2026-10-22 - Planning and Design Commission

00:04I would like to make a quick

00:07announcement that this meeting

00:08is live on YouTube in Spanish

00:09and English. Please note that

00:11live captions and translations

00:12are AI generated and may

00:14contain errors. You may start

00:14the meeting.

00:15>> Thank you Clark. Good

00:17evening everyone. I'm now

00:19calling to order the regular

00:20meeting of the City of

00:21Sacramento Planning and Design

00:22Commission for Thursday,

00:24October 26th. October 22nd,

00:272026 at 5:30 p.m. Will the

00:29clerk please call the role to

00:31establish a quorum?

00:32>> Thank you. Chair

00:33commissioners, please unmute.

00:35Commissioner Lee. Commissioner.

00:37Commissioner Snell here.

00:39Commissioner Nebo here. Vice

00:40chair. Caden here. Commissioner

00:42Gause here. Commissioner Ortiz

00:44is absent. Commissioner risk is

00:47absent. And chair Chase here.

00:48Thank you. We have a quorum.

00:53>> A quick before I forget,

00:54item number two. If anyone is

00:56here for item number two. That

00:58item has been continued to

01:00November 12th, I believe, right?

01:03Yes. So it will just be hearing

01:06items number one and items

01:07number three tonight. If you

01:11wish to speak tonight on any

01:13other items, please submit a

01:15digital speaker slip before t

01:16item is called. You can do this

01:18by scanning the QR code on the

01:19back of the agenda, or at the

01:21back of the chambers, or by

01:23using the kiosk. Please note

01:24that no speaker slips will be

01:25accepted once an item begins.

01:28You will have three minutes to

01:29speak when called upon. Thank

01:30you. We'll now begin today's

01:32agenda with a land

01:35acknowledgment, followed by the

01:36Pledge of Allegiance. Please

01:37stand to. To the people, the

01:41original people of this land,

01:42the Nissan people, southern

01:44Maidu Valley and Plains. Miwok,

01:47Patwin Wintun peoples and the

01:49people of the Wilton Rancheria,

01:51Sacramento's only federally

01:52recognized tribe. May we

01:54acknowledge and honor the

01:55native people who came before

01:56us and still walk beside us

01:58today on these ancestral lands.

02:00By choosing to gather today

02:02together in the active practice

02:04of acknowledgment and

02:05appreciation for Sacramento's

02:06indigenous people's history,

02:08contributions, and lives.

02:10Please join me for the Pledge

02:11of Allegiance. I pledge

02:15allegiance to the flag. The

02:16United States of America, and

02:18to the Republic for which it

02:20stands. One nation under God,

02:23indivisible, with liberty and

02:24justice for all. Thank you. All

02:34right. Next on the agenda is

02:35the director's report. Greg.

02:41>> Thank you, chair. Just to

02:43note that November 12th, the

02:46next meeting will be our last

02:47meeting of the year. There will

02:49be no meetings in December, so

02:50there will be five items. You

02:52might want to have dinner

02:53before the meeting. But yeah,

02:56that's all.

02:57>> Always do just in case.

03:01Thank you. Next on the agenda

03:04is public Hearing calendar.

03:05I'll now open the public

03:07hearing item number one, Arden

03:09Way drive through restaurants

03:13P25-022. Before we begin

03:15staff's presentation, are there

03:16any disclosures or recusals

03:19from the commissioners? Seeing

03:22none. Zach, take it away. Oh.

03:26I'm sorry.

03:29>> Good evening commissioners.

03:30My name is Deja Harris,

03:32associate planner with the

03:33Community Development

03:34Department. I'm presenting the

03:35Arden Way drive through

03:36restaurant project. This item,

03:38P 25022, is a request to

03:41construct two drive through

03:43restaurants in a commercial

03:44retail building on 2.92 acres

03:47within an existing shopping

03:48center in the shopping center

03:50zone within the Point West.

03:52Planned unit development. The

03:55subject site is within the

03:57Point West Plaza Shopping

03:58Center south of Arden Fair Mall,

04:00and is located at the corner of

04:02Arden Way and Exposition

04:04Boulevard. It is currently

04:05developed with an existing

04:06commercial building and is

04:08surrounded by existing

04:09commercial and office

04:11development. The project

04:14requires the following

04:16entitlements a planned Unit

04:17development schematic plan

04:19amendment to Redesignate parcel

04:21A of the Point West PUD from

04:23financial institution and

04:25retail to commercial,

04:27residential and office uses

04:29conditional use permits to

04:31establish the two drive through

04:32restaurants and site plan

04:34design review for the

04:35demolition of the existing

04:36commercial building. The

04:38construction of the two drive

04:39through restaurants, the

04:40commercial building and

04:42associated site improvements.

04:44The subject site is a portion

04:46of parcel A and the Point West

04:49PUD, which is designated for

04:50financial institutions and

04:52retail uses. The PUD amendment

04:55would allow for commercial,

04:56office and residential uses on

04:58site, as well as facilitate the

05:00re-use of existing commercial

05:02buildings. The designation

05:04would allow uses that are

05:05consistent with the shopping

05:07center zone. The proposal

05:11includes the demolition of the

05:12existing 30,235 square foot

05:15commercial building on August

05:1827th, 2024, the City Council

05:20passed a motion to deny the

05:22listing of the subject site as

05:23a landmark. Thus, planning does

05:26not oppose the demolition of

05:27the structure. Access to the

05:30site will be from existing

05:32driveways on Arden Way and

05:34Exposition Boulevard.

05:35Pedestrian pathways are

05:37proposed on both street

05:38frontages. Bike parking is

05:40conveniently located near

05:42pedestrian paths and proposed

05:44buildings. Site landscaping

05:46includes additional trees

05:47planted along Arden Way and

05:49Exposition Boulevard, and the

05:51project complies with tree

05:53shading, setback and height

05:55requirements. On your screen is

05:58a rendering of the proposed

06:00Shake Shack, Pollo Campero and

06:02commercial retail building. The

06:04three buildings utilize common

06:06materials that provide a

06:07cohesive design and integrate

06:09well with existing uses in the

06:11shopping center. The

06:13architectural design is

06:14consistent with city design

06:16guidelines. Notification of the

06:19project in the hearing were

06:21provided to all neighborhood

06:23associations, residents and

06:24property owners within 500ft of

06:26the subject site. The site was

06:28also posted with the hearing

06:30information. Staff received

06:31comments from North Sacramento

06:33Chamber of Commerce, Civic

06:34Thread and nearby residents,

06:36which were included in the

06:37staff report. After publishing

06:40of the staff report, staff

06:41receives comments from

06:43Preservation Sacramento as well.

06:45Planning staff supports the

06:47project as it complies with the

06:49development standards of the

06:49shopping center zone and the

06:51PUD, and provides new

06:53pedestrian paths, enhanced

06:55landscaping and support

06:56surrounding uses. This

06:58concludes my presentation and

07:00staff and the applicant team

07:01are available should you have

07:02any questions.

07:03>> Thank you. Deja. Does the

07:06applicant have a presentation?

07:08Okay. Thank you. Before we move

07:10to public comment, can I ask

07:12I'd like to ask commissioners

07:13if there are any questions.

07:14Chair any questions of the

07:16staff?

07:16>> I think you would like to

07:18the applicant like to make a

07:19few words. That's all right.

07:20>> Okay.

07:21>> Sorry.

07:24>> Good evening. Charles Smyth,

07:25market Street development. 3017

07:27Douglas Boulevard in Roseville.

07:29I'm just here to thank. Staff

07:31did an excellent job. They've

07:33been great to work with and

07:34here to answer any questions

07:36any of you may have.

07:37>> Thank you. Thank you. So

07:39back to any any questions from

07:43commissioners, staff or

07:44applicant at this point? Okay.

07:50How come. Sorry Commissioner.

07:55How.

07:56>> Thank you. Chair chase. Just

07:59a couple questions. I was

08:00looking at the drive through

08:03and just I forgot to disclose

08:05earlier. I did have a meeting

08:06with staff prior to the meeting,

08:08just to update on the project

08:09within. I wanted to go over the

08:12the drive thrus and the

08:14concerns just for the

08:17mitigation with the applicant

08:19and staff so that, you know,

08:21the city is aware because I

08:23know that area, we we have a

08:25drive through not far from

08:28there is in and out to. And it

08:31goes on through the street, and

08:33then it goes on to Arden and

08:35then loops around and traffic

08:37is very bad there. And so I was

08:39just a little bit concerned if

08:41the city did look that the

08:43drive through and see if

08:45there's going to be impact onto

08:47if there's overflow will be

08:49into the street. And is there a

08:51mitigation plan for that?

08:54>> Thank you for that question.

08:56Yes. So as part of the

08:57application process, a traffic

08:59study was completed. The

09:01applicant team and the

09:02Department of Public Works

09:03worked closely together during

09:04that review process, and they

09:07revised the plans consistent

09:09with that traffic study to

09:11address any adequate queuing

09:14issues or spillage onto the

09:15right of way. The project is

09:17also conditioned to provide a

09:19queuing management plan to

09:21prevent vehicles from spilling

09:22into the public right of way.

09:29>> And yeah, that's all. And

09:31then I, I know there was the

09:33concerns about the mural of the

09:35project and so wanted to really

09:38make sure that, you know, we

09:40find a home for the murals and

09:42so that we can preserve it

09:43because it was a really

09:45important part of the site as

09:48well.

09:50>> Thank you. Commissioner. Any

09:51other commissioner questions? I

09:55think we'll move on to now any

09:57public comments on this project.

10:00>> Thank you. Chair. I have two

10:01speakers for this item. Our

10:03first speaker is Chris Evans.

10:10>> Good evening. My name is

10:12Chris Evans. I'm the executive

10:13director of the Antelope

10:14Property Business Improvement

10:16District. And while this

10:17project has absolutely nothing

10:18to do with antelope, we do have,

10:20as part of our district an

10:22award winning maintenance

10:23program where we take homeless

10:25individuals off the street and

10:27over a period of time, lead

10:28them back to from addiction to

10:30full time employment. We've won

10:31two national awards with that

10:33program. As part of that

10:35program, we provide services

10:37outside of the district. And I

10:38just wanted to come here

10:40tonight to tell you, I know one

10:41of the things as a planning

10:43commissioner you're always

10:44worried about is this project

10:45going to come through? Is a

10:46developer going to deliver?

10:47Well, last year they reached

10:49out to us and said, you know,

10:50this project, we'd love to get

10:52this project forward. We have

10:53no idea if it's going to go or

10:55if it's not, but we need to

10:57keep this thing clean. And for

10:58the last year, they've been

11:00bringing in our team and

11:01supporting our team. They've

11:02been allowing me to keep about

11:03eight people employed by coming

11:05down and doing regular

11:06maintenance on this project,

11:07long before they ever knew

11:09whether they were even going to

11:10have a project, they were

11:11investing in the property to

11:12make it look better and keep it

11:14cleaner. And I think if you

11:16look back and you think about

11:17it, you remember up until about

11:19April, that place looked pretty

11:20bad, and then all of a sudden

11:22everything got under control

11:23and we were in there and we

11:24were able to work with some of

11:26the homeless people that were

11:27there and actually provide them

11:29with some employment so they

11:30could help clean up the place.

11:31And we continue. We're going to

11:33continue doing that. As this

11:34project moves forward. We'll

11:35put in a bid to maintain the

11:37maintenance on this project.

11:38And not only will you have a

11:40project where you've got people

11:41and it's clean and orderly, but

11:42you're helping people come back

11:44from homelessness and addiction

11:46to full time employment. And

11:47that's really what, you know,

11:48gets me going, is I love to see

11:51the people go forward. And by

11:52the way, if you want more

11:54information on that program,

11:55which was started by the city

11:56of Sacramento, you can go to

11:58sacnas.org, sacnav.org, and

12:02you'll see a lot of information

12:03on that program. But this

12:04applicant has been a complete

12:05supporter of that program. He's

12:06brought people in to maintain

12:08this property. And again, at

12:09the time we started, they had

12:11no idea if this was even going

12:13to be a project. They just

12:14wanted to help people and clean

12:16up the area. So anyhow, I

12:17appreciate you. If you have any

12:19questions, I'd be happy to

12:20answer them. But basically I

12:21encourage you to support the

12:23project and give it a yes vote.

12:25>> Thank you.

12:27>> Thank you for your comment.

12:28>> Yeah. I just want to say I

12:30appreciate your involvement,

12:31yours and the the applicant and

12:33making this such a visible

12:36location. It certainly pays off

12:37to keep it clean and done a

12:39great job. I live very close to

12:40there and go by there a lot. So.

12:42>> Absolutely. Well thank you.

12:44>> Thank you. Our next speaker

12:45is Rebecca Evans.

12:49>> Good evening. Hi, Sean. Yes.

12:52We're married. My name is

12:54Rebecca Evans. I am actually

12:56the executive director for the

12:58Greater Los Greater Los Angeles.

13:00Can you imagine? Greater

13:02Sacramento, North Sacramento

13:03Chamber of Commerce. Sorry

13:05about that. Good evening. I'm

13:08here on behalf of Charles Smyth

13:11and the Market Street

13:12Development team. Anyone who

13:14lives or works near Arden and

13:17Exposition knows this corner.

13:18It's a gateway into our

13:20community. For long it's been

13:22sent the wrong message. Neglect,

13:24blight, and a place where

13:25people hurry past instead of

13:26shopping. And our member is.

13:29That is the Arden Mall is just

13:31a phenomenal mall. Some of the

13:33malls are closing and this one

13:34just keeps expanding and

13:36growing. So we're very excited

13:38to support Mr. Smyth in

13:40proposing restaurants and

13:42neighborhood serving businesses.

13:43It's a place where families can

13:45gather employees. There's a lot

13:47of employees in that area. They

13:49can have grab their lunches and

13:52visit Cal Expo right after. So

13:54it means new jobs, new tax

13:57revenue, and a lot of reasons

13:59for the people to continue to

14:01spend money in this area. I am,

14:03and Chris as well is a we're a

14:06certified sep Ted practitioners.

14:08That's crime prevention through

14:10environmental design. And that

14:11is what we teach through Secnav.

14:13We teach everybody that works

14:14for them how it is well

14:18designed, well lit, well used

14:20space. And I know that planning

14:21department is has gone through

14:23some of this too, but we are

14:26very cognizant of, of, of crime

14:29prevention, busy stores and

14:31outdoor seating puts eyes on

14:33the street and it gives a

14:35community ownership. So you

14:37don't have to be afraid of it.

14:38You just have to get behind it

14:40and support it. This team

14:42already has shown commitment,

14:43like Chris just said, and it

14:44has been a delight to work with

14:47him. The president of the

14:48Chamber of Commerce, Andy

14:51Hernandez, has has totally

14:53supported this effort. And we

14:54want to just stand here on

14:56behalf of the chamber and say

14:58that we respectfully urge you

15:00to approve this project. So

15:02thank you.

15:05>> Thank you for your comment.

15:06Chair, I have no more speakers.

15:08>> All right. Thank you, chair.

15:11Seeing no further comments, I

15:12will now close the public

15:13hearing. Are there any

15:15commissioners who wish to speak

15:16on this project? Vice chair.

15:29>> I'll make a motion to

15:30approve the project. Approve

15:31the staff recommendation.

15:33>> I'll second, Mister chair.

15:36>> We have a. Motion by Vice

15:40Vice chair and a second by. Who

15:45is this? Oh, okay. Sorry. I

15:47thought the sound was coming

15:48from over there. Thank you. Yes.

15:51Okay, okay.

15:53>> We could give it to that

15:55Commissioner.

15:55>> All right.

15:57>> Thank you. We have a motion

16:00and a second. Are there any is

16:01there any other discussion on

16:04this item before we take a vote?

16:09I will offer some discussion. I

16:12live by this project. I go by

16:14it all the time. I think it's

16:16it's an incredible corner, very

16:18visible. I'm also an architect

16:21of many, many years. I won't

16:22say how many I experienced both

16:24in back East in Los Angeles and

16:27Sacramento, the building that

16:29is getting demolished is what's

16:31considered brutalism brutalist

16:34architecture, a movement that

16:35started in Europe, came to this

16:37country probably in the 60s or

16:3970s, and there are a number of

16:41buildings that are in that form.

16:43A lot of people don't like it,

16:45but it is a it is a historic

16:47form. Berkeley Museum of Art, I

16:50think, was a brutalist building.

16:52There are a number of others

16:53around, and for that reason, I.

16:59I think the project is well

17:01done, but I cannot personally

17:04support. Particularly when the

17:06preservation director

17:08recommended the City Council

17:10that it be listed on the

17:11Register and City Council did

17:13not do so. So I think I'm

17:17disagreeing with the City

17:18Council's position on that and

17:20agreeing with the original

17:21preservation director.

17:24Commissioner. I think the

17:25building is iconic and

17:27significant. I know it's

17:28difficult to find adaptive

17:31reuse for a building like that,

17:33but I personally cannot condone

17:35demolishing it. So I think I'm

17:37going to be outnumbered on that

17:39one. But I did need to say that.

17:41So with that, oh, I would like

17:43to add, I know one of the

17:45conditions with with the murals

17:46will be relocated or reused. My

17:49suggestion would be since they

17:50came from that building, if, if,

17:52if I'm overruled, which I

17:53suspect I will be, I would like

17:56to see those murals kept on

17:58site and perhaps mounted

17:59somehow. You know, we've seen

18:01the architecture, the rear,

18:04some of the comments about it

18:05being pedestrian friendly. I

18:06mean, we've got the backs of

18:08buildings and drive thrus

18:09facing the street. So that to

18:10me is not the most pedestrian

18:12friendly thing to do. I would

18:14suggest, though, I'd like to

18:15see those two murals mounted on,

18:18you know, substantial

18:20structures and perhaps mounted

18:21on the on the rear of the shop

18:22building on along expo and

18:24perhaps the, the drive through

18:26on, on Arden Way just to, just

18:30to again, keep it, keep it in

18:31the neighborhood and keep that,

18:33that remnant of the building

18:34that was there, assuming it

18:36gets demolished. With that, I

18:39have no other comments. Did

18:40anyone else have any. Seeing

18:42none. All right. Clerk, I think

18:45we've got a motion and a second

18:47we can take a vote.

18:48>> Thank you. Chair, I will do

18:50a voice vote. All those in

18:53favor, please say aye.

18:55>> Aye aye.

18:57>> Any opposed?

18:58>> Aye. Opposed?

19:01>> Any abstain? Thank you. The

19:03motion passes.

19:06>> Thank you very much.

19:08>> Question for the attorney.

19:11Do we need seven votes? There's

19:14for.

19:16>> Oh sorry. So we do need

19:20seven votes to pass this motion.

19:23And we only have six. So sorry

19:25this motion did not pass.

19:28>> Well this is going to go

19:30against my grain.

19:35>> So that means you have to

19:37keep going. The applicant gets

19:40an I vote or a no vote. So you

19:42need to keep going until this

19:44body makes a decision.

19:46>> Oh thank you.

19:48>> We six at this point. We

19:52have six votes at this point.

19:53All right. I will modify my

19:55vote and vote for it. Okay.

20:01Commissioner Nebo yes.

20:03>> Could I could I make a

20:05motion to for staff

20:08recommendation to move it

20:09forward with a condition that

20:13the the murals are saved and

20:19preserved, and to have them be

20:23displayed on site if possible.

20:27>> I would second that motion.

20:29>> Would that be reasonable?

20:30>> Yes, it would be okay.

20:32>> Okay. So that's a friendly

20:35amendment to Commissioner

20:36Caden's motion if you accept it

20:38and the second takes it, and

20:39then Sapphire, if we can do a

20:41roll call vote. Thank you.

20:44>> Accepted.

20:48>> All right.

20:49>> Commissioners, please unmute

20:51Commissioner Lee. I

20:53Commissioner I Commissioner

20:56Snell.

20:56>> I.

20:57>> Commissioner Nebo, vice

20:59chair. Kaden I. Commissioner

21:01Gause I. Commissioner Ortiz is

21:03absent. Commissioner risk is

21:05absent. And chair chase, I

21:06thank you. The motion passes.

21:11>> Thank you everyone. We will

21:15now move to grab my agenda back

21:17here. Item number three on the

21:22agenda. Do we have a staff

21:26report? Okay.

21:43>> Perfect. Good evening. Good

21:45evening, chair, or.

21:47>> I'm sorry. One second. Can

21:48we have disclosures.

21:50>> Oh I'm sorry. Yeah. Other

21:52disclosures on this project.

21:57Commission able.

21:59>> I'm. I met on site with the

22:04applicant and had the

22:09conversation followed the staff

22:10report. No no new information.

22:19>> Thank you Commissioner Lee.

22:20>> Yeah. I had a brief phone

22:22and email conversation with the

22:24applicant's representative

22:25consistent with the staff

22:27report.

22:28>> Thank you. Commissioner,

22:29vice Vice chair.

22:31>> I also met with the

22:32applicant, discuss the project

22:34and conversation was consistent

22:35with the staff report.

22:39>> Commissioner Snell.

22:40>> I also met with the

22:42applicant and the presentation

22:43was consistent with the

22:45materials of the staff report.

22:46>> Thank you. I'll get my name

22:49out there. I also had a

22:50telephone conversation with the

22:52applicant consistent with the

22:54staff report. Thank you. Any

22:59other disclosures? Go ahead.

23:02>> Thank you. Good. Good

23:03evening, chair, Vice Chair and

23:05members of the Commission. My

23:06name is Michael Cramton,

23:07assistant planner with the

23:08Community Development

23:09Department. The item before you

23:11tonight is the applicant appeal

23:12of Z25-091. The project site,

23:17shown in red on the screen, is

23:19located along Center Road in

23:21the R1. Single unit dwellings

23:23on the site is currently

23:25developed with a single unit

23:26dwelling and located within

23:27half a mile of the consumes

23:29River College light rail

23:30station. The applicant is

23:34seeking approval of a tentative

23:35map to subdivide 2.4 acres and

23:38229 parcels. Site plan and

23:40design review to review the

23:41tentative map layout,

23:43demolition of the single unit

23:44dwelling and construction of 29

23:46single unit dwellings with

23:48deviations to setbacks, lot

23:49size, lot depth, lot width and

23:52lot coverage standards, as well

23:53as a tree permit for the

23:55removal of one private

23:56protected tree. This project is

24:00subject to the Housing

24:01Accountability Act, which

24:02provides limitations for how

24:03local jurisdictions can act

24:05upon projects inconsistent with

24:07objective general plan, zoning,

24:09subdivision and design criteria,

24:11inconsistencies that are not

24:12identified and notified to

24:13applicants within timelines

24:15established by the Housing

24:16Accountability Act are deemed

24:18consistent. This project

24:20proposes nonstandard street

24:21section parcels with no street

24:23frontage and exceeds both

24:24control standards. But since

24:25those inconsistencies were not

24:28identified to the applicant in

24:29accordance to the Ha, the

24:31project is deemed consistent

24:32with these three standards. The

24:35project site is proposed to be

24:37subdivided into 29 parcels and

24:39includes street improvements of

24:41Jacinto Road and Arden's Way,

24:43an easement for a 20 foot wide

24:44private street provides access

24:46to parcels one through 12 and

24:4718 through 29, parcels 11

24:50through 13 directly front onto

24:52Arden Way, which will

24:53eventually connect to runway to

24:56the north. Construction of 29

25:00single unit dwellings is

25:02included in this project. The

25:03proposed homes include a

25:05combination of single and two

25:06story homes and single and two

25:07car garage configurations. The

25:10elevations offer a variety of

25:12contemporary and modern design

25:13elements, which staff finds

25:14consistent with applicable

25:15design guidelines. The project

25:17is requesting deviations to

25:19minimum lot size, depth and

25:20width standards, maximum lot

25:22coverage, and front street side

25:24and rear yard setback standards.

25:27These standards were identified

25:28as inconsistent, and staff

25:30notified the applicant within

25:32the timeline established by the

25:33Ha staff is supportive of these

25:36deviations. While the proposed

25:38setbacks and lot coverage

25:39reduces the individual open

25:40space for each home, the site's

25:42proximity to Jacinto Creek Park

25:44and Shasta Community Park

25:46provides several options for

25:47open space within walking and

25:49biking distance. The 2040

25:51General Plan identifies

25:52policies promoting a compact

25:54urban footprint and infill

25:56development in proximity to

25:57transit options. Staff

26:02recommends approving the motion

26:03to approve the requested

26:05entitlements. Draft facts of

26:07finding and conditions of

26:08approval can be found in the

26:09staff report starting on page

26:1119. Notice of the project site

26:13was mailed to property owners

26:14and residents within 500ft.

26:17Staff received one letter of

26:18opposition which can be found

26:19on attachment seven of the

26:21staff report. This concludes

26:23staff's presentation staff's

26:26available to answer any

26:27questions, and the applicant

26:29would like to give a brief

26:30presentation as well. Thank you.

26:35>> The Commission the applicant

26:37have a presentation. Yeah. Mr.

26:40chair, we do have a

26:42presentation.

26:42>> But I think we'll forego it.

26:44I think from our perspective,

26:46it's not without a degree of

26:48disappointment that, in fact,

26:49we have to be before this body.

26:51You know, you have an applicant

26:52in this case, next generation

26:55capital, which is probably the

26:56most active single family

27:00detached home builder in the

27:01city of Sacramento, who is

27:03specialized in finds in finding

27:05underutilized sites to propose

27:07projects, much like the

27:08Trecento project. It's not the

27:10first one we've done of this

27:12nature. I think fundamentally

27:14it comes down to a couple of

27:18things. I think. I think right

27:20now we're in a period of

27:21transition relative to the new

27:23zoning code, the number of

27:25deviations, you know, was an

27:27issue at the design director

27:29level. Certainly we need to

27:33maintain, I think, flexibility

27:34for projects. And there isn't a

27:36standard out there for the

27:37minimum number of deviations

27:38that are requested. And then

27:40certainly the Street standard

27:43discussion has been a source of

27:46much. A lot of gnashing of

27:48teeth will say, fortunately, in

27:50our case, the street section

27:53issue was addressed in the SB

27:56330 pre-application finding. I

27:58think what you'll notice from

28:00the the director level hearing

28:02transcript is a lot of

28:04struggling to get around the

28:06fact that SB 330 precluded

28:09consideration of the Street

28:10cross section to deny the

28:13project, which was very

28:15frustrating for us, but also

28:17set a bad precedent, I think,

28:19and especially for next

28:20generation capital, being

28:22active as they are, in fact,

28:23has dropped purchase options

28:25for two properties immediately

28:27adjacent to a trecento, and

28:29those lands have been vacant

28:30for a long time. And if someone

28:32like Next gen doesn't develop

28:34those properties, they're going

28:35to be vacant for a long, long

28:37time. And it's really

28:38attributable to this street

28:39section question. And it really

28:40comes down to maintaining

28:42flexibility. What I would

28:43encourage this body is

28:44obviously to support and grant

28:45our appeal, but also engage in

28:48a robust discussion about the

28:50number of deviations that are

28:52acceptable. And more

28:54importantly, the street section

28:55question the the code provides

28:59the opportunity to provide

29:00private streets and private

29:02drives. That necessarily means

29:03they don't meet the private I

29:05mean, the public roadway

29:07standard. We can't do that. We

29:08need to maintain flexibility to

29:10address site specific

29:12constraints and needs for

29:13projects. So with that, our

29:14design team is here, as well as

29:17representative from Next Gen

29:18capital. Happy to answer any

29:19questions, but thank you for

29:20your time today.

29:22>> Thank you. Thank you very

29:23much for your presentation. Are

29:25there any questions of staff or

29:26the applicant from

29:29commissioners? Okay. Seeing

29:35none, are there any members of

29:37the public that would wish to

29:39speak on this item?

29:40>> Thank you. Chair. I have no

29:41speakers for this item.

29:42>> All right. Thank you. With

29:45that, then, seeing no further

29:47public comment, I'll close the

29:48public hearing. Are there any

29:49commissioners who wish to speak

29:50on this item? Commissioner Abel?

29:58>> Chair chase, do you can

29:59would you mind if I ask some

30:02questions of staff real quick?

30:03>> No, not at all.

30:04>> Can we can you discuss why

30:07this is in front of us? The.

30:11The tentative map was approved,

30:12but it wasn't approved at the

30:15design director level. Can we

30:17talk about that inconsistency

30:19or why that why that happened

30:21and why we're here with staff

30:24recommendation.

30:25>> As you mentioned, the

30:27tentative map was approved at

30:28director hearing. What was

30:30denied at the hearing was the

30:32site plan and design review

30:33entitlement. And so the appeal

30:36in front of us today is the

30:38appeal of the denial for site

30:40plan and design review.

30:44>> Is, is there is there is

30:46there actually a tentative map

30:47right now? Are we're approving

30:49the tentative map or is it

30:51already been approved?

30:54>> May I?

30:56>> Yeah.

30:56>> You'll you'll look at the

30:58whole project, look at the

30:59entire project. So the

31:00tentative map has been approved.

31:01But you're considering the

31:02whole thing. It's out. It's the

31:04project's considered de novo.

31:06So you're looking at all the

31:08entitlements.

31:10>> Okay. Is that does that

31:16happen very frequently? You

31:17know, we don't see projects

31:19very often that are approved at

31:21staff level. Does this kind of

31:24conflict does that happen very

31:25often? Is this something that's

31:26going to. Is that a fair

31:30question?

31:30>> Even if you were about to

31:33finish that sentence, I said, I

31:35hope it's not something that's

31:36going to happen more and more.

31:38But no, it's rare that it

31:39happens. I've been here since

31:402018, and one reason was why is

31:43a lot more things go to

31:44director, whereas before it

31:45went to the Planning Commission.

31:47So that's the Planning Design

31:48Commission. So that's one

31:49reason. But even with that, I

31:50can't think of a situation

31:52where that has happened, where

31:54staff and the director and was

31:56appealed to PDC.

31:58>> Is there some type of

31:59standard for. Is there and

32:03forgive me, this is probably

32:03not a fair question, but is

32:05there a. For private streets,

32:08is there a. I say because we

32:13deal with codes, we deal with

32:14actual laws in here. But is

32:16there like some unstated number

32:19of deviations you can have or

32:22something where you can only do

32:23so much on a private street and

32:27still it be like, why? I don't

32:30understand why this wasn't

32:31approved at the design director

32:32level.

32:35>> So the answer there's no,

32:37Nick was right that there's no

32:40minimum or maximum amount of

32:41deviations that you can request

32:43for on a private street or even

32:45on, even if it was just for

32:47housing, as far as I would say,

32:49though, that when Public Works

32:51reviews the private streets,

32:52that they do look at factors

32:53such as circulation, safety,

32:56and then, as Michael mentioned,

32:57we have solid waste, determine

32:59whether they can still service

33:01the project. Same thing with

33:03utilities. So fire. Yeah. Fire

33:05Smud as far as their easements.

33:06Yeah.

33:07>> But that's not really the

33:08design though is that is that

33:11design, is that the

33:12functionality of it regarding

33:14the design or is it the actual

33:16esthetics of the design.

33:20>> Yeah, I, I guess it's hard

33:23to say whether you'd consider

33:24that design when you, I would,

33:26I would probably just direct

33:27back to the staff report and

33:29how the design director, what,

33:31how they felt, you know, that

33:32it was within their within

33:35their purview. And then the

33:36zoning administrator, how he

33:38just stuck to the, the

33:41tentative map situation and

33:42findings.

33:43>> Thanks. Thank you so much.

33:45>> Thank you Commissioner.

33:49>> Any I don't know if this is

33:52helpful.

33:53>> If this is helpful, but so

33:55there's you had the zoning

33:57administrator and the design

33:59director looking at this

34:00decision, the zoning

34:02administrator, administrator,

34:03and the map, all of the street

34:05standards were associated with

34:07the map. And while potentially

34:10abnormal, the zoning

34:11administrator concluded that

34:13the city could not deny those,

34:15could not deny those based on

34:17the Housing Accountability Act,

34:18because the city did not flag

34:20those ahead of time, and the

34:22zoning administrator found

34:23there's no basis to make those

34:25findings in the Housing

34:26Accountability Act, and staff

34:28concurs. So that's one the

34:31design director found. These

34:33other standards, the deviations

34:35for lot size with setback that

34:40the project did not meet the

34:42standards for granting those

34:45deviations. Those standards do

34:48not have the same protection in

34:50the Housing Accountability Act,

34:52because under those, you get

34:54that protection under the

34:55Housing Accountability Act, if

34:56your project complies with all

34:58objective standards. So this

35:00project does not comply with

35:01those standards, right? That's

35:03why the requesting deviations

35:04and the staff notified them

35:07ahead of time. So there's no

35:09housing ability Housing

35:11Accountability Act constraint

35:12on the site plan and design

35:15review piece of that. That said,

35:17staff has included findings in

35:21the staff report. They believe

35:22you can that there's a basis

35:25for granting those deviations.

35:26The design director felt

35:28differently, but there's

35:31information in your staff

35:32report.

35:35>> Thank you. Thank you, vice

35:36chair. Can.

35:39>> Yeah thank you chair. And I

35:42have a little bit to say on

35:44this. So so bear with me. I

35:46think first of all, you know, I

35:48think the project should be

35:50approved tonight. So I'll

35:51gladly just put a motion on the

35:52table early just to approve the

35:54staff recommendation. You know,

35:55this this is a good project.

35:57You know, we're I don't I don't

35:59know really why it's so

36:02controversial. I think we're

36:03creating 29 fairly modest sized

36:06homes on a mostly vacant lot,

36:07you know, creating

36:09opportunities for homeownership

36:10for families. I know a lot of

36:12the conversations that we've

36:13had on the missing middle

36:14ordinance have been, you know,

36:16maybe a little bit. Obviously

36:18it includes more than this, but

36:19like, the conversation was more

36:20focused, I think, on the like

36:22rental attached products side

36:23of things. But I think this is

36:25still a really important

36:27product to continue building.

36:28And, you know, we're in a

36:31fairly difficult economic

36:32environment for, for building

36:33housing right now. This is what

36:35pencils for this type of site

36:36in this part of the city. So

36:39seems seems pretty clearly in

36:40line to me with, with the

36:42general plan policies as, as

36:44staff has sort of corroborated

36:45in the staff report and just

36:47generally what we're trying to

36:48do as a city on housing, I want

36:51to just, you know, set that

36:53aside for a second. And

36:55actually it was set up well by

36:56by, you know, the speaker to

37:00sort of, I think, have more of

37:02a bigger conversation and just

37:04kind of reflect on generally

37:06the experience of this project

37:07and the kind of the larger

37:08scheme of, of, you know, the

37:10zoning code update that we're

37:11doing. And, you know, to be

37:14honest, I'm a little bit

37:15alarmed at, at the process that

37:17this project went through to,

37:19to get here. It is it is very

37:21unusual, you know, for a small

37:23lot subdivision of this size,

37:25right? I don't think it should

37:27be taking a, a year of back and

37:29forth with staff to get to a

37:31place of agreement and a staff

37:34recommendation, you know, of

37:36approval only to be denied at

37:38the director's level hearing,

37:39to then have to appeal up to

37:41this body and then still get a

37:42staff recommendation for

37:44approval. It's it's very

37:45unusual. And I think I'm, I'm

37:46pretty sympathetic to, you know,

37:49some of the concerns that the

37:51applicant raised in, in the in

37:52the letter about not getting,

37:57let's call it consistent

37:59guidance about what would be

38:00necessary to actually get an

38:02approval and whether or not

38:03these these objections that I

38:06think were raised at that

38:07director level hearing could

38:08have been identified in that

38:10last year and resolved much,

38:12much earlier. So I just think

38:15that's it's not a it's not a

38:17great look to be. So I think

38:19fragmented as a city. And I

38:21think it erodes the trust that

38:22people who want to do business

38:24here have in the feedback that

38:26they're getting from city staff,

38:27because they're getting

38:29conflicting feedback and

38:30judgments from different people.

38:31And they don't know, you know,

38:33whether or not the feedback

38:34that they're getting is

38:35representative of the person

38:36that they're talking to. Is it

38:37the department? Is it the city

38:39as a whole? Is it what's going

38:41to be, you know, talked about

38:42in the director level hearing?

38:43Right. I just think we want to

38:45be creating like a much more.

38:48Well, creating a regulatory

38:50environment, but also like a, a

38:51review process. That's, that's

38:53predictable that, that lays out

38:55the objective standards up

38:56front. You know, when you're

38:57talking about deviations, which

38:59we are here to those rules,

39:00there are clear policies and

39:02clear, I think, interpretations

39:03of the policies for how you're

39:05actually going to be evaluating

39:06those deviations. I think that

39:07that was missing here. And so I

39:09think we just need to do a

39:11better job than we did on this

39:13project to, to kind of reach

39:14that so that we can just be a

39:16good place to do business and,

39:18and to invest in and to build

39:20the needed housing that that we

39:21desperately, desperately need

39:22here. So, you know, I think I

39:26recognize that some of the

39:28friction that was happening

39:29with this project is partly

39:32because of this, this weird

39:33kind of like timing window that

39:35we're in this pocket of time

39:36where it's like, we have a new

39:38general plan, we're updating

39:39the zoning code, but the zoning

39:41code is not updated yet. And so

39:43we have these deviations, many

39:44of which would actually be

39:46consistent with the new zoning

39:47code if it was in place, if

39:49this were next year, but

39:51they're not in place yet with

39:52the new code, I think. So

39:53that's that's, I think part of

39:55what's happening here. And so I

39:56think there's some

39:57understandable like, you know,

39:58delay in that. I think there's

40:00several standards that were

40:02included or were asked for as

40:04part of this project that I

40:06want to continue to, to, to

40:07explore as we start to continue

40:09to like have this conversation

40:10on the, on the zoning code

40:12ordinance. So first, you know,

40:14I, it was hit on by the

40:15applicant pretty strongly. I

40:16think it, it sounds like there

40:18needs to be a little bit more

40:19of a formal flexibility put in

40:24place on the infill street

40:25design standards. And I think

40:27it was a little bit hard to,

40:28for me at least, to kind of

40:30understand the, the and parse

40:32the back and forth that was

40:33happening between staff and the

40:34developer in this year on the

40:36street with conversation,

40:37because there was, I think,

40:39this request, I guess, that I

40:42was reading for this north

40:44south private drive to be a

40:46wider street. But then there's

40:48also this like big emphasis on

40:50pedestrian connectivity and,

40:51and urban heat island effect.

40:54And I don't know, I mean, more

40:56more pavement wider, you know,

40:57vehicle travel. Those are not,

40:59in my opinion, like a better,

41:01better for pedestrians or

41:03better for urban heat island.

41:04Right. I think we just need to

41:06evaluate the policy outcome

41:07that we want there, you know,

41:09slower vehicle speeds, you know,

41:11pedestrian safety, less asphalt.

41:13These are, you know,

41:14contributing to urban heat

41:15island. These are like the

41:16outcomes we want. And I think

41:18we just need to allow compact

41:19street designs that achieve

41:20those outcomes. Like, I don't

41:21know what 50ft is doing to

41:23achieve those outcomes on a

41:24street width. And then, I mean,

41:27obviously very relevant to the

41:28applicant. Like more

41:29importantly, the wider street

41:30width is going to crowd out the

41:31housing, right? And you might

41:33not actually be able to have

41:34housing on either side of the

41:36street. And I think that's like

41:37kind of the point of the

41:39project here, right? So I don't

41:40think we, we necessarily want

41:41to do that either. So I'm just

41:43like, I'll say I'm totally

41:45comfortable with, you know,

41:46these small lot subdivisions

41:47like this, having these much

41:49more narrow private streets and

41:52would support formalizing, I

41:54think that flexibility into the

41:55code to like make it very clear

41:57when you have small parcels

41:59like this and maybe there's a

42:00threshold, I don't know, maybe

42:01it's a smaller parcel, like a

42:03five acre size or I don't know,

42:05something like that or

42:07dimensions, maybe it's skinnier

42:08parcels, but to have some

42:10flexibility on like you don't

42:10need to do 50ft wide on, on

42:12these really skinny small

42:13parcels, you can have these

42:14narrower streets and it's okay.

42:18The other thing on the

42:19standards I want to continue to

42:20touch on is the setbacks. You

42:22know, we talked a lot about

42:23this in in the missing middle

42:25stuff. So 20 foot front

42:26setbacks for a project like

42:27this to me is really

42:29unnecessary. That's really

42:31quite, quite large. There's

42:33only so much feet of width on a

42:36parcel like this. So if you're,

42:38if we're asking for as a city,

42:3950ft of street and then 20ft of

42:41setbacks on either side, and

42:43we're trying to do a project

42:44like this, you know, that's

42:4690ft, you know, that like

42:48that's more than half of the

42:49parcel in this case, and

42:51probably much more so in other

42:53parcels. So I think that that

42:56really starts to really crowd

42:57out the point of the whole idea

42:59here, which is, which is

43:01housing. I had a chance to, to

43:04see the Cotton Lane project

43:05that this applicant has, has

43:07done that was similar to this.

43:09That's a project that had four

43:10foot front setbacks. It was

43:13totally fine. You know, I, I'd

43:15like to see more projects that

43:16that kind of facilitate that

43:18sort of front setback, you know,

43:20not not pushing as a city to

43:22get to that 20 and be more

43:24flexible to get to that. Four

43:25because again, it's like the

43:26point is like more homes, it's

43:28not more more driveways, right?

43:30I'd also want to continue to

43:32ask for more flexibility on the

43:34street side yard setback. So we,

43:35we talked about this again in

43:37the missing middle. We, we had

43:38the 12.5ft. And then, you know,

43:40the reasoning for why we need

43:42the 12.5ft is like, well, the,

43:43you know, Smud and the

43:45utilities, they, they need that.

43:46That's a requirement. Well, we

43:47have an applicant that worked

43:48with Smud. They got a slightly,

43:50you know, lower setback on that.

43:51Clearly there's some

43:52flexibility there. I'd like for

43:54us in our code to have similar

43:55levels of flexibility. And then

43:57the rear yard setback. It

43:59sounds like the current

43:59standard is 15. If the lot is

44:01over 60ft deep. I think some

44:06flexibility there might make

44:07sense. I think especially in

44:08situations like this where, you

44:10know, the the lot, you know,

44:12because of the subdivision, you

44:13know, there's not a public

44:14street. So the the lot starts

44:16at the center line of the of

44:18the private drive. And so it's

44:19like, yeah, it's, it's quite

44:20long when you think about it

44:22like that. But, you know, maybe,

44:23maybe some, I don't know, we've

44:25seen ten foot rear setbacks and

44:27it's been totally okay. And,

44:28you know, I think there's a

44:29revealed preference in this

44:30city for people who are

44:32prioritizing affordability over,

44:33you know, having a much larger

44:35backyard. And then, okay, I

44:38also just want to voice, I

44:39think my just general concern

44:41about what feels to me a little

44:43bit like a, a fairly subjective

44:45denial that happened at the

44:46director hearing based on a

44:50interpretation of the general

44:51plan that clearly runs counter

44:52to the current staff

44:54recommendation and the

44:55interpretation of the general

44:56plan that you have in this

44:58recommendation. And this was a

45:00concern, I think, that I you

45:01know, I've been consistent on

45:03I've brought up as we went

45:04through the missing middle

45:06process, where we decided

45:07through that process, instead

45:10of using our, our existing buy

45:12right process, our, you know,

45:13our ministerial processes, any

45:16project that goes through

45:17missing middle, that goes

45:18through site plan design review.

45:20And that means that the moment

45:21that you need a single

45:24deviation, it goes to director

45:26where it can be denied because

45:27of interpretation of the

45:28general plan that runs counter

45:29to staff. That's the that's the

45:32experience of this project,

45:33right? So let's just say, right,

45:35like you have a missing middle

45:36project and, you know, it's

45:38wealthy neighborhood, you have

45:3920 foot setbacks on either side.

45:41You want to go to 15, you're

45:43suddenly kicked up to, to

45:44director level. And I just

45:47think we need like really clear

45:48criteria for evaluating that

45:50deviation. And I think like

45:52avoiding this situation where

45:53we're like reopening questions

45:55that that probably were settled

45:57before that hearing through the,

45:58the back and forth with staff.

46:01And actually, as I understand

46:02it, missing middle projects

46:03that that are totally compliant,

46:05that don't have a deviation

46:06through a reconsideration

46:07process can also get kicked up

46:10to director. So I just worry a

46:11little bit about how subjective

46:14that all feels when, you know,

46:16I know the intent was to kind

46:18of keep the process quasi by

46:19right and just kind of ensure

46:20that there's this opportunity

46:22for staff to like work back and

46:24forth, you know, with the

46:27developer on some of these

46:28design principles, it clearly

46:29feels like there's something

46:31beyond that happening here. And

46:34so, you know, I think that's,

46:37that's all fine again, but I

46:38just, I just, I think that we

46:40need to kind of be a little bit

46:42more clear about what the

46:43expectations are there. And I

46:45think long term, I'd love for

46:46us to just, again, reconsider

46:48what our approval path is for

46:50some of these missing middle

46:51projects and projects like this,

46:52so that there's a lot more

46:54clarity for like, exactly what

46:55the approval path is, what the

46:57expectations are, what do you

46:59need to actually get approved

47:00and create some of that, that,

47:02you know, reduce the

47:03uncertainty and create that

47:04predictability. So I know I've

47:05been talking a bunch, but I

47:07appreciate you hearing me. And

47:08then I'll, again, I'm making a

47:10motion to, to move the staff

47:12recommendation.

47:14>> Thank you, Vice Chair. As

47:15always, I know I appreciate

47:17your input and your comments.

47:19Very thorough. Commissioner

47:22Snell.

47:23>> I'll keep it kind of short.

47:25I like this project. I like

47:26that it gets people into homes

47:29and reasonably affordable way.

47:32I have to agree that I, I don't

47:35like the sort of administrative.

47:39I think staff did a great job

47:40on their report and their

47:43evaluation and their assessment

47:44of this project. I just I'm

47:46really uncomfortable with the

47:48how many hoops the applicant

47:50had to jump through to make

47:51this happen when we were trying

47:53to get houses built and get

47:55people in homes. So it just it

47:58did not it, it did feel

48:00subjective on on reading

48:01through the report, I had a

48:04very hard time parsing out on

48:06that denial, sort of what was,

48:09what was an objective piece of

48:12that denial. So anyway, that's

48:14what I've got.

48:15>> Thank you Commissioner,

48:17Commissioner.

48:23>> I just wanted to support

48:25everything. Vice Chair Caden

48:26said. I was going to say maybe

48:2930% of that. So I was going to

48:32say everything you said. You

48:33beat me to it like maybe 30%,

48:35but you had like way more than

48:37I. I feel that very well said.

48:40And I hope that we can maybe

48:44institute that going forward.

48:47Those, those guidelines. I

48:48thought they were really good

48:49guidelines to for future

48:50consideration. So thank you.

48:51Thank you so much for the

48:53thoughtfulness on that.

48:54>> Thank you. Commissioner. Any

48:56other comments before I toss

48:58mine out there? I want to, I

49:01think, essentially echo the

49:03comments of Vice Chair Caden. I

49:07think it's an excellent project,

49:08a great infill project, I think.

49:12And with all due respect to

49:14director Monahan, who I've

49:16known for many, many years and

49:18I respect thoroughly as an

49:19architect, I think there's an

49:21issue in there. You go back to

49:22some of the process things and

49:24perhaps council can can speak

49:25to this. When I was building

49:27official here at the city, when

49:29building codes came out, they

49:30changed. Every three years a

49:31new code comes out. It's

49:33printed on, I think, January

49:361st, available for the public

49:38review July 1st, and then it

49:41takes effect the following

49:42January. Within that window,

49:43between July and January,

49:46applicants have the option of

49:47either using the current code

49:49or the incoming code, knowing

49:50that that code is going to be,

49:52you know, in place. I think the

49:54same thing kind of applies here.

49:55I think some of the comments

49:57that Director Monahan made, yes,

50:00based on perhaps things that

50:01are in the current code might

50:04not be allowed. But I think if

50:05we had the option of looking at

50:07knowing full well that that new

50:10new ordinances are going to be

50:12coming down the pike very, very

50:13soon, we should be able to, I

50:15think, to allow them, if they

50:16benefit the project, to to go

50:18through. After this discussion,

50:20I went back to check on some

50:22projects that I. I lived in a

50:24project called Metro Square

50:26many, many years ago, one of

50:27the first infill projects in

50:29Midtown. Extremely narrow

50:31driveways through there.

50:32Somehow I made it, you know, I

50:34survived it. It's a great

50:36project, really a great infill.

50:37And I would hate to have seen

50:39that compromised or sacrificed

50:40because of the driveway widths.

50:43Another project one block down

50:45the street. I forget the name

50:46of it. Mogavero did again, very

50:49narrow driveways going through

50:50there. They're really only wide

50:52enough for one way traffic, but

50:53they're not signed for one way.

50:55So technically somebody could

50:56be coming both ways. They won't

50:58fit. But I think given the fact

51:01that the streets are going to

51:05have no parking on the sides,

51:06they're going to be 20 foot

51:08pavement width, which is what

51:09the fire department and the

51:10trash department would require.

51:11So it's going to satisfy that.

51:13I live in an area in Woodlake

51:14where the streets are below

51:16standard. They'll never be

51:17changed, but parking is allowed

51:18on both sides of the street.

51:20Draft trash trucks often cannot

51:21get down the street. They have

51:22to turn around and come back

51:24and back down from the other

51:25street to pick up people's

51:27trash. So that's not going to

51:28be an issue on this project

51:30here at Metro Square. Some of

51:31the other projects did not have

51:33any pedestrian capability

51:36throughout the project. This

51:38does have a four foot walkway,

51:39concrete walkway, parallel

51:42granite as part of the 20 foot.

51:43That's fine. It's not going to

51:44be a busy thoroughfare. So

51:47given all that, I think it's

51:48actually an excellent project

51:50and a great infill project, I

51:52would not want to see it

51:53sacrificed because of some, you

51:54know, deviations that perhaps,

51:56you know, legally, perhaps

51:58can't be met. We need the

52:00flexibility, I think, to, you

52:01know, to, to move beyond those.

52:03So I know it's been the motion

52:05has been made and seconded, but

52:06I'll third the motion. So any

52:10other comments. Commissioner

52:14Snell.

52:15>> I'll second.

52:17>> I think it was already was.

52:18Second, we have a motion and a

52:21second. Claire, can you take a

52:22vote?

52:24>> Thank you. Chair.

52:25Commissioners, please unmute.

52:26Commissioner Lee, high

52:28Commissioner to High

52:30Commissioner Snell, High

52:31Commissioner Nebo, Vice Chair

52:34Kaden.

52:34>> I.

52:35>> Commissioner Gore. High

52:37Commissioner Ortiz is absent,

52:38Commissioner absent. And chair

52:40Chase. I thank you. The motion

52:42passes.

52:43>> Thank you everyone. Let's

52:47build more housing. Okay. Let's

52:52see. Come on. Next item on the

53:00agenda is Commissioner comments,

53:01ideas and questions. Anybody

53:04have any. Besides changing some

53:09of the conditions that we work

53:10under. Seeing no Commissioner

53:15comments. Are there any public

53:16comments for matters not on the

53:18agenda. Doesn't look like it.

53:19>> Thank you chair. I have no

53:21speakers for this item.

53:22>> Sorry, I didn't mean to jump

53:24ahead of you. Given that this

53:26concludes all the items on