Draft General Plan would allow 6-unit apartments on a single family lot

Yes, the devil’s in the details of the draft General Plan 2040 proposals currently being pushed by the Sacramento City Council. Click to read the staff report. Here are some of those details:

Among other things: Draft General Plan 2040 would allow up to six units on a single-family lot with no on-site parking.

1) Up to six units would be allowed.
While the proposed draft General Plan mentions the proposed upzoning of single family lots to allow 2-, 3- and 4-plexes, the reality is that up to six apartment units could be allowed. A 4-plex plus the two Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) already permitted by City ordinance. ADUs under a total of 800 sq. feet are exempt from lot coverage maximums.

2) No off-street parking would be required.
The draft General Plan also proposes to “eliminate City-mandated parking minimums citywide”. ADUs already can be built with no additional on-site parking. Under this draft plan, those renting these additional multifamily units would be expected to park their vehicles on streets, many of which already have parking shortages. The intention is to make parking difficult as a way to force people to take other forms of transportation. While providing transit alternatives is good, whether Sacramentans want to be coerced in this manner is another question

3) Conversion of all buildings to electric.
The general plan proposes to “eliminate the use of natural gas and fossil fuels for building operations”. All new buildings would be required to be all-electric by 2026, and existing buildings would be transitioned away from natural gas to electric. The plan addresses assisting low-income residents but says nothing about middle income families for whom changing out existing gas heating and appliances will also be very costly. Not to mention that SMUD gets a significant amount of its electricity from natural gas.

4) Lanes would be reduced on several major roads.
Driving is also to be made more difficult by reducing lanes on several major thoroughfares including Stockton Blvd, 65^th St., Fruitridge Rd, Howe, Truxel, Del Paso and several others. The reduction in lanes on these roadways is deliberate to make driving more difficult so presumably people will drive less. It is not clear how reducing private transportation and roadways will affect emergency evacuation plans for flood or fire.

5) No specific provisions for affordable housing or addressing inequities.
The proposed General Plan relies on increasing housing supply, in particular multifamily rental housing, as the cure for the affordable housing crisis. Interestingly, the City Council approved 10,000 new units in the railyards development with only 600 required to be affordable. Simply increasing densities and the amount of housing will not make housing more affordable nor will it address inequities.

Community Forum
Held 2/17/21 on draft General Plan proposed elimination of single family zoning & parking requirements.
Click to watch.

NEW LAWN SIGNS AVAILABLE!

To order, email No2Rezone@gmail.com

CA Housing Need Greatly Overestimated. Click to read article

Equity, Affordability and Upzoning
by Chris Jones
“What if I told you that eliminating single family zoning would make things worse for low-income and families of color in Sacramento.

Click to read articleDownload

New book, Sick City, addresses why upzoning doesn’t work.

LA Times interviews Sacramento neighborhood advocates.
Click to read article.

A view from East Sacramento

Click to readDownload

Stopping the Elimination of Single-family Zoning and Neighborhoods

The Sacramento Bee has admitted that the General Plan proposal to eliminate single-family zoning/neighborhoods is controversial in its 1/21/21 article.

And although the Sacramento City Council did vote on 1/19/21 to move forward with the next phase for developing this controversial General Plan, cautions were noted by several council members, who have heard from their constituents.

Councilmember Ashby noted that this was the first step in a multi-stage approval process, clearly signaling that there would be more opportunity for input for those who did not like the evening’s decision.

Several council members also spoke to the need for single family housing and the importance of homeownership and appropriate design criteria – none of which are addressed in the current proposal.

Although most of those who were able to speak were in favor of the going forward with this proposal, there were a number of people who reported that they were disconnected and not allowed to give comments. Written comments included dozens from those concerned about the negative impacts this proposal would have.

Proponents and council members acknowledged that this proposal will not provide affordable housing.

City planners and others repeated the unsubstantiated claim that this will undo the legacy of race-based housing discrimination, outlawed in the 1960s.

Steinberg, who lives in a single-family house in the Pocket, scapegoated Land Park residents for being “exclusionary”, yet ignored the economic realities of buying a house today.

At least one council member noted that Sacramento residents are often outbid by cash offers from the Bay Area. 

Exclusion is economic and it won’t be solved by the currently proposed General Plan’s elimination of single family zoning. In fact the intention of the plan is to convert existing single family homes to multifamily units, which will reduce the availability of single family houses.

Mai Vang commented about the lack of grocery stores in some parts of her district, calling it a food desert, and asked that the General Plan address this.

Wiping out single family zoning and neighborhoods and reducing the single family housing stock under the guise of social justice is deceptive propaganda. It is boon to gentrifying investors and absentee landlords. Committing to improve all neighborhoods in Sacramento would show a real dedication to social justice and righting past wrongs.

Contact CM Guerra eguerra@cityofsacramento.org or your councilperson.

Save Single Family Zoning

Sacramento’s draft General Plan 2040, which could take effect this year, includes a proposal to eliminate single family zoning in all of Sacramento. It is being opposed by residents and neighborhood associations throughout the city. All residents are urged to express their opposition to the elimination of single family zoning to their city council members.

For a Save Single Family Zoning sign, email No2Rezone@gmail.com

This Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 5pm, the City Council will be considering a proposed Land Use Element of the General Plan that would eliminate single family zoning in all of Sacramento. ● Contact Elmhurst’s Councilmember Eric Guerra and tell him you want to preserve single family zoning in Sacramento. Tell Guerra that the City Council needs to reject the proposed Land Use element and have it revised to preserve and protect existing single-family neighborhoods. ● Contact info: eguerra@cityofSacramento.org (916) 808-7006. Please cc your comments to publiccomment@cityofsacramento.org and No2Rezone@gmail.com. ● If you can, please attend the January 19 City Council meeting and comment on this item by calling in at (916) 808-7213 and Dial 2 to Make a Comment on Item 15. See www.elmhurstna.com for hyperlinks to the meeting. ● Tweet #SaveSingleFamilyNeighborhoods and follow SaveSingleFamilyNeighborhoods on Twitter

This General Plan proposal to eliminate single family zoning would: 1. Allow duplexes, 3-plexes and 4-plexes on any residential lot including in neighborhoods now zoned for single family. In a neighborhood like Elmhurst, this could rapidly and dramatically impact the neighborhood as it opens the door for outside investors to buy and tear down or remodel existing homes, replacing them with denser apartments operated by absentee landlords. Elmhurst could be converted to look like a midtown neighborhood, losing the quieter, less dense character which has drawn people to this neighborhood. 2: Allow buildings to be as large as the lot size. For example, in Elmhurst, most lots are around 5000 square feet and houses are mostly less than 2000 square feet. This proposal would allow for structures that are more than double the size of most homes. 3. Allow structures up to 35 feet, which is three stories. Developers could ask for variances of the height and also the set-back requirements. If a variance is requested, the onus is on the neighborhood to oppose it and try to get the Planning Department, Planning Commission and the City Council to stick to the ordinance requirements and not allow deviations. 4. Increase densities in older neighborhoods where streets and other infrastructure were not built to accommodate higher densities. There is plenty of room to build multifamily housing on the many vacant lots and unused commercial property while leaving existing neighborhoods intact. 5. Not provide affordable housing. The multifamily projects in Sacramento, including the GIO building at the edge of Elmhurst, are market rate, not affordable, except for a few that are being subsidized and targeted to lower income renters. 6. Not reverse past discrimination. Segregation today is economic. This proposal would contribute to the gentrification of neighborhoods like Oak Park, likely displacing families who have lived there for generations. It would decrease homeownership opportunities as the units that would be built would in all likelihood be rentals, owned by investors who do not live in the neighborhood and are interested in profit, not neighborhood quality. 7. Not promote justice or equity. To provide adequate housing for the people who live in Sacramento requires a comprehensive approach that protects renters and increases homeownership opportunities. All Sacramento neighborhoods need to be livable. They all need safe streets, good schools, well-maintained housing, adequate park space. See the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association letter on this issue. Preserving Single-family Zoning is NOT exclusionary Elmhurst already has duplexes on many corners, some grandfathered apartments, and some accessory dwelling units (ADUs , AKA in-law units). And many Elmhurst residents are renters. This current mix of housing provides for diversity in a moderately dense neighborhood. Wanting to preserve the community character of one’s neighborhood is a positive value, not NIMBYism. Change Accessory Dwelling Ordinance Also tell the City Council  that the year-old Sacramento accessory dwelling (ADU) ordinance that allows two ADUs by on single family lots should be amended to allow only one ADU by right. Allowing two ADUs is a de facto 3-plex. For more information, comments, questions: No2Rezone@gmail.com