Sacramento-Carmichael Homeowners Alliance

Appeal Letter sent by Bill Yeates

Bill Yeates is our land-use attorney

January 06, 2005



Via Hand Delivery
Cindy H. Turner
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Secretary of the Planning Commission
700 H Street, Suite 2450
Sacramento, CA 95814

Robert Sherry, Director
Sacramento County Planning and
Community Development Department
827 7th Street, Room 230
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Sacramento-Carmichael Homeowners Alliance Appeal of Approval of
Development Plan for The Oaks at Hackberry
Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 230-0080-001
Control No.: 04-PAS-0436

Dear Ms. Turner and Mr. Sherry:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: SACRAMENTO-CARMICHAEL HOMEOWNERS' ALLIANCE ("SCHA") hereby appeals the determination of the Planning Director approving the Development Plan on the above-referenced proposed project.

SCHA has asked our office to file their appeal and to review the approved development plan for the proposed apartment complex, The Oaks at Hackberry ("proposed project"), to be developed at 4950 Hackberry Lane, in Carmichael. SCHA represents over seven hundred households, which are located in the neighborhood of the proposed project. The proposed project is a 56-unit apartment complex on approximately 3.03 acres that are zoned as RD-20. On December 28, 2004, the Sacramento County Planning and Community Development Department issued an approval of the development plan to the project applicant Northwest Land Company, Inc., subject to various conditions.

SCHA believes that the approval of the project applicant's development plan should not be rubber-stamped by the Planning Department. SCHA believes the development plan was prematurely approved by allowing the applicant to submit required supporting documentation after approval. Finally, SCHA believes the development is not entirely consistent with the Sacramento County Zoning Code. Therefore, pursuant to Section 115-31 of the Sacramento County Zoning Code, SCHA files their appeal to the approval of the development plan for the proposed project for the reasons set forth below.

Although the Planning Department claims its review of the applicant's development plans are purely ministerial, SCHA believes County Staff and officials have sufficient discretion to address the neighboring community's concern and modify the development plans to meet those concerns

I. CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON PROPOSED PROJECT

The development plan is approved on the condition that the project applicant must provide written verification from the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department that security precautions are provided to the extent possible to their satisfaction. In particular, project applicant was required to switch a "tot-lot" with a BBQ area to ensure better visibility of the "tot-lot" from surrounding buildings. Sacramento County Zoning Code does require project applicant to provide a "tot-lot" on submitted plans. Section 305-16 (e) states: "Tot lots for children shall be provided and indicated on submitted plans." The Zoning Code does not dictate security-based concerns of the location of the "tot-lot." However, the planning department required the project applicant to switch the "tot-lot" with the BBQ area as a condition of the approval of the development plan. This demonstrates a level of discretionary review that the planning department had in approving the development plan.

As required by the development plan approval, native oak trees 6-inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or larger on the proposed project site must be protected and preserved, subject to conditions (a) through (j). These conditions are taken directly from a November 29, 2004 County of Sacramento Inter-Department Correspondence from Jim Schubert, Landscape Design and Tree Section Department of Transportation to Ione Demorales, Planning Department and Project Manager of the proposed project. The Sacramento County Zoning Code does not specifically require any of the conditions placed on the approval of the development plan regarding the protection of the native oak trees on the proposed project site. This is another instance where the County is using discretion in approving this project.

SCHA is not challenging the aforementioned conditions placed on the project applicant. The conditions simply reflect discretionary (judgment) decision by the County to ensure that the proposed project is developed properly. SCHA only feels their concerns should be addressed in the same manner prior to development plan approval.

II. THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS INCOMPLETE AND INCONSISTENT WITH ZONING CODE.

A. Public is Denied Meaningful Opportunity to Participate.

The fact that the Planning Department approved this development plan, triggered a ten (10) calendar day period to appeal the approval of the development plan, as set forth in Section 115-31 of the Sacramento County Zoning Code. Concerned members of the public cannot adequately review a development plan that has not been completed, nor is entirely consistent with the Zoning Code.

B. No Grading Plan Has Been Submitted.

The proposed project's development plan has been approved without a Grading Plan. In fact, one of the many conditions that the project applicant has to meet before applying for a building permit is submittal of a Grading Plan. Sacramento County Zoning Code Title I, Chapter 10, Article 7, Section 110.82(n) requires that a development plan include Grading Plans.

Pertaining to the native oaks on the proposed project site, "No grading (grade cuts or fills) shall be allowed within the dripline areas of the native oak trees." Without a Grading Plan, this is impossible to review. The Grading Plan, required by Sacramento County Zoning Code, is necessary to address the concerns regarding excavation within the dripline of the native oaks on the approved site plan. The protection of the dripline is a condition to the approval of the development plan, as is the completion of a Grading Plan.

C. The Development Plan is Inconsistent with the Zoning Code.

Inconsistencies between the development plan and the Zoning Code are as follows:

1. Zoning Code Section 305-15: Maximum Number of Attached Dwelling Units.

There shall not be more than eight (8) dwelling units in each group of attached dwellings when any portion of such building is located within 100 feet of any property zoned AR-1, RD-1, RD-2, RD-3, RD-4, RD-5, RD-7, RD-10, RM-1, R-1-A, R-1-B, or any interim estate zone. (Amended 11/90)

Building 1 consists of sixteen (16) dwelling units. It is located within 100 feet of the adjacent property line on Hackberry Lane to the west, which is zoned as RD-5.



2. Zoning Code Section 305-14: Open Space Requirements.
Buildings, roofed areas, and parking facilities, including drives, shall not cover more than 75% of the site. A minimum open space area around each building shall be maintained as follows, except that buildings may project into the required open space area if an equal compensating area is provided within the same yard area. Computations of area may be based on portions of buildings and their associated stories: (Amended 6/96, 4/17/02)
(a) One (1) Story Building. Ten (10) feet.
(b) Two (2) Story Buildings. Fifteen (15) feet.
(c) Three (3) Story Buildings. Twenty (20) feet.
Building 2 is a two (2) story building and is only setback ten (10) feet from the drive located on the east side of the building, and twelve (12) feet six (6) inches from the drive located on the north side of the building.
III. Concerns Raised by SCHA.
The members of SCHA have standing to assert its concerns about the proposed project and state those concerns as follows:
A. Increased Traffic on Hackberry Lane: Hackberry Lane is a narrow residential street not intended for a high level of vehicular trips per day. The proposed project will undoubtedly cause increased traffic on Hackberry Lane. Increased vehicular traffic is a threat to the safety of Hackberry Lane residents. It also will cause an increase in air pollution and noise pollution in the area. The only entrances/exits are located on Hackberry Lane. Every vehicle that will be entering/exiting the apartment complex will have to use Hackberry Lane.

B. Drainage: Apartment buildings with downspouts, black top parking lot and driveways will alter the natural drainage of the property, possibly causing/adding to street flooding on Hackberry Lane. Without a Grading Plan, it is impossible to adequately review drainage.

Additionally, no information is given regarding potentially significant hydrological impacts to Verde Cruz Creek.

C. Loss of Trees: Oak Trees will be removed from the project site that have a diameter of six (6) inches or more. Specifically, citing to the Tree Plan that was submitted by the project applicant, tree numbers 91, 86, 85, 82, 65, and 63. Sacramento County General Plan, Policy C0-130 specifically states that native oak trees measuring 6" in diameter are to be preserved and protected.

D. Increased Noise: The addition of a fifty-six (56) unit apartment complex on Hackberry Lane will undoubtedly cause a significant increase in noise. There is no information provided regarding existing noise levels at the boundaries of the project site and anticipated noise levels after project approval. Surely the County has noise studies of multi-family residences that could be provided in the County's review. Such information may help determine the size and number of units, height of boundary fences, etc. Further, there is no discussion about construction noise and timing of construction activity.

E. Changed Circumstances: The Sacramento County General Plan is out-of-date. The neighborhood adjacent to the proposed project has become over-saturated with multi-family dwellings. The neighborhood is located in the Carmichael Area Plan. This area contains eighty percent of all multi-family dwelling units in the County. The concentration of multi-family dwellings in the SCHA neighborhood is even greater. The concentration of multi-family dwellings seems disproportionate and a burden primarily borne by the SCHA residents.

The vicinity map included within the Jurisdictional Delineation and Special Status Species Evaluation is outdated and fails to accurately include all the other multi-family dwellings within the area.

F. Threatened, Endangered and Special Status Species: The information provided about special status species and habitat does not demonstrate that the analysis satisfied U.S. Fish & Wildlife and California Department of Fish & Game survey protocol for plant species and wildlife.

SCHA believes that the proposed project will adversely affect various aspects of their neighborhood. They made a good faith effort to meet with members of the planning department, only to be met with broken promises and this, a surprise approval of the development plan. SCHA feels that its members' interests and concerns are being ignored by the County Planning Department staff. Despite participating at every level, not a single concern raised by SCHA has been addressed by the planning department. The Carmichael Planning Area Commission voted overwhelmingly (6-1) against this proposed project. SCHA opposes any proposed project in its neighborhood that fails to adequately comply with the County's Zoning Code or fails to consider neighbor's concerns regarding quality of life and public safety concerns of its residents.

SCHA requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals hold a de novo hearing on this matter to allow additional public comment on this proposed project.







Enclosed with this Notice of Appeal is the mandatory filing fee of $1,157.

Sincerely,


J. William Yeates

Enclosure