Good evening. Welcome to the Secondary County Planning Commission for Monday, March 24,

2025. Will the clerk please provide the call to roll?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Virga.

Here.

Corona, Sabaniano. Here.

And Chair Cronklin. Here.

Okay, with those members present, we do have a quorum.

Thank you very much. We please stand with me for the pledge of allegiance.

Religious, such a glad I have the United States of America and the two three of all

the two of which stands one nation, one God, the indivisible, the one which is our

nation. Thank you very much. And will the clerk please provide announcements for this evening?

Absolutely. The county busters public engagement during the meeting and encourages

public participation, civility and the use of courteous language. The commission does not condone

the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures or other inappropriate behavior, including personal

tax 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 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 and which is distributed

to the commission members and filed in the record. Contact information is optional and should

include the meeting date and agenda agenda item number to be sent as follow. Email a comment

to board clerk at saccounny.gov, mail a comment to 7008 street, sweet 2450 Sacramento, California,

95814 and that concludes the comments. Thank you, clerk. That looks like we have a new

commissioner here. If you'd like to provide some introductory or what kind of introduce yourself

to everyone, that'd be great. Hello, everybody. My name is Tim Virger. I've been a resident of

Sacramento for 65 years, third generation Sacramento and I'm glad to be here and hopefully I can learn

the tricks a little quicker than I can walk up and down the stairs. Thank you.

Thank you very much and welcome. Enjoy having you. Clerk, will you read the first agenda item of

our non-contested portion of the agenda tonight? Of course. Item number one is PLMP 2023-00182. This is

a zoning ordinance amendment and administrative amendment. This is an environmental document with a

notice of non-exemption, sorry. And I believe we're for going staff presentations, is that correct?

It is up to the commission. This is a non-contested item. Staff are prepared. Should you wish to hear

a presentation, but it is ultimately up to you. Wonderful. Thank you. Yeah, I want to

recognize that commissioner Devlin is now present. Welcome. Thank you.

All right. Is there any public comments to agenda number one? There are no public comments for

this item. Okay. Any questions from the Dias? No questions? Looking for a...

A motion recommendation. I'll move staff recommendation. A second. I'll second it. We have a motion

and a second. Clerk, would you please call the vote. Number one.

Members. Oh.

Yeah, we've got our vice chair present as well. Outstanding.

And can we call that vote excluding member Borja? Since he was not here for the vote,

or would you like to be? I don't think we've... He didn't really miss anything.

Okay. Yeah. So it's okay. So would you mind calling the roll again? Absolutely.

Absolutely. Members, Corona, Sabayano? Yes. Members Borja?

Yes. Members, Devlin? Yes. Members, Virga? Yes. And Chair Conflin? Yes.

All right. And that item passes. Thank you very much.

Clerk, would you please read agenda item number two?

Item number two is PLMP 2024-00114. This is a tentative parcel map, special development

permit and a design review. And there is a note that this item will be continued.

So if this item is being punted to a future date, is there any concerns that we should be aware of

as far as timelines, shot clocks, or anything of that sort? Good evening. Planning commissioners,

Kim Bergutier, Senior Planner with Planning. The reason why we have to continue is because we've

had some last minute discussions with our survey section to work out a couple of things.

We were actually able to come to some resolution today, so we are asking that the Planning Commission

continue the item to the April 14th meeting. And this project is not subject to any shot

clock or anything like that. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. So we're looking for this

agenda item to be moved to the April 14th date. Is there any comments from the public? No.

Clerk? We have no public comments for this item. Okay. Then we're looking for a motion.

Motion to move to the second. Clerk, would you please call the roll?

No. Members, Verga? Aye. Members, Devlin? Yes. Members, Corona, Sabaniano? Yes. Members,

Borjav? Yes. And Chair Conley? Yes. That item passes. All right. We're going to log into number three.

Clerk, will you please make the announcement?

Item number three is PLMP 2017-0017. This is a rezone, large lot,

tentative subdivision map, small lot, tentative subdivision map, and design review. This is located

at the northwest corner of Alberta Road and 16th Street in the Rio Linda, Alberta community.

And the environmental document is exempt. Thank you very much. And we're foregoing staff

presentation unless there's any specific questions that from the Dias. No.

Is there any public comment? No. Clerk? We have no public comment for this item. Thank you very

much. Looking for a motion? I made a motion to move it. We have a motion. Second. We have a motion

in a second. Clerk, will you please call the roll? Members, Verga? Aye. Devlin? Aye.

Corona, Sabaniano? Yes. Borjav? Aye. Chair Conley? Yes. That item passes. All right.

That brings us to number four on our agenda and the non-contested item. Clerk, will you please

call the agenda item. Item number four is PLM P 2024-00229. This is the 2030 general plan annual report

for the calendar year 2024. And as before, is there any objections to

waving staff presentation unless there's any specific questions from the Dias? None? Is there any

question or any public comments? We have received no public comment for this item. Thank you very

much. No public comments. Looking for a motion. Commissioner, this has no motion on this. This is

just an information. Just information. Thank you very much. All right. So we are

moving right along. Clerk, will you please call number five on the contested portion of the agenda?

Item number five is PLM P 2024-00109. This is a use permit, special development permit,

and design review. It's located at 5204 Marion Drive approximately 249 feet east of the intersection

of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Marion Drive in the Carmichael Old Footheal Farms community. And the

environmental document is a mitigated negative declaration. Thank you very much. And I believe we

have a staff presentation. Good evening, Chair Conley and Planning Commissioners. My name is

Christian Balthazar. I'm an associate planner with Planning Environmental Review and the planner

for this product. The subject site is located at 5204 Marion Drive, which is approximately 249

feet east of the intersection of Fair Oaks Boulevard and Marion Drive. The site itself is depicted

with the red crosshatch on the aerial imagery to the right and the site is currently vacant.

The subject site is zone residential density two acres or RD2 and surrounding uses are single

family residential zone RD2 to the north and to the east. Multi-tenant retail zone like commercial

or LC to the west and an apartment complex zone residential density 20 or RD20 to the south.

The subject site has had one previous planning entitlement on July 14th of 1997. The Planning

Commission denied a use permit known as the William Pond Cellular Facility Use Permit. This project

was proposed in the construction of a 78 foot tall monopole and was proposed to be located on the

southwestern portion of the lot. That denial was later appealed by the applicant in February 14th

of 2001. The board ended up up uphailing the Planning Commission denial of the project and it

was determined that the site was not suitable for a cellular communication facility in that

the site is located within a semi-rule residential lot. Visual impacts for adjacent properties

would not be able to be mitigated. There are commercial sites within the folks

both of our corridor that are considered to be more suitable and that there's potential that the

proposed cellular facility would have to be removed and or relocated if the property were to be

developed. Along with that staff also reviewed recent code enforcement violations and has

concluded that there are no active cases for the site. The entitlement package being requested

includes a use permit to allow wireless communication facility in the R2 RD2 zoning district,

a special development permit to allow the proposed project to deviate from maximum height standards

as well as separation from group one zone properties in this case residential zone properties

and a design review to determine substantial compliance with county design guidelines.

On screen now is the proposed site plan for the project. The project is proposing a new 74

foot tall wireless communication facility along with the wireless communication facility a 30 kilowatt

back-up diesel generator and accompanying a quimbing cabinet are also proposed for the site

that can be seen in this in large site plan here detailing the layout of the lease area.

The lease area itself is proposed to be 576 square feet and would be located near the southwest

corner of the property. The lease area would also be secured by a six foot tall wooden fence

and access would be taken from the north portion of the property through a new gravel driveway

that comes off of marion drive and that's shown right down here.

One of the requested deviations is separation from group one zone properties in this case the

residential zone property. As you can see from the site plan the proposal is meeting the

separation requirement to the north which is keeping a distance greater than the listed than the

distance listed in the zoning code of 222 feet and to the west where the properties zone to

light commercial and it is compliant on that side because there is no separation requirements for

commercial properties other than the 25 foot setback which is meeting. However to the south and

east the 222 foot separation standard was not able to be met giving a lot size limitations.

On screen now we have the proposed product elevations the applicant is proposing a monopine

stealth design and as previously mentioned the proposed wires communication facility would be

74 feet in height the site would also allow for co-location.

On screen now we have photo simulations taken from different viewpoints to the site. The top

images will show existing conditions without the wires communication facility and the bottom images

will show what the area would look like with the proposed wireless communication facility.

For this particular photo simulation you are looking south towards the site and this is

providing us an unobstructed view from Mary on Drive which would be the project's frontage.

The next few slides are going to show photo simulations taken from the nearby residential

neighborhood as well as views from nearby intersections. This particular simulation is looking

southeast at the project site from near the intersection of Mary on Drive and the Faroaks

Boulevard. This photo simulation is looking north at the project site. This was taken from

Ardenway along the frontage of the apartment complex that is located south of the proposed project site.

And lastly here we have a view looking east from the intersection of Wana Avenue to

Ann Fulsome or Faroaks Boulevard. There are additionally five more additional photo simulations that

were included in your hearing packets as attachment seven.

The applicant also provided three coverage maps, one of which is shown on screen now.

This first coverage map shows existing service in the project area with no tower.

Areas in green show reliable coverage both indoors and outdoors. Areas in yellow show reliable

coverage in transit, meaning reliable coverage for those driving through the area.

And areas in blue indicate reliable service only when outdoors and indicate less reliable indoor

coverage. The applicant's goal would be to reduce the areas in blue as much as possible.

Here we have the other two coverage maps that were provided. On the left side of your screen,

you have a coverage map that shows the proposed coverage if a tower were placed on this site

at the maximum allowed height by the zoning code of 55 feet. As you can see the area immediately

surrounding the project site would change to the green coverage zone. However, there would still be

some amount of areas nearby at the blue or would be considered the less reliable indoor coverage

zones. The third coverage map shown on the right side of your screen demonstrates proposed coverage

at the requested height of 74 feet. As you can see the areas in green would increase in the areas

in blue would substantially decrease. These maps were provided by the applicant as a justification

for the request to ask for deviations from maximum height standards. An initial study mitigated

negative declaration or MND was prepared for this project and was released for public review

on February 21st, 2025. The document discussed the topics that are listed on this slide and

concluded that the project would result in less than significant impacts with the implementation

of mitigation measures. The county did receive one comment letter from the Central Value

Regional Water Quality Control Board. The agency did not comment on the accuracy of the MND

but instead focused on potential need for permits. As the comments were not related to the

environmental documents adequacy the county noted but did not provide any comments or response

to comments. The Carmichael Oldfahill Farms Community Planning Advisory Councilor C-PAC

may on January 8th of this year and recommends the Planning Commission deny with the votes of

5.1 yes, one no, the requested entitlements. During the C-PAC meeting there were total of seven

members of the public that spoke in opposition to the proposed project concerns raised included

health and safety in terms of radio frequency emissions exposure, sensitive groups residing in

the surrounding area, over concentration of cell towers in the area, potential decrease in

property values, increased traffic and increased noise from the back of generator as well as

concerns that the site was not adequate for the proposed use. Along with that the C-PAC also voted

to pre-authorize a community of white interest appeal and the event that the proposed project is

approved by the commission tonight. In response to some of these comments the applicant did provide some

additional justification elements including comments that were related to the reduction of

property values near wireless communication facilities. The applicant provided a property

evaluation report which looked at property values from properties specifically in the Carmichael

community that are near wireless communication facilities. This is included as attachment 10

of your hearing packets. Additionally to that the applicant also provided an alternative site

analysis. This is included as attachment nine of your hearing packets but as a brief overview

the analysis states that total of 10 sites including this project site were selected as candidate

locations for either co-location on existing towers or for new tower locations. Of the 10 sites

five were considered for co-location on existing towers. Some of the reasoning for these sites

not being selected included owners were not interested in expanding the lease area or the sites were

not suitable for coverage needs. The remaining five sites were selected as candidates for new

towers. However for those sites were not selected because property owners expressed they were not

interested in leasing land. They're land to new contract. Some of that did include county park

sites as well. Additionally the design reviewed by the council or track on January 23rd of this year

and recommends the planning condition find the project and substantial compliance with design guidelines.

Following staff's review it was determined that the proposed project is consistent with the general

plan the Carmichael Oful Hill Farms Community Plan and the zoning code. The environmental document

concluded that there were no significant environmental concerns and the project was supported by DRAC.

Having said this planning environmental review staff recommends the planning commission take

the following actions. Determine the environmental analysis prepared pursuant to the California

Environmental Quality Act is adequate and complete. Adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Approved the use permit and special development permit subject to findings and conditions and

find the project is in substantial compliance with design guidelines also subject to those findings

and conditions. With this I'll conclude my presentation. I am available to answer any questions. We do

also have the applicant team and the owner available to answer any questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from the Dias?

Pleasure. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Maltzart. We really appreciate the

presentation. You mentioned a couple things that were brought up as concerns at the CPAC meeting,

one of which was the over-concentration of cell towers in the area. By any chance do you have a map

or some sort of analysis that would show about how many of these towers are within an existing

radius and then the second thing would be how many of these towers are already above the

55 feet limit that we currently have in county ordinance.

Yeah, so unfortunately I don't have a map that shows the cell towers that are currently in the

area. I do believe the FCC has a tool that will show us where tower placements are but doesn't

necessarily get into the specifics of the height of the towers. So we don't have that data

really available for the alternative site analysis. It includes some site maps that included some

of the nearby towers that they tried to reach out to to proper new owners to co-locate on

and does have some information regarding what type of facilities on site. So we do have that

available for you tonight. Okay, thank you. Just another follow-up question. Since the rejection of

the, I would assume that the planning commission and the board back in 2001, you know a couple of

things that your report mentioned about perhaps identifying a busier corridor as a substitute

location for a proposed tower, what has changed since then that our county ordinance evolved,

where we able to look at alternative sites separate from what was provided by the applicant

analysis. Yeah, so in terms of your initial portion of the question about the reasoning or

justification for the now initially, that was in 1997 and subsequently 2001. Since at that time

there was no requirement of applicants to provide supplemental analysis of or supplemental material

for justification to certain deviations requested. About a year ago, we actually introduced a

supplemental, a wireless communication supplemental application that requires additional materials

be provided to staff, including the alternative site analysis, a structural analysis report

for the structural integrity of the proposed tower along with the coverage map requirements.

So, you know, one at proposed high existing high and then at allowed height. So that is the

extent of what we would ask for and then for the applicant. We wouldn't request additional

analysis from that and the to answer the second part of the question, we didn't analyze sites

ourselves for alternative locations. Thank you. And then just one more question, sir. Thank you.

When an applicant comes in for an application or an initial discussion, have we ever bring up

a conversation about co-locating for future planning purposes? So if I'm reading the documents

correctly here, I believe it's AT&T who might be providing support for this application.

Has there been any thoughts or at least consideration or conversations about potentially

including other carriers so that we may not have to revisit this kind of challenge together

in the future if that's possible? Sorry, just for clarification. The option of co-location on this

proposed tower? Yes. So I can let the applicant speak a little more to that, but there is the

ability that if approved the tower would allow additional co-location of other carriers as needed.

Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Any questions? We're here.

I've got a few questions. So I'm looking at the 2001

denial that was upheld. And part of the arguments were that there's a potential if and when the

undeveloped residential property were to be developed, that the proposed cellular facility would

have to somehow impede the visual plane. And so I'm just trying to get a sense as I understand it,

looking at the map that we still have undeveloped parcel there. Yeah. I'm not sure if we can bring

up the site plan again, but while that's being worked on in 1997 and then in 2001, there were

different development standards that were in play in terms of setback requirements for single-family

properties since then they have been updated for a new version, post 2015 of the zoning code,

which does require lesser setbacks for like side yard requirements for single-family homes.

I did review the site itself and it would be there would be feasible to have a single-family

home on site without having to relocate or remove the tower where it's currently proposed.

And that would be along this area to the essentially the driveway cuts into here. So the

developer area would remain along that north portion of the parcel. The house could sit

to face off of Marion or could face off of the existing or the proposed private drive.

Okay. And so in your summary, you would highlight alternate sites. As I read through the analysis,

one of those was County Park, but I was curious what the communication was between

the consideration of that particular site as an alternative.

Yeah. So the the alternative site analysis towards the end also has some correspondence,

some email correspondence that the applicant had with County Park staff regarding some of those

sites that were pointed out. Essentially on County land that is owned by parks, the applicant needs

to reach out to the the real estate section or portion of the of the park district. And then the board,

the park district's board would also have to vote on approving to enter into a lease agreement

with cell towers. My understanding is that there was a site that's shown on the alternative

site analysis near the trail. I think it was proposing a full water tower. That site was proposed.

There's conversations that the applicant had there. It essentially died off before getting approved

by the park district's board and subsequently the applicant pulled the application from planning.

So it never made it to like a final determination. Okay. Yeah. Because as I understand at this

particular site that's being proposed, there's going to be potential residential development

in unforeseen, but there's there's in the at least the ability for that. There's going to be a

removal of a vallioctree and I believe up to three potentially three more trees for the preparation

of that land and the grading of it. And I'm just trying to bridge this gap of

this being the ideal site given its location and proximity to other residential homes.

Yeah. I can let the applicant speak a little more to that. I do want to know two points to that

comment. The property owner of this subject parcel also owns the parcel directly to the east

and in conversations that staff has had with the property owner and the applicant team.

The property owner doesn't have any immediate plans to develop this site. Staff doesn't understand

that in the future that site could be sold and it could be developed. But as of current understanding

is that the owner just not have any plans to currently develop it. You mentioned that the roadway

would be removing some of the trees on site. Initially this when this project came through the gravel

driveway was proposed to essentially maneuver around some of these trees. However,

a segmentifier when reviewing their plans required a 25 foot wide road that increasing with

road led to the need to remove some of the trees in order to have proper access while also

being be centrusive to the site. Okay. And then there was a comment about backup generator

noise pollution, decibel levels. Was there any monitoring or study of that?

Because I realized that they're tested once a month for an hour but I'm just kind of curious

with the and I know they're enclosing a cabinet and so forth but I'm just curious if we had

done some studies on that. Yeah. I can let Julie speak to it before that though. I do want to

note that the same comment also came up at the CPAC. Okay. The applicant did state that the backup

generator would be housed behind the six foot fence so that would mitigate some of the sound

and they only plan I believe to run it once a month for I believe the duration was one or two hours

but again I can let him correct me if that's incorrect and they did note that the type of generator

that's being used was specifically producing lower levels of sound and I can let Julie fill in

anything else. Thanks Christian. Julie Newton environmental coordinator with planning. So as

it relates to your question with the backup generator the county's noise ordinance does exempt

facilities that are used for backup and emergency purposes that being said we did also

take a look at typical noise levels for these generators and there's some information included in

our mitigated negative declaration. Given the position of the tower from the nearest residential

property you have about 125 feet of separation from that backyard sensitive area which we would

expect to be enough distance to attenuate that noise and then to the property to the south which is

the higher density residential area sensitive noise areas as our policies to find them are more of

those interior areas to those buildings so we would expect that those buildings would block some

of that noise. Got it. All right thank you. Any other questions from the Dias? No? Staff thank you

very much. We'll move to public testimony. Or I'm sorry thank you very much. We're now

to sequence is the applicant here would like to provide some remarks. We're going to swear you in.

Please raise your right hand and the appropriate response is I do. Do you swear that the testimony that

you are about to give is to the board is the truth so help you God. I do. Thank you.

Good evening commissioners, staff and residents of Sacramento County. My name is Nick Tagus and I'm

here tonight representing AT&T. Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to speak tonight.

We do agree with staff's recommendation that the project is consistent with county's development

code and we agree with their findings that the commission should approve the project. I'm here to

answer any questions that you have tonight specifically related to the alternative site analysis,

the location, the history of this project. This has been a seven year project analyzing nine

different properties in this area including government owned properties including other commercial

properties and other private properties. We heard the concerns from the community at the CPAC.

We understand those concerns. We have mitigated those concerns to the greatest extent possible.

There are only two properties where this tower encroaches on that 165 to 200 foot distance and both

of those property owners are here tonight in support of the project. One of them is the property

owner who AT&T is leasing space from Mr. Jubay. He owns the parcel just to the east so when we're

talking 125 feet away that is the private property owner who signed a lease with AT&T. The second

private property is the apartment complex just to the south. That private property owner is here

tonight also in support of the project. Also if we were to have pushed this project as close as we

could to the north and further away from the west we would be closer to the residential parcels and

the community members tonight who are opposed to this site. With that I'll answer any questions

that any of you may have. Any questions from the dice?

To follow up on my colleagues point if you could maybe talk about the reasons why the

alternative location being the government property the park. Sure did not work.

Yes so there was actually three county owned properties four that we attempted to work with the

county through the real estate department and parks. So let's go back all the way to 2017. AT&T

proposed a cell tower adjacent to the old sewage treatment plant along Jedadaya Trail along the

American River. It's adjacent also to the Sacramento County Sheriff's Training Facility.

So AT&T designed a wooden water tank to be in sort of in line with the aesthetics of that area.

The lease agreement was presented to the board of supervisors at a public hearing similar to

this hearing. There were a handful of residents whose properties abut the American river and they

were very adamantly opposed to it for a lot of the same reasons we have tonight concerns about

health impacts. Concerns about property values. Concerns that it just wasn't in the right location

so go somewhere else. It was established the need that it's as you can see by the propagation

maps. There is the need. Every time we move it to a new location everyone is in agreement.

There is no AT&T service but we just don't want it here so go somewhere else. So in that case

the board of supervisors decided not to sign the lease. So then we pivoted over the course of the

next five or six years. Before we were able to work out a lease agreement with Mr. Drew Bay

we approached again the parks department through the real estate division who is where you have to go

first. They set up meetings with the parks department to be out. I forget the name of the park but

again it is along the American river and it is east of Sheffield Park. We asked for a location

to be proposed as Sheffield Park and parks said no so we didn't even get a meeting. We also then

proposed it in the park along the American river and again we proposed it in the already developed

area in the parking lot and again we would have proposed either a foe tree or a water tank. We had a

brief five minute meeting before the parks made it abundantly clear they do not want to have a

cell tower in their park. So we went back to the drawing board. We approached the owner of

railies to be on their rooftop because that is a steel and metal roof that can hold the weight of

equipment. We reached out several times and we also used AT&T's external affairs in their

corporate office to reach out and we got no response. We then analyzed rooftops along that area

of fair oaks and unfortunately all of those commercial properties rooftops are single stories.

They are made of old wood stick buildings not only are they not tall enough to allow for the

antennas to see out because it is in effect it is just a flashlight. It needs to see if it can't see

then it can't transmit data to your phone. None of those parcels or properties met those standards.

We then reached out to the Drew Bay family, presented them a proposal. They said yes and from

2017 until today here we are today. At the CPAC meeting it was unanimously understood by all

parties that there is no service here for AT&T's customers in this area. We had a resident of the

community who said she does have AT&T service and it is horrible and that she was going to decide to

change carriers. We had another comment that we have cell service here just not with AT&T so

just don't let AT&T compete in the market. Those were some of the comments we we we fielded

among others again concerns of property values, health impacts. So we put together those very

robust reports. One you have the FCC's third parties engineering stamped document showing the

amount of eME exposure that everyone is getting right now with their cell phone on them in near

pocket is greater than standing at the base of the tower by a factor of 10 if not more.

We also put together a very robust property value assessment just for car Michael. Another concern is

property values go down. So what we did is we took several neighborhoods, rural residential

neighborhoods. We then put a boundary of 500 feet radius within a cell tower. We provided that

to the commission as well as to the CPAC and what we saw was property values actually increased

over a 10 year period of time higher than the median house in car Michael. Now why is that?

It's not because the cell tower increased the value. It's because the rural residential parcels

increase in value higher than more densely populated commercial areas of residential parcels.

What it didn't show is that it decreased values. Now we have surveys that brokers will produce saying

we we pulled people. We can we can write a survey and we can write it in a way and you can use

rhetoric. You can also use a motion to say a survey says but when you take a look at the empirical

raw data it just doesn't pan out. So we found this location. We put it in the very back corner.

The reason for the denial in 2001 was because it was just a steel pole a monopulse to

can straight up into the sky. Once that was denied they went across the street and they built it at

that shopping center. Now one of the questions the vice chair had is how many towers are in this

area because the concern of too many towers. That's the tower that was built. That was the tower

that we worked over a year on to get on for AT&T. We even got a zoning approval but the you can't

just add 20 feet to that pole and not remove the pole and create a new foundation. That's a smaller

pole that wasn't designed for four carriers at that height. Your question how tall is that tower?

It is already above 55 feet. Perhaps the zoning standard for that commercial property allows for

a taller than 55 if it's a class two. I don't know that we'd have to defer to staff. Why was that

tower rejected? They rejected us. The tower company didn't reject us. The private property

owner said we will not lease any more ground space behind our shopping center or in the shopping

center for a larger foundation and a ground lease area for AT&T. Unfortunately we can't force

a private property owner to take their property. That is with the hands of county and local officials

through other means and acts. Is this tower designed to be co-locatable? I believe the vice chair

asked yes it is. AT&T as the representative of AT&T they asked us to go in at 75 feet.

We are prepared tonight to lower that down to 55 feet so that we're not seeking a deviation to

the height only to the two parcels which both owners are here tonight in support of the project.

And about co-location if we're at 75 feet you can have three carriers on there. At 55 feet you

might get one more carrier. So the three carriers across the street are Verizon, T-Mobile and Dish.

If they would like to move themselves off of that tower and be on this tower they would be

free to do so but probably only one of the towers at 55 feet.

The chair you had a question about the denial back in 2001. I think we sort of hinted at that or

answered that about the status of the undeveloped parcel. We have our property owner here tonight.

He's more than willing to talk to you about that. We addressed the alternate sites with the county

park and the communications that I personally had with AT&T and the county. And again the removal

of those value oaks we don't want to do that. It was Metro Fire who said you have to have an even

larger road than a 12 foot wide. So 12 feet is enough for one fire truck but they want to have

two fire trucks to be able to pass through a once. So in this case AT&T is obligated and is

willing to not only replace those but remove some and relocate some on the property as a way

to mitigating having to just cut them down. And they've already agreed to do that with the help of

a third party arborist. And then again the generator noise once a month for one hour between Monday and

Friday for between the hours of eight and five. Just to ensure that as a backup 911 service if

power goes out in that area, Carmichael the residents first responders. You know students go

into school they will not lose connectivity or service. So I apologize for being so long winded.

I just I want to impress upon the community. Carmichael is growing more families more houses more

businesses and that means the need for connectivity and cell phones. I'm not sure how many people in this

room would raise their hand right now if they have a landline and also raise your hand if you have

yourself on on you tonight. It is a need and every time we come in front of this commission it's

we want the need we see the need just not here and we believe we found the least intrusive most

viable location. So thank you for that. Thank you very much. Any questions additional questions from

the Dias for the applicant. Thank you thank you for notating our questions and kind of answering

them piece by piece. I just want to go back to your statement. If needed you and your applicants or

the applicant teams prepared to lower it down to 55 feet if that is amenable to the Dias. That's

correct by share understood. And then and again just to make sure I was taking correct notes but

if we were to maintain it at 74 feet which is what's being requested then you believe that

the technology would allow for at least two or three other carriers on top of 18 for the future to

co-lake it. On top or below correct. Understood. Thank you. Yes.

I have a follow up for staff please. I think that does it for the questions. Thank you very

much. Appreciate it. Thank you and if there's any other questions after this I'd be more willing to

come back up and address those. Appreciate that. Thank you. Now we're going to who's here in the public

that wants to provide comment. Looks like we have quite a handful. Maybe we can provide an oath

at once in mass. Absolutely. All right. So if you're prepared to testify if you wouldn't mind standing

up all at once. Clerk. Please raise your right hand and the appropriate response is I do.

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this board is the truth so help you got?

Thank you very much. I'll close one in. All right. I do not have a stack. Oh yeah there we go.

All right. I'm going to do my best to pronounce your name so please forgive me if I mispronounce them

and then we'll do them two at a time one testifying and then the one up on deck. That'll be right

behind them. Okay. Jerry Compo. You're up and Mary Compo. On deck. Or side by side.

My name is Jerry Compo and I yield my time to the lovely lady from Mary on. All right. And

just before you start and I apologize for interrupting you. We're going to do two minutes. All right.

I like it for. Thank you. Unfortunately or maybe fortunately I lived on Mary on Drive in 1997 and you've

all taken my speech tonight because I was going to say that the reason you denied it in

2000 and 1997 and the reason you denied the appeal are the same reasons that we're here tonight.

It is a site that is located within a large semi-rural residential portion of Carmichael. Nothing

has changed. Visual impacts for the adjacent apartment complex and single family residences

cannot be adequately mitigated. That is true again. Nothing has changed. It's the same tenants

that are there and most of my neighbors have been there for 30 years plus as well. There's

potential to be developed that there would be a problem. You know what? That still exists. Nothing

has changed. I want to quote the page of AT&T's person that is representing them. It says AT&D has

done the has chosen the least uptrusive visible site. I want you to know that every single site

said no back in 2019 or 2097 and they're saying no again. It was our suggestion that located at

the four points back in the day and that's what happened and then you can now go to four points and see

how many panels are up there. He's saying co-location is the design. How many panels will that

meet are going to be on our property. I had a son that was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 1985

and the oncologist said to me do not allow your child to be near power lines. That's power lines.

There are nothing in comparison to a 5G network. You can turn off your phone. You can't turn off the

cell tower. So I respectfully ask you to please say no and I wanted to just say a couple other

things is that firefighters do not have them on their fire stations because they said it's dangerous

and it's a fire hazard. Firemen said no. The PTA said no. No one your children or churches.

Also many communities in California have said greater setbacks. Some of them are saying one quarter

mile from the residential site. That includes Los Alitos, Petaluma, Mill Valley, Malibu, Santa

Barbara, Nevada, cities, Susoon, Calabasas, San Mateo, Lakewood, Sonoma, Subhastival, San Rafael,

Ross Valley, Incinita, Fairfax, Palo Alto, Walnett City, and San Diego County. Over 600 communities

alone in Italy have said no. Do not put them on residential sites. So in honor of my son,

I am saying please, please do not have history repeat itself and have another child that lives

on that street get a brain tumor. I yield my time. Thank you. May I say one thing? Absolutely please.

I have, during this time with my son, I spend thousands of dollars to put the wires underground

to limit the contamination to that child. I did it not because I wanted to donate thousands of

dollars for that. We need to put health over profit. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time.

We have Joan Hammond speaking and then Carlos Kosolovsky on deck.

Hello. I would like to see my time to my neighbor, Carlos. Okay. Kosolovsky.

I have a document here with the neighbor's sign petition. Did you get copies of that? It was submitted.

I believe it was good. Hi, my name is Carlos Kosolovsky and I live literally 400 feet from

this property. Just three houses away. Mary on drive is a very unique little tiny horseshoe,

which means that almost every house here is within 400 to 500 feet, maybe six and a feet of this tower.

The tobacco industry has told us in the past that it was okay to smoke, it was not a health hazard.

The alcohol industry said the same thing. Now the airwaves are being inundated with radiation and

we live literally in my bedroom faces this tower. I sleep, I live there. One favorite thing that my

wife and I have is sitting in the front porch and just looking at the neighbor's and the kids playing

in the front yard. I'm concerned. I'm concerned about sitting in my front yard under the tower,

just 400 feet from my front porch. There are families, one particular family with Jan Schillen,

who is not able to come because of spring break, but they sign this paper and they are opposing

the tower. There are three new families with children in the neighborhood and all of them are

very concerned about their children. Not only we have 80 and T there, immediate radiation to us,

it will co-locate with someone else. Will the radiation double or triple? We don't know that.

Anyway, the county has said no. The county needs money. We are worried about our money, we're worried

about our property values. I know that the gentleman said that in his survey property values increase

near the tower. Well, I'm a realtor 40 years. That's my profession. I can tell you properties

do not increase value because it is a self-taware nearby. Anyway, I yield my time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have Michelle Kuzlowski and Dr. Wynn on deck.

Hello, my name is Michelle Kuzlowski. Thank you for this opportunity to hear us tonight.

My family and I live on Mary and Drive. We have since 1996. In 1997, the homeowners of Mary

and Drive stood here and fought tooth and nail to keep another commercial conglomerate like the one

before us from encroaching on our residential neighborhood. We were fortunate then to have local

government on our side and Sprint was denied access and I believe it was Roger Nilo that turned to

them and said never bother these people again. Well, here we are, yet another commercial cell company

who sold something they can't provide. They're trying to pay their way into our neighborhood.

Almost 30 years later, I still feel the same about our home. It's a safety net from the crazy

insane world we live in. A place for our kids and our grandchildren to gather into play.

It doesn't matter if our streets are beautiful. It is though. It doesn't matter if our homes were

50,000 or 2 million because everybody deserves to feel safe in their home. We stand here and we

can have a battle of data and surveys and who's got what. But for the sake of argument, let's land

on potential health risks. Would any one of us knowingly put ourselves or our loved ones in

potential danger? Mr. Tyga said something at the CPAC meeting that should make everyone in this room

pause. He said you're fine 50 feet under the cell tower. It's when you go higher that you can

start to get headaches and feel nauseous. I wasn't sure if I heard correctly. So I waited till

we got outside and asked everyone else and they said, yep, I know you're held to FCC regulations.

I also know you could find criteria to battle this proposal. Unfortunately cell towers aren't going

anywhere. We know that. But please help us keep them away from our children and our grandchildren

where they play and lay their heads at night. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hello committee. My name is Dr. Hong Trout Wen and my business is just as 5150,

Phaleau's Boliva and it's just literally around 50 feet from where the cell tower is and I'm very

advocate about health where all my clients come in is because they have health issue, anxiety,

depression and one they come into my office even before this planning proposed. I always have

a invest in my tools and equipment just to protect other Wi-Fi's and even I have their cell phone

put away and get the treatments for them to leave. But with this all this health concern and all my

tenants right behind there, everyone is all opposed to these projects because right behind our

parking lot is where we take breaks, we go outside and we have all the business, they take lunch

or take a walk around the neighborhood or just ride across that empty building the lot right there.

But imagine if you have that generator and the tower right there and everyone's when they have

lunch break or they come out there they even dress in the car it's just right behind just maybe

just 30-40 feet. It's not even a lot of one feet and I'm just very concerned about all the health

issues but beside that it's also affecting my business because like I said all my patients come

in because they want to look in for some alternative treatments and if they see that tower right there

they know that they don't want to and I already talked to all the business and all those people that

they don't want to come to and it can also affect my business there and I might even have to

relocate and it's all that's mean it's affecting financially that's just like one thing but also

house the communities at a host and I think as a healthcare practitioner I feel responsible for

advocating for the health and the safety of my clients and the community. Thank you. Thank you very

much. We have Jeffrey Weedeman and Joseph Covell on deck. Good evening gentlemen. I've lived here

since 1988-1988. It's the first time I've been in this building. It's beautiful.

I am a retired Air Force General Officer. I spent 31 years in the Air Force so I know government.

I'm a retired orthopedic hand surgeon having done that for 50 years so I know medicine

and I'm just a person so I know public perception and I've been through the COVID exercise and I understand

what transparency is and is not. I live at 52-52 Marriott and Drive with my wife. My two kids have

moved on. Got two dogs. We moved there in 88 and I was in private practice after leaving Travis

Air Force Base and I was required to be on call for emergencies in the hospital. Back in those days

we had beepers. You remember those perhaps. I don't know who the carrier was at that time but they

worked fine. Cellular one came and I ended up getting my first cell phone with them. It's about

this long. It worked well but for some reason I ended up going to AT&T. AT&T worked great on my cell

phone because as a Mac user somehow the Mac guys made it so that we could have a micro cell

that we purchased for about 100 bucks and just plugged it into our house and it made up for the

deficit that existed. I called AT&T multiple times to ask them if they had any plans to increase

their capability and they always told me that they did not. Ultimately with one of the Mac OS

versions I'm not going to get two more minutes for my wife. If she's yielding it to you.

Thank you. Absolutely. That micro cell stopped working and I struggled with that issue.

And so what I ultimately did I had land lines for AT&T which compensated relatively well

until I finally decided this is nuts and in 2023 I left AT&T and I went to

T-Mobile with whom I've been extremely happy. So we are on the verge of selling our house within

the next five years so we may be the first ones off the street and my concern is property values.

It's not necessarily the science since the public has lost so much belief in science as the

government has pushed it with respect to the COVID but that translates over to all of science as a

physician I've really become aware of how much people don't trust science and don't really know

what it is anymore. So I think what this whole episode boils down to is who is your constituency?

Is it AT&T or is it the constituents who live here? Life is not a drug deficiency dessert,

disease and not having AT&T as your cell carrier is not the end of life. There are plenty of other

options and the only reason AT&T wants you to approve this cell tower is so people won't leave

them like I did or so they will sign up with them initially like I did and it only seems to me

that with enough carriers the three that are there what more do you need to do? Thank you sir.

Thank you. Chairpersons and staff and others my name is Joseph Coville and I have been attending Dr.

Nigel's therapy. She's got me back walking and as you can see I'm standing here at 92 and I think

she's extended my life. I appreciate her a lot. I have gone to different places when they have reduced

price property to buy. There's a cell tower I won't buy because I believe in science and I know

what that'll do. I know wish that. So I know that should a cell tower be put in that area I would

have to lose my doctor. That would be detriment to my health. I know it would cost me logistically

to get there but also for her service but I wouldn't be able to attend her clinic.

I thank you for hearing me. I appreciate and I do hope that you won't know. Thank you. Thank you.

We have Courtney Williams and Paul Drobery on deck.

Hi everyone. I didn't prepare speech because again I wasn't I'm like literally days away from

giving labor. So hopefully I was praying that I didn't go into labor in here. So my name is

Courtney Williams. I reside at 5269 Marionne Drive. I bought in the neighborhood about five years ago

so that my children could attend Sacramento Country Day. We absolutely love the neighborhood

even where the cell towers are proposed. My family and I would take walks around the block. We

enjoy the llamas and just the neighborhood in general. I am opposed to having the cell towers

built just because I'm extending my family. There are a lot of families on our block that are

growing and we have small children and although we you know there's it's scientifically proved that

you know so many other countries and neighborhoods if they're saying no we shouldn't be forced to live

with you know like cell towers especially 5G network that's a big thing. It's also in the

I've been looking up journals and things like that since you know noticing the proposal over the

past like you know a few months of walking there more and more and it's just you know there's

too many known increased health health risks that are you know that really target like children

and elderly and it just wouldn't be safe our neighborhood. So that's kind of all I have.

Thank you very much. Yes and glad I didn't go into labor.

Paul. I'm Paul Drew Bay. I'm the property owner. So I live next door at 5028 Marrione Drive

and it's a little odd to hear that this is a vacant lot because it's always just been my grandparents

house and now my house. So I have the biggest yard on the street. It's been that way since they bought

it in 1950 and I bought it in 2012. I live there with my wife and two kids and it's not for sale.

I'm not selling. This is the one thing that I know of that would be some sort of other use besides

pasture on my property that would still allow me to graze alpacas not llamas and I also just want

to say that you know I think because people don't move very often on the street you know I know my

neighbors I care deeply about them they're the kind of people that you know pick up trash on their

daily walks they gently tuck your dog inside your front door if they get out in the yard thanks Carlos

and the only person that remembered my wedding anniversary including me was my neighbor across the

street sent me a card I share this because it gives context to the concerns that I had when I first

met with AT&T and discussed this proposal. It's important to me to address the issues that were raised

in 1997 when my grandpa or I guess both of my grandparents were alive then said yes to this proposal.

I think we can agree that AT&T has tried very hard to address some of the concerns that were raised.

Their proposal disguises the tower as a tree instead of a bear pole previously proposed they've

been creative in figuring out a way to place the towers far away from the residential neighborhood

and as close to the commercial properties as possible as per my request. In the last meeting they

offered to submit a landscape plan to add some greenery upon upon request and I feel they made

every effort to make this proposal work. I don't know that this is the ideal location but I don't

think that we'd be standing here if the perfect location existed and this might be as good as it

gets if that's the case then I support the project. Thank you very much.

I see Hesler and Audrey Bollinger on deck.

And those are the two last unless there's any remaining members of the public. Okay.

Thank you very much. I very interested in what everyone has to say today and I appreciate the

fact that we live in a democracy and we can have different opinions and discuss them. My name is

Bruce Hester. I've lived in Sacramento for 50 years. Retired commercial real estate broker actually

who specializes in apartments for 35 years. So I've seen a lot of apartments being sold and I've

seen a lot of real estate and of value going up in this county and for the last 40 years and I have

never seen anything that had to do with a tower that affected the property value of real estate

in Sacramento. It's going up because of the fact the population has grown it's grown.

But I do know that I live in a neighborhood not too far away called Will Hagen estates and I have

no cell phone service I have to walk outside most of the time because I'm not having a cell tower

with Verizon and there's everybody in our neighborhood is the same way and they all say we need a

cell phone tower. Okay so they have Verizon has cell phone here because of the fact they have a

tower across the street but I also have an apartment complex that has about 100 people that live

there and they complain about the fact that they don't have cell phone reception and there's

100 people that live over 100 people that live in that apartment complex and they don't have the

financial ability to say I'll change to another plan because it's not AT&T. So you're dealing with

some people, a good group of people here today but I'm also dealing with a group of people too

are affected by the fact that they don't have any good reception and as far as it being I've

never heard anything that said it's detrimental to the welfare of anyone. I've never heard that. I

know that talking about the fact that a cell phone is 10 times more radio has more cell phone

problems than it does if you have a tower and all of us have micro waves and micro waves don't have

a problem either. All right well thank you very much. Thank you. Hi I'm Audrey Bollinger and I

appreciate being able to speak here today and I appreciate your questions that you had for them.

I was the one who said I have AT&T and if my cell phone service does not work very well but what I

ended up doing after our last meeting was putting a booster on my house and I'm fine now so I

just keep AT&T. I'm I think the newest resident on the street because the other the family that

lived there for like 40 years passed one of them passed away and I don't think I would have bought

that house if it had a cell tower there I can assure you that because I'm very health and

conscientious and these people I mean they said 30 years ago it wasn't suitable all of these

saying people are still living there and I don't see how it could be suitable at this point I'm

strongly opposed to it. Another thing is I know a lot of these things are going by FCC guidelines

and a lot of my relatives live in Europe and the I don't know why the FCC ignores so many of the

studies and whatnot that have been put out but apparently here they say our radio frequency

is safe at 100 times greater than in a lot of the European countries and even Russia and China so

I think in the future if they'll probably more will be revealed about this is not exactly safe

and I think the residential property it should be residential I think there's better use for

his property and I know I offered to buy his lot before but he wouldn't sell it to me so anyway

thank you. Thank you very much all right are there any other members of the public that would

like to testify no all right we're going to invite the applicant back to respond provide any

rebuttal if you so choose thank you again Nick Tagus on behalf of AT&T I think we've heard loud and clear

from the community their biggest concerns our health concerns you know despite 30 40 years now

of peer-reviewed data despite the fact that federal rules obligate local communities if as long

as it's passing federal standards which by the way correction of the record the FCC Asia Europe

all use the same standards across the board just so we're clear on that but again I want to stay

away from that again we this is about consistency with the code does this parcel allow for cell towers

yes consistency with the code setbacks yes with the exception of two parcels the actual property

owner and then the apartment complex but behind it is it mitigating aesthetics yes it's a tree

it's not a steel pole AT&T has offered to even lower it to be even more hidden is it closer to

commercial properties than residential yes have we tried every other location including county

properties to show a robust effort at an alternative analysis yes again this is about the growth of

car Michael and not being left behind because we are concerned about something that peer-reviewed

science not web journals not online blogs peer-reviewed science years of going back and reanalyzing again

I'll defer to county council but what we're talking about right now in terms of denying this project

is not really at the per view of the commission but that's not I'm not trying to bully anyone I'm

just I'm showing that AT&T over the last seven eight years has tried to find a location this is the

last best location and you can get done everything they can to mitigate location and aesthetics

and if any of you have any final questions for me I'd be more than happy to answer those based on

some of the input you received tonight from the community thank you very much

all right we'll open up for deliberation

who would like to start us off if I could ask perhaps a question of staff

two questions and Mr Smith maybe this is for you maybe this is really a parks question

maybe this is for you Bill but the applicant alluded to conversations with park staff

and we're told no I guess my question is is where does parks authority lie in their ability to

kind of prevent that land use conversation from coming forward is that does that lie at the park

staff level or is that a planning commission planning director decision I will start and maybe

Bill you can add on so the the sites at least relative to county regional parks that are in the

alternative sites analysis were also within the American River Parkway which is subject to

governance under the American River Parkway plan which is not just a county adopted plan but a

state adopted plan it took state legislative action so presumably county park staff in looking at

those sites in the context of a proposed cell tower we're doing so under the auspices of that

American River Parkway plan and any local area plan within the parkway specified in that plan

so staff's obligation is to implement that plan otherwise what are we here for Bill do you

anything to add maybe just that I mean if the parks department were to want to go ahead with

the proposal it would come through planning commission and potentially the board

and the board would have to approve a lease for the facility but as far as staff telling the applicant

no we're not interested staff can do that it's not until it gets approved that the board has to

take take that action

okay so maybe on that if we could kind of make it note I'd maybe like a little additional clarity as to

possibly I'm not saying that this is the case but possibly some of those sites would be ones that

this body might consider a better alternative and maybe our ability to have those conversation I

guess is the question that I'm really asking is how did those come forward and what are those

triggers as implementing the plan and that was adopted by the state and that particular request

fell just outside of the county state adopted plan and therefore the decision was relatively

easy or this was kind of a judgment call so if we you know maybe circle back on on that one

and then I think a question and an observation is we seem this body seems to be regularly put into

this position in part due to a lack of ability to co-locate and in this case the applicant stated

that an existing cell tower location did not want to expand that footprint to allow for the necessary

poll and its foundation within their site and so I guess my question is is you know do we have

or can we require mechanism that maybe moving forward that would require the entitlement

or the approval sought to have at least a plan for that larger foundation so that they can't say no

I'm not going to come back and improve it because I don't want to expand my location can we

require them to plan for the larger footprint that would permit the higher tower that would

facilitate co-location because I'm assuming we don't have any recourse of going back to that

landholder and say no you you have to allow your yeah no commissioner if I may please

so since 2001 county standards have been updated throughout the years and so to have

cell tower technology what you're asking for though is to have a condition on the private property

owner and not the tower company in this case the private property owner is limited with space

both with their existing tenants in the interior of those buildings as well as in that back parking

lot which is an emergency egress and ingress and they were just not willing to give up any further

ground space to the tower company the tower company has no real estate rights to take that land

without permission from the private property owner but to address your point today if you see a

tower application in front of you by the code it is encouraged both by the code but also due to

market pressures financial they want to make these towers co-locatable so ahead of time

as we're talking today these towers the foundations are quite substantial so that they can be

co-locatable but we're talking about a tower 1997 2001 different technologies 30 years ago

yeah appreciate that I guess you know really what I'm saying is we should be planning for

the ability to co-locate whether they intend to at the present moment right and in that case they

win as far as they could they have three carriers on that tower and in order to extend the height

of that tower to allow for that fourth carrier you have to remove that tower replace it with a larger

tower because that tower was originally only designed for sprint then they put a couple of

modifications to it to allow the next carrier and then that third carrier and now that foundation

is not large enough to sustain a fourth carrier and an additional height on that tower it's an

unfortunate reality that we're in the private property owner just was not in a position to give

up extra ground space to the tower owner of that company understood I guess for me moving forward

sites like that without the ability to have maximum co-location perhaps maybe aren't good sites

Commissioner and again this site is designed for that the foundation as well as the tower is

designed for up to three carriers at the proposed height of 74 feet 75 feet with the 55 feet it's

the two carrier site thank you yes commissioner Devlin if I may add a bit more from staff's

perspective this is something that not just your commission has been dealing with but also the

board as some of these proceed on to the board depending on the circumstances that we have received

in addition to your feedback as the commission we have received similar feedback from the board

to on a going forward basis look at amending our zoning code to from a policy perspective to

more strongly encourage the co-location that you're speaking of staff recently did a pretty

comprehensive valuation of a lot of jurisdictions in California what they require encourage so we're

beginning that process right now thank you and I guess to that point to the extent that we could

look at the requirements of co-location and you know I dare say kind of like

a by-right application maybe you know subsequent to the approval of this body and obviously the board of

supervisors but you know that private landholder that private carrier having that ability to say no

seems to be part of the challenge of addressing cell coverage across the county

I'm not too sure if I have another question with the applicant but are we now moving to deliberations or

okay well thank thank you so I don't want to make you stay in there but we're

pretty really appreciate you. Chair's discretion if you want to allow the applicant to

come back or stay up there and answer questions. If you want to stay and if there's other

during your deliberations there's some questions that pop up I don't want you to go back and

force so out of convenience please feel free to stay there. Yeah if you're getting my steps in so

it's good thank you appreciate it. Quite a number of cities in the Bay Area have looked into small

cell towers as an alternative to larger monopole towers you know putting them on top of existing

poles street lights traffic lights things like that is that something that your organization or perhaps

folks in your industry have looked at as an alternative way of perhaps entering the services

business without having to create an alternative larger tower so to speak. Yes and one of the

downsides to that is it in this specific area the car Michael region that has this poor coverage

has a great deal of topography and trees that get in the way and it is not physically feasible

to line the entire street of Carmichael with small cells throughout that area there's not

enough poles to make make that coverage what it is for both indoor outdoor and in transit.

Okay thank you. Yes. I think if you have one quick question to the staff or the council

if we were to again I'm not saying that we're voting to deny but if we were to deny the project what

in what grounds are we able to do this it's the FCC essentially prohibits the local local counties

and organizations like ours to deny the project unless we meet a certain finding and I'm oh I just

wasn't looking at you. Right council Burke what would that be? To answer your earlier question this

is one of the things that has changed in the last 28 years and that is well FCC orders and

regulations have narrowed the scope of I guess options for local agencies to deny these kinds

projects so the primary finding if you were going to deny this application and the language I

got right here the language from the FCC is a bit clunky but you've heard it before four of you

have heard it before you'd have to show that the applicant has not meaningfully demonstrated

that the manner in which it proposes to fill the gap and service coverage is the least intrusive

on the values the denial seeks to serve so in other words if you don't think that the alternative

site analysis that they provided and hopefully you've all seen that attachment that that's a

meaningful effort to show what alternative sites are out there or if you've heard evidence tonight

that there may be a less intrusive site available in terms of mainly we're talking about

visual impacts potentially noise impacts the the EMF and the radio frequency radiation that

is pretty much all subject to the federal standard I'm assuming that this project meets the

standards otherwise planning wouldn't have brought it here tonight but that's that's the

finding you'd have to make understood and just for historical purposes council berk that is

based on a 2019 or 2020 FCC ruling it's I think it's been there for I have to dig through my

stack of papers here but yeah in the last five years I believe so okay so that's happened

in layman's terms or layperson's term in both administrations now the prior and the current

or the first from administration I think if as I was doing my quick search about this I think this

happened during the 2019 FCC administration under Trump won and then I don't think it was

challenged during the Biden administration so I guess I'm trying to make a point that this the

FCC regulations have been there for quite a number of years and that we unfortunately I'm

been billed into following that yes understood thank you okay I have a quick question

yep being the newest member on this I haven't faced that part of a the FCC regulations you're

talking about and in reviewing the documents would the what our planning office have put something

through to us like this and again I'm new so I'm asking that didn't meet the requirements I

assume it does when you guys for the record can staff would not bring something forward that did

not meet the applicable regulations whether it's federal state or local so at this point we're

a situation where the applicant has met all the requirements we've had the public discussions about it

they presented their issues and based on what I just heard you talk about their issues don't seem

to fit the regulations in terms of for us to deny well you still have some discretion to evaluate

the evidence okay that's what you're here for so in terms of whether or not and I don't know if

you saw that attached to the staff report there's I don't know there's a summary basically of

there and and he's put the applicant spoke about it there are attempts to find alternative sites

and you've got to consider the evidence or consider what they present the applicant presented to you

in terms of that analysis and determine if you think that was a meaningful attempt to show that

this is the quote unquote least intrusive alternative in terms of visual aesthetic impacts it's

probably the main issue we're looking at here and in order to deny we have to basically

make a determination based on those facts that it didn't right right thank you

well I know from my perspective I am troubled by the I guess the the lack of correspondence or

or the county parks in lack of engagement with the in this process and I feel that it's a bit

disappointing that county parks for whatever reason whatever metrics they use whatever

um decision points were made were not done in in in a more collaborative or thoughtful approach maybe

they were I just it's not reflected in the analysis and it's difficult for me to make a determination

as to how viable these other alternative sites could have been that are now being imposed in the

community that the county itself for whatever reason refused to consider so I'm I have some

troubles with with that but I'll leave that at that is there a I know vice chair you had mentioned

um potential alternate and height or what were did you want to discuss that a little bit more

uh yeah thank you chair I was just wondering as I saw pulled to the rest of the commission whether or not

um you know an alternative less uh lower height at 55 feet which is uh which essentially removes

the deviation from uh 74 feet would be amenable to the um to the dies for tonight's hearing um as you

have heard council berk had mentioned to us it's it's it's really aesthetics that we're talking about

because we cannot prohibit or deny based on the regulations and so assuming that that would be the

case um actually I'm not prepared to compare or have a picture of what a 20 foot or 20 foot

production would be visually speaking but um in my perspective I I do recognize the value of

of having the connections I think that um many of our counterparts down south uh who'd actually had

to rely on the cell towers during the in and the palisades fires and that's something that both

political parties have recognized during both visits um stay true and so I I recognize that there's

critical nature of the the importance of uh having connectivity and times of emergency and fires and

um when you dad and we live right in front of a cell tower but that's a decision that my family

made because we also would like to be able to monitor our house or our baby monitor during the

time so I might I guess I may have been exchanging um risks versus uh what reward that we have to

balance our family life so again um not questioning the validity of any of the health perspectives that

we have in the table I think that uh might be critical for us to perhaps consider um a 20 feet

reduction in height now I would caution though because we may or this feature body may come back with

another issue as more carriers and as Carmichael kind of grows and so um I'm struggling

with the decision tonight to just approve the Sunry 4 knowing that uh we're kind of making a blind

leap of faith that the market would eventually hopefully correct itself that they might not find

the challenges of uh finding a new location to be materially prohibited for them to hopefully force

their hand and make a business use decision to you know negotiate a greater lease or make it a

bit more enticing because um I certainly I'm not in the shoes from Mr. Tigers here but seven

years worth of paperwork as well as having to deal with all the analysis that you have to do

it's also costing you a pretty penny to make this a business decision so um that's that's

where I am so I will take a pause yeah uh happy to provide in feedback um council could you

remind me again and I apologize um the applicant uh of any project is eligible to exceed the

approved height with a petition to the Fed of FCC is that correct well no the FCC rules

allow them to do that so I believe we've it was uh 20 feet or 10% of the tower

is what I recall um that's ministerial so all they have to do is submit a building permit application

wouldn't come back to you right just goes through staff yeah so if you if you were to approve a

55 foot tower and it sounds like the applicant was okay with that um in theory yes hypothetically

yes they could come back in and they could tack on another well what's 10% of you know

10% or no 20 feet yeah got it okay thank you very much I appreciate that clarity um I'm sympathetic

to the to the applicant I know there's a lot of time and energy and resources that have been

dedicated to this um I feel um a greater sense of frustration with the um county parks um just

with the lack of information that I have to kind of work with um that a more appropriate site

was not uh considered um I'm I'm concerned about um settings we see these applications these projects

um come through here um and I hate to see them getting uh butted up against residential areas

um interrupting the line of sight there's constant uh requests for deviations from height and

separation and you know I'm glad the board is is looking to to revisit the the issue altogether

so I'm I'm I guess to as the vice chair struggling with this one so I'll entertain a

motion or or any other thoughts

and just a reminder um so you will need to adopt written findings and um I haven't prepared

anything in advance of this but I think we kind of if you were I think the approval findings

are in the staff report if you're going to deny you'd have to adopt the uh the written findings

explaining your justification for denying explaining your reasons for denying the project

so maybe um the clerk or planning can help if that's the route you go right so that's just

got to be part of the motion if if that's the way you go yes I'll make a motion that we go forward

with the recommendation and improve the dire okay we have a motion second we have a second

clerk will you please call the roll members boorhaw excuse me members boorhaw

yes corona sabayano yes deblin no burger yes and chair conlan no

that item passes three to two okay

all right clerk we have another item could you call up the next agenda item number six please

yes item number six is dr cp to 2022-0033 developmental plan review and design review located

at the 70 49 florian parkins road in the south sacrameno community and this environmental document

is exempt we have quiet in the chamber please thank you staff it is all yours thank you good

evening planning commission my name is austin chan associate planner and lead planner for this

project this is alley truck storage at florian parkins a project is located at 70 49 florian

parkins road near the corner of florian parkins road and florian road in the south sacrameno

community the site is currently developed with a truck storage yard the project is located in the

light industrial zoning district within the florian and florian parkins road neighborhood

preservation area or npa surrounding uses include a warehouse to the north a contractor yard

to the north and south single family residential to the south and west a vacant parcel to the east

and truck storage to the west there was a code enforcement case for truck parking without a

development plan review as required by the npa it has since been closed and activity has ceased

however the approval of the requested entitlements would allow the truck parking to resume on the site

the request is for a development plan review to allow an 83 stall trucking parking law

within the florian and florian parkins road npa in a design review to determine substantial

compliance with sacrameno countywide design guidelines

here is the proposed site plan the site would be accessed through wailand avenue through the parcel

to the north used as a contractor service yard by the same property owners of the subject parcel

and that is right here there would not be any access off of florian parkins road

additionally the project proposes a new eight foot wooden fence along the southern property line

and the western property line a 75 foot landscape buffer is proposed behind that fence adjacent to

the residential use to the south that's this rectangle here and this is required by the florian

road and florian parkins npa here is the proposed site plan the landscape buffer includes two

rows of trees based 30 feet on center and an additional row of shrubs for additional screening

a six foot tall metal fence along florian parkins road would be removed and replaced with the eight

foot tall wooden fence behind a new 30 foot landscape planter with cobblestone, shrubbery and six trees

based 30 feet on center the project went to the design review advisory committee on February 22nd

2024 and recommends the planning commission find the project and substantial compliance with design

guidelines the project also went to the south sacrameno CPAC on December 20th 2023 and recommends

the planning commission deny the requested entitlements concerns were mainly around air quality

and impacts to the adjacent residential community an air quality assessment and noise study was

provided after the CPAC by the applicant to demonstrate that the project would not create adverse

noise vibration visual air quality health or safety impacts on the abutting residential uses

that is also a required finding within the NPA

staff found that the project is consistent with the general plan and NPA it's compatible with

surrounding zoning and land uses and the environmental determination is exempt

planning and environmental review staff recommend the planning commission approve the following

recognize the exempt status of the request under section 15301 class one of the California

environmental quality act approve the development plan review subject to findings and conditions

and find the project and substantial compliance with design guidelines subject to findings and

conditions i'm happy to answer any questions the applicant is also present today thank you very

much any questions for staff thank you for your presentation really appreciate it if you could

just give us a little bit of explanation as to what kind of analysis were taken in order to

I imagine air quality monitoring or maybe like a longer term greenhouse gas I don't want to save

its reduction or a greenhouse gas monitoring for the immediate neighborhood that would otherwise

still make this project deemed safe because I imagine that as Sacramento management air quality

management district smack met have also approved part of the entitlements for this project

yes so as far as the California environmental quality act analysis the project is reviewed

at current conditions however within the NPA it does require the findings to be made that

there are not impacts basically to safety so the air quality assessment was provided to meet the

requirements by the Sacramento metropolitan air quality management district as well as a

noise study to make sure that there are no noise impacts to the surrounding community additionally

just in nature of the NPA there is a 75 foot buffer that is landscaped and screened as well as a

solid eight foot fence behind that is actually the flooring creek which is another 20 feet so there

is a significant distance between the property itself and the residential community additionally

there's no parking along that side directly adjacent to that residential property I'm sorry

did I answer all of your questions I think so okay would it be a safe statement to say that if

the surrounding neighborhood feel that too much truck traffic are for one reserve another creating

unsafe or unhealthy airs in and let's say a lower attainment days for example that they can still

have a recourse to either coordinate with the county or coordinate with the air quality

management district to hopefully force the project or at least the project owners to be in

compliance on what they're being entitled to would that be a sorry sorry if that's a I

apologize if that's a wrong question I guess I'm just trying to get to a place where would

would there be a compliance mechanism if if they're if they were to fail what they're supposed

to be meeting at as well as far as air quality attainment sure I'll try to answer the question

there are a couple of actually several conditions of approval attachment to number 46 47

48 and 49 from the Metro Eric quality district specifically related to trucks and certain air

contaminants and these are specifically put in place by the air district incorporated into this

entitlement to help address some of those issues you're identifying I do know that the air

district also has what's called a community air protection program they have been doing this

pilot in South Sacramento for a couple years now what that entails is a number of monitors

air quality monitors throughout the community taking kind of real time as it were air quality

readings and trying to address some of the air quality concerns of that community having said

that if a project that has these types of conditions were found in violation there are mechanisms

for ongoing compliance enforcement understand thank you director Smith thank you

sorry I just want to follow up just to make sure I understand so the analysis and the studies

that were done those were done by the applicant not the county yes so typically we ask the

applicant to provide these studies to us they're done by outside consultants and then the environmental

analyst that worked on this project did review those for consistency with Sequa or with with in

this they do look at Sequa but also the findings that were required to be made okay okay that's

good because I I was when I was initially reading this I was surprised that this is a currently

vacant lot that could potentially bring potentially right 83 trucks into this neighborhood I was

surprised that it was exempt from Sequa or any other review just I just also want to clarify

that the project is looked at under existing conditions so because of the truck storage was being

used prior they have to look at it at that baseline okay

let me think about that a little bit more um was there is is there any concerns or anything that

the applicant had to do in terms of circulation trucks going in and out potentially areas where

they should stay away from or anything like that so the project is accessed through the the north

it's not going through florin parkins road where there is residential the adjacent property that

is owned by the property owners is being used as a truck repair and this site will be used for storage

for that truck repair so while they're being fixed they may be stored there so that circulation

would be through those parcels okay thank you I'm so sorry just one quick question um forgive me but

it staff reports says that it it's undeveloped and sporadically used as a truck storage but then

now your baseline assumption is that it as always existed as a truck storage how could that be the

case so I'll read just assuming already that your starting point is 83 full trucks yes so the

the site was being illegally operated without the development plan review um but because it was

being used prior um that is the baseline that they do use so um Julie can't can't elaborate on this

a little bit further elaborate um good evening Julie Newton environmental coordinator with planning

this this is a little bit of an odd one um sequa case law says that your baseline condition is

is your condition at time of application submittal in this case the the exemption that was prepared

for for the project um specifies that there's not a significant expansion of use based on current

or past activities so given the past activity on this parcel and the fact that they're not expanding

significantly beyond that we exempted it for sequel purposes that being said um I'll

also mention where there was technical work done because we have an NPA in place over this

property that states you need to demonstrate that there are certain findings that the project would

not cause adverse effects so the technical studies that were prepared are very much in line of what

we would have asked for if we were doing a more robust sequel analysis so to that extent they

they did do their homework to do the technical analysis to demonstrate that there would not be

an adverse impact as it relates to air quality or noise.

So a bit of a bit of a conundrum thank thank you miss Nune it's it's because um when we're taught we

we we they tell us that it's going to be the as built versus the not filled environment so you're

not built environment assuming that it was not permitted to do one cause of action we would

then assume that it would be the opposite where there were no illegal uses there so um maybe you

can enlighten me were there any other you know um in the analysis did they look at any other

information that may have said if if that area was not um being illegally used as a truck parking

would that determination or that threshold would have had a different result um I'm just a little

kind of perplexed as to it you know it's almost like we're just accepting the fact that it

that even though they were not you know supposed to have been using that for for that specific use

that we should just take it as is as that that's the baseline. I think another point

landlord with planning that we could offer you is that this is an M1 zoning district which is an

industrial zoning district at its base and is that base um the parking of the trucks is a permitted

use what triggered it coming and so in theory that would be like a um

non-discussionary design review that would be handled where we would look at it and make sure

it complies with all of our standards. One of the things is that in South Sacramento we have a

number of these NPAs and these NPAs look at that interface between the um existing kind of

industrial and the residential and then we add additional layers of review on top of that so

that's why you see that 75 foot setback which would not normally be required adjacent to that

residential and that's why it has those findings that they have to make which we then ask them to

do additional technical studies to make those findings. So I think um this is a little odd in that we

do require the um plan development review to the planning commission whenever you do any

development of a parcel so um this was this is a little bit different circumstance a little bit

nuance than what you maybe normally would see it with a like truck parking or truck repair in an

industrial zone. Understood okay and then if we were to look at the M1 holistically would it be

safe to assume that the air quality management district was taking that into consideration. I don't

know if it's like a sub-basin or just a specific area but if I would assume that they would have

already accounted for truck traffic already because it is an industrial area therefore the assumption

might be that they may or may not be adding into more because it's kind of already being used as such

in that specific neighborhood. Yes in general that would be a logical assumption. Got it

understood thank you and then director Smith by any chance or early end or any of the planning staff

do you know if those um community air monitoring programs uh do they do they exist in that neighborhood

by any chance or I believe they are in South Sacramento I just wasn't sure if it's at that directly

at the foreign parkings. They are in South Sacramento that is the one location where or that community

rather is where the air district has that program operating currently. Understood I think it's my

recollection there like an AB617. Yes exactly. Okay understood thank you thank you for that

appreciate it. Any other questions from the dies? Commissioner Devlin. Thank you if you could

just maybe speak to any the limitations on idling at the site. Yeah um this is also included within the

conditions provided by Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and is part of

the California Code of Regulations but they do require a minimized eiling time of five minutes

or the truck should be shut off. Thank you. All right thank you very much. I present the applicant

is here. Yep would you like to provide some remarks? You're not obligated to but would you

invite you if you'd like to?

And we're going to just swear you in. Okay. Please raise your right hand and the appropriate

response is I do. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this board is the truth?

So help you got? Yes I do. Thank you. Hi I'm Boon. I'm with Ollie's truck repair and the

Ollie's storage. So Ollie's truck repair what we are is pretty much we work with

California air resource so we are certified to work on at least the older trucks and also the

new trucks to make sure that they pass the clean air truck. So that's you know one thing if you

as are concerned about the air quality we have the machines to do the test we actually make sure

if they don't pass we have to fix it to make it pass. And as far as the eiling it does shut down

after five minutes automatically and it will harm the engine and also the filters if they idle for too long.

Okay. Any questions from the Dias? Thank you very much. Thank you for just one quick question.

Thank you for being here and for the application. Do you out of out of the 83 truck stalls do you

imagine it being a capacity at any given like during the summer or are they mostly kind of offloading

load boards during I don't know if you guys are primarily in intercontinental or interstate

types of businesses or like how busy would you foresee this parking lot to be used?

I do see it being like busy but not too busy it's just on like how should I say

the summer time we will be busy I mean we were busy back in day but with COVID now no

after COVID is kind of hard to say but with COVID too it's kind of like there's parts that has made it where

the parts take longer to deliver because it's always back order so sometimes the truck will have to

sit and idle or like not idle but like sit there until we get the parts. Awesome thank you and then

the you I'm only asking because there's a there's a church right across the street I actually live

somewhat closer to neighborhood but do you foresee a lot of like traffic going in and out over

the weekends or on Sundays when that might be congregation? No we don't have traffic around that time

especially on that whole street on way in Avenue. Yeah. Most businesses are closed. Sure

and then we're closed too on the weekends. Okay. All right thank you no further questions.

Any other questions for the applicant? No? All right thank you very much. Thank you.

And are there any individuals from the public that would like to provide comments?

Clerk? We have no public comments. All right.

Well bring it back to the dies here. Chair? Yeah. I make a motion we move number six.

Okay. I'm assuming that to move the staff recommendations sir. Member Virger and I would

like to second that. Okay we have a motion in a second clerk. Could you please call the roll?

Member Virger?

Aye. Devlin?

Aye. Corona-Savignonum? No.

Borja? Yes. And Chair Conflin? Yes. Okay that item passes 4-1.

All right. Moving right along to agenda item number seven. Clerk we please read.

Item number seven is PLNP 2008-00240. General Plan Amendment. Community Plan amendments.

Reson. West Jackson Highway Master Plan. Public Facilities Financing Plan. Urban Services Plan.

Water Supply Master Plan. Amendment. Water Supply Assessments and Affordable Housing Strategies.

And this is located 59-13 acres in the Vineyard Community and this is a environmental impact report.

Just for a moment. Do we have microphone? I'm hearing a lot of back and forth or feedback.

A little bit of echo. I'm turning my mic off.

Mr. Chair. Before we move forward on this I want to put out that I have gone through the tour

given by the applicants here, virtual tour. Just want to be a upfront and clear about it.

Thank you very much. And let's say I too have taken a tour of the facility so let that be known.

Chair I too have met with the applicants. I've also met with the applicant. As well as did I?

It's unanimous. There we go. Staff would you mind please give us your report please?

Commission before we get started I do want to know obviously Emma Patten or excuse me I'm

Makariko. Too many emis is going to give the presentation here. We do have staff from other

technical disciplines in the audience. Should you have any questions related to transportation

and water resources? So take it away Emma. All right thank you.

Yes there we go. All right good evening commissioners. I'm Emma Carico associate planner and project

manager for the West Jackson Highway Master Plan project. Some of you may be familiar with this

project having seen it in September of last year for the hearing to close the DEIR public comment

period but it has a long history and we also have some newer commissioners who may not be familiar.

So my presentation today will cover the project as a whole.

The plan area shown here in blue encompasses approximately 5,913 acres generally bound by

Jackson Highway, Key for Boulevard and Gady Road to the North, Elder Creek Road and Floran Road

to the South, the City of Sacramento to the West, and Excelsior Road to the East. The predominant

existing use is surface mining but the plan area also contains some agricultural, industrial,

and row residential uses. Two perennial waterways, Elder Creek and Morrison Creek travel through

the plan area. The plan area is surrounded by several existing communities and other comprehensive

planning efforts to the Northwest is the existing Rosemont community up here. To the northeast are

the Mather Airport and Independence communities those are actually labeled there. And to the south

are two actively developing master plan communities the North Vineyard Station specific plan and

the Floran Vineyard Community Plan which are not shown. The West Jackson Highway master plan is

west of the approved Jackson Township specific plan, Newbridge specific plan, and Mather South

community master plan. These four plans make up the Jackson quarter planning area. In 2006 the

board directed staff to study the expansion of the county's urban policy area or UPA in the Jackson

corridor as part of the county's general plan update. At the time the Jackson corridor was

considered a key area to accommodate new growth. In 2011 the board adopted the 2030 general plan

which included a new policy framework for acceptance and approval of private applications to expand the

UPA. Following the general plan update on April 17th 2012 the board initiated the master plan process

for the West Jackson Highway master plan. Over the past decade the applicants have coordinated with

the county and partner agencies to prepare the master plan, land use plan, and technical studies needed

to prepare an environmental impact report. On September 9th 2024 the planning commission acknowledged

the end of the public comment period for the draft EIR and directed staff to prepare the final EIR.

Shortly after in October 2024 the Vineyard and Cordova community planning advisory councils provided

their recommendations as advisory bodies to the board. Today we're here to receive the planning

commission's recommendations before the project is scheduled for a final hearing with the board.

The primary purpose of the master plan is to transition the plan area from the existing patchwork

of mining, industrial, and rural residential properties into a developed community with urban

services. The master plan includes 15 guiding goals covering topics such as promoting health and

wellness, creating community, promoting sustainable practices, encouraging alternative transportation

options, reducing vehicle miles traveled, providing a variety of housing types, developing economic

diversity, and accommodating existing land uses to name just a few. The plan areas divided into five

sub areas consisting of two districts and three future planning areas or FPAs. The primary

purpose of the two districts is ease of identification for certain portions of the plan area during future

project implementation. The district areas are defined by majority owner between the two applicants

because some obligations for project implementation are different for each applicant establishing

districts by which applicant is the majority owner in the district area is helpful for future

implementation. District one shown in green consists of 3,487 acres primarily controlled by

stone bridge properties. District two shown in blue consists of 1,203 acres primarily controlled

by granite construction. The FPAs primarily consist of properties not controlled by either of

the project applicants. These properties are included in the plan area to establish logical

planning boundaries consistent with general plan policy LU 119 which I will discuss further

later in this presentation. To ensure adequate infrastructure planning the FPAs have been allocated

acreages of each land use. However land uses have not been geographically cited within each FPA.

The proposed master plan land use plan shows how each parcel in the plan area would be designated

for different types of development. Residential designations shown in yellow and orange would allow

a variety of housing types and densities ranging from two dwelling units per acre to 30 dwelling units per

acre. Mixed use shown in light red would allow developments with integrated housing commercial

employment uses. Commercial shown in dark red is strategically cited near high-intensity uses

such as high-density residential and along major roadways public transit lines and trails.

Employment and industrial are shown in the two shades of purple. To serve the anticipated

student population six elementary schools one middle school and one high school shown in blue

are proposed where possible school sites are co-located with parks which are shown in green.

The land use plan includes 221.5 acres of active park land in compliance with Coombi Dedication

Requirements. The plan also includes open space also shown in a slightly different shade of green.

Open space would provide passive recreation opportunities and include trails and drainage infrastructure.

Some portions of open space would allow urban farms pursuant to the county's urban agriculture

ordinance. To summarize at build out the land use plan would allow for 16,484 residential dwelling

units 11.5 million square feet of commercial and employment uses 2 million square feet of

industrial space and 2100 acres of parks and open space. To connect land uses throughout the

plan area the master plan proposes various forms of transportation infrastructure. This map shows

how roads would be designated within the plan area as six lane thoroughfares four lane arterials

or two lane collectors. These proposed sizes were determined by traffic studies that analyze

circulation patterns, future trip volumes and generation of vehicle miles traveled among other things.

Public transit routes would exist along south-watt avenue Jackson Highway,

Bradshaw Road, Rock Creek Parkway, Keefer Boulevard, and Excelsior Road. Not shown on this map are the

many minor residential streets that will be distributed throughout the plan area. The size and design

of each minor residential street will be determined with future subdivision map applications.

Master plan also addresses forms of active transportation within the plan area such as walking and

biking. Bike facilities are provided as on-street bike lanes as well as off-street trails designed

exclusively for active transportation use. The master plan proposes two types of trails, 12-foot

regional trails shown in grain and 10-foot conventional trails shown in the reddish brown color.

Regional trails are cited and designed to provide connectivity to the broader region.

Conventional trails are more localized and would focus on providing connectivity between

land uses within the plan area. To establish the master plan the applicant are requesting a

series of entitlements. Specifically the applicant requests a series of general plan amendments,

community plan amendments to the vignered in Cordova community plans, a rezone, adoption of the master plan,

a public facilities financing plan, and urban services plan, two affordable housing strategies,

an amendment to the zone 40 water supply master plan, and approval of two water supply assessments,

one for each of two water providers in the plan area. I'll provide more details on each of these

requests in the following slides. The applicants request to amend the general plan by expanding the

urban policy area to allow urban services within the West Jackson Highway Master Plan area.

The UPA is the area within the county that is expected to receive urban levels of public

infrastructure and services within the general plan's 25-year planning period. The existing boundaries

of the UPA are shown on the left in red. Approximately 57 acres of the plan area are already within the UPA.

The applicants request to expand the UPA to include the entire 5,913 acre plan area as shown on the right.

In addition to expanding the UPA, the applicants request to amend the general plan land use

diagram to establish new land use designations for all parcels within districts 1 and 2

to be vertically consistent with the proposed master plan land use designations.

Additionally, a West Jackson Highway Master Plan overlay would be created and applied to parcels

within the FPAs. This overlay will allow flexibility in how proposed land uses are cited within the FPAs.

To appropriately designate roads within the plan area, the applicants request to amend the general

plan transportation diagram which designates size capacity and design characteristics of roadways

within the county. The amendment would designate new roads and transit routes and redesignate

existing roads within the plan area as shown on the right.

The county's active transportation plan, a policy of the general plan, aims to improve infrastructure

throughout the county for pedestrian, bicycle and wheeled mobility. When the active transportation

plan was adopted in 2022, some active transportation infrastructure was anticipated in the plan area,

but specific road and trail alignments were not yet identified. The applicants request an

amendment to the active transportation plan to include the bicycle lanes, sidewalks, regional

trails and conventional trails as proposed by the master plan. In addition to the amendments to

the general plan, the applicant also requests amendments to two community plans. The master plan

is partially within the Cordova and Vineyard Community Plans. The northern portion of the plan

area above the blue line shown here is within the Cordova Community Plan area to create consistency

with the proposed master plan, the applicants request to amend the community plan land use

designations for all parcels within the community plan area to West Jackson Highway Master Plan.

This new designation will clearly establish that parcels with this designation are subject to

the master plan, thereby avoiding the need for subsequent community plan amendments and streamlining

the entitlement process for future applicants. The southern portion of the plan area below the blue

line is within the Vineyard Community Plan area. A similar amendment is proposed for the Vineyard

Community Plan, however, because land uses have not been geographically cited within the FBAs,

those parcels would retain their current community plan land use designations. You can see that

for those FPA portions here. A West Jackson Highway Master Plan overlay would apply to those

parcels to demonstrate that they are also subject to the master plan.

While the majority of rezone will be proposed with future development applications,

as a part of their current request, granite construction proposes to rezone three portions of

property under their control, specifically the areas outlined in red and they are a little small

with this overall map, but they're about there and then one property there and a couple

properties up there. The proposed rezone are consistent with the master plan land use plan

and would prepare the applicable parcels to move forward with subdivision and development

applications after the master plan is approved. As required by the general plan, the applicants

have prepared a public facilities financing plan or PFFP and an urban services plan or USP.

The PFFP outlines the various funding mechanisms that will finance the construction and ongoing

maintenance of backbone infrastructure such as roadways, trails, water, and sewer.

The USP discusses how urban and municipal services such as fire protection, law enforcement,

library services, and transit will be funded and delivered. Consistent with the general plan

policy, LU 120, the USP demonstrates that proposed services and operations and maintenance costs

are cost neutral to the county's general fund and existing ratepayers. Further, existing

levels of municipal services will not be negatively impacted by approval and build out of the master plan.

The county's affordable housing ordinance allows developers to meet affordable housing

obligations by paying an affordability fee on newly constructed market rate units by entering

an agreement with the county that provides fee credits for land education or by directly

constructing affordable housing units. In coordination with the Sacramento Housing and

Redevelopment Agency, the applicants prepared two affordable housing strategies, one for

Stonebridge properties and one for granite construction. The granite strategy identifies payment

of affordability fees as the sole mechanism of compliance for the properties they control within

the plan area. The Stonebridge strategy proposes compliance through a combination of the

loud options. Up to 50% of Stonebridge's total obligation can be met through payment of fees.

The remaining portion must be fulfilled through construction or land dedication for affordable units.

Affordable housing obligations are determined at the time building permits are issued for each

market rate unit. So the final obligations may differ depending on the fees and dedication

requirements in place at the time building permits are issued.

The plan area is served by two water providers, California American Water Company,

in the North and Green and Sacramento County Water Agency in the south and blue.

Consistent with the California Water Code, two water supply assessments were prepared, one for

each provider. The assessments demonstrate that the planned water supplies for both service

providers are sufficient to meet the demands of the project in addition to existing and projected

water supply obligations over the next 20 years. In addition to the water supply assessment for

SCWA, a water supply master plan amendment was prepared that assess the condition of existing

water supply infrastructure and the infrastructure expansion necessary to adequately serve

future demand within SCWA's zone 40. Chapter 11 of the master plan addresses

administration and implementation. Existing uses would be permitted to continue everywhere in

the plan area. In fact, new uses can be proposed that are consistent with existing zoning.

Implementation of the master plan would occur through subsequent applications for entitlements

such as rezone, subdivisions, and design reviews. Subsequent entitlements would be required to

demonstrate consistency with the master plan land use designations, policies, and supplemental

design guidelines. The county will process subsequent applications consistent with the entitlement

procedures, including reviewing for consistency with the master plan and other applicable policies

and standards. Where possible, environmental review of subsequent projects would tear off of

the master plan EIR, consistent with the SCWA guidelines. Prior to urban development within the

FPAs, applicants would be required to submit a subsequent comprehensive planning document

for the FPA where development is proposed. To assess the potential impacts of the proposed

project, a draft environmental impact report or DEIR was prepared and released for public

review on July 25th, 2024. On September 9th, 2024, the Planning Commission held a public hearing

to accept public comments on the draft EIR, closed the public comment period, and directed staff

to prepare the final EIR. In total, 20 comments were received regarding the draft EIR, 18 of which

were from other public agencies. The final EIR is currently being prepared and will be published

prior to the board hearing. The draft EIR identified 12 categories for which impacts resulting from

the project are anticipated to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation,

preparation of mitigation monitoring and reporting plan is currently underway.

The draft EIR also identified six categories for which impacts are anticipated to be significant

and unavoidable, including aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality,

cultural resources, noise and transportation.

Over the past decade, the county and applicants have conducted outreach through stakeholder

meetings and public workshops, as well as standard mail notices, upkeep of the project, webpage

and an email subscription list. In 2013, four joint workshops were held to introduce the project

to the CPACS and community. In 2023 and 2024, the county conducted tribal consultation and

compliance with state laws, SB 18 and AB 52. After the draft EIR was published, informational meetings

were held with the CPACS to discuss the project and receive public comments. After the draft EIR

public comment period was closed, two additional hearings were held to answer any remaining questions

and receive the CPACS recommendations. The Vineyard CPAC met on October 10, 2024 and was not able

to make a recommendation due to a lack of quorum, but express support for the project. The Cordova CPAC

met on October 17, 2024 and recommended the board approve the project. Questions received during

the meetings were primarily focused on the development timeline and proposed roadway and infrastructure

improvements. Four commenters expressed a formal position towards the project. Two commenters

in opposition expressed concerns about the potential rising cost of living as the planarie develops

and felt that the project did not provide a sufficient variety of housing products. Two commenters

in support felt positively about the project creating a new community with urban services and

improved roadways. There are several policies in the county's general plan that specifically relate

to proposed master plan projects or projects seeking to expand the urban policy area. Over the next

few slides, I'll be discussing the West Jackson Highway master plans compliance with these policies.

Land use element 119 requires development proposals seeking to expand the UPA to be accompanied

by a master plan that includes a justification statement and outreach plan and consists of a

contiguous set of parcels with a logical boundary at least 25% of which must be adjacent to the

existing UPA. The proposed master plan would apply to the entire project area and does include

a justification statement and outreach plan. The boundary of the planarie constitutes a logical

planning boundary as 87% is adjacent to the existing UPA. It contains a contiguous set of parcels

and it aligns with surrounding communities. Land use policy 120 also applies to projects

proposing to expand the UPA. It requires compliance with 10 performance criteria focused on

connectivity, housing diversity, pedestrian and transit oriented design and jobs housing balance.

The master plan meets all performance criteria proposing a new community with diverse housing

products and active transportation and transit infrastructure that is interconnected with surrounding

communities. In addition to meeting the 10 performance criteria, LU-120 also requires projects to

meet one of two alternative performance metrics. The West Jackson Highway master plan complies with

alternative two which requires the project to be planned and built in a manner that results in

less than 14 vehicle miles traveled or VMT per resident per day. The applicant submitted a VMT

analysis that demonstrates the project would result in 13.99 vehicle miles traveled per resident

per day after mitigation. By meeting all performance criteria and alternative two, the project

complies with policy LU-120. Before I continue, it is worth noting that while the project did not

meet alternative one which requires a minimum score of 18 points for five criteria related

to density and proximity to amenities, the project did score well in several categories earning a

total of 15 points. Noise element policy three prohibits new residential development within the

60 decibel contour at any airport or helipad within the county unless the proposed development meets

certain exceptions set forth in table four of the noise element. As you can see in the figure on

the right, a portion of the plan area is located within the 60 to 65 decibel contours of the

mather airport. This area includes some proposed single family residential. In compliance with

noise policy three, the applicants prepared a detailed noise contour mapping, identified construction

techniques to reduce interior noise to a maximum of 45 decibels and agreed upon a noise monitoring

plan with the Department of Airports. A four-fits vote by the board is still required in order to

approve detached single family residential uses within the 60 to 65 decibel contours.

In 2024, the board adopted the county's climate action plan. Greenhouse gas measure 17 of the

climate action plan requires development proposals seeking to amend the UPA to demonstrate carbon

neutrality. The West Jackson Highway Master Plan complies with measure 17 by requiring subsequent

development projects within the plan area to contribute a fair share towards the project wide

GHG emissions reduction targets. The EIR goes into further detail on the elements of the project

that help to achieve carbon neutrality such as being an electric project requiring energy

efficient buildings and reducing vehicle miles traveled by increasing development density in the

region. With the implementation of mitigation measures, the project will be carbon neutral.

For all of the previously mentioned reasons, at this time, staff recommends that the Planning

Commission approve a resolution recommending the board approve an amendment to the general plan.

Additionally, staff recommends the Planning Commission make the following recommendations

to the board. Determine that the environmental analysis presented in the draft environmental

impact report is adequate and complete. Approve a resolution amending the general plan.

Approve a resolution amending the Cordova community plan. Approve a resolution amending the vineyard

community plan. Adopt the zoning ordinance amendment to the Sacramento County zoning code for the

adoption of the West Jackson Highway Master Plan, including a master plan land use diagram,

subject findings and conditions. Adopt an ordinance authorizing the rezone of several applicant

controlled properties from their existing zones to zones compatible with the proposed master plan.

Adopt the public facilities financing plan. Adopt the urban services plan. Adopt the affordable

housing strategies. Adopt the zone 40 water supply master plan amendment. Approve the water

supply assessments and adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program to be developed in advance

of the board hearing. In attendance for the applicants tonight, we have Mike Isle, director of

planning and development for Stonebridge properties and Yasha Saber, consulting project manager for

granite construction, as well as a host of other awesome people who have contributed significantly

to this project over the past few decades. They have prepared an additional presentation for you.

We're also happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Emma. Any questions for staff?

No. All right, then we'll invite the applicant. Oh wait.

There's a couple questions.

Sorry. Thank you for that presentation. I just want to just one clarification.

I think you said on the tribal cultural resources survey that was done and it looks like

there was no resources identified during the survey. But if something is identified in the future,

tribes still have the opportunity to be consulted or survey the property.

That's correct. Okay. Thank you. And then for the Affordable Housing Strategy,

I think in the staff report, it says that the board of supervisors is going to approve later.

I'm assuming that's the next step after this. Correct. The board is a final hearing.

So if the final, but then you also said that the fees are made, they may differ based on when

the building permits are, if it substantially differs, does it come back or does it? No.

Okay. No. So, and maybe to provide some context to that, the board is the authority for

changing the Affordable Housing requirements as well. So any change to the affordability fees or

the land dedication requirements would be beholden to the board anyways. So, but yes, assuming

that the project gets approved, then they would be subject to the affordability requirements in place

at the time building permits are issued for each market rate unit. Okay. Thank you.

I have a couple of questions and thank you so much to the planning team for sharing your time

with us last week. Specifically on one of the detachment, the public financing facilities plan.

I want to say it's attachment number four. There's a number of assumptions there and I appreciate

Ms. Carosco for you pointing out in your presentation that the whole endeavor is to make it to be

cost neutral for the county. However, the financing plan has a four or five action items,

some of which are dependent on actions by the applicant, some of which will actually a majority

of which is going to be considered under an EIFD. So, on enhanced infrastructure financing plan,

I assume that new homeowners or folks that are going to be moving into the new development would

more than likely pay into like a Melaroo's or a special tax levied. Can you please explain to us

and a very late person's terms, you know, what would be the next steps for that financing plan

to be either created, how can the county kind of continue with making sure that that is financially,

like you mentioned, cost neutral to the county and to what steps are there like specific

thresholds and I'm looking at maybe department transportation when Cameron there, he's done an

amazing job of presenting to us for North Vignor station plan. But at what thresholds of payments

and fees collected with the surrounding communities perhaps kind of see where projects may begin to

happen and then have another follow-up question on that. So, let me take a pause there. Sorry for the

loaded question. I'll start Commissioner Borja. So, the public facilities financing plan that's

in this package is a draft. The applicant team are working on it collectively to make a few tweaks

to it before we move forward to the board. That's all in progress. I will say the county has taken a

pretty hard look at our public facilities financing plan process and this project is one of the first

to actually implement a new approach that our special district's team is forming up which is

a two tiered approach. The first is a planning level, PFFP which is what this is. The next step is

implementation level, PFFP. A lot more detail on the cost estimates, the timing of formation of

those CFDs and other things like that. That would happen prior to the first large lot or small

lot map depending on the circumstances which may be a lengthy period of time or maybe a short

period of time we don't know that yet. That's when all those districts will be formed following the

implementation level detail of the financing plan. Understood. So, that would be the next step.

And then just a follow-up question there. There are some assumptions that are being asked by both

the sewer district, the school district. Actually, there's a number of other districts that are

saying if you were to reach a specific growth, this is how much the project performance will eventually

be paying in. The UN vision that should be like you mentioned, kind of a tiered by tier process

as more maps are being developed and approved for entitlement as more projects are getting built.

That's kind of how things materialize or do we just make an assumption and then I don't

give an example. I'll go of unified school district for example. A couple of elementary schools

they're very impacted. They're at 77% capacity and they're last long term planning. There's a lot of

homes or community members are asking where are you going to put all those students to schools?

How this kind of interact and what might be the next steps for community members to follow through

as they engage those communities are evolving. So, a couple of things in my response to that.

The financing plan shows what we know today. It may evolve as it gets into the implementation stage

based on the world around this project as well as the circumstances within the project.

So, it contains currently the known cost estimates, the known number of dwelling units,

the known set of policies that we're dealing with with respect to the project.

As the applicant team and the county work together on the implementation document at whatever point

in the future those costs will need to be revisited. Well, obviously everybody is interested in

making sure that these projects are cost neutral but also viable. And maybe they is...

The applicant's consultant, Mike Whipple, might be able to speak more in the details to get to your

question. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. That's it for now. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions?

All right. We'd like to invite the applicant. Are there multiple speakers from the applicant part?

No. Okay. Let's get you sworn in. Yep. Actually, you know what? Let's just in case you ask.

I should be answering any questions. All right. Please raise your right hand and the appropriate

response is I do. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this board is the true?

So, help you go. I do. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Well, good afternoon. Good evening. Now, Chair Concyln, members of the commission,

I'm Mike Isle from Tykert and Stonebridge Properties and really appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.

I want to start off by thanking staff. This project has been around for quite some time. You've

heard some from Emma. You'll hear a little bit about for me tonight really focusing on the genesis

of the project while we're doing it in a little bit of the history that's gone into what you're

seeing here tonight. But it's been a long road for everybody and ultimately we think the project

and the county's benefited from this process and just want to extend our thanks to everybody who's

worked on this. I also want to note that I'm joined here by our applicant team. So, we have

members of granite who's our co-applicant on the project. We have our consulting team. So,

if there are questions that I can't answer as we get into this, happy to have anybody else come

up. So, with that, I think my intent here Emma covered quite a bit of ground. So, I'm going to

really try to keep this somewhat concise and again talk about really the genesis of the project

while we're doing it and some of the cool stuff that comes with it. So, we'll start off here.

Stonebridge Properties, which is one of Tykert's family of companies, we were organized originally

to repurpose former mining sites. So, what do you do with these properties after they've been

mined? They've been disturbed as an industrial property. Do you fence them off? Do you walk away

from them? Or do you find a way to reinvigorate them? Integrate them back into the communities? And

that's really starting back in, well, we've been doing it for a long time but the company was

reorganized around 2003, 2004, to really start to focus on these activities. And this exhibit here

just gives a little bit, oops, don't want to do that. How do we get back to our

big slide? There we go. So, as you look at this exhibit here, this is what's now become the Rose

Mont High School. So, you have Kiefer-Bohlabard here, you have Looking South towards Bradshaw Road here,

and you have Mehu Road just on the edge here. And this was actually a mine site, this is something

tyquer mine from the 80s into the mid 90s. And ultimately, we were done with it. It was sitting

there. It was vacant, no real operational need at that point. And, you know, as we were looking at

what happens next with that property, the Rose Mont community had been promised a high school site

for over 20 years at that time by Sac City Unified School District. And so, we ended up generating

some concepts and ideas for an overall repurposing of this project site to include a new high school

site, which you can see again right along through here, as well as 105 units of residential,

which is right here, right off Mehu Road. And then, ultimately, commercial at that south, or I

guess it's the southwest corner there of Kiefer and Bradshaw, where there's that Arco and Starbucks

facility there for Rose Mont. And that was really the start of, you know, our refocusing,

our repurposing of some of these properties. There was a tremendous need and desire in the

Rose Mont community from all the outreach we had done with that project. People loved the location,

they loved being close to the job centers, they loved being close to downtown and Rancho,

they just wanted something new, they wanted services, they wanted amenities. And so,

that was really our first foray, official foray into doing that activity. And I'll just make note

that little triangle on the exhibit, mining, reclamation, reuse, that's really what our focus here is.

This is what we're doing with this project, as we talk about the West Jackson Highway Master Plan.

It's been mined large parts of these tracks, the property have been reclaimed from those mining

activities, and now we're reusing and repurposing these sites. So, I'm going to transition into another

example, another local example of a project we've done. This is actually up in the city of Folsom.

And this site, you can see Levy Road runs right along our North flank for anybody who's familiar

with Folsom. And this was an old ready-mex site. We used this site for a number of years operationally.

We started this back shortly before COVID, I guess it was 2017, 2018. The site was highly disturbed,

there was a lot of excess concrete materials, there was an old plant site here, an old batch plant,

there was old ponds, highly disturbed, a lot of uneven topography, and it was fenced off. There

was an existing neighborhood to the east, there was facilities there that people wanted to use the site,

a lot of trespassing problems and vacancy. And so, again, taking that idea of mining,

reclamation, reuse, we redeveloped that, it's about a 10 acre, slightly smaller than 10 acre site,

into a number of home sites in some open space. So, you can really take these properties that,

you know, with a little bit of imagination and a lot of community input and create something really

spectacular out of those. And that's what we're focused on. So, as we transition, you know, from those

examples into what we're looking at today, this is a tremendous opportunity you have before you

tonight. The property in yellow that we have highlighted here on this exhibit, that's the West

Jackson Highway Master Plan area. So, again, little over 5,900 acres comprised of multiple property

ownerships, but it's smack dab in the center of Sacramento County. And we think this is a fantastic

opportunity to reinvigorate that site. You have everybody driving by, you have people coming from

Elk Grove on the south, you have Rancho, you have the Slu house, those areas, Rancho,

Mereda coming from the east, you have the existing Rosemont community to the northwest. This is a

chance to really put our mark down on what smart growth and good development could be in this area.

And you'd look, in terms of context, this exhibit highlights the job rich environment that we're

talking about. So, the yellow circle, that's a five mile radius, that's coming out from the master

plan area, highlighted in purple. And you have over almost 250,000 jobs as of 2020 within a five mile

radius here. So, you have Rancho, Cordova, Mather, Airport, you have the Florent fruit ridge,

industrial area, UCD Med Center, Army Depot, etc. A ton of opportunity, a ton of employment in

this area, which when we talk about in a few minutes, you'll see what that translates into

is a project that can be carbon neutral. It can be a project that has very low vehicle miles

traveled. And it can be a community that really reconnects those existing communities that we're

located in. As I transition here, again, master plan context, you saw a slightly similar exhibit

from Emma a few minutes ago, the area and white. Again, that's the West Jackson Highway Master Plan.

And this is just really highlighting what's existing and what's approved in that area. So,

if you look to our north, you have the Rosemot community existing. This is actually the site

right there where the red dot is, that's where the Rosemot high school is for that first redevelopment

project. You have the Florent Vineyard Gat project, the orange and the south approved. You have

North Vineyard Station and Blue approved in building. You have Jackson Township approved, Newbridge,

Mather South, and so on. So, what this is is a very significant infill reuse site. It's a donut hole.

And for good reason, you could ask why is that area, why is that area been skipped over?

Answer is pretty simple. It's been mine for a number of years. We've been out there since the 30s.

And so, deliberately, we didn't want urban development and coaching on those mining activities.

The time has come to start transitioning those. They're still mining occurring.

There's still some operational concerns out there in terms of our interest for Gran and Tigert.

But there are properties that are freeing up and properties that we can put back together

and start rebuilding those sites. And so, that's really the purpose of that exhibit area.

You know, we mentioned kind of the ownership structure, applicant structure of the project area.

This exhibit shows really the two applicants for the project. Blue is Tigert,

Stonebridge properties Tigert, and Green is granite. This project started earlier on with

Tigert granite. We're doing their own thing, looking at different options for what they do for

these properties. Ultimately, we came together through both discussions amongst ourselves, but

really credit to the county for initiating and actively pushing us towards some comprehensive

planning. So, we put those properties together. And then as we started doing that, so you have

the Tigert with 3,000 acres, granite with a little over 1,000 acres. What happens with those

properties in between? So, you see these gaps in here, if I can use this pointer,

in some different pockets here. So, off-root ridge road here, off-eldor creek road here,

and off-excellency road over here. And so, as we put the Tigert and granite properties together,

the county said, well, heck, let's make some more comprehensive, praline boundaries,

round these out to some major roadways. And that was the genesis of the West Jackson Highway plan.

So, it went from 3,000 acres originally with Tigert, another 1,000 acres with granite, and then

ultimately 5,900 acres with bringing in some of the trucking yards, some of the Agres properties,

some of the rural vacant Agres and agricultural properties as well. So,

ultimately, that's the genesis of the plan you see in terms of the plan area boundaries here.

In terms of project origins, you've heard this, I'm going to mention from Emma and myself,

long history. Honestly, I've been working on this personally for over 20 years, just from some

of the very early outreach. We talked about the Rosemont High School and the development that

occurred along there. That was finished in 2004, and right around that time, we started moving on

to this property for our holdings. What happens here? What would make sense? Who's interested in what?

Lots of meetings with Sae Cog, with Sacramento County, with the City of Sacramento, with the

Rosemont community, and that really was the genesis of this project. But a long time coming,

a lot of inputs gone into this. So, we started, you know, over 20 years ago, pre-application was

submitted in 2009, strictly for the Tigert properties. And the purpose of that was to elicit a response,

what's working here? What do we need to focus on? Work through issues? And that ultimately evolved

to Tigert granite and some of those other properties for the overall plan area. Just getting submitted

as a full project in 2013. And from that point, it's been lots about reach. There's been several

notices of preparation issued, lots of revisions to the project, even going up to, you know, a month ago,

you know, some minor tweaks before this thing came to you. So, what you're seeing tonight

is a project that's benefited heavily from a tremendous amount of input from everyone involved.

And it's better for it. Hate to acknowledge that, but it's true. I mean, with all that time and

effort, it is a better project for it. In terms of the project features itself, just a couple of

things to note, because you have this long stretch of property, various topographies, some of the

properties remind some of them or not. How do you organize those? How do you make that a cohesive

plan area? So, really, the idea here is, as we note on this parkway corridor, you have running

from South Wad Avenue east out to Bradshaw Road, this long east west parkway corridor. That's

class one trails. That's a vehicle lane of traffic each way, and that's an open space corridor

that has drainage and recreation alongside it. And so, along that corridor, what you do is you

start organizing, give people a reason to use it, right? You have trails, you have transit

linements on there. So, you put multi-family and orange, you have parks in green, elementary

schools in blue, parks again, mixed use, community park, elementary school, commercial, residential,

high school mental school site, et cetera. You give people a reason to utilize that corridor.

And you link that east west, and you do the same thing, North South along this extension of

vineyard road, ultimately the Douglas Boulevard. So, you have parks, schools, purples,

the employment, so that's light industrial in office, more parks, elementary schools, mixed

use, residential. Give people a reason to be on those corridors, use those corridors. So, that's

that's a major feature of the plan area. What we think is really cool as well is we've also

located three urban farm sites. So, where you see that little black disc with the NB, the new

Brighton. On the tight-gate properties, what we've, you know, elected to do is use some of those

open space areas for conjunctive use. So, you have drainage, you have other uses in there, but you

also have urban farms. So, opportunities for fresh local produce, opportunities for residents to

subscribe to that produce program through their home owners fees, and really deliver that to

the interior of that community. So, the Yolo causeways, maybe not the perfect example, but you have

an area where there is farming, where there's drainage, where there's other uses going on,

that's the same idea in some respects for these things. But, this is interior to the project,

this is an opportunity in those areas that are not encumbered by the drainage to provide those

services in that access. Can I interrupt you for just a second? Yeah, please.

You're touching it on drainage flood control as well, if you could just kind of walk us through

some of the challenging constraints of those kind of larger issues with the project. Absolutely.

It's a great question. So, because of the mining, you do have the topographical differences

with the project area, and you also have two creek systems that run through the project area.

So, you have Morrison Creek that starts on Excelsior Road and works its way through the project

corridor here, back down to hedge, and then you have Elder Creek, which is a smaller portion,

that it runs from that southwest corner of Excelsior and Jackson back through the project area here.

So, this has been a topic for years in terms of the project, how we build this thing,

how we make it an amenity, how do we embrace those creek systems and the drainage systems through

here. And ultimately, what we've done is chosen to embrace it with a lot of help from Sacramento

County Department of Water Resources. The idea here is to take that creek system on Morrison Creek.

And so, again, starting up here at Excelsior. You take the system, it goes into the project area,

there's a weir that an existing weir that'll be improved. So, there's, I should probably note,

as part of this answer, there's existing rudimentary facilities that have been constructed as part

of the mining, and then there's going to be ultimate facilities built with the project to a higher

greater standard, you know, that brings some additional benefits. But through that system,

you have a weir system here that ultimately, Mather drain comes off Mather, hits Morrison Creek here,

and there will be a large detention basin here that pulls water off from large storm events.

So, Morrison Creek pulls significant amount of water from upstream, from Rancho Cordovo,

an upstream through the project area, and then it works its way downstream into the city of Sacramento.

This system is designed ultimately, it becomes, there's some pretty large we think regional benefit

to this. It takes those large storm events off, it flows into that detention basin, storm passes,

significantly lower water levels downstream to Sacramento County, and ultimately, city of Sacramento.

And then once that storm is over, or that series of storms is over, there's a pump station that pumps

that water back in to the creek system. So, you allow the safe water to flow back down there,

and that water, you don't want that water, at least the way it's been designed, you don't want it to stay

as a lake or a large amount of water for a long period of time, because we are next to Mather airport

at that location. So, there's bird air strike. So, there's that dynamic between bird air strike

and flood safety through there. So, that's a system that's been designed, significant benefits,

both upstream and downstream on the project site and beyond. Additionally, beyond that larger system,

you know, there's going to be improvements to the creek system, some Morrison Creek to any levees,

embankments, trail systems built. Actually, you see the trail system that runs up through

Morrison Creek as well. So, you're creating an open space and recreational amenity as well

through that drainage system. Is that answer, Chair Parkland? That's great. Thank you.

So, beyond that system, beyond the trails, the long central organizing features and the farms,

you know, we also have a very extensive transit and trail system. And this exhibit, a little hard to

read, but what it's trying to show is this has been comprehensively planned. This is actually layering

on both our proposed transit system as well as what's been approved for the other projects on

the Jackson Highway corridor. So, in that dashed orange line, and again, everything's trying to get

towards the Manlove station there for light rail. That's the ultimate destination.

Dash line runs down south-watt, picks up along our parkway corridor. Again, following that

those nodes, those uses along the parkway corridor, goes back up through the commercial,

dodges back down Bradshaw Road to the high school middle school site, and then makes its way back

up to that vineyard extension and back out through the project, circulates back through there.

So, that's the dash lines for the West Jackson project. This is also showing the red dotted line.

That's Jackson Township. The blue line is regional transit and the green is new bridge. So, you have

a quite extensive transit system that circulated along Jackson Highway and throughout this project.

And again, the idea is to tie those projects into Wad Avenue into that corridor along

Kiefer, ultimately to the Manlove station, light rail location at that facility. And I should note

that the project is ultimately, you know, this contributes to transit. You're going to have that

question, what is transit? Are we talking about a bus? Are we talking about fixed light rail?

It's going to evolve. And I think all these projects recognize that. So, they will,

there will be financial support for transit. It could start off as a shuttle system. It could

evolve into a lot more. But we recognize transit's going to change and evolve over these years.

This is a long-term build-out for this project. But the important thing is to get that financial

support recognized that transit's important to this project area.

And the trail system as well. This is an older exhibit. The trail system's actually more extensive

than what this shows. But what I like about this exhibit, it shows again when we talk about this

comprehensive planning that's gone on along the Jackson Highway corridor. And again,

kudos to your staff here. There's been a very concerted effort for all these projects,

Jackson Township, West Jackson Highway, Newbridge, Mather South, to focus on the trail, the transit,

the transportation-related improvements along this corridor. And so this exhibit is highlighting

series of class one trails. Green are the slightly larger ones. The 12-foot paved. I'm sorry,

yeah, green are the 12-foot, red are the 10-foot. But they're all class one trails. And you know,

it's the idea here is to have a feeder system that goes up along through the Morrison Creek System,

that runs through the Rock Creek Parkway, which is that system we talked about a little while ago,

which runs up the Vineyard Road extension. And ultimately tying in to Key for Boulevard,

what this one does not show is there's been an extension that was added on Mayhew as well.

But getting back, connecting to Key for and getting back to the Mayhew community, or I'm sorry,

the Rosemont community, and all the projects to the east. And what's really what we think is really

cool about this. So if you go back, you see this really extensive trail system within the project

sites. What we've recognized is there's a tremendous opportunity here not only to add new trails,

but to tie into this fabulous circulation system that Sacramento County already has.

So what this exhibit is trying to show is everything in blue. This is an existing trail system.

So you have obviously the American River Parkway. This runs down south-watt right up to the

the light rail station, or very close right there. You also have this going through independence of

Mayhew through just north, a couple spots that are broken up and not built, and then you pick back

up on the Folsom South Canal and get yourself right back up to the parkway here. So the discussions we've

been having is internally is how do you link up to that? How do you take advantage and create this

massive loop system that ties in not only to Rosemont, not only to our project, works our way to the

projects to the east and gets to that system. So ultimately what this is showing is taking advantage

of the trails we're going to build on our project site through Key for. We are working right now both

with your staff and with Doris Matt Suiz office in Saikog to explore ideas for funding and study

of additional trail corridors along Key for through the Rosemont community to ultimately get that system

built. So a lot of excitement generated internally on that and that's really kind of the big picture

of vision. So going from very cool internal trail systems which are fantastic but making it kind of

next level in terms of connecting back to the parkway. So some really neat features that have been

worked on with this project. Again benefiting from a tremendous amount of input, tremendous amount of

energy from people outside of the applicant team. So what is this? So what are we doing? What

you know what is this project ultimately provide? Project provides over 16,000 units of housing including

affordable housing. This is a whole range of land uses, a whole range of densities, employment

commercial opportunities over 29,000 jobs centrally located in the project site itself. That's in

addition to those 200 plus thousand that are located within the five mile radius greenhouse gas

reduction because the project utilizes smart growth, transit trails, alternative modes of travel.

We see significant GHG reduction. Emma mentioned that, you know being a carbon neutral project.

Wellness and recreational opportunities, three urban farms. I think we're at 26 miles of class

one trails or last count as part of the project site itself and over 2100 acres of open space and

recreation out of the 5,900 acres. And going back to the beginning, reuse of industrial lands.

We're excited about that. We think it's a great model for others. There are significant

opportunities and not only in the Sacramento region but way beyond in terms of former industrial

sites, former hospitals sites that have been reused and they can really seek some repurposing. So

we think this is a model, large scale model for doing that. And why does it matter? Ultimately,

why does anybody care about this? Well, we all know there's a housing crisis in California. For those

of us who have kids that are trying to find their way, they're getting dental school, they're

finding their first jobs. What are we going to do about this? So this project provides not only

new housing but significant new housing to help Sacramento County satisfy future demand.

And we're, you know, we think it's a fantastic location for it. And there's a climate crisis.

Project, again, mentioned or layer and on what Emma mentioned, you know, this project's net zero.

Also benefits the county by reducing adjacent projects, vehicle mile traveled by three.

So if you go back to those earlier exhibits, the context maps with the projects that are east

and south of us, because of the job rich nature and the location of our land uses,

we actually help the projects next to us. We drop their vehicle miles traveled by over three

just based on the mixture of land uses that we have in here. And going back to Chair

Conclan's question on drainage and flood control, in addition to helping and reducing these

contributors to climate change, the project also provides significant drainage and flood control

by providing that onsite system for detention and reducing those flows on moors and creek.

Ultimately, we think becomes a regional benefit as well.

And I will stop talking now and conclude my remarks. Hopefully I didn't drag that on too long.

But I appreciate the time to be up here. We're excited to bring this project to you.

And applicant team is available for any questions.

Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for the applicant?

I can start. Thank you so much for a, a very detailed presentation and for the time.

20 years, wow, that's a, it's quite a long time. We're talking about the world's

exchange since then. Hard to believe, I was probably like 10 at the time, right?

That's right. They got you in under age labor. I'm so sorry. I hope you can get them back.

But in all seriousness, I really appreciate the, having to walk us through the level complexity.

First question that came to mind, you mentioned that this is going to be a long term build out for

the project. We're not looking at crystal ball here, but if you were to look at the next steps,

you know, obviously the board of supervisors, the next step here, it seems like you're still pending

certain federal permits or permits from other bodies or governmental bodies, but what would be

the next steps and when would you start kind of peace-mealing? Because I'm sure maybe I understand

that there's going to be parts of the project that would eventually go first.

Good question. Our plan scheduled for the Board May 20th and shortly thereafter, I mean, I think

what we have to do next, granites has a rezone for their property. Tickard's going to go back,

we'll rezone what we would be back in front of you for a rezone for portions of our property.

Concurrent with that, we also have to collectively both, both granite and tickard, do an implementation

plan for the finance plan. So, Todd and Emma mentioned, you know, kind of what's at next level of

detail for implementing, you know, the financial part of the project, that's what asked to happen.

So, you're going to see us again not long from now with the rezone with implementation plan,

which is kind of that final level of detail. And hopefully, tentative maps, at least for our first

phase, I don't know, you know, can't speak on granites in, but for tickard, you know, our plan

always is and what we tend to be is the master developer. So, we will design the sites, we will build

all the horizontal infrastructure, all the great community amenities, and then work with vertical

builders in a lot of cases, home builders to do that last bit. So, but we were kind of a long-term

master developer. So, tentative maps would be one of our next steps.

Understood. Thank you for that. I was just looking at one of the attachments, quite a number of

pages actually. There's one about the conditions, about 283 pages, about 200 or so conditions,

mostly coming from other sister government agencies and bodies. Would it be safe to assume that

you and your team are all a copacetic or okay with those conditions? Yes, we're in agreement with

the conditions. Understood. Thank you. My next question, sir, sorry, if I'm taking a lot of time,

I'm just down the street from this development. So, my boss at home would kill me if I don't ask

the hard questions, but parts in schools. If you could just align us about the coordination,

a lot of our community members, I spoke with the new EGUSD trustee this morning, Heidi Moore.

Our schools are very impacted. We're adding, like you mentioned, about 16,000 more homes.

You can assume that percentage of that would be going to our public school system. What's the

plan there? What's the coordination looking like and how are we going to get there for your, you know,

kind of that vision that you guys have in your presentation? Yeah, that's been a big piece of

this project. We've worked with, so I guess I'll start. There's two school districts on the

project site, Elg� Unified in Sac City. There's, Sac City is a very limited piece, a very small

piece, so it, the bulk of the projects in Elg� Unified. So, we've worked with our facilities team,

really, since early on, in terms of siding locations, size of schools, ultimately, where those

things need to be. So, very extensive outreach and work with the school district on that end of

things. Kim Williams, when she was around with, with facilities group, I mean, I think she was with

the project from day one. So, very extensive input on their parts. So, the land use plan that you see

as part of the project approvals, that site's been blessed by Elg� Unified. Park districts, two

two different park districts, because again, a large project site, you have Cordova in Southgate,

and the same as well. A lot of outreach, a lot of extensive work with both, with park districts as

well in terms of size of parks, classification of parks, where those need to be, what's proper

siding criteria for those as well. So, it's, a lot has gone into, ultimately, where those,

where those are seen today. I understand. Thank you. And just about, after you go in for

tentative parcel maps, and let's just say entitlements go through after that, and you're ready to build

in the next, X amounts or so of months or years, what would be the most immediate, like, impacts

to the surrounding neighborhoods there? Would it be a lower lateral interceptor from the

sewer district? Would it be the widening of the roads on Jackson Highway? Would it be breaking

ground on some of your development properties? Like, what would be the most immediate, if Sacramento

B or ABC 10 were to say, neighborhood, if elder Creek, or district five, if it's a supervisor

viewms area, your transportation, or your livelihood would be impacted? What, what, what might that be?

Standing here today for the Tyker-Done properties, you know, we're anticipating being out near

Jackson, Excelsior for an early phase. So, you would see work on Jackson Highway. You would see

the extension of the sewer infrastructure, sewer interceptor from Bradshaw Road, and you would see,

you know, work near, kind of that common interface between Jackson Township and our project,

Elonic Celsior Road. So, road improvements, probably some of that first phase trail construction,

and that extension of the sewer infrastructure. Understood, and hopefully houses, and all the other

amenities development or mix use will be built after that once those utilities come through.

That's right. Cool. Thank you. Another question at this time, Chair. Pass it back to you.

Any other questions? Questions? Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. I think that

concludes questions from the Dias. Open it up for any public comments.

Any public comments, Clerk? We have them. Okay. Well, then we will bring it back to the Dias.

Anybody want to kick it off? I can start, Chair.

Sure. I think it's no easy feed to be here right now. I think it's quite a number of years,

and a number of coordination. I would invite the public who's interested about this project to

just even look at the 200 or so conditions that the project proponents would have to meet in

order to even just build a piece of housing here. And I think that I just want to say thanks to

the staff and the project proponents for making this happen and really pushing the project to

evolve for what it is now. I think that our policies have been different from the early 2000s to

what we're now, and I appreciate that the project applicants were open to evolve and grow with the

project as things are moving forward. And I do recognize that there are still some challenges

and hurdles ahead. But to that extent, I welcome the opportunity to keep coordinating with both

project applicants and community members because we talk about master planning, we talk about new maps,

but at the end of the day folks tend to gravitate towards what's going to be impacting their day-to-day

lives. How much is my traffic? How much of my bill is going to be on my property taxes going to go up?

Am I going to be living in a household where I can hear their airplanes even though they're

made their air force show is phenomenal by the way? Or even to say if my bills are going to be going

up. So I think those are really valid questions, but again, I just appreciate the rest of the team

for working through this and just making themselves available for questions and really do hope that

we can consider a smart planning like this that really brings together different policies and

balancing all the things that we need, whether it's environment, economy, or equity. And I think those

are at least from my perspective, this project attempts to hit all three. Thank you.

I would just like to note that my lack of questions I think for staff or the applicant is not

absence of study. To the contrary, I think I've spent more time evaluating this project between

briefing with staff and reading through what was a lot of documents, whether it be the staff

report or all of the environmental documents, as well as meeting with the project applicant.

I've probably spent more time on this project than any other perhaps single project that I've

been a part of that decision process. And I guess the conclusion that I've come to is that this

really appears to be a once in a generation maybe type project where we get to consider a project

that has so many residential units attached to it that's not really green fill. This is really a

massive reuse. And I think that staff has done a very good job on this project going through and

dodging all the eyes and crossing all the tees. Recognizing that it is still out of, you know,

bit of a, you know, 5,000 foot level project and there's more detailed to come.

But I thought the project as a whole is very well thought out and I'll be supporting it tonight.

Thank you. Chairman, I'd like just to say thank you to being the new commissioner. Thank you very

much to staff. They're spending the time with me walking me through and the horde of documents

that comes with this process and the ability to look at it at a 5,000 foot level versus granular

because I grew up in that general area. So I remember going down those roads still due to this day

matter of fact, but staff made it much much simpler for me to understand, figure out the impacts

and also allowed me not to have to ask a whole bunch of questions that, you know, they were

able to answer me originally without having to bring them up in here. So kudos to the staff who

did something like this and kudos to the applicant because they obviously had worked a lot with

staff because they didn't say anything to me that contradicted or went sideways compared to what

the staff had said. And usually you don't find that it happened too often when the applicant doesn't

go down the road and throw something in that or not throw something in that staff do. So as a new

commissioner I want to thank you very much. My question is does this take a motion to move it

through or does it automatically go through on its own? It's a motion to make a recommendation,

since it's not a final action by just a motion to make a recommendation.

Sorry, just real quick. I think I also want to say thank you to staff and to that applicant.

I could be wrong, but it seemed to me like you there was a lot of work and effort put in to engage

other agencies and entities, school districts and the public and maybe that's evidence why no one

is here tonight. It's such a big project. So hopefully that's an example for other developers

in the county that are looking at projects this size or smaller just in general. Thank you.

Yeah, I will I think echo much of what my colleague to my left indicated earlier. I probably

spent more time calling through this project than any other project that's come before this body.

I want to thank the exemplary job of staff. I know there are comments

resonated well earlier just the appreciation of working collaboratively with the applicant.

Oh, 20 years. You can tell is a very thoughtful approach, a lot of work and developing the Jackson

corridor from the amount of housing units over a third towards density, the hydrology, the drainage,

noise abatement, it's compliant with the climate action plan.

The better the net zero GHG, the economic development, the jobs creation,

tremendous amount of economic opportunity that this project represents and I just want to

applaud the applicant and of all their hard work. I believe I heard a motion from Commissioner

Devlin but maybe I'm misheard. Well, I would happy to make a motion to approve the project.

We have a motion and a second clerk will you please call the roll.

I Devlin. I.

Corona Sabiniana. I.

Borjav. Yes. Chair Cromplin. Yes. That item passes. Those folks. Thank you.

All right. We are on to the Planning Director's report.

I'll keep it brief tonight. Thank you all for sticking with us for a little over three hours.

It's really nice to have a full commission again. I very much look forward to keeping the off

side of you for a little bit. We do have a shorter agenda next time with one item that's going to

be continued or that was continued to the 14th. We'll have four items on April 14th. So that's

all I've got tonight. Is everybody going to be here? Getting the head count. Sorry.

April. Yeah. Sorry. Disquest. Yes. Be here. Yeah. All right. Excellent. All right. Outstanding.

Any miscellaneous scheduling items. I do want to thank staff for arranging the

attendance of the Academy. I was greatly appreciated. I enjoyed spending time with my colleagues

and attending and learning a lot. So I appreciate the facilitation of that and look forward to

many other opportunities. I know we had come up with a lot of ideas and those ideas have already been

passed through to Director Smith and others for consideration implementation. So

really appreciate that. I guess we'll move over to any remaining. I do have one quick question.

Thank you, Director Smith. This is a significant lift with the master plan. There's a number of other

master plans kind of pending. Might be too soon to kind of pick your brain as to when this

diaspora that the Planning Commission might be anticipating other master plans that might be

coming to the calendar. The next one coming will be probably the second hearing in June, although

we're that's tentative at this point. We're working through that's the Upper West Side project,

by the way. We will be compiling all the conditions working on the staff report that's already in

progress. Working on the final I.R. All of those things are happening right now in order to make

that time frame. So we will be reaching out to you just like we did with this project to schedule

some individual briefings. So you can ask us all sorts of questions and hopefully we can come up

with answers. Thank you, sir. Just work on scheduling. I won't be here April 28th.

I just want to make a note of that. And actually can I ask what is are we still allowed or not

allowed to participate remotely? You have a limit on a number of times. You know there's the

emergency participation option, but you only get to use that I think a couple of times a year,

but general answer is yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And then public comments. Any members of the public

wish to provide any comments? No? All right. Then it looks like we're going to adjourn at 851 tonight.