Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us. Just want to make sure it is 5.30 p.m. Welcome to the June 8th, 2026 County Planning Commission meeting today. Just want to make sure that we have all of the things that we need here. We'll start with a roll call.

Yes. Members Rockenstein?

Here.

Members Berger?

Here.

And Chair Borja?

Here.

And with those members present, we do have a quorum.

Thank you. Commissioner Rockenstein, can you please lead us for the Pledge of Allegiance?

Yes, thank you very much.

Thank you. Madam Clerk, can we please make the announcement?

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

Thank you very much. Could we please begin with item number one?

Item number one is PLMP 2025-00198, Moravi-Singh Subdivision Vesting Map. This is a specific plan amendment rezoned vesting tentative subdivision map and a design review. And the property is located at 9494 Flooring Road in the Vineyard Community. And the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening, Commissioners. Todd Smith, Planning Director. This item is a non-contested item. Staff are prepared if you would like a presentation, but it's not required.

Do we have any questions from the dais? I do have just one quick question, sir. From the staff report here, we did see that there was a minor change that was revised on June 3rd. I think it was a off-site improvements for rezone condition. Instead of 43, it would now, and 22, it would just now be 19. Do you mind just kind of giving a brief explanation to what changed? Thank you, sir.

Good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Christopher Albert, associate planner here in Sacramento County and lead planner for this project. So the changes resulted in changes of conditions. The applicant had been working with SMUD to reduce a public utility easement and that therefore caused a domino effect as in adding conditions, removing some conditions. And so the staff report was revised to ensure that the condition numbers mentioned in the report reflected now the new numbers in attachment two.

Understood Thank You mr. Alvarez really appreciate that I did recognize that this is in the vineyard community Which has recently also had the Elk Grove Unified School District approved for a future school site at the Don and Brenda Natoli Park so I trust that our team is in lockstep with Elk Grove Unified School District to make sure that we have our Entitlements and information all on the same page so that we can hopefully continue to progress for the I think right now we're in the final stages of planning for that school with the construction slated to be in a couple years. So very exciting. Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. With that, do we have any speakers for this item or the applicant?

We have not. Go ahead.

Would the applicant like to speak to the commission or? Good evening.

Good evening. Ina Miller with Beezer Homes. We have no additional comments on the staff report or the project, but we're very excited to be in the vineyard area and continue building in that area. And just wanted to thank county staff for working on this project with us. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And Madam Clerk, I believe you said there were no speakers.

And we have not received any public comments for this item.

Okay, understood. I'd like to entertain a motion, please, for item number one.

I'll make a motion to move the item as presented. Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. And we are ready to vote.

Okay, let's do it again, huh?

Great abstaining Commissioner Burger, okay, there you go, thank you.

And that recommendation passes with all members present voting yes.

Okay, thank you.

Mine said yes, but it didn't register.

Okay, thank you so much, I appreciate it. We're ready to move on to item number two.

Item number two is PLMP 2025-00130, Carli Mine Use Permit Amendment. This is a use permit amendment to allow mining and an additional 11 acres. A reclamation plan amendment to include expanded mining area and the development agreement amendment. The property is located at 6875 Eagles Nest Road, northeast corner of Florin Road. And Eagles Nest Road in the Vineyard Community and the environmental document is an addendum to a previously certified FEIR. Thank you.

Good evening again, Commissioners. Like the last item, this one is also non-contested. Staff is available should you desire a presentation.

Okay, do we have any questions for staff? Okay, do we have the applicant here this evening?

If they wish to address the commission or- Thank you, just thank you to staff for their work on this project.

Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, do we have any public comments for this item?

We have not received any public comments for this item.

Okay, hearing that, I'd like to entertain a motion or any points of discussion. Move to approve the item as presented.

I'll second.

And that item passes with all members present voting yes.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Okay, we are now moving to the consistent portion of our agenda. Can you please read item number three for the record?

Item number three is PLMP 2025-00173, 8040 16th Street, AT&T Wireless Center. communication facility, and this is a use permit, a conditional use permit, a special development permit, and a design review. And this is located at 8040 16th Street in the Rio Linda, Alberta community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair Borja and members of the commission. Again, my name is Christopher Alberts, associate planner here in Sacramento County and the lead planner for the 8040 16th Street AT&T Wireless Communication Facility. The project is located in the Rio Linda, Alberta community on the east side of 16th Street, not too far from the intersection of Alberta Road and 16th Street. The site itself is primarily developed with a single family residence and agricultural structures. The site is zoned for agricultural residential five and the surrounding land uses include mainly of vacant lands with the exception of a single family residence to the east. Before I dive into the site plan on the next slide, I do want to note that the wireless communication facility itself is located on the southwest corner of the project site adjacent to the light commercial and business professional zonings. The county worked diligently with the applicant to strategically place the cell tower as far away from existing single-family homes or residents in general from the site. This exhibit depicts the enclosure. As you can see, there is landscaping that surrounds most of the perimeter of the enclosure with the exception of the two North areas where there will be two primary, two 12 foot tall chain link gates. And I'll also note that the cell tower itself would be located on the southeast portion of the enclosure. The cell tower would be disguised as a 55-foot-tall water tank with co-location occurring at 36 feet. Additional screening would be provided by a 6-foot-tall chain link fence with slats. The photos on the left show the existing and proposed simulations view from 16th Street looking at the site. To the right is the view from Alberta Road looking northwest at the site. Again, existing proposed views from Alberta Road looking northeast at the site on the left and the views from Alberta Road looking north at the site to the right. This here is the existing coverage map. The project site itself is the red dot. As you see, it's within the blue overlay, which essentially calls out for outdoor services only. This is the proposed coverage map. As you can see, indoor services and transit services are now in appearance, and it is fulfilling a large coverage gap between some of the existing cell towers in the vicinity. The entitlements being requested today include a conditional use permit to allow for the wireless communication facility as well as a special development permit to deviate from the setback of the public right-of-way. The minimum required setback from the public right-of-way is 31 feet. The cell tower would be at 21 feet from the setback, therefore it being a 10-foot deviation. However, I do want to note that the special development permit is only being requested due to a future expansion of 16th Street, which was approved and analyzed as part of the Alberta-specific plan. The way the project is designed now at its current state with the current street configurations, a special development permit wouldn't be needed. Lastly, the project includes a design review. The project was heard by the Riolina, Alberta Community Planning Advisory Committee on April 22nd. The committee requested clarification on the Special Development Permit and raised concerns regarding the extent of the cellular coverage as shown on the proposed coverage maps. Additional questions focused on the type of screening around the enclosure and proximity of the tower to 16th Street. Two members of the public did express opposition to the project, citing concerns with design and proximity to their homes. The CPAC did vote in favor of the site. However, they did also vote on a preemptive appeal in the situation where the site design had changed from what was presented to them to what's being presented to the Planning Commission. And then lastly, I'll just add that the project was also presented to design review advisory committee who again vote in support of the project. So this slide highlights that the proposal is consistent with general plan policies and specific plan policies, as well as zoning development standards and use regulations. Many of the policies shown on the screen are primarily on aesthetics. which then support the design of the project as well. Now, therefore, planning and environmental review staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the following. Recognize that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Approve the use permit subject to financing conditions. Approve the special development permit subject to financing conditions. And find the project is substantial compliance with design guidelines subject to financing conditions. That concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions as well as the applicant. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Alberts. Do we have any questions for staff?

Just in terms of, sorry, in terms of your discussions with the, you brought up how many feet it was from a residential, and there were a couple folks in opposition to that. Can you kind of elaborate on any feedback that came from the residents closest to the proposed cell tower?

Yeah, I'll start by saying that the project didn't receive any public comments. It was only during the Rio Linda Alverde community planning committee meeting and their concerns was just, it's the residents on the east side. So going back to the surrounding land uses, one resident showed up to the committee saying that they would have a view of the tower from their home. That was the extent of the concern.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have no questions.

Thank you. I have a couple questions, Mr. Aldrich. So 55 feet is certainly not one of the tallest ones that we've heard in this dais for quite a... Actually, Director Smith, I don't think we've heard a number of cell phone towers this year so far. I think it's not like 2025, so... um so 50 55 seems to to be a kind of a reasonable height i guess my question is do you know maybe the applicant knows if this design allows for modifications in the future should they want to increase the height of the tower let's say it's over capacity or add more capacities for co-location for other carriers is that something that they've looked into and then Do we have any mechanisms to approve that, or is that just like, by right, can they just extend it to, let's say, 80 feet in five years from now?

Yeah, so that's a good question. I can answer part of it. So co-location is already occurring at 36 feet. As far as the applicant's intent to increase the height, I will defer to my managing staff.

Hello, this is Emma Patton, senior planner. So by right, the applicant would be able to increase the height of the tower by up to 20 feet. As far as I know, that's not something that this applicant has proposed or is considering. They're proposing the tower at the height that's being shown to you today. But by right, they would be able to do that in the future.

Got it. Thank you, Ms. Patton. And just out of my recollection, I was trying to look this up last night. What were some of the other like towers that we've looked at prior? I mean, they were asking for like 60 or 70 feet to begin with, maybe a little bit higher.

70 feet was the last one I think we had a discussion about.

The one I heard in this was when I was on CPAC for Carmichael was 73 feet. It was to deviate from a proposed 55 foot structure. Got it. Yeah. Understood.

It's very nice to see not a monopine design. It's a bit more of an aesthetic fit, don't you think? Because I didn't see any eucalyptus trees or monopines in that area when I drove over there. So it's kind of a nice way. And then you also spoke about outreach, immediate neighbors. There's a couple of businesses in there. What are their feedback?

that planning has done is the community planning meeting. As far as that, we haven't done any additional outreach. I could defer to the applicant to see if they've done any other individual outreach. No further outreach. Okay.

Thank you. Any other further questions for the staff? No, I have a question. Okay. At this time, we can welcome the applicant if they'd like to, and thank you Ms. Albers for your presentation, if they'd like to address the commission this evening.

Hi, good evening. My name is Jared Kearsley with 51 Wireless on behalf of AT&T. Thank you for having us here this evening. I do believe I recall staff saying that the notification radius was expanded. Is that correct, Christopher, based on the rural nature of the area?

Correct. So the minimum requirement is 500 feet. We noticed the project out to 1,500.

So yeah, we we did work diligently with staff and the design review committee on Locating it precisely where it's at for the to take into consideration the future development of the of the area This tower is filling a significant gap in coverage as the coverage gap depicts it's essentially right in the middle of all the surrounding sites and it's going to be filling that gap and And it will have FirstNet capabilities, which is band 14 for first responders, which I believe the county uses their services. Anyhow, yeah, we are designing this at 55 feet. That is the maximum height limit. It's not often where you see water tanks extended beyond two carriers, but it can be done if needed. And if that's... uh preferred by the county instead of putting another a second tower in the vicinity so structurally it can happen um just aesthetically sometimes it looks a little odd if it's elongated a little bit too much um per the height that it's at so right now it can accommodate two carriers and if a third wants to be co-located then it can definitely go vertical by one more array center

Got it.

Understood.

Just wanted to welcome Commissioner Devlin. Thank you. Vice Chair Devlin.

Apologies for my tardiness.

Thank you. Sir, so actually, just follow up on that. You're not actually going to be making the tower wider. The water tank's going to be a little bit taller to accommodate, and that's kind of where you're looking into some of the aesthetics and design elements of that.

Yeah, the width wouldn't change. The legs wouldn't change. It's just the height would change if a third carrier wanted on. Right now, AT&T doesn't plan on extending the height, of course. They're just 55 feet meets their requirements for the area.

Understood. The materials outside of, maybe a little bit outside of just the planning questions, but out of curiosity, certain materials outside to the actual water tower itself, like the kind of the tank facade, is that...

what is that made of aluminum it's um reinforced fiber plastic rfp is what we call it it's basically a screening that allows the light to extend out beyond the walls opposed to you know the Wood or metal or what have you that would block the signal?

Okay, always wondered How many water towers do you guys have kind of design wise in Sacramento County if you were to do a ballpark?

I did one in Wilton 2019 ish that's Sacramento County. I think that one was 65, 75 feet, give or take. It's been a while since I thought about that one. We've done some outside of Sacramento County, Woodland, Dixon, just other areas of the greater Sacramento area.

Understood. Has it ever come across where folks, because I know we have a pretty active mural organization around here. Is that something that you guys have worked on before? Can you even paint outside of the...

You can, yeah. We did something in Woodland of that nature. My counterpart did one. I don't recall the jurisdiction, but it is possible if it's requested by the county, if it fits some sort of theme going on in the area. I'm not sure if that's appropriate here or not. That's not my judgment to make, but it is possible.

In the future, okay.

Yeah.

Thank you, sir. Any other further questions to the applicant? No. Okay, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers for this item?

We have not received any public comments for this item.

Okay. Hearing that.

I'll make a motion to move the item as it's presented. Second.

All right. Any other further discussion? Okay. Let's go for a vote.

And that item passes 4-0 with all the members present voting yes.

Thank you. Thank you very much and appreciate the staff for your thorough review of this item. Madam Clerk, can we go for item number four?

Yes, item number four is PLMP 2023-00058. This is the 2023 zoning code update, a zoning ordinance amendment to extensively update chapters one through seven of the Sacramento County zoning code. And this is countywide and the environmental document is notice of exemption.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MATTHEW, ASSOCIATE PLANNER WITH PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. I'M THE LEAD PROJECT MANAGER FOR THE 2023 ZONING CODE UPDATE. IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU GUYS ALL AGAIN. I PROMISE I'LL TAKE LESS TIME THAN THE WORKSHOP IN APRIL. I'M COMING BACK BEFORE YOU GUYS HERE TODAY FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. OKAY. LET'S GET STARTED. So just going over the update in high level detail, it encompasses 134 amendments, which result in the most significant update to the zoning code since it was initially adopted in 2015 in this current edition. The updates before you here today are a result of about a decade of feedback from numerous stakeholders, including residents, developers, business owners, county staff, and other people that are involved in the planning process. WHAT WE REALLY ARE TARGETING HERE ARE THOSE COMMON PAIN POINTS WHERE WE HEAR FROM PEOPLE THAT THAT SHOULD REALLY BE FIXED. THAT'S OUTDATED OR THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WE'RE ALSO ACTING ON BOARD DIRECTION TO GENERALLY AMEND THE ZONING CODE TO REDUCE HEARING BODY LEVELS AND PERMIT MORE APPROVALS AT THE STAFF LEVEL. EAGLE EYED COMMISSIONERS WILL NOTICE THAT THE NUMBER IS NOW 134. IT PREVIOUSLY WAS AT 131 AT THE WORKSHOP. SO I'LL GO OVER THAT IN A FORTHCOMING SLIDE. As discussed at the workshop, the best way to get an overview of all the changes that are occurring in this update is the issue matrix, which is attachment one in your packet. This matrix contains, in columns going from left to right, the numbered amendments numbered from A1 to A134, the name of the topic, the affected sections of the zoning code, the type of fix, the subjective degree of change, which I'll go over in the next slide, a quick blurb about the issue and how we're fixing it and what zones and communities are primarily affected by the change. So the subjective degree of change level is a scale from one to five, which is based on several metrics, including how often the affected section is used, the changes impact on the text itself, its impact on communities and the difference from existing staff practices. Generally, items ranked one to two are clarifications, and those ranked three to five are more policy changes. This update has been constructed in a way where there are more clarifications and there are less more intensive policy changes in this update. The scale also comes into play with your current packet where items that are ranked three to five are discussed in more detail and attachment too. So I'd love to go into specific detail onto the changes I did before. I just want to zoom out and focus on the different parties that will be primarily affected by this zoning ordinance amendment, as you can see here on the screen. For our residents, there's a number of quality of life changes that generally make it easier for individual homeowners to use and customize their property. The changes listed on the screen are what we expect to be the most popular ones to be used across our residential communities. Just calling out two, the first bullet point under development standards, we're proposing an increased height allowance for residential accessory structures, the 24 feet with a minimum rear and side yard setback of 10 feet. This matches popular demand that we have received for structures to house boats and RVs on larger properties. And also the first bullet under youth standards, we're updating our home occupation section, which hasn't been comprehensively updated in about four decades. So we're updating it to account for modern home occupations that occur from home or side hustles. For residential developers, there's not a lot of changes in this specific zoning ordinance amendment. There's going to be more in the forthcoming housing and infill zoning code amendment led by our infill coordinator. But among the ones inside of this update, there's two I'd like to point out. First one is that for residential subdivisions, the minimum length of driveways, we're proposing the increase from 19 or 20 to 22 feet for the minimum length. that was requested by our Department of Transportation to try and reduce the potential conflict between people parking in driveways and people going on sidewalks. Additionally, if you see here on your screen, there's a picture of apartment development that was recently approved with tuck under parking, so the parking is underneath the portion of the housing unit. We're proposing to relax the standards for this so that infill sites that may have unusual shapes or maybe small size are able to still accommodate the parking using this method of construction. For institutional uses, there are some significant changes which support small businesses that provide educational and cultural amenities to our communities. Notably, we are introducing a new training, tutoring, or testing center use classification. which permits a wide variety of small educational uses with less than 25 students on site at any one time in our commercial zones. So they're permitted by right instead of requiring a use permit. This enables really small educational institutions like CPR training facilities, small boutique, beauty or culinary schools to be able to have lower barriers of entry in our commercial zones. Additionally, updates are proposed to our art gallery and art studio use classifications to account for modern maker space facilities and type of tools that they use. On the utility side of institutional uses, we are also proposing the codification of battery energy storage system use standards in compliance with our climate action plan goals. So a large portion of this update affects our commercial businesses. I've split them into three different slides. Really at the high level, what we're trying to do is simplify our categories to prevent confusion during the business licensing process and really at the beginning stages of businesses so they can start their business and know how they'll be able to grow. The most significant update for that intent on this slide is our revised bucket use classifications. Bucket use classifications are these generic classifications in our zoning code which encompass a wide array of businesses that have similar intensity and character. So, for example, we have a general office uses use classification, which has bookkeepers, accountants, doctors' offices, software engineers, all that sort of thing, because they're under a similar sort of intensity. So by revising these classifications for clarity, we're helping provide clearer separation between the buckets, and we can provide more consistent implementation for our zoning code. Additionally, on this slide, we are improving standards for the accessory keeping of commercial vehicle, accessory keeping of company vehicles, which is a common pain point in our code experienced by our code enforcement division since our current standards are pretty vague there. For our vehicle-based businesses, such as auto repair shops, truck repair, truck storage, and boat storage, their use classifications and use standards are being revised for more clarity and consistency. For drive-thrus, as requested by our Department of Transportation, given safety concerns of queuing and reservoir spaces, we're proposing an increase in the minimum drive-thru Is it working? Okay. Depending on the type of business that is operating, that's using the drive-through. These types of businesses, should they need to deviate from the standard, we'll be able to provide sufficient justification to our Department of Transportation, and they'll be able to deviate from that minimum driveway queuing. I'd also like to highlight on this slide that we are proposing a reduction in the hearing body level for tattoo shops, which is being renamed to body art facilities to match the state body art act. Additionally, we are proposing to permit arcades by right in numerous circumstances. So that ends about four decades of us having really strict standards on arcades in the county. A major component of the commercial section that we're updating is the rewrite and update of our temporary uses section. This section is getting a significant overhaul with more intuitive navigation, revised standards, and improved allowances. Notably, we are including standards for temporary concessions like food trucks and food vendors on private property. I'd like to note that this is specifically on private property since we can't regulate as far as planning is concerned, the food vendors that are on public right of way. An additional allowance we are proposing is that for large shopping centers that are at least 15 acres in size, they'd be able to have temporary events of up to 30 days per year. This is an increase from the current 10 days per year in our current code, and we're hoping that this allowance will be able to bring more vibrancy to large commercial shopping centers that may have underutilized or too much parking that isn't used during certain times of year or certain days.

For example, here there's a picture of Florin Town Center.

I'd also like to note that in the workshop we said 20 acres, so we're reducing it to 15, so more shopping centers will be able to take advantage of this allowance. For industrial businesses, we have several miscellaneous improvements that aren't easy to categorize specifically, but I'd like to highlight two changes. First, the introduction of our hazardous material storage and distribution use classification. Currently for these types of businesses, we have two use classifications. We have warehousing and hazardous waste transfer facility. Warehousing is permitted in a wide variety of zones and hazardous waste transfer facility. That's a use permit to the board. So there's a regulatory gap there that we're trying to address. So we worked with our environmental management staff to help draft up some regulations to provide a regulatory path that encourages appropriate buffering from potentially dangerous uses like propane storage from sensitive receptors like residential areas and schools. Additionally, on a lighter note, I'd also like to note that we are proposing a reduction in the use permit level for restaurants in industrial zones. So hopefully the people who work in industrial zones will be able to have more choices when they go out for a snack or have lunch in those areas. For agricultural and delta communities, again, it's kind of a smorgasbord of changes, but the most significant one here, in my opinion, is the second bullet point, which is adding provisions to our code to allow for commercial vehicles as a part of commercial agricultural operations. So currently our code, if you're a commercial ag operator, we do not have provisions which account for them storing commercial vehicles on site. You'd probably expect a big commercial pear farm to have commercial vehicles on site. But right now our code says you need to get a use permit for that. So in response to feedback from our Delta C-MAC and our Southeast Area C-PAC, we are proposing that for commercial agricultural operations that have at least 20 acres dedicated to their use, they can have the commercial storage of vehicles for their business. Alternatively, if a parcel is part of a Williamson Act contract, they'd be able to take advantage of that allowance. Finally, for planning environmental review staff and county staff ourselves, there's a lot of amendments in here that improve the big picture structure and framework of our zoning code. These changes make it easier for staff to do our jobs, to better help customers and prevent time from being wasted on looking for the person who remembers the thing, searching for emails and memos from a long time ago and trying to remember what we did last time. Some things I'd like to highlight include a dramatic reduction in Title IV of our zoning code, which is our interim zones. The board directed us to get rid of those in the 70s. We're about halfway through with this update, not completely gone yet. We're proposing also to codify certain common planning procedures. Additionally, we are also proposing amending the terminology for certain sections of our code. So this update, we distributed it to a lot of different county departments. And while we worked with these county departments, we wanted to craft our zoning code language so we can try and reduce the gap where possible between the terminology that say what we planning call something and what environmental management calls something. So while we can't completely bridge the gap, we're trying to reduce confusion where possible. Finally, I'd like to note the express processing of state mandates, which bypasses CPAC presentations for amendments to the code to comply with federal law changes, state law changes, and other specified legal events. I know at the workshop, that was a point of concern. So we're proposing to explicitly include in the code requirement that the CPACs will be notified of the planning commission hearing. So the CPAC members can learn about the changes and provide comment while allowing planning staff to more expediently comply with state law and its enforcement. So since the last workshop, there's just a few minor changes. One update was dropped regarding ADUs, A09, and it was replaced with one regarding terminology updates from our Department of Waste Management and Recycling. There were two clarification updates, A132 and A133, regarding measuring and using development standards. and a134 it feels the most significant of the last ones which is just reducing the hearing body level for certain fire stations so they can be under they don't they take less time and have less money needed to go through our permitting process to have those important community resources ADDITIONAL OTHER AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE ACROSS THE CODE TO ADDRESS COMMENTS, CONCERNS, INCONSISTENCIES, MINOR ISSUES, AND MINOR REQUESTS THAT AROSE SINCE APRIL. SO AT THE APRIL 13TH WORKSHOP, THERE WERE A FEW OPEN CONCERNS WHICH I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS. FOR THE FIRST CONCERN, FIRST BULLET POINT HERE, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT HOW The spraying of pesticides and that type of material is treated in relation to residential areas because what was at hand is an amendment to our school use classification to require board level review based on recent state law changes. So, I worked with our agricultural commissioner, Chris Flores, and she shared that there's not exactly a one-to-one match in regulation about spraying pesticides near schools and daycares versus just generally in residential areas. A farmer did want to spray certain chemicals that were considered restricted material. They would have to file a notice of intent with the agricultural commissioner and the agricultural commissioner would be able to approve or deny that request depending on the proposed side of application and the surrounding uses. For the second bullet, there was concern about the definition of what administrative tasks mean in our home occupation section. As a reminder, that term was used for what you can do for a home occupation after 9 p.m. and before 7 a.m. So we are proposing to clarify that section by adding explicit examples, as you can see on this slide. For the third bullet point, there was concern about potentially excessive numbers of vehicles for home-based vehicle share operations, like those operate on Turo. So after that meeting, I did go and look up information about how specific Turo operators work in our area. And we drafted a regulation that I believe can account for these concerns and help reduce potential trips that could be considered excessive in residential areas. So the proposed change is that they would be limited to five or the amount of paving that they have on their property or the carport or garage they have limited to five. So if they have like a four-car garage and they could have five cars in front, they're still limited to five. On the fourth bullet point, there was concerns about environmental justice issues with caretaker dwellings. I'd like to clarify that the intent of that allowance is to be used in a scenario typically where in the industrial reserve zone, that's typically a zone where it's agricultural use is being intended to be converted to industrial at a future date. Sometimes they have single family residences on site and residents there want to be able to commit their property to industrial uses while still living on site. So this allowance would prevent displacement effectively of those people who live in those homes that are already there in the industrial reserve zone. For the fifth bullet point, there was concerns about the limitations on battery energy storage system technology given emerging safer solid state battery technology. So I met with my colleague who's more of a subject matter expert in battery energy storage, and she felt that the ordinance as is adequately accounts for this technology at a utility scale as far as we can see. This ordinance specifically targets utilities So likely, even if we do move to that safer technology, we'd still want to have those scale of facilities inside of our industrial zones and other zones as specified in the ordinance. I'd also like to note that it doesn't affect the accessory use of best technology, so if in the future becomes more common that the BESS technology is used for battery backups for businesses, homes, that sort of use, it's not classified under this utility scale use classification that's before you today. Of course, BESS is a evolving technology, and we have ambitious goals in our climate action plan, so we are able to amend the ordinance as needed in the future. For the sixth bullet point, there is a concern about coin-op machines and arcade machines. The code does, as proposed, consider them as gaming machines, which it would likely be if a place had just a series of them would be under general indoor recreation, which is still a lot less stringent than our current standards, which basically say, hey, if you just have I believe five machines and you're subject to a use permit as an arcade. So reducing those restrictions on those type of businesses. And finally, for the seventh bullet point on the concern about express processing of state and federal law required amendments, we are adding that explicit allowance about notification for the Planning Commission hearing at the CPACs. For concluding, I'd like to point out one portion of the ordinance before you here today, which directs staff to make all necessary administrative changes to any section of the Development Code to comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Government agencies are under a deadline to make documents posted online compliant with ADA. The deadline was initially this April, and it was moved to next April. Our zoning code is currently on our land use regulation library, if you visited it recently, which replaces our PDF document. So the ordinance partially includes the language to continue to empower staff to remediate those documents and make administrative changes so that it is compliant to the best of our ability with ADA and it's able to make that version our primary version of the ordinance. And with that, Planning and Environmental Review staff recommend that the Planning Commission take the following actions. Recommend that the Board of Supervisors take the following actions. Determine that the notice of exemption is adequate and complete. Adopt the ordinance amending chapters one through seven and title four of the Sacramento County Zoning Code. ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH THE MAJOR TEMPORARY USE PERMIT APPLICATION FEE AT $725 AND REMOVE AN OBSOLETE APPLICATION FEE. DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. AND FINALLY DIRECT STAFF TO MAKE ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TO COUNTY PROCESSES AND APPLICATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ZONING CODE USER GUIDE. With that, that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Germano. Quite an endeavor that you have taken on leading this project, and we really appreciate it, and sincerely appreciate you and the team. And I know in your staff analysis, there's actually a slew, a whole roster full of the planning department staff, so our kudos to them as well. I know it takes a village from drafting, presenting, organizing, reviewing, and ultimately approving this document. It's a team effort, so congrats to the rest of the team. I just want to open it up to the rest of my colleagues here in the dais if they have any questions, concerns, or comments.

No questions, just a big thank you. Obviously, a lot of work went into this, and it was a very thorough and complete undertaking. I'd like to commend you and all the staff for your, I think, continued lens of like user friendly, really like viewing this from the consumers that are coming through and continuing to look through and look for ways to improve our processes. And I greatly appreciate that. So I see a lot of improvements here and big thank you.

I just want to say thank you for the workshop. The reality of it is that without the workshop, this would have been much more difficult to digest as a commissioner and then not sit up here for the next five hours and hit you with all different type of questions, some of them probably not even relevant, but it just makes it easier to make a decision when you have that kind of a prep ahead of time. That's just a lot of work to do the prep, and then it's a lot of work to get it through between our ears. and then come back up here and tell us again exactly what you did. Thank you for that process.

I also want to echo what Commissioner Verga said in terms of the preparation and all the fellow commissioners have said with respect to the preparation. Without the workshop and as a new commissioner myself, now three months into it, if I didn't have the workshop, I'd probably be asking 200 questions at this point. So it was very well logically structured and easy to understand in terms of the changes and also the openness of planning to be to listen to concerns and feedback going back decades to one clean up the clean up the. the books, so to speak, but also to address what current business problems are out there or restrictions and try to look at ways in which, one, to make a business-friendly environment, make it easier for those that own homes to perform certain activities or to have permission to do certain things, and then also with respect to other land use issues. So thank you very much for doing that.

Right on. I do have just a couple of technical questions, if you don't mind, Mr. Jamal. The notice on the food commissaries, and again, I'd echo the rest of the remarks by my commissioners, but on the food commissaries question, I know in the last few weeks that Economic Development Department have kind of started a slew of or continuing to have conversations within the community with mobile enterprise home kitchen operations now that's a little bit different when it comes to food commissaries and kind of the food truck standards can you please or maybe director smith or miss hartman can can walk us through or at least have a conversation as to how is that kind of morphing together how is it synthesizing or synergizing are they even connected are they not is that a separate effort

Yeah, so thank you again, Commissioner, for all the comments. I appreciate it. For the question about MECO enterprises, that is not a part of this package. It's being considered separately. We recently had staff go to a workshop, I believe in Rancho Cordova, to learn more about the implementations and the potential implications of us potentially adopting a MECO ordinance, but that's not a part of this package and that's a future effort for our department.

I can say that the county is still in the outreach process. I'm actually attending a—I didn't go to the prior workshop. Another staff member did. I'm going to a workshop this Thursday to also hear additional community input. Economic development has definitely been attending several workshops, and it will be one of those items— That would be a county code change, but may also trigger the need for a zoning code change if the board desires to move forward in that direction. But I think right now what their primary focus is, is gathering input from different businesses, from different communities on what their concerns are, what the benefits are before moving forward with anything formal.

Understood. Thank you quite and quite an endeavor right we have a restaurant community, but we also have Micro operations and people's residential homes to to allow for potentially I don't know if it's restaurant-level scale, but at least a larger scale of food production that tends to happen in different areas. So thank you. Thank you for that.

And that is different because our food concessions, the zoning code does not allow food trucks in the residential zone. So yeah, the MECO is definitely a residential use.

Understood. Thank you for enlightening me on this, you know in a time where we're discussing food comms errors and update to the code we're also seeing an increase in enforcement actions when it comes to Sidewalk vendors and now we're also discussing about micro enterprise home kitchen operations. I think it's quite quite a full kitchen that the county is undertaking quite a meal Thank you for that. My other question, Mr. Jamal, my name is Hartman. It's Director Smith. Your comments about expediting what is state and federally required, but also still incorporating the advance notice to our members of the CPAC. I know a number of us here have participated, have chaired. and in various CPAC groups would it be possible to not necessarily make an amendment but just have an understanding that it's not just a Notice to say a specific item is going to be heard But maybe one step further and say on this we do receive the CPAC email list to say hey, this is the staff presentation Is that plausible is that maybe already understood hopefully I'm not over complicating it I just would like for them to actually just know that it's not just an item being heard but the staff presentations available and

Yeah, we can do that. I just want to clarify the reason that we are proposing what we're proposing in this package with respect to more timely implementation of state mandates or federal mandates, as the case may be, we get pretty consistent pressure and increasing pressure from various state departments, most recently HCD, as it relates to all things housing, right? And we have to explain to them for example on our adu ordinance that we're working on here's the process that we have to go through currently under our zoning code you know 15 cpacs that's a long time it takes months to get through that before we can even come to the planning commission and then the board and so That's just one example, but what we're trying to do is identify those projects or code amendments that we have to do in order to comply with state law or federal law and really just cut to the chase, get to the action so that we can limit the county's liability. However, I understand your point, which is essentially to not just notify interested parties of the CPACs or the public of a Planning Commission hearing, but to acknowledge that there are materials and staff's analysis will be available, and we can certainly do that.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Director Smith. I think that you and your team are continuing to craft this fine balance. Oh, go ahead, Director Smith.

Thank you. Wendy just reminded me, zoning code items or zoning items in general, not just zoning code, do require an additional noticing period, not just 10 days, but 20 days. So us fulfilling that obligation gives them additional time.

Understood and I appreciate that you guys are being cognizant about and you and your team Cognizant about all the state and federal requirements understanding that there is a little bit of a shorter shot clock when it comes to these types of requirements but also still empowering informing and at least enabling our community members especially our CPAC members to feel that they can participate should they have comments concerns or feedback with these types of things that we have to implement and And with that, also, my final question would be, okay, now we're going to, assuming that we do vote and go with the staff recommendation, this goes to the Board of Supervisors, if I understand correctly, all of the items, what's going to be your push to publicize this to the rest of the community members and to the interested parties? What are you guys planning to do?

I'll defer to Wendy.

So I've actually already had some preliminary conversations with our public information officer and so they're anxiously waiting for us to get closer to the board hearing date which we have scheduled for July 28th. The zoning code takes effect 30 days after. That being said this is such a substantial package that between now and the board hearing date Matthew and I will be working on education materials and trainings for internal staff not just within planning and environmental review but within our other agencies that use the code and then working with our PIO officer to make sure we have lots of press releases out providing some of that information on our land use regulatory library we have the ability to kind of explain high level some of those changes and that is also one of the administrative level items that the board will be approving is our ability to create handouts faqs anything that we feel is needed to to help the public on certain types of uses or just understanding the changes that we made. And I am sure that no matter how much outreach we try to do, there will always be somebody who will be unaware.

Awesome.

Okay.

I just have one comments-asked question. You're talking about the food commissaries and the micro things in the houses and the pop-ups along the road. You know, as having family who have brick-and-mortar stores and restaurants, you know, you're talking about an environment that is greatly disadvantaged to the brick-and-mortar folks. And whatever we need to do to make sure not only what they're providing to people when they stop and buy it is appropriate and safe, but that they share in the burden of the fees and the taxes and everything else that every other business person has to deal with. I understand other counties, other areas are trying to address it. I also have talked to your code enforcement folks who try to address it, and to be quite honest, they get quite a sometimes forceful response by the people they're trying to deal with, to the point where now they most likely don't go out without law enforcement with them. to do that because of the way they're dealt with when they go there. So as you're going through this process to try to figure it out, please do your best to figure out how to deal with that, the enforcement part. We develop things. But if you develop something that can't be enforced, what good is it? The enforcement piece has got to be as much thought through as the rest of it. I'm sure you're going to try. It's just a matter of figuring out how to get it to do it right.

Thank you, Commissioner Berger.

Duly noted. With that, I'd like to maybe welcome any other further comments or concerns or feedback from the commission. I do want to check with Madam Clerk if there are any public comments on this item.

We have not received any public comments for this item.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chamomoy. I do believe that we do have a staff request in front of our table right now. I entertain a motion.

Move to approve as presented. And I'll second it.

Okay, let's call for a vote.

And that recommendation passes with all members present voting yes.

Thank you, Mr. Jaramillo, Ms. Hartman, Director Smith. Quite an endeavor and wishing you guys the best in your next steps. Okay, now let's move into item number five.

Item number five is the planning director's report.

All right. Just a few notes about upcoming items for you all tonight. In fact, tomorrow at the Board of Supervisors, you may recall this commission had a hearing on the crowing fowls unencoded amendments a while back. We actually, and Wendy was one of the people working on that, since that planning commission hearing, we took the direction the Planning Commission gave us, although you did recommend approval onto the Board of Supervisors. We went back to our Ag Commissioner, worked to develop some objective standards for the registration process. We also held three or four meetings with some key stakeholders, including the Hmong community. met with representatives of the 18 clan Hmong Council some business owners work to address their concerns in a very productive and collaborative way so that item is tomorrow at the board the zoning code amendments and the county code amendments Next week, the week of the 15th, the Upper West Side specific plan is going to the board on the 16th of June. Obviously, that's going to be a big hearing in the afternoon, a lot of public comments anticipated. then on the 23rd of this month on the Planning Commission agenda we'll have one item at the moment which is an appeal of a temporary use permit denial so that's something that you haven't seen in quite some time but it is an interesting one that's probably all I'll say about that feel free to reach out if you have any questions And then lastly, coming in July, the first hearing in July the 13th, we do have that appeal of the Eswaran parcel map from last month. We're ready for that on the 13th of July. And then we also have another zoning code amendment specifically related to the design review program. So a lot of code amendments coming your way. I mentioned this earlier this year, but they're coming. So we welcome and appreciate your ongoing participation.

Thank you, Director Smith. Any comments or questions to the planning director? Okay, moving on to item number six, Madam Clerk.

Item number six is miscellaneous scheduling items, and I have no items at this time.

Okay, understood. Do we have any public comments that we're not- And we have not received any additional public comments. Okay.

And with that... Well, just before we close out, can we just quickly go over the next couple of meetings? So we're here the 22nd? Yes. And not the 6th of July?

That is correct. The following meeting will be July 13th. July 13th.

And the 27th, I'm assuming?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay. Okay.

And then for the July hearings, I will be sending out a poll toward the middle of June here.

Okay. Any other questions, comments, or concerns? With that, I will be closing our meeting at 6.32 p.m. Thank you. Have a good evening.