Item 12 - (Pass for Publication) Ordinance Approving Innovation Park Planned Unit Development and California Northstate University Medical Campus (P18-077) Attachments 26 to 38 (PDF-90851 KB) — Sacramento City Council, February 8, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

1 Last update: October 10, 2013
City of Sacramento
SB 610/SB 221 Water Supply Assessment and Certification Form This form may be used to complete water supply assessments for projects located in an area covered by the City’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan.

Note: Please do not use this form if the projected water demand for your project area was not included in the City’s latest Urban Water Management Plan. To review the City’s Urban Water Management Plan, please visit:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/utilities/urbanwater/index.html Project: Innovation Park Planned Unit Development and California Northstate University Medical Center
Date: October 20, 2021
Project Applicant (Name of Company): [TBD]
Applicant Contact: Dave Beauchamp, ESA on behalf of applicant Phone Number: 916.276.1452
E-mail: [email protected]
Address: ESA, 2600 Capitol Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95816 _____________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant to fill in the following:

1. Does the project include:

Type of Development Yes No
A proposed residential development of 500 or more dwelling units X A shopping Center employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet?
A Commercial Office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet?
A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area X
A mixed use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above
A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the water required by a 500 dwelling unit project X If the answer is no to all of the above, a water supply assessment is not required for the project.

Page 1 of 418 ends

2 2. Is the projected water demand for the project location included in the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, adopted June 2021?
Yes: X No:

If the answer is no, you cannot use this form. Please refer to the requirements of SB 610 for preparing a water supply assessment.

3. Please fill in the project demands below:

Page 2 of 418 ends

3 Residential Non-Residential
Water Use Factor,
afy/dw elling unit
Water Use
Factor, afy/employee
Rural Residential (RR)
Suburban Neighborhood
Low Density (SNLD)
Traditional
Neighborhood Low
Density (TLDR)
Suburban Neighborhood
Medium Density (SMDR)
Urban Neighborhood
Low Density (ULDR)
Suburban Neighborhood
High Density (SHDR)
Traditional
Neighborhood Medium
Density (TMDR)
Urban Neighborhood
Medium Density (UMDR)
Traditional
Neighborhood High
Density (THDR)
Employment Center Mid
Rise (ECMR)
Suburban Center (SCnt)
Suburban Corridor (Scor)
Traditional Center (TCnt)
Urban Center High
(UCntHigh) 000
Urban Center Low
(UcntLow) 2,475 371.25
Urban Corridor High
(UCorHigh) 600 90
Urban Corridor Low
(UCorLow) 175 7
Central Business District
(CBD)
Urban Neighborhood
High Density (UHDR)
Regional Commercial
(RC) 2815 253.35
Employment Center Low
Rise (ECLR)
Industrial Industrial (IND) 0.14 2350 329
Public Public/Quasi- Public
(PUB) 0.37 0.17
Park Parks and Recreation
(PRK) 0.37 0.17
Open Space Open Space (OS) 00
Other
Other
Other
Central Business District 0.15 0.02
0 Commercial 0.15 0.09
Total Demand (AFY) 1050.6
Mixed Use 0.19 0.09
Mixed Use - Higher Density 0.15 0.04
Total
Demand
Number
Dw elling
Units
Residential - High 0.12 0.04
Number
Employees
Total
Demand
Residential - Low 0.61 0.09
Residential - Medium 0.39 0.09
Type of Development Land Use
Category
Demand Factor Proposed Development Current Zoning
Number
Dw elling
Units
Number
Employees

Page 3 of 418 ends

4 4. Required Elements of Water Supply Assessment (Water Code § 10910) A. Water supply entitlements, water rights or water service contracts (Water Code § 10910(d)): The City’s water supply entitlements, water rights and water service contract are identified and discussed in the Urban Water Management Plan, Chapter 6, section

6.2.3 All infrastructure necessary to deliver a water supply to the project is in place, excepting any distribution facilities required to be constructed and financed by the project applicant:

Yes: X No:

B. Identification of other sources of water supply if no water has been received under City’s existing entitlements, water rights or water service contracts (Water Code § 10910(e)):

Not applicable.

C. Information and analysis pertaining to groundwater supply (Water Code § 10910(f)):

Discussed in detail in Urban Water Management Plan, Chapter 6, section 6.2.2.

Verification of Water Supply
(for residential development of more than 500 dwelling units) Based on the City’s most recent Urban Water Management Plan, are there sufficient water supplies for the project during normal, single dry and multiple dry years over a 20- year period?
Yes: No:

By:

Title:

Date:

This box to be filled in by the City
Distribution:

Applicant
Development Services Department (Org: 4913) – Assigned Planner: Teresa Haenggi Utilities Department (Org: 3334) - Development Review (Tony Bertrand) Utilities Department (Org: 3332) - Capital Improvements (Brett Ewart) X
Senior Engineer
12/8/2021

Page 4 of 418 ends

Resolution No. 2022-
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council
Approving Business Terms Related to
Innovation Park Planned Unit Development
BACKGROUND:

A. SBH Natomas LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (“SBH”) has proposed a 183-acre development in North Natomas at the site of the former Sleep Train Arena (“Innovation Park PUD”). The approximately 183-acre development includes Assessor Parcels Nos. 225-0070-059-0000; 225-0070-060-0000; 225- 0070-063-0000; 225-0070-067-0000; 225-0070-076-0000 (the “Property”).

B. SBH and California Northstate University LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“CNU”) each own portions of the real property comprising the Property (separately, the “SBH Property” and “CNU Property”). CNU has proposed the development of a medical campus on the CNU Property within the Innovation Park PUD (“Medical Campus”). SBH and CNU have applied for a Development Agreement; a General Plan amendment and rezone; a Planned Unit Development Guidelines and Schematic Plan; an amendment to the 2016 Bicycle Master Plan; a Tentative Subdivision Map and a Tentative Map Design Deviation for a Non-standard Roadway Centerline Radii; Conditional Use Permits for a hospital, helistop, and college campus; Site Plan and Design Review for a hospital and central plant; a variance to extend the hours of construction established by the noise ordinance; and a tree permit.

C. In 2013, SBH and the City executed a term sheet regarding the development of the Property. SBH, CNU, and the City recognize the significant investment required to ensure the SBH Property and the CNU Property become a vibrant, multi-use neighborhood. In 2016, the City’s consultant Keyser Marston Associates studied and assessed the potential formation and viability of an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (“EIFD”) to finance public facilities to be constructed on the Property. In 2017, another City Consultant, Economic & Planning Systems, analyzed and evaluated the potential annual fiscal impacts on the City associated with the Property’s development including impacts assuming 100% or 50% of the potential property tax-related increment would be diverted to

Page 5 of 418 ends

an EIFD. In _2021___, SBH submitted to the City a request to form an EIFD to finance the public facilities on the Property. SBH seeks the City’s acknowledgment that it has received a request from SBH to establish an EIFD and further seeks a commitment from the City to evaluate and if appropriate, form the EIFD after adequate public participation.

D. In October of 2017, the Council passed the Job Growth and Employment Incentive Strategy (“JGEIS”) to attract businesses that will make significant economic impact and will bring high quality jobs to the City of Sacramento. The JGEIS, as currently defined, is available to businesses that create a minimum of 500, new to the region, high-wage full time jobs and should provide a direct public benefit for residents and businesses in Sacramento. Eligible businesses should improve the quality of life in such areas as: mobility, housing affordability, workforce development, employment opportunities for disadvantaged populations, business diversification, high-wage industry growth, air, water, and environmental quality, public health, energy efficiency, clean energy, public safety and emergency response, arts and culture amenities, and youth and education. CNU seeks recognition from the City that the proposed medical campus would provide more than 500 new jobs, and represents a significant benefit to the City of Sacramento’s workforce development, its public health, high-wage industry growth, emergency response, and investments in its youth and education. CNU seeks recognition that the Innovation Park PUD represents a significant benefit to the City of Sacramento’s economic growth. CNU seeks recognition that CNU has requested the establishment of a jobs incentive program.

E. CNU seeks deferral of fees pursuant to City Code section 18.52.020.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City acknowledges that it has received a request from SBH to establish an EIFD covering the boundaries of the Property. The City commits to evaluate the utilization of an EIFD, and if appropriate, form the EIFD with appropriate levels of public participation.

Section 2. The City acknowledges that it has received a request from CNU to utilize the JGEIS and has agreed to review the use of the JGEIS (as it may be structured at the time of the review) for the CNU medical campus. The proposed terms of the JGEIS will be developed in collaboration with CNU

Page 6 of 418 ends

and will consider the overall net fiscal benefits the CNU medical campus will bring to the City. Review of this assistance request will be done in conjunction with the request for formation of the EIFD in Section 1 and the fiscal reviews conducted as part of that requested formation.

Section 3. The City commits to processing a fee deferral application submitted by CNU to defer payment of eligible impact fees to certificate of occupancy.

Page 7 of 418 ends

NORTH NATOMAS INFILL

REDEVELOPMENT PUD PLANNING

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION
Project Narrative
The North Natomas Infill Redevelopment Planned Unit Development ("NNIR PUD" or "PUD") is conceptualized as an urban mixed-use, multi-modal, including transit, supportive center in North Natomas. The proposed project is intended to maximize flexible, mixed-use development, integrating a combination of proximal mix of uses, including commercial, employment, residential, and other use opportunities, and services. The PUD aims to support a variety of employers, residents, and community members looking to take advantage of the site's convenient location respective to downtown Sacramento, major transportation corridors of Interstate 5 and Interstate 80, and the Sacramento International Airport, along with opportunity to experience a unique, higher density, transit-supportive, mixed-use environment that would provide a diversity of experience and environment for those looking to live, work, and play in North Natomas.

Project Location
The PUD covers approximately 183 acres that includes the Sleep Train Arena site ("PUD Area"). The PUD Area is an infill development location located in North Natomas and is bounded by the curvilinear ring of Sports Parkway and is roughly bisected by Terracina Drive from the east and by an extension of Innovator Drive from the northwest. The environs immediately surrounding the site are composed of mixed-use commercial, multi-family residential, and vacant land uses, and are bounded by Del Paso Road to the north, Truxel Road to the east, Arena Boulevard to the south, and East Commerce Way to the west.

The PUD Area is also strategically located close to the crossing of Interstate 80 and Interstate 5, and between the Sacramento International Airport and downtown Sacramento. The size of the site, along with its freeway visibility, and location provide a unique develop opportunity to attract both employers and employees for living, working, and playing.

Page 8 of 418 ends

Land Use Structure
The PUD currently has a General Plan designation of Urban Center High and is currently zoned Sports Complex (SPX), which allows the development and operation of a sports complex, and does not allow as of right commercial uses, or housing. Then General Plan designation of Urban Center High is designed for a downtown central city density that contemplates mid to high-rise buildings (e.g., such as Capitol Mall in Downtown Sacramento). The minimum residential density contemplated in that designation is 24 units an acre. Even if the current zoning allowed residential development (which it does not), the type required to be consistent with the underlying General Plan designation of Urban Center High would be economically infeasible given the Sacramento residential market. And further, is not suitable, responsive, or contextual to the surrounding community.

After several meetings with the Natomas community, the development community, and City staff, it was determined that a General Plan designation of Urban Center Low, along with a zoning designation of C-2-PUD would provide the optimal mix to facilitate long term flexibility for both an appropriately urban-adjacent density of a mix of uses, while at the same time permitting much needed housing to be developed at minimum of 20 units an acre, which allows for a combination of low to mid-rise single family and multi-family housing that is not only responsive to the community and surroundings, but also can be delivered in the most efficient, feasible, and cost-effective manner – for both market and affordable housing projects (due largely to market demands and affordability based on varying construction types).

With that in mind, this entitlement application includes a General Plan amendment, repeal of the Capital Gateway PUD,adoption of the North Natomas Infill Redevelopment PUD, rezone, and development agreement.

This application proposes a General Plan land use designation of Urban Center Low. This designation provides for employment-intensive uses, a mix of housing, and a wide variety of retail uses in low- to mid-rise structures. Urban Center Low allows for building heights generally from 2-7 stories, with residential densities from 20-150 units per acre and non-residential development at FARs ranging from 0.40 to 4.0. As discussed above, this General Plan designation with a zoning designation of C-2-SPD provides the optimum combination of density at a level that promotes development, including residential development, by

Page 9 of 418 ends

allowing it at a density that serves the community, responds to the existing environment, and fits with the economic market of Natomas, and Sacramento.

Further, the flexibility in uses and residential densities allowed by the Urban Center Low designation and C-2-SPD, will allow the PUD to include, although not required by the City Code, a ten (10) percent affordable housing component as part of a Mixed Income Housing Strategy for the PUD Area, which otherwise would not exist.

The NNIR PUD will provide the PUD Area with an overall mixed-use vision and circulation plan. Theintent of the NNIR PUD is, while providing a sense of overall intent, to also maximize flexibility and utilize existing regulatory efficiencies for PUD developments.

This entitlement application proposes to rezone the PUD Area to General Commercial, C-2-SPD. The C-2-SPD will generally provide the C-2 use types with some additional restrictions to ensure the vision of the PUD Plan, along with some additional flexibility to downzone given the unique nature of this infill opportunity in a traditional suburban area.

The Tentative Map will create a set of general baseline parcels to allow the subsequent development to move forward with lot line adjustments. These parcels are not intended to be the final parcel locations. This approach is similar to that applied recently in similar plans in the City of Sacramento both at the Railyards and Downtown Commons.

Plan Characteristics
The PUD Area includes more than 180 acres, a large area equivalent to other large infill planning areas inthe City, such as the Railyards. It is anticipated that given its size and unique location surrounded by a wide range of different uses, the PUD Area will develop to serve a diverse mix of uses that compliment neighboring properties, serves needed market segments, and maintains market flexibility. These uses could include, for example, employment users, various market sector housing types, commercial, shopping, destination amenities, as well as a range of personal and professional services, including medical uses.

One example of complimenting surrounding uses is seen on the west side of the PUD Area. The new Centene Corporation Headquarters project planned immediately west of the PUD Area (equivalent to a few city blocks) could ultimately

Page 10 of 418 ends

accommodate approximately 5,000 employees. By integrating unique commercial opportunities, along with the diverse housing product types in the PUD Area, there is the opportunity to create components that integrate not just areas within the PUD Area but also support the existing and planned uses that surround it, while providing nearby employees the opportunity to live and play near their place of employment.

Along with integrating with the surrounding properties, based on the substantial input received from the community, the City, and Sacramento Regional Transit (RT), it is anticipated that the PUD Area may include transit-oriented development opportunities at density levels greater than what is currently available in the neighboring community. Additionally, bus service may potentially be included in the site, along with on demand shuttle service.

Plan Circulation
The vision for the PUD Area is to create a circulation network that will provide connectivity with the surrounding road system, while also developing a built environment that can support a range of transportation modes (such as pedestrians, bicycles, cars, buses, and potentially RT light rail), and provides a street framework that is more representative of a dense multi-modal environment. While the proposed PUD is designed to maximize flexibility pertaining to the density, intensity, and mix of development land uses, the Plan Area is intended as a highly connected, walkable network of streets that carefully considers land use configuration based on surrounding uses. While it is anticipated a modified block approach will be integrated, where feasible, in the PUD Area, the key planned backbone infrastructure will include two main multi-modal arterials that will bisect the site and provide connectivity at the fixed existing access points that connect the PUD Area network to the major roadwayarterials to the north, west, south, and east (specifically Del Paso Road, East Commerce Way, Arena Boulevard, and Truxel Road).

This approach is to provide a backbone framework, while retaining flexibility in grid layout and shape as the various uses come online.

The attached exhibits show the NNIR PUD backbone circulation network. The secondary roads are notincluded in the PUD or Master Tentative Map at this time since their locations and shape will evolve along with the use/type development.

For example, if a large, single-tenant user comes into the PUD Area, they will

Page 11 of 418 ends

take a larger footprint and modify the illustrative grid layout. This use would be consistent with the PUD but would impact the secondary roadway layout.

Development Assumption Scenario
While the PUD Area is proposed to be zoned C-2-SPD, we have developed a reasonable development scenario to serve as a basis for the environmental and transportation analysis of the project. Note, theseassumptions are not intended as a minimum or maximum for the PUD Area. but as a reasonably foreseeable development scenario.

Table 1 sets forth a set of development scenario for the PUD Area that will be utilized in theenvironmental review of the entitlement set.

Table 1
Parcel Approximate
Land Area in
Acres
Land Usea Efficiency
assumes
10% to 31%
roads/other
Net
Residential
Acres
Net
Commercial
Acres
Density FAR Units Gross
Floor Area
(sf)
A 11.2 Commercial 9.3 9.3 0.7 282,716
B 40.3 Commercial 30.1 30.1 0.6 787,910
C 14.1 Mixed-Use
Commercial/
Residential

12.6 6.3 6.3 35 0.4 221 109,975
D, D-1 46.4 Residential 34.5 34.5 20 690
E, E-1 32.0 Residential 22.1 22.1 50 1,106
ROW 39.8 Major
Streets
Total 183.8 109 63 46 Up to
2,017
Up to
1,180,601
Total Development Area 109
Total Roads/OS/Other 75
% NDA / Total Land Area 59%
Source: SBH Natomas LLC, 2018
a A portion of the land set aside for these uses would be set aside for parks.

Page 12 of 418 ends

CNUMC at Innovation Park Project Description
December 20, 2021
Project Summary:

This project is the development of a new Medical Center Campus for the California Northstate University (CNU) at Innovation Park located in the North Natomas area of the City of Sacramento, CA 95834. The project will be completed in 3 phases and will culminate in a completed new medical center and university campus with associated support buildings.

The entire planned campus currently consists of eighteen (18) buildings divided into four (4) distinct zones. A more detailed description of each building program and configuration is provided in the Phase Descriptions.

The summary breakdown and square footages for each zone is as follows:

Medical Zone: Total SF of 1,609,000 SF. Includes 6 buildings:

M1: Hospital Building – 14 floors with a total of 730,000 SF M2: Central Plant / Parking 1– Medical Zone – 3 floors with a total of 174,000 SF M3: Ambulatory Care Building – 5 floors and basement level with a total of 175,000 SF M4: Medical Building – 7 floors and basement level with a total of 150,000 SF M5: Parking w/ Retail Building No. 1 – 5 floors with a total of 123,000 SF M6: Parking w/ Retail Building No. 2 – 7 floors and a basement level with a total of 257,000 SF University Zone: Total SF of 918,000 SF. Includes 4 buildings:

U1: University Building 1 – 5 floors and basement level with a total of 256,000 SF U2: University Building 2 – 5 floors with a total of 216,000 SF U3: University Building 3 – University (U3) 4 floors with a total of 108,000 SF Central Plant / Retail (U4) – 2 floor and basement level with a total of 81,000 SF Total for Building of 189,000 SF
U5: Parking / Retail Building 3 5 floors with a total of 257,000 SF Faculty / Student Housing Zone: Total SF of 672,400 SF. Includes 6 buildings:

R1: Dormitory Building 1 – 6 floors and basement level with a total of 140,000 SF R2: Faculty Housing Building 1 – 6 floors and basement level with a total of 126,000 SF R3: Dormitory Building 2 – 6 floors and basement level with a total of 140,000 SF R4: Faculty Housing Building 2 – 6 floors and basement level with a total of 126,000 SF R5: Daycare / Campus Amenities Building – 2.5 floors with a total of 60,000 SF R8: Sports Courts – 1 floor with a total of 24,000 SF (combined with R5) R6: Active Senior Living (RCFE) Building 1 – 5 floors and basement level with a total of 86,400 SF R7: Central Plant Building – Not Used. Combined into U4 Research / Laboratory Zone: Total SF of 480,000 SF. Includes 2 buildings:

C1: Laboratory Building 1 – 1 floor with a total of 40,000 SF (combined with C3) C2: Pharmaceutical Building 1 – 4 floors and parking below with a total of 200,000 SF (Combined with C4) C3: Pharmaceutical Building 2 – 4 floors and basement level with a total of 200,000 SF (Combined with C1) C4: Admin / Central Plant – 1 floor with a total of 40,000 SF (Combined with C2)

Page 13 of 418 ends

Project Objectives:
 California Northstate University (CNU) has the following objectives for the Medical Center Campus Project at Innovation Park:
o Offer innovative, high-quality health care for patients residing in the Natomas Area; o Develop a hospital that will be in close proximity to the proposed California Northstate University campus to provide training opportunities for its students;
o Promote new, highly accessible, and innovative care models by designing facilities to incorporate the most advanced techniques available for diagnosis and treatment;
o Provide trauma services (Planned Level II after certification) to respond to incidences of massive casualty and other emergency response needs of the City and region and to provide for healthcare and emergency services along the Interstate I-5 corridor. o Develop an integrated university campus to accommodate all the colleges within California Northstate University. designed facilities to create a distinct campus identity through the use of consistent materials and colors, pedestrian-friendly circulation and attractive site features such as open space and other amenities for staff and University community. o Provide for Clinical Laboratory and Pharmaceutical Research and Development Facilities to support the medical mission of CNU.
o Provide for student, faculty and senior housing to service the CNU community. o Accommodate helicopter access directly to the facility and design helipad facilities in accordance with the following objectives:
 To lessen significant impacts on the surrounding community;  To locate the helipad to meet the functional needs of the hospital;  To comply with all applicable regulatory and life safety requirements for helipads and helicopter travel, including but not limited to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements for flight path obstruction clearance;  To locate the helipad on a site where access is controlled, to ensure public safety during helicopter landings and take-offs;
 To construct a visually unobtrusive helipad, integrating into the design of the building. o Provide economic stimulus for the City of Sacramento and the surrounding region by creating high paying jobs that will have a multiplier effect on regional economic growth;
• Develop a staff and patient-friendly hospital with a convenient location, available parking, efficient patient and emergency access in close proximity to amenities and patient services.

Page 14 of 418 ends

Flood Zone Requirements and Mitigation:

The current site of the project is designated as an A99 transitional flood zone that is being actively removed from flood impacts through levee improvements. The City of Sacramento does not require flood mitigation and will permit construction in an A99 zone provided that the City is held harmless.

State law also required the following:

Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in flood hazard zones. (Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(2)(B)(iv).)
Although the City of Sacramento does not require elevation of buildings for flood mitigation in the A99 zone, the current decision of CNU is to raise the first floor of the Hospital approximately 18’-0” to 20’-0” from the current site to 38 – feet above sea level. This will mitigate to provide protection against the projected 100-year flood plain level plus two feet.

Per discussion with OSHPD, the current flood hazard condition must be met and the state requirements are for flood mitigation for the 200 year level. After the planned levee improvements are completed, then the requirements can be revisited. Using a different methodology the level of the 200 year flood plain has been determined to be roughly equal to the 100 year flood level. The 36 + 2 foot requirement = 38 feet above sea level will also be used as the required level for the first floor per OSHPD requirements.

Project Phasing:

Phase 1
Planned Duration from 2022 to 2026.

Completed as part of two sub-phases: 1A and 1B.

Total of 1,302,000 SF including 98,000 SF of shell space.

Total of 4 Buildings as follows:

Phase 1A:
• Hospital Building (M1) 14 floors with a total of 730,000 SF (98,000 SF to be shelled) • Central Plant / Parking 1 (M2) 3 floors with a total of 174,000 SF

Phase 1B:
• University Building 1 (U1) 5 floors with basement level and a total of 256,000 SF • Pharmaceutical Building 1 (C2) 4 floors and basement level with a total of 200,000 SF Central Plant / Admin (C4)– R/L 1 floor with a total of 40,000 SF Hospital Building
The Hospital Building (M1) would include 14 stories including a Ground Level Medical Clinic level, 12 stories for hospital functions and a mechanical level. The building would be approximately 730,000 square feet in size with approximately 420 patient beds at full buildout.

The initial submitted phase will contain 263 patient beds.

The ground level medical clinic is the lowest floor with an 84,000-sf floor plate area.

The hospital would comprise a nine-story central tower and two seven-story patient-bed wings with a floor plate area of 48,000 sf atop a three-story, main hospital podium with a 84,000-sf floor plate area. Hospital administration would be housed on the top level of the central tower. There is a helistop on a roof level of the East Patient Bed Tower.

Page 15 of 418 ends

The highest point of the building would be the central tower crown approximately 280-feet above ground level (elevation of 297 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988).

The Hospital Building has three major components. Diagnostic and Treatment Podium, East Patient Bed Tower and West Patient Bed Tower.
• Diagnostic and Treatment Podium: 4 Story Podium with Ground Floor Medical Clinics. The Ground Floor Medical Clinics are not required to be above the flood plain. There is a 4th floor transitional level with the Cafeteria and Kitchen and a Mechanical Mezzanine Floor. Total Area of the Ground Floor Medical Clinics, Diagnostic and Treatment Podium and Fourth Floor Transitional Level is approximately 383,300 SF
• West Patient Bed Tower: The West patient bed tower building would be 7 stories in height starting at the fifth floor and be approximately 208,900 square feet. The West patient Bed Tower includes the central vertical circulation tower. The patient bed tower would be built on top of the Diagnostic and Treatment Podium and contain approximately 207 patient beds. • East Patient Bed Tower: The East patient bed tower building would be 7 stories in height starting at the fourth floor and be approximately 137,200 square feet. The patient bed tower would be built on top of the Diagnostic and Treatment Podium and contain approximately 56 patient beds on two floors as part of Phase 2A. The remaining five floors will be shelled for future completion during Phase 2 for 1an additional 57 patient beds During Phase 2, the shelled floors of the second patient tower will be completed and the total patient bed count will increase to 420 patient beds with a total area of approximately 730,000 square feet.

This new State-of-the-Art healthcare facility will house all the acute care services and required support space for the California Northstate University Medical Center (CNUMC). This includes the Imaging and Cardiology Departments, Perioperative Services, Urgent Care and Emergency Department, Obstetrics, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Pediatrics, Intensive and Coronary Care Unit Suites, Step-Down Patient Care Units, Medical / Surgical Nursing Units and Concierge level Nursing Units. The Pharmacy Department, Clinical Labs, Sterile Processing Department and other ancillary support spaces, and utility rooms are also included.

Because of the raised elevation of the drop-off area at the Main Entry and the Ambulance Bay, a parking level underneath is planned to utilize the available space. The parking level will have a total of 249 parking spaces.

The architectural design vocabulary of the new Hospital Building will provide an iconic gateway image for Innovation Park, the Natomas District and the city of Sacramento from the I-5 and 80 corridors while providing a teaching healthcare facility for the California Northstate University for decades to come.

Central Plant / Parking 1 Building – Medical Zone
The CNU Central Plant / Parking 1 Building (M2/M5) is approximately 174,000 gross square feet in size. The Central Plant / Parking 1 Building consists of the following elements:
• 58,000 square feet at grade for parking and 58,300 sf for parking at hospital entry level for a total of 116,000 SF of parking • 1 Level of Central Plant and Support Space for a total of 30,000 SF • 28,000 square feet of Exterior raised Mechanical Yard. • The Central Plant main level and mechanical yard is currently designed to be raised to mitigate against the 200-year flood plain level and the grade and below levels will have parking. The parking levels will have a total of 248 parking spaces.

University Building 1
• University Building (U1): This University building is planned to be approximately 216,000 square feet above grade and five stories in height with a planned footprint of 43,200 SF. There is a 40,000 SF parking level below that brings the total area of the building to 256,000 SF. The parking level below has approximately 124 spaces. The building contains, classrooms, teaching

Page 16 of 418 ends

laboratories, student support services, auditorium and administrative functions. The building is planned to accommodate CNU Colleges with about 2,000 total students and 400 Faculty Members on Campus. An Auditorium Space that can accommodate 950 persons is also planned. For Graduation ceremonies and as a student amenity, an outdoor amphitheater that can accommodate up to 2,000 persons will be provided.

Pharmaceutical Building 1 and Central Plant
• Pharmaceutical Building 1 (C2/C4): This Research building is planned to be approximately 200,000 square feet in size and five stories in height with a planned footprint of 40,000 SF. There is a 40,000 SF parking level below that brings the total area of the building to 240,000 SF. The parking level below has approximately 124 spaces. The building contains research and manufacturing facilities for pharmaceutical products. It includes staff support services and administrative functions. The lower floor is designed for 15,000 SF for administrative functions and loading and 25,000 SF for the Central Plant for the C2 and U1 Buildings.

Phase 2
Planned Duration from 2025 to 2029.

Total of 1,538,500 SF including completed buildout of 98,000 SF of previously shelled space.

Total of 9 Buildings as follows:
() Hospital Building (M1A) 98,000 SF Shell Space Buildout of M1 • Ambulatory Care Building (M3) 5 floors with basement level and a total of 175,000 SF • Medical Building (M4) 7 floors with basement level and a total of 150,000 SF • Parking w/ Retail Building 1 (M5) 5 floors with a total of 123,000 SF • Parking w/ Retail Building 2 (M6) 5 floors with basement levels and a total of 257,000 SF • University Building 2 (U2) 5 floors with a total of 216,000 SF • Dormitory Building 1 (R1) 6 floors with basement level a total of 140,000 SF • Faculty Housing Building 1 (R2) 6 floors with a basement level and total of 126,000 SF • Daycare Facility (R5) 1 floor with a total of 13,500 SF (Modular Building) • Pharmaceutical Building 2 (C1/C3) Pharmaceutical - 5 floors with a total of 200,000 SF Laboratory -1 floors with a total of 40,000 SF
Hospital Building – Buildout of Shell Space in M1 – Not a new building. • East Patient Bed Tower (M1A): During Phase 2, the 98,000 SF of shelled floors of the East patient tower will be completed and add approximately 157 patient beds. The total patient bed count will increase to 420 patient beds with a total area of approximately 730,000 square feet.

Ambulatory Care Building
• Ambulatory Care (M3) : This building would be 175,000 square feet in size and five stories in height with a planned footprint of 30,000 SF and a Basement Level of 25,000 SF. This building would contain outpatient medical services and other support areas. Specific departments and programs are to be determined at a later date.

Page 17 of 418 ends

Medical Building
• Medical Building (M4): This medical building is planned to be approximately 150,000 square feet in size and seven stories in height and a basement level with a planned footprint of 18,750 SF. This building would contain medical services and hospital administration.

Parking with Retail Building 1
• Parking with Retail Building 1 (M5): The parking structure would be 123,000 square feet in size and would contain approximately 375 parking spaces. A portion of the parking spaces could use a mechanical stacked parking system to achieve the parking count. The parking structure would be five stories in height and would include 24,600 square feet of first floor retail, food service, and other supporting uses.

Parking with Retail Building 2
• Parking with Retail Building 2 (M6): The parking structure would be 257,000 square feet in size and would contain approximately 690 parking spaces. There is an option to use a mechanical stacked parking system to increase the parking to 1000 parking spaces The building would have 5 floors with a footprint of 29,000 SF and two parking levels of 56,000 SF at grade and below.

The parking structure includes 29,000 square feet of first floor retail and medical retail services.

University Building 2
• University Building 2 (U2): This University building is planned to be approximately 216,000 square feet in size and five stories in height with a planned footprint of 43,200 SF. The building contains, classrooms, teaching laboratories, student support services, auditorium and administrative functions. The building is planned to accommodate the CNU Colleges with about 2,500 total students and 500 Faculty Members on Campus.

Dormitory Building 1
• Dormitory Building 1(R1): This Residential building is planned to be approximately 140,000 square feet in size and five stories in height with a basement level and a planned footprint of 20,000 SF. There will be approximately 150 units housing 300 students on 5 floors. The first floor would be 20,000 SF of Administration and Student Support space. There is a parking level below with approximately 61 spaces.

Faculty Housing Building 1
• Faculty Housing Building 1 (R2): This Residential building is planned to be approximately 126,000 square feet in size and six stories in height with a basement level and a planned footprint of 18,000 SF. There will be approximately 100 units housing 100 faculty families on 6 floors There is a parking level below with approximately 62 spaces.

Daycare Facility Building
• Daycare Facility Building (R5): This daycare building is planned to be approximately 13,500 square feet in size and one story in height with a secure outdoor space of 3,000 SF. There will be approximately 175 children and 30 staff at the facility. The building will be a modular building or designed for expansion of 13,500 SF during Phase 3.

Page 18 of 418 ends

Pharmaceutical Building 2
• Pharmaceutical Building 2:
o Pharmaceutical (C3) is planned to be approximately 200,000 square feet in size and five stories in height with a planned footprint of 40,000 SF. The building contains research and manufacturing facilities for pharmaceutical products. It includes staff support services and administrative functions. The lower floor is designed for administrative functions, loading and 62 parking spaces.
o Laboratory (C1): This Laboratory is planned to be approximately 40,000 square feet in size with one story. The floor contains clinical, pathology and specialty laboratories for support of the medical center. It includes staff support services and administrative functions.

Phase 3
Planned Duration from 2028 to 2032.

Total of 838,900 SF
Total of 5 Buildings as follows:
• University Building 3 (U3/U4/R7) 6 floors with a basement level and a total of 189,000 SF • Parking with Retail Building 3 (U5) 5 floors with a total of 257,000 SF • Dormitory Building 2 (R3) 6 floors with basement level a total of 140,000 SF • Faculty Housing Building 2 (R4) 6 floors with a basement level and total of 126,000 SF () Daycare Facility / Sports Court (R5/R8) Daycare - 1 floor with a total of 13,500 SF – Expansion of Facility.

Sports Court – 1 floor with a total of 27,000 SF
• Active Senior Living (RCFE) Building (R6) 5 floors with a basement level and a total of 86,400 SF University Building 3
• University Building 3 (U3/U4/R7): This University (U3) building is planned to be approximately 189,000 square feet in size and six stories in height with a planned footprint of 27,000 SF. The building contains, classrooms, teaching laboratories, student support services, auditorium and administrative functions. The building is planned to accommodate the CNU Colleges with about 1,000 total students and 200 Faculty Members on Campus. The building also contains a Central Plant(U4/R7) of 54,000 SF which is partially below grade and a Retail level of 27,000 SF.

Parking with Retail Building 3
• Retail / Parking Building 3 (U5): The parking structure would be 257,000 square feet in size and would contain approximately up to 690 parking spaces. There is an option to use a mechanical stacked parking system to increase the parking to 1000 parking spaces. The parking structure would be four stories in height with one basement level and include 50,000 square feet of first floor retail and dining services.

Dormitory Building 2
• Dormitory Building 2 (R3): This Residential building is planned to be approximately 140,000 square feet in size and five stories in height and a parking level below with a planned footprint of 20,000 SF. There will be approximately 150 units housing 300 students on 5 floors. The first floor would be 20,000 SF of Administration and Student Support space. There is a parking level below with approximately 61 spaces.

Page 19 of 418 ends

Faculty Housing Building 2
• Admin / Faculty Building (R4) : This Residential building is planned to be approximately 126,000 square feet in size and six stories in height with a planned footprint of 18,000 SF. There will be approximately 100 units housing 100 faculty families on 6 floors. There is a parking level below with approximately 62 spaces.

Daycare Facility Building Expansion (Combined with
• Daycare Facility / Sports Court Building (R5/R8):
o The daycare building expansion is planned to be approximately 13,500 square feet in size and one story in height with a secure outdoor space of 3,000 SF. There will be approximately 175 children and 30 staff at the facility expansion. The Daycare Building total is 350 children and 60 staff.
o Sports Court : A single story sports court at the roof level of the daycare would be constructed. The Sports Court would be 27,000 sf in size. The roof area will be occupied and will contain, basketball, tennis and volleyball courts for student use.

Active Senior Living (RCFE) Building
• Admin / Faculty Building (R6): This Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) building is planned to be approximately 86,400 square feet in size and five stories in height with a basement level and a planned footprint of 14,400 SF. There will be approximately 100 residents on 4 floors. The first floor would be 14,400 SF of Administration and Resident Support space. There is a parking level below with approximately 48 spaces.

Page 20 of 418 ends

6 STORIES - 30,000 SF PER FLOOR
1 STORY BELOW - 18,750 SF
TOTAL = 150,000 SF
TOTAL 240,000 SF (40,000 FOR LAB. @
BASEMENT & 200,000 SF FOR

PHARMACEUTICAL ABOVE GROUND)

LABORATORY /

PHARMACEUTICAL
14'-0"
17'-0"
18'-0"
16'-0"
6 - STORIES 40,000 SF PER FLOOR

OUT-PATIENT
CLINIC

FIRE LANE

HOSPITAL

MAIN ENTRY
UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, PHARMACY,

MASTER PROGRAM OF PHARMACEUTICAL

SCIENCES, NURSING AND PSYCHOLOGY
5 STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF

PHARMACEUTICAL
40,000 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 200,000 SF
5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 80,000 SF
ADMIN / FACULTY 2
20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 120,000 SF
DORMITORY BUILDING 1
DORMITORY BUILDING 2
4 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 120,000 SF

SPORT FACILITY

WITH DAYCARE
27,500 SF PER FLOOR = 55,000 SF
ADMIN / FACULTY 1
20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 80,000 SF
4 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
PARKING No. 2
5 FLOORS AT 28,500 SF PER FLOOR
1 PARKING LEVEL STREET - 56,000 SF
1 PARKING LEVEL BELOW - 56,000 SF
TOTAL : 257,000 SF

UNIVERSITY
BUILDING 3

DOCK ENTRY
LANE
20'
FIRE

SEMINAR
COURT

FIRE LANE

FIRE LANE
LANE
FIRE

BARBEQUE
AREA

RETAIL W/

W/ PARKING BELOW

AMBULANCE BAY

AMBULANCE
ENTRY

LOADING &

WASTE AREA

GRADUATION QUAD
(STEPPED

AMPHITHEATER)

HOSPITAL

BUILDING
38'
34'
38'
37' 37'6"
38'
WATER

FEATURE
14 STORIES
TOTAL 730,000 SF

COLLEGE OF REHABILITATION

COLLEGE OF NUTRITION SCIENCES

CENTRAL PLANT
RETAIL
UNIVERSITY BUILDING 2

COLLEGE OF DENTAL MEDICINE, HEALTH

SCIENCES, GRADUATE STUDIES AND

PSYCHOLOGY
5 STORIES
43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF
RETAIL W/ PARKING No. 3
1 FLOOR OF RETAIL; 4 FLOORS OF PARKING
5 STORIES TOTAL
51,400 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 257,000 SF
BIKE

PARKING
BIKE

PARKING
LANE
FIRE
AREA
PLAY
GARDEN
LOWER
17'-6"
19'
GARDEN
LOWER
65 FEET
80 FEET
80 FEET
80 FEET

CENTRAL
PLANT
YARD
2,350 SF

SHUTTLE BUS

LOADING AREA

FIRE LANE
27'

RETAINING WALL

EXTERIOR

DINING AREA
FIRE
LANE
LANE
FIRE
17'-6"
14'-0"

RETAINING WALL
17'-6"

PARKING
ENTRY

RETAINING WALL

LOADING
AREA

SCREENING

SCREENING
TRASH

COMPACTORS

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING

WASTE AREA

LOADING
AREA
58 PARKING
STALLS

BICYCLE
CARE
5 STORIES
18,800 SF PER FLOOR
TOTAL = 94,000 SF
CHILD

MATERNAL
CENTER
40'

SWITCHGEAR
O2 TANK

ENCLOSURE

SMUD SMUD
26'
21'
30'
29'
27' R

RET WALL
SHO
B
OR
BIK
T T
KE
TE
PA
ERM
AR
M
RKI
FIR
L
RE
LAN

BICYCLE

ROSE GARDEN /

MEDITATION
FIRE
LANE
FIRE
LAN
16,200 SF PER FLOOR

SENIOR CARE

RESIDENT
5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
= TOTAL 81,000 SF
18,000 SF PER FLOOR = 72,000 SF
4 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW

CAMPUS GREEN

WASTE AREA

FIRE LANE
26'
FIRE
LANE
FIRE
LANE
AD
)

CENTRAL PLANT W/
PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF
TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH
TOTAL : 174,000 SF
MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING
one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 048
one quarter inch = one foot
Plotted on:
1/64"=1'-0"
CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 08/06/21 PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

A1-0

CONCEPTUAL MASTER SITE

PLAN (FINAL BUILDOUT)
PD
WH467

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
01/08/22

NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 21 of 418 ends

14'-0"
18'-0"
16'-0"

HOSPITAL

MAIN ENTRY
20'
LANE
FIRE

W/ PARKING BELOW

AMBULANCE BAY

HOSPITAL

BUILDING
34'
38'
34'
37'6"
38'
WATER

FEATURE
14 STORIES
TOTAL 730,000 SF
17'-6"
19'

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING
GARDEN
LOWER
O2 TANK

ENCLOSURE

CENTRAL PLANT W/
PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF
TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH
TOTAL : 174,000 SF
37'
GARDEN
LOWER
65 FEET
80 FEET
80 FEET
80 FEET
14'-0"

SCREENING

SCREENING
TRASH

COMPACTORS
18'-0"
18'
40'
30'
17'
25'
20'
20'
18'
19'
17'
34'
17'
20'
16'
18'
18'-0"

TEMPORARY

PARKING LOT A
117,000 SF
326 PARKING STALLS

EXISTING PARKING
(TEMPORARY LOT #1)
226 PARKING STALLS

EXISTING PARKING
(TEMPORARY LOT #2)
417 PARKING STALLS
34' SHO
B
OR
BIK
RT T
KE
TE
PA
ERM
AR
M
RKING
FIR
L
RE
LANE

SWITCHGEAR

SMUD SMUD

SHUTTLE BUS
50 PARKING SPOTS

FOR CARPOOL

LOADING AREA
MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF
14 PARKING
SPOTS
7 PARKING
SPOTS

CONSTRUCTION

STAGING AREA
one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 048
one quarter inch = one foot
Plotted on:
1/64"=1'-0"
CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 07/20/21 PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

A1-1A
CONCEPTUAL PHASE 1A

SITE PLAN
PD
WH467

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
01/08/22

NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 22 of 418 ends

14'-0"
18'-0"
16'-0"

HOSPITAL MAIN ENTRY
20'
LANE
FIRE

W/ PARKING BELOW AMBULANCE BAY

HOSPITAL BUILDING
34'
38'
34'
37'6"
38'
14 STORIES TOTAL 730,000 SF
17'-6"
19'

SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING

GARDEN LOWER
O2 TANK ENCLOSURE
38'
37'

GARDEN LOWER
65 FEET
80 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET 14'-0" SCREENING

SCREENING

TRASH COMPACTORS
18'-0"
26'
40'
30'
17'
25'
20'
20'
18'
19'
17'
34'
17'
20'
16'
18'
18'-0"

TEMPORARY PARKING LOT A
117,000 SF 326 PARKING STALLS
34' SHO BRIKT TEE PARMRKING
FIR
L
RE
LANE

SWITCHGEAR
SMUD
SMUD UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, PHARMACY, MASTER PROGRAM OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, NURSING AND PSYCHOLOGY 5 STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF PHARMACEUTICAL 40,000 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 200,000 SF 5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW

TEMPORARY PARKING LOT E
20,600 SF 36 PARKING STALLS

GRADUATION QUAD (STEPPED AMPHITHEATER)

LANE FIRE

CAMPUS GREEN

TEMPORARY PARKING LOT D
280,500 SF 705 PARKING STALLS

SEMINAR COURT

FIRE LANE

SEMINAR COURT

FIRE LANE

GRADUAT GRADUATIO GRADUATION RADUATION ADUATION Q DUATION QU UATION QUA ATION QUAD (ST TION QUAD (STE ON QUAD (STEP N QUAD (STEPP QUAD (STEPPE (STEPPED UAD STEPPED A TEPPED MPHITHEA PHITHEAT PHITHEATE PHITHEATER PHITHEATER) HITHEATER) ITHEATER) THEATER) HEATER) 26'
P MU
AD
)

FIRE LANE

CAM US P GRE SEN

FIRE LANE
40'

SWITCHGEAR
O2 TANK ENCLOSURE
SMUD
SMUD

LOADING WASTE AREA
CENTRAL PLANT W/ PARKING BELOW MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6"10 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot 2 0 6" 6" 0 2three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0three eighths inch = one foot 40 048
one quarter inch = one foot
Plotted on:
1/64"=1'-0"
CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 07/20/21 PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

A1-1B
CONCEPTUAL PHASE 1B

SITE PLAN
PD
WH467

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
01/08/22

NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 23 of 418 ends

6 STORIES - 30,000 SF PER FLOOR
1 STORY BELOW - 18,750 SF
TOTAL = 150,000 SF
TOTAL 240,000 SF (40,000 FOR LAB. @
BASEMENT & 200,000 SF FOR

PHARMACEUTICAL ABOVE GROUND)

LABORATORY /

PHARMACEUTICAL
14'-0"
17'-0"
18'-0"
16'-0"
6 - STORIES 40,000 SF PER FLOOR

OUT-PATIENT
CLINIC

FIRE LANE

HOSPITAL

MAIN ENTRY
UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, PHARMACY,

MASTER PROGRAM OF PHARMACEUTICAL

SCIENCES, NURSING AND PSYCHOLOGY
5 STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF

PHARMACEUTICAL
40,000 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 200,000 SF
5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 120,000 SF
DORMITORY BUILDING 1

SPORT FACILITY

DOCK ENTRY
LANE
20'
FIRE

SEMINAR
COURT

FIRE LANE

FIRE LANE
LANE
FIRE

BARBEQUE
AREA

RETAIL W/

W/ PARKING BELOW

AMBULANCE BAY

AMBULANCE
ENTRY

LOADING &

WASTE AREA

GRADUATION QUAD
(STEPPED

AMPHITHEATER)

HOSPITAL

BUILDING
38'
34'
38'
37' 37'6"
38'
WATER

FEATURE
14 STORIES
TOTAL 730,000 SF
UNIVERSITY BUILDING 2

COLLEGE OF DENTAL MEDICINE, HEALTH

SCIENCES, GRADUATE STUDIES AND

PSYCHOLOGY
5 STORIES
43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF

LOADING
WASTE
AREA
BIKE

PARKING
BIKE

PARKING
LANE
FIRE
AREA
PLAY
GARDEN
LOWER
17'-6"
19'
GARDEN
LOWER
65 FEET
80 FEET
80 FEET
80 FEET

SHUTTLE BUS

LOADING AREA
27'

RETAINING WALL

EXTERIOR

DINING AREA
FIRE
LANE
LANE
FIRE
17'-6"
14'-0"

RETAINING WALL
17'-6"

PARKING
ENTRY

LOADING
AREA

SCREENING

SCREENING
TRASH

COMPACTORS

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING

WASTE AREA

LOADING
AREA

BICYCLE
CARE
5 STORIES
18,800 SF PER FLOOR
TOTAL = 94,000 SF
CHILD

MATERNAL
CENTER
40'

SWITCHGEAR
O2 TANK

ENCLOSURE

SMUD SMUD
26'
21'
30'
29'
27' R

RET WALL
SHO
B
OR
BIK
RT T
KE
TE
PA
ERM
AR
M
RKING
FIR
L
RE
LAN

BICYCLE
FIRE
LANE
FIRE
LAN

CAMPUS GREEN

LANDSCAPE /

SPORTS AREA

LANDSCAPE /

SPORTS AREA

TEMPORARY
PARKING LOT D2
46,800 SF
114 PARKING STALLS

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING

CENTRAL PLANT W/
PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF
TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH
TOTAL : 174,000 SF
MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF
FIRE
LANE
FIRE
LANE
AD
)
26'

WASTE AREA
one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 048
one quarter inch = one foot
Plotted on:
1/64"=1'-0"
CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 08/06/21 PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

A1-2
CONCEPTUAL PHASE 2

SITE PLAN
PD
WH467

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
01/08/22

NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 24 of 418 ends

6 STORIES - 30,000 SF PER FLOOR
1 STORY BELOW - 18,750 SF
TOTAL = 150,000 SF
TOTAL 240,000 SF (40,000 FOR LAB. @
BASEMENT & 200,000 SF FOR

PHARMACEUTICAL ABOVE GROUND)

LABORATORY /

PHARMACEUTICAL
14'-0"
17'-0"
18'-0"
16'-0"
6 - STORIES 40,000 SF PER FLOOR

OUT-PATIENT
CLINIC

FIRE LANE

HOSPITAL

MAIN ENTRY
UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, PHARMACY,

MASTER PROGRAM OF PHARMACEUTICAL

SCIENCES, NURSING AND PSYCHOLOGY
5 STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF

SPORT FACILITY

UNIVERSITY
BUILDING 3

DOCK ENTRY
LANE
20'
FIRE

SEMINAR
COURT

FIRE LANE

FIRE LANE
LANE
FIRE

BARBEQUE
AREA

RETAIL W/

W/ PARKING BELOW

AMBULANCE BAY

AMBULANCE
ENTRY

LOADING &

WASTE AREA

GRADUATION QUAD
(STEPPED

AMPHITHEATER)

HOSPITAL

BUILDING
38'
34'
38'
37' 37'6"
38'
WATER

FEATURE
14 STORIES
TOTAL 730,000 SF

COLLEGE OF REHABILITATION

COLLEGE OF NUTRITION SCIENCES

CENTRAL PLANT
RETAIL
UNIVERSITY BUILDING 2

COLLEGE OF DENTAL MEDICINE, HEALTH

SCIENCES, GRADUATE STUDIES AND

PSYCHOLOGY
5 STORIES
43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF
RETAIL W/ PARKING No. 3
1 FLOOR OF RETAIL; 4 FLOORS OF PARKING
5 STORIES TOTAL
51,400 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 257,000 SF
BIKE

PARKING
BIKE

PARKING
LANE
FIRE
AREA
PLAY
GARDEN
LOWER
17'-6"
19'
GARDEN
LOWER
65 FEET
80 FEET
80 FEET
80 FEET

CENTRAL
PLANT
YARD
2,350 SF

SHUTTLE BUS

LOADING AREA

FIRE LANE
27'

RETAINING WALL

EXTERIOR

DINING AREA
FIRE
LANE
LANE
FIRE
17'-6"
14'-0"

RETAINING WALL
17'-6"

PARKING
ENTRY

RETAINING WALL

LOADING
AREA

SCREENING

SCREENING
TRASH

COMPACTORS

SHORT TERM

BIKE PARKING

WASTE AREA

LOADING
AREA
58 PARKING
STALLS

BICYCLE
CARE
5 STORIES
18,800 SF PER FLOOR
TOTAL = 94,000 SF
CHILD

MATERNAL
CENTER
40'

SWITCHGEAR
O2 TANK

ENCLOSURE

SMUD SMUD
26'
21'
30'
29'
27' R

RET WALL
SHO
B
OR
BIK
T T
KE
TE
PA
ERM
AR
M
RKI
FIR
L
RE
LAN

BICYCLE

ROSE GARDEN /

MEDITATION
FIRE
LANE
FIRE
LAN
16,200 SF PER FLOOR

SENIOR CARE

RESIDENT
5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW
= TOTAL 81,000 SF
18,000 SF PER FLOOR = 72,000 SF
4 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW

CAMPUS GREEN

WASTE AREA

FIRE LANE
26'
FIRE
LANE
FIRE
LANE
AD
)

CENTRAL PLANT W/
PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF
TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH
TOTAL : 174,000 SF
MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF

SHORT TERM

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 08/06/21 PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

A1-3
CONCEPUTAL PHASE 3

SITE PLAN
PD
WH467

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
01/08/22

NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 25 of 418 ends

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834 FCA PROJECT NO. 467

ISSUE DATE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT DRAWINGS
G0-0
G1-0
A1-0
A1-1
COVER

PARCEL SITE PLAN

CONCEPTUAL MASTER SITE PLAN

CONCEPTUAL PHASE I SITE PLAN

Page 26 of 418 ends

1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109 TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected] FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 12/23/21 PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE KEY PLAN DATE: EIR G1-0 PARCEL SITE PLAN PDWH 467 REVISIONS AGENCY APPROVAL Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834 CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 12/22/21 NO DESCRIPTION DATE one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot 2 06" 6" 0 2three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0three eighths inch = one foot 4 0 0 4 8one quarter inch = one foot Plotted on: 1"=100' CONSULTANTS: OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00

Page 27 of 418 ends

7 STORIES - 18,750 SF PER FLOOR 1 STORY BELOW - 18,750 SF TOTAL = 150,000 SF TOTAL 240,000 SF (40,000 FOR LAB. @ BASEMENT & 200,000 SF FOR PHARMACEUTICAL ABOVE GROUND) PHARMACEUTICAL 2 14'-0" 17'-0" 18'-0" 16'-0" 5 - STORIES W/ BASEMENT 40,000 SF PER FLOOR SWITCHGEAR SMUD SMUD MEDICAL BUILDING FIRE LANE HOSPITAL MAIN ENTRY UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, PHARMACY, MASTER PROGRAM OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, NURSING AND PSYCHOLOGY 5 STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 256,000 SF AMBULATORY CARE 5 STORIES 30,000 SF PER FL. 1 STORY BELOW AT 25,000 SF TOTAL 175,000 SF PHARMACEUTICAL 1 40,000 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 240,000 SF 5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 18,000 SF PER FLOOR = 126,000 SF FACULTY HOUSING 2 20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 140,000 SF DORMITORY BUILDING 1 DORMITORY BUILDING 2 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 140,000 SF SPORT FACILITY W/ DAYCARE 27,000 SF PER FLOOR = 54,000 SF FACULTY HOUSING 1 18,000 SF PER FLOOR = 126,000 SF 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW RETAIL No. 2 5 STORIES AT 28,500 SF PER FLOOR 1 PARKING LEVEL STREET - 56,000 SF 1 PARKING LEVEL BELOW - 56,000 SF TOTAL : 257,000 SF UNIVERSITY BUILDING 3 14,400 SF PER FLOOR = 86,400 SF ACTIVE SENIOR LIVING (RCFE) 5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW LOADING DOCK ENTRY 17' OR 18' 27,000 SF PER FLOOR = 189,000 SF 6 - STORIES W/ BASEMENT LANE FIRE O2 TANK ENCLOSURE SEMINAR COURT SEMINAR COURT FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE LANE FIRE BARBEQUE AREA MEDITATION AREA PARKING W/ W/ PARKING BELOW AMBULANCE BAY AMBULANCE ENTRY LOADING & WASTE AREA GRADUATION QUAD (STEPPED AMPHITHEATER) HOSPITAL BUILDING 38' 31' 37' 38' 37'-6" 38' WATER FEATURE 14 STORIES TOTAL 730,000 SF COLLEGE OF REHABILITATION COLLEGE OF NUTRITION SCIENCES CENTRAL PLANT RETAIL UNIVERSITY BUILDING 2 COLLEGE OF DENTAL MEDICINE, HEALTH SCIENCES, GRADUATE STUDIES AND PSYCHOLOGY 5 STORIES 43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF PARKING W/ RETAIL No. 3 1 FLOOR OF RETAIL; 4 FLOORS OF PARKING 5 STORIES TOTAL 51,400 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 257,000 SF LOADING WASTE AREA BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING RETAINING WALL LANE FIRE AREA PLAY 31' GARDEN LOWER 17'-6" 19' GARDEN LOWER 65 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET CENTRAL PLANT YARD 2,350 SF CAMPUS GREEN SHUTTLE BUS LOADING AREA FIRE LANE 22' RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL LOADING WASTE AREA EXTERIOR DINING AREA SEMINAR AREA FIRE LANE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE 17'-6"13'-6" FLOWER PLANTERWATER FEATURE RETAINING WALL 17'-6" PARKING ENTRY RETAINING WALL LOADING AREA SCREENING SCREENING TRASH COMPACTORS TRASH ENCLOSURE SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING LOADING WASTE AREA LOADING WASTE AREA LOADING WASTE AREA FIRE GATE 8 PARKING SPOTS 14 PARKING SPOTS 28 PARKING SPOTS 5 PARKING SPOTS 48 PARKING SPOTS 27' LOADING WASTE AREA FIRE LANE 14 PARKING SPOTS CENTRAL PLANT W/ PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH TOTAL : 174,000 SF MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF PARKING W/ RETAIL No. 1 5 STORIES - 24,600 SF PER FLOOR TOTAL = 123,000 SF one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot 2 06" 6" 0 2three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0three eighths inch = one foot 4 0 0 4 8one quarter inch = one foot Plotted on: 1/64"=1'-0" CONSULTANTS: OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00 1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109 TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected] FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 08/06/21 PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE KEY PLAN DATE: EIR A1-0 CONCEPTUAL MASTER SITE PLAN (FINAL BUILDOUT) PDWH 467 REVISIONS AGENCY APPROVAL Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834 CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 12/22/21 NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 28 of 418 ends

14'-0" 18'-0" 16'-0" HOSPITAL MAIN ENTRY 17' OR 18' LANE FIRE W/ PARKING BELOW AMBULANCE BAY HOSPITAL BUILDING 38' 31' 38' 31' 37' 37'6"38' WATER FEATURE 14 STORIES TOTAL 730,000 SF TEMPORARY PARKING LOT A 117,000 SF 326 PARKING STALLS EXISTING PARKING (TEMPORARY LOT #1) 226 PARKING STALLS 17'-6" 19' 13'-6" 31' RETAINING WALL SWITCHGEAR SMUD SMUD SCREENING 65 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEETSCREENING TRASH COMPACTORS TRASH ENCLOSURE SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING GARDEN LOWER GARDEN LOWER CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA 8 PARKING SPOTS 17' 20' 18' 19' 27' O2 TANK ENCLOSURE SWITCHGEAR CENTRAL PLANT W/ PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH TOTAL : 174,000 SF MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF EXISTING PARKING (TEMPORARY LOT #2) 428 PARKING STALLS TEMPORARY LANDSCAPING 14 PARKING SPOTS 7 PARKING SPOTS one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot 2 06" 6" 0 2three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0three eighths inch = one foot 4 0 0 4 8one quarter inch = one foot Plotted on: 1/64"=1'-0" CONSULTANTS: OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00 1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109 TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected] FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 12/17/21 PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE KEY PLAN DATE: EIR A1-1A CONCEPTUAL PHASE 1A SITE PLAN PDWH 467 REVISIONS AGENCY APPROVAL Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834 CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 12/22/21 NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 29 of 418 ends

14'-0" 17'-0" 18'-0" 16'-0" SMUD SMUD HOSPITAL MAIN ENTRY LOADING DOCK ENTRY 17' OR 18' LANE FIRE SEMINAR COURT SEMINAR COURT FIRE LANE FIRE LANE LANE FIRE BARBEQUE AREA MEDITATION AREA W/ PARKING BELOW AMBULANCE BAY AMBULANCE ENTRY GRADUATION QUAD (STEPPED AMPHITHEATER) HOSPITAL BUILDING 38' 31' 37' 38' 37'6" 38' WATER FEATURE 14 STORIES TOTAL 730,000 SF LOADING WASTE AREA BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING RETAINING WALL LANE FIRE 31' GARDEN LOWER 17'-6" 19' GARDEN LOWER 65 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET CAMPUS GREEN SHUTTLE BUS LOADING AREA RETAINING WALL SEMINAR AREA LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LOADING AREA 17'-6"13'-6" FLOWER PLANTERWATER FEATURE RETAINING WALL 17'-6" PARKING ENTRY RETAINING WALL TEMPORARY PARKING LOT E 20,600 SF 36 PARKING STALLS TEMPORARY PARKING LOT D 280,500 SF 650 PARKING STALLS SCREENING SCREENING TRASH COMPACTORS TRASH ENCLOSURE SWITCHGEAR SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING TEMPORARY PARKING LOT A 117,000 SF 326 PARKING STALLS 61 O2 TANK ENCLOSURE UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, PHARMACY, MASTER PROGRAM OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, NURSING AND PSYCHOLOGY 5 STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 256,000 SF PHARMACEUTICAL 1 40,000 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 240,000 SF 5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 8 PARKING SPOTS 14 PARKING SPOTS 28 PARKING SPOTS 27' 17' 20' 18' 19' CENTRAL PLANT W/ PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH TOTAL : 174,000 SF MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF FIRE LANE 14 PARKING SPOTS LANDSCAPE / SPORTS AREA one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot 2 06" 6" 0 2three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0three eighths inch = one foot 4 0 0 4 8one quarter inch = one foot Plotted on: 1/64"=1'-0" CONSULTANTS: OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00 1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109 TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected] FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 12/17/21 PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE KEY PLAN DATE: EIR A1-1B CONCEPTUAL PHASE 1B SITE PLAN PDWH 467 REVISIONS AGENCY APPROVAL Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834 CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 12/22/21 NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 30 of 418 ends

14'-0" 17'-0" 18'-0" 16'-0" SMUD SMUD FIRE LANE HOSPITAL MAIN ENTRY 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 140,000 SF DORMITORY BUILDING 1 LOADING DOCK ENTRY 17' OR 18' LANE FIRE SEMINAR COURT SEMINAR COURT FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE LANE FIRE BARBEQUE AREA MEDITATION AREAW/ PARKING BELOW AMBULANCE BAY AMBULANCE ENTRY LOADING & WASTE AREA GRADUATION QUAD (STEPPED AMPHITHEATER) HOSPITAL BUILDING 38' 31' 37' 38' 37'6" 38' WATER FEATURE 14 STORIES TOTAL 730,000 SF LOADING AREA LOADING WASTE AREA LOADING WASTE AREA LOADING & WASTE AREA BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING RETAINING WALL LANE FIRE AREA PLAY 31' GARDEN LOWER 17'-6" 19' GARDEN LOWER 65 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET CAMPUS GREEN SHUTTLE BUS LOADING AREA 22' RETAINING WALL LOADING WASTE AREA EXTERIOR DINING AREA SEMINAR AREA FIRE LANE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE FIRE LANE 17'-6"13'-6" FLOWER PLANTERWATER FEATURE 17'-6" PARKING ENTRY RETAINING WALL TEMPORARY PARKING LOT D2 46,800 SF 114 PARKING STALLS SCREENING RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL SCREENING TRASH COMPACTORS TRASH ENCLOSURE SWITCHGEAR SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING 61 O2 TANK ENCLOSURE UNIVERSITY BUILDING 2 COLLEGE OF DENTAL MEDICINE, HEALTH SCIENCES, GRADUATE STUDIES AND PSYCHOLOGY 5 STORIES 43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF 7 STORIES - 18,750 SF PER FLOOR 1 STORY BELOW - 18,750 SF TOTAL = 150,000 SF TOTAL 240,000 SF (40,000 FOR LAB. @ BASEMENT & 200,000 SF FOR PHARMACEUTICAL ABOVE GROUND) PHARMACEUTICAL 2 5 - STORIES W/ BASEMENT 40,000 SF PER FLOOR MEDICAL BUILDING UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, PHARMACY, MASTER PROGRAM OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, NURSING AND PSYCHOLOGY 5 STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 256,000 SF AMBULATORY CARE 5 STORIES 30,000 SF PER FL. 1 STORY BELOW AT 25,000 SF TOTAL 175,000 SF PHARMACEUTICAL 1 40,000 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 240,000 SF 5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 140,000 SF DORMITORY BUILDING 1 SPORT FACILITY W/ DAYCARE 27,000 SF PER FLOOR = 54,000 SF FACULTY HOUSING 1 18,000 SF PER FLOOR = 126,000 SF 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW RETAIL No. 2 5 STORIES AT 28,500 SF PER FLOOR 1 PARKING LEVEL STREET - 56,000 SF 1 PARKING LEVEL BELOW - 56,000 SF TOTAL : 257,000 SF PARKING W/ RETAIL No. 1 5 STORIES - 24,600 SF PER FLOOR TOTAL = 123,000 SF PARKING W/ 8 PARKING SPOTS 28 PARKING SPOTS 5 PARKING SPOTS LANDSCAPE / SPORTS AREA LANDSCAPE / SPORTS AREA 27' LOADING WASTE AREA CENTRAL PLANT W/ PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH TOTAL : 174,000 SF MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF 14 PARKING SPOTS 14 PARKING SPOTS one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot 2 06" 6" 0 2three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0three eighths inch = one foot 4 0 0 4 8one quarter inch = one foot Plotted on: 1/64"=1'-0" CONSULTANTS: OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00 1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109 TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected] FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 08/06/21 PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE KEY PLAN DATE: EIR A1-2 CONCEPTUAL PHASE 2 SITE PLAN PDWH 467 REVISIONS AGENCY APPROVAL Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834 CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 12/22/21 NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 31 of 418 ends

7 STORIES - 18,750 SF PER FLOOR 1 STORY BELOW - 18,750 SF TOTAL = 150,000 SF TOTAL 240,000 SF (40,000 FOR LAB. @ BASEMENT & 200,000 SF FOR PHARMACEUTICAL ABOVE GROUND) PHARMACEUTICAL 2 14'-0" 17'-0" 18'-0" 16'-0" 5 - STORIES W/ BASEMENT 40,000 SF PER FLOOR SWITCHGEAR SMUD SMUD MEDICAL BUILDING FIRE LANE HOSPITAL MAIN ENTRY UNIVERSITY BUILDING 1 COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, PHARMACY, MASTER PROGRAM OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES, NURSING AND PSYCHOLOGY 5 STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 256,000 SF AMBULATORY CARE 5 STORIES 30,000 SF PER FL. 1 STORY BELOW AT 25,000 SF TOTAL 175,000 SF PHARMACEUTICAL 1 40,000 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 240,000 SF 5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 18,000 SF PER FLOOR = 126,000 SF FACULTY HOUSING 2 20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 140,000 SF DORMITORY BUILDING 1 DORMITORY BUILDING 2 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW 20,000 SF PER FLOOR = 140,000 SF SPORT FACILITY W/ DAYCARE 27,000 SF PER FLOOR = 54,000 SF FACULTY HOUSING 1 18,000 SF PER FLOOR = 126,000 SF 6 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW RETAIL No. 2 5 STORIES AT 28,500 SF PER FLOOR 1 PARKING LEVEL STREET - 56,000 SF 1 PARKING LEVEL BELOW - 56,000 SF TOTAL : 257,000 SF UNIVERSITY BUILDING 3 14,400 SF PER FLOOR = 86,400 SF ACTIVE SENIOR LIVING (RCFE) 5 - STORIES W/ PARKING BELOW LOADING DOCK ENTRY 17' OR 18' 27,000 SF PER FLOOR = 189,000 SF 6 - STORIES W/ BASEMENT LANE FIRE O2 TANK ENCLOSURE SEMINAR COURT SEMINAR COURT FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE LANE LANE FIRE BARBEQUE AREA MEDITATION AREA PARKING W/ W/ PARKING BELOW AMBULANCE BAY AMBULANCE ENTRY LOADING & WASTE AREA GRADUATION QUAD (STEPPED AMPHITHEATER) HOSPITAL BUILDING 38' 31' 37' 38' 37'-6" 38' WATER FEATURE 14 STORIES TOTAL 730,000 SF COLLEGE OF REHABILITATION COLLEGE OF NUTRITION SCIENCES CENTRAL PLANT RETAIL UNIVERSITY BUILDING 2 COLLEGE OF DENTAL MEDICINE, HEALTH SCIENCES, GRADUATE STUDIES AND PSYCHOLOGY 5 STORIES 43,200 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 216,000 SF PARKING W/ RETAIL No. 3 1 FLOOR OF RETAIL; 4 FLOORS OF PARKING 5 STORIES TOTAL 51,400 SF PER FLOOR = TOTAL 257,000 SF LOADING WASTE AREA BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING BIKE PARKING RETAINING WALL LANE FIRE AREA PLAY 31' GARDEN LOWER 17'-6" 19' GARDEN LOWER 65 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET 80 FEET CENTRAL PLANT YARD 2,350 SF CAMPUS GREEN SHUTTLE BUS LOADING AREA FIRE LANE 22' RETAINING WALL RETAINING WALL LOADING WASTE AREA EXTERIOR DINING AREA SEMINAR AREA FIRE LANE LANE FIRE LANE FIRE 17'-6"13'-6" FLOWER PLANTERWATER FEATURE RETAINING WALL 17'-6" PARKING ENTRY RETAINING WALL LOADING AREA SCREENING SCREENING TRASH COMPACTORS TRASH ENCLOSURE SHORT TERM BIKE PARKING LOADING WASTE AREA LOADING WASTE AREA LOADING WASTE AREA FIRE GATE 8 PARKING SPOTS 14 PARKING SPOTS 28 PARKING SPOTS 5 PARKING SPOTS 48 PARKING SPOTS 27' LOADING WASTE AREA FIRE LANE 14 PARKING SPOTS CENTRAL PLANT W/ PARKING BELOW CENTRAL PLANT - 30,000 SF TWO LEVELS OF PARKING BELOW @ 58,000 SF EACH TOTAL : 174,000 SF MECHANICAL YARD - 28,000 SF PARKING W/ RETAIL No. 1 5 STORIES - 24,600 SF PER FLOOR TOTAL = 123,000 SF one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot 2 06" 6" 0 2three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0three eighths inch = one foot 4 0 0 4 8one quarter inch = one foot Plotted on: 1/64"=1'-0" CONSULTANTS: OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00 1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109 TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected] FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 08/06/21 PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE KEY PLAN DATE: EIR A1-3 CONCEPUTAL PHASE 3 SITE PLAN PDWH 467 REVISIONS AGENCY APPROVAL Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834 CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 12/22/21 NO DESCRIPTION DATE

Page 32 of 418 ends

one eighth inch = one foot
16 840
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot 2 06" 6" 0 2three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0three eighths inch = one foot 4 0 0 4 8one quarter inch = one foot Plotted on: 1/64"=1'-0" CONSULTANTS: OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00 1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109 TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected] FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly 07/20/21 PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: SCALE: SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE KEY PLAN DATE: EIR L1-0 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN PDWH 467 REVISIONS AGENCY APPROVAL Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834 CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER 12/22/21 NO DESCRIPTION DATE SCHEMATIC PLANT LIST SCHEMATIC PLANT LIST

Page 33 of 418 ends

UP
UP
UP
D
UP
ADMIN.

AUTOP./MORG.

CIRCULATION

EMERGENCY

FACILITY

PHARMACY
PUBLIC

RADIOLOGY
S.P.D.

STAFF AREA

URGENT CARE

CIRCULATION

FACILITY
PUBLIC

STAFF AREA
BIOMED

CIRCULATION

FACILITY
GASTRO.

PACU/ PRE-OP
PUBLIC

PULMONARY

SHARED SPACE

STAFF AREA

SURGERY

CARDIOLOGY

CIRCULATION

CLINICAL LAB

FACILITY
PUBLIC

PULMONARY

RADIOLOGY

SHARED SPACE

STAFF AREA
one eighth inch = one foot
16 8 4 0
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 0 4 8
one quarter inch = one foot
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Plotted on:

CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
7/23/2021 2:43:13 PM
EIR
A2-1

CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN
FCA
FCA
467
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834
3/64"=1'-0"

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
05/28/21
5 FIRST FLOOR DEPARTMENT PLAN 3 GROUND FLOOR DEPARTMENT PLAN 25 THIRD FLOOR DEPARTMENT PLAN
23 SECOND FLOOR DEPARTMENT PLAN

NO DESCRIPTION DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 07/19/21

CONCEPTUAL HOSPITAL

FLOOR PLANS

Page 34 of 418 ends

UPUP UP UP
UP
UP

CIRCULATION

FACILITY

ICU/CCU
NICU

OBSTETRICS

POSTPARTUM
PUBLIC

SHARED SPACE

STAFF AREA

CIRCULATION

DIETARY
DINING

FACILITY
PUBLIC

STAFF AREA
ADMIN.

CIRCULATION

FACILITY
PUBLIC

CIRCULATION

FACILITY

MED/SURG
PUBLIC

SHARED SPACE

SHELL SPACE

STAFF AREA
one eighth inch = one foot
16 8
4 0
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 0 4
8 one quarter inch = one foot
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Plotted on:

CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
7/23/2021 4:16:40 PM
EIR
A2-2

CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLANS
FCA
FCA
467
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834
3/64" = 1'-0"

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
05/28/21
5 FIFTH FLOOR OCCUPANCY PLAN (SIXTH FLOOR SIMILAR)
3 FOURTH FLOOR DEPARTMENT PLAN
25 ELEVENTH FLOOR DEPARTMENT PLAN
23 EIGHTH FLOOR DEPARTMENT PLAN (SEVENTH,

NINTH, & TENTH FLOORS SIMILAR)

NO DESCRIPTION DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 07/19/21

CONCEPTUAL HOSPITAL

FLOOR PLANS

Page 35 of 418 ends

UP
F
CE1
CE4
CE3
CE2
TE4
TE2
RE1
RE2
RE3
RE4
RE4.2
RE5
RE6
RE7
RE8
RE9
RE20
RE25
RE26
RE27
RE28
RE29
RE28.8
TE3
6'-0" SAFETY

NET TO BE DESIGNED TO MEET
AND/OR EXCEED FAA AC NO:
150/5390-2C SEC 401 AND

RELEVANT BUILDING CODE, TYP

WHITE PAINTED

BORDERLINE
8" ALUMINUM
GUTTER

FUEL/ WATER

SEPARATOR BELOW

PERIMETER SAFETY

NETTING HOT DIPPED
GALV. WOVEN WIRE MESH
F.A.T.O. (FINAL

APPROACH AND TAKE

OFF) PERIMETER

SAFETY AREA

PERIMETER

HELISTOP DESIGNED FOR
AIRBUS H-145 HELICOPTER.

MARKINGS SIZED PER AC NO:
150/5390-2C FIGURE 4-25.

GUARDRAIL OUTSIDE OF

HELISTOP SAFETY AREA
GREEN LED/IR PERIMETER LIGHTS.

LIGHTING LAYOUT TO MEET FAA AC
NO: 150/5390-2C, SEC 410.
±EL. 192' - 1 1/2"
EL. 192' - 1 1/2"

HIGH POINT OF

ROOF BELOW

WALKWAY
FLOODLIGHTS, TYP.

EL. 197' - 5 1/2"

HIGH POINT OF

HELISTOP
EL. 197' - 0"

LOW POINT

OF HELISTOP
EL. 215' - 3"

LOW POINT OF

ROOF BELOW
YELLOW 18" THICK

TOUCHDOWN/ POSITION CIRCLE
INNER DIAMETER = 22'-0".

PARAPET

SUNSHADE

HELISTOP MARKINGS

AND PAINT TO MEET AC
NO: 150/5390-2C, SEC 409,
SEE
UP
1 A8-8A

2 A8-8A
 3
A8-8A


WORKPOINT

HELISTOP/

WALKWAY/

VESTIBULE
8'-8"
COL. BELOW

HELISTOP
45'-0"
6'-0"
6'-0"
3'-5"
4'-0"
6'-0" 6'-0"
8'-2"
EL. 197' - 5"

TOP OF STAIR

COLUMNS BELOW,
TYP.
6'-2 1/4" 6'-3 1/4"

ELEVATOR

VESTIBULE

ELEVATOR
NO. 17

ELEVATOR
NO. 16
STAIR NO. 8
SEE
4/A7-1F
EL. 192' - 2 3/4"
SLOPE
20 A8-8A
35 A8-8A
STAIR NO.2

CLOSURE SHROUD
FOR ADD. NOTES &
DIMS, SEE 5
A4-12D
ALIGN
ALIGN
ALIGN
ALIGN
A8-8B
4 one eighth inch = one foot
16 8
4 0
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 0 4
8 one quarter inch = one foot
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Plotted on:

CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
INCREMENT 5
7/22/2021 8:38:32 AM
A8-8

HELISTOP PLAN
KT
WH
467
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834
1/4" = 1'-0"

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
05/28/21
5 HELISTOP PLAN

NO DESCRIPTION DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 07/19/21

Page 36 of 418 ends

1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
86' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
101' - 0"
7TH FLOOR
116' - 0"
8TH FLOOR
131' - 0"
9TH FLOOR
146' - 0"
12TH FLOOR
191' - 0"

CROWN HIGH POINT
259' - 3"
BASEMENT -16' - 0"

CROWN LOW POINT
223' - 6"
4TH FLOOR
53' - 0"
765432

MECHANICAL FLOOR
69' - 0"
1 12TH RAISED
FLOOR
194' - 0"
8 GROUND FLOOR
11TH
11TH
176'-0"
10TH FLOOR
161'-0"
208'-6"
244'-3"
179'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
86' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
101' - 0"
7TH FLOOR
116' - 0"
8TH FLOOR
131' - 0"
9TH FLOOR
146' - 0"
11TH FLOOR
176' - 0"
12TH FLOOR
191' - 0"

CROWN HIGH POINT
259' - 3"
BASEMENT -16' - 0"

CROWN LOW POINT
223' - 6"
4TH FLOOR
53' - 0"

LKJFEDCBA

MECHANICAL FLOOR
69' - 0"

VERTICAL ALUMINUM

PERFORATED SUNSHADES
W/ KYNAR FINISH, TYP.

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE PANEL
WALL CLADDING @
PATIENT TOWER, TYP.

GLAZING, TYP.

GLAZED STOREFRONT

PRECAST

CONCRETE PANEL
SYSTEM, TYP.

GLASS FIBER

REINFORCED

CONCRETE PANEL
SYSTEM, TYP.

GLAZED

CURTAIN
WALL

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE PANEL
WALL CLADDING, TYP.

COMB FACE CONCRETE
MASONRY UNIT, TYP.
12TH RAISED
FLOOR
194' - 0"
HG

GROUND FLOOR
11TH
11TH
176'-0"
10TH FLOOR
161'-0"
208'-6"
244'-3"
179'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
86' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
101' - 0"
7TH FLOOR
116' - 0"
8TH FLOOR
131' - 0"
9TH FLOOR
146' - 0"
12TH FLOOR
191' - 0"

CROWN HIGH POINT
259' - 3"
BASEMENT -16' - 0"

CROWN LOW POINT
223' - 6"
4TH FLOOR
53' - 0"

ABCDEFJKL

MECHANICAL FLOOR
69' - 0"

METAL ROOF

GLAZED CURTAIN WALL

GLASS FIBER REINFORCED

CONCRETE PANEL
SYSTEM, TYP.

VERTICAL ALUMINUM

PERFORATED SUNSHADES
W/ KYNAR FINISH, TYP.

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE PANEL
WALL CLADDING @
PATIENT TOWER, TYP. GLAZING, TYP.

PRECAST CONCRETE
PANEL SYSTEM, TYP.

METAL FIN, TYP.

GLAZED CURTAIN WALL

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE PANEL
WALL CLADDING, TYP.
2TH RAISED
FLOOR
194' - 0"
GH

GROUND FLOOR
1TH
11TH
176'-0"
10TH FLOOR
161'-0"
208'-6"
244'-3"
179'-0"
1ST FLOOR
0"
2ND FLOOR
17' - 0"
3RD FLOOR
35' - 0"
5TH FLOOR
86' - 0"
6TH FLOOR
101' - 0"
7TH FLOOR
116' - 0"
8TH FLOOR
131' - 0"
9TH FLOOR
146' - 0"
12TH FLOOR
191' - 0"

CROWN HIGH POINT
259' - 3"
BASEMENT -16' - 0"

CROWN LOW POINT
223' - 6"
4TH FLOOR
53' - 0"
234567

MECHANICAL FLOOR
69' - 0"
1 12TH RAISED
FLOOR
194' - 0"
8 GROUND FLOOR
11TH
11TH
176'-0"
10TH FLOOR
161'-0"
208'-6"
244'-3"
179'-0"
one eighth inch = one foot
16 8 4 0
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 0 4 8
one quarter inch = one foot
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Plotted on:

CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H191687-34-00
7/23/2021 2:34:09 PM
EIR
A3-0

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
FCA
FCA
467
Innovation Park, Natomas, Sacramento, CA 95834
3/64"=1'-0"

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
SCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0" 05/28/21
25 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0"
5 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0"
3 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/64" = 1'-0"
23 WEST ELEVATION

NO DESCRIPTION DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 07/19/21
9TH FLOOR
146' - 0"
11TH FLOOR
176' - 0"
12TH FLOOR
191' - 0"

CROWN HIGH POINT
259' - 3"

CROWN LOW POINT
223' - 6"

LKJFEDCBA

VERTICAL ALUMINUM

PERFORATED SUNSHADES
W/ KYNAR FINISH, TYP.

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE PANEL
WALL CLADDING @
PATIENT TOWER, TYP.

GLAZING, TYP.

GLASS FIBER

REINFORCED

CONCRETE PANEL
SYSTEM, TYP.

GLAZED

CURTAIN
WALL
12TH RAISED
FLOOR
194' - 0"
HG
11TH
11TH
176'-0"
10TH FLOOR
161'-0"
208'-6"
244'-3"
179'-0"
9TH FLOOR
146' - 0"
12TH FLOOR
191' - 0"

CROWN HIGH POINT
259' - 3"

CROWN LOW POINT
223' - 6"
7654321
12TH RAISED
FLOOR
194' - 0"
8 11TH
11TH
176'-0"
10TH FLOOR
161'-0"
208'-6"
244'-3"
179'-0"
9TH FLOOR
12TH FLOOR
191' - 0"

CROWN HIGH POINT
259' - 3"

CROWN LOW POINT
223' - 6"

ABCDEFJKL

GLASS FIBER REINFORCED

CONCRETE PANEL
SYSTEM, TYP.

VERTICAL ALUMINUM

PERFORATED SUNSHADES
W/ KYNAR FINISH, TYP.

ALUMINUM

COMPOSITE PANEL
WALL CLADDING @
PATIENT TOWER, TYP. GLAZING, TYP.

METAL FIN, TYP.

GLAZED CURTAIN WALL
12TH RAISED
FLOOR
194' - 0"
GH
11TH
11TH
176'-0"
10TH FLOOR
161'-0"
208'-6"
244'-3"
179'-0"
9TH FLOOR
146' - 0"
12TH FLOOR
191' - 0"

CROWN HIGH POINT
259' - 3"

CROWN LOW POINT
223' - 6"
1234567
12TH RAISED
FLOOR
194' - 0"
8 11TH
11TH
176'-0"
10TH FLOOR
161'-0"
208'-6"
244'-3"
179'-0"
259'-3" 223'-6" 194'-0" 12TH 12TH 11TH 10TH 191'-0" 176'-0" 259'-3" 223'-6" 194'-0" 12TH 12TH 11TH 10TH 191'-0" 176'-0" 259'-3" 223'-6" 194'-0" 12TH 12TH 11TH 10TH 191'-0" 176'-0" 259'-3" 223'-6" 194'-0" 12TH 12TH 11TH 10TH 191'-0" 176'-0"

Page 37 of 418 ends

UP
UP
DN
DN
DN
DN
ATS
ATS

ATS ATS
24 12
12 12
24 12
12 12
PF
24 12
12 12
AD
1 E
A3-1A 17
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
G
10 11 12 13 14
F
B
c
R1

PARKING

BIKE PARKING
106
5'-2 13/32" 5'-0"
6'-0"
17'-8" 60'-4" 30'-2" 30'-2" 17'-8"
29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0"
29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 26'-0"
SHAFT
160

BIKE PARKING
161
SHAFT
164
SHAFT
163
SHAFT
165
AD
1 E
A3-1A 17
20 A3-1A
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
G
10 11 12 13 14
F
B
c
R1

BIKE PARKING
126
30'-2" 30'-2" 60'-4" 17'-8" TICKETING 13117'-8"
29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" SHAFT
123
SHAFT
166
SHAFT
167
STAIR
168

JANITOR
142
5'-10 9/32"
AD
1 E
A3-1A 17
20 A3-1A
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
G
10 11 12 13 14
F
B
c
R1
12'-0"
29'-0"
17'-8"
BOILER
118

WORKROOM
156

OPEN OFFICE
134
PANTRY
155
TOILET
154
TOILET
153
TDR
148

CHILLER
157

EMERGENCY

ELECTRICAL ROOM
158

ELECTRICAL ROOM
159
30'-2" 30'-2" 17'-8"
29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" 29'-0" one eighth inch = one foot
16 8 4 0
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 0 4 8
one quarter inch = one foot
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLEKEY PLAN
DATE:

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Plotted on:

CONSULTANTS:OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H192922-34-00

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY
11/24/2021 5:32:18 PM
A2-1

CONCEPTUAL CENTRALPLANT FLOOR PLANS
PDWH547
Enter address here
Project Name
11/24/2021

NO DESCRIPTION DATE
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
5 SECOND FLOOR PLAN

Page 38 of 418 ends

GROUND FLOOR
0"
E D A

ROOF SLAB
42' - 0"

TOP OF SCREEN
44' - 0"
G F B

FIRST FLOOR
10' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
22' - 0"
c
TOP OF

CONCRETE
46' - 0"
29'-2 13/16"
VINES

GROUND FLOOR
0"

ROOF SLAB
42' - 0"

TOP OF SCREEN
44' - 0"

METAL MESH
FIN, TYP.

PRECAST
CONCRETE, TYP.
9 8 7 6 5 4

PERFERATED METAL
SCREEN TYP.
14 13 12 11 10

FIRST FLOOR
10' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
22' - 0"
TOP OF

CONCRETE
46' - 0"

GROUND FLOOR
0"
A D E

ROOF SLAB
42' - 0"

TOP OF SCREEN
44' - 0"
B F G

FIRST FLOOR
10' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
22' - 0"
MECH.

YARD

ENTRANCE

OPEN TO

PARKING

OPEN TO

PARKING
c
TOP OF

CONCRETE
46' - 0"

GROUND FLOOR
0"
1 ROOF SLAB
42' - 0"

TOP OF SCREEN
44' - 0"
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

FIRST FLOOR
10' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
22' - 0"
TOP OF

CONCRETE
46' - 0" METAL MESH
FIN, TYP.

TRANSLUCENT
PANEL

METAL MESH,
TYP.

CONCRETE PRECAST

CONCRETE FIN

PERFORATED METAL
SCREEN

GROUND FLOOR
0"

ROOF SLAB
42' - 0"

TOP OF SCREEN
44' - 0"
11 12 13 14

FIRST FLOOR
10' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
22' - 0"
TOP OF

CONCRETE
46' - 0"

GROUND FLOOR
0"
1 ROOF SLAB
42' - 0"

TOP OF SCREEN
44' - 0"
4 3 2

FIRST FLOOR
10' - 0"

SECOND FLOOR
PLAN
22' - 0"
TOP OF

CONCRETE
METAL MESH 46' - 0"
FIN, TYP.

PRECAST CONCRETE
WALL, TYP.
one eighth inch = one foot
16 8
4 0
three inches = one foot
6" 1 0 6"
one and one half inches = one foot one inch = one foot
2 0 6" 6" 0 2
three quarters inch = one foot one half inch = one foot 4 0
three eighths inch = one foot
4 0 0 4
8 one quarter inch = one foot
1361 BUSH STREET ▪ SAN FRANCISCO ▪ CALIFORNIA 94109
TEL (415) 931-8600 ▪ FAX (415) 931-4601 ▪ [email protected]

FONG & CHAN ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE ▪ PLANNING ▪ INTERIOR DESIGN
If this sheet is not 36" x 48" it is a reduced print - scale accordingly PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO.

SHEET TITLE

KEY PLAN
DATE:

REVISIONS

AGENCY APPROVAL
Plotted on:

CONSULTANTS:

OSHPD PROJECT NUMBER: H192922-34-00

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE

UNIVERSITY
11/24/2021 4:37:43 PM
A3-1A

CONCEPTUAL CENTRAL

PLANT EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
PD
WH
547
Enter address here
Project Name
11/24/2021
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
17 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
4 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
20 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 WEST ELEVATION

NO DESCRIPTION DATE
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 WEST ELEVATION CONT.

SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
5 EAST ELEVATION CONT.

Page 39 of 418 ends

Page 40 of 418 ends

Page 41 of 418 ends

Page 42 of 418 ends

Page 43 of 418 ends

Page 44 of 418 ends

Page 45 of 418 ends

Page 46 of 418 ends

Page 47 of 418 ends

Page 48 of 418 ends

Page 49 of 418 ends

Page 50 of 418 ends

Page 51 of 418 ends

Page 52 of 418 ends

Page 53 of 418 ends

Page 54 of 418 ends

Page 55 of 418 ends

Page 56 of 418 ends

Page 57 of 418 ends

Page 58 of 418 ends

Page 59 of 418 ends

Page 60 of 418 ends

Page 61 of 418 ends

Page 62 of 418 ends

Page 63 of 418 ends

CALIFORNIA NORTHSTATE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER
California Northstate University College of Medicine, Natomas, California Prepared by: Fong & Chan Architects
EXHIBIT A - EXTERIOR FINISHES & RENDERINGS | July 19, 2021

Page 64 of 418 ends

1 View from Main Entry Drive | California Northstate University Medical Center

Page 65 of 418 ends

2 View from Service Access Road | California Northstate University Medical Center

Page 66 of 418 ends

3 View to Patient Tower | California Northstate University Medical Center

Page 67 of 418 ends

4 Urgent Care Entrance Main Entry Emergency Entrance
Elevations | California Northstate University Medical Center South Elevation
Neutral Tone Perforated
Aluminum Sunscreen
Grey Aluminum Composite
Panel Wall Cladding at
Patient Tower, TYP.

Neutral Tone Vertical
Aluminum Perforated
Sunshades, TYP.

Blue-Green Tinted Low-E
Glazing , TYP.

Neutral Tone Precast
Concrete Panel System, TYP.

Neutral Tone Glass Fiber
Reinforced Concrete Panel
System, TYP.

Dark Grey Metallic Aluminum
Curtainwall with Blue-Green
Tinted Low-E Glazing
Grey Aluminum Composite
Panel Wall Cladding
Split Face Concrete
Masonry Unit, TYP.

Page 68 of 418 ends

5 Loading Area Urgent Care Entrance Main Entry
Elevations | California Northstate University Medical Center West Elevation
Dark Grey Metallic
Aluminum Curtainwall
with Blue-Green
Tinted Low-E Glazing

Page 69 of 418 ends

6 Ambulance Bay
Elevations | California Northstate University Medical Center North Elevation

Page 70 of 418 ends

7 Main Entry
Concrete Wall with
Medium Sand Blasted
Finish, TYP. Metallic Architectural
Metal Panel Clad Canopy
Neutral Tone Vertical Aluminum
Perforated Sunshades, TYP.

Emergency Entrance
Elevations | California Northstate University Medical Center East Elevation

Page 71 of 418 ends

8 Materials | California Northstate University Medical Center Aluminum Composite Panel | Alucobond Anodic Steel City Silver Mica (Color Approximation)
Glazing | Viracon Green 2
(Color Approximation)

Page 72 of 418 ends

9 Materials | California Northstate University Medical Center Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete / Precast Concrete|
Clark Pacific 4-1
(Color Approximation)
Concrete Masonry Unit | Basalite 397
(Color Approximation / Split face finish)
Perforated Aluminum Panel | Neutral Tone Kynar Finish

Page 73 of 418 ends

Page 74 of 418 ends

Page 75 of 418 ends

Page 76 of 418 ends

Page 77 of 418 ends

MEMORANDUM
Date: September 15, 2021
To: Paolo Diaz, Fong & Chan Architects; Philip Sun, California Northstate University
CC: Jeff Dorso, Sacramento Kings; Dr. Alvin Cheung, California Northstate University; Tom Pace, CDD; Tom Buford, CDD; Scott Johnson, CDD; Greg Sandlund, CDD; Stacia Cosgrove, CDD; Bruce Monighan, CDD; Jose Quintanilla, CDD; Fran Halbakken, City Manager’s Office From: Teresa Haenggi, Senior Planner, City of Sacramento, Community Development Department (CDD)
SUBJECT: Design Comments on California Northstate University Medical Center (P18-077)
Below are comments from Bruce Monighan, Urban Design Manager, and comments from the Community Development Department’s Design Advisory Group.

Comments from Bruce Monighan
Site Plan Phase 1A
Starting at NW Corner and traveling clockwise

1. Central Plant/ Mechanical yard plan on A2-1 does not match the configuration shown on site plan. Elevations shown on A2-1 are not acceptable as a street facing building.

2. Structure says, “Parking with Retail”. How is the retail accessed and what level is it on? Does the retail connect with a pedestrian walk to the hospital? How does one walk from the parking to the hospital?

3. What is a “mechanical yard”? It is on an upper floor. What is there, how is it used, how is it accessed?

4. O2 Tank enclosure. What is the enclosing wall/fence material, finish and height? Critical as it faces the street.

5. Access drive to parking on Sports Parkway too close to corner

Page 78 of 418 ends

6. Loading dock entry from northern street (name?) and truck maneuvering area needs to be shielded from the street with landscaping, fence or landscaped wall.

7. The loading dock is very large. Is it also used for parking of CNU vehicles? Can’t it be smaller and the Central Plant be moved away from the street of the plan redesigned to take advantage of spaces in the vehicle area?

8. Ambulance entry shows grade elevation at entry of 24’ asl. Entry at loading dock is 19’ and at corner is 18’. How is the abrupt grade change being created?

9. NE parking. Is this at current +16 ‘asl or at a raised grade? Does it align with the new entry drive on Innovator Drive? If it aligns how is the grade transition handled. Please note the grade of the parking on the drawings.

10.NE parking and parking lot south of the entry drive do not show parking layout, landscaping and tree planting. Please complete drawings to show compliant parking lots.

11.Area marked “temporary landscaping”, please define elevation above sea level and define what the temporary landscaping is. Will it be irrigated?

12.Need to show and detail any fencing or gates: materials, finishes and heights.

13.Raised entry drive is elevated to +31’ asl at hospital entry. What is the material and finish of the exposed retaining walls? Elevations shown on A-3 don’t match the site plan

14.Define materials and finishes of walls/guardrails at transition area from upper drive to hospital entry that surround the “open to below” areas

15.Define materials and finishes of disabled access ramps for the 31’ to 38’ elevation transition. Also note that it does not look like 72’ of ramp length.

16.A more detailed landscape plan is required: planter and planting materials, tree locations, and sizes. Species noted on L1-0 but not shown as to location.

17.A site lighting plan is required: photometrics for max/min light levels, cut-off at property lines, compliance with maximum contrast.

18.Need pole locations and pole heights.

19.Need fixture types for design. Need luminaire types for color.

Site Plan 1b – future phases
The southern end of the site is understood to be developed at a later date. However, the site planning is critical to the success of the hospital as the 1st phase will be quite stark at the ground plane lacking buildings of a smaller scale and landscaping.

1. The layout of the future campus buildings should be more campus like, clustering of similar uses and not arranged “barracks” like in rows.

Page 79 of 418 ends

2. If parking is to be provided under the buildings as it appears then parking drives and any surface parking should not be visible from the street. The current concept shows a parking drive paralleling the street behind a row of trees and that will not be considered acceptable. Better to have several entry drives accessing parking areas that are not connected.

3. The central spine of public spaces is a wonderful amenity, but it seems to create the problem with building arrangement and parking access/parking areas by forcing them to the perimeter. If the central spine were made smaller/narrower or less linear there would be more room on the site for creative building arrangements

4. The elements of the central spine seem to create less than natural connections between the east and west buildings and force people to walk the campus on less efficient and less direct paths that might be expected.

5. The central spine is very formal and appears to be more Victorian Garden in design than a Central Valley centric sense of casual place and materials. I would suggest you explore the “valley centric” concept and what is natural to this valley; open plains, oak trees, natural grasses, dry creek beds, hot summer afternoons, afternoon breezes, valley fog in winter.

6. Is it intended for the new buildings to be placed at the proximate street grade?

7. Will the central spine move from the hospital entry drive grade to street grade at the south or will there be a change of grade at the entry drive to the central spine? Trying to understand what an east/west cross section of the site will look like at the entry drive and the southern end.

Building Design - Hospital and Central Plant only
Central Plant
As noted above in the site plan comments the building shown on A2-1/2 for the plans does not appear to be in the same footprint as show on the site plan. This building cannot be reviewed until a submission is made that shows the correct building on this particular site.

1. Sheets A3-1 A/B show building elevations. North elevation facing the street has an exposed steel stair and the stair must be concealed, screened or enclosed

2. The building elevations must be treated architecturally if they are to be adjacent to a street. Facades must be articulated, must have quality materials and must be similar in context to the hospital materials. They cannot be presented as industrial support buildings

3. The parking garage portions if open for ventilation, must have architectural screening on the walls/openings. It must be more than “greenscreens” and be a part of the architectural resolution.

Page 80 of 418 ends

4. Any “activity” of the building function; central plant equipment, exhausts, cooling towers or mechanical yard must be concealed form street and adjacent views.

Hospital Building
The building is a unique and an iconic structure sure to gather comments and controversy. That said, good architecture should provoke comments and opinions. My main concern at this point is that we don’t know what this building looks like on this site as it is elevated well above grade and the renderings and drawings all still show it atgrade. From the street, from the community, you will look “up” to this building, not “at it”.

You will experience the bottom of the hospital room wings, the separation of space between the base and the hospital wings. You will see a prominent but not very pedestrian friendly base that is disconnected, visually and in reality, from the upper portions of the building. While this might work, it also might make the building feel disconnected from the community, from pedestrians and from the actual ground. We have to remember that directly across the street will be residential that will be not even as tall as this buildings base and arrival level.

1. I would suggest the production of a perspective rendering looking up at the northeast corner of the building from the sidewalk on the northside to clearly represent the pedestrian view.

2. The base block calls for vertical precast on the elevations, but the renderings show a horizontal textured and shadowed pattern. What is the design solution that we will see on the building?

3. You will see the bottom of the hospital wings as they float over the base. What is the intended finish that will be visible? Slab and beams, waffle slab, finished soffit?

4. The screening “wings” on the hospital room structure appear to be quite large.

What is their proposed projection dimension from the building face?

5. The projecting screens are rendered with a pattern. I would suggest that pattern is not necessary based on the visual complexity of the overall structure

6. The entry elevation has a large screening element that extends over 7 floors of the building. The attachment and lateral support of that element will be substantial and likely quite visible. What is the transparency percentage of the screen and how will the structure be designed to either be minimized visually or done in an architectural form so as to be integrated into the building design?

7. What is the material of the sloped roof over the entry atrium?

8. Numerous wall finishes are called out aa aluminum composite panels. What kind of finish (matt, semi-gloss, gloss) and what color will the panels be?

9. The stairs and stair/elevator towers on the hospital room wings seem overly tall.

How tall are they and what causes the elevator tower to be so tall? Please provide a perspective rendering from a distance the shows the towers.

Page 81 of 418 ends

10.There are numerous ventilator screens at the mechanical floor. How large are those and what will be the finish and louver pattern

11.Will the glazing be clear, or will you be proposing tinted glazing? If tinted what color and what percentage?
The Design Advisory Group (DAG)
The Design Advisory Group (DAG) is as a voluntary peer review group of regional licensed design professionals established by the City with the intent to assist Current Planning staff early in the application process in establishing project design conformance with City design guidelines and urban policy. Several Planning and Design Commissioners serve on the DAG.

The DAG has reviewed your project plans and respectfully offers the following comments:

Phase 1A
• The site is primarily hard surface in this phase: buildings, parking, drives. It will appear quite barren and needs more landscaping.
• The building is elevated making the lack of landscaping even more noticeable.

The scale of the building, especially as it is an elevated base, will have people looking up to the bottom of it and it out-scales any street trees. • Insufficient perimeter depth to landscaping at the street frontage. • Entry drive has a water feature. Given the current, past, and possible future droughts a water feature is an unwise element.
• The elevated drive has no information as to what the south side of the retaining wall will look like.
• It is unclear if the space under the drive will be used for parking or if it is built on fill.
• The location of the Central Plant and Mechanical Yard is inappropriate immediately adjacent to the roadway. The plan should be flipped putting the mechanical yard to the interior.
• The street facades of the Central Plant should be developed with a full architectural response and not an industrial response. The exposed stair is not good. Any open areas of a parking structure should be treated with architectural screening.
• The parking maneuvering area east of the Central Plant seem very large for the expected uses. Can the Central Plant be redesigned to use more of this space and pushing it back from the street?
• Pedestrian connection from the parking garage to the hospital is unclear. How will people make the connection?

Page 82 of 418 ends

• The retail in the garage seems odd. Who will use it and how is it accessed? Phase 1B
• Buildings at the east, around the hospital, need more prominent pedestrian connections to the street. They are at or near an intersection and a stronger connection to the corner and to pedestrians is needed.
• The southern development portion of the site seems too focused on the central spine with less consideration as to how buildings are placed or grouped and how they relate to the street.
• If the facility will be a teaching campus with dormitories, how does the rigid barracks-like arrangement of structures create a vision of campus and promote pedestrian use between buildings?
• Should consider “clustering” of buildings with central open spaces. • The elements of the central spine create barriers to east/west pedestrian use.

Forces people in a less direct path.
• The plan creates a vehicular drive paralleling the street drive. Parking and circulation should be internalized, consolidated, and compact. • Parking should be concealed form the street.
• The alignment of the central spine seems forced in layout and use. A more natural sense of place would be more reflective of Sacramento. A less formal planting concept would be more appropriate. Use of Sacramento native plants, trees and grasses would be appropriate.

Hospital Design
• Overall, the buildings seem like too many parts and design features. • There seems to be competing elements here all trying to make an individual statement.
• The entry has a sloping canopy sloping up towards the drive. The entry lobby has a sloping roof sloping down to the drive. The façade tower is curved on the back and flat on the front and has a curving metal screen on the façade. The top of the tower is sloping up and away from the entry. So many forms. • The base seems disconnected in style and material from the upper portions. • The forms and shapes seem overly ambitious and complicated. It is hard to understand the basics of the building: base, middle, top. • While height is not an issue, the scaling of the parts seems exaggerated. • The hospital room wing sunscreens seem overly large and too complicated in their design patterning. The leaf (?) pattern in the screen material seems unnecessary.

Page 83 of 418 ends

• The hospital wings are an interesting shape. They will however be visible from below as they are separate from the base. The treatment of the underside of the wings will be critical as you are looking up to them from the street. • There are very tall structures on the top of the hospital wings, several stories tall and disrupt the design. One is for the elevators and stairs, but it is not known how tall they actually are.
• It is not a building that has any relationship to Sacramento or our region. • This design would likely appear dated in a very few years. Given what the building is, it is not a timeless design.
•
It appears more robotic/machine-like than a building for the health of people.

The Central Plant as a design was not considered because it is an unacceptable design for a street front and a corner. The DAG also understood that it was a design planned for another site and was being redesigned.

Page 84 of 418 ends

California Northstate University Reponses to Design Advisory Group Comments Phase 1A

1. The site is primarily hard surface in this phase: buildings, parking, drives. It will appear quite barren and needs more landscaping.

The Phase 1A site leaves the existing parking in place as temporary parking and for construction site staging. Additional landscaping during this phase will be demolished at subsequent phases.

2. The building is elevated making the lack of landscaping even more noticeable. The scale of the building, especially as it is an elevated base, will have people looking up to the bottom of it and it out-scales any street trees.

Please see new renderings showing this view.

3. Insufficient perimeter depth to landscaping at the street frontage.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

4. Entry drive has a water feature. Given the current, past, and possible future droughts a water feature is an unwise element.

Comment acknowledged. The design of the water feature is still to be developed, it may be a grade level fountain similar to those used at playgrounds. Water use will be an important design consideration. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

5. The elevated drive has no information as to what the south side of the retaining wall will look like.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation

6. It is unclear if the space under the drive will be used for parking or if it is built on fill.

This is being determined based on cost, schedule and structural considerations. The current concept is for parking beneath an elevated roadway. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation

Page 85 of 418 ends

7. The location of the Central Plant and Mechanical Yard is inappropriate immediately adjacent to the roadway. The plan should be flipped putting the mechanical yard to the interior.

The Mechanical Yard is an elevated exterior screened area where generators and various tanks are located. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, building configuration has been revised to relocate yard away from the street.

8. The street facades of the Central Plant should be developed with a full architectural response and not an industrial response. The exposed stair is not good. Any open areas of a parking structure should be treated with architectural screening.

Addressed in updated Design for CUP. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, building design and configuration has been revised to address comments.

9. The parking maneuvering area east of the Central Plant seem very large for the expected uses. Can the Central Plant be redesigned to use more of this space and pushing it back from the street?
Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, FCA indicated that the loading dock is sized to allow maneuvering of large trucks to loading dock.

Information to be included in subsequent submittal.

10.Pedestrian connection from the parking garage to the hospital is unclear. How will people make the connection?
Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation

11.The retail in the garage seems odd. Who will use it and how is it accessed? Addressed in updated Design for CUP. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, building configuration has been revised to address comments and retail has been removed.

Phase 1B

12.Buildings at the east, around the hospital, need more prominent pedestrian connections to the street. They are at or near an intersection and a stronger connection to the corner and to pedestrians is needed.

Addressed in updated Site Design. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, building configurations has been revised to address comments.

Page 86 of 418 ends

13.The southern development portion of the site seems too focused on the central spine with less consideration as to how buildings are placed or grouped and how they relate to the street.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, site concept that has a raised central spine and a lower perimeter road to address grading issues was discussed and presented.

14.If the facility will be a teaching campus with dormitories, how does the rigid barrackslike arrangement of structures create a vision of campus and promote pedestrian use between buildings?
Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

15.Should consider “clustering” of buildings with central open spaces.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

16.The elements of the central spine create barriers to east/west pedestrian use.

Forces people in a less direct path.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

17.The plan creates a vehicular drive paralleling the street drive. Parking and circulation should be internalized, consolidated, and compact.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, site concept that has a raised central spine and a lower perimeter road to address grading issues was discussed and presented.

18.Parking should be concealed from the street.

Comment acknowledged. At complete buildout, there will be less than 200 surface parking spots on a site of over 35 acres. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

19.The alignment of the central spine seems forced in layout and use. A more natural sense of place would be more reflective of Sacramento. A less formal planting concept would be more appropriate. Use of Sacramento native plants, trees and grasses would be appropriate.

Page 87 of 418 ends

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

Hospital Design

20.Overall, the buildings seem like too many parts and design features.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

21.There seems to be competing elements here all trying to make an individual statement.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed site design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

22.The entry has a sloping canopy sloping up towards the drive. The entry lobby has a sloping roof sloping down to the drive. The façade tower is curved on the back and flat on the front and has a curving metal screen on the façade. The top of the tower is sloping up and away from the entry. So many forms.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

23.The base seems disconnected in style and material from the upper portions.

Comment acknowledged. The diagnostic / treatment podium has a different use and structural system from the patient towers. This is reflected in the form of the building. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation.

24.The forms and shapes seem overly ambitious and complicated. It is hard to understand the basics of the building: base, middle, top.

25.While height is not an issue, the scaling of the parts seems exaggerated.

Page 88 of 418 ends

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation

26.The hospital room wing sunscreens seem overly large and too complicated in their design patterning. The leaf (?) pattern in the screen material seems unnecessary.

Comment acknowledged. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation

27.The hospital wings are an interesting shape. They will however be visible from below as they are separate from the base. The treatment of the underside of the wings will be critical as you are looking up to them from the street.

Please see attached new renderings showing this view. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation

28.There are very tall structures on the top of the hospital wings, several stories tall and disrupt the design. One is for the elevators and stairs, but it is not known how tall they actually are.

The elevator overrun on the patient towers is a function on the highest floor that the elevator stops at. The East patient tower has the helistop on top of it and requires the elevator to stop at that elevation. Thus the mechanical room above extends higher than the west tower. Please see attached rendering showing this view.

29.It is not a building that has any relationship to Sacramento or our region.

Comment acknowledged. We question the selection of these cities for comparison and are unsure of the intent. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation

30.This design would likely appear dated in a very few years. Given what the building is, it is not a timeless design.

31.It appears more robotic/machine-like than a building for the health of people.

Page 89 of 418 ends

Comment acknowledged. We respectfully disagree and note that this is not constructive criticism. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation
The Central Plant as a design was not considered because it is an unacceptable design for a street front and a corner. The DAG also understood that it was a design planned for another site and was being redesigned.

Addressed in updated Design for CUP. Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, building configuration has been revised to address comments.

Per meeting with Sacramento Planning, further developed building design addressing comments will be provided as part of the Planning Commission Presentation

Page 90 of 418 ends

From: Phil Rosenberg & Deb Heymann
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: #WEWANTAZOO
Date: Friday, November 29, 2019 12:07:29 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
This is very simple. We were promised creative use of the land in Natomas where the Kings once thrived and energized our area. The last thing we need is more mixed used space, with so many empty store fronts dotting the existing community. Moreover, there are many other parcels available for yet more empty apartments, office space and retail. We were promised more for this central spot. And nothing could be more appropriate than the collaborative zoo proposal offering saved habitats, saved species, saved Sacramento Zoo, UCD Veterinary expertise and research, and more. This is what we were promised. This is what we deserve.

It would also be a lovely draw to complement the new Science Center being constructed on the river. As a world-class city on the rise, Sacramento deserves a world-class zoo, and a promise to the future of our city and our state that nature and conservation are a priority.

Sincerely,
Deborah Heymann
1520 Pebblewood Dr
Sacramento CA 95833

Page 91 of 418 ends

From: Barb Caripides
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco Arena in North Natomas
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:11:43 PM
I am very concerned about the plans for Arco Arena. We are already in gridlock every morning and every evening from all of the traffic in North Natomas and on I-5 and I-80. We as a community cannot sustain the constant building of housing and the influx of people. The crime has increased substantially in the past almost 7 years that I have lived here. If you keep piling more people on top of people eventually you are going to have a huge problem, its called over populating or saturation in one area. I experience long waits every morning and I travel a lot for my job, but the most concerning is all of the road rage from people that are frustrated at the congestion.

I would much rather have the Zoo move to the Arco Arena than more shopping or housing.

Enough is Enough!!
Sincerely,
B Caripides

Page 92 of 418 ends

From: Victor Perez
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco arena plan
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 7:40:37 AM
Please do not turn the old arco arena site into more housing and shopping. Arco arena brought in people from all over the region to spend there money at our restaurants and stores. A zoo would do the same for our community. We want a zoo!
Victor Perez
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
Get Outlook for Android

Page 93 of 418 ends

From: John Gladding
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco Arena re-use
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 6:18:35 PM
It is simply unacceptable to let developers come in and build high density housing and strip malls in the old arena land. There could be a zoo, a theme park, something big. The Kings made a promise, and they need to keep it.

Do the right thing and do it right. Sacramento deserves better. Do not let this become your legacy! John Gladding
Folsom

Page 94 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Arco Arena Site in N. Natomas
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:09:16 PM
Ms. Haenggi,
I hope I am not too late.

As a current N. Natomas resident, I am very concerned about the plans for the site mainly due to the congestion. I would rather see the Arco Arena site transformed into almost anything but more housing of any kind!
I am not sure having the zoo so close to the airport is best for the animals but I would rather have a zoo than more housing!!!! More shopping and activities would be nice but I am not sure we can support it since we have had several stores leave the area already, but that may be due to rent spikes. I would like to see some better restaurants and more variety move in. More restaurants close to I-5, on the route to airport might be good for residents and travelers. It would be nice for Natomas to have something fabulous, I am just not quite sure what that would be.

We currently rent and are considering purchasing a home in N. Natomas next year but due to the current congestion and likely future congestion with all the upcoming construction we are reconsidering. Most of our local family and friends live in N. Natomas and we have likedN. Natomas but our feelings are changing. My morning commute far north Natomas (Mabry and Brampton Way) to Garden Hwy. is 7.5 - 9 miles depending on the route. On a regular basis, it can take 25 minutes to get work and most often Google maps indicates that it is faster to take Natomas Blvd. and Truxel Rd rather than the freeway. It seems it is not just Natomas residents using the Natomas streets. Each morning I see a lot of traffic coming southbound Natomas Blvd from Elkhorn Blvd that seems to be coming from other areas like Roseville, Rocklin, etc. and cutting through Natomas to avoid the longer backup on the freeways.

Additionally, the traffic for the schools creates congestion on main routes, especially Inderkum High School clogging up Natomas Blvd. Sometime we sit through 2 cycles of the traffic signals. Often it takes 10 minutes to go 2 miles from my home to clear the signal at Natomas Blvd at Del Paso Rd. Then there are the dozens of cars cutting through the Park Place II shopping center to get their kids to school. Something needs to be done about the traffic congestion on the streets and the freeways in Natomas. I wish I could include the multitude of similar comments from other residents on the Nextdoor website about the traffic. If the freeway congestion were addressed, I think it would provide some relief to the Natomas streets. Please don't create more congestion before addressing the existing congestion.

Thank your for your time.

Chris P.

Page 95 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco Arena Site
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 7:31:07 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
Thank you for taking the time to read the comments regarding the future of the Arco Arena site. I am writing as a current, and longstanding, resident of North Natomas. I have reviewed the current proposal from the Kings and I feel that it does not take into consideration any of the needs of the area. We have so many business and retail spaces that currently sit empty, adding more will not add value to this area! Much of what they have proposed would be more suited for the railyard area and not Natomas.

However, I know the area is very large and there is room for a variety of different developments. So, add more retail and housing in part, if we must, but I would love to see at least a portion of that space go to relocating the Sacramento Zoo. The zoo is a Sacramento treasure and we cant afford to loose it! The Natomas area, with the addition of more hotels, the water/recreation area that is being built, proximity to old town, downtown, and the airport, is perfectly poised to become a destination in its own rite. Many local area businesses suffered with the loss of Arco Arena as a draw for business. I would love to see that void filled by something with the ability to attract tourists and locals alike, and the Zoo perfectly fills that role. The Zoo would be a long term economic driver for this region and would be certain not to sit empty as retail does currently. Many locations have been vacant for well over 10 years! This does nothing for our area.

Please, keep the promise that something more will be done with this space than just more retail and high-density housing. We deserve better. Make Sacramento proud and create something unique for our children and their children. We want a Zoo.

Thank you for your time,
Amber Gillespie
North Natomas Resident

Page 96 of 418 ends

From: Javier Servin
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco arena site
Date: Friday, December 13, 2019 12:13:33 AM
Hi There
I'm submitted my concerns as a long term resident of Natomas . I read of what probably the plans the kings might have to with arco arena site with housing and retail stores.. I'm totally disappointed with that, understanding that arco arena was a major Hub of Natomas and to use the site for housing and retail which really would not be considered as a part of a Hub or a great substitute what Natomas had lost of the kings . Also that Natomas supported the idea of having it moved to downtown and that Natomas would be taking care of in the future in replacing arco arena with something that Natomas can be proud of. More Housing, and retail stores is not a great idea. An idea for the kings to make money off the land but not a great idea for Natomas .

Ideas perhaps a sports complex that the community can use and as well surrounding cities or towns can use, and not to mentioned tournaments that can be played there where families would take advantage of nearby Natomas restaurants.

Other idea that's being supported and that would make Natomas stand out would be yes the zoo.. that not only would put Natomas on the map but as well if Sacramento.. it's almost a no brainer , the amount of money it would bring in to Natomas and to Sacramento would be great.

As a long term kings fans too We really hope kings do the right thing.. and not go for more housing, apartments or retail..
thank you for your time
Natomas resident and kings fans
Javier Servin
Sent from my iPhone

Page 97 of 418 ends

From: rochelle harvey
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco Arena Space
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:33:03 PM
I recently heard of the Kings proposal for the vacant Arco space. I implore you to NOT put in more housing in that space. It is already extremely congested in Natomas. I have lived here for over 12 years and have seen it get worse and worse. A new Zoo would be the perfect fit for our community. Some restaurants or entertainment venues would be great as well.

Thank you for listening to my comments.
-Rochelle Harvey
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 98 of 418 ends

From: pandpfunk2
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco Arena
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 1:25:04 PM
I feel we need more entertainment in the Sacramento area. An amusement park would pull vacationing people, cause a need for more hotels/ restaurants. Bring in more money. Another idea expressed to me would be to bring a hockey team to the area. Of course comparable numbers would have to be crunched but we need entertainment and some fun things to do locally. Please, no more homes until our freeways can handle the traffic, not to mention our water resources. Thank you for your enthusiasm!
Pamela Lee-Frank
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Page 99 of 418 ends

From: Sue Ladner
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: ARCO Arena
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 6:27:43 PM
I would like to see the arena become an event destination: music, plays, etc. Parking in downtown Sacramento is difficult, there is plenty of parking around the arena.

If that is not plausible then a shopping mall for small business that would house farmer markets, meat markets, etc.

Thanks for the opportunity for input.

Susie

Page 100 of 418 ends

From: Alves, George@CALFIRE
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco Arena
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 2:28:41 PM
The Kings took public money for BOTH the Arco Arena site AND the Golden One site, so they MUST contribute back to our community with more than a profit grabbing high-density housing plan.

Please APPROVE the zoo and NOT
more high density housing and commercial development. We have more than our share and enough of those. Thank you, George Alves, Natomas Resident

Page 101 of 418 ends

From: Kiran Biring
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco Arena/Sleep Train
Date: Friday, November 29, 2019 7:08:00 AM
Ms. HaenggiI am very disappointed to hear about the kings plans to revert old arena into housing. We are saturated with housing and this area needs something for our community. We want a zoo, additional shopping and restaurants so we build greater economy in Natomas. Not housing that would only benefit the kings owner.

I’m disgusted at how selfish you guys have become. Make this a great place to live.

Thanks,
Kiran
(916) 712-5151

Page 102 of 418 ends

From: Wendy Mibach
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arco property
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 12:42:41 PM
Hello,
It has come to my attention that the community is not responding vocally to what is happening/not happening with the old Arco Arena property in North Natomas. Please don’t take this for lack of caring. If there is anything people who live in North Natomas care about, it is their community! People do NOT want more housing. Ask anyone out here and they will tell you...we need things to do! There is nothing in our community to draw people here. Since Arco closed, surrounding businesses have struggled and many have failed.

Please consider each letter you receive as the voice of MANY. The fact that the organization would turn its back on the people who supported them for so long is hard to believe. They made us promises and to see them sell out should make everyone mad.

Please don’t let them do it. Stand up for our community and give us something that will enrich the lives of the people who live here, the people looking to move here, and the people who visit here.

Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!
Wendy Mibach and family
17 year Natomas Park original homeowners

Page 103 of 418 ends

From: Sandra Lee
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena & Kings false promises
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 5:42:59 PM
It is so upsetting that the Natomas community has supported the Kings with heart and soul for so many years... and this is what they get.

They should be fully ashamed!!
It is time for them to shiw some loyalty, since ethics, some integrity. The "plan" shown for this PUD is nothing but another impossible dream. Why not give us something we all hope and dream for, not another stalled project? I am not sure the Zoo is the best option, but its more realistic than this pipe dream. The Zoo plans looked amazing.

Please own up to your promises!!! Make us a destination city with some entertainment.

Definitely NOT more residential housing developments, and NOT more traffic!!!!!! Sandra Lee
North Natomas resident (former Kings fan)
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 104 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena Development
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 9:39:37 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I would like to submit the following comments regarding the proposed re-development of the Sleep Train Arena site in Natomas. Having reviewed the proposed re-development plan submitted by the Kings organization, I am not entirely in favor of their vision. The description provided comes across to me as an attempt to create a neighborhood similar to what exists in Mid-Town Sacramento and other urban areas. While this type of vision would have its place in an area like the Railyards, it would be an island of urban core in the middle of an established suburban development. To this resident of Natomas, it just doesn’t make sense.

Natomas already has a surplus of high-density housing and commercial space. Projects in development outside of the Arena site, including the recently launched North Lake subdivision, should be able to meet the needs of the Natomas community for a decade to come.

What would be of greatest benefit is a project that will attract visitors from outside our immediate community. One that would be of comparable value to the arena that can no longer serve its purpose. I believe relocating the Sacramento Zoo to the arena property would satisfy those requirements. The city has a unique opportunity to solve two problems at once. The zoo must find a new site if it is to continue to provide the opportunity for area residents to engage with the natural world and learn to care for it. At the same time, the arena site must be re-purposed. What I find most important about this situation is that it doesn’t require an either/or solution. The Zoo’s proposal only asks for 80 out of the 180 acres available. This would make it possible to provide the Zoo with the space it desires while still allowing for much of the development the Kings Organization has suggested.

I can understand the perspective of the Kings Organization. It is made up of investors who believed that a good deal of the profit they were promised would come from the sale of the Natomas site.

The plan they have put together was designed to maximize that profit because when it comes to real estate, the whole is worth less than the sum of its parts. Nevertheless, the city has an obligation to the residents and businesses of Natomas who lost out when the Kings relocated their operations to the Golden 1 Center. The Kings themselves promised Natomas that they would do right by our community, and replace the arena with something of significance beyond the usual mix of stores and housing. It is up to the city to hold them to their word.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Brian D. Gillespie
290 Regency Park Circle
Sacramento, CA 95835
(916) 564-5721
Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Page 105 of 418 ends

From: Angela Kellogg
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena Proposal
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 11:02:23 PM
I am truly disappointed with how things are being handled with the empty arena. The Natomas community was promised that something “good” would be put there by the time Golden One Center was opened. Promise BROKEN! The Natomas community was promised that the Kings would keep our community updated with what was going on with the Arena. Promise BROKEN!! No word from the kings about what is going on until members of the Natomas community start getting on the news and making a ruckus at city council meetings and then finally the Kings come talk to the Natomas community.

The Natomas community is not the Kings personal ATM to get as much cash as possible. The Arena property is in the heart of our community and something that adds to our community needs to go there, not high density housing, warehouses or more storefront stores that sit empty for years. We already have plenty of those three things in Natomas. These three things are what the kings more than likely want to put there because it will get them the most amount of cash quickly. The kings will just sell it off in pieces and then wash their hands of our community leaving us with empty store fronts, a bunch of crowded duplexes with not enough parking and warehouses. None of which add anything to our community!
We need room for more schools or educational institutions in Natomas. Hospitals or larger entertainment venues would work as well. It would be great to see a zoo or a soccer complex. Something that would make Natomas better or make it a place to visit for the day. Perhaps a large business park.

Angela Kellogg
Sent from my iPhone

Page 106 of 418 ends

From: Tracy Chatters
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena PUD comments
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 8:06:42 AM
Good morning and thanks for taking comments on the PUD! My husband and I have lived in North Natomas since the early developments began on Natomas Park, after moving from South Natomas to East Sac. Since 2000 when we moved in, we've seen our share of promises to the Natomas community come and go. But regardless of other setbacks, levee repairs and flood moratoriums, we've always had the Arena to bring economic value to the community. At least, until it moved.

Reviewing the new PUD, I have several questions- some of which were not quite answered at the recent meeting on 11/18.
1) Will the Kings keep their promise of something great for Natomas, by holding title on the property and maintaining control of the development goals until the project is completed? 2) How does the PUD address the income disparity between Natomas (as a whole, not just North) and the discussed high-end retail and housing?
3) If the Kings have had more than 8 years to plan, why isn't there a more concrete vision for the area and why is the move only beginning now to rezone the property? Comment: It is disappointing that after many years of promises to the Natomas community, there is still no actual plan or proposal that makes sense, keeps the promise of something great and restores good faith to Natomas and the City of Sacramento. More housing and vacant retail is not "great". I'd argue it's barely mediocre and I hope the city does NOT rezone the property simply for the Kings to sell it off piece by piece to the highest bidder. A sweetheart deal got them the land in the first place, hold the organization accountable for returning the favor.

Tracy Chatters
5142 Isador Ln.

Sacramento, CA 95835

Page 107 of 418 ends

From: Amber
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena Reuse
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:17:15 PM
Ms. Haenggi,
The Kings promised that with a new arena they would convert the old Natomas arena space to new entertainment/mixed use space that would benefit the City and the local Natomas community.

Having attended the Kings proposed reuse presentation earlier in the month, I came away from that meeting very disappointed in the Kings’ plans (or lack thereof) moving forward. The impression that many of us were given is that they do not in fact have a plan other than rezoning the property and selling to the highest bidder.

We already have a high amount of high-density housing in our area, with much more under construction, and our fair share of empty commercial space. More homes, apartments, and fast food are not what our area needs to grow in the right direction.

Allowing the Sacramento Zoo to relocate to the area would fulfill the Kings’ promise to our community and bring tourism to the area. Currently the Natomas area does not have a tourist attraction and the zoo would help bring business to our local hotels and restaurants. I could also see a UC Davis extension campus, sports complex/fields, or a preserve/park in that space.

The Kings should have a clearer vision in place to fulfill their promise before rezoning is approved.

Thank you,
Amber Roumiguiere
Natomas Resident
(916) 572-8675

Page 108 of 418 ends

From: Jessica Peters
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena reuse comments
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 11:29:03 AM
I would like to submit my comments on the proposed arena reuse plan. I think that adding high-density housing will harm the character of our community. Adding lots of new housing and commercial space will burden our school district and leave even more vacant empty commercial buildings.

The arena site is intended for providing entertainment for the Natomas community and the broader Sacramento region. I very much want to see this space developed as a family-friendly entertainment district to serve the community and be a tourist draw. I would like to see the zoo as the anchor tenant. Other family entertainment options could also be located there, such as an improved children’s museum, movie theater, bowling alley, or even an amusement park like the Nickelodeon indoor theme parks. Maybe an aquarium, Rainforest Cafe, etc. All those sorts of options could be put together in a well planned development.

Please honor the commitment to do something special with the arena site. Natomas is Sacramento’s family neighborhood and we deserve to host an epic family entertainment district to serve the region. We are counting on the city to have a big vision for Natomas and for Sacramento families.

Thank you,
Jessica Peters
North Natomas Resident
Sent from my mobile device.

Page 109 of 418 ends

From: Rose"s Are Red
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena reuse in Natomas
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 9:33:24 PM
Dear Teresa,
As a mother of 4 kids, raising them in Natomas for the past 15 years I have been increasingly frustrated with the lack of family entertainment in Natomas. Other than going to the movies I have to go to the other side of town for anything resembling fun. No birthday party venues, no mini golf, no bowling, rollerskating, nothing.

My kids range from 19 to 8 years. As teenagers they have no place to meet their friends on a Friday night.

For a city that is called home to thousands of young families, it really is discouraging and makes me rethink where we decided to call home. What's even more disappointing however is the unimaginative plan for more homes, apartments, business parks and shopping centers when half of our business parks and shopping centers remain empty.

I know the Kings no longer have a vested interest in what happens in their former space and at the end of ther day it's a business transaction and what wins in the end is what ever brings the most money but I believe we have the population to bring an indoor jump sports space, laser tag, rock quarry, something a little more creative that would serve Natomas well. I support the zoo coming but also recognize there is a lot to consider before that happens, so if that falls through I hope more thought is given to zone that space for more family friendly entertainment.

Regards,
Tiffany Ruvalcaba
- a mom tired of going to Roseville for birthday parties

Page 110 of 418 ends

From: Alyssa Lozano
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena Re-Use Project
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:59:39 PM
Hello! I’ve been a resident of Natomas for 40 years. I currently have my own Real Estate Company... as much a I feel Homes would be great for business, I truly believe there is a need for something much bigger in that space! A Zoo/Safari Park I feel is so much better for the city and communities all around! Please consider that BIGGER picture for our city!
Thank you,
Alyssa Lozano
Realtor
CalBRE#02057900
916.212.4309
A.L.L. Real Estate
RE/MAX GOLD Natomas

Page 111 of 418 ends

From: David Salyer
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena Reuse proposal
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 4:03:44 PM
I have been a resident of Natomas for 18 years. During that time I have seen the vacant land slowly turn into housing and businesses. While I know that growth is inevitable, I would like to see more space used for community use like a Zoo expansion. The Sacramento Zoo may lose its accreditation within the next few years if it is not able to expand. I feel that there is enough room at the present site to allow for a zoo and other uses as needed.

I feel Natomas is missing something it can be identified with like a Zoo. I see all the large multiple story housing complexes being built on the corner of Arena and Truxel and feel that the city is closing in on the people who live here. We need more community centers like the Zoo that can be used as an place to draw people in and give them something to do. It could create a larger partnership with the UCD veterinary center to create more research and jobs for the area.

More houses will need more infrastructure like more fire, police, and medical but I do not see more of these amenities planned in the future.

Please consider the Zoo expansion as one possible use of the Arena site.

Thank You,
David Salyer

Page 112 of 418 ends

From: nutz4u04
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena Re-Use- WE WANT A ZOO!!!!
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 11:37:33 PM
Hi,
We want a zoo in Natomas!!!!!!!
Thank-you,
CI

Page 113 of 418 ends

From: Holly Hein
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena reuse
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 10:56:55 PM
Please, please, please do not put more high-density housing and retail in the arena reuse area of Natomas! I really want a zoo, but if we can’t have that, give us something else fun. Give us a soccer turf complex for our thousands of kids who play soccer in Sacramento. Give us a destination not a demise! Holly Hein
Please excuse the typos
Sent from my iPhone

Page 114 of 418 ends

From: Christy Hunt
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena re-use
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 9:15:31 PM
As a resident of Natomas for more than 18 years I am concerned with the continued growth of housing without adequate infrastructure, schools, Police presence, job creation or retail investment. Freeways and roads are over crowded. There are not enough services for the community nor entertainment options for families. I urge the city to look at a broader investment towards jobs and infrastructure rather than adding more housing to an already full community.

Thank you,
Christy Hunt
110 Hawkcrest Cir
95835
916-826-7162
Sent from my iPad

Page 115 of 418 ends

From: Kelley Queale
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena Site in Natomas
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 10:08:13 AM
Hello:

Happy Thanksgiving! I am a 20 year resident of of Natomas, and I want to comment on the proposal for the former Kings Arena site. I would love to see a new Zoo at the site. I grew up in Sacramento, and it would be great for our city to have a larger, more modern zoo to serve the public. Schools, medical services and some retail would be good too. I would not favor hundreds of new houses or apartments, since we have so many now and need more services first.

Thank you,
Kelley Queale

Page 116 of 418 ends

From: Michael Turner
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena site usage
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 4:45:57 PM
Good afternoon Ms. Haenggi,
As I resident of Natomas I just wanted to express my desire to see this location be allocated to the development of a zoo and not more housing/commercial/retail space as we have plenty of the already. Thank you Michael Turner

Page 117 of 418 ends

From: Allison Melott
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena site
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 11:34:07 AM
I live in North Natomas. I am generally in favor of development, but is building more homes really the best use of the arena site? It seems that the community would be better served with some type of services or entertainment venue.

Allison Melott
916-849-9584
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Page 118 of 418 ends

From: Cristi Rodda
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Arena spotDate: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:52:15 PM Hi there,
Please no more houses in natomas. The traffic is so crazy now with all the new homes.

I’d love something fun for kids to do out here, like zoo, trampoline park, sports center. Or even a hospital as traffic is crazy and nearest hospital is 20-30 minutes away without traffic.

Thank you so much!
Cristi and Tim Rodda

Page 119 of 418 ends

From: Jo Jo
Cc: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Building
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 8:32:24 PM
Please, Please don’t build more houses. With the water park going in we need a second attraction to keep families busy. The potential for more long term jobs is just as important for the growth of Natomas

Page 120 of 418 ends

Sent from my iPhone

Page 121 of 418 ends

From: Dominique Williams
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Comment on Kings Proposal
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 6:06:16 AM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I have reviewed the Kings proposal for the development of the current Arco (Sleep Train) site. As I understand it, their proposal is to add a combination of additional commercial space and high-density housing. This proposal is counter to the Kings agreement to create both housing and entertainment space in Natomas, and is contrary to the Natomas master plan. This area of Sacramento simply cannot absorb additional high density housing or commercial space.

The Kings proposal should be denied, and they should be asked to present alternative proposals that satisfy the Natomas Master Plan, and provide for new entertainment space and addresses our existing traffic, commercial, and homeless concerns.

The existing traffic problems.

This area is already plagued by traffic problems that would be exacerbated by more high density housing. Any plan to add additional housing would have to account for ALL of the roads that provide access to local freeways, and an assessment of the impact to the freeway traffic by Caltrans. This includes the roads leading to I-5 at Elkhorn, Arena, and Del Paso, as well as roads leading to I-80 at West El Camino, Truxel, and Northgate.

Local roads are overly congested and new development in the area is already worsening the problem. The new Centene campus off of Arena and the new development on Elkhorn Blvd West of I-99 are examples of recent projects that will impact local and highway traffic in ways that the published plans have failed to address.

Housing and commercial development have resumed, but street development and traffic flow has not been addressed. Before any further housing development is approved, the City must require that several traffic problems are resolved.

The commercial space issue.

The Natomas area is surrounded by empty commercial space. The Raley's anchored space on Truxel Blvd. and Natomas Dr. has almost all of the commercial space empty. Restaurants and small businesses are starting and failing in this areas on a regular basis. The Safeway location adjacent to the Sprouts location on East Commerce Dr. and Del Paso Blvd also has an large amount of commercial space empty.

From Del Paso on the North to Northgate on the East, Natomas businesses from I-5 to I-80 are quite empty. I see no reason to expand the commercial space in this area from what we have today, even IF the city were to approve additional high density housing.

The proposal makes unrealistic assumptions about the amount of commercial business would be generated from the high density housing. This area already has a number of high-density apartment complexes that have not supported the commercial centers around them.

New development in all of Sacramento should not be approved unless there is a comprehensive plan to address local traffic, highway traffic, local business, and management of the homeless and low income members of society. Most importantly the Kings must present a plan that adheres the agreement to create a mixed use space with entertainment and attractions to draw people and businesses to the area. The current plan does not accomplish either objective.

Page 122 of 418 ends

Zoo or an a regional park would be more inline with the promises made by the Kings than the joke of a proposal to add high density housing and wasted commercial space that they propose.

The proposal from the Kings should be denied due to the breach of the original agreement, but most importantly should be denied as an overall bad idea for Sacramento.

Thank you,
Dominique Williams
5 Las Uvas Ct
Sacramento CA 95833
916-995-8562

Page 123 of 418 ends

From: Daniel Williams
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Comment on Kings Proposal
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 12:22:00 PM
>>
>> Dear Ms. Haenggi,
>>
>> I have reviewed the Kings proposal for the development of the current Arco (Sleep Train) site. As I understand it, their proposal is to add a combination of additional commercial space and high-density housing. This proposal is counter to the Kings agreement to create both housing and entertainment space in Natomas, and is contrary to the Natomas master plan. This area of Sacramento simply cannot absorb additional high density housing or commercial space.
>>
>> The Kings proposal should be denied, and they should be asked to present alternative proposals that satisfy the Natomas Master Plan, and provide for new entertainment space and addresses our existing traffic, commercial, and homeless concerns.
>>
>> The existing traffic problems.
>>
>> This area is already plagued by traffic problems that would be exacerbated by more high density housing. Any plan to add additional housing would have to account for ALL of the roads that provide access to local freeways, and an assessment of the impact to the freeway traffic by Caltrans. This includes the roads leading to I-5 at Elkhorn, Arena, and Del Paso, as well as roads leading to I-80 at West El Camino, Truxel, and Northgate. >>
>> Local roads are overly congested and new development in the area is already worsening the problem. The new Centene campus off of Arena and the new development on Elkhorn Blvd West of I-99 are examples of recent projects that will impact local and highway traffic in ways that the published plans have failed to address. >>
>> Housing and commercial development have resumed, but street development and traffic flow has not been addressed. Before any further housing development is approved, the City must require that several traffic problems are resolved.
>>
>> The traffic issues on I-5 and I-80 are a serious problem from Elkhorn on 99 to the I-5 merge through the Del Paso and Arena exits. The I-5, and I 80 interchange is not sufficient for the traffic today, let alone for more high density housing at Arena Blvd, or even the new Centene traffic from Arena and Del Paso. >>
>> The commercial space issue.
>>
>> The Natomas area is surrounded by empty commercial space. The Raley's anchored space on Truxel Blvd. and Natomas Dr. has almost all of the commercial space empty. Restaurants and small businesses are starting and failing in this areas on a regular basis. The Safeway location adjacent to the Sprouts location on East Commerce Dr. and Del Paso Blvd also has an large amount of commercial space empty. >>
>> From Del Paso on the North to Northgate on the East, Natomas businesses from I-5 to I-80 are quite empty. I see no reason to expand the commercial space in this area from what we have today, even IF the city were to approve additional high density housing.
>>
>> The proposal makes unrealistic assumptions about the amount of commercial business would be generated from the high density housing. This area already has a number of high-density apartment complexes that have not supported the commercial centers around them.
>>
>> New development in all of Sacramento should not be approved unless there is a comprehensive plan to address local traffic, highway traffic, local business, and management of the homeless and low income members of society.

Page 124 of 418 ends

A Zoo or an a regional park would be more inline with the promises made by the Kings than the joke of a proposal to add high density housing and wasted commercial space that they propose. >>
>> The proposal from the Kings should be denied due to the breach of the original agreement, but most importantly should be denied as an overall bad idea for Sacramento. >>
>> Thank you,
>> Daniel Williams
>> 5 Las Uvas Ct
>> Sacramento CA 95833
>> 916-995-7694

Page 125 of 418 ends

From: Karen Schechter
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Comments - Proposal for sleep train site
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:21:12 AM
As a longtime it Natomas resident, I am very interested in what is happening with the sleep train site and the Kings proposal to rezone.

North Natomas needs a town center; a place where people can shop and dine and attend entertainment and take their kids to play in the park. The vision for the Town center would include smaller businesses, local business owners and restaurants not of the chain variety.

North Natomas is a neighborly place and as such we should be able to visit with our neighbors and not be surrounded by all of the chains and National businesses that have populated California.

We have plenty of housing going in in other areas. We have plenty of areas that are zoned for commercial development including shopping malls and hotels.

The lower density zoning that the Kings are seeking is a positive step but we need to control what they do with that site. We don't want Natomas to become overcrowded with traffic jams like Elk Grove.

I would also suggest that the zoo is a positive step if it should be located in that site and build the town center around the zoo along the perimeter between between Natomas boulevard and East Commerce which is already a major artery between arena and del Paso and will get a lot of traffic at all hours of the day once the people of Centene start moving in.

Please allowing Natomas to maintain that small town feel that we all love.

Thank you.

Karen Schechter

Page 126 of 418 ends

From: Brent McCarthy
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Comments on Arena Reuse Plan
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 1:51:44 PM
Hello,
I am writing to voice my general support for the arena reuse plan. Denser and mixed-use development are critical for the sustainable growth of Sacramento.

I would encourage you to explore low-stress bicycle connections to Inderkum, the library, the ARC center, and the regional park. These will be popular destinations for Plan Area residents without drivers licenses. I understand that Del Paso Road itself is outside the Plan Area, but a segregated bike lane or parallel bike path along Five Star Way would lay the foundation for future low-stress connectivity.

Thanks,
Brent McCarthy
(916) 397-4765

Page 127 of 418 ends

From: Karen & Luis Ruiz
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Comments on Natomas Area Reuse Plan
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 8:09:25 PM
Good evening -
After reviewing the plan, my biggest issue / concern is that it lacks a "destination landmark". I feel the Reuse plan should include some type of attraction that draws people from the region to the Natomas area - the zoo was one good idea but certainly not the only one. A museum center, or something that doesn't exist on the city today. A miniature version of Golden gate Park would be a good model.

The plan - while I like the idea of dedicated pedestrian and bike streets, there is no guarantee in this proposal that any of the items that would make it an asthetically pleasing destination would stay.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 128 of 418 ends

From: Danielle Christy
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Concerns re: King’s proposal
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 8:41:28 PM
To whom it may concern:

I would like to share my deep concern about the proposal to turn the old arena into high density housing. I have been a Natomas resident for 15 years. I am an involved and informed citizen. I do not think this is in the best interest of our city and am concerned about the lack of planning. I am in strong support of moving the zoo option. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Warmly,
Danielle Christy
Sent from my iPhone

Page 129 of 418 ends

From: Alice Mercer
To: Teresa Haenggi; Jeff S. Harris
Subject: Development of SleepTrain/ARCO Arena
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:14:02 PM
I am writing as a resident of Natomas to comment on the proposal to create high-end housing and and retail in the former Sleep Train Arena site. Sacramento does not need more high-end housing, it needs more affordable housing, but we also need a new home for our zoo. The site would be well situated and large enough to accommodate a zoo. Given the unique location, and footprint, I'd prefer that. I understand it may mean coming to agreement with the current owners, but this would surely be easier than trying to find space elsewhere, as most of the options would not be as centrally located.

Thank you for your consideration,
Alice Mercer
--
Thank you so much!

Page 130 of 418 ends

From: Christina Parker
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Draft Proposal For Arena Reuse
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 11:03:00 AM
Hello Ms. Haenggi,
I have reviewed the Kings proposal for the development of the current Arco (Sleep Train) site. As I understand it, their proposal is to add a combination of additional commercial space and high-density housing. This proposal is counter to the Kings agreement to create both housing and entertainment space in Natomas, and is contrary to the Natomas master plan. This area of Sacramento simply cannot absorb additional high density housing or commercial space, especially with current building already in process or agreed upon.

Existing traffic congestion and problems:

This includes the roads leading to I-5 at Elkhorn, Arena, and Del Paso, as well as roads leading to I80 at West El Camino, Truxel, and Northgate.

I ride mass transit and it is always full and standing room only on the neighborhood Jibe busses.

Light rail has been a requested issue for a long time and has still not been addressed. Prior to building another approximately 2,000 homes with even more residents, the city needs to address the traffic issues.

There is already plenty of empty commercial space:

Page 131 of 418 ends

Currently the vast majority of businesses are chains which seems to imply that starting businesses in Natomas takes significant upstart money, which also needs to be dealt with. Our community doesn't need another McDonalds on the corner as much as it needs places that can be utilized by families and other groups.

Before we build additional commercial space, we need to repurpose what is already in existence or those empty spaces will continue to be problematic for the community giving the impression that it can't sustain businesses and attracting issues with empty parking lots that are sites of car break ins.

Short sightedness of proposal:

The Kings proposal looks quickly thrown together and a duplicate of other designs without forethought and new concepts. It places bike lanes on the inside of parking which was just shown to be problematic in downtown and money was just spent to redesign it and put bike lanes on the outside of the parking.

It included water features... in a state often plagued by drought, this is just a ridiculous proposal. No new buildings in Sacramento should be so short sighted to include water features that will waste water (even if recycled) through evaporation.

I find these aspects signs that the Kings threw this together at the last minute to move away from proposals of the arena being used for a Zoological facility. It looks "copied and pasted" from other area designs without including the larger Natomas or Sacramento picture.

The path forward:

New development in all of Sacramento should not be approved unless there is a comprehensive plant to address local traffic, highway traffic, and local businesses. Most importantly the Kings must present a plan that adheres the agreement to create a mixed use space with entertainment and attractions to draw people and businesses to the area. The current plan does not accomplish either objective. A Zoo or an a regional park would be more inline with the promises made by the Kings than the joke of a proposal to add high density housing and wasted commercial space that they propose.

The proposal from the Kings should be denied due to the breach of the original agreement, but most importantly should be denied as an overall bad idea for Sacramento and continued striping of potential future success of the Natomas community.

Christina Parker
North Natomas Homeowner/Resident within 5 minutes distance of the site

Page 132 of 418 ends

From: Michael Hutchings
To: [email protected]; Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Former Arco Arena Site
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 6:00:15 PM
Hello,
I wanted to add my commentary here and strongly urge the city of Sacramento to consider the amount of housing already coming to the region versus a new attraction. My family would love the zoo to relocate here. If it could be modeled after the large zoo in Omaha, NE Sacramento could be a much more significant destination for visiting.

Additionally, the quality of life for us in North Natomas would benefit from less housing congestion and pride for the neighborhood attraction offered to all visiting Sacramento.

Thank you!
Sent from my iPhone

Page 133 of 418 ends

From: Simon White
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Future of Sleep Train Arena Site
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:10:30 PM
Hello,
I am reaching out regarding the Sleep Train Arena site as I know the City has requested public comments. I have reviewed what has been shared from the Kings about the potential of commercial and high dense residence being built on the area where the arena sits. Seeing how Natomas is already heavy on residential and commercial lots it seems like this is an amazing opportunity to think bigger with this site. Although housing is crucial to the importance of growing Natomas, and Sacramento in large, this space could be so much more.

The infrastructure, highway exits, and wide streets are already in place to build a new complex that could bring in tourist dollars to the area. A perfect opportunity would be to relocate the Sacramento Zoo since the current location is dealing with space constraints. If the Zoo moving is not an option then another project on that scale should be the goal of the City.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Thank You,
Simon White
Natomas Meadows Resident

Page 134 of 418 ends

From: We Want A Zoo
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Fwd: Arena proposal
Date: Friday, November 29, 2019 1:00:59 PM
Forwarding.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Heliodoro Santiago <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Subject: Arena proposal
To: [email protected]
As a 20 year resident of Natomas. A home owner and father of 5. I am against the kings proposal. I am in favor of the best idea I’ve heard thus far which is bringing the Sacramento Zoo to that site. It would bring instant jobs as well as help to fill our current restaurants in the area, Something the kings game or events at the arena use to do. With it’s easily accessible site because it is centrally located between both the I-5 and the 80 freeway it makes sense to have something that would draw large groups of people. I’ve been to the Oakland and San Diego zoo if we could draw inspiration from those places I bet we could get large number of tourists to visits our city, especially since we’re developing our downtown area to be a hub for visitors as well. The San Diego zoo gets over 3 million visitors a year And with the 500,000 visitors the current sacramento zoo gets per year if we had an expanded zoo i’d be willing to bet we could increase our visitation through tourism. I would like to say that as I look around my neighborhood I see many buildings that are unoccupied. I do not feel that a group of new buildings regardless of how artistically designed they may be will bring in new businesses to this area, because the city of Sacramento is pushing hard and succeeding to make downtown Sacramento more lively and traveled. With new buildings and development going on downtown that’s where new businesses will want to occupy space. I fear that in the end it would be more of the same just another group of unoccupied buildings. As far as home construction which I am completely in favor of in Natomas I feel that building homes on the arena site is not a good idea we have so much pockets of land underdeveloped throughout Natomas I would like to see that land used first to fill in the existing neighborhoods. I see the kings proposed bike lanes and public transit to and from the area. I ride my bicycle to downtown many times a month for recreation using the multi use trails but bike lanes to the proposed kings development is not realistic for the simple reasons the main roads that connect to that area are not highly traveled bike routes because that area connects to the main roads throughout Natomas which are heavily used by vehicles and are difficult to use safely as they are today. As far as the center park proposal of the kings plan Natomas has many parks but it has the key regional park less than 2 miles from the kings proposed area. The regional park is under constant development it was thought out carefully and with the new addition of the aquatic center it will be the central hub for park use in our neighborhood something the kings proposal could not be. Thank you for taking the time to listen to a resident of the area.

Respectfully,
Diego Santiago
Sent from my iPhone

Page 135 of 418 ends

--
We Want A Zoo Campaign
[email protected]

Page 136 of 418 ends

From: We Want A Zoo
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Fwd: Arena Redevelopment Please Forward to City of Sacramento Date: Friday, November 29, 2019 1:01:44 PM
Forwarding.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Teresa Bradley <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Subject: Arena Redevelopment Please Forward to City of Sacramento To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Ms. Haenggi, I'm writing in response to the redevelopment at the Natomas Arena site. The area is already set up to handle a large venue such as a Zoo. Entrances and exits that are already in place that would accommodate the influx of traffic that would be generated. Not to mention easy freeway access. I can't think of one reason why a Zoo would be perfect for that site. Once it's gone....it's gone. I would hate to see this opportunity slip through our fingers. My family and I have many, many great memory's at the old Arena. Kings games, concerts, monster trucks and that list goes on and on. Natomas wants to shine again. Please let us have a Zoo.

Teresa Bradley
34 Yahi Court
Sacramento, Ca 95833
916-641-8642
--
We Want A Zoo Campaign
[email protected]

Page 137 of 418 ends

From: Angelique Ashby
To: Teresa Haenggi
Cc: Karina Talamantes
Subject: Fwd: Sleep Train Arena site
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 3:08:38 PM
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Roberta NaSal <[email protected]>
Date: November 28, 2019 at 6:48:03 AM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Sleep Train Arena site
I absolutely do not agree with the King’s proposal for the current Sleep Train Arena site.

I’ve struggled with living in Natomas for several years because the area simply has not lived up to the vision I was “sold” when I moved to Heritage Park sixteen years ago. And adding more high density housing and commercial space does nothing to make Natomas more desirable. This is an opportunity to create something that potentially could elevate Natomas to become more desirable as a place to live and visit. I’m not sure I know what that “something” is, but I know it is not what the Kings have proposed.

Sincerely
Bobbi NaSal
Sent from my iPad

Page 138 of 418 ends

From: We Want A Zoo
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Fwd: We want a zoo
Date: Friday, November 29, 2019 1:01:18 PM
Forwarding.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Lorena Juarez <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Subject: We want a zoo
To: [email protected]
Natomas needs an attraction not housing or shopping centers. We want a zoo. --
We Want A Zoo Campaign
[email protected]

Page 139 of 418 ends

From: Marian Ashe
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Heron Nesting Site at Natomas Arena Pond
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 5:35:17 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I am writing to ask that the City do all it can to help protect the heron nesting site near the Natomas Arena. As you undoubtedly know, over 1,000 herons and egrets nest in and around that pond every year. If the pond is eliminated, the birds would likely move to the surrounding neighborhoods as they have done elsewhere, resulting in resident complaints about the noise, the mess and numerous injured and deceased baby birds on the ground.

One proposed solution would be for the zoo to move to the arena property and incorporate the pond into its exhibits.

It is an incredible resource and opportunity for the public to view nature in action.

If the City is unable to require the property owners to preserve the property, or if moving the zoo to the site is not feasible, then I ask that the City work with the community to find some alternative solution to preserve the pond and nesting site. The remaining habitat for these birds and so much of our wildlife is declining far too rapidly. Please do what you can to preserve what remains.

Thank you,
Marian Ashe
3225 McKinley Blvd
Sacramento, 95816

Page 140 of 418 ends

From: Madi Elsea
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Heron Rookery
Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 9:25:40 AM
In the past decade the US has lost 3 billion birds, according to the American Bird Conservancy, primarily due to habitat loss. Please tell the City Of Sacramento to do all in its power to save the pond at Sleep Train Arena for the thousands of egrets & herons that roost and nest there. What a tremendous victory for Sacramento to put wildlife above more unnecessary development!
Sincerely,
Madeline K Elsea
27 Farallon Circle
Sacramento 95831
Sent from my iPhone

Page 141 of 418 ends

From: Joan Ellis
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Heron/Egret nesting site
Date: Sunday, December 8, 2019 7:37:49 PM
I am writing to express my concerns regarding possible development of the egret/heron nesting site near the former Sleep Train arena. The loss of this habitat would be disastrous for these birds. At a time when so much of the natural world is under threat, we need to do all we can to protect these precious sites. Please choose a path that will protect these animals.

Thank you.

Joan Ellis

Page 142 of 418 ends

From: mrcw
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: I support a zoo @ the old arena site
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 6:18:27 PM
Ms. Haenggi:

I hope this finds you well!
I am writing because I want to send my support for building a zoo at the old kings arena site. There is already too much housing growth in our area (north & south Natomas) and I don’t think we need more homes or empty business building. It would be very nice for our community to retain the zoo’s accreditation in this larger location with easy freeway access, where hotels and existing businesses benefit from zoo visitors.

I appreciate you taking time to review my support for a zoo in north Natomas.

Have a nice thanksgiving holiday.

Thank you
Richard

Page 143 of 418 ends

From: Erin Hauge
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: In SUPPORT of the Sleep Train Rookery and Pond Date: Sunday, December 8, 2019 6:28:12 PM
City of Sacramento
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Teresa Haenggi, Senior Planner
916-808-7554
[email protected]
RE: In SUPPORT of the Sleep Train Rookery and Pond:

Natomas Arena Reuse Project PUD, Project P18-077
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
The rookery and pond at the Sleep Train property site are already a large wetland area that is an important nesting site for over 1,000 herons and egrets every year. I am asking that the City require the pond on the property to be preserved. If this pond is eliminated, the herons and egrets will move to the surrounding neighborhoods to roost and nest, creating noise and other issues for residents and businesses.

During the height of nesting season, rescue groups find up to a dozen injured nestlings every day on the ground at this site. Residents complain about feces and regurgitated matter raining down from the trees, the noise, and the injured, dying and deceased nestlings and young found on the ground.

The best solution for the Sleep Train rookery would be for the Sacramento Zoo to move to this property and incorporate the rookery and pond into its educational exhibits. It is an incredible resource and opportunity for the public to learn about and view nature in action.

Please require the property owners to preserve the rookery and wetlands. And ideally, I urge the City to select this site for the new Sacramento Zoo location and work with the community to preserve the pond and rookery site.

Thank you for your consideration.

Page 144 of 418 ends

Sincerely,
Erin Hauge
Ecologist and Certified Naturalist
Sacramento, CA 95818
916-764-7953
[email protected]

Page 145 of 418 ends

From: Morgan Lardizabal
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: King’s Arco Arena Reuse Plan
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 12:48:21 PM
Good afternoon,
As a resident of Natomas I wanted to take the time to write in my disapproval of the current plan put forth by the owners of the former Arco Arena site. The plan does not include enough specifics and breaks a promise the owner’s made to the City and to Natomas to do something worthwhile with the space. Natomas already bears the burden of much of the city’s homes and it seems unfair that we may now get this unoriginal, uninspired, and not fully planned out plan for the site. The last thing Natomas needs is more high density housing and shopping centers. We can’t fill the current ones we have! There’s also a surprising lack of explanation to more services. Will there be schools, fire stations, police station, etc. for all these new homes? The work day commute is already bad and we’re already adding more high density housing in Natomas. Last thing we need is more of it. Please reject this obvious bid to be able to sell off the land to the highest developer. Please seriously consider buying the land for an amazing zoo.

Natomas deserves better, the zoo and their animals certainly deserve better, and the current owners should not get a free pass to simply sell the land with no regard for the community.

Thank you,
Morgan Lardizabal

Page 146 of 418 ends

From: Jeannine Foley
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings Arena Proposal
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 5:46:22 PM
Ms. Haenggi,
I strongly oppose "high-end, high density housing and commercial/retail" redevelopment. This would bring nothing positive or constructive to our community.

Thank you,
Jeannine Foley

Page 147 of 418 ends

From: Sarah Coulter
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings Arena Proposal
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 8:39:19 PM
As a 10 year resident of Natomas I would like to voice my dislike for the proposal made by the Kings for the arena land. I think Natomas has way too much vacant commercial land to consider another huge commercial building. I would much rather see that land turned into a zoo.

Thank you for your consideration
Sarah Coulter
12 Miga Madison Ct.

Sacramento, CA 95835
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Page 148 of 418 ends

From: Luisa Morgner
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings arena
Date: Saturday, November 30, 2019 11:52:30 AM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
Our family lives in Natomas and just heard about the old Kings Arena reuse proposal and we think it falls short and wouldn’t be beneficial for our community and city. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
The Morgner’s

Page 149 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings housing proposal
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 11:08:36 PM
Dear City Council member,
The Kings have made a terrible proposal to regress the old Arco Arena space (Sleep Train) to a high density and commercial space. They propose 7 story high-density housing with commercial space. We already have a high amount of high-density housing in our area, and our fair share of empty commercial space.

The Kings promised that with a new arena they would convert the old Natomas (the Arco Arena) space to new entertainment space and mixed use space that would benefit the City and the local Natomas community. Their proposal is a an affront to that agreement, and should be discounted as a matter of fact. Please join me in reaching out to our city council members and the city planning team to advise them that the Kings plan is a bad idea for our City.

The Kings took public money for both the Arco Arena site and the Golden One site, so they MUST contribute back to our community with more than a profit grabbing high-density housing plan.

We deserve more than what they are offering.

Thank you,
Megan Story
Natomas Educator

Page 150 of 418 ends

From: Marilee
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings property
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 11:06:58 AM
I am a resident of Natomas and I am also a Kings season ticket holder. I already voiced my opinion that my family and I prefer to have that land used for the Sacramento Zoo. The zoo will offer many benefits to our community (educational, environmental, economical, etc).

My family and I do NOT support using that land for commercial, residential, retail, and/or industrial purposes.

Please consider all factors including the best interest of our community (the people — our children, the environment, etc).

Marilee Bridges Hazen
Sent from my iPhone

Page 151 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings Proposal
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 7:55:57 AM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
As a Natomas resident, I would like a zoo at the old arena site. We do not need more houses and unoccupied business space, causing more traffic. We need something to make Sacramento a destination spot. My family and I spent some time over the summer in San Diego visiting their zoo and safari park. Our tiny little zoo is nothing in comparison. We are zoo members and visit regularly with our four children but we can get through the zoo in an hour and a half. The arena spot has perfect freeway access and plenty of parking for a real zoo. Natomas needs something besides community parks for kids.

Thank you,
Shannon Speaks
541 Alcantar Circle
Sent from my iPhone

Page 152 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings proposal de redevelop the sleep train arena: comment Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 5:19:37 PM
Hi there,
As a Natomas resident I would like the to see the Sleep Train Arena be replaced by more local stores or other retail stores such as Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and World Market. We are even in need of a hospital around the North Natomas area. I hope you consider these ideas it would really benifet our community.

Sincerely,
A Natomas resident
Aurora Aguilar

Page 153 of 418 ends

From: Brittney Irvine
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings proposal for Arco Arena
Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 10:17:22 PM
Sending my response to the king's new proposal. They haven't kept their original promises with Arco Arena, but the community DEFINITELY DOES NOT want the housing. No no no.

We are over crowded with homes, and small businesses. Please do not create this traffic and additional crime to Natomas! Add entertainment, but do not add homes, condos, apartments, or any housing! Please and thank you.
-Brittney

Page 154 of 418 ends

From: Elizabeth Brushwyler
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: King"s Proposal for Natomas
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 2:23:18 PM
After reading through the upcoming proposal - North Natomas does not need commercial space and housing. We were all assured something great - something signature to bring to our community after the arena left.

Housing and
shopping is not what the residents want.

Elizabeth Brushwyler
91 Rockmont Circle
Sacramento 95835

Page 155 of 418 ends

From: Taryn Brown
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings Proposal for Sleep Train Arena
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 4:19:17 PM
Hello Ms. Haenggi,
I have reviewed the Kings proposal for the development of the current Arco (Sleep Train) site. As I understand it, their proposal is to add a combination of additional commercial space and high-density housing. This proposal is counter to the Kings agreement to create both housing and entertainment space in Natomas, and is contrary to the Natomas master plan. This area of Sacramento simply cannot absorb additional high density housing or commercial space.

Also, the Natomas area is surrounded by empty commercial space. The Raley's anchored space on Truxel Blvd. and Natomas Dr. has almost all of the commercial space empty. Restaurants and small businesses are starting and failing in this areas on a regular basis. The Safeway location adjacent to the Sprouts location on East Commerce Dr. and Del Paso Blvd also has an large amount of commercial space empty.

New development in all of Sacramento should not be approved unless there is a comprehensive plant to address local traffic, highway traffic, local business, and management of the homeless and low income members of society.

A Zoo or an a regional park would be more inline with the promises made by the Kings than their current proposal to add high density housing and wasted commercial space.

Sincerely,
Taryn Brown

Page 156 of 418 ends

From: Rachelle Davis
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: King"s proposal of ARCO Arena
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 8:07:34 PM
Greetings Teresa,
I am a resident and small business owner in Natomas. I'm emailing to voice my opinion and request that the city works to develop a plan for the relocation of the Sacramento Zoo. The Arena location would be great for those traveling into Sacramento. It is close to the airport and we already have a lot of hotels in the area. The zoo would bring revenue and jobs while giving our community education about wildlife preservation.

By profession I am and early childhood mentor teacher and owner of the only Nature Explore certified program in all of Sacramento. I would love to see a natural playground within the zoo that could give our children safe access to play freely in an intentionally planned space. It makes sense that "The City of Trees" would lead the charge for creating something of this nature.

Even if a zoo isn't something the city can pull off I would love for the consideration of natural playgrounds and nature schools to be up for consideration. There are numerous studies that show that people, especially children, thrive from uninterrupted play in nature. While I'm a small business owner at this time, I can tell you that the creation of something along these lines will help Natomas retain residents who ultimately move to other parts of Sacramento to meet these needs for their children and families.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard. I hope the city decides to do something spectacular with the redevelopment plan.

Blessings,
--
Rachelle Davis
Early Childhood Mentor Teacher
Owner/Site Supervisor
A Tree of Life Nature Playschool (Est 2007)
Phone: (916) 806-0613
Email: [email protected]
www.atreeoflifenatureplay.com

Page 157 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Cc: Angelique Ashby
Subject: Kings Proposal to Redevelop Old Arena
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 7:09:04 PM
Thank you for extending the public comments through Thanksgiving. Natomas buzz reported you’d received 19 comments. Pitiful.

I can only speak for myself, and say, what difference are any comments going to make. The Kings are going to re-develop the site as to what’s best for their bottom line. They are committed to our community as long as it benefits their bottom line. The reason being, “the City” has always catered to the Kings at a price.

How about now the Kings reciprocate and support a zoo. A world class zoo that will be a destination, an interest that attracts all ages and doesn’t cost a small fortune for entertainment. Opportunities for a Zoo to partner with other zoos as well as with UC Davis, Veterinary School.

Sacramento hasn’t been as passionate about supporting the arts, ballet, theater, and music. Not the huge moneymakers as a Professional Sports team, but at what cost to our community?
Natomas was recently approved for a new Aquatic Center. This is long overdue. Our community has few public pools. What are the kids supposed to do? A zoo would offer summer employment as well as volunteer opportunities that this community would take advantage of.

I know in my heart that the City will approve the Kings proposal for high end commercial/retail and possibly additional housing. Natomas is quickly becoming the ugly step child, housing and strip malls. Please consider supporting a zoo on this site.

Thank you for reading
Shelly Scott
2938 Pasatiempo Place
Sacramento, CA 95833

Page 158 of 418 ends

From: Veronica Rhodes
To: Angelique Ashby; Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings Proposal
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:29:22 AM
Good morning,
I have been a resident of Natomas for approximately 20 years and I do not like/agree with the Kings proposal for repurposing the Argo Arena site. Natomas currently has numerous empty/vacant retail spots already. Why would we build more we cannot even fill the one we currently have?
I am not against growth but why would we build more housing when we do not have enough schools/teachers as it is? Was there a feasibility study conducted on traffic impact? I-5 is currently a parking lot from 7-10am already. Is the state/city planning to expand the freeway? Natomas cannot possibly accommodate more housing with the current infrastructure. Truxel is either a parking lot or used as a freeway. It is very dangerous.

Adding more residents/housing with no police presents is also irresponsible and dangerous. Is the city going to provide a police station for natomas? Natomas needs more family friendly and local businesses that can utilize current empty retail spacing. Families have to go to Elk Grove or Roseville for activities. Please do not approve this horrible idea. Natomas residents do not want nor do we need this plan. King need to go back to the drawing board on this idea. Thank you.

Respectfully,
Veronica Rhodes
916-607-0206
--
Sent from iPhone

Page 159 of 418 ends

From: Katherine Burns
To: Teresa Haenggi; Councilwoman Angelique Ashby; Brandy Boyd; [email protected] Subject: Kings" PUD
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 10:42:21 PM
I am writing to ask you to deny the Kings' proposal.

The proposal the Kings' have presented is very attractive - filled with pictures of high end retail, fountains, green space, pedestrian walkways, and plans for alternative transit, but it is not a plan. It is merely a possibility. A possibility that will be tempered because it allows developers to bend the master plan, interpret market forces, and promote high density living.

The pace of development in Natomas is currently frantic with houses, apartments, condos, hotels, parking lots, and office spaces sprouting like weeds on previously open land. There seems to be little, if any, advance planning for alternative transportation, schools, and traffic management for all these new residents and visitors.

The decision regarding this proposal represents Sacramento's last chance to ensure that the Kings are held accountable for the promises they made regarding the reuse of the old arena. With the approval of this proposal the Kings will be able to sell the land to the highest bidder rendering their proposal, with all its attractive amenities, meaningless.

When the arena was moved downtown something special was taken from this community, please don't fill this enormous void with the mediocre.

Thank you for your time,
Kate Burns

Page 160 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings redevelopment proposal
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 6:24:12 PM
Hello,
I am writing in regards to the King’s redevelopment proposal for the Sleep Train site. I hope the city will consider alternatives aside from high density housing. The infrastructure is already strained to capacity with current housing.

Thank you.

Aspen Cloud Hall
Sent from my iPhone

Page 161 of 418 ends

From: Becky C.

To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings reuse plan for Natomas - make them keep their promise! Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 7:20:25 AM
Hello,
I wanted to comment after reviewing the proposed reuse presented by the Kings. What a disappointment that they continue to ignore what they promised us when they moved the arena downtown.

We were promised reuse that provides an economic benefit similar to or BETTER than the previous use.

What they are proposing is more high-density housing that will just degrade our community and put more pressure on our schools and traffic and does not fulfill what we were promised.

We want a Zoo. A zoo is a fit because it would be a destination (entertainment but not a conflict with downtown); done right it can be a venue that draws visitors from all over the state, similar to the San Diego Zoo and it would be an ongoing draw, not something that just happens a few nights a year.

As a zoo, partnering with UC Davis, will also bring education and conservation benefits to the site. Both are terms used by the King's organization to describe potential reuses.

This is what will work for the Natomas community and for the city as a whole.

The rest of the reuse plan, for restaurants and the light rail expansion, will fit in nicely with the zoo.

Please don't let the King's continue to avoid their responsibilities and their promised commitment to Natomas.

Thank you!
Becky & Rob Correia
3806 Chimney Rock Way
Sacramento CA 95834

Page 162 of 418 ends

From: Manuel Camacho
To: Teresa Haenggi
Cc: [email protected]; Pat Goree-Richards; Sabrina Stewart; Manuel "Juventus Manny" Camacho Subject: Kings Sleep Train Arena - Land proposal & ideas Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 10:43:49 AM
Hello Ms Haenggi,
My name is Manuel Camacho, and I’ve been living in Natomas Park since 1999, and previously in the Robla area since 1983.

Since I was a child, I’ve been a fan of soccer, football, futbol, calcio, or whatever people want to call “The Beautiful Game”. I play, I coach, I support, I form adult teams, get involved to encourage everyone to exercise playing soccer, and I help organize soccer tournaments as a non-paid volunteer. For example, for the last 14 years, I have volunteered with the Parks and Recreation’s “50+ Wellness Program” to host the annual “Sports For Life” soccer tournament at the Cherry Island Soccer Complex located in Elverta, CA. I have also helped the Sacramento Adult Soccer League with the annual Gold Cup tournament since 1991.

During the last 36 years, I have witnessed a lot of changes in the Natomas area. For example, the Kansas Royals basketball team moving to our area to play as the Sacramento Kings in the old Arco Arena with capacity for 10,000 people, then moving to play in the Sleep Train Arena, and subsequently to the Golden One Arena. As well as our airport becoming International.

I also saw
the start, and unfortunately eventual disband, of the professional indoor soccer team Sacramento Knights play at the Sleep Train Arena.

The new professional soccer team, Sacramento Republic, has now increased civic pride in our beautiful city, and it will bring more national and international attention when the team starts playing in the Major Soccer League (MLS) in their brand new soccer-specific stadium in the Railyards.

My point is that we must continue the path to make Sacramento a Destination City using the tools we have. Therefore, moving the Sacramento Zoo from the 14-acres location in Southland Park to the Kings (Sleep Train Arena) land in the Natomas area, and expanding it to 100-acres is the perfect move. I’m sure it attract a lot of visitors from outside our city.

Additionally, I would like to see, in the Kings Land, a brand new World Class Sports Complex that includes many outdoor (natural grass and artificial grass) and indoor soccer fields for local youth and adult soccer leagues, as well as for National and International soccer tournaments. Why? At my age, (67) the baby boom generation is very physically active and it has a purchasing power that many cities all over the world have been capitalizing on for a great while. For example, I and many of my friends, travel to play in many soccer tournaments in places like: Las Vegas (NV), Phoenix, (AZ), Palo Alto (CA), Santa Rosa (CA), Portland (OR), Bellingham (WA), Oahu (Hawaii), Orlando (FL), Lancaster (Massachusetts), Victoria (Canada), Bangkok (Thailand), Osaka (Japan), and Rorichum (Germany).

Therefore, I know there is a demand for venues with good quality soccer fields in a Sports Complex within a city that offers visitors with places to see and other activities to do.

Page 163 of 418 ends

Please let me know your thoughts, and if my idea has merits to become a reality.

Thank you very much for your attention.
===============================
Manuel Camacho (aka Manny)
Juventus Soccer Club coordinator
(916) 606-8710

Page 164 of 418 ends

From: Vernon Renwanz
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Kings’ draft proposal to redevelop the old arena site in Natomas Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:07:07 PM
Ms. Haenggi,
Natomas is already a high-density housing area and has plenty of retail space available for use.

To add more of the same will actually have a negative impact on the entire area with too much traffic, too many people, and serious crowding in schools. We already have a huge business, Centene, getting ready to bring in thousands of employees daily which will have a serious negative impact on traffic congestion. Nine hotels will be in the Natomas area causing further congestion. Transportation needs have not been adequately considered for the addition of thousands more residents and many businesses. Quality of Life will be worse for existing residents.

The Sacramento Zoo is in serious need for additional space. The old arena site has the space the zoo needs. Natomas could use a tourist attraction and the current location of the zoo could use the relief from the daily impact of tourists.

The City of Sacramento needs to consider the needs and desires of the Natomas area over the needs and desires of the added tax revenue generated by this proposal and the profits that would be generated for the Sacramento Kings.

Vernon Renwanz
Natomas resident since 2001

Page 165 of 418 ends

From: Monique Sanders
To: Teresa Haenggi
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:20:15 PM
Hello, I am emailing about the proposed use
for the Arco Arena. As you are probably
well aware, we currently have quite an
abundance of housing in the area with more
scheduled to be built off Elkhorn. What we
certainly do not need is high-density
housing. As a homeowner, I am opposed to
building more apartments in our area. We are
currently having issues with the renters in the
area and do not want to compound this
problem.

I am interested in and have signed the zoo
petition. This would help increase our value
in natomas, both as a homeowner and
Natomas as a destination in general.

Another wish is to have
shopping/restaurants/boutiques that we are
currently lacking. We do not need another
“fast food” or “chain” restaurant. I do as
little shopping and eating out in Natomas as

Page 166 of 418 ends

possible due to the lack of decent amenities.

That being said, Natomas is a great area to
live in and we enjoy being part of the
Natomas Park community. Thank you,
Monique Sanders
Sent from my iPhone
--
Monique Sanders

Page 167 of 418 ends

From: Julie Quigley
To: Teresa Haenggi
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:45:29 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I have reviewed the Kings proposal for the development of the current Sleep Train site. As I understand it, their proposal is to add a combination of additional commercial space and highdensity housing. This proposal is counter to the Kings agreement to create both housing and entertainment space in Natomas, and is contrary to the Natomas master plan.

The Kings proposal should be denied, and they should be asked to present alternative proposals that satisfy the Natomas Master Plan, provide for new entertainment space, and finally address our existing traffic and commercial concerns.

The existing traffic problems
This area is already plagued by traffic problems that would be exacerbated by more high density housing. Any plan to add additional housing would have to account for ALL of the roads that provide access to local freeways and an assessment of the impact to the freeway traffic by Caltrans. (Please make sure the traffic study is not done during a holiday period as has occurred in the past because this does not give an accurate traffic picture.) This includes the roads leading to I-5 at Elkhorn, Arena, and Del Paso, as well as roads leading to I-80 at West El Camino, Truxel, and Northgate.

Housing and commercial development have resumed, but street development and traffic flow has not been addressed. Before any further development is approved, the City must require that several traffic problems are resolved.

The traffic issues on I-5 and I-80 are a serious problem from Elkhorn on 99 to the I-5 merge through the Del Paso and Arena exits. The I-5, and I 80 interchange is not sufficient for the traffic today, let alone for more high density housing at Arena Blvd, or even the new Centene traffic from Arena and Del Paso. My daily commute that used to take 30 minutes now takes 45 minutes. If more housing is added, I’m guessing that time will bump up to 1 hour.

The commercial space issue
The Natomas area is surrounded by empty commercial space. The Raley's anchored space on Truxel Blvd. and Natomas Dr. has almost all of the commercial space empty. Restaurants and small businesses are starting and failing in this areas on a regular basis. The Safeway location adjacent to the Sprouts location on East Commerce Dr. and Del Paso Blvd also has an large amount of commercial space empty.

From Del Paso on the North to Northgate on the East, Natomas businesses from I-5 to I-80 are quite empty. I see no reason to expand the commercial space in this area from what we have

Page 168 of 418 ends

today, even IF the city were to approve additional high density housing.

Going forward
The Kings must present a plan that adheres to the agreement to create a mixed use space with entertainment and attractions to draw people and businesses to the area. The current plan does not accomplish either objective. A zoo or a regional park would be more inline with the promises made by the Kings than the proposal to add high density housing and commercial space.

The proposal from the Kings should be denied due to the breach of the original agreement, but most importantly should be denied as an overall bad idea for Sacramento.

Thank you,
Julie Quigley
Natomas resident since 2000

Page 169 of 418 ends

From: Richard Eric Worrell
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: NATOMAS - Lake, Zoo and Wild Birds... at former Sleep Train property Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 3:53:55 PM
Subject: NATOMAS - Lake, Zoo and Wild Birds... at former Sleep Train property It’s truly tragic that for all the ravaging of natural habit which has depleted existing wetlands for migrating birds like Herons, and naturalized species such as the Swainsons’ Hawk are such controversial matter; at Natomas, there is a ready-made solution which organically solves the very real need, and could very suitably dove-tail into a prospective if realized prospective Sacramento Zoo relocation to the former Sleep Train property. As a resident of Woodland, I know first hand about having Herons pay unwanted visits to my personal garden’s small pond, and promptly feast upon my personal collection of several years-old koi or exotic goldfish for lack of suitable alternative habitat and/or feeding source.

Similarly, as a resident of this greater Sacramento region, I am an ardent supporter of sustaining what feasible green-belts, wetlands, and other wildlife habitats which can be established.

Richard Eric Worrell
1325 Tyler Court
Woodland, CA 95776

Page 170 of 418 ends

From: donald mcfarland
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas (Old Arena Site) Land Proposal
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 8:07:49 AM
I am quite confused. When the City of Sacramento and Sacramento Kings owners made it quite clear that the old arena site will not be used to create more overcrowding of additional homes. We would be taking away such a great opportunity to provide a destination site as Natomas residents and the City of Sacramento were communicated too. I know one proposal that has been being pushed forward which makes a lot of sense is moving the zoo to the site. The zoo checks all the boxes for the site. As a destination location (which the area is missing, especially for families), something to draw locals and out of towners too.

Please make sure that we do what is best for the city before we add additional homes, traffic, and lack of public transit to the area. It would be such a waste to toss away a great opportunity and land. Once it is gone, the opportunity will not be able to present itself again. As always, this is the time to do the right thing.

Donald McFarland
(916) 397-6692

Page 171 of 418 ends

From: Veronica Rivera-Jacobson
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:43:34 PM
Hello,
Please use the space for things like the zoo, college expansion or to bring in redevelopment like an all sports turf field to be shared by the leagues. There are already too many housing and business developments in the small are with bad traffic control. We have many areas vacant that need to be filled before creating new ones. ~Veronica R Jacobson
Sent from my iPhone

Page 172 of 418 ends

From: Nylisa Vega
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas- ARCO arena
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 10:50:00 PM
Hello Ms. Haenggi,
I have reviewed the Kings proposal for the development of the current Arco (Sleep Train) site. As I understand it, their proposal is to add a combination of additional commercial space and high-density housing. This proposal is counter to the Kings agreement to create both housing and entertainment space in Natomas, and is contrary to the Natomas master plan. This area of Sacramento simply cannot absorb additional high density housing or commercial space.

The existing traffic problems
This area is already plagued by traffic problems that would be exacerbated by more high density housing. Any plan to add additional housing would have to account for ALL of the roads that provide access to local freeways, and an assessment of the impact to the freeway traffic by Caltrans. This includes the roads leading to I-5 at Elkhorn, Arena, and Del Paso, as well as roads leading to I-80 at West El Camino, Truxel, and Northgate.

The homeless problem
Any new development project in Sacramento, let alone the Natomas area must include financial obligations to address the ongoing homeless problem in Sacramento. We need programs that offer mental illness treatment,

Page 173 of 418 ends

addiction treatment, and job training to support the homeless.

The path forward
New development in all of Sacramento should not be approved unless there is a comprehensive plant to address local traffic, highway traffic, local business, and management of the homeless and low income members of society.

Most importantly the Kings must present a plan that adheres the agreement to create a mixed use space with entertainment and attractions to draw people and businesses to the area. The current plan does not accomplish either objective. A Zoo or an a regional park would be more inline with the promises made by the Kings than the joke of a proposal to add high density housing and wasted commercial space that they propose.

The proposal from the Kings should be denied due to the breach of the original agreement, but most importantly should be denied as an overall bad idea for Sacramento.

Page 174 of 418 ends

From: Nayaab Nisar
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Area Redevelopment
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 5:59:03 PM
Hello,
I was just interested in putting in me and my families opinion of what should be built at the Area site. As a resident of Natomas, I think that having a hospital replace the center would be very beneficial to the people of Natomas especially those who have to travel to all the way to downtown or even sites further such as Elk Grove to visit the hospital/ER. I think having a hospital would be much more beneficial than a recreational center being built.

Thank you, a fellow Natomas resident.

Page 175 of 418 ends

From: Christine Smith
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Area ReUse Input
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 6:20:27 PM
Good evening
I have been a resident of Natomas for 18 years and have raised my children and now my grandchildren here.

I am opposed to a plan that is including more commercial space and multi-density housing in Natomas as there currently plenty of both and many commercial spaces are vacant.

I have a strong concern that violins this new commercial center will just shift the business from their current locations which are in a few shopping areas to one area which will impact traffic and access in that area and also will then create vacant spaces in the existing centers.

I would like to see consideration made for a use that could bring opportunities for families and teens to engage in recreational activities such as perhaps multi use park and rec center that could include a skate park walking paths rock climbing water park etc perhaps a children’s museum vs shopping unfortunate that Nationals families have to travel outside of Natomas to engage in family activities.

I am not opposed to the concept of the zoo however I do not know if this space is feasible for the animals with the air traffic noise.

I am strongly opposed to more commercial and multi density housing. We have enough.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

Chrisitne Smith
4512 Windsong Street
Sacramento 95834
-Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Page 176 of 418 ends

From: Daphne Reimer
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Area Reuse Project PUD, Project P18-077 Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 4:04:34 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi:

Please preserve the pond and wetland area located on this property. It is an important nesting site to thousands of egrets and herons annually as well as a year round home to other wildlife.

If the pond is eliminated they most likely will nest in nearby neighborhoods. The nestlings will be in greater danger and the neighborhoods will not like the excrement and noise.

So much habitat has been lost and continues to be threatened locally, nationally, globally. Let's protect what we have while we can.

Sincerely,
Daphne Reimer
Member, Sacramento Audubon Society

Page 177 of 418 ends

From: Lorraine King
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arean Reuse
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 5:32:49 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I will try and make this short and to the point because I would like to believe you have educated you with the history. I would like you to take into consideration the following:

The plan when the Natomas area was developed in the beginning to accommodate an event site which included the neighborhood, shopping, widening of the freeways.

The zoo needs a new home and will loose their accreditation if they are unable to provide the proper housing to their animals.

Allowing the zoo to relocate here can and will put Sacramento on the map as a destination and will bring in finances needed. UC Davis has and will continue to work with the Sacramento Zoo. UC Davis placed 10 in 2019 in national universities. They would help attract many to the Sacramento Zoo.

The location is close enough to tie into a multi destination location with Old Sacramento, Downtown Sacramento, The Railyard Development, The Aquatic center, etc.

The agreement, promise made to the residents made by the owners of the Kings was not housing and retail.

If the Kings are allowed to rezone the property incentives by the city the only the Kings owner stand to make huge profits.

Many retail stores and restaurants sit vacant, and more are leaving each month in the Natomas area.

There are plenty of open areas in the Natomas area that can be used for housing. Last I read 10,000. homes are slated for building.

The traffic and congestion is already bad enough. The King owners an will only make it worse.

Please do not consider the Kings development proposal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Lorraine King
916 698-9442

Page 178 of 418 ends

From: J Reeves
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena PUD
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 12:52:38 PM
Ms. Haenggi,
I would like to voice my concern regarding the Natomas Arena PUD. As a resident of Natomas for over 10 years, I've seen a lot of changes. It is clear to anyone living here that we do not need more high density housing or retail space, as there is already an over abundance of both in the area! There are so many shop spaces vacated and never filled again. The Kings organization clearly does not have the interest of Natomas as priority, but only looking out for their bottom line.

The zoo expansion/relocation is perfect for the arena space, and can move Natomas in the right direction of growth. This will help bring in businesses to fill the empty retail spaces we currently have, and tie us to the tourism growth that Downtown Sacramento is experiencing! Please reject the Kings proposal and make them #KEEPTHEPROMISE.

Thank you,
Jann Reeves

Page 179 of 418 ends

From: Fon Du
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Redevelopment
Date: Saturday, November 30, 2019 10:30:54 PM
Hello,
Hope it’s not too late to comment. I think the plans proposed by the Kings is sufficient. If they can incorporate more parks and an entertainment venue on top of the commercial and dense housing, it would be better.

I don’t believe a zoo in that location is In the best use of that prime real estate.

Please don’t succumb to all the NIMBYs in Natomas. We are in a serious housing crunch and we need more housing units to support Sac’s growing population.
- Natomas Resident

Page 180 of 418 ends

From: Katherine Weston
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Redevelopment
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 6:07:06 AM
Good morning,
Thank you for taking input on the Natomas Arena redevelopment project. I have read the draft document for the Natomas Arena Reuse Planned Unit Development submitted by the Kings, and am becoming alarmed.

As a north Natomas resident (with a family of five), I am very concerned with what changes are coming to Natomas, and hope that the city considers the following:
-We need our leaders to listen to Natomas residents regarding this major change to our community. It will impact our quality of life significantly. Natomas both wants and needs positive recreational opportunities much more than it does housing, which will further increase traffic and crowd our schools.
-Significant housing development is already planned for the area, without consideration to the traffic problems we currently have. -Natomas currently cannot support the retail we have; adding more retail would likely end up in more empty store fronts that are a blight to the community. -Redeveloping the arena site is a unique opportunity to do something special for the city. I have loved living in Natomas for the past 20 years, and for all of that time I have heard leaders in Sacramento talk about their efforts to build a world class city.

A unique amenity, such as a world class zoo, would draw visitors to our region and really put Sacramento on the map. More housing would make Sacramento a less desirable tourist destination.

Please do not allow the arena site to be utilized for more houses and retail. This is not what our community wants or needs.

Thank you,
Katherine Weston
1999 Kane Avenue
Sacramento CA 95835

Page 181 of 418 ends

From: Karisa Bibayoff
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Redevelopment
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 7:33:57 AM
Hello Ms. Haenggi,
I have heard that the Kings plan for the former arena site in North Natomas includes more high density housing and retail. Speaking with my neighbors in North Natomas and listening to my students, this does not seem to be in line with residents' wishes. I wish more would write in. My own wishes for that large empty space are more family focused.

Relocating our Sacramento Zoo would be another great way to boost our local economy and provide families with a place to visit and learn. Compared to other major cities in California, our zoo space is lacking. It is too small to adequately provide space for many of the animals.

Just visit the Fresno Chaffe Zoo and compare the primates' behaviors. Their orangutans literally swoop around their large, multistory enclosure. Having only visited the Sacramento Zoo for awhile before seeing that, I was surprised. Ours do not do that. In San Diego's beautiful new-ish "Africa Rocks" exhibit primates roam large spaces in groups across terrain types. Animals need more space for modern habitats, but our current zoo has no room to grow.

Imagine using the arena space to create a zoo more on par with San Diego's. Just like our family has traveled all the way across the state for that zoo, our new Sacramento Zoo could be a large draw for families across the Northern half of our state. This would bring money and jobs to our area.

We don't need more housing in North Natomas. We have lots already going in at sites off Gateway Oaks, Gloster, and I-5 among others. We also still have long-empty spaces for small to medium sized businesses in existing commercial centers. However, if businesses go in the arena space instead of a zoo, it'd be great to have more large activities for families. Parents are always complaining that for fun birthday activities (trampoline parks, John's Incredible, Dave and Busters, bowling, laser tag, skating, etc.) we have to book venues out of the area and often out of town (Roseville, Rocklin, West Sacramento). It'd be great to keep those dollars closer and avoid the trek to other towns when looking for fun things to do with family.

Finally, another great use of that space would be a multiuse sports park. My son plays soccer.

We drive around to different places many weekends and see the sports complexes that Roseville (Maidu), Woodland, Lathrop, and Galt have developed. Tree-lined multisport places with room for nice soccer fields with lights, softball, football, and ccricket are out there--out of town. Natomas residents would make great use of spaces like these and our rec clubs could host tournaments bringing in more revenue for this growing community.

Thank you for taking public commentary on this important issue and for extended the time. I hope more of our community voices their ideas.

Karisa Bibayoff

Page 182 of 418 ends

From: Tristan Godt
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse
Date: Friday, November 29, 2019 7:12:48 PM
I am a 30 year resident of Sacramento (18 years at 431 Eastbrook Way, 95835). I attended the recent community meeting where the Sacramento Kings presented their “why” we (the Natomas community) should want the rezoning of the Natomas arena reuse. My response is a resounding NO. My family and I are not in favor of rezoning to allow for additional housing and retail.

After many years of a building moratorium, residential building has resumed (Natomas Meadows, I-5 corridor Arena, South Natomas parallel to I-80 4-story apartments on Truxel near Arena Blvd) with the proposed Greenbriar and Panhandle communities not far behind.

More housing will only increase traffic congestion, pollution and blood pressure, while creating a shortage of classroom space for our children.

New retailers have already recently moved in (Big Five Sporting Goods, TJ Maxx) as well as several new eateries. This is the first year that Black Friday on-line sales outpaced local retail shopping. WHY would we want more strip malls and shopping centers in the middle of our community? Malls are not the future of shopping.

During the Kings presentation, they provided a list of the types of businesses or amenities that changing the current PUD would allow for. Oddly, residential housing was NOT on the list. I find this deceptive. So when the Kings tell us they only want to be a good neighbor and partner to the community, I’m not persuaded. I once worked for a company (Fortune 500) that told us on a Friday we were not for sale, and on Monday announced we had been sold. To state to the community they will change the PUD but won’t just sell to a developer and walk away… I don’t believe it.

We want what was promised. We have higher aspirations than high density housing and retail. We want the December 15, 2015, commitment to bring something worthwhile to the Natomas arena reuse. The land is currently zoned for education and entertainment, and we want it to remain as such. We Want A Zoo. Or higher education, or a sports complex for all ages/sports. We don’t want or need high density housing! In summary, if the Kings are allowed to re-zone the Natomas arena re-use, without a specific plan in place for WHAT will be developed there, the Kings will take the money and run.

We’ve already bailed out the organization by loaning them the $70M to purchase the arena in the first place. We supported them buy renewing our season tickets and attending concerts when they moved downtown. We’ve sat by and waited for the Kings to hold up their end of the bargain.

Keep the promise. No re-zone of the Natomas arena re-use.

Thank you,
Tristan Godt
North Natomas resident
916-248-6022

Page 183 of 418 ends

From: Manjot Singh
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse comment
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:56:58 AM
Hello,
I would like to express my complete opposition to reusing the arena site for housing.

This site should be used as an economic engine for the community for the long term and provide needed public spaces for the community.

This could be a new "central park", a zoo, a hospital, a theme park, even another sports arena, something that serves the community. The infrastructure is set up for this already.

Thank You,
Manjot Singh

Page 184 of 418 ends

From: Nancy Kong-Vasquez
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Plan Feedback
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 8:34:26 AM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
Thank you for allowing our community to provide feedback to the proposal by the Sacramento Kings for the Natomas Arena Reuse Plan. While reviewing the multi page proposal filled with pretty pictures and promises of a beautiful urban development, we feel very strongly that development such as this is not well thought out nor is does it "fit" with Natomas' Master Plan.

In Natomas, we have several retail centers that have been empty for months, even years. The idea of additional compact retail is not appealing given that we already have so much of it.

Additionally, the proposal describes higher end retail, which is unlikely to be sustainable in our community.

The infrastructure for traffic does not support the addition of several buildings and living structures. With the hundreds, even thousands of cars expected to populate the Centene Campus across the street, getting in and out of the area will be a nightmare. Combine that with the high density housing in the process of being built; it's a perfect storm.

I ask that the City relook at the plan and think about the community already in place and determine what fits best into the Arena space.

Sincerely,
Nancy Kong-Vasquez
Natomas Crossing Homeowner
916.284.6625 mobile

Page 185 of 418 ends

From: JAYMES BUTLER
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Plan
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:44:34 PM
Hello,
My name is Jaymes Butler, I’m a Captain for the Sacramento Fire Department & a Natomas Park resident. I’m against the Kings plan for high density housing at the Sleep Train Arena site in North Natomas. The infrastructure in North Natomas is already tapped. Public safety (Fire/Medical & Police) resources are stretched thin, no where in your plan addresses this issue.

North Natomas already have massive new developments
approved, planned & breaking ground. Construction has begun on the Northlake Development that will have 2800 new homes.

The Panhandle Development will break ground next year & will have 2000 new homes. A development located southeast of the airport with 10,000 new homes has been planned & approved.

Smaller residential developments with 100’s of new homes are infilling all over North, South & West Natomas.

We definitely do
not need anymore high density housing especially with no new public safety (Fire/Medical & Police) resources in the plans.

South Natomas is already the most densely populated
community in Sacramento. I’m in full support of bringing the Sacramento Zoo to North Natomas. The Kings need to keep their promise and the city needs to hold them to it.

Respectfully,
Jaymes Butler
.

Page 186 of 418 ends

Page 187 of 418 ends

From: Diane Otterlei
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Plan
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 8:03:10 PM
Teresa Haenggi,
My thoughts on plans for arena space:

1. Currently North Natomas is Ames’s from construction going in everywhere. They are building many new residences which will cause traffic issues, overcrowding of residences.

2. We do not need more residences or businesses built. There are currently many empty buildings in this area. The Kings current plan will almost assure many deserted buildings still there years from now.

3. North Natomas has had its ups and downs, but what is really missing is recreational activity. No bowling alleys close by, no trampoline spots for all ages, etc. a zoo would be a wonderful addition.

I hope that the Kings organization will really think about the future of Natomas. I don’t want this area to look like San Francisco, people on top of people, massive traffic jams, etc. please consider other options that will benefit Natomas, not harm it.

Thank you,
Diane Otterlei
Sent from my iPad

Page 188 of 418 ends

From: Jackie England-Chadwick
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Plan
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 10:34:16 AM
I am not in favor of redeveloping this site into more commercial real estate. WE have plenty of stores and shops where the parking lots are nearly empty now.

I am in favor of the light rail add, and a recreation add - like a skating rink. thank you!
--
Jackie England-Chadwick aka "Jacked RipHer"
Fundraising and Community Outreach Director
www.SacramentoRollerDerby.com
916 838 1380

Page 189 of 418 ends

From: Sacramento Sierra Club
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Re-use plan
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:01:42 AM
To: Senior Planner Teresa Haenggi, Associate Planner, City of Sacramento I am writing on behalf of the Sacramento Sierra Club group to express concerns regarding the retention of habitat and land use in the Natomas area of Sacramento. The group has weighed in on a number of projects in the region and wants to ensure that the same principles that we have supported are considered in the development of any project that will be developed on the Natomas Arena site.

Of concern to us are:
1) Increased sprawl in light of an inadequate public transit system in an area with no definitive plan or identified funding for such a system. Though improved housing needs are a concern, there are already a number of approved housing projects underway in the Natomas area; additional dense housing on a site not previously zoned for such has the potential for disrupting attempts to reduce GHG emissions in the region, and worsen traffic on I-5. 2) Loss of habitat for existing species in the area. We recognize that the current wetlands are the result of prior land disturbance but serious consideration must be given to the need for such habitat in light of the ongoing intense development that has significantly reduced prior habitat for such wildlife in that area.
3) The current plans do not appear to leave any undeveloped open space, a feature that could certainly incorporate the wetlands and enhance the area to allow for a more natural visual, low maintenance space that can be enjoyed as nature preserve.

We hope the City will consider less intense development of the site, the retention of the wetlands in the area and the possibility of other uses on the site, such as the proposed zoo.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Barbara Leary, Chairperson
Sierra Club Sacramento Group
909 12th Street, Suite 202, Sacramento, CA 95818
www.sierraclub.org/mother-lode/sacramento
[email protected]
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

Page 190 of 418 ends

From: Selena Venegas
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Planned Unit Development
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 1:56:08 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I recently relocated to Natomas from San Diego and purchased a home in Westshore.

What I would love to see in the old King’s arena space, instead of high density housing or commercial space, is a park similar to what I had in my neighborhood in San Diego. I’ve copied information on that park below.

Me and my family enjoyed spending lots of time here, walking trails, playing in the playground, having picnics, having baseball practice and attending events in the community center. An option similar to this park seems more sustainable than a zoo and would allow families of all ages to enjoy the outdoors.

Unfortunately, if the community continues to grow with high density housing and commercial space, I would rent my house out and move to a community where my family can conveniently and safely enjoy being outdoors at no additional cost. https://www.chulavistaca.gov/departments/public-works/parks/locations-featuresamenities-photos/montevalle-park A 29-acre park, Montevalle contains a variety of amenities including three multipurpose fields, a softball field, basketball and tennis courts, a skate area, off-leash dog area, playground areas, walking trail, and numerous picnic shelters and picnic areas.
“Cheryl’s Place” is dedicated to handicapped children. Cheryl’s Place contains specially designed playground equipment accessible to children in wheelchairs.

The park also contains a 21,144 square foot facility that houses a gymnasium, various multi-purpose rooms, restrooms, craft rooms, game room, and adult annex.

Area & Features
29 Acres
Air Jumps Allowed
Ball Field(s)
Barbecue Grill(s)
Basketball Court(s)
Dog Park
Gymnasium

Page 191 of 418 ends

Montevalle Park Recreation Center
Open Green Space
Picnic Area(s)
Play Equipment
Pony Rides Allowed
Recycling Bin(s)
Restroom(s)
Shelter(s)/Gazebo(s)
Skateboard Park
Soccer Field(s)
Tennis Court(s)
Walking Trail(s)

Page 192 of 418 ends

Thank you for your time and consideration,
Selena
(619) 512-6182

Page 193 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Planned Urban Development
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:24:06 PM
Ms. Haenggi,
This proposal is not what was promised by the Sacramento Kings and the city of Sacramento to the community during the Kings relocation saga.

One economic engine was removed from Natomas and relocated to downtown Sacramento.

While downtown Sacramento has seen a much needed revitalization, it has left an empty void and promise to the community of Natomas and its surrounding area.

More housing and retail is something the community does not desire nor is it an economic engine.

Something should have been done years ago and we need to get this correct.

On December 15, 2015, former Sacramento Kings President Chris Granger spoke before the council and others by saying, "We could sell this property off and build 8,000 homes down there and be done with it...We have higher aspirations as a company."
The community deserves an economic engine as promised as part of the bigger than basketball slogan during the Kings relocation saga.

Michael Tavares

Page 194 of 418 ends

From: Linda Adams
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Project PUD, Project P18-077 Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 9:40:15 AM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I am a biologist and wildlife rehabilitator involved in many aspects of wildlife conservation and public education. Sadly, the state of California has given up over 90% of its original wetlands to agriculture and housing. This has forced many waterbirds into smaller and smaller areas and these are gradually being affected by other human-caused problems. This property under discussion contains a large wetland area that is home to thousands of wildlife, and is an important nesting site for over 1,000 herons and egrets every year.

I am asking that the City require the pond on the property to be preserved. If this pond is eliminated, the herons and egrets would very likely move to the surrounding neighborhoods to roost and nest. This creates many issues for residents and businesses.

When these birds take to nesting in areas where humans reside and work, things become very messy with their droppings. Additionally, chicks fall to the ground and if they are not rescued will die, creating another problem. Residents and businesses file complaints often with no resolution. Non-profit/volunteer rescue groups do their best to rescue injured baby birds every day during nesting season but this is VERY costly and time consuming.

The best solution would be for the zoo to move to this property and incorporate the pond into its exhibits. It is an incredible resource and opportunity for the public to view nature in action. If the City is unable to require the property owners to preserve the property, then I ask that the City select this site for the zoo and work with the community to preserve the pond and nesting site.

Respectfully,
Linda Adams
Wildlife Rehabilitation and Release
Nevada County

Page 195 of 418 ends

From: jsta
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Project PUD, Project P18-077 Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 11:54:55 AM
RE: Natomas Arena Reuse Project PUD, Project P18-077
Save the Pond...We can't continue to wipe out bird habitat. Nature is connected The Herons need a nesting pond, here in Sacramento County. The city needs to work with the Zoo to come up with a plan to save the nesting area.

Sincerely,
Julia Stagg
3341 Barcon Way
Sacramento, CA 95838

Page 196 of 418 ends

From: Ray & Julaine Morley
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Project
Date: Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:59:55 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I am writing with regard to Project P18-077, the Natomas Arena Reuse Project. Said property contains a large wetland area, home to thousands of wildlife, and every year is an important nesting site for more than 1,000 herons and egrets. I ask that the City require the pond that is on the property to be preserved. If the pond is eliminated, the herons and egrets would most likely move to surrounding neighborhoods to roost and nest, creating problems for residents and businesses. These large birds have historically moved into suburban neighborhoods when their nesting habitat is removed, as happened in the Pocket area of South Sacramento, where they now nest in and around an apartment complex. At this site, rescue groups find up to a dozen injured baby birds every day during nesting season. Residents there complain about the birds' feces raining down from the tree, the noise - especially from the Blackcrowned Night Herons, which are nocturnal - and injured and deceased baby birds on the ground.

The best solution would be for the Sacramento Zoo to relocate to this property, incorporating the pond into its exhibits. As such, it would create a valuable resource, providing an opportunity for the public to view nature in action.

If the City is unable to require the property owners to preserve this site, then I ask that the City select this site for the zoo, and work with the community to preserve the pond and nesting site.

Thank you for your consideration.

Most Sincerely,
Mrs. Julaine Morley

Page 197 of 418 ends

From: Amy Smith
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse Project
Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 8:42:23 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
This is in regards to the Natomas Arena Reuse Project PUD, Project P18-077.

I think we should do everything possible to preserve the pond that is used as a nesting site for herons, egrets, and other wetland wildlife.

Wetlands and ponds have been proven to benefit soil and water quality. They are critical to our ecosystem.

Most importantly if this nesting site is lost it will result in the birds looking for a replacement nesting site. This has occurred is south Natomas near Natomas High School. An apartment complex was inundated by egrets and herons. It was a sad and disgusting situation. Dozens of dead baby birds, injured baby birds, dying baby birds. Bird feces every where. The smell was horrid and nauseating. Creating a significant health and safety concern for the many residents of this large apartment complex. The baby birds fell out of the nest more easily because the space was not conducive to what was needed for their nests.

Please act now to protect this ecosystem and nesting site.

Thank you,
Amy Smith

Page 198 of 418 ends

From: Josh Speaks
To: Teresa Haenggi
Cc: Mayor Steinberg
Subject: Natomas arena reuse PUD
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 3:36:42 PM
Hello,
Please accept this comment in opposition to the King's proposed development of the old Sleep Train Arena site. The residents of Natomas were promised, on multiple occasions, by both city and Kings officials that it was important to "get it right" on plans for the old arena site. The former president of the Kings organization, Chris Granger, claimed that the company had "higher aspirations" for the site than simply selling it off to build new homes. Mayor Steinberg said that, "It’s not just about filling space, it’s about doing right by the community.” The proposed idea of a small, dense commercial core surrounded by housing barely even merits the label "window dressing." A smaller, less interesting downtown Sacramento for people who already live mere minutes from the real thing? It's clear the Kings just want to be able to unload the site without any clear vision or concern for the community. Natomas IS commercial areas surrounded by housing developments. Adding yet another to the mix doesn't impact the community in any positive way no matter how many parks are included. It's merely the fastest and easiest way for them to remonetize the site. (For the record, I count 20 parks already in Natomas, so we have no shortage)
I have not been involved in the We Want a Zoo movement, and therefore cannot comment on the viability of their plans, but I do think it stands in sharp contrast to the Kings organization, and a clear example of what vision looks like. At least they see the site as an opportunity to bring new interest and commercial activity into Natomas, rather than more of the same. Please do not allow this uninspired cash grab to move forward, or at the very least, if you do, please don't claim it was done with the best interests of anyone but the Kings organization in mind.

Respectfully,
Joshua Speaks
“A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it.” -GK ChestertonPage 199 of 418
From: Sharon Crockette
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 10:44:37 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I'd writing to share my concern with you in regard to the arena in Natomas.

Anyone who lives here knows we don’t need another house, another store, or another restaurant. When the market dips those types of spaces just become a feeding ground for investors who turn them into rental properties and walk away leaving half kept homes-the store fronts that start off as high end become speciality markets with hand written signs all over the windows, nail salons, and dollar stores. We need exactly zero of these as we have plenty!
We need something new, different, consistent, and sustainable. A destination- not more of what we already have. The new growth in the area will improve and/or fill current store fronts-we still have empty ones to offer-and we have lots of new building (rental opportunities as well) already underway. There’s a great sports center just 18 minutes away!
We have proven that we don’t have the median income in Natomas to support the mass growth of these types of spaces that developers would like to inundate us with. They see space and with no concern about what happens after they make their profit. We need something that will have continued interest from a larger audience than Natomas.

Given the current needs of our Sacramento Zoo it seems to be the perfect fit. It would benefit the city financially as a whole, increase property values, and create a consistent destination for our residents in Natomas, and the entire Sacramento region, while also creating a destination interest to a wider audience.

Thank you, Sharon Crockette

Page 200 of 418 ends

From: Jack Mele
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena Reuse
Date: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 10:11:09 PM
Please, please add my voice to those opposed to this proposal! I live across the I-5 freeway from the site in Westlake and can think of many uses besides more housing! No housing period, not one house or condo/apartment unit! The zoo seems to be a reasonable idea, but failing that entertainment option there is NOTHING here in Natomas for entertaining kids, or adults. We have to go to Roseville, Rancho Cordova, or West Sac (yes, WEST SACRAMENTO!) to find anything other than movie theaters for kids or downtown for adults. Whatever it ends up being, PLEASE NO HOUSING ON THAT SITE!!!
Thank you!
John Mele
4878 Darlington Lane
Sacramento, CA 95835
916-715-9655

Page 201 of 418 ends

From: Tamara Broman
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena reuse
Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 11:31:04 AM
Hi!
I am writing in to show my support of relocating the Sacramento Zoo to the old Natomas Arena site. My family has lived in North Natomas since 2008. We recently purchased a home in Natomas Park.

We have so many unused retail locations already in Natomas that I really don't think we should add any more retail space. We need an attraction that will bring people out to our area and the zoo needs a bigger home. What could be more perfect?! Certainly not more retail space or living space.

Please add my name to the list of people who support moving the zoo to the old arena site.

Thanks
Tamara Broman
5000 Brimley Way, Sacramento 95835
707-362-6244

Page 202 of 418 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Teresa Haenggi; Angelique Ashby
Subject: Natomas Arena Site Reuse
Date: Saturday, November 30, 2019 12:21:08 AM
Dear Ms. Haenggi and Ms. Ashby,
The Kings and Sacramento leaders have done a great job in downtown Sacramento.

The next step is to expand the draw to a wider area. Please consider an expanded Sacramento Zoo in the Natomas Sleep Train Arena site.

An expanded state-of-the-art zoo just north of the terrific downtown expansion would be another draw for visitors and the entire surrounding areas. It would add a whole new positive dimension to Natomas and Sacramento, that more houses and apartments, and empty store fronts, will not provide. It would meet the bar for the promises made for something creative and substantial on the prior arena site. There would also be a wonderful opportunity for new, exciting businesses, such as restaurants that overlook beautiful parts of the zoo. The Kings, City of Sacramento, zoo animals, businesses, families, property values, and UC Davis veterinary students would all benefit. Please take this opportunity to do something great for Natomas, Sacramento, and the Sacramento Zoo.

Thank you for your consideration.

Suzzi Judson
5017 Alterra Way
Sacramento, CA 95835

Page 203 of 418 ends

From: Lara Callesen
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Arena site
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:02:26 PM
I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed use of the former arena site in Natomas. I am a long term Natomas resident, having lived in both both the South and North areas.

I am vehemently opposed to turning the site into dense housing and retail spaces. With so much empty retail space already in Natomas it doesn’t seem we need more retail space. Bringing new business here is a great idea, but there is already ample availability in existing buildings. Similarly there are already so many housing developments in progress without adequate infrastructure. We do not need more housing right in the center of north natomas.

My ideal vision for the site involves community. We need space for families and children and we need to bring visitors - not more residents - to Natomas. I think the zoo would be ideal. I also think a sports complex would be a great addition - soccer, baseball, softball, etc. These facilities bring in visitors and are revenue generators not only at the fields themselves (example: Davis Legacy fields generate funds through parking fees) but for surrounding hotels, restaurants and businesses.

Day to day traffic here is already terrible. I live less than two miles from the I-5 on ramp and it sometimes takes me 20-25 minutes to get there. Please please don’t make it worse for al of us who already call Natomas home. Keep the Kings’ promise to us and make the arena site something special that improves the lives of people who live here and supported the arena - old and new- for so long.

Respectfully submitted
Lara Callesen
Sent from my iPhone

Page 204 of 418 ends

From: EY
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas arena
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 1:58:36 PM
I live in Natomas with my family, including a 7 year old. I also work downtown but need my car to drop my son off at school (across the freeway). Natomas traffic is getting worse such that I would not be able to work a full day and still be able to both drop off and pick up my son due to traffic. Thankfully, my husband can pick him up on days that I do drop him off. However, single parent households may not have that option. We do not need more homes without a better infrastructure to get downtown with the flexibility to be able to drop off and pick up our kids from school and afterschool programs.

In addition, I’m concerned that there are few non-sport options for recreation for preteens and teens here in Natomas. The arena site could better be used for such youth opportunities. Or for better soccer fields. Given the size of our growing Natomas community, we are sorely lacking in nice soccer fields in a central location, like Davis or even Manteca. Bowling, laser tag, ninja warrior gym, trampoline park, miniature golf, water park, Top Golf, pool (tables), or zoo with opportunities for youth volunteering/employment would all be needed options for the community. Improving our current retail venues would also be important rather than building more retail.

Thank you,
Eileen Yamada
Sent from my iPhone

Page 205 of 418 ends

From: Brenda Pate
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas does not need any more homes.

Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 7:35:50 PM
We have lived in Natomas for over 15 years and have seen it drastically change. When the kings did their move, their promised to take care of the neighborhood. We want a zoo! Thanks in advance.

B.Pate
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone

Page 206 of 418 ends

From: Devid
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas kings
Date: Saturday, November 30, 2019 7:31:34 PM
I am a home owner in the Natomas area and don't want to see more apartments, empty office space, store or restaurant what we need is more attraction that will bring people to this area and eat and shop at the existing places we have now. I would like to see the Zoo here or some other place similar to it.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Page 207 of 418 ends

From: James S
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas old arena site
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 9:46:26 PM
Teresa Haenggi,
As a Natomas resident for almost 20 years and Sacramento resident for over 30 years, I would like to say we don't need more residential homes at the old arena site. We have more than enough apartments in the South Natomas area as well as all the new apartments being built in North Natomas. We need a full hospital with emergency services, Sutter General is the closest hospital to us and during rush hour can take over 30 mins to get there. Midtown has Sutter General, Mercy General and UC Davis all within a few miles...plus Kaiser Morse a bit farther. Natomas is finally growing again since the moratorium was lifted. Houses and apartments are continuing to be built everywhere else around the area already. We will all need the availability of hospital emergency services at one point or another.

I support a zoo as well if there is room. Makes no sense to move the zoo anywhere else. Keep it in the city limits. We know the streets can handle the traffic and businesses will naturally thrive where the "traffic" is good.

I'm looking forward to Natomas' and Sacramento's future and I hope that within the next 20 years, enough has happened that will keep me here past retirement.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

James Shepherd
South Natomas resident

Page 208 of 418 ends

From: Joanne Diaz
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas proposal arena
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 6:32:10 PM
To whom it may concern,
I am a resident in north natomas and have seen your proposal for the old arena. I am not not a fan of the new proposal. The last thing Natomas needs here is more housing. We need something that brings this community together, we need something that helps Sacramentos economy, we want what was promised before. We want a zoo. This will not only help our community and economy but this will tremendously help the animals at the current zoo. Please reconsider the plan.

Thanks,
Joanne

Page 209 of 418 ends

From: DJ Reeves
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas PUD
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 10:32:21 PM
Ms. Haenggi,
I would like to voice my concern regarding the Natomas Arena PUD. As a resident of Natomas for over 10 years, I've seen a lot of changes. It is clear to anyone living here that we do not need more high density housing or retail space, as there is already an over abundance of both in the area! There are so many shop spaces vacated and never filled again. The Kings organization clearly does not have the interest of Natomas as priority, but only looking out for their bottom line.

The zoo expansion/relocation is perfect for the arena space, and can move Natomas in the right direction of growth. This will help bring in businesses to fill the empty retail spaces we currently have, and tie us to the tourism growth that Downtown Sacramento is experiencing!
Please reject the Kings proposal and make them #KEEPTHEPROMISE.

Thank you,
Charles Reeves

Page 210 of 418 ends

From: Marcos Seide
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Redevelopment Comments
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 3:49:56 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I am writing to express my feelings regarding the future of the arena site in Natomas. I was initially hoping Kaiser would build their new Sacramento hospital there; since they ultimately decided on the railyard in downtown, my second and tertiary ideas will have to do.

First, I would support an updated and expanded Zoo. Secondly, I would support a public transportation hub that can be used to alleviate congested freeway traffic.

Sincerely,
Marcos Seide

Page 211 of 418 ends

From: audra Custodio
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Resident
Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 5:40:11 PM
I would love if a new proposal would be issued. One that involved a hospital instead of more housing which natomas has enough of.

Blessings,
Audra Michelle
Blog: www.audramichelle.us
Instagram: @audraamichelle
cell: 818-207-7653
"Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification." Romans 14:19

Page 212 of 418 ends

From: Eloina Rogers
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas re-use
Date: Sunday, December 1, 2019 6:31:29 PM
Hello,
As a home owner in North Natomas I would like state that we would like a Zoo instead of the mixed use space that is currently planned. It would be so much better for the Sacramento area as a whole to have a zoo. A suggestion would be to add a small mixed use area next to the zoo so it can be a win win for everyone.

Thank you,
Eloína Rogers
Natomas Resident

Page 213 of 418 ends

From: Danelle Buckley
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Reuse Plan
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 3:02:49 PM
As one of the very first residents of North Natomas (June 30, 1999 was our move in date) I have seen the area develop into a lively, sprawling and diverse community. I purposely did not move to Elk Grove or Roseville as I felt those areas had too much housing/retail and were suffering from transportation issues that were thrust upon them too quick with little long-term planning. I hoped that our local leaders in Natomas could take the time to put thought into a well-planned community that would serve all.

While not perfect, our leaders consistently push for the community we all bought into.

And the old arena is another opportunity for city leaders to make a purposeful choice about how a large area of land, that we felt was a part of Natomas, can be used to benefit not only our community, but the larger city and visitors as well.

Our family supports the idea of the Sacramento Zoo moving into the old arena space.

We do not support more retail/housing. We have several new and different types of housing coming into Natomas. From the 4 story apartment complex to the 10,000+ new houses that will be built north of us, housing is going to be plentiful, new jobs at Centene will fill many of the open homes/apartments and I am hoping our traffic issues do not worsen. We have many empty retail spaces and have felt the sting when one of our favorite spots could not afford the high rent and now sits empty or turns over to the next business that won't be able to get enough business to stay afloat. Creating another reason for people to come to Natomas will help to drive traffic to those businesses. The Zoo is the reason people will come to Natomas. And our businesses and community will welcome them!
Thank you
Danelle & David Buckley

Page 214 of 418 ends

From: Kala Fossum
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Reuse Project PUD, Project P18-077.

Date: Sunday, December 8, 2019 12:11:07 PM
Dear Ms. Haenggi,
I visit my family in Sacramento often and have always enjoyed the abundant wild birds that frequent this important flyway and riparian wetland area.

Please preserve this property which contains a large wetland area that is home to thousands of wildlife, and is an important nesting site for over 1,000 herons and egrets every year. I ask that the City require the pond on the property to be preserved. If this pond is eliminated, the herons and egrets would very likely move to the surrounding neighborhoods to roost and nest, creating issues for residents and businesses.

Herons and egrets have historically moved into suburban neighborhoods when their nesting habitat has been removed, such as in the Pocket area of South Sacramento where they nest in and around an apartment complex. Rescue groups find up to a dozen injured baby birds every day during nesting season at this site. Residents complain about: the birds’ feces raining down from the trees, the noise (especially from the Black-crowned Night Herons, which are nocturnal), and the injured and deceased babies on the ground.

The best solution would be for the zoo to move to this property and incorporate the pond into its exhibits. It is an incredible resource and opportunity for the public to view nature in action.

If the City is unable to require the property owners to preserve the property, then I ask that the City select this site for the zoo and work with the community to preserve the pond and nesting site.

Thank you,
Michaela "Kala" Fossum,
President, Villa del Monte
Neighborhood Association
Monterey, CA
Get Outlook for Android

Page 215 of 418 ends

From: Sara Henderson
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Reuse Proposal
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 4:16:12 PM
Ms. Haenggi,
It was recently brought to my attention that the proposal for the Arena site includes more retail space. I have a hard time understanding how this could possibly be a good use of this space. I have lived in Natomas for almost 20 years and have seen multiple retail spaces built and either only occupied for short amounts of time, or simply never occupied at all. While I understand that retail could bring revenue to the area, I feel that we need to fill the current retail vacancies before any new spaces are built.

I would love to see this land used for something else. I know that many Natomas residents are interested in relocating the Sacramento Zoo to our neighborhood and I fully support that.

Thank you so much for your time,
Sara Henderson

Page 216 of 418 ends

From: Jon Daniells
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas Site Development
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 9:26:19 PM
I am opposed to the proposed development plan from the Sacramento Kings. They promised something special for the site and were given many concessions as part of the arena development. They have made billions as a result.

This is a betrayal of what they promised to Sacramento.

Natomas and Sacramento deserve more from the Kings at the old arena site. I love the idea of a zoo or another highly imaginative plan for the site. More housing and retail is not a high quality solution for the residents of Sacramento or Natomas.

Thank you.

Jon Daniells
Fredericksburg Way
Sacramento
(916) 718-6958

Page 217 of 418 ends

From: Ruthie Bowers
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas
Date: Thursday, November 28, 2019 6:51:16 AM
Please don't let this opportunity be squandered! Sacramento needs more things that will be attractive for tourists! The railyard has already lost out by allowing Kaiser to build there.

WHAT A WASTE! Tourism will bring the money to our community and provide the already functioning businesses with needed support! This Natomas site could be a fabulous draw for tourists to Sacramento! Think BIG! Hold the Kings accountable to their promises! Thanks for listening.

Ruthie Bowers
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Page 218 of 418 ends

From: Ryan Murphy
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas/Old Arena Feedback
Date: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:28:49 PM
Good day,
Thank you for allowing the public to comment on this project. My proposal is to split the available space in two. Half would create a town square with shopping on the first floor, condos/apartments above, and office space (either on the second floor or small buildings around the town square) . The other half would be given to the zoo. Enough money would be made on half the property to benefit the kings and the other could serve as a tax right off that would also benefit the kings and benefit the community at large. This would uphold their mission of creating a place where there are good paying jobs and contribute and give back to the Sacramento region.

For the mixed use half, I suggest looking at Southlake, TX as the model. http://southlaketownsquare.com/ This model would work really well for Natomas. It would create more housing, more office space, opportunity for smaller retailers, and a family friendly space to gather.

Thank you!
Ryan
Ryan Murphy
916-600-8540

Page 219 of 418 ends

From: kulwant sahota
To: Teresa Haenggi
Subject: Natomas-Sleep Train Arena
Date: Saturday, November 30, 2019 2:31:18 PM
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to read my suggestions. Instead of more homes or retails, we would prefer any kind of entertainment center, top golf, sky high, trampoline etc. we need something for the kids entertainment. We already have a lot of houses and more are being built. We don’t need more houses.

Thank you,
Kulwant Sahota
Natomas resident since 1994

Page 220 of 418 ends

Sacramento City CouncilFebruary 8, 2022

Sacramento City Council
February 8, 2022