Meeting Time: July 22, 2021 at 5:30pm PDT

Agenda Item

3. 2021-2029 Housing Element (Noticed on 07/12/2021) File ID: 2021-00817

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
1000 of 1000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Bill Motmans at July 22, 2021 at 6:37pm PDT

    Nothing in the General Plan will promote diversity or affordability. Allowing overbuilding on relatively small lots will create more traffic and parking issues, neither of which are addressed here. The city will be taking a giant leap without a fair assessment of all the issues. Allowing "by right" building without any oversight other than that of planners will take away any input neighbors might have about the ultimate livability and comfort of the neighborhoods they helped create by their mortgage payments and taxes.

  • 159994fa-9009-4a99-b10f-658097dbb328
    Daphne Harris, Supporter and Friend at July 22, 2021 at 6:21pm PDT

    Can HCD identify their relationships with Council members and the Mayor. Is there a reason there is no promotion of home ownership vs affordable housing (long term leasing disparity). Can you publish the outreach data showing how many individuals were reached, their districts and total number contacted and the method of contact for PUBLIC COMMENT and INPUT.

  • Default_avatar
    Ruth HoltonHodson at July 22, 2021 at 4:02pm PDT

    My name is Ruth Holton-Hodson and I live in Land Park. I strongly support the adoption of upzoning policies. Exclusionary zoning policies discriminate against hard working families who can no longer afford to live in nice neighborhoods because of the astronomical prices. It's time to provide multiple housing options in all neigborhoods to support Sacramento's families.

    Ruth Holton-Hodson

  • Default_avatar
    Kathy Provenzano at July 22, 2021 at 3:23pm PDT

    Please remove upzoning. It does not seem like it has been thought out. I have enjoyed living in Sacramento for over 25 years, it is a very livable city. I grew up in San Francisco, while there are things I miss about it, I do not miss parking and traffic problems. Allowing any type of housing in residential areas can create parking issues. There should be ways to allow multi-unit housing in neighborhoods and still maintain livability.

  • Default_avatar
    Sacramento Housing Alliance at July 22, 2021 at 12:46pm PDT

    We commend the City Staff for receiving and implementing many of our suggestions on the 2021 Draft Element. The Draft Housing Element references actions proposed in the 2040 General Plan Update to allow a wider array of housing types in Single Family Zoned areas, including duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes. This move is one part of a much-needed comprehensive strategy to bring more affordable homes to the Sacramento region. While this strategy alone will not significantly provide affordable homes for lower income families, it will create more varied housing options, increasing additional housing opportunities in every neighborhood in the City. Combined with aggressive strategies to fund the construction and preservation of regulated affordable homes for lower income households and families and policies to directly affirmatively further fair housing, the City’s strategy can attack Sacramento’s housing crisis from a multi-pronged approach.

  • Default_avatar
    Gordon Lew at July 22, 2021 at 8:18am PDT

    Remove all references to proposed upzoning in residential neighborhoods in the Housing Element, including that there should be a “broad mix of housing types in ALL residential areas” and allegations that single-family housing is the cause of housing discrimination. The truth is that people of all racial and economic groups want to live in single-family homes and neighborhoods. 

       The Housing Element shows that Sacramento can meet its State-assigned housing allocation under current zoning – NO UPZONING is needed in existing single-family neighborhoods.

       

  • Default_avatar
    Ansel Lundberg at July 22, 2021 at 7:11am PDT

    I am a District 5 resident and co-chair of House Sacramento, a local pro-housing group that fights for solutions to end our housing shortage and create a region that is more equitable, sustainable, and affordable. House Sacramento supports the draft housing element. I strongly support proposed policies H-1.2, H-1.3, H-1.4 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. We have suggested this in the past: please consider increasing the maximum development intensity 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 step back from allowing more housing in R-1 zoned areas. Thank you.

  • Default_avatar
    D5 Resident at July 22, 2021 at 1:41am PDT

    This Housing Element falls very short of it's intended goals to create housing in great neighborhoods for low-income Sacramentans. Instead, it serves a the need for increased profits of a few financial organizations while leaving the most vulnerable among us with insufficient housing, spurring on our homeless crisis. Also, this Element is jeopardizing the well-being of it's citizens AND looking like the Planning Dept. is trying to hide the mess this Housing Element will make by not including a public and well-reviewed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in the Element before the final Planning Commission vote as was originally promised. Commissioners, please require an EIR to be included before considering a final vote. I go into more detail about these concerns in the attached .pdf letter.

  • Default_avatar
    Mathew Malkin at July 21, 2021 at 9:39pm PDT

    I am a Land Park homeowner and I support the housing element and the elimination of exclusionary single family zoning. The proposed recommendations seem like a sensible approach to the housing crisis and skyrocketing growth. Contrary to what the anti-development advocates say, the only way we can maintain our communities is to scale them upwards and make room. Opponents believe "If you build it, they will come." To the contrary, "they're" already coming regardless and if we aren't ambitious then ONLY "they" can afford to own homes here.

  • Default_avatar
    richard harrison at July 21, 2021 at 6:34pm PDT

    The RHNA numbers show housing needs can be met with existing zoning when coupled with the generous ADU ordinance that was recently adopted. Do not send Sacramento neighborhoods into the unknown without waiting to see if the ADU authority works as planned. Do not approve the Housing Element- simply increasing density is not the way to increase housing. Where are the parks? Where are people going to park their electric cars or old fashioned ICE cars? The City has an old sewer system with capacity issues and a limited water supply- neither are addressed by this poor planning- the actual EIR on those hasn't even been done yet! The BIG LIE is the proposal has NOTHING to do with making AFFORDABLE housing to rent or buy. There will be no generational wealth building for many. City leaders hide behind the equity flag but are actually promoting a permanent rental class while making the investor class wealthy. Address infrastructure and reduce building fees on 1100 sq ft single family homes.

  • Default_avatar
    Kevin Dumler at July 21, 2021 at 6:05pm PDT

    I strongly support the Housing Element as proposed by staff and urge the Commission to approve it expeditiously. The Housing Element has sensible recommendations and policies that will make our city more sustainable and affordable, especially for those with the least means.
    The Housing Element was required to be adopted by May 15th. Continued delay in adoption of the housing element puts affordable housing funding from the state at risk and decreases financial resources available to help provide housing for our lowest income residents.

  • Default_avatar
    Judy Heiman at July 21, 2021 at 5:50pm PDT

    I am an East Sacramento homeowner and I strongly support the proposed 2021-2029 Housing Element. The proposal to allow a broader range of housing types in all Sacramento neighborhoods will improve the availability and affordability of housing while protecting the character of neighborhoods. It would accomplish this by maintaining current city-wide design standards regarding setbacks and building height, and only slightly modifying maximum lot coverage. The proposal advances equity and inclusion by removing barriers to homeownership that were created by restrictive covenants, redlining, and other racial mechanisms. And it expands access to neighborhood amenities for more Sacramentans. I urge the Planning and Design Commission to adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element as presented. Thank you.

  • Default_avatar
    zh harrison at July 21, 2021 at 5:31pm PDT

    We do NOT want upzoning in residential neighborhoods. Please remove ALL references to it in the Housing Element, along with the following language: “broad mix of housing types in ALL residential areas” and allegations that single-family housing is the cause of housing discrimination. People of all racial, economic, and political persuasions desire single family homes. "Stack and pack" density in existing neighborhoods will not foster affordability, but it will put greater stress on infrastructure, cause a loss of the tree canopy, create parking chaos, diminish quality of life, etc. ) The Housing Element shows that Sacramento can meet its State-assigned housing allocation under current zoning – NO UPZONING is needed in existing single-family neighborhoods. This proposal is ill-conceived.

  • Default_avatar
    Deb Lebish at July 21, 2021 at 5:19pm PDT

    Please remove all references to proposed upzoning in residential neighborhoods in the Housing Element, including that there should be a “broad mix of housing types in ALL residential areas” and allegations that single-family housing is the cause of housing discrimination. This statement is outrageous and untrue! The truth is that people of all racial and economic groups want to live in single-family homes and neighborhoods.
    Absolutely NO UPZONING is needed in existing single-family neighborhoods.

  • Default_avatar
    Elizabeth AMES at July 21, 2021 at 4:22pm PDT

    “Remove all references to proposed upzoning in residential neighborhoods in the Housing Element, including that there should be a “broad mix of housing types in ALL residential areas” and allegations that single-family housing is the cause of housing discrimination. The truth is that people of all racial and economic groups want to live in single-family homes and neighborhoods.
    The Housing Element shows that Sacramento can meet its State-assigned housing allocation under current zoning – NO UPZONING is needed in existing single-family neighborhoods.”

  • Default_avatar
    linda keating at July 21, 2021 at 3:57pm PDT

    “Remove all references to proposed upzoning in residential neighborhoods in the Housing Element, including that there should be a “broad mix of housing types in ALL residential areas” and allegations that single-family housing is the cause of housing discrimination. The truth is that people of all racial and economic groups want to live in single-family homes and neighborhoods.
    The Housing Element shows that Sacramento can meet its State-assigned housing allocation under current zoning – NO UPZONING is needed in existing single-family neighborhoods.”

  • Default_avatar
    Ann Broderick at July 21, 2021 at 12:46pm PDT

    The proposal to allow a greater array of housing types in single-unit zones and to eliminate all required onsite parking should be removed from the Housing Element. Sacramento can meet its State-assigned housing RHNA numbers without upzoning to eliminate single family neighborhoods. The current sewer infrastructure has existing capacity issues that need to be addressed before any further densification occurs in Sacramento. The complexity of the combined sewer system along with the lack of funds and political will power to do the right thing puts the health and safety of Sacramento’s citizens in jeopardy.

  • Default_avatar
    Francesca Reitano 14 days ago

    I oppose allowing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes by right, on all lots zoned R-1. This language should be removed from the Housing Element, along with reference to a General Plan that has not been approved. Oppose revisions to parking requirements; our streets are narrow, not zoned for density.

    Upzoning not necessary to meet RHNA. Allow ADU law time to work. Upzoning creates no affordable housing, puts home ownership out of reach. Property tax implications (lose protection of Rev. & Tax Code sec. 401.4). Density does not increase affordability, quite the opposite - it raises the value of urban land. Financing infrastructure upgrades in R-1 zones is not part of plan. Loss of trees creates heat islands, increasing energy consumption, air pollution, greenhouse gasses, and impaired water quality. 80% of city’s tree canopy in front and backyards, many of which will be replaced by structures. State law will not allow us to reduce density if this measure fails - and it will.

  • Default_avatar
    Susan Lew 14 days ago

    Remove all references to proposed upzoning in residential neighborhoods in the Housing Element, including that there should be a “broad mix of housing types in ALL residential areas” and allegations that single-family housing is the cause of housing discrimination. The truth is that people of all racial and economic groups want to live in single-family homes and neighborhoods.
    The Housing Element shows that Sacramento can meet its State-assigned housing allocation under current zoning – NO UPZONING is needed in existing single-family neighborhoods.”

  • Default_avatar
    Randal Riley 14 days ago

    Subject: Item 3 Housing Element
    “Remove all references to proposed upzoning in residential neighborhoods in the Housing Element, including that there should be a “broad mix of housing types in ALL residential areas” and allegations that single-family housing is the cause of housing discrimination. The truth is that people of all racial and economic groups want to live in single-family homes and neighborhoods. That's why that they are moving out of the congested city's that conform to this ideology. Our neighborhoods are part of our freedom of choice.
    The Housing Element shows that Sacramento can meet its State-assigned housing allocation under current zoning – NO UPZONING is needed in existing single-family neighborhoods.”