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; No2Rezone@gmail.com 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; No2Rezone@gmail.com 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: president@elmhurstna.com)
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 tricias@surewest.net 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 tricias@surewest.net 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: ElmhurstNeighborhoodAssocSac@gmail.com and enaboard@elmhurstna.com 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: EGuerra@cityofsacramento.org; KSaeteurn@cityofsacramento.org; MGrigsby@cityofsacramento.org; TPace@cityofsacramento.org; planning@cityofsacramento.org; pdc.nicolina@gmail.com; RMendoza@cityofsacramento.org; MHertel@cityofsacramento.org; CHodge@cityofsacramento.org
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 <tricias@surewest.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:35 AM To: Public Comment <publiccomment@cityofsacramento.org>; Jeff S. Harris <JSHarris@cityofsacramento.org> Cc: David Gonsalves <DGonsalves@cityofsacramento.org>; Matt Hertel <MHertel@cityofsacramento.org>; Remi Mendoza <RMendoza@cityofsacramento.org>; Greg Sandlund <GSandlund@cityofsacramento.org>; Brian Holloway <brian@holloway.co> 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 Tricias@surewest.net 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 <tricias@surewest.net> 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 Tricias@surewest.net 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 ansel@housesac.org
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