Thank you for joining us at the March 10th, 2025 County Planning Commission meeting for

County of Sacramento.

Just calling the meeting to order and Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Absolutely.

Commissioner Corona-Savignon.

Here.

Devlin?

Here.

And Commissioner Borja.

Here.

With those members present, we have a quorum.

Thank you.

If you could please join me for a pleasure of allegiance.

A pleasure of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic

for which it stands one nation underground in New Year's Eve.

I would like to thank the members of the Justice for all of them.

Thank you for that.

And Madam Clerk, can we please make the announcements?

Of course.

The County Foster's 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 toward any meeting participant.

Seeding may be limited and available on a first-come, first-served basis.

To make an in-person 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.

That information is optional and should be included on the meeting date and agenda as well

as off agenda item number as follows.

Email a comment to board clerk at saccounty.gov.

Mail a comment to 7008 streets, suite 2450 Sacramento, California 95814.

And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you.

We're ready to move on to our non-contested portion of the agenda.

If we could please read that to the record.

For the non-contested item number one is PLMP 202400168 Vineyard Albert Time Extension.

This is located at 6803 Southwa Avenue and 6950 Hedge Avenue in the Vineyard community.

This is the southeast, Wattenative map and time extension number two and then the environmental

document and is a dendum.

Good evening commissioners, Todd Smith, planning director.

As the item is non-contested staff may or may not have a presentation depending on what

the commission desires.

We are prepared.

Should you wish to have a presentation though?

Thank you, director Smith.

Any questions or comments from the commissioners or any requests for presentation?

Just the first item.

Okay.

Seeing that, I'd like to move to Madam Clerk.

Are there any public comments?

Yes.

Would the applicant like to speak on this item?

All right.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, are there any public comments for this item?

There are none.

Thank you.

Are there any comments from the commissioners or questions?

No, but I'll move staff recommendation.

Okay.

I'll go ahead and second that motion.

Okay.

I believe we do have a call for motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll or call for the vote.

Members, Corona, Sabayano?

Yes.

Members, Devlin?

Aye.

Members, Borja?

Yes.

That motion passes.

It's a member's present.

All right.

Thank you.

We're now ready to move to item number two.

Madam Clerk, if you can please introduce that item.

Item number two is PLMP 2024-00107, Natoma Souls.

This is a special development permit and design review.

It is located at the northwest corner of Metro Air Parkway and Ministerway in the Metro

Air Park special planning area in the Natoma community.

The project name is Cambria Suitesmap and the environmental document is an addendum.

Evening again, commissioners staff is prepared for a presentation if it's the will of the

commission, but this is an uncontested item.

So it's up to you.

Thank you, Director Smith.

Are there any?

I just have one question.

In the staff report, it talked about an application being submitted to FAA.

Starting the height, I just wanted to get a little more information on what that is.

And is this hotel the same height as the other two?

Hello, Riley Schultz, Associate Planner, Lead Planner for this application.

The FAA approval is standard for all projects in the Metro Air Park special planning area.

The applicant has submitted and received approval from the FAA at the time of this.

And that is the same height as the nearby proposed hotel as well.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

I just had one question related to timing.

Is there an estimation of when construction might begin or completion?

I'm not sure, Riley Schultz, again.

I would defer to the applicant if they wanted to provide that information.

No.

Not crucial, but.

Okay.

I believe they're up there discussing right now if they would like to share that information

at this time.

I think we can call them.

Would the applicant like to provide any comments?

And I do believe Madam Clerk that we would need to.

So are the men for the record?

Yes.

Yes.

I do.

Hello.

Commissioners, my name is Dan Kuchee with the law firm of Avdys and Kuchee.

We represent the applicant tonight.

I already mentioned the clerk wouldn't.

But that are your opponents and I've spoken about.

Would the clerk have any comments?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's just say anything else.

Move that we approve the staff

recommendation.

Yeah.

A lot of second.

Sorry.

Thank you for that.

Commissioner Devlin.

Are there any other public comments?

I have none.

Okay.

Now I will be trying to see if I can

entertain a motion.

Thank you.

I will move that we adopt the staff

recommendation.

Second.

Madam Clerk, if you can call for the vote.

Commissioners Corona Sabaniano.

Yes.

Commissioner Devlin.

Aye.

Any commissioner Boa?

Aye.

With those members present, we do have a pass.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

We are now moving to item number three

of our agenda.

Madam Clerk, if you could please introduce that item.

Item number three is PLMP 2024-00169

South Sacramento Chan.

This is the development plan review amendment,

special development permit amendment,

and design review amendment.

This is located at the intersection of

Louisiana and Wilbur Way in the South Sacramento community.

The next item is the project name.

The project name is a South Sacramento

boat RV and commercial storage.

This environmental document is an

addendum.

Hello, commission.

My name is Austin Chan, associate

planner and lead planner for this project.

Will we be putting up the power?

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Please put up item number three.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This is South Sacramento boat RV

in commercial storage.

The project is located at the northwest corner

of the city of vacant.

The project is located in the

light industrial zoning district

within the South Sacramento industrial

Gerber and Floor and Road neighborhood

preservation area or NPA.

Shining uses include industrial uses

to the north and east within the light

industrial zoning district.

And single family residential to the west.

Parsles to the west and south are within

the RD5 NPA zoning district.

Directly south of the project is a drainage

canal with for undevelopables.

Undevelopable small parcels.

Which triggers requirements within the NPA

for the project to meet development standards adjacent

to a residential zone.

On May 24th, 2021, the planning commission approved a

development plan review, a special development permit

and design review for the storage of boats,

RVs, and commercial trucks.

The South Sacramento CPAC pre-approved

an appeal based on the concerns

with air quality, proximity to residential properties,

and increase in traffic.

And on August 24th, 2021, the Board of Supervisors denied the appeal

and upheld the planning commission's

approval of the project.

Due to changes in property owners,

the commercial storage was never developed.

The project required effectuation of the use permit and associated

entitlements by August 24th, 2024.

And on August 20th, 2024, a few days before

the entitlements expired, an application was submitted to amend

the entitlement conditions of approval to extend the time of

effectuation for the project.

The entitlement request is a development plan review

amendment, a special development permit, a special

development permit amendment, and a design review amendment to modify

the conditions of approval to extend the time of effectuation

for the project.

And on August 24th, 2021, the project will remain the same as

previously approved with no changes.

And there have been no changes to the use regulations,

development standards, or the NPA,

development standards as well,

since the previous approval.

The development plan review is required within the South Sacramento

industrial NPA,

and the development plan review is required

within the South Sacramento industrial NPA,

and deviations that were originally requested will carry on with the deviations

to the industrial setback to an industrial zone,

walls for industrial uses adjacent to a residential zone,

uncovered storage, and landscaped screening along property lines,

and I'll review that further in the site plan.

And as well, there is a design review amendment

to determine substantial compliance with design guidelines.

And a Dundam to the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project.

The impacts that were discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration,

where air quality, biological resources, cultural resources,

land uses aesthetics and traffic.

The project would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of mitigation measures.

Minimigation measures include participation in the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.

Cultural resources related to unanticipated discoveries,

and implementation of best management practices related to greenhouse gas emissions thresholds.

Here is the proposed site plan,

which includes a new building,

which will be an office and auto repair on the northeast side here,

with an associated parking lot with seven parking spaces.

There is also 300 new parking spaces.

The parking on the west side will be reserved for RVs and boats,

which are not likely to move often,

and trucks will be mostly on the eastern side of the parcel,

closer to industrial uses.

The NPA also requires a larger setback of 75 feet adjacent to residential zone districts.

They are meeting that 75 foot setback on this western side.

One of the deviations is on that southern side here,

where they're only providing a 50 foot setback,

because of those RD5-zoned parcels on that southern side,

which cannot be developed into residential.

Additionally, the wall required on the southern side should be along the property line.

However, it is pushed back to that 50 foot setback

to allow the double row of landscaping to be seen from LC Avenue.

Additionally, those trees should be 10 feet from that wall,

and at maximum they are 30 feet from that wall.

Here is the proposed floor plan for the auto repair shop and office,

as well as the guard check.

And here are the elevations of the same.

There are three rolling doors that face the north and south away from residential.

And here is the landscape plan.

They are providing all required landscaping for the associated parking lot to the office,

as well as a double row of trees along the east, south, and west property lines.

The project went to the Design Review Advisory Committee on November 14,

2024, and recommends the Planning Commission find the project

in substantial compliance with design guidelines.

The project also went to the South Sacramento CPAC on November 20, 2024,

where they made an emotion to approve the requested entitlements.

However, the motion failed with a 2-yes-2-0-2-yes-2-no-1 absent vote,

and therefore did not provide a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission.

CPAC members had concerns with air quality and proximity of truck storage to residential uses.

I would like to note that they are meeting all development standards on that western side,

adjacent to residential uses,

and the deviations to the southern side will be adjacent to that drainage canal.

Additionally, air quality was reviewed in the original initial study

and mitigated negative declaration that was prepared.

And no comments have been submitted in support or opposition to this project.

The project is consistent with the general planning community plan.

It's compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses,

and the environmental document is an addendum.

I'd also like to note that this project was previously approved in 2021,

and there have been no changes to the previously approved project exhibits,

and will only change the condition related to the time of effectuation of the entitlements.

Planning and environmental review staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions,

determine that the CEQA addendum is adequate and complete,

approve the development plan review amendment, subject to findings and conditions,

approve the special development permit amendment, subject to findings and conditions,

and find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines,

subject to findings and conditions.

That will conclude my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ms. Chan. Are there any questions from the commissioners?

Commissioner Dublin.

Yes, thank you.

Could you just perhaps elaborate or define, effectuate?

Yes. You're required to get a building permit to effectuate the,

or other permitting to effectuate the entitlements,

and typically we require that within 36 months of approval,

which in this case was August 24th of 2024.

Thank you.

Any other questions? I do have a couple of questions to Ms. Chan.

Ms. Chan, I was wondering, you mentioned that you did not receive any comments from any of the neighbors or letters,

but I went to Florida High School. There's a lot of students that walk adjacent to that park.

And so was that at all considered in the application, just to me, I mean, it seems that it's a storage.

So I'm assuming that the traffic would not be constant, you know,

folks tend to not be going in and out, but I'm just, you know,

want to be leery and careful about a lot of the students who cross that busy intersection,

and especially almost every day, I think they're track and field,

and they're cross country folks running that park.

So was that at all considered in the application, or perhaps the 2021 version of this application?

I'm unsure that that was really taken into consideration in the original approval.

I will say that the applicant anticipates about 15 to 20 trucks a day,

and it's mostly intended for long haulers that would return a very third or fourth day.

So, and traffic was considered and reviewed by Department of Transportation,

but other than that, I can't speak to that.

Okay, thank you.

And then the next question that I've had, you mentioned about the setback for both the trees and the retaining wall.

I'm assuming that's both for security, but also just kind of a landscape requirement.

Are there also added, maybe safety measures or security or anything that they would kind of prevent folks from,

I don't know, jumping over defense or just some unsightly characters from entering the property?

They do have a, obviously, you mentioned a Masonry wall.

It'll be, there's an existing one on the western side, and then there will be a new one on the southern and eastern side,

and there's an existing fence along the northern side as well.

And there's also a gate as well on that, on the entrance side.

There's also a guard check that they have included as well, but other than that,

they don't have any kind of, like, barbed wiring or anything like that.

Okay, understood.

Any other questions at this time for the planning staff?

Are there any, or I guess, what if any are the prohibitions against Eileen?

There are standards for idling.

I believe they're not, they're required not to idle for five minutes.

I believe that would be reviewed within the CEQA document.

Julie, do you, do you have information on idling of trucks?

Good evening, Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator with County Planning.

Typically, facilities will have no idling restrictions when there's a large number of trucks coming and going.

In this particular instance, I'd have to double check.

I don't think we have a strict prohibition on idling due to the low number of vehicles that would be coming and going primarily used for truck storage,

but I can go check on that.

Thank you.

Any other questions while misnuinness looking for the idling?

Well, Julie's looking, I will note, condition number 69 from the air district includes language regarding certain landscaping with species that have been in the past.

I think that's a good question.

It includes language regarding certain landscaping with species that help reduce the public health impacts from motor vehicle emissions, which may get at the question you're asking,

rid of idling and associated emissions.

As a potential twofold, one is certainly the emissions in two, I think, is it just also the sound.

I mean, if you've got one truck there, maybe it's on a problem.

If you've got five trucks that are all looking to maybe leave today and they're going to sit there in idle for an hour or two or however long.

So it doesn't look like we've specifically called out idling in this particular document, but to elaborate Commissioner Devlin, the site plan is set up so that the truck parking would be on the east side.

The west side of the project parcel is set aside for boat and RV parking.

That was done intentionally in part to provide a larger buffer between the larger trucks and the residential uses.

Thank you for that answer and thank you for doing that in advance.

All right. Thank you, Ms. Newton. Any other questions from my fellow commissioners?

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Chan. At this time, I'd like to invite the applicant.

If you'd like to make a presentation or make any commensurate commission.

Hi. Thank you. I just want to ask you some questions.

I apologize for pausing. We need to have this for further.

I'm going to further think about you. No worries at all.

Please raise your right hand and the appropriate responses.

I do. Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give to this board is the truth? So help you, God.

I do. Thank you.

Great. We're going to start off with your question about idling.

We'll only take place if the driver is going to be sleeping in their vehicle, which they're not going to be doing because this is only to park the park then they go home.

So there will not be any idling going on at the location.

It is simply a park your truck. Get your stuff. Go home. Go sleep. Take a shower. Spend some time with the family.

When you're ready to get back on the road, come back. Take your truck and go.

So that will not be an issue. As far as security goes, there will be a guard check there 24 seven.

There will be a electric gate there. So only our customers or clients that have access will be allowed in and out privileges.

And also with that one of the provisions of approval last time was our time.

I'll have to look it up. But I believe 11.

It was like 8 to 11 or 10. So that would be like regular operating hours and after that.

The gate would be shut. So again, that would be because there is a neighborhood in the back.

So that would be regular operating hours. And like Austin stated, the back will be just for RV.

So our neighbors would not have any issues. And if you are an RV or if you own boats, you know, most people like to go out on the weekends and on the holiday.

So again, neighbors would not be distracted with that.

I think those were two of the main concerns that you guys had.

If there's any other questions that I'm missing, we'll be more than happy to answer those.

Okay. Thank you.

Are there any questions to do you have to look into this time?

No.

I don't have any further questions. Sounds like we're.

Just one other main emphasis. I know the truck was a concern for you.

Just want to emphasize that this isn't an in and out privilege.

So you're not going to have trucks that are going to be coming there on a daily basis coming and going.

These are mainly long haul drivers. So they will.

I'll just give you a like list. Just say they leave on a Monday.

They'll typically they'll leave on a Monday. They'll come back about five days later.

Park their truck. Take their rest and then they'll go back on their shift after two or three days.

So it's not going to be, you know, you're going to have 15.

They're not day drivers where they leave in the morning and they're going to come back in the evening where you're going to have that rush hour.

You're concerned with Florian high school being right there with the children coming and going in the evenings.

So these drivers will typically just leave and they'll come back every, you know, five, six days.

That's their regular route. And again, it's a 60 40 split.

So it's only going to be about 40% that we're going to be offering to the commercial drivers where our main focus is more for our V's, boats and ATV vehicles.

So I think that's a good idea.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Appreciate it.

Madam Clerk, are there any other public comments or speaker cards for this item?

Yes, I have received two speaker cards. I believe one was for a sharing silver.

And I'm going to go ahead and read you the oath.

So please raise your right hand in the appropriate responses. I do.

Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to receive or to give the board is the truth? I so help you got?

Yes. I do. Thank you.

I'm sorry. No worries.

I just wanted to comment on the fact that I have an RV and I'm not able to park it at my house.

It was parked in my driveway on the pavement at the house.

And I've been getting tickets and they've been costing six to seven hundred dollars every time they give me a ticket.

So I'm really hoping that this will go through so that I will be able to park it somewhere without getting all these tickets and be able to get access to it when I need to.

So it'd be awesome if this was to be approved and go through.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you.

So I'm going to go ahead and read you the oath.

Our next public comment is from dogman John Singh.

And please raise your right hand and the appropriate response is I do.

Do you swear that the testimony that you're about to give to the sport is the truth? So help you got?

I appreciate it. I'm just here in favor of the project because I'm a long haul driver.

And we have a real shortage of truck parking in the area to be honest.

As you are from around the area, a lot of people park on the road.

Like I have to sometimes buy. It's not safe for my truck or myself or even like public over there, you know, passing by.

So I'm really hoping that this goes through and we got parking over there.

So we can instead of parking on the road, we have a safety.

That's all I got. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Singh.

Any other public comments for this item? I have done.

All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Okay. Now I believe that concludes our public comments.

We're now moving to commissioner deliberation.

And I'd like to entertain if there's any motion.

I would go ahead and move the staff recommendation.

I didn't catch all of your points, including finding that the Sikua document was adequate.

There's like three or four more in there.

But I guess it's just summing up in the staff recommendation, I guess, for lack of a better descriptor.

But there were like four points in there.

Move to adopt staff recommendation and improve the project.

Okay. We have a motion to move staff recommendation. Do we have a second?

Second.

All right. Madam Clerk.

Members Corona, Samaniano?

Yes.

Members Devlet.

Aye.

Members Borja?

Yes.

The item passes.

Okay. Thank you.

Now we're ready to move to item number four.

Good evening, commissioners.

Leanne Mueller with Planning and Environmental Review.

I believe that at the last planning commission, this was continued to a date specific.

We have received a sign tolling agreement from the applicant, extending that until June 30th of 2025.

And with that, staff would like to request that the Planning Commission drop this from a date specific,

and then we will reschedule and re-notice for hearing at a later date.

So they're asking you to continue it.

Open ended continuance.

Not dropping it.

Okay. So we're being asked for an open ended continuance, but the tolling agreement just to confirm is June 30th, 2025.

Yes, it is.

So would it be safe to assume that we would like to, or your attempt to have a hearing, perhaps prior to that tolling agreement expiring?

Oh, definitely. You have a hearing prior to that tolling agreement expiring.

I think the applicant has indicated that they're waiting to make sure that they would have more than three members of the Planning Commission present,

and they're also wanting more of their senior management to attend the meeting, so they're trying to coordinate those dates.

Understood.

Are there any other questions from my fellow commissioners at the Dias?

I could move to continue the item to a date uncertain.

Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second.

Madam, please call the roll.

No worries. Members Devlin.

Hi.

Members of Corona Sabayano.

Yes. And members Borja.

Yes.

That item passes for continuance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. That moves on to our next item.

Planning Director's report.

Good evening, commissioners.

Couple of items to report on tonight.

You may recall sometime last fall, the Nueva Vista project in South Sacramento.

This commission unanimously approved that project.

Full 50 vote at that time.

It was appealed by the South Sacramento CPAC to the Board of Supervisors.

At the end of February, the Board heard that appeal.

The Board unanimously upheld the planning commission's approval and denied the appeal.

So that project should be moving forward.

At this point, we have not heard of any subsequent action by the South Sacramento CPAC.

So we're assuming the project is continuing.

Second item I want to report on.

I think Commissioner Borja at last meeting you mentioned.

I think that's a good question.

Perhaps an update on pending legislation.

We get regular feedback from folks like the California CSAC.

What do the acronym stands for?

California State Association of Countries.

There you go.

And then just today I got a pretty lengthy PDF of all pending or introduced legislation.

This session.

Not just in planning and environmental review, but all sorts of other issues.

So we review that on a regular basis.

And then we incorporate what's necessary.

Obviously pending final bill approval and say,

the entry by the governor.

We're spending a lot of time right now on updating our zoning code and other procedures

to reflect all the legislation that happened last year, 2024.

So if something unusual pops up, we'll be sure to let you know.

Third item I wanted to mention.

Late last year.

I, or maybe it was early this year.

I mentioned the potential for an in-house training.

Kind of more focused on what we do here in Sacramento County as opposed to the broader training

that a few of you went to last week.

Right now I'm outlining it.

Focusing on mainly housing.

Things like the Housing Accountability Act, density bonus provisions of the zoning code.

Things like that.

May include some wireless self-assilities legislation or law.

I'm interested in your feedback.

You don't have to give me it right now.

But if you do, that's fine.

Anything else that you're interested in having some local information on?

Well, thank you for including the cell towers.

Those are always thorny it seems.

Anything related to density.

Density bonuses.

And maybe like at least the 50,000 foot of affordable housing, financing mechanisms.

Just understanding how those functionally work within the marketplace.

Those quasi-government entities that build affordable housing and maybe how those mechanisms work within the private side as well.

So perhaps thinking about whether to include Sacramento Housing, redevelopment agency in this.

Because they do the bulk of the lending, multifamily lending for affordable housing through the county and the city.

And they might have a piece here it sounds like.

If nothing immediately comes to mind, feel free to shoot me an email whenever you're thinking about it.

And we'll tailor something to what your needs are.

Yeah, I think for myself, Director Smith, just kind of outlining.

If we're going to make this up kind of a public training or presentation, I'm not too sure if that's your intent.

If I was a member of the public to kind of understand where certain decision making process has been made ministerial by law.

And so kind of where our swim length so operate and to effectively make a decision.

Whereas there are some instances that current and new state law have essentially limited our ability to approve or deny a project.

And so ministerial things, it may be even include builder's remedy in that sense.

I think that would be helpful for the public to understand.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

That's all I've got for tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is it I heard a rumor that the vacancy might have been filled?

It was filled.

There's a name tag over there.

Unfortunately, Tim Virga was unable to attend tonight.

But I'm hoping that he's here for next hearing as it's a full agenda.

And just to confirm, we do have our next hearing director Smith on March 24th.

I think there's seven items.

Thank you for that.

I guess I might have gone ahead of myself as that number item number six miscellaneous scheduling items.

Well, on March 24th, we have seven items.

I'll see you all here.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Any other public comments for item numbers?

Well, not moving on to item number seven.

Public comments.

There are none.

Okay.

Thank you.

I do want to just give a brief shout out to Mr. D.S. as well as Miss Pam reading from and the planning team.

Myself alongside commissioner Corona Sabignano and commissioner Conklin all attended the League of California cities.

Planning and legislative academy.

We found the experience to be particularly useful.

There were quite a number of new legislation that's advancing right now on the first of the two-year cycle.

And there's also quite a discussion about what we do with sequel.

And again, a lot of the housing and density bonuses and all these rules that govern our ability to decide about housing projects.

And so just again, want to thank you to the staff and to the team for helping make that happen.

It was well attended.

I want to say that the count was about 450 planning staff commissioners as well as elected officials that attended that conference.

So yeah, that was just my two cents.

But other than that, I think I think we're ready to adjourn.

So we're adjourning it at 613.

Thank you.

So we got one.