Vice Chair Sapper Sweden when you are.

Thank you, Chair.

Good evening.

Welcome to the Mike.

Meeting of the Thursday, August 28th, 2025, Planning and Design Commission.

Meeting is now called to order.

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

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Tao?

Here.

Commissioner Lamas?

Here.

Commissioner Naibo?

Here.

Commissioner Caden.

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Absent.

Commissioner Mossis Reed?

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

Commissioner Blunt is absent.

Commissioner Rishke is absent.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent.

And Vice Chair Chase.

Here.

Thank you, Webacorm.

I'd like to remind members of the public in the chamber today.

If you'd like to speak on an agenda item, please turn on a speaker slip when the item begins.

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

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

We'll now proceed with today's agenda starting with a land acknowledgement, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.

Please rise.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanan people, the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Miwok, Platwin Winton peoples, and the people of the Winton Wilton Ranch of Rehab.

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

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

Thank you.

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.

Please be seated.

All right, we will start with the director's report today.

Thank you, Chair.

On Tuesday, the 26th of August, City Council approved entitlements for two projects.

The first one, Birchway at Natomas, a development with 378 dwelling units on Promenade Circle, and Independence in Natomas, a development with 170 dwelling units on North Park Drive and Kamaki Drive.

The commission considered both of these items and recommended approval at their meeting on the 28th, excuse me, 28th of July.

That concludes my report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll now uh proceed to the approval of the consent calendar.

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

Thank you.

Um I have no speaker slips on this item.

Thank you.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Seeing none.

Yeah.

Oh, I'm sorry, there is one.

Commissioner.

Okay.

Are there any uh motions?

Okay, sorry.

We have a motion, we have a second.

Uh clerk take the roll.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute Commissioner Lee.

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Yes.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Masis Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt is absent.

Commissioner Rushke is absent.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent.

And Vice Chair Chase?

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Green calendar.

Item number two is the Natomas Golf Facility.

P24-034.

Is there a staff presentation?

Zach?

All right.

So good evening to the Vice Chair and Fellow Commissioners.

My name is Zach Dahl, associate planner with the community development department.

The item before you tonight is the Natomas Golf Facility Project, P24-034.

The project is located northeast of Venture Oaks Way at a vacant 14.5 acre parcel adjacent to uh Interstate 5 and surrounded by a variety of office, hotel, and supportive commercial uses.

Residential subdivisions are also located 600 feet to the west past Gateway Oaks Drive.

The project site is zoned office business low rise mixed use and located in the Gateway Center PUD.

This PUD was established in 1982 and has evolved into predominantly a government and corporate office park with multiple hotels.

Over the years, this PUD has experienced numerous amendments to accommodate and support new developments.

Site-specific PUD amendments include a 2008 amendment to accommodate a 12-story office development.

The POD was further amended again in 2024 to designate the site for office or multi-unit development to allow for flexibility into the development of the PUD.

Tonight, the applicant is requesting to remove 59 trees to develop a two-story 45,000 square foot amusement center golf venue, consisting of a multi-level driving range with 80 golf bays, a full service restaurant and bar, event spaces, and 324 parking stalls.

As shown in the rendering, the main facility structure would be located in the center of the site with the driving range outfield extending to the east towards I-5.

Large safety netting would be mounted to net poles ranging 90 to 156 feet in height and would extend along the outfield area.

To accommodate this request, the project requires planning and design commission review and approval of amendments to the Gateway Center PUD to redesignate the site for amusement center outdoor uses and update the permitted uses development standards and sign code for this use.

Site plan and design review of the recreational facility and associated site improvements with a deviation to non-residential fencing standards.

And lastly, a tree permit for the removal of eight private protected trees.

As of 5 p.m.

tonight, the project has received three e-comments and 10 letters of support, including letters from the Natomas Chamber of Commerce and the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

The project has also received nine letters and four e-comments in opposition from local residents that highlight concerns with light pollution from the outfield lighting, noise pollution from the use, and traffic and safety impacts due to increased vehicle trips.

In evaluating potential impacts, including those related to light, noise, and traffic generated by the proposed project, staff found them to be minimal.

The site layout allows for large setbacks from the adjacent properties to the north, south, and west.

This coupled with the proposed orientation and placement of the driving range directs operational noise away from the adjacent developments.

Additionally, the building further buffers noise, traveling to the west as the golf phase are heading out towards the east.

Lighting associated with the outdoor driving range will also be mounted at the building edge and pointed towards the playing field away from the neighboring residential and commercial uses, as shown in the image on the slide.

A project-specific traffic report was also prepared to assess the project's circulation and potential traffic conflicts within the project's vicinity.

The report found traffic impacts to be minimal, as the projected increases in vehicle trips would result in minor one to two second delays at adjacent intersections with one to two car lengths of additional queuing that can be accommodated by the existing roadways.

To address potential pedestrian impacts identified in the report, the project is required to construct a new signal signaled pedestrian crossing at the Venture Oaks Way and Gateway Oaks Drive intersection that will allow for connection to a neighboring bike trail.

Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed development as it supports the equitable distribution of entertainment, recreational offerings throughout the city, and creates synergy with adjacent land uses by providing an entertainment option for patrons of the neighboring hotels, furthering economic prosperity of the area.

And with that, staff recommends the planning and design commission approve the project.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Additionally, the applicant team is here to also address the commission.

Thank you.

Thank you, Zach.

Before we proceed, I I missed one item.

I'd like to ask commissioners if there are any disclosures or recusal recusals tonight.

I'm sorry.

This week the queue.

Okay.

First is uh.

First, uh Commissioner Massius Reed.

Uh yes, so I spoke with the applicant and had a meeting with applicant consistent with the staff report.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Hernandez.

I also met with the representative of the applicant, um, consistent with staff report.

Commissioner Lee.

Yeah, I also met with the applicant consistent with the staff report.

Commissioner is that Naibo or which one?

Uh I had a Zoom meeting with the applicant.

Is that the okay?

Um, Commissioner Lombus.

I also had a meeting with the applicant and the applicant's representative, and it was consistent with the staff report.

Thank you.

Commissioner Tao.

Uh the applicant did reach out, but uh we failed to schedule a meeting to meet, but I just wanted to be noted that applicant did reach out to me.

Um I had a zoom meeting also with the applicant and Commissioner Ortiz.

Uh there was a request by the applicant to meet, but unfortunately, my schedule uh didn't allow for that, but they did seek and I did not have the meeting.

Um, now moving on.

Uh, does the applicant have a presentation?

Would they like to yes?

Good evening.

Vice Chair Chase, members of the planning and design commission, Ryan Hooper with Thatch and Hooper this evening representing uh Top Golf.

Um, with me tonight is Matt Smith, the senior director of real estate for Top Golf, Scott Wetterling, the director of real estate development, Sam Gruntly with Stantech, the engineer, and Kevin Nowak with Arco Murray.

Also with us tonight is Leticia Ramirez, an attorney from our office.

Thought maybe it would make sense to start off the conversation with a little bit of background because I think that would be helpful here.

This, as staff rightly notes, is uh in the Gateway Oaks PUD.

That PUD was established in 1982.

This site has sat vacant for all that time.

There was a proposal in 08, as staff mentioned for a 12-story office tower with 327,000 square feet, 1900 parking spaces, a very intense uh use that was approved by the planning commission some years ago.

It was not built, but we think that that's an important backdrop to consider when looking at this and evaluating the impacts of the project before you tonight.

The project, as staff noted, um, has uh 14 and a half acres, 45,000 square feet, two-story 80 bays.

Some of you may be familiar with the Roseville location.

This is indeed smaller.

Um, the Roseville location is three stories and a hundred and two bays.

So this is a little bit more compact version, again with 324 parking spaces as opposed to the 1900 that was previously approved.

The other thing I wanted to identify for you there's some benefits here that I think may feed into some of the issues that we're gonna talk about.

One of those is the the ride share uh program.

Our client teams up with uh different rideshare uh companies.

They highly encourage ride share.

Um, in fact, the project incorporates a drop-off pickup zone for ride share.

Um, in addition to that, there is a RT bus stop literally on the quarter next to the project that it has a bench and a cupboard shelter.

So some good things that we like about that.

But I think in terms of top golf, this is an exciting project for Sacramento.

It's exciting to bring in top golf to South Natomas in particular.

We think this is a great site.

They are going to bring 300 new jobs to Sacramento to operate this facility.

It's expected that based on their numbers that this project will generate between 150 million and 250 million dollars of economic benefit to the area, not including tax revenue to the city, and a lot of jobs, as I mentioned.

But as I mentioned a minute ago, I think that this is an ideal location.

Contrary to maybe some thoughts, this is uh ideal for this location because the general plan and the zoning contemplate such uses.

That's why we only need a use permit to operate this.

I think there may be some misunderstandings.

We're not seeking a rezone.

There's no general plan amendment.

Uh, this is you know entirely consistent with the office zone that the project is located in.

I did want to highlight CEQA.

I think there's a CEQA exemption 15183, which basically says if you're consistent with the general plan in the zoning, which we are, and you don't have any peculiar uh project impacts, you're available, you're you could avail yourselves of this exemption.

In order to do this, we had to engage an environmental consultant, John Tiafilo with ESA, is here tonight.

He prepared a very robust initial study that looked at a panoply of different topics that you look at with CEQA.

That report determined that there was no impact, hence our ability to avail ourselves of that CEQA exemption.

In terms of issues, there have been a number of issues uh raised in the comment letters, the e-comments that have come in.

The first of which, you know, I'll just start by saying, you know, infill is never easy.

You guys have been up here a long time, you know that.

Infill is tough.

Everybody wants infill, everybody says they want to do infill, but the reality is you go into a place where you have neighbors, you have residential neighbors, commercial neighbors, etc.

But you have to you know deal with some challenges.

And so we think that you know, in terms of uh the site being appropriate for top golf, it it very much is.

I think this is a great image in front of you because you can see that this the site is surrounded by office buildings, it's surrounded by hotel uses.

Um, there's some residential, a good 600, we measured it a thousand feet, but even at 600, a good distance away.

But the issues that were raised, very legitimate issues.

I mean, take, you know, I think that the great respect for the community and the residents, and I appreciate the fact that that they're engaged and they care about their community.

Um, some issues have been raised.

We've talked with some people about it.

I think that some of the issues stem from just the not understanding entirely what the project consisted of.

And so I just wanted to kind of hit a few of these.

Traffic was uh was an issue that was raised.

Um we commissioned voluntarily at our client's expense, a staff uh robust uh traffic impact study commissioned by Farron Pears.

Um, took a good five months to do that study.

It was very detailed and comprehensive.

As staff noted, that report yielded no significant impacts associated with this project.

In fact, it didn't even trigger the warrant for a traffic signal there.

What it did do is identified some things that would make the project function better from a pedestrian bicycle perspective, and we incorporated those into the project site.

That's why you will see that we have the flashing pedestrian signal beacon at the corner of Gateway and Venture Oaks.

We also have are putting in class two bike lanes, and we've also put in a very robust uh pedestrian connection from the right of way to the project entrance.

Um in terms of uh the initial study, no impact with regard to traffic.

The traffic study says there's no significant impact.

So we maintain that there is uh is not an issue with respect to traffic, although I could understand why somebody would be concerned about that and want to take a deeper look.

The other issue that came up was lighting.

I think it was suggested early on that the lighting was attached to the top of the poles that reach 156 feet.

Again, I could see why that would be alarming.

However, that's not what we're doing.

The lighting is not attached to the building, or it's not attached to the poles, it's rather it's attached to the building itself.

Zach, do you have that um image available?

That's the one.

So as you can see, there are no floodlights at the top of the poles.

In fact, all of the lighting is attached to the building and is specifically designed to cast light downward and out towards the freeway, towards the freeway, not towards the homes, away from the homes.

And as you can see, that there's no light spillage, there's no light pollution, there's no overflow of light here.

All of the parking lot lighting is per your city code standards.

Again, the initial study found no issue with lighting as part of this project.

I would also go back to the fact that these homes are some 600 to a thousand feet away at the closest location, further mitigating any lighting issue.

And again, there was a 12-story office tower here planned originally.

That would have produced a lot of light at a great height.

So we think that light has been adequately looked at.

I think that in addition to the distance, you have to look at what's inside of that distance.

There's a great deal of vegetation.

Very tall, mature tree canopy.

There's a two-story office building.

There's just a lot there.

If you looked at that original exhibit that was up, there's a good deal to buffer any light coming from the project.

Noise was also brought up as an issue here.

The initial study found no impact with respect to noise.

The project will meet all of the city standards for noise and the noise ordinance.

Again, any noise issues would be mitigated by the fact that there's such a great distance between the residences and the project itself.

Any sound associated with the building with the operations would be internal to the site.

The sound can also be adjusted by the operator if there was an issue that needed to be dealt with.

I want to speak briefly to trees.

There's been concerned concern about the removal of some trees.

Nobody wants to see trees removed if we don't have to, and in fact, you know, we are the city of trees.

I was the president of the Sacramento Tree Foundation.

So trees are very important to us, which is why we're planting 192 trees on this site.

Yes, 50 nine trees have to be removed.

Eight of those protected.

However, it's important to note that that's a worst-case scenario.

There are indeed seven trees identified for removal that could indeed remain.

We just won't know until we get into a final design.

So this was kind of more of a worst-case scenario.

Of those seven that may remain, two of them were protected trees.

So we think that that's good.

There's currently 139 trees on the site, so there's a great deal of vegetation, a great deal of trees being planned for the site.

We work very closely with the city's arborist, and we work closely with SMUD to make sure that we put in the appropriate type of trees under the power lines that traverse the northern portion of the property.

With respect to alcohol and and um and the hours of operation, they top golf operates from 9 in the morning till midnight, Sunday through Thursday, and Friday and Saturday from 9 until 2 in the morning.

They have not had problems, they have a sterling reputation.

This has not been an issue for them.

They take alcohol consumption very seriously, which is why they have a very robust monitoring program and employee training protocols that each of their employees go through to make sure they're able to monitor, and if somebody looks like they were having a little bit too much fun, kind of dial that back.

I think it's also important to know that Top Golf stops serving alcohol along with food about an hour or more before they actually close their doors.

Lastly, with respect to those two issues, it goes back to where I started with the ride share being something that they very much highly encourage and facilitate by you having a designated drop-off and pickup area.

I want to conclude by mentioning the outreach that was done.

The staff report didn't mention a very important piece of outreach that was done.

Before our client ever filed an application, we held a broad community outreach open house at an office building just down the street from this location.

There were over 200 people there.

There were uh folks from the city, the community.

We reached out to the adjacent to ROCA, Swallow's Nest, had a representation of a great number of organizations.

Everybody was very excited, very positive comments that came out of that.

And again, we did that before we filed an application so that we could you know address the feedback that we got prior to filing the application.

The letters have that have come in, we counted 11 letters of support that came in.

I've sent uh Zach an updated list.

Um, some of I think the confusion is there was a cutoff at noon today for them to get included in the staff report.

Additional letters came in, but we had 11 letters of support.

It's not easy to get letters of support for things as you probably know.

So, with that, I would just urge staff's um uh uh urge approval of staff's recommendation tonight for the top golf facility.

Our entire team is here to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um, are there any commissioners that have questions of either staff or the applicant?

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yes, thank you.

If if the proponent uh the project's uh proponent could come forward, I have a question.

Actually, it's on this uh voice after hours um example that you gave regarding the lighting.

Uh it sounds this isn't the site in this is another site of one of those.

This is another site.

So, what I'm curious is when you said that the light is away from will be away from the housing.

Where would the housing be in?

I mean, it would be helpful if you have something that shows.

Sure.

Zach, are you able to bring up the the original exhibit that you showed that had that aerial um at the beginning of your report?

Yeah.

I apologize, I must have missed it in the original diagram.

Excellent uh question, Commissioner Ortiz.

So the the building is up at the kind of the middle upper portion.

You can see the top lower lower or upper.

Upper.

Oh, I see upper there, okay.

So all the lighting faces in the in the residential area is closer, you know, to the to the right side of the of the screen.

Could you put your little the little cursor and show me where the housing is?

So the housing is right here.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

And then so as I mentioned, there's a great deal of space between the residential areas and the building.

We have all these trees.

There's a two-story large office building, then a parking lot, then the building over here.

Okay, the lights are all mounted on the other side of this building uh facing out towards the freeway.

I-5 is over here.

All the lighting faces out and downward that way, away from the residences.

I appreciate that.

And that's I'm glad you shared the actual site plan and uh that the lights are not on the polls.

No, they're not.

And indeed, the housing is a bit away.

That's all I needed to clarification.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other commissioners with questions of staff or applicant?

Uh seeing none.

Um, there are members of the public that wish to speak on this.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I have three speaker slips for this item.

Our first speaker is Michelle.

Hello, members of the commission.

Um, I'm here today to express my opposition to the proposed top golf development located approximately 600 feet, which is probably about closer to about 300 steps.

Sorry to interrupt.

Could you state your name?

I'm sorry, my name is Michelle Shaw.

Thank you.

So I'm here today to express my opposition to the proposed top golf development, located approximately 600 feet from the entrance to our community, um, which is about 300 steps.

That's kind of a good way to look at it.

Um, my family has been a proud uh part of this neighborhood for over 25 years.

When we originally purchased our home as original homeowners in 1999, the area was zoned um across the way as an OB PED office planned use development.

At the time, the zoning gave us the peace of mind that we would continue to enjoy a quiet residential area with walkable streets and mineral disruptions.

However, since the news broke in August of 2024 that Top Golf was planning to build in this area, we have seen what has appeared to be a sudden and uncommunicated zoning change, which is why we're here.

And so it's rather disturbing because we have lived there for 26 years.

Our house is just about paid off.

My husband and I have worked most of our that time.

We've worked full time to pay off the house, a little concerned about the property value and what it's going to do to it.

And I'm just a little bit concerned about what's going to be removed.

Obviously, there's going to be tree removals to go there as well.

The other thing that's kind of interesting is that there's an AMPM and there's a 7-Eleven that's located about a half a mile away from the location on West El Camino.

They have been repeatedly denied alcohol, they cannot sell it.

But it's now it's gonna be okay that Top Golf is selling it and they're selling alcohol until midnight, 1 a.m.

That's concerning.

I understand when the gentleman spoke that you know they're they're very try to work very well with um alcohol programs and things like that.

But it's rather difficult when you live in a community and pretty much you think by about 10 o'clock most of the time, maybe 11 o'clock, that it's kind of quiet time for the most part.

Um we live in a very quiet community, and I really feel that as homeowners who invested in this area under specific zoning and development expectations, we have a right to be informed and consulted about any changes that could affect our property value, our quality of life, and the overall character of our community.

Um, and I would really hope that as planning commissioners that you would really take that into consideration.

While I understand business is something that can be really great for an area, um I feel that this is not the area that, for this development, that makes best for the use of the community.

So, thank you for your comment.

Your time is now up.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carolina.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Carolina Gore.

I'm also a resident across the street where the projected golf place is going to be.

If you're traveling on I-5 South, if you want to get to the golf course, you have to come out, take Garden Highway, make another right on Gateway Oaks, and that's the only way you can get in.

That's our main thoroughfare.

It's already busy enough.

We already have called 311 so many times because kids are doing out there the wheelies and whatever else they're doing.

This is gonna complicate the traffic alone.

I know they presented the fact that it's not gonna be a big impact.

I defer different.

I would like them to go, any of you to go and look at what the weekends look like and what the weekends will look like if this project takes place.

In addition to that, the lighting that it was presented in there, it might not be facing our properties, but it's bright, bright lights, which is going to be obvious to everyone who's there.

In addition to that, I respectfully ask you to, since you were able to meet with the um project managers, I would like you to meet with the concerned citizens, because we haven't had a voice on this.

They have, they presented to you what they would like to do, the changes they want to implement, but you also need to hear from us because we're the ones who live there, and we're gonna be definitely impacted by this project.

Thank you very much for your time.

And I'm gonna be here.

If you want to meet with all of us, we'll be happy to put together a meeting of all the concerned citizens, especially the ones that live at Riversgate, which is within walking feet from the proposed site.

Thank you very much for your time, and we're gonna be here if you need us.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

And our last speaker is Kathy.

Hello, I'm one of three today.

Um thank you so much for your time.

I am a local business member.

Um I lived in South Natomas for a couple years myself over at Sutter Green Apartments.

Um, and I work for Demon Partners.

We have about a thousand apartments in the South Natomas area, and we're very excited about this project.

We are also right across the street from Top Golf up in Rockland, and they've been great neighbors to us, really good business partners, a great member of the community.

Um we think this also creates a great live work play space for folks.

Um, it's just a great community asset, and we would be really excited to welcome Top Golf as our neighbor here in Sacramento.

Uh, thank you so much for your time.

I wrote a letter as well that has more detailed thoughts.

Thank you.

Could you uh state your name?

Oh, yes, my name is Kathy Demon.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Chair, I have no more speakers.

Thank you.

Um, any additional uh online or anything else?

That's the extent of it.

Okay.

Um, any commission questions or motions?

Commissioner Lomas.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, and thanks to the staff for preparing the report.

Thanks to all of you who came out tonight and voice some of your concerns.

Thanks to those that um took the time to also submit letters um through the ePort or the e comments or to city staff um to be included as part of the report.

Um, I did have um some questions just to try to get some clarification um as to what I heard tonight.

Um, I think there was a mention of a zoning change, but I think the applicant had mentioned that there in fact is no zoning change, um, so it is consistent with the zoning.

Um, I'm getting some head nods.

That is, yes, that is correct.

Okay.

Um also um wanted to talk a little bit more about um the traffic study from what I understood it was it was not a requirement that the applicant had to conduct the traffic study, but um I guess maybe if you can speak a little bit to that, whether it was required or is it something the applicant took to try to um anticipate any issues in the future and mitigate those.

Yeah, good question.

We have uh representatives from public works.

They want to uh review the project, and um, they're happy to kind of talk about the traffic report.

Thank you.

Good evening, commissioners.

Uh, my name is Matthew Loggin.

I'm here with Giovanni.

Uh Kantianos.

Uh, we are with Public Works.

Uh, we um I was actually managing the entitlement review of the project.

Uh Giovanni here uh assessed the uh traffic analysis.

Um, I believe your question was uh if it was required or not.

Correct.

Correct.

So from uh the city's perspective, we required it just to ensure that the operations within the project vicinity uh checked out, and that uh there is no uh issues.

Uh, as mentioned before, the analysis concluded uh that um there's uh acceptable operations with the project.

There's no uh impacts, even though uh it was just a congestion uh traffic analysis, as you may know, SB 743 uh has vehicles miles traveled as the CEQA mitigation impact now.

But with this uh analysis, we just want to make sure the roadways uh was acceptable and it is meeting uh city standards.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

That that's helpful.

Um, so from what I'm hearing, the report that was um prepared indicated there was no or no adverse impact to additional traffic in the area.

Yes, from a CQA perspective, there is no environmental impact, but there are some uh queuing deficiencies uh but uh only uh minimal deficiencies to that that did not uh create any further uh deficiencies, so uh the roadways are still operating uh with the project acceptably.

Okay, thank you for that.

I appreciate it.

Um I also uh had another question for maybe the applicant here um just again to to confirm my understanding.

Um there were some I believe recommendations on that traffic report um to try to provide a safe route for folks to um traverse the area, and I think that included the the protected bike lanes and um a walking area.

Yeah, so we we have planned the report recommended and we've implemented into the project uh pedestrian crossing a gateway and venture hoax that travels from east to west and it has a flashing beacon to alert cars and whatnot that people are traveling across that location.

Conveniently located within feet is the RT bus stop.

So we thought that was very synergistic in terms of trying to encourage people to access the project, you know, through you know uh tran other means of transit.

Um in addition to that, yes, you're right.

We did we are um we were requested and we are going to um construct class two bike lanes along Gateway Oaks.

That was a recommendation of the study.

Uh we also moved the study had some other things you wouldn't necessarily see.

The study said it would function better if we moved some driveways over here and there and kind of aligned with some driveways across the street.

So we we did that, and then it was recommended that we put in a very strong visible um accessible path of travel from the sidewalk on venture oaks up through the project to the front door in a manner that doesn't conflict with parking and and that kind of thing, so that folks had a very safe way of getting to the project.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um let me see the only other question um I had was C well actually I think it was addressed.

I think I had some questions about the lighting um and just confirming that they're not on the the light post, um they're on the actual structure facing towards the interstate, um, and they're within the city's guidelines uh as to what's allowed in terms of uh lighting, um, and also had questions about the noise, um, but from what I heard from the applicant, the noise is contained on the inside of the structure.

Again, also facing away from the residential areas.

Um, so um I think with that um I did want to just um acknowledge that um that the as a report staff report indicated that this site has been vacant and underutilized for years.

Um the proposed development um would bring meaningful investment to the community, create local jobs and add a new recreational facility to South Natomas and the surrounding area.

Um, in addition, the area is designated as an opportunity area.

I know the city has an interest to try to encourage certain development here, um, and it is part of the city's general plan goals for infill development.

Um also site diversifying land uses and supporting a vibrant economy outside of the downtown core.

I also want to recognize that the applicant has seemed to have made efforts to try to address some of the impacts in surrounding community, starting with the initial outreach that was conducted last year to get some of that initial feedback, but also some of the design aspects which try to be responsive to some of those concerns that have been raised, such as the structure being oriented towards I-5, um, and um the thereby reducing the noise to nearby residential um housing.

The lighting also being designed in a way to um be directed inward and towards the Gulf uh course area also reduces or limits any spillover of um light to adjacent properties, specifically uh residential uses.

Um as was mentioned, the pedestrian and bike infrastructure improvements, those um like the new signal and protected bike lanes, I think are gonna help go a long way with improving access and safety, which is a big part um for the community.

Um I do understand that there has been concerns raised, but in my view, I I do believe the project um conditions and design elements provide pretty good safeguards to address those concerns, and overall the project represents smart infill um economic opportunity and community benefit.

So for these reasons, I do motion to support the staff's recommendation.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um Commissioner Masius Reed.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Uh so I have a few things though.

Thank you to staff and thank you for everyone who came um in this evening for the comments.

So I'm on uh Google Maps measuring out the distances, and I do see that from the site to the residential, you're between five and six hundred feet from the site, and then from where the proposed building is likely to be um placed because you're gonna have a buffer from the uh parking lot, you're probably somewhere around a thousand feet.

And so, you know, in my opinion, I think that's uh a substantial amount of space away from the neighborhood.

Um I did, I I did hear a comment.

I I know that you guys uh were speaking about or there was a comment made about the uh alcohol CUP that I know has been at this commission multiple times uh on West El Camino.

I think we're very familiar with that.

Um, and I think there is a pretty big difference here.

We're talking about offsite consumption versus on-site consumption.

So I I would say that there is there's somewhat of a difference in terms of what we are are considering here this evening.

Um I think one of the big differences too with this project is there is a designation and a partnership around encouraging that ride share.

I mean, you're in an infill project that's a couple of miles from a downtown midtown high density area.

You're near uh you're near residential, you're near um, you know, you're even really in walking distance from this location.

Um we have we had a public comment this evening from someone who clearly has children who clearly either you know patronizes uh a top golf or um you know encourages others to do so um and clearly has gone to the location in Roseville, and so um I think actually uh the opposite would be true that it would not hurt your uh your home values.

I think I think quite the opposite would be true.

Um I think top top golf uh I think it speaks for itself.

I think it's uh a huge amenity.

I think it would be a huge amenity to the city and to the neighborhood.

Uh and uh so I just wanted to mention that.

I also wanted to say, I think you already clarified that uh, Commissioner uh Lamas, but I also wanted to say that this is definitely in no way a zoning change.

So it is consistent with zoning.

Uh lastly, I did want to mention that currently this location is approved.

And I don't know if we can if you have this information, I'm sure you do when the commission last approved uh the the last approval for a project on this location, but I believe so that the community knows what project was last approved on this location, because um you know what I think is currently approved, I think really is interesting because what we're approving here I think has less of an impact to the community overall than what someone could currently come in and build today as it currently stands.

So if you could staff uh just sort of speak to what is currently approved on this site today.

If somebody wanted to come in today and build on this site, the current the currently approved entitlement or rather what's currently allowed because I think it's more of a significant I think it's significant to note that because uh, you know, the commission in the past has approved that.

Yeah, so it looks like in uh so May 2008 was that original special permit to allow for that 12-story office development, and then on um, how many parking spaces I'm sorry?

Oh, it was uh over 1,000 parking spaces and 12 stories, so it, you know, a lot, but it's pretty tall um increase compared to the other 156 that you would see for those light poles, um not light poles, the netting pools, I should say.

Um looks like back in um January 27th of 2022, that was when we did an uh we extended the life of that special permit, and as part of that we also redesignated the site for office or multi-unit development in the case that you know somebody else wanted to come in and provide more residential opportunities in the area.

Um, but it looks like that um office development might have expired on 2023.

Um but for the long you know, since from 08 to 2023, there was an allowed 12-story office complex that could have come in come in for building permits.

And I I mean, overall, if I'm considering wow, what's better for the community?

Is it a 12-story building or is it a a top top golf that offers you know entertainment?

You know, I know that you know, from what I understand, people, you know, top golf sells out on Father's Days, Mother's Days.

I mean, these are amenities.

South South, you know, South Sacramento or excuse me, um, nor uh South Natomas does not have amenities like this.

And so, you know, again, speaking to the comments that Commissioner Lamas uh uh spoke to earlier, I mean, I I I see the the overall economic benefit here, um, and I I do understand the concerns, but I I would counter that I I would think that this would actually have the opposite uh uh I would I think this would actually have uh a financial benefit uh to you and so I I would um like to second the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Thank you.

Um I'm just gonna address two points or perhaps even ask a question on one of them, but I think the the I think the question of traffic, because I think I heard the residents um about the concern for traffic.

Um you know, Gateway Oaks is what three lanes each way, four lanes each way.

What's how how wide?

Two each way.

So it's a total of four, plus probably a turning lane.

So, you know, for residents who clearly are concerned about potentially increased loads on these um uh uh traffic with increased uses.

Um I often felt the challenge of traffic engineers with all due respect, our public work staff.

You know, the idea of designing traffic um or s or roadways uh in particular in suburban areas like this is to move as many vehicles as qu as efficiently as possible.

So you've moved to a community that has that is designed for large traffic loads relative perhaps to midtown or older neighborhoods that are narrow.

So uh you're unfortunately in a community in which it was designed to put as much be many vehicles on the road each way and to absorb lots of traffic.

That that's the nature of the of your your roads, unfortunately, gateway oaks, a lot of those in the suburban areas are like that.

Um I think the point was made that uh the proponent, project representative, that they actually will do things that are going to improve the pedestrian walkway, um, the bike lanes, um, slowing down traffic, uh and I those things are always a little bit risky where the lights because when you get that many cars going both ways, in my opinion, uh they start out being in my preference badly designed because people drive too fast there, quite frankly.

But these measures may indeed slow things down, that's not gonna make you feel happy.

I know you're gonna be troubled about it, but you know, you are in a community which is designed with these roads that move as many vehicles as possible, and therefore when they do an analysis and traffic study, when they say there's no negligible effects given the increased load, because those roadways are designed to carry that many cars, and indeed these mitigation measures perhaps I believe will address somewhat.

I mean, you still bike at your own peril on some of these streets.

Um, but they could actually address problems you have now.

It's unfortunate.

I mean, it's those this is the community, it was designed that way to move a lot of cars, and you're and I think to the point of what the underlying um zoning and ability of what could be built there, even though that entitlement has expired, you know, huge office spaces with thousands of vehicles a day would would be worse, but that's a matter of right almost.

That's that's the zoning.

That's kind of the community you live in with that zoning.

Um I think the market conditions, I mean, clearly there's never gonna be an office building there because people are not going into offices anymore, and you know, people are working from home.

So that project got its entitlements, was never built.

You know, I'm not a golfer, but I have friends who love top golf.

Um so it's unfortunate.

You live in a community in which this is almost a matter of right.

I do believe the the point of the distance from the site versus the distance to the homes is a is a valid one.

That's a thousand feet.

Um, I believe the lights are indeed got not going to be a true, but I hopefully there will be that communication with the operators of this that they will be responsive to the neighbors, if indeed those lights um create a problem in the future.

So uh unfortunately this is a matter of right that this could happen.

The one issue that I'm a little and it's just me, I'm probably the person on here.

Alcohol from what time in the morning till midnight.

I'm sorry, I I should have said how long will they be serving alcohol?

Um alcohol is available during business hours, though they cut it off during about an hour, a little bit more than an hour before they close.

What time is that?

Well, if it's uh Monday through third or Sunday through Thursday, 9 a.m.

to midnight.

So they close at midnight, alcohol sales would conclude somewhere around a little bit so alcohol sales 9 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

golfers are passionate people.

That's a l, you know, it it does seem a little long, but that's just I mean, that's always my issue, especially and I think the point is is well taken that you know, the AMPM and the 7-Eleven, those are different animals.

I mean, residents should be cognizant of not wanting those in their neighborhoods because they often come with nuisance.

Um this is an operated on-site as if it was a restaurant.

Well, I assume they'll be um I don't like 11 p.m.

but that's just me, and I'm just gonna put it out there.

I don't expect a motion.

I don't want to change it, but uh, you know, people drinking that long or having the opportunity to drink till 11 p.m.

when you've probably been out there since 8 p.m.

or 6 p.m.

is a little bit of an issue, but that's just my pet peeve.

But with that, I hope I mean a lot of our job up here is to try to explain kind of the nature of what is available and what can be done as a matter of right in a neighborhood and kind of the neighborhood you live in, and that's the reality of those streets that carry a lot of vehicles.

Uh I think the traffic mitigation measures, the bike lane, the walkway, I think that perhaps will be an improvement, but it's totally consistent with the design of those roadways, those large big corridors coming in and out of Nethomas.

That's just the nature of them.

Uh so with that, I I'm prepared to support it, but I I just you know, I just think it's helpful for us to walk this through with the residents when they raise concerns.

So I feel like I tried to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Before we take a vote, I have a few comments as well.

Um I know the community well.

My wife and I almost bought a house there uh some years back, and it's a wonderful neighborhood.

Um I spent time driving and walking around the other day to get a sense of what what the issues might be here.

And in fact, we were gonna buy a house that was right on the other side of the wall.

I forgot the street, the uh frontier, so it would have been one of the closest ones to it.

Um I started walking from the wall and looking, and I did not see anything that would be an issue if I'd lived there that I would have a concern with.

Um, again, I I also go back to the uh 12 story office building that had been approved virtually as a twin to the one that's across the uh the freeway.

Uh same developer owner at that time.

Uh and that would have had uh I think a much more significant impact.

Certainly would have had peak traffic hours.

Morning, you know, a lot of traffic coming, you know, thousand cars and evening, thousand cars coming and going.

Facility like this, it's going to be spread out more evenly uh through the through those hours.

So I think uh all in all, considering everything I think it's an appropriate use, uh, as was mentioned earlier, it does not not require a zone change, so it's anticipated uh use here with the with the uh with the CUP.

Um that said, I I think you know, there are always concerns.

I think when somebody mentioned infill projects are always of a concern.

They're plunked down in the middle of something that's already there.

And uh the adjacencies, you know, can often be a concern.

In this case, I I don't see the concerns.

I I suspect overall it will be a positive aspect.

I think it will certainly not have a negative uh property value.

In fact, if anything, perhaps, you know, more so to be able to market a house.

I think it'll be of value to the uh uh the office buildings and the hotels adjacent too as a is uh you know amenity uh to to bring uh you know guests and workers to the to the area.

So so with that uh I I also uh do support the motion.

With that clerk, should we let's take a vote?

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

I Commissioner Naibo?

Commissioner Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Master 3?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz, aye.

Commissioner Blunt is absent, Commissioner Rishke is absent.

Commissioner Thompson is absent, Chair Young's absent, and Vice Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you, Clerk.

Thank you all, and thank you all for coming uh tonight to the meeting.

Um, next item on the agenda is the uh commissioner comments.

Uh are there any ideas or comments from commissioners?

I see no names popping up there.

Um, with that, uh, are there public comments for matters not on the agenda?

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I have no slips for this item.

Okay, thank you.

Uh with that, uh, we will move to an adjournment.

Thank you all.