Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the July 13th, 2026 meeting of the County Planning Commission for the County of Sacramento. Commissioner Verger, can you please kindly lead us to the Pledge of Allegiance, please? Thank you. Thank you, everyone. And before I turn it over to our Madam Clerk, I do have a few announcements to make. Before we begin, Commissioner Corona Saviano has requested to participate remotely pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 as amended by Assembly Bill 2449 under the Just Cause provision. The Commissioner has indicated they are travelling while conducting official business on behalf of another state or local agency. At this time, Commissioner Corona-Sabagnano, can you please confirm that you are participating remotely due to travel while conducting official business on behalf of another state or local agency? Thank you. Before the Commission takes any action, please also state whether there is anyone 18 years of age or older present in the room with you at your remote location.

Yes, my husband is here with me.

Understood. And if so, identify the general nature of your relationship to that individual. I think you just said that.

I have not.

Thank you. All right. For the record, Commissioner Corona Savagnano is participating by both audio and video in accordance with government code section 54953. Okay. Now, Madam Clerk, can you please make the announcements?

And I will go ahead and take the official role. Member Verga?

Here.

Rockenstein. Here. Corona Sabaniano.

Here.

And Chair Borja.

Here.

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

Okay.

And I will go into the announcements. The county fosters public engagement during the meeting and encourages public participation, civility, and the use of courteous language. The commission does not condone the use of profanity, vulgar language, gestures, or other inappropriate behavior, including personal attacks or threats directed toward any meeting participant. Seating may be limited and available on a first come, first served basis. To make an in-person public comment, please complete a speaker request form and submit it to the clerk. Each individual will be invited to the podium to make a comment. Members of the public may send a written comment. which is distributed to commission members and filed in the record. Contact information is optional and should include the meeting date and agenda off-agenda item number to be sent as follows. Email a comment to boardclerk at saccounty.gov and email, sorry, mail a comment to 708 Street Suite 2450 at Sacramento, California 95814. And that concludes the announcement.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Can you please read item number one?

And item number one is, did you want to make the announcement regarding the order? Are we going to go in order as listed on the agenda?

Just verify with staff we feel comfortable Making some changes to the order in the agenda to allow us to have more of our commissioners are able to participate Yes commissioner chair Borja Todd Smith planning director it's up to the Commission we are able and ready to go in any order you desire Understood just want to ask any feedback or input from the rest of our staff I understand that we are expecting Commissioner Devlin. He is just running a few minutes behind and We do have a majority of our members here constituting a quorum. So with that said Barring any any other concerns I'd like to move to I will call item number 3. I believe we are acting as a board of zoning appeals to the first item in our docket. Is that agreeable to everyone?

that is correct. I will go ahead and read item number 3 into the record. As you said you guys are acting as a board of zoning appeals. Item number three is PLMP 2022-00110, Ashwarian Tentative Parcel Map Appeal. This is an appeal of a tentative parcel map, special development permit, and design review. And 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. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, before we start, I think this is, just so we all understand, this is the second time we'll hear this. So we're all on the same page, right? Right. Thank you.

Perfect. Good evening, everyone. Good evening, Chair Borja, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals. My name is Christian Balthazar, Associate Planner with Planning and Environmental Review and the Planner for the Osirian Tentative Parcel Map. As previously mentioned, I do want to note that this is a second time hearing this project. The first time that the Board of Zoning Appeals heard this project was May 11th. This is continuance of that particular hearing. I did also want to note that the request being considered today is a housing item. Under Senate Bill 330, this establishes a maximum of five public hearings for housing items. I do want to note that today's hearing would be considering hearing five of five, meaning that a final determination will need to be made this evening for this item. So as a quick refresher, the subject site is located at 6548 Sutter Avenue, which consists of a single parcel and is currently developed with an existing single family home and pool. The subject site is zoned RD2, or Residential Density 2, and is currently within the Carmichael Creek Neighborhood Preservation Area, or MPA, and has an overlay of natural streams that bisects the tail end, kind of that southern portion of the property shown on the screen right down here. Along with that, surrounding development is single family homes, all zoned RD2 MPA in all directions. I did also want to inform the board tonight that staff has been made aware that there is an active code violation for this site, which was opened recently. This code case pertains to front yard fencing height and setback. Staff was also informed that the owner is actively working to correct this violation, but in order to ensure that this matter is resolved, staff has also prepared the following language to be added as a condition of approval to ensure that this is resolved in a timely manner. I have... THE LANGUAGE PRINTED OUT ON THE OVERHEAD, IF WE CAN PUT THAT ON SCREEN THERE. WHILE WE GET THAT UP, THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE PRIOR TO THE FOLLOWING OF THE FINAL PARCEL MAP, ALL ACTIVE CODE VIOLATIONS ON THE EXISTING APN 260-0120-075 SHALL BE RESOLVED AND CLEARED TO THE SATISFACTION OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY'S CODE ENFORCEMENT Thank you. And if we could go back to the PowerPoint. So once again, as a refresher on screen now is that proposed Senator parcel map looking to divide 1.08 acres into two lots. Just to orient yourselves, Sutter Avenue is the north side of the map. So that's on the left side of your screen. And the south side would be on the right side of your screen here. so the proposed a lot split would result in parcel a the one for this to the left of the northernmost results in parcel would be twenty four thousand nine hundred and sixty three square feet in size results in parcel B would be twenty one thousand three hundred seventy two square feet in size both of these proposed lots would meet that twenty thousand square foot minimum which is required of rd2 zone properties. Additionally, the project is requesting to use the existing private drive to serve the new results in parcel, which would bring the total number of lots being accessed by the private drive up to a total of five potential lots. This is the request that's being requested under that special development permit. I did want to also reiterate that no trees are proposed to be removed for this project, and the applicant is showing the conceptual building envelope on proposed parcel A to demonstrate that setbacks can be met, and that also there is no encroachment on trees that are currently existing on site. And that's being shown in the center here with those dashed lines. And just as a reminder, the request is a tentative parcel map looking to divide one parcel into two resulting lots, a special development permit to allow deviations from public street frontage standards, and a design review. The project was first heard by the Subdivision Review Committee and the Zoning Administrator on February 19th of this year, and there were a total of six members of the public in opposition to the item. Following deliberation, the Zoning Administrator made the motion to approve the special development permit and to move staff's recommendation on the tentative parcel map and special design review requests. Following that motion, the SRC voted five yes, zero no to approve those entitlements. Subsequent to that meeting, there was an appeal filed by the neighbors of the project site, and that was submitted to the clerk of the boards on February 27th of this year. As previously mentioned, the first time this board heard this project was on May 11th. Following staff's presentation at that meeting, the applicant and the three appellants presented their perspectives to the Board of Zoning Appeals. During public comment section of the agenda, one member of the public provided one comment in opposition to the proposal. The concerns identified by the commenter included inadequacy of the proposed fire turnaround, concerns that staff did not provide a more thorough consistency analysis with the Carmichael Creek MPA and the Carmichael Community Plan. Commissioners also had questions related to fire access, the required roads maintenance agreement, the applicability of the MPA, and how staff analyzed the project in the context of the MPA and the community plan. Sac Metro Fire District staff was also in attendance that evening and they answered all questions related to fire access and road maintenance and the road maintenance agreement for the site. As you guys are aware, following that deliberation, the project was now continued to this July 13th meeting, and the BZA asked the following three items be addressed by county staff. So we can go through each item real briefly here. So the first item that was requested to be addressed was the segmental fire condition requiring a road maintenance agreement and its enforcement. So following the May 11th meeting, Sac Metro Fire District provided staff the following updated condition language to condition number 24, which is now shown on screen. While the condition language would largely remain the same, the underlying portion was added language to help clarify the responsible parties in the event that all current parcel owners do not agree to enter into a new road maintenance agreement. The applicable portion of the California Civil Code Section 845 has been provided to you all on page 5 of the staff reports of your hearing packets in case you would like to read through it. But in short, this section states that in the absence of a remains agreement, the cost shall be shared proportionally to the use made of the easement by each owner. In addition, to add further clarification on enforcement, staff confirmed that Sac Metro Fire District would be the responsible agency for the enforcement of the road maintenance conditions in the event that the parties responsible fail to maintain the road properly. The second item that was requested by the BZA was to have staff research and possibly add a condition of approval to the project requiring a construction staging to occur on site and off the private road. The reasoning for this was so that in the event of an emergency, the private road would serve as a fire access road, and we need to have that kept clear. While it is not typical for planning to condition a project for construction station, especially in a project like this where there is no development that's being proposed with the entitlements, staff has prepared the following condition language in the event that the BZA would like to have this condition added to the project. That is listed on screen there and reads, as an ongoing measure, any subsequent construction staging shall be contained on site and out of the private drive as to not impede emergency vehicle access. And lastly, the BZA also asked staff for a consistency analysis demonstrating how the proposed project is consistent with the Carmichael Creek NPA, the Carmichael Community Plan, and the Carmichael Action Plan. A detailed analysis of this was completed by staff and is available in the staff report for this item. However, one of the biggest concerns from the appellants and the public commenters was that, in their opinion, the project is in direct conflict with the MPA's purpose, given that they felt the request would not preserve the existing semi-rural character of the area. On screen now is the definition of the semi-rural residential area as defined in Land Use Action L1-1 of the Carmichael Action Plan. with the definition in mind staff determined that the subject site is zoned rd2 contains both mature vegetation and a natural streams overlay both the resultant parcels would both of the resultant parcels would exceed the minimum lot areas for rd2 zone property which would allow for open space as yard areas that can be provided as wildlife habitat. Additionally, county engineering site improvements and permitting section condition the site to minimal street improvements along Sutter Avenue. Based on the definition above and staff's analysis of the site, it was determined that the project meets the definition of semi-rural residential, and therefore the proposal does not conflict with the existing semi-rural character of the area. In addition, staff also evaluated all findings listed in Section 534-15 of the NPA and provided a consistency analysis of each of those findings. Staff also analyzed all goals, policies, and objectives of the Community Plan and Action Plan, and this consistency analysis can be found in the staff report for tonight's item. However, this slide also does contain a list of the community plan goals and objectives and action plan policies that staff identified the project directly met. Staff also determined that there are no goals, objectives, or policies that are listed within the action plan or community plan that this project would be in direct conflict with. Based on the affirmation items, staff maintains the determination that the project can be found consistent with the Carmichael Creek MPA, the Carmichael Community Plan, and the Carmichael Action Plan. Following staff's review of the proposal, it was determined that the project is consistent with the county's general plan. As previously mentioned, the Carmichael Community Plan Action Plan, as well as the Carmichael Creek MPA, and also the zoning code. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses and would be creating an additional housing opportunity. In addition, there are no significant environmental concerns, given that a notice of exemption was prepared under CEQA. And lastly, the project was also supported by DRAC. With this, Planning Environmental Review staff recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeal take the following actions. Deny the appeal, maintaining the Subdivision Review Committee and Zoning Administrator's approval of the proposed project. Recognize that the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, Public Resources Code Section 21085. approve the tentative parcel map, approve the special development permit, and find the project in substantial compliance with countywide design guidelines, all subject to findings and conditions. With that, I'll go ahead and conclude my presentation. I am available to answer any questions. We do also have the applicant team present in person to answer questions. And lastly, once again, we do also have Supervising Inspector Christian Gagne, the Sacramento Metro Fire District, who is also available to answer questions related to fire standards. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bells. I wanted to turn the mic or the opportunity for the rest of my commissioners to ask any questions for staff this evening. Commissioner Rockenstein.

Yes, thank you for the presentation. How common is it to place these conditions within a kind of a quote semi-rural area?

Which conditions specifically?

Just the conditions, one, in terms of removal of the violations. Secondly, is the staging area around construction anything else?

Yeah, so the condition regarding the violation is not a typical condition that we would apply. We do have a more broad condition, condition number three, in our attachment to document that basically states that property owners are responsible for any nuisance within the property and failure to correct those nuisances could result in the revocation of a permit or an approval. however staff considered that particular condition of approval a little too broad and in order to better capture in this case this particular this specific scenario would determine that it may be better to be a little more specific with that particular condition.

So in the event that this condition of correcting a violation is not met there would be a revocation of let's say in the event that this is approved to move forward?

So the timing trigger is specifically written out as to if the violation is not corrected, the applicant will not be able to record a final map.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Berger.

Just out of curiosity, did this fence go up between May 11th and today?

I am not sure of the timing of when the fence was erected. Typically, those types of items are reported through 311. So unless someone notices that it's a violation or if there is a code enforcement officer that happens to be within the area, that's when they'll get called out. But I don't have specifics as to the timing.

So no specifics about how all of a sudden how this violation just was discovered?

Correct. We do have the owner present, so they may be able to speak to the timing of when that fence was placed. My understanding is that there is an application for a minor use permit that is currently being worked on to be submitted to the county to correct the deviations being requested to the height of the fence and location. However, given the timing of when that violation was enacted, we felt that the condition of approval was the best path forward.

I'm just curious. I mean, how do all of a sudden there's a violation pops up in the middle of this process and it wasn't discovered when it was originally run through the system? It's kind of strange for me to think that all of a sudden there's a notice of a violation of... a significant issue meaning a fence that just doesn't get built in a matter of a few hours and it wasn't there prior to our first meeting and because it got continued it's there now and then now we're requiring a special condition because of that violation but we have no idea how all of a sudden we became aware of that violation

Commissioner Virga, Todd Smith, Planning Director, it looks like the violation was opened or started in June, mid-June, so roughly three weeks ago. So after, obviously, the May hearing about the BZA. I don't have the history on it, but I just can see the date of when that was started. I can't speak to when it was reported to the county. Perhaps the property owner might have some more information to share.

Okay, thank you. And I have another question. Again, we're talking about a map, right? So we're going to put a condition on this property about lay down area for construction before we're even talking about construction. right? Is that the other condition that we' re saying that you have to have a specific area on site of the original property in order to get the map approved?

so that condition language and maybe I can bring up the slide so we can see the language itself essentially that has not yet been added to the attachment to the list of conditions and as I mentioned it' s not something planning would typically condition for request such as this where there's no development however given the interest from the board in terms of concerns with adding particular staging to the site this wouldn't necessarily affect the the the property owner from from following a map right typically this wouldn't the staging of construction wouldn't occur until after building permits have been issued and it's it's kind of like a follow-up and But essentially this hasn't been added the languages was drafted and in case the board feels this would be the best way to essentially answer this question of how to ensure staging does not occur on the fire access road and off of the site itself.

So this isn't something staff recommending to be part of a condition that just a out there in case the board here decides that that should be part of the conditions that you're saying?

Correct. It's a language to potentially help answer the question that was posed at the past hearing.

But you're not asking to make it part of the condition. The staff aren't saying it should be part of the condition, correct? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Mr. Baltazar, kind of going to that same theme, though, correct me if I'm wrong, my memory's kind of bleak. I have a six-week-old at home, so she's not letting me sleep. But part of the contention that we had in the previous staff report was that there was a condition of either removing the pool because of the lot split, which necessitated staff's, I don't want to say intervention, but conditions that triggers a construction action, even though we are still on the map.

Can you please? Can I just jump in on this? So it's not unusual to condition the construction in the map process. By approving the map, you are increasing, you're creating new development potential. by allowing, if you do allow the map. So it's within your jurisdiction to look forward and see what kind of development might occur. So it's well within your jurisdiction, especially to address any development situations or circumstances that wouldn't be covered by our building permit standards or the building code. So of any unusual circumstances. And this, the site plan, staging plan was, you know a concern raised by someone on the commission when we heard this last time so that's why it's being presented now but it's completely I'll say it's not out of the ordinary to kind of predict a problem or an issue that might arise when they develop this new parcel and try to address it.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you for that council. Still wanted to go back to that. If you could please give us a few seconds on the genesis of the pool part of what we're discussing tonight.

yeah you're correct so former condition 8 now condition 10 and attachment 2 as mentioned parcel in this case would be considered parcel B the parcel that would contain or retain the existing single-family home does have a pool that's associated to it given that the partialization or splitting of the property would put the accessory use which is the pool on a standalone parcel that would not be allowed under our current code and accessory cannot be a standalone use on a new parcel. So in order to remedy that the applicant was given an option essentially which formulated condition number 10 which reads prior to the following of a parcel map an accessory dwelling unit or ADU shall be constructed on proposed parcel A and all utilities related 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, meaning the applicant can choose to keep the pool and erect an ADU prior to filing of the map to ensure noncompliance in the future, or can opt to just remove the pool in its entirety and not construct an ADU.

Understood. Thank you. Hopefully that's a good recollection for the rest of the commissioners. Vice Chair Dublin, do you have any questions at staff this time?

No.

Thank you. I do have just a couple of questions, Mr. Balsar, related to the RMA and maybe perhaps you or our team members here from SFMD would be able to answer. If you could just walk us through, what would be your steps of enforcement? Because the code, it seems to me, California civil code section 845 is very clear. There's a scenario A and then there's B. and then there's C. Do you foresee that having to... be addressed first or in concurrence if we were to decide to move this item or approve this item or deny this item. I'm just curious to hear your thoughts about you being the enforcement agency because it seems like that's still a sticking point if for some reason there's no agreeance with the rest of the neighbors that they would comply on their fair share of having to pay into the maintenance or at least the cost of the easement.

So we will enforce the access to the road. We will not be able to be the enforcement to make sure that people are paying their fair share. That's a civil court. That's a civil code. It's way above Metro Fire, that part. we'll make sure that we can get access to every single property for emergency use. That's the part. If and when we see the road that is not maintained, we'll enforce the road to be maintained, but the part who's paying, that's why we added the civil code, because we could not actually say that our rules are above the civil code. So we put that civil code section in there, and because that's very clear exactly how that enforce, who pays for maintenance and exactly the shares and everything. So that's as clear in the civil code. So that's why we just added that section. Understood.

Commissioner Coronas Habaniano, do you have any questions of staff at this time?

No questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I think at this time we would allow the applicant to address the commission or representatives of the applicant. Sir.

And before addressing the commission, I will go ahead and read you an oath. So if you do wish to address the commission about the items on the agenda, please raise your right hand. And the appropriate response is I do. Do you swear the testimony that you are about to give to this board is a truth, so help you God? If you do not swear, do you so affirm?

I do.

Thank you very much, sir.

I'll worry about that.

No worries.

Mr. Vaughn, good evening.

All right, we agreed with Christian on everything, and we have no comments.

Okay, do we have any questions from the commissioners?

Mr. Devlin. Yes, thank you. I guess my one question to the applicant, I mean, are they prepared to maintain this road? you know absent all parties participating in this maintenance agreement i mean right yeah say that again i i mean are you are you prepared to maintain the the road you know if all of the parties on that live on the street don't participate in the agreement to maintain it, right? We're still back to the shifting of this burden.

Well, not exactly. Do you want to respond to that first? Because I can explain the condition. The change to the condition is it's two steps now on the maintenance. So the first part of the condition says applicant, you need to get all the neighbors to sign on to a new maintenance agreement. Second part says if you can't do that, and there's a good chance that he won't be able, they won't be able to do that, that it defaults to the civil code section, which creates a framework for properties that front on a private drive to deal with this. And it says everyone that lives on, fronts on that private drive is going to have a proportionate share of the maintenance cost. And one of the properties can decide to go and maintain the road and then go to court against their neighbors to recoup the cost.

Okay, but the default is all parties are going to essentially share in this burden.

Yeah, they may have to go to court to do it, but yeah, that's what the civil code provides for.

Okay. Okay.

So we're not at a you're asking him are you prepared to pay for this all by yourself?

My question and he's not necessarily gonna have to do that my question to the applicant is moot then Thank you for the clarification council No, no questions for you, sir.

All right, so we're we are aware of which one we have to get those signatures, okay?

But mr. Wong Talk to us about the violation and how you and your property owner that you're presenting is addressing the violation and how you're hoping to fix that issue that just came up. It's an ongoing or at least a newly introduced enforcement action about a fence.

Well, I don't have an answer for that. I have to talk to the owner. Actually, I was the last person to come up here and speak. So...

Mr. Warren, if you could kindly. We'd love to be able to hear your voice. If you could just join Mr. Wong at the podium. And Madam Clerk, do we need to swear her too?

If you can just state your name and did you hear the statement that I read earlier and you can say I do. So state your name and I do.

I do.

Thank you very much.

The inspector called me, and he says, no violation, but you need to go get a user permit. No, minor user permit. So I applied for it. First time I went, the building permit, they say you don't need it. It's a private road. I went two times. Then the inspector said, no, you go back. I did. And then I went to him and he said he will do it. I don't know what he did. And then the inspector sent the violation. So I went to the planning thing. They told me they helped me to fill up all the forms and everything. It's already, they're working on it to get the minor use permit. So they said, if you have that, you don't need to take that. I put the fence for my private, my safety. And also people keep looking at and complaining to the inspector all the time, saying this is not right, this is not this, this. Complaining from my neighbors. So I have defense for my protection. So the inspector, I talked to him for a long time, and he understand. He told me, go get a minor use permit. So I already applied for it. And then I'm going tomorrow to, you know, I have a meeting with him.

Okay, thank you.

But the first time he says no violation and I don't know where they, you know.

So what you're saying is you didn't get a minor use permit to put the fence up and that's what the violation is?

Yes.

Okay, all right. Thank you, I appreciate that.

Okay, any other questions from the rest of the commissioners? Commissioner Coronas-Abanana, any questions to the applicant?

I think we lost her for a moment, so we'll wait for her to reconnect, but go ahead.

Okay, well I certainly not want to wait until she reconnects, so perhaps if council would be appropriate if we move towards public comments. Okay, Madam Clerk, can we move on to public comments?

Yes, we did receive two public comments. The first public commenter is Mary Bradley.

And just to be clear, this is the time for the appellants to speak as well. Thank you.

Do we want to hear the appellants before the public commenters?

Well, they're not all one and the same, but yeah, let's be clear on who is speaking.

Okay, so we'd like to invite either the appellant or any of the folks who wish to address the commission via public comment. We want to give you an opportunity to speak. Good evening.

Good evening. Can you hear me? Okay, good. My name is Mary Bradley. I am an appellant, and I do.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Before I begin, My stuff, I want to, while it's still fresh, that fence issue has been a two-year complaint that the county has not addressed. And it does say that on a private road, you can't have a six-foot solid fence right on the road. It's got to sit back 20 feet. So... The county with a lot of times that we have put in complaints for weed abatement, other items that are in code violation, it takes two, three, four, five times for them to do something. And in a minute, in order to show some pictures, what do I need to do? Oh, okay, awesome, thank you. Okay, first I wanna say to deny this special variance is not a denial of the applicant's rights. It's a request to deviate from the norm if it does no harm nor diminish property values by altering the neighbor's character, safety, health, and quality of life, or the devaluation of property values. the applicant still remains her ability to build a second house on that property without splitting it because it is R2 status she can still build. It also says the fulfillment of the special variance, this is from your website, of a special variance has to meet certain criteria. No complaints of any kind are pending, nor has there been a history of complaints, and no enforcement action of any kind is pending regarding the property.

Ms. Bradley, just take a quick pause. I just also want to be respectful of the process. I would like for you to be able to finish. I know the light here is blinking. Without any concerns from the rest of my commissioners, how about extending it a minute or two to allow her to be able to finish.

Actually, I was told before that we had plenty of time to go through our stuff.

Okay. That's what I was told. All right. Well, maybe perhaps we should just remove that timer to allow you to be able to speak.

Okay. Just a minute. Grant, can you bring me my phone? Sorry. First, this is... Okay. Why isn't Okay. All right. This is our property. This is the other neighbor's property. And when Kala bought her property, This is what it looked like, very bucolic and beautiful. I don't know if I can switch that around, but that looks beautiful. This is what it is degraded to. We've had multiple complaints of weed abatement. Weed abatement. Environmental issues. Weed abatement. Oops. More weed abatement. Sorry. Okay. Also, the property does not meet the requirements for this variance because it does not have special circumstances or deprivation of privileges. Granting it will actually constitute a special privilege to the applicant because it is attempting to deny the private road homeowners of current voting rights and existing property rights. The findings and condition of approval 24 in the absence of an RMA, you know, the civil code 845 you were talking about, is attempting to nullify a legally recorded document without the consent of those who have signed. This is what we signed when we all purchased the property. Allowing the applicant the option to take responsibility over the easement is also an attempt to nullify our current RMA. The applicant was asked to provide the neighborhood with a new RMA for review and she has refused. I'LL TRY AND KEEP THIS TOO SHORT OR SHORTER. JUST BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CLAIMS THAT THEY CAN DRIVE THEIR TRUCKS ON THIS ROAD DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TRAFFIC ON THIS ROAD DISAPPEARS. WE STILL HAVE COUNTY TRUCKS, DELIVERY TRUCKS, GUESTS, MAIL TRUCKS, GARBAGE TRUCKS, CONTRACTORS, AND WITH THE ONLINE PURCHASES THAT IS A WAY OF LIFE FOR EVERYONE, IT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC. As a community, we've adjusted to this, but the applicant continues to scream at delivery people for using the easement. The road does not meet future demands for our traffic and parking that negatively impact our lives. To avoid the private road change to meet the five lot split of a 40 foot bulb radius turnaround or expand the road to 30 feet wide is a dereliction of duty in meeting the community needs on its private road. Sutter Avenue itself is a commuter road established by the county to circumvent traffic on Fair Oaks. There is no safe or available parking due to the nature of the terrain and the drainage to Carmichael Creek. It also puts an unfair, possibly illegal restriction on the front lot in future building, which would not be there if the lot split was not granted. Circumventing the codes and laws are not in the best interest of the community and harms the residents. Looking at a drawing is not looking at a way of life in a community who is trying its best to live cohesively together. The planning department has only addressed and checked the boxes for the wants of the applicant and disregards the needs of the community. It has been remiss in addressing code violations, closing them with no comment, and over the course of five years, it takes multiple complaints to get relief. The county was not honest in the last hearing stating the applicant had no open violations, which in fact the applicant did and still does. Again, here is, hopefully that will come on. there still there is weed abatement this was taken sunday and this is the fence that we were talking about that has been there many years and we have tried here is still more weeds that we have called the county on that's right next to our house we're very close and uh... You know, the variance may look good to you guys on paper, but it does not serve our community and has questionable legal action. I want you at this point to... Let me see if I can pull this up here. Don't mind the picture of my feet with it. I tried to get it... You can see this. This is what our property, our different properties look like, what is there, with the exception of the orange. That is her allowed dwelling. These are, these blue things are parking where people can park. Sorry. And then my next one, we're not taking into consideration that without further ado from the county or a public hearing that anyone can put up as many as three ADUs within this community. That's what the planning department told me. and this is what that could look like potentially. Does that look to you like that would satisfy the needs of the NPA? When you have things in writing, it can look all fine, but when you put it into reality, this is what you get, and to me that looks like, you know, It's a mess. You might as well live in an apartment. Anyway, again, we're not denying the applicant's rights or the ability for a second house. But again, a special variance is a request. It isn't a right and should not infringe on the neighbor's rights. And the applicant has already destroyed the bucolic environment of her own property. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bradley. Do we have any other speakers? Yes, we do. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Next up is Matthew Becker.

I'm going to appeal to... I'm also one of the appellants.

We file a joint appeal.

Okay, and just make sure you state your name in the statement I do.

Good evening, board members. My name is Isaac Jerger. What I prepared is about five or six minutes long. I hope that's okay. My wife and I own lot one and two of the existing neighborhood at 6544 and 6546 Sutter Avenue. We are adjacent neighbors directly affected by the project. We are here today because our primary goal is to have the project denied outright given all the reasons stated in our appeal submission and previous hearings, which I hope you've been able to review with the files and the video of the prior appeal hearing. However, if this board is not the fire department is prepared to deny the current project as is then at the very least we ask that you step in and clean up a set of conditions that are ambiguous and fundamentally unfair to existing neighbors. The first for condition 24 regarding the rma which applies so under sacramento metro fire department's own fire prevention standard 3 section 12 it states a reciprocal road maintenance agreement shall be notarized and shall means it is mandatory it is not an option and is not a suggestion smfd has stated multiple times in writing and in past hearings it's included in staff reports and other attachments that a new rma will be required in this project if this project is approved among other references you can find the requirement for a new rma explicitly noted in the staff report a new R.M.A. which would specify specifically state a new R.M.A. so there's no ambiguity between what is intended and what is written. I think we previously shared that when we approached our the applicant about putting a new R.M.A. together. The comment was that her intention was to go ahead and just try to record the existing one. And so that's why we're saying it should be clarified that a new RMA is needed. It's been stated on record. We don't see why it can't be clarified in the condition. further the requirement for an rma in the smfd code is that it be a reciprocal agreement and that should also be reflected in the condition stating that an rma must be approved by and recorded between all affected lots the document executed by one owner unilaterally is not an agreement between all parcels connected to and served by the fire access roadway our existing agreement runs with the land and the applicant acquired the property subject to that existing legal agreement the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of The county does not modify private agreements. The county does not need to solve the applicant's private contractual problem as part of a special development permit process. The applicant knew about the agreement when they bought the property and should have the burden of satisfying any conditions related to it. Rather than clean up the ambiguity between the last hearing and this one, an extra line was put into condition 24 referencing civil code 845 without noting that a new reciprocal RMA shall be required. In practice, it achieves nothing except confusion. the county or fire department may erroneously believe that a basic statutory default replaces a rigorous enforceable multi-party agreement as stated in the sac metro fire department code condition 24 needs the civil codes distraction stripped out leaving a hard clean mandatory requirement for recorded maintenance agreement adding existing civil codes to conditions that serve no purpose other than potential confusion or implied loophole is not the county's role or president the county and smfd would want on the record The other issue I want to go over is the five lot density and the potential encumbrances that impact our lot as a result of the comments that were made. The permit application explicitly states that the applicant is applying for a fifth lot to be served by a private drive. But if you look at SMFD Fire Standard 3 Section 11 and Figure 1B, which appears to be what's proposed on the map being provided, the proposed turnaround design is strictly capped at a maximum of four dwelling lots. To serve five lots, the applicant is required by the safety code to build a full turnaround from figure one, options A, C, D, or E. Because the applicant does not want to build a proper turnaround, the answer to this point is to pretend that lot one is not currently served by the private drive, even though it is in every sense from a practical, legal, and operational perspective. The private drive goes through lot one, which is granted an easement for this purpose and has a reciprocal RMA in place for maintenance to which it is required to pay for and has paid for. the fire department and the district. In the attachment nine which is the prior board of zoning appeals report officials and fire staff discuss what happens if a fence is built along sutter avenue on this lot on page six their proposed remedy for the fire access deficit because they are attempting to state this lot will be served by sutter avenue rather than private drive was a state that we as the owners of lot one could be forced to go through a special fire district fence permitting process allowing the of the property. This is not the first time we have seen this. Simply, smfd has confirmed the practical operational reality is that they rely on and expect to deal with our existing private drive access. When the five-lot math fails, there has been a stated attempt to shift the burden and place new regulatory red tape fence permits and encumbrances onto an existing lot 6544 sutter avenue, which is not part of this lot split. That is completely unacceptable. We own two properties with the vested right to use the private drive for regular and emergency access, free from forced access easements or any other encumbrances the board to establish clear boundaries on record first amend condition 24 to require clearly a new road maintenance agreement agreed and recorded between all parties with no ambiguity about that intent which again has been stated as such by smfd directly and in their code references to civil code 845 should not be included in this condition for the reasons previously stated the ambiguity that could cause and the potential for approval without the proper rma second explicitly protect our properties at six five four four six five four six as well as our neighbors at six five five zero sutter avenue they're willing that no secondary encumbrances fence permits or access burdens can ever be forced onto these lots due to the additional density being added by the special development permit in other words that they can't be later later counted as a fifth dwelling and third enforce the actual fire code if the applicant wants a fifth lot make them build the proper five lot turnaround on site instead of trying to make the existing neighbors pay for their design compromise thank you Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke.

Do we have any other folks who, okay, thank you.

No, we have not received any additional public comments.

Oh, are you in, okay.

Oh, this is Matthew, okay.

Yes, thank you. Good evening. My name is Matthew Becker and I'm a homeowner at 6532 Sutter Avenue. My property is contiguous with the applicants and all of the appellants. So I have, I won't say I have a unique perspective, but I see what's going on there and I don't like it. And I'm also speaking for my fiance, Angela Tate. We have previous, I joined the appellant's comments, so I won't burden you with rehashing them. But there is, the reality of the situation is I have no faith that any condition you put upon this project will be followed. There's just been no good faith in this. The lot is a fire hazard area. The weeds that you saw by Mrs. Grant were, they're just terrible. And I've previously noted to the CPAC that we have weeds that are four or five feet high back there. And there have been years to address this. I've only lived at the property for a year and these weeds have been there and could have been addressed during the initial application and they weren't. to the point where I've had to spend thousands of dollars to remove a tree that fell from their property onto my property. I'm abating weeds as much as possible so that a fire doesn't rip through there because there's still huge limbs from a eucalyptus there that haven't been cut up. She's had a year since we've lived there. We've appeared in multiple meetings, and nothing has been done there. And I'm not giving her kudos for weed whacking around her house, because that's not the issue. The issue is the fire hazard that's there. And she keeps thumbing her nose at the neighbors. And she's gonna continue doing it. So I'll respect the decision of this body, But again, there's been zero good faith on her part. And there are multiple code violations there. So you gentlemen and lady will decide what you wanna do. But these conditions though, they have to change on her part. like we can't monitor constantly. That's not the purpose of living there. So I'll just, I'll yield my time. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do you have any other speakers?

We do not have an additional public, no additional public comments.

Okay. Just as a matter of procedure, do we allow the applicant to provide any rebuttal testimony or final arguments before we turn it back?

I don't think he understands the process. Do you have any rebuttals you want to make to the individuals who just testified?

I was rented my house before, so that's what the weed problem, all the other problems are raised. Now I cut everything. Now I have a gardener come every week and take care of the yard. And I don't know where they get all these things per week. I can show you, I have a gardener named Marco, and he comes every week to take care of the gardening. I'm paying $200. So they're constantly coming, taking pictures, and constantly they're walking, they're doing what I'm doing. That's the reason I put the fence. You know, there is no privacy for me. Constantly, you saw that. They constantly calling the inspector, constantly. So the inspector told me, there is not a violation since the neighbors are complaining, and particularly my next door. And so he told me to go get the minor use permit. So I already applied. I should get it pretty soon regarding the fence. And I don't know what to say. I'm a divorcee by myself. You know, I just, I live here for four or five days and I go take care of my granddaughters and grandson and in cemetery for three days. And then they have a games, you know, they are in a softball. So I enjoy their games and everything. And then I come back here every Monday. And by the time I come back, some disaster is waiting for me. I'm also a human being. I want to live comfortably without David watching me 24 hours, and I don't have to be afraid of that. And there is, yes, I yell at that, what is the name, the Amazon guy. He comes literally to, I have a gate. The gate is open. He literally comes inside, wait for 10 minutes, and then he takes off. provoke me and then they constantly have a, do you want to sell your house? We are ready to buy. How much do you want? You want to buy a house? Constantly they're calling me. You know, I'm just a human. I'm just trying to get along with everybody, you know? But because I'm Indian, they don't like me. That's a fact. I'm trying my maximum to be nice to them. I don't have anything else to say. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Ms. Oswaran. Okay. I think it's now time for us to either deliberate or ask questions of staff.

I just have one question for staff.

Vice Chair Devlin, go ahead.

This is perhaps for counsel.

Could you just refresh my recollection as to the May meeting and what happened there? We're back here. The whole meeting? Well, the outcome was this just a continuance

this is a continuance you had three issues which planners oh you came in a little bit late so there are three issues that they were going to respond to from the commissioners one was how does this project relate to the MPA the others were how do we deal with the road maintenance agreement issue and the third The construction staging was a third issue. And I think we had an issue with attendance, too. Maybe we had three commissioners here or four, and that was going to potentially create some issues with the voting if we split. So those were the reasons for doing the continuance. So here we are.

Straight continuance. There was no other action or anything taken.

Right.

All right. Thank you, counsel.

Mr. Chairman, I kind of have some questions to staff. When you were doing your review, did you come up with any other violations prior to your review and getting everything set up for this appeal, and not just the appeal, but the actual MAP request?

Good evening, Christian Balthazar. Yeah, so the initial staff report to the zoning administrator and the subdivision review committee did identify a number of previous code violations that were issued to the site, all of which had been remedied prior to that hearing. I do have the conditions in front of me. I believe it was a total of... four code violations primarily relating to retaining walls and structures of the Construction of the pool as I mentioned during the review Determined that all of those had been remedied prior to that initial hearing with the SRC ZA So the issues that you came up with prior during your review was mainly dealing with the pool. That's correct it was primarily dealing with retaining walls and structures associated to the construction of the pool and And county staff has been on site at her property, I would take? That's correct. I've corresponded with county code enforcement that reviewed the code violations for the construction of the retaining walls of the pool and did have someone go out to confirm that the retaining wall was now up to code.

And that's the only violations they found?

That's correct. That's all the violations on record other than the one mentioned today regarding the fencing.

And that fencing looked like in one of the pictures that that fence had been there for quite a while, right? That's what it looked like. I mean, the fence that is now a violation looked like it had been there for a while.

That's what it appears. When we first reviewed the site, one note that in reviewing sites, we often go through like Street Viewer on Google to look at the site at a street level. Given that this is on a private drive, there is no access for a street level view of the property as was shown here today. all we had was the view from Sutter Avenue, and the depth of the lot was too far to view from Street View, so we didn't notice a fence at that time, and also Street View doesn't update very regularly. The view could be from a number of years prior to the erecting of that fence.

But the individuals who went out and reviewed the property for issues and violations on the pool would have had to walk past the fence, right?

That is my understanding. Likely they would have to have gone through the fence to look. My thoughts are that likely, given that they were there for the violation of the pool, they were strictly just looking at the retaining walls and the pool itself and maybe did not note the non-conformance of the fence.

okay and the conditions that you're recommending if we deny the appeal and the conditions that you're talking that you've put before us you think they're adequate to address a bunch of the issues that we've been talking about now for two different means is that your I mean I want to know if you think that you've done enough job they talk about the RMA and stuff to address their issues as to those documents

That is our recommendation. Our recommendation is to deny the appeal and uphold the original approval with the conditions that are provided in your packet.

With the new current ones, right? Could you modify a couple of them?

Yes, all the conditions in the staff report and if the Board of Zoning Appeals wishes, the ones that were included in the staff presentation tonight.

which would be the additional ones would be the fix the violation of the fence and Possibly that language you presented to us earlier, correct? Correct the construction instructions and language Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page with this.

Thank you Any other questions from other commissioners

On an RMA, is it typical to have draft a new RMA as part of this process or do you just submit an RMA?

So an RMA is actually a contract between all the owners because they all own part of that road. Now the civil code, we are in process with our legal department to change our standard because of the civil code. We did not realize until the previous meeting that we require something which is more restrictive than the civil code. And that's not something we want to be locally enforce something which is more restricted than the Civil Code. And the Civil Code is very clear. It says you can have an RMA if you choose to not have an RMA, These are the conditions you have to do, and this is how you maintain the road. So that actually meets our requirements, so we do not have to enforce that RMA. That's the reason of the change in the language for that condition.

Okay.

I'm sorry, sir. You're saying that SFMD's current ordinance is a bit more specific than the Civil Code, but as it stands, that is your ordinance right now because your board has not made any changes. There's reason to believe that that is the law until it's changed.

It is not an ordinance. It's a standard. It's a standard. It's a standard, yes.

one other question.

in terms of the rma condition that number 24 so it is they would provide as part of this a fire access rma between all parcels and then this would be recorded the roadway. It would have the provisions for the repair and maintenance of the roadway surface. Basically the rma would include those elements. Repair and maintenance, removal of vegetation overgrowing the roadway or infringing on it. Provisions for the maintenance repair or replacement of no parking fire lane signage and provisions for repair and So all those things would be included as far as basically as part of the RMA? Normally, yes. Okay, thank you.

But I would just want to mention we do not dictate the verbiage in an RMA.

This is atypical within an RMA? Okay.

Chairman, I just have one question. You have a standard, but you're saying that standard is higher than the actual code, civil code?

So that's the part, as I say, we are now in the works with our legal department because we realize that we are mandating an RMA while the civil code allows different options, not only the RMA.

So you're going to come in compliance with the code?

That is correct.

All right, thank you.

Commissioner Devlin or Commissioner Savagnano?

No questions from me.

Thank you.

Thank you. Just point of a clarification, I don't have my laptop up in front of me. Are we, is there a condition for a requirement for an RMA? Yeah. The issuance of one. Okay. Can, given that, with my understanding of this, so hypothetically this lot is split, the existing MRA becomes nullified? Not necessarily. You've added a parcel. Here's the background.

They have existing CC&Rs. That's recorded. Now they included that, the appellants included that in their appeals. That's a recorded CC&Rs. There's a very brief provision related to the private road, basically says they're all gonna share responsibility for maintenance for that. And that doesn't go away. That's a privately enforceable agreement. It doesn't go away with whatever action this board may take. So in addition to that, and i don't know this is the full record or not but what i've seen is. A declaration of road maintenance agreement that's how it's titled. I have not seen a recorded version of this I don't know if there is. What what both of these are we're done by the sub divider Mister. Santora. So he drafted and recorded the ccnr is that's fine. They're enforceable privately. he drafted this declaration of RMA. I haven't seen a recorded version of this, so I don't know that there is one. So, is it enforceable? I don't know, but I think this is the document that we've been talking about. Now, an interesting thing is that it does have pretty detailed provisions about what's required in terms of maintenance, but if you go in there, it says if any one of the property owners doesn't comply with the terms of this agreement you default to that civil code provision 845 that's in here that's already in their agreement the one that's not recorded so we're kind of saying the same thing in our condition with the condition 24 your condition 24 says right now it asks the applicant to get everyone to sign a new RMA. And we talked about it at the last meeting. That was a clarification. It was supposed to be a new one. It's got these four sub criteria standards that are, you know, they're close to what's in this unrecorded RMA, but maybe not exactly. So, maybe she can get everyone to sign, maybe not. I don't wanna be cynical, but maybe the neighbors don't sign it and therefore she can't comply with satisfy the condition, therefore she can't get her map. That's why there's this default that we've added that just says, default to the state law everyone she has a right they have a right to enforce to compel their neighbors pay for the maintenance of the road so that's in this new condition that's in the existing army that's how it's set up right now that's the language right now And don't forget there's condition 23, which is the access part of this. 24 is the maintenance part of it. Right now, 23, I believe the current version still says, it still asks the appellant to get a new access agreement from all the neighbors. Again, that could be problematic in getting her to comply with the condition because she needs everybody to sign. But in our discussions, staff discussions in the past month, you know, I'll let Metro Fire speak for themselves, you know, as soon as I finish here. But through emails, they said they've got an access agreement for the street. All they need now is just access agreement for this particular parcel or the new parcel. So she wouldn't have to go and get signatures from all the neighbors for the access. So We probably need to revise 23 to be clear about what it is we're requiring her to do. If you're going towards approval of this, denial of the appeal, approval of the entitlements.

Yeah. And I guess that's kind of, thank you, and that's kind of where I was thinking in my head of, like, well, if they don't sign, you know, there's no way to compel someone to execute an agreement. leaving her short of the requirement for the map. But it sounds like through the default, the state law and the recorded CCNRs, there's effectively a default to that. Okay.

I do just have just one other question. One of the appellants, I believe that's Mr. Jorger, sorry if I'm butchering your name, sir, did have a request for our consideration to potentially discuss, I don't want to say future protective covenants, but there was a discussion about if the applicant the applicant, Ms. Warren, were to include more units. I really couldn't follow exactly the train of thought, but I was wondering if the staff were able to at least capture some of the requests that they are making, which is essentially saying, I don't even know if this is allowable, so I'm looking both Director Smith and Council Clerk, some sort of a condition there or language that essentially

was this about maintaining the access off of the parcel up on sutter avenue this is about wanting to be able to have access off the private drive and not be forced to take access off sutter avenue is that the issue?

because of the number of dwellings that could potentially increase the cap in that neighborhood sorry I' m trying there' s about 60 pages of public comments I' m really trying to find where that was but yes bill.

Well, the special development permit being applied for here allows more than the minimum number of lots to be served by a private drive. So I guess, and at this point I'm kind of thinking out loud and looking for collaboration from planning, but is there anything about this action that would preclude the top lot from being able to use the private drive. I think that was the concern, and I'm not sure that it does.

No, it doesn't. The original map also included a special development permit to have more than two lots served by a private drive. So this is just, that is already the baseline, is that they're already allowed to have more than two lots. This is increasing that. So that's where the special development permit comes in now.

Yeah, and I don't know if I've accurately captured what the concern was, but that was kind of my take on it.

I can speak about that. The concern is about the width of the turnaround. The dimensions of the turnaround which are in the proposed map are for up to four lots. If we split this and we consider the lot, the 6544, being served by this road, now we'll have five lots. That turn around, the dimensions will have to change. That was the concern. And I don't have any problem requiring the dimensions of that turnaround to change. We'll have to now exactly that turnaround will have to be 30 feet wide instead of 20 feet wide. And we'll have to be a little bit like another maybe 25, 30 feet longer. So that lag of the turnaround will have to be wider and longer. That was the concern about the lot, because now when they will propose to build on the lot right by the main street, now that will be the fifth building served by that road, so that was the concern. The width of the road is already 20 feet wide, already meets the DOT and our requirements for up to 39 houses, so that's not a problem. is just the turnaround.

Commissioner Borja, if I may jump in. It sounds like what the underlying concern that's behind your line of questioning is related to, I think, what Mr. Jorger, I'm sorry, related to the vacant lot up at Sutter, right? And the concern about if there's If the BZA were to approve this map, it gets recorded, et cetera, solves for all the conditions, it gets built on that new lot before the lot up on Sutter is built on. The concern is that that fifth lot that's being built on, even though it already exists, would bear the burden of widening the road, if I'm understanding correctly. I have maybe a question for Metro Fire. We are, with this project, considering the fifth lot. Why would it not be incumbent on the current applicant to widen that?

Technically, the lot, the northern slot, is within 150 feet, any point of that lot, from Sutter. So technically, we do not have to consider that being served by the private lot. It doesn't say it's not served. And that's why we did not require the turnaround to be as big, because we'll kind of take almost half of that new lot will be the turnaround. that was the reason because that existing lot is within 150 feet from sutter so we can technically consider that being served by sutter it doesn't not have to have access from sutter it's just how we see technically we can park our try our truck on sutter and perform any activities for a possible fire on that lot. That was the reason for that, not requiring a larger turnaround.

Mr. Chairman, so basically you're saying that because of the proximity of the road, that fifth lot doesn't have to factor in on the fire access, correct?

That is correct, for 6544. Yeah, so... Okay.

There is no impact with that fifth lot. Thank you.

Thank you. If this goes to any other legal action, sir, they'll be quoting you on that. So I don't know if we even need to memorialize that, but I think we have at least enough. In this room, a shared understanding that that is, again, I'm not going to butcher or summarize what you had said, but because they are within 100, 150 feet of Sutter, it is an understanding and Metro Fire's understanding that could be served. Therefore, we can acknowledge that there potentially not be any encumbrance should they pursue a development at the 6544. It's under number 18. Okay.

Conditions number 18.

Conditions number 18. Yep. then again just one last question about the RMA council Burke and please don't get mad at me on this but there was a request by the appellant to edit the the language to say and specifically say that it is a new RMA is that repetitive what is our perspective on that I mean I think that's where we all landed on this at the last meeting that it was the intent of the condition is to be a new agreement and

And maybe they can get it and maybe they can't.

Okay. We are understanding.

And if they don't, and I'm repeating myself at this point, but if they can't get it, there's a CC&Rs, which are still enforceable, and then there's Civil Code 845, which could potentially be enforceable.

Okay.

Any other further questions? any other discussions or any thoughts? Barring that, I'd welcome a motion.

I just want to be careful on the motion before you dive into it. Remember, we have to adopt findings for whatever decision you make. The staff report already has findings based on the recommendation of staff, and that is to deny the appeal and approve the entitlements. If the vote were to be to grant the appeal, we don't have findings for that. you would need to be able, as part of the motion, basically list your reasons for granting the appeal and we'll write them down because we need to have them written down and those will be the findings. So just don't jump in it so fast that you don't give yourself time to make sure you have findings.

So I was going to make a motion to deny the appeal. and use the findings based on discussion from the staff, as we have been having for a long time. And the existing, the actual extra language that was presented to us, that's not part of what I would consider my motion yet. So I don't want that added in. you don't want any of the revised conditions to be no no no the one that was the recommendation of the language about the lay down construction lay down the staging yes condition you don't want to include that no so my motion is to go with the staff's recommendation deny the appeal with the exception of the language that was presented about the staging area to clarify does your motion also include the code enforcement condition yes okay

and the amended condition 24 yes and how do you want to handle condition 23 because that still requires the applicant to obtain a new access agreement from all the neighbors if if Metro fire can confirm that they've already got the access they need or if there's a different variation on that condition that the commission can consider

So how we see this, the existing parcel has already access. We split the parcel, the access is already there. We just need to record under the new parcel the same conditions which is under all the other parcels.

So can the condition be that the applicant provide an access agreement to Metro Fire just for the applicant's parcels?

To use that parcel for both their parcel and for their neighbors because we want to make sure we can pass on this new parcel to reach the other neighbors in the neighborhood.

Okay, well that sounds like she needs the agreement of the neighbors. If you don't already have that, if you don't already have, I mean, if there was a fire on that street tonight, would you have the access right to that street? Yes. Okay.

So from what I'm, since it's my motion, from what I understand, we're talking about 23, and my understanding is that she doesn't need to go out and get new a new permission from all the residents to ensure that fire has access if she splits the lot because you just said you already have access you split the lot you still already have access correct that's what is correct but i want to make sure that we add the condition that they cannot block the road and allow us to go on this new parcel to the

bottom two parcels. So that is the part I want to make sure we have.

So the owner, the applicant has easement rights, private easement rights in the road, and she has the right to have Metro Fire come and put out the fire on her property. So on 23, I'd recommend just deleting the words. So it should say provide fire access agreement Provide provide fire access agreement for the subject parcels So you won't repeat that one more time please yeah Condition 23 provide fire access Provide fire access agreement for the subject parcels, meaning the new parcel, the parcel to be subdivided. And then skip to the next sentence, fire access agreement shall be recorded with the recorder's office, et cetera.

Okay, so for the record, just as spelled out, that's the change to 23 in my motion. So we're about as clear as mud. I think that's kind of where we're at in terms of my motion.

Do we have a second or any other discussion or an alternative motion?

Yeah, I heard it.

Okay. And so because we have remote participation, we will be taking a voice vote. And so going through just making sure you indicate no or yes. So.

Sir, is there any discussion on the motion? Is there any other discussions on the motion?

No, not once you seconded it, unless you want to open up for discussions.

I'm sorry, can someone restate the motion?

The motion was to deny the appeal based on staff's report and their reasoning in the article along with accepting the conditions that staff recommend with the amended condition as written on number 23.

Right, so just, I mean, to be a little more specific, it was that this motion includes the revised condition, revised language for condition 24, which incorporates the civil code provision. Your motion includes the revised code enforcement language. Correct. Your motion does not include the staging area limitation. Correct. And it includes revised language on condition 23, which will now read in its entirety, prior to issuance of a building slash fire permit, provide fire access agreement for the subject parcels. Fire access agreement shall be recorded with the public recorder's office having jurisdiction. And that means an agreement with Metro Fire.

That's, you know.

I mean, that's my intent in that language. Does that work for Metro Fire?

Yes, it does, okay So basically that's again my motion It managed to ask you a quick question sir.

What is your concern with? removing the staging area Because the staff was very If I'm reading this correctly the staff is saying it's for access of emergency vehicles staging area was for construction and

That was an additional requirement if they were to construct something that they'd have to put staging area on the property itself and not somewhere else. Had nothing to do with fire access or emergency access. There was a conversation by one of the appellants who said that if you were doing construction and you placed all those trucks and stuff on the road, you wouldn't be blocking the access for emergency vehicles. That was the last in May, which drove us to have a discussion, which drove staff to do the language about what I call lay down area, construction area for vehicles that had to be on the private property. It couldn't be anywhere else. And it was a language that was being proffered for us to think about as part of the motion. It wasn't in their recommendations as a recommendation.

Ms. Gutierrez, you wanted to share something?

Because I'm trying to read the staging plan here. And it says, as an ongoing measure, any subsequent construction staging shall be contained on site and out of the private drive as to not impede emergency vehicle access.

Yeah. Daniel, can you pull up the PowerPoint again and go to that slide? I think it's the next slide. All right. So we did not include this as part of the condition document because it's not a typical condition that we put on tentative maps, but there's nothing that prohibits you from adding it to the project. So we left it as if you want to add it, here's the language for it. But we don't typically put this on because it's already a requirement of them. They're not allowed to block the access. They have to keep it open regardless. But this condition just kind of further enforces that.

okay or there would be a violation there would be a violation okay anytime they're doing anytime anybody's doing construction they can't block the access for vehicles based on their construction i mean let go look around this whole county there's all kinds of lay down areas on private property in real india when they're doing the uh... the pipe um... water refit several of the private properties have lay down areas so that the big vehicles wouldn't block the road so it's it's something that is done all the way, all the time, anyway, I didn't see a need to add it onto the map.

Understood. So you, if I'm repeating you correctly, you felt that it was repetitive and duplicative because it's already current law.

Correct.

Understood. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. Okay, I believe that we have a motion and a second.

First and a second. Okay, so we will go ahead and, standing on that.

Can we have a discussion on the motion? Is that permissible?

Before you vote, yeah.

So I was, just for the record, I was chair of the Carmichael Planning Advisory Council when this issue was brought up in August of 2025. And we deliberated, and I want to thank the applicant. I want to thank the appellants as well who showed up at that meeting because it was an educational experience, to put it mildly. I went by the site yesterday. to go through it. I actually went through it twice, once in the morning, once in the afternoon, driving down Sutter, to kind of reacquaint myself with the issue, as I usually do, to give myself a visual. So, as I said in my August 2025 hearing at CPAC, which I was chair of for three years, I asked I asked the neighbors to try to go out and provide outreach to try to amend the fences no pun intended for this and Obviously we are still here and it does sadden me in that respect and I really looked at you know, what was happening here and what and also with my second is the fact that I you know, this is this item in terms of the denial of the appeal is based on the compliance within the Carmichael Creek neighborhood preservation area. What it does for an RD2 as well as some of the other provisions of the neighborhood. In driving around the streets around Sutter which I have a number of folks that I have been at their houses before on that street and there's also the Sutter Jensen Park the back entrance to it. There are a number of streets that have Conditions very similar to this or would have conditions very similar to this and and so I I ask again Should things continue to move forward, I ask, it's not a beg, but I request, you know, knowing that there is an RMA that will likely have to go forth to the neighbors to at least try to figure out how to work together. That's really what it's about. And that's my comment for that. I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION AS PRESENTED.

THANK YOU. I GUESS I STRUGGLE WITH A COUPLE POINTS ON THIS ONE. ONE, WITH PERSON'S ABILITY TO FREELY ENABLE, YOU KNOW, SELL AND DIVIDE PROPERTY. you know, balanced against kind of an initial compact that was made amongst the initial property owners. And I think that's kind of really the balance where I'm kind of struggling. I guess that is, you know, maybe somewhat alleviated by the fact that we're not adding density beyond what is already permitted. I THINK THAT THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I ULTIMATELY LAND ON THIS ONE. SO.

OKAY. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR CHEVLIN. MS. CORONAS-ABAÑANO.

I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS.

Okay, thank you. This is quite a difficult item for me to also consider. And I keep trying to remind myself, really, the duty of the Planning Commission is to look at the appropriate land use decision making body and to see where do our ordinances and and our laws kind of fit in in making this this this decision and specifically for uh the number of conditions that are being put in here unfortunately we're not here to litigate behavior and or question or or put into to question whether or not someone's perspective of complying or being good neighbors come to be. And unfortunately, I think that this second meeting further elucidates that there are still kind of a, not just kind of, but a very long, long road ahead. And so I'd like to just remind... regardless of the decision this evening, remind both the applicants and the appellants that, again, we are mandated here to look at all instances where land use is applicable. This is the appropriate decision that is reasonable, that is within our scope of the ordinances with input from both our council, our planning department, our fire metro, and then to be able to, at the extent allowable by the law, and the mechanisms that make us, Sacramento County and society in general, to make sure that we encourage everyone to follow all of the rules, no matter how that might not look. FAVORABLE TO YOU AS A PERSON OR INDIVIDUALLY. SO I HOPE THAT PEOPLE WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE 311 PROCESS IS A PROCESS. I REALLY DO BELIEVE THAT OUR STAFF IS WORKING HARD TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE are rules that are being followed and at the very very least that if there's any violations that there I mean we have a whole enforcement wing and I didn't get a chance to ask staff to whether or not you know what's the history of all the 311 calls or the complaints that's being held in this property but that there are standards that's being held here and I do have Confidence and in our County staff that they might be able to address the situation because we're not just gonna be favoring one side or the other I think the laws are there for a reason and that is to make sure that they're equitable and at the same time applicable to every person whether you're unhappy about a site or whether you are a new person who's buying and trying to come into an established community and so I do believe at this time that the things were addressed. I looked at all of the notes from mr. Jorger I'm sorry if I'm butchering your name, sir. And I did ask the questions regarding all of the other protective covenants or whether or not the new RMA was understood and I believe that we went an adequate time for that. So that's my two cents. Mr. Warren, you have quite a long road ahead of you and your Your representation and so I hope I hope that you guys like what mr. Commissioner Rockinside had mentioned be able to mend fences Because there's still some agreements or some next steps ahead regardless of the decision that's made by this body Barring that I'd like to Ask for a vote

Okay, so we will be taking a voice vote due to remote participation. And so just to make sure I'm clear, no would be to deny the appeal and yes would be to approve. Is that my understanding that correctly? Vice versa.

I is to deny the appeal. Vice versa. Thank you very much.

Okay. Member Rockenstein? Aye. Member Verga?

Aye.

Member Devlin?

Aye.

And Member Corona-Sabaniano?

Yes.

and chair Borja aye okay and all members present and remote that item has been denied thank you okay we did move a few items this evening so I'd like to go back to our original plan agenda and madam clerk there's no issues would like to go on and call item number one

Okay, so moving to item number one. Item number one is PLMP 2025-001003610 Kikubush Court Deck. This is a use permit, a special development permit, and a design review. And the property is located at 3610 Kikubush Court in the Carmichael Community, and the environmental document is exempt.

Good evening, Commissioners. This is a non-contested item, although I think we did receive some comments today, one in favor and one in opposition. It's up to the Commission if you wish to have a staff presentation or not.

Commissioners, I do have just one kind of more of a technical question. So the to go back and forth here so the point of contention is is the fact that there's some sort of building or a gazebo or a structure that abuts or is passed not the it's not an easement it's a setback requirement is that correct so it's not it's not a county owned easement.

Irving Huerta associate planner and project manager yes that's correct.

Okay, and then the setback requirement was there for what, Mr. Huerta?

Yeah, those are being triggered because of the location and the zoning. Let me just pull up real quick my notes. Yes, so that would be for the erosion zone. So the requirement is 20 feet and the deck is actually as well as part of the gazebo kitchen area is also located within that setback. I do want to note that this is an existing structure. The property owner, who's also the applicant, is going through this process in order to legalize the structure as well as to remedy a code enforcement case as well as to get their building permits for the structure.

Understood I think my little bit of my kind of question is So the previous owner not the applicant right now built the this structure without Having to go through building permits, right? Yeah, they ended up building it and it is now no longer congruent with our current law now they're coming from a deviation that's correct right so where do we again as a county draw that line now i understand from the staff report there has been comments made that removing the structure would not just be a financial impact to the applicant but there could potentially be a structure impact So we're kind of weighing the pros and the cons of being just very black and white when it comes to saying ignorance of the law from the previous owner does not necessarily validate the fact that we're going to give you this exclusion or there's a variance, but rather we're trying to maybe, I don't know what the right term is, understand that it is worth the risk of actually going for a variance because there are more positives than negatives. Is that a pretty good summation?

That would be, yeah, your decision tonight is to weigh in that. It is an interesting situation given that it is existing. So kind of the purpose of this entitlement package is more so to remedy several issues at once. But again, it would be up to your discretion to weigh in on the pros and cons.

If if we changed if there's a future scenario, but not the specific project Let's just say that they were to make changes on a deck But it's a county-owned easement as opposed to a setback How would that play out? If the person knowingly said, I'm going to make changes to the backyard of my deck, but there is an easement owned by the county, as opposed to a setback, will we then be considering the same case? I guess I don't know if that's a fair question.

I'll take that one, Chair Borja. I think it depends on the nature of the easement itself and what the language in that easement might be. and what the intent of that original easement is. There have been circumstances where in other parts of the county where the county has held easements that prohibited certain things like structures not just county easements but other utilities for example and in each case staff has gone through and looked at what the easement language is what the circumstances the requested or in some cases existing encroachment might be and tried to weigh all those factors so it really is a case-by-case situation.

And then do we, Director Smith, in that idea, if the whole row of the neighbors were then to kind of slowly build outside of this erosion control, would this set a negative precedent in the future then? Because then how are we kind of weighing that? I mean, are we inadvertently opening the door Just slowly encroaching and coaching and coaching that the erosion control itself is no longer Kind of being necessary.

I Don't believe so in this case. I think we have a lot of eyes on the parkway Especially on the bluffs. We have a lot of folks who care deeply and about that section of the parkway and the parkway in general staff would typically be notified either through through on one or a lot of folks call us directly if there's an existing relationship and It's not unusual for staff to hear from a lot of those folks on a regular basis whether it's planning staff or regional park staff, so I Think if something like that were to happen We would if for example a neighboring property decided I'm gonna go ahead now the doors wide open We would hear about it immediately and address it Okay, understood

just a point of clarification at the March 11th CPAC meeting when this item was presented so that the applicant is the third owner of this property, which abuts the bluff. And there was, like, one of the comments here was related or came from a neighbor that's two doors down that's had the family in the... My understanding is the... I've been at the house, so I know it's almost 100 years old in the area. So have there been any in the past, any type of... Request you know permits to to build in this type of scenario over off the American River in that area. I mean to your knowledge I know it has to go through not just not just from a CPAC perspective But would have to go through the American River Parkway Advisory Council is my understanding as well. I

Yes, that's correct. And in fact, I'm looking at attachment one to this package, which is the vicinity map. There are a few lots that have been built on northeast and southwest of this property. And that's because they're in the Parkway corridor combining zone, just for reference.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions for staff this evening? Commissioner Coronado-Sabinano, any questions for the staff?

No questions. Thank you.

Okay firing any, uh, did we have any public comments this item?

Does the applicant want to speak?

Yeah, sorry. I apologize to the applicant want to speak.

And go ahead and just state your name and you have been sworn in with. I do.

I'm Greg Milan. I do. appreciate everyone's time and consideration for this so My wife and I purchased this home in 2023 this existing structure was there already from the previous owners We do not condone what they did in erecting this This structure without the permits are going through the due process and we will not perpetuate this action ever We have young children of our own and what we really want is the safety of our family safety of our community safety of the environment and the preservation of that and so I When we encountered this circumstance, when we were deep into the purchasing process of this home, someone had to shoulder this burden of dealing with this situation. And so we took it upon ourselves. We've enlisted the help of structural, civil, architectural, and geotechnical engineering to get the data to make a data-driven direction that we thought made the most sense, which was to, in fact, keep it intact and not try to jackhammer out concrete right on the bluff's edge that's all sandstone. Um, I don't want to be responsible should anything happen because we create a fissure in the cliff side and people are rafting, you know, in a year or two. So we're, we're trying to keep this in place, do so in a way that will of course ensure that it's structurally, um, has good sound integrity, which it does today. It was built over 10 years ago and it's still very stable. And so we really appreciate your consideration on this.

All right. Thank you, sir. I hope you don't come back to the commission in a year from now extending the patty even more because we have you on record.

We've been doing this for two and a half years.

We're excited to have it done. Thank you. Any other public comments?

We have not received any public comments. And because of remote participation, I will confirm if there are any members of the public who would like to make a public comment, please indicate now by pressing star nine. I have none.

Okay, thank you. I appreciate if there's any motion from the rest of the commission.

Yeah, just a brief comment and then a motion. Mr. Milan is trying to right a wrong that the previous owner had made with respect to building without a permit. and so in good faith, I would argue that he has gone through the steps. There was a process at CPAC on March 11th where he explained what had occurred. There were questions from CPAC members around the real estate agent had disclosed that they did not disclose that to Mr. Milan as far as the testimony was concerned so he was not aware that the gazebo and the kitchen were built without a permit so in good faith Mr. Milan and his family have come forth to try to rectify the situation. So and I commend him on this process because it's it's a long process and knowing his neighbor which I do two doors down And he did write a and he testified to that and it's also in the emails that he provided. Mr. Levine Mr. Levine is is lived on that neighborhood as I said for well over five decades and his family longer than that and I'm sure he would he would comment Contrary had he not believed that mr. Milan has been acting in good faith. And so with that I like to make a motion to approve the use permit and the special development permit as presented.

And I'll second it.

Okay we have first and second.

All right I'll do a roll call vote. Okay member Berger.

Aye.

Member Devlin?

Aye.

Corona Sabiniano? Aye. Member Rockenstein?

Aye.

And Chair Borja?

Aye.

Okay, and that item does pass with all members present voting yes.

Okay, thank you. Moving along to item, thank you. Moving along to item number two.

Item number 2 is PLNP 2023-00206, the Design Review Administration Update. This is a zoning ordinance amendment to Chapter 6 of the Sacramento County Zoning Code and Chapter 1 of the Countywide Design Guidelines, and this is countywide, and it is a notice of exemption.

Commissioners, Todd Smith again. This one is also non-contested, but Kimber and Holly are available if you have any questions. This is one of many zoning code amendments that we're working on this year. This one is scheduled for the board in, I think, August.

Any questions for the staff?

No, I don't.

I have an interesting one, and I'm I would like to quote former Chair Justin Rathel, who is now City Council or Mayor of Folsom, and I quote him. He made a mention before that the DRAC has never turned down an application. So I'd like to be able to hear from staff the changes. And again, I quote this, the proposed amendment would further define and restructure the role of the design review administrator and the design review advisory committee. I'd like to be able to, before making this vote, recognize that we're not just rubber stamping, to be perfectly blunt.

No, yeah. I'll take it. Yeah, so I'm very excited about these changes because... We are very fortunate to have a licensed architect on our staff. So that is pretty unusual and pretty unique to Sacramento County. I've worked at other jurisdictions that have had like an architecture review board similar to the DRAC but didn't have someone on staff. So I do think the way we've been operating operating there has been a duplicative effort going on in terms of our design review administrator does a very thorough review when an application comes in makes recommendations on projects even sees through on changes to projects so then by the time it's been getting to drac it's a it's a pretty fully flushed project or one that has at least already gone through a pretty thorough review against our countywide design guidelines. So really what we're looking at doing is putting a little bit more authority on the design review administrator to make those recommendations to the final hearing bodies. The DRAC members who did hear this presentation actually were all in favor of it. They fully agreed that they were kind of doing a second look at something that was already kind of reviewed. The one comment that they did have was to not have all of it fall directly on the DRA, right? So having some sort of other group or people involved in the discussion. And so that's why we have language in there saying for the planning director, in consultation with the planning director, and then myself as the principal planner over current planning, if our DRA comes up with conflicts or things that he needs help on, we can also provide that direction. And then we are keeping the DRAC, though. The way I think someone from my team actually brought this up, that it's kind of similar to an appeal body where if we have run into issues where applicants don't agree with the DRA's recommendations or if there's deviations that we don't agree with and we really want them to try and meet them, if there is that sort of conflict, we can use the DRAC in that case to be a resource and to be kind of an additional group to kind of help weigh in on those particular conflicts or situations. So that's what we're looking at, yeah.

Thank you. I appreciate the history behind it, Ms. Gutierrez. For future purposes, because we are kind of streamlining the process, allowing a bit more ability for the DRA to make decisions, does that mean that that alleviates us from a meeting when we start talking about a shot clock for housing projects?

Yes, it does.

So that means that this future body will then could potentially, because it did not go through the DRA committee or the DRAC, could have an extra meeting to meet that five meeting requirement.

Yes, we hope it doesn't come to that.

I'm not in this body for forever, but I just want to be able to state the facts that if the drag committee has then historically and your words on mine has been been duplicative of the decisions that are being made at the DRA and perhaps that the Planning Commission body in the future would have an extra opportunity to be able to discuss openly as a hearing body as opposed to taking that one meeting away I Read it as making it more efficient.

Yes, and getting rid of some of the bureaucracy. Yes kudos or that the better I

All right, well, that said, any questions from the dais or from the Commissioner Sabagnano?

No questions, thank you.

Okay, well, I would say that our county staff are very efficient and agile, so I'm a little biased, but anyways, I'd love to hear a motion if any of the commissioners would like to introduce a motion.

Okay, I'll make the motion to move the item.

Move the item, I'll second the item. Can we please call a vote?

And we have not received any public comments for this item. Thank you for reminding me. And if there is anyone online who would like to make a public comment, please indicate now by pressing star nine. And I see no one. So I will go ahead and take a voice vote. Member Verga? Aye. Member Devlin? Aye. Corona Sabiniano? Aye. And I believe that Member Rockenstein is currently absent. And Chair Borja? Yes. Perfect. All right. And that item passes 4-0 with recommendation to the board and one absent.

Okay. Moving along to item number four.

And item number four brings us to the planning director's report.

I will keep it brief this evening. I believe we don't have anything for the second hearing in July.

We are anticipating that be canceled. That is a canceled meeting.

we will be able to do that. August 10 the aforementioned multiple zoning code amendment packages you will development projects the first of them is a workshop on our draft housing and infill zoning code amendments That's currently making the rounds to do all the seat backs right now All culminating in a workshop here before going back and making any necessary revisions and then we also have the draft adu ordinance update that evening and trying to be responsive to HCD's latest interpretation of ADU law. So a couple of housing-related ordinance things for you to discuss and deliberate on next, sorry, in a month from now. That's it for me tonight.

Thank you, Director Smith. Item number five.

And item number five is miscellaneous scheduling items. I was just going to let you know that our next meeting will be canceled, so I will be sending out that notice probably a week prior to the 27th. And also, there will be some information coming regarding, I mentioned SB 707, which doesn't pertain to us because of the type of body that we are. Only when we have commission members participating remotely is when we do need to indicate those online public comments.

Understood. Thank you.

And lastly?

Last item, item number six.

We have not received any additional public comments.

Okay. With that said, we're going to be concluding our meeting at 7.34 p.m. Thank you so much, everyone. Have a good evening.