I support this policy. It is needed in order to address our housing shortage and climate crisis,. It should be implemented in all areas of the City, not just concentrated near transit corridors. This is best accomplished with zoning changes. However, I hope that there will be measures included that protect existing homes from demolition under upzoning changes.
I am a resident and homeowner in D5, I support the great work by staff and the forward-thinking policies and programs included in the draft Housing Element. I agree with the feedback summarized in the staff report related to increasing the proposed FAR from 1 to 2 in high opportunity and transit-rich areas as a means of complying with the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. Subjective concerns over neighborhood character should not be prioritized by our city over affordability, racial equity, or climate.
The Sacramento Disability Advisory Commission supports a 2021-2029 Housing Element which enables individuals with disabilities to be as independent and included in their local community as possible. To this end, Commissioners recommend that at least 1% to 10% of all new housing be required to be both affordable and earmarked for individuals with disabilities.
I'm a resident of East Sacramento and I fully support forwarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element to City Council so that they can authorize staff to submit it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment. This is a great first step towards ensuring a more affordable, equitable, and accessible Sacramento. I'm excited about this Draft Housing Element, particularly about including policies H-1.2 (Expand Housing Types in Single-Unit Zones) and H-1.3 (Adopt Floor Area Ratio-based Intensity Regulations) as part of the 2040 General Plan Update.
I also appreciate the City's commitment to preventing displacement, expanding housing options for our unhoused neighbors, and preserving the existing housing stock. Thank you!
I am a Land Park homeowner and thank the City for soliciting feedback and working with LPCA. I also want to say that I support giving residents and communities more land use options. Loosening zoning restrictions and increasing FAR to 1.5 will allow us to build for our future, not our past and let the neighborhood character match our character.
I support the Housing Element with the caveat that it does not go far enough. More housing is good, but even more housing is better. Apartments and cottages everywhere, and especially near schools, parks, and stores.
More people means more support for fun things.
More vacancy means lower rent.
More public housing means more people can live secure, happy lives.
Enough homevoter racketeering. Legalize the housing we and future generations need.
I am a resident and homeowner in the Willowcreek neighborhood, D-4, and am in strong support of the proposals to increase density via infill policies in this document. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing as done by the proposals are a strong example of what can be done to provide better access to quality communities for all.
Aligning my comments with those of House Sacramento, I support the great work by staff and the forward-thinking policies and programs included in the draft Housing Element. I agree with the feedback summarized in the staff report related to increasing the proposed FAR from 1 to 2 in high opportunity and transit-rich areas as a means of complying with the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. Subjective concerns over neighborhood character should not be prioritized by our city over affordability, racial equity, or climate.
I am a co-chair of House Sacramento, a local housing advocacy group, as well as a District 3 resident. House Sacramento strongly supports the City's draft housing element update. In particular, we support proposed policies H-1.2, H-1.3, and H-1.6. In order to increase affordability, affirmatively further fair housing, and meet the city’s RHNA goals for the next eight years, these policies will be necessary. We can no longer maintain the exclusionary nature of neighborhoods that are zoned at low intensities. I would like to reiterate our request to consider increasing the maximum development intensity (at minimum, an FAR limit of 2.0) near light rail stops, near high frequency bus routes, and in high opportunity, currently exclusionary areas across the city. The city’s proposal is bold, but we can’t afford to go from 1.5 FAR limits to 1.0 in R-1 zoned areas. Thank you.
I support the great work by staff and the forward-thinking policies and programs included in the draft Housing Element. I agree with the feedback summarized in the staff report related to increasing the proposed FAR from 1 to 2 in high opportunity and transit-rich areas as a means of complying with the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. Subjective concerns over neighborhood character should not be prioritized by our city over affordability, racial equity, or climate.
The proposal to allow increased density by right (Policy H1.2) is a mistake that we cannot easily take back. Not only do people desire single family homes, they actively seek out places where they can buy them. In addition, there is evidence that in other municipalities large scale upzoning did NOT increase affordability and actually reduced diversity (racial and economic). Homebuiders admit that duplexes, etc. will not be significantly cheaper than single family homes due to exorbitant construction costs and it is likely that new construction will actually raise rents in older units as vulnerable neighborhoods gentrify.
In addition, allowing density by right is mutually incompatible with policy H4.4 which calls for amplifying community voices. I urge the city council to change the density increase and pursue a policy of reducing/streamlining fees for ADU construction, which will be far more affordable than full sized units and have less impact on our burdened utility grid.
Daphne Harris, Supporter and Friend
about 3 years ago
The link is broken on this item and has been for the past 2 days The Draft Housing Element can be found in Attachment 5-Exhibit B – Draft 2021-2029 Housing
Element. The appendices to the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element can be found by visiting the
project website: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/LongRange/Housing-Programs/Housing-Element. Attachment 2-Draft
Housing Element Citywide Outreach Summary includes a summary of the Citywide self-guided
virtual workshop conducted from January 25-March 1. Attachment 4-Exhibit A –
Recommended Changes to Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element includes a summary of key
changes to the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element in response to comments received during
I am submitting several pages of comments in the attached pdf - One other item I hope you will consider is the ability to add small markets in large apartment complexes that are a long walk to a local grocery store. It would allow residents to purchase needed items like milk, formula or diapers, or cat food, with out having to drive or take transit. It could help create community by mixing uses in residential only areas. thanks, and good luck,
Heather Fargo
I support this policy. It is needed in order to address our housing shortage and climate crisis,. It should be implemented in all areas of the City, not just concentrated near transit corridors. This is best accomplished with zoning changes. However, I hope that there will be measures included that protect existing homes from demolition under upzoning changes.
I am a resident and homeowner in D5, I support the great work by staff and the forward-thinking policies and programs included in the draft Housing Element. I agree with the feedback summarized in the staff report related to increasing the proposed FAR from 1 to 2 in high opportunity and transit-rich areas as a means of complying with the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. Subjective concerns over neighborhood character should not be prioritized by our city over affordability, racial equity, or climate.
The Sacramento Disability Advisory Commission supports a 2021-2029 Housing Element which enables individuals with disabilities to be as independent and included in their local community as possible. To this end, Commissioners recommend that at least 1% to 10% of all new housing be required to be both affordable and earmarked for individuals with disabilities.
Please see our attached MEMORANDUM.
Sincerely,
Brandy Tuzon Boyd, Chair
Sacramento Disability Advisory Commission
I'm a resident of East Sacramento and I fully support forwarding the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element to City Council so that they can authorize staff to submit it to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review and comment. This is a great first step towards ensuring a more affordable, equitable, and accessible Sacramento. I'm excited about this Draft Housing Element, particularly about including policies H-1.2 (Expand Housing Types in Single-Unit Zones) and H-1.3 (Adopt Floor Area Ratio-based Intensity Regulations) as part of the 2040 General Plan Update.
I also appreciate the City's commitment to preventing displacement, expanding housing options for our unhoused neighbors, and preserving the existing housing stock. Thank you!
I am a Land Park homeowner and thank the City for soliciting feedback and working with LPCA. I also want to say that I support giving residents and communities more land use options. Loosening zoning restrictions and increasing FAR to 1.5 will allow us to build for our future, not our past and let the neighborhood character match our character.
I support the Housing Element with the caveat that it does not go far enough. More housing is good, but even more housing is better. Apartments and cottages everywhere, and especially near schools, parks, and stores.
More people means more support for fun things.
More vacancy means lower rent.
More public housing means more people can live secure, happy lives.
Enough homevoter racketeering. Legalize the housing we and future generations need.
I am a resident and homeowner in the Willowcreek neighborhood, D-4, and am in strong support of the proposals to increase density via infill policies in this document. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing as done by the proposals are a strong example of what can be done to provide better access to quality communities for all.
Aligning my comments with those of House Sacramento, I support the great work by staff and the forward-thinking policies and programs included in the draft Housing Element. I agree with the feedback summarized in the staff report related to increasing the proposed FAR from 1 to 2 in high opportunity and transit-rich areas as a means of complying with the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. Subjective concerns over neighborhood character should not be prioritized by our city over affordability, racial equity, or climate.
I am a co-chair of House Sacramento, a local housing advocacy group, as well as a District 3 resident. House Sacramento strongly supports the City's draft housing element update. In particular, we support proposed policies H-1.2, H-1.3, and H-1.6. In order to increase affordability, affirmatively further fair housing, and meet the city’s RHNA goals for the next eight years, these policies will be necessary. We can no longer maintain the exclusionary nature of neighborhoods that are zoned at low intensities. I would like to reiterate our request to consider increasing the maximum development intensity (at minimum, an FAR limit of 2.0) near light rail stops, near high frequency bus routes, and in high opportunity, currently exclusionary areas across the city. The city’s proposal is bold, but we can’t afford to go from 1.5 FAR limits to 1.0 in R-1 zoned areas. Thank you.
I support the great work by staff and the forward-thinking policies and programs included in the draft Housing Element. I agree with the feedback summarized in the staff report related to increasing the proposed FAR from 1 to 2 in high opportunity and transit-rich areas as a means of complying with the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements. Subjective concerns over neighborhood character should not be prioritized by our city over affordability, racial equity, or climate.
The proposal to allow increased density by right (Policy H1.2) is a mistake that we cannot easily take back. Not only do people desire single family homes, they actively seek out places where they can buy them. In addition, there is evidence that in other municipalities large scale upzoning did NOT increase affordability and actually reduced diversity (racial and economic). Homebuiders admit that duplexes, etc. will not be significantly cheaper than single family homes due to exorbitant construction costs and it is likely that new construction will actually raise rents in older units as vulnerable neighborhoods gentrify.
In addition, allowing density by right is mutually incompatible with policy H4.4 which calls for amplifying community voices. I urge the city council to change the density increase and pursue a policy of reducing/streamlining fees for ADU construction, which will be far more affordable than full sized units and have less impact on our burdened utility grid.
The link is broken on this item and has been for the past 2 days The Draft Housing Element can be found in Attachment 5-Exhibit B – Draft 2021-2029 Housing
Element. The appendices to the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element can be found by visiting the
project website: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/LongRange/Housing-Programs/Housing-Element. Attachment 2-Draft
Housing Element Citywide Outreach Summary includes a summary of the Citywide self-guided
virtual workshop conducted from January 25-March 1. Attachment 4-Exhibit A –
Recommended Changes to Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element includes a summary of key
changes to the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element in response to comments received during
Please consider adding a requirement that a certain percentage of new affordable housing be earmarked for people with disabilities.
Thanks,
-Will Cannady
Vice-Chair, Sacramento Disabilities Advisory Commission
I am submitting several pages of comments in the attached pdf - One other item I hope you will consider is the ability to add small markets in large apartment complexes that are a long walk to a local grocery store. It would allow residents to purchase needed items like milk, formula or diapers, or cat food, with out having to drive or take transit. It could help create community by mixing uses in residential only areas. thanks, and good luck,
Heather Fargo