Council upholds Curtis Park Village plan: approves 31-house flex parcel, denies PUD amendment to remove multifamily site

The Sacramento City Council voted to approve staff recommendations on the Crocker Village Residential Development appeal, approving entitlements for a 31-unit single‑unit dwelling project on the 2.49‑acre “flex” parcel and denying the applicant’s requested amendment that would remove the remaining 2.37‑acre market‑rate multifamily designation from the Curtis Park Village planned unit development (PUD).

City planning staff had recommended approval of the flex‑parcel entitlements and denial of a PUD amendment that would eliminate the PUD’s multifamily housing designation, saying removal would conflict with the PUD’s vision and the city’s general plan policies. “This item is a request to develop 2 distinct vacant parcels within the Curtis Park Village planned unit development,” said Jenny Abbas of the Community Development Department during the staff presentation.

The appeal centered on whether the applicant’s proposed ‘‘court homes’’ (bungalow/cottage‑court form) are a form of multifamily housing permitted by the PUD and state law, or whether they should be treated as single‑unit dwellings disallowed on the multifamily parcel. Appellant counsel Daniel Friedman argued that court homes are allowed and that state rules such as the Housing Accountability Act limit the city’s ability to deny housing projects. “This is not about the provision of affordable housing,” Friedman told the council. “This is about building form.” He urged the council to view the court‑home form as consistent with the PUD and the 2040 General Plan’s “missing middle” objectives.

Staff and the city attorney said the city had reviewed the appellant’s claims and consulted with the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Abby staff described HCD’s technical assistance, and the staff report — and an HCD letter included in the agenda packet — concluded the city’s denial of the PUD amendment was consistent with state housing law. The staff report summarized the PUD history and contended the remaining multifamily acreage had been intended for market‑rate multifamily and for transit‑oriented uses.

Public comment split along familiar lines. Neighbors who support preserving the multifamily designation and higher density near transit argued that multifamily housing better serves renters, students and lower‑income households and that the remaining PUD acreage was specifically planned for multifamily uses. Rob Weiner, a long‑time Curtis Park resident who works in affordable housing, told the council he opposed treating the court‑home design as equivalent to multifamily. Supporters of the applicant, including representatives of neighborhood homeowners and the developer, argued the proposed courtyard homes fit the PUD’s context and the general plan’s missing‑middle goals.

After public comment and rebuttal from the applicant, Councilmember Jennings moved to approve the staff recommendation; Vice Mayor Talamantes seconded. The council approved the staff recommendation on the motion.

The council record shows one recusal by Councilmember Kaplan for this item. The action result directs that the flex parcel may proceed with the approved entitlements and that the proposed PUD schematic planning amendment to eliminate the market‑rate multifamily designation is denied; staff will return with the appropriate findings and conditions in writing.

What happened next: The council’s decision preserves the PUD’s remaining market‑rate multifamily designation while allowing the flex parcel entitlements to proceed. The applicant has argued additional legal claims under Government Code section 65589.5 (the Housing Accountability Act) and related provisions; the staff packet and HCD correspondence are cited in the council record on why staff recommended denial of the PUD amendment.

Council action and what it means: The council’s approval of the flex parcel entitlements permits the developer to move forward with the 31 single‑unit dwellings approved for that parcel, subject to conditions listed in the staff report; the denial of the PUD amendment preserves the city’s prior multifamily allocation in the PUD. The matter may affect how court‑home building forms are interpreted under local PUD guidelines in future cases.