I am a D5 resident (Elmhurst/Tahoe Park) and homeowner. I strongly support these two key policy revisions to the General Plan Update. A 'yes' vote on this item moves us towards allowing more transit-oriented housing in Sacramento and further towards ending exclusionary zoning across the city. With these two key policy proposals, we will be moving in the right direction to build more affordable housing, allow Sacramentans to live closer to their jobs and to live without cars, and implementing the only proven long-term solution to reducing homelessness.
1) This increased level of FAR is bad for our environment. It will lead to greater heat effect in the summer, adding to the need for excessive air conditioning and demand on our already impacted electrical grid, as well and deepen our poor air quality by reducing the tree canopy we need for air pollution management as well as natural summer cooling.
2) This MMH plan does nothing to create very low- and low-income housing which is most needed by Sacramento residents. This will continue the trend of creating housing for those of moderate level income. The MMH already created in Sacramento sells and rents at market rates, and provides no housing for Sacramentans with incomes below the median income level.
3) Other states and regions have already implemented the strategies in this housing plan with a negative impact on the climate and community conditions. Other regions have shown that reducing parking along transit lines does not reduce the number of cars operated by residents of the denser housing. Also consider that Sacramento has multiple food deserts, and there are very few direct transit lines in this city that will take residents to grocery stores, banks, and medical care facilities. If multiple public transit changes are needed to get food, money, or medical care, residents will not see public transportation as an option to get to the services they need. The medically dependent CANNOT use a public transportation system that required multiple changes to get to their medical facility - they are not well enough. So to develop transit corridors more densely without parking to reduce housing costs while not providing direct transport to medical facilities will create very DANGEROUS living conditions for all and discriminate against those needing regular medical care (the chronically ill and the elderly) from having access to this lower-cost housing.
4) In conclusion, this MMH plan will maximize profits for a few developers while not creating housing that the majority of Sacramentans can afford, as well as have a negative impact on the climate of Sacramento as well as access to food and medical care of the residents of this housing given the poor public safety of Sacramento and access to necessary services at our transit lines. Please vote no on this plan.
I support the current staff's direction on the update of the General Plan. Although the General Plan update may not be a solution to all the affordable housing issues in our city, I firmly believe that it will help us provide more "naturally affordable" housing that won't require any public subsidy. Moreover, the plan creates more opportunities for people to live near transit and in high-opportunity neighborhoods. This means that having more housing near transit will enable more people to take full advantage of Sacramento’s transit system and ever-improving bikeways to get around without a car, saving money while reducing GHGs. Additionally, building more housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods will reduce economic segregation and enable new residents to participate in Sacramento’s growing economy, parks, and schools in a sustainable manner.
Personally, "missing middle" housing was the first housing situation for me in Sacramento. For the first time since college, "missing middle" housing gave me a more affordable option after moving back home to Sacramento from Los Angeles and allowed me to live in a walkable, desirable neighborhood where I could still bike and bus to work as a construction worker and freelance photographer. Thankfully some of my best friends who are engineers, cooks, security guards, and current students pursuing Master's Degree's at Sacramento State have all had the opportunity to live within walking/biking distance of one another here in Sacramento, thanks to our current "missing middle" Housing. By offering more "missing middle" housing, we can allow close loved ones to live nearby while reducing our GHG's and providing housing for those who can't currently afford more expensive options such as a traditional, single-unit home.
Let's move forward and legalize missing middle housing to build a more affordable and sustainable city!
The notion that so called Missing Middle Housing can be effective at both increasing housing supply and reducing housing costs is a crock.
The current housing market is an enormously complex economic issue that is well beyond anything the City of Sacramento can affect. Missing Middle Housing is a sleight of hand plan which claims to address affordability but only advances the interests of well-connected developers. There will be no affordable housing created, as there are no financial tools to prompt or force builders to create anything other than market value units. Developers want to make money.
The plan for more “MMH” uses gimmicks such as doubling floor are ratios and removing caps on the number of units per lot which will allow developers to build as they please as long as they “color within the lines,” so to speak, by meeting simple ministerial review criteria. This without regard to “appropriateness, scale or harmony” according to one of the City’s Planning Commissioners.
Who wants a multi-story apartment wedged in among single family homes? The proposed policies will radically change the face of Sacramento’s established neighborhoods, in particular Land Park, Elmhurst and East Sacramento. The stark changes will be most noticeable along light rail lines, where the FAR is proposed to double. The FAR doubling is not merely along the frontage of light rail but extends several blocks into the neighborhoods.
Having read the other e-comments on this agenda item there are some common ideas which range from dreamy to punitive. The dreamy notions are that somehow densification will produce more affordable housing and even help cope with climate change by reducing greenhouse gases. The nastier stance seems to be that home owners in Land Park, Elmhurst and East Sacramento need to be punished for owning single-family homes in pleasant areas by cramming more and more people into those already fully developed neighborhoods.
The maps attached to this agenda item show large areas of the city that can readily handle more densification quite easily. Building in the less dense areas is an opportunity to overcome past missteps to create other “desirable neighborhoods.” This is key, as the City of Sacramento has failed for decades to promote more and better-quality neighborhoods with the associated amenities- such as tree lined streets, parks filled with trees and areas with shopping and dining establishments.
Instead of crushing established neighborhoods with untested theories, fix (re-imagine?) the failed neighborhoods and create new ones perhaps in former retail and industrial areas.
On behalf of WALKSacramento DBA Civic Thread, I am writing to express support for the staff recommendation to increase floor area ratios (FAR) to 2.0 within ½-mile of transit and to remove the unit caps included in the previous missing middle housing proposal.
We also urge the city to avoid unintended consequences of increased density by adopting anti-displacement strategies and ensuring affordability for BIPOC residents and those who have been historically underserved and unjustly impacted by racist housing practices like exclusionary zoning and redlining.
I'm a homeowner in College Glen (District 6) and I strongly support this update to the City's General Plan. It will support more housing product types, especially near transit where it is desperately needed. This can support increased transit ridership and, in turn, reduce our region's vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. I urge City Council to adopt this proposal.
Sacramento does need more affordable housing. This plan will not accomplish that, rather we will see more market rate units and fewer trees. It is not a step forward. It is a threat to our much needed tree canopy and a livable city.
The Housing Crisis makes it necessary to open up development to as many types of housing as possible. I strongly urge the council to support more diverse housing options so Sacramento can continue to be a leader in growing in a sustainable way help make the city more affordable for all it’s residents.
Please adopt the proposed changes to the General Plan. Greater housing density will support reduced GHG emissions, specially where located near transit stops. Chris Brown from the Sacramento Climate Coalition
I recognize the importance of increasing housing density as a way to avoid sprawl and see Missing Middle Housing (MMH) as a way to add density in existing neighborhoods. I live in the Central City where neighborhoods have always included residential buildings with more than one unit and also small lots with small houses so I am familiar with and see the value of the kind of neighborhood MMH envisions. These are my comments and concerns at this point in the MMH process
1. I have no problem with MMH using a maximum FAR rather than a maximum number of units as long as form based code is used to regulate the size, height and massing of new buildings so that they are compatible with the existing buildings or same or adjacent lots. I am not comfortable with a sliding FAR that is allowed to increase as the number of units increases because that could result in projects that are out of scale with the neighborhood. I like that maximum FAR rather than maximum number of units would incentivize building smaller, more affordable units.
2. Staff and consultants have acknowledged the importance of trees. I want to reiterate their importance. Currently it is too easy to remove healthy trees, including private protected trees, to make way for new development. There is no requirement to design projects in ways that preserve existing trees and virtually all requests to remove trees are quickly granted. It takes decades to grow trees large enough to provide significant shade and the other benefits large trees provide. When new housing units are added to existing lots, everything possible must be done to preserve existing trees, including keeping new building footprints as small as possible and developing plot plans that accommodate existing trees If there are no trees or existing trees cannot be accommodated, plot plans must include adequate space for new trees and the City must require those trees be planted.
3. MMH housing and all new construction must be designed with climate change in mind. Sacramento will be facing ever increasing urban heat island effect and it will also be facing episodes of increasingly heavy rain (atmospheric rivers) that can lead to flooding. Mandating space for existing and/or new trees and other plantings is critical to addressing both heat island effect and providing space where rainwater can be absorbed back into the ground, thus reducing flooding.
4. Some neighborhoods have parkway strips where the City has planted or can plant street trees. Other neighborhoods do not have such strips, For them front yards are the only place where trees that shade the sidewalk/street can be planted. Shade trees make it possible for people to walk and bike during hot summer months. In neighborhoods without parkway strips, it is essential to retain existing front yard trees or mandate setbacks large enough that front yard shade trees can be planted.
5.Becaus of the need to develop plot plans that allow for trees and to design new buildings that blend into existing neighborhoods, MMH must require design review. A ministerial approval checklist is not sufficient.
6. Some public and some Planning Commissioner comments advocated getting rid of historic districts. I strongly disagree. Historic districts make Sacramento unique and interesting. Additionally historic districts already include the kind of multiunit housing (duplex, triplex, fourplex, small houses on small lots and bungalow courts that MMH advocates). Some large single family homes have been subdivided into smaller rental units and even converted into condominiums. New housing, including many alley units, have been built in historic districts and design guidelines for the addition of new construction in historic districts have been adopted. Additionally it is generally more cost effective and sustainable to adaptively reuse existing buildings.
7. MMH should not become an excuse for demolition of existing housing in any neighborhood except in cases where an existing building is poorly and cheaply built and/or in such bad shape that rehab does not make sense. It is generally more cost effective to rehab than to build new. Additionally the world is using more resources annually than the earth can replace (earth overshoot) We cannot afford to keep knocking down useable buildings and throwing what’s left of them into the dump.
8. Up-zoning, which MMH does, has the potential to significantly raise the value of properties and put home ownership beyond the means of even more people than is currently the case. What were small starter homes on small lots run the risk of being turned into homes that only people who are better off can afford to buy or being torn down so that as many units as possible can be put in their place. While some small property owners may be able to afford to add an ADU or perhaps a small duplex or may split and sell part of their lot, it will take developers or investors with a lot of money to build the number of units allowed by maximum FAR. These issues must be addressed. Neighborhoods suffer when small owner occupants are replaced by absentee landlords, including large corporate and private equity landlords whose only interest is in extracting as much rent as possible, while doing as little maintenance as possible. I have seen this happen with properties in my Central City neighborhood and it’s not a good thing.
9. Where space exists for bungalow courts, they have excellent potential to be turned into small for sale starter homes with shared common space.
10. MMH talks about not displacing existing renters, but what happens when a renter who was protected from displacement moves? Can the owner then significantly raise the rent? Lots of new market rate housing is being built in Sacramento - just look at the Central City. What we need is affordable housing that remains affordable over the long term. If an owner uses the new MMH zoning to build more than one or two new units, the additional units need to have affordability requirements.
11. What were rental units are being turned into short term vacation rentals (STVR’s). This has decreased the number of rental units available and increased rents. To keep MMH units from being turned into STVRs, no new STVRs should be approved except when an owner uses space in his/her personal residence as an STVR.,
12. MMH projects should not be turned into larger development projects. To avoid this, the same developer/ investor should not be allowed to accumulate contiguous parcels and build a larger project on them. MMVs must be kept to neighborhood scale.
13. Many people will continue to own cars. MMH projects need to include EV charging capability.
14. City should identify as many incentives as possible for home owners and developers to build units that are affordable and will remain affordable over the long term. This requires affordable financing options and other incentives. City is currently exploring creation of a public bank which could be a way to provide such options and should explore all possible incentives to encourage affordable housing,
I support regulating by FAR over unit caps. It's FAR better for our health, economy, and environment! I'd also encourage council to consider expanding to FAR 2.0 for areas with strong public transit. Let's make Sacramento somewhere that ALL our neighbors today, as well as our children and grandchildren tomorrow, can make a home.
Just like every other major city in the nation, Sacramento needs more housing. The type of housing we build is important as having a diverse variety of homes that can cater to various needs will improve home affordability, reduce housing prices overall, and eventually get more folks out of the streets and into homes. Furthermore, diverse housing types makes neighborhood aesthetically pleasing. A variety of home types and architecture is pleasurable for the human eye. This can push Sacramento to be a more desirable place to live as well.
Attached is a joint support letter from SACOG, Sacramento Metro Air District, and Sacramento Regional Transit for the city's revised Missing Middle Housing & Floor Area Ratio Approach.
Anyone worried about the tree coverage look no further than the upwards of 50 ft wide roads along residential streets. A residential street needs no more than 30 ft. That is 20 whole feet for trees! Also more dense housing means less single family homes being built in the outer areas of the city, meaning we can preserve more wildlife and forests. Anyone worried about parking, look into the results of similar upzoning done in other cities are realize that your fears are unwarranted. Anyone worried about the property values of your homes, it is embarrassing that you care more about property than humans having a place to live, but again look at the results in other cites. Ultimately this is not going to solve the housing crisis, as there is no way for the market to provide enough houses for people as there is a profit incentive to restrict housing. We need to decommodify housing as it should be a human right and any other view is ultimately selfish and cruel. But this is a necessary change as there is no future were we keep building and maintaining single family homes and relying on cars as our main source of transportation. They just are not and cannot be sustainable. There simply is not enough space for the roads and parking spaces required to maintain it. Until we can find a way to build 100 lane freeways and 40 lane streets, cars are not the future. Also that 30ft residential street implies two travel lanes and two parking lanes. Without the need for cars all that could be land for trees and nature. There is a better future and it does not involve fighting to preserve low density suburbs.
On behalf of the Oak Park Neighborhood Association (OPNA), I am writing to express support for the staff recommendation to increase floor area ratios (FAR) to 2.0 within ½-mile of transit and to remove the unit caps included in the previous missing middle housing proposal.
OPNA is a 501c3 independent community-based organization that for 20 years has represented the needs of diverse residents that live, work, and play in Sacramento’s first suburb. Missing middle housing types have existed throughout Oak Park since its inception and are a critical part of ensuring a diverse and affordable neighborhood. Our organization has been engaged with the City of Sacramento’s recent efforts to ensure its neighborhoods will be affordable and inclusive in 2040. We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for the current staff direction on the General Plan update.
Adrian Rehn
President, Oak Park Neighborhood Association (OPNA)
opna@oakparkna.com
Co-Signed by OPNA Board of Directors:
Michael Blair, Vice President
Rosie Ramos Gomez, Secretary
Petrangelica Vega, Treasurer
Aaron Anderson
Michael Benjamin II
Yzabelle Dela Cruz
Lavinia "Gracie" Phillips
This will negatively impact our tree canopy.
Design review with notice to neighbors should be required, no ministerial approvals.
Parking off street is necessary. using transit is nice but the same riders all have cars that are parked somewhere.
Existing Single Family neighbors need to be notified and access to the review and approval process. Property values will suffer.
These schemes are not leading to affordable housing. Using Racial Justice and Affordability are false flags.
I question any supporters that woudl like6 units next door with no provision for off street parking.
I am a D5 resident (Elmhurst/Tahoe Park) and homeowner. I strongly support these two key policy revisions to the General Plan Update. A 'yes' vote on this item moves us towards allowing more transit-oriented housing in Sacramento and further towards ending exclusionary zoning across the city. With these two key policy proposals, we will be moving in the right direction to build more affordable housing, allow Sacramentans to live closer to their jobs and to live without cars, and implementing the only proven long-term solution to reducing homelessness.
1) This increased level of FAR is bad for our environment. It will lead to greater heat effect in the summer, adding to the need for excessive air conditioning and demand on our already impacted electrical grid, as well and deepen our poor air quality by reducing the tree canopy we need for air pollution management as well as natural summer cooling.
2) This MMH plan does nothing to create very low- and low-income housing which is most needed by Sacramento residents. This will continue the trend of creating housing for those of moderate level income. The MMH already created in Sacramento sells and rents at market rates, and provides no housing for Sacramentans with incomes below the median income level.
3) Other states and regions have already implemented the strategies in this housing plan with a negative impact on the climate and community conditions. Other regions have shown that reducing parking along transit lines does not reduce the number of cars operated by residents of the denser housing. Also consider that Sacramento has multiple food deserts, and there are very few direct transit lines in this city that will take residents to grocery stores, banks, and medical care facilities. If multiple public transit changes are needed to get food, money, or medical care, residents will not see public transportation as an option to get to the services they need. The medically dependent CANNOT use a public transportation system that required multiple changes to get to their medical facility - they are not well enough. So to develop transit corridors more densely without parking to reduce housing costs while not providing direct transport to medical facilities will create very DANGEROUS living conditions for all and discriminate against those needing regular medical care (the chronically ill and the elderly) from having access to this lower-cost housing.
4) In conclusion, this MMH plan will maximize profits for a few developers while not creating housing that the majority of Sacramentans can afford, as well as have a negative impact on the climate of Sacramento as well as access to food and medical care of the residents of this housing given the poor public safety of Sacramento and access to necessary services at our transit lines. Please vote no on this plan.
I support the current staff's direction on the update of the General Plan. Although the General Plan update may not be a solution to all the affordable housing issues in our city, I firmly believe that it will help us provide more "naturally affordable" housing that won't require any public subsidy. Moreover, the plan creates more opportunities for people to live near transit and in high-opportunity neighborhoods. This means that having more housing near transit will enable more people to take full advantage of Sacramento’s transit system and ever-improving bikeways to get around without a car, saving money while reducing GHGs. Additionally, building more housing in high-opportunity neighborhoods will reduce economic segregation and enable new residents to participate in Sacramento’s growing economy, parks, and schools in a sustainable manner.
Personally, "missing middle" housing was the first housing situation for me in Sacramento. For the first time since college, "missing middle" housing gave me a more affordable option after moving back home to Sacramento from Los Angeles and allowed me to live in a walkable, desirable neighborhood where I could still bike and bus to work as a construction worker and freelance photographer. Thankfully some of my best friends who are engineers, cooks, security guards, and current students pursuing Master's Degree's at Sacramento State have all had the opportunity to live within walking/biking distance of one another here in Sacramento, thanks to our current "missing middle" Housing. By offering more "missing middle" housing, we can allow close loved ones to live nearby while reducing our GHG's and providing housing for those who can't currently afford more expensive options such as a traditional, single-unit home.
Let's move forward and legalize missing middle housing to build a more affordable and sustainable city!
The notion that so called Missing Middle Housing can be effective at both increasing housing supply and reducing housing costs is a crock.
The current housing market is an enormously complex economic issue that is well beyond anything the City of Sacramento can affect. Missing Middle Housing is a sleight of hand plan which claims to address affordability but only advances the interests of well-connected developers. There will be no affordable housing created, as there are no financial tools to prompt or force builders to create anything other than market value units. Developers want to make money.
The plan for more “MMH” uses gimmicks such as doubling floor are ratios and removing caps on the number of units per lot which will allow developers to build as they please as long as they “color within the lines,” so to speak, by meeting simple ministerial review criteria. This without regard to “appropriateness, scale or harmony” according to one of the City’s Planning Commissioners.
Who wants a multi-story apartment wedged in among single family homes? The proposed policies will radically change the face of Sacramento’s established neighborhoods, in particular Land Park, Elmhurst and East Sacramento. The stark changes will be most noticeable along light rail lines, where the FAR is proposed to double. The FAR doubling is not merely along the frontage of light rail but extends several blocks into the neighborhoods.
Having read the other e-comments on this agenda item there are some common ideas which range from dreamy to punitive. The dreamy notions are that somehow densification will produce more affordable housing and even help cope with climate change by reducing greenhouse gases. The nastier stance seems to be that home owners in Land Park, Elmhurst and East Sacramento need to be punished for owning single-family homes in pleasant areas by cramming more and more people into those already fully developed neighborhoods.
The maps attached to this agenda item show large areas of the city that can readily handle more densification quite easily. Building in the less dense areas is an opportunity to overcome past missteps to create other “desirable neighborhoods.” This is key, as the City of Sacramento has failed for decades to promote more and better-quality neighborhoods with the associated amenities- such as tree lined streets, parks filled with trees and areas with shopping and dining establishments.
Instead of crushing established neighborhoods with untested theories, fix (re-imagine?) the failed neighborhoods and create new ones perhaps in former retail and industrial areas.
On behalf of WALKSacramento DBA Civic Thread, I am writing to express support for the staff recommendation to increase floor area ratios (FAR) to 2.0 within ½-mile of transit and to remove the unit caps included in the previous missing middle housing proposal.
We also urge the city to avoid unintended consequences of increased density by adopting anti-displacement strategies and ensuring affordability for BIPOC residents and those who have been historically underserved and unjustly impacted by racist housing practices like exclusionary zoning and redlining.
- Kiara Reed, Executive Director, Civic Thread
The FAR ratio in all of the city should be 1. And the FAR ratio in downtown areas and transit zones should be 3+
Please see a letter of support from Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates.
Please see attached United Latinos' letter of support.
I'm a homeowner in College Glen (District 6) and I strongly support this update to the City's General Plan. It will support more housing product types, especially near transit where it is desperately needed. This can support increased transit ridership and, in turn, reduce our region's vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. I urge City Council to adopt this proposal.
Sacramento does need more affordable housing. This plan will not accomplish that, rather we will see more market rate units and fewer trees. It is not a step forward. It is a threat to our much needed tree canopy and a livable city.
The Housing Crisis makes it necessary to open up development to as many types of housing as possible. I strongly urge the council to support more diverse housing options so Sacramento can continue to be a leader in growing in a sustainable way help make the city more affordable for all it’s residents.
Please adopt the proposed changes to the General Plan. Greater housing density will support reduced GHG emissions, specially where located near transit stops. Chris Brown from the Sacramento Climate Coalition
I recognize the importance of increasing housing density as a way to avoid sprawl and see Missing Middle Housing (MMH) as a way to add density in existing neighborhoods. I live in the Central City where neighborhoods have always included residential buildings with more than one unit and also small lots with small houses so I am familiar with and see the value of the kind of neighborhood MMH envisions. These are my comments and concerns at this point in the MMH process
1. I have no problem with MMH using a maximum FAR rather than a maximum number of units as long as form based code is used to regulate the size, height and massing of new buildings so that they are compatible with the existing buildings or same or adjacent lots. I am not comfortable with a sliding FAR that is allowed to increase as the number of units increases because that could result in projects that are out of scale with the neighborhood. I like that maximum FAR rather than maximum number of units would incentivize building smaller, more affordable units.
2. Staff and consultants have acknowledged the importance of trees. I want to reiterate their importance. Currently it is too easy to remove healthy trees, including private protected trees, to make way for new development. There is no requirement to design projects in ways that preserve existing trees and virtually all requests to remove trees are quickly granted. It takes decades to grow trees large enough to provide significant shade and the other benefits large trees provide. When new housing units are added to existing lots, everything possible must be done to preserve existing trees, including keeping new building footprints as small as possible and developing plot plans that accommodate existing trees If there are no trees or existing trees cannot be accommodated, plot plans must include adequate space for new trees and the City must require those trees be planted.
3. MMH housing and all new construction must be designed with climate change in mind. Sacramento will be facing ever increasing urban heat island effect and it will also be facing episodes of increasingly heavy rain (atmospheric rivers) that can lead to flooding. Mandating space for existing and/or new trees and other plantings is critical to addressing both heat island effect and providing space where rainwater can be absorbed back into the ground, thus reducing flooding.
4. Some neighborhoods have parkway strips where the City has planted or can plant street trees. Other neighborhoods do not have such strips, For them front yards are the only place where trees that shade the sidewalk/street can be planted. Shade trees make it possible for people to walk and bike during hot summer months. In neighborhoods without parkway strips, it is essential to retain existing front yard trees or mandate setbacks large enough that front yard shade trees can be planted.
5.Becaus of the need to develop plot plans that allow for trees and to design new buildings that blend into existing neighborhoods, MMH must require design review. A ministerial approval checklist is not sufficient.
6. Some public and some Planning Commissioner comments advocated getting rid of historic districts. I strongly disagree. Historic districts make Sacramento unique and interesting. Additionally historic districts already include the kind of multiunit housing (duplex, triplex, fourplex, small houses on small lots and bungalow courts that MMH advocates). Some large single family homes have been subdivided into smaller rental units and even converted into condominiums. New housing, including many alley units, have been built in historic districts and design guidelines for the addition of new construction in historic districts have been adopted. Additionally it is generally more cost effective and sustainable to adaptively reuse existing buildings.
7. MMH should not become an excuse for demolition of existing housing in any neighborhood except in cases where an existing building is poorly and cheaply built and/or in such bad shape that rehab does not make sense. It is generally more cost effective to rehab than to build new. Additionally the world is using more resources annually than the earth can replace (earth overshoot) We cannot afford to keep knocking down useable buildings and throwing what’s left of them into the dump.
8. Up-zoning, which MMH does, has the potential to significantly raise the value of properties and put home ownership beyond the means of even more people than is currently the case. What were small starter homes on small lots run the risk of being turned into homes that only people who are better off can afford to buy or being torn down so that as many units as possible can be put in their place. While some small property owners may be able to afford to add an ADU or perhaps a small duplex or may split and sell part of their lot, it will take developers or investors with a lot of money to build the number of units allowed by maximum FAR. These issues must be addressed. Neighborhoods suffer when small owner occupants are replaced by absentee landlords, including large corporate and private equity landlords whose only interest is in extracting as much rent as possible, while doing as little maintenance as possible. I have seen this happen with properties in my Central City neighborhood and it’s not a good thing.
9. Where space exists for bungalow courts, they have excellent potential to be turned into small for sale starter homes with shared common space.
10. MMH talks about not displacing existing renters, but what happens when a renter who was protected from displacement moves? Can the owner then significantly raise the rent? Lots of new market rate housing is being built in Sacramento - just look at the Central City. What we need is affordable housing that remains affordable over the long term. If an owner uses the new MMH zoning to build more than one or two new units, the additional units need to have affordability requirements.
11. What were rental units are being turned into short term vacation rentals (STVR’s). This has decreased the number of rental units available and increased rents. To keep MMH units from being turned into STVRs, no new STVRs should be approved except when an owner uses space in his/her personal residence as an STVR.,
12. MMH projects should not be turned into larger development projects. To avoid this, the same developer/ investor should not be allowed to accumulate contiguous parcels and build a larger project on them. MMVs must be kept to neighborhood scale.
13. Many people will continue to own cars. MMH projects need to include EV charging capability.
14. City should identify as many incentives as possible for home owners and developers to build units that are affordable and will remain affordable over the long term. This requires affordable financing options and other incentives. City is currently exploring creation of a public bank which could be a way to provide such options and should explore all possible incentives to encourage affordable housing,
I support regulating by FAR over unit caps. It's FAR better for our health, economy, and environment! I'd also encourage council to consider expanding to FAR 2.0 for areas with strong public transit. Let's make Sacramento somewhere that ALL our neighbors today, as well as our children and grandchildren tomorrow, can make a home.
Just like every other major city in the nation, Sacramento needs more housing. The type of housing we build is important as having a diverse variety of homes that can cater to various needs will improve home affordability, reduce housing prices overall, and eventually get more folks out of the streets and into homes. Furthermore, diverse housing types makes neighborhood aesthetically pleasing. A variety of home types and architecture is pleasurable for the human eye. This can push Sacramento to be a more desirable place to live as well.
Attached is a letter of support from Assemblymember Kevin McCarty.
Attached is a joint support letter from SACOG, Sacramento Metro Air District, and Sacramento Regional Transit for the city's revised Missing Middle Housing & Floor Area Ratio Approach.
Anyone worried about the tree coverage look no further than the upwards of 50 ft wide roads along residential streets. A residential street needs no more than 30 ft. That is 20 whole feet for trees! Also more dense housing means less single family homes being built in the outer areas of the city, meaning we can preserve more wildlife and forests. Anyone worried about parking, look into the results of similar upzoning done in other cities are realize that your fears are unwarranted. Anyone worried about the property values of your homes, it is embarrassing that you care more about property than humans having a place to live, but again look at the results in other cites. Ultimately this is not going to solve the housing crisis, as there is no way for the market to provide enough houses for people as there is a profit incentive to restrict housing. We need to decommodify housing as it should be a human right and any other view is ultimately selfish and cruel. But this is a necessary change as there is no future were we keep building and maintaining single family homes and relying on cars as our main source of transportation. They just are not and cannot be sustainable. There simply is not enough space for the roads and parking spaces required to maintain it. Until we can find a way to build 100 lane freeways and 40 lane streets, cars are not the future. Also that 30ft residential street implies two travel lanes and two parking lanes. Without the need for cars all that could be land for trees and nature. There is a better future and it does not involve fighting to preserve low density suburbs.
Mayor, Council, and City of Sacramento staff,
On behalf of the Oak Park Neighborhood Association (OPNA), I am writing to express support for the staff recommendation to increase floor area ratios (FAR) to 2.0 within ½-mile of transit and to remove the unit caps included in the previous missing middle housing proposal.
OPNA is a 501c3 independent community-based organization that for 20 years has represented the needs of diverse residents that live, work, and play in Sacramento’s first suburb. Missing middle housing types have existed throughout Oak Park since its inception and are a critical part of ensuring a diverse and affordable neighborhood. Our organization has been engaged with the City of Sacramento’s recent efforts to ensure its neighborhoods will be affordable and inclusive in 2040. We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for the current staff direction on the General Plan update.
Adrian Rehn
President, Oak Park Neighborhood Association (OPNA)
opna@oakparkna.com
Co-Signed by OPNA Board of Directors:
Michael Blair, Vice President
Rosie Ramos Gomez, Secretary
Petrangelica Vega, Treasurer
Aaron Anderson
Michael Benjamin II
Yzabelle Dela Cruz
Lavinia "Gracie" Phillips
This will negatively impact our tree canopy.
Design review with notice to neighbors should be required, no ministerial approvals.
Parking off street is necessary. using transit is nice but the same riders all have cars that are parked somewhere.
Existing Single Family neighbors need to be notified and access to the review and approval process. Property values will suffer.
These schemes are not leading to affordable housing. Using Racial Justice and Affordability are false flags.
I question any supporters that woudl like6 units next door with no provision for off street parking.