Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I will call to order the Oak Grove Planning Commission regular meeting for Thursday, May 15th,

June 15th, 2025 at 6 p.m.

I will start with the land acknowledgement.

We honor, respect, and acknowledge Oak Grove's first inhabitants, the Plains Miwok, who lived

as sovereign caretakers of this land and these waterways since time immemorial.

We commemorate and advocate for their descendants, the Wilton Rancheria Tribe, the only federally

recognized tribe in Sacramento County who endure because of the bravery, resiliency, and determination

of their ancestors, tribal members, and leaders.

Will you please take a moment and silence your electronics?

The clerk will read the customary greeting.

Thank you.

The Oak Grove 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

and give it to the clerk prior to consideration of the agenda item.

Sandy, will you please call the roll?

Commissioners Sandra Poole.

Present.

Farron Singh.

Present.

Suman Singh.

Present.

Vice Chair Oscar O'Connor.

Present.

And Chair Juan Fernandez.

Present.

I will invite Suman to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance and welcome him back.

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic where

it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Would you please join us in a moment of silence?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Staff proposes altering the sequence of agenda items by presenting items 6.1 and 6.2 after

hearing item 5.1 and before hearing item 5.2.

May I have a motion to reorganize the agenda?

So moved.

Go ahead.

I'll acknowledge.

Yep.

I move to approve the reorganization of the agenda as described by the Chair.

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

None.

We will reorganize the agenda as described.

Moving to public comment.

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-agendaized items raised under public comment

until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda as an action item.

Sandy, do we have any speakers for the public?

No.

Open comment.

Okay.

Thank you.

I will close the general public comment and we will move on to the consent calendar items.

Item 4.1, the regular meeting minutes of April the 3rd, 2025.

Do I have any questions or a motion?

Chair, I move to approve the minutes of April 3rd, 2025 as prepared.

And I will second.

Moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Passes.

Second item.

Second item.

Second item.

4.2, the regular meeting minutes of April the 17th, 2025.

Any questions or do I have a motion?

I move to approve the minutes of April 17th as prepared.

Commissioner Poole?

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

And Commissioner Vice Chair O'Connor?

Moved and seconded.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

One abstention.

One abstention.

You were on the other side of the planet.

Yes.

All right.

Sandy, will you please call item 5.1?

Item 5.1 is grant line production and recycled facility amendment.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Kira Killingsworth and I'm the senior planner for the Community Development Department.

The applicant has requested a conditional use permit amendment and a design review amendment

to a previous approved project that was approved back in July 20, 2023 to operate a new construction, aggregate, and recycling facility.

This project is located at 10,000 Waterman Road.

It is surrounded by other industrial projects, especially the one close by, Waterman Brinkman Project, railroad tracks, and the closest residential on the west is 500 feet.

And the project is currently vacant.

The original project included a recycling asphalt and concrete.

They will produce hot mixed asphalt, ready mixed concrete.

It will be open 24 hours, seven days a week, with an exception of the recycling facility, which will be 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.

All these will remain the same with this amendment and the request is to modify the site plan to include the northwest side of the property to have truck parking and storage.

As mentioned earlier, there's no changes to the truck route, machinery, equipment, office buildings, and hours of evaporation.

And the applicant would like to fill in the wetlands that are on this location to have gravel parking for truck parking and storage.

Even though the wetlands were avoided with the original project, the certified EIR did anticipate a project activities due to the industrial location.

And there was a mitigation that was required to replace for a one-to-one ratio of the wetlands off-site.

There is a change to the site plan for landscaping.

So originally the landscaping was along the middle of the property due to the avoidance of the wetlands.

And now the landscaping will be along the railroad track.

There will be a bioretention on that north end of the project.

As mentioned, there was a certified EIR.

And there is an addendum to that EIR for this amendment.

And again, the EIR stated that the on-site wetlands were marginal habitat due to locations surrounded by industrial development.

And the applicants were required to replace or restore the wetlands.

The addendum has noted that there's no additional impact or conditions for this amendment.

The one change is since that certification of the EIR, there was a status update of the burying owl that was changed with the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

And the mitigation has changed to reflect that status update.

But no other changes with the amendment.

With that, staff recommends that you adopt the addendum to the grantline EIR, as well as approve the amendment for the conditional use permit and design review for the grantline project.

And the applicant is here for any questions, as well as staff.

Thank you.

Thank you, Carol.

Any questions, staff?

So I do have a couple of questions.

You mentioned the facility will operate 24 hours.

Is the expectation that there will be trucks moving in and out of that truck parking area all hours or any time?

Or will the trucks just be, like, stationed there between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.?

Do you mean, like, the whole project or do you mean the area?

Just the new area.

So the new area is just kind of the storage area, not where the trucks will be moving in and out.

Okay.

So it presumably would be trucks and trailers that were waiting to be loaded or offloaded.

Right.

Okay.

And will there be any storage buildings in that area?

It will be just gravel?

Just gravel.

No for the trucks only.

There's no new buildings in that location.

Okay.

So no further improvements other than just gravel for parking the trucks and trailers, presumably equipment.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

I just have a comment on the question, which we discussed during my staff report.

I'm glad it is clarified in the slide you just showed that we're talking about.

The question of storage was one which got me vehicle parking and storage.

Storage is sort of left up as to storing what?

But it's storing vehicles, so that's fine.

I just wanted to be sure it wasn't storing construction materials.

So thank you for clarifying that.

Okay.

Okay.

If no other questions for staff, I will invite the applicant to speak if they so choose.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Good evening.

My name is Terry Marshall.

I'm permitting manager for Revolta Materials.

We don't have any comments or anything.

Just wanted to let you know we're here and happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

And I will declare the public comment opportunity open and ask if there are speakers.

It looks like there are two.

James Hudson.

I'd like to let my brother speak first if that's possible.

That's fine.

Is that Edwin?

Yes.

Come on up.

Hello.

Good evening.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

My name is Ed Hudson and I rise in opposition to the proposed amendments.

The first question I would ask the commission is if the current amendments were part of the original proposal, would the commission have approved this project at that time?

I note that at the time that this was last considered before the commission, every public comment was against this proposal because of the noise and the dust opportunities and the pollution opportunities to the suburbs that are just east of this proposal between Waterman Road and Grant Line Road.

I have two properties there.

I have a house in those suburbs and I live in that farmhouse or I own that farmhouse at 1001 Waterman Road across the street from this.

And the last time this was presented before the commission, the diagrams presented by Vulcan showed that there would be a large amount of noise affecting the farmhouse particularly, but also affecting the suburbs to the east.

No remedy was offered at that time.

So I rise again in opposition to this.

Oh, two more points, please.

The answer wasn't completely clear to me as to whether or not materials are going to be stored at the site.

But it's also fair to ask the question with the increased truck storage, will there be any loading and unloading operations going on during the off hours, aggravating the noise that will affect the residents trying to sleep in the adjacent suburbs?

It's also fair to ask the question if there are any materials that are being stored, such as ground asphalt, et cetera.

There's the opportunity for rainwater, et cetera, to leach pollutants out of those materials down into the groundwater.

And there's a pumping station very adjacent to the facility that supplies the city of Elk Grove with most of its water.

So again, I rise in opposition to this.

And one last remark.

During the last time this matter was considered before the public here, the public planning commission, the public was given an opportunity to respond or to ask questions and make comment.

And then the applicant was given an opportunity to respond to the public comments.

But there was no opportunity given to the public to respond to any additional documents or data or statements were made at the time by the applicant.

So I'd like the planning commission to consider changing it how it handles public comments to allow the responses provided by the applicants to be further challenged by the public.

OK, thank you very much.

Does anybody have any questions for me before I sit down?

OK, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hudson.

James Hudson.

Yes.

So the last time we were here, we asked about one of the major concerns was basically the noise level and also the pollution increase that'll have on the farm that we have.

And people that are possibly living in the farm.

And the response from the council was basically, well, if they said they were going to water it, sprinkle it and keep the dust down and keep the noise down and promised all of these promises that the noise level wouldn't become above a given level.

And then they said, well, but if it does and we get enough complaints and that goes on and we seem to have a problem with it, we'll remove the cup.

But I think once they're fully in operation, a cup on an operation like that is very difficult to remove.

So my concern is, is who's going to monitor it?

I know on our farm we are definitely going to put in noise monitors and we're also going to put in pollution monitors.

And we will phone you every time that it goes above that level.

So anyway, I appreciate the being able to comment also.

But we're extremely concerned on this because it seemed like it just rolled right through and the council really didn't pay any attention to the people that had protested it and had pretty good arguments previously.

So we were opposed to it then and we're opposed to it now.

Just a sidebar thing.

We've got the 1001 Waterman Road up for sale.

And every time someone comes in and asks for about a cup or inquires because they want to buy the property,

they're basically told that they cannot do that there or that they won't be issued a cup.

We've had quite a few numbers of people interested in buying it and have been refused by Elk Grove.

And that's just a side comment.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hudson.

I'll invite the applicant to come up and address the concerns if you so choose.

Okay.

I will declare the public comment closed.

And move to commission deliberation.

I'll start on the left.

Commissioner Singa?

Oscar?

Sandra?

I would like to ask for a little clarification on storage.

As was mentioned by Mr. Hudson, will it be storage of any type of hazardous materials?

What exactly will be stored there other than truck parking?

My understanding, trucks.

The storage of trucks.

The applicant, if you want to clarify that.

Can the applicant confirm that it will be trucks and not material?

Chair, did you want to reopen the public comment?

Thank you.

Yes, I will reopen.

Allow the applicant to come up and speak.

Yes, I will reopen the public comment so the applicant can address the question.

Okay.

Great.

Yeah, I think when we're talking about material, that could mean lots of different things.

But we're not proposing to stockpile material on that portion of the property that we've added back in.

I think that might be the question, right?

Is it sand and gravel?

Yeah.

That's not to be proposed in that area.

Okay.

So if I may just follow up, sir.

You're saying, just to be very clear, because you used the word stockpile, we're going to have nothing there other than vehicles?

That's correct.

There could be some equipment, maintenance equipment, items such as that, but no stockpiles of material like gravel, recycled material, none of that.

There's other places on site where that's proposed.

And the material, when we say gravel, that's the parking.

Right.

Not gravel stockpiles or anything.

It was just the parking material was going to be gravel.

So it will still be a permeable surface, rainwater.

Right.

Still.

Right.

Correct.

And the hours of operation are from 7 to 10, correct?

Well, it's a 24-hour operation with the exception of recycled material is not.

That's mostly a daytime operation.

When it comes to operating hours, we don't really necessarily dictate what those are.

That's why we need to have 24 hours.

The projects dictate when they need the material.

For example, Caltrans, notorious for having to do nighttime work.

They need asphalt.

They need it at nighttime.

It needs to be available at that.

If we had our choice, we wouldn't operate at night at all.

It just makes sense not to, but we have to respond when the material is needed.

So there could be trucks going in at 11 midnight or whatever?

There could, yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Can I've reopened the public comment.

I can allow Mr. Hudson to speak again?

The typical process is to allow the public one opportunity to speak, one three-minute opportunity.

And then the standard process is also allowed rebuttals by the applicant.

So that would be outside of the standard operating procedure.

As the chair, it's within your purview to do that.

I would just, you know, caution you that we want to keep the rules applicable to this

project similar to those applicable to all projects so that we can ensure due process

and fair hearing for everybody.

Understood.

He didn't use his full three minutes, though.

So if you have a very brief comment, Mr. Hudson, I will give you one minute.

I do, but I would challenge the applicant's answer with a couple of quick questions.

Loading operations can be very noisy.

If you're loading gravel, if you're loading asphalt, that can make a tremendous amount of noise.

And going on between 10 o'clock and 7 a.m. in the morning, with all the developments this

planning commission has approved for the suburban developments that are just to the east of that,

I think, I don't, so I'd ask the question of the applicant, will it be loading operations going on all night?

As well as the traffic hazard associated with the trucks.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

And that's not part of this change to the use permit.

So acknowledge that it was already a 24-7 operation that was previously approved.

This is just for the wetlands.

All right.

Thank you.

I'm going to ask you to ask your point, and that is the applicant has made assurances that

nothing will be stored there other than the trucks and equipment.

But what's the guarantee for that five years from now or 10 years from now?

Will there be restrictions written into the use permit?

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I will reclose the public hearing and ask if there are any further deliberation or action

from the commission.

Is there a motion?

Mr. Chair, I move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution adopting the amendment,

or sorry, apologies, adopting the addendum to the environmental impact report for grantline

construction aggregate production and recycling facility project, PLNG 21-001, and approving

the conditional use permit amendment and minor design review amendment for the grantline

production and recycle facility amendment project, PLNG 24-016, based on the findings

and subject to the conditions of approval included in the draft resolution.

I have a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

I have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Passes 5-0.

Okay.

So the public hearings will continue after items 6.1 and 6.2 are presented.

We will move to the official zoning interpretation of fencing.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission.

Joseph Dagerman, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department.

This is item 6.1, the official zoning interpretation for fences and walls.

So the interpretation before you is the interpretation of the walls and fences section of the zoning code,

particularly note number 4 of table 23.52-1, relative to maximum allowed height of fences and walls within the required street side yard of a property.

There's provisions in the municipal code that when the Community Development Director determines that an ambiguity in a zoning regulation exists,

the formal request for an interpretation is made by an applicant, property owner, or interested party to the Community Development Director.

The Community Development Director shall prepare an official zoning interpretation.

So the interpretation before you is triggered by an inquiry that came from a property owner with an active code enforcement violation for a fencing violation on a corner property.

So before you is the fences and walls chart that is found in our zoning code.

I've shortened it to just focus in on fences within the required, fences on street side yards.

So that's properties that front on two streets.

Just briefly go over the requirements.

If the, if a property owner would like to build a fence up to seven feet, the minimum requirement is that they'd be five feet from the back of the sidewalk.

If they wanted to construct their fence closer than five feet from the back of the sidewalk, there is a general three foot requirement.

But there's a footnote that would allow for a maximum of six feet if the fence is decorative, open wrought iron or tubular steel.

If the, if the fence is placed along the street side yard property or within the street side yard setback area.

The potential ambiguity this evening is the underlying sentence that one may read as allowing a six foot fence on top of a three foot solid fencer wall for a total of nine feet.

As part of the code amendments that you'll hear about later this evening, the underlying sentence will be modified to provide more clarity.

But in the interim, in order to clarify any ambiguity today, the community development director has prepared an official interpretation for the planning commission review and action.

And this is the official interpretation.

So as I mentioned earlier, six feet, a six foot fence within the required street side yard with an approved open view fence material is permitted.

There is the option of using up to three feet of solid wall or fence from the finished grade with an open view fence on top of the solid wall or fence to a maximum of six feet.

Um, this interpretation is based upon review of the city council meeting of October 26 2016 where the city council directed the addition of note number four as part of a subsequent amendment to the zoning code.

Um, this image before you is an example.

Um, they previously, this property previously did have a code enforcement case for, uh, street side yard fencing.

Um, this is an example of what was approved.

Um, you'll see that you'll have the three foot solid fence on top with the three foot open view fence material on the, I'm sorry, the three foot, three foot solid on the bottom with the three foot open view fence material.

Um, this is a total of six feet.

Um, the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15061B3.

This is the common sense exemption.

So tonight staff is recommending approval of the official zoning interpretation.

Um, this concludes my presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joseph.

Do we have any questions on the fence interpretation?

I'm sure I, I, um, that picture that you showed.

So, um, I guess before when I envisioned it, it was just a solid at the bottom and then that wrought iron.

So then they can have an additional fence inside of, of that area.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So what, what this image shows is this.

Can you see my, can you see my cursor?

Uh huh.

Yes.

Um, this solid six, six, seven foot tall fence.

Uh huh.

They could do that.

Um, as long as they're, um, greater than five feet from the back of the sidewalk.

Uh, there's nothing in our code that says you can't have a fence next to another fence.

Um, it's not, it's usually not done, but it's nothing that says you can't do it.

Uh, I guess I just wonder what the purpose did.

Yeah.

A dog run perhaps.

Oh.

Hmm.

I think if I may, what we've been finding is folks who feel like they are entitled to a solid fence at the back of walk.

Oftentimes because they see a neighbor doing it that hasn't been triggering a violation yet.

So they do it.

Then the violations triggered.

We get an enforcement complaint.

We go out there.

They've invested money in the masonry component or some lower portion as may have been the case here.

They're not interested in the cost of removing everything.

And so they go with this compromise of, I will further secure it with the tubular steel, but then build the fence behind it.

So they still have their traditional yard area secured.

It is a very awkward solution, but technically it is allowed under the code.

It is certainly not the most elegant solution, but it is the council direction that we have from, um, the time period from which this code originates.

So, um.

So I, I guess, and maybe you're not prepared to answer tonight, but, um, what's the purpose of having the, the three-foot fence behind it?

The three-foot solid and then the three-foot open if it's just going to be.

Yeah, from, so I, I wasn't involved at the time.

This one went through my understanding and reviewing the staff report and the video from the council meeting where this is discussed.

And what's linked in the staff report is a desire by council to facilitate some level of opportunity for the fence move moved out,

but recognize that the underlying intent was to create more of a, um, not create such of a walled environment when you're walking down the sidewalk and that very more fortress experience in the neighborhood.

And so by at least providing some level of permeability, it gives the opportunity for folks to be able to take greater advantage of their yard space while still, um, maintaining the permeability component, the openness, or the shoulder room, if you will, while walking down the sidewalk.

I think that's what I've understood to be the council intent at the time certainly has led to applications like what's up here on the screen.

And so, um, we, at this point from a staff perspective, we're just ensuring direction, the direction the council provide is being implemented.

There's some clarity here to make sure we're in line with what the council directed at the time.

As you'll see in item 5.2 later, this is then codified.

If ultimately the council wants to revisit this when they consider the item in the future, they'd have the ability to, uh, as part of that hearing.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments for staff?

All right.

I will declare the public comment opportunity open.

Sandy, do we have anyone?

No speakers?

I will declare the public comment opportunity closed and thank Joseph again.

Do I have a motion on this?

Mr. Chair, I move that the Planning Commission find the official zoning interpretation exempt from CEQA

under State CEQA guidelines section 15061B3

and approve the official zoning interpretation that fences and walls within required city side street yard may be increased to a total height of 6 feet 0 inches.

If a decorative open rot, iron or tubeless steel fence or wall is placed along the street side yard property or within the street side yard area with the option of using up to a 3 feet 0 inch of solid wall or fence from finished grid and placing an open view fence on top of the solid wall or fence to a maximum height of 6 feet 0 inches.

And the second is for the combined solid and open view fencing.

Second.

Seconded.

Seconded.

Commissioner Poole.

I have a motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving to item 6.2, the official zoning interpretation of massage businesses.

Good evening, Chair, Planning Commissioner, Sarah Kirch-Gessner, Planning Department.

Staff identified an ambiguity in Elk Grove Municipal Code Chapter 2382, Home Occupations, as part of the review of two special business licenses.

The home occupations chapter lists health salons as a prohibited use and there is no formal definition of health salon.

So there is an ambiguity with respect to whether a massage business is considered a health salon.

The formal interpretation is that massage businesses are considered health salons and are therefore prohibited as home occupations.

Staff coordinated with the police department and the code enforcement divisions and identified a concern with the establishment of these types of uses within a home occupation setting, given the nature of the use and the need for regular monitoring.

Until the revisions of the zoning code are considered and approved by City Council, staff recommends that this interpretation be recognized as a health salon is a prohibited use, including massage businesses.

Concurrently, staff has drafted an amendment incorporating this interpretation into the 2025 Municipal Code update that you will be seeing later tonight.

Along with that, a home office use associated with out-call massage businesses would be considered a restricted home occupation and massage businesses as home occupations would be prohibited uses.

This project is exempt from CEQA and staff recommends approval of the official interpretation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Can you clarify the comment on the home office would be restricted?

So there are several categories of uses within the chapter.

There is a section that are restricted home occupations and prohibited home occupations.

So in this case, the home office use would be considered a restricted use where it'd be permitted specifically stating

it's home office use for off-site massage parlors.

Okay.

Got it.

I was misunderstanding, restricted, and prohibited.

Thank you for the clarification.

Any additional questions for Sarah?

Do I have a motion?

Oh, I will declare, thank you, Sarah.

I will declare the public comment opportunity open.

No speakers.

I will close the public comment.

And I will move that the Planning Commission find the official zoning interpretation exempt from CEQA under State CEQA guidelines section 15061B3 and approve the official zoning interpretation that massage businesses are considered health salons and are not permitted as home occupations.

Do I have a motion and a motion?

Do I have a motion and a second?

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Carries, 5-0.

All right.

We will return to our regularly scheduled programming, item 5.2, the 2025 Municipal Code amendments.

This one will have a few more slides.

Good evening.

The proposed Municipal Code amendments are a series of city-initiated text amendments to the Elk Grove Municipal Code.

These include revisions to Titles 12, 14, 16, 22, and 23, as well as additional minor text amendments throughout the Municipal Code updating the term Development Services to Community Development.

On an ongoing basis, the city identifies potential amendments to the code and packages them for Planning Commission and City Council review and consideration.

This process is independent from special reviews that may be directed by the City Council on a case-by-case basis.

And the last major update was completed in 2022.

Planning Commission is recommended to review and make recommendations on all of the proposed Municipal Code amendments tonight.

The proposed amendments include changes in state law, particularly around housing development, incorporate best practices, and the codification of current practices where applicable, and overall improve the readability and usability of the Municipal Code.

The City's land use and zoning regulations are contained within Title 23 of the Municipal Code, and I will go through a summary of the changes proposed for Title 23.

So the first set of changes are related to updates in state law principally around housing development.

And these changes include overhauling the Municipal Code Chapter 2317 as a common location for all housing development streamlining provisions.

Updating Chapter 2323 as a common location for all housing development standards for qualifying residential development.

Updating requirements for emergency shelter requirements.

Updating requirements and standards for density bonus and other developer incentives and concessions.

Aligning parking requirements and related to parking within a half mile of qualifying transit stop.

Adding parking requirements for single unit residential remodels and renovations.

Updating development standards for ADUs and junior ADUs.

I think I'm on the wrong slide.

Updating changes regarding fueling stations and EV charging and hydrogen fuel sales.

And updating Planning Commission noticing requirements for zoning amendments consistent with state law.

The second set of revisions are those identified as opportunities to improve the code,

and otherwise address a city objective.

These changes include adding a term of service for the Planning Commission consistent with city council direction.

Requiring design review for subdivisions for tentative parcel maps that are within the livable employment area community plan.

Clarifying the process for extensions, modifications, and voluntary revocations.

Adding or modifying several land use classifications including tasting rooms, bars, nightclubs, and small tasting rooms, personal services and personal services restricted, commercial kitchen and parks and public plazas.

As well as modifying the allowed use table for car washes, vehicle services minor, and multiple residential unit dwelling.

Additionally, the code update for this section of Title 23 would also provide procedures for how to round density when a fraction value is calculated.

Updating the list of special planning areas.

Allowing pool equipment and small accessory structures within the street side yard behind a solid fence with utility provider approval.

Within the East Delk Grove overlay district.

Clarifying the calculation of width and public frontage as well as adding RD6 development standards.

Clarifying the setback for fences on corner lots as discussed in the interpretation earlier tonight.

Updating the landscape standards for various zoning districts as well as updating the parking standards.

The proposed parking standard update would add parking maximums as well as adding parking standards for some of the new allowed use categories.

As well as revising the minimum width for parallel stalls consistent with the city's improvement standards.

Additionally, it would allow for an increase in the maximum standards for flags.

Additionally, adding standards for fueling stations including EV charging requirements for fueling stations.

The proposed change would also add screening requirements for drive-thrus consistent with previous projects that have been approved in the last few years.

Adding massage businesses as home occupations as discussed in item 6.2 of the interpretation.

For mobile food vendors adding a process to extend the hours of operation through a minor use permit or temporary use permit.

As well as adding standards for long-term parking and storage of those facilities consistent with state law.

Within the temporary use permit chapter clarifying the purpose of the permit as well as updating the development standards and timelines.

And for wireless communication facilities.

Revising the standard to allow no more than four new equipment cabinets.

And deleting the setback requirements for public trails.

Title 22 changes.

Title 22 is the city's implementing regulations for the state's subdivision map act as well as the development of new public improvements.

improvements such as streets and storm drainage requirements as part of new subdivisions.

Overall, the current Title 22 is in the same format and overall content that was inherited from the county from when the city incorporated.

And the existing structure has been challenging.

The proposed change would comprehensively repeal and replace Title 22 with a new structure as well as incorporating best practices readability and codification of current practices as well as incorporating state law updates.

The proposed change would be a new plan.

The proposed change would be a new plan.

The proposed change would retitle land development to land division.

It would clarify that the city engineer is a licensed city engineer employed or retained by the city designated by the city manager with the responsibilities listed in the title.

It would add the role of the city surveyor as required by state law.

It would clarify the roles and responsibilities of various parties as well as adding procedures for interpretations.

Boundary line adjustments would be called out separately from maps similar to how it's addressed in the subdivision map act.

Adding subdivision design standards and provisions for surveys and monuments as well as a new chapter to address improvement requirements.

And the dedications and reservations section would be expanded and updated to current practice.

For Title 22, excuse me, for Title 12 and Title 16, Title 12 addresses the use and development of streets along with utility and other encroachments.

And Title 16, building and construction addresses a variety of topics affecting development outside of 22 and 23, such as the adoption of the building code, land grading and erosion control, etc.

So the key changes in these chapters include creating a new chapter 1660, which would relocate the provisions in chapter 12.03, providing for the construction of street improvements as part of new development, but outside of the subdivision process.

Other changes to Title 12 include updating the references to the transportation network diagram, updating requirements for the subdivision, the sidewalk improvements, and the

adding penalties for violation of work hours for encroachment permits, updating requirements related street trenching, as well as clarifying street naming procedures.

The other changes to Title 16 include a new chapter for qualifying housing developments, definition of the city engineer, and replacing the director with the city engineer title for grading and erosion control matters.

Adding a new chapter 16.62, adding a new chapter 16.62, establishing regulations and a process for construction activities on private property, as well as the public access component of that, and prohibiting aerial construction in flood hazard areas.

The changes to Title IV are limited to Chapter 14.10, which is the water-efficient landscaping requirement.

And within this update, it would be updating the irrigation design requirements, updated consistent with the model water-efficient landscape ordinance.

So within all titles, as I mentioned, would be a minor text change to update the term development services to community development within all titles of the code.

No further environmental review is required under state secret guidelines, section 15183, relying on the previous EIR and the final subsequent EIR with the adoption of the general plan and additional amendments to that.

And staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that City Council find no further environmental review as required,

and adopting the proposed amendments along with the addition of the green sheet amendment that you received earlier today as well to the Elk Grove Municipal Code, subject to the findings in the draft resolution.

I'm available for any questions, as well as this team.

Thank you, Sarah.

Any questions?

I have a quick one.

We are, we seem so focused on previous projects when we're looking at parking on the minimum parking.

Can you give me like an example of a need to have a maximum?

The need to have the maximum is due to a lot of the shopping centers that have large amounts of excess parking.

So there are a number of shopping centers where you'll find maybe, you know, 50 to 100 or more empty stalls the majority of the time.

So trying to cut back on the excess parking.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Sandra, I'm glad you brought that one up because I noted that as well.

I see a lot of shopping centers where there's, in my opinion, way more parking than necessary.

And that's additional asphalt.

That's additional non-permeable surface.

And so I'm glad to see that.

I made note of 23.58-1 on that item in particular.

And then on the minimum width of parking stalls, what is the minimum width?

So this is for parallel stalls only.

And the minimum width, as identified currently, is nine feet.

However, the city's improvement standard is eight feet.

So this would be revising the standard consistent with the improvement plan requirement of eight feet for parallel stalls.

For parallel stalls.

And question, are public schools mandated to meet city code for minimum stall width?

Or do they have their own governing body as part of the school district and their own building code?

Do you happen to know, CJ?

I can respond.

My understanding is they are not subject to our regulations.

Darn.

Elk Grove High School is impossible to get out of your car once you've parked.

Okay.

I have no additional questions.

Thank you, Sarah.

I will declare the public.

Oh, yeah.

I just have one more quick one.

I'm sorry.

Looking at Section 23.17.1.

Well, that whole Article 2 on the infield affordable housing.

I'm going through this process and who has approval.

And I just want to confirm that the Planning Commission is not involved in this, in terms of like the discretionary reviews and those types of things that's discussed in that article.

Which one again were you looking at?

23.17?

Uh-huh.

23.17.

Looking at 23.17.1.1.0, exemptions from discretionary review.

It looks like that's at the zoning administrator level and then objective standards.

I just don't see Planning Commission involved in any of this.

Is that correct?

Yeah, it depends on which one of these procedures or which one of these qualifications you're talking about.

Some of these may require, may go up to a Planning Commission determination.

It really depends on how the underlying state law regulations are structured in the first place.

To give you an example, there's one of these, I forget which one it is, where it can, by virtue of maybe if the map is connected under just the current code,

if there's a subdivision map or a parcel map that's connected with it, then it could drag the whole thing up to Planning Commission.

Oh, I see.

So we've tried to build in some better flexibility to try to isolate those things consistent with how the underlying state law is.

The changes in state law have been trying to get more things out of a discretionary review process.

Right.

And into just more of a ministerial, does it comply, yes or no?

So some provisions, like SB 35, do provide a process for a public, what's the term they use, a public hearing?

Not a public hearing.

Oversight.

Public oversight.

Thank you.

A public oversight meeting.

And in those cases, what we've tried to do is defer that to the zoning administrators.

It's still a public engagement opportunity, but it's not because of the nature of the project,

something that getting wrapped up into a more traditional Planning Commission review does get problematic.

So anything you want to add?

I will just add that circumstance that he mentioned about the tentative maps causing an elevation.

That's something that we recently discovered, and so we built it into this update.

So to the extent of SB 35 application under this new code would include a map that's eligible for objective review,

objective ministerial review, that would be heard at the zoning administrator level.

So that's one change I thought that was helpful.

Yeah.

For sure.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

I just have a basic comment which I made when I had my staff meeting.

I mean, thank you for the comprehensive reviews.

These must have taken an inordinate amount of time and effort to get all this together.

And I'm especially glad to see that the amendments now align with state law, which is, I think, the big critical issue we faced in the past.

And hopefully, especially as it relates to streamlined housing appeals.

So that is something which I think Commissioner Poon raised a similar issue.

I mean, that is not going to be under the jurisdiction.

That is, it will follow what state law wants.

So thank you all for, I know a lot of people spent a lot of time on this.

And thanks for it.

That's it.

Thank you.

Okay.

If there is no other question of staff, I will declare the public comment opportunity open.

And seeing none, speakers closed.

Do I have a motion?

Chair, I move that Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council find that no further environmental review is required pursuant to state CEQA guidelines, section 15183 and 15162, and adopt the proposed amendments to the Elk Grove Municipal Code text amendments subject to the findings in the draft resolution, including the revisions provided in the green sheet.

Second.

I have a motion and a second, but I have a question.

Do we need to read the amendment in the green sheet?

No, the reference to it in the motion was plenty.

Okay.

Thank you.

Motion and second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Motion carries 5-0.

Moving on to our director's report.

CJ, what do you got for us?

All right.

Well, good evening again.

So your meeting of June 5th.

I can't believe May is already over.

June 5th.

We don't have items that are teed up at this point ready to go.

We thought we might have, but not quite.

So your meeting of June 5th will need to be canceled unless you just want to stand around in an empty room for an hour or two.

So I think, Chair, if you can compare that as such.

I will accept the cancellation request for the June 5th meeting.

Fabulous.

And then we are, in terms of actions, recent city council actions at the top of the list, there was the approval of the Meyer Design Review and, I'm sorry, zoning administrator approval for the Hmong Alliance Church accessory structure over off the school streets in the Old Town area.

And then the approval for the AMPM remodel at 8500 Elk Road Boulevard was also that same night and zoning administrator.

For future agenda items, we're working on a bunch that are listed here.

I won't spend a lot of time on them, but staff is working extremely diligently to try to wrap up another package.

And like I said, we just weren't able to get them all ready for the 5th, so pushing them to tentatively for your second meeting in June, the back half of June, is where we're headed.

On the city council side, happy to report that last night, council conducted first reading of both the SEPA amendments and the LEA adoption.

Those will be on for May 28th for second read.

And if everything holds, they'll be effective at the end of June.

So good news there.

And again, huge shout out to Sarah and Kira for getting those done.

They were big lifts there.

And then with your action on the municipal codes tonight, we will look for one of the June council meetings to take forward that item.

And then there's also a council item coming up for amendments over at the Calvine Point Shops, which is up at Elk Grove, Florin, and Calvine, the coal shopping center that's up there.

Additional building with a minor amendment to the design review approvals, which were previously considered by council many, many years ago.

And so it is in their direct purview to consider the modifications.

I believe that's everything staff has this evening.

Happy to answer any questions you may have.

CJ, so there's like six items on here for forthcoming for planning commission.

Do you anticipate all of those mid-June or hopefully not?

We are trying to get everything done.

Some of these, like the uniform sign program for the village shopping center at the top of that list, is a fairly routine item.

It's just by the nature of it, the type of request they're acting.

They're including does need to come to planning commission.

I think we're pretty close on that one.

It just doesn't, we're not going to get it all done for the hearing notice.

Halfway, we've got a couple of things we're still ironing out.

B of A, I think, is just about ready to go.

So the others, one of the next three might push, but I think the other two are going to make it there.

So, yeah.

Yes.

We'll be busy on June 19th.

Thank you, CJ.

Planning commission matters.

Any items from my colleagues to discuss?

All right.

With there being no further agenda items, I will adjourn the meeting at 6.56 p.m.

Thank you, and good night.

Thank you.