Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

are AI-generated and may contain errors. Chair, you may start.

Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I call to order the regular meeting of the City of Sacramento Planning and Design Commission for Thursday, August 13, 2026. The time is 5.30 p.m. Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioners, please unmute. Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Tao? Here. It's absent. Commissioner Snell?

Here.

Commissioner Nybo?

Here.

Vice Chair Kaden?

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Gores?

Here.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

Commissioner Blount is absent. Commissioner Rischke is absent. Commissioner Thompson is absent. And Chair Chase?

Here.

Thank you. We have a quorum.

Thank you, Chair. Before we kick off, I'd like to Thank my colleagues for being here. I think it's been over two months since we've met, so nice to see everybody again. I'd like to remind members of the public in attendance that speaker slips are submitted digitally now. There's a new change here. You can register to speak by scanning the QR codes posted at the back of the chambers and by the city clerk's staff table or through the kiosk. Submissions must be received prior to the item being called, after which no further digital slip will be accepted. You will have three minutes to speak once you are called on. We'll now proceed with today's agenda, starting with a land acknowledgement, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Please stand. To the original people of this land, the Nisenan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley, and Plains Miwok, Patwin Winton peoples, and the people of the Winton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe, may we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us, still walk beside us on these ancestral lands, by choosing to gather today in the act of participation, practice of acknowledgement, and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people's history, contributions, and lives. Thank you. Join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the director's report.

Thank you, Chair. It's nice to see everybody. We've had one project go to Council since our last meeting on June 11th. I wanted to provide you with an update. On June 16th, the City Council heard an applicant appeal of the Commission's February decision to deny a proposed quick car wash at Florin and Franklin Boulevard, and the car wash was subsequently approved by City Council. That's all I have. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. All right, we'll now move to the consent calendar. Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

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

Do the commissioners have any items on the consent calendar that they wish to pull, or is there a motion to approve?

Chair, I'll make a motion to approve amendments from June 11.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. I think we have a motion and a second. Chair, can you take a vote?

All right, commissioners, please unmute. Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao is absent. Commissioner Snell?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kaden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Gores?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt is absent. Commissioner Rischke is absent. Commissioner Thompson is absent. And Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you. Next on the agenda is our public hearing calendar. Item number two is the 2026 Title 17 Omnibus Ordinance. I'm now opening the public hearing. Are there any disclosures, site visits, or recusal for this item? Thank you. Seeing none, staff, do we have a staff presentation? Kevin, are you? OK. Sorry. There you go. Go ahead.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Anna Toll. I'm an associate planner with the city. I'm joined by Kevin Collin, our city zoning administrator. Tonight, I'll be presenting on the Title 17 omnibus ordinance, which is a collection of various updates to the city's planning and development code. I do have a presentation.

One second. That's OK.

Thank you. I'll begin with a brief overview of what an omnibus ordinance is. I'll review the different categories for amendments proposed in the ordinance. I'll provide a brief summary of key changes, and then we'll look at the review steps and staff recommendation. An omnibus ordinance is a single legislative action that combines several miscellaneous topics in one. It comes from the Latin term for meaning to, for, by, or with everything. And it is a miscellaneous collection of corrections, updates, and streamlining changes. The three categories are state law consistency, streamlining, and administrative cleanup. With state law consistency, we're updating our code where it is silent or inconsistent when new state laws are passed. With streamlining, we're refining existing regulations without changing policy direction. And with administrative cleanup, we're correcting typos or outdated references. In your staff report, there is a background attachment that describes each amendment category. It includes the topic being covered, where it can be found in the ordinance, where the existing regulations exist, and then it provides a summary of the issue, proposed changes, and the rationale for change. Beginning with state law consistency, we're looking at 2025 planning and zoning laws related to accessory dwelling units. SB 543 included non-substant changes, general cleanup, and did not introduce new standards for accessory dwelling units. AB 1154, related to junior accessory dwelling units, removes an owner occupancy requirement when a separate bathroom is provided in the junior ADU, and it requires a rental term of at least 30 days. In addition, the Department of Housing and Community Development reviews all ADU regulations for jurisdictions across the state and has provided the city a recommendation or request for clarification in two areas, the first being the number of ADUs that are permitted on a lot. Under state ADU law, you may have up to three ADUs. That is one detached, one conversion, and one junior ADU. And the city also has local regulations under which you may have two ADUs. This brings the total number of ADUs permitted per lot to five. And this is a clarification requested by HCD. HCD also requested we clarify the street side yard setbacks. State law requires a side yard setback of four feet. And this update simply codifies that regulation that we already follow. AB 752 relates to child care centers, which is a commercial use serving 15 or more children. It establishes child care centers as a land use permitted by right when it is located with a multi-unit residential building of at least five units. Such facilities are subject to the same standards as the multi-unit residential that it accompanies, and this law does not change regulations for in-home child care or family daycare homes, as they are called. AB 507 establishes a ministerial streamlined process for adaptive reuse projects. And these are defined as retrofitting and repurposing existing buildings to create new residential or mixed use projects. AB 507 includes protections for historic resources, requirements to include affordable units in projects, as well as construction labor standards. Our first streamlining amendment relates to low density residential uses in the shopping center zoning district. Currently the shopping center zoning district conditionally permits single unit residential dwelling and duplex dwelling as a conditionally permitted use. This is inconsistent with general plan policies for minimum density and FAR. Therefore, the amendment proposes to remove these uses from the SC district. This will allow for a more appropriate urban development pattern, such as multi-unit dwelling, which is permitted by right. The site plan and design review process includes exemptions. Those Exemptions for demolition are narrow and limited to accessory structures under 50 years old. These amendments add an exemption for accessory structures that are over 50 years old and also adds an exemption for structures that are damaged by fire or other natural disaster if certain conditions are met. The goal is to reduce the time and cost of permitting for these projects while protecting historic resources. Modifications to approved site plan and design review projects are classified as either major or minor. And this determines the review body and the level that the decision is made at. However, deviations to the regulations to development standards are not considered when making this determination of major or minor. So the proposed amendment includes language for deviations and removes redundant language related to decision making and level of review. The goal is to provide clarity to both staff and applicants to understand what level of review is required. Title 17 establishes development standards for landscaping, but it also references other city code chapters which complicates enforcement of landscape maintenance requirements. The proposed amendment removes references to maintenance, which provides a clearer pathway for enforcement staff while still applying development standards for landscape requirements that are applied in the SPDR process. For administrative cleanup, we have several outdated references to remove, including references to the Ascot overlay zone, the superstore land use, temporary commercial buildings, and residential green building bonuses, which no longer exist. We also add the family daycare home as a permitted use in the rural estates zone. Under state law, this is already a permitted use and is listed in other zoning districts as such. So this change simply codifies that requirement that we already follow. The Broadway Stockton Special Planning District includes references to an outdated urban design plan that is no longer in effect in that district now that the Stockton Boulevard plan is adopted and in effect. Development in that special planning district is guided by the Stockton Boulevard Plan and subject to citywide design guidelines. Finally, there are various typos and grammatical errors that are addressed in this ordinance. This ordinance will follow a fairly standard review process, the first being Planning and Design Commission. That's tonight's meeting. We'll next go to the Law and Legislation Committee before going to the City Council for review and adoption. Staff recommends the Commission conduct a public hearing and upon their conclusion pass the motion to determine the ordinance is exempt from CEQA and recommend the City Council adopt the ordinance. Thank you for your time tonight. I remain available for questions as well as Kevin Callen, the City Zoning Administrator.

Thank you, Anna. Are there any Commissioners questions of staff? Seeing none, we'll now call for public comment on item two. We're no longer taking digital speaker slips for this item, and we'll call speakers currently in the queue.

Thank you, Chair. We have one speaker, Rachel Patton. Okay, actually we have no speakers.

Thank you, then I will close the public hearing. The item now is back to the Commission for discussion or a motion. Vice Chair Kaden.

Yeah, it looks great. I appreciate this item every year. It's very clear. It's well organized. I know it's a lot of effort to stay on top of all of the state laws that get passed every year, and so I think our staff does an amazing job of pulling that forward very quickly, so happy to move the item.

Was there a motion in there? Vice Chair, was there a motion? There was a motion there. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a motion and a second. Chair, any other Commissioner comments before we vote? Clerk, can you take a vote?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioners, please unmute. Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

What was that? Aye. Okay. Commissioner Snell?

Aye.

Commissioner Nybo?

Aye.

Vice Chair Caden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Gores?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Blunt is absent. Commissioner Rischke is absent. Commissioner Thompson is absent. And Chair Chase?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you. Item three is the next item in the agenda. It's the United Cerebral Policy Transit Storage Project at 2150 Harvard Street. I'm now opening the public hearing. Are there any disclosures, site visits, or recusals for this item? Seeing none, I will say I did a site visit. I did a drive-by. I live near the area. With that, thanks. It looks like we have a staff presentation.

Great. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Deja Harris, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department, and I'm here to present the United Cerebral Palsy Transit Storage Project. The item is a request to establish a transit vehicle storage, repair, and storage use in the OB zone. The subject site is located east of the intersection of Arden Way and Harvard Street, and is surrounded by a combination of hotel, commercial, and office uses. The subject site is developed with an office building, which is currently divided into office space and a vehicle inspection space. The applicant, United Cerebral Palsy of Sacramento and Northern California. UCP is proposing to establish a transit facility at the site. UCP provides programs and services, including door-to-door transportation services to individuals with developmental disabilities and older adult and intends for this facility to house their transportation service operation as well as their administrative services. The project requests the following entitlements, a conditional use permit to establish the facility as well as site plan design review to construct a storage area to support the facility. To establish the facility, the applicant proposes to improve approximately 1.3 acres of vacant land located at the southern end of the subject site to construct 72 paved bus and van parking stalls, new site lighting and fencing. The existing office space will be used for administrative staff and the vehicle inspection area will be used for repair and minor maintenance of the transit vehicles. The proposal includes no new construction or modifications to the building other than signage. Staff recommends that the Planning Design Commission approve the requested entitlements as the project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan and the OB Zone. The operation will provide reliable transit options to residents and the site is proximate to office and commercial centers and is compatible with surrounding uses. Notification of the project and the hearing were provided to all neighborhood associations residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject site. Staff received no comments expressing opposition or support. Additionally, there were no e-comments. And this concludes my presentation. Staff and the applicant team are available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Deja. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation? No? OK. Are there any questions for commission or for staff?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick question. Any feedback from community? Did you get any community input on this project or did we talk to community about it?

We posted the site with a hearing or with an early notice. We did not receive any community comments for the project.

Thank you, Commissioner. Okay, Commissioner Chow.

I was just looking at the project and it was proposing a, is it a gas tank above ground? Is that going to have any environmental impact on the long term on the property at all? Just one concern because I didn't see any community comments on this.

Good question. So this is Zach Dahl, a senior planner. So the above-ground storage tank would need to be permitted through the county, is my understanding. And we're not aware of any long-term impacts of the tank causing any public harm. It's also located at the rear of the site, behind fencing.

Commissioner, any other commissioner comments or questions of staff? Seeing none, we'll now call for a public comment on item three. We're no longer taking digital speaker slips for this item. We'll call speakers currently in the queue. Clerk, do we have any speakers?

Thank you, Chair. We have no speakers for this item.

Okay. Hearing no public comment, I'm now closing the public hearing and will entertain a motion.

Commissioner Gores. Mr. Chair, thank you. I will make a motion to approve a staff recommendation for the United Cerebral Palsy Transit Storage Project.

Thank you, Commissioner. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Commissioner? No. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, can we take a vote?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioners, please unmute. Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Snell?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kaden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Gores?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Blount is absent. Commissioner Rischke is absent. Commissioner Thompson is absent. And Chair Chase?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you clerk, thank you commissioners. Item four, next on the agenda is the center point at Natomas Crossing Commercial Development. I'm now opening the public hearing. Are there any disclosures, site visits, or recusals on this one? Seeing none, do we have a staff presentation? It appears that way.

This item P25015 is a request to construct two retail buildings and one office building on 2.86 acres within the existing office development in North Natomas. This is the center point at Natomas Crossing commercial development project. Subject site is located at the corner of Del Paso Road and Truxel Road. It is currently developed with an existing office development and is surrounded by existing office, commercial, and residential development. The site is also proximate to a future hotel site and light rail station proposed south of the project site. The project requires the following entitlements, a rezone from EC50 PUD zone to the C2 general commercial PUD zone, a PUD schematic plan amendment to redesignate the subject site from office to office, commercial, and residential, a tentative subdivision map to subdivide the site into three commercial lots, two common lots, and two lots for future development, site plan design review for the construction of the commercial and office development, as well as a tree permit for the removal of one private protected tree. The rezone and PUD amendment would allow for commercial office and residential uses on the site, as well as facilitate the reuse of the existing office buildings. The tentative subdivision map would subdivide the site into seven new lots. Three lots would contain the proposed retail and office buildings, each on their own parcel. Two common lots and two lots for the future development are at the south of the site. The proposed lots are compliant with lot size, width, and depth requirements of the C2 zone. Access to the site will be provided from an existing driveway on Del Paso Road. Pedestrian pathways are proposed on Truxel Road and Del Paso Road. Bike parking is located near pedestrian paths and the proposed buildings. Site landscaping includes additional trees planted at the Truxel Road frontage and the project complies with tree shading setback and height requirements. The project provides architectural design that is consistent with the city design guidelines and the buildings integrate with the adjacent office, hotel, and commercial uses. Notification of the project and the hearing were provided to all neighborhood associations, residents, and property owners within 500 feet of the subject site. The site was also posted with the hearing information. Staff received comments from Civic Thread, which were included in the staff report. Staff recommends the commission pass a motion to forward a recommendation of approval to city council. Planning staff supports the project as it complies with the development standards of the C2 zoning and the PUD, provides new pedestrian paths, enhanced landscaping, supports the surrounding uses, and provides additional employment opportunities. This concludes my presentation, and staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Does the applicant wish to present? Okay, thank you. Are there any commissioner questions of staff? Seeing none, we'll now call for public comment on item four. We're no longer taking digital speaker slips for this item. We'll call speakers currently in the queue. Clerk, do we have any speakers?

Thank you, Chair. We have no speaker slips for this item.

Okay. This evening is moving quite along here. Hearing no further public comment, I'm closing the public hearing, and we will entertain a motion. Commissioner Lee.

I'll motion to approve.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Caden. Second. Vice Chair Caden. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. I just want to say quickly, my office is right down the street on Del Paso from this development, and the existing development is very nicely done. So I look forward to this addition to it. I think it will be great for the area. That said, clerk, can we take a vote?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Aye.

Commissioner Snell?

Aye.

Commissioner Naibo?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kaden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Gores?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Blunt is absent. Commissioner Ruschke is absent. Commissioner Thompson is absent. And Chair Chase?

Aye.

Thank you, and the motion passes.

Thank you. Item five is Sam's Market. for Type 21 Conditional Use Permit located at 2685 Rio Linda Boulevard. I'm now opening the public hearing. Are there any disclosures, site visits, or recusals on this item? Seeing none. Thank you. Do we have a staff presentation? Yes.

Good evening, Commissioners, Chair Chase. My name is Jose Quintanilla, Associate Planner with the Community Development Department. This item is P25024, Sam's Market. Sam's Market Type 21 CUP, which is a request to authorize the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits within an existing 2,200 square foot neighborhood market at 2685 Rio Linda Boulevard in Council District 2. The project site is at the southwest corner of Rio Linda Boulevard and Eleanor Avenue in the Old North Sacramento neighborhood and is zoned General Commercial C2. Development in the immediate area is a mix of single and multi-unit residential, commercial, and assembly uses. This project requires the approval of a conditional use permit to authorize the sale of beer and wine, beer, wine, and distilled spirits under a Type 21 ABC license. The market currently operates from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. every day and sells beer and wine under a type 20 ABC license. There is no change proposed to the hours of operation. As part of this request to authorize the sale of distilled spirits, the operator proposes reducing the number of coolers devoted to the sale of beer and wine from seven to five, the addition of shelf space for healthy foods, and the addition of 30 square feet of shelving behind the register for the sale of distilled spirits. These changes are shown on the screen. In addition to the notice of public hearing prior to this meeting, an early notice of planning application was mailed to surrounding property owners, residents, and neighborhood associations at Project Submittal within 500 feet of the subject site. Staff received no comments in regards to this project. Staff recommends that the commission make a motion approving the requested CUP based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval in the report. The request does not result in the establishment of a new alcohol retailer and results in a reduction in the space devoted to beer and wine, as well as an increase in the space devoted to healthy food options. Thank you. This concludes my presentation. The applicant has a brief presentation, and staff and the applicant are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Jose. Does the applicant wish to present?

Members of the Commission, Pete Tobin with Tobin Consulting. We appreciate what staff has done with this particular project. This is a neighborhood market. As Jose mentioned, we're reducing the number of beer and wine doors, cooler doors. I look at the rest of my presentation and he already covered it, seriously. We just want to get this facility up to speed in terms of compliance, and we agree with the conditions, and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Are there any commission or questions of either staff or the applicant? Commissioner Tau.

Just questions for the applicant. Was there any outreach to neighbor associations or any oppositions from the community? Any support letters?

We sent all the required emails to all the appropriate neighborhood groups, and we didn't receive any.

No comments? Okay. I'm very familiar with the area. I live just right down the street on the other side. It's been a long-time market there. I think the family who bought it bought it from... from a Hmong family as well as been a longtime neighbor market and really want to see responsible ownership. There is a big over concentration of this type of license in our district, in this community. heard through grapevine that this is a great family, he owns the business. I haven't spoken to the owners yet, but I've spoken to the previous owners and they said this is a great family. Definitely want just to echo that responsibility in the community because our DISTRICT, THIS AREA HAS AN OVERCONCENTRATION. AND I WANT TO SEE THIS BUSINESS THRIVE, I WANT TO SEE THE FAMILY SUCCEED, AND I WANT TO SEE RESPONSIBLE SELL OF ALCOHOL AS WELL. AND WAS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM PD AT ALL, STAFF, OR?

THEY PROVIDED PROTEST CONDITIONS TO ABC, AND THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN THE REPORT.

OKAY, AND THOSE CONDITIONS WERE ACCEPTED, OR?

Those conditions are placed once the IABC approves a license. So the conditions that the police department sends are recommended conditions that they would like to see on the license.

Okay, so that hasn't been added. So within this process, that will...

It doesn't get added during this process. It's done by ABC.

Okay. What were those conditions? You know what I mean? You should...

We're going to pull those up for you, just one second.

There's about three or four pages of conditions, most of them related to upgrading the video system and the cameras.

Okay, more security for premises.

Right, which we all agree with all of them.

Yeah, so the conditions that the applicant's referring to, those are the ones that the police department provides to us directly, which are typical for conditional use permits, and that's regarding the type of Surveillance system that they want and you know certain requirements that that has to meet such as you know Police has to be able to access it, you know certain Quality of video. So those are the ones that we put on the the conditional use permit itself But the ones that the police department sends to ABC relate to prohibiting alcohol consumption on the site no exterior advertising and limits on size of distilled spirits, so nothing less than 750 milliliters, package restrictions for beer and wine. Those are the types of conditions that they requested that ABC put on the license itself.

Okay, I think those are valid, yeah. I don't have any other questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Lee.

Yeah, I do just want to echo what Commissioner Towles said and, you know, just want to say that obviously this is a highly vulnerable community. I think the staff report points to that. I do have a question. I see on here on the PowerPoint that the hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 11 p.m., but I'm not sure if I saw anywhere where the alcohol sales would actually stop. Is that stipulated anywhere on here?

No, the hours would be the same as the operating hours.

But if the store later decides to close at midnight, then the alcohol sales would go to midnight as well?

They would have to within the conditional use permit.

So the conditional use permit, does it currently end at 11 p.m. seven days a week?

Yeah, let me make sure that we, yeah. It's condition B3, alcohol sales are limited to the hours between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m. every day. Okay, got it. So any change to that would have to be a modification to the CUB and would require, it would be a minor modification to the CUB.

Got it. So if they were to extend the store hours to midnight, they would still have to stop the alcohol sales at 11 p.m.? Okay, correct. And then to modify the CUP, is that a commission or is that the director level? That would be a staff level modification. Those are all the questions I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other questions for any of the commissioners for staff or applicant? I can't remember. Did we already ask if there are public comments?

Thank you, Chair. There's no speakers for this item.

Okay, great. Thank you. Hearing no further public comment then, I'm closing the public hearing and we'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Towle.

I will motion to pass this item.

Do we have a motion? Do we have a second?

I'll second the item. Oh, did you get a second?

I think Vice Chair was ready to, but we will take it. I wasn't.

I was listening.

We'll entertain your second. We have a motion and we have a second. Clerk, can you take a vote?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Towne?

Aye.

Commissioner Snell?

Aye.

Commissioner Nybo?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kaden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Gores?

Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz? Aye. Commissioner Blunt is absent. Commissioner Rischke is absent. Commissioner Thompson is absent. And Chair Chase.

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you, everyone. Moving now to our discussion calendar. Item six is the 2040 General Plan and Zoning Consistency Project. Staff, please present the report.

Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Jamie Mosler and I'm an Associate Planner in our Long Range Planning Team. I'm pleased to be here tonight as part of our 2040 General Plan and Zoning Consistency work with an update and requesting initiation of some amendments tonight. As an overview of tonight's presentation, I'll first provide some background information on how we got here. I'll then describe our approach and scope for this work. I'll then provide an overview of the proposed updates as part of our zoning code work. I'll then describe staff's recommendation in the motion tonight. And then I'll conclude with describing what next steps remain for this project following tonight.

So starting with some background information.

The 2040 general plan was adopted by city council and it provides policies to guide the city's decision making around land use and development. And it sets a stage for us to implement policies with more detailed planning efforts. The 2040 General Plan was centered around this vision that in 2040 the City of Sacramento would be a national model of sustainable, equitable growth and community development, along with the guiding principles listed there on the slide. Those inform the General Plan and continue to inform the zoning code work that's underway now. The general plan includes various maps to regulate development, first being the land use designation map, which sets out the vision and allowable uses for areas, second being the maximum floor area, or FAR map, which maps how intense development can be across the city, and then also minimum residential density, or a minimum amount of homes that are required to be built per acre across the city. Throughout tonight's presentation, you're gonna hear floor area ratio, or FAR, a lot, so I wanted to spend a moment here how the general plan regulates how intense development can be. It's calculated by dividing building area by lot area. So the example I like to use is on a 5,000 square foot lot, an FAR of one would allow a 5,000 square foot building, an FAR of two would allow a 10,000 square foot building. The general plan allows FARs ranging from one to 15, with the highest FARs allowed in the central city, along transit, and on corridors. The general plan provides longer-term, more broader general policy direction, and it's implemented through a series of plans and tools, such as the zoning code. The zoning code is a lot more specific and detailed than the general plan. State law requires the general plan and zoning code to be consistent, and so that's why we're in the process of updating our zoning code now. Zoning divides all the land in the city into different areas or zones, and each zone has rules for how the land can be used or what can be built on it. Zones fall into categories like agriculture, residential, commercial, or industrial, and the purpose of zoning is to have rules that make sure that different land uses are working well together across the city. So the general plan is implemented through these more detailed zones or zoning districts, and each zone will have a list of allowable land uses and along with development standards, or what can I do on this land and how big can it be, essentially. All right, time to describe the approach and scope of our zoning code update. So we started with analysis following the general plan, going through our entire code, identifying what updates needed to be made, and then now we're in community engagement where we're sharing our proposed updates with the community, gathering their input, and making stops with this body as well at the Planning and Design Commission. Following outreach, we'll take everything that we heard and finalize our ordinance in the fall and then bring it forward back to the Planning and Design Commission and then for City Council for our final public hearings and adoption this fall and winter. Our community engagement strategy is described in more detail in the staff report, but we're reaching out to a wide variety of folks from developers, neighborhood associations, local organizations. Our outreach is running through August 31st, so still a couple more weeks. We have an online platform. The website link is listed there on the slide. There's informational boards, a survey. We did a webinar series to deep dive on some of the updates. We've also been sending out email blasts and social media posts to keep folks informed. Our zoning code update has seven main categories of work that we're doing. And I'll go through these one by one to give an overview of what the proposed updates are, along with summarizing some of the community engagement and feedback that we've heard so far. So first, starting with simplifying residential zoning. So the 2040 general plan simplified the number of residential land use designations, and it also removed the limit of the number of housing units allowed on a lot, which is referred to as maximum density. So as part of our zoning code update, we're simplifying and consolidating the residential zones that implement these designations and also removing maximum residential density. Looking at our old general plan, the 2035 general plan, it had several neighborhood designations that all varied by the context where it was located and different maximum density limits. But when we look at the land use designations in the 2040 plan, it's been simplified to the neighborhood and residential mixed use designations that are broader categories that don't have maximum density limits. The neighborhood designation is described as primarily residential and allowing neighborhoods serving commercial uses such as shops, services, offices. And the residential mixed use designation allows a broader full range of residential, retail, employment, and cultural uses such as those listed on the slide. So when we look at our zoning now, the ones that implement the general plan on the left column there, we have 13 residential zones ranging from R1 to RO. And the main difference between a lot of these zones is their maximum density limit. There's some variation in what commercial uses are allowed, but the primary difference is maximum density. But when we look at our general plan with its direction to remove maximum residential density across the zones and then also direction to allow neighborhood commercial uses, We don't need as many different residential zones and we have the opportunity to simplify our zones. So we're proposing to go from 13 down to four. So consolidating R1 through R2 into the new N1 zone. This will allow missing middle housing along with new neighborhood commercial uses. We'll talk more about those later. R2A through R3A is proposed to be the new N2 zone. These are zones that already allow multi-unit housing without all of the missing middle housing requirements. And we'll continue to do so along with some new allowances for neighborhood commercial and provide a transition to higher intensity residential. R4 through R5 will make the new N3 zone. These are already higher intensity multi-unit zones and will continue to be so and already have allowances for commercial uses. And then RMX and RO will make the RMX zone, which will allow a broader range of residential and commercial uses consistent with the residential mixed use designation. So now to talk more about the neighborhood commercial uses and the new N1 and N2 zones. So our general plan provides some history on this about historically Sacramento's residential areas where what's referred to as a complete neighborhood. There's a screenshot of Midtown there where there is a mix of different housing types built next to each other with neighborhoods serving commercial uses or main streets just a short walk away. But over time, cities started using zoning. Cities across the country, including Sacramento, and single-family zoning dominated a lot of land in the city. There's a screenshot from another area in Sacramento. And over time, areas like this, someone living in one of those homes, the only thing they can walk to from their home easily is another home that looks like theirs, versus in older areas where you could walk to more uses. And it pushed out city limits and increased our dependence on cars. So to address this, the 2040 general plan includes goals for complete neighborhoods where residents can meet their daily needs and easy walking or biking distance from home. And we also have our neighborhood land use designation that allows neighborhood commercial uses. So as part of the zoning code update, we conducted a survey in the fall about asking folks how they felt about small businesses and neighborhoods. And we're proposing updates to allow more neighborhood commercial uses by right in the N1 and N2 zones. So the community survey was open in fall. We received over 800 responses. You might have seen myself and senior planner Amy Yang at an event asking you to take a survey. There's a more detailed summary of the survey in the staff report, but we asked questions like what kind of businesses would you like to be able to walk to? How close would you want to be? what things should businesses consider when they're opening. Some of the responses are on the slide. So most folks wanted to see things like restaurants, shops, and services. Most people wanted businesses to be down the street as opposed to in the same building or unit that they are in. And they wanted businesses to consider things like noise, parking hours, how it fits into the neighborhood, and avoiding disruptive uses. And our community engagement over the summer has shared similar themes as the survey. So what uses would be allowed are listed there on the slide ranging from gyms all the way down to like some neighborhood cafes or restaurants and markets or grocery stores, music or dance studios and schools. Some pictures of what that looks like in midtown now with these smaller commercial businesses near residential. There would be regulations to keep these neighborhood scale. They'll be going into areas that have been primarily residential for a very long time. So maximum size of 2,000 square feet, limiting it to one per lot. having some hours of operation to consider residential uses right next door. And we would allow some outdoor uses like fitness classes and dining, but not allow storage of goods overnight and things like that. They would be allowed on corner lots in the N1 and N2 zone, which is shown there in the yellow and orange on that map, consistent with survey feedback about wanting businesses down the street. Also trying to balance having lots of residential and housing as we need our housing crisis. And yeah, so anything circled there would be allowed on a corner lot. But with two exceptions for neighborhood cafes, neighborhood markets are proposed to be allowed on corner lots that are on arterials and collectors. Reason for this is both of these uses have more fresh food, larger truck deliveries, and so the recommendation to be on arterials and collectors is these are streets that already have larger vehicle traffic, and so having truck traffic limited to those kinds of streets versus on smaller residential streets. The planning permitting process for these neighborhood commercial uses would be a staff level administrative permit, checkbox application to review compliance with the regulations I described. We also would require site plan and design review like we do for any other development for new construction or exterior changes to an existing building. But if there's a use that wants to modify slightly, maybe a little over 2,000 square feet or adjustment to the hours of operation, they could request a conditional use permit to exceed those. The neighbors would be noticed and there'd be a public hearing for that. All right, also in the N1 zone is where we will be updating our missing middle housing standards. Missing little housing refers to buildings with more than one home that are usually built in neighborhoods with single-family homes Some examples of that include duplexes four plexus cottage courts townhomes. There's an image of them on the slide Our 2040 general plan provides direction to broaden the range of housing types allowed in our single unit zones and also to update standards for missing little housing So as part of our zoning code update, we already had an interim ordinance I was adopted by City Council always as a temporary step before this code update and And now we're updating our standards to balance both neighborhood scale and encourage more housing near transit. We're trying to develop standards for what projects should be reviewed at the staff level without a public hearing. So we're updating standards in areas, in N1 zone, which primarily has an FAR of one, which is mapped there on the left, there's about 100,000 parcels. And then also with a maximum FAR of two, which is about 20,000 parcels that are located near transit. We've been using these images as part of our community outreach to show what missing little housing could look like in both of those areas. So in the FAR 1.0 areas, it could look like a three story building with six units in it, or it could also look like six duplexes around a shared open space. But in areas closer to transit, it could look a little bit taller, like the image there on the bottom, which shows a four story building. Some of the changes we're looking at to the interim ordinance to allow those scenarios would be increasing building height in the FAR 2.0 areas, having alternative massing requirements with the removal of the bulk control tent, so things like having building width and length dimensions, also looking at requiring building entries, creating new flexibility with open space to remove that requirement if the property is located near a park, and then also having new standards for multiple buildings on one lot that we did not have in the interim ordinance to address those situations. So for building heights, in the FAR1 area, we're proposing to keep it still at 35 feet, but in FAR2, proposing to increase it from 35 to 45 feet. But in both of these areas, removing the bulk control tent, which previously required the third floor to taper in. Our building height is measured where the roof meets the wall. Buildings are not required to provide a pitched roof, but there is an allowance for them to do so. And we are looking at other tools to replace for massing controls with removal of the bulk control tent. For proposed building width and length dimensions, this is a new concept that we didn't have in the interim ordinance. It puts a maximum width and length for the building, and it's applied per building, not per lot, and the setbacks do still apply. And the FAR 1 area, we would allow 60 by 60 per building, and FAR 2, 80 by 120. And there's two examples of what building width and length looks like on a couple of sites in the city. For FR1, we'd also look at some massing requirements. So 60 by 60 would apply to the main body, but they could also add smaller building wings that are 20 by 25 to the side and rear. So there's images showing that there on the left. And the setbacks would still apply, but if it works with their lot and they can fit, they can add those. For FAR2, we wouldn't have the main body and wing concept, but instead for any side of the building that exceeds 75 feet in length, they would have to pick at least one of those options. So massing break, either recess or project the building 30 by one. There's an example of the projection there on the left side. For window groupings that are at least 30 feet, having either a change in window proportion where the window size gets at least three inches taller or wider, or recessing windows at least three inches every 30 feet. Also changing exterior materials every 30 feet or having balconies on at least 50% of the elevation length. They could either be a Juliet or occupiable if they're further back from the side property line. So you'd have to pick one of those for any side of the building over 75 feet in length. Another new requirement from the interim ordinance we're considering is requiring a building entry. So each building would have to provide at least one of those four that faces the street or required open space. They could provide a porch. It could be one or two stories, a dooryard, which is like an at-grade patio with a low-level fence around it, a stoop, or a common entry, which is where all of the buildings have a shared lobby area and some windows around it. To summarize what some of those look like again with our scenarios, so this is what it could look like in FAR one. This is a 35 foot tall building that has six units in it. It's complying with the maximum FAR of one, complies with the building width and depth standards well within 60 by 60. There's open space provided and they did provide a porch as their building entry type. Another example of multiple buildings in the FAR 1.0 area, they're underneath the maximum height at 27 feet tall, complying with the max FAR. The front setback shown here is 17 feet. We're looking at a requirement of 15 feet if there's three or more units on the property. For open space, they comply with the requirement and they're also, the buildings further back are facing that shared open space area, which is a new requirement we're looking at. And then these buildings also provided a porch. And then lastly, in the FAR 2.0 areas, this is where we're looking at increasing height to 45 feet, and that's what that building shows there. This is underneath FAR 2, it's at 1.6. Also has the 15-foot front setback, complies with width and depth. For this one, there would be no open space required. This site is within 1,000 feet of a park, so that demonstrates that. And for this building, they chose to provide a common entry, and you can see the massing break with the projection there on that side. So one of the ways we're collecting input on missing little housing is through the survey. It's still open until August 31st, and as of August 4th, we had over 300 responses. There's a slight preference in both the FAR 1 and 2.0 areas for two-story building, but still in both FAR 1, there is over 62% support for three stories, or four stories, there's 56% support in the FAR 2 areas. All right, another topic of the zoning code update beyond missing little housing is overall goal to focus growth near transit. So the 2040 general plan regulates building intensity by maximum FAR and it places the higher FAR allowances near transit. So as part of the zoning code update, we are updating our development standards to align with the maximum FARs in the 2040 general plan. We're also incorporating height limits from SB 79 into commercial and higher intensity residential zones near transit. So this is the map I've shown a couple times. This is our maximum FAR map in the 2040 general plan. It has FARs ranging from 1 to 15, so we just looked at missing middle housing, which had 1 and 2, but there's higher FARs throughout the city located on central city corridors and near transit. In a similar but different way, the state also encourages more housing near transit with Senate Bill 79, which became effective this summer. It establishes statewide zoning standards for eligible housing near transit stops if they provide at least five units, and there's affordable requirements if there's over 10 units. But those projects can receive heights up from 55 to 85 feet, or FARs ranging from 2.5 to four. So considering the FARs in the general plan, along with state legislation, we're proposing to change the way that building height is regulated in our zoning code. So your building height would be determined by the maximum FAR in the general plan listed there on the left, and then what your zone is, and that would give you your maximum height. So if you're in the N1 zone with an FAR of one, it would give you a height of 35 feet. If you were in the C1 zone with FAR of two, you'd have a height of 65 feet and so on. The heights ranging from 35 feet all the way to no maximum height limit if you have an FAR of 15. We're also proposing transitional heights, which is the table at the bottom. So there are some instances where you'll have a property with an FAR of four directly next to property of an FAR of one. And so the transitional heights would require 20 foot increments before the maximum height is reached, just to provide some transition from the lower intensity to higher intensity areas. Next couple updates, I'll talk about our updates to our auto-oriented use standards and some changes to streamline the code. So for updating the auto-oriented use standards, our code already has standards for other uses located near transit, but the general plan provides direction to update gas stations and drive-through restaurants. For gas stations, there's a requirement for every new gas fuel nozzle to provide one new EV charging station. And then for drive-throughs, there's a policy to prohibit new drive-throughs within a half mile of existing light rail and high frequency transit or quarter mile of proposed light rail. So we're simply proposing to just codify those requirements into Title 17. For streamlining amendments, we're looking to ensure consistency with the plan and enhance code usability for special planning districts, plan unit developments, codifying adopted Rio Linda Airport land use compatibility policies into our code. and some streamlining amendments for the employment center zone to broaden the types of commercial uses allowed there. For special planning district, they're described in more detail in attachment six of the staff report, but where I'm recommending amending several SPDs to ensure consistency with the 2040 general plan and other sections of title 17. We want to update our development standards consistent with what the entire code update is doing and also make some technical corrections. City code requires that either city council or this body initiate the tax amendments to the SPD. So the motion would be allowing staff to begin that work to bring the amendments back to you as part of the ordinance in the fall. Similarly, with planned unit developments, there's more information about those in the staff report. But they're recommending rescinding several PUDs to streamline our code and remove PUDs that have either been completely built out or have expired development agreements. Similarly, city code requires that this body, the city council, or property owner initiate amendments to PUDs. So the motion tonight would be allowing staff to prepare the resolution rescinding these PUDs that would then be considered as part of the ordinance in the fall. Last updates I'll talk about are rezoning properties for consistency. So the 2040 general plan assigns land use designations that define the vision and allowable uses for each area, like the neighborhood and residential mixed use designations we looked at earlier. And it also consolidated many residential designations into a single neighborhood designation. So as part of the zoning code update, properties with existing zones that are inconsistent with their designation will be evaluated for rezoning, seeing if their zone is in line with the vision and allowable uses of the designation in the general plan. And then another common thing with rezoning is because we renamed all of our residential zones like R1 through R5 to N1 through N3, all of those need to be rezoned to reflect the new name of their zone. And so that is a large chunk of the rezoning work in this project. And then also there's a couple of outdated suffixes that refer to things that are not adopted policies anymore, and so we're just proposing some cleanup, but it does require a rezone because it's shown on the map. To get feedback on this, we've created an interactive rezoning map. It's available on the project website. Folks can toggle and see the existing zoning on the left along with the proposed zoning on the right. We also have informational guides about what the new zones would allow and the height table that I showed earlier. The map was launched late July, and we just held our webinar earlier this week, so we're still collecting feedback. Community members can leave comments directly on the map. Some comments to date desire more intensity in some areas, less intensity in other areas, and some clarifying questions. All right, now I'll describe staff's recommendation for tonight. So recommendation is to review and comment on all the updates that staff has been working on so far, and then also to pass a motion initiating amendments to the SPDs identified in attachment six for consistency with the 2040 general plan, and also to initiate rescinding the PUDs identified in attachment seven to streamline the planning and development code. All right, next steps that were made for this project after tonight. So we're still in our community outreach phase through August 31st, there's a couple more weeks. We set up an email and a phone number specifically for this project so folks can reach out to that directly if they have a comment or a question or want us to speak at their associations meeting. And then we also have a project website, cityofsacramento.gov slash zoning code update that has all the informational boards where we're collecting comments along with the survey and more information about all the meetings that we've been at so far. After community engagement, we'll be gathering all the input that we hear from the community to prepare the ordinance and then bring it forward to Planning and Design Commission on October 8th, Law and Legislation Committee on October 20th, City Council with just passed for publication, so just having it on the agenda on November 17th, and then City Council adoption hearing on December 1st. I have one more slide. It doesn't want to go. All right, it was just a thank you slide, but that concludes my presentation. Myself and city staff are available to support with any questions. We also have Tony Perez from OptiCoast who helped develop the missing middle housing standards. City staff from Sustainability, Public Works are all available to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Thank you. Before I invite commissioners to ask questions, I'd like to... We have some public speakers, I'd like to ask them to speak first so we can, any questions can be directed to either staff or the speakers, so. Clerk, can you?

Yeah, thank you, Chair. We have four speakers for this item. Our first speaker is Mill Walton. Doesn't seem like Mill Walton is in chambers with us, so we'll go with our next speaker, Joseph Wilson. I don't see Joseph, Chris, Valencia?

Hello, Commissioners. My name is Chris Valenciano. I'm here on behalf of the North State Building Industry Association and its over 550 members building housing here in Sacramento. As you're taking another look at the general plan, I encourage you to lift the 2,000 square foot cap for new homes. While the intention was to increase density while lowering home costs, the reality is that the cap is having detrimental effects on home production. A 2,000 square foot or .4 floor to area ratio cap still leaves about 60% of the land empty. Even smaller homes still require the most expensive elements of a house, foundation, roof, plumbing, kitchen, bathroom, land, and all the fees associated. This means that families are paying more per square foot for smaller houses. The city has greatly incentivized density with policies such as the missing middle housing ordinance. However, this strategy is not a good option for families. Apartments are rarely built with more than two bedrooms. Children need rooms. Parents need cars to get children to school, and a garage is necessary. Sacramento's public transportation infrastructure simply is not adequate for family uses on a daily basis. Our builders want to build homes that people want to buy. This cap makes development in surrounding jurisdictions such as Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova more attractive to buyers. Sacramento is competing with these jurisdictions for housing supply. People who buy houses there and work in the city are forced to have longer drives as a commute than if they lived in the city's limits, going against all the emissions goals that the city is trying to achieve. A house that is still conforming to all other housing standards should not be capped at 2,000 square feet or a .4 FAR. Sacramento is a wonderful place to live, and I ask you to consider changing this policy so that more people can in fact live in this wonderful city. Thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Our last speaker is Chris Barrows. Okay, well, it doesn't look like I see Chris in here, so Chair, I have no more speakers.

All right, thank you, Clerk. I now close the public comment portion of the commission and the meeting. And I'd like to invite any commissioner questions of either staff or speaker. Vice Chair Caden.

Yeah, thank you, Chair. And I have a little bit to say, and so I'll try not to be too long-winded on this. I think I just wanted, you know, first off, acknowledge the amount of work that's gone into this project from us, from staff. We're what, eight years into this journey now when you think about when we first started this conversation of trying to see what we can do to kind of open up these single family neighborhoods to more housing options. We've had multiple city council make-ups, we've had PDC turnover, staff changes, and I think a shifting Overton window on housing policy where when we started this, what we thought was sort of really kind of edgy uh... policy eight years ago and maybe in in some cities a political third rail probably now considered just modest policy reform uh... you know i think at one point we were talking about you know duplexes in in pocket fourplexes in boulevard park calling it a day and i think you know that might have been considered ambitious policy reform at that point but i think a lot has changed in eight years uh... you know we've had a national i think reckoning on on policies that kind of exacerbate structural inequality and racial disparities. I think that was a key part of why we started this conversation eight years ago. The housing crisis is obviously just like a way bigger deal and reached a boiling point to the point where it's the number one thing that I think a lot of elected officials are hearing about from constituents. We've had half a dozen more maybe cities across the country that have really kind of, I think, you know, passed these really ambitious reforms and kind of went beyond what we were originally proposing. New state laws, right, that are, you know, pushing cities to do a lot more. And I think what you saw really consistently through this process that our city council, you know, this commission, the general public, they all wanted us as a city to go further, to be more ambitious, to do, you know, whatever we could to sort of make housing more affordable. Because, you know, we just really made it very clear we did not want to become San Francisco. We wanted this to be a place that our kids could actually grow up and afford. So I'm just really proud of, you know, of staff for being kind of bold and ambitious through this process, but also being responsive to kind of feedback as folks have kind of pushed us on this goal to be the kind of model city on this. So that's all to say, I'm really happy with where we landed. I think there's some really critical improvements that I'll just, in this version relative to previous versions, that I just wanted to shout out. So the zoning code consolidation, I think, is huge. And I think that was a big part of the impetus as well, is to try to simplify our general plan, our Title 17, make it easier to understand for the general public, for developers to actually navigate this thing. I'm in complete support of the recommended changes to the special planning districts. I think that's something that has come up with this commission several times, and we've sort of asked for some changes on that, specifically related to some recent project approvals. So appreciate including that here, and I'd be happy to make a motion on that when the time comes. We talked a lot about bull control through this process. You were extremely responsive on that, staff, and I think this was a huge topic of conversation in my eyes was really a key barrier to kind of seeing these more affordable multiplexes and why we haven't seen them in the interim ordinance. And now that that's gone and we've sort of moved more to this building width and wing approach, I think that's a great compromise and a better way to think about it. The height limits are great. I think they reflect, again, this feedback from council and from this commission on the public on kind of orienting our density and our height towards transit. The open space compromise, it's, I think, quite clever and a great way to kind of think about that in terms of accessing our public parks and having that be kind of the orientation for open space requirements. So all great stuff. I did have a few things and concerns, I guess, that I wanted to mention. Although, again, overall, I think these are smaller fixes to just a really strong ordinance. The primary thing I think that I was struggling with was this requirement that the sort of all multiplexes up to 16 feet can't have external staircases. I participated in the webinar and I wrote down the quote for kind of the reasoning for this new policy and it was that, quote, exterior stairs tend to evoke images of apartments and that may be nice in other contexts but in neighborhoods face resistance because of all the things associated with that. And I just have a little bit of a hard time with that framing because, you know, we're not talking about changing the size of the building at all. We're just, you know, really talking about making the multiplex more expensive to build, which we've talked a lot about as this commission. And it's all these kind of seemingly innocuous rules that don't seem like a big deal that kind of add up and they translate to things not getting built. Or if they do get built, they're more expensive. And then that gets passed on to renters. And so as always with these things, there's a trade-off that I think reasonable people can disagree on about what the threshold is. Sometimes it's worth making housing more expensive to build if you're trying to accomplish a policy goal. I personally support... you know, solar requirements on rooftops, which is a building code requirement now. That certainly makes housing more expensive to build in the short term, but that's something that I think we should and continue to stomach because it accomplishes a policy goal. I think we have a really hard time with these unnecessary rules that trade making housing more expensive for not a whole lot of benefit. So what are we trading for in this external staircase case? Maybe someone who already owns a house across the street is maybe feeling a little bit more comfortable with the aesthetic that the stairs in the new fourplex are inside the building and not outside. That's kind of a bad trade to me. And so just look around our neighborhoods. Any of Sacramento's older neighborhoods on this, I promise you, the missing middle that exists, there's external staircases. People love these neighborhoods. They're not scared of them. It's not a detriment to the neighborhood that they can see a stairway. So that's one I feel pretty strongly I think should be removed. Another one I'm a little bit worried about. Most of the changes since the last draft are kind of making it easier and are more permissive. One of the few things that actually got more restrictive is the setbacks. So we went, I think, from eight to 12 front setbacks to 15 to 20 front setbacks. And then I think we went anywhere between three and 12 side street setbacks to 12 feet across the board. I understand that front setbacks are, that's kind of about ensuring that we can plant trees and ensure that there's tree canopy. That's really important. I think one thing I would just recommend is that we can hopefully provide a little bit of flexibility for folks to have kind of smaller front setbacks if they can accommodate their tree requirements elsewhere. So for example, if there's a boulevard stripping out in front, if you can plant your trees in the boulevard stripping, maybe there's a way to kind of relax that a little bit, or maybe they're able to accomplish their tree planting in other parts of the yard just to give that flexibility. And then I understand the side yard setback, as I understand it, is about kind of utility easements. It just feels like there must be a way here to provide a little bit more flexibility than just saying 12 and a half feet across the entire side street, right? Like, I live on a quarter lot. It's a long, skinny lot. It's like 40 feet wide. You know, cutting 12 and a half feet of that all the way back is a good chunk of the developable area on the parcel. It just feels like there must be some way that we can have utility access to a point along that side without requiring the whole side yard setback to be 12 and a half feet. I do worry a little bit about the proposed transitional heights as well. I think it's hard to totally understand what the impact of that would be city-wide without seeing a map, but I'm just imagining that there's gonna be quite a few of these kind of like mixed-use commercial corridors that are zoned for higher densities that on the back are abutting these FAR 1.0 areas. So I'm a little bit, I guess, uncomfortable with the idea that you're saying you have to wedding cake your height up every 20 feet from those FAR 1.0 properties. And I guess... I would just ask staff maybe to take a look at determining if that puts us as any, like, potential trouble with housing element law. Like, so no net loss rules, you know, make it very clear that you can't sort of down zone these, you know, lower income sites. I wonder if any of those lower income sites that we have in the housing element are going to be impacted by this, and this could be kind of construed as a down zoning for those particular parcels that don't have this current kind of wedding cake. So it's worth just at least taking a look at that. And then on the neighborhood commercial, it looks like the proposal is to kind of limit it to one business per corner lot. and then imposing kind of this max square feet. It seems like in the same way that we're regulating the box and not the number of units in a residential zone, we could probably apply that same approach to the neighborhood commercial. If we have a max square feet that you can do for neighborhood commercial, it seems like you should be able to provide the flexibility if you have multiple businesses within that same square footage. Okay, I think that's, I've been talking too much already, so thank you. I appreciate the time, and again, everything about this was really, really well done, and I think it's really, really close, so thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Chair.

I think we all really appreciate your insight and comments on this, so don't feel bad about going on and on. We welcome it. Other, Commissioner Ortiz.

Thank you. I think it's, really well done and much appreciated and it's consistent with all the trends that I think our vice chair referenced and it's taken a while to get here and I think this is solid policy and it's direction we should go. I'm a little confused and maybe it just warrants staff clarification. I'M STILL HAVING STRUGGLE WITH THIS NEW SYSTEM HOPPING BETWEEN AND GETTING SOME OF THE ATTACHMENTS AND STUFF. SO THERE WAS A LETTER OR A QUESTION AND THEN I HAVE FOUND IT IN THE ATTACHMENTS ON THE SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT CORRIDORS. SO I DO SEE THAT FOR THE ALHAMBRA CORRIDOR AND I THINK THIS IS RELEVANT BASED ON A PROJECT WE'VE ALREADY allowing some increased height, and that we're likely to see down the road, I suspect. So if staff could explain the section, chapter 17.420, Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District, and specifically that latter part. This section also establishes that the Planning and Design Commission may approve a conditional use permit allowing additional height beyond 35 feet, which we have done, provided the height does not exceed the height of the underlying zone. So I'm assuming we're Alhambra and then residential adjacent to it or perhaps commercial that's lower than 35 feet. Could you explain what scenario that might impact residential adjacent to the Alhambra corridor?

Yeah, so on the western side of the Alhambra Quarter, there's some C2 of commercial zoning, which the base zone allows up to 65 feet with transitional heights. But as you mentioned, the special planning district requires a conditional use permit to exceed 35 feet in height when located within 300 feet of a residential zone. So everything basically to the east, that's adjacent. We're recommending initiating amendment to remove this requirement and instead defer to the citywide FAR-based height limits and transitional heights. So many of that commercial property there has a maximum FAR of four.

Which is how tall is AR4?

It would be 85 feet. And then with the transitional heights in 20-foot increments. And then also has a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre in the general plan. So that's why we're recommending going with the citywide FAR-based heights approach. Yeah, and under California law, it is difficult for the city to deny a conditional use permit for housing. So that's another consideration as well.

So let me ask a little more a little differently. If you're a residence that is on perhaps likely well it could be on the west side of Alhambra but or on the east side of the Alhambra corridor. What as a practical matter might we the planning commission staff recommend height in excess of 35 feet, if it's close to a one-story series of homes.

I'm not sure I understand your, so we're recommending the transitional height, so if it was directly adjacent, the 20 feet of property that's right there would be 45 feet, and then the next 20 feet of the property could go up another 20 feet until you hit that maximum 85. So that's the transition we're recommending. as opposed to the 300 feet with the CUP, which covers most of all the commercially zoned property in that corridor?

I don't think I asked the question correctly. If you're a one-story residential property next to the Alhambra corridor that right now has a general restriction of 35 feet, but a proposal came in for housing or otherwise, we could go up to 85 feet and there could be a one-story residential right next to it.

Right, so right now it would be, per the SBD, there'd be the conditional use permit. If we do this amendment, there would not be the conditional use permit requirement. It would be staff level to do the max height of 85 with the 27.

Up to 85? Yes. Even if it abuts one-story properties right next to that proposed 85?

Right, so the FAR in our proposal would determine the maximum height, so if there's properties next to it with FAR 1, their height limit would be 35, and then the FAR 4 has that height limit of 85, with the transitional steps to get that.

Okay.

Yeah.

Somebody else explain it better for me? I mean, it's conceivable that you could have a one-story series of homes adjacent to an 85-foot structure. Okay.

With the clear provision that the transitional height, which is being proposed, so yes, but it wedding cakes up, so it's not 85 directly next to them.

That's the key. Yeah. The kicking up would be away from the one-story residential.

Yeah, so you'd be like 60 feet away from that property before you hit 80 feet.

Got it. So, yes, the gradual height increases would not be adjacent to, likely be adjacent to the one-story residential properties. Okay, I just needed clarification because there was a question that came in on that. So we are giving flexibility and we've exercised that flexibility with Marie's Bakery. It was somewhat controversial for some, but I think this body was really clear and unanimous essentially. But thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Are there other Commissioner comments or questions? I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK STAFF AND JIMMY FOR JUST AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. I FELT LIKE WE WERE KIND OF BEING FED BY A FIRE HOSE. A LOT OF INFORMATION COMING AT US. BUT GOOD INFORMATION. I COULDN'T HELP BUT THINK THAT A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE, WHERE WE'RE GOING REMINDS ME OF where some of our towns and cities were probably prior to world war two where things were just mixed mixed together in a very positive way i think it made it very walkable we got and i can't remember when it was but probably in the 60s when we got into the kind of zoning that separated you know well you can't have industrial next to residential and everything just started getting spread out rather than integrated and i think this is a really good direction pulling us back to a livable livable city The only quick comment that I have, and it kind of goes back to Vice Chair Cadence reminded me, solar access. Have we considered solar access in any way? Because I think once we put a 65 foot building near a single family residence, we probably have limited the ability of that thing to have solar.

And so solar has not been a direct part of our scope, but I would like to invite Bruce, our design manager, maybe he'd like to elaborate a little bit.

Bruce Monigan, urban design manager, Chair Chase. To answer that question, it's actually been a question over the last, 10 years as projects have developed taller based on zoning that was allowed in a shorter house next to it. The first time we looked at this seriously was probably five or six years ago with a development project not far from Alhambra Boulevard. And what we determined was that we didn't have the ability to limit someone's development potential because it was in the zoning code. And because it was on the west side of the other house that had the solar panel, although it was not ideal, there was nothing we could do about it. So we did some looking around at the state and what state regulations might be and what we could build off of. And it turns out there's no state regulations for the protection of solar access. So that kind of left us in a spot that unless we wanted to do something individually with the city, we weren't gonna be able to find some other supporting evidence. We have conditioned projects, and I'll tell you one specifically, when we thought the blocking was specifically important and there were entitlements to be negotiated, if you will, and it was a very tall project at 8th and S, an Anthem project. And it was directly to the south of the Arch Nexus building, which is a living building. And it generates all of its own power to operate in a bit of an excessive one. So in the approval of that very tall building, they agreed to provide solar panels on their roof feeding solar power to the building next door. So we were trying to make them whole. I think that there's an opportunity to look at each case individually. And when we're trying to approve things, see if there's something that is significant to the operation of the adjacent building. But as of yet, we don't have anything that we can hang our hat on for solar access. I don't disagree that it's not an important consideration, especially as we go to more you know, renewable energies, but at this point we don't have anything in our codes.

It is a challenge. When I was living in L.A. for years, high-rises were being built along Wilshire Boulevard. And they were affecting houses that wanted up solar on the north side of the boulevard, very expensive houses. And there was a compromise reached, I think, in terms of height and where the higher buildings could be built, not on the north side of Wilshire, but they had to be kept to the south side so that those shadows could take the street into account. But yeah, very difficult thing to regulate, I admit. I encourage us to, given all the other issues we're facing in our world these days, I think the energy possibilities from solar are worth considering somehow as we move forward. But again, as I go back, I think the report was excellent. It reminds me of a good place that we could get to here with this. So thank you very much. Any other comments? Commissioner Nybo.

We've already heard such good comments. Well done, well done, thank you. This is a very small issue. I had a question in the proposed, in the attachments six, proposed specific plan amendment summary. And it said that the maximum height of 35 feet for property zone C1 and located between Granada Way and Folsom Boulevard on the east side of 32nd Street. And I wasn't quite sure this is gonna be, I'm sorry. Is that L Street there? Because I couldn't figure out where that area was and whether or not, it seems like it's a box area or half of a street, but I don't think the streets line up exactly. So I couldn't understand if that was a box of area or if it was half the street that's on L Street.

Yeah, you're talking about the Alhambra corridor, right?

Yeah. Let me look. And we don't have to answer it now. It's a question that I had that we can get cleared up before.

Yeah, that's the exact wording from the special planning district that's there. But yeah, it's referring to an area between those streets.

As long as I have the microphone going, I would just like to say that tonight has been spectacular. Great work, staff. This is just amazing. Just item after item after item, just knocking them off. Thank you so much. Really, this is great.

I would like to concur with Commissioner Naibo's comments too. Staff's done a tremendous job here. Any other comments from, questions from Commissioner? Seeing none, I think I will entertain them. I'm sorry, Commissioner Lee.

Yeah, just really quick. Like you guys said, a lot of great comments already. Staff, great job. Just really quick, I just want to make a quick comment on the neighborhood commercial. I think it's great. That's a great direction that the city would be moving in if we were to allow that, so thank you. You know, I actually, growing up in the city of Sacramento, we actually had a lot of unofficial stores that people would run inside their homes. So it's, you know, whether we know it or not, it is sort of happening already. And, you know, just growing up here, I'm always fond of that sort of type of business that would be in the community. So I'm excited to see that this is coming down the pipeline. especially because I like to travel the world. When I see businesses located within communities, you just see the positive impact it has to people's lives and the community. I think that seeing more of that here will make a big difference in a positive way. I did notice that in the survey, uh folks did have some concerns about liquor stores and cannabis shops so i think you guys already have that on your radar i'm not sure if there's anything or any tools or or anything that we have in terms of navigating that but i just want to flag that for you guys as we enter this new realm Um, and then also, uh, things like, uh, you know, if there's unwelcome loitering, I don't know if there's already best practices that, um, already are in play at the liquor stores or other businesses around the city that could sort of be copied and pasted here as well. Uh, missile, I'm sorry, middle missing housing. Um, I think it'd be great if there, but also be opportunities for home ownership. I know that that type of product can tend to have more rental housing associated with it. So I think it'd be great if when you guys are looking more at this, look at it in that light as well. But those are all my comments. Great work. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice-Chair Caden.

Yeah, sorry, one last one on the neighborhood commercial zones, which I think is really cool that we're going in this direction. And I mean, I kind of would like to see it more than just on corner lots, and in some cases, just corner lots on arterials, right? I understand what some of the concerns are there. I guess I wonder, is it something that staff could maybe look at it just exploring an idea of like if there's somebody that's not on a corner lot that might wanna open up a business on the street, if some percentage of residents on the street kind of sign off on approving that use, they could be permitted in that case too. I don't know what the threshold is or if there's another threshold, but just giving some sort of flexibility like that could be interesting. Part of why I'm thinking about this is I think it's fairly clear what a corner lot is when you think on the grid in Midtown or whatever, but as you start to get into these more suburban areas, there's a lot less intersections. What even is a corner in a very suburban setting when there's winding streets and maybe it's not that clear if it's a corner or if it's just a a bend in a cul-de-sac or whatever. So it might be good to kind of, in these more suburban locations, provide a little bit of flexibility to allow for folks that aren't necessarily right on a corner to be able to, you know, open something up if they have the kind of consent of their neighbors. And with that, I'm happy to make a motion to move the staff recommendation.

Thank you. We have a motion. A comment before we move on. Potentially positive... I think the step that's out there right now, one of the things that has been effective, the affordability of housing for probably the last 15 to 20 years is the condominium issue, the liability issue that's tied to that, the 10-year limit of liability. It's kept a lot of contractors, developers, and as an architect, my firm at the time was told we could not have more than 15% of our annual buildings in condominium work because of the liability issue. This proposed legislation, I'm not sure who the sponsor is, but I would hope this probably suggests that the city try to find it and support that legislation because I think if we can get condominiums back in the mix, it could just do a tremendous amount towards our affordability issue. If you can find that, looking at our urban design manager, one of the, as I understand it, one of the missing elements in the proposed legislation, it's in there to protect the liability of developers and contractors. However, architects have been left out of that. Well, the developers and contractors aren't going to do much if they can't find an architect who will design the building because of liability issues. Anyway, I suggest it as something that's probably worth investigating and if possible, supporting if it would help our affordability issues.

With that, any other commission comments?

We've had a great discussion here and I want to thank all my colleagues for their input. I think with that, Well, we have a motion, don't we? We need a second, then, if anyone.

I'll second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Clerk, can you take a vote?

Thank you, Chair. Commissioners, please unmute. Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Great job, staff. Aye.

Commissioner Snell?

Great job, staff. Aye.

Commissioner Naiba?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kaden?

Aye.

Commissioner Hernandez is absent. Commissioner Gores.

Great job, staff. Aye.

Commissioner Ortiz.

Aye.

Commissioner Blunt is absent. Commissioner Rischke is absent. Commissioner Thompson is absent. And Chair Chase.

Yes, and I think I already commented on the equality of the staff presentation, so thank you. Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you, everyone. Okay, our next item is Commissioner comments, ideas, and questions. We're now opening the floor for any Commissioner comments. Is this a leftover? Is this Commissioner Naibo?

No?

Okay. Anyone else? Okay, no Commissioner comments or suggestions. Public comments for any matters not in the agenda?

Thank you, Chair.

Sorry. Thank you, Chair.

We have no speaker slips for this item.

Great. Thank you. Public comment is now closed, and that concludes all the items on tonight's agenda. So this meeting is now adjourned.