Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[Phillip]

Nassi pleads and prays.
Corus Bank crunches numbers.
Sacramento waits.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Texicali

The big downtown towers are nice, but what will really make sacramento interesting is the proliferation of mixed-use mid-rises shorter than 4-6 stories tall. The mid-rises create the funky neighboorhoods where you want to get out of your car and mix with people. The towers are for putting Sacramento "on the map", which frankly I couldn't care less about.

Even with the downtown in the housing market the midrise projects are coming, and Sacramento is putting the General Plan and zoning code in place to allow it to happen. I haven't been in Sacramento that long but things are improving even in that relatively short time span. Take a longer view.

Welcome Texicali.....

Well stated observations and I agree 100%.

I think most of us would agree that what really matters isn't really whether a building is low, mid or highrise, so long as it's high density and makes the best land use of Sacramento's growing local and regional rail corridors..

Certainly it's the vibrancy on the ground that will transform (and is transforming DT Sacramento...)

But admittedly the propsect of rasing the skyline to new heghts in Sacramento, represents icing on the cake..

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Phillip

Nassi pleads and prays.
Corus Bank crunches numbers.
Sacramento waits.

Attention to detail please..

It's MeeCorp crunching the numbers not Corus..

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Attention to detail please..

It's MeeCorp crunching the numbers not Corus..

Hmmm, how can I turn "MeeCorp" into three syllables?

[BrianSac]

Developer wants to build ethanol plant at former Army Depot
By Dale Kasler - Bee Staff Writer
Published 4:25 pm PDT Friday, March 30, 2007

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)

A developer is proposing to build a major ethanol-production plant at the former Sacramento Army Depot.

Hoping to cash in on the nation's ethanol boom, Dick Fischer, whose Seattle-based Fischer Properties is the developer of what's now called Depot Park, said Friday he and a partner plan to build a $100 million ethanol facility.

The plant would be the only significant ethanol plant located in a major urban area, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. But Fischer said he doesn't anticipate major problems in obtaining the necessary permits.


"It's so benign," Fischer said. "You can stand a block away from one and not smell it, not hear it."

The proposed plant, to be called Golden State Ethanol, would be capable of making 100 million gallons of ethanol a year -- enough to supply 10 percent of California's needs. Ethanol from corn is blended into gasoline as a means of cleaning the air. Fischer said he anticipates the plant will be up and running within two years.

The proposal was first revealed by Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo in her State of the City speech Friday.

Fischer's partner in the project is Gregg Renkes, a former Alaska state attorney general and a one-time staffer with the U.S. Senate Energy Committee. He resigned as attorney general in 2005 amid conflict of interest allegations, but Fischer called the matter "political" and said Renkes was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Ethanol production in the United States jumped 24 percent last year, and some analysts are warning of a glut. But Fischer said he and Renkes aren't worried and are confident they will obtain financing for the project.

The Bee's Dale Kasler can be reached at (916) 321-1066 or [email protected].

[foxmtbr]

Woohoo! More high-tech industry.

[brandon12]

^well, it's not really "high-tech", but at least it's industry.

[arod74]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

A developer is proposing to build a major ethanol-production plant at the former Sacramento Army Depot. Hoping to cash in on the nation's ethanol boom.

I was much more excited about Sacramento's place in the alternative fuel industry before I saw "Who Killed the Electric Car". A very sobering documentary that examines the evolution and implications of California's past and present "alternative fuel" policy with the automakers for clean air. Highly recommended as a rental the next time your in blockbuster..

[downtownserg89]

what ever happened to the sacramento:attitudes views, etc thread? it was really cool.

[BrianSac]

Sacramento's Version of Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

This high-density development is 1/2 block from the 65st Light Rail Station
taken by BrianSac while getting a Jamba Juice

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by downtownserg89

what ever happened to the sacramento:attitudes views, etc thread? it was really cool.

Sergie,
I changed the name to Californian's Views, Opinions, and Attitudes on Sacramento

[aufbau]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Sacramento's Version of Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

This high-density development is 1/2 block from the 65st Light Rail Station
taken by BrianSac while getting a Jamba Juice

To be fair, isn't that parking lot part of the development (the loftworks building) next to the TOD under construction and not part of the project itself?

What is the name of that project under construction? Anyone have links to further information about it?

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by aufbau

To be fair, isn't that parking lot part of the development (the loftworks building) next to the TOD under construction and not part of the project itself?

What is the name of that project under construction? Anyone have links to further information about it?

See link below: It's all part of the same development. Sort of ironic though regarding the parking lot, thats why I took the pic the way I did.

http://www.tndwest.com/65thtransitvillage.html

[ozone]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Sacramento's Version of Transit Oriented Development (TOD)

This high-density development is 1/2 block from the 65st Light Rail Station
taken by BrianSac while getting a Jamba Juice

It's a really cool in-fill project that reminds of some of the newer more dense suburban developments in the Bay Area.

Does anyone know what's up with the lot across from the LR station? I remember there used to be a sign up announcing a future office building on that site.

I'd would like to see a more attactive streetscape -especially from the LR station across 65th and the SMUD HQ should put in an entrance from 65th Street because now you must go all the way around the huge building to enter -unless you work there.

[BrianSac]

New fire safety law may force Roseville to keep low profile
Taller buildings face more costs as Council prepares rules on structures over 55 feet.
By Jennifer K. Morita - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, April 1, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)

Roseville officials, eager to lure high profile corporations, want developers to build upscale office buildings at heights never before reached in the growing city.

But these suburban towers already have changed more than Roseville's skyline.

Even before construction, they've altered the way Roseville fights fires, and developers aren't happy about it.


Roseville City Council members preliminarily approved a new law last week requiring developers to include enhanced fire safety features in midrise buildings -- those from roughly four to six stories high.

Any building taller than 55 feet must have a fire equipment storage room on an upper level, a smoke management system to clear smoke from stairways and a computerized fire alarm system with recorded voice instructions.

Midrise buildings also will need backup generators to run alarm and smoke systems and a fire command center to house alarm control panels and building maps.

For a five-story building of about 158,000 square feet, the additional safety features would cost an estimated $311,000.

"By adopting this policy, the council has in effect put a four-story cap on office development in the city, at least for the foreseeable future," developer spokesman Gene Endicott said.

"The additional costs are enough, in this marketplace, to discourage developers from pursuing a midrise project."

There are no buildings taller than three stories in Roseville.

But with one five-story building under construction and more on the way, fire officials say the new requirements are needed. Taller buildings pose safety risks they hadn't planned for.

"Midrise buildings present a more urban fire problem," Fire Chief Ken Wagner said.

Unlike Sacramento and other metropolitan cities, where fire stations are located close together to protect the more densely populated areas, Roseville's eight stations are spaced farther apart.

Enhanced smoke and alarm systems called for by the ordinance will give occupants more time to get out of buildings safely. Having fire hoses and air tanks already stored on a top floor saves firefighters from having to haul heavy equipment up several flights of stairs.

"If we don't have the built-in systems to keep incidents small and allow occupants to get out safely on their own fairly quickly, we would need to bring on additional resources," Fire Marshal Dennis Mathisen said.

Hiring more firefighters to accommodate midrise buildings would cost taxpayers more than $4 million a year, according to Mathisen.

Developers, however, say the new law effectively cuts off efforts to raise Roseville's profile.

"You've got a fire and life-safety objective on a collision course with economic development goals," Endicott said.

Thirsty for more high paying jobs and increased sales and property tax revenue, city officials have been strategizing ways to attract major corporations and Fortune 500 companies to Roseville.

Steadfast Business Properties wants to build a six-story office building on Eureka Boulevard and Sunrise Avenue.

Richland Planned Communities has proposed two more six-story structures along Highway 65 near Blue Oaks Boulevard.

Beginning July 1, a developer who pulls a construction permit for a midrise building will have to comply with the regulations.

Marcus LoDuca, an attorney representing Steadfast and Richland, asked the council to allow projects already in the pipeline to be built under the old regulations.

LoDuca said the additional fire safety features amount to a 20 percent fee increase for developers.

The council, however, sided with its Fire Department officials, who argued against any kind of grandfather clause.

"We're still a relatively new city, we're still growing," Mathisen said later. "We have the opportunity to start out on the right foot with new development."

LoDuca called the new regulations an "impediment."

"It's a higher cost and a new requirement that other communities do not have," he said.

Sacramento, for instance, has a high-rise ordinance for buildings taller than 75 feet.

Council members Gina Garbolino, Carol Garcia and John Allard asked staff to come up with a list of financial incentives the city can offer developers of midrise buildings.

"There are other options for people who build and occupy these buildings," Allard said. "I'm afraid if we don't get our focus back on encouraging and attracting these buildings, they will not come."

The council is scheduled to give its final approval on the new fire safety requirements at its April 18 meeting.

[BrianSac]

Dixon racetrack promoters jockeying for the stretch run
As vote in city nears, the Toronto firm is optimistic, but foes also rally their forces.
By Debbie Arrington - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, April 1, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B2

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)

With two weeks to go before the vote, Magna Entertainment Corp. officials in Toronto and California are redoubling their effort to win public approval for the Dixon Downs racetrack development.

"Michael Neuman, our CEO, is totally committed to Dixon Downs, as is our chairman Frank Stronach," said MEC Vice President Dennis Mills, who is the Canadian company's main representative in Dixon. "Every day, Michael wants to know how the project is going."

Dixon Downs supporters say a state-of-the-art racetrack and entertainment destination, with a proposed 1.4 million square feet of retail space, would be a logical solution for the future of racing in Northern California.



The 73-year-old Bay Meadows Race Course is set to close in November.

While Sacramento's Cal Expo and county fair tracks scramble to grab Bay Meadows' 120 racing dates for 2008, MEC -- North America's largest racetrack operator -- also will be "very, very bullish on racing dates," Mills said.

But instead of partnering with a fair to get some of those dates, the company is sticking to its priority: building a facility in Dixon.

"We're not negotiating with Cal Expo," Mills said. "Dixon Downs will have every bit as much to offer, if not more (than other tracks) for available racing dates. If we need a stopgap, we have a fine alternative in Golden Gate Fields."

Golden Gate Fields, in Albany, is owned by MEC.

Dixon voters will decide April 17 on four referendums -- Measures M, N, O and P -- that will decide the fate of the $250 million project.

Opponents cite increased traffic and gambling as major concerns.

"We'll be working real hard right up to the minute the polls close," said Marime Burton, the opposition campaign chairwoman. "We're concentrating on getting out the vote."

Dixon Downs would be "much more than a racetrack," Mills added.

"There's tremendous interest in the retail possibilities attached to Dixon Downs," he said.

The project got a boost last week, as more than 100 Dixon businesses added their names in support.

[TWAK]

TWAK is voting no because a Dixon NIMBY I sure am.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by TWAK

TWAK is voting no because a Dixon NIMBY I sure am.

TWAK,
Do you care to elaborate on what it is you dont like about Dixon Downs?

[downtownserg89]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Sergie,
I changed the name to Californian's Views, Opinions, and Attitudes on Sacramento

oh! i just love sergie!!

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

TWAK,
Do you care to elaborate on what it is you dont like about Dixon Downs?

Gambling, the city council and their dirty games to get this passed, not letting the public decide the biggest project in Dixon's history until several petitions with thousands of signatures was signed, borderline harassment by menga of anti Dixon downs folks, the dixon fair grounds going out of business loosing all concerts and ect to Dixon downs. I'm a NIMBYwhen it comes to my small town. Another suburban development and all that unurban crap people complain about here.