We'll be right back.

Good evening, everyone.

And welcome to the February, what are we, 12th, 2026 meeting of the Planning and Design Commission,

City of Sacramento.

The meeting is now called to order.

will the clerk please call the roll to establish a form.

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Lee?

Here.

Commissioner Tao?

Here.

Commissioner Lamas?

Absent.

Commissioner Naibo?

Here.

Vice Chair Caden?

Here.

Commissioner Hernandez?

Here.

Commissioner Macias-Reed?

Absent.

Commissioner Young?

Absent.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Here.

Commissioner Blunt?

Here.

Commissioner Risky?

Here.

Commissioner Thompson?

Absent.

Chair Chase?

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

I'd like to remind members of the public and chambers, if you'd like to speak on an item,

please turn in a speaker slip before that item begins.

After the item is called, we will no longer be able to accept the speaker slips.

You will have two minutes to speak once you were called on.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

And I'd like to announce a couple of changes to the agenda today.

Items 1 and items 3.

So items 1 is the Florin Road Quick Quack.

And item 3 is the workshop, the preliminary workshop for the commission have both been continued.

The Quick Quack has been continued to, I believe, February 26th.

And the workshop has been conducted to March 26th.

With that, we will begin with...

I'm sorry.

Yes.

Yeah, getting to it.

Yeah.

Please rise if you're able for the opening acknowledgement.

To the regional people of this land, the Nisenan people, the Southern Maydew Valley, and the Plains Miwok, Patwin-Winton peoples, and the people of the Winton 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 together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people, people's history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. Be seated.

All right.

So we will continue since item one has been continued.

We'll continue to item two on the agenda of public hearings,

and that is Alhambra Redevelopment Project, P24-007,

location 320-324-350 Alhambra Boulevard.

We'll now have the staff report.

Thank you, Zach.

Oh, I'm sorry, yes.

Are there any disclosures before we get going?

Being none?

Is there one? Okay, sorry. Commissioner Hernandez.

Thank you. Yes, I received multiple email and other communication consistent with staff report. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Aibo.

Emails, and then I also received a letter that was sent to my house.

I received numerous emails from the public, both in support and opposition to the project, consistent with the project.

Commissioner Lee?

Yeah, I also received emails consistent with the project.

Thank you.

Commissioner Ortiz?

Yes.

I wasn't sure that we had to disclose emails that came in through, but I received numerous

emails.

I also received a pretty colorful alert at my home today, but I haven't spoken to anyone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Reschke.

Same.

I received emails before again.

And Commissioner Blunt.

I also received emails consistent with the staff report.

Thank you.

Okay, Zach.

Good evening to the chair, vice chair, and fellow commissioners.

My name is Zach Dalla, senior planner with the community development department.

The item before you tonight is the Alhambra redevelopment project,

also known as file P24-007.

The project is located northwest of the intersection of D streets

and Alhambra Boulevard on a city block developed with two vacant commercial

warehouses associated with the Puerta Sausage Factory

and subsequently Marianne's Bakery, a surface parking lot, three single unit dwellings,

and one duplex dwelling in the general commercial zone and the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District.

Currently, none of the on-site structures are listed on any local, state, or federal historic registers.

However, the on-site commercial warehouses have been deemed eligible for listing on the California Register

for the association with the factory.

The applicant is proposing to redevelop the site with a six-story mixed-use building

consisting of 2,400 square feet of ground floor commercial,

332 dwelling units, and a six level parking garage

with 322 total parking spaces.

To accommodate the site redevelopment,

the project requests demolition

of the onsite residential structures,

the partial demolition of the commercial warehouses,

the removal and non-standard pruning of trees,

and the abandonment of Chinatown Alley.

This request requires planning and design commission review

and approval of the following entitlements.

a conditional use permit to exceed the height standards

of the residential preservation transition buffer zone

of the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District,

site plan and design review for the demolition

of the structures and construction

of the six story mixed use building.

And lastly, tree permit for the removal

of seven city trees, two private protected trees,

and the non-standard pruning of two city trees.

All property owners, current residents slash businesses

and local community groups within 500 feet

of the project site were sent a notice

of today's public hearing.

and a notice was also posted at the site.

A staff has received a substantial number

of public comments, which are included

as an attachment to the staff report

and posted as an e-comments.

Feedback on the proposal is mixed

with a large number of comments in opposition and support.

Overall, staff find that the project is proposed

at a development intensity that is consistent

with the allowable building intensity standards

under the general plan and is designed to comply

with all development standards

of the general commercial zone

and the Alhambra corridor special planning district

and no deviations to development standards are required.

A staff supports the project

as it introduces a new denser housing product

in a neighborhood with existing infrastructure

that is close to Sacramento Regional Transit bus routes

and at a development intensity

that was generally anticipated under the 2040 general plan.

The project also promotes sustainable growth and change

by revitalizing properties along Alhambra corridor

through the retention, restoration, and adaptive reuse

of vacant deteriorating buildings eligible for listing

on the California Historic Register

the higher density mixed-use development.

Staff recommends the Planning and Design Commission

approve the project subject to all conditions of approval

and based on the findings of fact outlined

in the staff report.

And with that, that concludes my staff presentation.

The applicant is in attendance tonight

and happy to answer any questions that you have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Zach.

Is there someone from the applicant

that would like to speak tonight?

Pardon?

Available of questions.

I'll link on those special notes.

Yes, available of questions.

I see.

Are you approaching the

Hi everyone. My name is Mary

I work for HRJ which is the

architecture firm on the project

and I'm happy to answer any

questions that you have.

Thank you.

This is John.

John Hodgson, the Hodgson

Company. I'm here on behalf of

the applicants and the property

owners, the Demas family, who've

owned the property for about 55

years.

Thank you.

We're available to answer any

questions if you have any. Thank you. Obviously we're asking for support

consistent with the staff report and we think housing is very important not only

in this area but the entire region and this is a necessary needed improvement

well thought out and consistent with what we hope would be a beautiful design.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there, do we have any commissioner questions of either staff or the applicant?

Seeing none, do we have speaker slips from the public?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we have 30 speakers on this item.

if I can call a couple folks up please I have Mary Corrado and Addie Sackler

thank you good evening my name is Mary Coronado and I live on Alhambra and C Street five houses

over from the proposed apartment complex on June 26 2024 about six neighbors we informally met with

the realtors people I don't even know who they were but they shared with us

that they had we're thinking about developing the property they shared that

the plan was to build a four-story complex facing the freeway we expressed

our concern for street parking because we're all parking the street and would

like them to consider like a 1.5 parking spots in their formula and they said

well the city has a vision and there's no minimum and we said well we'd like

more street lighting you know into the neighborhood well you'd have to work

that out with the city and we said how nice it would be to see mixed use to

um to include low-income apartments and possibly homeownership and they said

well that might impede on company profits but there's been discussion on

two to three bedrooms for families and we left there saying to them just be a

good neighbor and of course none of these concerns made the plan on June 5th

2025 we shared our concerns at the East Sacramento Neighborhood Association and

Phil Buckingham was there. We didn't even stay for the

entire meeting. They didn't care about our concerns because of course we're our

own neighborhood stuck between the freeway and the railroad tracks and the

busy street that feeds into Elvis. Not your typical East Sacramento

neighborhood. My concern is the fact that there's been no collaboration or

direct communication with Casa Loma Terrace neighbors who will be directly impacted.

There's been not one official meeting with the developers.

We've not had the opportunity to share our vision in this reshaping of our Sacramento

neighborhood.

The letters of support for this project carry no weight for me.

These people are not my neighbors with direct knowledge.

If you want to support this plan, ask the developer to include crosswalks where none

exist.

lighting does not that does not go far enough into the neighborhood lighting

and to keep the trees as shown on page two of the Alhambra redevelopment plan

educate yourself by reading the Casa Loma neighborhood report by the historic

environmental consultants to understand the negative impacts it's going to have

on the neighborhood from B to E streets in Alhambra to 33rd Street that shows

directly support traffic calming to address traffic spillage into the

neighborhood so tonight I please ask you to ask the developers to meet with real

neighbors Barbara Carl Jose I see a lot of my neighbors here tonight and to keep

the building within the 35-foot height limit and not approve the conditional

use permit and it's stated by Edward T McMahon growth is inevitable and

desirable but destruction of a community character is not thank you thank you for

comments. Hi, my name is Addie Sackler. I moved into East Sacramento with my wife two years ago,

and it's obvious that these developers don't know our neighborhood, because if they took any time

to drive or ride a bike down McKinley Boulevard and turning into E or down H Street, it's a

cluster duck of traffic every freaking day to get on the freeway, to get to Midtown, whatever.

I'm not opposed to something going in there, but I do not like the six stories.

That is not good.

I'm worried about the impact on the sewer.

I live on 36th Street.

A river used to run through where my house is, and I'm concerned about flooding.

So I'm worried that it's going to become more of a cluster duck if this project goes through where it is now.

It's obvious all developers are worried about is their money.

They don't care about the impact.

I moved into my neighborhood because I like the quality of life, and I don't need something, some big monstrous structure that is overlooking other people and bothering my neighbors who don't want it that high.

Okay?

And I just would like to say that we should be considered before this goes forward.

And I don't think that we have.

I've just learned about this.

I've lived there two years.

I've just heard about this project.

And I am not for it in its current state, what they want to do.

I'm tired of wealthy developers coming in and ruining neighborhoods.

And I don't want the quality of our neighborhood to go down because of this project and the traffic and the parking issues.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Tricia Stevens.

And after that, I'll have Michael Rothschild.

Good evening members of the Planning and Design Commission.

My name is Tricia Stevens and I'm the president of the East Sacramento Community Association,

also known as ESCA, and I have several of our board members here with me tonight.

ESCA supports the Alhambra Residential Project.

The project adds needed housing in our community and adds housing choices in an infill location for those desiring to live close to amenities like jobs and schools and all that East Sacramento has to offer.

The project supports policy choices to address our housing shortage in that it is located along the Alhambra corridor and is supported by general plan policies that promote healthy, livable, and complete neighborhoods, especially close to transportation corridors.

The project building intensity is in line with the residential mixed use and the commercial zoning of the site.

We feel that the project is well designed and fits within the neighborhood context by providing step backs along Alhambra.

It provides sufficient parking, even though city codes might allow much less.

We believe the criteria for issuance of the conditional use permit can be met.

The project provides good transitions, in our view, from a nice neighborhood to commercial areas and to the freeway.

The project enhances or advances a future where East Sacramento can remain inclusive, vibrant, and accessible to people who want to work and live here.

ESCA urges the Planning and Design Commission to approve the project.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Good evening.

My name is Michael Rothschild.

I do not live in the neighborhood in question.

I live in East Sacramento.

and I'm a member of the organization of the lady that just spoke,

and I'm speaking against the project.

I'm speaking against the project because I know that neighborhood

because my wife and I, when we go walking in the morning,

we pick that neighborhood to walk through.

Why?

Because it's unique.

It's like a little village.

There are small houses, well kept up, well set back from the road,

and this is probably the only neighborhood in Sacramento

where there is a wide parkway between the sidewalk and the street.

The neighbors that live there maintain that.

There's unique gardens in them.

It is a very pleasant, it feels like a village to walk through it.

This massive project, as currently proposed, will destroy that feel.

You currently have a gem here in Sacramento with this neighborhood.

I enjoy walking through it for that reason.

Now, a couple of technical issues that I don't think anybody has really addressed sufficiently

is one is parking and the other is traffic.

Anybody that's ever tried to cross the intersection of Alhambra and McKinley at rush hour, forget it.

It's going to be worse.

But the only other feasible way out of this project is C Street.

And C Street, as you know, becomes Elvis.

And that merges with all the traffic coming out of McKinley Village.

So what's going to happen is the people that cannot get out at Alhambra and McKinley

are going to go up Elvis.

and they're going to merge with all the people coming out of McKinley Village.

And you know the hassles and the arguments about the traffic there.

It's just going to compound the problem.

On paper, it looks like a great project.

It's urban infill.

It's a great thing.

But to walk the neighborhood and get a feel for the neighborhood,

you realize that this is something unique that we're about to destroy.

And that's not good.

The solution is simply reduce the massive size.

Two stories, maybe three stories.

Instead of 350 odd units, maybe a couple of hundred.

Increase the ratio of parking to apartments

so that people that have two cars or have people visiting

aren't parking on C Street and the sides.

Right now it's a lovely neighborhood.

This project will change it into a parking lot

for the people that have more than one car in this unit.

And the traffic will just be horrendous.

It needs to be considered and consider it in terms of its proximity to McKinley Village

and the only feasible access to McKinley Village.

Feeds into Elvis, not too far from where C Street blends into it

for the cars that will be coming out of this project.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Can I have Claudia Borden please come up?

Good evening.

My name is Claudia Borden.

I am also a member of ESCA, and I dispute their support of this project.

I live in McKinley Park.

I am a neighbor to Casa Loma Terrace.

I've lived there for 25 years.

Casa Loma Terrace is a very small little area in East Sac made up of 1,000 or less than 1,000 square foot bungalows.

These are very small homes from the turn of the century.

You need to see what that looks like.

It's not commercial.

It's not suburban.

It's very old little bungalows in Casa Loma Terrace.

While I do like this project as a building and the architecture, it does not belong in that area.

While Marianne Bakery and the Sausage Factory previously need to go, it's an eyesore.

We're all in agreement of that.

But what we need is something there that's infill, that's a smaller scale, that blends into this vintage neighborhood of bungalows.

That's really important to keep the character of this area of East Sac intact.

Secondly, the proposed building, while a nice building, is way too large for this area.

It's way too tall.

It belongs on Elvis or down by 65th where you've built some new buildings for Sac State that are high rise, fine.

It just does not belong in this little area.

Secondly, living on the park, the city over the last couple of years put in a vault for the water sewage overflow, which we've had a great problem with in the past.

While the vault has helped our neighborhood, it has not solved the issue on heavy rains or long-term rain.

It still floods.

I live there.

I can tell you it still floods.

that will be an issue with 600 more toilets of this kind of scale building going into that

antiquated turn of the century sewer system the city does not have the money or the ability to

separate this system and because of that the vault the vault was a secondary solution for it

and we're grateful that it got built we're grateful it's helped but it still floods when we do have a

lot of rain. I ask you to look at other options for this infill area for Casa Loma Terrace. It does

need to have some housing there. We need housing. But what is proposed in that spot is not appropriate.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Can I have Sarah Hutchell please come to the podium?

Sarah Huckel, resident of East Sacramento and board member of ESCA.

I would welcome sharing East Sacramento with more people.

Support the project.

Thank you for your comments.

Can I have Kathy Manning come up and after that it will be Carl Seymour.

Members of the Commission, my name is Kathy Mannion.

I'm a long time, over 40 years resident of East Sacramento.

Actually, I live right around the corner from Claudia, who just spoke a little bit earlier.

Basically, and I'm also, I'd like to explore just with you the fact that there's just not enough places in East Sacramento for people who want to live there.

We have families who have young adults who have grown up in the neighborhood.

They would like to stay in the neighborhood.

And the amount of housing available is just really not there.

And they certainly can't, starting their careers, afford to buy a house at this point in time.

So the ability of different levels of apartments, studios, up to three bedrooms would really be important, I think, to the residents who are there now as well as new residents who could move in.

So thank you.

If there are comments, could I have Carl Seymour and after that, John Frias-Morales?

Carl Seymour, Commissioners, I'm Carl Seymour.

I'm also a member of ESCA and I also disagree with the recommendation.

That led to the founding of Casa Loma Terrace Neighborhood Association, of which I'm president.

Unlike ESCA, we surveyed our membership, over 80 people, to ask what do you think about

this?

So when I talk here, I'm not talking my perspective.

I'm not talking eight board members.

I'm talking 80 people surveyed that are directly affected.

In general, we strongly support improved conditions there, new development.

We understand increased density is appropriate, and we're fully supportive of appropriate development there.

However, this is massively out of scale with the neighborhood.

Looking at the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District provisions,

Provisions, it says that to approve the conditional use permit, the planning and design commission must find that the development will not be out of scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood.

As you can see from the materials that have been submitted, this is massively out of scale.

This is a one- and two-story neighborhood.

There are two three-story buildings in there, the Greek church and a storage building way off in the corner.

But this is a one- and two-story neighborhood.

The six stories is massively out of scale.

The general plan supports this, so you have consistency between the general plan and the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District.

Under AB 130, you can pick one or the other, and in this case, they both agree.

The general plan says the city shall, not should or might or may, shall promote the development of neighborhood-scale multi-unit buildings,

and there is nothing in this that resembles neighborhood scale.

Again, we support development, but this is inappropriate.

What are our measures of scale?

This is 68 foot.

The neighborhood is 18 to 30.

This is six stories.

The neighborhood is mostly one.

There will be 870 people in one square block.

That's higher density than San Francisco or New York City.

This is crazy density because it's 80% studios and one bedrooms.

Average in the neighborhood, 48 to 96 people per square block.

This will be 395 people per acre.

Average in the neighborhood is up to 25.

This will be 442,000 some square feet.

Average in the neighborhood is 900 to 2,000.

So this is completely out of scale with the rhythm and character of the neighborhood.

It conflicts with both the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District and the general plan.

And I urge you to not approve the cup.

We would welcome appropriate development.

We'd love to talk with the developer about doing something reasonable.

This is not reasonable.

Please do not approve it.

Thank you.

I'm here to strongly oppose the so-called Hanborough redevelopment at the former Mary Ann's bakery site.

Let me be absolutely clear. The property owner has a long, well-documented history of being a terrible neighbor. For years, the house at 315 30th Street functioned as a crack house. 12 drug users were living there during the pandemic and finally left last year.

Neighbors repeatedly reported problems, drug activities, stolen property being stored there,

and homeless transients coming and going all hours of the day.

And what did the property owner do? Nothing.

Not one effort to clean up the blight or protect the surrounding residents.

This here is taken, the photo was taken today.

You can see a homeless camp is there right now.

and you can see the drug users just all gathered around,

coming to get their drugs.

This is a picture of the crack house inside.

Now, after ignoring the community,

the same property owners wanted to drop a six-story apartment building

into the middle of our neighborhood,

a massive project with huge impacts,

and they didn't even bother to hold one community meeting, not one.

I live in McKinley Village. I watched Phil Angelitas hold 28 meetings before developing the project.

Zero outreach, zero accountability, zero respect by this current developer.

This proposal would jam up to 870 residents to a single square block in a neighborhood where the norm is 50 to 60 people per block.

That's an extreme and totally incompatible increase in density.

It is completely out of scale with the existing neighborhood, massively taller, massively denser, and architecturally disconnected from the single-family homes around it.

The site ignores the rhythm, character, and scale of the area.

The building design does not complement the surrounding community in any meaningful way.

Instead, it overwhelms it.

a property owner who has already demonstrated disregard for neighborhood safety,

maintenance, and community engagement cannot be trusted with a project of this magnitude.

I urge you to deny this project. Thank you.

Excuse me, sir. Can I have you say your name, please?

Name for the record, please.

Sir, the one that just spoke, could you state your name for the record, please, to make sure?

Oh, that's John Chris Morales.

Thank you, John.

Appreciate it.

Can I have Rick Stevenson come up and then Kate Rogers will be after him?

I wrote an article that was in Inside East Sacramento.

I did email it to most of the Planning Commission members.

I didn't have an address or two, but I have a couple of thoughts in addition on this particular project.

It says a redevelopment project, yet normally over the years that I've seen redevelopment is when you take a blighted area and you bring in things to clean it up.

And in this case, you're taking a fully functional 100-year-old neighborhood that's been very stable for a century, and you're going to destabilize it if you put a six-story thing right in the middle of it with up to 800 people.

It's the exact opposite of what redevelopment has been historically.

Now, why have a 35-foot maximum height in the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District if you're just going to ignore it?

If this 60-foot-plus monolith is allowed, what about the next one and the next one and the next,

and then an eight and then a 10-story, and pretty soon going down Alhambra Boulevard

instead of the Great Wall of China?

You're going to have the Great Wall of Alhambra with just nothing but big block buildings going right down it.

Three stories, fine.

Six stories destabilizes the neighborhood.

Further, I've been informed from multiple sources that residential, highly dense designs

are not presently profitable, and even if interest rates come down, this project apparently

does not have an actual developer and in-place financing.

If they do, they should say so.

If there is no developer and there is no financing, there is no real project.

It is just smoke and mirrors.

The comments? Kate?

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Kate Rogers.

I'm here on behalf of House Sacramento

to express our strong support for the 324 Alhambra project.

So House Sac is an all-volunteer organization

dedicated to ending the housing crisis here in Sacramento.

We believe that building more homes of all types

is the best way to bring down housing costs

and make our communities more accessible and more affordable.

Every one of us loves this city,

and it is because we love this city that we want it to grow.

The Alhambra project is exactly the type of development we need in Sacramento.

By adding new rental units, it will help us reach our affordability goals.

By adding commercial space, it will bring economic vitality to East Sacramento.

By densifying our city, it will promote walkability and move us towards our climate goals.

It is important for us to remember that these goals are not theoretical or marginal.

Speaking personally, I moved to Sac about a year ago,

and before that I was an LA renter so it was rough. I was rent burdened. I was living in an

overcrowded apartment. I spent hours every single day in the car driving to work and school and

moving to Sac I was able to find an affordable apartment walking distance from work, school,

friends and amenities and it is because of this that I've fallen in love with this city and my

quality of life has improved in ways I frankly did not know were possible. Building more housing

near schools, parks, and businesses is the best way to keep Sacramento Sacramento.

The Alhambra project will help make sure that not only our city stays affordable, but it

is also able to grow and welcome new members, new residents just like me.

So thank you for your time, and I respectfully request that you support the 324 Alhambra

project.

For your comments, I have Megan McKenna and Corbett Waddington.

Good evening, everyone.

I am a resident of the Casa Loma Terrace neighborhood.

I live right off of C Street and would be hugely impacted by this project.

My primary concerns are around safety.

As you've heard from the people who've come and spoken before me, this is a very high volume, high traffic part of East Sacramento.

know just two weeks after moving into my house my car which was parked in front of it was hit by a

drunk driver totaled as you can imagine pretty devastating when you put all your money into

your down payment and then all of a sudden you don't have a car I can also attest that when I

looked into public transportation options to get to and from work without having a car I found

essentially none would have been 40 minutes to get to work as opposed to seven minutes in a car

So when we talk about this being a transportation corridor, I don't know who has decided that it is a transportation corridor.

I live there.

I've looked.

I've also lived in cities that have true public transportation.

This part of East Sacramento does not.

Almost every single one of my neighbors, or at least everyone that I've spoken to, has a similar story of their car getting hit, of not being able to cross the street safely during rush hour.

and really what I can say is we want a safe neighborhood and we want a growing neighborhood.

I don't think a single person has come up here and said hey I love Mary Ann's Bakery just how it is.

I don't want anything built there or I only want single family homes built there. We all want more

housing built there. We want mixed use. We want low income. We want all of it. We don't want

six stories. We want a safe, walkable neighborhood.

This feels like a money grab on behalf of the Demas family.

And I hope you've walked this part of the neighborhood if you're going to be making such a big decision.

That will impact all of our lives.

And I hope that you consider your job to be to create sustainable and safe growth for the city of Sacramento.

No, not to approve a project that is going to make a piece of land more profitable for somebody who has been neglecting it for decades,

but to create something that actually improves the quality of life for the residents and keeps this community safe,

or hopefully safer than it is because, as I've said, it's already an incredibly challenging intersection to navigate, just place to walk in general.

so I thank you in your careful consideration of this project and I

encourage you to think about safety for the community and something that is

going to stand the test of time something that we're not going to look

at in ten years and say oh my god what did we do we can't live here anymore we

can't walk here anymore thank you so much

Good evening. My name is Corbett Waddingham. I live in East Sacramento.

I want to bring evidence to this discussion that helps explain what really drives homelessness so we can make better planning decisions.

First, multiple rigorous analyses find that rising housing costs are a key driver of increases in homelessness.

National analyses show that when median rents go up, homelessness rates tend to rise.

For example, federal research found that each $100 increase in median rent is associated with about a 9% increase in homelessness, even after controlling for other factors.

Metro-level research also finds that homelessness tends to climb sharply once rents exceed roughly 30% of household income, a commonly accepted affordability threshold.

A recent state-level study using multivariate modeling of homelessness drivers found the cost of living index dominated by housing costs was the strongest predictor of homelessness far outweighing other social and economic factors.

By contrast, the idea that mental illness alone causes most homelessness is not supported as a primary causal mechanism.

epidemiological research consistently shows only about 25 to 30 percent of people experiencing

homelessness have a severe mental illness like schizophrenia and many people with mental illness

live stably in affordable housing national research also emphasizes that mental health

conditions are often outcomes or compounding factors of homelessness not the root cause

driving homelessness rate changes across cities indeed analyses looking at why some cities have

much higher homelessness rates than others find that differences in housing affordability and

housing supply correlate much more strongly with homelessness levels than do differences in rates

of mental illness or substance abuse. Places with similar social challenges but more affordable

housing tend to have far lower homelessness rates. So if we want fewer people ending up without homes,

the evidence tells us the clearest levers is making housing more affordable and accessible,

especially in fast-growing markets like Sacramento

where rents have outpaced incomes.

That's why I'm asking this committee to support this endeavor.

Adding more homes is the only way we're going to solve homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Stephanie Holkos, and after that I'll be real green.

Can I speak here?

A little bit too high.

My name is Stephanie Holcomb.

I'm opposed to building the apartments where Safeway is

and all the other buildings.

Take Safeway out, US Bank out.

It's going to be a little bit difficult for me and my family

to shop at Safeway if it's not there

because it's five blocks from where I live

and a lot harder going to the 19th Street Safeway

because we have to ride a light rail

and they tell you to fold up a wagon cart

and then when you get it on,

you got to take all the groceries out,

fold up the wagon cart,

and then we have to walk 13 blocks home

from the other end of the light rail.

So if you want to, you know, build it

and build it somewhere else,

don't take it out a safe way.

We're elderly, disabled, people with bikes and their junior high kids.

They go to Safeway schools right next door to it.

You go in the morning, you go after school.

And so it helps, you know, Safeway.

But please find another place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Dr. Will Green.

I live in East Sacramento. I've been there for over 50 years.

I'm against this project, and mainly because, actually, as I understand it,

there is an unregistered underground storage tank with a long history of petroleum

and possibly other toxic elements contaminating this site.

On July the 2nd of 25, the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department

ordered the DEMAS Enterprises that the tank site had to be tested, removed, and the soil sampled.

To my knowledge, none of this work has been done.

The City of Sacramento is claiming that the project is exempt from CEQA under AB 130.

In my opinion, that interpretation is incorrect, especially if we have a hazardous waste site.

First, that PRC 2180.66 requires that qualifying projects avoid hazardous sites.

A site with an unregistered underground storage tank, no closure letter, and an inactive county enforcement action is a hazardous site until testing and cleanup are complete.

That alone disqualifies this project from the exemption.

Secondly, environmental assessment for hazardous substances and release as a condition of approval.

The condition of approval must be completed before, not after.

So how can the Planning Commission approve a project while the underground storage tank remains untested?

Until then, this is a toxic waste site.

Finally, unrecognized environmental condition is found.

Then that means that the law requires the preliminary endangerment assessment

with sampling and mitigation.

None of this has been done.

And finally, the city cannot override the county's authority over the underground storage tank.

The county regulates underground storage units under state law

and has already required testing and removal.

So how can these exemptions or a cup be applied when in fact we haven't gotten off of ground zero with a toxic waste site?

And this has been going on for a number of years, known about but not dealt with by the Demas family.

I rest my case.

For your comments, I have Martin Palomar, and then after him I have Rose Luther.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Martin Palomar.

I have lived in East Sacramento for almost 22 years, and I love walking down the street

McKinley Bard.

I volunteered at McKinley Park, but I witnessed that as time goes by, the Alejandra and McKinley

Boulevard intersection at the light it's becoming very dangerous I understand that people are trying

to get from J Street Alhambra H Street to the connection of E Street on the ramp of business

80s but the traffic is just it's just impossible to navigate I also want to make reference to the

the Alhambra corridor special planning district,

especially the section on residential preservation transition buffer zone.

The buffer zone is very clear.

It says the new buildings adjacent to single-family homes

must not exceed 35 feet in height.

This proposed project is more than that.

It's double the height that is allowed.

So it simply does not meet the standard.

Any reasonable person can look at a six-story structure and see that it is completely out of scale.

It overwhelms the surrounding homes, disrupts privacy, and fundamentally alters the human-scale environment that residents rely on.

The Alhambra Design Guidelines, they state that new development should be similar in scale and architecture to adjacent single-family homes.

That means respecting the height, the massing, and the visual rhythm of the streets.

When a building introduces excessive massing, it becomes disruptive, casting shadows, dominating sight lines, and eroding the neighborhood's established character.

High-density buildings are usually built in robust transit sections or places that are designed to support taller buildings and higher population density.

This site, unfortunately, does not meet those criteria.

So I oppose the project as it is being presented.

I do advocate for affordable housing.

I would appreciate something that would be more reasonable and more accommodating,

but housing that will support the neighborhood.

So please listen to our advice.

It is my responsibility as well as yours to respect the buffer zones.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have Rose, and after that I have Exander V.

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for listening.

I'm an East Sacramento resident, and I'm speaking for myself in the name of that area.

The proposed project is in a congested corner pocket of East Sacramento.

Three stories is enough there.

The local, cross-town, and freeway traffic intersect there, as you've been hearing.

It is over one mile to light rail.

Bus transit is sparse.

People need to rely on their cars or walk if something's close by,

but usually for work across town we need to have our cars.

Consider the increased hazards of commuting

with the backup delays and the dangers caused

by irritated drivers, which I'm sure we all see every day.

If you're not familiar with the location,

please visit it before voting.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Xander and I am a resident of East Sacramento, very close to the proposed housing project.

I am in favor of this development with guidelines.

The new development will bring much needed dense housing to Sacramento as we face one of the largest housing crises in the country.

With the added retail space in the bottom floor, this will also bring business, boosting our local economy by adding jobs and added tax revenue.

revenue. We need dense housing in central Sacramento to account for our growing population

and to tame the price of rent that is skyrocketing throughout Sacramento.

Now I know that the community has some valid concerns and I would like to offer an additional

perspective to you. First off there is opposition to the height in tearing down the current building

on that plot. This bakery has been sitting vacant for over a decade and personally I would like to

see this land utilized this project does that in one of the best possible ways our city is expanding

and population growth is not slowing down so we need to accommodate for that in our city by adding

dense housing second there's the concern of increased congestion i too hate congestion and

am fearful of car accidents however projects like this actually help reduce traffic congestion

Dense housing decreases reliance on cars as people are more likely to walk when

they have surrounding businesses that can be that it can offer everything they

need just look up the five 15-minute city they are also more likely to take

public transit which can encourage more funding for SAC RT in turn expanding

transit projects lessening our dependence on cars and decreasing

congestion but this alone cannot solve this issue we need to support

infrastructure that is transit and walk centric. Your resources and organizing

are better suited toward this kind of development rather than restricting

developments like this one. Lastly there's the concern about our sewage

infrastructure. This is a valid concern as Sacramento has faced severe flooding

throughout our history. However the issue is not the people moving here. It is the

increased frequency and scale of our rain storms due to climate change.

Sacramento officials have acknowledged this and have been doing their

best to support and expand upon our infrastructure to support a growing city. The city has built

grain rainwater vaults and have lessened the severity of flooding and there is work being

done on our levees to ensure that our basins and rivers can aid with flood water. All this being

said there does have to be accountability. Along with this project there should be transit and

pedestrian infrastructure to support the changes and there should be no environmental quality act

exemptions to ensure that a project like this will not impede on our local environment.

Please consider allowing this to move forward, but with corporate accountability.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Joseph Haft, and after that, Brawley Gonzalez.

Joseph Haft?

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Joseph Haft, and I have lived and raised children and owned property in the vicinity of this project since 1977, almost 50 years.

I have stayed and enjoyed life here, as have many of my neighbors, precisely for the reasons that approval of this project contemplates obliterating.

While we have abided other large development projects over the years, such as the Cannery Business Park, McKinley Village, Sutter Square Galleria, the proposed project pales in comparison to these others in terms of its size, scale, and deviation from the character and codified protections of the immediate neighborhood.

it. This fact is highlighted for all to see in the very notice of public hearing description of the

project for when for approval it specifically relies on a questionable exemption to the

California Environmental Quality Act. It requires an absolute exceeding height standards of the

residential preservation transition buffer zone of the Elhambra Corridor Special Planning District

and it needs tree permits for the removal of seven trees, two private protected trees,

and other standard pruning of trees.

These items, of course, are in addition to the crass disregard for existing infrastructure,

barely compliant parking, and traffic concerns such as a building that would bring to our largely calm neighborhood environment.

I apologize if my comments are harsh regarding the project, but I find it very difficult to find anything substantially positive that couldn't be accomplished with a scaled down version as has been suggested and even encouraged by a number of East Sacramento neighborhood groups.

In addition, I am not personally able to cite the technicalities and specifications of codes and standards that apply to a project like this, but I've always believed that I could rely on the city planning and design commission staff and members to be bound to diligently apply them with one overriding mandate, a commitment to adhere to existing and longstanding protections designed to preserve and enhance the quality of life in one of the oldest yet more modest neighborhoods in the central city.

This is no fabulous 40s neighborhood, which is why it may have been vulnerable to a development like this, where the parcel acquisition cost was actually feasible for an overscale, oversized, overcrowded, but potentially immensely profitable undertaking if an approval as applied for were obtained.

So again, in closing, I want to appeal to this commission not to sell out this mature, peaceful, accessible neighborhood anchored by the 150-year-old McKinley Park for the benefit of a handful of developers.

No civic good can come from casting a shadow over literally hundreds of homes.

Thank you for your comments. Your time is up.

Thank you.

Leo Gonzalez and then I have Maria Kelly.

Chair and members of the Planning and Design Commission my name is Braulio

Gonzalez and I'm here on behalf of region business a coalition of local

business leaders dedicated to helping Sacramento realize its potential through

thoughtful, responsible, and bold policy leadership.

We strongly support staff's recommendation to approve the entitlements for the Alhambra

Redevelopment Project, which will transform an underutilized site of vacant warehouses

and aging structures into a vibrant mixed-use community for East Sacramento.

At its core, this project delivers what our city urgently needs, housing.

Adding 332 new homes in a high-opportunity, well-served area is exactly the kind of

smart infill development Sacramento should be encouraging.

These homes will serve working families, young professionals,

and residents who are increasingly being priced out of central neighborhoods

with access to transit McKinley Park, the library, and nearby schools.

The project aligns directly with the vision of the 2040 general plan.

Beyond housing,

this development will strengthen the local community by supporting small

businesses, creating jobs, and bringing new energy and investment to the Alhambra Corridor.

We recognize that some community members have raised concerns about density and neighborhood

compatibility, and those perspectives deserve respect. However, city staff have conducted a

thorough review and confirmed that this project meets applicable standards and aligns with

historic preservation and design guidelines. This is not unchecked growth. It is careful,

policy-driven, and well-planned redevelopment. Approving this project sends a clear message

that Sacramento can address its housing shortage,

support economic vitality,

and preserve neighborhood character at the same time.

I respectfully urge you to adopt staff's recommendation

and move this important project forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Maria Kelly, and after Maria, I have Alex Bench.

Good evening. I'm Maria Nicholas Kelly. I'm a long-time resident of East Sacramento where my family and I have lived for decades.

Last year, I was nearly killed while attempting to cross the street at Alhambra Boulevard and H Street.

After my neighbor, who was with me, pulled me out of the crosswalk in time, we stood in shock as three cars in a row ran the red light.

We live in a war zone.

Daily, our lives are at risk from unrelenting traffic, which this project would increase.

The city's recent Streets for People study found that East Sacramento and the Alhambra Corridor

have the highest levels in the city of both traffic and accidents involving cars, cyclists, and pedestrians.

The six-story apartment project will generate 960,000 more vehicle trips a year onto our streets.

I urge you to reject this project as proposed.

Instead, work with us residents to change this war zone into a safe zone.

First, retain the Alhambra buffer zone at the 35-foot height limit.

preserve the character of this unique neighborhood. Second, implement the

traffic calming strategies used in Midtown and elsewhere to protect our

families. Councilmember Phil Pluckybaum says that traffic and parking problems

in ESAC will never get better. I respectfully disagree. Each of you has

the power right now, tonight, to keep this hazardous condition from getting far

worse. Do not bring a million more vehicle trips onto our streets. Would you

want that traffic in your neighborhood? Please do not force it into ours. Thank

you.

Hello, my name is Alex Bank.

I am a resident of Marshall School,

so I'm right on the other side of the freeway from this project,

and I walk through the neighborhood all the time.

And I'd like to offer my support of this project.

You know, listening to the comments here is a little confusing for me

because I share almost all the concerns that my neighbors have,

but I actually think that this project is closer to a solution to those issues than the cause of them.

So we've had people talking about homelessness, but as somebody alluded to earlier,

homelessness is caused by, you know, high housing costs, which this project can help address.

If we want safer streets, then we need to have, you know, the density of amenities and housing

that allow people to walk to them instead of driving.

And I want to talk a little bit about the trees in this project, too.

There are some things I could nitpick about it.

I would love to see the developer in the city to work a little harder to preserve some of the trees.

I'd love to see the alley right-of-way preserved.

But the reality is we can't think of this project as the alternative is doing nothing.

There is a huge unmet demand for housing in Sacramento, and it's not going to go away.

So if we don't build this project, we're going to build another project somewhere else that houses those people.

Well, what is that going to look like?

It's probably going to look like a lot of suburban sprawl on the edge of the city.

I did some quick calculations, and I think if we built these as single-family homes somewhere else, it would take about 25 times as much land.

that's all natural area, trees, plants, animal habitat that would have to be destroyed to house

those people. And, you know, those people are still going to be driving through our neighborhood

to get to downtown, realistically. So I don't think it's fair to assume that if we don't build

this project that traffic is not going to increase. I would love for everyone here to

work, you know, with other organizations and their neighbors to make the streets in this area safer.

there's definitely a need for that.

But I think that has to be changes in infrastructure,

adding more transit, things like that.

It's not blocking development.

So I just want to remind people, you know, time can't stand still.

That might sound like a nice idea.

But we need to look at what the actual alternative is.

And is this making the city better than the alternative?

And I think the answer is clearly yes.

Thank you.

For your comments, I have Viet Long Nguyen and Elisa Lee.

Viet Long Huyang.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Viet Long Huyang.

I would like to express my support for this project.

I live in Midtown and I've really enjoyed visiting McKinley Park as I've been running there and practicing for my half marathon.

I think more people should get to enjoy the opportunity to live near McKinley Park and to use the park's great recreational opportunities.

I am also concerned about traffic safety living in Midtown and have definitely experienced those same concerns whenever I visited McKinley Park.

I do support the project and I hope that with many more people moving into the neighborhood that we can build more constituency support to improve traffic safety in East Sacramento through adding more transit, better bike lanes, better sidewalks, and I do support this project.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Alyssa Lee and after that I have Troy Sankey.

Hi, commissioners. My name is Alisa Lee. I live near 23rd and C, a few blocks west of this project.

My household of three, we do not own a car. We live our lives without one.

And I meet many people my age all the time who would love to live in my neighborhood or nearby and live without the expense of a car, which continues to grow.

And I just want to remind you that this is a market of people that exists, and we are going to keep growing as a group of people.

people who would like to live without a car.

I do support this project at its proposed number of dwelling units.

I also support Preservation Sacramento's and Civic Threads letters and their requests,

which I hope you looked into, to reduce the size of the parking garage

and to include ground floor bike storage.

We know we need to build housing.

In fact, it's the one thing that every commenter did agree on.

And so the question is, what is the best way to house as many people as possible in our city at the least cost, big picture and long term?

The best place of an apartment of this size is to get these many units is in a resource-rich neighborhood like ESAC adjacent to Midtown,

where we don't need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new infrastructure that we cannot maintain,

where residents have the ability to live close to where they work and to live without that expense of a car.

and I do really empathize with the concerns brought by the opponents to this project but I

want to say that more neighbors only makes this neighborhood stronger. They will bring a massive

infusion of much needed revenue through property taxes that can help support the public amenities

that many of the opponents would like to see and I agree with them. More people will bring more foot

traffic to retain local businesses and attract new ones and I want to take a moment to talk about why

this will be good for traffic safety. With traffic, we have to remember that people are not the problem.

Cars pose the problem, and we can have more people with fewer cars. I agree with some of the opponents

that we need slower streets and safety for people walking and biking and bus service in the area,

but rather than seeing an influx of new neighbors as a threat to that need, I see them as the best

possible asset. In my experience as someone who's been advocating for safer streets here in SAC for

years. I know that the only way to get more transit service and bike safety is to have many,

many voices and people for that cause. You know, I selfishly want this project because I hate

crossing at E Street and having so many more neighbors who are needing safe walking pads will

be so much more helpful to me to actually get safer crossing, to push Caltrans, to get that

under crossing to be not a death trap. The best way to track more transit is to have guaranteed

ridership numbers which we can get if it's clear that we have enough people in this neighborhood

who don't already have one two three cars and i just want to say adding more parking so that

people can freely store two or more cars to drive less that's just not a sense your comments your

time is up thank you thank you i have troy sankey after troy i have joseph james hurley

Hi, Commission. My name is Troy Sankey, and I'm from New Era Park neighborhood, right on the other side of the highway from this project.

Let me explain an amendment that I'd like to see in this plan, but first I'll rewind a bit.

Here are some community needs that have been brought up so far here at this meeting.

We want to mitigate traffic congestion impacts.

We want to improve transit frequency, transit services.

We want to preserve existing structures.

We want to fix the food desert, as my addition.

This is an abandoned Rite Aid.

We want to solve the housing affordability crisis.

These are some of the goals that I think people have stated.

provided. Providing off-street parking flies in the face of all of these goals.

These are new residents. These new residents will be people just like you or I, and people

simply follow the path of lease resistance. Cheap and convenient parking for every new resident

statistically leads to increased rates of car ownership and traffic congestion. It also drives

down on-street parking demand, which limits the revenue potential of on-street meters,

which could be added. Meter revenue collected by the city could fund traffic safety improvements,

could fund better transit facilities, better transit frequency, and could install better

street lighting. These are all things that have been called for here at this meeting.

Studies across the U.S. have shown that providing parking drives up rent. A citywide 10-year study

in Seattle showed that apartments providing parking were on average 30% more expensive to rent.

Furthermore, with the space recovered from the garage, if it were not built,

we could preserve existing homes and avoid displacing existing residents.

For these reasons, I strongly urge this commission to send back this plan

to make the following amendment.

Do not provide any off-street parking, do not build a garage,

and do not pave any area for surface parking.

Okay, with the extra time, I just wanted to talk about historic preservation.

On the topic of historic preservation and the topic of preserving historic character of East Sacramento,

let me remind you and the audience that East Sacramento is and started out as a streetcar suburb.

Let's strive for that again and remember East Sacramento's historic character.

No cars. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I have Joseph James Hurley. After Joseph, I have Noah Meban, and after Noah, I have Kurt Ping.

Hello, I'm Joseph James Hurley. I live at 3146 Blues Alley, approximately 100 yards from the proposed location.

I am in opposition to this project simply because it's out of character for the neighborhood.

The scale is unwarranted given, let me, sorry I wasn't prepared to come up, but I don't believe the conditional use permit variances that the developer and the property owners are requesting are warranted given the nature of this project.

It's too tall for the neighborhood. There's far too many few community benefits to justify the variances they're asking for and it will have significant negative impacts on the existing people living in the community.

I am a renter. I am not a homeowner. I've been there approximately 10 years. I love my little house. I'm blessed to have it.

I agree with the urgency in redeveloping that site.

However, the city is giving away too much for what they're getting.

That's my point.

So thank you.

Hello, my name is Noah Mebin.

I live in Boulevard Park at 23rd and G Street, which is 0.7 miles away from the project site.

I want to say I'm not speaking on behalf of any entity other than myself, but I am very involved in my community,

and I spend a lot of time speaking to my neighbors about projects like this, so I'm not speaking out of a vacuum.

I'm strongly in support of this project.

The number one issue I hear about in my neighborhood is that they want a grocery store at 22nd and F Street,

and what I would tell them is that I can't think of anything more helpful than adding 500 potential customers half a mile away.

In a greater context, and something that everybody here seems to agree with, is that the city has priorities like public transit.

What could be more helpful than adding 500 riders a block away from the existing bus stop?

Another priority is homelessness. What could be more helpful than adding 332 homes?

Another huge priority I always hear talk about lately is budget.

What could be more helpful than adding 500 taxpayers?

Now, of course, I believe that if a project like this goes in, we need to improve the service of bus route 134.

We need to add crosswalks. We need to improve the bike ability around this area.

And like somebody else mentioned before me, that's not going to happen with the city until the people are there who are already demanding it.

And I believe if we get those people there and we make these improvements,

it should alleviate most of the neighbors concerns about traffic and parking and

other safety concerns without getting rid of the positive impact of having this

number of units of housing. And if the area,

this my belief is that if the area this project is going in is inconsistent or

out of scale with its surroundings,

it's because the same people who are opposing this project have opposed every

project over the past few decades that would have bridged the gap between what

the neighborhood is now and what this project would bring to the neighborhood

and which many of them have admitted to that very same thing in this meeting.

I've heard a lot about the residents are a fan of this type of development,

but just not here.

And what I would ask is if it's not here, then where would it be?

And how long are we supposed to build in every other neighborhood

before we're allowed to build in this neighborhood and other similar neighborhoods?

I believe as a resident of the urban core, quote unquote, of Sacramento,

that it doesn't stop at 30th Street.

I support that this project and others like it

because I believe it's time for the areas surrounding the grid

to become legitimate components of the growth that Sacramento has been seeing

and improving all the issues that I mentioned.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Kurt Ping and after that I have Martin Pascoe.

My name is Kurt.

I live in District 4 and I am here in support of the project.

First, I would like to argue that density is good.

When you have 800-ish new people in the neighborhood, what does that mean?

That means there are more people who can visit shops, restaurants, and retail businesses and support the business.

It will bring a livelier neighborhood.

And when you have more people, it can actually help resolve the issues of crime and safety that people have been concerned about.

When you have more people, there are more eyes on the street.

There are more people walking around.

and you feel more safe as you're walking outside

and there's people who can watch out for you.

And lastly, increasing housing supply, as people have mentioned,

is from academic research and actual phenomenon in Austin, Minneapolis, all over the world,

the best way to reduce housing costs and address homelessness.

Secondly, I would like to argue that the building is not too large.

Personally, I think six stories is fine.

I like it. I think neighborhood character arises from the people who live in the neighborhood and

not what the buildings look like. It's what the community is like, what the vibe is like,

and the connections we build with each other, and not whether this building is too tall or too short,

too fat or too skinny. And to the people who have said that, you know, there's going to be shadows,

there's going to be issues of privacy. I think actually sometimes with the advent of climate

change and rising heat and temperatures, I think sometimes a little shade is good actually. And

I live on the third floor of a, you know, apartment building. You know, I'm not looking out of other

people's houses and stuff like that. So I don't really think there's going to be issues with privacy.

and if we don't build this now this will remain vacant and I think this is we're going to miss

an opportunity to build housing and then in three years five years we're going to revisit this and

it'll be more expensive to build and when that's more expensive to build the housing is going to

be more expensive and harder for people to afford lastly I think the location is actually quite good

It's located, East Sacramento is a great walkable neighborhood.

There are bike paths and I recognize that there currently is in transit, but

as people said, more people will encourage future transit investments.

And for people who are driving, it's right next to the highway so

you can just get on it.

So you're not gonna have an issue with that.

And lastly, I think people, I agree with the street safety concerns, but

that's not mutually exclusive with this project.

In fact, as people said, more people can bring more incentive to address the street safety and make this a great place to live.

I support this project. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I have Martin Pascoe and Christine Cross.

Good evening. I'm born and raised in East Sacramento.

That lot has been empty my entire life.

It's been a blight on the neighborhood forever.

Something needs to be built there

and something will be built there.

The neighbors' concerns are extremely valid.

The building must look good.

I think that will be a huge selling point.

So I think a huge consideration into the design

and the site plan use of this building is crucial.

There are concerns about parking, traffic,

and other neighborhood impacts, including noise and light pollution, that are extremely important to consider.

I have seen these gross enclaves of Sutter and McVillage being built.

They don't blend into the surrounding neighborhood.

I live right next to Sutter Memorial, or what it is now.

It's gross. It doesn't blend in. It doesn't look the same.

Let's make it look like it should.

People talk about the height of this building.

Build it as tall as it needs to be.

The Fab 40s is straddled by a six-plus-story building that nobody has mentioned tonight.

The Great Wall of Alhambra sounds quite nice.

It'll isolate East Sacramento from the freeway noise.

It'll look really cool when you drive by.

Who knows what type of business could be drowned up from that.

This is a huge opportunity for the city of Sacramento to do something crazy.

Let's take this moment and seize it like Frank Gehry in the Guggenheim.

Make something that's really going to work for this city.

People have concerns about parking.

Take away parking for the building.

There's a market for that.

It is well advertised within the United States, and people crave it.

We visit Europe and say, oh my gosh, how nice is it?

I can take a train.

I can take a bus.

And the need for this city's investment in that infrastructure,

including our buses and underutilized rail system is only evident by these people's concerns.

East Sacramento is a jewel to the city and it must be treated as such.

Careful considerations and including the exemption of CEQA, it's next to a freeway,

like come on, it's also by an old dump. We're beyond that. Our concerns need to be how can

this building work for us in the best way possible. I concede my time. Thank you. I have Christine Cross. After Christine, I have Jennifer. It looks like fearing. Hello. First off, fix the potholes.

parking to enter the freeway will take about 24 hours on business 80 um i i'm living in my

childhood home and it's between um h and j good luck cross your fingers to cross it

um there is i he mentioned about the how the place on 41st and Folsom that is beautiful

but it's hidden behind huge redwood trees.

Go take a look at it.

But I went in there to take pictures of it today

to bring to this meeting to talk about it

but when I wanted to cross Folsom Boulevard

you had to go like this.

The parking, I mean the traffic is just horrible

and I'm so glad my parents are dead

not to see how Sacramento has turned.

I think Sacramento's turned ugly, totally ugly.

Just driving down, down here to get a parking spot, you know, like, okay, how do I make this parking meter work?

So I went to Old Saft Park.

I live where there's four plexus and flats, okay?

Right there, that alone causes parking problems.

And I do want to have a car.

I just bought a two-year, oh, well, it's not a brand-new car.

but I have issues with parking.

I mean, not parking, walking.

So, you know, I just, we hope this doesn't happen.

Now, I do know, because my sister used to own one of those houses there,

and it was homeless trash everywhere.

That guy has not fixed that, the DeMoss or whatever he is, Demass or whatever.

It's ugly.

It is totally ugly.

And so I agree on something nice being built there, but not what the picture shows.

Plus, no one's talked about how much will it cost to live there.

I mean, if builders got to build it, they're going to milk it for what they can get.

Okay, so what are the units they're going to go for?

Does anybody know?

What's market rate?

Well, anyway, you know, I just don't want to see.

I agree there's something that needs to be built there because it's ugly there.

Okay.

Anyway, thank you so much.

I'm against it, though.

But make it beautiful, and I would be for it.

But it's not.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Jennifer.

And after Jennifer, I have Paul Hilker.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Jennifer Fearing and I am here in support of this project as a 20

plus year homeowner in East Sacramento and Elmhurst.

And I,

I just want to say how much my heart is warmed tonight by the young people

here and the way they are articulating their support for this project.

I'm only here tonight because someone paid to include our residents nearly

three miles from the project's location in a full color mailing warning of

nearly a million more cars. And that made me look into it.

A very similar project was proposed about a decade ago at Stockton and T Streets near our home.

The GEO Apartments is a five-story block-sized development that replaced an old commercial AT&T building.

It is sited at a crazy five-way intersection.

It abuts Highway 50.

It has the same ratio of units to parking as this project.

We were warned and alarmed by neighbors about more traffic, more congestion, more noise, and the loss of neighborhood character.

The renters started moving in in 2019 and since that time it has provided

hundreds and hundreds of people with quality housing and absolutely no

discernible impacts on our residential neighborhood. I hope that our experience

gives those who are earnestly worried about this project some solace.

Meanwhile we have a moral and a climate imperative to build more housing in

urban Sacramento. Traffic issues are solved with traffic calming and giving

people alternatives to driving. So please approve this project, but also please make our streets

safer and expand public transit in the area. Thank you. For your comments, I have Paul Hilliker

and after that, Cindy Guest. Mr. Chair, members of the commission, thank you for the opportunity

to speak tonight. My name is Paul Hilliker. I live in East Sacramento and I find it kind of curious

that people complain about shade.

I think most of the time people want shade in Sacramento,

especially in those hot times in the summertime.

So in some ways, this project will actually provide a benefit.

You're on the front lines of Sacramento's housing crisis,

and you need to figure out ways to provide a mix of housing in Sacramento.

McKinley Park Village, Sutter Park, those are both good developments.

They provide a little more density.

They cost a million dollars to live there.

So that's not going to solve the problem the way that this project will help.

I drive through Alhambra and E and Alhambra and H regularly at rush hour.

It's a minor delay.

I can't imagine that the traffic from this particular project is going to be a major problem.

All the conditions that you've imposed, the hundreds of conditions, including requiring that the development connect to an 18-inch sewer main,

I think those will mitigate any potential problems.

So I appreciate the fact that Savee Sacramento sent me a flyer because I hadn't been following this project.

So I came down here tonight to, because of that flyer, I came down here tonight to demonstrate my support for this project.

You've heard about 4,100 Folsom.

It's even taller.

It's twice the size of this.

And I live close to that.

It doesn't destroy the neighborhood.

If anything, it enhances the neighborhood.

You have another development, McKinley Park Apartments,

that are on the opposite side of McKinley Park

from this location.

Nobody's complaining about that, and it's just as tall.

So we need this development.

We need these types of solutions.

We need a mix of everything.

Building more houses in Folsom will help,

but when it comes to urban density,

this is one of the solutions that you need to approve,

and I support that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I have Cindy and after Cindy I have Keith

Mikhoff.

Hi. My name is Cindy Guest. I live in East Sacramento near Compton's Market since

just before Y2K if anybody worked in IT and remembers that. My house was built in 1947.

It was probably slapped up pretty quickly by a developer to satisfy post-World War II

demand from returning soldiers who wanted to raise families in communities like East

Sacramento. We have a similar problem now with lack of housing from the children, grandchildren

and great grandchildren of the people who once owned my house. I support this project

because we need that housing. I'll also say it's a great location, it's a vacant, unused

piece of property that's been sitting vacant and unused for a long time. And as somebody

else commented, I too am hoping that it will reduce some freeway noise at my home just

by its height. But if not, I'll live with that too.

Thank you for your comments. I have Keith Mikoff and after that I have Javier Perez.

Hello, commissioners. My name is Keith Mikoff. I just want to come in here and, before I

started hearing people talk, I was really against this project. But as I look into it,

there's a lot of things, a lot of positive to this project. Even though it's, you know,

going to be a little bit tall, like some of the people said, it's going to protect my

property from some of that highway noise. But, you know, other than that, the other

issue I had was with the plumbing, with the sewers and waste. Somebody said something

about an 18-inch sewer pipe coming through to assist with that, that would be fantastic.

As long as that is actually taken care of before the project is approved, you know,

I think that's all I have to say.

You know, as long as we're, I don't want to see another one of those 2021 flooding issues

going on because even though I'm down by Folsom Boulevard, I don't want anything to

get so bad, you know, who knows, over the next few days we might have another 10 inches

of water.

And so how's our system going to be able to handle that?

You know, so as long as that is taken care of, you know, let's move forward.

Everybody likes a little bit of progress.

You know, I know the people that own the property, they want to get out, you know,

and then this guy's coming in and bringing some development.

Let's do that.

But I want to make sure that everything is taken care of before everything happens.

And, you know, as long as the sewers are working.

And I know that I've heard all for the 25 years I've lived here,

after retiring from the military here out of May 3rd, McClellan,

that's the thing that I'm worried about, the sewer system here.

You know, I don't know what's in most of it, the clay piping.

Something's got to be done about that.

And, you know, it should be taken care of along with this project,

if not before this project goes in.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

I have Javier Perez, Miranda Love, and the last speaker will be Andrew Cuttle.

Javier Perez.

Hi.

Good evening.

My name is Javier Perez.

Hi, good evening.

My name's Javier Perez, Sacramento resident.

Rented in downtown Sacramento, rented in East Sac recently,

and lived in greater Sacramento area.

Received the same letter that multiple people received to come and voice

opposition to today's decision or potential decision.

I drove from roughly 60th and J.

I opened the letter at 520, got in the car 525, got to the door about 543.

So as much as I appreciate rush hour traffic and potentially what this could cause,

I would say that's a reasonable drive from that distance to get here.

I don't have to tell you that there's not enough housing.

I think we all know that.

I think you've heard it here, and you didn't need to hear it here to know that.

Sacramento needs to grow.

We're never going to find the right backyard to put multifamily housing in

and appreciate that many here, their backyard will be implicated.

It will be affected by this change.

And appreciate there may be imperfections with this project

and there won't be a perfect one.

Sacramento needs more housing.

and I hope that more backyards get multifamily housing moving forward.

Thank you.

Fair comments.

I have Miranda Love and Andrew Cottle next.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Miranda Love.

I, like many others, received a letter in the mail today

and was my first notice of this project.

And so I just wanted to say that as a resident of Boulevard Park in the New Era Park neighborhood, which is very close by, I frequent the park all the time.

And like others have echoed with positive sentiments for the project, I think we should focus on the positive.

I biked here tonight, and there's a huge demand for being car free.

And if we promote this project in a sustainable way and focus on the positives, this could be a huge benefit for our city.

And, you know, one example is I work at 800 Capitol Mall, and these buildings are state buildings that are being redeveloped with the new announcement, Sac State and investment from Sac State to bring students and more housing to the area that's desperately needed.

And we have the same opportunity to do this on the other side of town.

yeah furthermore if we approach the project with smart design and sustainability standards

like limiting the parking associated with development we can address the housing crisis

and we can promote more infill development more coffee shops more local businesses more tax

dollars for our city as the capital of city of the fourth largest economy in the world we should be

promoting higher density housing and economic development and mitigating suburban sprawl.

We shouldn't be living in the past building single-family homes in more unsustainable suburban sprawl.

The character of the neighborhood, as many opposed to the project have invoked throughout the night,

is strengthened by more diversity of people in the neighborhood and more local businesses.

is if we commit to this project in a smart and sustainable way that addresses the community

concerns about designs, parking concerns, traffic concerns, we can promote density, transit,

all at the same time.

Sorry.

Basically, I want to say that it's not a zero-sum game.

We can have a better world, and we can build it, and we can envision it.

So I don't think we should be limited by the character of the neighborhood, by the past.

We should dream bigger.

We should think bigger.

We should be looking to other world's cities like Paris, like Vienna.

These cities are limiting cars.

They're promoting cycling.

They're promoting transit.

And they have very high density and affordability.

So we should look to people around the world.

Your time is up.

Thank you for your comments.

People around the world, because we can have a great city.

Thank you.

Last speaker, I have Andrew Cottle.

Ready?

Hi, commissioners.

My name is Andrew Cottle.

I'm actually going to bring a little different perspective today, because I actually live in the vineyard area.

It's more of an unincorporated part of the county.

and we are facing a lot of really suburban sprawl.

That's where it is.

And I really desperately want to live here

because I'm 29 years old.

I had to move back in with my parents

after a private equity firm bought out my apartment complex,

renovated us while using AI across the country

to just inflate rents across the country.

And I was like, so I know firsthand

how difficult it is to afford rents here in Sacramento,

even that I work $26 an hour.

It's $10 over the minimum wage.

I still can't afford a studio on my own.

So seeing this, that's why I pretty much

really support this project.

While I'm perfect, I would love to have a place to live.

You know, that's what I really want.

And I know, just to throw a few numbers out there,

the Sacramento County Affordable Housing Needs Report

said that 54,615 low-income renter households

in Sacramento County do not have access

to an affordable home.

I am one of those people, just to give you a face,

to us. And then for the homeless people, I see them all over the place now. While you may have

kicked them out over here in the public areas, they came to Florin Mall and the unincorporated

area. I drive to my little Spanish church and they're just filled with RVs now. It's almost

a little ridiculous. We headed out sandwiches to the homeless. We didn't leave one mile radius.

We gave out 100 sandwiches.

So I know how difficult it is, and we're just moving the problem elsewhere.

So I believe we actually need to be, not to use the word, it is a little pathetic to talk about, oh, we have these 300 rooms we need.

We need 50,000 rooms.

We are way behind the problem.

So I would even recommend going beyond what we have recommended today and doing what they're doing in, like, Chicago and say,

We want to make a city-led non-developer to create more housing units to fulfill these 50,000 units.

And so I can actually enjoy Sacramento and not be in the vineyard area and not have to only walk to a Walmart half a mile away.

That's not an enjoyable life.

I want to live here in Sacramento where I was born.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments, Chair.

I have no more speakers.

Thank you all.

Before I open this up to Commissioner questions and comments,

I want to thank everyone who has turned out tonight.

There's a lot of passion on both sides of the issue here.

And it's really great to see a community turn out to express their views and their thoughts.

So we will see where this goes.

So with that, are there any Commissioner questions or comments?

Vice Chair Caden.

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

And I would echo that.

Thank you to the public for coming out tonight.

It's clear that everyone is passionate about this community,

and I think I share a lot of the same, I think, desires around bike and pedestrian safety and transit and affordability

that I think there was a lot of consensus around tonight.

I wanted to start by, I guess, first addressing what the commission really has the discretion to decide tonight.

You know, this is a new time in kind of approving projects in California,

and so there are some rules that are in place at the state level now between SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act

that really do effectively limit the discretion of this commission to say no to housing projects

that otherwise comply with objective standards.

And it is my understanding that this project is complying

with these objective standards in our base zoning

and our general plan.

And I think we actually just went through

a fairly similar experience in this situation

with this commission on another project.

And it was basically determined through that process

that even if a project requires a conditional use permit,

if it is, again, complying with that underlying

based on a general plan that it was protected under the Housing Accountability Act.

And there were, you know, significant risks, legal risks for kind of denying the project.

So I want to maybe just offer an opportunity for Council here to kind of walk us through what the legal protections are on a project like this.

Thank you, Commissioner Caden.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, a project that complies with the general plan and zoning,

a housing project that complies with both those things can only be denied in certain circumstances.

You'd have to make some health and safety findings.

And in this case, because there's a mechanism for the project to exceed the height,

even though that mechanism is for the issuance of a CUP,

the commission has little discretion to deny the project unless it can make those health and safety findings.

and and can you is there anything else you can say about the health and safety findings because

I know that those are fairly um you know they're not generic they're very specific and and kind of

a high bar as I recall sure yeah they are um I have them right here there's specific adverse

impact upon the public health and safety um that will occur unless the project is disapproved

and then it says that a specific adverse impact means a significant quantifiable direct

and unavoidable impact based on objective identified written public health and safety standards,

policies, and conditions as they existed at the date the project application was deemed complete.

And then there has to be no satisfactory method to mitigate those.

Yeah, and so I mean, so that is a very high bar, as I understand it.

And so it does, to me, seem like there are some real legal risks to not approving this project

or even conditioning, I guess,

the approval on reducing the density

and thus the number of housing units in the project.

And I mentioned this to staff before,

but I would love to sort of revisit

this idea of even having a CUP process

for an approval path that in many ways

is not that discretionary

under the Housing Accountability Act

in this sort of new paradigm that we're living in.

So I think maybe that's something

that we can come back to

as part of the Title 17 overhaul that's underway.

And I know we have some workshops on that

coming up in the next few months.

So that said, I do wanna take the opportunity

to address a few of the comments and points

that I've been hearing tonight.

So first, parking.

I've seen a lot of comments suggesting

that there isn't enough parking,

off-street parking provided here.

And because of that, we should deny the project

or increase the parking.

And I just, I wanted to remind us, right, so we, you know, we as a city, we do not have parking requirements.

That was a decision that we made as a commission and a council, you know, citywide.

And locations like this, I do want to just add the point, though, that it's not just that we don't have parking requirements.

Even if that wasn't the case, we literally do not have the agency to enforce parking requirements on this site because of AB 2097,

because of state legislation that precludes us from requiring parking in places that are within a half mile of existing in planned transit.

So that is, you know, I mean, I have my own thoughts about the parking on this project.

I actually would, you know, I think there's too much parking, frankly, in this project.

But that's not really something that we have, you know, an opportunity to kind of change tonight because of that preclusion.

I also saw some comments and letters about how the project didn't do enough to kind of do their environmental review and sort of the CEQA process was not sufficient.

And so this project is using an infill housing exemption that was created by the state legislature this last summer.

And that was created for literally this exact situation.

Housing projects in infill areas, we've talked a lot about it as a commission.

they're incredibly important for reducing our climate impact.

And so that's why that whole exemption was even created.

And I think this is our first foray into using that exemption,

maybe one of the first in the state.

So I guess I just wanted to say kudos to staff for, again,

kind of being on the cutting edge of using some of these

and implementing some of these state reforms.

And I do think it's a very appropriate use of that exemption.

On the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District, the height piece, and the staff report was clear about this, but I wanted to highlight that this provision, this 35-foot height provision, it doesn't change the underlying base zoning height limit, right?

It changes the height that you can actually pursue by right,

but the height limit is still 65 feet on this site.

It just requires a conditional use permit to kind of access that 65 foot.

I think there's been several other projects that have kind of gone through this.

The five-story link building on SNL-Hambra was built a while back.

It's a while ago now, but that was built under the same process

in the same Alhambra corridor, special planning district,

that's directly across the street from single family homes

and that's a fairly large project at a large height.

So I think there already is kind of a precedent

for this conditional use permit exceeding that 35 foot height

in this special planning district.

And beyond that, it does seem to me that it's fairly clear

that the applicant has taken a lot of steps

to be sensitive I think to the concerns

of neighbors around height,

between putting the garage on the freeway side,

I think that's a great idea,

doing these sort of building step backs

as part of the design.

I'm not personally a huge fan of that

because that does sort of reduce the number of people

that can live on the non-freeway side,

but it does seem to me hard to argue

that they haven't taken these kind of significant steps

to really try to accommodate that concern.

So yeah, to me, there are things

that I don't love about this project too, right?

This project is not perfect.

It's, you know, again, for me, a little bit more parking

than I would ideally like to see.

You know, it's been mentioned,

but it is right next to a freeway, not ideal.

I don't love that we sort of, you know,

have kind of implicitly forced the design

to have these building setbacks.

But, you know, even if this wasn't

like a Housing Accountability Act protected project

and the commission had just a full, you know,

opportunity to just say, you know,

yes or no for this project,

it's not really a hard decision for me.

We are in a housing crisis

that is fundamentally about a shortage of homes.

And this is providing over 300 homes

in a place where our general plan,

where our base zoning both call for density

and scale of this type.

You know, it's been said a few times,

I completely agree, right?

This is a fantastic neighborhood.

And to me it's a feature, it's not a bug,

that people are going to have potentially an opportunity to access this neighborhood

and all of the amenities and schools and economic opportunities that this neighborhood provides.

I mean, there's 2,500 jobs that are within a half mile of this project site.

McKinley Park, it was said in Commons, genuinely one of the jewels of this city.

And the vast majority of homes that are in East Sacramento are single-family homes.

And so I think, you know, potentially seeing some more rentals, you know, in this neighborhood and, you know, having the opportunity to kind of access that park, you know, is great because it's very difficult for folks to afford an $800,000 plus house right now.

So one more just sort of reflection here.

I think there's a lot of parallels for me between the Alhambra Corridor and the Broadway Corridor.

I understand that, you know, not a perfect analogy here, but they're both commercial corridors, right?

They're a block from the interstate.

They sort of form the basis of, you know, the borders of the central city to the south and to the east.

And, you know, looking back about 10 years ago, these corridors look fairly similar in kind of their scale.

And now we have the on-Broadway apartments on 19th and Broadway.

We have, you know, the tower apartments on 16th and Broadway, I think.

Both of those are five-plus story mixed-use buildings.

There's several more projects that are kind of in the pipeline here on Broadway.

So I think part of what we're seeing here is Alhambra Corridor sort of growing up

and seeing that same sort of progression that we have been seeing on Broadway

in, to me, a very similar situation in the sense that there's single-family homes in close proximity.

And now that we have those apartments, you know, the neighborhood is still doing great.

Land Park is a fantastic neighborhood still even with those apartments. I do

also want to just take a second to kind of thank all of the individuals and

and the organizations that that came out to support this project. By my last count

at least in the e-comments the the majority of e-comments were in support. I

know we had a number of organizations that provided support letters. House

Sacramento, Strong SAC Town, Metro Chamber, Midtown Association. I'm sure I'm

I'm missing a couple others.

A particular, I think, shout out

to the East Sacramento Community Association

and the letter from Tricia Stevens,

which I thought was really, really thoughtful.

So I'm really supportive of this project.

I wanna make sure we have an opportunity

to hear the feedback from the rest of the commission tonight.

So I'll wait on a motion and yield my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Caden.

Any other speakers?

Commissioner Ortiz.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was hoping there was a lot of representations tonight about what how much community outreach there was as well as concerns about the sewer system.

I think we heard one comment addressing that we're going to see an 18-inch.

I know that there was one community meeting that was hosted.

I think it was at the Shepherd Art and Garden Center.

Correct.

So there was indeed, I think, the representative of the project proponent did a pretty big meeting at Shepherd's Art, and I think staff was there.

So I do know that there was at least one significant public meeting, and not everybody knows about this at the right time.

but I do know they were not obligated to,

and apparently went out and did that.

So I want that to be reflected in the record.

I also want to address the question

of the underground storage tank.

Generally, there has to be a phase one,

phase two assessment.

Can you share with us the status

of that underground storage tank assertion

or representation that we have an issue,

and whether or not it will have to be addressed,

And if so, at what time?

Yes.

Thank you, Commissioner.

So there was a phase one done as part of the project,

and I did identify that underground storage tank.

We, as part of the project, have conditioned it

to address the underground storage tank.

It is condition number C47,

and it's to address that underground storage tank with the county

and then handle any remediation that is necessary if the soil contamination is found.

As part of using this exemption, also the AB 130 exemption,

we are required to prepare a preliminary endangerment assessment,

which also addresses any on-site hazards,

and they will need to address all of those hazards prior to certificate of occupancy.

And just to reiterate, I mean, what that means is we impose conditions.

There are many processes before ground even breaks.

But the project cannot be done until and unless the remediation is addressed.

Correct.

Okay.

So I do think, you know, we have complied with that representation that, well, we're obligated by law to do that.

And I recall a project in Curtis Park where I did state legislation that actually did a second phase of cleanup.

So I do know DTSC and, you know, the county has to delegate to the state to have a clearance.

So that has to be done before anything can be built.

I just want to highlight that.

I also, I actually walked the site.

I was there today.

I'd gone about a month and a half ago, and then I went again today.

So I do have a question, and I think what is very apparent is whether one supports or opposes this project.

The issues of there is at least one unhoused person in a tent right there.

But if anyone's walked there, there are at least one, two, three, four, five, six abandoned properties, and they are fenced off and are going to be part of this multi-block project.

And I certainly, over the years when I lived in Oak Park, we had a lot of vacant and unboarded buildings, and I did a city ordinance to require them to keep them closed.

But the biggest risk you have in this area is to have status quo remain.

The fact that you have those long abandoned properties, as much as you try to keep them fenced off and closed off, they are a nuisance and they become a nuisance.

So this would be a net benefit to address that potential nuisance to the neighborhood.

I did have a question about one of the projects, and I hope I'm not getting too granular here.

I looked at the single family houses on D Street as well as on C Street just to get a sense of the massing of if we proceed with the CUP.

And I don't know if we have residents that live on D Street or C Street between Alhambra and the freeway here, whether they spoke tonight.

I would be very concerned about how they feel about the massing, but I didn't hear of any of them coming forward.

Oh, okay, so we do have one person.

Are you, I don't know if it's appropriate for me to ask them to come forward, but I don't know if you're on D Street or C Street.

Okay, so on the, across from the, what is essentially the Alhambra Frontage site.

So I was concerned about one property.

I think it's 3001 D Street.

It's like a duplex that wraps around the corner.

Will that actually be eliminated to do this project?

Because it said no net loss of currently habitable or occupied housing.

but that one it looks like it's a duplex that wraps around uh the uh the 30th street and and

d street will that be removed no that's not a part of part of the project okay so that will remain

and it's adjacent to that that's good to know because you do have single family housing that

is occupied that is habitable it's not part of the vacant properties and i do appreciate on the

Alhambra side. I believe there's a multifamily and there's a couple of single family on the

Alhambra side. And where are the step backs? Is it on C and D or is it on Alhambra?

The step backs all are around Alhambra. They do wrap a portion of D Street, but not the full

length. It's only the very first like 10 feet. I wouldn't say. Got it. Okay. So you will have

step back facing the woman in the audience's property.

And I think as one of my colleagues said, you know,

it's perfect against the freeway because that's where you're going to have the

entrance to the parking, et cetera. And I, I, you know,

obviously facing the freeway is not a problem. I will say,

and I don't know if we open this up cause it has been represented that we can't.

well I don't know that we can't I wish we had less parking on site and I get that

we're talking 332 parking spaces that presumably many of the single fan the

studio and the one room units will be young persons in their career and I do

think there is public transit it may not be ideal but I think what drives more

routes is to have more people who don't have cars and maybe I'd ask legal

counsel or staff do we have the discretion to reduce the parking at all

on the site legally are we barred from probably not but

It would depend on how that would impact the feasibility of the project because we can't condition it to make it less feasible.

Let me look at the legislation real quick.

As you're doing that, I understand the economics.

I don't think this has to make sense whether or not the current owners develop this or not.

these entitlements, if we grant them and they're infeasible, then this is just going to sit as an entitled project and not get done.

So there's a rationale for having it be economically feasible.

That's not a giveaway with developers by any means, but we just need to find that tipping point that ensures that it will eventually get developed.

I just the notion of having so many one bedroom and studio units that are affordable by the way

this is not a I mean it's been represented it's affordable it's not low income is it market rate

or is it affordable it's market rate got it okay well then I misread the report my my apologies

Commissioner Commissioner Ortiz I just want to correct myself that we actually cannot condition

it to reduce the density. I don't see at least in the Housing Accountability Act that we couldn't

reduce the parking but we can we need to think about it a little bit. I don't want to reduce

the density. If anything I want less parking and more housing on site. Okay.

So I'm not going to push this but I'm just going to say publicly I would have preferred

less parking, more units on site, which wouldn't reduce the density, but rather allow for more

residential units. And, you know, the market would drive persons who don't want to drive,

who would use public transit, use cycling to work in and around the area. So,

So I think the combined sewer system, I mean, storm drain, it's a nightmare in all the older neighborhoods.

And certainly the vault that was built started off a little bit less than ideal, but I think it's perhaps settling down.

But simply doing an 18-inch sewer system, and this is all on the developer, they'd have to enhance the current system.

because most of them are, what, nine inch?

What's the increase of the size of it

to address the combined sewer system problem,

which is historically crazy in Sacramento

and has taken decades to fix?

It's not fixed.

I'm not sure the existing pipes,

but the project is conditioned by Department of Utilities

that all increases in the sewer flow shall be mitigated.

And then they note that the addition of upsizing to an 18 inch,

but it does state in the condition that all increases in sewer flow shall be mitigated.

Which means they don't anticipate the combined sewer systems coming up?

I'm assuming, well, yeah, mitigated, okay.

Do I pay my flood insurance?

I live in East Sac, so I'm aware of the system.

I got the letter at home as well.

Let me just say that I think density is good.

I am concerned about the residents that live immediately adjacent to here,

but I don't see this as being overwhelming with the step backs,

and I mean the properties on C and D that are most directly impacted.

It's been said a few times in a few different ways.

density is not a bad thing.

In fact, many parts of ESAC where you have duplexes

and you have the big towers on Folsom Boulevard

and some on H Street across,

density is not by itself a bad thing.

And I think that as much as I dislike this much parking on this site,

the cost-benefit analysis is that this is actually going to be options

for people that can move into and have affordable units, even if they're market rate.

I don't think anybody in this group is going to build three ADUs in their backyard to help

mitigate the issue.

And it is a step forward in terms of increasing our housing stock.

And I do think communities like ESAC should share higher density.

And this is not a bad word.

I think it's a good project.

I'll be supporting it.

But I want to go on record saying I just think there's far too much parking here.

And I wish I had seen a project with less parking and more livable units in the density of this project.

Those are just my final thoughts.

Thank you.

Chair Chase, if I can interrupt.

Carlo Felix, senior plan with community development.

Commissioner Ortiz, you may have been referring in the staff report for the purposes of calculating arena numbers as it relates to our housing element.

the market rate units here would be considered moderate income housing for the purposes of that calculation.

So just wanted to clarify.

Which contributes to our citywide obligation.

That's where I read it on the report.

Could you call my attention to which page that's on?

It would be page 7 of the staff report at the very bottom.

No net loss on the no net loss section.

Correct.

Thank you so much for clarifying that.

Carla, could you clarify what range of affordability is the moderate applied to?

I may need a moment to look that up.

Okay.

I think 80 to 110 or something like that.

80 to 120.

Moderate income housing, yeah.

All right.

Thank you.

Yeah, 80 to 120 would be the moderate.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Ortiz.

there other commissioners that have comments? I'd like to offer a few

comments and again I want to thank my my fellow commissioners here. Thank you for

answering the sewer question because that's always a concern out there and

with any you know capacity with any new project that's being built and the toxic

cleanup I had a question on that and it sounds like that is that is required.

One thing, parking is an interesting issue, and I tend to differ somewhat.

I agree with the fact that we should be getting to a zero car situation, public transportation.

I grew up and lived in Boston in New York City.

Public transportation works there.

It's everywhere.

I mean, I lived for years without owning a car, and it's very easy to do.

We're not quite there yet.

I think we will get there in Sacramento.

But everything is not that feasible.

So in terms of the parking, we have a project going up adjacent to where I live in Woodlake.

And it's going to have, you know, 0.5, you know, spaces per unit.

We're pretty certain, time will tell, that the streets are going to be filled with the overflow parking from that project.

You know, how much of a problem that project that is, we don't know.

We'll find out.

And there's public transportation right adjacent to that project.

But I think we do know that everyone's not going to use it.

They're not going to go to Walmart.

They're going to take their kids to school.

So there's a timing issue here before we get to the use of Boston and New York City reality with public transportation.

And I do want us to get there.

And I think we need to keep shooting for that.

I certainly agree with Vice Chair Caden's philosophy and comments on that.

We need to get there.

Regarding the height issue, it's interesting.

I think we, and I should say, I don't have a problem with it.

I think it's an appropriate infill project.

We have a number of, and this has come up in years past too, and there's opposition to height,

a number of, I think probably eight story, at least eight story senior citizen housing projects

that have been in Midtown for 20 to 30 years or more sitting right there.

Most people don't even know they're there, but they are there,

and they're directly adjacent to one and two story houses.

interesting enough I think a lot of these projects

again as an architect with 50 plus years

of experience in all types of projects

once projects are built and there

for a few years suddenly

opposition just kind of fades away if they're not

a problem and my guess is

this will not be a problem I think it's a

well designed project

very well designed project

better than a lot of the ones I've seen going up

in some of our corridors around town

that said

I will well I don't

want to be the one to to pass a motion I see Commissioner rescue like that as you

I want to thank everyone you know for coming out tonight is really wonderful

to see so many people share share their thoughts on this I'm really helpful to

hear from so many of you as well I generally I don't want to take too much

time but I generally want to say I feel like we should support this project I

I think for a lot of the same reasons, I won't repeat, but that Commissioner Caden articulated really clearly.

I think this project really anchors this neighborhood and shields it from the freeway and provides a defining of space that is really nice.

The setbacks that they provided are, I think, really, really a lot more setback than could have been done.

and they're very deep setbacks, and those are very costly to build.

And so I think it's very, you know, prudent that that was done

and that that cost was considered.

I think, you know, I heard some folks suggest having more bicycle parking

on the ground floor, and I think that's an important consideration,

especially considering families will have larger bikes or bike trailers for children.

in. And I really appreciated the folks who shared, you know, what a gem this neighborhood

is. I think that is really true. I mean, there's walkable workplaces. McKinley Park is an amazing

resource. And then having river access really close is just really amazing. So being able

to offer this neighborhood to more people seems like a really wonderful thing for our

city to do. And then, yeah, I think, you know, these projects often come with a lot of studios

and one beds, which are, you know, the most cost effective to build.

But a lot of the one bedrooms, you know, don't have windows.

And I would just urge, you know, I know that this project will probably transform a little

bit into its final, to consider, you know, larger families.

And, you know, one of the most affordable kinds of housing is to live with more people

sharing a kitchen.

So like a three bedroom could be shared not just by a family, but also by three roommates

who need something even more affordable than a studio.

So to think about some of those larger units

and windows and daylight

is really an important health concern.

But other than that, I think it's a beautiful project

and I would make a motion to support it.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Naibo.

Anyway, I'm sorry, we have a motion on the table.

I would like to thank everyone for coming out this evening.

I think that we had some very insightful thoughts on both sides, both in support and in opposition.

Many of them made me look at it a new way and had not considered it, that I had not previously considered.

I live in East Sacramento.

Lived there for well over 20 years.

I've walked this property dozens of times.

I know it very well.

Had breakfast at Orphans last week.

I take my daughter to Miwok, which is right there at H and Alhambra.

And sometimes that traffic is really, really bad.

It can get really bad there.

I think that I'm going to make, the motion has already been made.

I'm going to second the motion.

I'd like to second the motion.

I think that East Sacramento is a dynamic place.

We've had a lot of development over the years, and everything from McKinley Village to the Sutter Hospital to Elvis,

there's going to be more development on Alhambra, and I think it makes it more dynamic,

and I think it makes it more viable, and I think it makes a more exciting neighborhood to live in.

and I have been on this commission now, I hate to say this,

but I think this is my ninth, tenth year,

and I voted on all those projects,

and every single time people have come forward

and they have said this is going to ruin East Sacramento.

And so far it hasn't.

And I don't think this project is going to do it.

I would like to thank everyone, though, for coming out

and just say that the reason that this project is as good as it is

and the reason it does look like it does

is because East Sacramento is a dynamic neighborhood.

And I can tell you that the architects have made those considerations

by stepping it back.

You look at the alleyway is representational.

When you look right at the front of the building,

They've tried to respect the current egress of the community, the alleyway there.

They've tried to reflect off on C Street and D Street and reflect back onto it by the building.

I like the parking ratio in it.

it's 80% of the building is one store is one bedroom or smaller.

I don't think we're going to have 800 residents in this building.

That's just not going to happen. I mean, I love my wife,

but there's no way I'm going to live with anybody in a studio apartment for

very long. This is going to be mostly singles. Um,

and 92% parking ratios are going to, there's going to be a lot of car.

The cars that are in there are not going to be on the street.

We approve projects in Midtown of this scale all the time with no parking.

That is very much a viable option for this particular piece of property.

There are buildings of this scale in Midtown with no parking.

And those people park in the neighborhood.

They park down the street from there.

It is a real problem.

This project is trying to contain that problem and deal with it.

and they've made a concerted effort.

And the parking is by far the most expensive part of this building.

It has added considerable cost to it,

and they're trying to be respectful to the neighborhood for it.

The other thing is they have a spa and a pool,

which seems extravagant to me.

There's also, when you go over the building,

when you go in there,

there's multiple co-working spots on each floor.

This building is designed to have people work inside the building.

Each floor has got locations where people can work.

It's designed for remote working, as much as you can design a building for remote working.

I think it's a respectful building.

It's big.

It's scary.

There's no doubt.

I think we can all acknowledge that it's going to make a change in the view between the houses and the freeway.

But I think we can also say that most of the perimeter of this building is rental housing already.

There's multiple apartment buildings that front onto the frontage of this building.

There's not a lot of backyards that you're going to be able to see from this building.

They're just not there.

Anyways, point is, thank you everyone for coming out.

I'm going to second this, and hopefully we can move it forward.

Thank you, Commissioner.

I'd like to offer a few comments.

In particular, I think I'd like to share these with our urban design manager, Bruce Monaghan.

I mentioned earlier I lived in Boston, New York City.

I would like to see, I know we've heard comments that the project is over parked and some would like to see less there.

I'm not sure we're there yet.

However, going forward, I would love to see parking structures be able to be converted and reused for residential as we go forward.

and my example for that is when I looked back in Boston in the early 70s,

one of the first mixed-use projects that was adaptive reuse.

It was a six-story concrete parking structure that had been there from the 30s.

It was converted into all housing units, and they were fantastic.

They worked with the structure in the garage, exposed concrete, whatnot,

so it's not an easy challenge, and that was a freestanding thing,

But again, I'd like to ask Bruce to look at those things as we go forward.

If there's a conversion capability of these parking structures once they're not needed,

once we have our public transportation system in place working well.

So I just want to throw that out there.

Thank you.

Commissioner Blunt.

Thank you.

Thank you to the staff, right?

More than 300 pages.

Once again, just great work.

So I appreciate you.

Um, I, um, so when I first moved to Sacramento, um, you know, four or so years ago, uh, I

was, um, I moved into a place in new era park, right.

And, uh, I lived there for, uh, until just fairly recently.

And, um, one of the reasons why I moved there was because of the, the ride aid at 22nd and

F and then not long after I moved in that Rite Aid went away and it was a bait and switch and

yeah it bums me out man. I missed that Rite Aid. I was looking forward to walk into that Rite Aid

to you know grab groceries and whatever but no and I you know I echo the sentiment of

is it a food desert?

I mean, kind of, kind of,

because where are you going to walk to

to go get some groceries?

And I think that that is something that's,

it's a very walkable area.

As everyone on both sides of this issue

have pointed out,

it's a very, very walkable area.

Before I get off of this subject,

I do want,

There was one of the public speakers who was very, very concerned about a negative impact on the Safeway.

Can we, staff, there is no impact on the Safeway, right?

Correct.

There's no impact on the Safeway.

Okay, good.

Because I go to that Safeway.

A lot of us go to that Safeway.

So I just want that to be on the record.

Nothing's happened to the Safeway.

Okay, good.

Yeah, I'm really, really hopeful that as a result of this project going through, that SAC-RT will bring in more buses.

Right now, they're not there.

One of our public commenters, you know, there's no light rail.

Well, you know, the staff report mentions these bus routes.

The seven-minute commute that turned into a 40-some-odd-minute commute, I get it.

I, again, lived there for however long.

There were bus stops right by my house or right by where I lived, and I never saw a bus.

I never saw a bus.

and I'm hopeful that as a result of having more people

or this project, we will force them to actually start putting buses

in these areas where there are supposed to be buses

and there are no buses.

But then again, I'm also hopeful that workers on this job

are going to get paid a living wage.

I'm hopeful that this project is not going to be a crime scene

the way that other projects just like this have been crime scenes all throughout the city,

all throughout the state. You know, here's hoping, right? But yeah, okay. I'm supportive

of this project, and I am hopefully optimistic about its future. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Bunt.

Are there any other Commissioner comments?

Seeing none, we have a motion and a second on the table.

The motion, I believe, was Commissioner Reski,

and the second was by Commissioner Naibo.

That said, let's take a vote.

Commissioner Lee?

Aye.

Commissioner Tao?

Yes.

Commissioner Lamas?

So

Commission I bow

Vice chair, Caden

Commissioner Hernandez, hi

Commissioner Macias read

Commissioner young

Commissioner Ortiz I

Commissioner Blunt, I

Commissioner Ruski, I

Commissioner Thompson

Chair chase, I thank you the motion passes

Thank you everyone very much for turning out.

if the audience wouldn't

All right.

Anyway, the next item on our agenda tonight.

Could we have some quiet in the chamber, please?

if we could please have everyone exit the building quietly

we still need to finish the meeting

thank you everyone for turning out

we still have more business here if we could ask everyone to move to the lobby

thank you very much

All right.

The next item on our agenda is our director's report.

Stacia.

Thank you, Chair.

I have a few items for the director's report this evening.

First off, on January 27th,

City Council adopted the Planning Division's

2026 Planning and Zoning Work Program for the next year,

So we'll look forward to bringing those items for you over the course of the next year.

And the council will also hear the commission's 2025 annual report for final adoption on February 24th.

So we'll have that to look forward to as well.

Thank you, Chair.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Stacia.

Next item on the agenda is commissioner comments, ideas, and questions.

Do we have any?

Commissioner Hernandez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to invite everybody next Wednesday, the 18th, to the State Capitol West Steps at 10th Street and Capitol Mall.

Bruce. Bruce. Bruce.

How's it going?

Shh.

Excuse me, gentlemen.

Council Member Holloway.

Gentlemen.

Excuse me, gentlemen.

Gentlemen, Bruce, Brian, come on.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Next Wednesday, the 18th,

on the west steps of the Capitol

at 10th Street and Capitol Mall,

Senator Sabrina Cervantes

and Assemblywoman Lori Wilson

will be hosting a plug-in

hybrid vehicle ride-and-drive event.

So there will be static displays

of multiple vehicles

as well as opportunity to do a ride-and-drive.

If there's rain, we'll have tents,

but as part of my other day job,

we will be having an educational event with PEF technology.

So I hope you all can make it.

Thank you.

I just want to add to that.

I know we're in favor of EVs.

However, we've had several plug-in hybrids for years now

and it actually works very well.

My wife can drive around and do everything around town

during the week without using any gas plug.

We plug it in every night.

Weekends, if we have to go to the San Francisco, the Bay Area,

we've got the gas engine.

But it's a great compromise, I think.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Any other public comments of matters?

It doesn't look like it.

Not on the agenda.

With that, we adjourn.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Good job, Chair.

I know it.

Thank you.