Elk Grove Planning Commission Regular Meeting - August 1, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Elk Grove Planning Commission Regular Meeting - August 1, 2024
The Elk Grove Planning Commission met on Thursday, August 1, 2024, from 6:00 PM to 7:50 PM in the City Council Chambers. The meeting included four public hearings: a tentative parcel map for 8767 Excelsior Road, a tentative subdivision map for Stone Springs Estates, an appeal of the Coral Blossom Apartments project, and a continued hearing on residential lighting standards. All items were approved, with the lighting standards passing 4-1.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Lynn Wheat (general public comment): Criticized the city's land use history, citing examples such as Ventara Park, Laguna Ridge, Sterling Meadows, and Costco. She argued that the city has repeatedly failed to plan inclusively and has prioritized market-rate housing over affordable housing, and expressed concern about the upcoming Elk Grove Crossing specific plan.
- Liz Marshall (appellant, Coral Blossom): Opposed the Coral Blossom project, alleging bias by the mayor, lack of transparency, misuse of taxpayer funds ($9.2 million settlement), and poor city leadership. She argued that the project was moved from Old Town to her neighborhood unfairly and asked for a more equitable distribution of supportive housing.
- Brenda Herwick (owner of Early Beginnings Learning Center): Opposed Coral Blossom, citing safety concerns for children and staff due to proximity to a preschool, lack of police response time, and absence of nearby medical facilities.
- Lily (resident): Opposed Coral Blossom, citing safety concerns, increased crime rates (56.35% increase in property mischief within 100 meters), and mental stress for existing residents.
- Jasper (resident): Opposed Coral Blossom, demanding transparency about the city's settlement with the state and developer, and asking the city to reconsider the site in favor of a more central location with better access to services.
- Suzanne Pesci (resident): Opposed Coral Blossom, arguing that the city needs better outreach and that the new location is less suitable than the original Old Town site. She also spoke on lighting standards, advocating for preservation of dark skies in rural areas.
- Nicole Restmayer (board member, Sacramento Housing Alliance): Supported Coral Blossom, noting that Elk Grove needs 2,600 extremely low-income and very low-income housing units and that the project provides much-needed units.
- Jackie (resident): Opposed Coral Blossom, expressing frustration that the project was forced on neighborhoods and blaming state mandates rather than local leaders.
- Kathy Grudell (resident): Commented on lighting standards, asking for clarity on the 90-degree cutoff and exemption for ag-residential zones, and noting that 10 stadium lights from a neighbor's property disrupt her rural lifestyle.
Discussion Items
5.1 8767 Excelsior Road Map (PLNG22-041)
- Staff Presentation: Joseph Daguman described a tentative parcel map to subdivide one existing parcel (approx. 6.09 acres) into three parcels, each at least 2.0 gross acres. Access via a 25-foot private road off Excelsior Road. The existing home and outbuilding will remain on Parcel 2. The project requires abandoning the existing septic system and installing new wells and septic systems. No further CEQA review needed under Section 15183.
- Applicant: Janice Sparksdale (Clayborne Engineering) had no additional comments.
- Public Comment: None.
- Commission Deliberation: No questions; motion to approve was made and seconded.
- Vote: Unanimous approval (5-0).
5.2 Stone Springs Estates (PLNG24-015)
- Staff Presentation: Joseph Daguman presented a tentative subdivision map to subdivide a 2.2-acre parcel into nine single-family lots, with design review for subdivision layout. The project was originally approved in 2006 but the tentative map expired; improvements (street, sidewalk, curb, gutter) were completed in 2013. Two design exceptions needed: 40-foot right-of-way (vs. 42-foot standard) and single curb ramps (vs. dual ramps). CEQA exemption under Section 15332 (infill).
- Applicant: Not present.
- Public Comment: None.
- Commission Deliberation: Commissioner Poole asked about fees for repeated delays; staff clarified that state legislative extensions are free, but a new application fee applies for this approval. Motion to approve.
- Vote: Unanimous approval (5-0).
5.3 Coral Blossom Apartments (APLA24-001) – Appeal
- Staff Presentation: Kyra Killingsworth explained that the appellant appealed the Zoning Administrator's June 17, 2024 approval of the project (81-unit 100% affordable housing, 3-story building, density bonus with reduced parking and concessions). The project qualifies for SB 35 ministerial review. The appeal was based on the city's prior denial of the Oak Rose Apartments, but staff argued that Coral Blossom is a separate application and meets all objective standards. Staff recommended denying the appeal.
- Appellant: Liz Marshall (see public comments above).
- Public Comment: Several speakers opposed (safety, lack of outreach, location) and one supported (housing need).
- Commission Deliberation: Commissioners discussed the limitations of SB 35 and the city's inability to require additional outreach. They noted that the project meets all objective standards and that the commission's role is limited to ensuring compliance with SB 35. Motion to deny the appeal and approve the project.
- Vote: Unanimous (5-0) to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's approval.
5.4 Residential Lighting Standards Update (continued)
- Staff Presentation: Kyra Killingsworth presented the proposed text amendments to Chapter 23.56 (Lighting) for single-family and two-unit residential zones. Key provisions: attached fixtures must be full cutoff and ≤1600 lumens; freestanding fixtures up to 12 feet are by right (full cutoff, ≤1600 lumens); fixtures 12–20 feet require minor design review with photometric plan and public hearing; temporary lighting allowed for 90 consecutive days; band lighting with visible source prohibited, but accent lighting where source is not visible is allowed. CEQA exemptions under Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308.
- Public Comment: Suzanne Pesci and Kathy Grudell raised concerns about dark skies, rural character, and clarity on the 90-degree cutoff and ag-residential zones.
- Commission Deliberation: Commissioner Fernandez requested clarification on band lighting; staff provided language prohibiting neon tubing or band lighting used in lieu of articulation, but allowing accent eve lighting where the light source is not visible. Commissioner Poole expressed concerns about freestanding poles and band lighting, and indicated she would vote no. The motion included the staff's suggested clarification.
- Vote: 4-1 (Commissioner Poole opposed) to approve the resolution recommending the amendments to City Council.
Director's Report
- Christopher Jordan, new Development Services Director, reported upcoming items for August 15 (two items), September (Allen Ranch Medical Building), and future council items (lighting standards, bars/breweries in Old Town). He also addressed outreach questions, noting that state-mandated projects like SB 35 have limited opportunities for community engagement, but the city does provide notice and online resources.
Planning Commission Matters
- Commissioners welcomed Christopher Jordan as the new Development Services Director.
- Commissioner Poole raised the need for improved public outreach, especially for sensitive projects. Commissioner Singha suggested educating the public about state law limitations. Staff noted that the city uses social media through the Public Information Office and that better outreach is possible for city-led projects.
Key Outcomes
- 8767 Excelsior Road Map: Approved unanimously (5-0).
- Stone Springs Estates: Approved unanimously (5-0).
- Coral Blossom Apartments Appeal: Denied unanimously (5-0); Zoning Administrator's approval affirmed.
- Residential Lighting Standards Update: Approved 4-1, with a recommendation to City Council to adopt the amendments. The motion included a clarification prohibiting visible band lighting but allowing accent lighting where the light source is not visible from public right-of-way.
Meeting Transcript
Okay. Good evening. I will call to order the Elk Grove Planning Commission regular meeting of Thursday, August 1, 2024 at 6 PM. Let me start with the land acknowledgement. We honor, respect, and acknowledge Elk Grove's first inhabitants, the Plains Maywalk, who lived as sovereign caretakers of this land and these waterways since time immemorial. We commemorate and advocate for the descendants, the Wilton Rancheria tribe, the only only federally recognized tribe in Sacramento County, who endure because of their bravery, resiliency, and determination of their ancestors, tribal members, and leaders. At this time, would you please silence your any of electronic devices, cell phones, et cetera? And I will ask the clerk to read our customary greetings. The Growth Planning Commission welcomes, appreciates, and encourages participation in the meetings. The Commission reserves the right to reasonably limit the total time for public comment on any particular noticed agenda item as it may deem necessary. If you wish to address the commission during the meeting, please complete a speaker card. They're located in the back of the room and give it to the clerk prior to consideration of the agenda item. Thank you. Sandra Poole. Present. And Chair Sumensinger. Present uh I invite Christopher Jordan to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? Chair Singer, I move to approve the agenda as presented. Do we have a second? Second. All those in favor? Please signify by saying aye. Aye. The motion carries. Thank you. At this point, uh members of the audience may comment on any item not on the agenda that is of interest to the public and within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. The planning commission cannot take action on non-agendized item raised under public comment until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda item as an action item. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Lynn Wheat. Our city has had a dismal land use history as described by one UC Davis professor, poster child for poor land use planning. Tonight I'm going to present past examples, which will bring us to the latest events, which of course our leaders will choose to blame someone else because in our city the buck stops no place. Example one, the Ventara Park project. Once again, the community rallied around protecting the deterioration of the rural community, the increased congestion and poorly planned project. The community sued and won the lawsuit, not stopping the project completely, but at least a water source had to be identified, and the community fought to have a better residential plan. Example two, the Laguna Ridge specific plan, which was to be the diamond of Elk Grove. The numer three zones led to more peaceful projects and a zone change, allowing a hospital to be built. Now we all need a hospital, but many of the home buyers bought believing that they'd have a wonderful shopping community in smaller businesses. Now they will look on a five-story parking structure in a hospital with a helipad. Complementing this locally crowded Costco shopping area. At the time of the Costco project hearing, the neighborhood had rallied to fight having the truck loading zone and gas station along Civic Center Drive and right next to the neighborhood. The cheaply designed Costco was improved upon when it was brought to the attention of council, the better design Costco's in other local cities. When questioned by a council member, the Costco representative's response, we belt it to your standards. In my opinion, not much has changed. As the Nordstrom Rack, without residents being aware, has the loading docks along Civic Center Drive and their neighborhood, plus the very sterile wall. Example three, Sterling Meadows, a specific planned community, rezoned, of course, to eliminate business sites for more homes. Homeowners who purchased in the community and pay the high assessments will be looking out at a zoo employee parking lot instead of the fire station as described when they purchase their home. Who will take responsibility for the continued poor planning rezones and bundle general plan amendments?
openpublica.com