WEST SACRAMENTO, CA (MPG) – A West Sacramento City Council denial of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a local homeowner a variance in siting a protective structure for his RV yielded fireworks at the council’s Oct. 1 meeting.

It also elicited an agreement by planning and code enforcement staff to look into lists of similar residential structures in the city provided by the appellant and a council member to determine if more violations of city codes by owners of similar nonpermitted structures exist.

The issue began Jan. 28  when code enforcement received a complaint regarding a utility structure being built by a homeowner, Mark Reyes, on his property at the corner of Michigan Boulevard and Portsmouth Avenue.

Planning Manager Tristan Osborne told council that Reyes had been to the department in late 2024 to discuss the project but had proceeded with the work without approvals from the city.

Code enforcement visited the site on Jan. 29 and issued a “Stop Work” order. Despite the order, the city alleges that Reyes continued with the work, and after no progress was made in compliance discussions, the city issued a “Notice to Abate” on Feb. 14.

A deadline of March 18 was set for removal of the structure, with Reyes subsequently granted a deadline extension to April 14.

Osborne said nothing has been done to correct the issue, resulting in the city issuing an “Administrative Citation” on May 23 and Reyes filing for a variance on May 28.

The Planning Commission denied Reyes’ request after a public hearing at its Aug. 21 meeting, resulting in Reyes’ filing an appeal to the council one week later.

Reyes has requested a variance in the city’s regulations requiring structures be set back at least 15 feet from a property’s front edge and five feet from side edges. Codes also restrict the height of utility structures to 12 feet.

To fit the 47-foot-by-15-foot RV structure on the front yard of his property, Reyes reduced those setbacks to zero. At 15 feet high, the structure also is in violation of height codes.

To be granted a variance, Osborne said that Reyes had to show the structure didn’t violate four findings required not only by city codes but also by California law. The variance couldn’t grant the owner a special advantage not afforded nearby property owners; had to be the result of a hardship not imposed by the owners’ actions; not be detrimental to public safety, health or general welfare; and its granting be consistent with zoning and the city’s General Plan requirements.

Osborne said that the commission determined none of these requirements were met.

Reyes contends enforcing the setback requirements on his structure were unfair and arbitrary because other property owners in the city appeared to be in violation of the codes as well. Reyes provided photos and addresses of 24 similar structures he found while driving around the neighborhood he contends are in likely violation.

Reyes also contends the reason that the complaint was filed in the first place was personal.

“It stemmed from a hateful neighbor who had a complaint and is trying to hurt me and my family,” Reyes said.

Part of Reyes’ information to council include his timeline for the project in which he noted he had contacted Councilmembers Quirina Orozco and Norma Alcala, along with Mayor Martha Guerrero. Guerrero, Alcala and Orozco all acknowledged prior to the hearing they had been contacted by Reyes.

While Alcala only stated she had spoken with him, Orozco and Guerrero went into more depth, with Orozco saying she received an email from Reyes regarding a driveway extension at his home in late 2024.

Guerrero said that Reyes contacted her prior to his current appeal to council and asked her for a “favorable” decision, to which she replied she could not do so and would have to note their conversation for the record.

“After that, we stopped talking, so that’s where we concluded,” Guerrero said.

Contacts with Orozco and Alcala were noted in Reyes’ timeline but in a Dec. 21, 2024 notation, he wrote that Alcala had verbally told him to “Go ahead and build the carport.”  

That caused concerns, particularly with attorney Ryan Raftery.

Raftery, in his role as hearing examiner advising council on procedures, said the statement could be construed as a conflict of interest since it indicated Alcala might have played a larger role in the issue.

Raftery seemed to hint a prudent move might be for Alcala to disqualify herself from the appeal decision. Alcala said her comments had been misstated by Reyes, something Reyes also acknowledged.

Mayor Pro Tem Verna Sulpizio Hull said that she felt Alcala had come to the hearing with a definite opinion on the issue.

Alcala affirmed that she felt the variance should be granted since she believed it was being arbitrarily applied to Reyes in light of other similar structures in the city being in possible violation.

During council questioning of Osborne, Alcala stated several times that the codes were being arbitrarily and unfairly applied and said council should change the ordinance. Alcala also said after her conversation with Reyes, she did her own research by driving around and found 17 more instances of car ports built in possible non-compliance with codes.

“It’s up to you,” Raftery told Alcala. “I’m just trying to protect the City Council and the city.”

“I don’t feel I have a conflict,” Alcala said.

City Attorney Jeff Mitchell said any possible conflict likely hinged on the outcome of the council vote on the appeal.

If council overturned the Planning Commission decision in a close vote, there might be grounds for someone to challenge the decision in court.

Mitchell also reminded council that, while they were free to consider whatever evidence they wished, state law required they base any decision on whether all four findings applied to Reyes’ situation. In the end, they voted to uphold the variance denial 4-1, with Alcala voting no.

As for the two lists of residences with possible violations, council members asked Osborne and Code Enforcement Manager Josh Hurley if submitting those would constitute a complaint and thereby compel city staff to look into each case to see if there were possible violations. Both staff members said it would and promised to investigate those cases as soon as possible.