Sacramento Planning Commission - 5/11/26 - Board Chambers Meetings

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
All right. Good afternoon. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our May 11th meeting of the Sacramento

(00:08):
County Planning Commission. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?
Before calling roll, we will have Commissioner Berga, who is participating remotely. Commissioner
Berga?
Yes, I understand I have a statement I'm supposed to read. For the record, I am participating
remotely pursuant to Government Code Section 54953, due to adjust cost slash emergency

(00:35):
circumstances. Also present in the room will be my wife, Carrie Berga. The reason for this
absentee or remote is a need replacement as of Tuesday.
Thank you. I will now call roll. Commissioner Berga?
Here.
Devlin?

(00:55):
Here.
And Chair Borja?
Here.
And with those members present, we do have a quorum.
All right. Thank you. Vice Chair Devlin, do you mind leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance?
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

(01:18):
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
All right. Thank you. And Madam Clerk, can you please make the announcements?
Absolutely.

(01:38):
My apologies here.
I kind of got my things out of order.
Okay.
Sorry about that delay.
The County fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation,

(02:00):
civility, and the use of courteous language. The Commission does not condone the use of
profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal
attacks or threats directed toward any meeting participant. Seating may be limited and available
on a first-come, first-served basis. To make an in-person public comment, please complete

(02:20):
and submit a speaker request form to the Clerk. Each individual will be invited to
the podium to make a comment. Members of the public may send a written comment, which is
distributed to Commission members and filed in the record. Contact information is optional
and should include the meeting date and agenda off-agenda item number to be sent as follows.
Email a comment to boardclerk at saccounty.gov. Mail a comment to 700 H Street, Suite 2450,

(02:46):
Sacramento, California 95814. And that concludes the announcement.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are we ready to proceed with item number one?
Yes. Item number one is PLMP 2025-00114 Fitted Garage. This is a use permit to the Planning
Commission to reinstate the use of automobile repair. And this property is located at 7128

(03:13):
Kingsley Street, approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Florham Road and Kingsley
Street in the South Sacramento community. And the environmental document is exempt.
Good evening, Chair Borja. This is a reinstatement of a non-conforming use that your commission
has heard similar projects this past year on, and it's non-contested. So I would like to

(03:38):
know if you would like to waive the presentation or not.
Thank you, Ms. Hartman. I'll start with my colleague in the interweb. Commissioner Verga,
would you like to see a presentation on this item?
No, thank you.
I'm okay.
All right. I think we will be postponing or at least passing for the presentation, but

(04:02):
thank you so much for preparing. With that in mind, are we ready or do we have any questions
for the staff at this time?
No, I don't.
Okay. And the applicant is also in the audience if you have any questions for him as well.
Understood. Thank you for noting that. We'll give an opportunity for the applicant to address
the commission if they may wish to.

(04:28):
Thank you, sir. You can join us at the podium.
And I will go ahead and administer an oath at this time. And this is for anyone who would
like to make a public comment if you can. If you wish to address the commission about
items, any items on the agenda, please raise your right hand, and the appropriate response
is I do. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this board is the truth

(04:52):
so help you God, and if you do not swear, do you so affirm?
Thank you.
And then those, when you do come to the podium, please state your name and for the record
that you have been sworn in.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, thank you. Commissioner Berger, Commissioner Devlin, do you have any questions for the

(05:14):
applicant?
No, I do not.
No, I'm happy to move the item.
Okay. Thank you so much, Vice Chair Devlin. We do have a motion to move the item. Do we
have a second?
Yes, I'll second it.
Okay, thank you. Madam Clerk, if we can please call the vote.

(05:40):
And because we are having Commissioner Berger participate remotely, we will have to call
a voice vote for these items. So, Commissioner Devlin?
Aye.
Berger?
Aye.
And Chair Borja?
Aye.
And with those members present, this item does pass.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Escobedo, and thank you, Ms. Hartman. Okay, let's move on to item number

(06:06):
two, please, Madam Clerk.
Item number two is PLMP 2025-00267, Review of County Fiscal Year 2026-27 Capital Improvement
Program for the General Plan Consistency, and this is countywide, and the environmental
document is non-applicable.

(06:37):
All right. Good evening, Chair Borja and Planning Commissioners. My name is Nathan Setafin,
and I am an Associate Planner from Planning and Environmental Review. I'll be presenting
on the Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-27. I'm also joined by Collin Bettis
of the Office of Budget and Debt Management for tonight, if we have a larger conversation

(06:58):
about these items.
As for overview, the Capital Improvement Plan identifies capital improvement projects for
the next five years across various county agencies. This action is set forth by County
Code Section 21, Chapter 15. The purpose of our review is to determine that the projects
are consistent with the General Plan and to address issues before final Board approval

(07:21):
of these projects. The purpose is not to evaluate merits, cost, or environmental impact of the
projects, as all of that will be reviewed on a later individual basis.
So what is the process for our review? So first, the Board reviews the Capital Improvement
Plan and refers to the Planning Commission for General Plan Compliance. This happened

(07:42):
back on April 7th. So fast forward to today. The task of the Commission is to determine
the consistency of the CIP and forward its findings back to the Board. In June, the Board
will receive the findings and officially adopt the CIP, seeing everything aligns.
Today, we're only reviewing the projects that have not been previously approved or are
newly funded.

(08:05):
There are five main categories of projects that we review for consistency. There are
airports, county buildings and capital construction, libraries, regional parks, and transportation.
For our analysis, our staff report materials include general plan consistency analysis
for each capital improvement project, project descriptions, and as for our consistency analysis

(08:32):
itself, staff has found that all projects are consistent with the General Plan.
We do have a couple of recommendations. So the first is adopt a resolution finding that
the projects listed in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 26-27 in
the budget are consistent with the adopted policies of the General Plan and direct the

(08:54):
County Executive to report back to supervisors with the Commission findings.
That concludes my presentation. Again, as stated before, I'm here with Colin Bettis
from the Office of Budget and Debt Management and we're available to take any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Serafin. Do we have any questions from my colleagues here at the dais?

(09:15):
No, I don't.
Thank you. Thank you so much for the staff for preparing this. I did look at about 172,
almost 200 pages actually of the attachment. So we're really grateful for the opportunity
of preparing. Having come from staff myself, I recognize how hard and critical those things
are. So one thing I'd like to maybe ask just for the general kind of education of the public

(09:40):
who may not know what a Capital Improvement Program or CIP. You know, you've highlighted
some projects that you've wanted to either bring forth or at the very least prioritize.
I saw one in transportation related to Hazel Avenue and the lane widening. For that project,
what's kind of the merit base or the system that you all do in order to prioritize that

(10:05):
on the CIP as a newly funded project? Is it a combination of grants, need, fix it first
or shovel ready?
Yeah, excellent question. So we as the Planning Department do not prioritize the projects
on the CIP ourselves. It comes down to the individual departments who put the projects
forth and present as they present them to the board. However, I can talk about our analysis

(10:30):
process for how we look at these projects. Over the past couple of years, we've actually
systematized our process to the point where we are looking not just at the general plan,
but different policy documents that are related to the general plan as well in order to assess
how these projects fulfill the vision of the general plan and are within the urban

(10:56):
policy area within the county as well to make sure that growth is responsible and that these
fulfill the needs of the community.
So for the Hazel Avenue project, for example, one of the many thresholds that we actually
measure against transportation plan projects is, is this a complete street project? Is

(11:18):
this something that helps fulfill a mobility need? So those are kind of a couple of the
items that we looked at, especially for larger. So you have like general projects like the
improving streets, and then you have more specific projects like Hazel Avenue that are

(11:39):
more improving like a flow and mobility. So that's, that's essentially what we looked
at.
Understood. Thank you. Where might projects like improving our levees stand? Would that
be under county buildings and capital construction? And is that something that the CIP also looks

(12:00):
at as a critical need?
That's actually a really great question. I have not come across a levee project myself,
but I'd like to put it forward to Colin.
For many, Colin Bettis, the county debt officer, for many of those projects that would be levee
based, they would either fall under the Department of Water Resources for drainage, and, but

(12:23):
I will also say that there are many agencies, many different agencies that manage the levee
system. So a lot of them that were, you know, for the northern portion of the county, that
would be managed by SAFCA. So it wouldn't be under our policy, under our CIP.
Understood. And I'm assuming that something that's a little bit more southern would be
SJFCA, right?
Yeah.
And one last thing to mention about the, you, I had another comment on, on the, the Hazel

(12:50):
Avenue project. That one is actually a breakout of a prior project that had been already approved.
And so it's the Department of Transportation splitting that into phases of the project
and which ones are moving forward now versus ones that are, you know, are in maybe more
of a planning phase.
Thank you, sir. Just one last question, if you don't mind. We have, as a county, we are

(13:15):
oversubscribed with needs. And how does your office, kind of holding the purse a little
bit and working with a limited resource that we have, how do you guys end up prioritizing
what would be, you know, maybe percolating in the next two to five years? Because a lot
of the constituents end up asking the supervisors or the elected officials saying, hey, how

(13:36):
come this is not in your to-do list in the next two to five years?
Yeah. So each of the departments that, that prepares the information and submits it to
our office does their own analysis of, of the need versus availability of funding. So
obviously as, as funding becomes available, you know, grant funding that may increase

(13:58):
the prioritization of one project over another because it has resources available for it.
But each of the department does an analysis on their own for all the projects that they
see that they have a need to complete. So.
Thank you. I appreciate that, sir.
Any other questions for Mr. Battis?
Nope.
Mr. Berger?
No, I don't have any.

(14:19):
Okay. Thank you both. Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any...
And I would like to state for the record, item number one, there were no public comments
turned in for that item and we have not received any for item number two as well.
Understood. Thank you. Thank you for keeping me in check. I really appreciate it. Do we
have any public comments for this item?

(14:42):
No, we do not.
Okay. All right. Well, Mr. Serafin, do you have any added comments or anything you'd
like to close out with?
No. Thank you so much for, Colin, for providing the extra detail. Just a reminder, we do have
an item for a vote for resolution.
Understood. Thank you. And so we do have a request of the PAR staff to take the following

(15:05):
actions, adopt a resolution recommending the board find that the new projects listed in
FY26-27 CIP are consistent with the county's general plan and also direct the county executive
to report the Planning Commission's recommendation to the board. Do we have a motion?
It sounded like a motion, but I'm happy to make that motion to move this forward.

(15:29):
Okay.
And I'll second it.
Thank you. I think we have a person second.
Thank you. Commissioner Devlin?
Aye.
Commissioner Berger?
Aye.
And Chair Borja?
Aye.
Thank you. And that item passes with the members present with a recommendation to the board.
All right. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Madam Clerk, can we please move on to item number three?

(15:50):
Item number three is PLNP 2024-00037 Vineyard South Mine Expansion, a use permit to allow
mining on 86 additional acres and to allow three additional years of mining, a rezone
to add surface mining combining zone to 86 acres, a community plan amendment for two

(16:14):
parcels, a reclamation plan amendment, and a development agreement amendment. And this
property is located at 9332 Elder Creek Road, west of Bradshaw Road, east of Hedge Road,
north of Florin Road, and south of Elder Creek Road, with the exception of two original project
parcels in the vineyard community, and the environmental document is an addendum.

(16:37):
All right. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Mark McLean with Planning and Environmental Review,
and I'm going to present the Vineyard South Mine Expansion Project. The clerk did a great
job on a location. It is at 9332 Elder Creek Road, west of Bradshaw, east of Hedge, north
of Florin, and south of Elder Creek. And it is in the vineyard community.

(16:59):
On this map here, the hatched parcels are the four parcels for this project.
The community context, the site is zoned IR, which is interim agriculture. The surrounding
uses are to the north is IR with the surface mining overlay, and that is the Vineyard South

(17:20):
Mine. To the south, it's RD10 and IR, and east and west, it is IR zoned.
Okay. On January 15, 2019, Vineyard South was approved by the Board of Supervisors that
allowed surface mining on 146 acres of a 170-acre site, and the site is currently the Vineyard
South Mine, and the use permit expires on January 15, 2029.

(17:46):
The applicant is requesting an amendment to the use permit to allow surface mining on
four additional parcels, totaling 86 acres and three additional years to mine them, a
rezone to add the surface mining combining zone to 86 acres of IR zone, a community plan
amendment to add language to the Florin-Vidyard community plan to allow surface mining on two

(18:09):
of the parcels for the duration of the use permit, a reclamation plan amendment to include
the new mining areas into the reclamation plan with the end use of open space, and a
development agreement between the county and the applicant.
All right. This is the site plan, and like I said, the four new parcels for the project

(18:32):
are in hash to the south and on the east and west of it, and the other is the original
Vineyard South Mine. Okay. So like was stated earlier, the board did approve the use permit
on January 15, 2029 to allow surface mining. The applicant is proposing three years of
additional mining with an expiration date of mining for February, or excuse me, January

(18:54):
15, 2032, and three years to reclaim the project with an end date of January 15, 2035.
The proposed project will add four parcels that are 86 acres, and of that, 60 acres is
subject to be mined. The original use permit had a total of 13 million tons of aggregate.
The proposed use permit amendment will add 3.1 million tons for a total of the mine of

(19:20):
16.1 million tons. The end use will continue to be open space. There's a development agreement
that will be amended as part of this project, and there'll be continued participation in
the cents per ton program. The cents per ton program is a program for all the mines that
the amount of aggregate they sell a certain percentage goes to a nonprofit. In this case,
it's for the SPLASH program. And this shows the phasing of the site. So the new portions

(19:47):
of the site are to the south, and in the yellow on the east is two of the parcels, and on
the west side in the brown are the two. They'll be in phase 2B and phase 3, respectively.
All right, the environmental document is an addendum based upon an EIR for the original

(20:08):
Vineyard South use permit. The addendum concluded that there would be less than significant
impacts in most environmental topics. Significant environmental impacts from the project include
aesthetic impacts, nitric oxides emissions, and noise impacts from haul trucks. And mitigation
measures have been imposed for the project impacts. Advisory recommendations. The Vineyard

(20:31):
CPAC met on February 13, 2025, and recommended approval of the projects 13 to 0. One of the
CPAC members did inquire for any public benefits of this project, and the cents per ton with
the money or the funds going to Sacramento SPLASH is a nice one of those. Okay. I think
I went too far. Maybe I'll go back. Okay. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission

(20:55):
make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Determine the environmental
analysis is pursuant to the CEQA is adequate and complete. Adopt a mitigation monitoring
and reporting program. Approve the amendment to the use permit subject to finding and conditions.
Approve the rezone to add the surface mining combining zone subject to finding and conditions.

(21:18):
Approve the community plan amendment to add language to the foreign vineyard community
plan subject to finding and conditions. Approve the reclamation plan amendment to include
the new mining area into the reclamation plan subject to findings and conditions. And approve
the development agreement between the county and the applicant subject to finding and conditions.

(21:39):
And then just one other thing on the project. There had been some ongoing discussions with
the Southgate Park and Rec with conditions of approval. We finally got those hammered
out. And I have here is an updated condition and a one new condition. And of that, yeah,
the, that is just the, so what you have there is the two conditions and then all of the

(22:07):
conditions of approval just so you can see them in total. That concludes my presentation.
I'm here to answer any questions. The applicant is also here.
Thank you, Mr. McElhinney. Appreciate, appreciate the thoroughness.
You're welcome.
Do we have any questions?
Not for staff.
From Mr. Verga? Commissioner Verga?

(22:29):
No, not, no, not from staff.
Thank you. Mr. McElhinney, just kind of a, kind of a procedural question. So we have
a pretty good established baseline on the MMRPs from what was already approved back
in 2019. I'm assuming that, presuming that the, that the applicant would not only concur

(22:50):
with the remaining items of that MMRP, but maybe just add on to that.
Yes, that's, I wasn't, didn't explain that well enough, but yeah, that's exactly what
happened there.
Understood, sir. So everything from the burrowing owls and the Swainson's Hawk mitigation, water.
And we can confirm that with Julie.
I'm sorry, I did not want to steal your thumb there, Ms. Newton.

(23:12):
All good. Good evening, Commissioners. Julie Newton, Environmental Coordinator with Planning.
Yes, Commissioner Borja, that, that is correct. So with this project being an expansion of
the existing mine, operations will be consistent with what's already in place. We've prepared
an addendum to the prior EIR, which means those mitigation measures that apply to the
initial phases of the project will be carried through. They'll continue to comply with everything

(23:36):
that was a part of the original EIR and MMRP.
Understood. Thank you for confirming, Ms. Newton. And then I do see that we now have
as part of attachment to 50 new findings and conditions of approval, or is this kind of
been added?
One modified condition 49, and then a new one for Southgate 50.

(24:00):
So it kind of messed up the numbering for the DOT comments that come out. That's why
I gave you the entire attachment too, in case you want to see it in total.
Understood. Understood.
Mr. Devlin. Thank you.
Do you have an idea of kind of what the grading, I haven't visited the site,

(24:23):
but do you have an idea of what the grading kind of currently looks like on the existing
mine site? I mean, at what depth or how deep they're going?
Yeah, I think it's about 30 feet down there. They dig to the applicants in here.
We'll be able to confirm that, but I think it's about 30 feet.
Okay. Okay. Thank you.

(24:45):
All right. Thank you. I'm not hearing any more questions from my fellow commissioners.
I'm going to invite the applicant if they're available.
Good evening, Chair Borja, members of the commission. My name is Yasha Saber.

(25:09):
I'm with Compass Land Group and here on behalf of Granite Construction tonight.
I do have representatives from the Granite team here as well in the audience.
They're all sitting with me here. So happy to answer any questions that you'd like us to this evening.
Commissioner Devlin, you had a question about the mine grading and how deep the mining has gone so far.
So the existing mine is allowed to mine as deep as 75 feet below existing ground surface.

(25:36):
We have achieved a depth of about 50 feet from original grade at the deepest point in the existing mine.
The proposed expansion would continue that same maximum permissible mining depth,
but it is a conservative depth that we're most likely not going to get to throughout the entire mining property.
And obviously it's still a productive mine, which is why you're here.

(25:58):
And I'm not looking to extract any sort of commitment.
But I guess as you kind of as this one experience within this field,
when you look at a site of that size and you get down to an average depth of fill in the blank, 40 feet, 50 feet,
you know, when you look beyond 2032 or 2035, you know, what are, I guess,

(26:22):
you know, some of the potential kind of reuses for a site such as that.
So for this site in particular, there's a number of different post mining land uses that we have in consideration.
First and foremost is to return as much of the property to a condition that's suitable
for future redevelopment under the floor and vineyard community plan.

(26:43):
So in doing so, we've actually prioritized the overburden material,
which is the non-marketable soil that sits on top of the sand and gravel.
When that is extracted, that will be moved and placed as backfill along the frontages of the public roadways.
So for the original project, that material is prioritized up against Elder Creek Road.
For the expansion project, the material is prioritized up against Florin Road.

(27:08):
We anticipate the ability to backfill almost two thirds of the southwestern expansion parcel adjacent to Florin Road
to prepare it for future residential development in Florin Vineyard,
consistent with this existing designation of that plan.
Perfect. Thank you. You're welcome.
Can you just share a couple of thoughts about your partnership with SPLASH

(27:33):
or is that a program that is being run through the county?
Or is that something that's being managed by the county cost per cents program?
Granted, supplies are cents per ton of fee.
I believe that is administered through the terms of the development agreement with the county.
That's correct.
What was your question, Commissioner Borja?
One, whether the county also contributes to funding for SPLASH?

(27:56):
Sorry, it's my first time kind of actually finding out about that.
How does that work?
You're familiar with Sacramento SPLASH, I believe.
It's a nonprofit environmental organization operating out of Mather.
The county has in the past contributed some funding for quite a few years to that program.
I'm not sure when, but I know it's within the last probably five to ten years that Granite has,

(28:19):
and you can correct me if I'm wrong, folks,
has offered that as part of their development agreement, cents per ton contribution.
That is simply the mechanism that we collectively, through Granite and the cents per ton program,
give that money to SPLASH.
Understood. Okay.
So it's part of our participation that in some of the costs for them for being able to use the land,

(28:43):
they're actually able to do some sort of good use with the nonprofit, right,
educating a lot of the younger kids in the region.
Okay, awesome.
Well, thank you.
Appreciate the time, sir.
You're welcome.
Any other questions from Mr. Verga?
No, I have no other questions.
All right.
Thank you.
Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers for this item?

(29:05):
No, we have not received any public comments for this item.
Okay.
That said, I'd like to, are there any other discussion from fellow commissioners on this item?
No, but I'll make a motion to move the item with the recommendations from staff.
I'm happy to second that motion.

(29:27):
Okay.
I believe we have a motion and a second.
Madam Clerk, if you could please call for a vote.
Commissioner Verga?
Aye.
Deblin?
Aye.
And Chair Borja?
Yes.
And that item passes with recommendation to the board, 3-0.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Thank you to the applicants.

(29:50):
And if we could please read item number four.
And item number four is PLMP 2022-00117, Gutierrez Properties, Rezone and Tentative Parcel Map.
This is a rezone community plan amendment, tentative parcel map, and a design review.

(30:11):
The property is located at 11976 Walmart Road, about 640 feet east of Regal Road in the southeast community.
And the environmental document is exempt.
Good evening, commissioners.
Kimber Gutierrez, principal planner.

(30:33):
The applicant has asked to drop this or continue this item to a date uncertain.
And I don't believe they are in attendance.
That's correct.
Yeah.
They're absent.
So, yeah.
Understood.
I do believe we do need to have a vote for that.
So the applicant is requesting that we continue the item to a date uncertain.

(30:54):
Do I have any motions or any before that vote?
Do we have any speakers for this item?
No, we have not received any public comments for this item.
Then we've established that the applicant is not available or is not attending this evening.
Do we have any discussions from my fellow commissioners?
Or do we have any motions?
I would go ahead and move that we continue the item to a date uncertain.

(31:19):
And I'll second that.
Okay.
We have a motion to second.
Madam Clerk?
Thank you.
Commissioner Verga?
Aye.
Deblin?
Aye.
And Chair Borja?
Yes.
And that item passes with being continued to a date uncertain.
Okay.
Thank you.
We are moving right along to item number five.

(31:42):
And for this item, you will be acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Item number five is PLMP 2022-00110, Eshwarian Tentative Parcel Map Appeal.
And this is an appeal of a tentative parcel map, special development permit, and a design review.

(32:05):
The property is located at 6548 Sutter Avenue, approximately 700 feet from the intersection of Sutter Avenue and Marshall Avenue in the Carmichael community.
And the environmental document is exempt.
Good evening again, Kimberly Gutierrez.
We have a unique situation in that the appellants for the item are requesting a continuance to a date uncertain.

(32:31):
And I believe the applicant is requesting that the item be heard.
So we do have representatives from both the appellant team and the applicant team present.
Thank you.
Council Member?
Thanks, Chair.
I'd recommend that you continue this item because as you know, your rules of procedure require that any action be by three commissioners.

(32:57):
And you've got a bare quorum here tonight.
We don't know how the three of you would come down on this appeal.
So if it comes down 2-1 either way, you're not going to be able to take action.
And whether you grant the appeal or deny the appeal, you have to adopt findings one way or the other.
And you wouldn't be able to do that if it's 2-1.

(33:20):
So the only way this works, remember BZA is the last stop.
This item won't go to the board after this.
Is if the three of you present tonight are all in agreement and we don't know if that's going to be the case.
So I'd recommend that you hear this item when preferably all five of you are here, four at a minimum.

(33:44):
And, you know, these days you have more opportunities for remote attendance.
So really attendance shouldn't be too much of a problem.
So we should try and get five commissioners here, whether remote or in person.
But otherwise, we're going to go through this hearing tonight.

(34:05):
And if it ends up being 2-1 on your vote, then we're going to have no choice but to continue it at that point.
Understood. Thank you. Thank you for your counsel, Mr. Burke.
Do we have any comments from the rest of the commissioners?
Well, I would defer to the chair of the preference just for clarity, counselor.

(34:32):
We can hear the item right and receive this.
So staff presentation and ultimately decide to continue this.
The one dilemma with that you can.
And if all three of you are in agreement, then OK, then that's clean and you can adopt findings.

(34:53):
But if you if you don't and we continue it, then you've got two commissioners who weren't here to hear all the testimony.
So I'd rather have them here to hear the testimony and receive the evidence, because then otherwise we're going to have a question.
Well, did those other two commissioners or other one commissioner?

(35:15):
Were they privy to all the statements that were made and all the arguments and all the evidence?
I would defer to the chair as to what he would like to do.
Commissioner Berger, do you have any thoughts?
Yeah, I basically just have I've always had concerns of continuing to delay things one after another.

(35:42):
Are there any time frames associated with this appeal or whatever this action is that we're going to bump up against because of us deferring it?
I don't know enough about it to figure out exactly what the impact of deferring it is versus hearing it.

(36:03):
Maybe we can hear from the applicant. Well, the first thing that comes to mind is there's a relatively new statute, state statute that requires land use items to be heard in five meetings.
That's why I don't know if we're up to that yet.

(36:25):
I'm less comfortable with the date uncertain. I mean, just from that, you know, the applicant has worked, no doubt.
Yeah, I'd prefer to have a date certain to get to this point.
And so I think just on balance, if we are to continue this, I would be pretty uncomfortable with a date uncertain.
And, you know, if it is to be continued, I would, you know, I would be probably more inclined for, like, the next meeting as opposed to some future date.

(37:01):
Thank you, Vice Chair Dublin. I believe that staff is finding that information as to whether or not statutorily we are running into that.
Jet line of number of meetings.
I will note more staff is looking at how many hearings we've had on this already.

(37:24):
Staff has indicated that both the applicants and potentially appellant will not be available in June.
So we're looking at July. OK. All right.
The plot thickens. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Mr. Burke, if we do move the item to, let's say, the meeting in July, would this would would that trigger an actual meeting?

(37:54):
Would this would this what we're doing this evening? Well, I mean, if we are at if this is meeting number five, I don't know if it is.
But we could certainly argue that it was continued and we didn't actually have a hearing on it.
Although the clerk made a good point that per Brown Act, if anybody wants to speak on it, even if you want to continue it, they have a right to speak on it.

(38:16):
But separate and apart from that, you know, we can make the argument that this was a continuance and the hearing just didn't happen today.
Aside from that, I don't I know people want to get things moving and complete, but I don't see a huge problem going to July.
My preference is to have, you know, like I said, a clean action, a full commission and be able to make findings.

(38:44):
The alternative is we can do it and just see where the three of you end up.
And if it's if the three of you are in agreement. Either to grant or deny the appeal, then then great.
We just don't know right now.
Understood.

(39:06):
Yes, for S.B. 3.30, the five limit meeting rule, we would not be exceeding that by continuing it to another meeting.
So we are OK with that provision of state law.
3.30 compliance.
Mr. Chair, if we end up if we end up doing this, then we need to parameters on it.

(39:33):
Come July, we don't end up making some kind of a decision for some other reasons like we just ran into that.
We delay it again.
I understand the question of three versus, you know, having enough to make to break the tie.
And I don't know enough about the nitty gritty of the appeal to, you know, kind of understand things.

(40:01):
And that's kind of what I'm grappling with here. That is, if this is the appeal, that's time sensitive beyond just some statute.
And if it's not, then we need to figure out how to address it and not let it languish from July to August and September, which happens to happen a lot in this type of circumstances.

(40:23):
For both sides, we'll do the same. Doesn't matter if one side or the other.
Understood. Thank you, Commissioner Virga.
Thank you for putting us in a nice pickle here. I think this might be my first of this issue.
I do certainly think that Mr. Burke's counsel is something that we would need to warrant.

(40:49):
However, as Madam Plunkett indicated, nothing is stopping us from hearing the comments by the public if they still wish to speak on the item.
And so for that, I'm inclined to, at the very least, allow the request to move at a date certain which would be the meeting for July.

(41:13):
I think that is kind of where my moral compass is going at the moment.
May I recommend that since we have both the appellant and the applicant here, we could ask a date that would work for everybody.
Just so that we have everyone present from the appellant team and the applicant team.
Just a suggestion.

(41:37):
Director Smith, Counsel Burke, Steph.
Yeah, what are our dates in July? Let's find out our dates in July. Let's ask.
13th and 27th.
I'm hearing July 13th and the 27th.

(41:58):
That's correct.
Alternatively, can we hear the meeting date options for June?
That would be the 8th and the 22nd.
We have June 8th, June 22nd for consideration, as well as July 13th and July 27th.

(42:26):
Maybe we could also hear from the applicant as to their impact and what their preference is to do.
I mean, I am sensitive to certainly the issues that counsel has raised.
However, it's also kind of obvious, like, are we going to be right back in this very same position on July 8th or July 27th?

(42:51):
I mean, that's kind of the unknown.
I'll say from a staff perspective, we're ready. That's why we're here.
All of our work has been done. I think it is incumbent on the commissioners to show up.
Obviously, present company excluded.
And I think it now just is a matter of whether the applicants and appellants are available on any of those four dates.

(43:17):
Something else just occurred to me.
So if we do, if we go through a hearing now, we end up and we see it's two to one and we continue it at that point tonight, later tonight.
We can have this is all because it's all recorded.
We can ask whoever else shows up for a continued hearing to watch this hearing.
That way they will have seen all the testimony and evidence and everything.

(43:40):
And then they can join in on the continued date.
So that part of it, now that I think of it, is less of a concern.
So we can just go ahead and proceed and see how it goes.
But like I said, if you are at two to one, you've got to adopt findings.
You can't do that. You've got to have three votes to do that.

(44:04):
So we still might have to continue it at the end of this.
Understood.
Okay.
Do you have any concerns, comments, and or recommendations, Commissioner Verger or Vice Chair Devlin?
From my standpoint, I think what was just to get the option given to us is the best option.

(44:30):
That way there's a record.
And if we don't land on a unanimous three vote,
then there's the other commissioners when they get available can look at that record.
And we can move the item and not have a tendency to call it the languish.
Thank you, Commissioner Verger, Vice Chair Devlin.

(44:53):
I would be comfortable with that as well.
And that being that we hear the item right now.
Yeah.
And if it's, you know, becomes clear that we're going to not be in alignment or be in alignment on this,
then, you know, from two to one, we'll have to do a continuance.

(45:15):
Understood. Okay.
With that said, I concur with my fellow commissioners.
Director Smith should we proceed with the presentation and then encourage the members of the public who are present or participating to the very least.
Opt in for participation and address the commission.
Understood. And we'll start with the staff presentation.
Then I believe to go appellant and then applicant.

(45:40):
Good evening, Chair Borja, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals.
My name is Christian Balthazar, Associate Planner with Planning by Mentor Review and lead planner from the county side on the Asore intended parcel map appeal.
The subject site is located at 6548 Sutter Avenue, which consists of a single parcel totaling 1.08 acres in size.

(46:01):
And it's currently developed with an existing single family home and a pool.
Both the pool and the single family home are expected to remain on site post entitlement.
The subject site is zoned residential density to our Rd2 and is within the Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation area or NPA.
The surrounding area is developed with single family homes, all zoned Rd2 with the sub zone of NPA in all directions.

(46:31):
In terms of entitlement history, the project site has had 2 previous planning entitlements.
The first being a tenant parcel map, which was divided, which was dividing approximately 3 acres into 4 lots in the Rd2 zone and an exemption to public street frontage to allow more than 2 lots be served by a private drive.
That request was approved by the former Carmichael Oakville Farms Community Planning Commission on March 17, 2010 and established the existing lot configurations today.

(46:58):
The image that you're seeing on the screen below is the previously approved parcel map.
So that is showing the existing configuration today with exception of the location of the fire access turnaround, which I will explain in a few slides.
Along with that, there was also a request for a special development permit to allow a 791 square foot accessory dwelling unit or ADU on the site.

(47:23):
This would have been a 2 story, 19 foot tall structure.
However, on March of 2022, that application was withdrawn by the applicant.
Along with that, there have been a total of 5, in the last 5 years, have been a total of 4 code violations.
All of them cited on this subject property.
The code violations were related to non-compliant pool fencing and pool retaining walls on the site.

(47:49):
All code violations since then have been remedied and all have been closed.
On screen now we have the tentative parcel map, again looking to divide 1.08 acres into 2 lots.
Resultant parcel A is proposed to be 24,963 square feet and would retain the existing pool.
Resultant parcel B would be 21,372 square feet in size and would contain the existing single family home.

(48:16):
Both of these proposed lots would meet the minimum 20,000 square foot lot area requirements in the RD2 zoning district.
Along with that, the project is proposing to use the existing private drive to serve 2 new resultant lots,
which could bring the total number of lots being accessed by this private road to 5 in total.

(48:39):
That is the request that is being requested under the, the deviation that's being requested under the special development permit.
Along with that, no trees have been proposed to be removed for this project,
and the applicant issuing conceptual building envelope on proposed parcel A to demonstrate that all setbacks can be met
without encroachment on existing trees on the site.
And that's the dotted square in parcel A shown here.

(49:05):
Lastly, I do want to note that chapter 3 of the zoning code states that accessory structures such as pools
are not allowed to remain on a parcel as a primary use.
To address this, the project has been conditioned to require the approval and construction of an ADU
on proposed parcel A prior to the filing of the final map.
Through this, the ADU would become the primary residence once the map is recorded and filed

(49:30):
and would prevent a noncompliant standalone accessory structure on that future parcel.
This is former condition A, now condition 10 in your hearing packets of attachment 2.
Alternatively, the condition also allows for the owner to remove the pool rather than construct the ADU,
and therefore, either way, the nonconforming status is no longer an issue.

(49:54):
One thing I did want to point out about the fire access road is we're seeing technically 3 fire access shown on this map.
The first fire access is shown in between proposed slots A and B.
That is where the fire access was originally approved on the 2010 map that was approved a few years back.

(50:15):
However, when it was constructed, it was constructed at the location of this blue turnaround here.
With this proposal, the applicant is looking to shift that driveway a bit further south
and extend to be in conformance with Sacramento Fire standards.
So you are seeing 3 different locations, previously approved and existing and a proposed.

(50:42):
The entitlements being requested for the site include a tentative parcel map to divide 1.08 acre parcel into 2 lots,
a special development permit to deviate from public street frontage to allow more than 2 lots be served by private drive,
in this case, could be served up to 5 lots,
and a design review to determine substantial compliance with design guidelines.

(51:04):
In terms of advisory meetings, the Carmichael CPAC, or Community Planning Advisory Council,
met on August 13th of 2025 and heard and considered this project.
During that meeting, a total of 7 members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed project.
Concerns raised include lack of communication from the owner to direct neighbors,
concerns that the fire access road is not meeting fire department standards,

(51:27):
potential increase in traffic, concerns that the proper permitting has not been obtained
by the applicant to construct near the Carmichael Creek,
a lack of maintenance on the existing property creating possible fire risks,
and dishonesty from the owner about the intent to split the property.
In addition, CPAC members stated that based on the code violation history

(51:48):
and the pictures that were provided to them at the time through public comments,
it was their opinion that the property owner was not a responsible landlord
and expressed concerns that the additional lot owned and managed by the same property owner
would exacerbate some of the existing issues brought forward by the public comments.
Following this and the deliberation, CPAC voted 4 yes, 1 no, and 2 abstained

(52:10):
to recommend at the time the Subdivision Review Committee and Zoning Administrator
deny the requested entitlements.
In addition, the project was also reviewed by the Design Review Advisory Committee, or DRAC,
and this occurred on September 25th of last year.
DRAC members stated that they did not see any issues with the proposed development
given the lot sizing and layout are consistent with the surrounding area,

(52:31):
and therefore at the time they recommended the Zoning Administrator and Subdivision Review Committee
find the project in substantial compliance with design guidelines.
Following that, the project was heard by the Subdivision Review Committee
and Zoning Administrator on February 19th of 2026.
A total of six members of the public spoke in opposition to the item,

(52:52):
stating concerns with emergency access and location of the fire department turnaround,
increased traffic, narrow private drive, and no parking along private drive
or adjacent public streets.
Following deliberation, the Zoning Administrator made the motion
to approve the special development permit and also move staff's recommendation
on the tentative parcel, map, and design review.

(53:13):
Following that motion, the SRC voted 5 yes, 0 no to approve the requested entitlements.
The staff report for this hearing was included in your hearing packets at Detachment 7,
and a more detailed summary of that hearing is also included in your staff reports for tonight's hearing.
Following the January 19, 2026 SRCZA hearing, an appeal was filed by the neighbors of the project site

(53:37):
and submitted to the Clerk of the Boards on February 27th of this year.
The appellant's statement included the four items listed on screen as their justification for the appeal.
Staff has provided a response to all justifications listed on screen,
both in the staff report and in Attachment 9 of your hearing packets.
However, for the sake of time, I will be providing a very brief overview of the responses

(54:01):
to each one of these statements and what the justifications were by the appellant as well.
So, item number 1 reads,
The proposed subdivision is unnecessary to solve the issue claimed by the applicant.
In the justification, the appellant states that the applicant's justification for pursuing the parcel map
is to construct another dwelling to accommodate their family.

(54:22):
The appeal justification notes that the subdivision appears aimed at maximizing property's development potential
and profit opportunities rather than solving a family housing issue
that they note could easily be addressed through construction of an ADU on-site.
Staff's response to that particular item was that regardless of the intent to sell or develop for family use,

(54:43):
this request is reviewed the same by Planning and the applicant.
While the appellant may note that an ADU may be allowed by right,
the Subdivision Map Act also allows the applicant to request a lot split through a discretionary action.
Item number 2 reads,
Conditions of Approval A violates the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions on the Historian's Parcel.

(55:06):
Staff has provided a response to all justifications listed on screen,
both in the staff report and in Attachment 9 of your hearing packets.
Conditions of Approval A violates the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions on the Historian's Parcel.
The applicant's alleged that the existing Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions,
better known as CC&Rs, state that all main dwellings on the subject parcel

(55:29):
must meet the square footage requirements of 2,500 square feet for single-story homes
and 3,000 square feet for all two-story homes.
The appeal justification stated that the CC&Rs requirement would be indirect conflict with condition of approval
in your Attachment 2 packet.
Staff's response was that staff does not review conditions within CC&Rs

(55:51):
and that they are not applied to land-use entitlements given that they are often outdated
and superseded by state laws and other local ordinances.
CC&R conditions are considered privately enforceable civil matters.
Additionally, the appellant failed to note that Condition 10,
Form or Condition 8, also provides the option for the property owner to remove the pool

(56:12):
prior to recording the final map.
In this scenario, like stated before, if the pool is removed,
then there would be no requirement for an ADU and there would be no violation of CC&Rs in that case either.
The third justification provided by the appellant states that the existing remains agreement
will be invalidated by the recording of the new subdivided parcels

(56:34):
and Iswarian has not proposed a replacement.
Appellant's justification states that Condition No. 24, BISAC Metro Fire,
would require all property owners to enter into a new road maintenance agreement or an RMA.
However, it also states that the applicant has not had any prior discussions with the appellants
in order to get a new RMA signed for that private road.

(56:56):
Further, the appellants state that in the event that the applicant takes full responsibility
for the maintenance of the road, they question whether the applicant can adequately maintain the road
given the history of code violations on the applicant's site.
SAP's response is that planning has confirmed WISAC Metro Fire District
that in the event that all neighbors cannot come to an agreement to sign a new RMA,

(57:18):
one property owner can take full responsibility for the maintenance of the fire turnaround.
Related to concerns that the owner would not address maintenance issues,
this is something that can be reported through 311 or reported directly to SAP Metro Fire to get corrected.
Additional conflicts from that would then be escalated into civil matters.
It is important to note that SAP Metro Fire will not permit the issuance of a building permit

(57:41):
for a residence or other structures until a new RMA is recorded.
Until a new RMA is accepted, SAP Metro Fire will use the existing RMA to remain in place for the site.
So in the event that this map is never recorded, the existing RMA would still remain active on the site.
And the last justification the applicant notes, all previously raised objections remain unresolved

(58:04):
and continue to require denial of the subdivision application.
The final justification provided by the appellants states that the applicant does not have the unilateral authority
to structurally alter the current RMA and the CC&Rs, do not allow the applicant to relocate
the as-built turnaround and private access easement.
In addition, the justification also contained multiple letters and previously issued public comments

(58:31):
stating that they were not addressed directly by staff.
In response, staff mentions that even in the event the county grants the applicants requested entitlements,
this would not necessarily constitute a grant of unilateral authority to alter an RMA or the CC&R.
The RMA and CC&R, as mentioned, are privately enforceable civil agreements that may or may not preclude

(58:56):
development activity that would otherwise be allowed under the county zoning code and other local ordinances.
In addition, planning is required to notify property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the site
and ask for community feedback in the form of public comments.
It is expected that the neighbors to the project site work with the applicant to discuss any civil issues that may come up.

(59:17):
Additionally, the various review agencies that require specific easements are also contacted by planning
to review the proposal and to provide conditions of approval.
So certain conditions already address some of these concerns, such as the RMA and the CC&Rs.
Condition 24 requires a new RMA be established and filed with Sac Metro Fire District.

(59:38):
Condition 12 by Site Improvements and Permitting Section requires proof of ingress and egress over the two Northern Limos parcels.
So these two conditions are an example of how there are conditions in place to ensure that new resultant changes to the site are addressed.
Lastly, direct responses have been provided to the remaining public comments as requested by the justification.

(01:00:02):
There are quite a number of them, but these were provided in your hearing packets as attachment 9.
Thank you.
For project analysis, following staff's review of the proposal, it was determined that the project is consistent with the general plan,
the Carmichael Community Plan and Actual Plan, the Carmichael Creek MPA, and the zoning code.

(01:00:25):
The product is compatible with surrounding land uses and would create an additional housing opportunity.
There were no significant environmental concerns given the notice of exemption that was prepared under CEQA,
and the project was also supported by DRAC.
Additionally, I wanted to bring note to the three key conditions identified before.
Condition 10, former condition 8, which is a condition by planning requiring an ADU be constructed prior to filing a final map or the pool being removed.

(01:00:54):
Condition 12, requiring proof of ingress egress over the two northerly parcels.
And condition 24, requiring a new road mains agreement to be filed with Sac Metro Fire District.
Planning Environment Review staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals take the following actions.
Deny the appeal, maintaining the Subdivision Review Committee and Zoning Administrators approval of the proposed product.

(01:01:18):
Recognize that the product is exempt under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Section 15315 and Public Resources Code Section 21084.
Approve the tentative subdivision map and special development permit subject to findings and conditions.
And find the product in substantial compliance also subject to those findings and conditions.
With that, I'll conclude my presentation. I am available to answer any questions.

(01:01:42):
As noted, we do have the applicant team and the appellant present in person.
Lastly, given the number of comments received at various hearings related to fire access and turnaround,
we do also have Supervising Inspector Christian Gagne with Sac Metro Fire District who is also here in person available to answer questions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Baltasar. Do we have any questions from fellow commissioners to the staff at this time?

(01:02:12):
Mr. Verger?
Not at this time, no.
Okay, Vice Chair Dublin.
Thank you. Can you put up the map, tentative map again?
Yeah.
Thank you. Is it possible to get that on the screen?
Can you, we're talking about a lot of roadways and access.

(01:02:33):
Can you maybe walk me through the ingress, egress for each of the five lots that would potentially use this road?
Yeah, so Sutter Avenue is the northernmost point, just for reference.
And then we have two parcels.

(01:02:55):
This one closest to Sutter is currently vacant and undeveloped.
Second parcel does contain a single family home.
All parcels would have ingress, egress from this private road directly off of Sutter.
It is a 20 foot wide road that serves existing or currently the second parcel in the entirety of subject parcel for this project.

(01:03:21):
And then one final parcel in the end here.
So the request is to serve up to potentially five, assuming that there's potential that this vacant lot could be served by that drive.
And then if approved, adding an additional resultant lot from here.
So, sorry, if you could literally just kind of count them out, because one, two, three, four, is the fifth one further off to the right?

(01:03:46):
Yeah, so the fifth one is going to be this parcel here, and it extends further south.
And that's existing?
That's existing. Correct.
If we go back to the original map here, you have the original format for a lot.
So vacant lot, single family home, this bigger lot is the subject projects parcel.

(01:04:08):
And then this is a lot for that is also being served existing.
All right. Thank you.
And related to the RMAs, you know, this certainly is not the first time we've done one of these.
Can you just kind of talk about, like, the mechanisms of enforcement?
I mean, what do we do when road falls into disrepair and, you know, fire department's like, hey, this thing needs to be fixed?

(01:04:35):
Yeah, typically they're handled through a 3-1-1 complaints or directly through SacMetro Fire.
In terms of the specifics of how they're addressed, I'll hand it over to Supervisor Inspector Gagnon.
Christian Gagnon with Metro Fire.
So usually we go on site and we see who's responsible to maintain the road and we'll cite all responsible parties.

(01:04:59):
And if we can actually, we discuss and we explain to them that it's not only that we like to have that road fixed.
It's a life safety issue.
And we want to make sure that they understand that us getting to them in time is value for them, not only for their neighbors.
So that's what we'll start.

(01:05:20):
And we have steps on going up.
First, we just issue like a correction notice.
We give them 30 days.
We go back, we give them more, and we just keep going up on the enforcement.
And in the event that the responsible party is simply just reluctant to take action, I mean, I guess how and at what point, how, I guess is maybe the more important question.

(01:05:51):
Is the road ultimately repaired?
Is the county going to come out and make the repair and issue a bill or a lien on the property?
Or does the road lane disrepair until the homeowner or responsible party kind of acquiesces to make it the fix?
My assumption is that I do not, I've never been in the position that we actually have to force, like, repair the road, the county repair the road and put a lien on the properties.

(01:06:22):
We've never been in that position.
So that's my assumption.
Okay.
I think that's all the questions I have at the moment.
Commissioner Verga.
I have any questions at this point.
Thank you, Mr. Baltazar.
Just a quick question here.

(01:06:43):
I understand that the RMA and the CCR per staff report is recognized as a civil matter and not something that is enforceable by the county.
But on that staff report, also, we noticed that the fire department will not be issuing a new permit until a new RMA might potentially be completed.

(01:07:05):
So in a sense, even though it is a civil matter, it's a condition of potential approval with which we're using kind of the force of law that we have as a county, right?
Or at least a special district for the fire.
Can you talk to me about, like, what could potentially be that scenario?
I mean, they don't have an RMA.

(01:07:28):
Fire department's not going to have a permit.
The project is stuck in limbo of not having a permit?
Right.
So in the event that, well, there is this avenue where if an RMA can't be signed by all owners or parcels that are being served by that private road, Sac Metro Fire does have the ability to record a RMA with just one single owner, right?

(01:07:53):
So from my understanding, that is something that remains tied to the property itself, irrespective of who owns it.
So if that property is sold, the new buyer would need to know that they would be solely responsible for maintaining that road, right?
And in this case, the applicant will have one of two options, really, in order to fulfill that condition.

(01:08:16):
Either they can agree with all of their neighbors to have them all sign and all be responsible for maintenance of the road following those signatures and notarization of the agreement.
That condition can be fulfilled.
Alternatively, if they can't reach that agreement, the owner can currently choose to sign it themselves to be fully responsible for that.

(01:08:41):
And that condition would be fulfilled by that same manner as well.
So either of those two options would fulfill the condition, which would then allow a building permit to be issued for the site.
Understood.
Can I add to that?
Councilmember?
That's OK.
So you asked about, you know, where does the public enforcement and in the private enforcement begin?

(01:09:06):
The map condition requires, right now, as condition 23 is written, it requires a maintenance agreement, road maintenance agreement, between all the people that are going to use that private road.
So in the best and happiest of circumstances, everybody signs on to that.
The applicant shows before the final map approval that everyone has signed on and they're going to share responsibility for that.

(01:09:37):
If that doesn't happen, then there's got to be the second option.
Because right now, as that condition is written, it requires the other adjacent property owners to sign on.
So he's not going to be, the applicant, sorry, he is not going to be able to fulfill that condition if they can't get the other property owners to sign it.

(01:09:59):
So that's option number two.
You got to move to option number two, which is requiring the subdivider to have sole responsibility to maintain the fire access.
As I read the condition, that means the whole fire access up and down from Sutter.
So your question was, where does the county enforcement end?

(01:10:22):
It ends when we approve the final map.
And we're looking for either that maintenance agreement signed by all the property owners or a recorded declaration of covenants signed by the subdivider that says they're going to take sole responsibility for maintenance.
And I'm hoping, I mean, I guess you have to ask Metro Fire if they will enforce that, if they will agree to enforce that.

(01:10:49):
Someone's got to enforce it if it's not complied with.
So we got to find out if Metro Fire is OK enforcing that.
It sounds like they don't have a lot of, there haven't been a lot of occurrences where it's gone that far.
But anyway, after one of those two things happens, one of those two versions of the agreement, then it becomes, you know, it becomes certainly a privately enforceable agreement if it's all the owners together.

(01:11:14):
If it's just the subdivider with a single recorded declaration of covenants enforceable by Metro Fire, then Metro Fire would be the enforcing entity.
I don't want to speak for you guys. If you don't want that responsibility or you don't do that, then, you know, you can let the commission know.
But someone needs to enforce, that declaration of covenants needs to be enforceable by somebody.

(01:11:40):
Thank you, Councillor Burke.
Mr. Gurney, I'm sorry to put you in the spot, sir, but if it's OK with you, is that is that something that you can publicly opine right now?
Is that something that you can provide us with your thoughts as a representative of the fire department?
Is that a responsibility that your special district is willing to take on?

(01:12:03):
Well, we will enforce that if needed to be enforced. Now, ideally, it would be we just make an addendum to the existing RMA and add one more parcel to that.
That would be ideal. Now, I do not know all the technicality, the legal possible, if that is possible or not.
So now we're in the position that some of the people who actually they is their property is access to their property.

(01:12:35):
And if they leave away the part, I don't want to maintain the road for the fire department to respond to me to either medical call or a fire.
That's that's their option. We cannot force them to do that.
But the moment we have something recorded saying this is the responsible party to maintain this road will enforce that with that with that responsible part.

(01:13:03):
And that is the entire fire access all the way from Sutter to the fifth parcel.
To this map, it's like normally we cannot enforce this parcel to maintain the road, which is passed like south of his property to the property, like to the very last lot.

(01:13:24):
Is that part is like this person does not use that lot is doesn't have anything to do it with.
With this is like we enforcing him to maintain the road, which is on the other parcel, which he's he doesn't have any access.
I don't see it because normally the fire access road for his ends of his properties from the south end of this property to Sutter.

(01:13:54):
Okay, certainly.
Coming from there.
Okay, thank thank you for that, Mr. Mr. Berg.
I think I think that's the rest of my questions for now I'd like to give an opportunity for all of the for for the applicant as well as the appellants to address the commission and any other public comments that we might have.

(01:14:19):
So we did receive five public comments.
Do you want to hear from the applicant?
Yes.
Yeah.
Councilman Councilman Burke.
What is the point of order here?
Did we allow the applicant?
We're having.
So this is a de novo hearing, which means we're doing it, treating it procedurally as new.
We're starting over.

(01:14:40):
So we're going to have the applicant present and then public comment.
So we're going to have the applicant present and then public comment will be when the appellant or appellants speak.
Understood.
Okay.
With that in mind, I would like to invite the applicant.
If they may choose to address the commission.

(01:15:09):
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is James.
Working with Mrs.
Warren, which is the applicant, actually applicant and owner of the property.
I have seen the comments that the appellants are doing.

(01:15:35):
In the same area, Mrs.
Warren bought the property on the basis that because the zoning allow to split the lot and allocate the other lot to her daughter.
So she can leave that to one item that came up that says that the road maintenance agreement.

(01:16:02):
Definitely.
The appellants, they're not going to sign it.
So we probably have to force it.
If the project approved to go to court, or it can be a condition that the new lot will be.
And maintain the road according to what is the existing is recorded, which says all the lot owners should maintain the road.

(01:16:37):
This is going on for a long time.
And these two neighbors.
They just don't want to see somebody else there.
The neighbor towards the Saturday Avenue is one acre lot with two parcels.
The first parcel is facing Saturday Avenue really does not have to rely on the side road.

(01:17:02):
The last the last owner has his own one acre lot.
The zoning allows the lot to be split into.
That's what Mrs. Warren did.
And that's what she wants to be done.
He has been approved by the five five members unanimously last time.

(01:17:27):
And the appellants just don't want to see nothing there.
They're always going to find some excuse to create problems.
And as they do the last four years that Mrs. Warren owns the property.
Our recommendation is our will is to have this last split and approve the map, and we can get any condition that can be put in as far as the turnaround.

(01:17:57):
Yes, it was originally done separately when the map was originally recorded by the owner.
But he did it that way.
And when we bought it, the lot was like this without turn around in that area.
And the fire department said, as long as it complies with the standard of the fire turnaround is find the location.

(01:18:22):
Now, the other may. Yes, it's going to be a problem.
You think these owners would like to sign a new one that will bring all kind of rejection.
So either we have to sue them, go to court for it, or can be a condition that the new lot will automatically be included to the already RMA sign.

(01:18:43):
Or some kind of a conditional legal legal way there.
That's what we have to say.
And somehow people that kind of Michael used to be a very rural area.
Not anymore.
A lot of people also live there.
That's why the zoning has changed.
So you cannot deprive somebody because they don't like the person or they don't like the area there to be split it in another one more lot.

(01:19:11):
We definitely asking for this to be approved.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have any.
I think that it's the conclusion of the applicant's statement.
I believe we are now taking comment public comments.
Yes, we have received five public comments.

(01:19:33):
And the first public commenter is Isaac Joburg.
And don't feel like you have to limit them to three minutes.
I said a quick question.
And my second is the appellant or public commenter because I'm actually the appellant as well.

(01:19:58):
And do I have a three minute limit or.
Thank you.
Good evening Chairman and for the record that was a no.
Yes, that's correct.
We're not timing you sir but thank you.
My name is Isaac Gerger and I'm here on behalf of my family and the Bradley family who collectively own the neighboring three parcels on the existing private lane.
This approval was granted with ambiguous conditions that are not enforceable and create more problems than they resolve.

(01:20:21):
Approvals must follow a clear enforceable and legally consistent process.
We respectfully submit that this approval did not meet the standard and should be reversed and modified or modified to provide clarity for both the developer and the impacted community.
Our written appeal packet identifies several additional procedural and substantive errors.
And we hope the board will review those concerns as part of the full record tonight.
However, I'll focus on a few that independently each justify reversal or modification.

(01:20:45):
And those failures are the first the unclear directive regarding the road maintenance agreement that you were just discussing.
Second, the approvals and proper treatment of this is a four lot roadway rather than a five lot roadway for fire safety purposes.
Third, the failure to meaningfully apply the Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation standards and fourth, the lack of any construction parking or staging safeguards necessary to preserve emergency access during development.

(01:21:06):
And based on any of these issues, the board should deny the project as approved or amended with corrected clarified conditions.
So the first condition 24, which you were discussing, I think Christian said multiple times that it requires a new RMA.
And first and foremost, our condition is that we would like that specified that a new RMA is.
We've heard that from staff members from from Christian just now dozens of times.

(01:21:29):
It doesn't actually, if you read the condition, specify that.
And that's one of the issues we have with the condition.
You know, as stated, it may sound sufficient on paper.
But as we said, everyone's stating that a new RMA will be required because the roads will be substantially altered and there there's higher density easements changed, et cetera.
Except for that, the condition doesn't explicitly state that.

(01:21:50):
And it's just going to cause the second part of that is when we asked the applicant how she intends to deal with that, to have a discussion about what the new road easement or what the new road maintenance agreement could look like.
Her response was that she just intended to file the new one.
Sorry, that she intended to file the existing one without any discussion about what a new road maintenance agreement should be for the five resulting parcels and the changes to the road.

(01:22:17):
And that's that's the problem before the board. The existing agreement governs a different roadway alignment, a different parcel structure, different maintenance options.
And this subdivision would create we we raise those issues during the original hearing.
If staff left the condition unchanged, that leaves condition 24 vague enough to allow compliance through a document everyone understands to be obsolete.
That is not an enforceable condition is an administrative loophole that will result in likely resulting conflict and litigation between neighboring owners.

(01:22:42):
If this project proceeds, condition 24 must explicitly require a newly drafted, negotiated, ratified or recorded road maintenance agreement executed by all affected parcel owners and reflecting the final roadway design and obligations.
This board should not approve a subdivision whose legal structure depends on everyone pretending an obsolete agreement remains valid.
The second issue is that the approval relies on a legal fiction about lot one that that conflicts with operational reality.

(01:23:06):
Your questions say that the private drives serves five lots and it does serve five lots.
There's no access on Sutter. There's a there's a lot of vegetation. There's a culvert. There's no roadway access.
As the owner of the lot, we don't intend to put any driveway or anything.
And in fact, we tend to build a fence along that that roadway.
And so there will be no access from Sutter Avenue, no planned access.

(01:23:27):
There is access, as was shown from the private drive.
We've had this discussion with the fire department.
The fire department has said in all practical reality, or I'm sorry, in all operational reality, if they're responding to emergency on lot one, they're going to use the private drive.
And yet somehow the requirements for a four lot subdivision and five lot subdivision vary.

(01:23:49):
The road requirements of safety standards vary in terms of what's required.
They keep going reverting back to the four lot requirements for the fire safety standards.
And our contention is that we should have the five lot standards met.
So if a bulb cul-de-sac or some other improvements need to be placed on the roadway in order to provide the proper fire access for five lots, that that should be done.

(01:24:10):
And the board should not approve a subdivision whose practical safety assumptions and legal counting assumptions directly contradict one another.
Third, the approval findings not meaningfully apply the Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation standards.
I think there was a slide up there that said the standards were met.
I think the discussion that we've heard to this point basically just relies on analysis of the minimum lot size compliance that it's zoned that way.

(01:24:37):
But the Carmichael Creek Association dimensional compliance is not the same thing as affirmative consistency with adopted neighborhood preservation standards.
And we haven't heard anything in this whole process, previous hearings, that indicate that any standard beyond just the minimum lot dimensions were required or reviewed.

(01:25:00):
And a parcel can satisfy the minimum lot requirements and still undermine the development pattern those standards were adopted to protect.
This is one of the reasons the CPAC, Carmichael CPAC, reviewed the project, considered these concerns, and recommended denial.
Fourth, if this project proceeds, construction access must be addressed through a certified parking and staging plan.
This is a practical safety issue and current approval does not address this.

(01:25:21):
The applicant has already constructed fencing along the front of their property.
There's no available staging area along the lot frontage.
There's no parking available on Southern Avenue.
There's no parking on our shared private roadway.
And our shared private roadway is too narrow to accommodate contractor parking or equipment staging.
It's also a fire lane.
We have already experienced problems with illegally parked vehicles along this roadway.
And during active construction, even one improperly staged contractor vehicle could obstruct emergency access for fire or medical response.

(01:25:45):
If the project proceeds, approval should require a certified construction parking and staging plan approved before any site work begins,
demonstrating that all contractor vehicles, equipment, construction activity will be fully contained on site without obstructing the private roadway for emergency access at any time.
This is simply a reasonable safeguard for residents and emergency responders alike.
So again, we respectfully request one of two outcomes.

(01:26:07):
Our preferred outcome is denial without prejudice, allowing the applicant to return with corrected documentation and legally sufficient findings.
Alternatively, if the board is inclined to allow the project proceed,
we ask that approval be modified to require a newly executed and dated road maintenance agreements fully ratified by all affected parcels.
As I stated again, Condition 24 that was referred to doesn't actually say new,
even though everybody keeps referring to it as requiring a new road maintenance agreement.

(01:26:30):
Written clarification of fire access compliance and protection against fire, a future burden shifting on to existing parcel owners.
So that discussion of four versus five lots.
This came up in the last hearing.
We own that parcel of lot one.
And what we're asking is that one, we feel that the first department should be counted as serving five parcels for fire.

(01:26:52):
What we don't want to see happen is accounted for for this development.
And then when a development, when a permit is pulled for lot one,
that somehow there are additional conditions or obligations placed as the fifth develops potentially developed house on that lot.
Right. So we think that should be clarified.
A certified construction parking and staging plan approved before any site work begins and explicit findings addressing consistency with the Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation standards.

(01:27:19):
The board should not approve a subdivision whose legal structure depends on everyone pretending an opposite agreement remains valid and functioning functionally served parcel.
So not as not count as served.
For those reasons, we strictly ask that you grant this appeal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Can you have him hold up?
Can I ask the speaker a question just for clarification?
You are speaking on behalf of the appellant.

(01:27:41):
Yes.
Okay. Do we have any other speakers on behalf of the appellant?
We do.
Okay. A couple.
Mary Bradley from the Bradley family.
Okay. And you you're speaking.
The appellant owns the first lot.
The center.
We filed the appeal together with the owners of lot one, two and four.
Okay.

(01:28:02):
So all three of the other existing parcels.
Thank you for that.
We're going to invite.
Can I.
Sorry. Sorry.
Just point of order.
Mr. Inspector, sir.
I'm not too sure for.
I think you can, you can save your comment after we've had the rest of the appellant speak.

(01:28:24):
And then I think that would be the proper.
Yeah.
We'll discuss all of this after the public comment portion.
And after the rebuttal from the applicant.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
We'd like to invite the rest of the public speakers for the appellants.

(01:28:45):
The next one I have is Lindsay.
And then following that, I have Mary as well as Garth and James.
I guarantee you that vice chair Dublin will be back.
But you do have commissioner who's watching us right now.

(01:29:07):
Hello.
Good evening.
I'm Lindsay Jerker.
I live on lot two and we also own lot one.
I just wanted to quickly state that at the last meeting, Christian with the fire department had stated at the exact,
at one hour and eight minute mark of the meeting,
that if there was no access to lot one via Sutter Avenue,

(01:29:32):
that a new wider road would be required and that a turnaround at the end of the road or a wider.
Specifically, I think even a wider hammerhead turnaround would have to be installed.
And so as the owner of lot one, we plan to put a fence, a seven foot fence along Sutter with access to the lot via the private drive.

(01:30:00):
And I just want to make sure that when that happens,
we don't have any extra requirements or encumbrances on lot one when we go to pull a building permit,
that we don't have to put an extra gate in for the fence or any extra access via Sutter because of this extra development going in.

(01:30:21):
So that's it for me.
Thank you.
Mary Bradley.

(01:30:42):
Good evening.
Frankly, it was and no, no offense, but it was brought to my attention that, you know,
the planning commission does not want to hear from frustrated neighbors.
But I believe it is the purpose of the public hearings to do so,

(01:31:07):
to not take into consideration the impact on our neighborhood where there is a shared private drive,
a community that is protected by CC&Rs and protected by the nature preserve area that was established and recorded by the county in 1986.
To me, it's kind of a dereliction of duty.

(01:31:30):
The applicant has requested a special development variance that was voted against by the CPAC and voted for by the planning board.
A special development variance is a request.
It's not a right.
All input through the community should be considered.
There have been multiple letters, numerous petitions filed against the lot split.

(01:31:54):
Denying this request is not keeping the applicant from building a second house and is not our intent to keep her from building it.
It is unnecessary to subdivide the property to do that.
The R2 allows the applicant to build another home.
But what the subdivision of this will do is provide more infill.

(01:32:17):
The last meeting that we had, we were told that basically each property could have up to three ADUs.
Well, if you add all of these lots, five lots, that's 15 ADUs that could potentially be put on these lots.
That's in direct conflict with keeping with our NPA.

(01:32:43):
Whenever we, I guess, look at having a potential lot split, I think we need to consider not just what's going to be happening now, but what can happen in the future.
And this would totally destroy our rural atmosphere.

(01:33:10):
And we, as I said, it ignores what our NPA is.
This also affects the residents living on the private road as a county fire department is not accounting for the current and future increased traffic and parking needs.
And the fact that as members of this community, we have voting rights under our CCNRs.

(01:33:35):
County fires claim there will be no impact on traffic or parking.
As residents, we wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment as we've already had multiple issues with the applicant in regard to ingress and egress to our property and the ability for contractors to park along designated parking on easement.
The applicant herself screams daily at delivery trucks, yet allows her contractors to park in the fire turnaround, blocking our ability to use our only way to turn around for ingress and egress.

(01:34:08):
If this is such a consternation for her now, why would it be okay to leave the road at 20 feet wide?
This will only increase the traffic, cause further problems along this private road and further disintegration of an already tenuous situation.

(01:34:30):
When I've called the county for clarification of fire lane codes, I've been told many things.
I've been told that fire turnaround was measured from the back of the house.
Then I was told it was measured from the front of the house.
And the last time we were told it was measured from the property line.
County fire has been all over the board with requirement definitions.

(01:34:52):
But what is published is that the private road that is to serve five lots must either increase the width of the road to 30 feet from the current 20 or must put in an 80 foot bulb turnaround.
This special development permit specifically states that the existing drive will serve five lots.

(01:35:16):
Five lots is five lots.
It shouldn't be four lots for for fire and five for police.
It should be just five lots.
So the county should adhere to their own laws or get a consensus from the residents on the private road to change it.

(01:35:37):
It is not enough to say that fire can access the front lot from Sutter, but would still most likely use the private drive or bust down the Sutter facing fence.
No matter how you look at it, you're still serving five lots, whether it be county fire, police or other services.
It should not matter whether fire department has done this in other areas.

(01:35:58):
It's not sufficient nor fair to the current residents on this private road.
Again, we as a community are not keeping the applicant from building her second permitted house for her daughter.
As she states, we are against the subdivision, which is not a requirement to do to do so again.
Again, if this special variance is not approved, it does not impede the applicant from building a house for her daughter or infringe on her rights as a homeowner.

(01:36:29):
Thank you.
Thank you.
The next speaker is Garth Lacey.
Good evening, Chair, Commissioners, Gareth Lacey.
I'm the president of the Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Association, and we represent approximately a thousand households in a semi rural part of Carmichael.

(01:36:57):
It's a very special area of Carmichael.
The Board of Supervisors adopted unique protections in this area.
It is rural.
It has a neighborhood preservation area, and it's an ordinance that requires the unique protection of that special resource.
That special resource includes mature oak groves.

(01:37:20):
This parcel butts up against the two acre parcel of a mature oak tree grove that's protected.
Extreme fire risk in this area.
It butts up and touches Carmichael Creek.
This is a waterway that needs environmental protections.
The neighborhood preservation ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors requires the protection of open space, large trees, natural creeks, rolling terrain.

(01:37:43):
These are the most significant natural resource areas in Carmichael.
And as the ordinance says, it is of the greatest importance to ensure the continuation of this type of open space in Carmichael.
Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Association is not opposed to development or construction,
but we insist that construction is consistent with the ordinance, consistent with the protection of semi rural character.

(01:38:08):
The staff report and the applicant did nothing other than say this project is consistent with the ordinance.
That's a conclusory and cursory statement.
There's no analysis in the record about how.
The neighborhood ordinance was was adopted to protect those characters and to restrict development that's not consistent with the preservation of the semi rural character.

(01:38:33):
So I would recommend if you consider remanding, ask the applicant and the staff to analyze this.
At least a five paragraph essay explaining how a split is consistent with the semi rural character in the ordinance.
The under Sacramento County zoning code section six point four six point H, a special development permit may only be granted upon written findings that the development will carry out the community plan, which is incorporated in this ordinance.

(01:39:02):
And I quoted sections from that plan.
The staff report concludes it's consistent with the NPA, but it just relies on minimum lot size.
That is insufficient analysis.
This is not just a simple lot split.
It's a, it is a.
It is a Trojan horse and the complexity and confusion that you're seeing is because nothing is as clear as it as it appears.

(01:39:25):
Once this splits, it's going to create a cascading effect of more confusion litigation problems with the fire department problems with the neighbors problems with the roads department.
And there's a reason that that's happened.
Discretionary.
This is a private road.
So, in Sacramento County, if there's a private road, it can only serve two houses.

(01:39:47):
That's the standard.
So, this is a special permit that was already allowed three.
Now, we're up to five.
So, I would echo the concerns of the neighbors that you should remand this or make clear that a new road maintenance agreement was required that this will serve five houses.

(01:40:08):
And the requirements of that should be met, including the properly widened road and the correct bulb turnaround for fire safety.
We do not want that to make her outgrowth to burn down and the fire department can't get in there because it's a private road.
And the requirements of that should be met, including the properly widened road and the correct bulb turnaround for fire safety.
We do not want that to make her outgrowth to burn down and the fire department can't get in there because there's problems.

(01:40:33):
So, please remand it.
Make clear it's a new RMA.
It must be widened to accommodate the five houses.
And we're going to do our best to continue to make any sequel related arguments.
Any questions from you?
But I really appreciate your opportunity and the time you're taking to review this and consider it carefully.

(01:40:57):
But it is not just a simple lot split.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next public commenter is James K.
We hear all this appellants complaining about everything.

(01:41:23):
But they don't want nothing to get back to us.
Sorry, Mr. K.
My apologies.
I thought you were a public commenter.
So that was the last of our public commenters.
Okay, just four?
Yes.
Okay, so we've received four public comments, sir.
And now you have the opportunity to provide us the applicant.
Mrs. Bradley, which lives to the left of Mrs. Warren's property,

(01:41:54):
she bought the property a year after Mrs. Warren bought the property.
Immediately, she sued Mrs. Warren that she has the right to drive through her property,
the middle of the property, to go to her property.
There was no easement recorded, no written agreement,

(01:42:16):
no escrow instructions when she bought it that somebody can drive through.
In that case, they would have bought the property.
And for three years, they had Mrs. Warren in court for that reason.
Bradley, they have one family home originally.
They have split it in such a way that they Airbnb the other half.

(01:42:39):
So they created more traffic themselves than another house over there.
And they're still constantly arguing with Mrs. Warren.
So somehow, they don't like Mrs. Warren in the area.
They don't want her to do anything.
They're fighting every way they can.
I don't think so.
That's right.

(01:43:00):
And this property has to be approved because the county has already approved it.
That concludes both the applicant's presentation, the public comments,
as well as the opportunity for rebuttal by the applicant.

(01:43:22):
I would like to now entertain questions from the rest of the fellow commissioners.
Thank you.
I'm hoping we can get some additional clarity on this four versus five lot standard.
And are we, are we, is there, what is the, what is the four lot standard?

(01:43:44):
What is the five lot standard?
And are we, I will be able to answer.
Thank you.
So the California Fire Code, Section 503.1, says when you have a building,
a new or existing building, we need to have a fire access to that building.
Then the same law in 503.2, it says the dimension of a fire road is minimum 20 feet.

(01:44:13):
We have a standard because the code says it has to be an approved fire road.
We have a standard.
Our standard number three, we stipulate that for up to four lots,
the road can be 16 feet wide and the turnaround is smaller.

(01:44:38):
It's only 20 feet wide and 40 feet when you have a T.
The arm of the T is only 40 feet.
If we have more than four lots, the road has to be 20 feet, which it is,
and the turnaround needs to be 30 feet wide and the arm has to go to 60 feet,

(01:45:00):
so it's not anymore 40 feet.
That's the difference.
That's the biggest difference between serving four lots or more than four lots.
Five or 39 lots, the law is the same.
Now, when you go to the 40th lot, you need to have two points of connection
in case something happens, the road is incapacitated,

(01:45:22):
we need to somehow get to that community,
but that's the difference between four and five is actually in this situation
is a turnaround.
The turnaround needs to be a little bit wider and that arm,
the leg of the T has to be longer.
That's the only difference.
And the proposal is for what would be functionally possibly serving up to 39?

(01:45:52):
That is correct.
Okay.
With the modification of that turnaround.
The road, the weight of the road is correct.
However, because of the road is 20 feet wide, no parking is allowed on the road.

(01:46:13):
Correct.
To provide two directions of traffic.
Mr. Guerni, thank you so much.
Quite a conundrum there, because you're saying that there would not be any parking,
but if a construction was to happen, you would have to have a staging,
which then would have a parking, right?

(01:46:37):
Because you're going to be constructing things.
So does that mean that?
Normally the staging will have to be on the property, not on the street.
We cannot allow blocking streets.
Just because you need more space.
It's a life safety issue and we cannot allow that.

(01:46:59):
This let's say exactly in this situation.
Now we're blocking access to an existing house on that property and the next property.
Allowing that somebody can die.
So we cannot allow that.
Director Smith, is that the reason why we do not have a staging plan?

(01:47:20):
I just feel like there's a little bit of a disconnect there.
We can't park, but then we would require a staging plan.
Or at least the opponents are bringing that up.
I can't speak as to why we didn't require one,
but as part of a building and or improvement plan review,
staff would identify the potential need for something like that as part of those processes

(01:47:42):
And then we would have a staging plan.
Subsequent to this threshold action of whether the county will approve or not approve this tenant map and final map.
Okay.
But we, we.
Is that a true statement then that we don't have a staging plan considered as part of the conditions?
Mr.

(01:48:03):
Construction station plans aren't necessarily required for a single family home.
It's not something that we include as part of the requirement.
And if they're going to do the construction staging area, as Christian was saying,
it would be within the project site.
So it wouldn't be within the roadway.

(01:48:24):
They would need to provide an area outside of the roadway.
Okay.
Is that standard?
Even if we were to consider the number of 80 years, that would be possible at each and every single one of the lots.
Correct.
We do not at this at the tentative map stage.
We do not require staging areas for.

(01:48:45):
I mean, we haven't had that on any of our tentative subdivision maps that have come through.
That's not something that we look at.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I'd like to try to get some clarification.
We're talking about a tentative map and a subdivision of a property.

(01:49:06):
Not an actual building of a home that requires permits and all the rest.
And my limited experience is you have the part of the map approved.
And then you go forward to get permits and all the rest, which require you to be able to go to the planning department and say, this is what we're doing.
This is how we're doing this.
And it's consistent with the split.

(01:49:29):
So I think we're talking to two different things.
We don't ask people for a plot site for lay down areas when we talk about doing maps.
It's usually that kind of question comes along the line when you start talking about building.

(01:49:50):
That's my understanding.
Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Berger.
With that in mind, do you have any other questions for the staff?
I neglected to ask you first.
No, that's fine.
In terms of you asking me first, that's okay.
My only question would be I'd like to have the staff somewhat address what the original petitioner, who, I mean, Pellett, who just stood up earlier, the gentleman who talked about all the different areas.

(01:50:24):
How his interpretation of the city's, excuse me, the county's review of this doesn't comply with what the county staff are saying it complies with.
Like the RMA, you know, that whole area that, you know, they're saying we didn't do our due diligence to make sure it applied.

(01:50:48):
From what I've read, and again, I'm not a planner, but it sounded like we went through all those things and considered those issues.
But the way it was presented, it didn't sound like the petitioner.
I mean, the plaintiff was saying it was something we've done.
So is it possible to have staff come up and kind of clarify a little bit that for us?

(01:51:11):
I think that's more than possible.
Is that something?
Sorry, we're hearing.
We're just hearing a little bit of feedback here.
Commissioner, I'm sorry.
No, no, no.
Yeah, no, not not not to you at all.
I think there's just a I think there's another hearing outside of this room.
Oh, director.
That would be my request that staff would kind of clarify those original issues being brought up from the original person.

(01:51:37):
I concur with Commissioner Berger.
Director Smith and Miss Gutierrez.
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Berger, can you clarify specifically what areas you would like clarification on?
Is it the neighborhood preservation area ordinance?
That was well, one was the neighborhood present area preservation.
One was the lack of a new RMA.

(01:52:01):
And there was one other one that kind of stuck out that it sounded like we were exact opposite in terms of what we thought versus what the individual was saying they thought it was in the original presentation.
It was part of those five or four conditions that was talked about.
Yeah, I can.

(01:52:22):
I'll kick us off and start with the neighborhood preservation area.
I do have a copy pulled up.
It is on our new land use regulation library.
So the purpose I will state that there are six sections provided for this neighborhood preservation area.
The purpose is to preserve and protect the unique semi-rural residential character of the neighborhood described in Exhibit A, which provides the boundaries, and to further the purposes of the Carmichael community plan.

(01:52:56):
One of the sections is permitted uses and development standards, both of which defer back to the zoning code.
There are no specific or unique development standards or use regulations provided in this neighborhood preservation area.
The development standards section specifically says the uses, conditions, and development standards applicable to the underlying zone shall be applicable to the property described in Exhibit A.

(01:53:28):
So really what we have to go off of is to the purpose, which is to preserve and protect the unique semi-rural residential character of the neighborhood.
And this particular lot split is compliant with all of the lot standards of the underlying zoning district.
So that is why we are saying that it is compliant with the NPA, with the neighborhood preservation area.

(01:53:53):
Go ahead.
One thing to add to that, there is a clause of the NPA that says, let me find it real quick.
It's under subsection 534-15, the findings.
And it says, it is in the best interest of the residents of the area described in Exhibit A, which is the area and the county of Sacramento,

(01:54:18):
that the semi-rural residential character of the existing neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and maintained by restricting development not consistent with existing zoning designations.
And so this property, and the staff report points this out, this property is zoned RD2.
The lot split that's proposed is consistent with that zoning.

(01:54:41):
It is not inconsistent with the zoning.
So, as Ms. Gutierrez pointed out, we were looking at both the section, the original intent up in the heading, and then this sentence in 534-15,
looking at whether this proposal of the tentative map was either consistent or inconsistent with the RD2 zoning and the applicable development standards.

(01:55:09):
Go ahead Commissioner Berger.
I just want to make sure I understand.
So, we're saying, that sounds like a pretty general statement, but what we're saying is that this new lot map is not going to be outside of what's currently existing in that area.
Am I restating that correctly?

(01:55:35):
Hello, did I come through?
I'm not sure.
You came through.
I think Director Smith is just about to say something.
I think the proposal, the proposed map is consistent with the zoning.
And, for example, the lot sizes, the dimensions meet the standards.
Obviously, adding one house on a new lot would be a change in the circumstance that the neighborhood is used to, for sure.

(01:56:01):
So, it's not, no change.
Okay.
Well, I just want to make sure I knew exactly, in my mind, what we were talking about.
The other question is the RMA.
The original appellant said that there should be required a new RMA, and that everybody seems to be acting like we're requiring a new RMA, but we're not requiring a new RMA.

(01:56:29):
Can we get some clarification on that?
Yeah, good afternoon, Christian Balthazar, Associate Planner.
I just wanted to note that the appellant correctly noted that Condition 24 does require a fire road maintenance agreement between all parcels connected and served by the fire access roadway.

(01:56:53):
In conference with Sac Metro Fire, we have had correspondence back and forth.
They did confirm that it is a new road maintenance agreement that will be required, even though it is not explicitly stated in that condition.
We do have Inspector Gania here.
He has confirmed that if a change needs to be made to explicitly read a new fire road maintenance agreement is required, that is something that Sac Metro Fire would be comfortable with, and we can have them confirm that as well.

(01:57:23):
Okay, so basically, we are saying there is a new requirement. We just didn't spell it out that clearly.
That's correct.
Okay.
I'm failing, having a senior moment, so I can't remember the third issue that was brought forward, but I'll defer back to other commissioners for any of their questions, obviously.

(01:57:46):
Thank you, Commissioner Varga.
Commissioner Devlin, do you have any comments or questions?
Commissioner Devlin, do you have any comments or questions?
Just a few, unless you're...
So, just a point of clarification, from my understanding anyway.

(01:58:09):
There is an ability, currently, to build the second home on the lot, correct?
And build an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit, yes.
Okay.
Through SB9.
I'm sorry.
SB9.

(01:58:30):
SB9, Senate Bill 9, also allows a second primary dwelling unit as well.
Okay.
Yes.
Just to interrupt you, but SB9 also says on the guidelines, granted that that second ADU kind of, for lack of a better term, meet the requirements in the neighborhood so that it, again, kind of goes through with the standards, right?

(01:58:58):
So, if it's an inappropriate size of an ADU, we wouldn't be able to permit that.
Or if it's an out of place or sizing, things like that.
It doesn't just give you by rights saying, I'm now just going to build an ADU that is not consistent with the rest of the applicable laws in the local ordinance.
Correct.
We do have specific ADU provisions in our code that it would need to meet.

(01:59:21):
Just as a point of clarification, though, ADUs are governed by, obviously, a different section of government code than SB9 units.
ADUs would have a limitation on square footage, whereas a second primary under SB9 would not necessarily have that same 1,200 square foot limitation.

(01:59:43):
That's a good point.
Thank you, Director Smith.
Sorry, sir.
No, thank you for the clarification.
Back to the RMA.
So, the addition of a fifth lot to this RMA, and this may be a question for council, that does and would invalidate the existing agreement triggering a, I don't know that it does that.

(02:00:14):
That's the testimony.
Okay.
Yeah.
Potentially triggering a new management agreement.
And so, I guess if I'm understanding this correctly, under SB9, the addition of a second home dwelling unit, potentially by right, this is more of a question of the subdivision and then where the burden lay of the roadway management agreement.

(02:00:47):
And it would potentially, RMA would potentially lie on the proponent if the rest of the parties are unwilling to proceed.
Am I kind of understanding the situation correctly?
I'm going to try to restate it for my brain.
It sounds like what you're asking is whether an SB9 unit or an ADU would trigger the same thing as is in draft condition number 24, a new RMA.

(02:01:21):
I would defer to Metro Fire on that because a new SB9 unit as a primary or a second primary or an ADU would be done ministerially, no discretionary action.
Wouldn't even come here.
Adding a new building on the parcel will not modify the existing agreement because the existing agreement is between parcels, not between buildings.

(02:01:50):
As long as we do not modify the map, we do not modify the agreement at the moment, we add a new lot to the map.
Now, we have a potential future owner to that lot.
So, we want to make sure that that one is added to the maintenance for that road.

(02:02:11):
So, that's the idea.
So, functionally, the subdivision of the lot is the triggering mechanism for potentially new RMA.
And again, if the subdivision of that lot does in fact dissolve or invalidate the existing agreement, that new agreement, that burden would have to lay on somebody.

(02:02:38):
And hypothetically, that would be potentially the proponent of this particular subdivision, if I'm understanding the other part.
Let me form it in the form of a question.
I guess, what does happen in this situation?
Hypothetically, this were to be approved and the three existing homeowners are unwilling to participate in the new agreement.

(02:03:04):
And that circumstance, the condition cannot be fulfilled as currently written.
Therefore, no final map can be approved.
What we've been talking about implying is that condition number 24 be amended to include this second option, which is to have the applicant be responsible for the fire access.

(02:03:29):
And Metro Fire made a good comment before.
It's going to be down to their lot.
So, what's going to end up being the lot below these two, the subject parcel, they wouldn't have that obligation.
But from Sutter down to their lot, yes, they'd be responsible for it.

(02:03:51):
It would have to be enforced by Metro Fire if Metro Fire is willing to accept that responsibility.
And absent that alternative language, requiring all parties would, in fact, just give those other parties basically a veto.

(02:04:13):
It seems doubtful they'll sign on to such an agreement.
Yeah, because they wouldn't meet condition 24 as it's written.
Right.
That's between all parcels connected to and served by fire access roadway.
I don't think it puts into writing here the second option.
Okay.

(02:04:34):
I think I now have clarity as to the totality of the circumstances.
I do want to kind of latch on to a question I think you are asking, which is what happens if they just proceed through SB9?
Not this map.
If they meet the standards, I think there are some standards they have to meet under SB9.

(02:04:57):
Let's say they do, and they can build a second primary dwelling.
What happens to the fire access?
So, it becomes a ministerial process.
It's like a building permit.
So, through the building permit process, there is going to be basically a plan check.
And departments are going to go around.
It's going to go to Metro Fire.

(02:05:18):
Metro Fire is going to see a second primary dwelling on the same lot, which is legal.
But I think the question is, is Metro Fire at that point going to require any change to the existing fire access?
Not as long as we have up to four lots.
Right. And absent the subdivision.

(02:05:40):
As long as we have up to four lots.
You're saying the lots trigger it and not the dwellings.
That is correct.
Yeah.
Because we had to modify that actually last year because of the allowing the law allows you to have multiple dwelling units.
Now we cannot increase the road for the same property every single time you add one more structure on your property.

(02:06:06):
So, that's why we went from dwelling units to lots.
So, Commissioner, let me make this a little bit muddier.
It was my understanding of the conversation is that the individual who is requiring or trying to get the map changed in the lot,

(02:06:38):
if they could not get the existing members of the community that are on that road to agree to change the RMA,
they themselves can assume responsibility for the RMA for the entire road up to the end of those four or five lots.

(02:07:02):
And that my understanding, that's something they can do as a way to satisfy the requirement.
Is that an accurate understanding of that?
I mean, it made it sound like somewhere in here we thought that if it isn't in writing,
that one party couldn't be the one responsible for the entire road,

(02:07:26):
that all the parties had to be, unless it was specifically written in the condition that a single party could be responsible.
I thought the original description of how it worked was if it came down to it,
a single property owner could be responsible for the entire road if the other property owners don't want to be involved.
Am I correct?

(02:07:47):
Yeah, we'd need to amend the condition, update the condition to include that second option.
And that's based on the applicant's easement rights.
So they have easement rights, presumably.
I'm not making a final adjudication on that if that's an issue in any way,
but presumably they have easement rights from Sutter to what would be the lower lot.

(02:08:12):
And based on those easement rights, we can hold them to have sole responsibility to maintain the fire access.
Now, what happens if they don't do it?
What if they, the applicant, or they're going to sell one of these lots?
They may sell their own lot.
What happens if the owner or successor owners doesn't do it
and the first two lots are looking at a crumbling fire access road?

(02:08:37):
We need to preserve their right.
This condition and this declaration of covenants that needs to be recorded would not be to the exclusion of the rights of,
I'm going to call them parcel one and parcel two from the existing parcel map to maintain the fire access road.
But the initial responsibility is going to be on the applicant with the fire district enforcing that.

(02:09:03):
In theory, that's how it would play out, how it would work.
So you're saying that number 24, if it was to stay in place, would have to be modified.
I'm saying if you leave it the way it is, there's no way they're going to get to a final map.
They can't. They're not going to be able to bring back a mutual agreement from all the adjacent owners that signs on to a maintenance agreement.

(02:09:34):
I'm sorry, go ahead.
Commissioner Verga, your understanding is correct.
If we were to move to that direction, number 24 would have to be amended to essentially describe what Bill had said.
And on top of that, provide protections for both parcels one and two to ensure that they wouldn't be encumbered should that not go through.

(02:10:02):
So it's a little bit of a complicated adjustment, but I think that is what I'm understanding.
There has to be a modification for condition number 24.
I jotted something down for an option B, basically, for condition 24, if we get that far.
So if we get that far, let's keep discussing.

(02:10:24):
Perhaps a clarification or a question as it relates to.
This is me over here, Borja.
Yes, sorry.
Excuse me, Chair Borja.
Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Sorry, I didn't realize that they put Commissioner Verga.
You're now on the larger screen, so you are now part of the discussion.
Sorry.
I don't know if you're seeing that.
I was just surprised.

(02:10:45):
No, I'm not.
So clarification for County Council.
Even though condition 24 doesn't explicitly say it has to be a mutual agreement by all parties.
The intent or the implied assumption is that all the property owners have to sign on as opposed to one.

(02:11:11):
My assumption of the language, and I don't disagree that it's confusing or vague, 24, maybe 23.
But when it refers to the fire access, as I stated earlier, my assumption that means the whole stretch.
Except for that last parcel now, which our applicant would not have an easement right to go south to that lower parcel.

(02:11:39):
Which was parcel four in the Santora parcel map.
Now, if what's intended there is that we're only talking about the two new lots that are going to be created by this parcel split, then it's a lot easier.
But I don't think that's what's intended.
But I don't know.

(02:12:00):
We need to hear from planning and from fire.
Our intention was to make sure that all parcels served by the road participate in maintaining the road.
We do not foresee that at one point.
If we ask a new agreement, somebody will say, I'm not signing a new agreement.
Now, this is my veto vote, even though that parcel still is served by that road.

(02:12:26):
We do not foresee that.
Like I do not want to maintain my road anymore because I want to make sure that you do not get to split the road.
We did not foresee that.
So I'll have to take this experience back to my office and rediscuss exactly the language to make sure we're not in this situation again tomorrow.

(02:12:49):
Thank you, Mr. Carney.
Director Smith, did you have any follow up questions on that or comments?
No, I just wanted to understand kind of council's reading and then the explanation by Metro Fire.
So that's sufficient for me.
Yeah, I think it should also say I think both 23 and 24 should say provide a new fire access agreement because that's what is being requested here.

(02:13:17):
So there's no confusion.
A new RMA for 23 and 24.
So while we're talking about 23, I did have an email exchange with Metro Fire earlier today or late last week.

(02:13:39):
Now, 23 is talking about access.
24 is talking about maintenance.
And we talked about, I said, well, is 23 requiring all the other parcels to sign on to this access agreement?
And he, sorry if I'm speaking for you, but tell me if I'm wrong, that Metro Fire needs access, basically permission from every lot up and down the private drive.

(02:14:07):
But they may already have access permission from these other lots.
So 23, you may only need the access permission from these two new lots.
It's very technical.
So if you ask me, I do not know exactly what to answer right now.

(02:14:34):
We do want to make sure we can get to all the properties and we want to make sure that that road is maintained.
That is the intent of these two conditions in the planning documents.
Now, exactly as I said, the wording and exactly how is that interpreted?

(02:14:58):
Because in my mind, we need to make sure this even this is the new two parcels is the same owner.
We want to make sure that these documents are updated because it's potential those parcels to change hands.
That is the intent to make sure that that is recorded under the parcel and the parcel is responsible for that.

(02:15:23):
Now, exactly how that works technically with access.
I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if that one is correct or not.
That's fair.
I mean, the way that the way that works in general is that the document gets recorded.

(02:15:45):
That's how subsequent owners are held to the rest of the obligation.
Yeah, yeah.
And if one has access to, I'll say, lot four fire, fire has access to lot four.
I'm just trying to imagine the scenario in which they would lose access to lots one, two and three.

(02:16:09):
The question is, how does the fire, how does Metro fire have access rights right now?
And it may be in this existing road maintenance agreement.
I haven't read it in detail enough to know if that's in there.
This road maintenance agreement generally is between the owners where they're all agreeing.
Hey, let's all keep this road maintained to certain standards.

(02:16:33):
Maybe somewhere in here it says we agree to allow the fire district to access the road.
I don't know for sure.
I do not know exactly how it was recorded at that time.
Today, we do require two separate documents.
One is the access and one is the maintenance.
These are two separate documents.

(02:16:54):
This is what we require today because it was very vague and very do we have access if somebody maintain it?
So we want to make sure we have easement, access, that's a document.
And then we have somebody who maintains that road.
Mr. Ghani, do you know if the current RMA right now, and it's okay if you might not have this information,

(02:17:15):
if that has both of those things covered?
So it's almost like a permission to enter and then a maintenance agreement, right?
I do not read today's RMA, but it might be somewhere in the documents here.
Understood. Okay.
So staff is hopefully looking into that.
Do you have any other questions or discussions on the RMA?

(02:17:37):
Because I do recognize that there's still a couple of points of, I don't want to say contention,
but at least issues that the appellants have brought up that I'd like for us at least to have an opportunity.
If tonight is the right time or if a future one's the right time,
I'd like for us to have the opportunity to discuss or at least bring those to light.
I'm done. I don't have any more on the RMA.

(02:17:58):
Okay. Okay.
One of my concerns, or at least maybe a lack of my education in this arena,
is that we've typically not have a condition, or at least the time that I've been in this size,
a condition that would force an applicant, in order to get a parcel map, to build an ADU.

(02:18:20):
I think that might be a rarity or maybe not.
I'm looking at Director Smith.
That is solely because of the existing pool.
So the existing pool would be on the new resultant parcel by itself.
Pools are technically an accessory use.
So without a primary use, they either would need to demolish the pool, completely remove it.

(02:18:44):
They have indicated they don't want to do that.
So that's why we have a condition saying you need to construct an ADU,
which would then become the primary ADU, which would serve as the primary unit for the pool.
So there's my struggle a little bit in understanding,
because as Commissioner Verga eloquently had said, we're looking at a plot map here.
However, there's a condition here that triggers a construction,

(02:19:07):
which is where I think it might be fair for the appellants to kind of ask,
well, if there's going to be a construction in order for you to make a map change,
shouldn't that also be part of your conditions?
Well, we don't know for sure that they're going to move forward with that option.
Because they can still either remove the pool, even though you've indicated that,
at least from your knowledge, you've indicated that.

(02:19:28):
From my knowledge, yes.
So that's where my conundrum lies.
Well, okay.
On this issue of how far can the planning commission or the board, not in this case,
but the planning commission in this case, regulate development of a structure, you can.
It's not a very simple and non-controversial parcel map.

(02:19:51):
Might not say anything about where the homes are going to be or where any structures are going to be.
But you have discretion to condition a map to kind of create guidelines
or create standards criteria for, you know, where the bill, I think it's in here in the map,

(02:20:12):
where the building envelope would be, if there are other, you know,
how tall can it be if you want to deviate from the ordinary zoning standards?
You can condition.
If there's a nexus, right, a nexus in proportionality, yes,
you can impose conditions on not just the lot split, on the eventual construction.

(02:20:34):
So, again, it gets to this.
And thank you, Councillor Burke.
It gets to this idea that we're no longer just in the realm of creating changes in the maps,
because we're now getting into construction, right, if I'm understanding it correctly.
And so are there any questions about that, Commissioner Virgo or Vice-Chair Devlin,

(02:21:00):
about that is condition number?
It's highlighted in our documents.
That's condition number 10.
Prior to the filing of the parcel map, an ADU shall be constructed and proposed parcel
and all utilities relating to the existing pool and site must be connected to this feature ADU.
Should an ADU not be constructed to establish a primary use, then the pool shall be removed.

(02:21:28):
Based on your conversation just now, no, I don't have any questions.
I did prior to that, but, okay, now I don't.
Okay.
Commissioner Devlin.
Not on that item.
So I just want to remind, again, the commission that we do have the ability, again,
to have the nexus to go a little bit further in the conditions that's being presented to us today

(02:21:51):
with discretion and guidance by the process.
Neighborhood Preservation Act and the NPA, Director Smith.
Just wondering if we could go to that.
There were concerns regarding ensuring that it does meet the NPA.

(02:22:12):
Trying to look at all of the documents that were presented to the zoning code administrator.
I think this project didn't go to our dais, right?
So this is the first time that we're hearing this.
Correct.
The original hearing was done by the subdivision review committee and zoning administrator.
Okay.

(02:22:33):
As you see in the essay.
How are we meeting the NPA?
Let's open with that question.
Yeah, sure.
So I think Kimber initially responded to that one.
I think it was the same question that Commissioner Berger had with respect to the NPA.
It talks about deferring to or not specifying any additional development standards in the NPA itself.

(02:22:58):
It points back to the underlying zoning code.
And so staff's analysis of the proposed lot sizes based on the existing zoning was that it met the applicable development standards.
The only deviation, I think, as Christian pointed out in his presentation, was for the additional lot to be served by a private drive.

(02:23:19):
Okay.
But correct me if I'm wrong, sir.
The NPA is not just limited to the size of the TV.
There's others.
No, it's just limited to.
Sorry, I'm trying to look for the NPA right now.
The purpose of the NPA does state to preserve and protect the unique semi-rural residential character of the neighborhood described in Exhibit A and to further the purposes of the Carmichael Community Plan.

(02:23:45):
Then if you look down at the development standards section, it says the uses, conditions, and development standards applicable to the underlying zone shall be applicable to the property described in Exhibit A.
There are no specific development standards or use regulations provided in the NPA.
Unless we go to subsection E that says the ordinance consistent with the intent of the Carmichael Community Plan goals and objectives, right?

(02:24:13):
Right.
Which we do have an analysis in the staff report of the Carmichael Community Plan and its policies.
Okay.
Okay.
Do we have any questions regarding the NPA, Commissioner Verga?
Yeah, basically, you kind of got it closer to what I was trying to figure out.

(02:24:35):
Did the review by staff show any conflict with now being identified as the policies versus basically the body of the language of that section?
You said it has policies.
Did we review those policies and how they related to the impact of the map being changed?

(02:25:00):
Yes.
The staff report did include a community plan analysis, consistency analysis, and it provided the specific policies that are applicable to the project and provided a response to those policies.
And we found that the project is consistent with the community plan.
And that was provided to the appellate who was basically objecting to what is being done?

(02:25:27):
That was provided in the original subdivision review committee and zoning administrator staff report and was also provided in the staff report tonight.
Okay, thank you.
And then, Commissioner Borja, Chair Borja, we were able to pull up the road maintenance agreement from the previous map, which did include an access easement recordation for that as well.

(02:25:57):
Understood.
Thank you.
There's a lot of layers to this.
I'm going down to the CCNA history all the way to 1986 and just making sure that we are.
And so I just really want to emphasize to the public that we take every vote very seriously.

(02:26:18):
And maybe this might be the right time to just have an open conversation with the rest of the commissioners.
Are we.
But it'd be fair.
It'd be fair, Councilor Burke, to have a straw poll of whether or not the commissioners right now, as it stands, have the right information presented to them, given that there are proposed changes to the conditions.

(02:26:41):
Whether or not this is a decision that we'd like to make tonight or that whether or not we'd like to, again, go back to about a couple of hours ago, the original request or at the very least advice by council to perhaps move this to the next to the next board meeting.
Was that the councilor?
Oh, yeah. Sorry.
Are we able to have a straw poll?

(02:27:04):
Well, just discuss tentatively what the three of you where you're leaning right now and where you may be leaning is you want to continue it.
You want to look more into it.
You know, there's there's a reason to do it, to have more commissioners here.
There's also maybe a reason if you do want to look at it further, you don't have to.
But that might be a reason.
Or if you're ready to go tonight, which way are you leaning?

(02:27:27):
So this is not what you're going to do right now is not an official vote.
We're just going to figure out if it's two to one right now tentatively or three zero.
Okay.
Commissioner Berger.
Can I ask you for your feedback?
Yeah, I'm leaning to address it tonight.
I'm leaning to make the changes in the languages discussed before it and then move forward with staff's recommendations.

(02:27:57):
My shirt Dublin.
Thank you.
I guess for me when I've kind of pushed back.
You know, a little bit to the 50,000 foot view of this.
This street potentially ends up at a very near identical condition as to what they want to do with the lot split absent the lot split.

(02:28:23):
And they could possibly do it with the existing RMA.
So, you know, the decision for me seems to really just kind of come down to like the lot split.
Itself and whether that are made, you know, then changes.

(02:28:46):
But even without the lot split, it seems that they potentially end up in a functional absent the ability to, you know, obviously freely divest the second parcel.
Ends up in the same place.
Without the lot split.
Without the lot split.

(02:29:08):
And so, you know, it seems to be the largest, the biggest effect seems to be the shift in the potential burden of the RMA.
You know, and then obviously the consequences of the neighborhood of a step, an additional freely alienable, you know, parcel there.

(02:29:29):
But in terms of like number of homes, number of cars, all that potential impact seems to be, you know, functionally the functional equivalent, even absent the lot split.
Thank you, Chair Devlin.
I don't want to be a debater for this evening, but I don't believe that this time.
Again, I don't believe that all the information to be able to make a decision.

(02:29:55):
I'm struggling here with the changes on the language that we're going to have in the 24.
I'm also hearing from staff that they're looking at the language from the RMA.
I don't want to drag this out, but I'm not too sure if I have all the right information at this time to consider whether or not proposing or at least siding with the staff recommendation would be would be the right move.

(02:30:17):
I think that I'd like to be able to make sure that we've had adequate review from our folks over at fire special district and make sure that they they've had the chance to take a look at both the existing either permit to enter or the maintenance agreement on the RMA.
If that's already there, then we can point that out.

(02:30:40):
And hopefully the language on what we're proposing for number 24, just so we're all kind of clear.
And for the applicant, Ms. Warren, I totally understand where you're coming from.
I really do.
I don't want to be impediment.
I just hope that we're able to do the right thing.

(02:31:02):
But making sure that we are again, we're going to be making a decision here that could potentially get into more legal actions between you and your neighbors, but also ensure that we're doing the right decision on the conditions that are being requested.
And so that's I don't believe I'm prepared to make a vote this evening.

(02:31:25):
I'm would be happy to support the chair and continuous as if I guess my only request on behalf of the applicant, I guess, would be to give them a date certain.
Yeah, I would like that.
So we go back to before we've had this discussion exercise that it's not considered as a hearing, perhaps to figure out again.

(02:31:48):
The original question two hours ago would have been, could we figure out a time?
And then by that time, hopefully iron out all of the other details.
We've had a hearing now.
Oh, yeah.
If the continued hearing.
Okay.
Will that be meeting number five or.
The next meeting would be five.
Okay.
So we can do another meeting.

(02:32:09):
We'll want to make sure Commissioner Virga is okay with a continuance.
I hope so.
Because otherwise, like I said before, there's.
There's no action you can take right now.
It's 111.
The way you tentatively discuss.
So, yeah, recommend.
I'd recommend you continue it.
We can answer some of those questions and maybe get a few more commissioners here.

(02:32:32):
We'll make sure they watch the video of this proceeding.
And if we can get a date certain in July or.
Or earlier, if possible.
I guess to the applicant in the appellant.
Maybe if they have input as to.
I don't want to schedule something.
Yeah.

(02:32:53):
And then have them both.
Yeah.
I'd like to.
I'd like to be able to have a date.
If you want to bring them down, we can talk about.
You would have to specify what the date is in your vote.
For us to continue it to a date.
Certain we were looking at July 13th, July 27th.

(02:33:14):
So the applicant and the appellants can let us know which of those dates.
Is better.
July 13th.
Yeah.
July 13th.
Okay.
July 13th.
Yeah.
July 13th.
Okay.

(02:33:35):
We will go with the earlier date, which is July 13th.
So I know I'm the one that has, I guess.
Put this forward.
Obviously, but.
I agree with what you're saying.
I would like to have it.
Resolved and brought forward at the beginning.

(02:33:58):
Of if it's July, July 13th.
We do it on July, July 13th.
So that we're not.
In the middle of this again for another two and a half, three hours.
Fair point. Commissioner Berger. I think that ours.
Okay.
I think we've taken down their notes and then kind of looked at the

(02:34:19):
points of.
I don't want to say contention,
but more so technical things that we would just need to address and
iron out.
I would appreciate a summary of those though,
because I do not think it is clear to me unless it is clear to
others.
Okay.
Well, it's not clear to me. So yeah.
Okay.
Great. Okay.

(02:34:40):
Perhaps I can start.
Okay.
So I would like to move to number 23 and number 24,
as it relates to the road maintenance agreement.
And just have the perspective of fire that whatever condition
language that would be presented by staff,
that they are comfortable.

(02:35:01):
With that language.
Both in the legal and also operational and that also.
That they would have the ability, not the ability,
But they would have the ability to do that.
So I would like to move to number 23.
And number 24 would end up being whether that's a and B.
I think.
I think that's the biggest.

(02:35:23):
I think that's the biggest one for me.
And then perhaps maybe at the staff report,
if you could just address this whole,
I don't know if it's a cart before the horse,
but there's cascading effects about this lot split would require a
Again, there's a contention that there,
that the staff report might have been silent on.
Requiring or addressing the construction plan or.

(02:35:45):
Staging plan that would then be triggered by the.
Again, option a, which would be the construction of the ADU.
So perhaps just a one sentence or just a staff discussion about that.
Those are my two biggest requests.
And I do believe that you can summarize,
or at least point us out to the rest of the commissioners who may not be in

(02:36:07):
attendance today.
The discussion that we have on how the staff analysis.
Addresses the concerns regarding the neighborhood preservation act.
And again, pointing out both to the.
The NPA,
as well as the initiating ordinances and the intent back in 1986,
as well as the intent back in 2002.

(02:36:29):
Mr.
Chair, if I could just maybe.
Yes, please.
My own clarification.
I think for me.
You know, 23 and 24, just making sure that we're clarifying.
When those come back, both.
The RMA and the access, which.
Appear to be separate.
So we can just make sure that we have clarity on both of those things
separately.
Unless the RMA is already both the access and the maintenance.

(02:36:54):
I'm sorry.
The RMA is currently in place with the current layout.
With the proposed split.
That is where the new.
New road maintenance agreement and the new access.
So you would have a new.
Which is the access agreement plus the army. Okay.
Clear a smudge.
Yeah.
Yeah.

(02:37:17):
One issue on the RMA, which I know we talked about it, but.
The question is.
Whether the RMA requires all parties to be involved or just one party.
So when they come back with discussions about the RMA.
Please have that question answered. I mean,
It sounds like at one point it could be just one party.

(02:37:40):
And in combination with the others.
It could be just all of them at one time or just one,
regardless of the others.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I don't know what the option B.
But I think, yes, sir. Commissioner.
You're correct.
I think that the staff.
Heard your concerns.
And I think that'd be able to provide that.

(02:38:01):
As part of the edits to the condition.
Okay.
I don't have anything else to add.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner.
Ms.
Is that.
Does that hopefully give you a little bit of summary and I can,
I can.
Yes.
Okay.
Okay.
Thank you so much.
I know that.
All of all of our communications are periodical,

(02:38:22):
but I would probably provide you a summary of what my understanding is of
the discussion too.
For the neighbors and to Mrs. Warren and your representatives.
I really appreciate you guys for, for staying with us. It's it's,
it's a, it's a difficult decision.
And something that I don't think that we should take lightly.
And that we should at least provide us with as much of the right
information, technically, as well as policy-wise.

(02:38:43):
Before we make this vote.
I'll make the motion to continue this item.
On July 13th.
I'll make the motion to continue.
Second.
Thank you.
Madam clerk.
May we please call the roll.
Or the vote.
Members.
Aye.
Member.
Aye.

(02:39:04):
And chair.
Aye.
And that vote passes three to zero to continue this item to July 13th.
Thank you.
And with that,
I would like to ask the planning directors to please move on to item.
Number six.
And that would be the planning director's report.
I'll keep it brief this evening.

(02:39:28):
Just note that we have our next hearing, which is June 8th.
Four items, a little bit of a potpourri.
We have a cell tower.
Smaller tentative map.
We have another mine expansion.
And then we have our next hearing, which is a,
I think we had a workshop here a few months back.
On that.

(02:39:49):
Robust package.
So.
Get your thinking caps on.
Be ready.
June 8th.
Thank you.
Thank you, director Smith.
I just do want to, I want to say we.
A number of students that are studying.
Public policy right now.
And I just want to say that.

(02:40:10):
We watched a couple of the videos that we've had both on the ordinance
amendments package, as well as the.
The economic development.
Meeting and provide a really good positive feedback, both on.
On our discussions and also of all the things that we, we looked at.
And so we appreciate that. Look forward to that meeting.
Okay.

(02:40:31):
Madam clerk. Do we have, can we move to item number seven?
Item number seven.
Is a miscellaneous scheduling items.
I will be sending out the attendance poll for the June meeting.
So just look out for that.
And if you have any conflicts, please let me know.
And then item number eight.
Item number eight is a public comments and we have not received any

(02:40:53):
additional public comments.
Okay.
With that said the time right now is eight 11.
I'm concluding our meeting of May 11th.
Thank you.

All Episodes

Sacramento Planning Commission - 5/11/26

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Sacramento Planning Commission - 5/11/26