Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Is everyone settled? It's 05:30. We're all here. Yeah. Let's get started. We'll call our meeting to order.

Kelly, will the call roll? Yes. Commissioner Devrapali?

Yes.

Commissioner Forschette?

Here.

Commissioner Huehn? Here. Commissioner Raymond? Here. Commissioner Stoss? Here. Vice chair Stevenson?

Here.

And chair Malden? Here. And will

you announce the meeting's video recording, please?

Yes. Tonight's meeting will be recorded via Zoom and can be viewed on the city's website within forty eight hours of adjournment of this meeting.

Thank you. And commissioner Deborah Polly is gonna lead us in the pledge tonight.

Yeah.

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.

Thank you.

Alright. Members of the public wishing to address the planning commission for any matter not on the agenda may do so at this time by completing and submitting a speaker card to the planning commission clerk. For items on the agenda, speakers will be called by the chair at the point on the agenda when the item will be heard. Speakers are encouraged to keep comments to three minutes or less since to state the name and community of residents. Under the provisions of the California government code, the planning commission is prohibited from discussing or taking immediate action on any item not on the agenda unless it can be demonstrated to be of an emergency nature or the need to take immediate action arose after the posting of the agenda. And, Kelly, will you announce public comment?

I have no speaker cards for a general public comment period.

Thank you. Do we need to close public comment

or no? Yeah. Okay. We'll go ahead

and close public comment and move on to item four. Consent calendar items consist of matters deemed routine and noncontroversial by staff. Unless a member of the planning commission wishes to pull an item for individual consideration, all items will be approved by one motion. Are there

any items planning commission wishes to pull from the consent calendar?

None and none. And, Kelly, is there any public comment related to the consent calendar?

I have no public comment for our consent calendar.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and close the consent calendar or close public comment. And can I have a motion to approve the consent calendar?

I make a motion

to approve this.

A second.

You. First and second. And if we can call roll?

Yes. Commissioner Deborah Polly?

Yes.

Commissioner Forschette? Aye. Commissioner Hoon?

Aye.

Commissioner Raymond? Aye. Commissioner Stoss? Yes. Vice chair Stevenson?

Aye.

And chair Malden? Yes. Motion passes with a seven o vote. Thank you.

And five, there are no consent public hearing items. Item six, there are no public hearing items. And we'll move on to item seven. Let me read

that first. Item 7.1, general plan update preferred land use alternative.

And then Arlene, do the staff report?

Yes. Thank you very much, chair, and good evening, planning commissioners. We're really excited today to, have this discussion with the commission and hopefully, have a hard recommendation that we can bring over to City Council for the preferred land use alternative for the general plan update. As you know, and I've been giving some small updates here at commission about general plan efforts. We're about maybe halfway through.

Land use is probably one of the main things that comes out of this effort that will kind of dictate a lot of the other things that are going to happen with the general plan. And the city contracted out with Ascent. And Chelsea is here, and Paul is here as well from Ascent, who'll be giving the presentation and taking some notes down to kind of guide you through the land use alternatives and the preferred land use. So I'm going to turn it over to Chelsea. And I think we're gonna try to power through the presentation. But if there's a really big question you need to ask for clarification, we can take a pause and provide that response to you. So k. Chelsea? Alright.

Mhmm. Thank you, Arlene. Good evening, chair, members of the commission. My name is Chelsea Norton. I'm the director of urban planning at Ascent. We're a Sacramento based consulting firm, and we specialize in general plans and a lot of other planning projects. My colleague, as Arlene said, Paul Kronzer, is in the back at the media table back there. I just wanna call out Paul as he prepared a lot of the materials that were in your staff report tonight, and he's been really instrumental in pulling this all together. So he's also gonna be recording your direction tonight so we can take that forward. So I'm gonna walk you through our presentation on the land use alternatives.

And as Arlene said, what we're looking for out of tonight's meeting is a recommendation from the planning commission to present to the city council for a preferred land use alternative. And Arlene mentioned that we're about halfway through this process. We kicked off the general plan in 2024. We started with collecting information on existing conditions. We established a vision and guiding principles, and now we're wrapping up our land use alternatives phase.

We're also starting our work on updating the general plan goals and policies, which we're aiming to have that ready for public review by the fall. And we'll also be analyzing the draft general plan and an environmental impact report. And then our goal is to bring that all back to the commission and the council by mid twenty twenty seven for adoption. And this is the third meeting we've had with the planning commission. You might recall we met back in 2024 to kick off the process and confirm the planning area and get some initial direction.

And then we met again last year to get feedback on the vision and guiding principles and initial direction on alternatives. So tonight, we're moving forward with the preferred land use alternative. We've also been engaging with the community quite a bit throughout the process. We've had three rounds of community engagement so far. And we've heard from I think the stats are we have some new stats from what's shown here.

But we've heard from over eight fifty people since the start of the process. We've held more than 25 community workshops and pop up events and focus group meetings. We've had seven interactive online surveys or activities and over 5,800 unique website visits where people have really learned about the project, engaged with the project. And we've collected well over 2,500 comments throughout on the the process so far. So these stats are quite a bit old.

Sorry about that. The first round of engagement was in late twenty twenty four where we were gathering information from the community on community priorities, what they love about the city, what's important to them, and what their big ideas are for the future. We then use this feedback to craft the vision and guiding principles and establish really the what we're focused on in this this update effort. And then, last year during our second round of engagement, we got feedback on the draft vision and guiding principles and started the conversation around the types of land use changes that residents would wanna see. Some of the key themes that we heard from these conversations are what's shown here.

We heard a real desire to create a vibrant downtown, really wanting places for people to gather, places for entertainment, destinations. We heard it was really important to the community to protect the natural resources that make Rancho Cordova really special. We heard support for adding more multifamily housing, greater variety of housing around the city in areas that make sense, a desire a lot of comments around needing additional middle schools and high schools to support the growing population, improving connectivity through Rancho Cordova, especially for bikes and pedestrians for people to be able to get around the city, and desire for a medical center or hospital here in Rancho Cordova. So those were some of the things that rose to the top. And the latest round of community engagement was focused on this land use alternatives phase, which is what we're here to talk about tonight.

We kicked off the engagement with a community workshop here at City Hall in February. I know some of you were there in attendance. And we had a couple of pop up events in March at the Farmer's market. We tabled at KP International. And we we also ran an online survey that mirrored the activities from the workshop.

And then, more recently during the month of April, we've done more targeted outreach to the youth, and also to some specific community groups. And the results from our engagement events, those are included in in your packet. We did a phase three engagement summary. It's also been posted on the website. But I do wanna call out some of the more targeted outreach that's happened more recently in just the past couple of weeks because we weren't able to summarize all of that in time for your packet.

But we we met with about 30 youth during two youth focused events. We met with the youth at city council group that meets here on Mondays. And we also attended a youth career workshop over the weekend. I think that was two weeks ago. The top priority we heard from the youth was around housing affordability.

They were really generally supportive of the land use changes and the strategies that we're gonna talk about tonight. There was strong interest in a central downtown and also more neighborhood activity centers, desire for improving shopping destinations, bringing in locally owned businesses, and more entertainment and gathering spaces that are safe and inviting for the youth. We also held some meetings at the Folsom Commune Folsom Cordova Community Partnership, a local organization. We met with about 45 individuals from three different groups that gather there each month, including a Spanish speaking, Russian speaking residents, and African American families. And there was also general, support and excitement for the land use changes that we're talking about, including more high quality and affordable housing, but also a big focus on wanting more parks, recreation programs, sports programs for the youth and for teens, more medical services, education and family support services, cultural amenities like libraries, museums, places for families, and job opportunities for teens.

So the updated engagement summary on the website includes those more recent meetings that we held. So I'm gonna get into the the land use alternatives next. And all of what I'm gonna go over tonight is described in much greater detail in the land use alternatives report. That's in your packet and also available on the project website. Ultimately, what we're doing through this process is updating the city's general plan land use diagram.

And here's the city's general plan land use map that was prepared in 2006 when the general plan was first adopted. I mean, as you as you know, it designates land use for all properties within the city, and the colors on the map represent the different land use designations that determine what can get built, where, and at what density. What you'll notice about this map is there there are also a lot of areas and hatched areas that are special planning areas. And these areas, both outside the city limits but also some within the city limits, they don't have specific general plan land use designations. They don't have parcel specific designations.

And but then you can also see that some areas like Gold River that are outside the city do have land use designations. But in reality, the land uses in those areas are controlled by the county general plan. So one thing that we're trying to do through this process is make sure that every parcel within the city limits has a very specific general plan designation. And that's really important because there have been changes in state law that say if your zoning and your general plan aren't consistent, that a development can move forward consistent with the general plan. But if the general plan isn't clear on what a land use designation is, that can create issues.

It can be really vague and create problems. So we wanna make sure that when this general plan is adopted, every parcel within city limits has a very clear land use designation with a a set of standards. So to guide the city in updating the general plan land use map, we've prepared three different land use alternatives. The base alternative represents the existing general plan that I just showed. It's essentially you can consider it the no change alternative, and it's a slightly modified version of that 20 of that 2006 general plan diagram.

It just has a designation for every parcel. Alternative a represents a more, flexible alternative that removes, barriers for into infill development in mixed use areas of the city. And then alternative b also provides more flexibility than the base, but it does have some more, separation or specific rules. And it's not quite as flexible as a, but it allows for even higher densities in the mixed use areas compared to a. And I'm gonna go over those in more detail in just a minute.

That's just a high level comparison. But first, I just wanna talk about, our process. So we've developed these three land use alternatives and published them and analyzed them in the report. We then solicited feedback from the community at the events that I described just a minute ago. And then based on that feedback and those and conversations among the city staff that are on the technical advisory committee, We're presenting to you tonight staff's recommendation for the the general plan land use map, for your consideration.

And then as I said, we're asking the planning commission to make a recommendation tonight that we can take to the city council on May 26, and then we're asking the city council to give direction on a preferred land use alternative that becomes the basis for preparing the 2050 general plan diagram. So here's the base land use alternative in a little more detail. As I said, we assigned designations to every parcel based on in areas that just had a special planning area. Some of those areas had conceptual land use diagrams, So we based the parcel designations on those conceptual diagrams or on the zoning that was adopted, like the, SPAs or other specific zoning. So we looked at all of those.

We looked at the general plan. We looked at those, and we came up with, designations to reflect either what's desired there based on those or what's there currently on the ground. And this, this map highlights some of the key areas that we're focusing on in this process. So first, I'll point to Folsom Boulevard, and that's most of that most of Folsom Boulevard is designated commercial, mixed use. And the city also has a transit oriented development overlay zone that allows for higher density, and mixed use within a quarter mile of light rail stations.

So we're looking at those areas in our process. We also have the office parks that we're looking at. Those are designated office mixed use. We're we're examining the downtown planning area. The current general plan has a downtown planning area, around the Olsen Island area and along Zinfandel at Folsom Boulevard.

And then we're also looking at the convention overlay area that's at Sunrise and Folsom Boulevard. So those are kind of the focus areas for some of the changes we're gonna talk about. And with each of these, I'm gonna give I'm gonna give a high level overview. And in the next stage, when we talk about planning strategies, I'll I'll start to talk about some of the densities and and comparing more of the details. But alternative a introduces a new transit corridor mixed use designation along Folsom Boulevard with the goal of making it easier to build housing in this area and mixed use development.

It keeps the same transit oriented development overlay around the transit stations. This alternative also designates instead of the office park mixed use, it designates them as an innovation mixed use, which encourages more integration of housing and commercial alongside office buildings. And it also designates a new city center, shifting the focus of a new downtown to the area surrounding the proposed arena. Alternative b also designates Folsom Boulevard as transit corridor mixed use but allows even higher densities along the corridor and at the TOD nodes at light rail stations. It also designates much of the office parks as that innovation mixed use but at a higher density that we'll talk about in just a minute.

But it it reserves about a third of the office parks as an advanced industrial. Those are the areas shown in light blue, and this that would preserve some of these areas for employment uses only. The area surrounding the proposed arena or the area more or less that's right now the convention overlay in Alternative B is designated as an entertainment district or entertainment mixed use district. So instead of a central downtown, this alternative focuses on multiple centers, so activating village centers and and community activity centers throughout the city. So you see more of the shopping centers use a village center mixed use or community activity center designation.

So next, I'm gonna talk about five different planning strategies. And this is kind of how we organize our thoughts around where we're making changes and why and giving options to the community for different approaches. And so the five planning strategies that we focused on are shown here. The first is about reimagining what office parks could become in the future. And at our very first meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council, both the commission and council identified this as one of the top priorities for the general plan update.

Right now, office vacancy rates in Rancho Cordova are nearly double the average in the region, so about one in four office spaces sit vacant. And there's also a lot of land in this area that's dedicated to surface parking lots, and really not a lot of uses other than offices. There are some, but not a lot. It's a lot of, office buildings. The existing general plan that's reflected in the base alternative designates over 1,500 acres as office mixed use, and, this designation allows for it'll does allow for a range of uses.

So you can build office, industrial housing, and commercial, but, new development projects have to include at least 50% office, as part of the development, which limits the ability for new standalone housing or commercial to be introduced in the area. It has to be part of a larger coordinated development. That's the way that the general plan is written. And the allowed density range for housing is 2.1 to 18 units per acre, and that density, on its own, would really be more like a single family or a townhome density. I do think it's meant to be sort of clustered on the site, so you could cluster it on a portion of the site and get a higher density.

But if you were to try to do a standalone parcel and consistent with those standards, you would be limited to 18 units per acre. Alternative a replaces office mixed use with a new designation called innovation mixed use. And this is a more flexible version of that designation that would make it easier to build, more mixed use in these areas, allowing for parcels to build with standalone residential or standalone commercial or a vertical or horizontal mixed use. It would it would, of course, still allow for offices that would be the primary use, but there wouldn't be the same restrictions on it being one coordinated development. So individual parcels could be redeveloped with a mix of uses.

The the density proposed for new residential development is increased in this alternative to a range of 20 to 40 units breaker. So this would allow for more multifamily, maybe two to three story apartments, and at a minimum of 20 would really preclude single family homes in this area. So it would preserve this for a more multifamily housing types. There would be standards eventually developed through subsequent zoning and design standards to make sure that there are amenities provided like plazas, sidewalks, gathering places, more public spaces for people to gather. We heard that that was a priority from the community.

Alternative b also applies in the innovation mixed use to the office parks, but at a higher density range. It has the same minimum density of 20, but a higher maximum up to 80 units per acre to allow for some more more urban housing types mixed use development in this area. And then as I mentioned earlier, instead of the innovation mixed use everywhere, there's an advanced industrial designation on about 450 acres, the areas in the light blue. And in these areas, they would be preserved for employment uses only. So it's sort of a new flex light industrial designation.

And And in these areas, housing or there might be some supportive commercial, but housing would not be allowed. And so here we have some of the responses from the community workshop and the survey about the office park strategy. There was general community support for redeveloping office parks and allowing for more housing in mixed use. The quantitative votes here favored alternative A, but we also heard a lot of other comments in support of even higher densities beyond the 40 units per acre. So I think people were recognizing that there are already a lot of big, tall buildings out there, and they there wasn't a lot of opposition to density here.

There aren't a lot of existing neighbors in this area. And there were also other comments supporting alternative b's advanced industrial designation. A lot of the comments we heard, the qualitative comments, were around wanting more open spaces, outdoor gathering places, so not just density, but density balanced with public spaces. The next strategy I'm gonna talk about is removing barriers to Folsom Boulevard, which is, as you know, one of the city's major East West corridors. It parallels the light rail tracks.

We've heard a lot of interest from the community from the very beginning about wanting more gathering places with entertainment, cultural facilities, retail amenities, and mixed use housing. In the existing general plan and the the base alternative, the existing commercial mixed use designation, it does allow it allows for commercial. It allows for residential, but it does have some requirements that are restrictive for housing. The allowed densities are are fairly low, again, at 2.1 to 18 units per acre. You do have the transit oriented development or the TOD overlay zone where you can get up to 80 units per acre near the light rail stations.

But generally, the CMU designation, stand alone, housing, stand alone residential isn't allowed. Housing has to be part of a commercial mixed use development with commercial as at least 50% of the the ground floor. And so this can be a barrier to building additional housing in this area. There is also the Folsom Boulevard specific plan that establishes, different density rules and other development standards along Folsom Boulevard. Alternative a designates, most of those commercial mixed use parcels on the north side of Folsom Boulevard as transit corridor mixed use.

And this designation would be a more flexible mixed use that would allow for would encourage the vertical integration of commercial with residential, but would also allow for some standalone uses, like standalone residential and maybe in a horizontal configuration along the corridor. We've increased the density in alternative a, to 10 to 40 units per acre, and alternative a keeps that same density in the TOD overlays at 80 units per acre.

Hey, Chelsea. Can I just pause real quick? Can you explain a little bit of the the photos that you're using this Oh, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. That's that's great. I was skipping right over that.

But through a separate contract with the city, a separate project, the city got grant funding from SACOG to do a mixed use multifamily housing study. And my team at Ascent is also working with the city on that in parallel to this effort. And through that project, we looked at some five or six key opportunity sites in these areas that we're talking about. These these are two sites we looked at along Folsom Boulevard, and we examined what these different alternatives and density standards might look like on those opportunity sites. So the first one you see there on the left, that's the stage that's the site right where the the fire station is, and the city and the fire station are doing the that land swap.

And we looked at that site, and we're looking at a a product type under in that 10 to 40 units per acre, what you might be able to achieve on that site. So that's what that rendering is. And then the one on the right is, at Olson Island. We looked at the surface parking lot and how you might do some creative infill of of mixed use, right near the light rail station under that TOD density of 80 units per acre and what that could look like, doing some infill development. So that's what a lot of these I think I skipped over in the office park.

I won't go into too much detail, but we also looked at a site across from City Hall and the office parks at the 20 to 40 units per acre versus the 20 up to 80 units per acre, what that could look like. And these these renderings really help the community understand, what density might look like. When we were throwing out these numbers, we were able to point to some images, and there was a lot of excitement and support for this type of development in these areas of the city. So, yeah, thanks for pausing on that. I think we left off here on alternative b for Folsom Boulevard, and, alternative b designates Folsom Boulevard as a higher density version of the transit corridor mixed use.

So instead of 10 to 40 units per acre, the density range here would be 20 to 60 units per acre and then would allow for even higher densities up to a 100 units per acre, at the TOD nodes. And those higher densities were also informed by senate bill 79, which is recently passed requiring higher densities around transit stations. So we're looking to sort of align some of those density standards with this proposed increase. And the renderings here are the same two sites as on the previous slide showing what a bump up to 60 units breaker might look like on that that first site and then what a slightly higher density of, up to a 100 units breaker could look like. And trying to find my place here in my notes, but the this shows the community feedback on Folsom Boulevard, and the community, really favored alternative b.

There was a lot of support for increasing housing density, on Folsom Boulevard, especially near light rail stations, and a desire to make Folsom Boulevard more than just a commercial corridor of strip malls. We heard some comments about the need to transition to lower densities in areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, so this is something that can be addressed through design standards requiring transitions. The third strategy is focused on a vision for a new downtown. I mentioned that the general plan prepared in 2006 envisioned a new downtown in the the area that's shown here along Folsom Boulevard, Olsen Drive, and then south along Zinfandel to International Drive. And the existing general plan really envisioned this as the center and the heart of Rancho Cordova with a a skyline visible from surrounding jurisdictions, so a true downtown.

Fast forward twenty years, and now the city is considering a proposal for a new city center anchored by the the indoor the proposed soccer arena. That that arena, I will say, can be accommodated under any of the alternatives. It's being it's moving forward under the existing general plan and the convention overlay. So all of the alternatives could accommodate what's being proposed there. But the question that we're asking through this process is, where should the city be putting its energy on a a downtown?

Should there even be a downtown, should we focus on multiple centers? So alternative a goes all in on creating a new city center surrounding the proposed arena. And so what's shown here in purple, this really extends well beyond the footprint of the current proposal for the arena to create a larger downtown or city center district. And this designation, would have the highest densities and intensities of any of the other general plan designations, allowing up to a 100 units breaker and up to a floor area ratio of of five point o. So it would accommodate the types of densities and intensities that are being proposed in this area.

Alternative b considers the area surrounding the proposed arena as an entertainment district and applies an entertainment mixed use designation, and it really shifts the focus from a single downtown to multiple activity centers across the city. So it envisions transforming multiple shopping centers into more walkable, mixed use village centers, community activity centers, and creating this really regional destination as an entertainment district. It has densities that are still similar to the city center densities and could accommodate what's being proposed at the arena. There is a lot of excitement when we talk to people about the idea of a new downtown or an entertainment district or some sort of a destination, in the area surrounding the arena. The votes did slightly favor alternative b.

And because what we heard from the community members is they also wanna see focus on activating neighborhood centers as well, not just the downtown, but multiple places for the community to gather. We did also hear some concerns around traffic impacts of a new downtown and and a new arena along Sunrise. So a lot of comments and concerns around how the the city would deal with traffic. So the fourth strategy, building off the idea of multiple centers, this next strategy looks at how the city can turn shopping centers into more vibrant gathering places. The existing general plan designates almost all of the shopping centers around the city as commercial mixed use, which as I talked about earlier, it's it's primarily a commercial designation.

It does allow some housing, but it has to be part of a housing is only allowed if it has 50% of the ground floor square footage as commercial, and the density is limited to 18 units per acre. Alternative a keeps the designation of commercial mixed use and and expands it to apply to most of the city shopping centers, but it's a more flexible version of commercial mixed use that removes the requirement for the ground the 50% ground floor commercial, and increases the density to 10 to 30 units per acre instead of two to 18. So this would allow for some standalone residential to be developed as as infill in your shopping centers. I think people enjoyed I really like the example of the Sprouts, shopping center in the Stone Creek development that had apartments next to it, and they were supportive of the idea of someone coming in and building housing that's next to an existing shopping center. Alternative b is a little more prescriptive with what would be what would be required to be built in commercial areas.

Some areas are designated. We also created a new general commercial designation to apply to areas where housing really wouldn't be appropriate, These would be solely commercial uses. Alternatively, expand the use of your village center and your local town center. We're calling that community activity center. These are right now implemented through form based zones that require pretty prescriptive development standards.

We did propose with alternative b increasing the densities, though. Right now, in a like a lot of the cities infill areas, the max density for housing is 18 units per acre. We're proposing to increase that up to 30 in village centers and 40 in the local town centers or what we're calling community activity centers. The community feedback for shopping centers really favored alternative a. They liked the more flexible approach to commercial mixed use with the higher densities.

And, again, they were supportive of that sort of what they were what they saw at that Sprouts shopping center. And then the fifth and final planning strategy is focused on expanding housing choices in infill areas. There's a lot of overlap here. It's just through this strategy, we're looking at these densities through the range of increasing housing choice and why why that matters. And, so right now, over 60% of the city's housing stock is single family homes, and so we're looking at ways to allow for more variety so you can get some more attached, housing products in in the more urban infill areas of the city.

I I think I already went over this, but the max density right now in most of these areas is 18 units per acre unless you're at the transit nodes. And alternative a, as we talked about, expands some housing options in infill areas by removing that commercial requirement in the commercial mixed use, allowing densities up to 40 units per acre in many areas. And then alternative b pushes the envelope on density, as we mentioned, up to 60 units per acre along the transit corridor mixed use, 80 units per acre in the office parks or the innovation mixed use. And so we were just talking with the community about these different levels of density, and there was a lot of support for alternative b, the higher density alternatives. The community wasn't afraid of going higher with density in some of these areas.

They felt like those were the areas that made sense for allowing a greater variety of housing types.

So can I have a quick question? Can you go back to that last slide? Yeah. So one of the things I had noted earlier so you're saying, you know, overwhelmingly support. Is that just 13 people?

That's the quantitative vote. So, yeah, I might have overwhelming support might not be the right term. There was there was a lot of support. Yes. There was there were 13 people that voted for b. There were three people that were like, some were in a and b. Either would be fine. Seven for a. Some were saying, somewhere between what's allowed now and a. But when I say overwhelming support, right next to this station at the community workshop, we had, workshop boards for the mixed use multifamily housing study where we were showing some of the concepts.

And, generally, the votes for that were like, yeah. I like this density or go even higher. So we were hearing support for for higher density in these areas. But, yes, to point out, the the quantitative, like, stock exercises, we didn't always get just votes. We heard a lot of qualitative feedback as well.

So my last the last thing I'm gonna end on is presenting to you the staff recommended land use alternative. And so we we gathered all the feedback from the community, and we met with planning staff and then with our the technical advisory committee, which has staff from various city departments. And we talked through what we would wanna recommend to the planning commission as the as a recommended preferred alternative. And so I'll start with the I'll just kinda go in the same order as the strategies. But for the office parks, we are rep we are, recommending staff is recommending alternative b, which would, designate the office parks as the innovation mixed use with densities up to 80 units per acre, and also would it would also, designate the advanced industrial areas in light blue to preserve some areas for that flex industrial employment uses only where housing would not be allowed.

For Folsom Boulevard, staff is also recommending alternative b, the transit corridor mixed use designation, that applies to all of the the areas in that dark burgundy. It can be a little hard to see under the the TOD overlays. But alternative b the alternative b version of transit corridor mixed use has a density range of up to, 60 units per acre 20 to 60 units per acre, and allows for up to a 100 units per acre at the transit overlay areas near the light rail stations. The city center. We talked a lot about the approach to the city center, and we settled on sort of a hybrid a recommendation for a hybrid approach approach in this area where we would keep the underlying designations of what's proposed in alternative b.

So you can see the colors underlying in that area with the entertainment mixed use district in in pink that more or less aligns with the convention overlay. But then instead of designating that the whole area as city center, we're proposing identifying this as a new planning area, the city center planning area. And the general plan would then have an implementation program for the city to prepare a subsequent focused master plan that really digs into that next level of of planning about how this area could develop cohesively in the future, addressing concerns around the traffic and placemaking, how you create a whole city center district. But it wouldn't give it that one designation. There would be multiple designations within that city center planning area.

And then lastly, the proposed approach to the shopping centers is to apply the more flexible commercial mixed use designation that removes the requirement for new development to have 50% ground floor commercial and would allow for new commercial but some stand alone housing at a density of 10 to 30 units per acre. So those are the focus areas of change. The new land use diagram would look like this, what's shown here. And that concludes my presentation. I'm sure there are questions.

I'm happy to take any questions. And then, again, what we're looking for tonight is really recommendation from the planning commission to take to the city council for what the planning commission wants the preferred land use alternative to be.

Thank you so much, Chelsea. We appreciate your work on this and Paul's as well. So I just want to preface this by saying you did a great job researching and hearing from our community. And I appreciate the extra effort you took to talk to youth and Fulcrum Cordova Community Partnership and reaching different diverse populations too and languages. I just wanted to make note of that extra effort to reach our community since it's very diverse. So thank you. Surrender, can we start at this end and work our way around?

Yeah. So I see this advanced industrial location identified as another part. Is that the your expectation is is it allowed data centers in that designation area?

That I imagine that would be an allow an allowed use, an appropriate use in in those areas. At the general plan, we tend to keep it a little bit higher level than zoning. And so in the staff recommended alternative, I will point you to the table with the land use designations. And if you were if you read the designation description, it describes a designation to encourage the growth of creative and innovative industries and businesses allowing professional office, research and development, incubator spaces, light industrial with low environmental impacts and some supportive commercial. So it's it's a broad designation.

The we we could call out data centers specifically, but we tend to get into the more sort of nitty gritty uses when you develop the implementing zoning later on.

Yeah. Future is AI. AI needs most of the space for data centers, so we should have some certain designation for data centers because we cannot keep near the housing or anything the data center location. So Yeah. That needs to be identified.

Yeah. I would say the AI designation would be a really appropriate place for that, and we could call it out in that designation. We could also have policies that are more generally supportive of maybe this this designation and other areas where that could be appropriate.

Okay. And the next thing is we are going to use the parking office space parking into mixed reuse, housing, and everything. If we build more housing in that, how are you going to provide additional parking for these new houses or new construction you are building it up?

Yeah. That that's a really good question. When we did the mixed use multifamily housing study, we looked at different parking configurations of how you could how you could take an existing surface parking lot that serves a business and how can how can you then build residential and and make sure that it has its own parking. And we're we're starting to imagine more structured parking and looking at the feasibility of doing extra more parking garages, podium type, not just surface parking, But we believe that there is sufficient parking in this area if you look at the parking utilization to accommodate to accommodate all of that. But I think there could be some creative new parking arrangements, too.

Yeah. And I think the alternative, Commissioner Deborah Polly, is to allow for that. Like, the flexibility is built in. So if a property owner decides that that's what they want to do because maybe their office building is just not occupied enough to warrant for that much surface parking, that they'd have, like, the option to basically utilize that unused surface parking for potential other uses. So

Yeah. I understand. Right now, it might be empty, but in future, it might fill up with the office. Everybody comes back to the office, then they might need more space for parking. So we need to think about it.

Mhmm.

Next thing I have is, as you know, Rancho Cordova doesn't have hospitals, major hospitals around that. So I saw some locations identified hospitals, but I because of some color mix up, exactly, I couldn't locate where that that got assigned in this general plan.

Yeah. That's a good question because we did hear a lot of desire from the community for hospitals, medical facilities. And, again, at the zoning level, we would we would wanna have policies in the general plan that are supportive of allowing those in many different areas of the city and not necessarily designating areas for only hospitals or medical facilities, we might end up having policies that say, we really think this is a good area of the city, but you don't necessarily need to, zone or designate for those uses, the policy could be to really allow them in a lot of these areas, any of the mixed use areas, in industrial areas. So I think there are a lot of different places that could accommodate a hospital.

All right. One of the table they mentioned, hospitals comes under public policy something. Public facilities.

Yeah. And maybe, Arlene, could you speak to how hospitals are allowed in other zones? Are they limited to public facilities? No. They're actually called out specifically for other zones as well.

So they're not just allowed in public facility zoned districts. They're allowed in other ones as well. And so like Chelsea was saying, what we can do is refocus maybe some of the zoning to maybe make it easier to be able to open medical facilities and also create some supportive policies that focus on specific areas where we want to see medical facilities.

Yeah, this is a very good presentation. I liked it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks, Surinder.

So going through them, reimagining off sparks, I agree. We have a a really large inventory of vacant office buildings, and this is really the tough thing when we're projecting for the next twenty or thirty years. Because in the nineties, there was a big demand for office buildings, and we reacted and built them quickly. And look where we are now. It it's really hard to predict the future, but, flexibility, I think, is the key because, we build to a culture, and culture is changing rapidly.

So on the reimagining office parks, I I really am leaning towards, alternative a, being most flexible with those. But like surrender was saying, a good use for a lot of those buildings is converting to data center, just the way they're built and the the infrastructure surrounding them. They weren't really built to to hold residential. But if they do go become data centers, then the parking needs aren't gonna be as great. And there you go with the the building in the parking lots, which I think is a great idea.

It's a whole lot of good land with access to roads. Folsom Boulevard is

a is a bit of

a tougher nut to crack. You know, as Lee was saying, it's it's it's hard to develop a space like that when you you only have one side of the road. It's a it's a tough one. If I had to pick, I'd go with all day. Keeping it commercial, I think that's your primary gathering place. That's where we've grown accustomed to doing shopping and and those sorts of things, but it could be a lot better than it is. We've come a long way, but I have a long way to go.

On

the downtown portion, My reaction to that is that we should be true to who we are, and we are a tier two suburb. There's there's no getting around that. So a downtown a centralized downtown really doesn't quite make sense to me, but having it broken up into multiple spaces, it it makes a lot more sense. We we already have a quasi government center surrounding this building. The entertainment district is gonna be great, but mixing it up is a good idea.

Again, back to flexibility. Commercial centers, Alt A's would be my choice. And expanding housing choices, it's important. There's there's a need for it, but I I I just caution against going too tall. When you go above three stories, it gets very expensive to build, and it it's tougher to live in. If if you're in a San Francisco or a New York, that makes sense, but, we're not that. So keeping it to three stories, I think and that limits the, units per acre.

And,

as far as hospitals, and thanks for bringing that up, that's been one of my key things. We are the only city in the entire Sacramento Metropolitan Area without a real hospital. And, having opportunities to place them in in other locations is great, but I would point to the lot next to Kaiser across from the VA at, Data and International as a prime location, easy access from the freeway. It's on a three lane road, and it's adjacent to other medical facilities. I like I said, you can't designate a space for a hospital, but if you could, that would be it.

And that's all I have to say on that. Great job. Great presentation. Great packet. I appreciate reading through it. It was a long read, but very informative. Thank you. Before

we move on, can I I forgot to ask if we have public comment?

So I have no speaker cards for this item, but we did receive one email from Federico Garcia that was distributed to commission, posted online, and placed into the back of the room.

Thank you so much, Kelly. We'll close public comment now. Commissioner Stevenson?

Yes. Well, I'm in I'm in favor of alternative b. I like the fact that it gives the opportunity to to go as high as you can go. And, the only really outstanding thing that I think about it is what are we gonna do with Folsom Boulevard with the traffic, with crossing through. Like, this morning, took, like, twelve minutes to get through because the light rail goes this way and goes that way, and it's it's it's just like a big that's a problem.

So if we have more people on Folsom Boulevard, it's just gonna be worse on the traffic. But I would like to see Rancho Cordova be able to be as good as we can be, and I think alternative a kind of limits that. I think alternative b allows us to be you know, you say, like, not we're not San Francisco. Of course, we nobody's San Francisco, but Rancho Cordova is still, in my mind, the greatest place I could be. So I think alternative b just has a a better opportunity for us to to be a great place.

I like a too as well, but, I would just go with b. So I you know, the only thing that I think about when you when you go with b, when you have more people and and higher limits and stuff like that, is we have to figure out where the traffic and the sewage and all this type of you know, Lee will tell you all day long about how we can electricity and all that stuff. You know? So and I'm not really expert on all the, logistics on how we can have all the people, but I wouldn't say limit the people from being there in the first place. So I I'm leaning more towards alternative b, and thank you for your report.

Okay. I have a few questions, and I'm gonna kind of first go in with what I think the thing that stood out to me the most and even just being at the, I think, the last workshop that we had here was the community feedback. And I know it's not something I know you guys have been in many places. And even within this last year, I have personally seen it in many places. But I I I just feel like I'm a little not concern's not the right word, but I wish we had more, and I'm sure you do too, have more feedback from the community itself.

And I I know it's easier to step up and say something when you don't like something or wanna complain about something versus something that might be beneficial for us later down the way. So I guess where the one question I had is where is, like, the community where did the community feedback that you've heard kind of conflict with, like, staff recommendations? I kind of want to understand the gap there.

Yeah. That's a good that's a good question. I I think we felt like even if in some cases there were slightly more votes for one alternative than the other, we looked at the feedback as a whole Mhmm. And wanted to make sure that we felt like it was still in line with what we were hearing from the community. And we didn't.

There were there were certainly some comments of concern around increases in density, the traffic impacts. We heard that as well. But there was also a lot of excitement about what the city could be and the desire for flexibility to just allow it to happen. We had conversations about, you know, we were trying to educate on density because throwing out a number can be really hard, but using the renderings and kinda comparing and talking about the mixed use housing sites were really helpful too because people could really visualize, and there was a lot of support. And so those votes when we went to the farmer's market, we weren't getting votes necessarily.

We were there for conversations, and we were looking at a couple we were looking at the farmer's market site at Sunrise, and we were showing, like, you know, would you be supportive of this? And there were a lot of comments like, yeah. That would be that'd be amazing. Like, we would love to see something like that. So we felt like even if, you know, for the office parks, there were slightly more green sticky dots or votes for alternative a, generally, like, the the tone of what we were hearing in the comments were supportive of of more density in those areas.

So we felt like we were proposing alternative b wasn't inconsistent with the comments. Right? Alternative b, but we also wanna we hear what the community says around with the density, they want improvements to public spaces, open spaces, places to gather, public realm improvements. So not just density, but density paired with gathering spaces and improvements in the public realm. So I don't know if we can think of I don't feel like we're conflicting Yeah. With any of, generally, the tone of the the comments.

Yeah. I don't think staff came in with kind of a set of what we wanted to see. We kind of took the feedback from all the workshops that we did and the pop ups and the meetings. And we also met with developers, some brokers to talk about kind of the challenges that they're having here in the city as well. So we kind of looked at from their viewpoint as well. And we took that input and really, I guess, consolidated what their concerns were and what we thought was realistic and what we're hearing back from property owners and people who are out there trying to build more in the city and to bring more businesses in the city. So I think that's kind of our approach in terms of staff.

And then I guess a twofold to that is, is there and I just want to understand timeline. Like, are we still looking to solicit more community feedback as we're moving through? I know in the front of this presentation, you kind of showed us the road map or the timeline of how the direction we're moving in. But I it just made my when Cindy brought up the question, and then even when I was looking at this last night, I was kind of like, you know, I wish we could get more. And I I'm not saying what you have is not enough, and I think maybe it was those numbers. I was

like, oof.

That's like Yeah. And that kind of I mean, and even at the workshop, like, I I mean I'll say this again. I thought, like, you did a fabulous job then, and even just going around talking, like, I I kept vacillating between both. Like, oh, I like this. Oh, I like this.

And so, I mean, for me, too, I'm one of those I'm probably sitting in that camp of I'm excited to see more growth here. I'm excited. Like, I think about even before I moved here, when I came back in 2019, when my parents were looking to move here and looking at from where it was from 2019 to to today, we've so much. So, like, the prospect of more growth and just more people coming to the city is awesome, and whatever we can do to draw that. And I personally I love the entertainment mixed use district.

I think that that would that's what I love about DoCo, and although my husband hates going out there with me, like, it's something I would love to do, and I'd love to do it right here in my own city, so I personally am a fan of that, but just I I just and maybe this is just the nature of people's feedback. It's just I just think there's so many people who have moved to this area who should be, you know, kind of in the mix in terms of getting their opinions in. And especially a lot of the where I live in South Rancho, we have so many people moving from the Bay Area or wherever coming out here, like myself. It it would I I mean, I personally tried to reach out to a bunch of families and friends that I knew, I said, hey, you guys should go to this. This is really important.

This impacts us. And I think out of the, like, 40 people that I sent it to, two showed up that day. So Yeah. You know, that's kind of I I just would it would be nice to get more people involved in the feedback piece. But I know that's not something you guys can control because I know you've had a lot of opportunities. But I just wanted to know before I know this is going we're approving if this is gonna go to counsel. I guess, in the timeline, do we have more time to get solicit some more feedback?

Great question. I wanted two points to that. The number the engagement numbers that I showed you tonight were old. I'm sorry. I sent a new slide, but I think it was too late to get it into the packet. But those were before we started the land use alternatives engagement. So the numbers that I read off, they're they are higher. I think it showed 800 comments. We've got over 2,000 2,500 comments. Number of people I mean, we've engaged about 850 people. Okay. And I know compared to the population of Rancho, that's not a lot, but we keep adding more all the time. We did the community workshop, and we thought we're always flexible too. We meet after something. We debrief.

We're like, how can we get more? Okay. Let's go to the farmer's market. Let's let's try KP International. We've never tabled that.

Think it's on you guys. I think it's on our community. We need to get the word out. Really, I think you guys have done a nice job on that. I don't wanna come off like I said that.

No. I

I I do hear yeah. I would we would love to get more. I think, we also didn't hear a lot of angry people or opposition, which I've been doing this a lot, and I'm used to getting. When we start talking about thing this type of development, we usually, get more negative feedback. We got a lot of a lot of constructive feedback, but, like, positive feedback and excitement. So I think maybe there's just not a I don't know. We haven't we're always trying to to find more. We we pivoted too and said, okay. Well, we haven't really heard from young people. How can we reach the youth?

And so we went to the jobs fair and the youth at city council, and we've been doing that up until last week, which is why but we are trying to close this phase of the process and move to the next. And so we do need to make we need to establish the preferred alternative so we can keep the rest of the process going. So we can start writing the policies, so we can start the environmental analysis and stand schedule. So we are hoping to close this phase. And there will be more engagement opportunities as we write the policies, but we're hoping to set the land use designations and the densities now to close that phase.

Okay. And I promise, last question, and this is kind of, again, twofold. Like, what would be some early wins that you we could, like, deliver, like, if if, you know, if you had a wish list and be like, what would be some early wins we could see if this plan is implemented? And then on the other side, what would, like, keep you up at night? You know, like, what would be one risk that would keep you up at night about this plan? Just just so I can understand kind of the full picture of, like I mean, this was a lot to digest, and so as I was looking at it and, you know, I was, like, excited over it, I was, well, you know, I don't understand all the, like, the I would say the nitty gritty of it all, but, like, I wanted to understand what would be a a win, you know, an easy win that says, oh, this is really working.

Yeah. I think from from staff's perspective, for me as, you know, part of planning here, Folsom Boulevard is a big opportunity in the city. And I think there's always been a struggle for a catalyst project or catalyst projects to come out of this. And what we've heard sometimes from property owners or potential developers, it's very restrictive. There's a lot of different owners there.

It's hard to consolidate lots to make a big project enough to kind of get the activity going. So I think that would be to me, that an early win would occur on Folsom Boulevard, especially for that area of the city. And also, maybe establishing other nodes of activities in the city that's not just around the arena, which is very exciting. But I think even though we want Rancho Cordova, of course, to be a cohesive community, there are pockets. And people identify with those pockets.

And I think if we can provide more opportunity for everyone to have their public gathering spaces and for places for them to congregate and feel like a community, I think that is also an early win for staff. The other question I mean, something to keep for us is making sure that we are not as Commissioner Deborah Polly was saying is that it's hard to kind of estimate thirty years out, that we're not going to be making it a challenge for another use that we don't even know about. I think that's probably, for us, is like there's a use out there that we haven't even heard of and that somebody in the private industry is already thinking about you know, we'll get a pro proposal for something. I'm like, I don't know what that use is. So I think it's it's making sure that we're not restrictive to discount that and not allow it if it's good for the community.

So

Thank you. That's super helpful.

Alright. Hi, Chelsea. Hi. I I got a couple of oddball questions just to start out the gate. You know, many years ago back when I was actually in the planning business and the whole, you know, the whole idea of space making was just starting to really gain traction and everything, everybody was always trying to find an example of a second tier neighborhood that had successfully transitioned to a more urban interface. Are there any good examples of that now? I'm hoping there are, but I I do we have some good examples of that now? Or

You're talking about the types of development that we were showing tonight happening in comparable places to Rancho Cordova?

Yeah.

Yeah. I think we're starting to see more examples like this. I'll say even next door in Folsom, they're opening up some of their development standards similar to what we're talking about here. Have they have they seen this type of development yet? Not really. We've seen a little bit more success attracting housing on commercial corridors like East Bidwell by opening those up for more mixed use. Mhmm. I think they're I I don't know why like, Livermore comes to mind as an example, where they've been I mean, it's it's a different region, but have, over the past few decades, had success transitioning to

Well, I know there's successfully built some. I'm just like, my family's development business was involved in the Walnut Creek twenty six years ago, and, you know, that was a lot of hopes for that transition. And yet twenty six years later, it's debatable how successful it's been. We definitely were definitely built what we wanted to build, hoping that it would work, but I don't think Walnut Creek's probably the best example of that. But I'm not opposed to that.

I'm just asking kind of off the cuff if there have been since those early attempts, if the the process has been refined and we have some good examples of success. But I gather that I understand also that that takes years to really flesh out. But, I was just hoping maybe there was you could say, oh, yeah. Back in South Carolina or something. Another question. I just did some quick looking up on Google, but I don't know that I trust what's coming up here. Do you have any rough ballpark on what the current cost for structured parking is?

I don't have it in front of me, but we did work with EPS to prepare a feasibility analysis for the mixed use multifamily housing study. Mhmm. We we do have some numbers. I can't I don't have them in front of me, so I wouldn't wanna just rattle off a number. But it is quite expensive and can be a a barrier for sure. Yeah.

What I'm pulling what what Google's giving me right now is, like, you know, $100 a square foot, basically, you know, 19 to $30,000 per parking space or the the examples they're pulling up for 500 parking spaces. That would be basically a 250 unit building, about 15,000,000. And so that always scares me because I look at the cost of housing. I'm going, okay. So if you're putting, you know, an extra 30,000, you know, cost on a unit right out the gate, it's really hard to build affordable housing when you're adding that kind of cost out the gate.

And usually, when we're talking about affordable housing, we're talking about high rise. And so you know? And now here here's the funny part about that. I believe we have a moral obligation, especially along Folsom Boulevard, like in the Todds and stuff. We have an obligation to try and encourage that kind of development.

But I also worry about who can actually afford to live there. I would be supportive of, you know, the alternative b in places like around our Todd's and stuff. But as we get a little farther out into some of the neighborhoods, I don't know that I would fully support alternative b in some of those examples. Another question I had for you, Chelsea, Did you have you guys had a chance yet to look at electrical distribution capacity and trying to build out the higher density that we want? Is that available right now with SMUD?

What's their forecast? What is that gonna cost? Because that's another huge factor in the cost of affordable housing.

That that's not part of the analysis. We didn't

Okay.

Look at that in detail.

Alright. Fair enough. That's this is a general plan, not a and I guess for staff, we can mix and match this. Choose alt a for some things and alt b for others. Right?

Correct.

We're not locking ourselves into one or other for the whole thing.

So so we we there is a preferred alternative that staff is recommending, but if you don't if you wanna make a suggestion on a change to to some of those that we're recommending, you can certainly do that.

But, you know, I keep coming back to the parking thing. And the funny thing is, as an engineer, I'm in favor of the structured parking. It makes no sense that we take up all of this acreage for a single layer of cars. But also, as a former developer, I'm very aware of what that does to the the cost of housing or the cost of any development, not just housing, but even, you know, commercial uses. And so I find myself kinda trapped between two worlds here as to which is really, you know, better. You know, it's kind of six one way, half dozen the other.

The

at the end of the day, the one thing that I can't get away from when I have talked to citizens and stuff and, oh, by the way, adding on to Cindy's comment, I think you guys did a really good job of trying to reach out. And, frankly, if anybody should be blamed, that should be the commissioners because, really, that is our job as planning commissioners to get people excited and get them out to these public events for public input. And I don't think I think we failed you in that attempt. You guys and both you and staff did a, you know, commendable job in trying to get the turnout out even though it wasn't what we had hoped. But I do get caught up in that promise of cityhood.

And, you know, one of the things that our community has suffered with for so many years is we kind of were I don't wanna use the word dumping ground, but there were a lot of times Rancho was the the sacrificial lamb where we did things that, well, it wouldn't be ideal, but this is what really makes sense, or this is what we need for the greater region kind of things. And one of the promises of cityhood was that we were gonna start being first and that, yeah, we've had a lot of, less desirable housing forced on us in the past, but we would start having the more desirable things as a result of cityhood. And yet sometimes, we haven't always seen that, and that's a really hard sale for some of our residents when it comes to, anything high rise or high density. And yet high density does not knee need to be less desirable. In fact, high density can be some of the best housing around, but that's not the perception of our residents sometimes.

So that's a real issue, because the promise of cityhood was that they were gonna start seeing some of the the higher end stuff, and we really haven't delivered that quite yet, although we're hoping to. So I guess at the end of the day, in the along the Folsom Boulevard corridor, I can support the alt b even though I worry about what that does to, the cost of, housing or just the cost of anything as we're trying to attract new businesses in. And I think that commissioner Hoon hit the the nail right on the head. One of the biggest problems we have is that we keep trying to chase what is currently desirable or what we currently think happens. And so often, as my family knows all too well.

Twenty years down the road, it turns out that, you know, the we make a decision today. Some of the stuff that we zone or make a decision on today, nobody will even start looking at building for twenty years. And in twenty years, what is really in demand isn't what is needed. And so I'm looking for maximum flexibility in many ways, you know, and the fact that alt a kinda offers a little more flexibility, I like that. And, of course, nothing's to say that we can't change things down the road when the need arises.

So I guess to wrap it up, I would support alt b along the next to the Todd's and along Folsom Boulevard. I think we have a moral obligation to kinda drive that kind of density where our transportation cores are. But when we get out into the rest of our community, which truly is, still a second tier, neighborhood, I just don't know that the higher densities always work for us in terms of everything between parking, utilities, a lot of other things. It sometimes higher density can really mean much, much higher cost, and that probably isn't good for our residents as far as that goes. Those are my thoughts at the moment, guys, Cindy.

K. Buckle up.

So first, great presentation. I'm bearing with you guys where I work. Our this presentation with the limitations that our lovely senate and assembly has done. 2017, we've got senate bill 35. We've got senate bill 10.

We've got the ADU laws that came out in 2016. We have the new senate bill law that I just read about today at work for the transit oriented density, which affects a certain portion of Rancho that three of us all live and die by. So the big picture for me is we don't have a lot of choice when it comes to high density. You cannot want it in your neighborhood. You can go to Penryn. You can go to Auburn, and you see no high density housing. Well, they don't get to choose that any more than we do. So you're gonna have that development. And what we're trying to do with this plan and this land use is have some control because the state is taking our control. We can't decide that.

So mixed use, unfortunately, Stone Creek, Anatolia, that that's that's coming to you as much as it's coming to to us in the mill. So we need to decide how we're going to drive that bus so we have some say, and we make it better. That is going to affect if if staffs are agreeing with this plan, we need to talk about infrastructure. Right? We need to know that we need to prepare for that in the next twenty years. We're gonna need water. That's a big one. We're gonna need power. A lot of things are gonna go electronic electronic vehicles. You know, I know that parking I'm currently building an underground parking garage with stacking, car stackers and all of that.

There's gonna be a new way to build. I think if we can't predict what's coming, I would say, if I had a crystal ball, I think high-tech, data centers, AI, that's what's coming to Rancho. We're gonna become the and with that, we need something for the residents. And I love the idea of the entertainment mixed use as long as it is public entertainment and it doesn't become I'm just gonna say it. I don't want strip clubs. I don't want, you know, pot. The big thing in Sacramento is the pot lounges and things like that. I don't wanna see that. I wanna see soccer and football and concerts. And the other thing is libraries, schools, those are the things we need, and we just need to make sure we're flexible.

But that all comes down to zoning. And I think so we're what we're voting on tonight is land use, and I think we need to remember to be really involved with zoning because that's where we can control those strip clubs and the gas stations and everything on Folsom Boulevard. And Dave was Tire shops. Tire shops. Are really limited on Folsom Boulevard because it is one-sided, right?

So giving that flexibility for somebody to come in and even if it's our own version of Sprouts with a high rise apartment building next door to it, I totally support that. So I think that's where we're at. What did I have else in here? So I just don't think we can do the not in my city when our state legislators are telling us, yeah, it's going to be in your city. And you know what, Folsom? It's going to be in your city. And downtown, it's in your city. And even Galt, it's going to be in your city, too. We all have it. So we have our arena numbers we need to meet.

This addresses that. And I think we need to work really closely with city council, and we need to figure out how we make it the best use of what the state is throwing down our throats so that our residents are happy. And it's a place we're proud to live. And then the only other thing I love the outreach you did to follow back on that at least in my neighborhood, it's a little bit older, and I feel like the seniors don't get out as much. So to piggyback onto what you said, whole time you're talking about, I'm like, I should have been walking my neighborhood.

I should have been talking to those neighbors that aren't going to get out and do that. Maybe when we do the next step, maybe I will. Maybe we should all commit to walking our neighborhoods and talking to our neighbors and telling them who we are and what we do and hearing their feedback. I think that's not asking too much of us. Right? Because I do know a lot of my neighbors are they never leave their house. Like, they've been there for fifty years. They don't leave. So that's the only thing I think is on us, not on you, and we can work together with you on that. But I like the presentation you made, and I think it addresses all of those unfortunate things that we don't have control over to try to give us some control.

And I I would like to find a way to make the entertainment center, you know, I love that, as the downtown. I think we do need a downtown. We need a place where we can gather, and I just I do believe we need a downtown along with that entertainment center. Because what if that arena doesn't come? We need something else there that's gonna draw people. So those are my 2¢. I'm gonna support the recommendation.

You mean to tell me I'm the only one that was telling everyone to attend the workshops all the time? Like, really?

I said it, but nobody goes.

People are like, shut up already. We know. I love your passion, Cindy.

Well, let's state what we have.

Agreed. It's even more so. I'd echo so much of this. I think the only thing that I would add or question is pertaining to the city center, since you have the alternative A, alternative B combo. You know, the one thing I I know to be true about our city is that there's so much pride in in our communities, our neighborhoods, and there's a desire for folks to maintain that connectivity within those areas.

And in alternative b, there was activating those multiple city centers in addition to the downtown area, and it I I just would hate to see that get lost because I think that we need to invest in multiple sites across the city in addition to that big downtown area. And so I'm supportive of all of this. I think if we can manage to include that component as well, I just think our residents want those spaces to be able to congregate and to be together and more than just a downtown area, but those small little spaces in their own neighborhoods as well. There's obviously a need for more diverse housing options. So it was appreciated that you showed that slide showing the percentage of single family housing comparatively to everything else.

It's shocking to see, but then again, And just appreciative to see that in some of these examples, the need for wide sidewalks, those gathering spaces, that's the kind of feel that we want to be fostering. In my dream city, don't need all this parking and we don't need because everyone's taking public transportation, we're walking places. And amenities and restaurants are all accessible that you're not needing multiple car cars per family, and there's jobs in our city. We don't need to commute. So

I'd love to you

know, if you build it, they will come kind

of a

thing. It's very, you know, dreamy, I'm sure. But so, yeah, I'm in favor if there's a way to to activate those multiple centers within that.

Degan? If I may, I just thought of a question that I'd like to ask Palmer, and I'm gonna put you on the spot, Palmer, but maybe you could kinda help us with this. Really, what we're choosing here is gonna have significance to, you know, the legal process down the road when somebody wants to build something and they're told they can or they can't or what is the basis. Could you just give us a, you know, a a very elementary level of how the importance of the land use component in the general plan and how that is used or how that would could be used by, you know, developers to bring in, you know

Sure thing. So I'll I'll do it at a somewhat high level

Yeah.

Because I think that's where we're at. But the general plan is kind of the governing document for the city. You know, it it is more broad than many of the other documents. You get more in-depth as you go higher or low lower down in the land use tiers. You know, that you have the specific plans which build off the general plan, get more specific to very specific areas that have different standards that are that have to be consistent with this general plan designation, general plan goals, and policies, and then you have zoning.

So it's kind of a a step ladder up to find consistency internally with all of those different elements. But the general plan paints the broadest brush for how development in the city will progress.

And how does that limit city council's ability in the future to adopt certain zoning changes?

They need to be consistent with the general plan. So that that is the finding essentially that they will need to make as it applies to the general plan. So and I'm just

what we probably should be looking for then is what gives us the most flexibility. And I don't know. Staff was saying that alternative a is gives you a little more leeway, but I'm not sure if that's really the correct interpretation for the question I'm asking. But it seems that we would want to give future city councils as much flexibility as we can. Correct?

Like, for for example, in this alternative b in the transit quarter mixed use, it says maximum density is 60 units per acre. Right? That's the general plan designation for that alternative, and the max under the general plan would be 60 units per acre. So if city council were to adopt a zoning ordinance that said maximum density for this parcel, which is in that TCMU, is 80. That would be inconsistent with the general plan.

But they could also scope it down. So if they say this zoning designation within this TCMU maximum is 40, that is consistent with the general plan. Does that make sense?

I think, really, flexibility, as we've been saying, is key here and, and not handcuffing future planning commissions or future city councils. And like you said, we don't know what's gonna come down the pike. Arlene said it perfect. We we and we have to be nimble enough to accommodate as as time goes. Things change quickly, and we just need to be flexible.

Yeah. We need to be flexible, but flexibility for who? It's for builders or it's our commissions? I don't think so. I mean, flexibility, who is going to build the company in there? Flexibility is for them, how they interpret the things when you're joining it.

Right? Because I think you're right, Surinder. Giving more flexibility also gives us a harder time to say no. So we don't like something. We can't say no because it's in the broad stroke. It's a it's a balance.

But, like we've been saying, we we plan it. We don't build it. You know, we need, interested developer to come along. And if he sees a little more, latitude here than he would in Folsom or another city, Rancho would be the better choice. And we we're in a unique situation compared to our surrounding neighbors. We have a lot of brownfield, and we should use it wisely.

Yeah. That that's true. And I think just to kinda bring it back to something I said earlier, it's it's really hard for a couple of us that have Elliot and Dave and myself that have, you know, grown up in Rancho and been in Rancho forever. It's a little easy to remember the promises of cityhood and the struggle to get to the point that we could even have a planning commission sitting here making these decisions. Whereas before, it was made by somebody else in Downtown Sacramento who didn't really care about us.

I I think we have to keep in mind that that promise of cityhood and still also realize that what we do today is gonna have a huge impact on somebody twenty years from now who isn't even sitting here yet long after we're gone.

Well, unfortunately, we have a staff doing a really good job of that as well. Do we need a motion to move this forward?

Yes. Yeah. Chelsea, how do you want to do this? I think there's some agreement for certain strategies, but there might be some adjustments that we need to make. Do you wanna go one by one? How do you wanna do this so that we can kinda get it clear?

Would it be easier? Because, right, we don't have to select one alternative versus the other. We've even staff has presented a hybrid version. Would it be easier to go through each focus area and and make a motion about each one? Sure.

I'd like that.

Okay. That might be the the right way to go through it. Would would we like to start with I mean, I

Kelly, is that okay? Are you okay with that? Palmer, is that okay? I I I wanna ask the clerk. Yeah.

It works

for me. Me.

Okay. She's, like, looking up. She's like, how do I do this?

It'd be more preferable if we go through for their recommendation with one motion. But if we need to do several motions, that's fine as well.

That's fine.

Okay. But

if I could suggest maybe more of, like, a consensus, do we all agree on this to put this in the motion? Would that work as we go through each one?

And then we can do a larger motion. Yeah. We do a consensus vote.

Am I

making it more

No. No. Think we won that had a

I think Lee I think Commissioner Forschette also had some changes he wanted to make to the preferred to the staff recommended. I believe you made them potentially.

Yeah. Yeah. I like the idea of however we get there of taking these on one by one, coming to some consensus and putting it all in one motion. That or breaking it up, it's only five, six separate things, and maybe that allows us to have a little better discussion.

Mhmm.

So we can do a consensus vote on each strategy if that's that's fine, and then we can do a larger motion at the end that everybody agrees to what's being agreed to.

Oh, okay. Would it help if you wanna tell me where you wanna start, would it help for me to describe what's proposed and what the other option is? Just so it's

Whatever makes it easier for you to

Well, I'm here to make it easier for you.

So I think it would be helpful to to to kinda recount each of the sections as we went through the presentation.

Okay.

And just give us a chance to now we've been discussing it. We have some you know, maybe our ideas have been changing. We see it again. Mhmm. And just Oh, boy. Off start with office parks.

Sorry to make you all dizzy. I'm gonna flip back to office parks. Does anyone wanna talk about the base, or are we okay just comparing a and b on all of these? Okay. So alternative a, the approach I'll start by saying staff is recommending alternative b for office parks.

Alternative let's start there then. Alternative b, allows a a higher density, maximum for innovation mixed use. The density range is 20 to 80 units per acre. Compared to an alternative a, the density range is the minimum's the same of 20, but the maximum is 40. So that in alternative b, it wouldn't preclude someone from building at 20.

It would just allow for more flexibility to build to 80. So that's the density difference in the innovation mixed use. Alternative b also includes the advanced industrial, the light blue areas, preserving them for employment only, and it would not permit housing in those areas. We do describe that commercial could be a supportive use, but it's really meant as, like, a flex light industrial area.

I I like the idea of preserving some areas that are just for that environment. I think as we see a a greater trend and moving towards AI, which the city is really pushing with our AI innovation zone, that the one jobs that aren't going away or that are gonna become even more important are gonna be those jobs that humans still have to do. And having some areas where we encourage that's probably

You wanna make a motion there, Lee?

What? So do

you wanna

make a motion on it?

Yeah. I I I'll move that we keep, you know, we we keep that in these industrial areas.

Staff recommendation?

Yeah. Staff recommendation on that.

Okay.

Is that okay, Palmer? Clear. Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Dever Pali?

Can I do b? Yes.

Commissioner Forschette? Aye. Commissioner Hoon?

Nay.

Commissioner Raymond? Aye. Commissioner Stoss? Aye. Commissioner or vice chair Stevenson?

Aye.

Chair Mauldin? Yes. Motion passes with a six one vote.

Alright. The next area on Folsom Boulevard, staff's recommendation is, alternative b. In alternative b, the transit corridor mixed use applies to, more parcels than alternative a. It it pulls in some parcels even south of Folsom Boulevard, and it has a a higher, more flexible density range. In the transit corridor mixed use outside of the TOD nodes, the density range would be 20 to 60 units per acre.

And in the TOD overlay, the density would be allowed up to a 100 units per acre. Alternative alternative a, the transit corridor mixed use really only applies to the parcels on the North Side of Folsom Boulevard, and the density range is, lower at 10 to 40 units per acre and 80 units per acre at the TOD nodes, which is what's currently allowed. So I'll pull up the staff recommendation, which is alternative b. I

make a motion to approve staff's recommendation for alternative b. I'll second.

Commissioner Deverapoli?

No. It's a also, traffic will be very congested. Only we have two lanes there. Without increasing lanes, I don't think it fits in there. So I would say no.

Commissioner Forschette?

Boy, this is a hard one because I want to say yes, but I'm also feeling alternative a is the better alternative. So I'm gonna say no.

Commissioner Hoon?

I tend to agree, with with, commissioner Forschette and, commissioner Deborah Polly. B just seems to be a bit much. I prefer a, so nay.

Commissioner Raymond? Aye. Commissioner Stoss? Aye. Vice chair Stevenson?

Aye.

Chair Malden? Yes. Motion passes with a four three vote.

Alright. The next the next area is the downtown. Staff's recommendation is sort of a a hybrid, so I don't know how helpful well, I can it's sort of a hybrid of a and b. Alternative a has a city center land use designation that's applied to the footprint shown here. And this compared to alternative b, let's just focus on that city center area.

It has an entertainment mixed use land use designation. We took another look at this, and we are recommending that instead of us designating this entire area as one land use designation, that we go with the land use designations of alternative b, which are there's some advanced industrial. There's some innovation mixed use. There's some entertainment mixed use, But that we recognize this boundary as the city center, and there would be a focused effort to do a focus plan, to do a vision for this area, a separate master plan for the city center master plan with this footprint. But there wouldn't just be one single land use designation.

So this one's a little bit it's not a or b. It's a mashup. We also recommended that we keep the entertainment mixed use designation, but we increase the densities to what we were proposing in the city center designation. So a 100 units per acre and a five point o floor area ratio. But

does that how does that affect, like, the community?

Because so then I think I'd have to make a motion to approve this with the addition of the mixed use activity centers if I wanna add that.

Yeah. Is that right? Yes. And so I'll try to explain our our thinking there. The mixed use activity centers, those are really the shopping centers that we talked about recommending alternative a, the commercial mixed use, and that's what the community was supportive of.

It was a little bit of a conflict here, but we listened to what we actually heard, which is that they the community wanted to activate these shopping centers. And I think beyond that, not just shopping centers, but more gathering places activity centers. So it's not necessarily it doesn't have to be done through what we were proposing in b, which is the village center mixed use designation. I think that can be that can be done through other other ways. So, absolutely, I think we hear that as a a community priority, but we're proposing that those shopping centers be a commercial mixed use alternative a.

Where where would that, is that McGregor right there in Coloma on the top left?

Yeah. That spot is right.

I'm just wondering.

Yeah.

So is that the one on the left that is that where Columbus goes into MacGregor and Zinfandel?

Is that right? Yeah. It is. Yes.

And then is the second one where Mather

So it's those existing shopping centers? Yeah.

It's the, Me Rancho there. Mhmm. And then this one on the right would be, where Jasper's is.

No. I think that one would be, like, where Dollar Tree and Mhmm. Dee Dee's Discounts. Yeah.

In Jasper's. Yeah.

Jasper's is up at Sunrise.

Yeah. That's right on Coloma.

It's right on Coloma.

It's on Coloma, but I isn't the other one farther down? Is that

Where Didi's Discount is Mill Shopping Center, that's not even on this map.

Yeah.

It's at the other end of. Right.

What does an entertainment mixed use district allow that a commercial mixed use would not? Can you give me examples of what might what that would allow?

Yes. And it would be more focused on like, the commercial mixed use is a much more neighborhood scale designation. It wouldn't allow the entertainment mixed use would be a much like, more of a regional destination. So higher intensity uses, it would allow for things like hotels that wouldn't be allowed in commercial mixed use. So if you think about more it would allow for shopping, housing, entertainment, like movie theaters, hotels, and there would be an emphasis on those uses and and encouraging those uses to be to be built.

In the commercial centers, we're talking about smaller scale uses and having standards that would encourage, as new development comes in, creating more outdoor seating for restaurants or plaza spaces or more gathering places. In commercial mixed use. In the commercial mixed use neighborhood centers. Yeah. More neighborhood scale attractions. Okay.

As I'm reading this map, unless I'm reading it wrong, and we had another map on the screen before this, you're showing some areas to the east of Sunrise Boulevard that currently have an existing industrial, uses and businesses. So I'm not sure I I am clear where this would eliminate any new industrial uses. I think we'd wanna keep those industrial uses together.

I'm gonna fast forward. Sorry for all the clicking to the staff recommended alternative Because you can see in the hatched area, the city center footprint, it would actually have in what we're proposing, there would be a lot of areas for employment. Those light blue areas would be the advanced industrial. And so it it would be there would still be industrial uses encouraged in those areas. That's open for discussion.

Okay. Yeah.

I see. I'm yeah. Okay. It wasn't really clear. So in the in this hybrid, we're getting the best of both worlds is what you're telling me.

That's correct. Anyway Yeah. And, I mean, it's it's so possible through that subsequent more focused effort that it there might be some proposed changes as you develop a more, refined vision for this area. I think the, you know, the idea of the proposed arenas arena is relatively new. And I think if you're thinking about an expansive city center around here, it really deserves, like, its own focused planning effort. And the general plan is very high level. Mhmm. We provide you know, it provides direction for what to do next.

Yeah. Think for us, you know, the Arena project is on 25 acres. Right? That's what they're proposing, and they're they're visioning for for phasing that project out. So I think for us, we're thinking, what's outside of that? How do we address outside of it and connecting to it, transitioning to and from it so there is an opportunity as a subsequent implementation action to potentially create some kind of master plan or specific plan for the city center? That is an action that we can take as a city to explore that.

And The reality is is that a lot of what we desire or hope to accomplish or correct is dependent on zoning. So the real issue here is is what we're adopting gonna bring any impediments to that zoning. Mhmm.

Arlene, you said it well, and I would think I was thinking the same thing. Maybe that pink area should become a specific planning area if it if it already is. And I don't think it is. Right. But me right then. It's in the overlay, but maybe in the future, that should become a Mhmm. It should become a specific planning area like the other four or five that we have.

That could be a subsequent action that can

I'd like to make a motion that we that we accept the staff's recommendation for a mishmash of alternative a and b and and take the best of both worlds.

I second that.

I I think we did. We're in we're in

yeah. Ready for roll call?

Yep.

We're on the city Center one.

Chair Molden, we're ready for roll call. Correct? Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Deverapoli?

Yes.

Commissioner Forschette? Aye. Commissioner Hoon? Aye. Commissioner Raymond? Aye. Commissioner Stoss? Aye. Vice Chair Stevenson?

Aye.

And Chair Malden? Yes. Motion passes with a seven-zero vote.

All right. The last I'm not gonna I'm not gonna talk about strategy five because that really overlaps with all the other decisions you've made in terms of the densities of the office parks and Folsom Boulevard. It was just another way to have that conversation with the community. So I'm gonna end on on the shopping centers and activating commercial centers. And it's really about taking another look at the commercial mixed use designation, the village center designation, and the local town center designation and how the city would want to apply those to shopping centers.

I didn't give all of this context before, but the the village center and local town center are pretty prescriptive. They have a form based code in the that's in the zoning code to implement these land use designation that has very prescriptive development standards. And we've heard that those are a bit of a barrier, in in, like, older infill areas. They're a barrier to redeveloping shopping centers. They might work well in your specific plan areas where a developer can build, you know, more creatively from the ground up, but trying to they've been barriers to your infill areas.

That was the background that we we had going into this conversations with developers and city staff. So we're recommending alternative a, which is in the what we're calling the the infill areas of the city, really just using the commercial mixed use designation for your shopping centers and making it as flexible as possible to try to encourage redevelopment. Either it could be right right now, the commercial mixed use requires commercial. So a a stand alone housing development like what's done in Stone Creek would not be allowed unless they were building commercial as part of it. And so we're proposing to amend the designation to allow for a standalone housing development to be built next to the shopping centers and integrated into it.

But a developer could carve off a parcel and just build housing there. And we're also proposing to increase the density to 10 to 30 units per acre, so more of a townhome to lower scale multifamily rather than capping it at 18 units per acre. So that's staff's recommendation for the shopping centers. Alternative b has more designation for shopping centers, so we have some CMU shopping centers. We have some general commercial applied along Sunrise to parcels that are currently CMU, and we apply the village center to shopping center in Coloma.

I'm trying to recall if that's currently a village center. I believe it is. So I don't know if I can point with this. I don't think I can. So the alternative b keeps the village center designation where it currently is. So there's a shopping center along Coloma that's in the light purple here. And I don't think it's shown here properly, but there's also a a parcel at the corner of Bradshaw and Old Placerville. Arlene, do you wanna help me describe what's there that This is when I looked at Nick. There's an item in there.

There you go.

Bradshaw. Bradshaw.

Food for Less is Anchor.

Yep.

So alternative alternative b would keep that village center designation, and it would actually expand the use. We renamed local town center to community activity center because it Rancho is not a town. It's, like, a community. So it felt like an activity center that serves the community. So that's just a naming convention.

But community activity center, we use that for the other the shopping center in North Sunrise. And so those are more they are more prescriptive. They they would require commercial uses. They would we would we would want the city we would recommend that the city would review the form based standards to try to address some of the barriers, but the alternative b would keep, keep some of those in in place for these areas. I don't know if that raises more questions.

But, essentially, we're we're recommending and this is what the community supported, just a more flexible approach to try to open up these areas to allow for different kinds of, yeah, thinking. Just let's just remove barriers and see what we can attract.

Your microphone.

I'll make a motion for alternative A.

I'll second. Okay.

Commissioner Devrapali?

A. I like farm based, those things so that people can walk around as a community center. I still

have that with a. You're just not limited to it.

Okay. I'll say then yes.

Commissioner Frechette? Aye. Commissioner Hoon?

Aye.

Commissioner Raymond? Aye. Commissioner Stoss? Aye. Vice chair Stevenson? Aye. And chair Molden? Yes. Motion passes with a seven o vote.

Alright. I think that aligns with staff's recommendation in all cases, what I'm hearing. I know. Do we have one more? That'd be difficult. Number five? No. That that's it. Number five was the housing choice, but, really, it's wrapped up in all of the rest of them in terms of the density. So great. We're good. Well, thank you so much.

Appreciate all your work on this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah.

Okay. Briefly, commission comments, ideas, questions? Start at this end.

I'd to start.

Is it me or you?

I don't care.

I'm just gonna be really quick. Happy Earth Day, everybody. Thanks.

Kids' day this weekend in Hagan Park, a long held tradition in this community. Typically, we get, about 5,000 kids there plus their family and older siblings. Everybody's welcome. It's a really great event. Hope to see you there.

Just for the up here, in honor of Dave's shirt today, we're gonna on the next meeting on the thirteenth, we will be wearing Hawaiian or floral shirts. So write it down.

Good. That was Trent's? Yep.

Does that include staff?

Sure. Yeah.

Let's get staff in

on this. Hawaiian shirt stay next meeting.

Spot. Plainly. Plainly.

Oh, not too much for me. Mitchell and Mills and Cordova, all track and field season is full effect, and so is baseball. So if you like to watch baseball or track and field, come on out and join us. We'll be there. Thank you.

I think we we had a really productive meeting tonight, and I appreciate all the the the various opinions and input. We all see things through different lenses, and I appreciate us coming together in in this forum and and dealing with the presentation. Thank you for that, and I think we did good things tonight.

Yeah. Basically, the presentation was too big to read in three days I mean, three, four days. We might need more time to go through all the slides. Man, it's too much to read. Anyway, that's a good one. Good work on that. That's it.

Okay. Thanks. And, Arlene, do you have a staff report?

Very brief. Spring service day is on May 16. So if you can let people know, they can sign up at Volunteer Central online. So and that's all I had.

Great. We'll adjourn at 07:30. Thanks.