Good evening, staff.

Can we please get 30 seconds on the timer we start the live stream?

2025 planning and design commission meeting.

The meeting is now called to order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee.

Commissioner Tao is absent.

Commissioner Lamas is absent.

Commissioner Naibo?

Here.

Commissioner Caden.

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Absent.

Commissioner Massius Reed is absent.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

Commissioner Blunt?

Here.

Vice Chair Chase?

Here.

Commissioner Rishke.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young.

Here.

Thank you, Wabacorum.

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 Nissanan people, the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Mewak, Patwin Wintoon peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federalized 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 of Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions and lives.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation under God.

Thank you.

Do we have a director's report?

I have no director's report this evening.

Okay, thank you.

Um we're gonna move some items around in the agenda.

So um let's see.

Oh, you know what?

Before we do that, let's do the approval of the minutes.

So are there let's do the consent calendar?

Okay, okay.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for this item.

All right, uh, can I get a motion and a second on the consent calendar?

Commissioner Blunt.

Motion to get a second.

Commissioner Caden.

Second.

Got a second.

All right, will the clerk please call for the roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tell is absent.

Commissioner Lamas is absent.

Commissioner Naibo.

Aye.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent.

Commissioner Massius Reed is absent.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Um aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rishke is absent.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so item two on the public hearing has been continued to the next meeting, I believe.

And then um we're going to jump to item four.

Proposed minor text amendments to the 2040 general plan.

Um, Miss Amy Yang is going to be doing her presentation.

All right, good evening, Commissioners and Chair Young.

My name is Amy Yang.

I'm a senior planner with the community development department.

Today I'd like to provide an overview of some minor text updates.

Staff are proposing to the 2040 general plan.

So at the end of this item, we will ask the commission to initiate these text amendments to the 2040 general plan and to forward a recommendation of approval to the city council.

As you all might remember, in 2024, the Sacramento City Council adapted the 2040 general plan, which provides long-range policy direction to guide city decision making related to development in the city.

And since the adoption of the 2040 general plan last year, staff have identified minor text edits to chapters one, two, and three.

These include typographical errors and an update to the employment mixed use land use description.

The minor text edits to the employment mixed use land use description are shown here on the screen and serve to clarify the types of allowable uses appropriate for these areas.

Light industrial uses are already identified as a compatible use for this designation.

And the proposed text changes would further clarify the intention of this designation to include light industrial uses.

And that concludes my presentation.

Thank you for your time.

Do we need to do any recusals or disclosures?

Because this is a legit.

No, right?

Okay.

Alright.

Thank you.

Um, do we have any comments from the public?

Chair, I have no speaker slips for this item.

All right.

Thank you.

Um questions from the commission.

Or motions.

Commissioner Nybo.

I'll make a motion move.

And a motion.

Sorry.

Do I have a second from Commissioner Caden?

Second.

All right.

Will the quick call roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Town?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas is absent.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent.

Commissioner Masis Reed is absent.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rushke is absent.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

All right.

Thank you.

We'll move on to item three, an ordinance amending section 15.08.070 and adding chapter 17.868 to the Sacramento City Code.

Jamie will be presenting.

Yeah.

All right.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

I'm Jamie Mosler, Associate Planner, and I'll be providing tonight's presentation on an ordinance to implement Senate Bill 684, which creates a new statewide pathway for small lot subdivisions and housing developments.

As an overview of this presentation, I'll first provide some background on this item.

I'll then provide an overview of the local ordinance highlighting state law requirements and what local options we have.

And then I'll conclude with describing our next steps.

So Senate Bill 684 became effective last summer.

This bill created a new statewide pathway for subdivisions and housing developments that allows them to receive ministerial review if they meet specified requirements.

The bill has requirements that all local jurisdictions in the state have to follow, but also provides a few choices for implementation.

This bill has been implemented twice by Senate Bill 1123 and Assembly Bill 130 that both became effective this summer.

We first presented our draft local ordinance to this commission almost a year ago.

The commission directed the ordinance and directed staff to conduct to collect stakeholder input on the local choices.

Following this, we conducted a focus group meeting in April that was well attended by housing advocates and interested developers to get their feedback.

And tonight we're here presenting revised ordinance, which includes revisions responsive to the commission's direction, feedback from stakeholders, and the changes in state law.

So summarizing 684 does requires ministerial review of tentative maps with up to 10 lots and housing developments with up to 10 units within 60 days.

It also requires the city to issue a building permit upon approval of the tentative map if the applicant submits a complete application, but this is not required.

This slide shows how the SB 684 process compares with our existing process for housing and subdivisions.

Both start with planning approval of a tentative map and housing development.

In our existing process, this can take three to four months and requires a public hearing, but under SB 684, it's reviewed within 60 days and there is no public hearing.

Otherwise, the process follows the same order with improvement plans, recording the subdivision map, and then issuing the building permit to actually build the housing on those lots.

But as mentioned, if an applicant wants to, they can to build the housing sooner, they can flip the order and start to build the housing before the map is recorded, but this is not a required path.

Um, to go down the SB 684 path, there's a few requirements that projects have to meet.

They have to be on a lot zone for either multi-unit or single unit dwellings, and there's maximum site sizes.

So it has to be surrounded by urban uses, and it can't be located on any of the environmentally sensitive sites, such as those listed on the slide.

There's also protections for existing and affordable housing.

You can't demolish or afford alter affordable housing or housing occupied by tenants.

They also don't want this process used repeatedly, so you can't use SB684 again if you already use it on that lot or if the lot was created through SB9, though it is a choice if we allow SB9 later, which I'll touch on.

The maximum parcels you can create through this process is 10.

Subdividers can designate a remainder parcel, which is an area that they're not putting any new development on currently or not intending to sell lease or finance in this moment.

The new parcel sizes can be as small as 600 square feet or 1200 square feet, depending on the zone, but there are no requirements for lot width, depth, or frontage.

So the state provides 600 and 1200 square feet as the minimum lot sizes, but does allow local jurisdictions to allow a smaller lot size.

We didn't hear from our stakeholders any desire to have or need lot sizes smaller than that, so our recommendation is going with the sizes in the bill and 600 and 1200 square feet.

Another option we have is well, we can't you can't do SB684 on the lot if it was created through SB9.

It is a choice if someone that cities can choose whether to allow SB9 later.

In our ordinance last year, we recommended not allowing further SB9 subdivisions.

SB9 is another similar but different state housing law that allows you to subdivide.

We didn't think folks would combine these two pathways.

There's different requirements in different zones where they apply.

But we did hear from our stakeholders some interest in maybe doing them and combining it and having more flexibility.

So we are recommending allowing that tonight with some parameters.

We do want to limit it to if there is a previous subdivision with four or more lots created already to avoid folks doing repeated small subdivisions to avoid any public improvement requirements, which is known as quartering under the subdivision map act in a violation of that.

So just requiring that to be consistent.

It used to be in the bill, and it used to allow cities to require construction of the dwelling units before the map was recorded.

But with Assembly Bill 130, this has been removed as an option, and so it's no longer included in the local ordinance tonight.

But there is a new option.

So now the default with amendments by AB 130 is that subdividers can't sell lease or finance the property until dwelling units are built on the lot.

However, we're not recommending including that in our ordinance.

We're only recommending requiring planning approval of the housing development.

We want to be more flexible in the state requirements, really mirroring the feedback we heard from our stakeholders that they want to process that mirrors the existing where you don't have to build housing on the lot in order to sell it.

So that's our recommendation for that one.

Another option deals with remainder parcels.

So as mentioned, that's an area of this site that they're not proposing any development.

They're just, you know, doesn't leave it alone for now in the meantime.

They might sell it later.

And they are allowed to sell it later.

And if they want to, cities can choose to require what's known as a certificate of compliance to review that parcel since it's not reviewed as part of the current application.

And so we're recommending to require a certificate of compliance just to review essentially the boundaries of the area that's being created since it's not being reviewed at all as part of the SB 684 map, and then requiring that after the final map is recorded consistent with timing in the subdivision map act.

A few other requirements for subdivisions, they have to comply with all the applicable objective requirements of the subdivision map act, including our local objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards that aren't inconsistent with SB 684.

Another unique thing about SB 684 is it doesn't allow folks to use this process to subdivide existing units that are on the same parcel and put them on different ones or allow them to be sold separately.

Also prevents ministerial condo conversions, so that's another part of this law.

Alright, looking at the housing development requirements, they can do up to 10 dwelling units.

These are intended to be starter home opportunities, so there's a max average unit size of 1750 square feet.

There are also minimum density requirements they have to meet.

If the site is designated in the housing element for affordable units as part of our arena, regional housing needs allocation, then they have to provide those units.

If the site isn't designated in the housing element, there are no affordability requirements under this law.

One option that we have here is whether to allow ADUs.

In our ordinance that was presented last year, we did not recommend permitting them.

We assumed they wouldn't be feasible on some of the small lots that would be created through this process, but we did hear feedback from our stakeholders that they were interested, like ADUs could be feasible in some situations, and they really wanted the flexibility for homeowners and the benefits that come from that.

And so we're recommending to permit ADUs and the ADUs, if they are allowed, do not count towards the 10-unit maximum.

Additionally, this bill is intended to create home ownership opportunities, and so there's requirements for the housing units to meet one of the following listed on the slides.

So either things like constructed on fee simple ownership lots or on land owned by a community land trust.

We also, as a city can't oppose any unique requirements on projects under SB 684 just because they're SB684 projects.

So all of our objective standards apply as they would for similar type project that wasn't SB684.

So things like our height limits, our lot coverage, and front yard setbacks, along with some of our missing little housing standards, but bulk control is not a standard that would apply to projects under SB684.

Um other setbacks that do though from the state, they say that we can't there can't be any setbacks required between the units.

Only four foot side and rear setbacks are required otherwise, and there is a maximum floor area ratio that gets bigger depending on how many units are provided.

Furthermore, from that, if there are standards that are preventing of density of 30 dwelling units per acre, relief is granted from those, and so projects can proceed with that density.

Additionally, if they're eligible under state density bonus law by providing affordable units, they can receive incentives and concessions to get relief from standards, but they can't use density bonus law to go over the 10 units and still get ministerial approval under SB 684.

As mentioned, our review time for these is within 60 days of receiving a complete application.

If denied, written comments must be provided to the applicant, but applications can also be disapproved if there would be specific adverse impact on public health and safety.

Last part is the building permit issuance piece.

So as mentioned, if someone wants to flip the order and build housing before the map is recorded, they can do that if they got tentative map approval and if they submitted a complete and compliant building permit application.

Similarly, the building official can deny this if flipping the order has an adverse impact on health and safety.

Building permits still is issued on based on the tentative map and all those conditions of approval and any dedication, improvement or sue requirement has to be guaranteed to the city satisfaction.

There's two local options here that the city has with its implementation.

The first is withholding final approval.

So we'll have to issue the building permit, but we can hold back the certificate of occupancy or equivalent final approval until the map is recorded.

Additionally, we can require security to ensure the improvements are provided.

We're recommending to keep both of these requirements in the ordinance to help ensure that projects are completed and the public improvements are made.

We do require security for improvements as part of our existing subdivision process, so there's already a precedence there.

And these really only apply if someone chooses to flip the order and build first.

What we heard pretty loudly from stakeholders is that this really complicates the process, and most folks want to keep the same order and build after the map is recorded.

So I don't anticipate that these will come up too often, but these are our recommendations for those options.

That concludes my overview of the bill.

In terms of our next steps, this would need to be brought to the law and legislation committee tentatively looking at November 18th, followed by a hearing at City Council anticipated on December 9th.

Our recommendation tonight is to conduct a public hearing, and upon conclusion, move staff's recommendation.

That concludes my presentation and staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Clerk, do we have any speaker slips?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speakers lips for this item.

All right.

Questions from the Dais.

Commissioner Caden.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

And this is a complicated one.

So yeah, I can imagine folks who weren't at the previous meeting being a little lost.

So thank you for walking through all of that.

And just um, you know, just being open, I think, to having that dialogue in the last year on this.

I think getting back to the core of like what this is about, right?

This is about trying to create more affordable homeownership opportunities, right?

We've done a lot of work through our missing middle ordinance and through our general plan more generally on you know building a lot of multifamily and and building, you know, making it easier to kind of build rental housing, which is great.

We need that.

Um we don't build condos in this state, um, thanks to a variety of state rules around condo defect and and all kinds of things.

So that's not something we can control.

And so the the levers that we kind of have on home ownership are largely around fee simple, you know, subdivision processes.

And um, you know, that for a long time was outside of our control as well, but the sub- you know, this this is a state enabling process that makes it easier and ministerial to go through the subdivision map act, which is a tool, and that's great, and we should use it.

And so um there's it's a complicated set of laws that don't really, yeah.

They give a lot of discretion, I think, to local governments for how you're sort of interpreting, and there's a range of ways that you can interpret it.

And so, again, I just want to express my most appreciation for how open staff has been to kind of having a dialogue, listening to stakeholders on how to implement this in ways that you know set it up for success and make it um, you know, a process that can actually work for small builders.

Um, so yeah, when this was discussed last time, I had I had four primary concerns.

I think that the so the original ordinance didn't allow ADUs and JADUs, and the new one does, and they don't count towards the 10, which is fantastic.

I was um, second of all concerned about just the why we wouldn't allow state density bonus to apply.

Just you know, if someone was willing to voluntarily deed restrict their some of the units for affordable housing without subsidy, I think that's something that we should do.

It's great to see that the new ordinance allows for that.

Um the old ordinance applied some design standards, like bull control in particular, that I think would have made it impossible to build what I think is going to be a really common typology for this, which is like a three-story town home project.

A lot of the townhomes that we see are these three-story townhome projects, right?

And that would have been impossible under bull control.

Um, I think you know, the new ordinance does not apply bull control to these projects per some guidance from HCD, which I'm especially just again appreciative to staff and for council for kind of exploring that.

Um, and then the the final one.

So the original ordinance also said you you can't record the final map until the project is under construction.

And I know this was kind of the the primary thing that we we talked about as a commission, and you know, some some uh potential users of this process kind of expressed some concerns about that, um, because it really does kind of blow up the the entire business model because you can't get a um you know construction loan without collateralizing against the subdivided parcel, and then you can't go under construction until you um to record the final map without the loan.

So you're kind of in this catch 22.

Um, so I so the staff recommendation I think is great to kind of allow for for selling or financing parcels if the parcel is kind of planning approval through that 684 process.

I think that is a great solution, completely support it.

My only question is that so for the the remainder parcels option, which I think I think is actually gonna be a common use as well for this process.

So, you know, these are situations where like you maybe have a single family house on a big lot, and you want to like buy the property, keep that house intact, and then do like a small lot subdivision in the back.

So the staff recommendation is to have what seems like a higher standard in these situations, and it's to quote, require a certificate of compliance for the sale of a remainder parcel that may be filed, may not be filed until after the final map is recorded.

Can you just maybe just help us understand like what that means what a what a certificate of compliance is and yeah go ahead.

Yeah great question so the remainder parcel they can designate without the present intent to sell but they are allowed to sell later when they do want to sell we can't require a final map or a parcel map for that.

So instead we would we have the option to require a certificate of compliance it's just a staff level ministerial review essentially reviewing the boundaries of the area since it wasn't reviewed as part of the previous subdivision application.

So that's all that it is.

So okay so could you I guess my question is like say you that situation I just described you buy a single family house has a big lot and you want to subdivide you know town homes on the back could you do that and sell the the existing house use that money to help finance the construction of the town homes or does the timing not work if you're requiring a this this COC.

You would not be able to sell the lot with that existing house that you're designating as a remainder but that's part of the subdivision map act like you're not supposed to be creating a remainder parcel with the present intent to sell.

So later you can sell it absolutely it's just not until after that subdivision is done.

Right so you couldn't use it to help help finance this on the and am I am I hearing that right that it's the city's hands are tied on that and that is a requirement per subdivision map act is that right yeah not having the present intent to sell is a subdivision map act our choice is just the certificate of compliance before sale yes or no got it okay that's helpful.

So yeah I mean I think that again thanks for being open to kind of flipping that process around and and you know allowing for kind of this process to happen at the planning approval.

The last thing that I just wanted to mention is you know as as a part of the I've followed this bill closely as it's going through the legislature all three versions and part of the like political compromise for the bill is that it you know it precludes um projects on sites where there's been you know housing that's occupied by a tenant in the last five years right and that's um you know you you understand where that's that's coming from of course you don't want to sort of displace like afford like naturally occurring affordable housing I get that but it is somewhat restrictive right it basically means you can't redevelop um you know a vacant falling apart single family house into some town homes if someone rented that home before it started falling apart four years ago right so a lot of other cities in the implementation of this bill have like um made made this kind of requirement extremely difficult um to like provide the like requiring documentation that may or may not be possible to provide basically so for example say a house is like in a trust that you know bought that house two years ago and you're you know you're a small builder looking to kind of buy the house and do a small lot subdivision on it it may be really difficult to prove that there hasn't been a tenant there you know five years ago and track down you know a previous owner of the previous owner to kind of prove that um and it's so it's okay if staff hasn't kind of thought through yet exactly how you're gonna be enforcing that requirement but I guess I would ask that you do what you can to be flexible I guess recognizing that sometimes the documentation you're requiring might not exist.

So some more flexible ways of kind of interpreting that that I've seen in other cities to comply with that requirement are looking at like assessor data to see if they use the the homeowner exemption.

I've also seen just requiring an affidavit from the developer so again, no worries if you haven't gotten there yet, but do you have a sense of how you're gonna be doing that process?

Yeah, we have a memo and checklist out now to provide guidance until we have our final application form.

And right now it's asking applicants to just certify on the form whether it's been to occupied in the last five years.

Perfect.

That would that's great.

Okay.

I'll yield my time for now.

I'd love to hear from other commissioners.

Good questions.

Yeah.

I have one question since not seeing any right now at this moment.

What?

So this compresses the the time it takes to process and approve.

A project.

I was just kind of thinking in terms of just staff time and whatnot.

Like how long does it typically take for staff to be able to process something like this?

Because 60 days seems pretty aggressive in my mind.

So we we don't have a large number of applications to give you any trends.

I can give you some anecdotal information from uh what I'm hearing from our current planning section staff that are processing.

It's gotten a little more popular, so we're getting inquiries, you know, on the weekly basis as opposed to monthly or longer.

And I think as Commissioner Caden described this, it is a very complicated law.

So there is a learning curve, which is just a part of that process.

And 60 days is um, you know, depending on your perspective, for an applicant, it's it's advantageous.

For staff, it is not it is not the norm.

Um, you know, in terms of how discretionary application would routinely be processed.

Um, we're still going to comply and are complying with that time frame.

Um, it just means we have to sort of adjust our priorities and I don't know if I am I answering your question adequately.

I you know, I I guess I I think about it in kind of worst case scenarios, right?

Like if you just had a flood of applications hit your desk, right?

I'm just trying to get a sense of what what the average amount of time is, you know, for for a capable staffer to to be able to review everything that's needed to to be able to approve.

I mean, because really we're we're bypassing this kind of other public hearing.

Does that really I mean bypass the do you put in more work given the fact that there's a public hearing and and how much time is are we really saving here for oh yeah, there are there are if we thought of it in terms of deliverables of materials that are necessary, there are fewer materials, so there's fewer, there's no notice, there's no staff report, that you there's no staff coming to a I mean a hearing like this.

So there is overall in terms of hours and um actual documents produced, there are fewer.

It's just taking a little bit long.

It feels it feels more like more.

I think initially right now we could okay give you an update later on how it actually is panning out.

Okay, because this is a state imposed timeline, right?

It's mandatory, yeah.

So we're doing it for SB9 if it helps you understand which are the urban lot splits, duplexes, and it it was like this initially when that uh had that 60 day time frame kicked in for that law.

It was last year, so we're okay we'll be fine, okay.

Yeah, I'm just thinking potentially, right?

This may, I mean, if there was a deluge of projects that came through, like planning department would have to hire more staff.

I mean, in order to process within a timely manner, right?

If that if it came down to that, it'd be a good problem to have.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

If it did, but anyways, just thinking ahead.

So thank you.

Any other questions?

Comments?

All right.

Any um motions?

Commissioner Caden?

Yeah.

Okay.

Happy to move the item.

Commissioner Blunt.

A second.

You?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Yes.

Commissioner Lamas is absent.

Commissioner Naibo?

Uh.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent.

Commissioner Musis Reed is absent.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rishke is absent.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young.

Aye.

Thank you, and the motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on to the agenda.

Um, Commissioner Comments, ideas, and questions.

Do we have any anything?

Okay.

Uh, public comments matters not on the agenda.

Chair, I have no speakers list for this item.

Thank you.

I think we're officially adjourned.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, there we go.

I didn't think uh we'd get through that so quickly.

Did you get that on it?

Yeah, I texted her.

Yeah, yeah.