STATION 1: Place-Based Analysis

Suggestion to Remedy Lack of quantitative assessments and geographic precision and accuracy: Contractors (or City) need to utilize GIS (geographic information system) and highly spatially resolved (e.g., parcel level, census block level) data, and integrate data for existing infrastructure, built environment and factors that are known to impact individual/community health and community resilience – especially in the context of climate crisis. Examples of data: Road segments and traffic density (when available – can potentially use PM2.5 data from PurpleAir dataset), local air quality (e.g., use PurpleAir dataset), sewer lines (old, replaced), water service lines (old, replaced), % impervious surfaces (can predict heat gain and heat island-related health risks, and surface street flooding during extreme precipitation events), tree canopy (can be used to estimate reduced heat-island/heat-health risks, and to determine where additional tree canopy is needed – and where investment in water service infrastructure is needed to support trees). Another set of layers/attributes (data) to add would be census block data for population characteristics (e.g., age groups, % 65 years and older, % living on fixed income, % rentals and/or owner occupied, etc.,) and other locally generated data, e.g., % with school age children and distance to school(s). If necessary, develop City staff capacity or contract with Climate Adaptation/Community Resilience Modelers (e.g., at UC Davis, CSUS) to provide an integrated analysis that provides an accurate baseline set of conditions at the parcel-level and that can provide scenario-based analyses of outcomes (including health, built environment impacts, economic – including likelihood of achieving MMH and/or affordable housing goals).

A major flaw in the assessments – and therefore any determinations or recommendations drawn from the assessments -- is that they lack precision and are not sufficiently data-driven to provide valid determinations at a granular level (e.g., parcel, census block). In the context of increasing population density and increased residential structures -- and the associated pressures on city utilities and human health determining infrastructure and built environment there must be quantitative analyses of current conditions – and models/projections of how specific increases (e.g., 5% increase in density/population) would impact infrastructure structure and function, as well as neighborhood function. For example, in a given census block, how would x% change in number of units/people impact the City’s antiquated sewer system (that captures both residential effluent and rain/surface water runoff) and a water delivery system – and what is the threshold where those systems can/cannot manage additional demands and stresses. (Note that potable water delivery was only partially upgraded – even within the same neighborhood on the same block, service was not upgraded to all homes – even when water meters were added.) There is no location-specific consideration of existing traffic density by road segment(s) and traffic patterns -- for the purposes of (a) assessing walkability/safety, (b) local/street-level air pollution, (c) neighborhood-level egress in the case of an emergency (e.g., flood, urban-wildfire scenario), etc. There needs to be consideration of current % impervious surfaces (the data exist) and the implications of reducing pervious ground (by adding units) for heat gain/heat-island effect and for surface-street flooding during extreme precipitation events (e.g., atmospheric rivers) – the two greatest immediate health risks associated with climate change right now in Sacramento (and CA, US, etc.)…risks that are rapidly increasing. NOTE: Redfin, using flood risk data from the nonprofit First Street Foundation and redlining maps from the University of Richmond’s Mapping Inequality project, assessed racial disparities in flood risk across dozens of major metro areas – Sacramento’s redlined/yellowlined neighborhoods (e.g., Gardenland) had the highest flood risk of the top 10 metro areas with the highest risk. Those areas are being targeted for increasing MMH. link

Positive Notes: (1) The report (and to some extent the self-guided webinar) provides definitions for most terms, and for many but not all recommendations the process by which the contractor(s) arrived at their determinations/recommendations. (2) There is reasonable verbal/written consideration of architectural and building scale factors, and verbal/written consideration of new construction needing to be integrated into neighborhoods from a design perspective. (3) Other important neighborhood livability attributes/factors, e.g., Shared Open Space, Tree Protection and Planting, Functional Porch as an Active Frontage, Privacy Standards, -- and Approval Processes, are at least considered – even if cursorily. See other Bubbles for Major Flaws in Assessments that Ultimately Lead to Unreliable Determinations and Recommendations that will lead to Poor Community Health Outcomes and a City that is Not livable, and Not Resilient to current and future Climatic Conditions.

I have heard comments from many Woodlake neighbors. The study does not integrate the character of historic neighborhoods and the infrastructure limitations from their time. The study must address this evolution to infill within the constraints and character of the neighbors.

Tier 1 needs subset for single family home with 1 ADU. Woodlake, like Land Park and other older communities should be colored blue with some orange in higher density parts of Woodlake 2.

Height of new structure must be same or lower than existing homes to fit in character of area.

Height of new structure must be same as existing homes in area. Especially in older neighborhoods, new structure must share in character of existing homes.

Waste containers should be same as neighbors, so fit with character and same pickup schedule as existing neighbors

Waste containers should match existing neighborhood devices, such as 3 cans in Woodlake. This fits in with character and pickup schedule in neighborhood.

Woodlake, like Land Park and other areas of single family homes, should be tier 1 blue in map. However, parcels from older neighborhoods may not room for 1 ADU, much less 2 ADU. There needs to be tier 1 subset for 1 or no ADU in planning.

The MMH type does not define a single family home as separate type. I assume the multigenerational house would include this as subset. Also, the MMH type should take into account homeowners and long term renters on 20-30-40 years as their families change.

Inadequate - open space should be at least 25 % of lot coverage. Green space is critical for human health, providing nature based solutions, and compatibility with surrounding urban uses.

Please balance FAR with open space requirements that provide green space and requirements for tree planting - not allowing surface parking to qualify.

The MMH proposal will ultimately fail to reach its lofty and unrealistic goals. It is a feel-good plan to allow the City Council and the social/housing do-gooder industry a way to say, “We are doing something.” There will be no meaningful additional affordable housing, just the bare minimum to get a building plan through planning. The majority of buildings- homes (for sale and rent), multi-plex and apartments will be market rate. Developers want to make money. City leaders don’t have to care about making or saving money. Their plans rely on other people’s money. In addition, stop using “redlining” as an excuse for upzoning. Much of what is proposed is aimed at increasing rental units rather than homes for sale. If the City Council wants to promote wealth building then there needs to be more homes for sale to individuals and families. Be serious about promoting opportunities for generational wealth building. Sacramento needs reasonably priced 1000 to 1500 square foot starter homes. They can be on small lots with yards or small lots (both types with parking) with community green areas. To help speed-up the process the Planning/Building Department should consider preparing a list of preapproved designs which allow for a builder to make simple cosmetic adjustments for buyers. Just set up basic outlines, reduce red-tape and drastically reduce building fees then let the market decide what gets built.

We have seen hundreds of new homes and apartments recently built in just the Meadowview and Natomas area alone. If each of those dwellings realistically has a car or two, the roads are going to struggle to handle so many more in a short time period. If this map is implemented in the desired way it would in effect quadruple the residents from what it already has. How are the roads (or power grid, sewer, schools etc.) going to pull that off?

The idea of different types of housing (Missing Middle) in neighborhoods is certainly not new. Land Park, East Sac and other older neighborhoods in Sacramento have had, since the beginning, duplexes, fourplexes and some apartment buildings. They are generally on larger lots and have backyards and parking. That's all well and good. But now that those neighborhoods are well established and there's little empty space to build on - the notion of doing away with R-1 and essentially changing the game for all of the residents who live in them is very unfair. They bought into predominately single-family neighborhoods with the expectation that they would stay that way. The idea of having the house next door suddenly morph into an eight-unit rental was not part of the plan. There are so many problems inherent in upzoning established neighborhoods: lack of sufficient infrastructure, crowdedness, loss of privacy, increased traffic and parking issues, more "heat island effect" due to loss of tree canopy, etc. While OPTICOS has addressed some of these problems, there's more than bit of sugar-coating to their solutions. Those of us who have questioned this plan from the start know that the promise of "affordable housing" arising from upzoning is as elusive now as it was then. That’s because developers who buy up properties in Land Park, etc. and revamp them will not be selling (or renting) those units for anything less than market rate. The "crisis" in housing is an economic one - it won't be solved by overbuilding and degrading established neighborhoods.

My concern is the situation that occurs with parked cars lining both sides of every street. I had a friend visiting here who had never seen Sacramento. She was turned off to ever living here solely because of the traffic and the hassle of navigating streets where you have to literally drive in the middle of them in order to avoid hitting the mirrors, etc. on the parked cars. This is because people in multiple dwellings and people who share their homes do not have garages for these extra cars. It's dangerous and ugly. If the City thinks that people will ever get rid of their cars, they also believe that the moon is made of green cheese. What a mess this City has become. It was embarrassing when my friend was here. Driving in Sacramento has become a nightmare.

No discretionary review. Make very clear guidelines about what's permitted and step out the way. All you have to do is look at the history of red-lining and neighborhood-level racial and economic segregation here and in cities throughout our country to know what it leads to. Most folks don't set out to be 'exclusionary' but that's what discretionary approvals aggregate to in the end.

Tier 3 needs to be denser and in many more places. This map feels strangely restrictive.

I grew up in an apt bldg with an "open space" in back and no one ever used it because it was so not good. Instead I used the park and so did everyone else. Instead of tying a requirement for a small amount of green space/open space to every unit (which could be a death knell for development) and result in weird spaces), how about a greenspace fee that helps develop citywide parks/green spaces?

Want to make the point that pitting trees/greenery against setbacks is a false choice. We can have minimum setbacks to maximize space AND trees/greenery. And large setbacks don't guarantee trees.

More density needs to be allowed esp in the central city (Tier 3) where the streets are built for it -- and in other areas (Tiers 2, 1). Even my kids agree with that because it's so common sense. It's more efficient, brings more people to our streets ( a welcome thing) it supports transit and other modes of transit (also welcome), shops - everything people *like* in a city! If we hold back on allowing more, and different types, of housing based on fear -- fear that someone's view will be blocked or someone won't be able to conveniently park a car or fear that it's just different from what people can imagine and therefore it's bad ...? -- that's a terrible way to set public policy. The city has a talented planning team, they have hired talented people to help craft a way forward for the growth that is coming whether we build densely or with sprawling patterns. So the question is how to accommodate that growth: build it well, or not well? I vote for "well," which is what a denser plan with lots of different options means -- 'cottage' courtyards, duplexes, SF homes, ADUs, normal, tall apt. buildings - a mix is what most great cities have! I urge city leaders to carry through the original GP vision and not let it be nipped and tucked into a worse-than-average, meh, sprawl-inducing plan because of fear.

After reviewing the 3 sections, I want to go on record as stating that this whole densification scheme, will go down in history decades from now along with the great freeway debacle of the the 50's and 60's. The Bee will write articles asking what happened to the trees in the City of Trees? What happened to our neighborhoods? Our open spaces? Our parks? How did Sacramento get so crowded, hot and dirty? How did "backyard" become a slur on people who want one? I know that more homes are needed and I accept reasonable development, but, please, lets not throw out what makes Sacramento a great place to live.

Too many people in a small space will cause conflict. Jam a bunch of tiny living units in a small space, minimize green space, ignore room for kids to play and there will be problems. These assumptions of how many units will fit in a given space, no matter what the strategies, are wishful thinking with no base in reality.

The number of units should not be linked to tier based on locations, but rather on the size of the lot and effect of density on the immediate neighborhood. This map looks like red-lining

This analysis does not consider leaf season, leaf collection with the size of our tree canopy. The leaves are placed on the street for pickup. Leaves cannot be picked up when vehicles park on, or too close to, leaf piles in the street. Many Tier 2 neighborhoods have a higher percentage of tree canopy.

What about safety from fires? We're told to have a specific clear area and there is increased climate change - homes this close are dangerous and one cigarette, one firework, one spark from wind could disseminate an entire area.

We have an aging population - how will people with physical disabilities get around?

These are too close - creates fire hazards

This seems beneficial in theory, but in reality you will still have crying babies, barking dogs, loud music and the normal sounds of everyday living happening much closer to each other. Add in limited room for garbage and parking and you're just asking for neighborly strife before long. It's why a little distance when possible has been a helpful tool for residents throughout the history of cities. I have lived in multiple dense and sparse settings and each has trade offs. But to assume that urban options and space are not important, is not being a very honest observer of mankind and it's variety of needs.

Be sure to include former foster youth in your plans; this is where many newly homeless come from, aging out of foster care at 18.

In a city that charges it's residents thousands to repair cracked sidewalks caused by tree roots, etc. who in their right mind is going to use the now even smaller space to put a tree? Planting a tree where there is room for it is one thing, but to risk paying for a sidewalk (or worse if it cracks the closer new foundation) when a tree does what it's designed to do is a problem. Most people will probably just settle for drought landscaping and trees will go.

This whole idea seems like a waste. Especially post Covid when most likely downtowns will be a thing of the past in regards to remote work. Trying to cram housing with density is absurd.

If my neighborhood is any indication the classification of transitional is wrong. While one can walk in the residential neighborhood you can't go anywhere else safely for a variety of reasons. It would be impossible to live here without a car.

The discretionary review process could undermine the whole effort if there are not clear and objective standards for evaluation. Also how is this process constistent with the goal of state law and the City's expressed goals to increase housing opportunities and keeping cost of development as low as possible?

Setbacks should be no more than 10 feet from the existing sidewalk and should require shade trees. My neighborhood in Oak Park has homes 10 - 15 feet from the sidewalk and it works fine. Large front yards are wasted space.

Lot size varies greatly in this area. Post war houses are usually on larger (deeper) lots. As long as it fits in with the scale of the neighborhood I support MMH. McMansions have been allowed, and they stick out like sore thumbs. The one on our block of small homes built during the war towers over the surrounding homes.

We need to make sure we don't create heat islands. We also need to ensure we don't increase runoff from storms that goes into our combined storm/sewer system.

My neighborhood McKinley Elvas area contains some duplexes, small apartment building and some ADUs. We have also had a lot of smaller homes torn down and replaced with McMansions. I would much prefer to have Missing Middle housing in my neighborhood than enormous single family units. It would be preferable if we could keep some amount of open space around houses for trees and wildlife since we're so near the river.