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.
We are in desperate need of more housing. Infill development and repurposing vacant/abandoned property is not only better for the environment, it's better for the community as well.
I find it unconscionable that NIMBY homeowners in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in our city continue to thwart any and all attempts to build and improve upon the housing crisis for the sake of so-called neighborhood culture and alleged infrastructure concerns. We cannot allow "sightlines" to have more value than housing humans. We cannot prioritize "neighborhood character" while members of our community sleep on the street. The only way to make an impact on the housing crisis is to build more housing. If you're not part of that solution, you're part of the problem.
Please reverse the decision of the Planning & Design Commission for P24-007. Downsize it to 3 stories. It is 1 mile to light rail and not on a major open street. There is sparse bus service to the area. Recognize it is incompatible with that corner pocket. Long term negative effects of 332 units in that corner must be considered. Please downsize to 3 stories.
Rose Luther, East Sacramento Resident
I appreciate the intent to bring new housing to the Alhambra site, and I am open to a project that fits the neighborhood and protects public health and safety. However, the current proposal falls short in several key areas.
Infrastructure: Our sewer and stormwater systems are already under strain. Without clear, independently validated plans for upgrades, the project risks overloading critical infrastructure.
Environmental Safety: The site’s industrial past warrants a thorough environmental review. Residents deserve confidence that construction and increased density will not disturb hazardous materials.
Neighborhood Compatibility: A six‑story building is significantly out of scale with nearby homes. The resulting massing, privacy impacts, and loss of sunlight have not been adequately mitigated.
Traffic & Safety: The project would introduce substantial new traffic to streets that are not designed for high‑density use, increasing risks for pedestrians and schoolchildren.
I remain supportive of redevelopment at this site, but meaningful revisions are necessary before this project can move forward.
For years, East Sacramento has gone without meaningful representation on the City Council. Instead of advocating for the residents who actually live here, our elected officials have repeatedly aligned themselves with developers. The long neglected Mary Ann’s property is a clear example: it sat in disrepair for more than fifteen years with no meaningful intervention from the city. Now, after a decade of environmental cleanup, the owner is attempting to push through a sale using generic architectural plans for an oversized apartment complex. Plans the Planning Commission approved only under the pressure of potential litigation and in disregard of the standards previously established for the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District buffer zone.
At the same time, a wave of newer advocacy groups (House Sacramento, YIMBY organizations, the Midtown Association) insist that East Sacramento should absorb dense development simply because they believe they are entitled to live in one of the city’s most established and desirable neighborhoods. Midtown has created numerous Historical Districts so that they can’t build tall dense developments, so now they are coming after East Sacramento. But those of us who have lived here for decades understand what it took to build and sustain this community. We worked, saved, and sacrificed to make our homes here, and we have a deep stake in its long term health.
The proposed Alhambra Boulevard project is not a family oriented development. It consists of 332 hotel style units, roughly 80% of which are one bedroom or smaller. It would sit directly beside one of the region’s most congested and polluted freeways. This is not the kind of housing that strengthens a neighborhood or supports long term community stability.
Sacramento absolutely needs more housing—BUT NOT THIS PROJECT in this location. If the City Council approves it, the consequences will be clear in twenty years. Once a precedent is set, more large scale projects will follow, permanently altering the architectural scale and character of the area. Property values will decline, and the cohesion that has defined East Sacramento for generations will erode in ways that cannot be reversed.
This development should be sent back for real, substantive modifications, changes that respect the historic character, scale, and livability of East Sacramento.
While I am fully in support of converting the existing Alhambra building into housing, I oppose this proposal in its current form. See my specific concerns below:
1. Illegal Building Height: The proposed development is six-stories high (68 feet). The building height allowed by the City’s Zoning Code for buildings on this block is 35 feet. The proposed development is in a quiet residential neighborhood where no other building exceeds the height regulations. A six-story building would tower over all other buildings in the area and fundamentally change the neighborhood, in violation of guidance issued by the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District (see number 4 below).
2. Sewage and Infrastructure: The proposed development may house up to 500 additional residents. This would add up to 102,920 gallons of sewage a day, or over 37 million gallons a year. Independent audits have warned of catastrophic system failure and no qualified City staff has addressed potential overflow or feasible mitigation measures.
3. Parking and Traffic: The proposed development consists of 332 multi-unit dwellings. As noted above, the probable resulting occupancy from this development would be well over 500 people. Given that there are only 322 planned parking spaces, this would mean anywhere from 100-150 residents may be parking on the surrounding neighborhood streets on any given day or night, in addition to increasing litter, noise, and traffic. Due to the building’s proximity to McKinley Park, parking can already be competitive in the area, especially in the evening, on weekends, and during special events. This would have an outsize negative impact on local residents that sometimes need to park on the street (myself included).
4. Neighborhood Scale and Character: The City of Sacramento’s Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District (SPD) requires that new development “preserve the neighborhood scale and character.” The proposed high-density, high-rise project covering a whole city block does not meet this criteria.
People who support this project do not live in our neighborhood and will not be directly impacted by this. No one is listening to our concerns. Do you know that we've only had one community meeting with the builder as opposed to 24 meetings held for McKinley Village? The East Sacramento Neighborhood Association also supports this project because it's being built in a corner of a neighborhood that they can't see. They are the true NIMBY's. We asked the builder if they would consider mixed use, 3-4 bedroom family apartments, low-income, and an opportunity for home ownership. None of this will be incorporated due to GREED. They have NEVER taken care of this property and now they care because of profits. WHY are we rewarding them at our neighborhood's expense??? I've lived here 26 years and look forward to the right project scaled for our neighborhood. "Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not."
It is all for their own greed. Please do not allow anyone to trample on our neighborhoods. Do not reward bad past behavior, like the contamination of city soil, by approving this. They want you to approve an unknown developer to purchase and be allowed to kill our city trees. People don't understand that the same slumlord owner of this eyesore are the ones who made up this cash grab monstrosity and it's all for their own personal greed. Do not fall prey, refuse this bad project. Make them work with the city and offer a building of a smaller scale. This project needs to fit into the city guidelines, not the city needs to conform to some money-making scam idea. I realize there are more urgent valid reasons to reject this which others will let you know. Protect our trees and our city streets from overflow of sewer.
Thank you for your time
I am all for more housing, but the size and scope of this project is out of proportion for the neighborhood. The proposal nearly doubles the 35 foot height limit. I urge the Council to deny this project as proposed. Thajnk you
I support this project.
It's just the thing the City and its people and its children need.
Please deny the appeal and grant the entitlements and let this be built.
If anything, it's too short, too small, and has too many parking spaces.
We don't need to preserve the historic hot dogs.
This project significantly violates the 35-foot height limit via the Residential Preservation Transition Buffer Zone. I ask the City Council to follow the law. East Sacramento's history and character must be protected. I encourage an amended proposal for an apartment building within the 35-foot height limit. Thank you.
The proposed Alhambra Redevelopment Project raises serious concerns about its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The building’s height and mass far exceed what the City’s own zoning and planning documents allow, which state that additional height may only be approved if a project “will NOT be out of scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood”. With nearby homes ranging from one to two stories, a six story, 68 foot structure would dramatically overshadow the existing community and contradict the General Plan’s emphasis on neighborhood scale development. Residents are not opposed to new housing, but they expect it to respect long standing planning rules and the character of East Sacramento.
Beyond scale, the project introduces significant environmental and safety issues. The City’s own documents acknowledge that Sacramento already struggles with high traffic related injuries and greenhouse gas emissions, yet this project would add nearly one million additional vehicle trips per year in an area already known for congestion and collision hot spots. The project is not located near light rail or major employment centers, meaning it will inevitably increase car dependence. The General Plan calls for reducing vehicle miles traveled and improving pedestrian safety, but this proposal moves in the opposite direction.
Finally, the project also places major strain on aging sewer infrastructure. Given these unresolved risks and inconsistencies with City policies, it would be prudent to require the applicant to redesign the project, so it aligns with established height limits, environmental standards, and neighborhood expectations.
I am urging the Council to deny or substantially modify the Alhambra Redevelopment Project (P24 007). While Sacramento needs more housing, this proposal has moved forward with major unresolved issues that directly affect public health, safety, and community trust.
Environmental hazards remain unaddressed. The site has a long industrial history and documented contamination issues. Even the 2022 Phase I ESA identified an unregistered underground fuel oil tank, inaccessible areas, potential PCB contamination, and multiple data gaps. These are not minor details, they are fundamental safety concerns. Approving a project of this scale without a complete environmental investigation and remediation plan exposes the City and nearby residents to unnecessary risk.
The combined sewer system cannot be ignored. This project would add wastewater equivalent to the entire population of McKinley Village into an already overburdened 100 year old system. No engineering analysis has been provided to show that the 8 inch and 10 inch pipes serving the site can handle this load. The City’s NPDES permit requires proactive management to prevent increased flooding and sewer overflows. Collecting impact fees is not a substitute for actual capacity analysis or mitigation.
Traffic and emergency access concerns remain unstudied. A 322 space parking garage feeding into narrow residential streets, already congested and unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, demands a comprehensive traffic and safety analysis. The area lacks frequent reliable transit, continuous bike lanes, and safe crossings near freeway on and off ramps. Adding over a million new vehicle trips without mitigation is not consistent with the City’s own transportation and safety goals.
The project does not comply with objective planning standards. The proposal nearly doubles the 35 foot height limit in the Residential Preservation Transition Buffer Zone. These standards were created to protect neighborhood character and ensure compatibility. The City cannot selectively treat objective standards as optional.
The project provides almost no usable open space. McKinley Park is already heavily used, and shifting the burden of recreation onto an overtaxed public resource is not equitable or sustainable. Large scale development must include adequate on site open space or reduce density accordingly.
Many in East Sacramento feel this project was pushed forward without transparency or meaningful engagement. That loss of trust is real, and it matters.
For all these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to deny the project as proposed or require clear, enforceable modifications that fully address environmental safety, infrastructure capacity, traffic impacts, objective standards, and public space needs. Sacramento deserves growth that is responsible, transparent, and consistent with adopted plans - not development that treats existing neighborhoods as expendable.
I support construction of this Project, it is exactly the kind of higher density housing that should be encouraged throughout the City, including the most expensive neighborhoods like East Sac. The site is currently woefully underutilized and has been for years. The Council should follow staff's recommendation to deny the appeal.
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.
I support this housing project, as it has met all legal requirements necessary and will be a boon to both residents and businesses in the area!
Anyone who says otherwise is just stifling progress for their own profit, as we've seen time and time again.
These people would protest a bicycle lane for taking a parking space away if you let them
We are in desperate need of more housing. Infill development and repurposing vacant/abandoned property is not only better for the environment, it's better for the community as well.
I find it unconscionable that NIMBY homeowners in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in our city continue to thwart any and all attempts to build and improve upon the housing crisis for the sake of so-called neighborhood culture and alleged infrastructure concerns. We cannot allow "sightlines" to have more value than housing humans. We cannot prioritize "neighborhood character" while members of our community sleep on the street. The only way to make an impact on the housing crisis is to build more housing. If you're not part of that solution, you're part of the problem.
Please reverse the decision of the Planning & Design Commission for P24-007. Downsize it to 3 stories. It is 1 mile to light rail and not on a major open street. There is sparse bus service to the area. Recognize it is incompatible with that corner pocket. Long term negative effects of 332 units in that corner must be considered. Please downsize to 3 stories.
Rose Luther, East Sacramento Resident
I support this redevelopment project. I think the increase of housing will be a great benefit to our community! Please approve this proposal.
I appreciate the intent to bring new housing to the Alhambra site, and I am open to a project that fits the neighborhood and protects public health and safety. However, the current proposal falls short in several key areas.
Infrastructure: Our sewer and stormwater systems are already under strain. Without clear, independently validated plans for upgrades, the project risks overloading critical infrastructure.
Environmental Safety: The site’s industrial past warrants a thorough environmental review. Residents deserve confidence that construction and increased density will not disturb hazardous materials.
Neighborhood Compatibility: A six‑story building is significantly out of scale with nearby homes. The resulting massing, privacy impacts, and loss of sunlight have not been adequately mitigated.
Traffic & Safety: The project would introduce substantial new traffic to streets that are not designed for high‑density use, increasing risks for pedestrians and schoolchildren.
I remain supportive of redevelopment at this site, but meaningful revisions are necessary before this project can move forward.
For years, East Sacramento has gone without meaningful representation on the City Council. Instead of advocating for the residents who actually live here, our elected officials have repeatedly aligned themselves with developers. The long neglected Mary Ann’s property is a clear example: it sat in disrepair for more than fifteen years with no meaningful intervention from the city. Now, after a decade of environmental cleanup, the owner is attempting to push through a sale using generic architectural plans for an oversized apartment complex. Plans the Planning Commission approved only under the pressure of potential litigation and in disregard of the standards previously established for the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District buffer zone.
At the same time, a wave of newer advocacy groups (House Sacramento, YIMBY organizations, the Midtown Association) insist that East Sacramento should absorb dense development simply because they believe they are entitled to live in one of the city’s most established and desirable neighborhoods. Midtown has created numerous Historical Districts so that they can’t build tall dense developments, so now they are coming after East Sacramento. But those of us who have lived here for decades understand what it took to build and sustain this community. We worked, saved, and sacrificed to make our homes here, and we have a deep stake in its long term health.
The proposed Alhambra Boulevard project is not a family oriented development. It consists of 332 hotel style units, roughly 80% of which are one bedroom or smaller. It would sit directly beside one of the region’s most congested and polluted freeways. This is not the kind of housing that strengthens a neighborhood or supports long term community stability.
Sacramento absolutely needs more housing—BUT NOT THIS PROJECT in this location. If the City Council approves it, the consequences will be clear in twenty years. Once a precedent is set, more large scale projects will follow, permanently altering the architectural scale and character of the area. Property values will decline, and the cohesion that has defined East Sacramento for generations will erode in ways that cannot be reversed.
This development should be sent back for real, substantive modifications, changes that respect the historic character, scale, and livability of East Sacramento.
While I am fully in support of converting the existing Alhambra building into housing, I oppose this proposal in its current form. See my specific concerns below:
1. Illegal Building Height: The proposed development is six-stories high (68 feet). The building height allowed by the City’s Zoning Code for buildings on this block is 35 feet. The proposed development is in a quiet residential neighborhood where no other building exceeds the height regulations. A six-story building would tower over all other buildings in the area and fundamentally change the neighborhood, in violation of guidance issued by the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District (see number 4 below).
2. Sewage and Infrastructure: The proposed development may house up to 500 additional residents. This would add up to 102,920 gallons of sewage a day, or over 37 million gallons a year. Independent audits have warned of catastrophic system failure and no qualified City staff has addressed potential overflow or feasible mitigation measures.
3. Parking and Traffic: The proposed development consists of 332 multi-unit dwellings. As noted above, the probable resulting occupancy from this development would be well over 500 people. Given that there are only 322 planned parking spaces, this would mean anywhere from 100-150 residents may be parking on the surrounding neighborhood streets on any given day or night, in addition to increasing litter, noise, and traffic. Due to the building’s proximity to McKinley Park, parking can already be competitive in the area, especially in the evening, on weekends, and during special events. This would have an outsize negative impact on local residents that sometimes need to park on the street (myself included).
4. Neighborhood Scale and Character: The City of Sacramento’s Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District (SPD) requires that new development “preserve the neighborhood scale and character.” The proposed high-density, high-rise project covering a whole city block does not meet this criteria.
Please see attached letter from YIMBY Law in support of staff's recommendation to approve the project and not violate California housing law.
Please see the attached letter of support from House Sacramento.
People who support this project do not live in our neighborhood and will not be directly impacted by this. No one is listening to our concerns. Do you know that we've only had one community meeting with the builder as opposed to 24 meetings held for McKinley Village? The East Sacramento Neighborhood Association also supports this project because it's being built in a corner of a neighborhood that they can't see. They are the true NIMBY's. We asked the builder if they would consider mixed use, 3-4 bedroom family apartments, low-income, and an opportunity for home ownership. None of this will be incorporated due to GREED. They have NEVER taken care of this property and now they care because of profits. WHY are we rewarding them at our neighborhood's expense??? I've lived here 26 years and look forward to the right project scaled for our neighborhood. "Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of community character is not."
It is all for their own greed. Please do not allow anyone to trample on our neighborhoods. Do not reward bad past behavior, like the contamination of city soil, by approving this. They want you to approve an unknown developer to purchase and be allowed to kill our city trees. People don't understand that the same slumlord owner of this eyesore are the ones who made up this cash grab monstrosity and it's all for their own personal greed. Do not fall prey, refuse this bad project. Make them work with the city and offer a building of a smaller scale. This project needs to fit into the city guidelines, not the city needs to conform to some money-making scam idea. I realize there are more urgent valid reasons to reject this which others will let you know. Protect our trees and our city streets from overflow of sewer.
Thank you for your time
I am all for more housing, but the size and scope of this project is out of proportion for the neighborhood. The proposal nearly doubles the 35 foot height limit. I urge the Council to deny this project as proposed. Thajnk you
I support this project.
It's just the thing the City and its people and its children need.
Please deny the appeal and grant the entitlements and let this be built.
If anything, it's too short, too small, and has too many parking spaces.
We don't need to preserve the historic hot dogs.
Submitting this letter on behalf of Midtown Association, a property-based improvement district representing over 1,300 property and business owners.
Submitting this letter on behalf of Midtown Association, a property-based improvement district representing over 1,300 property and business owners.
This project significantly violates the 35-foot height limit via the Residential Preservation Transition Buffer Zone. I ask the City Council to follow the law. East Sacramento's history and character must be protected. I encourage an amended proposal for an apartment building within the 35-foot height limit. Thank you.
The proposed Alhambra Redevelopment Project raises serious concerns about its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The building’s height and mass far exceed what the City’s own zoning and planning documents allow, which state that additional height may only be approved if a project “will NOT be out of scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood”. With nearby homes ranging from one to two stories, a six story, 68 foot structure would dramatically overshadow the existing community and contradict the General Plan’s emphasis on neighborhood scale development. Residents are not opposed to new housing, but they expect it to respect long standing planning rules and the character of East Sacramento.
Beyond scale, the project introduces significant environmental and safety issues. The City’s own documents acknowledge that Sacramento already struggles with high traffic related injuries and greenhouse gas emissions, yet this project would add nearly one million additional vehicle trips per year in an area already known for congestion and collision hot spots. The project is not located near light rail or major employment centers, meaning it will inevitably increase car dependence. The General Plan calls for reducing vehicle miles traveled and improving pedestrian safety, but this proposal moves in the opposite direction.
Finally, the project also places major strain on aging sewer infrastructure. Given these unresolved risks and inconsistencies with City policies, it would be prudent to require the applicant to redesign the project, so it aligns with established height limits, environmental standards, and neighborhood expectations.
I am urging the Council to deny or substantially modify the Alhambra Redevelopment Project (P24 007). While Sacramento needs more housing, this proposal has moved forward with major unresolved issues that directly affect public health, safety, and community trust.
Environmental hazards remain unaddressed. The site has a long industrial history and documented contamination issues. Even the 2022 Phase I ESA identified an unregistered underground fuel oil tank, inaccessible areas, potential PCB contamination, and multiple data gaps. These are not minor details, they are fundamental safety concerns. Approving a project of this scale without a complete environmental investigation and remediation plan exposes the City and nearby residents to unnecessary risk.
The combined sewer system cannot be ignored. This project would add wastewater equivalent to the entire population of McKinley Village into an already overburdened 100 year old system. No engineering analysis has been provided to show that the 8 inch and 10 inch pipes serving the site can handle this load. The City’s NPDES permit requires proactive management to prevent increased flooding and sewer overflows. Collecting impact fees is not a substitute for actual capacity analysis or mitigation.
Traffic and emergency access concerns remain unstudied. A 322 space parking garage feeding into narrow residential streets, already congested and unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists, demands a comprehensive traffic and safety analysis. The area lacks frequent reliable transit, continuous bike lanes, and safe crossings near freeway on and off ramps. Adding over a million new vehicle trips without mitigation is not consistent with the City’s own transportation and safety goals.
The project does not comply with objective planning standards. The proposal nearly doubles the 35 foot height limit in the Residential Preservation Transition Buffer Zone. These standards were created to protect neighborhood character and ensure compatibility. The City cannot selectively treat objective standards as optional.
The project provides almost no usable open space. McKinley Park is already heavily used, and shifting the burden of recreation onto an overtaxed public resource is not equitable or sustainable. Large scale development must include adequate on site open space or reduce density accordingly.
Many in East Sacramento feel this project was pushed forward without transparency or meaningful engagement. That loss of trust is real, and it matters.
For all these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to deny the project as proposed or require clear, enforceable modifications that fully address environmental safety, infrastructure capacity, traffic impacts, objective standards, and public space needs. Sacramento deserves growth that is responsible, transparent, and consistent with adopted plans - not development that treats existing neighborhoods as expendable.
I support construction of this Project, it is exactly the kind of higher density housing that should be encouraged throughout the City, including the most expensive neighborhoods like East Sac. The site is currently woefully underutilized and has been for years. The Council should follow staff's recommendation to deny the appeal.
Charles Hughes