Title
Third-Party Appeals of Alhambra Redevelopment Project (P24-007) [Noticed 04/17/2026; Published 04/17/2026]
End
FileID
File ID: 2026-00897
End
Location
Location: 320, 324, and 350 Alhambra Boulevard; 3005 and 3012 C Street; and 301, 311, 315, and 317 30th Street; APNs 003-0112-001, -002, -003, -004, -017, -018, -020, and -021; District 4
End
Recommendation
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, pass a Resolution to approve: 1) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.66; 2) Conditional Use Permit to exceed height standards of the residential preservation transition buffer zone of the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District (SPD); 3) Site Plan and Design Review for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a six-story mixed-use development consisting of 2,400 square feet of ground-floor commercial and 332 multi-unit dwellings within the General Commercial (C-2-SPD) zone and Alhambra Corridor SPD; and 4) Tree Permit for the removal of seven city trees, two private protected trees, and the non-standard pruning of two city trees; thereby denying the third-party appeals.
End
Contact
Contact: Zach Dahla, Senior Planner, (916) 808-5584, zdahla@cityofsacramento.org; Karlo Felix, Senior Planner, (916) 808-7183, kfelix@cityofsacramento.org;
Community Development Department
End
Presenter
Presenter: Zach Dahla, Senior Planner, (916) 808-5584, zdahla@cityofsacramento.org, Community Development Department
End
Applicant
Applicant: HRGA, Mary Woltering, 2277 Fair Oaks Boulevard, Studio 220, Sacramento, CA 95825
End
Appellant
Appellant 1 of 2: Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation, Stephen Cook; Brown Rudnick LLP, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 420, Irvine, CA 92614
Appellant 2 of 2: Casa Loma Terrace - East Sacramento Neighborhood Association, Carl Seymour; P.O. Box 160033, Sacramento, CA 95816
End
Property Owner
Property Owner: Demas Enterprises, LLC, John and George Demas, 8371 Carbide Court, Sacramento, CA 95828
End
Attachments
Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Background
3-Resolution - Environmental and Entitlements
4-Exhibit A: Project Plans
5-Exhibit B: Arborist Report
6-Third-Party Appeal by Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation Appeal
7-Third-Party Appeal by Casa Loma Terrace-East Sacramento Neighborhood Association
8-Staff Responses to Third-Party Appeals
9-Project Routing Responses
10-Letters of Support
11-Letters of Opposition
12-Historic Resources Report
13-Community-Sponsored Historic Review
14-Alhambra Redevelopment Public Resource Code 21080.66 Consistency Checklist
15-Appellant Presentation (Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation)
16-Appellant Presentation (Casa Loma Terrace-East Sacramento Neighborhood Association)
End
Description/Analysis
IssueDetail
Issue Detail: This item is an appeal of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision to approve the Alhambra Redevelopment project, which proposes to develop a six-story, mixed-use building on a 2.26-acre site located within the General Commercial (C-2-SPD) zone and the Alhambra Corridor Special Planning District (SPD). The proposed building consists of 2,400 square feet of ground-floor commercial, 332 multi-unit dwellings, and a six-level parking garage comprised of an underground/basement level and five above-ground levels containing 322 total parking stalls. To accommodate the site redevelopment, the project requests the demolition of on-site structures, removal and non-standard pruning of trees, and the abandonment of Chinatown Alley. None of the on-site structures are currently listed on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources (Sacramento Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or the National Register of Historic Resources. The on-site commercial warehouses at 320 and 324 - 350 Alhambra Boulevard have been deemed eligible for listing on the California Register due to their association with the Pureta Sausage Factory (and subsequently Mary Ann’s Bakery).
This proposal requires the following entitlements:
1. Conditional Use Permit. The project site is located approximately 80 feet west of residential developments within the Single-Unit Dwelling (R-1-SPD) and Multi-Unit Dwelling (R-4-SPD) zones and Alhambra Corridor SPD. The Alhambra Corridor SPD establishes a residential preservation transition buffer zone with a reduced by-right height of 35 feet when located within 300 feet of a residential zone. Sacramento City Code (SCC) section 17.420.020.B allows for new developments to exceed this height limitation with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). As proposed, the mixed-use development is 62.75 feet tall with a five-foot parapet resulting in the need for a CUP to accommodate the height.
2. Site Plan and Design Review. Site Plan and Design Review is required to review the demolition of the residential and commercial warehouse structures as well as the construction of the mixed-use development and associated site improvements. No deviations to development standards are requested.
3. Tree Permit. The project requires a Tree Permit entitlement for the removal of seven City trees and two private protected trees that conflict with the location of the proposed buildings, driveways, and necessary infrastructure. A Tree Permit entitlement is also required for the non-standard pruning of two city trees to provide adequate building clearance.
The project was heard and approved by the Planning and Design Commission on February 12, 2026. Third-party appeals of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision were timely filed on February 20, 2026, and February 23, 2026, which are discussed below.
Appeal Detail: Two third-party appeals of the Planning and Design Commission decision were received, including one from the Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation and one from the Casa Loma Terrace - East Sacramento Neighborhood Association. The following outlines staff’s review and response to each appeal.
Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation
A full copy of the third-party appeal submitted by the Citizens for Positive Growth & Change is available in Attachment 6. The basis of the appeal is centered on the appellants’ assertion that the project is not consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is ineligible for an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21080.66. The appellant also states that the approval of a CUP to exceed the height limitation of the Alhambra Corridor SPD is improper and claims the project exceeds the applicable base zone height limits and is out of scale with the adjacent residential development. As such, the appellant requests that the City Council grant the appeal thereby denying the project.
Staff’s recommendation to approve the project has not changed based on the issues raised by the Citizens for Positive Growth & Preservation. Based on staff’s analysis of the appeal (Attachment 8), staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal thereby approving the project.
Casa Loma Terrace - East Sacramento Neighborhood Association
A full copy of the third-party appeal submitted by the Casa Loma Terrace - East Sacramento Neighborhood Association is available in Attachment 7. The appeal is centered on similar issues raised in the letters of opposition staff received during the processing of the discretionary application. Specifically, the appellant identifies concerns with the height, design, and scale of the proposed development being out of character with the surrounding East Sacramento community, objections with the use of the PRC section 21080.66 statutory exemption, and concerns the project does not qualify for protections under the Housing Accountability Act. The appellant also states that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan, Alhambra Corridor SPD, and Alhambra Corridor Supplemental Design Guidelines due to the intensity of the development and associated increases in traffic, greenhouse gas emissions, and sewer flows.
Staff’s recommendation to approve the project has not changed based on the issues raised by the Casa Loma Terrace - East Sacramento Neighborhood Association. Based on staff’s analysis of the appeal (Attachment 8), staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal thereby approving the project.
End
PolicyConsiderations
Policy Considerations:
General Plan
The 2040 General Plan designation for the project site is Residential Mixed Use (RMU), which is intended to foster vibrant, walkable areas with a high-intensity mix of residential, commercial, office, and public uses, where daily errands can be accomplished on foot, by bicycle, or by transit. The RMU designation promotes housing mixed with retail and other community-serving uses to catalyze infill development of vacant and underutilized parcels. Allowable uses include a full range of residential, retail, employment, entertainment, cultural, and personal service uses serving a communitywide market, such as restaurants, apparel stores, specialty shops, theaters, bookstores, hotels and motels, and research and development facilities.
The project is consistent with the RMU designation as it facilitates the redevelopment of a large, underutilized city-block with a mixed-use development that introduces a new and denser housing product in a neighborhood that is close to transportation corridors, such as the Capital City Freeway and multiple Regional Transit bus routes, and educational and recreational amenities, such as the William McKinley Park and Library and Miwok Middle School. In addition to the project’s consistency with the RMU designation, the project is also consistent with the following goals and policies from the 2040 General Plan:
Goal LUP-4. Walkable, transit-oriented centers and corridors that concentrate new jobs, housing, and entertainment opportunities to support frequent, reliable transit service and foster connected, accessible neighborhoods.
Policy LUP-4.2 Incentivizing Infill. The City shall consider a range of incentives to attract development to centers, corridors, and sites, including the following:
• Prioritization of capital investment strategies for infrastructure, services, and amenities to support development;
• Economic incentives (e.g., fee reductions, regulatory exemptions, or tools such as enhanced infrastructure financing districts (EIFDs), Opportunity Zones, and Enterprise Zones);
• Streamlined development review, environmental review, and permitting processes;
• By-right entitlements for development projects consistent with applicable zoning;
• Ministerial approval of infill housing and mixed-use projects consistent with objective development and design standards;
• Public-private partnerships; and
• Proactive solicitation of development.
Policy LUP-4.6 Compatibility with Adjoining Uses. The City shall ensure that the introduction of higher-intensity mixed-use development along major arterial corridors is compatible with adjacent land uses, particularly residential uses, by requiring features such as the following:
• Buildings set back from rear or side yard property lines adjoining single-unit dwelling residential uses;
• Building heights stepped back from sensitive adjoining uses to maintain appropriate transitions in scale and to minimize impacts to privacy and solar access;
• Landscaped off-street parking areas, loading areas, and service areas screened from adjacent residential areas to the degree feasible; or
• Lighting shielded from view and directed downward to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses.
Staff Response: The project is consistent with the goal and policies above in that the proposal facilitates infill development on a large, underutilized property with a mixed-use development that contributes positively to the fabric of the Alhambra Corridor. The proposed project promotes sustainable growth and change by proposing a higher-density multi-unit development with ground-floor commercial that diversifies the housing stock in an area comprised of mostly single-unit residential and smaller-scaled multi-unit and commercial developments. The proposed project also makes efficient use of land near educational, recreational, and commercial services, such as the William McKinley Park and Library and Miwok Middle School. The design of the buildings and site seeks to balance more intense urban uses with the lower-density neighborhood by placing the structured parking garage and vehicle access closer to the adjacent freeway (Capital City Freeway) and incorporating generous building step-backs at multiple levels along Alhambra Boulevard. The proposed development uses building step-backs to reduce the massing of the new structure in relation to the street and adjacent structures, while enhancing the visual interest along the residential street. The project incentivizes infill development by utilizing a recently adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process authorized through Assembly Bill 130 (2025) (as codified in Public Resources Code section 21080.66); whereby qualifying projects are statutorily exempt from further CEQA review.
Goal LUP-6. A city of healthy, livable, “complete neighborhoods” that provide for residents’ daily needs within easy walking or biking distance from home.
Policy LUP-6.2 Range of Residential Development Intensities. The City shall allow for a range of residential development intensities throughout the community to cultivate a mix of housing types at varying sales price points and rental rates, provide options for residents of all income levels, and protect existing residents from displacement.
Policy LUP-6.3 Variety of Housing Types. The City shall promote the development of a greater variety of housing types and sizes in all existing and new growth communities to meet the needs of future demographics and changing household sizes, including the following:
• Single-unit homes on small lots
• Accessory dwelling units
• Tiny homes
• Alley-facing units
• Townhomes
• Lofts
• Live-work spaces
• Duplexes
• Triplexes
• Fourplexes
• Cottage/bungalow courts
• Neighborhood-scale multi-unit buildings
• Senior and student housing
Policy LUP-6.5 Established Neighborhoods. The City should encourage new development to respect the pedestrian-scale, pre-automobile form, and lush urban forest that typifies established neighborhoods and contributes to their sense of place.
Policy LUP-6.7 Architectural Variations. The City should encourage building placement variations, roofline variations, architectural projections, and other embellishments to enhance the visual interest along residential streets.
Staff Response: The project is consistent with the goal and policies above in that the proposal contributes to the variety of housing available in the area to meet the needs of various household sizes and income levels. Specifically, the project establishes a higher-density mixed-use development in an area concentrated with single-unit and smaller-scaled multi-unit developments and existing Sacramento Regional Transit bus routes, including Routes 67 and 68 at 30th and G Streets, Route 134 at Alhambra and McKinley Boulevards, and Route 30 at J and 30th Streets. The building incorporates vertical integration of uses by dedicating a portion of Alhambra Boulevard and D Street to ground-floor commercial tenant spaces with multi-unit residences above. The commercial spaces will allow street activating uses, such as restaurants or services, to support the vibrancy of the pedestrian-oriented Alhambra Corridor and viability of the existing public transit options. The variety in materials (original brick, original steel stash windows, thin brick base, corrugated metal panels, cement board and plaster, and metal architectural elements) will provide a dynamic statement at the gateway into the downtown area and anchor the edge of East Sacramento.
Goal HCR-1. Historic and cultural resources that enrich our sense of place and our understanding of the City’s prehistory and history.
Policy HCR-1.6 Early Project Consultation. The City will continue to strive to minimize impacts to historic and cultural resources by consulting with property owners, land developers, tribal representatives, and the building industry early in the development review process as needed.
Policy HCR-1.7 Contextual Features. The City shall promote the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or reconstruction, as appropriate, of contextual features related to historic resources, including maintenance and reconversion of parkway strips to landscaping; maintenance and replication of historic sidewalk patterns; use of historic streetlamps and street signs; and maintenance or restoration of historic park features.
Policy HCR-1.18 Evaluation of Potentially Eligible Built Environmental Resources. The City shall continue to evaluate all buildings and structures 50 years old and older for potential historic significance prior to approving a project that would demolish or significantly alter the resource.
Staff Response: The project is consistent with the goal and policies above in that staff identified the potential historic nature of the commercial warehouse buildings to the applicant team early in the development review process and required an evaluation of all structures proposed for demolition. The requested evaluation found the residential structures are not historic in nature but confirmed the commercial warehouses are eligible for listing on the California Register due to their association with the Pureta Sausage Factory. Based on this determination, the applicant team worked with staff and a historical resources consultant to refine the design of the development consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards, including incorporating the character-defining features of the commercial warehouses into the design and ensuring new additions were appropriately setback from the historic elements and designed in a style that does not replicate the historic structures. A full analysis of how the new development is compatible with the Secretary of Interior Standards is available in Attachment 12. The project also supports these policies related to historic preservation through the retention, restoration, and adaptive re-use of vacant and deteriorating buildings eligible for listing on the California Register that are a known fixture of the community. By doing so, the project has the ability to preserve the buildings and reintroduce members of the community to the now-inaccessible structures.
Goal H-1. Facilitate the construction of 45,580 new housing units by 2029.
Policy H-1.1 Ensure Adequate Supply of Land. The City shall maintain an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land to accommodate the projected housing needs.
Policy H-1.4 Facilitate Infill Housing Development. The City shall facilitate infill housing along commercial corridors, near employment centers, near high-frequency transit areas, and in all zones that allow residential development as a way to revitalize commercial corridors, promote walkability and increased transit ridership, and provide increased housing options
Goal H-4. Create more equitable and inclusive neighborhoods.
Policy H-4.1 Expand Housing Types Throughout the City. The City shall take meaningful actions to allow for a greater array of housing types throughout the city to create more inclusive and equitable neighborhoods and to affirmatively further fair housing.
Staff Response: The project is consistent with the goals and policies above in that the project facilitates infill development by redeveloping an underutilized city-block with a higher-density multi-unit residential development with ground-floor commercial close to transportation corridors and educational and recreational amenities. The project diversifies the housing stock in an area of the City that is comprised of largely of single-unit residential and smaller-scaled multi-unit and commercial developments creating a more inclusive and equitable neighborhood through the expansion of housing types to meet the needs of various household sizes and income levels. While the project site was anticipated for 33 total units of lower-income housing in the City’s Housing Element, the lower-income capacity on the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element is adequate to meet the jurisdiction’s remaining low-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the 2021-2029 planning period. Thus, development of the project site at the proposed income level does not result in a loss of land to adequately accommodate the projected low-income housing needs of the City and the project is consistent with General Plan Policy H-1.1.
General Plan - Central City Community Plan
The subject property is located within the Central City Community Plan Area of the General Plan. The Central City encompasses about seven square miles at the core of the City of Sacramento, and includes Downtown, Midtown, Old Sacramento Waterfront, the Railyards, the River District, and a small portion of East Sacramento generally between the Capital City Freeway and Alhambra Boulevard. The General Plan envisions the Community Plan Area as the urban core of Sacramento that balances a revitalized riverfront; ample employment uses; cultural, historical, and tourist destinations; major sporting events; diverse and walkable neighborhoods with a variety of housing options available to a wide range of income levels and preferences; and an efficient, convenient, and climate-friendly transportation system connects riders to a mix of uses. The Central City is a destination for tourists, rich with cultural and recreational attractions, and is the regional hub for economic and government institutions. The area consists of State government buildings, corporate offices and businesses, high-rise condominiums, historic neighborhoods, parks and recreational areas, nightlife, restaurant and shops, schools, and industrial and manufacturing complexes all within a treelined street grid. Higher intensity development is permitted throughout most of the Community Plan Area, while maintaining lower intensities that are in character with historic districts farther from transit.
Staff Response: This project is consistent with the vision of the Community Plan Area in that the project promotes infill development on an underutilized parcel and is sensitive to the surrounding context in its form and massing and is compatible and supports existing development within the immediate vicinity and nearby. The Central City Community Plan does not have any applicable goals or policies that address the project or area. Given the project’s consistency with the General Plan RMU designation and goals and policies from the 2040 General Plan, staff find the proposed project is also consistent with the Community Plan Area.
200-Year Flood Protection
State Law (SB 5) and Planning and Development Code chapter 17.810 require that the City must make specific findings prior to approving certain entitlements for projects within a flood hazard zone. The project site is within a flood hazard zone and is an area covered by Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA)’s Improvements to the State Plan of Flood Control System, and specific findings related to the level of protection have been incorporated as part of this project. Even though the project site is within a flood hazard zone, the facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control or other flood management facilities protect the project to the urban level of flood protection. This is based on the SAFCA Urban Level of Flood Protection Engineer’s Reports accepted by the City Council on October 21, 2025 (Resolution No. 2025-0283).
No Net Loss
The project is located on two sites (320 Alhambra Boulevard and 3012 C Steet) listed in the 2021-2029 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Housing Element Sites Inventory, which anticipate 33 total units of lower income housing. This project proposes 332 units of moderate-income housing. As of October 15, 2025, the lower income capacity on remaining sites identified in the Housing Element is 15,404, which is adequate to meet the jurisdiction’s remaining low income RHNA of 13,406 for the 2021-2029 planning period. As the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 of the California Government Code and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584, this project is consistent with the Housing Element.
End
Public/NeighborhoodOutreachComments
Public/Neighborhood Outreach and Comments: Staff routed the proposal to community groups within 500 feet of the site including: Civic Thread, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, Preservation Sacramento, East Sacramento Community Association, Marshall-New Era Neighborhood Association, East Sac Gives Back, East Sacramento Chamber of Commerce, and East Sacramento Preservation. These community groups as well as property owners and current residents/businesses within 500 feet of the project site were sent a notice of the February 12, 2026, Planning and Design Commission meeting.
Staff received responses to the initial project routing from Civic Thread, Preservation Sacramento, and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, which are available in Attachment 9. In addition to routing the project to the above community groups for review, the applicant and staff also attended a community meeting at the Shepard Garden and Art Center on June 5, 2025.
Throughout the processing of the proposed project and appeal, staff has received 122 public comments on the project, including 33 letters of support and 89 letters of opposition. Public comments are included in the following attachments:
§ Attachment 10: Letters of Support
§ Attachment 11: Letters of Opposition
Below is a summary of the concerns identified in the letters of opposition followed by staff responses.
1. Concerns that the proposed density of the project is out of scale and inconsistent with the character of the existing community.
Staff Response: Community members have expressed concerns that the project is much denser than the neighboring residential areas in East Sacramento which were developed at a much lower density.
The project site is designated RMU in the City’s General Plan and located within the C-2-SPD zone and Alhambra Corridor SPD. The City’s General Plan building intensity standards (Maps LUP-6, -7, and -8) establish a minimum density requirement of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a floor area ratio (FAR) range of 0.3 to 4.0. The project is not subject to any maximum density standards. At 147 du/ac and a FAR of 3.37, the project is consistent with the building intensity standards established by the General Plan and C-2-SPD zone. While staff recognizes the preference of some neighbors for fewer units, the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a State law that limits the ability of the city to deny, reduce the density of, or impose infeasible restrictions on housing developments that are consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations. As such, staff cannot require the project to reduce its density as it is consistent with the objective density standards of the General Plan and underlying C-2-SPD zone.
2. Concerns that the proposed development exceeds height restrictions of the Alhambra Corridor SPD.
Staff Response: Community members have expressed concern that the height of the project exceeds the height restriction set by the Alhambra Corridor SPD.
Sacramento City Code (SCC) section 17.216.720 establishes a maximum by-right height of 65 feet for the C-2 zone (base zone). The Alhambra Corridor SPD reduces the by-right maximum height to 35 feet when within 300 feet of a residential zone (measured from the street centerline) to protect residential neighborhoods from visual intrusion by new development that is out of scale with the adjacent residential neighborhood (SCC section 17.420.020.B). Projects may exceed this height restriction if authorized by a CUP approved by the Planning and Design Commission, provided that the height of the proposed building does not exceed the limits established by the applicable base zoning.
The applicant team has requested a CUP to authorize the mixed-use development to exceed the 35-foot height restriction in the Alhambra Corridor SPD. At 62.75-feet, the height of the proposed building does not exceed the limits established by the applicable base zone.
Overall, staff find the design of the mixed-use development, even with the additional height, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Alhambra Corridor SPD buffer zone for the following reasons:
i. The mixed-use building is across an 80-foot right-of-way from existing single-unit development. There is one commercial building that will remain on the block, located at the northeast corner of 30th & D Street. The additional 28-feet of building height will not impact the privacy of adjacent rear yards or private open space.
ii. The development reuses the façade of the existing brick warehouse structures, where feasible, maintaining the same context at the ground level.
iii. Substantial building step-backs are incorporated into the upper floors along Alhambra Boulevard and portions of D Street and Chinatown Alley, including 10-to-25-foot setbacks from the original brick buildings at the second floor, then additional step-backs of 10-to-13.5 foot at the third floor and a 37-to 39-foot step-back at the fifth floor along Alhambra Boulevard. The multiple step-backs reduce the bulkiness of the building when viewed from the smaller-scaled residential development across the street and results in the development being more in-scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
iv. The proposed step-backs comply with the height requirements in the underlying C-2 zone which apply everywhere else outside the Alhambra Corridor SPD. The building has a maximum height of 22.75 feet for portions of the building within zero to 39 feet of the R-1, R-1B, and R-2 zones, 43.5 feet for portions within 40 to 79 feet of the R-1, R-1B, and R-2 zones, and 62.5 feet for portions more than 80-feet from the R-1, R-1B, and R-2 zones, consistent with the transitional height requirements of the underlying C-2 zone (SCC section 17.216.120).
3. Concern the architecture and scale of the project is incompatible with the existing neighborhood character. Concern the proposed building design is inconsistent with the existing neighborhood and architectural character of East Sacramento, including the architecture-style, scale, and material use.
Staff Response: Staff offers the following in response to these concerns:
i. Regarding height and step-backs, please see Staff Response (2) above.
ii. In response to community concerns, the applicant team redesigned the project to incorporate additional step-backs for the new vertical additions along Alhambra Boulevard and portions of D Street and Chinatown Alley, reducing the massing when viewed from the existing neighborhood.
iii. The brick façade of the original warehouse building is retained at the base of the new project, where feasible, maintaining material historic to the neighborhood. The materials utilized on other portions of the building include thin brick, corrugated metal panels, cement board and plaster, and metal architectural elements, materials commonly found within the surrounding neighborhood.
iv. Alhambra Corridor SPD and Alhambra Corridor Supplemental Design Guidelines do not objectively describe “neighborhood character” or include objective standards for architectural-style, scale, design aesthetic, and material use. In the absence of objective development standards related to “neighborhood character,” the building has been reviewed for consistency with the development standards of the underlying C-2-SPD zone, Alhambra Corridor SPD, and the Alhambra Corridor Supplemental Design Guidelines. The building design is determined to provide sufficient architectural detail to meet those standards and staff believes the architecture and scale of the project will contribute positively to the visual quality of the surrounding community.
v. One of the stated goals of the Alhambra Corridor SPD is to, “Maintain the diverse character and housing opportunities provided in these urban neighborhoods,” acknowledging that there is diversity of character already inherent in the neighborhood. New projects should maintain quality of design and materials, which staff believes this mixed-use project does.
vi. The General Plan identifies that the urban form characteristics of the RMU land use designation allow for denser developments with a higher-intensity mix of residential, commercial, office, and public uses. As proposed, the project would result in development consistent with the anticipated buildout of the site under the General Plan. The proposal also complies with the development standards of the C-2-SPD zone and Alhambra Corridor SPD and no deviations are requested.
4. Concerns that the adjacent Casa Loma Terrace Neighborhood is a historic district that will be impacted by the proposed project.
Staff Response: Community members have raised concerns that the project will impact the historical significance of the adjacent Casa Loma Terrace neighborhood. The City received multiple comments and a community-sponsored Historical Review prepared by Historic Environment Consultants (Attachment 13) asserting that the surrounding Casa Loma Terrace neighborhood qualifies as eligible for listing in the Sacramento, California, or National Registers, and that the proposed project would be incompatible with such a context.
The project is located on a parcel that has historically functioned as an industrial and commercial site, with the Pureta Sausage Factory, Mary Ann’s Bakery, and related uses dating back to the early 20th century. It does not contain a substantial number of residential buildings, nor was it part of the Casa Loma Terrace subdivision or any early residential tract map. As such, the site would not be a contributing part of any potential residential historic district and would not impact the potential historic eligibility of the adjacent residences or district
The City has reviewed the area in the context of multiple prior planning efforts and has not identified the area as eligible for district designation. The community-sponsored historical review does not adhere to the professional standards outlined by the National Register, such as Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys; Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; or the Guidelines for Defining Boundaries. Specifically, it does not establish a defensible period of significance, evaluate contributing versus non-contributing structures, identify building integrities, establish a framework for historical district boundary justification, or include a comparative analysis to contextualize the neighborhood in relation to other known historic districts or subdivisions in the City. The presence of older homes alone does not establish district eligibility. Rather, historical districts must demonstrate clear architectural cohesion, sufficient integrity, and contribute to the evolution or transition of a defined architectural type or period. Without an analysis of architectural integrity, alterations, or whether existing buildings collectively convey a unified sense of time and place, the comments received are insufficient as substantial evidence for the existence or eligibility of a historic district.
5. Concerns that the project results in the demolition of residential structures that are eligible historic resources.
Staff Response: Pursuant to SCC section 17.604.600, the proposed demolition of the three single-unit residences and duplex building constructed between 1922 and 1935 were referred to the Preservation Director for a determination on whether the structures were eligible for consideration for listing on the Sacramento Register (pursuant to eligibility criteria and requirements established in SCC section 17.604.210). The Preservation Director considered Preservation Sacramento’s comment letter (see Attachment 9), Historic Resources Evaluation (see Attachment 12) and the community-sponsored Historic Review (see Attachment 13) along with all public comments when evaluating the existing building’s eligibility for listing on the Sacramento Register. As discussed in the Background section of this report, the Preservation Director has determined that the residential buildings do not represent a historical resource for the purposes of SCC section 17.604.600 (demolition of buildings or structures 50 years old or older) or CEQA. As such, the project would not result in the demolition of a historic building or require historic preservation of the existing residential structures.
6. Concerns that the project does not provide enough vehicle parking.
Staff Response: As proposed, the project provides 322 off-street vehicle parking spaces in a six-level parking garage accessed via 30th Street. This results in a parking ratio of 0.97 spaces per unit. Under the 2040 General, the City no longer requires a minimum number of vehicle parking spaces (Policy LUP 4.14) and no minimum parking for vehicles is codified in parking regulations established in SCC chapter 17.608. For this reason, staff do not find it reasonable or necessary to impose additional parking requirements on the proposed development.
7. Concerns with the increased traffic from the proposed development potentially resulting in excessive traffic hazards.
Staff Response: The Fire Department and Department of Public Works have reviewed the project plans to confirm compliance with City Code for adequate site circulation, roadway design, emergency vehicle access, and intersection capacity. Based on their review, both departments have provided staff with conditions of approval to be imposed on the development. Based on discussions with Public Works staff, the traffic generated by the proposed project does not trigger the requirement for requiring the construction of additional traffic calming devices or changes to the roadway orientations.
8. Concerns with overcrowding the area with people.
Staff Response: The project site is designated RMU in the City’s General Plan and located within the C-2-SPD zone and Alhambra Corridor SPD. The City’s General Plan building intensity standards (Maps LUP-6, -7, and -8) establish a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a floor area ratio (FAR) range of 0.3 to 4.0. The project is not subject to any maximum density standards. At 147 du/ac and a FAR of 3.37, the project is consistent with the building intensity standards established by the General Plan and C-2-SPD zone. As such, the proposal is consistent with the anticipated buildout of the site and would not result in overcrowding of the area with people.
9. Concerns that the project does not include affordable housing.
Staff Response: While the City encourages developers to provide housing for a variety of incomes and household types, there is not a requirement to include income-restricted affordable housing as a part of this development.
10. Concerns with that the site is hazardous and not suitable for a mixed-use housing development.
Staff Response: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Geocon Consultants, Inc. to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled RECs (CRECs), and/or historical RECs (HRECs) associated with the project site. The Phase I ESA identified evidence of possible RECs caused by the storage, use, and potential on-site release of hazardous substances or petroleum products. Additionally, the Phase I ESA identified a closed leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case for the site as a HREC and an identified and unregistered underground storage tank (UST) as a REC. The project has been conditioned to implement the recommendations of the Phase I ESA. Implementation of these recommendations would address and mitigate all RECs, allowing the site to be suitable for residential development.
11. Concerns with that the project’s combined sewer flows will cause overflows in East Sacramento.
Staff Response: The City has received several comments concerning the potential for the existing sanitary sewer system to reach capacity and overflow. The Department of Utilities has imposed a condition of approval that includes a requirement that the developer provide a sewer study to evaluate whether the combined sewer system (CSS) main connecting to the project has sufficient capacity. If not sufficient, the developer would be required to upsize sewer mains as needed. The proposed project would also be subject to pay applicable development impact fees for the increased sewer impacts.
12. Concerns with the lack of community outreach opportunities.
Staff Response: Community members raised concern with the lack of community outreach conducted by the applicant team. In response, City staff provided the applicant team with a list of the local neighborhood groups and recommended they reach out to schedule meetings with each group to solicit feedback from the community. A joint community meeting with the East Sacramento Community Association, East Sacramento Preservation, and the Casa Loma Terrace-East Sac Neighborhood Association was held on June 5, 2025, where the applicant team listened to community feedback and City staff answered general questions about the planning process. City staff also routed the application to local neighborhood associations within 500 feet of the project site and actively responded to community inquiries throughout the planning process and encouraged the community to submit written comment letters to document their support or opposition the project.
End
EnvironmentalConsiderations
Environmental Considerations: The City, as lead agency, is required to proceed with the environmental evaluation of projects after accepting an application as complete and determining that the project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed Alhambra Redevelopment is a “project” as defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(b). Staff reviewed the application materials in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c) and 15061 and has determined that the project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21080.66 as follows:
Public Resources Code section 21080.66
On June 30, 2025, the Governor signed Assembly Bill (AB) 130, which made significant changes as to how the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to certain housing development projects in the State of California. AB 130 states it was designed to further “infill” multi-family housing development projects, other than single-family residential, and is part of a comprehensive legislative approach in response to the state’s housing crisis. Section 21080.66 was added to the Public Resources Code by AB 130 and created a new statutory CEQA exemption for qualifying urban infill housing projects, streamlining approvals for infill housing developments. The legislature included the following that applies to section 21080.66:
“[AB 130] would exempt from the requirements of CEQA any aspect of a housing development project, as defined, including any permits, approvals, or public improvements required for the housing development project, as may be required by CEQA, if the housing development project meets certain conditions relating to, for example, size, density, location, and use, including specific requirements for any housing on the project site located within 500 feet of a freeway. This bill would require a local government to, within specified timeframes, provide formal notification to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the proposed project, as specified. The bill would require a local government, as a condition of approval for the development, to require the development proponent to complete a specified environmental assessment regarding hazardous substance releases. If a recognized environmental condition is found, the bill would require the development proponent to complete a preliminary endangerment assessment and specified mitigation based on that assessment.”
Section 21080.66(a) provides that CEQA does not apply to new housing development projects (i.e., projects where at least two-thirds of the square footage is residential) if the following conditions are met:
(1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the project site is not more than 20 acres.
(B)The project site or the parcel size for a builder’s remedy project, as defined in paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, or the project site or the parcel size for a project that applied pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code as it read before January 1, 2025, is not more than four acres.
(2) The project site meets either of the following criteria:
(A) Is located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality.
(B) Is located within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau.
(3) The project site meets any of the following criteria:
(A) Has been previously developed with an urban use.
(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
(C) At least 75 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.
(D) For sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
(4) (A) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable local coastal program as defined in Section 30108.6. For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall be deemed consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, and any applicable local coastal program, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent.
(B) If the zoning and general plan are not consistent with one another, a project shall be deemed consistent with both if the project is consistent with one.
(C) The approval of a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program.
(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code.
(6) The project satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code.
(7) The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project pursuant to Section 65941.1 of the Government Code.
(8) For a project that was deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. For the purposes of this section, “other transient lodging” does not include either of the following:
(A) A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident’s use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner consistent with local law.
Staff has reviewed the proposed housing development project against the requirements of Public Resources Code section 21080.66(a) and found there is substantial evidence to demonstrate the project satisfies the necessary conditions to exempt the project from further environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. This evidence is documented in a project-specific PRC 21080.66 Consistency Checklist available in Attachment 14. The PRC Section 21080.66 checklist describes the project-specific criteria that have been incorporated into the project design, or will be required as conditions of approval, to make the findings in the affirmative to exempt the project from further environmental review.
The full Alhambra Redevelopment Public Resource Code 21080.66 Consistency Checklist with all attachments, including the Historic Resources Assessment, Revised Pre-Development Arborist Report, and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, is available on the City’s EIR webpage at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/environmental/impact-reports
End
Commission/Committee Action
Commission/Committee Action: On February 12, 2026, the Planning and Design Commission considered and approved the project, consistent with staff’s recommendation. Third-party appeals of the Planning and Design Commission’s decision were timely filed on February 20, 2026, and February 23, 2026.
End
RationaleforRecommendation
Rationale for Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the project, thereby denying the third-party appeals, based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions of approval listed in Attachment 3. Staff’s recommendation is based on findings that the project: a) is consistent with the established goals and implementing policies within the RMU designation, the C-2-SPD zone, and the Alhambra Corridor SPD; b) is appropriate for the site’s characteristics and will not negatively impact surrounding properties as designed and conditioned; c) promotes sustainable growth and change by facilitating the infill development of a large, underutilized property with a higher-density mixed use development; d) revitalizes properties along the Alhambra Corridor through the retention, restoration, and adaptive re-use of vacant and deteriorating buildings eligible for listing on the California Register; and e) provides a vibrant street presence by engaging street frontages with commercial uses and quality design.
End
FinancialConsiderations
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
End
LocalBusinessEnterprise
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): No goods or services are being purchased under this report.
EconomicImpacts
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
End
Sustainability
Sustainability: Not applicable.
End