Good evening.

And welcome to the Sacramento County Planning Commission hearing for Monday, August 25th.

Clerk, will you please call the role?

Good evening.

Commissioner Conklin here.

Commissioner Devlin.

Here.

Commissioner Verga.

Here.

And with those members, we do have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

And will you please join me and our fellow commissioners?

Devlin, will you please uh lead us in a pledge of allegiance?

Absolutely.

I pledge allegiance to the individual.

And to the clerk, is there any announcements?

Yes.

The county fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, civility, and the use of courteous language.

The commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, or 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-person public comment, please complete and submit a speaker request form to the clerk.

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

Members of the public may send a written comment, which is distributed to commission members and filed in the record.

Contact information is optional and should include the meeting date and agenda off agenda item number as to be sent followed.

Email a public comment to board clerk at SACCounty.gov and mail a public comment to 708th Street, suite 2450, Sacramento, Californian 95814.

And that is the end of the announcement.

Thank you very much.

And will you please uh read out the first agenda item on our contested portion of our agenda this evening?

Item number one is PLMP 2024-00059.

This is a use permit, a special development permit, a variance, a development plan review, and design review.

The property is located at 4748 Ingle Road, approximately 533 feet from the intersection of Ingle Road and Mission Avenue in the Carmichael community.

And the environmental document is exempt.

Thank you very much.

Staff, we have a presentation.

Okay, perfect.

Yes, we do have a presentation.

Uh good afternoon, commissioners.

Uh, my name is Irving Huerta, associate planner and project manager for the 4748 Angle Road uh multifamily conversion.

Uh, we'll go ahead and get started with a brief presentation.

Our first slide is uh location and setting.

So the project site uh is located over at 4748 Engle Road, approximately five hundred and thirty-three feet from the intersection of Angle Road and Mission Avenue in the Carmichael community.

Uh the current setting of the project site uh is a vacant office building.

And that uh the project site is denoted in that red shade right there on your screen.

Moving on to community context, the project site uh is zoned for business professionals office, BP, uh, and it is within the Mission Oaks neighborhood preservation area.

Surrounding land uses uh include the following.

Uh over to the north, we do have existing single-family residential.

Uh to the south, uh multifamily residential.

Believe those are the uh town home condos.

Over to the east, we have single-family residential, and to the west, uh single-family residential as well as medical offices.

So moving on to site and entitlement history.

Uh, there's been several entitlements uh associated with the project site.

Um, there was an existing monument sign that was approved back in uh December of 2017 through an incidental design review, as well as a minor use permit for a music school that was approved back in March of 2020.

The project site previously did have an entitlement, kind of doing the same that's being brought forward to you today, which was for the conversion of an existing office building to 20 multifamily dwelling units.

That item was actually heard by the board of supervisors back in April of 2021.

However, the board did not take action on that proposed entitlement and instead dropped the item after the public comment period.

The board did provide recommendations to the applicant team at the time on kind of how the proposed project could be improved.

Some of those was kind of lowering the density amount, so the number of units, kind of changing the aesthetic appearance of the building, to consider senior housing.

Those were some of the recommendations that the board had provided then.

After several months, the applicant eventually withdrew their application in late 2021.

Additionally, there are no active code enforcement cases associated with the project site.

So moving on to the entitlement request slide.

This one is again a bit hefty, as you can see on the screen.

The first of which is a use permit, and that is to allow for the conversion of an existing office building into 16 multifamily dwelling units within the BP zoning district.

A special development permit to allow for the proposed project to deviate from the following development standards.

That is the parking lot landscaping requirement, covered parking, unit entries, aesthetics, private open space, and private open space depth.

I'll go more in depth once we go through the exhibits later on in the presentation.

The request also includes a variance, and that is pursuant to the Mission Oaks neighborhood preservation area to deviate from the landscaping plant requirement of 25 feet when adjacent to the interior boundary lines of all adjoining residential recreation and agricultural residential zones.

A development plan review pursuant to the Mission Oaks neighborhood preservation area for the development of non-single family residential use of the property described in the section 532-12.1 of the Mission Oaks NPA.

And then a design review to determine substantial compliance with the Sacramento County Countywide Design Guidelines.

Moving on to environmental review.25.25 exempts infill development within unincorporated areas, meeting the criteria outlined in that section.

So these next couple of slides, we're going to go over through the project exhibits, kind of talk a little bit about kind of what's being proposed and kind of show where the deviations are going to be requested at.

So this first slide right here, this is an overview of the proposed site plan.

Not much is changing in terms of access.

We're going to continue to have the site being accessed by the existing driveway entrance over here on Angle Road.

Additionally, the gate, the security gate that is currently at the site, that's going to remain as well for privacy.

Pedestrian access, we are going to have a combined of existing and new sidewalks throughout the site as well.

We do currently have, I believe, some sidewalk along Angle Road that connects over here to the site.

And we also have some sidewalks right here around the interior of the building area, and then access over here to the other parts of the site, such as the common area, parking area, and trash enclosure.

Parking-wise, we do have a proposed total of 24 stalls.

Those are located pretty much throughout the site.

Predominantly over here in the rear part of the property.

We do have some parking over here in the front, but that is minimal.

Of those 24 parking stalls, 16 are going to be assigned to the 16 units on site, with the rest of the remaining eight assigned for visit visitors.

I do want to point out that the first deviation under the special development permit that is being deviated that can be shown right here on the site plan is for covered parking.

The zoning code does require that one parking space per unit shall be covered.

That can be either by carport or garage.

As proposed though, as you can see, we do not have any carports or carport outlines or garages for each of the unit parking spaces.

And then just some uh finishing remarks right here for the site plan.

We do have a new common area that is proposed for the future tenants on site.

Uh it's basically like a barbecue area with uh garden beds as well for community gardening uh for the tenants, as well as a new trash enclosure over here.

So moving on to the floor plan.

Again, uh proposal right here is 16 units.

All 16 units are proposed to be one bedroom, composed again of a kitchen area, dining room, living room, bathroom, and bedroom.

And then all units on both the first and second floor uh again are gonna be accessible via the existing uh pedestrian walkways and staircases that are on site.

All existing doors, hardware, flooring, ceiling, and minor walls within the interior of the building are gonna be demolished and reconfigured, uh, repaired or replaced.

Um, and again, this is gonna be for all the new units uh within that existing office building.

Uh, three of the development standards again that are being deviated under the special development permit, uh, can be depicted right here.

The first of the first of which is the unit entries aesthetics.

Um that is basically having each of the individual unit entries, uh having uh stoops, uh raised porches, low wall courtyards, etc.

Um, as aesthetic entry features.

Um, however, as proposed, the project does not articulate individual unit entries with aesthetic features as required.

Uh this is a result of the existing building constraints on site.

The other uh development standard I want to talk about is a private open space.

So each of the units does have to have a private open space, uh, either as an at grade uh patio, stoop, uh porch, or balcony for upper stories.

Uh private open spaces have to be a minimum of 20 or pardon 40 square feet per dwelling unit.

Um, the only unit that's not going to be able to meet this requirement is unit one, and again, that is uh due to existing building constraints.

And then the last one is the private open space depth.

Um, so all the open spaces again um have to have a minimum depth of five feet to ensure usability.

And then unit 14, uh, while it does have a private open space, is gonna be a little constrained.

It's gonna be under five feet, uh, and again, it's due to the building constraints.

This is an overview of the elevations.

So, as you can see right here, the uh exterior office building uh is gonna undergo some major facade updates.

Uh, the new facade upgrades uh do follow a Spanish uh architectural style, uh composing of usage of beige colors, stone veneer, uh stucco, as well as Spanish roof tiles for the building.

Additionally, again, all doors and windows are gonna be replaced.

So, this is an overview of the proposed landscape plan.

Um, as you can see, all of the area denoted in green uh is proposed as new landscaping.

We do have a portion of the existing parking area that currently exists between the street frontage and the building, so this area right here, that's currently paved right now.

That's all gonna be converted into new landscaping.

And let's talk a little bit more about that variance that's being requested.

So within the Mission Oaks NPA, it does call for a continuous landscaping planter along adjacent boundary lines, adjoining residential zones of 25 feet.

However, the applicant is requesting a variance for this requirement and instead proposes a continuous landscaping planter along adjacent boundary lines adjoining residential zones.

The other deviation, the last one I believe, that we're going to talk about tonight is the parking lot landscaping.

So landscaped areas at the end of parking rows are required to be a minimum of eight feet in width, excluding curbing.

And as proposed, the internal end islands right here as shown in the parking area.

They're not going to be able to meet that requirement.

They're going to be reduced down to five feet in width.

And again, that has to do a lot with the site constraints that we're working with on site.

Do you want to note that the site is going to have a new six-foot-tall masonry wall along the northwestern rear and eastern property lines where the property line abuts the residential uses?

And then we are also going to have a new six-foot tall or pardon, a new six-foot and seven-foot tall wooden fence.

So part of it's going to be six feet, part of it seven feet.

And that's going to be proposed along the southwest property line, abutting the commercial uh office uses.

So that's going to be along this area right here.

And then the masonry wall is going to be along the uh property line that adjoins or abuts the uh residential area.

The only portion where there's new, no new fencing proposed, uh, that's gonna be located along the eastern perimeter line because there's an existing uh power line easement that is located, and so there's already existing chain link fencing uh with privacy slats.

So that's uh located over here more along the uh northeastern side of the property.

This is just an overview again of the site rendering as proposed.

Again, this is depicting the building uh renovated in that Spanish architectural style, the new landscaping uh along the site, and then the new common area and parking space configuration as well.

So moving on to advisory recommendations.

Uh, the design review advisory committee met back in October of 2024, and they recommend that the Board of Supervisors find the project in substantial compliance with uh the design guidelines.

Uh at that DRAC meeting, the DRAC members highlighted the importance of underutilized office conversions to multifamily units, uh, saying that this is an example of a sensible conversion.

Uh, they appreciate the design overall and the addition of amenities for future tenants.

The Carmichael, what was known back then as the Carmichael Old Foothill Farms Community Planning Advisory Council, uh, met back as well uh in October of 2024, and they recommend that the Board of Supervisors as well uh approve the requested entitlements.

Uh that vote came in as five yes, zero no, and one absent.

Um at the beginning of that CPAC meeting, uh CPAC members did have concern over the neighborhood sentiment, uh, lack of updates from the previous application, whether the project was affordable housing.

Um they did mention some dislike for the proposed architectural features and did suggest as well to consider senior housing instead.

Uh we did have two public comments uh from neighbors at that meeting uh in opposition to the project, uh citing that the neighborhood in the area is not built or adequate enough for multifamily units, and the other comments citing uh concerns over structural safety of the building.

Um, even though we had those concerns come up at the CPAC meeting, uh the applicant was present and they were able to address the CPAC and some neighborhood concerns.

So moving on to project analysis, uh the project is consistent with the general plan, community plan, mission Oaks NPA, and the zoning code as conditioned.

The project is compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses.

The project was supported by the Carmichael Old Foothill Farm CPAC and found consistent with the design guidelines by the DRAC.

This is a market rate housing opportunity, and additionally, uh staff has conditioned the project uh with condition number eight, and that is again kind of uh regarding the original proposed car ports.

Um, so this condition uh kind of stems from discussions that we had with the applicant team as well as with the fire department regarding access during an emergency.

As a result, there's uh the fire department requested to not have any car ports or garages proposed, and therefore we added it to that development standard deviation under the special development permit.

So with condition eight, staff what staff has done is that uh future construction of carports uh will be contingent upon the purchase of the property located southwest of the site, uh, which would result in cross access.

Um, just to kind of give an idea of where that cross access is.

Um, if I can point to it, this is the cross access that we're referring to.

Um maybe the applicant can speak a bit more further on kind of the the purchasing and such of the site, but the idea is to eventually connect uh the cross access right here to the adjacent site in order to have uh fire engines basically be able to access the site over here, but as well as over here through that existing uh access that's currently blocked off by a fence.

So moving on to um oh, pardon.

I should actually go back real quick.

The uh last condition I want to talk about is condition nine, and that is uh regarding again uh future tree planting along that western property line.

Um this again was uh as a result of discussions with both fire and the applicant, they had requested a three-foot uh gravel path to be located along this area um for potential access.

Um I'm gonna have to skip back over here real quick.

The landscape plan right here depicts it.

Um, so this is what uh they have requested.

Um, in the future, we will have to have some sort of trees planted along this side, given that we do have this uh Ravel pathway now being proposed.

We're gonna go back and skip on to staff recommendation.

So planning and environmental review staff uh does recommend that the planning commission make the following recommendations to the board of supervisors.

Uh, that is to recognize the that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Public Resources Code Section 21 159.25, approve the use permit, subject to findings and conditions, approve the special development permit, subject to findings and conditions, approve the variance, subject to findings and conditions, approve the development plan review, subject to findings and conditions, and lastly, find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines, subject to findings and conditions.

With that, this concludes the end of my presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions that you may have.

Additionally, we do have our applicant team in attendance as well, and they're available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for staff?

Um I'm obviously, but I'm gonna ask a question anyway.

You've someone's addressed the traffic issues with a one-entrance side of the of this complex in terms of the increase in traffic.

So we uh when we first got the project, we distributed the project um to our various agencies and departments.

Uh, the Department of Transportation had notified us that uh even though this uh conversion uh would be going in that it would not uh trigger the necessity for uh an LTA or a VMT analysis, citing that it was under the threshold.

So that's my understanding on kind of how the traffic uh determination came about.

Okay.

Can you go to the slide of the front of um this lack of better term, street view of the front of the um elevation?

That's the top.

No, flip it where there you go.

Okay, perfect.

So with your variances that you're talking about in terms of um different spaces and private um areas, some chains not.

That almost looks like a hotel.

Is I mean, if you look at it, La Quinta looks like that.

So my question to you is, and maybe it's more for the applicant, is are these one-bedroom units gonna be um owner-occupied units?

So it's my understanding it's gonna be uh renter, so tenants, not owner-occupied.

So it's gonna be tenants.

Yeah.

So it's not owner-occupied.

Not owner occupied, yeah.

So it's a basically an apartment complex?

Yes.

Okay.

Um you said that the and in the documents they talk about the um CPAC for um that area had a meeting on 2024 and went through the review process then.

And it when was that based on the original plan?

When the supervisors basically dropped it off the agenda, or is that based on this new request?

That meeting, I mean, yeah.

So those comments uh it was my understanding that a lot of the members uh that were on the CPAC uh back in October of last year, um, kind of recognized the project from the original 2019 project.

Um some of those concerns came about of that.

Um, however, after the applicant explained further in detail kind of the modifications that they had done uh to the proposal, that's where kind of their um kind of their thoughts started to change a little bit more.

They thought that basically the old project was recycled, or basically kind of the just the same, but uh this request is a little bit different in terms of the uh number of units, uh the aesthetics of it.

So that's kind of the changes that came about with this new request.

So the original request um and that went through the CPAC then, um, this request has gone through the CPAC, the new recent CPAC?

Yes.

Yeah, back in October of 2024.

2024, yeah.

So um has there been changes to this project since that meeting?

Uh the only change that uh we've done since was again the ones that I talked about that uh we had discussions with the fire department, so eliminating the car ports and then uh eliminating the uh landscaping trees along the western side because of that new uh gravel pathway that fire had requested a quick second, I might be sure to pick off all the so you're saying you said that in the future there could be a covered carport based on the um applicant purchasing another piece of property on the opposite side of this?

Yes, that's correct.

And what's on the opposite side of this?

Pardon?

What is on that property that they might purchase?

It's uh medical offices, is my understanding.

Medical offices.

Yeah.

Are they currently occupied?

Uh it's my understanding that they are.

So how would purchasing those open the door to put in car um uh covered parking in?

So if the property owner were to purchase a site, uh essentially what they would do is that they would uh go ahead and record an easement to allow for cross-access.

Um we did uh some research, some background research on whether there was an existing easement.

Uh to our surprise, there wasn't any, even though the uh these buildings uh were constructed around the same uh time period, I believe under the same building permit, if I'm not mistaken, um, but no uh cross access was ever recorded.

So the idea here is that if the applicant were to purchase the site, they'd be able to record uh reciprocal access agreement, allowing uh for future access for the trucks um along uh mission avenue and not just along angle road.

So is there access there now?

It's just because there's not an access permit, if or it's not an access variance.

They can't drive through there.

Yeah, there's no reciprocal access agreement.

Um, even though uh it is connected, there's just the gate that's there, but it's it's locked up.

Um maybe the applicant can explain a bit further more on kind of you know what's uh existing there, but based off of our uh knowledge, no easements exist, uh no agreement exists.

Uh this was again based off of research um looking at uh previous uh or what we call our brown books where we have the recorded uh surveys from the 70s, um, and then as well as title reports that we worked along with with the applicant to review, and then um the several variances you're talking about um asking us to agree with, all those seem to circulate around the fact of how they designed the uh apartment complex itself.

Is that what it is?

Uh this is based off of uh yeah, but uh it's more so based off of the existing building constraints.

Uh they're not adding any square footage to the building.

Uh they're essentially keeping the building as is.

What they're doing is just renovating the exterior uh in order to give it that uh Spanish architectural style, and then doing interior renovations.

So uh those uh deviations under special development permit uh regarding to the private space and all that uh is basically more so based on building constraint, the the actual building itself.

The physical size of the building, yeah.

Physical the existing uh uh square footage of the building.

So this building's a um basically a um office building, right?

Yeah, it's sitting vacant, abandoned.

Okay, so is uh if I understand what you're saying correctly, they're gonna gut this thing, keeping the outer walls in place and put in 16 apartments.

Within the interior, within the within the interior of that building.

That's correct.

Commissioner Verga, it should also be noted that the when the project was first in in 2019 under different property owner, um, we did not have our multifamily design standards in place at that time.

Um so a lot of these special development permits were not required or included with that original project.

So since that time when it was withdrawn and recent and now it's under a new property owner, we do have more multifamily design standards in place that the project was subject to.

So they did make more changes in order to comply with a lot of multifamily design standards that are now required.

Um so there are some additional deviations here listed, but that is because our standards were updated.

So the deviations are a result of our standards?

Combination of both, our standards and building, the existing building footprint.

And you may not know this, but why wasn't the building just tore down and rebuilt into an apartment complex instead of staying within the four corners of the of the structure?

Uh I would probably uh refer back to the applicant on that.

Okay.

I'm sure that the applicant uh specializes in conversions, if I'm not mistaken, but uh maybe they have more insight on that.

Okay, that's I appreciate that.

Thank you.

That's that's all I have.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, thank you.

Can you go to the site plan?

Uh the landscaping up top view, I guess, is maybe more illustrative.

Thank you.

Uh the area which um I believe is to the east.

That square other side.

Oh, to the west.

Sorry.

Is that a that's that's a that is a parking lot, presumably.

Oh, this is the common area uh right here.

Are you referring to the further?

Keep going.

Yep.

Oh, this is the parking area.

Yep.

Okay.

So that um and the three foot gravel path.

What is the justification for not putting landscaping in the three-foot gravel path currently and um is there does the covered parking requirement apply to that, apply to the parking lot?

Uh no, but kind of what uh where that stems from, the the three foot is uh fire, essentially what how we understood is that the fire department uh wanted to have access, um, essentially just in case it's my understanding, I think it's to run, I believe the hoses in case of an emergency.

So um that's why they're uh requesting that three-foot uh what is it gravel pathway along the uh property line over here?

So that I believe my understanding is they would give them access to run a hose um over here as well.

Um obviously they'll have the engines be able to come over here as well.

Um, but it's my understanding too.

I think they're limited um, and don't quote me, I think it's uh 150 feet is the length.

So I think what kind of the strategy here for them is to just have kind of overall access um to the site.

Okay, that makes sense.

And to the requirement for the for the parking lot to be covered.

Uh-huh.

What's the justification for not covering the parking lot?

Um, so the covered parking, uh, that's uh again a multifamily uh design standard.

Uh the justification for not uh including it is that uh I believe their engines as well as hoses won't be able to basically access them.

Say that again.

They won't be able to access the carports.

What won't be able to the uh engines with the hoses is my understanding.

The ones over here uh in the rear.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh at this time we'll invite the applicant up.

Good evening.

Uh I'm Sean Freitas, I'm the architect.

I've been working on the um the application design since 2019.

I was uh originally hired by uh a previous uh developer who purchased the property.

The original developer wanted to make as little improvements on the building as they could, and uh and give new life to the building by by uh remodeling it for apartment usage.

Uh that particular developer was very very keen on keeping costs low.

So the original application basically kept the the shell intact and and endeavored to gut and remodel the interior of the building so that they um they could put the apartments in.

It had 20 units originally.

There were um there was a lot of work done by staff and uh my project managers to um meet the requirements, uh you know, county requirements and get get the project designed and and approved, and we we had a lot of resistance by the community, and uh that original developer ended up withdrawing, sold the property to uh onyx group who came in uh a couple years later.

So on the second round, we uh we scaled the the unit count down and um we engaged uh planning and tried to come up with a plan that would be more acceptable to the community.

Um did more enhancements to the existing shell.

Uh the co the the tough issue here is we've got a building that was built in 1973, it's 52 years old.

Uh it was probably originally part of a medical office regime that supported um uh Mercy American River uh uh the hospital was torn down in 2000.

And since then it's been uh is it the building aged and the community aged and its use sort of uh became more antiquated, it's uh been harder and harder to occupy as is an office building.

And this issue is problematic throughout Sacramento County and a lot of communities in California where there's old antiquated buildings, large parking lots and these buildings are struggling to to find new use so the effort is is noble the effort is to take an existing building and create homes create housing apartment spaces for for folks that need it um and that that's that's what's driving the effort to to tear down the building from scratch and and rebuild it uh would double or triple the cost uh of what we're we're planning on on spending and it would make the the project must let much less likely to occur so we're trying to find a balance where we can meet all the requirements of the county with their design standards meet the requirements of the fire district to make sure that they have perfect access for fighting fires um and and try to enhance the looks of the building without busting the budget and making the project too expensive or too expensive to rent so we uh we we presented what we thought was a pretty good design in the end uh I was at the meeting last October and we had a pretty good discussion uh about how how the project has progressed over time and we were pleased that uh that we got a uh renounce uh a five yes vote on that unanimous and uh we're we're here today answer any questions you have uh the build the this project uh is is ready to move forward and um and we'd like to uh finish the project and and uh create 60 new units for uh sacramento county thank you very much any questions for the applicant i do so basically you're telling me it's not an affordable project if you tear it tear the building down and start over it it can be done we can spend a lot more money and we can make a really fantastic building we can go higher denser more parking with all sorts of architectural things that we could do to make it bigger better uh the problem is um the folks that are that are developing this project these are local folks these are you know um uh folks that live in in north and tomas uh they're younger younger group um they're they're working hard to raise capital and to justify these projects uh most of the folks in my office that that are working on these projects uh have worked real hard but we're not large out of town big dollar developers uh my my parents live right down the street here off of uh da costa and um this is a neighborhood that we've been in for years so we're you know we're all here together to hopefully get this project approved tonight um to make projects happen in our community by people who are from here that want to make our neighborhoods better and um so yeah I mean we I would love to have the client come to me and say hey let's tear it all down and do a brand new everything but it it's not feasible with uh the investment that's that's available for this project at this time we I want you to know though that the same development group we have over 12 projects in the pipeline that range from this small 16 unit project to uh projects over 400 units throughout SAC County there's a 12 projects total that we're working on in a in a in a in a grand effort to get more housing available and to develop some of these these uh infill projects um that that need some you know they need they need uh some investment so uh I wanted you to know that was just not this project that we're we have a whole raft of projects that we're moving forward we have we have two that are on Arden that we're uh rapidly finishing now um similar issues very tight site uh we've got access gates that were put in years ago with no easements for fire fighting it's hard to go back to uh you know, to somebody that owns the property next door and say, hey, will you give us an easement?

So we have situations where we're exit we're dealing with existing buildings, existing development, existing road frontage, and trying to bring new life into these these these places.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Oh, I I have some follow-up questions.

That's all right.

Did you have any questions?

No.

Um thank you very much.

I I actually live nearby and uh this property and and visit Gibbons Park uh nearly every weekend and familiar with the uh the challenges of of this property, and and um I do um agree that the effort is is noble.

Um there are some I think significant uh and unique challenges that this property and layout and configuration presents, which I'm sure has been articulated and brought forth by the community.

I'm just kind of curious what you've heard and what concessions the applicant or your design team have made in response to the community's feedback.

Well, the the aesthetics, but we've spent a substantial amount of money and time trying to enhance the building without completely destroying and reconfiguring it.

So it's kind of a tough balance when you're gutting a building, uh especially a wood frame building and trying to bring plumbing and mechanical and partitions, you know, rate-ed walls, all those sorts of things.

It's it's already a difficult uh thing to do, but when you have to add a bunch of patios and there were terraces, uh outdoor spaces, those sorts of things.

Um it gets more challenging.

So we have spent uh uh you know a great deal of effort trying to enhance uh the aesthetics with the way the building is finished, refinished, new windows, new doors, and uh some of the relief that was uh added to the front of the building.

The building's kind of an odd duck, it's kind of a contemporary spin on Spanish.

No, yeah, and I'm sorry if I didn't um state my question clearly.

Um the community during previous meetings have provided their feedback to the design and to the proposed project.

Um, and I I heard earlier in your testimony that um there's been some concessions made.

Sure, sure.

And I wanted to get some insight exactly what those concessions were specifically.

Well, there was four units dropped.

So instead of 20, we have 16 units.

There's a parking deduct that goes with that, more landscaping.

Uh yeah, better finestration on the building, more outdoor space, more storage for the folks that live in those buildings, um, just things that make it more useful uh and more livable for the folks that are being there.

I think the impact of uh 16 families living on the site would be much better than 20 and uh a little easier to absorb.

Understood.

Okay.

Well, thank you very much.

Thanks.

Any other questions?

No, all right.

Uh all right, we'll move on to public testimony as I understand it.

There's a handful.

We're going to limit public testimony to two minutes uh for any individual representing a group, we'll make that four minutes.

Um, but uh uh for those that wish to come and speak uh now is the time.

Yeah, come on up.

Uh, and I think collectively, if we all stand up and take an oath uh administered by the clerk, uh that will kind of help speed things along.

And it looks like the first speaker we have in the queue is David Cousins.

Clerk, did you want to administer the oath to all of them?

Yeah.

If you wish to address the commission, please raise your right hand, and the appropriate response is I do.

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this board is the truth, so help you God.

If you do not swear, do you so affirm?

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners, and um I was impressed with the presentation, and I think the acritect and the applicants have made an effort to improve on the previous design.

I have a few concerns that I hope you can consider in the form of other conditions.

I don't see any incentive for the applicant or the uh property owner of the of this development to proceed with acquiring the adjacent property.

If the issues the access in an emergency, why can't there be an offer made to the existing owner of the adjacent property to pay for that access?

That's my point.

In addition, if there is difficulty for the fire department to pull hoses because of covered parking, perhaps as a mitigation measure, this project could consider fire sprinklers in each of the units, maybe in bedrooms or somewhere else.

I think smoke alarms are required, but fire sprinklers are another level and there'd be mitigation for some of the uh drawbacks.

Finally, I'm not able to articulate the details, but if landscaping is being reduced and if trees are being cut down, then I would ask that conditions be added to uh improve landscaping elsewhere, especially where there's a single-family residence or uh that uh gate between the um two properties.

Um, that's kind of a mixed issue, but it doesn't involve landscaping, but there should be access that could be paid for by the developer.

My time is about up, but I would um support the project with a few more conditions that would address concerns of the community.

And if I have mentioned I'm a resident in uh south of Whitney, but I do walk in the neighborhood and I care about the design standards that uh the mission oaks neighborhood association has uh uh seen the board approve.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, appreciate your comments.

And our next speaker, I believe we have uh Amber.

Hi, Representative.

Can I have four minutes, please?

Please.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Amber Viegas.

I'm here as a neighbor that lives within the 500 foot radius of the Ingle Road Project, as well as a board member of the Mission Oaks North Neighborhood Association, and also as a structural design technician employed by the state of California Department of Transportation.

Myself, my colleagues at the Division of Engineering Office of Design and Technical Services have reviewed the following resubmittal dated 9624.

And I found a violation of CEQA PRC 21159.25, parentheses B C.

And a violation of California Fire Code 503.2.

Section A or Section 1, a misrepresentation of a second floor overhang adjacent to entryway.

An inaccurate description of measurements of three safety ball large distance from bullet building into entry access way.

Section three, public utility easement, utility abstractions and dedicated easement.

I spoke on the phone with a gentleman named Ben who works for maintenance at Sacramento Suburban Water District.

When adjacent water well is online, they need an access road to service it daily.

Section four, with the discrepancies listed, I speculate the Asbelt's plans were not used in creating all plan sets, even though they have been verified on file at Sacramento County Assessor's Office.

He also conducted a traffic studies for Mission Avenue Apartments East and West.

He said to approved a two mission project, it was necessary to combine the traffic data from both projects.

Since 4748 Ingle Road falls into the 500 foot radius of this already active projects, Mona asked that you include Mission Avenue Apartment East and West in all traffic studies related to see apartments at 4748 Ingle Road.

And have asked numerous times for the property owners to update code violations and care for their property.

And response to projects submitted by Ingle Partners LLC.

This building is unsafe for any type of residential usage.

In closing, I will mention that Mona is always open to discussion for the future of 4748 Ingle Road with any new or prospective owners.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And I believe we have one more.

Speaker.

Hi, good evening.

Hi, morning.

My name is Ricardo Ranghill Race.

Um I live within 500 feet of the proposed project.

And I'm here to express my concerns about the effect on our neighborhood.

First, I want to also say that I'd like to see the utility companies make sure they have proper access to that well.

And if the designs are off uh or the emissions are off, I'd like to see that fixed or taken care of.

Um traffic reports.

I'd like to see, we were just here, um, some of us were just here maybe a year ago about the apartments, the 81 units around the corner.

And we've, you know, that was a big fight for that.

Um, and that's something I still I know that's not a concern with this project for these the people building the project here, but first somebody where I live, it's gonna affect me too, along with this unit here.

So I'd like to see traffic reports done that includes everything.

Um parking.

I know there's uh less units and there's uh significant amount of parking spots there, but still I don't we're not sure how many people are gonna be living in each unit if there's adequate parking because I can tell you right across the street.

There's a no uh no stopping sign.

I'm not exactly sure how far up and down those that goes, you know, as far as no parking.

I know it's a little stricter than no parking.

But my house, our house is going to be the first place people start parking.

Now I'm not opposed to people parking in front of in front of the house.

Like I I go visit friends, we go visit friends, we'll have parties and it's fine.

It's like okay, there's there's parking there, you know.

So it's a different thing if it's permanent, if it's every day, if it's covering the neighborhood because we like to see the streets kind of clear.

Uh safety issue if we have kids playing, right?

You know, it's like if you're driving and you have clear lines of sight with everything, you can see everything, but if you've got to drive through an area that's got cars on both sides, it's like well, kid can dart out or whatever it is, you know.

Um, that's kind of my one of my uh big issues with this project, in addition to Project War on the corner is parking, parking safety, and what's gonna become with our neighborhood uh in that area.

So yeah, that's what I had.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Are there any other members of the public that wish to comment on this agenda item?

Looks like there's one in the back.

All right.

Well, we welcome you when you are ready.

Oh, for item number two, then we'll proceed.

Any other members of the public wish to comment on agenda item number one?

No, okay.

Uh, we'll invite the applicant or the representative of the applicant to come back to respond to public comment.

All right.

So I'd like to get uh some of the clarification.

Um the way I understand the uh agreement with the fire district.

Uh the conditions of approval is if the applicant acquires a site next door, they will add car ports back to the project.

That is correct.

They're not the condition does not require the applicant to purchase the property adjacent to the site.

Is that if it is acquired or if there is an access agreement acquired, then they would be required to put in the car ports.

And the way I understood the car ports were considered by the fire district to be too overly restricted, too dense of the canopy to restrict the flow of the apparatus on site during a fire event.

Um the uh the gravel path was something that was a condition of approval.

That's not something we we imposed.

Uh the fire sprinklers, the building will be fire sprinkled, it's required by code.

There's a whole raft of brand new codes relative to excess compliance, fire, uh clean uh energy efficient appliances, all the good things that we have in our current building code will be uh given to this building, including new seismic wind, uh, structural improvements to the project.

The building essentially be a brand new building with a brand new lifespan um I wanted to uh comment on that um as far as the traffic study uh my understanding is it's categorically exempt uh it's already been reviewed uh I'm not aware of any uh conditions of approval related to traffic studies I'm sure staff could talk about that and um I do there's any other questions you guys had from me I'd be happy to respond but um I think that's all I had to say any follow-up questions for the applicant no all right thank you very much thanks um okay um we'll bring it back to the commission for deliberation um I'll start um I have heard I I went back to uh December 13th 2020's uh commission hearing in the archives and and reviewed that over the weekend and and actually went over to the property and and toured it um this last weekend and uh wanted to at least kind of keep the the the framework of the property fresh in my mind and um obviously the property was originally designed for a set amount of occupants uh in the business configuration that it is and and that the uh proposal is is um trying to to conform with the the same amount of units so I I understand that um the traffic uh increased traffic is is uh kind of a an argument that that uh may not um that that theoretically could you know still be if the property was at full occupancy now with all the businesses would have potentially the same amount of vehicles um although you know there's you know you could have two occupants to each unit and there's only one vehicle um for for each unit um although um there are a myriad of of design standard uh exemptions and and variance uh requests that are uh of concern um i i think this property um is is is um it presents some very unique challenges and i think that um that smaller multifamily properties um especially when you're when you're um you're converting an existing commercial lot um into multifamily which i do support uh those conversions of underutilized properties but they don't always apply and they don't always fit and I think this is one of those challenging um proposals that that is almost looks like it's the square peg into a round hole and um it creates I think some some additional struggles for the local community um I think you know smaller properties uh you know um could like this could be uh utilized more effectively and efficiently if there were privately owned town homes I think for multifamily um the unique challenges of of having um often less professionalized management company you know uh manage the the the property um are are those risks uh tend to be higher um there are fewer resources uh but those are considerations that aren't before this body but what are these requests for deviations and um I'm looking at design standards that we have in place that this this proposal can't meet.

Uh whether it's the covered parking, whether it's um fire requirements for egress and ingress, um, what whether it's uh individual unit entries with stoops, um, the open space requirements, um, not all of them are met, and um and the landscaping planner requirements.

Um, so I I just feel that this property is over time um really struggled with trying to um meet those those requirements and and continues to fall short.

Um and so I I really struggle with uh supporting this project.

But I'll uh I'll pause there and pass the baton off to another who wish to comment.

If I may ask a follow-up question for staff, regarding the the car ports and the condition that would trigger the installation of the car ports.

And I apologize in advance for like the particular maybe detailed nuance of this question.

Um, but what are the specific conditions?

So if that property was acquired, but um how is commonality of ownership defined?

Is it the same LLC?

Is it the same ownership group?

Is there a ownership threshold of 51%?

Like how do we get there?

That's a good question.

Um I we don't think I have a good answer for you.

Um, but I do want to just note that it's the way it's written, it's that if it's purchased by the existing property owners.

I think we would be a little bit flexible in making sure that the property owners are the same, whether it's the same LLC or the same individual person.

Um and it's also in terms of just fire access in general.

So if there is like an agreement that's in place or something that's recorded and easement that's recorded, that's something else that we would take into consideration and be acceptable as well.

Thank you.

I too have a lot of the same concerns you do about this project.

It looks like we've given a lot of variances to try to help the applicant bring life to an old building.

We need to talk about one bedroom units in that configuration in that community as a whole, and I lived this in this area my entire life, so I know that community is like.

Um I have, and I'm glad you brought it up, serious concerns about down the road management of that structure and how that turns out for the community, because it could turn out very poorly for the community.

Um just put it on record, there's a lot of downsides in the future, and we're given a lot of variances to get 16 individual units.

So that's all I have to add.

Uh I don't think I disagree with any of my colleagues' comments.

It seems to be doing a lot.

I think if I could kind of if I push back to a bit of a macro level, it's not necessarily the number of bedrooms.

But the yeah, we seem to be doing a lot in a little space here that may just be a little bit too much.

However, I will extend the applicant a courtesy motion to approve the project as proposed by staff.

Okay.

We have uh one motion uh by Commissioner Devlin.

Is there a second?

For purposes of moving it, I'll second it.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

And that item does not pass with two votes to no and one yes.

Okay.

And as I understand that's a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

That's correct.

Okay.

So there's no action yet.

Yeah.

So if some well, if the votes stay that way, there's not going to be a formal action.

So your report to the board's just going to be two to one, no formal action.

Okay.

Alright, thank you.

Uh clerk, would you mind reading agenda item two?

Item number two is PLMP 2022-00289.

This is the tentative subdivision map and design review.

The property is located at 7948 Sunset Avenue, approximately 133 feet east of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Sunset Avenue in the Fair Oaks community.

All right.

Thank you very much.

And do we have staff?

We do.

Before Irving gets started on the presentation, I just wanted to make note.

We did receive a number of public comments requesting a continuance of the item to a future meeting.

So just wanted to point that out that members of the public have requested that continuance.

I believe the reasoning was um scheduling conflicts.

A lot of them travel.

So just wanted to bring that up.

Um staff is not recommending a continuance of the item, but just wanted to make note of that.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Irving, are you ready?

Sounds like a presentation then?

Ready to go.

Okay, yeah, we'll get started.

Okay.

Uh good afternoon again, commissioners.

Uh Irving Huerta here, associate planner and project manager for the 7948 Sunset Avenue tentative subdivision map.

Go ahead and get started with uh brief presentation.

So, first slide, uh location and setting.

Uh project sites located over at 7948 Sunset Avenue, approximately 133 feet east of the intersection of Sunrise Boulevard and Sunset Avenue within the Fair Oaks community.

Uh currently the project site, as denoted in that red uh rectangle up on screen, is currently developed with an existing home fronting Sunset Avenue and has numerous trees on site.

Moving on to community context, the project site uh is zoned.

Residential five, that's RD5.

Um, I do want to point out just for the record that um the uh information depicted under the uh surrounding land uses I think got mixed up with another project mine, so it's incorrect.

Um I'm gonna go ahead and list what should be listed up on the following.

Uh to the north, we do have uh existing single family or multifamily residential.

Uh over to the south uh and east, we do have existing single family residential, and then over to the west, we do have some office vacant uh spaces as well.

So moving on to site and entitlement history.

So according to Sacramento County Records, uh there's no previous planning entitlements associated with the project site.

Historical imagery as shown up here.

Aerial imagery uh does show that the property historically was used as an olive orchard.

Uh, this is dating back to the early 1930s.

Staff uh has reviewed recent code enforcement violations as well and concluded that there are no active cases at this time.

On to the entitlement request, the entitlement request being brought forth to you today, or this evening, I should say, is a tentative subdivision map, and that is to divide a 1.7 acre parcel into seven parcels, as well as a remainder lot in the RD5 zoning district.

The request also includes a design review, and that is to determine substantial compliance with the Sacramento County Countywide Design Guidelines.

So moving on to the alternative slide right here, kind of do want to pinpoint a little bit of kind of the background on how we got to the subdivision map.

So as depicted over here on the right on the screen, there was alternative designs that were originally discussed prior to application submittal.

The applicant, along with County Engineering, which is our site improvements and permits section, did discuss several alternatives in regards to access, including cul de sacs, stub streets, and private streets.

However, all the alternative designs eventually were not pursued based on a lack of connectivity to the existing street network and concerns over lot compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood.

This slide right here depicts the tentative uh subdivision map, and again, this is an overview of kind of what we're working with.

Again, the request here is to divide the existing parcel into seven new parcels.

Uh those parcels are depicted uh right here.

Oops, at the screen right here.

These seven parcels right here, and then a remainder parcel over here.

So the proposed uh seven lot subdivision uh does vary uh in lot sizes, uh, anywhere between 5,000 uh 337 square feet up to just over 8,000 square feet in size.

Uh that remainder lot, uh, the one depicted over here uh on the left side.

Uh that one uh is to remain at 16,000 16,768 square feet, uh, and it is gonna retain that single family residence on site.

So while the map right here doesn't depict uh any specific uh building envelopes for the most part, it does depict the buildable uh area for uh future homes on site, and those are depicted right here in those dashed lines uh in each of the individual lots.

Access-wise, the subdivision uh is proposed to be accessed via a new 40-foot wide public uh street uh that would connect Shrewsbury Avenue and Glen Bar Way, and that is depicted right over here.

Uh Class A Street Improvements uh and street lights are to be constructed.

Uh, that is curb sidewalk gutter.

Uh and that is uh pursuant to county improvement standards.

Um while the uh construction of off-site improvements along Shrewsbury Avenue and Glen Bar Way, uh they're not being required.

Um, but according uh to the applicant, they did indicate that they originally offered to construct uh the off-site improvements, that's curved sidewalk uh gutter for the properties adjacent to the site along Shrewsbury Avenue and Glen Bar Way.

Um, however, uh it was indicated that the neighbors uh had declined the offer.

The remainder lot uh over here would continue to get access uh from Sunset Avenue.

Uh and it would be continued to be served by the existing driveway uh that is uh located over here.

Another thing to point out is that uh just south of the project site, uh located over here.

Uh we do have uh north to south street, uh known as Lago de Comaway.

Uh, no connection is proposed or are being pursued as are currently no existing right-of-way dedication uh to that parcel just south of that site.

Another just a couple more points.

Each of the parcels as proposed again will be connected to public water and public sewer.

And a little bit more about the on site trees.

So we did have an arborist report provided.

There's a total of 135 trees on site, of which 21 of those are uh native oak trees.

With this request, uh we would be removing a total of 125 trees, and then uh the project does propose to remove 19 of those native oak trees.

Uh five of those trees are in fair or better condition, but removal would require mitigation.

And then the kind of the why the tree uh tree removal is essentially occurring is to accommodate the proposed infrastructure as well as the uh buildable lot footprints that are being uh as shown over here on the subdivision map.

And then uh we do have uh some conditions of approval.

Uh we'll talk about those more in a different slide that was uh requested by the DRAC for non-discretionary design review for the future of field uh future building footprints and potential uh tree impacts.

So moving on to environmental review.

Uh the project is uh exempt from CEQA pursuant to CGO guidelines section 15183a, the public resources code section 21083.3, projects which are consistent with development density established by zoning, community plan, or general plan policies uh for which an environmental impact report has been certified shall not require additional environmental review.

Moving on to advisory recommendations.

Uh the design review advisory uh committee did meet uh back on May 9, 2024, and they did recommend that the Planning Commission find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines.

There was concerns at the at the DRAC uh regarding the extensive tree removal, uh therefore the DRAC did recommend uh a condition to be added onto the project uh regarding tree removal, which uh which we worked on with the applicant.

Uh you can refer to that, and we'll talk a bit more about that in a different slide, uh, condition eight and nine.

The Fair Oaks Community Planning Advisory Council uh met on April 3rd, 2024, uh and they did recommend that the planning commission uh deny the requested entitlements.

Uh that vote was four uh yes, zero no, and three absent.

Uh during the CPAC meeting, uh, there was a total of 19 members uh that spoke in opposition to the proposed request.

Uh statements of opposition included concerns about increased traffic and street parking, concerns over tree removal and grading, small lot sizes, concerns over dust, noise, traffic during construction, street connectivity, public safety, uh, as well as future improvements imposed on adjacent property owners.

I do want to note that uh the app conteam uh was not present during that CPAC meeting.

Moving on to project analysis, so the proposed project uh is consistent with the general plan, community plan, and zoning code as conditioned.

The project uh is compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses.

There are no significant environmental concerns.

While this request was not supported by the Fair Oak CPAC, it was found consistent with the design guidelines by the DRAC.

Uh one thing to note as well is that this does this request does provide some housing opportunities, and then uh it is compliant with all applicable lot development standards for the RD5 zoning district.

And then just some key conditions again.

Condition eight uh pertains to the evaluation of future building footprints, uh, and in condition nine, again to the potential tree impacts associated with the request.

So moving on to staff recommendation uh planning and environmental review staff recommends that the planning commission take the following actions.

Recognize that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15183A, public resources code section 21083.

Adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Approve the tentative subdivision map, subject to findings and conditions, and lastly find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines, subject to findings and conditions.

This concludes the end of my presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions that you may have.

Additionally, we do have our applicant team present in attendance as well, and they're available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate the presentation.

Are there any questions for county staff?

I just have one.

Good evening, Julie Newton environmental coordinator with county planning.

This the statutory exemption that uh this project is being moved moved forward with is not the new legislation that we saw passed through the legislature this summer.

Um this is a sequest streamlining provision that has been around for quite a while that relies on uh previously certified EIRs for general plans and community plans, and it's specific to those projects that are um consistent with the development density of those plans.

So this project is consistent with the development density uh that was analyzed in the general plan, which is why we're moving forward with this particular exemption, but it does have different provisions than the legislation that was passed this summer.

Thank you.

Uh just some clarifying um sure remarks.

So I'm looking at some of the letters that have been submitted, and I just wanted to make sure for accuracy and for my own edification.

Uh, there's a reference to an April CPAC meeting, and I think you alluded to May, and I'm presuming it's uh that yeah.

Let me go back to that slide.

Um May 9th was the DRAC meeting.

Uh, April 3rd, 2024 was the CPAC meeting.

What was the CPAC?

Okay, yeah.

And in the letter here it says CPAC members unanimously voted to deny the project.

Is that accurate?

Yes, that's that's correct.

That vote was uh four yeah, zero no three absent.

Okay, and uh, were there multiple recommendations that were born out of that conversation?

Uh in terms of like uh what the applicant could do in terms of modifying.

Um I think a lot of the uh requests again kind of stem from the kind of the public comment.

I think uh there wasn't any like specific recommendation in the like actual, but there was suggestions, and again, a lot of that came from the public comment.

Okay, I'm just uh trying to dot my eyes and cross my T's off the what's been submitted here.

Um you alluded to both footprints and the trees.

Um can you dive a little bit more into the mitigation efforts uh on the retreat removal as well as the conversations uh that led to where we landed with uh the proposed footprint sizes?

Yeah, so the uh mitigation measures wise, maybe I'll defer to our environmental review more on that.

But uh, in terms of kind of the building footprints and all that, uh, that came about just from project design, and that was something that uh the applicant team had provided in terms of uh Arbor's report with the tree exhibit, and they identified that uh if they were to do these uh building footprints, there would be significant uh tree effects.

That was something that was of concern to the DRAC, and that's why they had requested uh conditions be added for uh to the project so that they could be further analyzed uh in terms of the impacts for each of the lots uh once developed in the future.

Okay, and what are the current lot sizes in the immediate surrounding community of uh would uh Highland Hills there?

Yeah, so um the uh we go back to I believe it was uh attachment one.

Just give me one second.

And I'll look what we'll have an opportunity for staff or I'm for public testimony.

Yeah, just give me one second.

So uh we do have uh along uh Shrewsbury and Glenbar way, uh, as the gentleman had mentioned in the crowd.

Uh we are working with lots that are around uh over 10,000.

Um I believe there are some that are a bit larger.

Uh what is it?

Kind of towards the eastern part, I think 12,000 is what we're looking at.

Uh the lots just north on the other side of Sunset.

Uh we do have some lots and sizes around the 8,000, 7,000.

Uh I know these lots I had mentioned are between uh 5,300 and 8,000 uh square feet.

Um even though they're a bit smaller, they are compliant with the minimum lot size required for um RD5 zoning, um which I believe that is depicted in the staff report.

All right.

And that'd be 52 uh commissioner.

Uh 5200 square feet minimum lot.

God, it's size.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your insights, sir.

Okay.

Um, one last question on outreach.

Uh there was um some uh questions as far as the outreach universe.

Um county staff obviously reaches out into doing their due diligence to communicate with the um the community uh and to uh solicit their feedback.

And I was just trying to uh there's some some letters here that question um uh that outreach effort.

I was hoping you might be able to shed some light on what that effort looked like, kind of um to answer some of those concerns that have been raised.

Yeah, I understand the concerns with the with the neighbors on the outreach.

Um obviously I know the project, you know, has potential to have uh effects.

Um in terms of the county outreach uh when we uh do the mailing, the noticing for the CPAC, we mail um all uh tenants and owners within the 500 feet.

Um at the CPAC meeting, um there was uh also a request by other neighbors outside of that 500 foot uh what is it uh mailing uh area uh that requested to be notified, and so um I had a bit, I'll be honest, had a bit of a blunder.

Um, the first time when we tried getting on this, we fixed that mailing uh error noticing, got them noticed.

Um I think it was about 16 additional uh neighbors that want to be notified.

So that was kind of uh our outreach in terms of CPAC as well as for this final hearing.

I understand there was concerns saying that um you know only two meetings, you know, to be notified.

Um we do request or we do uh have on our general application our applicants fill out uh kind of their outreach plans.

Uh in terms of uh outreach plans outside of what we do, our basic outreach, which is notifying uh tenants and owners within that 500 feet.

Um it was our understanding uh the applicant indicated that they had done uh some in-person outreach.

Uh, I believe it was sometime in uh August 2023.

Uh and then I know that the uh project engineer as well had sent out letters regarding those off-site improvements on whether they would uh allow them to build them uh with the with the request.

Um I believe they provided uh a set of the letter responses where um respectfully the neighbors had uh had denied those uh efforts.

So um I'll probably leave the uh rest of the outreach and kind of what the applicant did uh apart from what uh staff already does uh as our procedures.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate your presentation.

All right, at this time we will turn it over to the applicant or representative the applicant.

Good evening.

Good evening.

Saeed Anfar, I'm the owner.

And uh Saeed.

Is the one that went around the neighborhood, we did the engineering based on staff input.

Um what you have before you is the result of a few years' worth of working.

So Said can explain what uh you found out, yes.

I met with several neighbors surrounding areas, and I spoke with them.

Uh at the beginning, most of the concern was about the uh transient going through the our property through that street through their houses, and they break down in the chain links, are on the property, we fix that.

Uh I call the police a lot of time, they moved them out, and then I discussed about the improvements.

Um, they said they are on this side, they will let me know, and uh they didn't get back to me.

I talked to five, six of them.

Um I explained what we're gonna do.

They said, Oh, we are we are talking to our husband, or we talk about the family members.

Uh I took I talked to the daughter of one of the owner properties.

She said, Oh, my parents are in bad shape, but I discussed that with them, but never got back to me.

I give them information, so that's my contact with those people.

Okay.

On the engineering side, we just uh drew the plans and sent out letters requesting right away, but every one of them was denied.

Okay.

Uh is there any questions for the applicant?

Well, perhaps not necessarily directly printed to this the discussion, but um the intention of of lots, they're to be subdivided, subdivided.

Are these gonna be owner occupied lots?

Yes, they are going to be on the right.

So you're gonna subdivide all seven, and they would be built individually and sold individually.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

Um all right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

At this time we'll uh invite the public to comment as I understand it.

We have uh nearly a dozen uh individuals that wish to speak.

So we have two minutes for each uh for any uh representative of an organization.

We'll give four minutes, and we've got our queue up here, so uh in the ex uh effort to um streamline the process, those that are slated to speak.

If we could have you all stand up and take a oath administered by the clerk, uh then we can run through uh the names and in order uh to speak.

If you wish to address the commission, please raise your right hand and the appropriate responses.

I do.

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this board is the truth, so help you God.

If you do not so swear, do you affirm?

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Hi there.

My name is Pamela Cannellis.

Um, I will be very brief because I've already submitted comments in writing that you should have uh in opposition to the project.

I just want to stress that as proposed, this project would be devastating on the existing neighborhood.

Um traffic is already a real problem at that intersection of Medford and Sunset.

You have a big apartment complex on the north side of sunset.

We get parking from them, people entering and leaving sunset at the same point.

Um I personally worked with the Department of Transportation to back off the parking on the southwest corner of Medford and Sunset, and that helped a little bit, but um adding more cars to the mix here is is is gonna be a disaster.

It really is.

Thank you very much.

Good evening and thank you.

I do feel that the owners of the property do have the right to improve that property.

However, they do have ingress and egress.

It is a private driveway that they should be able to utilize and not impact our community by opening up the dead-end streets that we currently have on Glen Bar and Shrewsbury.

They can come off of sunset and go in there and upgrade and make those improvements.

There haven't been any traffic.

And we have a lot of young children that live in the community that would impose a risk to their safety.

The um it's they're holding back a piece of the property, and then they're only having the seven lots.

I think it needs to be taken into consideration that entire piece of property and the existing homes that are there.

Um we kept getting different maps too.

Some of them had, you know, cul-de-sac, some of them had wrapped around now, and it just we just are getting late information all the time on this.

Um I don't know about the fire department, how they have looked into this either, but and the removal of the trees is a big issue also.

So but thank you for allowing me to speak.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Wanda, and um my parents' home is on the end of Glen Bar, so it would be one of the houses that is directly impacted if they open up the street at the end of Glen Bar.

I'm just kind of getting caught up on what's going on because my parents were ill, very ill on hospice the last couple of years, and they have passed away.

But I do want to emphasize that opening up the streets for Glenbart and Shrewsbury will only benefit the applicant, it will not benefit anyone in Highlands Hill for all, based on the traffic that's gonna be there, the houses that are crammed together that they want to build, where are they gonna park if they have extra cars?

Are they gonna park on our streets?

I mean, that's a real concern for us.

Um, and I'm just wanting to plead to you to really take that into consideration because it's not just, you know, impacting them.

It's impacting our whole neighborhood.

The other thing, too, in terms of these off-site improvements, so I guess they just said that they came and talked to the neighbors about off-site improvements.

I have no idea what they're talking about.

You can see that that house that we we own is going to be majorly impacted.

So you have the so you have the the road as it goes this way and this way.

So you got a road right on the side of the house.

So the house is this way.

They're gonna plan on putting a road here.

This one goes to Glen Bar.

I I apologize, I don't know what the name of that street is.

But this house slopes down, the property slopes down towards the road.

I don't know if they are going to be able to retaining wall, or you know, and in terms of off-site improvements, I'm not sure exactly what they mean.

Does that, because I guess it was some kind of script inside here where if you had a HBAC and you had to pull the permit, then you had to finish the rest of the sidewalk, or I'm not even sure how that whole thing works, but this is the first time we're learning about that.

I don't know, I don't know what he's talking about in terms of talking to people, but we definitely didn't get talked to.

Okay, thank you very much.

Our next speaker.

Sorry, just to clarify, it was the gentleman Gill.

Okay.

Or your Gil.

Who's the last gentleman who just spoke?

What was your name?

Your name, sir, for the record.

Dave, I'm talking about we just want to get your name for the record.

Thank you very much.

All set.

Okay.

First of all, thanks for letting us speak.

My name's Gil Medell.

I live at 4707 Medford within 500 feet of the proposed development.

I submitted a letter back on August 22nd.

Um don't have time to go through it all.

I don't touch on the highlights though.

I do not support, and I'm opposed to this specific tentative subdivision map.

Um I do not support a CE or CEQA exemption.

I have concerns that there's a degradation of the neighborhood character and compatibility.

Uh the lot sizes, they're just not representative of the true nature of the neighborhood the way it is right now.

One of the reasons we chose to buy in this neighborhood was because of the safety that's associated with having a dead end or a cul-de-sac at the end.

And that's all gonna change.

I'm really concerned about that.

Um placing seven lots in a space that would normally hold three, is just incompatible with the neighborhood the way it's set up.

I don't support approval of this plan because the way I see it, those seven lots are not going to be able to accommodate the multiple vehicles, boats, trailers, what have you, that often come with home ownership.

Um haven't seen very much in terms of details when it comes to how they're gonna accommodate all the parking.

You know, are they gonna have garages or just parking spaces or two-car garages?

Um, and that's also very concerning to me.

There's already concerns about traffic and safety.

It's a busy uh off, you know, sunrise and sunset is busy in and of itself, and then we're just one street off, a lot of traffic coming in there already, and adding more residents to the neighborhood will only increase the safety issues with that single outlet.

Um, right on the corner, we have kids, and we're concerned about that uh opening up, not to mention the loss of green space, environmental concerns, as well as just overall lack of project uh transparency, and I can echo the sentiments that were uh presented previously, uh very lacking in details up until now.

So, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Greg, are you available?

My name is Greg Kochman.

I live at 7972 Shrewsbury.

I live uh one house away from the very dead end, and uh bought there for a reason.

Nice quiet neighborhood, safety for kids, basketball in the street, and you think about now he going down to this space at the end of the block, carving all that out, putting in more people, and then going on to the street behind us on Glen Bar.

I got issues with it, um, the quietness of the neighborhood, um, the privacy, and I understand development.

I've been in real estate my whole adult life.

But there comes a time when your neighborhood is really your sanctuary, and is really being taken away.

I would say take some of that money instead of developing more homes to go in there, make a green space out of it.

Do something to really enhance the neighborhood.

Um I don't think it's going to elevate the value of properties.

I think people are I don't know what it's gonna do that way.

But we moved there for a reason, and now you know you look at some of this development, and it's like maybe I'm gonna move on, get back to you know where we got some space in between.

And that's my concern, and not just that, but the noise, you know, what about the infrastructure with police and get all the stuff for fire hydrants coming in, all that stuff.

There's got to be a way to just keep the neighborhood sort of the way it is.

Improve it the way it is.

That's my take.

Thank you very much.

Our next speaker, Alan.

There we go.

All right, commissioners.

Thank you for skipping dinners if you're here with us.

Um, so I'm Greg's neighbor.

Uh I'm one of the four neighbor four houses are the that have the biggest impact of this project.

So you heard about hazards, row hazards, traffic, aesthetics, you heard all of it, right?

You saw the letters, but sleight of hand here.

That's the name of the game here.

Now let me explain.

So imagine you have a three-year-old, a seven-year-old, plays outside.

Someone sends you a letter, asks you to carve out a piece of your rope, no compensation at all.

Obviously, you want to say no.

And Mr.

Huerta mentioned that properties ranges on five to eight thousand, five lots of five thousand, one is six, one is eight.

The average there is five point six, while the rest of the neighborhood is ten thousand plus.

So, obviously, we're gonna say no, right?

So, that's the only notification we ever got.

And to show how sincere they were, they didn't even bother showing up to a CPAC meeting in April.

Okay, and then now we're here all of a sudden, barely got notice, maybe a couple weeks ago, and here we are, and they changed the map.

Where okay, now we're not, they're not doing an off-site improvement, right?

To carve a road.

Now I'm paying for it if I were to pull a permit, and who knows what the cost would be.

We asked Mr.

Porta, he refers back to him, and of course, we can't ever get hold of him.

So we're basically getting ghost of the left and right, it's a sight of hand, back and forth.

I mean, you see the reasons why, right?

You see the facts why we shouldn't do it, but the sincerity involved with the developer, it's not there to improve.

I mean, I guess the housing crisis sucks, right?

In California, we get it, but this is not the way we do it.

Uh to put icing on the cake, we're gonna take a property value hit, and just makes it worse for everyone in the neighborhood.

So that's just my commissary, and thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

And our next speaker, are we able to go together for sisters?

Both more than welcome.

So you're gonna do one minute each.

Is that the plan?

We're gonna try to.

Okay, we just need the other speaker's name, Joanna.

Okay, and okay.

Hello, my name is Estreia Gomez, and I live at 7965 Shrewsbury Avenue.

I am a state employee who works from home.

I attend weekly meetings and work on a helpline every day, helping helping stakeholders.

By connecting the roads, I will no longer be able to work productively or do my job with the amount of noise that will occur with the construction.

When we bought this house, we made sure it was at a dent and so we wouldn't have to worry about uncoming traffic for my nieces and nephews when they play outside.

A lot of us have lived here for a long time.

We are happy living here, we look out for one another, and with the apartments that are across the street.

We have seen on occasion, some crime.

So we're not sure what type of people are gonna be moving into these houses, which is a major concern for us.

The applicant also did not attend the meeting that took place on April 3rd, 2024.

To me, this shows that they are not willing to hear the community out or willing to work with us.

It shows me that they're only willing to uh look out for one another, and it looks like their property, which is on the remainder lot wouldn't even be involved.

Something that also is concerning for us is the amount of debris that's going to be affecting all of the houses and the elderly that live in that community.

And then just piggyback on.

We're both allowed two minutes.

I just did I'm not trying to push rush anyone.

Oh, um, I just wanted to point out, you know, having children, their safety is my number one concern, and we have a lot of kids that are playing basketball, still have that neighborly like community.

It's just gonna be, it's just gonna be more stress on us, knowing that there's gonna be a lot more traffic on this very short amount of uh dead end where for us was very productive to have for the sake of our children.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you for your time.

And our next speaker, Scott.

He had to go pay his meter.

I'm Adrian.

Oh, sure.

Adrian, why don't we go ahead and have you speak, and then we'll we'll see what we can do waiting for Scott.

Thank you.

Um, is Adrian Calham, I live at 7984 Glen Barway.

I'm within the 500 feet.

Um, nobody had come to us to speak to us, to me or my wife about the planning.

We did receive the letters in the mail, but no personal contact.

Um this is already a dangerous neighborhood, as Pam spoke to the intersection at Sunset in Medford is highly dangerous with all the traffic from the apartment complex on the north side.

Additionally, where we live, we live at the top of a hill, and I put this in the letter that I wrote.

It's uh when cars come up Medford and make a right onto Glen Bar, that is a blind turn.

And so my son and his friends play basketball right at the top of the hill, and it is a highly dangerous turn with cars coming around Medford onto Glen Bar Way.

Additionally, the reverse is true.

Coming off Glen Bar, hanging a left onto Medford is another blind turn, and there are families and there are children on the middle of Medford that have to compete with already neighbors and visitors turning left from Glen Barnhill onto Medford, in addition to people coming up Medford.

So you have like little Ryan and little Tyson riding their little electric scooters up and down the street.

And if we open that up to seven houses, what is that 14 more cars minimum that we're gonna be adding to traffic?

Um, and so safety is the big one for me for my child and the neighborhood children, but also you're looking at adding on average houses that are half the size of the lot um in the neighborhood, and that is gonna destroy our property value that we've earned that we've worked so hard to build equity in, and it's absolutely not uniform to what the rest of the community looks like.

Um I think that's a big deal.

It can be done because Glen Bar is already split between east and west.

The east part was built later, and it looks really good.

And so there is a way to do it and such that it is um kind of a little bit more uniform.

Uh, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is Sam McGee available?

Sam.

Sam.

Scott's been in front of me.

I'm in there, we're we're still hanging out for waiting for Scott.

All right.

All right, hello.

My name is Sammy.

I live at 8000 Glen Barway.

Been there 50 years.

A couple of times, in it.

Now, when I first went in there, people said, where'd you go?

I said, No, near sunrise, sunset.

They were proud.

I said, God, that's great address.

Wish I could live there.

And as time has gone by, I'll go being poll and did a development in there years ago.

And we had a meeting with them.

And they were wanting to put in duplexes.

And my question was, do you see any duplexes in this neighborhood?

No, I didn't.

I said, We don't want them.

You know, it's they're not conforming.

They're not going to deal with the flow of our development.

And so he didn't.

And I really appreciate it and respected him for it.

And turned out they were great homes.

We have uh lots in there, a minimum 10,000 square feet, plus or minus homes are 2,000 square feet, plus or minus.

And they're right, pretty much right on schedule there.

Now, here's the thing that I say speaks the loudest for any subdivision.

I'm sorry, I was a non-loan officer at construction loan to sex savings.

So I always look for conformity.

I look for what are you doing good for the community versus what are you doing to put money in your pocket?

And it it comes into play.

But the thing of it is where we live, most of those homes in there are sold or have been sold by attrition.

Now that says a hell of a lot for a neighborhood.

And they wanted to stay why they moved there.

It's just simple as it gets.

And I really think as long as we can maintain it and that level, it'll be good for the community, it'd be good for everybody.

And my mind, uh I think I told him at the last meeting, the highest best use in my mind was make that a horse property.

And you say, why?

Because we were in 15 minutes.

You put a horse in that uh wagon, you can be a breaker.

I mean, Sunrise Park out at sunset by the river.

That's where we live.

We live in Faroaks.

Thank you.

I really appreciate your time.

You guys do a great job.

Thank you very much.

And Scott, are you available?

Hi there, Scott Harrington.

Uh, I live uh on Glen Bar Way within the 500-foot uh uh notification zone.

Uh what I can tell you is that I have also um gone door to door with all of the residents of the neighborhood to inform them uh of the public hearings because there were uh lots of miscommunication or lack thereof.

Um, what the uh applicant here has stated where he spoke to the residents within that uh zone of the 500 feet, that's inaccurate, just like Wanda and her husband had said.

Um what I can also tell you is that um their plan is not uh cohesive with what our neighborhood is currently, right?

The lot sizes.

Um we are all single-story homes.

We have no idea, you know, with uh what the plans are.

It sounds like he's gonna leave that up to uh the people that that purchase those properties, uh, if it's gonna be a two-story or one-story, um, we're worried about the overflow of parking coming into Shrewsbury or or uh Glen Bar.

Um there's only one stop sign in the entire neighborhood, and that is at Sunset and Medford.

The other two streets, Shrewsbury and Glen Bar have no stop signs.

We don't have any speed humps, we don't have any street lights.

It's almost like a forgotten community.

We've got lots of children that are learning how to ride bikes, they're playing basketball out in the street.

Um, I live at the peak of Glen Bar, and I can see that there are constantly cars coming and cutting through what they think is going to be a shortcut and avoiding a traffic light at sunrise and sunset.

Once they hit the peak, they realize that this is a dead end, and then they turn around in my neighbor's driveway and then speed out faster than they came in.

So I feel personally, if we connect Shrewsbury and Glen Bar together, that we're gonna have an expressway, or certainly this was my biggest concern is connecting Lago De Coma Way and the CPAC commissioner uh uh commission meeting.

Uh they wanted to make sure that that was completely shut down, that that would never be an option.

So thank you.

I see my time's up.

Thank you very much.

Are there any other individuals that wish to provide comments at this time?

No?

Alright, we'll return back to the applicant to respond to public testimony.

Come on, you have to respond to that.

Well, uh, most of the concern I heard about traffic.

Uh, we need a little closer to the microphone.

Said, yes.

Well, uh Sunrise Boulevard is very heavy traffic area.

As soon as you go from sunset to Sunrise Boulevard, you are facing a major traffic issue.

So that little strip of the road, which they are concerned about the traffic, is not going to solve the traffic issue because the main issue is the sunrise because of heavy traffic on that area.

The secondly, the most of the concern I heard about their kids playing in the street, they want a dead end to above in a street is for traffic, it's not for playing or putting the basketball and stuff like that.

Thirdly, they said they did not contact us.

I did not contact any individual only.

I contacted five houses, which is impacted by right-of-ay issue, not the whole neighborhood.

That's what five or six of them I contacted.

Uh and also I knew their parents are sick.

The gentleman was saying no.

I was there, they said the path there was a lady outside.

She said, I'm the daughter, and my parents are sick, and I will discuss it with them.

That's what they knew.

So these are my response so far.

Okay.

I have a couple questions, if if I may.

Um I I heard from some of the public uh testimony that I think one said it can be done, but this just wasn't the right configuration.

Um is there um looking at the 1.77 acres and dividing it up into seven parcels.

You've heard some of the community uh and their concerns.

Uh is there uh any um uh openness to either one of you to re-engage with the community to try to address some of their concerns to where uh we can you know uh um have uh something that the local residents feel is more reflective uh with um the existing neighborhood there um in Highland Hills.

Uh is there is there a willingness to work with them to scale some of these parcels down or to reconfigure um the lot sizes or to uh uh address any other concerns that you've heard this evening.

As the county mentioned, we look at many different design, different plans, and the one we came up as the best one we came up.

We they're all they we did a lot of drawing, a lot of planning, but none of them it works.

And so this was the best option we came up based off the previous several design we did already.

Understood.

I I don't know what the vote is up here, and we're missing two commissioners, and I'm I'm I'm wanting to try to make everyone happy.

Uh and I don't I it sounds like there's some willingness from the the community here.

Um, and uh maybe some that there was uh uh scheduling issue that uh um wasn't able to attend one of the CPAC meetings, but they wanted to um increase the line of communication, and that seems to be uh an issue, and I'm wondering if there's more time that's net needed to address that.

What they're saying is to discuss with the neighbors, see if there's a compromise or an alternative.

Well, all the issue issues are already been discussed.

Okay, what else we can do?

Um I don't know.

Okay, yeah, there is some concerns valid, some of them are not.

Um yeah, so uh be that everything has been said.

Maybe we can start on the the concerns that are valid that you acknowledge that are valid.

What which ones are those that you believe are valid that we can address?

One of the issues of traffic they are concerned about the traffic.

I mean I don't anticipate uh few more cars really being such a big traffic issue in that area.

Uh as I said, the main issue is a sunrise boulevard, and uh sunset is also transitioning from two-length at the beginning to one lane.

That's also an issue too, and they hit all the garbage can be put outside in the France because of the transition is so two-lanes suddenly become to one lane in the short time, and that's one of the issues we have had.

Um but the main main concern of the issue is a sunrise boulevard, not the Sunset Avenue.

Understood.

I I visited the property uh over the weekend.

I saw the the two-lane transition into one uh there at sunset and sunrise, and uh can see that uh it it and there's a blind spot there that's caused by some overgrowth of trees, and and uh I can see there's concern there.

Yeah, absolutely.

That's the issue, yes.

Okay.

Any other questions from uh the the dais?

My fellow commissioners, just a staff, just follow up for stuff.

Any questions for the applicant?

No, no, all right.

Well, thank you very much.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll bring it back to deliberation.

I believe there's some questions for county staff that commissioners would like to field.

Um at least one um as it relates to there was a comment around um uh the potential creation of uh what are commonly referred to as zipper streets, connecting one thoroughfare to another through a particular parcel.

Can someone speak to that?

I don't know the definition of a zipper street.

Talking about shortcut, shortcut.

Correct, exactly.

No one's ever heard the term zipper street?

Okay, sorry, as long as I'm not the only one.

I'm making it up here.

Yeah, a shortcut.

We're not creating a shortcut through it through through a what is currently a cul de sac.

Um I guess it would I guess I don't understand the um the idea that it would be creating a shortcut since it wouldn't be connecting to any other streets outside of the Shrewsbury Avenue and Glen Barway.

So it's not creating another outlet to Sunset Avenue or Sunrise Boulevard.

Um, so I don't believe it would be considered a shortcut street to any other surrounding area.

Okay.

Thanks.

I guess my question about kind of dovetails off of yours.

So you the way this map looks, you're basically connecting two um dead ends correct.

Basically, cul-de-sacs are connecting two cul-de-sacs with his road.

These two are not cul-de-sacks.

These are two dead-end streets, dead-end public streets.

And you're gonna connect together to make into what one giant cul-de-sac.

It would just be a through street, it'd be connecting the two dead end streets.

Like a horseshoe.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Can we possibly pull up the map?

Okay, real map of the cul-de-sac.

So we can get a little better.

I think there's some.

Have you seen the map?

Question is.

This is the proposed road, and you have the two dead end streets.

So it looks kind of like a horseshoe or a strip and downs.

Correct.

I think correct.

I think they'd be called elbows.

Like elbows?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So just to kind of follow up on it as we're learning new terminologies for elbows and zippers and cult sacks and others.

So there's so these are dead ends.

There are no property owners, but there's some easement or right-away.

I'm trying to there's some property owners that have been getting notification that if this project or that they may be re financially responsible for any upgrades.

And I'm just maybe you can shed a little bit more light so we could better understand the dynamic there.

We do have um Javier Zaragoza with county engineering.

Okay, wonderful.

We can help explain that process.

Good evening.

Uh but evening.

So that is correct.

Um so currently the way the plan is laid out uh for the tentative map, there is those elbows on the corner.

So when you close those elbows on the corner, it does end up going beyond the boundary of the subdivision.

And so whenever those um those properties do come in with the building permit, they would be responsible to complete that connection, Mr.

Commissioner, so who's responsible?

So whoever so in this particular case, the so the property, the applicant here, he's responsible to improve anything within within their boundaries of their tenative map.

When we were talking at the very beginning of this map with the applicant and his team, I suggested to reach out to the adjacent property owners to acquire the right-of-way and have those improvements installed.

My understanding was that he did.

He reached out to the app to the property owners, and they deny the request.

So just to help clarify this for me, he builds, they don't put in the um the improvements, they just stays the way it is, or does someone come in and tell them they have to build put in the improvements?

No, so he would have to he would have to come in with the building permit to trigger the county asking for those improvements to be installed by the applicant or by someone else?

By the property owner.

So the owner of the adjacent property, that is correct, would have to pay for the improvements if this project goes through.

And when I say improvements, we're just talking about curb gutter sidewalk.

Just around that corner piece.

So maybe 10, 15 feet of frontage.

That's correct.

For all four of these properties that are negative, only for the two corner properties on, and that's on the north and well, I'm not sure where my north arrow is on that exhibit, but I'm assuming if north straight up, to the left, so the north and south uh properties.

Um, all right.

So it would be this property owner, uh-huh.

And the property owner over on this side.

So the so I understand correctly.

The applicant goes to get building permits to build on this property.

Once he gets um approved for the permits to build, then those two property owners have to put in the improvements.

Okay.

Javier, do you mind if I jump in?

Please.

I mean, my understanding typically is that for a subdivision, if they need if they require off-site improvements like these elbows, uh, the applicant has the responsibility initially as conditioned to go and acquire the easement from the adjacent property.

If they cannot acquire that, then we as the county requiring that off site improvement, we have to go and get it through eminent domain.

And we can require we do require the applicant to pay for that whole process and pay for the acquisition of the property.

But that's the way the process works.

It's not like we just go to the adjacent property and say you've got to do this.

We kind of do could it's through the entire imminent domain and there's a whole process for that.

So once we as a county take imminent domain responsibility of that property who's then responsible for putting in the uh improvements the applicant here.

Yeah we would then have the property right to do that.

So you can't do it before.

So we would take imminent domain of that property and then tell the property owners they have to put in the improvements.

This applicant would do the building yes.

Not the owners they just get paid for their property the segment of property.

So the applicant pays for the improvements after imminent domain.

Eventually yes.

Okay.

I understand now I thought it was reverse.

Okay.

I don't have any other questions.

All right.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Any other questions or concerns or Mr Chairman I I do have concerns that maybe the uh petitioner needs to spend a little more time with the community like you had originally talked um I don't disagree with his desire to add homes there.

But um I think in my opinion there should be a little more involvement with the community about what is going there and how it's going in especially given what we just heard about in terms of imminent domain on people's property.

So I'm not quite sure process wise but um is it appropriate to make a motion to remove this from the agenda to give the applicant more time to try to talk to the community.

That's just a continuance.

Okay.

You're gonna ask him to go do that.

I believe he his response was he's done what he could not say I'm sure there's disagreement as to how much you know uh coordination or consultation has happened but yeah you could move to continue in hopes that something um this additional conversation would occur.

And does that take a motion to do that?

Sure it takes a chair to you.

Also keeping in mind so I apparently there were some neighbors that who aren't here who wanted a continuance.

I don't know if the applicant is interested in continuance since there's only three of you here currently.

If I may jump in uh Bill and and commissioners uh I believe this is the fifth hearing um oh okay so we're at the max uh of the number of hearings per sp 330 and that doesn't include if it goes to the board right that would be number six I believe that's correct okay and we're deciding here of compliance with RD5 and just that it's uh adhering to county guidelines.

Yeah and that would be a good time for me and I don't know you know which way you're gonna vote at all but um there is there are some state law provisions uh regarding the findings you have to make when a pro a development project comes in and it meets all the zoning and it's consistent with the general plan.

I think we've had a couple of these.

Maybe not, you haven't seen one yet, but when they comply with all the objective zoning standards, the findings requirement is a little more rigorous uh to deny it or to reduce the density.

So I'm just gonna read it to make sure I don't get it wrong.

But I appreciate that.

I as I understand it, our our our guardrails are narrowed on this.

Correct.

That is correct, and that is the case with this project if you're looking for something, Bill.

This is consistent with the existing zoning.

Um so I I'm interested to hear what Bill's gonna read.

Yeah, so the you'd have to find that the housing development project would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety, unless the project is to prove is disapproved or reduced in density.

So what does they define specific adverse impact?

And that is defined as a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact based on objective identified written public health or safety standards policies or conditions.

So basically what you're looking for is is a written objective health or safety standard, and you gotta be able to show that this project would violate that you gotta quantify it too and show that it would violate that standard.

So can you explain the issue about five meetings and that particular thing that sounds like it's prohibited us from continuing this another time?

Yeah, um so another I think that's a fairly recent addition to the government code.

Um the requirement, they don't want to have too many meetings.

They don't want to allow local agencies to you know push these and delay these on and on and on.

So the requirement is generally it's yes, you can't have more than five meetings now.

What is a meeting?

You know, when we had the other project uh mission whitney, that one, however long ago that was, six months, a year ago now, there was a bit of an issue about what kind of meetings, you know, are we allowed to have?

So there are, for instance, there are initial staff meetings where they kind of go through the requested entitlements and conditions and things like that.

And in my opinion, that doesn't qualify as one of the five meetings, but when you get certainly CPAC and and you guys and the board qualifies as those kinds of meetings.

Um but planning is saying five, you know.

So we want to be careful about that.

And given that we're close, we're up close to that to that wall, a continuance probably isn't worth it.

Why not?

Because I don't think that my personal opinion is is that continuing to allow the applicant to talk to the neighbors anymore is not gonna be productive.

That's just my kind of experience.

I mean, cynical, but that's just my experience.

And based on the applicant saying that he feels like he's um that he has talked to them already.

So, so Mr.

Chairman, can we give the applicant a chance to tell us that verbally that he isn't interested in having another?

I think he's already stated that.

Yeah, I don't want to speak for for him.

I thought that's what I thought I heard.

I'm not sure you understood the directness of the question.

I don't know.

Um could we hear from the applicant?

Uh we can certainly uh invite him back to the podium if you'd like to um address that question.

Well, and since he's coming up here, if I may just kind of add on to his list of questions, I guess what are even like the potential alternatives.

I mean, if you've this is not your first or second meeting on this project, you know.

If a continuance is on the table, and I'm not suggesting it is or should be.

I guess hypothetically, even like what would come back potentially, even potentially different.

Like what what are the even potential moving kind of moving pieces on the on on the on the board, so to speak?

And if there are none, that's basically as I said, everything has been said, and all the comments have been made.

Um we can do nothing else, basically.

I'm open to any suggestion, but you must make a comment, but you want to do any changes.

I except I'm open to any suggestion.

If any suggestion there I can as I said, everything has been said already.

Clearly and loudly.

Thank you.

Nothing would be changed, like continuous, I guess, would be the same.

Okay.

And that's I think what we heard earlier.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay, I just wanted to make sure I understood that you're saying you didn't have any more removing on anything that the neighborhood asked you about changing.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Yeah, you know, we look at these.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate you coming back up.

I I you know, we look at these projects on a case-by-case basis, and um I I can't help but um kind of reflect on the previous application that has a very similar uh kind of configuration uh where we were looking for um egress and and ingress and and uh safety for for kind of the circular or at least for the traffic um uh configuration for the property and and here is a project that has um on its own uh accomplish that and um um I know there are some um that there are some some local residents here that have taken um a lot of time to to reach out to the applicant um to um highlight their issues I uh and I I know that the applicant was not able to attend one of the meetings and so there's this lack of kind of communication uh that the the um uh residents were were hoping to have uh with the with the applicant to address some of the uh lot size uh questions um and and concerns um I do feel that that uh um this um this project could have with a little bit more time maybe um with uh more communication and collaboration between both the the local residents and the applicant made some some good hearted uh good faith uh adjustments to hopefully um um relieve some of the the concerns but um i i um i've heard the the community i i um understand there's some frustration i understand that there's also um uh concerns about just the uh the timing i i think there was even an allegation here that there's a concerted effort to to silence the voices of the impacted community members because of the timing and there there is no concerted effort we've done our due we've done what we can um we didn't schedule this specifically to uh avoid public participation we've encouraged public participation um and uh um have uh um tried to at least get some of those those uh those concerns um relayed to the applicant so i'll pause there and and uh uh ask if any of the commissioners have any thoughts on this application yes i did but also just want some clarification before we do what we need to do um for my interpretation of your reading of the our latitude to deal with this issue um i haven't seen anything in here that in my layman terms reaches the level of what you described to be necessary to deny it and I don't know it's just a layman's term of it but it sounds like it's pretty difficult for us to justify in general but given the information I have uh you're I can't see a justification for denying.

Am I close to building on the mark?

Yes uh I I am not aware of a standard that's being violated.

Doesn't mean there isn't one but you know I I don't know of one.

Yeah.

I haven't seen one.

And I've heard the public testimony.

I've recognized the uh the the concerns that have been voiced about uh children playing in the streets and the added traffic.

I I hear you.

That's not what this the question was.

I'm not gonna have deliberation back and forth.

I I apologize that there was a moment for that.

Um Devlin, do you have any thoughts?

Um thank you.

I guess for me, I can you know I guess I can personally kind of draw distinct contours between the difference between this project and the last one, and I'm very familiar with this area spent actually a great deal of time and homes adjacent to uh or near adjacent to this to this parcel.

So I I am familiar with it.

And I guess while for me it may be different density-wise than what is currently out there, these lots are still one um uh in alignment with our general plan.

Um and two, for perspective, are slightly larger than the average lot in the neighborhood of like Lamb Park, for example, which is are generally 50 by 100.

Um, some of which are larger, you know, 50 by 75, or even you know, uh, or 50 by 125.

Um, but nonetheless, these lots on the smaller end are larger than the average lot in the neighborhood of Land Park.

And um that's what I think I would kind of expect to have be built there.

These aren't gonna be 16 one unit apartments, these are gonna be four two and a half, twenty, seven hundred square feet, you know, with a garage.

Um, uh beyond that, I also don't think I can come to find anything that is um objectively inconsistent with what the standards are.

So um for that for those reasons I'm gonna be happy to support the project.

Okay, is that a motion?

Uh I'm happy to make that a motion to approve the staff recommendation.

Okay.

Um and and just to reiterate for for those that are um, because I I hear uh some concerns out there that you know we're we're looking to see if the project is with the this is the lane that we're in.

We're not looking, we can't uh dictate uh designs of the of the of any proposed um uh dwelling there that this is uh to find the project in compliance with the county's design guidelines um and and approving a subdivision map um that um still has to go through a process um when uh it if and when those those appropriate times uh um come to bear.

So this is we're really struggling up here to make sure that we stay within the lanes uh of what is being presented for this evening.

So I have a motion.

Uh is there a second, reluctantly I second it.

Okay, we have a motion uh and a second clerk.

Will you please call the roll?

All right, and that vote does pass with all members voting yes.

All right, thank you very much.

And then we are moving on to the I believe that's the last actionable item, and now we're on to the planning director's report.

Good evening, commissioners.

Uh brief report tonight.

Um it looks like the next couple of hearings are I'll say relatively light in terms of number of items, uh, although the next one will be somewhat interesting.

We are bringing forward for a workshop of the planning commission a zoning code amendment related to crowing foul.

So roosters.

Something different for a change.

Um I won't spoil it, I'll list the staff.

I'll let staff have the fun.

So um suffice to say that's what's coming next time along with two other items.

I do know that we have a couple of items in October, a couple of hearings in October that are looking much fuller and we're working to actively manage some of those agendas as we speak.

So okay.

There's been a I appreciate the the update is there any other movement on updating the planning commission's website to include some of the items that we discussed.

Yeah so right now all the commissioners' uh email addresses up right now I know that there was an interest in having some brief bios of commissioners and headshots if you have them feel free to send them my way okay perfect we can get them up uh with the help of our IT folks perfect thank you very much I don't want to just randomly Google somebody's name and pick a headshot for you wanted to make sure we had a uh formalized process for that uh is there uh uh looking forward into the next year are there any additional workshops academies or or things that staff might bring to our attention that we should at least kind of keep on our radar uh that you might be invited to attend so we are um a couple of things going on we're anticipating obviously the end of legislative session whatever might come out of that uh that will obviously engage some debate as to what goes into our zoning code amendment package as a result of that legislation we want to do a good job of educating not just our staff but you as commissioners of those changes because that obviously those affect those potentially could affect what you see uh here as commissioners uh what may become ministerial meaning by right um I do know um well I'm not gonna say I'm not I'm not sure about the timing of uh uh any other educational uh programs but a couple of things we're working on housing related uh as well as uh wireless uh cell towers communication facilities um I have a big list of things to do so all right thank you very much appreciate that um Clerk any miscellaneous scheduling items I have no items scheduled but I will be sending out an attendance poll so just look out for that is that process working out for you it is okay wonderful thank you and then last but not least is there any uh members of the public to provide comments on non agenda items not seeing any we will adjourn at eight oh four