My concern is the impact an in-fill project will have on existing trees City street trees and also the space to grow a large canopy street tree. If city planning required the project to adhere to the present building setback guidelines (above & below ground) in the current City's Urban Forest Management Plan (approved April 1994) but is currently being updated then there isn't a concern. However, as a degreed arborist who has lived and worked in Sacramento for the past 29.5 years what I see happening is the urban forest in the central city is shrinking. We are not only losing trees but the ability to grow trees. Driveway cutouts in the city park strip are part of the problem in addition to the placement of underground utilities. Will the public lose the right to appeal the removal of a public tree or private protected tree?Thank you -Daniel Pskowski
The proposed Infill Housing Design Standards should not apply to historic districts, as those districts are governed by the Historic Districts Plans, which in some cases conflict with the Infill Housing Design Standards. Proposed changes to City Code that refer to the Infill Housing Design Standards should specifically exempt applicability to development projects within Historic Districts and instead refer to the Historic District Plans.
While I support streamlining the approval process of infill housing to spur the development of much needed housing and to prevent sprawl, I am strongly opposed to how the city is defining project eligibility in the current proposal. The city must include an affordable housing and prevailing wage requirement to the project eligibility criteria. The city must also strengthen the demolition guidelines to prevent displacement and gentrification of communities. While the city's inclusionary housing ordinance may apply, the in-lieu fee opt-out of the ordinance is not satisfactory for producing the supply of affordable housing needed in our community. The ministerial approval should specify that a developer cannot use the in-lieu fee option. You have an opportunity to correct the racial inequalities inherent in the land use system, please take this opportunity to strengthen the ministerial approval process so that community of color are no longer harmed by unjust land use policies.
On behalf of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, I am writing to convey our support for further streamlining the City of Sacramento’s planning entitlement process for compliant and compatibly zoned infill residential projects. Implementing these processes is critical to more quickly bring more housing to our urban core as demand continues to skyrocket. Allowing Ministerial approvals for infill housing projects that are consistent with the General Plan that also meet objective zoning and Citywide Infill Housing Design Standards will result in more housing production. The Ministerial Approval program will support housing development by reducing the timeframe for approvals, provide greater certainty in the entitlement process, and reduce costs in order to facilitate and expedite housing construction in Sacramento. We appreciate the city’s ongoing commitment to ensure outreach remains robust and urge your support.
I am a resident of Oak Park and I am very supportive of this proposal to streamline the approval process. The City undergoes an update to the General Plan every four years in part to designate what type of growth is appropriate where. This proposal will ensure that builders who play within those rules can actually build the housing fast and without the CEQA review that adds cost and litigation risk to new housing. We have already said these sites are appropriate for housing--why should we need to decide again whether to approve them if they are zoning and general plan compliant? Highly discretionary review processes have historically been weaponized to oppose more affordable housing types in wealthy, white, high opportunity neighborhoods. Let's approve this progressive proposal to ensure we aren't providing an avenue for wealthy retirees to have a disproportionate say on whether we build more affordable housing types in our city.
My name is Ansel Lundberg. I am a co-chair of House Sacramento, the local YIMBY organization. I am writing on behalf of House Sac in support of staff’s proposal before you today. This approach to creating a ministerial approval process for housing in Sacramento is a forward-thinking way to address our City’s housing shortage. This process would make it easier to build much-needed homes without allowing costly, time-consuming holdups, while saving staff time, too. The City has done its due diligence in creating a robust general plan and zoning code. There is no reason to delay plan-compliant projects with cumbersome review. A suggestion: we understand why staff exempted projects in historic districts from the proposal. However, we suggest for any future historic districts that the City designates or revised existing plans, allowing housing projects on non-contributing resources to take advantage of this new process by adopting objective design standards for non-contributing resources.
Please adopt as this ordinance should encourage all developers, including the smaller ones, to try to build more housing in Sacramento.
Andrea Rosen
My concern is the impact an in-fill project will have on existing trees City street trees and also the space to grow a large canopy street tree. If city planning required the project to adhere to the present building setback guidelines (above & below ground) in the current City's Urban Forest Management Plan (approved April 1994) but is currently being updated then there isn't a concern. However, as a degreed arborist who has lived and worked in Sacramento for the past 29.5 years what I see happening is the urban forest in the central city is shrinking. We are not only losing trees but the ability to grow trees. Driveway cutouts in the city park strip are part of the problem in addition to the placement of underground utilities. Will the public lose the right to appeal the removal of a public tree or private protected tree?Thank you -Daniel Pskowski
The proposed Infill Housing Design Standards should not apply to historic districts, as those districts are governed by the Historic Districts Plans, which in some cases conflict with the Infill Housing Design Standards. Proposed changes to City Code that refer to the Infill Housing Design Standards should specifically exempt applicability to development projects within Historic Districts and instead refer to the Historic District Plans.
While I support streamlining the approval process of infill housing to spur the development of much needed housing and to prevent sprawl, I am strongly opposed to how the city is defining project eligibility in the current proposal. The city must include an affordable housing and prevailing wage requirement to the project eligibility criteria. The city must also strengthen the demolition guidelines to prevent displacement and gentrification of communities. While the city's inclusionary housing ordinance may apply, the in-lieu fee opt-out of the ordinance is not satisfactory for producing the supply of affordable housing needed in our community. The ministerial approval should specify that a developer cannot use the in-lieu fee option. You have an opportunity to correct the racial inequalities inherent in the land use system, please take this opportunity to strengthen the ministerial approval process so that community of color are no longer harmed by unjust land use policies.
On behalf of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, I am writing to convey our support for further streamlining the City of Sacramento’s planning entitlement process for compliant and compatibly zoned infill residential projects. Implementing these processes is critical to more quickly bring more housing to our urban core as demand continues to skyrocket. Allowing Ministerial approvals for infill housing projects that are consistent with the General Plan that also meet objective zoning and Citywide Infill Housing Design Standards will result in more housing production. The Ministerial Approval program will support housing development by reducing the timeframe for approvals, provide greater certainty in the entitlement process, and reduce costs in order to facilitate and expedite housing construction in Sacramento. We appreciate the city’s ongoing commitment to ensure outreach remains robust and urge your support.
I am a resident of Oak Park and I am very supportive of this proposal to streamline the approval process. The City undergoes an update to the General Plan every four years in part to designate what type of growth is appropriate where. This proposal will ensure that builders who play within those rules can actually build the housing fast and without the CEQA review that adds cost and litigation risk to new housing. We have already said these sites are appropriate for housing--why should we need to decide again whether to approve them if they are zoning and general plan compliant? Highly discretionary review processes have historically been weaponized to oppose more affordable housing types in wealthy, white, high opportunity neighborhoods. Let's approve this progressive proposal to ensure we aren't providing an avenue for wealthy retirees to have a disproportionate say on whether we build more affordable housing types in our city.
My name is Ansel Lundberg. I am a co-chair of House Sacramento, the local YIMBY organization. I am writing on behalf of House Sac in support of staff’s proposal before you today. This approach to creating a ministerial approval process for housing in Sacramento is a forward-thinking way to address our City’s housing shortage. This process would make it easier to build much-needed homes without allowing costly, time-consuming holdups, while saving staff time, too. The City has done its due diligence in creating a robust general plan and zoning code. There is no reason to delay plan-compliant projects with cumbersome review. A suggestion: we understand why staff exempted projects in historic districts from the proposal. However, we suggest for any future historic districts that the City designates or revised existing plans, allowing housing projects on non-contributing resources to take advantage of this new process by adopting objective design standards for non-contributing resources.