Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good afternoon. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us on the March 9 County Planning Commission. Before we we would call the roll and then we would do our pledge of allegiance. So Madam Clerk, you can

call the

roll. Yes. Members Rockenstein? Here. Members Devlin?

Here.

Members Virgo?

Here.

And members Borja?

Here.

And with those members present, do have a quorum.

Alright. Member Okusanya, if you could please lead us to the Pledge of Allegiance.

Yes. There we are.

Right behind the side. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Madam Clerk, if you could please read the announcement.

The county fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, civility, and the use of courteous language. The commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed toward any meeting participant. Seating may be limited and available on a first come, first served basis. To make an in person public comment please complete and submit a speaker request form to the clerk. The 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 e mail a comment to boardclerk@saccounty.gov mail a comment to 708th Street Suite 2450 Sacramento California 95814 and that concludes the announcement

thank you madam clerk Could you please call in Item one?

Item one is the swearing in of the new commissioner. And I have Assistant Clerk, Jillian Myers.

Meyer, assistant clerk of the Board of Supervisors and I'll be swearing in district three representative Mike Rockenstein. You are hereby being sworn in for the Sacramento County Planning Commission. Please raise your right hand and repeat the following statement after me. I, Mike Rockenstein, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of The United States.

I, Mike Rockenstein, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of The United States.

And the constitution of the state of California.

And the constitution of the state of California.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of The United States.

They will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of The United States.

And the constitution of the state of California.

The constitution of the state of California.

That I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

That I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.

That I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter.

That I well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter.

You are hereby sworn in before me, Jillian Myers, on this March 2026. Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it. Thank you.

Of course.

What's that? Get a

bud? I said if you wanted, I'd like take

a We can take a photo. Sure. I have my my couple of my friends, the two Scotts, as I call them. So Scott and Scott, thank you for being here. Do you

want me to take a photo with Sure.

Let's we can do that. Okay.

Thank you very much. Congratulations.

All welcome commissioner rockenstein thank you great to have you on board thank you madam clerk are we ready to move on item number two

Yes. Item number two is Plmp2024Dash00194. The twenty twenty four twenty twenty five California state legislative update zoning code amendment to amend chapters one, three, four, five, six, and seven, title five and title six. This is the North Watt Avenue Corridor Plan special planning areas of the Sacramento County zoning code to incorporate changes in the California state law passed between 2023 and 2025 related to zoning and land use. And this is a countywide item and the environmental document is a notice of exemption.

Ms. Hartman?

Good afternoon chair Borja. This is a non contested item so it's entirely up to your commission if you would like a presentation, if you would like to skip the presentation and just ask questions or move for a vote.

Looking at my commissioner's hearing that. Don't

need a presentation.

Sir? There is a presentation provided at the Carmichael Planning Advisory Council.

Understood. Understood. Okay. It looks like we're going to be skipping the presentation. But I would like to have opportunities for some questions if the commissioners do have any questions for the staff?

Okay. I can I maybe I can ask a couple? So there's been a number of legislation that's that's happened that promoted these changes. A lot of this seemed to be impacting either multi multi family dwelling units or areas that have higher density parcels. Can you just kind of walk us through a high level summary of what what these changes are? Who the planning who the final planning or who the final decision making body would be? And what, if anything, would the public need to know or expect or anticipate both in the housing advocate side or the developer side of things. So a little bit of a two parter, if that's okay.

I'm going to go ahead and see if one of my staff wants to take a first stab at it, and then I can hop in as need be.

I can speak to one of the bills are probably thinking of in that question, SB 1123, which is a subdivision of parcels into up to 10 lots if they meet certain criteria. If they are able to meet the criteria, it would just be a staff level decision for that item. But so far we have not received any successful applications for that type of project because there's so many criteria that need to be met. Recently, we did an update to the county code, which provided an option on whether or not to allow ADUs in conjunction with SB eleven twenty three splits. The Board of Supervisors at the time opted not to allow it.

So it would just be the 10 lots with 10 units on them. There were other bills that were passed which had several different requirements. So, a lot of these bills have a lot of requirements for affordability or density, which may not be easy to meet in most scenarios. One of the ones, for example, is SB four. I think that was 2024 bill regarding religious housing on religious facilities or on higher education campuses.

That requires a 100% affordability requirements. That's quite a high barrier for any developer. In a lot of zones where churches are already located, there's opportunities through our zoning code to allow for housing. So the commission saw a few months ago the Liberty Towers projects as an example of how our zoning code already allows those sort of provisions. So a lot of these bills have high barriers of entry for going through the processes. But, if you are able to meet those requirements, it could be just subject to staff level review.

With a just a follow-up question, sir. And I'm so sorry. I I didn't catch your name.

Sorry. I should have introduced myself, Matthew Chamomoy with Planning and Environmental Review.

Thank you, mister Chamomoy. You were you were the guru behind the programming of the rate. I think Todd was saying something on LinkedIn how you and your team did something about the you programmed one of the Almanacs or like the like a zoning code update online?

Is Yeah. That land use regulation libraries. So we're moving we're trying to make our documents more accessible given deadlines by the federal government to have ADA accessible documents. Sounds just having a PDF doesn't meet the criteria. Right on. Yeah.

Congratulations on that effort, sir.

Thank you.

So you mentioned about certain things if they were to meet a certain level of access point or minimum requirements that would be subject to just staff review. Does that include track still? Or does that skip track? Does so we won't be able to see that in the planning commission? It would just be kind of a ministerial process?

Defer to Wendy.

Yes. Correct. So most of those, if they can meet all those requirements, it does go to a nondiscretionary process. So we still can do design review. So for many of them, it would be a multifamily type project.

It would go through our typical design review project depending on the size of the project that would include draft, but there would be no public hearing on those items. In addition to the affordability, a lot of times they also have requirements for why did I just go blank on it the labor union labor. And so that also kind of adds an additional additional cost to it. But, yes, most of most of those types of changes for housing, they make them exempt from CEQA and nondiscretionary.

Understood. If there are some neighbors who had questions about a project that may or may not use this streamlining provision, how how is the public able to still interact? Does it do they have to go through their staff? Do they have to go to their elected office? How do they have the ability to just say, hey, we may or may not have issues with this specific project even though it meets a certain streamlining criteria?

That is a really good question because most of our projects right now, for example, most of our multifamily projects in commercial zones or in our higher density zones do not currently have neighborhood notification because they're processed in the same manner that, say, a building permit is. It's very ministerial in nature. And so currently, we don't have a neighborhood notification process for most of those. And so these projects would kind of fall into that same same process and procedure. The best thing that they could do is for those projects that are large enough to require design review, advisory committee review would be to follow the agendas for those.

And if there was a project they were interested in, they could comment on objective level standards, but not so much on the use.

Understood. So if there's no notification, do these projects still have some sort of, like like, a sign that says it's a proposed development? Or are we are we kind of skipping that also?

Not nondiscretionary design review does not have sign posted posted on them. Correct.

So no sign posting and no mailers required for a certain radius? Correct. So we're assuming that if a project does meet the requirements of a b or s b x y and z

Mhmm.

That

the staff report would be able to say, this is why this project meets this, and this is why it's a ministerial review because of x y and z requirements.

Correct. So for example, like the religious one, which was, I think, a b four, if they met all of that criteria, then it would just likely need a design review permit for the multifamily portion. And there's a there's typically not really true staff report done for those types of entitlements. It's reviewed at intake for preliminary acceptance. So they would have a application form where they would be checking off that they meet SB four, for example, and the criteria that they're meeting.

Our intake staff would do a very preliminary view review of that material. Then it would be assigned to a planner who would ensure that further that it meets all the qualifications, and then there's just an approval letter that occurs.

So the process basically set up to take public and the supervisors and commission just out of the system with these new bills. Basically, skip that whole process and just meet those criteria and then build.

Build build yeah.

Yeah. I mean, if it is a purely ministerial project, which is what these bills, for the most part, seek to do, then the ordinary due process rights that attach for neighbors or anyone who's concerned, except for the owner, but other people, they don't attach. There are there is no due process right to notice or hearing. So it might help to think about these now, I mean, like building permits. It's just it's if the applicant meets the criteria, the objective criteria, there's just a checklist.

And these

staff can just check the boxes. You're a discretionary board. There's no reason for it to come to you or the Board of Supervisors. So that's what the state wants to see happen to move these things along faster and to not have, you know, drawn out hearings and things like that. Long notice notification processes. So that's the change.

So the critical control is the design review and the planner to make sure that what they're doing doesn't necessarily get, in my terms out of control in terms of how they build, what they build, what it looks like. We're going have the Leaning Tower Of Pisa or something like that. That basically falls to the planners and the staff, right?

I mean, to the extent it's if you've read our design guideline process is an objective process. Now when you read them, some of them are more objective than others. Some of the criteria are more objective than others. But so when I think you said to make sure that it's not out of whack or something like that. Yes. That can't be a standard that staff uses. It's gotta be something like it can't be more than 40 feet tall and it can't be

But it could look like a Snoopy.

Well, I if that's objective, I mean

That's what I thought. Okay. I understand that. Don't necessarily like to agree to that, but I understand that they're taking us totally out of the process and the public.

That was the concern at the Carmichael Planning Advisory Council was that it was eliminating their ability to review and then advise on these matters.

When I read it, that was pretty clear what they were doing.

Ms. Hartman and staff, do we have an ability to maybe look at this on an annual basis about how many projects and which projects, you know, utilized the state legislation or zoning code matrix that that the staff is proposing?

We currently have a process where many of these bills are required to be analyzed as part of our housing element annual report. So any that are included, that are housing related will most likely be captured through those processes. There's usually something in the bill that talks about tracking them for those purposes. You will get an annual report through that mechanism. I can't guarantee that every single bill will be included in that, but a majority of the housing related bills would be tracked through that mechanism.

Understood. I think I think for from my perspective, you know, things like SB four fifty that deals with SB nine, right, the lot splits would be one and three twenty three, twelve eighty seven and seven thirteen additional density bonuses for incentives and concessions, right? I feel like this dice and this body has come across a few projects that have had many inner many interaction from the neighborhood, questioning about the density bonuses and what kind of streamlining provisions and shot clocks that the developers are being used, and I think it would be of us to at least maybe ask the staff if possible to consider having a look back to see which projects and maybe engage our Board of Supervisors too whenever a project comes through and maybe are using those, I don't say concessions, but streamlining provisions moving forward.

Yes. I I I know definitely that the SB nine one is, supposed supposed to be part of the annual review, all the density bonus projects, are typically included in there, ADUs. But, yeah, there's quite a few quite quite a few of the bills, we have to track. Three thirty pre applications, there's there's a number of them we're tracking annually.

Understood. Thank you. Mhmm.

And none of the projects you described or that fit this these criteria will ever see the light through the regular process. It's all just administrative. So, you know, you'll people the public will know about it when it started to be built. That's kind of what it sounds to me.

That's one way. I mean, if you're a neighbor and you don't like what is being built, mean, you see some trucks next door or whatever it is, then you go and you got to file for an injunction or something like that. But that might be the first time you're even aware. It's like a building permit. I mean, like I said, it's like if if someone comes in for a building permit that requires no other kind of discretionary entitlement, If you're a neighbor, you don't know about it until that house or that building starts to be constructed next door to you, and then you've got to move fast. There might be some exceptions in statute somewhere here and there that require some kind of notice, but generally, not really.

Understood. Do we have any other questions or comments from the DAIS? This is a do believe that this is an action. Correct. Is that correct? Correct. And so I before calling for a vote I guess I'm gonna ask Madam Chair if there are any comments or any public comments.

We have not received any public comments for this item.

Alright, understood. We entertain a motion. Second. I believe we have a motion from okay, yes, Mr. Devlin and second from Mr. Augustine. Yeah.

Doesn't matter what you vote. Doesn't matter

That this is one of the

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

Alright. Thank you to the team. Appreciate it. Believe we are now on item number three miscellaneous planning director's report.

Yes. So the only thing I have is that there will be a workshop before the planning commission on April 13, and it will be on our 2023 zoning code update. Now, most of those items are not necessarily directly related to legislation. It's kind of our we we historically every year do what we call a fix it package, which Matthew says is kinda like getting your oil changed on a car. This is more like your 60,000 or 90,000 mile tune up.

So we we haven't done one for quite a long time since the code was updated in 2015. So it's a rather lengthy list of amendments. A lot of it is clarifications, some of the streamlining that the board is asking for, in some cases, lowering some hearing bodies for some minor things. But we look forward to presenting that to you guys. We are currently just kicking off our CPAC meetings. We finished two last week, and we have two this week. And those CPAC meetings will go through most of most of April. So

You'll send a notice to us on the date and time and everything through the normal process?

Correct. And I believe we also requested an early email go out to the planning commission. Did that go to the chair to the clerk of the board already?

I think it just went to CPAC.

Oh, to CPACs. We will have, that's right. We did just send it out to CPACs. We will send something out to you early so that you can start reviewing the material early on. It it is already posted, and available on our website. It is a hundred and thirty one

Thirty one topics.

131 topics? Yes.

And That's all?

So are we looking at another 3,000, 4,000 page?

No. It's a 131 topics within our existing zoning code where we're clarifying, updating terms, deleting sections. There is one area, our title four interim zones that actually goes almost from, what is it, typically now 40 or 50 page or 90 pages?

To 20.

So Pages. So we're doing some streamlining and getting rid of some ex extra stuff that's not necessary. But we'll send you the information so you can start looking at that early on.

Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Does that conclude your planning director's Yes.

Does. I'm sorry. Thank you.

Sorry. Thank you, Ms. Hartman. I believe we're on item number four miscellaneous scheduling items.

Yes. The only item that I have is that we will have the chair and vice chair elections at our next meeting which will be on March 23.

Okay. March 23. I hope to see you all there. Do we have any public comments madam clerk?

We have not received any public comments.

Alright understood and right at 05:55PM calling this meeting to conclusion. Thank you everybody. Thank you.