California is a severe housing crisis and needs to build as much homes as possible. We should not permit down zoning of multi family to single-family homes in a transit and resource rich neighborhood
I am a Curtis Park resident and oppose this proposal. Like my fellow neighbors, I am strongly in favor of adding multifamily housing and creating more affordable opportunities for people to live and work in Sacramento. This is an area that has to transit, parks, and other desirable amenities and is proximate to midtown and the developing Broadway corridor. If Sacramento is committed to moving towards a transit-oriented future and creating more missing middle housing, this is the perfect opportunity.
Our city needs more housing options for those that cannot afford single family homes. This location being near a grocery store and park creates opportunity for less affluent residents to experience and contribute to the Curtis Park Neighborhood just like their more affluent neighbors.
We need greater diversity of housing options including multi residential units. We are experiencing a housing crisis in our region and throughout the state. This parcel, with nearby transit options and residential amenities, is an excellent location for developing more affordable, community oriented housing options.
The area needs more housing diversity. At this point, we are spreading people into either downtown high rises or way out of the city. It’s time this area be a part of the housing solution.
Why is this “request” even being considered at this juncture?
What is the real underlying rationale for departing from the “general plan” or original approved plan?
What would be provide to the neighborhood in return for an approval of this “request”?
There would need to be an equitable consideration provided to the neighborhood if this was even considered.
I am sure that plan was carefully thought out before it was approved and the mult-family units were an integral part of that plan with all important implication/ considerations planned. This is in addition to the built senior housing. This is an important element to this neighborhood. The last thing it needs is more of what already has been built. We need to complete the original plan.
We in this neighborhood will all benefit from the original plan.
Do not allow more single family buildings to be built in Crocker Village. We have more than enough single family houses. We need triplexes and quadplexes, the missing middle. I live in an existing Curtis Park quadplex, and it is delightful. It is excellent for community building and for neighbors helping each other, and is significantly more affordable for a smaller family unit. Triplexes should be the smallest desnisty built in these two parcels, going up thru quadplexes, small apartment buildings, and also include larger apartment buildings. There is a great opportunity here to diversify the neighborjood that I love.
As a resident of Crocker Village (on Crocker Drive), I am writing in strong support of building 61 densely built single-family homes. The area under discussion already includes a four-story apartment building for lower-income seniors, with a sizable commercial development nearby. The addition of another, bigger apartment building would bring increased traffic, noise, and pollution.
I strongly encourage the city to permit construction of the houses as proposed by the developer. The result will complete, not destroy, the character of this neighborhood, which is an excellent example of a successful urban infill community.
As a Curtis Park resident, I oppose the proposed zoning changes to allow for single family residential. Sacramento and California face a sever housing crisis and we cannot continue to make exemptions for single family housing infill. Sacramento needs more housing, now.
I am a resident of Curtis Park, and I oppose the proposed changes. This neighborhood and California as a whole desperately need more centrally located places to live that do not cost seven figures. This developer has worked at every turn to try to undermine our city's policy priorities for expanding housing options and protecting the environment, and this is no different. He deserves no special consideration and his proposed changes should be rejected. Our neighborhood needs neighbors, and the disgusting classist rhetoric peddled by this developer against people who cannot afford million dollar homes shows just how out of touch he is. Stand firm against this ridiculous new scheme to undercut an existing deal that is already too favorable to exclusionary housing.
I am a resident of Curtis Park and D7 and oppose any downzoning of density in Crocker Village. The proposal development shows a profound lack of creativity and would create the most boring outcome possible. I agree with the staff recommendation that denies single family zoning on the Multi Parcel, but do not agree with the support for single family on the Flex Parcel without additional conditions. Recognizing that single family zoning now allows ADUs and fourplexes, I could support that zoning on the Flex Parcel if a minimum unit count of 80-100 total units were imposed, effectively requiring to developer to build more small units on the parcel, even if 30 lots were created.
Regarding the Multi parcel, I question whether the developer has explored a project that minimizes vehicle parking and takes advantage of the transit and bike possibilities of the site. I do note the Flex site is closer to transit and the community hub and would be a better location for a true multifamily project if the developer and City would consider a swap.
I am a Curtis Park homeowner and District 7 resident. I support the staff recommendation for the "Multi Parcel" but oppose it for the "Flex Parcel." I do not support allowing single unit houses on land designated for multifamily or commercial development. The "Multi Parcel" should be maintained as multifamily and the Flex Parcel should maintain the spirit of the original RMU designation. If the current owner does not wish to build in accordance with the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development, they should sell the parcels to someone who will. We need MORE housing near transit in Sacramento. We have planned infrastructure for that and should maintain those plans. This is also in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. Thank you.
Sacramento, like every city across the state, must do its part to build needed multifamily developments after nearly a century of exclusionary zoning laws have kept residents from access to good public transportation, good jobs, and safe, inviting neighborhoods. Crocker Village is the exact type of neighborhood that needs multifamily housing for those reasons. I hope the council will think not only about the residents that currently live in Crocker Village, but also the many residents currently living around our city without close access to public transportation, without a safe neighborhood for themselves or their children, or without close proximity to good paying jobs that a project like this would serve and a $1 million single family home would not.
My name is Ben Raderstorf and I think this agenda item is absurd. The City of Sacramento has carefully designed a general plan that 1) affirmatively furthers fair housing, 2) encourages more sustainable, transit-oriented infill development, 3) eliminates exclusionary zoning, 4) allows for more affordable, multi-family housing options, and 5) encourages for mixed-income neighborhoods across the city.
All of those are important and pressing policy concerns that the City Council and Planning and Design Commission weighed through years of community input in eventually (and rightfully) designating this site for multi-family housing.
As far as I can understand from the proposal and supportive eComments below, the arguments that the City should backtrack and undo that careful decisionmaking process comes down to neighborhood concerns over 1) "massive increase of traffic and people," 2) the desire for a "peaceful surrounding," and that 3) "a multifamily unit would stand out in a negative way and alter the landscape of Curtis Park," as well as 4) a developer preference to pursue a housing type that, per Zillow, currently retails for $1.1-1.3 million/unit. With all due respect to supporters of this proposed downzoning, *none* of these justifications are pressing policy concerns that the City should put above the carefully considered decisionmaking that went into the General Plan. Please reject this proposal.
I oppose rezoning this area to single family homes - Curtis Park is a lovely an vibrant community that could only benefit from multifamily zoning. Study after study has shown that multifamily zoning next to public transit allows for less vehicular traffic and congestion. I completely agree with Curtis's comment that "Limiting this site to single-family use undermines our goals of affordability, sustainability, and neighborhood diversity. "
I truly think that people forget that multifamily housing comes in many shapes and sizes - 4/1 apartment buildings shaped like boxes may be popular but they aren't the only multifamily solution. If folks are worried about keeping the aesthetic of the existing neighborhood, build townhouses or duplexes and triplexes. Build cottage courtyard style housing.
We need affordability, sustainability, and character. Not more urban sprawl
I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning for single-family homes in this area, which sits directly next to public transit and Sac City College—an ideal location for dense, multi-family housing. Limiting this site to single-family use undermines our goals of affordability, sustainability, and neighborhood diversity. The argument that multi-family housing isn't financially feasible doesn't hold up, especially when developers across Sacramento are actively building it elsewhere. We need a variety of housing types to support a diverse, inclusive community, and this rezoning moves us in the wrong direction.
As a Crocker village resident, I very much support the zoning change to single family homes on this corner. While I appreciate and understand the housing issues that exist, I don’t believe that this specific corner is well suited for multifamily units, and it would negative impact the neighborhood. There is already a lot of traffic in this area brought in by the shopping center and commuters bypassing the freeway to drive into midtown, and this would add to that. Curtis Park’s appeal and charm is its family feel and there are no other similar apartment style buildings besides the assisted living facility. A multifamily unit would stand out in a negative way and alter the landscape of Curtis Park.
I am opposed to changing multi-family zoning to single-family zoning as this is not in the best interest of the community when housing affordability is at an all time high. This site in particular is extremely well suited for multi-family development and this zoning change would be a huge missed opportunity.
As a Curtis Park resident, I've watched Crocker village squander its potential. Crocker village is an ideal location to develop efficient, sustainable, and affordable housing serving a wide variety of Sacramentans. Its proximity to transit, parks, shopping, and many other amenities and services, as well as Sacramento city college, align perfectly with the “complete neighborhoods” ethos endorsed by the General Plan. I'm opposed to Paul Petrovich's petition to alter the zoning for the two undeveloped parcels next to the Safeway plaza in Curtis Park. Instead of building much needed multi-family housing, he would like to build more expensive single family housing. Sacramento is one of the least affordable housing markets in the US. The median new construction house price is $650K and the median household income is $76K. In Crocker village, the prices start at $650K and just go up from there. This is not the kind of housing that's going to help solve our housing problems and isn't aligned with what we need in our neighborhood.
California is a severe housing crisis and needs to build as much homes as possible. We should not permit down zoning of multi family to single-family homes in a transit and resource rich neighborhood
I am a Curtis Park resident and oppose this proposal. Like my fellow neighbors, I am strongly in favor of adding multifamily housing and creating more affordable opportunities for people to live and work in Sacramento. This is an area that has to transit, parks, and other desirable amenities and is proximate to midtown and the developing Broadway corridor. If Sacramento is committed to moving towards a transit-oriented future and creating more missing middle housing, this is the perfect opportunity.
Our city needs more housing options for those that cannot afford single family homes. This location being near a grocery store and park creates opportunity for less affluent residents to experience and contribute to the Curtis Park Neighborhood just like their more affluent neighbors.
We need greater diversity of housing options including multi residential units. We are experiencing a housing crisis in our region and throughout the state. This parcel, with nearby transit options and residential amenities, is an excellent location for developing more affordable, community oriented housing options.
The area needs more housing diversity. At this point, we are spreading people into either downtown high rises or way out of the city. It’s time this area be a part of the housing solution.
Owner/ resident:
Why is this “request” even being considered at this juncture?
What is the real underlying rationale for departing from the “general plan” or original approved plan?
What would be provide to the neighborhood in return for an approval of this “request”?
There would need to be an equitable consideration provided to the neighborhood if this was even considered.
I am sure that plan was carefully thought out before it was approved and the mult-family units were an integral part of that plan with all important implication/ considerations planned. This is in addition to the built senior housing. This is an important element to this neighborhood. The last thing it needs is more of what already has been built. We need to complete the original plan.
We in this neighborhood will all benefit from the original plan.
Do not allow more single family buildings to be built in Crocker Village. We have more than enough single family houses. We need triplexes and quadplexes, the missing middle. I live in an existing Curtis Park quadplex, and it is delightful. It is excellent for community building and for neighbors helping each other, and is significantly more affordable for a smaller family unit. Triplexes should be the smallest desnisty built in these two parcels, going up thru quadplexes, small apartment buildings, and also include larger apartment buildings. There is a great opportunity here to diversify the neighborjood that I love.
As a resident of Crocker Village (on Crocker Drive), I am writing in strong support of building 61 densely built single-family homes. The area under discussion already includes a four-story apartment building for lower-income seniors, with a sizable commercial development nearby. The addition of another, bigger apartment building would bring increased traffic, noise, and pollution.
I strongly encourage the city to permit construction of the houses as proposed by the developer. The result will complete, not destroy, the character of this neighborhood, which is an excellent example of a successful urban infill community.
As a Curtis Park resident, I oppose the proposed zoning changes to allow for single family residential. Sacramento and California face a sever housing crisis and we cannot continue to make exemptions for single family housing infill. Sacramento needs more housing, now.
I am a resident of Curtis Park, and I oppose the proposed changes. This neighborhood and California as a whole desperately need more centrally located places to live that do not cost seven figures. This developer has worked at every turn to try to undermine our city's policy priorities for expanding housing options and protecting the environment, and this is no different. He deserves no special consideration and his proposed changes should be rejected. Our neighborhood needs neighbors, and the disgusting classist rhetoric peddled by this developer against people who cannot afford million dollar homes shows just how out of touch he is. Stand firm against this ridiculous new scheme to undercut an existing deal that is already too favorable to exclusionary housing.
I am a resident of Curtis Park and D7 and oppose any downzoning of density in Crocker Village. The proposal development shows a profound lack of creativity and would create the most boring outcome possible. I agree with the staff recommendation that denies single family zoning on the Multi Parcel, but do not agree with the support for single family on the Flex Parcel without additional conditions. Recognizing that single family zoning now allows ADUs and fourplexes, I could support that zoning on the Flex Parcel if a minimum unit count of 80-100 total units were imposed, effectively requiring to developer to build more small units on the parcel, even if 30 lots were created.
Regarding the Multi parcel, I question whether the developer has explored a project that minimizes vehicle parking and takes advantage of the transit and bike possibilities of the site. I do note the Flex site is closer to transit and the community hub and would be a better location for a true multifamily project if the developer and City would consider a swap.
I am a Curtis Park homeowner and District 7 resident. I support the staff recommendation for the "Multi Parcel" but oppose it for the "Flex Parcel." I do not support allowing single unit houses on land designated for multifamily or commercial development. The "Multi Parcel" should be maintained as multifamily and the Flex Parcel should maintain the spirit of the original RMU designation. If the current owner does not wish to build in accordance with the Curtis Park Village Planned Unit Development, they should sell the parcels to someone who will. We need MORE housing near transit in Sacramento. We have planned infrastructure for that and should maintain those plans. This is also in accordance with the 2040 General Plan. Thank you.
Sacramento, like every city across the state, must do its part to build needed multifamily developments after nearly a century of exclusionary zoning laws have kept residents from access to good public transportation, good jobs, and safe, inviting neighborhoods. Crocker Village is the exact type of neighborhood that needs multifamily housing for those reasons. I hope the council will think not only about the residents that currently live in Crocker Village, but also the many residents currently living around our city without close access to public transportation, without a safe neighborhood for themselves or their children, or without close proximity to good paying jobs that a project like this would serve and a $1 million single family home would not.
My name is Ben Raderstorf and I think this agenda item is absurd. The City of Sacramento has carefully designed a general plan that 1) affirmatively furthers fair housing, 2) encourages more sustainable, transit-oriented infill development, 3) eliminates exclusionary zoning, 4) allows for more affordable, multi-family housing options, and 5) encourages for mixed-income neighborhoods across the city.
All of those are important and pressing policy concerns that the City Council and Planning and Design Commission weighed through years of community input in eventually (and rightfully) designating this site for multi-family housing.
As far as I can understand from the proposal and supportive eComments below, the arguments that the City should backtrack and undo that careful decisionmaking process comes down to neighborhood concerns over 1) "massive increase of traffic and people," 2) the desire for a "peaceful surrounding," and that 3) "a multifamily unit would stand out in a negative way and alter the landscape of Curtis Park," as well as 4) a developer preference to pursue a housing type that, per Zillow, currently retails for $1.1-1.3 million/unit. With all due respect to supporters of this proposed downzoning, *none* of these justifications are pressing policy concerns that the City should put above the carefully considered decisionmaking that went into the General Plan. Please reject this proposal.
I oppose rezoning this area to single family homes - Curtis Park is a lovely an vibrant community that could only benefit from multifamily zoning. Study after study has shown that multifamily zoning next to public transit allows for less vehicular traffic and congestion. I completely agree with Curtis's comment that "Limiting this site to single-family use undermines our goals of affordability, sustainability, and neighborhood diversity. "
I truly think that people forget that multifamily housing comes in many shapes and sizes - 4/1 apartment buildings shaped like boxes may be popular but they aren't the only multifamily solution. If folks are worried about keeping the aesthetic of the existing neighborhood, build townhouses or duplexes and triplexes. Build cottage courtyard style housing.
We need affordability, sustainability, and character. Not more urban sprawl
I am super strongly opposed to this, we need diverse housing types and density next to public transit!
I strongly oppose the proposed rezoning for single-family homes in this area, which sits directly next to public transit and Sac City College—an ideal location for dense, multi-family housing. Limiting this site to single-family use undermines our goals of affordability, sustainability, and neighborhood diversity. The argument that multi-family housing isn't financially feasible doesn't hold up, especially when developers across Sacramento are actively building it elsewhere. We need a variety of housing types to support a diverse, inclusive community, and this rezoning moves us in the wrong direction.
As a Crocker village resident, I very much support the zoning change to single family homes on this corner. While I appreciate and understand the housing issues that exist, I don’t believe that this specific corner is well suited for multifamily units, and it would negative impact the neighborhood. There is already a lot of traffic in this area brought in by the shopping center and commuters bypassing the freeway to drive into midtown, and this would add to that. Curtis Park’s appeal and charm is its family feel and there are no other similar apartment style buildings besides the assisted living facility. A multifamily unit would stand out in a negative way and alter the landscape of Curtis Park.
I am opposed to changing multi-family zoning to single-family zoning as this is not in the best interest of the community when housing affordability is at an all time high. This site in particular is extremely well suited for multi-family development and this zoning change would be a huge missed opportunity.
As a Curtis Park resident, I've watched Crocker village squander its potential. Crocker village is an ideal location to develop efficient, sustainable, and affordable housing serving a wide variety of Sacramentans. Its proximity to transit, parks, shopping, and many other amenities and services, as well as Sacramento city college, align perfectly with the “complete neighborhoods” ethos endorsed by the General Plan. I'm opposed to Paul Petrovich's petition to alter the zoning for the two undeveloped parcels next to the Safeway plaza in Curtis Park. Instead of building much needed multi-family housing, he would like to build more expensive single family housing. Sacramento is one of the least affordable housing markets in the US. The median new construction house price is $650K and the median household income is $76K. In Crocker village, the prices start at $650K and just go up from there. This is not the kind of housing that's going to help solve our housing problems and isn't aligned with what we need in our neighborhood.