As a townhome resident in neighboring Boulevard Park, I would like to see dense reuse of under utilized commercial and former industrial sites. Concerns about parking and privacy are valid but not applicable when a person already lives in a very public and well trafficked area of the city. Many residents will choose to walk and cycle to local businesses for groceries, entertainment, and everyday needs. I know this because we chose this in our household and I have happily gone car free on The Grid. Nearby businesses will greatly benefit from a base population being added to the neighborhood. More people deserve the option of living in a dense urban location. The alternative is for those who already enjoy the benefits to deny the same to others which will only strangle the long term life of the neighborhood.
My name is Kurt Peng, and I am a resident of the midtown neighborhood in District 4 in Sacramento.
I am writing in support of the Alhambra Redevelopment Project.
First, new housing can help more people afford to live in Sacramento. Research has shown that increasing housing supply can reduce housing costs citywide, which these apartments will do. These apartments are more affordable than buying a single-family home that is more typical to this area, providing immediate relief as we face a housing crisis. A crisis requires commensurate action.
Second, I don't agree with the belief that the apartment building and its residents will have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Many neighborhoods have 6-story apartments and they have not destroyed the fabric of the neighborhood. If neighbors are concerned with privacy, that can be mitigated via fences, and honestly, nobody really cares to look at what their neighbors are doing. A neighborhood's character is determined by its people, and not what its buildings look like. The complex has a large parking garage, so there's no concern with impacts on local parking. Also, it's next to a highway, so impacts on local traffic would be minimal.
Lastly, in fact, I contend that increased density can actually bring benefits to the neighborhood and city as a whole and far outweighs whatever drawbacks may exist. Newcomers can help support local businesses, enable new grocery stores, encourage investment in public transit, increase the vitality of the area, and improve safety from more people on the street. People who move in, whether from other neighborhoods or from elsewhere, become embedded as community members, and help enhance the strength and livelihood of their community.
I urge City Council to do the right thing and approve this project.
This building project is far too large in scale for the local area. Parking and sewage is a major concern for this neighborhood area as it is today. Adding hundreds more will make matters much worse.
Please cut the project in half and it would fit better.
The East Sacramento Community Association supports the Alhambra (Mary Ann’s Bakery) Residential Project. The project adds needed housing in our community and adds housing choices in an infill location for those who want to live close to amenities like jobs and schools, and all that East Sacramento has to offer.
The project supports Sacramento’s General Plan policies that promote healthy, livable, and complete neighborhoods, especially those close to transportation corridors – in this case, the Alhambra Corridor. The project building intensity is in line with the Residential Mixed Use designation of the site’s commercial zoning, and its step-back design fits within the neighborhood context.
We believe that you have the Findings and needed Conditions of Approval to deny the appeal and approve this needed housing development.
Sincerely,
Nicolai “Dimitry” Saras
ESCA President
East Sacramento Community Association
president@eastsacramento.org
The original 3 storey plan was good and adhered to the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District's plan. Please do not violate these plans. What's the point of having a district plan if developers can violate it? The increased traffic congestion and sewage demands pose great risk.
Please oppose this doubled proposal.
These are the same comments I submitted to planning staff, planning commission and now city council:
I would like to express to you my thoughts and concerns regarding a development proposal in our neighborhood. I was recently made aware of the resurrection of an old project that appears that the City is allowing the developer to try to slip into our neighborhood unnoticed. I speak of the proposed development on the old Mary Anne Bakery site. As envisioned then it was bad development and it is still bad development. I sincerely hope city leaders such as you can see that.
I have lived one block from the site of the proposed redevelopment for over 40 years. My house is very modest. I could have moved to a much bigger home further out but I chose to be close to my job where I could and did bike to work for my entire career. I love this neighborhood and all it represents. I regularly walk East Sacramento's neighborhoods. I have seen where good development has occurred and where bad has occurred. When you destroy neighborhoods like these with improper development you destroy what makes Sacramento a great city.
Yes, we need more housing but this isn't it, not here, not this big, ugly and and this poorly planned project. It is totally out of character with the neighborhood of mostly small one story homes that make the McKinley Park neighborhood of which Casa Loma Terrace is a part and also of which, makes it so special.
I think it is truly ironic that the developers take pictures of these single family homes and other very well designed apartment complexes and new housing that do fit into the character of their respective neighborhoods. The developers hope you will believe the lie that their project, which is totally out of character with the neighborhood, will somehow fit in by association. It will not and if built will remain an eyesore, not just to our neighborhood, but to the city as a whole for many years to come.
It is inconsistent with goals of the Alhambra Corridor of which I participated. It is way too high, too upscale, too reliant on the automobile and will have a very detrimental impact on already too much parking congestion in the neighborhood.
I am reminded of the way the developers of California Forever tried to sneak their inappropriate project into Solano County rather than working with the existing cities and the County and using their respective plans that are supposed to guide development there. Sacramento should be better than that. Its elected leaders should be better than that.
This project, as envisioned, would be far more appropriate down by the corner of Folsom and Alhambra Boulevard among buildings of similar character or better yet next to the light rail system the City supposedly supports, not destroying the existing neighborhoods that make Sacramento so special.
The developer along with the City need to revise this inappropriate project by reducing its size, particularly its height and providing better setbacks from the street. Our fellow neighbors would like to offer suggestions on how that can be done. I sincerely hope the City leaders listen.
I support this project. When housing gets built in my region, this affects me directly whether I live next to that project or not. We need more housing in this city. When in-fill development happens, it reduces vehicle miles traveled and it reduces the amount of air pollution that myself and my family breathes. It also lowers housing costs for the entire region. The so-called liberals who live in East Sacramento cannot block reductions in both housing cost and air pollution. I would assume that anyone who purportedly cares about reducing air pollution and housing costs would support this project. When housing costs go up considerably in California, it pushes people out. Those people are going to Texas, Arizona, Florida, etc. Those people think that Democrats screwed up because its incredibly unaffordable to live here. When people move out to these red states, California loses population and those red states gain population. This will help Republicans in the long run, those red states get more electoral votes and more votes in the House of Representatitives. We could lose this country forever because of NIMBYism, because the White House, House of Reprentatives, and Senate will be Republican. You might think this is hyperbolic, but we're already seeing this in the data. It's also "death by a thousand cuts". Let's not be one of those "cuts". Approve the project, save the country.
The height of the planned development makes all the surrounding structures look small by comparison. Its height is well over the existing limits on building heights in the neighborhood and will make it an eyesore. Also, the added traffic to the adjoining streets is going to make morning traffic dangerous and difficult to navigate. I would not oppose the planned development if it were limited to 3 stories as this would more naturally fit the neighborhood and would lessen the number of added new residences to the neighborhood. But the planned 5 stories are excessive and I don't understand why the structure was approved given the traffic that will be added to a single lane residential street and the abnormal height of the planned structure. Thank for allowing me to voice my concerns. Neal Pfeiffer McKinley Park resident
It's the location stupid!! that spot is the butt hole of East sac for a building that size and that many people where they are going to pay market rates, and are the rents of those units,as someone who has been in property management for over 30 years, you don't build units unless you know your product sells , you don't hide the cost of the rents, your tenets will bale on you fast, it will hit them they can't afford it! Seen it a million times! What you need their are condo's less people more money couples with kids, more stable tax base which the city needs, more disposable income , kids in schools, there really invested in community, renters are not, that's why it's called transit living or the NFL not for long. A apartments that size belongs in the 16st corridor or Broadway or anywhere closest to the capitol near the business hospitality area , where you should be getting more foot traffic,,if that apartment building goes up as planned in 4 years that will be the mayor's and city council bullet train,!!! anywhere but their! Location, location, location !!!
I understand the statewide push to build housing, but this apartment development is being allowed to proceed with approvals for heights beyond the standard. Housing in keeping with the current residential neighborhood is imperative to our safety on the streets as both pedestrians and motorists. This development is huge - the number of apartments will result in twice the number of occupants and twice the number of vehicles because people cannot afford the luxury of living solo. Can the city invest in managing the demand on water, sewer, utilities and local road traffic?
On behalf of the Sacramento Metro Chamber and our member businesses throughout the City of Sacramento, please see attached our letter of support for the Alhambra Redevelopment Project
I continue to oppose this project as it violates multiple statues already outlines in other comments and in previous committee sessions. By bypassing those statues( e.g. height restrictions) the City continues to ignore the requirements and restrictions that are already established for the surrounding and immediate neighborhood .
I support this project because we need new housing in this city. I am sure the city council has noted SCUSD's budget crisis. While no single housing development can directly address that issue, one of the key long-term risks the district faces is lack of new housing further depressing SCUSD attendance numbers. This development is one step of many to make Sacramento more affordable and a vibrant place to raise children.
I’m writing to express my support for the proposed Alhambra Project at the former Maryann's Bakery site. My family and I have lived in the neighborhood for the past 15 years.
Overall, I am impressed by the design of the building and how the design team has been thoughtful about many factors including: preservation of historic brick facades, setbacks for reduced massing and improved neighbor privacy, a parking garage (next to the freeway) to reduce the street parking impact, and more.
These buildings have been neglected and idle for many many years. I think a project like this that offers ~330 units of varying sizes would be a big improvement and a great asset to the community.
As a resident of East Sacramento, I strongly support this project. When my family first built our home here in the 1920s this was an affordable neighborhood for local teachers, nurses, small business owners, young families, and recent immigrants. Many of those folks are now priced out because we're not building the kind of residences that used to be welcome in the neighborhood. This project is consistent with the history and landscape of East Sac, which has always been a mixed-use neighborhood with apartment buildings of various heights, triplexes, and single-family homes located next door to shops, churches, schools, hospitals, and food processing facilities like the (noisy and truck-traffic-heavy) ones that used to operate at this former industrial site. Density and diversity made East Sac walkable and community-oriented for a century, and they remain essential to the neighborhood's character. Hoping to see several hundred new neighbors picnicking in McKinley Park next summer.
Sacramento needs more units, and this looks like an excellent project to bring exactly the kind of housing we need to an area that would greatly benefit from it. Please ignore bad-faith NIMBY opposition and recognize that the city needs housing, vacant buildings need to be occupied, and this project meets all requirements for doing so.
As a townhome resident in neighboring Boulevard Park, I would like to see dense reuse of under utilized commercial and former industrial sites. Concerns about parking and privacy are valid but not applicable when a person already lives in a very public and well trafficked area of the city. Many residents will choose to walk and cycle to local businesses for groceries, entertainment, and everyday needs. I know this because we chose this in our household and I have happily gone car free on The Grid. Nearby businesses will greatly benefit from a base population being added to the neighborhood. More people deserve the option of living in a dense urban location. The alternative is for those who already enjoy the benefits to deny the same to others which will only strangle the long term life of the neighborhood.
My name is Kurt Peng, and I am a resident of the midtown neighborhood in District 4 in Sacramento.
I am writing in support of the Alhambra Redevelopment Project.
First, new housing can help more people afford to live in Sacramento. Research has shown that increasing housing supply can reduce housing costs citywide, which these apartments will do. These apartments are more affordable than buying a single-family home that is more typical to this area, providing immediate relief as we face a housing crisis. A crisis requires commensurate action.
Second, I don't agree with the belief that the apartment building and its residents will have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Many neighborhoods have 6-story apartments and they have not destroyed the fabric of the neighborhood. If neighbors are concerned with privacy, that can be mitigated via fences, and honestly, nobody really cares to look at what their neighbors are doing. A neighborhood's character is determined by its people, and not what its buildings look like. The complex has a large parking garage, so there's no concern with impacts on local parking. Also, it's next to a highway, so impacts on local traffic would be minimal.
Lastly, in fact, I contend that increased density can actually bring benefits to the neighborhood and city as a whole and far outweighs whatever drawbacks may exist. Newcomers can help support local businesses, enable new grocery stores, encourage investment in public transit, increase the vitality of the area, and improve safety from more people on the street. People who move in, whether from other neighborhoods or from elsewhere, become embedded as community members, and help enhance the strength and livelihood of their community.
I urge City Council to do the right thing and approve this project.
This building project is far too large in scale for the local area. Parking and sewage is a major concern for this neighborhood area as it is today. Adding hundreds more will make matters much worse.
Please cut the project in half and it would fit better.
Dear Mayor McCarty and Councilmembers,
The East Sacramento Community Association supports the Alhambra (Mary Ann’s Bakery) Residential Project. The project adds needed housing in our community and adds housing choices in an infill location for those who want to live close to amenities like jobs and schools, and all that East Sacramento has to offer.
The project supports Sacramento’s General Plan policies that promote healthy, livable, and complete neighborhoods, especially those close to transportation corridors – in this case, the Alhambra Corridor. The project building intensity is in line with the Residential Mixed Use designation of the site’s commercial zoning, and its step-back design fits within the neighborhood context.
We believe that you have the Findings and needed Conditions of Approval to deny the appeal and approve this needed housing development.
Sincerely,
Nicolai “Dimitry” Saras
ESCA President
East Sacramento Community Association
president@eastsacramento.org
The original 3 storey plan was good and adhered to the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District's plan. Please do not violate these plans. What's the point of having a district plan if developers can violate it? The increased traffic congestion and sewage demands pose great risk.
Please oppose this doubled proposal.
These are the same comments I submitted to planning staff, planning commission and now city council:
I would like to express to you my thoughts and concerns regarding a development proposal in our neighborhood. I was recently made aware of the resurrection of an old project that appears that the City is allowing the developer to try to slip into our neighborhood unnoticed. I speak of the proposed development on the old Mary Anne Bakery site. As envisioned then it was bad development and it is still bad development. I sincerely hope city leaders such as you can see that.
I have lived one block from the site of the proposed redevelopment for over 40 years. My house is very modest. I could have moved to a much bigger home further out but I chose to be close to my job where I could and did bike to work for my entire career. I love this neighborhood and all it represents. I regularly walk East Sacramento's neighborhoods. I have seen where good development has occurred and where bad has occurred. When you destroy neighborhoods like these with improper development you destroy what makes Sacramento a great city.
Yes, we need more housing but this isn't it, not here, not this big, ugly and and this poorly planned project. It is totally out of character with the neighborhood of mostly small one story homes that make the McKinley Park neighborhood of which Casa Loma Terrace is a part and also of which, makes it so special.
I think it is truly ironic that the developers take pictures of these single family homes and other very well designed apartment complexes and new housing that do fit into the character of their respective neighborhoods. The developers hope you will believe the lie that their project, which is totally out of character with the neighborhood, will somehow fit in by association. It will not and if built will remain an eyesore, not just to our neighborhood, but to the city as a whole for many years to come.
It is inconsistent with goals of the Alhambra Corridor of which I participated. It is way too high, too upscale, too reliant on the automobile and will have a very detrimental impact on already too much parking congestion in the neighborhood.
I am reminded of the way the developers of California Forever tried to sneak their inappropriate project into Solano County rather than working with the existing cities and the County and using their respective plans that are supposed to guide development there. Sacramento should be better than that. Its elected leaders should be better than that.
This project, as envisioned, would be far more appropriate down by the corner of Folsom and Alhambra Boulevard among buildings of similar character or better yet next to the light rail system the City supposedly supports, not destroying the existing neighborhoods that make Sacramento so special.
The developer along with the City need to revise this inappropriate project by reducing its size, particularly its height and providing better setbacks from the street. Our fellow neighbors would like to offer suggestions on how that can be done. I sincerely hope the City leaders listen.
Jim Conant
332 32nd Street
I support this project. When housing gets built in my region, this affects me directly whether I live next to that project or not. We need more housing in this city. When in-fill development happens, it reduces vehicle miles traveled and it reduces the amount of air pollution that myself and my family breathes. It also lowers housing costs for the entire region. The so-called liberals who live in East Sacramento cannot block reductions in both housing cost and air pollution. I would assume that anyone who purportedly cares about reducing air pollution and housing costs would support this project. When housing costs go up considerably in California, it pushes people out. Those people are going to Texas, Arizona, Florida, etc. Those people think that Democrats screwed up because its incredibly unaffordable to live here. When people move out to these red states, California loses population and those red states gain population. This will help Republicans in the long run, those red states get more electoral votes and more votes in the House of Representatitives. We could lose this country forever because of NIMBYism, because the White House, House of Reprentatives, and Senate will be Republican. You might think this is hyperbolic, but we're already seeing this in the data. It's also "death by a thousand cuts". Let's not be one of those "cuts". Approve the project, save the country.
There has not been enough outreach and interaction with the community to move forward with this development.
The height of the planned development makes all the surrounding structures look small by comparison. Its height is well over the existing limits on building heights in the neighborhood and will make it an eyesore. Also, the added traffic to the adjoining streets is going to make morning traffic dangerous and difficult to navigate. I would not oppose the planned development if it were limited to 3 stories as this would more naturally fit the neighborhood and would lessen the number of added new residences to the neighborhood. But the planned 5 stories are excessive and I don't understand why the structure was approved given the traffic that will be added to a single lane residential street and the abnormal height of the planned structure. Thank for allowing me to voice my concerns. Neal Pfeiffer McKinley Park resident
It's the location stupid!! that spot is the butt hole of East sac for a building that size and that many people where they are going to pay market rates, and are the rents of those units,as someone who has been in property management for over 30 years, you don't build units unless you know your product sells , you don't hide the cost of the rents, your tenets will bale on you fast, it will hit them they can't afford it! Seen it a million times! What you need their are condo's less people more money couples with kids, more stable tax base which the city needs, more disposable income , kids in schools, there really invested in community, renters are not, that's why it's called transit living or the NFL not for long. A apartments that size belongs in the 16st corridor or Broadway or anywhere closest to the capitol near the business hospitality area , where you should be getting more foot traffic,,if that apartment building goes up as planned in 4 years that will be the mayor's and city council bullet train,!!! anywhere but their! Location, location, location !!!
I understand the statewide push to build housing, but this apartment development is being allowed to proceed with approvals for heights beyond the standard. Housing in keeping with the current residential neighborhood is imperative to our safety on the streets as both pedestrians and motorists. This development is huge - the number of apartments will result in twice the number of occupants and twice the number of vehicles because people cannot afford the luxury of living solo. Can the city invest in managing the demand on water, sewer, utilities and local road traffic?
On behalf of the Sacramento Metro Chamber and our member businesses throughout the City of Sacramento, please see attached our letter of support for the Alhambra Redevelopment Project
The Downtown Sacramento Partnership supports the Alhambra Redevelopment Project, and included is our letter dated 2/10/26.
eComment received from the City Clerk's Office.
I continue to oppose this project as it violates multiple statues already outlines in other comments and in previous committee sessions. By bypassing those statues( e.g. height restrictions) the City continues to ignore the requirements and restrictions that are already established for the surrounding and immediate neighborhood .
Additional public comments received after staff report publication are attached.
I support this project because we need new housing in this city. I am sure the city council has noted SCUSD's budget crisis. While no single housing development can directly address that issue, one of the key long-term risks the district faces is lack of new housing further depressing SCUSD attendance numbers. This development is one step of many to make Sacramento more affordable and a vibrant place to raise children.
I’m writing to express my support for the proposed Alhambra Project at the former Maryann's Bakery site. My family and I have lived in the neighborhood for the past 15 years.
Overall, I am impressed by the design of the building and how the design team has been thoughtful about many factors including: preservation of historic brick facades, setbacks for reduced massing and improved neighbor privacy, a parking garage (next to the freeway) to reduce the street parking impact, and more.
These buildings have been neglected and idle for many many years. I think a project like this that offers ~330 units of varying sizes would be a big improvement and a great asset to the community.
Thank You,
Brian Schmitt
As a resident of East Sacramento, I strongly support this project. When my family first built our home here in the 1920s this was an affordable neighborhood for local teachers, nurses, small business owners, young families, and recent immigrants. Many of those folks are now priced out because we're not building the kind of residences that used to be welcome in the neighborhood. This project is consistent with the history and landscape of East Sac, which has always been a mixed-use neighborhood with apartment buildings of various heights, triplexes, and single-family homes located next door to shops, churches, schools, hospitals, and food processing facilities like the (noisy and truck-traffic-heavy) ones that used to operate at this former industrial site. Density and diversity made East Sac walkable and community-oriented for a century, and they remain essential to the neighborhood's character. Hoping to see several hundred new neighbors picnicking in McKinley Park next summer.
Sacramento needs more units, and this looks like an excellent project to bring exactly the kind of housing we need to an area that would greatly benefit from it. Please ignore bad-faith NIMBY opposition and recognize that the city needs housing, vacant buildings need to be occupied, and this project meets all requirements for doing so.