Good afternoon, good evening, everyone.

Welcome to our May 11th meeting of the Sacramento County Planning Commission.

Madam Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Before calling roll, we will have Commissioner Verga who is participating remotely.

Commissioner Verga.

Yes, I understand I have a statement I'm supposed to read.

For the record, I am participating remotely, pursuant to government code section 54953, due to adjust costs last emergency circumstances.

Also present in the room will be my wife, Carrie Verga.

Um the reason for this absentee or remote is uh a knee replacement as of Tuesday.

Thank you.

I will now call roll.

Commissioner Verga.

Here Devlin.

Here and Chair Borja here.

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

All right, thank you.

A pledge of allegiance, please.

I Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right, thank you.

And Madam Clerk, can you please make the announcements?

Absolutely.

My apologies here.

Kind of got my things out of order.

Okay.

Sorry about that delay.

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 SACCounty.gov.

Mail a comment to 708th Street Suite 2450 Sacramento, California, 95814.

And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Are we ready to proceed with item number one?

Yes, item number one is PLMP 2025-00114 fitted garage.

This is a use permit to the planning commission to reinstate the use of automobile repair.

And this property is located at 7128 Kingsley Street, approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Florence Road and Kingsley Street in the South Sacramento community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening, Chair Borja.

This is a reinstatement of a nonconforming use that your commission has heard similar projects this past year on, and it's non-contested.

So I would like to know if you would like to waive the presentation or not.

Thank you, Ms.

Hartman.

I'll start with my colleague in the interweb.

Um Commissioner Verga, would you like to uh see your presentation on this item?

Uh no, thank you.

Uh I'm okay.

All right.

I think we will be postponed, or at least passing for the presentation, but thank you so much for preparing.

Um with that in mind, are we ready or do we have any questions for the staff at this time?

No, I don't.

Okay.

And the applicant is also in the audience if you have any questions for him as well.

Understood.

Thank you for noting that.

Um, we'll give an opportunity for the applicant to address the commission if they may wish to.

Okay, this is the owner.

Okay, right.

Thank you, sir.

You can join us at the podium.

And I will go ahead and administer an oath at this time.

And this is for anyone who would like to make a public comment if you can.

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

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

And if you do not swear, do you so affirm?

Thank you.

And then those when you do come to the podium, please state your name and for the record that you have been sworn in.

Thank you, sir.

Oh, you said oh, okay.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Berger or Commissioner Devlin, do you have any questions for the applicant?

Uh no, I do not.

Neither do I'm happy to move the item.

Okay.

Thank you so much, Vice Chair Devlin.

Uh, we do have a um a motion to move the item.

Do we have a second?

Yes, I'll second it.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Clerk, if we can please call the vote.

And because we are um having Commissioner Verga participate remotely, we will have to call a voice vote for these items.

So, Commissioner Devlin.

I.

Verga.

Aye.

And Chair Borja.

Aye.

And with those members present, this item does pass.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Escobito, and thank you, Ms.

Hartman.

Okay, let's uh move on to item number two, please, Madam Clerk.

Item number two is PLMP 2025-00267.

Review of county fiscal year 2026-27 capital improvement program for the general plan consistency, and this is countywide, and the environmental document is non-applicable.

Jackie, can you oh excellent?

These are on.

All right.

Good evening, uh, Chair Boha and uh planning commissioners.

My name is Nathan Sedafine, and I am an associate planner from planning and environmental review.

I'll be presenting on the capital improvement plan for fiscal year 26-27.

Uh, I'm also joined by Colin Bettis of uh the Office of Budget and Debt Management for tonight.

Uh, if uh we have a larger conversation about these items.

As for overview, the capital improvement plan identifies capital improvement projects for the next five years uh across various county agencies.

This action is set forth by county code section 21, chapter 15.

The purpose of our review is to determine that that the uh projects are consistent with the general plan and to address issues uh before final board approval of these projects.

The purpose is not to evaluate merits, cost, or environmental impact of the projects, as all of that will be reviewed on uh a later individual basis.

So, what is the process for our review?

So uh first the board reviews the capital improvement plan and refers to the planning commission for general plan compliance.

Uh this happened back on April 7th.

So fast forward to today.

The task of the commission is to determine the consistency of the CIP and forward its findings back to the board.

In June, the board will receive the findings and officially adopt the CIP.

Uh every as seeing everything aligns.

Today we're only reviewing the projects that have not been previously approved or are newly funded.

There are five main categories of projects that we reviewed for consistency.

There are airports, capital buildings and uh county buildings to capital uh construction, excuse me, libraries, regional parks, and transportation.

For our analysis, uh, our staff report materials include general plan consistency analysis for each capital improvement project, project descriptions, and as for our consistency consistency analysis itself, staff has found that all projects are consistent with the general plan.

We do have a couple of recommendations.

So uh the first is adopt a resolution finding that the projects listed in the five-year capital improvement plan for fiscal year 26-27 in the budget are consistent with the adopted policies of the general plan and direct the county executive to report back to supervisors with the commission findings.

That concludes my presentation again.

Uh, stated before, I'm here with Colin Bettis from the Office of Budget and Debt Management, and we're available to take any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Serafine.

Um, do we have any questions from my colleagues here at the DIES?

No, I don't.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the staff for preparing this.

I did look at about 172, almost 200 pages actually of the attachment.

So uh really grateful for the opportunity of preparing.

Having come from staff myself, I I recognize how how hard and critical those things are.

So one thing I'd like to maybe ask, just for the general kind of education of the public who may not know what a capital improvement program or CIP.

You know, you've you've highlighted some projects that you've wanted to uh either bring forth or at the very least prioritize.

Uh I saw one in transportation related to Hazel Avenue and the lane widening.

Um for that project, what's kind of the merit-based or the system that you all do in order to prioritize that on the CIP as a newly funded project?

Is it a combination of grants, need, fix it first, or shovel ready?

Yeah, excellent question.

So we as the planning department do not prioritize the projects on the CIP ourselves.

That uh comes down to the individual departments who put the projects forth and uh present as they present them to the board.

Um however, I can talk about our uh analysis process for how we look at these projects.

Um over the past couple of years, we've actually uh systematized our process to the point where we are looking not just at the general plan but different policy documents that are related to the general plan as well in order to assess how these projects fulfill the uh vision of the general plan and are within the growth the um the uh urban policy area of of uh within the county as well to make sure that uh growth is responsible uh and that these fulfill the needs of the community.

Um so for the Hazel Avenue project, for example, um one of the many uh thresholds that we actually measure against transportation plan projects is um are the is this a complete street project?

Uh is this something that uh helps fulfill a mobility need?

Um so those those are kind of a couple of the uh items that we looked at, especially for uh larger, so you you have like general uh projects like the um uh approve improving the streets, and then you have more specific projects like like Hazel Avenue that are uh more improving like uh flow and mobility.

So that's that's essentially what we looked at.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um, where might uh uh projects like improving our levies stand?

Um would that be under county buildings and capital construction?

And is that something that the CIP also looks at as a critical need?

That's actually a really great question.

I have not uh come across a levy uh project myself, but uh I'd like to put it forward to Colin.

For many uh Colin Bettis, the county debt officer.

Um, for many of those projects that would be levy-based, they would either fall under the Department of Water Resources for drainage, and but that I will also say that there are many agencies, many different agencies that manage the levy system.

So a lot of them that were, you know, for the northern portion of the county that would be managed by Safca.

So it wouldn't be under our our um policy under RCIP.

Understood.

And I'm assuming that something that's a little bit more southern would be SJFCA, right?

Yeah, understood.

And um one last thing to mention about the you um I had another comment on on the uh um the Hazel Avenue project.

That one is actually a breakout of a prior project that had been pre already approved, and so it's the Department of Um Transportation splitting that into phases of the project and which ones are moving forward now versus umes that are you know are are in main maybe more of a planning phase.

Thank you, sir.

Uh just one last question, Mr.

Bettis.

If I don't have you don't mind.

Uh we have as a county, we were oversubscribe with needs.

And how does your office kind of holding the purse a little bit and working with a limited resource that we have?

How do you guys end up prioritizing what would be, you know, maybe percolating in the next two to five years?

Because a lot of the constituents end up asking the supervisors or the elected officials saying, hey, how come this is not in your to-do list in the next two to five years?

Yeah.

So um each of the departments that that um prepares the information and submits it to our office, does their own analysis of of the need versus availability of funding.

So obviously, as as funding becomes available, uh, you know, grant funding, that may um increase the prioritization of one project over another because it has resources available for it.

But each of the department does an analysis on their own for all the projects that they see that they have a need to complete.

So thank you.

I appreciate that, sir.

Um, other questions for Mr.

Battis?

Nope.

Mr.

Verga?

No, I don't have any.

Okay, thank you both.

Um Madam Clerk.

Do we have any uh?

And I would like to state for the record item number one: there were no public comments turned in for that item, and we have not received any for item number two as well.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you for keeping in check.

I really appreciate it.

Do we have any um public comments for this item?

No, we do not.

Okay, all right.

Well, Mr.

Sarafan, um, do you have any uh added comments or anything you'd like to close out with?

Um, no, thank you so much for uh Colin for providing the extra detail.

Uh, just reminder we do have an item for uh a vote for um resolution.

Understood.

Thank you.

And so we do have a request of the PR staff to uh take the following actions, um adopt a resolution recommending the board find that the new projects listed in the FY2627 CIP are consistent with the county's general plan, and also direct the county executive to report the planning commission's recommendation to the board.

Do we have a motion?

I don't think a motion, but uh I'm happy to um uh make that motion to move this forward.

Okay, and I'll second it.

Thank you.

I think we have a first and a second.

Thank you.

Commissioner Debland.

Aye, Commissioner Verga.

I and Chair Borja?

Aye.

Thank you.

And that item passes with the members present with a recommendation to the board.

All right, thank you all.

Appreciate it.

Madam Clerk, can we please move on to item number three?

Item number three is PLMP 2024-00037, Vineyard South Mine Expansion, a use permit to allow mining on 86 additional acres and to allow three additional years of mining, a rezone to add surface mining combining zone to 86 acres, a community plan amendment for two parcels, a reclamation plan amendment, and a development agreement amendment.

And this property is located at 9332 Elder Creek Road, west of Bradshaw Road, east of Hedge Road, north of Florin Road, and south of Elder Creek Road, with the exception of two original project parcels in the vineyard community, and the environmental document is an addendum.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Mark McLean with planning and environmental review.

I'm gonna present the Vineyard South Mine Expansion Project.

This is the clerk did a great job on a location.

It is at 9332 Elder Creek Road, west of Bradshaw, east of Hedge, north of Florin, and south of Elder Creek.

And it is in the Vineyard Community.

On this map here, the hatched um parcels are the four parcels for this project.

Okay.

The community context, the um the site is zoned IR, which is interim agriculture.

The surrounding uses are to the north is IR with the surface mining overlay, and that is the Vineyard South mine.

To the south, it's RD 10 and IR and east and west, it is IR zoned.

Okay, on January 15, 2019, Vineyard South was approved by the Board of Supervisors that allowed surface mining on 146 acres out of 170 acre site.

And the site is currently the Vineyard South mine, and the use permit expires on January 15th, 2029.

The applicant is requesting an amendment to the use permit to allow surface mining on four additional parcels, totaling 86 acres and three additional years to mine them.

A rezone to add the surface mining combining zone to 86 acres of IR zone, a community plan amendment to add language to the floor and vigor community plan to allow surface mining on two of the parcels for the duration of the use permit, a reclamation plan amendment to include the new mining areas into the reclamation plan with the end use of open space, and a development agreement between the county and the applicant.

All right, this is the site plan.

And like I said, the uh the four new parcels for the project are in hash to the south and on the east and west of it.

And the other is the original vineyard south mine.

Okay, so like um the like was stated earlier, the board did approve the use period on January 15, 29 to allow surface mining.

The applicant is proposing three years of additional mining with an expiration date of mining for February, or excuse me, January 15th, 2032, and three years to reclaim the project with an end date of January 15th, 2035.

Uh the proposed project will add four parcels that are 86 acres, and of that 60 acres is subject to be mine.

The original use permit had a total of 13 million tons of aggregate.

The proposed use permit amendment will add 3.1 million tons for a total of the mine of 16.1 million tons.

The end use will continue to be open space.

There's a development agreement that will be amended as part of this project, and there'll be continued participation in the sense per ton program.

The sense per total program is a program for all the mines that uh the amount of aggregate they sell the pertinent certain percentage goes to a nonprofit.

In this case, it's for the splash program.

Okay, this shows the phasing of the site.

So the new portions of the site are to the south, and in the yellow on the on the east is uh two of the two of the parcels and on the west side and the brown are the two.

Um they'll be in phase two B and phase three, respectively.

All right, the environment mental document is an addendum based upon uh an EIR for the original Vineyard South use permit.

The addendum concluded that there would be less than significant impacts in most environmental topics.

Um significant environmental impacts from the project include aesthetic impacts, nitric oxides emissions, and noise impacts from hall trucks, and mitigation measures have been proposed for the project impacts, advisory recommendations.

The Vineyard CPAC met on February 13th, 2025 and recommended approval of the projects 13 to 0.

One of the CTA CPAC members did inquire if there are any public benefits of this project and the cents per ton with the um money or the funds going to Sacramento Splash is a is a nice one of those.

Okay, I think I went too far.

Maybe that'll go back.

Okay.

Staff is recommending the plan and commission make the following recommendation recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

Determine the environmental analysis is pursuant to CECO is adequate and complete, adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

Approve the amended amendment to the use permit subject to finding and conditions, approve the rezone to add the surface mining combining zone subject to finding and conditions, approve the community plan amendment to add language to the floor and vineyard community plan subject to finding and conditions, approve the reclamation plan amendment to include the new mining area into the reclamation plan, subject to findings and conditions, and approve the development agreement with between the county and the applicant subject to finding and conditions, and then just one other thing on the project.

There had been some ongoing um discussions with the Southgate park and rec with conditions of approval.

We finally got those um hammered out, and I have here is an updated condition and a one new condition.

And of that, yeah, the that is just the so what you have there is the two conditions and then all of the um conditions of approval.

Just to see so you can see them in total.

That concludes my presentation.

I'm here to answer any questions.

The applicant is also here.

Thank you, Mr.

McAlaney.

I appreciate appreciate the thoroughness.

Um do we have any questions?

Not for staff from Mr.

Virgo, Commissioner Fergus.

No, not no, not for the staff.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

McKillian, just kind of a kind of procedural question.

So we have a pretty good uh established baseline on the MMR piece from what was already approved back in 2019.

I'm assuming that um presuming that this that the applicant would not only uh concur with the remaining items uh of that MMRP, but maybe just add on to that.

Yes, that's uh I wasn't uh didn't explain that well enough, but yeah, that's exactly what happened.

Understood, sir.

So everything from the borrowing owls and uh Swainson's hawk mitigation, water.

And we can confirm that with Julie.

I'm sorry, did not want to steal your thunder, Miss Newton.

All good.

Good evening, Commissioners Julie Newton, environmental coordinator with planning.

Um yes, Commissioner Borja, that that is correct.

So with this project being an expansion of the existing mine operations, uh, will be consistent with what's already in place.

Uh we've prepared an addendum to the prior EIR, which means those mitigation measures that applied to the initial phases of the project will be carried through, they'll continue to comply with everything that was um a part of the original EIR and MMRP.

Understood.

Thank you for confirming this evening.

And then I do see that we now have um as part of attachment to 50 new findings and conditions of approval, or is this kind of uh added?

One modified condition 49, and then a new one for Southgate 50.

So it kind of messed up the numbering for the DOT comments that come out.

That's why I gave you the entire attachment to in case you wouldn't see it in total.

Understood, understood, Sir Devlin.

Thank you.

Um, do you have an idea of kind of what the grading I haven't visited this this the site?

Um, but do you have an idea of what the grading kind of currently looks like on the existing mine site?

I mean, at what depth they're how deep they're going?

Yeah, I think it's about 30 feet down there.

They dig to the applicants in here can will be able to confirm that, but I think it's about 30 feet.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

Um, I'm not hearing any more questions from my fellow commissioners.

We'd like to invite the applicant if they are available.

Good evening, Chair Borja.

Um members of the commission.

My name is Yasha Saber.

I'm with Compass Land Group, and here on behalf of granite construction tonight.

Uh, I do have representatives from the granite team here as well in the audience, and they were all sitting with me here.

Uh so happy to answer any questions that you'd like us to this evening.

Uh Commissioner Devlin, you had a question about the mine grading and how deep the mining has gone so far.

So the existing mine is allowed to mine as deep as 75 feet below existing ground surface.

Uh we have achieved a depth of about 50 feet from original grade at the deepest point in the existing mine.

The proposed expansion would continue that same maximum permissible mining depth, but it is a conservative depth that we're most likely not going to get to throughout the entire mining property.

And obviously it's still a productive mine, which is why you're here.

Um and I'm not looking to extract any sort of commitment, but I guess as you kind of as it's one experience within this field, when you look at a site of that size and you get down to an average depth of fill in the blank 40 feet, 50 feet.

Um, you know, when you look beyond 2032 or 2035, you know, what are I guess, you know, some of the even potential kind of reuses for a site such as that.

So for this site in particular, there's a number of different postmining land uses that we have in consideration.

First and foremost is to return as much of the property to a condition that's suitable for future redevelopment under the floor and vineyard community plan.

So in doing so, we've actually prioritized the overburdened material, which is the non-marketable soil that sits on top of the sand and gravel.

When that is extracted, that will be moved in placed as backfill along the frontages of the public roadways.

So for the original project, that material is prioritized up against Elder Creek Road for the expansion project, the material is prioritized up against Florin Road.

Um we anticipate the ability to backfill almost two-thirds of the southwestern expansion parcel uh adjacent to Florin Road to prepare it for future residential development and floor and vineyard consistent with this existing designation under that plan.

Perfect, thank you.

You're welcome.

Um can you just uh share us like uh a couple thoughts about um your partnership with Splash, or is that a program that is being run through the county, or is that something that's being managed by the county?

The cost percents program.

Granite supplies a sense per ton fee.

I believe that is administered through the terms of the development agreement with the county.

That's correct, director.

Was your question, Commissioner Borja?

One uh whether the county also contributes to funding for splash, or yeah.

How does that sorry it's my first time kind of actually uh finding out about that?

How does that program work?

You're familiar with Sacramento Splash, I believe, as a nonprofit environmental organization operating out of Mather.

Uh, the county has in the past uh contributed some funding uh for quite a few years to that program.

Uh I'm not sure when, but I know it's within the last probably five to ten years.

The granite uh has and you can correct me if I'm wrong, yeah.

Uh folks, um, has offered that as part of their development agreement um sense per ton contribution.

Um that is simply the mechanism that we um collectively through granite and the sense per ton program, give that money to Splash.

Understood, okay.

So it's part of our um participation that in some of the costs for them to for being able to use the land, they're actually able to do some sort of good use uh with the nonprofit, right?

That's um educating a lot of the younger kids in the in the region.

Okay, awesome.

Well, thank you.

Uh appreciate the time, sir.

Any other questions from Mr.

Verga?

No, I have no other questions.

All right, thank you.

Um, Madam Clerk, do we have any um speakers for this item?

No, we have not received any public comments for this item.

Okay.

That said, I'd like to uh are there any other discussion from fellow commissioners on this item?

No, but I'll make a motion to move the item with the recommendations from staff.

Uh uh I'm happy to second that motion.

Okay, I believe we have a motion and a second, madam clerk.

If you could please call call for a vote.

Commissioner Verga.

Aye, Devlin.

Aye, and Chair Borja.

Yes.

And that item um passes with recommendation to the board 30.

All right, thank you very much.

Thank you.

And if we could please uh read item number four, and item number four is PLMP 2022-00117, Gutierrez properties, rezone and tentative parcel map.

This is a rezone community plan amendment, tentative parcel map, and a design review.

The property is located at 11976 Walmart Road, Walmart Road, about 640 feet east of Regal Road in the Southeast Community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening, uh Commissioners.

Kimber Gutierrez, uh principal planner.

Um, the applicant has asked to uh drop this or continue this item to a date uncertain.

Um, and I don't believe they are in attendance, correct?

Yeah, they're absent.

So yeah, understood.

I do believe we do need to have a vote for that.

So um the applicant is uh requesting that we continue the item to a date uncertain.

Don't have any motions or any uh well before that vote.

Do we have any speakers for this item?

No, we have not received any public comments for this item.

Then we've established that the applicant is not available or is not attending this evening.

Do we have any discussions from my fellow commissioners and or do we have any um motions to I would go ahead and and move that we continue the item to a date uncertain?

And I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion and second, Madam Clerk.

Thank you.

Commissioner Verga.

Uh Deblin.

Aye.

And Chair Borja.

Yes.

And that item passes with being continued to a date uncertain.

Okay.

Thank you.

We are moving right along to item number five.

And for this item, you will be acting as the board of zoning appeals.

Item number five is PLMP 2022-00110.

And a design review.

The property is located at 6548 Setter Avenue approximately 700 feet from the intersection of Sutter Avenue and Marshall Avenue in the Carmichael community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening again, Kimber Gutierrez.

We have a unique situation in that the appellants for the item are requesting a continuance to a date uncertain.

And I believe the applicant is requesting that the item be heard.

So we do have representatives from both the appellant team and the applicant team present.

Thank you.

So thanks, Chair.

I'd recommend that you continue this item because you know your rules of procedure require that any action be by three commissioners and you've got a bare quorum here tonight.

We don't know how the three of you are gonna would come down on this appeal.

So if it comes down two to one either way, you're not gonna be able to take action.

And whether you grant the appeal or deny the appeal, you have to adopt findings one way or the other, and you wouldn't be able to do that if it's two to one.

So the only way this works, remember BZA is the last stop, doesn't this item won't go to the board after this.

Um is if the three of you present tonight are all in agreement, and we don't know if that's gonna be the case.

So I'd recommend that you hear this item when preferably all five of you are here, you know, four at a minimum, and you know these days you have more opportunities for remote attendance, so really attendance shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Uh so we should try and get five commissioners here, whether remote or in person, but um otherwise we're gonna go through this hearing tonight, and if it ends up being two to one on your vote, then we're gonna have no choice but to continue it at that point.

Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you for your counsel, Ms.

Burke.

Do we have any comments from the rest of the commissioners?

Well, I would defer to the chair, their preference.

Thank you.

Just for clarity, counselor, um we can hear the item right and receive this.

So here's the staff presentation and ultimately decide to continue this.

The one dilemma with that, you can and if you all three of you are in agreement, then okay, then that's clean, and you can adopt findings.

But if you if you don't, um, and we continue it, then you've got two commissioners who weren't here to hear all the testimony.

So I'd rather have them here to hear the testimony and receive the evidence because then we're otherwise we're gonna have a question.

Well, did those other two commissioners or other one commissioner were they privy to all the statements that were made and all the arguments and all the evidence?

Fair point.

I would I would defer to the chair as to what he would like to do.

Understood.

Commissioner Verga, do you have any thoughts, sir?

Yeah, um, I basically just have I've always just had concerns of containing to delay things one after another.

Are there any time frames associated with this appeal or whatever this action is that we're gonna bump up against because of us deferring it?

Um I don't know enough about it to um figure out exactly, you know, what the impact of deferring it is versus hearing it.

Maybe we can hear from the applicant.

Well, uh, the first thing that comes to mind is um there's a relatively new statute, state statute that requires land use items to be heard in five meetings.

Uh that's so I don't know if we're up to that yet.

I think I'm less comfortable with the date uncertain.

I mean, just from the you know, the applicant is worked, no doubt.

Yeah, I'd prefer to have it to a date certain to get to this point, and so I think just on balance, if we are to continue this, I would be uh pretty uncomfortable with a date uncertain, and you know, if it is to be continued, um, I would, you know, I would be probably more inclined for like the next meeting as opposed to some future date.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dublin.

I believe that staff is finding that information as to whether or not statutorily we are running into that line of the number of meetings.

I will note um while staff is looking up how many hearings we've had on this already.

Um uh staff has indicated that both the applicants and potentially appellant will not be available uh in June.

Um so we're looking at July.

Okay, all right.

The plot thickens.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Um Mr.

Burke, um, if we do move the item to let's say the meeting in July, would this would that trigger an actual meeting or would this would this what we're doing this evening?

Would that be the same?

Well, I mean, if we are at if this is meeting number five, I don't know if it is, but we could certainly argue that um it was continued and we didn't actually have a hearing on it.

Although the clerk made a good point that it per Brown Act.

If anybody wants to speak on, even if you want to continue it, they have a right to speak on it.

Um but separate and apart from that, you know, we can make the argument that this was a continuance and the hearing just didn't happen today.

Um aside from that, I I don't I know people want to get things moving and complete, but I don't see a huge problem going to July.

My preference is to have you know, like I said, a clean action, um, a full commission, and be able to make findings.

The alternative is we can do it um and just see where the three of you end up, and if it's if the three of you are in agreement either to grant or deny the appeal, then great.

We just don't know right now.

Understood, Ms.

Kutiers.

Um yes, for SB 330, the five-limit uh meeting rule, um, we would not be exceeding that by continuing it to another meeting.

So we are okay with that permission of state law.

Thank you, Ms.

Cutiers.

So we are okay with SB 330 compliance.

Um, this Mr.

Chair, did it if we end up if we end up doing this, um we need to parameters on it that come July, we don't end up uh making some kind of a decision that for some other reasons uh like we just ran into that we delay it again.

Um I understand the question of three versus you know having enough to make to break the tie, and I don't know enough about the nitty gritty of the appeal to you know kind of understand things, then that's kind of what I'm grappling with here that it's if this is the appeal that's time sensitive beyond just some statute, then we need to figure out how to address it and not let it languish from July to August and September, um, which happens to happen a lot in these types of circumstances.

For both sides, we'll do the same.

Doesn't matter if one side or the other.

Understood.

Thank you, Commissioner Virgo.

Um, this is certainly a conundrum.

Thank you for putting us in the nice pickle here.

Um I think this might be my first um of this issue.

Um I I do certainly think that uh Mr.

Burke's um counsel is something that we would need to warrant.

However, as to Madam Clerk indicated, uh nothing is stopping us from hearing the uh comments by the public if they still wish to uh speak on the item.

And so for that I'm inclined to at the very least um allow uh the requests to move at a date certain, which would be the meeting for July.

I think that is kind of where my moral compass is going at the moment.

But I'd like to see.

Just a suggestion.

Director Smith, Council Burks.

That yeah, what are our dates in July?

Let's find out our dates in July.

Let's ask.

It's like the 8th.

13th and 27th.

I am hearing July 13th and the 27th.

That's correct.

Alternatively, can we hear the meeting date options for June?

That would be the 8th and the 22nd.

We have June 8, June 22nd for consideration, as well as July 13th and July 27th.

Yeah.

And maybe we could also hear from the applicant as to like their the impact and you know what their preferences to do.

I mean, I I am I'm sensitive to certainly the issues that councils raised.

Um, however, it's also kind of obvious.

Like, are we right?

Are we gonna be right back in this very same position on July 8th or July 27th?

I mean that's kind of the unknown.

Well, I'll say from a staff perspective, we're ready.

Um that's why we're here.

All of our work has been done.

I think uh it is incumbent on the commissioners to show up, obviously, present company excluded.

Um and I think it now just is a matter of whether the applicants and appellants are available on any of those four dates.

So something else just occurred to me.

So if we do if we go through a hearing now, we end up and we see it's two to one, um, and we continue it at that point tonight, later tonight.

We can have this is all okay, this is all recorded.

We can ask whoever else shows up for a continued hearing to watch this hearing.

That way they will see all the testimony and evidence and everything.

Then they can join in on the continued date.

So that part of it now that I think of it is less of a concern.

So we can just um go ahead and proceed and see how it goes.

Um, but it like I said, if if you are at two to one, um you you gotta you've gotta adopt findings.

You can't do that.

You gotta you gotta have three votes to do that.

So um we still might have to continue it at the end of this.

Understood, okay.

Do you have any concerns, comments, and or um recommendations, Commissioner Verger or Vice Chair Dublin?

From my standpoint, I think what was just the option given to us is the best option.

That way, there's a record.

And if we don't land on a unanimous three um vote, then there's the net new committee, the other commissioners when they get available can look at that record and we can move the item and not have a tendency to cause it the language.

Thank you, Commissioner Virgo, Victor Dublin.

Uh I would be comfortable with that as well.

And that being that we hear the item right now and yeah, and if it's you know becomes you know clear that we're gonna, you know, not be in alignment or be in alignment on this, then you know, for it's gonna be two to one.

We'll have to do a continuance.

Understood, okay.

With that said, I concur with my fellow commissioners.

Um Director Smith.

Should we proceed with the presentation and then uh encourage the members of the public who are present or or are uh participating to uh at the very least opt in for participation and address the commission.

Understood, and we'll start with the staff presentation.

Then I believe we go appellant and then applicant.

Good evening, Chair Barha.

Members of the Board of Zoning Appeals.

My name is Christian Balthazar, associate planner with planning environmental review and lead planner from the county side on the Asorian tenant parcel map appeal.

The subject site is located at 6548 Sutter Avenue, which consists of a single parcel totaling 1.08 acres in size, and is currently developed with an existing single-family home and a pool.

Both the pool and the single family home are expected to remain on site post-entitlement.

The subject side is zoned residential density two or RD2, and is within the Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Preservation Area or NPA.

The surrounding area is developed with single-family homes, all zoned RD2 with the subzone of MPA in all directions.

In terms of entitlement history, the project site has had two previous planning entitlements.

Uh the first being a tenant parcel map, which was divided, which was dividing approximately three acres into four lots in the RD2 zone and an exemption to uh public street frontage to allow more than two lots to be served by a private drive.

That request was approved by the former Carmichael Old Foot Hill Farms Community Planning Commission on March 17th, 2010, and establish the existing lot configurations today.

The image that you're seeing on the screen below is the previously approved parcel map.

So that is showing the existing configuration today, with exception of the location of the fire access turnaround, which I will explain in a few slides.

Along with that, there was also a request for a special development permit uh to allow a 791 square foot um accessory dwelling unit or ADU on the site.

That this would have been a uh two-story 19-foot tall structure.

However, uh, on March uh of 2022, that application was withdrawn by the applicant.

Along with that, there have been a total of five uh in the last five years.

There have been a total of four code violations, all of them cited on this subject property.

Uh, the code violations were related to non-compliant pool fencing and pool retaining walls on the site.

All code violations since then have been remedied and are uh all have been closed.

On screen now we have the tentative parcel map again, looking to divide 1.08 acres into two lots.

Resultant parcel A is proposed to be 24,963 square feet and would retain the existing pool.

Resultant parcel B would be 21,372 square feet in size and would contain the existing single family home.

Both of these proposed lots would meet the minimum 20,000 square foot law area requirements in the RD2 zoning district.

Along with that, the project uh is proposing to use the existing private drive to serve uh two new resultant uh lots, which could bring the total number of lots being accessed by this private road to five in total.

That is the request that is being requested under the uh the deviation that's being requested under the special development permit.

Along with that, no trees have been proposed to be removed for this project, and the applicant issuing conceptual building envelope on proposed parcel A to demonstrate that all setbacks can be met without encroachment on existing trees on the site, and that's the uh dotted square in parcel A, shown here.

Uh lastly, I do want to note that uh chapter three of the zoning code um states that accessory structures such as pools are not allowed to remain on a parcel as a primary use.

To address this, the project has been conditioned to require uh the approval and construction of an ADU on proposed parcel A prior to the filing of the final map.

Through this, the ADU would become the primary residence once the map is recorded and filed and would prevent a non-compliant standalone accessory structure on that future parcel.

This is former condition A, now condition 10 in your hearing packets of attachment two.

Um alternatively, the condition also allows for the owner to remove the pool rather than construct the ADU, and therefore either way, the non-conforming status is uh no longer an issue.

Uh one thing I did want to point out about the uh fire access road is uh we're seeing technically three fire axes shown on this map.

Um the first fire access is shown in between proposed lots A and B.

That is where the fire access was originally approved on the 2001 map that was approved a few years back.

However, when it was constructed, it was constructed at the location of this blue turnaround here.

With this proposal, the applicant is looking to shift that driveway a bit further south and extend to be in conformance with uh SAC Metro Fire standards.

So you are seeing three different locations, uh, previously approved and existing and a proposed.

Uh the entitlements being requested for the site include a tentative parcel map to divide 1.08 acre parcel into two lots, a special development permit to deviate from public street frontage to allow more than two lots be served by a private drive.

In this case, could be served up to five lots, and a design review to determine substantial compliance with design guidelines.

In terms of advisory meetings, uh, the Carmichael CPAC or community planning advisory council met on August 13th of 2025 and heard and considered this project.

During that meeting, a total of seven members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed project.

Concerns raised include lack of communication from the owner to direct neighbors, concerns that the fire access road is not meeting fire department standards, potential increase in traffic, concerns that the proper permitting has not been obtained by the applicant to construct near the Carmichael Creek, a lack of maintenance on the existing property, creating possible fire risks, and dishonesty from the owner about the intent to split the property.

In addition, CPAC members stated that based on the code violation history and the pictures that were provided to them at the time through public comments.

It was their opinion that the property owner was not a responsible landlord and expressed concerns that the additional lot owned and managed by the same property owner would exacerbate some of the existing issues brought forward by the public comments.

Following this and the deliberation, CPAC voted for yes, one no, and two abstained to recommend at the time the subdivision review committee and zoning administrator deny the requested entitlements.

In addition, the project was also reviewed by the design review advisory committee or DRAC, and this occurred on September 25th of last year.

DRAC members stated that they did not see any issues with the proposed development, given the lot sizing and layout are consistent with the surrounding area, and therefore at the time they recommended the zoning administrator and subdivision review committee find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines.

Following that, the project was heard by the subdivision review committee and zoning administrator on February 19th of 2026.

A total of six members of the public spoken opposition to the item, stating concerns with emergency access and location of the fire department turnaround, increased traffic, narrow private drive, and no parking along private drive or adjacent public streets.

Following deliberation, the zoning administrator made the motion to approve the special development permit and also move staff's recommendation on the tentative parcel map and design review.

Following that motion, the SRC voted five yes, zero no to approve the requested entitlements.

The staff report for this hearing was included in your hearing packets at detachment seven, and a more detailed summary of that hearing is also included in your staff reports for tonight's hearing.

Following the January 19, 2026 SRCZA hearing, an appeal was filed by the neighbors of the project site and submitted to the clerk of the boards on February 7 or February 27th of this year.

The appellant statement included the four items listed on screen as their justification for the appeal.

Staff has provided response to all justifications listed on screen, both in the staff report and in attachment nine of your hearing packets.

However, for the sake of time, I will be providing a very brief overview of the responses to each one of these statements and what the justifications were by the appellant as well.

So item number one reads the proposed subdivision is unnecessary to solve the issue claimed by the applicant.

In the justification, the appellant states that the applicant's justification for pursuing the parcel map is to construct another dwelling to accommodate their family.

The appeal justification notes that the subdivision appears aimed at maximizing properties' development potential and profit opportunities rather than solving a family housing issue that they know could easily be addressed through construction of an ADU on site.

Staff's response to that particular item was that regardless of the intent to sell or develop for family use, this request is reviewed by is reviewed the same by planning and the county through a tentative parcel map subject to review of the zoning code and other applicable ordinances.

While the appellants may note that NADU may be allowed by right, the subdivision map act also allows the applicant to request a lot spit split through a discretionary action.

Item number two reads conditions of approval A violates the declaration of covenants conditions and restrictions on the historian's parcel.

The applicants allege that the existing declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, better known as CCNRs, state that all main dwellings on the subject parcel must meet the square footage requirements of 2,500 square feet for single-story homes and 3,000 square feet for all two-story homes.

The appeal justification stated that the CCNR's requirement would be in direct conflict with condition of approval former number eight, now condition 10 in your attachment two packet.

Staff's response was that staff does not review conditions within CCNRs and that they are not and that they're not applied to land use entitlements given that they are often outdated and superseded by state laws and other local ordinances.

CCNR conditions are considered private privately enforceable civil matters.

Additionally, the appellant failed to know that condition 10, form or condition eight also provides the option for the property owner to remove the pool prior to recording the final map.

In this scenario, like stated before, if the pool is removed, then there would be no requirement for an ADU and there would be no violation of CCNRs in that case either.

The third justification provided by the appellant states that the existing roadmains agreement will be invalidated by the recording of the new subdivided parcels, and the and Eswarian has not proposed a replacement.

Appellant's justification states that condition number 24 by SAC Metro Fire would require all property owners to enter into a new road maintenance agreement or an RMA.

However, it also states that the applicant has not had any prior discussions with the appellants in order to get a new RMA signed for that private road.

Further, the appellants state that the event in the event that the applicant takes full responsibility for the maintenance of the road, they question whether the applicant can adequately maintain the road, given the history of code violations on the applicant's site.

Staff's response is that planning has confirmed with SAC Metro Fire District that in the event that all neighbors cannot come to an agreement to sign a new RMA, one property owner can take full responsibility for the maintenance of the fire turnaround.

Related to concerns that the owner would not address maintenance issues.

This is something that could be reported through 311 or reported directly to SAC Metro Fire to get corrected.

Additional conflicts from that would then be escalated into civil matters.

It is important to note that SAG Metro Fire will not permit the issuance of a building permit for a residence or other structures into a new RMA is recorded.

Until a new RMA is accepted, SAG Metro Fire will use the existing RMA to remain in place for the site.

So in the event that this map is never recorded, the existing RMA would still remain active on the site.

And the last justification, the applicant notes, all previously race objections remain unresolved and continue to require denial of the subdivision application.

The final justification provided by the applicant or the appellants states that the applicant does not have the unilateral authority to structurally alter the current RMA and the CCNRs, do not allow the applicant to relocate the asset belt turnaround and private access easement.

In addition, the justification also contained multiple letters and previously issued public comments stating that they were not addressed directly by staff.

In response, staff mentions that even in the event uh the county grants the applicant's requested entitlements, this would not necessarily constitute a grant of unilateral authority.

So alter an RMA or the CCNR.

The RMA and CCNR, as mentioned, are privately enforceable civil agreements that may or may not preclude development activity that would otherwise be allowed under the county zoning code and other local ordinances.

In addition, planning is required to notify property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the site and ask for community feedback in the form of public comments.

It is expected that the neighbors to the project site work with the applicant to discuss any civil issues that may come up.

Additionally, the various review agencies that require specific easements are also contacted by planning to review the proposal and to provide conditions of approval.

So certain conditions already address some of these concerns, such as the RMA and the CZNRs.

Condition 24 requires a new RMA be established and filed with SAC Metro Fire District.

Condition 12 by site improvements and permitting section requires proof of ingress and egress over the two northernly most parcels.

So these two uh conditions are an example of um how uh there are conditions in place to ensure that new resultant changes to the site are addressed.

Lastly, direct responses have been provided to the remaining public comments as requested by the justification.

Uh there are quite a number of them, but these were provided in your hearing packets as attachment nine.

Uh for uh for project analysis, following staff's review of the proposal, it was determined that the project is consistent with the general plan, the community plan and the Carmichael community plan and actual plan, the Carmichael Creek MPA and the zoning code.

The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would create an additional housing opportunity.

There were no significant environmental concerns given the notice of exemption that was prepared under CEQA, and the project was also supported by DRAC.

Additionally, I wanted to bring note to the three key conditions identified before.

Condition 10, former condition eight, which um is a condition by planning requiring an ADU be constructed prior to filing a final map or the pool being removed.

Condition 12 requiring uh proof of ingress egress over the two northerly parcels, and um condition 24 requiring a new roadmains agreement to be filed with SAC Metro Fire District.

Planning environmental review staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals take the following actions.

Deny the appeal, maintaining the subdivision review committee and zoning administrators' approval of the proposed project.

Recognize that the product is exempt under CEQA pursuant to CEQA section 15315 and public resources code section 21084, approve the tentative subdivision map and special development permit under subject to findings and conditions, and find the project in substantial compliance also subject to those findings and conditions.

With that, I'll conclude my presentation.

I am available to answer any questions.

As noted, we do have the applicant team and the appellant present in person.

Lastly, given the number of comments received at various hearings related to fire access and turnaround.

We do also have supervising inspector Christian Gunya with Sag Metro Fire District, who is also here in person available to answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Balthasar.

Do we have any questions from fellow commissioners to the staff at this time?

Mr.

Ferger.

Not at this time, no.

Okay, Vice Chair Dublin.

Thank you.

Um can you put up the um the map, tentative map again?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Is it possible to get that on the screen?

Um, can you we're talking about a lot of roadways and access?

Can you maybe walk me through the ingress-egress for each of the five lots that are that would potentially use this road?

Yeah, so uh Sutter Avenue is the northernmost point, just for reference, and then um we have uh two parcels.

This one closest to Sutter is currently vacant and undeveloped.

Uh second parcel does contain a single family home.

All parcels would have uh ingress egress from this private road directly off of Sutter.

It is a 20 uh 20-foot wide uh road that serves um existing or currently uh the second parcel in, the entirety of uh subject parcel for this project, and then uh one final parcel in the end here.

Uh so the requested uh the request is to serve up to potentially five, assuming that but there's potential that this bacon law could be served by that drive, and then if approved, adding an additional uh resulting law from here.

So sorry, if you could literally just kind of count them out, because one, two, three, four is the fifth one off further off to the right.

Yeah, so the fifth one is going to be uh this parcel here, and it extends further uh south.

And that's existing.

That's existing, correct.

Um, if we go back to uh the original map, here you have the original four map four lots.

So vacant lot, single family home, this bigger law is the subject uh projects part parcel, and then this is a lot four that is also being served existing.

All right, thank you.

Um related to the RMAs, you know, this certainly is not the first time we've done one of these.

Could you just kind of talk about like the mechanisms of enforcement?

I mean, what do we do when road falls into disrepair and you know, fire departments like, hey, this thing needs to be fixed?

Yeah, typically they're handled through 311 complaints or directly through SAC Metro Fire in terms of the specifics of how they're addressed.

I'll hand it over to uh Supervisor Inspector Ganya.

Christian with Metro Flyers.

So usually we go on site and we see who's responsible to maintain the road and we'll cite all responsible parties.

And if we can actually we discuss them, we explain them that it's not only that we like to have that road fixed, it's a life safety issue, and we want to make sure that they understand that us getting to them in time is value for them or not only for their neighbors.

So that's that's what starts in.

We have steps on going up.

First, we just issue safety uh like uh correction notice, we give them 30 days, we go back, we give them more, and we just keep going up to on the enforcement uh and and in the event that the responsible part responsible party is simply just reluctant to take action.

I mean, I guess it how and at what point, how I guess is maybe the more important question.

Is the road ultimately repaired?

I mean, is is the county gonna come out and make the repair and issue uh a bill or a lien on the property, or does the road lane disrepair until the homeowner or responsible party kind of acquiesces to to make it the fix?

My assumption is that I do not have been in the position that we actually have to force like repair the the road, the county repair the road and put the lien on the properties.

We never been in that position.

So that's my assumption would happen.

Okay.

Um I think that's all the questions I have at the moment.

Okay, Commissioner Verga.

I have any questions, not at this point.

Thank you.

Mr.

Boltz, or just a quick question here.

Um, you know, I understand that the RMA and the CCR uh per staff report is recognized as a civil matter and not something that is enforceable by the county.

But on the staff report also, we we noticed that the fire department will not be issuing a new permit until a new RMA might potentially be uh completed.

And so in a sense, it's even though it is a civil matter, it's a condition of potential approval with which we're using um kind of the force of law that we have as a county, right?

Or at least a special district for the fire.

Can you uh talk to me about like what could potentially be that scenario?

I mean, they don't have an RMA, fire department's not gonna have a permit.

Yes.

The project is stuck in limbo of not having a permit.

Right.

So in the event that um well, there is this avenue where if an RMA can't be signed by all owners or parcels that are being served by that private road, SAC Metro Fire does uh have the ability to uh record a RMA with just one single owner, right?

So, um, from my understanding, that is something that remains uh tied to the property itself, irrespective of who owns it.

So if that property is sold, the new buyer would need to know that they would be solely responsible for maintaining that road, right?

And in this case, the applicant will have one of two uh options really in order to fulfill that condition.

Either they uh can agree with all of their neighbors to have them all sign and all be responsible for maintenance of the road following um those signatures and notarization of the agreement, that condition can be fulfilled.

Alternatively, if they can't reach that agreement, the owner can currently uh choose to sign it themselves to be fully responsible for that, and that condition would be fulfilled by that same manner as well.

So either of those two options would fulfill the condition, which would then allow a building permit to be issued for the site.

Understood.

Can I add to that?

Councilberg.

A little bit, that's okay.

Um, so you asked about, you know, where does the public enforcement end and the private enforcement begin?

The map condition require right now as condition 23 is written, it requires a maintenance agreement, road maintenance agreement between all the people that are going to use that private road.

So in the best and happiest of circumstances, everybody signs on to that.

Um the applicant shows before the final map approval that everyone is signed on and they're gonna share responsibility for that.

Um if that doesn't happen, then there's gotta be the second option because right now, as that condition is written, it requires the other adjacent property owners to sign on.

So he's not gonna be the applicant.

Sorry, she he is not going to be able to fulfill that condition if they can't get the other property owners to sign it.

So that's option number two.

You got to move to option number two, which is requiring the subdivider to have sole responsibility to maintain the fire access.

As I read the condition, that means the whole fire access up and down from Sutter.

So your question was where does the county enforcement end?

It ends when we approve the final map, and we're looking for either that maintenance agreement signed by all the property owners, or a recorded declaration of covenants signed by the subdivider that says they're gonna take sole responsibility for maintenance.

And I'm hoping, I mean, I guess you have to ask Metro Fire if they will enforce that, if they will agree to enforce that.

Someone's got to enforce it if it's not complied with.

So we got to find out if Metro Fire is okay enforcing that.

It sounds like they don't have a lot of um, there haven't been a lot of occurrences where it's gone that far.

After one of those two things happens, one of those two versions of the agreement, then it becomes you know, it becomes certainly a privately enforceable agreement if it's all the owners together.

If it's just the subdivider with a single recorded declaration of covenants, enforceable by Metro Fire, then Metro Fire would be the enforcing entity.

I'm not, I don't want to speak for you guys.

If if you don't want that responsibility, you don't do that, then you know you can let the commission know.

But someone needs to enforce that that declaration of covenants needs to be enforceable by somebody.

Thank you, Councilburg.

Um, Mr.

Gurney, I'm I'm sorry to put you in the spot, sir, but if it's okay with you, is that is that something that you can publicly opine right now?

Is that something that you you can provide us with your thoughts or as a representative of the fire department, is that a responsibility that your special district's willing to take on.

Well, we will enforce that if needed to be enforced.

Now, ideally, would be we just make an addendum to the existing RMA and add one more parcel to that.

That will be ideally done.

Now I do not know all the technicality, the legal possible if that is possible or not.

So now we're in the position in the position that some of the people who actually they is their property, is access to their property, and if they leave away the part, I don't want to maintain the road for the fire department to respond to me to either medical call or a fire, that's that's their option.

We cannot force them to do that.

But the moment we have something recorded saying this is the responsible party to maintain this road, we'll enforce that with that part with that responsible part.

And that is the entire fire access, all the way from Sutter to the fifth parcel on this map.

It's like normally we cannot enforce this parcel to maintain the road which is past like south of his property to the property, like to the very last lot is that part is like this person does not use that lot, is doesn't have anything to do with this.

It's like we enforcing him to maintain the road which is on the other parcel, which he does he doesn't have any access.

I don't see that because normally the fire access road for his ends of at his property is from the south end of this property to Sutter.

Okay, certainly certainly connected from there.

Okay, thank thank you for that, Mr.

Mr.

Berg.

Um, I think I I think that's the rest of my questions for now.

I'd like to uh give an opportunity for all of the for the applicant as well as the appellants to address the commission and any other uh public uh comments that we might have, Mr.

Cheers.

So we did receive five public comments.

Um do you want to hear from the applicant?

Yes, yeah.

Councilman Burke, what what is the point of order here?

Do we allow the applicant to having so this is a de novo hearing, which means we're doing it, treating it procedurally as new, or starting over.

So we're gonna have the applicant present, and then public comment will be when the appellant or appellants speak.

Understood.

Okay, with that in mind, I would like to invite the applicant uh if they may choose to uh address the commission, gentlemen.

Um my name is James Kakridis.

Um working with Mrs.

Swaran, which is the applicant, actually applicant and owner of the property.

Uh I have seen the comments that the appealants are doing.

Uh somehow they do not want to see somebody else living in the same area.

Mrs.

Ran bought the property uh on the basis that because the zoning allow to split the lab, and uh allocate the other lab to her daughter, so she can leave there too.

Uh one item that came up that says that um uh the road maintenance agreement, definitely the appealants they're not gonna sign it.

So we probably have to force it if the project approved to go to court, or it can be a condition that the new lot will be uh uh be a be approving and maintain the road according to what is the existing RMA uh uh is recorded, which says all the lab owners should uh uh maintain the road.

This is going on for a long time, and these two neighbors, they just don't want to see somebody else there.

The neighborhood towards the Sutter Avenue has one acre lat with two parcels.

The first parcel is facing Sutter Avenue.

Really does not have to rely on the side road.

The the last the last uh owner uh has his own one acre lot.

Uh the zoning allows the lot to be split uh in two.

Uh that's what Mrs.

Swana did, and uh that's why she wants to be done.

He has been approved by the five five members unanimously uh last time, and the um appealants just don't want to see nothing there.

They always gonna find some excuse to create problems, and as they do the last four years that Mrs.

Swan owns the property.

Uh our recommendation is our will is to have this lot split and approve the map.

And we can get any conditions that can be put in.

As far as the turnaround, yes, it was originally done separately when the map was originally uh recorded by the owner, but he did it that way.

And when we bought it, the lot was like this, with that turnaround in that area.

And uh the fire department said as long as complies with the standard of the fire fire uh turnaround, is find the location.

Uh now the RMA, yes, there's gonna be a problem.

You think these owners would like to sign a new one, they will bring all kind of uh rejection.

So either we have to sue them, go to court for it, or can be a condition that the new lot will automatically be included on the already RMA sign, or some kind of a conditional legal legal way there.

That's all we have to say, and uh somehow uh people that Carmichael used to be a very rural area, not anymore.

A lot of people want to live there, that's why the zoning has changed.

So uh you cannot deprive somebody because they don't like the person or they don't like the area there to be split in another one more lot.

We definitely asking for this to be approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any um I think that it's the conclusion of the applicant's statement?

I believe we are now taking comment public comments.

Yes, we have received five public comments, and the first public commenter is Isaac Jobrick, and don't feel like you have to limit them to three minutes.

Good evening.

Uh I just had a quick question.

Actually, am I speaking as the appellant or a public commenter?

Because I'm actually the appellant as well.

Okay, and then do I have a three-minute limit or okay?

Thank you.

Um good evening, Chairman and board members.

For the record, that was a no, right?

Yes, that's correct.

We're not timing you, sir.

But thank you.

My name is Isaac Jurger, and I'm here on behalf of my family and the Bradley family who collectively own the neighboring three parcels on the existing private lane.

Uh this approval was granted with ambiguous conditions that are non-enforceable and create more problems than they resolved.

Approvals must follow a clear, enforceable and legally consistent process.

We respectfully submit that this approval did not meet the standard and should be reversed and modified or modified to provide clarity for both the developer and the impacted community.

Our written appeal packet identifies several additional procedural and substantive errors, and we hope the board will review those concerns as part of the full record.

Tonight, however, I'll focus on uh a few that independently each justify reversal or modification, and those failures are the uh first the unclear directive regarding the road maintenance agreement that you were just discussing.

Second, the approvals and proper treatment of this is a four-lot roadway rather than a five lot roadway for fire safety purposes.

Third, the failure to meaningfully apply the Carmel Creek neighborhood preservation standards, and fourth, the lack of any construction parking or staging safeguards necessary to preserve emergency access during development.

And based on any of these issues, the board should deny the project as approved or amended with corrected clarified conditions.

So the first, condition 24, which you were discussing, um, I think uh Christian said multiple times that it requires a new RMA.

And uh first and foremost, the our contention is that we would like that specified that a new RMA is.

We've heard that from staff members from from Christian just now dozens of times.

It doesn't actually, if you read the conditions, specify that, and that's one of the issues we have with the condition.

You know, as stated, it may sound sufficient on paper, but as we said, everyone's stating that a new RMA will be required because the road will be substantially altered, and there's higher density easements changed, etc., except for that the condition doesn't explicitly state that, and it's just going to cause the second part of that is when we asked the applicant how she intended to deal with that, to have a discussion about what the new road easement or what the new road maintenance agreement could look like.

Her response was that she just intended to file the new one, or sorry, that she intended to file the existing one without any discussion about what a new road maintenance agreement should be for the five resulting parcels and the changes to the road, and that's that's the problem before the board.

The existing agreement governs a different roadway alignment, a different parcel structure, different maintenance assumptions than this subdivision would create.

We raised those issues during the original hearing, yet staff left the condition unchanged.

That leaves condition 24 vague enough to allow compliance through a document everyone understands to be obsolete.

That is not an enforceable condition.

Is an administrative loophole that will result in likely resulting conflict and litigation between neighboring owners.

If this project proceeds, condition 24 must explicitly require a newly drafted negotiated ratified or recorded road maintenance agreement executed by all affected parcel owners and reflecting the final roadway design and obligations.

This board should not approve a substitution whose legal structure depends on everyone pretending an obsolete agreement remains valid.

The second uh issue is that the approval relies on a legal fiction about lot one that conflicts with operational reality.

You heard Christian say that the private drives serves five lots, and it does serve five lots.

There's no access on Sutter.

There's a there's a lot of vegetation, there's a culvert, there's no roadway access.

Um as the owner of the lot, we don't intend to put any driveway or anything in.

In fact, we intend to build a fence along that that uh roadway, and so there will be no access from Sutter Avenue, no planned access.

There is access as was shown from the private drive.

We've had this discussion with the fire department.

The fire department has said in all practical reality, or sorry, in all operational reality, if they're responding to emergency on lot one, they're going to use the private drive.

And yet, somehow the um the requirements for a four-lop subdivision and five lot subdivision vary, the road requirements, the safety standards vary in terms of what's required.

They keep going reverting back to the four lot requirements for the fire safety standards, and our contention is that we should have the five lot standards met.

So if the if a bulb cul-de-sac or some other improvements need to be placed on the roadway in order to provide the proper fire access for five lots, that should be done.

And the board should not approve a subdivision whose practical safety assumptions and legal accounting assumptions directly contradict one another.

Third, the approval findings not meaningfully apply the Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation standards.

I think there was a slide up there that said the standards were met.

I think the discussion that we've heard to this point basically just relies on an analysis relies on analysis of the minimum lot size compliance that it's zoned that way.

Um but the Carmichael Creek Association Dimensional Compliance is not the same thing as a affirmative consistency with adopted neighborhood preservation standards, and we haven't heard anything in this whole process, previous hearings that indicate that any standard beyond just the minimum lot dimensions were required or reviewed.

And a parcel can satisfy the minimum lot requirements that still undermine the development pattern, those standards were adopted to protect.

This is one of the reasons the CPAC, Carmical CPAC reviewed the project, considered these concerns and recommended denial.

Fourth, if this project proceeds, construction access must be addressed through a certified parking and staging plan.

This is a practical safety issue, and current approval does not address this.

The applicant has already constructed fencing along the front of their property.

There's no available staging area along the lot frontage.

There's no parking available on Southern Avenue, there's no parking on our shared private roadway, and our shared part of our roadway is too narrow to accommodate contractor parking or equipment staging.

Um, it's also a fire lane.

We are already experienced problems with legally parked vehicles along this roadway, and during active construction, even one improperly staged contractor vehicle could obstruct emergency access for fire or medical response.

If the project proceeds, approval should require a certified construction parking and staging plan approved before any site work begins, demonstrating that all contractor vehicles, equipment, construction activity will be fully contained on site without obstructing the private roadway for emergency access at any time.

This is simply a reasonable safeguard for residents and emergency responders alike.

Um so again, we quickly request one of two outcomes.

Our preferred outcomes denial without prejudice, allowing the applicant to return with corrected documentation and legally sufficient findings.

Alternatively, if the board is inclined to allow the project proceed, we ask that approval be modified to require a newly executed and dated road maintenance agreements, fully ratified by all affected parcels.

Um as it stated again, condition 24 that was referred to doesn't actually say new, even though everybody keeps referring to it as requiring a new road maintenance agreement.

Written clarification of fire access compliance and protection against fire uh future burden shifting on to existing parcel owners.

So that uh discussion of four versus five lots, and this came up in the last hearing.

We own that parcel of lot one, and what we're asking is that one we feel that the the first department should be counted as serving five uh parcels for for fire.

What we don't want to see happen is it counted for for this uh development, and then when a development uh when a permit is pulled for lot one, that somehow there are additional conditions or obligations placed as the fifth develops potentially developed house on that lot, right?

So we think that should be clarified.

Um a certified construction parking and staging plan approved before any site work begins, and explicit findings addressing consistency with the Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation standards.

The board should not approve a subdivision whose legal structure depends on everyone pretending an obsolete agreement remains valid and functioning functionally served parcel somehow does not count as served for those reasons.

We typically ask that you grant this appeal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Can I ask the speaker a question just for clarification?

Please you are speaking on behalf of the appellant.

Yes, okay.

Do we have any other speakers on behalf of the appellant?

We do.

Okay, a couple.

Um yeah, Mary Bradley from the Bradley family.

Okay, and you you're speaking the appellant owns the first lot, the uh Sutter.

We filed the appeal together.

We're the owners of lot one, two, and four.

Okay, so all three of the other existing parcels.

Thank you for that.

Okay, we're going to invite.

Can I?

Sorry, sir, just point of order.

Um Mr.

Inspector, sir.

I'm not too sure if we're.

I think you can uh you can save your comment after we've had um uh the rest of the appellants speak.

And then I think that would be the property.

Yeah, we'll discuss all of this after the public comment portion.

And after the uh rebuttal from the applicant.

Thank you thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Hearney.

Okay.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

We'd like to invite the rest of the public speakers for the appellants.

Uh the next one I have is Lindsay, and then following that, I have Mary as well as Gars and James.

I guarantee you that Vice Sir Devlin will be back, but you do have Commissioner Virgo who's watching us right now.

Hi, I'm Lindsay Jerker.

Um, I live at on lot two, and we also own lot one.

Um I just wanted to quickly state that at the last meeting, um, Christian uh with the fire department had stated um at the exact at one hour and eight minute mark of the meeting that if there was no access to lot one via Sutter Avenue, um, that a new wider road would be required, and that a turnaround at the end of the road or a wider um, specifically, I think came in a wider hammerhead turnaround would have to be installed.

Um, and so as the owner of lot one, we plan to put a fence, a seven-foot fence along Sutter with access to the lot via the private drive.

Um, and I just want to make sure that when that happens, we don't have any extra requirements or encumbrances on lot one when we go to pull a building permit, that we don't have to put an extra gate in um for the fence or any extra access via FEDER because of this extra development being going in.

So that's it for me.

Thank you.

Mary Bradley.

Good evening.

Frankly, it was, and no, no offense, but it was brought to my attention that you know the planning commission does not want to hear from frustrated neighbors.

But I believe it is the purpose of the public hearings to do so to not take into consideration the impact on our neighborhood where there is a shared private drive, a community that is protected by CCRs, and protected by the uh nature preserve area that was established and recorded by the county in 1986.

To me is kind of a dereliction of duty.

The applicant has requested a special development variance that was voted against by the CPAC and voted for by the planning board.

A special development variance is a request, it's not a right.

All input through the community should be considered.

There have been multiple letters, numerous petitions filed against the lot split.

Denying this request is not keeping the applicant from building a second house and is not our intent to keep her from building it.

It is unnecessary to subdivide the property to do that.

The R2 allows the applicant to build another home.

But what the subdivision of this will do is provide more in fill.

The last meeting that we had, we were told that basically each property could have up to three ADUs.

Well, if you add all of these lots, five lots, that's 15 ADUs that could potentially be put on these lots.

That's not that's in direct conflict with keeping with our NPA.

Whenever we uh I guess look at having a potential lot split, I think we need to consider not just what's going to be happening now, but what can happen in the future, and this would totally destroy our rural atmosphere, and we as I said it uh ignores what our NPA is.

This also affects the residents living on the private road as a county fire department is not accounting for the current and future increased traffic and parking needs, and the fact that as members of this community we have voting rights under our CC and Rs.

County fires claim there will be no impact on traffic or parking as residents.

We wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment as we've already had multiple issues with the applicant in regard to ingress and egress to our property and the ability for contractors to park along designated parking on the easement.

The applicant herself screams daily at delivery trucks, yet allows her contractors to park in the fire turnaround, blocking our ability to use our only way to turn around for ingress and egress.

If this is such a consternation for her now, why would it be okay to leave the road at 20 feet wide?

This will only increase the traffic, cause further problems along this private road, and further disintegration of an already tenuous situation.

When I've called the county for clarification of fire lane codes, I've been told many things.

I've been told that uh fire turnaround was measured from the back of the house.

Then I was told it was measured from the front of the house, and the last time we were told it was measured from the property line.

County fire has been all over the board with requirement definitions.

But what is published is that the current is at the private road that is to serve five lots must either increase the width of the road to 30 feet from the current 20, or must put in an 80-foot bold turnaround.

This special development permit specifically states that the existing drive will serve five lots.

Five lots is five lots.

It shouldn't be four lots for um for fire and uh five for police.

It should be just five lots.

So the county should adhere to their own laws or get a consensus from the residents on the private road to change it.

It is not enough to say that fire can access the front lot from Sutter, but would still most likely use the private drive or bust down the sutter facing fence.

No matter how you look at it, you're still serving five lots, whether it be county fire, police, or other services.

It should not matter whether fire department has done this in other areas.

It's not sufficient nor fair to the current residents on this private road.

Again, we as a community are not keeping the applicant from building her second permitted house for her daughter, as she states.

We are against the subdivision, which is not a requirement to do to do so.

Again, if this special variance is not approved, it does not impede the applicant from building a house for her daughter or infringe on her rights as a homeowner.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Garth Lacey.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners.

Gareth Lacey, I'm the president of the Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Association, and we represent approximately a thousand households in a semi-rural part of Carmichael.

It's a very special area of Carmichael.

The Board of Supervisors adopted unique protections in this area.

It is rural.

It has a neighborhood preservation area, and it's an ordinance that requires the unique protection of that special resource.

That special resource includes mature oak groves.

This parcel butts up against a two-acre parcel of a mature oak tree grove that's protected.

Extreme fire risk in this area.

It butts up and touches Carmichael Creek.

This is a waterway that needs environmental protections.

The neighborhood preservation ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors requires the protection of open space, large trees, natural creeks, rolling terrain.

These are the most significant natural resource areas in Carmichael.

And as the ordinance says, it is of the greatest importance to ensure the continuation of this type of open space in Carmichael.

Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Association is not opposed to development or construction, but we insist that construction is consistent with the ordinance, consistent with the protection of semi-rural character.

The staff report and the applicant did nothing other than say this project is consistent with the ordinance.

That's a conclusory and cursory statement.

There's no analysis in the record about how the neighborhood ordinance was adopted to protect those characters and to restrict development that's not consistent with the preservation of the semi-rural character.

So I would recommend if you consider remanding, ask the applicant and the staff to analyze this.

At least a five-paragraph essay explaining how a split is consistent with the semi-rural character in the ordinance.

The uh under Sacramento County Zoning Code, Section 6.46.

A special development permit may only be granted upon written findings that the development will carry out the community plan, which is incorporated in this ordinance.

And I quoted sections from that plan.

The staff report concludes it's consistent with the MPA, but it just relies on minimum lot size.

That is insufficient analysis.

Um this is not just a simple lot split.

It's a it is a it is a Trojan horse, and the complexity and confusion that you're seeing is because nothing is as clear as it as it appears.

Once this splits, it's gonna create a cascading effect of more confusion, litigation, problems with the fire department, problems with the neighbors, problems with the roads department, and there's a reason that that's happened.

Discretionary, this is a private road.

So in Sacramento County, if there's a private road, it can only serve two houses.

That's the standard.

So this is a special permit that was already allowed three.

Now we're up to five.

So I would echo the concerns of the neighbors that you should reman this or make clear that a new road maintenance agreement is required, that this will serve five houses, and the requirements of that should be met, including the properly widened road and the correct bulb turnaround for fire safety.

We do not want that two-acre oak rove to burn down, and the fire department can't get in there because there's problems.

So please uh remand it, make clear it's a new RMA.

It it it must um it must be widened to accommodate the five houses.

And I um I would I would also um reserve our right to to uh continue to to make any sequel related arguments, any questions from you, but I I um really appreciate your opportunity and your the time you're taking to review this and consider it carefully, but it is not just a simple lot split.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Mason.

And our last public commenter is James Kay.

That's the applicant.

We hear all these appealance, um, complaining about everything that they don't want nothing.

So, my apologies.

I thought you were a public commenter, so that was the last of our public commenters.

Okay, just four.

That was correct, yes.

Okay, so we've received four public comments, sir, and now you have the opportunity to rebut us the uh applicant.

Uh Mrs.

Bradley, which leaves to the left of uh uh S.

R and Mrs.

uh property, um she bought the property a year after Mrs.

Suaran bought the property, immediately she sure, Mrs.

Ran, that she has the right to drive through her property, the middle of the property to go to her property.

There was no easement recorded, no written agreement, no escort instructions once you bought it that somebody can drive through.

In that case, we'll never have bought the property.

And for three years, they had Mrs.

Swan in court for that reason.

The Bradley's they have one family home originally.

They have split it in such a way that they Airbnb the other half.

So they created more traffic themselves than another house over there.

And they still constantly arguing with Mrs.

So somehow they don't like Mrs.

They don't want here to do anything.

They fight in every way they can.

I don't think so.

That's that's right.

Uh and um and this property has to be approved because the county has already approved it.

Thank you very much.

I think that concludes both the applicant's presentation, the public comments as well as the opportunity for rebuttal by the applicant.

I'd like to now entertain questions from the rest of the fellow commissioners.

Thank you.

I'm hoping we can maybe get some additional clarity on this four versus five lot standard.

And uh are we are we, is there what is the what is the four lot standard?

What is the five lot standard, and are we?

I'll be able to answer that.

Thank you.

So the California fire code, section 503.1 says when you have a building or new or existing building, we need we need to have a fire access to that building.

Then the same law in uh 503.2, it says the dimension of a fire road is minimum 20 feet.

We have a standard, because the code says it has to be an approved fire road.

We have a standard, our standard number three.

We stipulate that for up to four lots.

The road can be 16 feet wide, and the turnaround is smaller, it's only 20 feet wide, and 40 feet when you have a T, the arm of the T is only 40 feet.

If we have more than four lots, the road has to be 20 feet, which it is, and the turnaround needs to be 30 feet wide, and the arm has to go to 60 feet, so it's not anymore 40 feet.

That's the difference.

That's the biggest difference between serving four lots or more than four lots.

Five or thirty-nine lots, the law is the same.

Now, when you go to fifth the fortieth lot, you need to have two points of connection.

In case something happens, the road is incapacitated, we need to somehow get to that community.

But that's the difference between four and five is actually in this situation is a turnaround.

The turnaround needs to be a little bit wider, and that arm, the leg of the T has to be longer.

That's the only difference.

Okay.

And the proposal is for and the proposal is for what would be functionally possibly serving up to 39%.

That is correct.

Okay.

Um, with the modification of that turnaround.

The road, the width of the road is correct.

However, the because of the road is 20 feet wide, no parking is allowed on the road.

Correct to provide two directions of traffic.

Mr.

Mr.

Genny, thank thank you so much.

It's quite a quite a conundrum there because you're saying that the there would not be any parking, but for construction was to happen, you would have to have a staging, which then would have a parking, right?

Because you're gonna be constructing things.

So does that mean that?

Normally the staging will have to have, will have to be on the property, not in the street.

We do not allow blocking streets just because you need more space.

It's a life safety issue, and we cannot allow that.

This, let's say, exactly in this situation.

Now we're blocking access to an existing house on that property and the the next property.

Allowing that, somebody can die, so we cannot allow that.

Director Smith, is that the reason why we do not have a staging plan?

I just feel like there's a little bit of a disconnect there.

We can't park, but then we would require a staging plan, or at least the uh opponents are bringing that up on the page.

I can't speak as to why we didn't require one, but I'm uh as part of a building and or improvement plan review um staff would identify the potential need for something like that as part of those processes that are subsequent to this threshold action of whether the county will approve or not approve this tenant map and final map.

Okay, but we we is that a true statement then that we don't have a staging plan considered as part of the conditions, Ms.

Gutierrez or Mr.

Balsasar.

Uh construction staging plans aren't necessarily required for a single family home.

Like we don't that's not something that's part of our application checklist, it's not something that we include as part of the requirement.

Um and if they're gonna do the construction staging area, it as Christian was saying, it would be within the project site.

So it wouldn't be within the roadway.

They would need to provide an area outside of the roadway.

Okay.

Is that your standard?

Even if we were to consider the number of ADUs that would be possible at each and every single one of the lots.

Correct.

We do not at this at the tentative map stage, we do not require staging areas for we haven't had that on any of our tentative subdivision maps that have come through.

That's not something that we look at.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Verga.

Um, so I I'd like to try to get some clarification.

We're talking about a tentative map and a subdivision of a property, not an actual building of a home that requires permits and all the rest.

And my limited experience is you have the part of the map approved, and then you go forward to get permits and all the rest, which require you to be able to go to the planning department and say this is what we're doing, this is how we're doing this, and and it's consistent with the split.

So I think we're talking two different things.

You we're not we don't ask people for a plot site for um laydown areas when we talk about doing maps.

It's usually that kind of question comes along the line when you start talking about building.

That's my understanding.

Thank you, thank you, Commissioner Virgo.

Um with that in mind, do you have any other questions for the staff?

I I was I neglected to ask you first.

Um, no, that's fine.

I'm in terms of you asking me first, that's that's okay.

My only question would be I'd like to have the staff somewhat address what uh the original petitioner who I mean uh Pellet who just stood up earlier, the gentleman who talked about all the different areas, how his interpretation of the city's or excuse me, the county's review of this doesn't comply with what the county staff are saying it complies with, like the RMA, you know, that whole area that you know, they're saying we didn't do our due diligence to make sure uh it applied.

Um, from what I've read, and again, I'm not a planner, but I've it sounded like we went through all those things and um considered those issues, but the way it was presented, it didn't sound like the um a petitioner, I mean the plaintiff was saying it was something we've done.

So is it possible to have staff step come up and kind of clarify a little bit that for us?

I think that's more than possible.

Is that something?

Sorry, we're hearing we're just hearing a little bit of uh of a feedback here, Commissioner Virgo.

No, no, not yeah, no, not not to you at all.

I think there's just a I think there's another hearing outside of this room.

Um Director State.

That would be my request that staff would kind of clarify those original issues being brought up from the original person.

I I concur with Commissioner Virga, Director Smith or Ms.

Kutieras, or yes, uh, sorry.

Commissioner Virga, can you clarify specifically what um areas you would like clarification on?

Is it the neighborhood preservation area ordinance?

That was well, one was the neighborhood present uh area preservation, one was the you know, the lack of a new RMA, and then um there was one other one that kind of stuck out that it sounded like we were exact opposite in terms of what we thought versus what the um individual was saying they thought.

It was in the original presentation, it was part of those five or four conditions that um was talked about.

Yeah, I can um I'll kick us off and start with the neighborhood preservation area.

Um, so I do have a copy pulled up, it is on our new land use regulation library.

Um, so the purpose I will state that there are six sections provided for this neighborhood preservation area.

Um the purpose is um to preserve and protect the unique semi-rural residential character of the neighborhood described in exhibit A, which provides the boundaries, and to further the purposes of the Carmichael community plan.

Um section the one of the sections is permitted uses and development standards, both of which defer back to the zoning code.

So they're not there are no specific or unique development standards or use regulations provided in this neighborhood preservation area.

The development standards section specifically says the uses conditions and development standards applicable to the underlying zone shall be applicable to the property described in exhibit A.

So really what we have to go off of is to the purpose, which is to preserve and protect the unique semi-rural residential character of the neighborhood.

And this particular lot split is compliant with all of the lot standards of the underlying zoning district.

So that is why we are saying that it is compliant with the NPA with the neighborhood preservation area.

Go ahead.

One thing to add to that, there is a clause in the NPA that says it's under subsection 534-15, the findings, and it says, it is in the best interest of the residents of the area described in exhibit A, which is the area and the county of Sacramento that the semi-rural residential character of the existing neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and maintained by restricting development not consistent with existing zoning designations.

And so this property in the staff report points this out.

It is not inconsistent with the zoning.

So as Ms.

Gutierrez pointed out, we were looking at both the section, the original intent up in the heading, and then this sentence in 534-15, looking at whether this proposal of the tentative map was either consistent or inconsistent with the RD2 zoning and the applicable development standards.

So we're saying it that sounds like a pretty general statement, but what we're saying is that this new lot map is not going to be outside of what's currently existing in that area.

Is that my restating that correctly?

Hello.

Did I come through?

I'm not sure.

He came through.

I think Director Smith is just about to say something.

I think the proposal, the proposed map is consistent with the zoning, and though, for example, all the lot sizes, the dimensions meet the standards.

Obviously, adding one house uh on a new lot would be a change in this the circumstance that the neighborhood is used to for sure.

So it's not no change.

Okay.

Well, I just wanted to make sure I knew exactly in my mind what we were talking about.

The other question is the RMA.

The original um appellant said that um there should be required a new RMA, and that everybody seems to be acting like we're requiring a new RMA, but we're not requiring a new RMA.

Can we get some clarification on that?

Uh yeah, good afternoon, Christian Balthazar, associate planner.

Um, I just wanted to note that um the opponent correctly noted that condition 24 does require um a fire road maintenance agreement maintenance agreement between all parcels connected and served by the fire access roadway.

Um I in conference with SAG Metro Fire, we have had correspondence back and forth that they did confirm that it is a uh new road maintenance agreement that will be required, um, even though it is not explicitly stated in that condition.

Um, we do have um Inspector Gunya here.

Um, he has confirmed that if a change needs to be made to explicitly read a new fire road maintenance agreement is required, that is something that SAC Metro Fire would be comfortable with, and we can have them uh confirm that as well.

Okay, so basically we are saying there is a new requirement.

We just didn't spell it out that clearly.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um I'm failing having a senior moment, so I can't remember the third issue that was brought forward, but I'll uh defer back to the other commissioners for any of their questions, obviously.

Thank you, Commissioner Verga.

Um, Commissioner Dublin, do you have any comments or questions?

If well, just a few of them unless you're a few of them.

So just a point of clarification, um, or for my understanding anyway.

Uh there is an ability, excuse me.

Uh, there is an ability currently to build the second home on the lot.

Correct.

They can per build an ADU and accessory dwelling unit, yes.

Okay, and uh, through SB9.

Sorry, SB9.

SB9 Senate Bill 9 also allows a second primary dwelling unit as well.

Okay, yes.

So, sorry, just to interrupt you, but the SB9 also says on the guidelines, granted that that second ADU kind of, for lack of better term, meet the requirements in that neighborhood so that it it it's uh it again kind of goes through with the standards, right?

So if it's an inappropriate size of an ADU, we wouldn't be able to permit that, or if it's an out of place or sizing, things like that.

I mean, it doesn't just give you by right saying I'm now just gonna build an ADU that is not consistent with the rest of the applicable laws in the local ordinance.

Correct.

That we do have specific ADU provisions in our code that it would need to meet.

Just as a point of clarification though, um uh ADUs are governed by uh obviously different section of government code than SB9 units.

Um ADUs would have a limitation on square footage, whereas uh uh a second primary under SB9 would not necessarily have that same twelve hundred square foot limitation.

That's a good point.

Thank you, Director Smith.

Sorry, sir.

Thank you for the for the clarification.

Um back to the RMA.

So the addition of a fifth lot to this RMA, and this may be a question for counsel, um, that does and would invalidate the existing agreement triggering a I don't know that that it does that.

That's the testimony.

Okay, yeah, potentially triggered potentially triggering uh a new management agreement, and so I guess if I'm understanding this correctly, under SB9, the addition of a second home dwelling unit, potentially by right.

This is more of a question of the subdivision, and then where the burden lay of the roadway management agreement, and it would potentially RMA would potentially lie on the proponent if the rest of the parties are unwilling to proceed.

Am I kind of understanding the situation correctly?

I'm gonna try to restate it uh for my brain.

It sounds like what you're asking is whether an SB9 unit or an ADU would trigger the same thing as is in the draft condition number 24, a new RMA.

Uh I would defer to Metro Fire on that because uh new SB9 unit as a primary or a second primary or an ADU would be done ministerially, no discretionary action.

Wouldn't even come here.

Okay.

Adding a new building on the parcel will not modify the existing agreement, because the existing agreement is between parcels, not between buildings.

So as long as we do not modify the map, we do not modify the agreement.

The moment we add a new lot to the map.

Now we have a potential future owner to that lot, so we want to make sure that that one is added to the maintenance for the for that agreement for that road.

So that's that's the idea.

Okay.

So functionally, the the subdivision of the lot is the triggering mechanism for potentially new RMA and again, if the subdivision of that lot does in fact dissolve or invalidate the the existing agreement, that new agreement that Burden would have to lay on somebody, and hypothetically that would be potentially the proponent of this particular subdivision, if I'm understanding if the other part, let me form it in the phrase, form of a question.

What does happen in the situation?

We hypothetically this were to be approved.

And the three existing homeowners are unwilling to participate in the new agreement.

And that circumstance, the condition cannot be fulfilled as currently written.

Therefore, no final map can be approved.

What we've been talking about implying is that condition number 24 be um amended to include this second option, which is to have the applicant be responsible for the fire access, and Metro Fire made a good comment before it's gotta it's gonna be down to their lot.

So what's gonna end up being the lot below these two the subject parcel, um they wouldn't have that obligation, but from Sutter down to their lot, yes, they'd be responsible for it.

And it would have to be enforced by metro fire, fire if Metro Fire is willing to accept that responsibility.

And absent that alternative language, the requiring all parties would be in fact just be a give those other parties basically a veto.

It seems doubtful they'll sign on to such an agreement.

Yeah, because we wouldn't they they wouldn't meet condition 24.

Right.

That's between all parcels connected to and served by fire access roadway.

That's not I I don't think it puts into writing here the second option that we're talking about.

Okay, I think I I think I now have clarity as to the totality of the circumstances.

I I I do want to kind of latch on to a question I think you are asking, which is what happens if they just proceed through SB9, not this map.

If they're if they meet the standards, I think there are some standards they have to meet under SB9.

Let's say they do, and they can build a second primary dwelling.

Um what happens to the fire access?

So it becomes a ministerial process, it's like a building permit.

So through the building permit process, there is going to be basically a plan check, and the departments are gonna go around, it's gonna go to Metro Fire.

Metro Fire is gonna see a second primary dwelling on the same lot, which is legal, but I think the question is is Metro Fire at that point going to require any change to the existing um fire access.

Not as long as we have up to four lots, right?

And absent the subdivision.

As long as we have up to four lots, no lots of trigger it and not the not the dwellings.

That is correct.

Yeah, yeah.

Because we had to modify that actually last year because of the allowing the law allows you to have multiple dwelling units.

Now we cannot increase the road for is the same property every single time you add one more structure on your property.

So that's why we went from dwelling units to lots.

Okay, that's uh, so um Commissioner Burger.

Commissioner, yeah.

Let me let me um make this a little bit muddier.

Um, it was my understanding of the conversation is that the individual who is um requiring or trying to get the uh map changed in the lot, if they could not get the existing um members of the community that are on that road to agree to change the um the RMA, they themselves can assume responsibility for the RMA for the entire road up till the end of that um those four or five lots, and that my understanding that's something they can do as a way to satisfy the um the requirement is that an accurate understanding of that?

I mean it it made it sound like somewhere in here we thought that if it isn't in writing that it would one party couldn't be the one responsible for the entire road that all the parties had to be, unless it was specifically written in the condition that a single party could be responsible.

I thought the original description of how it worked was if it came down to it, a single property owner can be responsible for the entire road if the other property owners don't want to be involved.

Am I correct?

Yeah, we'd need to uh amend the condition, update the condition to include that second option, and that's based on the applicant's easement rights.

So they have easement rights, presumably.

Um, I'm not making a final adjudication on that if that's an issue in any way, but presumably they're they have easement rights from Sutter to their what would be the lower lot, and based on those easement rights, we can hold them to have sole responsibility to maintain the fire access.

Now, what happens if they don't do it?

What if they the applicant or they're gonna they're gonna sell one of these lots?

They may sell their own lot.

What happens if the owner or successor owners doesn't do it, and the first two lots are looking at a crumbling um fire access road, we need to preserve their right.

This would this condition and this declaration of covenants that needs to be recorded would not be to the exclusion of the rights of I'm gonna call them parcel one and parcel two from the existing parcel map to maintain the fire access road, but the initial responsibility is gonna be on the applicant with the fire district enforcing that in theory, that's how it would play out, how it would work.

So you're saying that um that number 24, um, if it was to stay in place, would have to be modified.

I'm saying if you leave it the way it is, there's no way they're gonna they're gonna get to a final map.

They can't, they're never they're not gonna be able to bring back a uh mutual agreement from all the adjacent owners that signs on to a maintenance agreement.

Okay, without I'm sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, Commissioner Verga.

Your your understanding is correct.

It's would if we were to move to that direction, um, number 24 would have to be amended to essentially describe what Bill had uh said, and on top of that, um provide protections for both parcels one and two um to ensure that they wouldn't be encumbered, should should that not go through.

So there's that's a little bit of a complicated adjustment, but I think that is what I'm understanding.

There has to be a modification for condition number two.

Yeah, I I jotted something down for an option B basically for condition 24.

If we get that far, so we can if we get that far, you know.

Let's keep discussing, but understood uh perhaps a clarification or a question as it relates to this is me over here, Borja.

Yeah, sorry.

Excuse me, Chair Borja.

Thank you, Mr.

Smith.

Um, sorry, I just didn't realize that they put Commission Commissioner Verga.

You're you're you are now on the larger screen.

So you're now part of the discussion.

Sorry.

Okay.

I don't know if you're seeing that.

I was just surprised.

No, I'm not.

So clarification for uh county council, even though condition 24 doesn't explicitly say it has to be a mutual agreement by all parties.

The intent or the the implied assumption is that all the property owners have to sign on as opposed to one property owner.

So my my assumption of the language, and I don't disagree that it's confusing or vague.

Uh 24, maybe 23.

But when it refers to uh the fire access, as I stated earlier, my assumption that means the whole stretch.

Except for that last parcel now, which which our applicant would not have an easement right to go south to that lower parcel, which was parcel four in the Centora parcel map.

Um now if if what's intended there is that we're only talking about the two the two new lots that are gonna be created by this parcel split, then it's a lot easier.

But I don't think that's what's intended.

But I don't know.

We need to hear from planning and from fire.

Our intention was to make sure that all parcels served by the road participate in maintaining the road.

We do not foresee that at one point if we ask a new agreement.

Somebody will say, I'm not signing a new agreement.

Now this is my veto vote, even though that parcel still is served by that road.

We did not foresee that.

Like I do not want to maintain my road anymore because I want to make sure that you do not get to split the road.

We did not foresee that.

So I'll have to take this experience back to my office and rediscuss exactly the language to make sure we're not in this situation again tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr.

Carney.

Director Smith, did you have any follow-up questions on that or comments?

No, I just wanted to understand uh county council's reading and then the explanation by Metro Fire.

So that's sufficient for me.

Yeah, and I think it should also say I think both 23 and 24 should say uh provide a new fire access agreement because that's what is being requested here.

So there's no confusion finding a new RMA for 23 and 24.

So while we're talking about 23, um, I did have an email exchange with Metro Fire earlier today or late last week.

Um 23 is talking about access.

24 is asking about it talking about maintenance.

Um and we talked about, I said, Well, is 23 requiring uh all the all the other parcels to sign on to this this access agreement and he sorry if I'm speaking for you, but tell me if I'm wrong, that you Metro Fire needs access, basically permission from every lot up and down the private drive, but they may already have access permission from these other lots.

So 23, you may only need the access permission from these two new lots.

It's very technical.

So if you ask me, I do not know exactly what to answer right now.

We do want to make sure we can get to all the properties, and we want to make sure that that road is maintained.

That's is the intent of these two uh conditions in the planning uh documents.

Now, exactly as I said, the wording and exactly how is that interpreted, because in my mind, it we need to make sure this, even if it's the new two parcels is the same owner, we want to make sure that these documents are updated because it's potential those parcels to change hands.

Hence, that's the intent to make sure that that is recorded under the parcel, and the parcel is responsible for that now.

Now, exactly how that works technically with access.

I'm not a lawyer, so I do not know if that one is correct or not.

That's fair.

Thank you, Mr.

Garnier.

I mean, the way that the way that works in general is that the document gets recorded.

That's how subsequent owners are held to the obligation.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And if one has access to, I'll say lot four fire, if fire has access to lot four.

I mean I'm just trying to imagine the scenario in which they would lose access to lots one, two, and three.

I mean, the question is how how does the fire, how does Metro Fire have access rights right now?

Um and it it may be in this existing road maintenance agreement.

I haven't read it in detail enough to know if that's in there.

This road maintenance agreement generally is between the owners where they're all agreeing.

Hey, let's all keep this road maintained to certain standards.

Now, maybe somewhere in here it's all it says we agree to allow the fire district to access the road.

I don't know for sure.

I do not know exactly how it was recorded at that time.

Today we do require two separate documents.

One is the access and one is the maintenance.

These are two separate documents.

This is a what we require today, because it was very vague and very, do we have access if somebody maintained it?

So we want to make sure we have easement access, that's a document, and then we have somebody who maintains that throat.

Mr.

Gunner, do you know if the current RMA right now, and it's okay if you might not have this information, if that that has both of those um things covered?

So it's almost like a permission to enter and then a maintenance agreement, right?

But might be somewhere in the in the documents here.

Understood.

Okay.

So staff is uh hopefully looking into that.

Um do you have any other questions or discussions on the RMA?

Because I do have I do recognize that there's still a couple of points of con I don't want to say contention, but at least issues that the appellants have brought up that I'd like for us at least to have a opportunity if tonight is the right time or if a future one is the right time.

I'd like for us to have the opportunity to discuss or at least bring those to light.

I'm done.

I don't have any more on the RMA.

Okay.

Okay.

Um one of my concerns, or at least maybe um lack of my education in this this arena, is that we've typically not have a condition, or at least the time that I've been in this science, a condition that would force an applicant in order to get a parcel map to build an ADU.

I think that's might be a rarity, or maybe not.

I'm looking at Director Smith.

Um, that is solely because of the existing pool.

So the existing pool would be on the part on the new resultant parcel by itself.

Pools are technically an accessory use, so without a primary use, they either would need to demolish the pool, completely remove it.

They have indicated they don't want to do that.

So that's why we have a condition saying you need to construct an ADU, which would then become the primary ADU, which would serve as the primary unit for the pool.

So there's my struggle a little bit in understanding because as Commissioner Verga eloquently had said, we're looking at a plot map here.

However, there's a condition here that triggers a construction.

Which is where I think it might be fair for the opponents to kind of ask, well, if there's gonna be a construction in order for you to make a uh map change, shouldn't that also be part of your condition?

Well, we don't know for sure that it's gonna they're gonna move forward with that option.

Because they can still either remove the pool, even though you've indicated that at least from your knowledge, you've indicated from my knowledge, yes.

You don't want to.

So that's where my conundrum lies.

Well, okay, on this issue of how far can the planning commission or the board, not in this case, but the planning commission in this case uh regulate development of a structure.

You can.

It's not a a very simple and non-controversial parcel map, might not have might not say anything about where the the homes are gonna be or where any structures are gonna be.

But you have discretion to condition a map to kind of create guidelines or create standards criteria for, you know, where the bill, I think it's in here in the map where the building envelope would be.

Uh if there are other, you know, how tall can it be if you want to deviate from the ordinary zoning standards?

You can condition a map.

If there's a nexus, right?

Nexus and proportionality.

Um, yes, you can impose conditions on not just the lot split on the eventual construction.

So again, it gets in it gets to this.

And thank you, uh, Council Burke.

It gets to this idea that it's we're we're no longer just in the realm of creating creating changes in the maps, because we're now getting into construction, right?

If I'm understanding it correctly.

And so uh are there any questions about about that, Commissioner Virgo or Victor Dublin about that is condition number?

It's highlighted in our documents.

That's condition number 10.

Prior to the filing of the parcel map, an ADU shall be constructed and proposed parcel and all utilities relating to the existing pool and site must be connected to this feature ADU.

Should an ADU not be constructed to establish a primary use, then the pool shall be removed.

Um based on your conversation just now.

No, I don't have any questions.

I did prior to that, but okay, now I don't.

Okay.

Commissioner Devlin.

Not on that item.

So so uh just want to remind again the commission that we do have the ability again to have the nexus to go a little bit further in the conditions that's being presented to us today.

Um uh it with discretion and guidance um by the process.

Um neighborhood preservation ag in the NPA, Director Smith.

I was wondering if we could go to to that.

Um there were concerns regarding ensuring that it does meet the NPA.

Um trying to look at all of the documents that were presented to the zoning code administrator.

I think I this project didn't go to our dias, right?

It went to, so this is the first time that we should we're hearing this.

Correct.

The original hearing was done by the subdivision review committee and zoning administrator zoning administrator, okay.

That's SEC and the SA.

Um, how are we meeting the NPA?

Uh let's let's open with that question.

Yeah, sure.

So I think Kimber initially responded to that one.

I think it was the same question that Commissioner Berga had with respect to the NPA.

It talks about um deferring to or not specifying any additional development standards in the NPA itself.

It points back to the underlying zoning code, and so staff's analysis uh of the proposed lot sizes uh based on the existing zoning, was that it met the uh applicable development standards.

The only deviation, I think, as Christian pointed out in his presentation, was for uh the additional lot to be served by a private drive.

Okay, but correct me if I'm wrong, sir.

The the NPA is not just limited to the size of the DV, there's others.

No, it's just limited to.

Sorry, I'm trying to look for the NPA right now.

It was not.

The NPA uh the purpose of the NPA does state to preserve and protect the unique semi-rural residential character of the neighborhood described in exhibit A, and to further the purposes of the Carmichael community plan.

Then if you look down at the development standards section, it says the uses, conditions, and development standards applicable to the underlying zone shall be applicable to the property described in exhibit A.

There are no specific development standards or use regulations provided in the NPA.

Unless we go to subsection E that says the ordinance consistent with the intent of the Carmichael Community Plan goals and objectives, right?

So that would trigger.

Which we do have an analysis in the staff report of the Carmichael community plan and its policies.

Okay.

Okay.

Do you have any questions regarding the NPA, Commissioner Virgo?

Yeah, just yeah.

Basically, you kind of got it closer to what I was trying to figure out.

Do did the review by staff show any conflict with now with being identified as the policies versus basically the body of the of the language of that section?

You said it has policies.

And it did we review those policies and how they related to the impact of the map being changed.

Yes.

The staff report did include a community plan analysis consistency analysis.

And we found that the project is consistent with the community plan.

And that was provided to the appellate who's basically objecting to what is being done.

Okay, for tonight's meeting.

And then Commissioner Bohr, Sher Borhod, the we did we were able to pull up the road maintenance agreement from the previous map, which did include an uh access easement recordation for that as well.

Understood.

Thank you.

Um sorry, I keep, it's a lot of there's a lot of layers to the senior.

I'm going down to the CCNA history all the way to like 1986, uh, and just making sure that we are uh and so I just really want to emphasize to the public that we take we take and every vote very seriously, and and maybe this might be the right time to just have an open conversation with the rest of the commissioners, or are we would it be fair count would it be fair, Council Burke to have a straw poll of whether or not the commissioners right now, as it stands, have the right information presented to them, given that there are proposed changes to the conditions, whether or not this is a decision that we'd like to make tonight, or that whether or not we'd like to again go back to about a couple of hours ago the original request, or at the very least, advice by council to perhaps move this to the next um to the next board meeting, was that the counselor?

Oh, yeah, sorry.

Are you able to have a straw poll?

Is that is that uh right?

Just make it very clear that well, just discuss tentatively what the three of you, um, where you're leaning right now, and and where you may be leaning is you want to continue it, you want to look more into it.

You know, there's there's a reason to do it to have more commissioners here.

There's also maybe a reason if you if you do want to look at it further.

Um, you don't have to, but that might be a reason.

Or if you're ready to go tonight, which way are you leaning?

So this is not what you're gonna do right now, is not an official vote.

We're just gonna figure out if it's two to one right now, tentatively or three-zero.

Okay.

Commissioner Burger, can I ask you for your feedback?

Yeah, I'm leaning to address it tonight, and I'm leaning to um make the changes in the languages discussed before and then move forward with staff's recommendations.

My share Dublin.

Um thank you.

Um I guess for me, when I kind of push back to you know, a little bit to the 50,000 foot view of this, you know, this street potentially ends up in a very near identical condition as to what they want to do with the lot split absent the lot split.

And they could possibly do it with the existing RMA, um so, you know, the decision for me seems to really just kind of come down to like the lot split itself, and whether that RMA, you know, then changes.

Um even without the lot split, it seems that they potentially end up in a functional absent the ability to, you know, obviously freely divest the the second parcel, the neighborhood ends up in the same place.

Without the lot split.

With without the lot split.

And so you know, it seems to be the the largest the biggest effect seems to be the shift in the potential burden of the RMA.

You know, and then obviously the consequences of the neighborhood of a have an additional freely alienable, you know, parcel there.

Um, but in terms of like number of homes, number of cars, all that potential impact seems to be you know uh functionally the functional equivalent even absent the lot split.

Thank you, Chair Jovlin.

Uh, don't want to be a debut downer for this evening, but I I don't believe that this time again, I don't believe that I have all of the information to be able to make a decision.

Um I'm struggling here with the changes on the language that we're gonna have in the 24.

I'm also hearing from staff that um they're looking at the language for in the RMA.

I I you know I don't want to drag this out, but I'm not too sure if I have all the the right information at this time to consider whether or not um proposing or at least citing with the staff recommendation would be would be the right move.

I think that um I'd like to be able to make sure that we've had adequate review from our uh folks over at FIRE, special district, and make sure that they they've had the chance to take a look at both the existing either permit to enter or the uh maintenance agreement on the RMA.

If it that's already there, then we can point that out and hopefully the uh the language on what we're proposing for number 24, just just so we're all kind of clear.

And and for the applicant and Ms.

Um Swarin, um I I totally I understand where you're coming from.

I really do.

I don't want to be uh impediment.

I just hope that we're able to do the right thing by making sure that we are again we we're gonna be making a decision here that could potentially get into more legal actions between you and your neighbors, but also ensure that we're doing the right decision um on the conditions that are being requested.

And so that's I I don't believe I'm prepared to make a vote this evening.

Uh I'm would be happy to support the chair and continuous this if um I guess my I only request on behalf of the applicant, I guess would be to give them a date certain.

Yeah, I would like that.

So we go back to before we've had this um discussion exercise that it's not considered as a hearing, um, perhaps to figure out again the original question two hours ago would have been could we figure out a time and then by that time hopefully iron out all of the other details.

Oh we've had a hearing now.

Oh, that's right.

Okay, will that be meeting number five or the next meeting would be five?

Okay.

So we can do another meeting.

We'll want to make sure Commissioner Verga is okay with a continuance.

I hope so, because otherwise, like I said before, there's no action you can take.

Right now it's one-one-one, the way you tentatively discuss.

So yeah, recommend I'd recommend you continue it.

We can answer some of those questions, and maybe get a few more commissioners here.

We'll make sure they watch the video of this proceeding, and if we can get a date certain in July or earlier if possible, I I guess to the applicant and the appellant um maybe if they have input as to I don't want to schedule something.

Yeah, and then have them both.

I'd like to I'd like to be able to have a date certain um director Smith.

If you want to bring them down, we can talk about you would have to specify what the date is in your vote for us to continue it to a date certain.

We were looking at July 13th, July 27th.

So if the applicant and the appellants can let us know which of those dates is better for July 13th, yeah.

July 13th.

We're here for both dates.

Okay.

We will go with the earlier date, which is July 13th.

So I know I'm the one that has I guess is gonna put this forward, obviously, but um I agree with what you're saying.

I just want to make sure that the issues we have addressed tonight get resolved and brought forward at the beginning of if it's July July 13th, we do it a July on the July 13th.

Um so that we're not in the middle of this again for another two and a half, three hours.

Fair point, Commissioner Verga.

I think that our I I'm confident that our staff um have taken down their notes and then kind of looked at the points of I don't want to say contention, but more so of technical things that we would just need to address and iron out.

Um, I would appreciate a summary of those, though, because I do not think it is clear to me unless it is clear to others.

Well, it's not clear to me, so yeah.

Okay.

Great.

Okay, perhaps I can start.

I'd like to be able to just make sure that we addressed uh everything that's related to condition number 23 and number 24 as it relates to the road maintenance agreement, um, and just have the perspective of fire that um whatever condition language that would be presented by staff that they are comfortable um with that language, both in the legal and also operational, and that it also um that they would have the ability not the ability, but they are supportive of ensuring that uh they would enforce um whatever 23 and 24 would end up being, whether that's A and B.

Um I think that's the biggest, and I think that's the biggest one for me.

And then perhaps maybe at the staff report, if you could just address this whole, I don't know if it's a cart before the horse, but there's cascading effects about this lot split would require a construction of an ADU or a removal of a pool.

However, again, there's a contention that there that the staff report might have been silent on uh requiring uh or addressing the construction plan or uh uh staging plan that would then be triggered by the again option A, which would be the construction of the ADU.

So perhaps just a one-center or just a staff discussion about that.

Those are my two biggest requests, and and I do believe that you can uh summarize or at least point us out to the rest of the commissioners who may not be in attendance today, the discussion that we have on how the staff analysis addresses the concerns regarding the neighborhood preservation act, and again pointing out both to the um uh the NPA as well as the initiating ordinances and the intent back in 1986 as well as the intent back in 2002.

Um, Mr.

Chair, if I could just maybe see my own clarification.

I think for me, um, you know, 23 and 24, just making sure that we're clarifying when those come back, both the RMA and the access, which appear to be separate.

So we can just make sure that we have clarity on both of those things separately, unless the RMA is already both the access and the maintenance.

That's what's currently in place with the current layout with the proposed split, that is where the new road maintenance agreement and the new accessement would need to be able to do.

So you would have a new permit to enter, which is the access agreement plus the RMA.

Okay.

Clearest mud.

Yeah.

Commissioner.

Yeah, one issue on the RMA, which I know we talked about it, but um I would like someone to be able to specify whether the RMA requires all parties to be involved or just one party.

So when they come back with discussions about the RMA, please have that that question answered.

I mean, it sounds like at one point it could be just one party and um in combination with the others, it could be just all of them at one time or just one, regardless of the others.

That's correct.

That's gonna that's gonna be the answer.

It's gonna be either or.

Yeah, it would be option A and option B.

But I think, yes, sir, Commissioner Virger, you're you're correct.

I think that the staff uh heard your concerns, and I think they'd be able to provide that um as part of the edits to the condition.

Okay, I don't have anything else to add.

Thank thank you, Commissioner Verga.

Ms.

Gutiers, is that does that hopefully give you a little bit of a summary?

And I can I can yes.

Okay.

I can I'll also rewatch the video and then again.

Um all of all of our communications are pre-oriable, but I would probably provide you a summary of what my understanding is of the discussion too and for the neighbors and to Mrs.

Warren and your representatives.

I really appreciate you guys for for staying with us.

It's it's it's a it's a difficult decision and something that I don't think that we should take lightly, and that we should at least provide us with as much of the right information technically as well as policy wise uh before we make this vote.

Um may I request a uh a motion to continue this item on July 13th.

Is there a motion to continue?

Second.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, may we please call the roll or the vote?

Members Verga.

Aye.

Members Deblin.

Aye.

And Chair Borja.

Aye.

And that vote passes three to zero to continue this item to July 13th.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, can we please move on to item number six?

And that would be the planning director's report.

I'll keep it brief this evening.

Uh just note that we have our next hearing, which is June 8th.

Uh, four items, a little bit of a potpourri.

Uh we have a cell tower, um, a smaller tentative map, we have another mine expansion um down in the south part of the county, and then we have our 2023 zoning code amendment package, which is uh I think we had a workshop here a few months back um on that robust uh package.

So get your thinking caps on, be ready.

June 8th.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Smith.

I just do want to want to say um we uh uh a number of um students that are studying uh public policy right now actually watched a couple of the videos that we've had, both on the ordinance amendments package as well as the uh the um economic development uh meeting and and provide a really good positive feedback both on our discussions and also of all the things that we we looked at, and so we appreciate that.

Look forward to that meeting.

Um okay, madam clerk.

Do we have uh can we move to item number seven?

And item number seven is uh miscellaneous scheduling items.

I will be sending out the attendance poll for the June meeting.

So just look out for that.

Um and if you have any conflicts, please let me know.

Thank you very much.

And then item number eight.

Item number eight is uh public comments, and we have not received any additional public comments, okay.

With that said, the time right now is 8 11.

I'm concluding our meeting of May 11th.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.