Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[UnclearColt]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...ter-plan-forsees-thousands-of-homes.html

Looks like Natomas sprawl is going to be moving further north.

Next month, supervisors will hear a formal presentation on a development plan for the 5,700-acre North Precinct, which by acreage would be about half residential. Roughly 1,500 acres would be low-density residential, and another 808 acres would be medium-density residential. There would also be about 700 acres of commercial development, with the largest portion of 156 acres designated as a “commerce district” creating more than 7,000 jobs.

[Majin]

This is why it's important for the city to annex land and not leave it up to the county to control growth (they won't).

Huge blunder by the city in the past and even now in the present not to annex land if they want to control sprawl.

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by Majin

This is why it's important for the city to annex land and not leave it up to the county to control growth (they won't).

Huge blunder by the city in the past and even now in the present not to annex land if they want to control sprawl.

Unfortunately they prefer the ostrich approach.

[wburg]

Do you think something different would happen if it was within the city limits? Take a look at Delta Shores and then ask that question.

[enigma99a]

They are pouring concrete today at the DoCo tower. (Golden 1 Center live cam #1). Surprised they would do it on a rainy day but I guess it doesn't make much difference

[Mr. Ozo]

Originally Posted by wburg

Do you think something different would happen if it was within the city limits? Take a look at Delta Shores and then ask that question.

The planning commission meetings will spend two hours on a new townhouse in Midtown. Then a new neighborhood in Natomas with a thousand homes comes up and it's 5 minutes, yep that looks good, next.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

The planning commission meetings will spend two hours on a new townhouse in Midtown. Then a new neighborhood in Natomas with a thousand homes comes up and it's 5 minutes, yep that looks good, next.

I realize you're going for comedic effect here (small townhouse projects in Midtown are generally approved at the Design Director level rather than requiring a planning commission hearing) but it reminded me of a Planning & Design Commission hearing I attended this spring. Three items were on the agenda--a presentation about Sacramento Commons (1300 units high/mid-rise), approval for Delta Shores' commercial district (a commercial development project on 22 acres including a Super Wal-Mart, eventually to be joined by more than 5000 homes, mostly single-family suburban & low density apartments), and a modification to a building in Land Park.

The Land Park item took about 90 minutes of discussion, regarding appropriateness of a house modification and a potential window that would look into a neighbor's yard. Several references to the historic value of the homes were made even though Land Park isn't a historic district and none of the buildings were landmarks.

The Delta Shores item was approved with a lot of public support, including mention of their "high-density" elements, which work out to about 24 units an acre (roughly Midtown-ish.) Sacramento Commons was pushed to a subsequent meeting because the other items ran the meeting to 11:00 PM, where it received lots of public comment but was approved by the Planning Commission.

However, it's not Commission meetings that are the complex part about major developments--that has more to do with the engineering and design details that are worked out with staff over weeks, months or years depending on the size and complexity of the project.

But Mr. Ozo's comment definitely reinforces the point--the Planning Commission only reviews development projects that take place within the city limits, and generally doesn't discourage many projects, whether they're new suburban construction or central city construction. So really the only contrast with the County planning commission is that they don't approve any central city construction, since technically there aren't any "central city" places in the unincorporated county.

[LandofFrost]

Oh this good news! Community meetings on Light-rail extension to Airport.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article47274550.html

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by LandofFrost

Oh this good news! Community meetings on Light-rail extension to Airport.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transportation/article47274550.html

Cool!

Although, it's a damn shame the county didn't build the airport where Arco/Sleep Train Arena now stands. Where Biz 80 and I-5 meet would made it more accessible and with a proposed/eventual light rail terminus there the cost for the Green Line DNA line would've been significantly less.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Cool!

Although, it's a damn shame the county didn't build the airport where Arco/Sleep Train Arena now stands. Where Biz 80 and I-5 meet would made it more accessible and with a proposed/eventual light rail terminus there the cost for the Green Line DNA line would've been significantly less.

Be glad they didn't or there might be height restrictions over downtown

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

Be glad they didn't or there might be height restrictions over downtown

Meh, this town can't build anything over 450 feet even without height restrictions.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Meh, this town can't build anything over 450 feet even without height restrictions.

I think you might be mixing things up--per city code 17.216.830 C-3 zone—Height, density, lot coverage, and floor area ratios, except for within the "Capitol View Protection" viewshed, there is no maximum height limit in the Central Business District zone. The maximum density for housing is 450 units/acre (currently we have about 7 units/acre not counting the main jail), maybe that's where you got that 450 number?

[UnclearColt]

Originally Posted by wburg

I think you might be mixing things up--per city code 17.216.830 C-3 zone—Height, density, lot coverage, and floor area ratios, except for within the "Capitol View Protection" viewshed, there is no maximum height limit in the Central Business District zone. The maximum density for housing is 450 units/acre (currently we have about 7 units/acre not counting the main jail), maybe that's where you got that 450 number?

I think what he means is that even with no height restrictions, buildings that exceed 450' just don't get built here. Not that they can't, just that they don't.

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by wburg

I think you might be mixing things up--per city code 17.216.830 C-3 zone—Height, density, lot coverage, and floor area ratios, except for within the "Capitol View Protection" viewshed, there is no maximum height limit in the Central Business District zone. The maximum density for housing is 450 units/acre (currently we have about 7 units/acre not counting the main jail), maybe that's where you got that 450 number?

Actually, I was trying to explain that since our current tallest building is 423 feet, height restrictions are moot. We can't seem to get anything build over 423 feet anyway (i used 450 feet as a barometer).

[Pistola916]

Restaurateur Randy Paragary plans boutique hotel in midtown Sacramento

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article47449790.html

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Actually, I was trying to explain that since our current tallest building is 423 feet, height restrictions are moot. We can't seem to get anything build over 423 feet anyway (i used 450 feet as a barometer).

In other words, the limitation only exists in people's minds, not in a regulatory sense. Is the lack of height due to a lack of sufficiently high property value, necessary to justify the expense? Or because regional development is uncontained, resulting in "landscrapers" in the suburbs instead of taller buildings downtown? Or do you consider it a lack of skill/ability in the local building industry?

[LandofFrost]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Restaurateur Randy Paragary plans boutique hotel in midtown Sacramento

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article47449790.html

I realize some people will be against this because the building they are removing is 90 years old but I'm perfectly fine with it for a couple reasons:

1. The rendering looks nice.
2. The B street theatre building, next door, will be pretty large too.
3. The monkey bar has been doing terrible the last couple years.
4. We need another nice hotel... the only other hotel I will let family stay at is the Citizen.
5. Maybe it will counter-act the ugly from the huge parking garage and Cancer Center (I think whomever designed that building needs to be run out of Sacramento)

[wburg]

Renderings always look nice. B Street is going in whether or not this hotel does. Monkey Bar is supposed to reopen inside the hotel, and is a failing bar (assuming what you say is true) sufficient reason to demolish the building--it's the building's fault somehow if they can't keep customers?

No argument about the parking garage next door. Personally I think they could build a new mid-height building on the 1980s office building next door and use the existing building as the restaurant/lobby to a boutique hotel, with quaint historic rooms on the second floor using the old apartments, and new modern rooms in the new building (plus adding an elevator for ADA access.) Keeps the charm and adds utility, shields the ugly parking structure with a new building. Part of the Citizen's charm is its historic appearance, so if you're going for charm, that might be a better path.

So, who designed that parking structure, anyhow?

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by wburg

Do you think something different would happen if it was within the city limits? Take a look at Delta Shores and then ask that question.

When it comes to local or municipal developments, it is better to have one larger jurisdiction than two (or worse, multiple) smaller ones. The term "Balkanization", applied to places like Orange County or the "East Bay" area or "The Peninsula", exists, and is pejorative, for a reason.

And how about that Delta Shores? Like Elk Grove hadn't leapfrogged it before it even began already?

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by wburg

It's the building's fault somehow if they can't keep customers?

Yes, if it wasn't then / isn't now designed with the business in mind. Real World.....