OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Sacramento County Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2025

Boards and CommissionsThursday, November 6, 2025
BodySacramento County, California
SessionBoards and Commissions
DateThursday, November 6, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:19:51
Transcript — Verbatim
0:02

Good evening.

0:05

We're gonna convene the Sacramento County Planning Commission meeting for Monday, November 3rd.

0:12

Uh clerk, will you please call the roll?

0:16

Absolutely.

0:17

Commissioner Conklin here.

0:19

Devlin.

0:20

Here.

0:21

Burger?

0:22

Here.

0:22

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

0:25

Let the record show that Commissioner Borja and Corona Sabignano are absent at this moment.

0:29

Thank you very much.

0:30

Will you please uh join me in standing uh for the pledge of allegiance?

0:35

Commissioner, thank you.

0:37

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible injustice for all.

0:52

Thank you very much.

0:53

Clerk, will you uh please provide announcements for this evening's meeting?

1:00

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

1:08

The commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed toward any meeting participant.

1:19

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

1:24

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

1:31

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

1:35

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

1:42

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

1:50

Email a comment to board clerk at Zach County.gov.

1:54

Mail a comment to 700 H Street, suite 2450, Sacramento, California, 95814.

2:01

And that concludes the announcement.

2:02

Thank you very much.

2:04

That moves us to number one item under non-contested portion of our agenda.

2:10

Clerk, will you please call?

2:13

Item number one is PLMP 2025-00095, a certificate of nonconforming use to the planning commission.

2:23

This property is located on the southwest side of the intersection of Antelope Road and Roseville Road in the Foothill Farms Community.

2:36

Alright, and this is a non-contested item.

2:38

Is there a desire for staff presentation?

2:43

No.

2:44

No.

2:44

All right.

2:46

Uh is the applicant here.

2:48

Would you like to provide any remarks?

2:55

I'll keep it brief.

2:56

Uh my name is Chris Powell.

2:58

I'm here on behalf of public storage.

3:00

And uh this is the last of several sites that they had a minor goof up where they failed to pay the business license fee a couple years, and it resulted in under the county code a need to obtain a non-conforming use certificate to re-establish the use under the county code.

3:19

So we've been working with with uh county staff to go through that process, which leads us to here today.

3:25

We've gone through the process and uh complied with the application procedures.

3:29

Um staff has been uh very very nice to work with and cooperative.

3:33

Uh, we so we respectfully request that the planning commission vote to approve the nonconforming use certificate for this site.

3:40

Thank you very much.

3:41

Any questions for the applicant?

3:43

No, all right, thank you very much.

3:46

We'll open it up for any testimony if there's any testimony.

3:51

Not seeing any.

3:52

We have not received any public comments for item number one.

3:55

All right, thank you very much, clerk.

3:56

Uh then we'll kick it back to the uh dais for any comments or thoughts.

4:04

Not seeing any.

4:07

I go ahead and move the motion.

4:08

We have one motion, all second, and we have a second clerk, will you please call the roll?

4:14

Oh, there we go.

4:19

And that item does pass with all members present voting yes, and let the record reflect that member Borja did um is present.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Engineering And Infrastructure██████████████████████████████████████████42%
Community Engagement███████████████████████23%
Transportation Safety██████████████14%
Procedural██████6%
Parks and Recreation██████6%
Affordable Housing██████6%
Budget and Finance██2%
Miscellaneous1%
Summary of Proceedings

Sacramento County Planning Commission Meeting - November 6, 2025

The Sacramento County Planning Commission convened on November 6, 2025, at approximately 1:21 PM (start of transcript indicates evening, but given date is 2025-11-06). All commissioners were present after roll call, with Commissioners Borja and Corona-Sabignano initially absent but later arriving. The commission considered three agenda items: a nonconforming use certificate, a major subdivision project, and a rezoning subdivision. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 PM.

Consent Calendar

  • Item 1 (PLMP 2025-00095): Certificate of nonconforming use for Public Storage at Antelope Road and Roseville Road in Foothill Farms Community. Applicant Chris Powell explained that a failure to pay a business license fee triggered the need for the certificate. No public testimony. Motion and second; approved unanimously with all members present voting yes.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Item 2 (Gerber South Subdivision):
    • Cyril Marshall, a property owner on Leland Avenue, expressed concern about large eucalyptus trees on his property potentially falling onto new houses. He asked for mitigation (e.g., a concrete wall to break a fall) and inquired about connecting to the subdivision's sewer without a $20,000 fee. He expressed general support for housing but wished for starter homes.
    • Timothy Salada, a resident on Florentha Lane, raised flooding issues (he pumps water annually), called for widening Gerber Road before development due to dangerous traffic, and worried about children near a retention pond.
  • Item 3 (Filbert Avenue Subdivision):
    • Tracy Stork, representing the adjacent property at 6721 Filbert Avenue, read a letter opposing rezoning from AR-2 (two-acre minimum) to AR-1 (one-acre minimum). She argued that added density (potentially tripled with ADUs) would strain sheriff, fire, schools, and increase stormwater runoff. She supported building the 5 homes allowed under current zoning.
    • Carol Schumacher, a 51-year resident of 6711 Filbert Avenue, opposed the project, detailing drainage issues from dumped dirt and tree waste, illegal burning of orchard trees (applicant later disputed, citing permits), and lack of trust in the developer. She noted that the October 2024 CPAC meeting was the only one and did not address all concerns.

Discussion Items

  • Item 2 (PLMP 2023-00251 – Gerber South Subdivision): Staff planner Emma Carico presented a proposal to develop five parcels totaling 77.6 acres south of Gerber Road, including a community plan amendment, rezone, tentative subdivision maps, special development permit, and design review. The project would create 370 single-family lots (161 RD-10 alley-loaded, 209 standard RD-7), a 10.2-acre elementary school site, a 5.4-acre park, drainage lots, and greenways. An addendum to a 2010 EIR was prepared. The Vineyard CPAC lacked a quorum but members generally supported; DRAC found substantial compliance with design guidelines.
    • Commissioner Questions: Vice Chair Borjas asked about safe pedestrian crossing of Gerber Road. Staff confirmed a signalized intersection at A Drive/Pisalis Lane (planned early 2027) would serve students walking to school. Commissioner Borjas also inquired about transportation impact fees – the project pays into a pooled fund, and DOT will assess improvements at time of construction. Commissioner Virga asked about the park: a 5.4-acre active recreation site dedicated to Southgate Recreation and Park District, with maintenance funded via annexation to an assessment district.
    • Applicant Remarks: Bruce Walters (Walters Land Planning) summarized a two-year review process, 164 conditions of approval, and noted that traffic impact fees (~$20k/lot) go into a pool. He added that park development fees (~$8-10k/lot) fund construction, and the park would include a neighborhood-style sports field, hardcourts, and a tot lot.
    • Commissioner Follow-up: Commissioner Borjas asked about construction timing and staging on Gerber Road, given nearby construction. Applicant expected site grading in spring/summer 2026, first homes in 2027. Commissioner Chair Conklin asked about the rationale for reduced setbacks; applicant explained it accommodates modern housing trends (porch-forward, rear alley access) not covered by standard county zoning. The North Vineyard Station area has similar standards.
  • Item 3 (PLMP 2024-0081 – Filbert Avenue Subdivision): Staff planner Christian Balthazar presented a proposal to rezone a 10-acre former orchard from AR-2 to AR-1, divide into 10 one-acre lots, with a private road and extension of Crown Street. Entitlements include a community plan amendment, rezone, tentative map, special development permit (for private road serving 9 lots), an exemption from code requiring public water (served by mutual water company Orangeville Water Company), and design review. The Orangevale CPAC unanimously recommended denial after 17 public comments (14 opposed, 3 in support). DRAC found substantial compliance.
    • Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Devlin asked why CPAC recommended denial – staff said the main concern was the change from AR-2 to AR-1 zoning. Commissioner Virga asked about traffic generation; staff confirmed 121 daily trips, well below the 1,000 threshold requiring a study. ADUs are by right and not part of the project request.
    • Applicant Remarks: Michael Brower (representing owner Mikhail Kolidich) explained the orchard closed in 2017 after a century, and the community group that bought it in 2018 could not sustain operations. The project maintains rural character with one-acre lots, consistent with surrounding parcels. Javes Hidiki (engineer) stated a drainage study was done to mitigate existing drainage problems.
    • Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Devlin noted the project provides mild density and contributes to housing needs. Commissioner Borjas acknowledged the 27-signature petition of support but encouraged continued community outreach. Both supported the motion.

Key Outcomes

  • Item 1 (Nonconforming Use Certificate): Approved unanimously by voice vote.
  • Item 2 (Gerber South Subdivision): Motion by Commissioner Borjas to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors (including all requested entitlements and CEQA addendum). Second by Commissioner Virga. Passed unanimously (all members present voted yes). Conditions include a signalized intersection at Gerber/A Drive, payment of traffic and park fees, and annexation to an assessment district for park maintenance.
  • Item 3 (Filbert Avenue Subdivision): Motion by Commissioner Devlin to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors (including community plan amendment, rezone, tentative map, special development permit, exemption, and design review). Second by Commissioner Borjas. Passed unanimously (all members present voted yes). Conditions include drainage improvements, public water and sewer connections, and compliance with design guidelines.
  • The next meeting is scheduled for December 8, 2025 (the last of the year). No planning director's report was given.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening. We're gonna convene the Sacramento County Planning Commission meeting for Monday, November 3rd. Uh clerk, will you please call the roll? Absolutely. Commissioner Conklin here. Devlin. Here. Burger? Here. And with those members present, we do have a quorum. Let the record show that Commissioner Borja and Corona Sabignano are absent at this moment. Thank you very much. Will you please uh join me in standing uh for the pledge of allegiance? Commissioner, thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible injustice for all. Thank you very much. Clerk, will you uh please provide announcements for this evening's meeting? 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, 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 to be sent as follows. Email a comment to board clerk at Zach County.gov. Mail a comment to 700 H Street, suite 2450, Sacramento, California, 95814. And that concludes the announcement. Thank you very much. That moves us to number one item under non-contested portion of our agenda. Clerk, will you please call? Item number one is PLMP 2025-00095, a certificate of nonconforming use to the planning commission. This property is located on the southwest side of the intersection of Antelope Road and Roseville Road in the Foothill Farms Community. Alright, and this is a non-contested item. Is there a desire for staff presentation? No. No. All right. Uh is the applicant here. Would you like to provide any remarks? I'll keep it brief. Uh my name is Chris Powell. I'm here on behalf of public storage. And uh this is the last of several sites that they had a minor goof up where they failed to pay the business license fee a couple years, and it resulted in under the county code a need to obtain a non-conforming use certificate to re-establish the use under the county code. So we've been working with with uh county staff to go through that process, which leads us to here today. We've gone through the process and uh complied with the application procedures. Um staff has been uh very very nice to work with and cooperative. Uh, we so we respectfully request that the planning commission vote to approve the nonconforming use certificate for this site. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? No, all right, thank you very much.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com