Subscribe to our Newsletter!
- Update on McKinley Village November 14, 2016
- Residential Areas Near McKinley Park Face Potential Changes to Building Codes September 27, 2016
- McKinley Pond Renovation Update September 25, 2016
- Lawsuit Against McKinley Village – Appellate Court Hearing Set September 18, 2016
- Meet the Marmaladies: East Sac and Land Park neighbors developed unique recipe for the California State Fair July 27, 2016
Author Archives: admin
Following is a reprint from the Sacramento Bee. When we know more information we will share. ESP
Sacramento’s fledgling McKinley Village development has hit a legal speed bump after an appellate court ruled that the city’s environmental studies overlooked potential impacts the development would create on traffic.
In a ruling late Monday, the 3rd District Court of Appeal threw out a portion of the environmental impact report, or EIR, prepared by city officials as part of their approval of the residential development. The court said the environmental report didn’t explain why the city thinks the project won’t cause major traffic problems. In particular, the court said it was concerned about traffic around 28th, 29th and 30th streets in midtown Sacramento, where many of the cars entering or leaving McKinley Village would coalesce.
The practical effect of the ruling is a matter of some dispute.
Stephen Cook, a lawyer for the preservationist group challenging the development, said Tuesday the ruling enables the group to seek a court injunction that would shut down construction “until the deficiency in the EIR is corrected, if it can be.” Cook, who represents a group called East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City, said he’ll apply for an injunction in Sacramento Superior Court in a few weeks.
But City Attorney James Sanchez and co-developers Phil Angelides and Kevin Carson said the ruling creates relatively minor obstacles that should be easy to remedy. The development “will not be subject to delay,” Sanchez said.
Sanchez said the city merely needs to provide a better explanation of why the development won’t cause major traffic problems – or, if there are problems, how they can be addressed.
“It’s a technical fix that can be accomplished quickly,” said Angelides, a former state treasurer. “You’ve got a very narrow issue.” The appeals court dismissed other claims by East Sacramento Partnership, including allegations that residents of McKinley Village would face health problems caused by air pollution.
The ruling comes two years after developers broke ground on the football-shaped, 49-acre parcel sandwiched between the Capital City Freeway and an elevated railroad line. Angelides said 16 model homes have been completed and another 38 homes are under construction, with some homes already sold. A total of 336 homes are expected to be built.
The project is more or less cut off from surrounding areas and will have two entry and exit points to the rest of the city: a tunnel beneath the rail line that connects with C Street in East Sacramento and a bridge over the freeway connecting to midtown at 28th Street.
East Sacramento Partnership filed its suit under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. The law required the city to point out potential environmental problems and how they’d be fixed.
City Council Public Hearing on Modifications for East Sac!
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
. pdf Attachments show potential changes.
The proposal before the City Council would do the following:
- Move the west boundary of the Alhambra Corridor SPD easterly to 29th Street. That still keeps it across the freeway, but would allow the base zones to control from 26th to 29th, where now they are controlled by the SPD, which is more limiting. Land that would be outside the SPD after this action would be rezoned to a number of different zones.
- Exempt the land between 30th and Alhambra Boulevard, from I Street to N Street, from the SPD Residential Preservation Transition Buffer Zone, which currently controls height. With the amendment, buildings proposed in this area could be 65 feet high, with the following restrictions:
- Within 39 feet of a residential zone, 45 feet max.
- Within 40-79 feet of a residential zone, 55 feet
- More than 80 feet from a residential zone, 65 feet max.
- Since the distance limitation is to a zone, not an actual house, the only area that will have restricted height is between I and J, 30th and Alhambra, because land immediately to the east is zoned R1. It is also unclear where the measurement is made. If it is the street centerline, as is the current requirement, then given the width of Alhambra, which is about 66 feet, any building could likely be built at 45 feet in that area. However, I would imagine that the city would interpret that if a parcel has a portion of its land area within 79 feet, and a portion greater than 80 feet, they can extend to 55 feet in that portion that is less than 79 feet, and 65 feet on that portion which is more than 80 feet away from the zone. Further, all the land south of J and adjacent to Alhambra is zoned commercial, so everything from J to N can be 65 feet high.
- For areas north of I Street, between 30th and Alhambra, the existing 300 foot distance limitation from a residential zone would remain, which restricts buildings to 35 feet in height.