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
    Tess Townsend 12 months ago

    The 350 Sacramento Board supports the current city staff direction on the General Plan update that would allow for denser housing near transit.

    While not a panacea for all affordable housing issues, we believe the recommended measures can set the stage for increasing the supply of affordable housing. Giving people additional opportunities to live near transit will also empower more Sacramentans to get around without a car. Less driving in Sacramento means lower greenhouse gas emissions and better air quality, on top of reducing expenses for residents. This is an incredible opportunity to grow our city in a sustainable manner while making Sacramento a more equitable, sustainable, affordable city.

    Please see the attached letter of support from 350 Sacramento Board President Patricia Moore.

  • Default_avatar
    Tess Townsend 12 months ago

    The 350 Sacramento Board supports the current city staff direction on the General Plan update that would allow for denser housing near transit.

    While not a panacea for all affordable housing issues, we believe the recommended measures can set the stage for increasing the supply of affordable housing. Giving people additional opportunities to live near transit will also empower more Sacramentans to get around without a car. Less driving in Sacramento means lower greenhouse gas emissions and better air quality, on top of reducing expenses for residents. This is an incredible opportunity to grow our city in a sustainable manner while making Sacramento a more equitable, sustainable, affordable city.

    Please see the attached letter of support from 350 Sacramento Board President Patricia Moore.

  • Default_avatar
    Abby Lavine 12 months ago

    As a renter in Newton Booth (D4), I strongly support these General Plan updates to flexibly increase missing middle housing and regulate by FAR instead of unit caps. This is an important step to promote more affordable, inclusive housing in Sacramento.

    I love living in a walkable neighborhood filled with a mix of beautiful housing types. All Sacramento residents deserve this opportunity - I encourage Council to vote to make this a reality.

  • Default_avatar
    Michael Turgeon 12 months ago

    I strongly support the switch to regulating by FAR over unit caps and expanding FAR to 2.0 in neighborhoods with good transit access. I currently live in an affordable "missing middle" home type in North Oak Park, and this housing opportunity has been very beneficial as I try to build a life and career in Sacramento. At this stage in my life, I don't need or want a single family home on a large lot. I want to live in a diverse, walkable, bike-able neighborhood where amenities are close by and I can catch a bus downtown. I often ride my bike through "desirable" Sacramento neighborhoods like Elmhurst or East Sac and notice how few housing options there are for people like me. And the few "missing middle" options that do exist in these neighborhoods look like very attractive places to live! I find that density makes life easier, not harder, especially when you have reliable transportation options to take you beyond your immediate neighborhood. I think we could welcome many more residents into these neighborhoods without sacrificing aesthetic charm, accessibility, or the mature tree canopy. I also think we can do this without bogging down new housing in an endless cycle of process and discretionary reviews; let's set design standards that align with our values and vision for the City, and apply them fairly and predictably. Doing so ensures that we actually see results and that we can provide affordable, sustainable housing opportunities for middle class families and young people like me.

  • Default_avatar
    ralph propper 12 months ago

    The Environmental Council of Sacramento (ECOS) asks for your vote to support staff’s proposal for the missing middle housing ordinance as part of the General Plan Update. For over 50 years, ECOS has urged our region to increase infill housing as opposed to sprawl development, in order to preserve habitat and make our air healthier to breathe. More recently it has become clear that this is needed to limit greenhouse gas emissions that jeopardize the future of our species, and to deal with our #1 local issue: the lack of affordable housing and concomitant homelessness. For these reasons, ECOS has consistently promoted investment in public transit and light rail, and the development of transit-oriented infill development. Additionally, ECOS recognizes that our past discriminatory housing policy has caused a development pattern that must be adjusted to promote environmental justice and equity.

    By switching from density-based zoning through unit caps to intensity-based zoning based on floor-area ratio (FAR), and by increasing the allowable FAR near transit, the City Council is taking bold and necessary action to deal with these issues. We believe that this will also lead to a more vibrant Sacramento, with opportunity for positive interaction among all residents.

    We look forward to your continuing leadership to build a better Sacramento.

    Ralph Propper, Climate Committee Chair,
    Environmental Council of Sacramento

  • Default_avatar
    Chris Shultz 12 months ago

    Strong support. Chris Shultz, 460 35th St. 95816

  • Default_avatar
    Michael Champ 12 months ago

    Increasing housing density makes housing more affordable, so future generations can continue to live in and enjoy this city. It also increases social interactions and reduces environmental impacts. This is a good starting point, and should be followed up with continued efforts to support building walkable, livable communities.

  • Default_avatar
    ZH Harrison 12 months ago

    If this proposed densification were to be limited to the parts of Sacramento that can actually handle additional housing without compromising quality of life and creating a host of problems, I would support it.
    As it stands, though, the proposal focuses mostly on established neighborhoods – the parts of Sacramento that are already built out. The fallout from this will be an (eventual) erasure of the neighborhood. It will cause a strain on the infrastructure, crowdedness, parking problems, loss of tree canopy, privacy, sunlight. And for what? Market-rate rentals? Please don't sacrifice our cherished neighborhoods for this.

  • Default_avatar
    charles conner 12 months ago

    The existing zoning regulations should be retained as they are. Densification will solve no problems while causing many others. I oppose these changes.

  • Default_avatar
    John Barnes 12 months ago

    I strongly support a move from regulating by unit caps to FAR. Equity and environmental impact should be top priorities for the city and FAR does just that.

    I also support have a FAR of 2.0 near transit for these same reasons.

  • Default_avatar
    M Coulter 12 months ago

    • 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

  • Default_avatar
    Ellen Bruno 12 months ago

    I support these revisions to the general plan. These modifications seem like very reasonable and moderate steps in the right direction toward helping solve the housing problems in Sacramento.

  • Default_avatar
    Francesca Reitano 12 months ago

    Please see my comments in the attached PDF document. Thank you for your consideration.

  • Default_avatar
    Emel Wadhwani 12 months ago

    Please see attached comment in support of the staff direction from Sacramento Metro Advocates for Rail and Transit.

  • Default_avatar
    Kevin Dumler 12 months ago

    Attached is a letter of support from House Sacramento. We are writing to express our enthusiastic support for the current staff direction on the General Plan update.

    While not a panacea for all affordable housing issues in our city, we believe this General Plan
    sets the stage for us to provide far more “naturally affordable” housing that does not require any
    public subsidy. Furthermore, the plan creates additional opportunities for people to live near
    transit and in high opportunity neighborhoods. More housing near transit means more people
    can take full advantage of Sacramento’s transit system and ever-improving bikeways to get
    around without a car, saving money while reducing GHGs. Additionally, in Sacramento’s high
    opportunity neighborhoods, more housing means reducing economic segregation and allowing
    these new neighbors to take part in Sacramento’s growing economy, to make use of our great
    parks & schools, and to grow our city in a sustainable manner.

    Personally, "missing middle" housing was the first housing situation for me in Sacramento. It was the most affordable option on the market at the time. It allowed me to live in a walkable, desirable neighborhood where I could still bike to work. By offering more "missing middle" housing, we can provide housing for those who can't currently affordable more expensive options such as a traditional, single-unit home. Today I own a single-unit detached home in Newtown Booth, but without that "missing middle" option, I never would have been able to save enough money to afford a down payment.

    Let's create a more affordable and more sustainable city by legalizing missing middle housing!

  • Default_avatar
    Sean LEstrange 12 months ago

    I support allowing more types of housing to be built in Sacramento and densifying existing neighborhoods.

  • Default_avatar
    Claire Knowles 12 months ago

    Densification in residential neighborhoods is not missing middle housing. Buying a home in Elmhurst or East Sac is very expensive, and then to raze the home to replace it with 4 units or more cannot in any way pencil out as "affordable" or "more affordable" MMH. This benefits developers and people relocating from the Bay Area, not people who truly need more affordable housing.

    Densification should occur in areas previously zoned for higher FARs, like downtown and certain midtown corridors, or even the commercial areas of Folsom Blvd and Stockton Blvd.

    Lessons should be learned from the 1960s and 1970s, when single family Victorians were razed for cheap apartment buildings. These buildings, which have not aged well, are now considered "more affordable", only because they are dilapidated.

    Additionally, Elmhurst is not a TOD corridor. Densification here will lead to further traffic congestion, parking issues, and additional strain on infrastructure, including our fragile water supply and combined stormwater system (less soil, more concrete, will lead to more runoff into the already overburdened combined sewer system).

    Personally, as a lifelong Sacramento resident, I am comfortable to saying "no" to more development and densification. Not all of us take the long view of Sacramento as the new Austin, Texas, or similar place, where the local character and economic diversity has been ruined by development.

  • Default_avatar
    Tricia Stevens 12 months ago

    The East Sacramento Community Assn (ESCA) Board of Directors overall supports the recommendations on Missing Middle Housing. We feel that East Sacramento can contribute to housing goals by accommodating a greater array of housing types in existing neighborhoods. We support the staff level discretionary design review. Please see attached letter for overall support.
    We have one area of "pause" based on the latest recommendations. ESCA is very supportive of transit oriented development, especially along commercial corridors and in underutilized commercial and industrial areas. We express caution, though, about extending the higher FAR of 2.0 to all areas within ½ mile of high frequency transit stops that are in established residential neighborhoods. We request more information and analysis on the implications of this change as it affects 17,000 properties. What design standards apply as they relate to height, bulk, setbacks and tree canopy? Would the higher FAR apply to individual lots or only apply if someone consolidates lots? We note that the MMH studies prepared by the City's consultants do not address this scenario. This is not to say we oppose this concept. We recommend more information on building form before Council final action. We support other proposed changes that can increase housing choices and supply. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Tricia Stevens, President, ESCA

  • Default_avatar
    Wendy Kimball 12 months ago

    It is imperative to preserve our tree canopy. What makes Sacramento is our trees and over building plus removing mature trees reduces walk ability during the hot months

  • Default_avatar
    Jackie Whitelam 12 months ago

    Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, the AIA Central Valley (AIACV) was unable to prepare a comment from our Board on this matter. However, as Chair of its Civic Engagement Team and a member of its Housing Task, I've submitted the attached comment letter to express the AIACV's support of Missing Middle Housing; relay efforts we are undertaking to advance the Adaptive Reuse of Commercial structures for Housing; and express my qualified support of staff's recommendation to (1) revise the draft 2040 General Plan Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to increase FAR from 1 to 2 in Neighborhood Areas within a half-mile walking distance of existing high-frequency bust stops and existing and planned light rail stations and (2) proceed with a revised MMH approach that regulates building form in these Neighborhood Areas through the 2040 General Plan FARs and the single-unit and duplex doweling zone standards found in the Planning Development Code. My support of the first action is conditioned upon the second act also occurring. Design standards are necessary to address such matters as tree cover and solar access for project sites and adjacent properties. I also agree with staff's proposal that MMH projects undergo discretionary review at the staff level to assist in the development of site-specific workable solutions that consider orientation, lot size and configuration.