By admin 
A proposal to convert the former Macy’s at Country Club Plaza into a mini-storage facility could still move forward despite an advisory group rejecting plans Thursday.
Read more Sacramento’s top news: Newsom’s new label, Yosemite land deal and a union fight
The Arden Arcade Community Planning Advisory Council voted 5-0 during a meeting at Swanston Community Center to deny a conditional use permit to Tourbineau Real Estate Partners that would allow the developer to operate a mini-storage facility at the former flagship store, which closed in 2016.
Tourbineau would also like to build a small amount of retail space on the ground floor of the former store and build an adjacent 174-unit apartment complex.
Residents and the council roundly rejected the proposed storage facility. But don’t expect a wholly different project when it goes before the Sacramento County Planning Commission, which could grant tentative approval, potentially in late October.
“We’ve thought through what our plan is for this building and for the additional development,” said John Sweeney, senior vice president for Tourbineau following the meeting. “We think it’s a good project. It’s a good adaptive reuse of the building. And we think there is a community benefit in providing housing and activating the first floor … and in preservation.”
The county’s Design Review Advisory Committee recommended on Aug. 13 that the planning commission determine the project to be “in substantial compliance with” design guidelines, according to a packet provided by the county at Thursday’s meeting.
Plan for mini-storage facility presented
Steve Hansen, the former Sacramento council member, acknowledged the obvious during a presentation during Thursday’s meeting on behalf of Tourbineau through his work with Lighthouse Public Affairs.
“We understand that the proposed adaptive reuse of this building is not what the community is excited about,” Hansen said.
Multiple people in the packed Swanston Community Center blurted out their agreement. Otherwise, the crowd was largely at odds with Hansen and his client.
Hansen started by laying out a case for preservation of the Macy’s building, saying that designer Charles Luckman “was considered one of the foremost mid-century architects of his era.” He said that the cost to demolish the building could have been around $10 million and that “preservation was very important to us.”
Hansen said that the former Macy’s is 167,000 square feet, calling it “a ginormous building.” He also said the building was in rough shape.
“The building desperately needs preservation and because of the long-term issues with disinvestment on the property, it’s very difficult to find a use that can accomplish preservation, accomplish some of the other goals and is finance-able,” Hansen said.
The former councilman also said the storage facility would help pave the way for the apartment project his client would like to build.
“People can’t afford housing, but it’s also very expensive to build it,” Hansen said. “So this allows us to add that benefit.”
Reactions to proposed use of former Macy’s
John Hoffman, president of the Greater Arden Chamber of Commerce, appeared to be doing his best to meet the project applicants halfway.
Read more CA bill would make two Islamic holidays eligible for state workers’ holiday credit
“I can’t say I put my stamp of approval on this, but I can’t say I’m 100% against it either,” said Hoffman, who was speaking as a longtime community resident instead of his official role.
“I’m willing to learn more about it,” Hoffman said.
The public comment portion of the meeting was mostly against the project.
Michael Seaman decried the piecemeal approach of the project, saying that this was how problems had arisen with Country Club Plaza and Country Club Center. “This is the heart of our community and it should be treated as all one thing,” Seaman said.
Holly Tolbert questioned if there would be a public revenue benefit. “Self-storage gives no substantial taxation to the county,” Tolbert said.
Many speakers opposed to the project received applause, such as Kathy Stricklin.
“We are sick and tired of being taken advantage of,” Stricklin said. “We are no longer going to be the dumping ground of the county.”
Others, like Hoffman, weren’t outright against the project. Mattie Parfitt said she was pleased the building would be preserved.
“I believe a self-storage facility is not the best and highest use of this building, but there aren’t many options for a four-story building that has no windows,” Parfitt said. “It’s a windowless box and if you cut windows, you destroy the historic significance of the building.”
What’s next for former mall site
Sometimes in local government, the most vociferous of public comment periods can be followed by unanimous votes in favor of controversial projects.
That did not happen Thursday, by a long shot.
Tourbineau had been seeking a lot-line adjustment, as well as a conditional use permit for mini-storage and design review.
After public comment ended, Gibbons spoke from the dais about concerns he had about the project, including that converting the former Macy’s to storage could be permanent. He acknowledged that mini-storage had its place but said it was better in industrial areas.
“The question is: Is that the type of use that is really ideal for this site?” Gibbons said. “I don’t necessarily see the evidence to support that.”
The advisory group voted against the project’s three requests. The group then voted 4-1, with member Michael Beller opposing, to have county staff object should the planning commission approve the project.
This would send an appeal to the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, which has final approval on the project.
As for Sweeney and his group, they intend to have an open house at some point in September. Sweeney sounded optimistic about being able to get buy-in.
“I think it’s about partnering with the right individuals and folks,” Sweeney said. “I think we need to probably be out there a little bit more and do a better job of explaining what the project is fully, so that the community can really see what the benefit is overall.”
Read more CA bill would make two Islamic holidays eligible for state workers’ holiday credit