study session on the East Collegiate Town Growth Area Specific Plan, the Peabody Allison Study Session, Vacaville Islamic Center, Digital Billboard, and the Pilot Travel Center. We don't have specific dates for those yet, but those are all upcoming items for Planning Commission. Mr. Sure.

The digital billboard, is that for additional billboards or is that for the four that we approved already? Mr.

It's a replacement. Yeah, it's a replacement for digital billboards. That's part of what the council approved, I think, a couple of years ago. Mr. So it's just the ones they approved, not any additional ones? Mr. Well, it's a new digital board.

Mr. Yeah, but they only approved so many.

Mr. Well, it's based on site locations and operational standards, yeah, and location standards, yeah. Next slide, please. So for the billing division, as you can tell, mostly we've had a little bit of uptick in our activities compared to last month. 104 overall billing papers that were issued. And it looks like the inspections that were completed were a little bit down, but that's to be expected from time to time. But everything else is pretty much in line with last month's numbers. Next. Same thing here in terms of the overall 427 permits for August. It's a little bit higher than last year in August, so you can tell it's a little bit of older variations, but we have finished strong in August with 427 permits. Next. Sort of similar numbers here, just showing where we are with previous trends, previous activities, relatively the same. There's been some dips back in January, earlier this year, but relatively speaking, we're still pretty consistent with previous trends. Next. Again, same thing here, with showing the overall numbers and looking at the charts, everything's pretty much steady, so there aren't really any big dips right now.

Next. On the topic of current planning activity in District 1, we received a new development application for a tentative subdivision map called Hillview Ranch. This is located at the southwest corner of McMurtry Lane and Browns Valley Road, near the Cheyenne development. And what they're looking at doing is a combination of custom and semi-custom home lots. There aren't any architectural plans yet, but they're proposing the subdivision of, I think, just over 50 lots. Nothing going on in District 2, but in District 3 we received a couple of new applications, the Monta Vista Parking Garage. Now, the Commission saw the exotic auto body project last month. Well, this is the adjoining lot where the property owner is looking at constructing a parking building where people can lease out individual tenant spaces within there for parking their vehicles and some additional on-surface parking. So that was a new minor use permit that we received. We also received A design review for Paris Baguette Bakery, that is a 5,000 square foot addition that's going on next to the Savers Building over off of Bronze Valley Parkway. District 4, the director approved the Santana Recycling Facility, which goes behind the Raley Shopping Center that's located on Alamo and Nutry Road. On the advanced planning activity, we're still working on next steps for the Peabody Allison specific plans passed. We're working on the preparation of the water and drainage analysis studies for that project. On the municipal services review, we're still having ongoing biweekly coordination meetings with the city's consultant, UPS, as well as the LAFCO team. We've made great progress on the first three chapters that talk about the project description of the entire city and historical information about the city. And then we're working on the financial ability to provide services chapter, which is chapter six of that document. Should have that over to LAVCO pretty soon. On the Entertainment Zone program, it was adopted by City Council on June 23rd, and we're currently working with the DVB-ID to discuss on implementation on that. The Park Club program, that is to be initiated in fall and winter of this year. Pro-housing designation, we're still having ongoing dialogue with California Department of Housing and Community Development. Other advanced planning topics, the East of Leisure Town specific plan is moving along. The next version of the specific plan is anticipated to be this month, possibly next month, and that is where we'll probably present it to the Planning Commission and make our roadshow with the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council to talk about those study sessions and to inform the public about what is a specific plan. We're also working on the project description for the EIR that's also nearing completion, and the next steps that occur after that is the kickoff of all the other subsequent analysis that you'll see along with that that supports that EIR. But ultimately, the city is aiming at circulating the draft specific plan this year and the EIR in the spring of 2027. On the Northeast Growth Area Planning Study, the city is still consulting on the final planning study with the city's consultant. I think his place works. And off to Assistant Director Bavond for the next steps.

Thanks, John. Bavond. I just want to give a staffing update. So I think the commission's aware that over the last year or so we had several positions vacated. So we're in the process of hiring new planners for current planning, for advanced planning, and a building inspector as well. So those are all in the HR system right now. We're hopeful that we'll have the planners on board sometime in October, and hopefully the same for our building inspector. Thank you.

Thank you. Now it's time for commissioner comments. This portion of the agenda is for commissioners to inform each other of other items of potential interest to other commissioners, such as interagency meetings or often announcements as appropriate. We'll go down the line. Commissioner Beaumont?

I'm fine, I'm good, thank you.

Vice Chair Banta? I'm good. Yes, Commissioner Hampton.

Yes, I just really want to commend the city. I know that any time you go through staffing transitions, it can be a challenge, and you guys have kept the bar high. So very much appreciate that from this perspective, and I'm sure the community does also. So thank you very much for doing a great job, guys, during a challenging time.

What do you say? Thank you for the presentation tonight. Sorry for messing up your name. We've reached the end of our meeting. As a reminder, our next meeting will be Tuesday, October 20th, 2026. Thank you, and this meeting is now adjourned.