Meeting Time: November 28, 2023 at 5:00pm PST

Agenda Item

18. 2040 General Plan Update: Revised Missing Middle Housing (MMH) & Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Approach File ID: 2023-01524

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
10000 of 10000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Daniel Outlaw 12 months ago

    The Council’s direction to increase FAR maximums near transit will help improve quality of life in our community by allowing folks to live car-free with better access to schools, parks & other amenities. I support and would love to see more of this type of thinking in Sacramento.

  • Default_avatar
    Thomas K 12 months ago

    Anything we can do to get more housing in a walkable community is welcome! I do think we’re not doing enough but I applaud the cities effort to explore new ways of building! I would like to see set backs minimized, and more aggressive scaling back of car infrastructure

  • Default_avatar
    Katie Gresham admin 12 months ago

    Correspondence received by the City Clerk's Office

  • Default_avatar
    Herman Barahona 12 months ago

    The members of the Sacramento Environmental Justice Coalition (Sac-EJC) strongly supports the construction of very low-income housing in your General plan. The City is 69% people of color and yet the housing inventory planned ahead does not include the most marginalized communities in the city: black and brown people.
    Also, we are very concerned that inclusionary housing language/policy has been left out of the process. In lieu fees since 2013 have not worked. We ask for specific conditions to concretely reverse the years of racist practices in this town that have left poor people of color out of the housing inventory in town and wealth building. It is atrocious that in a city of majority people of color, the highest rates of people who can afford a house are wealthy. We ask the city council and mayor to take more time to include those who have historically been excluded.

    Respectfully,
    Sac-EJC.org

  • Default_avatar
    Dinesh Das Gupta 12 months ago

    My name is Dinesh Das Gupta, and I am a resident of District 4 and here as a concerned unaligned citizen. There's a reason why housing prices are highest in Midtown for equivalent sized units, it's because more people want to live in Midtown. Why, even in a post-covid world with relatively less commuting? People want walkable neighborhoods with amenities to walk to. Residents want to be able to run into their friends and neighbors and seemlessly build community. Residents want access to public transit and the ability to get to where they want to go quickly. Increased density provides the scale necessary to support these benefits.

    An anecdote: I have friends who could not afford to live in midtown, so have moved out of the area, occupying houses as roommates. If there were more neighborhoods with Missing Middle Housing, they would have moved there instead of occupying a single family home. Missing Middle Housing is about rebalancing our city's planning and Design to match the desires of our residents. I urge the commission to vote in favor of the measure, as a starting point for more affordable, livable, and happier Sacramento.

  • Default_avatar
    Tiffany Wilson 12 months ago

    Increased density is a tool that can lead to an increase in affordable housing, and walkable and vibrant neighborhoods; however, a zoning change alone, in the absence of a policy environment that advances affordability, public transit investment, compatible form and scale development, and mitigating gentrification and displacement could have unintended, and negative outcomes for the residents who live in the areas being considered for FAR 2. I also want to lift up that the FAR 2 change will have the largest impact on the Oak Park and Lawrence Park neighborhoods, places where BIPOC residents relocated to when the West End was redeveloped. Do not replicate poor, racist planning practices of the past, by adopting a change that leads to further displacement and gentrification of BIPOC communities by upzoning and not putting the proper policies in place to support your narrative/vision for making this change.

  • Default_avatar
    Ali Doerr Westbrook 12 months ago

    As a resident of District 4 I fully support staffs proposal to increase FAR to 2.0 within 1/2-mile of transit and to remove the unit caps included in the previous missing middle housing proposal. The City should be doing everything in its power to address the affordable housing crisis and encourage a diversity of housing types. This change will also give more residents opportunities to live near transit and get around without a car.

  • Default_avatar
    Hannah Tschudin 12 months ago

    I was born and raised in Midtown Sacramento. The location of my childhood home allowed me to walk, bike, or take transit to get to school, work, and to visit my friends without relying on my parents for a ride. By removing arbitrary unit caps, more Sacramento residents will have the opportunity to travel without relying on a car. I beg you to please pass this motion so that more residents can have similar opportunities to the ones that where afforded to me. Thank you for your time. Current resident of District 4

  • Default_avatar
    Melissa Granville 12 months ago

    I strongly encourage the City of Sacramento to adopt these key revisions to the 2040 General Plan focusing on the Missing Middle Housing plan and the Floor Area Ratio. These are crucial steps towards more diverse and accessible housing options in our city, and fostering sustainable, transit-oriented communities for current and future residents. Thank you, Melissa Granville - Commissioner, City of Sacramento Active Transportation Commission

  • Default_avatar
    Barry F Boyd 12 months ago

    F.Y.I.

    Passing along some interesting information.

    I just pulled the Census and Department of Finance (DoF) data for the City of Sacramento.

    Same story – it’s not supply. The 2023 ratio of housing units to households (1.050) is at 97.5% of the 1960 number (1.077).

    This is all a bit wonky but follow me here…

    Sacramento had 205,314 housing units at the end of 2021. The nominal 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) number is 45,580 (+22%). At a 15% inclusionary rate for ONLY the Low Income and Very Low income unit mandate, that would balloon to 111,800 units. The population has flatlined at 505,000 with slight declines in the last 3 years.

    So using only the nominal RHNA number, the housing unit to HH ratio would climb to a historically unprecedented 1.283. Using the effective RHNA at the 15% inclusionary rate above for only Low-income (LI) and Very Low-income (VLI) mandate, the ratio would explode to an absurd 1.622.

    But let’s assume that the Housing Unit (HU) to Household (HH) ratio stays at the affordable 1960 level of 1.077. The nominal RHNA units would imply a household growth of 37,519, or +19% of the 2021 total [a]. The effective RHNA would require HH growth of 99,014, or +51% from the 2021 total. All of this HH growth is completely unexplained in terms of new jobs / industries. And, if I applied the Southern California Area of Governance (SCAG) the equivalent of Sacramento Area Council of Governance (SACOG) formula for Existing Need and Projected Need, 42% of that growth is driven by Existing Need – no new jobs, no new sources of income, no new subsidies.

    This is all clearly absurd. It’s an asset inflation issue that requires affordable housing subsidies to address. But, as is always the case in politics, they certainly did not want this crisis to go to waste.


    So, the affordability crisis magically became the supply crisis so that they could implement their completely unrelated “solution”. The real problem was how to unleash all areas of the state to high profit development. In that, they have wildly succeeded, for now. But then, when the real problem is unaffected by the faux solutions (see Senate Bill: SB9), they will demand even more misdirected intervention to make further use of the crisis. This will no doubt be spurred on by their investor and developer pals who will by then need the development gravy train to sustain their government-policy induced profit growth trends.

    Interestingly, this analysis can be done for every city in the state. We just need more spreadsheet jockeys.

  • Default_avatar
    Cornelious Burke 12 months ago

    Dear Mayor and City Council,

    I write in strong support of the proposal to allow for more missing middle housing and increased FAR. We need more housing in our city and this proposal will greatly help us achieve this goal.

    Cornelious Burke

  • Default_avatar
    Tamika LEcluse 12 months ago

    Sacramento Community Land Trust, Inc., has been engaged with the City of Sacramento’s recent efforts to ensure its neighborhoods will be affordable and inclusive in 2040 and that every resident will have the opportunity to thrive. We are writing to express our support for the current staff direction on the General Plan update.

    Sacramento Community Land Trust (SacCLT) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving affordable housing in perpetuity by building community ownership and power to prevent the displacement of historically disadvantaged communities .

    We are particularly excited about the following measures recommended by staff:
    Allow a Variety of Housing Types by moving to FAR-based zoning, including as a part of the Missing Middle Housing policy recommendations
    Allow more homes near transit by increasing the maximum FAR to 2.0 within ½ mile of transit stations

    While this approach will not address all affordable housing issues, it sets the stage to open up neighborhoods that have historically excluded other housing types, which, as we know, is rooted in racial discrimination and redlining practices. Allowing mixed housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, etc., provides opportunities for middle to moderate-income residents to live in high-opportunity neighborhoods, supporting diversity and equitable access to great parks, schools, and economic mobility. Furthermore, more housing in these areas means more people can take full advantage of Sacramento’s transit and active transportation systems, so they can get around without relying on a single occupancy vehicle, which also supports the reduction of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and our regional climate goals.

    While we want to highlight and recognize this step, it must also be acknowledged that the majority of land where this policy will apply is already developed. In these instances, this policy simply removes the barrier to increasing development intensity. We strongly encourage City staff to consider incentive programs via expedited regulatory processes, financial or otherwise, to encourage current property owners to take advantage of the proposed policy and its beneficial outcomes.

    These two solutions will make big strides toward making Sacramento a more equitable, sustainable, and affordable city so long as they are part of a comprehensive strategy that addresses displacement and the severe affordability crisis our city faces, particularly for people of color. As such, we urge your support for these policies as we prepare to finalize the General Plan update in early 2024.

  • Default_avatar
    Matthew King 12 months ago

    Our neighborhood is what make Sacramento great the quaint streets and architectural elements of our city!

    This plan provides nothing for future infrastructure development and in fact strains our already failing system.
    Our roads are poor our power grids are maxed out and we already have a huge homeless and drug crisis here.

    While I agree we need retail and shopping centers and upgrades to our already existing facilities and shopping centers more housing isn’t the answer in these established neighborhoods.
    With the already full streets and lack of parking we are going to be just another metropolis like failed Los Angeles and other big cities!
    Get back to basics

    Make the developers like black rock open up the tens of thousands of homes that sit empty creating our Fake Housing Crisis!

  • Default_avatar
    William Burg 12 months ago

    Sacramento’s historic districts have room to grow. The examples of “missing middle” housing shown today are from our historic districts. These neighborhoods—Southside, Alkali Flat, Oak Park--were redlined because they were home to our communities of color, without racial covenants, scarred and bulldozed by redevelopment and highway construction. They were neighborhoods of exodus for those displaced in the name of progress and modernity. Historic preservation protected these buildings for contemporary use as homes & businesses, zoning did not. Only a few blocks of our historic districts are even zoned R1, and those are R1-B, which allowed duplexes before SB9 caught up with our zoning code. The rest already allow denser infill comparable to what’s proposed today. They are already mostly multifamily & rental. None are solely single-family in zoning or form. All contain a mixture of property densities & types, and most have new infill. And that’s why, when city staff recommended limiting those few R1B blocks to 4 units, we disagreed, because we didn’t want to create two classes of historic districts. And adopting these proposed changes on a citywide basis is fairer for all, vs. the traditional response that the central city, the places that were redlined & demolished, should carry a disproportionate burden of new growth. This decision also carries risks to our historic districts, which we can reduce very simply.
    The reason why you’re being asked to allow these higher densities is to permit use of California’s state density bonus law, which is triggered by a minimum of 5 units. It trades exemptions to local regulations for affordable housing, like maximum height, FAR, or historic status. This means builders can demolish locally listed historic buildings to build new projects, unless they’re listed in the California Register. HOWEVER—The city recently updated all our local historic district surveys, and the city is allowed by state law to submit our locally listed properties, via survey or ordinance, to the state for listing in the California Register. Doing so would prevent demolition, but not prohibit these projects if they reuse rather than demolish a historic building. It also makes all our historic buildings eligible for the new California Historic Rehab Tax Credit, which helps historic rehabs pencil, and includes a 5% bonus for projects that include affordable housing. Our historic places have room to grow—so let’s grow them.

  • Default_avatar
    Hailey Tokmakian 12 months ago

    I am fully in support of changing the way sacramento (and the United States) approaches zoning. Current, ridged zoning laws have forced builders' hands into building very limited housing types. The FAR opens to door to building for the missing middle, building for what an area needs, not just what outdated zoning laws restrict it to.

    An improvement from here would be adding ways to include more mixed zoning which allows for business. Since the point of filling in the missing middle also includes making areas walkable and accessible by transit, opening the door to corner markets and neighborhood businesses will do even more to make it a desirable location and not leave residents dependent on vehicles to get to daily nessicities.

  • Default_avatar
    Gabriela Herrera 12 months ago

    I am a resident of D4 and I join the many other Sacramentans who support adopting agenda item 18. When I moved to Sacramento early in my career, I could not afford a vehicle and I had to determine my living situation with accessible public transportation in mind. Being afforded many more housing options would have helped a younger me immensely and these changes will help residents of all walks of life with housing flexibility and help our city reduce VMT. I also ask the council to implement anti-displacement measures to insure that existing residents are not negatively affected by these changes but instead benefit as well.

  • Default_avatar
    Connor Finney 12 months ago

    I join housing equity and environmental orgs in supporting this MMH policy. The City of Sacramento should say yes to missing middle housing and no to residential segregation.

  • Default_avatar
    Kathleen Hanley 12 months ago

    I'm a homeowner in Oak Park (District 5) and strongly support this update to the General Plan. Increased FAR in transit oriented areas will be critical to addressing vacant lots in my neighborhood. Development needs incentives! The more housing the merrier!

  • Default_avatar
    Annie Keys 12 months ago

    My name is Annie Keys and I am lifelong Sacramentan, current resident of District 6 in the Elmhurst neighborhood, and a member of House Sacramento, a local YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard) organization. I am in strong support of staff’s recommendations to revise MMH and increase FAR in transit rich areas, and urge the Mayor and Council to join the vast majority of Sacramento residents in supporting this policy.
    Since moving to Elmhurst in a home located within a 5-minute walk to a light rail station, I have seized every opportunity to take public transit to work downtown, events at G1C, and amenities near light rail stations. I’ve reduced my own VMT, saved money on gas and car repair, and — to me most importantly — felt more connected to my community by making this change. Everybody should have the same opportunity to do so if they choose.
    I implore those with concerns regarding neighborhood character and parking to understand the gravity of the housing and homelessness crisis we face in Sacramento. This is a pivotal moment and we should be doing everything we can to create more opportunities for new housing in historically exclusionary neighborhoods. This is our opportunity to demonstrate that we are willing to meet the moment. Thank you for your consideration.

  • Default_avatar
    Jonathan Cook 12 months ago

    Please see the attached letter of support on behalf of the Sacramento Housing Alliance.