Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[BillSimmons]

I told you guys this would be rubber stamped :tup:

Good thing we are in the era of KJ pro development. If Fargo was still Mayor she would of fought this tooth and nail.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article23825752.html


Fargo would have buried her head in the sand until the developers went away.

[ozone]

And meanwhile, the block of 3rd / Capitol / 4th / L Street, where two high-rise condo towers were planned, remains two holes in the ground???

And they want to take out perfectly functional housing at Capitol Towers / Capitol Villas? :???:

How are these two sites even related? One has not a damn thing to do with the other. It's bad enough to hear the whining about the demise of "villas" from anti-urbanists, but to have regular contributors to this forum vocally/publically opposed this project is :yuck: and :rolleyes: worthy. I do not want to but you in the same corner as they, because that may have not been your point. But if you are, you can commiserated with W "Synergy" Burg, whose side lost last night. But I'll :cheers: because it's a win for Sacramento.

[creamcityleo79]

Mixed-use project at Stockton and T gets approval


http://media.bizj.us/view/img/5274671/stockton-and-t-street-mixed-use-evergreen-companies2.png
http://media.bizj.us/view/img/5274661/stockton-and-t-street-mixed-use-evergreen-companies1.png

A new mixed-use project got the green light Thursday night for a part of Sacramento where such projects haven’t been common.
On a unanimous vote, the city of Sacramento planning commission approved a project at Stockton and T streets with a five-story, 214-unit mixed-use building and 21 single-family homes.

The project would be on the site now home to an empty building formerly owned by AT&T until developer The Evergreen Cos. bought it more than two years ago.

Large mixed-use building proposed for Stockton and T in Sacramento
Representatives from Evergreen told commissioners they’d met with members of the surrounding Elmhurst neighborhood 20 times for the proposal. That might have been reflected in the relatively few people who spoke in opposition, relative to most other recent infill projects in Sacramento.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/06/12/mixed-use-project-at-stockton-and-t-gets-approval.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2015-06-12&u=jAiEl5DcXYSI67dxb4F9e33mJsZ&t=1434149700

[ozone]

^^^^^ Nice looking infill (certainly compared to what exists now). Looks like it'll have an above ground parking garage. Which is probably unavoidable in that part of town. Anyone have any news about the former Coca Cola plant nearby? While this is technically in Elmhurst, I think it'll have more psychological impact on north Oak Park.

[NickB1967]

How are these two sites even related? One has not a damn thing to do with the other. It's bad enough to hear the whining about the demise of "villas" from anti-urbanists, but to have regular contributors to this forum vocally/publically opposed this project is :yuck: and :rolleyes: worthy. I do not want to put you in the same corner as they, because that may have not been your point. But if you are, you can commiserate with W "Synergy" Burg, whose side lost last night. But I'll :cheers: because it's a win for Sacramento.

Huh? It certainly wasn't. :runaway: I do not share Mr. Burg's fetishes.

It just seemed odd to me to rip out *far from blighted* medium density housing to build high density high-rise housing, when a proposed site for high density high-rise housing sits vacant a couple of blocks away, and has sat vacant for years now!

Of course, CalPERS being CalPERS may have something to do with that, as others have pointed out.... :yuck:

[Bubb90]

http://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/living/pets/article24385702.html

[creamcityleo79]

I really want to say that some of the people here lately have been SO RUDE to wburg. He has always been thoughtful and knowledgeable with his responses and I think it would be good if we can all keep things that way. I realize that he may have, at times, an unpopular opinion on things. But, he takes a beating sometimes when it comes to the comments. I know he doesn't need me defending him. But, let's cool it on the rhetoric against him sometimes. It borders on offensive...and that's totally unnecessary.

[Pistola916]

Huh? It certainly wasn't. :runaway: I do not share Mr. Burg's fetishes.

It just seemed odd to me to rip out *far from blighted* medium density housing to build high density high-rise housing, when a proposed site for high density high-rise housing sits vacant a couple of blocks away, and has sat vacant for years now!

Of course, CalPERS being CalPERS may have something to do with that, as others have pointed out.... :yuck:

The developers would have to buy the land from CalPERS. I agree that there are other underutilized plots throughout downtown to build on but if you don't own the land and the other developers are unwilling to sell, then there's nothing else to do

[creamcityleo79]

Developer Kolokotronis has ambitious idea for midtown: Building on top of a parking structure


http://media.bizj.us/view/img/6120171/sotirismidtownproject19th-and-q.png

Developer Sotiris Kolokotronis has another big midtown project in the works — one that would be constructed on top of the Sacramento Bee's parking structure at 20th & Q streets.
The developer and newspaper have a purchase agreement under which he would acquire the property but allow employees to continue using the two-story structure, said Bee community affairs director Pam Dinsmore. The deal was first reported Tuesday by the Bee.

The garage, which occupies an entire square block, has been the subject of development rumors before. Proposals floated for the site in the past included both a Whole Foods and a Raley’s.
A four-story building at 19th and Q streets is proposed with 72 residential units and just under 2,000 square feet of retail space. The retail space would be situated primarily against the street corner and have outdoor seating.

It's unclear what he would build, though presumably it would be housing. Dinsmore referred further questions to a broker working on the deal who did not return a call Tuesday. Kolokotronis also has not responded to calls about his projects in the area.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/06/10/developer-kolokotronis-has-ambitious-idea-for.html?ana=e_vert_st_20150615

[wburg]

The city does have the power to say where development does and doesn't happen, and what form it should take. And they can also get groups talking (like one developer with a plan and another with an undeveloped plot of land) to get that sort of mutually beneficial exchange going--government as facilitator of change.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/Jetrock/iceblocks_zpsnmje9thh.jpg
I'm kind of surprised that there wasn't an article about the approval of the Ice Blocks project at last Thursday's Planning Commission meeting, while both Capitol Towers and the Elmhurst/T Street infill projects had their own articles--or maybe I missed it? But it's a very important and very cool project--historic rehab of the existing Crystal Ice complex on 16th and R, new infill apartment buildings on the 17th & R block, and office/commercial north of R and 17th that will incorporate some chunks of the Orchard Supply building (which is too far gone to save.) I was there on Thursday to support Ice Blocks in person, but "Preservation Group Supports Project" doesn't make for good Business Journal headlines, I guess. The Crystal Ice building will focus on retail/commercial--primarily stores selling stuff, rather than the bar/restaurant focus of other projects.

[wburg]

Developer Kolokotronis has ambitious idea for midtown: Building on top of a parking structure


http://media.bizj.us/view/img/6120171/sotirismidtownproject19th-and-q.png

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/06/10/developer-kolokotronis-has-ambitious-idea-for.html?ana=e_vert_st_20150615

Note that this rendering is for the building proposed at Q and 19th, not for Q and 21st on top of the parking structure, but they're part of a whole interlocking series of projects between 19th and 21st. This, like Ice Blocks above, is the sort of project that I like to see: building on a vacant lot or a parking structure. And we're seeing a whole lot of this kind of project, under construction and in the pipeline, ranging from alley units and small infill on vacant lots to block-sized projects. The preferred construction method these days is wood on top of a concrete podium--a lot cheaper (and greener) than steel construction, but it makes for a noticeable amount of density while still at a neighborhood scale.

[creamcityleo79]

Downtown building sold with mixed-use rehab coming


A downtown Sacramento building sold in recent weeks is in line for additions and renovations by the new owner.
The two-story building at 1228 H St., about 9,700 square feet, was an obvious value-add opportunity, said broker Tony Whittaker of CBRE Sacramento.

That’s just what the new owners, CS360 Towers LLC, have in mind. Whittaker said a rear second-floor storage area of about up to 2,800 square feet will become apartments to complement an existing one on the same floor.
On the first floor, about a third of the building is occupied with an office user. Whittaker said the new tenants will gut the rest, about 3,500 square feet, for an eventual retail use of some kind.
The new owners bought the building for about $600,000, a price that was critical for getting the deal done, Whittaker said.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/06/12/downtown-building-sold-with-mixed-use-rehab-coming.html?ana=e_vert_st_20150615

[ltsmotorsport]

Developer Kolokotronis has ambitious idea for midtown: Building on top of a parking structure


http://media.bizj.us/view/img/6120171/sotirismidtownproject19th-and-q.png



http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/06/10/developer-kolokotronis-has-ambitious-idea-for.html?ana=e_vert_st_20150615

Love the big, industrial-style windows shown on the rendering, but that flat facade on 19th desperately needs a little articulation.

[ozone]

I really want to say that some of the people here lately have been SO RUDE to wburg. He has always been thoughtful and knowledgeable with his responses and I think it would be good if we can all keep things that way. I realize that he may have, at times, an unpopular opinion on things. But, he takes a beating sometimes when it comes to the comments. I know he doesn't need me defending him. But, let's cool it on the rhetoric against him sometimes. It borders on offensive...and that's totally unnecessary.

Well you are right about one thing. He does not need you to defend him. He actually takes delights in people coming down on him. So in a way we are making his day. It's not just his opinions that are unpopular my friend. He has said many things on this forum that have been equally if not more offensive. Maybe since you are new here you are unfamiliar with his history both on this forum and his activity in the community. He is involved in many issue regarding the central city and I applaud him for his interest in civic matters but too much of his activity can only be characterized as provincial NIMBYism. Fine. Who cares? I don't hate him (not that he would care if I did). More often than not I agree with him. BUT when I do not, I'll tell him he is flat out wrong. He won't care anyway because he never thinks he is wrong. :-P

[ozone]

Note that this rendering is for the building proposed at Q and 19th, not for Q and 21st on top of the parking structure, but they're part of a whole interlocking series of projects between 19th and 21st. This, like Ice Blocks above, is the sort of project that I like to see: building on a vacant lot or a parking structure. And we're seeing a whole lot of this kind of project, under construction and in the pipeline, ranging from alley units and small infill on vacant lots to block-sized projects. The preferred construction method these days is wood on top of a concrete podium--a lot cheaper (and greener) than steel construction, but it makes for a noticeable amount of density while still at a neighborhood scale.

These projects are great infill and very much welcomed! I can't comment too much on them for personal reasons but just to say I'm very excited. Now if only we can get the planned park that is kitty-corner to the Q-19th street project going. This and dog run park will also start to bring the hood together nicely.

[wburg]

I don't take any pleasure in being insulted or belittled by Ozone or other users here, but I don't consider the possibility of offending people a reason to hold back from stating my opinion. Too often the "NIMBY" term is used as an all-purpose insult to belittle anyone who objects to any project for any reason, to the point where the term is meaningless.

creamcityleo79 started posting on this forum a couple of years before I did, according to our reg dates, so he has seen my posting here as long as you have. And I don't mind if people argue for civility and against unnecessary rudeness.

There was an article about the Q & 19th dog park recently too, it is high on CM Hansen's list of priorities. Although the other great news that came out the other day is the planned reopening of Washington Elementary School at 17th and E Street; a growing central city population needs schools, as the expectation that 100% of the new residents will be only empty-nest seniors, and singles who migrate to the suburbs to have kids, is unrealistic--and doesn't match the demographic trends already underway. But with the kids come dogs, and more places for both to play in the heart of the city is always worthwhile.

[creamcityleo79]

Well you are right about one thing. He does not need you to defend him. He actually takes delights in people coming down on him. So in a way we are making his day. It's not just his opinions that are unpopular my friend. He has said many things on this forum that have been equally if not more offensive. Maybe since you are new here you are unfamiliar with his history both on this forum and his activity in the community. He is involved in many issue regarding the central city and I applaud him for his interest in civic matters but too much of his activity can only be characterized as provincial NIMBYism. Fine. Who cares? I don't hate him (not that he would care if I did). More often than not I agree with him. BUT when I do not, I'll tell him he is flat out wrong. He won't care anyway because he never thinks he is wrong. :-P

Since I am new here? I have been on this board since 2005!!!! My screen name changed from neuhickman79 within the past couple years!

[LandofFrost]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/06/24/townhome-project-resurrected-for-neighborhood-near.html


Townhomes in Newton Booth, 27th and V. So this is an older plan, anyone have a pic of what is was supposed to look like. From 2007?

[Mr. Ozo]

Townhomes in Newton Booth, 27th and V. So this is an older plan, anyone have a pic of what is was supposed to look like. From 2007?


http://livinginurbansac.blogspot.com/2007/01/townhouses-townhouses.html

I've been watching this one since 2007. There is a three story home under construction there right now across the alley off W, but I believe it is separate from this project.

[wburg]

It sounds like the plan has changed a lot since LJ Urban first proposed it in 2007; modular off-site construction instead of being built on site, and some changes to layout. There is a lot of infill going into vacant lots and alleys in that corner of Newton Booth, although we're seeing it happen all over the central city. The relocation of the Co-Op to 28th and R Street, now under construction, may be spurring some folks to move lots they have been sitting on for years.

[Mr. Ozo]

It sounds like the plan has changed a lot since LJ Urban first proposed it in 2007; modular off-site construction instead of being built on site, and some changes to layout. There is a lot of infill going into vacant lots and alleys in that corner of Newton Booth, although we're seeing it happen all over the central city. The relocation of the Co-Op to 28th and R Street, now under construction, may be spurring some folks to move lots they have been sitting on for years.

Yes, it would be nice some more interesting businesses move in some of the commercial business along 28th and R in that area. Build on the Temple complex for a more "mellow" section of Midtown, but still with some more life.

[creamcityleo79]

Kaiser Permanente announces plans for medical center in railyard


Kaiser Permanente has announced plans for a new medical center on 18 acres in the Sacramento railyard.
The nonprofit medical provider’s senior vice president and area manager, Ron Groepper, said in an email announcement Kaiser has entered a purchase and sale agreement for the site in the railyard. Kaiser now begins a two-year due diligence and entitlement phase for the project, according to the email announcement. The announcement did not give a start date for construction.

“We are excited about the potential that this land holds for a new hospital and are looking forward to completing the due diligence and entitlement work that is already underway,” the announcement stated. Kaiser negotiated the deal with Downtown Railyard Venture LLC, the entity controlled by Larry Kelley and his family that will develop the 200-acre railyard north of downtown Sacramento.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/06/25/kaiser-permanente-announces-plans-for-medical.html?ana=e_sac_bn_breakingnews&u=jAiEl5DcXYSI67dxb4F9e33mJsZ&t=1435253886

[Majin]

I hope it's another high rise hospital.

[creamcityleo79]

I hope it's another high rise hospital.

Let's hope so and hope that it's not a sea of parking lots. If so, I hope KJ and the city council vote it down! That would be so disappointing.

[creamcityleo79]

Kaiser buys 18 acres in downtown railyard for new hospital


Kaiser Permanente announced Thursday that it has purchased 18 acres in the downtown Sacramento railyard.

In announcing the deal with Downtown Railyard Venture LLC, Kaiser officials said the healthcare giant intends to use the site for a new hospital.

“We are excited about the potential that this land holds for a new hospital,” said Ron Groepper, senior vice president and area manager for Kaiser.

The land buy continues Kaiser’s investment in downtown. Last year, Kaiser purchased a six-story, 195,000-square-foot building at Fifth and J streets, close to the historic railyard. Kaiser intends to the use the structure at 501 J Street as a medical office building.

Kaiser represents the first commercial entity to buy land in the railyard, said Downtown Railyard Venture principal Larry Kelley. He said having Kaiser onboard will help jumpstart the process of developing the railyard.

“It’s going to be a state-of-the-art facility and it’s going bring a high job count,” Kelley said. “You’re talking thousands of workers.” The purchase price wasn’t disclosed.

Kelley’s firm is in the process of buying the 240-acre railyard from an Illinois real estate firm, a purchase that is expected to close in about 60 days. Kelley said the Kaiser hospital is probably two years away.

“Today’s announcement of a new hospital at the railyards is a big deal for Sacramento and we could not be more pleased to be partnering with Kaiser Permanente,” said Mayor Kevin Johnson in a prepared statement.


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article25494463.html#storylink=cpy

[Mr. Ozo]

I hope it's another high rise hospital.

An 18 acre highrise? 18 acres is 7 or 8 grid blocks.

Hello sea of parking

[Surefiresacto]

I don't have a link, but I saw on Twitter earlier today that the Kaiser development plan would not impede on the possible soccer stadium or world food center. However, it did mention that the original estimate/plan of 10,000 housing units in the rail yards would be heavily scaled back in favor of commercial & medical buildings (campuses?). Sounds like Natomas/Rancho Cordova to me.

[Majin]

I don't have a link, but I saw on Twitter earlier today that the Kaiser development plan would not impede on the possible soccer stadium or world food center. However, it did mention that the original estimate/plan of 10,000 housing units in the rail yards would be heavily scaled back in favor of commercial & medical buildings (campuses?). Sounds like Natomas/Rancho Cordova to me.

I would consider KJ a failure if he really lets that happen. In fact, I would be extremely disappointed if there is a single surface parking lot in the entire railyards.

[Deno]

Natomas would be a better fit. Sounds like the railyards are going to look more like the expo area than a part of downtown and not that pedestrian friendly. What other plans are there for the old arena site.

[wburg]

Surface parking lots pretty much fly in the face of every current city planning code, not to mention the specific plan for the Railyards. But yeah, I'm a bit worried about the Railyards becoming the anti-Natomas, a bunch of offices that close at 5 PM and depend entirely on commuters from other parts of the region instead of a high-population neighborhood connected by transit to the rest of downtown.

[ltsmotorsport]

As others have mentioned, I think it's the acreage of the purchase that is worrisome. 18 acres in an urban context is a HUGE campus, and would be very difficult to keep pedestrian friendly. Hopefully the city will push the application to adhere as closely to the 2007 plan as possible, but I fear for the great street grid proposed in that plan.

Staying closer to the 12,000 unit number would be nice too. Hope the Kelly's see the light on that point.

[SacTownAndy]

I've heard on numerous media outlets in the last two days that the focus for the railyards has now been shifted from retail/residential to an "employment and innovation center" with the original planned number of housing units being "drastically" reduced.

This has me a little concerned. It sounds like the focus has potentially shifted from more Pearl District-esque to now a slightly more dense Natomas.

[Majin]

I've heard on numerous media outlets in the last two days that the focus for the railyards has now been shifted from retail/residential to an "employment and innovation center" with the original planned number of housing units being "drastically" reduced.

This has me a little concerned. It sounds like the focus has potentially shifted from more Pearl District-esque to now a slightly more dense Natomas.

Good thing no plans are 100% solid yet then as this directly flys in the face of KJ's 10,000 residents number. Midtown residential construction is booming but vast majority of that cannot be just in midtown unless KJ plans to put a ton of residential skyscrapers in midtown alone.

A lot needs to (and should) be spreading to downtown and the railyards. No more office dead zones in the grid anymore.

KJ, by way of the planning commission, needs to start regulating on these developers. They have so far been a rubber stamp on residential development but that better not turn into a general rubber stamp for massive office complexes in the railyards with no residential developments.

[UnclearColt]

18 acres doesn't seem THAT bad to me, since it's really just under 5 square blocks in the Grid. I mean, Sutter General covers about 12 acres around Sutter's Fort and that's far from what I'd consider Natomas.

[LandofFrost]

Every month West Sac starts building more housing, but all those real estate taxes are going to Yolo County, this doesn't bug me much as its actually closer to downtown then Midtown is, what bugs me is that Sacramento has the opportunity to create a major, dense housing area like the Pearl District in Portland, and so far... squander, but maybe I'm jumping the gun.


Edit. Ok after seeing the overhead view of the area that is going to be used for Kaiser, I'm actually mortified, it's a good 1/5th of land and after the soccer stadium, shopping area, rail road museum, there really won't be much room for homes.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Okay, all of these comparisons to the Pearl District in Portland need to end. Not only will the Railyards never be like the Pearl, they can't be like the Pearl.

The Pearl was far more integrated into Portland's central city than the Railyards are. The streets were already there, and all you had to do was cross Burnside and immediately be among the offices and shops of downtown. The Railyards are disconnected from the rest of downtown by the rails and the surrounding neighborhoods, like Alkali Flats. The Pearl is also being developed organically; there's still some light industry in there, from machinists to mechanics. In general, there was a fabric that could steadily be improved upon. The whole street grid for the Railyards has been laid down at once; there's no way that's organic development! Not only that, but you're cut off from downtown by a series of overpasses, rail lines, a water treatment plant, the wasteland under I-5, and whatever's out on Richards.

If any comparison is to be made to the purported planning mecca that is Portland, it would be the South Waterfront. A brand new, fully planned neighborhood that's failed to meet many of its goals developed over a former industrial site, detached and disconnected from all other neighborhoods in SW Portland. Roads were laid down at once, all the buildings were constructed at the same time. Now, it's not as bad with the streetcar connection, the new bridge, and the aerial tram, but it's functionally a dead zone. People don't go there, it's difficult to get into and out of that neighborhood, and there's few sustaining amenities like grocery stores or supermarkets. The neighborhood is steadily improving, but it's vastly fallen short of its overall unit goals and its affordable housing goals. The best chance for the Railyards is to be a better version of the South Waterfront, because organic growth over two decades simply isn't going to work. At least there's the possibility of having multiple anchor developments jumpstart surrounding development, like the Republic stadium and the new Kaiser center.

[Pistola916]

Sac already has a Pearl District developing, on R street. With the emergence of R and projects like the Ice Blocks, that area will become something special.

[wburg]

To be honest, I'd rather have a Kaiser in the railyards than a Bass Pro big-box store...

[Pistola916]

To be honest, I'd rather have a Kaiser in the railyards than a Bass Pro big-box store...

Well I hope Kaiser finds a creative way to hide the surface parking (under I-5 maybe?) that will most likely come with the project. If its a high-rise hospital, similar to Sutter's new Anderson Luchetti Childrens hospital, then that's great. But 18 acres seems like a whole lot of land and an indication Kaiser plans to add a swarm of surface lots, which would be a flat out joke to a neighborhood that was supposedly the next big residential and nightlife destination.

I'm not against a downtown hospital - I think having one is a fine idea. I am somewhat worried we're looking at a suburban style campus

[ltsmotorsport]

To be honest, I'd rather have a Kaiser in the railyards than a Bass Pro big-box store...

I don't think, and I'd hope, that no one is arguing to latter is better than the former.

But I'm sure you and I and everyone else on this forum agree that the de-emphasis on housing for the Railyards is more than a shame. The grid planned out in 2007 (below) should be built to the furthest extent possible, and as many of the planned units squeezed between the two new institutional uses. Keeping these areas, especially the hospital, a lively urban area will be quite the challenge. Let's just hope the altered vision still sees this area as an extension of a dense, walkable, urban area, and not a series of employment campuses.

http://sacramentorealestatevoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/plan.jpg

[wburg]

Looks like the city and the developer have just announced a new EIR for a new Railyards specific plan. How many of you will provide public comment (written, and/or in-person testimony) telling them to keep the emphasis on high-density housing and the planned street grid?

[Majin]

I will. I will not allow a single cubic yard of concrete to be poured if it's being used for a surface lot. The entire railyards should also be zero lot line. I better not see any random setbacks.

[Bubb90]

http://m.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/06/29/revived-mixed-use-project-on-broadway-breaking.html

[Pistola916]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/540/ABQDDX.jpg

[ltsmotorsport]

^Nice to see some "progress". Just wish the developer/Vanir thought 30 was a better floor count than 26. :cheers:


Looks like the city and the developer have just announced a new EIR for a new Railyards specific plan. How many of you will provide public comment (written, and/or in-person testimony) telling them to keep the emphasis on high-density housing and the planned street grid?

Already working on a draft myself. Link below for others interested in the info to do the same, or just to read the scope of the revision.

http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/Environmental%20Impact%20Reports/NOP%20Railyards%20SP%20Update%20062615.pdf

[Mr. Ozo]

700 K Construction. Someone with a better camera should jump the fence and get some cool interior shots of the buildings.

http://i.imgur.com/1k8Nb4H.png

[SacTownAndy]

Some people have been asking about the status of the Powerhouse Science Center (myself included). I was just browsing through recent city council agendas and came across this. Not much, but still something.

Meeting Date: 6/23/2015

Title: Contract for Powerhouse Science Center Soil Removal Project (G18337000)
Location: District 3
Recommendation: Pass a Motion: 1) approving the Plans and Specifications for the Powerhouse
Science Center Soil Removal Project (G18337000); 2) awarding the construction contract to
American Construction Engineers for an amount not to exceed $455,172; and 3) authorizing the City
Manager to execute a contract with American Construction Engineers in an amount not to exceed
$455,172 for the Powerhouse Science Center Soil Removal Project (G18337000).

Description/Analysis
Issue: The Powerhouse Science Center (PHSC) Soil Removal Project
(G18337000) was advertised and one bid was received on May 13, 2015 from
American Construction Engineers. American Construction Engineers is the lowest
responsive and responsible bidder. City Council approval is necessary to award the
construction contract.

Policy Considerations: The action requested supports the 2013 Economic
Development Strategy, the River District Specific Plan, the Sacramento Riverfront
Master Plan, and prior actions taken by the City Council in support of the PHSC
Project.

[enigma99a]

Hey who is maintaining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sacramento

Someone from here?

[Pistola916]

Hey who is maintaining https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sacramento

Someone from here?

Not me. Some of the proposed buildings are listed as approved but should be listed as cancelled (Capitol Grand, Epic, Riverfront tower, 701 L) and downtown plaza tower and Hyatt Place haven't technically started construction.

[creamcityleo79]

Not me. Some of the proposed buildings are cancelled (Capitol Grand, Epic, Riverfront tower, 701 L) and downtown plaza tower and Hyatt Place haven't technically started construction.

What does "Released 2014" mean?

[enigma99a]

What does "Released 2014" mean?

I think it means updated 2014. But it is the first I heard Capitol Grand as 1,010. Last I heard was 965

[creamcityleo79]

I think it means updated 2014. But it is the first I heard Capitol Grand as 1,010. Last I heard was 965

Some of those updated dates and numbers are quite optimistic.

[Schmoe]

Tweet from Ryan Lillis:

Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 53m

City expects to get application soon from developer John Saca to demolish two vacant properties on J St., including old Biltmore Hotel.


https://twitter.com/Ryan_Lillis/status/621459680007602177

[ltsmotorsport]

Only two? Not that I think it's gonna happen, but it would be cool to see the Plaza Building worked into a new design for the Metropolitan (if he's still thinking that big).

[enigma99a]

Why only two buildings? Maybe he is going to set up a sales office?

I wonder if the metropolitan gets built if he can clear up 301 CM issues with the proceeds? Or would CALPERS not allow that to happen?

[LandofFrost]

Why only two buildings? Maybe he is going to set up a sales office?

I wonder if the metropolitan gets built if he can clear up 301 CM issues with the proceeds? Or would CALPERS not allow that to happen?

The last time I heard anything from CALPERS about the "hole in the ground" was October 2014 and they said they are waiting. If they don't make a statement by the time the arena is done, I'd say they are dropping the ball and someone else will just propose condos at the old Epic, Aura or Metro sites.

[Pistola916]

I notice a fence and barricades are up at the proposed Kaiser clinic on 5th and J streets. I'm guessing preliminary work is beginning soon on the site. Anyone know if Kaiser plans to do any exterior changes? Or is it basically converting it to medical offices with some landscaping work?

[Pistola916]

One potential site is the former Greyhound Depot on Seventh and L.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article27430264.html

[creamcityleo79]

One potential site is the former Greyhound Depot on Seventh and L.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article27430264.html

I was just going to post this! So exciting!!!

[BillSimmons]

I've noticed that Wikipedia page of tallest buildings in Sacramento lists "Riverfront Tower" as a proposed 800' future skyscraper, but I've never heard of it. Does anybody have any information about it?

Also if anybody has any information on the Capitol Grand Tower or Epic Tower that would be great.

Lastly, is the Metropolitan only supposed to be 450'? That seems a bit underwhelming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sacramento

[enigma99a]

I've noticed that Wikipedia page of tallest buildings in Sacramento lists "Riverfront Tower" as a proposed 800' future skyscraper, but I've never heard of it. Does anybody have any information about it?

Also if anybody has any information on the Capitol Grand Tower or Epic Tower that would be great.

Lastly, is the Metropolitan only supposed to be 450'? That seems a bit underwhelming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Sacramento

That's why I was wondering about who was editing the wiki, because it seemed to have information we don't have.

On Epic Tower: Isn't there a libeskind/nassi issue? "Lawyer Condrey wrote the city Sept. 17, saying Libeskind and Stantec had "terminated" their relationship with Nassi, and were "asserting their right to halt work utilizing their copyrighted intellectual property."

On Metropolitan - 450' is a good height, will be our tallest, no issues at all with it. Also should allow the sqft price to drop a little bit versus something like 301CM

[BillSimmons]

Yeah I don't have any issues with 450', more like I was just hoping we could finally break the 500' mark.

[Pistola916]

Yeah I don't have any issues with 450', more like I was just hoping we could finally break the 500' mark.

The height is the least of my concern; we should be lucky if it ever gets built.

In fact, the city might push Saca to construct a five to seven story residential instead because the dude doesn't have the finances to make the the Metropolitan pencil out. "It’s unclear whether Saca’s vision for a high-rise tower remains intact. He did not return phone calls and emails seeking comment. Some at City Hall have privately expressed skepticism that Saca can follow through on the project and say they wonder whether a five- to seven-story residential project on the block is more realistic."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article27458260.html#storylink=cpy

[wburg]

One potential site is the former Greyhound Depot on Seventh and L.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article27430264.html

Hm....who would have thought such a thing was possible? (smugness warning)

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4887649&postcount=288

[enigma99a]

The height is the least of my concern; we should be lucky if it ever gets built.

In fact, the city might push Saca to construct a five to seven story residential instead because the dude doesn't have the finances to make the the Metropolitan pencil out. "It’s unclear whether Saca’s vision for a high-rise tower remains intact. He did not return phone calls and emails seeking comment. Some at City Hall have privately expressed skepticism that Saca can follow through on the project and say they wonder whether a five- to seven-story residential project on the block is more realistic."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article27458260.html#storylink=cpy


Oh god no. Not a 5 story building. Not there

[wburg]

Heck, 7 stories is the height of the Plaza Building that's there now...might as well just fix that up, although I don't think Saca has any more experience rehabbing old buildings than he does building new ones.

[Majin]

I'm worried about that, I don't see a 7 story building flying in either the planning commission or the city council along J street. They probably wouldn't accept anything less than 15 stories and that's on the very bare bones low end.

Just like they wouldn't accept anything less than 40+ stories at 301 CM.

7 stories belong in midtown, east sac, or Oak Park.

[Pistola916]

I'm worried about that, I don't see a 7 story building flying in either the planning commission or the city council along J street. They probably wouldn't accept anything less than 15 stories and that's on the very bare bones low end.

Just like they wouldn't accept anything less than 40+ stories at 301 CM.

7 stories belong in midtown, east sac, or Oak Park.

Beware! Remember Metro Place. It started out as 32 stories. Ultimately it ended being 800J lofts.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/6266/metroplace2ym9.gif

[wburg]

Why would Planning Commission or the City Council reject 7 stories there? There is no minimum height limit. And generally neither body says "no" to any project.

[Majin]

Beware! Remember Metro Place. It started out as 32 stories. Ultimately it ended being 800J lofts.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/6266/metroplace2ym9.gif

That was under her watch:

http://www.metro-edge.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Fargo-Facebook-shot.jpg

[enigma99a]

That was under her watch:


Yeah, well there are plenty of open parcels right now to build on but as they begin to fill up (20-30 years) hopefully 800J will get torn down for something 400'+

[creamcityleo79]

Beware! Remember Metro Place. It started out as 32 stories. Ultimately it ended being 800J lofts.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/6266/metroplace2ym9.gif

Someone needs to bring that back! That is beautiful and stately and belongs in Sacramento!

[enigma99a]

Where are all the residential tower proposals? I think the last recession spooked all the developers away. But real estate is booming for now and the time is now to get this done, otherwise we'll have to wait until the next cycle

[Majin]

Where are all the residential tower proposals? I think the last recession spooked all the developers away. But real estate is booming for now and the time is now to get this done, otherwise we'll have to wait until the next cycle

I agree, it has been VERY quiet. I'm disappointing with this part of KJ's tenure. I thought he would be able to attract more developers than this.

[yolonative]

I'm new to the site so forgive me if this been discussed deep in an old thread, but any leads or any news on potential development at 301 Capitol Mall? Too bad the residential towers fell through during the recession...

[LandofFrost]

I'm new to the site so forgive me if this been discussed deep in an old thread, but any leads or any news on potential development at 301 Capitol Mall? Too bad the residential towers fell through during the recession...

Nothing since last November when they said they were waiting. In general, ownership condos are not being built or really even proposed even though Sacramento has a pretty significant housing shortage at the moment. If you want to rent there are tons of things going on (16th street and R street are hoppin)

[Stellar_Mass]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=198062

Eerily similar to a shoulda coulda woulda. :yes:

[wburg]

Large numbers of ownership condos would threaten the established business model of horizontal greenfield sprawl, and we have plenty of horizontal greenfield to sprawl out into and not much political effort to stop sprawling. The traditional answer is, why should someone pay $500K+ for a highrise condo downtown when they can buy a stucco McMansion in Shady Oak Hills-by-the-River for $300K? The lifestyle/social differences between the people who deliberately want to live in a downtown are less important to most developers, so the downtown market is limited to the people who like the lifestyle so much (or hate commuting so much) they're willing to pay more for it. But there are physical limits to sprawl and highway expansion. The question is, will we reach those limits before getting more high-rise living downtown?

[Web]

I agree, it has been VERY quiet. I'm disappointing with this part of KJ's tenure. I thought he would be able to attract more developers than this.

KJ has a bunch of legal issues to be dealing with.......

[Mr. Ozo]

The question is, will we reach those limits before getting more high-rise living downtown?

Not sure it has to be an either or situation. Clearly Sacramento has room for more sprawl. Delta Shores hasn't even started, Natomas has plenty of space and cities like Elk Grove have no plans of slowing down home building.

As we've pointed out there is a demand for Urban living no matter how much more suburban style homes get built.

Houston is example of a city with a huge amount of sprawl, AND fairly intense central city development. So both are possible.

[LandofFrost]

F*ck greenfield sprawl. I want to be able to see Tahoe and SF at the same time, from my 33rd floor window.

[enigma99a]

Not sure it has to be an either or situation. Clearly Sacramento has room for more sprawl. Delta Shores hasn't even started, Natomas has plenty of space and cities like Elk Grove have no plans of slowing down home building.

As we've pointed out there is a demand for Urban living no matter how much more suburban style homes get built.

Houston is example of a city with a huge amount of sprawl, AND fairly intense central city development. So both are possible.

Yeah and how about Austin? Lots of countryside around there is a good high-rise buildout happening. I think our issue is that we just need one condo tower to be successful for financing to open up for others.

[SacTownAndy]

^^^ Speaking of which, can I ask a stupid question? I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the logistics or finances of building highrise residential, but I've often wondered:

I travel quite a bit for work and bounce around the country farirly regularly. I always pay attention when I'm in a new city of the local development, especially in downtown areas, and given that this is my home, can't help but to compare what I see in each respective place to Sacramento. And I've always wondered, why not here?

Especially in the last 5-10 years, I've seen highrise residential go up just about everywhere. Austin, Phoenix, Denver, Tampa, Salt Lake.... and even Omaha. I was just in Omaha a few months back and noticed several shiny new residential towers on their riverfront.

So my question is, why not here? I mean, I get that California is a more expensive place to build, but if Omaha Nebraska can get riverfront highrise residential, why not Sacramento? Is it laws, regulations, demographics (I can't imagine a highrise condo in Omaha, Austin, or Salt Lake would be priced higher than a similar product here), unproven market? Or a combination of all of the above?

Anyway, thanks for humoring my ignorance. Was just curious if anyone else had any more enlightenment, because I've always wondered... if it can happen "there" (and it's happening "there"), why not here?

[Pistola916]

^^^ Speaking of which, can I ask a stupid question? I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the logistics or finances of building highrise residential, but I've often wondered:

I travel quite a bit for work and bounce around the country farirly regularly. I always pay attention when I'm in a new city of the local development, especially in downtown areas, and given that this is my home, can't help but to compare what I see in each respective place to Sacramento. And I've always wondered, why not here?

Especially in the last 5-10 years, I've seen highrise residential go up just about everywhere. Austin, Phoenix, Denver, Tampa, Salt Lake.... and even Omaha. I was just in Omaha a few months back and noticed several shiny new residential towers on their riverfront.

So my question is, why not here? I mean, I get that California is a more expensive place to build, but if Omaha Nebraska can get riverfront highrise residential, why not Sacramento? Is it laws, regulations, demographics (I can't imagine a highrise condo in Omaha, Austin, or Salt Lake would be priced higher than a similar product here), unproven market? Or a combination of all of the above?

Anyway, thanks for humoring my ignorance. Was just curious if anyone else had any more enlightenment, because I've always wondered... if it can happen "there" (and it's happening "there"), why not here?


This may be completely irrelevant but all those cities (Omaha, Denver, Tampa, Austin, Salt Lake, Phoenix) are home to several Fortune 500 companies. Omaha actually has five F500 companies compared to Sac's none. I suppose the uber rich need urban housing. The demand could be there.

Now I don't know if that plays a factor or not but it seems cities that have a strong high-rise residential market are ones where corporate headquarters exist.

Sac does have high-rise residential. The problem is it doesn't have enough.

[Majin]

Yeah I don't really understand it either. It can't be demographics or demand. Both are there. How many developers are even attempting to get financing?

[wburg]

I get the sense from the Business Journal that high-rise downtown residential is generally discouraged by local developers, as every article about the possibility of housing downtown is bracketed with concerns about how it's soooooo difficult to build housing downtown. I think a lot of the downtown developers consider downtown housing undesirable because they can get slightly higher rents from commercial property, and don't want to have to deal with the complexity that comes with doing residential--from plumbing and infrastructure to residents complaining about nighttime noise and other social problems that businesses that close at 5 PM can more easily ignore.

The lower cost of midrise construction seems to be driving a lot of development to that mode instead of highrise--high steel really does cost a lot more and involves a lot more complexity, and even the developers who are doing downtown housing say that the economics just don't make sense in downtown Sacramento right now.

[BillSimmons]

Perhaps a certain section of the local community that fights tooth and nail against any developer that tries to tear an old building down to replace it with a new one might have something to do with that?

[creamcityleo79]

UC Davis plans $50M building on Sacramento campus for nursing school


http://media.bizj.us/view/img/6563172/betty-irene-moore-hall-at-uc-davis.jpg

Five years after it launched, the Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing at UC Davis has announced plans for a $50 million building on the Sacramento campus it shares with the medical school and health system.
The school opened in 2010 with eight doctoral candidates. In September the school expects to enroll 143, with more degree programs in the works.
As the school grew, it spread to available space across three buildings. The three-story, 70,000-square-foot building will be the fourth in the educational core of the Sacramento campus of the University of California Davis. Construction is expected to start in November and be completed in the fall of 2017.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/07/28/uc-davis-plans-50m-building-on-sacramento-campus.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2015-07-28&u=jAiEl5DcXYSI67dxb4F9e33mJsZ&t=1438124678

[creamcityleo79]

Empty Broadway property sold for high-end residential use


The new owner of a vacant lot near 10th and Broadway plans a high-end residential project. It's the latest in a string of projects launched on the west end of Broadway, an emerging corridor for development.
Indie Capital of Sacramento closed escrow Monday on a 19,500-square-foot parcel of empty land near the northeast corner of Broadway and 10th St., not far from the future new location of The Kitchen.
Broker John Mudgett of Turton Commercial Real Estate said the new owner is planning a high-end residential project on the site. But details such as number of units or size are still being determined, he said.

“They’re on it, talking to the city already,” he said, adding the new owners also plan an outreach effort to neighbors about their plans. “They’re trying to push it as quickly as possible.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/07/28/empty-broadway-property-sold-for-high-end.html?ana=e_du_pub&s=article_du&ed=2015-07-28&u=jAiEl5DcXYSI67dxb4F9e33mJsZ&t=1438124675

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Are they talking about the same 10th and Broadway across from the cemetery or is there another 10th and Broadway that I don't know about?

[Pistola916]

Are they talking about the same 10th and Broadway across from the cemetery or is there another 10th and Broadway that I don't know about?

Yeah, right across from the cemetery. Weird location to build market-rate residential. I'm curious to know if the planners are looking to construct something similar like the Alexan Midtown or 16 Powerhouse.

[wburg]

Perhaps a certain section of the local community that fights tooth and nail against any developer that tries to tear an old building down to replace it with a new one might have something to do with that?
If you think that there aren't controversies over development in every major city, you don't follow the news in other cities, because it's very much the case. And a lot of those other cities have a lot larger, better-funded organizations resisting development--ours are comparative small fry. It's nothing unique to Sacramento. Nor is such a response universal--not every project provokes such a response. Sure, if you look hard enough you're likely to find someone to dislike every project, but it isn't necessarily the same people, nor does merely disliking a project represent tooth-and-nail opposition sufficient to change a developer's mind about building things.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Yeah, right across from the cemetery. Weird location to build market-rate residential. I'm curious to know if the planners are looking to construct something similar like the Alexan Midtown or 16 Powerhouse.

It's just odd. I mean, they couldn't even get that apartment building at 19th and Broadway going, and that was right next to light rail, decent local dining, Tower, etc. Maybe the developers know or see something I don't, but four years of architecture and urban planning studies and ~22 years of Sacramento living, it just doesn't make any sense.

[Mr. Ozo]

The developer is Indie Cap who has built luxury housing in odd little places.

They are the ones building at W and the 27th alley right now. Couple different projects in vacant lots in alleys.

I could list more but here's a link. (http://www.indiecap.net/default.html)

There specially seems to build big houses in a less than ideal spots. So the buyer gets a new luxury house but at a cheaper price because it's on an alley or something.

They are actually building projects so I wouldn't be surprised to see some modern looking row homes built there. And they are all selling.

It's just odd. I mean, they couldn't even get that apartment building at 19th and Broadway going, and that was right next to light rail, decent local dining, Tower, etc. Maybe the developers know or see something I don't, but four years of architecture and urban planning studies and ~22 years of Sacramento living, it just doesn't make any sense.

[enigma99a]

Anyone know if the Whole Foods Condos are for sale? I can't recall...

EDIT: Rental... sigh :(

[LandofFrost]

Anyone know if the Whole Foods Condos are for sale? I can't recall...

EDIT: Rental... sigh :(

Don't worry if any new condos are going for sale, we will be singing it from the mountain tops. So far, it's all feudal land barons sucking the surfs dry.

[wburg]

Figure pretty much all of the new apartments are being built to condo standards, expect them to go condo about 10 years from construction after you can't sue the manufacturer for defects anymore.

[enigma99a]

Figure pretty much all of the new apartments are being built to condo standards, expect them to go condo about 10 years from construction after you can't sue the manufacturer for defects anymore.

How is new ownership condos being done in orher cities?

[wburg]

I think it may be a peculiarity of California housing law, but generally if housing prices are high enough the cost of the eventual lawsuit is baked into the selling price, as they were with the condos at 17th & L Street.

[creamcityleo79]

A couple things...

1) The 10 year wait to condo conversion is not unique to California. It is VERY prevalent here in the Twin Cities, too.


2) If you want to see the impact of a Whole Foods-anchored 6-story residential building, have a look at this one on the edge of DT Minneapolis. I passed it today and got a picture. But, it didn't do it justice.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Minneapolis,+MN/@44.982408,-93.26938,3a,75y,11.42h,107.26t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVr7X0Madel9Z50ADi6y4BA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26output%3Dthumbnail%26thumb%3D2%26panoid%3DVr7X0Madel9Z50ADi6y4BA%26w%3D88%26h%3D60%26yaw%3D56%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D96%26ll%3D44.982408,-93.269380!7i13312!8i6656!4m2!3m1!1s0x52b333909377bbbd:0x939fc9842f7aee07!6m1!1e1