Thank you planning commission and city planners for your hard work! There are some key areas where I'm concerned that this plan doesn't address the urgent climate crisis and housing affordability crisis - it lacks roadway capacity reductions and overall VMT reduction requirements. It also should expand transit oriented development and mixed used zoning to be adjacent to every transit station. I urge you to incorporate these changes - we need more housing density and transit NOW.
ECOS has submitted a letter with comments to staff on Oct 10 and again let week under my signature. We have 2 asks:
1. Exclude the Natomas Basin Special Study Area from the General Plan.
2. Reinstate Biological Resources Protection Policies.
Please recognize the value of farmland for carbon sequestration and oppose further development in the farmlands of Natomas.
Please create more high density in places where there are a ton of empty lots, like along Stockton Blvd before tearing down existing homes and trees. These proposed new buildings don't even provide affordable homes, which we desperately need. Also, here are the many ways removing old trees will effect our city:
We must protect existing trees and grow our tree canopy.
Extreme heat is an issue in Sacramento. Trees provide shade and cooling (less use of air conditioning), sequester carbon, remove pollution from the air and improve air quality, provide permeable surfaces with allow water to replenish our aquifer instead of becoming storm runoff, and prevent urban heat islands. They shade our buildings, streets and sidewalks, making this city livable, and promote active transportation (such as walking and biking).
Tree protection is critical. 80 percent of the city’s tree canopy is on private land, much of it in our back and front yards, which are the target for increased density in Missing Middle Housing and Transit Oriented Development. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
Once the allowable uses of residential lots are changed to allow increased density, projects will be allowed “by right” and a tree and a building cannot occupy the same space.
The proposed flexible design standards must have the goal of preserving existing trees and space for planting trees. Missing Middle Housing and Transit Oriented Development projects must have standard design reviews, rather than ministerial reviews, to preserve the trees onsite, provide space for tree planting, and have trees be a holistic part of project review. (Under ministerial review, tree removals are requested after a project has been approved.)
All increased densification in single family neighborhoods should require public notification and public hearings with neighborhood input (not Ministerial review).
Trees provide shade to sidewalks and streets to facilitate walking/biking during hot summer months.
Increased hardscape creates urban heat islands; trees mitigate the urban heat island effect.
The city must disallow additional housing units, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from being used as whole-unit short term vacation rentals. Primary residents can rent out individual rooms as short term vacation rentals, but not whole homes or units.
The city must stop using the false claims that densification in single family neighborhoods will result in affordable housing or curing past racial inequities.
The city must commit to programs that will truly provide affordable housing including inclusionary zoning and first time homebuyer programs for lower income households.
The city must monitor and take steps to prevent investor-driven projects that lead to gentrification and eliminate home ownership opportunities inherent in older single-family homes.
Existing zoning limitations on height, setbacks, lot coverage, and FAR must be maintained in order to match building mass to maintain neighborhood character.
Off-street parking should be encouraged maintained at ratios of 1:1 to provide for adequate traffic flow, including for emergency vehicles in older existing neighborhoods, to assure that residents can park near where they live including to accommodate electrical vehicle charging.
Re: 2040 Draft General Plan Update (GP)
Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP)
The middle is not the only missing housing sector that needs attention and inclusion.
Stable housing for homeless people is even more important.
We all know that the numbers of homeless people continue to increase nationwide. This is a clue that the causes are systemic, and that we cannot fully control them locally. However, proximity dictates we must manage them locally. So the General Plan must include a realistic Safe Ground zoning specification. This will improve the equity and sustainability of the GP and the CAAP.
Policies to date are the policies of denial. It’s been a very long river. And it’s not getting anybody anywhere but stuck. But getting unstuck requires a big attitude adjustment, the guts to be effective by putting everyone’s basic needs before the delicate feelings of chambers of commerce and neighborhood associations. Please appeal to their pioneer spirit.
Putting basic needs first is a key climate policy. A real housing first policy would reduce the carbon emissions arising from a daunting list of processes currently used to remain stuck. Briefly, these include sweeps of homeless encampments by cops in cars, subsequent clean-up with engines and toxic chemicals, needle disposal, towing impounded shelter-vehicles, also trash removal of various plastic containers for water and food since the homeless people have no real access to tap water and kitchens. Then there are the ER visits, ambulance trips, time spent in jail or prison, porta-potty processes, and unpermitted fires for cooking and warmth. In addition, all the staff required for all this management, when they could be doing more constructive tasks, represent indirect energy costs.
Recently I heard a rumor that the city was auditing the budget to analyze spending on homeless ‘management.’ This information would be extremely useful for everyone. I also recall that the city manager was tasked with identifying Safe Ground sites in every council district. Where is this list?? Continuing the city’s denial-based policies and practices will just waste more money.
The council has a responsibility to insist that chambers of commerce and neighborhood associations adjust their attitudes, and at the same time organize tangible successes as a reason to do so. By the way, the ploy recently reported to me—of keeping the Front Street site half empty so there’s a place to sweep campers that complies with the letter of the law, but those campers typically don’t stay and meanwhile other homeless people would really like those stable spots that aren’t on offer for them—is just another pathetic example of a denial-based practice.
From a larger, systemic perspective, we can expect climate chaos and its economic fallout to bring us more homeless people and immigrants as there are plenty of reasons to think things will get worse before they get better. So we had better figure out effective ways to help people of all economic means manage their living situations. The economic benefits of ensuring basic needs for all include the benefit of a livable city (and a vibrant night-time economy) in the future.
I am certain that more very very affordable housing would reduce a significant amount of the related GHG emissions, and that other basic survival measures could be provided in a manner that is substantially more energy efficient and cost effective than at present. Safe Grounds are affordable, and with sensible planning can be healthy and sustainable over the long term. Stability, and the reasonable expectation of access to basic needs, remove the unnecessary and harmful stress of day-to-day survival uncertainties.
Lastly, the city should ban all landscaping equipment that uses engines or motors for tasks that are well within human muscular capability. http://motherearthhome.blogspot.com/
Thank you planning commission and city planners for your hard work! There are some key areas where I'm concerned that this plan doesn't address the urgent climate crisis and housing affordability crisis - it lacks roadway capacity reductions and overall VMT reduction requirements. It also should expand transit oriented development and mixed used zoning to be adjacent to every transit station. I urge you to incorporate these changes - we need more housing density and transit NOW.
I support the proposed revisions for the 2040 GP and CAAP.
ECOS has submitted a letter with comments to staff on Oct 10 and again let week under my signature. We have 2 asks:
1. Exclude the Natomas Basin Special Study Area from the General Plan.
2. Reinstate Biological Resources Protection Policies.
Please recognize the value of farmland for carbon sequestration and oppose further development in the farmlands of Natomas.
Public comment received by the Office of the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
Please find Civic Thread's letter of support in adopting the proposed revisions, attached.
Thank you,
David
Please create more high density in places where there are a ton of empty lots, like along Stockton Blvd before tearing down existing homes and trees. These proposed new buildings don't even provide affordable homes, which we desperately need. Also, here are the many ways removing old trees will effect our city:
We must protect existing trees and grow our tree canopy.
Extreme heat is an issue in Sacramento. Trees provide shade and cooling (less use of air conditioning), sequester carbon, remove pollution from the air and improve air quality, provide permeable surfaces with allow water to replenish our aquifer instead of becoming storm runoff, and prevent urban heat islands. They shade our buildings, streets and sidewalks, making this city livable, and promote active transportation (such as walking and biking).
Tree protection is critical. 80 percent of the city’s tree canopy is on private land, much of it in our back and front yards, which are the target for increased density in Missing Middle Housing and Transit Oriented Development. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
Once the allowable uses of residential lots are changed to allow increased density, projects will be allowed “by right” and a tree and a building cannot occupy the same space.
The proposed flexible design standards must have the goal of preserving existing trees and space for planting trees. Missing Middle Housing and Transit Oriented Development projects must have standard design reviews, rather than ministerial reviews, to preserve the trees onsite, provide space for tree planting, and have trees be a holistic part of project review. (Under ministerial review, tree removals are requested after a project has been approved.)
All increased densification in single family neighborhoods should require public notification and public hearings with neighborhood input (not Ministerial review).
Trees provide shade to sidewalks and streets to facilitate walking/biking during hot summer months.
Increased hardscape creates urban heat islands; trees mitigate the urban heat island effect.
The city must disallow additional housing units, including accessory dwelling units (ADUs) from being used as whole-unit short term vacation rentals. Primary residents can rent out individual rooms as short term vacation rentals, but not whole homes or units.
The city must stop using the false claims that densification in single family neighborhoods will result in affordable housing or curing past racial inequities.
The city must commit to programs that will truly provide affordable housing including inclusionary zoning and first time homebuyer programs for lower income households.
The city must monitor and take steps to prevent investor-driven projects that lead to gentrification and eliminate home ownership opportunities inherent in older single-family homes.
Existing zoning limitations on height, setbacks, lot coverage, and FAR must be maintained in order to match building mass to maintain neighborhood character.
Off-street parking should be encouraged maintained at ratios of 1:1 to provide for adequate traffic flow, including for emergency vehicles in older existing neighborhoods, to assure that residents can park near where they live including to accommodate electrical vehicle charging.
Re: 2040 Draft General Plan Update (GP)
Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP)
The middle is not the only missing housing sector that needs attention and inclusion.
Stable housing for homeless people is even more important.
We all know that the numbers of homeless people continue to increase nationwide. This is a clue that the causes are systemic, and that we cannot fully control them locally. However, proximity dictates we must manage them locally. So the General Plan must include a realistic Safe Ground zoning specification. This will improve the equity and sustainability of the GP and the CAAP.
Policies to date are the policies of denial. It’s been a very long river. And it’s not getting anybody anywhere but stuck. But getting unstuck requires a big attitude adjustment, the guts to be effective by putting everyone’s basic needs before the delicate feelings of chambers of commerce and neighborhood associations. Please appeal to their pioneer spirit.
Putting basic needs first is a key climate policy. A real housing first policy would reduce the carbon emissions arising from a daunting list of processes currently used to remain stuck. Briefly, these include sweeps of homeless encampments by cops in cars, subsequent clean-up with engines and toxic chemicals, needle disposal, towing impounded shelter-vehicles, also trash removal of various plastic containers for water and food since the homeless people have no real access to tap water and kitchens. Then there are the ER visits, ambulance trips, time spent in jail or prison, porta-potty processes, and unpermitted fires for cooking and warmth. In addition, all the staff required for all this management, when they could be doing more constructive tasks, represent indirect energy costs.
Recently I heard a rumor that the city was auditing the budget to analyze spending on homeless ‘management.’ This information would be extremely useful for everyone. I also recall that the city manager was tasked with identifying Safe Ground sites in every council district. Where is this list?? Continuing the city’s denial-based policies and practices will just waste more money.
The council has a responsibility to insist that chambers of commerce and neighborhood associations adjust their attitudes, and at the same time organize tangible successes as a reason to do so. By the way, the ploy recently reported to me—of keeping the Front Street site half empty so there’s a place to sweep campers that complies with the letter of the law, but those campers typically don’t stay and meanwhile other homeless people would really like those stable spots that aren’t on offer for them—is just another pathetic example of a denial-based practice.
From a larger, systemic perspective, we can expect climate chaos and its economic fallout to bring us more homeless people and immigrants as there are plenty of reasons to think things will get worse before they get better. So we had better figure out effective ways to help people of all economic means manage their living situations. The economic benefits of ensuring basic needs for all include the benefit of a livable city (and a vibrant night-time economy) in the future.
I am certain that more very very affordable housing would reduce a significant amount of the related GHG emissions, and that other basic survival measures could be provided in a manner that is substantially more energy efficient and cost effective than at present. Safe Grounds are affordable, and with sensible planning can be healthy and sustainable over the long term. Stability, and the reasonable expectation of access to basic needs, remove the unnecessary and harmful stress of day-to-day survival uncertainties.
Lastly, the city should ban all landscaping equipment that uses engines or motors for tasks that are well within human muscular capability. http://motherearthhome.blogspot.com/
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Muriel Strand, P.E.