HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2701  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 4:50 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
Some thoughts...
This latest case of the Mayor giving veto to a building that has been
approved by the Planning and Design Commission is a unilateral attack
on the development with none of the guidance and assistance that the other
commissions provide.
Were they? Last I heard, the Metropolitan was going to go to Design Commission on December 19 (according to the Living In Urban Sac blog), but it's not on the December 19 Design Commission minutes--and it would have had to have been approved by the Design Commission before going to Planning. Acella is down for maintenance right now so the city isn't much help--exactly where is the Met in the city planning process?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2702  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 6:51 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Were they? Last I heard, the Metropolitan was going to go to Design Commission on December 19 (according to the Living In Urban Sac blog), but it's not on the December 19 Design Commission minutes--and it would have had to have been approved by the Design Commission before going to Planning. Acella is down for maintenance right now so the city isn't much help--exactly where is the Met in the city planning process?
Actually the Metropolitan is due to be reviewed again in Design Review and the Planning Commission and Fargo definitely intends to call it before the Council as she promised to continue doing until Sacramento has a height limit in place.

And I believe it is no longer the case that a proposal must clear Design Review before going to the Planning Commission (as it was in the past)..

In any case the council is looking for set backs and something less sleek (whatever that means)..
__________________
Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2703  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 6:58 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
Actually the Metropolitan is due to be reviewed again in Design Review and the Planning Commission and Fargo definitely intends to call it before the Council as she promised to continue doing until Sacramento has a height limit in place.

And I believe it is no longer the case that a proposal must clear Design Review before going to the Planning Commission (as it was in the past)..

In any case the council is looking for set backs and something less sleek (whatever that means)..
Perhaps something like this?

Or is it too sleek also?



photo from http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2704  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:22 AM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
It was approved by both. Now the project has to go back to the start
and complete a draft EIR with the hotel/condo configuration - even
though this was completed for the final EIR, which found no difference
between the two.

Design had the final say on the matter, and after they gave it the green
light, William Kopper reared his ugly head and the Council called it up.

Planning Commission - Oct 26th, 2007
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission approve the request
based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1.
There are no known community opposition to this project and staff
has no unresolved issues with the project at this time.


Design Commission - Nov. 29th, 2007
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Commission approve the
request based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in
Attachment 1. The Design Commission has final approval authority over
items A-C above, and its decision may be appealed to City Council.


Here's items A-C...
A. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
B. Mitigation Monitoring Plan;
C. Design Review of proposed high rise building.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by TowerDistrict; Jan 16, 2008 at 7:36 AM. Reason: added items a-c
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2705  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 4:05 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
It was approved by both. Now the project has to go back to the start
and complete a draft EIR with the hotel/condo configuration - even
though this was completed for the final EIR, which found no difference
between the two.

Design had the final say on the matter, and after they gave it the green
light, William Kopper reared his ugly head and the Council called it up.

Planning Commission - Oct 26th, 2007
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission approve the request
based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed in Attachment 1.
There are no known community opposition to this project and staff
has no unresolved issues with the project at this time.


Design Commission - Nov. 29th, 2007
Recommendation: Staff recommends the Design Commission approve the
request based on the findings of fact and subject to the conditions listed in
Attachment 1. The Design Commission has final approval authority over
items A-C above, and its decision may be appealed to City Council.


Here's items A-C...
A. Environmental Determination: Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
B. Mitigation Monitoring Plan;
C. Design Review of proposed high rise building.

The Mayor's determined to call up every project until she get's her height limits in place.

Which begs the question what is her idea of a height ceiling for Sacramento?

A 42 story residential tower is only about as tall as a 33 story office building, (+/-) a couple floors; so what's her problem?
__________________
Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2706  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 4:51 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Why does there need to be a height limit in the first place?

I suggest everybody on this board email EVERYBODY in the city council and let them know your disgust of the situation. Let them know they can't hold back projects like this for absurd reasons while the suburbs continue to explode (is anybody trying to block projects in natomas? LOL). It seems like, at least in this case, the city is no better than the lawyers trying to block ED on Mohanna's properties.

We seriously can't sit back and do nothing. At the very least we need to shoot some emails off. Or get some very negative ads/editorials out in the newspapers about Fargo and co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2707  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 5:51 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Some tidbits from Bob Shallit's column:
Quote:
At least one national company sees a bright future for Sacramento's troubled K Street Mall.

USAA Real Estate Co., a San Antonio-based division of the military-focused financial services firm, recently completed its purchase of the landmark Renaissance Tower building at 801 K.

The sales price? Undisclosed but likely just below $90 million.

"We like the momentum we're seeing on K Street and the city's commitment to that area, especially the 700 and 800 blocks," says Sam Mitts, executive managing director of the USAA division that owns and manages about $4 billion worth of properties.

USAA and a partner, Canadian real estate investor SITQ, emerged as the high bidder among 10 that made offers to Indianapolis-based HDG Mansur, a global real estate investment company that purchased the tower in 2005 for $79.3 million.

Staffers of commercial brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle in San Francisco and Sacramento handled the sale.

Mitts says the new owners are planning to make the building "greener" by introducing energy-saving features. They're also seeking a tenant for the 28-story building's largest and most glaring vacancy – a 12,000-square-foot retail space that once housed a restaurant.

* * *

Readers weep: Roseville will be down one bookstore after the Borders store in the Westfield Galleria mall closes on Saturday.

The store was "underperforming," a spokeswoman says, and fell victim to a companywide effort to regain profitability by reducing marginal locations.

Only a handful of Borders stores are being closed nationally, but nearly half of the company's Waldenbooks outlets will be shuttered in the "right-sizing" effort, says Borders' Kolleen O'Meara.

Why would a Borders do poorly in such a successful mall?

Galleria spokeswoman Stephanie Ringey has no answer, but notes the company has a bustling store on Douglas Boulevard, less than two miles away. There's also a busy Barnes & Noble outlet right across the street from the Galleria.

Could be the area is just overbooked.

But Ringey isn't ruling out the possibility that another bookstore could enter the mall as part of a major expansion.
Hmmm...maybe not all is as rosy in Roseville as Westfield would lead us to believe. Maybe Borders should move to the ground floor of the Darth Vader Building?

About maximum height limits: While I think there are places for height limits (residential neighborhoods, historic districts, selected view corridors) the CBD certainly isn't one of them. Real protection for historic downtown buildings should be enforced via landmark status and minimum maintenance standards, not forcing new construction in the place where things really SHOULD be tall to hunch their shoulders under a height limit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2708  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 6:52 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Some tidbits from Bob Shallit's column:

Hmmm...maybe not all is as rosy in Roseville as Westfield would lead us to believe. Maybe Borders should move to the ground floor of the Darth Vader Building?

About maximum height limits: While I think there are places for height limits (residential neighborhoods, historic districts, selected view corridors) the CBD certainly isn't one of them. Real protection for historic downtown buildings should be enforced via landmark status and minimum maintenance standards, not forcing new construction in the place where things really SHOULD be tall to hunch their shoulders under a height limit.
I work for USAA and I have to say that it is an EXTREMELY conservative company! So, if they're buying on K St. They MUST see potential!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2709  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:11 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Were they? Last I heard, the Metropolitan was going to go to Design Commission on December 19 (according to the Living In Urban Sac blog), but it's not on the December 19 Design Commission minutes--and it would have had to have been approved by the Design Commission before going to Planning. Acella is down for maintenance right now so the city isn't much help--exactly where is the Met in the city planning process?
The City Council took action that directed staff to re-circulate the EIR and
send the project back to Design Commission and Planning Commission
to work on the design. The project probably won't be back to both
commissions till April at the earliest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2710  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 7:45 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
The City Council took action that directed staff to re-circulate the EIR and
send the project back to Design Commission and Planning Commission
to work on the design. The project probably won't be back to both
commissions till April at the earliest.
Besides the money it's costing to go through the process again, this may be a GOOD thing for the project! By the time it comes up again, we may be looking at a different situation for the housing market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2711  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 8:04 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
Or it could kill the project. The new changes could make it so the project
won't pencil out any more, besides the cost of going through the process
again, Saca also has to pay all his people (advisors and such) to do their jobs again.

Will see
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2712  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 8:57 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
How about this as an alternative then:

We collectively draft a well written letter addressed to the city council, with signatures of residents, business leaders, and even downtown partnership, and hand deliver it to them the next time Metropolitain goes up before the council/design review.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2713  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 9:10 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
How about this as an alternative then:

We collectively draft a well written letter addressed to the city council, with signatures of residents, business leaders, and even downtown partnership, and hand deliver it to them the next time Metropolitain goes up before the council/design review.
I'm good with that!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2714  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 9:40 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
Majin, are you going to draft this letter or do you have something else in mind?
It always cracks me up when someone proposes a big idea but then expects
others to do all the leg work. You seemed pumped up about this, are you
going to make this happen?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2715  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 11:42 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2716  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 12:43 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Why does there need to be a height limit in the first place?

I suggest everybody on this board email EVERYBODY in the city council and let them know your disgust of the situation. Let them know they can't hold back projects like this for absurd reasons while the suburbs continue to explode (is anybody trying to block projects in natomas? LOL). It seems like, at least in this case, the city is no better than the lawyers trying to block ED on Mohanna's properties.

We seriously can't sit back and do nothing. At the very least we need to shoot some emails off. Or get some very negative ads/editorials out in the newspapers about Fargo and co.
Ok, Majin, because you are against height limits, you've got my vote back.
I seriously, seriously do not want more height limits. I am very disappointed in the mayor if she is pro height limits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2717  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 1:52 AM
sactivity's Avatar
sactivity sactivity is offline
4give me for I have Zin'd
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Olympia by way of Sacramento
Posts: 475
hi everyone -- miss me ???
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2718  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 2:30 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactivity View Post
hi everyone -- miss me ???

I was just think about you the other day, wondering if you had dropped off the face of the earth..

How goes things up north?
__________________
Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2719  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 3:36 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by sactivity View Post
hi everyone -- miss me ???
Hey buddy... I hope things are going along as planned
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2720  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2008, 3:58 PM
What is a Rivercat? What is a Rivercat? is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 372
My email to: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; [email protected]; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

The Metropolitan project

Good morning,

I would like to register my extreme disappointment with Mayor Fargo's illogical quest to impose height limits on such structures. I'd like to see Sacramento develop into a world-class city and the mayor seems hellbent on preventing this from occurring. I know her arguments for the height restrictions and I find them to be without merit.

Thank you,
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:55 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.