Planning & Design Commission Meeting - January 25, 2024

The Sacramento Planning and Design Commission convened on January 25, 2024, at 5:31 p.m. at City Hall (915 I Street) to consider a consent calendar, a continuance, and three public hearings. The meeting lasted until 9:18 p.m. The primary item was the recommendation to adopt the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAP), along with conditional use permits for a bottle shop (Natomas) and an H-Mart retail store. Commissioners also heard extensive public comment on the Natomas Basin special study area and debated amendments regarding drive-through prohibitions and EV charger reliability.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes (File ID: 2024-00007): Unanimously passed to approve the minutes of January 11, 2024.

Director’s Report

• Stacia Cosgrove provided updates: the 2024 planning and zoning work program will go before City Council on February 6, 2024; the Commission's 2023 annual report is scheduled for PMPE committee on February 13, 2024; and the Contemporary Commons Residential Project (heard January 11) has had a tentative map appeal, to be scheduled for a future date.

Public Hearings

Item 2: Fuel Stop Gas Station (P22-021)

• Location: 3200 Rio Linda Boulevard (District 2).
• Action: Unanimously voted (11-0) to continue the item to February 8, 2024, per staff request.

Item 3: Natomas Bottle Shop (P23-027)

• Location: 4571 Gateway Park Boulevard, Suite #4 (District 1).
• Staff recommendation: Approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for alcohol sales (off-premises) in an existing 1,739 sq ft retail space (Type 21 license) within the Employment Center zone (EC-50-PUD). No beer is proposed, only wine and spirits; hours 6 a.m. to midnight.
• Public Comment: One written comment received; no opposition expressed at meeting.
• Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Hernandez asked about hours; applicant explained they were based on local business norms and coordinated with law enforcement. Commissioner Lamas noted the Healthy Places Index analysis scored over 70% and compared to a similar approved bottle shop in Midtown.
• Vote: Motion by Commissioner Lamas, seconded by Commissioner Hernandez, passed unanimously (11-0).

Item 4: H-Mart Retail Store (P23-029)

• Location: 6366 Mack Road (District 8).
• Staff recommendation: Approve a CUP for a retail store exceeding 40,000 gross square feet in the General Commercial (C-2) zone. The previous tenant (Food Source) closed during the pandemic; the deemed CUP became void after >1 year of vacancy.
• Public Comment: No speaker slips; staff noted a letter of support from Mack Road Partnership.
• Commissioner Discussion: Vice Chair Yeung asked the architect about the owner’s rationale – they chose to reuse the existing building (approximately 58,000 sq ft). Timetable: plans submitted, resubmission in a few weeks, health department comments received. Commissioner Lamas clarified that “deemed CUP” means the prior use was grandfathered before the city code required a CUP for stores >40,000 sq ft.
• Vote: Motion by Commissioner Macias Reed, seconded by Vice Chair Yeung, passed unanimously (11-0).

Item 5: Recommendation to Adopt the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (File ID: 2024-00272)

• Location: Citywide. Staff presented the final hearing draft, summarizing over 1,500 public comments received, community engagement (700+ participants in Phase I; 2,200 in Phase II; 120 letters), key strategies: infill development, new land use framework, environmental justice, climate goals (57% of GHG from transportation, 37% from buildings). The CAP includes measures for building electrification, zero-emission vehicles, and adaptation to heat, flooding, and wildfire.

• Special Study Areas: Five areas carried over from the 2035 General Plan. The Natomas Basin Special Study Area (unincorporated county land) drew significant public comment.

• Public Comment (15 speakers):

  • Nilden Schaus (Carpenters Union): Supported plan but urged incentives conditional on use of apprenticeships to prevent wage theft.
  • Susan Hecht (ECOS): Asked to remove the Natomas Basin special study area, as it implies potential development and conflicts with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
  • Robert Burness (Habitat 2020): Argued the study area undermines the HCP; only undeveloped acreage remains in that study area; encouraged replacement with policy language supporting county coordination.
  • Sean Worth (Sierra Club): Said the study area encourages land speculation and inflates conservation costs; pointed to the HCP's mandate for no development outside covered areas.
  • Don Whitney (ECOS): Cited the CAP goals – the study area would conflict with infill growth, carbon sequestration, and heat island reduction.
  • Betsy Wheeland (Sierra Club Sacramento): Referenced the state’s 30x30 goal (conserve 30% of land by 2030) – Sacramento region only at 7%, while SF Bay Area near 30%; development in Natomas would hinder progress.
  • Jim Pachel: Opposed study area; noted the city's water supply role at the airport but urged focus on North Natomas infrastructure (lack of bus service, bridges) before any expansion.
  • Harriet Steiner (North Natomas resident): Emphasized open space for wildlife, flood protection; urged removal or clarification that study area is not an invitation to develop.
  • Corinne Gardner (Westlake resident): Expressed concerns about property values, quality of life, and industrial development near her home.
  • Nancy Snyder (Progressive Study Group): Shared community concerns about climate, infrastructure, and quality of life; supported removal of the study area.
  • Howard Levine (Campus Commons): Requested special overlay designation for Campus Commons, a 1965 PUD without modern protections; hoped commission would direct staff to address this.
  • Indrajeet Rye (Campus Commons): Supported Levine’s comments; many residents uncomfortable driving at night.
  • Nick Abdes (Integral Communities/AKT): Opposed the half-mile drive-through prohibition near planned light rail stations (e.g., Greenbrier project in Natomas); argued it oversimplifies transit-oriented development (TOD) and suggested the forthcoming zoning code update is a better venue.
  • Laura Lance (Heritage Park): Opposed study area; noted lack of bus service and the “Farm to Fork” slogan vs. reality.
  • Michael Ellis: Raised security concerns about building access; questioned the drive-through ban, noting low-income reliance on fast food; advocated for pedestrian safety at crosswalks.

• Commissioner Discussion and Amendments:

  • Natomas Basin Study Area: Many commissioners (Buckley, Caden, Lamas, Chase) clarified that the study area does not authorize development; it preserves city involvement in the HCP and coordination with the county. Cheryl (principal planner) explained the city’s financial obligation to the HCP (over $52M collected, 5,100+ acres preserved), and that large Greenfield plans (Upper West Side, Grand Park) are already moving through county entitlement. Commissioner Caden argued retaining the study area keeps the city at the table. Commissioner Buckley suggested added language to clarify commitment to open space, but staff noted the existing HCP provides stronger legal protection.
  • Drive-Through Prohibition (Policy LUP 4.12): Staff proposed expanding from quarter-mile to half-mile walking distance of high-frequency transit (existing light rail, two bus routes, and planned green line extension). Commissioner Chase moved to forward the staff recommendation but asked to re-examine the half-mile prohibition for future/planned light rail stations, especially in auto-dependent areas like North Natomas, and consider phased implementation. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Hernandez. Some commissioners (Caden, Young, Thompson) supported the half-mile policy as necessary for future TOD and housing density; others (Hernandez, Chase, Xiong) expressed flexibility for case-by-case or grandfathering. After debate, the motion was amended to also add consideration of EV charger reliability to policy LUP 4.13 (future-ready gas stations). Commissioner Hernandez proposed a “friendly amendment” to require a certain uptime (e.g., 90%) for EV chargers; staff noted resource constraints but agreed to examine language.
  • EV Charging Policy: Hernandez raised concerns about broken chargers (citing a recent CalMatters article), suggesting reliability requirements. Other commissioners (Blunt, Wallace, Lamas) shared experiences with non-functioning chargers and supported including reliability goals.
  • Campus Commons: Chair Wallace asked about addressing the outdated PUD; staff indicated that historic district nomination or policy support is possible but resource-dependent, and this is not typically detailed in the General Plan.

• Vote on Item 5: Motion by Commissioner Chase (seconded by Hernandez) to forward staff recommendation to City Council with additional recommendations: (1) re-examine the drive-through prohibition for proposed (future) light rail stations between quarter- and half-mile, and (2) explore language to improve EV charger reliability in policy LUP 4.13. The motion passed 10-1 (Commissioner Lamas voting no).

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously.
• Item 2 (Fuel Stop Gas Station): Continued to February 8, 2024 (unanimous).
• Item 3 (Natomas Bottle Shop): CUP approved (unanimous).
• Item 4 (H-Mart): CUP approved (unanimous).
• Item 5 (2040 General Plan & CAP): Forwarded to City Council with recommendations on drive-through prohibition and EV charger reliability (10-1). City Council public hearing tentatively scheduled for February 27, 2024; effective date anticipated March 28, 2024.
• Commissioner Comments: Commissioners praised staff for the multi-year effort and noted upcoming work on the planning and development code update.
• Public Comments – Matters Not on the Agenda: None.
• Adjournment: 9:18 p.m.