Present, I call to order the October first meeting of the City of West Sacramento City Council, the West Sacramento Redevelopment Agency, and Finance Authority.

We will begin with the land acknowledgement.

We would like to acknowledge that the land on which we live, work, learn, and commune is the original homelands of the indigenous people of West Sacramento, who have stewarded this land throughout the generations.

We acknowledge and we thank the original inhabitants who have occupied, maintained, and secured this place, and who still exist on this land.

We respect and celebrate the many diverse indigenous people still connected to this land on which we gather.

We accept the request to speak cards up to the conclusion of the reading of the staff report on any particular agenda item.

And you will also be given specific instructions on the appeal today.

Now, in front of the clerk, there is a timer to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to be heard.

So we request that there be no applause or booze, cut calls, or other demonstrations.

Furthermore, so that we may maintain a civil discourse here in the chambers.

We ask that those in attendance and those who address the city council abide by the code of conduct posted and not speak in loud threatening offensive abusive or other disrespectful language that disrupts disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting.

Now this brings us to item one.

Presentations by the public on matters not in the agenda within the jurisdiction of the council, and each person has three minutes to speak.

Madam Clerk, are there any of your customers speak?

Yes, ma'am.

Guy Stevenson.

Ladies, Mayor, how are you doing?

I have a question.

But this issue with VIA.

You guys think it's such a spectacular service.

Not so much.

You've had three managers with that company.

Now they got a lady named Lisa.

She came from a booze distribution company.

And she doesn't know anything about that service.

It's terrible.

It may save the city money and the city the city may dump money into it, and that's fine because it's your it's your city, you can do what you want.

Just personal observation.

As you know, I wear a body cam, probably 80% of the time when I deal with people and I talk to people.

I'm not saying Dante that you're not doing a good job, you're doing a wonderful job.

But because you oversee, now we've had an issue.

I told you that I don't agree with the way uh via runs.

They're a poor service.

They're in it, it starts with management.

I've checked other cities where a via is and they run smoothly, but if you don't have the right people running it, the management, it it doesn't it doesn't function right.

A lot of drivers say that they send emails, passengers see emails to Lisa, that she never gets back.

This is the third one they've had in a year.

So what does that tell you?

That tells you that the people either don't like what they're doing or they don't know what they're doing.

So if you had a meeting with them or you had somebody to do accountability checks on this company, maybe you'd find out what's really going on with them.

I'm not trying to be a jerk towards any of you about VI.

I'm just bringing it to your attention.

It's just observation, it's who I people that I talk to.

And they said, Oh, yeah, I've been waiting an hour and a half for a ride.

You shouldn't have to.

This city isn't like the Bay Area.

It's not like Sacramento.

And then I thought it was funny when Stephanie Chan said, Well, we need to raise the rates on the past, like Pale Alto.

Do you know how much it costs to live in Palaeto?

About 300 and something thousand dollars a year.

Because it's right there in the Silicon Valley.

So those people can afford to uh pay these enormous passes.

You people can do what you want.

It's the city's money, and of course, you guys have measure o so you can just keep giving via all the money you want, even though it's a company in New York.

Uh the people that actually uh buggy, they're from New York, they're all from the East Coast.

Why don't you get somebody that's out here in the West Coast?

You know, in your next bid next bid.

Bid some bid for it, have them bid for it and have different companies bid for it, and maybe some have a have a good night, God bless you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Maria Grihalda.

Good evening, City Council.

I'm here to enter into public record and to express uh concerns regarding the uh code of conduct when uh we're making a public comment.

Uh I think the uh I'm here to express the importance of having emotion during uh a public comment.

Sometimes we have we're told that we're we can't be disrespectful or appear disrespectful or say certain language, but we have to understand that uh expression includes emotions.

And so my comments today are about our fundamental right to free speech.

The First Amendment protects not just what we say, but also how we choose to say it.

This includes the right to express frustration, dissatisfaction, emotions that are essential to honest dialogue.

We cannot speak in monotone uh voices.

You may have noticed, well, no, actually, uh I'm not um.

So a truly free society or uh city governance must protect not only our polite disagreements, but also the passionate and frustrated voices that demand to be heard.

And emotion is just part of life, and we have to accept it as uh part of it.

So when we limit, when we are limited to a monotone voice, our communication loses his power.

And we failed to convey the importance of our message.

And so we also disengage our listeners, and we cannot effectively communicate the emotion behind our words.

So making vocal restrictions or telling us don't be disrespectful.

Uh, I can understand the threat, but a threat is really subject to interpretation.

And so I want to say this because uh I'm sure our mayor was given this uh a template to read off, and I think that uh it might have come from our city attorney.

And on that uh uh point, I think that, or that in that sense, our city attorney really has a history of giving bad advice.

And I really recommend that you uh reconsider the wording in that code of conduct, because we all know that our city attorney helped implement Jim Crow voting against Latinos.

We all know that our city attorney helped implement a 10-year gang injunction against Latinos.

And we also know that the city attorney helped uh us to get the Cabalden Parkway, which was done illegally, and everybody saw that, and it was an embarrassment to our city that we have the street named after uh a living person.

Anyway, so thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Maria.

Matt Weaver.

Good evening, council, mayor.

How are you?

I missed a warning.

So I'm off base.

Give me a scowl.

Let me know.

Um, so I'm here, I think, officially on a posture of um small business advocacy.

Uh I watch almost every single meeting if I don't attend.

We got the internet these days, pretty cool.

You can see exactly what's going on in here.

I don't see a lot of conversation about small business, local brick and mortar, four-wall, main street in your community conversations in here.

The last time I heard anybody talking about measure in was city manager and staff volunteering measure in money to go to the parks.

The biggest expenditure I know of of measure in is the consultant that we hire to tell people that we have baseball in West Sachs.

Then there's these maps.

You've got your cannabis equity license, the maps, made-up maps, brand new maps, new zones.

Then you got your measure in accelerator money.

Brand new maps.

It's not your district maps, not your district maps, not your district maps.

It's not my school district map.

It's not the cannabis equity map.

It's this new map with who's the unentitled, the entitled, and who's doing really good and who's not really good, with some magic decoder ring that you must work on city staff to figure out.

And sure, we have the city, the chamber.

I remember when uh Verna was very involved with the chamber, advocating, talking to me as a member of the chamber.

It's been a long time since I had anybody do that.

I remember when Dante was running, Dr.

Early was running for her first term.

She came and talked to me and said, What are you doing?

I I've talked to Karina about business and and Martha, sorry for first name.

You know, anyway, that's your first name, right?

Um with all that said, I know you guys care.

I do know that.

I'm not confused.

I don't think the city cares.

I don't think staff cares.

I talked to architects who tell me it's a dumpster fire.

Don't you dare pull a permit to build something in an existing structure in West Sacramento.

I watched the paint dry with you guys trying to release things through staff.

Nobody really cares about small business, and I don't see that posture and tenor from staff from a leadership position in the city.

And I'm just going to keep showing up and shining a light on how absurd your process is, how unfriendly it is, unless you got big, well-heeled developer dollars from the other side of the river, or a consultant who knows somebody who knows somebody who's going to get anything done in the city.

Anything, anything, anything.

But boy, if you know the right people, you can move the needle.

But if you've been here for 20 years, you put your kids through schools here, you're just going to hit brick wall after brick wall.

And you know what you're going to say is American dreams not happen in West Sacramento, California.

That's the environment that's fostered in cities that make California rough.

We have no additional requests to speak on item one.

All right.

Now we have the consent agenda.

Um, if there are any requests to pull any of the items on the consent.

No.

Oh, proclamation, sorry.

Yeah, I didn't put that down on my strings here.

And next, thank you so much.

Mayor Putnam.

Next are our presentations with our honored guests who are here to receive them.

Um, we will begin with item two, which is only the only item recognizing the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Thriving in Pink.

And we have a team from Thriving in Pink and my daughter, Eleanor Sanchez.

Please come up to the podium and um and we'll read the proclamation.

Um, Councilmember Orozco will join me in reading the proclamation.

And um, from there, we would like for you to share a few words with us, and we'll also um allow for the council members to um provide their their thoughts as well.

And so this is the proclamation of the City Council, City of West Sacramento, recognizing National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Thriving and Pink.

Whereas breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among American women, it is estimated that one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime, with over more than four million women now living in the U.S.

with the history of breast cancer.

And whereas, as National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, October is an opportunity to recognize the commitment to fighting this disease, providing education on risk reduction and early detection and supporting those affected by breast cancer.

And whereas Thriving Pink established in Davis in 2016 as local 501c3 nonprofit has a mission to help local breast cancer survivors thrive with the network of support offering all programs and services at no charge to the community.

And whereas Thriving Pink volunteers represent breast cancer survivors, community members, business owners, and health and wellness professionals who come together to make a difference in the lives of those who are battling this disease.

Council member.

And whereas Thriving Peak has expanded outreach to underserved communities throughout YOLO County, including West Sacramento, to meet increased needs within the vision with the vision that no one will go through breast cancer alone.

Now, therefore be it resolved that the City Council of the City of West Sacramento does hereby recognize the special efforts that occurred during the October's breast cancer awareness month and the outstanding support that Thriving Pink provides to breast cancer survivors in our community throughout the year, proclaimed this first day of October 2025.

Thank you, Councilman.

You can please share a few words with us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, West Sacramento Council members.

My name is Gina Bravo.

I am the hospital president for Dignity Health Woodwind Memorial Hospital, a Thriving Pink board member and a breast cancer thriver.

Thank you so much for recognizing Thriving Pink and our service to the Yellow County community.

As we head into October for National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

I am one in eight women who are diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime.

Thriving Pink is here for anyone in Yellow County impacted by breast cancer.

We provide support from the time of diagnosis through survivorship at no cost.

We are a volunteer-driven organization, and we work closely with local healthcare systems, businesses, and other organizations to meet the needs of the breast cancer community.

This month during Pinktober, there will be many events for breast cancer survivors to help us spread awareness, seek support, and raise funds.

We invite you to join us.

Activities will be posted on our website at thrivingpink.org.

Or you may base stop by our office at second and D in Davis.

On behalf of Katie Carmelita and myself, our executive director, Leslie Hunter, our volunteers, supporters, and most importantly, the breast cancer community.

We want to thank the West Sacramento City Council and the City of West Sacramento for this proclamation.

Your support and recognition mean everything.

Good evening.

I'm Katie Minke.

I'm a board member with Thriving Pink and just honored to serve on behalf of our board and some amazing breast cancer survivors.

As you said in the proclamation, some of our programs and services include peer mentoring, educational workshops, thriver support circles for those newly diagnosed after treatment and during survivorship and for metastatic thrivers.

One of our more important programs that we provide to the community is our granting pink program that provides financial support to those going through breast cancer.

We provide comfort pillows like this one and comfort bags that help and provide useful items as they're going through treatment and a variety of events that help breast cancer patients during their journey.

We're deeply committed to ensuring that no one goes through breast cancer alone.

And this recognition means a great deal to Thriving Pink, and we thank you for having us here tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um hello everyone.

Thank you for being here today.

Um I want to talk to you about something deeply personal, something that changed my life and could save someone else's.

Uh recently I was diagnosed with two different types of breast cancer.

Um that news hit me like a wave that I never saw coming.

Um, one moment I was living my normal working mom life, just like all of you.

And the next, I was sitting in a doctor's office listening to the words I never imagined would apply to me.

I'm sorry, but you have cancer.

The truth is I wouldn't have known.

I felt fine, I had no symptoms, no pain, no lump.

Um, that I or my doctor could feel.

Um, if I hadn't gone in for my regular screening, I might still be walking around today completely unaware that something inside me was trying to take my life.

I'm standing here today because I got a mammogram.

Um, now I know early detection is not just a slogan, it's a survival.

It's a hope, it's a time to fight, it's a time to heal, it's a time to live.

Breast cancer doesn't always present itself with flashing warning signs.

It doesn't wait until your schedule is clear or until life feels convenient.

It shows up when it shows up, and the only defense we have is being proactive.

I want to say this clearly.

Getting screened is not an option, it's an essential.

Mammograms save lives, screening save lives, talking to your doctor, asking questions, knowing your risk, it all matters.

Because of that mammogram, my cancers were found early.

And because they were found early, I have options.

I have a path forward.

I have a fighting chance.

I wouldn't wish this diagnosis on anyone, but if sharing my story helps even one of you make that appointment, take that test, or talk to someone you love about doing the same, then this fight I'm in is already worth something more.

As I prepare for my mastectomy, I ask every person listening today, don't wait.

Don't put it off, don't assume that feeling fine means you're in the clear.

Love yourself enough to take that step.

You may not be able to control what happens in your body, but you can control how prepared you are to face it.

And believe me, early detection isn't just a medical decision, it's an act of courage.

It's an act of love.

It's a decision that could give you more days, more laughter, more memories, and more life, especially for my son.

I am grateful for my support team of my parents, my mom, um, my partner, and my son who have been with me every step of this process.

Thank you for letting me share my story.

And um, please make that poll.

Getting screened, it could save your life, just like it's saving mine.

Thank you so much.

Go ahead, Leslie.

I'm Leslie Hunter, executive director of Thriving Pink, and I'm so thankful that Gina and Katie and Eleanor can stand with me tonight before you.

And our message really is if you know anyone with a breast cancer diagnosis, refer them to Thriving Pink.

Our services are free.

We have financial grants and lots of support and lots of love to give.

So that is our message for tonight.

And thank you for having us.

Thank you so much for bringing this before us and supporting people like my daughter.

There's many in the community that are needing your services and support.

And I like to, you know, ask my fellow council members if they have a few words who would like to go first.

Councilman.

I'll be really brief.

Thank you so much for being there.

I can't imagine when a diagnosis comes in.

Some women feel very isolated and fear.

And your being there and having this outreach.

I'm sure it's a great comment.

You never think it's gonna happen to people that you know when Mayor Sherid that her daughter had it.

I always think it's something that happens with someone older, not someone so young.

So I just want to say thank you for being there.

Women supporting women.

Thank you for being here tonight, Eleanor.

Thank you for being just so transparent.

And as we were reading as like my colleagues reading the council um the proclamation, I'd written a little note, same ammogram, um, and how important um getting your annual check.

And uh I've seen more of my friends on social media when they go for their annual mammogram in in their in their gown, taking pictures and posting it on social media and normalizing it, that these are conversations that we need to have.

We need to be talking to our sisters, our colleagues, and make sure that everybody knows that we need to be doing our annual mammogram.

And so thank you for being here tonight.

Thank you for creating an incredible community and creating resources.

Um, YOLO County is absolutely blessed to have you.

Thank you guys for being here.

Um, as both my colleagues said, it's it's so important that we are aware that we're having these conversations.

I know that I um when I got my first mammogram, it was actually because of my colleague here.

And it was, oh my gosh, to your point, not having time or not prioritizing yourself.

Oftentimes, as women, we are taking care of others, whether it is our partner, whether it is our children, right?

We have busy jobs and busy lives, and oftentimes we put ourselves last.

And I know um that one, I appreciate that you guys are out there making sure that we are prioritizing ourselves and that there's support and help out there.

Um and it's so important to have these conversations.

So thank you guys for being here.

Thank you for taking this proclamation.

It's an honor to be on an all-women council, continuing to lift up these issues that really truly matter to women and our entire society because women are the fabric.

Um, first off, hats off.

Thank you.

Thank you for being here tonight.

We we we give a lot of proclamations.

Some of them are a little bit um, they hit a little bit differently.

Uh I was just in front of the Thriving Pink office today over in Davis on Second Street.

I appreciate you being there and for all your hard work.

Uh, there are lots of voices that are unheard in our community, people that feel unsupported.

And as we all know, that is unfortunate medicine for uh decline and not uh, you know, uh when you feel part of a community and you know that you're being supported, it changes the trajectory and the the lens where you look at this chronic illness.

Um, Eleanor, thank you for your bravery and your courage and sharing with us.

Um we need you to get on rooftops and to share your story because it really does change the way we look at these issues.

It really personalized it, even for me as somebody who stands with you in the same fight.

Different, but same.

I want to say that um I'm a proud member of the city council.

And I was uh at a city council meeting the day that I found out about my diagnosis and just was in shock and didn't know what to do about it.

So you just go to a city council meeting, I guess what you do, right?

But um, I I will say that there was a community that stood with me and still stands with me, and I know I have a council that stands with me as well.

Um, that to recognize and and honor these issues that uh are so prevalent among women in our community.

And I will say that I'm uh you all know this, but breast cancer happens to with men too.

I mean, it's not just for women.

I would say that you know, we're we all probably could say we know somebody in our lives that have been affected, probably few fewer men, but that is a a very um it it happens.

Um, but this is very personal to all of us.

And the fact that we're we're talking about it really does um uh as as my counsel, my fellow council member mentioned.

It's like we need to make this a thing.

Like let's let's make sure that we're challenging each other to go out there and and get checked because it shouldn't be one of those things that you just take care of at the end of the year when your deductibles paid off and oh, I have to take care of that.

Oh, it's just be something we look forward to and encourage our girlfriends and friends to go out there and and and and get checked out.

Tonight is a night, uh, not just about wearing a pink ribbon, but for honoring those fighters that came before us, those who are still surviving and those who continue to fight.

Um and standing in solidarity with one another.

May we continue to work together as we fight for a cure and continue to support those who are still battling and um stand together each year to embrace those who we can help further in this in this journey.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, for bringing us.

Thank you, Councilmember, and thank you, Thriving Pink and the board and my daughter for you know standing before us, sharing your experiences, your courage, and continuing to you know, share your strength with others in need of support.

You know, it is something that we we can't replace in our community, being who we are, that caring community who with your resources helping those in need, you know, who are at a loss.

You know, sometimes there are good days where you have a whole team there so to support you, and there are days when you feel alone and and it and it's ebbs and flows, and we know that you're there for every time.

And we are so grateful that your presence is here.

We look forward to shouting out from the rooftops, like you said, council member.

This month, especially, letting people know.

So if you have any material you'd like for us to have, you know, the um city will be able to deliver it to us, and we are all all out in the community in one way or another to distribute it and support your effort to get the message out of your presence and your support for people in need.

So thank you so much.

And we'd like to go down and take a photo at this time.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, we're back on track with our next item on the agenda, which is our consent agenda items three through, is it three through eight?

Three through eight.

Yes.

Are there any requests to move an item by any chance from anybody?

If not, I'll accept a motion to approve the consent agenda for early second.

Nope.

She got she got before me.

And before I take a vote, Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak from the public?

We have no request to speak on any items on the consent agenda.

All right, then um, I'll accept a motion for items three through eight.

Okay, council member early early.

Not council member a call moved and um council member early seconded.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Sorry, repeating myself here.

It's a little distracting councilmember Ocala.

Hi.

Councilmember Early.

I council member Roscoe.

Aye.

Mayor Pro Tim Silpio Hall.

Hi.

Mayor Guerrero.

Aye.

This item is approved.

Next we have a public hearing.

Item number nine, and it is under our community development department, which is a public hearing regarding regarding an appeal of the planning commission's variants, denial regarding the setback variants for an RV cover at 1512 Michigan Boulevard.

And we have an attorney here present.

If you can please explain your role so we um everybody in the audience understands your we have two attorneys.

There you go.

Sorry.

You're there.

My name is Ryan Raftree, and I'm here solely for the purpose of advising the council with regard to the hearing procedural issues, not any substantive issues involved involving the appeal.

Thank you.

Mr.

Rafferty.

And then we have our our um counsel, Jeff Mitchell, who will provide guidance on any decisions that we make um on this particular item today.

And at this point, Mr.

Affity, if I have to if you have to correct me, please do.

Um and I'll be reading um the procedure.

And that's we we are required to read a summary of the procedures into the record.

So the following is that summary, which can also serve as a script for the hearing process.

The mayor will open the hearing.

The mayor will ask all members of the council to publicly announce any testimony or evidence received outside of the hearing part process, also known as ex parte communication.

The mayor will also ask all council members to announce any conflicts of financial interest with a material effect, and member shall disqualify him or herself.

Um Mr.

Rafferty?

Yeah.

We are missing a council member.

Should I wait?

Oh.

Yes, I think I shall wait until she returns.

Well, I think you can actually continue to go through the procedure because then you're gonna actually do the procedure.

Okay.

Does that make sense?

I don't think it'd be adequate.

I was gonna go through the do both, but that's oh, you want to do both?

That's okay.

The mayor will ask all the council members to announce any conflicts of interest with material effective members shall disqualify him or herself.

The mayor will also ask the hearing examiner if any exhibits were received in the past ten days.

The council may want to consider admitting.

Um and it's the council decision as to whether to accept any late exhibits.

Staff will present the staff report, place relevant documents into the record and respond to questions from the city council.

Staff may present any testimony and relevant evidence not previously presented in the written report.

Evidence is relevant if it proves or disapproves a material fact in dispute.

The mayor will specify the time the appellant has for his or her presentation and rebuttal.

And Mr.

Reyes will be given 20 minutes to present his appeal.

No witness or witnesses will be heard at this time.

All public comment testimony will be heard during the public comment testimony um period.

And members of the public and our numbers in support, individuals in support or against the appellate will be given the opportunity to present testimony.

Public comment testimony will be limited to three minutes each person.

The mayor will specify the time the appellant has for his or her response to the testimony or evidence, and the appellant will be given five minutes to respond, but may not introduce new testimony or evidence or restate direct testimony.

And that's where our city attorney will help us with that information.

Um staff may provide responses to testimony received during the appellant or Mr.

Reyes's time and may be asked to answer questions from the city council.

And the mayor will close to continue the hearing, and city council will deliberate on the matter and adopt findings if appropriate.

The final decision may be deferred for preparation of a draft findings consistent with the preliminary decisions.

All right.

Yeah, now you have to wait because now you begin the actual hearing.

Anybody need to take a break of water.

All right, we will begin the hearing.

At this time, I will ask the council if you have any information you received outside of the hearing process, any ex parte communications discussions.

Council Member Alcala.

Yes, I have spoken with Mr.

Reyes.

Okay.

Yes.

I was contacted as a council member for District 2 for Mr.

Reyes regarding this matter several months ago.

The conversation was by email regarding a pre-appeal consideration for and then we also received public comment at a previous.

That's right.

And uh Mr.

Reyes did contact me about this item before it was agendized for the public and notified me that he was preparing for this hearing.

Um asked for favorable consideration.

I informed him that uh given that this is a hearing that I cannot convey any any of my feedback or thoughts, and I would have to reference this at this meeting.

Um, and after that, we stopped talking.

Um that's where we concluded.

And are there any conflicts of financial interest from any of the council members?

And um from the hearing examiner, are there any exhibits that we receive past the 10-day due date?

No.

All right, we will have the staff present the staff report at this time.

No, okay, hello.

Hi, good evening, Mayor.

Mayor Pro Tem, members of the council.

I'm Tristan Osborne, uh planning manager here at the city.

Uh so we do have a presentation for you this evening, kind of outlining the facts in the background of this case.

Um is an appeal of the planning commission's decision of a denial of a variance at 1512 Michigan Boulevard.

So I'll start with what is a variance.

Uh it's an exception to the zoning code or development standards.

There's four findings that are legally required to be made, and we have to make each of those in order to be able to grant a variance.

So it's they're typically used, they're infrequent, but they're typically used for properties that have unique features, um, such as topography, a boulder, a river, um very steep um inclines on the on the property where you wouldn't be able to build in the typical area, things like that.

Uh it is not intended to provide advantages over other properties in a similar neighborhood.

Additionally, it is not a work round for zoning rules.

Um, it's not to be used because codes are inconvenient, and it's definitely not a mechanism to grant a special privilege to to one property owner over another.

So the request from Mr.

Reyes was for a variance to to the planning commission to reduce setbacks in order um to permit a an unpermitted RV cover, uh measuring 47 by 15 feet, so um about 700 square feet in change.

Uh he requested a front setback reduction from 15 to zero feet, a side yard setback from five feet to zero feet, and an increase in the maximum height of this accessory structure from 12 to 15 feet.

So essentially what that means is the setbacks are uh a certain amount of feet from your property inwards where you can't build.

And so his request was to reduce those setbacks as we call them.

The planning commission after hearing the hearing, uh conducting the hearing uh unanimously unanimously decided to deny this request for variance.

Um staff's recommendation this evening is to uphold that decision to deny the requested variants based on the inability to meet the required variance findings, those four findings I referenced earlier.

Um when we received Mr.

Reyes's appeal, um, there were two kind of two related primary claims that he made, which uh the first of which is inconsistent enforcement of setback rules.

To clarify, these are codified in our municipal code.

Um Mr.

Reyes, as you'll see in our timeline was informed of the required setbacks prior to construction of the RV cover.

Um, in terms of inconsistent enforcement, any project that comes through the city for a building permit or any sort of zoning entitlement, land use entitlement is reviewed for setback requirements, and that's done for every project that comes through our door.

Related to that, the second part of his claim is that other nearby properties have been allowed to have carports.

Uh, he did provide as part of the appeal a number of photos from uh the surrounding neighborhood.

Uh, unfortunately was not able to provide locations or addresses for these homes, um, which for staff we have to take them at his word that they're there, but it does make it hard because we're not sure if those were um we'd have to speculate on how those were approved or processed or built, could potentially be before the city was incorporated, before zone changes, that sort of thing.

Um, you're aware our code enforcement department does uh it is a complaint based department, complaint driven.

So it's more of a reactive or responsive department.

We aren't out there driving around looking for code cases.

Just to do a little bit of context setting around the neighborhood.

Um, this is actually just on the other side of Jefferson.

Um, this is the surrounding residential area.

You can see up in the upper right hand corner, the pink outline is Mr.

Reyes's property at the corner of Michigan Boulevard and Portsmouth.

Here's a more zoomed in aerial of the property boundaries, which are the pink lines, and his home there in the middle.

Here's a render, uh a sketch provided by Mr.

Reyes.

Uh, the red is the existing RV cover.

Again, the purple is the property boundaries.

Here's some photos of the constructed RV cover, um, a couple different viewpoints for you to see.

So here's our timeline.

Um, in November 24, 2024, Mr.

Reyes was at the permit counter here at City Hall, uh received information about zoning and building permit requirements.

So on the zoning side, that would be the setbacks and the height.

Building side would be the uh requirement for a building permit prior to constructing this uh RV cover.

Number two, down the bottom, January 28th.

Uh, city staff received a complaint, our code enforcement department and conducted a site visit.

Um did right uh did see an RV cover in construction part way through.

Uh the following day on January 29th, we issued a stop work order, which is a notice posted on the in progress structure in this case.

There's a couple photos.

Timestamped January 28th, 2025, and the stop work order the following day.

After that, on February 14th, uh city staff conducted another site visit.

Construction had continued, uh, and the city issued a notice to a bait.

That deadline was March 18th for removal of the RV cover at Mr.

Reyes' request due to some travel.

City staff extended that to April 14th, uh at which time uh the structure was still as it is today, still standing.

Uh, then in May, we issued uh an administrative citation, and five days later received a variance application, um, which is kind of what the what's before you tonight essentially that went to planning commission, the the height and setback changes.

Uh August 21st, we went to planning commission as I stated, and the variance was denied 6-0.

And a week later, we we received the appeal from Mr.

Reyes.

So I keep mentioning this planning commission decision, the denial of the requested variants based on the inability to meet the required variance findings.

So, what are those?

They are lengthy, um, they're very technical.

Again, I mentioned it's a rarely used um entitlement.

Um, you don't see them very often.

So I will spare reading through all of these on this screen, but wanted to give you some context about what the four required findings are, and we again need to make each of these in order to be able to grant a variance.

So, number one essentially comes down to um site conditions, unique site conditions.

And in this case, um the there are no exceptional circumstances, and we don't want to grant special privilege, but it's a typical shape and dimensions, the site.

It's a pretty typical corner lot, the good size, no unusual natural features.

Uh, granting the variants would give special privilege, um, something that no other corner lot in this neighborhood would have, the ability to build in these setback areas.

So this finding cannot be met.

Number two is no physical hardship uh created by the applicant.

So I'll read this one because it's short.

The granting of the application is necessary to prevent a physical hardship, which is not of the applicant's own actions or the actions of a predecessor in interest.

Again, it's a large corner lot.

There's no physical hardship that prevents development of this site.

Um building in this area is difficult because of our setbacks.

Um however, that's not a physical natural feature.

It's the direct result of the property owner choosing to construct the accessory structure in conflict with the municipal code and without proper building permits.

So again, that finding cannot be met in Steph's opinion.

Finding three is about health safety and welfare, and uh no injury to that.

Um as well as the um kind of improvement or properties in the surrounding area.

So the RV structure is not congruent with the character of the existing neighborhood, um, and it does uh obstruct visibilities for vehicles exiting from the neighboring property to the north.

Um those property owners uh did attend uh our planning commission hearing and spoke to that matter.

So again, the finding cannot be met.

And number four, the granting of the variants will be consistent with the general purposes and objectives of the title, applicable any applicable specific plans and the general plan.

Um it's requesting relief from the zoning code.

Um so that obviously doesn't work.

Uh there are no specific plans in this area, but the general plan does have several key policies.

Uh so I pulled out three that are that are relevant.

Crime prevention through environmental design.

Um this leads to a lack of natural surveillance um view corridors and things.

It's a large structure that that does obstruct viewing.

Um things like this uh can provide uh shelter for people to be able to hide as as folks are walking by.

So we we try and generally leave some space in between so people aren't the same with bushes, walls, that kind of thing.

So people don't have places to hide.

Uh neighborhood character massing, it it alters the setback norms of this neighborhood.

Um the scale of development is is not in alignment with the scale of the neighborhood, um, exceeding the height.

It's quite a large structure again.

And then pedestrian scale development.

Uh this very abrupt transition does deter walkability in terms of the the sidewalk access right in front of Mr.

Reyes's home.

So staff does not feel that this finding can be met either.

Again, a recommendation uphold the planning commission decision to deny the requested variants based on the inability to meet the required variance to answer any questions or clarification if this is the right time for that.

You you could ask questions at this point if you want to add any specifically.

I do that's a good recommendation here.

Any questions not a question mayor, but we'll be able to make statements later.

Sure.

I think so, right?

Yeah, I think so as part of your deliberations.

I think you could express in the public forum to each other your position or feeling.

If you'd like to wait, I can wait.

Okay.

That's that question.

Sure, go ahead.

Is my mic on?

Can you hear me?

Um, just for clarity, the visit to the counter, was it the applicant or was it the construction company?

Uh, my understanding it was the applicant.

Yes, council member early.

I just I would be helpful to also understand when it was built.

Was it built by the owner?

Was it built by a licensed um construction company?

I'm just I'm curious about that because I would have thought they would have known better.

Uh so my understanding is Mr.

Ray has hired a contractor to construct this.

Um, but as part of our email correspondence throughout the this past several months, uh, we did come across an email where the uh contractor did inform Mr.

Reyes to reinforce that a building permit was needed prior to constructing the RV.

Okay, so we informed the city informed.

Um the contractor that did the work also informed.

Okay.

That's correct.

Helpful.

Well piggybacking on that.

When the contractor saw the notice, did the contractor continue to build?

Because it seemed like it was halfway done.

Uh I wouldn't be able to say who who continued the construction at that point, um, but we do know that construction of the RV cover was was completed after that step work order was posted.

Okay.

We also received um correspondence from the neighbors.

I don't know.

Um Mr.

Harry and Examiner, were you aware of that?

Um I was not aware of that.

Okay.

Madame Clerk, would you like to share?

I can give you my copy.

Sure.

Making sure.

In case anybody has any questions related to this rate.

Also does Mr.

Reyes have a copy of it.

Does Mr.

Reyes have a copy of it?

Mr.

Reyes, do you have a copy?

Why should you go and um it's there it's it's sitting on the counter there.

I do have questionnaire.

This was public comment that came in after the testimony deadline.

Right, and I want everybody to be aware that we have a copy of it right here as well.

That that it's that it's in front of us and it's uh the transparency to make sure, given that this is a hearing.

And you have a copy of it?

I I have not seen it now.

Oh, take mine.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I'll start with Council Member Alpha.

Well, I was just gonna point to say one of the pledges we received was from Emily Cheney, Frontier Building Products.

Is she is she um West Sacramentan uh a neighbor?

Because it seems unusual that a frontier building products would have any type of um comment to make.

Do you know if she's a neighbor?

I I will say that she says we do not live in an HOA which allows certain freedoms to maintain a private property.

Still, we have concerns about our safety.

Uh it's the way that she contextualized contextualizes, it sounds like she lives there.

I I'd like to know because I mean she didn't put down she's a neighbor, she simply put frontier building products.

I mean, that's where she works.

I think it's inferred.

Just her job.

I think I just think I just think it's what she has.

I have something just added on my email about where I'm from.

But I'd really like to know where this person lives also.

Look her up.

I I didn't see this until now.

Yeah, so I didn't have the script.

I don't think anybody has nobody else has seen it until now.

Including yourself for us to give her a call and ask her where she lives.

And uh you're saying that she's a neighbor, so it's like I'm a neighbor.

I mean just looks like a in our company.

I was just wondering if uh someone solicited the company, that's why I'm asking.

There's Jody Rezo behind that one.

Yeah, I saw that one as well.

Okay.

It should be important to note though that it doesn't necessarily have to be a neighbor, it's public comment or uh that we ask for, right?

Not neighbor comment.

I uh one thing I would say is that um anyone traveling through the city could express their concerns if they in fact feel like I think what this uh person is relaying is that they're worried about uh blocking oncoming traffic at the intersection that could pose a safety hazard for both vehicle and bicycle traffic.

I just wanted to for those folks that aren't here to read it personally.

Um I would like to ask staff if there's any um has staff raised any concerns about that being uh a public hazard, uh potential public hazard with respect to oncoming traffic and maybe increasing the dangerousness of that insection because it does appear to be a very large um structure.

So one of the purposes for setbacks is to ensure that there is some sight lines and um having been out um in the area and staying on the public right-of-way, uh, it does appear that the structure could um contribute to to lack of a of a sight line.

It may um impact that visibility.

And that would include trees or any other type of obstruction that would potentially impede the viewpoint of oncoming traffic.

It could.

I think it's accentuated by the fact that this is a corner lot, so you'll have people um turning northbound um leading to a potential conflict if folks are are backing out of a or leaving a driveway one way or another, um, not being able to see as you round that corner.

It could wanted to um ask earlier you had provided a statement regarding uh other potential projects that exist in the city, but you'd mention that there's no evidence uh or any record that these were um existing uh subsequent to the incorporation of the city versus prior to the incorporation of the city.

Is that fair to say?

That's one of the many factors we would need to look into.

But needless to say, as it stands today under the ordinance, have we received any other requests to build structures similar to those um that have been granted within the city?

Um I'm relatively new here, so I'd look to the rest of my team to see if there have been any approved in the past, um, but I do know that code enforcement has had a number of cases.

Um we've pulled some data from the last year in terms of the number of code enforcement code enforcement cases um that have either been resolved or currently in progress related to accessory structures of all types.

That could be carports, uh sheds, that sort of thing.

Now, with respect to a person who is pulling a permit to create this type of structure, is it fair to assume that the ordinance and the rules and regulations that govern the city are being applied equally with respect to the setback requirements?

Yes, it is.

Um and so if we are unabled at this point though, if if any of the um other pre-existing, is it fair to say that those may have been grandfathered in if they were if they were pre-existing prior to any uh established ordinance in the city?

Yeah, that that could be the case, definitely.

And and just to clarify the uh emails uh that were received um for public comment, it's only that first page that deals with this particular agenda item, just to clarify.

There seems to be a secondary one, yeah, the front and back first page.

Just the that would be the only relevant one.

Thank you.

And just to clarify, we can accept this as part of our evaluation, um, regardless of whether or not it's a resident.

You have yes, you have the power to accept any relevant evidence on the particular issue and give it the weight that you choose to give it or not give it.

Okay, thank you.

I have a few more.

Yes, Councilmember Call.

So you're saying that there's an obstruction, but is it actually the carport or is it the um mobile home that is obstructing this view?

Sure.

I think that the uh private property.

Both sorry, what's that?

I said on private property.

Sure, yeah.

So I think that the RV obviously could could very well be seen as a as an obstruction, but at the structure itself contributes as well.

So um you can go back to the photos, but you have these large large metal beams.

So Mr.

Ray is before here uh at city council, and he brought us a lot of photos of a lot of other homes that are built right up to the sidewalk.

Why are we being so arbitrary about enforcement?

So to clarify, you said homes right up to the sidewalk or the carports.

Carports, gotcha.

And and that's what I was referencing earlier.

He is part of that appeal, uh, submitted a number of photos of carports and other similar structures close to the sidewalk.

Um however, we we haven't received code enforcement complaints, and that's how our code enforcement on the planning and building side, we typically see projects before they're constructed and help with with design and ensuring they're built to built to code, as one says.

Once structures are there, that's typically our enforcement arm that will go out and work with property owners to bring those into compliance with the code after the fact.

And because this did come in as a code enforcement complaint, uh, that's why staff has been working with Mr.

Reyes to try and uh resolve this issue.

It just seems that the city distribution's um similarly um situated property owners, and I guess what is difficult to understand is sort of if using that rational basis test, which requires a distinction between legitimate and defensible reason.

The staff identified 14 property owners, I believe that were non-conforming with our car ports.

Yet the city is applying this ordinance only when a complaint is lodged rather than enforcing it equally on all 14.

So this selective enforcement is evident uh in Mr.

Reyes's denial of his variants.

And according to the staff report, this carport is said to promote crime because it interferes with natural surveillance.

I think it was that finding on D.

However, the same reason applies equally to all 13 of the non-conforming carports which remain unaddressed.

Um promoting crime as it states and finding B by obstructing natural surveillance is sufficient basis to die, Mr.

Ray is I realize there are others as well.

Um the law also be enforced against the other property owners.

I mean, do we have to have a complaint?

Or is enforcement just arbitrary based on complaints?

If um if the city's unwilling to use the same rationale, it seems to be singling out Mr.

Reyes.

Um he submitted those those photographs, and you're saying that he didn't submit the addresses, but it's evident there that there are other non-conforming car ports out there, and the city hasn't done anything to try and resolve that.

I guess it it's just really difficult to understand why we are not allowing Mr.

Areyus to have this um variance if um we're going to allow these other carports to stand out there.

I guess the point I'm I'm making is if we grant a variance, um it would certainly seem more equitable because you have 13 other houses, uh carports in other residences that were not were not um forcing the you know um what what did you call it?

I'm sorry, the um the ordinance on yeah and I just I guess I find it difficult because we we just um at our last meeting we overturned um the decision by the planning commission.

And once again, I believe one of our council members did say it it was on the basis of arbitrary enforcement.

I mean, how can we how can we as a city um completely look at the other way when something like this is happening to one individual but not to others?

It just seems very inequitable and unfair.

So how do we address that?

Sure.

So I a couple clarification points, if if I may.

Please um so we have this over the past year, I think we pulled September one to September one, we have 26 cases of um accessory structure code enforcement cases.

I think 14 is probably the number you're speaking of.

14 of those have been completely corrected and closed, essentially being brought into compliance.

Uh the remaining 12 cases are in various stages of coming into compliance.

Uh so I think is that the 14 that you were.

Yes, I was speaking of okay.

Um some of these other carports that are out there m may or may not be um legal nonconforming, which essentially means grandfathered.

Um some of them may just be non-conforming, but we haven't we haven't done that research.

Um if they're legal non-conforming, they don't need to be typically they don't need to be brought into compliance with the so that's kind of the grandfathering piece is they were there beforehand, so they're allowed to be there because our rules have changed after the fact.

In this case, uh our rules were in place and they were not followed.

And so I think that's a a distinction between the grandfathered cases in this case.

Um finally just around code enforcement, you know, again, we're in we're in the planning arm plan division.

We we work with folks on the front end when they're still bare land or they're working with their zoning or what's allowed or not allowed in terms of use types, but our our code enforcement division is structured as a complaint-based division division, which is not unusual for cities.

I I understand it creates some challenges and some optics, but I think given our current staffing levels with code enforcement and uh city manager's office can probably uh speak to this better than I can, they are complaint driven, and that's really how how we manage the enforcement process.

Okay, because just and just to finish that point, correct me if I'm wrong, the the other um carports that were noted through photos, um, while there were photos, they were not provided locations.

And so um I think to get to your point, um, if if there are complaints filed against those carports, we have a process for opening a case, investigating uh everything was said about what background.

And uh those would be those would be um evaluated on uh a case by case basis.

In this case, we we receive photos uh that apparently show other car ports in the city, but we don't know where they are.

There were no addresses associated with them, so uh so they they are not being evaluated on that on that basis because there isn't a formal complaint um against them.

Just one other comment, and that is to the point of arbitrary.

Case law in California is very clear.

Um complaint-driven enforcement is not arbitrary.

Arbitrary is when you apply your rules differently in different situations.

We apply the rules consistently when a complaint is made.

And there's very clear case law that that is an acceptable approach.

You are not required to apply every law every time, um, and you're not required to go out and seek out complaints or seek out um situations.

In fact, most communities, and historically it's been true in West Sacramento, the council does not want their code enforcement staff out spending their day driving around looking for violations of the code.

And it is generally considered to be a more appropriate to do it on a complaint-driven basis given the amount of staff you have, the size of the city and the amount of time it would take to drive around all the time all day looking for problems.

So when Mr.

Reyes told me about this, I went around checking to see how many people had these carports.

Just in my own immediate neighborhood.

I think there were about 17.

Right up to the pro, you know, to the to the sidewalk lines.

And I think that there's a real problem because these were put up.

These are new.

These are new structures, they're not old structures.

People are using them.

I mean, to protect their cars.

Some people use for outdoor furniture.

Um, you know, so they can sit out.

This weather's so hot, they need some sort of protection.

Maybe at one time I can see where the where the ordinance had a lot of impact.

Um, but times are changing, and I just can't understand when I saw 17 of these structures.

I mean, does someone have to go around reporting every single one of these structures?

And then that's really going to keep our staff busy in order to maybe do the right thing, maybe change this ordinance.

Should should um, I mean, if you think about it, just that's my immediate neighborhood, 17.

I haven't gone through the rest of West Sacramento, but I know when I've walked precincts, I've seen um quite a few of these structures.

Wouldn't it be, I mean someone wanted to to make a point, get these addresses and have the city really busy going after everyone who they believe and actually has non-conforming car ports.

I mean, what is the answer to this?

Wouldn't it make more sense to change an ordinance?

I I would leave the policy direction to the to the council to direct the city manager's office and staff if if you were interested in exploring that kind of a change.

Um, I wouldn't want to speculate up here tonight.

Thank you.

You had a question, Councilmember early?

Oh no, you you you really had something to say.

Are we going to hear from Mr.

Reyes?

Yes, eventually.

We're still asking questions.

Yes.

Um so Tristan.

Uh I I do disagree with the city attorney.

Um where there have been times when there's a report made years go by and that person doesn't get any any activity.

And I and I find neighbors frustrated.

Um and I do get council member Alcala's point where you know, somebody and you have your cease and desist, and I and I've seen it happen selectively.

Um hearing public comment from Mr.

Weaver, who referenced how sometimes it can be difficult.

Um in this case though, there was the applicant who Mr.

Reyes who did try to to find out you did who try to approach this the right way.

I have a question.

When somebody asks the city, this is what I'm interested in doing.

I'm curious to know, do they need an attorney for the outcome, or do they get some kind of guidance, any feedback about the outcome if they proceed?

Uh let me make sure I understand if they proceed, if they proceed with construction.

So he so yes, Mr.

Ray has proceeded with the construction.

And he and he and code enforcement came in to intervene immediately.

Um which according to everything that you described was all legal and above board, which I get.

Um but when he was asking for guidance, that's when I I'm I'm finding that maybe he may not have received enough guidance.

I don't know.

That's why I'm asking him giving you a chance to explain this situation between Mr.

Ray is coming in asking for guidance.

It's a big structure.

And and he and he has this RV, he may have explained it.

It was for an RV.

Um could there have been any other type of structure that somebody said, you know, don't do that, do this.

Any kind of support that we give to our residents.

Sure.

So uh at least in my short time here, I've seen that we have a very customer focused approach to our our front counter.

I've seen my staff up there um taking significant amount significant amounts of time to be patient with folks and help walk them through, which is very complicated sometimes, the zoning and the building codes and those types of things.

Um so I think we pride ourselves in that being accessible, accessible and helping people figure out how, you know, because a lot of times people come in, hey, I want to do this thing, and so we dig a little deeper.

Hey, what are you really trying to accomplish?

If it's a no, are there other ways we can help you accomplish your goals that might look a little bit differently?

Um so uh again, this is before I was here, but I know that staff um had a number of meetings, number of interactions with Mr.

Reyes uh prior to construction, midway through construction, and obviously we've been communicating afterwards, and so uh I would feel very confident in saying that he was fully aware that this within this setback, this is not a location that he construct this type of structure, and that he needed to get a building permit prior to commencing that um that construction, even if it had been allowed in this particular portion of his property.

Um the building permit process obviously is is a stringent code um established at the state level.

We have our chief building official here this evening.

Those folks need to review things like this before they're constructed.

Um, and that's that's really a life safety issue.

Um, zoning oftentimes can be, you know, aesthetics, neighborhood compatibility, there is a safety component as well, of course.

That's our that's what created zoning in the first place.

But um, so I think he was fully aware that there were kind of these two uh two um linear pass.

He needed to go through the zoning piece and get that figured out, and then he also needed to get a building permit issued prior to building.

And do we supply that in writing to to the applicant?

We we can.

We very often um will follow up with emails, um, that sort of thing.

Yeah, we have a we have an entire email uh inbox dedicated to inquiries just for the planning department for the planning division where we respond in write folks who have questions.

We have a phone line, and then we of course have our our counter that people can come in and ask questions of a live person.

And those that were able to remedy a code violation, and uh there was support provided, and Mr.

Ray's situation is completely different from that.

There's nothing that could be done to remedy this one.

Um I think in Mr.

Ray's case, we we would uh I think his site is constrained because of some of the other features he has installed or maybe previous owners that you know there's a there's a pool, there's a large home, um, things of that nature.

It's it's a large structure that uh he was hoping to have.

So I think it it makes even for a large site, it makes it a constraint.

Um in this particular instance, I don't see any um aside from removal, I wouldn't see a path forward for him, which is why we communicated that back to him in November of last year to ensure make it clear to him this isn't allowed from a zoning standpoint, and we're gonna check setbacks as part of the building permit process as well.

You need to have both of those things in place before constructing.

And could he keep his RV there if he removed the structure?

Um our our code does allow for RV, the vehicles themselves uh on residential lots with certain certain standards.

So the lots had to had been created um prior to uh it might have been prior to incorporation.

So most of our lots in the older areas of towns that applies.

Um there's a few requirements in terms of how many feedback it needs to be, um, how much if it is for an RV uh has to be on a concrete pad, and then essentially um how many square feet the pad itself can be.

So there is there is a path for an RV to be parked on a residential property stored there.

Otherwise, folks are, of course, will often utilize RV storage facilities.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Hearing Examiner, can in case we have questions after the uh Mr.

Ray has does his testimony.

We can follow up with staff.

Yeah, the staff will actually have an opportunity after Mr.

Reyes presents to address anything that he raised that was new that they haven't covered or to reply to maybe some of the claims, and then you'll be able to ask questions at that point as well.

So yes, answer your question.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Any other questions for Kristen?

Thank you.

Now we'll have Mr.

Rey has come up to the podium.

And you will be given 20 minutes to present your appeal.

But we won't have any witnesses or test from testimony from witnesses at this time.

And um all public comment testimony will be heard during public comment.

Uh good evening, council members, mayor, buddy.

Um I like to first off say uh I disagree with half the stuff that he just went through on this variance, and I think we'll we'll go through that after I read my initial statement.

Um I offered uh council members a copy of this.

Have you all received a copy?

Um Mr.

Harry and Examin, can you review what he has, see if we have it, please?

I gave her copies for each one of you.

Uh when they're offered, I don't know.

I don't think we have to do that.

Yeah, this was will you accept the copy?

I think you have a copy of it.

It was in Oh no.

It's a um it's just a written version of what I'm gonna read.

Oh, it's a written version of what he's gonna read.

You you can certainly accept that.

We could we okay, great, thank you.

We can accept it.

Thank you, and then read along.

I think we have it though.

Think I don't think we have it, Mr.

Reyes.

Pardon me?

We don't have it.

You don't have it?

No.

It was given to the city clerk.

Well, okay, she'll give it to us now at this point.

We'll repast.

Thank you so much.

I just along no, just along with me.

That's exactly what I'm gonna say tonight.

Um we keep talking about pictures of you know, various carports and everything.

Uh it was my fault I didn't submit them before the September 22nd deadline.

I do have them.

Uh if you guys will allow them uh to the view uh about additional car ports that are similar.

Uh I have them here.

Uh so it'll it'll answer a lot of the questions.

It'll see how arbitrary uh the decision is here.

So uh they're here.

Uh we can be we can they can be viewed.

I have the addresses, uh I have the addresses to them to correspond to the pictures.

So like I say, if that will also be allowed, it will uh kind of give you or give insight to my request.

Madam Mayor Madam Mayor.

It is within your discretion to allow it.

I will say that it's unfortunate that he did not provide the addresses in advance as he was requested to do so.

So the staff would have had an opportunity to look at the addresses.

So it's unfortunate that you're gonna present them tonight.

It's just instead of in advance.

And I think the there's they have been submitted before there's copies.

The addresses were not.

Uh I got addresses now.

At the time, I think they were asking I didn't have them.

So can we um can you give the thumb drive to the clerk so she can and your time is picked.

Okay, so we got copies.

I'll go ahead and begin.

Uh the foundation of all zoning and land use regulations is a commitment to fair and equal treatment of our property owners.

Setback rules which dictate how far a structure must be placed from property lines, have long been implemented to preserve neighborhood character, ensure safety, and maintain aesthetics.

However, when the enforcement of such rules become inconsistent or arbitrary, it deterrents it undermines not only the intent of the regulations, but also erodes public trust in the planning process itself.

This appeal seeks to address the unfair application of setback rules considering similar structures that exist throughout the city.

The city council has the power to review, rewrite, and specify setback limits that should be worded for the real intent or enclosed structures such as garages, room additions, barns, or structures that are enclosed with walls.

I believe the city's setback related ordinances, specifically those related to auxiliary structures, are out of alignment with the needs of residents and are in need revision, need of revisions that will allow residents throughout the city of West Sacramento to fully utilize their properties while maintaining quality of life for their neighbors.

I understand that building the structure would put me at odds with the city, but I felt compelled to proceed because challenging the setback ordinance will benefit not only my family, but other residents of the city who need to or have already erected similar structures.

Well, I understand that the city has limited code enforcement resources.

The ability for city residents to invest in our properties shouldn't be determined by someone as something as arbitrary as who our neighbors are.

As I previously mentioned, there are many similar structures throughout the city.

This creates an unreasonable amount of uncertainty, current and future homeowners in the city.

Structures that exist prior to the purchase of homes could come under scrutiny because of the way that the city reviews code violations.

Homeowners who have lived with similarly constructed structures for years could be at risk of having to tear them down simply because someone new moved to the neighborhood.

In a situation such as mine, I believe that the city could have work to create a dialogue between neighbors that adequately addressed concerns over visibility without subjecting me to the full enforcement of the city's zoning code.

I understand that this is specific to me at this point in time, but there are many such structures around the city that could be impacted should their neighbors choose to raise the issue.

Carports and similarly proposed car ports and similarly purposed structures are by nature open-sided, as can be seen in the Google Street View of my home.

The structure is set well back from the main travel along Michigan Avenue Avenue.

The structure itself is open-sided and doesn't doesn't obstruct views any more than a fence would.

As I've mentioned throughout the statement, there are many similar structures throughout the city.

Revisiting the city setback ordinance will bring these structures into compliance and allow residents throughout the city to fully utilize and enjoy their properties.

I believe that the city of West Sacramento should join many other cities across the country that are revisiting restructuring restrictive zoning policies with an eye on functional, useful, sustainable development.

While this specific zoning ordinance is important to me, I truly believe that taking this one small step will encourage the city to review potential other outdated or conflicting zoning ordinances.

Dear members of the city council, I respectfully request that you base your upcoming decision regarding the installation and allowance of carports and similar auxiliary structures throughout our city on the positive aspects that such an initiative brings, rather than focusing on the negative complaints voiced by a small minority.

I urge you to look beyond the neg negative rhetoric and consider the overall positive impact that these structures will have on our city.

Your leadership in this matter can help create a safer, more sustainable, and visual appearing appealing environment to all residents.

I have a list of 24 addresses that correspond to the sites that will be shown.

Is this the only photo on your thumb drive?

No, I have about 24.

So if we can either rotate I don't think I don't think you have it as a slide deck.

I think you have it.

They're all there.

I think uh just the cursor, I mean allowed to go to the next one.

Mayor.

I have a question.

Uh next wait for the hearing officer.

Um, Councilmember Akala has a question.

Is this the time to ask the question?

Two quick things.

One, I think we just need to stop the time.

Okay.

While we figure out so he doesn't get denied time.

Um and secondly, I think he gets to finish his presentation before we ask questions.

That's why I want to pause it.

Just so you know, the the questions has no time.

So how long that takes is however long you need.

In other words, you can ask questions for as long as you want.

It does not interfere with his time.

Uh so uh in correspondence with pictures.

Uh I'll read the addresses off.

701 Douglas.

Wait, one we pause the time for you.

And we have a copy of that, so you don't have a the pictures are so you can well you they're 24 separate documents.

I think you did it 24 separate files.

So we have to click on each one so you can tell us which one this corresponds to.

So I thought with my computer, I just cursor and it would it would go to the next one.

That's okay.

So you can just okay.

Can you just let us know which one each is uh I well I have I have a list, they're not they're not listed on each, but each each one of these correspond to one of the addresses I have here.

And then you want us just click through them?

Sure.

Okay.

So that'll give you an idea uh of additional or similar car ports, even if we can't see all of them.

Uh I have a listing of similar Jennifer, can you start the timer?

So um again we have the addresses stuff.

Um the uh denial of the variants.

Can we view his variant was up there that he commented on okay give us a second?

Um you want to see the photo or the no on the I guess the last one, the four the last four.

Right, four findings.

Um of the ones that that were up here were just I mean, the the walkability of the sidewalk.

That's that's pretty ridiculous.

They're not there's not any walkability issues with uh the walking on the sidewalk next to that carpet.

Uh the the worry being worried about people hiding uh this.

I mean, that's kind of ridiculous too.

I mean, there was quite a few things that up here that you're not the pedestrian scale development, abrupt transition deters walkability.

Uh that's ridiculous.

There's no obstruction of sidewalk for walkability.

Uh uh lack of natural surveillance, the crime prevention through environment design.

I mean, it just seems like they're just they just make this stuff up.

Uh natural survey, anybody could hide behind a car, anybody can hide anywhere on it.

So there's a lot of these aspects for the variant of denial, and he was he's good at what he does, but at a high level, uh I I can see his point.

I'm lower level.

What I what I view in my neighborhood is something that I would like to have, and I see by other residents that have this that did not require permit that did not have to go through uh variants uh request, did not have to spend the money that I'm spending on all these hearings.

It's it's unfair, it's very arbitrary that they're allowing these other people to have it and they're targeting me, and it it stemmed from a hateful neighbor that I have that complaints.

Uh that's that's really what it comes down to, I'm sorry to say.

So they're using this as a uh negative way towards us to hurt me and my family.

So I think it's very, very unfair that they do that with the city.

We spent a lot of time on this.

Uh city staff has spent a lot of time on this.

I think it's it should have never came here to this point.

Um I don't know what else to say.

I'm urging that the city council move forward in a positive way.

Allow these carports to exist.

They're new.

Um they're becoming more common.

Uh people are buying them, the environment's getting more harsh.

All we're gonna see is more, more of these constructed.

Uh, and to go in a negative way and have uh it affect everybody that has one, uh, have them tear it down.

Uh that's just it just seems really unfeasible to me.

Uh so uh I'm not sure what else I can say.

It's eight minutes is still a lot of time.

You don't have to use the eight minutes here.

I'm sure they have a lot of questions for you.

I don't think I can.

So uh that's that's about what I can say for now.

So any questions?

Yes, Mr.

Reyes, I think Council Member Alcala has questions.

The only question I had, Mr.

Reyes was if um the list that you gave us of these addresses, if you were going to be showing us pictures.

Uh huh.

Because um statement was made that there were no addresses whatsoever on the other people who are non-conforming.

Uh-huh.

Did you have those pictures available?

Do they correspond to to this?

Uh yes.

The only the only problem is that when I took the pictures, uh, I didn't uh either rename each image with the associated address.

I do have a list of the addresses, and you know, it's uh eventually I could I could put the picture with the address.

I mean that's that's not a problem.

Uh the addresses, I if you go and visit these addresses, you can see that oh yeah, this is that that picture, this is it corresponds with that.

So I think you brought up a very valid point, Mr.

Reyes.

Um that it must just grunt with neighbor.

And that is that to me is a real problem because it seems to be you were using our ordinances are arbitrary ordinances to um hit neighbor against neighbor.

You know, I believe it's not a good environment, and it's not what I would want for our city.

I believe with the initial complaint, uh they had no idea what this ordinance was.

I think that once they complained, the city came and says, Oh, we have an ordinance for that.

I think that's how it was brought into view.

I think they brought this ordinance in saying, hey, you know, you're right.

Uh we do have an ordinance of that about the setback.

But I think their initial complaint, it was not about the ordinance, it was not about all these other people that listed that have these car ports.

It was intended for personal conflict uh between neighbors, and they're utilizing this to hurt me and my family.

That's I truly feel that.

And um, as long as no one complains, they continue to go up.

Seems like that's what that's what the consensus is.

If there's no complaint, uh you're okay with it.

It's okay.

Let's say someone wanted to report all these car ports.

That would keep our city really busy.

Yep.

So uh I mean uh there's no there's no message or signing.

I mean, you go to Home Depot and you want to buy a purchase of carport and everything, there's nothing stating out there that's saying, hey, if you're planning on doing this in the city of West Sacramento and you're gonna put it next to your driveway, you're not allowed to do that.

Don't buy this carport because you're not allowed in the city of West Sacramento to build it next to or or across your driveway.

It has to be within 15 or 20 feet of it, which is gonna eliminate it would eliminate all these people from having done that.

So there's nothing out there stating or telling people that these are illegal, so to speak.

So you know, they're just they're just doing it, and they have been doing it for years.

These car ports have been up there for years.

Because of the because of the reason given because of the complaint.

Any other questions to the applicant um I do.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Reyes, for for contacting us and for coming before this council to express your concerns.

I I I was uh I actually did keep the previous um packet that you provided to the council back I believe it was in April when you came before us and I've read through the documents you provided and um I do see that um the timeline that you provided today to us is very similar although the one that you provided now is a little bit more exhaustive with respect to the date.

One thing I I did note is that um there was a this this issue began in July uh of 2024 when there's an original driveway extension proposal was denied correct so the pro the the total project the project began in July of 2024 that uh began with the driveway extension yes on it so uh we went back and forth even even when that started uh code enforcement was there either the the day of or the following day voicing that hey somebody complained you know they don't like what you're doing there and so uh I was told to go talk to the city engineers city planners uh it's when I met uh Condito Ramirez and the discussion went back and forth about what I was allowed to do what I wasn't allowed to do and we came upon an agreement that instead of the original 16 feet I'd like to extend the driveway we were limited to eight feet of paved and then the other eight feet that uh I already had already formed out was gravel I could not pave that uh because it was gonna exceed a 50% uh paved area in my front so that was that was allowed uh during that time uh I believe we spoke about future plans about uh parking the motor home there and eventually having a car port so but it was the uh it was the driveway at that time and then as time went by um I think it was uh right along uh September 27th I have the request for a carport was submitted um actually a couple months went by uh I got a date uh November 7th uh 24 uh there was an email to Missor Osco Karina uh city county requesting assistance with a permit I think you have that one uh November 17th I uh went into the office uh met with Elijah Ortega and he gave me a verbal denial for a permit for the carport for the car port okay so you were able to work with our city with respect to the pavement slash gravel yes construction and that came into compliance with the city's ordinances at that time okay so at this juncture you have your request on September 27th for the carport submitted to the to the city and a couple months later on November 17th there was a verbal denial for the permit from Elijah or Ortega and that was in office correct yes okay and then we have an email you said in December to Aaron Laurel uh from council member Alcala who was helping champion in this this issue for you and with you is that fair to say that's correct.

And then thereafter there was an email from our director of uh community development Andrea Aus that was directed to council member Alcala stating the reasons behind the denial that was that was given regarding the carport.

Yes.

Okay that was then two days later uh according to your timeline Norma Alcala city council member stated to you to go ahead and build the carport regardless of the denial that was given to you during the uh the months between September and December I think there was correspondence going back and forth and there was uh there was uh concerns about it being unfair about the decision from the city to deny this were very unfair since so many other people had these so I think at that time uh during discussions uh it was stated that uh I should go ahead and build it was stated by council member Alcal that you should go ahead and build let me clarify I spoke with Aaron Laurel and I explained to you that um I think you remember this I said if you go ahead and build remember that if someone complains you're going to have an issue.

That was the complete statement.

That's the condition and to be clear this was after all of the counter um interactions with Mr.

Reyes, where he was told it was disallowed.

So this was a an act at your own risk with the condition that if someone were to complain, then in fact you would have to ameliorate the the con or the context of the question was how do people get away with having these, and and I explained that it's a code code enforcement is a complaint-driven process.

If someone complains, then we investigate.

In this case, this was as the timeline shows, this was months after uh staff have been working with Mr.

Reyes to explain that this was disallowed.

So it seems that after the the December 21st uh advisement by council member Alcala to go ahead and build the carport, uh uh construction continued on January 28th, 2025 by Pacific Building.

You're misstating.

I never told him to go and build.

I said if I'm sorry, Councilmember Alcala, I'm reading from his statement that he provided.

Okay, I understand, but I'm clarifying what I said, and I think that's important.

I'm sorry, I'm reading from a paper providing.

I know you are and I understand that and I could miswrote that.

That's okay.

I'm just trying to understand as a council member who's making a decision here, what the full context of the scenario is.

And I think he just clarified that he may have misunderstood what was being said because I was very clear when I made that statement that I do have witnesses.

Yeah, no, I I'm not gonna dispute that.

I don't want to just um uh advisory uh I I would just ask council if they feel they have any conflicts that they may be a witness in the matter, then that may be problematic for deciding the matter.

I did not, I was unaware of the statement.

Well, I think all of us had conversations with Mr.

Ray, so I don't see where they're I think these two didn't.

I think that the nature and quality of the conversations might be different amongst us, that's all.

That's a that the at the beginning when we went through the the conflict policy when the mayor asked if anyone, if there's any nature of any con of any statements, that was the time to declare the the details of the statements and conversations you've had.

I don't think that's a conflict when I'm making a statement, and I'm just I was referring to what Mr.

Um what our Aaron Laurel had spoken with me because I I did consult with him and ask him how some people got away with putting up carports.

Okay.

So I just simply said that.

I don't think that's a conflict.

I think it it's up for the it's up for you all to decide amongst yourselves.

I'm just saying that it I at the time I was unaware, it sounds like he's making you a witness based.

Like you are stating you have witnesses that you said this I'm saying, which makes you party a party to the act.

All I'm saying is Councilmember Roscoe is saying that I gave permission.

I never gave no.

I'm sorry, clarify that.

There is a piece of paper that I'm reading from that was provided by Mr.

Reyers that says December 21st, 2024.

Normal Alcala, city council member stated verbally to go ahead and build the carport.

These are not my words, council member.

I understand because I'm clarifying, and then you continue to say it.

Can you have clarification of what you said, and then I would like the hearing officer to give us the guidance on how to evaluate whether or not this is a conflict.

I think there's some confusion between what council member is saying is a conflict, he says it's not, which is why she insists that she does not have a conflict.

But you're but you seem to think there's a conflict.

The reason why I seem to think there's a conflict is because he has identified her as a witness to the reasoning for why he went forward with the action.

You're being if I can just be heard.

What what your question before you is simple.

What should we or should we not grant a variance into this particular case?

It does not speak as to what should we change with regard to the city as a whole, we should set a new standard.

That is a whole different venue and is beyond the scope of this particular hearing.

Your specific question before you is did the planning commission do we reverse the planning commission's decision with regard to compliance or lack thereof with the ordinance.

And what I'm saying is that if an appellant is you calling essentially a witness that is on the city council that is helping decide that issue, that raises a red flag as far as a conflict existing.

Because he has submitted, if you accept it, a written statement where he is putting words in wrongly or rightly in council member O'Callas mouth as to what she told him as the basis why he moved forward.

And if she starts in I'm not this has no uh speaking as to what did or didn't happen.

I'm just saying it puts it it gives the wrong appearance for a public hearing that to Councilmember Alcala now has to defend herself and either conflict what he is saying or agree with what he is saying, thereby making her a witness, I think, in one way or the other to this, whether she wanted to be one or not.

The other council members are not cited as being a basis for upon moving forward based on that conversation.

They were, I I think the mayor mentioned that the statement that it was, I hope you'll see things favorably for me.

And she said, I'll see things as the evidence is, or whatever you said earlier.

That's appropriate, and she's disclosing there were no details about the facts about well, what about if we do this, or what about if we do that?

That is getting more into the weeds, and that creates a red flag for a conflict to me.

So I just that's just my opinion.

Um whenever the the hearing officer, if I was the hearing officer and I lived within a certain jurisdiction, or I was hearing this, or I was a witness to some of this, sorry, then it would cause a problem for me, and I would I would remove myself from it.

So let me give you a hypothetical.

If I if my neighbor came to me and said as a hearing officer, I don't like our neighbor over there's basketball hoop on the street.

Okay, that's one of the ones we hear a lot.

And I don't like that basketball hoop on the street, it blocks my parking space and everything that I like to park in.

And if I told them you will go, you know, what should I do about it?

Well, I think you should go file a complaint, and then maybe they will remove it.

And then that person appeals that removal and they come before me, I would say to myself, I'm out.

I can't do this because I had too much information in this particular case.

It's not as simple as, hey, I hope you see things my way, or I'm hoping that maybe you'll give me a fair shot.

Something like that, that's innocuous.

But when they're getting into the details about what do you think about if I do it this many feet or that many feet, can I go forward on this?

Let me talk to the city.

It's creating you as a witness, unfortunately.

So if I so if I repeated in context what our city manager said that Mr.

Race would um understand why some people have their carpet carports up and nothing happens to them simply because I I repeated what he said.

You're saying that now I'm a witness?

No, I'm saying that it's potentially a witness because he has submitted a statement where he says you told him it was okay to go forward.

You've clarified that to say that is not what I said, but that is a document that he has submitted on behalf of his appeal, and that creates you as a witness.

That's what I'm saying.

It wasn't you.

So this happened.

This happened December 21st, 2024.

About 10 months ago.

Okay, I just wrote this timeline uh just recently, as I'm going through my my records.

Uh I didn't record what she had said.

I just I just remember the best of my knowledge stating that you know it was go ahead and build.

So I I referenced that.

So she has either a c uh clearer memory of what she had said, and I give her that.

You know, I'm not gonna deny what uh she remembers she said.

I just put it into uh my wording as I as I remember it.

So mayor, I'm sorry, if I could just clarify, I have a document provided uh to me on uh April of 2025 that references it was a third week of December 2024 that I received acknowledgement to go ahead and build from council member Alcala.

She also mentioned she discussed the matter with city manager Aaron Laurel.

And so I just wanted to clarify the record in that that it's been reiterated twice that it's not necessarily forgive me, sir.

I'm not trying to make a spectacle.

I just want to clarify that we have the app uh absolute correct information before us on the record, um, that it wasn't just something that popped up because it looks like there's a inaccurate we we have just received something separate from that.

We received this in public promises council member Alcala.

That's there are two.

But but tonight, I think that's where the hearing officer is pointing to, and you have the same document that he gave us.

And and council member Alcala is referenced in here as part of your the documents you would like for us that alone creates the conflict way regardless of whether or not it's accurate.

That's what the hearing officer is stating right now that we have to decide whether to determine that council member Alcala is conflicted out of the of either sitting here, taking action, or we can move forward with her sitting here.

It's just in a public forum.

It's not recommended that any party appear to be a witness or involved in a matter before that particular council, given that it's a public hearing.

Right.

And and so it the standard protocols to act.

And we just thought caution.

Oh, I just got that.

And I understand that.

That's why, as did I.

And the details of it coming out.

Like And this is your direction to now at this point, consider that Councilmember Ocala is completed.

She can state for herself, I mean, what what she feels.

Like I told you, I gave you my scenario that if it was me, I would remove myself from it.

I don't feel I have a conflict here.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Um then you can proceed with it, and or unless the the council um I go for it.

Okay, who's gonna go first?

Heavy as the head.

You had a question, you said you my name, you didn't want to wait.

Mayor Protestant, do you have a question?

Um so it's interesting when we started this process.

Is my mic on when we started this process?

Um had a little note that I said was informed prior to construction, why did you keep building?

And according to this, what I'm concluding is that council member Alcala told you to keep building.

Yes.

So that to me, and that's the connection I'm making.

That to me would be a conflict.

I'm just advising you as the hearing officer, that's why I raised it to you.

Because that's what I heard too.

And then it became more of a conflict when council member Alcall Alcala was explaining.

No, this is what I said, but he's reiterated now twice that no, I went forward because you said it was okay.

And that's that's different than what councilmember Alcala says happened.

And that's a conflict, and that creates you as a witness that you could in this case.

And then when you're a witness to a an action, you're not supposed to be hearing or voting on that action.

Or contributing verbally.

Correct.

That's the you could she could as a citizen step down and articulate I am speaking as a citizen, not on behalf of my district or the council, and these are my feelings and my observations.

I'm speaking as a neighbor.

That is not generally advised is good practice, but it is allowable as long as you like anyone else with public comment would have the ability to come down and speak, but would not be able to sit on this map.

So to eliminate the conflict pardon me.

Oh, that that's that's if it sales.

We can't un we can't unsee it.

That's the problem.

Okay.

For the for the uh question to um either hearing officer or our council here, umward, what could be the consequences?

Could this excellent so what could be the consequences if there was a decision that was not favorable to with council member Alcala present towards the Mr.

Reyes?

Remember, the city is in a position where they're asking you to deny his appeal.

So if this council was to potentially vote to deny the appeal, the city could arguably appeal or file suit that it was not they weren't given a fair hearing because not all the parties were impartial.

Does that make sense?

I'm in the unfortunate position that I'm really not supposed to be giving you advice on procedural matters.

Um but I will say the more likely well the situation that from my perspective would create a greater risk is if you approve the variance on a split vote where one vote mattered.

Right.

That would be the that would be the biggest concern because if a court went to a court and a court were determined that there was bias, which is really what we're talking about, conflict in the form of bias, and the individual who a court determined was biased was the deciding vote, that's significant.

If it ends up being you end up upholding the planning commission's decision, I think that's less of an issue for my that's about as far as I'm comfortable.

If it was like a three to two vote, it would not look good.

Right.

Okay.

That's right.

How are you gonna vote?

No.

I mean it's why are you asking?

Absolutely not.

Council member, no.

I hope that that's not the situation.

That's what we have in front of us.

I think I'm waiting for the hearing to come be completed before you complete it.

Because what we're saying is that potentially we have conflict.

So if it does end up being three-two, I I have yet to finish the hearing before I decide.

I don't even think that's a good idea.

That I do feel my colleague came in to the hearing very clearly on where she stood as we started the process.

You can she's sitting right there.

Yeah, yeah.

Which I I mean I think is a fair conversation to have.

And I think that um the appeal the appeal for the variance should be granted because I think is once once again, you know, it's been a very arbitrary enforcement.

Um I I feel that the city definitely should change this ordinance or hearing officer.

Would you across we we need to interrupt your comments?

That's that's beyond the scope of the hearing.

Like I hear I understand what you're saying.

That's something that is a city council member you can take up with the city planner and look at on a grander scale.

But also just remember you haven't heard all the evidence yet.

Oh because there's public comment, so you said do you think it should be you that you should grant the appeal and that you haven't heard all the evidence yet for that kind of further question, wasn't it?

Further reinforcing my concern.

So I I I leave it up to you.

I I'm just trying to protect you and the city, and that's why I'm here.

That's good.

Well, so far what I'm talking about I feel it once again, I feel that it's very arbitrary in terms of enforcement.

Well, we we should wait till we hear all the evidence.

Okay.

All right.

Well, wait, wait, wait, wait, the council, council member.

Yes, so proceed.

The conflict or not?

I think we need to decide that before.

Isn't that what he told us?

No, because he said he he said if the council member says it's not, then Oh, he actually said all of us.

So we are all deciding am I that I hear that wrong.

Well, it's unusual because normally in my situation it would only be myself making that decision about myself.

Um so it's not quite often that we have a um I I'm not had the opportunity to sit on a panel.

Well, if it's any consolation to you, I've never had this situation come up either.

So um that said, generally speaking, when the question is a conflict of interest, the individual that may or may not have a conflict is the one who makes a decision.

Right on whether or not the participating.

That said, I um if a majority of the council feels that someone should not be participating because of conflict.

That's not in the ordinance procedure.

I think that's not written in the ordinance.

For the council to vote to disqualify a council member from participating.

The general rule would be conflicts are individual things.

Right.

If someone acts in violation of conflict of interest rules, the consequence is on them, not on the council as a whole.

Right, exactly.

The consequences on them.

Sounds good.

I'm and I'm correct.

It's not written that we take a vote to disqualify anybody here.

No, I'm not saying that's why I had said I think I I think she I I think it I'm I'm trying to assist um council member member Al Pala, actually, because I'm trying to um suggest that you you consider that about I understand you don't feel there's a conflict, but I a conflict of interest is a serious matter.

Right.

That won as an elected to take into consideration.

Anything.

So that's that's all.

So it is your you like you are the holder of that decision, and you can uh retain you can if you feel it's not a conflict.

I'm just saying if it gets reviewed at a future date, then not everybody would necessarily agree with that, but maybe they would.

Are we gonna hear more evidence you said?

Yeah.

Well, it well, you have questions.

I think the evidence might be some more.

Council member Roscoe was the one bringing up this comment.

I do have another question.

Well regarding the conflict of interest.

Under the conflict of interest, if there if there was nothing that happened here, for example, but there was a complaint raised against a council member separate and apart from all of this.

Are there are there consequences on that council member?

You mean like ethics complaints?

Like if somebody files it with the fair political.

I think we all have to do it.

And uh it's not it's that's why I bring it up.

It's a big part of it.

Can uh can we just rewind a little bit to something that that I think Jeff, it's a nuance, and I want to make sure that it's clear to the council.

Um and I'll let Jeff explain it, but it it's it has to do with the uh the outcome.

So I'm not sure it was clear.

I may not have been clear.

Okay.

And that was done on a split vote where it was a three-two vote, say, where the individual that that is potentially has a conflict is on the three side of a three-two.

Oh, if the if it if it were a three-two vote going the other way, it doesn't it doesn't matter at that point because the individual who's who may have a conflict did not carry the day, right?

That position did not carry the day.

And there so there's um you know, if you vote three-two to uphold the planning commission, and I'm using three two just because that's the only one that matters.

If you were to vote three-two to uphold the planning commission and Mr.

Rays wanted to challenge the decision, he is not going to be successful in challenging the decision on the ground when suddenly he says Councilman Markala had a conflict because she didn't vote to um deny his appeal.

So that's what I'm saying.

The only the time when it would potentially matter is if you rule in his favor.

But I'm advising her with regard to the other issues.

There could be some there are some ethical issues that exist standalone to council members and and uh managers and things of that nature that we have to do.

That's so that's separate.

So that's why I'm just trying to, as a hearing officer, advise you that that's why it's always a risk to stay in on a on the case that there could be a conflict.

And the eight the I think the teachings are in an abundance of caution.

When in doubt, get out, I think is how they say it.

So that's so I just leave that to you, but I'll let that is your decision and you can proceed as you wish.

But there do you feel comfortable going forward at this time?

You do.

Okay.

So then she's made that decision and and then we can resume with the the hearing.

Well, you're not gonna raise the question that we need to ask the question.

No, no, no, because no, you just you you answered it.

No, I just wanted to make sure that then the rest of us we get in trouble.

Oh, okay.

No, you it's it's only it's only only the person with the conflict.

Oh, the person with the conflict.

That's it.

Council Member Odosco, I think you were asking lots of questions that I'd like for you to finish.

Um yeah, I'm sorry, I took an oath uh to the city, and I'm I'm oh just trying to get this information before this council for um a fair and non-arbitrary decision making process.

Um I see then uh where we where we stopped was in December of twenty-four where we had the discussion regarding my fellow council member, and then we have two like a month later, a month and a half later, or no, one month later is construction begins.

And then the day after construction began was a stop or work order was imposed by the city, sir.

Is that fair?

That's correct.

Okay.

And um there was subsequent notice to abate the construction uh on in February.

That's correct.

Okay.

And then um there were further discussions, um and a subsequent meeting with council member Alcala in April of 2025 regarding this matter, regarding a variance.

So um another involvement by council member Alcala in this process, fair to say April.

Okay.

And so then the variance was submitted by you, sir, in May tw on May 28, 2025, according to your timeline.

And planning commission denied that variance, and that's why we're here tonight with this appeal.

Okay.

Now, sir, um with respect to the city ordinance that was um being, I guess, recited by staff to cease and desist the construction.

Um at any point did you uh did you cease construction?

Yes, it hasn't been touched since but at this juncture with respect to the the addresses that you provided tonight.

Do we do you have any information as to when or uh uh the timeline as to when those were constructed, or do you know whether or not they were preexisting?

Pre-existing.

Okay.

Because you had a structure previously, fair?

Yes, and it was a smaller structure made for smaller uh recreational vehicles.

That's correct.

So this was just an augmentation of a current design that you had enjoyed previously on the property.

I've had it for years, uh parked my truck under it.

Uh it was roughly 15 by 20 in size.

Uh which was it covered a good portion of uh the previous driveway before it was extended.

So uh yeah, and I never had a problem, never had a problem with that.

Okay, that was my next question.

Has anybody ever said anything?

And clearly they had not.

It was only after the purchase of this class C 31 foot motor home.

Exactly.

Which is substantially larger, perhaps, of the other recreational vehicles that we have this new uh set of complaints from uh concerned neighbor.

Okay.

Um but I just wanted to clarify the timeline that um you were told um or at least advised um that there was an ordinance that had prohibited the the construction on the property.

And I believe at that time it was unfair.

Uh huh.

It was arbitrary since there was so many other people that uh apparently had uh structures, you know, that would have violated that ordinance.

Yeah.

And they were allowed to do so.

And at any point during that um that time, um, I know Councilmember Alcala had mentioned that she had done some research on her own and counted approximately 17 different carports in the area.

Did you work with uh council member Alcala at any point during that time?

Uh no, I don't believe so.

No, I know no.

Okay, so her research was in the information came strictly by my own.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Nothing further.

I have a question regarding the use of arbitrary and unfair.

That being your point to is that the point to deny the you know, um to uphold the planning commission decision.

Being it arbitrary, I think that would be the point to uh not agree with the variance denial.

Okay.

But I did hear your whole statement that making a decision um to deny the planning commission's decision would allow for others to find a way to have you know more climate-friendly housing structures.

Moving forward is there so structures um shade structures are important.

Uh we've learned um in parks if you don't have a shade over the um uh the plague play area play area that kids can burn themselves.

Is that is that I mean I'm trying to understand I don't have the background on an RV because I don't own one and how does that work for an RV?

Well, it just it it keeps it from the sun, it keeps it from uh deteriorating the paint on it.

Uh anything that sits out in the sun, you know it's gonna get is gonna deteriorate.

Okay.

And the one I just wanted to prevent protect my investment.

How big was it?

Or like was this so is this double the size, or is this a uh just about it it it depended on the size of the current motorhome?

Uh I used to park a uh pop-up trailer there that fit it was a pop-up trailer that the dimensions was about 15 feet long by eight feet wide.

I had a uh previous uh carport, you can call it a carport shade structure.

That the dimensions were 15 wide by 20 long that covered it.

Uh the reason being for those dimensions is the turning rate is to get in and out uh of the uh of the driveway.

Oh and that's what constituted the size of this one because of the turning radius required.

Uh that was the dimensions that were required.

That's what dimensions uh of the height.

Uh I needed a 12-foot clearance to get out, which made the uh the total 15 feet uh because of the way the structure had to be built.

There's a 24-foot opening uh that I drive through, and in order to uh be able to uh house a roof on a 24-foot opening, uh it had to be uh constructed uh with at least that much uh building up on top, which raised uh which raised the uh height level.

Because it does seem really high.

Yeah.

And you've learned this how uh through the uh company that I was working with, Pacific Metal Incorporated, uh they designed the plans for it.

I told them what I needed as far as the specifications, what it as far as the the uh width, so I can uh be able to maneuver uh the the motor home in and out of that driveway, and that's where it it came to.

That's uh there was uh about eight feet of fence that was taken out.

Uh the opening uh wasn't that big to begin with, it was eight feet shorter, so I took a section out in order to give me that clearance to drive in.

Where would you so you're so without the structure, your motor home would be impacted in the climate is what I'm gathering.

So and and you you did take a look at safety precautions to get that struck, you know, your motorhome is a few.

Of course I did.

Yeah, that's what I'm hearing.

Um no safety concern.

Yeah.

Um so with the hearing officer for the decision that we need to make is the the so we heard from the staff on why a variance wasn't granted, planning commission and their decision denying the variance, and then and then the the request is for us to grant the variance.

But I'm hearing that uh from the applicant that he's saying that the reason why he's um had this code enforcement violation is because of the arbitrary and unfair targeting on his is that how how do we take that into consideration in this decision?

In this particular decision, um I your your question is just merely whether or not they violated the whether the commission, the planning commission itself, violated the variance orders and rules in making their particular decision.

In other words, like you're you're hearing the appeal of the of the planning commission, and so the planning commission was asked to decide should we grant a variant in this particular case?

And they decided and they decided that based on the four prongs, no, we shouldn't.

And that was their ruling.

Mr.

Reyes said I I disagree with that.

I think that that's incorrect that decision.

So you're essentially looking at a review of the evidence and deciding whether or not a variance should be granted whether or not that exception should be made.

It's not, I mean, if you feel that the city had, I mean, it's evidence you're taking into consideration.

If you feel the evidence, you can accept any evidence that's relevant.

Certainly, I think it would be relevant if there was evidence that this was being done arbitrarily and unfairly.

Um you could take that into consideration, especially after seeing all these other addresses, and we don't know what happened.

Correct.

And that correct, that's right.

Okay.

You could potentially take that into consideration, and I'll leave it to your council to make their arguments as to whether or not you know the response to it.

Yeah, I would make two comments.

One I have not heard anything to indicate that he was parked.

So I I have some concern with the use of that he was targeted.

I I don't think that's a fair statement of what happened here.

The other is remember that you have to make all four findings in order to grant a variance.

The comments that he's making really go to the question of whether or not it would be a special privilege.

And you could, that's within your discretion to determine that it would not be a grant of special privilege because there are many other carports similarly located.

You also, however, have to make each of the other findings.

So one of those findings is the granting of the application is necessary to prevent a physical hardship, which is not of the applicant's own action or the actions of a predecessor.

Reason he needs a carport there is because of the way the house was designed and the pool and the other landscape.

That's a decision of his or his predecessor.

That's not this is not being imposed on him by someone else.

You also have to make a determination that it's consistent with the general purpose and objectives of zoning code and the general plan, et cetera.

So you need to make each of those four findings.

That's ultimately your call.

That's what you're here for to make the decision, but you do need to be able to make all four.

There was no um special reason other than the fact that I had the room to park it there.

I had the room to cover it with the structure.

I just I had the room to do that.

Well, but I'll do respect.

With all due respect, you didn't have the room, not legally.

Okay.

Um I'm I'm looking at it.

I had the room.

I had the room to do it.

It's parked there now.

There's structures up.

I had the room to do that.

If I didn't have the room to park it there, it would have never been parked.

So like I say, uh at a higher level legally, I see your point, but me being lower level, I'm seeing other similar structures that are utilizing their property in that state.

And I just wanted to be able to do the same thing.

So unless there's any other evidence at this time that Mr.

Reyes wants to present, you probably should move to your public comments.

We will make it a chance for them to speak.

Great.

We'll move to public comment if that's okay.

Yeah, that's right.

You'll be given an opportunity to come back up if you're not going to be able to do that.

You'll be given you'll be given an opportunity to come back after the public comment.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, are there any requests for public comment?

Yes, ma'am.

Maria Garhalva.

Madame Mayor, Council members, I um ask you to please uh consider the staff report as hogwash.

And um the excuse that we're complaint-driven, it's hogwash.

Uh the excuse that it's not walkable, that's hogwash.

Uh if somebody wanted to deny the variance, it's it's I mean, they just made up really, really good propaganda and lies, and and it doesn't look fair.

It doesn't look fair because obviously he didn't do it in spite, but it was obvious that everyone else was able to put the same construction.

And so he's not able to do the same construction, and so obviously he was making a very legitimate point.

And so I'd beg you all of you to please consider making an exception, uh, updating the ver updating the the the code, which is a correct thing to do.

Uh grant him a special privilege uh because and then tell everyone going forward, hey, no more constructions.

This is the rule from now on going forward.

But right now, it's not fair.

And right now it's not fair to him, it's arbitrary, it's directly, and it's that's illegal.

That's illegal.

And so we've seen what the city, how the city thinks, the city is corporate-minded.

We saw what they wanted to do to the Sanchez family during the imminent domain, could care less if it was four generations of a family.

Who cares?

You know, and turns out the ramp had not even been drawn, and and and it was just heartless.

And so we saw what they did when the tiny home ordinance, a property owner had a property and she couldn't live on her property in peace because of a city ordinance that they didn't want to make, that the city didn't want to make.

And and then let's think of the investment that this neighbor has made.

I'm very lucky.

I happen to have two very large, I have one very large 36-foot barn that my house was made in the 50s, and and the owner, our previous owner obviously had an RV there.

And and then my other driveway is really deep and long, and I'm grateful that I have shade because otherwise the car would be peeling and and the sun is not good.

And so please consider uh granting a one-time uh variance and a special privilege to my neighbor because it just does not seem fair, and uh and it doesn't look good on us, and uh, and obviously the staff you could really care less.

All they're worried about is the bot bottom dollar, not about the heart and not about the person, they just care about money.

Thank you.

Gloria Reyes.

My name is Gloria Reyes, and I live at 1512 Michelin Boulevard.

I have lived there for 41 years.

In the 41 years I have lived there, we have done major construction to our home.

Not one time has there ever been a wreck on my corner.

No walking on the sidewalk has never had a problem.

That corner, my structure does not impede the view of any incoming or ongoing cars.

I have worked with my neighbor, tried to work with my neighbor, it doesn't work.

This, what is going on here is a dispute between two neighbors.

It's not fair.

I personally drove around part of West Sacramento.

I'm the one that got all those addresses that my husband has.

I personally drove around and seen how many structures are out there like mine.

Since we started this, there has been four structures that have gone up down the street from my home.

And I know they have no permits.

Now are they being asked to remove these structures because no permits because nobody complained?

I just feel it's unfair, and we're being singled out.

And thank you for listening to me.

Linda Palman.

So my name's Linda, and I am I'm here in behalf of the the Reyes.

I have legitimate been a residence in West Sacramento for over 55 years.

I know that these structures that this gentleman over here was saying they may have been in Grandfather Day and this part.

I can witness that I have children everywhere from Project Bright, State Streets all the way out to Bridgeway.

I know I noticed structures going up.

I've seen structures, and I've seen the witnesses, these the neighbors, I've seen them literally come over and spit on Mrs.

Reyes' feet on her own driveway.

I've seen the harassment.

I've house set for them.

They've harassed me during that time, and I'm in their backyard.

I mean, so this has just been an ongoing situation that doesn't need to be first.

It's just it's terrible.

It's wrong.

And for people to be able to live into a house, and I have bigger concerns.

We're all here str fighting over structures on people's property.

I have grandchildren that go over there to the charter school on Bright Avenue.

Has anybody, code enforcement or anybody in the city of West Sacramento, have any concerns at all about those oak trees that are along Bright Avenue.

Those trees are gonna come down, kill a student, hurt people.

That's bigger concerns than these people dealing with structures on people's property.

And it's their own property.

You know, people buy their homes.

They should be able to do what they want to do on it and it's it's city court.

I understand that.

But they're not hurting nobody.

They want to protect their RVs, they want to protect their vehicles, they want to protect their homes.

But what about other more?

I mean, like those oak trees.

That's my bigger concern.

I'm I'm here to speak on behalf of those of those my grandkids and those students over there on Bright Avenue.

I'm sorry to say I got a little bit off subject, but I wanted to come here tonight to speak my concerns around those regarding those oak trees.

Those oak trees are bigger problem than anybody's structures on their property.

It's really wrong.

It's terrible.

And I hope you can listen to what I'm saying, and maybe city, maybe the code enforcements can go out there and look at those trees and see the concerns.

They're gonna come down and they're gonna really, really kill somebody or hurt one of those students or anybody else walking or driving by.

So thank you for listening to me.

I'm sorry I got off of the structure on one thing or another, but I wanted to be heard about those oak trees as well.

So thank you for your time.

Hanalora Kush.

I'm uh neighbor.

I live on 50 Noid Michigan Boulevard.

And uh Miss Reyes is in the middle of Michigan, and then there is I've kind of knife nervous, I can think so well.

Then we have Portsmouths.

So he's in the middle of Michigan and Portsmouth in the next house.

So he's in between my house and then I owned a house and Portsmouth.

So Portsmouth, it is very dangerous for people like my Rendo Rent House.

It's very difficult to get out with the motorhome.

The whole motorhome is an accident to happen.

And there's a lot of people that come from the trailer parts from direct traffic is heavy.

So the motorhome is just a dangerous situation there.

That's about all I have to say.

It's just it's just I can say my renders is I can make it out of there, you know.

I can get out in the street, get around the just to clarify the motor home itself is the danger, not the structure.

Yeah, the motorhome.

Okay, thank you.

So there's no problem with the structure.

That's a lot of me.

Okay, the motorhome.

Thank you.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you.

Matt Weaver.

I want to note I don't have a pony in this race.

I don't get paid to be here.

Could go home.

But this stuff really interests me.

It really interests me to see Mr.

Reyes.

I'm gonna call him a hero.

I know that's a big grandiose statement.

But what else was he gonna do?

Just cower to some bureaucrat at the front desk who said, You can't do this.

You can't.

That's it.

We said you can't.

And I don't even know why it came up.

Maybe it came up because who he had in his lawn sign for the election, and the neighbors don't like who you want to vote for.

And now every time you do something, they're gonna call somebody.

And that's how our city gets down.

You know, I remember during COVID, I had a tent in my parking lot, and someone called code enforcement because we had to do outdoor fitness under a tent.

And they called code enforcement so that we could have a fire codent retardant on an outdoor tent that we were working out in our parking lot.

So someone called, my neighbors called.

Maybe they called because they said I don't like Donald Trump, or I don't like Gavin Newson, or I don't like these people.

And now I got code enforcement knocking on my door saying, What are you guys doing here?

That's real life.

All these people, your suits, this guy gets paid to tell you how to have a forum that you guys don't know how to hold.

Because you have to have a consultant, you have to have half a million dollars worth of staff here to tell you how to do it.

How the hell Mr.

Ray is gonna figure out how to do it, like and to recuse one of the council members because she's got some advocacy for somebody who just can't catch a break in your bureaucratic undercaring world.

It's it's a matter of fact.

Go do a survey, ask people how are we to do business with?

Ask a small, not the people who pay to talk to you and go to your luncheons and sponsor you and build big structures and Ethan Conrads of the world, not those guys.

Guys like Mr.

Reyes, like seriously.

This is why this stuff comes to you because your staff and your process isn't friendly to people like Mr.

Reyes.

And I'm in support of the fact that he had no other way to build this but to build it and force you guys into this forum and force himself in a lion's den with all you over-educated people who do this full time, so he can have a carport on his American dream.

I don't have an RV.

I might be a little bothered if my neighbor did something that I didn't like, and then like that I'd get over it.

Because we got bigger fish to fry.

And if we're really gonna be a community and we're really gonna be neighbors, and we really stand for anything, we would get deeper to the problem why you guys always have an appeal in here from your planning commission who always cancels meetings and a staff that always does things in the cloak of dark, and this is all the city's ever talking about.

We have no additional requests to speak on this item.

Thank you, Madame Clerk, for covering that.

Um bringing it back here.

We have now um the members of the public.

And so we have the appellant has five minutes at this time, and then we will um have the staff come up after that.

Answer any other more.

Yes, the staff would come up to answer any other additional questions or to respond to after the appellant comes up.

Okay, correct.

Do you have any um additional comments you'd like to make?

You have five minutes.

Um just to um reiterate um about what Ms.

Scooch said.

Uh not a problem with the structure, you know, and where does complaint come from?

Who complained about the structure?

She's got a she's got a complaint about the motorhome being parked there.

Motorhome's not the issue, it's the the carport structure.

So if that complaint I you know, I never heard of what the actual complaint was.

So I'm assuming that they had a problem, and it's it's been voiced up until now with the carport structure being uh uh obstruction of you being too big, but she just state it's not the carport structure.

But as you just state it's not the carport structure.

So I, you know, it it's the motorhome is gonna stay there.

And I'm just hoping that you guys could see that the carport could stay there too.

It's not harming anyone, it's not obstructing the view.

Uh we talked to her neighbor, the renter that comes out of that driveway every day.

She doesn't have a problem of uh of not being able to see the traffic.

We we know that.

So that's uh all I wanted to do is comment on that.

Thank you.

Okay.

And uh is it Tristan?

You'll be humming back up here for any other questions among staff.

And an opportunity to rebut.

And an opportunity to rebut, of course.

Yes.

There's a lot that was said here.

I'll try and keep it brief.

So just to provide some clarity, um, the the complaint, we have our code enforcement officers here who can clarify if I get this wrong, but it was for um an unpermitted, unpermitted structure and a structure within the setbacks.

So two kind of two components to that.

But kind of listening to all of this and everything we heard tonight.

Um fighting with this thing, you know, really there's a couple different roles that we have here.

Um, you guys, as councils, elected officials have a policy role, you know, to provide guidance um to us on things like bringing a municipal code amendment to us.

Technical staff, we have a job where we provide information to you, the applicants, the people at our front counter, we administer our processes equally, evenly.

We apply the rules if they come through our shop, there's a permit, we look at them all the same.

Um, we kind of start with three main questions over in the planning world.

Are you in our city?

What's your zoning?

And then what are your setbacks and are there any easement places you can't build?

Those are like three of the fundamental questions we look at any time we look at a project.

So if a project does come through, we're looking at the we're asking those questions.

So we talked about our roles.

The policy role of, you know, council member O'Call brought up can we can we make modifications to a municipal code?

We've heard that from the public.

That is a direction that you guys can provide to Aaron and we can research and bring it back to you.

But that's not why we're here tonight.

Tonight we're here for a very limited scope, which is whether or not it basically the appeal of planning commission's decision for a variance, which has the four required findings.

So if there are other pieces from my standpoint, I think we have to stay with the those four findings and the appeal process.

Um so that's kind of the lens I'm coming at at this from, provide some clarity.

That's our technical role is to provide the information to you guys as decision makers.

Um, I heard that there was some confusion um from the applicant around his direction, whether he was allowed to or not.

Um that kind of gets to the policy and the technical role.

He heard very clearly from technical staff, this is not allowed, you can't do this.

There's a process you would need to go through.

He stated that he built it to challenge the setback ordinance again.

That is a separate discussion topic from where we're at tonight.

Ordinances are not arbitrary.

Anything that comes through, we make sure that we apply it evenly.

Um there could be some solutions for some of Mr.

Ray's concerns.

Um, the staff report states that a soft cover for his RV would be allowed.

So if he has concerns about sun damage, weather damage, that may be able to be addressed through a soft cover.

So I think those are the primary kind of thoughts that I had listening to all the feedback we heard tonight.

Um, happy to answer any questions they that you guys have.

Any questions?

Members?

I do have a question.

We just received an address list.

I don't know if you had a chance to review it.

That for me is um important information for my decision here tonight.

Uh I I I would like to know if you know there are others out there with a similar structure is being permitted.

And we don't have I don't have the answer for that if there were because you don't know.

So I would um I would wager that they are either unpermitted or they were in early.

Because if those came in today, if they came into my staff today to review those three things we'd look at.

Are you in the city?

What is your zoning, and what are your setbacks?

That's where we would start.

And so we would not process an application because building permits are routed to the planning division, primarily for us to check the zoning and setbacks.

Those are the two key things that the planners look at.

Um building division gets into building codes and structures and electrical conduit, firewalls, that kind of stuff.

We look at the site.

But we would not again, we apply the code evenly.

So we would not say, oh, it's five feet in the setback.

That's okay.

We we would tell them the same thing we told Mr.

Reyes, which is the proposed location of your structure is in violation of the setback requirements.

We're not saying you can't build a structure, we're saying you're in the wrong place.

You have to go back and find another place to locate.

Maybe you push it back.

You have um one of the community members here has a really deep driveway.

So if she was able to go the 15 or 20 feet back or whatever her setbacks for her zone on her property are, she can build that.

It's just where he constructed it, is not possible from a zoning perspective.

Councilmember Early.

You guys can hear me in here, but they can't hear me on Zoom.

Whatever it is.

Uh so pre you a few years ago, I uh I wanted to move my fence.

Uh anyone who knows where I live, I have huge, huge front yard full of grass.

Um and so I wanted to move it all the way out because my neighbors have a fence that's all the way out there.

So I went down to the planning office and I actually met with David uh Tilly at the time and I said, okay, so I've got this map, all the things.

Um, and he said, well, you can move it, but you can't move it all the way out there.

You can move it only a couple feet out.

And so I didn't move it because I didn't want to take the chance that I would spend a lot of money on a fence, and then one of my neighbors would complain, and then I'd have to pull it up and move it back.

I did I was not a hero.

I did not challenge the system.

I followed the rules.

Um I I'm curious about what is the process.

Let's say if I if I did want to um, as we heard from public comment, play the hero.

Um, how hard is it to file a complaint?

Like, so we got 15, 17 addresses.

I've had many uh, by the way, code enforcement has been to my my house several times for other things, and I abided.

Um, but how how hard is it to file a complaint?

Uh code enforcement's here, but I know I was hoping you'd bring them up.

But feel free.

My understanding, like I said, I'm familiar with them.

It is girl, what is happening?

Because a lot of these my neighbors, I feel him.

My neighbors, I totally feel him.

Yeah.

A lot of code stuff can be health and safety issues.

So for that reason, a lot of jurisdictions also generally, it's a pretty easy process to ensure that if there are concerns that that can be brought to the city's attention, code enforcement officers can go out, inspect and determine if there is in fact a problem or not that needs to be fixed.

Can you mind coming on down for me?

Thank you so much.

How are you doing?

Good evening, everybody.

Yes, I'm doing good.

Thank you.

It's a bit of a role reversal, huh?

Josh early on the code enforcement managers introduced myself.

Yes, thank you for coming down.

Um and I kid and I don't kid at the same time.

Uh basketball hoop, that was me.

So I can't even tell you the number of times you came by.

Um and I finally got rid of it, quite frankly, uh, because of the issues.

Again, didn't challenge the system.

Um so we got 17 addresses, right?

Today, we got pictures.

Um, how hard would it be if Mr.

Reyes was like, you know what?

I I want I want this to be enforced fairly.

And I think what we're saying is in order for it to be enforced fairly, it every we just we need to receive a complaint.

And then once we receive a complaint, once you come into this into the door, then everyone is treated the same, right?

In fact, it could actually be considered unfair if we just go around randomly doing things because our our system is to actually enforce it via complaint.

And so we got 17 addresses.

Is that considered the complaint or what what would it take?

I'm just curious what my neighbors do.

Uh my staff and I would be happy to follow up on any complaints just like we do with every other complaint the city receives on a daily basis, and we would be happy to follow up on any of these new ones in the exact same manner that followed up on Mr.

Reyes' case, as well as the other 26 cases that we had looked at over this last year from September to September that were best restructuring.

So we would absolutely just follow up exactly.

Josh, could you outline just the process for filing a complaint though?

Is what what is the actual process for someone to file a code enforcement?

What's that connect?

I I wish I I wish I could, yeah, I wish I could run from all of them, but uh honestly, uh they can fall in on our code enforcement line, they can put in a public stuff request electronically.

We get a number of complaints directly to our counter.

My officers are in the public eye every single day and they get stopped and they get complaints.

Um we hear from neighbors, we hear everybody pretty much at the same time.

So how we have just received, right?

Because I think part of what Mr.

Reyes and what we've heard here is potentially people aren't right, these things are happening.

And so now that they have come to our attention, I mean, even we heard Councilmember Aukla, hopefully she shares some of those addresses that she saw.

So now that we've we've heard that, is that enough, or do you do we need to do we need to do something else?

Absolutely.

That's exactly the way we receive.

Okay.

So it's done.

Absolutely.

All right.

Um, and and what I would also highlight, because we've talked about arbitrary treatment, unfair treatment.

As a council member, you've been by my house.

I'm not special.

Um, and and I would I would just want to note that.

So thank you guys for your hard work.

Thank you for continuing to be impartial, no matter who uh receives the complaint.

I know it's not an easy job.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Hurley.

I do have a question.

Absolutely.

The the the process is not as clear cut for me as in my experience.

Uh I have submitted, I think, a complaint.

And we have had exchanges in West Sack Connect, or even I responded and said, okay, I'm gonna have to take this to the next level.

This is this is not response I I that satisfies my inquiry.

And uh and I and I did get a response from staff, but I still haven't found out what the outcome is to this day.

I think it's probably it was an actual fire.

And and I was complaining about a potential public health issue on site.

Had it not been for the fire department witnessing the complaints that I've been receiving from the neighbors, I don't think anybody would have done anything.

Personally, that is in my thoughts that I don't think anybody would have done anything because it's been new just a number of complaints and years of complaining.

And I'm not here to undress you, but I'm just gonna share with you my personal experience.

And I do apologize for that.

Um I do tell every complaint that sends a complaint to me.

I up front if or if they want to contact me after the fact to get additional information on how the outcome may be, as long as it's in the public records request.

We are happy to provide that information.

I have so many complaints on a daily basis that I would not have the time available to respond to every single one of those every single day.

Um but if if it was needed, I'd have to provide outcomes that would be hopeful.

I mean, I still wait for what happened.

Don't don't get me wrong.

I still I it's it's always in the back of my mind what happened.

Only because the neighbors keep reminding me nothing's happened.

That's all.

And I'll just chime in just in in uh kind of uh a little bit defense of our staff, but also just in in informing the process a little bit.

Um I think when we get code enforcement complaints, it's often the hope that there's immediate abatement and there's immediate results.

I think it speaks to both the workload but also the process involved.

There's there's an invest investigative process has to be followed very closely.

Um there's an abatement process that can take a lot of time.

And so I don't know if Josh, you want to add anything about that, but um, it's not as simple as just receiving the complaint and doing an immediate abate.

So just like these ones tonight, you you can see there's um, you know, of these various addresses, there's a lot of there's a story to every property, uh, whether it preceded the history of this uh the the corporation of the city or the ordinance and it's grandfathered somehow, or um there's there could be other factors as well.

So each one is an investigative on its own uh circumstances and and that does uh take time and and and staff resources, so it's not always a a quick process.

And to be quite honest, uh the number of other uh cases or complaints that we may have.

Um some of those may have been already rectified.

Maybe they were given a permit, maybe they were um allowed due to the size, maybe they were outside of the setback.

Again, those would be questions that we would look into once.

Okay.

Well, I think somebody complained about the basketball court the day after I filed to run for mayor.

At basketball court was there probably 15 years.

No, great.

I'm grateful that my neighbor was there where I was able to call him up and say, can you speak to code enforcement?

Let them know because I know it's in front of my property, but it's not my basketball court.

And so he came out and talked to code enforcement and clarified that.

But that but that was yes, when somebody senses that they're being um condemned because it's related to an election.

I mean, I think I've witnessed it firsthand in this last election as well.

Um other people who received code enforcement complaints after an incident related to election activity.

So I I do believe those happen, as I personally experienced.

Um does it weigh into based on what I'm hearing here about the RB.

That's why I asked the question about arbitrary and unfair.

And your actions and how you take how you approach a situation for any elected, it's it's in our memory on how we decide here today.

This is this is uh this is where we end up having to, you know, hear the evidence here and and and then compare it to what our experience is and then you know, um weigh into what you know what the decision will be.

But um, but I just you know, your your role in the community is pretty significant.

It's not it's not the friendliest, it's not the easiest.

Um, but it is uh an important role for for health and safety reasons, which is why I bring it up.

I'm gonna address that.

I I think I heard a question.

I I just want to be very clear.

We are professional ethical staff, we follow our codes um to to the butter of the law.

There is no bias, there is no targeting, there was nothing that happens based on politics.

We code enforcement particular is a complaint-driven process.

If we receive a complaint, we follow up on it.

Uh doesn't matter if the zoning violation or whatever the case may be.

Um our staff does everything based on what the what the code says, not based on who's involved.

I want to be very clear about that.

Mayor.

Yes, go ahead.

Okay, so we just received a list of 24 properties that appear to be non-conforming.

Well, we what are you gonna investigate these?

No, some of these appear to be non-conforming.

So are you going to investigate all these 24 because you've been informed?

Or do you have to receive it?

We are happy to uh I am happy uh to address any complaints that my office gets on any given.

So I guess what I'm asking, does someone have to complain?

Or since you've received this list, you have knowledge of them.

Are you going to go does somebody have to complain?

I think that's the city attorney, I said manager's question.

If the if the information that was provided tonight uh constitutes a complaint according to our code enforcement process, then the answer is yes.

At least 24 would qualify as complaints.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Who's logged in the formal complaint?

Yeah, absolutely like I've said be already we would treat those.

All right.

I think um thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

Well, Tristan, you I I'm still not clear on whether these other properties have been cleared.

Um and you kind of got a response like they probably don't know if they're permitted or not, or I I it's hard for me to see some properties with this structure with you know, with the similar looking structure and and making a decision here tonight.

I I just that's where I'm struggling.

If we can have more time and and postpone a decision until we get some more feedback from you.

So I think it and I don't mean to sorry if I inadvertently dodged the question, but these these 17 other properties, those will each have to be evaluated on their own merits when um so usually what happens just kind of to back the curtain a little bit.

Josh's group goes out, they get a complaint, they go out, they check it out, they take some photos.

Hey, it's not meeting current the current code, and then we go on a little history research project back at City Hall.

So a lot of times with planning.

So we go look, okay.

Are there any are there any permits from the past?

You know, going back years.

Maybe they're before David Tilly, maybe there is a planning planning guy here, and he signed off on stuff not knowing or someone made a mistake, or it was before the city was incorporated.

So we look at each of those individual properties and look at, okay, are they in the city, what's their zoning, what's their setback?

So we look at each of those individual properties and look at okay are they in the city what's their zoning what's their setback setbacks vary a little bit so we say we kind of measure on a mapping program and we say okay this garage carport structure appears to be in or out of the set okay we go to aerial imagery and we start going back in time Google Earth you can go and you go to 2021 and 2015 and then you find a 1995 aerial there's no carpool.

Okay so that means it's been built since 1995.

So we go on this fairly robust research project for each of these to determine are they legal nonconforming or are they non-conforming?

Legal nonconforming means they were somehow they don't meet our current code but they were somehow authorized or approved in the past whether that was before the city was in existence or they got a permit under a different code or something before the code changed those are your legal nonconforming they're okay.

Are nonconforming means they do not meet code they weren't permitted some way they weren't constructed in the manner they should be and that's when Josh's group goes back out says sir madam uh you have a structure that's out of compliance you don't have any permits for it here's your path to compliance so those are kind of and that's why it's hard to say are as a group are these legal nonconforming or not because each one's gonna have a different story.

Does that does that help with yeah it does um it's just uh I I just don't know you know I I guess your first answer was if if it was allowable you would have gone through the process just like you have with Mr.

Reyes and decided to proceed or not you're you're gonna be consistent with everybody and if these aren't not permit you know permitted appropriately then you're gonna go and rectify the situation.

Correct.

And today our decision is to make the right decision or not the right sorry I take that back.

Make the decision according to those four things that and we have the choice to then um decide not to take that into consideration today um if that was our choice.

So I would I would say two things um the choice today is about a variance most of those other cases more than likely will not have a variance component.

That's something Mr.

Ray has pursued as an option to come into compliance after the fact um other folks could theoretically do that but typically once we explain to to a homeowner or resident or a business whatever the code enforcement case is they find other ways to to get into compliance so how we treat those other 17 might be a different um approval or regulatory process or framework than we're going through here today which is the um which is the variance process which is very limited in scope um and I'd say our help here can help explain what what that scope is and kind of the bounds of what what is legally allowed to be considered for the purposes of the variance and what is kind of other factors that are floating out floating around or orbiting that may not actually be able to be incorporated into the legal findings that are required for a variance.

I was seeing if you had anything to add or if that was I'm not actually the uh it would be to your right because he would be advocating my my our my role is just like whose turn is it to speak and is it proper for this and that I do I do I do have another question.

If you take a look at more closely the 17 and you find out okay they're all noncompliant we're gonna go and remedy the situation that makes the decision today consistent if we decided to um uphold you know um planning commission recommendation because you're gonna go back to the 17 that's why the council member is asking the question you're gonna go back and and and make sure that everybody is compliant nobody will be a hero um that's that's where we all land today but if we decide that we wanted to amend um which is our authority which we can would we need to make a decision today could we postpone the decision for Mr.

Reyes like we did for um the tiny home because she was able to stay and and continue and then she's received the authority to be able to do what she needs to do to maintain the tiny home.

So sorry, more clarification.

This stuff is not simple.

As far as I'm aware, to continue the item to another date.

So the impact of the 17 should have no bearing on the decision on the variance today and the four findings for the variance.

So whether the 17 are all in compliance or none of them are in compliance, that shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not the variance findings for 1512 Michigan Boulevard can or cannot be made.

The variance is state law.

We're gonna ask staff to bring us back to look at the question of whatever it would be, changing setback requirements, carving out exceptions for carports.

Realizing that the changes that you're talking about would likely be state, I mean city one, not statewide.

Citywide changes.

And so that's not the sort of thing that happens overnight.

Um but if that was and you can't make a decision to amend the code tonight.

Right, we can't.

But you could you would be able to put a pause on this particular item and uh direct staff to come back and report back on whether there are changes or how they would change the code.

May I one other factor to consider?

So we've been talking primarily about that kind of the zoning hand of this, the setbacks, how far away from the sidewalk things are built, how tall they are.

This is also a structure that has not gone through build permit for V.

And I touched on this earlier.

Those are the folks who look at the structural integrity who look at the life safety stuff.

Um, seeing if Roxana's still here, I think she's back there.

Um I haven't seen Roxanne.

Was she here?

I thought I saw her walk in.

So with it's a large structure, and so I think that's one more piece to consider if you're if you're looking at um kind of the temporal nature of this, are are we extending it out, you know, kind of taking a pause on the hearing process and procedure?

Uh I'm not an engineer by any means.

I have no idea if this thing is really structurally sound or if a big gust of wind needs to start flying.

I'm not sure, but I I think that that's something that you all might want to consider.

Is this has not even been looked at by the building?

Yeah, for for that and several of the reasons, we wouldn't recommend um some sort of continuance of this particular um item uh based on some future look at a code change.

Um, nor would we likely be in a position to recommend um that sort of code change.

I mean, setbacks, building setbacks are kind of fundamental uh parts of zoning.

Um there's you know, there's the case that's made about you know it's a it's a structure that you can it's transparent, you can see through well, but it's it's for the purpose of parking a recreational vehicle that is not transparent.

So I think there's reasons why these these codes exist.

Um it would be a significant departure from that.

So it would need to be uh council direction to um, you know, and and I would recommend doing that separately from tonight.

Um if you wanted us to look at wholesale changes to our zoning code on setbacks, that would be a major policy decision the council would need to take up through its normal process for bringing items forward um at future meetings.

I would not uh tie the two together tonight for the reasons that Tristan uh just stated, um, and then some okay.

No other questions.

Well, thank you.

Yes, there is yes, council members.

What is the last time this um ordinance was amended or reviewed?

So the setbacks are part of our zoning code, which is a part of the larger municipal code.

So we update uh we have the omnibus updates that come to you guys every year, multiple times a year.

Um I don't know offhand uh how recently the setbacks um section was amended.

I want to say 2019, but I'm getting head nods.

So six years ago.

How does the city of West Sacramento's ordinances re related to setbacks compared to those uh in other municipalities statewide?

Uh in my experience in the jurisdictions I've worked in, they're fairly typical.

Um five foot side setbacks is pretty standard um suburban areas, 15, 20 feet for a front setback is pretty typical.

It changes depending on the type of neighborhood.

So a neighborhood like Washington, you're gonna have smaller front setbacks, meaning you can build closer to the sidewalk, you know, you see a walk up townhouse, that kind of thing.

You know, you see a walk-up townhouse, that kind of thing.

They might have a a zero or five foot front setback um for this the the primary structure.

Um obviously if you have a primary structure right up to the sidewalk, there's not room for an accessory structure, and so that's why you often see them in back and that sort of thing.

So if this council were to make a decision um based on the testimony and the evidence provided in this hearing this evening, uh that um that w ignored the statewide requirements or I guess guidelines for setbacks.

What would be the city's exposure should um should we make a decision that wasn't um uh compliant with the four factor requirements to have this variant?

Um what's the city's exposure, if any?

Uh I would defer to legal on our exposure, but I would say, you know, at least as city staff on the technical side, our job when we when there's a law, whether it be local, state, federal, if there's a law, we need to abide by it.

And that's our that's our duty to uphold that and not uh actively choose, you know, of course, things over time, inadvertent things, mistakes happen, of course.

People are people, but uh as staff, we are not able to go uh out of our way to implement a law incorrectly or act in a in an illegal manner, which this is this would be.

It would be illegal.

Yes, if we made findings that were not uh I I'm gonna hesitate to use the word illegal.

I'm gonna say there are findings that need to be made.

There is a discretionary component to making findings.

You need to be able to articulate why those findings can be made.

Um it is a state law, so we're not just operating in the universe of the city's own code.

Uh if you were to overturn the planning commission's decision, in theory, that decision of yours could be challenged in court.

The come a party that complained or someone else could file a lawsuit to challenge your decision to approve the variance on the grounds that you did not follow state law, nor your own code.

Um, and then that's would be decided by a court.

Much better response from Jeff.

Thank you for that.

I I I would almost like he's a lawyer.

I would understand that as a theoretical, but I still haven't heard for sure this is state law.

This is for sure state law.

Okay, so you are for because I asked that question earlier, and that's not the answer I received.

No, the staff report cites the code section for state law.

So we in order for us to fulfill state law, we would uphold the planning commission decision.

That's staff's recommendation.

It is your decision to make if you believe you can make the findings to grant a variance.

Staff has recommended that in their opinion they cannot, you cannot.

That's their that's their judgment.

Their recommendation to you is the findings cannot be made.

Thank you, Tristan.

But it's in front of you right now because it's your decision to make.

Can you go over that state law component that we're trying to just council member um school brought it up?

Can you make sure you help us understand that?

Yeah, so variances are a type of entitlement.

I I may need to lean on Jeff at some point, but they're a type of entitlement, which is a land use approval that is specified in the government code.

There's a section devoted to planning and land use.

And that's where this language comes from.

These these four findings are come from that.

A lot of times what cities will do is they will take state code language and copy paste it right into your local ordinance.

And I think that is what Jeff was getting at is it's it's mirrored in our local code code, but it's um parent is the state government code.

Okay.

Is that what you were looking for?

Yes, I I just didn't hear this when I I was trying to find out here in the decision that we're making that this is state law.

They were trying to be in compliance with state law, and then I I I didn't get that response and was just confused.

Got it.

Sorry about that.

Yeah, it's it's local local zoning code, but the entitlement path he's seeking is grounded in state law in order to implement government code section 65906, which says variances from the terms of zoning ordinance shall be granted only when because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings.

The strict application of the zoning code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.

Any variant shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the etcetera.

A variant shall not be granted for a parcel of property which authorizes a use or a cavity that is not otherwise expressly authorized.

So I mean there are other provisions in this particular section, but the core and what is what your code does, which every code does takes the statute and then puts it into a more digestible set of findings, in this case four findings that the council in approving the zoning code determined were the appropriate findings may brand a variant.

The genesis is 65906 of the government.

And then as interpreted by the council when it adopted the zoning code and identified the process for approving a variant.

Mayor, do you have a question?

Council Member O'Call, thank you.

So if I I'd like to direct this to our attorney, um Mr.

Mitchell.

So I looked at the alternatives.

One is to find the city council can make a variance findings, provide staff specific findings and direct staff to return to the city council at a later date with findings to return the planning commission's decision.

You said that we couldn't put this off, but is that not one of the alternatives?

Well, these are alternatives that staff has identified.

If you are comfortable that you can make the findings, we would typically ask you to articulate specifically how the findings can be made.

The reason it's written this way, similar to the way your appeal process is written.

You have an alternate, you have an option of making a tentative conclusion and asking staff together with me, together with Mr.

Raftery, to prepare findings for you based on what you've articulated and then bring them back and approve them at a at a subsequent meeting.

Okay, I know it already addressed D.

Um the difference just so just so it's clear the difference in in upholding planning commission and and denying or reversing it.

The resolution that's in your packet supports upholding the planning commission's decision.

So the findings are spelled out in that resolution.

We don't have an alternate resolution that is finding making findings.

We don't okay.

Anything else?

It's just um it's in the staff report under the anal analysis section that was provided to us that this was um that the basis for a prior approving the variance set forth government code 5906.

So that's so that's why you raised the question.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

I don't think we have anything else to do, uh, Mr.

Hearing Officer that we need to take into consideration after this.

We can now um want to make sure that city council will deliberate on the matter and adopt findings if appropriate.

So we close everything now and bring it back to council.

That's correct.

This time if all the evidence of both sides are submitted, all the evidence which appears they have.

Yes, and you've accepted it into evidence, then yes, you would just close the hearing and then deliberately.

Sounds good.

Okay, any other thoughts, or do you want to just call the question and vote?

There we are.

I think we would be looking for a motion, either the recommended action, which is to adopt resolution 25103 denying the requested appeal and confirming the planning commission's decision to deny the variance or an alternative motion.

And what does uh council decide to do here?

I'll make a motion to deny the requested appeal.

May I suggest that the motion be you move the recommended action?

I move the recommended action.

Okay, Madame Clerk, Mayor Pro Temps of PZOHO moved and council member Odosco seconded, please call the roll.

Council member any further discussion if you want to make no, I asked that several times before we before we call the question.

Right?

You wanted to vote.

I thought there was sorry, I thought this was a matter of further questions or evidence we put in the record and not discussion.

We can rescind if you'd like to pull your motion deliberating and then deliberate.

Yes, why don't we go ahead and do it?

I would like to so I I just want to put on the record here tonight that um this has been a lengthy hearing with a lot of competing uh perspectives and it is a complex matter that's a variety of arguments on either side that we all have to consider as council members and a quad quasi-judicial role tonight.

I want to commend the talent for coming before us with in pursuing the matter that's so near and dear to his home and his family, and uh for the investment that you've made in this community, both as a long-term member that doesn't go unnoticed.

Uh I think that we we stand, you know, as um as people that share the city with you, but you I think I speak for all of us when I say that you predated our our employee here as residents or residency.

Um the passion and emotion that's been communicated to this council is can't go unnoticed.

And frankly, um this is a very difficult matter.

And I think that there's evidence in this record that exceeds what is necessary to make this decision.

Um it's now unfortunately or fortunate or whatnot, it's been personalized or involves identities and personalities that I, as a quadish quasi-judicial officer not to consider.

Um today the staff recommendation reflect the position that's based on staff staff uh state law, and that's something that I reviewed when preparing for tonight's hearing.

I do not make the law.

Um as a 20-year uh plus prosecutor, I took a duty to follow and uphold the law.

I took an oath as a city council member nine years ago to do the same, and I've done so three times.

I don't make policy in my courtroom, and I'll share that with you personally that there are rules that I don't like.

There are cases that due to improperly written laws by state legislature or the state legislature, they lead to perverse outcomes that I'm not happy with.

There have been times that I wish the laws were changed, or uh that I've uh completed uh a uh trial or worked on a case that uh sat in conflict with me and it caused me undue hardship personally.

However, when I enter the position in the courtroom, or in this case and in this role, I have to take a role as a council member to follow the established rules and not be personally involved.

I don't believe that it's better to come to apply rules on a case-by-case basis unless there are certain thresholds that are met.

And in this case, the thresholds have been provided to us that we look at the law and base those decisions, not about whether or not we love the applicant or don't like the applicant or whether or not they had wrong yard signs.

I don't know anything about that.

All I know is that I have to follow the ordinances here that have been established that we are all supposed to follow in the city, or else chaos will ensue.

And so those ordinances were established.

That's why I asked the question.

When were these established for us?

And and they were established as a state uh and then trickled down to us to promote health and safety and welfare of the community.

Uh, they are appropriate supposed to be uh reflection of the collective vision and values and long-term planning of the city, and they're supposed to be in sort of fairness and predictability and transparency in governments, whether or not they're applied the same way, that's another question because obviously we're talking about that tonight.

That they're not, right?

Um, but we can't from this dais arbitrarily just grant variances that don't meet the threshold that are required for us to follow.

Uh, because I think that that would under undermine the integrity of the framework and set problematic precedences that then we can't regulate whatsoever.

Um with that said, I mean, I've I've sat on this diet for many many years.

I've sat with um, you know, smoke banning smoking on sittered property, uh banning the flavor tobacco ban, all these are excuse me, flavored tobacco in stores.

Um, nobody's happy.

There's always a group of people that feel that they were unjustly treated.

But tonight, the job before this council isn't to decide how important this is or how much we like the project or how much we dislike the project.

That's not before me tonight.

It's just a matter of without personal bias and based on the information provided tonight, whether the planning commission made a decision that was an error because of uh based it based on a review of the the the factors, and I have to maintain a discipline approach um based on the policies that we have before us.

Um as a prosecutor, I have heard the argument that um, well, the law wasn't being applied appropriately.

That person got a ticket I did or didn't get a ticket, I did, or vice versa.

Um, but that doesn't mean the officers don't go out and still enforce the law because it's unequally applied.

Unfortunately, that's that's the unfortunate circumstances of the society that we live in.

Um, but we can't excuse the noncompliance of a single single subject that disobeyed the ordinances or the law because they're pointing the finger saying you didn't get the other guy, and I've been a victim of that myself.

Um I will say, in full disclosure, I am an owner of uh several recreational vehicles over the years that have increased in size because that's how it goes with recreational vehicles.

You just keep buying up, okay.

And I live on a street where I have a long driveway, and that RV fits.

But because I know it does block the right, like the eye sight for my neighbors to pull out safely onto our busy street.

I don't park it there.

I actually pay exorbitant amount of money, unfortunately, uh, to the detriment of our own family to have it in a in a space that um, you know, it's in a lot with a whole bunch of other RVs, and I hate paying it every month.

But I have to do it out of respect for the ordinances in my community and then my neighbors as well, right?

I mean, otherwise I shouldn't it's my choice to own the RV, and I I wish I could say I own my home too, and I wish I could say I'll do whatever I want with my property because it's my property, but out of respect for the laws that are imposed that should apply to everyone, I don't.

And so I I just will say that um, you know, there are car ports in my neighborhood as well, and I self-select the opportunity to follow this out of respect for and courtesy of my neighbors, again, regardless of whether or not my neighbors are rational or otherwise.

Um, and I I'm listening about whether or not the city is in a precarious position, whether or not we um undermine the uh um the decision of this planning commission, uh whether or not allowing an unpermitted structure to remain standing and kicking the hand down the road to make a decision later.

I just think that we're in a very unfortunate set of circumstances, and I do think that we can look at the um the law down the road if that in fact is um found to be completely unjust, but it sounds like we're in compliance with state law.

So, with that, that's the reason that I seconded the motion uh based on um my duty as a um an elected official to follow the ordinances that have been established, whether or not I agree with that.

Thank you, council member.

Council member.

I do want to make a comment.

Um our last meeting we granted an appeal.

We overturned a planning commission recommendation and staff recommendation.

It was unanimous.

So I can't understand.

I mean, one of the things we talked about was the arbitrary nature of the way certain ordinances are are followed or not followed, and um we all unanimously agreed that where there is this arbitrary um and quite honestly unequal application.

This is not something that we as a council uh could go and approve.

So that's one of the reasons we all unanimously um decided to grant the appeal, and we went against the rules, we went against recommendations by staff and the planning commission.

I just can't understand um why in this matter we can't see the same type of of I'm gonna say injustice inequity that we saw in the previous matter.

I don't know, maybe maybe Mr.

Weaver made a point, you know.

Maybe some of us have certain interests um or or friendships with the last appellant.

I don't know, but it certainly appears that way from a public perspective that I've heard here, and um I for one uh will be voting to support the appeal.

I'm sorry, madam mayor.

I don't know to a cost argument whatsoever.

I just want to put on something on the record.

Oh, sure.

I've got some I don't want to um address any of substantiated allegations that are have no bearing in in fact.

Um I I will say that we can't just assume that these appeals are all apples to apples.

There were certain facts, uh distinguished facts and distinctions that apply in particular cases that aren't the same as the one we're facing today.

And so these blanket statements are unfortunate and represent or falsely represent uh certain facts that aren't an evidence uh before us tonight.

Um and there is no personality um from my perspective.

I'll reiterate there is not a personality um situation at stake here.

We are afraid to disagree on all of this as how we have a healthy discussion and discourse on this um on the size, but my decision is based on the facts and the law as I see it tonight for us.

Yeah, may I may I bring sure yeah?

So the word arbitrary has been thrown out a lot tonight.

Um, and I'm not an attorney, so um I looked it up and Google it.

Uh based on random choice or personal whim rather than any reason or system.

Our code is the system.

And this structure does not meet code.

We have several new addresses that have been submitted to us, and they will be going through the same exact code enforcement process, and they will be deemed either in compliance or not in compliance, and the same structure, the same pathway that we've been going on through this will happen to those structures too.

So I I don't think this is arbitrary.

I think granting a variance just because it's there is arbitrary.

Um, we should be sticking to what our code enforcement is.

Um these codes exist for a reason, and we would not be doing our job as good governing policymakers if we granted a variance because it was built or because it was okay or because it just felt right.

And so I I don't think this is arbitrary at all.

Um, and so that's why I am I move the motion forward um denying the appeal.

Oh, she said it's okay.

There we have it.

Oh, since we're all giving comments, um I I do take into consideration each appeal separately and based on its merit and um decide according to you know what what you know what's before us in the last appeal well we I don't think this ever showed up as an appeal for the tiny homes.

I think the um I think the staff found an opportunity to work that out and and had conversations with council, so we never reached that point, but in the last appeal, I think it was council discretion to reverse the planning commission's decision, and that is the council's discretion, but in this case it is state law, and that is the difference and distinction for me.

That's why I kept asking the question.

And I did read it as state law, but do we do you know, do we have to fulfill that and and could we find a way to modify it?

It doesn't seem to me that we can modify the variance to meet um and and allow for uh this structure to continue.

That's and and it then falls on the city uh to be how liable if we make a decision to approve uh or to um approve the appeal and um deny what the planning commission decided.

That's my concern.

Um I think as an elected official, we are entrusted with making sure we make those decisions.

I did want to sidebar um what the city manager's comment was to me about staff.

It wasn't directed to staff about the integrity of the code enforcement work, it was directed to those calling on code enforcement during those periods of time in retaliation, and then code enforcement is doing their job.

That was that was I just wanted to correct that for the record, Mr.

City Manager.

I I wasn't saying staff is not doing their work, and I and I don't I just wanted to make sure you understand that I have applauded Steph and everything they've they've done in their work.

Because I don't I probably didn't appreciate that reflection, but I'm just yeah, I'm just putting that back out there.

Um so with that I I know that in this case um what happened was a was a misunderstanding, um, Mr.

Reyes, and I'm really sorry that when you reached out um to council member Alcala because you have a connection you also reached out to Councilmember Orozco during that period of time, I think.

That's what I want to clarify for the record there was no further discussion.

Right, there wasn't, yeah.

And and I'm sorry that you misunderstood and move forward.

It's it seems clear to me that you felt you could move forward based on that.

Yeah, and um unfortunately, um, I think the staff was trying to direct you and um and we we always try to run interference when we have somebody approaching us.

It's it's natural, it's it's what we that's what we are filling in for.

We always try and we always try to work something out.

And if gosh, I hope I don't I don't put a you know, I'm not put in a situation where I'm you know, it's not like I don't think council member Alcala was misleading you.

I think she was giving some thoughts and but um and I'm really sorry um this happened and you move forward um because the consequences are pretty significant, and and I um really sorry that that happened.

Um so I think uh making sure that I stick to what I have to do here.

Um I was a planning commissioner.

This is the training we received is making sure the decisions we make are based on findings.

Um we we were given very limited scope on what we can decide on sometimes.

Sometimes we try to veer off, but we're brought back on what our scope is.

Since I get I have the same feeling here, this is our scope, this is what we have to make a decision.

We don't have the latitude.

I've kept asking the question do we have the latitude to make any you know to refine this policy?

We don't, and um and that's unfortunate.

Could we go in and change state law?

That could be a possibility for the future, which I'm happy to consider um so that you know we have what we hear from um Mr.

Weaver that you know there are people that do go through bad experiences, and we can have our our representatives amend state law so that we can have the flexibility at our levels, but we sometimes we don't have the flexibility and we have to fulfill that.

Otherwise, um the city is responsible and to be in violation of that, and so that's why we have a lot of um you know codes and things like that, and um and we will keep an eye out for those that are in violation out there um because it's now on your radar, and we'll see where we're at with everybody else.

Um and staff, I'm sure are going to be looking at the research.

And um, if you'd like to make sure that that's followed up with, please feel free to reach out to any one of us or um staff to see what what the situation and that outcome is, and these are my recommendations for moving forward to see what we could do to address your situation where you have you know you would like a structure to protect your your vehicle, and those are my comments.

Any other comments is council ready to take a vote on this?

Just want to make sure everybody nods their head.

I don't have anybody saying no.

Again, all right, okay.

So I will go again, I will move the recommended um uh action.

Madame Clerk, Mayor Bratem Vernasopizioho moved and council member secret, please call the roll.

Councilmember O'Cala.

No.

Councilmember Early.

Aye, Councilmember Orosco, Mayor Pro Tem Sulpizio Hall.

Aye, Mayor Guerrero.

Aye.

Next is item 10 under parks and recreation is a public hearing and consideration of adoption of resolution 25-99 amending the book of fees for the parks and recreation department and adoption of the cost recovery policy for parks and recreation fees.

And our parks director, Kate Smith, please come on up.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, City Council.

I'm Kate Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation.

And your second favorite topic is cost recovery.

I know.

So bear with me here.

I uh I do have a presentation that um hopefully the city clerk can pull up on the screen for us.

All right, well, while she's pulling that up, uh, tonight I am conducting a public hearing.

Um that's not the title slide, but that's okay.

That's not the title slide, but that's okay.

We'll go with that.

Presenting the annual update to the parks and recreation book of fees and your consideration of adoption of the cost recovery policy.

Excuse me, for the parks and recreation department.

Pursuant to government code section 66018.

A public hearing is required by law to adopt fees by a resolution.

These updates ensure we recover an appropriate portion of costs for recreation programs and facilities while keeping services accessible to the community.

I have prepared a presentation for you tonight to walk you through the items that will be included in the public hearing.

That's fine.

Okay.

So for this evening, staff respectfully recommends that the city council conducts a public hearing regarding the proposed revisions to the book of fees, adopt resolution 2599 amending the book of fees for the parks and recreation department.

Adopt the cost recovery policy for the parks and recreation fees, and authorize the city manager to amend the cost recovery policy as needed.

So a quick background for you all.

The comprehensive look at our book of fees has not been done for over 10 years.

This information was presented to you all at a city council workshop in August.

We also discussed at that time minimum wage and operational costs have increased.

There is an outdated cost recovery methodology that only included direct costs, which we had discussed.

And then we did work with the consultant who provided us a framework, which I will review as well.

And that framework and methodology is able to include both indirect and direct costs.

So the framework that we reviewed last time at the workshop again as a review, that bottom left corner there prioritizes what we are defining as the common good.

So community wide interests, universal access for all, and prioritizes a high subsidy or low cost recovery.

So for example, a zero percent cost recovery would be our parks considered open access activities.

And then you work your way up that framework to the top right, which is closer to 100% cost recovery for sales and rentals would be the second highest.

So that is something that we made sure to include.

You all also wanted to see a list of fees that compared our current pricing to proposed pricing, which is in your packet attachment number four.

And then we also discussed utilizing market rates.

If we ever found ourselves in a situation where we were unable to meet the cost recovery goal and we were pricing ourselves out of the market, a decision would be made to bring that price down to make sure that we could still be within the market and afford that program or that program remained affordable for our community.

And you also provided consent on fee adjustments as well.

Those fee adjustments are outlined in the policy.

And those include items such as multi-sibling discount, resident pricing versus non-resident pricing, promotional fees, as well as prorating any sort of program.

So again, in review the proposed policy that you all are being asked to approve tonight, consider for adoption, includes our service categories, which are based on type and beneficiary of service.

That is also defined in your policy.

Prioritizing again the essential community-wide interest and access for all, individualized services again at a higher cost recovery, a low lower subsidy.

We have a needs-based assistance component that is in the policy.

Um, and then the fee adjustments, which I had uh reviewed previously.

Um, and then the policy also includes competitive pricing, allowing us to remain within the market.

A sample of what the book of fees will now uh look like if you choose to approve this this evening.

Um we will have uh one set or one uh page of a book of fees that is inclusive of our parks and recreation fees, really specific to programs and services.

And so um the language will direct our residents to our playbook and our website for pricing, and that it also outlines the service category.

So there's a sample there that shows the service category, the definition, examples of programs and services, um, as well as what that cost recovery goal is.

In uh your packet, you will notice that there is a separate page that is specific to facility rentals.

So all facility rentals that are in our department have their own page in the book of fees.

Um and this was to remain consistent with the rest of the city's book of fees, other facility fees are located there.

Um, and so we wanted to remain consistent.

As far as our timeline uh this evening, we're conducting the public hearing, asking for your consideration of adoption.

Um, and then we are looking to finalize our fee assistance program.

Um the goal is to have that completed by December.

Um, and then um also with that program will be a budget request.

Right now we do have um minimal amount of money um in our budget that um by formalizing this and offering it to more programs, we do anticipate um an increase in requests.

Um, and then that also gives us time for a marketing campaign, and we would not implement our fees until uh January this next year.

So our recommended action for this evening.

Um again, you have four items before you.

Um, and that concludes my presentation.

Any questions?

Yes.

I um Miss Sharon Takita is unable to attend um tonight's meeting, um, but she mentioned that she's a member of the Tai Chi class at the community center, and um her and her classmates would like to attend, but the issue is number 10 on the agenda.

Most of us are in our 70s and 80s, and the hour that our issue is to be heard is too late.

So she said the current fee is five dollars, which is more in generous, and it does make sense that some increase may be necessary.

However, the rumor's circulating that the center is that the fee will increase to $35.

Is that correct?

No.

Um, an attachment four, we listed out all of the fees.

All right.

So um 35%.

Um, no.

Okay.

I'm I'm not sure where the 35 came from.

Um, so right now we are proposing an annual fee of 20 for an annual fee.

Um the cost the that's a great example where the cost recovery um in order to meet that goal was $70 a year, and we knew that that was too high.

Um, and so that is considered market rate.

Um, and then we also will be offering financial assistance where previously at the $5 rate the seniors were not eligible for financial assistance, and so at the $20 a year, they will now be eligible for that.

Okay.

And on the low income subsidy program, um, with HR one coming into implementation and and some of it impacting those that are currently eligible, which will be dropped.

Um, I think it'll be really hard to maintain that um requirement.

I think you're gonna find a lot of people who are not gonna be not going to be eligible.

Um starting off with CalFresh this coming year.

So is there a way to amend that?

So you know, just for a little bit, maybe until HR1 is behind us and we're back to on track.

Sure.

So part of the reason of not implementing till January is we do want to finalize the procedures for that.

Um, and so right now we have examples from other agencies where any sort of documentation that's government assistance, even for seniors like PG and E CARES or something that has some sort of support that they are receiving.

Um, we would accept that as um income um eligible.

All right.

I don't know.

I mean, I don't know how people are aware of PGE cares or other programs like that.

So we have a they call you.

They call you and we also employ um a um case manager at the senior center, and that is her job is to actually inform our seniors of the various um assistance programs that are available.

She helps um put them in touch with social security, um, disability, and um that is part of the services that we provide at no cost.

Okay, great.

I I I will say just to add on to you asked about the PGE.

There's a whole community engagement department um both at PGE and doesn't count for us, but SMUD that reaches out and tries to make sure people who qualify for these programs have access to them.

Yeah, I attended the one at the community center last week.

Um there were a lot of people there, a lot of people behind on their bills.

Um makes sense.

Gone up a lot.

Yeah.

So okay.

Is there a way to follow up with I mean it just seems like there's rumors to make sure that people understand?

Yes.

So right now we have a senior newsletter that'll be going out in October.

So I've been working with staff.

We've also engaged with Randall Communications on a strategic communication plan.

So I have a targeted um campaign just for the seniors.

Um, and we'll be kind of working through that in the next few months to educate them because we don't want there to be misinformation.

Um, and then we're also working on a larger campaign to get a um the entire city um informed um before the fees um do um increase in January.

Okay.

Um thank you for that background on the education piece.

I I don't know if I should respond to Ms.

Takito or you will, but it'd be good for her to be informed now.

So she doesn't hear that we approve something that's gonna impact her negatively.

Okay, yep, we can do that.

All right.

With that, I guess we're all done.

We can move forward, Madame Clerk.

Do you have a question?

Are there any is there any public comment other than I have two requests?

Um Eddie word worders.

Thank you for being here.

Hey, um I was looking at the fee structure, and it looked like it was going to be raised for the our seniors from five dollars to twenty dollars, which is a 400% increase.

And I would suggest that maybe it we looked at only five dollars a year over the next four years, which would be easier for us to be able to pay.

It's gonna be difficult for probably the 20 dollars.

Yeah, I'm a member.

I've been since 18, and I've never been asked about any of this.

It just got thrown at us, and we're hearing about it, and we're really not pleased.

We've never been asked the question.

So there's the there's the subsidy that if you qualify, you will be able to receive some support.

That's what I understand.

I we don't know about any of this.

We haven't heard anything.

It's been in the this is a July July meeting.

Right.

I was taking the notes off.

Oh, okay.

From here, yes.

Yeah, from here.

Okay.

I watched it on TV.

Right, okay.

So I've showed up in the last month.

So do you know?

Well, you wouldn't know.

I'm so I'm I'm up in it's my impression that those with some sort of government, some sort of support.

Um program assistance or anything would qualify, would receive a subsidy.

So it's that would be really nice to hear or see you on a piece of paper.

Okay.

Yeah, yeah.

Because we got a lot of anxiety going on.

I'm not sure if it'll go all the way down to five dollars.

No, but if they just raised it five dollars this year, five dollars and X and five.

Move up incrementally.

Yeah.

Turn the heat up slowly, you get dinner.

He jumps and you can okay.

That's good to know.

Thank you.

Gina Milborn.

She loves we have no additional requests to speak on this item.

Closing the public comment, bringing it back to council.

Are there any questions?

Just um, Kate, real quick responding to the concern, the 5220, but you know, is there the support, the finance?

What what is the financial assistance looks like?

Yeah, so again, um, we have not publicized it because you all needed to approve this.

So that was really our first domino.

Um, and so we wanted to give ourselves three months, so we have October, November, and December to work with our seniors as well as all of our participants to make sure that they are informed, that we have our procedures in place, so we are not trying to just increase the numbers um and the prices to our residents without informing them.

So you all tonight is kind of that first um step in the process.

So if um so it is gonna go from five to twenty, but if they have some kind of um assistance from some program, what would be the rate?

That's what we're going to work out.

So we have similar agencies that um offer up to 50 percent.

Um we could possibly you know increase that if we needed to.

So yes, what that is that's part of our process that we're going to work out.

Do we give you any direction on that?

Yeah, if you all have specific policy direction that you would like us to incorporate, um, now would be the time.

That's helpful.

The 50% is based on the feedback I'm hearing from the senior here that was um sharing incrementally is a is a good it's a good approach.

I think it's a good suggestion.

So the 50% if they show that they are on some um you know low-income program assistance, then that that will get them to the $10 because it's the 50%.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

That would be helpful.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

All right.

With that, I think are you all all okay with that recommendation?

Okay, good.

Um we have to adopt resolution 25-99.

Remove.

Early second.

Council member moved and council member seconded.

Please call the roll.

Councilmember Ocala.

Aye.

Council member early.

Aye.

Council member Roscoe.

Mayor Pro Temps will peace your hole.

Mayor Guerrero.

Aye.

This is now approved.

And next we have our um general administration.

Function part two.

Any um reports from council?

Assignments.

I'll I'll just mention um YOLO Subbase and Groundwater Agency met today.

Um, we are discussing um fee increases and we're going through what the fee structure would look like right now.

Um action on anybody's part.

Okay, thank you.

Um I will say that um I did uh take a look at this um information here.

Attend an award ceremony from Breath, California.

And Jasmine Garcia was the awardee um for her um being a vocal advocate.

And I'm just saying that because I know you all know her and uh totally deserves it.

Um council calendar good evening.

Just a reminder that this Saturday is the um the California Firefighters Memorial.

That's downtown on C Street at 3 p.m.

Firefighter Memorial is in the convention center.

Right.

Right.

Starts there 3 p.m.

And then there's a walk over to the actual memorial.

Then we walk over to the memorial city manager report on no reports, I think.

Okay.

City attorney report.

Any staff direction from city council members?

Nothing.

All right.

Um no future agenda items request.

We are now adjourned.