Thank you.

to establish a quorum. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Lee? Here. Commissioner Tao? Here. Commissioner

Lamas? Here. Commissioner Nebo? Here. Commissioner Caden? Here. Commissioner Hernandez? Excuse me.

Absent. Commissioner Macias-Reed? Here. Commissioner Ortiz? Here. Commissioner Blunt? Here. Vice

Chair Chase?

Here.

Commissioner Risky?

Here.

Commissioner Thompson?

Absent.

And Chair Young?

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

I would like to remind members of the public in chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item,

please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

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

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

we will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments

in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanon people,

the Southern Maidu Valley and Plains Miwok, Patwin-Wintoon peoples,

and the people of the Wilton 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 together today

in the act of practice, of acknowledgement, and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice.

All right. First, we have the director's report from Stacia.

Thank you, Chair. I have no items to report out on this evening.

Okay. Then our next order of business is the approval of the consent calendar.

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

Thank you, Chair. I have no speakers on this item.

All right. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item or make a motion?

Oh, Commissioner Macias-Reed.

Sorry.

I'll make a motion to move.

All right.

Commissioner Ortiz.

I'll second.

I have a second.

All right.

Will the clerk please call the roll for a vote?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee.

Aye.

Commissioner Tao.

Aye.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Nebo.

Aye.

Commissioner Kadim.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Absent.

Commissioner Macias-Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Rischke?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson?

Absent.

Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

All right.

Moving on to the next agenda item.

Item two, the Parkside Community Church Monopine project is being continued to February.

26, 2026. So we'll move on to item three, the enclave at Airport Road P25-010. The presenter is Deja.

Deja Harris, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department.

And I am here to present the Enclave at Airport Road project.

This item P25010 is a request to construct two detached single unit dwellings on a 2.03

acre parcel within North Natomas.

Subject site is located at the corner of Airport Road and Tanzanite Avenue, currently developed

with an existing single unit dwelling proposed for demolition and is surrounded by existing

single unit residential development.

Site is also proximate to Tanzanite Park further south.

The project site is currently zoned single unit

or duplex dwelling, R1A, and is not located

within a planned unit development

or covered by an active development agreement.

As a part of this project, the applicant is requesting

to annex into the adjacent Natomas Crossing Area 2 PUD.

Developing within the PUD requires the applicant

to amend the PUD to incorporate development standards

for the proposed housing type.

The PUD amendment would also require

a procedural rezone with no change to the base zone

to identify the site's inclusion into the PUD.

The project requires the following entitlements,

a development agreement, a rezone from R1A zone

to R1A PUD zone, PUD schematic plan

and guideline amendment to add the project site

into the Natomas Crossing Area 2 PUD boundary

and amend the development standards

for the residential development,

Tentative subdivision map to subdivide the site

into 32 residential lots and eight common lots,

and site plan design review for the construction

of the residential development.

Tentative map, subdivide the site

into 32 residential lots.

The proposed lots are compliant with lot size,

width, and depth requirements

of the missing middle housing ordinance.

All units are two stories in height

and provide three bedrooms with two and a half bathrooms.

Homes are oriented towards the proposed internal alleys and enhanced elevations have been provided along Tanzanite.

The project also complies with height and setback requirements of missing middle housing ordinance.

Each home also provides attached two car garages and there are 12 guest parking spaces within the development.

The site features enhanced tree coverage along Tanzanite and a direct pedestrian connection to the future bike path along airport road.

Notification of the project and hearing were provided to all neighborhood associations,

residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject site.

The site was also posted with the hearing information.

Staff received one comment expressing concerns related to traffic and safety and a comment

of support from the North Natomas Community Coalition.

Staff recommends the commission pass a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to

the city council.

finds the proposed residential use and its density is compatible with the

surrounding neighborhood. The project also provides a high-quality

architectural design that is consistent with the city's design guidelines. Lastly

the project builds new housing on an underutilized parcel creating

additional rental and home ownership opportunities. This concludes my

presentation. Staff and the applicant team are available should you have any

questions. Thank you. I forgot to ask are there any disclosures or recusal

for this item?

All right.

Vice Chair Chase.

Yes, I had a telephone discussion

with the applicant's representative

consistent with the staff report.

All right.

Commissioner Macias-Reed?

Same.

Commissioner Nybo?

Same.

Commissioner Lummis and Tau?

Same.

Same.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Thank you. I had a brief conversation with the applicant.

Thank you. Commissioner Reschke?

Same.

All right. And I also spoke with the applicant's representative, consistent with the staff report.

All right. Thank you. Are there any speaker slips for this item?

Thank you, Chair. I have no speaker slips on this item.

All right. Do we have any questions for the staff or any applicant motions or any motions from the Commission?

Commissioner Macias-Reed?

Nope.

I'm sorry.

The names are a little...

Oh, so who's Commissioner Macias-Reed?

Oh, Commissioner Ortiz.

I apologize.

That's the screens are a little...

That's right.

That's right.

Okay.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Yeah, my only comments would be this is actually a really wonderful project.

It's actually a really wonderful project.

The diversity of the design elements, the density.

I mean, it's the kind of development we should

and that I enjoy seeing before us.

So with that, I will make a motion, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Chase.

I will second that motion.

All right.

I have a second.

Commissioner Lamas or Commissioner Tao?

Commissioner Lemmas.

Thank you, Chair.

I did have some questions for the applicant.

I was able to attend the NCCA meeting, community meeting that heard the information that was presented in the staff report.

There were some comments from that meeting that were subsequently submitted to the city

and included in the staff report regarding the path of travel on site.

I know there is a walkway in the middle of the property,

but they were looking to connect it to that walkway that leads into the bike path.

And I know the applicant indicated that they were going to be looking into that.

I'm wondering if there was any progress made on whether that could be possible change to the design plans.

Yeah, thanks, Commissioner Nellamas.

Nick Avdis on behalf of the applicant, happy to be here this morning.

And thank you, Commissioner Ortiz, for those comments, because I think, you know,

I've been a longtime city resident myself, and this is the type of projects we want to encourage, obviously.

It's that sweet spot, missing middle for sale, ownership opportunities for folks.

Relative to your question on the path, we are certainly open to that idea.

I know there have been some discussions with staff.

We're open to it.

It would eliminate some of the landscaping

and impact some aspects there.

But we don't have an issue incorporating that path.

I don't know if staff wants to elaborate,

because I think it was a request of staff

to keep the project relative to this path question

the way that we have it now.

But if that's a recommendation

that this commission wants to make

as part of the motion, then certainly we can work with staff

in gearing up for the city council meeting to incorporate this concept.

But we're agnostic on that.

Bless you.

Okay.

Thank you for that.

So it sounds like maybe this was a requirement that staff was looking

to incorporate into the design plans.

Yes.

Staff was in favor of the current design configuration

as it provided additional landscaping on the site.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, then maybe I would just encourage further exploration of that

as if the project does move forward to City Council

to see if there's anything that can be done there

to be responsive to some of the community comments.

Otherwise, that group were in support,

and the letter they submitted also indicated support of the project.

I also know that there were some comments about the mailboxes and potential concerns with mailbox, mail theft, particularly in the North Otomas area.

And we're looking to possibly position some mailboxes in two specific locations.

I know they mentioned it during the meeting.

It was like one of the road ends that inside the parcel that would allow for them to be further away from the street.

I'm wondering if that was something you guys have had a chance to look at as well.

Yeah, that's also what we're willing to consider.

I don't know if staff has a position.

We don't have a preference on the location of the mailboxes.

I mean, I know that's been an ongoing issue, obviously, in North Atomas with mail theft.

I mean, that's a pretty significant issue.

But we're happy to move the mailbox unit.

Okay, then I would just encourage staff to, you know, maybe continue that conversation

if the project does move forward onto the City Council for review and approval.

to see if there's anything that can be done there.

It sounds like there's no strong opposition,

but maybe there might be some other design aspects

that need to be taken into consideration,

so I'll leave that to the experts.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

And thank you for saying the last part

because I think relative to that path,

again, no objection, but it's one of those things.

Do you want more landscaping?

Or do you want a path when there's other alternatives?

It's all about choices and consequences.

In this case, we feel good about the way the proposal is

because I think there is something more appealing

about the comprehensiveness of the landscaping plan

as proposed, but again, I just wanted to say

that we're comfortable with where it is as well

because of that, the nature of the overall design.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

There was one last comment.

I know the letter, there was a letter

submitted in opposition to the project

and also mentioned, but I think it was mentioned

in an adjacent project as well,

So I was wondering if you can kind of just speak to that, how this is a totally separate project.

There's another project that's looking to build multifamily housing,

and there seemed to be some opposition to that compared to this project specifically.

Yeah, if we're referring to the same comment that I reviewed,

there is some conflating of the two projects where there is an adjacent proposal

with no relation to my client or the underlying landowner

that is proposing a multifamily pretty dense project.

and I know there have been some community concerns with that

and I believe that letter mistaken me

believed that this project was somehow associated with that one

but two separate independent projects obviously.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

And with that I would also be extending my support of the project.

I do think that this type of development

adds to the much needed demand for housing

and this type of housing type.

So thank you to staff for preparing the report.

And with that, I'll give you my time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Caden.

Thank you, I was just gonna second the motion.

All right.

You'll have to third it

because I think we already had a second.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's all right.

No worries.

Commissioner Lee.

Yeah, just a quick question for staff.

I noticed that these homes are more on the narrow side

and there are no ground floor windows

in the front of the homes

that would provide eyes on the street safety.

Do you know if we have any citywide policies

around requiring ground floor windows in front of homes?

So, great question.

In the case for this one with the eyes on the street,

we do tend to, it's part of the design guidelines.

It has to encourage us to have windows along the ground floor

when they can be accommodated.

In this case, the design,

we incorporated porches along the ground floor,

along the front.

Given it's a compact, kind of denser housing product,

it doesn't have the ability to incorporate

a lot of transparency along the ground floor.

But there is along the second story,

livable spaces that still look out down to the alleys.

Got it.

So today as it stands, there's no citywide policy around it.

It's just sort of reviewed on a project-by-project basis at this point?

Correct.

Yeah, I know in the design guidelines they discuss transparency

and having active uses along the ground floor.

I'm not aware of a specific development standard related to this project.

Okay.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

All right.

Will the clerk call the roll?

Okay, just to confirm, Commissioner Ortiz and Commissioner, we had a motion by Commissioner Ortiz and then Commissioner Chase.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Dow?

Excuse me.

Commissioner Lamas?

Aye.

Commissioner Nebo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez?

absent. Commissioner Macias-Reed? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Blunt? Aye. Vice Chair

Chase? Aye. Commissioner Risky? Aye. Commissioner Thompson? Aye. And Chair Young? Aye. Thank you. The motion passes. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We are going to move on to public hearing item four,

Raising Cane's Gateway Park, P24-027.

Are there any disclosures or recusals for this item?

Commissioner Lee?

Oh, I'm sorry.

That was from the last item.

Oh, sorry.

Apologies. Commissioner Lamas or Commissioner Tao.

I had a meeting with a representative of the applicant and the conversation was consistent with the staff report.

Commissioner Ortiz.

I too had a conversation with the applicant consistent with the staff report.

Commissioner Macias-Reed.

Are they fixed now? Oh my gosh.

Now that you got a whole...

Okay.

I'm catfished.

Goodness.

It's okay.

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

I had a brief conversation with the applicant, consistent with the staff report.

Thank you, Vice Chair Chase.

I also had a conversation with the applicant's representative.

And I also had a conversation with the applicant as well, consistent with the staff report,

and also had a chance to go through the agenda item on Granicus.

Commissioner Ruschke.

I also had a short conversation with the applicant.

All right.

Zach, you're up.

Thank you.

Good evening to the chair, vice chair, and fellow commissioners.

My name is Zach Dulles, senior planner with the community development department.

The item before you tonight is the Raising Canes Gateway Park project.

The commission first heard this project

at the November 13th, 2025 hearing,

where staff brought forward a denial recommendation.

After lengthy deliberation,

the commission passed a motion directing staff to return

with the necessary findings of fact

and applicable conditions for project approval.

The motion also included a request

that staff reach out to SACRT

to ask their staff to weigh in on the project

in writing or by attending a future hearing.

The staff report has been updated,

consistent with the motion,

and all changes are highlighted on pages three

and four of the staff report.

Staff's recommendation of denial has not changed

and findings for denial have been included

in attachment three of the report.

However, should the commission decide to approve the project,

the requested findings of fact for project approval

and the applicable conditions are available

in attachment four.

These findings include the rationale for project approval

that was provided by the commission members

at the November 13th meeting.

And with that, that ends up presentation, thank you.

And the applicant team is also available for questions.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Clerk, are there any speaker slips for this item?

Thank you, Chair.

I have no speaker slips on this item.

Okay.

Was the applicant going to share a few words?

Yes.

Oh, okay.

Good evening, Chair Young and members of the City Planning and Design Commission.

Ryan Hooper, it feels a little like deja vu, back representing Raising Canes again this evening.

Just wanted to fill in a couple of things since the last meeting.

The Regional Transit District, as you may have noted in the staff report, has submitted a letter, a letter of support.

Indicates that the RT is supportive of the project.

They note that the project supports transit riders by offering additional food options

and provides employees of the Raising Canes with potential transit access in the event that such transit occurs in the future.

So we're very pleased with that.

The other issue that we wanted to raise briefly with you is with respect to the hours of operation.

We touched on it briefly at the last hearing, although the focus was on RT and all of that.

So I just wanted to make it clear, contrary to the staff report, or pardon me, to the 10 p.m. recommendation in the staff report,

that indeed the applicant seeks a 3 a.m. closing time.

It's consistent with the founding principles of the company.

The company was founded by a gentleman who worked the swing shift, graveyard shift,

constantly had problems finding food options available in the late evening

hours, founded Raising Cane's based on that concept. So it's very much a

principle at the core of the business itself. I think dovetails well into this

neighborhood because as you saw from Raley's letter of support they have the

24-7 industrial distribution center next door. They welcome the opportunity to

have food options available to its employees and there's a number of other

local commercial and industrial uses nearby that also operate on a 24-hour

seven basis. I would say that to do anything less would potentially put the

project at a competitive disadvantage. There are a lot of surrounding

restaurants including drive-throughs that are open until 1 1 30 in the

morning and indeed some of those actually sell alcohol whereas Raising

Cane's does not and just found it interesting that Del Taco is open 24

hours a day. The community is supportive of the extended hours both Heinz the

the owner of the adjacent multifamily project sent in a letter of support, as well as Raley's, as I mentioned.

In addition, to support the deviation of the hours of operation,

we have an extensive noise analysis that was done as part of the environmental document.

That noise analysis was performed by Kimley Horn.

They are here this evening to answer any questions you may have.

But what it demonstrated was that the apartment building is actually 245 feet away.

It's a great deal of distance away.

In between, there's landscaping.

There will be a six-foot masonry wall as conditioned by condition 14, as well as a noise analysis that says that both daytime standard and the nighttime standard for the project will be below the city's noise threshold.

In addition, the maximum noise associated with the project would be less than the existing ambient noise, which I think is an important thing to note.

So I don't see that there's an issue with respect to noise and the adjacent use as it relates to the findings in the noise analysis.

I will also say the findings that I just noted were all conducted and calculated prior to the imposition of the wall.

The wall would allow for further noise attenuation.

As you noted from the staff report, there's broad community support.

You have a number of letters in the record.

Maybe most importantly, the one from North the Thomas Community Coalition, Lynn Lindsey,

former colleague of many of yours who was on this commission for years, wrote a very

well written letter of support for the project, as has the business community with Hines and

Raley's and then more than 13 or so residents in the area have written letters supporting

the project saying that they want this.

I would say in closing that it's a good project and it's a good location.

It's gonna provide up to 75 new jobs for the area.

It's a popular new brand.

It's got broad support among the community

and as you noted was indeed supported by RT.

The general plan does not preclude the use

that we are requesting.

We urge your approval tonight.

We are here ready to answer any questions

that you may have.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for the staff

for the applicant from the commission.

And I might add that you guys exhaustively

work through all the issues

and I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments

as I reviewed through the video.

So thank you.

Do we have public speaker comments?

Oh yeah, yeah, absolutely.

Thank you.

Can I have Karen Riviera please come up?

Karen Rivera, Good evening. My name is Karen Rivera. I work on a variety of planning commission

projects for probably the last 30 years. Most notably our Delta Shores, which I was a resident

up then, but I knew nothing about raising canes, but I have children, grown children

and grandchildren that love raising canes, and I think that it would be a good fit because

it's close on the freeway.

I do a lot of traveling, and I like to jump on the freeway.

I like to go through a drive-thru, and I like to jump right back on the freeway.

I also like to be able to sit in my car.

So my kids and grandkids are enthusiastic about the project.

I'd also like to note, since I do have grandchildren now, and the job market being what it is,

I think it would be a great opportunity for the representatives in that district

to have some type of a job fair or a connection to the local high schools

and junior high schools for those employment needs.

I think it would be a good fit for both the community and the residents

and the Raising Cane.

Thank you.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Dorothea Reeves.

Hello, my name is Dorothea Reeves.

I am a Natomas resident.

I would love for Raising Cane to be for the community.

We need to help Raising Cane get with the schools and hire some of these kids.

They love this place.

I thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

I have no more speakers on this item.

Great.

Thank you.

I had some questions, but I wanted to see if anyone had any follow-up questions.

It seems like everyone's ready to go.

All right.

Well, I had a question for staff on page 12.

I see the graphic of the site.

It's boxed in yellow.

And then to the west of it, there's further vacant land.

Is all of that land owned by the applicant?

In the staff report, the vacant land to the west of the project site,

that's actually developed now with apartments that are open.

Oh, it's currently developed with apartments.

Correct.

I see.

Okay.

Those are open now.

They're being leased out.

Oh, okay.

They're currently being leased.

Okay.

So really the only piece right now is that in yellow that's currently vacant.

Correct.

That's the only vacant land.

Understood.

Thanks for clarification.

Clarification.

Commissioner Ortiz.

I was debating whether or not to sort of think out loud, but I'm just going to do it,

and I don't know where this is going to conclude.

I really appreciate the staff had done their job.

They appropriately identified potential issues with the light rail line.

And I think we were really diligent in the last meeting to say we want to hear from RT.

And we indeed have heard from RT by submitting a letter that says they support the project.

So there's this underlying, it's on a light rail line.

which would at least on its face suggest that this is inconsistent to place this here with a drive-through.

But on the other hand, you've got this letter generally supporting the project.

I do think staff, I recall they either pointed out or perhaps I recall us asking last meeting whether or not this placement would jeopardize future funding.

And I think that question is still, I don't think they answered it directly, but the fact that they're supporting the project suggests, I guess we can imply it doesn't jeopardize future funding.

You know, I think what I did try to get from staff, and they were very clear, is that there's no specific line yet.

The engineering and the location of the actual line adjacent, it's near this project, but it's not clear where it's going to be.

So that's in the future. I do think, and I'm just going to say this is not a decision, it's just the challenges when we rely upon overlying policies and regs and we get contradictory positions, again, our staff has done their job appropriately pointing out the policies and the plans.

But on the other hand, we have RT stepping forward saying they support this specific project, which I think is in contradiction.

If they had said, we support the project because it's not going to jeopardize future funding, and by the way, the line is not yet designed, but we can accommodate it, that would have been a much easier decision.

But on the other hand, we don't have any opposition to this project, other than I think the staff's very sound policy guidance.

So I just want to point out it's really challenging for the staff and for us as a governing body to make these decisions when we see these inconsistencies, particularly from regional transit.

So I do hope that in the future, regional transit will give a little more specificity of how we resolve these conflicts in the underlying plan and the placement of the light rail.

And I think I was quoted somewhere saying the funding speculative.

Yeah, everybody's always said this funding is speculative.

and it's far out in the future.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get,

I mean, this is so essential to get light rail to the airport.

I mean, this has been years in the making and years in the wanting,

but we have no reason to reject this project,

even from RT, the governing body that is the transit entity.

So I just want to go on record saying I just wish we had greater clarity

from the body that we trust to guide us on public transportation.

and it's not a criticism of the applicant.

He's got a client.

They have a client.

Sounds like a wonderful place.

I may have to find a way to get there,

but it's just challenging

when we have this contradictory policies.

That's all.

I just had to go on record saying that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Caden.

Yeah, I mean, I guess a couple comments

or I guess questions first.

Just recognizing, I think, the letter from RT

went in a couple directions.

I know there was another letter.

Maybe you talk about the Air Quality Management District

letter that I think was in more firm opposition

to this project.

And then, yeah, I'll stop there and ask a second one.

Yeah, thank you.

So the Air District's letter that they had submitted

focused on that this project really isn't

transit-oriented development and concerns

with the proximity to the light rail station in its future.

They addressed that.

And also the idea of urban heat island effect.

And they also addressed the need for, you know,

in their letter they talked about uplifting

the transit-oriented development ordinance.

However, that does not apply to this project

because of the development agreement.

But they did reference that as kind of their founding reasons

for concerns to this project.

And then in terms of the alignment,

I mean, I know there's some question marks,

I guess, still around the specifics,

but can you talk a little bit about the right-of-way

that's been set aside for this particular

either light rail or BRT extension along Truxell?

Yeah, so I know that there is some IODs

that have been obtained for SACRT,

that'll go along Truxell.

I know that continuing down Truxell

as new developments come in,

SACRO to request obtaining those IODs

for the future extension.

So staff during our review process of these projects

along this potential future corridor,

we are obtaining this right of way,

understanding that this plan calls for this extension

and we're actively planning for it,

which is what's our guiding light

on these policies before you.

Yeah, I appreciate that.

I mean, I think, you know, if the Commission will humor me a little bit on this one, I

think, you know, I recognize we're probably perhaps going in a different direction based

on the conversation we had last time, which is fine.

But I guess I wanted to, again, just, I think, express my support for the staff recommendation

to deny this project.

And, you know, just to walk through, I guess, my thinking on it.

I think, you know, part of what the city is trying to do with stuff like the TOD ordinance

and the general plan after that is trying to shape the underlying conditions on the corridor, right?

And so the planning department, the commission, right, council,

we're using these plans and policies to help shape the built environment

to kind of accomplish what we see as public policy goals.

And sometimes, you know, the built environment that exists today

does not look like the built environment that we're trying to create.

in the future, right? And there is no doubt that, you know, this is a very auto-oriented part of the city, right?

The roads are wide. There's a lot of existing drive-throughs. The transit right now is limited.

But I guess I give staff a lot of credit for, you know, as Commissioner Ortiz said, doing their job, right?

I mean, they're sticking to their guns here and recommending denial because they, and I think we as a city,

have a vision for this corridor to be something different, right, with grade-separated transit and transit-oriented development.

And we've, you know, reserved that right of way along Truxell for fixed route transit, right?

We've made this sort of down payment on that future.

And if that shift in land use is ever going to happen, you kind of have to start somewhere.

So it's like a little bit like any one of these, like, first decisions is going to feel arbitrary, I think, understandably.

But you do have to start somewhere.

you know there's there's over 15 or so fast food or fast casual restaurants in

in this area a couple within a couple blocks of the site right there's I think

a fried chicken restaurant about a block from here if we're going to transform

this part of the city which again I recognize is a tall task I think we need

less of the same and a little bit more of the sort of transit and pedestrian

oriented uses that that you know the city is talking about as part of this

document so we're talking apartments we're talking non-residential uses

as well but ones without drive-throughs, right? I think that's sort of the key sticking point as I

understand it from the city's perspective. We had a little bit of this conversation with the Crocker

Village debate, right, where there's just not that many vacant land opportunities that are

in these areas and so these decisions they seem fairly small, right, but they actually are really

important because every time we lose a site to that sort of auto-oriented use it kind of further

locks in that built environment that exists today. And I think it makes it actively less

likely that we're going to get this massive investment, right? Light Rail, BRT, these

are really expensive investments. And, you know, I'm not totally convinced from that

letter from RT that decisions like this don't put us at a disadvantage for competitive funding

opportunities in the future. And certainly make you question the kind of underlying planning

documents and decisions that we've made as a city. So I guess I completely understand

the inclination I guess of wanting to say yes to investment,

right, to the project in the hand.

This is someone who wants to do business in our city,

it's clearly a great business.

But I think to me these sites are I think too precious

to kind of further lock in what's on the ground today

and kind of especially when I guess we have this like

virtually every one of our planning documents,

our guiding documents are kind of suggesting

that we're trying to go in a different direction.

So, again, completely understand how people can come to different conclusions on this, but just wanted to voice that.

I'll give you my time.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Chase.

Thank you, Chair.

I went back and watched today the meeting from November just to re-familiarize myself with the issues, the comments, and everything that everyone had, and the staff report, too.

And again, Zach and everyone, thank you very much for a great job, as other commissioners have mentioned here.

It was a tough one.

We addressed that when we first heard it, that it was a difficult choice.

It still is.

I think one of the things we kick around is transit-oriented development.

And most likely, I think we typically think in terms of that as the development, the starting point,

where people are going to live to then get onto light rail to go to where they work,

where they're in place of employment.

I think this is almost the opposite.

North of here and south of here, certainly where people live,

and they will be using light rail to go to work.

The question is, where do they go to work?

I think this is a destination for people going to work.

I brought up the fact that people certainly aren't going to go to Walmart or Home Depot and carry lumber home

however I think if we look at the number of employees that work in the Thomas marketplace and across the street

tremendous amount of them and so that could be the equivalent of people going to downtown

a great opportunity for people to take light rail to their job and not have to drive their cars there

so I think we talked about how unique this kind of a situation is

and it certainly is, I don't think that retail is such an economic engine of the city,

I don't think it's going to go away quickly.

It's not economically feasible to convert the sales tax income from those properties to convert to residential.

I think we need to find vacant properties to do residential.

And a lot of that, both north and south, and certainly along the boulevards that we've talked about as well.

But this, I think, is so unique that I think it's valuable as a destination.

And in that case, I think it still can fall within the light rail,

RT's needs and designation for a useful transportation entity here.

So with that, I would also, I was confused,

but I think I have a better understanding now of talking to council.

So I was confused from our direction.

Listening to the hearing previously, we directed staff to go back and to come back with,

and it was a unanimous decision to come back with the findings for approval.

And I understand now it's in there, but we've got to dig that out,

even though staff came back with a recommendation of denial again,

because I didn't want to see this thing get kicked around and back and forth and more and more delays.

So we can talk about that more.

But given all of that, I should wait for certainly other commissioners to speak on this.

But I will go ahead and make a motion to support the project, which I guess is in a sense go against the denial of staff.

and if the consensus is there to pursue that,

I think there are conditions that council can help us with

in terms of findings of approval going forward.

So anyway, thank you.

Other hours of operation also.

I think that will be up for discussion.

I just wanted to address the two things that were directed

at the last meeting for us to look at here.

But yeah, I think that's certainly worth consideration.

Thank you, Chair.

You?

Comments?

I did have a question for Commissioner Rischke.

I think in the last meeting you had made comments about that site in particular

and just sort of like what were some viable alternatives, you know, for that site.

And could you maybe kind of go into, so let's just say we deny Raising Cane's on that site.

Like what other type of viable, you know, land uses would fit at that parcel that you, that could work and fit in accordance to the policies of the 2035 general plan?

You're asking me?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, just as far as just from a, I mean, are we basically talking about another commercial space minus a drive-through?

I mean yeah I mean I don't know what would be most feasible you know both

financially and with the zoning that is there and but I mean certainly it sounds

like you know staff's issue was with the drive-through so I think a similar

restaurant that doesn't have a drive-through would would be an option.

Zach, what kind of thoughts, alternatives did planning staff foresee in that site?

So sites within a quarter mile of transit, we would like to see more transit supportive use,

which would be either a higher density, could be a higher employment generator.

That's what's based in our policy documents.

I think that in terms of, I can't speak to the, in this case, we're just looking at the use that was presented to us, which is a drive-thru restaurant.

And when we look at that, we're analyzing that.

There's multiple other uses in the shopping center zone that could be there by right or could be there conditionally that we would review.

But looking at this drive-thru, it just goes against their policies.

Yeah, I think the way my brain is thinking right now, right?

So you're saying there's already a working multifamily project west of that site.

And so there's this really small sliver of vacant land available.

And I'm just trying to envision, okay, so if there is another land use, what would it be?

It's not going to be another multifamily project, right?

That's just not going to be viable unless, yeah, I just don't see that.

So we're really just talking about some other form of commercial space that is either a restaurant.

I don't think it's going to be an office.

It just seems too small for an office.

So we're really just talking about a commercial space that is probably going to need parking.

And so just from a configuration standpoint, I just don't know what that practical alternative is.

to that. And I'm open to hearing suggestions, but that's just, I think that's what's like

ringing in my head right now and saying, well, outside of Raising Cane's or it's just some

commercial restaurant, I don't see any other viable alternative for that site.

okay

with that silence I think we have a motion

oh sorry Commissioner Lee sorry

yeah I just want to first of all thank staff for working on this and

really sticking to our policies on restaurants and

and TOD. I just also just sort of thinking out loud here I recall at our last meeting on this

item there was a commission support and I know that the community supports this project adjacent

businesses support this project and now we know RT supports this project. With that said I just

had a question for staff and I'm not sure this is possible but I just want to throw it out there.

Could this project be approved without a drive-thru?

Yes.

Okay.

I also saw the other recommendation in there.

It looks like there is a staff recommendation to limit the drive-thru to 10 p.m.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So staff's condition for the hours of operation is not for the business.

It is for the drive-thru lanes.

So we're conditioning that the drive-thru lanes close at 10,

but the business itself can still operate until 3.30,

just not the drive-thru component.

Those are my questions at this time. Thank you.

All right. I'm just, before I get to Commissioner Blunt,

I did want to follow up on the rationale for 10 p.m. from the planning staff.

Is it, is it because just to kind of reduce traffic?

What was the rationale for that?

So in, in, in city code,

when a drive-thru restaurant is adjacent to a residential zone or residential

development it sets that 10 p.m limit and reviewing previous drive-through restaurants

we've upheld that to 10 p.m except for in what looks like there's a Dutch Bros next to

some residential that backed up to it where hours were extended to 12 p.m on Friday and Saturday

but for the most for the most part it's been upheld to 10 p.m. Okay so applicant had noted that there

other drive-throughs nearby that were open until 1.30, but they are not located adjacent

to a residential project, and that's correct.

Thank you.

Commissioner Blunt.

Thank you.

Thank you, staff, for all of your work on this.

I also wanted to thank members of the public for coming and giving public comment.

I really appreciate you taking the time and giving your thoughts.

I do have, in terms of the easy on-off, I don't think it's as easy as other on-offs.

As I mentioned before, I'm very familiar with this area.

To be able to access the drive-through, unfortunately, how it's looking to me,

it's like it's gonna it's it's not an easy it's not as easy as it could be and

I do wonder whether or not there are gonna be plans to like change the

traffic lights in that area to be able to make it more accommodating for if if

it does wind up happening that the project like is there gonna be a

dedicated light there I don't think that that's something that we're talking about

tonight so never mind for now I guess but you know I also want to thank

Commissioner Caden for your comments I think that they're very thoughtful and I

agree you know it's if it's I haven't I don't have much experience with trying

bringing light rail into municipalities. Shame on me for not having that type of

experience. But you know I think that that sounds right. You know I think that

this is it's a precious thing and it's got a bit that being the case we got to

make sure that we can do it we do everything that we can to make sure that

but it happens. With that said, to our chairs pondering, right, of like what could go in that

area, I'd go further and kind of, because I think it kind of speaks to everything that we're talking

about, is like what is going on with this area. I work in this area a lot. I mean, my office is

not far from there. I'm there way too much of my life. And I spend a lot of time thinking about it.

I go to that chicken place that Commissioner Caden was talking about, right? And I frequent

the businesses in that area. There's a lot of parking lot. There's a lot of businesses that

are not, there's a giant Barnes & Noble that's just sitting empty. There's a Logan's Steakhouse

that had a ponderous mural inside of it that I missed so much, but it's now boarded up, right?

If no one's seen the mural, please look online because it is something to behold.

um but yeah i i you know and then on top of that you have the uh arena that's going to be

turning into a hospital right you have uh four lanes going each way because there used to be

the necessary traffic for uh going to the the basketball games um and i just i you know i've

I've seen plans for other areas, you know, the Northgate Boulevard.

I've seen plans for other parts of the city.

And I haven't seen a plan for this area.

And I really kind of wonder what that looks like because there's a lot of,

it seems like there's a lot of opportunities.

There's a lot of interesting, there's more housing going in.

We just passed that, right, you know, tonight.

So, you know, it sounds like there's going to be more jobs.

I, you know, I want to take this time to recognize the plight of the railies workers who work 24-7.

I get it.

Like, you know, there aren't, I can speak from experience,

like there aren't a lot of options for late night food in that area.

So, this would be an option for them.

So, yeah.

Do you, yeah, so I guess the question is, is there a plan?

Like what is, or is staff working on a plan for the area?

There are plans for the arena site and for, you know, imagined possible land uses that

could be envisioned on private property owners' land that is undeveloped. There was, for example,

On this site previously a small shopping center approved for this Natomas Fountain site, which

is the reason why it has a development agreement is because of that approval.

And as the market changes, times change and evolve.

And I don't think we could have foreseen, for example, the softening of the office market

the way that it did necessarily.

So our goal is usually to have the zoning and development standards as broad as possible to be able to welcome changes to the market.

So for specific property owners, we don't plan their particular property.

But, for example, if you were part of that promenade shopping center and you had that vacant Barnes & Noble space,

You could be able to retenant that space or demise that space into smaller spaces and put any number of uses in it.

Also, we don't have parking requirements any longer.

And as folks find they might have too much parking, usually they'll add pads into the parking lot area,

which we see, for example, along Arden Way and Exposition.

And wouldn't be surprised to see more of that in Natomas as people, as we welcome more people into the area,

as you heard with the apartments, for example, that are right next door.

So I don't think we have detailed plans for each property in terms of assisting with filling tenant spaces,

but our regulations are broad enough that as the market changes,

property owners can further develop their property and add intensity.

Okay.

Thank you.

Very helpful.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Commissioner Reschke.

Thank you. I have a question for the applicant. I think that Raising Cane's is a national

brand that has stores everywhere, maybe headquartered in Louisiana. Is that right?

Correct.

Is there a local person here in Sacramento who will franchise this and own and operate

or will it be just providing jobs for people who work there

and that is owned and operated by the headquarters in Louisiana?

They're typically operated by local franchisees,

and there's an emphasis on hiring locally as well.

Okay, so is there a local owner at this point,

or they will hire someone who will be employed by the headquarters?

I don't believe there's a local owner yet until the project's approved.

Oh, okay.

Got it. And so they'll like find someone here in Sacramento who wants to have this as a business?

Correct. There are other Raising Cane's in the area as you're likely aware that have their own franchisees.

So is that person an employee of Raising Cane's or are they sort of like the owner of that business and they're working within Raising Cane's?

They contract with Raising Cane's to run the operation.

Thank you.

Mr. Naibo?

I think that, first, I'd like to thank staff.

Thank you very much for the careful consideration in the staff report.

It's very thorough, very informative, and very helpful.

I do have one question, and I apologize.

I'm looking for it right now.

But there's two conditions of approval that staff recommends.

The first one is the hours of the drive-through.

What's the other one?

this reference as attachment seven?

That was a typo in the staff report.

It should have just said one, not two.

Thank you for pointing it out.

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

I doubt that will happen again.

Okay.

So then what I would do is we have a motion on the table.

I will second it.

And with a friendly addition of the hours for the drive-thru.

It's acceptable.

I accept.

What are you specifically saying about?

Second the motion.

and then also include the condition for the drive-through hours to be until 10 p.m.

and allow the operation of the restaurant until 3.30.

Do we have a second?

Commissioner Lamas?

Unless there's anything else you wanted to add.

No, that is the second.

Okay, good.

Commissioner Lamas?

Thank you, Chair.

and thank you staff for the report.

I also appreciate the staff's

consistency trying to

or effort to seek consistency with the goals

and policies of the general plan.

I do think

we had a long-lating discussion about this

during our last meeting in November.

This area is somewhat of an anomaly.

I live in

South of Thomas. I go here

to this area specifically every week.

It is a vehicle-based area.

right? There's just cars are just driving there at all times and there's a lot of vehicle,

a lot of drive-throughs that are in the area of the Starbucks, Del Taco, the In-N-Out.

And so folks are using their cars. I know we're trying to be responsive to the transit line,

which is, which is important. I also, when I, you know, when I'm looking at the letter from

from SACRT, I sense acknowledgement

that that might be a little bit into the future,

given I think one billion, two billion dollar price tag,

forget the actual number.

Is that true?

That seems like a lot.

But it's a lot of money to raise, right?

And so they're looking at alternative options

to try to meet the demand and provide access to,

or support increased transit use

by that rapid bus transit line.

which I think is trying to move the needle along a little more rapidly to try to address the transit concerns.

And I think that can support the use of businesses in this area and specifically relying on cars.

and I'm sorry, I'm sorry, they can also support the workers, right, that are trying to get into these locations for employment.

And so I think there is some alignment there, even though there seems to be some differences, right,

between the general plan and what Secretary is saying.

but I think there does seem to be some alignment there and some support for you know putting the drive-through there.

I think my concern or questions are with hours of operations.

I do hear that the staff has recommended the 10 p.m.

I did I liked that.

I know the applicant indicated some concerns with those hours

and I wanted to maybe explore that a little further.

I know there was the one location the

Dutch Bros that was next to a residential I

Am kind of curious how close to the residential it was because I am looking at a

Site map and there does seem to be a quite a bit of distance between the residential units

Right because there's a residential units and I think there's like

one two three four

rows of parking on the residential side and then you have the Raising Kings property.

And so do we know, do we have a sense of how close the residential structures were compared

relative to that Dutch Bros project and how that might compare to this proposal?

We found one case where it was a Dutch Bros which was about 150 feet and another case

which was the tenant was not identified but this was in North Sacramento.

The residential was across the street so it was more than 200 feet.

And this project proposal is was it 250 feet?

that how far it is from the residential? I can't remember. 250 feet?

245 feet. Okay. And so the Raising Cane's the 150 feet that the city allowed a little bit of

variance there, you said? In that case we allowed it would have been a deviation and to allow

Friday and Saturday night to go until midnight.

Okay.

I mean, I like the 10 p.m.

I used to work at a fast food restaurant.

I know how busy the evenings get,

especially after 2 o'clock

when a lot of people are trying to get back

after being downtown.

So I like the 10 p.m.,

but I know there are some concerns

from the applicant on that.

So I wanted to hear a little more from the applicant,

you know, what that could mean to the business model.

I know the city is proposing to have 10 p.m. drive-through,

but allowing for 3.30 a.m.,

like I said, like a dining experience,

would that, how would that play out

in terms of operations for the business?

I appreciate the question.

Unfortunately, the two are tied together.

They're not going to operate the restaurant without the drive-thru.

A lot of the businesses drive through business, and they need that.

You find later in the evening people don't want to get out of their cars.

They want the safety and security, people with children, the hours and whatnot.

To be candid with you, we don't have a project at 10.

I mean, we have to be competitive with in and out, around the corner.

Again, it's not next to residential, but they're open until 1.30 drive-through as well.

We need to, it's essential.

We don't have a project if we don't have later hours, and we simply don't,

and we'd have to move forward in a different fashion.

But we cannot operate the business.

They don't do that.

They don't operate the drive-through and the restaurant independent of one another.

They go together.

It's the whole operation of the store.

We are amenable, however, to, I know that we asked for 3 in the morning,

but I think if there was an opportunity for, say, 1.30, something like that, we could do that.

I think it puts us in parity with some of our neighbors, all of which, for the most part, are open well past 10.

I mean, it would be the only restaurant out that way.

The adjacent property owner of the apartment building sent in a letter of support for those hours.

Raley sent in a letter of support for those hours.

As you've heard from other commissioners, Commissioner Blunt, there's a need for food beyond 10 o'clock at night.

It's a crippling effect to this operation to close at 10 when everybody else is at 1.30, 1, 24 hours a day at Del Taco.

So we would strongly urge for extended hours.

And Commissioner Reschke, I just wanted to address something to clarify.

I was mistaken. The private, the company is entirely private now. There was a time where they were doing franchises and that's no longer the case.

There are not franchises.

Okay, so it's just owned by headquarters.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that, sorry.

Council has a, oh, I'm sorry, are you done?

Before I do, I guess I'd like to hear if there's any comments from Council.

I just want to make sure I'm following the motion.

So this is a question for Commissioner Chase and Commissioner Nybo, if you accept this.

So your motion is to approve the project, meaning approve the findings of fact and conditions of approval and attachment for,

which would approve the mitigated negative declaration, the conditional use permit to operate the drive-through,

and site plan and design review for the building.

and what you are currently, so that's your motion and the second agrees, but that's the motion.

And what you're currently debating is condition B8, which staff is currently recommending the hours of operation be limited to 10 p.m.

To answer your question, Commissioner Lamas, you asked if in these other cases, if that was a variance,

when the hours were extended beyond 10 p.m.

So the city code says the hours will,

drive-throughs will close at 10 p.m.

unless the decision maker approves a different time.

It's not a variance or a deviation,

but you have to state on the record

that we want to amend the proposed condition.

Okay.

I haven't commented on the issue,

Thank you staff for your due diligence on this project and thank you for the steadfast

recommendation that sticks to our policy within the city.

I believe everybody on council here, or not council, I'm sorry, the planning commission

here we do believe, we do support the policy, the current policy of the 2040 general plan,

the 2035.

However, in this scenario, we're presented with a case where it's a feasible project for the area.

The area has high car traffic as well.

And so I am supportive of the project.

However, I'm open to a sweet spot of maybe 12 a.m., 1.30 a.m.

I don't know what the business model is,

and I'm okay with 10 p.m. as well, too.

I want to hear from my colleagues.

But finding a sweet spot maybe at 12 a.m., 1 a.m.,

just to be in alignment with the local businesses in that area as well,

I'm also okay with that.

I feel that looking at other Raising Kings in the community here,

they do open to 3.30 a.m.

some closes at 2 a.m.

Maybe the conditions could be 10 p.m. on weekdays,

weekends 12 a.m., 1 a.m.

So I definitely am open to that discussion as well.

Thank you.

I'm going to, I want to move on to Commissioner Macias Reid,

but I do want to give an opportunity for Vice Chair Chase

and Commissioner Naibo.

Do you want to amend your motion with regards to the time?

Because I don't think that was necessarily on the forefront of your mind.

But given all that's transpired, do you want to amend?

You want to keep it at 10?

Keep it at 10, Commissioner Chase?

There's your motion.

I prefer to keep what the applicant was asking for.

Otherwise, it sounds like the model is not feasible.

Okay.

okay so you want to move it to 1 30. 1 30 okay so may I ask just a clarifying question so I'm

sorry I'm scrambling and trying to find so there's the time limit on the drive-thru itself and then

the time limit on the restaurant is there a there's the 10 p.m. for the drive-thru or is

there a different time limit for the inside of the restaurant 10 p.m. both okay the the conditional

approval is just meant to condition the drive-through facility so that drive-through, the drive-through

element, but since it's a restaurant, they can operate 24 hours, but we're just saying the drive-through

portion of this business per hour condition is 10 p.m. Thank you. And then to confirm, just to

reiterate, Zach, you had to indicate there isn't, or Courtney, there was no requirement

in our policies that it has to be at 10 for,

if it's adjacent to a residential.

I'm sorry, the city code does say 10 p.m.

unless you all say something else.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

And then to confirm again from the applicant,

there was a letter of support from the adjacent owner

of the apartment complex for the project

as well as the times for the operations of the drive-through?

Yes.

Heinz is the company that owns the apartment project next door.

They wrote a letter of support for the project.

There was no objection to the hours of operation,

and that was at the 3 a.m. time frame.

So as Commissioner, Vice Chair Chase mentioned,

1.30 would probably be just fine if 3 was fine.

Raley's, on the other hand, was very enthusiastic about the 3 a.m. because they have people working there at all hours, 24-7.

And so that was something that they very much delighted in.

Thank you for that clarification.

Commissioner Macias-Reed.

Thank you, Chair.

I just realized that I hadn't said anything, and I probably should.

So thank you for the thoughtful conversations.

Commissioner Caden, I really appreciate your thoughtful comments.

It's, I think, something that we've grappled with, certainly at the last meeting,

and something that we will continue to grapple with as we go through,

as these entitlements potentially come to us.

in the future. And I do agree that there's limited space that we have. I live, I would say,

virtually around the corner from a light rail station, and I understand. I don't use it.

I don't use light rail. But I completely understand it. So I think I'll just mention

a couple of things that have stuck with me at this conversation this evening and I think

have sort of brought me to where I'm at with my decision making this evening. And I think

one of them is certainly the letter that was provided with SACRT. Now, I don't think that

they have directly answered the question that we had asked at the last meeting, which was,

will this directly impede on our ability to get future funding for the light rail or BRT or anything of that nature.

And so we didn't get that question answered, but there was support for the project.

And I guess what that tells me, not much to the comments that Commissioner Ortiz said earlier,

was that I think SACRT also, to a degree, is sort of grappling with the policy

and sort of the entitlement issue that we're dealing with here tonight.

And so there's that issue.

I do want to say when Chair Young brought up the topic of discussion about, well, if this doesn't go there, then what is feasible to go in that location?

Because, you know, oftentimes, you know, if you look at the staff report, there have been, you know, approvals on that property in the past, and there hasn't been anything built there, right?

what is feasible in that location.

I know in the staff report on page,

oh gosh, I just lost myself on page,

well, on the staff report,

one of the staff had mentioned on one of the denials

is due to the low employment intensity, right?

That was one of the reasons, right?

It was auto-related,

but also due to low employment intensity,

this is one of the reasons

why we are not supportive of the project.

But, you know, in prior iterations of what could potentially go there, you know, whether it's a restaurant that didn't have a drive-through or whether it was, you know, retail, right, that potentially needed some parking or didn't need parking, you're still looking at a low employment intensity, right?

And so I will still, I think that question is still a legitimate question to ask.

And then the last thing I wanted to talk about was the topic of discussion that we're having tonight around the operation hours, the hours of operation.

I think that it's pretty clear that the applicant is saying that the project is not feasible at the 10 p.m. if they have to close at 10 p.m.

So I guess my question here would be to the maker of the motion and the seconder is I'm not sure if we came to.

He changed it to 130.

Okay, because it just seems like, okay, we need to sort of address, you know, if you're saying it's not,

if we're making a motion to approve the project but you're saying it's not feasible at 10 p.m.

and the drive-through and the, you know, business needs to operate together, then it's sort of a move point.

So anyways, I think we've addressed that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lee.

Thank you, Chair.

Regarding the drive-thru time, I want to talk a little bit more about that, too.

I just want to highlight that.

What's different about this drive-thru in this particular location and what makes it unique is that it's adjacent to residential.

if you look at the

in and out over there

it's not contiguous

to any residential

and so I think

that the 10 p.m. time that staff

recommends is sensitive to that

and I think that it is

sound policy

I think that we really have to think about

down the line what we're approving here

when you have a drive-through

next to a residential

you have to think about the kids, the parents

you know people are trying to go to sleep at 10 p.m they have work or school the next day

and so I just want to remind everyone about that and I think that you know just just going out

past 10 p.m sometimes to you know when maybe grab a burger in and out I mean their lobby is still

busy I think that you can still have a successful business where people walk into the lobby and we

see that. So yeah, with that I'll yield my time. Thank you. Commissioner Lamas. Thank you, Chair.

I just had a clear like an administrative question to clarify. There was a motion and there was a

second, but we're proposing to change the motion. Do we have to propose a change of the motion

and then vote on the change to that motion?

So right now, Commissioner Chase's motion on the floor is 1.30 p.m., right?

And so the question to Commissioner Nybo is, do you accept that for your second?

I'll second that.

Okay, so that's 1.30 a.m.

Did I say something else?

Oh, tough break.

Sorry, guys.

So you'll vote on that?

Okay.

That's the motion on the floor.

Okay.

Thank you.

So with that, I'm inclined to support that motion.

It has some alignment with In-N-Out.

I know In-N-Out, in terms of their operating hours, I know In-N-Out is not next to residential.

I think the reason why I am inclined to support an increase from 10 a.m.

but a decrease from 3 a.m.

is because there does seem to be a good amount of distance between the residential dwelling units,

the apartments, and the actual drive-through.

So that makes me feel a little more comfortable with trying to find a middle ground.

I know the applicant also indicated that the initial noise study didn't include a masonry wall

and so that also might be another mitigating factor that would make me feel comfortable extending the hours to 1.30.

I'm wondering, I think the applicant brought the specialists that prepared the report.

The specialist may be able to come up here and speak a little bit to that

and how that masonry wall might further impact noise.

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commission.

My name is Alex Jewell. I'm with Kim Lee Horn, and my firm helped with the preparation of the environmental documentation for the project.

With regard to the question of the environmental wall, you know, generally speaking, a solid wall like that would add about five decibel attenuation to the noise levels.

In this particular case, we are below the city's noise standard for both daytime and nighttime already.

So this would just, a masonry wall or any kind of wall for that matter would further reduce that,

but it wouldn't make a difference in terms of the project being below the city's standard.

and as Mr. Hooper noted earlier,

the noise level at the site right now is 60 DBA

and so our maximum noise levels would be below that already.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate that.

So with that, I would extend my support for the motion

with the recommendation to alter the hours of operations to 138.

Thank you.

Commissioner Reschke.

Okay.

I think this question was already answered, but I'm not totally clear on it.

Does every drive-through that's open later than 10 have an exception,

like the ones that were described as being nearby?

Yes.

So if it's adjacent to residential, then it would have,

the commission would have then agreed to change those hours of operation.

Okay. Got it. Thank you. And then I just have a I guess a couple of thoughts which are just a couple of concerns I guess with the motion.

And one of those things is that you know hearing that Heinz the apartment complex supported it.

You know that's the owner of the apartment complex but not necessarily the residents that live there.

And there have been neighbors who came and shared their support.

but I don't know if it's people who are directly affected by living right there. And then I

appreciated Commissioner Cadence remarks about how it's hard to be the first sort of pin in

the change of a car centric area like this. And for me that feels a little bit easier

to be that first step when it's sort of an out of state entity and it's not like someone

local wanting to have their business, you know, and we're blocking that. So those are

just a couple of concerns I have and I just wanted to share that.

Thank you. Commissioner Lee.

Just a quick question around the wall and the help with the sound reductions. Does

that account for maybe the applicant or the engineer can help answer. But does that account

for the residential if it's you know two or three or four stories high I don't have in front of me

how tall the residential is.

So no the any kind of wall would would reduce noise in the line of sight so if you did have a

two or three story building

through the wall

wouldn't impact that.

But again, as it was noted earlier,

we're 245 feet away from

the near

restaurant and intercom system

is 245 feet away from the nearest

residence and we

are below the city's noise

requirements for that.

Okay, thank you.

Is Commissioner Tower a commission

Lomas. Thank you chair. I just I actually want to be responsive to

Commissioner Lee's comment earlier about the hours of operation particularly

during the work week compared to the weekend and I did see in the staff

report that in and out had different hours of operation during the work week

versus the weekend the work week went to 1 a.m. while Friday and Saturday went to

So 1.30, is that correct?

Are you talking about the in and out

that's in the Nutella's marketplace?

Yes.

Yeah.

Are you, I think, are you referring

to the applicant's attachment,

the letter request that identifies the,

so yes, it says that it's Monday through Thursday,

10.30 a.m. to 1 a.m.

and then Friday to Sunday.

is until 1.30 a.m.

Okay.

Thank you.

So I think for me, and I appreciate the specialists

that prepared that noise analysis,

the sound analysis for us speaking

and sharing that context,

and I imagine that might be more towards, like,

the cars and the noise from the cars

and taking the orders,

because I think Raising Cane's has folks outside

taking orders to help the cars.

You know, having worked at a fast food restaurant

I know sometimes there could be a loud noise from folks after they get their food and they hang out in the parking lot

And that's what it causes me some some concerns and things

Especially being so close to residential property, but I again I think that there is a

Significant amount of distance between the residential units and the drive-through that allows for trying to find a middle ground here. I would

I would like to make a friendly amendment,

propose a friendly amendment to the motion

to maybe adjust our operation to close at 1 a.m.

Monday through Thursday and then 1.30 Friday through Sunday.

Thank you. With that, you'll have time.

And then Commissioner Naibo needs to second that.

Second that.

Okay.

I have a second.

Anyone else?

All right.

I think we have all had a chance to share our views and express our thoughts.

Thank you.

Clerk, will you please call roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee.

I'm sorry.

Can you repeat the amendment, the hours?

I just want to make sure.

Monday through Thursday until 1 a.m.

and then on the weekends outside of those days until 1.30.

Okay. Aye.

Commissioner Tao? Aye.

Commissioner Lamas? Aye.

Commissioner Nebo? Nebo, excuse me. Aye.

Commissioner Caden? No.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent.

Commissioner Macias-Reed? Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz? No. Commissioner Blunt? Aye. Vice Chair Chase? Aye. Commissioner Rischke? No. Commissioner Thompson? Oh, absent. And Chair Young? What's the number right now? Oh, God. Pressure is on.

That's not how I want to go.

What are we having?

We need seven.

We already have seven.

You have seven already.

All right.

No.

No?

Okay.

Okay.

There were seven votes.

The motion passes.

Good discussion.

Congratulations.

All right.

We'll move on to the next discussion item,

which is the next chair and vice chair for calendar year 2026.

So is there anything that needs to be said from the planning staff before I make a motion?

You can't make it.

Should we make it?

You have a script that you need to go through.

All right.

Okay.

Well, good evening.

This is Rosanna Montesinos from the city clerk's office.

The detailed information is in your staff report, but I have a few important reminders regarding the election of officers.

We will hear nominations and vote for the chair first and then followed by the vice chair.

The newly elected chair and vice chair will begin their terms at the next regular meeting.

Commissioners may nominate another commissioner or themselves.

And please remember that the commissioner may serve for no more than two calendar years in each position.

If you wish to make a nomination, please add your name to the speaker queue.

Thank you.

All right.

So I don't know where you want to go with that.

Question procedurally.

Yes.

Is it preferable for a commissioner other than the chair to make the motion?

Okay.

If that indeed is...

Well, let's hear from staff.

I'll defer to the clerk's office, but I'm guessing you're going to say no preference.

Exactly.

No preference.

With that...

or staff also want to hand in?

I'm happy to make a motion for our vice chair,

Commissioner Chase, to be nominated as chair.

Great.

I second that.

I wanted to just add,

Vice Chair Chase has done an exceptional job

as the vice chair,

but also in the times that he has also

been at the head of the dais in 2025. He's a man who has brought a lot of great

thought to the dais and openness and he shepherded a very difficult conversation

in November regarding this project and really did admire his leadership and I

I think he's going to do an excellent job as chair for this dais.

All right.

Let's do a roll.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Yalmas?

Aye.

Commissioner Nybo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent.

Commissioner Macias-Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye.

Commissioner Risky?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

All right.

On to Vice Chair.

I'd like to make a motion.

I'd like to make a motion for Commissioner Kayden for Vice Chair.

Is there a second?

I would like to second that.

Okay, Commissioner Blunt seconds.

I also wanted to just mention for Commissioner Caden,

he has been a remarkable thought leader on this dais

for the years that he has served.

And we can all agree that he has helped elevate

our collective understanding of the general plan and policy

and how he connects that with the housing goals of Sacramento.

And I think he is also really does an excellent job

of really helping us to effectuate that policy on the dais.

And so I'm thrilled to be able to nominate you

as vice chair and expect that you'll be providing

excellent leadership down the road.

All right.

So we've got a motion and a second.

All right.

And just for the record, Vice Chair Chase, you do accept as well.

Do you have to have that?

Yes, I do accept it.

I want to thank my colleagues for the honor.

Thank you.

Okay.

Now for Vice Chair Kayden.

Commissioner Lee.

Aye.

Commissioner Tao.

Yes.

Commissioner Lamas.

Aye.

Commissioner Nybo.

Aye.

Commissioner Kayden.

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent.

Commissioner Macias-Reed?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase?

Aye, and I'd also like to say I look forward to working with Vice Chair Caden.

Commissioner Risky?

Aye.

Commissioner Thompson is absent.

And Chair Young?

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

It's an honor.

Commissioner Caden, can you please accept as well?

I formally accept.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Condolences.

Let's move on with the agenda.

Commissioners, comments, ideas, questions.

All right.

Any public comments?

Matters not on the agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

I have none.

All right.

With that, I will call this meeting adjourned.

I just need to make that loud.

This is my last act as a chair.

We should have.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.