Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[SacTownAndy]

Is this a separate project from the one that's already under construction on O St?

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...-underway.html

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by SacTownAndy

Is this a separate project from the one that's already under construction on O St?

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...-underway.html

Yes, a separate project that flew under the radar. I'm glad it will replace a surface parking lot. The whole area around 10th and 14th street, between N and O Streets is going to look quite different when the two State office projects and the 9-story condo mid-rise on 14th and N, which could break ground this summer, are complete.

[Korey]

Yeah I'm looking forward to seeing all of those projects go up. CADA is also currently working on streetscape improvements for O Street between 7th and 17th. I doubt the 14th and N condos (The Vantage) will start construction this summer. I'd guess groundbreaking in fall 2019 optimistically for that one, with it finishing up in 2021.

I think CADA has the funding it needs for 1717 S Street, the affordable housing project on the empty lot adjacent to the Ice Blocks. Hopefully we get some renderings and city approval soon.

As far as the general lack of high rise construction in Sac, I do agree that the Bay Area sucks up quite a bit of development attention. As long as we continue to infill and densify though, I'm good. The grid has gotten much more vibrant this past decade, even without high rises like the previous boom. 601 Cap Mall is an awkward spot, I'm ok with it not being super tall. Now, 301 Cap Mall or the Metropolitan site, I'd have serious issues with a sub 10 story proposal.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Yes, a separate project that flew under the radar. I'm glad it will replace a surface parking lot. The whole area around 10th and 14th street, between N and O Streets is going to look quite different when the two State office projects and the 9-story condo mid-rise on 14th and N, which could break ground this summer, are complete.

Yes this project will be the legislative offices home while the Capitol annex is replaced. I had confused this project with the other project on O street. I actually like the design of this. Simple but clean. You’re right, it kind of flew under the radar.

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by sactivity

I agree and I disagree... The median household income for the Sacramento metropolitan area as of 2017 is $68,000. This is pretty much the same as other metro areas like Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas, Houston. It is considerably MORE than Phoenix, Tampa, Miami, to mention a few. The problem, in my opinion, is not that no one in Sac makes enough money for the "return investment", it's the fact that we're only 90 miles from the richest goddam City on the planet. Sure, construction costs are high, but it's not stopping them from building everywhere else. Yes, they CAN make a sensible return in Sac, but they're hard-on points to the west, I'm afraid. They can make a much BIGGER return in a metropolitan area that makes over $101,000 per household per year and is only an hour or so away. There are other factors, of course. But it's not income alone. Its our big brother. He's too close.

While there is truth to this, the real culprit preventing Sacramento from enjoying a high-rise residential renaissance is that it remains an unproven market for the high-rise product.

If local developers could show a track-record for the product, investors content with a lower IRR would fund no matter what the return is in SF.

With investors, everyone's math is the same. What separates 'em is their aversion to risk. There are always tiers of investors with different return/risk requirements.

Sacramento is a tough town to sell to the markets because without a demonstrable track record of success, the perceived risk to investors is simply too high.

Baring some financial angel floating down from the heavens to deliver a new high-rise product (be that an individual or a group (e.g, CalPERS), this mid-rise cycle is going to have to show several successful examples before the markets are likely to be moved, and you're probably looking at least 5-10 years for that next cycle to occur naturally.

CalPERS is an idea candidate for such an angel with their site at 301 and it appears to be moving forward with precisely the kind of successful product Sacramento needs.

I've never funded a project through any of the huge state institutions, but my guess is they require a lower return than would a private capital group.

A state employee-funded entity could probably fund with an IRR in the 12-18% range, with 15% enough to pull trigger assuming some other pieces in place.

A private capital firm with no track-record in Sacramento market probably needs at least a 30% IRR (maybe even at stabilization!), before moving forward.

Another problem is California's legal and regulatory environment make condos too risky, and rentals demand extraordinarily high rents to reach viability. That keeps a lot of potential out-of-state investors passing on opportunities here.

Another issue is time. It takes 3-5 years (or freaking more) to entitle a site in SF. You're not going to go through all that for some low/mid-rise building with rents in the mid-$2.00/sf range. Only thing that makes financial sense is 30+ floors and $6.00+/sf. You going to be able to get over $6k/month for 1000sf in Sacramento anytime soon? These are generalities of course, but you get the idea.

While it typically takes 2-4 years in Sacramento, that's just not enough difference to move the market your way.

What can you do? How are the DOCO condos doing? Having those and 301 deliver would go a long way to prove high-rise viability.

Another thing I'd push for is a time-certain entitlement process for building over a certain height. It's one of the viability factors you can actually influence outside of outright subsidies. Perhaps combine that with relaxed affordable-housing credits to produce a time-certain entitlement process of 18 months.

Showing investors an 18-month permit process and two successful high-rise products would make a difference, but for part of that, you need a political will that may not exist.

Development is the art of the possible. It doesn't matter what you know for a "fact" to be true about your project and market. What is "possible" is what someone will underwrite it for.

I would imagine though that if CalPERS finds success at 301 they will be inclined to do more, and that may be the spark you need.

In the meantime though, keep sprawl in check, keep providing attractive community amenities (walkability, recreation, mobility...), reward density, lower regulatory costs (requiring solar for all new housing is a egregious, non-forced error that absolutely negatively impacts getting projects funded in California)... it all takes awhile.

Btw - dbrds studio (De Bartolo & Rimanic Design Studio) is the firm I brought to Sacramento for my West Sacramento project. You're going to love their work!

[snfenoc]

Interesting perspective SOT. I still think the cost of supply needs to come way down. Otherwise, Sacramento is going to need a lot more rich folk before we see a high-rise "boom".

Having said that, I agree that a couple successful, precedent-setting high-rise projects, along with a strong base of mid-rise projects, could grab investor attention. Sacramento Commons has begun its phased construction of a master planned development that would include 2 mid-rises to start, then 2-3 high-rises. If the mid-rises do well, maybe we can expect the developer to take a chance on at least one of those high-rises. What do you think?

You mentioned that you're working with DBRDS on a project in West Sac. I read that they're involved with another project in Midtown: D&S Development's 17 Central project. It seems like we might see a lot more from them??

Also, SKK Development is working with a De Bartolo company to bring a number of projects to Midtown (500+ units of housing). Is that De Bartolo company associated with DBRDS? Or are they separate (name only relation)?

Regardless, it seems like the De Bartolos have an interest in Sacramento.

[Dieler]

Originally Posted by Son of Travis

CalPERS is an idea candidate for such an angel with their site at 301 and it appears to be moving forward with precisely the kind of successful product Sacramento needs.

For what it's worth, a City Council Member recently told me that the CALPERS project at 301 Capitol Mall doesn't pencil out for them. I was told that it is hundreds (I think the number was 300) of millions of dollars short of being viable.

If true, that is truly unfortunate.

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Interesting perspective SOT. I still think the cost of supply needs to come way down. Otherwise, Sacramento is going to need a lot more rich folk before we see a high-rise "boom".

Having said that, I agree that a couple successful, precedent-setting high-rise projects, along with a strong base of mid-rise projects, could grab investor attention. Sacramento Commons has begun its phased construction of a master planned development that would include 2 mid-rises to start, then 2-3 high-rises. If the mid-rises do well, maybe we can expect the developer to take a chance on at least one of those high-rises. What do you think?

You mentioned that you're working with DBRDS on a project in West Sac. I read that they're involved with another project in Midtown: D&S Development's 17 Central project. It seems like we might see a lot more from them??

Also, SKK Development is working with a De Bartolo company to bring a number of projects to Midtown (500+ units of housing). Is that De Bartolo company associated with DBRDS? Or are they separate (name only relation)?

Regardless, it seems like the De Bartolos have an interest in Sacramento.

Hey Steve - Remember brother, everyone is really guessing in development. Some guesses are better, more informed than others, but they're all still guesses. Never take my comments as though I consider them some kind of end-all, be-all. I've had some success by "guessing" pretty well. That's all...

You are absolutely correct that construction costs are often prohibitive and that bang-for-buck is critical to attract investment. You are also correct that with those costs being so high right now, it's hard to find the sweet spot for high-rise viability in Sacramento, when $6.00/sf rents are a couple hours away.

For what it's worth, a City Council Member recently told me that the CALPERS project at 301 Capitol Mall doesn't pencil out for them. I was told that it is hundreds (I think the number was 300) of millions of dollars short of being viable.

Viability means different things to different people. To me it means (in essence) paying off my loan(s), paying back my equity partners at the agreed-upon rate, paying myself, and doing so in that order. Then either holding for a cash-flow return that is significantly better than I can get by letting money sit in bank or invested in securities. Or selling with a significant all-in return (IRR).

Of course, that's not the only reason you do this for a living. You really do what to contribute something good to your community and you want to be proud of your work as a place where people don't just live, they thrive.

As much as developers have a reputation to the contrary (albeit, sometimes richly deserved), most of the men and women I know who do this for a living feel the same exact way.

But all that comes with a cost.

$300 million short is a breathtakingly ghastly number and I am skeptical of it. Total project costs can't be much more than that (relatively).

Some of you may recall the project I worked on at Sac State. That project was coming in at between $500-$650 million, depending on ultimate scope.

That's a $150 million range, but that's due to scope of project. It's not "Here's what we're doing and we only need another 75% on top to make it work. That's not a problem is it?"

They're doing the right thing by mixing other high-end uses to fill those floors. In addition to great quality as demanded by that site, there's lots of potential capital sources that way. And you can bet CalPERS is watching DOCO with a keen eye. Probably waiting for those last units to move before deciding on a "final" plan. Wouldn't be surprised if that's part of the delay.

Maybe one too many "zeros" in that number. $30 million on a project of that size is negotiating... $300 million off: no one's even having a conversation. If indeed, $300 million, there is no hope for the project as presently envisioned.

You mentioned that you're working with DBRDS on a project in West Sac. I read that they're involved with another project in Midtown: D&S Development's 17 Central project. It seems like we might see a lot more from them??

Steve - Pauly De Bartolo, a Principal at the firm that bears his name, has moved to Sacramento. So yeah... you'll be seeing a lot more from his firm in the area.

Side note - the West Sacramento project (with dbrds) was approved and is ready for building permit, thus ending my participation as my new group seeks our own projects.

To pull the building permit, the City fees total nearly $1.5 MILLION.

As many of you know, Building Permit fees are often based on construction budget, which for this project is about $8 million. So... this means building fees (Doesn't include affordable housing fees or plan check fees or any other misc fees. This is the fee total presented by the City when the Building Permit was ready to issue.) represent just short of an ASTONISHING 19% of our construction costs!


And you wonder why housing is so expensive in California?

By contrast, we're about to close on a site in Reno. Same kind of thing, renovating an abandoned warehouse into 23 lofts/apartments (vs 40 in West Sacramento).

Our estimated fees? $19,000... all-in. $19 freaking thousand! And when I'm up there I can't help but notice that their roads seem to be well-maintained, schools seem to be fine, water and air not polluted...

But $19,000 vs $1,500,000... Jesus.

Where do you think the capital markets will invest?

[snfenoc]

$1,500,000.00 in permit fees for an $8,000,000.00 project? Wow! I thought CA cities were talking about lowering their fees (much to the chagrin of certain groups). They're gonna have to lower them a lot more. Fees that high can certainly make or break a project.

Now, that's the fee in West Sac. What about Sacramento? Does it have a similar fee schedule, or are its permitting fees more reasonable?

Having said all that, a 15-30% return on investment seems a tad excessive. I understand the profit motive, but I think investor expectations may have to come down a bit... along with construction costs. I mean, can you really just park that money elsewhere and get a similar or better rate of return? Maybe so, but that leaves me concerned about the future.

Everyone wants their piece of the pie, but the pie is only so big. And, regardless, people need housing. All people, not just the top 25%. I don't believe in a zero sum game; so I know that the pie can grow. But it can only grow so fast. I am very worried that the levels of profit taking from all involved (developers, investors, contractors, laborers, suppliers, and, yes, government) will freeze the whole system. Then, there will be no pie for anybody. I'm not advocating for Marxism or government control. I just think that the supply side's expectations need to be in line with reality. Sometimes, I think business can get a tad short-sighted. Yeah, they're making good money in the short-term, but what about 10, 20, 30+ years from now? It all seems unsustainable. Eventually, government will be called upon to "save the day," and then we'll all be left with little to no liberty.

Again, I'm concerned. Maybe my concerns are unfounded. I sure hope so.

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

$1,500,000.00 in permit fees for an $8,000,000.00 project? Wow! I thought CA cities were talking about lowering their fees (much to the chagrin of certain groups). They're gonna have to lower them a lot more. Fees that high can certainly make or break a project.

Now, that's the fee in West Sac. What about Sacramento? Does it have a similar fee schedule, or are its permitting fees more reasonable?

Having said all that, a 15-30% return on investment seems a tad excessive. I understand the profit motive, but I think investor expectations may have to come down a bit... along with construction costs. I mean, can you really just park that money elsewhere and get a similar or better rate of return? Maybe so, but that leaves me concerned about the future.

Everyone wants their piece of the pie, but the pie is only so big. And, regardless, people need housing. All people, not just the top 25%. I don't believe in a zero sum game; so I know that the pie can grow. But it can only grow so fast. I am very worried that the levels of profit taking from all involved (developers, investors, contractors, laborers, suppliers, and government) will freeze the whole system. Then, there will be no pie for anybody. I'm not advocating for Marxism or government control. I just think that the supply side's expectations need to be in line with reality. Sometimes, I think business can get a tad short-sighted. Yeah, they're making good money in the short-term, but what about 10, 20, 30+ years from now? It all seems unsustainable. Eventually, government will be called upon to "save the day" and then we'll all be left without liberty.

Again, I'm concerned. Maybe my concerns are unfounded. I sure hope so.

Always remember that your project competes with every other investment to deliver return.

Investors then weigh the risk involved with your specific project relative to the projected return to make the funding decision, but it's all one, big ball of money your competing for.

If investors find they can get a greater return relative to risk by letting it sit in bank (or stocks, or annuities, or any other investment opportunity with less risk), then that's what they'll do. The financial markets in this regard are the very definition of "self-regulating."

Development is inherently risky. Maybe one project in 20 actually gets to permit... maybe. Architects still have to be paid. Engineers still have to be paid. Environmental still has to be paid... everyone still needs to be paid, and the project most likely won't get built (Obviously, you stop it well before full entitlement if you start feeling the wind blowing against you, but you get the idea.).

Typically, those kinds of up-front costs are paid by the developer him/herself (called the "Sponsor.") and/or equity funding. If this project doesn't make it, as is the case for the overwhelming number of projects, then that money is lost forever.

So yeah... the equity teams are going to demand a premium. And for an unproven market like Sacramento? That premium is going to be even higher than would otherwise be typical. I am, of course, guessing at 30% IRR, but I know what equity costs me... 15% and up. And that's for a proven model in a proven market, from people with whom I have a good relationship (And "good relationship" with an equity team is the result of making them money over the years lol!).

Also remember... equity teams are typically not long-term investors. They want to put their money in, get project stabilized, get paid, then get the Hell out so they can reinvest those proceeds in another development.

Over time, the IRR typically goes down (time value of money). So to get biggest bang for the investment, and to reinvest their funds, equity often only uses short-term metrics to evaluate a project.

Every developer will choose the cheapest equity they can to fund project. So if an equity lender prices themselves out of market... they quickly understand that and will lower required returns.

Even so, I'll bet 30%'s not too far off for private equity in high-rise residential in Sacramento and could be easily be higher.

It's all about risk.

PS - I recommended my old firm challenge those fees... just un-freaking-believable. Originally our affordable housing fees were $255,000, but I challenged and had them reduced to $51,000. So we'll see...

[snfenoc]

Your insight is very much appreciated. I'm merely a development "buff"; so my thoughts are limited to speculation, ideology and what I feel. It is nice to have a "forumer" who can actually give some real world, experience-based facts. Albeit, they are very sobering facts. Maybe those on this forum, who wonder why Sacramento does not look like Manhattan, will take them to heart.

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Son of Travis

Side note - the West Sacramento project (with dbrds) was approved and is ready for building permit, thus ending my participation as my new group seeks our own projects.

To pull the building permit, the City fees total nearly $1.5 MILLION.

As many of you know, Building Permit fees are often based on construction budget, which for this project is about $8 million. So... this means building fees (Doesn't include affordable housing fees or plan check fees or any other misc fees. This is the fee total presented by the City when the Building Permit was ready to issue.) represent just short of an ASTONISHING 19% of our construction costs!


And you wonder why housing is so expensive in California?

By contrast, we're about to close on a site in Reno. Same kind of thing, renovating an abandoned warehouse into 23 lofts/apartments (vs 40 in West Sacramento).

Our estimated fees? $19,000... all-in. $19 freaking thousand! And when I'm up there I can't help but notice that their roads seem to be well-maintained, schools seem to be fine, water and air not polluted...

But $19,000 vs $1,500,000... Jesus.

Where do you think the capital markets will invest?

That is unbelievable, how is there so much disparity and why hasn't this been talked about as a HUGE issue in all of this discussion of the housing crisis in our state?

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Your insight is very much appreciated. I'm merely a development "buff"; so my thoughts are limited to speculation, ideology and what I feel. It is nice to have a "forumer" who can actually give some real world, experience-based facts. Albeit, they are very sobering facts. Maybe those on this forum, who wonder why Sacramento does not look like Manhattan, will take them to heart.

Ha! No worries Steve, lotsa guys in this biz run their business with far less lol...

That is unbelievable, how is there so much disparity and why hasn't this been talked about as a HUGE issue in all of this discussion of the housing crisis in our state?

Absolutely true. If someone can show me how to attach a .pdf, I can clean up some personal info and post the fee schedules we received to pull Building Permit on Feb 25: one for $531,937; one for $669,987; and one for $257,848.

They've already paid about $50k in fees, plus another $51k on-top on this for the Affordable Housing fee. PGE will probably hit them with more as well.

This is another reason reasonably-priced housing is so difficult in California. Many of these fees are based on $/sf or $/unit (which drives the engineering/construction budget that is used to base fees on). So if you're going to get hit with these fixed fees anyway, might as well try to maximize your return (and limit risk) by building high-end. For the most part, your fees are the same no matter what...

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Dieler

For what it's worth, a City Council Member recently told me that the CALPERS project at 301 Capitol Mall doesn't pencil out for them.

If that’s the case it won’t move forward but hopefully they sell the property so that a mid rise residential project like Shornstein’s 601 CM proposal can be built on the site.

[j_deguzman10]

Originally Posted by Son of Travis

While there is truth to this, the real culprit preventing Sacramento from enjoying a high-rise residential renaissance is that it remains an unproven market for the high-rise product.

If local developers could show a track-record for the product, investors content with a lower IRR would fund no matter what the return is in SF.

With investors, everyone's math is the same. What separates 'em is their aversion to risk. There are always tiers of investors with different return/risk requirements.

Sacramento is a tough town to sell to the markets because without a demonstrable track record of success, the perceived risk to investors is simply too high.

Baring some financial angel floating down from the heavens to deliver a new high-rise product (be that an individual or a group (e.g, CalPERS), this mid-rise cycle is going to have to show several successful examples before the markets are likely to be moved, and you're probably looking at least 5-10 years for that next cycle to occur naturally.

CalPERS is an idea candidate for such an angel with their site at 301 and it appears to be moving forward with precisely the kind of successful product Sacramento needs.

I've never funded a project through any of the huge state institutions, but my guess is they require a lower return than would a private capital group.

A state employee-funded entity could probably fund with an IRR in the 12-18% range, with 15% enough to pull trigger assuming some other pieces in place.

A private capital firm with no track-record in Sacramento market probably needs at least a 30% IRR (maybe even at stabilization!), before moving forward.

Another problem is California's legal and regulatory environment make condos too risky, and rentals demand extraordinarily high rents to reach viability. That keeps a lot of potential out-of-state investors passing on opportunities here.

Another issue is time. It takes 3-5 years (or freaking more) to entitle a site in SF. You're not going to go through all that for some low/mid-rise building with rents in the mid-$2.00/sf range. Only thing that makes financial sense is 30+ floors and $6.00+/sf. You going to be able to get over $6k/month for 1000sf in Sacramento anytime soon? These are generalities of course, but you get the idea.

While it typically takes 2-4 years in Sacramento, that's just not enough difference to move the market your way.

There are so many obstacles to even try to build here in Sacramento, and it's an interesting point that SOT brought up that development fees for his midrise totaled 1,500,000 alone. This means that even some midrise projects might not even be financially feasible, especially in the urban core around K and J where we actually need density.

I wish that developers did something like they did with Fremont Park; there are a flurry of development projects like 1430 Q, 16 Powerhouse, The Ice Blocks, etc. Whenever I pass by there it's like a vibrant, populated, and happy area where there are cool restaurants and a park right across the street. There's even a grocery market nearby (Market 515) so people can just take a JUMP Bike there from their homes around Freemont. They should do something like that with Chavez Plaza and Capitol Park because those areas are completely dead when there is not a Kings game or work hours.

[j_deguzman10]

BTW, I encourage all of you guys to vote for the Waterfront Competition being held until March 20h. I checked it out yesterday and today and there are some really cool designs, my personal favorite being SACTO H20 by Perkins/Eastman.

The link to vote is down below.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/WIM

[ozone]

Originally Posted by j_deguzman10

BTW, I encourage all of you guys to vote for the Waterfront Competition being held until March 20h. I checked it out yesterday and today and there are some really cool designs, my personal favorite being SACTO H20 by Perkins/Eastman.

The link to vote is down below.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/WIM

Meh they all seem rather lame to me.

[snfenoc]

Apartment and retail project planned near Broadway
By Ben van der Meer – Staff Writer, Sacramento Business Journal
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen..._news_headline

An empty lot near Broadway in Sacramento has an application for a new multistory project of apartments and retail.

Steve Ruegg, of Campus Plaza Associates in Berkeley, has filed plans for a project called Franklin Mixed Use at 2617 Franklin Blvd...

Other Information
Number of Floors: 5 (including mezzanine level)
Number of Units: 39 (33 x 1br and 6 x 2br)
Ground Floor Retail: 6,600 square feet
Developer: Campus Plaza Associates

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Son of Travis

Always remember that your project competes with every other investment to deliver return.

Investors then weigh the risk involved with your specific project relative to the projected return to make the funding decision, but it's all one, big ball of money your competing for.

If investors find they can get a greater return relative to risk by letting it sit in bank (or stocks, or annuities, or any other investment opportunity with less risk), then that's what they'll do. The financial markets in this regard are the very definition of "self-regulating."

Development is inherently risky. Maybe one project in 20 actually gets to permit... maybe. Architects still have to be paid. Engineers still have to be paid. Environmental still has to be paid... everyone still needs to be paid, and the project most likely won't get built (Obviously, you stop it well before full entitlement if you start feeling the wind blowing against you, but you get the idea.).

Typically, those kinds of up-front costs are paid by the developer him/herself (called the "Sponsor.") and/or equity funding. If this project doesn't make it, as is the case for the overwhelming number of projects, then that money is lost forever.

So yeah... the equity teams are going to demand a premium. And for an unproven market like Sacramento? That premium is going to be even higher than would otherwise be typical. I am, of course, guessing at 30% IRR, but I know what equity costs me... 15% and up. And that's for a proven model in a proven market, from people with whom I have a good relationship (And "good relationship" with an equity team is the result of making them money over the years lol!).

Also remember... equity teams are typically not long-term investors. They want to put their money in, get project stabilized, get paid, then get the Hell out so they can reinvest those proceeds in another development.

Over time, the IRR typically goes down (time value of money). So to get biggest bang for the investment, and to reinvest their funds, equity often only uses short-term metrics to evaluate a project.

Every developer will choose the cheapest equity they can to fund project. So if an equity lender prices themselves out of market... they quickly understand that and will lower required returns.

Even so, I'll bet 30%'s not too far off for private equity in high-rise residential in Sacramento and could be easily be higher.

It's all about risk.

PS - I recommended my old firm challenge those fees... just un-freaking-believable. Originally our affordable housing fees were $255,000, but I challenged and had them reduced to $51,000. So we'll see...

Incredible and sad at the same time, because I know in the state the government agencies have blown so much smoke up their backsides about how important they are that they justify everything they do and will never back down. Planners in the state universities are taught that their jobs and policies are so important for the 'health, safety, and welfare' of the residents and they use that for almost any justification for anything they do. Fees and must be justified and collected to satisfy the monster and pay the salaries and pensions. I've got a small project for a house right now, just paid $1100 for a pre-review to ask 3 questions. They said I had a total of four hours of time for that fee and if they went over it would be $225 per hour.

[gillynova]

Originally Posted by SacTownAndy

Is this a separate project from the one that's already under construction on O St?

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...-underway.html

I haven't been on this thread for awhile and but wow! This building is looking good and will be great for Sac!