Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good afternoon. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our May 11 meeting of the Sacramento County Planning Commission. Madam madam clerk, can you please call the roll?

Before calling roll, we will have Commissioner Berger, who is participating remotely. Commissioner Berger?

Yes. I understand. I have a statement I'm supposed to read. For the record, I am participating remotely pursuant to government code section 54,953 due to a just causeemergency circumstances. Also present in the room will be my wife, Carrie Virga. The reason for this absentee or remote is a knee replacement as of Tuesday.

Thank you. I will now call roll. Commissioner Virga?

Here.

Devlin?

Here.

And Chair Borja?

Here.

And with those members present, do have a quorum.

Alright. Thank you. Vice Chair Devlin, you mind leading us? I pledge

I pledge allegiance allegiance to the to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Alright. Thank you. And madam clerk, can you please make the announcements?

Absolutely. My apologies here. Kind of got my things out of order.

Okay.

Sorry about that delay. The county fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, 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 serve basis. To make an in person public comment, please complete and submit a speaker request form to the clerk. Each individual will be invited to the podium to make a comment. Members of the public may send a written comment which is distributed to commission members and filed in the record. Contact information is optional and should include the meeting date and agenda off agenda item number to be sent as follows. Email a comment to boardclerk@saccounty.gov, mail a comment to 708th Street Suite 2450 Sacramento, California 95814. And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you, madam clerk. Are we ready to proceed with item number one?

Yes. Item number one is PLMP2025Dash00114 fitted garage. This is a use permit to the planning commission to reinstate the use of automobile repair and this property is located at 7128 Kingsley Street approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Florin Road and Kingsley Street in the South Sacramento community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening, Chair Borja. This is a reinstatement of a nonconforming use that your commission has heard similar projects, this past year on, and it's non contested. So I would like to know if you would like to waive the presentation or not.

Thank you, miss Hartman. I'll start with my colleague in the interweb. Commissioner Virgo, would you like to, see a presentation on this item?

No. Thank you.

I'm okay.

Alright. I think we will be postponed or at least passing for the presentation, but thank you so much for preparing. With that in mind, are we ready or do we have any questions for the staff at this time?

No I don't okay

and the applicant is also in the audience if you have any questions for him as well

understood thank you for noting we'll give an opportunity for the applicant to address the commission if. They may wish to. Thank you, sir. You can join us at the podium.

And I will go ahead and administer an oath at this time. And this is for anyone who would like to make a public comment, if you can. If you wish to address the commission about items, any items on the agenda, please raise your right hand, and the appropriate response is, I do. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this board is the truth so help you God and if you do not swear, do you so affirm? Thank you. And then those when you do come to the podium, state your name and for the record that you have been sworn in.

Thank thank you sir. Oh, okay. Thank you. Commissioner Berger or commissioner Devlin, do you have any questions for the applicant?

No, I do not.

No, I do. I'm happy to move the item.

Okay. Thank you so much, Vice Chair Devin. We do have a, a motion to move the item. Do we have a second?

Yes. I'll second it.

Okay. Thank you. Madam clerk, if we can please call a vote.

And because we are, having commissioner Virga participate remotely, we will have to call a voice vote for these items. So commissioner Devlin? Aye. Virga?

Aye.

And chair Borja?

Aye.

And with those members present, this item does pass.

Okay. Thank you, mister Escobedo, and and thank you, miss Hartman. Okay. Let's, move on to item number two, please, madam clerk.

Item number two is PLMP 2025Dash00267, review of county fiscal year twenty twenty six twenty seven, capital improvement program for the general plan consistency and this is Countywide and the environmental document is not applicable.

Checking can excellent these are. All right good chair and planning commissioners my name is Nathan set a scene and I'm an associate planner from planning an environmental review. I'll be presenting on the capital improvement plan for fiscal year 2627. I'm also joined by Colin Betis of the office of budget and debt management for tonight if we have a larger conversation about these items. As for overview, the capital improvement plan identifies capital improvement projects for the next five years across various county agencies.

This action is set forth by county code section 21 chapter 15. The purpose of our review is to determine that the projects are consistent with the general plan and to address issues before final board approval of these projects. The purpose is not to evaluate merits, cost, or environmental impact of the projects as all of that will be reviewed on later individual basis. So what is the process for our review? So first, the board reviews the capital improvement plan and refers to the planning commission for general plan compliance.

This happened back on April 7. So fast forward to today, the task of the commission is determined the consistency of the CIP and forward its findings back to the board. In June, the board will receive the findings and officially adopt the CIP, seeing everything aligns. Today we're only reviewing the projects that have not been previously approved or are newly funded. There are five main categories of projects that we reviewed for consistency.

There are airports, capital buildings, county buildings and capital construction, excuse me, libraries, regional parks, and transportation. For our analysis, our staff report materials include general plan consistency analysis for each capital improvement project, project descriptions, and as for our consistency analysis itself, staff has found that all projects are consistent with the general plan. We do have a couple of recommendations. So, the first is adopt a resolution finding that the projects listed in the five year capital improvement plan for fiscal year twenty six, twenty seven in the budget are consistent with the adopted policies of the general plan and direct the county executive to report back to supervisors with the commission findings. That concludes my presentation.

Again, stated before, I'm here with Colin Betis from the office of budget and debt management, and we're available to take any questions.

Thank you miss a set of We have any questions from my colleagues here at five.

No I don't.

Thank you thank you so much for the staff for preparing this I did look at about a 172 almost 200 actually of the attachment. So I'm really grateful for the opportunity of preparing. Having come from staff myself, I I I recognize how how hard and critical those things are. So one thing I'd like to maybe ask is just for the general kind of education of the public who may not know what a capital improvement program or sort of CIP. You know, you've you've highlighted some projects that you've wanted to either bring forth or at the very least prioritize.

I saw one in transportation related to Hazel Avenue in the lane widening. For that project, what's kind of the merit base or the system that you all do in order to prioritize that on the CIP as a newly funded project? Is it a combination of grants, need, fix it first, or shovel ready?

Yeah. Excellent question. So we, as the planning department, do not prioritize the projects on on the CIP ourselves. That comes down to the individual departments who put the projects forth and present as they present them to the board. However, I can talk about our analysis process for how we look at these projects.

Over the past couple years, we've actually systematized our process to the point where we are looking not just at the general plan but different policy documents that are related to the general plan as well in order to assess how these projects fill vision of the general plan and are within the growth that urban policy area of within the county as well to make sure growth is responsible and that these fulfill the needs of the community. So for the Hazel Avenue project for example, one of the thresholds that we actually measure against transportation plan projects is are the is this a complete street is this something helps fulfill a mobility need. So those those are kind of a couple of items that we looked at especially for a larger so you you have like general projects like improving the streets, and then you have more specific projects like like Hazel Avenue that are more improving, like, flow and mobility. So that's that's essentially what we looked at.

Understood. Thank you. Where might projects like improving our levies stand? Would that be under county buildings and capital construction? And is that something that the CIP also looks at as a critical That's

actually a

really great question. I have not, come across a levy, project myself, but, I'd like to put it forward to Colin.

For many Colin Betts, the county debt officer. For many of those projects that would be levy based, they would either fall under the Department of Water Resources for drainage and but that I will also say that there are many agencies, many different agencies that manage the levy system. So a lot of them that were, you know, for the northern portion of the county that would be managed by Safeco. So it

wouldn't be under our our, policy under RCIP. Understood. And I'm assuming that something that's a little bit more southern would be SJFCA. Right? And one

last thing to mention about the you I had another comment on on the Hazel Avenue project. That one is actually a breakout of a prior project that had been pre already approved. And so it's the Department of Transportation splitting that into phases of the project and which ones are moving forward now versus ones that are, you know, are are in May maybe more of a planning phase.

Got it. Thank you, sir. Just one last question, sir. If I don't have you don't mind. We have, as a county, we oversubscribed with needs. And how does your office kind of holding the purse a little bit and working with a limited resource that we have? How do you guys in the prioritizing what would be, you know, maybe percolating in the next two to five years because, you know, a lot of the constituents end up asking the supervisors or the elected officials saying, hey. How come this is not in your to do list in the next two to five years?

Yeah.

So each of the departments that that prepares the information and and submits it to our office does their own analysis of of the need versus availability of funding. So obviously, as as funding becomes available, you know, grant funding, that may increase the prioritization of one project over another because it has resources available for it. But each of the department does an analysis on their own for all the projects that they see that they have a

need to complete. Thank you. I appreciate that, sir. Any other questions for mister Batis? Nope. Mister Berger?

No. I don't have any.

Okay. Thank you both. Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any

And I would like to state for the record item number one, there were no public comments turned in for that item, and we have not received any for item number two as well.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you for keeping in check. I really appreciate it. Do we have public comments for this item?

No, we do not.

All right. Well, mister do you have added comments or anything you'd like to close out with?

No. Thank you so much calling for providing the extra detail. I just reminder, we do have an item for a vote for a resolution.

Understood. Thank you. And so we do have a request of the PR staff to take the following actions, adopt a resolution recommending the board find that the new projects listed in the FY 2627 CIP are consistent with the county's general plan, and also direct the county executive to report the Planning Commission's recommendation to the board. Do we have a motion?

That sounded like a motion but I'm happy to make that motion to move this forward.

Okay.

And I'll second it.

Thank you. I think we have a first and a second.

Thank you. Commissioner Devlin? Aye. Commissioner Virga? Aye. And Chair Borja?

Aye.

Thank you. And that item passes with the members present with a recommendation to the board.

Alright. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Madam clerk, can we please move on to item number three?

Item number three is PLMP2024Dash00037 Vineyard South Mine expansion, a use permit to allow mining on 86 additional acres and to allow three additional years of mining, a rezone to add surface mining combining zone to 86 acres, a community plan amendment for two parcels, a reclamation plan amendment, and a development agreement amendment and this property is located at 9332 Elder Creek Road, West Of Bradshaw Road, East Of Hedge Road, North Of Florin Road, and South Of Elder Creek Road with the exception of two original project parcels in the Vineyard community and the environmental document is an addendum.

Alright, thank you. Good evening, I'm Mark McLean with Planning and Environmental Review. I'm gonna present the Vineyard South Mine Expansion Project.

As the clerk did a

great job on a location, it is at 900332 Elder Creek Road, West Of Bradshaw, East Of Hedge, North Of Florin, and South Of Elder Creek and it is in the Vineyard community. On this map here, the hatched parcels are the four parcels for this project. The community context, the site is zoned IR, which is interim agriculture. The surrounding uses are to the north is IR with the surface mining overlay and that is the Vineyard South Mine. To the south, it's RD-ten and IR, and east and west, it is IR zoned.

Okay. On January 1539, Vineyard South was approved by the Board of Supervisors that allowed surface mining on 146 acres of 170 acre site. And the site is currently the Vineyard South Mine and the use permit expires on 01/15/2029. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the use permit to allow surface mining on four additional parcels totaling 86 acres and three additional years to mine them. A rezone to add the surface mining combining zone to 86 acres of IR zone.

A community plan amendment to add language to the Florin Viger community plan to allow surface mining on two of the parcels for the duration of the use permit. A reclamation plan amendment to include the new mining areas into the reclamation plan with the end use of open space, and a development agreement between the county and the applicant. Alright, this is the site plan and like I said, the the four new parcels for the project are in hash to the south and on the east and west of it. And the other is the original Vineyard South Mine. Okay.

So, like the like was stated earlier, the board did approve the use period on January 1529 to allow surface mining. The applicant is proposing three years of additional mining with an expiration date of mining for February or excuse me, 01/15/2032, and three years to reclaim the project with an end date of 01/15/2035. The proposed project will add four parcels that are 86 acres and of that 60 acres is subject to be mine. The original use permit had a total of 13,000,000 tons of aggregate. The proposed use permit amendment will add three.

1,000,000 tons for a total of the mine of 16. 1,000,000 tons. The end use will continue to be open space. There's a development agreement that will be amended as part of this project and there'll be continued participation in the cents per ton program. The cents per ton program is a program for all the mines that the amount of aggregate they sell to certain percentage goes to a non profit.

In this case, it's for the splash program. This shows the phasing of the site. So, the new portions of the site are to the south and in the yellow on the on the east is two of the two of the parcels and on the west side and the brown are the two. They'll be in phase two B and phase three respectively. Alright, the environmental document is addendum based upon an EIR for the original Vineyard South use permit.

The addendum concluded that there would be less than significant impacts in most environmental topics. Significant environmental impacts from the project include aesthetic impacts, nitric oxide emissions, and noise impacts from haul trucks, and mitigation measures have been imposed for the project impacts. Advisory recommendations. The Vineyard CPAC met on 02/13/2025 and recommended approval of the projects 13 to zero. One of the C Tech CPAC members did inquire for any public benefits of this project and the cents per ton with the money or the funds going to Sacramento Splash is a is a nice one of those.

Okay. Oh, I think I went too far. Maybe I'll go back. Okay. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

Determine the environmental analysis is pursuant to CEQA is adequate and complete. Adopt the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program. Approve the amended amendment to the use permit subject to finding and conditions, approve the rezone to add the surface mining combining zone subject to finding and conditions, approve the community plan amendment to add language to the foreign vineyard community plan subject to finding and conditions, approve the reclamation plan amendment to include the new mining area into the reclamation plan subject to findings and conditions, and approve the development agreement with between the county and the applicant subject to finding and conditions and then just one other thing on the project, there had been some ongoing discussions with the Southgate Park and Rec with conditions of approval. We finally got those hammered out and I have here is an updated condition and a one new condition and of that, yeah, the that is just the so what you have there is the two conditions and then all of the conditions of approval just to see so you can see them in total. That concludes my presentation.

I'm here to

answer any questions. The applicant is also here.

Thank you, Mr. Michelinie. Appreciate the thoroughness. You're welcome. Do we have any questions Not for staff. From Mr. Virga, Commissioner Virga?

No, not from staff.

Thank you. Mr. McEleen, just kind of a kind of procedural question. So we have a pretty good established baseline on the MMRPs from what was already approved back in 2019. I'm assuming that presuming that the that the applicant would not only concur with the remaining items of that MMRP, but maybe just add on to that?

Yes. That's that's I wasn't didn't explain that well enough but yeah, that's exactly what happened there.

Understood, sir. So, everything from the burrowing owls and the Swanson's Hawk medication, water.

And we can confirm that with Julie.

I'm sorry. I did not wanna steal your thunder, miss Newton.

Oh, that's okay.

All good. Good Good evening, commissioners. Julie Newton, environmental coordinator with planning. Yes. Commissioner Borja, that that is correct. So with this project being an expansion of the existing mine, operations will be consistent with what's already in place. We've prepared an addendum to the prior EIR, which means those mitigation measures that applied to the initial phases of the project will be carried through. They'll continue to comply with everything that was a part of the original EIR and MMRP.

Understood. Thank you for confirming, miss Newman. And then I do see that we now have, as part of attachment to 15 new findings and conditions of approval, or is this kind of an added?

One modified condition 49 and then a new one for Southgate 50. So, it kind of messed up the numbering for the DOT comments that come out. That's why I gave you the entire attachment too in case you want to see it in total.

Understood. Understood. Sir Devlin.

Thank you. Do you have an idea of kind of what the grading, I haven't visited this this the site but do you have an idea of what the grading kind of currently looks like on the existing mine site? I mean, at what depth or?

How how deep they're going? Yeah. I think it's about 30 feet down there. They dig to. The applicants in here can won't be able to confirm that but I think it's about 30 feet.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. If I'm not hearing any more questions from my fellow commissioners, we'd like to invite the applicant if they are available.

Good evening, Chair Borja, members of the Commission. My name is Yasha Saber. I'm with Compass Land Group and here on behalf of Granite Construction tonight. I do have representatives from the Granite team here as well in the audience, and they're all sitting with me here. So happy to answer any questions that you'd like us to this evening.

Commissioner Devlin, you had a question about the mine grading and how deep the mining has gone so far. So the existing mine is allowed to mine as deep as 75 feet below existing ground surface. We have achieved a depth of about 50 feet from original grade at the deepest point in the existing mine. The proposed expansion would continue that same maximum permissible mining depth, but it is a conservative depth that we're most likely not going to get to throughout the entire mining property.

And obviously, it's still a productive mine, which is why you're here. And I'm not looking to extract any sort of commitment, but I guess as you kinda as as one experience within this field, when you look at a site of that size and you get down to an average depth of, fill in the blank, 40 feet, 50 feet. You know, when you look beyond twenty thirty two or twenty thirty five, you know, what are, I guess, you know, some of the even potential kind of reuses for a site such as that?

So for this site in particular, there's a number of different post mining land uses that we have in consideration. First and foremost is to return as much of the property to a condition that's suitable for future redevelopment under the Flora And Vineyard Community Plan. So, in doing so, we've actually prioritized the overburden material which is the non marketable soil that sits on top of the sand and gravel. When that is extracted, that will be moved and placed as backfill along the frontages of the public roadways. So, for the original project, that material is prioritized up against Elder Creek Road.

For the expansion project, the material is prioritized up against Florin Road. We anticipate the ability to backfill almost two thirds of the Southwestern expansion parcel, adjacent to Florin Road to prepare it for future residential development in Florin Vineyard consistent with this existing designation of that plan.

Perfect. Thank you. You're welcome.

Can you just share us a couple thoughts about your partnership with Splasher. Is that a program that is being run through a county or is that something that's being managed by the county? Cost percents program?

Granite supplies a cents per ton fee. I believe that is administered through the terms of the development agreement with the county. That's correct.

Director Soo. Was your question, Commissioner Borja, one of whether the county also contributes to funding for Splash?

Or Yeah. How does that Sorry. It's my first time kind of actually finding out about that. How does that work?

You're familiar with Sacramento Splash, believe. It's a nonprofit environmental organization operating out of Mather. The county has in the past contributed some funding for quite a few years to that program. I'm not sure when, but I know it's within the last probably five to ten years that Granite has, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, folks, has offered that as part of their development agreement cents per ton contribution. That is simply the mechanism that we collectively through Granite and the cents per ton program give that money to Splash.

Understood. Okay. So, it's part of our participation that in some of the cost for them to for being able to use the land. They're actually able to do some sort of good use with the nonprofit, right? That's educating a lot of the younger kids in the in the region. Okay. Awesome. Well, thank you. Appreciate the time, sir.

You're welcome.

Any other questions from mister Virga?

No, I have no other questions.

Alright, thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers for this item?

No, we have not received any public comments for this item.

Okay. That said, I'd like to are there any other discussion from fellow commissioners on this item?

No, but I'll make a motion to move the item with the recommendations from staff.

I'm happy to second that motion.

Okay. I believe we have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, if you

could please call call for a vote.

Commissioner Virga?

Aye.

Devlin?

Aye.

And Chair Borja?

Yes.

And that item, passes with recommendation to the board, three zero.

Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you to the applicant team. And if we could please, read item number four.

And item number four is PLMP 2022Dash0011 seven Gutierrez Properties rezone and tentative parcel map. This is a rezone community plan amendment, tentative parcel map, and a design review. The property is located at 11976 Walmart Road Walmart Road about six forty feet east of Regal Road in the Southeast community and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening, commissioners. Kimber Gutierrez, principal planner. The applicant has asked to, drop this or continue this item to a date uncertain. And I don't believe they are in attendance. Correct. Yeah. They're absent. So yeah.

Understood. I do believe we do need to have a vote for that. So the applicant is requesting that we continue the item to update uncertain. Don't have any motions or any before that vote, do we have any speakers for this item?

No, we have not received any public comments for this item.

Then, we've established that the applicant is not available or is not attending this evening. Do we have any discussions from my fellow commissioners and or do we have any motions to? Yeah.

I would go ahead and and move that we continue the item to a date uncertain.

And I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk.

Thank you. Commissioner Berga.

Aye.

Deblin? Aye. And Chair Borja?

Yes.

And that item passes with being continued to a date uncertain.

Okay. Thank you. We are moving right along to item number five.

And for this item, you will be acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals. Item number five is PLMP 202010, Eswaran tentative map part tentative parcel map appeal and this is an appeal of a tentative parcel map, special development permit, and a design review. The property is located at 6548 Sutter Avenue approximately 700 feet from the intersection of Sutter Avenue and Marshall Avenue in the Carmichael community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening again. Kimber Gutierrez. We have a unique situation in that the appellants for the item are requesting a continuance to a date uncertain. And I believe the applicant is requesting that the item be heard. So we do have representatives from both the appellant team and the applicant team present.

Thank you, counsel Burke.

Oh, thanks, chair. I'd recommend that you continue this item because as you know your rules of procedure require that any action be by three commissioners and you've got a bare quorum here tonight. We don't know how the three of you are gonna would come down on this appeal. So, it comes down two to one either way, you're not going to be able to take action. And whether you grant the appeal or deny the appeal, you have to adopt findings one way or the other, and you wouldn't be able to do that if it's two to one.

So, the only way this works, remember BZA is the last stop. Doesn't, this item won't go to the board after this. Is is if the three of you present tonight are all in agreement and we don't know if that's gonna be the case. So, I'd recommend that you hear this item when preferably all five of you are here, you know, four at a minimum and you know, these days, you have more opportunities for remote attendance. So, really attendance shouldn't be too much of a problem.

So, we should try and get five commissioners here whether remote or in person but otherwise, we're going go through this hearing tonight and if it ends up being two to one on your vote, then, we're going to have no choice but to continue it at that point.

Understood. Thank thank you for your council, Miss Berg, do we have any comments from the rest of the commissioners?

Well, I would defer to the the chair of their preference. Yeah. Thank you. For clarity, counselor, we can hear the item, right, and receive this. So, here's a staff presentation and ultimately decide to continue this.

The one dilemma with that, you can. And if you all three of you are in agreement, then okay, then that's clean and you can adopt findings. But if you if you don't, and we continue it, then you've got two commissioners who weren't here to hear all the testimony. So I'd rather have them here to hear the testimony and receive the evidence because then we're otherwise, we're gonna have a question. Well, did those other two commissioners or other one commissioner, were they privy to all the statements that were made and all the arguments and all the evidence?

Fair point. I would defer to the chair as to what he would like to do.

Understood. Commissioner Berger, do you have any thoughts, Yeah.

I have, I basically just have I've always just had concerns of continuing to delay things one after another. Are there any timeframes associated with this appeal or whatever this action is that we're going to bump up against because of us deferring it? I don't know enough about it to, figure out exactly, you know, what the impact of deferring it is versus hearing it.

Maybe we could hear from the applicant.

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is, there's a relatively new statute, state statute that requires land use items to be heard in five meetings. That's so I don't know if we're up to that yet.

Think I'm less comfortable with the date uncertain. I mean, just from the, you know, the applicant has worked

no doubt. Yeah, I'd prefer to have to do a date certain.

To to get to this point and so, I think just on on balance, if we are to continue this, I would be, pretty uncomfortable with a date uncertain. And, you know, if it is to be continued, I would, you know, I would be probably more inclined for, like, the next meeting as opposed to some future date.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dublin. I believe the staff is finding that information as to whether or not statutorily we are running into that. Chad, line of number of meetings.

I will note, while staff is looking up how many hearings we've had on this already. Staff has indicated that both the applicant and potentially appellant will not be available in June. So we're looking at July. Okay.

Alright. The plot thickens. Thank you. Appreciate that. Mister Burke, if we do move the item to, let's say, the meeting in July, would this would that trigger an actual meeting? Or would this would this what we're doing this evening, would

that Well, mean, we are at, if this is meeting number five, I don't know if it is, but we could certainly argue that it was continued and we didn't actually have a a hearing on it. Although, the clerk made a good point that it per Brown Act, if anybody wants to speak on even if you wanna continue it, they have a right to speak on it. But separate and apart from that, you know, we can make the argument that this was a continuance and the hearing just didn't happen today. Aside from that, I I don't I know people want to get things moving and complete, but I don't see a huge problem going to July. My preference is to have, you know, like I said, a clean action, a full commission, and be able to make findings.

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

Understood. Miss Gutierrez.

Yes. For SB three thirty, the the five limit meeting rule, we would not be exceeding that by continuing it to another meeting. So we are okay with that provision of state law.

Thank you, miss Gutierrez. So we are okay with SB three thirty compliance.

Mister mister chair, the the if we end up if we end up doing this, then we need to parameters on it that come July, we don't end up, making some kind of a decision to for some other reasons, like we just ran into, that we delay it again. I understand the question of three versus, you know, having enough to make to break the tie, And I don't know enough about the nitty gritty of the appeal to, you know, kind of understand things. And that's kind of what I'm grappling with here that if this is the appeal that's time sensitive beyond just some statute, then we need to figure out how to address it and not let it languish from July to August to September, which happens to happen a lot in these types of circumstances for both sides, and we'll do the same. Doesn't matter if one side or the other.

Understood. Thank you, commissioner Virga. Well, this is certainly a conundrum. Thank you for putting us in the nice pickle here. I think this might be my first of this issue.

I I do certainly think mister that Burke's counsel is something that we would need to warrant. However, as to madam clerk had indicated, nothing is stopping us from hearing the comments by the public if they still wish to speak on the item. And so for that, I'm inclined to, at the very least, allow the request to move at a date certain, which would be the meeting for July. I think that is kind of where my moral compass is going at the moment, but I'd like to see

May I recommend that since we have both the appellant and the applicant here, we could ask a date that would work for everybody? Just so so that we have everyone present from the appellant team and the applicant team. Just a suggestion.

Director Smith, council Burke, stat

Yeah. What are our dates in July? Let's find out our dates in July. Let's ask.

Thirteenth and twenty seventh.

I'm hearing July 13 and the twenty seventh.

That's correct.

Alternatively, can we hear the meeting date options for June?

That would be the eighth and the twenty second.

We have June 8, June 22 for consideration as well as July 13 and July 27.

And maybe we could also hear from the applicant as to like their the impact and you know what their preference is to do. I mean I am I'm sensitive to certainly the issues that councils raised. However, it's also kind of obvious like, are we right are we gonna be right back in this very same position on July 8 or July 27? I mean, that's kind of the unknown.

I would say from a staff perspective, we're That's why we're here. All of our work has been done. I it is incumbent on the commissioners to show up. Obviously, company excluded. And I think it now just as a matter of one of the applicants and the pollens are available on any of those four dates.

Something else just occurred to me so if we do if we go through a hearing now we end up we see it's two to one. And we continue it at that point tonight, later tonight, we can have this is all okay. This is all recorded. We can ask whoever else shows up for a continued hearing to watch this hearing. That way, they will seen all the testimony and evidence and everything, and then they can join in on the continued date.

So that part of it, now that I think of it, is less of a concern. So we can just go ahead and proceed and and see how it goes. But like I said, if if you are at two to one, you you gotta you gotta adopt findings. You can't do that. You gotta you gotta have three votes to do that. So we still might have to continue it at the end of this.

Understood. Okay. Do you have any concerns, comments, and or, recommendations, commissioner Berger or vice chair Dublin?

From my standpoint, I think what was just just the option given to us is the best option. That way, there's a record. And if we don't land on a unanimous three, vote, then there's the net new the other commissioners, when they get available, can look at that record, and we can move the item and not have a tendency to cause it to languish.

Thank you, commissioner Berger. Vice chair Dublin.

I would be comfortable with that as well.

And that being that we hear the item right now and

Yeah. And if it's, you know, becomes, you know, clear that we're gonna, you know, not be in alignment or be in alignment on this, then, you know, for to meet you to one will have to do a continuance.

Understood. Okay. With that said, I concur with my fellow commissioners. Director Smith, should we proceed with the presentation? And then I'd encourage the members of the public who are present or are participating to, at the very least, opt in for participation and address the commission.

Understood and we'll start with the staff presentation and I believe to go appellant and then applicant.

Good evening chair board members of the Board of zoning appeals. My name is Christian Bautista so the plan with planning to review and the planner from the county side on the story intended for some of the people. The subject site is located at 6548 Center Avenue which consists of a single parcel totaling 1.08 acres in size and it's currently developed with an existing single family home in a pool. Both the pool and the single family home are expected to remain on-site post entitlement. The subject cited zone residential density to or RD 2 and is within the Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Preservation Area or NPA.

The surrounding area is developed with single family homes, all zoned RD 2 with the subzone of NPA in all directions. In terms of entitlement history, the project site has had two previous planning entitlements. The first being a tenant parcel map which was divided which was dividing approximately three acres into four lots in the Rd 2 zone and an exemption to pro a public Street frontage to allow more than two lots be served by a private drive. That request was approved by the former Carmichael Wolfville Farms Community Planning Commission on March 1730 and established the existing lot configurations today. The image that you're seeing on the screen below is the previously approved parcel map.

So that is showing the existing configuration today with exception of the location of far access turnaround, which I will explain in a few sites. Along with that there was also a request for a special development to allow a seven ninety one square accessory dwelling unit or 80 you on the site that this would have been a two story 19 foot tall structure. On of 2022 that application was withdrawn by the applicant. Along with that there have been a total of five in the last five years have been a total of four code violations. All of them cited on this subject property.

The code violations were related to noncompliant pool fencing and poor retaining walls on the site. All code violations since then have been remedied and are all have been closed. On screen now, we have the tentative parcel map. Again, looking to divide 1.08 acres into two lots. Resultant is proposed to be 24,963 square feet and would retain the existing pool.

Results in Parcel B would be 21,372 square feet in size and would contain the existing single family home. Both of these proposed lots would meet the minimum 20,000 square foot law area requirements in the Rd 2 zoning District. Along with that, the is proposing to use the existing private drive to new result lots which could bring the total number of lots being accessed by this private road to five in total. That is the request that is being requested under the deviation that's been requested to the special development permit. Along with that, no trees have been proposed to be removed for this project and the applicant issuing conceptual building envelope on proposed to demonstrate that all setbacks can be met with that encroachment on existing trees on the site.

And that's dotted square in shown here. Lastly, I do want to note that a chapter three of the zoning states that accessory structures such as pools are not allowed to remain on a parcel as a primary use to address this. The project has been conditioned to the approval and construction of an ad you on proposed partial pay prior to the filing of the final map. Through this the ad you would become the primary residence once the map is recorded and filed and would prevent a noncompliant standalone accessory structure on that future parcel. This is former condition eight now condition 10 in your hearing packets of attachment to.

Alternatively the condition also allows for the owner to remove the pool rather than construct a to you and therefore either the nonconforming status no longer an issue. One thing I did want to point out about Far Access Road is we're seeing technically three fire access shown on this map. The first far access is shown in between proposed lots. A and B that is where the fire access was originally approved on the 2010 map that was approved a few years back. However, when it was constructed, it was constructed at the location of this blue turnaround here.

With this proposal, the applicant is looking to shift that driveway a bit further South and extend to be can in conformance a segment of fire standards. So you are seeing. Three different previously approved an existing proposed. The entitlements being requested for the site include a tentative parcel map to divide 1.08 acre parcel into two lots. A special development permit to deviate from public Street frontage to allow more than two lots be served by a private drive.

In this case could be served up to five lots and a design review to determine substantial compliance with design guidelines. In terms of advisory the Carmichael c pack or Community Planning Advisory Council May on 08/13/2025 and heard and considered this project during that meeting a total of seven members of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed project concerns raised include lack of communication from the owner to direct neighbors concerns that the fire access road is not meeting fire department standards, potential increase in traffic, concerns that the proper permitting has not been obtained by the applicant to construct near the Carmichael Creek, a lack of maintenance on the existing property creating possible fire risks, and dishonesty from the owner about the intent to split the property. In addition, CPAC members stated that based on the code violation history and the pictures that were provided to them at the time through public comments, It was their opinion that the property owner was not a responsible landlord and expressed concerns that the additional law owned and managed by the same property owner would exacerbate some of the existing issues brought forward by the public comments. Following and the deliberations, the pack voted for yes, one no, and two abstained to recommend at the time the subdivision review committee and zoning administrator denied the request entitlements.

In addition, the project was also reviewed by the design review advisory committee or DRAC. And this occurred on September 25. DRAC members stated that they did not see any issues with the proposed development given the lot sizing and layout are consistent with the surrounding area. And therefore at the time they recommended the zoning administrator and subdivision review committee find the project in substantial compliance with the signed up months. Following that the project was heard by the subdivision review committee and zoning administrator on 02/19/2026.

A total of six members of the public spoke in opposition to the item stating concerns with emergency access and location of the fire department turnaround, increased traffic narrow private drive and no parking along private drive for adjacent public streets. Following deliberation, the zoning administrator made the motion to approve the special development permit and also move staff recommendation on the tentative parcel map and design review following that motion. The SRC voted five. Yes, zero, no to approve the request entitlements. Staff the staff report for this hearing was included in your hearing packet to detachment seven, and a more more detailed summary of that hearing is also included in your staff reports for tonight's hearing.

Following the 01/19/2026 SRCZA hearing, an appeal was filed by the neighbors of the project site and submitted to the clerk of the boards on February February 27 of this year. The appellant statement included the four items listed on screen as their justification for the appeal. Staff has provided response to all justifications listed on screen, both in the staff report and in attachment nine of your hearing packets. However, for the sake of time, will be providing a very brief overview of the responses to each one of the statements and what the justifications were by appellant as well. So item number one, I read the proposed subdivision is unnecessary to solve the issue claimed by the applicant and the justification, the appellant states that the applicant's justification for pursuing the parcel map is to construct another going to accommodate their family.

The appeal justification notes that the subdivision appears aimed at maximizing properties development potential and profit opportunities rather than solving a family how a housing issue that they know could easily be addressed to construction of an 80 you on-site. Staff response to that particular item was that regardless of the intent to sell or develop for family use. This request is reviewed by as we do the same by planning and the county through a tentative parcel subject to review of the zoning code and other applicable ordinances. While the opponents may note that in a d u may be allowed by right, the subdivision map act also allows the applicant to request a lot spit slot split to a discretionary action. Item number two reads, conditional approval.

A valid declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions on the sworn's parcel. The applicants alleged that the existing declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, better known as CC and ours, state that all main dwellings on the subject parcel must meet the square footage requirements of 2,500 square feet for single story homes and 3,000 square feet for all two story homes. The appeal justification stated that the CC and Rs requirement would be in direct conflict with conditional approval, former number eight, now condition 10, in your attachment to packet. Staff's response was that staff does not review conditions within CCNRs and that they are not and that they are not applied to land use entitlements given that they are often outdated and superseded by state laws and other local ordinances. CC and R conditions are considered private privately enforceable civil matters.

Additionally, the appellant failed to know that condition 10, for more also provides the option for the property owner to remove the pool prior to recording the final map. In this scenario, like stated before, if the pool is removed, then there would be no requirement for an ad you and there would be no violation of ccnars in that case either. The third justification provided by the states that the existing remains agreement will be invalidated by the recording of the new subdivided parcels and the U. And has not proposed a replacement. Justification states that condition number 24 by side Metro Fire would require all property owners to enter into a new road maintenance agreement or an RMA.

However, it also states that the applicant has not had any pre prior discussions with the appellants in order to get a new RMA signed for that private road. Further, the appellant state that the event in the event that the applicant takes full responsibility for the maintenance of the road, they question whether the applicant can adequately maintain the road given the history of code violations on the applicant's site. Staff response is that planning has confirmed West Sac Metro Fire District that in the event that all neighbors cannot come to an agreement to sign a new RMA, one property owner can take full responsibility for the means of the fire turnaround. Related to concerns that the owner would not address maintenance issues, this is something that could be reported through 311 or reported directly to Sac Metro Fire to get corrected. Additional conflicts from that would then be escalated into civil matters.

It is important to note that SAC Metro Fire will not permit the issuance of a building permit for a residence or other structures until a new RMA is recorded. Until a new RMA is accepted, SAGMETROFIRE will use the existing RMA to remain in place for the site. So in the event that this map is never recorded, the existing RMA would still remain active on the site. The last justification, the applicant notes all previously raised objections remain unresolved and continue to require denial of the subdivision application. The final justification provided by the applicants are the appellants states that the applicant does not have the unilateral authority to structurally alter the current RMA, and the CCNRs do not allow the applicant to relocate the Acid Belt turnaround and private access easement.

In addition, the justification also contained multiple letters and previously issued public comments stating that they were not addressed directly by staff. In response, staff mentions that even in the event the county grants the applicants requested entitlements, this would not necessarily constitute a grant of unilateral authority to alter an RMA or the CCNR. The RMA and CCNR, as mentioned, are privately enforceable civil agreements that may or may not preclude development activity that would otherwise be allowed under the county zoning code and other local, ordinances. In addition, planning is required to notify property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the site and ask for community feedback in the form of public comments. It is expected that the neighbors to the project site work with the applicant to discuss any civil issues that may come up.

Additionally, the various review agencies that require specific easements are also contacted by planning to review the proposal and to provide conditions of approval. So certain conditions already address some of these concerns, such as the RMA and the CCNRs. Condition 24 requires a new RMA be established and filed with Sac Metro Fire District. Condition 12 by site improvements and permitting section requires proof of ingress and egress over the two northern limos parcels. So these two conditions are an example of how there are conditions in place to ensure that new resultant changes to the site are addressed.

Lastly, direct responses have been provided to the remaining public comments as requested by the justification. There are quite a number of them, but these were provided in your hearing packets as attachment nine. For for project analysis, following staff's review of the proposal, it was determined that the product is consistent with the general plan, the community plan, and Carmichael Community Plan and actual plan, The Carmichael Creek mpa and the zoning code. The product is compatible with surrounding land uses and would create additional housing opportunity. There were no significant environmental concerns given the notice of exemption that was prepared under sequel and the project was also supported by track.

Additionally, I wanted to bring note to the three key conditions identified before. Condition 10, former condition eight, which is a condition by planning requiring an ADU be constructed prior to following a final map or the pool being removed. Condition 12 requiring a proof of ingress egress over the two northernly parcels condition 24 requiring a new road mains agreement to be filed with Sacramento Fire District. Planning environmental review staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals take the following actions. Deny the appeal, maintaining the subdivision review committee and zoning administrator's approval of the proposed project.

Recognize that the product is exempt under CEQA pursuant to CEQA section fifteen three one five and public resources code section two one zero eight four. Approve the tentative subdivision map and special development permit under subject to findings and conditions and find the project in substantial compliance also subject to those findings and conditions. With that, I'll conclude my presentation. I am available to answer any questions. As noted, we do have the applicant team and the appellant president in person. Lastly given the number of comments received at various hearings related to fire access and turnaround. We do also have supervising inspector Christian gunya with second Metro fire district who is also here in person available to answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister Boltsoar. Do we have any questions from fellow commissioners to the staff at this time? Commissioner Berger?

Not at this time, no.

Okay. Vice Chair Dublin.

Thank you. Can you put up the, the map, tentative map again? Yeah. Thank you. Is it possible to get that on the screen?

Can you we're talking about a lot of roadways and access. Can you maybe walk me through the ingress, egress for each of the five lots that are that would potentially use this road?

Yes. So Sutter Avenue is the northernmost point. Just for reference. And then we have two parcels. This one closest to Sutter is currently vacant undeveloped.

Second parcel does contain a single family home. All parcels would have ingress egress from this Private Road directly office center is a 20 foot wide road that existing are currently the second parcel in. The entirety subject parcel for this project and one final parcel and the in here. So the requested the request is to serve up to potentially five, assuming that, but there's potential that this bacon lot could be served by that drive. And then if approved, adding an additional result in lot from here.

So say if you could literally just kind of count them out because one, two, three, four, is the fifth one off further off to the right.

Yes, so the fifth one is going to this parcel here and then extends South

And that's existing?

That's existing, correct. If we go back to the original map, here you have the original format for lots. So vacant lot, single family home, this bigger lot is the subject projects part parcel, and then this is a Lot 4 that is also being served existing.

Alright. Thank you. And related to the RMAs, you know, this certainly is not the first time we've done one of these. Could you just kind of talk about, like, the mechanisms of enforcement? I mean, what do we do when road falls into disrepair and, you know, fire departments like, hey, this thing needs to be fixed?

Yeah. Typically, they're handled through three one one complaints or directly through SAC Metro Fire. In terms of the specifics of how they're addressed, I'll hand it over to supervisor inspector Gunya.

Christian Gallen with Metro Fire. So usually, we go on-site and we see who's responsible to maintain the road and we'll cite all responsible parties. And if we can actually, we discuss and we explain them that it's not only that we like to have that road fixed, it's a life safety issue and want to make sure that they understand that us getting to them in time is value for them all, not only for their neighbors. So that's what will start. And we have steps on going up.

First, we just issue like correction notice. We give them thirty days. We go back. We give them more, and we just keep going up to on the on the enforcement.

And and then in the event that the responsible part responsible party is simply just reluctant to to take action. I mean, I guess it how and at what point how, I guess, is maybe the more important question. Is the road ultimately repaired? I mean, is is is the county gonna come out and make the repair an issue a bill or a lien

on

the property or does the road lane disrepair until the homeowner or responsible party kind of acquiesces to to make it the fix?

My assumption is that I do not I never been in the position that we actually have to force, like, repair the the road, the county repair the road and put a lien on the properties. We never been in that position. So that's my assumption what happened.

Okay. I think that's all the questions I have at the moment.

Thank you. Commissioner Virgo?

I have any questions. Not at this point.

Thank you. Mister Boltussar, just a quick question here. You know, I understand that the RMA and the CCR per staff report is recognized as a civil matter and not something that is enforceable by the county. But on that staff report also, we we we noticed that the fire department will not be issuing a new permit until a new RMA might potentially be completed. And so in a sense, it's even though it is a civil matter, it's a condition of potential approval with which we're using kind of the force of law that we have as a county, right, or at least a special district for the fire.

Can you talk to me about, like, what could potentially be that scenario? I mean, they don't have an RMA. Fire department's not gonna have a permit.

Yes. The

project is stuck in limbo of not having a permit?

Right. So in the event that well, there is this avenue where if an RMA can't be signed by all owners or parcels that are being served by that private road, SAG Metro Fire does have the ability to record a with just one single owner. Right? So from my understanding, that is something that remains tied to the property itself, irrespective of who owns it. So if that property is sold, the new buyer would need to know that they would be solely responsible for maintaining that road.

Right? In in this case, the applicant will have one of two options really in order to fulfill that condition. Either can agree with all of their neighbors to have them all sign and all be responsible for maintenance of the road no signatures and notarization of the agreement. That condition can be fulfilled alternatively if they can't reach that agreement, the owner can choose to sign it themselves to be fully responsible for that. And that condition will be fulfilled by that same manner as well. So, either of those two options which we fill the condition which would then allow a building permit to be issued for the site.

Understood.

Can I add to that?

Council Burke, listen.

A little bit. That's okay. So you asked about you know where does the public enforcement end in the private enforcement begin the map condition require right now as condition 23 is written it requires a maintenance agreement, road maintenance agreement between all the people that are going to use that private road. So, in the best and happiest of circumstances, everybody signs on to that. The applicant shows before the final map approval that everyone has signed on and they're going to share responsibility for that.

If that doesn't happen, then, there's gotta be the second option because right now, as that condition is written, it requires the other adjacent property owners to sign on. So, he's not going to be, the applicant, sorry, she, he, is not gonna be able to fulfill that condition if they can't get the other property owners to sign it. So, that's option number two. You gotta move to option number two which is requiring the subdivider to have sole responsibility to maintain the fire access. As I read the condition, that means the whole fire access up and down from Sutter.

So, your question was, where does the county enforcement end? It ends when we approve the final map and we're looking for either that that maintenance agreement signed by all the property owners or a recorded declaration of covenants signed by the subdivider that says they're going to take sole responsibility for maintenance and I'm hoping, I mean, I I guess you have to ask Metro Fire if they will enforce that, if they will agree to enforce that. Like, someone's gotta enforce it if it's not complied with. So, we gotta find out if Metro Fire is okay enforcing that. It sounds like they don't have a lot of, there haven't been a lot of occurrences where it's gone that far.

But anyway, after one of those two things happens, one of those two versions of the agreement, then it becomes, you know, it becomes certainly a privately enforceable agreement if it's all the owners together. If it's just a subdivider with a single recorded declaration of covenants enforceable by Metro Fire, then Metro Fire would be the enforcing entity. I'm not I don't want to speak for you guys if if if you don't want that responsibility or you don't do that, then, you know, you can let the commission know, but someone needs to enforce. That that declaration of covenants needs to be enforceable by somebody.

Thank thank you, council Berg. Mister Gurnia, I'm I'm sorry to put you in the spot, sir, but if it's okay with you, is that is that something that you can publicly opine right now? Is that something that you you can provide us with your thoughts? Or or as a representative of the fire department, is that a responsibility that your special district is willing to to take on?

Well, we will enforce that if needed to be enforced. Now, ideally, will be we just make an addendum to the existing RMA and add one more parcel to that. That will be ideally done. Now I do not know all the technicality, the legal possible, if that is possible or not. So now we're in the in the position that some of the people who actually they is their property, is access to their property, and if they leave away the part, I don't want to maintain the road for the fire department to respond to me to either medical call or a fire, that's that's their option.

We cannot force them to do that. But the moment we have something recorded saying this is the responsible party to maintain this road, we'll enforce that with that with that responsible party.

And and that is the entire fire access all the way from Sutter to the fifth parcel

Yeah. To the in this map. It it's like, normally, we cannot enforce this parcel to maintain the road which is passed, like, south of his property to the property like to the very last lot is that part is like this person does not use that lot is doesn't have anything to do it with this. It's like we enforcing him to maintain the road, which is on the other parcel, which he's does he doesn't have any access. I don't see it because normally, the fire access road for his ends of at his properties from the south end of this property to southern.

Okay. Certainly. Certainly conundrum there. Okay. Thank thank you for that, mister mister Berg. I think I I think that's the rest of my questions for now. I'd like to, give an opportunity for all of the for for the applicant as well as the appellants to address the commission and any other public comments that we might have. Miss Bashears.

So, we did receive five public comments. Do you want to hear from the applicant?

Yes. Yeah. Councilman Councilman Burke, what what what is the point of order here? Do we allow the applicant to?

Right, we're having. So, this is a de novo hearing which means we're doing it, we're treating it procedurally as new. We're starting over. So we're gonna have the applicant present, and then public comment will be when the appellant or appellants speak.

Understood. Okay. With that in mind, I would like to invite the applicant if they may choose to address the commission.

Gentlemen, my name is James Cacritas. Working with missus Swarren, which is the applicant actual act applicant and owner of the property. I have seen the comments that the appellants are doing. Somehow, they do not want to see somebody else living in the same area. Missus Warren bought the property on the basis that because the zoning allow to split the lot and allocate the other lot to her daughter.

So she can live there too. One item that came up that says that road maintenance agreement definitely the appeal is they're not going to sign it. So we probably have to force it if the project approved to go to court. Or it can be a condition that the new lot will be approving and and maintain the road according to what is the existing RMA is recorded, which says all the landowners should maintain the road. This is going on for a long time and these two neighbors, they just don't want to see somebody else there.

The neighbor towards the Sutter Avenue is one acre lot with two parcels. The first parcel is facing Sutter Avenue. Really, does not have to rely on the side road. The last owner has his own one acre lot. The zoning allows the lot to be split in two.

That's what missus Swana did and that's what she wants to be done. It has been approved by the five five members unanimously last time. And the appellants just don't wanna see nothing there. They're always gonna find some excuse to create problems. And as they do the last four years that Mrs.

Rowan owns the property. Our recommendation is our will is to have this lot split and approve them up. And we can get any conditions that can be put in. As far as the turnaround, yes, it was originally done separately when the map was originally recorded by the owner. But he did it that way.

And when we bought it, the lot was like this, with that turnaround in that area. And the fire department said, as long it complies with the standard of the fire fire turnaround, it's fine, the location. Now, the RMA, yes, there's gonna be a problem. You think these owners would like to sign a new one? They will bring all kind of rejection.

So, either we have to sue them, go to court for it, or can be a condition that the new lot will automatically be included on the already RMA sign or some kind of a conditional legal legal way there. That's what we have to say. And somehow, that Carmichael used to be a very rural area. Not anymore. A lot of people always live there. That's why the zoning has changed. So you cannot deprive somebody because they don't like the person or they don't like the area there to be split it in another one more lot. We definitely asking for this to be approved. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any, I think that is the conclusion of the applicant's statement. I believe we are now taking public comments.

Yes, we have received five public comments and the first public commenter is Isaac Joburg.

Don't feel like you have to limit them to three minutes.

Good evening. I just had a

quick question. Actually, have am I speaking as the appellant or a public commenter? Because I'm actually the appellant as well. Both. Okay. And then do I have a three minute limit or okay. Thank you. Good evening, chairman and

board member. For the record, that was a no. Right?

Yes. That's correct. We're not time timing you, sir, but

Thank you, councilor.

My name is Isaac Jerger and I'm here on behalf of my family and the Bradley family who collectively own the neighboring three parcels on the existing private lane. This approval was granted with ambiguous conditions that are not enforceable and create more problems than they resolve. Approvals must follow a clear, enforceable, and legally consistent process. We respectfully submit that this approval did not meet the standard and should be reversed and modified or modified to provide a clarity for both the developer and the impacted community. Our written appeal packet identifies several additional procedural and substantive errors, and we hope the board will review those concerns as part of the full record.

Tonight, however, I'll focus on a few that independently each justify reversal modification. And those failures are the, first, the unclear directive regarding the road maintenance agreement that you were just discussing. Second, the approvals and proper treatment of this is a four lot roadway rather than a five lot roadway for fire safety purposes. Third, the failure to meaningfully apply the Carmelco Creek neighborhood preservation standards. And fourth, the lack of any construction parking or staging safeguards necessary to preserve emergency access during development.

And based on any of these issues, the board should deny the project as approved or amended with corrected clarified conditions. So the first condition 24, which you were discussing, I think Christian said multiple times that it requires a new RMA. And first and foremost, our our condition is that we would like that specified that a new RMA is. We've heard that from staff members from from Christian just now dozens of times. It doesn't actually, if you read the conditions, specify that, and that's one of the issues we have with the condition.

You know, as stated, may sound sufficient on paper, but as we said, everyone stating that a new army will be required because the road will be substantially altered and there there's higher density easements changed, etcetera except for that the the condition doesn't explicitly state that and it's just going to cause The second part of that is when we asked the applicant how she intends to deal with that. To have a discussion about what the new road easement or what what the new road maintenance agreement could look like. Her response was that she just intended to file the new one or sorry that she intended to file the existing one without any discussion about what a new road maintenance agreement should be for the five resulting parcels and the changes to the road. And that's that's the problem before the board. The existing agreement governs a different roadway alignment, a different parcel structure, different maintenance options than this subdivision would create.

We we raised those issues during the original hearing, yet staff left the condition unchanged. That leaves condition 24 vague enough to allow compliance through a document everyone understands to be obsolete. That is not an enforceable condition. It's an administrative loophole that will result in likely result in conflict and litigation between neighboring owners. If this project proceeds, condition 24 must explicitly require a newly drafted, negotiated, ratified, or recorded road maintenance agreement executed by all affected parcel owners and reflecting the final roadway design and obligations.

This sport should not approve a solution whose legal structure depends on everyone pretending an obsolete agreement remains valid. The second issue is that the approval relies on a legal fiction about lot one that that conflicts with operational reality. You heard Christian say that the private drives serves five lots and it does serve five lots. There's no access on Sutter. There's a there's a lot of vegetation. There's a culvert. There's no roadway access. As the owner of the lot, we don't intend to put any driveway or anything in. In fact, we intend to build a fence along that that roadway. And so there will be no access from Sutter Avenue.

No planned access. There is access as was shown from the private drive. We've had this discussion with the fire department. The fire department has said in all practical reality well, I'm sorry, in all operational reality, if they're responding to emergency on Lot 1, they're going to use a private drive. And yet, somehow, the the requirements for a four lot subdivision and five lot subdivision vary.

The road requirements, the safety standards vary in terms of what's required. They keep going reverting back to the four lot requirements for the fire safety standards, and our contention is that we should have the five lot standards met. So if the if a the bulb cul de sac or some other improvements need to be placed on the roadway in order to provide the proper fire access for five lots, that that should be done. And the board should not approve a subdivision whose practical safety assumptions and legal accounting assumptions directly contradict contradict one another. Third, the approval findings not meaningfully apply to Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation standards.

I think there was a slide up there that said the standards were met. I think the discussion that we've heard to this point basically just relies on an analysis of the minimum lot size compliance that it's zoned that way. But the Carmichael Creek Association dimensional compliance is not the same thing as a firm affirmative consistency with adopted neighborhood preservation standards. And we haven't heard anything in this whole process, previous hearings that indicate that any standard beyond just the minimum lot dimensions were required or reviewed. And a parcel can satisfy the minimum water requirements that still undermine the development pattern.

Those standards were adopted to protect. This is one of the reasons the CPAC, Carmichael CPAC reviewed the project, considered these concerns and recommended denial. Fourth, if this project proceeds, construction access must be addressed through a certified parking and staging plan. This is a practical safety issue and current approval does not address this. The applicant has already constructed fencing along the front of the property. There's no available staging area along the lot frontage. There's no parking available on certain Avenue. There's no parking on our shared private roadway and our shared private roadway is too narrow to accommodate contractor partner equipment staging. It's also a fire lane. We have already experienced problems with legally parked vehicles along this roadway and during active construction, even one improperly staged contractor vehicle could obstruct emergency access for fire or medical response.

If the project proceeds, the approval should require a certified construction parking and staging plan approved before any site work begins demonstrating that all contractor vehicles, equipment, construction activity will be fully contained on-site without obstructing the private roadway for emergency access at any time. This is simply a reasonable safeguard for residents and emergency responders alike. So, again, we strictly request one of two outcomes. Our preferred outcomes denial without prejudice, allowing the applicant to return with corrected documentation and legally sufficient findings. Alternatively, if the board is inclined to allow the project proceed, we ask that approval be modified to require a newly executed and dated road maintenance agreements, fully ratified by all affected parcels.

As I stated again, condition 24 that was referred to doesn't actually say new even though everybody keeps referring to it as requiring a new rodent maintenance agreement. Written clarification of fire access compliance and protection against fire future burden shifting onto existing personal owners. So that discussion of four versus five lots, this came from the last hearing. We own that parcel of Lot 1. And what we're asking is that, one, we feel that the the first department should be counted as serving five parcels for for fire.

What we don't want to see happen is accounted for for this development. And then when a development when a permit is pulled for Lot 1, that somehow there are additional conditions or obligations placed as the fifth develops potentially developed house on that lot. Right? So we think that should be clarified. A certified construction parking and staging plan approved before any site work begins and explicit findings addressing consistency with the Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation standards. The board should not approve a subdivision whose legal structure depends on everyone pretending an obsolete agreement remains valid and functioning functionally served parcels that not does not count as served. For those reasons, we strictly ask that you grant this appeal. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, mister Can you

have him hold up a sec? Can I ask the speaker a question just for clarification? Please. Are speaking on behalf of the appellant? Yes. Okay. Do we have any other speakers on behalf of the appellant? We do. Okay. A couple.

Mary Bradley from the Bradley family.

Okay. And you you're speaking the appellant owns the first lot? The We filed

the appeal together with owners of Lot 12, And 4. Okay. So all three of the other existing parcels.

Thank you for that. And we're going to invite

Can I?

Sorry, sir. Just point of order. Mister inspector, sir, I'm not too sure for I think you can, you can save your comment after we've had, the the rest of the appellant speak, and then I think that would be the proper

Yeah. We'll discuss all of this after the public comment portion and after the, rebuttal from the applicant.

Thank you. Thank you. You're mister Arnie. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. We'd like to invite the the rest of the public speakers for the appellants.

The next one I have is Lindsey. And then following that, I have Mary as well as Garth and James.

I guarantee you that Vice Devlin will be back, but you do have Commissioner Virgow who's watching us right now.

Hi.

Hello.

I'm Lindsay Jerker. I live Lot 2 and we also own Lot 1. I just wanted to quickly state that at the last meeting, Christian with the fire department had stated at the exact, at one hour and eight minute mark of the meeting that if there was no access to Lot 1 via Sutter Avenue, that a new wider road would be required and that a turnaround at the end of the road or a wider, specifically, I think he meant a wider hammerhead turnaround would have to be installed. And so as the owner of Lot 1, we plan to put a fence, a seven foot fence along Sutter with access to the lot via the private drive. And I just want to make sure that when that happens, we don't have any extra requirements or encumbrances on Lot 1 when we go to pull a building permit that we don't have to put an extra gate in for the fence or any extra access via Sutter because of this extra development being going in.

So that's it for me.

Thank you.

Mary Bradley.

Good evening. Frankly, it was no offense, but it was brought to my attention that the Planning Commission does not want to hear from frustrated neighbors. But I believe it is the purpose of the public hearings to do so, to not take into consideration the impact on our neighborhood where there is a shared private drive, a community that is protected by CCNRs and protected by the nature preserve area that was established and recorded by the county in 1986, to me is kind of a dereliction of duty. The applicant has requested a special development variance that was voted against by the CPAC and voted for by the Planning Board. A special development variance is a request.

It's not a right. All input through the community should be considered. There have been multiple letters, numerous petitions filed against the lot split. Denying this request is not keeping the applicant from building a second house and is not our intent to keep her from building it. It is unnecessary to subdivide the property to do that.

The R2 allows the applicant to build another home. But what the subdivision of this will do is provide more infill. The last meeting that we had, we were told that basically each property could have, up to three ADUs. Well, if you add all of these lots, five lots, that's 15 ADUs that could potentially be put on these lots. That's in direct conflict with keeping with our NPA.

Whenever we, I guess, look at having a potential lot split, I think we need to consider not just what's going to be happening now, but what can happen in the future. And this would totally destroy our rural atmosphere. And we, as I said, it, ignores what our NPA is. This also affects the residents living on the private road as a county fire department is not accounting for the current and future increased traffic and parking needs and the fact that as members of this community, we have voting rights under our CCNRs. County fires claim there will be no impact on traffic or parking.

As residents, we wholeheartedly disagree with this assessment as we've already had multiple issues with the applicant in regard to ingress and egress to our property and the ability for contractors to park along designated parking on the easement. The applicant herself screams daily at delivery trucks yet allows her contractors to park in the fire turnaround, blocking our ability to use our only way to turn around for ingress and egress. If this is such a consternation for her now, why would it be okay to leave the road at 20 feet wide? This will only increase the traffic, cause further problems along this private road, and further dis disintegration of an already tenuous situation. When I've called the county for clarification of fire lane codes, I've been told many things.

I've been told that, fire turnaround was measured from the back of the house. Then I was told it was measured from the front of the house, and the last time we were told it was measured from the property line. County Fire has been all over the board with requirement definitions, but what is published is that the current, that the private road that is to serve five lots must either increase the width of the road to 30 feet from the current 20 or must put in an 80 foot bulb turnaround. This special development permit specifically states that the existing drive will serve five lots. Five lots is five lots.

It shouldn't be four lots for fire and, five for police. It it should be just five lots. So the county should adhere to their own laws or get a consensus from the residents on the private road to change it. It is not enough to say that fire can access the front lot from Sutter, but would still most likely use the private drive or bust down the Sutter facing fence. No matter how you look at it, you're still serving five lots, whether it be county fire, police, or other services.

It should not matter whether fire department has done this in other areas. It's not sufficient nor fair to the current residents on this private road. Again, we as a community are not keeping the applicant from building her second permitted house for her daughter as she states. We are against the subdivision, which is not a requirement to do so. Again, if this special variance is not approved, it does not impede the applicant from building a house for her daughter or infringe on her rights as a homeowner. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Garth Lacy.

Good evening, chair, commissioners. Gareth Lacey. I'm the president of the Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Association and we represent approximately a thousand households in a semi rural part of Carmichael. It's a very special area of Carmichael. The Board of Supervisors adopted unique protections in this area. It is rural. It has a neighborhood preservation area, and it's an ordinance that requires the unique protection of that special resource. That special resource includes mature oak groves. This parcel butts up against a two acre parcel of a mature oak tree grove that's protected. Extreme fire risk in this area.

It butts up and touches Carmichael Creek. This is a waterway that needs environmental protections. The neighborhood preservation ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors requires the protection of open space, large trees, natural creeks, rolling terrain. These are the most significant natural resource areas in Carmichael. And as the ordinance says, it is of the greatest importance to ensure the continuation of this type of open space in Carmichael.

Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Association is not opposed to development or construction but we insist that construction is consistent with the ordinance, consistent with the protection of semi rural character. The staff report and the applicant did nothing other than say this project is consistent with the ordinance. That's a conclusory and cursory statement. There's no analysis in the record about how. The neighborhood ordinance was was adopted to protect those characters and to restrict development that's not consistent with the preservation of the semi rural character.

So I would recommend if you consider remanding, ask the applicant and the and the staff to analyze this. At least a five paragraph essay explaining how the split is consistent with the semi rural character in the ordinance. The under Sacramento County zoning code section six point four six point eight, a special development permit may only be granted upon written findings that the development will carry out the community plan which is incorporated in this ordinance. And I quoted sections from that plan. The staff report concludes it's consistent with the the MPA, but it just relies on minimum lot size.

That is insufficient analysis. This is not just a simple lot split. It's a it is a is a Trojan horse. And the complexity and confusion that you're seeing is because nothing is as clear as it as it appears. Once the splits, it's gonna create a cascading effect of more confusion, litigation, problems with the fire department, problems with the neighbors, problems with the roads department. Then there's a reason that that's happened. Discretionary, this is a private road. So in in Sacramento County, if there's a private road, it can only serve two houses. That's the standard. So this is a special permit that was already allowed three.

Now we're up to five. So I would echo the concerns of the neighbors that you should remand this or make clear that a new rodent maintenance agreement is required, that this will serve five houses, and the requirements of that should be met, including the properly widened road and the correct bulb turnaround for fire safety. We do not want that two acre oak grove to burn down and the fire department can't get in there because there's problems. So please remand it. Make clear it's a new RMA.

It it it must it must be widened to accommodate the five houses. And I I would I would also reserve our right to continue to to make any sequel related arguments. Any questions from you, but I I really appreciate your opportunity here. The time you're taking to review this and consider it carefully, but it is not just a simple lot split. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, mister Mason.

And our last public commenter is James Kay.

We hear all these appellants complaining about everything. But they don't want nothing get back. Sorry, mister mister Kane.

My apologies. I thought you were a public commenter. So, that was the last of our public commenters.

Okay. Just four?

That was correct. Yes.

Okay. So, we've received four public comments, sir and now you have the opportunity to provide us the applicant.

Missus Bradley, which lives to the left of S. Warren's missus Warren's property, She bought the property a year after missus Warren bought the property. Immediately, she sued missus Warren that she has the right to drive through her property, the middle of the property to go to her property. There was no easement recorded, no written agreement, no escrow instructions when she boarded that somebody can drive through. In that case, whenever they bought the property.

And for three years, they had missus Soren in court for that reason. The Bradley's, they have one family home originally. They have split it in such a way that they Airbnb the other half. So, they're creating more traffic themselves than another house over there. And, they're still constantly arguing with Mrs. Eswaran. So somehow, they don't like Mrs. Suarez in the area. They don't want her to do anything. They're fighting every way they can.

I don't think so that's right. And this property has to be approved because the county has already approved it. Thank you very much.

I think that concludes both the applicant's presentation, the public comments, as well as the opportunity for rebuttal by the applicant. I'd like to now entertain questions from the rest of the fellow commissioners.

Thank you. I'm hoping we can maybe get some additional clarity on this four versus five lot standard. Are we are we is there what is the what is the four lot standard? What is the five lot standard? And are we

I'll be able to answer that.

Thank you.

So the California fire code section five zero three point one says when you have a building or newer existing building, we we need to have a fire access to that building. Then the same law in, five zero three point two, it says the dimensional fire road is minimum 20 feet. We have a standard because the code says it has to be an approved fire road. We have a standard. Our standard number three, we stipulate that for up to four lots, the road can be 16 feet wide, and the turnaround is smaller.

It's only 20 feet wide and 40 feet when you have a T. The arm of the T is only 40 feet. If we have more than four lots, the road has to be 20 feet, which it is, and the turnaround needs to be 30 feet wide and the arm has to go to 60 feet, so it's not anymore 40 feet. That's the difference. That's the biggest difference between serving four lots or more than four lots.

Five or 39 lots, the law is the same. Now when you go to fifth the fortieth lot, you need to have two points of connection. In case something happens, the road is incapacitated, we need to somehow get to that community. But that's the difference between four and five, is actually in this situation is a turnaround. The turnaround needs to be a little bit wider and that arm, the leg of the T has to be longer. That's the only difference.

Okay. And and the proposal is for and the proposal is for what would be functionally possibly serving up to 39 That is correct. Lots. Okay.

With the modification of that turnaround. Correct. The road the weight of the road is correct. However, the because of the road is 20 feet wide, no parking is allowed on the road Correct. To provide two directions of traffic.

Mister mister Guianni, thank thank you so much. It's quite a quite a conundrum there because you're saying that the there would not be any parking but if a construction was to happen, you would have to have a staging which then would have a parking, Right? Because you're gonna be constructing things. So does that mean that

Normally, the staging will have to have will have to be on the property, not in the street. We do not allow blocking streets just because you need more space. It's a life safety issue, and we cannot allow that. This let's say, exactly in this situation, now we're blocking access to an existing house on that property and the the next property. Allowing that, somebody can die so we cannot allow that.

Director Smith, is that the reason why we do not have a staging plan? I I just feel like there's a little bit of a disconnect there. We can't park but then we would require a staging plan or at least the appellants are bringing that up

against I can't the speak as to why we didn't require one but I'm as part of a building and or improvement plan review, staff would identify the potential need for something like that as part of those processes that are subsequent to this threshold action of whether the county will approve or not approve this tenant map and final map.

Okay. But we we is that a true statement then that we don't have a staging plan considered as part

of the

conditions? Miss Gutierrez or mister Balcasar?

Construction staging plans aren't necessarily required for a single family home. Like, we don't that's not something that's part of our application checklist. It's not something that we include as part of the requirement and if they're gonna do the construction staging area, it as Christian was saying, it would be within the project site. So, it wouldn't be within the roadway. They would need to provide an area outside of the roadway.

Okay. Is that is

that standard

even if we were to consider the number of ADUs that would be possible at each and every single one of the lots?

Correct. We do not at this at the tentative map stage, we do not require staging areas for, I mean, we haven't had that on any of our tentative subdivision maps that have come through. That's not something that we look at.

Okay. Thank you.

Mister chairman. Mister Virgo. So I I'd like to try to get some clarification. We're talking about an attended map and a subdivision of a property, not an actual building of a home that requires permits and all the rest. And my limited experience is you have the part of the map approved, and then you go forward to get permits and all the rest, which require you to be able to go to the planning department and say, this is what we're doing.

This is how we're doing this. And it's consistent with the split. So I think we're talking two different things. We don't ask people for a plot site for lay down areas when we talk about doing maps? It's usually that kind of question comes along the line when you start talking about building. That's my understanding.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Berger. With with that in mind, do you have any other questions for the staff? I I was I neglected to to ask you first.

No. That's fine. I'm in terms of you asking me first, that's that's okay. My only question would be I'd like to have the staff somewhat address what, the original petitioner who I mean, appellate who just stood up earlier, the gentleman who talked about all the different areas, how his interpretation of the city's or excuse me, the county's review of this doesn't comply with what the county staff are saying it complies with, like the RMA, you know, that whole area that, you know, they're saying, We didn't do our due diligence to make sure it applied. From what I've read, and again, I'm not a planner, but I've it sounded like we went through all those things and, considered those issues.

But the way it was presented, it didn't sound like the, a petitioner I mean, the plaintiff was saying it was something we've done. So is it possible to have staff to come up and kinda clarify a little bit that for us?

I think that's more than possible. Is that something? Sorry. We're hearing we're just hearing a little bit of a have a feedback here, commissioner Faraga.

Sorry.

No. No. Not Yeah. No. Not not not you at all. I think there's just a I think there's another hearing outside of this room. Oh. Director Smith

my request that staff would kinda clarify those original issues being brought up from the original person.

I I concur with commissioner Virgo. Director Smith or miss Gutierrez or Yes. Chair Balthasar.

Commissioner Virgo, can you clarify specifically what, areas you would like clarification on? Is it the neighborhood preservation area ordinance?

That was well, one was the neighborhood present, area preservation. Mhmm. One was the, you know, the lack of a new RMA. And then there was one other one that kind of stuck out that it sounded like we were exact opposite in terms of what we thought versus what the individual was saying they thought. It was in the original presentation. It it was part of those five or four conditions that, was talked about.

Yeah. I can, I'll kick us off and start with the neighborhood preservation area. So I do have a copy pulled up. It is on our new land use regulation library. So the purpose I will state that there are six sections provided for this neighborhood preservation area.

The purpose is to preserve and protect the unique semi rural residential character of the neighborhood described in exhibit a which provides the boundaries and to further the purposes of the Carmichael community plan. Section the one of the sections is permitted uses and development standards. Both of which defer back to the zoning code. So they're not there are no specific or unique development standards or use regulations provided in this neighborhood preservation area. The development standards section specifically says the uses conditions and development standards applicable to the underlying zone shall be applicable to the property described in exhibit a.

What we have to go off of this to the purpose which is to preserve and protect the unique semi rule residential character of the neighborhood and this particular lot split is compliant with all of the lot standards of the underlining zoning district. So, that is why we are saying that it is compliant with the NPA, with the neighborhood preservation area. Go ahead.

One thing to add to that, there is a clause in the NPA that says, let me find it real quick. It's under subsection five three four dash 15, the findings, and it says, It is in the best interest of the residents of the area described in exhibit A, which is the area and the county of Sacramento that the semi rural residential character of the existing neighborhoods be preserved, protected, and maintained by restricting development not consistent with existing zoning designations. And so this property and the staff report points this out. This this property is zoned RD 2. The lot split that's proposed is consistent with that zoning.

It is not inconsistent with the zoning. So as miss Gutierrez pointed out, we were looking at both the section, the original intent up in the heading and then this sentence in five three four dash 15 looking at whether this proposal of the tentative map was either consistent or inconsistent with the RD two zoning and the applicable development standards.

I just want to make sure I understand. So we're saying it that sounds like a pretty general statement. But what we're saying is that this new lot map is not going to be outside of what's currently existing in that area. Is that my restating that correctly? Hello? Did I come through? I'm not sure.

He came through. I think director Smith is just about to say something.

I think the proposal the proposed map is consistent with the zoning though for example the lot sizes the dimensions meet the standards. Obviously adding one on a new lot would be a change in the circumstance that the neighborhood is used to, for sure. So it's not no change.

Okay. Well, I just wanna make sure I knew exactly in my mind what we were talking about. The other question is the RMA. The original appellant said that there should be required a new RMA, and that everybody seems to be acting like we're requiring a new RMA, but we're not requiring a new RMA. Can we get some clarification on that?

Yeah. Good afternoon. Christian Balthasar, associate planner. I just wanted to note that the opponent correctly noted that condition 24 does require a fire road maintenance agreement between all parcels connected and served by the fire access roadway. I am in conference with SAG Metro Fire.

We have had correspondence back and forth that they did confirm that it is a new road mains agreement that will be required even though it is not explicitly stated in that condition. We do have Inspector Gunia here. He has confirmed that if a change needs to be made to explicitly read a new fire road maintenance agreement is required, that is something that Sacramento Fire would be comfortable with and we can have them confirm that as well.

Okay. So, basically, we are saying there is a new requirement. We just didn't spell it out that clearly.

That's correct.

K. I'm failing having a senior moment, so I can't remember the third issue that was brought forward. But I'll defer back to the other commissioners for any other questions, obviously.

Thank you, Commissioner Virga. Commissioner Doveman, do have any comments or questions?

Well, just a few of them, unless you're

A few of them. Yes.

So just a point of clarification, from my understanding anyway. There is an ability, excuse me. There is an ability currently to build the second home on the lot. Correct?

They can build an ADU, an accessory dwelling unit. Yes.

Okay.

And

Go ahead, put us.

Through SB nine.

To I'm sorry.

Nine. SB nine, Senate Bill nine also allows a second primary dwelling unit as well.

Okay. Yes.

So Grant, sorry. Just to interrupt you, but SB nine also says on the guidelines granted that that second ADU kind of lack of better term meet the requirements in the neighborhood so that it it it's it again kind of goes through with the standards right so if it's an inappropriate size of an ADU we wouldn't be able to permit that or if it's an out of place or sizing, things like that. I mean, doesn't just give you by right saying, I'm not just gonna build an ADU that is not consistent with the rest of the applicable laws in the local ordinance.

Correct. The we do have specific ADU provisions in our code that it would need to meet. Yeah.

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

That's a

good point. Thank you, Director Smith. Sorry, I

didn't

try No, to thank you for clarification. Back to the RMA. So the addition of a fifth lot to this RMA and this maybe question for council. That does and would invalidate the existing agreement triggering a

I don't know that that it does that. That's the testimony.

Okay. Yeah. Potentially trigger potentially triggering a new management agreement. And so guess if I'm understanding this correctly under SB nine, the addition of a second home dwelling unit potentially by Wright. This is more of a question of the subdivision and then where the burden lay of the roadway management agreement.

And it would potentially RMA would potentially lie on the proponent if the rest of the parties are unwilling to proceed. Am I kind of understanding the situation correctly?

I'm gonna try to restate it, for my brain. It sounds like what you're asking is whether an S B 9 unit or an a d u would trigger the same thing as is in draft condition number 24, a new RMA. I would defer to Metro Fire on that because new SP 9 unit as a primary or a second primary or an ADU would be done ministerially, no discretionary action. Wouldn't even come here.

Okay. Adding a new building on the parcel will not modify the existing agreement because the existing agreement is between parcels not between buildings. So as long as we do not modify the map, we do not modify the agreement. The moment we add a new lot to the map. Now, we have a potential future owner to that lot, so we want to make sure that that one is added to the maintenance for that road. So that's the idea.

Okay. So functionally, the subdivision of the lot is the triggering mechanism for potentially new RMA. And again, if the subdivision of that lot does in fact dissolve or invalidate the existing agreement, that new agreement that burden would have to lay on somebody. And hypothetically, that would be potentially the proponent of this particular subdivision, if I'm understanding the feather part. Let me form it in the phrase form of a question.

I guess, what does happen in this situation? We have hypothetically, this were to be approved, and the three existing homeowners are unwilling to participate in the new agreement.

In that circumstance, the condition cannot be fulfilled as currently written. Therefore, no final map can be approved. What we've been talking about, implying is that condition number 24 be, amended to include the second option, which is to have the applicant be responsible for the fire access And Metro Fire made a good comment before. It's gotta it's gonna be down to their lot. So what's gonna end up being the lot below Right.

These two the subject parcel, they wouldn't have that obligation. But from Sutter down to their lot, yes, they'd be responsible for it. Okay. And it would have to be enforced by Metro. Metro Fire. If Metro Fire is willing to accept that responsibility.

And absent that alternative language, the requiring all parties would be, in fact, just be a give those other parties, basically, a veto

It seems doubtful they'll sign on at such an agreement.

Yeah. Because we wouldn't they they they wouldn't meet condition 24 as as it's written. Right. That's between all parcels connected to and served by fire access roadway. That's not I don't think it puts into writing here the second option that we're Okay. Talking

I think I I think I now have clarity as to the totality of the circumstances.

I I I do wanna kinda latch on to a question I think you were asking, which is what happens if they just proceed through SB nine? Not this map. If they're if they meet the standards, I think there are some standards they have to meet under SB nine. Let's say they do and they can build a second primary dwelling. What happens to the the fire access? So it becomes a a ministerial process. It's like a building permit. So through the building permit process, there is going to be basically a plan check, and the departments are gonna go around. It's gonna go to Metro Fire. Metro Fire is gonna see a second primary dwelling on the same lot, which is legal.

But I think the question is, is Metro Fire at that point going to require any change to the existing fire access?

Not as long as we have up to four lots.

Right. And absent the subdivision

As long we have up to four lots.

You're saying no modifications. Trigger it and not the not the dwellings.

That is correct. Yeah. Yeah. Because we had to modify that actually last year because of the allowing the law allows you to have

multiple units.

Multiple dwelling units. Now, we cannot increase the road for is the same property every single time you add one more structure on your property. So that's why we went from dwelling units to lots.

So, Commissioner Berger. Let me, let me, make this a little bit muddier. It was my understanding of the conversation is that the individual who is requiring or trying to get the map changed and the lot, if they could not get the existing members of the community that are on that road to agree to change the RMA, they themselves can assume responsibility for the RMA for the entire road up till the end of that those four or five lots. And that my understanding, that's something they can do as a way to satisfy the requirement. Is that an accurate understanding of that?

I mean, it made it sound like somewhere in here we thought that if it isn't in writing, that it would one party couldn't be the one responsible for the entire road, that all the parties had to be, unless it was specifically written in the condition that a single party could be responsible. I thought the original description of how it worked was if it came down to it, a single property owner could be responsible for the entire road if the other property owners don't wanna be involved. Am I correct?

Yeah. We'd need to amend the condition, update the condition to include that second option. And that's based on the applicant's easement rights. So, they have easement rights presumably. I'm not making a final adjudication on that if that's an issue in any way but presumably, there they have easement rights from Sutter to their what would be the lower lot and based on those easement rights, we can hold them to have sole responsibility to maintain the fire access.

Now, what happens if they don't do it? What if they, the applicant, or they're going to they're going to sell one of these lots, they may sell their own lot. What happens if the owner or successor owners doesn't do it and the first two lots are looking at a crumbling fire access road. We need to preserve their right. This would this condition and this declaration of covenants that needs to be recorded would not be to the exclusion of the rights of, I'm going to call em Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 from the existing parcel map to maintain the fire access road but the initial responsibility is going to be on the applicant with the fire district enforcing that.

In theory, that's how it would play out, how it would work.

So you're saying that, that number 24, if it was to stay in place, would have to be modified.

I'm saying if you leave it the way it is, there's no way they're they're going to get to a final map. They can't they're not they're not they're not going to be able to bring back a a mutual agreement from all the adjacent owners that signs on to a a maintenance agreement.

Okay. Without I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Yeah. Commissioner Virga, your your understanding is correct. It's would if we were to move to that direction, number 24 would have to be amended to essentially describe what Bill had said. And on top of that, provide protections for both parcels one and two to ensure that they wouldn't be encumbered should should that not go through. So, there's it's a little bit of a complicated adjustment but I think that is what I'm understanding. There has to be a modification for condition number two.

Yeah.

I I jotted something down for an option b, basically, for condition 24 if we get that far. So we can if we get that far, you know, let's keep discussing, but Understood.

Perhaps a clarification or a question as it relates to this is me over here, Borja.

Yes. Sorry.

Excuse me. Chair Borja. Thank you, mister Smith. Sorry.

Just

didn't realize that they put commissioner Virgo, you're you're now on the larger screen, so you are now part of the discussion. Sorry. Okay. I don't know if you're seeing that. I was just surprised.

No, I'm not.

So, clarification for, county council, even though condition 24 doesn't explicitly say it has to be a mutual agreement by all parties, the intent or the the implied assumption is that all the property owners have to sign on as opposed to one property So

my my my assumption of the language, and I don't disagree that it's confusing or vague. 24, maybe 23. But when it refers to the fire access, as I stated earlier, my assumption that means the whole stretch.

Mhmm.

Except for that last parcel now, which which our applicant would not have an easement right to go south to that lower parcel, which was Parcel 4 in the Santora parcel map. Now, if if what's intended there is that we're only talking about the two the the two new lots that are gonna be created by this parcel split, then it's a lot easier. But I don't think that's what's intended. But I don't know. We need to hear from planning and from fire.

Our intention was to make sure that all parcels served by the road participate in maintaining the road. We do not foresee that at one point if we ask a new agreement, somebody will say I'm not signing a new agreement now this is my veto vote even though that parcel still is served by that road. We do not foresee that like I do not want to maintain my road anymore because I want to make sure that you do not get to split the road. We did not foresee that. So I'll have to take this experience back to my office and really discuss exactly the language to make sure we're not in this situation again tomorrow.

Thank thank you, mister Carnegie. Director Smith, did you have any follow-up questions on that or comments?

No. I just wanted to understand county council's reading and then the explanation by Metro Fire. So, that's sufficient for me.

Yeah. I think it should also say, I think both twenty three and twenty four should say provide a new fire access agreement because that's what is being requested here.

So, there's no confusion. Find a new RMA for '23 and '24.

So while we're talking about '23, I did have an email exchange with Metro Fire earlier today or late last week. Now, twenty three is talking about access. Twenty four is asking about is talking about maintenance. And we talked about I said, well, is '23 requiring all the all the other parcels to sign on to this this access agreement. And he sorry if I'm speaking for you, but tell me if I'm wrong.

That you'd Metro Fire needs access, basically permission from every lot up and down the private drive but they may already have access permission from these other lots. So, 23, you may only need the access permission from these two new lots.

It's very technical. So, if you ask me, I do not know exactly what to answer right now. We do want to make sure we can get to all the properties. And we want to make sure that that road is maintained. That is the intent of these two conditions in the planning documents.

Now exactly, as I said, the wording and exactly how is that interpreted because in my mind, we need to make sure this even this is the new two parcels is the same owner, we want to make sure that these documents are updated because it's potential those parcels to change hands. That is the intent to make sure that that is recorded under the parcel and the parcel is responsible for that. Now exactly how that works technically with access, I I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if that one is correct or not.

That's fair. Thank you, mister Gaudio.

I mean, the way that the way that works in general is that the document gets recorded. That's how sub subsequent owners are held to the the obligation.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And if one has access to, I'll say, Lot 4 Fire. If fire has access to Lot 4, I I'm I'm just trying to imagine the scenario in which they would lose access to Lots 12, and three. I mean,

the question is, how how does the fire, how does Metro Fire have access rights right now? And it it it may be in this existing road maintenance agreement. I haven't read it in detail enough to know if if that's in there. This road maintenance agreement generally is between the owners where they're all agreeing, hey, let's all keep this road maintained. Yeah. To certain standards. Now, maybe somewhere in here, it's all, it says, we agree to allow the fire district to access the road. I don't know for sure.

I do not know exactly how it was recorded at that time. Today, we do require two separate documents. One is the access and one is the maintenance. These are two separate documents. This is what we require today because it was very vague and very do we have access if somebody maintain it? So we want to make sure we have easement access. That's a document, and then we have somebody who maintains that throat.

Mister Ghania, do you know if the current RMA right now and it's okay if you might not have this information. If that that that has both of those things covered, So it's almost like a permission to enter and then a maintenance agreement. Right? I did not

I did not read today's but might be somewhere in the in the documents here.

Understood. Okay. So staff is hopefully looking into that. Do you have any other questions or discussions on the RMA? Because I I do have I do recognize that there's still a couple of points of con I don't want to say contention, but at least issues that the appellants have brought up that I'd like for us at least to have a opportunity if tonight is the right time or if a future one's the right time. I'd like for us to have the opportunity to discuss or at least bring those to light.

Go for it.

I'm done. I don't have any more in the RMA.

Okay. Okay. One of my concerns, or at least maybe lack of my education in this this arena, is that we've typically not have a condition, or at least the time that I've been in this size, a condition that would force an applicant in order to get a parcel map to build an ADU. I I think that's might be a rarity or maybe not. I'm looking at director Smith.

That is solely because of the existing pool.

So

the existing pool would be on the part on the new resultant parcel by itself. Pools are technically an accessory use. So without a primary use, they either would need to demolish the pool, completely remove it. They have indicated they don't wanna do that. So that's why we have a condition saying you need to construct an ADU, which would then become the primary ADU, which would serve as the primary unit for the pool.

So there's my struggle a little bit in understanding because as commissioner Vergot eloquently had said, we're looking at a plot map here. However, there's a condition here that triggers a construction.

Mhmm.

Which is where I think it might be fair for the opponents to kind of ask, well, if there's gonna be a construction in order for you to make a map change, shouldn't that also be part of your conditions?

Well, we don't know for sure that it's gonna they're gonna move forward with that option.

Because they can still either remove the pool even though you've indicated that, at least from your knowledge, you've indicated that From my knowledge, yes.

You don't want to Yes.

So that's where my conundrum lies.

Well, okay. On this issue of how far can the planning commission or the board, not in this case, but the planning commission in in this case, regulate development of a structure, you can. It's not a a very simple and non controversial parcel map might not have might not say anything about where the the homes are gonna be or where any structures are gonna be. But you have discretion to condition a map to kinda create guidelines or create standards criteria for, you know, where the bill I think it's in here in the map, where the billing envelope would be, if there are other, you know, how tall can it be if you wanna deviate from the the ordinary zoning standards? You can condition.

If there's a nexus, right, nexus in proportionality, yes, you can impose conditions on not just the lot split, on the eventual construction.

So, again, it gets and it gets to this and and thank you, council Burke. It gets to this idea that it's we're we're no longer just in the realm of creating creating changes in the maps, because we're now getting into construction. Right? If I'm understanding it correctly. And so are there any questions about about that, commissioner Virgo or vice chair Dublin about that is condition number it's highlighted in our documents.

That's condition number 10. Prior to the filing of the parcel map, an ADU shall be constructed on proposed parcel and all utilities relating to the existing pool on-site must be connected to this future ADU. Should an ADU not be constructed to establish a primary use, then the pool shall be removed.

Based on your conversation just now, no, I don't have any questions. I did prior to that, but okay. Now I don't. Okay.

Commissioner Devlin?

Not on that

item. So so I just wanna remind again the commission that we do have the ability again to have the nexus to to go a little bit further in the conditions that's being presented to us today It would discretion and guidance, but a process. Neighborhood Preservation Ag and the NPA, director Smith, I was wondering if we could go to to that. There were concerns regarding ensuring that it does meet the NPA. Trying to look at all of the documents that were presented to the this zoning code administrator.

I think this project didn't go to our diocese, right? It went to so this is the first time that we should we're we're hearing this.

Correct. The the original hearing was done by the subdivision review committee and zoning administrator.

Turning the minutes. Okay. That's that's the end of the essay. How are we meeting the NPA? Let's let's open with that question.

Yeah. Sure. So I think Kimber initially responded to that one. I think it was the same question that commissioner Berger had with respect to the NPA. It talks about deferring to or not specifying any additional development standards in the NPA itself. It points back to the underlying zoning code. And so staff's analysis of the proposed lot sizes based on the existing zoning was that it met the applicable development standards. The only deviation, I think as Christian pointed out in his presentation, for the additional lot to be served by a private drive.

Okay. But correct me if I'm wrong, sir. The the NPA is not just limited to the size of the TV. There's others. No. It's just limited to sorry. I'm trying to look for the NPA right now. It was not

The NPA, the purpose of the NPA does state to preserve and protect the unique semi rural residential character of the neighborhood described in exhibit a and to further the purposes of the Carmichael community plan. Then if you look down at the development standards section, it says the uses conditions and development standards applicable to the underlying zone shall be applicable to the property described in exhibit a. There are no specific development standards or use regulations provided in the NPA.

Unless we go to subsection e that says the ordinance consistent with the intent of the Carmichael community plan goals and objectives. Right? So that would trigger.

Which we do have an analysis in the staff report of the Carmichael community plan and its policies.

Okay. Okay. Do you have any questions regarding the NPA, commissioner Berger?

Yeah. Miss, Basically, you've kind of got it closer to what I was trying to figure out. Did the review by staff show any conflict with now what's being identified as the policies versus basically the body of the language of that section. You said it has policies in it. Did we review those policies and how they related to the, the impact of the map being changed?

Yes. The staff report did include a community plan analysis, consistency analysis, and it provided the specific policies that are applicable to the project and provided response to those policies. We found that the project is consistent with the community plan.

And that was provided to, the appellate who's basically objecting to vote is being done.

That was provided in the original, subdivision review committee and zoning administrator staff report and was also provided in the staff report tonight.

Okay. Thank you.

Tonight's meeting. Mhmm. And commissioner for share borehad the we did we were able to pull up the road maintenance agreement from the previous map which did include access easement recordation for that as well.

Understood. Thank you. Sorry. I I keep it's a lot of there's a lot of layers to this onion. I'm going down to the CCNA history all the way to, like, 1986 and just making sure that we are and so I just really wanna emphasize to the to the public that we take we take in every vote very seriously, and and maybe this might be the right time to just have an open conversation with the rest of the commissioners.

Are are we would it be fair count? Would it be fair Council Burke to have a straw poll of whether or not the commissioners right now as it stands have the right information presented to them given that there are proposed changes to the conditions, whether or not this is a decision that we'd like to make tonight, or that whether or not we'd like to, again, go back to about a couple hours ago, the original request, or at the very least, advised by counsel to perhaps move this to the next to the next board meeting.

Was that the councilor?

Oh, yeah. Sorry. Are we able to have a straw poll? Is that is that a Right.

Just make it very clear that well, just discuss tentatively what the three of you where you're leaning right now and and where you may be leaning is you want to continue it, you want to look more into it, you know, there's there's a reason to do it to have more commissioners here. There's also maybe a reason if you if you do want to look at it further, you don't have to but that might be a reason. Or if you're ready to go tonight, which way are you leaning? So this is not what you're gonna do right now. It's not an official vote. We're just gonna figure out if it's two to one right now tentatively

or three zero. Okay. Commissioner Berger, can I ask you for your feedback?

Yeah. I'm leaning to address it tonight, and I'm leaning to make the changes in the languages discussed before, and then move forward with staff's recommendations.

Vice Chair Dublin.

Thank you. I guess for me, when I kind of pushed back to, know, a little bit to the 50,000 foot view of this, you know, street potentially ends up at a very near identical condition as to what they want to do with the lot split, absent the lot split. And they could possibly do it with the existing RMA. So the decision for me seems to really just kind of come down to like the lot split it it itself and whether that RMA, you know, then changes. But even without the lot split, it seems that they potentially end up in a functional absent the ability to, you know, obviously, freely divest the the second parcel.

The neighborhood ends up in the same place.

Without the lot split.

With without the lot split. And

so Yeah.

You know, it seems to be the the largest the biggest effect seems to be the shift in the potential burden of the RMA, you know, and then obviously the consequences of the neighborhood of a step an additional freely alienable, you know, parcel there. But in terms of, like, number of homes, number of cars, all that potential impact seems to be, you know, functionally the functional equivalent even absent the lot split.

Thank thank you, chair Devlin. I don't wanna be a Debbie Downer for this evening, but I I don't believe that this time again. I don't believe that I have all of the information to be able to make a decision. I'm struggling here with the changes on the language that we're gonna have in the '24. I'm also hearing from staff that they're looking at the language from the RMA.

I I, you know, I don't wanna drag this out, but I'm not too sure if I have all of the the right information at this time to consider whether or not proposing or at least citing with the staff recommendation would be would be the right move. I think that I'd to be able to make sure that we've had adequate review from our our folks over at fire special district and make sure that they they they've had the chance to take a look at both the existing either permit to enter or the maintenance agreement on the RMA. If it that's already there, then we can point that out. And hopefully, the the language on what we're proposing for number 24, just just so we're all kind of clear. And and for the applicant, miss Swarren, I I totally I understand where you're coming from.

I really do. I don't want to be impediment. I just hope that we're able to do the right thing by making sure that we are, again, we we were gonna be making a decision here that could potentially get into more legal actions between you and your neighbors, but also ensure that we're doing the right decision on on the conditions that are being requested. And so that's I I I don't believe I'm prepared to make a a vote this evening.

I'm would be happy to support the the chair and continuous as if, I guess my I only request on behalf of the applicant, I guess, would be to give them a date certain.