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.

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

Not seeing any.

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

All right, thank you very much, clerk.

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

Not seeing any.

I go ahead and move the motion.

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

Oh, there we go.

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

Thank you very much.

I was just gonna ask you to recognize our vice chair.

Welcome.

And can I confirm who the first and second was?

First.

Second, thank you.

All right.

That moves us to item number two under our contested portion of our agenda.

Clerk, will you please call out item number two?

Item number two is PLMP 2023-00251, a community plan amendment, rezone, large lot tentative, tentative subdivision map, small lot tentative subdivision map, special development permit, and design review.

And this property is located at 9132, 9168, and 9188.

Gerber Road and 7767 and 7769.

Florentha Lane in the Vineyard Community and the environmental document is an addendum.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

It looks like we have uh staff presentation.

Please proceed.

And Metro is loading that for us.

Sorry.

All right.

Good evening, Commissioners, Chair Conklin.

My name is Emma Carico.

I'm an associate planner and project manager for the Gerber South Subdivision Project.

The project site consists of five parcels ranging in size from one acre to 38 acres, totaling 77.6 acres, located south of Gerber Road and east of the private Florencia Lane in the Vineyard Community.

Four of the existing parcels are developed with single family residences, and one parcel is undeveloped.

All are predominantly characterized by non-native grassland with sparse non-native trees.

The project site is currently zoned agricultural residential 10.

It is located within the Florin Vineyard Community Plan Area, which designates it for residential three to five land use.

Surrounding existing uses include agricultural residential, single family residential, and open space.

For this project, the applicant requests a community plan amendment, rezone, large lot tentative subdivision map, small lot tentative subdivision map, special development permit, and design review.

And I'll cover the specifics of each of these entitlements in more detail in the following slides.

When the floor and vineyard community plan was adopted in December of 2010, the Board of Supervisors certified an environmental impact report or EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

For the current request, an addendum to the previous EIR was prepared.

The addendum concluded that no substantial changes are proposed, which would require major revisions to the previous EIR.

No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken.

There's no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of due diligence at the time the EIR was certified, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary in order to deem the adopted EAR adequate.

Here you can see the proposed amendment to the floor and vineyard community plan.

As mentioned, the plan currently designates all 77.6 acres of the site as residential three to five.

And you can see that on the left there, that already three to five.

The applicant requests to amend the community plan land use designations to 55.4 acres of residential five to seven, 16.4 acres of residential 7 to 12, and 5.8 acres of open space.

The community plan amendment also includes an amendment to the Green Streets Framework Plan, which would change the originally designated parkway two section from the private Florencia Lane on the West border of the project there to a section of the proposed A drive here.

Here you see the proposed rezone.

The entire site is currently zoned, agricultural residential 10, and the applicant is proposing to rezone to 55.4 acres of residential seven, 16.4 acres of residential 10, and 5.8 acres of recreation.

The new zoning designations and community plan land use designations would allow the subdivision to be developed as proposed, while keeping the general plan, community plan, and zoning ordinance vertically consistent with one another.

Here you see the proposed small lot tentative subdivision map, which would create 370 single-family residential lots, one 10.2 acre elementary school site shown in light blue, one 5.4 acre park site, shown in that bright green there.

Two greenway lots, three drainage lots, two low impact development lots, and four landscape lots.

The single-family residential lots fall into two categories.

The north-central portion of the subdivision, shown in darker yellow, consists of 161 RD 10 zoned lots.

These lots would be 10% smaller than the standard RD 10 lot and would feature reduced setbacks and vehicular access from the rear via private alleys.

The rest of the subdivision, these surrounding lots in lighter yellow, would consist of 209 standard RD7 lots.

The low impact development and drainage lots are generally sited to connect with each other and the park site and to provide a buffer for the existing larger agricultural residential lots to the east.

Primary pedestrian pathways are provided along Gerber Road.

So up at the north boundary, you can see those skinny greenway parcels.

And A drive coming down in that parkway two section, and then on B drive along the frontage of the park and school sites there.

These would be provided via 25-foot wide landscape corridors containing six to ten foot sidewalks within them.

However, all streets would contain sidewalks in their ultimate condition.

Primary vehicular access would be provided via a drive.

A signalized intersection with pedestrian crossing would be constructed on Gerber Road at the intersection of A Drive and Pisalis Lane.

Here you can see the conceptual building envelopes for the residential parcels.

The applicant is requesting a special development permit to allow a reduced lot size for the RD 10 lots, as well as reduced setbacks for both the RD7 and RD10 lots.

These conceptual building envelope exhibits were provided to demonstrate that the lots are sufficient to support a single family housing product, even with the requested deviations.

The exhibit also provides a better view of the private alleyway concept for the RD 10 lots on the right there.

So you can see these RD 10 lots.

They would not have driveways in the front yards.

All vehicular access would come from behind in that private alleyway.

Yeah, we'll have a moment.

Okay, thank you.

Let's not interrupt the presentation.

Thank you.

The project was considered by both the Design Review Advisory Committee and the Vineyard Community Planning Advisory Council.

The DRAC met on August 8th, 2024 and recommends the board find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines.

The Vineyard CPAC met on October 10th, 2024.

No formal recommendation was made due to a lack of quorum, but members generally expressed support for the project.

Additionally, at about 4:30 today, the board did receive a comment, a public comment related to this project, although the comments, the substance of the comments appear to be regarding the Westfold 1 project, which is a pending project to the West.

So none of the comments received, although submitted for this project, appear to be actually about this project.

Overall, the project is consistent with the general plan, the floor and vineyard community plan as amended, and the zoning ordinance as amended and with the deviations proposed.

The project also complies with all required findings for the requested entitlements.

So with that, planning and environmental review staff recommends the planning commission make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

Determine that some changes or additions to the previously adopted EIR were necessary, but none of the conditions described in the CECA guidelines section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred, determine that the CECA addendum is adequate and complete, adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, approve a resolution, amending the Florin Vineyard Community Plan, adopt an ordinance authorizing a rezone, approve the large lot tentative subdivision map, subject to findings and conditions, approve the small lot tentative subdivision map, approve the special development permit, and find the project in substantial compliance with the design guidelines.

That concludes my presentation.

And we're happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you very much.

Before we uh kick it over for members of the commission to ask any questions, uh just wanted to recognize that uh Commissioner Savignano is present.

I have noted that and updated my notes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And with a full attendance, uh, we'll open it up for any questions for staff uh from the members of the dais.

No, I'll start off, Chair if you don't want to.

Yes, please, Vice Chair.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Uh Keriko and the team for um working hard on this presentation.

Could you please go back on the slide that has all of the subdivision maps, particularly showing Gerber Road?

Um, I live close to this community and and Supervisor Yume and and a number of uh community leaders there have already worked very hard to get an elementary school site uh finally approved by the Elk Grove Unified School District that would take Sierra Enterprise elementary to the next Cidon and Brenda Park, which would be adjacent north to the vineyard neighborhood.

Um while we understand that there's a um a school site that is proposed here, more than likely the students that would be living in this community would have to cross north of Gerber Road to get it to the vineyard community at 10 because the Joseph Flight Elementary School is severely um impacted um south of their maps, regardless of what the L Grove Unified School District maps are are going to be in in a few years.

I also wondering if you could show uh show us like what are the plans to allow for a safe crossing for those students, especially without El Grove has made a strong emphasis for walking and biking to school.

Yeah, absolutely.

So for as previously mentioned, all streets proposed within the subdivision would have sidewalks in their ultimate condition.

As you get further north towards the major Gerber Road, you do hit that parkway two section, which has those 25-foot landscape corridors with the sidewalks contained within them, and then those also go along Gerber Road there.

Of course, as you mentioned, you're concerned about the crossing of Gerber Road to the north.

The project is conditioned to provide a signalized intersection at that Gerber Road A Drive, Posalis Lane crossing, and it's actually anticipated that uh the Department of Transportation may be spearheading the construction of that signal, likely in early 2027, which the applicant has indicated would align with the construction of the subdivision.

So that fully stoplighted pedestrian crossing, protected signalized intersection with cameras and the whole works would exist about the same time as the subdivision was under construction.

Okay, so that would be at A Drive crossing Pasalis Lane.

Yes, so that that A drive, the new creation of A Drive at Pasalis Lane is, I know you can't really see it on this map, but Basalis Lane is right across to the north, and so that four-way stop would be signalized, allowing for pedestrian crossing directly from A Drive to Pisalis Lane.

Is that the uh, those are the stop lights with the blinkers?

So that's the same thing.

No, this would be fully yes, for pedestrians, yes, but then for cars, obviously a fully signalized red-green yellow stoplight.

Got it, understood.

Thank you.

Um, for this uh for this project, what kind of involvement that the DOT or Department of Transportation have to look at the traffic and kind of vehicle through foot on Gerbert Road?

Yeah, so um DOT did look at the project in context of the Florin Vineyard Community Plan and its uh compliance with that circulation plan that was adopted back in 2010 with the community plan and did find it to be in compliance with with that.

Um there were several triggers that came up because of the number of units, for example, adding that signalized intersection at the at the cross of A Drive and Pisalis.

Um I believe there's an additional left turning lane into the project off of Gerber, and then they generally also look at connectivity to potential development to the east and west.

In particular, we have a couple more subdivisions to the west that are pending right now, very much in the early design stages, but DOT is looking to, of course, have connection between those.

And so their primary concerns are making sure that Gerber Road were was you know a safe crossing and safer drivers, as well as ensuring that we're not funneling traffic to the south because it does dead end in sort of a wetland in the Churchill Downs area, and then a connection between the various subdivisions in the area.

All right, thank you for that.

And then one other question.

And I might have missed this on the staff analysis, but does this specific project pay into a kind of a transportation development fee schedule, very similar to like the North Vineyard station?

Um that does this pay into that and what type of traffic improvements would we would we would the public eventually see once this project hit a certain threshold of units sold and built?

I'm not an expert on the fee scheme for the floor and vineyard community plan specifically, but I know that they do have a fee schedule that our special districts section does administer, and I believe it does include a traffic uh impact fee.

And in talking with DOT about improvements specifically on Gerber, they have mentioned that the signalized intersection would be happening in early 2027, and otherwise the improvements on the frontage of Gerber throughout sort of the main section there in the region, would continue to happen on a project by project basis along with the logical segments that the floor and vineyard community plan has designated.

So pretty much status quo of like when we see a project come in, it triggers whatever improvement is required along Gerber.

That's when it would be required.

Um just to confirm this project is included to that vineyard station.

Okay, understood.

I'm assuming then that that would also include uh folks to pay into like the the 50 TMA, for example, the transportation management plan that is added on to the fees for newly built.

I'm not entirely sure what all the fees included in the Florent Vineyard Community Plan requirement is that I wish I had special districts here, but they're they're the ones who administer those fees.

So, okay.

Where might I be able to find that information?

Um I could definitely connect you with special districts and they would know for sure.

Um, and honestly, if I had a computer in front of me, I bet I can find it for you very quickly.

Awesome.

Um, but yes, happy to follow up on that.

Thank you so much, ma'am.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions for staff?

A quick question uh regarding the um the five and a half acre park uh being proposed.

Could you describe um the dynamics involved with that?

Is it are there any public facilities adjacent to it?

Uh just kind of give us a better idea of what that would ultimately look like.

Absolutely.

So there is, like you said, about five and a half acres of a park site in that truly bright green that would be active recreation area that would be dedicated to the Southgate Recreation and Park District.

And they have not assigned specific, they don't know if they're gonna what type of playground or if there's gonna be a water sprayer or what there, but it's intended to be active recreation, a true park, okay.

And then just to the north of that is a low-impact development lot, and that is more it will be remain owned by the Department of Water Resources, and it's intended to be sort of like a drainage basin.

Um, it will be closed off from the public, so there won't be public access with um a decorative fence.

It'll still have a decorative fence that you can see through, and you know, we try to avoid having truly closed off big open pits, but it won't be active recreation land accessible by the public.

Southern portion intended to be true park, northern portion, which will be closed off separately, low-impact development drainage lot.

Okay, thank you very much.

That's very helpful.

One follow-up.

Yep.

Um, does that park space include um uh potential sporting fields?

Those have not been identified specifically at this site.

I believe that would be an option for Southgate, although this might be kind of a smallish site to have a bunch of sporting fields.

Um the idea is that it would be used sort of cooperatively with the school site so that they would have some level of coordination, but because Southgate is literally at this point just looking at accepting that park site and knowing that it will be an active recreation site.

They haven't identified specific facilities yet for that or programming.

Okay, thank you so much.

Yeah.

All right, thank you very much.

Any other questions for staff?

Thank you very much.

At this time, we'll invite the applicant uh to come to the uh the lectern.

Good evening, commissioners.

Bruce Walters, Walters Land Planning, representing BARDIS land development on this project tonight.

Um I think Emma covered the uh the project in her presentation very well.

Uh I don't have any additions.

Um, couple comments.

Uh, this has been a uh two-year process and it's been thoroughly analyzed uh and studied by county staff.

Uh, in particular, the drainage process went through various iterations, iterations to to come through the plan that you see tonight.

Um, and uh Commissioner Borah, you asked about the the park uh configuration.

It was actually interesting because the school and the park shifted around quite a bit in the process, and uh in the end it turned out to be a very dynamic uh sketch up process with uh Southgate Park and Rec and Elkgrove schools uh to come up with the uh current configuration.

I think it was very productive, and we've come up with a nice uh arrangement uh for the school and park site.

Um let's see.

I think there was a question about uh uh sports fields at 5.3 acres.

Uh it this would typically be a neighborhood uh park, which would uh typically be uh uh include uh one sports field, uh either soccer field or baseball, and other things typically included would be some hardcourt uh tennis, basketball, and then usually a tot lot, along with some uh uh picnic and and shade structures.

That's kind of the typical formula, if you will, for for a neighborhood park, if that uh helps.

Um there was a question about uh the transport transportation fee and road impacts.

Uh this project pays uh a large traffic impact fee.

I think it's on the category of 20 grand a lot that goes into uh a pooled funds.

Uh it used to be Sacramento County had these trigger projects where you you build up to 5,000 units within the plan area, and then you had to stop and and build X amount of projects.

Well, that didn't work out too well because it became a race to the to the trigger, if you will.

Now uh we have a condition of approval that provides a lot more flexibility, so that basically when the uh the final map and the building permit fees come in, then uh those revenues uh that assessment of uh what is needed for this project in terms of offset is decided by DOT at the time the project is constructed.

So you have off-site improvements going in that specifically address immediate off-site traffic uh transportation needs rather than something based upon a study that was done 10 years ago.

So I think this the new tool uh the DOT has uh works very well, and um uh we're we're uh uh uh a condition on that.

So again, this project has been uh very well vetted.

Uh 164 conditions of approval.

We think we're very well covered.

Uh the project is consistent with the general plan, community plan.

Staff recommends approval.

I think CPAC would have recommended approval if they could.

Um I think the project is is here uh tonight, uh ready for your your recommendation.

I'm here to answer any questions, and uh I would ask the opportunity to respond to any public comment at the end if possible.

Absolutely, thank you very much.

Any questions for the applicant?

Commissioner Verga.

Your um park, does it have a special assessment to provide the funding to maintain the park?

There is a park development fee, part of the uh uh the community plan financing plan.

To be honest, I don't recall the amount.

I'm guessing it's in the eight to ten grand a lot category uh for park development.

The project dedicates the land, the park development fee actually funds the construction, and special assessments for parks fund the maintenance.

Uh true.

There is another condition requiring annexation to an assessment district.

I think it's a landscape lighting assessment district uh for ongoing maintenance.

So okay, so that basically you're tagging it on to an existing assessment for the park to maintain the it's an existing district, yes, we would annex into that.

Okay, thank you.

All right, sir.

Just that quick question, and thank you, Mr.

Walters.

Um, when do you anticipate um it kind of a timeline wise?

Uh assuming that uh if the board or the commission approves it, what are your next steps and then when do you anticipate you know lots being redrawn right now and sticks on the ground and when the first house could potentially be sold?

Sure, sure.

Um, well, um assuming approval by the end of this year uh by the county, the earliest possible would be to start uh the site grading and underground utilities uh spring and summer of 26.

Uh assuming the first phase gets constructed that year, probably 27 uh for sticks up first home construction, and it's probably a two-maybe three year uh construction phase uh through the project.

Understood.

Um, would I again a frontage road on Gerber as you're constructing?

I would imagine that your uh construction team will have um some sort of uh landing zone or at least a space that would park their um their construction vehicles or something to that matter, you know, like a staging area on Gerber, I would assume.

Um is that something that you work with with DOT or county planning to say, hey, this is when we're gonna be staging.

Um I ask because right now uh a number of our folks in the neighborhood, they're uh they're bottlenecked with a larger construction that is a little bit north east of your project, which is located on Bradshaw and Gerber, just cat a corner for this project.

And so I'm trying to kind of understand community members are gonna be talking uh like next door, for example, and saying, hey, if this project gets approved, we're bottlenecked on Gerber, we make a left on Bradshaw, which is a little bit northeast of this project.

We're also bottlenecked there because there's another large contraction on Bradshaw and Gerber.

So I'm just trying to ascertain like timing-wise, if that's something that you've coordinated with a county or DOT just to make sure we're not inadvertently creating like a like a trap of different constructions that are happening.

I mean the growth that's happening, it's just it's all happening at the same time.

Yeah, yeah.

No, that that's an an incredibly good point.

Uh, the timing of construction on one side or the other.

Um I'm hoping the construction on the north side, and I I saw it uh this weekend when I was driving by.

Uh hopefully that'll be done uh by uh probably at the best uh late 20 uh 2026 for this project, but um the um uh the the signage and traffic control during construction is all permitted uh by the county and and regulated.

The exact timing that's so flexible and and hard to predict uh that I would um leave it to the county and and the staff to come up with uh uh a good solution on that.

Alright, awesome.

Thank you.

And just one last question.

When when would the uh folks anticipate the construction at the park for this area?

Would that be after the whole communities uh kind of build?

Yeah, that's a tough one.

So uh we build the frontage, uh, we grade the site, uh, we provide uh utility stubs to the site.

We basically tee it up for the park site to be developed, but it's actually Southgate uh park and Rec District that does the development.

Sometimes they can they can do it fairly quickly.

A lot of it depends on their their fee revenue for in the development fee uh and uh ability to to turnkey and and develop it.

Um, but I I really can't speak on behalf of Southgate and say how far out they would be in building the park site.

Understood that thank thank you for your time, sir.

And um turning back to you, chair.

Thank you very much.

Uh not seeing any other questions.

I just had a just little question.

I was hoping you might be able to just kind of help me uh understand there's uh uh numerous uh requests to deviate from the development standards of setbacks.

Just trying to uh maybe you could shed a little light uh as to the rationale uh there.

Absolutely, thank you for the opportunity.

Little little bit of history.

When the uh community plan originally went through, uh it proposed a series of uh customized zoning standards for this plan area.

North Vineyard Station across the street has it.

Um the Vineyard Springs community plan to the east has it.

Um, and what it does is it basically caters to the more modern uh current uh housing trends in terms of uh garage setbacks, living space, porches, etc.

The board chose at the time they approved the plan to not include that in the Florin Vineyard Community Plan.

So we're basically left with the standard uh SAC County zoning, which applies countywide.

Um so in this case, uh the the compact alley uh lot project product as well as the uh RD7 product in today's world uh uh generally is driven by these uh uh home design uh methods that involve, for example, extending the living space and porch forward and setting the garage back so it de-emphasizes the garage, for example.

Uh rear yard uh built on porches uh in the RD 7 product is another example where it's uh it's a current trend, uh, but it's not accommodated in the standard Sack County uh uh zoning standards.

So what uh we're proposing with the special development permit is uh uh reductions, mostly in front and rear yard setbacks to accommodate current housing product demands.

Uh and it's very much the same as what is existing in the approved floor and vineyard community.

Um, sorry, the North Vineyard Station community plan immediately to the north.

Thank you very much.

That's very helpful.

All right.

Not seeing any other questions, I think that's it for now.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

At this point, we'll uh transition over to public testimony.

And I know I have one form here.

If anybody would like to speak on this item, please fill out a form in the back of the chamber.

Uh so we can read out your name.

At this point, we have uh Cyracle uh Marshalls.

I apologize if I mispronounced your name.

Oh, outstanding.

And I am gonna read you an oath first.

Uh I'm sorry.

Okay.

Please raise your right hand and the appropriate anyone who is wanting to speak on this item.

If you wish to address the commission about this item, 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?

Yes, yes.

I don't know if it's true or not because it's a question.

Okay.

Truthful question.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay.

Hi.

Uh normally I don't introduce myself this way.

My name is Siri Gun Marshall.

I'm a assistant professor.

Uh now retired.

Maybe it would swear you to think that I know something.

Okay.

Um I would like to ask the lady.

I didn't get your name, sorry, to show me the map.

Yeah, I think uh you pointed to uh uh part of the presentation.

Yeah, right.

The one that the map that includes Leland and Goebbels, the big one before the one that you showed.

I think we can pull that up.

Okay.

Because I happen to have the house at the end of Leland, not before this one.

Okay.

I think if you go one or two more back.

A big big big plan.

Thank you.

The one that includes Leland and Felicia and Goebbel have many colors.

Oh, the very first slide, I believe.

Yeah.

More detail in that.

Yeah.

The one that have the three line of Leland Street.

One more.

That's okay.

And now we'll left here.

Okay.

Can we advance the slide one?

One more.

That might be it.

I think she means the tentative subdivision map.

Anyway, uh, what happened is I wasn't clear uh what would be in my backyard.

Well, while you're searching, um it seemed like I'm gonna have a 21 condo or not condo, something.

I should go.

That's what it is.

No, to the other side.

I mean, we're getting there.

We've shown all the map slides.

I saw it at the Leland Avenue.

Uh can you find it now from here then?

Okay, I'll be good.

My house is at the end of the street.

I have 3.3 acres.

And uh it looked like you know that the back land from the uh Sikh Temple.

It looked like you're going to have apartment building.

Is that correct?

Nothing?

R21 or D221?

7 to 21.

Okay.

All right.

That beside the point of what I like to talk today is this.

Okay, maybe we can reset the clock since you're you're starting.

Okay, good.

All right.

Um, my land is on the property that's called third class soil.

It's me to have hot pen, one feet, and three feet.

But we love trees, so my probably have almost a hundred trees.

But because of the lousy land, and you have heavy rain, the tree fell.

We have eucalyptus tree on the back of the property that you're going to build houses.

And in the past 10, 35 years that we've been there.

Every so often, one or two, three would fall into your property.

What I was worried about if you have houses next, build next door.

That's why I try to figure it out.

Where is the house?

Can you do something to make sure that I don't feel guilty that my tree fell to somebody's houses and kill them?

That might emotionally play.

Uh you could build.

I know that the tree is big.

I don't think that you could stop it from falling.

But if you build something to break the fall, like a heavy concrete, before they hit somebody has bedroom, it hit this wall first.

Okay, that's what might be concerned the biggest one.

And I before I go on, I'd like to thank you.

I really think that we really need houses in Sacramento.

And I feel sorry that you did not build the first time the what they call starter home.

You build like a happy high end instead.

But I really welcome that.

Okay.

Number two.

I know that I'm going to be impacted by this.

I don't mind because I think people have the right to live everywhere.

But I wanted to find out, is there any benefit that we could get it now that we have to suffer all the setback.

For example, you're gonna have the sualai.

Can we attach to you without being shot 20,000?

Is that possible?

We'll certainly ask the applicant.

Okay.

And that was the uh and we're at two minutes.

Yeah, I know I'm done.

All right.

I just want to make sure that these on the record.

Absolutely.

I'm worried about my gill.

Someone will be killed because of my you could have to three.

Understood.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

And we have uh Timothy Salada.

I'm Timothy Salada.

Good evening.

I live at 767 for Florence Lane.

Now, this retention pond you have here.

You see, this is Gerber Road, right?

This is a floodplain, you know that.

Yeah, we we can't hear you unless you're by a microphone.

You're not on the record, so none of it matters.

So you gotta stay up there.

Or you have to speak in the microphone.

Yeah, otherwise we can't hear you and won't be able to.

You know that's a floodplain.

Okay.

We live in a floodplain.

We flood there every year.

Every year I put pumps out there and I pump in a ditch, the water goes.

But they say they're gonna put up a wall for me, that's gonna stop that.

So okay, I'm happy with that.

I'm happy with that wall.

But you talked about the traffic for the school on Gerber Road.

Now you have Walmart down there at the end.

You have two lanes north on Gerber.

South on Gerber is one lane.

The traffic's already a mess.

I mean it's a mess there.

I won't let anything, I wouldn't let my dog walk my dog across that road, more or less children.

You need to widen Gerber Road first before you think about building.

At least two lanes or maybe even three lanes with all these people.

You can have a lot of people.

I don't care if they build, it's like at least open it up and make it safe because people race up and down there all the time.

When I'm turning into my into Florence, they try to pass me.

And they just don't care.

You know what I mean?

So that's a really mess right there.

For people picking up kids, it's gonna be mess because mothers and fathers drop their kids off, you know.

I don't have a problem with the building, it'll probably be a nice, nice thing.

I worry about the retention pond for children, you know what I mean.

I wish they had some kind of other drainage than that, you know what I mean.

The pumping out to a drainage station or somewhere, you know, because I won't want any kids but in a pond because you get a lot of water.

I can show you pictures on my phone.

If you want to see the pictures, I can send my phone up there.

You can see how much water we get.

We get tons of water.

I put that at the CPAC meeting.

I showed them pictures, they have pictures, a lot of water.

So that's about all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Welcome.

Are there any other individuals from the public that would wish to talk on this agenda item?

No, all right.

Clerk, any online?

No, okay.

Uh, we'll kick it back to the applicant to respond.

And is it just me or do I hear music?

Okay.

South close.

Chairman, members of the commission, thank you for the uh the opportunity to respond.

Um, let's see.

Uh the Marshall property.

If I can illustrate, I don't have the pointer, but on the lower right, there's that little carve out piece.

I call it the naipots, not a part of this subdivision.

Uh their property is immediately to the west of that.

Most of their frontage is covered by the detention basin down in the uh lower left corner.

I'm sorry.

Um, and uh the one lot at the end of the cul-de-sac, I think is the only lot fronting.

Just taking a quick look at the uh the aerial.

Can you stop for one minute?

I apologize.

Whoever's phone is on.

If you could please silence it.

Greatly appreciate it.

Sorry, please continue.

Where should I start up where you left off?

Okay, so uh the Marshall property, uh, the one lot at the end of the cul-de-sac is the only frontage um uh next to them.

And taking a quick look at the aerial, um, there is uh uh probably 20-30 foot of separation between any of the the marshall property trees.

Um we can certainly work uh during uh construction uh to ensure uh work with the property owner to to attempt any uh pruning that may be necessary for safety purposes.

Um attaching to sewer.

Um I think the only opportunity might be extending it from the end of that cul de sac.

That would be a uh improvement plan level discussion with the county uh to see uh that opens up a lot of other policy issues uh for uh uh public utility service in the agres area.

Uh it's certainly a possibility, but I can't commit to uh what the true viability of that is.

Uh let's see.

Uh Mr.

Sullivan uh mentioned flooding.

This is an incredibly flat area in its natural condition, and yes, it sheet flows and it it traverses property lines in the built condition.

Uh the on-site uh drainage will be picked up in pipes, uh go into the detention basins, go into the channel, uh the on-site channel as well as follow a uh off-site channel to the west.

Uh, and so as far as the on-site drainage is concerned, um it's more than adequately accommodated for the surrounding uh properties.

Yes, they are flat, they are agres, they will continue to sheet flow in an uh uh general uh behavior pattern uh but will not be part of this uh this project.

Um, and uh mention about ponds and children.

I think uh uh Emma mentioned that uh there will be a perimeter open steel fencing for uh the both the detention basin and the channel to uh ensure that it's secure and safe uh from the general public.

Those are my responses.

All right, thank you very much.

Any follow-up questions, well, all right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

At this point, we'll kick it back to the dice.

Who wants to kick it off?

I'd be happy to move the staff recommendation.

Just a couple of pointers though.

Mr.

Bruce, I appreciate it.

And I and for public transparency, I did meet with the applicant um this morning, and I also spoke to uh emailed staff prior to the hearing.

Um I I would encourage the applicant team to maybe reach out to the members of the public that spoke today.

Uh perhaps we are able to uh I'm sorry, I was trying to try my best to follow on the maps uh where they're pointing out I wasn't able to get there, but uh hopefully in the spirit of community building, you're able to at least speak to the public speakers and and for explain to them uh what you intend to do.

Um and uh I I do hope that um you know we can just work with the county uh DOT.

You know, there's a lot of development that's happening in the vineyard neighborhood, specifically in Bradshaw.

I mean, we're really cutting into the wild hog plants.

Um there's just a number of uh really exciting um development that's happening.

It's just uh we're unfortunately creating a bottleneck on a lot of the local neighborhoods and a lot of the folks that commute from Elk Grove all the way to the 50 and to the 99 as well.

But um, aside from that, um I think the applicant made um made every effort to at least address the questions and at least uh the public can rest assured that there's a number of uh conditions attached to the project that uh would make it so that the project is accountable for not only public safety but um to support them on uh schools, parks, and everything else, and connecting with the utilities.

So I feel comfortable moving the project forward at this time.

Okay.

So we have a motion by Vice Chair Commissioner Borgas.

Any other comments?

Any other comments?

No, all right.

Well, we have a motion by Commissioner Borjas.

We have a second by Commissioner Virga.

Clerk.

And that item does pass with all members present voting yes.

Thank you very much.

All right, we're moving on to agenda item number three on our item number three on our agenda.

Clerk, will you please call?

Item number three is PLMP 2024-0081.

That is a community plan amendment, rezone, tentative subdivision map, special development permit, exception and design review.

The property is located at 6702 Philbirds Avenue, approximately 657 feet north of the intersection of Central Avenue and Filbert Avenue in the Orange Bale community, and the environmental document is a notice of exemption.

Thank you very much, clerk staff.

Are you ready to present?

Yeah.

Good evening, Chair Conkling, Planning Commissioners.

My name is Christian Balthazar.

I'm an associate planner with Planning Environmental Review and the planner for the 60 or 6702 Filbert Avenue Subdivision.

Just wait a second for the PowerPoint.

Metro is learning that now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the subject site is located at 6702 Filbert Avenue in the Orange Bell Community.

The site consists of a 10-acre parcel that is currently vacant.

However, records do indicate that the site was previously an orchard.

The site is currently accessed from the west through Philbert Avenue, and surrounding uses are single-family homes in all directions.

Uh, zoned either AR1, AR2, or RD3.

The subject site has a general plan, land use designation of agricultural residential, as well as a community plan designation and zoning of agricultural residential two acres.

That's AR2.

The project site is directly adjacent to AR2 zone properties to the north and west, and RD3 properties to the south, as well as a mixture of RD3 and AR1 to the east.

However, as you can see by the zoning map on the far right side of your screen there, a majority of the properties in the surrounding area are zoned either AR1 or RD2.

The entitlements being requested for this project consists of a community plan amendment, uh a rezone, a tentative subdivision map, a special development permit to deviate from public street standards, an exemption from titles uh from title section 22.24.63 to allow the proposed project uh lots to be served by a mutual water company, as well as a design review to determine substantial compliance with county wide design guidelines.

On screen now we have the community plan amendment and rezone exhibit.

As previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting a community plan amendment and a rezone, and that would be to change the existing AR2 land use designation and zoning to the proposed AR1 land use designation and zoning.

The community plan amendment and rezone would be for the entirety of the 10-acre law.

Here we have the proposed tentative subdivision map, and that's looking to divide the 10-acre parcel into 10 residential lots, which would result in 10 one-acre lots.

All lots with exception of lot six are proposed to be accessed from a private drive ending in a cul-de-sac, and that's shown on the center of the screen here.

Uh this is the request that is being asked for under the special development permit.

Um, and AR1 zoning up to four lots may be served by a private drive.

However, in this case, the project is proposing nine lots to be served by that private road.

Additionally, lot six would take access from a new cul-de-sac that's proposed to complete existing public road, and that's Crown Street near the southeast corner of the parcel.

And that's depicted right down here towards the bottom.

Uh the exemption that's being requested to deviate from section 22.24.630 of the Sacramento County Code for public water and uh sewer requirements.

So this section states that water purveyor shall not be a homeowners association, a mutual water company, or a corporation.

Sacramento County records indicate that this parcel would be served by the Orangeville Water Company, which is considered a mutual water company or corporation.

The public water and sewer requirements are part of the county code to ensure new developments do not have issues accessing both uh water and sewer connections.

The project will be serviced by uh the project will be serviced by the Sacramento Area Sewer District and the Orangeville Water Company has provided the applicant with a will serve letter indicating that they do have the capacity to serve the new proposed slots.

Uh this will serve letter is attached to your hearing packets as attachment number seven.

The proposed project was also reviewed by the design review advisory committee or DRAC on October 17th of last year.

DRAC members stated that the site is relatively flat and did not see an issue with the proposed development, given that both the lot sizing and layout are consistent with the surrounding area.

Therefore, DRAC members recommended that the board find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines.

Additionally, the project was also reviewed by the Orangeville Community Planning Advisory Council or CPAC, and that occurred on October 1st of last year.

A total of 17 members of the public spoke during the public common portion for this item.

Three members of the public were in support, and 14 members were in opposition.

Those in support of the project stated that the abandoned orchard does not contribute to the neighborhood, that the proposed AR1 zoning and one acre lots is respectful to the neighborhood and consistent with surrounding parcel sizes, and there was a general appreciation to the proposed drainage improvements.

Those in opposition to the project stated an overall desire to maintain the AR2 zoning of the property, and there were concerns about increased traffic, safety of those traveling the area, loss of wildlife, flooding, and draining impacts, as well as introduction of modern architecture to the area as well.

CPAC members explained that their biggest concern was the change from AR2 to AR1 zoning.

It was also shared that their preference was that the site remained in the AR2 designation of the property instead of one acre lots, given that the actual buildable area of the one-acre lots is less than one acre, given the setback requirements, detention ponds, and street improvements that are imposed on the project.

With that, following deliberation, the CPAC recommended that the Board of Supervisors deny the requested entitlements, and that was a unanimous vote.

Following staff review, it was determined that the proposed project is consistent with the general plan, the community plan and the zoning code as conditioned.

The project is compatible with surrounding zoning land uses and would also be generating new housing opportunities.

The environmental document conclude that there are no significant environmental concerns through the prepared notice of exemption, and the project was supported by DREC.

Planning Environmental Review staff recommends the planning commission make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

Recognize the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to secret guidelines section 15183A, public resources code section 21083.

Adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Approve a resolution authorizing an amendment to the Orangeville Community Plan land use designation, approve an ordinance authorizing a rezone, approve a tenative subdivision map, approve a special development permit, and approve an exemption to Title 22.24.63, all subject to finance and conditions, as well as find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines.

Again, subject to those finance and conditions.

With that, I'll conclude my presentation.

I do believe we have the applicant team in person to answer any questions, and I am also available to answer any follow-up questions.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for staff?

Just you talked about the CPAC voting to recommend denying the project.

You said something about 15 people on voting.

So can you kind of give me more of an idea of what the actual reason for the denial was, other than just they didn't want the the property to change to residential?

That was their main basis behind the recommendation.

They felt that the um they the biggest impacts to the project would have resulted from the rezone from AR2 or yeah, from the AR2 currently present to AR1.

But uh to clarify, yeah, there were 17 members of the public, three in favor, and uh 14 in opposition.

And then the opposition was basing going from two to one.

Not the housing, but the two to one.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

No.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

At this time, we'll invite the applicant or representative of the applicant to provide some remarks.

Good evening.

Good evening.

How are you?

We're doing very well.

Um, uh good evening, County Planning Commissioners.

Uh, I'm here representing Mikhail Kolyodic on his proposal project, uh at 6702 Filbert Avenue.

Uh, 10 lot uh subdivision on 10 acres with each lot approximately one acre.

Uh this plan keeps the semi-rural character of Orangevale intact while bringing a long-standing piece of land back into responsible use.

Uh just want to give a little bit of historical context of the land.

Uh the Tomach family owned and operated the orchard on this site for more than a century, uh, serving Orangevale as a family farm.

Uh in 2017, the family announced they were closing the operation after over 100 years.

Uh and then the community group purchased the property in 2018 with hopes of keeping it active as a local orchard, uh, but financial and operational challenges made that difficult to sustain.

Uh since 2023, the property has remained vacant and unused, uh, no longer functioning as a productive farmland.

Uh, this proposal represents a measured reuse of the site, maintaining its open agricultural residential feel while giving it a purpose again.

Uh some of the goals of the project, just want to reiterate some of the pieces.

Uh, the property is currently zoned as agricultural residential two, uh, which allows one home per two acres.

Uh, the proposal requests agricultural residential one, allowing one home per acre.

Uh still a low density rural layout consistent with surrounding neighborhoods and uh private roads around the area.

Uh a good portion of nearby parcels along Filbert and Crown are already AR-1, uh, with lots uh from one acre each.

Uh this is not a suburban zoning.

Uh it's a continuation of Orangevale's one acre home pattern and the Orangevale Community Plan, uh, which was created in uh 1976 uh 49 years ago.

Uh doubled my age, around uh uh I'm 25, so uh just want to uh also uh talk communicate about the environmental review.

Uh county staff and divine design review teams uh confirmed there are no unique uh site-specific environmental impacts that require additional study.

Uh in the EIR, uh we also want to highlight the preliminary grading and drainage plan was reviewed to ensure uh proper storm water control and to prevent runoff or erosion.

Uh and any tree removal will comply with the county's uh tree preservation and replacement ordinance.

Uh this compliant low impact info project that meets all county environmental standards.

Uh with traffic and safety, uh, you know, all access will come directly uh from Filbert Avenue onto a private road, and then the project will also extend Crown Street uh to Class B standard, including a proper paving uh drainage and a cul-de-sac for safe turnaround and emergency access.

Uh with only 10 homes, uh traffic increase will be minimal, uh, well within county thresholds for AR1 zoning.

Uh McHale and the project team have worked closely with county staff to ensure this proposal meets all safety drainage and design requirements.

Uh we've taken steps to ensure this project adds value without changing what makes Orangevale special.

Uh this is about uh responsible growth, keeping Orangevale strong, uh preserving its uh rural identity and giving new life to property that's been part of the community.

Uh thank you for your time and consideration.

Uh this is a straightforward project and increases housing in Sacramento County.

Uh should you have any questions regarding the project?

I will direct it to my uh the engineer or our uh client.

Thank you very much.

Any questions for self-described young applicant or representative of a young applicant?

Maybe for the record, can we get his name?

Absolutely, uh Michael Beller.

Sorry for that.

Thank you.

Mr.

Brower, thank you so much for your presentation.

I appreciate it.

Can you can you let us know what kind of outreach and and community engage that you guys did for the community?

It's um, it's hard for us to overturn a CPAC and then and three folks and for four four to project and fourteen against what kind of conversations did you guys have with the community to kind of alleviate some of their concerns during this development of your project yeah well um I know back in 2024 there was a petition um so there was petitions towards Crown Street so they had multiple properties in that area that um said they were approved of the project um for AR-2 to AR-1 and then was there and then also we did reach out to uh the planning commissioners uh today to let them know about the project okay thank thank you all right thank you very much at this point we'll open it up to the public I have uh two applications or two uh forms from the public that wish to speak if you would like to uh uh add your name to the list please um fill out a form in the back at this point we'll start with Tracy Stark and then next on deck would be Carol shoemaker Chair I wanted to make sure I was a little unclear in my first reading of the oath so please state I do once you get to the podium to give your public comment that you did hear the oath thank you very much clerk I do not think I was here for that so I will readminister please raise your right hand and the appropriate responses I do if you do swear um the testimony that 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 very much and your name my name's Tracy Stork thank you I am just here representing the property at 6721 I live there with my parents and my nephew that we're all raising together I just want to read a letter that my dad has emailed I'm not sure if everybody's seen it or not but I just want to make make sure we're heard okay.

So we live adjacent to 6702 Filbert Avenue Orangeville California I'm writing to oppose the rezoning request submitted by JTS engineering consultants for property owner Mikhail Kolidich which would reduce the minimum lot size from two acres to one acre this proposal may sound minor but in reality it would add a minimum double the potential housing density on that property and with it bring numerous impacts to our roads services and community character the potential addition of ADUs could increase the residential density up to 400 percent of what the property is now zoned more homes mean greater demand on law enforcement and fire protection sacramento county sheriff's department already faces staffing shortages and adding more residents in this area will only stretch those limited resources further increasing response times for fire services smaller lots mean homes closer together which heightens fire risks and complicates access local schools in the San Juan unified school district are already near capacity higher density means more students leading to the overcrowding more portable classrooms and potential redistrict redistricting all of which impact the quality of education for existing families one acre versus two acre development increases the amount of pavement and roofs creating where am I creating more stormwater runoff that means less natural absorption more flooding potential and more erosion and I see I'm running out of time so I'm gonna go to the back real quick and just say this is not an anti-growth message the property is zoned to allow five regid residential houses let them build five not ten houses as the zoning was and is intended thank you very much so I don't go over thank you very much I appreciate that thank you guys all right next we have Carol shoemaker now we'll do that guys need a handrail down the middle of the And I'm not getting old, it's just an old body.

My name's Carol Schumacher.

I've lived at 6711 Filbert Avenue, directly across the road from proposed rezoning.

And 10 houses for 51 years.

I purchased my home and property for the rural lifestyle, too much of which is being changed by many subdivisions.

Since the death of Tom Tomich, we have seen many changes to the orchard, tons of tree waste being dumped by tree services, which initially holds water, but over time decomposed and becomes compost to raise the elevation and increase drainage down to Filbert Avenue and all the properties on the west side of the road.

Most of the drainage now goes over the road.

The culvert appears to be mostly collapsed.

The water comes up my driveway, under mining my pavement, floods my north neighbor's pasture up to his house, and then crosses the Rousseau property, which is not the intent of that drainage.

There are proper drainages out there.

The current owner has dumped a minimum of 27 dump trucks of dirt throughout the property.

He has also continued to allow tree service to dump tree waste for a while.

He has blocked most of the drainage from the flow across Ox property, which flooded last winter.

He has continued illegally to burn the orchard trees.

After many incidents with the fire department and the fire marshal, he has continued to burn trees at night and large holes.

So we can't see the fire, but mostly can smell it all night and most of the next day.

What makes you think he will follow any of your rules?

To allow 10 houses, which could easily be 20 with ADUs on 9.8 acres, would almost eliminate any bare ground for water to be absorbed, plus the additional water that drains from the southeast area.

Thank you very much.

Can I ask a question of the gentleman that just spoke?

You can ask questions.

Because the meeting that they're talking about in October is my understanding was the only meeting, and we never talked about C1 or anything else.

We had the vote that night.

Okay, we'll have staff uh respond to that.

Thank you very much.

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

No.

All right.

At this point, we'll invite the applicant back or a representative of the applicant to respond to public comment, and I think that's a good one.

So we did met with pretty much 30 neighbors around the neighborhood.

Was that a zoning change?

And we have the letter.

And uh regarding the uh fire, so we had permit from air quality, we had the permit for fire department, and everything was done legally.

So the neighbor just spoke it's uh wasn't true.

This was illegally, so I have a permit for that.

And it was done all of the permits.

Okay, so when I have Javet, he can respond with the storm drainage uh conclusion.

Good evening, Commissioner.

Javez Hidiki, JTS Engineering, 1808 Street Sacramento, so our company prepared a drainage study which is required by the county.

And um in that study, we have um outlined what we need to do to solve the drainage problem.

There is a drainage problem out there, but based on the study, we are mitigating it.

Okay.

I can answer more questions, if any.

Are there any questions from the diets for the applicant or owner?

I just have one general question.

You're there's nothing in the documentation that talks about ADUs being added to these properties as part of your rezoning, right?

No, it that is allowed.

Uh under code, yeah, but we don't know if they're gonna have ADUs or not.

Okay.

We are providing public water and public sewer.

And uh we've got no letters from the utility districts to serve our property.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions?

And commissioners, I can respond to the CPAC question.

Yes, you took the words right out of my okay.

Thank you.

Um, so yeah, there was only one CPAC meeting for this project.

Um they met on October 1st of 2024 and did recommend that the board deny the requested entitlements.

Um, and then also just to follow up on Javed's response.

If they did if a future property owner wanted to pursue an ADU, those are by right, so they would be allowed to do so.

But that's on an individual basis, right?

Correct.

Thank you.

And I had a question to staff.

Um there was comments made or at least concerns expressed about an uptick in vehicular traffic.

Um as I understand it that the DOT estimated that the project um would approximately generate um 121 trips.

I was wondering if you might be able to elaborate or kind of expand on that a little bit more.

Yeah, so um uh DOT traffic does evaluate all um discretionary uh entitlements are being processed through planning to see what the projected trip generations would be, and there is a threshold um to see if the proposed project would require a traffic study to be uh uh created in order to evaluate um traffic uh for the site.

Uh that threshold is a thousand new daily trips or um and or a hundred trips during him and PM peak times.

As you mentioned, uh that analysis was uh was complete and it did calculate that about 121 new daily trips would be generated from this proposal, um, and nine a.m.

peak tree trips and eleven p.m.

P trips.

So both of those are well below um the threshold needed in order to require traffic study to be completed.

Okay, thank you very much.

So just for my own edification, the threshold for the peak trips is a hundred AMP, and uh there was a um estimation of nine trips during the AM and 11 trips for the PM, so that well below the 100 that would trigger the threshold.

Okay, thank you very much.

Any other questions?

All right, we'll kick it back to commissioners to uh deliberate.

Anyone want to kick this off?

Sure, I'm happy to start.

Um thank you.

You know, I think change can be hard.

Um, you know, but as we look at housing needs, it's never gonna be a one-size fits all or a silver bullet, and I think every um.

Solutions are gonna come in many forms and many shapes and many sizes.

Um, and I think this is a small but um an example of a way that we can find a little bit of density and uh uh albeit a very mild form of density, one acre loss, I don't think anybody would really say is uh dense by any real measure of an urban form.

Um but within this context, I think it is, and I think it does add to our housing base, and um I'm happy to move the project.

All right, thank you very much.

We have a motion by Commissioner Devlin.

Any other comments or remarks?

Oh, I I thank you, thank you, Chair.

I just hope that the applicant continue the conversations that they have with the community members.

I did see the 27 um uh signatures that petition to support the project.

I I spot check and try to verify um that those addresses were in the immediate neighborhood, and then also comparing the the density maps that um uh Mr.

Balthasar had had provided.

Um I think it still kind of is in line with the community.

Um I drove over there over the weekend try to see and visualize how it would be, and and I do uh encourage the applicant to keep those conversations going with the community members, especially for the ones that sent their opposition letters and see if there's a potential to cure any of those um those concerns moving forward.

But um I'm happy to also support the project at this time.

All right, thank you very much.

It sounds like we have a motion by Commissioner Devlin, a second by Commissioner Borjas.

Clerk.

And that item does pass with all members voting yes.

All right, thank you very much.

That brings us to uh I believe the planning director's report, ICR planning director is out, but our uh planning principal, Ms.

Kimber uh Guterres, is available.

Yeah, our planning director is on vacation, taking a much needed vacation.

So um, but no, I do not have any other updates for the commission.

All right, thank you very much.

Clerk, any miscellaneous scheduling items to bring to our attention?

Nothing noteworthy.

Our last meeting of this year is gonna be December 8th, and that's the only one for December.

Okay, and then we'll move to item number six.

Any public comments for any items not on the agenda, not seeing any, then we are adjourned at 6 50 p.m.