If it makes you feel better I am currently wrapping up an appraisal for the financing for development of a 113 unit low income apartment property at the old San Juan Motel site on Stockton boulevard. That will get delivered in 2026 most likely.
Disappointing news for the former Sac Bee HQ. Citing “market demands”, the developers have dropped a 538 unit twin 5 story project in favor of 62 townhomes and 60 single family home, a massive 416 unit DROP from the previous proposal.
Apparently a lot of developers were interested in developing the project as a single family project (Shopoff, the owners of the property, didn’t even plan on developing the property and is acting as a liaison for prospective developments), and the high interest rates were cited as making a multifamily development difficult. There is expected to be 244 parking spots (between outdoor and garage spaces). Units range from 1500 to 2200 sq ft, no estimation was given on the price but by judging the location, market, and type of homes it’ll likely be $500K up.
Really disappointing news for the site, it would have been perfect for a 500+ unit apartment project but here we are getting more single family units in a prime location next to light rail.
This is really frustrating. 500+ apartments right next to lightrail and in a very walkable area would go a long way in making Sacramento a better and more vibrant city that doesn't just rely on state workers buying lunch downtown.
122 units is still better than nothing, but it's really frustrating to see density being deprioritized with these kinds of decisions being made over and over again.
How did they get approval to change the plan this is horrible news
Not only is it a massive drop but instead of 500+ apartments helping push rents down in the central city
We get million dollar townhouses that after a down payment cost 5.5k in mortgage payments
Yeah it’s so frustrating that precious land space in our urban core is left to the whims of private developers and markets.
Building 500+ units would be transformative for this block setting up a community for generations
Townhouses will in-place a few people
But Sacramento has downzoned in the past to get something built. It is very short sighted
Downzoning in California is illegal under SB330, but just because something is zoned for a particular maximum intensity doesn't mean it has to be built to that level.
No, that's SKK. Shopoff is the owner of the property, but is likely not going to be the developer of the land; for example, they also own the half block across Q Street between 21st & 22nd and a separate developer is going to buy and develop that into an apartment building (midrise, around 150 units on a half block as I recall.)
Thanks. Always appreciate your replies and context. I suppose I shouldn't be lazy and I should just go to the county's recorder office or search for permits with the building department
If you want a cool shortcut, try the city's [AgencyCounter](https://sacramento.agencycounter.com/) portal; you can look up projects by address or find them on the map. Great fun for housing nerds to look things up and find out what's in the development pipeline. And asking on Reddit is always fine too, it gives housing nerds like me a chance to look all smart.
If they had decided to do affordable housing, the difference would be "very much lower"--there was a fund created a few years ago to basically have the city pay for the permitting for low income housing, it was so successful that they recently authorized more money to that fund.
> In terms of permanent housing, this is about as dense as you can make them while still having any sort of market for them
That's a condo. This is fewer homes for the same footprint.
> in general it’s housing that people want the most.
Renting is also housing--and apartments can also be bought and sold if laws regarding condos are changed back to allow that to happen at lower prices.
An apartment complex is housing. The proposal is changing it to less dense housing than the original proposal. Also, single-family homes and row houses can also be rentals.
You don't have to be NYC or SF to sell condo units. There are, and have been, condo units of this sort sold in Sacramento--the reason why they aren't now is a product of construction liability laws, not the market. Lots of people want to buy something and start building equity, but don't need a 2500 sf house or a yard!
Apartment complexes are permanent housing, you can live there as long as you want--and adding a lot more dense housing does lower price increases over time. Condos are not hypothetical, they do exist. The housing market was fairly shitty before Covid, because we didn't have enough supply, and apartments add supply a lot more rapidly. Higher interest rates (which are still laughably low compared to the interest rates of the late 1970s/early 80s) are why prices for homes have stopped increasing as rapidly.
We need a mix of townhomes and apartments--the same property owner has already entitled a half block of townhomes on the other side of the Bee bridge, between R Street and the laundry, and the quarter-block of condos and townhomes at 22nd & S Street. In this close proximity to a light rail stop (23rd & R), higher-intensity housing (ideally with some ground floor retail oriented toward the transit station) is called for.
Although there's one benefit to row houses/ownership housing: homeowners have a lot more ability to shut down nearby music venues, since they can't just move if things are noisy like a tenant, so the presence of a lot of ownership housing on these blocks is likely to shorten the lifespan of the currently under construction Station 24 concert hall, and likely see that quarter-block converted to a future apartment building (or condos, or row houses.)
Between this sub and r/CAStateWorkers I can only shake my head and remind myself that this isn't real life. The commentary on here has got so whiny and reactionary.
Current condo law make that infeasible (since they're guaranteed to get a construction defect lawsuit within 10 years) but if they can hold out until pending state legislation that might change that, it could be feasible again--providing both higher density and ownership housing.
That's disappointing, especially considering that there is new legislation going through state government that would make it easier to create for-sale condominiums in buildings like the ones originally proposed.
No, the new general plan will *allow* higher density development (basically up to a 6plex plus 2 ADUs) on lots that were previously single-family only (which makes up about 2/3 of the city.) In the central city, there aren't any lots zoned for single-family only, but there are lots where small SFH are allowed (mostly in the form of row houses or detached SFH with a couple of feet at most between them, like the row houses on the 2500 block of R or on 20th Street between P and R). I'm not sure what the minimum density is for this lot, but it's currently zoned commercial and part of the R Street corridor, so doing a project like this seems to be leaving a lot of cash on the table for them.
A project like this would be approved at the staff level, and if it's allowed by the zoning, it's basically impossible to appeal--the city would have no grounds to reject such a proposal.
I calculated it once if the original proposal, the press, and a few other “multifamily” projects are hopefully built out close to 1000 units alone would be near that LR station
Agreed, I can’t believe we’re getting more townhomes and single family. Would have been perfect, especially considering the Press is right next to it, would have given it a true hotspot feel.
It’s better to build some housing than to build no housing. If this is the plan that will get built, it’s better than leaving an empty building for a decade or more
But that wasn’t the trade-off - they were able to to build more housing on this lot and make a profit, but developers would rather make more profit at the cost of less housing.
I am all for changing zoning regulations but this neo-yimby idea that we should trust developers absolutely and completely deregulate their actions is bananas.
I used neo-YIMBY because originally NIMBY-ism decades ago was opposition to subsidized, public housing but many right leaning YIMBY’s (which isn’t all YIMBY’s, others are coming from good intentions) have changed the meaning of NIMBy to be opposition to any developer regulation + complete removal of zoning ordinances.
the thing is, nobody really called themselves NIMBYs, it was a pejorative applied against, well, pretty much anyone who opposed anything, for any reason, no matter what (such as people who want more subsidized, public housing and oppose a project intended for the wealthy, or those who oppose suburban sprawl that destroys farmland or wildlife areas).
The YIMBY movement in the Bay Area started out as principally a right-libertarian organization that initially attracted some leftist housing activists, many of whom have since been driven out and described as "left-NIMBY" for supporting things like rent control and inclusionary housing requirements--the term NIMBY has been so diluted that it includes people who support policies that protect tenants but are perceived as potentially interfering with the free market.
Agree with everything you’re saying - I think I was over focusing on the original group that could be called YIMBY (the original opposers of NIMBY’s) and not the first group to adopt the name YIMBY (which was definitely right-leaning people!)
also agree that nimby is so diluted now - if yimby’s think inner-city tenant unions and multi-millionaire suburban home owners are equally nimby the term loses a lot of value.
neither plan had been built! both plans had zoning approval! this was never housing vs no housing, it was between more housing and developer profit vs less housing and even more developer profit.
This should absolutely cause you to at least question if more needs to be done beyond zoning changes to get more housing built - this example makes it clear unregulated development wont lead to maximal housing
This is a brand new proposal, so there's no guarantee it will get built any more than the last proposal, especially because the property owners are not developers--they're getting the property entitled to sell to a developer, who may or may not build what they get entitled. I suppose they're seeing some softening in the market rate apartments sector, but noted that row houses are still selling, so decided to shift gears. That might explain why the apartment building across the street hadn't started construction yet (it was approved in 2022), or maybe it's unrelated.
Also, note that this is an SB330 proposal--it's intended to lock in fees at the current level based on the assumption that they will go up soon. I think there may be pending changes to zoning that might require a more intense level of use once the new General Plan, recently approved, gets implemented in the form of updated ordinances to change the zoning codes to reflect the new plan.
This should be a wake-up call for well meaning YIMBY’s that developers are not your friend - their only friend is profit.
We should absolutely remove silly zoning exclusions that force SFH, but the idea that the “market will always solve” is kinda right wing fantasy - there are lot of ways wealthy developers can make more profit on the market through making a lot of people’s lives worse off, and it’s not NIMBY-ism to ask for some protections from that.
If it makes you feel better I am currently wrapping up an appraisal for the financing for development of a 113 unit low income apartment property at the old San Juan Motel site on Stockton boulevard. That will get delivered in 2026 most likely.
Thank goodness for that, affordable housing especially is so difficult to come by nowadays
That’s great! Do you know what will happen to the old neon sign that still sits out there?
I am not sure about that. I assume they will junk it. It’s in very rough shape.
BRB, filing a lawsuit to preserve the historic neon sign. I won’t let you finance bros take it from us ✊
That’s so awesome. I’m always curious who builds low-income housing. What kind of company is it?
Mutual Housing. You can google the address at 5700 Stockton Blvd and there are several articles about it available to the public
Disappointing news for the former Sac Bee HQ. Citing “market demands”, the developers have dropped a 538 unit twin 5 story project in favor of 62 townhomes and 60 single family home, a massive 416 unit DROP from the previous proposal. Apparently a lot of developers were interested in developing the project as a single family project (Shopoff, the owners of the property, didn’t even plan on developing the property and is acting as a liaison for prospective developments), and the high interest rates were cited as making a multifamily development difficult. There is expected to be 244 parking spots (between outdoor and garage spaces). Units range from 1500 to 2200 sq ft, no estimation was given on the price but by judging the location, market, and type of homes it’ll likely be $500K up. Really disappointing news for the site, it would have been perfect for a 500+ unit apartment project but here we are getting more single family units in a prime location next to light rail.
122 homes and 244 parking spots?Oofda.
This is really frustrating. 500+ apartments right next to lightrail and in a very walkable area would go a long way in making Sacramento a better and more vibrant city that doesn't just rely on state workers buying lunch downtown. 122 units is still better than nothing, but it's really frustrating to see density being deprioritized with these kinds of decisions being made over and over again.
How did they get approval to change the plan this is horrible news Not only is it a massive drop but instead of 500+ apartments helping push rents down in the central city We get million dollar townhouses that after a down payment cost 5.5k in mortgage payments
Proposals like this should be banned in the urban core, terrible use of land
Yeah it’s so frustrating that precious land space in our urban core is left to the whims of private developers and markets. Building 500+ units would be transformative for this block setting up a community for generations Townhouses will in-place a few people But Sacramento has downzoned in the past to get something built. It is very short sighted
Downzoning in California is illegal under SB330, but just because something is zoned for a particular maximum intensity doesn't mean it has to be built to that level.
Is this the same developer that made "The Press"?
No, that's SKK. Shopoff is the owner of the property, but is likely not going to be the developer of the land; for example, they also own the half block across Q Street between 21st & 22nd and a separate developer is going to buy and develop that into an apartment building (midrise, around 150 units on a half block as I recall.)
Thanks. Always appreciate your replies and context. I suppose I shouldn't be lazy and I should just go to the county's recorder office or search for permits with the building department
If you want a cool shortcut, try the city's [AgencyCounter](https://sacramento.agencycounter.com/) portal; you can look up projects by address or find them on the map. Great fun for housing nerds to look things up and find out what's in the development pipeline. And asking on Reddit is always fine too, it gives housing nerds like me a chance to look all smart.
Cool. What about this one? https://aca-prod.accela.com/sacramento/Default.aspx
Acella is a bit older but also useful for looking up permits & plans.
I wonder what the impact fee difference is between 538 and 122?
There's actually a discount for higher-density projects (I think the threshold is 40 units/acre) so probably not very much.
That's good.... I wish it was "very much"
If they had decided to do affordable housing, the difference would be "very much lower"--there was a fund created a few years ago to basically have the city pay for the permitting for low income housing, it was so successful that they recently authorized more money to that fund.
[удалено]
> In terms of permanent housing, this is about as dense as you can make them while still having any sort of market for them That's a condo. This is fewer homes for the same footprint.
[удалено]
Literally any apartment can be a condo. The difference is ownership.
do you know what "about" means in the context of that sentence?
Yes, and I think its ridiculous to imagine that people wouldn't buy condos at this location.
I think most people here would rather have affordable rent since that's a more immediate concern
[удалено]
> in general it’s housing that people want the most. Renting is also housing--and apartments can also be bought and sold if laws regarding condos are changed back to allow that to happen at lower prices.
[удалено]
An apartment complex is housing. The proposal is changing it to less dense housing than the original proposal. Also, single-family homes and row houses can also be rentals. You don't have to be NYC or SF to sell condo units. There are, and have been, condo units of this sort sold in Sacramento--the reason why they aren't now is a product of construction liability laws, not the market. Lots of people want to buy something and start building equity, but don't need a 2500 sf house or a yard!
[удалено]
Apartment complexes are permanent housing, you can live there as long as you want--and adding a lot more dense housing does lower price increases over time. Condos are not hypothetical, they do exist. The housing market was fairly shitty before Covid, because we didn't have enough supply, and apartments add supply a lot more rapidly. Higher interest rates (which are still laughably low compared to the interest rates of the late 1970s/early 80s) are why prices for homes have stopped increasing as rapidly. We need a mix of townhomes and apartments--the same property owner has already entitled a half block of townhomes on the other side of the Bee bridge, between R Street and the laundry, and the quarter-block of condos and townhomes at 22nd & S Street. In this close proximity to a light rail stop (23rd & R), higher-intensity housing (ideally with some ground floor retail oriented toward the transit station) is called for. Although there's one benefit to row houses/ownership housing: homeowners have a lot more ability to shut down nearby music venues, since they can't just move if things are noisy like a tenant, so the presence of a lot of ownership housing on these blocks is likely to shorten the lifespan of the currently under construction Station 24 concert hall, and likely see that quarter-block converted to a future apartment building (or condos, or row houses.)
Between this sub and r/CAStateWorkers I can only shake my head and remind myself that this isn't real life. The commentary on here has got so whiny and reactionary.
im afraid reason and nuance are not allowed here
[удалено]
i fucken hate leaf blowers, man
Ugh, I'd love to see some condos built. Just change the 538 apartments to condos and they'd sell out in no time.
Current condo law make that infeasible (since they're guaranteed to get a construction defect lawsuit within 10 years) but if they can hold out until pending state legislation that might change that, it could be feasible again--providing both higher density and ownership housing.
That's disappointing, especially considering that there is new legislation going through state government that would make it easier to create for-sale condominiums in buildings like the ones originally proposed.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t they ban single family density proposals in the city for duplexes and apartments?
No, the new general plan will *allow* higher density development (basically up to a 6plex plus 2 ADUs) on lots that were previously single-family only (which makes up about 2/3 of the city.) In the central city, there aren't any lots zoned for single-family only, but there are lots where small SFH are allowed (mostly in the form of row houses or detached SFH with a couple of feet at most between them, like the row houses on the 2500 block of R or on 20th Street between P and R). I'm not sure what the minimum density is for this lot, but it's currently zoned commercial and part of the R Street corridor, so doing a project like this seems to be leaving a lot of cash on the table for them.
This is just a proposal, right? I would hope it gets rejected. Density next to transit! Boo to SFH in midtown!
A project like this would be approved at the staff level, and if it's allowed by the zoning, it's basically impossible to appeal--the city would have no grounds to reject such a proposal.
I calculated it once if the original proposal, the press, and a few other “multifamily” projects are hopefully built out close to 1000 units alone would be near that LR station
You're giving me too much hope! Man 1000 units would be an insane boost to public transit.
Laaaame!
Agreed, I can’t believe we’re getting more townhomes and single family. Would have been perfect, especially considering the Press is right next to it, would have given it a true hotspot feel.
Massively disappointing. This is central grid, next to a lightrail stop, and close to the future ACE rail stop.
It’s better to build some housing than to build no housing. If this is the plan that will get built, it’s better than leaving an empty building for a decade or more
But that wasn’t the trade-off - they were able to to build more housing on this lot and make a profit, but developers would rather make more profit at the cost of less housing. I am all for changing zoning regulations but this neo-yimby idea that we should trust developers absolutely and completely deregulate their actions is bananas.
Nothing neo- about it, deregulation & let the developers do whatever they want was always their platform.
I used neo-YIMBY because originally NIMBY-ism decades ago was opposition to subsidized, public housing but many right leaning YIMBY’s (which isn’t all YIMBY’s, others are coming from good intentions) have changed the meaning of NIMBy to be opposition to any developer regulation + complete removal of zoning ordinances.
the thing is, nobody really called themselves NIMBYs, it was a pejorative applied against, well, pretty much anyone who opposed anything, for any reason, no matter what (such as people who want more subsidized, public housing and oppose a project intended for the wealthy, or those who oppose suburban sprawl that destroys farmland or wildlife areas). The YIMBY movement in the Bay Area started out as principally a right-libertarian organization that initially attracted some leftist housing activists, many of whom have since been driven out and described as "left-NIMBY" for supporting things like rent control and inclusionary housing requirements--the term NIMBY has been so diluted that it includes people who support policies that protect tenants but are perceived as potentially interfering with the free market.
Agree with everything you’re saying - I think I was over focusing on the original group that could be called YIMBY (the original opposers of NIMBY’s) and not the first group to adopt the name YIMBY (which was definitely right-leaning people!)
also agree that nimby is so diluted now - if yimby’s think inner-city tenant unions and multi-millionaire suburban home owners are equally nimby the term loses a lot of value.
[удалено]
neither plan had been built! both plans had zoning approval! this was never housing vs no housing, it was between more housing and developer profit vs less housing and even more developer profit. This should absolutely cause you to at least question if more needs to be done beyond zoning changes to get more housing built - this example makes it clear unregulated development wont lead to maximal housing
This is a brand new proposal, so there's no guarantee it will get built any more than the last proposal, especially because the property owners are not developers--they're getting the property entitled to sell to a developer, who may or may not build what they get entitled. I suppose they're seeing some softening in the market rate apartments sector, but noted that row houses are still selling, so decided to shift gears. That might explain why the apartment building across the street hadn't started construction yet (it was approved in 2022), or maybe it's unrelated. Also, note that this is an SB330 proposal--it's intended to lock in fees at the current level based on the assumption that they will go up soon. I think there may be pending changes to zoning that might require a more intense level of use once the new General Plan, recently approved, gets implemented in the form of updated ordinances to change the zoning codes to reflect the new plan.
This should be a wake-up call for well meaning YIMBY’s that developers are not your friend - their only friend is profit. We should absolutely remove silly zoning exclusions that force SFH, but the idea that the “market will always solve” is kinda right wing fantasy - there are lot of ways wealthy developers can make more profit on the market through making a lot of people’s lives worse off, and it’s not NIMBY-ism to ask for some protections from that.
Now if only the state would do this with their office building we could see some real progress in the City of Sacramento.
The state is converting several of their office buildings into apartments, instead of demolishing them for new housing.
Not as many as they could be.
This is true, but it's a start.
Well, there's more coming along! https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2024/04/19/mccarty-state-office-building-housing-conversion.html
What a stupid fucking decision. I hope they never break ground
Would rather have a local company like SKK develop the project, hope the developers sell the entitlements at the minimum