Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'd like to uh call to order the um the the regular planning commission meeting for um December the 15th uh 2025. Uh, I'd like to uh um do the pledge of allegiance. Would you like to do the Sure. lead this in that. I don't need to beat that, do I?

Ready? Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I guess we're going to do roll call now. Balabuena here. Beasley Stanbury present. Maderos present. Blind present. Vice Chair Taylor, I'm sorry. Vice Chair Douglas present. White present.

Chair Taylor's absent. We have a quorum. Approval of the minutes. Okay. So, on the consent calendar, we have approval of the agenda and approval of the minutes. Uh, by motion, can I get a I will move that um to go ahead and approve both the agenda for tonight's meeting, the December 15th, as well as the minutes for regular meeting November 3rd, 2025. All right. Thank you, commissioner. Um, second. A second. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Slow down a little bit. Okay.

Now, for the report of the city council leaison. Well, one second. We're just going to take a quick vote. Oh, yes. I need one more vote. We have six eyes and the motion carries. Uh thank you very much. [clears throat] Well, we need to um do we have a report from the city uh council leison on today?

Um the city council member has requested to um move that to the end of the agenda. I just realized I should have mentioned that before you voted on it. Um he's at another meeting so um he'll try to get back here in time. Okay, great. Thank you very much. [clears throat] Uh let's uh item six is community forum. Uh this covers anyone uh wishing to address the commission on any matter for which another opportunity to speak is not provided on the agenda. So do we have um

uh thank you chair. Uh currently, yes, we do have a member from the public who is online who would like to speak during the community forum. For any other interested members who want to speak during the community forum, we do have a terminal in the back of the uh council chambers where you can sign up and select whichever item you would like to speak on. In the meantime, uh speaker Paul Dus, you have the floor. Uh members of the planning commission and staff, thank you for this opportunity. I live in Valleo and on the executive committee of the Sierra Club in Solano County, which advocates for affordable, walkable communities with jobs close to housing within existing city limits. It's encouraging to see steps taken forward in today's meeting on the Valo housing crisis. The three multifamily parcels on today's agenda take advantage of state law with buy permitting and density bonuses for added commercial use. They implement features of the housing element designed to increase the supply of affordable housing. However, I'm sure we'll all agree that these first steps are small. All three parcels have limited commercial potential. I'm reminded of the phrase from that old song, New York, New York. If I can make it there, I can make it anywhere. But it's good that precedent is being set and hopefully some of our larger sites with greater commercial potential can be submitted soon. Once word gets out that Valleo is back in the affordable housing business with commercial development that adds to our tax base, we anticipate that smaller scale owners and builders will jump in. Another sign of progress was your

November 24th joint study session with the city council. Mayor Source ended the meeting by asking for draft inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage ordinances in quote weeks, not months. I encourage you to continue working with planning and legal staff to get these done. Thank you for considering my views. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh do we have someone else? uh through the chair. The timer to sign up has concluded and we have no other speakers at this time.

Okay. Thank you very much. Um now we can go on to item seven. No, we can. Um item seven, continue the public hearing to consider a resolution recommending the city council approve a tenative map, a plan development, and a development review. Um do we or have a presentation on that?

Uh thank you chair. So tonight staff is asking that the planning commission continue this item to date certain of January 21st 2026 which is a regular scheduled meeting on a Wednesday due to the holiday being on Monday the 19th of January. Uh reason for the continuence is because we're still finalizing the conditions of approval from below flood and wastewater and as well as from public works and then also gives us additional time to respond to the comments we did receive on the subsequent um mitigated negative declaration for the environmental document. So it is not a requirement to respond to the comments with the type of SQL document, but staff is would like to provide responses to the comments that we did receive from the public and also from outside agencies. So for that reason, we're asking for the commission to continue this item to the January 21st, 2026 date.

Thank you very much. Well, we'll go on with item B. Um before we move on to item D, uh we do need to take a vote from the commission.

Okay. Do you need um a motion? That's correct. We might need a motion to take. Um then I will move to continue uh the public hearing to consider a res resolution recommending the city council approve a tenative map TM23-00001 plan development PD24-00001 development review DVR23-000017 design review DR23-00006 and landscape review LR23 3-002 for the development of 51 single family residences other known otherwise known as Vist Cove subdivision at Shady Lane and Wildfire Flower Avenue APN 0079-171-170 and 0079-120-100 to January 21st First, the next regular meeting of the planning commission 2026.

Thank you, Commissioner Beros. Do we have a second? I'll second. All right. Thank you. We have a second. I need one more vote. Who is it? My vote option has not come up for some reason. What was that? Who is it? Excuse me.

Okay. I'm sorry. We're going to do a voice vote. So, uh, Balabena Bees Sansbury, yes. Maderos, yes. Blind, yes. Douglas, yes. And White, yes. We have five eyes and one nose. And the motion carries.

Thank you very much. So um with that we will move on to item B on the agenda which is to hold a public hearing to consider adoption of a resolution uh to amend the Valo municipal code by adding a new map to establish a byite housing overlay district for the housing element inventory sites uh number 4142 and um then 55 five, you know, which we'll read out more accurately later. Um, is there a presentation for that? C.

Yes. Um, thank you, chair. So, I would like to present to the commission tonight um Hector Rohos, our second planning manager for long range. Um, so he will be presenting the item before the planning commission tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Rosco. Is this on? Can you hear me? Great. Um if I could have the uh presentation up please. Um so again as Cesar mentioned my name is Hector Roas. I'm the long range planning manager in the planning uh development uh services department and I am here to present to you tonight the byite housing ordinance uh which is a city initiated uh project that would implement a pair of programs in the city's housing element. Next slide. Uh as of earlier this morning, um our staff recommendation was originally to have uh you as a planning commission uh recommend city council adoption of two things. Uh the first one was the zoning text amendments uh that would establish a new uh chapter in our zoning code um titled byite housing overlay district um and also to adopt zoning map amendments that would apply the requirements of the overlay district to housing element sites number 41, number 42 and number 55. Next slide. So the uh proposed zoning text um and zoning map amendments are required uh to implement programs A1.16 and A1.17 of the housing element. Uh they're required by state housing law uh to ensure that these three sites are more likely to develop as affordable housing uh during the current housing element cycle which uh goes between now and 2031. The zoning text and zoning map amendments are necessary for the city to remain compliant uh with the state housing element law. Next slide. Uh so this slide uh summarizes the key provisions of the proposed by housing overlay district. Uh the overlay district would do the following uh for

sites number 41, 42 and 55. Um it would establish a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Limit development to residential only or um primarily residential mixed use when uh the residential uh component is equal to or greater than 50% of the floor area and provide a ministerial by rights approval process for affordable housing projects with at least 20% um of those units being lower income units. Next slide. This slide lists some important clarifications about what the proposed ordinance does not do. The ordinance uh does not increase the maximum density for the sites. Uh their current maximum density would remain at 40 dwelling units per acre. Uh the ordinance would also not change the underlying general plan land use designation. It would not require property owners to develop their properties and does not approve any specific development projects. Essentially, we're setting the table for future developers to come into the city and have clear uh regulations about uh what type of streamlining is available to their projects if they have affordable housing as part of those projects. Next slide. Uh so where are these uh three affected housing element sites located? Um these sites are uh located off of Broadway Street and Ifin Way for site 41. Site 42 is um that specific address is 1295 Enterprise Street and site 55 is on Kathy Ellen. Um the next slides uh are aerials of each site location. Starting off with site number 41. Uh this site is located near the corner of Broadway uh street and Tall Trees Drive. Um it's the highlighted parcel there in the yellow

uh crosshatch. Hopefully you can make that out. Uh the site is surrounded by a mobile home park and is just uh under an acre in size. Uh the housing element uh sites inventory lists the capacity for this site as 31 affordable units. Next slide. Uh next up uh we have site 42 um just north of Enterprise Street and Yolano Drive. Uh this site is also next to a mobile home park and east of State Route uh 37. It's just a half an acre in size and is listed in the housing element sites inventory for approximately 17 uh lower income units.

Real quick, I have a question about that particular site. What is currently on that site? On site 42, um it's currently vacant. Um there does appear on the aerial to be uh some structures there, but um that's probably evidence of some past code enforcement uh that need to be done. Um I have it on the authority of the property owner that uh typically people uh stores uh uh cars that are in disrepair and so we've had a couple of enforcement. Is it commercial property or is it is it a residential?

Uh I am coming up to that uh point. But to answer your question really quickly, it's zoned residential. It was previously commercial. So going back to uh site 55. Um this is south of Redwood Parkway uh between Admiral Callahan and Kathy Ellen Drive. Uh this is the largest of the three sites at 2.3 uh acres in size. Uh the housing element sites inventory identifies this site for up to 75 um affordable units. So, as part of the uh public notification requirement for this item, staff published a hearing notice in the Times Herald uh mailed the notice to all active neighborhood groups and property owners within 500 ft of each site, as well as the uh property owners for each site. Um, as of today, uh the city has received verbal comments uh from three people uh two of which uh own sites 42 and 55 separately. Um, this slide summarizes what staff heard. Uh, but I believe each party is uh here tonight uh to provide testimony either in person or online. And just to quickly summarize the uh comments, um we heard that uh the site 42 and 55 uh owners are concerned that the overlay would um impose a new minimum uh density requirement, which is true, and limits uh development to uh housing only uses. Um the owner of site 55 specifically asserted that um well question why we need these requirements um in light of uh the existing state law uh framework that we have specifically citing assembly bill um 130 um and essentially the question was doesn't that already provide for by route housing approvals which I'll get to in the next slide. Um, and then lastly, the owner of site 42 uh noted that their property was historically commercial um

and that the current zoning may be a mapping error. Next slide. So, after speaking to the owners of the sites um specifically site 42 and 55, staff looked um into AB130 as well as the zoning history of site 42. Uh we did confirm that AB130 does not already establish a byite housing approval process. Uh what AB130 actually does is streamline reviews for infill housing development whether those projects are affordable or not. Um they could also be market rates. So it's more of a global um streamlining specifically for SQA. Um the proposed ordinance does um something different. Uh it's designed to make up uh to make it more likely that the three sites mentioned will develop as affordable housing uh by requiring a minimum uh density and limiting development to residential or primarily residential mixed uses. Next slide. Uh with regards to uh site 42's zoning history, staff confirmed that the site the site's historic use was indeed a gas station. So it does have a history of commercial development. Um however uh the site was uh legally reszoned in uh 2021 uh to residential uh specifically uh residential as part of the city's city the city's uh citywide zoning update. Um and here I have the uh ordinance specifically that uh that committed that action. So um I'm happy to meet with the property owner and provide a copy. That would be ordinance number 8 uh I'm sorry uh 1855NC and then uh this uh resoning implemented uh the city council's uh action to adopt the Propel Valo general plan uh in 2017. So uh staff's uh uh determination is

that the current zoning which is uh residential um was is correct and that it's consistent with the general plan. So uh we do not believe that there is a mapping area for that reason. Next slide. So as part of the environmental review for this item, staff determined the proposed ordinance was in the scope of the environmental impact report uh adopted for the Valo Propel general plan. Um the project uh is consistent with that because there's going to be no more um severe environmental impacts than were previously studied. Uh there's not an increase in maximum density. Um so therefore no subsequent um supplemental or environmental review is required. Next slide. And then lastly, um I mentioned that this was originally our recommendation for tonight was to have you um recommend adoption of a resolution uh that would potentially adopt um the proposed zoning text amendments and uh zoning map amendment at the city council as a next step. However, um in light of the public, uh hearing or uh public comment that we heard uh earlier, um we feel that it would be diligent to meet with those specific property owners uh to clarify the uh ordinance's intent, what the ordinance actually does, and just have an open general dialogue about um what the potential impacts to their property would be. So the um current um recommendation would be to open the public hearing, accept public comments, and then um vote to continue the public hearing on this item to a date specific um that being January 21st of of next year. Uh so that concludes uh our presentation. More than happy to um address any questions you might have. Thank you.

Yeah, I Yes. Thank you. I have uh one question in reference to site 42. Um that was the one that was a gas station prior. Um are there any concerns with contaminated ground if you're going to be putting uh housing units on the top?

Yeah, that's a really uh good question to ask. Uh typically whether a site is on the housing sites inventory or not um is part of our current planning process when we accept an application. Um part of the application completeness um includes a requirement to include um the site's history. So if in the future this site were to be developed knowing the historical commercial use on the property, we would require a phase one environmental which would essentially take a look at all the permitting history and indicate whether there's a potential hazardous use that operate in the past. We know that in this case there may have been. Uh and then once we complete the phase one, it would potentially require a phase two to dig in uh more into the sight specific conditions. It would require boring into the site at different locations that are the most likely to have gotten that potential contamination and then there would be remediation that would potentially be required if the site continued to want to be developed for residential.

Hi, a quick question. Um, thank you so much for your presentation, Ector. Um, is there any reason why it wouldn't be mixed use? Is there is it solely restricted to residential? Uh so as far as the uh government code that's giving us this direction um it is saying essentially what we're trying to do is make these sites more likely to develop as affordable housing right now the current um zoning designation is residential high uh density which if you look at that in our zoning code um allows a um a variety of uses including residential but also commercial. There's other uses. Um, essentially there's a larger pool of uses that are currently allowed. Um, what the state wants us to do is say, "Hey, since you've identified these as affordable housing sites, we want you to put requirements in place that make it more likely that those house that those properties are going to be developed for affordable housing. Mhm.

So that's part of uh raising the minimum uh density from 0 to 20 dwelling units per acre and also just putting in some streamlining uh provisions so that if a developer does come through and propose affordable housing, they no longer have to go through the discretionary review process which is coming to a design review board, planning commission, potentially city council. These projects would be basically reviewed and approved at a staff level. um similar to like what we do now for SB35 streamlining requirements. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Through through the chair,

if I could just add one um additional point of clarification, if you look at page eight of the ordinance, it specifies um that uh mixeduse projects, this is under section subsection A, that mixeduse projects may also be allowed where the residential use occupies at least 50% of the total floor area. So there is that threshold. Yeah. So the intent again is to make sure there's housing in there as opposed to someone reading the ordinance now and having the choice of developing additional uses that are not housing. So again bringing in that more of certainty that there's going to be a housing whether it's housing only or housing as part of a mixeduse project. Thank you. Go ahead.

I have a question Hector through the chair. Um could you give us just a little insight into the process uh how these determinations were made, how these three uh were brought forward and sensibly others were considered but not brought forward. a little bit about how that selection process went as far as selecting these particular sites

um or just in general um and I'll probably uh kick this back to Christ Kristen and in a point uh cuz I came on uh a little later in the housing element process as you know we uh adopted the housing element uh in December and I came on board in September so that process was kind of more baked by the time I came in but typically what happens is the consultant in this case place works uh would have taken our previous housing element sites inventory, determine whether those were, you know, sort of keep or change um sites and then essentially identify additional sites if we found that the previous uh site list was insufficient to meet the new arena, the regional housing needs allocation. So, I think that that's what happened in this case. We were slightly short because if you look at these three sites, I mean uh one of them can fit I think 16 or 17 units, another one 31 or 32. I'd have to pull up the map again to to confirm, but there's not many. So, we were very slightly short and I believe uh Place Works looked at sort of the map of the city with the with the city staff and determined what potential sites were, you know, those sites that would bring us up beyond our arena allocation. Um but yeah, those sites were already um baked into the housing element uh when I think both uh our director and I came on. So I don't know Kristen if you want to add to that.

Um yeah, I can just add um the the sites all the sites in the housing element were already chosen [clears throat] before I came on board as well, but um of the three sites, two of them were required to be upzoned in order for us to meet the lower income obligation. And then the other site was a carryover site. um I think it's a a non- vacant or previous cycle site is the way the staff report characterizes it. So that is the reason why these three specific sites are being called out for this change. Yeah. And I would add a little bit more clarification. Uh site 55 in particular was um uh it's designated a repeat site meaning that it was already identified in the previous housing element cycle. Uh so in order to carry it forward into this current cycle, we have to put these provisions in place um per state housing law. Uh the other two sites, as Kristen mentioned, are upzone sites. So actually all three of them are upzone sites. Also required to put these provisions in place to have them in the housing element. Okay. And um so is um so they're in there. We need to upzone them. Um for site 42 um some of the things that you describe about what may need to be done in case there uh is a development there um you know boring groundwater testing things like that. How how does feasibility factor into that because that this feels like that's a less feasible site to do um this kind of development on because of the potential for environmental contaminants.

Yeah, it is a real concern and um it definitely has constraints. sits at a corner. Um it's right next to the freeway, so there's potential uh air quality and noise um mitigations that would have to be brought into play. Um at the end of the day, it's the developers um you know uh requirement to come in and show us that they could build the housing in in light of all those um constraints. um just you know having experience from being at multiple cities uh sometimes even the heavily constrained sites you'd be surprised what um you're able to do especially when um the project pencils out um if there's city assistance that's involved especially at the state level um especially for affordable housing there's a lot of grant funding

for those types of projects so um I would say although it is constrained um it it could potentially be developed under the right you know housing market conditions and with the right you know grants and funding Okay. Thank you. Mhm. I do have one question I'd like to ask about byite. Could you kind of explain what that means? It seems like perhaps we have less uh approval or opportunity to comment. Is that right?

Absolutely. So, uh by right essentially means that um those development projects when they come in um they're ministerial, meaning that they're handled at a staff level. Um, so that doesn't mean that we just, you know, roll out the plans and approve them and then you get go off and get your building permits. It just means that when you submit it to staff, staff is the one that's conducting the review normally like how we would do any project. The only difference is that staff handles the approval process um instead of the planning commission or designer v board or city council if it were to get appealed. So by right simply means that if you in this case if you bring in housing it meets all the requirements of the city all its uh development standards objective design standards we check off all those boxes and at the end of the day if it meets all the standards it's ready to go it's it's going to get approved it's just a question of justifying that it meets all the requirements. So it doesn't get the benefit of a public hearing. Uh we do have a meeting requirement as part of it. Um but we don't bring it to the planning commission or city council for approval. That's the difference. That would be a discretionary review.

Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome.

I have another question. Um Okay. So, do I understand that it does not have a public hearing process or public input process just for the public's information on this? not a public hearing in the sense that we meet before the planning commission or any other cityapp appointed um body. Uh but we would have a meeting and I think I'll defer that to uh to Cesar, our um current uh planning manager. But in the law there are requirements for uh developers or the city to meet with people in a neighborhood to let them know and make them aware that there's an application and you know essentially share those plans. But at the end of the day, the approval um uh jurisdiction lies within staff, not the planning commission or city council.

Yeah. I'd like just a little more clarification on what what the public can do uh who might be impacted by these projects um in order to get their comments to staff.

Yeah. Um through the chair. So from the experience that we've had with two separate projects here in the city, one along Sonoma Boulevard and another one on Fifth Street that went down this path of the using the SP35, it does require a developer community meeting that is done within 90 day or I'm sorry within 30 days when we receive an initial application. Uh from the two that I've attended, it's been a collaborative conversation with the community and the developer where they've have taken into consideration the comments that the public has has arised while they're presenting the public and making the public aware of what what's going to be developed in their essentially in their backyard. Um from for example, one of the projects along Boulevard, it's a hu it's a eight atory building for 100% senior affordable housing. the neighbors to the west of it brought up concerns of now I'm going to see this huge eight-story building in my backyard and what the developer was able to do and made it um so far they saying that it's penciling out they've been able to push back the story 2 through 8 at least an additional 20 ft from the property line in order to create that break. So it does give open that opportunity for the community and anyone to comment on the project and from most cases the developer does take them into cons to consideration when designing the project.

And what is the method that they would be notified? Would it be via mail? Would it be a newspaper notification or both or?

Yeah. Um so the notification is done through mail and is led by the developer. Um, so we as a city do provide them the addresses to both the current tenants and the property owners within 500 feet. I think the last two we bumped it up to a thousand and provided them the mailers and all that. And one of those developers that previously they actually went knocking door to door, handed out flyers and you know wanted to make sure that the community was involved from the beginning. And through the chair, I would add to um since the recommendation has now changed to continue the public hearing, uh um the third person that I forgot to mention that uh commented uh lives adjacent to the Kathy Ellen uh site, site 55. And the concern that she brought to light was that uh she owns property with a retaining wall at the backyard because the the site slopes sort of from Kathy Ellen down to the next street to the west. And so uh her concern also is what kind of project you know could I have a say uh but also the retaining wall is sort of older who would be responsible for that and how do I bring that um you know to the attention of the city when that gets developed. Uh so we're hoping to connect them with the property owner who's here tonight. Uh but also I just wanted to say that since we're coming back, uh it might be good for staff to take a look at maybe adding some notification uh procedure onto this, not of a public hearing, but at least uh potentially um adding a provision in there requiring notification in some sort of way, whether it's at the initial application stage, somewhere in between. So, we can probably talk to our city attorney to see uh if we can fit that in even though we might be constrained at the state housing law level about those notifications. Well, and I noticed that our uh city council liaison is here and if just I mean we all know this up here. If something goes up and there is not um

consequential notification to the public, our city council members will hear about it. So he's shaking his head through the through the chair.

So I did have a couple questions especially in concerns with 41 and 42. Um so kind my kind of my understanding that essentially we trying to accommodate this or trying to kind of move it forward so we can meet the amount of affordable housing within our housing element that's required. Correct. So, I mean, and I don't know how to any other way to do this and to be blunt, and it's nothing against anyone here, but when I'm looking at 41 and 42 and I I see properties, you know, some commercial property that was previously used for uh gas station um next to mobile homes. It it almost seems like the city's plan um is to just basically stuff as many of its poor housing element in one section as opposed to anything really far east or southeast of Valo, right? Because you know, we just put a continuing a continuing motion on a 51 housing unit project that's going to cover 21 acres, right? And so I'm looking at this se for site 41 and it's less than one acre and we have established that it can squeeze in 31 units and I'm sure that's not going to be 31 parking spots, right? So, you know, there's going to be now an issue with the mobile housing that's already there or any other developments that are there as far as parking, as far as an overabundance of individuals. And, you know, I think we've seen, you know, as go you know, there's a show called Show Me a Hero, right? And they talk about affordable housing, right? But it was about yonkers in New York, right? If anybody's ever seen that show. Um but essentially if you condense an area and over infiltrate that area with a specific type um then that puts that area in a condition where it can remain a ghetto

continuously because of the amount of low or poverty area. Right? So I live in Glen Cove and that's fine. you don't want to put the city doesn't want to put any affordable housing. I guess that benefits me personally, but does it make it right? Right. So, um I guess my question to the city is, you know, I take a look at these three projects, especially 41 and 42. Is there anything in the next 3 to 6 months where we can say we are going to look at creating a higher density project in East Fileo or in the East South Fileo area? Is there something in the works to say, you know, we want to try to to spel everything out as equally as possible? Right? Because we don't want it doesn't do anything for a a neighborhood to have everybody that's poor in one neighborhood. There's no there's no other way to say that. Right. Right. A poor conditions lead to higher criminal activity. It leads to an abundance of other things that make that deteriorate that neighborhood. Right. as opposed to putting affordable housing in market rate housing at a smaller level. Studies have shown that when you do that that those individuals tend to uplift to meet the surrounding community they're in. So if there was a smaller affordable housing project in the middle of Glen Cove, the chances are studies have shown that the chances are that the children in those pro in those those affordable housing would have test scores that would be higher that the individuals living there would have a better chance within 10 years of going into a market rate avenue, right? As opposed to being in a higher condensed area that's already povertystricken. So, you know, it really it makes some real concerns to me because like the evidence, the science is there. Decades worth of research has has shown that,

right? And so, I'm taking a look at this and I'm like, we're just we're kind of repeating the same pattern, right? Um, so especially 42, I mean, it's it's it's almost like, hey, we had a gas station there. Um, it's closed. Let's shovel up the dirt. And I work in commercial so I you know the truck I work in you know transportation industry right so I can go at length in regards to what cleanups and everything you can do to to get this and it's possible but you know at the same rate when I'm seen as just a person as a resident and not a planning commissioner or anything is just oh we had an old gas station and we're going to put 50 or 60 or 70 units on that one little area. That's what a unit or well.9 of an acre. So So it it it makes me want to to sit back and say, okay, well, do we have anything else in the pipeline that we can say, okay, we're matching 41 and 42 with I think we had property sites like 48 or 49 that are higher density, right, that are on the east side. Have they evaluated those? are those moving forward with anything where they can say, "Okay, we've let those property owners know that this is what our plans are moving forward for those properties as well." That way, if the average resident can say, "Hey, okay, we are being affected, but there's four property sites on the other side of town that are also going to have the same level. We're all on the same playing field." So, not to draw it out, but that's

Do we have anything? Essentially my question is do we have anything on the east side or different areas like site 4849 where it's going to be brought to us for the same change in in development.

So to answer your question um for this this specific ordinance only applies to these three sites because of the um the things that I laid out earlier about them being upzone sites and repeat sites. HCD, the housing and community development department at the state level wants to put these um on these sites because if we reuse them, they want to make sure that it's likely to develop as affordable housing and that's why we're including them in our sites inventory or were included. Um and I want to mention that these sites being upzone and repeat sites is not something that we're dis that we're doing now today. This was the these were sites that were already designated that way in the housing element that got adopted in December. So this is sort of the finishup work to what we started in December when we upzoned these sites. Essentially our work was to come back and put these requirements into place. Um but you know to your point as far as as far as um concentrating affordable housing in one area um you're preaching to the choir. I definitely agree with everything that you said and I think it's a good plug for the inclusionary housing ordinance and the commercial linkage fee uh project that we had a study session on I think it was November 22nd or 23rd I forget but um this group uh met with the city council to give us direction and it was really productive meeting um so I think you know part of the work for staff now is to come back with a draft we got direction to potentially you know come back with an ordinance that would do exactly what you're talking about. Make it a requirement for each and every development in the city, regardless of where it is, whether it's a high resource area or a low resource area. If they uh propose a certain number of units, a percentage of those units would be required to be affordable. And if they don't want to do affordable, they would have to pay an inloo fee to go into a housing trust fund. So, that's

something that we're working on that hopefully we'll begin uh to bring back uh early next year. Um, but hopefully Cesar could talk to a little bit more. He has better pulse on the uh development pipeline uh for existing projects. Maybe he can talk about some of those projects that you mentioned in other neighborhoods if we have that affordable um project. I will note that we do have our pipeline list online on our website. So that would be a good way for people to keep a pulse on what's going on in the city, what projects are being proposed, where, what's, you know, being proposed period. and then we could have that dialogue with our community to see how it potentially impacts them.

So, and that there was a quote that the gentleman over the phone did and again the inclusionary meeting was the week of Thanksgiving. So, I myself cannot make it because that's a heavy week for work and I'm sure there's a lot of residents that may not have been in town,

but the and I go back to again the mayor is quoted as saying to have an update within weeks, not months, right? um whether you can or not, whether I agree with that statement or not, but um our mayor said that and would what's the possibility of having something formulated to where that could be brought to the commission at the same time? Is this at some point early next year? Maybe we don't maybe we delay this past January 21st. Maybe we delay an additional month until February to where both can coside at the same time. So stakeholders in the community can say, "Okay, I really don't like this, but the includ inclusionary planning that the mayor had asked for is here, and that's not that's that I can live with that. I can live with this because I can live with that." So, um, you know, what are the chances? Where are we with that to where we can kind of coincide those things at the same time?

Yeah, I'd like to defer this one to our director.

Can commissioners too many people on the line here. Um, with regard to uh the status for the inclusionary uh zoning process, I think it's going to take us a little bit more time um to to get that in front of the commission. I'm going to say a couple months at least just because we need to work um with the city attorney's office closely on kind of crafting all of the components of that. So, um this obviously is going to be is is ready will be ready sooner. Um I do want to add though within the housing element, uh the sites inventory list does have sites that are kind of dispersed all over the city. So there they are kind of spread out. Um I don't know which figure that is and I don't think we have it handy but um I would point you to that to take a look um before the next um time we talk about this item.

I think it's u important to remember that while we we want a lot of the changes to happen, we don't have any guidelines or any policy really to adhere to yet. Um, and while I have lived in below market, you know, rentals myself, it doesn't necessarily mean that everybody there is ghetto. So, I just wanted to clear that up. Um, and I could be ghetto to some. I to some folks, they do think I'm ghetto, and that's cool. Um, you know, I've been called hood, ghetto, classy, bettto, you name it, right? But the important thing is to remember is that my money's green. So no matter how ghetto I may be, you know, I'm still paying whether it's below market, above market, underneath the market, it doesn't mean we're all ghetto. We come from the ghetto. So I just want to clear that up. It's no shame. And thirdly, I think what is important to remember is to sometimes you do have to take the the concrete to to dig it up to bring the rolls out. Um there is an estab there is a woman who is building a 240 unit apartment complex in Richmond and it is an old um and you may know about this Hector it is an old um uh carpet manufacturing tradeway carpet and it's full of toxins. It's full of it's you you can't even walk on it at this particular time. Um because it's so full and there hasn't been no soil remediation yet. I said that to say when you do look at affordable housing, the

key word is it has to be affordable for the developer as well. It can't just only be affordable for us. It has to pencil out. And so sometimes you have to use infield. Sometimes you have to use the most undesirable area that a lot of people aren't purchasing and you have to beautify it. That part is on us. You know, that part is on our community. That part is on us. You know, infiltrating mixed you or excuse me, you know, infusing mix. That's why I asked the question about mixed use because sometimes, you know, what I noticed is that having a business here means that um you employ people and my business is in the ghetto. It it's pretty it's pretty rough, but a lot of the residents that live in the surrounding area want to work there [snorts] because what we're doing is creating what a lot of us can't do, not even myself, is called a work life balance where they're working, they're walking to work, they can see the community changing over. And so I think until we get the inclusionary housing policy set, um, you know, we're going to have to fasttrack things. We're going to have to bypass the commission. We have to bypass city council. I mean, these are roadblocks whether we like it or not, whether we like to admit it or not, they're roadblocks and they have been for so many years. And it's why cities like Richmond have surpassed us by three and four times. You know that. You work there, Hector. It's why Oakland has surpassed us and and they have a huge uh unhoused issue. It's why Berkeley has surpassed us. It's why Petemont can't we can't even touch Petemont right now.

It's why cities like Elserto are flourishing in Valo, we are still quoting that we have potential. And until we really hunk hunker down and look at some of the actual roadblocks that we have and say, well, you know what, we got to entrust somebody. We can't we we can't all do it. Someone has to be able to bypass the roadblocks that we have and get these projects fasttracked because and we're not talking about market rate, right? We're only talking about the affordable housing uh uh projects, correct?

For for these specific sites, um if somebody wanted to come with a market rate project, they would still be able to do that. They just would not be able to take advantage of the buy right housing streamlining. Having said that though, there are other streamlining provisions at the state level that they could take advantage of like SB35 and they would still need to come and and get approval. Correct.

Correct. So, we're only talking about the very the very thing that we keep pushing and preaching. We need affordable housing. We need affordable housing. But a lot of that is how do we how do we close the bottleneck which is going through this committee, that committee, this approval, that approval. You don't have the time and time is money for a developer. I'm not prodeveloper. I'm definitely pro housing. But we do have to streamline in order for things to happen. Thank you.

That's great. Uh, thank you, Commissioner. Um, does anybody else any have any more comments though you'd like to make? I mean, one of the things, Hector, that I was thinking about is that these sites are um just a few. How we have quite a few sites that we've looked at and included in the in the housing plan, I mean, the regional housing um aotment. So, so, but so how many of those sites would you say are are sites that are are the kinds that the commissioner is talking about that that do allow uh and I mean, you know, allow for for affordable housing but in decent places maybe next to other types of, you know, a more mixed um you know, kind of scenario.

Yeah. No, that's that's a good question. And in fact, uh, site 55, um, is in a pretty decent area. I would, without confirming, uh, that it's in a higher resource area. I believe it's in that general vicinity. Um, but as far as the, uh, rest of the sites, uh, inventory, which by the way is in our housing element, um, page uh, 4-7, um, and now just quickly looking through here, we have 89 of these sites. Um, they're spread throughout the city. There's even a map here.

Um, I would say all four corners of the city, if you will, have sites that are in the housing element. So, our sites are not concentrated in any one, you know, corner of the city. They're dispersed. Um, if you look at that uh table uh clearly identifies what sites are, uh, more appropriate for lower, moderate, um, above moderate. So, I would in invite you to take a look at that. Um, and just get more familiarized. I know we'll bring this item back. Um, but hopefully by the time we come back, uh, you'll have a little bit better of a feeling that, uh, the sites are, uh, more dispersed than what we think they are now.

Okay. Thank you, Hector. Does anybody else have anything? Yes. Through the chair. Um, one more comment about that list that you're referring to. Are they um are the districts each of the districts uh pointed out in your list? Good question. Yeah. Um the mapping does not have a district uh metric to it, although we probably could come back and sort of filter it that way. We do have the district's map. So, and we do have the layer for the uh the GIS for the sites in uh inventory. So, if that's something that you're sort of interested in seeing when we come back, we could probably prepare that for you.

I would I would appreciate that because I know we've heard a lot of comment by um specific districts that everything is being condensed in like two specific districts. So, I think that would be really helpful. Understand the equity um optic there. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Maderas. Uh, does anybody have any other comments? What about uh public uh do we have anybody on on online for a public comments on this matter? Uh through the chair. Yes. Would you like to open the public hearing? Okay. Well, okay.

Um through the chair. Okay. Well, we'll open the public hearing. Thank you, chair. Uh currently we do have uh two members of the public signed up to speak in person. And then I did see that there was a member of the public who had their hand raised earlier. If they still want to speak, just raise your hand. We'll come to them afterwards. The first speaker, Matthew Shane, please come to the podium.

Good evening, members of uh planning commission. Uh I represent the ownership of site number 55. Um, my family and myself have owned that for probably 20 years with the plan to develop it for housing. I'm here to speak out in objection to requiring this zoning on properties. Um, public here or sorry, affordable housing is a very important thing. I think we can all agree upon that. But I don't see that this being on any property gives any sort of incentive for developers to develop the property for affordable housing. By bypassing SQA, which it says this can, will you can do that with AB130 on an infill housing project of this size. So you're not getting any more benefits by putting affordable housing on this property other than forcing it upon developers to do so. You mentioned that this neighborhood might be better than some of the other ones. There still is crime, broken vehicles, homeless, things of that nature in this area. It just I don't see that adding more. And I have the largest one on this thing, which requires me on 2.3 acres, requires 40 units or so of affordable housing if I were to do 80 units. That's half of my requirement almost. I just would like to say I stand against this and I look forward to working with Mr. Rojos to address my comments and concerns. Uh, next inperson speaker is Dana Pace. Please approach the podium.

Hello and thank you for this opportunity. I live at 578 Admiral Callahan Lane and the property that we speak of, I know Matthew quite well. He and his family has been very nice to my family. I moved there about 15 years ago and I've seen the crime change drastically. So if I'm going to add in 40 or 50 more units or 75 more units at 51 I think was the maximum at 2.5 acres. Is that accurate? Okay. If that be the case, what are we going to do for crime? What are we going to do for policing? Which doesn't happen now? What do we have? 17 cops in the whole city of Valleo right now. Every time I look at my next door, there is a some car has been broken in. someone's been assaulted. So, you're adding more population to an area that's already um somewhat depressed. Now, I will say my property as well as my friend's property here and the neighbors on that whole street, drive up and down the street, you'll see my house is valued at $685,000. I got a new estimate less than a month ago. It is now diminished. is now at $554,000 because right across the street from me the owner owns the whole city block. They you I mean not you but someone has allowed them to come and develop a mobile home park directly across the street from me which has put in I think there are a total of 17 single family homes there. So you you're just bringing an element to a community that if you look up and down Emerald Callahan Lane, there are nice homes there. And so I don't see any benefit to this. Now, I am the person with the biggest retaining wall in my backyard. I had an engineer come out and look at the cost of it. And I'm happy to show you pictures of it. We're talking about $185,000. If I have to shore up that wall, whose responsibility is that? Who's going to pay the cost for that? Is that on me? Because the wall sense in my backyard, the wall from the top of the street down

is holding all the dirt from Matthew's property on his side. So, if you're digging that area, what provisions or what stipulations do we have to prevent our homes from being diminished or more importantly the retaining wall collapsing on our properties? If that happens, my entire house is gone. My entire investment is gone. And same thing for my other neighbors that I know quite well. We all share the same thing. If I may, can I just show the members what the retaining wall looks like? Is it my it it might be better if you could email any pictures over so we could share them with the whole list of everyone on the committee today. No, you can send it to the planning um division.

I have those pictures so I'm more than happy to CC you when I blank I'll send you more. Thank you for that. Um, the other concern that I have is drainage through the middle of my property at 57A in the neighbor's house. The drainage from Matthew's property runs directly through the middle of my property. So, when I called the city, because there was a plumbing issue not long ago, I had them look into that. They said, "That is my responsibility. How is it my responsibility as a property owner that sits below grade and below his unit to be responsible for drainage that fills up his gully? That whole gully when it fills up, it's coming down and it's coming to my house. The third thing I want to say is there's a spring that runs directly through all of our houses. So, what happens if you dig underneath?

That's time. I'm sorry. It's time. Oh, that's it. That's time. Yeah. Yeah. Does anyone object to one more minute? That's through the chair. That's on the chair. Or is that not how it works? Not quite. Uh, you fantastic the time. Thank you. That's the way it is. I'll send my information to you. Thank you so much. Thank you. And uh just checking one last time, Pam's iPhone, if you wanted to speak, please raise your hand one more time. Um otherwise, at this point in time, chair, I believe that might be all of our speakers. Is that all? Do we have anyone left online? No. Okay. Thank you very much. And we will proceed through the chair. You'll need to close the public. I'm sorry.

I need to close. Excuse my comment. Okay. All right. So, do we need to take a motion? So, at this time, we would recommend that you leave the public hearing open and continue it to a date certain, which would be January 21st. Okay. With that, I will recommend that we continue uh this item until January 21st, I believe you said, um for reconsideration at that point. And I will second it. So take All right. Do we need to vote? All right. Where's the stupid vote at? Stupid vote.

I need one more vote. There we go. We have six eyes and the motion carries.

Comment. Uh yes. Go ahead. you're able to comment uh just through the chair. I just wanted to make sure people understood. Um if you want to create additional comments, please please do them in writing. We usually start with the meeting with an address of any uh comments that received on the issue. So even if your comments were cut off verbally, you can put in written comments and they will come to us and we will be able to address them um in a timely fashion. Thank you. Okay. Uh thank you, Commissioner Blind. Um, do I guess we can move on to the next thing which is written. Is that right? To written communications. Do we have any written communications? Not at this [clears throat] time. Thank you very much.

Through the chair. Our city council liaison has arrived. I don't know if you wanted to have him come up and approach and speak at this time. I didn't understand what he said. Can you repeat that, please? I couldn't understand. Um, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. our city comm our city council representative is here. Sorry about that. Would you like to come and uh share some of your your wonderful insight with us. Thank you very much.

Uh thank you Vice Chair um uh Douglas and the rest of the commissioners staff and the general public. Um council member Matulac um I am the council liaison for the planning commission and I represent district 2. Um, part of my report starts off with um, similar to what some of the conversations have been here, uh, where we talked about we had our, uh, joint planning commission and our city council meeting. Um, I can't tell you all the great feedback I've gotten from that meeting. Um, primarily from my own council members of of number one, the great input each and every one of you provided during that whole conversation. um that ranged everywhere from everything from the housing element to tenant protections all the way up to developer development agreements. So that that gives you the understanding of what us council members kind of think of as an overall um picture of what we have to deal with on a daily basis to where your valuable input um has a valuable role and what we a lot of the decisions that we make. So, we I highly recommend you have keep your voice loud and proud and um I would even encourage you to if you haven't already um pay close attention to some of the council member or council uh city council meetings um because as you can see a lot of the decisions we make ties to a lot of things you do as a planning commission. But one of the things that that I've been pushing um for a while now is the is the dualpronged approach of economic development and planning commission to where both of both of those commissions put together um has a very strong is as part of our priority as as city council. So, please, if you haven't, um, take a look at what the economic development commission is doing. Pay attention to what the city council is doing, and you'll see a lot of the things that you guys talk about here directly ties to a lot of stuff that we talk about. Um, and then just listening to the um, first and foremost, I have to apologize for throwing our agenda out of place cuz our

our mayor is um, unfortunately sick and so we actually had a um, Monura lighting that was going on at the same time. So, I needed to jump out to the minor lighting to help represent um the city um for for that event. So, thank you for for accommodating um adjusting the the agenda to for me be able to speak at this point. But just listening to the conversations and some of the things that were talked about. One one of the things that I would recommend is is with these packets that come out I would I would recommend that you guys include a glossery to to that that with this because a lot of the there's a lot of key terms that maybe you as as experts in this field understand but for the general public for them to be a part of I mean talk about upzoning by right um things of that nature where we may understand that but if we want to get the general public to understand what we're doing here. I would recommend maybe throwing that in there. And one of the other things is is is that and I know Vice Chair Douglas can relate to this. I recommend that if we haven't already um include links to maps because maps are a lot of things that developers specifically look at where they have an understanding the GIS map or things of that nature to where that simple link will will enable people to as opposed to having the the actual hard copies available. But that link will make it easy for people to understand uh specific plans, the zoning plans, the things of that nature to where that can be the general background of a lot of things that we talk about. So just throwing that out there as recommendations of things to do that. But um but but as part of my report, I just wanted to commend each and every one of the commissioners for all the great um input guidance that you guys provided at our last joint um planning commission and city council meeting. So um that would be the end of my report. Any questions? Thank you very much.

Uh through the chair, don't forget to turn on your microphone. [snorts] Turn on. Thank you very much, Councilman Matul. I guess you heard that. Um and then the secretary's report. Um

thank you, chair. Um, just want to remind the commission that you did receive an email from our executive secretary regarding a special meeting that we're trying to hold on January 14th. Uh, this will be a joint meeting with the planning commission and the architectural heritage landmark commission uh for an item that does require actions from both commissions. Um, it's a 23 Marin Street where they're proposing to establish an event space. Um, this is a landmark. So, there are some exterior modifications that has a purview for the architectural heritage landmark commission and it does require a use permit that acts on by the planning commission. So, we want to hold a special meeting with both commissions to hear the item and take action on it. So, I am asking the commission now if you guys are available at on January 14th at 7 p.m. This is a Wednesday. Um, if you are available, please raise your hand. Uh, we do have a quorum from the AHLC. We're just waiting to hear back from the planning commission so we can schedule this item.

I think I am. Okay. Yeah. Um, looking at the commission, it looks like we have a quorum and we can go ahead and move forward and schedule that special item. Um second um the commission should have received an email from me about u the American planning association did hold a planning commissioner academy um training in in Martinez. Um they did record it so I did provide the link to everyone on this uh commission if you guys want to listen in or play it in the background. Um it's I took a here at it. It's a pretty good um training just to kind of give you get your feet wet with like the what the plane commissioner duty is and they did provide kind of a high level overview of some of the state state laws. Um and then also um thank you for those commissioners that did respond on the training opportunity that's being held by the League of California Cities. Um the training that's going to be held in March. So for those of you that did reach out, registration is taken care of already. So

we're good on that. Um, other than that, that concludes my update, but I do want to say happy holidays. Hope you guys enjoy the time with your family and loved ones and see you all next year. Thank you very much, Cesar. Uh, and I we hope that you you also and your family. Um, let's go. Well, I see the city attorney is not here. Oh, I'm sorry for the chair. Hello. I'm remote. I'm virtual. Oh, hi virtual. I have nothing. Hi. [laughter] I have nothing to report. This is funny. You

would you proceed though? Did you say you didn't have anything? I couldn't quite hear you. I'm sorry. Yeah, I I have nothing to report then. I don't have anything particularly that I want to say. How about my other commissioners though? Is that a no? Okay. Um, do we have a report from any ad hoc committees? That's a no. Well, I guess that gets us down to the the end of the deal, right? Thank you everyone. Does that work? Get out. [laughter]