CITY COUNCIL
Darrell Steinberg, Mayor
Angelique Ashby, Vice Mayor, District 1
Sean Loloee, District 2
Jeff Harris, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Jay Schenirer, District 5
Eric Guerra, Mayor Pro Tem, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7
Mai Vang, District 8
CHARTER OFFICERS
Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk
Susana Alcala Wood, City Attorney
Jorge Oseguera, City Auditor
Howard Chan, City Manager
John Colville, City Treasurer
City Council
Financing Authority
Housing Authority
Public Financing Authority
Redevelopment Agency
Successor Agency
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
FINAL CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after publishing the Agenda.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, May 31, 2022, at 5:00 p.m.
Agenda Item: Consent Item 12
12. Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project File ID: 2022-01097
Location: 440 Arden Way, District 2
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution documenting the local contributions being provided to the 440 Arden Way Affordable Housing Project and supporting the project’s application for State Local Government Matching Grant funds.
Contact: Danielle Foster, Housing Policy Manager, (916) 808-1869, [email protected]; Michael Jasso, Assistant City Manager, (916) 808-5704, [email protected]
From: clerk
To: Public Comment
Cc: Katie Gresham; Mindy Cuppy
Subject: FW: concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 8:49:48 AM
Attachments: 053122 item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project.docx Item 12 comments Dean Dal Ben 05312022 local government matching grant (lgmg) resolution for state funding application - 440 arden way state surplus property affordable housing project.pdf
From: Dean Dal Ben <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 11:15 PM
To: Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]>; clerk <[email protected]>; Eric Guerra <[email protected]>; Jay Schenirer <[email protected]>; Katie Valenzuela (City) <[email protected]>; Jeff S. Harris <[email protected]>; Sean Loloee <[email protected]>; Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; Luis Montes <[email protected]> Cc: Dean Dal Ben <[email protected]>
Subject: concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
I attach my comments and concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
I urge you to oppose this item. It does not help the city or the people of Sacramento. It takes steps backwards in addressing the many housing and homeless issues we face. It continues the same old fake solutions, the efforts that have failed and will continue to fail. There is no such thing as free money. Someone pays and in this case, few benefit.
Note to the city council clerk – please include my comments in full into the public comments section included for item 12 for the May 31, 2022 city council meeting.
Please contact me if this cannot be done. There is not enough room to do so in the online ecomment 1000 character section to do this. Thank you.
I look forward to your reply, regardless of your position. This issue affects all of Sacramento, and goes far beyond each individual city council district.
Thank you,
Dean Dal Ben
6 Shipman Ct. Sacramento, CA 95823
District 8 [email protected]
My concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
I urge you to oppose this item. It does not help the city or the people of Sacramento. It takes steps backwards in addressing the many housing and homeless issues we face. It continues the same old fake solutions, the efforts that have failed and will continue to fail. There is no such thing as free money. Someone pays and in this case, few benefit.
If asked how much has been spent in Sacramento from government funds, taxes, fees, subsidies, tax incentives, needs based programs and grants, set asides, and other sources (federal, state, and local) in the last decade for housing for the homeless or those with low income, no one here could answer that question. If asked in the same period how many achieved housing success and independence as a result of those efforts, no one here knows. If asked how many provided this housing had jobs and were able to support themselves and their families as a result of those efforts, no one here could answer that question. If asked how many were able to move on from homelessness and low income housing and find a better life during the last decade due to these efforts, no one here could answer that question. I have asked these questions at various times to staff and elected representatives and never got an answer. I ask you those questions today. I eagerly await your answers. Tell the people! Transparency!
The Sacramento Bee reports on May 30, 2022 that Sacramento is seeking a CA state grant of $82 million to build 124 apartments (1-3 bedrooms). Average cost per apartment is over $661,000. 25% of this housing is for the homeless. The city also waives $470,000 in fees that would be collected if market rate housing was built. This is on state owned property, so there is no cost to buy this land. There will be ongoing costs to maintain, repair, and manage this project after built. These are some of the issues you will vote on for item 12.
Redfin reports the median price of the 777 homes sold in Sacramento in April 2022 was $518,000. If you used only the $82 million state grant money to pay cash for these homes, you could buy 158 homes with no monthly mortgages to pay! If you exclude 30% of those homes that are most above the Redfin median price, you might be able to pay cash for over 300 homes! Even if you set aside 50% of those purchased home for those with low income, we could help more people than planned for the 124 apartments at the Arden Way project. Most of these homes will have at least 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. All of these homes will be in diverse neighborhoods with great neighbors. Isn’t this the picture you have of Sacramento?
I know there are other expenses beyond a mortgage payment when living in a house, but should we try this method and see if we get better results? We likely will help more people in ways far beyond providing housing. If there are concerns about ownership issues, I am sure lawyers could come up with binding agreements and grant deeds to handle any issues related to accountability and responsibility for those eligible for this housing.
I know this state grant money may not allow this level of flexibility. If that is true, Sacramento should get the state legislature and the Governor shift the $82 million to quickly approve of this as a trial project to see what happens.
Is the city really working to solve the city’s housing problem? Could more people be helped get their first home? Is the city council willing to try better methods and explore better options? Are we going to throw away this opportunity? Shame on us if we do.
Why is using government funds to build apartments and housing for the homeless and those with low income so expensive compared to private funds used to build market rate housing? Imagine how much housing could be provided if the state sold this land to a private developer who could build market rate apartments with a set aside for some low income housing, Imagine if money raised by the sale of this land plus the $82 million grant money was used to help people buy their first home.
Does the city want to seek prosperity for more people or is the only plan accepted is to repeat high costs to help fewer people and have them live in areas where hope is more of a dream than reality.
I urge you to oppose item 12 and seek a better solution. There is no rush to do a bad thing.
Dean Dal Ben
6 Shipman Ct. Sacramento, CA 95823
District 8 [email protected]
My concerns about Item 12 -- Local Government Matching Grant (LGMG) Resolution for State Funding Application - 440 Arden Way State Surplus Property Affordable Housing Project on the city council agenda May 31, 2022
I urge you to oppose this item. It does not help the city or the people of Sacramento. It takes steps backwards in addressing the many housing and homeless issues we face. It continues the same old fake solutions, the efforts that have failed and will continue to fail. There is no such thing as free money. Someone pays and in this case, few benefit.
If asked how much has been spent in Sacramento from government funds, taxes, fees, subsidies, tax incentives, needs based programs and grants, set asides, and other sources (federal, state, and local) in the last decade for housing for the homeless or those with low income, no one here could answer that question. If asked in the same period how many achieved housing success and independence as a result of those efforts, no one here knows. If asked how many provided this housing had jobs and were able to support themselves and their families as a result of those efforts, no one here could answer that question. If asked how many were able to move on from homelessness and low income housing and find a better life during the last decade due to these efforts, no one here could answer that question. I have asked these questions at various times to staff and elected representatives and never got an answer. I ask you those questions today. I eagerly await your answers. Tell the people! Transparency!
The Sacramento Bee reports on May 30, 2022 that Sacramento is seeking a CA state grant of $82 million to build 124 apartments (1-3 bedrooms). Average cost per apartment is over $661,000. 25% of this housing is for the homeless. The city also waives $470,000 in fees that would be collected if market rate housing was built. This is on state owned property, so there is no cost to buy this land. There will be ongoing costs to maintain, repair, and manage this project after built. These are some of the issues you will vote on for item 12.
Redfin reports the median price of the 777 homes sold in Sacramento in April 2022 was $518,000. If you used only the $82 million state grant money to pay cash for these homes, you could buy 158 homes with no monthly mortgages to pay! If you exclude 30% of those homes that are most above the Redfin median price, you might be able to pay cash for over 300 homes! Even if you set aside 50% of those purchased home for those with low income, we could help more people than planned for the 124 apartments at the Arden Way project. Most of these homes will have at least 3 bedrooms and 2 baths. All of these homes will be in diverse neighborhoods with great neighbors. Isn’t this the picture you have of Sacramento?
I know there are other expenses beyond a mortgage payment when living in a house, but should we try this method and see if we get better results? We likely will help more people in ways far beyond providing housing. If there are concerns about ownership issues, I am sure lawyers could come up with binding agreements and grant deeds to handle any issues related to accountability and responsibility for those eligible for this housing.
I know this state grant money may not allow this level of flexibility. If that is true, Sacramento should get the state legislature and the Governor shift the $82 million to quickly approve of this as a trial project to see what happens.
Is the city really working to solve the city’s housing problem? Could more people be helped get their first home? Is the city council willing to try better methods and explore better options? Are we going to throw away this opportunity? Shame on us if we do.
Why is using government funds to build apartments and housing for the homeless and those with low income so expensive compared to private funds used to build market rate housing? Imagine how much housing could be provided if the state sold this land to a private developer who could build market rate apartments with a set aside for some low income housing, Imagine if money raised by the sale of this land plus the $82 million grant money was used to help people buy their first home.
Does the city want to seek prosperity for more people or is the only plan accepted is to repeat high costs to help fewer people and have them live in areas where hope is more of a dream than reality.
I urge you to oppose item 12 and seek a better solution. There is no rush to do a bad thing.
Dean Dal Ben
6 Shipman Ct. Sacramento, CA 95823
District 8 [email protected]
From: Danielle Foster
To: Angelique Ashby; Public Comment; Eric Guerra; Jeff S. Harris; Rick Jennings; Sean Loloee; Jay Schenirer; Mayor Steinberg; District8
Cc: Michael Jasso
Subject: RE: City Council Meeting - Item 12
Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 12:23:48 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Councilmembers,
Please note that the Community Meeting for the Arden Armory Site is scheduled to start at 6:30pm tonight, including a 15-minute open house format to start with the formal meeting starting at 6:45.
Community members should have time to comment on the consent calendar for this meeting prior to attending the community meeting. Staff is working to ensure that community members are aware of the timing and how to call in for the consent calendar and wanted to ensure you had this information as well.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions.
Thanks,
Danielle
Danielle Foster
Housing Policy Manager
City of Sacramento
From: James Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2022 6:50 PM
To: Angelique Ashby <[email protected]>; cityofsacramento.org/[email protected]; Eric Guerra <[email protected]>; Jeff S. Harris <[email protected]>; Rick Jennings <[email protected]>; Sean Loloee <[email protected]>; Jay Schenirer <[email protected]>; Mayor Steinberg <[email protected]>; District8 <[email protected]> Cc: Danielle Foster <[email protected]>; Michael Jasso <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council Meeting - Item 12
Hello Council members,
I am writing to you regarding Item 12 on the agenda for Tuesdays city council meeting. As you may or may not know, Bridge Housing plans to build a 125 unit on the 1 acre former Armory site in the quiet community of Woodlake. I, and most of the community, are concerned about the project given it’s tremendous scale (5 stories), along with lack of parking and traffic concerns (in addition to the 5 other housing projects happening within 1 mile of our quiet community).
The people of our community will be meeting with Bridge Housing on Tuesday at the same time as the City Council meeting. The Bridge meeting has been scheduled for weeks, while Item 12 was only recently added to the City’s agenda.
I do not know if public commentary will alter your decision on the Bridge project, however, I would appreciate if you at least allow the community to voice our concerns on the scale, parking, and traffic. Therefore I ask that you table the discussion of Item 12 for a later date so that we can have our voices be heard.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
James Griffin
From: Dot Lem
To: Angelique Ashby; Sean Loloee; Jeff S. Harris; Katie Valenzuela (City); Jay Schenirer; Eric Guerra; Rick Jennings; District8; Public Comment; Engage
Subject: Remove consideration of 440 Arden Way from 5/31 City Council consent calendar (Item 12) Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 1:15:26 PM
This is to request the City Council delay consideration of the affordable housing project proposed for state property at 440 Arden Way until the facts are corrected. The staff report is not accurate by implying plans are modified in response to neighborhood feedback. The developer has schedule a community meeting tonight, May 31st, (in conflict with City Council consent calendar (Item 12)) to present the development to the community. Putting this item on the consent calendar around the time of a major holiday and before the Woodlake neighbors have a chance to be notified shows the city management has no respect for the Woodlake community and their concerns.
The project is in Woodlake Park at the edge of the Police Memorial. The five story apartments will be very close and dwarf the memorial. There are beautiful tall trees which add to the beauty. I am concerned the trees will be cut, damaged, or removed by construction of this project.
This project together with 4 other apartment buildings within 1 mile of Woodlake Park will impact the environment and should be reviewed for the impact to the community.
The Woodlake neighborhood is 100 years old and was not designed to handle an influx of people. The streets are narrow, utilities limited and the sewer system just barely handling the load. Recently PGE had to fix a broken line. The sidewalks are cracked and intermittent due to the trees that would need to be removed. The streets are crack and patched. They needed paved. if cars park on the street, the street becomes one-way. Some times it is impossible for a fire truck or garbage truck to pass.
The impact and changes will cost money. A concern for this and other multi-unit projects is the forgiveness of the local impact fees for affordable projects. These projects have impact and those fees, if not paid by the project, should be allocated from some city source to the area that suffers the impact. To do otherwise simply enhances the already existing inequities in a community.
I am asking this proposal be delayed and staff be directed to ensure there is true collaboration with the entire community, not just the business corridor and the developer.
Thank you,
Dorothy Lemmon
Woodlake
[email protected]
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Dan Allison
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda 12 440 Arden
Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 4:28:27 PM
I support the housing proposal for 440 Arden Way and want to see it move forward now. --
Dan Allison
[email protected] • 775-997-4937
Blog & calendar: https://allisondan.wordpress.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/allisondan/
From: Mindy Cuppy
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Housing -- 5/31/22 Council Agenda
Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 3:09:01 PM
Importance: High
-----Original Message-----
From: Alisa Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 3:00 PM
To: Sean Loloee <[email protected]>
Cc: Katie Gresham <[email protected]>; Mindy Cuppy <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: FW: Housing -- 5/31/22 Council Agenda
Importance: High
Good afternoon, Councilmember Loloee.
Attached below is an email from Former Councilmember Sandy Sheedy.
Per Ms. Sheedy's phone call, would you please read the below letter, take into consideration, then share with the entire Council?
Thus, I have cc'd the Clerk's office here per request.
Thank you,
Alisa B. Johnson
Executive Operations Assistant
Office of Councilmember Sean Loloee
Council District 2 |City of Sacramento
New City Hall | Mayor/Council Offices
915 I Street, Fifth Floor|Sacramento, CA 95814 [email protected] Main Line: (916) 808-7002 -----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Sheedy <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 2:43 PM
To: Alisa Johnson <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing
I am writing this letter to ask you to think about what you are doing to a community in District 2.
Housing is going up all around our area. On Arden Way we have a terrible monstrosity of a housing project placed right next to a gas station. This project has an air quality problem. The gas station is open most of the time and the housing has windows on the same side as the gas tanks No air quality, in fact, dangerous to the tenants and community surrounding it.
The Bridge Housing proposal also has an air quality problem — it is on one of the busiest corridors for automobiles and it has bus stops right near the project. The infrastructure, which includes an underground sewer system, needs to be retrofitted and up graded.
Child care is provided but the children have busy streets with Arden Way, Oxford Street and busses running all day long.
The City needs to rethink this project. There is a huge money gap that the City will have to undertake before this project can even start. I know that Bridge, and others like it, get a liberal subsidy from the City, State and SHRA before they can actually start the project. It’s all about the money — as usual.
This project is one that other districts would also strongly oppose. We are surrounded by projects aimed for housing for the homeless. There must be other areas of the City that can have a project such as this one. if this project goes through, the City will end up destroying the neighborhood which is already struggling . Find an area that is less destructive to a well established neighborhood.
Sandy Sheedy
Former City Councilmember
From: Danielle Foster
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: 440 and 492 Arden Way
Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:58:06 PM
From: Daphne Macklin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:31 PM
To: Danielle Foster <[email protected]>
Subject: 440 and 492 Arden Way
5.31.2022
I am requesting that this matter be taken off of the consent calendar and be tabled for another session. The substantive issue of the Bridges/Armory project has not yet reached a point where this piecemeal resolution of a part of the parcels that are part of this plan should occur. Please remove the matter from the consent calendar.
From: Mindy Cuppy
To: Public Comment
Cc: Alisa Johnson
Subject: FW: D2 Phone Call received: OPPOSED to Tonight"s Council Agenda Item #12 Date: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 5:10:10 PM
From: Alisa Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 4:55 PM
To: Katie Gresham <[email protected]>; Wendy Klock-Johnson <WKlock- [email protected]>; Mindy Cuppy <[email protected]> Cc: Sean Loloee <[email protected]>; Michaela Schunk <[email protected]>
Subject: D2 Phone Call received: OPPOSED to Tonight's Council Agenda Item #12
RE: May 31, 2022 Council Agenda Item #12
Ms. Bernice Creager, District 2 constituent called @4:40pm to express opposition to Item #12 on tonight’s Council Agenda and requests opposition to go on record.
Thank you!
Alisa B. Johnson
Executive Operations Assistant
Office of Councilmember Sean Loloee
Council District 2 |City of Sacramento
New City Hall | Mayor/Council Offices
915 I Street, Fifth Floor|Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
Main Line: (916) 808-7002