Planning Commission continues Royal Wave Car Wash appeal to Sept. 10 to allow alternate land-use review
August 13, 2025 | Rancho Cordova City, Sacramento County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Rancho Cordova Planning Commission on Aug. 13 continued an appeal by the owner of a car-wash property to a date certain — Sept. 10 — after the applicant asked for more time to explore alternative land-use options.
The appeal challenges a July 3 director determination that a nonconforming car-wash use authorized by a 1998 Sacramento County conditional-use permit (CUP) may not be relocated from the parcel where it was originally permitted and may not be expanded in a way that exceeds the scope of the original entitlement.
"Appeals of director level determinations are heard by the Planning Commission for a decision," Nick Sosa, Planning Department staff, told the commission. Sosa summarized the department's finding that the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code provision governing nonconforming uses (Section 23.171.040) does not permit moving a nonconforming use from the parcel for which it was originally approved. He also said the department determined that merging the two parcels would cause the car wash to exceed the scope of the 1998 CUP, including changes to original site plan and parcel identification.
Diane Kinderman, attorney for the applicant with the law firm Abbott & Kinderman, asked for a continuance so the applicant could "continue to work with staff on perhaps an alternative land use tool to approve this project," and suggested tools such as a rezone. Kinderman said she preferred a short continuance and asked the commission to schedule the matter for the first meeting in September.
City attorney Anthony Amara (Myers Nave) advised the commission to allow members of the public who came for the item to speak under public comment and then, if the commission wished, to take a motion to continue the hearing to the date certain. No public speaker cards were submitted at the Aug. 13 meeting; the commission chose not to close the public comment period for the continued hearing so commenters would not need the item to be re-noticed.
Chair Frechette moved "that we continue this item to a date certain, Sept. 10." Commissioner Stevenson seconded the motion. The roll-call vote recorded five ayes, none opposed; the motion passed 5-0.
Staff told the commission the properties involved are located at 3591 and 3501 Bradshaw Road; the parcel number for 3591 Bradshaw Road was cited in staff materials as 068-0030-048-0000 and the zoning for both parcels is Village Center Mixed Use (VCMU), which currently prohibits service stations and car washes as a permitted use. The 1998 CUP, approved when the site was in unincorporated Sacramento County, allowed the existing service station and accessory car wash and is the basis for the site's nonconforming status.
The commission's action was procedural: it did not overturn or modify the director's determination. Instead, the commission granted the applicant a continuance to allow staff and the applicant to explore alternative entitlements (for example, a rezone or different permit pathway) and to return with additional analysis on Sept. 10. The public-comment period for the item will remain open to avoid re-noticing requirements.
No additional timeline, conditions, or staff directives beyond the continuance were adopted at the Aug. 13 meeting.
The appeal challenges a July 3 director determination that a nonconforming car-wash use authorized by a 1998 Sacramento County conditional-use permit (CUP) may not be relocated from the parcel where it was originally permitted and may not be expanded in a way that exceeds the scope of the original entitlement.
"Appeals of director level determinations are heard by the Planning Commission for a decision," Nick Sosa, Planning Department staff, told the commission. Sosa summarized the department's finding that the Rancho Cordova Municipal Code provision governing nonconforming uses (Section 23.171.040) does not permit moving a nonconforming use from the parcel for which it was originally approved. He also said the department determined that merging the two parcels would cause the car wash to exceed the scope of the 1998 CUP, including changes to original site plan and parcel identification.
Diane Kinderman, attorney for the applicant with the law firm Abbott & Kinderman, asked for a continuance so the applicant could "continue to work with staff on perhaps an alternative land use tool to approve this project," and suggested tools such as a rezone. Kinderman said she preferred a short continuance and asked the commission to schedule the matter for the first meeting in September.
City attorney Anthony Amara (Myers Nave) advised the commission to allow members of the public who came for the item to speak under public comment and then, if the commission wished, to take a motion to continue the hearing to the date certain. No public speaker cards were submitted at the Aug. 13 meeting; the commission chose not to close the public comment period for the continued hearing so commenters would not need the item to be re-noticed.
Chair Frechette moved "that we continue this item to a date certain, Sept. 10." Commissioner Stevenson seconded the motion. The roll-call vote recorded five ayes, none opposed; the motion passed 5-0.
Staff told the commission the properties involved are located at 3591 and 3501 Bradshaw Road; the parcel number for 3591 Bradshaw Road was cited in staff materials as 068-0030-048-0000 and the zoning for both parcels is Village Center Mixed Use (VCMU), which currently prohibits service stations and car washes as a permitted use. The 1998 CUP, approved when the site was in unincorporated Sacramento County, allowed the existing service station and accessory car wash and is the basis for the site's nonconforming status.
The commission's action was procedural: it did not overturn or modify the director's determination. Instead, the commission granted the applicant a continuance to allow staff and the applicant to explore alternative entitlements (for example, a rezone or different permit pathway) and to return with additional analysis on Sept. 10. The public-comment period for the item will remain open to avoid re-noticing requirements.
No additional timeline, conditions, or staff directives beyond the continuance were adopted at the Aug. 13 meeting.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
