Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'll now draw the regular scheduled meeting for Tuesday, October 25. First order, can I please have the

Dingmann?

Here.

Chair, we have a call room.

Thank you. I'll ask everybody please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I ask commissioner Dingmann to pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of

The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So next, we will be swearing in and appointed planning commissioners. The newly appointed commissioner Hampton, please stand for your swearing in. I'll ask city clerk Thornbrugh to administer the oath of office.

Please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I. State your name. Do

swear

to support and defend

support and defend

the constitution of The United States

the constitution of The United States

and the constitution of the state of California

against

all enemies

against all enemies

foreign and domestic foreign and domestic.

And I will bear true faith and allegiance

I will bear true faith and allegiance

to the constitution of The United States

the to the constitution of The United States

and the constitution of the state of California

the constitution of the state of California

That I take this obligation freely

I take this obligation freely

Without any mental reservation

Without any mental reservations.

Or purpose of evasion

Our purpose of evasion

And I will well and faithfully

And willingly and faithfully

the duties

Discharge duties.

Upon which I'm about to enter.

About the duties I'm about to enter.

So next we'll move on to communications. We will move on with the regular business starting with communications at this time. I'll ask Director Morris if there any communications or announcements for this evening.

Thank you, Chair Lightfoot. There were some communications received after the packet was published. Those have been added to the website and transmitted to each of you ahead of the meeting and we haven't received anything that you do

have a motion and a second to approve the agenda.

Second.

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

Commissioner Bachus?

Yes.

Commissioner Banta? Yes. Commissioner

the

of Directors

of

on to item number six. This is business from the floor. This portion of the agenda is for anybody who'd like to speak to the commission regarding a topic that's not on tonight's meeting or scheduled to be spoken about tonight. I welcome anybody who wishes to address the commission regarding a topic that's not on the agenda this evening to do so now.

Since 1951. Vine Street is kind of rural and 28 homes there would be too dense on that small piece of property and that narrow road. So that's one thing that was on my mind. The other thing is design of landscapes, it would be nice to have native plants on a lot of these landscaped areas. Bring back the pollinators.

Oak trees support quite a bit of wildlife. It's the one tree that supports different birds and different things. And milkweed for butterflies and things like that. I know this, you know, when they design these landscapes, we're getting a lot of these plants from they bring in a lot of noxious weeds and different things. And so it'd be nice if we could bring back the pollinators, the bees.

If we don't have that, you're going to lose a lot in this country as far as food supply. Those are the couple of things I just want to mention, this planning. It would be nice that the Parks Department would do more things like that, look into more native plants. They've done a few oaks and things on some of these strips and easements and bike trails but not enough. Some of the development is okay, I'm not against that but we don't want to end up like San Jose and like these other cities.

The reason people like Vacaville is because it has some open space left. Old rocky projects like that were good. They kept a lot of the open space. That's why people like to live here. So just want to express my opinion on those things. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Okay. I'll close business from the floor. So next we'll move on to the consent calendar. We have one item on the consent calendar which is the minutes from the 08/19/2025 meeting. Does anyone from the commission or public wish to pull the consent item for discussion? If none, do I have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I'll make a motion. I'll second.

I have a motion from Commissioner Diemen and a second from Commissioner Vargas. If you didn't attend the meeting, you can vote abstain.

Commissioner Bacchus?

Yes.

Commissioner Banta? Yes. Commissioner Bamont?

Yes.

Commissioner Dingmann?

Yes.

Vice Chair Wilkerson?

Yes.

Chair Lightfoot? Yes.

Motion

of the and conditional use permit. So we'll first hear the presentation presentation by staff, followed commissioner questions, and then we'll open it up for public comment. May we please have the staff's presentation? Okay. If anybody has ex parte communication, please

bring it up. I'll start with Commissioner Wilkerson. Yes, did have a phone

call with the applicant, and I didn't learn anything new, but I did have a phone call with the applicant.

You very much. During public comment, we'll give everybody three minutes to address the commission with their questions or comments. And everybody will get a chance to do that after the presentation. Good

evening, Chair. The item before you tonight is the dog stop. Here to present this item is our assistant planner.

Hi, welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, chair and members of the Planning Commission. I am Brenna Glashinski. I'm an assistant planner with the community development department and I'm here to present the dog stop. The request before you is to amend title 14 of the city of Vacaville's municipal code to allow animal shelter and boarding in the general commercial zoning district with a use permit, as well as to an approve a conditional use permit to a dog stop within an existing approximately 8,000 square foot tenant space located at 848 Alamo Drive.

Here you'll see the general commercial zones within the city of Vacaville. And this is the location of the proposed dog stop within the Ranch Shopping Center. Before you is a project background, which you can also find in the staff report. For keeping, boarding, training, breeding, or maintaining generally overnight or in excess of twenty four hours dogs, cats, or other household pets not owned by the owner or operator of the facility. This is currently only allowed within the district shown here.

Thus, a zoning tax amendment is required to allow animal shelter boarding within the CG zoning district. In all cases, we would require a minor use permit unless it's next to residential zoning or uses, which would then require a conditional use permit. We've also created developmental standards. And then the final thing to approve would be the conditional use permit for the dog stop. You'll see here that it is zoned commercial general within the general plan and our zoning map.

The proposed amendments are to amend the land use regulation table to allow animal shelter and boarding within general commercial zones using a minor use permit or a conditional use permit. We'd also like to create a new section for animal shelter and boarding with standards and regulations regarding odor and refuse collection, noise, and outdoor areas. We've based these standards on research of 23 jurisdictions within California. There are a few areas of disagreement between staff and the applicant with the new proposed ordinance, that being requiring trash enclosures as well as requiring an acoustical analysis. The final part of our presentation is for the conditional use permit for the dog stop at 848 Alamo.

This is an approximately 8,000 square foot tenant space that will include 77 pet boarding spaces and an additional thirteen fifty square foot outdoor area. This space does abut residential uses with being 80 feet away and the proposed outdoor area 140 feet away. Public concerns did come up regarding noise from barking and odors from trash. Once again, this is the location of the proposed dog stop in the Ranch Shopping Center. You'll see here the site plan for the interior and then the green square indicates where the outdoor area would be.

Conditions of approval were drafted regarding noise, trash enclosures, and landscaping. Staff responsible for doing an environmental analysis in which we found that the project meets the findings for section fifteen thousand three hundred one and fifteen thousand three hundred three of CEQA. Thus, it's categorically exempt and does not require further review. Public outreach was done by mailing new project notices, hosting a neighborhood meeting, and mailing public hearing notices. Public comments were received regarding odor and noise.

And then the city believes that we have responded in kind with our ordinance and that covers the odor and noise. In conclusion, we believe that the proposed ordinance addresses the public concern. It meets the required findings for the zoning tax amendment. The project meets required findings for the conditional use permit, and the conditions ensure compliance with the proposed ordinance. By simple motion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council for the adoption of the ordinance and the conditional use permit.

This concludes our presentation tonight. The applicant has also done a presentation if the Commission so choose to allow it. And then staff and the applicant are available for questions.

Thank you very much. Yeah, can we have that button come up and do a presentation now?

Yeah, please.

Planning Commission members and planning staff. Thank you. My name is Mark Henriksen representing the Dog Stop and appreciate the opportunity to speak with you this evening. And my intention is not to read the slides to you all in respect for your time and I know everybody here can see what's being presented. But I'm going to hit the highlights.

And really the purpose of the presentation tonight for me is to really to provide information and put the general public at ease and provide additional detail to the commission this evening to better understand the concept and see that it will be an asset to the community and not a nuisance. Of course, it's to seek approval for the text amendment and conditions of approval with one exception and I will get to that shortly. And again, proactively address some of the concerns that may be out there. Here is a little bit additional orientation to the plaza and where the location is. You saw that in the prior slides from the planning department.

To take note, the western wall where the red arrow is from the premise is approximately 140 feet from the property line or the village oak apartment fence right there. So it's quite a ways away and that point will be referred to later on in the presentation. The turf area with the red area there in green is approximately 140 feet from that fence line or property line. Here is a sample footprint. You saw some with a footprint with additional detail from the planning committee.

Special note here is this is primarily an indoor facility. The outdoor relief area is a random access area. It's not an area where we spend a great deal of time training or turning 50 dogs loose to run them up. It's meant for the health and well-being of our tenants, our furry family members, as well as the owners when the dogs tenants return home. That's the purpose of that turf area, exterior relief area.

Some of the community and economic benefits, I think some of them can go without saying, but I think it's important to point out from this premium pet care facility that's in high demand in the community, this is a national leading dog care facility. It's not a shelter. It's not a pound. It is a premium dog care facility for the benefit of our pets here in the community as well as the region. Some of our community members are traveling over an hour to use a facility similar to this facility.

So it will provide and possibly attract more people from around the region to our community that provides additional tax revenues just like this facility will produce additional tax revenue. In addition, we plan to hire approximately 12 team members and hopefully more as our increases. So we're providing jobs to some of our residents here in the city. As well as revitalizing what is currently a vacant space. This was previously occupied by Pace Solano.

And it needs some help. I'll just leave it at that. Across the bottom of the slide, you can see all of the services that we provide. By the way, all of the services with the exception of boarding are already approved in a commercial zone. Boarding is what essentially initiated this whole process and the reason we're here today.

Some of the concept information. The materials that we use, I'm not going to go through all of these again in the interest of time, but many of the materials and fixtures and equipment that we use are recycled, made out of recycled material, including the eight foot PVC fence. It's not a some other facilities out in the region may use standard board fencing. We use PVC, which is antimicrobial, eight feet high, which also provides some sound mitigation as well. Kennels, state of the art industry leading standards for kennels that also provide and allow us to clean and maintain very sanitary standards.

Same thing with the artificial turf. It's a canine grass specifically made for this concept. Epoxy flooring, again, liquid resistant so it's not penetrating or maintaining or retaining any odor or any liquids. HVAC and ventilation is already provided and part of the concept standards and for the health and well-being of the pets as well as air filtration. And wall coverings again for the betterment of the concept.

Getting into some of the common concerns as well as operational detail, proposed hours of operation are listed there. I think it's also important to mention that we don't just hire people and turn them loose. They go through an extensive training program. So the supervision and monitoring of our tenants and dogs are supervised by trained professionals, not just a part time high school student who loves pets. These are trained professionals that go through quite a bit of training.

And there is a very engaged franchiser that provides oversight and supervision and training in the field as well as prior to the facility opening that helps protect the brand. And of course, we want to expand. The franchiser wants to expand. And so in fact, I think it's worth mentioning that was in the first slide, this is the number one rated dog or pet care franchise in the nation by chat GPT. Addressing some of the concerns, noise management.

The design feature is primarily indoors, as I already mentioned. In addition, most people aren't aware, unless you're a pet owner, you probably have noticed, dogs sleep and rest approximately sixteen hours a day. The eight hours a day that they are active, we provide very structured playtime. We provide additional training and oversight that helps make this a healthy experience for the pets and does not assist in creating more fear, anxiety and stress that also creates noise. So that's part of the purpose of having trained individuals supervising the dogs and pets.

Hygiene and odor control. Industry leading sanitation protocols with nontoxic veterinary grade products and materials in the facility. And this certainly ensures an environment that's clean and safe and healthy for our pets as well as sound and odor. Safety and security. I haven't heard that come up, but I think that's an important point to make that we have 20 fourseven that's available to our pet owners as well as our supervising staff.

We do employ a general manager, an assistant general manager, and certainly myself and my wife as owners have access to twenty four hour monitoring. We have staff on-site from approximately 06:30 a. M. Until about 07:30 p. M.

And the pets are outside of their boarding or kennels just a few hours during the day. I wanted to get into a little more detail in addressing our recommendation to eliminate in the conditions of approval point 6B. And that is the noise study. This has been a significant investment personally. We are already approved for a small business loan with Live Oak Bank, the nation's number one small business loan company in the nation.

And we have, as I mentioned, a significant amount of our personal funds as called the contributors investment into the project of over a quarter million dollars. I'm a 25 resident here in Vacaville and this has certainly represented a very large commitment for us. But as far as the noise study here, there on the right side are the generation levels for non transportation sources of noise in the city or the noise standards otherwise referred to. And you can notice some of the these are measured in decibels. I just wanted to point out one point in the noise standards code 14.09240.

D. And noise standards for non transportation sources shall not apply in the following situations. Point number C. These include children playing, barking dogs, and musical equipment. These are some of the services already in center as well as what we're proposing, of course, barking dogs.

So and I think this probably has been applied possibly in some of the dog parks around the city and adjacent to new neighborhoods as well as apartment complexes. So just a point to make there, hopefully supporting our quest and desire to eliminate that one point in the conditions of approval. The next slide. So I took the liberty of purchasing a noise level meter. I take the concerns community very seriously and I wanted to get out there and say well let's see what they really are.

I found as I calibrated with some of the standards in the community and what was projected along I-eighty, I believe it was approximately 65 decibels. I said, let's see what it really is and what the impact of darkened dogs would make on these noise levels. I'm not going to go through them all. You all can see them. I spent quite a bit of time and it doesn't even represent the number of times that I went back to the same locations during non peak periods.

Some of you may notice some of those periods, 06:05, 06:30, those are peak traffic periods. So the ambient sound from traffic certainly played into the readings that I took. And I even went to a regional dog care facility and I'd just like to make the point because the concern is barking dogs. And this was in a busy shopping center in a neighboring community or city. And the noise levels, the ambient noise were very similar to the I-eighty noise that we get here at the plaza, the Ranch Plaza.

Somewhere around on an average to 65 decibels. As I stood directly outside within a foot or two of the walls that are stucco and stud construction, which are not nearly as sound mitigating as our masonry cinder block construction at the Ranch Plaza in that suite, 848848 A. But there, the noise levels when I stood within one foot was approximately 81 decibels. It rose about nine decibels from the ambient noise. When I went 20 feet away, several readings, it rose about three decibels to approximately 75, 74.

When I went 40 feet away, which by the way is less than the distance that the interior of this proposed facility will be, when I went 40 feet away, I could not hear the dogs barking from the interior nor did it change the reading on the sound meter. Next slide. So in conclusion, I believe that the dog stop business provides a service which is in high demand and a much needed service in the city of Vacaville. And we are offering a standard of care that other pet care facilities not only in the region here but across the nation only strive to emulate. Secondly, I propose that the noise study is unnecessary, costly and overburdensome for a small business owner such as myself.

And it would not effectively determine the suitability of proposed use in this location. The city can adequately address potential noise project potential project noise impacts via code enforcement protocols and procedures. And as a responsible business owner and a city advocate, our intent is to be completely transparent, follow all laws, procedures, codes, etcetera. And that was the reason why I've responded personally to every concern that's been raised by anybody in the community that I have been made aware of and intend to be that way as a strong operator, which leads to the third point.

The

most significant factors that are going to mitigate or maintain high standard regarding noise and odor are the operational standards, practices and accountability of the business owner and operator. These standards are monitored and reinforced by the franchisor with decades of experience. That's how this concept was developed. Decades of experience. So of course our intent and recommendation is to move forward with the text amendment and the conditions of approval excluding the noise study requirement.

So thank you for the time this evening. And when it's appropriate, I can certainly answer any questions. But at this time, I'd like to turn it over to our civil engineer who has been extensively involved in the project for several months. Thank you.

Good evening Planning Commission. This is an odd position for me to be in. I've never come and disagree with staff. It's not something I like to do. And I do want to thank staff because we've worked very hard together to come to agreement on all but one minor item.

And that item, as as Mark said and and reiterate, was the acoustic analysis. And I wanna clarify that's both in section three b of the zoning text amendment and also six b in the conditions of approval. Mark hammered it from the business perspective and I agree with all the points he made and and hopefully you guys see it from his perspective. I'm sure we'll hear from some citizens as well tonight. But one thing I do wanna bring up as a design professional and a long time citizen of Vacaville is I I don't like inconsistencies in the municipal code.

It's very easy to design and build when municipal code is consistent. It gets very difficult when that municipal code gets muddy. And I fear that by requiring particular use in this one particular zone to do an acoustical analysis, that will muddy up that zoning text amend or the municipal code. So I just wanna reference a few things. I pulled up permitted uses. Now these are not uses that require a minor or conditional use permit. These are ones that are permitted by right. You come in, you apply for it, you go to work. So some of the things that are permitted in this zone are community assembly buildings. Community assembly buildings could be community centers or meeting halls.

Obviously, you're gonna have your crab feed, and that might get pretty loud pretty late in the evening occasionally. Other uses are daycare centers, as Mark referenced in his thing. You know, daycare centers often have outdoor play areas. No which would be at least similarly loud as a dog outdoor area, but probably will be out there for longer as Mark reference referenced. The intent is not to have the dogs out there twenty four seven.

They're limited in hours from 7AM to 9PM, and they're not out there all day. They're only out there for their dog relieving necessities. Park and recreation facilities are allowed in the general commercial zoning. That could be gymnasiums, swimming pools, tennis courts. You know, those are quite loud facilities. Additionally, our indoor sports facilities, bowling alleys, card rooms, and my favorite, indoor shooting ranges. That is a permitted use in the city of Vacaville in the general commercial zone. Custom and artisan manufacturing, including things like leatherworking, metalworking, glassworking. Imagine someone out there with a blacksmith shop hammering on anvil all day long. Permitted use in that zone.

And finally, pet daycare. Pet daycare is a permitted use. They're permitted to have an outdoor relief area. That's a permitted use. The only thing we're doing is we're doing that, but we have indoor facilities for overnight stays. The only difference between a pet day care and this is, again, that overnight stay, which would be inside. And as Mark referenced from his minor acoustical study that he did as a nonprofessional, we don't anticipate any noise at all to be coming from that, especially with the masonry wall building out there. So, again, that's what our perspective is. We'd like to strike three b from the zoning text amendment and strike six b from the commissioner's approval. And, again, I'll be here for any questions you guys have from a technical nature.

Thanks. Thank you.

Do we have any commissioner questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Beaumont. You.

For the applicant, I know this is a strange question, but it says other household pets. I know some people have exotic pets and stuff. Are you limiting what I

able do to

business is solely for dogs. That.

Just dogs.

Just dogs. Cats have been tested in other parts of the nation and it's not our plan to go forward with that in this facility. This is strictly dogs. No other pets whatsoever.

Okay. Is there a max stay at your place for a number of days?

Our average stay is four to five days typically as a common I shouldn't say common. I should say a citizen typically takes a vacation usually one to two weeks. And that is the majority of our stays. We are not a pound or a shelter so we do not have unlimited stays. To be quite honest, I don't have a procedure or a policy that states a maximum number of days. But I'm sure I can provide that answer relatively shortly.

Do you have a vet that's assigned to the kennel?

We do. We do partner with local vets. There's one directly across the street. I've approached Oak Animal Hospital. But we have not proceeded with anything and don't plan to until we have final approval. But yes, we will have twenty four hour resources available again for the safety and well-being of the pets if need arises.

So did I hear right that there is no staff at seven at night till 06:30 in the morning?

That is correct. That is the purpose of the twenty four hour monitoring via video. So we have cameras in the facility. We live approximately eight minutes away from the facility. And if there was a need arises, certainly we would be available for that.

But no, again, we have over 30 locations across the nation and that has not presented a problem. And that comes from, I'll say, hundreds of years of experience. We have a CEO that started this, founded this business concept. We have a developer, real estate developer, director that opened 100 plus facilities from another dog care provider. And that should not present a problem, again, from the years of experience. But they are monitored and supervised, just not on-site, outside of the hours, the business operating hours.

And your acoustical testing, I sent an e mail that. Very other thing very And

to And And

And

that

represented an average of approximately 65 and they the went from 60 to 75, I believe. But I can tell you, and this is true in the shopping center that I was in as well as at the along Alamo Drive, if a large truck or that has big wheels or a loud motor, it went way over 85 to 89 decibels, sometimes even exceeding 90. And That includes in a shopping center. I was in the Nugget shopping center in Davis taking readings as well as the plaza, as I mentioned, the ranch and along Alamo Drive. And when a big four wheel drive with big knobby tires went by, elevated it.

And of course, the purpose of selecting this location is for convenience for our customers. But also anticipating the fact that that ambient noise from the free way would drown the noise from our visitors.

I live out on Fruitvale and Gibson Canyon and I can hear the freeway from there.

Yep. Trucks go by. That's a fact.

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

You bet.

Commissioner Vargas.

Just a question of curiosity for staff. How long is that so that structure that they're looking to go and do for the dock stop was the old Pey Solano. How long has that been vacant? Do you know?

I do not know. Okay.

Years? I'm assuming years. Pey Solano is now over

off by the freeway, right?

Okay. Thank you. That was the only question.

Commissioner Dingmann?

All right. Mr. Henderson, do you mind coming up to the podium here? I've got a few questions. Thanks very much for your presentation and staff appreciate the presentation as well. I guess my first question would be, can you just for advocation of the folks here, what other dog boarding facilities are in Vacaville that you know of with your research?

I can provide a competitive analysis. I've been to almost everyone. I can tell you where they're located. I can't honestly remember every site's name. But we have one right off the 80 just past

Is there anything like the dog stop is kind of my question.

Absolutely not. Not in this area. They are in they all have a purpose and they do supply a need. So I I don't make any disparaging comments.

Sure.

They are great for many pets. But they are not the same facility. I would characterize those more as country kennels. This is primarily an indoor facility actually developed and started in an urban setting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. So that's why it's primarily indoor and we have the facilities, fixtures and equipment and protocols for primarily an indoor facility.

So there is nothing like this in the area. I can tell you if you look regionally, I've been to and I'll just call them out. Camp Bow Wow's. I've been to in the I'm trying to remember the name of the center, but it's at Hazel And 50, the same camp Bow Wow on Fair Oaks Boulevard in Sacramento. I've been to Dogtopia at Stanford Ranch and in Davis. I've been to oh, and Camp Bow Wow in Livermore. Camp Bow Wow in Danville. I've been to all of those facilities, visited them. I

a the it's a opportunity

Great owners, very caring and loving. They provide some other boarding for other animals as well. But they do a great job, but it's not the same.

Sure. And how many boarding kennels will you have?

Well, our proposal is to start with 72. I don't think we can add any more.

Yes, that sounds like a lot. So have you had an opportunity to talk to your would be neighbors in the commercial center there?

So at the city council meeting, I responded to one in February, the day she sent the communication to the planning department. She just recently sent another communication. Then she was concerned with breeding. As I pointed out to her when we spoke that, well, we don't breed. That was outlawed by Governor Brown several years ago, a few decades ago actually.

So there was no intent in breeding and the need to update the ordinance. But she didn't really have a concern with noise or odor at that time. But that was her concern recently and I sent her communication and welcomed any more feedback.

But you have spoken

to Every single person I have responded either by e mail or spoken to in person, Anthony Pena, there's a Doctor. Mueller, there's I mentioned Marilyn twice. But I've responded to every one of them. I've copied the planning department, Brenna and

something like that? And that question is to either you or staff. Do you know what the approximate cost is?

I do. The approximate cost is and this is in Tennessee and Kentucky. Was over $20,000 just for that study. And here in California, a few years later, I would expect it to be at least $30,000

Was it clear to find scope of that noise study given to you? I mean in the packet it said a noise study is going to be done. But my question is on that noise study, was it going to be after the project was in use? And was it like typical durations or times figured out? Was a clear specification given to you what the noise study was going to entail?

That's part of the reason why we involve acoustical engineers because we can tell them exactly what our city standards are. And they will develop a proposed scope of how to make sure that they capture the noise, the existing ambient noise. And then whatever noise would be produced by that new use that would be establishing within the tenant space. And then that's a scope that we would review as well as with applicant. And if the applicant's okay with that scope as well as the city, then that work could be commissioned. It would have to be before the operation of the business. And before the issuance of the building permits. Because if there's additional requirements that are recommended by the acoustical engineer, those would have to be implemented and disclosed within the building permits.

So in setting up that process, so you come to agreement with the with the business owner. How would you go about evaluating the noise in the area without the dogs of the kennel present?

So this is kind of a subjective scenario type of question but I'll do my best to answer it only because I'm not a sound engineer. That's usually going to be devised by their tactic. What we found from our research in reviewing these different 23 jurisdictions as well as the noise of dogs is dogs and their barking can reach noises of greater than 100 decibels, up to 115 decibels. That barking within the existing tenant space but also within that enclosed area has a potential to increase that ambient noise. We had talked about what the existing ambient noise is.

Yes, it's impacted by the freeway. There is a scenario in which you have existing conditions that are okay to operate because they're created from those existing transportation noises. But a lot of our concern is with the potential for exacerbating those existing issues for those existing residents. Would this project introduce new activities that have the potential for increasing the ambient noise within that area that would affect them in their either homes or within the private areas? One of the ways that they could test that is if they know what the sound of a dog barking is in those decibel meters, they can take those noises, project them from within the outdoor area as well as within the tennis space and get the understanding of what those measurements are.

It's not just important to grab it during the daytime. It's also important to grab it during the nighttime because we have two different measurements. It's also reducing them further. So one of the things that we're primarily looking at is at this specific location, what are those noises going to look like daytime, nighttime at the effective sensitive uses? I also like to note that within the proposed ordinance, we're suggesting that this is necessary for those cases that for any case because this is not just an ordinance that is affecting this one location.

It's an ordinance that would be applicable to all general commercial zoning districts and so it spreads throughout the entire city. We might have other scenarios where it would be necessary because they're abutting adjacent sensitive uses such as elderly care facilities hospitals or other things like that. We would need to, determine whether or not this new use, has a potential to create that issue. So while it may be specific to this project that there might be existing ambient noise that already elevates that noise in that area, our ordinance is designed for every case of scenario when you're up against a sensitive use. And some of those commercial areas are not located near freeways, and they may not be existing with those ambient noises. So what we're trying to do is cover the entire basis for any use that's looking at trying to establish within the general zoning district.

So can you address the discrepancies that the applicant brought up between nuisance, so the section C, the nuisance abatement.

Oh, yes. Yeah. So the section that was referenced by the applicant is referencing a section within our noise standards. It does provide exceptions that the standards do not apply, but I'll read it for you verbatim because there are some information that was left out. The section four c refers to it says, quote, for nuisance abatement related to residential generated noise sources, including but not limited children playing, lawnmowers, barking dogs and musical equipment.

This exception to compliance with our standards are related directly to residential uses meaning that if you're in a subdivision and you're a fun time with your dog, you don't want to be having to deal with abatement issues with code enforcement because you're in a residential area. Those are noises that are expected to occur. I'd also like to cite within a section of our code of fourteen oh nine two four zero one four zero C2B. It specifically states for project approval and operational standards that the director of community development can require a noise analysis when a proposed use would potentially generate levels of noise which would exceed the standards for transport sources and non transportation sources. And this is specifically required with the director in the plane division.

The authority to require when we see that there is a noise generating uses. And so it's not required in all cases because you have a loud generating use that's located to other commercial instances where it's not even needed because there aren't next to sensitive uses. Primary reason why we're requiring in this particular case is because you have a generating use that has a potential for creating noise. We're not sound engineers, but you're located right next to a sensitive use. In order to be able to make sure that we can meet those findings that this is not gonna introduce a public health safety or welfare or increase that existing ambient noise within the surrounding area, we need an analysis to confirm that information. And that's the purpose and the basis for requiring within the conditions of approval, but more broadly requiring it within the draft ordinances before you.

Got it. And so the section Steve brought up, was specific to residential uses, not commercial uses?

Correct, yes.

Commissioner Banta. Oh, it's Yeah, go ahead.

No. Actually, we're good. Thanks.

Sure. Yep. Right. Thank you for the presentation. I had a couple of questions for you, for the applicant. You said the max capacity is 72 kennels. Is that what is the anticipated average capacity going to be?

During peak vacation times. That is not an average. The average is closer to probably half that in a successful business. Okay.

And then my second question is, are boarding shelters, are they licensed and are there regulations or requirements? Are there any state boards or anything

that have requirements? Shelters

need to

be like are required to be licensed as well as our facility. And I've looked up the licensing requirements already.

Okay. So as part of those licensing requirements, are there best practices or recommendations on noise mitigation or the sound of animals and all of these kind of some of these concerns?

Not that I saw in my research and looking at the requirements.

Okay. Thank you. And then my third question is, you had stated that the franchise has many locations. Has the franchise done any noise mitigation or studies in any of your other locations that would be beneficial to this project?

Yes, they have. And that's where I received my information was from those studies as well. And all of them did have a successful approval after their noise studies were done by an engineer. Okay.

Thank you.

You bet.

Commissioner Hampton.

Quick question. Thank you both the city and applicant for your due diligence. During the planning of the interior design, were there any acoustical adjustments or considerations given to mitigate

noise? There haven't been at this time. Our experience and research from the locations across the masonry cinder block construction of the walls will be more than sufficient to take the noise levels down to an acceptable level. I will also add that I did not include in the presentation when I visited another dog boarding facility in the region, they were directly abutted on a shared wall that's made out again of a stud and

come on.

Sheetrock. Stud and Sheetrock. And they were open from eleven to two and four to ten and I asked the owner point blank in complete confidence. I would not mention their name or anything of that sort. But he said he has not had one complaint or one problem. And they are directly abutted on a shared wall.

Thank you.

You bet. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hampton. Vice Chair Wilkerson.

Yes. First, thank you so much for your presentation. You did a good job. Dogs won't be allowed outside after what what time?

We operate between 7AM and 7PM. We don't have dogs outside outside of those hours. It's strictly during the day.

Okay. And staff, what time if I'm in my backyard playing with my family, is a neighbor allowed to call PD on me? Is it after 10:10 10PM?

Yes. The 10:10PM is the marker for which the noise standards change and get more restrictive.

Okay. So

how I'm understanding is dogs will be inside after 7PM, but code enforcement won't even check until ten So I think there's enough time in between there, in my opinion, to I don't know if the noise study is necessary, in my opinion. Secondly, there's other businesses in that at the ranch. There's a trampoline park. I know it very well. Closes after seven, and there's noise let out when those kids are out.

There's a gym next two places down small business owner through more things to do to take a bite at a bigger piece of all this. I don't know if it's necessary.

Thank you. Vice Chair Wilkerson.

Thank you for your comments and I just want to respond and not to disparage any business. I spent ten years supervising a flooring stores as a regional manager both in New England, managing four states, over 30 locations, and over 20 locations here in Northern California, the use of forklifts is a predominant way of the local local residents residents than than a a random barking dog that could be the same as what you hear walking through the neighborhoods of Vacaville on a daily basis. So that would be my commentary regarding that statement. So thank you again.

Do we have any more questions? Okay. Thank you very much. So now I'm going to open up to public comment. Everybody's going to be allowed three minutes to address the commission with their questions or anything that they'd like staff to address.

Seeing none, I'm going to close public comment. Bring us back for commissioner deliberation. Commissioner Beaumont.

Thank you.

In regard to the noise, it said in the proposal that if there was noise concerns after the fact that the director could take over with

Appreciate again some of the explanation Mr. Henderson and staff, thank you again for your due diligence. As a small business owner myself, I can say I am not a big fan of I understand the acoustical study and the noise study, especially where this is in that in the location of the ranch and there's residential folks behind them. But based off of the explanation, the things that I've seen from both presentations and also understanding that area pretty well, and just a burden of another $30,000 this city has got to be small business friendly from my perspective. And when we levy additional costs and those types of things on folks that want to move in and do good here, we do not have a boarding facility that is sufficient or meets the need of this, not just this city, but also this county.

I'm of the mind to ask for, I don't know what the procedure is here, Aaron, comment here in asking a question, but that's where I stand right now and where I'd like maybe a little bit of feedback.

Yes. So I'm with you too. So can you explain to us the process that went behind adding in that condition to the agreement?

Yes. The staff is recommending that as a condition of approval. Should the commission wish to remove condition, I think it's 6B, you can make a motion and we can put up the recommendation slide over there and just make a motion related to the conditional use permit to remove condition 6B. And then that allows the council when this goes to them for their action to have that recommendation from the commission for their consideration.

Can you go a deeper into the reasoning why that condition was applied?

Certainly. One of the things that staff is obligated to do is ensure compliance with municipal code. We have section for non transportation sources. When you have a new business, does that business have the potential for affecting adjoining sensitive uses? The key is sensitive uses.

Sensitive uses are those residential uses, hospitals, elderly care facilities, lodging places that are and how the potential will be affected by loud noises. And so as a part of our process as we're going through the checklist of does it comply with different sections of the municipal code, we get to the noise section and we look at what we can find from the internet, which is studies that are well known about the ambient noises associated with dog stop locations, businesses like this, animal shelter and care facilities. We know that those noises can reach around 100 to 115 for barking noises. And so that's enough information to say, now there is a little bit of a concern associated with whether or not we can comply. Now normally in these cases, you have a project specific applicant that could say hey here's a noise study.

We looked at the project site and we were able to confirm compliance with the municipal code. But we could not confirm that. The applicant didn't provide us with an acoustical analysis. What you can do as part of this process is you can assign a condition of approval to ensure compliance with the municipal code. It may not require any improvements to the tenant space or to the outdoor area but is that affirmative information that's necessary to confirm this is not going to result in an issue.

Alternatively, if no acoustical analysis is provided, then we have a little bit greater of an issue to meeting the finding that it's not going to produce a nuisance or it's not going to result in a negative impact to those existing residences. And so the alternative means that the director had mentioned is that we could rely on the potential for complaints to come and arise. The recommendation from staff is not to utilize that route because then the city is left holding the bag of dealing with those residents and having to fill those inquiries, that staff time, having to go back and forth with the public when a lot of this can be resolved if we know for a fact that with that acoustical analysis it's not going to be an issue. Now again this is involving those particular uses. When you're cited next to a sensitive use there's a lot of other commercial areas throughout the city were.

They're not located next to sensitive uses so we wouldn't even require an acoustical analysis.

Commissioner Dingmann. Definitely appreciate. That's a great explanation. I think one of my bigger concerns here is after hearing the price tag on this 20,000 to $30,000 I don't know about you guys, but I don't have that. It's a small business owner that's a lot to ask if that's the true price tag for a noise analysis, number one.

I think number two, the fact that there is no that we're we're the that And then, a market. Then, little color more on not super happy about it, right? But at the same time, we've got to move forward with progress. And so I appreciate your explanation there. Appreciate that.

But I definitely will be bringing over over I'll the next

turn

motion from Commissioner Dingmann. Second. I it have a second from Commissioner Wilkerson. Let Director Morris. So we have so we have a motion with the second with comments about removing 6B.

For

the chair, I would note that the motion that's identified up on the screen has been modified to address the current motion that's on the table right now.

Thank you very much. So I think the Why don't you ask your question to staff?

I just want to be clear that when the applicant or Mr. Ellis spoke that there were two items, right? There was 3B and there was six 1C. I want to make sure both those items because those were speaking about the requirement. Is that that's up there?

Yes, that's correct.

You're fantastic. Thank you.

Sir, we were conferring when you were making the motions. Are you motioning everything at once, the introduction of ordinance and the other mechanisms or are you just doing the CUP right now?

So Commissioner Deaman made the motion. The motion was to John, you check my math here, okay? But I'd like to, you know, the motion as written minus 6B.

All of it

minus 6B.

Sorry. Correct. Chair, point of clarification. 6B removes the obligation for the applicant to comply with the ordinance. Is it the commission's desire with the motion to strike a requirement for providing an acoustical analysis in every case.

That is the motion that's identified up on the screen. That was what we were understanding.

So when you say every case, mean anyone that comes forward from here on out?

In the general commercial zoning district, if any use that qualifies as an animal shelter or boarding facility, not have to provide an acoustical analysis. The purpose of the condition of approval that's identified as 6B is to ensure compliance with the ordinance. So it would be inconsistent to say you're absolving a requirement or a condition of approval from the conditional permit. Our ordinance still says that it's required.

Does does the ordinance specify times of day?

For the acoustical analysis?

No. For the ordinance of the city. So the second bullet point amending so you're bringing up amending the. The regulations on animal shelters and boarding in commercial general time of use in that or is it anything? It's a here an important point in that and what is swaying my time is it's limited to certain hours of the day in this case.

With every conditional use permit and every minor use permit we would be reviewing the hours of operation. The current ordinance has a limitation of 9PM. That's one hour before the 10PM change. That's already in our code with the draft ordinance. That not be affected with the removal of D3. D3 is explicitly about requirement to provide an acoustical analysis to confirm compliance with the city's existing noise standards.

To make sure everybody's on the same page. So the motion is also affecting any animal shelter going forward.

That's what we're hearing from some of the commission, but I don't know if there's agreement on that.

So, well,

is there a way to propose a motion that removes the condition of 6B for this case only. I think that's what we're trying to propose. I like that lesson.

The answer is yes. The commission, as part of the findings, as part of the recommendation, would have to find that there's specific circumstance associated with this location that would warrant there's no need for an acoustical analysis.

I got it. So, Commissioner Bowman, do you have something you'd like to say?

Yeah, think it's pretty simple that we just excluded on this applicant and every applicant after this has to stand on his own and depends on where it's at, how close it is to sensitive areas or sensitive buildings, whatever it is. So for this applicant, we can exclude 6B, but that doesn't mean the whole municipal code is changed for that. It's just a singular motion or a singular application. Does that make sense? Yes,

it does. In the motion that's identified up on the screen, that is an available recommendation for the commission has been modified to reflect that. It's still an ordinance but it's been removed from six b. I don't know if you need to start over with entertaining the motion now that it's identified for the commission.

Yes. We will put it sets a precedence.

Yeah. Commissioner I'm I'm I

don't think staff is worried about a precedent because as a commissioner Beaumont mentioned that you every single conditional use permit would have to rely on their own so maybe there's a different circumstance at a different location where they're directly abutting- existing sensitive uses but there's no ambient noise from transportation sources and so. That's a different circumstance.

Thank you.

Why don't you ask your question to Commissioner to Director Morris just to get clear that?

All right. Director Morris, as we understand it and staff please Albert, bullet three would be the option for us to propose that as a motion, correct?

You'll be proposing all of these things and the third bullet reflects your initial motion to delete condition 6B. Correct. On this application because it's a use permit for this application. It's not the ordinance Right. As a

is the motion I would like to put

forward. And

I have a second from Commissioner Wilkerson. Can I please have a roll call?

Commissioner Vargas?

Yes.

Commissioner Banta? Yes. Commissioner Vermont?

Yes.

Commissioner Dingmann?

Yes.

Commissioner Hampton?

Yes. Thank you very much. Thanks for the presentation. Thanks for the great conversation. Good job, everybody.

Okay. So now we're going to move on to item 8B. This is the public hearing on the Potters Court North. We'll first hear a presentation by staff by commissioner questions and we'll open up for public comment where everybody have three minutes to address their questions. May we please have staff's presentation.

Good evening chair, members of the Planning Commission. The item before you tonight is the Potters Court North project. This is a request to construct 18 attached single family homes on a vacant point eight eight acre site located North Of Potters Court in South Of Cogburn Circle. The image the right side of the screen shows the approximate location within the greater Southtown neighborhood. This map is intended to convey the project location along Potter's Court in Cogburn, South Of Magnolia Park along Vanden Road.

And this aerial imagery was captured by our media team to show the existing project site location. The South Town development was originally approved in 2004. And between 2005 and 2024, there were various entitlements that were issued for development within the South Town neighborhood. This project started in March 2025 when a SB three thirty preliminary application was submitted to the city. And then later the formal development application was submitted to the city in June.

August we also hosted a neighborhood meeting to solicit public feedback about the project. The project involves an environmental assessment and tentative subdivision map conditional use permit and a major design review. As I mentioned before, it's point eight eight acres with 18 single family residential units yielding a density of 20.45 units per acre. There are six buildings that are comprised of five plexes and two plex models. The floor plans range from 2,250 to 2,600 square feet.

Each unit would have a two car garage with 10 on street on street parking spaces that would be provided. Vehicle access will be provided on Potters Court with additional pedestrian access be provided on Cogburn Circle. Architectural design exhibits farmhouse architectural thing. Existing general plan is residential high density with a density that's allowed of 20.1 to 30 units per acre. The zoning district is RH for residential high density.

This map shows the location of the project with the five plexus on the outside corners facing Cogburn Circle and then two plex nest between those five plex buildings and then the other two plex buildings facing court. This is a rendering that was provided to us by the applicant that shows that sequence of five plex, two plex and then five plex fronting along Cockburn Circle. And this is intended to convey the two plex and five plex elevations as they were submitted with the project plans and that were included in the planning commission packet. As we noted before, the application for preliminary review of the SB three thirty was submitted to the city back in March. That means that the project is protected under the housing accountability act.

The housing accountability act limits locks and shortens. So limits the reviewing authority for projects such as residential development. It also locked in development standards in March that were in effect at the time when that application was submitted. It also shortens the review period for staff to determine compliance with the California environmental quality act and also limits the number of public meetings that can be had for this project to five. Staff's job in this type of project is to determine consistency and compliance with the general plan and the back of the municipal code.

The tentative amount that is included with the project complies with the municipal code as well as the subdivision map act and meets the findings for approval. The conditional use permit that's necessary for the single family attached housing product is conditionally permitted within the residential high density zoning district. It is compatible with nearby single family homes. This is a single family home project not a multi family. So that single family designation is consistent with other single family homes that are in the surrounding area.

It also meets the required findings for approval for the conditional use permit. The major design review is to look at the development objective standards that are within municipal code such as building heights, setbacks, architectural design. The project meets all of those required findings for approval and it does meet those objective development standards. We're required under the California Environmental Quality Act to conduct environmental analysis. When we looked at the project, we found that the project is it qualifies for an exemption under section fifteen three thirty two for infill development, mainly because it's consistent with the general plan and the zoning designation as well the policies and regulations that are applicable to the project.

It is located within the city limits and it's on a parcel that's no larger than five acres. That's surrounded by urban development. There's no habitat for endangered rare or threatened species. The project would not result in significant effects related to traffic noise, air quality, water quality. And then all existing utilities are existing around the site that can serve the project.

Based off this, we found that the project meets those findings and there's no further environmental analysis that's required for this project. Project underwent public outreach starting with a new project notice in July, then a neighborhood meeting in August. We also provided notification about this public hearing for the commission tonight. Many of the public comments that we received at the neighborhood meeting as well as the notice that was sent out were related to concerns about the housing type, the size and scale of the proposed buildings, that there were concerns about insufficient parking, and there were concerns about traffic congestion as well as whether or not schools would be able to serve this residential development. As part of the commission's packet that was available to the commission on Dice as well as on Granicus, we felt that was necessary based off of the number of comments that we received to respond to those comments.

So we published some responses. And ultimately what we found was that the project meets the city's objective design standards that's required SB three thirty of the housing accountability act. That existing roads and utilities have been designed to serve the project and that the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning. Staff does support this project because it meets the findings as conditioned. It complies with general plan and zoning and as well as the city's objective development standards.

It would provide more housing and it's a well designed architectural project. Motion before the commission tonight is to affirm that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA and to approve the tentative map conditional use permit and major design review for the Potters Court North development with conditions of approval. That concludes our presentation. The applicant as well as applicant's engineer is available tonight to help field any questions that the commission might have.

Thank you very much. Any questions? I'll start with Commissioner Beaumont.

Thanks, Albert. Real quick, we're able to And parking spots, are they on the court or are they in the development itself?

They're in the court.

When you say dedicated, can anybody park there? Does it have a restriction? How does that work?

Correct. Anybody can park there. It's similar to other subdivisions that are developed nowadays where the on-site residential unit provides enclosed parking spaces or they'll provide driving parking spaces but they're required to provide two spaces per unit. And then the rest of the guest parking for the entire subdivision is satisfied by on street parking.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Vargas.

I'm trying to work because I live by Magnolia and we use that park quite often. Are you allowed to park on the circle itself? I know that there's parking at Magnolia Park. Do you see some on Cockburn, but

I can't recall if there's

some restrictions on the circle itself.

On Cockburn? Yeah. You know, I couldn't tell you.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you have any other questions before we open up public comment?

I'll now invite anybody who'd like to speak on this item to approach the podium. Once you get up

there, I'll turn on your microphone, and you'll be allowed three minutes to address. Okay. All good. It's all good. Welcome.

First, I would like to talk about the Housing act. So real quick, there's this perception that, well, the developer just gets to

do what they wanna do.

Now, actually, for the housing develop act, the city planning commission has to follow standards. And so the first thing, the developer says that, well, the applicability section of title 14 doesn't apply. No. Actually, applies to the whole code itself. What's the applicability section? It states that it has to fit in with the community. Where do we see three story units, 18 on point eight eight acres? It does not fit into the community. There's been multiple people that have talked about that. And also, the developer brought up per the the reasonable person standard.

A reasonable person is if the whole community is two stories, then there's sections of three, what would the reasonable person think? Does that fill in with the applicability section of the code of fitting in

with the

the the development standards? No. They'd be like, why am I a magnolia and I'm seeing three story building right here? Would I wanna live next to that? Heck no. Also, the developer states that, well, we it's a single unit family home. We don't have to follow the five plex, three plex requirements of the the city code. Well, actually, in your own presentation, it says it's a five plex. So what is it? Is it a single unit dwelling that applies under point 50, under title 14, or point 60?

They're saying point 60 does not apply. Okay. Well, under point 50 sorry, point point 50 ms, it states you still have to fit in with the aesthetic design of the entire neighborhood. I do not see that with the city plan. So since I got one minute, it is quick.

To comply with the the planning commission first has to ask themselves, are they complying with the standards that are published online? We know that this is evident by the fact that they have to file for a conditional use permit because they're not complying with the single unit family homes. So we already know that they're not complying. They need you to approve it in order to comply in order for their project to conclude. Their next argument is going to say, well, you have to explain that to a judge.

Judge, by justification for denying this, is their whole plan altogether does not fit in with this neighborhood. They had to apply for conditional use permit to then comply with section point 50. That's up evident alone. So you have the authority under point 50 to deny the project and still comply with the HIA. Thank you. Sorry I

was nervous.

Thank you very much.

I'm a resident in Southtown and I live about three blocks away from this location. So I would tell you first of all that that diagram that you saw up there is not accurate at this time. I've lived here since 2018. I moved here from Columbus, Ohio. This was really quite different from where I lived, which was a very blocked in area that had already been built out as maximum as it could be.

So looking at this now, there have been massive amount of building that's gone on in the last five years since I've been here. And if you look at that circle of Cogburn Circle now, there's another half of Magnolia Park that's not been opened yet that will be opened soon. But there have been housing that's built all the way around that whole circle. All those homes are primarily two story. In addition to those, you'll see single stories. I happen to live in a single story between two stories. But then to see a suddenly a three story coming in is like, woah, what's going on here? So especially on less than an acre of land.

I don't know what all

of you live on, but I live on less than that and it's a one single story house. So it says in the proposal here, project summary, it says there's 18 unit attached single family residential development. I have trouble with that when I look at it. There's six cars that are parked there every morning. Two in the garage, garage, not two in the garage, two in the parking space in front of the garage, on the street, in front of my house.

And that's not been the case until that family moved in. So you get multi generational, multi ages and you get a lot of cars. And you're talking about a park where when there are things going on at the park, you have lots more cars coming in. Meaning there's less, less paying attention to pedestrians, kids, pets, people in general. You get older populations where they move slower, so there's more risk for accidents to occur.

So I sent in a written summary of my concerns after the last call. So that was supposedly attached to this plan. So I would ask all of you to please consider this. This was supposed to be a master plan community. If this was part of the master plan, it certainly doesn't fit with what I see in my neighborhood. So, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Units that are about 2,500 square feet apiece, you're gonna have multiple people within that those those units that are driving driving cars. 10 spots on the road is not gonna do it. People are not gonna park in their garages. They're gonna use the park to park their vehicles. I don't know what kind of orders we have to restrict that overnight parking, but it's gonna be a constant fight. And I'm be constantly fighting even more than I already am. Trying to keep my kids safe. So I I I do not recommend this plan as as it is as as submitted. The garages are not gonna work. They need dedicated parking spots. Thank you.

Okay.

How are doing? My name is Chris Riddell. I actually live on the court at 6072 Powers Court right across from the land. And I'm one of the tenants of the landlords. Anyhow, let's be reasonable here. This is a monstrosity, three of them, if you guys allow these to be built. Get a

more

20. Detail And 18.

They've been kind enough to put us in there, but there are six homes that they have on the street right now, multi generational families living there. A sense get to so, ve it. To this day. This is the first year they've actually just raised it just a little bit. And they only fix things when it needs to be fixed.

So just letting you know who you're dealing with. I'm not sure how they will manage these three story apartment buildings. And that's another thing. You're allowing apartment buildings to come in to a residential area that do not fit. It just come on. See it from the people who are purchasing, purchasing, the the people people who who are are renting, and the families that live in the area presently. You know? We all know apartments. I don't know. I've lived in apartments when I was raising our children, As soon as we had a chance, we need to get out.

Apartments tend to bring a little bit more trouble. And there's already you know, there's things that go on at that park already. You could look through the the police department deals with it. And when you bring in a department, you're probably gonna be bringing in, not necessarily, but possibly more trouble. And that's not gonna be good for the residents. So please, please think about not allowing this at all. If they wanna bring build single family, two story, one story home right on. This thing is not a good idea. Thank you.

And we are three blocks from where they're planning on putting this apartment complex. My husband and I have lived there for over fifteen years now. And when we initially purchased that land, there was nothing there. The park wasn't even there. It took forever to get the park done.

But any anyway. It's not suited for apartment living that whole the whole neighborhood's not like they have said it's only two story is the highest we're in the two story and it's a a home feel when you come to our neighborhood. People are walking on the street, doing their dog, and biking, and careless kids in the street, popping wheelies, you know, going down when they shouldn't even be there. But it is a hometown feel to where those kids know they're safe to be out there because we're not going to run them over, you know, and the influx of all those cars and people in the apartment complex. My neighbor has this.

We have the same problem my neighbor does with six people using cars across the street from us to where they're using our parking space all the time. My husband has to race out there to put the trash cans out so we have a space to use that we're supposed to have. That picture of the court that he put up there is not what's factually there now. And I wanted to take a picture before I came, but I forgot. There are already cars filling that court for the people that live there already.

Some don't move. But most of the time we're walking the neighborhood and we see that court and it does not look like what he showed up there. They had four cars up there. There's probably 10 on that court every day. No matter what time you go by.

So that was a fallacy. And with that park across the street, we do have an influx of so many people into our community already that don't even live there because it's such a wonderful park. So to put this influx of more people like that in a townhome and then the people there can't even see anything. If their kids were at the park, I'm sure that may have been a possibility why they purchased purchased there. But by the time the park got in, our son was old enough to be on his own driving a car anywhere he wanted to go.

You know? So right now, people are purchasing because of that park and the environment that living in. And so I would urge you, especially finding out that they had a conditional use permit. I didn't even know about that. And that just should be solving the problem right there because they're not even using it for what it was meant to be. We were never buying in that area thinking of apartment living because that is one thing we never want to do either. So there is a reason for that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other comments?

Name is Hi, Rudy Nura, and I live on that court. And the couple points I'd like to bring up is this project is not consistent with the neighborhood. Put yourself in our position wherever you're living. Would you like somebody to put a three story building right next to you? No. So I wouldn't recommend doing something like that. Basically, looked at this as it doesn't fit the neighborhood scale and character, number one. Number two, traffic problems over there. Drive there on the weekend, and tomorrow, you'll find it. You can't even drive if a car is coming up so well because the park is hopping at that time.

Parties, birthday, whatever, and both of the part of streets are blocked off with cars. So you have one lane going. What happened if you approve this plan and there's emergency? If my kid need an ambulance and can't get through, or if you live in a neighborhood and five minutes late or mid middle age, I got a heart attack. Every seconds count.

So we can have something like this in our neighborhood. Secondly, it's a public safety. And nothing I'd to bring up is the CEQA. I don't think you guys should waive that because it fails on two parts, I think, traffic and

very

it's

we're able

to

none, I'll make close public comment. Bring it back. We're going to start with just commissioner questions on any topic that was brought up by public comment and can have the staff address those if you wish. I'll start with Commissioner Beaumont.

Thank you.

Thank you for those comments. I appreciate wanted to, which would be worse. That's what I look at. And what could we have that would be worse than this, 26 units of apartments. And so that's kind of how I look at it.

This is better than what you could have. And these are family owned people that are going to take care of their property. So that's kind of how I'm looking at it right now. And with SB three thirty and we don't have a lot of discretion sometimes because the state kind of rules over us with what they've done at Sacramento. So we're in kind of a tough bind sometimes, but I'm looking at it in a positive way if you can look at it that way versus what you could be looking at. That's how I'm looking at it.

Vice Chair

Wilkerson. Thank you for the presentation. I do have a few questions. We can't look at parking anymore because of the state regarding housing projects, right? The state has come in and said parking is no longer something you can use to deny a project.

Compliance with our city standards is the number one

key. So

when a project has demonstrated that they were complying with city standards, then any other additional concern beyond that is irrelevant.

Okay. And is the applicant here or the team? I'd actually like to hear from them as well. That's possible.

So do you have specific questions you want to ask those?

I'd like to hear the vantage point of what maybe address some of the concerns that they heard about. Okay.

So Chair, what I would say is if you're inclined to let the applicant speak now rather than when there was a question period earlier then we should reopen public comment afterwards to allow responses

Yeah, to or we can limit you to three minutes if you'd like. Is that doable too? Can we limit them to three minutes? Yes,

I'm not sure why the applicant didn't make their presentation after staffs but they can have more than three minutes but because the public spoke before they made the presentation what I would ask is that we then reopen it to the public.

Okay. Yeah. We can do that.

So here is so what we should have done was right after staff did their presentation and we had a round of questions from the commission, that would been the time, the proper time to do it. So we will let you speak and give your presentation. We'll have another round of commissioner questions afterwards. And then we'll reopen public comment and allow the public to give comment again.

Everyone, thank you for coming tonight. Thank you Planning Commission for hearing this project. Thank you Albert and Brenna for preparing it. I think they did a great job of explaining our goals. We've owned this since 2004. It's been zoned for residential high density. We just haven't done anything with it yet. As one of our tenants noted, we do own the six houses across the street which we built seven or eight years ago. And we're excited to continue contributing housing to Vacaville as part of Rina. It's 18 units. It's on the lower end of the density as Doug noted. It's pretty much it. I mean, I think it's pretty straightforward. I hear the concerns about the three stories. You know, had

the neighborhood

meeting. But this is the project we could design within the constraints of the density zoning and the city code. One more thing is I should mention our architectural team is KTGY. They designed all the houses in the area on the West Side Of Vanden along Cochrane Circle. So when hiring an architect, we kept that in mind. We wanted to keep the character of the neighborhood, and that's specifically why we sought them out to design these houses, to stay within the character of the neighborhood.

Thank you. So I think Commissioner Wilkerson had some questions. Go ahead, Commissioner Wilkerson.

Yes. It's for the architectural team. It it it someone here for okay. So, you like that was my point. You guys have been a part of this process in the neighborhood. In these homes for a long time, correct? Okay. And you believe what you're building is still going to be consistent with the neighborhood?

Jill Williams, principal with KTGY. We do. We do as we look in any new neighborhood. You're always looking to kind of expand upon what you done in the past and keep making things better. As noted, this just has a totally different zoning to it than all the two story single family that we've done.

So we have to take that into account. And so we really spent quite a bit of time studying how we could meet just the bare minimum of that, and create something that we felt was very attractive. Happy to share anything else, but it wasn't like I said, it took quite a bit of time with the team to come up with the idea and trying to create something unique, kind of unique on both sides of the block.

Right. I just wanted to point out that you guys have been working in that area for a long time and I wanted to note it. Thank you. Appreciate it.

We have. Thank you.

Commissioner Banta.

Yeah. Thank you for the presentation and all the public comments as well. As Commissioner Beaumont said, these are for sale properties, not for rent properties. Confirmed. Okay. And when for staff, when was this zoned residential high? How long has it been zoned back?

2004.

Since 2004. Thank you. And then on the objective standards on page 84, the table lays out that the proposal meets the standard objectives. The building height is lower than what residential high standard actually is by five feet. Is that correct? And the setback front setback is a little bit further actually and the front setback on Coburn Circle is one foot further also. Is that correct?

That's correct. What the table shows.

Okay. So they're within the objective

we

the second a very quarter nineteen, we similar as well that may be used for this project?

We

did choose to utilize more siding.

Okay.

Then I believe the neighboring homes have and we just felt that that really added texture, the ability for some of the color. Mhmm. That would make them have a very rich feel to them.

Okay. And then another thing that I did notice on the pictures and I just want confirmation or not. A lot of the homes on Cochrane Circle are all front facing with the garages on the backside, correct? Correct. Are these going to be these are in the picture it looks similar to that.

I don't know that the existing homes do that. But what we're proposing, have all front doors facing out on the two streets.

I'm pretty sure Cogburn Circle is very similar. Don't know if staff can confirm that.

The existing residents are along Potter's Court.

No, I'm talking about Cogburn Circle.

Those do have yes, they have courtyards. And so you are seeing fronts without their garage doors. Yes. Thank you.

Commissioner Vargas.

Few things. Thank you for the to ask, it sounds like developers and maybe have some established relationships with Commissioner for some references by first name. Was there any ex parte communication that needed to be disclosed for this

time time

were

about about time for coming out the tonight. Thank you.

And you're going to get go ahead, Commissioner Dingmann.

Thanks to staff and for all the public comment. I also I want to ask a question specific to parking on the same table that Commissioner Banta referenced talks about street parking. Six spaces is a standard. It shows a proposal for 10 spaces, but there's some common sense I think that gets thrown into that. There's a park.

There's a lot of things around there. I would like to better understand from a code enforcement standpoint, what resources would the residents have if it gets to a point where they've got way too many cars out there, we understand and totally understand and get the garages get full, where else are you going to park all the cars that are going to be around there plus the use of the parks? What resources do they have and those types of things. You could Albert.

So we have a code enforcement division within the fire department that people could call with officers that go out and investigate to see whether or not there is an enforcement issue that they would have to take action on.

Yes.

Any question significant concern that there. Is, Is there somebody that could address that, please?

Good evening. Vince Bossy. I'm the project engineer. I've also got twenty two years of experience throughout the Southtown development, believe it or not. To answer the earlier question, yes, there's no restriction on parking along Cogburn as well. There's only restriction on Vanden Road, the tiny side piece there. So they will be able to out park both on Potters Court and on Cogburn frontages. I think it was 10 spots we identified outside of hydrants on the public streets between those two. Oh, and I'm sorry. And yes, you're correct. Garages are all on the backside on the internal driveway or alley, however you want to refer to it, two spots each unit.

How big are the concrete paths leading into the garages? Is there room for I didn't get

Like a driveway stall if you will or no, no. It's a common driveway provides for fire apparatus access.

They will either have to be in the garage or out of the street

somewhere. That is correct, yes. And just to clarify the other point earlier, yes, the part of the application is a tentative parcel maps label each unit will be mapped and have its own parcel for ownership.

Okay. Thanks very much. And to staff, Albert, when you guys did your Q and A session in the community in August, is that correct? Was it some of the same themes and questions and comments that came up then?

Correct, yeah. And that's part of the reason why we decided to prepare that memo for the commission responding to a lot of those comments.

All right,

thanks. That's all I have.

Doug, would you, you want to open up a comment or you?

Yep. Yep. Of course. Yep.

Please come up.

I think it makes a difference.

Yes. There will be an HOA. So that will maintain the landscaping, etcetera.

So the 18 people have to decide who's going to be in charge of the HOA, is that right?

We'll draft a agreement and work with our lawyers.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So now I'm going to open up public comment again. And if anybody would like to address anything that was brought up in that conversation, please feel free to address the commission. Commission.

First of all, want to know how does that really fit in? How does it fit in? I mean, yes, you got down the

of

first strong quarter nineteen.

They build it

a two

story? Does it need to be if you look at the picture, could you bring up the picture real quick? Please. Look at that. My goodness. What on earth? It takes up everything. Now you put single story, single family homes in there and it will fit. That doesn't fit. I know this is my opinion and it's my feeling.

But I'm not saying they don't they look nice. Yes, they look nice but that doesn't fit. So think about it. I know you got I don't know think about it if you were living on that street and all of a sudden now this is being built. It's cool that, you know.

But if you had to live there and see that brought in and plus on Cockburn here that it's gonna be completely full. It will be full. There'll be more cars on there all the time, which is a little bit of a traffic issue. But

you. Thank you very much. Yeah. No problem.

A little bit

the neighborhood. So show me a building that's exactly that in that neighborhood, and I will draw my objection.

So what we'll what we'll do is any any comments you have, we'll have staff address it after the end of public comment, any question that comes up.

So the point I wanna put, there's nothing consistent with that with the neighborhood because there's no other three story building. If you move on to the side, I mean, I left about a couple houses down from that street, you know, around the bend. There are two stories, in the story. Why can't you just well, why can't you just build that? That's consistent with neighborhood. I mean, to put that many homes in point eight eight of an acre, it's a recipe for disaster, I think. And look at that road right there. I have to drive the road daily. On the weekend, weekend, cars on both sides. You can't I can't get through there if another car is coming.

I have to stop or pull over. And on the weekend, that thing is packed all the way around. And also on Monday and Tuesday, they have, like, soccer practice, kids' activities going on. In the summer months, homeschooling kids goes out there too. So it's consistently packed with cars. So by putting those homes up there, those parks people start double park. And I've lived in a place where people double park, and it's a recipe for disaster, I think. So just think about it and just put yourself and the people living down the neighborhood, how they feel about it. And I don't think anyone agreed to that. So just think about it before.

And also, I know they have a job to do. They need to make profits, but maybe they can put two stories, and everybody would be happy. I mean, we can come up to a happy medium for everyone. City will get taxed up revenues. We will be happy. It will make a profit. We can meet somewhere in the middle. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Houses that do face cog burn with garages on the backside, they also have a driveway. They have a place outside of the garage that cars can be parked, which is more consistent with reality. People don't park in their garages. They're gonna fill their garages with all of their stuff that they're not gonna look after another fifteen years. And then and then they're gonna clog up the streets. They're gonna clog up the park. And it is Please consider it.

Thank you very much.

Okay. I feel for you guys having to make this decision. But mister Beaumont or commissioner to Beaumont, when you said it's not an apartment, these are single dwellings. Well, would hope so, it's kind of hard to believe that when you consider that there are six houses on the back side of this that are now being managed by the same builders here. So I'm wondering if we're looking at an 18 unit apartment building instead of 18 different living units but that's yet to be determined once this thing actually manages to go. So secondly there is emergency services located around this circle.

I don't know if all of

you are familiar with that. Fire station seventy five is right there on the edge, right? So they're going have to navigate this thing too. And you know thinking about what's coming up in the next few months, Santa Claus comes at some point, right? And so they start blocking off parking around the park. So you can't go there. So maybe that doesn't affect this year, but in future years it probably will. I totally agree with the guy that said he's really fearful for his kids. If I had small children, I'd be fearful for them as well. These kids are like, you know, nothing's going to happen to me.

I'm in a great spot. I can take my bike and ride down the sidewalk and head on across that road and on into that park until you watch how the cars go around the circle, Cogburn Circle with no speed bumps on it. And then they start picking up speed because oh I'm late, I have to get somewhere or I need to get back around this way really quick and then got running through stop signs and you got running around the circle going at faster speeds than 25 or 20 miles an hour. So really there's a lot to consider here when you consider and I know I'm one of the older residents in this neighborhood but I really see a lot of kids and a lot of young families, a lot of military families that are renting units in this area but they have small children. It's small, small families and it's multi generational families.

So there's a lot a lot to be considered. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Don't know if I can answer this, but

per the project plan for the street, for this whole project to comply with the setback measures per standard code, you have to move the street. So part of the project is to move the street closer to Bandon, then it'll comply with setback. So how are we saying that it complies when we already have to move the actual circle down? So this neighbor here of mine, he's gonna be backed up, which doesn't apply for this conversation, how they're going to fix that street. But how is it applying to the standards if you already have to fix the street to then go with their setback standards?

And I'm still confused how they're calling this single family dwelling unit. When you actually look at city code, you're already referencing it as a five plex and a three plex, which goes into point 60 requirements. But then they say, no, no, no. That doesn't apply. We're going to single unit dwelling, but we have to apply with conditional use permit. It's really confusing. Like, how it's like a la carte. The developer is saying, well, I'm gonna pick whatever I can do to then cram all these into the city code. And if this doesn't work, I'll use this conditional use permit.

But I thought it applied to

the city code. Why do we need a conditional use permit? Because they already mentioned in your own documentation that one of the recommendations from staff was to put up trees. So that poor neighbor over there with a two story will have extra trees, high growth trees. That's a mitigation measure. But I thought it applied to the city code and the design standards of the neighborhood. So that's why I say staff is saying to you, you pretty much have to approve it because it's the law. No. You don't. They're asking for conditional use permit, which then, like, gives that authority over to your choice.

The conditional use permit, is it and I understand legally, you guys wanna make certain right now. Is it hitting the standards? No. It's not. Self evident by the per conditional use permit. You have to authorize it for them to develop all this. And they already acknowledged it in their own document that it's not they're higher than all the houses. And the staff mitigation measure was plant some high trees. That's all I gotta Thank you very much for your time. And I understand the legal they're trying to press arm, pressure you. You are complying with by denying it. They're not.

Commissioners, thank you for your time. Travis Brooks, Landy's counsel for the applicant. You know, I get it. Housing development projects are always controversial. I I have probably 30 housing development projects throughout the state and in just about every single instance neighbors do not wanna see new housing development projects especially at the unit mix and the density that really the housing crisis demands be developed to address the massive housing shortage throughout the state.

So I'll just say, I just would like to address some of the comments about the somehow applying to this project because it requires a conditional use permit. Most certainly does. The most certainly does apply in instances where a conditional use permit is approved. A conditional use permit is approved for certain uses that still comply with the objective zoning and development standards and what they do is allow the jurisdiction to apply certain conditions to address certain types of uses which is what the staff I think did a really good job doing here to address the residents' concerns. But this project is still very much consistent with the zoning and development standards and that's where the I mean really constrains local agencies discretion to deny projects and this project has been very thoughtfully designed to comply with the zoning of the site.

I recognize the zoning is different than

the

surrounding neighborhoods but that's within the city council's purview to adopt different zoning for the site. So if you have any additional questions, I'm here and staff has done a great job as well.

Thank you very much. Are there any other public comments?

Anybody else like Tom, feel free to line up in the aisle. Thank you. How

long we've been there and what the neighborhood, the people that we know on our whole street on Newcastle three blocks away, They are families and they bought because of that park or they rented because of the location of the park and the elementary school that's right down the street also, Cambridge Elementary School. And so I know that that is a reason people move to our area or decide to rent there if they're military and just coming through for six years or so. And that the park parking where they have the apartments going in, that whole thing on Cogburn, they're saying that people can park there, but the street is not meant for all of that parking every day. It's enough for it to be there when all these people we have the influx on the weekends of people utilizing our park. And when that happens, you're driving in the middle of the road over that yellow line because you cannot drive in your own lane because the car is parked there.

There's no marking there on that road yet even to allow for bikes and parking on that road like you will normally see in neighborhoods, downtown areas, or wherever apartments are put in like that and they expect parking. There should be a space for a car to be parked there to and still to have that space for lanes for people to drive through because that is a throughway for people to get to Vanden now if they don't use Foxborough Parkway. And since we've been there, we had a fight with the city three blocks over on Newcastle because people were utilizing our street as a throughway. And so what will end up happening is all these cars will be parked on Cockburn every day, all day, and people will start utilizing our street again, which is the one through street over from Cockburn. Because the engineers, when they designed our space, didn't open that up right away, and people were we had 3,000 cars during rush hour traffic.

When city came out, the engineers came out, sat on a driveway, and we couldn't even hold a meeting because it was so loud. So what's gonna happen when you have all this parking on Cogburn every day and people can't get through there, they're gonna come back to our street to get out to Vanden because there's no throughway anymore where they're finishing the park. There's no way to get through. So there's only Cogburn and Newcastle to get back out to Vanden to get to Leisure Town. And we have the influx when something happens on 80 and people are coming from Leisure Town to Vanden for them to find their way home after they've been stuck on the freeway for three hours.

So and to address you, Mr. Beaumont, yeah, we could have a a worse area. We could have apartments and all of that you're saying. But the other part is we can have a two story just like everybody else or we could just have houses like that have already been built in the whole neighborhood. What's wrong with more houses? There's that alternative too.

Thank you. Your time is up.

Okay.

Is there any other public comment? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. So what I'd like to do is if anybody has any questions about anything that was brought up in public comment that they'd like staff to address, I'll give you guys for a shot, then I can run down anything else with staff that they might want to bring up as well. No? Okay. So I will ask a question.

Yes. Commissioner Dingmann? Yes. For staff, Albert, if you could address. So this is an 18 unit project on 0.88 acres. That's it sounds like there's a bigger traffic and potentially code enforcement issue already existing out there. I mean this will obviously add to that, especially if everybody has to park their cars in there. What I'd like to know is, is there a plan or has there been any discussion on that loop where the park is or anything else to address? Ma'am, I forget your name. Thank you for the comment.

But I don't for bike lanes, for specific parking on both sides of the street, I mean if those are some of the things that are already ongoing, it seems like there's a pre existing problem that's already happening that we probably need to take a look at anyway. It's not just specific to this project, would say, number one. And number two, when you talk about reference to code enforcement, what does that mean exactly for the gentleman who's got two twin boys, right? So I just I'd like a general answer just for the folks that are here because we also know that to the developer's point, we don't have enough housing in this area. I'm a military guy.

I know that we need all types of different housing. Not every airman out at Travis Airport space can afford a single family home. There's got to be different types in all places that have access to nice parks and good schools and all those things. So how do you find that balance? But going back to the question I'm coming to you with, Albert, I'd like to understand a little bit more about how we make this safer and how we take the existing roads and parking spaces and the limited space that we have. None of us were here, I don't think, when this was zoned our age right back in 2004 maybe there are a few folks I don't know but I just like to you know work through that a little bit for the folks that are here.

Director Morris.

Thank you Commissioner Dingmann. I just existing conditions are really outside the scope of what a new development project is required to solve. I also want to surface that this project has been thoroughly reviewed by the back of the fire department, public works, traffic engineering, and they determined these roads as are adequate to serve this project and the existing neighborhood. It doesn't mean that what people are describing isn't real, that there's congestion around city parks and that kind of thing, but I just want to assure you that as part of our development review process, our fire department who operates all these vehicles that need to get around as well as public works and traffic engineering are all over this and they actually helped us respond to some of the concerns and servicing correspondence to really make sure we looked at that thoroughly. And as far as code enforcement goes, we have a lot of folks in Vacaville who don't use their garages to park their cars and that's not typically a code violation.

Sometimes code enforcement gets called because people are parking their cars for excessive time periods along the right of way. And that is a tool that the city, I mean, that's something the city can enforce and deal with. But I think if we go around Vacaville right now, we see that a lot of people don't park in their garages. And this project is required to provide the parking through the HOA. They could possibly require the use of the parking. But again, it's our review is very much limited to compliance with objective design standards and can't really get outside of that without violating state law.

Thank you, Director Morris. Appreciate that. And as I understand it, the reason why this project is three stories is because of the garage requirement because there's not enough room for parking. Is that correct assumption to the developer? That's all I have. Thanks.

All right. Is there anything you want to bring up from a public comment from your notes before I dig in? Just I have a lonely couple. No? Okay. So let's talk about design consistency. So the design standards that are applied to this, and we heard a lot about it not fitting in with the design standards. I think we understand that residential high density can be three story. But what about the overall aesthetics and its review? And how did we apply those to the the design standards of the area?

Thank you for the question, chair. I think that this conversation is, an important conversation because it's precisely what the state has interjected in, which is, the subjective opinion about whether it's consistent with the existing design. I'll draw your attention to the screen, is what the state has said. Is that they've set aside the conversation about the subjectiveness, which is what it comply with the appearance of the existing neighborhood may have said you were to only measure whether or not the project is going to comply with objective standards. In the state's definition they made it clear they said standards involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and that are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external benchmark.

These standards must be measurable and consistently verifiable by both the developer and the public official, which allows for a more streamlined and predictable approval process for housing projects. Examples include specific requirements for lot coverage or setbacks which are quantifiable and do not rely on the opinion of a reviewer. And that is what we're held to and so it's less about does a three story fit in here and more about what is the maximum height that is allowed? Do they comply with that? Are they allowed to have a setback that's of a certain distance away?

Are they providing necessary parking? It's a checklist if they're able to hit every single checklist. And the state says you cannot deny that type of a housing project.

Commissioner Wilkerson, do you have something to add?

Yeah, I'd actually like to make the motion.

If you just hold off, just got a couple more things to run through. It will be real quick, if you don't mind. So, and what I'm, my intention is just to make sure that we address any other concerns. One of the things was brought up was why we're going through this process and how a

conditional use permit is coming in

front of us. And I just want to make sure that there's no questions outlying about what really we can do and what standards we're having to use to approve this project and why we're here.

Sure. The conditional use permit is a type of land use entitlement just like a major design review. So in this analogy I'll use is that a major design review covers architectural designs compliance with development standards. For projects like housing development projects that are permitted by rights that are brand new construction, those would be kept at a staff level review. The purpose of a conditional use permit is that the proposed use that's being introduced demands a higher level review and that higher level of review is the seven member body right here.

And so the purpose of the conditional use permit is because they're proposing single family attached housing in a residential high density district. The reason why that's an important review is because normally what you'll find in a high density zoning district like this one are apartment projects. Much higher density and so when you have a zoning district like our age that allows for apartments, when you introduce single family attached units, that has the potential to create a conflict with those other apartment projects. And so that's the purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide that higher level of review, more public outreach process so that way the commission can review that entitlement. There's still a set of findings and development standards that has to comply with.

And in this case, as part of our presentation and staff report, we outline that it does meet all of those findings.

Thank you. Any other comments or Commissioner Wilkerson?

Yeah, I'd like to make the motion by simple motion adopt the resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Acqua Bill, affirming the Potters Court North development is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to section 15,332, Class 32, and approving tentative subdivision map, conditional use permit, and major design review for the Potters Court North development subject to the conditions of approval. So

I have a motion by Commissioner Wilkerson, Vice Chair Wilkerson, and a second by Commissioner Banta. May I please have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Vakis? Yes. Commissioner Banta? Yes. Commissioner Bermond?

Yes.

Commissioner Dingmann?

Yes.

Commissioner Hampton?

Yes.

Vice Chair Wilkerson?

Yes.

Chair Lightfoot?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you all for coming tonight. So next, we're going to move on to the Markham Callan Neighborhood Plan. And this is anybody need a break or are we good to go? Good to go. Okay.

So we're going to move on to Item 9A. This is this item. We're going to receive a presentation about the Mark McAllen Neighborhood Plan. We'll first hear a presentation followed by commissioner questions, and then we'll open up to public comment. This is an informational, we'll receive this and then provide our feedback.

Thank you. Please proceed. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission and all those in attendance. I have with me Ryan Lester from Inter Harnish. He is from the consulting firm that has been assisting us in this process.

So first some background on the plan. In December 2024, the city council authorized a professional services agreement for planning consulting services with Minter Harnish to the city in the preparation of the park and call it neighborhood plan. In January 2025, staff and the consultant initiated the preparation of the plan. And in July 15, we held session with you all giving you a status update on the preparation of the plan. And we also had a similar study session on August 26 with the city council.

On September 29, a draft plan was posted on the project website for public review and public notice was given. And in early twenty twenty six, staff will present the Mark McAllen neighborhood plan to the city council for adoption. So to clarify what the plan is, it will identify a vision for the community and strategies to improve the quality of life for residents, businesses and stakeholders in the area. And it will also identify strategies to enhance and expand existing businesses and identify and evaluate opportunity sites for development. The plan focuses on improving the built environment in a manner that supports social and economic mobility.

The plan does not change the city's general plan zoning or city policies but will guide future city actions in this area. For example, the city of Richmond, California adopted a neighborhood plan similar to this and it led to community partnerships and staff actions to obtain grant funding and implement programs that achieve the desired outcomes of their plan. So something similar could occur here with this plan. And I may go very quickly through these next couple of slides since they were already presented in the last study session. But if there's any information that you'd like me to circle back to, we can do that after the presentation.