Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[38 Geary]

Building Permits For New University Hospital In Sacramento



BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON JULY 14, 2023

New building permits have been filed for the proposed 13-story hospital at One Sports Parkway in Natomas, Sacramento. The facility will replace the former Sleep Train Arena with a medical facility operated by California Northstate University. The project has been designed by San Francisco-based Fong & Chan Architects.

The project spans 183 acres that are occupied by surface parking and landscaping. The site masterplan includes, alongside the proposed central hospital building, a massive landscaped courtyard surrounded by more CNU medical facilities. The new medical campus would include a laboratory, pharmaceutical laboratories, a senior care center, a dormitory, admin offices, a maternal care center, an outpatient clinic, flexible university buildings, retail, and a parking garage.

The 13-story metal-clad proposal looks like deconstructed masses neatly balanced into a single complex. The upper seven stories are cantilevered above, with vertical fins providing shade along rounded floorplates. The V-shaped floorplan will more closely resemble a rabbit’s face with ears extending from the superstructure.

Demolition has already occurred for the Sleep Train Arena. The sports venue was constructed in 1988, and served as the home to the Sacramento Kings until 2016, when the team moved to a new arena called Golden 1 Center in Downtown Sacramento.

https://sfyimby.com/2023/07/building-permits-for-new-university-hospital-in-sacramento.html

[38 Geary]

And the renderings:















https://sfyimby.com/2023/07/building-permits-for-new-university-hospital-in-sacramento.html

[TWAK]

I wonder if this project will cover the unbuilt baseball stadium, can't really tell with what's provided.

[TWAK]

Here's the project outline, so it will cover the abandoned baseball stadium!

Source

[mindbender]

I actually think it's the southwest quadrant of the site, if you look at how Sports Pkwy and Innovator Dr align. This looks to me like it covers where the area was and a big chunk of the parking lot, but the stadium site is to the north and will probably be covered in a future development.

If you look here in the Tentative-Subdivision Map you can see the site plan fits in that lower quadrant.

You can also see how the site plan integrates into the subdivision map directly here.

[TWAK]

Here's a picture of that subdivision map:

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Awe yeah, hopefully this comes to fruition.
It's not the biggest chunk of land to and it's mightily compact.

I've looked this a couple times now and really pretty happy with it. First, it beautifully accommodates what was in my view a perplexing and misguided demand to keep the existing depot in its present use. The tracks are just much too far away. Can you imagine that incredible space as a hotel lobby or a farmer's market type operation like what the Ferry Building in San Francisco has evolved into?

Second - does a really good job of integrating the different transportation modes to maximize use. I am a firm believer that the way to make public transportation work is not by punishing those who prefer alternate means, but to make public transportation an easy first-choice for an identified market segment. Making for a seamless transition between modes helps solves the "last quarter-mile" problem much of public transportation endures. Cars are popular because they provide door to door service. That last quarter-mile on foot precludes a lot of people from using public transport.

Third - Close to planned and existing high-density housing. As a developer, I remind myself that when you build housing, you're not selling the unit, nor the street, nor really even the location. What you're really selling is lifestyle. With a major transport hub so close, you've complimented a lifestyle that isn't half a mile in radius, but a 120 miles. There is a segment of the market that will pay a premium for a lifestyle they can't get anywhere else in the Valley. And the community benefits are clear and unambiguous.

Fourth - Energy magnet. As conceptualized, this will create one of Sacramento's great gathering spaces as locals and visitors thrive in an inspiring setting with each new train arrival brimming with stories to be shared.

Fifth - Success. This concept doesn't depend on some miracle or a series of unlikely scenarios to succeed. No one needs to waive a magic wand or force people into accepting this transportation option. As wburg noted, it's already the seventh busiest Amtrak station in the country.

Sixth - It's possible. This can actually get built and work as promised. Plenty of funding sources and a demonstrable need. That makes it unique among most government transportation proposals.

All-in... this is pretty good. Now leaders at all levels need to stay on it to make it a reality.

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Here's a rendering of the hotel.



Meh. It's OK... I am not a big fan of modern architecture, but it's better than the sprawlscraper proposed on Q street.

This hotel project fascinates me. I have to applaud the efforts of mayor Steinberg and his team because executing a hotel project today is extraordinarily difficult.

In the last five years I have worked on half-a-dozen hotel projects and in the last year or so getting financing has been next to impossible.

Most capital structures require >40% equity, so on a $90M project the developer must have put together a minimum $36M to get project funded. That funding will now cost you 10% for your construction, 8% for your perm. You're looking at another $10M right there to start plus a crippling debt service to ops.

Construction costs for convention hotels have exploded and we're seeing $600,000/key as commonplace. If that holds then you're looking at a nearly $200M project ($80M equity). That's a lot of money for both equity and debts markets, especially in today's environment where hotels are being returned to the lender in droves (locally, see San Francisco and Napa). And with many first-term loans coming due in the next few years, this could turn into a bloodbath (what works at 3.75% is catastrophic at 7%). Btw - hotel costs were about half that five years ago.

It will have to be subsidized by the City, but I wonder what form that subsidy will take. Will it directly add to the capital stack a provide some equity? Will it waive all fees to afford developer to contribute more as the sponsor? Will it subsidize the debt payments? Tax credits? Occupancy guarantees?

What subsidies can they legally offer? I can't wait to see how the funding is structured.

I'm also interested to see what flag the hotel will be. I'd be surprised if it already has a major presence near the convention center, so I am (purely) guessing that takes out Sheraton, Hyatt, and probably Marriot. Obviously a convention hotel, so probably not a boutique flag like Salt or Ace. Also, because it's aiming at the conventioneer, that probably eliminates the luxury flags like St. Regis or Four Seasons.

What's left? Just throwing darts at the board here, but the closest Hilton flag is the Embassy Suites on Capitol Mall at the river. That's pretty far away to capture convention traffic. Hmmm...

A darkhorse is the Cambria brand, which is the high-end flag for Choice Hotels. They are offering significant seed money as they work to increase market share. Hmmmm...

As noted, I can't wait to see how this plays out.

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Thank god about the hotel.

Because, take a look at this awful proposal on an important building site… Here we go again with yet another disappointing proposal:


Pre-application calls for redeveloping former Sacramento Bee site into more than 500 apartments
By Ben van der Meer – Senior Reporter, Sacramento Business Journal
Jun 8, 2023

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/n...velopment-apartments-shopoff-realty.html





Really? This is all we get for a huge property?

Well, I guess it's time to join "Team Majin" because this proposal is awful.

If this were 2008, after the economic downturn, I would be defending it - "I'd rather have something than nothing." However, after 15 years of the same "Developer Modernist" boxes, I am done.

Sacramento developers are tight-fisted, boring, and unimaginative. All they care about is NOW. They don't think about the future at all. Plus, they aren't visionary:


I just don't understand this spate of low rise, low energy, boring proposals. Especially those that would take up huge swaths of land. In an older post, I mentioned that a developer wants to build a 5-story apartment complex on that parking lot, across from CalPERS' "sprawlscraper." (On the southeast corner of 3rd and R streets.) It's an entire city block, and they want to build a 5-story building that takes up the whole thing?! Originally, we were told [by CalPERS?] that block would have a really special project. Well, it's just more of the same. I am beginning to think that Majin's warning that all the good sites would be taken up might just come true.

Anyway, if you think that proposal bad, the former Sacramento Bee property is 2 blocks. It's huge. This development would be two block-sized, 5-story buildings with zero retail. Most good-sized proposals are a half or even a quarter of a block in size. A huge portion of Midtown will be dead much of the time. Why can't the developer subdivide this property two, four, six, or eight parcels, build a non-sprawling, 7 story building on of theme, and sell the rest?

It's time for me side with Majin, we cannot allow these sprawling, residential-only proposals any longer. We're going to regret them later on. They are a poor use of valuable land.

I would be less upset if the proposal included ground floor retail, restaurant, bar, and entertainment spaces. But it doesn't. And that brings me to another issue I have with this and other recent proposals: They are NOT mixed-use.

In this case, the developer says the neighborhood has several other existing and proposed retail spaces. That's a horseshit excuse. Yes, the area does have some retail establishments, restaurants, and bars. There's even two supermarkets (Safeway and Coop) within a few blocks. However, 538 residential units equals roughly 1,000+ residents. Another proposal across the street has 240+ units. That's even more people. All those residents (and their visitors) could use a restaurant, some retail, a small bodega, and entertainment. Plus, let's not forget about all the other non-residents that could be in the area. What about them?

Without retail, et. al., this building gives non-residents very little reason to use those two blocks and help energize them.

The proposal includes a "paseo" that non-residents could use, but it opens onto a part of R Street that is a parking lot, and it has a light rail train trestle overhead. That paseo will just be a little-used dark alleyway. If it had retail spaces, with some al fresco dining, I would love it. But it's just a stupid pathway that opens up onto nothing.

Another thing I hate - The design (or lack there of): It looks the same as just about every other proposal. It's a box (two boxes, actually) with a flat roof. The design is in the same Developer Modernist style as everything else that has been proposed and built over the past decade-and-a-half. There are no curved lines or interesting architectural features. It's a box with "urban-looking" siding.

Of course, I am not saying that developers should consider building twin 53-story towers. However, we need to progress passed these 3 to 6 story boxes.

Please... Developers, give us something interesting and exciting.

I'll be delighted if this project breaks ground in the next two years, even if boring. Financing is almost impossible for multi-family right now. Like hospitality, many lenders are requiring up to 40% in equity, plus significant reserve, at rates around 9%.

I'm doing a small mixed-use in Monterey: five condos, one retail, rooftop deck overlooking the bay. All good.

In addition to that brutal financial structure, lender now wants an additional $200k placed into their bank that will NOT count toward equity, just an additional reserve (we already have a typical interest reserve in-place for construction loan).

Some are saying that with the killing banks are making with their credit card divisions (many existing card holders have seen their interest rates go from the mid-teens to the high 20s in the last couple of years.), why risk a portfolio paying 28% on a development deal that's "only" paying 9%?

Btw - I'm one of those saying that

And as with everything, costs have exploded over the last three years and sucked up any budget for "creativity" on all but the most high-end projects. One of my least favorite parts of the process now is when we have to "value-engineer" because costs have gone up another 4% in six months.

While there are certainly the "slash and burn" type developer who just wants to do the cheapest thing possible, most of us want to do work we're proud of, and work that contributes to the community.

But we also have families to feed and staff we need to keep employed...

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

If you want better design, change the economics of housing. As long as housing is seen as an investment commodity, the bottom line will always win out; cheapest constructability and materials that developers can get away with through permitting to increase profit margins is the name of the game. And isn't that what we all want? Cash is king, right?

For profit developers, faceless corporations, don't give one damn what you, I, or anyone else think, and that's not going to change. The players won't change unless the rules of the game change.

I agree with Steve that this is a pretty ignorant comment.

What "economics" systemically creates "better design?" (Hint: none.)

Is housing a right? No. If it were, we could extend the logic and say we all have a "right" to a place at the beach. I've lived on the beach twice in my life. Both times as a much younger man with plenty of roomates. Loved it.

Does that mean I have a "right" to live there now? Nope.

Should we make housing a function of the state? Well, if we do, we end up with Romania 1956. Talk about miserable design...

For a developer to be successful, they have to produce a product people actually want to live in (that whole "lifestyle" thang again). While that means I might not give a damn what you think, I absolutely give a damn about what the market as a whole thinks.

If residents prefer 1bd lofts, then that's what I look to provide. If they want 2bd/2ba apartments, then expect me to fill that demand. What I won't do is force 50 studios in an area with great schools. That's a family neighborhood and those lifestyles don't match and I'll lose my shirt.

We're in a rough patch now. Housing is extraordinarily expensive to build and to rent/buy. That dumbs it down for everyone.

But it wasn't that long ago that I could convince a lender to take a chance on a smaller project's design by reminding them we only need to find "25 renters" ( or whatever number) to pull "this" off.

While those days may be gone for now, they won't be forever.

Ask yourself which system is more likely to produce robust communities (and great design)? Housing provided by nimble actors who must respond to a communities' demonstrated preferences (demonstrated by their purchases) or they will fail, or at the whim of some "faceless" bureaucrat with no skin in the game whatsoever.

I hope we don't find out the hard way...

[Son of Travis]

Originally Posted by Son of Travis

This hotel project fascinates me. I have to applaud the efforts of mayor Steinberg and his team because executing a hotel project today is extraordinarily difficult.

In the last five years I have worked on half-a-dozen hotel projects and in the last year or so getting financing has been next to impossible.

Most capital structures require >40% equity, so on a $90M project the developer must have put together a minimum $36M to get project funded. That funding will now cost you 10% for your construction, 8% for your perm. You're looking at another $10M right there to start plus a crippling debt service to ops.

Construction costs for convention hotels have exploded and we're seeing $600,000/key as commonplace. If that holds then you're looking at a nearly $200M project ($80M equity). That's a lot of money for both equity and debts markets, especially in today's environment where hotels are being returned to the lender in droves (locally, see San Francisco and Napa). And with many first-term loans coming due in the next few years, this could turn into a bloodbath (what works at 3.75% is catastrophic at 7%). Btw - hotel costs were about half that five years ago.

It will have to be subsidized by the City, but I wonder what form that subsidy will take. Will it directly add to the capital stack a provide some equity? Will it waive all fees to afford developer to contribute more as the sponsor? Will it subsidize the debt payments? Tax credits? Occupancy guarantees?

What subsidies can they legally offer? I can't wait to see how the funding is structured.

I'm also interested to see what flag the hotel will be. I'd be surprised if it already has a major presence near the convention center, so I am (purely) guessing that takes out Sheraton, Hyatt, and probably Marriot. Obviously a convention hotel, so probably not a boutique flag like Salt or Ace. Also, because it's aiming at the conventioneer, that probably eliminates the luxury flags like St. Regis or Four Seasons.

What's left? Just throwing darts at the board here, but the closest Hilton flag is the Embassy Suites on Capitol Mall at the river. That's pretty far away to capture convention traffic. Hmmm...

A darkhorse is the Cambria brand, which is the high-end flag for Choice Hotels. They are offering significant seed money as they work to increase market share. Hmmmm...

As noted, I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Just been going through the Atlas Hospitality Group’s mid-year California hotel development survey for 2023 and the news is grim.

If this project gets off the ground by the end of 2024 I will be delightedly surprised. Doesn’t mean it’ can't happen, but son of a gun are there challenges in the present hospitality environment.

First, hotels are getting returned to the lenders at increasing rates. As noted before, there are two in the lucrative Napa/North Coast market that just recently handed the keys back to the bank: The Cambria Hotel in Napa and the Cambria/Sonoma Wine Country in Rohnert Park.

Each of these hotels went on the auction block August 25 at the Napa County Courthouse and neither received a single bid.

The report notes that the delinquency rates for lodging shot up from 1% pre-lockdown to 10% in 2021 before reaching about 8% in Q1-2023.

The Cambria Napa opened in August 2021 which gives you an idea of how disastrous the last two years have been for hotel development.

This kind of failure makes hotel funding even more difficult as no one wants to be the fool who bet on a hotel in the present market uncertainty.

Remember, uncertainty is the death knell for development funding of any kind and this is particularly true of hospitality.

The report noted that at a minimum bid of $40M, that was “far less that the cost to build now.” That means that costs for a 90-key, 3-star property (four stories, standard wood-framed construction) likely exceed $450,000 per key.
So my guess of $600k/key +/- for a 4-star, Type 1 construction high-rise is probably not too far off.

Apparently a big issue was a poor NOI of just over $1M. If you give hospitality there a cap rate of 7%, that gets you a capitalized value of about $14.3M so yeah, that’s a problem. Even a 5 cap, (which would be more of a 2019 number when everything was booming) only gets you to a value of about $20M.

A convention hotel adjacent with and connected to the Sacramento Convention Center wouldn’t have that kind of cash-flow issue (we hope), but there’s no way to spin those numbers as anything but catastrophic and until monetary policy out of Washington changes, the high costs and high interest rates, which are the single greatest drivers of the present uncertainty, are likely to stay.

More great news includes a decline in the number of new hotel openings in California of more than 60% the over last two years.

Between January and June this year, 20 new hotels opened in California. That may sound fine, but it’s a drop of 31% over the same period in 2022. Of those 20, six were in LA, meaning throughout the rest of the entire state, only 14 hotels opened. And, given the lead time for hotel development, most, if not all of these were likely financed in 2019/2020.

That is brutal and the conditions now are much bleaker.

Alan Reay, president of Atlas, says he expects any hotel in the planning stages now is likely to be put on hold for another 18 to 24 months with the hope that inflationary pressures subside and interest rates come down (presently >=11% compared to <4% in 2019). Good luck with that Alan…

He continues saying, “You have lenders now that are pulling back from making loans altogether, “Inflationary pressures, supply-chain challenges and ongoing labor shortages that arose from the pandemic continue to obstruct progress in hotel projects.”

He says some lenders are now requiring 50% equity if they’re considering hospitality at all. Finding an investor willing to tie-up that much capital on a hotel play is extraordinarily challenging and when I say “challenging” I’m leaning toward impossible.

While I can’t verify that as I have not sought hotel funding in well over a year, I am not surprised by his claims and none of this bodes well for a $200M convention hotel in downtown Sacramento.

I admire the mayor for his vision and his willingness to risk his reputation on this project, but I am very skeptical that we’ll see even a submittal in 2024.

No matter what your politics, he is really laying it all on the line for this project.

Godspeed sir.

[Valley Proud]

The hospital, if ever built will be haunted with the sounds of fans that never got to cheer at Arco Park.

[snfenoc]

Eight-story, 256-unit project planned for J and 10th streets in Downtown Sacramento
By Ben van der Meer – Senior Reporter, Sacramento Business Journal
Aug 28, 2023

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2023/08/28/ta-group-downtown-project.html

The blighted northeast corner of 10th and J streets in Downtown Sacramento has an active development proposal for the first time in years.

Los Angeles-based TA Group Inc. has filed an application with the city for an eight-story, 256-unit project on that site, in place of empty commercial buildings facing Cesar Chavez Park...

According to the plans, the building at 1023 J St. would cover five separate parcels and be built of six wood stories over a three-story concrete podium that includes a basement...

At the corner of 10th and J streets would be a retail space of 4,349 square feet.

I think the design is generally better than other proposals and projects that we've seen. It isn't the same, Developer Modernist Bauhaus Box. (I just hope that value-engineering doesn't do a number on it.)

Also, I really want to see that area get cleaned up. It is shockingly terrible. So, it should be an improvement to have residents who live in built housing units and not just residents who live in tents and refrigerator boxes.

Additionally, I like the ground floor retail component. The proposal doesn't include enough retail/mixed-use space, but having even a little space that engages the public (non-residents) is better than having none at all. (For example, the proposal at the former Sac Bee headquarters site consists of two, block-sized, 5-story apartment buildings, yet it calls for ZERO retail space to engage non-residents with the buildings - this is an absolute travesty.)

Finally, I like that the proposal is not an entire city block - It's only half a city block. (At least skinnier buildings give the illusion of height.) Of course, this is just a matter of circumstance: The available properties only amount to half a block. But other proposals for high-profile sites call for taking up entire city blocks (e.g., Sac Bee site and 3rd & R streets), so I guess it's kind of a "win" for Sacramento?

With the good points out of the way, I think this proposal is a slap in Sacramento's face.

Cities like Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Santa Clara, Irvine, Santa Ana, and even Reno are getting taller proposals. Sacramento has proven itself. It is time for developers to find a way to build towers in downtown Sacramento or get the hell out!

Heck, Davis now has a bunch of current development proposals with similar heights to those in Sacramento. I can accept shorter buildings in downtown Davis, but not in downtown Sacramento.

This proposal at 10th and J is such an utter disappointment. 8-story buildings do not belong on high-value, high-visibility sites in the downtown core. Period.

Based on what I have seen, it looks like shorter buildings are clearly the rule for Sacramento and not the exception. Therefore, it's time for the city to work immediately on zoning minimum height requirements for downtown (and midtown) properties. Otherwise, all undeveloped and underdeveloped downtown sites will be taken up with this crap.

Now, I don't want to be unreasonable... I am not insisting on a 40-story building at 10th an J streets. I just think that NO major downtown site should have a proposal that is under 15 stories. Come on, developers!!!!! You can't do at least 15 floors?

Really? You can't build that tall? Fine. Then, I also think that NO major midtown site should have a proposal that is under 7 or 8 stories. So, move your 8-story project to the east a few blocks, and you'll get zero complaints from me. (Well, I'd still like to see more retail/mixed-use space.)

As a "real world" example, I would be satisfied if this proposal moved six blocks to the east, at 16th and J streets, and replaced the truly awful proposal there. Since I am dreaming, if the proposal for the former Sac Bee headquarters got a major overhaul, with multiple buildings, at 7 to 8 stories each, and at least 15,000 square feet of retail, I would dance the jig!

It's a shame that the 10th and J proposal does not include a hotel component. If it did, the building would "soar" to 15 stories, and I wouldn't be complaining. However, Son of Travis is correct - Hotels are not doing well right now. Nothing is. And that leads me to my bigger point...

As I've said before, I think it's time to wait. Construction prices are simply far too expensive. Plus, interest rates are too high. (Though, how did developers manage to build towers in the 70s and early 80s, when inflation was high and interest rates were much higher than they are now?) In fact, I am hoping that things are so bad that none of these awful proposals get built.

Yes, we need housing. So, let's focus on smaller, lower visibility properties. Why not build in the alleys? We could add 1000s of apartments and condos with smaller, shorter, less-expensive alley-facing apartment buildings, condos, and ADUs. Sacramento has an alley activation plan. Except for a couple demonstration pieces, not much has come of it. If tall buildings don't "pencil," then shorter alleyway projects could be the answer. Because they are smaller, alley-facing residential projects may also be more affordable for renters and buyers (Actually, wasn't there a nice 4 or 5 story alleyway proposal that a certain forumer opposed because it would have cast shadows... on an alley?)

I should also point out that there are numerous housing projects and proposals just outside of downtown and midtown. They are adding tons of housing units and could add 1000s more. Granted, many of these have terrible Developer Modernist design, aren't efficient uses of the land, and don't include enough retail/mixed-use space. (See The Mill project near Broadway.) But at least they aren't taking up prime land in downtown and midtown with their short-stack, ugly-ass buildings.

Given that Sacramento is adding lots of housing, and given that it has alleys that could accommodate smaller / shorter buildings, the city should not rubberstamp any and all projects simply because housing is a priority.

We'll have to live with these buildings for generations. It is time to demand better.

[innov8]

I think it’s a fine proposal. Let’s think about how many years this location
and block of J Street has looked like crap. It’s been several decades and
during that time on both sides of the street high-rise residential proposals
were made that the local market could not support. Like all cities, if in 20,
30 or 40 years the demand for a high-rise living in downtown gets high
enough, they will just tear this down and put up something bigger.
It’s unfortunate that Sacramento can’t support residential over eight floors,
but that’s okay because on the street level these areas won’t look abandon and trashy.

[38 Geary]

Permits Filed For 642 5th Street By Sacramento Valley Station



BY: ANDREW NELSON 5:30 AM ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2023

Design review permits have been filed for a residential infill at 642 5th Street within the Sacramento Valley Station master plan in Downtown Sacramento. The proposed building will add 300 apartments to the 31-acre plan to create a mixed-use district next to the Amtrak Station. The address suggests the housing would replace a commercial office component on Lot 40.

The Sacramento County parcel viewer shows that the parcel in question spans 1.86 acres across an irregularly shaped plot of land. The narrow lot runs along 5th Street from H Street up to F Street. The initial master plan drafted by Perkins&Will shows the area occupied by a mid-rise structure and a taller office tower rising above a podium deck. The structures are spliced by a bicycle and pedestrian accessway connecting 5th Street with the internal transit connection pathway.

The application plans a 475,780-square-foot structure with 300 residential units, a 2,480-square-foot commercial space, and parking for 304 cars. The project height and other details are not specified.

The City of Sacramento is the current property owner, having purchased the site in 2007. The historic 1926-built train depot was renovated between 2014 to 2016 for $33 million, increasing the transit hub’s accessibility and services. Public outreach for planning the transit-oriented development hub started in 2017, with the results culminating with draft area plans revealed in mid-2020 during a virtual open house. Initial plans were for around 750,000 square feet of commercial space and 460 apartments.

...

The master plan was drafted by Perkins&Will with ARUP, Grimshaw Architects, EPS, AIM Consulting, and the city. Construction on the first phases is expected to start as early as 2027 or 2028.

https://sfyimby.com/2023/09/permits-filed-for-642-5th-street-by-sacramento-valley-station.html

[TWAK]

That's the lot and it was posted in the above article.

[Paniolo Man]

I was visiting Sacramento Last week and found the contrast between the Federal Courthouse and the new County Courthouse to be quite interesting. The county Courthouse looks to be substantially complete.

[innov8]

It’s becoming pretty evident that the local office market is in a death kneel.
In just a few months when the new State of California’s Richards Blvd. office
complex opens, the delivery of 1.25 million square feet will lead to vacancies
in both state-owned and leased offices as the state fills the new complex.
In the current Colliers Q4 Sacramento office report, there are several office
properties that are being considered for office conversion to housing, one
location is at 1800 3rd Street, the vacant CalPERS building could convert to
141 apartment units. The State has three buildings on Capitol Mall totaling
1.08 million square feet of existing office space currently being evaluated for
office to residential conversion.

Colliers fourth quarter report also shows the Sacramento office market
recorded its sixth consecutive quarter of occupancy losses. For the year of
2023, there was a total net loss of -1,184,793 square feet of leased office
space which is a slight improvement compared to 2022, but It appears the
vacancies numbers are due to rise some more in 2024.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by TWAK

I wonder if this project will cover the unbuilt baseball stadium, can't really tell with what's provided.

I believe the foundation was built bellow ground level. I’m thinking they can infill and create a park or something. We’ll see.

[SacTownAndy]

Does anyone have any renderings for what that state building at 8th & O will eventually look like? The one that's currently down to the frame. I'm curious what the eventual cladding will look like. I did a quick google search but couldn't find anything.