[Majin]

What all of the project fall outs and bad news occuring in the last year so, I'd like to have an open discussion on what the city is doing wrong and in what ways we can improve the situation. Wasn't it only two years ago that they hired that city manager out of portland and the matrix system was implemented to cut down on the red tape to getting projects done here. Even with that red tape removed, almost nothing of value has come from it.

As of right now, I am extremely confused on why we are currently in the state we are in right now, in which it seems we cannot come out of. The city seems adamanet about fixing K street mall, but that seems to be going nowhere (when were those RFPs sent out again? Over 2 years ago?), Aura was basically handed on a platter to Nassi yet it seems like thats pretty much over. Even though newer downtown and midtown apartments and condos that have actually been built are filling fast (1801, 21st and L, L street lofts, etc), DR horton pulled out of their plans to build their condos. As far as I know, after L street lofts, there havent been any new apartments or condos proposed (real proposals, no ficticious proposals like Capitol Grand) in the downtown and midtown areas. What are we doing wrong with brining in the new proposals? It seems to me the population is there to support them.

Sorry for the long post that kind of seems like a rant, its just as a person who has a vested interest in downtown (been living here for over 2 years now and dont plan to move), I am just extremely depressed on all the bad news and lack of progress.

[arod74]

Matrix was a good start but it was implemented about the time the bottom was falling out of the market. Looks like the city just suffered from bad timing. With the way financial institutions are lending, or not lending is probably a more apt description, there just aren't going to be any large projects like the towers or aura going up for a long time unless they can back the funding out of pocket like Calstrs and their building going up in west sac or Tsakopoulos and 500cm. The only private project of possible large scale that has a good chance of going foward is CIM/Calpers with their deep pockets on the remains of the towers. As for K street, I've run out of blame to pass around..

[wburg]

A lot of these big dramatic plans were introduced back when money was cheap, and it isn't as cheap now so the big dramatic plans have fallen back. I see a ton of small-site/infill construction going on throughout midtown, so it's not as though nothing is happening, it's just that these are the small, prosaic projects that will really provide the bulk of the housing we're looking for.

People think big during a boom, and it just isn't a boom time anymore. We haven't had a city administration as friendly to development since the bad old days of urban renewal in the 1950s: the current city manager has gone to extraordinary lengths to simplify development, speed processes and remove obstacles. But that still doesn't heat up the real estate market, or encourage buyers to buy or lenders to lend.

About the K Street RFPs: The only one that was approved was the Zeiden project for the 700 block. That has faced a myriad of problems, the most important being land consolidation and freeing the properties from the clutching talons of Mo Mohanna. The other K Street property project, the Woolworth's building at 10th and K, is currently being renovated. The Roos-Atkins building across the street is slated to be renovated. The city has been dead-set on "fixing" K Street Mall for half a century, and they are only recently cluing into the idea that the way to expand retail downtown is to reverse the depopulation of downtown which occurred during the last half of the 20th century.

The other proposals that the post-charrette RFP generated were far too far-reaching: one that asked to be given all four corners of 10th and K, another that asked for practically the entire neighborhood around 7th and K, so they were rejected. So it's no surprise we didn't see those happen: the city kicked them back and went with one project that seemed the most feasible (when it was assumed that Mo Mohanna was a rational, sane person) and one project that the city could execute (which is underway.)

I'm not sure why anyone would consider Midtown stagnant when it comes to construction: there is a hatful of infill going in, from single-lot buildings like the three-story condo project at 23rd and Q to half-block or larger projects like SoCap, the Tapestri brownstones, Trammell Crow, etcetera. Come on out to a meeting of the Planning Commission, or Design Review or Preservation, and you'll see that every week there are new projects coming up for public review. The fact that there is a public review process, rather than simply letting people do whatever, doesn't mean nothing happens here: in fact it can be a great way for those of us with an interest can "watch the game."

So, are there a ton of gigantic projects slated right now? No, but it seems pretty clear that it has more to do with the overall housing market than anything Sacramento is doing wrong. If it's any consolation, the Cathedral tower and Saca's plan B at 10th and J both seem to have a clear path to construction, and we're likely to see more medium-sized things in addition to smaller projects. We might have to wait for the next big boom for gigantic glass and steel monolith series to appear, but don't worry, they'll be along.

As someone who also has a vested interest in downtown/midtown (worked and lived here 14 years and don't really plan on moving ever) I'm more concerned with getting good-quality projects here. We are on the radar when it comes to national attention, from developers as well as folks looking for a nifty city to live, and we are at a phase where we can afford to pick and choose rather than take any project that comes our way simply because we feel like we're too pathetic and miserable a city to be picky. I see progress happening every day, much of it encouraging but some of it alarming. Sorry to go on a rant of my own, but I certainly wouldn't consider construction and interest in downtown at a standstill!

[arod74]

To echo what wburg stated above, there are still plenty of good things happening. West sac looks to be on the verge of some major revitalization along the riverfront, raley's field, and capitol ave corridor. The Crocker expansion is moving along nicely. Midtown is exploding in quality housing, restaurants, and retail. The railyards are on the cusp of something special. If the community center were to be refurbished and major progress was made along K street/DTP, I would be happy to trade all of the above for the loss of some of the large projects put forward over the past few years. It might not be as soon as everyone wants but I'm confident the large projects will come in the long run from this momentum.

[travis bickle]

What Sacramento is most guilty of is lacking the confidence to dream big until far too late in the game. If Saca had started the Towers process a year earlier it would be well under construction by now and probably nearly sold-out. The sales figures for that type of housing proves the market is there. The timing for the financial markets and construction costs weren't.

Despite that, Downtown Sacramento is enjoying a remarkable renaissance for both housing and the skyline... just not together right now. That will change: just not as quickly as we all would like.

[BrianSac]

For one thing, Sacramento needs more private sector companies, both large and small.

Good incomes are the backbone of retail and housing. I'd prefer the bulk of new jobs to be downtown, but if most of the jobs go out to Natomas, Roseville, or Rancho, so be it. Those suburban jobs will still support the "Destination" that midtown and downtown are meant to be in terms of retail, entertainment and housing. People can reverse commute to those suburban jobs from new housing Downtown.

[BrianSac]

I dont understand why those Towers buyers didnt move over to Aura? If they did, wouldn't Aura have the sales numbers needed to get their loans.

Why wont the bankers lend to Nassi. What is so risky about being completely sold out?

Also, if Saca stuck to his orginal plan of building only one Tower, I think PERS would have followed through.

[snfenoc]

Based on what Nassi has said (Grain of Salt Alert!!!), I think he already had the sales numbers required to obtain funding (Plus, I'm pretty sure at least a handful of Towers refugees moved their business to Aura). However, that funding could have been based on a more favorable market. It's possible there is nothing more Nassi can do to move the project along; he may simply be at the mercy of lenders who just don't want to lend.

[Web]

Aura is not happening based on Nassi's track record RE:Reno and was it Denver???

[econgrad]

I would state there is too much regulation to develop large projects in DT and MT and other places in Sacramento. Too many enviromental studies that take too long and increase the price to develop. The matrix is in place, yippie..it has not done anything yet, nor I believe will do much at all. We need to let these owners and developers build without all these studies and workshops... That is how New York and Chicago were developed long ago. Let the market work.

[BrianSac]

I would state there is too much regulation to develop large projects in DT and MT and other places in Sacramento. Too many enviromental studies that take too long and increase the price to develop. The matrix is in place, yippie..it has not done anything yet, nor I believe will do much at all. We need to let these owners and developers build without all these studies and workshops... That is how New York and Chicago were developed long ago. Let the market work.

I agree 1000%!! :cheers:

[wburg]

It's not something unique to Sacramento: many parts of the development process are mandated by California and federal law. I don't think building in Sacramento is more difficult than anywhere else in the state, from a strictly regulatory standpoint.

Simply put, the market is working, it's just not working the way you'd like it to work right now. Right now the market is demanding a large number of small infill projects to utilize the central city's multitude of vacant lots, and quite a few of those vacant lots and parking lots are being turned into dense, infill-type and primarily ownership/condo rather than rental housing. Anyone who claims that there is nothing being built in Sacramento either hasn't been here or hasn't left their room for a good long while.

[cozmoose]

I would state there is too much regulation to develop large projects in DT and MT and other places in Sacramento. Too many enviromental studies that take too long and increase the price to develop. The matrix is in place, yippie..it has not done anything yet, nor I believe will do much at all. We need to let these owners and developers build without all these studies and workshops... That is how New York and Chicago were developed long ago. Let the market work.

Chicago Spire (2,000ft) just started construction...yet Sacramento can't even build a 450ft "skyscraper." pitiful and pathetic. :yuck:

[wburg]

Chicago proper is about eight times the population of Sacramento, with almost four times the metropolitan area--it's also considerably denser and very built out, with a century-long track record for dramatic vertical architecture, integrated public transit systems, and near-dictatorial city government, as well as being the financial and industrial/transportation hub of the Midwest.

And we ain't. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a fact.

We have to crawl before we can walk, and walk before we can run. Right now we're walking, and occasionally breaking into a brisk jog, which has resulted in several dramatic face-plants. You say we can't build a 450-foot skyscraper: I'd retort that we haven't yet, but we haven't stopped trying, either.

[cozmoose]

Chicago proper is about eight times the population of Sacramento, with almost four times the metropolitan area--it's also considerably denser and very built out, with a century-long track record for dramatic vertical architecture, integrated public transit systems, and near-dictatorial city government, as well as being the financial and industrial/transportation hub of the Midwest.

And we ain't. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a fact.

We have to crawl before we can walk, and walk before we can run. Right now we're walking, and occasionally breaking into a brisk jog, which has resulted in several dramatic face-plants. You say we can't build a 450-foot skyscraper: I'd retort that we haven't yet, but we haven't stopped trying, either.

Just to put things in perspective.

Chicago has 22 buildings over 450 ft under construction (including 3 over 1,000ft)
Chicago has 5 building over 450 ft that are currently on hold, waiting construction
Chicago has 19 building over 450ft that are proposed.

So many cities that are similar in size, or even smaller than Sacramento have skyline that dwarf Sacramento's. Why?

Its not that this city can't walk....its just that when it comes to buildling skyscrapers in Sacto, this city is chained to 1000 lb anchor that is endless environmental studies, commission boards, town meetings, tree huggers, nimbys, anti-growth, mayor with little power, save any old stuff, nothing gets done until i have my say, and nothing new gets built until we give money to homeless and schools mentality.....and this area sorely lack big companies and super rich people. Its a wonder that anything gets built at all.

I would also whole heartedly support near dictatorial city government! :)

[Cynikal]

I finding it really surprising that people think Sacramento is the only city where projects are slowed by CEQA. Seriously, do you know how development works? Even nationally, NEQA has the same effect on projects.

I would recommend to the last couple of posters (with the exception of Wberg) to take the Planning Academy at the City or learn about the process and better yet get involved.

[arod74]

Your on the money Cynikal. The same environmental studies, commission boards, town meetings, and special interests are a part of every city developement effort across the country. And cozmoose, I don't know of any towns that are similar in size to Sacramento that have a skyline that dwarfs Sacramento. Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Orlando, Memphis, San Antonio, etc. are all comparable. One might argue that Sacramento's skyline might even be better than most of those cities.

[innov8]

Very few states require the process of an EIR before projects are built.
This process can take 6 to 8 months of valuable time and can even derail a
project from being built if the market starts to change during that waiting
period. Of course, that has not stopped SF and LA from building huge
projects, but they are also branded as cool places to live and play as well
as have a long history of successful out comes, Sacramento doe’s not
have this kind of reputation.

For future high-rise residential to be built in Sacramento, we need at least
one project to get off the ground and sell units. Once this great feat has
happen, I think more banks will be comfortable lending money for high-rise
condos in what would be a proven market. At this stage we need Aura or
Cathedral Square to get built and be a success, if this doe’s not happen,
lenders will have a hard time seeing Sacramento as a good place to invest in
high-rise condo living.

[wburg]

I'll echo Cynikal's comment about the Planning Academy. I took it last year and it was lots of fun, very educational, and a great way to meet others interested in the same topics, as well as city staffers. Plus they provide a free dinner! It also provides an invaluable inside look at why the planning process works the way it does--and sometimes why it takes longer than some might prefer.

coz: Those 22 buildings were built over the course of the last 80 years, not overnight. Chicago started growing "up" a lot earlier than Sacramento, because it has been a big city for over a century, whereas we are still new to big-city status, and because of our geography and economy (and national trends in urban development) we grew out instead of up. That's changing, but the change is going to take some time.

[arod74]

Very few states require the process of an EIR before projects are built.

I find it pretty hard to believe that projects in metro areas with any type of highrise construction aren't required to pass some form of EIR whether it be city, county, or state. If not I'm heading straight outta state so I can be the first developer to propose a supertall made of pure cheese and depleted uranium :haha:

[innov8]

I think you’re confusing Design and Planning Commissions with an
Environmental Impact Report. What you’re describing are design and
planning issues. Off the top of my head, states like Colorado/Denver and
Illinois/Chicago do not ask for one. These cities have Design and Planning
Commissions to review a project, but they don't burden developers with
an over-the-top EIR review of a project like is asked of developers when they come to CA.

[robw340]

From this month's CADA newsletter:

COMMUNITY MEETING SCHEDULED
"You're invited to a community meeting to hear about Lambert Development's plans to build a 15-story condominium project on CADA's East End Gateway Site 1, at the NW corner of 16th & N streets.
Lambert's architect, Carrier Johnson, will present rough sketches showing the size and scale of the proposed project and seek comments from members of the community. Please come and share your thoughts."

"DATE: Tuesday, August 21st
TIME: 6:00-7:30 pm
LOCATION: To Be Determined. Please call Marc De La Vergne, CADA Project Manager at 322-2114 , or check CADA"s website (www.cadanet.org) closer to the date."

I think we should all attend and show strong support for this project...Smaller scale projects like this have a better chance of getting built ....just my .02 cents. :)

[BrianSac]

Very few states require the process of an EIR before projects are built.
This process can take 6 to 8 months of valuable time and can even derail a
project from being built if the market starts to change during that waiting
period. Of course, that has not stopped SF and LA from building huge
projects, but they are also branded as cool places to live and play as well
as have a long history of successful out comes, Sacramento doe’s not
have this kind of reputation.

For future high-rise residential to be built in Sacramento, we need at least
one project to get off the ground and sell units. Once this great feat has
happen, I think more banks will be comfortable lending money for high-rise
condos in what would be a proven market. At this stage we need Aura or
Cathedral Square to get built and be a success, if this doe’s not happen,
lenders will have a hard time seeing Sacramento as a good place to invest in
high-rise condo living.

Very true. :previous: Time is of the essence, and the EIR process can derail a project simply by delaying it. Anti-growth people count on this endless process to coincide with a downward turn in the market.

[travis bickle]

Well, I wasn't going to chime in here because I've said so much of this before. but as someone who has guided many projects from land aq. to bond exoneration, I can say that the CEQA process is excruciating and often amounts to legal extortion with what most would consider, at best, mixed results.

I finding it really surprising that people think Sacramento is the only city where projects are slowed by CEQA.

This is 100% true. Every city in California is subject to CEQA and I have had it add over a year to a project. For the 4-S Ranch master project near San Diego, the CEQA process took nearly five years. Then each individual project was required to file individual EIRs. This added up to an additional year. This doesn't include the time it takes to get to Tentative Map and then Final Map which can easily be 18 months. If your project has a HOA: then add another 18 months to develop your CCRs, articles of incorporation and budget. These are not all on a linear time line and much can be done concurrently, but on a straight-forward, relatively non-controversial project, I'll usually schedule 18-30 months from concept to Final Map.

As has been repeatedly mentioned here by many, opposition groups know that they can greatly delay this process relatively inexpensively by repeatedly asking for changes or new studies and by appealing any arbitrary decision. In San Diego, there is a two week to one-month period during which a "final" decision can be appealed by any group or individual. The fee to appeal is all of $100. Most large projects in SD go through a four phase process (staff, neighborhood, planning commission, council). Each of their decisions is subject to appeal. Opposition always waits until the last minute to file in order to maximize delay (remember, 30 days already), and, given the typical staff time needed for response, can easily mean adding two months to the process. Right there, you've added eight months to your project and it cost your opponents all of $400.

Now you've been paying all of your consultants this entire time, plus you have some kind of carrying costs on the land. This delay has now cost you $500,000 and often much, much more. It's cost your opponents $400.

All projects have a finite window of opportunity for success and often that window is less than the CEQA process affords. Your opponents know this and are well aware that delaying a project often equals killing a project.

Not every place has a "CEQA" or equivalent (Texas and the Phoenix areas to name two), but obviously every place in California does. Although I strongly believe in some kind of revue process that encourages local participation and contribution, in my view CEQA has been perverted into a mechanism for slow, but expensively sure project death.

CEQA costs communities millions of dollars every year and yet we still have choking traffic and unencumbered sprawl.

Would anyone call that a success?

[sugit]

I'm going to be there. How do you get on the newsletter list?

From this month's CADA newsletter:

COMMUNITY MEETING SCHEDULED
"You're invited to a community meeting to hear about Lambert Development's plans to build a 15-story condominium project on CADA's East End Gateway Site 1, at the NW corner of 16th & N streets.

Lambert's architect, Carrier Johnson, will present rough sketches showing the size and scale of the proposed project and seek comments from members of the community. Please come and share your thoughts."

"DATE: Tuesday, August 21st
TIME: 6:00-7:30 pm
LOCATION: To Be Determined. Please call Marc De La Vergne, CADA Project Manager at 322-2114 , or check CADA"s website (www.cadanet.org) closer to the date."

I think we should all attend and show strong support for this project...Smaller scale projects like this have a better chance of getting built ....just my .02 cents. :)

[wburg]

The problem with preventive programs is that you can't really point at environmental problems that didn't happen to try to outline their success. CEQA wasn't intended as a positive solution to sprawl, pollution and environmental problems, but it introduces to communities the requirement that these issues be addressed. Besides, not every process even needs an EIR: the Trammell Crow condo project on Alhambra and S, for example, didn't need an EIR and it covers almost three city blocks. That seems to me to be a fairly high threshold.

[travis bickle]

The problem with preventive programs is that you can't really point at environmental problems that didn't happen to try to outline their success. CEQA wasn't intended as a positive solution to sprawl, pollution and environmental problems, but it introduces to communities the requirement that these issues be addressed. Besides, not every process even needs an EIR: the Trammell Crow condo project on Alhambra and S, for example, didn't need an EIR and it covers almost three city blocks. That seems to me to be a fairly high threshold.


However it was intended, I know how it is being used. CEQA requires public agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed projects, to prepare and review environmental impact reports (EIRs), negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations and to consider feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially reduce significant adverse environmental effects. It was amended again I think just this month so you can count on additional delays as each jurisdiction interprets these changes in their own way on their own schedule (it's not uncommon for a project to come to a screeching halt while the local discretionary body decides how they way to interpret and enforce a particular code/law).

Claiming that because all projects don't require an EIR is a straw man argument because every project goes through some kind of review that is lengthy and costly.

The result is killed projects and an artificially low housing supply.

Usually the people who squeal loudest for affordable housing are the same people who keep supply low (through the review process) and thus keep prices high. Not just through killing projects, but by adding so much to cost which then have to be passed on to the consumer (remember, you're competing for investment dollars).

We're describing a process that costs millions and produces results with which few are pleased.

Perhaps it's time for a better solution.

[wburg]

I see your straw man and raise you a fallacy: every building goes through some kind of review, but if your problem is with the EIR process, then you're not complaining about EIRs but the review process itself. And besides, quoting a specific project is anecdotal evidence, not a straw man argument.

[sugit]

coz: Those 22 buildings were built over the course of the last 80 years, not overnight.

Actually, those 22 buildings are actually under construction right now. There are many more than those 22 buildings in Chicago.

Midtown is seeing some very good infill and a good amount of housing. Downtown will happen, just not as fast as we would all like. Like I've said before, I think we are going to see a few mid sized condo projects happen in the next couple of years, but just not the 600 footers. Hopefully once those happen (and are successful, hopefully) , banks will see less of a risk lending bigger buildings in Sac. I can at least see the light at the end of the tunnel..it's just a long tunnel.

[econgrad]

Then why is Portland, a similar city to Sacramento more Urban developed?

My answer: Too much regulation. You can learn all about the bureaucracy of the city as well as what hinders costly inner-city economic development at the Planning Academy.

More info here:

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/planning/academy/#academy

what a joke...

The city claims smart growth, then develops and expands north into the flood plains. More suburbs growing like crazy, and yet very little "smart" development at all. Because of the cities bureaucracies it takes too long for a developer to build something big and "smart". They also require improvements around new developments, strong arming developers to improve sidewalks, lighting, street repairs...etc that have nothing to do with the development itself, increasing costs for the developer. Yep, smart growth alright...yeehaw Sacramento!

[BrianSac]

Well, I wasn't going to chime in here because I've said so much of this before. but as someone who has guided many projects from land aq. to bond exoneration, I can say that the CEQA process is excruciating and often amounts to legal extortion with what most would consider, at best, mixed results.



This is 100% true. Every city in California is subject to CEQA and I have had it add over a year to a project. For the 4-S Ranch master project near San Diego, the CEQA process took nearly five years. Then each individual project was required to file individual EIRs. This added up to an additional year. This doesn't include the time it takes to get to Tentative Map and then Final Map which can easily be 18 months. If your project has a HOA: then add another 18 months to develop your CCRs, articles of incorporation and budget. These are not all on a linear time line and much can be done concurrently, but on a straight-forward, relatively non-controversial project, I'll usually schedule 18-30 months from concept to Final Map.

As has been repeatedly mentioned here by many, opposition groups know that they can greatly delay this process relatively inexpensively by repeatedly asking for changes or new studies and by appealing any arbitrary decision. In San Diego, there is a two week to one-month period during which a "final" decision can be appealed by any group or individual. The fee to appeal is all of $100. Most large projects in SD go through a four phase process (staff, neighborhood, planning commission, council). Each of their decisions is subject to appeal. Opposition always waits until the last minute to file in order to maximize delay (remember, 30 days already), and, given the typical staff time needed for response, can easily mean adding two months to the process. Right there, you've added eight months to your project and it cost your opponents all of $400.

Now you've been paying all of your consultants this entire time, plus you have some kind of carrying costs on the land. This delay has now cost you $500,000 and often much, much more. It's cost your opponents $400.

All projects have a finite window of opportunity for success and often that window is less than the CEQA process affords. Your opponents know this and are well aware that delaying a project often equals killing a project.

Not every place has a "CEQA" or equivalent (Texas and the Phoenix areas to name two), but obviously every place in California does. Although I strongly believe in some kind of revue process that encourages local participation and contribution, in my view CEQA has been perverted into a mechanism for slow, but expensively sure project death.

CEQA costs communities millions of dollars every year and yet we still have choking traffic and unencumbered sprawl.

Would anyone call that a success?

Thank you for this post. I created a thread awhile back devoted to the corruption of the CEQA process. Its in the California forum.

[wburg]

The city claims smart growth, then develops and expands north into the flood plains. More suburbs growing like crazy, and yet very little "smart" development at all. Because of the cities bureaucracies it takes too long for a developer to build something big and "smart". They also require improvements around new developments, strong arming developers to improve sidewalks, lighting, street repairs...etc that have nothing to do with the development itself, increasing costs for the developer. Yep, smart growth alright...yeehaw Sacramento!

Actually, one of the high (or low, depending) points of the Planning Academy was a tour of North Natomas. The city staff were openly ashamed of how it turned out, careful to point out the handful of things they figured came out all right, and generally used it as a model of how not to do a development.

But...when North Natomas' build-out started, there wasn't much in the way of interest in building things in the central city. The developers wanted to build things the now "traditional" way, with single-family detatched on swooping cul-de-sacs, with all the retail in a giant attached monstro-mall. The same developers now want to do the same thing in South Folsom, in southern Placer County, past Elk Grove, etcetera--because that's the model, and because it's profitable. They still have to do EIRs and planning paperwork, the same as they would have to do when planning a skyscraper in Sacramento, but they'd rather do suburbs (a proven product) than urban infill (an unproven product.) The problem here is the market and the industry, not having to create EIRs.

As to Portland, give me a break! Portland has, what, three buildings that are taller than you'd find in Sacramento, and the tallest is maybe 100-150 feet taller than the tallest buildings here. Portland's sprawl is just as bad as Sacramento's. They get attention because they are the ONLY major city in their entire state, and really the only major city between Seattle and Sacramento on the entire west coast. Sure, they've got a streetcar in addition to light rail (which we'll have in five years) and they've done some good things with their downtown (due, in large part, to adaptive reuse) but even though Oregon's building code standards aren't as stringent as California's, they're really not that far out ahead of Sacramento.

[robw340]

I'm going to be there. How do you get on the newsletter list?

re newsletter, i'm a tennant so we get it thru snailmail every month, and for the most part it has very basic info regarding issues that affect either the tennants or CADA's properties....

[SLO]

Sacramento is doing just fine, its well on its way. Every city is different and has developed differently over time. Sacramento, as a big city is very very young, comparing it to Chicago is absurd. Portland, ehhh. Among Sacramento's peer cities, its doing just fine....

[robw340]

As to Portland, give me a break! Portland has, what, three buildings that are taller than you'd find in Sacramento, and the tallest is maybe 100-150 feet taller than the tallest buildings here. Portland's sprawl is just as bad as Sacramento's. They get attention because they are the ONLY major city in their entire state, and really the only major city between Seattle and Sacramento on the entire west coast. Sure, they've got a streetcar in addition to light rail (which we'll have in five years) and they've done some good things with their downtown (due, in large part, to adaptive reuse) but even though Oregon's building code standards aren't as stringent as California's, they're really not that far out ahead of Sacramento.

I couldnt disagree more with you in regards to this (Portland) ...I dont think Econgrad was referring to how tall the buildings were, but how that city has done an outstanding job on thrying to correct it's mistakes, and in that respect its way ahead of Sacramento ----1st of all, years ago the community and city leaders go together and were succesful in moving the freeway that was separating it's downtown from the river to the east side and replaced it with a park, fountains, walkways, etc...that's currently I5...sounds familiar? Their lightrail, which was started in the '84-'86 time frame like Sacramento's, is currently 44 miles long with 64 stations, including service to the airport...For 2006, residents and visitors boarded a lightrail or bus 95.7 million times, a fact that has been talked about all over the country...their streetcar line runs 7.2 miles from the Pearl Disctrict thru downtown and down to the South Waterfront area...and when it comes to infill projects, all you have to do is walk around those 2 districts to get an example of what urban infill succes stories are all about...I've been in Sacramento for 20 years now, and i love my city, but having spent some time in Portland through out this time, the only similarity that i can see it's the 2 rivers that meet north of the city .

[Cynikal]

Then why is Portland, a similar city to Sacramento more Urban developed?

My answer: Too much regulation. You can learn all about the bureaucracy of the city as well as what hinders costly inner-city economic development at the Planning Academy.

I find quite funny that you assume that Portland has less regulation than Sacramento. The reality is they probably have far more. The regional planning authority in Portland governs with a very heavy hand and only project with the same vision were even looked at. They ruled in such a way that there has been a backlash to the point of new legislation in favor of property rights over the authority of the regional body.

The reality is Portland's increase in urban development was due to a huge catylist development called the Pearl Dstrict. A closed railyard redevelopment project that gave new life to Portland (sounds kinda familiar huh?).


The city claims smart growth, then develops and expands north into the flood plains. More suburbs growing like crazy, and yet very little "smart" development at all. Because of the cities bureaucracies it takes too long for a developer to build something big and "smart". They also require improvements around new developments, strong arming developers to improve sidewalks, lighting, street repairs...etc that have nothing to do with the development itself, increasing costs for the developer. Yep, smart growth alright...yeehaw Sacramento!

While you have some points here, but every city has to compete in the regional housing market. With city's like Roseville, Elk Grove, and Folsom openly seeking developers to build just single family homes and discouraging attached product, Sacramento offer some of the same product to be competitive (remember that from your econ classes?). From a traffic standpoint development in Natomas is better than farther out. There is far less impact on road and freeway infrastructure.

[TowerDistrict]

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/planning/academy/#academy

what a joke...

The city claims smart growth, then develops and expands north into the flood plains. More suburbs growing like crazy, and yet very little "smart" development at all. Because of the cities bureaucracies it takes too long for a developer to build something big and "smart". They also require improvements around new developments, strong arming developers to improve sidewalks, lighting, street repairs...etc that have nothing to do with the development itself, increasing costs for the developer. Yep, smart growth alright...yeehaw Sacramento!


It was actually a bit sad to hear the resignation in the city staff's collective voice when the subject of North Natomas came up.. and it frequently did. It's true that the area is seen widely as what not to do when it comes to planning and sustainable growth.

The main point of the Planning Academy is to educate and inform the public of these consequences. But an underlying motive for the planning staff is that they get to rear supporters for their cause. I noticed that there is quite a tension between what the city planning staff seeks to achieve in these grandiose and elaborate details of Sacramento's future, and what the rest of the city seems to deem acceptable or feasible.

By attending the Academy and hearing first hand the obstacles that impede the implementation of the ideas, such as those in the General Plan and the Blueprint, you can only feel sympathetic to the cause. And maybe at the end, the City Planners end up with 30 more voices shouting in their favor when it comes time for the council to decide what happens to this city.

So to address what you see as bureaucracy stifling infill and urban development - i have to disagree. This city has all the pieces in place for developers to build a great product and make their profit too. That system took a long time to set up and is now hitting a stride, just as a residential market is in utter collapse.

As I see it there are only two obstacles in implementing sustainable, urban infill development: First is investor confidence - which is tough to find in Sacramento right now. And second, the support of the entire Sacramento region in turning off the flood gates of sprawl. That would encourage developers to focus inward, and the cities could provide guidance or support to make it pencil out.

[Majin]

I don't really know much about the process of city zoning or planning, but what I don't understand is why the city can't take a "just say no" policy?

Tell me if I'm way off the mark, buy why can't the city council just rezone every single square mile of city limits as medium to high density with a minimum residential density for all projects? Rezone project to limit parking to parking garages instead of surface lots? Or at least surface lots that are not facing the street? Every single development in the city doesnt have to be a skyscraper, but why doesnt the city --at minimum-- require all projects to be somewhat like F65?

All they'd have to do is rezone everything, then "just say no" to any developers that come with any projects that don't meet the zoning requirements (suburban garbage). If they did this with north natomas 5 years ago, wouldnt we be in much better shape today?

[Web]

I don't really know much about the process of city zoning or planning, but what I don't understand is why the city can't take a "just say no" policy?

Tell me if I'm way off the mark, buy why can't the city council just rezone every single square mile of city limits as medium to high density with a minimum residential density for all projects? Rezone project to limit parking to parking garages instead of surface lots? Or at least surface lots that are not facing the street? Every single development in the city doesnt have to be a skyscraper, but why doesnt the city --at minimum-- require all projects to be somewhat like F65?

All they'd have to do is rezone everything, then "just say no" to any developers that come with any projects that don't meet the zoning requirements (suburban garbage). If they did this with north natomas 5 years ago, wouldnt we be in much better shape today?


General answer that most people don't want to hear........Politicians are in developers pockets basically....look at the variences sometimes

[Majin]

General answer that most people don't want to hear........Politicians are in developers pockets basically....look at the variences sometimes

Is the answer is really that simple... why doesnt anybody just call them out on it? Why doesnt an individual or a group to go a city council meeting where they are doing rezoning and ask them why exactly are they zoning that particular area as low density residential if they are really after the goal of smart growth and infill? Same with annexing past current urban services boundaries? They really shouldnt have a legitimate explanation everytime they approve strip mall #2809820980952 in natomas.

[wburg]

"Smart growth" doesn't mean demolishing existing cities and rebuilding them with this new high-density metaphor. It includes making use of existing cities and figuring out ways to organize and structure them to make them more liveable places, and putting infill (generally, taller infill) in between.

A neighborhood of single-family homes can be "smart growth" if it is laid out the right way, transportation and mixed-use/retail options are present, and so on. I have some lovely essays by Donovan Rypkema on why historic preservation and smart growth are complementary interests, not conflicting ones--as well as several books about the history of urban development which explain in great deal how neighborhoods from the era of "streetcar suburbs" (like midtown and southside) fit modern definitions of "smart growth" and can serve as the model for future application of that metaphor.

And, in the city's defense, an awful lot of the new projects coming down the pike ARE just the sort of projects you're talking about: things along the scale of F65 that are dense, mixed-use and transit-oriented. It doesn't mean every new project HAS to be built along those metaphors, but this kind of project is definitely the new paradigm for cities. Even the developments going on in Rancho Cordova, with their attached multi-story townhomes and neighborhood-based retail, are an excellent smart growth model to follow, and certainly an improvement over 1/4 acre ranch homes with a mega-mall every 20 miles.

However, not everyone wants to live in the city. For whatever reason (explored at great length in CRABGRASS FRONTIER), some people prefer to live in a suburb. The problem with suburbs is that if you increase the density of a suburb, you lose what people like about it (the relative low density and the illusion of rural yeomanry,) but if you increase the density of a city, you increase what people like about it (walkability, convenience, urban style deserved or not.) People want choice: having both dense urbanity, moderately dense urban living, and less dense options available in the housing market provides that choice.

Finally, "Smart Growth" doesn't mean high-density everywhere. It means an emphasis on increasing density, rather than trying to escape it, and making better use of transit, existing infrastructure and the built environment. Too often "smart growth" is used to mean ANY GROWTH WHATSOEVER and that just plain isn't true.

[travis bickle]

I see your straw man and raise you a fallacy: every building goes through some kind of review, but if your problem is with the EIR process, then you're not complaining about EIRs but the review process itself. And besides, quoting a specific project is anecdotal evidence, not a straw man argument.

I am not aware of a single project of any note that has not undergone some kind of review. If you are, I'd like you to name it. In San Diego, I think the threshold is $5000. I'm not sure what it is in Sacramento. I'm not going to waste time debating the semantics of straw man vs, anecdotal. That type of diversion is typical of neighborhood planning group discussions that take weeks but never resolve anything. I have a feeling you are well versed in those types of discussions.

I'll say it again and I defy you to find an exception: Every project goes through some kind of review. That review is costly and time consuming. That review process has killed some projects. This process has resulted in an urban landscape with which few are satisfied.

Perhaps it's time to consider alternatives.

[travis bickle]

An easy definition for smart growth that I have found effective is that smart growth affords true transportation choices. Primarily choices that don't involve your car. Much of "New Urbanism" is actually "Old Urbanism" in that neighborhoods/towns planned before cars became so commonplace had to relay on a mix of transportation options.

Coronado is one of the most desirable cities in America and is a prime example of old/new urbanism. A thriving main street surrounded by (mostly) densely packed homes. The first thing people do upon moving there (besides a little celebration dance) is get rid of the mini-van/SUV because the kids ride their bikes everywhere.

A true transportation choice isn't accomplished by letting other transportation options deteriorate or become prohibitively expensive (apparently the preferred method for many activists), but by making the alternatives inexpensive, convenient and reliable. Slapping another $.25/gal. tax on gasoline will have at best a marginal affect on driving habits (gas at $3.00+/gallon and demand just keeps rising), but providing reliable, frequent trolley service to your block with a 20 minute ride to within a block of your job combined with being able to walk to the grocery store... now that might actually get people out of their cars. True choices are attractive choices - not a choice of the least miserable.

You don't have to get that many people out of their cars to make a real difference in congestion. I've seen some studies indicating a single-digit percentage drop in auto-trips produces hours of significantly reduced congestion. Perhaps some of the planners here know of more recent studies.

To me, you can reduce 20 Peter Katz lectures into six words: Smart growth means real transportation choices.

[Woodmere]

I think Sacramento need to start thinking how it can attract more firms to set up shop here in the state's capitol. When folks graduate from UCD or CSUS and feel the need to look to SF for jobs simply because many major firms don't have offices here, that's a sign. To build a significant infrastructure, it starts with business opportunities and we need to merit it (more offices=more opportunity=more growth). The Sac Kings aren't going to put us on the map, convincing more businesses to invest in operations here may. Just my 2 cents.

[wburg]

I'll say it again and I defy you to find an exception: Every project goes through some kind of review. That review is costly and time consuming. That review process has killed some projects. This process has resulted in an urban landscape with which few are satisfied.

Well, yeah. I don't mind this, because not all projects should be built. Some are dumb. The purpose of the planning process is, ideally, to separate the dumb projects from the not-dumb projects. In practice, this isn't always the case, of course, but that's the theory. Better practices will still kill some projects because some projects deserve to die.

And we are of a mind, travis, in that smart growth means transportation optinos and a return to historic neighborhood arrangements: to me, the best models for those are existing historic neighborhoods which were built to those specifications (like midtown Sacramento and the old streetcar suburbs.) There are other examples and models, but that's a start.

The semantics thing was something like a joke, at least to me: not sure how long you have been online, but folks on USENET and local text BBSes in the nineties used to pull out all sort of debate-team silliness like that.

[travis bickle]

Hmmmm.... OK wburg... you see, when you said (please note quotes)
I see your straw man and raise you a fallacy: every building goes through some kind of review

I thought you actually meant...

I see your straw man and raise you a fallacy: every building goes through some kind of review

Because indeed, every building does go some kind of review. Some projects are inappropriate for the neighborhood and that's why I fully support some type of review system. But the present process leaves much to be desired.

It costs far too much. It takes way too long. It is much too susceptible to abuse and in many ways actually encourages it. And most importantly, it has produced miserable results.

[neuhickman79]

I refuse to dwell on what the city is doing wrong because there are too many things going right! But, I will tell you one thing that is going VERY right in Sacramento this year!!!!!

Crime rates down in Sacramento
Bee Metro Staff -
Published 5:24 pm PDT Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Sacramento saw a 4.2 percent drop in crime the first six months of this year, compared with the same time period last year, according to the Sacramento Police Department.
Murder is down by 37.1 percent, representing the largest decline of any category. Robbery fell 5.8 percent, aggravated assault by 13.3 percent, burglary by 6.7 percent and motor vehicle thefts by 15.9 percent.
Only rape and larceny numbers are up, by 19.4 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively.

The Police Department credits the reallocation of law enforcement resources, community involvement and a restructuring of Problem Oriented Policing strategies for the reduction in homicides.
The statistics were generated using uniform crime reporting standards, according to the department.
For a complete story, see Wednesday's Bee.

[neuhickman79]

More detailed info...including county numbers! HUGE drops in motor vehicle theft in the county!
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2007/08/14/22/873-3M15CRIME.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.gif

[Web]

wow the SAC County numbers seem totally unreal.....I wonder if they are skewed because of rancho cordovas incorporation.....or am I off by a year?

Or Sac County police just cant keep up and are not even recording info?

The Sac City numbers look real small to medium drops and a few small increases......

[neuhickman79]

wow the SAC County numbers seem totally unreal.....I wonder if they are skewed because of rancho cordovas incorporation.....or am I off by a year?

Or Sac County police just cant keep up and are not even recording info?

The Sac City numbers look real small to medium drops and a few small increases......
The point is, the numbers are in the right direction.

[SantaTeresaHills]

Before I begin, let me say that no building in downtown San Jose can be taller than 300 feet because downtown San Jose is right under the flight path for the San Jose airport.

Like Sacramento, San Jose has been waiting for its first high rise condominium to be built. Unlike Sacramento though, the first high rise condo should be completed this month. It is not the prettiest building but at least it got built. Two others though are nearing completion of the floor pours and a fourth one just put its crane up so they should soon be putting up of the steel soon. According to the San Jose Redevelopment agency, 4 other high rise condos are scheduled for groundbreaking in the 4th quarter of 2007, 2 more in the 1st quarter of 2008, and 4 more in the 2nd quarter of 2008.

For the last 30 years or so years, the head of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency really controlled what was in downtown San Jose. 30 or so years ago downtown San Jose was dead with a lot of surface parking lots. Because San Jose put their farmland in north San Jose into the same redevelopment district as downtown, huge amount of money poured into the district once the farms all turned into high tech buildings. This money enabled the Arena, hotels, convention center, Tech museum, Repertory theater to be built. They were also able to lure Adobe to move downtown. One thing that they could not do which they've tried is to add a lot of retail. The main problem with all of this money is that nobody proposed any development without a subsidy from the city.

After 2001 the economy tanked and at the same time the amount of money that the Redevelopment agency had was greatly reduced. In the next few years the city of San Jose made it a priority to have high rise condominiums in downtown. In 2004 they waived the affordable housing requirement for downtown high rises for 2 years. They also put out 2 RFPS for city owned land that were being used as parking lots. The RFPs said that the city wants high rise condominiums on that piece of land and let private developers make proposals. There was only 1 developer for one piece of land and that one just put up their crane. There were 5 developers that bid for the other piece of land and groundbreaking should start in the 1st quarter of 2008. Since the city doesn't have the money to subsidize these condos, none of these developers expected any city money to build these condos. The waiving of the affordable housing requirement sparked all of these developers to start working on developments all over downtown which we are seeing the beginning of the construction currently. Only a few of the high rises started groundbreaking qualified for the no affordable housing requirement though. The city of San Jose just passed the new affordable housing requirement which for downtown high rises is half the amount that you would have to pay for any condo, apartment, or house in the rest of San Jose.

Since the city made downtown high rises a priority, there is no controversy when a downtown high rise condo goes through development review.

The other thing that is different between San Jose and Sacramento beside the economy is that San Jose finally put some teeth into their growth boundaries. After San Jose did that, outlying cities like Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Hollister, and Salinas put limits on the amount of housing that could be built each year. This caused the developments in San Joaquin valley to take off. With the small amount of tract homes that can be built in San Jose now, developers have realized if they want to build housing units that the only way is to build high rise condos. The developers that are building or working on the reviews to build high rise condos are a mix of local, state like CIM, and national developers. I do not know where these developers are getting their money. All of the local developers previously built low rise condos or tract homes. These high rise condos will be the first for the local developers.

What does this mean for Sacramento? I think San Jose overly controlled downtown and for the longest time, they wanted high rise office buildings and retail. They never got the number of office buildings that they wanted and very few stores have been built in downtown though the restaurant, nightclub is very strong. Once they made high rise condos a priority and stopped trying to overly control each development, the developers started assembling their own land deals and making their own proposals which the city has approved or in the process of approving.

If Sacramento has a affordable housing requirement for new housing, they should consider waiving it for a while for new high rise condos. If the city of Sacramento has land in downtown Sacramento, they should be soliciting proposals for high rise condos for some of that land.

In San Jose there has been very little news about financing for construction of high rise condos. There have been some reports about some of the developers still arranging their financing but there has been no news about a developer could not get financing. Also none of the developers have complained about the cost of materials going up.

[Majin]

^^ To be fair, the high rise condos proposed for Sacramento were on a MUCH larger scale that whats been proposed and UC for San Jose. I'm not really familar with whats being build there right now, but I'm sure it was not even close to 650' twin towers or Aura (550'?).

If developers a few years ago proposed condo towers at 200-300', I'm sure we'd would of had them UC long ago. Luckily I think developers are already doing for that range as of now.

[TowerDistrict]

Even still it's interesting to hear another perspective. Especially a comparibly sized city in California. It seems to give a bit of validity to those who've said that the Towers and Aura were just too much too soon. And while I stubbornly disagree with that, the proof may be in the pudding when Cathedral Square makes its marketing to construction push.

If that project fails, then we can pretty well turn the conversation to whether Downtown should rezone underutilized land to accomodate cattle ranch. heh...

I wonder what's up with the Metropolitan?

[Sacdelicious]

Er...SJ has 920,000 people just within city limits.....similarly sized is sort of a stretch...

[TowerDistrict]

The only thing stretched is San Jose's city limits. the metro numbers are pretty similar.

[innov8]

Welcome to the forum SantaTeresaHills :cheers:

If Sacramento has a affordable housing requirement for new housing, they should consider waiving it for a while for new high rise condos. If the city of Sacramento has land in downtown Sacramento, they should be soliciting proposals for high rise condos for some of that land.

Downtown Sacramento doe's not have an affordable housing requirement like
else where in the city. Some people were gripping about how the Towers having
800 units and not requiring affordable housing, well now they don't need to
worry about that any more. There are lots of city lots in DT ripe for construction
but developers and the city missed the boat on getting projects through the system
and securing money to build before the housing melt down and now the credit crunch
that will cause lenders to really hold back monies like never before. Timing is everything
and this time our city missed the boat again.

[ozone]

I'm not sure if you are asking specifically about our problem of getting some highrise condos built or more generally what we are doing wrong -cuz I have a long ass list. Of course, Sacramento has done so things right but we tend to focus on the negative.

IMO Sacramento suffers from urbanphobia. Too many people here are dye-in-the-wool suburbanites. Case in point: I meet a Sacramento native yesterday who lives in Natomas and he called the Fabulous 40's (in East Sac) "downtown".

Also our political structure is such that the original city (downtown and midtown) is split up and attacted to larger suburban districts thus ensuring control by said suburbites. I don't think there is one councilmember who even lives in the central city.

As you pointed out the economy is different here. The state government is both a blessing and a curse. The state owns a lot of land downtown and gets to do whatever it wishes with it and a lot of what they build is just fine for the proposes of the suburban bean counters who approved it but a disaster for the city. The state employee is generally not a risk taker type. There's a lot of "settlers" here: basically uncreative bueraucratic drones. That tends to make a city a real dullsville.

Bottom line: Sacramento is doing what I expect it to do. We need a major shift in thinking before real and lasting changes are made and I think this is slowly happening but will it be a case of too little, to late?

[ozone]

If a developer is recieving subsides from the city then the city has the right to ask that developer to include low income units but if its privately financed then I think the developer should be able to do what they wish.

I also don't believe a developer should have any parking requirements placed on them if their project is within the central city. It should be left up to the developer to determine how many (if any) parking is needed in order to sell their product.

I also don't believe in blanket height limits but prefer each project be looked at on an individual basis. Of course, I understand setbacks on the Capitol Mall but I think that stuff will take care of itself in the approval process.

As for aesthetics...well I just don't have a lot of faith in the Design and Review so I would be more comfortable if the city created a well thought out and extensive set of guidelines which tells a developer what the city prefered and what would most likely have an easier time of getting approval.

[econgrad]

^^
Too Funny! Hey Ozone, I know this one girl here who kept on saying she lives in downtown Sacramento when people asked her. One night she had people over at her "downtown Sacramento apartment" off of Howe Avenue and Hurley way!! :koko: :jester: True story! I tried to explain that her area was not DT Sac, all I got was "well I consider it DT sacramento...so"

BTW: I like what you said above. There is a brighter future in my opinion. I have been meeting people who moved here, and most of them are demanding more sophistication and some are getting involved and becoming part of the DT business community. I am guessing (or hoping) more and more people like this will influence and possibly accelerate the changing face of Sacramento.

[robw340]

Marcos Bretón writes today in the SacBee about lack of leadership in town ....Nothing we already didn't know, but it's a sad perspective on the situation...Maybe it's just me feeling blue today ....They cut this huge beautiful tree in front of my apt , and i hate it when that happens ...Dutch Elm I guess...

[wburg]

Central-city infill development doesn't require low-income housing unless there are public funds involved. 800 J Street and 1701 L Street have low-income units: 1700 L doesn't, just as a for-example.

Personally, I think low-income units are critical: despite the obvious association, "low-income" means affordable to someone making $36K a year (office workers, police, teachers) and even "very low-income" means affordable to someone making $24K a year (retail clerks, waitstaff) while the public-assistance income level ($12K a year for someone on Social Security) amounts to a tiny percentage of that 15% most-of-othe-time set-aside. So, despite what the chuckleheads at the Sacramento Union think, when we talk about "low-income housing" we're talking about 15% of the housing being available to the lower 40% of income--meaning a mere 85% of the new housing being developed is available to the upper 60% of households. It also means downtown housing for just the sort of people who should be living close to downtown, rather than commuting from less-expensive suburbs.

[econgrad]

Marcos Bretón: A leader for city -- please stand up
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, August 19, 2007

Leadership.

Where is it in Sacramento? Who has vision and political clout?

Sadly, the answer is nobody.

Apparently, local political leadership is a bridge too far. Or in this case, it's a new Sacramento Kings arena too far. It's a 53-story downtown skyscraper too far. It's a revitalized K Street mall too far.

One by one, the big civic projects that gave Sacramento reason to hope have failed or been endlessly delayed.

The latest was a legal setback related to K Street, vital downtown real estate condemned to being slumlike, maybe for years to come.

City officials want to redevelop the 700 block of K Street by installing the Z Gallerie furniture chain. Joe Zeiden, owner of Z Gallerie, had pledged to attract other high-end businesses to transform the entire block of decayed, though historic buildings.

But the owner of huge swaths of K Street -- a gentleman named Moe Mohanna -- is standing in the way, prevailing over the city in court last week, promising further legal battles.

Meanwhile, parts of K Street remain a toilet where potential is getting flushed.

Yes. One man with impeccable manners is mightier than Sacramento City Hall.

Mohanna initially agreed to a K Street deal but later backed out, claiming he'd be getting a raw deal financially. Developers such as David Taylor say this is a pattern, killing deals at the last minute out of nerves or mistrust.

Mohanna hasn't developed a single new project in 20 years. He poses as a champion of downtrodden tenants in these threadbare buildings, but employs multiple lawyers for his City Hall battles.

But it gets better. The city is spending $5 million to renovate the Berry Hotel, next to the Greyhound station at L and Eighth streets.

In doing so, the city is forgiving $1 million in loan payments from the current owners. Guess who is getting $1 million for his option on the Berry?

You betcha. Is Mr. Mohanna using that million to feed the homeless? Or to fund his legal fight with the city?

Good questions. The Bee had many related to Mohanna for Mayor Heather Fargo last week.

But we were told that she couldn't comment because she hadn't been briefed yet.

Briefed? For the love of Joe Serna. Do you see what we're talking about here?

Can you hear the deafening silence from the rest of Sacramento's elected officials?

In the vacuum of that silence, people like Mohanna flourish. And now he could become a poster child in a statewide eminent domain fight.

If the city pursues eminent domain against Mohanna, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association might use him as the face of the little guy fighting City Hall in a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Talk about building a righteous house on a shaky foundation. And think of the briefings Mayor Fargo would require if that happens.

A leader would have dealt with Mohanna long ago. A leader would have had the stature to soothe the volatile Kings owners during failed arena negotiations. A leader would have bought time for the now-shelved 53-story towers on Third and Capitol Mall.

Maybe even the late Mayor Serna, who died in 1999, would have struggled on these fronts.

But on critical issues facing Sacramento, he didn't need a briefing to know how to lead.

Go to: Sacbee / Back to story

This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use.
The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852
Phone: (916) 321-1000

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee

[wburg]

I just got back from vacationing in Chicago, and thought a bit about some comparsions made between Chicago and Sacramento in this thread. I was born in Skokie, and most of my family still lives in the Chicagoland area, so I am a big fan of the city, and I go visit every year or two on the California Zephyr.

First thing about Chicago is that it's big. Big big big. Mind-bogglingly huge. The city itself is about three million people, plus an additional six million in the six-county region around the city. Which is about as many people as in the Bay Area, except it's flat. Sacramento Valley kind of flat. The Chicagoland region is economically tied to Chicago--in a way, the City of Broad Shoulders could also be called the City of Broad Suburbs. The suburbs here go on and on and on and keep going on, from the Wisconsin border north to the Indiana boarder east to maybe Aurora or thereabouts to the southwest, maybe 50-70 miles in all directions. These suburbs date back as far as the 1850s, originally supported by steam railroads' commuter rail lines. Their growth accelerated after the Chicago fire of 1871, as Chicagoans who feared future conflagrations moved out of the city. By the 1890s, both steam railroads and electric interurbans provided passenger service to the suburban regions. The elevated railway and streetcar systems downtown connected and fed these commuter systems, and the steam railroads also used the big union stations downtown as a nexus for commuter rail.

As a result, most of Chicagoland's suburbs were originally built around a train station, with a main line running through the middle. The town centers of places like Elmhurst, Downer's Grove, LaGrange, Park Ridge and other communities are all a stone's throw from the train station--or more than one station, if more than one railroad's mainline ran nearby.

In the postwar era, commuter rail was still important but the suburbs began filling in the gaps as commuters chose cars over railroads. This allowed Chicagolanders to live in the cheap, undeveloped land that wasn't within easy walking distance of the train stations, and the new highways (both freeways and tollways) were initially just as fast as the trains, if not faster.

Meanwhile, downtown went up. And up, and up, and up. I am not sure if the skyscraper was invented in Chicago but it might as well have been. Chicago started early with skyscrapers because it was already big, already dense, and already wealthy enough to start pushing upward, and besides, they couldn't really move outward because they were already surrounded by suburbs. They're everywhere downtown, and Chicagoans seem to like their old skyscrapers as much as the new ones: I saw as many old towers being rehabbed and advertised for lease/sale/rental as I saw new towers under construction.

How does this all relate to Sacramento? For starters, if you compare where both cities were a century ago, it makes sense that Chicago was already building skyscrapers and suburbs, while Sacramento was still a small city, that had neither the population nor the demands on open land. In 1890, Chicago was already full, and the surrounding territory claimed by suburban towns. Sacramento was still nine square miles: to the north was unreclaimed floodplain, to the south was hop fields, to the east was farmland. We had a moderate but not huge population, and lots of "out" to grow into but little need to go "up." The early streetcar suburbs of Highland Park and Oak Park were still being built, but they weren't incorporated as cities and would later be annexed into the city, as they are today. We never had a steam-railroad suburban rail system like Chicago did: the closest were Sacramento Northern's suburban lines to West Sac, Swanston/North Sacramento and Rio Linda, or Central California Traction's line to Colonial Heights/Colonial Acres.

Another truth about Chicago: If it wasn't for the sprawling suburbanites surrounding Chicago, the skyscrapers downtown wouldn't be there either. They remind me of the roots and the trunk of a tree: you need a lot of water to feed a tall trunk, and that means very, very broad roots.

[ozone]

Interesting comparsions and commentary. Yes most experts agree that the skyscraper was invented in Chicago.

I would however challenge your statement that "If it wasn't for the sprawling suburbanites surrounding Chicago, the skyscrapers downtown wouldn't be there either." The skyscrapers went up long before the sprawl. Yeah there were early streetcar suburbs for the emerging middle classes but nothing compared to today's sprawl. Of course, your right in a way because millions commute from the burbs to those downtown skyscrapers but the burbs did not make the skyscraper possible.

The skyscraper came about because of several factors: the great fire -afterwhich people were searching for stronger, more fire-proof building materials, development of steel framing, the invention of safe elevators and central heating, also a group of innovative Chicago architects and ambition of Chicago to outdo New York helped it's popularity.

[wburg]

The sprawl started in the 1850s-1870s, the skyscrapers around the 1880s. The magnitude of sprawl has changed, but the basic idea of suburban dwellings surrounding a denser core was a central idea of city design throughout the United States--the whole idea, from the mid-190th century to the mid-20th century, was to get people out into the suburbs and they would ride into downtown to work, play and shop. The emerging middle classes in the suburbs were the ones who worked in the skyscrapers, while the working folks worked in the stockyards and factories.

Technology made the construction of skyscrapers possible, but the population, especially the suburban population, made the economics of skyscrapers possible (more valuable land in the center, middle-class workplace/home split.)

[thekid@455]

The sprawl started in the 1850s-1870s, the skyscrapers around the 1880s. The magnitude of sprawl has changed, but the basic idea of suburban dwellings surrounding a denser core was a central idea of city design throughout the United States--the whole idea, from the mid-190th century to the mid-20th century, was to get people out into the suburbs and they would ride into downtown to work, play and shop. The emerging middle classes in the suburbs were the ones who worked in the skyscrapers, while the working folks worked in the stockyards and factories.

Technology made the construction of skyscrapers possible, but the population, especially the suburban population, made the economics of skyscrapers possible (more valuable land in the center, middle-class workplace/home split.)


Maybe if we burn Sacramento down and build over it - consider it the west coast second city - we could accomplish what Chicago has done?

On another note: this thread has some not entirely true facts about CEQA and its national counterpart NEPA. Both projects require an initial study of environmental effects. With CEQA and infill projects - you will see most projects fall under a Negative Declartion (a sclaed down EIR) that does not require months or years of preperation and litigation. A majority of litigation that took place over infill projects was the fact that CEQA was counter intuitive urban projects - meaning an interest group could sue over growth inducement. How do you dispell an urban project will not induce growth within an urban corridor? This road block has been fixed by assemblymen Dave Jones (D) Sacramento.

Many of DT and MT projects cannot be built because rents and sales do not support the cost to build. With land prices still remaining expensive in the area we are seeing hefty acquisition costs, on top of that cost to build are from $280 to $400, depending on the scale and amenities. Without SHRA, CADA, or SacEDD dollars, you will not have a sucessful project.

Think about any mixed use - loft style project that did not receive money from one or several of those agencies.

[sugit]

You are right there aren't a bunch without some sort of assistance, but there have been some. Most still do need subsidies though and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Cooper Union at 16th and H, O1 Lofts at 16th and K, R Street Market Lofts, and L Street Lofts off the top of my head as mixed use housing (not townhouse-type) developments that have not received money. (other than maybe sewer credits)

[TowerDistrict]

Cooper Union at 16th and H, O1 Lofts at 16th and K, R Street Market Lofts,
and L Street Lofts off the top of my head as mixed use housing (not
townhouse-type) developments that have not received money. (other than
maybe sewer credits)

I think it's worth mentioning that O1 and L Street Lofts were both follow
up projects after the developers' first projects received subsidies. But that's
actually why I think subsidies are a really good thing for urban projects.
It seems a trend that you subsidize one project and the developer is able
to rollover that success into another project. Essentially you get two or more
projects from backing one. And success of the first project seems to be the
stumbling block for several developers at the moment.

[sugit]

Good point, TD. I'm sure each project needs to stand on its own to banks and lenders, but it sure does help when you have that first one under your belt.

[wburg]

Maybe if we burn Sacramento down and build over it - consider it the west coast second city - we could accomplish what Chicago has done?


Sacramento did burn down, several times, except for the years when it was flooded out. Sacramento has accomplished what Chicago has done: built a thriving city at the core of a large swath of suburban sprawl, covering what used to be farmland. They're not exactly the same because there were plenty of other factors that affected specific growth patterns. For starters: Chicago was already a city of 300,000 people by the time of the Chicago Fire. Not having automobiles (or even electric streetcars) in the 1870s, they had to build denser than we do now.

[econgrad]

What did Sacramento do wrong?
Sacramento, and California in general, allows special interest groups (environmentalists and preservationists) to create regulations that hinder growth and development of large projects making them too expensive to build and too long to be approved as they are bogged down with EIR (Environmental Impact Reports) in turn, suburbs are the only answer for people's living situations because they are cheap to build and easily approved. Its funny how the same people who complain about suburban sprawl, vote, fight for and support the exact same regulations that cause suburban sprawl....destroying many of the ugly buildings in Midtown (not burring them down) would be a great start. Building 2 more freeways would be another. Reno was able to build a tunnel under their city for the train to go under so it would not disrupt traffic anymore, we are probably still waiting for the EIR report on that one..maybe 2030? RT is still not at the airport because we let too many people complain about where the tracks are. We need to adopt an attitude that is this: Just do it! Unfortunately we have adopted: Just study it.
And nothing gets done...

[wburg]

The Reno tunnel is a VERY different situation than Sacramento. Reno is several thousand feet above sea level, we're like 30 feet above sea level. The Reno tunnel also cost close to $250 million, and assuming identical costs (unlikely considering our water table, higher labor costs, etc.) we're talking at least a billion just to get through midtown. Not to mention that the Reno trench is an ugly-ass open-air trash dump, having problems with standing water, vandalism/graffiti, safety concerns...it was a bad idea just to save commuters a few minutes a few times a day in Reno, and even worse here. Part of why it can be worthwhile to study a problem is to realize the kind of stupid, expensive mistakes that get made and why doing them again would be even more stupid and more expensive.

RT isn't at the airport because public transit was considered a lower priority than building housing, and the best public-transit routes ended up with houses being built on them. Yes, Natomas was built stupidly--that's why it's worthwhile to take the time to figure out how not to make the same mistake again in the railyards or the West Sacramento triangle.

State environmental laws apply the same in the suburbs as they do in central cities, and they apply the same in other California cities. In fact, preservationists in outlying areas (those trying to preserve open space, greenfields, farmlands or wildlife habitat) have a lot more power than those of us who try to save old buildings. But somehow environmental policy is responsible for sprawl into greenfield areas, the ones environmentalists are protecting?

[BrianSac]

What did Sacramento do wrong?
Sacramento, and California in general, allows special interest groups (environmentalists and preservationists) to create regulations that hinder growth and development of large projects making them too expensive to build and too long to be approved as they are bogged down with EIR (Environmental Impact Reports) in turn, suburbs are the only answer for people's living situations because they are cheap to build and easily approved. Its funny how the same people who complain about suburban sprawl, vote, fight for and support the exact same regulations that cause suburban sprawl....destroying many of the ugly buildings in Midtown (not burring them down) would be a great start. Building 2 more freeways would be another. Reno was able to build a tunnel under their city for the train to go under so it would not disrupt traffic anymore, we are probably still waiting for the EIR report on that one..maybe 2030? RT is still not at the airport because we let too many people complain about where the tracks are. We need to adopt an attitude that is this: Just do it! Unfortunately we have adopted: Just study it.
And nothing gets done...

Awesome, someone thinks like me for once! :)

You said it, econograd,

"Its funny how the same people who complain about suburban sprawl, vote, fight for and support the exact same regulations that cause suburban sprawl....".......Do they even realize this?

[jsf8278]

I have to admit, I was very surprised when I learned about all the procedures developers have to go trough to build something around here. I'm all for the affordable housing initiatives, but some of the other procedures (EIR’s) are a little ridiculous it seems.
Has any good ever come from the EIR's? Does anyone know of a project that submitted its EIR, then had to resubmit it with changes, which resulted in a positive environmental impact for the city? That would be interesting to find out.

[Web]

What did Sacramento do wrong?
Sacramento, and California in general, allows special interest groups (environmentalists and preservationists) to create regulations that hinder growth and development of large projects making them too expensive to build and too long to be approved as they are bogged down with EIR (Environmental Impact Reports) in turn, suburbs are the only answer for people's living situations because they are cheap to build and easily approved. Its funny how the same people who complain about suburban sprawl, vote, fight for and support the exact same regulations that cause suburban sprawl....destroying many of the ugly buildings in Midtown (not burring them down) would be a great start. Building 2 more freeways would be another. Reno was able to build a tunnel under their city for the train to go under so it would not disrupt traffic anymore, we are probably still waiting for the EIR report on that one..maybe 2030? RT is still not at the airport because we let too many people complain about where the tracks are. We need to adopt an attitude that is this: Just do it! Unfortunately we have adopted: Just study it.
And nothing gets done...

LR is not at the airport because it costs $$$ and people don't want to spend it(especially Arnold).......the cut in transit funds meant bus route cutting....and if you dont have bus routes to connect to LR what good is it basically.....and This Bs system is Def small town.....bad service in the evening and minimalist on weekends.

[wburg]

I have to admit, I was very surprised when I learned about all the procedures developers have to go trough to build something around here. I'm all for the affordable housing initiatives, but some of the other procedures (EIR’s) are a little ridiculous it seems.
Has any good ever come from the EIR's? Does anyone know of a project that submitted its EIR, then had to resubmit it with changes, which resulted in a positive environmental impact for the city? That would be interesting to find out.

By "around here" you are referring to the state of California, right? (And to a lesser extent, the United States: there is a federal EIR requirement for large projects.) Not every project needs an EIR. And the only reason why a project should have to change their EIR is because discussion of the draft EIR found potential negative impacts which needed further mitigation. So, at least technically, the only reason why a submitted EIR is ever changed is to avoid a negative environmental impact.

[travis bickle]

LR is not at the airport because it costs $$$ and people don't want to spend it(especially Arnold).......the cut in transit funds meant bus route cutting....and if you dont have bus routes to connect to LR what good is it basically.....and This Bs system is Def small town.....bad service in the evening and minimalist on weekends.

For at least the last five years, government revenues have been at all time highs at every level. I've posted some pertinent data on some other thread and don't care to find it, but I'm confident no one will find anything contradictory. With the slumping real estate market, obviously property taxes will soon show the concomitant drop, but revenues are still strong.

You can't spend funds on transportation if you're spending the bulk of revenue on salaries and bloated pensions. In Chula Vista for example, 80%... that's right... 80%, of all revenue goes toward salaries and pensions. That's according to the city manager.

Our system is flush with cash. Our priorities ought to be flushed. There is plenty of money to spend on infrastructure improvements like lightrail to the airport. We just need the the civic and political will to demand it be funded.

[travis bickle]

By "around here" you are referring to the state of California, right? (And to a lesser extent, the United States: there is a federal EIR requirement for large projects.) Not every project needs an EIR. And the only reason why a project should have to change their EIR is because discussion of the draft EIR found potential negative impacts which needed further mitigation. So, at least technically, the only reason why a submitted EIR is ever changed is to avoid a negative environmental impact.

The review process is broken. In the best case, it has become nothing short of extortion as what's her name of the railroad museum is proving with the railyards. In the worst case, the delays and costs are project killers. The EIR process is just a part of it. Even neg-decs can cost hundreds of thousand of dollars and months, if not years, to produce.

Some kind of measurable impact scale must accompany a completely revised review process so we can see if the billions spent every year in California is actually accomplishing anything.

Few would argue that the present excruciating process has produced excellent results unless you consider endless sprawl, mind-numbing traffic and lung-searing air excellent results.

Some here will whine that it's too difficult to quantify or qualify environmental benefits. Well, we better find a way because what we're doing now isn't working... for anyone.

[wburg]

travis: I'm eager to hear about how you think the process should work: how can accountability and disclosure (the core issues of EIRs) be maintained while facilitating faster, more cost-effective development?

[econgrad]

Wburg: The development process in Nevada takes almost 1/3 amount of time. That is why Vegas and Reno are developing like mad. California is a waste of time for most developers. I will have hard data when I come back from Vegas, and I will compare a project from there, to a similar on in Los Angeles (they are both hospitals).

[wburg]

Nevada is one of those states that the United States decided wouldn't be made any uglier by dropping atomic bombs on it. If it wasn't for legalized gambling, prostitution, and lack of building codes, nobody would go there at all. About the only thing I envy about Nevada are their very liberal firearms laws. I certainly don't envy them their cities.

Reno and Las Vegas are growing quickly, but they're also ugly-ass cities, about as far from walkable as it's possible to get without releasing pedestrian-hunting killer robots onto the streets. The new construction tends to be either obnoxiously ostentatious gambling dens or totally utilitarian cheaply constructed everything else--complete with soulless, crappy suburbs, which somehow appear despite your implied contention that, given their druthers, developers would build nothing but skyscrapers.

Las Vegas reminds me of an overly siliconed and plastic surgeried stripper who doesn't even resemble a human being anymore, and Reno reminds me of her ugly sister who will sleep with anyone. If our regulations are what stops California from looking like those two festering boils, then thank goodness for regulation!

[Majin]

^^ Even thought you say all that, americans will go on a trip to Las Vegas and 99.9% of them will think its the best place on earth.

How do I know this? Billions are being invested in brining even more hotels to a place that already has the most hotels rooms in the country. If people didn't like the place developers wouldnt be pouring billions in their economy.

[travis bickle]

travis: I'm eager to hear about how you think the process should work: how can accountability and disclosure (the core issues of EIRs) be maintained while facilitating faster, more cost-effective development?


A start would be time-certain review phases. Say first plan check - guaranteed "x" month(s). Time to grading permit - guaranteed "x" months.

Set a due date for the discretionary phases. If the parties can't reach agreement, then the reviewing department is penalized either via its own budget or through credits to the project.

Some will complain that this unfairly penalizes the city and will lead to poor projects. Wrong - all it does is give the city some urgency to review projects in a reasonable period of time. The developer already wants the project approved quickly and has no incentive to delay.

How's that wburg?

[TowerDistrict]

^^ Even thought you say all that, americans will go on a trip to Las Vegas
and 99.9% of them will think its the best place on earth.

How do I know this? Billions are being invested in brining even more hotels to
a place that already has the most hotels rooms in the country. If people didn't
like the place developers wouldnt be pouring billions in their economy.

true... but it is a question of what you want your city to be.

i think people are glad that Vegas exists, but enjoy the fact that it's isolated
in the middle of a desert and nothing like their hometown. What happens in
Vegas, stays in Vegas... thankfully.

[wburg]

Assuming a fully-staffed development services department, I can see how that would work. One assumes there would be things that can "stop the clock" that are out of the hands of the city development staff, otherwise the city would have a vested interest in shutting off public input. Combined with effective early notification and requirements that the developer do outreach, such a plan could be workable

One disturbing trend lately is that a lot of businesses (and some developers) have pretty much given up on early notification, which means that if there turn out to be conflicts & concerns with the neighborhood then it can't help but throw a wrench into the schedule of a project. That means everyone is unhappy: the developer gets delayed, the neighborhood has to fight the momentum of a project already underway instead of talking stuff out beforehand, and the city gets the blame for the delays. Clear requirements for notification in combination with firm timetables would get things going more quickly and save some heartache later.

A start would be time-certain review phases. Say first plan check - guaranteed "x" month(s). Time to grading permit - guaranteed "x" months.

Set a due date for the discretionary phases. If the parties can't reach agreement, then the reviewing department is penalized either via its own budget or through credits to the project.

Some will complain that this unfairly penalizes the city and will lead to poor projects. Wrong - all it does is give the city some urgency to review projects in a reasonable period of time. The developer already wants the project approved quickly and has no incentive to delay.

How's that wburg?

[wburg]

^^ Even thought you say all that, americans will go on a trip to Las Vegas and 99.9% of them will think its the best place on earth.

How do I know this? Billions are being invested in brining even more hotels to a place that already has the most hotels rooms in the country. If people didn't like the place developers wouldnt be pouring billions in their economy.

Most Americans who go to Vegas only see the Strip and the tourist attractions. It is dramatic, in a tacky, fake-ass kind of way, and there's enough money (generated by tourists losing theirs) to create a level of luxury that generally wouldn't be possible without the system of voluntary theft that is organized gambling. The rest of Vegas is a goddamn shithole. Also keep in mind that a lot of people think Vegas is great is because (a) they were on vacation, rather than working, and (b) they were BLIND STINKING DRUNK THE WHOLE TIME THEY WERE THERE.

Reno is slowly degenerating, even its Strip is going downhill since Indian gaming took hold in California and superseded its role as a more convenient place to gamble for those in northern California. I like thrifting in Reno, and going to gun stores to drool over things I can't even think of taking over the California state line, but I don't think anyone leaves Reno thinking it's the best city in the world. Anyone who thinks so probably has the worst case of "beer goggles" recorded in human history...

[Web]

throwing out an example of no zoning etc.

Houston Texas

a mortuary can be next to an apartment next to a metal plating business next to a single family house next to a mcdonalds,......next to just about anything.....NO zoning code

also the pay scale in this area is what???

[travis bickle]

a mortuary can be next to an apartment next to a metal plating business next to a single family house next to a mcdonalds,......next to just about anything.....

Oh... you mean wburg's dream neighborhood for Richards Boulevard...

[ozone]

Is this thread even needed? It was started by someone from San Jose and it's a negative thread. I say lock it up.

[econgrad]

Is this thread even needed? It was started by someone from San Jose and it's a negative thread. I say lock it up.

This thread needed? Probably not necessary. I am having fun reading other counter points to what I post on here. I like our debates. I have to admit Wburg and Travis Bickle changed my mind somewhat with conserving old buildings from our debates on here...

[krudmonk]

Is this thread even needed? It was started by someone from San Jose and it's a negative thread. I say lock it up.
That's odd. The location of the original poster says "Downtown Sacramento."

[Majin]

Is this thread even needed? It was started by someone from San Jose and it's a negative thread. I say lock it up.

When did I move to San Jose?

[ozone]

OH it was you Majin who started this thread...humm..might of known.. you arborphobic. Haven't you done enough damage with your voodoo kiboshing of this town? So I guess it was a a home-grown negaterrorist and not a Joser or maybe it was it just wishful thinking on my part? j/k.