14th, 2025 Planning and Design Commission.

The meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I would like to remind members of the public and chambers that if you'd like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

You have three minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgement in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the people of this land, the Nissanan people, the Southern Maidu Valley, and Plains Mewak Patwin Wintoon peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we recognize and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation of Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives.

Please rise.

Oh, please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

Liberty and Justice Strong.

Okay.

All right.

So I don't think we have a director's report today.

So we'll move to our first order of the business, which is the consent consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

You chair, I have no speaker slips on this item.

Right.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Commissioner Hernandez.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to sorry.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Chase.

I'll second.

Kate.

Will the clerk please call roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee is absent.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

Absent.

Commissioner Naibo?

Commissioner Caden is absent.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Masas Reed.

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt is absent.

Vice Chair Chase?

Here.

Commissioner Rishke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson.

Aye.

Chair Young.

Aye.

Thank you.

And the motion passes.

Thank you.

Moving on to item two, the old Ironsides Bar C UP P25-006.

Zach will be presenting.

Thank you.

Um, are there any disclosures or recusals for this item?

None?

Okay.

You can proceed.

Awesome.

Good evening to the chair, Vice Chair, and fellow commissioners.

My name's Zach Dulles, OCA Planner with the community development department.

Uh, the item before you tonight is the old Ironsides Bar CUP project, also known as record number T25-006.

The project is located at the Old Ironsides Landmark Building.

It's located southeast, southwest, uh no, southeast of the intersection of 10th Street and S Street.

Um, in the General Commercial Zone, the Central City Special Planning District, and the South Side Historic District.

Uh Old Ironsides originally opened in 1934 as a neighborhood restaurant and bar serving lunches Monday through Friday.

Since June 1977, the sale of alcohol on site was authorized under ABC type 47 license, which is typically issued to restaurants and food establishments.

With a type 48 license, Old Ironsides would no longer be required to serve food.

And patrons under the age of 21 would also be prohibited.

Public hearing notices were posted at the site mailed to all property owners, residents and neighborhood associations within 500 feet of the project site.

Staff to date has received no public comments, and there's no known opposition.

Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit.

As this project allows an established nightlife and entertainment business to continue to be a distinctive and memorable place for residents and visitors to congregate.

And this concludes my presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

And the applicant of Brett Bear is here as well.

Thank you.

Clerk, are there any speaker slips for this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for this item.

Are there any questions from the commission or motions?

Vice Chair Chase.

A question.

I noticed in the in the report, the the hours are what they've always been 11 to 11 to midnight, but the police department indicated noon till midnight.

Do you know why the inconsistencies are in talking to the police department?

That was a request that they made to ABC, but it's not certain if ABC will accept that.

Um so city staff is just going to recommend that we keep the hours of operations the same, but ABC can further restrict it if they would like.

Thank you.

Commissioner Nybo.

I'd like to move the motion.

I have a motion.

I'll second.

A second.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Oh.

I was going to say.

You were gonna say second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second.

Clerk will uh just I'll I'll give a pause.

Any other questions from anyone?

Okay.

Clerk, will you please make the roll call?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee is absent.

Commissioner Tao?

Yes.

Commissioner Lamas.

Abstain.

Commissioner Naibo.

Commissioner Caden is absent.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Mossis Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt is absent.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rushke.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson?

Aye.

And Chair Young.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

All right.

Moving on to the next item, which is a discussion item.

Get to my page here.

I thought I had it here.

All right.

Let me go to the old.

Oh, there we go.

2040 general plan and Title 17 consistency status update overview and text amendments.

LR25-003.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners.

I'm Jamie Mosler, Associate Planner from the Long Range Planning Team.

I'm pleased to be here tonight to present the 2040 general plan and Title 17 consistency work with a status update, overview, and request initiation of text amendments tonight.

Purpose of tonight's presentation is to share our initial analysis, gather feedback from discussion questions to help shape the approach moving forward for both staff and a consultant team.

And we're also recommending tonight that the planning and design commission make a motion to initiate tax and rezoning amendments to ensure consistency to with the 2040 general plan.

As an overview of tonight's presentation, I'll first provide some background information of how we got here.

I'll then outline our approach and scope for this work.

I'll then share initial findings from the analysis and then conclude by describing next steps and share two discussion questions that we would like the commission's feedback on tonight.

So starting first with background.

As many of you are aware, the 2040 general plan was adopted by city council in February 2024.

This plan provides long-range policy direction pertaining to the city's growth and development to guide decision making and more detailed planning efforts.

It includes various policies and actions that outline implementation of the plan.

The general plan is implemented through various mechanisms such as specific plans and zoning, our city code Title 17.

The pyramid on this slide shows the relationship between the general plan and these mechanisms.

The general plan is at the top of the pyramid and is the most general and provides the longest term vision.

As we move down the pyramid, the mechanisms become shorter term and more specific.

City Code Title 17 is at the bottom of this pyramid and implements the general plan more specifically and provides day-to-day guidance and standards.

Additionally, the general plan provides direction and implementation action LUP A point 10 to update Title 17 to implement the 2040 general plan in the near term between 2024 and 2029.

When we talk about implementing the 2040 general plan, we're referring to the major changes made to the land use framework with this update.

The 2040 general plan was a really comprehensive update from the previous 2030 general 2035 general plan and made changes such as simplifying 27 land use designations into 10, separately, regulating building intensity standards from the land use designations, removing maximum residential density standards, and regulating building intensity by maximum FAR or floor area ratio.

And I'll explain what each of these changes mean in a little more detail.

So looking at in the previous general plan, the 2035 general plan, there were 27 land use designations ranging from suburban neighborhood low density to urban corridor high density.

These designations define both allowable uses and building intensity for the parcels within them.

Building intensity was regulated by maximum density and FAR standards, and each designation had a defined maximum density for residential for all designations they had maximum FAR standards, well, for non-residential, excuse me.

When we look at the current 2040 general plan, these designations were significantly streamlined with 27 designations consolidated into 10.

These designation, things like neighborhood, residential mixed use, and commercial mixed use to name a few, now only describe the allowable uses for those parcels.

These designations no longer include building intensity standards, and the 2040 general plan instead includes a separate map that regulates building intensity through maximum FAR standards with higher FARs located near transit.

It also removed maximum residential standards, focusing on the size of the building rather than the number of units located within it.

As we saw in the pyramid a few slides ago, Title 17, our planning and development code, is more specific than the general plan.

And the general plan designations are implemented through more detailed zoning districts, things like R1 or C2, to name a few that you might see often.

However, unlike the framework of the 2040 general plan, the Title 17 zones define both the allowed uses and the development standards, such as maximum density, height, and setbacks.

And so an update to Title 17 is needed.

While there have been several ordinances before the planning and design commission amending Title 17, the last comprehensive update of the code was done in 2013, over 10 years ago.

An update is needed to ensure alignment with the 2040 general plan, which introduces its new framework separating land use from development intensity standards, using floor area ratio as a primary tool for guiding development standards and the removal of maximum residential density limits.

Also, since 2013, there's been significant changes in state housing legislation.

So as part of this update, we have to consider the changes to the way cities can write their zoning codes.

There's growing number of state laws shaping what local standards can apply.

There's for new local standards, particularly for housing, there's requirements that these standards must be objective and not subjective.

There's also restrictions on adopting standards that would reduce existing development intensity beyond what's there today.

And then also there's, you know, the state has created many pathways for housing, sometimes that have their own development standards, and so it's important for us to consider those as we move forward and evaluate our own code's effectiveness and local standards.

So taking this all into consideration has helped inform our approach and scope for this work.

So we're approaching this work in four main phases.

We're currently in our analysis phase through spring of next year.

In this phase, staff is analyzing the code to understand what needs to be done and creating a framework of the changes.

Once we have this framework, we'll start a community engagement in the spring and summer, which includes two presentations to the planning and design commission, first at the beginning to kick it off and then to summarize what we heard from the community throughout.

Following community engagement, we'll prepare the ordinance, the draft text, the red lines in the fall to then bring forward for final public hearings and adoption at the Planning and Design Commission and City Council in winter of 2026.

To help explain the analysis phase a little bit more and why it takes the significant time in our schedule.

This phase really includes identifying inconsistencies between Title 17 and the 2040 general plan going through our entire code.

We're also developing a scope with more detailed tasks to ensure consistency, which I'll show on the next slide.

For some of these things, when we're ensuring consistency, there can be different approaches or ways to achieve that, and so we're analyzing and comparing those, and we have a couple of discussion question items for you on those tonight.

And then we're also preparing an overview of the changes to really show the community what is proposed with this update.

So through our analysis phase, we've developed this scope, which includes eight more detailed tasks, starting from consolidating residential zones all the way to rezoning parcels for consistency, and I'll walk you through what each of these means one by one and what our analysis shows so far on each of them.

So starting with consolidating our residential zones.

Earlier I mentioned that the general plan consolidated 27 designations into 10.

When we look specifically at the residential designations, there were previously nine that were broken up by whether they were low, medium, or high density or in suburban, traditional or urban locations.

The 2040 general plan instead replaced these with two simplified designations: neighborhood and residential mixed use.

These now just specify the allowable uses and building intensity, and it's regulated separately.

The neighborhood designation applies throughout Sacramento's established residential neighborhoods and areas planned primarily for residential development.

It's primarily residential and allows neighborhood-serving commercial uses such as corner markets, coffee shops, and some of those uses listed there on the slide.

The residential mixed use designation applies primarily in the central city and along the corridors.

This designation allows more of a full range of residential, retail, employment, entertainment, and cultural uses, such as those listed on the slide.

Additionally, one of the goals of the general general plan is to have a city of healthy, livable, complete neighborhoods that provide for residents' daily needs within easy walking or biking distance from home.

And there's several policies to promote these complete neighborhoods throughout Sacramento that contain, you know, everything that residents need for everyday life within easy access.

So as part of the analysis, staff is evaluating the existing residential zoning districts that implement these general plan designations.

You'll see on the left column the two general plan designations, neighborhood and residential mixed use.

The second column shows you existing residential zones in Title 17.

There's currently 13 of them that are primarily associated with these.

You'll see in the next column over that the first four zones are subject to the missing middle housing ordinance without maximum residential density and have FAR standards instead, which we'll talk more about.

However, the remaining zones really primarily differ by the different maximum residential densities that they have.

But in the far right column, you'll also see that there is some difference in what commercial uses are allowed, and there's this gradual increase in commercial uses as we near the commercial zones.

So what does this really tell us?

First, it shows us that many of these zones contain maximum residential density limits that need to be removed since the 2040 general plan removed maximum density.

Second, it shows us that when we have these simplified designations from nine to two, and we're removing maximum density, there's not a need for that many residential zones.

We need fewer of them to implement the direction from the general plan.

However, we still need some zoning distinctions to facilitate a gradual increase in commercial uses within residential zones before we're reaching the actual commercial zones themselves.

But we also see that many of those lower intensity residential zones that were towards the top of the table, many of those don't permit most commercial uses, even the neighborhood serving commercial uses that the neighborhood designation describes as allowed.

So, what is the update doing about this?

Well, similar to what the general plan did by simplifying designations, we're looking at simplifying the residential zones and following the new framework where the zones are primarily differed by what uses are allowed rather than the intensity or density, since those are now regulated separate.

We're looking at creating new simplified neighborhood and residential mixed use zones that align with the designation.

And then we also want to support the general plan's vision for complete neighborhoods by allowing more neighborhood-serving commercial uses to reflect the designation.

So to show a revised table of what this could look like, those two general plan designations are still there on the left column.

In the second column, set of 13 residential zones, there would instead be three neighborhood or end zones and one RMU zone to implement the designations.

The N1 zone would become the home for the missing little housing ordinance and standards, which we'll talk more about.

But otherwise, the zones would really differ by what uses are permitted with N1 and N2 having new allowances for neighborhood serving commercial uses, and three starting to have broader neighborhood serving commercial uses, similar to what the zones they would consolidate do now.

And then RMU having more expanded commercial uses in line with the designation and the general plan.

With the neighborhood serving commercial uses and the N1 and N2 zones, this is something staff is evaluating approaches for, and we welcome your feedback on, and I'll share a discussion question on that later tonight.

But specifically, we're evaluating approaches for identifying which land uses should be allowed, but then also having regulations to ensure that these still have neighborhood scale.

Historically, Sacramento's residential areas were designed as complete neighborhoods.

There's two images there on the slide from Midtown, where you have these smaller scale businesses topped within residential neighborhoods that allow neighbors to walk over and buy a coffee or small good from a shop down the street.

But many of our neighborhoods that were built later were limited to single family housing only and don't have these uses.

And so we want to support the vision and goals of the general plan and allow more neighborhoods throughout the city to be complete neighborhoods, not just the older neighborhoods in the core.

So look forward to your feedback on a discussion question for that later.

Transitioning to the next item on our scope, this update will also codify the missing middle housing interim ordinance.

As a reminder, the general plan defines MMH as house scale buildings that contain more than one home, such as duplexes, triplex, cottage courts, that are usually built to the same scale as surrounding single family homes, and that image on the slide shows you what some of those types look like.

The 2040 general plan includes direction to facilitate missing middle housing through multiple implementation actions and policies, such as broadening the range of housing types allowed by right and single unit and duplex zones, updating development standards for missing middle housing types, and promoting a variety of housing types, including neighborhood scale multi-unit dwellings.

The city has done a lot of work on missile missing middle housing throughout the years.

From 2022 to 2024, the city worked with consultants to conduct a multi-year study that combined community input and analysis to inform recommendations to allow missing middle housing.

The zoning design and policy recommendations report was the final report of the study published in May of 2024.

Key recommendations of this report included allowing multiple units per lot on zones that were previously limited to one or two and making adjustments to existing development standards that were originally only designed for single unit or duplex dwellings, things like setbacks or boat control to enable house scale buildings with multiple dwelling units inside.

And these recommendations really informed the development of an interim ordinance.

Missing middle housing interim ordinance was adopted by city council in September 2024 as an intermediate step before the complete Title 17 update, which we're working on now.

This ordinance allows multi-unit dwellings and four zones that were previously limited to single unit and duplex dwellings.

These multi-unit dwellings are subject to the sliding FAR scale, which is shown on the bottom of the slide, which allows additional floor area as more units are provided up to the maximum FAR in the general plan.

Additionally, as informed by the recommendations of the study, it adjusted development standards to enable housecape house scale buildings, things like setbacks and boat control.

So, as mentioned, one of the big land use framework changes the general plan made was to regulate building intensity by FAR, and the broader Title 17 update is looking to align our development standards with the FAR.

Most parcels that are subject to the missing middle housing ordinance have a maximum floor area ratio of one, though towards the end of the general plan update process, council directed an increase to an FAR of two for many parcels near transit, which it affected about 20,000 parcels subject to the missing little housing ordinance.

So now, as part of this update, staff is evaluating how to balance the original house scale intent of missing middle housing with higher floor area ratio and allowances near transit.

Staff is exploring approaches to allow this additional floor area, and again, this is an area where there will be discussion question on at the end.

But we're exploring options such as you know increasing building height to accommodate the additional floor area that's allowed here, or reducing open space requirements so that floor area can be achieved at a lower height or the height that's allowed currently.

The previous recommendations that were done as part of the missing middle housing study don't fully address this issue we're seeing now of how to facilitate missing middle housing types near transit with higher floor area, and so we've identified the need to bring on a consultant to support to revisit the MMH standards within the broader context of the Title 17 update.

And we will be working with the consultant for the next few months and bring their findings back to you as well.

So what to codify the missing little housing interim ordinance, the Title 17 will update, will codify the missing little housing standards within the new N1 zone instead of having an interim ordinance that's amending four zones.

We also want to incorporate lessons learned and gather feedback from the interim ordinance, look at our applications, what are issues that are having, what are things that we want to learn from to inform our permanent regulations, and then we'll also partner with the consultant to revine some of those standards more like looking things at open space, bulk control standards, as the broader update is looking to align development standards with FAR, specifically those parcels that allow higher FAR such as two.

And like mentioned, we'll bring those findings with more detail back in the spring once we work with the consultant more on those.

So next item on our scope is updating our development standards not just with missing middle housing but throughout the code as a whole.

So as mentioned towards the beginning, the 2040 general plan is regulating building intensity by maximum floor area ratio with this map here.

And the higher FARs are generally located near transit.

The analysis of our existing zones shows that there is a different framework in the 2040 general plan than what's in Title 17.

So we talked about earlier the general plan designations are only looking at use only, but we have these zones in Title 17 that regulate both use and intensity together.

Second, we're seeing that there's varied FARs within zone within each zone.

The 2040 general plan maximum FAR map resulted in a range of maximum FARs for the parcels within each zone.

We were just talking about missing middle housing where some parcels are FAR 1, FAR two.

We look at some of our commercial zone properties, there's some with FAR 1 and FAR 15, much bigger range.

And so we see those ranges.

We see that there may be some misalignments between the FAR and the general plan and development standards in the zone.

Some of the standards, height, and setbacks might not always align and work across every FAR that the parcel has from the general plan.

And so what we're doing as part of the Title 17 update is aligning our development standards such as height and setbacks with the maximum FARs in the 2040 general plan and really changing the framework of our code so it matches the general plan where intensity is regulated separately from land use.

All right, another item on our scope is to consolidate dwelling land uses.

So this work started with the housing element program I presented last fall.

Housing element program H 15 provides direction to amend the zoning code to ensure requirements for group homes are consistent with state law and fair housing requirements.

Group homes is an umbrella category for shared living residences where folks may rent out individual rooms but may share kitchens or bathrooms and may or not may or may not receive services on site.

The 2040 general plan provides direction through an implementation action to broaden the range of housing types allowed by right and to encourage the development care facilities throughout Sacramento.

Throughout our analysis, when we're looking at our existing Title 17 zones, we see that it can separately categorized single unit, duplex, multi-unit, and group homes, despite the same purpose of providing permanent living provisions.

And so what the Title 17 update is looking at doing is consolidating all of our residential land uses into a single dwelling land use category, effectively allowing a broader range of housing types consistent with the general plan policy direction.

The next three items are more straightforward, so I won't spend as much time on these, but for airport compatibility, there are regulations for development in your airports that live outside of Title 17.

And the general plan includes policies to ensure airport land use compatibility.

And so this update will integrate these adopted policies directly into the zoning code.

And one example of this being creating an overlay for the Rio Linda airport safety zone, similar to what we have near the executive airport.

For gas stations, there is an action and policy in the general plan to require new and expanded gas stations to provide at least one new EV charging station per one new gas fuel nozzle, and so this language will add those requirements to the code.

And then streamlining amendments refers to amendments that are a little bit more technical but will ensure consistency with the 2040 general plan and enhance code usability for things like special planning districts, plan unit developments, and the employment center zone, and we're still evaluating the exact amendments for those.

The last item on the scope that I'll describe tonight is rezoning parcels for consistency.

So as discussed, the general plan includes the land use diagram that maps out the designations, and then Title 17 includes a zoning map that shows where the zoning districts are.

And so we need to ensure that what is on the zoning map on the right is consistent with the general plan land use map shown on the left of this slide.

So what the update will do is we've talked a lot about revising and updating zones.

So we'll incorporate the previously discussed changes, such as creating those new residential zones and a new framework of zones and development standards and ensure the zone categories that we have are consistent with the general plan.

We'll then evaluate all parcels.

There are over 150,000 parcels in the city, and so we'll be evaluating them to ensure that each parcel is in a zoning district that aligns with its 2040 general plan designation.

There's instances where the zoning district is not consistent with the general plan designation.

We'll rezone to reflect the general plan's vision and allowable uses in the designation.

And we'll also be creating an interactive mapping tool, and so there will be a public map public map available of the proposed rezones during community engagement, so the community will have an opportunity to review and provide input on the proposed rezones before the ordinance is brought forward.

I'll now start describing our next steps.

So staff will be back at the planning and design commission in spring of next year to provide follow-up missing middle housing analysis from the consultant before kicking off our community outreach.

We'll then come back to the planning and design commission in the summer to provide a framework of the proposed changes in our community engagement phase, along with summarizing the findings we hear later on.

So tonight we're asking for a discussion on two questions that I'll share in a moment, but we're also asking the commission to make a motion tonight initiating amendments to Title 17 to ensure consistency with the 2040 general plan.

City code requires amendments to be initiated before staff prepares them, brings them forward for review and adoption.

So this motion simply allows staff to do the work to prepare the ordinances and rezones, and the full amendments will be brought back again for review by this commission along with City Council.

That concludes my presentation, and staff is available for any questions.

But like I mentioned, we have a couple for you as well.

So the first item is we'd like to know when we're looking at the N1 and N2 zones having more neighborhood serving commercial uses.

What types of neighborhood serving commercial uses would you like to see in neighborhoods?

And then second, for missing little housing, as we're evaluating and balancing scale and development intensity near transit, would you prioritize increased height or reduced open space to accommodate that floor area?

And thank you.

Looking forward to your discussion tonight.

Are there any speaker slips for this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for this item.

All right.

Um, Chair.

Uh this is really, really exciting.

While we were going through the extensive multi-year general plan discussion, I personally will say that this is one of the items that I was really excited about.

Um, it's not very fancy and flashy, but zoning uh can the condensing of the zoning code is really really exciting to me.

Um, I think if you look at and you know, you don't have to pull up the maps, but if you look at our zoning map right now, it is convoluted.

And for all intents of purposes, if you are a planner, if you're a developer, if or if you are a community member and you just want to learn more about our community or about planning, or if you're a property owner and you want to know more information about your own property, or if you want to improve your property or develop a property, um, and you pull up that map, it's really confusing.

And so I'm really excited for this.

I think this is gonna provide uh more clarity.

It's going to help our development community have less ambiguity, uh, easier to understand to the for the public and uh for the community to help facilitate more community planning efforts, and so again, I'm just really really excited.

Uh, I do want to say that when you are discussing the permitted land uses in the neighborhood designation.

I'm sure you already know this, and this is probably top of mind, but I I assume that when you're doing the community outreach, this is gonna be a really big topic, and obviously, one of your discussion questions I think relates to this.

What types of neighborhoods serving commercial uses would you like to see in neighborhoods?

Um, I think it's a timely and and very important discussion topic.

Uh and I think the one of the reasons why I'm thinking about this is because I know that recently, and I don't know how controversial this development project is.

Um I personally think it's a really cool project, but I'm thinking of Channel 24, which is our one of our newest uh music venues in Sacramento.

I think from an economic development perspective, it's been really, really great for the city and for the community.

It's located on 24th in Midtown.

Um, what I've heard is that you know, some of the neighbors in Midtown have had you know grievances around, you know, just the pedestrian traffic, parking, um, and those impacts during those nights where there are shows.

And so I think as we go through this discussion around what type of neighborhood uses do we want to see, you know, that that could be a sticky subject.

Um, but I think you know, I personally, if I'm gonna answer that first question, I would love to see more of those uses in the area.

I, you know, we don't live far from Channel 24.

I'll be at a show there soon, um, and I can walk there, and I think that's really really cool to be able to do that.

Um I would love to see more office and small business uses available in our neighborhoods.

I say that because it was interesting as a planning commissioner, I had someone in the Curtis Park neighborhood reach out to me and email me because they said, Hey, I'm I'm you know, I run a small business in the community, and I'm looking uh to move into a new space, and I don't know where to go.

And they emailed me.

I did set set them up with a planner in the planning department um so that they could get some guidance and some help on where is a permissible use for them to go.

Um, and so obviously people are looking for ideas and locations, they're a very small business.

Uh they didn't have a huge amount of income to start with um to you know go to midtown and get a 2500 square foot location to to and pay you know 100,000 or more dollars to to spend on tenant improvements, and they weren't even looking for that amount of space.

So, you know, for someone who is just a single person who is maybe a hair stylist or a nail technician, or maybe even someone who's doing holistic health work, um, it would be really awesome for them to be able to go into a neighborhood like Curtis Park, and you know, if there's like an ADU space, even where someone is looking to rent it out, but maybe they could rent it out to someone who is looking for that small space, like 500 square feet for this type of use.

Um I think that would be a great use also for an ADU.

Um so I think that would be great to see more of that.

Um, and if we could again help those small businesses come up with some creative ways and and locations and uses.

So just wanted to say that.

Um, I also um I know we're not on motions there, but I absolutely want to make that motion because this is something that I've been really really waiting for us to get to.

So really really excited about this, you guys and great job.

It does require a motion.

So you can make a yes.

Vice Chair Chase.

Thank you, Chair.

Um before I I go on, I I want to echo uh my colleagues' comments on this.

Uh I grew up in a small town of Massachusetts, and it had all of the kinds of things I think that we're hoping to get the integration of you know, small commercial uses among residential.

So uh I think we can get there very optimistic, and I share your uh your happiness with this thing.

Um quick question I had um this is uh a simple one, but uh uh Jamie and you uh first of all, great presentation.

Thank you very much.

Um in one of your pages of I forget I had a yeah page and you don't have to go back to it, but uh page and uh 30 of your presentation.

It it breaks down the the N1, N2, N3 uh neighborhood uh zones.

What's the difference between N1 and a N2?

I don't see any discrepancy in there or yeah, that's a good question.

I'm pulling up the table so we can look at it.

Um but the main difference really between those two is gonna be missing and middle housing.

So N1 will be where missing little housing standards live with the sliding FAR scale, and N2 would not have the sliding FAR scale and be limited to missing little housing.

Um and then neighborhood serving commercial uses that could look similar, but we're still evaluating approaches for that.

And if you have feedback on that, but that would be the main difference is where missing metal housing standards are.

Okay, thank you very much.

Um was there a motion?

I will gladly second that motion.

All right, got a motion and a second already.

Commissioner Lamas.

Thank you, Chair.

And uh thanks, snapped the presentation.

Um have been busy um trying to incorporate a lot of these new ordinances or being in alignment with different laws that have passed.

Um I have more of an administrative question.

Um, as someone who works for a State Department, I can um appreciate um the importance um and the effort to try to get in alignment with new laws or in this case even local ordinances.

Um I'm curious um because the title 17 hasn't been updated for several years, I think over 10 years about or comprehensively, yes.

There's been ordinances since then, but the big like the large update was over 10 years ago, yeah.

Okay, and so it sounds like then is it when an ordinance gets passed um that essentially becomes part of the code, but it's just not written in the code, and so I guess that's the question like is that correct?

And so I guess that's the question.

Like, is that correct?

Yeah, once an ordinance is passed, our code gets updated online to reflect it once it's effective.

Okay, so then I guess I'm a little confused in so if we're trying to update the title 17.

I I thought it was and to me in alignment with certain ordinances that have passed.

So it's to be in alignment with our 2040 general plan, which provided this big picture long policy direction, and now we're getting into the details and updating the code to be consistent with that.

Okay, so for right now, the code is completely up to date.

If someone had a question, they would go to the code and they would know what the requirements were based on the parcel that they're looking at, besides just any variances right now with the general plan that has been recently passed.

Is that correct?

Yeah, we're focusing on the updates to bring consistency with the general plan, but otherwise, yeah, the code's been updated for compliance with state law.

There's an omnibus that comes every year.

I presented the last one last fall where they do update for compliance with state law, but right now we're focused on the general plan amendments.

Okay, perfect.

Um thank you.

Just looking for some clarification on that.

Appreciate yield my time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Thompson.

I wanted to talk about your discussion question too.

Uh I also third the motion, but I don't think there's a third.

Um balancing scale near transit, especially since we're increasing intensity.

Um since this is a discussion question, I'm gonna put a vote out there of like this is a a thought process, but of course it's for discussion.

Um I'd say in alignment also with what Sacramento seems to really appreciate about our trees in our neighborhoods, um, that we would prioritize height and preserve open space, even if it's small, even around uh transit areas, because that open space um brings in that whole Sacramento vibe.

We can get a tree or two, but it also increasing height brings in more daylight to the interior spaces, so you've got a bonus there.

So that's where I'll end my vote.

Thank you.

I'll I'll second that.

I I was thinking through that question on just height versus open space, and I I think that especially along the the transit corridors, which we're trying to promote, I think we want to see higher density.

Um I think in addition to that, right?

Density is going to promote more commercial some of this kind of neighborhood commercial space that we're I think all of us kind of are are advocating to see more of.

And I I do want to point out there was a public comment from Autumn W in support, and um she she had also kind of gave a vote for uh more more height and wanting to see grocery stores um and increasing access to resources within the neighborhood.

So I I think that that's where I'm leaning as well.

Um I think one of the questions that I'm sort of wondering about, you know, I want to see small mom and pop commercial spaces in Sacramento.

I'm just not sure I understand the viability and what the economics are in this day and age of that, and so I think it's important for us to um maybe try to I I'm not sure of a market study doesn't necessarily kind of do do this justice, but I think there needs to be some type of analysis that needs to be done if we're gonna be going out to the public and really trying to get um further public discourse, right?

Um to to address some of these questions.

I think it would be good to just have a little bit more information for the public.

Um I I just yeah, I I would love to see more groceries, but there's got to be also an economic reason why we're not seeing local grocery stores uh here in Sacramento, and I think to be able to understand that that aspect will help with the discussion.

Um what was the other and then balancing scale and development, your transit?

Oh yeah.

Um yeah, and I I again I would also echo uh Commissioner Thompson's you know call for for actually more open space.

Um I think more open and green space within within the city, especially the city, uh, the central city core, I think will will also kind of just aid in kind of the the character of the space.

Um yeah, that's those are kind of my two cents.

All right.

Vice Chair Chase.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um yeah, I also want to uh I think echo and and go along with Commissioner Thompson's comments.

I think height is less bothersome than doing away with open space.

More noticeable.

Uh once the heights there, you kind of won't really notice it, you know, a year later.

Open space once it's gone.

I think we will notice that it's gone, and we won't get it back again.

That said, the only uh the um thing I would consider, and this has been an ongoing discussion throughout all of our uh issues over the years, is the uh adjacency of new height to existing residential zones.

Uh so you know, the idea of a five-story building next to a one-story building.

Um I think we need to give consideration to the um uh transition of height to you know existing conditions.

But that said, I still favor height as the uh priority over eliminating open open space.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lamas Thank you, Chair.

Um I also want to provide some comments on the questions that staff has posed um in terms of the types of neighborhood serving commercial uses.

Um I think the the grocery store is an interesting one myself as well.

Um I was uh um at a park recently, I won't say which one, but someone uh someone that lives across from the park set up a little stand in front in their driveway because kids play soccer there and they go and there's a lot of people, and so they were kind of responding to the market, I think.

And um, and so I I think it'd be interesting to see you know, opportunity for smaller grocery or little marts or something.

I don't know, specifically nearby parks, but um I can see there being um uh a use for for that, right?

Smaller um type uh grocery stores.

Um I I think uh cafes or coffee shops are also interesting too because they're they kind of um support these third spaces, right?

Social gathering places for folks, which I think helps build community as well.

So if there's some kind of consideration for trying to encourage you know social gathering type of businesses, that would be interesting.

Um then in terms of actually on that note, um, this was actually my wife's idea, I gotta give her credit.

Um, we can put like coffee shops in parks.

Um I just saw that they did that in West Sacramento.

Um, but she said this before she even saw that.

So that would be interesting um too, because it's already kind of a social kind of place um and um can kind of tie into that that third space um theme.

Um in terms of the second uh question.

I I seem to be in alignment with my uh fellow commissioners here about prioritizing height over uh reducing um open space.

Um and so uh just want to make sure that that was was noted as well.

Thank you.

With that, I yield my time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Thank you, Chair.

Um well done.

This is also very exciting.

Great presentation, and um staff for all your time and effort on this and bringing it forward today with the great um with the great deck.

Um, I agree with a lot of the comments that the fellow commissioners have made uh with height over open space.

Um looking at this presentation today, it reminds me of um the city of San Diego's village style planning, which I really really like.

I think it really connects to the whole a sense of community in in each of the neighborhoods.

Um so I like that it and I some of my notes here were similar to Commissioner Lamas and in the sense of creating more um spaces in that third space um to bring more community and and sense of um like uh socializing together.

Um the first question of types of neighborhoods serving commercial uses.

Um, I'm just wondering like what's not included in that list.

Um because I think what what we would like to see is like everything, all of the above.

Um, but what are we in terms of like what are you guys thinking that isn't on the list or that shouldn't be on the list of neighborhoods serving?

Um so I'm kind of curious about that.

But some things that come to mind, especially if we're thinking about more integrating into these neighborhood areas are more small format things like we have the target on J Street, that small format, but small format for mom and pops as well.

My comment on the mom and pops um businesses, even established businesses like restaurants are closing.

You know, we lost um a co just a recent one that had multiple uh locations in Sacramento.

Um so I don't know if a market study would help.

I don't know the answer to that, but I I am curious as to like why are they closing?

Why are we losing so many businesses?

Why is there such a high turnover?

Why is there such a high vacancy rate?

Um, to be able to understand better what we can do from a planning perspective, if it's the space or location or or something else.

Um, but agree with you know, access to fresh food, perhaps even more co-working spaces, so it is uh or co-op spaces as well, like we've seen in Oak Park to bring in more businesses on a temporary space, even um, but anything from you know, cultural spaces to banks, financial services, um, recreational, cult um, uh what else do I have here?

Um that's it for now, but just some thoughts that popped into my mind from this conversation.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz Commissioner Messi is right.

Yeah, I think Commissioner Chase brought up a really good point.

We had want to say it was in the last two years or so we at commission, we had approved a project, multi-family multifamily project in the downtown area where there was a somewhat of a controversy because it was next to a or an it rather an incompatibility, it was next to or adjacent to a an office, an architect and architecture firm that had uh that was a hundred percent, you know, run with um I think they they generated their own right uh energy.

It was like 100% um self-generated energy.

Uh I can't think of the location or the name of the architecture firm.

Arch nexus.

And the issue and the concern for the multifamily housing, I believe it was approved at commission, was that it was a multifamily building and it was going to block the solar panels, which generates and provides energy for the entire building.

And so they had to negotiate and provide, if I'm not mistaken, some way to generate energy on their building to then feed the energy that they would lose to cover the energy loss from that building.

So I bring this up as just a sticking point because answering the second question, I think we could all agree that higher density near transit is sort of a no-brainer.

But when we think about that as a city in application in practicality, right?

Where if you are not smart, right?

If if let's say, you know, we go into a neighborhood and we approve a four-story, you know, single family home next, or excuse me, a four-story, or even a three-story multi-family home, which I don't even know that that's very I consider very high density.

Let's just let's say five-story single family home or multi-family project next to single family homes, and those homes all have solar panels.

What would there like would there, you know, what kind of a situation will we have there, you know?

Like, would we end up having a similar situation?

Like we had with the Arch Nexus situation, you know.

I guess that's my question is like would we run into an issue where these homes, you know, not all the neighborhood, of course, but the homes that are adjacent to you know, that building, you know, no longer receive you know uh energy in their solar panels, and would there be some sort of compensation for that?

I guess it's something to think about.

Um, and so maybe being considerate and mindful of like Commissioner Chase said, just a scaling back if that situation were to come up, and maybe just a pre-planning for for some hopeful potential disaster that we would want to avoid.

Um, just a thought, because it did come up in that in that situation.

And I don't even know if that project has moved forward, if or not, but just a thought I wanted to throw out there.

Were there questions of legality that were thrown up there?

Not sure.

Okay.

Commissioner Naibo.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

I found it very interesting.

I I was just struck that, you know, so so much of development and so much of these like rules that the rules at Title 17 that we deal with, they're just compounded again and again in their attitude and attitude.

And a lot of it is based upon fear that if you give somebody too much of an opportunity, they'll come in and something will be done that makes people upset.

So we've designed our systems around being very uh regimented and prescriptive.

My thought as I was I reviewed it, so I heard the presentation, was that this is a um the prior system was very fear-based, and as we give flexibility, as we open it up to find out what is possible, that it's um it's it's much more flexible, it's much more creative, it's much more allowing the city to develop as it needs to rather than to hold it back.

Um City of Sacramento is a very yes city.

Um we're very pro-housing, unlike a lot of other people in northern other cities in Northern California.

We we find a way to get the customer to success.

I think this is going to uh make that a little bit easier for everyone.

It's very expensive to go through the process.

If you're a developer, it's very scary.

And like if you don't know, if you're not gonna get a high enough rate of return, you're just not gonna do it.

So what are we not seeing?

Um in regards to the the question, I'm gonna go completely contrarian on this and say that I think we need to um if it's an either-or question, my preference would be reduced open space.

Not that I don't like open space, it's that height is very expensive to build.

And if you go up, if you're forcing a property to be reduced in size for the open space, that open space is very expensive.

Um it's difficult to put that on to a property owner because basically we're reducing the property owner's value.

If we're literally talking about transit um a number of years ago, and I don't know what the status is of this.

Is that uh I know RT went out to market with all the parking lots, and they said, you know, hey, come in and give us a give us a proposal for it.

All you have to do is replace the parking on site with structured parking, and then give us a price for what you'll pay us for the land, and then you know, and then we'll do a deal.

You can't afford to do a deal because you can't afford to pay for parking, much less pay for pay for a bill.

And so let me has anything come from that?

If have they done any deals?

I mean, this was like all the rage back in 04.

So it's still not being done.

So I don't think there's like my concern is that if we would get too prescriptive on that, then it's going to make it things too difficult to do.

And I really don't know how much if you look in the central city where the density is most where where we can do density, there's not a lot of large parcels out there anywhere so we can get that much open space.

If you go out to the if we go out to the the further from the central core, I there might be possibilities for open space out there when you start talking about large developments that are going to have transit as a part of their do we have that anymore?

Are there any parcels out there that are being designed currently that are not entitled that are going to have transit stops?

That you know, we're dealing with a large master plan community, a new PUD.

Maybe not to that scale, but I I I know that in district eight, I mean by the floor and light rail station and the Meadowview Light Rail Station, there is a lot of vacant parcels that that can be built.

Um and I'm thinking of also Del Paso.

Well, I know that there's part parcels there, but I'm like wondering if if are there large you know, like in Nothomas, or their PUDs are gonna have parcels or we can say, okay, you're gonna have open space over here, but you can have density here.

Is there anything out there on the horizon?

Uh good evening, Commissioner Nabo, Remy Mendoza, long-range planning manager.

I think uh that uh that the response from the chair is correct, uh Florence station, certainly there are, but there's also that gonna be the opportunity to assemble parcels, sites are gonna redevelop.

Um so um over the next 20 years, you're gonna see um as the we we allow for this flexibility that the market may uh move in that direction where there are parcels are created or assembled and uh uses are redeveloped, some uses may go away and the opportunity for the uses to come in.

So I think the the current situation has an opportunity to change as well.

Okay, yeah.

If I might add something too to this conversation of um open space versus height, I know I sometimes think of it in the context of um setbacks.

So if you're providing um a reduced setback, you have less open space, and so on a smaller, on smaller info parcels like what you're describing, it's not so much about uh dedication of of open space, but it would be more about allowing them to have a reduced setback versus a more generous setback like adjacent to the street or something like that.

You said that very well, Stacia.

Thank you.

I swear I set back popped in my head before I started talking, I completely forgot.

Thank you, Stacia, as always.

So yeah.

It's my thoughts on that.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Chase.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I wanted to go back to uh Commissioner Lucius Reed's uh comments about the solar access in that project, which I remember well uh blocking.

And I think the only thing that came about, of course, the the the housing project was before us, I think, for approval.

Um, and it was only through discussion that we were able to get a concession that they would provide uh solar uh panels on their roof to then feed to the uh Arch and Access project, which had been an awarded award-winning um uh project.

So I guess going forward, I don't think we have anything in line.

I did want to ask though, I I recall some time back that there was an I don't know what was a state level one, but uh solar access laws were discussed.

Is anything in place regarding solar access?

Do you know where me you know one parcel owing uh access to an adjacent one, similar to what the condition we had?

I'm sorry, was it your question about a solar access clause?

Uh well a law seems to our recalled discussion about solar access laws in the past, whether it was statewide or not, so that to avoid the same situation we were just talking about here that protect exists.

To protect existing uh properties that have solar panels.

I'm not aware that's a good question, but it's something certainly that we can look into, make sure we can complain about it.

Because I think I think some way I think we do if we're gonna deal with height, I think we need to address that as we as we move through this process.

Yeah, yeah, it'll come up again.

Thank you for bringing that up.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Rushke?

Commissioner Thompson.

No worries.

Again, adding back to the Arch and Access, just for fun, bringing context.

Highly suggest you go visit the office.

Uh it's uh one of the first certified living buildings around, which is a big reason why the solar power was important, because it took them I think five years to achieve that certification.

So just a little context to the thing, but also architects love you visiting their office, so go check it out.

Um the second part, and this is maybe a dumb question, but a curious question.

So, in this overall concept, we're trying to bring these more integrated neighbors and neighborhoods as as the ideal, and I love that.

Um what would that look like for like already existing established R1 straight up classic suburbia neighborhoods for commercial spaces?

Is it the commercial spaces would be utilizing open space there, or would they like what what does that look like?

That's a good question.

Uh not necessarily uh open space, but it could be the reuse of an existing building, for example, or a new building on a vacant site, potentially.

And I think that's more of my question because our classic suburbia areas are mostly homes, right?

And then we've got these little tiny poppings, and that's not the intent of this whole practice is to have these little outskirts to have it more integrated.

But how would that are we thinking of allowing like uh an abandoned home to be turned into a commercial space or like potentially you would see uh a mix of uses within the neighborhood, so it wouldn't be strictly just residential, uh but you could have uh home that uh becomes a coffee shop, for example, okay or a small business, a salon.

Uh but you could have uh home that becomes a coffee shop, for example, okay, or a small business, a salon.

Um we could look at different options, but perhaps maybe it's closer to uh you know our tirial streets with these uses allowed, so it's something that we'll be evaluating, and uh, but the idea is for flexibility where we haven't had it in the past.

No, and so uh, but allowing the market to still function.

So if the the demand is there for residential uh more than there is for a small office space or commercial business, and that you know that certainly is gonna go there.

But if there is an opportunity there to allow for you know a coffee shop, a bookshop, a hair salon, something like that, neighborhood serving amenity, then we would see those uh uses be closer to the neighborhood within walking distance.

So and I can see a lot of really positive outcomes for that, um, including even exploring the ability to use uh an existing residential space and and portion it out the same way we do here in downtown or midtown and have upfront as a coffee shop.

Um, but I am also curious as far as what response was, and you're gonna send this out to the public, but I could anticipate discussions around what does that look like long term in order to manage is there going to be a max cap for the amount of commercial spaces that can take over residential spaces if we're talking about promoting housing and worst case scenario and you just spoke of a fear-based, and so I'm bringing this to the table, but recognizing it could be a discussion point.

Where does it go if we have a giant corporation who comes in and says, like, I'm gonna replace all of like do we have measurements put in place to preserve pieces?

And that's not for an answer, that was just a putting out as that.

That's great feedback.

Thank you.

Welcome uh yeah, I will say in some of the zones, there's often a size limitation for commercial use.

We could explore something like that, or maybe different location standards, like maybe in your transit or along our tirials and collectors.

So that's things we would explore during this process.

But if you have feedback on what you think we should be considering the most in that, we welcome that.

But those are some things we would look at.

And just as a I also really appreciated Commissioner Naibo's comment about um removing the restrictions and allowing some of this to kind of be what Sacramento wants it to be.

So I also think that this isn't a position to lay on a bunch of restrictions to limit it.

Um I think it's though a thing to explore to make sure that we have responses or understandings to guide the conversation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tao.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, first off, I'll congratulate staff on uh not working on this item is a long time coming to uh update our Title 17 and uh you know make it aligned with our 2040 general plan.

Um, I I like the missing middle housing piece that really brings in uh a lot of opportunities for our in-filled development, especially old neighborhoods like to Postal Heized North Sacramento with a lot of vacant land that was really hard to develop over time because you can only develop single residential there, and you know, a lot of developers will go and look at big track lands to develop instead.

And so this would bring more uh more uh opportunities to those areas as well.

Um just to uh echo what uh Commissioner Thompson said, you know, I think with neighborhoods we love it, but is there any way we're looking at any uh and just to consider, you know, not having any change, but you know, how how how many commercial spaces can come towards a neighborhood, you know, like are we get two three corner stores, or are we talking about like 10, 15 that can come at a time?

And so how do we plan that in our in one in two and three zones?

Uh also would echo what uh Commissioner Chase said.

Uh you know, definitely with older neighborhoods, uh single story developments and uh urban area.

Sacramento, we're moving towards a higher density.

Um we need more homes, and so you know, we're betting duplexes, middle missing middle housings, but how do we protect uh just to look at how do we protect our older neighborhoods where you know we wouldn't want to put a five-story building next to two, three single uh single story homes, you know, how do we protect that as well?

Um to the next question is uh, you know, I I believe in prior prioritizing height, you know, that maximizes development capacity, uh especially near transit.

But you know, I I also think that we should definitely look at uh how without a well-designed open space, you know, I believe it undermines our live livability, walkability, and health of the neighborhood, and so that's something that we should really consider as well too when we're thinking about uh moving towards each.

So I think a fine balance between two would when uh and that would be incumbent on city staff and city planner, you know, and so hopefully it's just not a you know propose a certain heights, and by right it's there, and that but that's all for my comment.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Uh thank you.

So I've listened, uh I appreciate the staff presentation, it's very comprehensive, and I know trying to reconcile building ordinances by patchwork and then reconciling that with a general plan.

And I I think by statute um we're obligated to update our general plan every 10 or 20 years.

I will say that um the the council has given the staff direction, and it's in our general plan to update it every five years.

So, unlike most jurisdictions, we are actually on a more state right, but the state's what 10 years every 10 years or um I don't know if there's an exact date that's listed, but within a reasonable time.

They're intended to be 10 to 20 year documents, so with a long-term horizon.

But so most researchans typically do it around 10 to 20 years.

So I I appreciate that, and I think what the reality is you get ordinances and there's a hodgepodge and coming back and reconciling it and looking at the big picture and aligning it is is critical.

And um, so I appreciate that.

Um I was sorting through kind of this the two key questions about what types of neighborhood serving uses would you like to see in neighborhoods, and the other part balancing the scale and development intensity in your transit?

Would you prior prioritize height or reduce space?

So what I step back and I look at is I mean, I think the question about neighborhood serving might be a little easier in our older, more established neighborhoods where they actually rose up out of mixed use, you know, ground floor neighborhood serving commercial retail and then housing on top, and you know, dense housing and walkable communities, and I think I think those served as models in the grid and you know, Northern Oak Park and Central Oak Park, and certainly Esac and Curtis Park and Land Park, and then I think of the first phase of um suburban growth in our communities, that first phase of suburbs like Hollywood Park and you know, Tahoe Park, and then the second phase, the green havens and the pockets, and you begin to get more and more sprawl, and then of course you saw the Natomas in the you know the latter 90s and the 2000s explode.

So I think the question about neighborhood serving in each of those neighborhoods is quite different.

Um and what I'm trying to reconcile, and I don't know that it's directly embedded here, is meanwhile, we've seen this decline, sadly, of a lot of commercial corridors.

So when we think about what is ideal neighborhood serving commercial, it depends on the neighborhood.

So I I think of Florin Road or Florent Mall.

When I was a kid, Southgate was the brand new mall, and then Florent Mall.

And it's a decline declining commercial corridor, but Stockton Boulevard is vibrant, it's changed over.

But I I think of reconciling, you know, we have that infrastructure there, and you could actually do really great mixed-use housing combined with some commercial because you've got the infrastructure there.

And then I look at some of the declining um, you know, commercial corridors, even in the phase one or phase two, like South Sacramento Meadow View, I mean, struggling that corridor to keep businesses going, and are there opportunities with the right developer with taking the risk of infusing housing in some of those declining commercial corridors?

Um, I mean, I think Florent Mall is a perfect example, but it's also you know, many of the ones on Florent Road, you know, between 24th Street and then I think of you go into first phase of Nathomas, and people will say, you know, there's a lot of strip malls, and there's a lot of big massive commercial areas, you know, how do you perhaps um look at opportunities in some of those spaces for housing and commercial in those massive, you know, there are main corridors?

So I'm just trying to reconcile.

Are there ways to have our general plan to incentivize ways to do that combined housing and all levels of housing along with neighborhoods serving commercial and in some cases regional commercial in these declining massive corridors of you know businesses that turn over every few years and you see vacancies all along Del Peso Boulevard, for example, or Marysville Boulevard, how can we create incentives as a city along with working with developers to actually go in and do some pilots, do some incentives.

How can we create incentives as a city along with working with developers to actually go in and do some pilots, do some incentives?

You know, just as someone who's done improvements in my home, I I really am hoping for the day that we get a little more, you know, customer friendly, timely responses to contractors doing little projects here and there.

But it just seems that our city should have sort of this strike team that combines you know, neighborhood serving commercial and housing and and goes out there and does a wraparound response to these communities.

So I I'm just brainstorming, but I just think of all these commercial corridors, small and large, particularly in challenging neighborhoods that also need housing move up or entry-level housing.

And then I also think about um, you know, uh some how do we economize and how do we address housing along with commercial and reduce blight and decline in these communities.

So it's just off the top.

I don't know if we have anything in the plan, but I'm just brainstorming.

Thank you.

Uh all right.

Commissioner Reschke.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much.

I really appreciated that presentation.

This is super exciting.

I'm really looking forward to more.

Um for your questions.

I think this you know, balancing the height and reduced open space.

Um it seems like it would be great if it could be a toggle like or uh like a slider, you know, if if you it really seems like dependent on this the space, like um, I'm working on a project on a really wonky triangular shaped lot with tracks on one side and a busy road on one side and uh like ditch on another side.

So it's not overshadowing any small houses, and it would be great to just focus on on you you don't need a lot of open space there, and you would you would also want height, but you know, and in some of the areas like um like Commissioner Chase was mentioning right next to smaller houses, you might want to you might want to prioritize um more open space and and um or you know, more of a setback and a little bit less height.

So it would be nice if if it could kind of be a slider between those two based on the type of location.

Um and then also like how can we be more efficient with space and with our buildings?

So I don't know, I'm sure you guys are looking into this, but I know like 2026 state prior, I think January is supposed to release a report on single stair buildings, and I think that would be a perfect you know, opportunity for those types of buildings to fill in some of these spaces because they can be smaller scale and they can um pencil more in terms of uh cost to build.

Um and then, yeah, I think for as far as as far as commercial spaces, I I think we have we're having a hard time filling our existing neighborhood commercial spaces, so I I'd be open to you know, any type of commercial spaces that can make it coming in and um serving the neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Um I know as planners you're already thinking about this, um, but I'm curious about overlap with some of the um safer streets initiatives, right?

To to um and whether or not there might be some alignment there with trying to incentivize um these neighborhoods serving commercial uses, which streets that are becoming more pedestrian-friendly, um, maybe that would provide some extra foot traffic for those commercial businesses to to thrive a little more than just being standalone in the middle of a neighborhood.

Um I I also heard some comments um, and I'm in agreement with uh curiosity about how this would look, you know, in terms of how many businesses would be allowed, whether or not we should maybe focus on certain areas that might meet certain criteria that show that there you know could be uh some feasibility to encourage um commercial uses and specific roads that you know cater to pedestrians more.

Um so I know this is just the very beginning, but um would be very curious to see how we can um identify these areas but also support them, right?

To make sure that they are um sustainable um and that they help create more vibrant communities.

So thank you.

Vice Chair Chase.

Thank you, Chair.

Um regarding the you know the integration of uh residential into commercial mixed use of and I think the commercial corridors are a perfect example of where we need to really infrastructures there.

I think as uh Commissioner Martie's mentioned, you know, just add housing uh you know on those sites that are filled with parking, empty parking lots right now.

I mean, and you've got a good mix of people, bus service, all kinds of things are in place there, which makes a tremendous amount of sense.

Uh I was encouraged recently by two projects that came before us uh of housing integrated into uh commercial, major commercial.

And this is up in the Notomas Crossing area.

Um, you know, very, very dense, intensive, you know, targets, home depots, everything else, and two different housing developers came in and proposed, and we approved, you know, unanimously approved them, I think, to go in the midst of that that thing.

To me, that's a great example of what could, you know, more we could.

I don't know if that was just uh creative uh developers that came in and saw the potential, whether the city had any uh you know, staff any way to encourage them or bring them in.

But uh, you know, I was I was really glad to see those projects, and I'd love to see more of those things come in.

I think that would go away toward uh achieving what we're talking about here tonight and trying to try to accomplish.

Commissioner Messias Reed.

Sorry, I don't want to get on my soapbox about commercial corridors, but I would be remiss if I didn't bring up Franklin Boulevard because I think going back to this first question around what types of neighborhoods serving commercial uses would we like to see in our neighborhoods, I think to um to the point that's sort of being discussed right now.

When we were going through this, you know, the general plan discussions, right?

Um and and I know I sat down, I know that the city, right?

You guys had hired your consultants, the consultants reached out to all of the PBIDs.

Um you guys reached out to us and we sat down and and went sort of parcel by parcel with you guys to say, hey, what's what parcels are are likely to be developed in the near future and which ones are not, right?

And that sort of gave us like a snapshot of what this corridor is gonna look like.

And you guys did that all across the city on every major commercial corridor to get a snapshot of like where do we where do we look, how do we look in terms of like housing readiness, right, for the city.

And we had this discussion as we're going through the housing element update.

And I think it's interesting because I do think it would be great to have these neighborhoods serving uses in our existing neighborhoods, but I think some of the issues that we have right now are that we do have commercial uses that already exist in our aging commercial corridors.

The problem is that a lot of the way that we have historically built our neighborhoods are that they're so segregated, right?

From the neighborhoods.

I'll give you an example.

If for those of you who don't know about Franklin Boulevard, uh we are in the South Sacramento neighborhood and we are currently under construction, yay, finally after 10 years, uh, on phase one and uh phase one and two of our um uh streetscape.

We have uh for 10 years been been trying to raise money to get infrastructure in place, right?

Much needed infrastructure in place for the safety and security of that community and that neighborhood to slow down traffic and and and just improve the overall uh aesthetic in the community that is one of the missing pieces.

But when you have infrastructure in place, right, and you have the commercial uses in place, but you don't have the housing in place because it's so segregated and further out, you know, the next piece is to build and bring in that housing, right?

And so I I absolutely support having commercial uses in these older neighborhoods that I think again going back to the the Curtis Parks and those older neighborhoods that I think at one point carried those types of uses and then and could you know maybe carry those types of uses again.

But I think it's really really important as we condense those 27 uses back down to 10, again, making it more simple and and straightforward for our developers to come in and understand, oh gosh, okay, it's a mixed use.

Here's all the mixed use.

We can go in here, we know it's commercial.

That's most of our commercial corridors, great.

We can go in there and make it easy for them.

Um that's kind of what I know from a commercial uh commercial corridor perspective.

We've got the infrastructure in place, that's what we're looking for.

Let's let's let's get that you know other piece of the puzzle in there.

Let's get the the people, let's get the housing in place.

Um, you know, I've talked before at the dais about 15 minute communities.

Um it's this, you know, it's a concept that you know, I think our commercial, our aging commercial corridors could really carry in our city, which is you know, you live in a location, and within 15 minutes you could get to everything that you need, the doctor's office, the grocery store, your school, your work, your whatever you need within a 15 minute radius, and that could really help meet our you know, VMT goals.

It could help meet, you know, a lot of the the goals that we've set in our in our general plan.

And so um, yeah, I just again so sorry about the soapbox, but I think uh that is really just as important um bringing the housing into those commercial corridors.

Vice Chair Chase.

Thank you, Chair.

Um having designed uh way too many shopping centers over my career.

Um, one of the things that's happened, you know, thanks to uh post-World War II zoning uh restrictions of well, if you got a commercial, we've got to have a hard separation between that and residential, same thing with industrial.

Um we've got 20, 30 acre shopping centers that have a six-foot concrete wall all around the perimeter, requiring anybody who's living right in the other side of the wall to get in their car, drive around for blocks to come in the front entrance to go to one of those stores.

We need to start looking at busting down, busting through those walls to you know, in addition to building housing on the site, reconnect the neighborhoods that are already there to those uses as well.

So thank you, Chair.

Um had a question regarding impact fees.

I I know that there's there needs to be a nexus study and and you know quite quite a bit to justify the use of an impact fee for a particular use in this case.

I'm thinking about because there's been quite a bit of discussion on commercial space and whatnot.

Can impact fees be used for some type of bucket that's dedicated towards commercial TI of some sort for a neighborhood.

That's a good question.

I don't know with certainty, but that's something we can look into.

We can take a look at it.

I think I think we'd have to consider whether we can make the adequate nexus uh showing.

Yeah.

We'll take a look and get back to the okay, because there's uh definitely a public discussion, right?

Of how to how we want to reconfigure our our commercial spaces.

And so I think if a nexus study could be established where, like, no, there's an actual public benefit to reconfigure our commercial spaces to however we need to orient them.

Um that could be that little bit of incentive that Commissioner Ortiz was talking about.

It's usually done in affordable housing.

I mean, uh in the past, but now that I'm kind of thinking through this, I mean, why not?

We appreciate the uh yeah, the creative creative thinking we'll certainly look into it.

Okay.

Um I think the other question I had just very general.

I mean, as as you look to go out to the public um for comments, what what's your approach as far as how you're gonna be gathering this information and then how are you guys thinking about prioritizing that data, right, to inform however you guys are gonna kind of implement this.

Thanks for that question.

Um because a lot of this uh is about implementing uh our 2040 general plan, which has already gone through rigorous public outreach and was adopted last year.

Um our public outreach for this project is really about um is really informational.

And of course, if they have any questions, any ideas, we are very happy and more than willing to work with the community members on how to figure out how to best incorporate that.

Um but at this point it's really about making sure people understand how the general plan impacts the zoning code and what they can expect to see.

Yeah, so that they're like uh they're not surprised when it comes around.

It will there be sort of like a beta testing phase, like is like prior to execution, right?

Of whatever the new zoning code will look like.

Will you have like developers or whatnot to just kind of do sort of faux applications just to kind of I I don't know what the best way of doing it, but I don't know if there's a way to kind of beta test.

Yeah, something we can look into.

I know as we've been doing our analysis, we'll look at particular sites and apply hypothetical situations to see what the impacts are of it, but that's something we can look at more.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I think uh I don't think we have any more comments, but and I know we have two motions already, right?

So um I guess we want to uh ready for a roll call, folks.

Okay.

Uh so this is a motion to um accept the the staff report on and support the recommendations to initiate the rezoning and text amendments to the planning and development code to ensure consistency with the 2040 general plan.

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee is absent.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden is absent.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Massis Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt is absent.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rishke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson?

Aye.

And Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you for the robust discussion.

Thank you, Amy, Jamie.

Thank you, planning staff.

Um all right.

So I think we're on to comment public comments on the agenda.

Do we have any speaker slips for that?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for this item.

Okay.

Um I think that concludes today's agenda.

What am I missing?

Oh, yeah.

Commissioner comments, ideas, and questions.

Any comments?

Questions?

No?

Okay.

I think that concludes today's agenda.

Thank you.

Thank you.