Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You want to open the meeting up, please?

Yes. So the meeting of the Sacramento County Planning Commission for 04/27/2026 is now in order. And I will look to the commission members to elect a member to lead the commission in the absence of the chair and the vice chair.

I'll take it. Either way, one of us just got to get it going.

Okay.

Commissioner Berger?

I'm going to make the roll call.

Thank you. Members Corona Sabagnano? Here. Members Rackenstein?

Here.

Members Berger? Here. And with those members present, we do have a quorum.

Do the pledge allegiance. So would you like to read the

announcement? Thank you. 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 a speaker request form and give it 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: e mail a comment to boardclerkzaccounty dot gov mail a comment to 708th Street Suite 2450 Sacramento California 95814. And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you. Will you read item one?

Yes. And I will let the record reflect that item one is listed on the agenda as non contested. However, it should have been identified as a contested item. And item one is PLMP 2020 Five-eight Shandra Common Apartments, and this is a zoning ordinance amendment. The property is located at the Southwest corner of Dry Creek Road and E Street in the Rio Linda, Alberta community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Thank you. You ready?

Chandra Comments Apartments. I want to be clear at the outset as a reminder that there is no physical development proposed as part of this project today. The name is a legacy that's been maintained to be consistent with the administrative record, and we are here simply to remove two conditions approval from a previous zoning agreement. The applicant team is also here. The gentleman in the camel coat is Lad Wetzel, and he'll be has his own presentation to follow staffs as well with the slideshow.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So we are in the Rio Linda, Alberta community at the Northeast Intersection of E Street and Dry Creek Road. It's a 3.5 acre property. It's vacant, and it's been vacant for several decades. It's completely unimproved, neither curb gutter nor sidewalks, mostly grassy field, current horse pasture with a few trees out there. You'll see in the next slide, we're going to describe some of the context, but we can see Belle Aqua Water Ski Lakes, the residential subdivision to the west.

And then on the east side, we have the rural residential properties and then below apartment complex. All of these might be referenced during today's hearing. This is a close-up of the Rio Linda, Alberta community plan map. The zoning is identical. And so the subject property is at the center there with RD 20. And then the yellow to the left indicates the suburban residential properties and all that area that's down in red, those are the water ski lakes for the recreation areas. Then you have more RD5 to the south along Dry Creek.

Oops, push the button here.

Dry Creek Road. And then the rural residential with the agricultural residential preservation area overlay with all the AR properties that you see throughout the Rio Linda over at the neighborhood. So tonight is really a story about what's happened in the past and a choice to be made here today. Back in 2024, a project came in 02/4777, that was the Dry Creek townhomes. That was originally proposed at the time.

It's different zoning for to change the property to RD 25 and do 70 market rate apartments with some affordable component. That proposal was deemed incomplete and did go out to the community where it was poorly received. The then property owner, who was Eric Nadujeen, very clear and different from today's property owner, decided to pivot to a for sale townhome product. A little illustration there indicates a little example of that. But as we'll see in a moment, that process was paused in 2006.

In 2006, the county went through a countywide rezone effort. We do this every few years to remain in compliance with our regional housing needs assessment, our RENA numbers. And at that time, we really needed some numbers. And so this property was identified for potential up zone. And the then property owner, Eric Najajeen, said, okay, why don't you go ahead and rezone this for me?

He was okay with that. So the county did proceed to include this within the overall rezone package. It was identified as site number 28 of the many, many projects that were going through the countywide rezone. This particular instance, it went from the AR one with a small flood overlay in ARPA and was rezoned to RD 20, and the community plan amendment matched that. That rezone included 14 conditions of approval, we'll get into those in a moment, as well as a negative declaration in the mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

That was approved in March 2007. As part of that process, it wasn't just one hearing, but this was a very involved rezone for this particular property. It went to six public meetings that was heavily vetted. And you can see the table below lists the time policy planning commission and then three visits to the Board of Supervisors. Each time, it was sort of sent back, continued twice at the Board of Supervisors for various iterations, and the direction each time was staff, applicant team, community work together to come up with something palatable.

And ultimately, that did result in the project being approved at the Board of Supervisors with those 14 conditions of approval. The issue today is numbers one and three. These are rezone conditions applied to the property, so they run with the property and do not expire. Condition of approval number one, as you can see, does require it to be a for sale product and then the product type being either condominium units, townhomes or detached single family homes. And then condition of approval number three says that any development on the property much match the existing architecture as approved and the site layout.

We'll see that in a moment. Any deviations from that require that the Board of Supervisors approve those changes. So the actual architecture provided for Exhibit e was this black and white elevation drawings you see here on the left And then the overall site plan, which was the 52 unit townhome development was Exhibit D, and those are conditions, respectively, one and three or excuse me, three with the elevation and site plan. Once the property was rezoned, that March 2007 Board of Supervisor decision, the previous one, the townhome project, was resurrected and brought back to life. And at this time, it didn't need a rezone anymore because that just happened.

And so it went through with the approval here for the 52 unit townhomes. And we can go back and see that those exhibits match almost identically to what was approved at the Board of Supervisors level. That approval happened in March 2008, a year later, but that entitlement expired because it was never, never effectuated. No building permit or any action was taken to either divide the land or develop it. However, those 14 conditions of approval were previously by the Board of Supervisors, so they still remain in full force and effect today.

That brings us to 2025. Mister Lad Wetzel is now the current property owner and brought forward this request. Originally started as a townhome, learned of these conditions that live on the land, number one and three, which was conflicting with his interests, and said that we're now going to make this a zoning ordinance amendment to the action tonight is to clear solely to consider the removal of conditions of approval number one and number three. As a result of it being a nondevelopment project, it obviously doesn't go to the DRAC. There's no physical development to approve.

So but it did go to the Rio Linda Alberta Community Planning Advisory Council in September 2025. We did have a full quorum there, and the meeting was heavily attended. 78 folks showed up. We had 17 speakers in opposition, one in favor. In general, this is all also reflected in your Attachment seven of your packet.

The overall flavor of the meeting was that a lot of the speakers in opposition requested to maintain the conditions of approval as is. There was a preference for for sale product versus rentals to maintain some of the rural character out there. Some concerns about the local flooding. We see that a lot in Rio Linda. Every speaker did mention the Dry Creek road traffic because of the schools to the north and the impacts to that and then the vehicle parking that how how would it be accommodated with those number of units.

The speaker in favor of that mentioned that this area of Rio Linda has lots of nearby growth. It's happening, and this should be part of that. It is within the urban planning area. It's also approximate to the airport, and it offers new design opportunities in an area that really hasn't seen much new growth in a while. Following those deliberations, the Rio Linda over to CPAC did vote to recommend the Board of Supervisors deny the applicant's request and maintain conditions of approval number one and three as is without modification.

So overall, we have an interesting case here where we don't have any findings effect necessarily to make. Whether the those conditions, one and three, are maintained or removed, the project would still remain compliant with the general plan, Rio Linda, Alberta community plan and zoning code. Our zoning code and all of these don't mandate rentals versus for sale. That's a development choice. In particular, themes we have, but not to the level of prescription that we're seeing here with condition number three.

So all 14 conditions remain in full force and effect. Numbers four through 14 are standard boilerplate development conditions that we would reflect in any development. So we're really looking again at one and three, and then the MMRP remains valid. That said, staff is recommending approval. We are in a position now where the state has mandated various housing streamlining and permitting efforts.

We are also have a housing element policy that looks to remove obstacles and barriers towards the development of new housing aspects. This is a tricky one again because there's no findings, but it is a policy decision, and this is where we landed on that. And so the staff does make that recommendation for number one and three to be removed, and we can end it now with questions or pivot to the applicant's presentation. Thank you.

Anybody from the dais have any questions?

No questions yet.

I have a couple.

Yes.

So the original project had these conditions put in place as a result of the back and forth with the community and such. And it's a zoning condition, not a billing condition, correct?

Right.

You're saying? To not take an action one way or another, that stays into effect for as long as the zoning code is in existence. It does none of those conditions expire.

The rezone conditions do apply to any future development on land, and that's true. They have a long tenure.

They have

a long they don't expire at

all. Correct.

Okay. And do you other than what you've just described, because I live near that facility on those areas, was there any other discussions since this has gone back and forth for years? Yes. Any other discussions on why one oh, is it three or four were put in place?

Yes. As part of my research, I reviewed all available previous printed materials, and I watched about seven hours of meetings on this. I watched every one of the planning commission meetings, listened to the CPAC meeting. And a lot of it had to do with the community opposition, and a lot of that those testimony that you'll see, in the staff report packet has been reflected today. They particularly wanted to see certain type of development out there that was offered by the then property owner, Eric Najin. That was essentially negotiated agreement with the then property owner, the community, and then ultimately, the Board of Supervisors. So they all agreed to that.

And how does that compare to the other area properties in that area? Do they have those type of conditions anywhere else?

These are this is highly unusual. This was that's why I say this is unusual, and we're not making any findings of fact because they don't really apply. These are negotiated terms between the community board of supervisors and a previous property owner that were all voluntarily put forth. The board accepted it, and they were locked into a rezone condition. So it is unusual.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Anybody else have any questions?

Okay. Just

in terms of the unusual conditions. So within the county, are there any other examples in the county of these types of conditions? I have to assume they're they're no? Okay.

We we regularly put conditions on rezones. Like our last rezone package that we did, they had, you know, 80 conditions. But most of them are designed to sort of preload development and make it a little easier to accomplish things. For again, that particular architectural style, a particular product type of for sale, those, I think, do stand out as being unique to this project in my experience.

Okay. All right. Thank you. One other thing you mentioned that and we've talked about this many times, all the different changes in the state laws. How does those changes impact these conditions?

Not at all to my knowledge.

So it's true truly a supervisors board of supervisor decision that has the ability to make those changes not based on any of the recent law changes?

No. It was it was offered by the property owner, and this is all within the recorded meeting of the final board of supervisors hearing. The county council said we can accept it if the property owner is offering it. They did. Dickinson at the time repped the area, and the board did agree to those conditions of approval that were being offered by the property owner.

And none of the new state laws that impact any of those?

Not to my knowledge. No.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Would you like to hear from the applicant's presentation at this time?

Yes, please. Thank you.

Do you

need to

do the swearing in by any chance?

Okay. We're okay. Hey, good late afternoon.

And before addressing the Board, I will go ahead and swear you in. Okay. Please raise your right hand, and the appropriate response is I do. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you are about to give to this Board is the truth, so help you God. If you do not swear, do you so affirm? I do. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Lad Wenzel. I've lived in Rio Linda for forty two years. Back in the 70s, I used to ride my motorcycle to Rio Linda to work at a fiberglass shop. So, I know Rio Linda very well. I've watched the growth. I've watched the changes. I watched it go from country to mid city. I mean, we used to call it Hooterville back in the when we were out there in the day, but now it's kind of a mixed bag of nuts. You got the old country and you have the schools and the shopping centers now in Elkhorn Boulevard.

I used to shop at the Marvell Shopping Center. Anyway, the project, the way the way I see it, we we applied to get the permit, and we did our discovery to make sure that it was something that would work within what we wanted to do. And we got very good, very excited when the planning department seemed very helpful and very energetic to get this thing through. Then, midway through, we got after we got our on our third architect, we got a call from maybe Nate, I'm not sure. Hey, we've got a problem.

This thing can't be apartment complex type setup. This has to be townhomes owner occupied situation. We're like, well, now you tell us. We had quite a bit of time invested in it. A lot of money tied up into it and a lot of frustration.

But we see the project talking to some of the planners that it's it will be worth our while to kind of push it on through and see if we can get the change from becoming a a condo owner occupied situation to a to to what our our original goal was is to have apartments. I've lived in apartments most of my life. I've got I live on 24th Street now, but it's a great area. I love I love it. The airport's right behind us.

We got water ski lakes there. The road that we're on is Dry Creek Road. It's not a busy road. It's really busy at Elkhorn and Dry Creek if you're going by the high school, of course. I mean, it's terrible. It's like, oh, man, I'm gonna go around that. But, man, I love Rio Linda, and I'm gonna be there the rest of my life. I like this property. I like the the fact that the planning department has been cooperative and and that we're here talking to to you guys now. So, I I I feel real positive.

But, we're not in a position where we could change our planning and and and shift gears and go to a owner occupied situation because the cost would be too much to we wouldn't be able to sell it. So our only option is we'll just hang on to it, you know, and we paid cash for it. We don't have an interest payment, pay the county taxes, but I'm thinking about the revenue to the county for the permit fees and all the costs that we're planning to do. It's going to be a real economic boon to the county, but also to the people at the Marvell shopping centers and the shopping centers on Elkhorn Boulevard and Rio Linda Boulevard. They go, when are you guys when I go in there, when are gonna get this thing built?

When you get this thing built? I just kinda bragging about, you know, I've got this thing going here and this could be good. And now now we're kinda stuck in a little mud puddle, but I think it's overcomeable and I think we can get through this. We need your help. Of course, you guys are the deciding factor, but we're really excited.

We hope that I hope that you can see that we're not trying to change the use of the property, just the manner of of tenancy, whether you're gonna be a property owner or just gonna be a step up till you can get into here and get the area and feel the see that you like it and you want to build out here or you want to stay here, buy a house. It's not going to hurt the property values of the county property owners. There's a bus line there already. The sidewalks, curbs and gutters will be in. And I don't know what else I can offer you that Nate hasn't already given you.

It's a beautiful, beautiful area and beautiful property. And I think that we're going to make it a really nice setup with good management. We're on top of it. We're right I live right down the street. So, I don't know what else I can add, but I appreciate you taking time out of your day to come here and let me introduce myself to you. Do you have any questions?

Any questions from the dais at all?

What made you decide to do apartments rather than townhomes? Just the cost?

Well, originally, we I

mean, they bought the property. It is it has a horse on it. I was over there yesterday morning. So Horses. And but what was kind of your the reasoning behind procuring the property and and sort of your kind of walk through your intent?

Well, the intent was to build apartments there because it was on for it. Okay. We didn't we didn't get disclosed that this was a was a red flag on this that had been changed till years later. We've been on this thing for five years. We've been actually involved with the planning department, I think for three.

And it's just as dragged on and on and on. But we didn't know that there was a stipulation that it had to be owner occupied townhomes with garages and stuff. So, if we had we known, we wouldn't have we wouldn't have completed the purchase. We would have got our deposit back and went elsewhere, maybe, I don't know, moved to Hawaii or something. I don't know.

But, we we didn't know. That that's our intent. Had we known, we we wouldn't have bought it because we we're we're not gonna build a spend 300,000 to build a a townhome and sell it for $2.75. It's just it's not economically feasible. Whereas, we have a ten year holding plan to keep the property. And that's I don't know if that answers your question.

When did buy the property? Five years ago? What's that? When did you purchase the property?

It was approximately five years ago.

Five years ago?

Yes.

Okay. And we went through a couple of architects. And it's tough. It's a tough game. I was a real estate broker for thirty years. I've had some apartment experience. My brother has trailer parks up in Auburn in that area. And it's a good honest living, you know. You provide a service and it's going to beautify that area. The weeds are, of course, there's not much weeds now because of the horses.

I got a fire scare a couple of years back and decided I'm not going to take my tractor out there and mow the weeds. It's pretty bad. So horses keep it down and kind of gives it that country feel. So and there's been a couple other changes too. One of them was we got when we after we got our plans and they said, find the person, oh, no, you can't have that design.

We need a Santa Barbara look. So after all the architecture is done, all the planning all of our planning is done, we got to start over. And we're prepared to give it that Santa Barbara face look, you know, that the engineering won't be changing. The drain management won't be changing. The garbage dumpsters won't be changing. Fire department, the sheriffs, they all have the same ingress and egress to the property. And, we have good property management in place, ready to go.

So, what you're telling us is that it doesn't pencil out to be anything other than apartments

It in order to will work, and we won't do it. We don't want to I don't want to put through effort to for nothing. I can stay on my watch TV.

Anybody on the dais have any other questions?

Just in terms of the CPAC, the rail into CPAC, have you have conducted a number of outreach to them? I mean, there was a meeting where I believe you were not present at.

I wasn't. That's right. I was I was out of state.

Have you done other out community outreach?

Not really. But I want to tell you, I was I was I pulled up the little store there, and I I I see the horses, and I see people there looking at the sign, the county planning sign, and I then I'll go over and talk

to them.

I said, what what's going on here? What's this sign about? You know? And they said, oh, they're gonna put a six story building there. It's gonna be 60 feet tall, and and it's gonna be terrible. We don't want it in our neighborhood. They're gonna have low income people here, and it's gonna ruin everything. I said, 60 story? Or six story, that's 60 feet tall. Are you sure? Oh, yeah. It's terrible. We don't want that. And they were kind of on kinda got that group mentality where it just one word turns into two words. Next thing you know, you've got a a parade.

And I think that's what's going on. I've looked at the Facebook pages. One lady that's pretty on the anti bandwagon. Well, she happens to be an apartment owner in Florida. She has a nice little coffee business going franchise, and and she's she's totally against it. And she's she's a neighbor on the one of the streets in the back where the Waterski Lakes are. And, you know, it is what it is. It's it's a piece of property. We can do something with it or it can grow weeds. You know, we're not gonna lose any money if we don't do it.

We the value's in the land, you know. But, it'd be a real nice boon for the income to the county and to the residents and to the businesses. The businesses want it. Of course, they do. They want customers.

Anything else from the guys? Not at this time. Okay. Appreciate you coming forward. You. Telling us the history of it.

My honor meeting you. And

we'll see what the process results in.

Very good. Thank you.

And I know we have public comments, so

Yes. Have received six public comments. And for those who would like to make a public comment or who have filled out one of these slips, if you could actually please stand so I can administer the oath to you as well. Anyone coming up to make a public comment? Thank you. Please raise your right hand, and the appropriate response is, I do. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give to this board is the truth, so help you God? If you do not swear, do you so affirm? Thank you. And when you come to the podium, please state your name for the record and the statement I have been sworn. The first public speaker is

Hold on a quick second. Did we have staff wanting to say something? Absolutely.

One moment, Mr. Rickey. One moment. Rickey.

Commissioner Virga, I think the applicant had a presentation that they wanted

to go through. Okay.

That's fine.

I that was the applicant.

I that

was the applicant.

I did too. Okay.

And, sir, did you stand to be sworn when I read the statement?

Exactly. One moment.

I'll have

Did you stand to be sworn when I read the statement? Sorry. No. No. Didn't. Stand to be sworn? Okay. So do you so do you swear or affirm that this the testimony you are about to give to this board is a truth so help you, God?

I swear. Yeah.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I thought you would

Likewise.

I'm sorry. This is Alejandro. He's a friend of the lab, Wetzel, New York. Yes. And this is the laser beam.

Oh, get the screen.

Big ones forward.

The big ones forward. Yes, I'm a general contractor. I'm helping them to develop the project. I've been involved in getting the permits and working with the architects and the whole thing. And I'm the one that is working with Altamira developers around there representing and So create a little that's where I was wanting to come here because some of the questions you were asking is in this presentation that I spent some time. So I want to get my juice out of it.

Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. So basically, key here is not as much as the design look on point number four, I believe, is mostly the issue regarding rental based mobile compared to selling. And so we did a little research. And basically, in the last fifteen years that we could research, there was zero activity on condo sold.

It was not ever in Rio Linda. There has never been a condo sold. It's mostly like a horse county, like big houses, big lots. So that's what people used to go to Rio Linda for, right? So that's one of the first things that we as developing approach, we have a barrier with, right?

So we call it the market vacuum, which is basically a sale activity in the last fifteen years that we could research. Then we also went into, okay, so let's get rid of that fifteen years of activity and let's see what we could put ourselves into the shoes of the buyer that wants to go there really in that. Because for me as a developer, building 70 apartments compared to 55 condominiums is not much of the difference. But it's just the feasibility of the project, right, if it's possible to create or not. We find out that any commercial lender, bank for first time home buyers, it will in order to give you an approval for a mortgage, it will have to get you property, do some comparables on a price value.

And then they will have hard time trying to find comparables on area for a product, a condominium that has not been any settled sales for the last fifteen years. So that creates a little barrier for first time homebuyers or any other buyers onto the condominiums. And that's one of the reasons that we decided to do apartments compared to condominiums. Because Rio Linda is a big lot, big acreage kind of a house. That's what the client will ask.

Then we also talk about the absorption risk because will create a project that will have 50 units, but they will be sitting there for months and months and months until we could find buyers cash buyers because that's the only way they could get financed. And that was one of the major problems that we had, right? Then we also find out the it's called the condo liability, which is the 10 liability on construction. As a developer, you are liable for ten years after you've built the property compared to an apartment building, which you are holding the apartment and you're renting it. And so you absorb the liability on that.

Compared also to insurance premiums, it's like goes skyrocket compared to the condom. So, we did a little of market history, so no sales compared to instant availability. Financing availability, no need for financing regarding rentals. So we can automatically put it right there for the service. Construction liability is a huge construction liability when you do construction for selling compared to the rental market.

That equates to the ten years responsibility as a developer that you have after you sell a project. And then the price to our seat regarding the we'll have 20 fourseven property management on-site that will be layers with all the different institutions compared to a little fragmented to an HOA, which is going to be problematic and lately has been very litigious. And then so then also the delivery speed. We're trying to do a service. At the end of the day, California has and there's a lot of debate right now, a lot of deficiency on housing.

And I think delivering 70 units instantly for instant rent without having to go to the process of buying or not, it provides an instant market value for people to be able to find a house and live in it. And then and that's what we say regarding the contribution, right? So, that we have immediate units that people can use compared to something that might potentially set there for a long time. And that's what we can reinforce again the institutional management. The HOA is very litigious and very problematic.

It's costly for the homeowner, which is not only the cost of purchasing the property, also the cost of maintaining it, then that's not what people goes to Rio to live in a condominium that has a choice and tells them what to do. People sometimes home buyers go to Rio Linda to buy a big property with horses they can have. Then, basically, that's something that we find out. People that could go to an apartment in of the quality that we are going to build in Rio Linda, it will be also a marketing level, just to say it that way, so people can see how Rio Linda is, you know, what kind of area it is, and probably potentially become, you know, homeowner in Rio Linda. Right?

Because Rio Linda doesn't have apartments to speak with. And then that's it. So, you know, then we find a little bit of regional housing news, you know, the allocations that, you know, for immediate service and and then three thirty streamlining, you know, regarding the rental models, you know, and how they can be. So we can put keys in the hands of Rio Linda residents between twelve to eighteen months after there's rental committee in a condo development. And that's the whole thing. That's like a little of data regarding the same points that we do in the summary. And thank you for your time.

Any questions? You guys have any questions from the dice at all? No? Okay. Not at this time, but thank you very much. We appreciate it. No problem.

And our first public commenter is Lisa Planty.

Hi, my name is Lisa Plant and I live in Rio Linda, have for, I don't know, thirty four years, I guess. I chose Rio Linda because it was a rural, not necessarily agricultural, but rural area. There are apartments that would be right that are there and there would be right next to this building here, but they're so run down, and they have $24.07 a manager living there. He was actually at the meeting, the same meeting that the investor here, developer was at, and he knows what his apartments look like. They're it's trash.

The roads aren't wide enough. He's got cars parked there that aren't licensed. Rentals are I get it. It's all about money, but and and supposedly, if he has lived in Rio Linda and lives on 24th Street, let him turn 24th into this apartment condominium rental area. This is a residential area that cannot handle the traffic.

There are three, four schools right there that It's crazy right there, and it's not gonna be taken care of. I do not believe when you want to rent these out, it's all about money. If it wasn't about money and it was about the environment that you lived in and you supposedly love in Rio Linda, it wouldn't be rentals. Needing homes in Sacramento County or in the city of Rio Linda should be home ownership, responsible, respectful people who are willing to take care of what they have. You put people in there that are renting and supposedly, they're like studio apartments, and I think there's only like one or two that are a one bedroom.

You're not looking for families. That's not accommodating a family in a little studio apartment. So this is not about families or looking for the environment for Rio Linda. That I I don't believe that's what it's about. It is, bottom line, all about money. And, you know, you had to have known that when you purchased this land, what it was approved for. And if you were in real estate all these years

Excuse me. We we have to keep limited to two minutes. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next public commenter is Lisa Wilson.

Good evening and thank you for letting us speak tonight. I would like you to deny the conditions one and three, and I have a couple

of points that I'd like

to make. First, medium density residential zone, it's about 32 to 73 people per acre. These are appropriate in Natomas and areas of South Sacramento, but there we do not have commercial areas nor public transportation or employment centers, which they can use. So, we don't see the ability for the people who are going to be living in these apartments to work here. So, we also are we're going have an additional six eighty trips per day and the cars on the traffic on Dry Creek and right now, this is another issue.

Right now, in the Rio Linda, Alberta District, Water District, we have several wells with chromium levels, chromium six levels above the state standards. So right now, we are washing those wells and that water with other wells. But what happens when we put more people online? We are not gonna have safe water. So our friend, mister Wentz, he paid $580,000 for that piece of property and didn't know there were conditions. That's not my fault. That's not my neighbor's faults. That's his. The revenues that he says we're going to be getting, they're not gonna go to Rio Linda. They're gonna go to the county.

They're gonna go to the county pot. We're not gonna see any of that. I'm I'm sorry he has to restart his design. I'm really sorry about that. We have no community outreach. I've been here twenty six years in Rio Linda, and I was part of that 2007 redo on the condo. So I've been around that long, and I don't know if anybody else has, but I have. I do have a

couple more. That's enough.

So sorry. Okay. So I'm sorry that zero counters haven't sold in Rio Linda. We don't have condos in Rio Linda. We have homes, homes where families live. It was a nice presentation, thank you very much, and I'm glad to hear you have concern for first time homebuyers, that's not my problem. The only one who's going to win at this is Mr. Wenzel, not us. Thank you. Have a great evening.

Thank you.

The next public commenter is Rochelle Menti. Sorry, if I messed that up terribly.

Hi. I'm Rochelle Meleitner, and I have lived here six years. We live on the lakes, and I just want to address a couple things. The road conditions, it doesn't sound like there will be parking. If it's apartments, there is no sidewalks.

The traffic during school time is pretty horrific. Even just going down Dry Creek and Raley today to get here, the road's two lane road, and traffic is backed up five blocks. You can't get out. So I don't see that being an asset to the community. There are sideshows that happen a lot in the other apartments that are here. He he said something about they're not going to be six stories tall. How tall are they going to be? We haven't heard that or I haven't heard that. Where will the cars park without garages? That's pretty much all I have to say.

Thank you. You.

And the next public commenter is Rob Meleitner.

I just want to say I did really did not want to do this. But I it's really simple to me. Ignorance is no excuse. I'm really sorry if you didn't find out, but that's your fault, not ours. And we shouldn't have to pay the consequences for it. So thanks for your time. Our

next public commenter is George Hirsch.

Good evening. I'm George Harsh. First speaker mentioned the meeting in Rio Linda we had several months ago. And as he mentioned, there were over 70 people attended. The meeting went for at least an hour, probably over that.

And the overwhelming consensus was that we would like to see property that has owners rather than renters. And I've lived in Rio Linda for forty years now. Moved there in about 1980. And I know one particular concern about that block there has has been sort of ongoing, petty crime, vandalism, and so forth. Now we had some apartments that were built about a 150 yards or so south of where the present square of land we're talking about.

And again, to sort of reiterate some of the questions that were brought up at that meeting, many of the locals aren't exactly sure how this development would benefit us there. And so it's obviously a very compacted area, as mentioned before. And so the thing is, and the point was just made earlier, it's understandable that conditions are made sometimes when business deals occur that certain conditions may arise later that weren't exactly clear previously, but it's part of running a business, we think, that these conditions are explored before and known before the business deal is made firm. And so I don't think anyone in Rio Linda is under the illusion that it's going to maintain its nice country feel forever, although many of us wouldn't mind that. But we certainly would like to see some owner occupied units there rather than sort of passive residents

coming through. Okay. And Thank

our last public commenter is Roy Hickey.

Good evening. I didn't have a presentation prepared because the Chairman of the Rio Linda Alberta CPAC went on vacation. So, I am the Vice Chair and so I guess I am here by default. But I moved to Sacramento through McClellan in 1965 and knew I was going to be here for a while, so I scoured Sacramento. After two months, we chose a house in Alberta for my family of four kids.

We've been there ever since, still in the same house. I was after I was 73, I got involved in real estate and then found out about the CPACs, joined the CPACs in the late 1980s. I've been intimately on the CPAC ever since. I've seen a lot of these projects in detail. But Rio Linda, Alberta is a community where people move out there because they love the open space, they love their animals.

And that's the way that most people want to stay out there. We realize that the state is pushing apartments, complexes like crazy down everybody's throat, but I still think that there's only one place in this county where people, a blue collar worker can come out and have his kids have animals, goats, pigs, chickens, rabbits, whatever they have. We have a great four H program out there and one of the best in the area. We have a great FFA program in high school. This project is across within a stone's throw from three different schools.

There's lots of people there, lots of traffic. And I know somebody said there wasn't much traffic there, but Dry Creek Road at the present time is scheduled to come from 16th Street from Baseline Road down through the Alberta specific villages plan, which is many thousands of houses also on North Of Alberta Road, and swing 16th Street over to Dry Creek Road in the county plan, and that is supposed to widen to a very wide road, so we are looking at, in a few years, much, much traffic in that area. Thank you.

Thank

you. But, we also recommended that the original conditions stay with the property, because I spent forty years in real estate, different phases of it, everything you can imagine to do. But my personal feeling is when the planning department puts a condition on a property such as they did early on in this project, that remains with the property just like the use permit, it goes forever.

Thank you. Do any other dais want to hear from the petitioner again or staff?

Okay. Well, very good speakers. I can hear what they're saying and I feel the same. I like having property. Some of the property is zoned M1. You get truck stops, get chicken sheds, you get a variety. 50 The five units to 70 units, I don't know. I I was out there today, drove down it. The traffic's not bad. You know?

They say this they have five blocks of traffic. I came down Dry Creek to get here, and it was typical. Yeah. 05:00, you get a lot of traffic. Go down there at 02:00, there's nothing. Apartments don't make traffic. Schools make traffic. Rush hour makes traffic. People go home, they park their car, watch TV, make dinner, go to bed, wake up. A couple of misconceptions though, we don't have any studio units. We have one and two bedroom. They're equally distributed. So that's a correction. We have a couple three story buildings. Most of them are two.

And it fits. It looks nice. It's a beautiful beautiful drawings, beautiful concepts, and we're gonna maintain a nice project. I don't know what else. Any questions you might have?

Anybody from the diets have any questions?

Maybe can you also clarify? I heard a lot about parking and where the tenants would park. If you can speak to that.

Well, obviously obviously, they haven't seen the the plan, but we have we're with we have plenty of parking. We have parking for as dictated by the planning department. You can't put a place in without parking. We have covered parking all throughout the the project, and it's within your guys' regulations. And we want that. We don't want cars parked in the street. We don't want people working on their cars. We don't want people doing the burnouts and stuff. I know the apartments down the street. I used to live in them.

You know, when I was doing some remodeling, moved out and rented an apartment for six months. They're apartments. You're gonna get good people moving into apartments. You're gonna get some problem people. You got good people moving into houses. You're gonna get some problem people. I've got rental houses. And it's, you know, it's what it is. People everybody's different. You gotta go to church.

You got people sitting next to you might not like or, you know, so it's kinda to make those general terms that because they're they're for rent that the people are gonna be bad people, we don't want them. We'll get rid of them. You know, if they're violating other people's rights, so they're not maintaining the standards that we set, that the state sets, what the county sets, they gotta go. You know, it's no fun going to a to court. We wanna rent the people that are gonna pay their rent. We wanna rent the people to be happy. We don't want people not to be happy. We want to give them a nice quality new place to live.

Any other questions?

No?

Any questions from staff at all from the dais? Okay. So any discussions among the dais? Go ahead.

I guess my I guess it goes back to my initial question to the applicant around community involvement. And I know it's just a change to number one and three of the conditions, But that, I thank you for the Vice Chair of the CPAC being here as well. So my concerns are really around the community involvement of the area and the applicant to foster collaboration around that. Now, own the property. Yes, I get that.

But there's also the housing development that sits behind it and also the other schools and everything else. So, I want to those are some of the concerns I have. And commission member recommended also stated that a question around traffic, question around a lot of those other questions that have yet to be answered. Now granted, it is just that tonight, making a recommendation to the Board, correct, on whether or not one in three are removed or remains as is. But that's kind of the we're really looking at some of the longer term questions here as part of this.

Anything else?

No. I mean, I don't know. I I was prepared to make a motion to move staff recommendation. I think that this is I feel like the entire this project isn't really before us. There's there's two questions. And the project hasn't really changed since the last time it was approved. And so there's only two small in my opinion, two small changes. But I don't know if it's appropriate to make a motion since I think there's only a few of

us here. Well, there's three. So that's all it takes. Yeah. If we have any more questions, just for point of clarification, I have family that live down that in that general area and I actually went to that grade school sixty some odd years ago. So I have intimate knowledge of what they're all talking about on both sides of the fence. So, if you want to make a motion, that's and your motion would be to take staff recommendation?

Yes.

Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second the motion. Okay.

Okay. First and a second.

Okay.

And that motion does pass with one member voting no.

Thank you very much.

I mean just for the record, the motion fails and there's no recommendation to the Board.

Because there's not three votes.

Correct. A positive, yes. Didn't pass. Staff will explain to the board what transpired basically. For the public. No formal.

For the public, it did not pass. Correct.

Well, yes, this goes to the board. That's the final action and there's no recommendation here.

Thank you.

And item number two is the planning director's report.

Nothing

significant. I just want to note that we do have on our next agenda, May 11. Yes. We've got five items. One, two, three, four. Yes, five items. Most of them are pretty straightforward. There is an appeal though of a parcel map out in the Carmichael area. So that probably will take a bit more time than the others. Okay.

Anything on the miscellaneous reschedule?

I don't have anything for scheduling items, but I will just be reconfirming the attendance for the May 11 meeting because it sounds like we may have a couple commissioners absent.

So, I guess this would be something for counsel. I'm having my knee replaced on the fifth. I won't be able to make it on the eleventh. Is that kind of a thing a reason to remotely come in through the video? Or I can't remember the

braille there.

The just cause exception disability is included in there. If you're having knee surgery. Knee replacements. Okay, so close. And then the emergency circumstances exception has a medical emergency. So that would qualify. So sure, you could

Okay. So originally, I think I was going to be available. And I know that there's some conflicts in terms of other commissioners had told me that there was questions about whether they would make it at all next time. And you said you have Todd, you said you have five things on the agenda? Correct. So if there's only two commissioners, so I'll contact you about what it takes to like zoom in or however

And I'll provide all the information and direction you need for that.

Okay. That way at least you'll have quorum. Okay. Any public comments?

And we have not received any additional public comments.

Okay. Well, I guess that ends make a motion we adjourn. I don't have the gavel, but we adjourn.

Thank you.