Good evening.

Welcome to the meeting of uh Thursday, November 13th of the Planning and Design Commission.

Meeting is now called to order.

Clerk, can you uh please take a roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Um Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee here.

Commissioner Tao is absent.

Commissioner Lamas is absent.

Commissioner Naibo is absent.

Commissioner Caden.

Here, Commissioner Hernandez?

Here.

Commissioner Masis Reed?

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

Commissioner Blunt?

Here.

Commissioner Rishke?

Here.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent.

And Vice Chair Chase?

Here.

Thank you, Wabacorm.

I'd like to remind those who wish to speak on any item on today's agenda.

Please turn on a speaker slip before the item begins.

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

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

We'll now proceed with a land acknowledgement in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

Please rise.

To the original people of this land, the Nissanan people, the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Mewak, Patwin, Winton peoples, and the people of the Winton Rancheria.

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 uh together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag.

The United States of America to the Republic.

Under God, indivisible, liberty, justice for all.

Our first business today is the director's report.

I have no director's report this evening.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Um our next item is the consent calendar, which is item one on the agenda.

Uh we'll now pursue proceed to the approval of the consent calendar.

Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker's lifts for this item.

Okay, thank you.

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

Commissioner Blunt.

I move uh ask this item.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Um, I'll second it.

Thank you, Commissioner Mosses Reed.

Um, it was oh I'm sorry.

Sharing these mics throws me off.

Commissioner Ortiz, thank you for the second.

Um, can you take a uh a roll call a vote?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye, Commissioner Tao.

Aye, Commissioner Lamas is absent.

Commissioner Naibo?

Commissioner Caden.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Masis Reed.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Commissioner Rishke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent.

And Vice Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Uh we'll now proceed with public hearing calendar.

Uh, item number two.

Uh item two, 2025, Title 17, omnibus uh ordinance and ordinance amending various provisions of title 17 of the Sacramento uh City Code relating to planning and development.

Before we begin, are there any disclosures or recusal for for this item?

Uh Commissioner Massus Reed.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Um seeing none.

Uh we'll proceed.

Uh Kevin?

Of course.

Kevin Collin, your zoning administrator presenting this item.

Uh, in my presentation today, I'll just give you a brief summary of our audience.

What is an omnibus?

Well, describe the various amendments that are included in the ordinance in your packet.

Um, give you a brief overview and then talk about our review steps.

An omnibus, what is that?

It's a miscellaneous bag to some.

It's it covers a lot of different topics.

Title 17 is the primary means by which our land use policies are implemented.

So this ordinance makes changes to many different chapters and sections within that title of city code.

About a year ago, I was before you with another previous omnibus ordinance.

We're back again for similar reasons.

Typically, we think of an omnibus into, and we put into three main buckets of topics or categories consisting of changes to make our code consistent with state law, new state laws in particular that have been adopted.

Some streamlining changes is the second bucket, so it's an existing policy.

It's already on the books, but we found through practice that there perhaps is a smoother way to get to that, a clear way to get to the same outcome.

And then finally, we find there are sometimes errors that we need to correct.

So we call this administrative cleanup.

Today I'm principally we're focusing on a bundle that includes the first and the third buckets.

I'll get into the details here shortly.

To help you and our audience understand what is exactly proposed, the background attachment to your staff report, attempts to describe these by describing the topic, where you could find where that ordinance section is in the attachment, what are the existing regulations on the book today, what is the issue presented with the proposed change, um, what is that change, and summary and summary, and then finally why uh what's our rationale for making the changes.

Uh getting into the first bucket, this omnibus includes uh there are various provisions relating to state law that come from the 2024 legislative session.

Um, I'll give you a brief overview of each of these.

Um there additionally was uh some surprise uh new laws coming from the budget of May of this year that I'll also address.

So this uh ordinance uh resolves all of those laws in our local code.

Um the first topic are AB 2085.

It's not often that national politics enter into local zoning, but um this bill did just that.

So it's essentially a state mandated uh both procedural and standards to ensure that local governments do not delay or halt the provision of reproductive services.

So you can think of planned parenthood as an example of a business that conducts this type of activity.

Our code is not in the way of these requirements.

Um however, the state has prescribed a formula, and so we have to match it.

So I can tell you it's already by right use in many different zoning districts in town.

However, we need to match that state requirement so we don't run a foul and inadvertently not comply.

So it's a ministerial review requirement.

There are state mandated standards, and the ordinance resolves any inconsistency.

Um secondly, ADUs are a real fun topic, important topic.

We have some goals to uh to achieve in our housing on that topic.

Um this law, SB 1211 increases essentially the number of ADs that are allowed by right on multifamily properties from two to eight.

That's that's our code will now uh with this ordinance ensure that we're allowing that increase.

Um AB 2094.

We're already implementing this in our for example for this item tonight.

Um there are uh some notice changes that are required by this law where we had to increase the number of days of notice for this body only from 10 to 20 days.

So uh where notice is required for a hearing such as this that changes um zoning and land use.

We give 20 days' notice now, and this ordinance will reflect that requirement.

Um next, there are a couple of I would I say are procedural changes for state housing uh projects of different types.

Um, so AB 3122 pertains to what some of us uh in the planning realm call SB 35 projects.

So think of them as ministerial affordable projects, and uh there's a new provision that mandates local governments must respond within 30 days of a resubmittal.

So we want to make sure our code is responsive to that.

And then that same provision that that time deadline for responding to resubmittals also applies to ministerial projects under SB6 and AB 2011.

We already have these codified in Title 17, so we're adding these time frames to make sure that we comply.

Next, we have SB 450.

This concerns SB9, or what some folks might know as the duplex law or the urban lot split law.

There's a new 60-day time frame, it's a shot clock upon a complete application.

We have 60 days to review and approve or deny that application.

There are some changes about the circumstances under which we could deny, not to my knowledge, denied one of these, but we can't use the fiscal environment as a basis to deny an application for a lot split.

And then finally, we received some guidance from our state housing and community development department pertaining to our bulk control standards in our code today.

So that's the tent.

Lastly, how we process permits has for many decades been addressed by the Permit Streamlining Act, and the budget trailer bill included AB 130 that made some pretty important changes to that law that previously weren't, they were in effect, but it changed the circumstances.

In fact, so previously that was it existed, but an applicant had to invoke it under a limited circumstance.

So now we do have a shorter time frame to act on applications.

There are additional clarifications in the law, and a lot of terminology to sync up what we have in our code today to make sure that we are complying with this requirement.

So the ordinance resolves all of those.

We are working on companion amendments to our application forms to additionally conform to this requirement as well.

Our third bucket, a little different change from state laws.

We have an amendment included pertaining to appeals, and when it is considered timely filed, we're adding a provision to clarify that fee payment is a requirement to determine a timely filed appeal.

Wasn't clear before, we'd like that to be clear for both applicants, appellants, and staff.

It includes a lot of different things, and I don't just serve my team, but I serve the entire department in the city.

And so we have a proposal process where staff learns through application, and they have ideas about how maybe to do things a little differently.

And so this came across my you know, my screen that we are presently in our preservation unit working on a developing objective standards for accessory dwelling units in historic districts and at landmark properties.

The preservation commission is the review body for those standards and have considered them.

Not in your ordinance in your packet, but on the screen here, I have some language that if you're inclined to pass the staff recommendation, I would like included to essentially it's enabling legislation.

So if we want to make sure our accessory dwelling unit standards work consistency in a consistent manner without conflict, so this provision would, if the council adopts these objective standards, it would mean they apply to historic landmarks and district properties.

So with that, we are at our first stop for the omnibus ordinance at this commission with your recommendation to council.

Um we will next proceed to the law and legislation committee, uh scheduled for December 2nd.

Then we will move on to pass for publication at council and finally a public hearing.

Um yeah, our recommendation is that you conduct a hearing, uh move the staff recommendation, including that enabling legislation for ADUs and historic districts and at landmarks.

Thank you, Clerk.

Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I have no speakers list for this item.

Um thank you.

Are there any members of the commission who wish to speak on this item?

Seeing none.

Is there a motion and a second for this item?

Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Ortiz.

Thank you.

I just to I don't know if you're at this point yet, but I'm trying to figure out what are objective standards for historic district.

What are the variables you'll look at?

So the origin of this project, it pertains to the construct for accessory dwelling units in state law.

There is a mandate from the state that if we adopt a local ordinance that pertains to that type of housing, that we may only impose objective standards, and so that means that it is not discretionary.

You must have a think of it as numerical or dimensional parameters or ways of using words that are um able to be interpreted in the same manner between different people, and so we don't have those currently for ADUs in historic districts or landmark properties.

So our preservation staff are looking at having those adopted to ensure that those resources are protected while still complying with state law.

I'm just I understand the concept of objective standards, but I'm just trying to figure out what is objective for us for an historic district.

Is it there's some there will be some historic external or not?

Could it be the same uh template design as it is in a non-historic neighborhood?

I mean, what what does it what do what do object what objective standards would be applied to an ADU in a historic district?

Maybe so it could include uh setbacks, a pretty common uh standard that we have.

We so we have historic district plants for each of our historic districts, um, and those per those have standards that are intended to have think of um compatibility as it may concern height.

Um so the older neighborhoods don't have skyscrapers, they have a lower scale building, so we have a you know proportionality requirements or separation to respect a pattern of historic development, and that's an example where these objective standards would fit in with our plans for historic districts.

Audit, yeah.

And there's materiality, there's material specifications that I've seen in the draft standards.

Right, that I can imagine, but like for example, if it's in a Victorian area area, historic homes around that are all Victorian, will it require you know corbels and things like that?

I'm sorry, I'm trying to reflect on what I've read because we're not the body for for reviewing this is the preservation commission, and they have considered them.

I don't recall seeing style specific standards, okay, but there are more generalized standards.

It may just be me overthinking this, but thank you for trying to explain.

Thanks.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Ortiz.

Are there any other commissioners that wish to speak?

Seeing none, are there um is there ahead?

I don't know why.

Sorry, Commissioner Kidden.

I thought I just had a question.

It was it we didn't fall yet and you cleared me.

I have a question.

Okay, the computer's not complying, yeah.

Yeah, anyways, anyways.

Uh I have a follow-up question to uh Commissioner Ortiz.

Uh I just want to ensure that when we are talking about the objective standards related to ADUs in historic districts, that um, you know, obviously one of the goals that we have set in the city are to encourage more ADU development.

And you know, we are very concerned, as we all know, with the cost.

Um costs have risen, as we all know, and luckily I think we've seen an uptick with um our applications and with development of ADUs, which is I think a very positive thing for the city, but I want that to continue, and I just want to um reiterate and just encourage the city that when we're considering objective standards, that they are also not driving costs.

Um obviously in a historic district, we want to be mindful of height requirements and setback requirements, but when it comes to objectivity with design um costs is a huge factor in that, and we don't want to make it cost prohibitive for somebody to build an ADU.

So just a comment that I wanted to share there.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Caden, do you?

Um I would I would echo all of those comments.

That was basically what I was gonna say.

But um that being said, I'm happy to move the item.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Are there any other commission comments?

I'll give it a second to see if a name pops up here.

Seeing none, um, is there a uh a motion?

Uh motion, but I think it's second.

Okay.

So motion and was there a second?

I'll second.

I'll second it.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

Um any discussion on the motion.

Clerk, can you take a vote?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao.

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Aye.

Commissioner Masis Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Commissioner Rishke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent.

And Vice Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

We will now proceed with the item three, raising Canes Gateway Park.

Uh, before we begin, are there any disclosures or recusals for this item?

Uh Commissioner.

I met with the applicant on Monday to discuss the uh plan and uh just to discuss what's coming to the council.

Thank you.

I also uh I also met with the met with the applicant and the conversation was consistent with the staff report.

Commissioner, yeah.

I did a virtual zoom meeting with the applicant.

Commissioner Lee, we already heard Commissioner Reschkee.

Oh, yeah, I received emails from members of the public and the applicant's representative, but I did not have a chance to respond to a meet.

Um I'm sorry, Commissioner Reschke.

Um I also uh had a zoom meeting with the applicant, and it was consistent with the staff report.

Commissioner Caden, I spoke with the applicant consistent with the staff report.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Thank you.

I received a number of emails uh regarding this item, including uh an email from uh the uh representative of the applicant, but didn't have a chance to mute them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Um I met with the applicant um and it's consistent with the staff report.

Uh Commissioner Hamassius Reed.

Also met with the applicant and received some correspondence consistent with staff report.

Thank you.

And I also met with the applicant uh consistent with the staff report.

Are there any other disclosures or.

Thank you?

Um, we'll now proceed with it.

Anyway.

Awesome.

Good evening to the vice chair and fellow commissioners.

My name is Act Dalla, senior planner with the community development department.

Uh the item before you tonight is the raising canes Gateway Park Project, also known as P24-027.

So the project is located northwest of the intersection of Gateway Park Boulevard and North Freeway Boulevard within the shopping center zone and the Coral Business Center Plan Unit Development.

The vacant project site is approximately 950 feet of the future right of the future light rail station at the intersection of Truxel Road and Gateway Park Boulevard, and is surrounded by the Rayleigh's Natomas Distribution Center to the north, a commercial center and recently approved apartment complex to the east across Great Gateway Park Boulevard, existing retail shopping center to the south, and a residential apartment complex that is under construction to the west.

The applicant is requesting to construct an approximately 3,400 square foot Raising Canes drive-through restaurant.

The restaurant building would be supported by dual drive-through lanes, a 1,554 square foot outdoor patio space, and 29 parking stalls.

Delivery trucks and passenger vehicles.

Delivery trucks and passenger vehicles would access the project site from the southern driveway on North Three Way Boulevard.

Due to the installation of a required median along this roadway, vehicular access would be restricted to write-in and write-out only.

This request requires planning and design commission review and approval of a conditional use permit and site plan and design review.

Prior to today's hearing, staff mailed public hearing notices to all the property owners, current residents and businesses, and community groups than 500 feet of the project site.

To date, staff has received 11 letters of support, including those from the Natomas and the North Natomas Community Coalition, local businesses, and residents.

Staff has also received a comment letter from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District during the processing of the project, who noted concerns with an automobile oriented use that is not transit supportive.

Based on staff's analysis, staff is not supportive of the request.

A drive-through restaurant use is inconsistent with the general plan and the North Natomas Community Plan due to the site's proximity to the future Green Line Light Rail Station at Truxel and Gateway Park Boulevard.

The future green line extension has been a long-term interagency planning effort.

With the extension first identified in 1991 and incorporated into the North Natomas Community Plan in 1994.

Since then, planning staff has been actively planning for this future extension by discouraging low-intensity and auto-oriented uses around this and other transit stations because they do not support the long-term economic viability of transit service.

Staff has also been requesting the necessary IODs for the green line tracks and obtaining future park and ride spaces, including those around this light rail station or future light rail station, I should say.

All this to say approval of this project tonight would be in direct conflict with the city's consistent application of transit-oriented development policies and commitment to the future green line extension.

Because staff cannot make the first findings related to general planning community plan consistency, nor the third finding related to the site not being physically suitable for the use due to its location to the green line.

Staff recommends denial of the project.

If the commission would like to approve this application, the commission would need to provide staff with language and the rationale for how this project is consistent with those findings.

And with that, this concludes my presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

The applicant is also here, ready to give a presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Zach.

Would the applicant like to present now?

Good evening, Chair Chase.

Members of the Sacramento Planning and Design Commission.

Ryan Hooper with Thatch and Hooper here this evening, happy to represent Raising Canes Restaurant at the Gateway Marketplace.

With me tonight is Lou Erin Foster with Raising Canes, Kelly Agnor, Development Manager for the project, Tatiana Braun, with engineer with Kimley Horn, as well as Sarah Amani with the architect with PM Design.

Also with me tonight is Latisa Ramirez from my office.

What you have before you tonight is a staff recommendation of denial.

Just to put it frankly, I think that is uh that staff just got it wrong.

Um I think that you hear staff saying it's inconsistent with the general plan.

I would submit that it's not inconsistent with the general plan.

Rather, I would submit that it is indeed consistent with the general plan.

I think there may be, I'll call it confusion, with respect to which general plan to use.

This project has a 2035 general plan that is vested under a development agreement for the project.

In analyzing the project and coming up with its determination of inconsistency, staff has applied the 2040, the current general plan standards, to our project, which is not appropriate here because we should be using the 2035 standards.

The 2040 standards that staff uses all measure distance to light rail, proximity to light rail is part of the uh metrics for determining whether or not it's consistent.

That language doesn't uh exist in the 2035 general plan.

2035 general plan has other metrics.

It talks simply about whether or not you can have a drive-thru in a um in this area, and you can with a use permit.

The project, as I mentioned, is consistent with the 2035 general plan.

It's consistent in part because we do not need a general plan amendment.

We do not need a rezone, we only need a use permit.

The reason that we don't need a general plan amendment or a use or a rezone is because it is indeed consistent with those documents.

If we were inconsistent, we would need to amend the general plan.

Staff has not suggested that we need to do that.

The staff also has said in its own staff report that the project would not require any additional CEQA review should you decide to approve it.

The reason it doesn't need more CEQA review is because CEQA has already been done for the project.

It's already been done for the project, which is determined that in that document the project is consistent with the general plan and the zoning.

Otherwise, you wouldn't be able to rely on that additional uh on that prior CEQA work.

There's nothing in the current or in the 2035 general plan that requires you to deny this project.

There's nothing that says that a drive-thru use is precluded in the general plan.

Yes, we need a CUP.

That CUP allows you the ability to condition certain operational aspects of the project.

Staff often recommends denial of auto-oriented uses.

Sometimes I think that's warranted.

I think that sometimes it's not.

I think it requires a case-by-case analysis and evaluation.

Zach, would you mind putting that aerial backup that you had a moment ago, the first the first slide?

Thank you.

You need to look at it, I think, from a on a case by case basis.

You have to look at the context.

Are you dealing with a blank slate, an area identified as a TOD that's going to be thoughtfully designed and built out as such, or are you looking at something before you tonight where this is the last vacant parcel?

The other two adjacent parcels have been approved for development, one of which is under construction.

This is the last vacant parcel in this entire area.

What are we surrounded by?

We're surrounded by hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial of big box, a multitude of I'm told seven drive-throughs, last count.

Some of them open 24 hours a day, some of them a mere few feet that have been approved next to the future light rail stop.

The point is that this area has long been identified, planned for, and developed as an auto-oriented area.

The reason is simple.

It's near where the cars are.

It's the main artery truck truxel for this area of Natomas to get in and out.

It's near the intersection of two major freeway, interstate freeways.

This is designed to be a uh auto-oriented use, and so I think we have to look at it from that perspective.

I think here the ship has sailed.

This has long been set to be what it is, what you see around us, and we are consistent with that.

I think because we are consistent with it and we are consistent with the general plan, we are this is a good fit for this area.

There has been no evidence suggested or presented that this project would in any way impede light rail.

I would argue the opposite.

I would argue that this project can be supportive of transit.

It's a restaurant, it has sit-down dining.

It offers an opportunity for residents for employees who may be biking, who may be walking from the light rail station to businesses nearby to the multi-family apartment projects.

Again, no evidence has been uh suggested that the project cannot actually support RT.

I think lastly, RT has now had two opportunities to chime in on this site.

Once when the project was originally rezoned to shopping center, its current zoning, RTI had no comment.

This project was submitted some time ago and routed RT again, as of this moment, has no comment on the record.

But we do have comments on the record.

We have a lot of comments on the record.

We have a significant amount of community support.

We have multiple residents that have submitted letters.

We conducted a community outreach effort surveying the local folks in this community.

We talked to 113 people, only four didn't think this restaurant was a good fit here.

In addition to that, we talked to our neighbor Rayleigh's, who's immediately north of the project site.

Rayleigh's operates a 24-7 distribution center at that location.

They're excited about the project for a number of reasons, but one of the reasons they're excited is because they have folks working swing shifts, and with raising canes hours being open till three in the morning, it provides their employees with a dining option that doesn't currently exist.

Beyond Rayleigh's, it serves, I think, people that would work at Amazon and other local industrial uses that have around-the-clock operations.

In addition, we have Heinz.

Heinz is the owner of the next door.

If you look to the uh to the left to the west, that project site is being currently developed as multifamily.

They submitted a letter of support.

They see this as an exciting new use for their future tenants and support the project.

Probably most importantly, you have a letter in the record from the North Natomas Community Coalition.

That letter was penned by Lynn Lindsay, a highly respected former planning commissioner from the Natomas area that has long represented the area, and I think laid out a clear rationale for the coalition's support of the project, notwithstanding its proximity to a future light rail station.

Why would we want Roos?

Why would we want raising canes?

It's a popular new restaurant option.

People out here would like a new option to be able to eat at.

I think raising canes brings a significant amount of investment to this area.

Millions of dollars of construction, operational revenues.

They estimate 75 jobs associated with this project, jobs with varying positions, varying compensation packages, as well as convenience of a drive-thru.

I think sometimes drive-thru gets a bad rap.

I know as a father that has three kids after soccer practice, when the kids are in meltdown mode, there's something very appealing about a drive-through option.

Similarly, people with profound disabilities and mobility issues appreciate having the drive-thru option available to them.

Raising Canes has been a community partner in every jurisdiction that it goes into.

It works closely with the local community on efforts to feed the hungry and to provide services for local SPCA and animal shelter.

Raising Canes is consistent with the general plan.

It's a good fit with the existing development around it.

It's a brand that the community supports, and I would urge your support tonight for the project.

I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Hoover.

Are there uh any questions from any of the commissioners for either staff or the applicant?

Commissioner Ortiz.

Um I guess uh I would like staff to address the there's a couple of things that were said that I'm not sure.

Um I would welcome hearing staff's position on.

Which general plan should be used and what determines vesting of an applicant application.

So as it relates to this project, uh the 2035 general plan is the correct general plan to apply to this project.

In 2016, there was a development agreement that was passed on site that bests the project, bests the basically the land to the ordinances and adopted documents at that time in the 2016 at the time that the applicant submits.

No, at the time of the DA adoption, the time that the DA is set.

So we in 2016 they did the development agreement, so they're allowed to submit underneath the 2035 general plan, and they're allowed to submit under the zoning code that was in effect in 2016.

Okay, so another question I have is: is the difference between the 2035 plan and the 2040 plan the metrics that are used to determine when a drive-thru is allowed, and are one of those metrics uh a proposed uh light rail station?

Perhaps you can explain the connection between the assertion by the applicant that um that there were no that if you use the 2035 plan, there are no metrics that would deny this, it would be simply a conditional use permit.

Yeah, so the 2040 general plan um as well as well it's going back the transit-oriented development ordinance that was passed in, I believe it was 2017, that restricted drive-thru restaurants within a quarter mile future or proposed light rail stations.

And in addition to that, um the 2040 general plan that we recently passed, it also has provisions related to distance for drive-through uses and auto-related uses.

Um, with the 2035 general plan and the shopping center zone at the time of 2016, it was a conditional use, but their transit-oriented development policies in that general plan that still apply to the project, and at that time staff was recommending denial around these transit stations, which would be even uh kind of like a starting point to developing the transit oriented development ordinance that came shortly after.

If I might add to as well, um, while the 2035 is not as prescriptive as the 2040 in terms of saying this distance, that distance, it did have policies that said support transit oriented development around light rail stations, support density, discourage auto-related uses around light rail stations.

It wasn't as prescriptive, it sort of evolved over time, and that's why we saw the adoption of the TOD ordinance about a year after this development agreement went into effect, and then the stronger language in the 2040 general plan, but under no circumstances was it ever the case that it was a foregone conclusion that a drive-thru could be here.

In fact, staff over the years has been very um very determined to make sure that every applicant knows prior to submitting an application that we won't support things like drive-throughs, gas stations, and other things on this property.

And so we did evaluate the project under the 2035 general plan in your staff report.

You'll see that that's there, and all of our findings are related to that.

Um, and this applicant was made aware prior to submitting that staff would recommend denial.

So prior to submitting the applicant was hired, submitting.

Um, so just staying on that line.

I mean, I know um the uh applicant's representative shared that there was no no objection by RT, and then the assertion that you know the the light rail station is maybe he did I implied you know it's 25 years out, maybe it's never going to be built.

I I think that we have to operate with what is identified as a potential light rail station.

Is it appropriate or do we have discretion to say, well, might not be built for another 25 years?

Therefore, there might be some discretion.

Uh if you could guide me through that, I mean, I think I think there's a lot of cynicism as what as to whether or not the light rail station will ever happen.

I mean, this has been an ongoing thing in the Thomas out to the airport for decades.

But I feel if it's identified and it's planned, I I would not feel comfortable ignoring it that.

So maybe you could help me reconcile why RT has not weighed in.

Do they normally weigh in on these things?

So with respect to SAC RT, they do attend our pre-application meetings, and they also will attend during the initial routing of the project.

Uh the project planners will attend a matrix review committee meeting where essentially it's all departments and agencies.

And at that meeting, I rec I told everyone there that staff was going to be recommending denial, and SAC RT was okay with that, and they were happy to see that, but they did not submit a formal letter on this project.

Unfortunate, it'd be I can see them not wanting to get in the middle of these things, but it's it is unfortunate that they didn't reiterate.

I'll I'll also add to that that SAC RT was an active participant in conversations related to the Birchway Apartments project, which the commission heard earlier this year, they were very interested in obtaining park and ride lots, which had long been a part of that promenade um plan.

And so they were active participants in that as well as um just on other um light rail extension lines, they participate with us in order to make sure that we're getting the proper IOD widths for stations as well as for the track lines.

So they are active in procuring um the necessary right of way to one day be able to do this project as it's in our general plan.

Thank you so much for answering my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um any other questions from commissioners?

Commissioner Caden.

Yeah, and I I would just reiterate that, you know, in my work with RT, they they have continued to work on um, you know, making this project a reality over the over the last few decades.

So uh and and today are actively working on it.

So there's it's certainly still in their plans.

Um, you know, just to continue some of those questions, so just to be really clear, so is so is staff applying in the recommendation of denial tonight, staff applying the 2035 policies or the 2040 policies?

The 2035 policies.

Okay, and it would so it was suggested that um, you know, because the use is allowed under the 2035 plan with the CUP, that it would be consistent with that general plan.

Just to clarify, is staff saying that the project is inconsistent with the general plan, or is it saying that it's inconsistent with the policies and goals in the 2035 general plan?

It's inconsistent inconsistent with the goals and policies of the general plan.

Okay, so it could it's it's very possible that something could be technically allowed through a CUP process, but but still inconsistent with the goals and policies, which is I think what staff is saying.

Um and then just to um curiosity, I don't know if you know this, but do you have a sense of I mean, it it certainly is an auto-oriented area right now, right?

Um there's there's no getting around that.

Um, and there are several drive-throughs in the area.

I mean, do you have a sense of how like when some of those uses were approved?

Like were is that something that is the built environment there sort of kind of and the approvals of that built environment predating kind of this policy shift that the city had in the 2035 general plan upon which we're making this decision?

Is that fair to say, or do you have a sense of what the timing was of those approvals?

Yeah, so um so the 2035 general plan was adopted, I believe it was in 2015 was the was the 2035.

Um so definitely um at that moment we saw an amplification of TOD policies within this general plan document, not to the degree that is the 2040, but they as you see in the staff report, their policies there about transit oriented development.

Um in terms of the built environment.

So we have the Nathomas Marketplace, which is where the Walmart is, that was built in 1996.

Um across the street, we'll see that right now there is the um Starbucks that is there that has a drive-thru lane.

That is a lot that's zoned highway commercial.

It's a buy-right use, so it can go there.

Um, I think an important thing to note for this project is RT's been working on it.

I looked at kind of the the green line history and our approval history for the site, and something that I found interesting is that after the uh in 2001, when Sakura T completed the multi-corridor study that identified the green line extension, um city staff, there was an application at the time for a regional shopping center at this site that basically was this site, the apartments next door, and then what you see in that retail space today to the south.

Um the planning commission denied the application because it what did not support and have transit viability, and that was one of the reasons that they said that we can't have this, we need to support transit, we need to support the green line.

So they had the applicant come back with a revised project that more aligned with that, what they needed to see around a transit station.

So I think applying these policies of TOD around the station has been applied before, and I think that you know that's why staff is saying that we have consistently applied these policies at this site.

Okay, that's that's awful, yeah.

And I mean, I so I I'm um inclined, I guess, to support the staff recommendation tonight.

Um it is a tough one because I it is hard to sort of imagine um, you know, this area not being auto-oriented.

Um, but you know, this is this is a corridor that we as a city have really said we want to be a transit corridor.

It's a place that we're considering, you know, as a region, as a city, as a transit agency investing hundreds of millions of dollars.

This is gonna be a very expensive project if it happens.

Um, and that's gonna happen on a very long time frame, right?

Like very like over the course of decades.

So I think we do have to think in very long time horizons here, and what exists today might not exist in a few decades if we do things right.

And the more we kind of lock up these these vacant parcels immediately adjacent to these future um you know transit and uses that I I think send a signal to the market that this is a place for cars and and not a place for for transit for people for homes, um the more we I think undermine that that investment and make that investment more unlikely.

So I'll wait to do a uh a motion for um other comments from commissioners.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Lamos Brothers.

Chair, um, Vice Chair.

Um I was wondering, um, because my first thought, I live in the area, so my first thought was the Starbucks, the drive-thru.

It's literally across the street and actually closer to the light rail station, proposed light rail station.

Um, and uh it came up last year, I think.

New development.

Um you mentioned it was allowed by right because it's zoned commercial, um, while this lot is zoned shopping center, is that correct?

Uh yes, this site is shopping center, the Starbucks site is highway commercial.

Yeah, so the highway commercial allows uh those transit that the auto-oriented uses like a drive-thru restaurant by right.

Okay, so that cutoff essentially is that's the street that it cuts off, right?

So once you get across the street, different zones no longer allowed by right.

Okay, I think that's helpful to know, because I I am having trouble with this one too.

I mean, I live in the area, I know that it is a heavily uh auto, you know, centric um uh area.

I mean, both sides on the Walmart side on the target side, um, and in this corner right here.

Um so I'm looking forward to some more conversation, looking forward to hearing um if there's any public comments on the project.

Um with that, I'll yield my time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Reschke.

Thank you.

Um Stasha, would you mind resharing what you were saying?

RT, um, your earlier statement about RT, I just didn't quite catch that.

Um, regional transit, while they didn't comment in writing on this project, have been an active participant in procuring the necessary right-of-way and park and ride spaces in this particular area to support that transit station.

So there are park and ride spaces in the Notomas marketplace, and there are also some that are on or will be on the east side of the property where the Birchway apartments project is located.

And so that project the Birchway apartment project that was reviewed and recommended for approval by the commission earlier this year that project will construct those spaces and then make those spaces available to regional transit in the future when either the line comes in either bus rapid transit or the light rail line becomes active so regional transit was staff was actively involved in those conversations with that developer to make sure that we had the right language in place in order to have those park and right spaces available.

Got it okay and how many I think Zach you shared a slide showing the park and ride how many is there are so there's um 1.6 acres of land in the Natomas marketplace and then there are 165 park and ride spaces that were a part of that birchway apartments that Stacy was mentioning.

All right yeah um this is this feels like a a tricky um option to me and I think that you know the the kind of auto centric design of this whole part of town is is not what I would like to see in our in our city I'd like to see less automobiles and less catering to them I'm a person who uses transit often and also bikes and walks and this area is not a place I I ever go basically for for those reasons because it's it's hard to get around without a car.

And so it's it's hard and and I also think this this transit route is so important for our city like whether it's light rail or bus rapid transit we like having a connection to North and Thomas and to the airport to downtown would be would be so useful for everyone so I'd like to facilitate whatever I can to make that happen and to make this area more connective for people who who don't have cars.

But um right now yeah just seeing all of these drive throughs and parking lots and um especially hearing that even RT has planned 186 parking spaces really shows that RT is expecting people to drive to RT even and so that's you know making it even more car centric to to serve RT so um I'm pretty torn you know it's not a pattern of development I would like to see but also it it seems like um far from being able to to change this area.

Thank you.

Thank you commissioner other um oh commissioner moss who's weird yes I just have a quick question and I would love to see if we have some public comment here but um I did want to ask that you know obviously RT is not here um to potentially ask this question to them this is what what is out of curiosity do you know how many miles a track this is that's proposed or the green line um I'd have to look I don't have that on with me but I can look it up for you question for another day.

I'm I'm just curious if staff thinks again and I'm this is just a question that if adding another drive through would in some way impede RT's ability to get additional fund or get to get funding for this project, being that there is clearly you know auto-related uses surrounding obviously this entire you know proposed line, but but out of curiosity, I do is that even something that you could answer that because RT is not here, but is that even a consideration?

I can only tell you what I have heard them say in meetings, which is that it is important that local jurisdictions are making decisions that are supportive of transit when it comes to submitting applications and being successful, um, successfully being awarded money.

Um it's been something they've testified about here and previous projects here at commission to try to sway um uh decision maker one way or another.

So that's really at most what I can say.

I would also add that as we've heard and discussed many times at this commission, the vacant land in close proximity to transit lines, is very precious when especially when you're talking about station locations, and especially a site of um developable size where you can put either people who will live there and be able to easily conveniently access transit or have an employment use where they would be able to access um use the station to access it.

It's probably difficult to see, but in this picture, I also see a lot of employment, a lot of office buildings, and um two very sizable residential projects that will help to support this line, and so we'd like to continue with that momentum and see a transit supportive use of the site.

I yield my time for now.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner, I'm gonna guess too.

Yeah, thank you, uh vice chair.

I think uh Commissioner Mercias asked my questions because you know I I was just curious as we are uh, you know, there's a stipulation that we're looking at this through the lens of the 2035 general plan, which you know, by right they can apply for a C UP permit, and we'll discuss if we allow that.

My heart is in support of TOD development, you know, and in my area, there's a big TOD line, and we always want no drive-through walkability.

Uh I also grew up coming to this area a lot, and it is a very uh vehicle-centric area.

Um, my questions was just similar to what uh commissioner Reed uh had asked, and I think staff answered it, but um I'm just curious, you know.

Uh it this is the last parcel to be developed in this area, and uh it seems through the parking and um that RT is looking at it is heavily geared towards not residential, living they're using the RT, but cars come in and parking park and ride, right?

Um, and so it brings to mine, and this is where I probably want to hear from the public before I make my decisions is to really see if uh, you know, the support from the community, because I know the neighboring Natomas area um does have a say, and you do have a lot of big box stores here, and so uh there are letters of support from uh the businesses that supports what's proposed.

Um but we do really want to see what you know if this development will impede the development of that green line, right?

Well, will it hurt RT and its ability to secure funding or push towards this narrative?

Uh and so um that's something that you know I wish RT would weigh in and they did not.

And so uh us commissioners tonight will have to make that decision, and uh, you know, we would love to I'll yield my time and give it to the public.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh, are there any other commissioners that wish to speak?

Seeing none, um do we have members of the public that wish to speak?

Thank you, Chair.

I have three speakers slipped.

Our first speaker is Penelope Lempkin.

Hi, I don't know if you can.

Well, I want to have a please come up to the podium.

Thank you.

If I could just reminder, uh again, uh reminder that we have uh have uh three minutes to speak, and if since we have so many speakers, and that's we welcome that uh if you are going to be echoing or you know, repeating something that another speaker has has said, I think you could simply indicate that perhaps rather than going through it.

But in any event, we don't want to take anyone's ability away from them to speak.

So thank you.

Okay.

Hi, I'm finally lamb cane.

Um I like canes personally.

I always go to Canes, I love me some canes.

Um, but I think it's a good spot for teenagers to work, like it's a good environment for teenagers to work.

A lot of teenagers like going there, I don't know.

It's a very like it's a place that opens late, they're open very late.

You know, seems like going out late and whatever.

So yeah.

Um do I have to speak the whole time?

Um, yeah.

I just think it's a really good place, and I enjoy and I think a lot like a lot of people do.

So yeah.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Serena McGee.

Hi, I just wanted to uh come up here and uh put my support in for raising canes.

I think that it would be a great place for, you know, people to go to eat.

Um, you know, when they're shopping, I think it's a great place for like Penelope said, teenagers to go hang out, just a nice little hangout spot.

Um I think it would be uh a great idea.

I don't want to repeat too much.

Thank you for your comment.

And our last speaker is Margaret Smitty.

Oh, I think it's about 30.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Margaret Smitty.

I am actually opposed to this raising canes.

Not because I don't like it.

I am I am a fan of raising canes.

Actually, I'm from Ohio, so um it's a big big in that area.

It's where it started in Columbus, I believe.

But one of my questions that I had regarding like um this whole thing was is it possible for a restaurant to be put there that's not a drive-thru?

Wouldn't that promote um a more like using the the rail line and everything like that?

Was that a part of the the idea?

Because my argument I guess would be that you could put a restaurant there that is more um accessible to people who don't have automobiles and um at the same time is still a spot for teenagers to hang out, teenagers to work, people in general to work, and at the same time they would be able to get there using the rail line.

And again, as someone from Ohio, it would be awesome to have a waho house, but you know, just putting that out there, but uh not gonna speak for too long.

I know we have other agenda items.

Um so thank you for listening.

Thank you for your comment, Chair.

I have no more speaker slips.

Thank you, Clerk.

With that, um, I think uh we'll go back to the um uh commissioners.

Is there a motion?

Commissioner Lee?

Yeah, I just have some uh comments and a question for staff.

Um I just want to echo what a lot of my commissioners said.

Uh this is uh certainly a difficult one for me as well.

Uh you know, there's clearly community support for uh this project due to the letters that we see on our staff packet.

Um and I appreciate staff's uh commitment to TOD development as well.

Um just a quick question.

Uh, you know, I know LightRail is sort of a center of attention here.

Um, but I didn't hear this question could ask, or maybe it did, but um is there a sense of timeline um in terms of like what you know when light rail could potentially come through Truxo Road?

Like, do we know like could it be 20 years, or are we looking more like 50 years or a hundred years?

If it ever does happen, like I'm not sure if you guys have that sense, or if that's more archy question, but um I'm not sure that even they would know.

Good question.

I think it's uh best to RT because I know that there's a lot of parameters that go into that about funding, um, like the Truxel Bridge crossing as well.

What's the timeline of that the city?

So it's hard to give an estimate to you at this time.

Yeah, understood.

Um I guess that just sorts of sort of goes back to um a lot of the questions up here.

Is you know, like we don't have a set timeline of when RC is going to come if it ever will come.

And so I'm I'm putting that in the lens of you know, this project and what what the applicant is seeking here tonight.

Um so um, yeah, I'd like to hear more from my colleagues here.

Yield my time right here.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Commissioner Ortiz.

I I couldn't hear, but was there a motion made?

Okay, good, okay.

I was trying to.

Um this is really challenging.

Um, and I clearly, but it I think to it can be said of most of North Natomas is very transit oriented.

I mean, this is just the nature of how it was built out, and I and I do um I don't want to ignore RT's designation of the light rail station.

And I think much of the challenge is what is there now, and what has been allowed, whether it was under the you know, 2035 plan or should be under the 2040 plan, whether it's the principles or whether it's the objectives or policy versus the actual language.

So it's it's really challenging.

Um and I think it's even more challenging.

I think that key question is what if this body approved it and if it was you know firm not appealed and moved forward, would it jeopardize federal or state funding for the light rail station?

And that's the dilemma I have right here.

It's like we're operating in sort of this void of you know, whether or not um however speculative speculative or long-term the light rail station is would it hinder that or weaken our likelihood of having it done, whether it's local funding, whether it's state funding, federal I don't know about federal funding anymore, but so that's the challenge I have.

And and I know we have had light rail stations that are huge parking lots, like you know, Longview Driver, you know, there on Watt.

That's okay, you know, because that's a commuter.

I don't I don't know, and I don't know what the answer is to the young lady's question about gee, if it was a walk-in restaurant, would it be consistent and and not impede our TOD objectives and goals?

And I really am challenged that RT has not weighed in.

Um I'm just gonna hypothetically ask, and I I at the risk of having everybody here troubled, and I will totally respect if people don't want to do this.

Is it possible to put this item over and ask RT to weigh in on this?

Is that something that we could do?

And if not, that's okay as well.

I think if I had to vote today, you know, I'm torn, but I just think the absence of regional transit saying, you know, we want it we we agree with the city that it's inconsistent with the TOD plans and may jeopardize our funding, or if they say, you know, we don't care, we don't believe either way, we would still have to be back where we are now, but it's just challenging that RT has not weighed in.

Just my thought.

I'm not making a motion, I'm not making a suggestion.

I'm just throwing that out there, thinking out loud.

But it is a tough tough thing when you look at all of the it's an auto-centric part of our city, and trying to put this in now with RT being silent, is difficult for me.

All right, that those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Um I yield my time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner, is it Lenosa?

Thank you.

Um, and um thank you for those comments, Commissioner Ortiz.

I um I feel similar sentiments.

I'm I'm torn on the project.

I think the funding question is a big one that could be helpful in making a final decision.

And I appreciate the public comments, especially about the um, you know, from folks that are in support of the project.

Um my first job was uh working at a drive-thru, right?

It was it was Jack in a box, it wasn't raising case, but um, but I I appreciate that.

You know, there is opportunities for employment as well that are that are helpful.

Um, but also um when I'm thinking of this project, um I'm trying to be mindful of some of the community comments and the businesses that we've heard from.

Um and um I was at the at an Atomus uh North Potomas coalition meeting last night, and they were talking about looking for additional um development right in the Thomas, and I'm supporting projects like this, and so it's something that the community seems to be in support of and for me I'm I'm particularly torn because there is kind of competing zones here, right?

The highway commercial that is directly across the street that has allowed for drive-throughs to go up around this area, um, and then you know, one street over it's no longer allowed, um, even though the entire area is kind of built in support of um of cars.

So um, so I'm I'm torn.

I um it would be difficult to make a decision, um, particularly without um information about whether or not this would impact future funding for a light row project.

So with that, I uh oh before that, I don't yield my time yet.

Um I I did have questions, but I don't know that we were gonna get down to this level of um conversation, but you know, I did have questions about the hours of operation as well.

Um, and actually that does bring me to a question to the applicant, um representative of the applicant.

There was um discussion about what you know why don't we just do a restaurant without a drive-thru?

Um what would that um look like for proposing a raising canes that does not include a drive-thru?

How does that impact uh the project directly?

Unfortunately, it would preclude development of the project, it just can't function without it.

The design, the financial feasibility of it, everything's predicated upon having that ability to have the convenience for the community of the drive-through.

Thank you for that.

I think that's that's helpful to know.

Um I am also curious administratively for this project for the city.

If this were to go to a vote tonight, and um the commission supports denial of the project, um, what are potential next steps for the applicant or for the project if they wanted to maybe appeal the decision here?

Uh yes, the if so if y'all if you support staff's uh recommendation and the project is denied, there's still a 10-day appeal period where the applicant or anyone in the public may submit an appeal on the project, which would then elevate it to the city council for final decision.

That I'm I uh before I give my yield my time, I would also just say again, I I think it's an interesting proposal, interesting thought to think about if we can tie up that funding question from RT.

Thank you, Commissioner Caden.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

And you know, um, I don't want to draw too many conclusions from this, but just to throw it out there, I'm I'm looking at a letter here that um RT sent the city a few years ago now, um, in 2020.

Um, but it was a for a project um along Stockton Boulevard.

To me, it's like somewhat of an analogous situation in the sense that it's a pretty auto-oriented part of the city.

Um, and there was sort of an auto-oriented proposal there, and they said Stockton Boulevard has been determined a high transit uh ridership corridor is currently being planned for uh bus rapid transit.

Although this project does not front Stockton Boulevard, the nearest bus stop is located less than a fourth of a mile, therefore SAC RT would like to see more walkable dense development within such close proximity to this corridor, supporting this vision for Stockton Boulevard is critical to its success.

That's a high transit ridership corridor.

I don't know.

I to me that kind of s signifies how RT approaches these things.

I agree it would be very nice to have RT um provide a letter on this, but I think I I feel like I have a sense of how they approach these things.

Just wanted to mention that.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any other commissioner comments?

I would like to comment on the issue.

Coming from having lived in Boston and New York City, I'm very transit oriented.

I mean, there I lived for four years in Boston without owning a car.

It was very easy to do.

Public transport transportation was everywhere.

Um I'm very torn on this one uh and challenged.

I think as has been mentioned, it's no question that this is a auto-oriented, like it or not, it's an auto-oriented area.

And I don't see that changing uh soon.

I mean, and the kind of use that the light rail station is going to provide here.

I'm I'm just not sure.

People aren't going to be going to Home Depot to buy lumber and bringing it back on light rail, um, larger parcels, pieces from Walmart, or you know, any so it's not exactly the neighborhood kind of a thing that people would just come out of the house, jump on light rail and go to work.

Uh so it's a different, it's it's a very unique area, and that and that's probably what's making it so challenging to us here.

Um when I moved here from Los Angeles in 1994, so about 31 years ago.

Um, I heard people talking about the potential you know light rail going to the airport.

That's great because uh again, the two cities of New York and Boston where I live, you absolutely could take light rail to the airport, and it's great, it's really a nice way to do it.

Um that was 31 years ago, it hasn't changed at all since then.

Uh and I think the challenge is not that we shouldn't allow it to happen eventually, but um the the challenge of building across the river, the cost of a uh a bridge there, and then the cost of the line itself up to the airport, I just wonder about the viability.

It probably can happen at some point, but it's not gonna be in the near future.

Um, but the the big thing I think I wonder about is that there are already because of the timing of the uh the center marketplace that was there, there are already a number of drive-through restaurants much closer.

In fact, across the street from the potential in and out, uh, doesn't get much more auto-oriented than that, that are already there.

And I'm I'm not quite seeing the negative impact of this project on the you know uh the the ridership of light rail given the other uh drive-throughs that are already there, and I don't see them going away anytime soon.

I'm sure they're very profitable, and I don't see the center changing anytime soon.

I'm a guessing it's a very strong tax-generating uh uh, you know, uh area for the city uh of Sacramento.

Uh, a lot of great stores, big boxes, you know, they're not your walkable midtown kind of a thing, but they provide a they provide a need and a use.

Um so again, uh without the with the other uh drive-throughs already there, much closer.

I'm having a hard time seeing a negative impact of this one on a light rail station that would be there.

Um we've got housing, which is great, you know, in the area that we've we've approved as a commission.

Two two sites here in the last couple of years or less than that.

Um but I'm still wrestling with I I can't find myself seeing you know a negative impact on this project going in uh on the overall area.

If if this were anything other than Notomas Marketplace or anything, you know, closer to midtown.

I think Stockton Boulevard, I think is another that's a that's a a boulevard uh yeah that I think is prone for future development.

I don't think the kind of development that we hope to see on Stockton Boulevard, and I hope to see on Del Paso uh as well happening here at Natomas Marketplace.

Um given all of that and the amount of support that we've seen and heard and read from the community.

Uh I think one uh uh person in uh uh opposition to it.

Other than that, a lot a lot of support for the project.

Um, I'm finding myself feeling that this is a unique situation that I could support the use uh at this location.

So uh with that.

Uh I look forward to other comments.

Uh Commissioner Macius Reed.

Thank you.

Um, so I just wanted to mention, I mean, I've been on the commission now for a while and went through, you know, the conversations and the approval of our general plan or 2040 general plan, and you know, and I'm very clear on the goals that we set for ourselves as a city, uh, which is and we have determined very clearly in the general plan that we are not going to be supporting auto-centric uses around our proposed and existing uh transit stations, and I am very clear on that, and I think this obviously is a is a somewhat different circumstance because we are looking at under the guise of the 2035.

Um with that, I think the big issue I'm having here is for me, does approving this project impede RT's ability to get funding for future development of this station.

I think that's a really big unanswered question for me because for me it's like if bringing in this project is going to stop the ability for this light roll to come in.

I mean, I I think that's a big deal.

You know, I I look at on the staff report here on page seven the staff under staff response.

You know, the project is in consist the project is inconsistent with this policy in the North and Thomas Community Plan, in that the project proposes an auto-centric use, right?

Within a quarter of a future light rail stop, which does not support the long-term economic viability of transit service.

Now it's specifically talking about transit service.

And to me, I'm not sure that I agree with that, because if that project coming in didn't support it, then every other existing drive-through restaurant that's there right now would also not support it.

So I'm I'm again it's just I'm very torn, and I think that's why everybody here on the commission is very torn.

So I think this is a very this is very hard.

So that's why that question that still I think is is, you know, really hard and difficult for me, is you know, does the the funding, the funding of the future light?

Well, that for me is a big issue here.

And you know, I want to also mention here that we have, I think there's a map.

I don't know if it's the map that was up here, but um, it mentions the two park and ride locations.

And again, I I know we've said at nauseum that this is an auto-centric neighbor community, right?

Not a not a corridor, not a street, not a neighborhood, but but really a community.

Um, and I understand that you know, our goal is to bring more transit, and you know, I and in my opinion, I think Lynn Lindsey's letter that she provided, you know, she was on the commission really longer than I have been on the commission, and she has also she had for her tenure on the commission really struggled with these types of projects because as someone who lived in North Natomas, you know, she had grappled with again her community coming out in droves and saying we want these projects, we want to be able to have businesses come in to support our community and our neighborhood, and we keep talking about this proposed project, and I think again we don't know what that's going to look like.

But on the other end, I understand Commissioner Caden and staff's rationale of, you know, we we do have RT here working on this, right?

They do already have proposed park and ride locations approved, and and this is something that they're working on.

I think this is why this is really hard to make a decision tonight.

Um, but I will say that, you know, I'm gonna kind of make a mention here that even with park and ride spaces, I mean, it's sort of contradictory to what RT is saying here.

They're saying ride right ride transit, but drive your car over to the park and ride and park to get onto the transit line.

So, you know, I think, and I've mentioned this on the commission before.

We've also, as a city, really encouraged, you know, electric, you know, we've we've encouraged incentives for electric vehicle ridership.

We've encouraged develop um developers um to build and include um EV charging stations at gas stations and at the development sites, um, but none of that gets vehicles off the road, and so there still needs to be parking and services for those vehicles that are still there, and I think that still needs to be a consideration in the things that we approve.

We have, you know, and I was a proponent of that the some of the policy, the the parking, you know, getting rid of parking minimums and instituting parking maximums, which we did at the general plan update, and I was a huge proponent of that, and we did that.

Um, but again, I just think we need to be mindful of the fact that you know those goals are not getting vehicles off the road.

So we really need to understand in a neighborhood that is not downtown Midtown, that is not Oak Park, that is not higher density, um, and you know, yes, Commissioner Caden, I you know, I work on a commercial corridor that is heavily traversed um and not as wide as Stockton Boulevard, and we are currently undergoing a complete street project right now, but I wouldn't even compare it to North Notomas because North and Thomas was built out as a huge suburban sprawled neighborhood, and you know, those streets are you know 12 car lanes wide.

Um so I it's just really really hard to compare them.

And so again, I'm gonna yield my time because I think I talked a little too long, but I just wanted to throw those comments out there.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Ortiz, okay.

This is I'm just gonna this will be my last comment.

There's no limit, Commissioner.

No, but this is the I think I'm trying to reconcile this.

It's a tough one.

So we've talked a lot about the two general plans, but um, this is also contrary to the North Notomas community plan, and we haven't talked a lot about that.

So perhaps you can give me just sort of a quick highlights and bullets, what elements are contrary to that, and but I also want to sort of address um before you do that.

Uh this, yes, this is a very auto-centric area, and yes, there's a lot of things that came in before that were drive-throughs, et cetera.

Um, but I think the key here is would something more appropriate with transit-oriented development on this site enhance walkability, cycling, um, you know, have more density, whether it's I don't know if that parcel we someday envision, gee, there could be some housing there.

I mean, we we can never speculate about what will or will not come in if this project isn't approved, but I do think the concept of even if it's at the 12th hour after everything else is you know auto-centric, that we could indeed, you know, have something, whether it's an small office, but more density, more walkability, more biking, and it's pretty treacherous.

Even I mean, I ride my bike periodically.

Um, I would never want to drive ride a bike over there, it's just quite frightening, it's frightening.

But I think the concept of TOD, is there a lost opportunity to at least strive for more density and more walkability?

And might there be um something more appropriate, even if it's a last breath before we we see a um you know light rail station in there, that's I think the idea.

These are there are plans for a reason.

So maybe something different would happen if this project did not go forward.

But if you could just highlight the elements of the North Natomas community plan that also supports the staff recommendations, I would like a refresher on that.

Yes, uh good question.

So with the North and Thomas Community Plans, this is the one that was a part of the uh 2035 general plan, and then it it talks about what it envisions for this area, and it talks about how it wants to have a well-integrated mixture of residential employment, commercial, and civic uses, interdependent on quality transit service and radical network of connections linking it all together, and then it talks about more when you get into the policies of this plan where it talks about density near transit, that it wants, you know, because of the interdependence of the community on transit and the desire to promote transit ridership, the city shall allow the residential lands within the quarter mile of the light rail station or bus or bus transit center to exceed the maximum density range.

Then it goes into talking about phasing the transit system and talks about what they want to see there and how we get there.

Um it also discusses the in this 20 uh 35 North Detomas community plan.

It shows this green line and it shows these stations and it talks about these stations, and so because it talks about these stations, and we look at this North Potomas community plan and what they're envisioning, what they're wanting to do, communities seeking to be interdependent on transit with high density residential uses and intense employment generators near transit to provide riders for the light rail stations and bus transit centers.

So it's really clear what they're saying to us.

They're like we want the transit in this, we want this green line.

How do we get there?

This is how we vision our community.

So when we're viewing this, we look at that, and then we also look at the policies and the goals of the general plan, and we see there's a lot of overline, it overlaps a lot.

We talk about you know the same things about having higher density and employment generating uses near transit.

It talks about the importance of you know the transit the transit network.

So when we looked at this North Potomac's community plan, you know, this is what we see aligning with it.

Thank you for that, and I yield my time truly this time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Neibel.

Can I have the aerial put back up, please?

The the aerial foregrowth that we had before.

Thank you.

I have the utmost respect for stuff right off the bat.

And I think it's always very difficult for the commission to the commission in general is very deferential for stuff because staff is 99.

Let's go 100% correct.

What the hell?

Um, but I don't know.

I just look at this aerial photograph here.

And if you look at everything to the west of Truxel, to the west of Truxel, there's some residential, but to the east, there's just no residential.

So I look at this thing and I look at where it says project site right there, and I don't understand why apartment buildings were being built here.

Everything else in this area is commercial, and it it just seems to me that it's just a sea of black top here, and someday they're going to put a parking ride across the street, and it's going to be more black top.

Everything is just black top, and it's because it's just for the automobile.

I don't think it's gonna make a big difference if there's a drive-thru here.

It seems pretty consistent with everything else that been that's been designed in the and built in the neighborhood.

And um RTs had lots of opportunities to um to um to comment, and they haven't.

And I've never known RT not to comment when given the opportunity.

So I think this is so I think maybe if we just look at what what our options are, I would like to make a motion to uh approve the project.

However, if the commission, if I don't get a second, or if I don't get a vote in approval of it, then it would go back out, and the motion could be made to um uphold staff's recommendation and it wouldn't be moved forward.

And then the applicant would file an appeal and it would go to city council.

So I think it's our job as a commission to make a decision one way or the other and move it forward.

I don't really think so.

I'm I'm willing to make a motion to um I'm gonna ask staff.

How do I make a motion to deny deny staff?

So if you want to approve the project tonight, you don't have everything in front of you in order to do that.

We would need to re-notice the project in order to identify a sequent determination and provide you with the conditions of approval for the project.

So you would make a motion to uh direct staff to return with findings of fact for approval, which you'll provide to us tonight, and then we would reschedule the item for a future date as soon as possible.

Um, a pre-project.

Okay, so then we would make that motion.

I would make that motion if anybody there's a second.

Well, there is a motion uh on the table.

Um I see we have some more speakers here before we ask for a second on that on that motion.

Um I'm reminded um listening to all of this and and looking at the uh the the map uh here.

Um a few years back, I think some of my uh colleagues here may recall that Commissioner Lindsay and I were uh uh assigned to a uh to join an ad hoc committee uh to discuss parking before we learned that ad hoc committees were no longer legal for commissioners to be involved in.

Um but I think she and I, you know, I live in district two Wood Lake area.

Uh she lives at Notomas.

Um we were certainly going to be, you know, espousing the fact that the one size doesn't fit all here.

Notomas is very different than midtown than other parts of the city.

Uh and relative to parking uh standards, minimum parking standards, you know, maximum parking stands might not be appropriate in Notomas as they would be in Midtown.

And uh we unfortunately never had a chance to go through that that uh that that uh discussion.

That said, though, I I again I keep looking at this site and the uniqueness of it.

Uh and that's probably positive and negative, but the uniqueness of this particular site uh and its impact on light rail.

I think if we look further south uh uh south of uh I-80, through South Natomas, clearly that's that's good light rail potential.

People, a lot of people living there taking light rail into the city or wherever they may be working north of here as we go up trucks all again.

A lot of housing, I think they're they're appropriate stations and stops along there too that would uh serve people in the way that I think light rail is intended to uh to serve.

I look at this uh center and I think a station here is doesn't fit the same mold as it would anywhere else.

Um again, what what do you take the high, honey?

I'm taking light rail down to Walmart kind of a thing, you know.

I mean, yes, people will do it, but uh it's it's not the the normal kind of a destination that a light rail station would take one to.

That said, I again as I said earlier, I I'm torn, but I personally don't think I think the comment about hearing uh uh light rails uh uh SAC RT's impact you know uh position on the funding is probably pretty important here um aside from that I'm I'm having a hard time seeing what that one additional what this project how it would negate the usefulness of light rail through this area uh the ridership or anything or anything else here so um again uh I look for we have a motion on the floor are there any other commissioners that wish to speak or is there anyone that wants to make a second or an alternate motion uh commissioner blunt.

Thank you.

So uh staff thank you for your work on this um I appreciate everyone's patience on this I I too am torn um I spend a lot of time in this area because I don't I work very close to this location and um you know I not a lot of lump lunch options in this area so and it you know it is it's I don't see a lot of pedestrians and I definitely don't see a lot of people riding bicycles.

I so I think I would be more torn about this uh if this were a project where I knew that area standard uh you know labor was being applied right if if I knew that the workers who were going to be working on this job were going to be getting paid um a living wage then I would be a lot more I would be struggling a lot more um that's not gonna be the case so um that's out uh but the other thing that about this location that I'm really kind of I don't know the it's the whole like you the only way to get into this thing is with right turns because there's no it just it seems like it's going to turn into a bit of a bottleneck and it's going to cause like a lot of traffic issues um like there the only way that again to like most of the the traffic from the freeway is going to be coming up truck soul and then right onto gateway.

So then those people aren't going to necessarily be able to take a left into the location though they would have to go up and then to the next light and then hopefully make a U-turn um so I yeah that that whole aspect of it is just a bummer you know um and I'm just kind of curious like why you would go for that uh especially if it's going to be specifically a drive through sort of situation um at the same time again not a lot of lunch options in the area so uh you know and I do I like the whole like having more jobs and I think that it would be um you know there's there's a lot of businesses that are going out of out of business in that area there was uh the the Logan's steakhouse was one of the options and now that's boarded up you know and I I see a lot of other uh of these businesses just man they are they're they're struggling they're they're trying to hold on they're really trying to hold on and it's um it's tough um so the idea of like you know shooting this down and then and then what message does that send to other you know uh restaurants that are looking to open up in the area um so I'm not not too keen on that um but yeah I don't this this is all this is all why I'm not uh you know jumping at the the opportunity to the second a motion or make a motion of my own so um I yield my time want to comment or is there a second for the motion or a new motion?

Seeing none, I will second the motion that's been proposed by Commissioner Nybo.

Could I ask um what we will need uh if in order to uh if this motion passes or prior to you taking a vote, we would like an articulation of what the findings of fact would be in support so that when we would come back we could have those written up for you.

Commissioner Naibo, do you want to comment on that?

Stacia.

What are my findings of facts, Stacia?

You tell me.

I don't know.

How was what would I have to do for the finding of facts on this?

We've identified two findings of fact that we felt that there was not policy support for.

They're articulated in the record of decision.

So if you wanted to you could take a look at those, it was consistency with the general plan and any applicable community plans.

And the second one was the location being inappropriate for the use.

The first one is the proposed for the CUP, it's the one that needs to be made is the proposed use and its operating characteristics are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan or transit village plan.

And the proposed use is situated on a parcel that is physically suitable in terms of location, size, topography, and access, and that is adequately served by public services and utilities.

And then that general plan one also applies to the site plan and design review.

And so it's the design of the project meets the general plan.

So those would be my findings of fact.

That you would have to respond to and make yes.

Provide us with some rationale for why the project meets the general plan and community plan goal and vision and why the location is appropriate.

Okay.

So well, I think I'm sorry, I'm not really prepared to answer this question.

Um, can I ask the applicant to come up and make the findings for me?

Chair Chase.

Would that be okay?

Uh, yes, and and after that, I think I've it's been suggested that we take a short break as well.

Before the vote, perhaps a yes, before the vote, I think.

Sure.

I think that thank you for the opportunity to return and speak to this.

Um I think, uh, Commissioner Naibo, that staff focused on things that maybe didn't work well with the project from a general plan perspective.

However, there's so many that do from job creation to facilitating mixed use development to uh economic development.

The list goes on.

There are tons of uh of policies that talk about things like that that I think would be entirely appropriate for basing your findings of approval on.

Okay.

Can you be more specific, please?

I think that you could base it on job.

Job creation job creation.

You said you said there were lots of others.

Job creation, economic development.

Yep.

Mixed use development facilitates mixed use by offering uh uh a business uh dining option in an area served by retail uh with industrial uses and residential uses.

Um I think that you could add that it is um also in keeping with the nature of this uh it's consistent with the general plan in the sense that the general plan contemplated such a use.

It's consistent with the underlying zoning, the shopping center zone that was uh put on this property.

I don't know how many you need necessarily.

I think that that's I think it supports the uh the mobility element by providing opportunities for those with uh mobility issues to have access to food.

I think it provides an opportunity for essential workers to be able to get uh access to food options, particularly uh graveyard shift overnight.

A lot of businesses around here um have you know graveyard shifts, etc folks do not have uh that's why Rayleigh's was so supportive um and so I think that you know that gives you probably um ample um findings um necessary thank you all right so this is a little peculiar for me then now to repeat this back to you however findings would be the job creation aspect of it economic development mixed use um and then uh consistent with the underlining zoning and general plan of the 2035 so staff uh station is that sufficient for a motion from commissioner Ibo if if those are the commission's findings yes thank you thank you commissioner um I see we have a few more that like to speak uh commissioner blunt is that you from before Commissioner Rushke oh thank you um yeah well I just I guess I wanted to add um that you know this the the findings in the staff report talk a lot about the quarter mile distance and um a quarter mile distance in this area is gonna feel a lot longer to bike or walk than in you know midtown or or somewhere more pleasant to do those activities and so I think you know the the general plan has to pick a number but what if it's you know it there was another project before the commission that wanted to downso a multifamily parcel recently and um one of the main reasons I didn't vote for that was because it's right next to a transit station and I was proposing adding like 60 parking places for cars or 120 or something and um so I think it's really important to protect our transit um and if there's an opportunity to get like high density housing or office work here that would be great but I don't know that that's gonna happen on this parcel and I don't I think the quarter mile you know if there was a some some sort of project you know 0.35 miles from transit and it was the transit stop we were talking about at the last one I think you know that would be a reason to consider protecting that.

But even though this one is closer it's um it doesn't seem like it's just gonna impede the light rail's functionality because if anyone from that housing to the west wants to come there they wouldn't even walk by this parcel they would walk by other drive-throughs but not by this parcel you know if someone from the housing it would be probably a 20 minute walk to get there or maybe like you know a few minute bike ride um and they wouldn't necessarily go by this parcel so I I don't know if that helps with the finding of fact but just that the the quarter mile distance doesn't seem to be the most important thing because of the unique kind of characteristics of this area.

Um sorry and I guess also just I think this has been mentioned but just that RT is expecting you know all of these cars to drive here 165 spaces for cars is sort of a you know if even RT is focusing on making this an autocentric area it feels hard to deny you know an autocentric small property business.

Thank you anything else commissioner yeah okay thank you um commissioner caden.

Yeah, Stasha, can you can you just um I don't think I totally understood earlier um what happens next based on this motion?

So it is is this motion actually able to approve the project and send it along to council, or were you saying that it needs to then come there's a step where it needs to come back to this this body or right?

It needs to come back to this body for the final vote, and then it would not go to council after that point unless someone appealed.

I see.

I see it only goes to council on appeal.

Okay, um, would it be possible as uh I don't know if this needs to be a friendly amendment or if this is just you know something that you can do, but um there was a lot of conversation tonight about you know what would RT, how would how does RT feel about this?

If it's coming back to this body anyway, would it be possible for staff to reach out to RT and say it's really important for us to kind of hear how you feel about this project and to request a letter?

Yes, we will do that.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Neibel.

Um, two things.

Firstly, uh Commissioner Caden, that's a really good idea.

I like that idea.

Thank you.

And then also I just wanted to state that um if this was in midtown, an acre and a half, uh, we'd be fighting.

I mean, it wouldn't be, it wouldn't even be a fight, it'd be done.

And that's my thought on it.

So in some place in a more urban environment, I would not be so um I hate to use a word cavalier about this, but so that's my thought process.

I just wanted to share that.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh Commission, we we have a um a motion on the table.

Did we have a second?

I don't recall.

Oh, I that's fair.

Thank you.

Um not used to sitting here.

Um I'm sorry, Commissioner is that Lama Satara?

Thank you, uh Vice Chair.

Sorry, last last piece.

I don't know if this is helpful for the findings of facts, but maybe try to call out a specific policy.

ED 1.1.10 development strategy, the city shall maintain and implement the economic development strategy to identify parties.

Oh, if it's helpful for the findings of fact, um, to call out a specific policy, um, I think one that may be applicable is um ed economic development uh one point one point one um economic development strategy that the city shall maintain and implement the economic development strategy to identify priorities, support prosperity, and improve long-term fiscal competitive um competitiveness.

Um I think um we're um looking, and this is comments from the community in Norfolk Thomas looking to entice um uh more businesses to come into the area, and so I think that this might align with what that policy.

Um also um to I think uh Commissioner uh Caden's comment if it does, you know, if this motion does pass and it does come back to the commission to the commission for a vote on the actual project.

Um I I would be open to that because I think there are still some questions and some comments that the commission would have on the design um and the business uh proposed.

So um uh particularly the hours of operations, um, and I know um I was particularly interested in the divide between the um the residential parcel departments to the left and this um uh restaurant.

Um from what I understand there's there's a fence proposed.

I don't know what type of fence, I don't know what a standard fence would look like, um whether it'd be a masonry divide, uh there's uh you know certain sound barriers.

I'm not sure, but I I'd like to learn more if if we get to that point.

So with that, I I yield my time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um any other commissioners?

Listening none.

Um, oh, sorry.

Commissioner.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chase.

Um just to add more language to the directions from um the uh commission.

Uh we are looking at this project through the lens of the 2035 general plan, correct?

Okay, so that plan does allow for us to ask the commission to look at this project with the CUP to approve a drive-thru in the transit-oriented development zone, correct?

For the North Thomas General Plan, does the language align more with the 2040 plan or 2035 plan where it says it prohibits drive-through, or it says it has language that allows it to with the design?

Uh the 2040 that is the one with the strict prohibit.

The 2035 is more softer language of discourage, and it doesn't have a specific like quarter mile.

It talks about it's more um providing direction of just you know, we discourage this, what we want to see around transit.

Okay, and then what about the North Months General Plan?

Does it discourage or does it flat out deny drive-through as well?

So the for the North uh the for the community plan, um, you know, we called out the policies that we found relevant about um related to the project.

Um, it does not just say prohibit in there, okay.

So I I think you know there's opportunity for staff to look at both language and you know, see what the well the commission see what uh the proposal and uh uh aspects of because we are looking not from the lens of the 2040 plan but 2035 and to looking at language that allows uh this project to move forward uh with the recommendation and so I would want to have maybe uh Commissioner Naibo add that in for staff to make that research and maybe to say that we are looking at the lens of the 2035 plan and not 2040 for this project specifically because it's it's not exempt, but you know, it has that condition.

I mean, moving forward.

If we're looking at this through the 2040 plan, I would just you know the the the policy is what it is, you know, it's a flat out denial, but since it's 2035, then give us leeway to really look at this at another angle.

Is that doable?

Does that make sense?

I think that you've provided the commission has provided us with probably what would be considered adequate findings.

We have reviewed the community plan and and determined that it's not consistent.

So for us to go back and re-review it and come up with a different um conclusion.

I don't think we we would.

Okay.

I'm I'm fine with that.

Yeah.

One last chance.

This is a procedural question.

I'm just kidding, Commissioner.

I want to make sure I understand procedurally.

The motion by um Commissioner Naibo is essentially to send it back with a commission's new findings of fact.

It's essentially an amendment to this, it will then come back to us for a vote, and and including the friendly amendment to get uh some sort of guidance from RT.

It will come back to us uh with those new findings of fact because we have to override your findings of fact basically in order to and then I think the question on some design elements uh would still be an option when that comes back to us with the new findings of fact.

So procedurally it'll come back, new findings of fact, ability to deal with some of the design elements, um, and then it would so it'll be a full hearing or another full hearing, okay.

I just want to make sure what we were voting on procedurally.

Again, we have to have have the record reflect findings of fact different than what the staff report was, and I'll give the opportunity to address some of those design elements, and commissioners will still have the opportunity to vote yay or nay.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I need that clarification, Commissioner.

Um before we uh call for a vote, Stacia.

Um could we could you try to restate the case?

Yeah, um the uh motion as it's been stated and modified, right?

So um the motion would be to direct staff to come bring the project back with findings for approval uh at a future meeting date, which we'll schedule as soon as possible and um with the request that we reach out to regional transit staff and ask that they um either that they weigh in on the project either in writing or if they want to attend, we'll let them know.

Thank you.

We have a motion, a second, and uh I think it's time for a vote.

Could you call a vote?

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Lee?

I commissioner Tau?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo.

Aye.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Masas Reed.

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt.

Aye.

Commissioner Rishke.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you, everyone.

Um just a quick comment too.

If I could.

As a former staff member of the city, I have to commend everyone.

I know there's a lot of work went into this and appreciate what you've done.

And it's rare, I think, that we go against or deny staff's recommendations.

Happens occasionally, but uh don't take it personally.

Okay.

Thank you all.

We will now move on to item number four.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh let's take a 10-minute 10-minute break.

Sorry.

Thank you, Clerk.

Um, we'll now proceed with item four on the agenda.

Uh which is the uh B-shine car wash and new multi-unit dwellings.

Uh before we begin, are there any disclosures or recusals for this item from Commissioners?

Uh Commissioner Neibel.

I met with the um I had a short meeting with the applicant representative, and we discussed the project.

Everything's consistent with the staff report.

Thank you.

Since I put my name, I also had a uh meeting with the applicant consistent with the staff report.

Commissioner Rushke.

I had a meeting with the applicant consistent with the staff report.

Any other disclosures?

All right, thank you.

Good evening, Chair and members of the planning design commission.

I am Danny Abbas and the planner for this project.

Uh it is a request to rezone a 0.36 acre parcel from the C1 to the C2 zone uh to relocate and expand a legal non-conforming uh car wash and oil change facility, uh, and to construct 48 new apartment units at Stockton Boulevard immediately south of Diaz Avenue.

The request requires a planning design commission recommendation to city council.

The necessary project entitlements include a rezone, conditional use permit, site plan and design review, and a tree permit.

Staff finds uh that the proposal aligns with general planned land use policies related to efficient parcel utilization, a compact urban footprint, a balance of uses, and increased housing near transit service, and recommends that the commission forward a recommendation of project approval to city council.

Uh that concludes the presentation.

Uh both staff and the applicant can be available for any questions.

Thank you.

Does the applicant have a any presentation?

I don't believe so, but let me double check.

Oh, yes.

Okay, thank you, Chair Chase.

Uh members of the commission, Brian Holloway, Holloway Land Company representing the applicant.

Um you have a handout on your dais, uh just a little summary of the project and some of the exhibits and most importantly, some of the benefits the project will bring to the neighborhood.

We're very excited to bring this mixed-use project to Stockton Boulevard.

Um it brings more business, it brings more residential to uh a portion of the boulevard that needs some some more activity.

Um the project eliminates a long-standing very unsightly junkyard, replaces an older limited capacity car wash with a new modern drive-thru, and uh more importantly, it even brings much needed housing to Stockton Boulevard.

Uh, that is in a in a particularly important location.

So I've read the staff report, and we agree with the conditions and the findings, and we look forward to any questions you may have and your deliberations.

Thank you.

Um are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

Um I have a speaker slip from Frank Louie.

Did you still want to speak on this item?

Well, good evening, commissioners.

Uh it's been a long time since I've been to the planning commission.

I'm always at the council meeting, but I I like to come here more often to support projects.

So again, uh my name is Frank Louie.

I am the executive director for the Stockton Boulevard Partnership.

We are a business property improvement district, and I'm also a former uh business, I'm still a business owner and a property owner on Stockton Boulevard for well over 35 years.

And as you can tell, you know, Stockton Boulevard is going through a major transformation, and it's all very positive.

Uh uh 2017 when Aggie Square was first proposed, that was kind of like the catalyst to to kind of redevelop a lot of our uh vacant lots, and a lot of those lots now have been uh come into fruition.

You know, we have the Mercy Housing to 200 unit housing project at 4995 Stockton Boulevard.

That was the old John's furniture site, uh, across the street from the Fruit Ridge Shopping Center.

We've got uh the San Juan uh Motel site that's uh also uh re reimagined for uh housing as well, and the service that uh uh B Shine Car Wash is gonna bring, it's a added it's a really uh needed service on Stockton Boulevard.

You know, we've got all the uh the fine restaurants uh the strong retail base now that have services like this along with Dutch Brothers and Starbucks.

You know, we we really got a complimental um uh service uh uh that really services our residents so I urge the commission to strongly support this project and look forward to you know being here on the on the commission for additional projects that uh we want to improve the economic viability of Stockton Boulevard.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Chair, I have no more speaker slips.

All right, thank you.

Um so I meant to ask earlier, uh, are there any questions of commissioners for either staff or the applicant?

Commissioner Ortiz.

Oh uh I was no questions.

I was actually gonna make a motion.

I don't and I can withhold it.

There are questions from my colleagues.

I jumped the gun on it.

Okay, I'll make the motion to accept the item.

Thank you.

We have a motion.

Um is there a second?

Uh, Commissioner Hernandez, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, thank you for the motion.

I would like to second and also just say thank you to staff and the applicant and Stockton Boulevard Partnership for coming forward on this.

Um, this is a really challenging area, and to see both business and housing coming to Stockton Boulevard is just very um exciting and refreshing uh and totally agree that this uh that this helps with the transformation and the vision that we see for the future of Stockton Boulevard.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Caden, did you have a comment or are we?

No, didn't all right.

We have a uh a motion in a second.

Um other comments from Commissioner before we take a vote.

Clerk?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute Commissioner Lee, Commissioner Tao.

Aye, Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo.

Aye, Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez, aye, commissioner Massas Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye, Commissioner Rishke.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent, and Vice Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you.

And now on to the discussion calendar.

Uh we'll move to item number five, uh, which is the overview of the river district specific plan update.

Is there a staff presentation?

All right, uh, good evening.

I am Alexi Wardell, associate Planner and the project manager for the River District Specific Plan Update.

Tonight I'll be providing an overview of the process to update the 2011 River District Specific Plan and introduce you to the plan's draft vision and guiding principles, and I will leave plenty of time for any questions and feedback that you might have.

The River District is an approximately 800-acre area located north of downtown in the rail yards at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers, as you'll see here.

The area circled in red highlights a portion of the Blue Diamond Campus that we are proposing to include within the River District specific plan area and special planning district.

The planning process kicked off in 2024 with an existing conditions analysis and over 30 careholder interviews.

More recently, we have met with many of these same careholders to confirm the feedback we had initially collected, as well as to present to them the draft vision and guiding principles.

We are also hosting an online public workshop to inform the community about the process and allow them to provide input on these same elements.

And we anticipate having a draft specific plan in the spring of next year with public hearings for adoption beginning in late 2026.

The current River District Specific Plan was adopted in 2011 and includes street network strategy, land regulation, land use and development standards, policy guidance across multiple topics, planned infrastructure to support development, and an impact fee strategy to help fund future improvements.

Since the plan's adoption nearly 15 years ago, the river district has experienced significant change with new housing, recreational amenities, jobs, and transportation improvements, just some of which you'll see here.

So why are we updating the plan now?

The 2040 general plan introduced new citywide policies.

In addition, the River District Property Business Improvement District developed a community-driven strategic vision for the river district.

The update considers these documents and others and allows us to reflect today's conditions, respond to community priorities, and provide a clear roadmap for future growth and investment.

So while we are not starting, not starting from scratch, this is a comprehensive specific plan update that will address key components, including connectivity, land use regulations, updated policies and strategies across a range of topics, and implementation strategies to support a clear and achievable vision for the river district's future.

This update is focused on creating a plan that is visionary as well as actionable and implementable.

And before I share what we've heard from the community, I wanted to just quickly revisit this planning process.

Again, we finished early groundwork, and as I mentioned, we've looked at existing conditions, we've met with partners, and we're shaping some initial concepts, and this really helps set the stage for the key themes that we've been hearing across the process to date, which in the feedback that we have heard will directly inform the draft vision and guiding principles that I will show you shortly.

Staff has met with dozens of community members, including residents, businesses, service providers, tribes, and different agencies.

We've heard a range of perspectives about the river district's future, and from these conversations, we have these five major themes that have emerged, each reflecting important priorities, and in many cases, a need to find the right balance through the planning process.

People have talked about welcoming growth and investment while respecting existing residents and businesses, increasing river access while protecting natural habitat, planning for future infrastructure needs to support long-term growth, providing housing and services while maintaining public comfort, and pursuing quick wins that make a visible difference while working toward longer-term change.

So next I will share the plan's draft vision and guiding principles, which will serve as the foundation for how we plan to translate community priorities into policies and actions.

I will not read this entire thing to you, it's very long.

But the vision describes the river district as a thriving and connected community, one that honors its history while evolving to meet the needs of diverse communities and a changing environment.

Together, the 10 guiding principles are intended to translate that uh vision into clear priorities for how the specific plan will take shape.

They cover topics like river access, housing, mobility, just to name a few, as well as the importance of comfort, safety, community identity, and you'll see um principles focused on implementation and collaboration as well to make sure this plan is achievable.

So before I close out my presentation, city staff that request that the commission pass a motion to initiate the rezoning and Title 17 amendments related to the river district special planning district as required by Sacramento City Code, and at a minimum and at a minimum, we would like to amend the boundary as shown in the beginning of my presentation.

A potential rezone and amendments to the special planning district will be fully evaluated as part of this specific plan update, and staff will be returning to the commission at a future date with draft strategies for feedback.

In addition, we ask for your feedback on these two key questions.

Do the draft vision and guiding principles reflect the desired direction for the river district?

And secondly, are there priorities that should be clarified or added before we move on to developing strategies?

So that concludes my presentation.

Thank you for your time, and we are available for any questions.

Thank you, Alexi.

Are there uh any commissioner questions of staff?

Commissioner Lee.

Yeah, I just wanted to uh sort of comment and make a question here.

Um I used to work over there and um I you know saw how that area was a day and night.

Um, and obviously, I think it's you know um no question that that area has one of the highest concentrations in the city of persons experiencing homelessness.

And I was looking at the e-commons and I noticed that there were some comments there, but concerns about further concentrating more homeless services over there, but I'm looking at uh slide about the key themes and priorities, and is it uh to support more unhoused and maintaining public comfort?

So I just want to um address that.

And I don't know if if you guys have any response to some of the e-comments concerns.

Thank you so much.

Um, so we are still working on the strategies of the plan itself.

The comments received were in response to a summary, summaries of notes that we provided after meetings with community partners and interagency partners, and all attendees of those meetings were emailed a summary of notes that uh just express the sentiments that were heard.

And so at this time, we don't have any sort of policy recommendation or strategy, but moving forward, we will continue to work closely with our Department of Community Response and Housing Staff to make sure that the plan is aligned with citywide goals and policies.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Uh, just one last question.

Um, does this plan support upgrading the IFI Richards Boulevard interchange?

I know that, especially during the late hours like 5 p.m., uh, the queuing over there is pretty bad.

And I know with the new uh state complex over there, you know, it's added more traffic, and um obviously uh you know this plan uh envision is more growth, but does that there's a plan or will it address um like traffic circulation around the I-5 interchange over there?

Or are you guys leaning more towards like light rail and alternative modes of transportation?

So we are coordinating very closely with our um colleagues in public works who are looking at the I-5 interchange and incorporating what they are studying into the plan.

So we don't anticipate um affecting their planning effort, but rather um making sure that it's reflected carefully and that we consider you know the other impacts on um the street network and and accommodating you know a better flow.

And so we've been in a lot of conversations with them also with Choxo Bridge, um, with the new um light rail station um near Miller Sall village, a lot of different transportation projects just trying to make sure that we're um you know making it smooth and that considering all the projects that are underway that we may not um you know be guiding because they're already underway, but we just want to reflect and make sure that our plan doesn't um restrict them from working well, yeah.

Those are all my questions, thank you.

Oh sorry, Commissioner Blunt.

Um thank you.

Thank you, staff for um all the work on this.

Um yeah, it's what a what an interesting part of the city.

Um I think there's a I see a lot of opportunity, um, and I'm just really fascinated with what's going to happen in that area.

Um I'm curious about the flexible zoning.

Um, you know, I I'm seeing on page, shoot, what page is this?

Uh page nine that uh land use and design, the uh developers express interest right in the uh flexible zoning.

But um could you just kind of walk us through what that looks like and maybe what those conversations were and sort of what what the implications of that are?

I mean it's a really good question.

We've received some um comments on you know making sure that this is um clear and understandable uh in order to help developers.

We're still trying to get a handle of what that means.

Um, you know, there was a lot of guidance given in the 2011 um river district specific plan, so want to make sure that we evaluate, you know, what part is still relevant and what part we may want to update consistent with the general plan.

So there's um several different land use designations in the general plan for this, including employment mixed use and residential mixed use that allow for wide range of things, and just looking at you know, are those wide range of things um allowed under the zoning?

Is there anything that we should um reconsider at this point?

So we'll be bringing that back to you for consideration at a future time.

Okay, yeah, um I'm also curious.

Uh we fairly recently um heard the Del Paso neighborhood, right?

That the plan for that area, and this is sort of like I mean, they're not butting up against each other, you know, very obviously that there's there are some like natural natural borders between the two, but I do feel like one feeds into the other and they are kind of like you know, existing together.

So I'm just kind of curious if like uh you're looking or the plan is to look at this as like a little bit of column A with a little bit of column B, you know, um with the those two plans.

Are you talking about forward together?

Are you talking about um like is there a specific project that you're asking about in Del Paso?

No, no, there was like the there was just a whole plan for that that area.

Um, and they had, yeah, they put together a presentation and there's the idea of like revitalizing that whole sort of yeah.

So we looked at Marysville Del Paso Um as a as a commercial corridor, and it was um forward together action plan.

I believe that might be what you're talking about.

So um I think that there's similar themes throughout the city of just how do we make areas that feel very comfortable that are um that work economically is a very it's a very different area because this is an area that's been historically industrial, and we are now seeing more residential come into it.

So it has um there have been a lot of people living on the streets as other folks have said, but we haven't had a lot of people in buildings.

There's very small pockets of residential.

So it's it's a different um but related, you know, issue.

I think that what's really exciting is that there's a new light rail station being built at Marisol Village that gives people access up to Del Paso Boulevard and the new grocery outlet, um, because you know, groceries are not something that's easily found right there.

And so they are connected as neighborhoods, and so as we see um Del Paso Boulevard get better, we'll see more access for the residents in this area to be able to get those and vice versa.

So I think that it's a great chance to you know look at our city and look at our neighborhoods and make them better.

I don't know if there's anything in specific that we're looking at to unite them.

I know that um, you know, there have been discussions about highway 160, but that's outside of our purview, that's really in Caltrans's um view, and other that then that Truxel doesn't really hit them quite.

Um, so um if there's anything we should be considering, you know, I'm happy to bring that back and and include that in our notes.

I mean, I know for for me, um, I when I'm driving in that area, like it it feeds one feeds into the other, and so it just seems like there would be sort of a uh a continuing sort of conversation from one to the other.

But um, okay, and then the the motion to initiate rezoning, um, is that mostly for like the um trying to allow for more um residential in the area?

So at this point, we don't have any specific um asks except for we know that we're going to um change we'd like to change the boundary.

We're gonna be recommend changing the boundary.

Um that was actually a request of Blue Diamond before they um you know stated that they were leaving, but it does make sense to look at the area and plan it in accordance with the their neighbors, and so um that is something that we have to ask for you to initiate um as part of this, and then there might be other things that we bring forward that are maybe consistency with the general plan or trying to make it simple um in certain ways, or you know, changing some of the um standards that show up in the special planning district.

So it's um initiating it, but it's not uh telling us exactly what those will be yet, it's just initiating it so we can continue to move forward.

Cool.

Um that's all for me.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Caden.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

And uh thanks to staff for putting this together.

Um, on the PowerPoint, so I it did catch my eye on there's a slide that said why update um the plan, and it had a graphic that was on the right.

Um, and in that graphic, it had this like label that was saying that that we were gonna step down heights as we get towards the river.

Is that is that a principle that's in the current uh specific plan or a graphic that's from the current specific plan, or is that something that came through in the outreach as part of this plan update, or where does that come from?

Yeah, so that image is actually from the River District P Bid Strategic Vision.

Um, and so that was something that they had prepared in terms of a vision for building stepping back along the American River there.

Again, as part of this update, we will evaluate the current regulations in terms of what is required for setbacks and stepbacks and how things uh relate to the American River Parkway plan, for example.

Uh but at this point uh we we don't have a recommendation or a strategy yet identified, except that we know that we will need to stay consistent with other adopted um citywide policies and plans of that nature.

Yeah, I mean, I think that the current height limits um don't seem to do that in a in a pronounced way, and so I was curious if that was in there and inconsistent with what I saw on the heights, or if that's a new direction that we're looking to go.

I mean, I guess to me, you know, uh, and there already is the the guiding principle, and I think the first one about access to the river.

And I think that's that's for the whole city, but that's also for the people who live in the river district, right?

And to me, access to the like how do you improve access to the river?

You have, you know, dense buildings that are close to the river.

And to me, I think I don't I don't necessarily think we should be stepping down heights as it gets closer to the river.

I think a uniform height limit makes makes sense to me in terms of providing access.

Um I think the proposed specific plan boundary change makes a lot of sense, and that you so you referenced blue diamond, I was gonna ask about it, um, you know, and I guess they it's not the whole property, right?

Because they they do have property on the other side of the railroad tracks, but I guess wouldn't be included because that's in the central city specific plan.

Is that is that why?

Okay, um, have you had conversations yet?

I'm just curious.

I mean, uh it's it's a tremendous redevelopment opportunity, and so um what what has been the conversation as part of this specific plan update in terms of what the what the potential for that site could be?

I wish I could tell you we had conversations before.

Um, like I said, they actually requested us to um put this into the river district specific plan rather than um having their whole um site into the central city, which is the way it is currently set up.

So we talked to them before we knew that they were moving, and then I know that um you know we've definitely approached them from a higher level of like, hey, is you know, what are your plans?

And we're still waiting to hear from them.

Um, you know, I I would love to hear more.

I think that uh the PBID has had more conversations with them than um we have as staff.

Okay.

Um yeah, I mean that's that's obviously a huge opportunity for the city.

Um so I think it whatever we can do as part of this specific plan to kind of um provide flexibility for that that you know, hopefully future project, uh, I think that'd be great.

Uh I think that you know, so the guiding principles are great.

You know, guiding principles always sound great.

I think it's you know, the the challenge with with this is you're seeking feedback on the principles and then the you know the devils in the details of how you translate the principles into the actual development standards.

Um so I guess just like a high-level question are you like as part of this update?

Are you looking at changes to the heights?

Like is that part of the consideration, or is it more uses and and you know, consistency with zoning and all of that?

We are looking at the heights to see if there's um things that would make sense to change, and if you have any particular thoughts, I I really appreciate you sharing your viewpoints on um whether step backs from the river would be um something that the the commission would like to see.

You know, if if there's any other um ideas, we did share the map that's currently um in the 2011 River District.

It is based off of the street network that was in place in this in this um one which was likely to change, um, just because some of that we found not to be buildable and and create some difficulty for developers.

So we're looking at, you know, what does that mean if we have a change in street network?

Does that change other things and including heights and other things?

Could we maybe pull actually pull up the that height map?

Um yeah, thank you.

I mean, for for what it's worth, you know, for me, I was having a little bit of a hard time understanding the rationale for the different heights, it just kind of felt a little bit hodgepodge.

Um, and so to me, I there there might be some benefit to just doing a little bit more um standardization, I guess, um, or or it, you know, at least I I don't know, maybe you if you if you'd like to describe like what what the rationale is, maybe that would be helpful for me to understand it better.

But it just seems like there's a lot of like it's 45 here, it's 120 here, and it didn't really explain why in the plan when I read it.

Yeah, um it's a good question as to why or the level of different kind of heights that were adopted as part of the 2011 uh River District Specific Plan.

It's as Elizabeth said, something that we are also interested in exploring and understanding why the kind of the variety of heights.

Um these heights also differ from the base zoning in many instances.

So trying to understand the reasoning behind those differences and if there's opportunity as Elizabeth mentioned to create some kind of more flexibility and a little more uh consistency because there are uh differing heights within the same block, even so there is a lot of variability uh currently in the 2011 plan.

Right, okay.

Well, yeah, I mean I would be completely supportive in um you know bringing the height limits a little bit more consistent with what we're doing as part of the the zoning code overhaul um and not having these kind of more more piecemeal um you know specific plan heights that are hard to kind of describe why we came up with that number um and in particular I think one area that just kind of popped out to me was that um corridor along 16th you know that's obviously the um you know where the blue diamond side is that's also where the growers district project is right you know pipeworks has done a lot to kind of um see a lot of um traffic and uh and folks that are going along that corridor I think that's a coro that does have a lot of potential so you know to me to to see that at 45 feet and then other places 120 felt felt a little low or just didn't really make sense to me.

And so I think if we could bring that height up um consistent with some of these other corridors, that would make a lot of sense to me.

That's all the comments I had.

Thank you.

Commissioner, Commissioner's Lamoff.

Hello.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chase.

Um also was curious about the Blue Diamond site.

Um just out of curiosity, they own the land.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's my understanding.

Okay, and so they're they have an interest to rezone it, potentially make it more appealing for other folks to come in there and do something in that space.

Um sounds like we're uh we're all waiting to hear more about what that might look like.

Um I I would say that um I love hearing about the river district.

I uh I work on Richards Boulevard at the May Lee um State Office Complex.

Um love to see all the new um proposed projects kind of coming in.

Um some people don't know about the river district.

I try to tell everyone.

Um hasn't caught on yet.

Um they're like, where is that?

But I think that once the projects do start coming in, it's gonna really create some some excitement.

Um and I think one of the things um that uh I think you guys are already gonna be mindful of, but I know if you're you guys looking for comments is the flow of traffic, right?

Um it does get backed up on Richard's um getting on to I-5, and then when the stadium comes in, when Kaiser comes in, when the rail yards projects uh finishes.

Um it's gonna be interesting how we are mindful of that that flow of traffic.

Um I did have a question.

I know there was a reference to the truck so bridge as being a part of a component of this plan.

Is the ice tree bridge also a component of the plan?

It's actually outside of the boundaries.

So we recognize that it will exist, but we don't um have it included uh in the plan itself.

Okay.

Is it literally like at the bottom left corner?

Is that is that the boundary where the ice tree bridge would be?

No, I I mean it's it's just below it's not very far off, but it is um outside of our boundary.

Okay.

Um the other comment I would have is that um I do appreciate the intent and the vision to try to make the river more accessible, right?

Um so uh I uh live in South Thomas and I would um bike on the American River Bike Trail.

Um, but never made it down to this part.

Um you know, there is some some trail there, but um, you know, any uh ability to further support that would be appreciated as part of the vision.

Um, I know housing, more housing um will is you know an issue in downtown.

Um, and so uh if we're looking at further development um in this area, I think um housing would be a really important part of supplement um uh that development to make sure that there's also liability of the businesses too that do come in um to the neighborhood.

So um just wanted to make those comments as part of um the plan you guys are working on, and uh wish you guys the best uh and looking forward to seeing what this is gonna look like.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Rescue.

Thank you.

And thank you for putting this together.

This is really exciting.

Um, I really like this this area.

Um I'm curious, so I think yeah, adding adding the area that's proposed to add where Blue Diamond is makes a lot of sense.

What what is um was Blue Diamond's um interest in in asking to be added?

Okay, I believe that at the time um we were looking at growers district and um having considerations and conversations about how um the different uh traffic uh and you know uh engages with their truck traffic, how they have residential and different um being able to continue their industrial processes, and because they were part of two different specific plans, we weren't really engaging both of those elements together.

So they really had a high interest in making sure that we were planning for their neighborhood in consideration of them and any other neighboring uses.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, and I think the only other thought I have is that this part of town really um needs connectivity, um, as I know you guys are are working on and know, but um, you know, like going north on 16th.

If you're not in a car, if you're on a bike, I mean that there's an area colloquially known as the pea tunnel that you have to go through, and so that could be better, and then that bridge going north from Blue Diamond across the river is you know, in the 20 years that I've lived here, it it feels very different than you know 20 years ago.

It feels really like unsafe to travel, especially at night.

Um and yeah, there's there's you know the other bridge over by um Discovery Park, which is another connection, but really there aren't that many pedestrian and bike bridges across the river.

I think the next one up is at Sack State, so like really making those places more accessible to people not using a car would be would be wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any other commission comments?

All right, so you know anyone on the public to speak on this item.

Thank you, Chair.

I have three speaker slips for this item.

Our first speaker is Greta Lachin.

My name is Greta LeCen, and I'm a member of the River District Board.

I've been a member for a very long time, and my husband and I own a small warehouse on the east end of the district off of Dreer Street, and uh that is in the 16th Street corridor.

So there were four board members from the river district present when we talked about the specific plan meeting, and um none of us voiced support for the idea of expanding supportive and transitional housing options for the homeless, and that is because the river district is a very small area, and we are already very impacted, especially on the east end of the district by the homeless.

That is a huge issue for us.

So uh I remember an attendee, a gentleman who said that he was a former planning commissioner, and he voiced the opinion that the river district has an over concentration of services, and that the responsibility needed to be served to shared with the rest of the city and the county, and I agree with him.

That is very true.

Our unique uh historic district of brick warehouses on the east end have essentially been abandoned by the city and the county, and that is because of the number of businesses that have already left there, and it's it's gonna be a real challenge for us to revive that area.

I I love that area.

I think that it has humongous potential, and it will one day be something special.

I don't know if I'll be around to see it, but I hope I am.

Loaves and Fishes continues to be a very strong attractant to the homeless, and I find that they are attracting people from all over the region and all over even the nation, really.

And it's it has presented a huge challenge for us over the years, much to the detriment of the businesses that were located near there, and those that remain there are really struggling.

That area has become a negative advertisement for homeless services, really.

There should be no further expansion of homeless services allowed anywhere in the river district because we are already so concentrated there, and homeless services are the main issue that stands in the way of developments like the growers district.

It really has impacted them.

The rest of the city and the county need to cooperate together and come up with solutions.

They need to step up services elsewhere because over concentration doesn't work for anybody, including the homeless.

I really believe that.

Invalidate the plan and possibly inhibit development.

It presents a real Thank you for your comment.

Your time is our next speaker is Christina Navarro.

Thank you.

Christina's gone.

Our next speaker is Devin Strecker.

Thank you, commissioners, and thank you, city staff.

We've worked really closely with staff for quite a while now on this project.

And I want to thank the city for supporting our strategic vision plan that we adopted last year in 2024.

I'm really excited about a lot of components of this plan and just the opportunity to rethink the 2011 plan.

So just to echo a lot of what Greta said, and then just touch on that map that you saw of like the grid network.

It looks crazy, right?

Like, why are we building so many streets for a neighborhood that is less than two square miles?

I understand I think they are trying to mimic the grid and extend it up to the river district, but we are a unique part of town, and we want density and we want bike and pedestrian access, and I don't think adding a lot of more streets for cars is going to accomplish that.

So I definitely want to rethink that network of streets, and not I think it's an inhibitor to developers when they look at a property and they see that they could develop a certain amount of square footage, but then they also have to build a huge street through the property, in many cases, two streets.

So I think that would be the main thing to really rethink and update for the 20, the 20, the new update of the plan from the 2011.

Um the other thing to touch on the concentration of social services, you know, part of the reason why the city, for whatever reason, decided to concentrate the services in this neighborhood, is because back in the 60s and 70s, we were a disconnected warehouse industrial area where we were kind of out of sight, out of mind.

But now we have 7th Street connecting us to downtown 6th Street just open this year.

This street is under construction and should be open by next year, and we're also looking at building a huge soccer stadium right next door to us and Kaiser Permanente.

So we are no longer this like hidden secret place where you can shove problems to, and so I really like the fact that the city's looking at it in this way that we want to develop it and make it a dense residential.

It should be like the highest, you know, like the most desirable place to live right by the river.

But while the city on one hand is doing this trying to promote the revitalization, the other hand is over here saying, Let's put more services here.

Let's put a campground for 120 homeless people that we don't know what else to do with.

Let's look at piloting new projects.

This is not how we're going to redevelop the neighborhood and connect it to the rest of Sacramento.

We need to we need to revitalize it, and we need to really like think about the homeless strategy and not just look at it as a place where we dump all the problems that we can't find anywhere else to put.

So thank you so much.

Thank you for your comment.

Chair, I have no more speakers lifts.

Thank you.

Thank you to the speakers to present to us.

Do any commissioners have any comments of staff or speakers?

So it's primarily a review and comment, but there is a motion requested regarding the rezoning.

So I'll entertain a motion if anyone wants to propose one.

Oh, sorry.

Commissioner Caden.

I'll move the item.

I'm sorry.

Make a motion to move the item.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

Commissioner Ossias Free.

I'll second the item.

I did sorry have a comment or a couple of comments.

Again, great job on the report and the work.

Thank you for your comments, Devin.

I think I just wanted to say a couple of things because I used to work for the Capital Area Development Authority, and I know the city and CADA went through this like over 20-year robust like strategic plan for the R Street Corridor, which, if you're familiar with the Art Street Corridor, it does have a ton of adaptive reuse buildings.

It was an old uh warehouse district, a lot of state warehouse buildings that have, as you know, may know, have been adaptively reused into and turned into a lot of housing, a lot of dense housing, and other buildings for uh uses for um some really cool restaurants and uh businesses, and it's a really cool destination area here for um here in Sacramento, and I see a lot of potential for something like that out here.

I mean, you've got this is a post-industrial area of Sacramento.

Um, I used to live in Tacoma, Washington, and they also have a very post-industrial like presence like in Tacoma, and they were able to capitalize on that by um sort of designating that area as like a industrial historic industrial area and sort of requiring that you know, any development that went in, you know, there was an adaptive reuse component to it, and they had a like a brewer's district that went in there, and there's just like a ton of revitalization.

It was right next to uh, you know, uh a camp, a campus, a college campus.

So there's a lot of really cool opportunity there.

Um, and I just really quickly wanted to touch on um guiding principle number nine, um, which says honor cultural legacy by integrating public art and historic assets and creative expression, right?

So that's really touching on the historic assets that we're talking about here, many of which are located in the district.

Um, and I I think it's really important to discuss some of the issues that you guys are having around the unhoused.

I have gone on driving tours with your predecessor Devin in the district in the river district, and I mean, for lack of a better word, it's like almost like a skid row out there, and it's challenging.

Like, I couldn't even imagine what you deal with on a weekly and daily basis, or the city is dealing with on a weekly and a daily basis.

Um, and it's really really hard to um it's sort of a chicken and egg, right?

Because you have these guiding principles, you have these amazing historic buildings, you have the sort of wherewithal, right?

And and sort of all of these amazing economic development and even development projects that have gone in and are going in, and the momentum there, and but there's these challenges, and so I I there's not really an answer to that right now.

Um, and all of those comments I agree on.

You need you need the collaboration funding, where is it, right?

It's really difficult.

Um, I hope that we find an answer.

I definitely don't want to see you guys get over concentrated any more than you already are.

I see it, and it's very challenging.

I hope that they're you guys are able, and the city is able to figure out a way to avoid more concentration in your district so that we can achieve some of these goals because I think it's a huge opportunity to highlight the historic assets that we have in that part of the city.

Um, and so yeah, that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any other comments or so we have a motion and a second, right?

Let's uh call a hope.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, please unmute Commissioner Lee.

Aye.

Commissioner Tab.

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo.

Aye.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye, Commissioner Hernandez.

Aye.

Commissioner Masas 3.

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Commissioner Rishke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent.

And Vice Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thinking the motion passes.

Just a quick comment, if I may, on the uh river district.

It's got great bones, and uh look forward to seeing them developed.

We will now move on to item six, which is uh planning and zoning work program, which I believe is Greg.

Okay, good evening, Vice Chair Chase, members of the commission, Greg Sandlin, Planning Director.

Tonight we're recommending that the Planning and Design Commission forward the 2026 planning and zoning work program to the city council for approval.

Just for folks that are just now tuning in.

This is a process where the commission can provide input to identify and prioritize policy focus areas and action items for annual the annual work program, which is approved by council each year in January.

So we last checked in with the commission on October 9th.

Plenty of comments and questions and attachment four of the staff report.

There's a summary of commission comments and questions that include among other things feedback that related to the status of the mixed income housing ordinance review, the planning and development code update, addressing vacant properties, future planning in the Robla area, potential reach code requirements for HVAC systems, and the need to find additional funding for affordable housing.

Um, no substantive changes to the 2026 planning and zoning work program have been made since the last meeting.

But um again, we're recommending the commission forward the work program to council for approval.

And that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Any commission questions of Greg?

Seeing none, thank you, Greg, for your presentation.

Uh, so we're looking at a motion to approve your program, as I understand it.

Yes, we're on the council.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

The speakers, we have speakers.

Thank you, Chair.

I have one speaker slip for this item.

Chris Valencia.

My apologies to the speaker.

Good.

Anybody hungry after hearing about all the chicken?

Hello, Mr.

Vice Chair and members of the planning commission.

My name is Chris Valencia, and I'm here on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association and its over 500 builder and developer members.

The 2026 planning and zoning work program identifies mixed income ordinance as high priority for the city of Sacramento.

Multiple studies have shown that these types of inclusionary zoning policies not just halt housing development but can be a detriment to the development of affordable housing as well.

As the state struggles with the housing supply crisis, furthering policies that will halt progress on addressing these crises is antithetical to the needs of the city.

Sacramento should be focusing on policies that further attainable and affordable by design housing developments so that we can meet our housing needs in a way that doesn't cripple housing production.

I urge the city to think of the serious consequences of inclusionary zoning policies and not move forward with them.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Chair, I have no more speaker slips.

Okay, thank you.

And sorry to have missed you initially.

Um there uh comments uh from the commission.

Uh Commissioner Massius Reed.

I'll make a motion to move item.

We have a motion, is there a second?

Commissioner Blunt.

We have a motion and a second.

Uh any discussion before the vote?

Let's take a vote.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee.

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo.

Is absent.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez.

Aye.

Commissioner Masisri.

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt.

Aye.

Commissioner Rishke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent.

And Vice Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion the motion passes.

Thank you, Greg.

Your work.

We'll now move to uh item seven, uh, which is the City of Sacramento, the Planning and Design Commission 2025 annual report.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, this item is back on your agenda tonight for a final action.

You heard a review and comment on the draft annual report on October 9th.

And I've made a couple of changes since that point in time.

I added the chair's message.

So uh Chair Young provided a message in there, which is which is quite good.

And um, I've also made a few minor updates to the key accomplishments section just to update it with the current project numbers.

I'm always kind of prognosticating what's going to happen for the rest of the year, and then so I've updated it to include several the October dates as well as the November date, and I'll make those final changes as we move to PMPE.

Um, there were no additional recommendations or any other amendments suggested by the commission, so there aren't any other changes included.

Um, so tonight staff is asking for you to pass a motion to forward the report to the personnel and public employees committee for consideration and approval, and then after that it would go on to council.

And that concludes my presentation, right?

Thank you, Stacia.

For your work and for your efforts here.

With that, any commissioner questions?

Any motion?

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting.

Commissioner Massius Reed.

I'm not used to the screening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a motion.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Blunt.

I have a motion and a second.

Any discussion before the vote?

Let's take a vote.

And Chair, just for the record, we have no speaker slips for this item.

I was just gonna ask that.

All right.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Naiba?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Aye.

Commissioner Masas Reed.

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Commissioner Rishkee.

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

Chair Young is absent and Vice Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Thank you again, Stacia.

And conclose the uh main items on the agenda.

Are there commissioner comments, ideas, and questions here?

Yes, Commissioner Hernez.

Thank you.

I'd like to invite everybody on Tuesday to 7775 Stockton Boulevard from 11 a.m.

to 12.

Um, full disclosure, my employer Toyota is an investor in a company called IANA.

Ayana is building a network of charging stations.

But these are new kinds of charging stations.

They are charging stations that also offer amenities.

So there will be indoor lounges, restrooms, coffee, food, Wi-Fi in some locations.

We have a couple of representatives invited to speak and local elected officials.

Um but this is sort of a behind-the-scenes view of these types of stations before it officially opens.

Reminds me of the project we approved, what last year, I think on uh the 160 that was also going to have lounge and whatnot.

Great concept.

Thank you very much.

Any other comments or questions from commissioners?

Seeing none of any public comments from out is not in the agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips for this item.

Thank you.

With that, we are adjourned.

Greg was probably very excited.