Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All the roll to establish a quorum.

Thank you, chair. Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Tao?

Here.

Commissioner Lomas? Here. Commissioner Nibel?

Here.

Commissioner Caden?

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez? Excuse me. Absent. Commissioner Missy S. Reid? Here. Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

Commissioner Blunt?

Here.

Vice chair Chase?

Here.

Commissioner Rischke? Here. Commissioner Thompson? Thompson? 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 Nisenan people, the Southern Maidu Valley, and Plains Miwok, Patwin Wintun 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 acknowledgment 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 for all.

Alright. 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 speaker sips on this item.

Alright. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item or make a motion? Commissioner Macias Reid. I'll

make a motion to move.

Right. Commissioner Ortiz?

Second.

I have a second. Alright. Will the clerk please call the roll for a vote.

Thank you, chair. Commissioner Lee? Aye. Commissioner Tao? Aye. Commissioner Lomas? Aye. Commissioner Nebo?

Aye.

Commissioner Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez? Absent. Commissioner Macias Reid? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Blunt? Aye. Vice Chair Chase? Aye. Commissioner Rischke? Commissioner Thompson. Absent. Chair Young. Aye. Thank you. The motion passes.

Alright. Moving on to the next agenda item. Item two, the Parkside Community Church Monopine project is being continued to 02/26/2026. So we'll move on to item three, the Enclave at Airport Road P 25 Dash 010. The presenter is Deja.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Deja Harris, associate planner with the community development department, and I am here to present the Enclave at Airport Road project. This item p twenty five zero one zero 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 approximate to Tanzanite Park further south.

The project site is currently zoned single unit or duplex dwelling r one a and is not located within a plant unit development or covered by an active development agreement. As a part of this project, the applicant is requesting to annex the into the adjacent Natomas Crossing area two 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 r one a zone to r one a PUD zone, PUD schematic plan and guideline amendment to add the project site into the Natomas Crossing area two 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.

Tendative 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 and Thomas Community Coalition.

Staff recommends the commission pass a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to the city council. Staff 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 recusals for this item? All right. Vice Chair Chase.

Yes, I had a telephone discussion with the applicant's representative consistent with the staff report. Right. Commissioner Marcias Reed?

Same.

Commissioner Nybo? Same. Commissioner Lummis and Tow? Same. Same. Commissioner Ortiz?

Thank you. I had

a brief conversation with the applicant.

Thank you. Representative.

Commissioner Reschke? Same. Alright. And I also spoke with the applicant's representative, consistent with the staff report. Alright. Thank you. Are there any speaker slips for this item?

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

Alright. Do we have any questions for the staff or any applicant motions or any motions from the commission? Commissioner Amasias Reid? No, I'm sorry.

The names are a little

Oh, so who's Commissioner Marcias Read then? Commissioner 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. 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. With that I will make a motion, Thank Mr.

You. Vice

Chair Chase. I will second that motion.

All

right. I have a second. Commissioner Lamas or Commissioner Tao? Commissioner Lamas.

Thank you, Chair. I did have some questions for the applicant. I was able to attend the NCCA meeting, community meeting that heard some more 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 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 Alamos. Nick Abdis 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 long time 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 on the path, we are certainly open to that idea. It would 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 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 to the you know, in gearing up for the city council meeting to incorporate this concept. But we have 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.

Well, then maybe I would just encourage further exploration of that as, you know, 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, they they were 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 es and potential concerns with mailbox mail theft, particularly in the North North Thomas area. 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 at inside the parcel that would allow for them to be further away from the street. Wondering if that was something you guys have had a chance to look at as well.

Yeah. That's also we're willing to consider. I I don't know if staffs has a a position. We don't have a preference location of the mailboxes. I mean, I know that's been an ongoing issue, obviously, in North Detomas with mail theft. I mean, that's a pretty significant issue. But we're happy to move the the mailbox unit. Yep. Okay. Then I would

just encourage staff to maybe have 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 that need to be taken into consideration. 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? You know, it's all about choices and consequences. You know, in this case, I mean, we're 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 to say that that we're comfortable with where it is as well because of that, the nature of the overall design. Right? So

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I I there was one last comment. I know the letter there was a letter submitted in opposition to the project. It also meant but it I think it was mentioning an adjacent project as well. So I was wondering if you can kinda just speak to that, how this is a totally separate project. There's another project that's looking to build multifamily housing and there seem to be some opposition to that compared to this project specifically. Yes.

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 mistakenly believed that this project was somehow associated with that one, but two separate independent projects, obviously. Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that. Yep. 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. Thank you to staff for preparing the report. With that, I'll give

you my time. Thank you. Commissioner Kaden. Thank you. I was

just gonna second the motion.

Alright. You you'll have to third it because I think we already had a Yeah.

Oh, it already did.

Yeah. That's alright. No worries. Commissioner Lee.

Yeah. Just a quick question for for staff. I noticed that these homes are more on the narrow side and there are no ground floor retail ground floor or 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 is part of the design guidelines. We it has to encourages 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 get incorporate a lot of transparency along the Ground Floor. But there is along the 2nd 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. Yes. 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? Alright. Will the Clerk call the roll?

Okay. Just to confirm, Commissioner Ortiz and Commissioner, we had the motion by Commissioner Ortiz and then Commissioner Chase. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Lee? Aye. Commissioner Dao? Excuse Commissioner Lammas? Aye. Commissioner Nebo.

Aye.

Commissioner Caden. Aye. Commissioner Hernandez. Aye. Commissioner Mesias Reid. Aye. Commissioner Ortiz. Aye. Commissioner Blunt. Aye. Vice Chair Chase. Aye. Commissioner Rischke. Aye. Commissioner Thompson? Absent. And Chair Young? Aye. Thank you. The motion passes.

Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. We are gonna move on to public hearing item four, Raising Cane's Gateway Park P 24 Dash 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.

Alright. Commissioner Marcias Reid?

I think her names are fixed now.

Are they fixed now? Oh my gosh.

Now that you got a whole

They got a house switch. Okay.

I'm Oh, it's okay. Okay. Goodness. Sorry.

It's okay. Thank

you chair. I had a brief conversation with the applicants consistent with staff report.

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. Alright.

Zach, you're up. Thank you. Good evening to the chair, vice chair, and fellow commissioners. My name is Zach Dollis, 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 11/13/2025 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 of approval 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 III and IV of the staff report. Staff's recommendation of denial has not changed, and findings for denial have been included in Attachment III 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 13 meeting. And with that, that ends the 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. Have no speaker slips on this item.

Okay. Was applicants 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 10PM, recommendation in the staff report that indeed the, applicant seeks a 3AM 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. Do they dovetails well into this neighborhood because as you saw from Raley's letter of support, they have the twenty fourseven 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 twenty four hour seven basis. I would say that to do anything less would potentially put the project to the competitive disadvantage. There are a lot of surrounding restaurants including drive throughs that are open until one, 01:30 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 twenty four hours a day.

The community is supportive of the extended hours. Both Heinz, 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. With 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 in 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 is broad community support. You have a number of letters in the record.

Maybe most importantly, the one from the North Natomas 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 Heinz 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'd 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 or for the applicant from the commission? And I might add that you guys exhaustively worked through all the issues And I really appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments as I reviewed through the video. Thank you. Do we have public speaker comments? Oh, yeah. Sounds good. Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you. Can I have Karen Riviera please come up?

Good evening. My name Karen Rivera. I work on a variety of planning commission projects for probably the last thirty years, most notably our Delta Shores, which I was a resident of then. But, I knew nothing about raising canes, but I have children, grown children, and grandchildren that love raising Cain. 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 through, 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. Id 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 raise in Canes. 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 Raisin Kane to be to for the community. We need to help the Raisin Cain get with the schools and hire some of these kids. They love this place. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, chair. 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. 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 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. And those are open now. They're being leased out.

Oh, okay. They're currently being leased. Okay. So, really, the the only piece right now is yellow that's currently vacant.

Correct. That's the only vacant. Okay. Understood.

Thanks for clarification clarification. Commissioner Ortiz?

Yeah. 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've appropriately identified potential issues with the light rail line. 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 the drive thru. But on the other hand, you've got this letter generally supporting the project. I do think staff, I recall they have 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 suggest, I guess we can imply it doesn't jeopardize future funding.

You know, I 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 this the location of the actual line adjacent, it's it's near this project, but it's not clear where it's gonna be. So that's in the future. I do think, and I'm just gonna say this is this is 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 and, you know. But on the other hand, we have our two 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 gonna 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 and I think I was quoted somewhere saying the the funding's 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 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 I'm 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 I just 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 McKayden?

Yeah. I mean, I guess a couple comments on or I guess questions first. Just recognizing, I think, the letter from RT went in a couple of directions. I know there was another letter. Can 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 when it 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 the need for, you know, in their letter, they talked about uplifting the 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, 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 Truxel?

Yeah. So I know that there is some IODs that have been obtained for SACRT that go along Truxel. I know that continuing down Truxel as new developments come in, SACRT will 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, appreciate that. I mean, I think, you know, if the Commission will humor me a little bit on this one, think, yeah, 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 just to walk through, I guess, my thinking on it, I think part of what the city is is trying to do with stuff like the TOD ordinance and the general plan after that is trying to shelve is trying to shape the underlying conditions on the on the corridor. Right?

And so the planning department, the commission, right, council, are 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 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 SAF a lot of credit for, as Commissioner Marti 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 quarter to be something different, right, with grade separated transit and transit oriented development. And we've reserved that right of way along Truxel 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 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 gonna transform this part of the city, which, again, I 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 is talking about as part of its document. So we're talking apartments, we're talking non resident residential uses as well, but but ones without drive throughs. Right? I think that's that's sort of the the key sticking point as I understand it from 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 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, 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 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 to voice that. I'll give my time. Thank you.

Vice Chair Chase.

Thank you, Chair. I I went back and watched today the meeting from the 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.

It was a difficult choice. Still is. I think one of the things we kick around is, you know, transit oriented development. And most likely, I think we typically think in terms of that is the development, the starting point, where people are going to live to then get on to light rail to go to where they work, where they're 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. Question is where do they go to work? I think this is a destination for people going to work. I brought 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 Natomas 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, you know, I think it's we've 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 on this. And a lot of that both North South and certainly along the boulevards that we've talked about as well. But this, I think, is so unique that Think is valuable as a destination.

And in that case, I think it still can fall within the light rail RT's needs and designation for useful transportation entity here. So with that, I would I'm also was I was confused, but I think I have a better understanding now talking to counsel. Was confused when 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 to 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 would I should wait for other you know, certainly other commissioners to speak on this. But I would we'll go ahead and make a motion to support the project, so which I guess is in a sense, you know, go against the denial of staff. And if the consensus is there to pursue that, I think there are conditions that counsel can help us with in terms of, you know, findings of approval going forward. So, anyway, thank you.

How many 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 to to look at here. So but, yeah, I think that's certainly worthy of consideration. Thank you, chair. Thank

Any 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 so let's just say we deny raising canes on that site. Like, what other type of viable, you know, land uses would would fit at that parcel that you that could work and and fit in accordance to to the policies of the 2535 2035 general plan?

You're addressing 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 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 what kind of thoughts alternatives did did planning staff foresee in that site, you know?

So sites within a quarter mile of transit, we like to be we would like to see, more transit supportive use, which would be either a higher density, could be at a higher employment generator. That's what's based in our policy documents. I think that in terms of I can't 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 I I think the way my brain is thinking right now. Right? So you you're saying there's already a a 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 gonna be a another multifamily project. Right? There's that's just not gonna be viable unless, yeah, I 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 gonna be an office. It just seems too small for an office. So we're really just talking about a commercial space that is probably gonna need parking. And and so just from a configuration standpoint, I just don't I don't know what that practical alternative is to that. And and I'm open to hearing suggestions, but I that's just I think that's what's ringing in my head right now and saying, 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.

Yeah. I just want to first of all thank staff for working on this and really sticking to our policies on restaurants and TLD. I just also just sort of thinking out loud here. I recall at our last meeting on this item, there was commission support, and I know that the community supports this project, adjacent businesses support this project, and now we know RT supports this project. And with that said, I just had a question for staff, and I'm not sure if this is possible, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

Could this project be approved without a drive through?

Yes. Okay. I also saw the other recommendation in there. Looks like there is a staff recommendation to limit the drive through to 10PM. Is that correct?

Yes. So staff's condition for the hours of operation is not for the business. It is for the drive through lanes. So we're we're conditioning that the drive through lanes close at ten, but the business itself can still operate until 03:30, just not the drive through component.

Got it. Those are all 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 ten p. M. From the planning staff. Is it is it because just to kind of reduce traffic? What what was the rationale for for that?

So in an in in city code, when a drive thru restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned or residential development, it sets that 10PM limit. And reviewing previous drive thru restaurants, we've upheld that to 10PM except for in well, it looks like there was a Dutch Bros next to, some residential that backed up to it, where hours were extended to 12PM on Friday and Saturday. But for the most for the most part, it's been upheld to 10PM.

Okay. So applicant had noted that there were other drive throughs nearby that were open till 01:30, 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. You know, really appreciate you taking the time and giving your thoughts. I do have, you know, in terms of the easy onoff, I don't think it's as easy as other onoffs. As I mentioned before, like I'm very familiar with this area to be able to access the drive thru.

Unfortunately, how it's, you know, looking to me, it's like it's going to it's not as easy as it could be, and I do wonder whether or not there are going to be plans to like change the traffic lights in that area to be able to make it more accommodating for if it does wind up happening that the project like is there going 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, if it's I haven't I don't have much experience with trying to bring 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 a precious thing and it's got to that being the case, we've to make sure that we can do we do everything that we can to make sure that 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 and Noble that's just sitting empty. There's a Logan's steakhouse that had a ponderous mural inside of it that I miss 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. But yeah, I you know, and then on top of that, you have the arena that's going to be turning into a hospital, right?

You have four lanes going each way because there used to be the necessary traffic for going to the basketball games. And I just, you know, I've seen plans for other areas, 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 be more jobs. I, you know, I want to take this time to recognize the plight of the railways workers who work 20 fourseven. 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 and Noble space, you could be able to re tenant 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.

Robert R. Thank you. Commissioner Reschke.

Thank you. I just have a question for I think this will be for the I think that Raising Cane's is a like a national brand that has stores everywhere, maybe headquartered in Louisiana. Is that right?

Correct.

So, is there a, like, local person here in Sacramento who will franchise this to, and like, own and operate it? Or, will it be just providing jobs for, you know, people who work there and that is owned and operated back at, by the headquarters in Louisiana?

They're they're typically operated by local franchisees, and there's an emphasis on hiring locally as well.

Okay. So, will will someone is there a local owner at this point, or they will hire someone who will be employed by, like, the headquarters?

There's not. I don't there's a local owner yet until the projects approved and then.

Okay. Got

it. And so, they'll like find someone here in Sacramento who wants to have this as a business and that will

correct.

There are other raising canes in the area as you're likely aware. That have their own franchisees.

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

They contract with Raising Canes to run operation.

Thank you.

Commissioner Nybo?

I think that firstly I'd like to thank staff. Thank you very much for the careful consideration of the staff report. It's very thorough. It's very informative and very helpful. I do have one question and I apologize. I'm looking for it right now. But in there's two conditions of approval that that staff recommends. The first one is the hours of the drive through. What's the other one? This references attachment seven.

That was a typo in the staff report. It should have just said one,

not two. Okay.

Thank you for pointing it out.

Yeah, 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.

Acceptable.

I accept.

What are you specifically saying about?

Second the motion and then also include the condition for the drive thru hours to be until ten p. M. And allow the operation of the restaurant until 03:30.

Do we have a second? Commissioner Lammas? Unless there's anything else you want add.

No, that is the second. Okay.

Good. Commissioner Lammas?

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 I do think, you know, we had a longlifting discussion about this during our last meeting in November. This area is somewhat of an anomaly. I live in Sao Patomas. 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, 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 SACRT, I sense some acknowledgment that that might be a little bit into the future, given I think $1,000,000,000 2,000,000,000 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 also 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 those the transit concerns. And I think that can support the use of businesses in this area and specifically relying on, you know, 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 SecRT is saying. But I think there does seem to be some alignment there and some support for putting the drive thru there. I think my concern or questions are with hours of operations. I do hear that the staff has recommended the 10PM. I liked that.

I know the applicant indicated some concerns with those hours, and I 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 I am kinda 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 and how that might compare to this proposal?

We found one case where it was a Dutch Bros, which was about a 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? Was that how far it is from the residential? I I can't remember. 250 feet?

245 feet.

45 feet. Okay. And so the raising canes, 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.

K. I mean, I like the 10PM. I I used to work at a

fast food

restaurant. I know how busy the evenings get, especially after 02:00 when a lot of people are trying to get back home after being downtown. So I like the 10PM, 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 10PM drive through, but allowing for 03:30AM, 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 gonna operate the restaurant without the drive through. A lot of the business is drive through business, and they need that. You find later in the evening, people don't wanna 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 ten. I mean, we we we have to be competitive with in and out around the corner. Again, it's not next to residential, but they're open till 01:30 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 just simply don't and would have to move forward in a different fashion. But we cannot operate the business as they don't do that. They don't operate the drive thru 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 ask for three in the morning, but I think if there was an opportunity for, say, you know, 01:30, 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 ten. 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.

There's as you've heard from other commissioners, commissioner Blunt, I mean, there's just there's there's a need for food beyond 10:00 at night that just it's a it's a crippling effect to this operation to close at ten when everybody else is at 01:30, one, twenty four hours a day at talk 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 franchisees.

Okay. So it's it's just owned by headquarters

and okay.

Thank

you. I just wanted to clarify that. Sorry.

Council has it oh, I'm sorry. Are you done?

Before I do, I

guess Yeah.

I'd like to hear if there's any comments from council.

Yeah. I

just want to make sure I'm following the motion. So this is a question for commissioner Chase and commissioner Nyboe, if you accept this. So, your motion is to approve the project, meaning approve the findings of fact and conditions of approval and attachment four, 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 commit condition b eight, which staff has is currently recommending the hours of operation be limited to 10PM. To answer your question, commissioner Lamas, you asked if in these other cases if that was a variance when the when the hours were extended beyond 10PM. So the city code says the hours will drive throughs will close at 10PM unless the decision maker approves a different time. It's not a variance or deviation, but you have to state on the record that we want to amend the proposed condition.

Okay. I, yeah, haven't commented on the issue, but thank you staff for your due diligence on this project. And thank you for the steadfast recommendation that, you know, 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 is has high car traffic as well. And so, I am supportive of the project. However, I I'm open to a sweet spot, you know, of maybe twelve a. M, 01:30 a. M. I don't know what the business model is, but and I'm okay with ten p. M. As well, too. I want to hear from my colleagues.

But finding a sweet spot maybe at 12AM, 1AM just to be, you know, in alignment with the local businesses in that area as well. I'm also okay with that. I feel that looking at other Raisin Canes in the community here, they do open to 03:30 a. M. Some closes at two a. M. The conditions could be ten p. M. On weekdays, weekends twelve a. M, one 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 Maurice S. Reid, but I do want to give an opportunity for vice chair Chase and commissioner Nybo. Do you do you wanna 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 ten? Keep it at ten, Commissioner Chase? That's your motion.

I prefer to keep what the applicant is asking asking for. Otherwise, sounds like the model is not feasible.

Okay. Those

hours. So,

don't know and put in a pinch on that feasibility.

Okay. So, you want to move it to 01:30? 01:30. 01:30. Okay. So May

I 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 10PM for the drive thru? Are you is there a different time limit for the inside of the restaurant? 10PM both.

Okay. The the conditional rule is just meant to condition the drive thru facility, so that drive thru the drive thru element. But since it's a restaurant, they could operate twenty four hours. But we're just saying the drive thru portion of this business per our condition is ten p. M.

Thank you.

And then to confirm, to reiterate, Zach, you you had indicated there isn't or, Courtney, there was no requirement in in our policies that it has to be at ten for if it's adjacent to a residential

I'm sorry. The city code does say ten p. M. Unless you all say something else.

Okay.

It's a general rule. Yes.

Okay. And then 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. The 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 3AM time frame. So as commissioner our vice chair Chase mentioned, 01:30 would probably be just fine if three was fine. Raley's on the other hand was was was very enthusiastic about the 3AM because they have people working there at all hours twenty four seven. And so that was something that they very much delighted in.

Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Marcias 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 at as these, you know, as these entitlements potentially come to us in the future.

And and I do agree that, you know, there's there's limited space that we have. I live, I would say, virtually around the corner from a light rail station, understand. I I don't use it. I don't use light rail, but I 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 is certainly the con the the letter that was provided with Saker T. Now, I I don't think that they have directly answered the question that we had asked at the last meeting, which was is will this directly impede on our ability to get future funding, for the light rail or BRT or anything of that nature. And 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, you know, the entitlement issue that we're dealing with here tonight. And so that there there's that issue.

I I do wanna say when chair Young brought up the topic of discussion about, well, if this doesn't go there, then what what 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 in that location? I I do I know in the staff report on page oh gosh, I just lost myself on well, on the staff report, the staff had mentioned on one of the denials is due to the low employment intensity.

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 ten p. M. At the if they have to close at ten 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

Male Moved it.

You Okay. Changed

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 ten p. M. And the drive through and the, you know, business needs to operate together, then it's sort of a moot point. So, anyways, I think we've addressed that. You.

Commissioner Lee?

Thank you, Chair. You know, regarding the draft of your 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. You know, if you look at the Del Taco, the In N Out over there, it's not contiguous to any residential. And so I think that the ten p. M. Time that staff recommends is sensitive to that. And I think that it is a sound policy. I think that we really have to think about down the line what we're approving here. When you have drive through next to residential, I mean, you got to think about the kids or the parents.

You know, people are trying to go to sleep at ten p. M. They had work or school the next day. And so I just want to remind everyone about that. And I think that, you know, just going out past 10PM sometimes to, you know, maybe grab a burger In N Out. I mean, lobby is still busy. I think that you can still have a successful business where people walk into the lobby and we see that. With that, I'll yield my time. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Lamas.

Thank you, Chair. I just had a 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 to the motion then vote on the change to that motion to?

So, right now, Commissioner Chase's motion on the floor is 01:30PM. Right? And so, the question to commissioner Nibo is do you accept that for your second?

I'll second that.

Okay. So that's the 01:30AM. Did I say something else?

To PM.

Oh, Sorry, guys. You'll vote on that.

Okay.

Villa: 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 and out. I know in and out in terms of their operating hours, I know in and out is not next to residential.

I think the reason why I am inclined to support an increase from 10AM but a decrease from 3AM is because there does seem to be a good amount of distance between the residential dwelling units, right, the apartments, and the actual, like, 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 01:30. I'm wondering I think the applicant brought the specialist that prepared provided the report. Would the specialist may be able to come up here and speak a little bit to that and how that masonry wall might further impact, you know, noise?

Yes, absolutely. Thank you.

Good afternoon, commission. My name is, Alex Jewell. I'm with Kimwehorn, 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, the a solid a solid wall like that would add about five dBA, five decibel attenuation to noise levels. In this particular case, we are below the city's noise standard for both daytime and nighttime already.

So this would just annoy a masonry wall or any kind of wall for that matter would would further reduce that, but it it's not a wouldn't make a difference in terms of the project being below the city standard. And and as mister Hooper noted earlier, the noise level at the site right now is 60 dBA, and so we would our maximum noise levels would be below that already. So

K. Thank you. I appreciate that. So with that, I would, yeah, extend my support for the the motion with the recommendation to alter the hours of operations to 01:30AM.

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 ten 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 or just a couple of concerns, I guess, with the motion. And one of those things is that, you know, hearing that Hines, the apartment complex, supported it, you know, that's the owner of the apartment complex, but not necessarily the residents that live there.

Sure. And there have been neighbors who came and shared their support, but I don't know, you know, if it's people who are directly affected by living right there. And then, I appreciated Commissioner Kaden's 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 and we're blocking that. So, those are just a couple concerns I have, and I just want

to share that.

Thank you. Commissioner Lee?

Just a quick question around the wall and 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 I don't have in front of me how tall the residential is.

Yeah. So, no. The the main any kind of wall would would reduce noise in the line of sight. If you did have a, you know, two or three story building, the wall wouldn't wouldn't impact that. But again, as it was noted earlier, we're 245 feet away from the the near the restaurant and intercom system is 245 feet away from the nearest residents, and we are below the the city's noise requirements for that.

Okay. Thank you.

Is commissioner Tower or commissioner Lamas Lamas?

Thank you, chair. I just I actually wanna 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 a staff report that in and out had different hours of operation during the work week versus the weekend. The work week went to 1AM while Friday and Saturday went to 01:30. Is that correct?

Are you talking about the the in and out that's in the Natomas

marketplace? Yes. Yeah. Just

Are you I think, you referring to the applicant's attachment, the letter request that identifies the so it yes. It says in the that it's Monday through Thursday, 10:30AM to 1AM, and then Friday and sun to Sunday is till 01:30AM. Okay. Thank you.

So I think for me and I appreciate the 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. I think Raising Cane's has folks outside taking orders, to help the cars. You know, having worked at a rest 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 And that's what causes me some concerns, some angst, especially being so close to residential property. But 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, like to make a friendly amendment, a proposed friendly amendment to the motion to maybe, adjust hours operation, to close at one a. M. Monday through Thursday and then 01:30 Friday through Sunday. Thank you. With that, I yield my time.

And then Commissioner Nybo needs to second that.

Second that.

Okay. I'll a second. Anyone else? Alright. I think we have all had a chance to 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? Just want to make sure

Monday through Thursday till one a. M. And then on the weekends outside of those days till 01:30.

Okay. Aye.

Commissioner Tomo.

Aye.

Commissioner Lammas?

Aye.

Commissioner Nibo? Nibo? Excuse me.

Aye.

Commissioner Caden?

No.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Mesias Reid? Aye. Commissioner Ortiz? No. Commissioner Blunt?

Aye.

Vice Chair Chase? Aye. Commissioner Rischke? No. Commissioner Thompson? Oh, Thompson. And Sherry Young.

What's the number right now? Oh god.

Pressure is

on. It's not how I wanna go. So, like

Do you want to?

What what are we having on eyes?

We need seven. Right?

We already have seven.

You have seven already.

Alright. No.

No. Okay. Okay. There were seven votes. The motion passes.

Alright. Good discussion. Congratulations.

Alright. 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 excuse me. 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 commission 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 some 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 say

no preference. Exactly. No preference.

With that is staff also want to weigh in? I'm happy to make a motion for our Vice Chair, Commissioner Chase, to be nominated as Chair.

Great. I second that. I 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 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 we really did admire his leadership, and I think he's gonna do an excellent job as chair for for this dais. Alright.

Go ahead. Take the roll.

Let's let's do a roll.

Thank you, chair. Commissioner Lee? Aye. Commissioner Tao? Aye. Commissioner Yalmus? Aye. Commissioner Nybo? Aye. Commissioner Kaden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Marcias Reit. 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 Kaden for vice chair. Is there a second?

I'd 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 I'm thrilled to be able to to nominate you as vice chair and expect that you'll be providing excellent leadership down the road. Alright. So we've got a motion and a second. Alright.

And just for the record, Vice Chair Chase, you do accept as we have to have that.

Yes, I do accept that. Want to thank my colleagues for the honor.

Thank you. Okay. Now for Vice Chair Kaden. Commissioner

Lee? Aye.

Commissioner Tao? Yes. Commissioner Lammas? Aye. Commissioner Nibo?

Aye.

Commissioner Kaden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Mesias Reid? 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 Katie.

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.

Yep. Mister Kaden, can you please accept as well?

I formally accept.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Condolences.

Let's move on with the agenda. Commissioners, comments, ideas, questions? Alright. Any public comments, matters not on the agenda?

Thank you, chair. I have none.

Alright. With that I will call this meeting adjourned. I just need to make that loud. This is my last act as

a chair.