Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll come right over um the November 3rd, 2025 uh meeting of the planning commission. And um let's begin with a pledge of allegiance. Uh Commissioner Taylor, would you mind leading us? I pledge algiance 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.

All right. Thank you very much. It's always a good way to start the meeting. Um, I think next we have uh oath of office for newly appointed commissioners of which I think this is this is my cue. Do you need me to come out there? Yes.

Yes. All right. Testing. Testing. Okay. And so to swear in our um I guess our reappointment to a to a commissioner, if you could please raise your right hand. I state your name. I, Eric Blind,

do solemnly swear or affirm do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic against all enemies, foreign and domestic. and that I will bear true faith and allegiance and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California and the Constitution of the State of California. And that I take this obligation freely and that I take this obligation freely

without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. and that I will will well and faithfully and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter. discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter. Congratulations on your reappoint.

Thank you very much. [applause] [snorts] All right, thank you very much everyone. Um, we will move on to uh roll call. Thank you. Commissioner Bella here. Commissioner Beasley Stansbury present. Commissioner Maderos present. Vice Chair Taylor present. Chair Blind present. Commissioner Douglas present. Commissioner White present.

We have a quorum.

Great. Well, um [clears throat] with this next agenda item, we have some business up here on the commission. Um my uh term as chair has concluded and so we need to pick a new chair and vice chair. Um the way this works is we can uh either self-nominate or nominate another uh person uh on the commission uh for this uh responsibility uh the nomination will require a second and then we will go to a vote. Um if no vote is uh concluded we will continue that process until we have both a chair and then we will subsequently then pick a vice chair. Um so with that um I will uh take the chair's privilege to uh nominate Commissioner Taylor as the Vice Chair Taylor as the new uh chair of the planning commission.

If there's no other nominations, I will second that. I'll nominate uh Commissioner Bal Buena uh for chair. Would anyone like to second the uh nomination of Commissioner Babu? All right. Without hearing a second, I think we um move to a vote for the the nomination that did receive a second. Is that correct?

Oh, I'm sorry. Through the chair, can you repeat the question? Yes, we had one nomination that received a second and a second nomination that did not receive a second. So, I believe that means we're moving forward with a a roll call vote for the first nomination that did receive a second. That's correct. Thank you very much. All right. Well, we'll take a roll call on the the nomination.

Are we using the system? Yes. Yes. So, this is uh your vote yes would be yes uh for current vice chair uh Taylor to assume the chair's responsibility. Uh no, if you would not like that to be the case. We have five eyes, one abstension, and one no vote. The motion carries. Congratulations.

Congratulations. Um, shall we continue with the vice chair under this format and then we'll take a quick recess and we'll we'll play musical chairs while we rearrange ourselves. Um, so do we have any uh nominations uh for vice chair? If not, I will nominate uh Commissioner Douglas. Second.

Any other uh nominations as an alternative? going once. Okay, we'll move to a roll call vote for um Commissioner Douglas to uh move to vice chair. We have seven eyes and the motion carries. Congratulations. Congratulations to our new chair and vice chair. [applause] All right, we'll take a minute recess while we rearrange ourselves at the dice here.

All right, Taylor, I think perhaps it's just me and Commissioner Taylor that need to switch.

Okay. Okay. So, yeah. Yes. Okay. Right.

Very great. Thank you uh for this privilege and thank you for uh giving me the nomination. So this is quite an honor and I am definitely looking forward to this opportunity and working uh with the staff here with the commission here. So I really appreciate this and look forward to continuing my work as uh chair. So I guess with that being said uh we can move forward with uh our agenda item is moving forward. Uh and the next agenda item is the consent calendar and approval of the agenda. So the first is uh agenda item 6A is approval of the agenda. And

if we can get a motion to approve the I will I will motion to approve tonight's agenda for November 3rd, 2025. All right. If I can second. Thank you. All right. So, I believe that we're going to go to a vote to approve. Yes.

We have seven eyes and the motion carries. Great. Thank you. And so we can move to the next item. 6B. Approval of the minutes. Move to approve. Second. I need two more votes.

We have seven eyes and the motion carries.

Great. Thank you. Yes. So, we're going to move to the next agenda item uh is report of the city council leazison motic. Um, good evening, Chair Taylor. Um, Vice Chair Douglas, uh, Commissioner White, uh, Commissioner Blind, Commissioner Maderos, Commissioner Beasley Stanbear, and Commissioner Balena. Um, I think this is a first in a while that we've had everyone here ahead of time. I know with everyone's busy schedule, I know it gets pretty challenging sometimes. So, glad to see that we have a full commission on board um, ready to move forward. Um, nothing really to report, but just looking forward to, and if you're not already aware, and I think um, uh, I think Cesar will bring this up in his staff report, is that we do have a joint planning commission meeting along with the city council meeting that's scheduled for Monday, um, November 24th. So, we look for I look forward to that being and I think the agenda item on that one is the housing element that we need to review and approve at that time. So, we look forward to those robust conversations and um, some great technical questions. if you got uh if it if they may come up during your side of the conversation and that would be the end of my report. Any questions?

Um through the chair just a minor correction. It's actually to continue the conversation of the housing inclusionary ordinance and the commercial linkage conversation that we started a few months ago. So, thank you for that clarification and once again just a friendly reminder about the work plan al um to for this as a commission. So, if you guys can work together and identify where from a budget standpoint where you can put together a work plan to identify what you may be looking for as far as some of your goals um to to get this commission the things that you guys do whether it's a training session or getting more out in the public and if there's any monies or fundings that are maybe tied to that um please put that down in a work plan so that that could be reviewed by staff and then approved by the city council. All right. So, thank you all. Great.

Great. Thank you for your update. All right. So, we're going to move to the next agenda item, which is the community forum. Uh, in this uh agenda item we have for anyone who's wished to address the commission on any matter uh for which another opportunity to speak is uh not provided on the agenda uh which is within the jurisdiction of the commission to resolve. Uh so we're going to offer in this moment three minutes for each speaker to uh bring any address any issues with or ideas with the planning commission.

Thank you uh Chair Taylor and congratulations again. I just wanted to let you know that we currently do not have any members of the public who have signed up for the community forum portion of tonight's meeting. I did start a two-minute timer which is reflected on the top left corner of the screen for interested parties to sign up for the forum. Um, at this point though, feel free to carry on with the agenda. If anyone signs up within that time period, I'll be sure to let you know.

Great. Thank you. I appreciate it. Okay. So, we're going to move to the next agenda item uh which is the public hearing to adopt a resolution uh to make the findings related to an addendum uh to the city certified environmental impact report for the general plan 20 240 and approving a vested tenative map uh development review and exception and minor use permit. uh landscape review and design review for the development of 130 single family residents at 201 Rollingwood Drive. And and so we Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh thank you. Good evening, members of the commission. My name is Robbie Thcker, uh principal planner here for the planning division. Uh the item here before you tonight is the KB Homes Rollingwood subdivision project. And we do have there's the Thank you. Uh purpose of tonight's meeting, we'll be asking the commission to consider the project entitlements and take action on them um on the item that's before you tonight. Next slide, please. Uh this project uh or this item is subject to the Lavine Act. Um, all parties, participants, and the representatives must disclose on the record uh of this proceeding any contribution of more than $250 made to city officers such as the mayor and or city council members uh within 12 months prior to the date of the proceeding. City officers are prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a contribution of more than $500 from a party, participant, or their representatives during a during a proceeding and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered. Next. Thank you. The project site consists of two parcels totaling 17.76 acres and is located east of Rollingwood Drive near the intersection of Dryen Drive. Project site is relatively flat with a slight slope up towards the east and south. The project site is surrounded by detached single family residences on Dryen Drive to the north, Rollingwood Drive, single family residences in Sky View Memorial Lawn Cemetery to the east, vacant land to the south, and single family residences within unincorporated Solano County to the west. The site's general plan 2040 land use designation is mix of housing types and the corresponding zoning district is residential medium density. Next slide. So, a little bit of project background. Uh, the site is formerly known as the John F. Cunningham Park, which has been vacant for several years now and is currently owned by the Valo Unified School District. Since the park has ceased operations, the site has been

considered for residential uh infill development proposals. In 2007, there was a proposal for residential development to construct 214 homes uh with that project having since expired its approvals. In 2023, KB Holmes filed an application for preliminary review for the project before you tonight and subsequently filed the formal application in October of 2023. Project was heard by the design review board in December of 2024 and the board made a unanim unanimous recommendation of approval relating to the architectural design. Uh this year staff has worked with the environmental consultant to draft uh the SQA EIR addendum document um as part of this project. This project was previously scheduled for the October 6th uh planning commission meeting. However, staff and the applicant uh needed to refine some condition language uh for the project related to public works and Valo flood and wastewater conditions um and water and then that has now been finalized with staff and the applicant and staff are in agreement with the conditions. Next slide, please. So, this slide shows you the overall proposed development plan being proposed as part of the project. The project consists of a vesting tenative map to subdivide the two existing parcels and would result in the creation of 140 new parcels and the creation of 132 130 new detached residential unit units along with the construction of new streets, sidewalks, landscaping and utilities to serve the project including improvements along Rollingwood Drive. The project would also serve preserve 1 acre of open space uh parcels dedicated for water quality treatment as well as bio retention basin and detention basin for storm water drainage. So, the proposed entitlements uh for the project um that the planning commission will be considering for approval tonight are the design review and development re review for the proposed dwelling units,

landscape review for the proposed landscape improvements throughout the project, a vesting tenative map for the subdivision of the parcels, a minor east permit to allow for small lot development, and an exception to allow an increase in the maximum allowed garage width along the primary building frontage for the proposed homes. Uh, next slide, please. Uh, this slide is just to kind of provide a summary of the standards that are applicable to the project and how the project was reviewed by staff. Uh, in reviewing the project, staff reviewed title 15 of the municipal code, which is focused on subdivisions of land and the city process for processing tenative maps. Uh, title 16, the zoning ordinance for which covers general development standards specific to the residential medium density zone district. design criteria for single family dwelling units, uh, parking standards, landscaping design standards, and other standards as well. The project was also reviewed for consistency with the relevant policies of the 2040 general plan as well as by other departments that reviewed the project for utility infrastructure component to ensure utility connections were designed to standard. Uh, lastly, the project has also been re reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. So this slide shows you one of the major components of the project which is the subdivision of the 17.76 acres to create the 140 new parcels. Uh 130 of these which will be intended for the development of the single unit dwellings. Uh the proposed layout includes two access points into the subdivision from Rollingwood Drive. The subdivision will include five new public streets and one private drive parcel to on the at the southwest corner or northwest corner of the project, sorry. Streets will include new 4 and 1/2T uh sidewalks and street trees throughout the project, including constructing Rollingwood Drive to its ultimate configuration, which includes uh widening and adding new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. As part of

this project, the applicant is requesting a minor use permit to construct a small lot development, which would allow the creation of lot smaller residential lots than the existing standard for the RMD zone. This would allow lots of no less than 2,000 square feet in size with a minimum width of 25 feet where minimums of 5,000 square feet and 50 foot width would otherwise be required in the RMD zone. The proposed residential lots would range in size from 2,800 ft² to 6752 ft. The proposed subdivision would also include parcels for open space preservation, storm water bio retention, a detention basin, and water quality treatment. The new subdivision will also be served by new extensions of water, sewer, and storm water infrastructure. Next slide. So, here's the architectural design of the proposed dwellings. Uh, as mentioned, uh, the applicant is proposing 130 detached single unit dwellings with detached two-car garages, which will include three-bedroom and two and a half bathroom layouts. The proposed dwellings feature two-story floor plans ranging in overall height between 23.75 ft and 26.25 ft. The dwellings would be broken down into five different floor plans with each floor plan incorporating three unique architectural styles which are Craftsman, farmhouse, and Spanish. Each of the architectural styles also features three unique paint color schemes. Per the proposed development plan, the subdivision would not repeat floor plans on any two adjacent lots to help create variety and reduce repetition within the subdivision. Each proposed elevation incorporates design elements specific to the Craftsman farmhouse and Spanish tiles with each elevation featuring a high level of materiality, roof variation, and slope and plane brakes to create a visual interest in each of the dwellings. Secondary facads facing a street sideyard would also incorporate horizontal and vertical plane brakes to create additional visual interest from public viewpoints.

All windows would include exterior trim and grids and primary facades facing the street include enhanced architectural elements such as wood shutters, stone veneer, gable vents, and covered entry features. In addition to these features, each one is also consistent with the required design standards for single unit dwellings. uh these standards are ensure appropriate design elements are incorporated into the exterior facade and front yard of each dwelling. So for landscape design, the proposed subdivision includes the installation of new landscaping treatments throughout the entire project. Because overall development is relatively large, uh it is typical for a developer to submit a typical landscape plan that would include would be implemented with each home which is shown on this slide. Each lot would include a primary shade tree and a secondary shade tree and a variety of ground covers and small shrubs. Primary street trees include silver lynen, European hackberry, coastlive oak, and sweet bay. While accent trees would consist of lavender and standard crepe myrtle, cork oak, and peppermint tree. Uh overall, a total of 384 new trees will be planted with this project. project also includes several bio uh a bio treatment basin and a storm water detention basin that would be improved with new landscaping as well. A bio treatment areas would include a native ornamental bio seed mix and the detention basin would contain grass and wildflower mix. A vegetated buffer would be provided around these facilities with a mix of flowers, shrubs and bunch grass. A pedestrian trail would pass through this vegetated buffer area between the storm water detention basin and the bio retention basin. Uh the project site has existing trees located primarily near the perimeter of the site. Uh under VMC chapter 10.12 trees on any street, park, boulevard, alley or public place of the city are protected and any existing trees 6 ines in diameter or greater are required to be

assessed prior to removal. An arborist report was prepared for the project which included an assessment of a total of 44 trees identifying 17 different tree species. uh coast live oak was the most common species followed by Arizona cyprus. The observed tree health ranged from poor to good condition and the assessment determined a recommendation for the removal of all 31 trees uh on existing on site which have been proposed on the development plans. All right. The proposed project consists of a small lot subdivision with reduced lot widths and lot sizes to allow for an increase in residential density. The VMC code VMC provides development standards for single unit dwellings including architectural design standards that are required for each of these dwellings. Uh VMC section 16.2023 garage frontage states that when an attached garage is located on the front half of a lot and garage doors face a street, the garage width shall not exceed 50% of the width of the front facade of that building. Uh based on the lot configurations and the two-story designs of each dwelling, the garage width exceeds 50% of the building frontage for each unit. The applicant has requested an exception to increase the garage width by 25% to allow each dwelling to include a standard size twocar garage width measuring 18.75 ft in width. Uh without this exception, the maximum garage width would be only 15 ft for the proposed 30 foot wide residential units. Staff finds that the proposed increase in garage width would not negatively impact the streetscape, the overall design, nor dominate the primary facade. Additionally, the wider garages would allow for additional off- streetet parking for residents and visitors where street parking may be limited. In terms of general plan consistency, staff does find the project to be consistent with the 2040 general plan. Included on this slide are various

policies that the project is consistent consistent with which focus on the supporting the development of vacant infill sites within the city with high quality development that will incorporate new landscaping improvements and minimize impacts to surrounding development. In doing so, the project will add 130 additional single-use dwellings to the available housing stock in the city on a vacant and underutilized infill site adjacent to existing residential development. The proposed residential density of the project is 7.3 units per acre, consistent with the maximum permitted density of 25 units per acre in the RH designation. The proposed subdivision layout is compatible with the existing roadway network and existing residential development density in the surrounding area. The proposed subdivision will have adequate vehicular and pedestrian access throughout the site and will feature a mix of floor plan layouts and architectural styles to create an inviting neighborhood that will be complimentary to the existing neighborhoods within the vicinity of the project. So this slide uh provides a summary of some of the main development standards the project must be consistent with. As shown on the table, the project is consistent with these standards which provide standards relative to the subdivision density, building footprint coverage, height, and setbacks. The project has a density of 7.3 units per acre, which is typical for detached building type subdivisions. Uh lot sizes average 2,800 square ft throughout, which is a smaller lot size and is consistent with the smaller lot subdivision standard of a minimum of 2,000 square ft. There will be usable private space ranging from 540 to 850 square ft for each unit. Each unit is required to have at least one covered parking space which will each unit will provide uh two garage spaces. The garages for each unit will exceed the 50% max width of the building frontage with this authorized as part of the exception request as

discussed to allow that 25% increase over the standard. And then as well the project will provide 384 new street trees as mentioned consistent with the one tree per 50 foot of frontage requirement. Entitlement findings. Each of the requested entitlement approvals have their own unique set of findings that require staff uh to be able to make for each one. Uh in this project staff believes the project meets all the required findings to support the project which are discussed in further detail in the staff report and in the resolution in the packet. The project meets these uh findings through consistency and compliance with the various adopted standards and state requirements for these types of developments. As mentioned, the project forwards general several general plan policies for adding new housing stock and infill sites while reducing impacts to surrounding development while incorporating a high level of design. The project was reviewed against the standards of both title 15 and title 16 for tenative maps and for the applicable zone standards of the RMD zone district and the standards for single unit dwelling design. The project is consistent with the subdivision map act which requires maps to be consistent with the general plan and zoning standards and the project has been reviewed for compliance with squa and have drafted an addendum to the general plan EIR which is covered in the next slide in more detail. Uh therefore staff does find the project consistent with the required findings. Uh the SQA determination for the project staff uh reviewed the project for consistency with SQA. The project was reviewed to evaluate whether the project would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant effects or require new mitigation measures not identified in the general plan 20 240 EIR. An addendum was subsequently prepared for the project which demonstrates that no new impacts would occur above and beyond what was already analyzed and applicable of mitigation measures from the general plan ER will be implemented with the project as documented in the addendum and included

in the conditions of approval of the project notification [clears throat] uh on October 10th 2025 pursuant to VMC section 1660208 for noticing a 21 calendar A notice of this hearing was published in the Times Herald mailed to all active neighborhood groups and property owners within 500 ft of the property and any other local agency expected to provide water, wastewater treatment or other essential facilities or services to the project as well as the applicant property owner. Uh an on-site notice was also posted on site 21 days prior to the hearing. Um after notifications, staff did receive uh several public comments. So I'd like to just go over those and summarize them. Uh most of the comments received uh were by residents in the subdivision to the north of the property owners to and to the south. One comment noted existing traffic safety issues on Rollingwood Drive and the need for improvements to enhance safety. Public works did review this uh condition and issued a work order to install new signs along Rollingwood Drive to alert drivers of cross traffic ahead uh with flashing yellow light. Other residents noted that twostory homes propose proposed along the northern property line adjacent to the residences to the north would reduce privacy and home values and cause flooding and requested the applicant remove 18 of the homes along the northern b boundary and replace them with open space. Staff notes that there is already a proposed buffer of open space between the proposed residential lots and the existing lots to the north ranging from 25 ft to over 100 ft which is typical separation for a residential subdivision seen elsewhere within the city. Uh staff also notes that two-story homes backing up to other resident launch is very standard practice with other subdivisions and that typically privacy is maintained with typical fencing and landscaping improvements. Additionally, the project will be engineered to direct runoff into the

storm proposed storm water system and detention basin and then any existing sheet runoff onto adjacent properties to the north will be significantly reduced. Uh, one email shared concern for not including lowincome housing for the project. Uh, the city does not have an inclusionary housing ordinance and therefore affordable housing is not a requirement for the project and no affordable housing is proposed and the homes are proposed to be market rate. Uh, Sai West Development, who owns the parcel to the south of the project, submitted a letter requesting a solid masonry wall be constructed with the development of the residential portion of the project to mitigate future potential issues versus having a standard wood fence constructed. Uh, the Valo Municipal Code does not require a masonry wall be constructed for the project and no masonry wall is currently proposed or conditioned. However, the applicant has verbally stated that they are that they have discussed the issue uh with sidewest development and have no objection to construction wall if they're able to complete a cost sharing agreement and obtain maintenance and access easements for the wall, which those discussions have yet not fully occurred. Uh, additionally, staff did receive a call from a member of the public regarding whether park facilities were planned to be constructed with the project. And I just want to go over that real quick. Uh, title three of the Valo missile code states that 4.25 25 acres of parkland is required for every 10,000 residents. So, new subdivisions can either dedicate land as as part of the requirement of the project of the subdivision design or they can pay the inloo fees that will go towards the acquisition of parkland by the city in the future. In this case, the project applicant has designed the subdivision without park facilities and will be subject to paying both the uh Quimby Act inl park acquisition fees um as well as park impact fees for the actual improvement of park facilities. And those fees will be required to be paid prior to the recordation of the final map and prior to issuance of building permits for the residences. Uh next slide please.

So staff does uh recommends that the planning commission uh find the rate relating to addendum of the certified environmental impact report for the general plan 20 240 and approving vesting tenative map TM23003 design review DR23-0019 development review DVR23-0042 minor use permit MNP23-0019 and exception requests EXE24-0000 001 based on the findings provided in the attached resolution and subject to the conditions of approval provided as exhibit A to the resolution. Uh that completes my presentation. I am available to answer questions. The applicant team is also in attendance as well. Thank you.

Very great. Thank you for the presentation so we can get a holistic view of the project. Uh you did state that the applicant is available here. That's great. Um, what I would like to do is open it up to uh fellow commissioners if they have any questions or any comments. I would like to hold my comments until I hear if there's going to be a presentation from the developer. [clears throat] Absolutely. Uh, is there any plans for the developer to present on this project or willing to ask any questions? Yes.

Yes. Absolutely. Thank [clears throat] you, Robbie. Thank you, Robbie. That was great. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Good evening, members of the public. Congratulations, Commissioner Taylor. Uh, my name is Jerry Marcus. I'm director of land acquisition for KB Home North Bay. Um, we are really excited to bring this Rollingwood project before you tonight. We want we're excited to build 130 new single family detach homes in Vallejo. Um I want to thank the city staff who's worked very hard on this. We want to thank our the continued support of the Vallejo Unified School District who's supported this project from the very beginning. Um a little bit about KB Home. We're a national production home builder. Uh we build in 10 states, I think 49 different cities, but our North Bay office is based in Fairfield, right up the road. We're locals, we very much consider this a local project. Um our internal architecture team actually designed these five plans specifically for the Vallejo uh uh small lot subdivision code. So we're really excited to to finally get to build them hopefully. Um, KB Home, a little bit about us. We're the number one customer ranked national home builder. Um, all our homes are solar, Energy Star certified. We've actually built more Energ Energy Star homes than I think any uh national builder. Uh we our division is building uh homes in American Canyon, Vakavville, Antioch, um Oakley, Santa Rosa, and we also build down the central valley in Houston, Patterson, La uh Mantika. Um I I I do want to note I had the opportunity to speak to some members of the public after uh the last meeting and

we have uh read all the comment letters and definitely um uh want to address their concerns primarily about the um uh privacy concerns on the Dryen homes which is something we looked at from the very beginning and you know we did design a landscape buffer along the north end which ranges from 22 two to 65 ft of the buffer and the actual distance between the rear of the homes from the Dryen homes to our homes ranges anywhere from uh I think it's 64 to a lot of them are well over 100 ft. So you know this is something we've been thinking about from the very beginning. We have we do hear their concerns and something we can do additional while it's not required is to add additional vegetation and trees and bushes within that buffer to try to uh increase uh the privacy there. So that's something we um hear loud and clear and we definitely want to address and be good neighbors. Um I'm available for any questions if you have any. Yes, I have a few questions um to open it up. Uh so, so yes, I did, you know, review KB Homes and the work they're doing here in the state of California and they have many development projects going on. I did notice the energy fivestar aspect as well. I did notice that, you know, KB Homes uh is promotes, you know, partnering partnering with the community as well as, you know, local governments to, you know, meet our residents needs or meet the needs in a specific area. Uh but looking at this project, I'm wondering how does the 130 units actually meet, you know, the the community and public benefits? Not we have the open space there as well which which is good as well but I'm wondering can you explain to us how that

actually works and how this actually is geared towards val residents or who is your your customer base as well? Sure, that's a good question. KB Home, you know, we target uh firsttime and move up buyers. That's that's those are our buyers and we actually have a pretty robust uh marketing team that does lots of surveys and they provide us with data and we we have a really good idea of what buyers are looking for, what they want. Specifically here, Vallejo has a really good small lot subdivision ordinance, which is what uh we're building under. And it allows us to provide, you know, our homes are between uh 1650 about and 2200 ft², which is a good size. It allows us to provide uh uh uh single family detached homes for people looking to uh buy their first home maybe or or move, you know, move up from renting. and um it uh you know we we will be targeting toward the lower end of the price points in the market. So we think it's a great fit for Vallejo.

Okay. Yes. and my follow-up question and so and the reason why I let with that question I want to know because there's no affordable housing um allocation for you know any any residents who makes you know just medium income here in the Bay Area considering the price point but I did notice that there is a project that you have in Southern California where there is a pathway to affordability uh that you work with um maybe different lenders or whatever you your how your process do you have something of that in mind for this development here for city of Valleo?

Well, so a lot of uh Vallejo does not have a below market rate uh ordinance. So a lot of times these projects are are driven by what is required by the city. But we think this is a unique uh uniquely suited for Vallejo based on what you know what I've talked about before the size of the project or the size of the homes allowing us to be at a nice attainable price point. Um KB Home does offer um uh our own lending so we can work with homeowners to get to get mortgages. Um if that addresses your question. That's just a question. And to your point, we do not have inclusionary zoning, so it's not required. Uh, but just thinking about the partnership aspect of partnering with the city to address community needs as well. And as you said, you guys have market studies and market data um about in our specific area. I mean, are you aware of you know the median income here in the city of Valo? Yeah, I I don't know it off the top of my head, but we we do look at that and we take it into account when we uh do our pricing and you know, we're we're we'll probably go to sale, you know, we hope to uh break ground in the spring and maybe go to sale within the year after that. So, at that point, we'll look at the pricing more and we definitely do look at, you know, medium income and attainability. And you know, we our data shows that a lot of the our buyers will be from, you know, the immediate area and that's what we're expecting and that's what we're we're targeting toward.

Okay, that's all the questions I have for now. Yes, thank you. I'll help you.

Hi, Matt Sauls, division president for KB North Bay and thank you for uh reviewing the project. So, probably the best way to answer that is our goal is to be the most affordable new home community in the area. And so, that's the way we underwrite our projects. We're looking, like Jerry said, to be really really the most and it's hard to build affordable housing in California, no matter what the input costs from uh the land and and the and the build costs themselves. But if you ask our CEO, um our goal is to be um building homes for first-time home buyers. That's our mission. In addition, one of the great things about what we do at KB, oftent times some of the builders will come in and they'll decide what they put in the homes for the buyers. You know, if you go, not to name any other builder's names, but um most of home building is going to the place now nowadays where the builders are choosing what goes inside of the home. KB doesn't approach sales that way because we believe that each customer um has their own desire and own journey that they want to walk through in home ownership. So specifically, we try to drive to the lowest potential base price and we have a robust options program so that the customers can come and they work with our team to customize their homes. And in some cases that buyer may spend $50,000 and in other cases we have buyers that spend $5,000. and that's what allows them to get into a home. The loan program side as well too. Um, I'll address that. As as Jerry mentioned, we do have our own in-house lender, KB Home, uh, loans, and we have a variety of different loan programs. Um, and what we'll see potentially in this area, I would imagine we'll even see a lot of VA buyers and we have a robust VA buyer profile uh, as well in most of the communities that are around us. So we will look when we come into the community we will look for if there are

any local programs as well too um from a from a lending standpoint because again we know that our customers care mostly about having a payment that works for them. you see all the stress that they have on their lives today through, you know, groceries and just the overall, you know, gas and the overall cost of living. And so, we're extremely sensitive about trying to come to market delivering a high quality uh community at the lowest and and best attainable price. And we think that we can do that probably better than anybody because of our mission. So, yeah. Does that answer your question? That's my question. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions through the chair. Um, okay. Uh, under your floor plan breakdown, um, I believe this was probably on the staff report. Um, does your square footage, does that include garages or not? Okay. Um, as far as price points, um, you must have some back of the napkin kind of idea what each of your floor plans that you would like to start at. So, that's my question.

I don't believe based on DR, I don't think we're even permitted to give a number. Uh, because we would be really interested in that to to see if what you're saying is really going to pan out here for our local residents.

Yeah. What I will say and I can say I'll repeat it again is that we we look at the entire market and we look at all we look at Fairfield, we look at the other communities um new communities in in Vallejo and American Canyon and Fairfield um and all the surrounding area. We drill down pretty hard in exactly what what they're offering and how we compare. We also take a really hard look at resales um and get very granular and how we look at it. And we try to price ourselves at the bottom of that of that market so we can be attainable for first-time buyers and and I believe that's the best answer I can give you right at this moment. Thank you.

Sorry. Can I add one second? Sorry, getting all the KB team here. I'm Kyle Seagull. from the VP of acquisitions for Jamie Homes. Um, I just want to add to that too. I mean, by virtue of the home design as well, driving the price points. I mean, Volio has one active project on larger lots with larger homes, which I think start in terms of square footage above our largest plan. So, just by virtue of the smaller lot, a smaller home offering, right? You know, while we can't go into all the specifics, obviously, we're going to drive a price point that's much more affordable than kind of the current offerings here in the city. So, I think I just wanted to point that out that just lot sizes and square footage alone will kind of dictate obviously where we're going in the resale or the sales price side.

I think overall, you know, the the way this project is uh conceived and designed both in the site plan and the architecture is really, as Kyle was saying, driving toward this first-time buyer. driving toward this first-time buyer and driving toward this this lower price point. And I think that's, you know, structurally that's that's how we've um uh envision this project and and I think we're we're well set up to do that.

Don't forget the questions for him, but I do have a comment. [clears throat] I don't have any questions for the developer. Uh but thank you for your presentation. I think we're missing the mark again. Um, this is not about affordable housing. We don't even have an inclusionary housing policy. So, we cannot expect a developer to come here and have that in mind. That's not what their job is. They don't care if we have it or not. It's our responsibility. Developers are here to make money. That's it. And we have to understand that it's not right, it's not wrong, it's what it is. [snorts] And we do need reasonably priced housing, but we don't have a policy yet. And so I I don't have the onus to put on KB to provide affordable housing yet because we don't even have a program to even manage it. So, and we do need folks who work a certain wage because again, over 40% of the people that reside in this little city of 125,000 people are on social services. That's almost half. So while we may not think this is the best development, it is certainly a development that has elements from each it has elements from

each uh demand that we need right now. It's it's affordable because it is first time and move up. That's me. the moving up phase, check mark. Firsttime home buyer, check mark. We can't save everybody. We can't. But we can bring in folks to offset the large enormous amount of folks who are relying on our county to live dayto-day. And so my reminder is that we do need new developments. We absolutely need them. We do need people to move to this city, to enjoy Mir Island, to enjoy all the beautiful small mom and pop businesses that we have, and to revitalize downtown. That is what our main focus has to be. Now, so to my fellow commissioners, I just want to remind you this is not a lowincome housing development at all. And we cannot require a profitable a a for-profit business to operate like a nonprofit. The more money they make, the more money we potentially make. in whether it be folks who spend their dollars and generate them here and folks who are paying property taxes and sales tax. Thank you.

My fellow commissioners have any questions or any comments?

Mr. Chair to the chair. Um just to kind of follow up um what Commissioner um Lucy Stanberry's uh commented on, you know, I think we have to, you know, take into account the fact that our housing element, our latest one was essentially two years behind. So it makes it very difficult whether whatever type of project this was, it makes it very difficult to bring in a developer uh when we don't have that plan in place um and have expectations for them two years into it. um where we change a policy up for um for a developer. And you know, that would set a very bad precedent moving forward where we're two years into developing a project with a partner and we changed policy and all of a sudden what we had agreed to uh is no longer valid because of policy that changed after we made that agreement. And I think that you know in some part that's the case that we may have here. there may be um individuals or maybe organizations that are looking to bring in more affordable housing and that's great and I I think that there should be more affordable housing and in some areas where we could take advantage of higher density housing programs but in a situation where a developer already spent ample time with city staff with design review boards um to develop a project that is within the standards it's really hard after the fact to say that this is no longer compliant. So, you know, just kind of building off of um uh my fellow commissioners the statement, it just really comes down to, you know, what's within the general plan, what's acceptable through the general plan. Um and you know moving forward there there may be different conversations with different developers or investors coming in but you know I think taking a look at what we have here

now I you know great lines have been made um to develop that. So and again you know we're talking about property that's essentially been not used for nearly two decades as well. So um you know take into account that that property can now potentially house you know 130 families I think also need to go into account as well. So

thank you for sharing that. Any other uh comments or questions from the commissioners? Yeah, through the chair. Um, thank you for your presentation, for your interest in Valo and for you, uh, creating some housing that that while it's not truly affordable, it it is affordable. It's affordable because of the parameters that surround all the things that that are important to us all. US for city, I hope you're interested in our city, but I understand you got to make money. You know, that's that's a whole part of the part of the game. So, I I just want to ask a couple of things. They're kind of things I've been thinking about. What's the floor to ceiling in in the units?

Florida ceiling is uh 9 ft. Well, is that correct? Yeah. Okay, great. In inside. Yeah, that's what I mean. Yeah, inside livable. Yeah. Space. Um, let's see. Uh, and then the division between the the units is what? 10 feet. Is that right? Correct. There's five five on either side. So it would be 10 feet 10T typical there's now some lots that's your typical 40 by 70 lot. It's a 30 foot wide house with 5 foot setbacks on either side. Some lots are uh larger than that. Okay. Uh and then energy saving features. What what what have you I mean

and no it's a great question. So there's going to be uh solar on each home. They'll all be energy star um EV charging ready. Uh we have water efficient uh it's very water efficient there's a standard that we meet um the water sense sustained excellence award uh KB home gotten last year 2024 um we also have uh high indoor air quality um we have the bio retention on site and then you know I think I want to note that we're planting uh 384 about trees so it's really going to not only be very lush, but it's going to reduce any uh urban heat island effect. You know, right now it's it's pretty much an open field. Um, so I think 384 trees will really help.

And then you've minimized the grass thing and all that, right? Or have you? Excuse me. Well, I said you're minimizing the the planting a lot of grass and things like that. Yeah, I hope it looks nice, but you know what that means. Um so um there community gathering I we're making communities here right so I I don't know if I got confused about it said something about you're doing uh something in in instead of putting kind of a park in you're doing something in lie of is did I get that right

correct yeah the the city's ordinance requires that if they don't dedicate park space as part of their subdivision that they would um pay in le fees to the And how how much is that if I got to ask? [clears throat] So there's there's a calculation that they would have to do based on the market rate for like parkland and um I don't know what the answer is off the top of my head. It's a calculation that has to be so big question then. Why would you not want to put that in in a community where you're trying to build? Isn't that where we're building communities? Yeah. Right.

No. No. It's a really good question and you know it's something one way something we did look at the the general plan of Vallejo has a standard of 4.25 25 acres of parkland per thousand residents overall. After we build, you know, assuming we include the 130 units in this uh project, the city overall is going to have 7.31 acres of parkland per thousand. So the the EIR and the SUA docu document really identified a greater need in the city of Vallejo for the homes rather than the parks. you know, a half mile east there's the Highlands Park, a half mile north there's the uh Pennyok Elementary. So, you know, it's it seems that uh there there is parks overall. There are parks overall uh and really homes um would would benefit the community, 130 new homes.

Oh, yeah. I get I get that, you know, but I also know that I learned to play baseball on a little park around the corner. And when we take that away from from from people, I mean, it's just something to think about. You know, yeah, I I find that you probably know what I think. I do.

But other than that, the project looks good. It It's And I Commissioner Sansbury made some interesting points, some good points about kind of where we are in things. Um, and but there's just certain realities. I understand making money. I understand, you know, you've got to have the the rules in play. So, I won't fight with you. But then you got to have some goodwill, too. And maybe maybe the little park's goodwill. I didn't say it. You know, I will also note there is a lot of open there's the open space. The basin's on site. uh has a lot of open space to the west and then to the north there's the buffer we talked about plus the trees.

Great. Uh through the chair I have a couple questions. Um while we got you up on the dis curious so the this is a residential medium density zoned uh area. So the reason res residential medium density looks for a district with a mix of housing types including attached and detached and small apartment buildings. um uh including duplexes and states while in the undeveloped areas of the city is the intent of this district to encourage the creation of multi-unit residential neighborhoods with a variety of housing types. Um aside from, you know, variations in the facade to create some distinct character of the units, they're essentially very similar units, three-bedroom, two and a half bath units. Could you tell me a little bit about your thought process in looking at that zoning code and developing the array of housing types that you have for this 130 units?

Yeah. Yeah, for sure. Uh when you look at so our plans one, two, and three are, you know, more traditional uh twotory plans with a a a garage and a front entry. Plans four and five take some um direction from language in the zoning code where they have um a side entry and a a kind of a shared walkway through the middle. And what this allows us to do is not only create um a varied streetcape by being able to put some of those plans on on the corners and have a side entry or put plans, you know, married together in the middle of a block. But um it breaks it up and it also allows us to have a bedroom down uh which means there's more eyes on the street. Um it's something that a lot of uh buyers want these days to have a bedroom on the first floor in the front um for either you know sometimes they live with their parents or they don't want to go up the stairs for whatever reason. So we think it's something very important and that does provide a a streetscape. I mean there's there's with 130 units it's it's it it's a lot but it's relatively little in terms of uh you know different uh uh product types I would say. Um, so for 130 units, we think we've really uh designed uh a really nice array of plans with uh, as you mentioned, there's going to be three different uh, elevations, Craftsman, uh, farmhouse, and Spanish, plus all different color schemes. So, it's really going to look like a very uh, uh, unique neighborhood.

And then a little bit more about the thought process. No multi-unit residences, no duplexes.

Yeah, I you know, we think that this, like I said, the the 2,800 square foot small lot subdivision. So, their typical lot is 40 by 70 is almost like a nice sweet spot between uh you know, single a larger single family detached home and maybe like a duplex or um a town home. You know, there you still get the benefit of having a detached home. Everybody has a bit of a sideyard and separation. Um, and it but it's still a smaller or a a attainable price point and a nice size uh living area.

Okay. I guess I have a similar question for city staff. you know, when we have these uh zoned areas where our desire is to have a variety of housing types um and we continue to see single family lots. This one of small lots which is a benefit uh but still single family lots in what's supposed to be um mixed development where we do have multifamily units um that would be more affordable. We do have duplexes that would be more affordable. um how do we apply the zoning code and how do we you know apply that to approvals when we we want a variety and we get monotony.

So um commissioner that's a great question. So what I would say to that is that the intent is it's making reference to the zone district which is going to be parcels throughout the city. And so uh you may have a detached single family product here but the intent of the code is to allow for not just single family detached but also uh attached single family or duplexes or multif family in other areas of the district as well. Say for example for like the RLD the residential low density district that's more geared to just more of a lower density product type single family product type whereas the RMD is trying to allow for single family detached single family attached duplexes and multif family. So while you may only see one product type on these two parcels elsewhere in the city you're going to have uh parcels in the RMD zone district where you could do multif family. So, I think that's kind of the spirit and intent of the RMD.

Sure. Please.

I address that as well, too. Um, it's a great question and, you know, as as Commissioner Beasley Stanbury asked earlier, you know, or said earlier, certainly we're a builder that needs to make money as well, too. So, you would think that potentially if we could get more units on the property, we'd have the potential to make more money. And maybe those dynamics worked in the past, but with the reality of the new fire um issues and the impact that that has on HOA fees and our insurance fees for our homeowners, in many cases when we do the analysis, you actually see that it's more costly to the home owner. So the the unit, they may buy the unit for less, but whenever you factor in the HOA and and the insurance that goes on top of that, it can actually be more expensive than a small lot single family detached home. And so that's why you see us in this instance. And in a lot of cases, first it starts with the customer preference. We we talked about that a little bit earlier. Um in most cases, customers always prefer to have a single family detached home. Um but in this case, when you run numbers, you'll actually see um in terms of the actual absolute monthly payment for the customer because of those dynamics, it's actually less or comparable to build a single family detached home than a multif family home. And it wasn't that way two years ago, but it is today.

That's very helpful. Yeah. Through the chair, I have one more question. Um, so all the all the units are twotory. Um, what about accessibility uh and building or having some homes that you know perhaps are one story or I mean did you look at that? What do you think about that? I mean, because I know that that neighborhood, there's a lot of elderly people over there. Maybe they want a new home. I don't know. [clears throat] They probably need a one-story. It's a good question. What's your thoughts on that?

No, it's a very good question. It's definitely something we looked at um on on these small lots, it's really, you know, a one-story home on a 40 by 70 lot is is not going to be very livable. And one of the the way in which we address this, one way in which we address this is to have that the plan four and five with the bedroom down. um which it's still a tight home, but it really allows somebody to be able to live on the first floor um pretty easily. And um

excuse me, but I've seen quite a few homes that are not not much bigger than what these are going to be. They're one story and seem to they don't have as many bedrooms, right? the with with the required setbacks, it's very hard to fit a one-story home that has that's very that has all the livability um on these small lots and and as Matt alluded to, but it's doable, right? It's hard, but it's doable, right? I I think you wouldn't you would not get anything more than a two-bedroom home, which again, I understand that. Yeah. But some people only want a two-b home potentially, but there's there's quite a few people out there that want a two.

No, I agree. But part of the way that we've tried to address that as as Jerry mentioned, two of the plans have a bedroom down whenever we were required by by architectural standards to design aging in place for those houses as well too. So the access ability for and this is what we see in many of the communities where we build smaller lot community or smaller lot developments like this is this is where um in many cases you get combination families that move together to buy the home. And oftent time it could be an aging family member or something, you know. That's that's where I'm headed. I'm a gr I just became a grand. You don't want to live with your kids, man. Come on. What's that? I said you don't want to live with your kids. You know, not until you have

Oh, my wife this week was trying to convince me to build an ADU and move in with the kids. So, um, but yeah. No, so that's part of the way that we address it. oftentimes in communities where we have smaller lots and it really is is a really difficult to turn it into a single story plan in most of in many of our markets. You're right. If we could do a singlestory plan, it's the consumer preference is for that. But I think what what we've seen if you actually draw it, it's not going to be a very livable plan.

I do me. Yeah, actually I have just a couple of questions. It's actually more towards city staff. Um, so new homeowners in this um would be paying for their HOA. Has there been talk two questions I have. So the first one is has there been talk about including a a CFD tax on on this property as well? I know with a lot of communities and a lot of developments that there is some that are in Balo where there's no expiration, some that do have expiration. Is there a CFD that's going to be attached to this? [clears throat]

Um, for this particular development, I don't think that there is a a reason to have a CFD because they are proposing an HOA that's going to pay for all of the um costs that are associated with ongoing maintenance. So, um there isn't really a purpose for one here.

Okay. The second question I had and and I only asked because I know GVRD uh for those aren't that aren't aware GVRD um essentially manages the parks and recreation areas in Valleo. So when I hear an inloop payment, which is fine, um but is there a direct payment that goes toward like does GVRD get a particular percentage of that initial payment or um do they just still get their normal allocation? No, the city collects the fee. It's a city ordinance and the city collects the fee.

Correct. I I just didn't know what since they're so essentially since GVRD would have to be you know sizing their parks and recreation area for a larger audience more residents. I didn't know and this is just just moving forward for any of the new projects if they receive a particular percentage of those upfront fees. No, what happens is that they submit their requests for reimbursement for the parks that they manage. Okay. and for any improvements to parks or park facilities and then the city reviews that request and reimbures them accordingly.

Okay. So this so technically the inloop payment may or may not go towards the body that manages the parks and recreation. It it would eventually go to GVRD but it doesn't go there directly at all. Okay. It [clears throat] sits in a fund until it can be reimbursed according to a fee study and we review it very carefully against the request for reimbursement. Okay.

Any Yes. Yes. through the chair. Um this my question goes to staff now. This addendum to the general plan 20 240 is pretty beefy, 81 pages. Um, have we done any other addendums to the general plan for developments other than Mir Island? Did you say Mayor Island? Other than Mir Island. So any developments on the mainland other than on the mainland? No.

No. Other than your island. [clears throat] Okay. I'm sorry. For the main one, not Mirror Island. Excuse me. Okay. [clears throat] Has there been We did one. We did one for Warren Street. Did we do Warren 1, two, three, five? Warren Street. Okay. But it was not Yeah, it was um a reszoning and a general plan amendment and a zoning map amendment if I'm not mistaken.

Um that's correct. Yeah. And through the chair, we also did an addendum for the housing element adoption. I know that's not development, but that was another substantial one. Um I'll also point out that um I don't think we've had a single family detached subdivision proposal like this for several years. probably at least four to five years,

more uh more like 10 to 15 years. The last subdivision the city process and improve was the Vista Lotoza um small lot subdivision that's at the corner of Columbus Parkway and Springs Road on the east side of Columbus Parkway. That's the last subdivision the city approved uh was currently being developed out on Waterstone near Columbus Parkway. that was originally part of believe it was called Berdoni Ranch before it got turned into Waterstone and that was approved by the city back in 2007. And so the last subdivision that we processed through the city was the Vista Cove, I'm sorry, Vista, which was like in early 2010 2011. Okay. So

before the general plan was adopted by the city. My question then is how many addendums are there to the current general plan? Because I don't think anybody up here knows that on the commission because my concern is we have a general p plan that we keep adjusting for developments. Um, so we're not necessarily we're not adjusting the general plan. What we're doing when we conduct an addendum type of analysis is we look at the EIR that was prepared for the general plan and we assess as to whether or not the project proposed in front of us was covered under that analysis. So usually an addendum is used when it is covered under that analysis, but we have maybe some um uh some tweaks or we have additional details that we did not have as part of the general plan environmental impact report. So um an addendum is an appropriate document to provide uh a look and an analysis at the project in more detail.

Um so that's that's why it would be appropriate in this case. Okay. So, which leads me to my next question. um at least in the environmental section of this addendum were those things not covered in our original general plan EIR because there was talk of specific species through just to clarify there's not an environmental section of the addendum the entire addendum only covers environmental because It's only covering well it's giving you a land use background. It's it's a well okay

but it's not amending the general plan. It's not amending the general plan. It's it's looking at the EIR for the general plan. I realize that. Okay. Good. I realize that clarify that. My question is I'm I'm getting down into the weeds here. is for this particular project. There are specific species that are detailed. It because the the because the EI to the general plan did not specifically detail those. Okay. That was my question. Yeah. Did not specifically look at this land to that to that in that detail. Okay. So when we're we went to like the burrowing out. Well, that makes sense. Yes, that makes sense.

Okay. Does that Yeah. I if I could add though um if there were species that we found as part of the analysis that were not covered in the general plan then we probably would not be able to use an addendum um if those species were significant or um endangered of some sort. You'd have to read or supplement the E. Yes. Yeah. And then through the chair, uh, we also do have Cynthia Brown, which was part of ESA, the consulting firm that that contracted with the city in order to prepare the addendum that's being presented before you. So, if you have any other questions regarding the SQL document, Christynthia is available to answer any questions.

One last regarding this. Um, I'm assuming that the applicant paid for this the addendum. Okay. the Oh, just to um respond to that, the applicant does pay for it, but the work is contracted by the city, so we're in control of the product. Understood.

Sorry, one question here. Um, so the the land currently is owned by Vallejo Unified School District. Is that correct? Correct. Is there any representative of the school district here tonight? Yes. Yes, there he is. Brilliant.

Great. Well, I think I perhaps have a question for for you as the land owner. Um, have you guys um had any analysis of the disposition of this land and its compliance with the public park preservation act? It's public resource code 5400 kind of governs the uh the disposition of parkland and um whether you need to have an equal amount of parkland created some somewhere else when you take it out of uh the public stock you have not

okay I think it may be of use to have someone do a little bit of analysis of that before we u um proceed with these entitlements um through The chair, I would like to ask you to come up to the podium since uh something was said verbally just for the record.

Answer your question. No, we have not. Okay. I'd like to uh see I I don't know our land use council, Alicia Gera, I believe, is um called in via Zoom. And if she is um and and has any response, I'd like to give her the opportunity. Sure. Yep.

Yeah. Alisia, you can go ahead and speak.

Okay. Thank you. Good evening, chair, members of the planning commission. Alicia Gar with Buck Halter on behalf of KB Home. Two things I wanted to comment on. It's my understanding that the school district went through the process for the disposition of this surplus property prior to putting it on the market, prior to KB Home being selected as the developer for this for residential purposes. and a determination was made through the surplus land disposition process that the property was not um suited for uh conveyance for open space for public parks purposes. The school district as its own entity is not subject to an obligation to provide open space or parks in the process of the surplus lands process. Um there are certain additional requirements under the new surplus lands act as it's been amended that essentially uh provide for residential development as an appropriate use for this irrespective of whether or not open space has been compensated or has been provided by the school district in a separate location or in a different location. Um, the other thing I would say is the city had determined that this site through its general plan was an appropriate location for residential medium density residential development. And as a result of that, the residential project itself has proceeded in accordance with the general plan update and the environmental impacts addressed for the general plan. contemplated

residential development on the site. And so as part of that prior general plan analysis and which was also why we ended up the city determined that an addendum was an appropriate SQA document to evaluate the specific impacts of residential development at this site. part of that analysis in the general plan update SQA document originally in the general plan EIR itself and then the subsequent agenda for the um housing element update or housing element adoption was to take into consideration the effects on open space parks and recreational facilities as part of the city's general plan process itself. So both the school district as part of its surplus lands disposition process and the city in its process for considering locations for residential development in its general plan identified and addressed the impacts of associated with replacement of parks and recreational uses on this site um should it be developed with residential development. Okay. And that's through um the SQUA process. Is that correct? And the surplus lands.

Um uh that's two things. So, so in addition to the surplus lands process which by law a public agency is required to comply with the surplus lands lands act um prior to the disposition of the property for an alternative use that that is the action that is that is the decision that's made as to the disposition of the property. separate and apart from it, the city evaluated when it identified the location of this site for residential development and it identified potential future uses through its general plan. That action both in conjunction with the general plan update was evaluated in the SQA document. So, it's really two things. One is the action to dispose of the property has to comply with the surplus lands act and that's an obligation that the school district has as the public agency that owns the property and separately the city through its general plan update process evaluated what the impacts were of putting residential development on this on this site.

Two separate actions there. Okay. And then has there been any uh specific uh assessment of the application of public resource code 5400 through 5409 known as the public parks preservation act. Um I I would have to defer to the representative from the school district as to that uh because KB home would not have participated in that finding as it was selected after the school district made the determination that the property was surplus lands.

Okay. Thanks. We can we can certainly get the information, but I I would defer to the representative from the school district.

Thank you. Very great. Well, thank you very much. Uh what we would like to do now is open this up for public comments. Thank you. Yeah. Well, if possible, if you can Oh, no. Thank you. All right. We're going to open this up for public comments, please. Thank you. And we're going to give each participant three minutes uh to provide their comments.

Thank you, chair. We do have uh four members of the public who have signed up for public comment here. Uh first speaker is going to be Eidria Men Menos, followed by Ruben Fernandez, John Chen, and then Ron Richardson. Thank you. Uh, good evening, chair, vice chair, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Isidra Menos. I live in 307 drive and drive. That's the third house of Rollingwood. I want to start by saying that I'm not one of those people who says not in my backyard. I support development. I understand Baljo needs more housing and I support this development in particular. That said, I do not support the proposed map for this development. This development has one area where they've put two large basins that is exactly in the side of the development where there are no neighbors, maybe two or three houses. I understand that's for structural reasons for the storm drains etc. But the unfortunate consequence is that the 19 neighbors or families who live in dry and drive which are one-story houses are now going to have a row of 18 twostory houses directly in our noses. Especially for the houses like mine who are at the beginning of drive and drive. I had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Marcus the other day when the audience was continued and he was very uh kind and he explained to me that the development was going to go from about 25 ft separation from the development to our houses to 125 ft at the end towards the bottom of Dryen. Great for the houses that are at the bottom of Dryen. But for the houses like mine and the other about eight or 10

before dry and curves, we're going to have these twotory houses right there looking into our backyard, looking into our living room, our dining room, our family room, which all have big windows. We're going to lose privacy and we're going to lose property values. Our ideal solution would be to reduce this development with that row of 18 houses. they would still be building 112 houses or at least the first eight or 10 houses, the ones that are going to be only about 25 ft. I really appreciate what Mr. Marcos said today that he heard our concerns and that they are planning to put more of a green privacy barrier close to Dryen in where the the houses are closer to the development. I appreciate that a lot, Mr. Marcos. I hope if they don't take out the row of houses, that's going to be in writing in the plan, not just stock because stock is cheap. Okay? So, please keep a little bit of respect and consideration for the neighbors that have been there for decades, sometimes for generations. Don't allow our property values to go down so much. If you take out the first eight or 10 houses, you still have 120 houses that you can build there, but you're going to create a green bill that is going to benefit the new neighbors and the old neighbors. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker, Ruben Fernandez.

Good evening. Good evening, uh, Chair Taylor, uh, Vice Chair Douglas, and members of the planning commission. My name is Ruben Fernandez. I am the assistant superintendent of business and operations for the Valo City Unified School District. I'm here this evening to provide a brief public comment on the proposed Rollingwood property project by KB Homes, which pertains to the potential redevelopment of property currently owned by the Valo City Unified School District at 2011 Rollingwood Drive. To be clear, the district does not take position on the specific entitlements before the commission tonight. We respect the city's independent review process and appreciate your commitment to thoughtful community-based planning. Uh, however, I'd like to offer the following factual contacts context into the district's involvement. The property was formally declared surplus by the board of education following the legal procedures for disposition of land not needed for educational purposes. The district subsequently entered into a contingent agreement with KB Homes and any potential sales dependent on the outcome of the city's entitlement process. If the project is approved and the sale proceeds, uh revenues generated uh from the transaction would be used to support the district's educational mission, including student programs and school improvement efforts in accordance with uh applicable state regulations. As a public agency, the district, Valo City Unified District, has an obligation to manage its assets responsibly and in ways that ultimately benefit Valo students and the broader community. We appreciate the city's partnership and its diligence in considering this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, John Chen. [clears throat]

Good evening, Chair Taylor, commissioners, city staff. My name is John Chen. I represent Sei Enterprises, the longtime owner of 1300 Bisha Road to the south, the neighbor to the south, who owned and operated it dating back to the 1950s when it first opened the drive-in theater. As a fellow developer, I commend the applicant and planning staff on their hard work bringing forth this housing project. Planning staff delivered my written comment letter to you uh and I appreciate your time reviewing it. I'm here tonight with a single request for a condition of approval to require a masonry wall 8 foot in height along the southern property line. Zoning code chapter 16505 prescribes standards for walls for buffering between uses of varying intensities. Uh the assurance of safety and security, the enhancement of privacy among other reasons to improve neighborhood character. General Regulation E requires along residential to non-residential lot lines walls to be 8t tall. Focusing on long-term neighborhood stability, I appreciate your consideration for the issues noise attenuation, security, fire safety that make the currently proposed 6 ft wood fence entirely inadequate and don't resolve these issues. This is a critical boundary between two differing land use designations. residential use and non-residential neighborhood mixed use. Careful consideration of this boundary in a future neighborhood context would be good foresight to ensuring long-term neighborhood harmony in the neighborhood and to preventing constant noise complaints, security issues, and perpetual homeowner to commercial user conflicts over fence maintenance. A condition of approval for an 8ft masonry wall is an investment in future neighborhood stability that protects future residents and minimizes liability. I've engaged the applicant. However, I

have yet to receive a written commitment from KB on the masonry wall. I've heard verbal yes, we'll we have no opposition to the masonry wall. Uh and as such I respectfully ask the planning commission to include this condition this as a condition of approval. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Okay. And final speaker, Ron Richardson.

Yes. Thank you for letting me come up and speak, Ron Richardson. Uh I was in the one of the first houses that was built in the subdivision on Dryen Drive. So that was back in 1961. and I've owned that house or been part of the ownership of that house ever since. Uh, one of the conditions that's out there in that area is Rollingwood. I'm not going to repeat what everybody else already said. Uh, one of the conditions on Rollingwood is traffic. And those of you that have been out there and and tried to enter from Dryen Drive to Rollingwood understand there's a serious traffic issue out there. We've worked I've worked for a lot of years try to get the city to do something about it and they haven't. There have been accidents that have cars have been t-boned by traffic coming southbound on Rollingwood that have landed in my yard to the point where we had to construct a a large cinder block planter so that the cars didn't land in in my house. Several people have died at this because the traffic situation is terrible. Adding additional homes out there is not going to make it any better. Plus, now you've got an intersection with Pope Drive. you're going to have to really do a lot of traffic improvements because you need to ensure safety of the public out there and you have kids walking to schools in this area. So, there needs to be a better a avenue for safety for the people that are living there, the people that are going to live in the new homes and all of the folks as well as other things. So, I just want to emphasize that um the traffic engineer for the city has proposed to put up some flashing lights. Um, I can tell you that's better than nothing, but a signal or something else would be even better. Thank you.

Thank you. And, uh, through the chair, no members of the public signed up online, so that does it for our inerson speakers. I'm sorry, I missed the last statement. Oh, and that does it for our in-person speakers. Okay, great. Thank you. We can close the the public comments at this point right now. Uh is by my fellow commissioners have any other questions or last uh comments? Yes, through the chair. Yes. [clears throat]

Okay. So, question to the builder based on uh public comment. Um the masonary walls is that within your ability to provide Yeah, we have been talking with uh Sophi about it. Um and it's something that while it's our understanding we're not required to do um that we've been talking with them about doing it. We've we've provided a letter and and assuming we have to there's some details to work out regarding grading and maintenance and you know in terms of an actual agreement which it's kind of uh uh early to do the actual agreement but conceptually we are okay with putting that masonry wall up. I'd like to add that as of now as far as uh we know it's our understanding that um there's there's no entitlement there's no plan for that area you know it's I believe it's zone mixed use um but I defer to Robbie on that um so you know right now it's all it's all hypothetical and conceptual but we have been talking with them we will continue to talk with him and and you know hope with the intention of building the 8oot masonry wall along just those that southern border of those specific lots that he's talking about.

And that's a that's also a uh conversation between commissioners as well, too. I mean, I you know, I'm one person here. There's a lot more people up here, but if we want to have a flowing comm um conversation about that, I I welcome it. I'm not done, though. Um uh I'm sorry I I don't remember your name, ma'am, but she suggested um a certain number of homes to be taken off off the the plans. What I would suggest is that in that particular area off of Drayden Drive that you make those the the I think she said eight eight homes or something. Make those um singlestory homes. Just an idea. Um but we could also make these conditions as well too as a body. The third item was traffic improvements. Um, that was another complaint from the public because they've had a lot of accidents along Rollingwood uh drive and that's something for the city to chime in on. Um, I realize they're going to put blinking lights and some signage. I don't know if that is enough. if I'm not um remotely familiar with that area. So, those are three discussions I would like to have with with my commissioners up here, my fellow commissioners.

Can we respond pretty quickly to Sure. You know, uh with respect to traffic, it is obviously something that we we have a traffic engineer which, um fear and peers, which I believe Bill Burton is on Zoom right now. It's something that um was looked at as part of the SQA process and you know I also want to note that uh the project will obviously comply with all CALR standards and I believe the SQA process you know uh recommended no uh further mitigation but it sounds like uh the city has already taken steps to start to address the issue. Um,

okay. And then back to staff in relation to that through the chair. Um, is there anything else planned besides the blinking lights and the signage?

Yes, a good question. The traffic impact analysis did not note that there was a recommendation for any sort of um stop sign or traffic light in that area. Uh, the only thing that was recommended was uh crosswalks on Rollingwood for the new access points for the subdivision. Um the traffic engineer did review this issue and went out and did a site inspection and his determination was that um the signs with the flashing yellow would be sufficient. Uh there's from what he was telling me that there was no uh warrant to install a stop control like a stop sign or a traffic light there at that location. We're going to be adding at least 200 extra vehicles or more with the new neighborhood with the new development. So, and I don't know how many trips, you know, was there a traffic study done? How many estimated additional trips are going to be on those roads?

Traffic engineer bills on Is Bill Burton available? Yes. Okay, we were going to defer to it. Uh, can [clears throat] you guys hear me now? Um, can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Yes.

Yeah. So, you know, all of the Well, there's there's two entrances to the project. So, as far as SQA, we looked at both of those entrances. They're both designed to modern design standards. There's adequate sight distance. Both of those intersections should uh be more than safe. The civil engineers reviewed them. The city has reviewed them. Uh regarding, you know, there there will be a mild traffic calming effect of the project when the curb and gutter and the sidewalk go in. I do think the flashing lights at dryin will be helpful. um at that location. We that wasn't one of our study intersections that the city asked us to look at, but I did take a look and we're the project itself is going to increase traffic there about 2% per day. So, it's going to be a fairly mild increase in traffic at that particular intersection. Um with that said, it is on the the kind of a crest of a vertical hill. So, I I see why why some folks might have some concern there. I think the flashing lights and the signage will help. Um, kind of the next Yeah, as as people have indicated, it's definitely not warranted for a stop sign, always stop controller signal. Uh, and unwarranted traffic control devices would would have even worse safety effects. I think the next kind of climb up the ladder for traffic calming would be u like a radar speed feedback sign would be uh kind of the next uh level that I would elevate to if the the flashing lights and the signage um don't work and happy to answer any questions. Yeah.

Uh yes. Can you tell me what the estimated um vehicle trips per day are going to add the Yeah. So, the the total amount of traffic coming out of the project, it's about 90 cars in the morning peak hour. It's about 120 in the PM peak hour, and it's about 1,200 uh cars per day. So, I know that that sounds about a lot, but um you know, if if it's 120 cars in the the you know, the most you know, the the highest traveled hour of the day, you know, that's two cars a minute.

Um what about school time? Uh so the the uh the AM peak hour of the 90 cars con coincides with the school peak hour. So that's the same in the evening peak hour. The the peak hour the the when the project tra the project generates the most traffic is mainly what we're concerned about uh which is the 120 cars in the earlier as you shift earlier in the two to four o'clock hour. You know you're looking at in the 70 to 80 range. Although that isn't a number that we specifically calculated and include in our studies.

Okay. Through the chair, I didn't mean to interrupt you if you were

is there consideration to include bot dots or or rumble strips along where there may be crosswalks or flashing lights. I know I I work in an area that's more agricultural, but we still have bot dots that are probably rows of 10 to 20 uh multiple as we approach stop signs. Um so I'm wondering with the additional traffic, especially in areas where there might be uh children um dots are generally pretty cheap to install, so I don't know if there'd be consideration when installing uh those traffic lights. Um, a second point would be that the again the masonary wall I think is I think it's some real lowhanging fruit that would give the neighborhood um some belief in in the project moving forward as well. Um, I do sympathize with uh the the resident that lives in a one-story. When I grew up, we actually had a one-story and we had um two stories that actually built uh across from us. um seemed like a big deal at the time. Uh in the end, it wasn't as as a big impact as we thought it would grow growing up. It was just there's a two-story house down across the street from us, but um um it wasn't as big as impactful, but I can see where the masonary wall, especially from um a buffer from a noise standpoint as well, um could give consideration for the the current neighborhood already. So,

yeah. Yeah. Just if we could clarify a couple of things. I'll let Bill Burton maybe respond to your first comment on the traffic and okay and that side of things. Um you know obviously the buffer we talked about it was a minimum of what 2225 but obviously home to home is a lot further 64 and you know as Jerry mentioned we're sensitive to the residents and we'll do our Oh sorry let me did you catch any of that or

Okay. All right. Sorry about that. Um, I'll let Bill Burton respond to the traffic comments. You know, obviously sensitive to the neighbors to the north. I just want to clarify the masonry wall that there was requested is to the south, right? So, that's the request. So, there is no existing entitlement. There is no existing home. So, that's just to clarify that's not an existing as of now neighbor concern. So, on the north side, right, we we've talked about some of the distances 22 25 ft, I forget the number, but obviously home to home it's 64, right? So we'll it's much further which I understand you know we'll do our best to kind of add the additional landscaping and plantings to the best we can um to to to to try and offset some of those concerns. And then on the masonry wall um we did provide a letter over to John. I mean we don't support making it a condition but we are open to building it 100% but we have to enter into certain agreements access licenses construction maintenance and cost sharing. So that's what we provided back to them. we're happy to do it, but you know, we obviously have to enter in a couple agreements. It's not a, as Robbie mentioned, a requirement of the project, but we are willing to do that and we'll, you know, provided those get entered into. So, Bill, I don't know if you might be able to respond on the

other part of it.

Yeah, sure. On the like the bots do or the rumble strip, I you know, we in the traffic engineering world, we're looking at those two. Are they lateral? Are they longitudinal? Are they are they going across the road or are they in the center line? you know, notifying people when they're crossing over or on the edge when people are departing the traffic way. I think the commissioner is probably referring to lateral, which would be across the roadway. And um I, you know, I would obviously we'd all work with the city engineering staff, but I I would not recommend that simply because the the noise of vehicles going over those particular devices all day, every day would probably make us not not, you know, the the neighbors would not be happy with us in that particular instance. Um, I' I'd probably pursue if if the lights and the the signage don't work, you know, kind of climbing up other traffic calming measures rather than the the bottom and rumble strips.

Great. Thank you. Does any of my fellow commissioners have any other questions or any comments? to the chair. I did want to ask about the I guess there's about seven or eight homes um along uh street A that uh you might we discussed the idea of maybe making them single story. Is that something you can chew on or um I mean

is there any possibility that that that would help to solve the you know the view issue that we're hearing about? Uh, also I also might add that, you know, you know how wooden fences look in 20 years, you know. Yeah. I haven't seen one yet that stands up to the and it really makes your development ultimately um, look weathered, right? Even though the houses might be pretty good behind them, it's something to think about, I think. You know, all money all money ain't good money, right? Isn't that the truth? Yeah. So a penny. Yeah.

Uh so just to comment, I mean the single story is a challenge as kind of we previously discussed. I mean just on a on that small of a a footprint. It just it's it's a challenge. It's I'm curious cuz I just I went up to some houses and what is that? Dixon somewhere and they take a little bitty lot like that and they're able to create something pretty darn nice. Uh this one story. So I don't know. Maybe if you're just against it, you don't want to, you know, maybe you just don't see it. But I've seen houses recently brand new that [snorts] that don't need much of a lot to create something. But it's a different footprint though, you know? It's it's a different floor plan completely.

But there are people that like that apparently cuz they sure building them all over the place. Anyway, good chair. Um, can we just put a stop sign instead of a stoplight and everybody will be happy? You need to talk to the traffic engineer for the city. Yes. My assumption they will have to work with public works. Correct. isn't exactly what those we can't impose that because it has all kinds of repercussions. So, you'd need to suggest is there someone on the line from public works?

Unfortunately, there isn't anyone online from public works. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. Through the chair. Based on that question, can we make that a condition? We can't. We can't can we we can we can say we can discuss it if if the traffic engineer approves after he's reviewed it. Yes. I would propose that we make that a condition. Does does that I mean if the if the developer agrees if that's

I think that's I mean we're open to additional traffic calming measures. I think it's the city public works needs to comment if they want a stop sign there or not. I mean, we'll install a stop sign. I I imagine they probably wouldn't, but I'll, you know, we're perfectly open to whatever, you know, traffic calming measures in that, you know, project requirement, project specific. So, you would have two of them because you have two points of entry. I mean, essress. Well, I was just giving it offering a suggestion because well, let's just do it.

Probably rolling wood. We going around the Malberry Bush and it's nine o'clock. I'm I'm so sorry. And I just like I'm just to the point and I just want to make sure that the residents are happy and then we're also being fair to the developer who's been going through this process for years. So I just want to make sure that you know we're we're being attentive and and making sure that Well, I think correct me if Well, there's no one here. Is the traffic analyst on the line for the development? I if I could um if you could because I think when there's a dangerous condition like if there's an accident or something that you review it again I don't think you preemptively jump in and

we already looked at it. Go ahead.

My feedback would be if if we're talking about the the two project driveways in Dryden and putting it a stop sign in one of these three locations, it it would make sense of all the three at Dryen the most. Um, but again, it sounds like the city's traffic engineer went out there and and in their opinion, it wasn't warranted. And sometimes unwarranted uh stop signs can be have worse effects than than than not installing one at all. So, I would, if you were interested in in having something move forward, I would say have the traffic engineer go back and do a more detailed study of installing a stop sign at Dryen and if if warranted, installed at that location. It's It's you know, a stop sign's $200. It's not an expensive um installation. Yeah.

Well, in the respect that it's $200, I say we go ahead and do it see through to the chair. Just to to point out and not to interrupt you, I'm sorry. Um so I respect the traffic engineer and and what he does and such, but he said this goes through public works. So, my understanding is public works hasn't had a director for like six months. So, I'm not sure what their priority has been. And that's not to install them because I know they're very short staffed, but um we've had a traffic engineer though. We have a traffic engineer. Okay. I I'm just not sure what the the priority would be in terms of them assessing a stop sign or not, but I think a stop sign is a very minimal. He still does his work. I mean, the traffic

I'm not not saying that they don't. I'm just [laughter] saying that. I'm just saying in terms of with or without a public works director, we have Oscar filling in. We have Oscar. So, he's doing great. I'm saying there's only so much one group of people can do when they're short staffed and where their priorities may be. And I think in terms of again, you know, acquiesing to some of our current residents there, uh, I think in, you know, suggesting a stop sign is again another lowhanging fruit item that can be a win-win for everybody. So regardless if the traffic engineer says it or not, the fact that it's goodwill to do it, I think is something that should be Can I ask for the traffic analyst again?

Um, [clears throat] go ahead. Um, yeah, I don't want to I I don't want to dive into the details of the science of stop signs, but when when there's been a lot of re research about the behavior of of people who obey stop signs when they they know there's not a reason for the stop sign. And people understand that there's a reason for a stop sign when there's sufficient traffic on the cross streets to warrant a stop at that location. and that as they become attuned that the only reason that that stop sign was installed was to make them stop, they begin their their compliance goes down. And sometimes the safety benefits of making them stop and then them not stopping. You're you have a trade-off that goes in the opposite direction of what you intended. So I that's why I would

well I was just going to ask if the if the we ask as the in the condition that they study the location of a stop sign after the construction of the development I

through the chair if I could just jump in really quick. Um I I just want to add something. I don't want to over complicate this. I think that if you really want to add a stop sign, I think you should just um consider doing it at the discretion of the city engineer. We do have someone um we don't have a permanent person in that position, but we do have a consultant who is working pretty much full-time. Um and I would just say it it should be at their discretion. I'd just like to jump in real quick and add that um the traffic engineer has reviewed the project and the drive and drive condition and has evaluated it for whether or not a stop sign would be appropriate or necessary. Um and they had relayed to me that they what the appropriate measure was was the flashing light with the cross traffic head sign.

Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. Challenge back to staff. We heard residents from that neighborhood complain about accidents. So, I would hope that the traffic engineer pulls police reports for all the accidents that have happened at that junction. Thank you.

Okay. Well, thank you. Um, this was a really good discussion amongst everyone and I think that we have an idea or a path moving forward. Um I believe that if staff if we can engage with public works u they could look at that at that issue because I think it not only just affects the residents in that particular area but it will protect I mean affect other city of valo residents as well. So I think that is a overall idea that I think the city should look at uh in regards to this project and I do want to make a few comments. uh no one's I I can only speak for myself not in the spirit of moving any goal post for a project uh we do understand that the cost of doing business in economy of scale uh so I do understand that aspect of it uh but in a spirit of you know goodwill and partnership is thinking about overall uh not just what the developer needs or what the city of Valleo but what our residents need as well and so opening this conversation up uh is something to think about moving forward. Yes, we do not have a policy in place, but the hope is in the future any developer would like to keep that in mind of what the residents here in the city of the Bay Area as especially here in the city of Valo what those needs might what they might be um and try to address them the best in the best way possible because it would be a request it would be an ask um are we serving in the best interest of our our community and then that would be that would be the ask. This is why we're thinking about different variations of the project and different aspects of everyone else. So this is something that we want to know have discussion going. We do understand that this project has been in been going in years uh going forth for years and there are benefits to this project to the city of Valo that we do understand. However, we want to try to make sure that that benefit spills over as much as it possibly can to everyone who will be indirectly or

directly impacted by the project going forward. However, I do see uh review and everything. I I have my findings. I I believe there's the findings of facts that it does meet uh the general plan. It's consistent with that zoning uh excuse me, I have my notes and um the development review and the minor use permit. So I do see that there is alignment here in the city of Valleo and our goals here. But there is always will be an ask you know and hopefully moving forward in the partnership uh and the goodwill of thinking about the community we can think about a lot of these points that we have brought up and have been discussed today. So with that being said I'd like to open it up uh for a vote moving. Oh you need to close the public hearing.

I'm sorry. Thank you. Uh so with that being said, we can close the public comments uh public hearing and the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you commissioners. Yes. So again, thank you for the discussion. Thank you for everyone participation and for the community bringing up their points. I would like to open this up to uh for a motion this project. You guys can deliberate too. I mean, now's the time to deliberate. I'll make a motion to approve. Uh, sorry, I don't have the Take your time.

Sorry, [laughter] I cleared it from my phone. Sorry. I'll go ahead and make uh a mo motion to adopt uh a resolution making finding relating to an addendum to the certified environmental impact report for the general plan 20 240 and approving a vesting tenative map TM23-00003 development review DVR23-0042 exception E XC24-00001 minor use permit MUP23 3-0019, landscape review, LR23-0013, and design review DR23-0019 for the development of 130 single family residences at 201 Rollingwood Drive, APNS 0072-170- 050 and 0072-50- 060. Thank you. I would like to offer a friendly amendment along with that in that the um developer will work with the city and whoever else they need to work with regarding the 8-ft masonary wall as well as um have the the city's traffic [snorts] um engineer go out and look at specifically the is it the Dre Dre Dryden

Dryen

Dryen um intersection to um assess any accidents that have happened at that that intersection in him factoring putting in a stop sign. Hopefully that wasn't too long. I second the resolution as well as the addendum. All right, let's see that they have it all recorded. Um through the chair if we could ask for clarification. Um the first item that you mentioned was having the developer work with the city um and other partners regarding the 8oot masonry wall. Um I I wanted to clarify that staff does not believe the code requires that. So are you just requesting further conversations between the parties or

I would like to make that a condition to require the wall. Yes. So even though it's not required under the code and who would pay for it? I don't know. The developer would pay for it. They want even though it's not required under the code. Well, we could talk about splitting costs

between with the current homeowners.

Well, and just to just to clarify, there are no current homeowners where the proposed masonry wall is. So, you know, we are not supportive of making it a condition, but we've already told John in a letter that we're happy to construct it provided we enter because it also requires construction and maintenance agreements with the adjacent neighbor in order to construct. So, while we're not supportive of making a decision, we will work with John and we're as long as we can enter into the agreements construction, maintenance, a license to construct it, we'll Mr. Chen owns that property. He's the representative for the the owner the property.

So, it's a vacant parcel, just so you understand. It's a vacant parcel and it's there's no home there. I'm not in favor of the developer paying for something that they don't know what they're paying for. The way the code reads, Cesar can read it to you. it a a a wall would only be required if there is a commercial use in a residential zone on that property and that's there's no use there now.

Yeah. I'm sorry. If if the res if the business owner would like a retainer wall there, I think that is your responsibility. If you want it, it's on your property line. So can I speak? Sure.

My interpretation of the code is that uh for walls on property lines with uh differing adjacent uses residential to non-residential which our site is by land use designation adopted in 2021. Neighborhood mixeduse is a non-residential use and that code objectively requires 9 foot tall. A neighborhood mixed use allows a mix of uses. So it could be either residential or commercial. So depending on what the final use approved there is. You don't I'm not talking about how the space is being used from a little U. I'm talking about land use designation capital neighborhood mixed use NMX. That's my interpretation of the code.

So excuse through the chair. The code section that Mr. Chen is referring to is section 16 um 16.505. 505.02 E1 little A which states non-residential uses. For non-residential uses in a residential zoning district, a wall or fence 8 ft in height is required along any rear or side property line that separates a non-residential use from an adjacent residential uses. and then assess no chain link fence may be installed along the rear property lines and any side property line not abuing a public rideway subject to review and approval by the director. Razor wire or barb wire fences that cannot be seen from the street review a street review are allowed. So the interpretation of that section is is if a nonresidential use is established in a residential zoning district. The proposal before you this evening is a residential use in a residential zoning district. For example, if someone was proposing a doctor's office at within this residential zoning district, then that office would be responsible in installing an 8 foot mason wall adjacent to residential uses.

Great. Thank [clears throat] you for Thank you for the clarification. And um I'm going to have to stop you there uh because this is a discussion between you and the developer to figure out and this is not on this particular planning thing I mean this uh for this project uh to hear uh I don't want to set the precedence of trying to negotiate between how this will be actually uh worked out uh based on the requirements and our zoning requirements. I believe that we should stay within alignment of what our zoning ordinance uh is as has been outlined out unless there's something had deviated from there. But if if they stated on record uh their willingness uh to work and uh assist uh I think that is the best that we have as of right now in that regard. Um unless I have there's any other uh comments like us to stay in alignment and not deviate too far. Yeah, I do. I just want to correct something. I and this was my mistake. I thought that we were talking about residential to residential. I did not know we were talking about an open piece of land.

Okay. And that's what this gentleman is. I guess that's the land that he owns. Well, was definitely. Yeah, we can keep talking about this, but um I can also remove it from my suggestion too. We don't know how to read it again quickly.

Uh through the chair, can we vote on what we're to to vote on which is the land use because this is out of our purview. And so what I would like Yes, I agree with that. What I would like us to do and I do want to get to that point since we had deviated and we did open up for Cesar to give uh the read the code. We'll let him read the code and then after that if we decide to remove that item we can move to our our vote. Yes sir.

That's okay. So section 16505.02 02C1. Fence and wall location on a lot. Fences may be erected, placed, or maintained along or adjacent to a lot line or within a yard on the private property. A fence located on a lot line shall be considered as being within the yard adjacent to that lot line. The fence owner shall be responsible for properly locating all lot lines before construction of any fence. Two, fence and wall encroachment onto public property. No portion of any fence or wall, including gate doors, structure, foundation, or footings, shall encroach upon or project into any public rightway or other public property without the fence owner first obtaining an encroachment permit from the public works department. Three, prohibited fence and wall locations. No person shall place, construct, maintain, or cost to be placed any fence or wall that may endanger the public safety. Included, but not limited to the following. Fire hydrant access. No fence shall be obstruct free access to any fire hydrant. B. Site distance triangle. Fencing shall meet the requirements of section 16.501.11 501.11 visibility at intersections, driveways, and alleys to avoid interference with visibility at the intersection and driveways. Four, review by the traffic engineer required to avoid traffic hazardous uh hazards and protect the safety of pedestrian fences, walls or other screening shall be subject to the review by the traffic engineer for the following locations. within 10 ft of the point of intersection, a vehicular access way or driveways and a street or

sidewalk. B within 20 ft of the point of intersection of two or more vehicular accessways, including driveways, alleys, or streets. And C, measurements shall be made from the face of the curb or if there is no curb, from the edge of the pavement. Great. Thank you. So I believe our next step now is to we have to vote to remove that motion. Second motion. I I can I will remove that motion. That was my motion. Do we have the vote for to move that or

because we have two motions. I think you were removing your friendly amendment. Yes. Okay. Yes. amendment to the motion that particular one. Yes. So you still have a motion and now you need second. Yes. Second.

Okay. So, so through the chair, we're going to pull the vote again. Uh, someone did abstain from voting, but everyone has to vote. We have seven eyes and the motion carries.

All right. Great. Thank you. So the um the motion pass. Uh thank you very much and we are going to move to the next agenda item written communications. Thank you chair. Um, no other written communications were received other than the ones that were provided as part of the packet um from the public comments regarding the action item that was presented before you tonight. Great. Thank you. All right. Well, we're going to move to the next uh agenda item. Uh agenda item 11, reports I report of the presiding officer and members of the planning commission. Uh we'll go with agenda item 11 a secretary report.

Uh thank you chair. Just want to remind everyone on the commission um regarding the special joint meeting that will be held on Monday, November 24th. It's expected to start at 6 PM. Um more details are to follow, but I'm assuming it will be held in the Bal room once again since we're going to have both the planning commission and city council. So, thank you to everyone that has shared their availability that evening. Um, for those of you that weren't able to attend the board's U member appreciation dinner last week, um, you did receive a certificate with and also a small goodie bag. So, thank you all for your, uh, commitment and service to the planning commission. Um, at the last meeting, U, Commissioner Maderos did bring up the question about the funding available for the planning commission. Um, so we roughly have about $8,000 that are um, dedicated to the planning commission. So that that only that covers like the stipens that are provided to being on the commission and also for any trainings and any um off-site trainings that are available. So just um leading into that on March 4th, 5th and 6th, the League of California Cities is holding their commissioners academy training down in Southern California. It's at the Anaheim Convention Center. Um so you'll receive an email from me probably next week to see who is interested. Um, registration does open in November, so we would like to know who was interested of attending so we can get that uh reserved and get everything booked beforehand. Um, so we don't run into the same situation as last year. Um, other than that, we are working on some long range items where we are working on updating our accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Um, so hopefully we're working on that internally. That hopefully will come before the planning commission in the near future. will uh we'll present the the ordinance and updates to be consistent to the state

regulations regarding ADUs and then also we are also working on the um there's a couple sites that were identified in the housing element that are byite housing sites um so we are um working on that to create an ordinance for that that will be coming before this commission as well that will be going before the city council for action. Great. Thank you. If if I could add one other note too, I just wanted to um mention that we did just release the RFPs for both the downtown specific plan and the waterfront specific plan. So those are currently open and they will be open until December. I forget which date, but it's the beginning of December.

Great. Thank you. Uh

the chair, I have a question. Um, weren't we going to make amendments to the housing plan to deal with uh how we respond to evictions and things like that? Um, and and price control or whatever. I remember that being a big deal with the housing plan and and it seemed like we were going to get to that pretty quickly, but you know, of course, time goes by. Yes, we have um initial work associated with that actually folded in into one of the first um uh task items or phases of the downtown specific plan work. So um that was kind of why I wanted to mention that we opened that RFP and we are um actively looking for consultants right now. So um as soon as we get a consultant on board, they will be able to get started with that task item.

Okay. Thank you very much. Vice Chair um Douglas, were you talking about the ordinance or the or the two ordinances or something? I believe so. I thought we were going to which is something different look into um how we could kind of manage whether people could get evicted or and what was involved in that process. Yeah. And I don't know how that would relate to the downtown specific plan.

I know it's a little bit odd. Um there's a the housing program is related to renter protections and housing stability. Um and then I think there's two other components uh related to just cause for evictions and I'm forgetting the fourth one right now. Um but um as I mentioned during our last meeting, we were able to um basically repurpose um a chunk of the grant funds that we received from MTC that's going towards those specific plan efforts in order to conduct these um uh the analysis associated with these items, but on a citywide level. So, um, we were able to make that case because the work is going to definitely support those specific plan projects. Um, and when we do it as a citywide level to begin with, it'll set the stage for what um, is needed with the specific plans. So, that is kind of how we were able to um, make the case for that and to get some funding to go towards those efforts. So, um, like I said, it's a little bit, um, confusing, but it's definitely moving forward. Um, and I'm happy to talk more about it offline if you have additional questions.

Great. Thank you. All right. We can move to the next agenda item. Uh, city attorney's report. I have nothing to report. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. And then we can move to the next item 11 C. Report of the chairperson and members of the commission commission. I don't have anything to report. Uh anyone else have it? All right. Great. We will move to the next item 11D report of the ad hoc subcommittees. And I believe at this time right now we don't have any uh ad hoc subcommittees. So we can move to the last portion. Uh we can conclude and adjoin the meeting.