Good evening.

Can you hear me?

All right.

Welcome to the May 22, 2025 Planning and Design Commission meeting.

The meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Lamas?

Here.

Commissioner Naibo?

Here.

Commissioner Caden?

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Is absent.

Commissioner Mosses-Reed?

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

Commissioner Blunt?

Here.

Vice Chair Chase?

Here.

Commissioner Risky?

Here.

Commissioner Thompson?

Is absent.

And Chair Young?

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

I would like to remind members of the public in chambers that if you would like to speak

on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

You will have three minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people

and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains

Miwok, Patwin-Wintoon peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only

federally recognized tribe, may we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before

us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together

today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous

people's history, contributions, and lives.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

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

All right.

So we will not have a director's report today.

First order of business today is the approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Nope.

Oh, sorry.

There is someone.

Oh, I didn't see.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

I was going to move approval, but is it too soon?

Oh, okay.

Is there a motion or anyone would like to make a motion for the consent calendar?

I'll second Bob's.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second.

Will the clerk please call a roll for the vote?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Masters-Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Risky?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson?

It's absent.

And Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

All right.

Before we proceed with the public hearings, I understand there is a request for continuance

on item five, Crocker Village Residential Development.

Would the applicant like to come up to the dais and make their request?

Good evening, Chair.

Members of the Planning Commission.

My name is Daniel Friedman with the Law Offices of Jeffrey Mangels Butler Mitchell.

I appreciate you calling this up early.

I represent the applicant.

First, I just want to acknowledge all the support here for the project application and

thank everyone for coming out.

It's very much appreciated.

The applicant and the developer is very grateful for those who showed.

We submitted a request for continuance on the basis that we believe the staff report-

Excuse me.

I'm so sorry to interrupt you.

We need to do refusals before you begin.

I'm going to limit my comments to continuance.

But if you would like to do refusals-

We would, just to be clear.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So you want to go into refusals?

Okay.

Please.

So before we decide on the request, are there any refusals or disclosures from the dais?

Okay.

Commissioner Naibo?

I got a phone call from the developer, a bunch of emails from the neighbors, a couple

of phone calls regarding the same.

Thank you.

Commissioner Macias-Reed?

I've also received many emails and correspondence from the public, including emails from the applicant

and a phone conversation with the applicant.

I would also like to address the inflammatory and accusatory emails I've received.

And I want to state for the record that back on March 13th, March 13th, not May 13th, March

13th, I sent an email to the city staff letting them know that I would be recusing myself on

this item.

I have also not spoken to any commissioners, neighbors, or others about this matter.

Chair Young and members of the public, I will be recusing myself from this item out of an abundance

of caution due to my proximity to the project.

And then Chair Young, I also wanted to state that item number six, if I may, also need to recuse

myself on that item because I have done work for the applicant in the last 12 months, although

not on that specific project.

I wanted to be clear on that.

But out of an abundance of caution, I will be recusing myself on that item as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lee?

Yes, I received emails from the applicant and members of the public.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Thank you.

I received several emails from members of the public as well as the applicant consistent with

staff report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lamas?

I also received emails from both the members of the public and the applicant, all consistent

with the staff report.

Thank you.

Commissioner Blunt?

I also received emails from the public.

Are you?

I was trying to, yeah.

I'll get you back in.

Okay.

Yeah.

Commissioner Reschke?

I also received emails from the applicant and the public.

Commissioner Ortiz?

I received, I received the applicant and the public as well as I met with via Zoom with

the applicant as well as and the former.

It's not on.

Commissioner Chase?

I received numerous emails that I believe were addressed to all the other commissioners as

well as had a telephone conversation with a representative from the applicant's team today.

Thank you.

And I've received numerous emails as well and met with the applicant and an opponent as well.

All right.

Oh, Commissioner Caden.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Also received emails from the public and the applicant.

Thank you.

All right.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Sorry.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam City Attorney.

So the request for continuance was primarily on the basis that we believe there's a fundamental

legal issue in the staff report.

Also factual issues in the staff report, which we believe we can be, we can address and correct

with the city attorney and with staff.

We submitted a letter, I believe it was yesterday evening, addressing some of those concerns.

I have some other concerns I was going to raise today.

We requested a continuance primarily in order to work that out.

So that's the basis of the request.

And we, again, I want to acknowledge those in red who are here to support in the red ribbons

to support the project.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you.

We have a request from the applicant to continue this item.

I think before the dais can make that decision, I think maybe if we could get an opinion from

legal counsel, because I think they've had a chance to review the letter.

And provide their input on this.

Yes.

We just reviewed, received the letter this morning.

We reviewed it.

It doesn't raise any new legal issues based on our initial review.

I don't know what other issues the applicant intends to raise.

But the letter that we have doesn't raise new issues that we haven't already considered.

Okay.

Thank you.

I guess at this time, does the dais have any questions before I request a motion?

From someone to continue?

Commissioner Lamas.

Thanks.

I am curious about protocol.

What is the standard protocol for us to consider the request?

Go ahead and take it.

The standard for granting a continuance is that the applicant has presented good cause

and that it won't create an unreasonable inconvenience for the public.

Would anyone like to make a motion to continue the item?

Or is there more questions?

I keep looking.

Sorry.

I need to look at the screen.

Commissioner Oreske.

Do we know when it would be continued to?

I know there's a lot of summer recess and summer, you know, people being out.

When would it be heard, basically?

Yeah.

The next scheduled planning commission meeting date is June 26th.

I see a head nodding by the applicant.

I guess a question based on that would be, would June 26th provide enough time to accomplish

the request.

I see a head nodding by the applicant.

Thank you.

Also legal counsel?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lamas.

I guess part of the consideration that I'm thinking about as a second part of that is

kind of an undue burden on the community.

It seems like this is probably the most filled room we've had since I've been on the commission.

And we see a lot of folks that are here to speak on behalf on this item because of the

red ribbons.

So I'm a little hesitant to potentially delay this item.

I know there was a reference to new legal concerns that were going to be expressed beyond

some of the legal concerns that were presented in a letter and the city had a chance to review

and respond to.

I am wondering, is there a benefit to hear those in this public space?

Or would those normally be heard with the city staff and the applicant directly, like

prior, before coming to the full commission for consideration?

You're asking if we should hear the public comment.

We should either continue the hearing or not.

I wouldn't recommend hearing the public comment and then continuing the public hearing.

In terms of raising the legal issues that the applicant wants to raise, it probably makes sense

to raise those.

We can discuss them before we discuss them as a full body.

Okay.

Thank you.

No other thoughts?

Any motions?

All right.

Can I make a motion?

Just for the sake of moving forward to continue?

I'll make a motion to continue the item.

Vice Chair Chase?

We have a motion and a second.

Commissioner, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

No.

Commissioner Caden?

No.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Mosses-Reade?

Is absent.

Commissioner Ortiz?

No.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rischke?

No.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion did not pass.

Okay.

All right.

We'll continue the item.

No.

The item is not continued.

It will be heard in order.

Oh, it will be heard in order.

That's right.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on.

I think in light of our agenda, I'd like to move item seven, review of the capital improvement

program for consistency with the 2040 general plan after item four on the agenda.

Okay.

Moving on to item two, floor and storage facility, P24-036.

Point of information.

Yes.

Do you need a motion to change that?

Or can Ken move?

So I don't need a motion to move that item.

Kendra, I don't know if she's still on the premises, but she could join us.

Huh?

Yeah.

I think she's just in the back.

I think she's just in the back.

We'll get her.

Yeah.

I think someone's going to get Kendra.

Thank you.

Welcome back.

All right.

Item two is the floor and storage facility, P24-036.

Good evening, chair and members of the planning and design commission.

I am Danny Abbas with the planning division.

And this item is a request to construct and operate an approximately 700 unit mini storage

locker building within the general commercial and executive airport overlay zone at the

rear of the Bel Air shopping center at the northeast corner of Florin Road and Freeport

Boulevard.

The request requires commission approval of a conditional use permit, tree permit, and site

plan and design review entitlements.

Due to the airport overlay zoning, people intensive land uses are prohibited at the site, including

multi-unit dwellings, duplexes, hotels, schools, and shopping centers.

Staff supports the proposal at this location since it is compatible with the airport overlay

zoning, since it will provide storage options for surrounding residential office and commercial

development, and since the site design and operational conditions of approval are expected

to ensure compatibility with the surroundings.

This afternoon, supplemental information, which included Department of Utilities conditions

of approval intended to be incorporated into the site plan and design review entitlements,

were uploaded to the online staff report.

Planning staff and the applicants reviewed and accepted the conditions.

Staff recommends that the commission approve the project subject to the conditions found with an attachment three of the report with the addition of the utilities conditions.

That concludes the presentation.

Both staff and the applicant would be able to answer any questions should there be any.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I forgot to ask the dais.

Are there any disclosures or recusals for this item?

Commissioner Naibo.

I called the applicant's representative with some questions about the site plan.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz.

I received an email from the applicant's representative, but did not have a conversation.

Thank you.

I have a question.

I have a question.

I have a question.

I have a question.

I have a question.

I have a question.

I have a question.

I have a question.

I received an email from the applicant's representative, but did not have a conversation.

Thank you.

All right.

Clerk, are there any speaker slips for this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

Thank you.

Do we have any questions or comments or motions?

Chair, I think I don't see any issues.

I don't see any issues with the report, and I don't see any issues at all with the project,

so I will make a motion.

Thank you.

I have a motion.

Commissioner Caden.

Second.

I have a second.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Yes.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Moises-Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rischke?

Aye.

Commissioner Rischke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Item three.

On the discussion calendar, caliber collision P25-002.

Before we begin, are there any disclosures or recusals?

Nope.

Okay.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Sierra Peterson, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department.

The item before you is P25-002 for caliber collision expansion located at 1801 21st Street on the western side of the property at the corner of 20th and R Streets.

This application is for a conditional use permit to establish an auto service and repair facility within a 6,000 square foot portion of an existing commercial warehouse.

Warehouse building within the general commercial zone and Central City Special Planning District.

The establishment of the auto service and repair use is for the expansion of an existing auto service and repair business located to the west across 20th Street at 1800 20th Street.

The business is proposed to operate Monday through Friday, 730 to 530.

All services and storage will be within an enclosed building and completely screened from public view.

Additional parking will be provided on site to the south of the building and screened from view with a chain link fence and additional vinyl slats.

The new use does not include any exterior building modifications except for additional fence screening and exterior lighting required with condition number 4.

This project was noted to all residents, property owners and neighborhood associations within 500 feet of the subject site.

The site was posted with a public hearing notice and staff has not received any public comments or e-comments.

Staff recommends that the Planning and Design Commission approve the entitlements subject to the findings and conditions contained in the staff report.

This concludes my presentation.

I am available for any questions you may have and the applicant is also in attendance tonight.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the Commission.

Brian Holloway, Holloway Land Company representing Caliber Collision tonight.

With me is Mr. Brett Flory of Cross Architects who is also representing Caliber and we can both answer any questions you may have.

He's probably best to answer any questions about operations.

First of all, I know you have a very busy agenda so I'm going to be very, very brief.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank our planner, Sierra Peterson, who helped guide us through the process very, very quickly and we appreciate her hard work.

We have read the staff report and we agree to all the conditions of approval and we are ready for your conditions and your deliberations.

I would like to make one comment and that is if you happen to visit the site, you may have noticed that it's actually occupied.

And that's because Caliber's main operation is across the street.

This particular portion of the building that's before you tonight was an auto body shop and they went out of business and Caliber leased it,

found out that they did need a use permit, filed as soon as they could, did and that's before you tonight.

So just wanted to be real clear that it is occupied already and that's why.

Any questions?

No.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

All right.

Any comments or questions from the dais or motions?

Commissioner Lee?

Yeah.

I don't see any issues with this item either so a motion to approve.

I have a motion.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Apologies, I didn't get to disclose in the beginning during disclosures and recusals that I did receive an email from the representative of the applicant and I'm also happy to second.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have a motion and a second.

Commissioner Nybo?

I'll second.

Did we already get a second?

Yeah, we can get a third.

I do have a, I do have a, I did speak with the applicant.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Will the clerk call a roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Oh, wait.

I'm sorry, Vice Chair Chase.

Also, I spoke with the applicant.

You spoke with the applicant.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Nybo?

Aye.

Commissioner Kayden?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Macias Reid?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rischke?

Aye.

Commissioner Rischke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

The next item.

Thank you very much.

The next item is item four, the Cotton Lane Apartments P24.

Yeah.

After this one.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Cotton Lane Apartments P24-022.

Welcome back.

Hello again.

Good evening again.

I am still Danny Abbas with the Planning Division.

This item is a request to construct a three-story, 54-unit apartment complex.

on a vacant 1.638.

This item is a request to construct a three-story, 54-unit apartment complex on a vacant 1.638

acre site located at the north of the North of the West.

This item is a request to construct a three-story, 54-unit apartment complex on a vacant 1.63 acre site located at the north of the North of the West.

corner of West Dockton Boulevard and Cotton Lane.

The site is a request to construct a three-story, 54-unit apartment complex on a vacant 1.63 acre site located at the northwest corner of West Dockton Boulevard and Cotton Lane.

item is a request to construct a three-story 54-unit apartment complex on a vacant 1.63-acre

site located at the northwest corner of West Stockton Boulevard and Cotton Lane. The site

is surrounded to the north by the Copperstone Village Apartments, the south and west by

single unit dwellings, and the east by Highway 99. The area includes Cosumnes River College,

the Cosumnes River College Light Rail Station, the Valley High North Laguna Library, Shasta

Community Park, restaurants, grocery store, and additional commercial services. To accommodate

proposed density, requested entitlements include a rezone. Staff receive feedback from members

of the public at a January community meeting and through email correspondence expressing

project opposition and concerns related to flooding, rezoning, parking, and resident access. Planning

staff supports the rezone and more dense multi-unit housing at the site since it will position

more citizens proximate to resources and amenities, allowing convenient walkable access to a college,

library, 18-acre city park, routine services, and transit. The project design incorporates several

stormwater management features including onsite green space, bioretention treatment ponds, swales,

and a curb and gutter system. Though there is no requirement for a minimum number of vehicle parking spaces,

the project provides 54 spaces or one per unit. A parking space will be a separate and additional cost

from rent, encouraging residents to be carless in a walkable and transit accessible environment. Residents

will have direct access to the college, library, park, commercial services, and transit via a multi-use trail

immediately north of the site. They will also have access via West Stockton Boulevard. Cotton lane access

would become available if and when other parcels were developed with dedications and city street standard frontage

improvements. Once sufficiently built, the city would accept the roadway as public right of way.

Staff recommends that the commission forward a recommendation of a project approval to city council based on the

findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval listed in attachment five of the staff report. Staff finds the

project consistent with the general plan, land use goals and policies related to compact urban development,

development intensity, link to transit, provision of housing near a college, and increased housing variety and choice.

That concludes staff presentation. Both staff and the applicant team are available to answer any questions. Thanks.

Thank you. Before I forget, are there any disclosures, recusals from members in the dais?

Commissioner Nybo? I called the applicants engineer with questions about cotton lane drainage, and we discussed that this afternoon.

Thank you. No one else? All right. Thank you. Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I have one speaker for this item. Charlene?

Good evening. Hopefully you had a chance to read my comment. It was e-comment online.

I am Charlene Crabb, the captain of the neighborhood watch for our neighborhood, and on behalf of our neighbors, we oppose this project.

We would encourage the developers to build either houses or duplexes. They are proposing a three-story building on a road with five single-story houses. Overhead, that looks great. Up front, it doesn't.

They are suggesting this three-story building on our street with five houses that has a one-lane dirt road that we have used for 70 years that we maintain.

If you can't. If you can just envision it, the road would stop at a certain point where they would develop it, and then it would drop off, so to speak, and go dirt, gravel again.

There is no drainage on that street. There never has been. It's not a developed street. It's a private road.

So we've always had problems with flooding. There is no sidewalk, and there is no vehicle access from Cotton Lane to any of those facilities, the college, the park, the light rail, or the library.

People do come down the street, because there is apartment complex there, and they just squeak underneath the barrier.

So you're not going to do it with a stroller or anything, but you can get through.

But again, it's not a public road. It's a private road. It has always been designated as a private road.

And I'm sure you folks know that there's already a Cotton Square, College Square plan that's been in the development since 2004.

And just on the other side of this, there's a 92 apartment complex that they've been trying to put through.

And according to Councilperson Vang, I guess it's on hold again.

So that's the logical place where you would put this on the other side of the apartments, not on a dirt road with five single-story houses.

My biggest personal concern is for the parking.

I understand how they've changed the rules, and you don't have to do this, but you've got one parking spot optional for each apartment.

You figure there's a husband and wife. You maybe have roommates.

And if you have the option and you're a single mother and you can't even afford the rent, you're not going to take a parking spot also.

There is no off-street parking close.

You'd have to drive down to Shasta, which there's also a business on the corner.

And then you'd have to walk into oncoming traffic going north on a two-lane road.

Thank you for your comment. Your time is now up.

No sidewalk and no lights.

Chair, I have no more speakers on this item.

Thank you.

Are there any questions, comments from the dais?

Commissioner Naibo.

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Commissioner Lamas.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, staff, for the report. Thank you for the public comments.

I did, I am kind of curious to hear a little bit more about the drainage.

If staff can address maybe some of those concerns and some of the mitigating factors that were incorporated into the project.

And also the bioretention treatment ponds.

I'm assuming that's like a wastewater pond.

Just wanting to get some clarification there.

That's if that's what's being proposed here.

If so, I'm curious about the rationale to not connect it to a city utility.

And if that's common for other housing developments.

Yeah.

If we may, I see the engineer is here.

I could do it.

But the engineer, I'd like to leave that to the experts.

And we also have utility staff here, too.

So.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the other thing that I have mentioned.

And the only thing that I have mentioned is to update those those culverts.

Make sure that the water can go go through.

And we're connecting to the city system.

Which currently there is no connection to the city's strong drain system.

So I've been working with, um, from the engineering waters resources division.

So we're gonna have a project specific drainage study to make sure that we address all the concerns.

As for buy retention.

That's just the water on site.

Which is gonna be detained.

and go into that system and what it is is a layer

that filters out the water so it's clean

when it comes into the system.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

So it sounds like this project will at some point

definitively connect to a water retention system,

stormwater retention system.

Well this public storm drain system, correct,

on West Stockton Boulevard.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That yield my turn.

Thank you.

Commissioner Nybo.

If I can ask a clarifying question.

So on the south side of Cotton Lane where it's now,

where it's ditches, upgraded culverts,

is that going to drain to the sewer storm drain collector, a DI?

Correct, correct, yes.

Okay, so there will no, so this will rectify the issue

on the Cotton Lane where there's no drainage right now.

Yes, correct.

And then on the north side of Cotton Lane where it's paved,

that's also going to be collected,

that'll be collected in just a normal DI.

Correct, because we have a curb and gutter

that's going in there and then so we're going to take

all that water, get it collected,

and essentially convey it into the public system.

On the drainage with, I'm sorry, for the topo,

I don't remember looking, does it drain west to east?

It's really flat and yes, it's supposed to drain west to east.

And so, but the issue is, is that due to the time that it's,

the systems have been in place, they don't have enough cover

on the pipes that are currently there.

When I went over there, they're all crushed,

so no water is going to be able to convey through.

It's all full of sediment.

So that's also restricting it and that's why you're having

flooding issues.

And so our proposal obviously is to upgrade everything in that

area and the vicinity, make sure that the water can be conveyed

appropriately to the, to the storm drain,

the public storm drain system, which we're going to connect to.

Did you happen to get elevations on the residents

of south of the property?

Correct, yeah, we did.

Are they draining towards the road or are they draining flat?

Everything drains to that drainage ditch,

which is essentially is on the south side of cotton lane.

The issue is there's a 12 foot strip that's owned by a neighbor.

And so that's why, that's why what we're doing,

everything is within our right of way, essentially our property.

And so that's why we're able to improve the,

the ditches along our side.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Omar.

I do have a question for staff.

Sure.

If, and, and maybe you can comment.

So if it's in the conditions of approval, I didn't see it.

Are, is there any controlled parking on the north side of cotton lane?

Since it's only 18 feet?

Well, yeah.

Yeah.

The, the north side of cotton lane, um,

will have, will be restricted from, from parking.

There will be no parking allowed.

Uh, also because, uh, that will be, uh, emergency vehicle access only,

and they will need, um, the space to, uh, enter or exit from that.

So since, since it's, uh, since it's emergency vehicles,

the curb will be painted red.

Correct.

Curb is going to be painted red.

The access is only for, um, emergency vehicles in that area.

The, why we had to do that was because the existing cotton lane that the,

the gravel road, it varies between 13 to 16 feet, which isn't enough for a fire.

You need 20 minimum.

And so when we're, when we're, uh, paving it, essentially,

we're going to be getting 20 to 25 feet.

So that's a lot of additional room.

So we can have the fire access.

And so we'll be painting that portion of the parking of that area red.

So there's no, uh, parking available on that side.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any motions or further questions?

Commissioner Lamas.

All right.

To kind of belabor the point on the drainage.

Um, did, did I understand that it drained from east to west?

Right.

So the, the west is the lower point.

And the west side of the proposed parcel is also where the privately owned 12 or 20 feet,

I believe you said was located.

Is that correct?

Can you pull up the site?

Is that possible to pull it up?

I'm just, if not, it's okay.

I can verbally say.

Um, yeah.

So, so along cotton lane, the south side of cotton lane,

um, yeah.

Is there a pointer here?

All these are pointer.

Yeah.

Is there on it?

Yeah.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

So that makes it easier.

So along this side of cotton lane, which is the south side of cotton lane,

um, we don't show it, but I do have an exhibit here, which I can clarify if you need to.

Is there a way I can put, put my exhibit on?

The, the screen.

It's just a.

Um.

Um.

Okay.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

T Student.

So this is where, the.

Uh.

Uh, the.

And the.

Okay.

Um.

All right.

Uh.

Uh.

All right.

Uh.

Uh.

All right.

Uh.

Uh.

Uh.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, so I'm not.

Okay.

Well, I'll put my finger here.

But so this strip right here, there's a 12-foot strip.

You'll see the dark blue line is kind of what we own.

And along this side right here, which is my fingers going on the south side, that's

a 12-foot strip that's owned by a neighbor to the west.

And so during the application process, the city encouraged us to reach out to them so

we could build a public cotton lane roadway.

But because there wasn't an agreement with the neighbor, he didn't want to do it.

We're dedicating additional right away on our side so we can accommodate.

And so that 12-foot strip is along that side and you'll see the drainage ditch, which is

the other side, that's all on our side of the property.

So all the water is coming from the neighbors is all going into this ditch.

And the issue is, is that along that side, the culverts, which are crushed and they're

full of sediment, those are not able to convey the water west to east along cotton lane.

So our plans, which are going to be, and we're going to do a project specific drainage study

as well to make sure we address all the concerns to make sure that we can get all the water out.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

So it sounds like the road was kind of pushed north a little bit to accommodate the amount

of space you need to build the road and the drainage system, the culverts on the north side of that road.

Yes, we're granting additional 8.67 feet of right away for the roadway.

And we're also paving it, we're improving the road, meaning that from 13 feet, you're getting now 20 to 25 feet.

Along that side, it's going to be paved.

Okay.

Thank you.

And that's helpful.

I think part of my concern or question was that there was private land that wasn't going to be improved as part of this effort.

What did the drainage with that impact how the drainage, you know, the flow of water would go?

Yeah.

Would one part of that community be more impacted than others if everything's flowing beyond besides that point?

But it sounds like you guys have addressed that concern.

Correct.

Yeah.

Because anytime you do development when you're doing it, there has to be no adverse impact to any of your neighbors.

So you have to make sure that you're incorporating that water flow, especially when it's coming from them to you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kayden.

Yeah.

Appreciate all the questions from my fellow commissioners on that.

It seems like a lot of the drainage concerns have been worked out.

It seems like this is a great project.

You know, when you see a dense, like more affordable housing type like this that's proposing, you know, an apartment project, I think it's really important for us to say yes.

Especially in this case, right next to a college and a light rail station.

So I'm happy to move the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Oh, Commissioner Macias Reid.

I'll second.

Thank you.

I have a motion and a second.

Clerk, will you call the roll?

Chair, commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee.

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Naybo.

Aye.

Commissioner Kayden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Aye.

Commissioner Mastis Reid.

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt.

Aye.

Viceそんな Chase.

Aye.

Commissioner Rischke.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

We're now going to the next item, which is item seven on the printed agenda, review of city fiscal year 2530 capital improvement program for consistency with the 2040 general plan M25-11.

And I guess before you begin, are there any disclosures, recusals, or discussion items?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Young and members of the Planning and Design Commission.

I'm Nguyen Nguyen, Associate Planner with Long Range Planning.

This item pertains to the city's capital improvement program, or CIP for short, that is developed annually by the Department of Finance.

The CIP is the city's five-year financial plan for funding infrastructure and facility needs, and is included as a part of the city's proposed budget every year.

Each year, as part of the CIP process and in compliance with city code, planning staff receives a list of new CIP projects developed by our Department of Finance in collaboration with other city departments responsible for facilitating and implementing capital improvement projects.

Planning staff then reviews and evaluates the new projects for consistency with the goals and policy of the general plan.

Since new projects are added to the city's CIP every year, the Planning and Design Commission is asked to review staff's analysis and make a finding of consistency on an annual basis.

The CIP was last reviewed by the Planning and Design Commission in May of last year.

New CIP projects are typically identified by the various city departments through council approved master plans and programming guides, such as the Transportation Priorities Plan and the Park Project Programming Guide.

Since programming guides and other documents that guide capital investments must be consistent with the city's general plan when adopted, this process supports general plan consistency.

This year, as a part of the proposed 2025 to 2030 CIP, there are 10 new capital improvement projects.

The remaining five are city-wide programs and include technology improvements to code enforcement's case tracking system, the replacement of non-compliant water meters, street and alley maintenance, a neighborhood street light replacement program, and a traffic safety response program.

Based on the high level project descriptions provided, staff finds that the proposed projects are aligned with the general plan's goals and policies to contribute to the safety and well-being of residents and maintain a high quality of existing infrastructure.

A more detailed analysis can be found in attachment two of the staff report.

Based on staff's consistency analysis, staff is recommending that the Planning and Design Commission pass a motion to approve forwarding to city council or report on the city council.

The budget office will inform Council of the commission's consistency findings during Council's review and approval of the 2025 to 2030 CIP in June.

This concludes my presentation.

I am joined by Amy Yang, senior planner for any questions that you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

Okay.

Any comments or questions from the Dias?

Or motions?

Vice Chair Chase.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Newin, for the report.

I move that we approve this for moving on to the city council.

I have a motion.

Commissioner Lummis?

I had a question.

Sure.

I'm curious about the CIP and how the city or what the city is considering for improving technology to help code enforcement.

Does this have anything to do with like parking meters and possibly going from coin base or coin base and card base or some kind of electronic system and making sure that those are online?

I have a question.

I have a question.

Sure.

I'm curious about the CIP and how the city or what the city is considering for improving technology to help code enforcement.

Does this have anything to do with like parking meters and possibly going from coin base or coin base and card base or some kind of electronic system and making sure that those are online and available?

Or is there something specific under CIP that the city is considering for the technology category?

Thanks for the question, Commissioner Lamas.

electronic system and making sure that those are online and available?

Or is there something specific under CIP that the city is considering

for the technology category?

Yeah, thanks for the question, Commissioner Lamas.

I believe from conversation with our code enforcement staff

that this is part of a request, a budget request this year

for council to approve an 8% fee increase for a technology fee.

And that's part of the development process

when permits are approved and reviewed.

I believe that this technology equipment upgrade

is really aimed at increasing efficiency

in the way we track code enforcement cases.

And so I don't believe, I think parking enforcement

is a different group.

So this is a code enforcement group

that operates out of this community development department.

Okay, thank you for that distinction.

So that makes it, so it sounds like it's

some kind of internal software, tracking software

to help be responsive and get status on what happened

for any follow-up on a code enforcement complaint

and any resolutions.

Okay, thank you, appreciate that.

With that, I yield my time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Blunt.

Second Vice Chair Chase's motion to pass.

I have a second.

Any other comments or questions?

All right.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Mastis-Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rischke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you, the motion passes.

Thank you.

Now moving on to item five on the printed agenda.

Crocker Village Residential Development P24-028.

Before we begin the presentation, are there any,

well, we already did disclosures, right, at the beginning,

so I think we're good.

So, yeah.

Welcome back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening again.

I am Danny Epps with the Planning Division.

I wanted to make a, start by making a quick note that corrects mention of a mitigated negative

declaration on page one of the staff report.

The project, as evaluated later in the report, is subject to a prior environmental impact report

and mitigation monitoring plan.

With that said, this item is a request to develop two distinct vacant parcels within the Curtis Park Village

planned unit development with single unit dwellings, including the 2.49-acre flex parcel

with 31 single unit dwellings and the 2.37-acre multi-parcel with 30 single unit dwellings.

Staff accepted, reviewed, and are now making a recommendation on this application

and entitlements proposal.

The general surroundings of the parcels include single unit dwelling development

and the existing Curtis Park neighborhood, affordable senior apartments, commercial development,

Sacramento City College, and the City College Light Rail Station.

The two subject parcels are the only significantly sized remaining undeveloped residential parcels within the PUD.

The applicant request requires that the commission approve a tentative subdivision map to subdivide the parcels

for single unit dwellings, a conditional use permit to allow single unit dwelling development within the shopping center zone,

adoption of a resolution amending the Curtis Park Village PUD schematic plan and guidelines

to allow single unit dwellings within the multifamily housing designation,

and site plan and design review to construct the proposed single unit dwellings.

The Curtis Park Village PUD adopted by City Council in 2010 has always included land designated for market rate multifamily housing.

Separate and distinct from the senior affordable housing, the multifamily site was intended to combine with other uses

into a truly vibrant mixed-use neighborhood.

The inclusion of market rate multifamily housing within the vision statement has not changed since the original adoption of the PUD.

Also, within both the original and current goals and objectives of the PUD is to, quote,

provide various housing choices including single family and cluster, affordable senior, and market rate multifamily residences.

This clearly distinguishes that both affordable senior housing and market rate multifamily housing have always been planned.

The PUD guidelines denote three predominant types of land use development, commercial, single-family housing, and multifamily housing.

The multipartial location concept and land use is described in the following way.

Quote, the area along the western property line of Curtis Park Village South and west of the Court Single Family Home Area

and on the north edge of the commercial area flex zone that contains the affordable housing project

can best be described as the multifamily, high-density housing area in the Curtis Park Village plan,

allowing for the development of apartments and condominiums and condominium multifamily housing.

The original PUD schematic plan included approximately seven acres dedicated to the multifamily housing designation,

excluding land reserved for senior affordable housing.

The area in the middle of the plan, outlined in red, shows land dedicated to multifamily housing.

In 2016, council approved a PUD amendment that reduced the acreage of market rate multifamily housing to the 2.37 acres shown,

allowing an increase in the land dedicated to single-unit dwellings.

Now, the applicant is proposing to eliminate the remaining multifamily housing designation.

Staff has received multiple letters from community members and groups included within the staff report

and posted as e-comments online, including letters that support staff's recommendation,

letters that support the applicant's proposal,

and letters that support denial of single-unit dwelling development on both flex and multiparcels,

on both of the flex and multiparcels.

I also wanted to add that four letters were added,

supplemental printed out, and I believe distributed to the commission.

To be clear, there is no proposal by staff or anyone else

that a 100-foot-tall building be constructed on the multiparcel site.

We have seen the purported renderings of this structure

and heard concerns from residents

and would like to, again, reiterate that staff does not propose development projects.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed flex parcel development

and its associated entitlements with 31 single-unit dwellings

based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in Report Attachment 3,

since it is consistent with the Curtis Park Village PUD

and compatible with surrounding commercial and residential development.

Staff recommends denial of the proposed PUD schematic plan amendment,

schematic plan and guidelines amendment,

and its associated entitlements to remove the high-density multifamily housing designation from the PUD.

Staff finds this proposed action inconsistent with the vision, goals, and objectives of the PUD

and that it conflicts with the necessary findings to remove this designation.

Specifically, it is inconsistent with general plan land use policies that encourage development intensity adjacent to transit

and encourage a mix of housing types to provide options for residents of different income levels.

If the commission wants to approve staff recommendation this evening,

the commission has everything before it that is necessary to do so,

including findings of fact and the necessary conditions to make a final decision.

If the commission wants to approve proposed single-unit dwelling development on both parcels,

as proposed by the applicant,

you will need to provide findings of fact in support of single-family development on the multi-parcel site

and direct staff to return with the findings and conditions of approval.

If the commission wants to deny single-unit dwelling development on both the flex and multi-parcel sites,

the commission will need to provide findings for denial of the flex site development

and direct staff to return with the findings language for final action.

That concludes the presentation.

The applicant would also like to make a presentation

and after both staff and the applicant would be available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I'm going to have the applicant come up for a presentation.

Hello.

Good evening, commissioners.

Thank you again for having me here today.

If you don't mind, I'd like to kind of start with some of the issues that I addressed

or I referenced, I should say, in my earlier comments,

and then I'll have the applicant come up and speak about the project

and talk about the history and the timeline.

So why am I here today?

I'm here today because the staff report is walking this commission

into a blatant Housing Accountability Act violation.

Why is that?

Well, under the general plan, it specifically states single-family residential is allowed

in this land use designation.

When an applicant under the Housing Accountability Act comes in and proposes a project that is

consistent with the general plan, although there may be an inconsistency with the zoning,

which is what we have here in the PUD, the standards in the general plan are controlling.

Now, I know my client's counsel has spoken with the city about this,

and the reference and response the city has provided has been that there's a case.

It's a case called Snowball v. City of Los Angeles.

And I know this case well, actually.

We litigated the exact same issue against the city of Los Angeles in another case called

Ja Yimbi v. City of Los Angeles.

And we won in the trial court on that issue.

The city didn't appeal it.

They appealed Snowball.

City won.

What I can tell you is two things.

One, the issues are totally different, which is why I am suggesting this commission is being

led into a mistake.

The issues are different for two key reasons.

In Snowball, there was no contrary objective development standard to the general plan.

The issue in Snowball concerned inconsistency in the zoning and whether or not a rezone was required

in order to access the highest density possible under any of the zones allowed in that land use designation.

That's just not the case here.

We have an objective development standard in the general plan that conflicts with what staff

is telling you is an objective development standard in the PUD.

Another key difference is that there is a second sentence in the provision that was litigated in Snowball that was not actually fully litigated.

And actually, the Court of Appeals specifically said we're not addressing it in our decision.

And what was it?

It was, I'll read you the sentence.

So the first sentence deals with the requirement in the HAA that if you have an inconsistency in the zoning,

then you are going to have to apply the general plan requirements.

There's a sentence after that.

It goes as follows.

If the local agency has complied with paragraph two, that's a requirement for a notice of inconsistency,

the local agency may require the proposed housing development project to comply with the objective standards

and criteria of the zoning which is consistent with the general plan.

However, the standards and criteria shall be applied to facilitate and accommodate development

at the density allowed on the site by the general plan and proposed by the proposed housing development project.

So what is this saying?

That's saying if there is an inconsistency on a particular objective development standard,

by the way, in my view, irrespective of whether there's an inconsistency between the zoning and the general plan,

you have to apply the objective development standard in the general plan.

The site at issue here is neighborhood land use designation.

And if you open up the general plan and look at the uses allowed, single-family residential is in there.

So I bring this up to just, again, echo my view and our view, my office's view, that this is a big problem.

And we wanted an opportunity to talk about it with the city attorney because I don't believe, in particular,

the second part was addressed by Snowball, and I don't believe it's addressed in the staff report.

The second part of J4, I should say.

The other issue, which we have not had an opportunity to address with the city attorney,

is the claim that the definition of multi-unit in the city's municipal code constitutes an objective development standard for the term multifamily.

Let me help you understand why this is relevant.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, the city can only enforce objective development standards in reviewing a project.

So you cannot deny a project on the basis of any subjective development standards.

The PUD says multifamily uses are allowed in this zone.

And it does not say what's excluded, but it says multifamily uses.

And what the staff report says is multifamily means multi-unit from our municipal code.

Multi-unit means three units or more.

Well, there's a major problem.

First off, multi-unit is not multifamily for a couple reasons.

First off, if you read the municipal code, what it says is it's a definition of a structure.

That is not the same issue here.

You can have even large, you can have a large residence which is multifamily.

But let me raise other issues here, and I hope you understand this because I think this is a big deal.

So under state law, multifamily is two units.

Under federal law, it's five units.

The problem being it's not a subjective standard.

The PUD does not include a definition for what multifamily is.

So for staff to come in this staff report to say we've picked a definition of multi-unit from somewhere in our municipal code and it's three units, they've just selected what they want to present to this commission.

That is not individually verifiable, which is required by the HAA.

What is the term?

It's uniformly verifiable.

I cannot uniformly verify what the definition of multifamily is.

Well, why is that important?

Because I would argue that 30 units is multifamily.

It is a 30-unit subdivision.

So we have several other issues.

Those are the few that we wanted to talk about.

And one more thing I would add.

Well, why is it also important to talk about what is multifamily?

Well, like I said, under state law, two units is multifamily.

So I pose the question, and I actually would genuinely like to hear staff's opinion on this.

Would the addition of a junior accessory dwelling unit to each one of these single-family residences make these all multifamily structures?

Because it would under state law.

And I'm just curious.

I would love to know that.

Again, another issue that we were hoping to discuss if there was a continuance.

But our take, commissioners, we think there is a false premise guiding this staff recommendation.

One, a false premise that this would not be a violation of the Housing Accountability Act, which, again, I know this is a lot.

I've given you a lot.

I'm happy to address again and to present it in a different format if it would be helpful.

But secondly, the premise that there's some other project coming, that by denying 30 single-family residential units, we're saving something.

I don't think that's accurate.

That's not the question before you.

The question before you is whether you believe the city would benefit from having more housing or not,

and you have an applicant here who's prepared to provide it consistent with the requirements of the general plan.

And then I'll just conclude before the applicant speaks or if you have any questions.

One more issue, which I've never seen in my career.

I've never seen a single application split into two like this.

This was one project application.

This was not two project applications.

And you're being asked to approve half and deny half.

I'm genuinely curious if commissioners on this commission have seen that before,

where one application is half approved, half denied.

I just don't know how to even handle that type of situation.

Again, an issue that I believe probably required an opportunity to discuss.

With that, my ask, and the applicant will echo this ask,

is that you direct staff to make findings to approve this project in full.

It is consistent with the objective requirements in the general plan.

And you, commission, would like to see more housing built in the city.

And I assure you, we can provide the legal basis and justification to do that.

And it would be a much more secure action than what the staff report is trying to guide you into.

With that, I'll pass it to my client, the applicant, who will present on the actual project.

Unless this commission has any questions for me.

No, I think the applicant should present.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chair and the balance of the planning commission.

My name is Paul Petrovich, Petrovich Development Company.

I've spent 44 years in this community building quality projects.

And the last 25 years, out of those 44 years,

spending hundreds of millions of dollars of my own money developing Crocker Village.

I guess before I go any further, I would like to make the comment that it appears that a continuance

for the lack of understanding of state law and the general plan dominating the PUD is appropriate.

To be a little bit more clear on the general plan,

the general plan says this property is zoned R4A.

The general plan specifically says R4A neighborhood, which this is designated,

is not only allowed to have single-family homes, but only required to have three per acre.

I come before you offering 30 homes on a small parcel to create middle-class housing.

Everybody's all excited and should be about affordable housing.

That was the first thing I built in this project 13 years ago.

I just didn't build affordable housing.

I built 25% more than was required for the master plan.

The project as it sits today has 20% affordable based on the total number of units.

So everybody waving their arms saying more, more, more should be tempered with,

but wait a minute, what has already been accomplished?

On May 8th, my counsel wrote a letter to the city attorney stating some and most of the objections

that my lawyer just presented to the city.

May 8th, we asked and followed up three times, got zero response, none.

To our question of this specific issue.

It wasn't until me sitting here that I hear the city attorney say,

we don't have any issues here.

Now, is that fair?

For a developer to sit here and wonder and wonder that we posed a, I don't know,

eight-page letter describing the law and citing law and saying this violates SB 330

and never getting an answer?

Hasn't this project been through enough?

The other issue that plagued this project took 21 court hearings

and resulted in me being granted a writ of mandate

and eventually the city settled for a fraction of my damages at $23 million.

This one is a piece of cake compared to that one.

That one took its toll on my health.

That one took its toll on my family.

Here I cleaned up one of the most contaminated brownfields in the country

where there was no housing plan, never to be brought forward.

And I've created 400 homes

and allowed and gave land for a landing of a bridge

to connect to the light rail station.

Now, your general plan agrees with me.

So why am I having to sit here and fight

for what's right?

To take you back in history,

prior to the fuel debacle,

Council Member Chenier and I got along pretty well.

Lauren Hammond steered the project to its approvals.

Jay Chenier inherited that.

Jay came to me in 2012

and I provided all of you the email

and said, hey, Paul,

SCNA, Curtis Park Neighbors,

and I believe it would be better

to take the affordable housing component

that's supposed to be on this multi-parcel

and move it to half the flex.

The reason?

To avoid a four-story monstrosity

of 130,000 square feet

being right in the middle of two-story homes.

That's what makes a harmonious plan.

It's one of the reasons

this plan won 15 national awards.

So I went and did that.

My mistake, staff's mistake at the time,

because the PUD was amended

to make that happen,

was not coming back around

and taking this multi-parcel

and saying it should be single family.

That's water under the bridge.

Your 2040 general plan says

what I'm asking for

not only should be approved,

but it's against the law not to

by HAA.

And what does that mean to the city?

If you violate HAA

and SB 330,

this goes to court,

you have to pay your legal fees,

I have to pay mine,

and you reimburse me mine,

and then you get penalized

$30,000 to $50,000 per unit

for violating SB 330.

That's $1.5 million.

The city's broke.

Now let me add another layer to this.

There have been zero

market-rate apartments built

within four miles of downtown

since 2020.

That's five years.

Zero of at least 80 units.

They don't pencil.

Materials and labor have skyrocketed,

and the difference between market-rate rents

and the cost to build a project

on this parcel

would take double the market rents

to pay the mortgage.

And that's after you invest $15 million cash.

So what does that really mean?

It means that the multi-parcel,

if not approved,

as I'm requesting,

has zero value.

So what's the second highest and best use

of this parcel

to me

who's owned it for 25 years?

As I've done

four times in three years,

I have given land

to nonprofits,

but mainly land banks,

get it appraised,

and take the write-off

against my income tax.

And that means

nothing gets built.

No homes.

Nothing.

And it remains a homeless camp,

which it is.

The other parcel

that is on Shopping Center

goes back to being Shopping Center.

That's its zone.

That's what I do for a living.

There'll be no homes,

no 61 homes,

no 31 homes

on the multi-parcel,

on the flex parcel.

Zero.

Because I don't,

I don't have another choice.

No one's going to buy it

from me

from market-rate.

And I sure as heck

am not going to give it away.

I don't want to fight the city.

I'm tired of it.

I could have taken the city

all the way to the end

with the damages

on the fuel center

because the court ruled

in my favor.

The appellate court

ruled in my favor unanimously.

The Supreme Court

ruled in my favor unanimously.

13 out of 13 judges

ruled in my favor.

And on top of that,

established it

as New California Law

for how this city

treated me

on that project.

If you don't think

I have the tenacity

and the wherewithal

and the frustration

to go do that again,

because the only reason

I do this stuff

is because I'm principled

and I want what's fair.

My father landed

on D-Day day one.

Survived.

He got caught

in the Battle of the Bulge.

Survived.

And was awarded

the Bronze Star.

And then he went

and freed

a concentration camp

at Dachau.

I was his only son.

And he told me,

don't let anybody

walk over you.

Stand up what's for right

and don't ever back down

at any cost.

And that's how

this project got done.

No one would have

taken on this

$100 million cleanup

and infrastructure

with his own money

and then delivered

another $400 million

of development

for this project.

So I ask you,

plead with you even,

to recognize

the merits

that I've already

satisfied the affordable

housing component.

I've already put in

an apartment building,

moved it at the request

of the city.

That could have gone

in the middle

of the neighborhood

but didn't put it there.

We wouldn't be having

this conversation.

I've also

taken 100%

of the flex land

that was the one

remaining issue

in the EIR

and the approvals

back in 2010,

15 years ago.

And I didn't build

80,000 square feet

more retail.

I'm now converting it

100% to residential.

Commissioner Caden,

you were interested

in seeing that more

housing gets built.

This project

has five different

housing types.

Brownstones,

22 to the acre.

Has multifamily,

affordable,

60 to the acre.

The court lots

are 15 to the acre.

The overall density

of the balance

is 7 to the acre.

We have front-loaded

and we have alley-loaded

homes.

We have five different,

on 35 net acres

of developable land.

I'm offering to build

another 61.

I went ahead

and took the balance

of the flex zone

that's undeveloped

and I thought,

I'll be fair.

I'll come and open hands

to the city

and say,

okay,

instead of making it retail,

I'll make it housing.

So now I'm adding

not 30 homes,

but 61.

And overall,

I do what's right.

More homes get built

near the light rail

so that if you took

those homes,

I'm now building

30 to the acre

effectively

on the multi-parcel.

let me tell you

about another experience.

Three years ago,

I had to come before

the council

and the planning commission.

Per the original approvals,

I had to declare

whether the flex parcel

that was remaining

was going to be residential

or shopping center.

With me having the right

to go back

whichever direction I went,

I spent the next two years

planning this project

as it is before you now.

Elevations,

tentative map,

all the civil engineering,

submitted it

for a pre-development meeting

with the city.

All 15 departments

of the city

were on a conference call

with us,

went over every aspect

of this project.

Everybody said fine,

including planning.

I was then asked

to pay a $93,400

application fee.

Stroke the check.

Check clears.

Staff says,

we don't support you.

We want attached

multifamily.

Where's the fairness?

What kind of message

does that send

to a developer

who's tried to do

the right thing,

who's developed this community

that doesn't exist anywhere?

If they had told me,

no, no, Paul,

sorry,

you got to build,

you got to build

market-rate apartments there.

We wouldn't be standing here.

They sucked me

into this process

and now have sucked you

into the process

of now being subjected

to an ungodly,

dead loser

of a lawsuit.

And I hope you believe me.

I don't want to do it.

But you're leaving me

no choice.

So tonight,

your decision is

no housing,

no additional housing,

or approve my plan,

or ask staff to come back

with conditions of approval.

Because I raise my hand

to God and tell you

that parcel,

that multi-parcel

is going straight

to a land bank.

And I'll raise my hand again

and say,

I'm coming back to you

for retail

on the balance

on the flex.

No more housing.

One other fact

I'd like to present to you.

If you take

the nine acres

surrounding the bridge

to the light rail station,

my average density

is 22 units per acre.

I exceed

the original master plan

because I converted

all the commercial flex

to housing

by 30%.

So if the overall goal

is to create more housing

near transit,

I'm your guy.

I'm ready to do it

and finish it.

Now what you have

behind you here

is at least 35 people

that live within

hundreds of feet

of this parcel.

And they are not happy.

Why?

SB330.

If I was to put this

in the hands

of a for-profit

affordable housing developer,

by right,

without coming before you,

without coming before

the city council,

ministerially,

can have 130 units

to 180 units approved

with you not having

one word to say

nor them having

one word to say

to stop them.

That's state law.

That's where

an eight-story

or a 10-story

structure comes in

that would cast

a shadow

on the balance

of this development.

Now,

if that happened,

now Crocker Village

would have 55%

of all of its units

affordable.

Name me one neighborhood

that has more than 15%,

20%,

30%,

40%,

55%.

Now,

I know there's people

in the audience

from Curtis Park.

They have the right

to come here

and say they want

what Commissioner Caden

referenced.

They have no skin

in the game.

In fact,

they asked me

to change the flex

to single-family homes

so that the walkway

on 10th

leading to the bridge

would have

residential housing.

But their goal

is never to

do what's fair.

It's to be punitive

at your expense,

at the public's expense.

They fueled that lawsuit

on the fuel station

and it cost the city

$26 million.

And another $3 million

in legal fees.

Are you going to let them

take you down

that path again?

Again,

I'm not arguing

their right to come here

and express their opinion.

But I would like

to take two or three acres

of the 17-acre park

in the middle

of Curtis Park.

And let's put

some affordable housing there.

You want to see a riot?

Now,

the type of housing

that I'm proposing here

qualifies under Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac.

Now,

for those of you

that don't understand

those two programs,

because quite honestly,

I didn't

earlier in my career.

But for as little as

3% down

on a $650,000 house,

$18,000,

$19,000,

a middle-class family

can finally own a house,

finally get part

of the American dream

and raise a family

near transit,

near shopping,

and have a new house

instead of going somewhere

and buying

a $400,000

or $500,000

fixer-upper

that they've got to stick

another $200,000 in

out of their pocket.

That's the opportunity

that's right here.

Those are the people

that bought

the 77 homes

I already built

identical

to the award-winning homes

I have before you

in this application.

It's not just

about affordable.

The biggest housing crisis

is in the middle class,

and they can't afford it.

They can't afford

a million-dollar house.

Fannie Mae

have certain levels

of mortgage

that works

for this area,

and 3% is all you need.

One of the conditions

of approval

on the flex parcel

was for me

to pay more PIF

and more Quimby fees.

Park improvement fees

in Quimby

pay for more land

to go build

a park somewhere else.

I scratched my head

and said,

how in the world

could I own more

after building

damn near

a seven-acre park?

It didn't add up,

but then my civil engineer

figured it out.

He says,

they must be calculating

that the multi-parcel

is going to be built

at 130 units,

so therefore,

this parcel

at 31 units

is going to have

to pay the delta.

At my application level,

there's no more PIF

and Quimby.

I built more

than enough park.

Built.

Didn't pay

an in-luffy.

Built.

Cost me $7 million

to build that park

and detention basin,

and I'm proud of it.

So I want to reiterate

that it was

at the request

of the city

that the multifamily unit

did not get built

on the multi-parcel.

That was the intention.

That was the plan.

It got moved

at the city's request,

and I obliged

because it made

a better plan.

Now I'm standing

before you hearing

denial.

Not right.

Daniel,

could you put up

a third slide

that I provided?

or somebody?

Okay.

Before I get

to the slide,

I want to inform you.

Three affordable housing

developers have approached

me for this parcel,

and they want

to build 150 units here,

and they understand

that they can do it

ministerially,

and I want to show you

what that looks like.

I agree.

Staff did not say that.

I'm telling you,

that's the real world.

it's the slides

that I gave you yesterday.

There was four or five slides,

Daniel,

that I sent to you.

I don't believe

I received any slides.

Can the overhead

be turned on,

please?

Pardon me?

I'll use my handwritten notes,

my official ones

that I turned in.

This is for

massing purposes only.

Please do not think

that I'm standing here

saying this ugly structure

would be built.

That's not my intention here.

I'm trying to portray what an affordable housing developer for profit could walk in here and do to this community.

That structure is eight stories tall.

The existing affordable housing project is four stories tall.

That's double.

Why is that important?

The existing affordable housing is senior.

If they go non-senior, they need cars and they need a place to park.

That requires three stories of parking and the structure on top.

Now, does that look at a place when you look at the two-story homes that it would block the sun over?

Is that what you want to turn this project into by denying this?

Because you don't have control over this once I leave the podium.

So lastly, and I mean lastly, I ask you, and it's incumbent upon you, to either deny this application in its entirety.

You cannot split my application.

It's illegal.

It's against the law.

You either deny the whole thing and therefore violate HAA because the flex zone is designated residential now,

and you've now downzoned it because the other property is part of this application isn't getting built in part of this application that got denied.

Now you're below 15 units per acre on the two parcels.

You're at seven.

It's against the law.

You've got to be 15 or higher.

Or you can ask staff to come back, make findings of fact and conditions of approval to approve my application.

And I'd like to point out that it is also against the law for staff to have provided you with only one option.

The law says they cannot usurp your ability to accept or deny an application.

All they've done is given you one option.

Split the application.

Approve half.

Don't approve the other half.

It's illegal.

They have to give you both so you as a deciding body can have that flexibility and not waste everybody's time and public resources.

Again, this project has been through enough.

It's the best project that this city has ever seen relative to housing types, location, everything being cleaned up to residential standards,

accessible to light rail, first class shopping, a grand park, award-winning architecture.

What do you want out of me?

What more do you want out of me?

Now, I'm sorry.

I'm very passionate about this.

I've been through a lot.

It's been 25 years.

But a person can only take so much.

He can only take so much of being bludgeoned illegally for the second time.

Please help me.

Please help this community.

Please show pride in this project.

Help the middle class have more housing that they can afford.

That's just as big a part of the equation as providing more affordable.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, including whether I would be willing to add an attached ADU to meet the two-unit multi-definition.

Are you done with your presentation?

Yes.

I asked for questions.

Oh, before we go on to questions, I do want to provide a move to public comment.

But I wanted to do this.

I just want to make sure everyone understands.

We're going to try our best to hear from everyone.

But I currently have a running tally of 39 folks who are just wanting to speak on this item.

And then I have 26 folks who want to speak on the next item.

So I was trying to run the rough math here.

So just for this item alone, you know, if we're giving three minutes to every individual, we're talking about two hours.

And so by statute, I think at 930, I believe.

At 930, I have to ask the dais if we want to continue the meeting.

So what I'm anticipating here is that we'll probably be in the middle of public comments just for this item.

And then we'll probably need to, I want to say at 915, I would say, is just kind of maybe take a brief pause and just ask the dais if they want to continue.

Now, if you're running the math with me, the next item after that, not including presentations, just public comments, is about an hour and a half.

And so by statute, I think we can only go until 12 o'clock.

Is that correct?

Oh, we can do a continuance.

Continuance, right.

But I just wanted to just give the public, like, this is how much time we've got to work with.

I have to check.

That issue hasn't come up in a long time.

Let me just give you a minute to check.

Yeah.

Okay.

So council is going to double check.

But I just want to give the public an idea of kind of what we're trying to work out.

I mean, I think we can run it anyways.

I mean, should we ask questions now to the applicant or can we go straight to public comment and then just kind of open it up to just questions in general?

Because I think the dais would also just need to hear from the general public as well.

And, Mr. Chair, I would appreciate the ability to rebut any testimony.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Yep.

Does that work for folks?

I'm going to move on to public comment now.

And then absolutely, you'll have that opportunity to rebut.

So, Clark, we have how many speaker slips?

We have 39 speaker slips.

39 speaker slips.

Let's go on to that.

And then we'll then open it up for questions.

So, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our first speaker is Kathleen Ave.

Thank you very much, commissioners.

My name is Kathleen Ave.

I live in Curtis Park on a street that directly connects to the development.

Since the applicant was able to use the overhead camera, may I?

Okay.

In that case, what I wanted to share with you all, and I will pass around,

is a picture I took this morning from the intersection of 10th and Crocker,

looking west into the development.

And what's great about this picture is that it shows the five levels of parking at City College,

the beautiful bridge that was constructed with public dollars to support a transit-oriented development.

It shows the four-story senior affordable housing complex and the legacy landmark water tower that literally towers over all of this.

And this picture makes it very clear.

I will say the olive tree is a very nice touch, Paul.

Love those.

But this is a great corner for multifamily housing.

And a person can imagine projects like this is from Redwood Energy.

So many.

That Cottonwood picture.

Beautiful.

These don't have to be blocky, ugly additions.

They can be beautiful and creative and bring a vibrancy and a dynamism to these neighborhoods

that I think we really need, in part because they would bring people who can afford these spaces

and who want to live in them in proximity to light rail.

I also want to say that this kind of attached multifamily housing has the opportunity to use energy and materials incredibly efficiently

and in a way that single-family housing just doesn't have,

and that is incredibly important for us today.

Next, I want to share that today, May 22nd, is the International Day of Biodiversity.

And this is relevant to this item and your next one because we are here in a biodiversity hotspot in California

and the Central Valley in particular, which means we have species that are nowhere else.

And the natural environments, natural working lands they live in are incredibly important to preserve.

And the way we do that is to get more people living close to the core in places like this with rich resources

that were publicly funded, the infrastructure and amenities like a light rail station and a beautiful bridge.

So I really hope you will deny both of these requests.

Let's stick with the plan for multifamily housing, that everyone understands what it is,

and make this a better neighborhood because of it.

And this is something we all have a stake in because our city needs housing,

our city needs flexible housing and diverse options.

So please support multifamily here in Crocker Village.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Nancy Murray.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

Could you hold on for a second?

I'm sorry.

Commissioner Nybo, is there something you wanted to say?

Yeah.

Can we call them two at a time so they stack up?

And that way we can save that.

Thank you.

That's fine.

So after Nancy, I have Anna Petrovich.

Can I please have you line up on the aisle?

So hello, Commissioner and all of you commissioners.

Thank you for hearing my comments.

I will try to be brief.

I do live in Curtis Park.

I'm on 11th Avenue on the west side of the park.

On a good day, I can maybe hit the 10th Avenue parcel with a baseball.

And I have skin in the game.

We are all have skin in this game.

We need more multifamily housing.

I've been in Curtis Park and watched the many iterations of this project and the amount of multifamily market rate housing dwindle and dwindle and dwindle.

And now it is proposed to dwindle even farther.

So I oppose this application and urge you to also oppose the application.

This parcel, similar to the Cotton Road Lane, that was just beautiful and a perfect example of near a college, near a light rail station, near community assets like a park,

and the shopping that's available very close within walking distance of this parcels.

So I live very close to these parcels and believe that the best and highest use is what's currently in the PUD, which is multifamily housing.

And I will try to keep this short.

We have a lot of others.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Anna Petkovich.

I am actually a resident of District 4.

I'm a member of Strong Sactown.

So I wanted to come out to comment and oppose the plan for single-family housing and ask the city to maintain the plan for multifamily housing.

It seems like a great opportunity to support Sacramento's need for the missing middle housing,

as well as an opportunity for multifamily housing along transit and contribute to affordability, density, and diversity in Sacramento housing.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Arlene Krause, followed by Jerry McCall.

Hello.

Thank you for listening to our comments.

My name is Arlene Krause.

I'm a 20-plus-year resident of Curtis Park on Donner Way, which leads into the development,

and I firmly support multifamily housing.

I look for a community where people like my adult children might be actually able to live someday.

Multifamily housing is what makes our community vibrant.

I encourage you to support the housing we need in our community.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jerry McCall.

I support the proposed Petrovich development.

I've lived in the neighborhood for about two years now.

It's a beautifully designed residential development bridging both Curtis Park and Land Park.

The city's proposal for high density just doesn't conform with the surrounding neighborhood.

Regarding the shortage of housing in California, Midtown and the Broadway corridor seem to be the best places to put that sort of density.

We move there to be in proximity to Midtown for those services, but we don't want Midtown in our neighborhood.

I say approve the Petrovich project.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Michael Turgeon, followed by Bill Pavel.

Paveo.

Paveo.

Excuse me.

Great.

Hi, everyone.

Michael Turgeon here on behalf of House Sacramento, a local grassroots organization for housing affordability in Sacramento.

Just want to emphasize that we think higher density multifamily housing is absolutely the right choice for both parcels,

especially if you take the view that both parcels should be treated as the same project.

Given all the amenities and the transit access in the immediate area and the inherent demand to live in a nice neighborhood like Crocker Village,

we are very skeptical of claims that multifamily at a greater density wouldn't pencil out on this site.

I don't know how you can look around Sacramento today and not see that projects are working today with our rates and the tariffs and all that

on parcels that are way worse than this Crocker Village location.

If multifamily housing doesn't work here, then we have way bigger problems to work through as a city.

We can't afford to turn back the clock and build single-family homes when we're in a deep housing crisis

and need to achieve deep GHG reductions.

In my opinion, it's also very sad to see the Housing Accountability Act weaponized to favor single-family over density,

just like how CEQA has long been weaponized for similar purposes.

In short, we commend the city's good-faith effort to facilitate dense multifamily infill,

even in neighborhoods like Crocker Village.

And we hope the city will, and I quote, do what's right and not back down.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Bill Paveo, a District 7 resident.

And to my surprise, I'm going to agree with Petrovich, but Anna Petrovich.

Thank you.

First, I commend the city on the terms it reached in 2010.

I think that planned unit developments schematic plan and guidelines were right on.

And it made sense to put multifamily development in the middle of that development,

single-family to the north, commercial to the south,

in the middle with access to light rail over that bridge, multifamily, high-density in the middle.

That was the right idea.

I endorse staff's recommendation to retain the multi-parcel site as multifamily residential.

And I believe that every cogent argument they made for that parcel applies to the flex parcel as well.

That is, we need multifamily, especially next to light rail and the community college.

That is where our community should be developing that higher-density product.

If anything, and I noticed that in the plan and in the staff report it referenced that when the plan was first developed,

the flex zone was created in recognition that development in this area is not expected to occur for a number of years,

and market conditions will likely change during this period of time.

Conditions have gotten much worse since then for residents in our community,

especially low and very low-income residents.

You've probably seen the California Housing Partnership reports on overpayment in our community,

extreme rent burdens especially affecting tenants in our community.

We need more multifamily product.

And that alone will begin to slow down some of the escalation of rents in our community.

So in summary, I endorse staff's recommendation to not change the multifamily parcel designation,

but I disagree with staff report on the flex parcel.

Keep it where it is, where multifamily by right, and those other uses as permitted under a CUP.

But I would not change that.

Thank you.

Thank you both for your comments.

Our next speakers are Ralph Proper, followed by Sheila Harrington.

Hello, Commissioners.

I'm Ralph Proper.

I'm a 40-year resident of Curtis Park.

I'm also past president of the Environmental Council of Sacramento,

which was founded 50 years ago,

to try to deal with our bad air quality as well as the loss of habitat.

Infill development is what we need.

Since then, of course, we have two crises that have materialized,

the existential crisis of climate change as well as the extreme need for affordable housing.

And having multifamily housing near the light rail station is the way to go.

I think we need to have as much multifamily housing near that as possible.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Sheila Harrington, and I live on 10th Avenue,

literally two blocks from the site being discussed today.

For that reason, one could argue that it's really in my best interest

to support the developer in his request to have the zoning changed.

The way I see it, though, this is really about whether we,

as both individuals and the city, walk the walk.

Because as a city, we've been talking the talk for 20 to 30 years.

We know that we need to address climate change,

and we've talked extensively about how we need to reduce carbon emissions.

Our city planners are well familiar with the largely agreed upon ideas of smart growth,

which advocates reducing urban sprawl and carbon emissions

by building high-density infill developments near rapid transit.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to each of us as individuals

and to our local elected representatives.

My contribution to this effort is overcoming my own NIMBY feelings,

because, of course, on some level,

I would rather have single-family homes there,

and I expect that that would be better for our property values.

But I am willing to push my selfishness aside,

because I believe in high-density infill developments,

and this is the perfect spot for one.

It's right by the light rail, right by City College.

So that's how I'm walking the walk.

What I'm asking of each of you is that you consider holding the developer

to the previous plan, which required multifamily dwellings on that unit.

So thank you for your consideration.

Thank you both for your comments.

Our next speakers are Janice Kwan, followed by Andrea Rosen.

Good evening, commissioners.

My husband and I recently moved to Crocker Village

after seeking out for several years wanting to live there.

Like my fellow neighbor, we also were in Midtown

and sold our house due to the density

and wanting a more single-family community and residence.

I actually came from San Diego.

My husband and I moved up here 12 years ago.

One thing that we loved about Sacramento

were just how many single-family homes there were and the community.

If you have been to San Diego recently where we grew up,

it is extremely filled with density all over the place.

They have ruined, actually, that community, and it's a shame.

And I hate to see that happen here in Sacramento as well.

I am hoping that you support the developer's plan,

and I oppose the staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, commissioners.

My name is Andrea Rosen, and first I would like to ask you

if you could dig through the e-comments to look at my e-comments for more detail.

I live on Portola Way, right on the edge of this development,

and I, too, have been working on this development for 25 years.

Actually, before Mr. Petrovich purchased the property,

we were working, our neighborhood was working with Union Pacific.

Our neighborhood put a ton of blood, sweat, and tears in negotiating those PUD guidelines.

And we gave up a lot.

The developer gave up a little, and we have a beautiful development.

And believe me, Mr. Petrovich knows how to build high-quality multifamily.

I refer you to his development called Whiskey Hill at 21st and S.

So I am absolutely aghast that we're down to this very old-fashioned, basic,

every single thing has to be single-family.

Attached housing is not a dirty word.

People need places like duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes to live in.

And that is what we considered both at the time when we agreed to the flex zone

and at the time we insisted on some multifamily.

My recollection back in 2010 was there was not opposition to multifamily in Crocker Village.

It was part of the whole vision of having diversity in our neighborhood, okay?

The PUD guidelines are very, very clear that they call for alternative housing.

Housing types.

Alternative housing types does not mean four different single-family residential plans.

Alternative housing types means duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, and modest apartments.

So I am also baffled by the complaint about the staff's action on the parcel, on the application.

I believe it's the developer's choice how to submit an application to the city.

The developer knew there were two parcels involved.

One had been previously zoned for multifamily and the flex zone was open, a little bit more open.

So I encourage you to oppose.

I oppose the staff's recommendation on the flex zone because I think it's the city's honestly one of their last opportunities to build multifamily.

Or it doesn't have to be apartment buildings.

It can be attached housing.

There's nothing wrong with having attached housing.

You could have the people who work in the commercial center have an opportunity to live near where they work.

So I also have to say that I'm shocked at the level of threats level that you again.

I was on the planning commission myself, and maybe I just haven't been to enough planning commission meetings recently.

But I was sitting there listening to the developer's presentation and just truly...

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is now up.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Edith Hannigan, followed by Nicholas Lidke.

Good evening, planning commissioners.

I live on Bastone Walk in Crocker Village, half a block north of the flex parcel and a few homes east of the multi-parcel.

I am literally right in the middle between these proposed developments.

Very few homes.

Probably enough for two hands.

We'll be more directly impacted by this project than myself.

I also have a master's degree in urban planning.

And my grandfather was also at the Battle of the Bulge and Colmer Pocket.

I support the staff recommendation to approve the proposal for the flex parcel and deny the proposal for the multi-parcel.

The developer has been telling Crocker Village residents that the city is going to require a 100-unit affordable housing apartment building today.

But that is not the action in front of you this evening.

The developer has also accused me of lying about my address.

Allegedly called me misguided in a neighborhood meeting.

And sent me nasty emails, despite my repeated requests to ask him to stop.

All of this for expressing my First Amendment and Brown Act rights in front of you here today.

My grandfather was in so many battles and received so many Purple Hearts, he stopped accepting them.

And he also told me to stand up for what is right, regardless of the cost.

Talking points distributed by the developer for this meeting want us to mention that this action today would ruin our dream community.

But I am here to tell you that a dense, diverse, urban neighborhood is my dream community.

The talking points also pit Crocker Village residents against the affordable housing crisis.

And urges residents to tell you not to let the crisis override our concerns.

But my concern is the affordability crisis.

My concern is our unhoused neighbors who sleep in their cars on 10th Avenue.

My concern is the livability of Sacramento.

Single-family homes priced near or above a million dollars, as Crocker Village is, is not providing middle housing.

Missing middle housing.

Denying the developer's request to rezone the multi-parcel opens up the ability to create true missing middle housing in the form of market rate multifamily described in the PUD guidelines.

I want to be clear that I love living in Crocker Village.

I want to share this vibrant community with more people.

I encourage you to work with the developer to find a middle ground between single-family homes and high-rise apartments for the multi-parcel.

The first step of that conversation is voting for the staff recommendation in front of you today.

Thank you very much for your time.

And please extend my gracious thanks to Commissioner Reid for her integrity in recusing herself from this issue.

Have a lovely evening.

Good evening, Mr. Commissioner, or Mr. Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Nicholas Lidke.

I, too, live on Baston Walk in Crocker Village.

Actually, Crocker Village is lot 184.

My property is literally three lots down from the multi-parcel property in question, so I certainly have skin in the game.

I respectfully request that the Commission follow the recommendation of your professional planning staff and deny the developers' request for an amendment to the Curtis Park Village PUD and the requested tentative subdivision map.

Adding 30 more $3.25 million homes to this neighborhood is not going to solve this city or the state's housing crisis.

A thoughtfully constructed market rate multifamily unit is perfectly fitting with the development that there is currently in Crocker Village.

It will be right down the street from the multi-unit senior family development that is in the property.

I know the developer has been threatening us with some eight-story monstrosity of buildings on top of parking lots.

That is not necessarily the development that is being called for by the city staff with any kind of detailed reading of the city staff recommendation.

Furthermore, the city staff recommendation is proposing three times more housing units than what the developer's recommendation is.

Given that this project is literally going up in my backyard, let me briefly address some of the concerns that have been raised and probably will be raised by my neighbors in the Crocker Village community, largely based on talking points that have been provided by the developer himself.

First, this development will not ruin the character of the community.

It is already a mixed type of housing community.

We have large single-family homes.

We have the brownstones.

We have the smaller single-family homes.

The senior center is a great addition to the community.

They are super friendly.

I see no reason why more people living in multi-family housing will not be the same as the existing residents there.

Secondly, the proposed multi-family development will not ruin a dream of this community.

In fact, in accordance with Davis Sterling, and I went back and checked today, every one of us who bought into the Crocker Village development were given the site plan prior to closing on housing.

When you look at the site plan, it is really clear that the multi-unit development is right there.

Admittedly, market conditions could change.

It could be multi-unit.

It might not be.

But every one of us bought into that neighborhood knowing full well that there was the potential for multifamily housing to go in on that parcel.

Furthermore, this PUD has been in place for 15 years.

So for the developer to now say that this is some kind of shocking violation of his rights is a little bit rich.

I think for 15 years we've all known what may go in there.

Finally, and I saw several of you smirk knowing me from my day job, I really do not agree with the developer's contention around SB 330.

There have been several additional bills that have been passed in recent years.

Building upon that, I really do not think that this project is going to violate any of the current state housing laws or AB 712, which is moving through the legislature right now.

All of that said, I respectfully request that you approve your staff recommendation in full.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you both for your comments.

Our next speaker is Louise May, followed by Ted Bacani.

And by the way, I just want to appreciate everyone who's coming up.

They're being super efficient to the point.

So thank you very much, everyone.

I want to, I want to, I want to start out by saying that everybody in red here is standing in solidarity to keep the neighborhood in single family homes and support Mr. Hedovich.

I am an eight year headed the tenants association at Curtis Park apartments.

Um, a three story senior apartment building in Crocker village.

Despite the name, we are in Crocker village, not Curtis park.

The prospect of this project will affect the lives of about 140 seniors.

I am representing them.

And again, we support the motion.

We already have situations outside our building of homeless, other people living, fighting, dealing drugs and using them on the street between our building and your proposed multi unit structure.

And I'm not saying that you're bringing in these problems or making any aspirations, but in any population, there's a percentage of people who will contribute to the already difficult problems on a small dead end street that by its nature creates a space for this activity.

This will surely keep us inside our homes.

It has been determined that our area has met and exceeded by 30% the density requirements set by the city.

It also requires subsequent homes to be keeping with the homes around it.

Does this proposed building do that?

Your overflow parking will fill our streets, leaving parking unavailable for homeowners.

As an aside, as a realtor for 30 years, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes don't sell.

It seems that the decision to construct this, what seems like might be a huge building, was made by the city council for personal reasons against the developer.

You need to not take your issues out on your constituents in the village who have bought and rented in what was to be a quiet and beautiful neighborhood.

I, and 30% of the people I live with, will live about 40 or 50 feet from this structure.

We may never see the sky again from our windows and will have to go outside and look up to do so.

And what if your mother lived there?

Thank you for your time and hopefully your consideration of the impact on this neighborhood.

Hello, my name is Sed Bakani and I live right across the street from the, um, uh, the flex, uh, property.

Um, I'm actually here because I, you know, I wanted to actually learn more about what's going to happen.

And after listening to Mr. Petrovich, um, I would like to support him.

Um, you know, I believe he's developed a really great neighborhood and I feel like he will continue, um, to make the neighborhood great.

Um, I think that, um, if we're looking at multi, um, family homes, I mean, there are many, there are many properties around Sacramento,

that buildings that are empty, um, that can be, um, utilized for that purpose.

Um, they're also close to light rail stations.

Um, the light rail stations that I live by, I mean, it's great that it's there for us as a community, um, to use.

And no matter what's going to be built there, um, I'm sure that, uh, um, the light rail, that we will benefit, you know, whoever lives there will benefit from that light, light rail station.

So I'm just here actually to support, um, my neighborhood and support Mr. Petrovich in, um, what he plans.

I think he's going to continue to do a great job, um, and our community will, um, be better after it's done.

Thanks.

Thank you both for your comments.

Our next speaker is Christine Seador followed by Thuyen Nguyen.

Christine Seador.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Christine Seador and I live directly across from the multi parcel.

I, in one of the brownstones and I strongly oppose the city's plan to build a multi story, high density apartment complex in front of our property.

This was never the vision for that parcel.

And we would have never purchased our property if we knew that apartment complex would be going directly across the street.

Having another high density project would negatively impact our community cohesion.

Um, and our, our, you know, our neighborhood.

If you, I don't know if you've been there and had driven through there, but it is a cohesive neighborhood.

Um, and, um, the PUD was carefully designed and approved by the city with intense community input over five years.

The city needs to honor the original commitment.

The project already satisfied its affordable housing requirement by 25%.

Parker village already significantly contributes to Sacramento's housing needs with substantial,

a substantial affordable housing already built.

I strongly urge the planning commission to approve the developers application to build additional court homes,

identical to the, those already constructed around Crocker village.

Multi parcel.

The proposed homes maintain our communities,

rather residential integrity and match the high quality standards residents expect and appreciate.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is twin.

I live, um, at Giovanni street, 200 feet away from the multi parcel.

Um, I support Mr. Petrovic's proposals to develop the 30 single family court homes on the multi parcel.

Uh, as a Sacramento native who grew up in section eight housing, I put myself through college,

graduated from Davis, moved to downtown to start my career.

I lived here for six years.

Um, walk to the walk to work, gym restaurants, grocery stores, capital park.

My dream was to own a home in a neighborhood with similar walkability and vibrancy as downtown.

But, but like many of my generation millennials, it's been challenging in today's housing market.

Uh, we don't qualify for affordable housing, but I understand the need and Sacramento is paving the way.

I know there are three affordable housing projects within three miles of Crocker village.

One monarch project at 805 R street, 241 units on Broadway at 19th and Broadway, 140 units.

Sakura at 16th and T 134 units.

Uh, my generation has no option, but to rent in a market that continues to raise rent year after year,

a brand new, uh, market rate apartment on 14th, 14th and N the Cypress, um, have studios starting at $2,200.

One bedrooms for $2,400.

It, it just makes sense for us to buy.

My dream came true when I purchased my first home in Crocker village for its proximity to downtown,

walkability, the privacy that only single family homes can provide.

Uh, many of my neighbors are first time home buyers, uh, young professionals, young families,

couples planning to start their family.

Um, so I'm advocating for more single family homes because future generations deserve the opportunity to

plant roots here.

Um, with limited entry level housing in Curtis park, this proposal adds much needed supply to the

competitive area.

Uh, the proposal maximizes the available land, 15 homes per acre, acre without shared walls,

uh, meeting density requirements.

It offers privacy and a true sense of home ownership.

Um, features that are important to families seeking a safe and stable place to raise kids.

Um, not, not everyone wants to raise kid in a high density, high traffic environment.

It expands opportunities for the younger generation.

Sorry.

I'm nervous.

Younger generations to become long-term residents in a neighborhood they can grow with.

Uh, it's a community where neighbors know fur babies names before learning their owner's names.

Um, it meets the demand for housing while preserving the character and values of the community.

Uh, so please approve the proposal.

Um, for the 30 single.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is now complete.

Our next speaker is G Ivanov followed by Louis Sumter.

Hi everyone.

My name is Gennady Ivanov and, um, I live, um, on Ronald Reagan Way.

And, um, unlike some of the people who live right next to Curtis Park, which is probably around seven minutes

away from where I live, or some people who live three blocks away, I live right next to it.

Um, I live right next to you.

And, um, I wanted to say that the reason why we bought house was the fact that we fell in love with the neighborhood.

And, uh, we wanted to invest in the community.

We wanted to build our life there and build our families.

And if you look at all of these people who are sitting with me, these are people who are invested in the community, are ready to invest more, are planning to stay there, and are planning to raise children.

And, um, I've heard a lot about, um, you know, growing population and high density requirements.

And I wanted to say that Mr. Petrovich, thanks to him, already, uh, addressed this concern twice.

Once he built the community and neighborhood in the area where it was a rail yard, it was dirt, it was nothing.

And, um, second, when we talk about high density units, um, he already addressed it by building seniors living community too.

And, um, I honestly don't understand what the concern is.

Um, we already met the requirements of high density units by 25% or 20% as it was mentioned.

Um, I just wanted to say please be fair to Mr. Petrovich.

Uh, please recognize all the effort that he already put in this development and in making our city better.

And, uh, be fair to residents who already spend their energy and time to find this beautiful place.

Who are ready to invest more their time and energy in this place.

Just please be fair to everyone.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Luis Sumter.

And about, uh, two years ago, I'm a residential realtor.

About two years ago, I was brought into this community to help sell the remaining homes with my partner, Michael Lonstead.

In those two years, we have sold nearly, uh, 60 homes.

And the reason that number is so important to you tonight, of those homes, we've sold two of them to investors.

I keep hearing about missing middle tonight.

I hear about, um, affordability.

But we, we tend to forget that affordability needs to go into the home ownership market as well.

Most of those homeowners that bought in our community were trading those high rent apartments for a mortgage.

They were first time homeowners.

Many of them told us they thought they would never own a home.

Call your realtor friends and ask them when the last time they spoke or represented a VA buyer.

VA buyers were pushed out of our community because of competition.

We have VA buyers that have bought in Curtis Park, Crocker Village.

It's amazing to see that kind of home ownership.

So as, as Mr. Petrovich mentioned earlier, these are, our price point is still within the conforming loan limits.

So Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac still insure on these loans.

People are getting into these homes for 15 to $20,000 down payment.

We're providing an opportunity that you just can't get in rentals, a rental situation.

We know that 40 years from now, if you're coming out of that rental, your life is no different than when you went in on day one.

But if you come out 40 years later, having bought that house, everything changes.

Probably most of you are homeowners and know about generational wealth.

It starts to change the trajectory of your family forever.

This is how you'll retire more comfortably.

This is how you'll probably put your kids or your grandkids through college.

We see grandparents and, and, and parents taking equity out of their home to help their children buy a home.

This is an opportunity to bring 70 new homes to homeownership opportunity.

It's the American dream.

I have nothing against rental, but we have to still start protecting homeownership.

It's how families change the trajectory.

It's how we leave our legacy to our family.

So I urge you please to vote in favor of the applicant's project as it's submitted.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you both for your comments.

Our next speaker is Mary Ann G. followed by Candace D. Binsic.

Hi everyone.

My name is Mary Ann Giasi.

My day job, I take care of Northern California patients.

I try to save sight every day.

And the man that spoke with an accent, Gennady Ivanov, is my husband.

I'm Persian.

He's Ukrainian.

We live right across the multi-parcel.

And the reason we bought the neighborhood is quiet, walkable.

We moved from New York City.

We lived in Midtown for a year, paying very high rents.

$4,000 for a two-bedroom, two-bath.

It's like crazy.

So we were trying to find a neighborhood that was walkable for us.

And honestly, every week we went with our realtor from neighborhood to neighborhood.

And anywhere we wanted to put down anything, we had to pay exorbitant amounts of money.

And we had to pay a lot to even renovate it.

Crocker Village was the only neighborhood that was a community feeling.

It was safe.

It's close to amenities.

And we could picture, you know, building roots here.

We want to be part of the community, be part of Sacramento City.

And we pay high taxes.

And we want our taxes to go, you know, for the education, not in fighting city planning or issues.

The other issue is this is really going to impact that neighborhood.

Like, there's not enough parking space.

There's not enough city space.

That is going to become a throughput street.

I do want to mention something.

If our wonderful...

If you're able to show the picture that the lady in purple showed from Curtis Park,

the Curtis Park neighborhood has blocked off the throughput street that can go to Curtis Park.

They didn't even want traffic from Crocker Village to be hitting their beautiful picturesque Curtis Park neighborhood.

I want to mention the red stops.

We walk by that every day.

So when they stand up here and say, they're really for high density development there.

Have they thought about what the traffic is going to do to that area?

Have they thought about where the children are going to play on the street?

I just am surprised.

Would you please show that picture so they can see it?

I have it up here.

Yes.

That is the red.

The red.

We cannot...

Yes.

I live right there.

Please show it.

We cannot cross that street.

We cannot.

And then they're here talking about high density.

Where are the cars going to go?

That was a compromise because of the high amount of...

Is that your temperature?

Open it up.

Oh yes, please.

So we have to live across the high commercial so everybody can use the amenities, but they don't

want the traffic from Crocker Village to go to Curtis Park to not affect their property values.

We don't know what you're talking about.

Let's see show up.

So let's get some decorum here.

I'm sorry.

Let's give the speaker her time.

I'm just saying everybody can see it's not what is.

And about energy, we all have solar panels.

I walk in Curtis Park, I don't see much solar panels on their houses.

So I'm just saying, like seriously, let's just...

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is now complete.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time is now complete.

We just want a little bit of a homogenous neighborhood.

That's all we're asking.

I give her my three minutes.

And so if I could just remind the public, if we could just have some decorum and just give

time for the speaker to speak without, you know, interruptions, please.

Hi, my name is Candace Dubencic and I am a resident of Crocker Village.

I live very near the project we are discussing.

I agree with the approval of existing application to support the developer's proposal.

Crocker Village is a success story that Sacramento should be proud of.

Sacramento should want to support the completion of this project as envisioned.

Why?

The people that live here are a blend of backgrounds and life experiences.

Like me, some have lived in Sacramento all their lives.

Others have recently been transplanted here from the Bay Area, Southern California, or distant states.

We have a beautiful mix of young families, empty nesters, seniors, some of those seniors living in the senior

housing Mr. Petrovich built.

We have a kaleidoscope of different cultures, ethnicities, marital status, first-time homeowners,

old and young.

With all our differences, we have managed to create a new harmonious community.

The developer has made an example for responsible use of land management with high-density homes in a walkable

neighborhood with access to mass transit that can contribute to lowering roadway congestion in Sacramento's

now famed poor air quality, often caused by commuting from distant suburbs and different counties.

Many of our neighbors come from humble beginnings and have worked hard to realize their big dream of owning a home.

Neighbors I know chose Crocker Village because it provides for a variety of housing options for living near where they work or attend school.

We do not come from generational wealth and we are not newbies.

We are not opposed to multi-family buildings, apartments, or affordable housing.

We all acknowledge that we need more of that in the right places, but not in an over-concentrated manner that

destroys the character of the community that we have all built.

The housing crisis is not a crisis that belongs only to lower-income families.

The housing crisis also belongs to middle class.

Outside of old established neighborhoods, our downtown offers very little new-build,

single-family housing options for those who want to own their own home.

Crocker Village is the exception.

I appeal to the members of this committee, please allow Mr. Petrovich the opportunity

to build out our neighborhood according to his vision and the vision of the homeowners that invested into

into the neighborhood.

Can we please just achieve a sensible solution here, a solution preferred by the residents that live

live within the community itself, not in outlying communities?

Please allow us the respect of your consideration for what the community sees for its own future.

Thank you.

Thank you both for your comment.

Our next speaker is Mark Gregerson followed by Jill Julian.

Mark Gregerson.

Mark Gregerson.

Mark Gregerson.

I don't know if Mark's already gone or...

He's right behind you.

He's coming up.

Oh, sorry.

Oh, sorry.

It's okay.

Yeah.

Can you hear Mark?

Oh, we'll come over.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, sorry.

Oh, sorry.

It's okay.

Yeah.

Can you hear Mark?

I am.

Oh, we'll come over.

Okay.

Thank you.

Well, I think we've established that.

My name is Mark.

My last name is Gregerson.

I'm a resident of...

A proud resident of Sacramento in particular.

I'm a proud resident of the development that we're talking about tonight.

I live a few hundred feet from one of the sites that is included on Crocker Drive.

I suffer from Parkinson's disease, so I'll just warn you that sometimes my speech is blurred.

Sometimes my hands tremor, and I just want to mention that to start with so that everything is okay.

As I said, I live in Crocker Village, and the reason I live in Crocker Village is last year, my doctor said that I had to make some life decisions.

I lived up in the foothills, and the doctor said I couldn't live alone anymore, and I negotiated to deal with him.

Part of the problem of living in the foothills was the incline of the roads, and the deal that I negotiated with him was to allow me to live in a community that is more level.

That was Crocker Village.

And you can walk to restaurants.

You can walk to grocery stores.

You can walk to other retail establishments, including dental care, and even a vet for my golden retriever journey.

Crocker Village was well-designed, clean, represented a very nice place to live.

I bought a home in Crocker Village because it was my strong belief that the build-out of the project would follow the same principles and standards that went into Crocker Village as we know it today.

And this is exactly what the developer is requesting to do in his application.

That is to give him a chance to complete the project and have it built to the same standards that exist.

We, as one of the other speakers mentioned, we're not opposed to multi-family buildings, apartments, or affordable housing.

We need more of that, but we need more of that in the right places.

And never is the development of that property be done in an over-concentrated manner that decimates the character of the community, which is a possibility if this staff's recommendation is approved.

So based on that, I thank you for your time and I would respectfully request that you support the applicant's petition for changes and deny.

Thank you for your comment. Your time is now up.

Good evening. Thank you for listening to all of this. My name is Jill Julian and I live on Crocker Drive.

I would implore you to keep our Crocker Village as a family development of single-family homes.

My son and I moved to this development when we were the only houses on the east side of Crocker Drive, known at that time as Curtis Park Village.

We moved with the vision of living in a community-based neighborhood.

Because of that, I felt safe letting my son take the bus home from his school at Alice Burney to Sac City College, crossing over the bridge, and then coming through the development.

When he did that, he got to know several friends. There were a lot of neighbors that would hang out.

So I always felt that it was good for him to be able to ride his bike or his scooter in our neighborhood.

And it's great having the shops across the street for the neighbors to gather for services and fellowship.

And please keep our neighborhood in a safe, small feeling, living there.

We love the family homes, single-family homes, so much that we asked my son's dad to move there, and he did.

So it is such a really nice family gathering. We really love it.

I'm amazed at how many first-time home buyers live there.

It is wonderful to see the multifamily housing projects being built on Broadway, but they anchor the communities.

They're not building up from the communities, like imposing upon the agents and stuff.

As a board member of the Crocker, of the Curtis Park Village HOA, our community has expressed often in meetings how we would like single-family homes to stay and to please vote for this application for the developer.

Thank you.

Thank you both for your comment.

Our next speaker is Alan Fong, followed by Garrett Chen.

Alan Fong, thank you for listening to all of us.

My name is Alan Fong, and I'm a resident of Crocker Village.

I strongly support Mr. Petrovich's vision of single-family homes.

I want to state that the residents on Curtis Park side are not Crocker Village residents, and most of them are not immediately impacted like we are in the development.

So please factor that as you hear all of the discussions that has been brought about.

I think that the residents那麼 long, I think the residents are not a part of this.

I think that the residents are not a part of this.

I think that the residents are not a part of this.

I think that the residents are not a part of this.

A structure such as a five- to eight-story structure would be a blight to our neighborhood, in my opinion.

And there is subjectivity in this.

However, I think most of the residents here would agree with me.

I know that there was some back politics of conflict between Mr. Petrovich and the residents.

Mr. Petrovich and the city in the past.

But do not penalize us residents of Crocker Village to get caught up in that crossfire.

I think that would be wrong.

So I implore planning to approve Mr. Petrovich's plan for single-family homes.

And the main reason why is because he's already compliant with the affordable housing density that was initially negotiated by he and multiple agencies.

So balance and diversity has already been achieved.

And another high-density project would bring probably higher crime, traffic, and loitering.

Which I don't know if you know, but if you ever go to the bridge at nighttime, it's been taken over by teenagers partying there.

It's not used as a pedestrian bridge at night.

It is not, in my opinion, it's not fair that planning is double-dipping and forcing another high-density project on something that the density has already been reached.

My neighbors and I will support single-family homes and Mr. Petrovich.

I believe that planning and even the people with opposing views have good intentions.

But they're saying that the path to hell is often paved with good intentions.

Again, I ask you not to make Crocker Village a place like hell.

Thank you very much.

Hello everyone. My name is Garrett and I live in Crocker Village.

Not to get confused with Curtis Park.

I want to make it clear that Crocker Village is its own neighborhood.

And the residents living there should have the most consideration when there are decisions being made to aim to reshape our neighborhood.

As you can see, I stand in solidarity with my fellow neighbors because we do not agree with the city staff's recommendation to deny development of a single-family homes on the parcel located on Omaha Beach Avenue.

Originally, Curtis Park Senior Apartments was supposed to be built on the parcel.

However, with amendments to the planned urban development, these apartments were relocated to the adjacent lot and it better integrates with the neighborhood.

And this development allowed Crocker Village to satisfy its affordable housing requirement by creating 90 units that house our senior citizens.

That in which some are here today to support our collective efforts.

This well thought out decision has been proven to be a great choice because our community has been recognized with national awards for its innovative land use, its high standards for design, and its impact on the environmental remediation.

By denying the developers proposed amendments, you're making a decision that not only go against the general, the original general plan, you're also making a decision to obscure why Crocker Village is a wonderful place to live.

It is important to note that we are not opposed to multifamily housing or affordable housing, but we do need more of it and we support all the efforts to expand access.

But what we can't support is a short-sighted planning decision that disrupts the fabric of our established community and undermine what a well-planned out project could look like.

A much better and more well thought out example is the on Broadway housing development.

It's a project that doesn't force density into the middle of an existing residential neighborhood.

Instead, it's strategically placed along mixed use and commercial buildings.

It's near transit and it's where higher density makes sense.

The commercial, that project enhances the surrounding area and reflects thoughtful planning, community context, and long-term viability.