Good afternoon everyone. The Sacramento City Council will please come to order with the clerk

call the roll please to establish a quorum. Thank you council member Kaplan.

Council member Tao, Mayor Prattem Talamontes, Council member Vones Weila, Vice Mayor Maple,

Council member Getta, Council member Jennings, Council member Vang and Mayor Steinberg.

I am here good afternoon again. Council member Tao, would you please lead us in the land

acknowledgement in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments and honor of Sacramento's indigenous people

and tribal lands to the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern

Maidu Valley and Plains Mewak put one win two peoples and the peoples of Wilton, Rancheria,

Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor the native

people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing

to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's

indigenous people's history, contributions and lives. Please remain standing for the Pledge

of Allegiance.

Thank you Council member Tao. Again a very good afternoon. Sorry we're a few minutes late.

We went a little late in the afternoon and then had an important closed session. We appreciate

your patience. We want to begin tonight with a special presentation led by my colleagues,

Council members Getta and Mayor Pro Temtolomontis and I'm happy to be a part of it as well,

recognizing Hispanic heritage month. Please.

Thank you very much Mayor. It's my pleasure to be here today in recognizing Hispanic Heritage

Month here at the City of Sacramento, a national holiday. A little bit of history here about

how it was created at first started in 1968 by between Lyndon Johnson at the time also

the area of Richard Nixon. When many Latinos, primarily many Mexican Americans who fought

in the war were coming back and were not being recognized for the work that they had done

and the fight that they had done for their country. Later was enacted by Congress and Ronald

Reagan as president into an actual week and then following month to expand it to what we

have now today, which is a month celebration and focused around the independence days of many

of the Latin American and Central American states. Obviously we just celebrated yesterday

Mexican Independence Day and also in this first coming weeks we have the independence day

of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua. But I wanted to focus a little bit

about the independence of Mexico, which Sacramento first started off and it is the only place

in the country where a local government raises the state government, entity raises the Mexican

flag at Setters Fort. And what's important about that was that the independence of Mexico

was one of the first acts of abolishing slavery. And the reason why they pushed so hard to move

away from the crown at the time of Father Ida el Go, Maria Morelos, and then later president Guerrero,

all recognized both an indigenous, someone who had African descent, and someone with crew who

was a crew all recognized that the independence of and the humanity of individuals and also

interestingly for Maria Morelos from Michoacán, the fight for economic prosperity for every

individual. So we celebrate this today and recognize all the contributions that we have,

you know, even before, you know, the 14th Amendment in the United States, this actually started

the act of recognizing the individual humanity in Mexico. And today to accept the resolution

on behalf of all the contributions of our Latino, Medicanos here in the city of Sacramento,

we have Kathy Rodriguez, president of the Hispanic Chamber. Let's give her a big round of applause.

As well as our new guest, Consul General of Mexico,

Cristiano Natoi Gonzales, give him a big round of applause.

So Carlos Canadea. So with that, let me pass it over to my fellow paisana and Michoacán,

and for those from Michoacán, Purupurepacha, you know, our proud indigenous history in Michoacán,

maybe pass it over here to Karina, Council Member Karina Talemantes.

Thank you, Eric. I am Mexican-American, I'm first generation, and my parents came here from

San Catecas, Mexico. And so they came here for opportunity, for the American dream. And every

single day that I serve as Council Member, I'm reminded of what was possible for my parents,

for my community, and what I represent as a Latina serving with English as a second language,

coming from a foreign worker family, and just the struggles that my parents had to go through

to get us here. And my story is like thousands and thousands and thousands of other stories

across California and across our country. So Hispanic Heritage Month, like Eric said,

is not just celebrating the Mexico's independence, but a lot of Central America. And it's still

celebrating our culture, our language, our history, our food, which is amazing. Our music, our

art, and just all the individuals that have talent in Sacramento, that Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

highlights our small businesses, Candia with our music, and just everybody that, Christian,

that makes that highlights our culture, and does it greet throughout the capital where they wave

the Mexican flag from the capital steps. And let me tell you, it was a beautiful, beautiful,

powerful moment that I got to witness this past Sunday. And it's the incredible people that

do the work day in and day out that make this month even just more special. So this month,

I invite you to celebrate our culture and to go try something new. And if you're looking for

something to eat, to come to Northgate and come try our tacos and our popus-as and everything else,

because I think we have a better food than Franklin, not just kidding. I'm just kidding.

And the spirit, I'm just kidding. But in the spirit of unity, it's honor to serve with my

colleague, Council Member Gera. It is an honor and a serve of my Council Member Gera.

And thank you so much. I call for the elimination of all city council districts.

One city. It's all great. All beautiful parts of the city.

I love it. That's good. Let me go ahead.

No, so I just, I love the spirit. And you know, the back and forth, I think, is an

acknowledgement that there are so many parts of our city that are rich in culture and the Hispanic

heritage. And to me, this recognition tonight is about celebrating our great cultural diversity

in our Hispanic community, but it's also about power. It is. It's about how these communities

have taken their rightful place in the leadership of not only Sacramento, but our country

over the course of long history and overcoming some significant discrimination.

One of my favorite days of the last years was last week with La Familia at the Opportunity Center.

Another great expression of how the Hispanic community here is becoming the rightful force and

insisting that people and neighbors and communities that have been too often left behind are seen

and are uplifted and are celebrated. And that, to me, makes me so proud and happy about

where Sacramento was headed. An ambassador? We're so glad to have you here in Sacramento.

And you actually, you gave me my Spanish name here as you know,

mayamaacalday.io Steinberg.

Thank you for all. Why don't we present this beautiful resolution? I don't usually read these

because they're, you know, they speak for themselves, but this is about pride.

It's about culture. It's about celebration. It's about family. And it's about the rightful

power that this community has in Sacramento. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I think we're going to bring

up a Kathy Rodriguez. We're going to bring up Kathy Rodriguez. Come on out here. Come on.

And then after that, our council general and the council general, but Kathy,

you just have led so well for so long and love it that you're here. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm excited that you're so excited to give the resolution that you were ready to do.

I'm ready to. I know. Well, you guys, so you know, my name is Kathy Rodriguez-Sagiri. I'm

the president and CEO for the Sacramento Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. And I love Hispanic

Heritage Month because to quote my shero, which probably is never half-intering city council members,

but J.Lo says, let's get loud. I love to talk about, we just had last week's state of Hispanics,

and people got to see across the stage the leadership that we have across our colleges.

We have so many college presidents across our region, our elected officials across the region.

We had six cities represented where we have elected officials of Latino descent.

Had someone tell me 20 years ago that was unheard of. Now, it's completely possible.

Well, my goddodgers look ahead. They're going to be able to see that they're able to sit where

you're sitting right now. I think that's powerful. When we look at our businesses, they're growing.

We are just launched last week, our vendor cart Rainbow cart pilot program.

We had 15 businesses come who wanted to know like, how do I get my license? How am I going to get

compliant? What do I need to do? We've seen people go from vendor cart to brick and mortar to next

building to owning their building. Another business just by their building two weeks ago.

Every day, we're seeing the economic contributions of the Latino community. We're seeing the

contributions and economics. We're seeing them in culture. We're seeing them in civic engagement.

And so what I see here in Sacramento is us leading the way and being able in our growth that we see.

So I'm very excited about that. And I hope that everyone here joins me when I say this is a time

as a community. We've often been told that we're really hardworking. We're resilient.

Keep our heads to the ground. But I want to change that. And like I said, it's time that we get loud.

So that I'm supposed to introduce the council general to come up here.

Who I know for that agrees with me.

Thank you so much. Many thanks. Dear amigo, Mayor Durril Stemberg,

May dear amigo amigos, council members, consejales de distrito.

I really believe the importance of visibility, the importance of pride, right?

I'm proud of the LGBTQ plus community.

And that as a vulnerable part of a vulnerable group, a part of a minority group, I really have

understand the power of what visibility means.

And as a Latinas of Mexican, I know that considering that there's 12 million Mexicans living

just in California, and 15 million of Latinos in general from all parts of Central America

and South America, we are not a minority anymore.

We are part of this big community and this beautiful sanctuary state, California, and

this sanctuary city, Sacramento.

And in this regard, we appreciate the work that you do, the work that not just Latino leaders,

but some other leaders that not necessarily are Latino, they're allies to our community.

And we are thankful for that.

And we want to recognize as well that.

And we need more allies because this is moment of unity.

There's coming a lot of hate speech against migrants, there will come a lot of anti-migrant

narratives.

And this is the moment to show that we are a community, that we are familiar, that we are

together, that we demand more respect, that we demand tolerance, that we demand visibility.

Right now Mexico will have the first female president, not just in Mexico, in the region

of North America, Mexico, Canada and the United States.

And we need more women leaders, we need more Latino leaders, we need more LGBTQ plus leaders

because it's about visibility.

It's about representation.

And in this regard, this month we celebrate this Hispanic Heritage Month with three M's,

M of migrants because we are more than 50 million people living here in this state, in this

state of California.

And almost 400,000 of Latinos living just in Sacramento.

We celebrate with M of minorities.

Again, LGBTQ indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities.

We demand as minorities that we need more visibility and the equitable of human rights and civil

rights.

And M of course, of Mexico.

Because as a proud Mexican, we really believe in the importance of our cooperation and

the bilateral friendship that Mexico, California, and Mexico, Sacramento we have.

And in this regard, again, on behalf of the government of Mexico, on behalf of the Consulate

of Mexico that we live in, Natomas area, and thank you very much Lisa Kaplan and all the

council members that we have received your help in many ways.

Thank you so much.

We celebrate this month in a very special location.

And in this regard, if you help me, my dear friends, Viva Sacramento.

Viva Latino, Latinas, Chicanos y Chicanas.

Yo soy Viva.

And Viva Mexico.

Thank you so much.

I think that, oh please.

Yes.

I promise you, I'm the best part.

I'm kidding.

Hello everybody.

My name is Carlos Candia.

I'm from Colombia.

Proud that a proud father of Salome Candia, actually the voice of Cochamelon, Nina's

family is the first Spanish character on Cochamelon.

I'm very proud of that.

Also the founder of Candia Entertainment, one of the entertainment Latino companies in

the city.

I'm proudly honored to be recognized as a Latino change maker here in Sacramento.

This recognition holds in men's significance for me.

And it reflects a decade of dedication to empowering our Latino community through the transformation

power of music and entertainment.

Also my English is not very good looking.

I'm doing my best.

Over the past 10 years, my wife and I, through Candia Entertainment, have worked tirelessly

to create a space that unite community, fostering vibrant, healthy environments through Latino

culture and entertainment.

We have witnessed the remarkable growth of our community and it feels us with pride.

As a performance artist teacher, I've seen firsthand the impact that arts education

can have on young lives.

With our new nonprofit, Candia World Beat, we are committed to expanding performing arts

programs in the school districts, nurturing local talent and promoting cultural enrichment.

I'm excited to continue collaborating with the city and I'm deeply grateful for the ongoing

support that makes our work possible, being a part of this community and contributing

to its growth and it's a true honor.

Thank you everybody for the recognition, for reconnecting our effort and supporting

our vision that brings us all together.

Thank you very much.

And now you can cue this song.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Craig hello

you're gonna sing with me

my

the

rock

I'm going to go out and do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

I'm going to do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mayor Picham.

Tell her to take her back.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

This is an toothbrush.

This is anlee.

I've been on of...

Hmm?

No?

Oh, it's an empty stomach.

And Mayor, while you get to your desk, I'll give two quotes of Father Miguel Ilegal

that led the independence.

I'll do one in English and one in Spanish.

I'll do the one in Spanish one because it's easy to understand.

That's Viva Lendipendencia and Viva La América.

The second one with I think would be appropriate for now is action must be taken at once so there's

no time to be lost.

The quote to La América.

Mayor, just a quick look.

I think we've got something maybe a little off agenda.

You got a point of privilege, don't you?

Councilor McCablin.

I'm going to make a point of privilege because this is a great night for celebrating.

I think we should give you that point of privilege.

What am I going to be surprised celebrate?

So I would like to recognize Ryan Moore for being awarded the American Public Works Association.

Public Tom Taylor.

Leader of the Year Award.

And I just want to say this is its 65th year and this award is one of the American Public Works

Association's highest honors and is based on a lifetime of professional excellence and

recipients of the awards are chosen by the past top 10 recipients and embodied professionalism

expertise, personal dedication to improving the quality of life in their communities through

the advancement of public work services and technology.

He got this award last week.

He did not know I was doing this and that's why you were sitting in the City Manager's

chair today because he wanted to award you.

I should note that this is not the American Public Works Association Sacramento.

This is national.

He's top 10 across the country and over and above the accolades that Councilmember Kaplan

just lavished on him.

Most importantly his staff really respect him.

He's just a phenomenal leader for our city.

We're so lucky to have you Ryan.

You got to take it all in.

I'm going to record this.

Oh, it is being recorded.

Send it to your wife and it's a nice surprise.

But thank you Councilmember Kaplan.

I appreciate you doing that.

He did not.

He did not.

He did not.

He did not.

Speech, speech, please.

Unfortunately due to the budget crisis we had to fire our speech writers.

I'm a little unprepared.

Thank you so much for the recognition Councilmember Kaplan and everybody else.

But I'll say the same thing that I've been saying about this.

It's really a team act and everything I've done in my career I've done with the support

of the Public Works community around me.

Both here it's a city and around the community.

It's been a great, great ride.

I've enjoyed working with this team for almost 20 years now.

So I'm humbled by the opportunity every day.

I get to work with this fantastic group of people.

They show their worth on ease days and hard days like whether it's traffic safety issues

or trees falling in storms or buying new electric vehicles.

They're experts at everything and it's been my great pleasure to get to work with them.

And you all, thank you guys very much.

I'm going to put a lock my door now.

And it's a recognition.

And the national recognition is a huge success.

Ryan is there anyone in the audience that you like to talk to?

I do.

I see a few sneaky enlopers.

My family's there.

My wife, my kids, thank you for coming down.

Wow.

How do you partner here?

I mean, just to say, national recognition is something really special and it not only

speaks so well of you, Ryan, as a leader, it speaks well for the city of Sacramento and

you, Mr. City Manager.

So thank you.

This is something to really celebrate.

Thank you, Council Member Capone.

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No one can figure out what to do.

How do you like leaving the cookies?

Leave the cookies.

Leave the cookies.

I got it.

I got it.

Sure.

Wow.

Great job.

Okay.

What a great way to start our evening.

We also have a lot of business tonight.

Important decisions to make on a couple of key policy issues.

So let's get right to it.

Let's begin with the consent calendar.

Are there any items that members would like discussed separately or voted on separately,

Council Member Gettah?

Mayor, I'd like to discuss item number two.

Just comment.

Comment, okay.

Very good.

Anybody else?

No.

Do we have public testimony?

No speakers on the consent calendar.

No speakers.

Take a motion, please.

I'll move for it.

Moved and seconded.

Council Member Capone and Valenzuela.

Council Member Gettah and item three.

Very briefly.

We talked about this last time with the volunteers of America, but this is the next allocation

of the anti-displacement program as part of the Aggie Square settlement.

Again, I wanted to thank everyone involved, particularly all the working families of AFSCME

who work at the UC Davis campus who help negotiate this.

And Mayor Steinberg, who helped to ask me at that final negotiation to get this direct

resources to help anti-displacement.

That with that.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

You too.

It's, can't stop talking enough about this as a model for our city.

Thank you.

Good, good.

All in favor of the consent calendar, please say aye.

Aye.

I opposed abstain.

The ayes have it.

We now move right to the public hearings, which we have three tonight.

Let's begin with the Delta Shores measure, the East Phase development.

Who is presenting on this one?

Council members, I don't have a song prepared, but I do bring housing and Delta Shores.

All right, so my name is Angel Angiano, your associate planner with the community development

department.

Before you today is a request to amend and augment the Delta Shores plan unit development

originally improved in 2009 by the Sacramento City Council.

The requested changes include an amendment to the Delta Shores development agreement, a

three zone updates to the Delta Shores POD guidelines schematic plan.

And the large lot tentative map to so divide approximately 30.52 acres into three lots to

facilitate future parcels for residential development, a community park, and sewer lift

station and site plan and design review of the tentative map.

On August 8th, 2024, the planning and design commission voted to forward motion to the

Sacramento City Council to approve the proposed project.

Staff is recommending approval of the proposed application based on the findings of fact

and subject to the attached conditions of approval.

The proposed amendments and adoption of the large lot tentative map are consistent with

the general plan and will facilitate a mix of residential housing options while also encouraging

walking and biking.

This concludes my presentation.

Staff is available to answer any questions and the applicant is also here to make a brief

statement.

Thank you.

We will hear from the applicant and then we will hear from the members, the public and

the members.

Excuse me.

Those speakers.

Mr. Thatch.

Good evening, Mayor.

Members of the City Council, Gregory Thatch.

It's my privilege to be here in front of you tonight.

Once again, representing our long-guire and MNH Realty Partners, the master developers

for Delta Shores.

The staff is indicated to actually introduce Baron Cara Knight who is in the audience and

a great client to work with on this project.

This was approved in 2009 and much has been accomplished since 2009.

An interchange has been built to the extension of Consuminus River Boulevard, significant

infrastructure with millions of dollars in the ground, construction of over 1 million

square feet of retail in a regional shopping center and home building is finally well underway.

We have before you tonight a series of kind of a sorgasbord of items that are just cleanup

items, the test of time, the experience in the market, dictate certain changes be made.

None of these are major in character.

Mayor, I will spare you the detail of each one of those unless there are questions I would

encourage you to adopt this matter and allow this project to continue to move forward.

Okay, let us, we don't have any public testimony.

We're going to turn it over to the members.

Who wants to go first?

Council Member Vanguim and Jennings.

Thanks, Mayor.

And I'll open this public hearing as well.

Do we close it after we say something?

Yeah, you can open and close it.

Okay, I'll open and close and just make a few comments.

I really just want to take this moment to think the previous council members that have

represented this area, council member coach Jennings who have been helping to move this

project along.

But now it is officially in district gave, I really just want to take time to think city

staff, Mr. Thatch and Marlone as well for all the great work that they have been doing

to really develop the Delta Shores area.

I had a moment to also speak with them as well and just really excited for all the development

that's happening in South Sacramento.

So just really want to say thank you for working closely with staff and addressing

any of the concerns that my office had.

And that's pretty much it, but we're excited to get this project started.

So, but that'll hand it over to coach Jennings.

Coach?

Okay, so we're opening and closing the public hearing that requires a second, I'll second

that.

But we are in complete agreement as far as the things that need to be cleaned up.

That's a great thatch is done an incredible job of giving us great update and keeping

us aligned with everything that's going on there.

And I just want to let the public know that half of my money goes to Delta Shores every

single month.

It's an incredible opportunity if you haven't been there.

We encourage you to go visit.

And all the things that are small in nature that we needed to change are going to continue

to allow Delta Shores to be big as far as a retail and as far as residential home ownership.

And so I encourage you to come out and take a look.

We have a wonderful theater.

We have great eating places.

We have wonderful retail.

It's just an incredible place.

So I want you to come on out and do some shopping and Delta Shores.

So thank you very much, Mr. Thatch.

Sure is a great place.

Yeah.

Something to do for everybody.

Everything, Congressman Getta?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

First I just wanted to recognize and thank again, Mr. Thatch and his client for the looking

at this project since 2009 and how it's evolved and the recent changes.

Also take a look at what our current needs are and the fact that they've looked at how

there is a better way to get more units.

And yes, there are some traditional single family homes, but the fact that they look at

how they can best maximize the multi-family housing units at different sizes and levels

and increasing the overall number of units in that I think is commendable.

And also walking through very, very, very, very, let's just leave with me all of the different

bike paths that are going to be in there.

And the number of class one paved bike paths so that it also links in with the Del Rio

Trail.

That is a significant investment for the city of Sacramento.

So even though I-5 separates a big chunk of this, there's a clear connection to a number

of the trails in that connection network.

So with that, Gladys Ford side of the great project.

Thank you.

A motion and a second.

Public hearing has been open and closed.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

No one abstain.

It passes unanimously.

Thank you as well to the city planning staff.

Great job, everybody.

Is this short?

Means you've done a pretty good job.

All right.

This one might take a little bit longer.

Item 14.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the city council.

I am new and new in long range planning.

After three years of outreach and collaborative work with the community, staff is pleased to

present to you the missing middle housing interim ordinance.

Regardless of the outcome tonight, this is a big night.

With council's adoption of this evening, the city of Sacramento will be the first in California

to allow missing middle housing in all neighborhoods.

And we'll have arguably the most permissive housing policy in the nation.

I'll start with a few slides to provide a recap of the effort, then cover the main components

of the ordinance, the recommendations from the planning and design commission and from

staff respectively, and then I'll wrap up with the next steps.

As one of the general plan's key city policies adopted earlier this year, the missing middle

housing strategy has been the subject of an intensive three year study.

This study identified zoning changes needed for the city to thoughtfully allow a greater

array of housing types in our traditional single unit neighborhoods as shown on this map.

Over the course of the last few years, residents have expressed their parties, including ensuring

feasibility for builders and attainability for residents, making sure to leave enough

outdoor space for shatries and the enjoyment of new residents, and ensuring compatibility

with the size and scale of our existing neighborhoods.

The development of this ordinance was shaped by the collective voices of community members

over the last few years, and it strives to find a balance among these competing parties.

Last November, city council directed staff to revise the proposed general plan to ensure

that a maximum floor area ratio or effort for short of at least two is allowed in areas

within a half mile walking distance of high quality transit.

The city council also directed staff to proceed with an approach that regulates the building

form through floor area ratio, and development standards found in the planning and development

code or title 17, including setback, height, and control requirements.

Both directors from council are reflected in the recently adopted 2040 general plan,

and the interim ordinance before you today.

This un-cottified ordinance will allow by-right neighborhood scale duplex and multi-unit

dwellings, as well as small lot development in the R1, R1A, R1B, and R2 zones, the city's

single unit and duplex dwelling zones.

Other zones commonly found along corridors and city centers already allow higher intensity

housing by-right, including many of the multi-unit dwelling mixed use and commercial zones.

Back in May, staff shared a draft ordinance framework outlining the various components,

addressing key community priorities.

Staff received feedback that the built form standards, particularly setback, lock coverage

and bokeh control, were potentially limiting the economic feasibility of larger missing middle

housing projects of six or more units, especially on smaller locks.

Based on this input and further analysis, several revisions were made to the framework and

shared with the community in June.

Most of these revisions highlighted in the red text focused specifically on sites within

a half mile walking distance of transit, where the general plan allows for increased development

intensity, indicated by a maximum FAR of two or more.

Staff believes that these revisions adequately resolve concerns related to economic feasibility,

consistent with the study's feasibility analysis.

Most of the provisions have not changed from May, from the May framework, so in effort

to keep the presentation concise, I will focus on what did change within the three components

of this ordinance.

Starting with the built form, this component is intended to ensure a human scale design

that is compatible with the neighborhood context.

Housing types larger in size are currently allowed in the city's multi-unit dwelling,

commercial and mixed use zones, which are often found near the urban core and along commercial

corridors.

As shown in yellow text, since May, lock coverage has been removed from the ordinance, increasing

flexibility and significantly reducing complexity.

Additionally, the setback and vocal control standards have been relaxed in areas where the

general plan allows a maximum FAR of two, which indicates proximity to transit, relaxing

these two standards were intended to allow more variety of housing types, such as six plexus

or eight plexus near transit.

After the 2040 general plan, FAR has replaced maximum density limits as the standard used

to regulate development intensity.

As a ratio or percentage, FAR is an effective tool to regulate the total building square

footage that is allowed, proportional to the size of the lot.

To clarify, it is not a tool that regulates the form or appearance of a building.

FAR is further restricted by the sliding FAR scale, which limits how big a single unit

dwelling can be, and grants increments of additional floor area as more units are proposed

on site.

This is a tool that incentivizes the construction of more units.

The existing height limit of 35 feet will continue to apply.

The key revision to highlight here is the removal of lock coverage, which has been replaced

by setback and open space requirements designed to work together to ensure that adequate outdoor

space for people and trees are provided on site.

This slide shows the required setbacks and effort of one areas, which covers the majority

of the city's neighborhoods.

These requirements remain unchanged from the previous framework.

The key thing I'd like to highlight here is that the proposed setback requirements in

areas of FAR have been more or less carried over from existing code requirements, with

the exception of the allowed building projection in the front and street side setbacks, which

allows the building to project into the street facing setbacks if a front porch meeting

the city's criteria is provided.

This slide highlights the reductions that were made to the setback requirements in FAR

of two areas to allow more buildable area near transit.

The street side setback has been reduced to five feet from 12 and a half feet.

The rear setback has been reduced to 10 feet from 15 feet, and the front setback can

now be 12 and a half feet or less if adjacent buildings have established a shorter front setback.

These revisions were made to permit a larger building footprint, which is the approach

taken by staff to address concerns around bulk control limitations.

In other words, the ordinance allows the building footprint to spread out horizontally

rather than go up vertically.

This do provides the same additional square footage that would help make these projects

economically feasible.

I'm bow control.

So bow control be the focus of the next few slides.

As originally proposed, the bow control standards are intended to comfortably allow two stories

of vertical wall.

The goal of bow control is to help reduce building volume on the third story of the structure,

which helps to ensure a nebred scale and avoid conflict with adjacent properties around

access to air, privacy, and sunlight, whether it's for a bedroom window or solar panels

on a neighboring roof.

In simple terms, the idea is to hire up a building ghost, the more building volume needs

to be pushed back away from neighboring properties.

Bow control helps achieve context-sensitive infill design as the city begins to allow multi-unit

drawings in all neighborhoods.

In response to recent feedback concerning economic feasibility, staff relax the length

restriction for dormers and extensions in effort of two areas to provide more usable

square footage on the third floor.

I'd also like to note that bow control would not be required unless there are existing

single unit or due text drawings next door.

Additionally, the multi-unit dwelling mixed using commercial zones commonly found along

the city's corridors and centers already allow higher intensity housing that is larger

in scale and are not subject to bow control.

Here's a visual illustration of the setback, FAR, height, and bow control standards working

together as they are designed to do to ensure the appropriate scale in every missing middle

housing project that the city reviews.

This illustration shows six units, a four-plex plus two accessory drawing units on a lot

in Lenn Park.

For those of us who are visual learners, we've selected a real vacant property in the city

located within a traditional single family neighborhood and is about 6,500 square feet

to illustrate what a two and a half story building could look like in the pocket neighborhood.

Even with bow control, our analysis shows that on this parcel, the ordinance would allow

up to 1.4 FAR and could fit up to 11 units each about 820 square foot in size.

Note that the height at the ridge of the roof is the full 35 feet that is allowed, but

because slope roots and dormers are used, potential impacts on the adjacent properties are

minimized by keeping the structure neighborhood scale.

Here's the same property without bow control restrictions, showing a 1.5 FAR structure

that could accommodate 12 units each about 820 square foot each.

What is being shown is essentially a three-story commercial building which staff does not consider

to be neighborhood scale.

The walls shown in this model are 35 feet high and essentially maxes out what is allowed

by the ordinance with bow control removed.

Also important to note that with state housing laws, the city is now limited in the types

of controls that could be used to ensure neighborhood scale.

Subjective design guidance are no longer an option and the state has been clear that

only objective standards such as height, FAR and bow control can be used.

If bow control is removed, the city will lose one of the final remaining objective standards

that could be used to ensure neighborhood scale.

Acknowledging that Sacramento would be the first city in California to implement this

bold policy, staff is bringing forward an interim ordinance that will provide a chance

for the city to assess the ordinance's effectiveness and how it will be used.

As an interim ordinance, the city has the opportunity to modify and enhance based on lessons

learned over the next year as staff continues work on the comprehensive update to Title

17 for general plan consistency.

I'll now briefly cover the next component of the ordinance which relates to trees in

open space.

As the city of trees, naturally many residents expressed interest in maintaining existing

trees and incentivizing the planting of new shade trees.

This ordinance will be the first to require the planting of a street shading tree at this

scale of residential development, signifying a big first step toward the city's tree canopy

goals.

Additionally, setback encroachments will be allowed by right if doing so helps to preserve

an existing mature tree or provide additional room to accommodate larger shade trees.

For brevity, I will focus on what has changed from the previous framework related to open

space.

The takeaway here is that the requirement has been reduced from 125 to 75 square feet

per unit in FARF 2 areas which further addresses concerns related to economic feasibility.

Additionally, open space would be allowed to overlap with the setback areas as long

as tree shading is provided and design criteria met, including a larger minimum dimension

which would spend the number of tree species that could be supported.

Key provisions to address the affordability and equity piece include encouraging smaller

homes and small lots by reducing the minimum lot size which can help to provide more entry-level

home ownership opportunities.

The ordinance also includes restrictions to protect vulnerable residents and preserve

existing low cost housing stock by establishing findings of fact to ensure that the project

doesn't result in less units than what is existing or in the demolition of regulated

affordable units or units that were occupied by tenants within the last year.

The sliding FAR scale helps to encourage smaller, more attainable by design units by

granting additional building area for every unit proposed and also by limiting how big

and new single unit dwelling can be.

While more supply of market rate housing will bring many households closer to attainable

housing, it alone is not the solution.

Staff acknowledges that there is a racial wealth gap and that missing middle housing

will be less attainable to black and brown households.

Additional incentives or subsidies for regulated affordable housing are needed to make missing

middle attainable for our racial and ethnic groups.

With the City Council's adoption tonight, the ordinance will become effective on October

17th and the city can begin accepting applications from neighborhood scale multi-unit development.

To continue implementation of the 2040 general plan, staff will be undertaking a more comprehensive

update to Title 17 to implement several other general plan policies such as removing maximum

densities from all zoning districts and this interim ordinance will be folded into a larger

effort which is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2025.

Staff will also evaluate several potential longer term strategies identified by the study

as discussed in the staff report.

I would like to elaborate on one strategy in particular, the local bonus program.

If this ordinance is adopted as proposed, staff plans on exploring different options

that could serve as a meaningful bonus or incentive that could help to build, de-districted,

affordable units for projects with two, three, or four primary dwellings, including concessions

related to height, FAR, and boat control.

The state's density law, bonus law, currently provides incentives if an affordable dwelling

unit is provided for projects of five or more primary dwelling units and our standards

can be waived or reduced based off of that density bonus agreement.

We're getting near the end here.

So on August 8th, staff presented this interim ordinance to the Planning and Design Commission,

concerned about the impacts of boat control on the economic feasibility of larger, missing

middle housing projects, the commission recommended a revision to the ordinance so that the

boat control standard would not apply to sites designated with the maximum FAR of two

or greater.

On August 20th, the Law and Legislation Committee passed a motion forwarding the interim ordinance

as proposed by staff without the Planning and Design Commission suggested revision to

the City Council for consideration.

Staff is recommending that the City Council pass a motion adopting the resolution of

environmental determination and the missing middle housing interim ordinance.

And with that, I am joined by Matt Hurtle, Assistant Director of the Community Development

Department and Bruce Montagin, Urban Design Manager to answer any questions you might

have.

Thank you.

One clarity question.

This is, and I think you said this, but I want to put a fine point on it.

This is an interim ordinance, correct?

That's correct.

And the intent would be for the City Council, whatever the City Council has to come back

and you say 17 months to revisit this?

12 months.

12 months, okay.

Give or take.

Here are the state title seven.

Yeah, it will align with the City's effort right now to update Title 17, which is a much

larger, much more comprehensive update.

Okay.

It is wanted to be clear about the context of what it is for being asked to decide tonight.

That it's in term, chance for trial and error, so to speak, and see whatever we do works.

The other comment that I just want to make just as a stage setter is that while I know

the controversy tonight, as I understand it, is about the issue of bulk control, legitimate

issue, no matter how it turns out, I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that this

overall policy is profound and profoundly positive for the City of Sacramento.

So there's some things that have to be worked out and decided, not only tonight, but as

you said, over 12 months from now, but let's not lose sight of how big this is, how much

work went into this from the staff, from the electeds, from the community, and how this

set Sacramento apart from so many other cities in the country in terms of encouraging more

housing and innovative types of housing in traditionally single-family neighborhoods.

It's fantastic, okay.

Good.

Let's, we have 26 speakers.

That's not a lot, by the way.

So, why don't we take the public testimony and then we're going to have discussion about

these issues.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

I want to read off a few names.

Our first is Steve Hansen, Thomas Nguyen, Connor Finney, Delv Caden, Max Coussell, Mr.

Hansen.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I guess the early bird does get the worm.

I turn in the first slip.

I have something for the overhead and then I've got some copies for the Council.

We can take the copies but the overhead is not available.

Okay.

We'll explain it.

It's a pleasure to be here for a lot of reasons, but you have done incredible work on making

Sacramento the most pro-housing city in California, building on the work of prior councils, and

I want to thank the staff, Matt, Tom, Greg, Bruce, everyone who worked on this because

this is an incredible step forward.

I'm here, though, because, as you know, a lot of people here are concerned about one

piece of this, which is bulk control.

And I come for a particular reason, having worked a little bit on ADUs, SB9 projects,

Ali Infill.

What I distributed was an example of bulk control applied.

And these concepts sometimes in practice are very different than what they sound like

theoretically.

So here is a real-world example, SB9 project, where there was a street facing lot, and

originally the design was proposed to be a really lovely Infill house, two units, two

800 square feet units, which they allow.

But once you put the envelope over it, it was like a really tight-fitting pair of underwear

and it didn't work.

So I know.

I'm trying to get your attention, because it's otherwise really boring.

Yes.

And so what happened is that in order to make it fit, you had to turn the building, and

you had to make it less desirable for the community.

And bulk control is a relatively rigid standard.

And so what I would suggest, I know this is an interim ordinance, as you continue to look

forward, try to find ways to change how bulk control is applied.

So this tent, as they talk about it, is basically a traditional roof.

My house in Al-Qaulai flat has a pyramid shape roof, not two slopes.

Some of our old historic buildings have flat roofs as well.

So this particular-

Thank you for your comments, your time is complete.

This particular standard needs more attention.

More attention.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Steve.

Thank you, Councilman Hanson.

Underwear.

Thomas Nguyen.

Good evening.

I'd like to pass one thing around as the projector is not available.

Please give it to the clerk.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the council.

My name is Thomas, and I live in the mill in Upper Land Park.

Tena, I want to make two points.

First I want to show you a photo of my home.

My wife and I own one half of a three-story condo duplex in the mill at Upper Land Park.

They cost about half as much as an equivalent to bedroom single-family home at cost

Al-Qaulai flat park.

Half is expensive.

But as you can clearly notice, our home would not be legal with bull control.

Because it is a simple three-story form, you cannot build duplexes like mine with bull

control.

This was by far the best option for us to be able to own a home in a vibrant part of

Sacramento where we can lock, take transit, and rarely get in a car all on state worker

salaries.

So I asked tonight, please don't make our home illegal anywhere in the city.

And please preserve this same chance at home ownership for other people like me in other

parts of the city.

And secondly, on the sheet that I just passed around, I want to talk about the trees issue.

Because I think a lot of people assume that bull control helps protect trees, but it's

actually the opposite.

This bull control encourages you to build only two stories and maximize lock coverage as

a new in mentioned.

That doesn't leave a lot of room for trees, as in the first picture that I passed around.

But the second level will encourage more development higher, leaving more space for trees.

So if you make it easier to build three stories because of how FAR works on any given lot,

that means you can use less of the lot for the structure, which means there's more room

for trees.

And finally, making it easier to build up the three stories instead of incentivizing

sticking with two is, in my view, one of the best ways to protect and preserve our tree

canopy.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Connor Finney, Ben Devkaden.

Hello, everybody.

I just want to thank Council and staff.

This was a lot of hard work, and we all really appreciate it.

I just want to list off all of the groups in support of removing bull control in the

city of Sacramento.

Alkali and Manchin Flatsn Historic Neighborhood Association, assembly member Kevin McCarty,

build Kasa, downtown Sacramento partnership, environmental council of Sacramento, environmental

Democrats of Sacramento County, habitat for humanity of greater Sacramento, how Sacramento,

Midtown Association, Midtown Neighborhood Association, Newton Booth Neighborhood Association,

North State Building Industry Association, Oak Park Neighborhood Association, Sacramento

Area Bicycle Advocates, Sacramento Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, Sacramento County

Young Democrats, Sacramento Housing Alliance, Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce,

Strong Sactown of the groups opposed.

There are a handful of, I think, two neighborhood associations that have written an opposition.

I would suggest you look at the neighborhoods that wanted the removal of bull control and

the neighborhoods that want to maintain it and increase setbacks and just think about

the demographics of these neighborhoods and draw your own conclusions.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Dev Kaden, Max Casell, and Paul Menard.

Good evening.

My name is Dev Kaden.

I'm on the city planning and design commission.

Our commission has noted made a 7-1 recommendation to remove bull control requirements within

the FAR 2.0 areas.

Less than a year ago, as part of the general plan, we were considering a proposal to cap missing

middle at four units across most of the city.

Then thanks to your leadership, City Council took a historic and unanimous vote to remove

those four unit cap city wide and to increase the maximum flurry ratio around transit.

The entire point of doing that policy change and removing that cap was to facilitate more

affordable missing middle types like six and eight plexes.

And that was a really impactful policy change.

The city's own missing middle capacity analysis that they conducted right after that vote demonstrated

that three-fourths of the market feasible missing middle in this city were eight plexes.

And they would actually be affordable to the median Sacramento household.

That means that if we enact policy that precludes an eight plex, we're tonight.

We are essentially saying we're throwing away three quarters of the impact of that historic

vote that you made last year.

Here's the problem.

You need a simple three-story structure to deliver more than a four plex.

You might get a one-off boutique six plex with gables here and there, but we are never

going to deliver more naturally affordable missing middle projects at scale without allowing

for a simple three-story building.

And simply put, the bulk control requirements that are before you do not allow for that.

They are unit caps under a different name.

I'm proud to live in this city that says yes to new housing.

I was proud when you took that unanimous vote last year to say yes to more than a four

plex.

We've been praised nationally for that action.

Now is not the time to get cold feet because a couple of white and wealthy neighborhoods

have said protect the status quo.

Well the status quo is not really working for the mass majority of people in this city.

That is the point.

Right?

So let's change that tonight and remove bulk control from the ordinance so that we can

actually live up to our stated goal of being a housing leader in this nation.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Max Kusel, Paul Menard, Trisha Stevens.

I feel free to line up in the aisle.

Good afternoon.

My name is Max Kusel.

I just wanted to comment on one aspect of the book, Control, Portion of the Missing Middle

Housing Ordinance.

The proposed ordinance in justification of book control says the purpose of restricting

building dimensions is to help maintain the neighborhood scale.

But we know that human scale building and dense housing are not mutually exclusive.

And indeed several of the beautiful building designs featured on your website, Mayor Steinberg,

would not be allowed under this regulation.

As would several of the well-loved building designs in Midtown like the six plexes on G

Street that would go outside of this envelope.

And plenty of eyesore buildings would be acceptable under this regulation like the place

iron, a unit in a subdivided house with a big slanted roof covered in missing shingles

and decayed bits of wood.

I don't live in my house because it's a good, because it fits the neighborhood character.

I live here because the high quality, dense housing I want to live in cannot be built.

And my concern is that if our missing middle policy continues to intentionally prevent

the development of three story buildings, the housing I want to live in will continue

to be unaffordable on my scientist's salary or unavailable altogether.

As a young professional, I do want to live in a neighborhood.

But the way to preserve a neighborhood scale of life is not to enforce arbitrary aesthetic

choices and specific roof shapes.

It's to enable the creation of homes for people and families.

And for this reason, the bulk restrictions in section 10 of the missing middle housing

ordinance should be removed.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Paul Menard, Trisha Stevens, Chris Valencia.

Good evening, Mayor Steinberg and Council members.

I'm Paul Menard.

I'm here representing the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

I'm the chair of our Housing Task Force.

Our letter is in the e-commerce and I sent a copy of it to each one of you as well.

So we're supporting the staff recommendation.

We believe that ball control needs to be part of what we're doing here to maintain neighborhood

trust.

And again, I want to mirror what Mayor Steinberg said earlier that, you know, really no matter

what happens here tonight, this city has come a long way and this is an amazing housing

policy that we have.

And I want to thank Nuann and Matt and Bruce for the excellent staff work.

I've been following this for a long time.

And again, we, in addition to this type of missing middle housing, we hope that eventually

we can create some financial incentives to create denser housing in all the existing

aging, obsolete commercial corridors that we have in the city and the county and also

to create some financial incentives for converting office to housing.

So thank you all.

I'm happy to be here tonight.

And again, we are in favor of the staff recommendation.

And we think that the ball control needs to be maintained for now.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Trisha Stevens, Chris Valencia and Matt Anderson.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the council.

I'm Trisha Stevens.

I'm the president of the East Sacramento Community Association.

And our neighborhood association is proud to have been long supporters of missing middle

housing.

We think that's important for you to understand that we've supported this from the very beginning.

And we overall support the interim ordinance.

We have two simple recommendations that we believe are strongly supported by general

plan policies related to neighborhood scale and enhancing our tree canopy needs.

This we urge the council to maintain the ball control in the 2.0 FAR areas as recommended

by staff by the law and ledge committee by the American Institute of architects as well

as many others and as supported by the feasibility studies.

We feel that three story box structures impact sunlight and open space as articulated by

staff.

The second thing is we urge you to modify the front setback in the 2.0 areas to maintain

the average setback of existing homes so that large canopy trees can be planted to keep

neighborhoods walkable and to maintain neighborhood scale.

That's our first preference.

We do understand the need for robust housing near transit lines who are willing to entertain

compromise to allow some more flexibility that would still maintain a large canopy tree.

I'd like to have one example of a missing middle type structure and e-sacrimental that

has some ball control and setbacks.

We think it's feasible.

And so I didn't know this wasn't working so I'll just show you here.

Okay.

Again we support missing middle housing and urge you to support comments.

Thank you for your time.

And on recommendations.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Chris Valencia, Matt Anderson, Daniel Patowski.

Hello Mr. Mayor and city council members.

My name is Chris Valencia and I am speaking on behalf of the North State Building Industry

Association.

I'm going to keep this very short.

Just reiterate what a lot of people have said.

We are absolutely supportive of what the city of Sacramento has been doing on housing to

make housing more available, something we need.

However we are opposed to the inclusion of a ball control and the proposal.

Thank you.

That's.

Why?

I just want to know why.

It would be helpful to know why.

It can create some complications in code and possibly keep smaller developers from being

able to enter the space.

And I would be happy to follow up with your staff.

No, no, no.

It's important.

I just wanted to know the reason for your position.

Not critical.

Not enough.

I just wanted to understand why.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Matt Anderson, Daniel Patowski, then Rosie Ramos.

Good evening Mr. Mayor.

Council members.

Matt Anderson, district four.

So keep it brief.

Had a great paragraph prepared.

But honestly, I think the Mayor laid the groundwork.

This is interim.

We've got 12 months.

Why don't we just try it?

If the sky falls, you can take it back.

And if it doesn't fall, we'll just keep ball control removed.

That would be my recommendation.

So thank you to staff and all of your work on doing all of this housing and enabling all

the ways to live in Sacramento.

And I look forward to hopefully passing this ordinance.

Thank you.

For your comments, Daniel Patowski, Rosie Ramos.

Good evening, Honorable Mayor, City Council members, City Manager, City Clerk, Dan Piscowski.

I'm here tonight on behalf of Treaser Sacramento.

Treaser Sacramento is a nonprofit working toward the preservation, protection, and enhancement

of Sacramento's urban forest.

We support the interim amendments, but we have some other amendments we want to include

it to ensure that we increase the tree canopy.

And that was all emailed to you.

Now the question we should all be asking ourselves is, what good is additional housing

if we have an unlivable environment?

American Long Association and their State of the Air Report, this is the most polluted

cities in the United States.

Ozone, Sacramento, number seven.

Year round, Particle Pollution, number seven.

Short-term Particle Pollution, number nine.

The City's tree ordinance does not protect trees.

Developers are allowed to clear-cut the site.

Urban forestry has even taken it to the next level by approving removal of trees on the adjacent

side sites to maximize density.

Now the climate action adaptation plan is flawed because in that plan, they didn't talk

about counting all this carbon dioxide sequestration we're losing because of all the trees being

removed.

Every time a tree's removed, you need to figure out how much CO2 we've lost.

And I've lived and worked at Sacramento for the past 34 years.

Our city arborists for almost 30 years.

And Sacramento is, deserve better air quality.

We need to include the amendments to ensure that we have the canopy.

And the trees are what give us oxygen.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Rosie Ramos, then Hannah Tudon, then Joey Raithwell.

Good evening.

My name is Rosie Ramos and I'm here on behalf of the Opert Neighborhood Association.

I'm the secretary.

I want to start off by recognizing the amazing work of staff for this ordinance but also

the work that went into the general plan and the housing element really putting this

on the map as a city that's pro-housing.

All that work is an active approach to combating the legacy of redlining because as we know,

zoning is a legacy of racial covenants and redlining.

And with that, I want to highlight that the support for all that work that has happened

today and today's missing middle housing, we're supporting it but also want to discuss the

concern that we have on the bulk standards, the bulk control standards.

Restrictions like the bulk control standards limit the work that has happened to combat

the legacy of redlining.

And we really want to make sure that we are opening ourselves up as a city to have these

different types of housing.

I live in Oak Park, as I mentioned.

We have a variety of different housing types there.

There's a reason why that's happening there and not in other areas.

And so we really want our council to take that into consideration and really listen to

the list of folks that were on the side of not having the bulk control.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Hannah Tudon, Joy Raithball, Ben Raiderstorf, Ben Michael Turgin.

Hello, my name is Hannah Tudon.

I was born and raised here in Sacramento and I'm a permanent homeowner and resident here

in Curtis Park.

I'm here to express my strong support for the revisions of the missing middle ordinance.

However, I am deeply concerned about the bulk and building mass control policy that

remains in the draft ordinance.

I just have a couple key points.

First, bulk control makes projects more expensive, increasing housing costs and decreasing housing

supply.

This policy effectively limits low cost departments to two stories, making three story buildings

much more complex and expensive.

This policy is a direct deterrent to the development of affordable housing that our city desperately

needs.

Second, bulk control is inequitable.

This policy adds unnecessary complexity and opaque red tape, raising barriers for new

developers who can't afford custom designs.

It favors those with deep pockets and leaves out smaller developers who are crucial to

increasing our housing supply.

Third, bulk control is outdated and frankly, it's time for Sacramento to embrace modern

efficient building practices that promote housing growth.

And fourth, aesthetic rationale, we're in the midst of a housing crisis.

Policies must have a stronger rationale than appearance alone.

We need to prioritize housing over aesthetics.

In conclusion, I too am a proud Sacramento resident.

I urge you to amend this ordinance to eliminate bulk and building mass control so we can put

an end to exclusionary zoning in Sacramento.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your comments.

Jowie Raithwaal, Ben Raiderstorff, Ben Michael Turgeon.

I counsel my name is Jowie Raithwaal.

I'm a resident in homeowner in District 7.

Want to thank you for your leadership on missing middle housing so far.

Thanks for showing your values on this work.

And just two things, Dad, I was proud of my CR Curtis Neighborhood Association for not

signing on to a letter endorsing the staff recommendation for bulk control.

The others from lived experience.

I've lived in a three story box structure.

I've lived in units that are dormered.

Box structure was great.

I loved it.

None of my neighbors hated me or my building, even though I lived in an affluent single-family

home neighborhood.

The latter, living in dormered, I bonked my head all the time.

I'm pretty tall.

Living in a dormered unit sucks.

And the way I see it, we have a debate between me bonking my head in these units and the

aesthetic values of affluent homeowners in a professional class with the best interest

in making buildings as expensive and as complicated as possible.

So you can choose between the headbunks and the aesthetic values, or you can choose

between any other number of benefits of removing bulk control, like having more sustainable

neighborhoods, more equitable neighborhoods, more vibrant neighborhoods with more people,

more neighbors, and more community.

So how do you choose?

I hope you also consider headbunks in your rationale.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Ben Raider-Star, then Michael Turgeon.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

My name is Ben Raider-Star.

I'm one of the co-presidents of House Sacramento.

And I want to use my time tonight to speak directly to a concern that I've heard from

some members on the dius, which is frankly why are housing affordability groups like House

Sacramento, House of Sacramento Alliance, Habitat

for Humanity.

Why are we pushing so hard on a policy that seems like it mostly impacts market rate housing?

You probably can hear something along the lines of this at some point of, you know, bulk

control doesn't apply for affordable projects.

So why do we all care?

So four things.

First of all, one that's not really true.

So bulk control does still apply to all affordable housing projects, just like all other projects.

The question is, affordable developers can use state density bonus law to get around

that.

But the differences then they can no longer use those concessions for other things that

may actually more meaningfully create units rather than just bring costs down.

Second of all, the reality is that affordable housing and market rate housing are not in conflict

with each other.

For affordable housing, the main obstacle is funding, not zoning.

Imposing things like bulk control on market rate housing does nothing to actually financially

support our affordable housing obligations, which in my view has to include finding a way

to pay for these things through a revenue measure, and we need to work together on that.

Third, putting market rate housing and affordable housing against each other as this argument

for bulk control does.

In my view, it's dangerous.

Frankly, this is how San Francisco thinks about housing.

They've worked to made it harder.

They put more restrictions on market rate housing with the goal of encouraging affordable

housing, and we all know how that has turned out.

And finally, most importantly, building market rate housing actually does help affordability.

Right now, 90% of low-income sacramentans live in market rate housing.

Their future is determined by rents, and our only tool to drive rents down is by enabling

the more construction of market rate housing, especially in wealthy high-opportunity neighborhoods

with lots of demand.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Michael Turgeon, Isaac Gonzales, and Tom K.

Hi, everyone.

My name is Michael Turgeon.

I'm a renter in D4.

I'm also on the board of House Sacramento.

First off, I want to applaud the city's monumental efforts to expand missing middle housing, and

I just want to add two more points on the bulk control debate.

First, as everyone's mentioned, we know it's really expensive to comply with.

All those costs are passed on to future residents and felt across the region and higher market

rents.

That's pretty indisputable.

Going on, I want to echo Ben's comment that bulk control also doesn't really activate

new density bonus law projects because it's not even needed for that purpose since there

are so many other requirements in the proposed ordinance, other design standards, each of

which could be waived to add an income restricted unit if the developer chooses to do so.

bulk control simply impedes missing middle projects without meaningfully incentivizing

new income restricted units.

Our trial and error period will very likely end up in error, and we will reconvene to

re-examine this ordinance with nothing to show for it.

Second, the most impactful thing the city can do to fight climate change is to allow more

housing near transit.

For the Air Resources Board, we need to reduce VMT per capita by 25% by 2030.

That's less than six years.

If we waste another one, we definitely won't hit that standard by 2030, and our climate

goals will be out of reach.

We will continue to see pedestrian fatalities on the road.

We will trap people in carbon spewing commutes.

We will bankrupt, sack RT, and lose the transit we do have.

And again, we will fall fall short, far short of our climate goals.

And yeah, to echo the comment on trees, if we allow ourselves to accomplish the FAR targets

by building up rather than not out, we can preserve much more open space, which allows

for news, shade trees to develop and provide shade to future structures, which both provides

needed cooling and increases the energy efficiency of these new units.

But the triangle structure can more readily accommodate rooftop solar and requires less infrastructure

built out.

It's a better deal.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Isaac Gonzalez.

Tom K. Good evening, Mayor City Council.

My name is Isaac Gonzalez.

I'm a lifelong resident of the city Sacramento and I own a home in Tahoe Park.

Just to speak on this matter, I just want to thank staff for all their hard work, this

council and previous council.

Council members here in the audience today for getting us this bold point.

We truly will be a housing first city when we enact these ordinances.

Just to speak about bulk control really quickly, there are no static cities.

There are cities that are growing.

There are cities that are shrinking.

Cities do not stand still.

And you will either be the council that removes bulk control from the consideration or another

one will.

Thank you.

I didn't.

Just that you will be the one who removes bulk control from this ordinance or a future council.

Well, that's you.

You're for removing bulk.

Yes, I am.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Tom K. Than Jonathan Cook.

Good evening, Council.

Good to be here.

My name is Tom.

I'm here with my wife.

We are residents of East Sacramento, Sac State.

And we're in the process of redesigning our single family home to make it a multi-generational

home.

So that means larger family size units, shared spaces, huge backyard for kids, communal

gatherings.

Why I'm here speaking today is because bulk control will affect how we can build out the

property.

So what folks have said before basically the current policy encourages you to build

laterally out as opposed to up.

And I'm just going to walk you through a quick example of what our property would look

like with bulk control and without.

So we have 5,000 square foot lock.

It's owned for FAR2.

If we were to build five family size units, totaling 6,000 square feet in a two story structure,

we would need to cover almost 63% of the lock.

The setbacks would be 12 and a half in the front, 10 in the rear, and 3 on the side.

Now if you imagine alternative where we do a smaller footprint and actually build up to

three stories, we could fit the same 6,000 square feet while only covering 42% of the

lot with setbacks of 12 and a half in the front, 37 and a half in the rear and 5 on the

sides.

So that approach would give us about 3,000 square feet more than half in the lot available

for gardens, playgrounds, and shared amenities.

In the backyard would be over three times of the size of the first example.

So we're recommending relaxing bulk control in areas with FAR2 and above.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Jonathan Cook, then Dave Pajowicz.

Good evening, Jonathan Cook, executive director of the Sacramento Housing Alliance.

Thank you for your work on the missing middle housing ordinance.

And we just wanted to express some of our concern around bulk control, especially because

we need to be prioritizing end-filled development as well as density, as well as the city's responsibility

to affirmatively further fare housing.

We want to make sure that we are encouraging, racially and integratively integrated neighborhoods

across the city.

And we feel that this bold general plan and 2040 housing element will help us with those

schools.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Dave Pajowicz, Lewis Maronte.

I have 10 more speakers.

And then Dave, please teach me how to say your last name.

It is fine.

Thank you.

Actually, it was excellent.

My name is Dave Pajowicz.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council.

I've been doing a lot.

For the last 25 years, I've been building infield projects, three stories, consists of

these units, three stories, 20 by 80 law, and has an 80 on the first floor and a main unit

on the top, two bedroom time.

They've been very successful as well as both selling it or selling it to people who rented

to people.

So definitely opposed to the inclusion of bulk control.

I have a project right now near 1210T at 1280 T Street.

Due to bulk control, my three story plan has to be basically redone.

And the two story, on a 20 by 80s, not going to work financially and also aesthetically.

And the offer is not to put a garage.

Like Ali is filled with homeless people in garbage and for people to park their cars on

a main street and walk back to a brand new unit with no parking is not an option.

In fact, in front of these two lots, there's a home, two plexed that I own.

And the tenants have lost their items within the last three years, two times and called

the police.

So I really think that this rule makes it almost impossible to build infill projects.

And I have eight lots, six of them years, Sacramento Food Co-op, ready to go, but I'm just

going to wait until I know what happens.

So I'm actually doing the work.

I've been doing it for the last 20 years.

And I would like to continue.

Or if not, take a break.

I would like to ask for your comments.

Next speaker is Lewis Marante.

Can I ask you to pay it?

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Councillor, I'm prepared.

My name is Lewis Marante.

I'm a district four resident and member of House Sacramento.

I'm urging you to remove the bull control rules consistent with House Sacramento's recommendation.

And I wanted to put some data into the context here of what we're talking about density bonus

law.

Density bonus law, as you know, no, is an important state law that incentivizes the production

of affordable housing in California.

It's used often here in Sacramento.

It's not used often though in projects that are the size of the projects that we're talking

about here.

For most of the projects, on most of the lots that we're talking about, we're looking at

project sizes that are going to be 10 units or fewer.

Density bonus law requires you to set aside whole units for the incentives to get the

waivers from parking or what have you.

And because those projects are so small that 10 units and under size, it's very uncommon

that those projects utilize density bonus law in California in general.

I just ran the numbers.

In California over the last three years, we have data for.

So, 2021, 2022 and 2023, there were actually only 400 projects in California that were 10

units or fewer and proposed to use some form of density bonus law.

17 projects in California.

The statewide numbers present, I think, a pretty stark picture in context of the total

number of units we're talking about.

Those 400 projects account for about 1,000 units, which is less than 1 third of 1 percent

of all projects approved in California.

This is a minuscule bonus for these small projects.

And I urge you to not make projects in Sacramento more expensive chasing what I don't think

you're going to get because it just doesn't happen here in Sacramento or anywhere in California.

Thanks for your consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Can you speak up, please?

I'm going to invite then Annie Keys.

Good evening.

My name is Kanishka Patel and I'm a resident of District 4.

As a physician and training oncologist, my primary concern is the health and well-being

of my patients.

Throughout my professional career, starting from medical school in the Bronx to now being

in my final year of fellowship training in Sacramento, my patients have made me increasingly

cognizant of the social determinants of health and specifically of the connection between

housing instability and poor health outcomes.

When families struggle to afford housing, they face stress and are forced to make financial

trade-offs.

And that can exacerbate existing conditions, chronic illnesses, including cancer.

As an extension of my efforts to provide whole-person care, it is both important that I applaud

the city on a historic missing middle housing plan and ask that you consider removing the

double control requirements.

While we are moving in the right direction, we still feel that these requirements to be

a significant roadblock as they are expensive, inequitable and outdated.

Higher construction costs make developers less likely to build and these costs translate

to increased rent.

To ask that new builds fit with a very subjective vision of what a neighborhood should look

like while at the same time complaining about the increased visibility of homelessness in

the city and wanting for solutions is cognitive dissonance at best, modern day segregation

at worst.

Such measures often exacerbate the effects of redlining, which itself have shown to be

associated with higher incidences of chronic illnesses like cancer and poor health outcomes

due to environmental factors and unlimited access to health care.

So as a concerned member of the Sacramento community and as a care provider, I hope

that you strongly consider removing this requirement from housing projects in all areas

of the city.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Any keys?

Then Erica Butler.

Good evening.

Mayor, council members and city staff.

My name is Annie Keys.

I am a lifelong Sacramento, a D4 renter and a board member of House Sacramento and all

volunteer organization dedicated to making housing more affordable and accessible in Sacramento.

Along with the other speakers tonight, I just want to reiterate that we are all hearted

to be supportive of missing middle housing but still share concerns that both control

mandates the ordinance will preclude missing middle housing types from being built.

I want to share some insight from experts as to why the cost of both control mandates

make housing missing, makes building missing middle more and feasible.

Yes, Duffy, the owner of yes, Duffy architecture and Berkeley zoning board share estimated

that between architectural services up to $300 an hour, structural costs, design fees,

up to $200 an hour and construction costs to meet the requirements of both control.

Home billers can expect a 10 to 20% increase in overall costs.

And according to a small home builder who is actually here tonight, who is looking to

build a missing middle project in Sacramento, both control results in fewer units per project

and further design constraints.

The reality is if these housing types are financially impossible to pursue, they will not happen.

This means less missing middle housing and gets built and the unaffordability crisis in

Sacramento process.

This is why we passed the 2040 general plan last year, the most progressive and pro-housing

general planning California.

This council that night made a commitment to stand up for future generations of residents,

both renters and homeowners in Sacramento.

Those advocating for change this evening, including myself, are the future generations who want

to continue investing here in Sacramento.

If you want to build homes, want to raise a family, want to pursue educational and career

opportunities here in Sacramento.

And that can only happen if Sacramento's housing market remains attainable.

So as you consider whether to push for change or protect the status quo, please ask yourself

who we should be planning these future neighborhoods for.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Eric Butler and Baru Arara.

Hi, my name is Eric Butler.

I compared to last year I now live in district six, I'm a renter there.

And I largely support missing middle housing, but I am concerned about what I'm reading about

bulk control.

I do think especially near transit, it's probably not a good idea to make housing more difficult

and more expensive to build.

The thing with transit is it really works best when you have very high density.

Lots of people living along transit and lots of places to go along transit.

Because of that, I would have to oppose the inclusion of bulk control, at least for

transit.

I think the proponents of bulk control were mentioning privacy, I think, was there

main concern?

They were worried about people peeping.

I'm not sure about that.

I do think different concerns do have to be balanced.

I think certainly in more lower far areas that can definitely be important, but we do need

to be maximizing the number of people that live along transit.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Baru Arara, then Steve Rosen.

I have five more speakers.

I know Mayor Steinberg is a real fascinista.

So I'm wearing a Congresswoman Katie Porter 2019 fall collection here.

Council members, I do construction.

By now you realize bulk control will make it very unlikely that three-story multiplexes

will be built.

No one wants to live in a room that does this to them.

They're a bad construction idea too.

Have you seen any HDTV show on remodeling ever?

They always ask, is this wall load bearing or not?

Gable roof systems require much more beefy lumber, fasteners at the center of the house,

and make things much more expensive.

So three-story structures?

No, but we know.

Let's try this one, Matt.

I used to be a teacher.

I see myself as a Tim Wald of Sacramento.

My friend, C.B. as a poor man's Johnny since, and my parents see me as a disappointment.

So by keeping bulk control, it means one over three levels won't be built.

Multiply numerator and denominator by two that means in the six-plex, two won't be

built.

Now we'll use visual examples.

Kids can understand.

One third of a pizza is over two slices.

Let's make that a vegan one for myself and vice-mere maple.

Now a little bit of steps.

We light about 60,000 people in the city of Sacramento by 2040.

If we speculate that there's one new unit for every two new people, one third of that

or 33.33% for you, Matt, fancy people, is 20,000 and divide that by two.

It's 10,000.

The question the council needs to ask today is do we choose to build 10,000 less

units because some neighbors might feel a tiny bit of soreness in their eyes?

Thank you.

Thank you to my easel and thank you to the excellent work done by the staff.

Comments?

Our next speaker is Steve Rosen, Michael Hutnik, then Michael Nurby.

The city council stood up for the future when it adopted the general plan and legalized

the homes we need.

Homes that touch are now a legal land use city wide.

Unfortunately some entrenched old guard property owners monopolized neighborhood meetings

and shoe hard in arbitrary design standards and make it impossible for the city council

to achieve its goal of desegregating our city and building the homes that we millenials

need and the younger siblings and children will need.

These remove bolt control from this interim ordinance, air on the side of our kids, not

on the old guard and architects who get to charge more for complex designs.

If it's an interim ordinance and building homes turns out to be so terrible, then we

can go back to banning homes.

But let's be brave right now.

The urban design staff claims that people are frightened of seeing a tall building next

to a short building.

Well, lots of people in this room told them otherwise and meeting after meeting through

the whole process, but maybe not the right meetings.

And don't tell me that certain neighborhoods oppose big buildings.

Have you seen the size of their homes?

Bolt control doesn't help trees.

Trees grow from the ground.

You bend a midtown, biggest trees in town, biggest buildings in town.

So cities are their people.

Let's let people who love our city build our city.

Let's change our buildings so that we can preserve our neighbors instead of freezing our buildings

and losing the people.

There's more people now and more people need more homes.

Listen to this broad and growing pro-home coalition and not a shrinking group of people who

are against new homes.

We need homes, not dormers, homes, not dormers.

Let's desegregate our city and build our future.

Thank you.

D6.

Thank you for your comments.

I have three more speakers, Michael Hutnik, Michael Nurby, and then Ryan Masano.

Hello.

It's all been said so very well.

I'll keep it short.

While this ordinance is a net positive, as written, my support for this item is contingent

on striking the bolt control requirement at the floor area ratio or FAR above two.

The FAR effectively precludes three-story dwellings.

Dwelling construction do the inflated costs under the ordinance.

The city argued that the flat-roof three-story dwelling is not a good fit with the current

housing types in the city.

There are many such examples throughout the city that already exist, that predate the

ordinance.

The reason that this topic is important is because the types of development that will

is what allowed, oh, that's right.

This type of development is what allowed the United States to build its way out of a housing

crisis a century ago.

We find ourselves in a similar crisis today and allowing for more dense housing to be

built affordably will allow us to get out of that.

I also did want to touch on what two speakers had touched on before.

Our neighbor from the mill was talking about building up allows for more space for trees.

Our former city arborists had said that cutting trees down would you need to take into consideration

the amount of CO2 that's sequestered in those trees.

Not only are we allowing the trees to stay in place by building up and allowing for more

open space and the trees to remain, but we're also allowing people to live near the amenities

that they can walk by and take transit to there by reducing the amount of CO2 that's released

into the atmosphere from driving around from suburbs to cities and back and forth.

That'll do it for me.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Michael Nurby and Ryan Misano.

Good evening.

Michael Nurby, I live in D4 and thank you so much for all your hard work.

I think honestly we've done a fantastic job.

So thank you.

Sacramento overall is amazingly pro housing.

So I'm just going to echo a lot of what we've already heard, but I think from a unique

perspective that I am a local small builder.

And so I'm the one, the guy who basically takes this, interprets it and brings it into

the real world.

And I got to say, I mean, more of my job is being like wearing a lawyer hat or being an

archivist rather than putting wood and stone together to build a house.

I've got real world experience working with planners on bolt control on previous projects.

And I got to say with it, the majority of our most loved for the 15 unit housing in

Sacramento is still illegal and it doesn't make sense to me.

So allow me to build bolt controls costly.

It's outdated and overall it's unnecessary.

Thank you again, really, SACC 2040 and the missing middle is fantastic.

So thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Ryan Misano is our final speaker on this item.

I think it's wise that we address the history of welfare and government housing and affordable

housing in America, which has been a rousing failure.

The people of Sacramento, California, and America are perfectly capable of fixing our housing

problems on our own without government interference.

Solomon said there's nothing new under the sun.

It was said time tells all.

Yes.

This is not.

Mayor, this is not within the purview of missing middle and according to Madison school district

as well as Cornelius versus NAACP.

We have a right to interrupt and restrict speakers to the policy and subject matter at hand.

Thank you.

I'll direct the speaker to please speak to the missing middle ordinance.

Thank you.

After spending 33 hours in jail for saying things that she doesn't like, I'll say

what I place.

It's been said before that the government governs best which governs least.

A book which govern addresses this issue is the naked communist and the author makes a

profound point when he says it's the job of anyone and everyone to help the poor, sick,

and homeless except the government.

As the speaker said earlier and I agree, all the government building housing does is decrease

housing supply and it raises prices.

When award or mayor, we are not discussing government housing.

I think this is government housing.

I'm paying money for housing.

It's government housing.

Lisa Kaplan, I don't know why you don't understand that.

Just speak to why do you oppose this missing middle ordinance?

I do, but it's far more involved than just simply saying I oppose it.

And last, take your last minute, explain why you oppose it in place.

Let's also remember that communism advocates government control of the economy that includes

housing.

How did that work out in Russia and China?

Housing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Even deeper, we have to address that we are all stolen from with the income tax.

If we all were able to keep our money and not have it stolen by the private owners of

the Federal Reserve, then we'd be a lot better off.

In closing, the government should be spending a dime on housing or on welfare and that includes

corporate bank bailouts and individual welfare.

The people of Sacramento are perfectly capable of solving our housing problems without your

help.

All right.

Thank you to the members of the public for coming out and expressing your opinion.

Every council member I believe, most every councilor is up.

I just want to say at the beginning, I have in mind what I think might be a principled

compromise on this issue, but I'm going to wait to put it out there until I hear from

all of my colleagues.

Because there's very important issues raised here around this issue of bulk control.

And let's, when I hear from the colleagues, and then I may, depending on the conversation,

have a suggestion.

So let us begin.

Vice Mayor Mabel.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I just want to start with saying I had a lot of thoughts that ran through my head.

As they read through all of the e-commerce, I listened to all of the speakers, read the

letters, talked to our incredible staff.

It's just that I'm really proud of this city.

It almost brings tears to my eyes.

I think there's not a lot of places in the United States of America where we have so many

people who not only support such a progressive general plan update that we recently passed,

but a missing middle housing plan.

I think there's a lot of places where people would be up in arms about some of the things

that we're just kind of breathing by here.

And I think that says a lot about who we are as a city, about our people, about our neighborhoods.

I think we have a very welcoming city where people just, they really want to see more people

in their neighborhoods.

They want to see different housing types.

They want to welcome with open arms, people who are coming to our city and young people

and I think it's really obvious.

And I just want to start with that.

We have a lot of people here saying yes.

And they have been the entire time and really also want to acknowledge the ESAC Community

Association.

You're saying that we've been here since day one.

I really appreciate that and I think it's great.

And then I was going to read off the long list of supporters, but that was already done

for me.

So I want to appreciate that and I won't take time to do that.

Just says a lot, a lot of really engaged neighborhoods and I think that really goes to our staff.

They kind of work that you do to reach out, to connect with people, to make sure that

they're in the loop, to get their feedback and to incorporate it into multiple, multiple

iterations of a plan that was in motion long before I was here.

So I just want to acknowledge that.

And I think the fact that we're really just focusing on one very tiny, tiny part of

a really big plan says something to me.

I know I said this in long-ledge, what I'm going to say it again here.

It means that you did a really good job, right?

Like if the vast majority of this plan, people are like, yes, no problem.

Not even going to mention it.

That's actually a good thing, even though it would be great.

I'm sure if you have people lining up to talk about all the specific elements that you

spend a lot of time on.

So I want to acknowledge that work.

And I think that in every sense of it, we have embraced the designation of pro-housing

in this city right now today, regardless of what happens.

So I'm really, really proud of the work, proud of the team and all of our residents.

And so me personally, I would say I'm really compelled by some of the arguments I heard

from speakers tonight and those who came to long-ledge and really compelled by these beautiful

images of housing that exist in our city already that wouldn't necessarily be allowed under

the bolt control or would be difficult to make under bolt control.

And I spend a lot of time walking around, I live in Oak Park, I walk around in Curtis

Park all the time, I walk around East Vac.

We have a lot of people kind of think about these neighborhoods as just a lot of single

family homes.

So we actually have amazing mix of different types of housing and all of these neighborhoods

that has been in existence for many decades.

And so in my mind, I want to continue to do that.

I want our policies to continue to make housing at all levels and all density types available

in these neighborhoods because I often think about how do we create a city that's for young

people, that when people go to college here, say they want to stay here and they want to

raise their families here and they want to live here.

And that means that we have to have a lot of different housing types available in the

most desirable neighborhoods, right?

Like people want to live in Oak Park and Curtis Park and Land Park and all the wonderful

places that people live here on the Steyes and beyond.

That means that we need to have different types of housing available because not everybody's

going to want one, be able to afford, but two, maybe not want to live in a single family

home.

Maybe you want to live in a condo.

You want to live in a different style of home and ADU, whatever it may be, and having

those options available is great.

I also think, you know, just in my own neighborhood, I've got, you know, McGeorge Law School, we've

got Aggie Square, we've got the UC Davis Medical Center.

So we have a lot of people that, you know, are in the city, whether they're visiting for

a period of time during the week or here permanently that need places that they can afford

to live near the things that they're going to, whether it be school or work.

And so I think that this missing middle plan does that.

It addresses those needs, but does it in a way where nothing's going to change overnight?

This is not a wholesale shift.

We're not going to see, you know, multi-million dollar houses be, you know, bulldozed for big

apartments.

We're going to see a small shifts over time that hopefully over the course of many years

will lead to the type of dense housing that we need and are looking for.

But that's the way that I'm looking at this.

I recognize that bull control itself is something that came into creation during, you know, previous

negotiations over housing.

And I know that it has served a purpose.

And I recognize those needs.

But, you know, my personal desire, as I've stated in long-ledges, that, you know, I'm

willing to support a motion tonight that moves the missing middle housing ordinance board

interim ordinance without the bull control requirement.

Or some maybe some version thereof, depending on what the mayor has to say.

But that's where my heart is.

That's what I hear from my constituents.

That's what I'm hearing from the people in the room tonight.

And I think that that would make this just perfect with the cherry on top.

So looking forward to seeing what my colleagues have to say and thank you.

Thank you, Vice Mayor Mipple, for starting us off.

Councilmember Valenzuela.

Thank you all.

Definitely start off by echoing the Vice Mayor's compliments.

The staff, great job, New Ann, great job, everybody.

We took a very complex topic and broke it down as best you could.

And so just thank you for all of the work that you've done there.

I just want to start, I guess, by saying that bull control, as currently proposed, wouldn't

apply to several of the examples that were named tonight.

And I just think that's really important for me to say, like the mill, for example,

zone-type density, that would have been allowed.

The mill that was mentioned tonight, that would have been allowed.

Most of the pictures and other properties we've seen would have been allowed because

they're next to multifamily and that's expressly allowed under this.

And so I guess I just want to make really crystal clear, like what we're talking about in

terms of potential impact.

A lot of these places that we're pointing to in Midtown would allow a building to move

forward with a third story without bull control because it's next to another building that

is similar to Detroit.

So I guess I just want to start with that.

And I also want to start by saying, we're really only talking about the third floor.

And I want to name that because the second floor is not even up for discussion right now.

I live in a two-story building in Midtown that has seven units in it on one parcel, right?

There's a lot that can be done with two stories.

I appreciate the focus and the sense of urgency around what the third story looks like.

But I just want to name that like already as proposed with or without bull control,

like this is a pretty significant change for most of the neighborhoods in the city of Sacramento

to say we're going to give you this two-story potential apartment building next door.

I mean, in that we're not even talking about that tonight.

We're really just talking about third story and only in cases when they're not already

near one of the areas where it would already be allowed under the ordinance.

And so I just want to narrow because I think the scope of what we disagree at is actually

much more narrow than even the vice mayor pointed to.

It's really just about what do we do with those third story projects in neighborhoods that

have traditionally been zoned R1.

I also just want to note to the Affordable Housing Comment.

Affordable Developers really aren't in the business of 15 unit or less buildings.

I wish they were, frankly, I've approached them about this in the context of exploring

an opportunity to purchase that.

It doesn't really pencil for them and from management perspective, from privacy and

perspective.

So I don't want anybody to think that by doing this or somehow curtailing affordable

developments because those are often much larger or require a reason if they're in an area

and just don't generally apply in this context.

I said this when we adopted the general plan about the conversations that were happening

in 2021 and 2022 because they were so different than they are today.

They were so incredibly different.

We were up against it and Matt's nodding his head because I would drag him to every neighborhood

zoom that I was invited to.

I mean, you're going to help me answer these questions because it was a really, really

hard conversation and at that time we made a commitment that we were going to ease into

this.

We made a commitment to these neighborhoods that we weren't going to just go from point

eight to point C overnight, that there would be an on ramp.

And I know that's frustrating for people, but that word and that commitment means something

to me.

And I understand this is not the permanent ordinance.

This is an interim ordinance.

We're going to show them what it looks like and then when it comes back to council and

it's been successful, there will be a conversation about doing it differently.

And that's in way shorter a time period than I've ever seen the city commit to doing that

when we say in the next 12, 18 months we're going to come back.

We're going to look at this again.

This is not the forever strategy that any of us are saying.

We're saying let's show these neighborhoods that are super panicked about what this means,

what it looks like to do this well and then immediately turn around and say, do we still

want to keep doing it like this or do we want to take this away entirely?

And so I think that's just incredibly important because I appreciate, I mean, I live in Midtown,

I get it.

I don't have a problem with this for myself personally.

I also get, I mean, I can't tell you the number of conversations I had in West Natomas,

which is now District 3 in Land Park, which is now District 7 from folks who are generally

panicked that this investment.

And I hate the way we talk about these neighborhoods.

Can I just say, these are a lot of folks bought these homes when they were way

cheaper than they are today?

And I'm not always talking about like that 40 homes right.

I'm talking like that people in Land Park whose homes are now worth, you know, a million

dollars and a million five are just as shocked by that as we are.

I mean, they bought that when they were state workers.

This is their life investment.

And so for us to say, hey, we're going to turn around and completely potentially change

what some of the properties around you look like.

It's a big deal.

And it's something that they're worried about.

And I think we want to build a policy that builds buy-in to where we know we want to go

and not just force them to take something that they're going to say, well, wait a minute,

you don't have any of them.

I don't think that's the way we always want to do policy in this city.

And I don't think that's even the proposal in front of us today.

I think the planners are proposing an interim ordinance by name so that we can again do

this on ramp, fulfill the commitment that we made, frankly, over the last couple of

years and really show people what's possible in a deliberate way so that we can immediately

turn around and come back and say, look, the world didn't explode.

Let's talk about making this different, right?

So with all of that to be said, I'm actually making a motion to adopt this staff proposal.

I do want to make some direction, though, because I have some thoughts and direction.

If part of this is to create housing for people, and that's what everybody says it is, I have

a real concern with short-term rentals in this community.

I have a real concern that there are great developers that are in this room and out of this

room that are doing this because they want to improve housing stock.

There are also opportunities who are going to use this to try to make as much money as

they possibly can.

I would love to direct the planning staff to work with the City Attorney's Office

to explore if we can prohibit short-term rentals in these properties.

I have asked, talk to the City Attorney about this.

I'm not going to say this is what we're going to do because we want to explore the legality,

but I do want that to be the direction today that we explore that because we can't keep

saying that we're doing this density thing to improve housing opportunity and not really

have a conversation about how to make sure that actual residents and actual neighborhoods

are occupied in the units that are built.

It's just those two things don't line up.

I also really want to talk about monitoring plan in terms of direction to staff to think

about maybe like three month monitoring updates to Council so that we can see what's

happening.

I've gotten some requests for that from the community and I think that would be good since

this isn't designed to be an interim ordinance.

If we were really transparent about how many permits were going through under this ordinance

and what types of properties and projects are moving forward so that we can see that,

the community can see that and we can use that as a Council or the future Council can

use that to reevaluate.

Then I guess a future direction.

A lot of the beautiful properties that we see and again some that were pictured tonight

were adaptive reuse and I really just want to continue that conversation about how we

facilitate not just adaptive reuse of homes but as one commenter made of office buildings.

I think that there's a real potential here that we're missing in this idea of like scrap

and rebuild which is not only less climate friendly from a materials perspective but

potentially unnecessary if we could make it easier and explore ways to make it more

feasible for people just to start building different walls and make adaptions to the

existing buildings to make them habitable for apartments or small condos or whatever

they call them.

So that's my emotion is to approve this as proposed.

Again just this, it's an interim ordinance.

I know that people want us to go so much further and I wish we were there and I think frankly

like the loudest voices can't always be the ones who to roll the day.

I appreciate the number of commenters we've seen in here.

I have talked to hundreds of residents who are very quiet who are just worried.

They just don't know what it means and given how much this ordinance already allows I

don't see the need to jump even further yet when we're already making a commitment to

look at this next year.

I just I don't so that's my motion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Valenzuela we'll see if there's a second of that motion.

I'll turn it.

What's that?

That's Councillor Jennings.

Second is the motion.

Okay.

Councillor Member Getta.

Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.

I appreciate the conversation here and I think you're probably going to hear this over and

over again.

Huge kudos to the staff on this.

This is why they have been recognized nationally by the APA and the work that's gone into

this.

And you know my colleague Katie Valenzuela mentioned a little good refresher.

It wasn't this kumbaya back in 2020, 2019 even when we first started having these conversations

because it was that first general plan.

I think it might have been in 2018 when we were first starting to go around the cities around

the city and discuss the idea of changing our zoning standard.

But when the proposal came on paper in 2021 it was a shocker and it was a time when

we were also the country and our city was in going through a lot of turmoil.

But the professionalism and the engagement of our city staff has basically brought us

to this point.

And so I think you're going to hear that over and over again that the net benefit of

this ordinance is extremely positive.

And one thing that I want to underscore that this is a by right tool and that is this

authority is a very strong tool.

That means that we're giving up a lot of trust in how something would be built.

That's very strong.

I want to remind that folks.

So when we talk to the neighborhoods during 2021 about design standards and said we're

going to work with you to make sure that if we're going to use this tool how do we make

it functional.

The only thing that they really asked for is on the bull control side.

And it's not in and it's in a limited way as well.

I'm going to also repeat this again that the examples that were brought up wouldn't qualify

under this ordinance because they're already next to additional three story buildings.

And no one is saying that you can't have just a flat roof.

But it just makes it that it's appropriate in the locations there it is.

And I do appreciate those developers that took the time to meet with the community.

And I mentioned it during the law and let's committee to build even extremely high density

over 100 units on Stockton and T. But it blends in because they were thoughtful and they

used architects to make the right bull control.

You drive down T Street even further where we had vacant lots in those areas.

You wouldn't even know that that was multifamily housing up down T Street because they've been

designed in a way where it matches and blends in with the neighborhood and also has short

setbacks.

So in one point I'm going to sort of in second I'm going to support the motion.

And I'm also going to to support it in the context that I think the direction to look

at restricting short term rentals is important.

If the intent of the mixed income housing is to make available units then let's make

sure we accomplish that policy goal.

Very clear question here for Mr. Hill and it's a very simple one.

Very simple one.

And so yes or no question because people have asked and said that you cannot build three

story houses if this was to pass.

Is that true?

No, you can build three story houses and want to clarify with the bull control in F.

R. 2.

You can do 90% of the third four is a livable area with our long gormers and the revisions

are made.

So 90%?

90%.

Okay.

So and in a lot of cases that's this area would be bigger than some of the in fact you

know little the craftsmen homes that are in these neighborhoods as well that level of

square footage.

So I want to also talk about you know the nature of the intensity and I get it you know

some of us have worked in advocacy for a long time.

We'll always come up to the testimony at a level 10 you know but this in reality I believe

the staff has been thoughtful about it because they truly believe their true believers in

what we're trying to accomplish which is more housing.

So the one one area where I'd like to you know if my I'd like to hear the conversation

move forward but but and if the maker of the motion as we go through the conversation

it would like to change it is I appreciate you know Trisha Stevens and by the way I want

to thank Trisha Stevens because she was again from the beginning for a long time she's

been a professional she for many years at the county she also helped drive and push

affordable housing projects in the suburban area where it was not welcomed at all high

density and they came out and I've never won her complaint since then and that's back

in when 2010 when I was on the county planning commission and for her to come and give

some advice and recommendations I appreciate her years of expertise in planning and

one of them that I think she makes a good point is on the setbacks and I'd like us to

consider that let's get through the conversation here but I'd like to consider that because

on T Street where you are not T but I think you street and V street you have some homes

that are 12 and a half set feed setback this that's what the ordinance is calling for but

you go for blocks and the setbacks to you know some very modest homes that are you know

some of them are three twos or two twos some three ones modest homes there sit back

so like 35 feet and so to all of a sudden build out something to 12 feet you're not going

to be able to even see your neighbors when you step out your door so I think that they

what they recognize is not a no but let's say let's find an average that fits with that

street I think that's an important consideration and I'll make this last point here of why

we should consider these folks in the public have said it's an interim ordinance let's give

it a shot why not just take away bull control why not allow go to 12 and a half and see what

happens well I'll flip it on on its head let's allow this to move forward let's see what the

impacts are because the consequences the consequences are much greater on the impacts for someone

who has two buildings that build aside them because that building hopefully will be there

for over 100 years you know and those buildings when you look at the FAR 2 they are in communities

like West Tahoe Park colonial heights were built in 1910 they are in different areas and they

were the modest homes they weren't the large homes they were the the very working class homes

and so the negative consequences of just saying well let's just rush hard and then see what happens

in a year I think are much more dramatic than saying let's take this amazing step forward and then

let's evaluate you know the number of units we were able to create that's evaluate the costs when

we work with folks and if someone truly truly wants to build a big three story square foot the

square block there is a process for that through the deviation process there is an avenue and if

all your neighbors say we love this we want this there is an avenue nothing in the in what we're

doing what completely prohibited what we're doing is doing something that allows by right which is

a strong tool we're sending for with that thank you to my colleague for making that motion I do

supported by like us to consider the deviation sample on this point before I turn it over to the

pro-tem it's something you said at the end I want to clarify because I think it's important for

everybody to understand it I don't particularly understand it if bulk control remains is there a

process by which a a housing developer can seek a waiver from the bulk control yes or no and if

so what is that process there is the process of the density bonus law from the state that's

one process for affordable housing what about for and Ben got made the point that this is not just

about affordable it's about market rate as well so what about is there for a market rate project is

there any kind of a variance or appeal process from the bulk control requirement for an appropriate

project so the approach of staff took up with this is that we expanded the standards to the point

where we felt that deviations would not be necessary to make a project economically feasible so I'm sorry so

don't and I think Bruce Bruce can respond more completely it's it's I don't know it's not a

simple yes or no but it's close to a simple yes or no because yes there's a process that's what and

what is the process it's called a deviation and currently in our site plan and design review if a

applicant does not want to or cannot comply with the zoning standards that we have which you

also include bulk control they can ask for a deviation to those standards and they attend a public

hearing a directors hearing and that's heard and the reason it's a public hearing is because it

allows the neighbors to have an opinion and quite often in the deviation director hearings we get

multiple letters of support from the adjacent neighbors that makes it a fairly easy thing to say yes so

missing middle housing does have a deviation process that they can go through but it just with the

staff taking a pretty strong position that bulk control is important imagine a circumstance but

where the director would grant such a variance if somebody sought a waiver of variance from

bulk control why would that happen I serve as the design director you're the you're the one yeah

okay and the reality is is that we probably approve 95% of all the projects that come through

requesting a deviation and that's because by the time they get to the director's hearing they've

been thoroughly vetted they've been balanced the rationale for why a deviation is necessary and

public outreach has been held in order to get feedback from the public and so by the time we look

at it we can see a fairly complete package with a justification for that okay I know my colleagues

are up to speak but I think this is an important point I would not mind one of the representatives from

the NIMBY coalition to come on up and address this specific this specific issue why is it the

Yimbi Yimbi with a why the Yimbi coalition to come up because if this is a temporary ordinance which

it is and if there is a variance and you heard Mr. Monahan say 95% of the cases as long as it's

quote worked out with the neighbors i.e. in this case I'll get to you in a second i in this case

the design concerns were worked out why why isn't that a a good out so to speak for for your

concerns yeah so as staff knows what we're trying to do is we're trying to encourage the building

of something that is is not being built frankly anywhere in California we're trying to get people

to start building a new type of housing type and my view is that is a it is already an inherently

risky proposition we're trying to entice new first-time developers builders of color builders who

don't do this stuff professionally now and as anyone who's interacted with a discretionary process

knows discretionary processes are hugely risky you have to put in a ton of time and effort and money

just to start that process and you and you don't know where it's going to end unless you have

some reasonable assurance that what you're trying to do is is going to be accepted then the the

the reality and we see this this is the entire justification for the ministerial approval processes

that you all have put in place over the last five years is that when you have discretionary

processes you scare off a huge overwhelming majority of potential projects because it's simply

not worth the amount of time and effort to enter into something so risky okay let's let's get Mr.

Monty back up I'm going to Perry just for a second number one what's the cost of the variance

and to how quickly does would the director hear the application for a variant because the argument

is being made well is it going to discourage the entrepreneurial developer to want to go in in the

first place so what's the cost and how long would it take to answer the question because I don't

know offhand I think it's a thousand dollar fee the director hearings are held every two weeks

they're held on or every week and they're held online so they're easy to attend

the scheduling really doesn't change the impact because you don't have to wait a month for a hearing

as soon as it's finished the processing it's you can advertise it and then go go forward okay

and just to be clear from a design control standpoint every project that requires a permit in

the city of Sacramento is subject to site plan and design review so this is a standardized process

throughout the city with or without bulk control every project that's going to get built we

either look at it and review it or we exempt it but every project gets reviewed but if there's bulk

control to get a variance it's an extra thousand dollars and what you're saying a couple of

week discussion and process and that process exists right now because we've had bulk control for

almost 20 years so as we work with it if someone right now wants to go with under current

codes wants to exceed bulk control we have some discretion there and if it's too much we can take

it to a hearing sorry one more question in the 20 years that bulk control has been on the books in

Sacramento how many times has a variance been applied for and how and what and how many times has

it been granted I'm going to take a wild guess at this but I think that probably only 10% of the

projects that come through related to bulk control have bulk control issues and probably less than

half of that go to a director here and how okay and and well were they granted or not

there it is rare that they are not granted because they typically come with a full justification

we we understand that not every project can comply with every rule and we want to give people a

chance to build what they build as long as it's respectful for the neighborhood and as long as

we can establish that case we're going to approve it can you tell me between now and 10 minutes

from now because we'll we'll move on here seriously how many times has such a variance been

requested for the bulk control requirement and how many times this has been granted I'd like to

know that please probably these days probably only about 20% of projects have bulk control issues

okay but a very small portion of those can't be resolved they're all resolved in favor of the

developed we talk about the severity of out of bulk control if it's a minor intrusion and it

doesn't impact a neighbor we can go ahead and approve it we have that ability if it's significantly

out we think it impacts a neighbor we want the neighbor and the neighborhood to be able to have a

voice in the decision and that's why we have it here thank you okay thank you I'm sorry

didn't erupt but I think wanted to get those questions answered mayor pro tem tolemontes and then

councilmember Kaplan now I think they're really important questions mayor and kind of

along the lines of questioning for myself as well so I'm really interested in hearing what your

compromise is I do worry about staff not having like tools in their toolbox to do better for the

community so for example like when I was a chief of staff we had like at least five projects that

came to council because they could because it met the criteria but the community I mean was

opposed to a gas station or to drive through or just different things and and it was important

to make sure that we could find common ground and middle ground and so and luckily we had tools

in the toolbox so I'd be able to address neighbor concerns and I don't want neighbors to feel like

I want more housing especially affordable housing and I'm supportive of councilmember

balance as well as requests to make sure not short-term rentals but I worry that like we're

taking away tools from the tool box from the city staff to do their jobs so I guess for a city

staff you guys have real world examples of projects that you can tell me about right now where

this would apply and how it would make the process easier better.

Thank you is it is a question specific to ball control? Yeah okay.

Kind of a long Bruce's territory which is why I'm happy with the mayor.

Yeah it's a pretty special treat to you. Oh I mean it's a real life example like give me a situation

and you know whatever neighborhood in Lampark or downtown or you know just give me a real life

example. So we process probably a 200 residential projects through site plan and design review in a

year. Every one of those projects that we look at has the potential to have an impact on the

neighboring property whether it's a remodel or a new project all of them when they come in show

their compliance to ball control. So if we're talking about which projects are where they're all

over the city that it's important to understand that we're a city with incredibly diverse neighborhoods.

We're built at different times. We're built in different forms. We're built in different

separations. You look at Midtown I used to live at 22nd L and straight up little boxes all together

and then you go out to the more suburban neighborhoods and it's spread out in a single story.

And so impacts are different in different parts of the city and that's part of what we take in

a consideration because it's a subjective review. It's not a ministerial review. So when we talk

about does an overhang extend beyond ball control? Yes it might and that's not a big impact.

Is half the wall would windows all along that wall out of ball control and those windows are

looking into the neighboring property? That becomes a problematic. If it's essentially too close to

the street and straight up one of the things that came from early studies in East Sacramento was

because it was very little setback when someone built a second story and they went straight up

off the street you got these massive buildings kind of looming over the sidewalk.

I believe and maybe I'm biased here as Europe and Design Matter. Design matters when we're building a

city. Neighborhood context matters. We look at every project individually based on the neighborhood

that it's in and the adjacency of the buildings and the types of buildings that they are. Therefore it's

not one decision for every projects. It's a decision based on the design in the context that it's

in and that's one of the reasons why it's been a successful tool because we can modify it.

I think that it's important for people to be able to enjoy their property in their neighborhood

that they've embraced that they've chosen to live in and not have something intrude upon them

without some way of mitigating that and so our process goes through that mitigation of looking at

bulk control and maybe that's kind of a tough name. It's more about form-based design. We're trying

to get a form that works better within the context of the neighborhood and makes it predictable as

to what can be built before. This whole thing came from the issues in East Sacramento about McManchins

and I think most people remember that. Very large houses being built in smaller scale neighborhoods

which were just huge. A lot of money, a lot of things being built. It's been fairly consistent through

that process to be able to be respectful of the neighborhood while we're trying to maximize

what someone can have as far as a project. Thank you. Natuomas, we're high density everywhere so

it's a little different and it's something that where I probably don't get as many appeals as

other council members and other parts of the city. Does this ordinance speed up our planning

application process in any way? I'm sorry. Does it speed up the planning application building

permit process in any way? I don't know that it has any impact on the permit process. So we go

through a planning review. We create a record of decision that project goes forward and it goes

into building permit, processing permit and then goes to construction. The time it takes to process

within planning for subjective review on say a residential project is typically six weeks.

It really depends on how many other departments it has. If it has to go through public works and

driveways and the like, it takes longer. But it's a relatively quick process and we don't review

everything. Council member, may I also add to Bruce's response? Yeah. So the intent of this ordinance is

to allow uses that is currently not allowed. So in that sense, if someone wants to build a multi-unit

dwelling right now in the R1 zone, that's not allowed. They would have to re-zone. So in this sense,

this ordinance in many cases is saving time and costs in that sense because now they wouldn't have

to re-zone their property and now this is a use that's allowed by right. And so in, and we're talking

about 70% of the city's residential zone land, which are in these categories. Okay, so it would expedite

the process. From that perspective. Okay, sounds good. That's it. Thank you.

Council member Kaplan, then I'll dive in. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I don't know who the

right person to ask, but I just want to say, as everybody else has said, kudos, because you look at

this document and you look at the details and then know how hard planning everything is and we're

now down to this one small bit that we're looking at potential innovation. How do we keep things

the same? So I heard somebody come up and talk and they bought a house in the mill and they said

by us adopting this ordinance, it would make housing of what it looks like in the mill no longer

allowable is that true or not. So as you know, our city consists a lot of residential zones. So

that if there are many zones in the city that you can do what you see in the mill on beyond, right?

You can go much higher. There's places in our city where there's no high limit. There,

you know, there are zones right above what we're talking about with R1 and R2. There are zones, R3,

R4, R4, R4, R5, and I was 45 feet high limit. So there's a lot of places throughout the city that

have these different zones. What we're talking about, obviously, are the a lot of established neighborhoods,

many with single-story homes that don't have these other structures next to them.

So to make sure that I understand, because I know a little, not a lot, and sometimes you'll answer

and then I get confused. So this ordinance would not make mill-style housing harder to build

throughout the city. No, not at all. I mean, what we're introducing is housing types that you can't

build right now in our established neighborhoods of R1, R1A, R1B, R2. We see these housing types

that are being built, of course. They're being built in all over a city in the zones that permit that,

R3, R4, R5, C1, C2, RME, etc. Okay. And then Bruce, you said something somewhat profound that

just want clarification on. You said, you know, you believe that people should have the right

and some ability and when they move into an area, design based off of context when you look at

something in the area that they live in. So can you help me understand if we remove bulk control

and go to what the Planning and Design Commission said of removing bulk control from FIR 2.0 within

a half a mile of transit? Are you saying that there would be no tools in the city's toolbox

that design on context of the neighborhood would be allowed?

That's correct. And I think it's one of the most critical things within what we're doing right now.

Not everybody designs good homes. We get a lot of different things. Some of the murder really bad.

Some of them are really good. The tools that we use help the really bad ones get better.

They may not get perfect, but they'll get better. If you're allowed to build a wall straight

up for 35 feet, we don't have any tools to make that better. It's just a box and I can sit there.

And so there's no way we can put in design standards even just for citywide, which have nothing to do.

Yeah. So we are citywide design guidelines or guidelines. They are subjective. We're allowed to use

them because state law says 2020 on its objective standards. So bulk control is an objective

standard. So we can use that as a tool. But if we lose bulk control as a tool, we don't have any

other standards that we can use. We can say put some shutters on a paint of a different color.

But we're not going to be able to model it. Think about more about volume than anything else.

And if you have a block of clay and if you choose the simplest form and you make it a rectangle,

that's it. You can use that. But if we take that block of clay and begin to model the parts of it

and the top of it to give it some shape, then that shape helps create some compatibility in the

context of traditional residential projects. Now, to be clear, I live in a three-story box.

I don't have a problem with that as a design standard. It's how it's done, but it's next to a

bunch of other three-story boxes. So it fits in real well. When we went through this process,

as it heard, we heard early on the neighbors didn't like this idea at all. As we started talking

about predictability, it will not look exactly like your neighborhood, but it'll look sort of like

your neighborhood. That predictability began to win people over to the concept of allowing more

units in a traditional looking form. We had a point where the consultant came to us, came to me,

and said, your bulk control is going to restrict the ability to achieve the FARs we want.

You'll have to change it. So we now have three levels of bulk control. We have our standard R1

bulk control. You want to build a house. That's the one that's been existing for 20 years. We have

a bulk control for FAR1, which is much more relaxed than our standard one. Then we have an even more

relaxed one for FAR2. We're trying to be able to, at the end, create some predictability for

the neighborhood. So we made a choice, which was, let's modify this, take it as far as we can,

but never lose sight that this is going into a neighborhood. It's going next door to somebody.

And if it's not going next door to somebody, it's even more liberal. So we thought we pushed it as

far as we could. And that was our choice at a staff level to say, this is our recommendation.

This is where we think we should be. This is what we think respects neighborhood while creating

the greatest yield. And with the bulk control to be clear, you can achieve all of those FAR levels.

You're not going to not get to the level because we model the bulk control to be able to allow

the square footage to happen. It's just that we want to retain the tool of how to shape that third floor.

Thank you. Okay. That was probably the best answer to the complex question that's in front of us.

So I'm a little in the middle. I look forward to where you want to go mayor. But I just,

I have a couple of comments because like when I first moved to Sacramento, I lived in Oak Park.

And I love the beauty and the diversity and the complexity of Oak Park. And then I moved downtown.

And then I moved into Midtown. And I loved walking everywhere and how everything was different.

And then because I was a new attorney and decided to take a public sector job making nothing,

the only place I could afford a house of 914 square feet was a zero-lot property line in South

Natomas. And I have lived in Natomas since 2001. And if you come to Natomas as Karina knows,

more debts. Like all of these discussions you guys are having. I got three stories around me,

two stories, duplexes together that look like houses. I don't have a backyard. I don't know.

I barely had a side yard that touches the neighbor's house. So I come from a place of

we need to build the missing middle because 20 some odd years ago, I was where all of you were.

But I had the opportunity to pay $139,000 for a two-bedroom, two-bath, 914 square foot house

that had no side yard, barely any backyard, and one car garage. But that's how I got my start.

And I look at that and I look at how can we do things different and why should Midtown be the

only cool complex 100-year-old buildings that are six to eight that are unique and why can't that be

in our residential areas? And many have heard. I have lived in Europe and you look at how Europe

designs things. And I don't want our cities to be just downtown as cool and that's where it's

walkable. Why can't we have those areas in the north and in the south and pockets of where I've

got new housing proposals coming? Why can't I make it look like Midtown? And I know that requires,

you know, probably amending the beauties. I'm cool with that. So I was very supportive because I

look things a little bit on the flip side. I have the hope and I also have the knowledge having been

in around design and developers that they're really not going to build something that people hate

and protest and are willing to be and work within there. That's why I was supportive of the

planning and design commission to remove boat control on the FAR 2.0. That was in transit line

because we need to increase our density. When we talk about making walkable, safe cities

and increasing public transit, you have to increase the density along the lines. And by the way,

Natomas has been doing it. That's how Natomas was master planned. I welcome others to join on what

it's like to live really close and not have enough parking and figure things out. And guess what?

I love my neighborhood. Everybody loves Natomas. I think we need to share in all of that. So Mayor,

I believe in the, I'm not worried about the development that may come if we reduce boat control

outside of and go with what the planning and design commission.

This is a tough one, everybody. Council member Tau, go ahead.

I just want to, I've listened today to my colleagues and first off, I like to commend staff.

When they briefed me on this item, I had a lot of questions. Especially looking into the missing

middle housing ordinance and discussion on how we're going to get that ordinance going and

this progressive housing ordinance. And I like the idea that we are, this boat move that the city

is this progressive move that we're doing to get more housing for folks in the city.

Definitely with North Sacramento, we're more of an older neighborhood with a lot of vacant

lots. But then I, tonight, I know it's after a really good job with discussing where

boat control is going to be, where it's not going to be. And there's a variance. And so I would

just like to commend that. And I feel like this interim ordinance will do justice for us to

test it out for a year to see where that discussion's going because I know there's a lot of folks

in my neighborhood who are in a really old area. That's a one story suburb that are really scared

of a three story building right next to them, you know, even a two story. And so definitely,

I feel that this interim ordinance is, well, a loud time for the people to see the benefits

of this type of housing. And so I think customer Venezuela was right when she talked about how

this ordinance will be that middle ground for a year. And we will revisit that. And so definitely

with the short term housing as well. Very good. Thank you. So let's take a tally here for a minute.

There are four members who are clearly in favor of the staff recommended. By the way,

what a thoughtful conversation. Four who are clearly in favor. There are, well,

on my count here, there's two who are disposed to provide a different standard for specifically

for FAR2. And then there are three members including myself who have not yet fully articulate

their position. So this is a close one. So I want to say a couple of things and put out a

thought here. All right. And first of all, a comment, a little editorial comment about the politics

here and something that bothered me tonight. And maybe, you know, my history, the author of

the Senate Bill 375, the seminal state bill that encourages infill housing. I'm predisposed,

I think towards the argument that Councilmember Kaplan just articulated that we need to have the

most aggressive policies about densifying near transit lines. I really believe that, but something

that bothered me tonight. And I love our, our, our, your, your advocate, because I think they've

done tremendous work. But please don't argue that the people of East Sacramento are white and rich.

Don't do it. It's wrong. And it's, it's, it, we ought to be moving towards the community, not

separating people. It's, it's not what this is about. The, the, you know, I've had my differences

with some of the neighborhoods in East Sacramento. And this and that throughout my tenure on some

policies, homeless policy, this or that. But everybody, including East Sacramento and Land Park and

these communities and neighborhoods have been full partners and participants in this progressive

housing policy. The rhetoric is important here. And we need to be about coming together, not

separating each other, regardless of good faith points of view on, on wherever it is we might land.

So that's one thing. The second thing is, I'm just running on this great, been around a long time,

fantastic, all of you do fantastic work. But, and there's no butt to that. But Lisa Kaplan, Lisa

Kaplan, really, so, where's the first set of questions, whether or not for somebody who wants to push

a project that would, that would not be consistent with the bulk control requirement, is there a variance

possibility? And the answer was yes, okay. But we're in a box here. And, and we're, and I'm not sure if

it's a box that is just the way that it is or whether or not you in a intelligent way have put us in

the box. And this is what I mean by that. It's Council Member Kaplan's question. The point that the

Yimbi Coalition makes, which I think is a good point, is that any policy that the city sets like

this may send it an inadvertent negative market signal. Right? If bulk control is overdone,

especially along transit, like transit corridor, it may send a market signal that you can't do more

innovative housing types, unintended, but that could be the risk. And what you said to us tonight,

in answer to Council Member Kaplan's question, is that the only protection is bulk control.

And I want to at least explore here with the potential compromise whether or not bulk control is the

only remedy. Because I believe the neighborhood deserves, always deserves to have a voice. And if

Mr. Nguyen's drawing there of that horrible looking cement block in the middle of the neighborhood is a

potential reality, then we need to protect against that. But I'm not yet convinced that bulk control

is the only way to achieve that. For example, a letter from one of the advocates here,

and Vice Mayor Maple handed this to me, in the middle of the hearing, they asked this question.

They say, perhaps something simple and objective, like new structures shall be no more than one

story taller than adjacent residential structures, and shall not shade existing solar panels on adjacent

properties might be a protection. So in other words, you have, I guess you still form a bulk control,

but you allow for the building of three stories if the block that the development is proposed for

already has two stories. I mean, why isn't that another form of protection other than this

objective, but kind of rigid standard here? And so I wonder, and I want to put this out by

colleagues, even those who have said that they're for the staff recommendation, whether you would consider

a differentiation between FAR one and two, FAR one, by the way, is the heart of the neighborhoods,

where bulk control would apply fully. But FAR two within a much closer distance to transit lines

still hits some of the neighborhoods, but not nearly as much, not have bulk control,

but instead have a different set of protections. And I know that Mr. Hurtle and Mr. Monahan,

and maybe we can put some of this up on the screen here, because I won't do justice to it if I try

to read some of these other protections. But I know throughout the day that we have been working

on some of those other protections for the neighborhood might be. And if we could put that up

this document, yes, and go through a couple of these things. And maybe you can help me a little bit.

What?

This is a little bit.

Okay, hold on. Oh, boy.

The import of this, as I understand it, is that the citywide single unit dwelling and duplex

dwelling guidelines would still apply, that the aggregate length of all dormers and other

extensions that extend beyond a roof line would not exceed 60% of the width of the building facade,

that while bulk control would not apply to FAR two along the transit corridors,

that there would still be a significant setback requirement, the greater of 12.5 feet,

or the greater of 60% of either the two nearest building setbacks. And maybe you would want

to add what I just described in this letter, which is that you can't go in FAR two any higher,

any higher than one story above what the highest story is on a block. So you couldn't go from one

story to three stories on a particular block. Can I ask a clarifying question? I want to make

sure I understand. And maybe that will give the audience time to read this.

Isn't that more restrictive than what staff is proposing? Because staff currently is basically

saying the only conditions would apply on a third story, even if you're surrounded by single

stories. If you say it's only one story above and we're concerned about market signals, isn't that

more restrictive? Well, I would, I'd listen to Ben, but I mean, I'm trying to, if bulk control

sends the wrong market signal, all I'm trying to do here is explore whether or not there might be

another set of conditions that would protect the neighborhoods from bad and overly bulky design.

And so is what I described more restrictive or not? Because go ahead. No, I mean, to me, this sounds

potentially like a reasonable compromise. So I think what the prozoan, I think this came from the

architects from the American Institute of Architects letter would be just that it can't be more than one

story more than its neighbors. So if you have a one story building next story, you can build a

two story building. If you have a two story building next story, you can build a three story building.

Part of the reason why this, I'm curious, staff's thoughts, but my biggest concern is that if we're

not legalizing a simple three story form in any, any of our neighborhoods, then there's going to

be no momentum to build that. And even if we start to see missing middle housing types developed,

we're never going to have that natural experiment. But you're willing to live with no three story

unless there's at least a two story on a given block and only in the transit areas. I mean, my view

from an affordable, I'd be curious. I don't want to speak for everybody, but my view is that when it comes

to affordable units that maintaining the ability to build simply is more important than maximizing

someone's ability to do complex custom dormers. Okay. Yes. So go ahead, staff. Mr.

Hurl. Yeah, just a couple points here. So my quick analysis here would be overall result in less

housing because we're talking about three stories, 90% of the third story being level areas. We're still

talking about square footage that meets effort to or effortable on throughout our city. The other

thing is if we're looking at the complexity of our vision, we would have to go back and work with

our attorneys on these ordinance changes. I come back at a later date because there's. I understand. Okay.

Hey, wait, you know, you don't want to legislate from the day is too much, but on the other hand,

there's you have division here around whether or not this bulk control throughout the entire city

sends a bad market signal. I think we're all trying to take that seriously while protect the

neighborhoods and you presented us one alternative and I'm simply asking whether or not there might be

other alternatives besides the design review that you already have, they would provide that protection.

And if the answer is you're not sure, then I guess we could either. We could we could take a vote on

on the concept that I put out with obviously another vote in a couple weeks with specific language.

I could put that forward as a substitute motion or there's the main motion, but I really I put

it as much more to my colleagues as we try to bring people together here, which is always part of

our job and see if there is something more to talk about here and I think, you know, some of you

who are for the staff recommendation may want to weigh in and say whether or not you're willing to

consider that because it's worth taking a little bit more time. I know this is only a year long

ordinance. I said that at the very beginning. I think maybe we're making all way too much of this

anyways, but this is our community and everybody cares and genuinely cares. So why not worth the try?

Go ahead, Eric's next. Go ahead. Okay, so thank you Mr. Mayor, but I actually think you're that

over complicates undoubtedly. And now and I agree with my colleague council member Kaplan in her

area where they're already built out two to three story high with the next to each other because

I got a lot of my friends who moved over there. You know, that's not an issue, but you know, I think

where why this is I feel we're going through an unneeded compromise. Not only that I feel like

there's enough votes for this to move forward, that's just my gut sense, but I can only speak to

how it affects the council district that I'm elected to represent. And number one, without a doubt,

I agree that density along transit lines is critical, which is why we push for changes along

Stockton Boulevard to make it a C2 zone where all down that corridor, you can build up to 75 feet

and in fact we're doing four or five story six story buildings. You could just go over to Lawrence

and Stockton and see that happening. So yes, that is a big issue. The worry I have here is is not so much,

you know, say East Sacramento or that area, they they similar, similar housing types in some of it,

but if you go down to 56 in Fruit Ridge, those are working class folks again and I will say folks

who bought their home with the very little means that they had with a certain aspect and now all

of a sudden there isn't going to be any at least subjectiveness to that single story community.

This is actually much more progressive to figure out how we can maximize

off of Fruit Ridge and 55th Street and still have the density along the corridor. So what staff

has proposed already has that mixed in already, you have higher density than you bring it down. So you have

you know Stockton Boulevard where we're moving there where you can get four to five story,

you got FAR2 where it goes three story, you got FAR1 where it goes one to two story,

staff has put together a simplistic formal ready. So I don't I think you're proposing a well

meaning I think over complicates it. Yes councilmember Vellan's way of that. So I'm itching to ask

the question of what is the problem we're trying to solve because as I understand it and staff please

interject if I start to mischaracterize something or Bruce just throw a hand, right? This is the only

tool that the staff has to govern third stories. If we take it away in any form as I understand

state law they can't objectively say hey we don't like that third story that's it like if they

would have no tool in a circumstance and Bruce reviews I mean they see these projects I appreciate

my colleagues' deference to the development community but sometimes they're a bad projects and like

if they don't have this tool there's nothing they can do and in most cases if it fits the nearby

community they might say hey it's no big deal and if they don't say that the developer can ask for

a hearing in which case if the neighbor say it's no big deal it's no big deal right so I guess what

I'm trying to figure out is like I don't see this as an iron box that we're putting ourselves in

when it comes to this third story. I see staff has created a tool that is complex but is a tool that

allows them to address the variety of circumstances that they might see on a third story and this will

take that tool away from them and under state law under your thing if it's three if it's two

stores three stores there's nothing else they can do it's automatically approved and I think

that's the other part that I really want to make super clear is like what we're talking about is

what's like automatically approved versus what staff gets a voice in approving and I think we're

permitting quite a bit under this as it is so I just want to just name like what is the problem

we're trying to solve because I get the worries about market signals but like in the end that's the

worry. And the end staff is telling us that like 95 percent of the time like it's fine and so I

guess I'm curious like in those few circumstances where they're able to work with the developer to

make improvements or in the few cases the developer comes to a hearing like I imagine whole scenarios

here like I have like I did the urban eye coalition right I have no people who use their backyard

gardens as a source of income you come in build a third story next to them their income's gone right

it's not just solar panels there's a hundred different scenarios and a hundred different

areas like it happens that could happen so I just don't know why I take away this tool as such a

deal breaker given staff's track record and being pretty progressive and approving projects that come

up pretty well I think you're making a really good argument okay so this is what the dialogue is I

don't disagree I just I don't understand what we're trying to know well I would we're trying to

respond to the concern of some of our most of forward thinking housing advocates that we are going

to send a negative market signal that's what it is that's the concern that the objective standard

is too restrictive and so you're all we're doing is trying to unpack that and and and not create any

unindeedy consequence councilmember Kaplan may have a suggestion go ahead thank you mayor and I

appreciate how you put things in perspective and thank you councilmember valence wala because I

always ask when we're trying to do something what's the problem and what's the problem we're trying

to solve and I think the thing is is one of the things we always ask is what's the data what is the

data say and then if we're doing something new what is the data that we're gathering in is it a

problem do we need to look at it and do we need to change it so what I I love is a year from now

we're going to come back I can read the room my opinion has not changed but what I would like is as

we move forward with the staff suggestion I think between now and then we need to start

gathering the data what did this have an effect on the market is it producing the housing and the

missing middle that we thought it was and for me what I hear a lot of times is the streamlining

process developers say I followed this and then somebody says oh this was an objective standard

no no I'm saying it's this what is appreciating me for single versus duplexes how do you interpret that

once is this way once is that's way and all of a sudden a year later you're still talking about

building housing and not moving forward and so for me the problem I look at this is how do we

streamline because I think sometimes subjectiveness is coming in and it prevents housing from getting

built faster so I want to see data a year from now as we come back and talk is are there concerns

and then I'm with the mayor okay here bolt control but nobody has has truly laid out but then

again I haven't spent is enough time and haven't been to all of the attorneys ears why can't we

write or put in certain beauty or other standards and just remove bolt control what does it have to

be bolt control so there's time between now and then because maybe there is some way of removing

bolt control that allows for streamlining but then still allows for the protection in the

neighborhoods and I'd like to spend this next year that if there are examples if you and B has

that that we start gathering that so then when it comes back we can really look at because I can

tell you I will still be here so these are the questions I'm going to ask so you now have a year

to come back with some data to answer them I'll remember that council members motion included

the three months come back come right which which I'm always I'm not sure how much because housing move

slow like slow that will know in three months but I am supportive of council member valance whela's

guideline especially if we're building this housing restricting it so that it doesn't become

part of the rental share market but it actually goes to Sacramento okay I think last comment

from vice mayor maple and then we're going to take a vote I think on the motion on the floor

all right thank you mayor and just want to appreciate all my colleagues for the robust debate I think

this is a been really helpful I think that's for me but for for the audience and it's not not

often that we get so in depth on housing but I do want to respond quickly to council member valance

based question about what problem we're trying to solve for here and I think about this a little

bit more globally one of the things that we've seen from our governor from our attorney general

and from others up at the state level a lot of the laws that are coming down that are making

streamlining processes for housing is that we've seen when we have processes that involve a lot

of neighborhood involvement which I'm totally supportive of it has also led to less housing being

built and less dense housing being built over time and to me that is part of the problem that I'm

trying to solve for is creating more ways that we can more efficiently and quickly build housing

in neighborhoods so that the people want to live in right because we're not talking about

you know all over the city we're talking about in neighborhoods where it's really really hard to build

dense housing and so that's what I want to see I want to see us build a bit more flexible I want to

see us see cool projects get built and some of these neighborhoods where they they probably won't

under under a bolt control requirement and and seems like that's not on the in the cards today

but I'll certainly keep pushing and I just really appreciate the conversation great conversation and

thank you con last context to go back full circle this is progressive policy

even this vote is going to this vote is going to pass with this is progressive policy

and it's not the end of this particular conversation and it's one thing I think vice-may

maple makes a really good point at least the way I hear it is that you know if we were like

arguing again if somebody was arguing for some restrictive housing policy this would be a

totally different conversation but this is we've gone a hundred miles in a short period of time

and whether or not we go 105 or 110 here I mean so let's keep that in perspective

because we're all doing the right thing and trying to continue to do the right thing please call

the vote on the motion thank you and councilmember valance wala will you confirm the you opened

and closed the public yes and that was a second by councilmember Jennings yeah thank you council

member Kaplan councilmember Tao mayor pro temtelementes hi councilmember valance wala yes vice-may

maple hi councilmember gatta hi councilmember Jennings yes councilmember vang and mayor Steinberg yes

right nine now very good thank you everybody proud of everybody good discussion all right we now

we now move to the last item of the night which is a third party appeal of the planning and

design commissions determination of the sequestration for the american river one project

so

hello welcome um i think we just another second all people fall out

all right welcome to proceed you ready to go go good evening mayor pro temtelementes

are you the mayor pro temtele and the vice mayor vice mayor excuse me i'm not here very often so

i'm tom djuffer and principal planner i'm the manager of environmental we don't often get the

visit city council and we certainly don't get to make many presentations so tonight in an unusual

series of events we're here and it's a pleasure being here i'm here with our mind alopez

primarily from our design staff we're talking about american river one american river one is a

was a four is a located at the end of perk cut near the american river four residential towers

seven hundred and eighty seven dwelling units four thousand square feet retail on three acres

and needed a site plan a design review and a tree permit and was heard by the

design director and then was appealed to the planning and design commission and

eventually approved by the design commission denying the appeal by save the american river association

after the planning and design commission the appeals on the entitlements were final so there were

no more appeals there was no appeal of the site plan a design review uh to to bring it

to city council however state law provides that in cases where the seqa determination is made

by a non-elected body in a agency such as the city that has an elected body such as the city council

the appeal of the uh determination out of the california environmental quality act can be

brought to the city council so we're here tonight only on the seqa uh which is why you're talking

to me and and not to uh one of the other people that that uh spent an enormous amount of time

reviewing the this project and and going through it one of the key elements that we have tonight

comes from seven sp743 with the sustainable community strategy um they i've got it up here i

think you're familiar with them the objectives were to combat climate change and reduce greenhouse gas

emissions encourage in-field development promote multi-multi-modal transportation networks and

this project uh fits very nicely into that and as part coming out of sp743 was the key element

that we have tonight which is uh public resources code section that applies for an exemption

from review for projects as i've got up here residential or mixed use consistent with a specific plan

for which we certified an e-i-r in this case it's the river district specific plan consistent with

sustainable community strategy that is adopted by seqa and located in a transit priority area

that's the uh basis for our exemption and uh we're here tonight pretty much to talk about 21155.4

if the uh conditions of 21155.4 are met then it also provides that there is relief from 21155.4

and you can undertake more environmental review if there is a change in the project and in this

case there is no change in the project this project complies and is consistent with the river district

specific plan which is the plan we're referencing. If there's a change in circumstances under which

the specific plan has been developed and i read all the materials i haven't seen that claim i don't

think that claim would be uh have any merit uh the river district specific plan was adopted in 2011

we've seen development within the river district specific plan but the development has been pretty

much as we anticipated and hoped for and we're of course right now undertaking a revision to the

specific plan but there there was been no change in circumstances and what we're left with is to gain

relief from and engage in more environmental review it would have to be a showing that there's

been no new information which was not known it could not have been known at the time the river

district specific plan EIR was certified which was in 2011. We have a lot of information that we've

brought forward to the city council and our staff report as you've seen we've had numerous

additional supplemental materials that have come to you from the applicant from save the

American River Association and from Launa and as recently as this morning you received a memo

from my office this morning to give you some additional background. I know you've got

several attorneys to talk to or hear from soon and i don't want to get in in their way. We'd be

happy to answer any questions we're here with staff and available for your assistance. Thank you

so much. You know before we move on to hear from the proponents any initial questions from my

colleagues. Seeing none all right we'd love to hear from yeah thank you so much. I'd love to hear

from the project proponents please. Welcome. All right. All right. I serve slides that go with this

or or not. Adam Citi clerk. I can weigh them round at a very small scale. After we have slides for

this. There we go. Excellent. Magic. Easy. Thank you. So thank you very much. This is clearly

survival of the fittest. I'm glad that you're still awake and active this evening. My job here is

my name is Julian Watt. I'm a principal and student director of LPA with a design firm that was

engaged by the client to develop this project and to find what was possible for the program on this

site. So the purpose of these slides are to help give you some context of the project design

to enable to put that in context when you start to hear the remaining discussions. So

actually how do I forward this? Is it fire this one? Thank you. So with any good site it's about

the gifts of the site. So on the left of this slide the gifts of the site are fairly obvious.

It's all about the connection and visibility of the American river and the connection to the river

trails that go with it. Equally important is your connection to the city by a multi-mode of transport

and by site lines as well. There's an awful lot going on in this part of the city. A lot of it

still get to be built out. The rail yard development is only a stone throw away. Cars are building

the hospital and there's over a billion dollars spent spent and then you Richard Bolivar's

city complex. On the right hand side is a simple plan just to put the context of this. So there's

four main building elements in here built over a two-story podium. It fills a fair portion of the

site with roughly 24 setbacks all around. The building components themselves step down towards

the river and they also step down going from west to east. As part of that it's important to

think about how we're getting a process of nature through the building design itself. It doesn't

become a concrete monolith and also that you've got visibility. So site lines passing through that

that site as well and then how we can try and connect the public realm as it traverses through

the building and through the site and onto the river skate or up onto the podium or in the case of

the residences on the upper levels as well. The next slide here just to show you that that nature is

trying to pull that natural environment through onto multiple level levels and that that podium

level is actually another ground plan. So it's about trying to get people up onto that level and also

pull nature into that space as well as much as you possibly can. The next series of slides

through here are trying to give you a sense of the scale and finish and materiality of this building.

Any good design, and I hope Bruce will back me up on this one, is it needs to have variety.

Okay, the needs have visual interest and we do this in multiple different ways. So in this building

there are in-set balconies to create shade and shadow. There are balconies that project out to

appreciate to do the same bit in reverse. There is vertical pepper and screens that provide a

different level of shading. There's horizontal louvers on this south facing sides and vertical

louvers on the west. All of it's performative. All of it provides variety, not just for you and I

and for people who are inside this building, but it's also important that that variety is for

birds, which has been raised and one of the components coming up later.

This view here is down from the plaza side, which faces out onto Birkut Drive. The steps up

there is what takes you up onto the podium level above. This is a view from the opposite side of

the river essentially at an elevated point as if you're on a drone. Should we say looking back at

the building and you start to get a sense of the form that's stepping down towards the river.

So we're reducing its height. It's also stepping down as it goes eastward to the left hand side of

the screen. This is a shot from the exterior looking back down Birkut Drive towards the entry plaza.

The last one is a shot at night of the exterior lighting and it gives you another sense of

the scale of the building as it steps across the side. The building itself provides a variety

of different programs. This was based on a market study by the client for what was achievable

in this city. There's a mixture of studio units, one bedroom units and two bedroom units,

as well as the commercial opportunities that I've already been sighted before.

It's important when we design these buildings that performative. It's not just to look pretty.

We need these things to work well and in Sacramento, as many of us have already argued on the other

proponent as that trees and it's important to think about canopy. So through this these are

tall buildings. We need to manage the solar gain, particularly the south and the west and we do

this for variety different ways. There's deep plan louvers on the south facade, which is going to help

bounce the light into the deep of the units in the winter and shield them in the summertime.

And then on the western facade, it's all about actually trying to stop that lone

gul-son hitting any glass and hitting any parts of the building.

There's some more examples of that development from start lines from men and how the louvers work.

The next series of slides here are actually responding to

how the building sits within the site and what it responds to in terms of its district

specific plan and the height signs within that plan. So it's located over two lots. One is allowed

to be built to 200 feet tall while the other is 35 feet. And so through the process that

Bruce was eliminating under the last discussion is that this project has asked for a

a variance in this to build and change the height limits so we can

tear us the building down more sensibly towards the 35 foot limit in the blue here.

So the next series of slides show the building in white as a simple form

and erangs the extruded forms of the high-limit thinnest adjacent areas.

And the point for this one is that the built forms behind are 150 feet already.

And so this enables us to still tear us down to 35 feet. Whether we built the 35 feet or not,

you're still going to be seeing the 150 feet behind.

These are some 3D views at the same thing.

The same presentation was what was presented to the Planning and Design Commission and

Resultate and a you know, a spurt act.

The next two slides are views looking down the street. So this is looking north up

Birkut Street. The impact of the project is fairly minimal in the scale of the built

around capacity around those sites. And then the last one is looking back from the proposed

train station stop along Knight Street.

This is going back to plans and sections. So again, it's a bit of a few shafts going

between the buildings and how we step down towards the riverfront.

The same thing in section. So it's taking the actual tree heights that have been measured

via a topographical survey to understand what the impact is of sight lines on the other side of the river.

And the point for this is reddering the same thing is that you're stepping the building down to

get a better design. And this is only possible through going through the site plan design

review with the city to come up with a better outcome for this site.

The last slide in here, which is all part of the site plan design review submission

formateriality, is it's reiterating the point I made before about having variety.

It's important to have color, texture and transition and to create shade and depth

through the building. So it's all about that total composition. And that's not just for the

residents within. It's for the people and the public looking at the building itself, as well as

what's been mentioned before about birds flying around this site. You need to have something

that's visible and can be identified by birds. And that's achieved by having a multiple.

The multiple different materiality that can be picked up and visualized and seen.

And obviously flying away from is supposed to flying into a glass block.

Which this building is not.

The last series of slides here are responding to some prior concerns around the exterior lighting.

It confirms that all of the exterior lights were selected. And

the photometric studies were taken at all levels of all exterior lighting to comply with dark

skies initiative. And that's why this was passed by both the Director of View and also the

the planning commission. And so that's just walking us through the various levels,

including the upper terrace levels as well.

So that concludes the context presentation. If there's any immediate questions on this,

I can provide those now, otherwise I'll hand over to Sabrina.

Any immediate questions from colleagues? Okay. With that, we will thank you so much. With that,

we will hear from our appellans.

Actually, I would like to continue the presentation for the applicant if I may.

Oh, yeah, of course. Sorry about that. I'm Sabrina Teller. I'm with the law firm Remy Mous-Manley.

We represent the owners of the project 500 per cut LLC. And I am Investments Inc. And I just

want to take a few minutes to address some of the points made in the two, all the multiple

appeal letters that you've received from the Laborers International Union and the Safety American

River Association. So first, I want to touch on the points raised by Launa regarding from Al-Dahide

exposure. So in the letter from Launa, the follow-up letter just this afternoon, they attempt to

refute the city staff's reasons, proposed in the staff report for finding the unions hired

gun consultant on from Al-Dahide not credible. But notably, Launa does not address the various

additional reasons that we provided to the Planning and Design Commission when Launa first raised

this issue, which further demonstrate why their expert is literally unbelievable. First, Launa would

have you believe that the state and local air staff regulators have gotten it all wrong on from

Al-Dahide regulation and they're the only one who knows the truth about what those impacts are

going to be. But their predictions and modeling as I'm going to explain are not credible. Launa's

analysis is based on a series of highly misleading assumptions stated at pages four and five of their

experts report, including the assumption that the project's construction materials won't comply

with applicable regulations to reduce from Al-Dahide exposure, that from Al-Dahide daily emissions

from construction materials would be constant for over 70 years, that residents would live in their

units for 70 years, and that employees at the site would work at the project site for eight hours

a day, five days a week, 50 weeks a year for 45 years. None of these assumptions are consistent with

EPA's science and guidance for how to perform risk assessments or any other relevant data. In fact,

construction materials would comply with all applicable regulations. The amount of

formaldehyde off-gassing from construction materials decreases over time. It is not constant as

stated by Launa's consultant. The fact that formaldehyde decreases over time, you don't have to take

a lawyer's word for it. This is from EPA's March 2024 indoor exposure assessment guidance document

at pages 31 and 34 to 35. Per the U.S. EPA, lifetime risk values for residents should be based on

an exposure duration of 30 years, not 70. And that fact is from a 2008 technical support document

that summarizes EPA's guidance for how to identify and select standardized human exposure scenarios

selected for risk assessment evaluation at page 3-11. That 30-year assumption for inhalation of

contaminants in a residential context is also supported by 1991 guidance from EPA at page 15.

I'm going to hand you into the record all of these sources, which we previously cited.

And then lastly, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median number of years

workers remain in a job is about four years, not 45 years. That fact is from a 2022 news release

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics reporting that the median number of years that wage and salary

workers have been with their current employer was four years in January 2022, post-pandemic.

Now, I provided all of these citations and the data to the Planning and Design Commission in

response to Lyon's original letter asserting those claims. I just provided the citations.

Tonight, I'd like to hand out the actual sources that I printed out and highlighted for the record.

So even now, three months after our response listing all of the various ways in which the

consultant made grossly misleading and frankly excessive assumptions underlying those

those that modeling and predictions, those have not been rebutted by Lyon's expert.

They've had that for three months. They haven't bothered to respond to it. And because of that,

misleading and frankly, I think dishonest assertion of the skies falling with regard to formaldehyde,

the council would be absolutely justified in finding Lyon's claims not credible and rejecting

their appeal. So briefly, I want to touch on the biological claims that they raised for the first

time a couple of days ago. Notably, as we explained in our quick response to that letter,

none of the species that they're claim to consultant claims to have observed using the site

are special status species. And they present no evidence demonstrating that any effect of the project

on these highly mobile species would be so substantial as to override sequas typically limited

focus on special status species and more into analysis in a new EIR. They disregard the fact that

the 2011 EIR for the River District specific plan did consider impacts on wildlife associated

with removing trees in which birds could be nesting. And the city adopted at that time the

standard set of mitigation measures widely accepted all over the state requiring pre-construction

nesting surveys and avoidance of disturbance to nesting birds in compliance with the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act. The fact that the construction of this project would necessitate the removal of

some mature trees on the site, which could be seasonal homes to nesting birds is not a new impact.

The conditions approved for this project already include that previously adopted mitigation

as Suqr requires for subsequent projects after a plan EIR. So regarding the potential for bird

collisions with the buildings, our architect has already covered that issue, but I think the

important point to take away from his presentation is that the project design is by no means this

uninterrupted multi-story expanse of sheer glass that's going to be invisible to birds. You can see

in his presentation the articulation and the visibility of that design. And lastly, I want to

touch on the appeal by the Safety American River Association. We responded to their letter as well

on August 2nd, which is in your record. And we noted then, and as staff have covered very

capably in their staff report, there's absolutely no evidence that the planned transit stop at

Richards and North Third, which qualifies this project as within a transit priority area, will be

moved as a result of any future environmental review for the green line. Speculation is not

evidence, and Sarah points to nothing besides wishful thinking that this is going to occur.

The plain language of the statutory exemption at Public Resources Code section 21155.4 allows

for reliance on a planned stop, which both the city and Saikog have explicitly confirmed

that this stop is. So we respectfully request that the council deny both appeals and affirm

the determination that the project is exempt from sequins and be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Any initial questions before you move on? Thank you very much. What we'll do

next is we'll hear from the appellants and then we'll have an opportunity for a rebuttal if

necessary. And then we'll move on into public comment and then comments from my colleagues.

Welcome. Good evening. Before the meeting I asked about the overhead camera.

Greetings.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and our council members and city staff.

My name is Kyla Saley and I'm going to turn you with the law firm, Loso Dury, here on behalf of appellant laborers, international union of North America, local union 185 or Launa.

Launa respectfully requests that the city council grant the appeal and find that the American River One project is not exempt from sequa and instead recommend that a subsequent environmental impact report or EIR be prepared to evaluate significant impacts to biological resources and indoor air quality.

And the time I have I would like to discuss why the project cannot be exempt from sequa.

As was previously stated, there are certain circumstances where a project cannot qualify for the exemption.

One is if there are substantial changes in circumstances requiring major revisions to the certified EIR or if there is new information which was not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified and both of those circumstances are present here.

The city staff here argues that the project is exempt from sequa because it is consistent with the River District specific plan.

The EIR for which was certified in 2011, however, the project cannot be exempt because there is new information and substantial changes in circumstances regarding potentially significant impacts to biological resources and indoor air quality.

The presence of two rare species, the yellow build magpie and Nuddleswood Pecker on the project site and significant impacts to these species is new information that was not known and could not have been known when the 2011 EIR was certified.

And the yellow build magpie and Nuddleswood Pecker are both listed as birds of conservation concerned by the US Fish and Wildlife and they are on that list because they have been designated as a priority for conservation, making them rare.

The 2011 EIR decline to analyze impacts to these rare birds because they did not occur within the River District Pacific plan development area on the land side of the River levies where the project is located and I brought some excerpts from the draft or the EIR, the 2011 EIR on the left side.

There is the highlighted portion that states that the River District plan would not develop areas on the water side of the River levies and therefore the impacts on that side would not be analyzed.

The turning to the biological resources assessment of the EIR which is on your right side, the highlighted portion states that the riparian habitat which as a reminder is on the water side of the levies is the riparian habitat that is used by the yellow build magpie and Nuddleswood Pecker.

So in 2011 you have these two rare species on the water side of the levies but not on the land side which is where the project is located.

However, our expert biologist, wildlife biologist Dr. Smalwood went to the site and observed the yellow build magpie and the Nuddleswood Pecker on the land side of the levies utilizing the project site to rest and socialize and forage.

And he also captured this picture of these two yellow build magpies. One is a baby just walking on the project site right on it.

And since 2011 the species populations numbers have drastically declined showing that the circumstances of the yellow build magpie have changed substantially.

Dr. Smalwood also gathered new information of significant impacts to the yellow build magpie and Nuddleswood Pecker including interference with wildlife movement and bird window collisions.

Since the 2011 EIR did not analyze impacts to these species as they were not on the site in 2011 these impacts were not contemplated.

However, Dr. Smalwood concluded that the construction of 4 212 feet high residential towers would prevent the yellow build magpie and Nuddleswood Pecker from using and flying over the site and also increase the mortality of these birds due to bird window collisions.

These two significant impacts identified by Dr. Smalwood were not known and could not have been known when the 2011 EIR was certified since the yellow build magpie and Nuddleswood Pecker did not occur on the project site in 2011.

Finally, Dr. Smalwood also found new information of a significant impact regarding the project's inclusion of a dog park.

Dr. Smalwood cited a 2016 study that found dog parks to displace and disturb wildlife.

Given that this study was published after 2011 the harmful impacts that a dog park could have on wildlife were not known and could not have been known when the EIR was certified.

Due to the new information of significant impacts to biological resources identified by Dr. Smalwood the project cannot be exempt from sequa.

With respect to the project's impacts on indoor air quality, Lyonus submitted comments from Francis Oferman, an expert industrial hygienist and indoor environmental engineer.

In his comments Mr. Oferman discussed the new scientific information about the excessive health risks caused by commonly used for maldehyde emitting building materials.

City staff issued a report responding to Lyonus stating that had not presented new information of a significant impact on indoor air quality.

This is incorrect for several reasons.

First, the staff report argues that the issue surrounding for maldehyde emissions were known when the 2011 EIR was certified because in 2007 the California Air Resources Board or CARB implemented regulations to reduce for maldehyde emissions from common building products.

However, it's the effectiveness of CARB's regulations that were not known and could not have been known at the time the 2011 EIR was certified.

In his comments Mr. Oferman cites to a 2020 study that found that even after the implementation of the 2007 CARB regulations, average indoor emissions of for maldehyde remained at levels that result in a median lifetime cancer risk of 120 per million.

Notably this cancer risk of 120 per million greatly exceeds the 10 per million cancer risk threshold set out by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

This new scientific study showing that indoor for maldehyde emissions still create a significant cancer risk despite CARB's regulations constitutes new information of a significant impact.

Second, the staff report argues that Lyona has not provided substantial evidence that the project will be constructed with building materials containing significant amounts of for maldehyde.

It is not the public's duty to investigate the project's impacts but rather the cities.

It is a city's duty to determine whether the building materials used for the project will be toxic to future residents because if the project uses these common building materials containing for maldehyde, the project will be toxic to future residents.

Third, the staff report argues that the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's significant threshold for cancer risks is not applicable to outdoor air.

However, nowhere is this stated in the air quality management district's sequel guide for analyzing air quality emissions.

Fourth, the staff report argues that the city need not consider the environmental impact of the project on itself.

While sequel does not generally require agencies to consider the environment's effect on a project, the California Supreme Court has held that sequel does require agencies to analyze impacts on a project's users or residents that arise from the project.

From the project's effects on the environment.

Here, the for maldehyde emissions from the project will be from the for maldehyde emissions will be from the project and future residents will be impacted by those emissions, which must be analyzed.

Finally, the staff report argues that since the building materials are regulated by CARB and the California Building Standards Code, the city cannot interfere with these existing regulations.

However, the existence of these regulations does not prevent the city from analyzing for maldehyde emissions nor would using building materials that protect future residents from these harmful emissions interfere with these regulations.

As an example, diesel tracks use to build a project, our subject to CARB and EPA regulations.

Just because they are subject to these regulations does not mean that we can ignore their emissions and the health risks they pose.

Similarly, while building emissions are regulated here, the fact that they are regulated is not a reason to disregard the health risks posed by these building materials.

For these reasons, Launa respectfully requests that the city council grant the appeal and find that the project is not exempt from sequel.

Thank you.