Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[TowerDistrict]

slightly more than that upon full buildout of Township 9 and the Railyards.

both those developments are huge and instill a paranoid fear from the public.
But at the same time, they pale in comparison to the scale of regional suburban
growth in the last decade.

[SacUrbnPlnr]

slightly more than that upon full buildout of Township 9 and the Railyards.

both those developments are huge and instill a paranoid fear from the public.
But at the same time, they pale in comparison to the scale of regional suburban
growth in the last decade.


Good points. By comparison, Sacramento added about 26,000 housing units between 2000 and 2007, the highest level of housing construction in any decade in the City's history (although more housing units were added in the 1960s, this was due to the merger of the cities of North Sacramento and Sacramento in 1964). Most of thse new housing unit were built in North Natomas.

[econgrad]

oops..screwd this post up..sorry.

[wburg]

Hi all! I had to curtail my posting to concentrate on schoolwork (it seemed like I was spending a lot of time here) but the semester is over so I thought I'd drop in and say "hi."

That's an interesting question posted a while upthread: why is downtown split into three council districts? I'll have to go do some research on that, but my first guess would be because there was a long period when the central city was so unwanted that the only way to ensure it got some representation was to split it up. The districts do split along very distinct lines: downtown, southside (there was a time when 'southside' referred to anywhere between Capitol and Broadway, roughly) and the neighborhoods along the northern edge of midtown (Boulevard Park, Winn Park, Marshall School) that were always relatively fancy and perhaps more oriented towards East Sacramento before the freeway went in.

[innov8]

Some color renderings are out of the 831 L Street proposal. It's scheduled to
be heard before the Design Commission on the 19th. The proposal is to demolish
the existing two-story office building with rooftop parking and develop a mid-rise building,
consisting of a thirteen story office building with ground floor retail and
internal parking or a fifteen story, 173 residential units with ground floor
retail and internal parking.


http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/1555/831lstreet1ej3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/3453/831lstreet2oldbldgvj8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Current structure that would be demolished.

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/2912/831lstreet3officeyx0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Office

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7466/831lstreet4officedc9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Office

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/226/831lstreet5officebl0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Office

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5087/831lstreet6resld1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Residential

[arod74]

Good to see you posting again wburg. It's nice to have the occasional devil's advocate view among us who are very much pro-development.

[arod74]

Jeez I hope that 831L proposal goes office because the residential renderings look pretty boring and fugly...

[TowerDistrict]

hey innov8, last time you posted that 831 L proposal there wasn't a
residential alternative was there? i thought it was all office space?

i would love for it to end up a residential project, but they're gonna have
to find some gutsy buyers to live right there.

And is it just me, or is the office alt. a much better looking rendering?

[innov8]

I agree. The renderings are also not as detailed for the residential as they are for
the office ones. I also really hate the exposed garage in the residential
renderings facing 9th Street, I think I'm going to send off a letter to see if they can hide that crap.

TD, this was what they proposed earlier this year, not much changed from what I can tell.
I also would love a residential project, maybe half and half is an option?

[Bob Lablaw]

I was driving up 8th Street this evening about 6:00pm and took a quick look at 621CM. I noticed, to my surprise, that there was a section of the top wedge of the building that had a rather distinctive blue-green light. There wasn't much of it, and I thought that perhaps there was a Fox light pointing up on the building, but after I picked my wife up and was driving back down 7th Street, I saw the same blue-green light on the back side of the wedge.

It was only one small section (about 10% or so of the entire surface) but it was bright! Plus, it seemed to be "shimmering" rather than just being a solid static light. My wife thought that there might have been some arc welding going on, but I doubt anyone would be arc welding up there after 6:00pm. Plus, I had over two minutes to watch it and the light never ceased, which I think would be likely had it been a welder.

Anybody else notice any lighting strangeness going on at 621CM? Maybe they're testing whatever feature this wedge is supposed to be?

[ltsmotorsport]

831 L looks good in office form, but that residential design is terrible, and not just cause the rendering is less detailed. Like innov8 said, I think a 50/50, res/office project would be great, with the office design used.

[econgrad]

I'm hoping for residential. Although that picture does make it pretty drab looking! I bet it will go through many changes.

[innov8]

I was driving up 8th Street this evening about 6:00pm and took a quick look at 621CM. I noticed, to my surprise, that there was a section of the top wedge of the building that had a rather distinctive blue-green light. There wasn't much of it, and I thought that perhaps there was a Fox light pointing up on the building, but after I picked my wife up and was driving back down 7th Street, I saw the same blue-green light on the back side of the wedge.

It was only one small section (about 10% or so of the entire surface) but it was bright! Plus, it seemed to be "shimmering" rather than just being a solid static light. My wife thought that there might have been some arc welding going on, but I doubt anyone would be arc welding up there after 6:00pm. Plus, I had over two minutes to watch it and the light never ceased, which I think would be likely had it been a welder.

Anybody else notice any lighting strangeness going on at 621CM? Maybe they're testing whatever feature this wedge is supposed to be?

Yeah Bob, I saw the same thing last night. I was heading up 7th towards
Broadway and saw it out of the corner of my eye while turning and it was
shimmering like you said. I could see it for as far as the Sutterville bridge
while I was walking my dog around 6pm. I went out of my way to walk over
from Cutis Park to see if it was still visible.

A different kind of lighting for sure... I can't remember seeing exterior lighting
like this before.

[wburg]

Considering 831 L's location the architects had better be up for a challenge: there is landmark architecture on all sides, including the state capitol grounds, the Unruh state office building, the Capitol Park Hotel and the Kress Building. The height of the building is governed by the Capitol View Protection Act. Hopefully a new building on that corner will help step up the preservation and reuse of adjoining buildings like the Bel-Vue and the aforementioned Kress.

I agree that an exposed garage should be facing the alley rather than Ninth Street.

[innov8]

The back side’s lovely :rolleyes: Final approval for the Metropolitan has been
rescheduled for Jan. 16th so the project can meet some conditions asked by the Design Commission.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/2950/metropolitanbackrenderiym9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/4896/metropolitanmorerenderiap9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[ozone]

I was driving up 8th Street this evening about 6:00pm and took a quick look at 621CM. I noticed, to my surprise, that there was a section of the top wedge of the building that had a rather distinctive blue-green light. There wasn't much of it, and I thought that perhaps there was a Fox light pointing up on the building, but after I picked my wife up and was driving back down 7th Street, I saw the same blue-green light on the back side of the wedge.

It was only one small section (about 10% or so of the entire surface) but it was bright! Plus, it seemed to be "shimmering" rather than just being a solid static light. My wife thought that there might have been some arc welding going on, but I doubt anyone would be arc welding up there after 6:00pm. Plus, I had over two minutes to watch it and the light never ceased, which I think would be likely had it been a welder.

Anybody else notice any lighting strangeness going on at 621CM? Maybe they're testing whatever feature this wedge is supposed to be?

Check out what's going on:
http://www.621capitolmall.com/pdfs/SacTownBlue.pdf

[TowerDistrict]

thanks for posting those renderings innov8.

the Metro is a pretty good looking building. it seems very well thought out at
the street level. I really like the driveway garage entry. Gives the ground floor
interiors more windows and gives better visibility for pedestrians and drivers.

[innov8]

Thanks TD... I agree, the whole ground floor area looks great. Lots of
windows creating an open feeling. I'm not sure about the back side though, it
feels plain to me... like some other towers in this town.

[ltsmotorsport]

I don't think the Metro's design is gonna blow anyone away, nor did I ever expect it too. It is however the perfect location for what Saca is proposing.

[Cynikal]

I personally dislike the metropolitan and cathedral square on the design aspects. The look cheap and "pull out of the drawer". I know the city wants to put something in the ground at all cost but I don't think this is good for the overall urban design of the city. These 2 buildings will be juxtaposed against 2 of the best examples of terracotta buildings in the city. Poor choice of placement.

[Majin]

They look perfectly fine to me. I'll definately be buying a unit if metro is built.

[creamcityleo79]

I like them, too. We don't need every building to be a work of art. People are people downtown and the more middle income residents we get down there at an affordable cost, the better it will be for the city!

[sacamenna kid]

I like them, too. We don't need every building to be a work of art. People are people downtown and the more middle income residents we get down there at an affordable cost, the better it will be for the city!

Was just down in San Diego and saw a lot of the stuff they've put up there over the past five years (some still under construction). Amazing. You can't be a purist if you want progress.

[Bob Lablaw]

I can definitely see both viewpoints on the exterior design of Metro and Cathedral Square, but I think I'm leaning (slightly) toward Cynical's thinking. The developers can (and should) do a little better.

I'm happy that there's development afoot, and neuhickman79 is correct - getting people downtown at a reasonable price is good for the city. But, it wouldn't take a heck of a lot to really punch up those buildings. Perhaps a different material selection here, or a softened architectural line there.

I am not suggesting that we need anything so "iconic" (read: gimmicky) as the neon spire at the Esquire Tower (although I feel that was the right gimmick at the right location). And, even though I am aware that not every building can be its own unique little snowflake on the city skyline, we'll have to live with these plain vanilla towers (the current renderings) for our lifetimes. I hope the developers can find a way to add some interest and have it pencil out financially.

[wburg]

Will the units at Metro be ones that folks in the middle-income range can buy? Will there be affordable or mid-income units, or is it all market rate? Do we have some idea of what these units will cost?

"Middle-income" in Sacramento means a single person making around $54,000 a year--"low-income" around $36,000. Folks in those income ranges can afford rents or mortgage payments of about $1500 or $1000 a month. Would those be feasible in the Met?

[TowerDistrict]

My semi-educated guesses...

Will the units at Metro be ones that folks in the middle-income range can buy?

Not without a bit of stretching. I'm sure a middle-income couple could potentially.

Will there be affordable or mid-income units, or is it all market rate?

Market rate. I can't imagine this building would be feasible unless it is either
heavily subsidized or 100% market rate.

Do we have some idea of what these units will cost?

No. Somewhere below the Towers and Aura. Maybe around $300-$400 per sq. ft. ??

"Middle-income" in Sacramento means a single person making around $54,000
a year--"low-income" around $36,000. Folks in those income ranges can afford
rents or mortgage payments of about $1500 or $1000 a month. Would those be
feasible in the Met?

Not by that definition. Especially not after monthly HOA dues are added to that.

[urban_encounter]

They look perfectly fine to me. I'll definately be buying a unit if metro is built.

I don't think it will look that bad either. And the views from the Cathedral Square looking south are going to be sweet.. The Cathedral, the Capitol DOME...

I just wish something would get built...:shrug:

[jsf8278]

Any news on Cathedral Square? On the St. Anton website it still says its under development.

[wburg]

My semi-educated guesses...

Will the units at Metro be ones that folks in the middle-income range can buy?

Not without a bit of stretching. I'm sure a middle-income couple could potentially.


A "middle-income couple", a household of two people, according to Sacramento's definitions, makes about $52,000 a year. Two people who are individually in the mid-income range, generally DINKs or empty nesters (that target market for downtown living everyone wants), making around $80-100K a year combined, bumps up into the "high" category.

I suppose I'm just a bit resistant to characterizing places like the Metropolitan and the Cathedral building as places for "middle-income residents" when they're definitely aimed at upper income brackets. Not that that is inherently a problem--there is a market for swank places downtown waiting to be filled. But let's define the Met as what it is--a fancy place for folks with fancy incomes.

[TowerDistrict]

I'm under no disillusions. In fact that building has been more commonly
characterized as "middle-up" which is accurate in my opinion. Buying a
newly constructed home has always been something for the priveledged
or successful. If you're looking to get into a home at a middle income range,
then there is always going to be some opportunities in the resale market -
especially in older fixers.

Besides, no developer would want to build something right now that couldn't
potentially get the most return for their investment. Most homebuilders are
struggling to sell at a loss right now.

I'm pretty sure that high-rise living for "the people" is only viable in China
at the moment. And we don't want to get into how they're achieving that.

[Dakotasteve66]

I don't know if this is new news to anyone, but it was the first time I'd seen it.

There's a big red sign on the 6th floor, west side of the Citizen Hotel claiming a Fall 2008 opening.

And there is now a leasing office and website for the Cooper Union building. The leasing office is on 16th, just south of the Cooper Union building. And the website is 1600HLofts.com

[innov8]

Mmmm, Well... who saw this coming? I'm sure it's 10 years or more down the road if it happens.

Westfield shopping for new mall site
Speculation centers on I-5 locations
By Kelly Johnson of The Sacramento Business Journal

Friday, December 21, 2007

The owner of the Roseville and downtown Sacramento malls is quietly pursuing property along Interstate 5 for a large center to be built years down the road, according to Northern California retail and real estate players.

"That is something they're strongly investigating," said Matt Holmes, a principal with retail brokerage Retail West Inc. in San Francisco.

"Although Westfield is always looking for and evaluating opportunities for growth of our portfolio, the company declines to comment on market rumor/speculation," said Catharine Dickey, Westfield spokeswoman.

It's not clear if Westfield has pinpointed a site, or whether the mall would be within the city of Sacramento or in the unincorporated county. Sources said one area Westfield is considering is near the Interstate 5 interchange planned for Metro Air Park. That development slowly taking shape on the east edge of Sacramento International Airport is zoned by Sacramento County for 21 million square feet of warehouses, offices, retail and high-tech space, and a golf course.

Marvin "Buzz" Oates, a partner in Metro Air Park who owns about 800 acres there, said he had not heard from Westfield about property there.

Officials with the city and county of Sacramento said Westfield had not approached them with the idea. Without having some idea of where Westfield wants to land, officials said they couldn't speculate whether they would be receptive to a development proposal.

Jim Teare of Colliers International confirmed he represents Westfield in looking for potential mall sites in Northern California, and has done so for 1½ years. He declined to comment further.

Reaction to the possibility of a North Natomas mall was mixed. The area already has a tremendous amount of retail and much more is planned, including projects of almost a half-million square feet each proposed by Enlow Ose and by Angelo G. Tsakopoulos and his father, George.

But the area has no department stores. Also, any major mall wouldn't be built for years. By then, housing built in the corridor from Sacramento to Sutter County could support more shops and restaurants.

Different stores, new competition
Once North Natomas develops further -- and if Metro Air Park and the 577- acre Greenbriar housing project proposed north of Interstate 5 are built -- "you could certainly justify a mall," said Ken Noack Jr., a retail broker with Grubb & Ellis Co.

A mall would attract a "different complexion of tenants" from those found at the various big-box and neighborhood shopping centers now open in North Natomas and others that are proposed, he noted. But nearby centers, including the big-box Woodland Gateway center that developer Paul Petrovich is building, could compete for shoppers and tenants.

"It will be who can build a better mousetrap" and when, Noack said. Westfield Galleria at Roseville and Arden Fair mall in Sacramento could "be impacted a little bit," he said.

Westfield Downtown Plaza, which the Australia-based shopping center giant plans to remodel possibly with the addition of Target and a grocery store, might have to be revamped to survive with another mall so close in Natomas. Westfield officials said at a recent city Design Commission meeting that they might consider a more extensive overhaul of the mall down the road, one that could add housing.

Strategy and clout
Perhaps that later overhaul could turn Downtown Plaza into a value-oriented center or a mixed-use center with a healthy dose of housing and offices, real estate sources said.

"You don't need another mall in this trade area," Holmes said. Westfield, though, must think Natomas needs some department stores, he added.

Bob Dong, a retail broker with the Terranomics division of BT Commercial, doesn't understand why Westfield would consider a mall in North Natomas now.

"There's just too many unknowns at this point," he said. Those unknowns include what the federal government will decide about Natomas' flood risks and levee conditions, whether customers are willing to buy homes near the airport, and when the housing slump will end, allowing renewed home construction. Most developers Dong works with are not looking that far down the road, he said.

A population of 250,000 is needed to support a mall, Dong said. South Natomas and North Natomas had a combined estimated 2006 population of about 84,000.

Having three shopping centers in this market would give Westfield tremendous clout with retailers, Holmes said. Getting a spot in the Galleria would be the initial draw, but retailers might be enticed to locate in multiple Westfield centers in this market. That might preclude those retailers from locating elsewhere -- perhaps even keeping them out of the retail space planned for The Railyards, the huge industrial redevelopment project just north of downtown Sacramento.

"I think the railyard's in trouble if this thing happens," Holmes said.

Noack disagreed. A mall and the railyard would pursue different types of retailers, he said.

Even real estate sources who think Natomas couldn't support a mall said they like the idea of another amenity that could draw people to the city of Sacramento.

[TowerDistrict]

1.5 years ago was when the railyards deal really appeared to be going through.

But that's the only part of this article that makes any sense. Sure Westfield wants
to make sure that the Railyards is a failure, but a mall in Natomas ensures even
less traffic for the DTP. Every professional in that article seemed confounded with
Westfield's strategy for different reasons...

And I highly doubt that the City will allow them to start any construction on a new
project in the City limits without first addressing the issues with the DTP.

[creamcityleo79]

1.5 years ago was when the railyards deal really appeared to be going through.

But that's the only part of this article that makes any sense. Sure Westfield wants
to make sure that the Railyards is a failure, but a mall in Natomas ensures even
less traffic for the DTP. Every professional in that article seemed confounded with
Westfield's strategy for different reasons...

And I highly doubt that the City will allow them to start any construction on a new
project in the City limits without first addressing the issues with the DTP.
Seriously...I wouldn't let them do it! We need the 2 divas to come out quick on this one (Lauren Hammond and Bonnie Pannel) and shut this sh!t down before it starts!

[TowerDistrict]

we've spoke on the forum about how downtown should perhaps have it's
own council district. But this is a shiny example to me of why that's not
really true.

DTP is in Tretheway's district and so is Natomas. If you were him, would
you allow Westfield to expand into another area that directly competes
with the languishing Downtown Plaza?

I guess it all depends on whether or not Westfield tries to aquire land
inside the city limits. If they grab something outside city boundries and
in Sacramento County, they'll probably get to do whatever they want.

[TWAK]

Dam, low income is 36 thousand? So what would 13 put me? (and 12k untaxed). Why can't they make a rental tower? Like a 2 bdr would be around 900 bucks. That is how you get economic diversity downtown!

[creamcityleo79]

Dam, low income is 36 thousand? So what would 13 put me? (and 12k untaxed). Why can't they make a rental tower? Like a 2 bdr would be around 900 bucks. That is how you get economic diversity downtown!
You'd have to get a lot of subsidies to have a $900 2br in a tower DT.

[wburg]

Dam, low income is 36 thousand? So what would 13 put me? (and 12k untaxed). Why can't they make a rental tower? Like a 2 bdr would be around 900 bucks. That is how you get economic diversity downtown!

As of 2006, $36,600 is low-income for one person. The next category is "very low income," 50% of median income, or around $23,500 a year. That 15% inclusionary housing law you hear so much about (which normally doesn't apply to infill housing unless they use public funding) is two-thirds VLI, one-third LI. 5% of all low-income housing, or 0.45% of all housing, is supposed to be ELI, "Extremely Low Income." That's the category for folks making $12K-18K a year, roughly the amount one makes on SSI or Social Security. Downtown Sacramento's SRO hotels, for example, are around $350-500 a month, and for the most part those don't even qualify as studio apartments: most are just rooms, without bathrooms or kitchens.

I got a look at one of the low-income units at 1801 L Street yesterday as part of a facility tour. It's a one-bedroom, around 500 feet. Nothing spectacular in the way of furnishing, but they do include a compact washer/dryer instead of a communal laundry room. They rent for around $650 to those who qualify (folks making around $20K-24K) while the market-rate 1br units are around $1100 and identical in furnishings. Sotiris mentioned he was kind of proud that his residents included people who wait tables at nearby restaurants and one guy who works at the car wash across the street, as well as folks who get their Lexus washed across the street. He also claimed they are 93-95% full, although I got a postcard from 1801's leasing office a while back (bulk mailed) offering a free month's rent to anyone who wanted to move into their units.

[TWAK]

so no towers can be 900 bucks for a 2bdr. What about a regular apartment in downtown? Everywhere I looked seem to be over 1k for 2 beds. I'm gonna have a 3rd roommate, are there even 3 bdr apartments in DT? I looked at the place behind the wels fargo tower, I think it was 1500 or something for 3 bdr, still waay to much for me.

[creamcityleo79]

so no towers can be 900 bucks for a 2bdr. What about a regular apartment in downtown? Everywhere I looked seem to be over 1k for 2 beds. I'm gonna have a 3rd roommate, are there even 3 bdr apartments in DT? I looked at the place behind the wels fargo tower, I think it was 1500 or something for 3 bdr, still waay to much for me.
Try the CADA Apartments...http://www.cadanet.org/homepage.html

[innov8]

we've spoke on the forum about how downtown should perhaps have it's
own council district. But this is a shiny example to me of why that's not
really true.

DTP is in Tretheway's district and so is Natomas. If you were him, would
you allow Westfield to expand into another area that directly competes
with the languishing Downtown Plaza?

I guess it all depends on whether or not Westfield tries to aquire land
inside the city limits. If they grab something outside city boundries and
in Sacramento County, they'll probably get to do whatever they want.


I wonder what the DT Plaza would sell for these days? Back in 1999 when
Westfield bought the property as a package with the Eastland Center,
West Covina Mall they paid $127,348,000 for both of them, so now
I'm wondering what the market rate for the mall might be?


According to EDGAR Online http://sec.edgar-online.com/2000/03/23/08/0001005477-00-002403/Section6.asp
the mall is:
Downtown Plaza, a regional mall encompassing 1,191,347 square feet
including 908,758 square feet of retail space and 282,805 square feet of
office, is located in the CBD of Sacramento, California. The retail
component of the complex was constructed in 1971 and the three office
buildings in 1972, 1976 and 1981, respectively. The retail mall was last
renovated in 1993. Anchors include Macy's and Macy's Men's and Furniture
in addition to 405,258 square feet of in-line space and 282,805 square
feet of office space.

[ozone]

we've spoke on the forum about how downtown should perhaps have it's
own council district. But this is a shiny example to me of why that's not
really true.

DTP is in Tretheway's district and so is Natomas. If you were him, would
you allow Westfield to expand into another area that directly competes
with the languishing Downtown Plaza?

I guess it all depends on whether or not Westfield tries to aquire land
inside the city limits. If they grab something outside city boundries and
in Sacramento County, they'll probably get to do whatever they want.

I'm sorry but this one case does not negate the thousand other examples of why a single council district for the central city is important. Besides I think you're just wrong about this one. And looking at all the retail development in Natomas in last few years that has surely hurt downtown retail as much as a regional mall would have just proves it.

If anything a single representative from the Central City can make a better case before the council that a large mall in Natomas would hurt his/her district. Whereas, with the present system -Tretheway is torn between supporting Natomas and the Central City interests. Since there's more constituents in his district who live outside of the Central City, if push comes to shove, where do you think his loyalities will fall?

[TowerDistrict]

Yeah, you're right it's not THE reason why there shouldn't be one
central city district, but I still think it is one reason.

Tretheway also represents the Railyards. That project along with DTP are
major priorities to the City. More retail in Natomas is far from a priority.

In fact, it's not even encouraged. More job centers in Natomas is a much
higher prioirty, as that was the original plan for Natomas - to alleviate
commuter congestion and create a more self sufficient satellite city. More
big retail would simply be a contiuance of the Anti-Natomas Joint Vision
that's been carried out over the past several years. And I don't think our
council members are in a position right now to further neglect those goals
in favor of some bizarre plan of Westfield.

[ozone]

All I have to say is that what is the city's "official' priorities" and what actually gets the council's approval are often two different things. The Natomas Community Plan is a prefect example of that.

[urban_encounter]

If anything a single representative from the Central City can make a better case before the council that a large mall in Natomas would hurt his/her district. Whereas, with the present system -Tretheway is torn between supporting Natomas and the Central City interests. Since there's more constituents in his district who live outside of the Central City, if push comes to shove, where do you think his loyalities will fall?

Consider that one reason we see three different representatives is because by splitting up the central city we have three council persons who now have a loyaty to downtown in some measure. (Maybe some less than others but at least to some degree).. Split that off into one single council district and I guarantee you that the other remaining council memebers will take less of an interest in downtown Sacramento and more of a parochial interest in their own neghborhoods. In the end downtown and midtown would end up with less $$ and attention flowing in that it currently does.

[sugit]

Bob Shallit: Diamonds amid the gloom
Project progress, breakout moves seen despite downturn

It's going to be a tough year for the Sacramento economy, with real estate prices slipping, retail sales slowing and state spending getting squeezed.

But it won't be dull. Despite the unsettled times, our crystal ball for 2008 reveals a bunch of big projects moving forward and a handful of regional companies experiencing breakout years.

Here's our forecast for the Sacramento region's business developments in 2008:

• On the real estate front, look for an accelerated rate of home foreclosures. We see banks taking back 12,000 homes in Sacramento County in 2008, up from about 7,000 this year. The silver lining: Beleaguered lenders will start discounting their repo'd homes, creating some opportunities for great deals.

• The region's office vacancy rate will climb at least one percentage point. How could it not, with 1.5 million square feet of new space coming on the market and perhaps only half of it occupied by new tenants? One result: Office owners will offer even bigger incentives (think bonuses, trips and car leases) to commercial brokers landing new tenants.

• This will be the year Greyhound agrees to move its downtown bus terminal to Richards Boulevard. Yes, we predicted the same for 2006 and 2007. Third time's a charm.

• CalPERS and its development partner, CIM Group, will deliver a scaled-down proposal for the empty block at Third and Capitol Mall. Like John Saca's grandiose but failed plans for a condo tower at the same site, CIM's plans will include condos, a hotel and retail. But probably only 30 floors instead of Saca's 53.

• Aside from the CalPERS proposal, there will be little talk of high-rise condos downtown. But a plucky local builder, D&S Development, will continue to bring to market innovative, smaller condo projects, like its Old Sac lofts.

• A certain local money-management firm will gain global recognition through deals it strikes with several big-name investment banks.

• The California Highway Patrol will – finally – sign a lease to consolidate offices and occupy more than 200,000 square feet of space in West Sacramento.

• Believe it or not, there will be modest progress on K street's blighted western edge. The city will win a six-month-long legal case to wrest properties away from Moe Mohanna on K Street's 700 block. Then developer Joe Zeiden will commission construction drawings for a high-end retail project designed to transform the pedestrian mall.

• We also anticipate progress on fixing up Downtown Plaza. City leaders – after some silly whining about all the top-shelf retail tenants in Roseville's Galleria mall – will provide incentives to Westfield Corp. to remodel the mall. (Note to city: Roseville has the demographics. You don't.)

• Don't hold your breath on that proposal to build a new Kings arena at Cal Expo. Despite all the talk, we don't expect to see any progress on such a problematic site.

• It'll be close, but we think the Citizen Hotel will open at 10th and J streets by year's end, setting a new standard for luxury lodging downtown. Look for additional proposals for downtown hotels.

• Meantime, Bob Leach's Le Rivage hotel will open on the Sacramento riverfront a couple of miles south of the Tower Bridge. And it'll answer a few questions: Does this region attract enough well-heeled visitors to support rooms starting at $250 a night? And can hotel guests find their way to the somewhat obscure location? The answers: Yes and eventually.

• Sacramento's berry queen, Shari Fitzpatrick, will continue to draw national attention. The high point: A 2008 appearance on Oprah Winfrey's TV talk show.

• A monster year is ahead for SynapSense Corp., which makes a wireless sensor system used to regulate temperatures in computer data centers. Following a recent funding round, the Folsom company is poised to boost its client base to 200 and annual sales to $30 million next year.

• Roseville's Pride Industries, one of the biggest U.S. employers of people with disabilities, will keep growing at an amazing clip. Revenues for the current fiscal year, ending June 30, are projected at $140 million. Don't be surprised to see that jump to $200 million the following year.

• State budget cuts will weigh heavily on the regional economy. But one local sector – tech services – will continue to grow briskly. Among the continuing star performers: Visionary Integration Professionals of Folsom.

• It will be a quiet year at Sac International Airport, following the recent arrival of many new domestic and international flights. Don't expect any announcements about direct service from Sactown to Paris or London. But we do anticipate one new route that's, well, almost sexy: ExpressJet's daily service to Fresno.

• Companies serving only local customers will need to hunker down. But not those immersed in the global marketplace. Look for a record-setting year from almond processor Blue Diamond Growers, which exports to worldwide markets and is benefiting from the dollar's decline. Stellar years also will be recorded by NEC in Roseville and DST in El Dorado Hills.

• It will be another tough year for startups, with venture funding remaining flat. One reason: When the economy slows, entrepreneurial folks at places like Intel and GenCorp grow cautious about branching out on their own.

• Still, at least one local company will test the public markets with a stock offering. It could be Davis-based Agraquest.

• Several local venture-backed companies will be acquired. One good bet is Granite Bay's Revionics Inc., a software-maker for the retail industry, that could command nearly $50 million.

• British supermarket chain Tesco will make a big splash in the region, opening more than a dozen Fresh and Easy stores. The fallout? It'll siphon market share mostly from discounters like Winco and Food 4 Less.

[jsf8278]

What a great article. Its nice to see the Bee report on some positive news (or potential news in this case).
Do any of you really think Greyhound will agree to move this year before its lease is up?

[arod74]

I hope Shallit's record on predictions is little better this year than last for Sacramento's sake. If so we can look forward to a lot of good things happening next year. On a side note, does Shallit have a stake in ownership in Shari's Berries? If I have to read one more article on them I'm going to have to beat someone, seems like they have a tidbit in the paper every other week.. jeez

[TowerDistrict]

No. There's no place to move to, and i don't know what Mr. Shallit
means by "Richards Blvd", but we haven't heard any talk of anyone even
discussing plans with Greyhound. On top of that, why would they move the
station now? There's no particular push for the land at 701 L Street. Also,
who would use a Greyhound station as a means to redevelop property on
Richards? That would probably scare off more business than it would attract.

IMO, there's a host of things that need to come before Greyhound's move:

1) a need for a large scale project at 701 L.
2) a developer or the city offering tremendous incentive to move
3) some sort of public transit integration with Richards Blvd.
4) finalized plans for an intermodal with no interim Richards location?

I'd like to see the station move as much as the next person, but I just
don't see any reason why they would right now. Though the Greyhound's
patrons and their station itself is nothing pretty to look at, it's not really a
big concern in my mind. How about first the 700 and 800 blocks get rolling,
Westfield starts renovations, St. Rose of Lima park is remodeled, Hotel
Berry begins work on renovations, some form of an Aura redux is
announced, and so on.

[urban_encounter]

No. There's no place to move to, and i don't know what Mr. Shallit
means by "Richards Blvd", but we haven't heard any talk of anyone even
discussing plans with Greyhound. On top of that, why would they move the
station now? There's no particular push for the land at 701 L Street. Also,
who would use a Greyhound station as a means to redevelop property on
Richards? That would probably scare off more business than it would attract.

IMO, there's a host of things that need to come before Greyhound's move:

1) a need for a large scale project at 701 L.
2) a developer or the city offering tremendous incentive to move
3) some sort of public transit integration with Richards Blvd.
4) finalized plans for an intermodal with no interim Richards location?

I'd like to see the station move as much as the next person, but I just
don't see any reason why they would right now. Though the Greyhound's
patrons and their station itself is nothing pretty to look at, it's not really a
big concern in my mind. How about first the 700 and 800 blocks get rolling,
Westfield starts renovations, St. Rose of Lima park is remodeled, Hotel
Berry begins work on renovations, some form of an Aura redux is
announced, and so on.

I agree 100%..

The proposal at 701 L was just a ruse by Benvenutti to derail any eminent domain talk. Benvenutti has a tenent willing to pay (Greyhound);
and there's just not enough demand for another office building down there.

I think we're unlikely to see anything happen down there for the next few years.

[TowerDistrict]

Oops! correction... meant the Marshall not Berry.

Anyway, all those projects mentioned are actually progressing opposed to
the Greyhound. They will only strengthen the area and contribute to the
value of 701 as a potential area for redevelopment. I just don't agree with
Shallit that it will be anytime this year.

I predict very late 2009 or early 2010 at the earliest - when the Railyards
heat up and if the intermodal makes progress towards securing some funding.

[wburg]

I'd agree that the Greyhound won't move until there is a location with direct light rail service: Greyhound is a form of transportation very much connected with local public transit, and lacking one isn't an option. When that station was built it was within a block of all three local streetcar lines.

While I think I am more fond than most here of retaining the building itself (architecturally it is unique in the city, and is already on the city's historic register) I don't mind the idea of it not being a Greyhound station--but the logical place to put it is at the intermodal station. When they can do so depends on when the city decides what to do, and how to do it, at the intermodal station, and that's one of those complex problems without a simple solution.

Oh, and TD, you weren't entirely wrong about the Berry either. They are transferring ownership to AF Evans, and once they get approved for low-income tax credit they're going to remodel the building. Less dramatic a remodel than the owners of the Marshall want to do (they're going to convert them to efficiency apartments with kitchens, and convert some units to ADA accessible units) but it will make a big difference. The addition of professional management and an on-site case manager (instead of the current owners, who don't care who rents there or how much trouble they cause as long as they get paid on the first) will make the building a better neighbor, too.

[ltsmotorsport]

I really hope the city uses the intermodal plan that is on their website. Any more re-design or anything of the sort, and it will be another 5 years added to the project, with the way Sacramento works.

[urban_encounter]

I really hope the city uses the intermodal plan that is on their website. Any more re-design or anything of the sort, and it will be another 5 years added to the project, with the way Sacramento works.

Oh i'm quite certain there wll be many more communtiy workshops and charettes before we see anything built.

[benhol]

BTW - There is activity going on at the Firestone Building (16th & L). Unfortunately, I couldn't get a good look, but light was coming into the building, and it looked like most of the roof toward the west side is down.
:tup:

[sugit]

BTW - There is activity going on at the Firestone Building (16th & L). Unfortunately, I couldn't get a good look, but light was coming into the building, and it looked like most of the roof toward the west side is down.
:tup:

Yup, I drive by that site always everyday. The entire inside has been gutted and there really isn't much left other than the roof and the columns.

How many days countdown 'till my first pint at DeVeres?

[brandon12]

^Saint Patty's day oh-nine will be sick. or rad. whatever the cool kids say these days...

[ltsmotorsport]

Tubular.

[goldcntry]

Fer sure...

[innov8]

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/2144/621cm520071231fbe6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
We need another sneak peak at the lighting :tup:

[reggiesquared]

Anyone else feel the I-5 downtown deck should have been put on the fast track to coincide with this major disaster of a project they are starting in the spring? Or is there no way the decking will happen within the next 5 years even?
:sly:

[sugit]

Not sure if anyone posted these yet..but here are some updated renderings of Meridian II. Should be going to Design Review and Planning Commission any week now.

I think the top 2/3 looks okay..not great, not bad...but the garage looks like crap...even with that, I think it will probably look better than 621.

I can't wait for the day we get a high-rise that is designed with glass ALL around the building instead of clad, pre-cast, or whatever other crap they use along with it.

_________________________________________________________________

24 story, 300' high, 525,000 gsf office builidng with on-site parking (433 spaces, 222,786 gsf)and ground floor retail (6500 gsf). The project will have two sub-grade parking levels connecting to the Meridian Plaza I sub-grade parking via a tunnel under the alley."

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8089/15thkstreettower3re9.jpg

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/750/15thkstreettowerue7.jpg

[urban_encounter]

Not sure if anyone posted these yet..but here are some updated renderings of Meridian II. Should be going to Design Review and Planning Commission any week now.

I think the top 2/3 looks okay..not great, not bad...but the garage looks like crap...even with that, I think it will probably look better than 621.

I can't wait for the day we get a high-rise that is designed with glass ALL around the building instead of clad, pre-cast, or whatever other crap they use along with it.

_________________________________________________________________

24 story, 300' high, 525,000 gsf office builidng with on-site parking (433 spaces, 222,786 gsf)and ground floor retail (6500 gsf). The project will have two sub-grade parking levels connecting to the Meridian Plaza I sub-grade parking via a tunnel under the alley."

http://bp3.blogger.com/_iflb32pX7Dw/R3wW1EWtQMI/AAAAAAAAA14/no6HGUiIXPU/s1600/15th%2B%26%2BK%2BStreet%2BTower3.JPG

http://bp0.blogger.com/_iflb32pX7Dw/R3wW1UWtQNI/AAAAAAAAA2A/89st5VPcUxQ/s1600/15th%2B%26%2BK%2BStreet%2BTower.JPG



nothing is showing up except boxes with red x's

[urban_encounter]

Anyone else feel the I-5 downtown deck should have been put on the fast track to coincide with this major disaster of a project they are starting in the spring? Or is there no way the decking will happen within the next 5 years even?
:sly:


I-5 decking will never happen..

Sacramento get's shafted everytime highway funding is allocated and there's no way with the cost of construction that the money will ever be available.

[innov8]

Not sure if anyone posted these yet..but here are some updated renderings of Meridian II. Should be going to Design Review and Planning Commission any week now.


I don't think will see anything for a while yet, no new information has been
provided to the commission since these rendering were turned in in late Oct.

[sugit]

nothing is showing up except boxes with red x's

Better?

[econgrad]

City Council To Vote On Street Lights

January 3, 2008

SACRAMENTO -- Homeowners in the Land Park-Curtis Park areas are going head to head over new street lighting.

Those in favor say added light is essential to safety, while the opposition feels too many corners have been cut at too high a cost.

"We have some crazy people walking our street at nights and it's a dark dark area-- and it's extremely unsafe, " complained Land Park homeowner Jason Hill.

Three years ago he decided to do something about his dark streets; he began working with the city to add 740 street lights throughout the Land-Curtis Park neighborhoods. "The city is just the vehicle behind this, we're all just volunteers trying to get the lights put in but the city is the means to get those lights put in, this is not getting pushed on us by the city nor the council members," said Hill.

But the price tag and concerns with the process have divided neighbors.

Craig Powell is an opposer of the lights. "I'm not anti street light by any stretch, I just think the cost of these street lights is just shocking to the conscience, and the process the city's used is unfair, undemocratic and unconstitutional."

If passed, each homeowner would pay $5,000 dollars for the lights, a cost that would more than double if stretched out over a thirty year period.

"I think that anytime your asking somebody to pay something, that it's a serious manner. Money is important to everybody. I heard many people out there today say that they'd like lights, but that they're expensive," said Mark Griffin with the Public Home Improvement Finance Group.

That's exactly the issue Land Park Homeowner Elyse Metune points out. "My streets pretty dark, I wouldn't mind some more street lights on my street, but i voted no." She says the plan is excessive."We don't need 10 street lights, we don't need to light up the universe. We just need three maybe four"

Following that public hearing city council members met to count and verify the votes. Only a simple majority is required to either pass or fail and those results will be in Tuesday, January

Copyright © 2008, KTXL

[ltsmotorsport]

Meridian II's design looks pretty good (except for the garage), but seeing it in the first picture (from 15th street), I wish the curved side was on the north side, instead of the south. Just doesn't look good to have a huge sharp corner on the corner of an intersection. All they'd have to do is rotate the design. Problem solved!

[urban_encounter]

Better?


yep

thanks..:tup:

[urban_encounter]

Meridian II's design looks pretty good (except for the garage), but seeing it in the first picture (from 15th street), I wish the curved side was on the north side, instead of the south. Just doesn't look good to have a huge sharp corner on the corner of an intersection. All they'd have to do is rotate the design. Problem solved!

Sharp corners aren't very feng shui are they...?

Especially considering the proximity to the Capitol..

[doriankage]

Not sure if anyone posted these yet..but here are some updated renderings of Meridian II. Should be going to Design Review and Planning Commission any week now.

I think the top 2/3 looks okay..not great, not bad...but the garage looks like crap...even with that, I think it will probably look better than 621.

I can't wait for the day we get a high-rise that is designed with glass ALL around the building instead of clad, pre-cast, or whatever other crap they use along with it.

_________________________________________________________________

24 story, 300' high, 525,000 gsf office builidng with on-site parking (433 spaces, 222,786 gsf)and ground floor retail (6500 gsf). The project will have two sub-grade parking levels connecting to the Meridian Plaza I sub-grade parking via a tunnel under the alley."

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/8089/15thkstreettower3re9.jpg

http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/750/15thkstreettowerue7.jpg

Not to crazy about the back. Reminds me of 621 a little.
But I do dig the front side.

[TowerDistrict]

"We have some crazy people walking our street at nights and it's a dark dark area-- and it's extremely unsafe, " complained Land Park homeowner Jason Hill.

Three years ago he decided to do something about his dark streets; he began working with the city to add 740 street lights throughout the Land-Curtis Park neighborhoods. "The city is just the vehicle behind this, we're all just volunteers trying to get the lights put in but the city is the means to get those lights put in, this is not getting pushed on us by the city nor the council members," said Hill.

Heheh... that's my neighbor there.

This thing really has got out of hand. It's turned into something of a small
scale Q&R measure. Unfortunately, many of the people in these older and
more modest Land/Curtis Park hoods just can't afford to make big
improvements with money out of their pockets.

That or they just don't care.

But to say that neighborhood assessment districts are "unfair, undemocratic
and unconstitutional" is just about the most ignorant comment one could
apply to the effort.

[wburg]

Streetlight assessments are nothing new: most of the areas in midtown where you see streetlights are there because the property owners got together and agreed to put in lights--and pay for them. Many of the new developments around town (New Faze, Tapestri, the Trammell Crow project on Alhambra) have been asked to include streetlights as part of their development agreement, but in existing built neighborhoods it depends on the current land owners. Where the residents are property owners or good local landlords, it's not so hard--where the property owners are slumlords or long-distance speculators, it can be a lot more difficult.

[SacTownAndy]

For Meridian II, is it 300ft to the top of that spire, or is it 300ft roof height?

[ltsmotorsport]

I was wondering that too. And another thing on the design; if they rotate the building like I mentioned earlier, then the spire would be on the corner to, and not on the alley. Looks pretty dumb that way if you ask me.


Also, yesterday as I was driving back to the central coast, I saw a mobile crane outside of the huge DMV building near the WX freeway. Maybe they're finally thinking about that new facade.

[SacUrbnPlnr]

Streetlight assessments are nothing new: most of the areas in midtown where you see streetlights are there because the property owners got together and agreed to put in lights--and pay for them. Many of the new developments around town (New Faze, Tapestri, the Trammell Crow project on Alhambra) have been asked to include streetlights as part of their development agreement, but in existing built neighborhoods it depends on the current land owners. Where the residents are property owners or good local landlords, it's not so hard--where the property owners are slumlords or long-distance speculators, it can be a lot more difficult.

The often heard argument against new street lights is the expense. What most people don't realize is that, to replace old street lights or add new ones, it's not just a matter of sticking a new lamppost into the ground. There is signicant street trenching work necessary to lay new electrical conduits that will serve the street lights. That is what drives the cost. It is interesting that owners of many of most expensive homes in the entire Sacramento region think that is it prohibitively expensive to add street lights.

[TowerDistrict]

The often heard argument against new street lights is the expense. What most people don't realize is that, to replace old street lights or add new ones, it's not just a matter of sticking a new lamppost into the ground. There is signicant street trenching work necessary to lay new electrical conduits that will serve the street lights. That is what drives the cost. It is interesting that owners of many of most expensive homes in the entire Sacramento region think that is it prohibitively expensive to add street lights.

The neighborhoods in question are in Old Land Park and North Curtis Park.
They're nothing like the mansions closer to the actual namesake parks. I'd
say about 70% of the homes in this assessment district are 2 bed / 1 bath,
750-900 sq. ft. Maybe 10%, 3/1's and the rest are apartments and duplex.

The owners of the apartments are the ones making the biggest stink, and
virtually the only ones actively opposing this effort. That's because their
share of the assessment is much larger and somehow based on the units
and size of their parcel. Most single family home owners would be paying
just under $5,000 - while larger apartment buildings may end up paying
close to $60,000.

[TowerDistrict]

I just got an email from Jason Hill quoted above. The streetlights assessment
district lost 1,110 to 203.

ouch!

[enigma99a]

I hate the building. Looks like a child of 621CM and the spire sucks

[urban_encounter]

I hate the building. Looks like a child of 621CM and the spire sucks

You have a point..

I'll probably be disliking this one too, because I'm no fan of 621.

[TowerDistrict]

I think about 65% of it looks cool. But the rest...............

What really kills it for me is that garage. I have a couple other gripes, like
the perpetuating trend to face all buildings with their ass end to the north.
But the garage is just looking crude.

naw.. maybe about 40% of it.

[BrianSac]

I hate the building. Looks like a child of 621CM and the spire sucks

I agree it is very ugly. I thought it was supposed to be a taller version of the first one they built (the one with the crown).

[kryptos]

I agree it is very ugly. I thought it was supposed to be a taller version of the first one they built (the one with the crown).

better than nothing at all...and it could be a heck of alot worse...

you want a more attractive building? design your own, go secure the funds and the permits and start building..its amazing how people can criticize something they wish they could do but never will...

[doriankage]

better than nothing at all...and it could be a heck of alot worse...

you want a more attractive building? design your own, go secure the funds and the permits and start building..its amazing how people can criticize something they wish they could do but never will...

Looks like somebody woke up on the wrong side of the rapture!
Look, I don't really care for the building. I stated it.
Will I go and design my own? No. That is ridiculous! I lake the skill and the talent as I am sure most people on this forum are.
Can we hope that the venerable elders during design and review have the developer make some changes? Very unlikely in this city.
So, what is my point? This is the building we are going to get everybody. So lets stop telling other people that if they don't like it, then design a better one.
Stop being high and mighty and lets make this city's skyline and street life the best it can be!
blah blah blah blah blah.... enough! My brain hurts! :slob:

[Fusey]

By using your logic, kryptos, I can't criticize the Mets for blowing it at the end of last season.

[urban_encounter]

better than nothing at all...and it could be a heck of alot worse...

you want a more attractive building? design your own, go secure the funds and the permits and start building..its amazing how people can criticize something they wish they could do but never will...

No need to get hysterical.

People are simply expressing their opinion.

That is afterall why this forum exsits.

And for the record the idea that anything is 'better than nothing at all" is why Sacramento has so many ugly buildings. Suffice to say it's a good thing you're not on the Design Review Board.

[Web]

I forgot to post this when I saw it on the 31st.......

Its been gutted and loooks like work has begun.

[BrianSac]

better than nothing at all...and it could be a heck of alot worse...

you want a more attractive building? design your own, go secure the funds and the permits and start building..its amazing how people can criticize something they wish they could do but never will...

no, it's really not that amazing. I never ever wished I could build a building; I will leave that to trained professionals. But, it still doesnt mean that I can't think it's uggggggly, and say that it's ugggggly. Ugly, Ugly, Ugly. Maybe I will like it more when I see the real thing in the sky :tup:

[enigma99a]

Who is the architect of this ugly bldg?

[ozone]

Before we are too critical we should consider the site. It's not like the garage is going to be as exposed as say... the new US Bank building bwtn CM and L.

On the other hand people who say the public has no right to be critical of any development they have no stake in are morons.

[TowerDistrict]

16th & Broadway
This is the redo of a development slated for the north-east corner of 16th and Broadway-
on the opposite corner of the Tower Theater, next to Willie's Burgers.

The project was originally going to be a single story with two retail spots - one of which
was already slated to be a Panera Bread. The development didn't do so well at the
Planning Commission as it doesn't meet the objectives of the Broadway Corridor/Tower
District's goals. The architect and developer went back to the drawing board and came
up with a newer version that will include three (presumedly) high-end condos above two
retail spots.

It's not much of a difference on paper, but it looks much better at least. A major problem
on that location is parking. I spoke with the developer, who also owns the former Tower
locations, and he said that the surrounding businesses (mainly WaMu) did not want to assist
in building a more comprehensive parking solution. Thus the development size is very limited.

original:
http://www.sacfrg.org/images/16thBWay-1600_Broadway-v1.jpg

redo:
http://www.sacfrg.org/images/16thBWay-Broadway-View.jpg

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/16thBWay-16th-St-View.jpg

[Majin]

Vote no on parking.

Any new developments or redevelopments should be required not to include any parking.

[TowerDistrict]

You know I agree. Their problem is that there is no street parking there,
and the surrounding business owners are very protective over what parking
is there now. The developer told me, when I asked about parking under the
freeway, that noone will walk a block to get there.

And that's where I think there needs to be a paradigm shift - this City can't
play up to that mentality forever.

This development is requesting to build 25-less parking spaces than
required... twenty five!!! That means that the two retail locations and
three condos above would be required to supply 48 parking spaces!!!
This is a reason we see stunted projects in the City. Developments
skimp on the actual building to make allowance for more free parking.

The LPCA's idea is to eliminate a lane on 16th Street, and replace the rolled
curb on Broadway with a vertical curb to supply on street parking. I think
that's great - but the DOT staff said it was beyond the scope of this project.
It would have to wait for the next phase of Central City Parking Studies.

[sugit]

You know I agree. Their problem is that there is no street parking there, and the surrounding business owners are very protective over what parking is there now. The developer told me, when I asked about parking under the freeway, that noone will walk a block to get there.

And that's where I think there needs to be a paradigm shift - this City can't
play up to that mentality forever.

This development is requesting to build 25-less parking spaces than
required... twenty five!!! That means that the two retail locations and
three condos above would be required to supply 48 parking spaces!!!
This is a reason we see stunted projects in the City. Developments
skimp on the actual building to make allowance for more free parking.

The LPCA's idea is to eliminate a lane on 16th Street, and replace the rolled
curb on Broadway with a vertical curb to supply on street parking. I think
that's great - but the DOT staff said it was beyond the scope of this project.
It would have to wait for the next phase of Central City Parking Studies.

Shoot...look at the East End Gateway sites II and III. Look at all that parking!!..and that's after a parking waiver of 79 spots!!!!!

The project is about 72 DUA, but that is a lot of wasted space.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1552/eeg23ed4.jpg

[TowerDistrict]

Yeah, that's brutal. Can't you just imagine what a developer could do with a
project if not hand-cuffed by requirements like that???

and on a different topic....

I was just reading the Council agenda for today. Looks like the infamous
William Kopper (http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/12/03/story1.html?jst=pn_pn_lk) strikes again. He has appealed (http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id=2&meta_id=137648) the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Metropolitan.

The draft report (DEIR) was approved for all condos, then the FEIR was
circulated that included the all-condo and the hotel/condo alternatives
finding there was no notable diffference between the two scenarios.

This appeal forces Saca to go back to the DEIR phase and draft the report
including the hotel/condo alternative and gain (re)approval from the
Planning Commission and allow an additional 45 days for public comment.

This guy is a real douche.

[sugit]

Yeah, I saw that as well. As we always say, nothing comes easy in this city.

I was going to try and tune into the meetings today and catch the 10th and K project as well as this one.

[TowerDistrict]

From the Davis Wiki: (http://daviswiki.org/William_D_Kopper)

William D Kopper served on the City Council from 3/20/1976 to 6/20/1984.
He served as city mayor from 1982 to 1983.

2006-12-11 23:30:21 I agree. I faced him in both my divorces! His main stragety appears to be to to waste alot of his clients money by scheduling prolonger depositions over trivial matters and distracting his opponents from the real issues. His lack of ethical behavior is evident from the claim he makes publicly to attempt to settle conflicts without delays and distractions. —JeffreyReiser

[sugit]

LOL...I was just looking at that as well. I googled his name and that was the first thing that came up.

[TowerDistrict]

Why was he mayor for only one year???


That appeal on the Metro was made October 31st, 2007.

Does that mean it took over 60 days to address the appeal by the Council?
Then Saca has to draft the report, gain approval, circulate the DEIR for 45
days and then get final Council approval before beggining construction?

It would really suck for him if the end product isn't going to include the hotel
anyway. I know nothing comes easy here, but it really sucks that this douche
is given a platform to extort the system in such a way. The Honorable Mayor
should see past this bullshit, but she instead initiated this "call up" of the project.

[sugit]

I wish I could find the article... but there was this piece a short time ago with a lawyer jokingly saying how now is such a great time to be a lawyer in Sacramento in that area because of all the things they can sue about...K Street, Railyards EIR, Sutter Health, major high-rise projects in DT, ect, ect.