Sacramento Planning & Design Commission Regular Meeting – February 24, 2022

The Planning and Design Commission held a teleconference meeting on Thursday, February 24, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. The commission unanimously approved a consent calendar and conducted a public hearing for the Natomas Fountains Apartments project (P21-025), ultimately voting 13-0 to approve the development. The meeting also included a director’s report, commissioner comments, and formation of an ad hoc committee on parking policy.

Consent Calendar

• Item 1: Approved the minutes of the January 27, 2022 Planning and Design Commission meeting.
• Item 2: Passed a motion continuing teleconference meetings during the COVID-19 state of emergency, finding that in-person meetings would present risks to health and safety, per Government Code section 54953(e).

Director’s Report

• City Council approvals: On February 15, 2022, the City Council approved two projects previously heard by the Commission: Luther Garden Senior Apartments and Innovation Park Planned Unit Development (old Natomas Arena site).
• Meeting schedule: The March 10, 2022 meeting was canceled; the March 24, 2022 meeting will proceed with a full agenda.
• New online tool: The City launched “agency counter” (replacing “development tracker”) for public access to development application materials, including maps and auto-notifications.
• Retirement: Senior Planner Teresa Haenggi is retiring after 21 years of service. Commissioners and staff expressed gratitude for her contributions.
• Pro-Housing Designation: The City received California’s first Pro-Housing Designation, earning double the required points for policies encouraging housing and affordable housing.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Matthew Blondell (public comment): Expressed support for the project but asked the Commission to require the developer to ensure local general contractors pay Bay Area standard wages and provide health and welfare benefits. Urged consideration of local workforce.
• Jordan Hedman (public comment): Questioned the rationale for adding extra parking (beyond city requirements) given the city’s goals for walkability, transit, and reduced emissions. Suggested less parking could lower rents and be more sustainable long-term. Requested the commission consider future-oriented parking policies.
• eComments (summarized): Staff noted eComments expressing opposition to more housing in the area, concerns about lack of affordable housing, and desire to retain the site for retail/commercial uses. Walk Sacramento, Jibe, and North Natomas Community Coalition submitted comments on parking and pedestrian network deficiencies; the applicant responded by adding parking, bike parking, and pedestrian paths.

Discussion Items

• Item 4 - Natomas Fountains Apartments (P21-025): A proposal to construct a 303-unit apartment complex on ±10.59 acres at 3801 Gateway Park Blvd (Council District 3). Entitlements included: (A) Addendum to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; (B) Resolution amending the Coral Business Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) schematic plan to designate the site for multi-unit residential; (C) Site Plan and Design Review for six three-story buildings (studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom units). The site is currently vacant retail/commercial land in a regional commercial center. The project is the first residential development in the vicinity east/south of the RD 1000 canal. The site has no frontage on Truxel Road due to light-rail easements; all access will be via a private road. The applicant, Heinz, presented the project and noted community outreach, including meetings with North Natomas Community Coalition, addition of 37 on-site parking spaces, and 57 shared parking spaces with an adjacent shopping center (recorded as a reciprocal easement running with the land). At community request, the developer agreed to fund bicycle/pedestrian improvements instead of building a bike trail that would end at the Rayleigh distribution center.

Commissioner questions and discussion focused on:

• Parking: Commissioner Lenzi praised the shared parking arrangement and asked about perpetuity (confirmed runs with land). Commissioner Boyd asked about parking survey timing (drone survey flown three times a day for seven days; peak use at noon with max 11 of 57 shared spaces used). The project will have a total of 483 on-site spaces plus 57 shared. Commissioner Boyd also asked about emergency evacuation; civil engineer confirmed fire department reviewed access and had no further comments.
• EV charging and sustainability: Commissioner Boyd asked about EV stations. Applicant Greg Thatch confirmed EV charging stations will be installed (exceeding standards) and that energy for the project will come from renewable sources via a SMUD agreement, though no solar panels are planned. Commissioner Chase noted building code requirements for EV conduit.
• Bike parking: Commissioner Boyd asked about bike parking accessibility; applicant stated eight bike lockers with repair stations are placed on site plan, with short-term parking near the leasing office.
• Sound barrier wall: Commissioner Yi asked about a “sound barrier fence” noted on site plan along the northern edge (adjacent Rayleigh distribution center). Staff and Bruce Monighan explained it is likely a decorative block or post-and-plank wall to mitigate noise and headlights; exact design to be finalized later. The residential project is not required to build a wall, but the applicant chose to do so. Buildings were shifted south to improve synergy with retail.
• Design review: Commissioner Yi asked about Design Advisory Group (DAG) review. Bruce Monighan confirmed the project went to DAG in early submission and received multiple iterations of comments; many were implemented. Future staff reports will include DAG acknowledgment.
• Parking and transit orientation: Several commissioners (Ogilvie, Wang Connelly, Boyd, Chase, Lenzi) debated the balance between providing parking now and planning for future transit-oriented development. The project site is near a planned light-rail station but no construction timeline exists. Greg Sandlund noted staff is working on maximum parking requirements and adaptive reuse of parking lots. Commissioner Wang Connelly raised the idea of designing parking lots for future conversion to housing. Commissioner Chase noted that Sacramento lacks robust transit options, so parking is still needed.

Key Outcomes

• Vote on Item 4 (Natomas Fountains Apartments): Motion by Commissioner Lenzi, second by Commissioner Chase. The commission voted 13-0 (Commissioners Boyd, Buckley, Chase, Covill, Hernandez, Lenzi, Macias Reed, Ogilvie, Pluckebaum, Wallace, Wang Connelly, Yee, Yeung all in favor) to:
  1. Approve the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
  2. Approve the Resolution amending the Coral Business Center PUD schematic plan.
  3. Approve the Site Plan and Design Review for the 303-unit apartment complex.
• Ad Hoc Committee on Parking: Chair Macias Reed called for volunteers to form an ad hoc committee to review parking policy. Commissioners expressing interest: Ogilvie, Covill, Boyd, Pluckebaum, Chase, Wang Connelly, and Lenzi (if space). Chair will coordinate offline to finalize membership. Staff noted the committee will be less than a quorum.
• Future Agenda: Staff will bring back a presentation on the “Healthy Places Index” tool (used recently for alcohol use permits) at the second meeting in April. The next regular meeting is March 24, 2022.

Public Comments – Matters Not on the Agenda

None.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m.