What many in Natomas have known for years is finally getting front-page “above the fold” exposure: Natomas is in dire straits in terms of fire protection, particularly for those of us on the west side of Interstate 5.
Chilling video of the Silva family home on Stilt Court engulfed in flames that sent four firefighers to the hospital;
How Capt. Helvin thought he was going to burn to death after his attempt to find victims upstairs and how he briefly considered ending his life by smoke inhalation to avoid that fate;
Testimony from city officials about the stark realities of inadequate fire department response times in our part of the city; and
How the fire department captain responsible for tracking response times for the department “would not live west of Interstate 5.”
At its general meeting on Monday, November 24, WRCA members voted to draft a letter and circulate a petition among residents in the vicinity of Witter Ranch Park to request that the city’s Parks & Recreation Department immediately and permanently shut off the field lights at the park.
The field lights at Witter Ranch Park have been a concern of residents in our neighborhood from the moment they were first introduced. They were installed over the strong objections of residents in the area several years ago, prior to the neighborhood being represented by our community association. People who live on the park’s perimeter or in its vicinity have reported numerous problems at the park over the years, especially on evenings that the field lights are in use.
At only 9 acres, Witter Ranch Park appears to be the smallest park in the entire city of Sacramento that includes field lights. Unlike 10+ acre community parks that typically feature plenty of parking and other amenities suitable for hosting events for people outside the immediate neighborhood, most in attendance at the meeting believe that Witter Ranch Park lacks sufficient parking, and is too close to homes for field lights to be compatible with the neighorhood.
The draft of the letter is posted for review and neighborhood comment. Residents of the Gateway West and Park View neighborhoods are invited to send feedback to Keith [at] WitterRanchCommunity [dot] com no later than Saturday, December 12.
At the urging of community members, including three active WRCA members who spoke before City Council two weeks ago, the workshop that was on next Tuesday afternoon’s city council meeting has been canceled, along with two other corresponding meetings at the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) Commission and the City of Sacramento’s Planning Commission.
Brandy Kollenborn is one of those who spoke before council and urged them to schedule the workshop for an evening session so that community members can participate. “It means the residents were heard when we asked that the public be enabled to be a part of these essential discussions and I am optimistic this will mean some positive changes for Natomas in particular.”
There have been several SHRA-sponsored community and stakeholder discussions regarding the City of Sacramento’s Mixed Income (Inclusionary) Housing Ordinance, a law that requires all new development to allocate at least 10% of residential units for low-income and 5% for very low-income residents. As it stands right now, there is no maximum percentage of subsidized units specified in the ordinance, and it only applies to “new growth areas” which essentially has only included North Natomas since it became law, resulting in a number of very large apartment complexes being built that are either mostly or completely subsidized. Many community leaders have advanced the notion of the ordinance being expanded to apply to all areas of the city (not just North Natomas) and have recommended that a maximum percentage also be incorporated into the measure to prevent recurrence of building apartment complexes with 80% to 100% of its units set aside for low income residents.
Skip ahead to 4:58:30 to see WRCA member comments.
On November 18, three WRCA active members spoke to City Council about their experiences with the effects of the manner in which low- and very low-income housing has materalized in North Natomas over the past several years.
Becky Correia spoke passionately about how the city’s current policy of allowing giant three-story apartment complexes to be built with 80 to 100 percent low income occupancy is harming the Natomas community. “Natomas has had more than our fair share of these giant apartment projects and it is detrimental to our community, our schools, our neighborhoods, and frankly, you’re losing people [who] could stay and pay their mortgage — they’re choosing not to because of the direct impact these units are having on our community. They’re fleeing to Rosevile, Lincoln — anywhere but where these projects are going in,” Correia said.
Correia suggested a lower percentage of low- and very low-income units would be more appropriate for apartment complexes built in the future: “It can be done better: no more than 20 percent in any individual complex.” She added that having such high concentrations of affordable housing contributes to a stigmatization effect that many such complexes currently have, saying “if you start building [projects with] 80, 100 percent [affordable units], that’s not including people — that’s making a wall of ‘Oh, there go people that live in that complex.’ ” She cited how The Lofts has only 20 percent of its units set aside for low-income tenants and that there have been far fewer problems with that complex than Atrium Court which has a much higher concentration of affordable units.
Correia’s testimony prompted several compelling comments and questions from Council. Mayor Fargo acknowledged the mistakes made in Natomas. “It seems like it’s been Natomas’ role to do for the city — I guess since I’m leaving I can say this — is that we’ve learned how not to do apartment complexes in Natomas,” Fargo said, adding “we tried to learn what we did wrong in South Natomas as [development] moved to North Natomas . . . I am hoping what Council will do is pay some attention to what we need to do to fix what isn’t working in the North Natomas version of these projects,” she said.
Fargo also addressed the high subsidized-to-market ratio issue and urged Council to address problems in the current version of the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance. “We have made, I believe, some other mistakes in the ordinance . . . in terms of the number of units and the fact that . . . we end up with whole complexes of nothing but low-income, as opposed to mixed income — and having a community be mixed [but] separated by fences isn’t necessarily a mixture anymore,” Fargo said, adding “I don’t think we have all the answers here, but I think that the council is going to need to hear from Natomas to know how to fix it because these problems aren’t being experienced elsewhere to the same extent as they are [in Natomas].”
Fargo went on to comment on how the city’s goal of economic diversity should not undermine communities. “We want to have a community with mixed income — we want to have economic diversity in the city, but we need to do it in a way that doesn’t harm the community’s stability,” Fargo said.
Brandy Kollenborn also spoke about her experiences living a few yards away from the perimeter of Atrium Court Apartments. “Natomas needs some counteraction for the mistakes that have already been made . . . Natomas is not being given resources to deal with the problems that come with these apartment complexes — these kids are feeding into our schools [and] our area crime is progressively worsening,” said Kollenborn.
Kollenborn spoke of problems associated with the apartment complex that have caused her family to recently buy a home where they “specifically asked to be as far away from [low income apartments] as we could possibly be, and we will be leaving the home that we lived in for five years to get away from what this brought to our neighborhood. I don’t want to raise my son there [and] I don’t want him going to Natomas schools as they are right now. I’ve seen disgusting things happen in front of my home and I don’t want to raise my family there anymore — that’s what this is doing to our neighborhoods and I hope you can take that story and really consider it when you talk about the [inclusionary] housing ordinance, because these are real people that are leaving this area, fleeing away from what this housing element has done to our area.”
Richard Guess also weighed at the podium. “I looked at communities like Lincoln, Roseville, West Sacramento, Elk Grove, and Natomas, and I chose Natomas. The number one reason I chose it was because of the conforming growth plan . . . something that is balanced, fair, and wanting to take and bring people together,” Guess said, adding “the fact that we were having inclusionary housing in the community, in a limited number, is the way communities should be developed — I was totally in favor of that.”
Then Guess expressed disappointment in the outcome of the development of Atrium Court. “We were told it would be about 14 to 16 percent inclusionary. That sounded balanced and fair to me.” (Records show the density of subsidized units at Atrium Court is actually a much higher 80 percent.)
We’ve had nothing but [an] extensive amount of crime — if you talked with your police officers, you’d know that,” he said, adding “It’s out of balance — there’s no balance in the program that we have right now.”
Guess predicted dire consequences for Natomas if the city does not act to address the problem. “If the city doesn’t do the corrections to make the changes in combatting the crime, and adjusting and limiting this inclusionary housing to a realistic maximum level, I think North Natomas is doomed.”
District 1 councilperson Ray Tretheway was absent from the meeting, but his district Director, Dan Roth, was recognized in the audience.
The housing element update was approved unanimously by the council but a workshop will be held in the near future to discuss changes to the inclusionary housing ordinance. It is tentatively scheduled for an afternoon session on December 9 but community members pleaded for that session to be rescheduled for an evening session so that members of the Natomas community can participate without taking time off work. Mayor Fargo asked the clerk to make every effort to do so.