Agenda packet — Vallejo City Council, March 24, 2026 (part 18 of 21)

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-14

STREETSCENE
PLAN 1
FARMHOUSE ‘A’
COLOR SCHEME 1
FARMHOUSE ‘C’
COLOR SCHEME 3
FARMHOUSE ‘B’
COLOR SCHEME 2

Page 1930 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-15

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2A - 2,202 SF
4 BEDROOM, 3.5 BA

GREAT ROOM,
2-CAR GARAGE

FIRST FLOOR
827 SF

SECOND FLOOR
1,375 SF
MUD
ROOM
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE:

City of Vallejo Zoning Code
Floor Area Calculation per 16.104
TOTAL = 2,499sf
1st FLOOR = 827 sf
2nd FLOOR = 1,375 sf
TOTAL = 2,202 sf
GARAGE = 444 sf
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AREA = 2,646 sf

Page 1931 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-16

SECTIONS
PLAN 2A

SECTION B SECTION A
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
9'-1"
7'-6"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
LAUNDRY BEDROOM 4

MUD KITCHEN
12 4.5
12 4.5
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
T.O. CURB
T.O. PL
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"
T.O. WDW T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
7'-6"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
T.O. SHTG
2-CAR

GARAGE MUD PDR
BEDROOM 2 BATH 2 LAUNDRY
12 4.5
12 4.5
8'-0"

Page 1932 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-17

ELEVATIONS
PLAN 2A - FARMHOUSE
FRONT

RIGHT REAR
LEFT
LEGEND
1 COMPOSITION ROOF SHINGLES
2 WOOD BARGE BOARDS
3 WOOD RAFTER TAILS
4 WOOD POSTS / COLUMNS
5 HORIZONTAL SIDING
6 BOARD & BATTEN SIDING
7 STUCCO
8 WOOD TRIM
9 VINYL WINDOWS
10 STUCCO (FOAM) TRIM
11 STUCCO (FOAM) CORBELS
12 SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR
13 WOOD BALCONY W/ CABLING
10 9
10 2
7 1
6 8
13 3
11 10
12

Page 1933 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-18

ROOF PLAN
PLAN 2A
1'-0"
2'-0"

WARPED VALLEY RIDGE
10:12 10:12
TIGHT
RAKE
RAKE

WARPED VALLEY

RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE VALLEY VALLEY
RIDGE
ROOF
BELOW
1'-6"
1'-0"
RAKE
2'-0"

4.5:12

4.5:12 4.5:12

4.5:12
1'-6"
1'-6"
EAVE
TYP.

EAVE
TYP.

EAVE
EAVE
EAVE
1'-0"
EAVE
A
2A
B
2AB
2A
A
2A

Page 1934 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-19

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2B - 2,226 SF
4 BEDROOM, 3.5 BA

GREAT ROOM,
2-CAR GARAGE

FIRST FLOOR
827 SF

SECOND FLOOR
1,399 SF
MUD
ROOM
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE:

City of Vallejo Zoning Code
Floor Area Calculation per 16.104
TOTAL = 2,499sf
1st FLOOR = 827 sf
2nd FLOOR = 1,399 sf
TOTAL = 2,226 sf
GARAGE = 444 sf
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AREA = 2,670 sf

Page 1935 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-20

SECTIONS
PLAN 2B

SECTION B SECTION A
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
9'-1"
7'-6"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
LAUNDRY BEDROOM 4

MUD KITCHEN
24 24
12 4
12 7.5
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
T.O. CURB
T.O. PL
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"
T.O. WDW T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
7'-6"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
T.O. SHTG
2-CAR

GARAGE MUD PDR
BEDROOM 2 BATH 2 LAUNDRY
12 6
12 6
8'-0"

Page 1936 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-21

ELEVATIONS
PLAN 2B - FARMHOUSE
FRONT

Page 1937 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-22

ROOF PLAN
PLAN 2B
RIDGE

PITCH BREAK
RIDGE
RIDGE

WARPED VALLEY

WARPED VALLEY
ROOF
BELOW

7.5:12
EAVE
TYP
2'-0"
EAVE
TYP
2'-0"
EAVE
TYP

7.5:12 4:12

7.5:12
6:12
6:12
6:12
6:12
2'-0"
2'-0" A
2B
B
2B
B
2B
A
2B

Page 1938 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-23

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 2C - 2,226 SF
4 BEDROOM, 3.5 BA

GREAT ROOM,
2-CAR GARAGE

FIRST FLOOR
827 SF

SECOND FLOOR
1,399 SF
MUD
ROOM
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE:

City of Vallejo Zoning Code
Floor Area Calculation per 16.104
TOTAL = 2,499sf
1st FLOOR = 827 sf
2nd FLOOR = 1,399 sf
TOTAL = 2,226 sf
GARAGE = 444 sf
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AREA = 2,670 sf

Page 1939 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-24

SECTIONS
PLAN 2C

SECTION B SECTION A
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
9'-1"
7'-6"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
LAUNDRY BEDROOM 4

MUD KITCHEN
12 5
12 5
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
T.O. CURB
T.O. PL
9'-1"9'-1"
8'-0"
T.O. WDW T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
7'-6"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
T.O. SHTG
2-CAR

GARAGE MUD PDR
BEDROOM 2 BATH 2 LAUNDRY
12 6
12 6
8'-0"

Page 1940 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-25

ELEVATIONS
PLAN 2C - FARMHOUSE
FRONT

Page 1941 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-26

ROOF PLAN
PLAN 2C
RIDGE
5:12
RIDGE
1'-6"
6:12
RIDGE
RIDGE
5:12
6:12
6:12 6:12
5:12
2'-0"
EAVE
TYP
2'-0"
EAVE
EAVE
TYP
2'-0"
EAVE
TYP
TIGHT
RAKE
TIGHT
RAKE

WARPED VALLEY

WARPED VALLEY
ROOF
BELOW
RIDGE
2'-0"
A
2C
B
2C
B
2C
A
2C

Page 1942 of 2600 ends

22029.01 04/21/23

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-27

STREETSCENE
PLAN 2
FARMHOUSE ‘A’
COLOR SCHEME 4
FARMHOUSE ‘B’
COLOR SCHEME 5
FARMHOUSE ‘C’
COLOR SCHEME 6

Page 1943 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-28

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3A - 2,494 SF
4 BED+LOFT, 3.5 BA

GREAT ROOM,
2-CAR GARAGE

FIRST FLOOR
954 SF

SECOND FLOOR
1,540 SF
MUD
ROOM
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE:

City of Vallejo Zoning Code
Floor Area Calculation per 16.104
TOTAL = 2,792 sf
1st FLOOR = 954 sf
2nd FLOOR = 1,540 sf
TOTAL = 2,494 sf
GARAGE = 447 sf
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AREA = 2,941 sf

Page 1944 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-29

SECTIONS
PLAN 3A

SECTION B SECTION A
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
9'-1"
8'-0"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
7'-101
2"
LOFT

PANTRY PDR ENTRY
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. CURB T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
T.O. SLAB
7'-103
4"
9'-1"
9'-1"9'-1"
9'-1"
MASTER
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 4 W.I.C. BATH
2-CAR

GARAGE PANTRY DINING
12 6.5
12 6.5
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PLAN 3A

SECTIONS

SECTION B SECTION A

Page 1945 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-30

ELEVATIONS
PLAN 3A - FARMHOUSE
FRONT

Page 1946 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-31

ROOF PLAN
PLAN 3A
10:12 10:12 RIDGE

WARPED VALLEY
RIDGE6.5:12 6.5:12

WARPED VALLEY RIDGE

6.5:12 6.5:12
RIDGE

6.5:12 6.5:12
VALLEY
VALLEY
5:12 5:12 RIDGE
10:12
ROOF
BELOW
3'-2
1 2
"
61 2
"

TIGHT EAVE
TYP.

EAVE
TIGHT
RAKE
6" TIGHT RAKE
TYP.
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PLAN 3A

ROOF PLAN

Page 1947 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-32
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE:

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 3B - 2,494 SF
4 BED+LOFT, 3.5 BA

GREAT ROOM,
2-CAR GARAGE

FIRST FLOOR
954 SF

SECOND FLOOR
1,540 SF
City of Vallejo Zoning Code
Floor Area Calculation per 16.104
TOTAL = 2,792 sf
1st FLOOR = 954 sf
2nd FLOOR = 1,540 sf
TOTAL = 2,494 sf
GARAGE = 447 sf
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AREA = 2,941 sf
MUD
ROOM

Page 1948 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-33

SECTIONS
PLAN 3B

SECTION B SECTION A
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
9'-1"
8'-0"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
7'-101
2"
LOFT

PANTRY PDR ENTRY
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SLAB
12 6
12 6
T.O. CURB
T.O. PL T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
T.O. SLAB
7'-103
4"
9'-1"
9'-1"9'-1"
9'-1"
MASTER
BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 4 W.I.C. BATH
2-CAR

GARAGE PANTRY DINING
12 8
12 8
12 8
12 8
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PLAN 3B

SECTIONS

SECTION B SECTION A

Page 1949 of 2600 ends

11 8
22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-34

ELEVATIONS
PLAN 3B - FARMHOUSE
FRONT

Page 1950 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-35

ROOF PLAN
PLAN 3B
RIDGE8:12 8:12
RIDGE
6:12 6:12
RIDGE8:12 8:12
RIDGE8:12 8:12
RIDGE8:12 8:12

4.5:12

ROOF BELOW
2'-0"
TIGHT
RAKE
EAVE
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PLAN 3B

ROOF PLAN

Page 1951 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-36

STREETSCENE
PLAN 3
FARMHOUSE ‘A’
COLOR SCHEME 1
FARMHOUSE ‘B’
COLOR SCHEME 2

Page 1952 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-37

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 4A - 3,059 SF
4 BED+LOFT, 3.5 BA

GREAT ROOM,
2-CAR GARAGE

FIRST FLOOR
1,079 SF

SECOND FLOOR
1,539 SF
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE:

City of Vallejo Zoning Code
Floor Area Calculation per 16.104
TOTAL = 2,898 sf
1st FLOOR = 1,079 sf
2nd FLOOR = 1,539 sf
TOTAL = 2,618 sf
GARAGE = 441 sf
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AREA = 3,059 sf

Page 1953 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-38

SECTIONS
PLAN 4A

SECTION B SECTION A
T.O. SLAB
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. PL
9'-1"
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL
T.O. WDW
9'-1"
8'-0"
9'-1"
T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
BATH 2
PANTRY
T.O. WDW
8'-0"
T.O. SLAB
12 5
12 5
T.O. CURB
T.O. PL T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
T.O. PL T.O. PL
T.O. SHTG
T.O. SLAB
9'-1"
9'-1"9'-1"
9'-1"
MASTER
BEDROOM 4 LAUNDRY BEDROOM
2-CAR

GARAGE DINING
8'-0"
T.O. WDW T.O. WDW
8'-0"
LOFT
3'-6"

DEN PDR KITCHEN
12 10
12 10
12 10
12 10
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PLAN 4A

SECTIONS

SECTION B SECTION A

Page 1954 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-39

ELEVATIONS
PLAN 4A - FARMHOUSE
FRONT

Page 1955 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-40

ROOF PLAN
PLAN 4A
RIDGE10:12 10:12 WARPED VALLEY RIDGE
5:12 5:12
VALLEY
VALLEY
10:12 10:12 RIDGE
ROOF
BELOW
6"

WARPED VALLEY
RIDGE10:12
RIDGE5:12

3.5:12 5:12
RIDGE10:12 10:12
RIDGE10:12 10:12 WARPED VALLEY

WARPED VALLEY
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PLAN 4A

ROOF PLAN

Page 1956 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-41

FLOOR PLAN
PLAN 4B - 2,674 SF

FIRST FLOOR
827 SF

SECOND FLOOR
1,399 SF
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE:

City of Vallejo Zoning Code
Floor Area Calculation per 16.104
TOTAL = 2,952 sf
1st FLOOR = 1,079 sf
2nd FLOOR = 1,595 sf
TOTAL = 2,674 sf
GARAGE = 444 sf
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION AREA = 3,118 sf
4 BED+LOFT, 3.5 BA

GREAT ROOM,
2-CAR GARAGE

Page 1957 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-42

SECTIONS
PLAN 4B

GARAGE DINING
8'-0"
T.O. WDW T.O. WDW
8'-0"
LOFT
3'-6"

DEN PDR KITCHEN
12 10
12 10
12 10
12 10
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PLAN 4B

SECTIONS

SECTION B SECTION A

Page 1958 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-43

ELEVATIONS
PLAN 4B - FARMHOUSE
FRONT

Page 1959 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-44

ROOF PLAN
PLAN 4B
RIDGE

4.5:12

WARPED VALLEY
RIDGE 10:12 10:12
5:12 5:12 RIDGE
ROOF
BELOW
6"

3.5:124.5:12
RIDGE

PITCH BREAK

WARPED VALLEY
10:12
10:12
4:12
RIDGE 10:12
10:12
10:12
4'-112"
EAVE
TIGHT
RAKE
0' 1' 2' 4' 8'
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
PLAN 4B

ROOF PLAN

Page 1960 of 2600 ends

22029.01 05/19/25

VISTA COVE

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA

SANCERRA
A-45

STREETSCENE
PLAN 4
FARMHOUSE ‘A’
COLOR SCHEME 3
FARMHOUSE ‘B’
COLOR SCHEME 5

Page 1961 of 2600 ends

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO
ORDINANCE NO.________

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP (PD24-0001) TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE

PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SHADY LANE AND WILDFLOWER AVENUE (APNS: 0079-171-170 & 0079-120-100) FROM RESIDENTIAL

LOW DENSITY (RLD) AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY (RMD) TO

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo (“City”) received an application proposing a Planned Development to amend the Zoning Map from Residential Low Density (RLD) and Residential Medium Density (RMD) to Planned Development for the 20.13-acre property located at the northeast corner of Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue (APNs: 0079-171-170 and 0079-120-100) (the “Project Site” or “Subject Property”); and
WHEREAS, in addition to the application for a Planned Development, the applicant has also submitted applications for a Tentative Map, Development Review, Design Review and Landscape Review for the development of a 51 single-family residences subdivision, known as Vista Cove Subdivision (collectively, the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Vallejo, as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), initiated environmental review for the Project, including issuance of a Notice of Preparation, public notice, and a public scoping meeting based on the potential for significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Initial Study, the City determined that there is no substantial evidence that the Project would result in significant environmental impacts, as any potential impacts could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, and therefore determined that preparation of a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SMND) was appropriate in lieu of an Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City prepared and circulated the SMND and associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for public review and comment in compliance with CEQA, identifying potential impacts and mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less-thansignificant levels; and WHEREAS, by separate resolution adopted prior hereto, the City Council made findings and adopted the SMND and MMRP, and did consider the adoption of the SMND and MMRP, prior to acting on the Project and the required Project Entitlements; and

Page 1962 of 2600 ends

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2025, after giving all public notices required by State law and the City of Vallejo Municipal Code, the Design Review Board conducted a duly noticed public hearing and voted 3-0, with one absence, to adopt Resolution No. DRB25-02 recommending approval of Design Review (DR23-0006) and Landscape Review (LR23-0002) to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, after giving all public notices required by State law and the City of Vallejo Municipal Code, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and voted 4-2, with one absence, to adopt Resolution No. PC26-01 recommending the City Council adopt the SMND and MMRP and voted 4-2, with one absence, to adopt Resolution No. 26-02 recommending City Council approve the Tentative Map (TM23- 0001), Planned Development (PD24-0001), Development Review (DVR23-0018), Design Review (DR23-0006) and Landscape Review (LR23-0002); and
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2026, pursuant to Vallejo Municipal Code Section16.602.08, notice of this hearing was published in the Times Herald and mailed to all active neighborhood groups and property owners within 500 feet of the Subject Property, the property owners, the Vallejo City Unified School District and any other local agency expected to provide water, wastewater treatment, streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities or services to the Project, and electronically mailed to the members of the Planning Commission, to the applicant and interested parties; and
WHEREAS, the Record of Proceedings ("Record") upon which the City Council bases its decision on the Project includes but is not limited to: (1) the environmental document prepared for the Project and the appendices and technical reports cited in and/or relied upon in preparing same; (2) the staff reports, City files and records and other documents, prepared for and/or submitted to the City relating to the environmental document and the Project; (3) the evidence, facts, findings and other determinations set forth in this ordinance; (4) the City of Vallejo General Plan and its related EIR (“GP EIR”); (5) the Vallejo Zoning Ordinance and its Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; (6) the Vallejo 2023-2031 Housing Element, and the Addendum to the GP EIR; (7) the Vallejo Municipal Code and its related environmental documents; (8) all designs, plans, studies, data and correspondence submitted to the City in connection with the Project; (9) all documentary and oral evidence received at public meetings, hearings, or submitted to the City during the comment period relating to the Project; and (10) all other matters of common knowledge to the City Council including, but not limited to, City state, and federal laws, policies, rules, regulations, reports, records, and projections related to development within the City of Vallejo and its surrounding areas.

The location and custodian of the records is the City Clerk’s Office of the City of Vallejo, 555 Santa Clara Street, Vallejo, California 94590.

WHEREAS, on March 24, 2026, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by State law and the City of Vallejo Municipal Code, conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider and review public testimony on the Project.

Page 1963 of 2600 ends

NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and the same are incorporated herein by reference.

Section 2. Planned Development Findings
The City Council hereby makes the following findings as required by Section 16.610.03 of the Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC) with respect to the Planned Development as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference:

1. The proposed development is consistent with the general plan, including the density and intensity limitations that apply;
Facts in Support: The proposed Planned Development has been reviewed for consistency with the Vallejo General Plan 2040 (“General Plan”) and found to be consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, as documented in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit B lists each applicable policy of the General Plan followed by facts supporting the Project’s consistency therewith.

The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the two General Plan land use designations applicable to the Project site: Primarily Single-Family (P-SF) and Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density (R-MH), which both allow residential neighborhoods comprised of single-family homes. The P-SF has a maximum permitted residential density of 9 units per acre. The R-MH has a maximum permitted residential density of 25 dwelling units per acre. The proposed Planned Development proposes 51 detached single-family residential units, which equates to a density of 2.5-units per acre for the entire site or 4.9 units an acre on the 10.39 acres being developed, which is consistent with the maximum permitted densities of the P-SF and R-MH designations.

2. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the land use being proposed;
Facts in Support: The 20.13-acre project site contains steep topography at its southern end, which has been avoided in the Project design. Approximately 10.39 acres of the site are suitable for the 51-unit subdivision, allowing for new private streets, landscaping, adequate on-site circulation, emergency access, and all necessary utilities. Development is concentrated on the unconstrained portion of the site, while the remaining 9.74 acres of steep and environmentally sensitive terrain will be deed-restricted to prevent future development, preserving open space and minimizing site impacts.

3. Adequate transportation facilities and public services exist or will be provided in accord with the conditions of development plan approval, to serve the proposed development; and the approval of the proposed development will not result in a reduction of traffic levels of service or public services so as to be a detriment to public health, safety, or welfare;

Page 1964 of 2600 ends

Facts in Support: The Project will provide a new private road at the intersection of Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue. The subdivision will have one main private street with five private alleys to access the 51-units. The new private street will have a 40-foot right-of-way, with sidewalk, curb, and gutter and with approximately 24 on-street parking spaces and one mailbox bay parking space. The private street will have two lanes, one for incoming traffic and one for outgoing traffic. The private alleys will have a 21-foot right-of-way with curb and gutters at each end.

The Project was referred to the City of Vallejo Public Works Department, Water Department, Fire Prevention Division, Building Division and Vallejo Flood and Wastewater. These government entities are responsible for ensuring the provision of adequate infrastructure for water, sewer, emergency medical/fire, and stormwater control. Each agency provided draft conditions of approval intended to ensure the Project provides adequate infrastructure and improvements related to utilities and emergency access. These conditions of approval are to be adopted with the development plan for the Project and implemented at the time construction detail drawings are submitted for grading, site improvement, and building permits.

The Project site will require the installation of new utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, gas, and telecommunications infrastructure. The infrastructure to be provided would be a combination of public and private systems. A private new 8-inch water main line would connect to an existing 8-inch water main in Shady Lane at two locations, for a looped system. The Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District (VFWD) maintains existing sanitary sewer lines within the vicinity of the Project site. A new 8-inch sewer lateral would connect to the existing 8-inch public sanitary sewer main line located in Shady Lane at the northwestern corner of the Project site. The sanitary sewer would be designed and installed to VFWD standards. The Project would also include the replacement of the existing sewer lift station that currently serves the 141 single-family home development to the west of the proposed Project site with an upgraded system to serve both communities. The lift station would be owned and maintained by the VFWD. The storm drain system would be designed and installed to VFWD standards and be privately owned and maintained by the HOA. The proposed storm drain system would convey runoff to two basins that would be installed in the northwest corner of the site and the middle east border of the site. These basins would provide both water quality and hydro-modification meeting current City standards before discharging to one of the open space parcels.

Also, with the addition of the proposed project traffic volumes, existing surrounding roadways will continue to operate well below their capacity with the added project traffic volume.

4. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding land uses and will be compatible with the existing and planned land use character of the surrounding area;
Facts in Support: The proposed single family dwelling units have been designed to be in scale with the existing development to the west of the Project site in terms of unit size, roof pitch, and massing. The development will create approximately 13.25-acres of open space, including

Page 1965 of 2600 ends

approximately 2.5-acres of open space adjacent to the existing development to create a buffer between the two subdivisions. Therefore, the development, as proposed, will not have a substantial adverse effect on the existing, nor planned surrounding land use character of the surrounding area.

5. The development generally complies with applicable adopted design guidelines; and Facts in Support: The Planned Development includes specific design standards for materials, colors, and development standards (e.g. setbacks, lot coverage, etc.) within the subdivision.

The homes have been designed in the “Modern Farmhouse” architectural style. The homes will incorporate different finished materials such as stucco, stone or brick veneer, cementitious lap siding or panels, cementitious board and batten siding, and naturally decay resistant wood.

The architectural detailing (shutters, eave brackets, corbels, exposed rafters/rafter tails, and/or beams) have been proposed to provide visual interest and richness to the elevations, thereby resulting in a development that will be consistent with the design standards included in the Planned Development Plan, as Exhibit C to this Ordinance.

6. The proposed development is demonstratively superior to the development that could occur under the standards applicable to the underlying base district, and will achieve superior community design, environmental preservation and/or substantial public benefit. In making this determination, the following factors shall be considered:
a. Appropriateness of the use(s) at the proposed location. b. The mix of uses, housing types, and housing price levels. c. Provision of units affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income or to lower income households, if applicable.
d. Provision of infrastructure improvements.
e. Provision of open space.
f. Compatibility of uses within the development area.
g. Quality of design, and adequacy of light and air to the interior spaces of the buildings.
h. Overall contribution to the enhancement of neighborhood character and the environment of Vallejo in the long term.
i. Creativity in design and use of land; and
Facts in Support: The proposed Planned Development is demonstrably superior to what could be achieved under the standards of the underlying RLD and RMD zoning districts and provides substantial community design, environmental, and public benefits. The project is appropriate for its location, adjacent to existing detached single-family residences to the west, and is designed to create a cohesive transition between neighborhoods while maintaining neighborhood character. The development includes single-family housing types designed with high-quality architecture, adequate light and air, and complementary scale to surrounding homes. All units will incorporate modern sustainability features, including solar panels, while infrastructure improvements, including underground electrical and internet service, privately maintained streets, water and storm drainage systems, bio-swales, and replacement and relocation of an existing sewer lift station, ensuring long-term reliability and public benefit.

Approximately 13.25 acres of open space will be preserved, protecting environmental

Page 1966 of 2600 ends

resources and enhancing the aesthetic quality of the site. The project’s layout and design promote compatibility with surrounding uses, thoughtfully balance land and open space, and contribute to the long-term enhancement of neighborhood character and the environment of Vallejo. Through these measures, the development demonstrates creativity in design and use of land while achieving substantial public benefits beyond what could occur under standard zoning.

7. The proposed PD rezoning and planned development plan has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, if applicable, and the requirements of this chapter.

Facts in Support: An Initial Study/Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation and Monitoring Report have been prepared for the Project in compliance with CEQA.

NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VALLEJO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 4. Zoning Map Amendment
The City of Vallejo’s official zoning map and district boundaries referenced in Vallejo Municipal Code Section 16.102.02 (Official Zoning Map and District Boundaries) are hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit C.

Section 5. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance, and each and all provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact one or more provisions may be declared invalid.

Section 6. Indemnity and Time Limitations
a. The Applicant, property owner, and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the City or its agents, officers, attorneys, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the City Council’s decision at issue herein. This indemnification shall include damages or fees awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action whether incurred by the Applicant, property owner, and/or any successor in interest, the City, and/or parties initiating or bringing such action.

Page 1967 of 2600 ends

b. The Applicant, property owner, and any successor in interest, whether in whole or in part, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, attorneys, and employees for all costs incurred in additional investigation of or study of, or for supplementing, preparing, redrafting, revising, or amending any document, if made necessary by said legal action and the Applicant, property owner, and/or successor in interest desires to pursue securing such approvals, after initiation of such litigation, which are conditioned on the approval of such documents in a form and under conditions approved by the City Attorney.
c. In the event that a claim, action, or proceeding described in paragraphs a. or b. above is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Applicant, property owner, and/or successor in interest of the existence of the claim, action, or proceeding, and the City will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action, or proceeding. Nothing herein shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; the City shall retain the right to: (1) approve the counsel to so defend the City; (ii) approve all significant decisions concerning the manner in which the defense is conducted; and (iii) approve any and all settlements, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City shall also have the right not to participate in said defense, except that the City agrees to cooperate with the Applicant, property owner, and/or successor in interest in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. If the City chooses to have counsel of its own to defend any claim, action, or proceeding where the developer has already retained counsel to defense the City in such matters, the fees and expenses of the counsel selected by the City shall be paid by the City. Notwithstanding the immediately preceding sentence, if the City Attorney’s Office participates in the defense, all City Attorney fees and expenses shall be paid by the Applicant, property owner, and/or successor in interest. d. The Applicant, property owner, and/or any successor(s) in interest, whether in whole or in part, to either of them, indemnifies the City for the City’s costs, fees, and damages which the City incurs in enforcing the above indemnification provisions. e. Unless a shorter limitation period applies, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6.
f. The conditions of approval applicable to the Project include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), the conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees and a description of dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

Page 1968 of 2600 ends

Section 7. Publication and Effective Date
This ordinance shall be published in accordance with applicable provisions of law, by either:
publishing the entire ordinance once in a newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Novato, within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, or publishing the title or appropriate summary in a newspaper of general circulation, published in the City of Novato, at least five (5) days prior to adoption, and a second time within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for and against the ordinance.

This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its final passage.
* * * * * *
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was first read at a regular meeting of the Vallejo City Council on the 24th day of March 2026 and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Vallejo City Council on the _____ day of __________, _____ by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

___________________________________
ANDREA SORCE, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
DAWN G. ABRAHAMSON,

SECRETARY
Exhibits
A. Planned Development – Vista Cove
B. General Plan Consistency
C. Zoning Map Amendment

Page 1969 of 2600 ends

P a g e 1 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

VISTA COVE

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

VALLEJO, CALIFORNIA
November 2025
ADOPTED BY THE VALLEJO CITY COUNCIL ON: ____________________________

Page 1970 of 2600 ends

P a g e 2 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................5

1.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)..............................................................................5

1.2 PROJECT CONCEPT................................................................................................6

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION...............................................................................................6

1.3.1 Regional Context.............................................................................................6

1.3.2 Site Location....................................................................................................7

1.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY.........................................................8

1.5 SURROUNDING LAND USES...................................................................................8

1.6 PARCELS IN SITE PLAN ..........................................................................................9

1.7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................10

1.7.1 Residential .....................................................................................................10

1.7.2 Open Space....................................................................................................11

1.8 LAND OWNERSHIP DESCRIPTION........................................................................12 SECTION 2: ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.......................................................13

2.1 ROAD STANDARDS ...............................................................................................13

2.2 RESIDENTIAL STREET STANDARDS....................................................................13

2.2.1 Residential Streets ........................................................................................13

2.2.2 Private Alleys .................................................................................................14 SECTION 3: PROJECT UTILITIES..........................................................................................14

3.1 RESIDENTIAL .........................................................................................................14

Page 1971 of 2600 ends

P a g e 3 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

3.1.1 Residential Sanitary Sewer ...........................................................................16

3.1.2 Residential Storm Drain System...................................................................17

3.1.3 Residential Water System .............................................................................17 SECTION 4: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS..................................................17

4.1 RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................17

4.1.1 Primary Uses Permitted ................................................................................17

4.1.2 Purpose and Intent ........................................................................................17

4.1.3 Site Development Standards.........................................................................17

4.1.4 Grading Standards ........................................................................................19

4.1.5 Homeowners Association .............................................................................20

4.1.6 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) .....................................20 SECTION 5: LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS....................................................20

5.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES .........................................................................................20

5.2 PLANT SELECTION ................................................................................................21

5.2.1 Residential Plant Palette ...............................................................................21

5.2.2 Open Space Plant Palette..............................................................................22

5.3 EXTERIOR WALLS AND FENCES..........................................................................24

5.3.1 Residential Fence Plan..................................................................................24

5.4 WALKWAYS AND PATHS ......................................................................................26

5.5 PASSIVE PARK.......................................................................................................26

5.6 FRONT YARD TYPICAL LANDSCAPE...................................................................27 SECTION 6: ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS..............................................28

Page 1972 of 2600 ends

P a g e 4 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

6.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES .........................................................................................28

6.1.1 Architectural Styles .......................................................................................28

6.2 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES........................................................................................28

6.2.1 Development Guidelines and Standards......................................................28

6.2.2 SINGLE FAMILY HOME TYPICAL ELEVATION EXAMPLE...........................30 SECTION 7: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .........................................................31 SECTION 8: OPEN SPACE.....................................................................................................32

8.1 EROSION CONTROL ..............................................................................................32

8.2 FIRE MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................32

8.3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT......................................................................................32

8.4 PRESERVATION .....................................................................................................32 SECTION 9: CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................32

Page 1973 of 2600 ends

P a g e 5 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD)
Vista Cove is a single-family residential project. The project is currently zoned as Residential Low Density (RLD) and Residential Medium Density (RMD) on the City of Vallejo’s zoning map and will be rezoned to Planned Development (PD). The General Plan 2040 land use designation map identifies the subject properties as “primarily singlefamily and Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density”. The proposed project is compatible with the General Plan and the surrounding land uses as described in Section 1.5.

Development standards have been established to provide a high quality of design and continuity throughout the Vista Cove project. Design requirements such as street widths, building setbacks, architectural guidelines and landscape materials are included in the standards.

The development standards are broken down into multiple sections addressing roadway standards, proposed utilities, residential standards, community-wide landscape standards, community-wide architecture standards, and Open Space requirements with the final section concluding the Planned Development. All development within the Vista Cove Planned Development Plan is intended to conform to the development standards which are presented in this document.

Page 1974 of 2600 ends

P a g e 6 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

1.2 PROJECT CONCEPT
Vista Cove is a single-family residential community that includes areas of preserved Open Space. This community is walkable and connected by private streets. The project is thematically accented to create a Modern Farmhouse character that draws on the proximity to California’s wine country and the area’s natural topography. The landscape design for Vista Cove emphasizes drought tolerance and native landscaping and provides abundant trees for beauty, definition of spaces, and habitat enhancement. A Common Open Space shall be located central to the neighborhood providing an overlook into the preserved open space as well as passive reaction opportunities.

1.3 PROJECT LOCATION

1.3.1 Regional Context
Vista Cove is in the City of Vallejo. Vallejo provides access to multiple freeways and transit systems and has a popular and widely used ferry system that connects directly to the City of San Francisco and other parts of the Greater Bay Area. The region continues to experience continued growth, creating strong demand for more housing in Vallejo.

See Figure below.

Page 1975 of 2600 ends

P a g e 7 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

1.3.2 Site Location
Vista Cove is a 20.13-acre vacant project site located in the northeast intersection of Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue. It occupies two assessor parcel numbers (APN:
0079-171-170 and 0079-120-100). The site lies west of Benicia State Park and directly east of an existing subdivision. The site is partially visible from Interstate 780 to the north. See Figure below.

Page 1976 of 2600 ends

P a g e 8 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

1.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TOPOGRAPHY
The subject property comprises 20.13 acres of undeveloped land designated by the City of Vallejo for Residential land uses. A low-lying area with a jurisdictional wetland can be found in the middle part of the site. The wetland width varies and is created from regional flows from the neighboring developed residential properties. There are 83 existing trees surveyed on the site. Of these trees a total of 69 require removal. Of the 69 trees, 47 are significant trees protected under local ordinance. Significant trees shall be replaced at a ratio of 3 new trees for every tree removed, minimum size of replacement tree shall be 15 gallons.

The project is currently zoned as Residential Low Density and Residential Medium Density and will be rezoned to Planned Development (PD). The General Plan 2040 designates the Property as “Primarily Single-Family” and “Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density”. The proposed project is compatible with the surrounding land uses as described in Section 1.5.

1.5 SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is in a suburban environment and is bordered by existing development.

Page 1977 of 2600 ends

P a g e 9 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The project site is primarily surrounded by residential areas, open spaces, and transportation corridors, including Interstate 780 and nearby roadways. Interstate 780 runs directly to the north of the site. To the east lies Benicia State Park, where an undeveloped parcel is situated to the south. West of the site is the established Glen Cove #2 subdivision, consisting of 141 single-family homes. Specifically, the site is located east of the existing Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue residential community.

1.6 PARCELS IN SITE PLAN
Vista Cove would be subdivided into 57 parcels: 51 residential single-family; lots and four common area parcels: Parcels A (8.36 acres), B (1.38 acres), Parcels C (0.17 acres) and D (3.38 acres) that are HOA-maintained common open space parcels. The enhanced sewer pump station would be located on Parcel E (0.07 acres) and Parcel F (1.65 acres) is a parcel for the private roadways.

Page 1978 of 2600 ends

P a g e 10 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

1.7 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Under existing conditions, the Property boundary comprises 20.13-acres of undeveloped land designated by the City of Vallejo for Residential land uses. The developed project site (Lots 1-51, Parcels C, D, E, and F) included as part of this application is approximately 10.39-acres with the remainder open space of Parcel A and B being 9.73- acres. The discretionary approval associated with the Project includes a Tentative Map, Planned Development, Development Review, Design Review and Landscape Review.

Approval of the Tentative Map, Planned Development, Development Review, Design Review and Landscape Review would allow for development of 51 single-family residential dwelling units.

The Project site encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 0079-171-170 and 0079-120-100 located in the City of Vallejo, CA. The General Plan designates the approximately 1-acre western parcel, (APN 0079-171-170) Primarily Single Family. The parcel is zone Residential Low Density. The General Plan designates the second parcel (0079-120-100) Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density. The parcel is zoned Residential Medium Density. The Project site is currently undeveloped with elevations ranging between approximately 70-190 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The Project application consists of a Planned Development Review for the purposes of implementing the project in accordance with the Tentative Tract Map for a 10.39-acre property. The Project would provide for development of 51 single-family residential homes at a density of 4.9 dwelling (51 units /10.39ac) units per acre (du/ac). The proposed 51 dwelling units are comprised of four floor plans with three elevations each.

For parking, 102 covered garage spaces (2/unit), 102 driveway stalls (2/unit), 24 onstreet stalls and 1 mailbox stall are provided. Grading proposed by the project would disturb 10.39-acres. Access to the Project would be provided by one (1) full access driveway through an established residential community to the west.

1.7.1 Residential
The residential component will be located within the entirety of the project site on the future developed 10.395 acres. The project proposes 51 single-family detached units with four floor plans. These homes will also come in three different elevation styles with subtle variations among the designs. A conceptual design of a Single-Family home is shown in Section 6.2.2: Single Family Home Typical Example. The average density for the residential uses will be 4.9 units per gross acre.

The alleys would be accessed from north-south-trending 40-foot-wide right-of-way interior private streets. Between the interior residences, landscaped paseos would provide access to the front of the homes. The 51 residential units will be traditional single-family detached units on lots with a 35-foot minimum width and an 80-foot minimum depth. The traditional residential units would feature a front driveway and front entry way facing the streets and be generally oriented to the interior of the residential area. The residential component of the project will be accessed from a drive aisle off the

Page 1979 of 2600 ends

P a g e 11 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
intersection of Shady Lane and Wildflower Ave as shown on the Tentative Map Cover Sheet, Page C4.0.

1.7.2 Open Space
The central portion of the proposed residential project site will be preserved as open space and would consist of 1.38 acres. Future development would be precluded from this area. This area drains the existing off-site residential development (east of the proposed project site) into low lying areas that will continue to be directed east and off the property. This area will be subject to protective restrictions that would not allow public or private use. The open space would only be accessible via private gates to facilitate maintenance activities. The proposed project anticipates that the open space would be owned, managed, and maintained by a homeowner’s association (HOA) created in connection with the residential component.

Page 1980 of 2600 ends

P a g e 12 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

1.8 LAND OWNERSHIP DESCRIPTION
Vista Cove is a 20.13 (10.39-acres developed) acre proposed residential project. The

10.39 developed acres representing residential portions will be privately owned by one or more parties, except for the public sewer main line and lift station. The remainder acreage will remain as undeveloped and undisturbed open space. The Residential portion is 10.39 acres and includes 51 residential lots, private streets and alleys, passive park, and water quality basins. Within the residential areas, the individual lots, passive park, and water quality basin will be privately owned. The streets and aleys that serve the residential lots shall be dedicated to the HOA for private ownership and maintenance. The Open Space will be privately owned and will ultimately be transferred to a future private homeowner’s association.

Page 1981 of 2600 ends

P a g e 13 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 2: ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

2.1 ROAD STANDARDS
Roadway cross sections have been created for the Vista Cove development project. The following standards describe each roadway and their typical mid-block cross section.

2.2 RESIDENTIAL STREET STANDARDS

2.2.1 Private Residential Streets
Residential streets will provide access to houses fronting onto it. City of Vallejo Standards have been applied to the streets planned for the Vista Cove residential development. These streets are internal to the project and connect to the local streets of Shady Lane and Wildflower Ave.

Street Standards:
a. 40-foot Right-of-Way
b. 28-foot curb-to curb
c. Parking on one side
d. Lighting to meet City of Vallejo Public Improvements Standards Landscaping:
a. 4.5-foot attached walk
b. Street trees to be planted in private yards
Residential Streets – SECTIONS

Page 1982 of 2600 ends

P a g e 14 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

2.2.2 Private Alleys
Alleys provided include shared vehicular access to houses with garages fronting them.

These are private and the lot lines will go to the back of the curb. These alleys are small in scale and connect to the private residential streets. Private alleys will be owned and maintained by the HOA.

Private Alley Standards
a. 33-foot PUE/PE (Public Utility Easement, Planting easement) b. 10-foot travel way in each direction
c. No parking on the Alleys
d. Garage lighting to meet safety standards
Landscaping:
a. Street trees to be planted in private yards
Private Alley - SECTION
SECTION 3: PROJECT UTILITIES

3.1 RESIDENTIAL
This Section provides information on the proposed utilities needed for the residential development of the Vista Cove Planned Development. The project will be designed, developed, and constructed with all utility infrastructure (water, electric, gas, sanitary sewer, storm water, cable/internet) required for the operation of the proposed residential project improvements. The proposed project will connect to existing utility infrastructure located in the right-of-way (i.e. Shady Lane and Wildflower Ave). An overview of the

Page 1983 of 2600 ends

P a g e 15 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
project utilities is below, detailed graphics will follow in the section. The infrastructure to be provided will be a combination of public and private systems. Infrastructure located within the private streets will be owned and maintained by the HOA, except for the sewer sanitary and sewer sanitary force main that will be dedicated and maintained by Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District (VFWD). Infrastructure located within the private alleys/paseos will be owned and maintained by the future Homeowners Association to be established. The water will connect to the existing water line in Shady Lane at two locations for a private looped system. The sanitary sewer will tie into the existing sewer line in Shady Lane. The proposed storm drain system will convey runoff to two basins.

These basins will be installed in the northwest corner of the site and the middle east border of the site. These basins will provide both water quality and hydro-modification meeting current City standards before discharging to Parcel D.

3.1.1 Residential Sanitary Sewer
The Sanitary Sewer shall be designed and installed to VFWD standards. The system will be of publicly owned by VFWD, connecting to the existing sanitary sewer system located in Shady Lane.
a. Lift Station

Page 1984 of 2600 ends

P a g e 16 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
The Vista Cove project will replace the existing sewer lift station that currently serves the 141 single family home development to the west of the proposed project site with an upgraded system to serve both communities. The lift station will be owned and maintained by the VFWD. See Figures below.

Page 1985 of 2600 ends

P a g e 17 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

3.1.2 Residential Storm Drain System
The Storm Drain System shall be designed and installed to VFWD standards and be privately owned and maintained by the HOA. The proposed storm drain system will convey runoff to two basins that will be installed in the northwest corner of the site and the middle east border of the site. These basins will provide both water quality and hydro-modification meeting current City standards before discharging to Open Space Parcel D.

3.1.3 Residential Water System
The Water System shall be designed and installed to City of Vallejo Water Department standards. The public system will tie into the existing water line in Shady Lane at two locations creating a private looped system that will be privately owned and maintained by the HOA.

SECTION 4: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This section provides development standards for the residential development of the Vista Cove Planned Development. These standards apply to the residential portion of the Planned Development which makes up approximately 10.39-acres of the Plan.

4.1 RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS

4.1.1 Primary Uses Permitted
Two-story single family detached residences.

4.1.2 Purpose and Intent
This zone allows for the development of homes within a single zone. 10.39-acres are going to be used for residential development.

4.1.3 Site Development Standards
a. Individual Lots

Page 1986 of 2600 ends

P a g e 18 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Each dwelling shall be located on an individual lot
b. Lot Area
Single Family lots shall be a minimum of 2,800 square feet c. Maximum Lot Coverage
For single family lots no more than 85% of any lot shall be occupied by a residence or an accessory structure.
d. Lot Width
Single family lots shall be a minimum of 35 feet in width at the living setback e. Lot Depth
Single family lots shall be a minimum of 80 feet in depth f. Building Setbacks:

Each Single-Family dwelling shall have the following minimum setbacks to the property line:
• Front: 7’ (non-alley loaded)
• Front: 0’ from garage door (alley loaded)
Covered porches, balconies and stairways of non-alley loaded product may extend into required front yard setback not more than three feet. • Rear: 10’ minimum
• Sideyards: 5’
• Corner Lots – street side: 5’
Allowable encroachments include but are not limited to architectural features such as cornices, canopies, greenhouse or windows, and chimneys may extend into required yards not more than two feet.

Page 1987 of 2600 ends

P a g e 19 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
g. Maximum Height
The maximum height shall be 35 feet. No house shall be over two stories. h. Garages
All garages will hold 2 cars.
i. Required Parking
Two parking spaces in a garage are required for every dwelling unit. Additional parking spaces shall be located on the private streets. On-street parking space minimum of 8 feet by 20 feet.
j. Fencing
Rear and Side property Lines shall have 6’ tall solid wood fence. Lots with views into the open space shall have a 6’ tall view fence in the rear and a 6’ tall solid wood fence on the side. See Section 5.3 for more detail. k. Lighting
Lighting shall be of similar design throughout the development meeting City of Vallejo standards.
l. Accessory Structures
Accessory structures shall be allowed in the Single-Family portion and shall follow the Vallejo Municipal Code as defined in Chapter 16.202. • Shall not encroach any setback
• Shall be under 14’ in height

4.1.4 Grading Standards
The objective of the preliminary grading concept is to use the existing terrain to define the development footprint while conforming to the existing surrounding land uses. The existing topography for the site is a gentle rolling downhill slope traveling west to east including a west-east running drainage swale. Using the City of Vallejo’s Hillside Grading Standards as a guide, the grading will be done in such a way as to create buildable lots and pads while providing for efficient and safe roadway network. The developed area will be graded to create pads and streets that will sit below the surrounding residential uses similar to the existing site conditions. Improvement of the grading concepts as proposed in the Master Plan would require approximately 60,000 cubic yards of material to be moved.

Where topography must be changed; various contour grading techniques will be employed to allow the affected area to blend in with the natural slope. Cut and fill will be constructed with rounded corners to eliminate sharp angles of slopes at the contour intersections. Contour grading will also be utilized to create rounded, undulating slopes

Page 1988 of 2600 ends

P a g e 20 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
between street levels and building pads, and in transition areas from natural slopes to graded slopes. Slope gradients will vary, where feasible, to produce a more natural appearance.

4.1.5 Homeowners Association
There will be a Homeowner’s Association for residential development. This entity will make and enforce rules for the properties within this residential development. Lot owners will automatically become members of the HOA Association.

4.1.6 Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Within the residential neighborhood controls will be placed on each lot to guide the builder and homeowners during the construction of the neighborhood and throughout any subsequent changes in the future. No development will be allowed on the common areas HOA-maintained hillside open space. The CC&Rs are part of the purchase of a lot and are legally enforced.

SECTION 5: LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This section provides development standards for landscape as part of the Vista Cove Planned Development.

5.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES
The landscape concept for Vista Cove focuses on a drought tolerant native or adaptive plant palette designed to create a cohesive development with an attractive transition between the production housing and adjacent open space. Material shall be arranged to screen views of Interstate 780 while also highlighting views into undisturbed preserved open space.

Page 1989 of 2600 ends

P a g e 21 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

5.2 PLANT SELECTION

5.2.1 Residential Plant Palette
TREES:

Acer rubrum ‘Armstrong’ Armstrong Red Maple
Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’ Maidenhair Tree
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus lobata Valley Oak
Quercus robur ‘Fastigiata’ Skyrocket English Oak
Tilia cordata ‘Greenspire’ Greenspire Littleleaf Linden Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’

SHRUBS AND GRASSES:

Acacia cognata `Cousin Itt’ River Wattle
Achillea spp. Yarrow
Agave X `Blue Glow` Blue Glow Agave
Anigozanthos spp. Kangaroo Paw
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita
Bouteloua g. 'Blonde Ambition' Blue Grama Grass
Bulbine frutescens Stalked Bulbine
Acacia cognata `Cousin Itt’ River Wattle
Achillea spp. Yarrow Anigozanthos spp.

Agave X `Blue Glow` Blue Glow Agave
Anigozanthos spp. Kangaroo Paw
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita
Bouteloua g. 'Blonde Ambition' Blue Grama Grass
Bulbine frutescens Stalked Bulbine
Calamagrostis X a. `Karl Foerster` Feather Reed Grass
Calandrinia spectabilis Pink Calandrinia
Callistemon viminalis 'Little John' Weeping Bottlebrush Carex divulsa European Grey Sedge
Ceanothus spp. Ceanothus
Chondropetalum spp. Cape Rush
Cistus spp. Rockrose
Dietes iridioides Fortnight Lily Ceanothus spp.

Dodonaea viscosa `Purpurea` Purple Leafed Hopseed Bush
Epilobium canum California Fuchsia
Erigeron glaucus Beach Daisy
Erigeron karvinskianus Fleabane
Escallonia X `Compacta` Compact Escallonia
Festuca spp. Fescue
Gaura lindheimeri Siskiyou Pink Gaura
Grevillea spp. Grevillea
Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass
Hemerocallis X `Evergreen Yellow` Daylily
Hesperaloe parviflora Yucca
Kniphofia uvaria Torchlily Epilobium canum
Lantana spp. Lantana
Ligustrum japonicum `Texanum` Waxleaf Privet
Limonium perezii Statice
Loropetalum chinense Fringe Flower

Page 1990 of 2600 ends

P a g e 22 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SHRUBS AND GRASSES (continued):

Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly
Nandina domestica Lemon Lime Nandina
Nepeta X faassenii `Six Hills Giant` Giant Catmint
Penstemon spp. Beard Tongue
Pittosporum spp. Pittosporum
Polygala spp. Sweet Pea Shrub
Prunus caroliniana `Compacta` Carolina Laurel Cherry
Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry Muhlenbergia capillaris Rhaphiolepis spp. Indian Hawthorn
Rosa spp. Rose
Rosmarinus officinalis Tuscan Blue Rosemary
Salvia spp. Sage
Tulbaghia violacea Society Garlic
Westringia fruticosa Coast Rosemary
Xylosma congestum 'Compacta' Compact Xylosma
Salvia spp.

GROUNDCOVER:

Arctostaphylos spp. Groundcover Manzanita
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis California Lilac
Grevillea lanigera `Coastal Gem` Coastal Gem Grevillea
Helianthemum n.`Henfield Brilliant` Henfield Brilliant Rock Rose Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum
Scaevola `Mauve Clusters` Fan Flower
Senecio mandraliscae Blue Finger
Verbena spp. Verbena
Grevillea lanigera ‘Coastal Gem’

5.2.2 Open Space Plant Palette
TREES:

Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak
Quercus lobata Valley Oak

SHRUBS AND GRASSES:

Achillea spp. Yarrow
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita
Bouteloua g. 'Blonde Ambition' Blue Grama Grass Quercus lobata Carex divulsa European Grey Sedge
Ceanothus spp. Ceanothus
Chondropetalum spp. Cape Rush
Epilobium canum California Fuchsia
Erigeron glaucus Beach Daisy
Erigeron karvinskianus Fleabane

Page 1991 of 2600 ends

P a g e 23 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SHRUBS AND GRASSES (continued):

Eriogonum spp. Buckwheat
Eriophyllum spp. Woolly Sunflower
Festuca spp. Fescue
Fremontodendron californicum California Flannel Bush
Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Juncus patens California Gray Rush
Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky Monkeyflower
Muhlenbergia capillaris Pink Muhly
Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass
Penstemon spp. Beard Tongue Eriogonum spp.

Rhamnus californica Coffeeberry
Salvia spp. Sage
Verbena spp. Verbena
GROUNDCOVER:

Arctostaphylos spp. Groundcover Manzanita
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis California Lilac
Verbena spp. Verbena
Verbena spp.

Page 1992 of 2600 ends

P a g e 24 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

5.3 EXTERIOR WALLS AND FENCES
Walls and fences provide separation and delineate property lines. A list is provided within this document. The attached images are conceptual and will be refined in final design.

5.3.1 Residential Fence Plan

Page 1993 of 2600 ends

P a g e 25 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Good Neighbor Fence
Six-foot-tall solid wood fence located between residential lots.

View Fence
Six-foot-tall tube steel fence located between residential and open space views.

Page 1994 of 2600 ends

P a g e 26 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

5.4 WALKWAYS AND PATHS
Walkways shall connect the residential lanes to the Common Open Space and adjacent neighborhood. Walkways shall be a minimum of 4 and a half feet wide.

5.5 PASSIVE OPEN SPACE
The Common Open Space, located centrally in the development, shall be designed to take advantage of views into the adjacent riparian area. A loop walk around a flexible use turf area and a vista overlook will provide passive recreation opportunities for residents. The plant palette shall be a combination of native and adaptive species selected to attract pollinators and create a smooth transition into the undisturbed open space.

Page 1995 of 2600 ends

P a g e 27 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT

5.6 FRONT YARD TYPICAL LANDSCAPE
Accent Tree: Accent Shrub:

Acer rubrum ‘Armstrong’ - Armstrong Red Maple Achillea spp. - Yarrow Ginkgo biloba ‘Autumn Gold’ - Maidenhair Tree Agave X `Blue Glow` - Blue Glow Agave Anigozanthos spp. - Kangaroo Paw
Screen Shrub: Epilobium canum - California Fuchsia
Ceanothus spp. - Ceanothus Erigeron glaucus - Beach Daisy Dodonaea viscosa `Purpurea` - Hopseed Bush Erigeron karvinskianus - Fleabane Ligustrum japonicum `Texanum` - Waxleaf Privet Hemerocallis X `Evergreen Yellow` - Daylily Loropetalum chinense - Fringe Flower Hesperaloe parviflora - Yucca Prunus caroliniana `Compacta` - Carolina Laurel Cherry Kniphofia uvaria - Torchlily Xylosma congestum 'Compacta' - Compact Xylosma Lantana spp. - Lantana Limonium perezii - Statice
Foundation Shrub: Nepeta X faassenii `Six Hills Giant’ - Catmint Arctostaphylos spp. - Manzanita Penstemon spp. - Beard Tongue Callistemon viminalis 'Little John' - Bottlebrush Rosa spp. - Rose Escallonia X `Compacta` - Compact Escallonia Tulbaghia violacea - Society Garlic Grevillea spp. - Grevillea
Nandina domestica - Lemon Lime Nandina Grasses:

Pittosporum spp. - Pittosporum Bouteloua g. 'Blonde Ambition' - Blue Grama Grass Rhamnus californica - Coffeeberry Calamagrostis X a. `Karl Foerster` - Feather Reed Grass Rhaphiolepis spp. - Indian Hawthorn Carex divulsa - European Grey Sedge Westringia fruticose - Coast Rosemary Festuca spp. - Fescue Helictotrichon sempervirens - Blue Oat Grass
Secondary Shrub: Muhlenbergia capillaris - Pink Muhly
Acacia cognata `Cousin Itt’ - River Wattle
Bulbine frutescens - Stalked Bulbine Groundcover:

Calandrinia spectabilis - Pink Calandrinia Arctostaphylos spp. - Groundcover Manzanita Chondropetalum spp. - Cape Rush Ceanothus griseus horizontalis - California Lilac Cistus spp. - Rockrose Grevillea lanigera `Coastal Gem` - Coastal Gem Grevillea Dietes iridioides - Fortnight Lily Helianthemum n.`Henfield Brilliant` - Rock Rose Gaura lindheimeri - Siskiyou Pink Gaura Myoporum parvifolium - Myoporum Polygala spp. - Sweet Pea Shrub Scaevola `Mauve Clusters` - Fan Flower Rosmarinus officinalis - Tuscan Blue Rosemary Senecio mandraliscae - Blue Finger Salvia spp. - Sage Verbena spp. - Verbena

Page 1996 of 2600 ends

P a g e 28 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 6: ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
This section provides the development standards for architecture as part of the Vista Cove Planned Development.

6.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES

6.1.1 Architectural Styles
Architectural Character: Modern Farmhouse
The architectural character of Vista Cove Planned Development draws on the project site’s proximity to California’s wine country and the community’s natural topography. The guidelines and standards in the following sections are provided to help guide the development and maintenance of the future residential structures at Vista Cove.

6.2 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES

6.2.1 Development Guidelines and Standards
The following recommendations are encouraged when designing the residential homes at Vista Cove:
a. Building Massing
• Appropriately articulated wall planes (on all 4 sides) with recessed windows.
• Entry Porticos that are forward of the Garage plane.
• Varying projections that add interest by providing shadow and depth. • Clean, simple forms that support the architectural characteristics of Modern Farmhouse.
• Complimentary exterior finish materials that are typical of the architectural character.
b. Main Entrances/Porches
Residential Entries, whether front or side facing, shall feature covered Porches or Porticos that are inviting and engage both the street and the sideyard. Elements may include:
• Covered Porch and/or Entry ways that open to the sideyard • Trellis feature
• Recessed Entry
c. Roofs
The roof design and treatment should be varied but not overly complicated or “busy” - enough to provide visual interest to the neighborhood roofscape. Roof forms that may be considered include:
• Pitched roofs such as Gables, Hips, and Shed roofs (Gambrel, Mansard, and flat roofs are prohibited).
• Varying plate heights and roof pitches (min. of 4.5:12 for main roof and 3:12 for secondary roofs).
• Roof materials such as concrete tile and architectural shingles of differing colors.

Page 1997 of 2600 ends

P a g e 29 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
d. Window Openings
Windows are important elements to the building design as they provide both elevation articulation and light and fresh air for the occupants. The following guidelines balance these priorities.
• Windows at stucco conditions should be recessed from the wall plane a minimum of 2”.
• Window types may include Casements, Sliders, Single Hung, and fixed glass.
• Any window grids or divided lights should complement the architectural character of the home.
• The frame color should be appropriately colored to match or complement the home’s selected color scheme.
• The shape and size of any shutters that may be proposed should match the window opening.
• Reflective glass is prohibited in all locations.
e. Garage Doors
The overall design of the home’s street facing elevation should de-emphasize the garage door to better promote a pedestrian friendly, more engaging streetscape.

Examples to consider are:
• Garages doors that are deeply recessed from the surrounding wall plane (min. of 0’-6”).
• Additional articulation around the recessed opening at the garage entrance.
• A garage recessed/house forward design solution that brings an entry Porch, Portico, or habitable space forward of the garage plane. • 2
nd floor projections over the garage door below that provide additional shading and architectural interest.
f. Exterior Materials and Colors
Varying exterior materials and colors can provide an appealing street scene and further enhance the building’s architectural design. To better ensure the homes in Vista Cove support the Modern Farmhouse style, the following guidelines and standards apply:
• Surface materials and treatments should be designed to appear as an integral part of the design and not merely applied. Materials shall wrap columns, porches, or balconies in their entirety.
• Color and/or material changes shall occur at inside corners. Materials applied to any elevation shall turn the outside corner of the building and end at a logical termination point that relates to rooflines, building masses, and/or fence/wall returns.
• Field color used at the base of a wall should continue down to finish grade. At masonry veneer conditions, the visible wall below the weep screed level should be painted a color that closely matches the veneer above.
• Exterior materials may include (but are not limited to) stucco, stone or brick veneer, cementitious lap siding or panels, cementitious board and batten siding, and naturally decay resistant wood.

Page 1998 of 2600 ends

P a g e 30 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
g. Architectural Detailing
Detail elements such as shutters, eave brackets, corbels, exposed rafters/rafter tails, or beams should be used to provide visual interest and richness to the elevations where appropriate. Any trim used around windows, doors, and/or as belly bands at stucco conditions, shall be at least 1” thick. h. Exterior Light Fixtures
Exterior lighting both enhances the architectural character of the design while providing a much-needed sense of security and visual awareness at night.

Exterior wall-mounted light fixtures should complement the architectural character of the home and be of the high efficiency, low voltage LED type. All exterior light fixtures must be dark-sky compliant and be aimed away from neighbors to avoid light trespass.

6.2.2 SINGLE FAMILY HOME TYPICAL ELEVATION EXAMPLE

Page 1999 of 2600 ends

P a g e 31 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 7: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Vista Cove Planned Development will leave 48.4% of the site undisturbed. Development of the remaining 10.395 acres will follow the approved grading plan accordingly. See Figure below.

The project will use the most accurately available topographic information. The average slope of the proposed developed areas will be calculated using the contour measurement method as shown in Vallejo’s Municipal Code due to the existence of varied slope conditions and topography. All measurements to be taken at four-foot increments for the vertical distance of contour lines.

Page 2000 of 2600 ends

P a g e 32 | 32

EXHIBIT C - VISTA COVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
SECTION 8: OPEN SPACE
The natural open space in Vista Cove is in two distinct areas of the proposed Visa Cove project.

Parcel A is approximately 8.36 Acres and Parcel B is approximately 1.38 acres and both parcels will be fenced and have signage installed to prevent trespassing and will remain undisturbed and maintained by the HOA.

8.1 EROSION CONTROL
Erosion control standards shall be used on all disturbed lands during project development. Disturbance to the central open space shall be kept at a minimum. See Erosion Control Sheet C8.1 for hydroseeding limits.

8.2 FIRE MANAGEMENT
The open space can be accessed by fire from the residential street through the 20’ access easement for Parcel A through Parcels D and E, accessed by the roadways in Parcel F.

8.3 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT
The open space site shall promote and protect wildlife.

8.4 PRESERVATION
The open space shall reasonably preserve existing vegetation in its current condition.

SECTION 9: CONCLUSION
Vista Cove will be a comprehensive development as laid out in this Planned Development narrative. It will be developed under the overall theme that has been established within this document.

Page 2001 of 2600 ends

EXHIBIT – B
GENERAL PLAN 2040 CONSISTENCEY
Policies and Actions Facts in Support
POLICY NBE-1.6
Open Space. Conserve and enhance
natural open space areas in and adjacent
to Vallejo and its waterfront.

The proposed project would preserve
approximately 13.25-acres of the project
site as natural open space and
approximately, 9.86-acres of the 13.25-
acres of the open space will be deed
restricted in perpetuity to ensure it is
maintained as natural open space.

POLICY NBE-1.8
Urban Forest. Encourage planting of street
trees and landscaping to beautify the city,
encourage walking and biking, and create
a stronger sense of identity.

The project involves the planting of 141
trees, and many shrubs and ground covers
contributing to the beautification of Vallejo
and the cultivation of an urban forest. The
construction of sidewalk improvements
within the project will encourage walking
within the subject site.

POLICY NBE-2.3
Inviting, Compatible Design. Promote
attractive development that is compatible
with surrounding uses.

The 51 detached single-family residences
will incorporate a Modern Farmhouse style
look, and the building height and massing of
the structures will not be out of scale with
those located in close proximity.

Action NBE-2.3A:

Continue to utilize development approval
conditions to achieve compatibility
between nearby uses and scale and style
of buildings, and to establish limitations
on activities that could create potential
adverse effects.

The scale and style of the residences is
compatible with the scale and style of the
nearby subdivision.

Policy NBE-1.15
Energy Efficiency. Support measures to
reduce energy consumption and increase
energy efficiency in residential,
commercial, industrial, and public
buildings.

The project would be required to comply
with standards set forth in the California
Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which would
minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during operation. California’s
Green Building Standards Code (CBC Title
24, Part 11) requires implementation of
energy efficient light fixtures and building
materials into the design of new
construction projects.

Policy NBE-1.5
Scenic Vistas. Protect and improve scenic
vistas, including views from Interstate 80
and State Route 37 in Vallejo.

Although the project site is located
approximately 0.85-mile northwest of the
Carquinez Strait and 0.3-mile southeast of
the Benicia State Recreation Area, these
features are not identified as a scenic vista
or significant visual resource in the City’s

Page 2002 of 2600 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

General Plan. San Pablo Bay, Mare Island
Strait, the Vallejo Waterfront, Sulphur
Springs Mountain, Vaca Mountains, White
Slough, Napa River Wetlands, and Sky
Valley, the resources designated as scenic
vistas, are not visible from the project site or
nearby vicinity. These features are located
over two miles from the project site and
views of these resources are obstructed by
intervening development, topography, and
mature trees. The project site and
surrounding areas are not located within the
residential view district and would not
impact scenic vistas of designated views
Policy NBE-3.13
Neighborhood Character. Preserve the
character of existing single-family
residential neighborhoods.

The project at the northeast corner of Shady
Lane and Wildflower Avenue lies within a
well-established, lower-density residential
neighborhood of southeastern Vallejo. The
proposed homes will be similar in scale and
massing as those of the existing residential
neighborhood to the west.

Policy NBE-3.14
Neighborhood Corridors. Connect the
community with mixed use corridors that
function as neighborhood main streets for
adjacent residential areas.

The proposed development will connect the
new subdivision with an existing residential
subdivision that connects it to a mixed-use
corridor along Glen Cove Way.

Policy CP1.12
Clean Air. Protect the community from
harmful levels of air pollution.

The project will be required to comply with
MMRPAQ-2b.1 which ensures the proposed
project implements the Air District’s Basic
BMPs throughout all phases of
construction. Measures include watering
exposed surfaces, covering haul trucks,
limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads,
using wet power sweepers, and suspending
work during high winds. Additional
requirements involve paving surfaces
promptly, washing vehicles before site exit,
stabilizing unpaved access roads, and
posting contact information for dust
complaints. Implementation of MMRP AQ2b.1 would further ensure that the proposed project would not disrupt or hinder
implementation of a control measure from
the Clean Air Plan.

Page 2003 of 2600 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

Action CP-1.12C:

Provide information regarding advances in
air-quality protection measures to
schools, homeowners, and operators of
“sensitive receptors” such as senior and
child care facilities.

See response to Policy CP-1.12: Clean Air
above.

Policy NBE-1.1
Natural Resources. Protect and enhance
hillsides, waterways, wetlands,
occurrences of special-status species
and sensitive natural communities, and
aquatic and important wildlife habitat
through land use decisions that avoid and
mitigate potential environmental impacts
on these resources to the extent feasible.

The project will preserve hillside areas as
open space to prevent impact of the existing
topography of the site. Prior to construction
per the mitigation measures imposed by the
MMRP and as described in the SMND,,
preconstruction surveys will be required
(such as roost surveys, nesting bird survey,
etc.) to ensure protection of special-status
species.

Additionally, as required by the MMRP BIO3a , compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of 0.49 acre of the seasonal
wetland shall be required.

Policy NBE-1.2
Sensitive Resources. Ensure that adverse
impacts on sensitive biological resources,
including special-status species, sensitive
natural communities, and wetlands are
avoided and mitigated to the greatest
extent feasible as development takes
place.

See Policy NBE-1.1: Natural Resources
above.

Action NBE-1.2D:

Protect the remaining woodlands and
native tree resources, and require
replacement plantings where native trees
must be removed.

See Policy NBE-1.1: Natural Resources
above.

Also, 47 of the 69 native trees proposed for
removal are considered to be significant (as
defined in VMC 16.701) and as such, are
being required to be replaced at a three to
one ratio.

Action NBE-1.3B:

Work with landowners to facilitate
assembly and retention of parcels of
sufficient size to preserve valuable tidal
marshes, seasonal marshes, managed
wetlands and contiguous grassland areas
See Policy NBE-1.1: Natural Resources
above. A 9.86-acre parcel of the original

20.13-acre site will be deed restricted to
prevent future development on the parcel in
perpetuity.

Page 2004 of 2600 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

for the protection of aquatic and wildlife
habitat.

Policy NBE-1.7
Green Infrastructure. Encourage the
installation of green infrastructure,
including tools such as permeable
pavement, rain gardens, constructed
wetlands, grassy swales, rain barrels and
cisterns, and green roofs, to treat
stormwater, attenuate floods, increase
groundwater recharge, and reduce urban
heat islands.

The project will include bioretention swells
to treat stormwater from the new
subdivisions. Additionally, a total of 141
new trees will be planted throughout the
site, which will help reduce urban heat
islands.

Policy NBE-1.9
Cultural Resources. Protect and preserve
archaeological, historic, and other
cultural resources.

The project will implement sensitivity
training for all contractors prior to ground
disturbance. If remains are found, the
developer will implement Mitigation
Measure CUL-1 (Unknow Discovery of
Archaeological Resources, CUL-2 (Protocol
for Human Ramins Discovery), TCR-1
(Protocol for Discovery of Native American
Remains), and TCR-2 (Inadvertent Discovery
of Tribal Cultural Resources).

Action NBE-1.9A:

Continue to require that land use
activities comply with State requirements
and follow best practices to ensure that
cultural resources are not impacted and
that appropriate agencies and technical
experts are involved in the evaluation and
protection of resources and sites.

See Policy NBE-1.9: Cultural Resources
above.

Action NBE-1.9B:

Maintain a dialogue with local Native
American groups regarding sensitive
cultural resources in Vallejo.

See Policy NBE-1.9: Cultural Resources
above.

Policy NBE-5.3
Health and Safety Codes. Enforce
development regulations and building
code requirements to protect residents,
businesses, and employees from flooding,
liquefaction, earthquakes, fires, and other
hazards.

The construction plans of the single-family
residences will be reviewed to ensure the
project meets applicable building code.

Action NBE-5.4A:

Continue to require geotechnical studies
for land use proposals to determine
engineering measures that may be
necessary to adequately mitigate any
See Policy NBE-5.4: Project Location and
Design above.

Page 2005 of 2600 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

seismic, flooding, sea level rise, landslide,
erosion, or related risk.

Action NBE-5.4B:

Continue to require drainage and erosion
control measures for landslide-prone or
geologically hazardous hillside areas to
minimize risks to downhill areas.

See Policy NBE-5.4: Project Location and
Design above.

Action NBE-5.4C:

Continue to use the development review
process to ensure that development is
planned and constructed to resist the
encroachment of uncontrolled fire.

See Policy NBE-5.3: Health and Safety
Codes above.

Action NBE-1.14C:

Update the Green Building Standards
Code to require the use of low flow
plumbing fixtures, low volume irrigation
systems, and drought-tolerant plant
palettes.

See Policy NBE-1.7: Green Infrastructure
above.

Action NBE-5.6D:

Continue to enforce City regulations that
prohibit development, grading, and land
modification activities that would
adversely affect the local drainage system
or create unacceptable erosion impacts.

See Policy NBE-5.4: Project Location and
Design above.

Policy CP-2.3
Fire Prevention and Response Services.

Ensure the provision of fire prevention and
emergency response services that
minimize fire risks and protect life and
property.

The proposed project was reviewed by the
City’s Fire Prevention team and complies
with [(ask Fire)_]. The site is located within
an urbanized area and is not designated as
a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Compliance with local building codes,
defensible space requirements, and fire
codes, will minimize risks to protect life and
property.

Policy MTC-2.1
Safety First. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle,
and automobile safety over traffic flow.

The proposed project would include new
internal residential streets that would be a
40-foot right-of-way, with a 28-foot-wide
travel lane from curb-to-curb with parking
on one side and a 4.5-foot-attached
sidewalk. The project would also include
private alleys which would be smaller in
scale than the private residential streets
and would include shared vehicular access
to houses with garages fronting them.

Private alleys would include a 33-foot public
utility easement/planting easement, and a

Page 2006 of 2600 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

10.5-foot travel way in each direction with
no parking allowed.

Policy MTC-2.7
Complete Streets. Increase accessibility
for and use of streets by pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit riders.

The new private streets will incorporate a
40-foot right-of-way with sidewalk, curb and
gutters to increase accessibility for the use
by pedestrians.

Action MTC-2.8C:

As part of the site plan approval process,
require development to provide services
from a menu of transportation demand
management (TDM) strategies that will
reduce VMT.

See policy MTC-2.7: Complete Streets
above.

Policy MTC-2.11
Sustainable Transportation. Ensure that
circulation improvements can be
operated and maintained within existing
and future resource limitations.

See policy MTC-2.7: Complete Streets
above.

Policy MTC-3.1
Coordinated Transportation Planning.

Ensure that improvements to the
transportation network support a land use
pattern that connects the community and
facilities travel among Vallejo’s
neighborhoods.

The project will include a new private
roadway that will connect the new
subdivision to the existing developed
subdivision to the west of the subject site.

This will connect the two neighborhoods to
support a local network.

Housing Element Policy A.2:

The project will convert vacant infill land
into single-unit residences that are
compatible with the surrounding area
which includes existing single-unit
residences to the north, east, and west.

The project will develop an underutilized
site into a subdivision with detached singlefamily residences that are compatible with the surrounding single-family residences
that are to the west.

Housing Element Policy H.3
Protect the character of the existing
neighborhoods by developing objective
standards to facilitate infill projects to be
compatible with the existing
neighborhoods.

The project will protect the existing
character of the existing neighborhood to
the west by ensuring the new homes are
similar in scale and massing.

Housing Element Policy I.1
The City of Vallejo will promote energy
efficiency in residential development
within the city, including reduction of
energy use through better design and
construction in individual homes and
through energy-efficient urban design.

See Policy NBE-1.15 - Energy Efficiency
above.

Page 2007 of 2600 ends

780
780
Shady Ln
Iron
w
ood Ln
Wildflo
wer Ave
Ironwood Ln
780
780
Shady Ln
Iron
w
ood Ln
Wildflo
wer Ave
Ironwood Ln
Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Legend
Rural Residential
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium
Density
Residential High Density
Neighborhood MixedUse
Downtown Mixed-Use
Waterfront Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
Commercial
Waterfront Commercial
Central Corridor
Commercial
Regional Commercial
Office
Medical
Limited Industrial
General Industrial
Parks, Recreation and
Open Space
Resource Conservation
Public and Semi-Public
Planned Development
Residential View Special
District
St. Vincents Historic
Special District
Heritage Special District
0 0.01 0.03 0.05 Miles
¯
Zoning Map Amendment
APN: 0079-171-170
Area Subject
to Amendment
Area Subject
to Amendment
Public and Semi-Public
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium Density
Public and Semi-Public
Planned Development

Page 2008 of 2600 ends

Buckeye
Ln
Ironwood
Ln
Wildflower Ave
780
Benicia Rd
Buckeye
Ln
Ironwood
Ln
Wildflower Ave
780
Benicia Rd
Current Zoning Proposed Zoning
Legend
Rural Residential
Residential Low Density
Residential Medium
Density
Residential High Density
Neighborhood MixedUse
Downtown Mixed-Use
Waterfront Mixed-Use
Neighborhood
Commercial
Waterfront Commercial
Central Corridor
Commercial
Regional Commercial
Office
Medical
Limited Industrial
General Industrial
Parks, Recreation and
Open Space
Resource Conservation
Public and Semi-Public
Planned Development
Residential View Special
District
St. Vincents Historic
Special District
Heritage Special District
0 0.03 0.07 0.13 Miles
¯
Zoning Map Amendment
APN: 0079-120-100
Area Subject
to Amendment
Area Subject
to Amendment
Residential Low Density
Parks, Recreation
and Open Space
Resource Conservation
Residential Medium Density
Public and Semi-Public
Residential Low Density
Parks, Recreation
and Open Space
Resource Conservation
Planned Development
Public and Semi-Public

Page 2009 of 2600 ends

CARLSBAD
CLOVIS

EMERYVILLE
IRVINE

LOS ANGELES

PALM SPRINGS

RIVERSIDE

ROSEVILLE

SAN LUIS OBISPO
6001 Shellmound Street, Suite 425, Emeryville, California 94608 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net

MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16, 2026
TO: Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager, City of Vallejo
FROM: Theresa Wallace, AICP, Principal
Florentina Craciun, Senior Environmental Planner
SUBJECT: Vista Cove Planned Development Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration - Response to Comments
In accordance with Section 15074 of the State CEQA Guidelines, prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed environmental document together with any comments received during the public review process. Although there is no legal requirement to formally respond to comments on a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) as there is for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), this memorandum provides a response to the written and verbal comments received on the Vista Cove Planned Development Project Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to aid the City of Vallejo decision‐ makers in their review of the project.

The Subsequent IS/MND was initially circulated for public review for a period of 30 days, from November 10, 2025, to December 10, 2025. Copies of the IS/MND were made available for public review on the City’s website on November 10, 2025. A total of 17 comment letters from agencies, organizations, and interested individuals were received during the public review period.

Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, applicable to responses to comments on EIRs, this document focuses primarily on responding to comments that relate to the adequacy of the information and environmental analysis provided in the IS/MND. In addition to responses to individual comments, this memorandum also identifies text changes to the Supplemental IS/MND, provided in Attachment B. These include revisions resulting from written comments received, as well as staff-initiated changes as they relate to mitigation measures for Tribal Cultural Resources and Biological Resources. The changes included herein do not provide new information that would result in any new significant impact not already identified in the subsequent IS/MND or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact identified in the subsequent IS/MND that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project sponsor.

Thus, none of the text revisions would require recirculation pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

Page 2010 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 2

COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This section includes responses to each substantive CEQA‐related comment. Table A provides a list of the agencies, organizations, and interested individuals that commented on the IS/MND prior to the close of the public comment period. The comments received have been organized in a manner that facilitates a comprehensive response to a particular comment or set of comments. Each comment letter received is indexed with an alphanumeric code in Table A, below.

Table A: Comment Letter Index
Comment Code Signatory Date
Agencies
A-1
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Bay Delta Region, Erin Chappell, Regional Manager December 4, 2025 A-2
Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District (VFWD), Alan Mitchell, P.E., VFWD – Ponticello Enterprises December 5, 2025
A-3
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 4, Yunsheng Luo, Branch Chief, Local Development Review, Office of Regional and Community Planning
December 9, 2025
Organizations
O-1
Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation (Lucy Beyhan, Cultural Resource Manager II) November 14, 2025
O-2 Wilton Rancheria, Department of Cultural Preservation November 14, 2025 O-3
Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Yvonne Perkins, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer December 4, 2025
Individuals
I-1 Alison Egan -
I-2 Marty November 14, 2025
I-3 Christine Gipson November 16, 2025
I-4 Rick Zavatsky November 19, 2025
I-5 Don Spilman November 20, 2025
I-6 Sandra Zarate November 21, 2025
I-7 Gina Blair November 21, 2025
I-8 Annette Hilts November 21, 2025
I-9 Carol and Kay McKenzie December 5, 2025
I-10 Linda Zupan-McKenna December 8, 2025
I-11 Sabrina Cardoso and David Ingalls December 9, 2025 Source: Compiled by LSA (2026).

The comment letter index number is provided at the top of the comment letter and each comment is bracketed and keyed to the category identified in Table B, below. Specifically, the comments and responses are organized by subject and generally appear in the same order as presented in the IS/MND. Table B provides an overview of the comments and responses in this memorandum, including section numbers, topic code prefixes, and corresponding page numbers.

Page 2011 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 3 Table B: Comment Organization
Topic Topic Code Page No.

Project Description PD 3
Aesthetics AES 4
Air Quality AIR 6
Biological Resources BIO 7
Cultural Resources CUL 13
Geology and Soils GEO 14
Hazards HAZ 15
Hydrology and Water Quality HYD 18
Noise NOI 21
Population and Housing POP 23
Public Services PS 24
Transportation TRA 25
Tribal Cultural Resources TCR 30
Utilities and Service Systems UTL 31
Cumulative Impacts CUM 33
Non-CEQA Issues NON 34
Within each topic, similar comments are grouped together under subheadings, designated by a topic code and sequential number. For example, the comments in Cultural Resources, coded as “CUL,”, are organized under subheading CUL-1.

Under each subheading, the applicable comment letters are listed by comment letter index number, as provided below, with the full comment letters provided in Attachment A. Each individual comment within the letters is bracketed with the corresponding subheading (PD-1, PD-2, etc.). A comprehensive response is provided to address environmental issues raised in the comments and clarify or augment information in the IS/MND, as appropriate.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The comments and corresponding responses in this section relate to the proposed project description. The comment topics include:
• PD-1: Project Access and Amenities
• PD-2: Construction Timeline
Response to Comment PD-1: Project Access and Amenities
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
As discussed in Section 2.0, Project Description (page 2-21), the proposed development would be owned and maintained by a dedicated Home Owners Association (HOA). In Section 4.16, Recreation (page 4-134), the proposed project would include the construction and development of various outdoor amenities within the project site, including 3.55 acres of common open space, walkways, a

Page 2012 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 4 loop walk around a flexible-use turf area, and a vista overlook for residents. These private amenities would be for use by residents of the development and not for public recreational use. While the project site may currently be used informally by members of the public for recreation, such use does not constitute a designated, improved, or maintained public recreational facility. The proposed project does not include the construction, expansion, or improvement of any public recreational facilities that could result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Although the proposed development would not be constructed as a gated community, this does not convert privately owned open space into public recreational facilities under CEQA.

Response to Comment PD-2: Construction Timeline
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
As stated in Section 2.0, Project Description (page 2-22), construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in June 2026 and would occur over an approximately one-year period.

Construction is expected to include site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. As detailed in Appendix A, California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Outputs, of the Subsequent IS/MND, the durations for individual construction phases (e.g., five days for site preparation and 25 days for grading) were assumed for the purpose of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions modeling, based on information provided by the project sponsor and as recommended by the Bay Area Air District (Air District). These phase durations represent conservative modeling assumptions used to estimate daily construction emissions and do not represent a detailed or final construction schedule. The overall construction duration analyzed in CalEEMod is consistent with the approximately one-year construction period as detailed in the Project Description.

AESTHETICS
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to aesthetics. The comment topics include:
• AES-1: Visual Character
• AES-2: Scenic Vistas
Response to Comment AES-1: Visual Character
This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Christine Giposon, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Gina Blair, 11/21/2025 (I-7)
• Annette Hilts, 11/21/2025 (I-8)
Although the project site is currently undeveloped and therefore perceived as open space, the project site is designated for residential development and future development of the project site with residential uses has been contemplated and planned for through the City’s General Plan and

Page 2013 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 5 zoning process. In addition, as detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics (page 4-10) of the Subsequent IS/MND, the proposed project would have a consistent architectural style of a modern farmhouse design. The proposed project would be required to undergo Development Review and Design Review consistent with Chapters 16.604 and 16.605 of the Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC), which would provide for the review of the physical improvements to the project site, to ensure compatibility and compliance with City requirements. In addition, the proposed development would be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designations and would not exceed the allowable densities associated with the Mix of Housing Types/Medium Density (R-MH) and Primarily Single Family (R-SF) designations. The proposed project would also be consistent with the development regulations of the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District upon approval of the proposed rezone from Residential Medium Density (RMD) and Residential Low Density (RLD) to PD.

These procedures are mandatory for new construction and ensure that all proposed physical improvements to the site—including building orientation, architectural design, grading, landscaping, and lighting—are evaluated for consistency with the City’s zoning regulations, design objectives, and adopted plans.

Pursuant to VMC Section 16.604.02, Design Review evaluates projects for compatibility with adjacent development in terms of scale, massing, materials, and overall visual character, as well as conformance with the City’s adopted design guidelines. Approval of the project through these processes is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. The proposed project must comply with all applicable standards and any conditions of approval imposed during the review process. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

Further, the proposed project would be consistent with, and would represent a continuation of, the existing residential development in the surrounding area and there would be an approximately 0.3- mile visual buffer between the proposed project and the BSRA. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a degraded transition between the recreational area and development.

For these reasons, redevelopment of the project site would not result in substantial impacts related to aesthetics, and the proposed project would be consistent with the visual character of the area and surrounding neighborhood.

Response to Comment AES-2: Scenic Vistas
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
As detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics (page 4-9) of the Subsequent IS/MND, the area surrounding the project site is characterized by urban development with some open space and recreational uses in the nearby vicinity. In addition, although the proposed project site is located approximately 0.85 mile northwest of the Carquinez Strait and 0.3 mile southeast of the Benicia State Recreation Area, none of these features are identified as a scenic vista or significant visual resource in the City’s General Plan. San Pablo Bay, Mare Island Strait, the Vallejo Waterfront, Sulphur Springs Mountain,

Page 2014 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 6 Vaca Mountains, White Slough, Napa River Wetlands, and Sky Valley, the resources designated as scenic vistas, are not visible from the project site or nearby vicinity. These features are located over two miles from the project site and views of these resources are obstructed by intervening development, topography, and mature trees. The project site and surrounding areas are not located within the residential view district and would not impact scenic vistas of designated views; therefore, no impact would occur. In addition, as stated above, the proposed project would also be consistent with the development regulations of the PD Zoning District and would be subject to Development Review and Design Review as required by VMC Sections 16.604 and 16.605. These procedures are mandatory for new construction and ensure that all proposed physical improvements to the site—including building orientation, architectural design, grading, landscaping, and lighting—are evaluated for consistency with the City’s zoning regulations, design objectives, and adopted plans. For these reasons, development of the project site with the proposed project would not result in substantial impacts related to aesthetics or scenic vistas, and the proposed project would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

AIR QUALITY
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to air quality. The comment topics include:
• AIR-1: Odors
• AIR-2: Construction Health Risk Impacts
Response to Comment AIR-1: Odors
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• VFWD, 12/05/2025 (A-2)
As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality (page 4-30), once operational, the proposed project would generally not include any activities or operations that would generate objectionable odors.

Vallejo Flood and Wastewater (VFWD) expressed concerns related to potential operations odors from the proposed sewer lift station due to the presence of hydrogen sulfides, volatile organic compounds, and other factors. The lift station would be owned and maintained by the VFWD and would be subject to VFWD standards. It is noted that the proposed sewer lift station is not a new facility, but rather a replacement and upgrade to the existing lift station that currently serves the 141 single-family residences located west of the project site. The existing lift station located at the end of Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue will be relocated to the end of the new private street and would continue to serve the existing community while also accommodating the proposed development. Therefore, the lift station would not introduce a new odor source to the area.

Furthermore, odor emissions are regulated under California Health and Safety Code Section 41700, which prohibits the discharge of air contaminants in quantities that cause a nuisance or annoyance to the public, as well as by the Bay Area Air District Regulation 7, Odorous Substances. Should the Air Pollution Control Officer receive ten or more odor complaints within a 90-day period, then VFWD would need to take corrective action, such as the installation of further odor control features.

Page 2015 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 7 Therefore, impacts related to objectional odors would remain less than significant, as identified in the Subsequent IS/MND. Section 4.3, Air Quality, has been revised to include this additional information (refer to Attachment B of this Response to Comments memorandum).

Response to Comment AIR-2: Construction Health Risk Impacts This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Giposon, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Gina Blair, 11/21/2025 (I-7)
• Linda Zupan-McKenna, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
As discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality (pages 4-24 through 4-27), although the proposed project would include short-term construction emissions through the release of particulate matter (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by grading, hauling, and other activities, the proposed project would be required to implement General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2b.1, which requires development projects to implement the Air District Basic Best Management Practices (BMPs). These measures include watering exposed surfaces, covering haul trucks, limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, using wet power sweepers, and suspending work during high winds. Additional requirements involve paving surfaces promptly, washing vehicles before site exit, stabilizing unpaved access roads, and posting contact information for dust complaints. These measures would ensure that short-term impacts associated with the generation of particulate matter and fugitive dust would be reduced to the extent feasible and would ensure that this impact would be less than significant. Impacts related to material import and export were adequately evaluated in the emissions modeling prepared for the project.

Because the proposed project is located in proximity to existing single-family residential uses, construction activities could result in temporary exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to diesel exhaust emissions. Therefore, a construction Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared to evaluate potential acute, chronic, and carcinogenic health risks to off-site receptors associated with construction-related diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions. The construction HRA considered impacts to the most sensitive members of the population, including the maximally exposed residential receptor, schoolchild receptor, and worker receptor. For the maximally exposed residential receptor, a worst-case scenario was modeled wherein exposure lasts for the entire construction period. This conservative approach to analysis encompasses all sensitive receptor types and is consistent with HRA guidance issued by the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Further, the meteorological dataset from the Vallejo meteorological site from years 2013 to 2017 is the most recent available data for that site from the Air District and is appropriate for use in the construction HRA.1 1 Bay Area Air District. AERMOD-Ready Meteorological Data. Website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plansand-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools/ceqa-modeling-data (accessed January 2026).

Page 2016 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 8 To determine whether construction emissions would result in a significant air quality impact, the project’s health risks were compared to the Air District’s significance thresholds and as outlined in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the IS/MND, construction of the proposed project would not exceed applicable Air District thresholds and would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to biological resources. The comment topics include:
• BIO-1: Wildlife Impacts and Mitigation
• BIO-2: Riparian and Wetland Impacts and Mitigation
• BIO-3: Tree Removal
• BIO-4: Habitat Fragmentation and Wildlife Movement
• BIO-5: Consistency with City Policies
Response to Comment BIO-1: Wildlife Impacts and Mitigation This response addresses comments in the following letteers:
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 12/4/2025 (A-1) • Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Sandra Zarate, 11/21/2025 (I-6)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
• Linda Zupan-McKenne, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
Section 4.4, Biological Resources (page 4-39), of the Subsequent IS/MND detailed potential impacts on wildlife and special-status species and identified mitigation measures to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.4, implementation of Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b related to nesting birds and Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-2a and BIO-2b related to roosting bats would ensure that implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

Further, additional mitigation measures recommended by CDFW related to special-status species have been incorporated into the Subsequent IS/MND, as discussed below. These mitigation measures would be implemented by the project sponsor and construction contractor and would be performed and verified by a quality biologist as required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the proposed project. Implementation of the MMRP is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 and the City as the Lead Agency is responsible for ensuring compliance with the MMRP through its discretionary approval authority.

Page 2017 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 9 White-tailed Kite, Northern Harrier, Short-Eared Owl, Swainson Hawk, and Tricolored Blackbird As discussed in Section 4.4 Biological Resources (page 4-38), of the Subsequent IS/MND, of the 52 special-status wildlife species known to occur in the region, five species were determined to have a moderate or high potential to occur within the project site, including the following: white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius [cyaneus]), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Although Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is known to occur within the region, the project site is located outside of the breeding range of Swainson’s hawk as documented in literature, and Swainson’s hawk is deemed to have potential to occur on the project site for seasonal migratory stopover only. Similarly, although the tricolor blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is known to occur within the region, the seasonal wetland in the project area does not form reed or tule cover thick enough to support a tricolored blackbird breeding colony, and the area is dominated by low growing (less than two feet tall) vegetation. In addition, the freshwater marsh wetland on the southern end of the project site, which would be avoided, is linear and less than the minimum 15-meter width of covered wetland habitat that tricolored blackbird requires to establish breeding colonies. Further, the dense vegetation along the southern tributary is a well-developed riparian canopy and does not support suitable vegetation for a breeding colony. Therefore, Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b identified in the Subsequent IS/MND, which prohibit tree removal, vegetation removal, and initial ground disturbance during the nesting bird season (September 1 through January 31) and requires preconstruction nest survey for bird species and buffers during construction (if necessary), would adequately reduce potential impacts special-status bird species, including white-tailed kite, northern harrier, short-eared owl, Swainson hawk, and tricolored blackbird, as well as other nesting birds.

Specific mitigation measures related to Swainson’s hawk and tricolored blackbird are unnecessary as it is highly unlikely for either species to breed on the project site and there is no nexus to require such measures. As such, no additional mitigation is necessary.

Project Specific Mitigation Measure BIO-1b would be implemented in compliance with state and federal regulations. Buffers would be implemented on a “species-specific” basis and special status species with potential for nesting, such as white-tailed kite, would have more substantial avoidance buffers implemented in the case of observance of active nests. Because potential impacts to specialstatus species would be avoided, no Incidental Take Permit (ITP) would be required.

Burrowing Owl
As discussed in the Biological Resources Impact Analysis2(Appendix C of the Subsequent IS/MND) prepared for the proposed project, there is no potential for the project site to support breeding burrowing owl and the project site represents poor wintering habitat, indicating that burrowing owl presence is unlikely. In addition to the lack of burrows, the project site is characterized by steeply sloping hillsides dominated by tall, unmanaged vegetation, conditions that are not conducive to burrowing owl presence. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the proposed project would 2 WRA, Inc. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Vista Cove Project, Vallejo, Solano County, California. February.

Page 2018 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 10 implement Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-5a and BIO-5b, as recommended by the CDFW, to ensure that potential impacts to burrowing owls would be less than significant.

Project Specific Mitigation Measure BIO-5a requires a burrowing owl habitat assessment and surveys for wintering burrowing owl prior to construction, if construction starts during the burrowing owl wintering season (September 1 to January 31) and Project Specific Mitigation Measure BIO-5b requires all construction pipes, culverts, hoses or similar materials be capped or covered to prevent burrowing owl from shelter or nesting in exposed materials. Section 4.4., Biological Resources, of the Subsequent IS/MND has been revised to include these mitigation measures (refer to Attachment B of this Response to Comments memorandum). These additional mitigation measures are included in an abundance of caution and are not considered new mitigation that would address a new or substantially more severe environmental impact that was not previously disclosed and analyzed in the Subsequent IS/MND. As such, the environmental effects of the proposed project related to burrowing owl remain within the scope of impacts disclosed in the Subsequent IS/MND.

Although the CDFW also recommended additional mitigation that details provisions for potential impacts to an unoccupied wintering burrowing owl burrow (as determined by the burrowing owl habitat assessment and surveys), this measure was determined to be unnecessary as implementation of Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-5a would sufficiently cover avoidance of wintering burrowing owl in the highly unlikely event that a wintering burrow is observed on the project site.

As previously discussed, it is highly unlikely that burrowing owl would use the project site for any extended period of time as the topography of the project site and absence of suitable burrows indicates that the species would not be drawn to the project site for overwintering. This is supported by the fact that high quality overwintering habitat exists near the project site in the form of flat expansive saltmarsh areas within the Benecia State Recreation Area (BSRA), where wintering burrowing owls have been observed on several recent occasions.

Similarly, although the CDFW also recommended additional mitigation related to burrowing owl foraging habitat, this mitigation measure was determined to be unnecessary as there is no scientific basis for considering the project site as suitable for or consisting of sensitive foraging habitat for burrowing owl that warrants compensatory mitigation. Burrowing owls prefer to forage within 600 meters of their wintering areas and have a strong preference for open areas with sparse vegetation, such as flat open grasslands, agricultural fields, and saltmarshes. As this habitat is not present on the project site, it is unlikely that burrowing owls would use the project site for foraging, and Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-5a is sufficient to avoid impacts to burrowing owl.

Common Wildlife Species
Under CEQA, the analysis of potential impacts on biological resources focuses on the protection of rare, threatened, endangered, or otherwise designated special-status species and sensitive natural communities, as well as impacts that would substantially reduce the long-term viability of wildlife populations or habitat. CEQA does not require detailed analysis of project effects on common or widely distributed wildlife species that are not afforded special protection under state or federal

Page 2019 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 11 law. Impacts to common wildlife species that are abundant, resilient, and not locally or regionally declining are generally considered less than significant, provided that the proposed project would not result in a substantial reduction in habitat, disrupt breeding in a manner that affects population sustainability, or otherwise cause a meaningful adverse change to biological resources, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. As the proposed project would not result in a substantial reduction in habitat, disruption of breeding in a manner that affects population sustainability or otherwise cause a meaningful adverse change to the populations of common wildlife species that may be present at the project site, impacts on common wildlife species would be less than significant.

Response to Comment BIO-2: Riparian and Wetland Impacts and Mitigation This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• CDFW, 12/4/2025 (A-1)
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources (page 4-42), of the Subsequent IS/MND, the project site contains freshwater marsh habitat, an intermittent stream and a seasonal wetland, and the proposed project has been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to these sensitive natural communities to the greatest extent feasible. The design plans account for the avoidance of the intermittent stream, freshwater marsh, and riparian vegetation; however, the proposed project would convert 0.49 acre of the seasonal wetland into a stormwater basin on the project site.

Although the stormwater basin would be vegetated and seasonally inundated, it would result in permanent loss of the seasonal wetland on the project site. As such, the Subsequent IS/MND identified Project Specific Mitigation Measure BIO-3a, which would require compensatory mitigation for permanent loss of 0.49 acre of the seasonal wetland and would be satisfied through purchase of mitigation bank credits from an approved mitigation bank, payment of in-lieu fees to an approved public agency or conservation organization (e.g., local land trust), for implementation of compensatory mitigation projects, or via a permittee responsible mitigation involving creation, restoring, or enhancing analogous habitat. Further, the stormwater treatment facilities incorporated into the proposed project would ensure that the proposed project would not adversely affect the hydrology of the Southampton Bay wetlands.

While off-site mitigation banking for wetlands does not provide local/site-specific ecological replacement, under CEQA, mitigation is considered adequate where it avoids, minimizes, rectifies, reduces, or compensates for a project’s significant environmental effects in a manner that is feasible, enforceable, and effective, consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21002 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126.4 and 15370. Compensatory mitigation is an accepted and appropriate form of mitigation under CEQA when impacts cannot be fully avoided or reduced onsite, and when the compensatory measures are designed to offset the loss of resources or functions affected by the project. In this case, the compensatory mitigation measures are specifically tailored to the impacted resource (i.e., seasonal wetland), are based on established performance standards, and are subject to monitoring and reporting requirements through the adopted MMRP. Therefore,

Page 2020 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 12 implementation of Project Specific Mitigation Measure BIO-3a would offset the proposed project’s impacts on seasonal wetlands by ensuring no net loss of biological function or value. Accordingly, the use of compensatory mitigation complies with CEQA requirements and provides a legally sufficient basis for concluding that the project’s impacts would be adequately mitigated to less than significant levels.

In addition, to reduce potential project specific impacts to the riparian and freshwater marsh and riparian trees to a less than significant level, Project Specific Mitigation Measures, BIO-4a, BIO-4b, and BIO-4c would be implemented during project construction which require installation of construction fencing or flagging to delineate the riparian and freshwater marsh boundaries, utilization of erosion control measures, and implementation of tree protection measures.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on wetland and riparian habitats with implementation of identified mitigation.

Response to Comment BIO-3: Tree Removal
This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
The proposed project includes the removal of 69 trees from the northern half of the project site and the planting of 141 new 15 gallon replacement trees,. As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Subsequent IS/MND (pages 4-47 through 4-49), the removal of 69 trees from the northern half of the project site could result in impacts on nesting birds and the direct mortality of silver-haired bat and hoary bat adults and maternity roosts, which would be considered a potentially significant impact. As such, the Subsequent IS/MND identified Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b and Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-2a and BIO-2b. As previously discussed, Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b prohibit tree removal, vegetation removal, and initial ground disturbance during the nesting bird season (September 1 through January 31) and requires pre-construction nest survey for bird species and buffers during construction (if necessary). Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-2a and BIO-2b would require the completion of a bat roost assessment should construction activities occur during the maternity roost season. Implementation of these mitigation measures would ensure that tree removal as part of the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on nesting birds and bat species.

In addition, although proposed tree removal and replanting may result in an interim loss of mature tree canopy, tree removal would not occur during the nesting bird season (Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-1a), and this interim loss of mature tree canopy is not expected to result in substantial adverse impacts on wildlife species.

Therefore, tree removal associated with implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on biological resources, as identified in the Subsequent IS/MND.

Page 2021 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 13 Response to Comment BIO-4: Habitat Fragmentation and Wildlife Movement This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Subsequent IS/MND (pages 4-46 through 4- 47), the project site is not within a designated wildlife corridor.3Further, the project site is located adjacent to a larger tract of housing developments intersected by several highways and non-native grasslands in Solano County, and development of the proposed project would represent a continuation of existing residential development in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed project would not fragment habitat in a manner that would substantially affect biological resources, including wildlife species.

Although the BSRA is approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the project site, the project site does not provide connection to other tidal marsh habitats, nor does it contain such habitat. While common wildlife species presumably utilize the site to some degree for movement at a local scale, the project site itself does not provide corridor functions beyond connecting similar ruderal grassland parcels to surrounding areas. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or impede the use of migratory wildlife corridors. Impacts would be less than significant, as identified in the Subsequent IS/MND.

Response to Comment BIO-5: Consistency with City Policies This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
As described in Section 4.4, Biological Resources of the Subsequent IS/MND (pages 4-31 through 4- 49), the City’s General Plan includes goals, policies, and actions related to biological resources that are intended to protect and enhance natural resources, sensitive biological resources, and open space. Specifically, Policy NBE-1.1 (Natural Resources) provides for the protection and enhancement of hillsides, waterways, wetlands, occurrences of special-status species and sensitive natural communities, and aquatic and important wildlife habitat through land use decisions that avoid and mitigate potential environmental impacts on these resources to the extent feasible and Policy NBE-1.2 (Sensitive Resources) requires that adverse impacts on sensitive biological resources, including special-status species, sensitive natural communities, and wetlands are avoided and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible as development takes place. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to special-status species with implementation of Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b, Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-2a and BIO-2b, and Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-5a and 3 WRA, Inc. 2024. Biological Resources Technical Report Vista Cove Project, Vallejo, Solano County, California. February.

Page 2022 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 14 BIO-5b. In addition, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts related to sensitive natural communities, aquatic resources, or wetlands with implementation of Project Specific Mitigation Measures BIO-3a, BIO-4a, BIO-4b, and BIO-4c.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would be consistent with City policies related to the protection of biological resources.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The comments and corresponding responses in this section relate to cultural resources. The comment topics relate to:
• CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources
Response to Comment CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Subsequent IS/MND (page 4-53), no cultural resources were recorded by the Northwestern Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at Sonoma State University within the project site and no cultural resources including prehistoric or historic archaeological sites or historic-period buildings were identified during the archaeological pedestrian field survey of the project site conducted on January 20, 2025. Based on these results, and given that the project site consists of severe slopes and is adjacent to existing developments, the Cultural Resources Assessment determined that the project site has a low potential for in situ subsurface cultural resources. However, construction activities, such as grading and other ground- disturbing activities, have the potential to uncover previously unknown or unidentified cultural resources. As such, the proposed project would implement standard measures to address the potential to disturb subsurface archaeological resources consistent with the General Plan EIR mitigation measures, as detailed in Project Specific Mitigation Measure CUL-1, to mitigate the impact to a level of less than significant.

Project Specific Mitigation Measure CUL-1 outlines procedures if archaeological resources are discovered during construction, such as work stoppage within 25 feet of the find, and a qualified archaeologist must evaluate the discovery. If the deposit is determined to be a significant historical resource, the project sponsor must implement standard measures for the treatment of archaeological resources, which may include documentation, excavation, analysis, and public outreach. A final report would be required to be submitted to the City and archived at the NWIC with significant materials curated for future research or public display. With the implementation of Project Specific Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to previously undiscovered archaeological resources, as the resources would be avoided, recovered, and evaluated, as needed. These are standard measures applied to all construction projects throughout the Bay Area and the State.

Page 2023 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 15 At the completion of project construction, the proposed project would not result in further disturbance of native soils on the project site and, therefore, project operations would have no potential to impact previously undiscovered archaeological resources.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The comments and corresponding responses in this section relate to geology and soils. The comment topics relate to:
• GEO-1: Slope Stability
• GEO-2: Geotechnical Report
Response to Comment GEO-1: Slope Stability
This response addresses comments in the following letteers:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Rick Zavatsky, 11/19/2025 (I-4)
• Sabrina Cardoso and David 12/09/2025 (I-11)
As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils (page 4-69), of the Subsequent IS/MND, due to the steep slopes at the project site, the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration4includes corrective grading recommendations to ensure the stability of graded slopes, including removal of compressible colluvium, excavation of buttress keyways, cut and cut-fill lot excavation, differential fill excavation, and construction of subsurface drainage facilities. In addition, a design‐level geotechnical investigation would be prepared prior to construction of the proposed project, as required and detailed in Project Specific Mitigation Measure GEO‐1, which may identify additional slope stability measures to be applied during construction, if necessary. Additional slope stability measures could include the monitoring of grading and foundation construction work or retaining walls, if deemed necessary by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer.

To address potential impacts associated with slope instability, the project sponsor would be required to implement all of the recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration and any recommendations included in a design‐level geotechnical investigation into the project development plans, as required and detailed in Project Specific Mitigation Measure GEO‐1. As specified in Project Specific Mitigation Measure GEO‐1, at the end of construction, a licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall provide a letter regarding contractor compliance with project plans and specifications and with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigations and any supplemental recommendations issued during construction. The letter would be submitted for review to the City of Vallejo Building Division and the City Engineer and confirmed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. As such, the implementation of slope stability measures detailed in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration, including corrective grading recommendations to ensure the 4 ENGEO. 2022. Vallejo Properties – Vista Cove, Vallejo, California, Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration.

September 12.

Page 2024 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 16 stability of graded slopes, removal of compressible colluvium, excavation of buttress keyways, cut and cut-fill lot excavation, and differential fill excavation, and any recommendations included in a design‐level geotechnical investigation would be verified by both the licensed Geotechnical Engineer and the City.

In addition, as required by Chapter 12.40, Excavations, Grading, and Filling, of the City’s Municipal Code, a grading permit would be required before any grading, clearing, brushing, or grubbing can occur. As outlined the City’s Grading Permit Guidelines, which implements Chapter 12.40 of the City’s Municipal Code, the grading plans, erosion control plans, and geotechnical reports required as part of the grading permit application would be reviewed and approved by the City of Vallejo Engineer for compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and applicable standards prior to issuance of the grading permit.

With implementation of Project Specific Mitigation Measure GEO‐1 and adherence to the City’s Municipal Code, potential impacts related to slope stability would be less than significant, as identified in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, of the Subsequent IS/MND.

Response to Comment GEO-2: Geotechnical Report
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Rick Zavatsky, 11/19/2025 (I-4)
• Linda Zupan-McKenne, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
As stated in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration prepared for the proposed project, the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance. As the report was prepared in September 2022, ENGEO has prepared a memorandum, dated January 7, 2026, indicating that the conclusions and recommendations provided in the Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration are still valid. Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, has been updated to include this memorandum (refer to Attachment B of this Response to Comments memorandum).

HAZARDS
The comments and corresponding responses in this section relate to hazards. The comment topics relate to:
• HAZ-1: Emergency Access and Evacuation
Response to Comment HAZ-1: Emergency Access and Evacuation This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Marty, 11/16/2025 (I-2)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Rick Zavatsky, 11/19/2025 (I-4)
• Gina Blair, 11/21/2025 (I-7)

Page 2025 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 17 • Annette Hilts, 11/21/2025 (I-8)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
• Linda Zupan-McKenna, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
As discussed in Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (pages 4-95 through 4-96) of the Subsequent IS/MND, the proposed project was reviewed for consistency with the policies outlined in the Solano County General Plan Public Health and Safety chapter, the City of Vallejo General Plan Nature and Built Environment chapter, the Solano County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), and the Solano County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP). The proposed project was found to be consistent with these policies.

Additionally, the proposed project would be designed to meet State and local standards regarding turning radius, road width, and emergency vehicle access. Accordingly, the proposed project would not alter or block adjacent roadways, and implementation of the proposed project would not be expected to impair the function of nearby emergency evacuation routes. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not cause permanent alterations to vehicle circulation routes or patterns, nor would it impede public access or travel on public rights-of-way, as the proposed internal roadways would be accessible to neighborhood users and would terminate at the project site. Furthermore, prior to approval of final maps and improvement plans for any development project within Vallejo, including the proposed project, plan review and approval by the Vallejo Fire Department would be required. For these reasons, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and would be consistent with applicable policies related to emergency evacuation.

Moreover, according to the City of Vallejo General Plan 2040, there are no Very High Fire Hazard Areas in or adjacent to Vallejo. Although the project site is located within a moderate- to high-risk wildfire area,5 operation of the proposed project would be consistent with adjacent residential uses and allowable zoning for the project site. The project would be subject to applicable design standards and guidelines outlined in the City of Vallejo Municipal Code and would undergo Development Review to ensure that proposed structures conform to all applicable regulations. The proposed project would also be subject to the requirements of Section 13000 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, the California Building Standards Code, and the California State Fire Code, which include regulations addressing the following: building standards for fire protection; fire protection and notification systems such as extinguishers and smoke alarms; safety for firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations; minimum standards for hazardous vegetation and fuel management, defensible space, and building construction; and minimum standards for emergency access and water supply for fire response.

Additionally, on October 27, 2025, a supplemental Evacuation Assessment6(refer to Attachment D of this memorandum) was prepared in support of the proposed project. This supplemental assessment evaluated the project’s likelihood of mass evacuation, the viability of evacuation routes, existing alert and warning systems, vehicle demand, proximity to public safety resources, and 5 Vallejo, City of. 2017. Propel Vallejo General Plan 2040, Map NBE-4. August 29. 6 CAS Safety Consulting, LLC. 2025. Vista Cove Evacuation Assessment. October 27.

Page 2026 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 18 operational demand to assess whether the proposed project would materially degrade evacuation operations or create a substantial impediment to emergency egress or ingress.

The Evacuation Assessment determined that, in this setting, the proposed project would not present a substantial evacuation concern and would be compatible with evacuation operations for the surrounding community. This determination is based on (1) the project site’s low likelihood of mass evacuation from natural hazards, as it is located outside mapped Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI) fire-hazard areas and the tsunami hazard area, has no wildfire history, and is not subject to other natural events that commonly trigger mass evacuations; (2) the availability of two viable evacuation routes, including a primary route located near the front of the neighborhood outflow with a short, direct connection to Interstate 780, and an alternate, less favorable route available if the primary route is compromised; (3) the presence of established alert and warning systems, including Solano County’s Alert Solano with Wireless Emergency Alerts/Integrated Public Alert & Warning System (WEA/ IPAWS), law-enforcement hi-lo sirens as an audible redundancy, and pre-determined evacuation zones under the County’s Emergency Operations Plan; (4) operationally manageable vehicle demand supported by traffic control points and short-term staging while preserving responder ingress when conditions allow; (5) the project’s reduced 51-unit scale, which is favorable from an evacuation-management standpoint; (6) the project site’s location within evacuation zone VLJ-1236 and its proximity to Vallejo Fire Department Station 26, located at 1335 Fulton Avenue, and the California Highway Patrol local area office, located at 1551 Benicia Road; and (7) the availability of County and State mutual aid to support evacuation operations during significant incidents.

For these reasons, the proposed project’s potential impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

Response to Comment HAZ-2: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Linda Zupan-McKenna, 12/9/2025 (I-10)
In response to this comment, Appendix F of the Subsequent IS/MND has been replaced to include the final version of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The content and conclusions of the replaced Phase I ESA is the same as the draft version circulated as part of the Subsequent IS/MND.

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to hydrology and water quality. The comment topics include:
• HYD-1: Drainage Patterns
• HYD-2: Stormwater Management and Treatment – Construction and Operation • HYD-3: Erosion and Sediment Control
• HYD-4: Flooding

Page 2027 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 19 Response to Comment HYD-1: Drainage Patterns
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• VFWD, 12/05/2025 (A-2)
As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, a Drainage Study7 was prepared for the proposed project by Qualus Engineering CA, LLP. The Drainage Study identified both the existing and proposed drainage pattern at the project site. Qualus Engineering CA, LLP reviewed the comment from VFWD, which requested revisions to the existing drainage areas (DA) 2 and 3 as provided in the Drainage Study to include contributing areas to the west. Based on Qualus Engineering CA, LLP’s review of the existing drainage conditions, the inclusion of the property to the west in DAs 2 and 3 will be provided in the final engineering and improvement plans for the proposed project, as part of the final entitlement package for the proposed project. The inclusion of this additional area within DAs 2 and 3 does not result in any changes to the proposed project’s impacts on drainage conditions as evaluated and documented in the Drainage Study and the Subsequent IS/MND.

Response to Comment HYD-2: Stormwater Management and Treatment – Construction and Operation
This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• VFWD, 12/05/2025 (A-2)
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
• Linda Zupan-McKenne, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (page 4-100), of the Subsequent IS/MND, the proposed project would be required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057- DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (CGP) during construction and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) San Francisco Bay Region’s Municipal Regional Stormwater (MRP) NPDES Permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, as amended by Order No. R2-2023-0019, NPDES Permit No.

CAS612008 during operation.

Pursuant to the CGP, a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared that identifies the Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during construction activities. Construction BMPs would include, but not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, as well as Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharge of construction debris and waste into receiving waters. As such, adherence to the CGP and implementation of Construction BMPs, specifically the Good Housekeeping BMPs, would ensure that stormwater runoff from the project 7 DK Engineering. 2023. Op. cit.

Page 2028 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 20 site during construction would not contaminate receiving waters, including the Carquinez Strait. In addition, the Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs would ensure that grading and construction activities near the riparian/wetland area of the project site would not result in significant hydrological changes or sedimentation impacts to the riparian/wetland area or the Benecia State Recreation Area (BSRA).

As discussed in Chapter 2.0, Project Description (page 2‐21), of the Subsequent IS/MND, implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately 3.95 acres of impervious surface area (19.6 percent of the project site), which represents an increase in impervious surface area at the project site from existing conditions, which would increase stormwater runoff from the project site and more effectively transport pollutants to receiving waters. As discussed in Section

4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (page 4-102), of the Subsequent IS/MND, required by the MRP, a Stormwater Control Plan and Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan would be prepared and implemented during operation of the proposed project. These plans would be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the proposed project.

Pursuant to Provision C.3 of the MRP, the Stormwater Control Plan would detail the site-specific source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures for new and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new projects. Source control BMPs are preventative measures that are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into stormwater. Site design BMPs are stormwater management strategies that emphasize conservation and use of existing site features to reduce the amount of runoff and pollutant loading generated from a project site. Stormwater treatment Control BMPs are structural BMPs, which typically include Low Impact Design (LID) BMPs, designed to treat and reduce pollutants in storm water runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters. LID BMPs mimic a project site’s natural hydrology by using design measures that capture, filter, store, evaporate, detain, and infiltrate runoff.

According to the Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan8prepared for the proposed project, the proposed project would include two detention basins and approximately 7,617 square feet of bioretention space that would act as stormwater treatment BMPs and be used for stormwater control and treatment to reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater prior to release into the marshland area adjacent to Benicia State Park. The two detention basins would be designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the entire project sized, as required by the MRP.

In addition, the two detention basins would be designed and sized to detain the design capture volume (DCV) of the project site and gradually release to receiving waters in order to ensure that increased stormwater runoff from an increase in impervious surface area would not result in impacts to downstream receiving waters, including sedimentation. Further, the Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan would ensure that the post‐construction stormwater treatment system would be monitored and properly maintained to ensure that the stormwater runoff is adequately addressed throughout operation of the proposed project. As such, adherence to the 8 Sancerre. 2023. Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan. Vista Cove. November

Page 2029 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 21 MRP and implementation of source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures (i.e., detention basins), would ensure that increased stormwater runoff from the project site during operation would not contaminate receiving waters or result in significant downstream sedimentation.

Overall, as discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Subsequent IS/MND, and summarized above, the proposed project would meet all applicable NPDES permit requirements pursuant to the SWRCB and San Francisco RWQCB, which would ensure that stormwater runoff is properly managed and treated during construction and operation of the proposed project.

Therefore, hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant during construction and operation.

Response to Comment HYD-3: Erosion and Sediment Control This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (page 4-103), of the Subsequent IS/MND, exposed soil during construction of the proposed project would result in an increased potential for soil erosion and siltation compared to existing conditions. Additionally, during a storm event, soil erosion and siltation could occur at an accelerated rate. However, as discussed above, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the CGP, including preparation of a SWPPP and implementation of Construction BMPs, including Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs. The Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs would be designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site and would ensure that grading and construction activities near the riparian/wetland area of the project site would not result in significant hydrological changes or sedimentation impacts to the riparian/wetland area or the BSRA.

In addition, as discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (page 4-103), of the Subsequent IS/MND, operation of the proposed project would result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the project site from 0 acres to approximately 3.95 acres, which would result in a net increase in stormwater runoff that could lead to downstream erosion in receiving waters. However, as discussed above, the proposed project includes two detention basins and approximately 7,617 square feet of bioretention space which would be used for stormwater control and treatment pursuant to the MRP. The two detention basins would be designed and sized to treat stormwater runoff from the entire project sized, as required by the MRP. In addition, the two detention basins would be designed and sized to detain the design capture volume (DCV) of the project site and gradually release to receiving waters in order to ensure that increased stormwater runoff from an increase in impervious surface area would not result in impacts to downstream receiving waters, including sedimentation.

Further, the Stormwater Facility Operation and Maintenance Plan would ensure that the post‐ construction stormwater treatment system would be monitored and properly maintained to ensure that the stormwater runoff is adequately addressed throughout operation of the proposed project.

Page 2030 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 22 As such, adherence to the MRP and implementation of source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures (i.e., detention basins), would ensure that increased stormwater runoff from the project site during operation would not result in significant downstream erosion impacts, including on the riparian/wetland area and the BSRA.

Response to Comment HYD-4: Flooding
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Linda Zupan-McKenne, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality (page 4-105), of the Subsequent IS/MND, and according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06095C0629G, the project site is located in Zone X, which is identified as an area of minimal flood hazard.9 Although FEMA FIRM Map No. 06095C0629G depicts Special Flood Hazard Areas located east of the project site, associated with the unnamed creek and marshland within the BSRA that extends north along Columbus Parkway, this area is outside the project site. Therefore, flooding in this area would not impact the proposed project or its future residents.

Although the Drainage Study10 prepared for the proposed project did not include an analysis of sea level rise, rising tides are not anticipated to be a concern for the proposed project and its future residents. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea Level Rise Viewer,11 which depicts community-level impacts from coastal flooding or sea level rise (up to 10 feet above average high tides), the proposed project would not become inundated even if tides rise 10 feet. Therefore, impacts related to flooding associated with rising sea levels or tides would be less than significant.

NOISE
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to noise. The comment topics include:
• NOI-1: Construction and Operational Noise
Response to Comment NOI-1: Noise - Construction and Operation This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• VFWD, 12/05/2025 (A-2)
9 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. Flood Insurance Rate Map No. 06095C0629G.

Map Revised August 3, 2016. Website: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search (accessed January 5, 2026). 10 DK Engineering. 2023. Drainage Study for Vista Cove in Vallejo, California. November. 11 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Sea Level Rise Viewer. Website: https://coast. noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/10/-13603198.473069413/4590765.801025945/14.367/satellite/none/0.8/2050/ interHigh/noAccretion/NOS_Minor (accessed January 5, 2026).

Page 2031 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 23 • Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Sandra Zarate, 11/21/2025 (I-6)
• Gina Blair, 11/21/2025 (I-7)
• Annette Hilts, 11/21/2025 (I-8)
• Linda Zupan-McKenne, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise (page 4-120), of the Subsequent IS/MND, construction of the proposed project would result in increased noise associated with construction equipment, which would include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high noise levels. In addition, during operation, the proposed project would generate increased noise associated with transportation (i.e., vehicles traveling to and from the project site) and stationary-source noise impacts from the proposed ground mounted air conditioning units.

However, based on the construction noise levels provided in the Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix H of the Subsequent IS/MND) prepared for the proposed project, the highest anticipated noise levels during construction, occurring when the loudest equipment operates closest to the nearest sensitive receptor, would average approximately 65 A-weighted decibel (dBA) equivalent continuous sound level (Leq). This is below the City’s daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at all sensitive receptor locations. In addition, the project would be required to comply with noise-related provisions of the City of Vallejo Municipal Code, Chapters 12.40 and 16.502, which establish allowable hours of construction activity and prohibit construction noise that exceeds established performance standards. During construction, construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Construction is prohibited on Sundays and City-observed holidays, unless a special permit is issued by the City. Compliance with these existing regulatory requirements would ensure that construction activities occur only during permitted hours and would not generate excessive noise levels.

Therefore, as construction noise would be below the City’s established noise threshold, the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts during construction.

In addition, according to the Noise Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project, off-site transportation noise impacts associated with the proposed project are predicted to generate a noise level of 50.2 dBA CNEL at the nearest building façade of 196 Wildflower Avenue. Further, the highest operational noise level would average 33.3 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. These noise levels would be below the City’s maximum exterior noise level of 55 dBA for resource conservation and rural residential development and the maximum exterior noise level of 60 dBA for all other residential uses, as provided in Section 16.72.030, Performance Standards/Noise, of the City’s Municipal Code.

In addition, as identified by the VFWD, periodic testing of the proposed lift station during operation would also generate some noise. However, noise levels would meet the VFWD’s requirements for limited noise to ensure that this noise would be less than 4 dBA along the nearest residential property line. Section 4.13, Noise, has been updated to include this discussion of potential noise impacts associated with periodic testing of the proposed lift station (refer to Attachment B of this Response to Comments memorandum). Based on the above discussion and because operational

Page 2032 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 24 noise would be below the City’s and the VFWD’s established noise thresholds, the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts during operation and would not require any noise mitigation. There is no nexus to require additional noise-reduction measures, such as soundwalls.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to population and housing. The comment topics include:
• POP-1: Impacts on Essential Services and Businesses
Response to Comment POP-1: Impacts on Essential Services and Businesses This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
As stated in Section 4.14 Population and Housing (pages 4-123 through 4-124) of the Subsequent IS/MND, the proposed project would increase the local population by approximately 143 persons, based on the City of Vallejo’s average household size (2019–2023) of 2.79 persons per household. 12 Given that the City’s population was estimated to be approximately 122,807 persons as of July 1, 2023,
13 the anticipated population growth associated with the proposed project represents less than a 1 percent increase in the City’s current population. Furthermore, the City’s population is projected to grow by 24,826 persons to a total of 142,744 persons by 2040.14 Therefore the proposed project represents approximately 0.6 percent of the population growth anticipated through 2040.

Although the proposed project would incrementally increase the number of residents in the City, this increase would not be substantial or unplanned. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site and is therefore consistent with population growth assumed under General Plan buildout. As a result, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

With respect to essential services such as grocery stores and other businesses, CEQA requires evaluation of whether a project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the need for new or expanded public facilities, such as schools, police protection, or fire protection.

CEQA does not require analysis of economic effects on individual private businesses, such as grocery stores or neighborhood retail establishments, nor does it require analysis of market competition or changes in demand for private services. Because the proposed project would not result in 12 United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts, Vallejo city, California; United States.2024. Website:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/vallejocitycalifornia,US/PST045224 (accessed February 28, 2025).
13 Ibid.
14 City of Vallejo. 2016. Propel Vallejo General Plan Update and Sonoma Boulevard Specific Plan EIR for the City of Vallejo. July.

Page 2033 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 25 substantial unplanned population growth or require the construction of new or expanded public facilities, impacts related to population growth would be less than significant.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to public services. The comment topics include:
• PS-1: Police Protection Services
• PS-2: School Services
Response to Comment PS-1: Police Protection Services
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Rick Zavatsky, 11/19/2025 (I-4)
As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services, under Impact Threshold 4.15.3 (ii) (pages 4-128 through 4-129), although development of the proposed project would generate an incremental increase in demand for police services, this increase would be consistent with existing population growth contemplated under the City’s General Plan and would not require the construction of new police facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. Additionally, the Vallejo Polce Department (VPD) would continue to provide service to the project site and would not require additional officers to serve the proposed project, considering the negligible increase in population that would result from the proposed project (less than 1 percent of the City’s current population). Furthermore, the project sponsor would be required to pay Solano County public facilities impact mitigation fees used to fund capital costs associated with constructing new public facilities and purchasing equipment for new public facilities. Payment of public facilities impact mitigation fees commensurate with the increased demand for services in the City would offset any increase in demand for police protection services.

Police services would continue to be provided citywide and to the proposed project, and current staffing levels would be addressed through the City’s ongoing budgeting and service planning processes. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in demand such that police services could not serve the project, and impacts would remain less than significant.

Response to Comment PS-2: School Services
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Sandra Zarate, 11/21/2025 (I-5)
As discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services, under Impact Threshold 4.15.3 (iii) (pages 4-129 through 4-130), the estimated number of students the proposed project would generate is derived by multiplying the number of students per dwelling unit (the student yield factor) by the number of dwelling units in the proposed project (51 new units). The California State Allocation Board Office of Public School Construction reports that the Statewide student yield factor of 0.7 student per

Page 2034 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 26 dwelling unit is applicable for unified school districts. Applying the statewide average student yield factor, the proposed project would generate 36 students.

The commenters expressed concern regarding increased demand or congestion at existing schools however, pursuant to State law (Senate Bill [SB] 50), the project sponsor would be required to pay school impact fees prior to issuance of building permits to mitigate impacts on school facilities.

Payment of these fees is deemed full mitigation for impacts to school facilities under CEQA.

Therefore, impacts associated with increased demand on schools would remain less than significant.

TRANSPORTATION
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to transportation and traffic. The comment topics include:
• TRA-1: VMT Methodology
• TRA-2: Traffic Analysis Methodology
• TRA-3: Road Conditions and Maintenance
• TRA-4: Safety and Emergency Access
• TRA-5: Increased Traffic and Congestion
• TRA-6: Alternative Modes of Transportation
• TRA-7: Cumulative Transportation Impacts
• TRA-8: Site Access
Response to Comment TRA-1: VMT Methodology
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Caltrans, 12/3/2025 (A-3)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
As discussed in the Transportation Analysis15 in Appendix I of the Subsequent IS/MND, the City has adopted transportation thresholds under which small projects that would generate fewer than 500 daily two-way vehicle trips are considered to result in less than significant transportation impacts.

Solano County likewise has not adopted VMT thresholds of significance.

As explained in the Transportation Analysis, it is not appropriate to rely solely on the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA (December 2018). Instead, the Transportation Analysis provides independent substantial evidence supporting the application of the City’s small-project threshold. Subsequent to preparation of the Transportation Analysis, a California Court of Appeal decision, Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. County of San Diego (2025), confirmed that reliance on the Technical Advisory’s small15 LSA Associates, Inc. 2025. Transportation Analysis for the Vista Cove Project (LSA Project No. 20241845).

January 9.

Page 2035 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 27 project screening threshold, without additional supporting evidence, is improper. Consistent with that decision, the Transportation Analysis does not rely exclusively on the Technical Advisory.

One of the stated objectives of SB 743 is the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Transportation Analysis established relationship between VMT and GHG emissions and, using adopted GHG thresholds, demonstrates that projects generating fewer than 500 daily two-way trips would result in negligible GHG effects. While the Transportation Analysis does not rely on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines as a threshold of significance, it notes that the project’s estimated transportation-related emissions are below the thresholds identified in those guidelines as an additional point of reference. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) allows a lead agency to consider thresholds of significance adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Furthermore, the Transportation Analysis provides independent substantial evidence that is consistent with, but not dependent upon, previously adopted thresholds of significance.

Response to Comment TRA-2: Traffic Analysis Methodology This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Linda Zupan-McKenna, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
As stated in Section 4.17, Transportation (pages 4‑140 through 4-142) of the Subsequent IS/MND, the Transportation Analysis for the proposed project (Appendix I) was prepared in January 2025 and applied trip generation rates published in the latest version of ITE Trip Generation Manual. The 11th Edition was published in 2021 and, for single family homes, includes data collected nationwide (including in California) between the 1990s and 2020s. In August 2025 the 12th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual was published. This latest version includes additional data collected between 2021 and 2025. As the result of including more recent data, the trip generation rate for single family housing decreased (e.g., from 9.43 daily trips per home to 9.09 daily trips per home). Therefore, estimates of the daily trip generation for the proposed project included in the Subsequent IS/MND are more conservative than current rates.

Response to Comment TRA-3: Road Conditions and Maintenance This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
As stated in Section 4.17, Transportation and Circulation (page 4-142) of the Subsequent IS/MND, the design, construction, and maintenance of project access points and on-site roads would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and applicable City standards. In addition, West of Dogwood Lane, Shady Lane is approximately 35 to 40 feet wide and accommodates parallel parking on both sides of the street. East of Dogwood Lane, the roadway begins to narrow, and east

Page 2036 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 28 of Applenut Lane, Shady Lane is approximately 25 to 30 feet wide and is signed to prohibit on-street parking. Even in its narrowest segments, Shady Lane meets applicable design standards and exceeds the minimum 24-foot width necessary to accommodate two-way vehicle traffic without on-street parking.

Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), a project is responsible only for its incremental effects on the environment, and existing roadway conditions alone do not constitute a significant impact. In addition, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) requires that transportation impacts be evaluated based on the project’s effect on VMT, rather than pre-existing roadway design characteristics. Accordingly, the project applicant is not required to repair or upgrade off-site roadways.

Response to Comment TRA-4: Safety and Emergency Access
This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Marty 11/16/2025 (I-2)
• Christine Gipson 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Rick Zavatsky, 11/19/2025 (I-4)
• Gina Blair 11/21/2025 (I-7)
• Annette Hilts, 11/21/2025 (I-8)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
• Linda Zupan-McKenna 12/08/2025 (I-10)
Please refer to Comment HAZ-1 for a discussion of emergency access. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4.17 Transportation (page 4-142), the design of the proposed project does not include any hazardous geometric design features, such as sharp horizontal curves, sudden curve transitions, or offset intersections, or incompatible uses that could substantially increase circulation/traffic hazards.

Vehicular access to the project site would be provided by one full access residential street through an established community to the west off the intersection of Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue.

The proposed project would include new private internal residential streets that would be 28 feet wide curb‐to‐curb with parking on one side, and a 4.5‐foot attached sidewalk. The project would also include private alleys which would be smaller in scale than the private residential streets and would include shared vehicular access to houses with garages fronting them. Private alleys would include a 33‐foot public utility easement/planting easement, and a 10‐foot travel way in each direction with no parking allowed. Accordingly, the design, construction, and maintenance of project access locations and on‐site roads would be required to comply with the City’s Municipal Code and relevant City standards.

Response to Comment TRA-5: Increased Traffic and Congestion This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Marty, 11/16/2025 (I-2)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)

Page 2037 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 29 • Rick Zavatsky, 11/19/2025 (I-4)
• Don Spilman, 11/20/2025 (I-5)
• Sandra Zarate, 11/21/2025 (I-6)
• Gina Blair, 11/21/2025 (I-7)
• Annette Hilts, 11/21/2025 (I-8)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
• Linda Zupan-McKenna, 12/08/2025 (I-10)
• Sabrina Cardoso and David Ingalls, 12/09/2025 (I-11)
As stated in Section 4.17, Transportation, the City of Vallejo Public Works Department Traffic Impact Analysis/Study Guidelines identify thresholds for determining if the contribution of project traffic to an intersection would be significant. The significance thresholds identify whether project traffic volume would increase the volume-to-capacity ratio of key intersections. The significance threshold is lower for intersections at or near full capacity and higher for intersections performing at a better level of service, but no significant impact would occur at any intersection operating at the best levels of service (i.e., level of service [LOS] A and B). The guidelines also provide a screening threshold of 100 peak hour trips for determining when a traffic impact analysis should be prepared. For a project below 100 peak hour trips, project volume at key intersections would not trigger the established significance threshold. The proposed project peak hour trip generation is 48, less than half of the established screening threshold for peak hour trips. The proposed project daily trip generation is also less than the established screening threshold for daily trips. Even though the proposed project trip generation is less than the established screening thresholds, an analysis of the traffic impacts at the key intersection of Glen Cove Parkway/Robles Way was prepared. This intersection was found to operate at LOS B even with the addition of project traffic and the project would not have a significant impact. Intersections along neighborhood streets do not operate near their capacity limit, would similarly have a good LOS, would continue to operate well below their capacity with the addition of project traffic volume, and the established thresholds of significance would not be crossed by the project’s low traffic volume.

Further, the trip generation for the proposed project was developed using rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2021)16 for Land Use Code 210 (SingleFamily Detached Housing), the proposed project is anticipated to generate 481 daily trips of which 35 would occur in the AM peak hour and 48 would occur in the PM peak hour. As such, the project’s trip generation is below the thresholds established by the City’s guidelines and the preparation of a traffic analysis is not required for the proposed project. The project traffic is included within the traffic generated by the General Plan build out, and the project would not result in a new significant impact or in a substantial in Because the project would generate fewer trips than the threshold for review established by the City and in the Congestion Management Program (CMP), and because project traffic was not found to degrade the operation of the intersection of Glen Cove Parkway/ Robles Way to below LOS E, it is determined that the project does not have the potential to significantly affect roadway operations, and the project would not conflict with General Plan policies regarding LOS.
16 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2021. Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition.

Page 2038 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 30 Additionally, although traffic construction phase traffic impacts were not modeled for the proposed project, the traffic volumes generated by project construction would be less than 500 trips per day and would not exceed the operational traffic as discussed above.

Response to Comment TRA-6: Alternative Modes of Transportation This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Annette Hilts, 11/21/2025 (I-8)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the Subsequent IS/MND (pages 4-138 through 4- 143) and in the Transportation Analysis prepared for the project (Appendix I), the project site is served by an existing network of streets, sidewalks, transit routes, and bikeways. The project would construct 4.5-foot-wide attached sidewalks along internal residential streets, connecting homes to common open space areas and linking to existing sidewalks along Shady Lane, Wildflower Avenue, and nearby streets. The increase in pedestrian activity generated by the project is expected to be minimal and would not exceed the capacity of the existing facilities.

Bicycle access is available via existing Class II bikeways along Glen Cove Parkway, approximately 0.5 mile from the project site. The project would not remove or interfere with existing bicycle facilities, nor would it require new off-site bicycle infrastructure.

Transit service in the project vicinity is provided by SolTrans Routes 3 and 8, with stops approximately 0.5 mile west along Glen Cove Parkway. Pedestrian connections to these stops are available via existing sidewalks. The project is not expected to generate a volume of transit trips that would exceed the capacity of existing transit service or interfere with planned service.

Furthermore, because the proposed project would not significantly affect roadway operations and would not conflict with or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), the project is not required to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan.

CEQA requires mitigation measures only for significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21002.1(a); State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a): “Mitigation measures shall be feasible, and shall be adopted, if the measure is capable of reducing the significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level”). As the proposed project would have less than significant impacts on vehicle to VMT, roadways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and transit service no additional TDM strategies are necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Response to Comment TRA-7: Cumulative Transportation Impacts This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
The Vallejo Design Review Board made recommendations to the Planning Commission to approve the design and landscape of the Rollingwood Subdivision project, which now is preparing an

Page 2039 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 31 environmental review. Appropriate analysis of the Rollingwood Drive subdivision project potential transportation impacts would be included in that environmental review and the proposed project would be a cumulative project.

Please also refer to Comment TRA-5 which details the intersection analysis. The proposed project would generate less traffic than the established threshold for providing a quantitative analysis of intersection level of service.

Response to Comment TRA-8: Site Access
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Don Spilman, 11/20/2025 (I-5)
• Gina Blair, 11/21/2025 (I-7)
• Annette Hilts, 11/21/2025 (I-8)
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
• Linda Zupan-McKenna, 12/08/2025 (I-10)

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to tribal cultural resources. The comment topics include:
• TCR-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources and Human Remains • TCR-2: Tribal Consultation
Response to Comment TCR-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources and Human Remains
This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
• Lisjan Nation, 11/14/2025 (O-1)
As discussed in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Subsequent IS/MND (page 4-147), no information regarding specific known tribal cultural resources on the project site was provided to the City and no human remains are known to be on the project site or are anticipated to be discovered during project construction. In addition, no cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources were identified during the archaeological pedestrian field survey of the project site conducted on January 20, 2025. Based on these results, the Cultural Resources Assessment17 (Appendix D of the Subsequent IS/MND) determined that the project site has a low potential for in situ subsurface cultural resources and the potential for encountering unknown buried cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources, during project construction is low. However, 17 LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2025. Cultural Resources Assessment, Vista Cove Development Project, Vallejo, Solano County, California. March.

Page 2040 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 32 construction activities, such as grading and other ground-disturbing activities, has the potential to uncover previously unknown or unidentified tribal cultural resources. In addition, as detailed on page 4-148, of the Subsequent IS/MND, Project Specific Mitigation Measure TCR-1, which requires immediate cessation of work within 25 feet of a discovery, securing and protecting the find, and treatment of the resource in accordance with applicable sections of the California Public Resources (PRC) Section 5097.98. These regulations establish the process the process for the immediate cessation of work, securing and protecting the discovery area, providing Tribal access to the site, and ensuring the culturally appropriate and respectful treatment of Native American human remains and associated cultural materials.

The Lisjan Nation requests that work be halted within 100 feet of a potential Tribal Cultural Resource and that the Subsequent IS/MND modify Project Specific Mitigation Measure TCR-1 and adopt a separate tribal cultural resources-specific mitigation measure to provide two separate mitigation measures, one for tribal cultural items and one for human remains, as well as to name the Lisjan Nation as a consulting entity.

As no additional substantial evidence has been provided that demonstrates a 100-foot buffer would be required in order to avoid or reduce a significant environmental impact, beyond the protections already afforded by state law and the performance standards contained in Project Specific Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1, increasing the avoidance buffer from 25 feet to 100 feet is not warranted. The 25-foot buffer is established based on the archaeological field survey results and the site-specific likelihood of intact resources documented in the project’s Cultural Resources Assessment in Appendix D. In addition, background research at the project site returned a negative result for the project site’s potential to contain tribal cultural resources. The existing stop work measures fully comply with the procedural requirements for the treatment of archaeological resources, Tribal Cultural Resources, and human remains under State law. If a consulting Tribe provides credible evidence that a larger buffer is warranted for a specific find, the City shall implement a larger buffer (up to 100 feet) pending evaluation and agreement with the consulting Tribe(s).

However, the City acknowledges the need for two separate mitigation measures to establish procedures as requested by the Tribe for specific identification of tribal cultural resources, and as such Project Specific Mitigation Measure TCR-1 has been modified and Project Specific Mitigation Measures TCR-2 has been added to address potential impacts of previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources (refer to Attachment B of this Response to Comments memorandum).

Project Specific Mitigation Measure TCR-1 outlines procedures if tribal cultural resources are discovered during construction and Project Specific Mitigation Measure TCR-2 outlines procedures if human remains are discovered during construction, such as work stoppage within 25 feet of the find and coordination with tribal representatives. With the implementation of Project Specific Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources.

At the completion of project construction, the proposed project would not result in further disturbance of native soils on the project site and, therefore, project operations would have no potential to impact previously undiscovered archaeological resources.

Page 2041 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 33 Response to Comment TCR-2: Tribal Consultation
This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Wilton Rancheria, 11/14/2025 (O-2)
• Yocha Dehe, 12/4/2025 (O-3)
• Linda Zupan-McKenna, 12/8/2025 (I-10)
As discussed in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources (page 146), of the Subsequent IS/MND, the City provided notice of the proposed project to the Native American contacts provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the tribes that had previously requested notification, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52 provisions, in August 2024. On October 10, 2024, the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation responded to the City’s notice and requested a copy of the final California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) records search, the EIR, the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search results from the NAHC, and a copy of any additional archaeological reports.

The City provided a response on February 10, 2025, providing the Confederated Villages of Lisjan Nation with the database searches and available information. No further responses were received.

The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation reached out to request consultation on the proposed project on October 24, 2024. The City responded on November 18, 2024, and a meeting took place on December 9, 2024. As part of the consultation process, the City provided the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation with draft Tribal Monitoring Mitigations on January 17, 2025. The City resent this information on February 13, 2025, and March 17, 2025, and no additional responses were received.

As no additional or further requests for tribal consultation were received, the City officially closed tribal consultation pursuant to AB 52 in March 2025.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to utilities and service systems. The comment topics include:
• UTL-1: Sewer System and Lift Station
• UTL-2: Permits and Approvals
Response to Comment UTL-1: Sewer System and Lift Station This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• VFWD, 12/05/2025 (A-2)
In response to the comments received from the VFWD, the City has revised Section 2.2.5.2, Wastewater, and Section 2.2.6, Operations and Maintenance, in Chapter 2.0, Project Description (page 2-21), of the Subsequent IS/MND to add mention of the 6-inch sewer force main to connect the lift station to the existing sewer force main located in Shady Lane and to clarify that only the sanitary sewer would be publicly maintained, while the storm drains would be privately maintained.

In addition, Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems (page 4-156), of the Subsequent IS/MND has

Page 2042 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 34 been updated to describe the installation of a new 6-inch sewer force main extending from the new lift station to tie into the existing sewer force main. Text has also been added to state that the current lift station would be relocated and upsized. Refer to Attachment B of this Response to Comments memorandum.

In addition, Figure 2-4, Conceptual Site Plan, has been revised to show that Parcel E would be a VFWD-owned and maintained Sewer Pump Station (refer to Attachment C of this memorandum).

Response to Comment UTL-2: Permits and Approvals
This response addresses comments in the following letter:
• VFWD, 12/05/2025 (A-2)
In response to the comments received from the VFWD, Table 2.A: Potential Permits and Approvals in Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Subsequent IS/MND has been revised to include City of Vallejo Public Works approvals for grading, water quality, and road improvements, as well as for VFWD, which issues permits and approves sewer, storm drain, and lift station improvements.

Similarly, Section 4.19, of Utilities and Services Systems, has been revised to clarify that the storm drain system will be privately maintained by the Home Owners Association (HOA). Refer to Attachment B of this Response to Comments document.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to cumulative impacts. The comment topics include:
• CUM-1: Rezoning Action
Response to Comment CUM-1: Rezoning Action
This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Alison Egan, 11/12/2025 (I-1)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
Population growth associated with the project is approximately 143 persons, representing less than 1 percent of the current City population and 0.6 percent of the projected growth through 2040. As such, the incremental increase in the number of residents in the City would not be substantial or unplanned. In addition, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use and zoning designations for the site and is therefore consistent with population growth assumed under General Plan buildout. As a result, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth
Additionally, rezoning to PD does not authorize development of adjacent parcels or additional development outside of project area and any future projects on nearby land would require separate

Page 2043 of 2600 ends

1/16/26 (\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx) 35 CEQA review and City approvals. Cumulative impacts, including population, housing, and land use, were analyzed in the General Plan EIR, which anticipated residential development in this area.

NON-CEQA ISSUES
The comments and corresponding responses in this section address comments received related to non-CEQA issues. The comment topics include:
• NON-1: Parking
Response to Comment NON-1: Parking
This response addresses comments in the following letters:
• Carol and Kay McKenzie, 12/05/2025 (I-9)
• Marty, 11/ 14/2025 (I-2)
• Christine Gipson, 11/16/2025 (I-3)
As Stated in Section 2.2.4 Proposed Access, Circulation, and Parking of the Project Description (page 2-20) in the Subsequent IS/MND, the proposed project would provide 102 covered garage spaces (2 per unit), 102 driveway stalls (2 per unit), 24 on-street stalls, and 1 mailbox parking stall, for a total of 229 parking spaces. In addition, the proposed project would also include new private internal residential streets that would be 28 feet wide curb-to-curb with parking on one side. As discussed in Section 4.1 Aesthetics (pages 4-11 through 4-12), the proposed project would be required to undergo Development Review and Design Review consistent with Sections 16.604 and 16.605 of the City of Vallejo Municipal Code (VMC), which would provide for the review of the physical improvements to the project site, to ensure compatibility and compliance with City requirements. In addition, VMC Section 16.508 establishes standards for off-street parking and loading facilities that meet the urban design objectives of the General Plan. The proposed project meets the requirements established in Table 16.508-B.

Attachments: A: Comment Letters
B: Updated Figure 2-4
C: Geotechnical Report Updated Memorandum
D: Evacuation Assessment

Page 2044 of 2600 ends

S U B S E Q U E N T IN I T I A L S T U D Y /MI T I G A T E D NE G A T I V E

DE C L A R A T I O N - RE S P O N S E T O C O M M E N T S J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 6

VI S T A CO V E PL A N N E D DE V E L O P M E N T P R O J E C T

V A L L E J O, C A L I F O R N I A
\\aznasunifiler2\projects\2024\20241845 CYV Vista Cove Project\PRODUCTS\Subsequent MND\RTC Memo\Vista Cove RTC Memo.docx (01/16/26)

ATTACHMENT A

COMMENT LETTERS

Page 2045 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 State of California - Natural Resources Agency

DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
December 4, 2025
Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street
Napa, CA 95490
[email protected]
Subject: Vista Cove Planned Development Project, Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, SCH No. 2025030788, Solano County Dear Cesar Orozco:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) from the City of Vallejo (City) for the Vista Cove Planned Development Project (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND was preceded by a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Report (EIR), for which CDFW provided comments in a letter dated April 18, 2025. However, rather than prepare an EIR it appears that the Lead Agency changed course and prepared a Subsequent IS/MND tiered from the General Plan 2040 and Sonoma Boulevard Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report.

CDFW is submitting comments on the IS/MND to inform the City as the Lead Agency, of potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the Project. The comments in this letter are similar to those provided in CDFW’s NOP comment letter.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources. CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as permits issued under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program, or other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the state’s fish and wildlife trust resources.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Sancerra Vista Cove, LLC
Objective: The Project would rezone, subdivide, and develop the 20.13-acre Project area, of which approximately 10 acres would be developed, while the remaining Conserving California's IlWCife Since 1870
Comment Letter A-1

Page 2046 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 2 ends

acreage would be retained as undeveloped open space. The residential portion of the Project would include approximately 10.39 acres of residential space and 51 singlefamily residential units and associated improvements, including front and rear yards, front driveways, two-car garages, fencing, and landscaping.

The Project would include 9.74 acres of undisturbed open space, to remain undeveloped.

The Project would remove or potentially remove several trees within the riparian zone of two unnamed tributaries to Southampton Creek within the Project area, and would result in the permanent loss of a 0.49-acre seasonal on-stream wetland located on the northern unnamed tributary and the conversion of this wetland to a stormwater basin.

Location: The Project is located near the northeast corner of Shady Lane and Wildflower Avenue; Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0079-171-170 and 0079-120-100; in the City of Vallejo, CA 945490, Solano County; with a Project area center at approximately 38.08128 °N, -122.20112 °W.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Fully Protected Species
California Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except as follows:
• Take is for necessary scientific research;
• Efforts to recover a fully protected, endangered, or threatened species, live capture and relocation of a bird species for the protection of livestock; or • They are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511,4700, 5050, & 5515).

Specified types of infrastructure projects may be eligible for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) for unavoidable impacts to fully protected species if certain conditions are met (Fish & G. Code, § 2081.15). Project proponents should consult with CDFW early in the project planning process. The Project has the potential to impact nesting whitetailed kite (Elanus leucurus), as further described below.

California Endangered Species Act
Please be advised that a CESA ITP must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed or candidate species under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. The Project has the potential to impact Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), CESA listed as threatened; tricolored

Page 2047 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 3 ends

blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), CESA listed as threatened; and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a CESA candidate species, as further described below.

Issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain an ITP.

CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a project is likely to substantially restrict the range or reduce the population of a threatened or endangered species. (Pub.

Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064, & 15065.). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC).

The CEQA Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with CESA.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
An LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1600 et. seq. is required for Project activities affecting lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat.

Notification is required for any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake or stream. It appears the Project would impact two unnamed tributaries to Southampton Creek, including a seasonal on-stream wetland connected to the northern unnamed tributary; therefore, an LSA Notification is likely warranted as further described below. Work within ephemeral streams, washes, wetlands hydrologically connected to streams, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are subject to LSA Notification requirements. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, would consider the CEQA document for the Project and may issue an LSA Agreement. CDFW may not execute the final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA as a Responsible Agency.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the County in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Based on the Project's avoidance of significant impacts on biological resources with implementation of mitigation measures, including those CDFW recommends below and included in Attachment 1 Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, CDFW concludes that an MND is appropriate for the Project.

Page 2048 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 4 ends

I. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE. Does the Project have potential to substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species?
And,
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)?
COMMENT 1: Burrowing Owl, Environmental Setting and Related Impact Shortcoming Issue: The IS/MND does not adequately evaluate potential impacts to wintering burrowing owl. Page 22 of Appendix C states that burrowing owl has been documented numerous times within 5 miles of the Project area but dismisses the species due to no ground squirrel burrows being observed on February 28, 2022.

Specific impacts, why they may occur and be potentially significant: The absence of burrows in 2022 does not preclude the potential for fossorial animals to excavate new burrows and for burrowing owl to occupy them in later years. If the Project proceeds without assessing whether burrowing owl currently uses the Project area or adjacent habitat, the Project could result in injury or mortality of adult burrowing owl wintering in burrows or other suitable refugia on or within up to 500 meters (1,640 feet) of the Project site, and permanent wintering (i.e., nonnesting) habitat loss. Burrowing owl have been extirpated from 16 percent of their former range and are at risk of being extirpated from another 13 percent of their range in the State (CDFW 2024). Information indicates a decline in burrowing owl’s range over time, burrowing owl has experienced population declines in regions of California and threats to BUOW, coupled with long-term population declines, suggest a high degree and immediacy of threat to burrowing owl in California (CDFW 2024). Burrowing owl population viability and survival are adversely affected by risk factors such as precipitous declines from habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation; evictions from nesting sites without habitat mitigation; wind turbine mortality; human disturbance; and eradication of California ground squirrels resulting in a loss of suitable burrows required by burrowing owl for nesting, protection from predators, and shelter (Shuford and Gardali 2008; Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012); personal communication, CDFW Statewide Burrowing Owl Coordinator Esther Burkett, May 13, 2022). Preliminary analyses of regional patterns for breeding populations of burrowing owl have detected declines both locally in their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide where the species has experienced breeding range retraction (Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing BIO-1

Page 2049 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 5 ends

Owl Mitigation 2012). Burrowing owl is a candidate species under CESA. Based on the foregoing, if burrowing owl are wintering on or within up to 500 meters of the Project site, Project impacts to burrowing owl would be potentially significant.

The Project area appears to overlap with Valley Floor Grassland habitat which may be used by burrowing owl for foraging according to the Draft Solano Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP includes mitigating burrowing owl foraging habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio according to the Draft Solano HCP Mitigation Measure BO 2 for burrowing owl (see Section 6.4.9 and Figure 4-22 of the draft Solano HCP at: https://www.scwa2.com/solano-multispecies-habitat-conservationplan/).

Recommended Mitigation Measures: To reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl to less-than-significant and comply with CESA and Fish and Game Code section 3500 et seq., CDFW recommends including the below mitigation measures in the MND.

Mitigation Measure BIO-5a: Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment, Surveys, and Protection: A gualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment and surveys for wintering burrowing owl prior to construction if construction starts during the burrowing wintering season (September 1 to January 31). Surveys shall be conducted if warranted based on the habitat assessment and shall begin on or within three days of August 1. The habitat assessment and surveys shall follow the Department ofFish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) methodology (https://wildlife.ca.goV/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281284- birds) and the gualified biologist shall prepare a report documenting the survey results. The habitat assessment and surveys shall encompass the Project site and a sufficient buffer zone to detect owls nearby that may be impacted, which is up to 500 meters (1,640 feet) around the Project site pursuant to the above methodology.

Habitat assessments and surveys shall occur annually for the duration of the Project, as conditions may change annually and suitable refugia for burrowing owl, such as small mammal burrows, can be created within a few hours or days, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Surveys for non-breeding burrowing owl shall be spread over four visits during the nonbreeding season (i.e., wintering) and shall start on or within 3 days of August 1 and continue to January 31, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Time lapses between surveys or Project activities shall trigger subseguent surveys including, but not limited to, a final survey within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. The gualified biologist shall have a minimum of two years of experience implementing the above methodology. The Project shall immediately notify CDFW if burrowing owl is detected and implement a construction avoidance buffer around any detected burrowing owl pursuant to the buffer distances outlined in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), which may be up to 500 meters (1,640 feet). Any BIO-1

Page 2050 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 6 ends

detected owl shall be monitored by the qualified biologist to ensure it is not disturbed during construction activities. If take of burrowing owl cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP before Project activities may commence.

Mitigation Measure 5b: Covering of Entrapment Hazards: To prevent burrowing owl from sheltering or nesting in exposed material; all construction pipes, culverts, hoses or similar materials greater than two inches in diameter stored at the Project site shall be capped or covered before the end of each workday and shall be inspected thoroughly for wildlife before the pipe or similar structure is buried, capped, used, or moved.

Mitigation Measure 5c: Burrowing Owl Wintering Burrow Mitigation: If the Project would impact an unoccupied wintering burrowing owl burrow or burrow surrogate (i.e., a burrow known to have been used in the past three years for wintering), the following habitat mitigation shall be implemented prior to Project construction.

Impacts to each unoccupied burrowing owl wintering site shall be mitigated by permanent preservation of two burrowing owl occupied wintering sites with appropriate foraging habitat, unless otherwise approved by CDFW, through a conservation easement and implementing and funding a long-term management plan in perpetuity. If the Project would impact burrowing owl and obtains an ITP, any more rigorous requirements of the ITP shall apply.

The Project may implement alternative methods for preserving habitat with written acceptance from CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 5d: Burrowing Owl Foraging Habitat Mitigation: Impacts to burrowing owl foraging habitat shall be quantified by a qualified biologist based on the final Project design plans, and the Project shall obtain written acceptance of the acreage of habitat impacts from CDFW. Prior to Project construction, the Project shall provide burrowing owl foraging habitat mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio, which shall include: 1) permanent preservation of the species’ foraging habitat through a conservation easement and implementing and funding a long-term management plan in perpetuity, or 2) purchase of burrowing owl foraging habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If the Project would impact burrowing owl and obtains an ITP, any more rigorous requirements of the ITP shall apply.

COMMENT 2: General Nesting Birds, Swainson’s Hawk, Tricolored Blackbird, and White-Tailed Kite, Mitigation Measure and Related Impact Shortcoming.

BIO-1

Page 2051 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 7 ends

Issue: MM BIO-1 a of the IS/MND does not specify nesting bird survey distances nor does it specify response and/or agency coordination actions if Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, or white-tailed kite may be impacted by the Project.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: The Project has the potential to impact nesting Swainson’s hawk through auditory or visual disturbances above ambient levels within 0.5 miles of Project activities, or through direct removal of an active nest site. The Project area is within the mapped summer range of Swainson’s hawk and includes tree removal. Disturbances from Project activities may result in Swainson’s hawk nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young. Swainson’s hawk is CESA listed as a threatened species and therefore is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Therefore, if an active Swainson’s hawk nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, which is considered a mandatory finding of significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

Page C-16 of the Biological Resources Reports and Peer Reviews (Appendix C) states that tricolored blackbird is unlikely to occur on the Project area, despite the Project’s impact to 0.42 acres of seasonal wetland onsite because “The seasonal wetland lacks riparian thickets or tall, dense emergent vegetation suitable to support nesting for this species.” However, according to aerial imagery, there is a patch of dense vegetation growing from the southern tributary less than 500 feet from the Project area shown in Figure 2-2 of the IS/MND. The IS/MND does not address potential disturbances to nesting tricolored blackbird that could result from Project activities within 500 feet of suitable habitat, including the vegetation patch.

Human activity and removal of habitat has contributed to the loss of a significant proportion of the total number of birds in the United States and Canada since the 1970s (Rosenburg et al. 2019). Nesting birds such as white-tailed kite, a California Fully Protected species for which take is prohibited except in limited circumstances as described above, may be disturbed by habitat removal, Project noise and visual disturbances, which could result in active nest loss or abandonment or reduced health and vigor of young, a potentially significant impact.

Recommended Mitigation Measures: To reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite and other nesting birds to less-than-significant and comply with Fish and Game Code sections 3500 et seq. and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), CDFW recommends replacing the current Mitigation Measures BIO-1 a and BIO-1 b with the following mitigation measures:

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 a: Nesting Bird Surveys. If construction, grading, vegetation removal, or other Project-related activities are scheduled during the BIO-1

Page 2052 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 8 ends

avian nesting season, February 1 to September 15, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the beginning of Projectrelated activities. The survey shall cover the entire Project site and a minimum 500- foot buffer around the Project site. If a lapse in Project-related work of 7 days or longer occurs, another survey shall be conducted before Project work can be reinitiated. If an active nest is found during surveys, the qualified biologist shall immediately notify the CDFW contact below, or if unavailable another CDFW representative, and establish site- and species-specific no-work buffers to ensure the nest is not disturbed. The buffer distances shall be specified to protect the bird’s normal behavior to prevent nesting failure or abandonment and comply with Fish and Game Code section 3500 et seq. and the federal MBTA. Abnormal nesting behaviors which may cause reproductive harm include, but are not limited to, defensive flights/vocalizations directed towards Project personnel, standing up from a brooding position, and flying away from the nest. The qualified biologist shall have authority to order the cessation of all nearby Project activities if the nesting birds exhibit abnormal behavior which may cause reproductive failure (nest abandonment and loss of eggs and/or young) until an appropriate buffer is established.

The qualified biologist shall monitor the behavior of the birds (adults and young, when present) at the nest site to ensure that they are not disturbed by Project work.

Nest monitoring shall continue during Project work until the young have fully fledged (have completely left the nest site and are no longer being fed by the parents), as determined by the qualified biologist, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 b: Tricolored Blackbird Avoidance. If nesting tricolored blackbird or evidence of their presence is found during nesting bird surveys, CDFW shall be notified immediately, and work shall not occur without written approval from CDFW allowing the Project to proceed. Project activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If take of tricolored blackbird cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 c: Swainson’s Hawk Avoidance. If active Swainson’s hawk nests are detected during nesting bird surveys or otherwise, the Project shall immediately notify CDFW and implement a 0.5-mile construction avoidance buffer around the nest until the nest is no longer active as determined by a Qualified Biologist, unless otherwise approved by CDFW in writing. Any detected nesting Swainson’s hawk shall be monitored by the Qualified Biologist to ensure it is not disturbed during construction activities, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

BIO-1

Page 2053 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 9 ends

II. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or the USFWS?
COMMENT 3: Impacts to Unnamed Tributaries to Southampton Creek and Connected Seasonal Wetland, Environmental Setting and Related Impact Shortcoming Issue: The Project would result in permanent impacts to stream and riparian habitat including the removal of a 0.49-acre on-stream seasonal wetland along the northern unnamed tributary to Southampton Creek (IS/MND page 4-42; Appendix C, Figure 2); and removal of riparian trees along both unnamed tributaries within the Project area (IS/MND Appendix C, Figure 4). However, the IS/MND does not clearly indicate stream habitat would be impacted or include a mitigation measure for notifying CDFW for impacts to the streams and connected wetland.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: Project activities would result in permanent loss of stream habitat from removal and conversion of the on-stream seasonal wetland habitat, and riparian tree removal. Removal of the on-stream wetland could result in reduction or loss of stream flows, loss of stream connectivity, and desiccation of existing stream habitat. Impacts could also include inputs of deleterious materials, obstructions, and disturbances to riparian corridors, special status wildlife and their habitats, and nesting birds. Due to the ecological importance and sensitivity of stream and connected wetland habitat, the above impacts would be potentially significant.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: To comply with Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., the Clean Water Act, and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, CDFW recommends including the below mitigation measure in the IS/MND.

Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Impacts to Stream. Prior to the commencement of Project activities, the Project shall notify CDFW for Project impacts to the stream resulting from riparian tree and seasonal wetland removal and any additional Project impacts to stream and riparian habitat. More information for the notification process is available at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/EnvironmentalReview/LSA.The Project shall comply with all measures of the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement, if issued, and shall not commence activities with the potential to impact the stream until the LSA Agreement process is completed.

Restoration to mitigate impacts to any stream shall include a gualified biologist preparing and implementing a restoration plan with permanent impacts restored at a minimum 3:1 restoration to impact ratio, temporary impacts restored, success criteria, a minimum of five years of monitoring and maintenance, and achieving success criteria, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. CDFW may consider the purchase of wetland or stream creation credits from an approved BIO-2

Page 2054 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 10 ends

mitigation bank at a reduced ratio. The Project shall also obtain any necessary authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the Clean Water Act and Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Please be advised that a Streambed Alteration Agreement, if issued for the Project, would likely include the above recommended mitigation measures, as applicable, and may include additional measures to protect fish and wildlife resources, such as protocol level plant surveys pursuant to Protocol for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (https://wildlife.ca.gOv/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281280- plants).

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submittinq-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is reguired in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, §21089.)

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subseguent IS/MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Nicholas Magnuson, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 815-4166 or [email protected]; or Melanie Day, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 210-4415 or [email protected].

BIO-2

Page 2055 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 11 ends

^------DocuSigned by:

Sincerely,
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
Attachment 1: Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ec: Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (SCH No. 2025030788)

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024. Petition Evaluation for Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea). Report to the Fish and Game Commission. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2012. Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA.

Rosenburg, Kenneth V.; Dokter, Adriaan M.; Blancher, Peter J.; Sauer, John R.; Smith, Adam C.; Smith, Paul A.; Stanton, Jessica C.; Panjabi, Avrind; Helft, Laura; Parr, Michael; and Marra, Peter P. 2019. Decline of the North American Avifauna.

Science: 120-124.

Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Page 2056 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 12 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) CDFW provides the following language to be incorporated into the MMRP for the Project.

Biological Resources (BIO)
Mitigation
Measure Description Timing ResponsibleParty
MM BIO-1a,
1b, & 1c
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 a: Nesting Bird Surveys. If
construction, grading, vegetation removal, or other
Project-related activities are scheduled during the
avian nesting season, February 1 to September 15, a
gualified biologist shall conduct a survey for active bird nests within 7 days prior to the beginning of Projectrelated activities. The survey shall cover the entire Project site and a minimum 500-foot buffer around the
Project site. If a lapse in Project-related work of 7 days or longer occurs, another survey shall be conducted
before Project work can be reinitiated. If an active nest is found during surveys, the gualified biologist shall
immediately notify the CDFW contact below, or if
unavailable another CDFW representative, and
establish site- and species-specific no-work buffers to ensure the nest is not disturbed. The buffer distances
shall be specified to protect the bird’s normal behavior to prevent nesting failure or abandonment and comply
with Fish and Game Code section 3500 et seg. and
the federal MBTA. Abnormal nesting behaviors which
may cause reproductive harm include, but are not
limited to, defensive flights/vocalizations directed
towards Project personnel, standing up from a
brooding position, and flying away from the nest. The
gualified biologist shall have authority to order the
cessation of all nearby Project activities if the nesting birds exhibit abnormal behavior which may cause
reproductive failure (nest abandonment and loss of
eggs and/or young) until an appropriate buffer is
established.

The gualified biologist shall monitor the behavior of the birds (adults and young, when present) at the nest site to ensure that they are not disturbed by Project work.

Nest monitoring shall continue during Project work until the young have fully fledged (have completely left the
nest site and are no longer being fed by the parents),
Prior to Ground
Disturbance
and for
Duration of
Project
Project
Applicant

Page 2057 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 13 ends

as determined by the qualified biologist, unless
otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 b: Tricolored Blackbird
Avoidance. If nesting tricolored blackbird or evidence
of their presence is found during nesting bird surveys, CDFW shall be notified immediately, and work shall
not occur without written approval from CDFW allowing
the Project to proceed. Project activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest unless otherwise
approved in writing by CDFW. If take of tricolored
blackbird cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult
with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 c: Swainson's Hawk
Avoidance. If active Swainson’s hawk nests are
detected during nesting bird surveys or otherwise, the
Project shall immediately notify CDFW and implement
a 0.5-mile construction avoidance buffer around the
nest until the nest is no longer active as determined by a Qualified Biologist, unless otherwise approved by
CDFW in writing. Any detected nesting Swainson’s
hawk shall be monitored by the Qualified Biologist to
ensure it is not disturbed during construction activities, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If take
of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the Project
shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain
an ITP.

MM BIO-5a,
5b, 5c, & 5d
Mitigation Measure BIO-5a: Burrowing Owl Habitat
Assessment, Surveys, and Protection: A qualified
biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment and
surveys for wintering burrowing owl prior to
construction if construction starts during the burrowing wintering season (September 1 to January 31).

Surveys shall be conducted if warranted based on the
habitat assessment and shall begin on or within three
days of August 1. The habitat assessment and surveys
shall follow the Department of Fish and Game Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012)
methodology
(https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SurveyProtocols#377281284-birds) and the qualified biologist shall prepare a report documenting the survey results.

The habitat assessment and surveys shall encompass
the Project site and a sufficient buffer zone to detect owls nearby that may be impacted, which is up to 500
meters (1,640 feet) around the Project site pursuant to the above methodology. Habitat assessments and
surveys shall occur annually for the duration of the
Project, as conditions may change annually and
suitable refugia for burrowing owl, such as small
Prior to Ground
Disturbance
and for
Duration of
Project
X

Page 2058 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 14 ends

mammal burrows, can be created within a few hours or
days, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

Surveys for non-breeding burrowing owl shall be
spread over four visits during the nonbreeding season
(i.e., wintering) and shall start on or within 3 days of August 1 and continue to January 31, unless otherwise
approved in writing by CDFW. Time lapses between
surveys or Project activities shall trigger subsequent
surveys including, but not limited to, a final survey
within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. The
qualified biologist shall have a minimum of two years
of experience implementing the above methodology.

The Project shall immediately notify CDFW if
burrowing owl is detected and implement a
construction avoidance buffer around any detected
burrowing owl pursuant to the buffer distances outlined in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), which may be up to
500 meters (1,640 feet). Any detected owl shall be
monitored by the qualified biologist to ensure it is not disturbed during construction activities. If take of
burrowing owl cannot be avoided, the Project shall
consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an
ITP before Project activities may commence.

Mitigation Measure 5b: Covering of Entrapment
Hazards: To prevent burrowing owl from sheltering or
nesting in exposed material; all construction pipes,
culverts, hoses or similar materials greater than two
inches in diameter stored at the Project site shall be
capped or covered before the end of each workday
and shall be inspected thoroughly for wildlife before
the pipe or similar structure is buried, capped, used, or moved.

Mitigation Measure 5c: Burrowing Owl Wintering
Burrow Mitigation: If the Project would impact an
unoccupied wintering burrowing owl burrow or burrow
surrogate (i.e., a burrow known to have been used in
the past three years for wintering), the following habitat mitigation shall be implemented prior to Project
construction.

Impacts to each unoccupied burrowing owl wintering
site shall be mitigated by permanent preservation of
two burrowing owl occupied wintering sites with
appropriate foraging habitat, unless otherwise
approved by CDFW, through a conservation easement
and implementing and funding a long-term
management plan in perpetuity. If the Project would
impact burrowing owl and obtains an ITP, any more
rigorous requirements of the ITP shall apply.

Page 2059 of 2600 ends

Docusign Envelope ID: B09B4C6E-97F8-4733-9358-FEF4F3B0B082 Cesar Orozco
City of Vallejo
December 4, 2025

Page 15 ends

The Project may implement alternative methods for
preserving habitat with written acceptance from
CDFW.

Mitigation Measure 5d: Burrowing Owl Foraging
Habitat Mitigation: Impacts to burrowing owl foraging
habitat shall be guantified by a gualified biologist
based on the final Project design plans, and the
Project shall obtain written acceptance of the acreage
of habitat impacts from CDFW. Prior to Project
construction, the Project shall provide burrowing owl
foraging habitat mitigation ata minimum 1:1 ratio,
which shall include: 1) permanent preservation of the
species’ foraging habitat through a conservation
easement and implementing and funding a long-term
management plan in perpetuity, or 2) purchase of
burrowing owl foraging habitat credits at a CDFWapproved mitigation bank, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If the Project would impact
burrowing owl and obtains an ITP, any more rigorous
reguirements of the ITP shall apply.

MM BIO-6
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Impacts to Stream. Prior to
the commencement of Project activities, the Project
shall notify CDFW for Project impacts to the stream
resulting from riparian tree and seasonal wetland
removal and any additional Project impacts to stream
and riparian habitat. More information for the
notification process is available at
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/EnvironmentalReview/LSA.

The Project shall comply with all measures of the LSA
Agreement, if issued, and shall not commence
activities with the potential to impact the stream until the LSA Agreement process is completed. Restoration
to mitigate impacts to any stream shall include a
gualified biologist preparing and implementing a
restoration plan with permanent impacts restored at a
minimum 3:1 restoration to impact ratio, temporary
impacts restored, success criteria, a minimum of five
years of monitoring and maintenance, and achieving
success criteria, unless otherwise approved in writing
by CDFW. CDFW may consider the purchase of
wetland or stream creation credits from an approved
mitigation bank at a reduced ratio. The Project shall
also obtain any necessary authorization from the
USACE and RWQCB pursuant to the Clean Water Act
and Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

Prior to Ground
Disturbance
and for
Duration of
Project
Project

Page 2060 of 2600 ends

1 VALLEJO FLOOD AND WASTEWATER DISTRICT
(VFWD)

INITIAL STUDY/SUBSEQUENT MND REVIEW
December 5, 2025
SUBJECT: Vista Cove Subdivision and Vesting TM
LOCATION: East end of Shady Lane
PERMIT NO.: DVR23-0042
FROM: Alan Mitchell, P.E., VFWD – Ponticello Enterprises TO: Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager, City of Vallejo
THRU: David Espinoza, P.E., Senior Engineer, VFWD
VFWD has reviewed the IS/SMND, dated November 2025, and offers the following comments for your consideration.

Figure 2-4, Conceptual Site Plan
Parcel E will be a VFWD owned and maintained Sewer Pump Station

2.2.6 Operations and Maintenance
Only SS will be publicly maintained. Not SD.

Table 2.A: Potential Permits and Approvals
City of Vallejo Public Works - Consider adding grading, water quality, roads Add Vallejo Flood and Wastewater: issues permit for sewer and storm drain, and will approve those improvements and the lift station improvements

4.3.3 Impact Analysis; para d.

The proposed sewer lift station may generate odors. The presence of hydrogen sulfides, volatile organic compounds and other factors can contribute to wastewater odors for the SSPS.

UTL-1
UTL-2
AIR-1
Comment Letter A-2

Page 2061 of 2600 ends

Vallejo Flood and Wastewater District
Vista Cove Subdivision and Vesting TM
December 5, 2025
2 4.9.3 Impact Analysis; para b.

Is it prudent to mention the unlikely potential for a sewer spill from the sewer lift station?

4.10.3 Impact Analysis; para c. iii. Stormwater Drainage System Capacity excerpt from VFWD COA: Based on the existing contours, EX DA 3 and EX DA 2 appear to have more contributing areas to the west. Revise the existing and developed conditions drainage areas accordingly. Update the drainage study calculations and confirm compliance with all VFWD Standards.

4.13.3 Impact Analysis; para a. Operation
Periodic testing of the lift station standby generator will produce noise pollution. The standby engine-generator set will meet the VFWD requirements for limiting noise to 70dBA maximum along the nearby property lines and ensure that the generator noise is less than 50dBA along the nearest residential property line.

4.19.3 Impact Analysis; para a. Wastewater
Also installing a new 6" sewer force main which will extend from new lift station to tie into the existing sewer force main.

The current lift station will be relocated and upsized, and new lift station owned and maintained by VFWF

4.19.3 Impact Analysis; para a. Stormwater
The storm drain system will be privately maintained by the HOA.

Hydrology and basin sizing will be finalized during the final design phase of this project.

End of Comments
HYD-2
HYD-1
NOI-1
UTL-1
UTL-1
HYD-1

Page 2062 of 2600 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” DISTRICT 4

OFFICE OF REGIONAL AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS–10D | OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
www.dot.ca.gov
December 9, 2025 SCH #: 2025030788
GTS #: 04-SOL-2025-00440
GTS ID: 35915
Co/Rt/Pm: SOL/780/5.428
Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager
City of Vallejo
555 Santa Clara Street
Vallejo, CA 95490
Re: Vista Cove Planned Development Project ─ Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Dear Cesar Orozco:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Vista Cove Planned Development Project. The Local Development Review (LDR) Program reviews land use projects and plans to ensure consistency with our mission and state planning priorities. The following comments are based on our review of the November 2025 MND.

Please note this correspondence does not indicate an official position or approval by Caltrans on this project and is for informational purposes only.

Project Understanding
The proposed project would result in the subdivision of a 20.13-acre site near Interstate (I)-780, of which approximately 10 acres would be developed with 51 residential lots, while the remaining acreage would be retained as undeveloped open space.

Travel Demand Analysis
Caltrans requests the Lead Agency to provide further justification of its vehicle miles traveled (VMT)-related methodology, particularly as it relates to the use of the Bay Area Air District’s California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines in evaluating VMT thresholds for this project.

Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Llisel Ayon, Associate Transportation Planner, via [email protected]. For future early coordination Comment Letter A-3
TRA-1

Page 2063 of 2600 ends

Cesar Orozco, Planning Manager
December 9, 2025

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” opportunities or project referrals, please visit Caltrans LDR website (link) or contact LDR[email protected].

Sincerely,

YUNSHENG LUO
Branch Chief, Local Development Review
Office of Regional and Community Planning
c: State Clearinghouse

Page 2064 of 2600 ends

Public Comment on Vista Cove SMND
Introduction
My name is Alison Egan, and I have lived at 196 Wildflower Avenue since 1987. My home is the closest residence to the proposed entry point for the Vista Cove Planned Development Project.

After reviewing both the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration (SMND) for the Vista Cove project, I have identified significant risks and concerns that suggest the project may not be suitable for approval at this time or may require additional review.

Environmental Review Limitations and Ecological Concerns The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from 2015 was used to inform aspects of the current risk assessment, but it was not specifically focused on the Vista Cove area. Over the years, I have witnessed environmental changes here, such as the recent appearance of bobcats and a noticeable shift in the bird population, including an increase in raptors. Residents have witnessed seasonal weather-related changes, as well. Accurately assessing which animal and bird species depend on this environment and assessing the impacts of seasonal weather variances requires a more focused and updated study.

The project would permanently remove 0.49 acres of seasonal wetland. The effectiveness of proposed mitigation for this wetland depends heavily on the quality of implementation and ongoing agency oversight. There is no certainty that ecological functions will be fully replaced, and if mitigation or long-term maintenance is insufficient, local biodiversity will suffer. It is unclear whether the City of Vallejo has the necessary resources to commit to this long-term responsibility.

Impacts on Adjacent Public Lands and Scenic Views
The proposed development is adjacent to the Benicia State Recreation Area (BSRA), which would be affected both visually and ecologically. The General Plan 2040 emphasizes the need to preserve scenic views and green spaces. All new homes would be visible from the recreation area, and construction and grading would disrupt park users, the green space corridor, and wildlife, particularly bird populations. There is no clear plan to ensure the continued viability of these animal populations following construction, raising concerns about permanent ecological disruption.

BIO-1
BIO-2
AES-2
BIO-1
Comment Letter I-1

Page 2065 of 2600 ends

Unique Ecosystems and Wetland Vulnerability
According to information from the BSRA brochure, the rare and endangered wetland near the site supports salt grass, pickleweed, coyote bush, and the endangered soft bird’s-beak. Native plant communities such as chaparral, valley grassland, and coastal scrub thrive on the hillsides that would be altered by the project. Discharge of stormwater from the development into the existing marshland could impact this rare wetland, and there is uncertainty about the long-term safety of the marsh and the broader ecosystem. A longer-term seasonal study is necessary to monitor rainfall impacts, marsh changes, and to provide for adaptive management based on climate and weather variations. Oversight and responsibility for the ongoing safety of the marshland remain unclear.

Tree Removal and Habitat Loss
The project will clear many mature trees, and while new trees will be planted, these will be small and will not immediately compensate for lost habitat. The interim loss of mature tree canopy will have a long-term negative effect on birds and other wildlife. The incremental loss of open space and mature trees further degrades regional habitat quality.

Reliance on Mitigation and Agency Resources
Many mitigation measures depend on effective implementation, long-term monitoring, and enforcement by city and agency staff. There is concern that current resources and staffing levels may not be adequate to ensure these measures are successful. Therefore, the effectiveness of mitigation outlined in the MND is not guaranteed.

Residual Impacts and Recommendations for Further Study
Despite the MND’s identification of sensitive resources and proposed mitigation, the permanent loss of wetland and mature trees, as well as the presence of special-status species, create lasting and potentially significant harms. Stronger, enforceable mitigation measures and increased scrutiny are warranted. The Planning Commission should consider requiring a focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and specific on-site avoidance measures before approving the project.

Rezoning to Planned Development (PD) allows for coordinated development across multiple parcels and could open adjacent lands to future development. The MND does not limit the scale of future projects, setting a precedent for further loss of open space toward Benicia State Park.

Given the rarity and fragility of the marsh ecosystem, this is a serious concern.

BIO-2
HYD-2
BIO-3
BIO-1
BIO-2
CUM-1

Page 2066 of 2600 ends

Traffic and Neighborhood Impacts
The project is projected to generate 481 to 520 new daily vehicle trips, a significant increase from the current fewer than 30 daily trips past my residence. This change will cause additional wear and tear on Shady Lane. It is unclear whether there is a plan to address road maintenance.

The traffic analysis only included the Glen Cove Parkway & Robles Way intersection, omitting other critical access points such as Robles Way & Shady Lane, Wildflower Avenue, and Silktree Lane. These quiet residential streets will experience years of heavy construction traffic and increased long-term use, which may alter the character of the neighborhood and create safety risks for residents, especially children and pets.

The increase in residents will also strain already limited local resources, as grocery stores and other businesses in Vallejo have been closing. There is concern about how increased population will affect access to these essential services.

Construction Impacts: Noise and Timeline Concerns
Prolonged use of heavy equipment during construction will raise noise levels for existing residents. Although these levels may be deemed below the City of Vallejo Municipal Code thresholds, they will still be significant and disruptive to those living nearby.

The construction schedule lists the site preparation phase as lasting five days and the grading phase as twenty-five days. These timelines appear to be underestimated, particularly for grading which has some challenges because of unstable soils and slope instability.

Geotechnical and Environmental Safety Measures
There must be verification of slope stability measures and an independent review of the final grading plan. Post-construction monitoring for erosion and sediment control is necessary, and a long-term stormwater system maintenance plan should be established. Oversight by a certified geotechnical engineer during grading and foundation work is essential.

Although the MND claims that all geological and environmental hazards can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, the site’s hillside setting, clay soils, and potential regional seismic activity present ongoing risks. Strong oversight during construction, maintenance of drainage systems, and adherence to geotechnical recommendations are critical for ensuring long-term stability.

Key Unresolved Issues
• Uncertainty regarding the sufficiency of wetland loss mitigation • Spill prevention and water quality protection during construction • Construction-phase noise and dust may create health risks to residents TRA-5
NOI-1
PD-2
GEO-1
POP-1

Page 2067 of 2600 ends

• Reliance on outdated environmental analyses without a full EIR update • Significant increase in daily vehicle trips and potential traffic impacts • Permanent loss of 0.49 acre of seasonal wetland, with proposed 1:1 mitigation unlikely to fully restore ecological function
• Removal of 69 trees (47 significant), with 3:1 replacement not immediately restoring mature habitat
• Presence of special-status birds and animals, with proposed surveys and buffers reducing but not eliminating risks
• Sedimentation and hydrology risks to adjacent riparian and marsh areas Conclusion and Recommendations
The scale of ecological and visual impacts, along with the reliance on outdated environmental review, are significant causes for concern. The City should reject the current Mitigated Negative Declaration and instead require a full Environmental Impact Report. Alternatively, the site should be preserved as open space and integrated into a regional habitat and recreation corridor adjacent to Benicia State Park.

Page 2068 of 2600 ends

Our Mission
The mission of California State Parks is
to provide for the health, inspiration and
education of the people of California by helping
to preserve the state’s extraordinary biological
diversity, protecting its most valued natural and
cultural resources, and creating opportunities
for high-quality outdoor recreation.

Benicia
State Recreation Area
The tidal marsh—
where the rivers meet
the bay—forms a unique
habitat, home to rare
and endangered
plants and wildlife.

Benicia State Recreation Area
1 State Park Road
Benicia, CA 94510
(707) 648-1911
© 2009 California State Parks (Rev. 2018) Printed on Recycled Paper

CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS
P.O. Box 942896
Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
For information call: (800) 777-0369
(916) 653-6995, outside the U.S.
711, TTY relay service
www.parks.ca.gov
California State Parks supports equal access.

Prior to arrival, visitors with disabilities who
need assistance should contact the park at
(707) 648-1911. If you need this publication in an
alternate format, contact [email protected].

Page 2069 of 2600 ends

Over the past 150 years, these waters have
carried silt and clay from historic hydraulic
gold mines and timber logging sites of the
Sierra and deposited the particles where
fresh water meets salt water at Southampton
Bay. The mudflat and marsh make up most
of the recreation area, providing habitat for
some unusual and endangered species.

The climate may be windy and cool
year-round, with frequent fog. Summer
temperatures may reach 101 degrees; in
winter, average rainfall is 3 inches with
temperatures dipping to 40 degrees.

PARK HISTORY
Native Americans
Today’s Solano County was first settled by
the Patwin, who spoke the Southern Wintuan
language. Historians estimate that about
3,300 Southern Patwin lived in the area
before European encroachment.

From 1800 through the 1820s, Spanish
Franciscan padres from Mission Dolores,
Mission San José, and Mission San Francisco
Solano tried to convert the Southern
Patwin to Catholicism.

After the mission era ended in
1834, Mexican commandant General
Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo used
these new converts, called neophytes,
as a labor force to work on his vast
land holdings—nearly 175,000 acres.

A century later, only about 200
Patwin were left—lost to deprivation
and unfamiliar European diseases.

Euro-American Settlement
The city of Benicia was founded in
1847 by General Vallejo, Dr. Robert Semple,
and Thomas O. Larkin. Benicia was originally
named “Francisca” in honor of Vallejo’s wife,
Doña Francisca Benicia Carrillo.

Francisca’s founders changed the town’s
name to Benicia on June 12, 1847, after
nearby Yerba Buena was officially renamed
San Francisco. With its strategic location
skirting Southampton Bay and the Carquinez
Strait, Benicia built the area’s first deepwater harbor capable of docking large ships.

Park Property
The sandstone point at Benicia SRA has
been known as Rocky Point, Quarry Point,
and now Dillon Point. Stonecutter Patrick
Dillon came to California from Tipperary,
Ireland, during the 1849 gold rush. He
settled in Benicia in 1851. General Vallejo
leased Dillon the tidal flat at Southampton
Bay and Rocky Point peninsula for a
sandstone quarry.

Dillon eventually purchased
the property; he built a brick
kiln and began making red
clay bricks. Sandstone and raw
materials for the bricks were
eventually exhausted. The Dillon
family and subsequent owners
tried sheep ranching and raising
grapes until the State acquired
the property for the Benicia
State Recreation Area in 1967.

NATURAL HISTORY
Geology and Habitat
Nearly 70 percent of the parkland is tidal
marsh wetland, ringed by grassy hills and
open water. The Southampton mudflat
formed by upriver silt and clay deposits is
more than 1,000 feet thick. The principal
habitats here are brackish marsh, saltwater
marsh, and freshwater marsh.

Plants and Wildlife
This rare and endangered wetland
ecosystem is covered with marsh plants
such as salt grass, pickleweed, coyote
bush, and soft bird’s-beak. Bird’s-beak is an
endangered gray-green annual herb in the
snapdragon family. Non-native trees provide
light shade at the park entrance and picnic
table areas. Native plant communities such
as chaparral, valley grassland, and coastal
scrub bloom on the hillsides.

Doña Francisca Benicia
Carrillo de Vallejo
The combined waters of fourteen
tributaries of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers surge through the Carquinez
Strait, past Benicia State Recreation Area,
and west into San Pablo Bay on their way to
the Pacific Ocean.

Page 2070 of 2600 ends

designated
Important Bird
Area, which
provides
essential habitat
for bird species.

Virginia rails,
endangered
California
clapper rails,
and black rails
hide in marsh
vegetation.

Visitors may
see herons and
egrets fishing
or pelicans
and terns
diving. The marsh resounds with Suisun
song sparrows and saltmarsh common
yellowthroats. On their journey along the
Pacific Flyway, many waterfowl winter in the
park, such as Canada geese or canvasback
and goldeneye ducks.

RECREATION
The park has 2.25 miles of paved road and
bike paths. Dogs and bicycles are allowed
on the Benicia Bay Trail, part of the Bay Area
Ridge Trail. California State Parks built the
Benicia Bay Trail in collaboration with the
Bay Area Ridge Trail Coalition and the San
Francisco Bay Trail Foundation.

Dillon Point offers prime shore fishing for
sturgeon, starry flounder, and striped bass.

Anglers age 16 and over must carry a valid
California fishing license.

This park receives support in part from the
nonprofit Benicia State Parks Association,
P.O. Box 404, Benicia, CA 94510
(707) 745-3385

ACCESSIBLE FEATURES
The Mike Taugher Trail––a dualdirection, paved, accessible trail––begins near the Military
West entrance and runs 0.75
miles to the main park entrance,
joining Dillon Point Road for

1.5 miles.

A portable restroom at
Military West is designated
accessible. For updates, see
http://access.parks.ca.gov.

PLEASE REMEMBER
• Park is open from 8 a.m. to
sunset daily.
• Pay the day-use vehicle fee
at entrance.
• Dogs must be on a leash no more than
six-feet long. Dogs and bikes are not
allowed on marsh nature trails.
• Tent camping is not permitted. For a fee,
RVs may camp en route for one night,
space permitting, near the park entrance.

NEARBY STATE PARKS
• Benicia Capitol State Historic Park
115 West G St., Benicia (707) 745-3385
• Sonoma State Historic Park
363 Third Street West (at the Mission),
Sonoma (707) 938-9560
Salt marsh harvest
mouse in pickleweed
Sweeping marsh and bay views
Native Plant Botanic Garden
The Forrest Deaner Native Plant Botanic
Garden represents over 250 species on

3.5 acres overlooking Southampton Bay.

The garden pays tribute to the late Forrest
Deaner, founder of the Willis Linn Jepson
Chapter (Solano County) of the California
Native Plant Society. In spring, colorful
magenta redbuds, golden poppies, blue
lupines, and pink-flowered currants bloom.

Summer and early fall deepen native plant
foliage into russets and browns.

Several demonstration gardens—Memorial,
Residential/Sensory, Native American,
Butterfly/Hummingbird, Wildflower Meadow,
and Riparian—display flora varieties, each
marked with color-coded labels. The Botanic
Garden is fully maintained by volunteers
and funded through grants and individual
donations. For more information, visit
www.cnpsjepsonchapter.org.

Wildlife
Endangered northern salt marsh harvest
mice depend on the park’s pickleweed for its
dense cover. Marsh erosion,
predators, and severe
habitat loss have
reduced this
mouse population.

Other park
mammals include
coyote, beaver, otter,
and muskrat.

Marine birds float
lazily on thermal
updrafts at this

Page 2071 of 2600 ends

Mike Taugher Trail
780
780
Glen
Cove
Carquinez Strait
Southampton
Bay
Dillon Point
Park
Entrance
Park
Buildings
Pay
Station
Pay
Station
Maintenance
Yard
(No Public
Access)
PG&E Power
Transmission
Tower
State
Park Road
Rose Dr
Dillon Point Road
Dillon Point Road
K Street
Bay Area Ridge Trail
Bay Area Ridge Trail
Bay Area Ridge Trail
Benicia Bay Trail
Benicia Bay Trail
Military West
Columbus Pkwy

SOUTHAMPTON BAY

WETLAND

NATURAL

PRESERVE

NO PUBLIC
ACCESS

FORREST
DEANER
NATIVE
PLANT

BOTANIC
GARDEN

BENICIA
STATE

RECREATION
AREA
to
Vallejo
to
Carquinez
Bridge
to
Downtown
Benicia
© 2009 California State Parks (Rev. 2018)
Map by Eureka Cartography, Berkeley, CA
Legend
Freeway
Paved Road
Trail: Hike & Bike
Trail: Hike
Trail: Accessible
Intermittent Stream
Natural Preserve
Garden Area
Accessible Feature
Fishing
Marsh Area
Dogs Allowed on Leash
Locked Gate Restrooms
Picnic Area
Viewpoint
Parking
No Dogs Allowed
0 200100 300 400 Meters
0 400 800 1,200 Feet
State Recreation Area
Benicia
Pacific
Ocean
SF
Bay
San
Pablo
Bay
101
580
80 680
780
29 116
37 1
121
12 29
101
1 Petaluma
Sonoma Napa
Vallejo
Benicia
Novato
San
Rafael
Berkeley
Oakland
Tiburon
SAN

FRANCISCO
Benicia SRA
Samuel P.

Taylor SP
Petaluma
Adobe
SHP
Olompali
SHP
China Camp
SP
Tomales
Bay SP
Sonoma
SHP
Benicia
Capitol
SHP
Mt Tamalpais SP
Eastshore SP
Candlestick Point SRA
Golden Gate
NRA
Angel Island SP
0 15 Kilometers
0 10 Miles
5 5
10 Trespassing on fragile salt marsh areas
is prohibited by law.

Approved study permits are required.

For information/application, visit
http://www.parks.ca.gov/studypermits

Page 2072 of 2600 ends

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

From: Me
To: Cesar Orozco
Subject: Vista Cove
Date: Friday, November 14, 2025 3:43:34 PM
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Vista Cove Planned Development Project
My concern is that Shady Lane isn't wide enough for the increased traffic. It now is parking on the South side, which narrows it down to one safe lane. There could be widening of and additional drive lane plus parking lane with ADA sidewalk, right now you have to walk in the street. The side walk on the south side is not maintained.

I do not see any over flow parking in the plan. The first set of houses could be devoted for that or in the undeveloped area.
thanks
Marty
Comment Letter I-2
TRA-5
NON-1

Page 2073 of 2600 ends

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

From: Christine G
To: Cesar Orozco
Subject: Vista Cove – Public Comment on SMND
Date: Sunday, November 16, 2025 3:40:02 PM
Thank you for this opportunity to share input on the recent documentation provided in the Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Vista Cove Planned Development Project. While the City’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) concludes that environmental impacts are less than significant with mitigation, a review of the documentation reveals multiple areas of unresolved risk, insufficient
mitigation, and irreversible loss of valuable open space.

Loss of Open Space and Visual Character
The site is one of the last remaining undeveloped hillside parcels adjacent to Benicia State Recreation Area. Development would permanently alter scenic views identified as valuable in the General Plan 2040, disrupting natural vistas and degrading the visual transition between the park and residential neighborhoods. The housing will be highly visible from many areas of the state part, the 780 freeway and act as a visually disruptive entrance to Vallejo from Benicia.

Conversion of the site to housing reduces local open space and could fragment habitat corridors between the study area and Benicia State Recreation Area, potentially reducing regional habitat connectivity over time. The MND asserts no substantial corridor impacts, but this finding depends on mitigations and off-site compensation that may not preserve local landscape function.

Wetland and Habitat Degradation
The MND confirms the project will fill or disturb nearly half an acre of seasonal wetland and discharge stormwater into an existing marshland connected to the Carquinez Strait. The marshland contained in Southampton Bay is considered "endangered" and mitigation through off-site banking does not ensure local ecological replacement or sustained hydrological function.

Permanent Loss of Seasonal Wetland (0.49 acre)
The project would permanently convert approximately 0.49 acre of seasonal wetland to a stormwater basin. Compensatory mitigation is proposed at a 1:1 ratio via mitigation banking or restoration. A 1:1 ratio is commonly considered minimal and may not fully replace lost wetland function and hydrology, especially when lost wetlands provide local connectivity to downstream marshes.

Removal of Mature Trees and Canopy (69 trees; 47 protected) The project proposes removal of 69 trees, including 47 'significant' trees protected under Vallejo's ordinance. Although replacement at a 3:1 ratio is required, replacement plantings do not compensate for the immediate and long-term ecological functions of mature trees (roosting, shading, erosion control, and habitat). Loss of trees increases risk to bat and raptor roosting and nesting resources. Tree replacement and habitat restoration may deliver benefits in future decades but the large-scale destruction of the existing landscape will leave an immediate and long-term ecological deficit.

Impacts to Special-status Birds and Raptors (White-tailed kite; Northern harrier; Short-eared owl) White-tailed kite were observed on-site during the brief study of the land. I can confirm they have been a regular presence in the 5 years we have lived here, we see them every year with a suspicion they have nested in trees surrounding the development site. According to the study provided, northern harriers and short-eared owls have moderate potential to nest. Construction, tree removal, and grading during nesting season could result in nest destruction or abandonment without strong protections. The MND relies on seasonal avoidance and pre-construction surveys (BIO-1a/BIO-1b) to reduce impacts. There is no guarantee of enforcement or monitoring during construction. While useful, these measures are procedural and do not fully remove the risk of disturbance or long-term habitat loss. I would seek the plan to implement strict timing and construction controls: prohibit tree removal and major grading during nesting and maternity seasons unless a qualified biologist clears specific trees; require phased removal with supervised hand-felling for trees with potential roosts. Additionally, requiring an independent peer review of the mitigation plan and a performance-based monitoring program with clear stop-work triggers if monitoring shows restoration failure.

Bat Roosting and Maternity Colony Risk (Silver-haired and Hoary bats) Large oak trees present on-site provide potential maternity/roosting habitat. The MND prescribes bat roost assessments and 100-foot nowork buffers if roosts are detected, plus phased tree removal. Nonetheless, direct loss of roost trees and the potential for undetected maternity colonies during removal remains a significant biological concern.

Sedimentation, Hydrology, and Proximity Effects to Riparian and Freshwater Marsh Areas Grading and construction adjacent to riparian and freshwater marsh features risks increased sedimentation and root damage. The MND proposes fencing, erosion control, and tree protection zones; however, proximity of heavy grading and stormwater changes could alter hydrology in ways not fully mitigated by standard BMPs.

Comment Letter I-3
AES-1
BIO-4
BIO-2
BIO-2
BIO-3
BIO-1
BIO-1
HYD-3

Page 2074 of 2600 ends

Require verification of slope stability measures and independent review of the final grading plan.

Implement post-construction monitoring for erosion and sediment control performance.

Establish a stormwater system maintenance plan to ensure long-term function of basins and drains.

Require construction oversight by a certified geotechnical engineer during grading and foundation work Insufficient Transit and Infrastructure Planning
The project will be 100% dependent on car-based access with limited street parking (only 24 spaces beyond garages and driveways for 51 homes) and the severely limited public transit service. The community has been advised SolTrans is considering cutting or reducing service in the area. Housing not supported by public transit access conflicts with Vallejo’s sustainability and greenhouse gas reduction goals as noted in the city’s general plan.

Outdated and Overgeneralized Trip Generation Data
The analysis uses trip rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) based on pre-2010 data. While labeled 'conservative,' no local validation was done using Vallejo or Solano County data. Without this calibration, the 481-trip estimate may misrepresent real traffic conditions on Glen Cove Parkway.

Lack of Comprehensive Intersection Study
Only one intersection (Glen Cove Parkway & Robles Way) was analyzed. No measurements were taken at the intersections the project will also rely on for access to the property including Robles Way & Shady Lane, Wildflower Ave and Silktree Lane. What are quiet residential streets will be exposed to years of heavy equipment during the construction phase, then the additional volume of traffic to support 51 additional households. There are days where Wildflower Ave, where I reside, sees only a dozen or so cars as a closed loop street. With the only access to Vista Cove coming from Shay Lane, construction traffic will be forced to use Wildflower and Skiltree, in addition to Shady Lave, as the width of Shady is only about 25’ at the what will become the entrance to Vista Cove and this can’t support two way traffic. The peace of our community would forever be altered and create risks for residents and pets.

Road Surface Conditions
According to the City of Vallejo’s “pavement condition dashboard” all streets within GC II are “Category V - Very Poor” with cracks, rutting and potholes. While Shady Lane had a slurry seal applied within the last 12 months, there is no other planned maintenance identified in Vallejo’s general plan for the next decade. With the additional traffic demands during both the construction phase and the long term residential usage, the impact on the condition of our streets could be disastrous and render roads dangerous to all traffic.

Incomplete Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis
The study disregards the State Technical Advisory's 110-trip threshold and instead applies Vallejo’s outdated 500-trip standard. The site is on the city’s fringe with limited transit, making the 'infill efficiency' claim questionable.

Minimal Consideration of Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access The report notes the lack of high-quality transit and omits quantitative pedestrian or bicycle safety evaluation. No transportation demand management (TDM) strategies are proposed to mitigate car dependency.

Cumulative and Construction Impacts Ignored
No cumulative analysis with other Glen Cove or I-780 area developments is provided, including the recently approved 130 home development by KB Homes on Rollingwood Drive which will feed directly into the Glen Cove Parkway / 780 access points. Constructionphase traffic impacts were not modeled, potentially underestimating short-term safety and congestion issues.

Construction Phase Risks and Disruption
The project involves diesel-powered equipment, fuel storage, and hazardous material handling (fuels, paints, solvents). Mitigation measures require emergency response plans and containment, but accidental spills remain a risk, particularly given the site’s drainage connection to the Carquinez Strait. Local communities will also face the potential risk of localized air quality degradation during construction, especially for sensitive groups (children, elderly). Given the demographics of the existing Glen Cove Hills II, we have a strong representation of both populations.

Expansive and Unstable Soils
The existing Sequoia clay loam soils exhibit moderate expansion potential, creating risk of differential settlement or heaving. Mitigation includes over-excavation, controlled compaction, and engineered fill. Therefore, there may be slope stability and landslide risk as portions of the site contain moderate to steep slopes. Planned grading includes cuts and fills up to 24 feet. Engineering controls such as retaining walls and slope stabilization are required where there could exist residual hazards with localized slope failure during intense rainfall or if construction controls fail.

Hydrology and Drainage Alteration
New impervious surfaces alter runoff patterns. Proposed drainage basins and storm drains reduce off-site flooding risk. Residual hazard:
if drainage systems fail or are not maintained, localized flooding and erosion could occur.

Cultural and Tribal Resource Sensitivity
The MND acknowledges consultation with the Yocha Dehe Winton Nation and the likelihood of buried cultural materials. The project’s hillside grading—up to 24 feet deep over 10 acres—presents a significant risk of disturbing cultural or ancestral sites.

GEO-1
HYD-2
GEO-1
TRA-6
TRA-2
TRA-2
TRA-3
TRA-1
TRA-6
TRA-2
HYD-2
GEO-1
HYD-4
TCR-1

Page 2075 of 2600 ends

Precedent for Further Development
Rezoning to Planned Development (PD) allows 'coordinated development' across multiple parcels, potentially opening adjacent lands to future projects. The MND does not limit future development scope, setting a precedent for incremental loss of open space east toward Benicia State Park.

Many measures rely on proper implementation, long-term monitoring, and enforcement by the City and agencies which we know are lacking in resources, budget and the levels of personnel necessary to perform any of this work. Therefore, the mitigation factors and resulting effectiveness is not guaranteed in the MND.

The study properly identifies several sensitive resources and proposes mitigation; however, given the permanent nature of wetland loss and mature tree removal and the presence of nesting/roosting special-status species, the project presents residual, potentially significant ecological harms that warrant higher scrutiny and stronger, enforceable mitigation. The Planning Commission should consider requiring a focused EIR and stronger on-site avoidance before approving the project.

The Vista Cove project would convert vital open hillside and wetland terrain into housing that provides no demonstrable public benefit other than market rate housing for those who can afford it while eliminating natural habitat, scenic views, and open space connectivity.

The magnitude of ecological and visual impacts, and the project’s reliance on outdated CEQA review create cause for concern. I would request the City reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration and require preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or make the choice to preserve the site as open space and integrate it into a regional habitat and recreation corridor adjacent to Benicia State Park while pursuing infill housing alternatives in the multitude of existing urbanized areas consistent with Vallejo’s General Plan sustainability goals.

Thank you for allowing me to provide my concerns on this project.

Regards
Christine Gipson
116 Wildflower Ave, Vallejo
CUM-1
BIO-1
BIO-2
BIO-3

Page 2076 of 2600 ends

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

From: Rick Zavatsky
To: Cesar Orozco
Subject: Fwd: Vista Cove
Date: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:03:20 AM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: emerick zavatsky <[email protected]>
Date: November 19, 2025 at 8:59:44 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Vista Cove
Mr. Orozco,
I’m writing to you to voice my many concerns to the Vista Cove housing development. I am a resident of Glen Cove and have owned my house since 1986.

1. Robles Ave has no stop signs or speed bumps making it a speedway for drivers and a hazard to try & safely enter from Shady Lane.

2. Visibility is limited from Shady Lane entering Robles; especially when vehicles are parked at the intersection.

3. Shady Lane was not designed for an additional 100 car a day from the 51 new houses planned.

4. There have been numerous studies done since the 1980’s finding that building a structures would not be advised.

5. With the building of 130 new houses on Rollingwood Ave. the traffic would increase in the areas and Safeway, the only supermarket in the area would already be overcrowded.

6. With the Vallejo police department short staffed already, the safety of the Glen Cove area would suffer. I rarely see a police presence in Glen Cove & when they area called
It takes hours or days for them to show up.

Thank you for you time & consideration
Rick Zavatsky
Sent from my iPad
Comment Letter I-4
TRA-4
TRA-5
GEO-1
GEO-2
TRA-5
PS-1

Page 2077 of 2600 ends

Vallejo City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Vallejo City Council
March 24, 2026