Planning commission approves 10-lot subdivision on Phoenix Avenue after neighbor concerns, adds privacy and frontage conditions

The Sacramento County Planning Commission on Monday approved a tentative subdivision map to divide 3.54 acres at 8840 Phoenix Avenue in the Fair Oaks community into 10 residential lots, but added conditions intended to address neighbor concerns about drainage, privacy and future house massing.

The commission unanimously approved the tentative subdivision map, a special development permit to allow a private cul-de-sac rather than a public street connection, and a design-review finding, with amendments requiring the developer to enter into a deferred street-frontage improvement agreement recorded with the county, plant screening/shade trees along the site perimeter where feasible, and subject Lot 6 and any lot that will require a retaining wall to a nondiscretionary staff-level design review prior to building permits.

The applicant, whose team described the project as “an infill court” surrounded by existing single-family homes, sought to subdivide two parcels into 10 lots served by a private cul-de-sac. Christian Baltazar, associate planner and the project’s lead staff presenter, told the commission the plan “proposes a private cul de sac that will serve all 10 proposed lots,” and noted that all existing structures on the site would be removed and that street frontage “class A” improvements were initially required along Phoenix Avenue.

The applicant and county staff described stormwater and grading controls built into the project. Baltazar said the Department of Water Resources previously approved a level 3 drainage study for the property and that the county would require a level 4 drainage study before grading and improvement plans were finalized. He also said the site plan includes two stormwater detention basins and swales intended to capture runoff from the proposed lots.

Neighbor Tom Zlotkowski, who said he owns property immediately south of the site, asked for more information about buildable areas and privacy impacts on his backyard, and urged additional review of what might be built on Lot 6. “I’m a registered civil engineer … I’m suggesting that Lot 6 perhaps could have its own, additional review by the zoning code administrator or the improvement plan director of SIPs, to make sure that some of my concerns about privacy and about setbacks, are addressed,” Zlotkowski told commissioners.

Kimber Gutierrez, a planner with the county, told the commission staff had already proposed a condition to address similar concerns. “We do have condition 8, which is prior to issuance of a building permit, all resultant parcels that propose a retaining wall shall be subject to a nondiscretionary design review to assess the home design and siting,” she said, and added staff could amend that condition to specifically call out Lot 6 if the commission desired.

After hours of testimony and a series of motions and amendments, Chair David Conklin moved to approve the project with the revisions described above; Commissioner Devlin seconded. The roll call vote was recorded as: Commissioner Devlin — yes; Commissioner Verga — aye; Member Verhaag — yes; Chair David Conklin — yes. The motion passed 4–0.

Commission discussion repeatedly noted competing priorities: neighbors’ requests for stronger protections around privacy and massing, the county’s design standards that staff enforces through nondiscretionary reviews, and the county’s policies to streamline infill housing production. Planning Director Todd Smith explained that sidewalks and curb-and-gutter requirements can sometimes be deferred by recorded agreement when adjacent segments lack built frontage, but warned that deferred improvement agreements are often not “called in” for many years.

County staff also reported the project would remove 37 of the site’s 103 trees, including 13 protected oaks that an arborist rated in poor or fair condition; staff included tree mitigation and canopy-replacement conditions in the approval. The approved entitlement package includes a mitigated negative declaration and multiple conditions requiring additional engineering work before grading and construction.

The approval allows the tentative map to proceed to final map and subsequent building-permit review, subject to the county conditions and the nondiscretionary staff-level review for any lots requiring retaining walls and for Lot 6 as amended.

Commissioners and staff encouraged the parties to continue direct conversations after the hearing to try to resolve remaining neighbor questions before building permits are submitted. The commission’s action preserves the map and sets the administrative steps the project must meet before vertical construction.