×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.
Back to Home

STATION 2: Sliding Scale FAR

We want to know if we are headed in the right direction. Your feedback will help us refine the study’s final set of recommendations. Whether you agree or disagree, we want to hear your thoughts!
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Helene G Margolis Nov 5 2023 at 9:18PM on page 1

Other
Major Flaw in the Assessments: There was little or no consideration of sociological factors that directly affect community health and resilience, such as social cohesion and social/neighborhood continuity. The plans/recommendations sets up the city to repeat the same mistakes and atrocities that led to red-lining and disruption of socioeconomically limited but culturally rich and socially cohesive neighborhoods such as Sacramento’s West End multiethnic neighborhood where a high proportion of the African American population resided; it was destroyed when the population was displaced for the developers in the 1930s+. Neighborhoods such as Oak Park, Gardenland, and Del Paso Heights need City strategic investments – not developers (small or large) pushing out locals to make a profit then leave town. Innovative incentive programs need to be devised that support local design-build companies that can provide services to home owners who may choose to add an ADU or another residence on their property – but with permitting dependent on an evidence-based model that accounts for local infrastructure, built environment and social/neighborhood dynamics and living conditions.
0 replies

Stephen Schweigerdt Nov 5 2023 at 8:18AM on page 1

Greenspace
FAR must be balanced with open space requirement as a %.
0 replies

Debra Payne Nov 2 2023 at 11:47AM on page 2

Small scale and lower cost will be necessary in order to make an impact on the unhoused.
0 replies

Jason Nov 2 2023 at 11:25AM on page 1

Other
How about letting the free market dictate cost. Private businesses ought to decide if this project is worth it or not as opposed to the local government trying to “sell” it
0 replies

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 9:29AM on page 2

Other
Tenents. This is very telling of an overlooked major problem with this solution. Single family homes have historically been a source of simple generational wealth. Consider how many of the single family homes were taken over in Sacramento after the housing crash and turned into property managed rentals to this day. Less homes available, leads to higher cost for remaining homes which means landlords and pm companies can charge ridiculous rent across the board. High rent means people can't easily save for a home creating the perfect storm for lifetime renters and the gap between the wealthy and the lower class will grow even larger. This isn't going to create a bigger middle class, just a more wealthy owner pool and everybody else at the mercy of their rental rates. Neighborhoods and communities do better on numerous levels when people are given an opportunity to be their own landlord.
0 replies
in reply to Karen Jacques's comment

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 9:10AM on page 2

Other
Developers and landlords are going to make a killing on this, and long after they're gone these units will find a way to be more expensive eventually. These promises are a great idea but rarely work out when there is money to be made. That's why I have a hard time believing that this is an altruistic solution to the housing problem and not a developer work around. Hopefully I am wrong and this is going to be different.
0 replies

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 8:56AM on page 1

Greenspace
This reasoning fails to recognize that there is a reason single family homes were built in the first place, they serve a need that other types of housing do not. I think it is great to have options to fit people's unique situations and needs, but to discriminate an ideal over what all people should live in is narrow minded. There is more of a value in living space, preserving the natural environment and quality of life to consider when talking about homes besides regulating square footage. Options are fine, but punishing one very useful option to encourage the city to become one giant apartment complex is presuming that peoples personal needs have no importance. The biggest flaw with this idea is to force an overhaul of everyone's living choices for a new ideal. It would be so much more practical and helpful to instead focus our energy and money on the underserved areas of the city that live in a heat island or do not have functional housing. Or to build more dense complexes in strategic areas that would serve specific regional needs than to say everyone has to fit into this now. And because the push for this overhaul is so extensive, I find it hard to believe this is about helping people into affordable housing. It seems like a huge green light for developers to make a fortune at the expense of this city's residents and natural environment.
0 replies
in reply to Francesca Reitano's comment

Molly Luna Nov 2 2023 at 8:22AM on page 1

Greenspace
A sustainable tree canopy will need a more reasonable amount of growing space than most of these proposals will give. The shade from more units building up will also make urban ground gardening near impossible. So functionally all you will probably have is drought landscaping and rocks, creating an urban heat island for these buildings.
0 replies

Brooke Goforth Nov 1 2023 at 9:09PM on page 1

Let people live where they want and can afford. Wages-benefits and medical insurance offered by big business is pitiful. Ditto access for all to higher education/trade/tech. Can’t find a sensible reason (station 2) so far but I’ll keep at it.
0 replies

Brooke Goforth Nov 1 2023 at 8:54PM on page 1

I do not prefer any more regulations.
0 replies

AB Nov 1 2023 at 6:33PM on page 1

Building Heights
There is a new ADU on the street behind a neighbor. It is LARGER than the house - that is not right. Windows on a second story ADU should not be allowed to look into other people’s backyard. We deserve better design guidelines !
0 replies

PATTY WAIT Nov 1 2023 at 2:42PM on page 2

Other
This seems like potentially a great idea. I believe it needs more air time with the community so the impacts are understood. I wonder if it would be choice to participate in the bonus program, and incorporate affordable units or to opt out and build only market rate units.
0 replies

jackie whitelam Oct 30 2023 at 8:24PM on page 1

while I generally support the direction of not having McMansions - it seems like the argument that MMH can be built in single family neighborhoods because it is of the same scale starts to break down when you use the sliding scale FAR. I'd be interested to hear developers' take (ULI) as to whether they think this would incentivize them to build MMH. Seems to be that in high resource neighborhoods with higher land costs that this would be less likely. Suggest an implementation measure either in MMH or general plan address building MMH on publicly-owned land where the upfront land cost hurdle could be overcome by either writing it down or allowing it to be paid on a long term ground lease.
0 replies
in reply to Teresa Ortega's comment

Karen Jacques Oct 30 2023 at 2:54PM on page 2

Greenspace
Additional FAR is fine as long as requirements for tree preservation/new tree planting and minimum amount of common open space are also met. Trees and some amount of open space are critical to address heat island effect and rain water absorption to help. reduce flooding during heavy rains
0 replies

Karen Jacques Oct 30 2023 at 2:50PM on page 2

Other
They definitely need to be deed restriction so that they remain permanently affordable
0 replies
in reply to Francesca Reitano's comment

Karen Jacques Oct 30 2023 at 2:43PM on page 2

We need to learn from San Diego's mistakes and not repeat them. It is critical that units that benefit from an incentive to be affordable remain affordable for the duration of their life times.
1 reply

Karen Jacques Oct 30 2023 at 2:36PM on page 2

Other
Incentives to build affordable units are badly needed. If a builder receives an incentive to build an affordable unit or units, those units need to remain permanently affordable for the duration of the life of the building, not revert to market rate at some future date.
0 replies

Karen Jacques Oct 30 2023 at 2:02PM on page 1

Other
Important to look at what the city might be able to do to incentivize the building of MMH housing that qualifies as affordable. Perhaps there could be some reduction in City permit fees for affordable units as opposed to market rate units.
0 replies
in reply to Devin Lavelle's comment

Austin Oct 30 2023 at 9:45AM on page 1

Building Heights
Many people seem to think that this will suddenly change the neighborhood overnight. It is going to take awhile and there is no future where we don't increase density if we want to remotely reduce the effects of climate change. This has to be done at some point so why not get it moving now
0 replies

Deborah Condon Oct 29 2023 at 11:30AM on page 1

Other
There should still be room for the larger FAR new single-units, do not penalize them or reduce them. Larger families, including those where older members can live with young families are needed and a larger house is better for large extended families. Do not remove this family option. Not ever family wants to put grandma in a tiny house out back, it is not good for caretakers.
0 replies

Francesca Reitano Oct 27 2023 at 8:53PM on page 1

Other
This is a worthy proposal. There is no reason to built the monstrosities I see going up on single-family lots. As long as existing trees are preserved and space is allowed for planting trees, the owner, or a subsequent owner may have land to build an ADU and create more housing. We should be encouraging smaller spaces. This is also a climate consideration.
1 reply

Kerrin West Oct 27 2023 at 8:34AM on page 1

Other
The need for MMH is clear and important however the move to FAR implies that those building single family houses will now be impacted. We need to allow for smaller lots with lot coverages that are consistent supportive of the MMH goals. If it is still easier and simpler to build single family than also allowing for smaller lots and smaller detached units is also filling a need. Don't punish one category thinking that it will draw builders and developers to build alternate housing types. Make it work across the board. There are so many creative ways to build non-subsidized affordable housing. It is imperative to bring in design professionals who specialize in high density detached solutions and work through all of the possibilities. Our firm (Studio 81 International Inc.)has been designing all types of housing in all of these categories. FAR is not the best direction for attempting to incentivize building alternate types of housing especially if it is going to detrimentally impact how single family housing is currently built. This approach is narrow minded and the authors need to see how many different ways higher density, smaller units can be developed without affecting traditional development.
0 replies

Francesca Reitano Oct 26 2023 at 7:42PM on page 2

Other
Missing Middle Housing (MMH) and ADUs should not be allowed to be used as short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) when they are not primary residences. This practice reduces housing stock, especially in proposed MMH District Tier 2 amenity-rich and transit adjacent zones which are targeted by MMH and Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) for increased density and a significant change to our neighborhoods. If the city looks into where STVRs are aggregated citywide, it will see that amenity-rich neighborhoods that are targeted for MMH and TOD are greatly impacted. How does this square with the affordability, home ownership and equity goals of MMH in these neighborhoods? This practice is reducing current, existing housing stock, raising the price of housing and working at cross-purposes to the goals of MMH and TOD. Housing prices are driven up as investors compete with potential landlords and/or homeowners. Operators make more money using homes in certain amenity-rich neighborhoods as STVRs than they do with long-term rentals. STVRs that are not primary residences often belong to out-of-town investors, flippers, and real estate trusts, including family trusts. Our neighborhoods should not be a commercial cash cow for property owners or the city (12% transient occupancy tax, permit fees). 

0 replies

Francesca Reitano Oct 26 2023 at 7:34PM on page 2

Other
Cost of land is rising and will rise further. The more you can build on a lot, the more it is worth. Desirability also creates increased value. San Diego is now arguably the most expensive city in the country. link- ranked-most-233501828.html. New York, San Francisco, Vancouver BC, and other cities are not getting more affordable by building more housing. They are getting more market-rate housing, which is increasingly unaffordable for many of residents as land value and construction costs rise. We need housing, but be aware of unintended consequences.
0 replies

Francesca Reitano Oct 26 2023 at 7:31PM on page 2

Other
San Diego is now arguably the most expensive city in the country. link- ranked-most-233501828.html. 

1 reply

DC Oct 26 2023 at 2:18PM on page 1

Other
Max FAR for Tier 2 should be greater than 1.0, maybe 1.2 or something.
0 replies

DC Oct 26 2023 at 2:16PM on page 1

Other
I support the general concept of increasing allowed FAR as number of units increases. I agree this is a positive step toward encouraging creation of more smaller, affordable units.
0 replies

Teresa Ortega Oct 24 2023 at 1:37PM on page 2

Love the idea of a bonus program! But it should allow additional units beyond the FAR that council has recently approved.
1 reply

Brandon Mettler Oct 24 2023 at 12:58PM on page 2

A bonus program is a good idea, but it should allow additional units over and above a permissive FAR that matches or exceeds what City Council has recently approved as a baseline.
0 replies

Jeffrey Oct 13 2023 at 5:06PM on page 1

All FAR values listed in this table are surprisingly low. We need much higher FAR allowances all over, and especially near frequent transit lines.
0 replies

Annie Keys Oct 11 2023 at 11:05PM on page 2

A bonus program is a good idea, but it should allow additional units over and above a permissive FAR that matches or exceeds what City Council has recently approved as a baseline.
0 replies

Ansel Lundberg Oct 11 2023 at 9:39PM on page 2

A density bonus program is a great idea. But it should allow an FAR over and above at least the base FARs accepted by Council over the past few years.
0 replies

Ben Raderstorf Oct 10 2023 at 3:57PM on page 2

Other
I think a bonus program is potentially a good idea, but we should accomplish it by going *further* than the FAR proposals laid out in the GPU, and not by scaling back the GPU for market-rate projects. We should be encouraging more affordable housing, not discouraging market-rate housing!
0 replies

Ben Raderstorf Oct 10 2023 at 3:51PM on page 1

Other
Council has been very clear throughout the GPU process about the intention to standardize FAR across the city, with FAR 1.0 being the floor in all areas. Is this really proposing going against that and reducing FAR for MMH projects in addition to single-family?
0 replies
in reply to Tyler Wunsch's comment

Jenny Oct 9 2023 at 7:08PM on page 2

Building Heights
Agree!
0 replies

Jenny Oct 9 2023 at 7:07PM on page 1

Building Heights
We'll have no effect on climate change and housing affordability will "incremental" increases.
0 replies
in reply to Devin Lavelle's comment

Jenny Oct 9 2023 at 7:02PM on page 1

Building Heights
To meet climate and affordability goals, Sacramento needs to increase the allowable FAR, especially in areas with good transit access and historic exclusionary zoning (ie east sac, land park, etc). FAR should also be increased in areas with some transit. We can always add more transit. We cannot add more lanes and parking. The transition might be messy, but as Yoda said, "There is no try" for climate change and housing affordability.
0 replies

Tyler Wunsch Oct 6 2023 at 10:33PM on page 2

Other
Yes! We want and need this! It optimizes high quality affordable living
1 reply

Tyler Wunsch Oct 6 2023 at 10:31PM on page 1

Other
Can these have rooftops and does the rooftop space count as FAR? That would be wonderful if it did
0 replies

admin Oct 5 2023 at 5:56PM on page 2

Would a local bonus program that allows additional units and/or FAR, in exchange for income-restricted units, meet the intent of incentivizing long-term affordability without providing a public subsidy? Please provide your thoughts.
0 replies

admin Oct 5 2023 at 5:55PM on page 1

Does a sliding scale Floor Area Ratio (FAR), as proposed, meet the intent of producing more attainable housing options by encouraging smaller unit sizes and offering additional FAR for additional units? Please provide your thoughts.
0 replies

Antero Rivasplata Oct 5 2023 at 12:17PM on page 2

Other
This should include inclusionary zoning requirements for developers whereby they are required to set aside a portion of their development for affordable units. This should be separate from a density bonus program because not all developers will opt to go for a bonus.
0 replies

Devin Lavelle Oct 5 2023 at 12:00PM on page 1

Other
Important to note that local governments are imposing some of these added challenges (higher fees & permitting challenges). Maybe that's a practical necessity, given the holistic collection of policy choices California has made, but it's important to at least acknowledge we have choices.
0 replies

Devin Lavelle Oct 5 2023 at 11:58AM on page 1

Other
I understand the need for not wanting to overbuild, unit-wise, in car-dependent neighborhoods, but why limit FAR, relative to the same number of units in the better connected neighborhoods? (ie, why isn't 2 units 0.8, across the board?)
2 replies
View all