Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

November 17th, 2026 at 6 p.m. We will begin with our land acknowledgement. We honor, respect, and acknowledge Elk Grove's first inhabitants, the Plains Miwok, who lived as sovereign caretakers of this land and these waterways since time immemorial. We commemorate and advocate for their descendants, the Wilton Rancheria Tribe, the only federally recognized tribe in Sacramento County who endure because of the bravery, resiliency, and determination of their ancestors, tribal members, and leaders. At this time, please silence your electronics and cell phone devices. The clerk will read the customary greeting.

The Elk Grove Planning Commission welcomes, appreciates, and encourages participation in the meetings. The commission reserves the right to reasonably limit the total time for public comment on any particular notice agenda item, as it may deem necessary. If you wish to address the commission during the meeting, please complete a speaker card and give it to the clerk prior to consideration of the agenda item.

Thank you. At this time, the clerk will call the roll.

Commissioner Sandra Poole. Present. Commissioner Juan Fernandez.

Present.

Commissioner Suman Singhan.

Present.

Commissioner Vice Chair Berender Singh.

Present.

Chair Oscar Ocon.

Absent. Thank you. And I invite Juan Fernandez to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. At this time, would you please join me in a moment of silence? Thank you. Next, we will move to the approval of the agenda. Can I get a motion?

I move that we approve the agenda as presented.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Next, we will have our public comment. Members of the audience may comment on any item not on the agenda that is of interest to the public and within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission cannot take action on any non-agenda items raised under public comment until the matter has been specifically included on an agenda as an action item. Also, just a reminder, we will be enforcing the three-minute rule tonight, so please be sure to follow that. I will open the general public comment opportunity Do we have any blue cards?

No comment.

No comments, all right. I will close the public comment. We will move to the consent calendar items. For 4.1, regular meeting minutes of August 20th, 2026. Do I have a motion? Do I have a second? I will second. All in favor? Aye. So we have three. Okay. Moving on to 4.2, regular meeting minutes of May 21st, 2026. Can I get a motion?

I believe that the motion made was for the both consent calendar items. Was that right?

I did it for 4.1. I'm moving on to 4.2 now for the one on the May 21st. For both? Oh, thank you. Sorry. Thank you. I didn't think you would clarify.

Then we have a minor problem because if it included 4.2, I do not believe I was here. So I can't vote on it.

Would you like to revise this by doing a separate motion for each minutes? Would that work?

Yes, I will do that. Chair, I move for approval of the regular minute meetings for August 20th, 2026.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Next for 4.2, the regular meeting minutes of May 21st. Do I have a motion?

I move for approval of the May 21st.

Seconded. All in favor? Aye.

One abstention.

Okay. Moving on to our public hearing items. The clerk will call the hearing items.

Item 5.1, Sumber Flats Project, PLNG 23-006.

And I have to recuse as I am, my residence is within 1,000 feet of the property in question, so I will be outside. Okay.

Good evening, Commissioner. Sarah Kirchgesner, Community Development Department, Planning Division. The Summer Flats project consists of a general plan amendment and community plan amendment to redesignate the project site's land use designation from low-density residential and resource management and conservation to medium-density residential and resource management conservation. The project also includes a rezone from RD4 and open space to RD12 and open space. The tentative subdivision map and design review included would subdivide three parcels into 120 residential lots for T-court homes, one water quality detention basin, one open space lot, and additional landscaping lots. The project also includes a general plan amendment Eastern Elk Grove community plan amendment to increase the maximum residential build out for the East Elk Grove sub area. An environmental impact report was prepared for the project, which will be discussed later in my presentation. The project site, which is 27.6 acres, is located to the northwest of the Waterman Road Rancher Drive intersection within the East Elk Grove subarea of the Eastern Elk Grove Community Plan. The project site is comprised of three parcels, and it's bounded by Waterman Road along the site's western boundary. And a total of approximately 3.9 acres of aquatic resources, such as seasonal wetlands, vernal pools, Detention base were delineated with the site and the immediate surrounding area. Three easements containing transmission towers, utility poles, and an overhead transmission lines are generally located within the eastern half of the site. The site is surrounded by single-unit residences to the east and south, Waterman Road to the west, and vacant land to the north. Other surrounding uses include grocery store and other commercial businesses further south along Oak Grove Boulevard, as well as single unit residential neighborhood, as well as the Hilltop Cemetery and Jack Hill Park to the west across Waterman Road. As I mentioned, the project is requesting a general plan amendment, community plan amendment to modify the land use designations of the site from low density residential and RMC to medium density residential and RMC. The project would also increase the maximum residential build out for that East Elk Grove sub area by 91 units. The project includes a rezone from RD4 in open space to RD12 in open space. The project is consistent with general plan policies LU2-3 and LU2-4. It proposes medium density residential development within an infill area, which was identified in the general plan. The project is compatible with the surrounding area and increases housing diversity in the city. In the city's housing element, the city determined that middle density housing types, also referred to as missing middle housing, such as the proposed project, may provide options for both ends of the income spectrum. and to varying household sizes. Additionally, Housing Element Action 6 supports and promotes middle density housing development. Here is the proposed general plan amendment community plan amendment. Here is the proposed rezone. And this slide shows a summary of the proposed acreages of existing and proposed land use designations and zoning districts. The proposed tentative map shown here is consistent with the proposed general plan, municipal code, and design guidelines with the proposed general plan and community plan amendments as well as the rezone. The map would create 120 single-unit residential T-court lots along with additional open space lots and landscaping lots. Stormwater runoff would be directed to a new water quality detention shown in lot B. Frontage improvements are proposed for Waterman Road to widen it into a four-lane arterial along the project's frontage, which is consistent with the general plan classification for this roadway. Additionally, there are proposed frontage improvements that would include a 32 and a half foot landscape corridor with a 10 foot wide concrete class one multipurpose path within that landscape corridor. The project includes a pedestrian access from Waterman Road in the middle portion of the site through a pedestrian paseo. Additionally, a multi-use path is proposed running north-south along the center portion of the site, immediately east of the proposed lots, providing a connection to the existing multi-use path at the southeastern corner of the site. The project was presented to the Trails Committee in June. may of 2023 and the trails committee did question why the proposed multi-use trail alignment was shifted to the middle of the site from where it's shown along the eastern boundary of the site staff and the applicant note that there are existing vernal pools and wetlands that create a challenge to locate the trail in that location along the eastern portion of the site and this alignment does provide connection to the south as well as the opportunity for a future connection to the CCSD, the Consumers Community Services District, owned parcels north of the site as well as to Wrights Park in the future. Any future master home plans would be subject to review against the requirements of the outgrowth design guidelines. A environmental impact report was prepared for the project to identify whether or not there would be any significant environmental impacts from the proposed project. The EIR is comprised of a draft EIR as well as a final EIR. A notice of preparation was distributed for public review on October 11th of 2024. The draft EIR was released for a 45-day public review period on April 21st of 2026 for a 45-day period that ended in June of 2026. And the draft EIR included evaluation of the following environmental issues as well as other CEQA mandated issues. The draft EIR identified the following significant and unavoidable impacts, impact 4.2-7 related to GHG emissions, as well as impact 4.11-4 related to vehicle miles traveled, commonly known as VMT, in exceedance of the applicable threshold holds of significance. Comments were received on the draft EIR during that public review period, and responses to the comments have been prepared and are included in the final EIR. Findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations have been prepared as required by CEQA. A green sheet was provided to the Planning Commission with supplemental information since the release of the staff report, specifically to delete condition of approval number 52 as that item for a public utility easement was addressed in other conditions. Additionally, staff recommends to delete the typical plot plan detail That was inadvertently left on the subdivision, the tentative subdivision map, which is included as an exhibit to the resolution. And staff provided an errata sheet to the draft environmental impact report that was all included in the green sheet. I also want to note that additional public comment was received since the release of the staff report and the public correspondence was provided the condition and posted on the city website under pink sheets. Just want to address a few of those comments. One comment noted that there's a 35 mile per hour speed limit south of Rancho Drive. And staff wants to note that the draft EIR accurately reflects the 45 mile per hour speed limit that is posted along the project's specific frontage. And the speed limit transition to 35 miles per hour south of the intersection with Rancho Drove Drive does not affect the analysis or conclusions of the traffic study or the environmental impact report. Additionally, there was a comment regarding one of the alternatives in the analysis, the increased density alternative. And staff has prepared some clarifying information that I'm going to read into the record, if that's okay. While single unit residents at this increased density would likely still be possible within the existing development footprint, this increase in density would fundamentally change the proposed product type. Achieving the density included in the increased density alternative would likely require alley loaded residences front facing onto Waterman Road and would necessitate considerable reductions or elimination of the private outdoor spaces of such units. The city does not currently have any product types of this nature within its jurisdiction and the marketability of such a product type is speculative. The applicant represented to the city that it has not been able to identify a home builder that is willing to develop the project site with higher densities and smaller lots proposed with the increased density alternative because of the lack of demand for such a residential product within the eastern sector of Elk Grove. Moreover, the applicant represented to the city that Lennar is unwilling to develop the project site in accordance with the higher density proposed within the increased density alternative. Therefore, the increased density alternative unlike the proposed summer flats project, is economically infeasible because it's not capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time period. Staff has revised the recommended motion as shown on the screen to incorporate the green sheet and the staff revision to section 8.3 of the findings of fact to incorporate that clarifying information. This concludes my presentation and I am available for questions. Any questions, Hunter?

Not yet. Okay, questions?

Okay, for now, no questions. Thank you. Okay, at this point, I will declare the public hearing open. A reminder to please keep the comments to three minutes. Can we call up the first speaker?

Mark Clay.

Oh, sorry. I apologize. Actually, I need to first invite the applicant to speak before we begin, sir. So I do apologize. We will begin with the applicant first and then you have a chance to speak.

Thank you, chair. And good evening, commissioners. My name is Timothy Denim. I'm principal with Wood Rogers. We're a civil engineering planning surveying firm based out of Sacramento. And we're the ones that work on this plan. over the last three and a half, four years with the city. Go ahead and advance to the next slide if you could. Or is that up to me?

Just click that, got it.

This map shows where it sits, kind of in that east side of town. You know, it will allow the continuation of an open space corridor on the east side of the project. The CSD, consumer CSD owns property to the south as well as to the north. They have plans that are really preliminary, but that bike trail on the west side would connect through those spaces to provide a north and south connection down to Strong Park at some point in the future. We feel the project's very well buffered from the surrounding development to the east. You have the power lines and the open space corridor. to the north you have the csd open space to the west you have waterman road when you look at it as entirety with 72 feet of right-of-way width 25 foot landscape quarter on one side and 32 on the other half you have 125 130 foot wall-to-wall separation between this project and that project and to the south there's an existing home potentially a future extension of east park someday on the csd property And this shows kind of what Sarah already covered, which is the change in the general plan amendment rezone, so I won't belabor this too much. I did want to point that entry level, medium density housing product for young professionals is already occurring on the west side of town. This will be the first one on the east side. It's an important housing product for young folks that are kind of in that first job, first home buyers. It could also serve other market niches, so it isn't limited to one particular buyer. But it's important, there's a housing shortage and this type of housing can serve a moderate income buyer. I already covered the point down below about it being well buffered. And then this is the illustrative site plan, work with staff to put a paseo through the middle of Project East-West. So this project includes public streets, which to the south and the north provide a loop through the project. And so pedestrians can connect east to the open space corridor and access the trail, which someday will continue north and actually connects to the east, to the southeast corner, to the existing CST trail. so folks can get out and kind of visit that open space beyond the confines of this project. Wanted to also point out that the roadway for Waterman Road was shifted to the east to avoid the cemetery property, so it's not centered on a property line in that location, just kind of out of respect to what's there. So we have two north-south trails and a lot of landscape common lots throughout the project to provide a nice street scene, provide opportunities for neighborhood gardens and that sort of thing. Within the open space corridor, as Sarah pointed out, there's a water quality and detention basin to take care of the project's runoff. We'll conduct to the south through a drainage channel and pipe. And then the architectural package was pulled. The applicants talking to builders, Lennar's kind of the current one, but whoever the builder ends up being, they'll bring forward their plans, their architecture, and go over what those plot plans, setbacks, and things will be at a later date. But the streets will be well landscaped, provide shade for pedestrians. And then the auto courts, I like that for a kind of a first-time home buyer, young professional. That provides kind of a private area where residents can interact. All the units would have two-car garages. Some in the back corner had, in that plan, had driveway spaces. But I like the auto courts, the T-courts, as some people call them, provide an opportunity for neighbors to interact with each other. And it hides the appearance of garage doors along that public street, so make for a nice street scene. And that concludes my presentation. We've worked with staff. We really have no more questions on conditions at this time. I want to thank staff for all your diligence, and I ask that you support their recommendation to approve the project. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions?

Sir, could you go back to, I think it was slide four. One back, another one back. So, oh, no, one forward, please, slide four here. So the issue you'd said here is entry-level, medium-density housing, moderately priced or workforce housing is an urgent need. So I gather from your slide that this is not rental property.

Yeah, it's... Again, where it'd be moderate price targeted toward young professionals, but it could be empty nesters. It could be other market niches as well.

But it is for sale as opposed to rental.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. No other questions at this time. All right. At this time, I will open the public comment opportunity. Can I come up? Oh, yes, sure, absolutely.

I apologize.

Are you part of the applicant team?

Yeah, I'm one of the developers. My name's Brian Wilson with the applicant team. Thank you for having us here, Commissioner, city staff. I just wanted to let you know kind of a little bit of the history of the project so you can understand how we got here. In 2022, I had a meeting with Antonio from planning and Sarah from actually the affordable housing department. We were looking at maybe doing something a little bit higher density, and that's when they brought to our attention the need for this missing middle and referred to the general plan. So we took the advice or the direction from the city to go ahead and design a product that fit those needs. And through the years, we've worked since 22 till now on doing the environmental impact report, and we've had a bunch of different buyers and so forth look at our project. By the time it got to the first public hearing, we had talked to somebody that was interested in doing rentals, homes, but that person is no longer part of our project. So now they'll all be for sale, single family. Because I know there was some confusion from the public about that, as well as the affordable housing component. It is, I believe, deemed within the city affordable because it's below median income. However, it's not subsidized in any way. So there's no Section 8 or any government money that helps pay for their people's homes. It's going to be geared towards teachers, firemen, policemen, people that otherwise might have to go live in other communities than where they work. So that was the intention of our subdivision of summer flats. I think it's gonna be a very successful project, and we're excited to see it move forward. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

All right. No questions at this time.

Thank you, Commissioners. Thank you. Also, I want to mention, Sarah did an awesome job. We really appreciated working with her, and thank you for all your help.

Okay, if that's it from the applicant, we will then go ahead and now open the public comment opportunity. Again, just a reminder to please keep it to three minutes. We could call up the first.

Mark Claver.

Good evening. Excuse me. My name is Mark Claver, or Claver, that's fine. I live at 9461 Monte Cresta Way within the Waterman Meadows residential development west of the proposed project. I'm a retired geologist and environmental engineer, state licensed geologist, senior manager, formerly working with Kleinfelder for the last 35 years. I was also an eight year planning commissioner, three years as chair for the city of Cloverdale, Sonoma County. For the last 26 years, my family and I, along with many of our neighbors, have enjoyed living where we do. At the time of our arrival to this east area of Elk Grove, Waterman Meadows and Fallbrook were the only established neighborhoods, and Pleasant Grove High School, excuse me, was still several years away from being built. Excluding the established residents near to Old Town, other residential neighborhoods east and south of us were far and few between. Over the past 20 years, the open lands that once surrounded our neighborhood have seen nearly a dozen new residential developments go up in all compass directions, contributing substantial traffic loads to the existing thoroughfares, including Waterman, which I include in this arterial category. depending upon the timing of when school traffic begins in the morning and evening relative to the commuter traffic, not to mention the train schedule at both the Bond and Elk Grove and Old Town crossings. The increased use of Waterman as a major arterial road for the north-south traffic on the east side of the city has significantly increased in recent years. It makes it challenging, if not dangerous at times, to attempt to exit our neighborhood, And this will only worsen once the 230-acre, 660-home Elliott Springs project on the northwest corner of Bond and Waterman is completed. I don't know if those traffic counts were considered in this EIR. In the absence of major improvements of these arterial roadways to accommodate the cumulative effects of these new developments, including meaningful progress on the grade separation solutions to address the congestion for all of those of us in Elk Grove, East Elk Grove, it will only worsen. The project EIR recognizes that the capacity for the existing roadways to accommodate traffic loads under the planned rezone project cannot be mitigated under the RD-12 designation. The Summer Flats project, as you know, is part and falls within the East Elk Grove, or the EEG, overlay district. It was established by the city in 2019. That's a mere seven years ago. At that time, and with much consideration, the city adopted a specific land use plan within this area that established densities for various areas based on the criteria that understood the importance of preserving the character, historical setback patterns consistent with the surrounding low density residential neighborhoods.

Can I have another minute? No, sir, I'm sorry, we have to stick to the three minute rule today. Say that again? We're gonna have to stick to the three minute rule today. Okay.

Commissioner, the Planning Commission's practice has been it's three minutes per speaker and time is not transferable.

I will wrap this up. Give me 20 seconds. There's areas of Elk Grove currently zoned and more suitable in the general plan for higher density projects such as those contemplated here. Changing the zoning from RD4 to an RD12 is well beyond what was contemplated in the EEG. What we contemplated and what we were informed of being residents of this part of East Elk Grove, and I'm afraid it's just not a good idea. Thank you.

Could we have the next speaker?

Chris Duggan.

Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for your time this evening. My name is Chris Dugan. I'm a 14-year resident of Waterman Meadows, which might make me a teenager tonight for the first time in a while. I'd like to say that I'm not against this project. The state of California needs housing, so it's a good housing project. I'd also like to commend city staff and consultants for a clearly written EIR that allows us to discuss these issues in the open. My concern is with the intersection of Waterman Road and Rancho Drive. I've raised two children in this neighborhood. When I was teaching my son to drive, there are two places in Elk Grove that I was sure to teach him very carefully about how to address, and one of them is the intersection of Waterman Road and Rancho Drive. The speed limit does transition. It's a very challenging intersection to get out of, particularly during commute and peak periods. And so I'm just concerned the project is going to exacerbate. What's a challenging intersection to get out of I? Would ask you to either ask the developer to agree to or to condition the project to include a traffic light? At the intersection of Waterman Road and Rancho Drive as part of the project approval Thank you.

Thank you We call the next speaker please Brooke Chappelle

Hi, my name is Brooke Chapel and I am a lifetime resident, almost 50-year resident of Old Town Elk Grove, specifically off of School Street and Rancho Drive. I'm also an attorney and a licensed heavy civil contractor, so I am very, very understanding and appreciative of growth and development and understand that those do need to occur. With that understanding, though, I firmly believe that decisions of expansion and modification to general plans such as this can't be made in isolation from the infrastructure and public service burden that are created by doing those things. This is not the project and location of project to solve the middle market housing issue. When you actually look at the footprint of the area, it is actually very small. You're putting a lot of square footage in a relatively small postage stamp of an area. especially when you consider the infrastructure widening of Waterman to Four Lanes. My greatest concern is traffic. Increasingly, the residential density of the added vehicles, we would love to see that people are going to take public transportation. That's not how we function yet. And the additional pressure on the roads and the intersections. Past approaches to traffic issues after the fact are concerning. I don't have a sense that traffic impacts are going to be appropriately handled. Look at Dutch Brothers of the development that happened there, and then what is happening at Elk Grove Boulevard and East Stockton. I think that that's an example of infrastructure and development not lining up. With all, you know, too often traffic problems are dealt with reactively, and so I would like to see there to be proactive things, but ultimately there are broader impacts that are also of a concern. Like people have said before me, the traffic impacts on Waterman, it is a feat just to turn in and out sometimes of that, of our subdivision. You've got schools, you've got Sheldon, Smedberg, Albionni, Elk Grove Elementary, Edna Beatty, when school is in session, It is taking your life into your own hands sometimes. And to add the houses in that small area, it's just not a reasonable idea. I understand, again, the development component, but I have serious, serious concerns about that. And so, again, not opposed to development. Understand that there's a time and a place entirely, but this project in such a small stamp of footage is just not, I don't think it's a reasonable approach.

Thank you. Call up the next speaker, please.

Ken Chappell.

and no relation, just she's also a neighbor of mine. My name is Ken Chappell. I live at 9460 Laguna Creek Drive. I've lived in the Laguna Trails area since 1977, and we have a wonderful neighborhood. Years ago, we fought to get the streetlight at School Street in Elk Grove Boulevard because we couldn't get out of School Street to make a left and go on Elk Grove Boulevard. So they finally put that in, and we still have problems. So what do we do is we sneak through our neighbors and go out Rancho and try and get out on Waterman Road to get around traffic. And we cannot make a left turn to get out of there during commute hours. You cannot. It is very dangerous. I'm very concerned about traffic. I'm a retired law enforcement. I see... future problems with traffic in that area. I understand you're gonna do development, I understand we need affordable housing, I understand progress, depending on how you wanna call it that, but at the same time, do we need that much density in this project, because if you look at this slide that's up here, it sure looks like the existing area that's in yellow looks a lot smaller to me than the proposed area in orange on the right. It looks like they're not just increasing the density, but also increasing the amount of area that they want to put houses. So on the existing area, you could build RD4 in that yellows area, but not in the green. Well, when you go to the proposed, they want it take away a lot of that green area and build more homes. So that's not just a larger area to build homes, but it's also quadrupling the density from four to 12. And I really just, you know, the average home square footage or lot in Elk Grove or in the 95624 area anyway is about a quarter acre or sometimes closer to .2. But what are these lots gonna be? They're gonna be extremely small lots which means they're gonna be very small homes, or they're gonna have to be two-story homes. And if you looked at the plan, it looks like they're really just on top of each other. And it's not just anything that I think that the majority of people want. I do think they are gonna be rentals, because I have several rentals in the area, and I can tell you, I would buy one for a rental. I'm not going to, I'm just saying, you can't stop, unless there's an HOA that says you cannot have a rental, when the developer said they're not being set up as rentals, they're not being proposed as rentals. There are private entities that will buy homes that will turn these into rentals, because that's what people do. So I really would like you to consider, if you're going to change this RD4, change it to something less than RD-12. RD-12 is too aggressive. That's too many homes for that area, for Waterman Road. How am I going to visit my dad on Hilltop on that cemetery when I can't even get out of that damn road? Sorry to put this forward. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, can we call for our next speaker? Jordy Osborne.

Good evening. Thank you for giving me time to speak today. My name is Jordy Osborne. I live at 9472 San Paolo Circle. My property directly backs up to Waterman, which comes with its own issues, mainly pulling out of Rancho Drive onto Waterman, as many of my prior community members discussed, making a left turn from Rancho, Heading north onto Waterman Road, as a few people have already mentioned, is very dangerous. I have twin 14-year-olds that will be driving in about a year. My wife and I have already decided they will not be able to travel on Rancho and make a left on Waterman. I do understand you guys are adding a couple more lanes on this project to make it four lanes. However, just in the mornings when I look out my kitchen window, My fence is so low, I can see cars stacked up on the morning commute. And in the evenings, my bedroom window backs up to Waterman, and I can hear the drag racers going down Waterman at what I would expect to be about 80 to 100 miles an hour, coming down the hill, heading south on Waterman. Again, I understand growth. I understand affordable housing. What I don't understand is why we haven't addressed this issue even prior to this project. Something needs to be done about the traffic issues at Waterman and Rancho. I don't know if that's a signal or posted speed limits. I have seen Elk Grove PD out there recently managing that and pulling people over. I do agree with a few of my prior community members discussing the T-Court RD-12. It seems completely out of place. If you look at a couple of the prior slides that the developer and the architect talked about, yeah, they are surrounded by houses. It's all single family larger parcel homes, right? So again, I understand medium density living. I was once a young professional that was a first time home buyer. I was priced out of this area, and I eventually was able to move into this area. There's plenty of spaces to live in Elk Grove. It's a fantastic community. Again, the T-court style, nobody's discussed this yet, but the T-court style development throughout Elk Grove also has some serious parking issues. where are these cars going to park? These are shared driveways. If they're not parked in the garage, where are these vehicles going to park? If they park on Waterman, we've just created a situation that's beyond a nightmare for travel. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker.

Matt Steffen.

Good evening, thank you for your time. My name is Matt Steffen. I'm a resident of San Paulo Circle for 10 plus years. In the time that I've been there, traffic has increased immensely in that short time period. So it used to be here traffic in the morning, here traffic in the evening, now traffic regularly backs up past Rancho Drive, north of Rancho Drive, stopping behind our houses. Putting in a traffic signal I don't think would improve that at all. Moving to a medium density, 120 units equals 240 plus cars. There's an example of this on Bilby in Allegra. Cars are stacked up all over that place. Parking on both sides of Allegra, you can't get down the road. What does that look like for us? 240 plus cars, you've already heard the traffic impacts on Rancho and Waterman. Where are they gonna park? Are they moving down Rancho? Are they parking on Waterman? Your nearest crosswalks are on Bond, Elk Grove Boulevard. How are people going to cross the street? And that's not even to mention the days that there's a funeral. You have cars backed up all over the place on a funeral day, both sides of the road, down Rancho Drive. Add in this density, it seems a little extreme to me. As many of the residents have said, parking is an issue, leaving Ranchwood Drive is an issue. I don't think a traffic signal is just gonna back up traffic even more. We see this by the auto mall, traffic lights, traffic does not flow. Don't know what the solution is, but there is a major issue at Ranchwood Drive and Waterman. Speed is also an issue. I know it's posted at 45, turns into a lower speed south of Rancho Drive, but it's obviously an issue enough that our Elk Grove police has been doing speed enforcement checks last couple weeks out there and getting cars, but it's still high rates of speed on Rancho, or on Waterman. So big concerns here, T lots, they don't have parking. People don't use their garages for parking anymore. They're using streets. There's not a parking plan in place in this that's all just guaranteed that people use their garages. There is not accessible parking anywhere on Waterman or even close to this development. So where are they going to go? What's this look like for us in our neighborhood that we've grown to love and appreciate on the east side of town? 120 units is quite a bit, 240 plus cars. With Rancho turning left onto Waterman, you have the summer plants project potentially turning left onto Waterman as well. You have a recipe for disaster there that already exists. The last thing I'll say is you don't have parking, no crosswalks, high speed of cars, multiple lanes. It's a recipe for disaster. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Next speaker. Randy O'Rourke.

I don't know if I really need the microphones, but I think my neighbors have all spoke for me pretty much as to what's going on. We have an issue with traffic already. You're going to increase 240-plus cars on that street. You're going to create more damages. All of our property's values are going to go down. because of all of this high density. You've taken 7.3 acres, and then you convert it now to 11.4, and you say we're going from RD-12, RD-4 to RD-12. Really, you're not. You're actually going from RD-4 to probably closer to RD-15 because you're taking more of the vernal pool land and incorporating it into the site, which I don't think is correct. The T... T-Design, to me, if you ask a fire department person, and I'm not a fire department person, but I've talked to plenty of them, this is a cluster, okay? There's going to be homes right next to each other. If there's a fire in one of those homes, how do you think those fire trucks are going to get through there? They're not. Plus, you've got parking. People are going to be parking on the roads. How are those fire trucks going to get in there? They're not, okay? You've created a liability that's going to cost... Not just one, but probably, based on the density of these things, a hell of a lot more. RD-12 is not... is not acceptable at all, okay? There's plenty of vernal pools here. There are high density lines. There's all these setbacks, and I haven't been here. I've been handling some other family emergency stuff. I'd love to have been able to review all this so I could speak a little bit more clearly, but I think my neighbors have done a great job. I guess Mark wanted me to finish this one part, since you cut him off. It is clear that the high density proposed is motivated by the constraints imposed by the presence of a high tension power lines and associated setbacks that force the buildable portion of the site within the project area to a narrow strip along Waterman Road. Only by shoehorning as many units in the west side of this site as possible can a developer adhere the desired profit desired to make the project viable. This is not a financial issue. This is a security issue. All of us that, I've been there for 35 years. I've almost been hit probably a half a dozen times. you're not gonna have enough lanes there. And like they said about the funerals, there's so much stuff going on down there. I don't know if any of you even driven on that area at any time during the day. Drive it, see how it is, get on Rancho and try to get on Waterman, okay? It's hard to do. And I try to go different times at 10 o'clock and all the other stuff to see if I can avoid it.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next speaker, please.

John Huerta.

My name is John Huerta. I don't really live in the area, but I actually developed a house in Cruz Court last year. And I just wanted to find out more about this project that's happening in this Waterman, since I do own a couple of properties in the area. Waterman, what's, Sarah, hi Sarah. What's proposed on Waterman? Is it gonna be from Elk Grove Boulevard to, is it Bond? Are they gonna widen that street all the way, or is it just, what is it exactly? That's all I have to say. I just wanted to find out about this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, we will, at this point, we're just taking the comments, and then we'll be able to reply at another time. Thank you so much. Thank you. Could we call up the next speaker, please?

Morgan Montoya.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Morgan Montoya. I'm a family law attorney. My family and I live at 2600 San Paolo. We moved into our home two years ago, around November of 2024. Our home backs up to Waterman, so there is quite a bit of noise, you can imagine, as it is. And we knew that when we purchased the home. We knew that that was an issue, and we knew at that time we had checked into how this land behind our home was zoned. And our understanding was that it was zoned to be developed at some point to be in areas in conformity with the neighboring neighborhoods. This proposed development is absolutely not in conformity whatsoever with the neighboring neighborhoods. Currently, when I leave Rancho and turn on to Waterman, I'm just going to second what you've heard a lot of my neighbors already speak to. It is very scary. And if somebody's driving too quickly and I find myself having to turn into the center lane before I can merge onto Waterman, it's terrifying. And I just can't imagine what that road is going to be like if there are so many more people traveling it. I also am not, it's not clear to me whether the traffic information that we're being provided is up to date. So for example, how many accidents have been occurring on Waterman, I'm not sure. I'm not privy to that, but that is something that was brought up to me by one of my neighbors, that that's some information that perhaps is outdated. So I'm just going to leave it with this. When we purchase land, we take it as it is. When I purchased my home, part of that decision-making involved what could potentially be developed behind my home, because there was already so much noise, and we have ideas as to how we can curb that in the future. But part of our decision was not to purchase a home that backs up to Waterman, where then a project... that is going to potentially build so many houses out of conformity with this, you know, on the outskirts of rural Elk Grove. That was not part of our decision making. So again, when you purchase land, we take it as it is. That goes for us as homeowners, and it goes for the developer. When they purchased the land, they purchased it having been zoned for what it's currently zoned at. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Ashley Bergen.

Hello, everybody. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Ashley Bergen, and I'm a fourth-generation Elk Grovean. I am here tonight in support of the Summer Flats Project. I care deeply about preserving the character and history of Elk Grove, but preserving our community doesn't mean preventing it from growing. Growth is inevitable. The question is what kind of growth we want and where we want it. Summer flats would provide 120 homes in an established area of Elk Grove, close to existing schools, parks, trails, shopping, and the old Elk Grove community that many of us cherish. The proposals for medium density housing, including smaller lot homes, which adds another housing option beyond the development we continue to see farther east and outside of Elk Grove. The city staff report also identifies this type of missing middle housing as part of its housing strategy. Housing affordability matters. Home ownership matters. And I think it's important to remember that equal isn't always fair and fair isn't always equal. Not every family starts from the same financial position or needs the same type or size of home. A healthy community should have different housing choices for different stages of life and different income levels. Traffic is a legitimate concern, but congestion already exists in the area. We need road and infrastructure improvements regardless, and I believe those conversations should be happening alongside thoughtful development, rather than using existing congestion as a reason not to create needed housing. As someone whose family has called Elk Grove home for generations, I want future generations to have an opportunity to live here too, not just somewhere farther and farther away. We can continue to honor Elk Grove while still making room for its future. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Lou Zong.

Hi, everyone. My name is Lu Zhang. I currently live at 9282 Puerto Vista. We bought our property just reclosed at the end of July, July 31st. So we are newbies on the block. The reason why we were so drawn to Elk Grove was because of how... nice that part of Elk Grove anyways is so nicely spaced and we were able to take Bradshaw all the way to um Rosemont where our other family lives and we are originally from Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley where it's very dense um you have like we We're unable to let our kids outside. You have the noise pollution. And we wanted to move here to get away from that. And so it's very surprising to see all of a sudden this wanting for us to go back to where we came from, to see that Elk Grove is mirroring Los Angeles, like that part of where we lived. It's not that we don't want housing for everyone, it's more of like the safety of for, it's mama's turn, for dropping off my kids in the morning. We go 30 minutes early to avoid traffic and So getting to school, dropping off my daughter is fine, but when we go to pick her up, it takes about 15 to 20 minutes, and we're two miles away from Elk Grove Elementary. So that just gives you an idea of just how rough it is already. So keeping in mind that this development is bound to happen, that I want, Sorry, baby. I just want everyone to keep in mind the commute for families and to... I didn't write anything down. I'm just winging it. I think that's the gist of it. to keep our community feeling like a home and it's not so busy and so rushed. That's it, thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Chad McClemmons.

Hello.

Hello, thank you actually I'll be quick because I was gonna actually ask a few questions, but I found out that you can't so The only thing I guess I will say is please consider that some of the houses on Waterman don't have the concrete sound walls They just have wood or open space So I don't know if that's factored into the plan as far as I saw there's a sound wall for some of it with the increased lanes and all that I've I've heard in the past before there have been promises for that. They haven't really gone through for other projects. So just please consider it, like, just in general as part of the consideration. So thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

No more speakers.

Thank you.

Yeah, the public comment period is still open.

Yes, you can go ahead and come up.

Victor Long, Live Off Water, man.

My biggest concern was I was one of the first person to see when that piece of property was for sale. Actually, 20 acres under 350,000, I wanted to buy it. But I was told that that property is undevelopable. It will never, ever be buildable, ever. 20 acres under 350,000, I was gonna pay cash for it. And then what, a couple years later, a developer comes in and then he's gonna get permission to rezone it and build this 120 flats? How is that justified? I just don't get it. I don't understand how, it just drives me insane. I had the 350 test, I was gonna buy it. So I don't know about this particular project's gonna get approved or not, but it is very unfair, it's injustice, and it's very fishy. Someone's getting paid, someone's under the table, I don't know what it is, but this project better not, hopefully not, will go forward. I'm totally against it, and I don't know what my neighbors think, but this is ridiculous. I don't want to see this thing going forward. Please. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. With that, I will close the public comment and invite the applicant to respond.

Good evening. Again, Tim Denham from Wood-Rogers. You've heard the comments. Yeah, there is congestion. There's issues now at the streets. This project will participate in the city's CIP funding program for street improvements. It is providing its roadway improvements along its frontage. I know those things are hard to endure when they're occurring now, but as projects get built and the CIP gets funded, roads get improved, and so it'll solve those issues. In terms of sewer water drainage and other things, there's been studies prepared to show how that works. There was a baseline density of 29 units, and so we're adding another 91 units to this project. We feel like this product type is needed, is justified. You need housing for young professionals that they can afford to buy and move and stay, potentially stay in Elk Grove if they've lived here and gone away to college and want to come back. So I think that's all I have for comments unless you have any questions.

I have a question. The T-court homes that come up about the parking, do you have any experience with that type of a development and whether that was an issue?

I do. There's some already in the west side of Elk Grove. There's many T-court projects in other cities as well. We have curbside parking, that's why we want public streets to the project. One of the issues is when you don't do that, you don't have enough street side parking for guests. And so there's one space per unit along the public streets within the project that will help provide more parking as needed. And then some of the units have driveway parking in the old plan, hopefully in the new plan that's done as well, but there's two spaces per unit. Usually a young buyer doesn't have a bunch of stuff to fill up the garage. That usually happens when we get older in our 50s and 60s. But yeah, I think it's solvable.

So you're saying the parking for those homes would be where?

The assigned parking? In the previous time, there's two in a garage for the residents, and then there was an additional one space for guests along the street. They're not assigned. So when someone has a Super Bowl party, they can grab a few curbside spaces. So public parking. Public parking. It's a public street.

So it's not really assigned then.

It's not assigned parking. It's a public street with curbside parking.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

I know we had the question about the sound wall. I did want to ask about that. Will there be a sound wall?

Yes. As shown on the tentative subdivision map, there is a sound wall along Waterman Road. I think he's referring to the west side of the street, possibly, in his reference.

Yes. So would it just be along Waterman?

It would be on the project side of Waterman.

On the project side of Waterman.

So as we're discussing, I guess, general questions here, not to the developers, so I waited. The issue, I mean, which has been raised repeatedly is traffic on Rancho and Waterman. Are there any plans to address this at some point in the not too distant future?

I can't speak to timing specifically, but I can say yes, the city's general plan calls for this stretch of Waterman south of Bond to be widened ultimately to four lanes. This project is including its component of it along the project frontage with appropriate transitions that meet city engineering standards. There is a call out in the city's roadway impact fee program for the signalization in the future of Rancho and Waterman. I don't expect that to occur until broader development levels across the city and probably more likely the connection of East Park, I believe it is, from the east over into Waterman to occur, which would require some additional property acquisition and a home renovation. acquisition in order to do that.

And the reason I ask that is I think we went through a similar situation on Whitelock at some point before all the traffic lights got in on Whitelock and made so it's no longer where people are driving within reasonable limits of speed. So is there any way to facilitate, I mean, I understand the long-term plan, how many lanes there are, et cetera. Is there any plan to put a traffic light in the intervening period rather than waiting for everything to be done?

There's not currently in the city's five-year capital program a project to do such.

It's not in the CIP, okay.

I'm sorry, Christopher. It sounds like there's an assumption. It sounds like we heard some pros and cons whether that would actually solve the issue. As part of that process, is there looking at other alternatives or other things that might be able to ease some of the traffic issues there?

We could certainly inquire with Public Works and the Traffic Engineering Division more about that. My expectation, though, is that given Waterman's status and some of the traffic levels, it may not reach the threshold for a stop control intersection in the intervening period. We'd have to check with them and see to confirm. I know we do have stop controls further to the south of Elk Grove Boulevard, and I believe there are some upcoming projects to convert those into signalized intersections in the next few years. I don't remember the exact timing of them. So I know there is some work that's generally been happening in the Waterman Corridor. There was some shoulder improvements in this section a couple of years ago as well. And at that time, they did not identify the need for signalization. Again, I'll point to, as I think was mentioned earlier, the traffic study that was completed for the project at this time identifies that with the project and current traffic conditions, it does not meet the warrant standards for signalization today.

Okay, with that, We are in commission, deliberation and action. Do I have a motion on this agenda item? I apologize, I need to first close the public hearing. So I will declare the public hearing closed, move to commission, deliberation and action. Do I have a motion on this agenda item? Is there gonna be a motion?

Can I just say? I'm not ready to support this project at this time. Hearing all the issues of the traffic, and I do, somebody brought up the, the situation over by Dutch Brothers on East Stockton and I remember a lot of discussion about that and about the traffic issues there and I have the privilege now of driving there every morning It's quite challenging. So I'm not sure what could be done right now, but I'm just not comfortable with all of the issues around the traffic to move forward at this time.

But in that situation, what is the alternative?

So what's being asked tonight of the Planning Commission is a recommendation to the City Council. Your options are certainly to move forward as staff's recommending. We have a draft motion on the screen. You could certainly make a motion to recommend denial of the project. It could be based upon the traffic concerns that have been raised or any other items that you have concerns about. We would take whatever vote and was the pleasure of the body. I believe that we do need, in this case, all three of you to vote in the same direction, one way or the other. Right, it's the majority of the body, right?

The state rule is that for a general plan amendment, for it to be considered a recommendation of approval, you would need three of the five commissioners to vote for approval. So if you did not have three of the five, it would be a recommendation for denial.

Thank you.

So it's really the pleasure of the commission on how you'd like to proceed, and we can take it from there. Okay.

But it's one or the other, right? It's either a recommended for approval, recommended for denial. There's no, like, continuance, right? If there's more questions or if there's more analysis that we want done.

Certainly. If there's additional analysis, if there's particular questions that you would like answered, we would need a list of those this evening. And based upon how extensive that list is, staff will either recommend to continue this to a date certain. or continue it to a date uncertain. If it's certain, we would not have any additional noticing requirements that apply under city policy or standards or state law. If it's to a date uncertain, we would have to complete additional noticing.

Okay. Then I'll ask the question again. Do I have a motion for either of those options? All three of us will need to come to an agreement in order for this to wrap up tonight. So if there's more deliberation, more questions you have, let's ask them, but we'll need to come up with some type of a motion.

So if it is sent, it doesn't go forward to council at this point without a vote?

Well, we would need a direction from you one way or another, regardless of what recommendation you had, either be affirmative or denial, it would still go to the city council. There is still a second hearing in the project's future, regardless of your motion.

Okay. Given that the ultimate decision, I mean, I like the issue of the missing middle, but I'm yet grappling with the traffic and some of the other issues. But given the fact that we, just to get this thing off dead center, because otherwise we're just sitting here, I will make a motion to on the agenda item and then see where it goes from there. Okay, so, excuse me. I move that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the environmental impact report for the project, making findings of fact and adopting a statement of overriding consideration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program. and approving a general plan slash community plan amendment, text and map rezone tentative subdivision map and subdivision design review for the summer plan flats project PLNG 23-06, subject to the findings and conditions of approval included. in the proposed resolution and also subject to the revisions presented in the green sheet and the staff revision to section 8.3 of the findings of fact to incorporate the proposed clarifying information.

Do I have a second? Without a second, this motion can't move forward. Do we want to look at making a different motion that all three of us can agree on? If one of us is for it, one of us is against it, do we want to look at continuing this to the fore, to address questions that we have about traffic, maybe traffic lights and things like that, and maybe bring this up at a future meeting, or do we want to make a resolution tonight?

So if I may again get the attorney's input, you said given we only have three of us here, You need a vote from how many people? It's not unanimous. You need three or five?

Yeah, the three of you can certainly make a motion. For example, the motion you just presented for essentially approval of the project, you could have two commissioners vote in favor of that, one against it, and then under state law, It would still be a recommendation for denial, but that would be sufficient for tonight from the commission, right? Because the commission made a motion, they voted on it. If the commission were to all three of you vote for approval, that would be enough for a recommendation of approval under state law. Another option is obviously a continuance if you needed additional time to consider the matter and resolve. If there's any additional traffic research you wanted us to do and things of that nature, But at that time, we would still be held to that three-vote standard for any recommendation of approval. Does that answer your question?

I think that helps because then basically then we can get a resolution. So basically, Commissioner Poole, so if there's going to be no other motions from you, did you want to make any other type of motion or?

I like the alternative of a continuance. I'm just questioning. So Christopher, you had mentioned a time certain. So would we set that time tonight? Yes. And what I'm looking for is some additional information around the traffic. Okay.

Okay. So, yes, we would set it tonight so it would be announced so the audience would know when to expect to come back. What I need some clarity on is what particular questions around traffic do you have so we can make sure to get those answers appropriately?

I think for me, I know you said that right now there's not a plan for any traffic signals or anything at Rancho and Waterman. If that's final, there's just not going to be anything, but I would like at least to explore whether that can be moved up and whether there's any other alternatives that might mitigate the traffic issues at that intersection.

Okay. So, go ahead.

You had mentioned another alternative about a different type of stop sign or some kind of signal. If there's any other alternatives out there, I'd like to hear those.

Sure. So given that and that the agenda items or the Commission agenda for October 1st is publishing, I believe, tomorrow, and items are being finalized for that, if it hasn't already. We would not be able to come back October 1st. On the director's report, we were gonna mention we did not have any items lined up for October 15th. So that would be the first available date if you wanted to come back at that point. I feel fairly confident we could get some, it's a fairly straightforward question. We need to consult with our traffic division and capital improvement teams to look at that. Timing wise, I will note that usually the end of October is when we start the internal process for updating the capital improvement plan. It takes us all the way until May to get it complete for the following fiscal year. So timing wise, to raise the question and get it in front of the engineers to look at it, this is a perfectly opportune time. I will, though, continue to note that from a traffic analysis perspective, the project has, the study indicates that the project has minimal direct impact on that, and it doesn't in and of itself trigger the warrants for doing improvements. So just knowing the connection between those two questions, while important, may not necessarily be fully germane to the project itself.

Yeah, it just sounds like there's, some other circumstances that I'm not sure. I didn't get a chance to see if they were considered. I mean, when they were talking about the funerals and those type of things that might be impacting the traffic.

Yeah, we certainly looked at that from the design of the roadway and the improvements that are being conditioned on the project because of its relationship to Hilltop across the street. But also keep in mind that Waterman is a four-lane arterial and as it ultimately builds out, there are limitations around parking and other accessibility in that area. It's over time, those improvements are being completed. So I think at this point, unless any of my colleagues have any concerns or we wouldn't be able to get additional information from the Public Works Department, I would think October 15th would be reasonable.

Does that work? Thank you.

So you'll need a motion to continue the item to the date certain of October 15th.

I move that this matter be continued. Do I need to specify?

Second.

I'm gonna specify the exact.

Okay.

Okay. I move that the Summer Flats PLNG23-006 matter be continued until October the 15th.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. With that, we will move on to our regular agenda items. There are no regular agenda items on this agenda. Move to the director's report.

Sorry, okay, so in terms of matters to be aware of, Let's see, last week's council meeting, we did receive a grant, and I mentioned this at the last meeting, from the states for historic preservation efforts in the Old Town area, historic main streets, and so the grant award did occur at the council last week, and we're working on getting that project spun up in the coming weeks ahead. For your October 1st meeting, we have one item confirmed. This is the Laguna Incubator Project. This will be over off of Laguna near Dwight. So that packet should be ready here momentarily. We do not have anything for zoning administrator in the month of October planned at this point. And city council next week, we do have the Historic Preservation Committee's annual update and a history of week proclamation. I will also note, since you mentioned it at your meeting a week ago, or two weeks ago, regarding fees, we do have an update to the affordable housing development impact fee that is on for council calendar. um that's a update we normally do to that process it's been the first time in a while but just to be aware we are going through the process of updating fees and that one will be on the council calendar next week um that concludes the report have any answer questions if you have them questions perfect and there being no other agenda items this meeting is adjourned at 7 18 p.m good night everyone