Sacramento County Planning Commission Meeting – August 26, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Sacramento County Planning Commission Meeting – August 26, 2024
Note: The raw transcript of the meeting is dated August 26, 2024, but the user instruction specified August 29, 2024. This summary uses the date from the transcript as the primary source.
The Planning Commission met to consider two development projects on Mission Avenue in Carmichael, each seeking a development plan review, density bonus, incentives/concessions/waivers, and design review. Both projects proposed three-story apartment buildings with affordable units. After receiving staff presentations, legal arguments from the applicant, and extensive public testimony, the commission voted on motions to approve the staff recommendations. Both motions failed on tied 2‑2 votes, effectively denying the projects and sending them to the Board of Supervisors.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Many residents and property owners from the surrounding neighborhood spoke in opposition to both projects. Common concerns included: increased traffic and pedestrian safety hazards, especially near schools; inadequate parking; potential for decreased property values; loss of privacy from three-story buildings; and the overconcentration of apartments in the area.
- Several speakers questioned the sufficiency of the traffic analysis and the availability of public transit. One speaker noted that the only bus route (Route 82) does not provide access to major employment centers or grocery stores within a reasonable walking distance.
- A few speakers supported the projects, including a union representative who advocated for fair wages and local hiring standards on the developments.
- The applicant's representative responded to public comments, stating that the parcels have been zoned for multifamily use for decades and that the projects would provide needed housing near schools and services.
Discussion Items
- Staff presented additional information requested from the June 10, 2024 hearing, including: cumulative transportation impacts (670 new daily trips, below threshold for a traffic study); on-street parking analysis (11 spaces created by frontage improvements, but not counted toward off-street requirements); safety of the Mission/Whitney intersection (14 crashes in five years, below signal warrant threshold); public transit (four bus stops on Route 82 with 30‑minute weekday service); and the definition of “physically precluding” for waiver purposes (a development standard that tangibly makes construction of the requisite density impossible).
- The applicant’s legal counsel argued that the Housing Accountability Act and state density bonus law compel approval of the project as designed, including all requested waivers. Counsel cited recent court decisions and HCD letters stating that local agencies cannot redesign a qualifying project or deny waivers needed to physically accommodate the density.
- Commissioners debated the legal constraints and the lack of quantifiable health/safety data to support denial. Several commissioners expressed concern about the “unlimited waivers” provision and the erosion of local control, but noted that without a specific, objective health/safety standard, they could not make a denial finding.
- For the second project, staff gave an abbreviated presentation covering the 48‑unit proposal, requested waivers (rear yard setback, parking, landscaping, etc.), and the applicant’s diagrams showing why each waiver was needed.
Key Outcomes
- Item 1 (3532 Mission Avenue, 33 units): A motion to approve the staff recommendation (approval of the project) was made and seconded. The vote was 2‑2 (Commissioners Borja and Devlin in favor; Commissioners Conklin and Rafel opposed). The motion failed, resulting in an effective denial. The item will be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
- Item 2 (3537 Mission Avenue, 48 units): A motion to approve the staff recommendation was made and seconded. The vote was again 2‑2 (same split). The motion failed, effective denial, and the item will be appealed to the Board of Supervisors.
- No motions for reconsideration were made. Both projects will proceed to the Board of Supervisors for a de novo hearing.
Meeting Transcript
Good evening, everyone. We're going to go ahead and call to order the planning commission for August 26, 2024. If you'll please call the role. Commissioners Borja. Conklin. Here. Corona Savignano. Devlin. Here. And Rafel. Here. And we do have our quorum with those members present. If you'll please stand with me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge of this two. And if you'll please make the announcements for this evening. Well, the county fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, civility, and use of courteous language. The commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed towards any meeting participant. Seating may be limited and available on a first to come, first served basis. To make an in-person public comment, please complete and submit a speaker request form to the clerk. Each individual will be invited to the podium to make a comment. Members of the public may send a written comment, which is distributed to commission members and filed in the record. Contact information is optional and should include the meeting date and agenda or off agenda item number to be sent as follows. Email a comment to board clerk at SACCounty.gov or mail a comment to 700H Street, suite 2450, Sacramento, California, 95814. Thank you. That will move us to the contested portion of the agenda this evening. If you'll please call item number one. Yes, your item number one this evening is PLMP 2023-00087. It's for a development pen plan review, density bonus, and incentives, concessions, or waivers, and design review. And it's located at 3532 Mission Avenue, approximately 375 feet north of the intersection of Whitney Avenue and Mission Avenue in the Carmichael Old Foot Hill Farms community. And the environmental document is that it's exempt. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Good evening, Chair Ray Thel, County Planning Commissioners. My name is Christian Baldazar. I'm an associate planner with Sacramento County Planning Ramon to Review and lead planner for this project. The subject site is a 1.05 acre parcel located at 3532 Mission Avenue in the Carmichael Old for Hill Farms community. The site is currently vacant and is depicted with the red outline and crosshatch on the imagery on the screen. The project site is within the Mission Oaks Neighborhood Preservation Area, or NPA, and is um has an underlying mixed zone composed of RD20 and RD30. The entitlement request is a development plan review pursuant to the Mission Oaks neighborhood preservation area for the development of non-single family residential use on the property, a density bonus, incentives, concessions for waivers for a qualified housing development as allowed under the Affordable Housing Incentive Program, and a design review to determine substantial compliance with Sacramento County wide design guidelines. As a refresher on the density bonus and incentives part of the request, the applicant is requesting a 50% density bonus, two incentives, and six waivers included as attachment three on your hearing packets. It's a list of the requested incentives and waivers, along with the applicant's justification for each item and accompanying images depicting the request. Comments included concerns regarding increased criminal activity, increase in traffic, pedestrian safety, potential to decrease property values, concerns with loss of privacy given height of structures, and an overall over concentration of apartments in the area. Following the public comment period, planning commission voted to continue the item to a date uncertain for staff to research and provide additional information regarding the following items. Item two is potential for on-street parking to be used on site. Item three is the safety of Whitney Avenue and Mission Avenue intersection. Items four is the overall state of transportation network, including transit in the project site area. And item five's additional analysis of standards that are physically precluding the proposed development and what constitutes the term physically uh physical preclusion. Um next portion of the uh presentation is gonna be kind of a slide addressing each one of those items and going kind of in depth in explanation on what staff found for each item. First of those items is the cumulative transportation impacts. The planning commission directed staff to analyze cumulative transportation impacts of both Mission Avenue apartment projects taken into account established and proposed projects surrounding the project site.
openpublica.com