Good evening and welcome to the Sacramento County Planning Commission's meeting for Monday,

June 9th, 2025.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Absolutely.

Members Devlin?

Members Virga?

Here.

Members Corona-Savagnano?

Members Borja?

Here.

And Chair Conklin?

Here.

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

Thank you very much.

And with that, will you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Clerk, would you mind starting the Pledge of Allegiance for us?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I see that we have a pretty busy agenda tonight.

First one is a swearing in of the commissioners.

I've been working with the vice chair and the director and staff to kind of help implement some new changes

and provide some professional development with the commissioners.

And I know the public pledge that we uphold and faithfully perform is integral to that.

So I appreciate the director for including this as an agenda item.

Is the mic on?

There we go.

Good morning or good afternoon, evening, commissioners.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if you want to wait for Mr. Devlin or I could do the swearing in for Mr. Devlin and Commissioner Sabignano at the next meeting.

I think in the interest of time, why don't we go ahead and do that?

Okay.

Okay.

So before you, you have your script.

And if you could all say your name when I get to the statement where you're going to repeat after me,

if you could say your name together at one time and then just follow me from there.

Is that the?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

On behalf of the County of Sacramento, I, Florence Evans, am hereby swearing in the County of Sacramento planning commissioners.

Please raise your right hand and repeat the following statements after me.

I, and then state your names.

Timothy Berger

David Conklin

Do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States

Repeat after me.

Do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States

And Gaming

And the Constitution of the State of California

And the Constitution of the State of California

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic

That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States

that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States

and the Constitution of the State of California

that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion

that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

And you are hereby sworn in before me, Florence Evans, on this ninth day of 2025 of June.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right.

And Chair, I do need to read the announcement.

Please. You beat me to it.

The county fosters public engagement during the meeting

and encourages public participation, civility, and use of courteous language.

The commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language,

gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks

or threats directed toward any meeting participant.

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

To make an in-public public comment, please complete and submit a speaker request form to the clerk.

Each individual will be invited to the podium to make a comment.

Members of the public may send a written comment,

which is distributed to commissioners, members, and filed in the record.

Contact information is optional and should include the meeting date

and off-agenda agenda item number to be sent as follow.

Email a comment to boardclerk at saccounty.gov

and mail a comment to 700 H Street, Suite 2050 at Sacramento County,

Sacramento, California, 95814.

Thank you. Sorry about that.

Thank you very much, clerk.

Will you please read the first item of our non-contested agenda?

Absolutely.

Item number two is PLMP 2025-00030,

a certificate of non-conforming use to the Planning Commission.

This is located at 4301 Paradise Drive

in the west side of the intersection of Paradise Drive

and Talbert Court in the Carmichael Old Foothill Farms community,

and the environmental document is exempt.

Thank you very much, and I believe we have a staff report for this evening.

We do. Thank you, Chair Conklin.

Even though this item is a non-contested item,

it is a relatively new request for this item,

and I think Wendy Hartman is going to prepare you

with a little bit of background as to why it's here.

All right.

So as Todd mentioned,

this is a certificate of non-conforming use

by the Planning Commission referred to as an NCP

to allow for reinstatement of a non-conforming use.

This change was recently adopted by the Board of Supervisors

on December 10th and took effect January 10th,

and the reason we did this was that previously

a few of the county's special planning areas

and neighborhood preservation areas

had provisions that allowed for existing businesses

that had become non-conforming through the adoption of an SPA

or other zoning code amendment

to be able to be reinstated in the event

that they lost their non-conforming use.

And so we decided when we came forward

with the massage ordinance,

we had some businesses that were struggling with this

where the zoning code had changed,

and we found out that they either could no longer operate

in that zone district

or needed to obtain a conditional use permit

from the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors.

So again, the most frequent reason

for seeing a request such as this before you

is because the zoning code has changed,

and the business in question

has either allowed its business license to lapse

or did not get an administrative level certificate

of non-conforming use

in the time period specified in the zoning code.

And so this is an opportunity for them to come back,

and in some cases, a business, through various reasons,

may not have been aware that their business license

or their need for an NCS was required.

So this just allows those businesses

that have continued to operate

to become legalized again

and to allow them to apply for and receive approval

of their business licenses.

As the NCP process,

which is the Certificate of Non-Conforming Use

from the Planning Commission,

requires a public hearing process,

including a recommendation from the CPACs

and neighbor notification,

it also provides an opportunity

for the community and your commission

to consider whether or not the business

is operating in a manner

that is consistent with that neighborhood,

is not acting in a way

that would be considered a public nuisance

and should be allowed to continue or not continue.

And so tonight you're going to hear

the first of these requests that we received.

We do have another one

that will be coming to your commission,

I think, in the next month or two,

and we have received a few other applications

that have just recently been submitted.

And if you don't have any questions for me

on the NCP process,

I will turn it over to Holly Gunn

to give the presentation on this specific request.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Any questions from the dais?

No?

All right.

Please proceed.

Good evening.

My name is Holly Gunn,

Assistant Planner with Planning and Environmental Review

and Lead Planner for this project.

The project site is located at 4301 Paradise Drive

at the west side of the Paradise Drive

and Trabert Court intersection

in the Carmichael Old Foothill Farms community.

The parcel is currently developed

with an outdoor recreation facility,

which was developed in 1956.

There is a typo on the slide.

It's 1956 instead of 1965.

The subject site is zoned residential five or RD5,

and the surrounding parcels are also zoned RD5

and are developed with single-family residences.

The outdoor recreation facility was established in 1956

and became nonconforming in 1967

when a change to the zoning code

resulted in the requirement of a use permit

to the Planning Commission for recreation facilities.

In 2018, the first business license was obtained,

and it was determined by county council

that an administrative certificate of nonconforming use

would be required to be obtained by May 3rd, 2023.

Prior to 2018, the business was not aware

that a business license was required to operate.

In 2024, the business license was up for renewal,

and it was discovered that an NCS had not been obtained,

and that resulted in the loss of the nonconforming status.

As a result, a certificate of nonconforming use

to the Planning Commission is required to reinstate the use.

This is the site plan and the floor plan.

The property is currently developed as is,

and there are no changes to the proposed development

as a part of this project.

The Carmichael Old Foothill Farm CPAC met on April 9th, 2025,

and recommended approval of the requested entitlement 4-0.

One comment was received regarding impacts associated

with large events such as swim meets,

such as when swim meets are held at the event.

Therefore, condition 12 was added to the conditions of approval.

This condition requires that the applicant

contacts the sheriff's office for coordination

for events over 100 attendees.

The project is consistent with the general plan,

community plan, and zoning code as conditioned.

It is compatible with surrounding zoning and land uses,

and the environmental determination is exempt.

Planning and environmental review staff recommends

the Planning Commission approve the following.

Recognize the exempt status of the request

under section 15301

of the California Environmental Quality Act

and approve the certificate of non-conforming use

subject to the findings and conditions.

This concludes my presentation.

I am available to answer any questions.

We also have the applicant team present

to answer questions as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for staff?

No?

Thank you.

Is the applicant here?

Thank you.

Would you like to address the commission?

Sure.

All right.

Welcome.

Good evening.

Thank you.

Good evening, commission.

My name is Lisa Mattis.

I'm with Baker Williams Engineering Group.

I also happen to be a member at Glen Oaks,

and I was previously on the board of directors

of Glen Oaks for many years.

So when this came up, as Holly said,

Glen Oaks was established in 1956.

At that time, there were no houses around it.

It was in the middle of nowhere.

The first subdivision map recorded

also happened to be named Glen Oaks, coincidentally.

And this was recorded in 1960.

And as subdivisions developed around the club,

it's now completely surrounded.

You know, of course, we're not already five.

So our members kept asking, why are we having to do this?

I said, because we're not a house or, you know, a subdivision.

So this is what we need to do.

Glen Oaks provides another backyard.

We joined because we didn't have a pool

and didn't want to put one in.

I think a lot of people in the neighborhood have done that,

or they didn't have a tennis court or a pickleball court.

And so it's another place to hang out.

We provide places a lot of elementary and middle schools

have their end-of-year party because they can swim and play tennis

and barbecue and, you know, play games

and have all the fun they want.

We always say that we think Glen Oaks is the happiest place in Carmichael.

Do you have any questions for me?

Any questions from the dais?

Commissioners?

No?

I think we're good.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Any other members of the public that would like to provide comments?

Clerk?

We have no comments online.

All right.

Looks like we'll bring it back to the dais if there's a motion.

I'll make a motion to move the...

And as I...

Sorry.

No, please.

No, just to move it.

Move the staff recommendation.

As a former swim coach of Glen Oaks some 26 years ago,

I'm not sure I have to recuse myself,

but provided that I don't, I'm happy to second that motion.

Wonderful.

I hear a motion and a second.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Commissioner Borja?

Yes.

Devlin?

Yes.

Verga?

Aye.

Chair Conklin?

Yes.

And that vote passes.

Thank you very much.

And that brings us to item number three on our non-contested portion of the agenda.

Clerk, would you please call?

Item number three is PLMP 2023-00084.

It's a use permit, a development plan review, special development permit, and design review.

The property is located at 7849 Stockton Boulevard in the South Sacramento community,

and the environmental document is a mitigated negative declaration.

Thank you very much.

Is there need for staff presentation?

Any questions?

No.

Is there any...

Is the applicant here?

We are for the commission.

Would you...

Did you want to address the commission, or are you...

I think in the interest of time, unless there's any specific questions...

At the podium, if you'd like to make those comments.

Paul, he's David Hobbs.

On behalf of the applicant, we'll defer to the recommendation this evening in the interest

of time.

But if there's any specific questions, we're more than happy to entertain them.

Thank you very much.

And are there any members of the public that would like to provide any comments?

Clerk, anyone on the call?

I have no one online.

Online?

Bring it back to the dais.

Any comments, questions?

No.

I do have one quick question, Chair.

I really appreciate it.

To the applicant, thank you so much.

Were there any considerations about coordinating with traffic on...

If you guys are familiar in the area, Stockton and L.C., a majority of your trucks kind of

go through on Stockton Boulevard, and kind of cut through right on Stockton and L.C.,

and just right past where Costco is.

I don't think that there's going to be quite an extension of, or at least an increase of traffic,

but was that a consideration that you guys might have had when applying?

Some of your trucks are having a really tough time, or at least truck traffic's having a

really tough time making that left northbound on Stockton Boulevard onto L.C. or MAC to get

into the freeway.

Commissioner, I don't know that the specific issue was taken under consideration, only that

we spent actually probably about six months with traffic to make sure that everything was

vetted so that any potential concerns were addressed.

And I believe that with the final conditions of approval, the way that they're set off,

all of the department's concerns have been addressed.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

No.

Entertain a motion?

I'll make a motion to move the item.

All right.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Will you please call the roll?

Commissioner Borja?

Yes.

Devlin?

Yes.

Verga?

Aye.

Chair Conklin?

Yes.

All right.

That vote passes.

Thank you very much.

That brings us to item number three on their agenda under the non-contested items.

Clerk, will you please call?

Item number four is-

Oh, I'm sorry.

That was my mistake.

Item number four.

No.

I'm not keeping track.

Item number four is PLMP 2023-00054.

This is a rezone tentative parcel map and design review.

It is located at the northeast intersection of Dillard Road and Sherman Lane in the Consumless

Community.

The environmental document is a mitigated negative declaration.

Thank you very much.

Is there a request for staff presentation?

Seeing none, is the applicant here that would like to provide a few remarks?

Thanks.

Chair Conklin, members of the commission, Brian Holloway, Holloway Land Company, representing

Saw Vang and family.

I just wanted to take a moment and say, first of all, we've read the staff report.

We agree to all the conditions of approval.

But more importantly, I'd like to thank our planner, your staff, Nate Doberneck, for a

great job in guiding us through the process and making sure that we stayed on track.

Just wanted to say thank you for his good work.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

And are there any members of the public that wish to provide any comments?

Not hearing any.

Deferring to the clerk for anyone online?

I have no one online.

All right.

Bringing it back to the commission.

Anyone on the dais?

Final thoughts?

No.

No?

All right.

Entertain a motion?

I'd like to move the item and move the staff recommendation.

We've got a motion.

I'll second it.

We have a second clerk.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Members Devlin?

Yes.

Members Verga?

Aye.

Members Borja?

Yes.

And Chair Conklin?

Yes.

That vote passes.

Thank you very much.

And that brings us to item number five on our agenda under non-contested.

Will the clerk please call the item?

Item number five is PLMP 2022-00144.

It is a specific plan amendment, rezone, small lot tentative subdivision map, and design review.

The property is located at 9994 Bloren Road in the Vineyard Community.

And the environmental document is exempt.

Thank you very much.

Is there a request for staff presentation?

No?

No.

All right.

We're waiving that.

Is the applicant here that wished to provide a few remarks?

Thanks.

Good evening.

My name is Rick Langdon, and I'm here on behalf of the owner of the project.

I, too, would like to thank Christopher Alberts for all his efforts in putting this together.

It's been a long program, but we got there, and we're in agreement with the conditions,

and we're ready to move forward.

So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them.

If not, thank you.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Looks like Christopher Alberts is going to win some sort of award tonight.

All right.

He deserves it.

Is there any comments from the public?

Not hearing any.

Clerk, is there anyone online?

I have no public comments online.

All right.

Bring it back to the dais for any closing thoughts, comments?

Not hearing any.

Entertaining a motion.

I'd like to move staff recommendation, Chair.

We have a motion.

Second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Aye.

Members Verga?

Aye.

Members Devlin?

Yes.

Members Borja?

Yes.

And Chair Conklin?

Yes.

That vote passes.

All right.

We're making record time.

Thank you very much.

That brings us to item number six on our agenda under the contested portion.

Clerk, will you please call the item?

Item number six is PLMP 2023-00002.

This is a tentative subdivision map, special development permit, and design review.

The property is located at 8840 Phoenix Avenue, approximately 776 feet west of the intersection of Hazel Avenue and Phoenix Avenue in the Fair Oaks community.

And the environmental document is a mitigated negative declaration.

All right.

And we have staff for presentation.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Conklin, planning commissioners.

My name is Christian Balthazar.

I'm an associate planner with planning environmental review and lead planner for this item.

The subject site is located at 8840 Phoenix Avenue in the Fair Oaks community.

The project site consists of two parcels totaling 3.54 acres, which currently contain two abandoned single-family structures and a shed on site.

According to Sacramento County records, the structures were constructed around 1939.

The subject site is zoned residential density 3, or RD3, and surrounding area is developed with single-family residential homes, also zoned RD3 in all directions, as well as RD2 zoned to the south.

On January 5th of 2021, this project was presented to the Fair Oaks CPAC as an early workshop item.

During this meeting, the applicant provided the CPAC and members of the public with various site layouts.

At this time, members of the public expressed their support for a private road ending in a cul-de-sac rather than a connection of the existing private road to Lena Way on the south side of the project site.

So just for clarification, there was a few site layouts, one of which included connecting Phoenix Avenue all the way through to Lena Way to the south.

However, during that meeting, the overall favored layout was the cul-de-sac design that is being brought forward today.

Since this was an early workshop item, at that time, there was no formal recommendation made.

Staff also reviewed recent code enforcement cases and violations and has concluded there are no active cases at this time.

The entitlements requested include a tentative subdivision map to divide or to allow the division of the two parcels into 10 residential lots, a special development permit to allow the proposed project to deviate from public street frontage standards, and a design review to determine substantial compliance with county-wide design guidelines.

On screen now is the proposed center subdivision map.

And once again, looking to divide 3.54 acres into 10 residential lots.

The proposed, the project proposes a private cul-de-sac that will serve all 10 proposed lots, which is the current request under the special development permit.

All the existing structures currently on site are proposed to be removed.

And at this time, there's no development proposed, so future building footprints and setbacks will be evaluated during the building permit stages of the development.

The project was also conditioned by county engineering site improvements in permitting section to require the construction of Class A frontage street improvements along Phoenix Avenue.

So for perspective, Phoenix Avenue is on the north side of the map, which is left side of the screen here.

So Class A improvements would be required for that portion of the map.

And that includes curb, gutter, and sidewalk.

This is condition number 23 in attachment 2 of your hearing packets.

Along with that, Sacramento County Environmental Management Department also conditioned the project to require all lots be connected to public water and sewer.

And this was condition 66 and 67 in attachment 2 of your packets.

Here we have the preliminary grading and drainage plan for the site.

On June 20, 2023, the Department of Water Resources approved a Level 3 drainage study for this site.

The drainage study included the plants that are shown on screen here, which show how drainage on site would be handled.

Given we did receive a couple comments regarding the drainage on site.

I'll do a quick explanation of how the plants propose to divert overland release.

So on screen now, the plants show two stormwater detention basins, one running through the east side of the map.

And that's shown towards the top portion of the screen here along parcels or lots 10, 9, and 8.

This detention basin is proposed to capture the runoff from lots 7 through 10.

And then there's also a second detention basin that's proposed on the bottom portion of the map,

which is going to be the west side along the west boundary line of proposed lot 5.

And that's intended to capture runoff from lots 6, 5, 4, and 3.

Along with that, you'll also see a green outline along some of the property lines.

Those are proposed swales that are intended to capture the runoff on each lot

and diverted into the corresponding detention basins proposed for the site.

Along with this, the remaining stormwater on proposed lots 1 and 2 is proposed to drain to the private drive

through a V-ditch and then run through to the public street of Phoenix Avenue.

Additionally, the Department of Water Resources also condition the project to require a level 4 drainage study

prior to the improvement or prior to improvement or grading plan submittal.

And these are captured as conditions 57 through 59 of your attachment 2.

On screen now, we also have the project's tree exhibit, which shows a total of 103 trees on site.

The proposed project would result in the removal of 37 of the 103 trees.

Many of these trees are proposed for removal in order to develop the private drive

that's shown on the center of the screen.

13 of these trees to be removed are protected oaks,

all of which were rated either in poor condition with major structure and health problems

or fair condition with minor problems per the provided arborist report.

The remaining 24 non-native trees proposed for removal do not meet the definition of a protected tree.

However, they do comprise as non-native tree canopy.

So there are mitigation measures that have been conditioned to the project

to mitigate the removal of both native trees on site

as well as replacement of any lost non-native tree canopy.

The environmental or the project had an initial study mitigated negative declaration

that was prepared and was released for public review on January 10th of 2025.

The document discusses the topics listed on the slide

and conclude that the project would result in less than significant impacts

with the implementation of mitigation measures.

The Fair Oaks CPAC made in February 7th of 2024 to hear and consider this project.

Two members of the public provided in-person comments.

One of the comments asked the project, asked for the project to incorporate sidewalks

and to ensure pedestrian safety.

The other commenter expressed privacy concerns on the southern side of the project site,

specifically along proposed lot six.

CPAC members stated that they did not have any major concerns

with the requested entitlements and felt indifferent about the request for sidewalks,

but did suggest that the applicant exchange information with the neighbor to the south

to work out possible solutions to the neighbor's privacy concerns.

One of the suggestions accused of potentially planting additional trees

along that shared property line to the south.

Following deliberation, the CPAC voted unanimously to recommend the Planning Commission

improve the requested entitlements.

Additionally, the proposed project was reviewed by the Design Review Advisory Committee, or DRAC,

and that happened on March 28th of 2024.

The DRAC members initially expressed concerns with the proposed private drive ending in a cul-de-sac

as opposed to a public street connection through Lena Way.

However, given the project had been taken to the Fair Oaks CPAC,

both as an early workshop item and then also as an item that was recommended on earlier that year,

and there was extensive conversations with the applicant

that they've had with the Planning Department regarding this layout,

DRAC members were agreeable to the approach of the private road ending in a cul-de-sac.

Additionally, DRAC members also expressed concerns with the large elevation changes across the site

and stated that either large amounts of grading would need to be done

or retaining walls would be needed for future development.

Following deliberations, DRAC recommended the Planning Commission

find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines,

provided that any of the 10 lots requiring retaining walls due to grading issues

will need to come back to the Planning Department for a staff level design review

approved by the Design Review Administrator.

That recommendation has been added as condition number eight

of your attachment two in your hearing packets.

Following staff's review, it was determined that the proposed 10 or subdivision map

will create parcels similar in size to that of the surrounding area

and would be creating more housing opportunities.

Additionally, the findings can be made to support the deviation requested

as part of the special development permit,

and the proposed project is consistent with the general plan,

the community plan, and the zoning code.

The environmental document also concluded

that there would be no significant environmental concerns,

and the project was supported by both the CPAC and the DRAC.

Planning Environmental Review staff recommends

the Planning Commission take the following actions.

Determine that the environmental analysis prepared pursuant

to the California Environmental Quality Act

is adequate and complete,

and adopt a mitigated negative declaration,

adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program,

approve the tentative subdivision map

and special development permit subject to findings and conditions,

and finally, project in substantial compliance

with county-wide design guidelines,

also subject to findings and conditions.

With that, I'll conclude my presentation.

I am available to answer any questions,

and we do also have the applicant team

in press and answer questions as well.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for staff?

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, sir, for a wonderful presentation.

Really appreciate it.

If you could just go back to the slide

where there are the maps.

Yeah, I think that'd be great.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

So we did receive a comment

and a couple of comments regarding lot six,

both concerns regarding the construction staging area

as well as the privacy and potential access

to and from Lean Away.

Is that something that was considered

in the application process

and any of the conditions related to that construction

and ensuring that the community,

I think that would be south of this project,

closer to Lean Away,

all of their concerns could potentially be addressed

or mitigated?

Yeah, so currently as it stands today,

at the end of Lean Away on the south side of the project,

there is a white barricade calling out a dead-end road.

There are also requirements from the zoning code

requiring solid wood fencing for residential homes

adjacent to other residential.

However, if the Planning Commission wishes

to add a condition to further change the type of fencing

that would be required,

that would be something that we would be able

to accommodate with agreement from the applicant team.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Thank you, Commissioner.

Related to that, there is some concern

about the parking of RVs and boats on nearby streets.

Are currently residents allowed to park a boat

or RV on the street?

So currently, at least four directly across the frontage area

of the project side along Phoenix Avenue.

There is no curb, gutter, and sidewalk constructed.

It is currently unimproved with a dirt side road.

Right?

I'm generally, I don't believe

that there would be an allowance

to park an RV or boat off of your property

on the street.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just want to make sure I understand it correctly.

There isn't any planned,

other than getting this set up for residential,

there's no building builder with a plan to build

or anything at this point yet, right?

That's correct.

Today, the request is just for the subdivision of the land.

A future request to develop the parcel

would come through building permits.

Our zoning code doesn't require a subsequent design review

if it's 20, I believe it's 20 houses or less

for a subdivision.

So there would be no further review

beyond the review of the actual planning?

That's correct.

Unless there were deviations being requested

for the proposed development of the homes,

then there would be a subsequent need

for further review as a discretionary entitlement.

Thank you.

All right.

I think the other commissioners tagged my question,

so I think we're good.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And do we have the applicant here?

Yes, we're here.

Wonderful.

Would you like to provide the commission with some remarks?

Good evening, Chair, commissioners.

We want to thank the team that worked with us extensively.

As you see, there's a lot of conditions that we went through.

We're in agreement with what's on there.

So we'd like for you guys to support our project.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

I had a quick question, if I may.

There's been some concerns raised by,

it sounds like some letters we've received

and have been surfaced by my colleagues here

related to the northeast and southwest drainage

and those abutting or adjacent homes that are connecting,

and at least in that kind of spillway zone.

How are those drainage and sways going to be maintained

and ensure that they capture the intended drainage

and so there isn't spillover into the residents that share that area?

Yeah.

There's the drainage plan that was submitted

is just a preliminary plan.

There will be an additional stage two drainage plan

that will be also submitted and reviewed

to ensure that everything is in compliance.

Okay.

And then it was highlighted before

that some residents like to see the construction

of some sort of physical barrier fence

to restrict public access from the project from Lenawee.

Is that something that you have plans to address?

What's your feedback to that?

Yeah.

The way that the plan is designed,

the logical conclusion is that there will be a solid fence.

That's going to be somebody's backyard.

Nobody's going to want to have vehicles shining their lights

and driving in there to keep it open.

So I think that's just like a simple logical understanding

that there will be some form of fencing that will be there.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

It does to me.

Thank you very much.

Is that it?

Any other questions?

Any other questions from the dais?

No?

I think that's it.

Thank you very much.

Sounds good.

We do have a request to you guys.

Fair Oaks typically is a rural area.

There's not, people don't really like curb gutter sidewalks

in this area.

There was another parcel map that was a small subdivision

that was built probably a couple hundred feet from here.

They allowed a deferral from having to not install

the frontage improvements.

We'd like to request that the little portion of sidewalk

that is required is going to be more of an eyesore

and inconsistent with this area.

So we'd like to request that you guys provide an option for us

to do a deferral agreement to not have to do those frontage improvements.

And when we were at CPAC, it was kind of a, some people were for the idea,

some of them were against it.

But, you know, in this situation, there's just like this little small portion

of sidewalk that's going to be sticking out, protruding out,

that I don't think would be safe for this area.

And in reality, would be kind of a nice or wouldn't be consistent.

So a deferral, are you guys familiar with what a deferral is?

Yeah, I'm just not a big fan of redrawing projects from the dais.

So I'm going to look to staff for what conversations there have been in this area,

if any.

Okay, good evening.

So there was prior meetings with the side improvements

and permitting section, SIPS, regarding this topic of potentially

not requiring the class A, which covers curb, gutter, and sidewalk,

but doing a class C instead.

That request itself was something that SIPS was not willing to come

to come to a compromise with.

They're stating that there is class A improvements directly to the north

and directly to the south of the project.

So therefore, they basically said no to changing from class A to class C.

However, in terms of the, there was no previous discussion with SIPS

to see if there were an agreement or okay with entering into a deferred

improvement agreement with the applicant.

From my understanding from that meeting, SIPS was very clear that they did want

to have those class A improvements at the very least on the front edge

of the site along Phoenix Avenue.

Okay.

So the request is to amend the application to include a deferred improvement?

It would just be adding it in as an option so that we can then work with SIPS

to see if we can get a deferral, but at least if we can put that in

as an option for the condition.

I'm going to look to my counsel here for how that would be worded or.

Well, let's just change.

I'm sorry.

They're asking to change the condition.

I just want to be clear.

Are we just talking about the segment on Phoenix Avenue?

That's correct, yes.

Okay.

Is there full class A required up and down the cul-de-sac?

No.

No.

What's that going to be?

That's a private road.

That's a private road.

So is there any requirements?

There's no requirements in terms of for any, sorry, staff.

Not for sidewalk.

Yeah, go ahead.

But curb gutter?

No, the requirement from SIPS was to defer to Sac Metro Fire District, which was just the,

they just determined the proposed width, which is minimum of 20 feet, and pavement able

to sustain over 80,000 tons for their trucks to be able to maneuver in and out of the private

road, but no curb gutter sidewalk.

Okay.

So, you know, what SIPS is going to look at, what they already have looked at, it sounds

like, is they usually would only grant a deferral, and this is Phoenix Avenue.

I think it's actually this way, so it runs west-east, correct?

So they're going to look at, you know, the parcels to the west and east and see if they've

already developed with sidewalks or not.

And if it's, you know, logical, if they already have, they already have Class A on one or both

sides, it's logical to have this segment filled in.

That's kind of how we do it in a piecemeal fashion.

Now, if you look on both, either side of that front lot, one of this subdivision, and there's,

there's no sidewalks or curb gutter on either side for some distance, then that might make

sense to grant a deferral.

And I don't know what the situation is in terms of are there sidewalks or not, but I will say

this in terms of what granting a deferral is, it basically functions like a waiver.

Once that deferral gets recorded, it's, I mean, I've rarely seen them called in and actually

completed, you know, it's, the properties get sold off, the new owners don't even realize

it's there.

That's just, I appreciate it.

That's just, you know, candidly how those normally work out.

And then we've got deferred sidewalk improvement agreement or frontage improvement agreements

that, you know, are 40 years old.

It's never been called in.

But anyway, in terms of procedure, all he's asking you, and you can decide if you want,

obviously you decide if you want to allow it or not, is to amend the condition, which calls

for class A. And you can do that here. It's not, it's not going to require a redesign of

the map or anything.

Okay. Sounds good. Thank you very much. All right. Are there any questions from the dais

regarding this potential change?

Yeah, I have.

Yeah.

You're saying you don't want to put the class A in along that road. The question that basically

I'm not familiar with is, is there gerb cutters, sidewalks on the opposite sides of those parcels

now?

I don't think so, no.

There's, yeah, there's nothing that's not on the opposite side. There's, there's some

down the street.

How far down the street?

You know, I don't have.

There's a few sections.

300 feet west and about 200 feet east.

And they're in front of houses, existing homes now?

There are single family houses over there.

Okay.

Yeah, and I think that, you know, if there's a longer portion, it kind of makes sense because

it provides off-street parking and widens the road and whatnot. When you have a section that's

short like this, it's just, it's going to be, you know, this little.

I think I can visualize this.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think the planning director ever wanted to.

I just wanted to provide a little bit more.

Context.

Specifics to your request, Commissioner Berger. Todd Smith, planning director.

On the south side of Phoenix Avenue, the closest sidewalk to the west is roughly 246 feet

away. That is two parcels to the east of what is Arbor D Drive, excuse me, and to the east,

it's quite a bit further away, at least based on Google Maps imagery. You have to go all

the way to what looks like Hazel, where you can see some existing sidewalks to the east.

On the north side of Phoenix Avenue along this frontage, there are no existing sidewalks

that run the entire stretch from those two, same two intersection points.

Yes. And then could you check how far those four parcels are away, the ones that were newly

developed there? I want to say it's probably been a couple of years.

They would be on the north side of the property. They're kind of in fill lots.

I want to say they're also a couple hundred feet away on the north side, back up to the shopping

center there.

Immediately to the north?

It's, yeah.

These ones are right here.

They're right across the street.

Oh.

Yeah.

So there is a project to the north that's immediately to the north of this project.

Its lotting pattern is just directly north.

Yeah.

They were recently developed brand new homes. So it's just, you know, it wouldn't make sense

that we would have to do them if, if they were literally, oh yeah, I didn't realize they

were right across the street. They were right across the street there.

Okay.

All right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you staff.

Uh, do we have any members of the public that would like to testify? I do have a form here

for Tom, uh, slow, slow, slow, slow, slow, slow, slow, slow, slow ski.

Slotkowski.

Slotkowski.

Slotkowski.

Better than most.

I appreciate your patience.

Thank you. Thank you chair commissioners. Tom's like,

cows, ski.

I, uh, 50, 40 lean away. So I am the,

person I think who you were referring to, uh, who did submit comments. Um, I'm,

I'm not aware of other comments from, uh, adjacent neighbors, but I did submit some

comments today. Um,

I am the property owner to the South on the RT two lot, uh,

that, uh, also has front of John Lena way and is right up to the barricade,

which is the South property line of the project.

So, um,

yeah, I, I, I submitted a number of comments and I don't know if you want me to

read them.

I never try to read comments again cause I'm sure you've,

you've already done that. So I could just highlight them.

Um, I think a quick summarization would be great.

Okay. That would be fine. Um, so I'm a,

I'm a registered civil engineer. And, uh,

so I have a pretty good understanding of the complexity of developing this

property. Um,

and I do appreciate the, uh,

the applicant working with the community. Um,

the fact that I'm the only one here, uh,

uh,

is a testament to the fact that I think most of the, uh,

property owners on Lena way and, uh,

Villa Campo drive, uh,

are, uh,

happy with the,

the cul de sac configuration off of Phoenix. Um,

the one thing that I,

I did bring up at the planning commission,

I'm sorry,

at the fair Oak CPAC last year was the lot six issue.

And that touches off.

That's the start of, of, uh,

the comments that I made today and wrote them down.

Um, as was stated by Kristen, uh, uh,

Christian,

I was under the impression that we'd have some conversation with the

applicant regarding some of my concerns about the buildability of that

lot, the, uh, the configuration, uh,

the elevation and, uh,

just the overall setback.

And now the understanding that, you know,

the drainage swale,

that's a requirement for, uh,

developing, uh,

the property will also impact, uh,

the overall availability of a backyard, uh,

on that lot six,

which would be my shared property line.

So, um,

since we have not really gotten anywhere with the applicant with regard to

conversation on what could be done to help mitigate that,

I'm suggesting that lot six perhaps could have its own, uh,

additional review by the, uh,

zoning code administrator or the, uh,

improvement plan director of SIPs,

uh, to make sure that some of my concerns about privacy and about setbacks,

uh,

are addressed and that,

you know,

I,

I don't wind up with somebody overlooking the property that has been,

you know,

very private to us over all these years.

I've been there since 1994,

built the property out in 1994.

And, uh,

we've enjoyed having that the way it is always recognizing it was going to

develop.

So I'm not here to say it can't be developed.

I've had enough experience with those types of conversations to recognize,

you know,

everybody has a right to develop the property,

but I think considerations of,

you know,

our longevity at the property and the fact that there could be some,

um,

other mitigations perhaps perform to allow us a little bit more privacy than

just the 25 foot setback that is currently,

uh,

shown on the map.

So if the,

if the council,

uh,

if the commission could consider some type of additional review of that

individual lot,

once that building permit,

uh,

is submitted with regard to reduction in size of the property or,

uh,

you know,

not allowing decks,

uh,

if it is a second story property and just how high that property will,

uh,

that,

that building footprint would be,

uh,

because it is sloping down and I have a retaining wall on my property that

makes our,

uh,

existing building pad even lower.

So we're going to be sitting there looking at something that could be quite

high.

And I'd like some consideration by the county,

uh,

to try to mitigate that impact as much as possible.

If we're not going to get anywhere with,

uh,

reducing or making any changes to the lotting pattern.

Okay.

Um,

so,

I mean,

just so I understand,

um,

uh,

the final approval for this item is the planning commission.

Correct.

For the map.

Yeah,

for the map.

So,

um,

I mean,

we could,

the,

the,

there's always,

I'd love to see the conversation between you and the applicant occur.

We can,

I presume,

I mean,

we can either move forward with this application as it is or with

conditions.

Um,

um,

I don't know how we would set any conditions based upon

conversations though,

unless we reschedule this,

uh,

agenda item for a future hearing,

uh,

to facilitate those conversations.

Right.

And I don't know if the applicant's willing to entertain that.

Right.

Well,

that's not my,

um,

that's not for me to answer.

Uh,

my suggestion was to perhaps put a note on the map,

on the map that you may be approving tonight that would require additional,

um,

inspection or additional review of the particulars of this site,

the building actual building,

uh,

footprint of this site,

uh,

once it is ready to be constructed or once it's ready to be built on,

that would allow the map to at least proceed and would give me a sense that,

you know,

we'll have a little bit more conversation or maybe even be able to talk through some

of my concerns about,

you know,

height and,

and,

uh,

intrusion and,

and so on.

Uh,

that was my suggestion.

It's,

it's,

uh,

I don't know if council would agree to that or I don't even,

I,

I've,

I've seen that done in the past when I was,

um,

in,

in transportation,

we could,

um,

we could,

um,

you know,

put a note on a map that says building six,

uh,

uh,

lot six requires additional review for building permits,

uh,

above and beyond the normal,

but that would have to be wording that,

you know,

you would entertain.

Chair Conklin over here.

Oh,

yes.

Yeah.

Um,

Kimber Gutierrez,

um,

with planning and environmental review.

We do have condition eight,

um,

which is prior to issuance of a building permit,

all resultant parcels that propose a retaining wall shall be subject to a

non-discretionary design review to assess the home design and citing.

Um,

so that was,

um,

a condition that was proposed,

uh,

and recommended by the design review advisory committee.

So we do have,

um,

um,

depending on how the grading,

um,

um,

is planned,

um,

any lots that will require a retaining wall will be required to come back through a staff

level design review.

We could amend the condition to specifically add lot six if that is something that the commission

is in favor of or wanting to do.

Um,

but to note the non-discretion design review is not something that is,

um,

um,

uh,

circulated for public review.

So it would be a staff level,

um,

review instead.

Are you satisfied with a staff level review?

Uh,

uh,

uh,

if the staff level review,

uh,

is,

uh,

it brings forward specific considerations or concerns.

that I've,

I've presented today.

Yes,

I would be fine with that.

Um,

it allows the map to keep going,

but if it's just going to be a review consistent with,

uh,

you know,

a building permit process that's done as a,

as a,

uh,

party to the development plan review,

no,

I mean,

I don't think that's going to hit the mark.

I think that leaves a little bit to be desired because it's just going to be a standard review

without anybody recognizing that,

that I've come here with my concerns.

over the,

over that lot.

So,

I'd like to at least hear from the applicants,

their response,

uh,

if that's.

Sure.

Okay.

Sure.

Do you want to do that now?

Or do you want me to finish my presentation?

Let me,

let me,

let me work.

Uh,

well,

I've already afforded you about six minutes or so.

So,

uh,

we normally do three minutes.

I'm going to open it up for the rest of the public.

I'd like the applicant to respond.

Okay.

Um,

but,

uh,

um,

well,

just to say,

I have some clarifications with regard to the,

uh,

to the discussion amongst the commissioners,

uh,

with,

with regard to the access and the parking and all that.

I could bring those forward to,

if you would like more clarification on that.

Uh,

if not,

I'll,

uh,

you know,

if you have items to provide to the clerk to distribute to us,

that's fine.

Uh,

we're happy to take those,

but I'm,

I'm going to move forward though.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Oh,

and I just want to also shout out,

uh,

give a shout out to Christian.

He did a great job.

He's been very helpful to,

to me as I'm sure as you.

All right.

Good planner.

Are there other members of the public that wish to provide any comments?

Okay.

So I'm in Cedric.

I am the applicant.

And I'm sorry.

We're just looking for other members of the public at this moment.

Oh,

I'm sorry.

I thought you said the applicant was to come up.

I'm just looking for other members of the public at the moment.

If there are any,

I wouldn't travel too far.

My,

I don't see any,

any,

uh,

online.

I have no public comments online.

Okay.

Well,

we'll now have rebuttal by the applicant.

So I'm inside.

I didn't know my husband walked up as well.

This is Joseph Moroney,

my husband.

So we are the applicants.

Okay.

And,

uh,

with regard to the drainage there,

this,

uh,

I understand that a lot of the drainage requirements are new.

I think we're one of the,

um,

earlier subdivision that area to be,

uh,

having to comply with all these new regulations with retention ponds,

et cetera,

uh,

which our engineer has been working on and complying with everything that's

been asked of in order to collect the water,

direct the water so that there isn't a problem in the surrounding area.

Uh,

and,

um,

um,

so we don't believe that there will be a problem there.

Uh,

I think somebody asked questions about,

uh,

how these ponds were going to be,

or drainage retention areas were going to be maintained,

et cetera.

I think it's all going to be prescribed by county planning or,

um,

utility people that are going to determine how in fact it's built and,

uh,

maintained.

So of course that will all be complied with in the process of developing.

Um,

as to the homes that will eventually go in there,

we're not obviously at the point where any homes are being designed yet.

So it's too early to say how any home might be built or what homes should be

built on which lots.

Um,

but it's our intention,

whether we build the homes or somebody else builds them,

um,

that they would all be built to suit the neighborhood in consideration of all the

existing homes,

all of the lots back up to other homes,

um,

in the neighborhood.

It's,

it's,

um,

an infill court.

So there's surrounding homes all around the area,

RD3 and RD2 zoning.

Um,

so the intention is to take into consideration all of the surrounding homes so that

everybody ends up with a beautiful enhancement to their area and that it will

not in any way,

um,

undermine their enjoyment of their own properties.

So if anybody individual like the gentleman that just spoke,

um,

of course we would be very considerate in working with him,

uh,

when we get to the point of making plans,

but we're not there to where we're doing that yet.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Uh,

do we have any other,

do we have any questions?

I would like to add something.

Very,

when we first purchased this probably several years ago now,

it's probably 20.

Yeah.

So it's been a long time.

I had people attend the,

you know,

cut the grass down,

keep the fire danger down and all this every year,

like clockwork.

I had a row of oak trees adjacent to,

um,

Tom's property,

good size oaks.

And some point,

somebody had gone in there and chopped them all down.

And that was the barrier for his property and mine.

These are natural growing oaks that were pretty good size.

I'm not sure exactly how big they were,

but all I know is that when my guy went back there to cut the grass,

there was a big pile of brush about 50 feet from his property line on my property.

And Tom was making conversation with me.

He says,

Tom,

what happened to my trees?

And he looked at me.

Of course,

he admitted that he took them down.

And it was,

it was like,

why didn't you just call me?

Would you take them down for?

Well,

they were too close to my garage.

So there's been a contest of mines back and forth over the years.

And this is what's happened.

He asked me recently,

about a year ago,

if we could only put a single story house there.

Cause he doesn't want anybody to look in his backyard.

Now he has a,

a steel fence.

I'm going to be closing public comment here in a second.

But anyway,

this is the public comment.

This is the applicant's rebuttal.

So this is just the history.

Okay.

I'll close it up now.

All right.

But that's the situation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So we're going to bring it back to the dais for any.

Deliberation.

Chairman.

Yes.

I just have some questions in terms of what we've just heard about.

modifying what the staff have worked out in terms of the plot as it sets up now,

especially with no planning in terms of what is going to be built.

So you talked about one section that could deal with any concerns down the road of how the houses are in place.

Is that not something that is done publicly?

Or does it involve anybody other than staff?

No,

it does not.

It's non-discretionary.

So it is done at a staff level and would be just reviewed by our design review administrator,

our landscape architect,

and our design review planner.

When you,

when the staff does the review,

would they be talking to anybody other than just looking at the documents?

With the applicant.

And they'd be reviewing the documents against our countywide design guidelines,

our,

and our zoning code.

And having conversations with the applicants?

No,

because it's non-discretionary.

So it's not open to the public.

Okay.

Okay.

And then the other question I have is what would be the process to give them a waiver about the class A sidewalks and gutters,

if we were to choose to do that here?

So my understanding,

and Bill can correct me if I'm wrong,

but that in title 22,

there are allowances for requests for an exception.

Um,

so the applicant can request that an exception from a standard be granted.

Um,

and the advisory agency shall not,

uh,

grant the exception unless a reasonable justification is made by the applicant to support the action.

Um,

so that is my understanding is that they can come and request this.

Um,

but it is up to the commission to grant it.

Okay.

But in terms of their,

I'm understanding they requested it.

Yeah.

It was just the condition right now,

I'm assuming says,

install class A improvements.

That's going to be deleted in its place.

It's going to say,

um,

enter into a deferred,

uh,

frontage improvement agreement with the county.

And that's just something we would basically have staff do as a result of our discussions and vote.

Yeah,

they,

they would sign the agreement before,

uh,

the final map is,

can be approved.

Okay.

So can I,

uh,

can I offer something on the,

this discussion about,

um,

any kind of deliberation post approval?

Sure.

Um,

what I heard was a request for,

it sounded like a discretionary kind of,

um,

look at the relationship between lot six and the adjoining parcel.

So those kinds of concerns are concerns which there's nothing stopping you from entertaining,

you know,

those concerns right now.

And to the extent they do require discretion,

it should be you.

All that,

you mean,

you can't delegate your discretionary power after you've taken action on this.

So the non-discretionary review that staff was talking about,

and that's gotta be limited to a decision made.

And,

and Kimber explained this,

it's going to be based on standards that are already in place,

published,

probably,

I mean,

mostly quantitative,

maybe some qualitative standards,

but there's not a lot of discretion there.

And from what I heard from the neighbor was,

he was wanting to have a whole discussion about different considerations and,

um,

maybe having,

you know,

the parties be involved.

That's something that,

that can and should happen here.

There's nothing to stop the planning commission from considering those,

those issues right now.

And if that requires a continuance,

it can be continued.

If that requires at the next meeting,

having SIPs show up or water resources,

to talk about drainage or whatever it is,

we,

you can and,

and should do that.

I'd have a follow up.

Yeah.

Unrelated to the lot six requirement for the request for a deferral,

for a request for the deferral of the class A sidewalk.

Um,

I mean,

this is also for Todd,

but have we ever required a,

like a posting of a bond?

I mean,

to the point of like having to,

uh,

uh,

and then get money out of somebody now because the adjacent parcels coming

forward and we're going to make them do it.

And because now that one triggers that one.

So,

but now we've got to go get money from this other person who,

you know,

may have sold the property or done something else.

I mean,

have we ever required the posting of a bond to fund the,

to fund that?

For a deferred street frontage improvement agreement.

Usually the timeline is so far off,

you know,

it's not like a three years,

three years and you have to install.

I mean,

this can be,

sometimes they're just indefinite.

So I don't think there's a bond requirement that goes along with those.

We do,

I mean,

we would have a bond requirement for a subdivision improvement agreement.

That's not what we're talking about here.

And there's,

um,

there are front,

there are different varieties of these,

but for a deferred improvement agreement,

it's just a contract really that gets recorded in the chain of title for this

property.

And it's going to allow the County,

you know,

10 years from now to find out who owns really lot one and say,

guess what?

You've got to install sidewalks here.

And in that contractors recorded on the,

on the,

on the deed.

Yeah,

it would be recorded over.

So the existing APN,

so it's going to,

it should go in and theoretically should go in the chain of title for all 10 of

these lots.

Theoretically.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Vice chair.

Not a question,

but I'm just ready for deliberation.

I think,

um,

I think thank you for,

for the staff for pointing out section eight.

And there's also language on section 22.

And so,

um,

not really a question,

but I'm not sure if this is the time.

For us to,

to discuss.

I appreciate the applicants,

um,

willingness to work with their neighbors and,

um,

from the words that I heard from the applicant about,

you know,

making sure that this is,

uh,

you know,

the appropriate at least setting.

Um,

but I do think that,

um,

you know,

modifying section eight,

um,

not just to add another level of bureaucracy,

but really adding a relevant level of review.

Um,

it's not just,

um,

item number six or a lot number six that would have retaining walls.

I mean,

you have retaining walls on 10,

nine and eight adjoining other properties.

One of which,

uh,

includes,

you know,

senior housing,

um,

that's just around the neighborhood.

And so just because those applicants are not here right now to,

to voice your opinions,

doesn't mean that they may not be willing to engage with the applicants when the actual builders are ready to construct.

And so in consideration,

I know I'm not supposed to look at both the requests,

but I think we can make both requests happen,

which is,

um,

I'm willing to waive the section of the class a for,

I think that's plot number one.

Um,

but also would like to request the rest of my colleagues to consider modifying language on,

um,

um,

number eight that,

uh,

Ms. Gutierrez had,

uh,

had shared,

which would essentially alter that it's not just a non-discretionary review and perhaps a different review in the future.

And I'm looking at county council whether or not.

I,

I,

what are you,

so again,

you can't delegate your discretionary power.

So whatever review is going to happen after this is going to be very limited.

So,

okay,

I'd have to hear what you're proposing for that condition.

Okay.

But this,

this exercise of considering,

considering the impacts created by this subdivision and considering, you know, public testimony, that, that needs to happen here.

I understand.

They,

they're not going to have the same latitude to make a decision after you've approved the tentative map.

I understand.

Council.

It's just that we don't have,

we don't have designs for homes right now.

I,

hypothetically speaking,

I don't know whether or not it's going to be.

You can still create,

you can impose parameter restrictions on future development.

without knowing what the footprint of a house is going to be.

Like for example, if you, if there was justification for doing so, you could change the setback.

The side yard setback, the backyard setback.

Hmm.

That's just, I'm not saying you should here at all.

I'm just saying that's, that's an example.

You can do things.

You can, you could hypothetically reduce, require a reduced footprint.

Limit the house to one story, things like that.

You can do that without knowing right now what the proposed homes are going to look like.

I'm not saying you should do any of that at all right now.

I'm just saying that can be done.

And forgive me for an ignorant question, but let's say we were to amend condition number eight,

which says right now,

prior to issuance of a building permit, all results and parcels that propose a retaining wall shall be subject to a non-discretionary design review and strike non-discretionary design review,

but provide that it's a review by the planning commission in the future.

Is that an appropriate change?

No, it's not.

It's gotta be non-discretionary.

Why would have to be?

Cannot delegate what your authority is here to staff.

Okay.

So if we're in deliberations,

I understand what you're saying and I understand the reasoning for the rule behind not putting staff in the crosshairs of that kind of a dispute between the people and the applicant.

I kind of agree with what you're saying about the class A sidewalks.

And at this point, I think it's just, we leave it to the staff to deal with that when they actually have a plan on the houses and leave it to the applicant to work with the neighbor as to what kind of house is put in that area.

And since there is no plans for houses now in terms of what they're going to look like, we could be going through a lot of this for nothing if the applicant decides I'll put a single story home in that spot.

So I think we just, my opinion based on what you were talking about, I'd like to see the sidewalk thing be deferred or waived.

And then we just move the rest of the recommendations from staff.

Planning director Smith, do all non-discretionary design review, does that just occur in the planning department?

Do SIPs get involved?

What is the process for that?

Non-discretionary design reviews are always done at the staff level, design review administrator or subordinate staff.

We typically do not go through any public outreach on those because they are simply, as Kimber indicated, verifying compliance with the adopted development standards, depending on the circumstances, residential in this case.

So they just make sure it complies with the standards?

Correct.

They don't get to deviate from that?

So they're ministerial on purpose, very deliberately, because we are simply checking that the proposed development meets the,

uh, countywide development standards that have been adopted.

And if I may add one more thing to what council has said, one of the things that the board has directed us to do as staff is, uh, remove or minimize barriers to housing production, uh, across all income levels.

Correct.

So, Mr. Chairman, I, I just assume if it's okay with everybody here and make the motion that we move this item with the, um, the, um, amendments by staff and a deferral of the sidewalk, class A sidewalk.

So it'd be an amendment.

Your motion is an amendment, uh, with the condition of granting a deferral.

Of the class A sidewalk, yes.

Okay.

And that is it.

That's it.

Move the, move it forward as it is now.

Is there a second?

Well, if we could, if I could maybe jump in.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, and perhaps you might be open to a friendly amendment here.

Um, or if I have to.

There's been no second yet.

There's been no second yet.

Oh, there's been no second.

Nothing to amend.

Um, uh, I'm not in support of any sort of waiver for the sidewalk development.

I think it's some sort of recorded deferral that contractually obligates the proponent to construct the sidewalk when the county deems necessary may be most appropriate.

Um, as it relates to the, the lot six, um, does lot six currently scheduled to have a retaining wall?

And, you know, and if not, maybe does insert into that language, you know, lot six or, or it'd be lot six and any lot requiring designing or the retaining wall?

I think that's in there.

The latter.

So I don't believe lot six currently has plans for a retaining wall.

So it would be, you could amend it to say, or modify it to say lot six and all resultant lots with a retaining wall to go through non-discretionary design review.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

But in doing that, it doesn't change the fact that you're just checking it versus the standards.

We're checking it against, yeah, the zoning code standards and the design guidelines.

So a minion would not get one of what was asked by one of the individuals in the audience to occur?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay.

And I guess that's kind of where I would be at.

Okay.

So we have a motion and I haven't heard a second.

Dies without a second.

There we go.

So that motion dies.

Your motion is with a amended, the condition granting a deferral.

On there, with the understanding that on the condition that it'd be recorded.

Right.

I actually kind of, I understood your motion to mean the same thing.

Same thing.

That instead of requiring class A frontage right now, there's only a requirement to enter into

a deferred street frontage improvement agreement with the county.

Which is what the county does a lot, you just said.

Yeah.

We normally do it with just building permits, but we can do it at this stage too.

And then to amend condition eight.

Eight.

To read lot six and any lot requiring a retaining wall.

Stupid question, but can we just require all of them to have a retaining wall?

That covers one to ten.

What if they don't need a retaining wall?

They may not need it.

What if they don't need one?

Well, I, so I, I don't want to be clear on what, and I don't have the language of condition

eight, I don't think right in front of me, but, um, we want to be clear on what it is.

Are you requiring a retaining wall for lot six?

Or are you saying that you want it to be subject to the non-discretionary, um, process?

Right.

Does that make sense to you guys?

Yes.

I understand it as lot six and any resultant parcels that require a retaining wall.

So, like, lot six is automatically requiring and being subject to non-discretion design review

in addition to any lots requiring a retaining wall is my understanding of what you want to know.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

With the end goal of trying to figure out if, if a retaining wall should be required on lot six,

is that what?

Is it saying lot six should just have an inches.

Yes.

Oh, sorry.

Well, I guess I understood it that staff would be processing the, those, those applications,

uh, differently for the construction.

Is there, are they under the exact same development standards then for review?

Is there any other lot?

Nothing changes, right?

You do the review against the standards.

Yes.

So.

Right.

With or without non-discretionary design review, we're reviewing against the applicable development

standards and design guidelines.

Okay.

So that maybe doesn't do anything.

So my thought, uh, for what it's worth is that perhaps we allow additional time for staff and the parties

to get together.

Um,

um, and reskip, pull this, withdraw this and reschedule it for a future hearing, hopefully

with the end goal of addressing the neighbor's concerns and, uh, ironing out any and all requested,

um, amendments by the applicant.

Um, so just so chairman, just so I can ask some questions based on what you just described.

Um, if we send it back for staff to look at the, uh, what would staff do any differently than what they've already done?

Um, they have gone through the review process.

Um, they have gone through their review process, talked to all the individuals.

Um, the, um, the recommendation was made by, uh, I forget the definition to have, um, the schedule A sidewalks, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't think the sidewalks are the big issue anymore.

Yeah, I don't think that's...

I think it's...

There were issues raised by the neighbor about grade and drainage.

And actually, it was actually not entirely, I don't know if it was defined at every single issue.

He just kind of said that there are issues that he wants to have, he wants to discuss after this proceeding.

So, your decision now is, do you want to have all those issues, you know, talked about here?

Um, because they really can't be discussed at great length after this.

At least there, there's a limitation to what staff can do.

So, and with respect, Commissioner, what I heard, um, was, was, uh, a, a, um, a neighbor who, uh, was frustrated with the process and unable to surface, uh, a plurality of their concerns and issues, um, which there

were a multitude of that wasn't enough time tonight to, um, present them.

And, um, he had exhibits, he had, um, um, other, uh, issues to surface, um, that, um, I heard didn't, he wasn't afforded those opportunities, those checkpoints, whether he missed those opportunities or not.

Um, and, uh, and my suggestion is to, in hopes, because I, I'm, I want to avoid the Hatfield versus McCoy scenario here between the two neighbors and that cooler heads, give it a pause.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and, uh, work with staff and try to mitigate some of these, uh, concerns.

Maybe they won't.

Um, um, um, and, and if that were to, if that additional time would to, uh, address those concerns, bring it back to this commission and we could, uh, hear, uh, the application one more time with hopes of, uh, the neighbor and, uh, getting what issues they needed, uh, addressed with the applicant.

Maybe not, uh, but we would at least, um, give that, uh, that proper venue for them.

Okay.

I guess I misunderstood what he, what they said.

Um, I was under the impression that they, they had spoke about this at the CPAC and those issues were brought up at the CPAC.

The issues were brought up with the applicants.

And there was, I guess, not a meeting of the minds then.

My concern would be sending it back for meeting of the minds six months from now or however long it would take to get back through the process.

I would recommend, recommend that.

Huh?

I, I mean, I, I just think, you know, if you want to hear these issues with, for the planning commission, a continuance of a couple of weeks, a month max.

So you can set the time period.

He, he submitted a letter.

I mean, his issues are summarized in the letter dated today, but there's a letter, um, come back and it's a little bit of micromanaging, but you're, you can certainly do that.

So we can set a timeframe to bring it back, not just until whenever it gets back into the queue.

No, no, I, I agree with you that it's probably not going to get far having the neighbors talk to each other.

And we already heard there's, you know, issues with cutting down trees and whatnot.

What I'm recommend, well, what I'm saying you can do is almost workshop it here.

You could do it right now and we're still, the hearing's not over yet.

Um, but you can continue the item and bring it back for, to develop the issues a little bit more if you wanted to, but.

So if we can bring it back in a, uh, a period, time period that we define, not a time period to get stuck into the normal bureaucratic process that may take six months to a year.

Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

I, I perfectly okay with continuing as long as we put a timeframe when it comes back.

Can I ask Tom to come back?

Is that possible?

I just have a question.

Yeah.

For the, for the neighbor.

Just a, just one quick question, sir.

Um, just to make sure that I'm, I'm, I'm understanding correctly.

The letter that we receive right now is, is a family that lives in 8823 Villa Campo Way.

I believe the gentleman that spoke in the public is in a different address.

So it's not just one person that we're talking about.

It's two properties that are south of lot six.

Just to make sure that, that I'm understanding correctly.

I believe he had a different.

I see two.

Yeah.

He had a different address.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Sorry, commissioner.

I cut you off.

No, no, you're good.

Um, I, I guess if, if, if I may ask a question of the, the, the neighbor, Tom, who was up here before, um,

Up to the chair.

Would that be, thank you.

Um, uh, you know, kind of reading through the letter and hearing everything, um, I guess I'm, I guess what I'm wondering in my head is, is the real issue, the massing in line of sight?

Um, is this about a two story building?

I mean, I think our county staff does a great job resolving, you know, all, every issue, but particularly when it comes to like traffic and drainage, like that stuff as a planning commissioner, like I give great concern to, but like, I don't worry about, cause I, I believe that they're going to solve that.

Like the massing issue, like the massing issue, that's not something that they can solve because that's a subjective, you know, feeling or opinion of, of yours.

And so I guess is, is what we're, that's my question.

Is, is it really the massing and the kind of the proximity of a potential two story home to, to your lot?

Is that what this kind of really boils down to?

Assuming that the drainage issue is fixed and what, what, if I understand, if I understand the question, I, I'm just, I've, I've looked at lots in the area that are that configuration.

I just don't see how you're going to be able to build a home properly, even within the setbacks that are allowed a large home.

So there's going to have to be some compromise in either the size of the home, the one or two stories of the home or the configuration.

And that's the discussion that I was hoping to have with them, but we never got to that point.

So now we're pretty much where we were back at the Fair Oak Sea Pack when I brought this issue up.

That was over a year ago and I haven't heard a way, I haven't heard anything.

I have tried to contact the engineer unsuccessfully.

So, you know, that, the question of, I, I'm not sure I understand, stand completely what you mean by massing.

I, I, massing in, in, in some people's, it's a, it's kind of an interpretive type of a statement, whether the mass is too big for the property.

Is, is the, is that the question?

I mean, I, we can, we can work on trying to minimize some of the things, some of the issues.

I don't know if you can ever minimize mass.

If you're going to build a large home, a two story on a higher elevation than the adjacent property, you can't, you can't do anything with that mass.

That, that's just going to be there.

Yes or no.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, I, I would, I would support the, the, the chair's motion to continue as I have one kind of.

Kind of, I guess, concern is, I think we're going to end up right back here.

That is a concern.

All right.

It's a very valid one.

I didn't hear what you said.

Well, I said, my concern is that we're going to end up right back here.

Exactly.

Exactly.

And it's going to be the next thing.

So, you know, and, and, you know, my understanding is like, you know, things with generally the size of buildings can be addressed through setbacks.

So the building appears smaller and things like that.

You know, in this scenario, if we increase the setback, you know, to, the, the footprint probably no doubt has to get smaller.

The rear setback, which is going to most likely, I would assume necessitate all but necessitate the construction of a two story home because now the footprint is, is, is smaller.

And so, we're just looking at a plan right here.

Can I ask a question?

Can I, can I propose something that I think could probably solve this?

Let me ask one quick question.

Sure.

In terms of what we can do.

Except you just hold on for one second.

Yes.

Can we put a restriction on that particular lot saying it can only be a single story home?

Can we do that?

Yes, you can.

You can do that.

So, would that solve the issue?

Well, what I, so what I, the corollary I always add to that is just to keep in mind that every existing one story house in the county right now has the ability to go up another story by right.

Administratively.

Yeah.

So, you'd be telling this one lot that you cannot do that.

Yeah.

Every single one of these lots has a house behind it.

I understand.

I just was curious whether that was something the commission could impose.

Usually on visual impact kind of issues like that, we, well, another option I'll say is, you know, screening type of mitigation.

Trees, that's typical kind of mitigation for, for aesthetic, if to the extent there is going to be a visual impact here or privacy concern, trees is the usual way that.

Yeah.

The applicant, you're chomping at the bit here to jump in here.

So, what would you like to provide us with?

Yeah, I think that council basically kind of hit it right on the, on the spot.

It's basically, I think that Tom is concerned about privacy and the way to solve, and typically these issues are solved.

It's like with planting of trees.

This matter is a private matter, I feel like, and it's like trying to resolve it, you know, and go between the neighbors and whatnot.

We're going to use best practices to basically be able to work and be friendly with the neighbors to be able to do this.

Fair Oaks is an area where typically people do like single-story homes.

This lot is going to be a little bit challenging to do that, but we're going to do, you know, whatever we can in terms of providing privacy, even if the, you know, two-story home is built.

You know, not putting windows so that it's not looking into direct private areas, putting trees and whatnot.

But I feel like this is, this is kind of a private matter, and it's just going to, we're going to keep on going in circles.

I don't think that there's...

No, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yeah, there are some unique nuances here.

I guess my rule of thumb, or at least my thought, is if we're going to explore having a screen of trees or some sort of landscaping applied to one parcel,

it should be applied equitably and uniformly across the perimeter.

That property.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

That would be my preference.

So where are we at here?

Are we going to postpone it for 30 days?

Well, I had, so I'm in hopes of trying to mitigate some of the concerns of the residents that have voiced them,

specific concerns about line of sight.

It sounds like some of the drainage issues can be addressed.

It looks like there'll be regular maintenance to address those that have been highlighted in the public comments in the letters.

If we are amending the condition to granting a deferral for the sidewalk, it sounds like that issue's not a contentious one.

And then to, as a condition, have shade or screen trees line the perimeter where feasible.

I think I'm not there at the site.

I don't know if there are structural issues or topocryphal concrete.

I just don't know.

But where we can at least apply some landscaping good standards of screening trees through the perimeter of the plan.

I'm hoping that would be helpful for some of the neighbors who live nearby with their line of sight.

So is that something you would like to see in a motion to do?

Mr. Chair, may I just quickly?

Sure.

You've got a mitigation that would normally work, and I would be in favor of that.

But you also have now a drainage requirement where you have a swale against the property line that's five feet wide at a minimum.

Yeah.

You can't plant any trees in that.

That's a concern that that's going to actually be a hindrance to the drainage mitigation.

So, you know, I mean, it's a tough site.

I agree with it.

And I'm more than happy to work with the applicant.

I just haven't really had the opportunity, to be honest.

So back to my question.

Is that kind of a motion you were looking for?

Well, it sounds like we have a neighbor who's wanting to work with the applicant.

So I guess my motion would be then for amending with the condition of granting a deferral for the deferred improvement for the front sidewalk.

And then also for the perimeter of the plan to have screening and shade.

Where feasible and needed, perhaps?

I mean, I know.

So since the chair can't make that motion, I can make it for him if that's what he...

You can make the motion.

I just, yeah.

Okay.

I'll second your motion.

There we go.

Quick question before we vote.

Yeah.

Does that...

So now we learn about...

Okay.

This is why it's very difficult for us to adjudicate projects right on the dais, y'all.

And this is where I respectfully for both applicants and the neighbors, you know, we've had multiple iterations, opportunities.

You have CPAC.

You have the public engagement.

And it's been a year.

And I definitely do understand that resources from both sides, your time is crucial.

Your engineering time is crucial.

All the invoices there.

And I'm not an opponent to moving this forward.

And to Director Smith's point, I understand that the county supervisors have directed us to remove as much barriers to housing.

But right now we're literally making changes right at the dais whether or not...

And I don't know if I'm comfortable making that change because now there's a question being brought up whether or not trees and that five-foot setback would be applicable.

And so I'm not too sure if we have all of our technical expertise and resources right in this room to say one way or another.

And it's...

I don't know as a commissioner right now if I'll be comfortable, you know, voting that.

That's why I think that, you know, if both sides is open to having a set timeline for this to come back, given that they would probably have the opportunity to re-engage.

Because then now both sides kind of have shown their cards.

And then if there's still, you know, concern as to whether or not they didn't have the opportunity to engage during the set time, then at least we've afforded them that opportunity.

So that's just my two cents.

I think we have a kind of an idea.

Don't we have a motion we've got to get through?

So like we both have a consensus, I see.

So the chair needs to...

We need to figure out if we're going to vote on the motion or hear the applicant more or...

If I may ask a question of staff prior to a vote.

Please.

Under the motion as proposed for the requirement for the screening trees,

does staff have the ability to make those determinations of, okay, here's where all the places that screening trees are feasible,

provided that, you know, obviously we can't plant them here because of drainage or whatever the reasons.

I mean, staff has the ability to make the determination of, like, here and where are screening trees appropriate and viable.

I mean, we can't plant a tree where it's going to, you know, wash out or die.

Yeah.

Part of our non-discretionary design review does include review by our landscape architect,

who is qualified to identify where those types of screening trees would be applicable.

I did also want to point out that part of the non-discretionary design review also includes our design review administrator

confirming substantial compliance with our design guidelines.

And I do have them pulled up, and I just wanted to mention a couple.

One is significant grade changes between lots should be gradually stepped or terraced in order to preserve natural topography to keep with community character.

There's also another one about building scale and massing.

And that one states that basically if you have a two-story home being put next to a single-story home,

that there is privacy considerations taken into place.

Yeah, it should respect the privacy of adjacent one-story buildings.

So our design guidelines are in place in order for our staff to provide recommendations to the design of the home as well

to make sure that it is, you know, being, is going to be compatible with the surrounding area

and with existing buildings in place.

I will say at the staff level it is difficult, right, because it is staff level.

It's not discretionary.

So it would be up to staff's discretion to discuss that and to kind of push that with the applicant team as much as we can.

I think with that, I would be comfortable supporting the chair's motion.

We've got a vote, I guess, yeah.

All right, so I believe we have a motion and a second.

The motion was made by chair and seconded by Commissioner Dedlin.

Verga, thank you.

Okay.

Do you mind just repeating that motion again?

I'm so sorry.

There's just a lot of conversations in the room.

And I believe in, respectfully, Chair Conklin.

And if it fails, then obviously.

And during our discussion and during the questioning, I believe both sides were also raising their hands because they wanted to have another comment.

So, again, it's up to you, Chair Conklin.

If you'd like to welcome them again back to the desk, back to the microphone here or whether or not we vote on the motion.

Again, I'm not trying to be, not trying to stay there and not complete this this evening,

but I just want to make sure that we have all of our information here before we make a decision.

Sure.

No, I'm, I'm, I want to make sure that we're respectful to the applicant and to those that have worked so hard in this proposal.

If there's, I'm, I'm more than happy if, to hear both the applicant and the neighbor, if they would like to provide two more minutes of each,

some thoughts and feedback to what's being discussed here.

Yeah.

Yeah.

When I spoke, thank you for this opportunity to, I'm sorry, this is taking up so much of your time, but it means a lot to me.

When I spoke at the Fair Oak CPAC and we came to part of the motion to approve the recommendation to move forward was to get a discussion going.

I was basically interested in seeing what they could build on that property.

And, uh, since we did not have contact with the applicant or his engineer, I went out on my own being an engineer myself and, um,

tried to figure out just what a prop, what a house, how big of a house you could build on that lot and still keep it off the 25 foot line,

the rear property line or rear setback line.

And then if it had to be two stories and I couldn't find one.

So I, what I just like to do is sit down with the engineer, which I thought we were going to do and, and brainstorm what that house would look like.

It may be perfectly okay.

I don't know that though.

Uh, he has the information that I don't.

He's privy to the elevations.

He's privy to how big of a house that the applicant is wanting to, to put on that property.

How big of a house is possible.

And I think that's just, um, a way to start the conversation to make me feel more at home, more at ease.

And I might be, I can't, I can't say cause I don't have the information.

So that's why I'm here today is because we never had that discussion.

So I think it's reasonable to think that we could come to a, an amicable solution here that I, I, I'm not, I'm not expecting this lot, this subdivision to change.

I'm not asking you guys to relock the subdivision or hemp to relock, uh, change the, the, uh, the parcel lines.

I'm just asking for a little bit more information to see what is going to be on that property because my engineering experience tells me it's going to be a tough piece of property to build on.

And I don't want our privacy to be compromised by somebody who has to build out further than would normally be expected.

That's all I'm asking for.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Um, uh, I'm, I'm likely going to be the builder on these properties.

I've built many homes in Fair Oaks.

Um, we build beautiful homes.

We typically, again, try to build single story homes.

Um, this is going to be a tough lot, but I think there's quite a bit of, uh, county mechanisms in place for design review to protect privacy from individuals and whatnot.

Here we are going to have a tree canopy replacement that's going to need to be done for non-native trees.

And on our part, we're going to do our best to communicate with Tom in terms of providing privacy as well as design review.

We'll review the plans as well.

We don't have the plans designed.

This engineer is a civil engineer.

He doesn't do architectural designs.

We don't know yet.

We're not at that stage yet.

But once we get there, I think there's enough mechanisms in place from the county building department side, as well as on our part.

We typically, you know, when I build, I want happy neighbors.

I totally understand where we're going into an area.

He's been looking at an open field that's, you know, beautiful and whatnot.

He wants to protect that.

We're going to do our best to do that.

That's all I can kind of say.

Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you very much.

Well, I am happy to hear a GC wanting to work with the neighbors and address some of those anxieties and concerns.

Obviously, we don't have renditions.

We don't have, that's not what we're reviewing right now.

We're reviewing a redevelopment plan and have limited information before us.

So with that, I'm going to defer back to my original motion.

Yep.

I think Commissioner Borja had a good question about restating the motion just to make sure we're all clear.

Oh, that was me.

It would be.

Just the, I mean, just the condition that is now the.

That question you mean?

So in addition to amending the condition of granting a deferral, there would also be the inclusion of screen, shade, privacy, landscaping.

I don't know the correct term.

Okay.

That's why I thought I heard you say, but I heard Commissioner Devlin, even though you didn't second it.

But I heard you say, where feasible, and I didn't hear either of the, you making the motion, you seconding.

Do we, should that, is that implied in your motion?

I believe my first comments did include where feasible.

Okay.

Because I was concerned about concrete and structures or things I'm not able to see from here that might be there that would prevent a tree to be planted there.

I'm going to leave it to the experts, to the arborists and landscape engineers.

So where feasible.

And that's what I understood when I seconded.

Okay.

And that applies to the entire perimeter of every lot of the subdivision.

That is, that is correct.

Okay.

That way every resident, every parcel owner enjoys the, the benefit of some protections from line of sight.

I'll call the vote.

Okay.

You guys okay?

Member Devlin?

Yes.

Member Verga?

Aye.

Member Vorha?

Yes.

Chair Conklin?

Yes.

That vote passes.

All right.

Thank you all.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I believe that takes us to our next item on our agenda.

Clerk, will you please call item number seven?

Item number seven is PLMP 2023-00241.

It's a use permit, a development plan review, special development permit,

and design review.

It is located at 7895 Stockton Boulevard, approximately 400 feet south of Victory Avenue in the South Sacramento community.

And the environmental document is exempt.

All right.

I have a question for the clerk.

Does the overhead work today?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners.

Nate Dobedeck with planning and environmental review.

We've heard a lot about sidewalks, appropriate development standards, and neighborhood compatibility,

and that is apropos because that is exactly what this project is about as well.

The project is PLNP 2023-241, the Waterfly Express Car Wash.

We are at 7895 Stockton Boulevard.

We're now in South Sacramento community, about 450 feet south of Victory Avenue.

I'm going to highlight here on the screen, Victory Avenue is shown, excuse me, I'm going too high here,

this road right here.

And this is important because there is a Victory Avenue neighborhood preservation area.

And I'm going to read from you the purpose and intent briefly of the Victory Avenue neighborhood preservation area.

It's to provide for a suitable use of the property while giving adequate protection and preserving low-density residential uses

from adverse and incompatible impacts of existing and proposed heavy and light commercial uses.

So it's all about that buffer zone between there.

And the reason we're here today, the Planning Commission being the decider,

is that it does have, like most of our neighborhood preservation areas,

a development plan review, which is a comprehensive review of the entire site.

And the final sentence is,

the Planning Commission shall not approve development plans under provisions of this section,

that is the neighborhood preservation area,

unless it first finds that the proposed development will not create adverse noise,

visual, air quality, health, or safety impacts on abutting residential uses.

So the project you're going to see today is the result of numerous iterations

that Planning Staff has worked out with the applicant,

I think seven submittals to tweak it to get to this point.

I want to show briefly the neighborhood preservation area.

If we could just scan that to include that in the record.

And then lastly, I'll substitute this.

Outlined there in blue, it's a little easier to see than the subsequent slides,

is the neighborhood preservation area.

So you can see the residential areas.

Oh, it doesn't work when it's on the overhead.

My apologies.

You have to use your hand.

Over here is all of our residential,

and then the area along Stockton is our commercial areas.

All right, we'll go back to the slideshow, please.

Thank you.

Importantly for this project,

is the property to the north here we're going to be looking at a moment.

That's going to be the Valero truck stop.

The entire properties along Stockton Boulevard, as you might imagine,

has a commercial zoning designation.

To the south, we have the big shopping center, grocery outlet,

Taj Market, and then the Costco down there.

This property is the one we're looking at.

It was the original Perry's.

It was built in the 60s.

Had a nice 51-year run.

Went out of business in 2019.

This is the Valero Sac Valley truck stop right there,

and then the Victory Avenue along the way,

and then the city of Sacramento right across the street

on the other side of Stockton Boulevard.

The site itself is that original Perry's,

and this is an important slide to look at

because a couple of things are going to be changing.

Number one, the sign would be retained in place.

That pole sign that you can see it says coffee shop would be repurposed

to match the existing or purpose, excuse me, proposed business,

and then the entire site would be scraped and graded and rebuilt.

The entitlement request is a use permit for the new car wash and vacuum facility

within the neighborhood preservation area for all those reasons articulated already.

The development plan review, and then importantly,

when we see this irregular site, there are two deviation requests,

and they're completely voluntary.

They have to do with one sign that is a foot and a half taller than required

and stands proud of the building.

Surprisingly, the applicants were able to meet all of our other approved development standards

on this very irregular site, and then lastly, design review.

The site itself would look something like this.

This is a schematic layout.

A couple of important things to note.

The existing driveway, which is shared, it's about double this length.

This is the shared access with the Valero truck stop,

so that would continue to be the one in and out of this site.

This one at the south here is a rolling gate designed for emergency vehicle only,

and then a tremendously long queuing area that was important for DOT's purposes

to ensure that cars aren't stacking up on Stockton Boulevard.

And then entering through the backside, exiting to the front,

and then a series of vacuums and trash enclosure,

which is easy access from the front there.

Landscaping would add a considerable number of new trees,

much more than currently exists on the site.

Another important consideration was that this entire area is within the floodplain

for Union House Creek, so the applicants worked very carefully not to change

any of the overall grade elevation so that they could maintain

going through more complicated flood control requirements.

Additionally, this fencing around there has to remain permeable in case there is a flood,

so it would be a chain link or some equivalent.

I'm going to let the applicant team, they flew a long way to be here today,

speak more about the architectural design features,

but we have the, in the upper right corner,

this would be what would be facing Stockton Boulevard.

Importantly, though, between Stockton Boulevard

and that elevation is a low wall and lots of landscaping,

so you're not going to be looking straight into the tunnel

because that is one of our code requirements that is met.

This would be the entryway from the long queuing lane to the back.

This is the north elevation as if you were driving northward on Stockton Boulevard,

and this sign, which stands proud, is the special development permit request.

It's the neighborhood preservation area does limit,

and then our zoning code limits those signs to be four feet.

In this case, it wants to be five and a half,

and it's supposed to not go above the building.

In this case, we have provisions that the ends of the building, the towers, are 30 feet.

Now, the neighborhood preservation area caps it at 20,

but the zoning code allows certain portions of buildings that have purpose and function,

like church steeples with bells or things like that.

In this case, the blowers, motors, and whatnot,

and these tunnels have to be elevated above the machinery.

So the tunnels get to be 30.

The main building has to stay at 20 in compliance with the neighborhood preservation area

because there's no functional component up top,

and then the deviation request is that proud sign.

The sign itself would be repainted white.

That is also a requirement of the special sign district.

It has to be architecturally integrated within the overall development.

It's a fairly minimalist design,

and so they only changed the sign proposal besides the face copy

to match the new proposed car wash logo would be to paint it white to match the building.

I'll let, again, let the architect team speak more about the overall architectural features.

This would be an illustration as if you were in the site already looking at your various vacuum stations

under the solid blue canopy.

Then the next would be the nighttime rendering looking at the,

from this, looking north, say, from Stockton or when you're just on the site.

There are 76 conditions of approval for this project,

and one of them does limit the operation hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.

The applicant can speak to their own operating time,

and then in the evening,

one of the neighborhood preservation area considerations is that all lights would be turned off.

There would be no business illumination in the non-operating hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

So it did go to two advisory committees.

The DRAC did vote three yes on this project.

They were very favorable overall.

They felt that it was durable materials.

They liked the modern design, the lack of garish colors.

They felt it was a big improvement on the property,

and at South Sacramento also endorsed the project with a 4 yes, 0 no.

They did question the viability of yet another car wash in the area.

There seems to be quite a few,

and the applicant can speak to their impressions on that.

Overall, it is consistent with the Victory Avenue neighborhood preservation area.

It is about 350 feet to the very closest property edge of residential zoning.

We did assess the noise standards.

If you think about a normal conversational decibel level at 60,

this is about 60 decibels, believe it or not,

the car wash would operate at about 100.

Remember, every 10 decibels is double the volume.

And so at that distance, we would anticipate the sound from the car wash

to drop down to the high 40s, 48 or so.

So it would be a significant decrease,

which is below the county's noise threshold for residential.

Granted, the winds do carry that way,

but the overall sound being there are sound dampeners

that are also required to be placed on the inside of the tunnel.

Again, met all of our development requirements,

even with that irregular lot shape,

and it is categorically exempt from CEQA as an infill project.

So we do recommend approval of this project

that the Planning Commission does find the project exempt

under the CEQA section 15303.

That approved the use permit subject to the 76.

Those are the required, excuse me,

those are the required conditions, which are the 76.

There are several advisory past that,

subject to the findings and conditions of attachment to.

The special development permit to allow the larger

and sign to go above the tunnel of the car wash.

Approve the overall development plan review

and find the project in substantial appliance

with the county-wide design guidelines.

Again, we have Joe Bermudez and Trevor White,

the applicant and agent.

They flew a long way to be here,

and I'd like to give them an opportunity,

but I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate that, Nate.

Any questions from the dais for staff?

No? All right. Thank you.

At this time, we'll bring up the applicants.

Thank you.

And where did we fly in from?

Good evening, commission.

I'm Joe Bermudez.

I'm the applicant.

I flew in from Chicago this morning.

All right.

Welcome.

Happy to be here.

Welcome.

Lovely weather, by the way.

Much nicer than where I come from.

Joining me is the owner of Waterfly, Trevor Knight.

Basically, as Nate mentioned,

we've been at seven or eight iterations of this site,

the building design.

We've collaborated with the design review advisory committee

with planning,

and we feel that we're bringing a major upgrade to this lot

and what's there today.

So we're just really looking forward to bringing this project to life.

We've been working on it for almost two years

through the design process,

and now we're getting into the point of we have construction drawings

in process, in review, actually,

in conjunction with this hearing.

So we're hoping to get your approval today

so we can continue with our process as quickly as possible.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Yep.

And do we have any comments from the public?

Seeing none, I'll defer to the clerk for any online comments.

And I have no online comments.

All right.

I will kick it to the commission.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I'm a big fan of original payers.

Sad to see it go,

but I also use that Costco a lot,

so I really appreciate you guys looking into,

you know, potentially having an infill development

and really not just beautifying the space,

but using the space,

because right now it's unfortunately being used

for other negative purposes.

Let's just say it that way.

It is quite interesting.

It's next to a creek, so it's next to a waterway.

Can you guys just speak a little bit about your mechanisms

of protecting to make sure that, you know,

any potential hazardous chemicals that are used in your business

do not seep into that waterway?

And what are your, like, kind of mitigation measures

or what are your protective measures

to make sure that that doesn't happen?

Yes, of course.

So the tunnel itself houses all of the water and chemicals,

and it's pitched and graded in a way

so all the water from the car is blowing off into a ditch,

which then goes through a whole treatment system

before it goes into the sewer.

The site itself on the back end towards the creek

is all, I believe, graded going the other way

to a storm water system

that we've worked with the Department of Water Resources

in designing.

Again, a lot of time has went into the design

to ensure that, you know, that storm water, you know,

doesn't spill out into the creek

but rather stays within the site

and flows where it needs to go.

Anything in the building itself, though,

does go into a pit within the tunnel

and then it goes through a whole treatment system.

And we actually try to reutilize that water,

recycle that water as much as we physically can.

Thank you.

Yes.

Well, I just want to applaud you for your efforts.

I have read through the analysis

and saw that that is such a unique property

and one that presents several challenges

and looks like there's a lot of work involved

in developing a plan that would fit right

with not only the community

but create some economic development

and kind of rejuvenate that area.

And I know there were some major expenses

noted by the property owner

to abate homelessness and crime and graffiti

and a whole bunch of ills to that kind of area.

I see that the proposed deviation

for the oversized sign above the car wash tunnel

doesn't have any bearing on necessary infrastructure.

It's more aesthetics.

And I appreciate the staff's presentation on it

and happy to make a motion.

Any other comments?

Sorry.

Assuming that your motion is for the staff recommendation,

I'm happy to second it.

Thank you.

Yes.

It's late in the evening.

I haven't had my cup of coffee.

So, yes.

So we have a motion and we have a second.

Okay.

Members Devlin?

Yes.

Verga?

Aye.

Borja?

Yes.

And Chair Conklin?

Yes.

That vote passes.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Appreciate it.

And I think that brings us to the directors,

or I'm sorry, the planning director's report.

Yes.

Thank you, Chair Conklin.

A few announcements for this report tonight.

First, a couple of staffing updates for you.

There's a lady.

Yep, she's still there.

Good.

Kimber Gutierrez has been promoted to the principal planner

in our current planning group.

So congratulations, Kimber.

You've seen her around here quite a bit.

She'll stay around here quite a bit.

Another one I want to announce, Jessie Shen,

who I think she was last year

when we did the Countywide Rezone program.

She has also been promoted into a role

of the infill coordinator.

Some of you maybe have been tracking that one for a while.

It is now filled as of a week ago.

So you'll see a lot more of her

and you'll continue to see Kimber.

Second thing I want to cover just briefly,

I know you all have busy lives.

It's also important for us as staff

that we're keeping the business flowing here at the county

and the planning commission is obviously a part of that.

We want to make sure our projects can move forward timely.

We understand there are certain circumstances

where folks might be absent unexpectedly,

totally get all that.

Please let us know, including Clerk of the Board staff,

if you know you're going to be absent.

That way we can plan accordingly,

let our applicants know what to expect.

There are circumstances sometimes

where when you have just four commissioners,

it can get a little interesting.

And so we have to let our applicants know

when that's happening.

So just please continue to coordinate with us

and the Clerk of the Board staff

on any expected absences.

The last thing I want to mention,

we are countywide going through a big website overhaul,

but there will be some interim changes

to the planning commission website.

I know a number of you have communicated to me

some concerns about, you know,

how folks are contacting you with questions

and that sort of thing.

I'm going to be working with our DTEC,

Department of Technology staff,

to update the planning commission website

to ensure your preferred contact information

is up there.

And I don't mean phone numbers,

I just mean your preferred email address.

I was trying to figure out a way

to get county emails for you,

even though you're not county staff,

that's proving to be much more complicated

than was anticipated.

So if you have any concerns about that,

by all means, let me know.

But that's what I'm planning to do.

Hopefully that can then give interested parties

a way to cleanly and seamlessly know

how to get a hold of you

rather than, you know,

fielding phone calls or emails at your day jobs

if you have a day job.

I know Commissioner Verga does not,

but good for him.

I know that's an issue for the rest of you.

So that's all I've got for tonight.

Thank you very much.

There was one thing that I talked to the chairman

about when we went through the training

in the academy,

and it was highly suggested

that commissioners have basically

a city or county email

for the purposes of litigation issues

and discovery.

Right.

Versus, you know, when you get,

I've gone through that process numerous times,

and discovery in your personal emails

and your personal information

is a whole lot different

than discovery when you're in a organization

of city, county, state.

Correct.

So they brought it up during that training,

and I did mention it to the chairman.

I was just curious,

based on what you just said,

whether or not county emails

are pretty much a no starter.

It has taken much longer than I thought it would.

I finally heard late last week

that there are, I think,

three different forms that I need to send

to each one of you to get filled out.

You have to have,

what's it called,

multi-factor authentication to sign in, et cetera.

It's not a non-starter.

It is possible.

It's just taking a lot longer

than I thought it would.

I think at this point,

what we're trying to do

is just get a splash page

or some sort of section

on the Sacramento County Planning Commission's website

that at least is an easy

to direct identification

of who our commissioners are

and their preferred contact.

If that preferred contact changes

over a period of time, great.

We just update the webpage.

We just update, yeah.

Okay, so the preferred contact

would be a county email

or just an email period?

Your preferred email at this moment.

Okay.

Right.

And later this week,

hopefully tomorrow,

I'll be sending out those three forms.

Should you wish to have a county email,

we can do it.

Just know that it comes with some paperwork.

It's the paperwork, unfortunately.

All right.

Are there any miscellaneous scheduling items?

I have none.

Do we have folks absent?

Yep.

The month of August,

I have my last doctrinal law school class,

which has been moved to Monday night,

so I will be absent July 7th through August 7th.

Any meeting in between those two dates?

And I will be unavailable on the 23rd of this month.

All right.

We have some...

One last,

but not really a scheduling matter,

but the July,

excuse me,

June 23rd hearing,

although there's only,

I think,

three items,

I would expect a lengthy one.

Yeah.

I anticipate a lot of attendees

and a lot of comments.

Yeah.

Definitely.

Okay.

All right.

We'll move on to public comments.

And we have no public comments.

All right.

With that,

we will adjourn at 742.

Thank you.

Thank you.