How many ADU’s have been approved in the last 12 months in this area? These people are worried about the sewer system allegedly, but how many have built ADUs in their yard or above their garage and didn’t say mumm about it? Simple. Have the applicant provide upgrade to the area affected. Done deal. Move on.
Dear Planing Commissioners, I had originally submitted comments, photographs, building design guidelines for street trees on to the City of Sacramento Community Development Dept. Environmental Planning Services on May 23, 2025. Attached is the letter which was sent. Unfortunately, I am unable to include all the attachments originally sent. All the information I submitted was not included in this document. I was a Sacramento City Arborist from 1990 until 2020. I was the sole city arborist for the first fifteen years and worked on hundreds of projects. I am appalled that the City of Sacramento Urban Forestry section approved this project. The concern is the existing city street trees will be severely damaged due to no above or below ground setbacks. Furthermore, the applicant's arborist report is very misleading indicating that the nontraditional pruning will not harm the trees. Attached is a photo of tree #59893 24-inch zelkova which the arborist report indicates will require 20% of the canopy prune to construct the building. When the attached photo indicated the true amount of pruning. This project does not adhere to the Developer Guidelines for Street Trees. With no building above and below setbacks large canopy trees cannot be grown. Sacramento is in a climate crisis and trees are our first line of defense in combating climate change. Sacramento's air quality is poor. According to the American Lung Association 2024 State of the Air Report. Nationally, Sacramento had the 7th worst ozone, 7th worst year round particle pollution and 9th worst Short Term Particle Pollution. The amount of leaf surface area being removed by this proposed project worsens Sacramento's air quality. If this project is approve the city should be compensated for the damages caused to the existing city street tree that remain. Thank You.
I live two blocks from this proposed project on D street, and I welcome this addition to our neighborhood. It's the perfect location for new apartments because it's an abandoned lot that has sat vacant for the 12 years I've lived in the neighborhood. While others may be concerned about the height of the building, I think the location directly adjacent to the freeway is the right place to add a taller building. The only request I have for the city and developer is to think of opportunities to add vibrancy to the neighborhood by recruiting businesses in the commercial space that give us a place to gather as neighbors. It would be great to have a coffee shop and tap room and restaurant. Also, if there in an opportunity to contribute to McKinley Park to offset additional use, I highly recommend repaving the tennis courts or supporting additional lifeguard hours at the pool. I also hope that once we have 300+ new neighbors that the city will add the commuter bus line back to this neighborhood. We're not currently able to use public transit to get to our jobs downtown.
Terrible location for this enormously out of place housing complex. Traffic is terrible already during commute times. It's a very inefficient route to the freeway and this proposal will add much more gridlock.
I live near this site and I strongly support this project. Sacramento is in desperate need of housing and the buildings in that area are sitting there unused with no service to the community.
As someone who lives just a few blocks from the site I strongly support the project. The dilapidated buildings are only a negative on the community. I think this fresh breath of life is desperately needed in the neighborhood!
I strongly support the proposed project. It is exactly what is needed in Sacramento. People opposing this development are the same folks who complain about the homeless and the price of housing. Let’s not stand in the way of progress. This project is for the kind of housing density that it is going to take to begin to address our problems. And it will allow people to live near McKinley Park who otherwise would have to live further from the core, causing more traffic and more pollution. Strengthening the city’s core neighborhoods through increased housing density is the smart way for Sacramento to proceed. The benefits are many.
To: Planning & Design Commission
Re: Project P24-007 – Alhambra Redevelopment Project
Position: Strong Opposition as Proposed
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to strongly oppose Project P24-007 in its current form.
This proposal does not reflect neighborhood-scale development. A six-story, 68-foot structure in the heart of East Sacramento is not an incremental change — it is a dramatic and permanent alteration of our community’s character. The conclusion that this project would have a “less than significant” impact does not reflect the lived reality of those of us who reside here.
This building would tower over one- and two-story homes and permanently shift the scale of the Alhambra Corridor. It sets a precedent that fundamentally changes what this neighborhood is.
East Sacramento is not downtown. It is not a university district. It is not an urban core built to absorb high-density projects of this magnitude. Infrastructure, traffic patterns, and street design reflect that.
Traffic and Safety
The projected 2,600+ daily vehicle trips are not theoretical — they will be felt daily at Alhambra Boulevard and McKinley Drive, an already congested and high-risk intersection. As a regular motorcycle commuter, I am deeply concerned about increased congestion and safety risks.
Parking is already strained due to heavy park use. Overflow parking from this development will directly impact nearby residents. Without strict on-site parking requirements and residential permit protections, this burden will fall on the neighborhood.
Increased cut-through traffic on C Street and D Street is inevitable. What concrete, enforceable mitigation measures will prevent speeding and preserve safety? Emergency response times must also be evaluated under realistic peak-traffic conditions.
Scale and Design
This project, as designed, is imposing and out of scale. If it is to move forward at all, it must be substantially revised:
- Reduce height to 3–4 stories.
- Incorporate underground parking to prevent spillover.
- Implement meaningful architectural step-backs to reduce visual mass.
Without these revisions, the development will dominate the streetscape rather than integrate into it.
Developer Accountability
If approved, the developer must be required to fund tangible neighborhood improvements, including:
- Residential parking permits for impacted streets
- Street lighting in currently unlit areas
- Traffic calming and enhanced crosswalks
- Sewer and stormwater infrastructure upgrades
- Green infrastructure to mitigate runoff
The surrounding community should not subsidize the impacts of this project.
Conclusion
East Sacramento’s character has been shaped thoughtfully over decades. This proposal disregards that context and places disproportionate strain on infrastructure and residents.
I respectfully urge the Commission to reject the project as currently designed and require significant revisions that reflect neighborhood scale, safety, and long-term sustainability.
“The Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District (ACSPD) requires that in order to approve height above 35 feet, the Planning Commission MUST find that the development will NOT be out of scale with the adjacent neighborhood.
The City’s General Plan (LUP-6.3) reinforces that multi-unit buildings shall be in scale with the residential neighborhood. So this project is neither compliant with the ACSPD, nor the City’s General Plan.”
Is the City not opening itself up to legal action by not adhering to the ACSDP?
To any resident opposing this project, please be advised that you can appeal the PDC decision to the City Council. And the City Council needs to be asked why special planning district rules are not being followed.
Yes we need housing, but smart housing, in the right location (Stockton and T was a fine location for a greater than 35 feet high residential building, but not this location.
I am strongly in favor of this project. It is supported by McKinley Park and the people who live there. It will provide additional housing at a time when that is urgently needed. It will add significant and much needed tax revenue. Higher concentrations of people will reduce crime due to greater pedestrian and bicycle traffic…having more people nearby walking and riding is a great to discourage crime—knowing that there are eyes all around, discourages people from doing those crimes of opportunity we all hate. Please support this project…we need it.
I am a strong supporter for new housing across Sacramento and this project! We need more housing in general and people need options. East Sacramento is a great location because of the great neighborhood it is. This is a chance to open up a community and allow people to benefit from the great existing amenities and opportunities it hosts. It's okay that ir is different housing types and construction will cease when done. The excuses for not wanting these types of projects are rooted in exclusionary efforts and we must stop that.
I support this project and hope to see more infill projects in East Sacramento. This is a chance to give people a place to live near McKinley Park who otherwise couldn’t afford to do so. We must choose housing density because it is the just course of action given the crisis of our lack of housing! Please support this development!
I strongly oppose this construction in it's present form.I Iive 1/2 block from this proposed site. This project will greatly impact the quality of life for those closest. Traffic will be horrendous at the corner of Alhambra and E streets. It is already congested most of the day, and adding hundreds of cars during the rush hours will be a scene out of traffic nightmare. The pollution, parking and noise will be intolerable for those of us closest the the site.. Please do not approve this permit in it's present present form.
Re: Project P24 007 – Alhambra Redevelopment Project
Position: Oppose as currently proposed
Based on current design scope, I am not satisfied that the project only needed an initial study to say that project would have a less that significant impact to the neighborhood and me personally.
1. Out-of-Scope for East Sacramento
• The proposed six-story, 68-foot structure exceeds the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District’s intent for neighborhood-scale development. It disrupts the character of adjacent one- and two-story homes and sets a precedent for incompatible massing.
• Density far surpasses neighborhood norms, creating disproportionate strain on traffic, parking, and utilities. This project, if built as designed, will be an eyesore and planners do not have the ability to build out to offer a tiered housing community in nearby properties
• The scale and density of project is out of character for all housing in nearby vicinity, especially east of Business 80, south of railroad tracks, north of J street, and west of Elvas Ave. The current project design is better suited and is similar to housing projects near California State University, Sacramento or the Downtown Sacrament core, where infrastructure is better built out. I recommend that there be significant design revisions to reduce current imposing nature of project.
2. Traffic, Parking & Infrastructure Concerns
• As an alternative transportation user (motorcycle), the Estimated 2,600+ daily vehicle trips will worsen congestion at Alhambra Blvd & McKinley Drive, already a high-traffic intersection and I have serious safety concerns for my wellbeing.
• I am concerned with the parking impacts near my residence, as I am already impacted by visitors to Mckinnly Park, who use pool, playground, soccer fields, play volleyball. The additional residents would further impact my ability to park near my home.
• I recommend that the project have a ratio of 1.5 parking spot per residential unit and that all parking be limited to immediately adjacent streets or within the boundaries of project.
• I am concerned with the potential speeding and additional traffic running east to west on D Street and C street between Alhambra Blvd and 33rd street. What mitigation will there be to keep traffic and parking availability at current levels. I am supporting impeding and severely limiting traffic and speed down these streets.
• Was there any additional studies to address the impacts of commuters to the canning company property in Northeast corner of C and 33rd Street or the impacts during commuting hours at the intersections of Alhambra Blvd and McKinely Drive as well as traffic merging onto Business 80?
• Emergency response times could be compromised by gridlock at the above-mentioned intersections.
• I recommend that the project developer be responsible for paying and installing additional benefits to nearby residents to include streetlamp lighting and permitted parking requirements to all streets bounded by McKinely Drive to B street and from 30th Street to 33rd street. There is currently no streetlamp lighting. I also propose that all alleyways in the above-mentioned areas be paved or concreted. All improvements to be paid for by developer.
3. Recommended Design Alternatives
• Reduce height and density: Limit to 3-4 stories to better align with neighborhood scale.
• Build two-level underground parking garage: Provides adequate resident parking without consuming surface space or spilling into surrounding streets.
• Step-back design: Upper floors should recede from the street to minimize visual impact and imposing scale of project.
4. Infrastructure & Community Improvements
• Mandatory residential parking permits for nearby streets to prevent overflow parking.
• Street lighting upgrades for safety and visibility.
• Enhanced crosswalks and traffic signals to accommodate increased pedestrian activity.
• Developer-funded sewer and stormwater upgrades to handle additional capacity.
• Green infrastructure (bioswales, permeable pavement) to reduce runoff.
• Transit integration: Add bus shelters and bike racks to encourage alternative transportation.
5. Alternative Location
This project’s scale and density are better suited in another location Sacramento, where:
• Zoning supports taller, higher-density structures.
• Transit options reduce car dependency.
• Infrastructure is designed for high occupancy.
Conclusion:
The Alhambra Redevelopment Project, as proposed, is incompatible with East Sacramento’s character and infrastructure. We urge the Commission to reject the current design and require significant modifications to achieve a balanced, sustainable outcome.
Sincerely,
Kyle Emery
East Sacramento Resident at Intersection of D Street and 32nd Street
As a resident in Boulevard Park who would be impacted by this development, I am strongly in support of the project as well as related projects. I believe that building housing projects of this scale are necessary to support the growth that Sacramento is experiencing, and they are a requirement for improving the unhoused crisis.
While the scale of this project is impressive, it should not be lost that the reason it might "not fit the neighborhood" is because of opposition to smaller or similar building for the past many decades. If development had been allowed to proceed in a reasonable manner over the past few decades, this project would not seem so out-of-scale. However, due to opposition similar to the kind this project is receiving, the project seems disproportionate. Now that some of the barriers are being removed from development, I'm glad to see steps like this taken that can allow the inner core of Sacramento to grow beyond the artificial constraints of downtown/midtown.
Some may not realize it, but the northeast corner of the grid, where I live, is severely underserved and underutilized. Residents who live between C, E, 24th, and 28th street face upwards of 15-20 minute walks to get to a single coffee shop or restaurant. These are people who live in the core of the capital of the 4th largest economy of the world. We can do better, and projects like this which pave the way toward urbanizing the city for the masses - not the wealthy few - are vital to the future of Sacramento.
The one caveat I have about this project is the amount of parking provided. I believe that the Residential Parking Program should be sufficient to cover a significant portion of the parking being provided. Should the parking footprint be reduced in scale, I believe this project would be a slam-dunk and provide an important vector for adding demand for bikeability and transit in the area.
I live in east-east Sacramento, and I support this project! We need more housing, especially infill housing like this. This sounds like a great project that will benefit a lot of Sacramento residents by providing new, reasonably priced housing stock. It's important to consider all the people who will benefit from this project and not just the few voices of dissent.
How many ADU’s have been approved in the last 12 months in this area? These people are worried about the sewer system allegedly, but how many have built ADUs in their yard or above their garage and didn’t say mumm about it? Simple. Have the applicant provide upgrade to the area affected. Done deal. Move on.
Dear Planing Commissioners, I had originally submitted comments, photographs, building design guidelines for street trees on to the City of Sacramento Community Development Dept. Environmental Planning Services on May 23, 2025. Attached is the letter which was sent. Unfortunately, I am unable to include all the attachments originally sent. All the information I submitted was not included in this document. I was a Sacramento City Arborist from 1990 until 2020. I was the sole city arborist for the first fifteen years and worked on hundreds of projects. I am appalled that the City of Sacramento Urban Forestry section approved this project. The concern is the existing city street trees will be severely damaged due to no above or below ground setbacks. Furthermore, the applicant's arborist report is very misleading indicating that the nontraditional pruning will not harm the trees. Attached is a photo of tree #59893 24-inch zelkova which the arborist report indicates will require 20% of the canopy prune to construct the building. When the attached photo indicated the true amount of pruning. This project does not adhere to the Developer Guidelines for Street Trees. With no building above and below setbacks large canopy trees cannot be grown. Sacramento is in a climate crisis and trees are our first line of defense in combating climate change. Sacramento's air quality is poor. According to the American Lung Association 2024 State of the Air Report. Nationally, Sacramento had the 7th worst ozone, 7th worst year round particle pollution and 9th worst Short Term Particle Pollution. The amount of leaf surface area being removed by this proposed project worsens Sacramento's air quality. If this project is approve the city should be compensated for the damages caused to the existing city street tree that remain. Thank You.
I live two blocks from this proposed project on D street, and I welcome this addition to our neighborhood. It's the perfect location for new apartments because it's an abandoned lot that has sat vacant for the 12 years I've lived in the neighborhood. While others may be concerned about the height of the building, I think the location directly adjacent to the freeway is the right place to add a taller building. The only request I have for the city and developer is to think of opportunities to add vibrancy to the neighborhood by recruiting businesses in the commercial space that give us a place to gather as neighbors. It would be great to have a coffee shop and tap room and restaurant. Also, if there in an opportunity to contribute to McKinley Park to offset additional use, I highly recommend repaving the tennis courts or supporting additional lifeguard hours at the pool. I also hope that once we have 300+ new neighbors that the city will add the commuter bus line back to this neighborhood. We're not currently able to use public transit to get to our jobs downtown.
Terrible location for this enormously out of place housing complex. Traffic is terrible already during commute times. It's a very inefficient route to the freeway and this proposal will add much more gridlock.
I live near this site and I strongly support this project. Sacramento is in desperate need of housing and the buildings in that area are sitting there unused with no service to the community.
I strongly support this project. We need more housing and this is a great opportunity to add more.
As someone who lives just a few blocks from the site I strongly support the project. The dilapidated buildings are only a negative on the community. I think this fresh breath of life is desperately needed in the neighborhood!
I strongly support the proposed project. It is exactly what is needed in Sacramento. People opposing this development are the same folks who complain about the homeless and the price of housing. Let’s not stand in the way of progress. This project is for the kind of housing density that it is going to take to begin to address our problems. And it will allow people to live near McKinley Park who otherwise would have to live further from the core, causing more traffic and more pollution. Strengthening the city’s core neighborhoods through increased housing density is the smart way for Sacramento to proceed. The benefits are many.
To: Planning & Design Commission
Re: Project P24-007 – Alhambra Redevelopment Project
Position: Strong Opposition as Proposed
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to strongly oppose Project P24-007 in its current form.
This proposal does not reflect neighborhood-scale development. A six-story, 68-foot structure in the heart of East Sacramento is not an incremental change — it is a dramatic and permanent alteration of our community’s character. The conclusion that this project would have a “less than significant” impact does not reflect the lived reality of those of us who reside here.
This building would tower over one- and two-story homes and permanently shift the scale of the Alhambra Corridor. It sets a precedent that fundamentally changes what this neighborhood is.
East Sacramento is not downtown. It is not a university district. It is not an urban core built to absorb high-density projects of this magnitude. Infrastructure, traffic patterns, and street design reflect that.
Traffic and Safety
The projected 2,600+ daily vehicle trips are not theoretical — they will be felt daily at Alhambra Boulevard and McKinley Drive, an already congested and high-risk intersection. As a regular motorcycle commuter, I am deeply concerned about increased congestion and safety risks.
Parking is already strained due to heavy park use. Overflow parking from this development will directly impact nearby residents. Without strict on-site parking requirements and residential permit protections, this burden will fall on the neighborhood.
Increased cut-through traffic on C Street and D Street is inevitable. What concrete, enforceable mitigation measures will prevent speeding and preserve safety? Emergency response times must also be evaluated under realistic peak-traffic conditions.
Scale and Design
This project, as designed, is imposing and out of scale. If it is to move forward at all, it must be substantially revised:
- Reduce height to 3–4 stories.
- Incorporate underground parking to prevent spillover.
- Implement meaningful architectural step-backs to reduce visual mass.
Without these revisions, the development will dominate the streetscape rather than integrate into it.
Developer Accountability
If approved, the developer must be required to fund tangible neighborhood improvements, including:
- Residential parking permits for impacted streets
- Street lighting in currently unlit areas
- Traffic calming and enhanced crosswalks
- Sewer and stormwater infrastructure upgrades
- Green infrastructure to mitigate runoff
The surrounding community should not subsidize the impacts of this project.
Conclusion
East Sacramento’s character has been shaped thoughtfully over decades. This proposal disregards that context and places disproportionate strain on infrastructure and residents.
I respectfully urge the Commission to reject the project as currently designed and require significant revisions that reflect neighborhood scale, safety, and long-term sustainability.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Michelle Henning
Build more housing.
I agree with Nancy Griffith, below, that:
“The Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District (ACSPD) requires that in order to approve height above 35 feet, the Planning Commission MUST find that the development will NOT be out of scale with the adjacent neighborhood.
The City’s General Plan (LUP-6.3) reinforces that multi-unit buildings shall be in scale with the residential neighborhood. So this project is neither compliant with the ACSPD, nor the City’s General Plan.”
Is the City not opening itself up to legal action by not adhering to the ACSDP?
To any resident opposing this project, please be advised that you can appeal the PDC decision to the City Council. And the City Council needs to be asked why special planning district rules are not being followed.
Yes we need housing, but smart housing, in the right location (Stockton and T was a fine location for a greater than 35 feet high residential building, but not this location.
eComments received by the City Clerk's Office.
I am strongly in favor of this project. It is supported by McKinley Park and the people who live there. It will provide additional housing at a time when that is urgently needed. It will add significant and much needed tax revenue. Higher concentrations of people will reduce crime due to greater pedestrian and bicycle traffic…having more people nearby walking and riding is a great to discourage crime—knowing that there are eyes all around, discourages people from doing those crimes of opportunity we all hate. Please support this project…we need it.
I am a strong supporter for new housing across Sacramento and this project! We need more housing in general and people need options. East Sacramento is a great location because of the great neighborhood it is. This is a chance to open up a community and allow people to benefit from the great existing amenities and opportunities it hosts. It's okay that ir is different housing types and construction will cease when done. The excuses for not wanting these types of projects are rooted in exclusionary efforts and we must stop that.
I support this project and hope to see more infill projects in East Sacramento. This is a chance to give people a place to live near McKinley Park who otherwise couldn’t afford to do so. We must choose housing density because it is the just course of action given the crisis of our lack of housing! Please support this development!
I strongly oppose this construction in it's present form.I Iive 1/2 block from this proposed site. This project will greatly impact the quality of life for those closest. Traffic will be horrendous at the corner of Alhambra and E streets. It is already congested most of the day, and adding hundreds of cars during the rush hours will be a scene out of traffic nightmare. The pollution, parking and noise will be intolerable for those of us closest the the site.. Please do not approve this permit in it's present present form.
I suppose this project - we need more housing options in Sacramento.
To: Planning & Design Commission
Re: Project P24 007 – Alhambra Redevelopment Project
Position: Oppose as currently proposed
Based on current design scope, I am not satisfied that the project only needed an initial study to say that project would have a less that significant impact to the neighborhood and me personally.
1. Out-of-Scope for East Sacramento
• The proposed six-story, 68-foot structure exceeds the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District’s intent for neighborhood-scale development. It disrupts the character of adjacent one- and two-story homes and sets a precedent for incompatible massing.
• Density far surpasses neighborhood norms, creating disproportionate strain on traffic, parking, and utilities. This project, if built as designed, will be an eyesore and planners do not have the ability to build out to offer a tiered housing community in nearby properties
• The scale and density of project is out of character for all housing in nearby vicinity, especially east of Business 80, south of railroad tracks, north of J street, and west of Elvas Ave. The current project design is better suited and is similar to housing projects near California State University, Sacramento or the Downtown Sacrament core, where infrastructure is better built out. I recommend that there be significant design revisions to reduce current imposing nature of project.
2. Traffic, Parking & Infrastructure Concerns
• As an alternative transportation user (motorcycle), the Estimated 2,600+ daily vehicle trips will worsen congestion at Alhambra Blvd & McKinley Drive, already a high-traffic intersection and I have serious safety concerns for my wellbeing.
• I am concerned with the parking impacts near my residence, as I am already impacted by visitors to Mckinnly Park, who use pool, playground, soccer fields, play volleyball. The additional residents would further impact my ability to park near my home.
• I recommend that the project have a ratio of 1.5 parking spot per residential unit and that all parking be limited to immediately adjacent streets or within the boundaries of project.
• I am concerned with the potential speeding and additional traffic running east to west on D Street and C street between Alhambra Blvd and 33rd street. What mitigation will there be to keep traffic and parking availability at current levels. I am supporting impeding and severely limiting traffic and speed down these streets.
• Was there any additional studies to address the impacts of commuters to the canning company property in Northeast corner of C and 33rd Street or the impacts during commuting hours at the intersections of Alhambra Blvd and McKinely Drive as well as traffic merging onto Business 80?
• Emergency response times could be compromised by gridlock at the above-mentioned intersections.
• I recommend that the project developer be responsible for paying and installing additional benefits to nearby residents to include streetlamp lighting and permitted parking requirements to all streets bounded by McKinely Drive to B street and from 30th Street to 33rd street. There is currently no streetlamp lighting. I also propose that all alleyways in the above-mentioned areas be paved or concreted. All improvements to be paid for by developer.
3. Recommended Design Alternatives
• Reduce height and density: Limit to 3-4 stories to better align with neighborhood scale.
• Build two-level underground parking garage: Provides adequate resident parking without consuming surface space or spilling into surrounding streets.
• Step-back design: Upper floors should recede from the street to minimize visual impact and imposing scale of project.
4. Infrastructure & Community Improvements
• Mandatory residential parking permits for nearby streets to prevent overflow parking.
• Street lighting upgrades for safety and visibility.
• Enhanced crosswalks and traffic signals to accommodate increased pedestrian activity.
• Developer-funded sewer and stormwater upgrades to handle additional capacity.
• Green infrastructure (bioswales, permeable pavement) to reduce runoff.
• Transit integration: Add bus shelters and bike racks to encourage alternative transportation.
5. Alternative Location
This project’s scale and density are better suited in another location Sacramento, where:
• Zoning supports taller, higher-density structures.
• Transit options reduce car dependency.
• Infrastructure is designed for high occupancy.
Conclusion:
The Alhambra Redevelopment Project, as proposed, is incompatible with East Sacramento’s character and infrastructure. We urge the Commission to reject the current design and require significant modifications to achieve a balanced, sustainable outcome.
Sincerely,
Kyle Emery
East Sacramento Resident at Intersection of D Street and 32nd Street
As a resident in Boulevard Park who would be impacted by this development, I am strongly in support of the project as well as related projects. I believe that building housing projects of this scale are necessary to support the growth that Sacramento is experiencing, and they are a requirement for improving the unhoused crisis.
While the scale of this project is impressive, it should not be lost that the reason it might "not fit the neighborhood" is because of opposition to smaller or similar building for the past many decades. If development had been allowed to proceed in a reasonable manner over the past few decades, this project would not seem so out-of-scale. However, due to opposition similar to the kind this project is receiving, the project seems disproportionate. Now that some of the barriers are being removed from development, I'm glad to see steps like this taken that can allow the inner core of Sacramento to grow beyond the artificial constraints of downtown/midtown.
Some may not realize it, but the northeast corner of the grid, where I live, is severely underserved and underutilized. Residents who live between C, E, 24th, and 28th street face upwards of 15-20 minute walks to get to a single coffee shop or restaurant. These are people who live in the core of the capital of the 4th largest economy of the world. We can do better, and projects like this which pave the way toward urbanizing the city for the masses - not the wealthy few - are vital to the future of Sacramento.
The one caveat I have about this project is the amount of parking provided. I believe that the Residential Parking Program should be sufficient to cover a significant portion of the parking being provided. Should the parking footprint be reduced in scale, I believe this project would be a slam-dunk and provide an important vector for adding demand for bikeability and transit in the area.
I live in east-east Sacramento, and I support this project! We need more housing, especially infill housing like this. This sounds like a great project that will benefit a lot of Sacramento residents by providing new, reasonably priced housing stock. It's important to consider all the people who will benefit from this project and not just the few voices of dissent.