Planning Commission approves three‑story Arden Arcade apartment project after neighbor objections

The Sacramento County Planning Commission on Monday approved PLMP2022-00174, a conditional use permit, a special development permit and a design review for a multifamily project at the property listed in the record as “2002 Thousand And 1 Helena Avenue” in the Arden Arcade community. The commission’s vote followed public comment raising privacy, traffic and safety concerns and a staff‑applicant presentation about design changes and coordination with Caltrans.

The project’s environmental document is a mitigated negative declaration. A resident and property owner, Jesus Serrano, told the commission he opposed the project, saying it would reduce privacy for nearby homes, increase neighborhood traffic and worsen problems with homeless encampments. “I disagree with that project because there are couple different reason. First thing, by raising the 3 store apartment, the app won't have more privacy at all,” Serrano said. He said he had experienced vandalism and a fire behind his property and preferred single‑family homes or condominiums.

An applicant representative responded that the design team had presented earlier to the county’s CPAC and had incorporated changes to address neighborhood concerns. The representative said the project includes a double layer of fencing along the freeway side and landscaping intended to provide noise and visual buffering, and that the team was “working in collaboration with Caltrans.” The applicant also said portions of the building facing single‑family homes are reduced to two stories and that design elements minimize windows on the side facing existing residences.

Commissioners asked about landscaping and specific mitigation measures. The applicant identified the larger screening trees on the plan as Chinese pistache and said the landscape plan increases spacing for planter trees “from 30 to 58 feet” (as described during the hearing). Commissioners noted the parcel is underutilized and challenging and that the design team had made efforts to reduce impacts on adjacent homes while allowing housing development.

A motion to approve the project as presented carried unanimously. The clerk reported, “And that item does pass with all members voting yes.” The record does not show a named mover or seconder in the transcript excerpts; the commission had four members present when the meeting opened.

The approval allows the applicant to proceed with the permits described; the transcript does not record subsequent conditions of approval, specific permit timing or building permit dates.