CITY COUNCIL Darrell Steinberg, Mayor Angelique Ashby, Mayor Pro
Tem, District 1 Sean Loloee, District 2 Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4 Jay Schenirer, Vice Mayor, District 5
Eric Guerra, District 6 Rick Jennings, II, District 7 Mai Vang,
District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk Susana Alcala Wood, City
Attorney Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Public Financing Authority Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor Published by the Office of the City
Clerk
(916) 808-5163
CORRESPONDENCE Description of Attached: Correspondence received
after publishing the Agenda. For the Meeting of: Tuesday, January
19, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. Agenda Item: Discussion Item 15 15. 2040
General Plan Update - Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes,
and
other Key Strategies [Continued from 12/01/2020] File ID:
2020-01381 Location: Citywide Recommendation: 1) Adopt a Resolution
accepting the Technical Background Report (TBR) analysis of
existing conditions as a foundation document for the 2040 General
Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) Master
Environmental Impact Report (MEIR); and 2) adopt a Resolution
directing the City Manager and staff to proceed with the Draft Land
Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes, and other Key Strategies for
purposes of the preparation of the Draft 2040 General Plan, CAAP,
and the MEIR Contact: Remi Mendoza, Senior Planner, (916) 808-5003;
Matt Hertel, AICP, Acting Long Range Planning Manager, (916)
808-7158, Community Development Department; Jennifer Donlon Wyant,
Transportation Planning Manager, (916) 808-5913, Department of
Public Works
of 1 3 Francesca Reitano
Letter of submission of input re City Council meeting, January 19,
2021
To: Mayor and City Council Planning Staff
Agenda item 15: 2040 General Plan Update - Draft Land Use Map,
Proposed Roadway Changes and Other Key Strategies [Continued from
December 1, 2020] (File ID:2020-01381)
I ask that this letter become part of the public record on this
agenda item. I would also like to incorporate the letter from the
Elmhurst Neighborhood Association Board by reference, if it is not
already a part of that record.
http://nebula.wsimg.com/fcb918dfbaaa2d8fb79b01469b749952?
AccessKeyId=BC20D48FFA9CA9A107D4&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
Please vote “no” or at the very least, modify the proposal based on
neighborhoods’ and neighbors’ concerns. The city says it has spent
two years notifying the public and receiving input. I was involved
near the beginning of that process, starting with a 2019 meeting at
the Oak Park Community Center. Holding multiple AIM Consulting
meetings with the community, where there are boards to put sticky
notes on, creating “word clouds,” and community completion of
written questionnaires, and multiple choice questions in online
surveys created by the city is not sufficient.
Now that the city is showing its cards and telling us what it
proposes to do, hopefully it can get additional meaningful input.
It would also help to have a “Cliff’s Notes” version of the
proposals. I do not wish to disparage the many hours of work done
by city staff. The information is extremely useful; many hours and
months of writing and research, as well as reviewing survey
responses, went into these proposals. I appreciate and applaud
their effort and will continue to review the materials.
Exclusionary housing is now based on economics. I have been reading
policy documents, analyses and opinions, including the SACOG’s
Housing Policy Toolkit (June 2020), and will continue to do so. The
city is up against pressure to produce housing, and a high
percentage of housing in the city’s neighborhoods is locked in to
single-family housing. The city seeks to mitigate the effects of
redlining in the 1900s, which ended in the 1960s. However, the
proposal to change all R-1 zoning to single-family, duplex, triplex
or fourplex will not solve the effects of redlining more than a
half-century ago in neighborhoods that are desirable. Housing costs
for multi-family units in desirable neighborhoods, be they condos
or rentals, will remain high, locking many out economically. We
have lived in Elmhurst since 1988, back when home ownership in
Elmhurst was economically viable at our income level. There are
many good reasons to increase density in urban areas but opening up
all R-1 zoning indiscriminately is not a good solution.
This proposal does not promote affordability in desirable
neighborhoods. The city has minimal rent control, and none for
single-family homes, many of which, in Elmhurst and other
neighborhoods, are rentals. (I have been told that Elmhurst is
around 50% rentals currently.) There is no requirement for
affordable housing, which the city cannot expect developers to
create without incentives and subsidies. Their job is to make
money, not lose money or merely break even.
of 2 3 Francesca Reitano
Unlimited: there is no plan except to open it all up. There is no
limit in the land use plan as to how many multi-family units can be
in the same block, or in close proximity to other multi- family
units. There is no incentive for developers to develop housing
adjacent to commercial corridors in and on the edges of traditional
neighborhoods first, before changing the essential character of
traditional neighborhoods. We are not NIMBYs. That is a charged and
derogatory term that can be used to discredit neighbors, as well as
serve as an excuse not to hear what we are saying. For example, the
Elmhurst Neighborhood Association Board testified before Council in
favor of the 214-unit GIO building at Stockton and T Streets, and
neighbors and the Board worked with the developer (Evergreen) to
remove opposition to a 41-townhouse project on S Street, between
37th and 39th Streets, before it went to Council.
There is no incentive for home ownership. Most of the multi-family
units created by this proposal will be rentals. Due to construction
liability issues, they will not often be condos. I have nothing
against renters - I was a renter for many years. The inability to
own a home in San Francisco, and then Midtown, brought us to
Elmhurst in 1988. People who want to buy homes will go where the
homes are affordable. That may mean leaving the city.
Neighborhoods have different/varying needs and pressures. One size
fits all is not sufficient. Elmhurst is squeezed by major
development: Aggie Square and expansion of the UC hospital. We are
also subject to transit-oriented development goals as we are in
close proximity to two light rail stations. UC/Aggie Square
development will be beneficial for the community overall and the
city understandably welcomes it; however, Elmhurst and surrounding
neighborhoods are trying to avoid becoming collateral damage in
terms of housing, air quality, traffic and parking issues. The
proposed General Plan 2040 land use change squeezes us from yet
another direction. If Aggie Square and UC workers do not seek to
live here (sending the rents and home prices even higher) they will
be driving to and from here. More housing adjacent and on Stockton
and Broadway is a “must.”
We have been told that due to current off-street parking
requirements in traditional parking districts, triplexes and
fourplexes are less likely to be built on many existing R-1 lots.
If the city goes ahead with this land use plan, parking
requirements must remain the same. We are looking to a world with
less personal vehicles, but it has not happened yet; many housing
units have multiple vehicles.
The city and SACOG point to Minneapolis and Portland, whose zoning
changes only took effect in 2019 and 2020, respectively. This is
too recent to provide a meaningful example, and Minneapolis does
not allow fourplexes. There is not enough data on units created, or
data on how this has affected neighborhoods. Have people who wish
to own homes had to leave their neighborhoods?
We are not exaggerating Cassandras when neighbors say this proposal
will end single-family housing. I saw a thread on twitter on
January 13, 2021, where zoning policy people were (approvingly)
saying the same. “Wow, the proposed 2040 General Plan Update for
Sacramento would replace R-1 zoning with zoning for 1, 2, 3, or 4
unit buildings with a floor area ratio limit of 1. This is how you
get rid of single-family zoning.” - Emily Hamilton, Senior Research
Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University. Thread:
https://twitter.com/ebwhamilton/status/ 1349525443251216384
Green/climate considerations. The greenest building is generally an
existing building. Encouraging teardowns to create density has its
drawbacks. And although housing density can help eliminate
greenhouse gases and other climate concerns by eliminating car
trips, denser housing and hardscape (such as parking for housing)
eliminates trees, which creates more heat, as well as loss of the
trees’ positive effects on air quality. Everything is a
tradeoff.
of 3 3 Francesca Reitano
Thank you for your consideration.
Francesca Reitano Elmhurst Sacramento, California 95817
January 15, 2021
Greg Sandlund, Planning Director Community Development Department
City of Sacramento 900 Richards Blvd., 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA
95811 RE: General Plan Update Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway
Changes, and Other Key Strategies Dear Mr. Sandlund:
The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (Sac
Metro Air District) is pleased to submit a letter of support for
the draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes, and other Key
Strategies for purposes of the preparation of the Draft 2040
General Plan, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and the Master
Environmental Impact Report. The Sac Metro Air District is the
local agency with responsibility for advancing the greater capital
region towards meeting all national ambient air quality standards
and the state’s decarbonization commitments for protection of the
global climate. Because the General Plan is a blueprint of policies
and decisions that will shape the City, its design and
implementation will affect future emission levels in the region.
The draft Land Use Map incorporates land use designations and
proposed maximum development intensities that will allow the City
to develop zoning that permits a greater diversity of housing
types. This change will enable more infill development and result
in an improvement in the local jobs/housing balance, more walking
and bicycling for short trips, and reduced vehicle miles traveled.
Reduced vehicle trips will decrease emissions of ozone-forming
compounds, particulate matter, and greenhouse gases and thus
contribute to the achievement of the District’s air quality and
climate goals. The Proposed Roadway Changes reduce the total number
of vehicle travel lanes on key roadways throughout Sacramento and
reallocate that space to high- frequency transit or active
transportation. This will support increased use of alternatives to
private vehicle travel, including transit, bicycle, and pedestrian
modes, slowing drivers (safety), and creating comfortable space for
those walking and biking. The potential reductions in vehicle trips
and trip lengths will
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Eric Guerra, Chair Council Member City of
Sacramento
Sue Frost, Vice Chair Vice Chair Sacramento County
Sarah Aquino Vice Mayor City of Folsom
Bret Daniels Council Member City of Citrus Heights
Rich Desmond Supervisor Sacramento County
Jeff Harris Vice Mayor City of Sacramento
Patrick Kennedy Supervisor County of Sacramento
Sean Loloee Council Member City of Sacramento
Don Nottoli Supervisor Sacramento County
Kevin Papineau Council Member City of Galt
Phil Serna Chair Sacramento County
Bobbie Singh-Allen Mayor City of Elk Grove
Donald Terry Council Member City of Rancho Cordova
Mai Vang Council Member City of Sacramento
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Alberto Ayala
General Plan Update Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes,
and Other Key Strategies Page 2 of 3
decrease emissions of air pollutants that increase risk of
respiratory conditions, cardiovascular disease, and many other
health conditions. Among the other Key Strategies proposed,
strategies #3 and #4 represent a mandate for all new buildings to
be all-electric and for transitioning existing buildings away from
the use of fossil fuels for building operations. Eliminating the
burning of natural gas in buildings is a strategy that will reduce
indoor air pollution as well as outdoor air pollutants and
greenhouse gases. The transition to all-electric buildings supports
the implementation of SMUD’s Integrated Resource Plan and the
Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change, both of which seek to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases by eliminating the use of natural gas
in buildings. Key Strategy #5, to provide infrastructure to fully
transition from combustion engine vehicles to the use of
zero-emission vehicles, will greatly reduce emissions of oxides of
nitrogen and other criteria air pollutants that place the health of
the public at risk, especially for those who reside near a major
roadway. This is an important action to reduce the generation of
both pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. Key Strategy #6, to
increase tree canopy cover in the City, will provide multiple
public health, social, economic, and aesthetic benefits. Trees
capture, absorb and disperse particulate air pollutants and reduce
formation of ozone. Increasing tree planting in existing parking
lots will yield shade that will reduce emissions of volatile
organic chemicals in parked cars. The Sac Metro Air District is
particularly supportive of the plans to prioritize tree canopy
investments in areas of poor air quality and areas with populations
most vulnerable to the effects of pollution. Planting trees is a
particularly effective measure for reducing the impacts of
increasing urban heat, according to a recent Sac Metro Air District
report on urban heat island effect in the Sacramento region1. Shade
trees can protect vulnerable populations from extreme heat and
reduce formation of ozone for the entire region. Key Strategy #10,
to eliminate City-mandated parking minimums citywide and introduce
parking maximums, will help to reduce the costs of development and
will encourage people to lead car-lite and car-free lifestyle.
Reducing the requirements for including parking with development
will help to reduce the cost of producing housing, which is
critically needed in the Sacramento region. The Sac Metro Air
District also recommends adding the strategy of “unbundling”
parking costs in multifamily developments to encourage car-free
living. Unbundled parking allows residents to sign leases for
apartments and to separately choose whether to lease parking
spaces. The result is a system that levies the cost of parking
spaces only to those who use them and offers significant housing
cost savings to those who choose to live with fewer or no
vehicles.
1 Keeping Cool in the Sacramento Region: Capital Region Urban Heat
Island Mitigation Project, Sacramento, CA. Sacramento
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2020.
https://urbanheat-smaqmd.hub.arcgis.com/
General Plan Update Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes,
and Other Key Strategies Page 3 of 3
Perhaps the most important quality of these Key Strategies is their
potential to reduce generation of greenhouse gas emissions and
increase carbon sequestration. We are excited that, with these Key
Strategies, the City is moving forward to implement the
recommendations of the June 2020 report of the Mayors’ Commission
on Climate Change. The changes recommended, if implemented, will
advance the Sac Metro Air District goals of protecting public
health and the environment through clean air and a low-carbon
future. The Sac Metro Air District requests that you forward these
recommendations to the Sacramento City Council. In a spirit of
partnership with the City of Sacramento as we work toward clean air
and climate stabilization, we urge the Council to approve these
proposed components of the Draft 2040 General Plan. Sincerely,
Alberto Ayala, Ph.D., M.S.E Executive Director/Air Pollution
Control Officer cc: VIA EMAIL
Mr. Jaime Lemus, Division Manager
Transportation and Climate Change Division
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
Mr. Raef Porter, Program Manager
Transportation and Climate Change Division
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
Mr. Paul Philley, AICP, Program Supervisor
CEQA and Land Use Section
Transportation and Climate Change Division
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
Ms. Teri Duarte, MPH, Land Use and Health Planner
CEQA and Land Use Section
Transportation and Climate Change Division
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
From: Patricia Baron To: Jeff Harris Cc: Public Comment;
[email protected] Subject: Save single family zoning Date:
Monday, January 18, 2021 7:21:04 PM
Dear Mr. Harris: I have very recently become aware that a General
Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Update (2040 General
Plan Update) was initiated in February 2019. I have learned the
project consists of four main phases of work. To wrap-up Phase 2
“Options Exploration”, on January 19, City Council is being asked
to consider the Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes and
Other Key Strategies. The City acknowledges these Key Strategies
represent substantial policy changes being considered for the 2040
General Plan. One of the proposed key strategies is to permit a
greater array of housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes in existing residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately,
the City website fails to provide access to a copy of the actual
2040 General Plan proposed language, or a copy of the Draft Land
Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes and Other Key Strategies
concerning this proposal. I have clicked on the links referenced on
the website, staff summaries, frequently asked questions, newspaper
articles, etc. with no success in obtaining the language or map. As
a member of the public I am left to guess as to the accuracies of
the summaries being provided by both the proponents and the
opponents of said proposal. Based on the available materials, I am
writing to express my opposition to the draft General Plan proposal
that would permit a greater array of housing types such as
duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in existing single family
residential neighborhoods. I believe this will open the door to
outside investors to buy, tear down, or remodel existing single
family homes, replacing them with denser apartments which will
destroy the peace and quiet of our neighborhoods. In addition to
noise, the increased density will also have an adverse impact on
quality of life due to increased traffic. It has been my experience
that the City has routinely granted waivers to builders and
businesses, permitting them to avoid the cost of providing
sufficient parking spaces for their projects. The result is that
people must park vehicles on the city streets. This planning
concept seems to be based on a misguided hope that the failure to
provide sufficient parking facilities will force people to abandon
their cars and instead walk, bike, scooter, or Uber to all
locations and thus reduce the carbon footprint. This is not the
reality. Traffic congestion has increased in the city as people
circle the blocks seeking a place to park. Furthermore, the number
of vehicle break-ins has increased as owners must leave their cars
parked on city streets. Residents have continued to be burdened
with the negative impacts of congestion, increased trash and more
frustration. The city publication suggests this zoning change will
reverse past discrimination. This sounds disingenuous. There is no
evidence to support a conclusion that these zoning changes will
address the remnant forces of government policies of exclusion and
racial segregation. I would continue to support efforts to fund
Police re-training, re-organization and education to address
inequality, especially in public safety.
P.O. Box 163179, Sacramento, CA 95816-9179
January 18, 2021 Honorable Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Sent via
Email Members of the Sacramento City Council City Hall, 5th Floor
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814 2040 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE: BPNA
COMMENTS ON DRAFT LAND USE AND MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY MAPS
AND KEY STRATEGIES The Board of Directors of the Boulevard Park
Neighborhood Association (BPNA) has reviewed the proposed land use
and development intensity/floor area ratio (FAR) maps and key
strategies for their potential impacts on Sacramento’s historic
resources and residential neighborhoods. We appreciate earlier
opportunities to comment on prior versions of these maps and the
willingness of city planning staff to make changes to lessen those
impacts. We understand from our December 15 meeting with planning
staff that on January 19, the City Council is being asked to
endorse the proposed Land Use and FAR “framework,” but that
parcel-specific changes can still be made up to adoption of the
2040 General Plan toward the end of 2021. Due to the complexity of
these issues and the sensitivity and irreplaceability of
Sacramento’s historic resources, it will take some time to ensure
their protection.
Below are our comments and concerns: 1) We support the proposals to
reduce the number of land uses, to substitute regulation of
Floor
Area Ratios for the current system of dwelling unit densities, and
to allow construction of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes
throughout Sacramento’s neighborhoods. These measures would
simplify our current complex zoning and would allow higher density
while managing overall building sizes. Together, these changes
would move Sacramento in the direction of “form-based codes,” in
which the appearance of buildings drives construction.
Interestingly, Sacramento’s Central City neighborhoods were
originally built in this way, with single family homes interspersed
with outwardly similar multi-family structures and structures with
housing units above neighborhood-serving business.
2) Historic resources are best protected by planning and zoning
requirements that are consistent with existing conditions. We
realize that in addition to the General Plan, development on
historic parcels is limited by zoning, the Planning and Development
Code, the Historic District Plans, and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. However,
when General Plan land uses and FARs are inconsistent with what is
permissible
BPNA Comments on Land Use Maps - 2 - January 18, 2021
under those other documents, developers are given unrealistic
expectations and are encouraged to push back against the more
specific and more restrictive limitations. As a result, developers
are led to expect more flexible interpretations and are more apt to
apply for deviations, which tend to circumvent the standards and
guidelines. Some current property owners will view the
inconsistencies as justification to cease maintaining their
historic properties, allowing them to fall into the cycle of
demolition-by-neglect with the hope of more profitable future
development projects once the historic resource has deteriorated
past the ability to be rehabilitated. Wouldn’t our irreplaceable
historic resources be better protected by reducing or eliminating
the inconsistencies in the first place?
3) The focus so far of planning staff responses to preservation
concerns has been on Historic Districts. However, similar concerns
exist with individually listed Landmarks that are outside of
Historic Districts, where Sacramento’s Historic District Plans are
not applicable. We urge the city to take the time to survey those
resources to ensure that proposed land uses and FAR designations
are sufficiently consistent with existing uses, such that
development pressures and speculation will not place those
resources at risk.
4) Land uses that favor (1) retention of existing housing and (2)
creation of new housing would be consistent with Sacramento’s need
to address the current housing shortage, especially the shortage of
affordable housing. Older housing stock will nearly always be more
affordable than newly constructed housing. So, preservation of
existing housing stock should be a high priority. Designating
existing housing parcels as Residential Mixed Use (RMU) would
encourage conversion of some residential units to office,
commercial, or service-related uses, thereby reducing housing
stock. Additionally, the city should be encouraging historic
structures that were originally built as housing, but later
converted into office or other uses, to be converted back into
housing; RMU land use designation works in the opposite direction.
Any proposed conversion of existing housing stock to RMU
designation should be carefully evaluated and generally
discouraged.
5) Once the 2040 General Plan has been adopted, we understand that
zoning of parcels will need to be adjusted to be consistent with
the new land uses and FAR designations. Current requirements of the
2018 Central City Specific Plan include transitional height
limitations between higher- density urban corridor commercial
parcels and those parcels designated for R-1 or R-3 residential
uses. Similar transitional height limitations between
“Neighborhood” and RMU and between disparate FAR designations
similarly will be needed to prevent larger structures from
overshadowing smaller residential structures.
6) Current development regulations, including the 2018 Central City
Specific Plan, permit the granting of deviations from development
standards and guidelines for building height based on the
yet-undefined “significant community benefit.” The current
unlimited system of granting deviations is ripe for abuse and leads
to land speculation and the construction of new structures that
dominate their neighbors. We recommend a 20 percent cap be imposed
on the size of deviations that may be granted with regard to
building height and setbacks.
7) Below are specific parcel designation issues in the area served
by the Boulevard Park Neighborhood Association, based on Land Use
and FAR maps included in the staff report. While we focused on our
neighborhood, we believe that similar issues exist in other Central
City neighborhoods, which deserve reconsideration. A careful staff
survey is warranted. a) Grant Park, bounded by B, C, 21st, and 22nd
Streets, is one of the original “Public Squares”
designated in the Official Map of the City of Sacramento adopted by
resolution of December
BPNA Comments on Land Use Maps - 3 - January 18, 2021
4, 1854. But it is shown with a FAR of 2.0 on the draft 2040
General Plan Update development intensity map. This park, a
character defining feature of both the National Register and the
City of Sacramento’s Boulevard Park Historic Districts, should be
designated with “No FAR” so that the park use is retained and no
buildings are constructed.
b) Directly east of the Boulevard Park Historic Districts, parcels
between Blues Alley and C Street are shown with an RMU land use and
FAR of 4.0. Many of these parcels contain existing one-story
single-family homes which should be retained. We recommend a
“Neighborhood” land use designation and FAR of 2.0 to lessen
inappropriate development pressure on these residential
parcels.
c) 1905 I Street is a two-story individually listed Landmark
Neoclassic residential structure, currently used for offices, which
is inconsistent with the proposed FAR of 6.0. We recommend a FAR of
no more than 2.0.
d) 2100 I Street is a three-story Landmark Neoclassic six-unit
residential structure within the Boulevard Park Historic District,
which is inconsistent with the proposed RMU land use and a FAR of
6.0. We recommend “Neighborhood” land use and a FAR of 4.0.
e) Two parcels within the New Washington School Historic District,
1911 and 1912 F Street, are shown with a FAR of 6.0. A FAR of 6.0
is in conflict with height limitations in the Historic District
Plans, as these parcels are immediately adjacent to single- and
two-story residential contributors, one of which is a Landmark. The
Historic District Plans limit building heights in this district to
no more than 150% of the height of neighboring Contributing
structures. A FAR of 2.0 or 3.0 would be more appropriate for these
parcels.
f) 1827 H Street is a two-story Landmark Italianate residence
proposed to be designated RMU. “Neighborhood” would be more
appropriate to preserving this historic structure.
g) The Union Pacific Railroad right of way between 19th and 20th
Streets should be designated as Open Space with “No FAR,” as
construction on these parcels is impractical.
Sincerely, Dr. Jon B. Marshack Preservation Chair Boulevard Park
Neighborhood Association cc: Board of Directors, Boulevard Park
Neighborhood Association Remi Mendoza, Senior Planner, Community
Development Department Matt Hertel, Acting Long Range Planning
Manager, Community Development Department Carson Anderson,
Preservation Director, Community Development Department Central
City Neighborhood Leaders Preservation Sacramento
From: Bre To: Eric Guerra Cc: Public Comment Subject: single family
zoning Date: Monday, January 18, 2021 6:49:25 PM
Mr. Guerro, Please vote to preserve single family zoning in
Sacramento. I have lived in Sacramento most of my life. I am
currently living in the house I grew up in( Lived in the same house
for about 40 of my 50 years). If the neighbor would have been a
bunch of apartment buildings not so sure I would be living in the
house or even in Sacramento. I enough getting to know my neighbors
but if there were apartment buildings or 4plex buildings there
would be more noise and less parking on the streets. Where I live
there is already a parking issue with the hospital. I also don't
want buildings that could look into my backyard from their own
windows. Also by putting 4 plex or apartments in single family
area, this will not make housing more affordable but would still be
at market rate. This would also change the value of my home, it
would decrease my value which is not fair for the people who have
homes already.
Please save the single family zoning
Thank you Brenda rhea 4859 U Street Sacramento ca 95817
I completely reject rezoning & all that it represents!!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jamie Callahan To: Public Comment Subject: Support General
Plan 2040 Date: Monday, January 18, 2021 9:10:44 PM
Hello, My family and I live in the Elmhurst neighborhood and do no
support the position of the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association in
opposing the General Plan 2040 update. We support policy decisions
that address Sacramento’s housing shortage, climate goals and
address historic inequities. Thank you to members of the City
Council who are leading with these priorities in mind.
Thank you, Jamie Callahan & Jonah Johnson
From: Maggie Coulter To: Public Comment Cc: Eric Guerra Subject:
Revise the Land Use Element to Keep Single family Zoning (Item 15,
1-19-21 Agenda) Date: Saturday, January 16, 2021 10:18:35 PM
The blanket elimination of single-family zoning by allowing
duplexes, 3-plexes and 4-plexes up to 3 stories on every
residential lot will wipe out lower density single family
neighborhoods, some sooner than others. Those who say this won’t
change existing neighborhoods are not telling the truth, in fact
the goal of this component of the proposed General Plan 2040 is
absolutely to change existing neighborhoods. Single family houses
now being flipped will be torn down or remodeled and turned into
multifamily rentals. This has already happened in midtown and will
be accelerated in more vulnerable neighborhoods. The bottom line is
profit, not concern about creating affordable housing or more
diverse neighborhoods. Eliminating single family zoning and
neighborhoods will not create affordable housing or right past
wrongs of discrimination. On the contrary, it will enrich investors
while limiting homeownership opportunities. Single family homes
will be replaced with multifamily market-rate rentals owned in many
cases by absentee landlords. Eliminating single family housing and
neighborhood options within the city means that fewer people will
be able to own single family houses and those that can afford to
will move farther out, increasing sprawl and commuting. There are
ample vacant lots and commercial spaces that could be converted to
housing – these should be designed from scratch with a housing mix
and a requirement that a certain percentage be affordable.
Haphazardly packing more density into existing neighborhoods with
infrastructure built for lower density will decrease quality of
life, rather than solving the housing crisis. Many, if not most,
Sacramento neighborhoods already have some multifamily housing
including duplexes, apartments, and accessory dwelling units. The
heavy handed, one- size-fits-all approach of this proposal ignores
that existing diversity. People, who have chosen to live and build
community in these less dense neighborhoods, are being falsely
labeled and defamed as NIMBYS. Not everyone wants to live in a
dense mixed-use neighborhood, and this should not be the only
choice in the city of Sacramento. The argument that all
neighborhoods should be uniform in their housing so that
theoretically everyone can live anywhere is absurd as there is a
finite amount of housing in any neighborhood so everyone can’t
possibly live there. This false argument belies what is more
important which is that ALL neighborhoods in Sacramento should be
desirable places to live. All should have nearby parks, safe
streets, and good schools. Uniformity does not equal equity.
Sacramentans need to be presented with all the facts about this
proposal and the future city its proponents envision. Maybe it is
time to let Sacramentans vote on the future they want for
Sacramento. Send the Land Use Element back to the drawing board. M.
Coulter Sacramento
From: Patricia Daugherty To: Public Comment Subject: Oppose
eliminating single family zoning Date: Monday, January 18, 2021
3:04:47 PM
Eliminating single family zoning throughout Sacramento will not
solve our affordable housing crisis, nor correct the legacy of
discriminatory practices and redlining. While it may produce more
housing units, affordability is not guaranteed. Quite the contrary,
it will likely be a boon for investors and a real bust for
affordable housing ownership. Tangible financial incentives and
support for home ownership is one of the best ways to lift up
communities that have been historically marginalized. It also helps
support neighborhood stability. I applaud efforts to address
affordable and equitable housing, but a blanket elimination of
existing single-family zoning is short sighted and will result in a
less desirable and livable city by 2040. Instead, how about
reinstating inclusionary housing requirements for all new
development? Incentivize new development to be mixed housing with
the infrastructure to support it. Reinvest in historically
marginalized neighborhoods and their surroundings so that all
Sacramento neighborhoods are desirable places to live.
thank you, Patricia Daugherty District 6 -- Patricia Daugherty
916.225.8511
Dear Councilman Eric Guerra and City Hall,
I am writing today to tell you why I oppose changing the Single
Family Zoning Requirement in the Elmhurst Neighborhood.
Every neighborhood in Sacramento has a different flavor and people
choose to live in their neighborhood for the most part because it
suits their current needs.
My family has invested in buying a home in Elmhurst, because it is
quiet, walkable,safe for children to play, and diverse. We like the
mix of home styles that provide living quarters for med center
students, working people, retired people, and many many families
with young children. Many of the homes are owner occupied and yet
almost half of Elmhurst provides rentals.
We have paid for a home in this neighborhood because it has room to
grow fruit trees, vegetables, garden nooks, family gathering
spaces. There is enough room to park without having a continuous
flow of traffic. Our property is not shadowed with 35 foot slab
concrete apartment buildings.
We all pay for the privilege of living in the type of neighborhood
we choose whether we buy or we rent.
Since my family moved into Elmhurst almost 30 years ago. there has
been a continuous on slot of events where the city has tried to
take away our neighborhood and make it into something else. This is
very disrespectful. This current General Plan with its loosening of
many permit requirements sounds like you are trying to make it
easier for the City Planners by throwing our neighborhoods to the
wolves. It is setting us up to have investors come in and tear down
our existing homes and replace them with massive expensive multi
unit residences, so they can make more money at our expense.
Please don't destroy the quality of our neighborhood and totally
out price the rentals and purchases for the people who need this
neighborhood to be close to where they work and go to school while
making out of town/out of country investors rich.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Janice Douglas 5500 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916)
832-2340
From: Paul Douglas To: Eric Guerra Cc: Public Comment;
[email protected] Subject: General Plan Proposal - Oppose Date:
Monday, January 18, 2021 10:25:57 PM
Councilmember Guerra: I am opposed to changing the Land Use Element
portion of the General Plan proposal. I have been a homeowner and
resident in Elmhurst almost 30 years. Allowing more multi-plex
housing could cause a variety of issues. I am concerned that single
family homes could be purchased by out of town property management
companies who could then tear down the existing single family home
and replace it with several units. A developer could put in a
4-plex unit which would then create a parking issue. If an investor
were to put in a 4-plex of 2 bedroom units, you could reasonably
expect 8 vehicles or more that will need to be parked. Parking
space for 8 cars would take up a good portion of a lot. This would
lead to many vehicles being parked on narrow streets at risk of
being struck by passing vehicles. (We are constantly receiving
offers from investors to sell “As Is”.) The volume of car traffic
could increase, rather than decrease. We have long had problems
with traffic, both the volume of traffic and the velocity of the
vehicles. I was on the Elmhurst Traffic Calming Committee about 20
years ago. We were able to affect some changes with the city
engineer, but we still have a lot of traffic coming through. The
effect of denser housing would be to increase the volume of
traffic. There is nothing in the current plan that would require an
investor make the units “Affordable”. Rather, an investor would
most likely be guided by how quickly would their investment return
a profit and charge the “Market Rate”. Additionally, the Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance should be amended to allow only 1
ADU. Putting in 2 ADUs on a property that had a duplex would now
become a 4-plex. This would now be a small apartment complex which
is not appropriate for a neighborhood of primarily single family
homes. We enjoy the relative quiet of our neighborhood. Thank you
for your interest in this matter. Paul Douglas (916) 832-2341
January 14, 2021 Honorable Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Members of
the City Council 915 I Street, 5th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 RE:
Emergency Ordinance Small Temporary Residential Shelters and
Temporary Shelter Facilities Dear Mayor Steinberg and Council: On
behalf of the Central City Property and Business Improvements
Districts (PBID) signatories below, we are writing as dedicated
partners in the effort to advance solutions to end homelessness. We
appreciate your leadership and the city’s commitment of finding
meaningful solutions. Past experience has shown shelters are most
successful when there is a plan in place that manages the impacts
to surrounding communities, offers a pathway to permanent
supportive housing, and has strong operation standards in place. We
have seen first-hand the unintended impacts that unpermitted
providers of homeless services can have on the very population they
are trying to serve. It is the unfortunate reality that businesses,
residents and patrons in the Central City encounter on a daily
basis. If the ordinance is approved, we ask that the following
items are included:
1. Protect the public health, safety, and welfare of our
neighborhoods. In the case of temporary shelters, much of the
existing City Code is designed to protect our most utilized and
sensitive locations, including neighborhood parks, schools, and
family residences. While this ordinance would not require a
conditional use permit, we support requiring temporary shelters on
all properties be at least 500 feet away from sensitive uses,
including family-friendly destinations like museums and single
family and duplex land uses. Additionally, we strongly support
establishing a half-mile minimum distance requirement from any
temporary residential shelter (including temporary sites such as
Project RoomKey). This is a critical measure to prevent over
concentration in any one neighborhood. 2. Establish safety and
operational standards for these facilities. We support the
recommendation developed with input from shelter operators,
funders, and people experiencing homelessness. These facilities
should include essential planning standards that considers site
layout, sanitation and access as well as clear operational
protocols for operation, staffing, food service, facilities and
support services. It’s important that an operator of any size
shelter, have the ability to manage the facility and triage
individuals into services with the goal of connecting them with
long-term permanent solutions. 3. Implement a notification process
to adjacent land uses prior to approval. This was removed from the
proposed ordinance, but staff does outline two possible options. We
support option B on page 49 of the staff report that mails notices
to property owners and tenants within 500 feet from the proposed
temporary residential shelter or shelter facility. Although
requiring additional staff time and nominal costs associated with
mailing notices to adjacent landowners, this process will prevent
additional problems after the approval process. A mechanism is also
needed to address problems that arise in a timely manner.
Addressing homelessness must remain a priority for Sacramento, and
we are supportive of the direction to develop a master plan that
can be adopted throughout the city. We ask that the core of every
initiative around homelessness be rooted in fundamentals including
triage, wrap around services, sanitation, and basic services to
ensure public health standards are met. We can and must do this and
maintain measures intended to protect our neighborhoods. We are
committed to working with you to find solutions during this shelter
crisis and create a successful model that will truly impact our
collective focus to end homelessness and address the significant
mental illness and substance abuse crises in our community.
Sincerely,
Michael T. Ault, Executive Director Downtown Sacramento Partnership
Emily Baime Michaels, Executive Director Midtown Association
Michelle Smira, Administrator R Street Partnership CC: Howard Chan,
Sacramento City Manager Tom Pace, Community Development Director
Greg Sandlund, Acting Development Director Bridgette Dean, Office
of Community Response Director
From: Elmhurst Neighborhood Assoc To: Public Comment Subject: Do
not eliminate single family zoning/neighborhoods Date: Sunday,
January 17, 2021 10:08:41 AM
Several members of the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association (ENA)
board met with Sacramento City Planners Matt Hertel and Remi
Martinez on December 22, 2020 about the proposed General Plan 2040
provisions that would eliminate single-family neighborhoods in
Sacramento.
Specifically, the proposed plan would allow for duplexes, 3-plexes
and/or 4-plexes to be built on any or all lots in Elmhurst and any
single-family neighborhoods in Sacramento. This would be the
beginning of the end of single-family neighborhoods as developers
would be able to convert any or all single-family houses to
multi-family structures regardless of impact on the
neighborhood.
The proposed General Plan also includes the adoption of floor area
ratios (FARs) to allow for building square footage to be equal to
the lot’s square footage. On a typical 5000 square foot lot in
Elmhurst, buildings could be 5000 square feet, typical houses in
the neighborhood are now well under 2000 square feet. The city
planners said lots would still have set-back and lot coverage
provisions, but we are well aware that such provisions can be and
are waived through variance requests. We have seen that in new
construction in our own neighborhood.
If the General Plan is adopted with these provisions, single family
neighborhoods would disappear, turning into denser multi-family
neighborhoods with aggravated parking and traffic problems because
existing narrow streets cannot accommodate the increased parking
and traffic that would result from higher densities. This means
that people who want to live in single-family neighborhoods will
move to the foothills and other lower density areas increasing
commuting and its concomitant carbon use and air pollution that is
antithetical to the goal of reducing the carbon footprint.
We were told these proposed changes would reverse redlining and
segregation caused by CC&R’s, which decades ago prevented sales
of homes to non-whites in Elmhurst and other neighborhoods. Housing
discrimination on the basis of race has been illegal in California
since 1966 when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition
14 that had legally allowed such discrimination. Eliminating single
family neighborhoods will do nothing to address past practices of
redlining or racially restrictive CC&R’s. In fact, it would
reduce homeownership opportunities for all racial and ethnic groups
because the new proposed duplexes, 3-plexes, and 4-plexes in all
likelihood will mostly, if not entirely, be rentals. These
provisions would become another form of exclusionary zoning – one
that excludes people from becoming single-family homeowners or
living in single-family neighborhoods because its goal is to
eliminate single-family homes and neighborhoods.
Another false claim is that eliminating single-family neighborhoods
will create affordable housing. This is a fallacy that is quite
evident in our own neighborhood where the newest and highest
density development, the GIO building has, if not the highest,
among the highest rents in the neighborhood. It is further readily
apparent in downtown and midtown where the scores of new
multifamily units have high rents.
Elmhurst, Oak Park, Tahoe Park, and other neighborhoods are
particularly vulnerable because of their proximity to the UC Davis
Medical Center that is planning significant expansion through Aggie
Square, the new eye center, and other development. Under the
proposed plan, investors would be allowed to convert or tear down
existing single-family homes and make them into rental multi-family
units, significantly increasing density, parking, and transiency.
Those who bought single-family houses in these neighborhoods with
the understanding that they would continue to be single-family will
now be thrown under the bus for bad public policy to wipe out
single-family neighborhoods.
Houses are being flipped in Elmhurst and other neighborhoods all
the time. At least in our neighborhood these are being flipped to
single-family homes that are in high demand. If the General Plan
2040 provisions are adopted, we can expect that some, if not many,
of these will be flipped to multi-family units creating densities
that will adversely affect the quality of life in our
neighborhoods.
What these proposed provisions do is take away control from
homeowners and give it disproportionately to investors who don’t
live in the neighborhood but would be allowed to shoe-horn in
multi-family buildings with no regard for impacts on the
neighborhood. Single- family home ownership and long-term renters
promote neighborhood stability and quality of community that has
been a cornerstone of Sacramento. Single-family neighborhoods need
to be protected and nurtured, not destroyed.
We recognize that higher density housing needs to be available, but
so do housing options, including single-family. Further, when
higher densities are planned as part of infill new developments,
they can be better accommodated with street width and other
features that are incorporated into the design.
If existing single-family neighborhoods are eliminated through the
city of Sacramento’s General Plan, the reality is that
single-family homes will become out of reach economically for more
and more people. Eventually only the wealthy or very wealthy will
be able to afford single family homes, which will most likely be
located further and further from the city, some in gated
communities.
We do not believe that most residents in Sacramento’s existing
single-family neighborhoods want these changes. We also don’t
believe that most people are aware of the drastic changes being
proposed.
-- Elmhurst Neighborhood Association (If you do not receive a
prompt reply, please email:
[email protected])
January 19, 2021 Item #15 2040 General Plan Update Dear Mayor
Steinberg, Councilmember Harris and Members of the City Council,
The East Sacramento Improvement Association (ESIA) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the General Plan and Community Plan Key
Strategies that will be presented to the City Council on January
19, 2021. Key Strategy #1: Permit a greater array of housing types
in existing single-unit neighborhoods. ESIA supports Key Strategy
#1 to permit a greater array of housing types in existing
single-unit neighborhoods. We support the goal of providing more
housing opportunities and choices in our neighborhood, and to
address housing inequities. We do not oppose the Land Use Plan that
shifts regulation of land use to a floor area ratio instead of
density. As this strategy moves forward, we want to ensure the
strategy truly achieves its intended purpose to provide more
housing for the “missing middle.” ESIA asks the City Council to
consider the following:
1. Ensure that the character of East Sacramento is maintained
through the implementation of design guidelines and specific
development standards. We have worked hard over the years to
maintain the livability of East Sac by addressing “McMansionism”
and supporting the height and bulk design standards. We also note
that East Sacramento has many duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
small apartment complexes, and bungalow courts that fit well within
the neighborhood, especially on many streets in the “30’s”. We
recognize that two Accessory Dwelling Units are already permitted
(up to three units on a lot) in single- family zones.
2. Consider a focused implementation that considers key locations
where this strategy might
work the best in order to address both the need for rental housing
and more affordable for-sale housing. Let’s put emphasis on
locations such as (a) along collector streets, (b) on corner lots,
(c) near grocery stores, medical facilities and parks, (d) areas
where lots can be assembled for townhomes, bungalow courts, or
small lot/cluster homes, or (e) repurposing vacant or underutilized
commercial, office and warehouse areas.
2
3. The City should keep in mind that many of the residences and
parcels in the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown and Midtown were
developed and built prior to the Zoning Code. This resulted in lots
that are very often smaller and differently shaped than the
traditional lots required by the Zoning Code. It may well be
difficult to construct four-plex units on interior lot properties
developed prior to the standards of the Zoning Code in these older
areas, without combining adjacent parcels.
4. ESIA would like to be part of the Equity Community Engagement
program so we can
continue to have this dialogue with community members on how best
to achieve increased housing goals.
Key Strategy #2: Facilitate compact mixed-use development in key
commercial corridors to create vibrant walkable and
transit-supportive neighborhoods. We highly support new housing in
commercial corridors and along transit routes. We’re seeing some
highly successful rental and ownership projects along Alhambra and
Folsom Boulevards and 65th Street, and townhomes on other collector
streets such as J and L Streets. ESIA has supported each of these
new higher density projects in East Sacramento. We are pleased to
see the General Plan will designate the SMUD 59th Street Reuse
Project for Residential Mixed-Use. Key Strategy #4: Gradually
transition existing buildings away from natural gas to electric and
assist low-income residents by offering financial incentives.
We support local efforts to address climate change. However, we
have concerns with Strategy #4 and the transition to convert
existing buildings to all-electric. We understand that
implementation of this strategy is not imminent, and we hope that
our association can stay engaged. Our concern is the financial
impact on households, especially those with fixed or lower incomes.
We have many residents living in older homes that often need new
appliances. We understand the costs to convert to all-electric
heating and cooling systems and appliances can be high and
complicated, and that the technology behind all-electric appliances
is still evolving and may not be widely available in the timeframe
identified in the strategy. The GHG reduction benefits of this
strategy may not be worth the costs, and we would like more
information. This letter represents the opinion of the ESIA Board
of Directors. We have provided information to our membership though
we have not been able to hold a community forum. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment. Tricia Stevens, ESIA President, can be
reached at
[email protected] or (916) 698-4592. Sincerely,
Tricia Stevens East Sacramento Improvement Association
1
January 19, 2021 Item #15 2040 General Plan Update Dear Mayor
Steinberg, Councilmember Harris and Members of the City Council,
The East Sacramento Improvement Association (ESIA) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the General Plan and Community Plan Key
Strategies that will be presented to the City Council on January
19, 2021. Key Strategy #1: Permit a greater array of housing types
in existing single-unit neighborhoods. ESIA supports Key Strategy
#1 to permit a greater array of housing types in existing
single-unit neighborhoods. We support the goal of providing more
housing opportunities and choices in our neighborhood, and to
address housing inequities. We do not oppose the Land Use Plan that
shifts regulation of land use to a floor area ratio instead of
density. As this strategy moves forward, we want to ensure the
strategy truly achieves its intended purpose to provide more
housing for the “missing middle.” ESIA asks the City Council to
consider the following:
1. Ensure that the character of East Sacramento is maintained
through the implementation of design guidelines and specific
development standards. We have worked hard over the years to
maintain the livability of East Sac by addressing “McMansionism”
and supporting the height and bulk design standards. We also note
that East Sacramento has many duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
small apartment complexes, and bungalow courts that fit well within
the neighborhood, especially on many streets in the “30’s”. We
recognize that two Accessory Dwelling Units are already permitted
(up to three units on a lot) in single- family zones.
2. Consider a focused implementation that considers key locations
where this strategy might
work the best in order to address both the need for rental housing
and more affordable for-sale housing. Let’s put emphasis on
locations such as (a) along collector streets, (b) on corner lots,
(c) near grocery stores, medical facilities and parks, (d) areas
where lots can be assembled for townhomes, bungalow courts, or
small lot/cluster homes, or (e) repurposing vacant or underutilized
commercial, office and warehouse areas.
2
3. The City should keep in mind that many of the residences and
parcels in the neighborhoods surrounding Downtown and Midtown were
developed and built prior to the Zoning Code. This resulted in lots
that are very often smaller and differently shaped than the
traditional lots required by the Zoning Code. It may well be
difficult to construct four-plex units on interior lot properties
developed prior to the standards of the Zoning Code in these older
areas, without combining adjacent parcels.
4. ESIA would like to be part of the Equity Community Engagement
program so we can
continue to have this dialogue with community members on how best
to achieve increased housing goals.
Key Strategy #2: Facilitate compact mixed-use development in key
commercial corridors to create vibrant walkable and
transit-supportive neighborhoods. We highly support new housing in
commercial corridors and along transit routes. We’re seeing some
highly successful rental and ownership projects along Alhambra and
Folsom Boulevards and 65th Street, and townhomes on other collector
streets such as J and L Streets. ESIA has supported each of these
new higher density projects in East Sacramento. We are pleased to
see the General Plan will designate the SMUD 59th Street Reuse
Project for Residential Mixed-Use. Key Strategy #4: Gradually
transition existing buildings away from natural gas to electric and
assist low-income residents by offering financial incentives.
We support local efforts to address climate change. However, we
have concerns with Strategy #4 and the transition to convert
existing buildings to all-electric. We understand that
implementation of this strategy is not imminent, and we hope that
our association can stay engaged. Our concern is the financial
impact on households, especially those with fixed or lower incomes.
We have many residents living in older homes that often need new
appliances. We understand the costs to convert to all-electric
heating and cooling systems and appliances can be high and
complicated, and that the technology behind all-electric appliances
is still evolving and may not be widely available in the timeframe
identified in the strategy. The GHG reduction benefits of this
strategy may not be worth the costs, and we would like more
information. This letter represents the opinion of the ESIA Board
of Directors. We have provided information to our membership though
we have not been able to hold a community forum. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment. Tricia Stevens, ESIA President, can be
reached at
[email protected] or (916) 698-4592. Sincerely,
Tricia Stevens East Sacramento Improvement Association
January 14, 2021 (updated with additional signers on January 19,
2021) Board of Directors Elmhurst Neighborhood Association c/o
Cottage Mart, Box #125 2130 51st Street Sacramento, CA 95817 Sent
via email:
[email protected] and
[email protected] Also submitted as an ecomment to the City
Council meeting, January 19, 2021, Item 15. 2040 General Plan
Update - Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes, and other
Key Strategies [Continued from 12/01/2020] File ID: 2020-01381 RE:
ENA advocacy around the City of Sacramento’s proposed 2040 General
Plan Update Dear ENA Directors, The undersigned 32 Elmhurst
residents are writing to respectfully -- but strongly -- disagree
with the advocacy position you have communicated on behalf of the
association with respect to the City’s proposed changes to the 2040
General Plan that would allow duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes to
be built on properties that are now zoned exclusively for single
family homes. We are troubled by the use of arguments that we
perceive as hyperbolic and aimed at provoking fear among residents.
This is not the first time we have observed ENA’s take on a land
use issue displaying a form of dysmorphia about what Elmhurst
already is -- and has been. The Elmhurst we love living in is one
we prize for being: affordable, unpretentious, mixed use, mixed
income, diverse (although becoming less so), rich with trees and
shared green spaces (like the boulevards on T Street), close to
downtown and to a world-class trauma center, walkable to desirable
retail, services, and restaurants, and served by not one, but two
light rail stations, and with easy access to Highway 50 at either
end of the neighborhood. Most Elmhurst homes are a mere meter apart
and nearly half are occupied by renters -- predominantly aspiring
medical professionals who are able to walk to work. The pre-1960s
zoning rules that allowed for duplexes on many corners yielded many
great housing options that fit in well with the rest of the
neighborhood. We encouraged the addition of the GIO apartment
building at the corner of T and Stockton -- and view it as
addressing a much-needed City-wide rental housing shortage and a
welcome change from the blighted and stranded AT&T building. We
lament only that the pandemic has likely kept a great restaurant or
bar from opening on the first floor and that the City did not
insist on more affordable units in that complex so that renters
with lower incomes were able to live there too. We actively welcome
the addition of well-designed duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes
that would allow more Sacramentans to enjoy Elmhurst’s many
amenities and do not feel that this is a zero-sum proposition. It
is unfathomable to us that simply allowing these housing types will
“eliminate” single family housing neighborhoods entirely, and we
believe it would indeed be a positive development for a wider
variety of housing types to be permitted. There will be ample
opportunities during future zoning discussions to ensure that
concerns about design, parking, and traffic are addressed in ways
that maintain the character of this neighborhood while
incentivizing climate-friendly behaviors. It is well-documented
that single-family housing only zoning is exclusionary. And
refusing to increase density in neighborhoods this close to the
urban core and along public transit corridors is at odds with
climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. We find ENA’s
assertion that the zoning change will increase climate impacts to
be fundamentally in error.
Jay and Jennifer Chamberlin Elmhurst homeowners since Apr
2009
Malea and Toby Heim Elmhurst homeowners since Apr 2000 Kelli Boehm
and Robert L’Heureux Elmhurst tenants since Feb 2019 Samantha
Corbin Elmhurst homeowner since Jul 2006 Jamie Callahan and Jonah
Johnson Elmhurst homeowners since Nov 2017 Claire Van Zuiden and
Kevin Hartsoch Elmhurst homeowners since Dec 2014 Adam and
Cassandra Donaton Elmhurst homeowners since Jun 2014
Bryan Neff Elmhurst tenant of a duplex since Dec 2017 Stefan and
Stephanie Spich Elmhurst homeowners since May 2011 Michael Stuart
and Hailey MacNear Elmhurst homeowners since 2017
Steven Tritto and Jessica Kitchens Elmhurst homeowners since 2020
Steven Maviglio Elmhurst homeowner since 2001 Aimee O’Brien
Elmhurst former renter (1998-2000) Elmhurst homeowner since 2000
Joseph Marsano and Laura Kurek-Marsano Elmhurst residents since
2016 Kate Golden and Wesley Brooks Elmhurst homeowner since Jun
2020 Heather Resetarits Elmhurst homeowner since Apr 2015 Dale and
Margaret Dodson Elmhurst homeowners since 1974 Lawrence and Alyssa
Moua Elmhurst homeowners since 2019 Stevie Cook Elmhurst homeowner
since Dec 2013
cc:
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected]
Thank you Tricia/Brian for this thoughtful letter. I will make sure
Councilmember Harris gets this before tonight’s meeting. Take care,
David
From: Tricia Stevens <
[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday,
January 19, 2021 7:35 AM To: Public Comment
<
[email protected]>; Jeff S. Harris
<
[email protected]> Cc: David Gonsalves
<
[email protected]>; Matt Hertel
<
[email protected]>; Remi Mendoza
<
[email protected]>; Greg Sandlund
<
[email protected]>; Brian Holloway
<
[email protected]> Subject: ESIA Comment Item #15 General
Plan Jan 19 2021 Hello all, Please find attached comments from the
East Sacramento Improvement Association on Item #15 2040 General
Plan update. Sincerely, Tricia Stevens President, ESIA East
Sacramento Improvement Association
[email protected]
916-698-4592
From: richard henry To: Public Comment Subject: General plan land
use proposal Date: Sunday, January 17, 2021 10:39:54 AM
I would like to go on record as being opposed to changing all R-1
residential lots to up to R-4. And oppose a new height limit to
three stories. I think Sacramento neighborhoods already have a
diverse selection of different housing types. I don’t think higher
density will result in more affordable housing. San Francisco or
Manhattan have high density but are far from affordable. I’ve lived
here all my life and have seen the disastrous planning decisions
made by the City’s planning Dept. over the years, bulldozing the
west end of K St., displacing historic African-American and
Japanese-American neighborhoods. Turning K St. into a pedestrian
mall. Many failed attempts to “revitalize” downtown. The
destruction of the Alhambra theater to make way for a Safeway
market. Sacramento has a history of missteps when it comes to
planning changes and I think increasing density in single family
home neighborhoods is another in a long line of planning mistakes.
I think the current planning regulations that allow a duplex on any
corner lot and an ADU up to 1,200 sq. ft. on any lot zoned R-1 are
quite adequate. Currently there are multiple high density housing
developments proposed or currently being built in Sacramento under
the current planning/ zoning guidelines which will significantly
increase the housing stock in Sacramento. I think higher density
housing allowed along major thoroughfares such as Broadway,Stockton
Blvd., Del Paso Blvd. Franklin Blvd., Alhambra Blvd. etc. are
appropriate. I hope you will consider my input when you make your
decisions regarding the General Plan land use. Sincerely, Rick
Henry
Sent from my iPad
Looks good.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 19, 2021, at 7:34 AM, Tricia Stevens
<
[email protected]> wrote:
Hello all, Please find attached comments from the East Sacramento
Improvement Association on Item #15 2040 General Plan update.
Sincerely, Tricia Stevens President, ESIA East Sacramento
Improvement Association
[email protected] 916-698-4592
<ESIA General Plan Item #15 comments Jan 19 2021.pdf>
November 29, 2020 City Council and Mayor Sacramento City Hall 915 I
Street, 5th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Sent via email
Subject: SUPPORT - Item 18. 2040 General Plan Update - Draft Land
Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes, and other Key Strategies
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing on behalf of House Sacramento, in support of staff’s
proposal, “2040 General Plan Update - Draft Land Use Map, Proposed
Roadway Changes, and other Key Strategies,” on the December 1, 2020
City Council agenda.
House Sacramento is an organization formed to advocate for building
inclusively affordable communities in the Sacramento area. We
represent renters, young people, and other communities
disproportionately harmed by NIMBYism and California’s long
standing culture of opposition to developing adequate housing
supply. We say “yes in my backyard!” (YIMBY) and support housing
and infill development because it will make us a healthier and more
sustainable city and region.
As Sacramentans, we write in support of the proposed new land use
framework as a part of the city’s 2040 General Plan Update, which
would legalize a greater array of housing types throughout the
City, including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in areas that
currently only allow single family houses. We also ask you to
direct staff to explore increasing maximum development intensity
(at minimum, an FAR maximum of 2.0) near light rail stops, near
high frequency bus routes, and in high opportunity, currently
exclusionary areas across the city. I have also attached House
Sacramento’s petition in support of this change, which has over
fifty signatures.
The Sightline Institute describes exclusionary zoning as "a
defining feature of the 20th Century North American exodus to
suburbia, where municipalities commonly imposed zoning that only
permitted single-family homes on large lots as a thinly veiled
means to keep out poor people and people of color." Sacramento
needs to move beyond this exclusionary policy of the past and open
up our city for people to live in whichever neighborhood they
choose. That freedom is part of the California promise, and
Sacramento should be a pioneer in saying "yes" to more homes for
all.
www.housesac.org
AB 686 requires local governments like the City of Sacramento to
explore policies that affirmatively further fair housing by “taking
meaningful actions that overcome patterns of segregation and foster
inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to
opportunity.” However, the high opportunity areas in Sacramento are
almost exclusively zoned for single family and, thus, have remained
largely white and wealthy. While an FAR of 1.0 in these areas is a
drastic improvement, the City can and should explore higher than
1.0 FAR as a means of affirmatively furthering fair housing. This
is especially the case in high opportunity areas within walking
distance of transit. The attached map shows an example of where in
the core of Sacramento, we recommend the City explore higher
FARs.”
On Tuesday December 1, city staff will present this change to you
as a part of the 2040 General Plan Draft Land Use Map, Proposed
Roadway Changes, and other key strategies, and seek approval to
proceed to finalize Sacramento's general plan update. We ask for
your support for this policy now and in the future. Sacramento is
fortunate to be the economic center of a growing region, and
growing regions have demand for new housing. We can choose to be a
leader that accommodates growth in an inclusive way, or we can
maintain exclusionary policies that push development to the outer
edges of our region. The choice is yours, and the time for
leadership is now.
We want to send a message that Sacramento is open for new neighbors
and ready to say “yes” to more homes. We urge you to vote to
approve this policy with the direction we recommend above. Thank
you.
Ansel Lundberg Co-Chair, House Sacramento
[email protected]
www.housesac.org
1/2 Mile Buffer Around Light High Opportunity Census Tracts (From
2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps)
Locations to Explore Higher than a 1.0 FAR
Sacramento City Council,
53 people have signed a petition on Action Network telling you to
Say "YES" to Ending Exclusionary Zoning in Sacramento!.
Here is the petition they signed:
As Sacramentans, we write in support of the proposed new land use
framework as a part of the 2040 General Plan Update, which would
legalize a greater array of housing types throughout the City,
including duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in areas that
currently only allow single family houses. We also ask staff to
explore increasing maximum development intensity near light rail
stops and in high-resource, currently exclusionary areas across the
city.
The Sightline Institute_ describes exclusionary zoning as "a
defining feature of the 20th Century North American exodus to
suburbia, where municipalities commonly imposed zoning that only
permitted single-family homes on large lots as a thinly veiled
means to keep out poor people and people of color." Sacramento
needs to move beyond this exclusionary policy of the past and open
up our city for people to live in whichever neighborhood they
choose. That freedom is part of the California promise, and
Sacramento should be a pioneer in saying "yes" to more homes for
all.
On Tuesday December 1, city staff will present this change to
council as a part of the 2040 General Plan Draft Land Use Map,
Proposed Roadway Changes, and other key strategies, and seek
approval to proceed to finalize Sacramento's general plan update.
We ask for your support for this policy now and in the future.
Sacramento is fortunate to be the economic center of a growing
region, and growing regions have demand for new housing. We can
choose to be a leader that accommodates growth in an inclusive way,
or it can maintain exclusionary policies that push development to
the outer edges of our region.
We urge you, our city's leaders, to say "yes" to a paradigm shift
toward inclusive housing policy in Sacramento.
You can view each petition signer and the comments they left you
below.
Thank you,
House Sacramento
1. Anne Geraghty (ZIP code: 95814)
2. Adrian Smith (ZIP code: 95816) Building more housing is the way
to end the housing crisis. Let's just do it.
3. Dan Allison (ZIP code: 95814)
4. Anne Morris-Garay (ZIP code: 95826)
5. Ansel Lundberg (ZIP code: 95819)
6. Ashley Harley (ZIP code: 95826)
7. Andrew Shannon (ZIP code: 95816)
8. Barbara Schihl (ZIP code: 95818)
9. Robert Link (ZIP code: 95825) All areas of the City should have
available affordable housing including mutli-family units.
10. Brandon Mettler (ZIP code: 95817)
11. Britany Lundberg (ZIP code: 95819)
12. Bryan Frazier (ZIP code: 95831)
13. Chris Miller (ZIP code: 95811) End exclusionary zoning. Up one
everywhere! Make Sacramento more viable for all income brackets,
and help alleviate the regions dependence on cars.
14. Chloe McElyea (ZIP code: 95817)
15. Dov Kadin (ZIP code: 95817)
16. Mathew Malkin (ZIP code: 95818) Let's build more homes
everywhere!
17. Elliott Froissart (ZIP code: 95816)
18. Luis Anguiano (ZIP code: 95817)
19. Lauren Frigm (ZIP code: 95820)
20. Grace Harbin (ZIP code: 95819)
21. Giselle Vernon (ZIP code: 95814)
22. Garrett Shields (ZIP code: 95817)
23. Jeff Walker (ZIP code: 95833)
Allowing duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes to be built in
residential areas is a great way to add needed residential density
in a way that respects the sense of scale in existing
neighborhoods. I support it!
24. Jessica Sorensen (ZIP code: 95816)
25. Jessica Pearson (ZIP code: 95818)
26. Josh Schumacher (ZIP code: 95821)
27. Kevin Dumler (ZIP code: 94706)
28. Lily Weaver (ZIP code: 95811)
29. Louis Mirante (ZIP code: 95811)
30. Matt Henigan (ZIP code: 95819) Increasing housing supply is the
only way to bring down crushing housing costs.
31. Matt Smith (ZIP code: 95819) As a homeowner in River Park, I
would love to see more dense development in the area to allow more
people to enjoy this wonderful neighborhood.
32. Megan Elsea (ZIP code: 95811)
33. Benjamin Menzies (ZIP code: 95811)
34. Monica Baumann (ZIP code: 95814)
35. Mauricio Torres Jr (ZIP code: 95819)
36. Nicolas Heidorn (ZIP code: 95816)
37. Michael Nerby (ZIP code: 95819) Denser, less parking, less
fees, faster approvals, less neighborhood review/blocking, bring
back SRO, bungalow courts, 8-25 unit buildings
38. Nathan Harris (ZIP code: 95677) lets get this done
39. Noel Pacheco (ZIP code: 95816)
40. Dannah O'Donnell (ZIP code: 95817)
41. Pedro Peterson (ZIP code: 95817)
42. Reyna Atilano (ZIP code: 95820)
43. Robert Reynolds (ZIP code: 95722) In the Sacramento metro area,
we rely upon the City of Sacramento to lead the way and ensure that
our entire area maintains healthy, sustainable economic growth.
Please adopt this new land use framework!
44. Ryan Miller (ZIP code: 95616)
45. Shawn Danino (ZIP code: 95814)
46. Shy Forbes (ZIP code: 95811)
47. Suzanne Hemphill (ZIP code: 95814)
48. Timothy Peterka (ZIP code: 95822)
49. Tawny Macedo (ZIP code: 95817) Support housing variety,
affordability and equity in access to community
neighborhoods.
50. Zach Miller (ZIP code: 95820)
51. Zac Smith (ZIP code: 95816)
52. Zoe Kipping (ZIP code: 95814)
From: Karen Jacques To: Mayor Steinberg; Angelique Ashby; Eric
Guerra; Jeff S. Harris; Rick Jennings; Jay Schenirer; Katie
Valenzuela;
District8 Cc: Remi Mendoza; Matt Hertel; Greta Soos; Michelle
Pariset Subject: Agenda Item 15 2040 General Plan Update Date:
Monday, January 18, 2021 9:41:25 PM
Dear Mayor Steinberg and Members of City Council
I am writing to express my overall strong support for the ten key
strategies that form the basis of the 2040 General Plan Update.
They are in line with the recommendations of the Mayors’ Climate
Commission and, if implemented swiftly, completely and in
coordination with what I hope will be a very strong Climate Action
Plan, will go a long way in getting Sacramento to where it needs to
be to address the ever growing climate emergency. Use of an equity
framework is one of the ten key strategies and I want to underscore
the importance of it being fully integrated into every aspect of
the 2040 General Plan Update and the Climate Action Plan.
Below are more specific comments on strategies related to Land Use
(strategies 1 and 2), Electrification (strategies 3 and 4) and Tree
Canopy (strategy 6):
LAND USE: The proposed land use changes have the potential to
greatly increase density, make transit more feasible, create a
greater variety of housing types and make Sacramento neighborhoods
more diverse. Those are all good things. In order for the proposed
changes to work as well as possible, the following issues need to
be addressed:
__The boundaries between the land use designation ‘Neighborhood’
and ‘Residential Mixed Use' (RMX) need to be drawn carefully so
that residential parcels at the edge of neighborhoods are included
within the ‘Neighborhood’ land use designation not the ‘RMX'
designation or some other adjacent land use designation. It is also
important that all parcels in residential Historic Districts be
included in the ‘Neighborhood' designation. Staff have been working
with Central City residents, myself included, and, hopefully with
residents in other neighborhoods, to assure that the boundaries are
correct. They have already made some changes to specific parcels in
the Central City and there are other changes that still need to be
made. It is important that the Council allow staff to continue
working with residents until all specific parcel issues have been
resolved. Re-zoning a residential parcel to RMX is an up- zone and,
since state law no longer allows down-zoning, it is important to
get these parcel issues right before the 2040 Update is
adopted.
__The ‘RMX' land use designation allows for different Floor Area
Ratios (FARS) in different parts of the City. All of these FARS
allow for buildings that are taller than buildings in the
‘Neighborhood' land use designation. Depending on the FAR, many of
those buildings will be much taller. There is currently a provision
in the 2018 update of the Central City Specific Plan that calls for
buildings in a commercial zone (e.g. C2) that are immediately
adjacent to a residential zone (e.g. R3A, R1, R1B) to step down on
the side nearest the residential zone. Such a provision is needed
in the 2040 General Plan update.
__Each increase in FAR creates the potential for additional
building height. As currently proposed, there are eight FAR levels
that range from 1 to 15. This allows for a range of building
heights in each FAR level depending on how much of the lot the
footprint of the building covers. To better understand the land use
plan, it would be helpful to know the
maximum height allowed for each of the eight FAR levels. The step
back issue discussed above becomes inceasingly important as the FAR
levels increase.
__The City should promote and incentivize the adaptive re-use of
existing buildings as a way to help achieve increased density.
Adaptive reuse is more sustainable than building new because it
retains existing building materials and embodied energy and reduces
the amount of demolition materials taken to landfills. It is
typically more affordable than new construction so has the
potential to keep housing and commercial space more affordable than
equivalent sized new construction, while maintaining the character
and sense of place that many city residents value. The City
currently incentivizes adaptive reuse of historic buildings and can
easily do the same for other existing buildings. In ’Neighborhoods’
owners who want to add density can reuse existing houses by
sub-dividing larger ones and adding on to smaller ones as well as
by adding a unit or units behind an existing house and/or
converting an existing garage. In ‘RMX’ land designations there may
be significant potential to convert office space to housing
depending on how many people continue to telecommute after the
pandemic finally ends. Existing buildings can also provide space
for small businesses that is more affordable than would be the case
with new construction.
__The City has a history of granting large ‘deviations’ to FARS and
this practice has resulted in the approval of buildings much taller
and larger than allowed per the General Plan/Zoning Code. When the
Central City Specific Plan was being developed there was discussion
of putting a 20 percent cap on FAR deviations as part of the 2040
Update. In the interest of fairness and predictability for
residents and developers, it is important to have such a cap so
that land prices in the surrounding area don’t become unduly
inflated and buildings don’t get approved that are completely out
of scale with everything around them.
__In reviewing the FAR map, the area between 17th and 10th Streets/
the R Street Corridor and N Street is shown as having a FAR of 15,
the same as for the Central Business District. This is a vibrant,
mixed use area with lots of affordable apartments as well as newer
row houses and condominiums. It includes the small 12th -13th
Street Historic District. I am concerned that up-zoning it to 15
could lead to the demolition of the existing more affordable
residential buildings and their replacement with new, much taller,
much more expensive residential buildings. It is difficult to find
funding for affordable housing and, Sacramento, like most cities,
has an affordable housing crisis. When existing housing that is
affordable gets torn down, it is most often replaced by market rate
housing, leading to the displacement of existing residents. Small
businesses are also often lost because, unlike large chains, they
cannot afford the higher rent required to make the new buildings
pencil. The RMX land use designation for this area is appropriate,
but the FAR needs to be re-evaluated and lowered, preferably to the
the FAR of the adjacent R Street Corridor which is 8.
__As part of the 2040 General Plan Update, I would like to see the
city develop a set of policies to address the issue of
gentrification/displacement. Too often workers are forced to move
to areas further away from where they work because they can no
longer afford to live nearby and people who’ve spent much of their
lives in a particular neighborhood are forced to move out. It is
imperative that Sacramento do everything possible to avoid
displacement by retaining existing affordable housing and creating
incentives for the construction of new affordable housing. This is
important throughout the city and even more important near job
centers and transit lines. One thing the City might consider doing
is to grant FAR deviations (limited to 20 percent) only when the
additional square footage is used for affordable housing.
ELECTRIFICATION:
__With regard to new buildings, I would like to see the timeline
for the low rise all electric ordinance moved up from 2023 to 2022.
Because retrofit is so costly and difficult, I wonder if there
could at least be a requirement that new buildings taller than
three stories be built to be electrification ready before
2026.
__With regard to electrification of existing buildings, I look
forward to the City developing a detailed plan and timeline soon,
hopefully this year. I also believe an extensive public outreach
campaign is needed, starting as fast as possible, to let people
know that an all electric transition is coming. Retrofitting
existing buildings is both costly and time consuming. I am well
aware of this because my husband and I just retrofitted a two unit
historic building that we had previously rehabbed in the mid
1990’s. Even with SMUD rebates, it was very expensive. The sooner
people can start making their buildings electrification ready, the
better. Every person who comes to the City for a building permit
should be informed about what is coming. Depending on what they are
getting a permit for, it might be cost effective for them to make
their building electrification ready or partially ready at the same
time. The more people know about this, the more they can make
choices about how to plan for it and do at least part of the
retrofit work sooner rather than later. The more people can spread
out the costs by doing a little bit at a time, the easier it will
be financially. I’m glad to hear that the City is looking at ways
to assist low income residents make the transition. Retrofit is so
costly that middle income people are also likely to need help, but
they will need less help if they can plan for the transition and
make it in stages.
TREE CANOPY/GREEN SPACE:
__I’m glad to see a discussion of the need to increase tree canopy
in the 2040 Update. I look forward to the role of trees being
highlighted in the Climate Action Plan. The role of trees in
reducing air pollution is of huge importance to disadvantaged
neighborhoods as they generally suffer the most pollution. It is
very appropriate to prioritize Sacramento’s poorest neighborhoods
which have the fewest trees. I'm glad to see recognition of the
need to work with these neighborhoods to address issues of
ownership (absentee landlords are notoriously bad about taking care
of anything, including trees), maintenance and irrigation costs.
Street trees in Sacramento’s more affluent neighborhoods belong to
and are maintained by the City. Disadvantaged neighborhoods deserve
as much or more help.
__Trees are a key part of the infrastructure needed to make active
transportation possible for people when the weather is hot. Active
transportation will only succeed if people are able to walk and
bike on streets and sidewalks shaded by trees.
___In addition to planting new trees, the City must do a better job
of retaining healthy existing trees. It takes years and, in most
cases, decades for trees to reach a size where they can provide all
the ecosystem services, including carbon absorption, of which they
are capable. Currently the City doesn’t require developers to do
everything possible to retain existing trees when designing their
projects. It is far too easy for developers to get permission to
remove large old trees and plant a few small, new ones and/or pay a
fee that the City will use to plant new trees. A current example of
the problem of lack of tree retention is a project at J Street and
Carlson whe