Sacramento Planning and Design Commission Meeting – November 12, 2020

The Sacramento Planning and Design Commission met via teleconference on Thursday, November 12, 2020, beginning at 5:30 p.m. and adjourning at 9:30 p.m. The commission unanimously approved consent calendar items, heard a third‑party appeal of the Sacramento Country Day School master plan, reviewed the draft 2040 General Plan update, and discussed a framework for a new building electrification ordinance. All votes were 9‑0‑1 (Commissioner Ogilvie absent), except where noted.

Consent Calendar

• Item 1 – Approval of Meeting Minutes of October 22, 2020: Approved by motion (Pluckebaum/Kaufman); 9:0:1.
• Item 2 – Initiate Amendments to the Central City Special Planning District: Approved by motion (Pluckebaum/Kaufman); 9:0:1.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 5 – Big Boss Alcohol and Tobacco Sales (1832 El Camino Avenue): No public comments were received. The commission approved the two Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) for alcohol and tobacco sales, subject to staff’s conditions and a minor correction to condition B2.
• Item 6 – 300 El Camino Alcohol Sales: Several residents submitted written comments opposing the CUP, citing concerns about existing liquor store density, illegal dumping, loitering, and lack of health food options. No members of the public called in to speak. The commission approved the CUP and site plan review, noting the applicant’s commitment to clean up the adjacent public alley.
• Item 8 – Third‑Party Appeal of Sacramento Country Day School Master Plan: Three appellants (Ann Evans, John Apostolo, Bruce Pomer) spoke in opposition, arguing that the school has not complied with a 1996 traffic mitigation agreement and that the proposed increase of 54 students (to 598 total) would worsen congestion and parking on Latham Drive and Saratoga Circle. Several neighbors and a former mitigation committee member expressed support for the school, citing consistent communication and efforts to manage traffic. Public callers included one opponent (sharing safety concerns) and two supporters (including a parent and a neighbor).
• Item 9 – 2040 General Plan Update – Draft Land Use Map and Key Strategies: Public comment included both support and criticism. Support came from SACOG, House Sacramento, and a resident praising the FAR‑based land use approach, removal of parking minimums, and equity focus. Criticism came from a resident who argued the plan fails to account for COVID‑19 impacts, lacks financial details, and imposes one‑size‑fits‑all solutions. Representatives from Boulevard Park and Land Park neighborhood associations raised concerns about preserving historic districts and ensuring appropriate transitions near single‑family zones.
• Item 10 – New Building Electrification Ordinance Framework: One caller urged earlier effective dates (2022 instead of 2023) to meet 2030 climate goals. Another caller opposed the mandate, citing cost, grid reliability, and feasibility questions. The Building Industry Association supported the phased approach and SMUD’s rebate program.

Discussion Items

• Item 8 – Sacramento Country Day School Master Plan Appeal: The appellant argued that increasing enrollment without renewing the 1996 traffic management plan (off‑site parking, carpooling, and parking restrictions) would revert to pre‑1996 conditions. The school (head Lee Thomsen and attorney Nick Avdis) contended that the 1996 agreement is a private contract independent of the city’s land‑use process; they met all development standards and have not received formal complaints. Staff recommended denying the appeal and approving the CUP modification. Commissioners questioned the lack of formal complaints and noted that enforcement of the private agreement lies with the parties, not the city. The motion to approve staff recommendation and deny the appeal passed 9‑0‑1.
• Item 9 – 2040 General Plan Update: Staff presented the draft land use map (reducing designations from 27 to 11, using floor‑area‑ratio), proposed roadway reallocations, and key strategies including allowing duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes in all neighborhoods, eliminating parking minimums, all‑electric construction, and studying annexation of Fruitridge‑Florin and expansion of the Natomas sphere of influence. Commissioners asked about historic district protections, displacement risks, and the Natomas Joint Vision Area. After discussion, the commission voted to recommend the draft documents to City Council (motion by Kaufman, second by Pluckebaum); 9‑0‑1.
• Item 10 – Building Electrification Ordinance Framework: Staff outlined requirements for all new low‑rise buildings (≤3 stories) to be all‑electric by 2023, all new high‑rise by 2026 (provided cost‑effectiveness), 20% EV‑capable spaces, and parking incentives. Commissioner questions covered cost effectiveness, SMUD rebates, impacts on housing affordability, grid capacity, and workforce transitions (including a letter from Plumbers & Pipe Fitters Local 447). Staff noted ongoing outreach and a planned return to commission in January 2021. The item was received and filed (Commissioner Hernandez recused herself).

Key Outcomes

• Item 4 – Kado Court (street name change): Continued to December 10, 2020 meeting.
• Item 5 – Big Boss Alcohol and Tobacco Sales: Approved (9:0:1).
• Item 6 – 300 El Camino Alcohol Sales: Approved (9:0:1).
• Item 7 – Stanford Market ABC License Change: Continued to December 10, 2020.
• Item 8 – Sacramento Country Day School Master Plan: Appeal denied, project approved (9:0:1).
• Item 9 – 2040 General Plan Update: Commission voted to recommend the draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes, and Key Strategies to City Council (9:0:1).
• Item 10 – Building Electrification Ordinance Framework: Received and filed; framework to return for ordinance adoption in January 2021.
• Public Comments – Matters Not on the Agenda: None.
• Member Comments: None.

Adjournment: 9:30 p.m.```json {