It is refreshing to scroll through so many comments in support of this proposal. The end to exclusionary zoning, and its legacy of racist implementation, is long overdue. The FAR approach for weaving in additional density is well suited to the City of Sacramento. Kudos to City of Sacramento staff for their outreach to the community in putting this proposal together.
For illustration, consideration, and guidance, the Council needs to look no further than the recent build of two-story duplexes shoehorned onto an odd shaped lot at the corner of 55th & T St., in the D6 Elmhurst neighborhood. These out of place behemoths offer no side yard, no back yard, and a tiny front yard landscaped with little rocks, bigger rocks, and BIG rocks. Abutting the Highway 50 "fix" project, which has taken on a life of its own, the ambient sound in the vicinity is deafening. With one tiny garage per duplex, the goal seems to be to pack as many humans as possible into a small space, with parking forbidden on the streets adjacent to the dwellings. For all these amenities, rent is $3500 per month, unaffordable to most, including the relatively well off. While the leaderless Council continues to grasp at unproven theories borne out of unchallenged and unsupported "studies" with catchy names ("Missing Middle Housing"), evidence based proof that new housing such as this will ameliorate housing shortages do not exist. These units are not affordable, offer no diversity to the neighborhood, and the close by RT bus line and light rail will continue to be underutilized. Workers at nearby UC Davis will continue to drive, alone, to their work destinations, park on nearby streets, block driveways and increase traffic, adding to pollution, while robbing a beautiful neighborhood of its aesthetic and vibrant pedestrian culture. This neighborhood, containing some of the city's oldest and most beautiful trees, as well as others targeted by the Council, has flourished with no help from current elected officials. Instead of doing the hard work of embracing and lifting up all neighborhoods and communities, this Council seeks to appeal only to developers who have nestled their way into the hearts of a bureaucracy and Council wedded to a cursory and short sighted reading of history, as well as a basic misunderstanding of economic principles as they relate to the development of healthy and affordable housing for all.
Please support this plan to continue making Sacramento a vibrant community where more people can rediscover the California dream through affordable housing and economic opportunity!
I am a D3 resident and homeowner in the River Oaks Neighborhood and strongly support the proposals to end exclusionary zoning and promote transit-oriented housing development. Sacramento can boldly adapt to climate change and provide housing for its residents and community members with support for these proposals for missing middle housing.
I want to highlight that using a FAR standard is an excellent idea to promote infill housing adapted to the diversity of lots all over Sacramento. Sacramento, being an old city, has a wide variety of lot shapes and sizes, and the FAR standard allows for adaptions to the individual lot. As opposed to unit cap proposals, which can prevent missing middle housing from being built by overly designing unit design that will not fit all locations.
Thank you to our Councilmembers and Mayor for being leaders on housing issues. More density means more homes and more homes means less displacement and homelessness.
The Board of Directors of the Newton Booth Neighborhoods Association, located in D4, urges the Sacramento City Council to pass a General Plan that allows for dramatically more “missing middle” housing in all of the city using FAR instead of unit caps. Please see the attached letter of support rom the NBNA board. - Diana Williams Corless, President, NBNA
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/
My wife and I are D4 homeowners, and we strongly support the council's decision to end exclusionary zoning and switch to regulating building intensity based on FAR and not unit caps. This paradigm switch from "density" to "intensity" has been the centerpiece of the GPU process to date and has been rightfully recognized as the sort of bold, visionary leadership that Sacramento needs to tackle the interconnected housing, homelessness, and climate crises. The Council deserves every bit of the praise that it has received for this shift — thank you!!
I also want to note that the brilliance of regulating FAR instead of unit caps is that it, by definition, is a flexible strategy that works on a lot-by-lot basis. This approach is therefore much more politically palatable and effective than arbitrary unit caps. Instead of sweeping, unit-based tiers, like those proposed in the original MMH recommendations, FAR is granular, with each lot allowing a different size building to be built based on its square footage. So some neighborhoods — like certain areas of East Sacramento — may have big lots and are more appropriate for more units, whereas others — like Elmhurst — have small lots and only duplexes, ADUs, or single family homes may make sense. FAR automatically regulates both of these scenarios effectively, while unit caps are at best, a clunky policy response (requiring the city to carefully tailor unit allowances neighborhood-by-neighborhood and lot-by-lot) and at worst distortionary and exclusionary, accidentally preventing missing middle housing from being built in the neighborhoods where it belongs.
Thank you, Councilmembers, for finding a solution that works for all Sacramentans *and* that delivers substantial and much-needed progress towards our climate and housing goals! We are all very grateful for your leadership this Thanksgiving season!
I support this plan and urge city council to do so as well! Changing to a FAR based approach is a fantastic step forward that will really help add density. I fully support this revised plan.
Voting yes on this proposal is what climate and housing leadership looks like. Thank you to both council and staff for embracing a more inclusive, affordable, and sustainable future.
I am a D7 resident (Curtis Park), homeowner, and board member of House Sacramento, a local YIMBY (yes in my backyard). We strongly support these two key policy revisions to the General Plan Update. As Council, staff, and the community move closer to a final 2040 General Plan, a 'yes' vote on this item simultaneously moves us to allow more transit-oriented housing in Sacramento and also 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. I and my neighbors in Curtis Park strongly urge Council to move forward with this critical policy and approve the General Plan as soon as possible in early 2024.
I strongly support the increase in FAR. The demand for housing is already here so we need to increase supply. By building more densely near transit stops, we create a virtuous cycle where housing and transit services reinforce each other. I live in Land Park where low transit demand and low density create a vicious cycle which degrades what should be an active, child- and pedestrian-friendly community.
Without adequate housing, we will continue to see homeless encampments in our public areas, excess traffic from the suburbs jamming our roads, and difficult access to nature because of urban sprawl. There is a middle ground between becoming a city of sprawl and a city of massive apartment complexes. A robust missing-middle approach allows Sacramento to preserve the feel of its residential areas while allowing multiple generations of residents to live there. I support this ambitious yet reasonable plan to address our housing needs and I urge Council to adopt it.
I am a D4 resident and a board member of House Sacramento, a local YIMBY group, which supports the proposed changes to the General Plan Update. By tying transit to higher FAR limits, this proposal seeks to maximize the amount of cheaper housing we can build in locationally efficient places, reducing transportation costs and climate-forcing emissions. And by removing the unit caps and instead relying on FAR to regulate homes, this update to the MMH ordinance follows modern planning best practices and encourages naturally more affordable, smaller units. We strongly urge City Council to pass this update.
Council -- I live in Oak Park not far from the 51 bus line. I applaud staff's recommendation to increase maximum FARs near high quality transit from 1 to 2. These are exactly the kinds of areas we should be encouraging housing to address our housing shortage, reduce car dependency, and minimize local emissions. I urge your support.
I am a resident of Hollywood Park in D5 and I support the proposal to increase the FAR from 1 to 2, without a unit cap, near all high-frequency transit. This proposal supports the City's goals of increasing housing diversity and incentivizing affordable housing by providing more flexibility to developers to develop smaller units near transit. While market-rate developers will benefits from this measure, it is important to remember that affordable housing will also be easier to build.
The proposal also supports numerous goals and strategies in the City's draft Climate Action Plan (CAP). In particular, it supports (1) Strategy E-5, aiming to have 90% of growth occur in infill areas; (2) Strategy TR-2, with a goal of an 11% transit mode share by 2030. It also supports the CAP strategy of removing barriers to transit, by enabling more people to live near transit. In short, implementing this proposal is an immediate, easy step to put the CAP into action.
Some may worry about parking becoming more difficult and increases in traffic congestion. Regarding traffic congestion, population is going to increase in the region regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, and with it there will be increased traffic congestion. By helping some of that population increase happen near transit, there may be less increase in congestion than would be the case if these new residents needed to live in more car-oriented areas due to a lack of housing near transit.
Regarding parking concerns, often parking concerns do not pan out as bad as folks may fear. Sure there may be more cars on the street, but actually finding a place to park usually remains easy. There are also established strategies to help with managing parking supply such as permitted parking, which is already done in midtown; better management can mitigate many parking concerns. Other strategies like charging non-residents to park and using the revenues for neighborhood improvements can convert a perceived burden into a benefit for residents.
Regarding concerns about changing neighborhood character, the form-based element of the proposal will go a long way in ensuring new developments, while denser, will not create drastic or jarring aesthetic changes in the neighborhood.
I applaud the City's efforts so far to encourage housing near high-frequency transit, and hope to see this proposal move forward. Thank you,
The Downtown Sacramento Partnership strongly supports staff recommendations to 1) increase FAR from 1 to 2 in transit-rich areas, and 2) revise the Missing Middle Housing recommendations to regulate building form via FAR. We are enthusiastic that doing so is a landmark step toward creating housing opportunities for all in every Sacramento neighborhood, and committing to the advancement key climate goals.
Creating the ability to build greater density, and undoing the systemically manufactured scarcity of housing, is a necessary action that will allow for more naturally occurring affordable housing types in high-resource neighborhoods that have historically excluded such housing from being allowed. The Downtown Partnership applauds staff's attention to creating dense neighborhoods within a half-mile walk of transit stops, as access to transit routes not only advances economic equity, but gets Sacramento a step closer to reducing reliance on individual vehicles as a main mode of transit.
We are proud of Sacramento's commitment to leading California cities in undoing past housing inequities -- earning us the title of first Prohousing city in California. We urge the Council to support staff's recommendation to allow for more homes in Sacramento.
In Partnership,
Michael Ault
Executive Director
Downtown Sacramento Partnership
It is refreshing to scroll through so many comments in support of this proposal. The end to exclusionary zoning, and its legacy of racist implementation, is long overdue. The FAR approach for weaving in additional density is well suited to the City of Sacramento. Kudos to City of Sacramento staff for their outreach to the community in putting this proposal together.
For illustration, consideration, and guidance, the Council needs to look no further than the recent build of two-story duplexes shoehorned onto an odd shaped lot at the corner of 55th & T St., in the D6 Elmhurst neighborhood. These out of place behemoths offer no side yard, no back yard, and a tiny front yard landscaped with little rocks, bigger rocks, and BIG rocks. Abutting the Highway 50 "fix" project, which has taken on a life of its own, the ambient sound in the vicinity is deafening. With one tiny garage per duplex, the goal seems to be to pack as many humans as possible into a small space, with parking forbidden on the streets adjacent to the dwellings. For all these amenities, rent is $3500 per month, unaffordable to most, including the relatively well off. While the leaderless Council continues to grasp at unproven theories borne out of unchallenged and unsupported "studies" with catchy names ("Missing Middle Housing"), evidence based proof that new housing such as this will ameliorate housing shortages do not exist. These units are not affordable, offer no diversity to the neighborhood, and the close by RT bus line and light rail will continue to be underutilized. Workers at nearby UC Davis will continue to drive, alone, to their work destinations, park on nearby streets, block driveways and increase traffic, adding to pollution, while robbing a beautiful neighborhood of its aesthetic and vibrant pedestrian culture. This neighborhood, containing some of the city's oldest and most beautiful trees, as well as others targeted by the Council, has flourished with no help from current elected officials. Instead of doing the hard work of embracing and lifting up all neighborhoods and communities, this Council seeks to appeal only to developers who have nestled their way into the hearts of a bureaucracy and Council wedded to a cursory and short sighted reading of history, as well as a basic misunderstanding of economic principles as they relate to the development of healthy and affordable housing for all.
Please support this plan to continue making Sacramento a vibrant community where more people can rediscover the California dream through affordable housing and economic opportunity!
Dear Councilmembers and Mayor,
I am a D3 resident and homeowner in the River Oaks Neighborhood and strongly support the proposals to end exclusionary zoning and promote transit-oriented housing development. Sacramento can boldly adapt to climate change and provide housing for its residents and community members with support for these proposals for missing middle housing.
I want to highlight that using a FAR standard is an excellent idea to promote infill housing adapted to the diversity of lots all over Sacramento. Sacramento, being an old city, has a wide variety of lot shapes and sizes, and the FAR standard allows for adaptions to the individual lot. As opposed to unit cap proposals, which can prevent missing middle housing from being built by overly designing unit design that will not fit all locations.
Thank you to our Councilmembers and Mayor for being leaders on housing issues. More density means more homes and more homes means less displacement and homelessness.
The Board of Directors of the Newton Booth Neighborhoods Association, located in D4, urges the Sacramento City Council to pass a General Plan that allows for dramatically more “missing middle” housing in all of the city using FAR instead of unit caps. Please see the attached letter of support rom the NBNA board. - Diana Williams Corless, President, NBNA
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.
My wife and I are D4 homeowners, and we strongly support the council's decision to end exclusionary zoning and switch to regulating building intensity based on FAR and not unit caps. This paradigm switch from "density" to "intensity" has been the centerpiece of the GPU process to date and has been rightfully recognized as the sort of bold, visionary leadership that Sacramento needs to tackle the interconnected housing, homelessness, and climate crises. The Council deserves every bit of the praise that it has received for this shift — thank you!!
I also want to note that the brilliance of regulating FAR instead of unit caps is that it, by definition, is a flexible strategy that works on a lot-by-lot basis. This approach is therefore much more politically palatable and effective than arbitrary unit caps. Instead of sweeping, unit-based tiers, like those proposed in the original MMH recommendations, FAR is granular, with each lot allowing a different size building to be built based on its square footage. So some neighborhoods — like certain areas of East Sacramento — may have big lots and are more appropriate for more units, whereas others — like Elmhurst — have small lots and only duplexes, ADUs, or single family homes may make sense. FAR automatically regulates both of these scenarios effectively, while unit caps are at best, a clunky policy response (requiring the city to carefully tailor unit allowances neighborhood-by-neighborhood and lot-by-lot) and at worst distortionary and exclusionary, accidentally preventing missing middle housing from being built in the neighborhoods where it belongs.
Thank you, Councilmembers, for finding a solution that works for all Sacramentans *and* that delivers substantial and much-needed progress towards our climate and housing goals! We are all very grateful for your leadership this Thanksgiving season!
I support this plan and urge city council to do so as well! Changing to a FAR based approach is a fantastic step forward that will really help add density. I fully support this revised plan.
Voting yes on this proposal is what climate and housing leadership looks like. Thank you to both council and staff for embracing a more inclusive, affordable, and sustainable future.
I urge the council to support this plan to increase available housing and reduce car dependency in Sacramento.
I am a D7 resident (Curtis Park), homeowner, and board member of House Sacramento, a local YIMBY (yes in my backyard). We strongly support these two key policy revisions to the General Plan Update. As Council, staff, and the community move closer to a final 2040 General Plan, a 'yes' vote on this item simultaneously moves us to allow more transit-oriented housing in Sacramento and also 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. I and my neighbors in Curtis Park strongly urge Council to move forward with this critical policy and approve the General Plan as soon as possible in early 2024.
I strongly support the increase in FAR. The demand for housing is already here so we need to increase supply. By building more densely near transit stops, we create a virtuous cycle where housing and transit services reinforce each other. I live in Land Park where low transit demand and low density create a vicious cycle which degrades what should be an active, child- and pedestrian-friendly community.
Without adequate housing, we will continue to see homeless encampments in our public areas, excess traffic from the suburbs jamming our roads, and difficult access to nature because of urban sprawl. There is a middle ground between becoming a city of sprawl and a city of massive apartment complexes. A robust missing-middle approach allows Sacramento to preserve the feel of its residential areas while allowing multiple generations of residents to live there. I support this ambitious yet reasonable plan to address our housing needs and I urge Council to adopt it.
I am a D4 resident and a board member of House Sacramento, a local YIMBY group, which supports the proposed changes to the General Plan Update. By tying transit to higher FAR limits, this proposal seeks to maximize the amount of cheaper housing we can build in locationally efficient places, reducing transportation costs and climate-forcing emissions. And by removing the unit caps and instead relying on FAR to regulate homes, this update to the MMH ordinance follows modern planning best practices and encourages naturally more affordable, smaller units. We strongly urge City Council to pass this update.
Allowing more missing middle and transit-oriented housing in Sacramento will help more people find housing and alleviate traffic and air pollution.
Please pass general plan update, great for future of Sacramento.
This a good step in the right direction for more housing in Sacramento!
Council -- I live in Oak Park not far from the 51 bus line. I applaud staff's recommendation to increase maximum FARs near high quality transit from 1 to 2. These are exactly the kinds of areas we should be encouraging housing to address our housing shortage, reduce car dependency, and minimize local emissions. I urge your support.
These are the kinds of common sense changes we need in Sacramento to become denser and more walkable. Full support!
I am a resident of Hollywood Park in D5 and I support the proposal to increase the FAR from 1 to 2, without a unit cap, near all high-frequency transit. This proposal supports the City's goals of increasing housing diversity and incentivizing affordable housing by providing more flexibility to developers to develop smaller units near transit. While market-rate developers will benefits from this measure, it is important to remember that affordable housing will also be easier to build.
The proposal also supports numerous goals and strategies in the City's draft Climate Action Plan (CAP). In particular, it supports (1) Strategy E-5, aiming to have 90% of growth occur in infill areas; (2) Strategy TR-2, with a goal of an 11% transit mode share by 2030. It also supports the CAP strategy of removing barriers to transit, by enabling more people to live near transit. In short, implementing this proposal is an immediate, easy step to put the CAP into action.
Some may worry about parking becoming more difficult and increases in traffic congestion. Regarding traffic congestion, population is going to increase in the region regardless of whether this proposal passes or not, and with it there will be increased traffic congestion. By helping some of that population increase happen near transit, there may be less increase in congestion than would be the case if these new residents needed to live in more car-oriented areas due to a lack of housing near transit.
Regarding parking concerns, often parking concerns do not pan out as bad as folks may fear. Sure there may be more cars on the street, but actually finding a place to park usually remains easy. There are also established strategies to help with managing parking supply such as permitted parking, which is already done in midtown; better management can mitigate many parking concerns. Other strategies like charging non-residents to park and using the revenues for neighborhood improvements can convert a perceived burden into a benefit for residents.
Regarding concerns about changing neighborhood character, the form-based element of the proposal will go a long way in ensuring new developments, while denser, will not create drastic or jarring aesthetic changes in the neighborhood.
I applaud the City's efforts so far to encourage housing near high-frequency transit, and hope to see this proposal move forward. Thank you,
Mayor Steinberg and Members of the City Council,
The Downtown Sacramento Partnership strongly supports staff recommendations to 1) increase FAR from 1 to 2 in transit-rich areas, and 2) revise the Missing Middle Housing recommendations to regulate building form via FAR. We are enthusiastic that doing so is a landmark step toward creating housing opportunities for all in every Sacramento neighborhood, and committing to the advancement key climate goals.
Creating the ability to build greater density, and undoing the systemically manufactured scarcity of housing, is a necessary action that will allow for more naturally occurring affordable housing types in high-resource neighborhoods that have historically excluded such housing from being allowed. The Downtown Partnership applauds staff's attention to creating dense neighborhoods within a half-mile walk of transit stops, as access to transit routes not only advances economic equity, but gets Sacramento a step closer to reducing reliance on individual vehicles as a main mode of transit.
We are proud of Sacramento's commitment to leading California cities in undoing past housing inequities -- earning us the title of first Prohousing city in California. We urge the Council to support staff's recommendation to allow for more homes in Sacramento.
In Partnership,
Michael Ault
Executive Director
Downtown Sacramento Partnership