eComments Report — Sacramento City Council, August 8, 2023

5:00 PM City Council
Meeting Time: 08-08-23 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5:00 PM City Council 08-08-23
17:00
32 33 10 3 15
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment

5:00 PM City Council
08-08-23 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral

17. Public Review Draft of the Sacramento 2040 General Plan File ID:
2023-00931
32 10 3 14
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 1 0 0 1
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 17. Public Review Draft of the Sacramento 2040 General Plan File ID: 2023-00931 Overall Sentiment
Rosanna Montesinos
Location:

Submitted At: 3:14pm 08-08-23
Correspondence received by the City Clerk's Office
Debra Banks
Location:

Submitted At: 3:03pm 08-08-23
Dear Mayor and Council,
First off, a shout out to everyone who has worked hard to bring the public a draft of this plan which has the power to shape Sacramento’s future. The general plan update promotes goals such as a transportation shift away from personal vehicles, a reduction in emissions to meet our critical climate needs and an increase in housing supply to address affordability and homelessness. Below are suggestions to improve the General Plan Update (GPU) to ensure that Sacramento is a place where people can safely walk and bike everywhere and families of all means can thrive.

1. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station Access Improvements – Sidewalks & Lighting M1.12. Providing safe walking to and from light rail stations is critical to achieve the shift planned in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and the 2040 GPU. However, multiple neighborhoods lack lighting or sidewalks within a short distance of the light rail station, creating an unnecessary barrier for many community members from safely accessing a light rail station. Sidewalks and lighting are basic design elements for safety and accessibility.

2. Eliminate Parking Minimums, M-2.17 Parking Management Strategy. The existing language is too broad (i.e. “could”) and should be re-phased to align with the language adopted by council in 2021. "The City shall eliminate parking minimums and institute parking maximums.” Strengthen the language in the plan related to making our parking policy bolder.

3. Sacramento urgently needs an Urban Forest Master Plan. When the recommendations of the Mayors’ Climate Commission were adopted, a draft Master Plan was promised by early 2020. Tree canopy shades walkers and cyclists, making it more enjoyable for them to make short trips by bicycle year-long. This is a step towards lowering VMT and making Sacramento a place that centers people over cars.

4. Promote Permanent Open Streets Conversion. New item M3 “The city shall identify streets for removal of regular through traffic to work towards pedestrianization of city streets with a focus to be on streets in dining and entertainment corridors.” SABA recommends the pedestrianization of city streets with a focus on fostering dining and entertainment corridors. To accomplish this, the City should remove barriers to the permanent opening of streets to pedestrians and instead, streamline the process to designate and “open” new streets for use by cyclists and pedestrians. On streets where intermittent or long term street closures have already occurred, the city should utilize existing data to save cost and speed up the process of permanent openings (like on R street during the pandemic). Parking should not be factored into any cost related to this revisioning of a city street. On street parking prioritizes vehicle use over pedestrian use. Removable bollards have already been employed by the city on R Street and can be utilized in any location without a long, slow and costly design study. The city should prioritize the section of R Street between 13th & 15th and 20th Street between J & K. Each of these sections were open to pedestrians and cyclists for over a year resulting in significant increases to business traffic and customer satisfaction.

5. Prohibit New Drive-Through Restaurants - LUP-4.12 The current draft of the GPU lists a policy goal to “prohibit new drive-through restaurants within ¼-mile walking distance of existing and proposed light rail stations and high frequency transit stops”. We agree with others that this should go further and prohibit all new drive-through restaurants regardless of distance from transit. Drive-through restaurants increase auto dependency, use space for idling cars which could be used for better reasons, adds to our GHGs and increases conflict points between vehicles against walkers and cyclists.

6. New South Natomas Bike Trail Connection to Railyards SN-M-3. SABA recommends changing this item to be specific to include this new language, “When planning walking and bicycling improvements, the City shall prioritize opportunities to provide active transportation connections, which are not subject to regular flooding, across the American River to better connect South Natomas with Downtown and the regional bicycling network.” Currently, the bike trails leading to the only two bridges that connect Sacramento to its northern neighborhoods go through the American River Parkway or Discovery Park, which regularly flood during winter. The closure of these trails seasonally closes off the trails for approximately 150,000 residents north of the American River from accessing the central city. Any new bridges should be designed to ensure active transportation uses are not subject to flooding.

7. The city's plans for bicycling infrastructure have often fallen short in practice due to funding and lack of attention to design details. The city should strengthen street design standards so that all road repavings and related streetscape projects include bulb outs, daylighting, separated bike tracks, and high visibility crosswalks as outlined in both Complete Street and Vision Zero policies. Additionally, the city should use revised bike infrastructure standards to ensure that future bike projects are designed and constructed with a "user first" approach. For example, gutters should not take up the majority of a bike lane, forcing cyclists to manage the curb and debris in the bike lane, while dodging speeding vehicles. If Sacramento is to achieve a safe low-stress bicycle network which encourages people to choose a bicycle for short trips around town, then the guidance for creating bicycle infrastructure and implementing the currently outdated bicycle master plan needs to be revised and implemented.

Thank you again for considering our recommendations to the General Plan.

Deb Banks
Exec. Director, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
Heather Fargo
Location:

Submitted At: 2:35pm 08-08-23
I have some brief comments regarding the General Plan’s treatment of Natomas. I realize that a General Plan is daunting to review but the devil is here in the details and matters for our City's future. Infill must be a priority over green field development. Y ou can't have a strong core without a clear edge - called the City Limits.

As a former council member and Mayor for Sacramento, I was intimately involved in the planning of South and North Natomas including the Natomas Habitat Conservation Plan which mitigates for loss of habitat and farmland due to the development in Natomas. We need to honor our contracts with the state and federal wildlife agencies, our settlement with ECOS and commitments to the community. _The General Plan needs to be very clear in being committed to maintaining the existing city limits and support the county Urban Services Boundary Line in Natomas.
_The GP draft has serious internal conflicts regarding Natomas that need to be resolved. I am asking you to do the following: __
•Maintain the City’s commitment to the current boundary on the west and north sides of South and North Natomas
_•Support County Urban Services Boundary and County farmland protection policies __ •Protect Natomas Basin Conservation Plan conservation strategy and Natomas Basin Conservancy. _•Remove Natomas Basin as a Study Area
Remove references to the moot 2002 MOU titled Natomas Joint Vision.” The MOU gave development responsibilities to the City and the protection of agriculture and farmland to the County, but it is no longer being honored by the County of Sacramento.

There is no need to “further study Natomas for urbanization.” That policy directly contradicts the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and the City and County General Plans' policies emphasizing compact growth, infill , and investments in older struggling areas. _Further urbanization in Natomas would degrade protected habitat areas, remove valuable farmland, and interfere with success of the NBHCP and climate action plans, and compete with existing communities in Sacramento who need the investment and jobs.
_Y ou need to correct the error in the North Natomas Community Plan that designates two unincorporated parcels adjacent to Westlake as part of the Community Plan. They are not.

Please remove any discussion of the Upper Westside project in the unincorporated farmland. It is not appropriate in a City general plan. _Since community plans cannot conflict with the General plan — this erroneous designation is not consistent with the General Plan 2040 Land Use Plan (maps LUP-1, LUP-2, LUP-3, LUP-4) Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Additional comments will be submitted in writing.__ Pat Sandlin
Location:

Submitted At: 2:23pm 08-08-23
Hi my name is Pat Sandlin and I live in D3 in River City Commons. I support infill within the city limits, not development in our farmland and habitat. I urge you to remove the Natomas Basin Study area from the General Plan and the reference to Upper Westside development in the South Natomas Community Plan. The General Plan should clearly support the current city limits, the County's urban Services Boundary line, and the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan.

Beth Hendrickson
Location:

Submitted At: 2:18pm 08-08-23
District 4 resident Beth Hendrickson: I support more dense housing near transit and lower requirements for parking on-site. Allowing additional units per lot would do a lot to alleviate the housing shortage and reduce carbon impacts.

Brian Junio
Location:

Submitted At: 2:14pm 08-08-23
As a resident of district 1, I strongly support all proposals to increase housing density throughout the city and connectivity through active and public transportation.

My district is home to largely single family zoning. More development of mixed-use neighborhoods that are connected by safe pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure as well as strong public transportation will provide an economic boon for this district as well as ease our region’s housing crisis. Building the infrastructure to give residence confidence to walk or ride around town will reduce our dependence on our cars, promote healthier life styles, and reduce negative impact on our health and the environment.

We also need more connectivity to the rest of the city. District 1 is comparatively underserved by public transportation – especially with the city’s light rail system. Expanding SacRT to natomas and the airport via green line would unlock this key region with the rest of the city and unlock more mobility options residents here as well as connect those home commute to district 1.

Safe bicycling connectivity is also lacking. Major arterials like truxel road lack safe, protected bicycle routes that allow cyclists to move from north to south natomas. A single pedestrian bridge is not enough. We need more safe crossings for cyclists if we expect to meet the city’s ambitious goals to increase active transportation.

Jon Mak
Location:

Submitted At: 2:13pm 08-08-23
I support this General Plan. Please increase walkability, bikeability, public transit, housing supply, mixed-use and multi-family housing. We don't need any more parking or any new vehicle lanes. Thank you.

Jordan Grimaldi
Location:

Submitted At: 2:11pm 08-08-23
Please see comments enclosed.

Judith Lamare
Location:

Submitted At: 1:49pm 08-08-23
Friends of the Swainson's Hawk represents threatened wildlife that nests in and around the City of Sacramento.

The draft rewrite of the General Plan removes policies that support wildlife conservation and proposes changes in the City boundary that would directly promote urbanization of nesting and foraging habitat adjacent to the current city boundary in North and South Natomas. We ask the Council:

The GP draft has serious internal conflicts regarding Natomas that need to be resolved. Please do the following:
•Maintain the City’s commitment to current boundary in South and North Natomas •Protect Natomas Basin Conservation Plan conservation strategy and Natomas Basin Conservancy •Support County Urban Services Boundary and County farmland protection policies. They have been in place for 30 years to protect natural resources and direct urban uses to where infrastructure is already in place and underutilized.
•Remove Natomas Basin as a Study Area
2002 MOU is dead and further study of Natomas for urbanization contradicts the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and the City and County General Plans' policies emphasizing compact growth, infill Further urbanization in Natomas would degrade protected habitat areas, remove valuable farmland, and interfere with success of the NBHCP and climate action plans, and compete with existing communities in Sacramento who need the investment and jobs
Reject expansion of the Sphere of Influence in North Natomas and rigorously oppose development in Natomas outside the City because of impacts on NBHCP and existing neighborhoods in the City, especially communities in North and South Natomas community plans.
•Correct the error in North Natomas Community Plan that designates two unincorporated parcels adjacent to Westlake as part of the Community Plan.

Community plans cannot conflict with the General plan — this erroneous designation is not consistent with the General Plan 2040 Land Use Plan (maps LUP-1, LUP-2, LUP-3, LUP-4) •The Biological Resources (ERC2) section of the Plan deletes policies contained in the 2035 draft, and should be reincorporated into the plan.

Angela Xavier
Location:

Submitted At: 12:58pm 08-08-23
Good Evening,
Sacramento needs increased housing supply. Increase housing density. Eliminate single-family zoning.

1. Allow more homes near transit | Increase the FAR to 4.0 within a short walk of transit stops

2. Allow more homes in high opportunity areas | Increase FAR to at least 2.0 in our high and highest-resource neighborhoods to affirmatively further fair housing

3. Eliminate Parking minimums - enable more space for homes and trees Respectfully,
Angela Xavier
Alan LoFaso
Location:

Submitted At: 12:47pm 08-08-23
I urge the council to continue in the progressive direction of this general plan document and adopt it, including simplifying zoning to use a FAR standard, end exclusionary zoning by allowing multi-family housing in previously single-family limited areas, enhancing density (building) near transit nodes, limiting drive-thru restaurants, and expanding alternative modes of transportation (other than automobiles). In general, I associate my remarks with the views expressed by representatives of House Sacramento. Thank you.

Jose Luis Romo
Location:

Submitted At: 12:25pm 08-08-23
Good evening mayor and council,
My name is Jose Luis Romo.

I am a District 4 resident in Marshall School and a member of House Sacramento. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft 2040 General Plan Update, and thank you to the Community Development staff for all your work and engagement on this
I believe that this plan, with a few key revisions, has the potential to make major steps to ending our community’s housing shortage, desegregate our neighborhoods, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I have a few suggestions for policy changes to set us up to meet the noble goals outlined in the plan’s narrative.

Let’s make Sacramento greener:
- Let's eliminate parking minimums and institute parking maximums. Strengthen the language in the plan related to making our parking policy more bold.
- Increase FAR to a minimum of 2.0 or more in high opportunity areas to affirmatively further fair housing. - Increase FAR (floor area ratio) around all public transit and design policies that reduce vehicle miles traveled in the city.

Increasing FAR to a minimum of 2.0 or more in high opportunity areas to affirmatively further fair housing includes Land Park and East Sacramento. By not increasing FAR in Land Park & East Sacramento, we are providing preferential treatment and allowing the historical single-family segregation zoning to continue by not allowing more homes and job opportunities to be built in these parts of town.

Stand up for us. Direct staff to listen to the huge majority of people and rewrite the FAR rules and make a better future for our children and grandchildren.

Thank Y ou,
Jose Luis Romo
District 4 resident in Marshall School
Karen Jacques
Location:

Submitted At: 11:19am 08-08-23
I am writing to underscore the importance of Sacramento’s urban forest and the fact that the policies adopted as part of the 2040 General Plan, the Climate Action and Adaption Plan, Community Plans and Design Guidelines and an Urban Forest Master Plan are all key to determining whether our urban forest will grow, thrive and provide the wide array of benefits that healthy trees provide to a city. A healthy tree canopy is necessary both to help address the climate crisis and to mitigate its impact
We need a tree canopy throughout Sacramento. Every neighborhood needs trees and so do non-residential areas. The need for all neighborhoods to have a tree canopy is an environmental justice issue. Currently some neighborhoods have parkway strips with public street trees that the City plants and maintains, while other neighborhoods don’t have parkway strips and, if they are poorer neighborhoods, don’t have street trees. This is an inequality that must be addressed.

Reducing vehicle miles traveled requires street trees. People can’t safely walk and bike in increasingly hot weather without the shade that trees provide and people can’t wait in the heat at bus and light rail stops without shade. Trees must be considered part of the infrastructure necessary for active transportation and public transit.

Maintaining existing canopy, including replacing trees when they die, is critical. Currently Sacramento’s tree canopy is shrinking. This is unacceptable. A large percent of Sacramento’s existing trees are in backyards or other private outdoor areas. As density increases, these trees are at risk. Sacramento must require developers to create plot plans and building designs that save as many healthy, existing trees as possible and/or include space for new trees. Additionally, the emphasis must be on trees that grow large enough to provide significant shade, not tiny ornamentals.

Growing the canopy by planting new trees is also critical. Our shrinking canopy must be increased and emphasis must be on planting large canopy trees that are capable of providing significant shade and cooling. Heat and drought tolerance are key to tree species selection and pollinators, birds and other wildlife will benefit from native species. The 2045 goal should be 45% canopy coverage, not 35% as proposed in the draft general plan.

Sacramento urgently needs an Urban Forest Master Plan. When the recommendations of the Mayors’ Climate Commission were adopted we were promised a draft Master Plan by early 2020. It is now August 2023.

Sam Keshavarz
Location:

Submitted At: 10:35am 08-08-23
Hi there! I am sure you're receiving many messages like this, but I also wanted to add my voice to ask that you please continue to support the importance of Sacramento’s Urban Forest – in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the 2040 General Plan, and all the accompanying documents.

Thank you so much. I absolutely love the Elmhurst tree canopies and hope we can keep that aspect always growing.

Kevin McRae, CPA
Location:

Submitted At: 10:02am 08-08-23
Dear Sacramento City Council:

I support the comments and positions of ECOS.

As a Director of THE NATOMAS BASIN CONSERVANCY for more than ten years I value smart well managed growth.

We live and work in a city and region that is special because of it's proximity to beautiful, biologically important farmland and undeveloped areas.

We owe it to our children and theirs to protect and save what MAKES SACRAMENTO SPECIAL.

Please maintain the existing city limits and support the county Urban Services Boundary Line in Natomas.

Please consider all the points made by ECOS.

The GP draft has serious internal conflicts regarding Natomas that need to be resolved. I am asking you to do the following:
•Maintain the City’s commitment to current boundary in South and North Natomas •Protect Natomas Basin Conservation Plan conservation strategy and Natomas Basin Conservancy •Support County Urban Services Boundary and County farmland protection policies •Remove Natomas Basin as a Study Area
2002 MOU is dead and further study of Natomas for urbanization contradicts the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan (NBHCP) and the City and County General Plans' policies emphasizing compact growth, infill Further urbanization in Natomas would degrade protected habitat areas, remove valuable farmland, and interfere with success of the NBHCP and climate action plans, and compete with existing communities in Sacramento who need the investment and jobs
Reject expansion of the Sphere of Influence in North Natomas and rigorously oppose development in Natomas outside the City because of impacts on NBHCP and existing neighborhoods in the City, especially communities in North and South Natomas community plans.
•Correct the error in North Natomas Community Plan that designates two unincorporated parcels adjacent to Westlake as part of the Community Plan.

Thank you and
Kind Regards,
Kevin McRae
M. Kevin McRae, CPA, Inc.
2400-22nd St., #100
Sacramento, CA 95818-2540
(916) 442-8685 Phone & Fax
AND BY APPOINTMENT AT:
3300 Powell Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
[email protected]
Cornelious Burke
Location:

Submitted At: 9:51am 08-08-23
Good evening mayor and council, my name is Cornelious Burke I am a District 5 resident and a member of House Sacramento Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft 2040 General Plan Update And thank you to the Community Development staff for all your work and engagement on this I believe that this plan, with a few key revisions, has the potential to make major steps to ending our community’s housing shortage, desegregate our neighborhoods, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions I have a few suggestions for policy changes to set us up to meet the noble goals outlined in the plan’s narrative Let’s make Sacramento greener: Eliminate parking minimums and institute parking maximums. Strengthen the language in the plan related to making our parking policy more bold. …fairer: Increase FAR to 2.0 in high opportunity areas to affirmatively further fair housing ….and more connected: Increase FAR (floor area ratio) around transit and design policies that reduce vehicle miles traveled in the city
Jeff Solomon
Location:

Submitted At: 9:23am 08-08-23
Attached is a photo from page 6-6 of the “Environmental Resources and Constraints” section of the Draft 2024 Sacramento General Plan. It portrays a beautiful tree canopy (perhaps from a Land Park or a Curtis Park street) created by trees on residential properties (not on land that the City is responsible for). There are many such examples of these types of streets. I am curious what involvement the City has had in planting the saplings, watering the sapling during the critical first three years, and trimming the trees, then and now.

On to the topic of this comment, creating urban canopy equality for the underserved communities of Sacramento.

If the City has had involvement in any of the areas mentioned above, it would lend weight to the City adopting more active involvement in this matter. But even if there has been no involvement by the City, the fact remains that there is a disparity between the more advantaged and less advantaged areas of Sacramento. If the City is truly interested in affecting environmental justice in this area, it will take more than the commitments to “promote” and “encourage” mentioned on this page. I will be sharing more details comments with my City Councilperson, the Mayor, and to [email protected],
Jeff Solomon
Meadowview - District 8
Louis Mirante
Location:

Submitted At: 11:38pm 08-07-23
I am a District 4 resident and a board member with House Sacramento, a local pro-housing group in Sacramento.

I support the direction of the draft plan, but in order to achieve the goals outlined by council in 2021, we have three priority improvements we recommend to the General Plan:

1. Allow more homes near transit | Increase the FAR to 4.0 within a short walk of transit stops

2. Allow more homes in high opportunity areas | Increase FAR to 2.0 in our high and highest-resource neighborhoods to affirmatively further fair housing

3. Allow for a future with less parking | Eliminate Parking minimums - enable more space for homes and trees Council, please direct staff to incorporate these changes.

Wesley Sagewalker
Location:

Submitted At: 8:56pm 08-07-23
Dear Members of the Sacramento City Council & Planning Staff, We are pleased the 2040 General Plan Update is progressing, and we greatly appreciate the City’s efforts to streamline approval processes and increase the City’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR). We believe the General Plan Update will continue to promote infill housing in Sacramento’s urban core at a time when our city and State desperately need it.

Noteworthy projects such as the Mansion Inn, 1500 S St., 17 Central, The Grace, The Cascade, 1220 H St, 19J and others have provided, or propose to provide, material community benefits in exchange for exceeding the FAR, resulting in hundreds of additional housing units in our Midtown and Downtown core.

We request Staff include this clause into the new General Plan. Staff has proven its ability to effectively regulate development projects utilizing the significant community benefits clause. Staff was in fact granted a 2021 Award for Excellence by the American Planning Association California Chapter, and is frequently recognized as a leader in California’s Planning Department community. Planning Staff have made effective use of this clause in the past and we believe they will continue to do so.

Without this community benefits clause there would not be a historical exhibit at the new Mansion Inn building to celebrate the history of the former hotel and its relationship to the Governor's Mansion; 19J would not be 11 stories of high-density studios along a major retail corridor providing attainable housing units; contributions to the local art scene as well as creative approaches to sustainability like 17 Central's vertical gardens may not be part of future projects.

One of Sacramento’s core competitive advantages stems from its ample urban infill development potential, and, unlike the Bay Area, a pro-housing approach to infill development. We believe the community benefits clause is a fundamental tool that will continue the vibrant growth we have all seen in our urban core. Thank you for considering our request.

Sincerely,
Mike Heller - Heller Pacific
Bay Miry- Bardis and Miry Development
Marisa Koloktronis - SKK Development
Sara Lebastchi - D&S Development
Tyler Girimonte - Sutter Capital
Bret Bair - Midtown/Downtown Business Owner
Simon de Vere White - Midtown/Downtown Business Owner
Daniel Parrella - Gateway Development Company
John Vignocchi - Urban Capital
Chris Garner - Urban Capital
Doug Buzbee - DBRE Consulting
Taylor Greer - Carlile Realty and Lending
Wesley Sagewalker - Gateway Development Company
Sam Rice
Location:

Submitted At: 8:29pm 08-07-23
I am a District 5 resident in the Oak Park neighborhood of Sacramento.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft 2040 General Plan Update and thank you to the Community Development staff for all your hard work and engagement during this process.

I believe that this plan, with a few key revisions, has the potential to make major steps to ending our community’s housing shortage, desegregate our neighborhoods, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I have a few suggestions for policy changes to set us up to meet the noble goals outlined in the plan’s narrative:

1. Let’s make Sacramento greener: Eliminate parking minimums and institute parking maximums. Strengthen the language in the plan related to making our parking policy bolder.

2. LUP-4.12 Drive-Through Restaurants. The City should prohibit new drive-through restaurants. Drive thru restaurants incentivize car personal vehicle use and are antithetical to the stated goals of improving the experience and safety of pedestrians in all commercial and residential corridors. This new suggested edit is in line with the City’s goals throughout the general plan.

3. M-2.17 Parking Management Strategy. Recommended identifying streets for removal of regular through-traffic, moving towards pedestrianization of city streets with a focus on fostering dining and entertainment corridors. To accomplish this goal, the City should remove barriers to the permanent opening of streets to pedestrians.

Currently, the City costs a permanent street opening (and closure to vehicles) by accounting for the following items:

1. Community engagement

2. Traffic analysis

3. CEQA

4. Design

5. Implementation

6. Parking meters
The city should streamline the process to designate and “open” new streets for use by pedestrians. On streets where intermittent or long term street closures have already occurred, the city should utilize existing data to save cost and speed up the process of permanent openings. Specifically, Item (6) above should no longer be factored into any cost related to the opening of a city street. On street parking is not a right of vehicle owners and instead prioritizes vehicle use over pedestrian use. Costs associated with Item (4) could be significantly reduced with a simple pre-approved street opening standard design. Removable bollards in combination with the footings necessary to secure them have already employed by the city on R Street and can be utilized in any additional location determined by the city without a long, arduous, and costly design study.

All available funds currently allocated towards the city’s Al Fresco dining program should be re-allocated to facilitate permanent pedestrian street openings. The city should prioritize the section of R Street between 13th & 15th and 20th Street between J & K. Each of these sections were fully open to pedestrians for over a year resulting in significant increases to business traffic and customer satisfaction. Simply put, if the city continues to place the burden on businesses to sponsor pedestrian street openings, the openings will not happen. Streets belong to the citizens of Sacramento, not vehicles.

Please direct staff to consider these revisions to the plan and thank you again for your hard work! Sam Rice
Steven Rosen
Location:

Submitted At: 5:19pm 08-07-23
Removing limits on units/acre and removing single-family-only zoning are good, but they are meaningless with the FAR limits and parking requirements.

The FAR limits in the neighborhoods with the best schools, the best access to jobs, and the best parks are too low and the parking requirements are too high.

What this means is that it might be nominally legal to build a duplex or a cottage court in these areas, but it will be impossible to design one that follows the FAR rules.

The low FAR rules in Land Park and East Sacramento are just single-family segregation zoning by other means.

Please direct your staff to stand up for the rest of us.

Their public engagement program reached thousands of residents, and the great majority said that we need more homes. Then, a tiny cabal of rich weirdos in these exclusive neighborhoods pulled strings to let segregation back into the General Plan through the back door.

Stand up for us. Direct staff to listen to the huge majority of people and rewrite the FAR rules and make a better future for our children and grandchildren.

Francesca Reitano
Location:

Submitted At: 3:49pm 08-07-23
I support the importance of Sacramento’s Urban Forest – in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the 2040 General Plan, and all the accompanying documents. I ask the Council and the staff to keep the importance of the Urban Forest at the forefront.

Three key elements must be highlighted and coordinated in these documents:

Justice – the City planning documents, policies, codes, and regulations must work toward equity in the Urban Forest across all neighborhoods.

Preservation – City planning documents, policies, codes, and design and zoning standards must guard the existing canopy which is endangered by climate change and development.

Canopy Growth – City Planning documents, policies, codes, and regulations must enhance the growth of canopy Citywide – in all developments, in all zones, in Smart Street planning, and in design standards and zoning standards.
richard harrison
Location:

Submitted At: 3:06pm 08-07-23
I support the importance of Sacramento’s Urban Forest – in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the 2040 General Plan, and all the accompanying documents. I ask the Council and the staff to keep the importance of the Urban Forest at the forefront.

Three key elements must be highlighted and coordinated in these documents:

Justice – the City planning documents, policies, codes, and regulations must work toward equity in the Urban Forest across all neighborhoods.

Preservation – City planning documents, policies, codes, and regulations must guard the existing Canopy which is endangered by climate change and development.

Jeffrey Lu
Location:

Submitted At: 3:00pm 08-07-23
Council/Mayor/Staff -- Thanks in advance for considering this comment.

There are many aspects of the General Plan that are worth commending. Thanks to staff for their effort. I would like to make a few comments to further improve the General Plan.

1. California and Sacramento are in a housing crisis. Homelessness, increased traffic, longer commutes, evictions -- these are all issues that ultimately stem from insufficient housing availability at reasonable price points across our state. While the GP takes steps to alleviate this by permitting higher densities in some areas, we need to do more to accommodate additional housing supply. In particular, areas adjacent to light rail lines and high frequency bus lines (Stockton Blvd, for example) should have allowable FARs of *at least* 4. This should apply to all neighborhoods of the city.

2. In general, new developments for housing, retail, and other amenities should be concentrated at or near high frequency transit and safe bike routes.

3. The city's plans for bicycling infrastructure sound good on paper but have often fallen short in practice due to funding and lack of attention to design details. The city should develop/improve street design standards so that all road repavings and related streetscape projects include bulb outs, daylighting, separated bike tracks, and high visibility crosswalks by default. Additionally, the city should develop baseline bike infrastructure standards to ensure that future bike projects are designed and constructed with a "user first" approach -- for example, gutters should not take up the majority of a bike lane and protective features should be more resilient than plastic posts.

4. Do not force folks to spend money building parking unless they deem it necessary. Mandating that valuable space must be allocated to storing cars does not support the city's carbon reduction and active transport goals, nor does it create a pleasant environment. Forcing parking also unnecessarily increases housing and development costs. Folks should be allowed to build parking if they want, but it should not be mandated.

Zoe HHarrison
Location:

Submitted At: 2:45pm 08-07-23
Sacramento residents need adequate parking near their homes. The idea of eliminating parking minimums completely ignores the reality of how most people live. Don't make it harder for Sacramentans who use (and will continue to use) vehicles as their chosen mode of transportation.

Ansel Lundberg
Location:

Submitted At: 10:56am 08-07-23
I am a District 7 resident and a board member with House Sacramento, a local pro-housing group in Sacramento.

I support the direction of the draft plan, but in order to achieve the goals outlined by council in 2021, we have three priority improvements we recommend to the General Plan:

1. Allow more homes near transit | Increase the FAR to 4.0 within a short walk of transit stops

2. Allow more homes in high opportunity areas | Increase FAR to 2.0 in our high and highest-resource neighborhoods to affirmatively further fair housing

3. Allow for a future with less parking | Eliminate Parking minimums - enable more space for homes and trees Council, please direct staff to incorporate these changes.

Jacob Solorio
Location:

Submitted At: 9:58am 08-07-23
Dear Mayor and Council,
My name is Jacob Solorio and I live in the Mansion Flats neighborhood of District 4. I'm super pumped about many of the proposed policies and ideas pushed forward by the draft, but as many others have pointed out there needs to be much more commitment in the draft's language in order to fulfill the ambitious goals being set for our city.

1. Many of the city's wealthiest, transit-rich, and high-opportunity neighborhoods such as Land Park and East Sacramento are being proposed to retain an FAR of 1.0 surrounding light rail stations. A minimum of FAR 4.0 should be put in place within a 1/2 mile of all transit stops, with no exceptions. The current proposal is highly unacceptable for instituting transit-oriented policies and development, especially considering that these neighborhoods would be the least likely to experience residential displacement and gentrification given their high- resource character. It's also important that we take these steps to increase the FAR in these areas of the city, because of the history of exclusionary zoning and redlining that has created these wealthy enclaves in the first place.

2. Prohibiting drive-thru restaurants would be a major step forward for traffic management and safety citywide, and would prevent the dangerous situations we often see on our streets where a drive-thru's line backs out onto the street and creates hazards for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists. Other cities in California such as San Luis Obispo have implemented similar policies, and this can absolutely work just as well in Sacramento.

3. There needs to be a much more specific and ambitious focus on roadway reallocations. Many major corridors such as J and Freeport are inexplicably absent from these reallocations, and the current proposals are vague in regards to street design, lane removals, and even the reasoning behind why some streets were chosen and not others.

Ben Raderstorf
Location:

Submitted At: 11:13pm 08-06-23
Dear Mayor and Council,
My name is Ben Raderstorf and I live in Mansion Flats, District 4. I am very excited about so many things in this draft, but I'm also really disappointed to see how the majority of the city's most transit-and-opportunity-rich areas are kept at the lowest-possible zoning, an FAR of 1.0. To correct this, I strongly support:

1. Revising the zoning maps to move the city's high-opportunity neighborhoods from the most restrictive FAR level to the *second* most restrictive of eight FAR levels (FAR 2.0). In my mind, this is a bare-minimum strategy to ensure that more diverse and accessible types of housing (duplexes, fourplexes, and sixplexes) can be feasibly built in the areas of the city with the best amenities, most tree cover, most parks, best schools, and least pollution.

After all, the only reason why these neighborhoods don't already have more diverse and affordable housing types already is in many cases the history and legacy of redlining and exclusionary zoning, which the city has a moral obligation to work to undo.

2. Moving areas within a 10 minute walk (1/2 mile) from high-quality transit stops (light rail) that are currently at the most restrictive FAR level to the *third* most restrictive of eight zoning levels (a FAR of 4.0). Allowing construction of ~four story apartment buildings next to light rail stops is hardly a radical proposal, and is instead may be one of the most forward-thinking and responsible things the city could do to reduce its carbon footprint.

This general plan update is a remarkable opportunity for Sacramento to fully embrace its status as *the most* innovative, sustainable, and forward-looking city in California, if not the entire West Coast. Failing to take this opportunity — especially if the assumption is that improvements can be made later — is a mistake. We know from a century of zoning errors that whatever benchmarks the city sets down today will become a standard for decades to come. Let's get this right the first time.

Don Gibson
Location:

Submitted At: 8:19pm 08-06-23
Dear Mayor and Council, I am Don Gibson, a resident of the River Oaks neighborhood in Sacramento Council District 3 and a member of the Active Transportation Commission, and I am writing on my own behalf.

The general plan update sets promoting goals such as increasing housing supply to address affordability and homelessness, a modal shift away from personal vehicles, and reducing emissions to meet our climate change needs. However, the details do not match the ambition of the goals. Below are suggestions to improve the GPU to ensure Sacramento is a place where people can safely walk and bike everywhere and families of all means can afford to live and work here.

1. Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station Access Improvements – Sidewalks & Lighting M1.12. Providing safe walking to and from light rail stations is critical for the modal shift planned in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and the 2040 GPU. However, multiple neighborhoods lack lighting or sidewalks within a short distance of the light rail station. Not having a sidewalk or streetlight prevents many community members from safely accessing a light rail station. Every transit user is at some point using active transportation via walking or biking. And to achieve the modal policy shift, prioritizing active transportation around light rail stations is paramount.

2. New South Natomas Bike Trail Connection to Railyards SN-M-3. I recommend changing this item to be specific to include the new language “When planning walking and bicycling improvements, the City shall prioritize opportunities to provide active transportation connections, which are not subject to regular flooding, across the American River to better connect South Natomas with Downtown and the regional bicycling network.” Currently, there are two bridges in the City of Sacramento, Pipe’s Bridge & Jibboom Street Bridge, connecting communities north of the American River and the center city. However, the bike trails leading to the bridges go through the American River Parkway or Discovery Park, which is regularly flooded during winter. The flood control measures cut off the biking trails for approximately 150,000 residents north of the American River from accessing the central city and vice versa. If the new bridge will be built it should be designed to ensure active transportation uses are not subject to flooding.

3. Prohibit New Drive-Through Restaurants - LUP-4.12 The current draft of the General Plan Update lists a policy goal to “prohibit new drive-through restaurants within ¼-mile walking distance of existing and proposed light rail stations and high frequency transit stops”. The policy item should go further and prohibit all new drive-through restaurants regardless of distance from transit. Drive-through restaurants increase auto dependency, use substantial space for idling cars, increase conflict points between vehicles against walkers and cyclists, and can be actively hostile toward those not in a car. Poorly designed drive-throughs lead to congestion on city streets outside the drive-throughs, making it unsafe to approach by walking or cycling.

4. Promote Permanent Open Streets Conversion. New item M3 “The city shall identify streets for removal of regular through traffic to work towards pedestrianization of city streets with a focus to be on streets in dining and entertainment corridors.” Pedestrianization of our streets can provide opportunities to reduce auto dependence, promote local businesses and grow communities. During the COVID pandemic, one of the silver linings was opening up streets to people by preventing regular through traffic. The Slow & Active Streets program from December 2020 to July 2021 was a positive step toward exploring making neighborhood streets safe for uses other than vehicles through travel. The program had the support of over 2-1 margin of the positive verse negative views of the program, with 60% reporting a positive opinion and 26% reporting a negative opinion. This is another example that Sacramento residents wanting pedestrian options that encourage walking and biking and provide refuge from Sacramento’s auto-oriented urban design.

5. Eliminate Parking Minimums, M-2.17 Parking Management Strategy. The city should eliminate parking minimums and institute parking minimums. The existing language here is too broad (i.e. “could”) and should be re-phased to align with the language adopted by council in 2021. "The City shall eliminate parking minimums and institute parking maximums. Large parts of Natomas are overbuilt with vast parking lots, making walking or biking to local businesses actively hostile. Furthermore, each parking spot can cost tens of thousands of dollars, driving up costs to businesses for parking spots that may never be used. By no longer requiring over-building of parking lots, we can promote a better walking experience and reduce the cost of building new homes and businesses.

6. Increase FAR in Areas with Transit and High Opportunity Neighborhoods. Increase the minimum FAR (floor area ratio) within a 10 minute walk (1/2 mile) of all high quality transit stops (light rail) to 4.0. In high opportunity neighborhoods a minimum FAR of 2.0. The above recommendations would have upzoning that would allow for additional FAR levels city-wide encouraging densification of the built environment. A denser built environment directly correlates to encouraging people to walk or bike by ensuring residents are closer to jobs and amenities.

Furthermore, allowing more housing will help alleviate our housing shortages to help return Sacramento to a community where everyone can afford a place to live.

Kevin Dumler
Location:

Submitted At: 6:23pm 08-06-23
Attached are comments from House Sacramento. We have three priority improvements to the General Plan:

1. Allow more homes near transit | Increase the FAR to 4.0 within a short walk of transit stops

2. Allow more homes in high opportunity areas | Increase FAR to 2.0 in our high and highest-resource neighborhoods to affirmatively further fair housing

3. Allow for a future with less parking | Eliminate Parking minimums - enable more space for homes and trees Please see the attached document for a more detailed discussion on these items Jessica Grass
Location:

Submitted At: 9:14pm 08-04-23
Hello Mayor and Council. My name is Jessica Grass. I live in the College Greens neighborhood of District 6. I believe that this plan still needs some revisions. _- Elimination of parking minimums and instituting parking maximums. _- Increasing FAR (to 2.0) in high opportunity areas and near transit. _- Continued dismantling of single family R1 zoning to allow for the building of mixed use and multifamily (missing middle) structures in established neighborhoods.

Jonathan Grass
Location:

Submitted At: 11:08am 08-04-23
Hello Mayor and Council. My name is Jonathan Grass. I live in the College Greens neighborhood of District 6. I believe that this plan still needs some revisions.
- Elimination of parking minimums and instituting parking maximums. - Increasing FAR (to 2.0) in high opportunity areas and near transit. - Continued dismantling of single family R1 zoning to allow for the building of mixed use and multifamily (missing middle) structures in established neighborhoods.

Investment in multimodal transportation as the priority over cars as well as removing roadblocks for our established neighborhoods to transform into denser and more walkable places will cut down on tailpipe emissions, increase the property tax base for the city and make our streets safer for all people. “An advanced city is not a place where the poor move about in cars, rather it’s where even the rich use public transportation”
_ Enrique Penalosa
Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Andi Bianchi
Location:

Submitted At: 9:35pm 08-07-23
Members of the Sacramento City Council,
I'm am writing to inform you of my support for the residents of the Alhambra and W St encampment in their effort to utilize public property, their right to exist, and to have self-determination, all things in accordance with your most recent ask of Howard Chan to come up with Safe Ground sites around Sacramento City. As witnessed by neighbors of this encampment, compliance has not been the goal, only tags of removal. This long term encampment has a long history of violent evictions, predicated on promises that we now know were already broken, with no follow up to those households who are over and over again never offered the real housing solutions to their crisis. Residents living outside across Sacramento deserve better from our city government, an end to violent displacement, and an investment in long term solutions.

I oppose the City’s current response of eviction threats, lack of viable services offered, as well as any escalations of harassment or enforcement resulting in violent sweeps that may be planned for the future. I am aware that the City is currently under a Temporary Restraining Order that prohibits the City from sweeping under these harsh weather conditions with nowhere for them to go. I DO NOT SUPPORT THE VIOLATION OF THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS OR THE CITY BREAKING THE LAW. Our tax dollars should not be used this way.

The City of Sacramento must listen to its people. Homelessness has nearly doubled in the past three years.

There is no housing, shelters are full, services are deeply inadequate, and the city’s answer continues to be unrelenting harassment and violent displacement through sweeps of the most vulnerable residents of this city – who are the victims of the policy choices that created this humanitarian crisis to begin with.

The Alhambra and W St. residents have been a part of this long term encampment that has been forced to move over and over again by the City’s sweeps policies and have been living at this location on and off for years. A community has been established – based in cooperation, self respect, and self-determination. Residents are here because they genuinely feel it is the safest option for them right now. Residents of the encampment and the greater Sacramento community work together to bring in necessities like food, water, clothing/bedding, sanitation supplies, harm reduction supplies, and other necessities. Do not interrupt this simply because the city does not prioritize or offer these kinds of services instead of enforcement and sweeps.

I demand that the city either engage the Alhambra and W St encampment on their terms, invest in the vital resources to support their needs, or leave them to their self determined survival strategies that are being supported by them and this community.

In Solidarity,
Andi Bianchi
Date: August 8,2023

To: Sacramento City Councilmembers and Staff
City of Sacramento

Subject: Comments, 8/8/2023 Agenda Item 17, 2040 General Plan Update (GPU)

Councilmembers,

As the founding president of the North Natomas Community Coalition (NNCC) and a former River Oaks Community Association (ROCA) board member in South Natomas, I have been involved closely with project developments in the Natomas Basin. Based on my 23+ years of Natomas community involvement, I submit these comments on the City’s 2040 General Plan update:

• Given the climate crisis, all references to development outside the Urban Services Boundary (USB) need to be deleted. It defeats the climate plan to even consider expanding the USB when hundreds of vacant acres exist in Natomas and other city areas. With almost no public transit in Natomas, adding more housing outside the Natomas USB will only choke us in traffic congestion & air pollution. And why risk allowing more housing in a dangerous flood plain that’s also under airline flight paths?
o Expansion should not be even considered until there are enough police and other support services to serve our existing neighborhoods. • The “North Natomas Community Plan” (NNCP) GPU section 11-NN-1 is missing many important community elements, issues and needs. I request Staff work with the NNCC and other NN groups to improve this “plan” so it can adequately replace the existing 50-page NNCP, which was adopted in 1993:
o Unlike most city communities, Natomas is still growing and has many acres of undeveloped land. We need a clear plan to guide future growth. o Some examples of missing items: the NNCP development vision & references to past NNCP’s; discussion of current partial buildout status; issues such as the major disconnection of East and West Natomas by I-5, identification of missing bikeway segments & unbuilt bikeway overcrossings, alternatives for a towncenter that didn’t happen; discussion of both the NN Finance Plan, and how all governing plans listed at end of 11-NN work together.
• Sec 11-NN also needs to acknowledge that light rail construction is decades away then address the resulting impacts/needs. Many Natomas land areas are zoned high density TOD (Transit-Oriented-Development) because of the light rail line. What happens when all this high-density housing is built and there’s no light rail? Map ERC-4 predicts NN will be a high heat zone. We need a real mitigation plan for build-out occurring without the light rail green line. o One mitigation can be to accelerate building active transportation amenities that make it truly safe to bike commute. Natomas is flat. E-bikes are cheaper than cars. Build our NN bike/ped freeway overpasses.

Connect the bikeway segments SAFELY and people will use them. • Future Noise Contour Map ERC-6 needs to be updated to show Elkhorn Blvd on the northern city limits is a high-traffic, high noise area that has become the de- facto east-west, cross-county corridor to the airport from Roseville & Placer. Traffic & noise will be even higher once the Elkhorn Blvd connection to the airport is soon completed by the county. Noise mitigations are needed now for Elkhorn Blvd.

There are other comments but my time is limited.

If you, our Sacramento City council, are truly concerned about mitigating Climate Change, you will hold firm against “sprawl” and expanding the Urban Services Boundary in to valuable Agricultural land that sequesters carbon, cools temperatures and preserves animal habitats. And you will also request Staff to establish a more realistic NNCP plan for the @ 90,000+ people who live in Natomas.

Sincerely,

Chris Paros
North Natomas resident
NNCC member and founding president

From:

Maggie Coulter <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 7, 2023 4:46 PM
To: Eric Guerra <[email protected]>; Mayor Steinberg <[email protected]>; Sac 2040 Gpu <[email protected]> Cc: Rene V Macleay Santiago <[email protected]>; Madeline Grigsby <[email protected]>; 'Francesca Reitano' <[email protected]> Subject: Sacramento City Council meeting, August 8, item 17 I agree with the comments below and am submitting those as my comments also.

Thank you.

Maggie Coulter
Dear Mayor Steinberg, Councilmember Guerra and coordinator for GPU 2040 comments.

I support the importance of Sacramento’s Urban Forest – in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the 2040 General Plan, and all the accompanying documents.

I ask the Council and the staff to keep the
importance of the Urban Forest at the forefront.

Three key elements must be highlighted and coordinated in these documents:

Justice – the City planning documents, policies, codes, goals, and regulations must work toward equity in the Urban Forest across all neighborhoods.

Preservation – City planning documents, policies, codes, and design and zoning standards must guard the existing canopy which is endangered by climate change and development.

So far GPU 2040 appears to be inadequate in this regard. I have entered more detailed comments in the self-guided workshop at various points in the GPU and will be doing the same for the CAAP. (I have also sent input letters regarding past CAAP drafts as a private citizen and as a member of Trees4Sacramento.)
For example, merely "encouraging" developers to preserve existing canopy trees is not going to be effective. Approximately 80% of the city's trees canopy is on private property, much of it in back and front yards in residential neighborhoods slated for upzoning in the Housing Element and other GPU 2040 goals and policies. The concept of monitoring the ENTIRE tree canopy - not just city trees - and assessing what percentage of our existing canopy trees are on residential private property, and where those trees are, is missing from the 2018 Davey report and is a missing concept in GP 2040. How can the city produce a real Urban Forest Master Plan without this data? And how can we preserve our canopy moving forward?
Limiting the size of structures is also important, as that will leave green permeable space and room to preserve existing trees and to make future tree plantings. We cannot grow our canopy if there is nowhere to plant trees.

We must not allow projects individually and independently review and approved "by right," especially with ministerial review, to "cluster," creating new urban heat islands due to the removal of trees and the creation of hardscape. This must be considered and the issue dealt with. Approving projects individually, in a vacuum, is not a comprehensive approach.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Francesca Reitano
Elmhurst Neighborhood
Sacramento
Dear Membersof theSacramentoCityCouncil &PlanningStaff, We are pleased the 2040 General Plan Update is progressing, and we greatly appreciate theCity’s efforts to streamline approval processes and increase the City’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR).We believe the General Plan Update will continue to promote infill housing in Sacramento’surban coreat atimewhenour cityandStatedesperatelyneedit.

However, there is a critical aspect of the2035General Planmissingfromthe2040General Plan– specifically section LU 1.1.10 which reads, “The City may allownewdevelopment to exceedthe maximum allowed FAR or density if it is determined that the project provides a significantcommunity benefit.” This clause in the 2035 General Plan has been a critical component of thehousing boom we have seen in Sacramento’s urban core. Noteworthy projects such as theMansion Inn, 1500 SSt., 17 Central, The Grace, TheCascade, 1220HSt, 19Jandothershaveprovided, or propose to provide, material community benefits in exchange for exceeding theFAR, resultinginhundredsof additional housingunitsinour MidtownandDowntowncore.

We request Staff include this clause into the new General Plan. Staff has proven its ability toeffectively regulatedevelopment projectsutilizingthesignificant communitybenefitsclause. Staffwas in fact granted a 2021 Award for Excellence by the American Planning AssociationCalifornia Chapter, and is frequentlyrecognizedasaleader inCalifornia’sPlanningDepartmentcommunity. Planning Staff have made effective use of this clause in the past and we believetheywill continue todoso.

Without this community benefits clause there would not be a historical exhibit at the newMansion Inn building to celebrate the history of the former hotel and its relationship to theGovernor's Mansion; 19J would not be 11 stories of high-density studios along a major retailcorridor providing attainable housing units; contributions to the local art scene as well ascreative approaches to sustainability like 17 Central's vertical gardensmaynot bepart of futureprojects.

One of Sacramento’scorecompetitiveadvantagesstemsfromitsampleurbaninfill developmentpotential, and, unlike theBayArea, apro-housingapproachtoinfill development. Webelievethecommunity benefits clause is a fundamental tool that will continuethevibrant growthwehaveallseeninour urbancore. Thankyoufor consideringour request.

Sincerely,
MikeHeller - Heller PacificBayMiry- BardisandMiryDevelopmentMarisaKoloktronis- SKKDevelopmentSaraLebastchi - D&SDevelopmentTyler Girimonte- Sutter CapitalBret Bair - Midtown/DowntownBusinessOwnerSimondeVereWhite- Midtown/DowntownBusinessOwnerDaniel Parrella- GatewayDevelopment Company JohnVignocchi - UrbanCapitalChrisGarner - UrbanCapitalDougBuzbee- DBREConsultingTaylor Greer - CarlileRealtyandLendingWesleySagewalker - GatewayDevelopment Company From: Mindy Cuppy
To: Agenda
Subject: FW: 8/8/23 item #17 - Additional comments on South Natomas and Northgate in General Plan Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 3:01:09 PM

From: Heather Fargo <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Mindy Cuppy <[email protected]>; Karina Talamantes <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Doug and Jenn Snell <[email protected]>; Marbella Sala <[email protected]>; Z Wayne Johnson <[email protected]>; sharon jennings <[email protected]>; Eduardo Madrid Moreno <[email protected]>; Scott Brennand <[email protected]> Subject: 8/8/23 item #17 - Additional comments on South Natomas and Northgate in General Plan

Attached are my comments on the 2 pages of policies related to the the SN community plan. I had already made comments in the e-comment section of item 17 regarding Natomas in general and the Natomas Basin Conservancy and it would not let me make additional comments regarding the South Natomas Community Plan. Please add these to the record of the meeting.

First of all, thank you for acknowledgement of Northgate Blvd. and South Natomas.

I support keeping the focus on infill and not development of the remaining farmlands. I'd like the city to hold the line on the city limits around Natomas and reject the developments proposed by the county in the Natomas habitat area. Here are specific comments and corrections needed to the South Natomas Community Plan within the General Plan:

I support SN-LUP 1 and 2

Drop SN-LUP 3. It’s too late for this policy, unless you want to demolish the existing community along Truxel, including our High School, apartments, home and commercial centers. The only remaining open space is reserved for light rails, west of Truxel and north of San Juan.

SN-ED-1 - add SN Library, and local non-profits such as Stanford Settlement and Greenhouse.

SN-M-1 - Add San Juan Road and West El Camino, as they connect to Truxel and Northgate.

SN-M-2 change title from ARP Connections to ARP Crossings, since getting across the ARP is not getting us access to the river

SN-YPRO-3 - drop “more frequent crossings’ to improve access to the ARP by improving access at the Discovery Park entrance off Garden Highway; and improving access to the ARP from Northgate Blvd through Camp Pollock, improving safety at the Gateway Oaks crossing and Orchard Lane. Any additional crossings not at a traffic signal or from an existing road will be unsafe.

SN-YPRO-4 - see above

SN-YPRO-5 - Add RD 1000, and replace SNIA with SN community groups

ADD SN - YPRO-6 - city should develop the former AF site on the GH to public recreation use

Under SN Community Plan - add the rest of the related documents including the Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan, plans for Northgate Blvd, etc.

Thank you, Heather Fargo

Sacramento City CouncilAugust 8, 2023

Sacramento City Council
August 8, 2023