West Sacramento: Proposal/Projects and Developments

[CAGeoNerd]

Well, gotta put parking somewhere. Better underneath the units than having a big parking lot taking up space. Certainly is enough of that in the area with Raley Field there. Let's also remember, this is supposed to be low-income housing - which planners/officials tend to be discrete about.

[ltsmotorsport]

Yeah, but also with low-income units you don't need a lot of parking. Could use that space for some street activation. Just sayin.

[wburg]

Why don't you need a lot of parking for low-income units? Proximity to a streetcar line would reduce the need for parking--but without a fixed transit system, I'm a bit worried that the hoped-for "urban" neighborhood in West Sacramento will wind up looking like the parts of Natomas that were supposed to be "transit-oriented" but never got the transit.

[ltsmotorsport]

On the whole, most lower-income projects don't need as many spaces because the tenants tend to drive much less or not own cars at all. There's plenty of examples around the state and in Sacramento of affordable projects where little to no parking is provided, and there is no issue at all. Conversely, some affordable projects have provided the required parking by code and the spaces sit empty at rates of 90% or more. Parking is the single most expensive item per square foot a developer has to include, so trimming the spaces in a project can cut costs significantly.

[wburg]

A lot of lower-income folks don't have cars, but depend on public transit to get around--which means it's important that there is good public transit in close proximity to affordable units. If there isn't good transit access, people who don't have cars are less likely to rent there because they are cut off from their main form of transit. Transit-oriented development is a great idea--but without the transit, it's just underparked.

There are other potential ways to reduce the need for parking--good bike connectivity, Zipcar stations, or just a sufficiently mixed-use and dense neighborhood that provides multiple uses and job locations within walking distance.

"Low-income" is a very broad term--the highest category of "low-income" housing in Sacramento County is intended for people making as much as $40,000 a year. It isn't identical to "public housing project."

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by wburg

Why don't you need a lot of parking for low-income units? Proximity to a streetcar line would reduce the need for parking--but without a fixed transit system, I'm a bit worried that the hoped-for "urban" neighborhood in West Sacramento will wind up looking like the parts of Natomas that were supposed to be "transit-oriented" but never got the transit.

I agree with wburg here. It appears to me as though there's some cause for concern if this neighborhood is going to be everything it could be in terms of a creating vibrant urban neighborhood on the river.

With that location, it's hard to imagine it failing to generate demand (much like Natomas), but that's why it's even more critical for local leaders and planners to demand more from the developers and architects.

As far as parking and affordable housing, many jurisdictions require less parking assuming that the projects will generate fewer car trips. This is the case in San Diego where you can also get credits by locating what is often better described as "workforce" housing near places of employment with applicable wage scales (think hospitality).

But I am not at all impressed with this project. There are countless ways to incorporate all of the required parking and still embrace the street. It just looks like the David Baker team was lazy here.

The Sacramento area deserves better and should demand better...

[wburg]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

But I am not at all impressed with this project. There are countless ways to incorporate all of the required parking and still embrace the street. It just looks like the David Baker team was lazy here.

The Sacramento area deserves better and should demand better...

Naysayer!

[ltsmotorsport]

Originally Posted by wburg

A lot of lower-income folks don't have cars, but depend on public transit to get around--which means it's important that there is good public transit in close proximity to affordable units. If there isn't good transit access, people who don't have cars are less likely to rent there because they are cut off from their main form of transit. Transit-oriented development is a great idea--but without the transit, it's just underparked.

There are other potential ways to reduce the need for parking--good bike connectivity, Zipcar stations, or just a sufficiently mixed-use and dense neighborhood that provides multiple uses and job locations within walking distance.

"Low-income" is a very broad term--the highest category of "low-income" housing in Sacramento County is intended for people making as much as $40,000 a year. It isn't identical to "public housing project."

I agree on all points, I'm just saying that there are many low-income and even market-rate projects in urban settings that require much less parking, as I know you're well aware.


This design just seems to handicap the block it occupies by trading potential retail space for parking stalls which is especially unfortunate given the area will be VERY urban once built out and have streetcar access only a couple blocks away as well. Street activation is the key!

[wburg]

That's the rub--in order to make a project with reduced parking practical, you have to have the transit network in place first, instead of building the housing with an auto-centric parking ratio and hope it somehow "densifies" later. I suppose if sense breaks out they could always wall in those parking garages, knock some entrances in the street side for a storefront, and put something useful in there.

[ltsmotorsport]

Let's hope they could, but i wouldn't count on it with the low ceilings that parking garages have. I also don't think it's precisely necessary for there to be transit for ground floor retail to work in this project. There's already people living in Iron Works and you have employment centers nearby too. No doubt it would help the businesses, but I don't think it to be critical.

[wburg]

Will there be street parking in that area for patrons of ground floor retail? What is West Sacramento's parking-ratio policy? If there isn't another way for people to get to that business, they pretty much have to use their cars--and what's the walkshed from Ironworks and other existing residential to this spot?

Transportation network determines urban form, it's that simple. A car-centric transportation network produces a car-centric neighborhood.

[ltsmotorsport]

Transportation network only affects land use if the city allows it though, and the street network in the Bridge District is definitely not auto-centric. The small blocks and (mostly) narrow streets are perfect pedestrian habitat and a little GFR to coax those walkers out to the sidewalk shouldn't be so hard.

To me, I just think this project will stick out like a sore thumb when more projects get developed around it (most likely with retail and other amenities) and all this project is doing is serving the people who live there, not the rest of the neighborhood.

[wburg]

Not so sure about that--remember, North Natomas was supposed to look the way the West Sac river district is supposed to look, until developers started asking for exceptions to the rules and "just this time" deviations from the plan. People are currently cheering West Sacramento for not being "obstructionist" and encouraging speedy development, but expect that attitude to turn around in a minute if their planning department starts insisting on TOD-oriented design when developers used to building suburban subdivisions start asking for front-facing parking lots, cul-de-sacs and greater separation of uses to encourage "power center" configurations. Then they'll have two choices: either get slagged as obstructionist NIMBYs who don't understand the need for projects to pencil, or become West Natomas.

[ltsmotorsport]

In talking with the mayor earlier this year, I don't think West Sacramento will waiver (at least I hope) in the promise of the Bridge District. The streets/infrastructure is already half installed and now it's time to see how things build out from there.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

I drove down West Capitol today and they have moved some dirt around and have construction equipment there on the opposite side of Raley Field. Looks like this project will be going up soon

Drove by today (W. Cap across from Raley Field.) No action or equipment. Just weeds. Doesn't look like anything's going on.

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by downtownserg89

[B][SIZE="4"]

Drove by that site today, looks like they have the foundation ready to pour. Tons of rebar and things sticking up out of the ground. Could see the frame of this thing go up in the next few weeks. Will be sort of monumental, as the first building to go up in the river district, and will be standing there by itself for some time. Haven't seen anything else proposed to go up there yet except for the hotel on the riverfront, which isn't a sure thing just yet.

[kamehameha]

There will be more groundbreakings this year and early next year. The next project to start are the townhomes around the garden park, after that we will have the apartment units near the river front by the Yaczan Group and then the 20+ story hotel/convention center/residential/parking structure early next year. Financing is almost complete and bond issuance has already been initiated for the Marriott project. This is a priority project for the City of West Sac for 2013. Contruction should get underway for The Raley's landing dock, the Rice Mill Pier and the 600ft plus Pioneer bluff bridge.

[NikeFutbolero]

Are there any plans on building any pedestrian bridges to connect the riverwalks on both sides? One in between Embassy Suites and the Auto Museum I think would create more foot traffic on the Sacramento side.

[Dieler]

Originally Posted by kamehameha

There will be more groundbreakings this year and early next year...... then the 20+ story hotel/convention center/residential/parking structure early next year. Financing is almost complete and bond issuance has already been initiated for the Marriott project. This is a priority project for the City of West Sac for 2013.

Kamehameha: Are there any detailsin the public domain about the hotel/convention center/residential project? I'm particularly interested in the residential aspect.

Where exactly will this be located?

[wburg]

Hm. Looks like Mayor Cabaldon is coming under fire from Region Builders for daring to suggest that the SACOG Blueprint (the regional framework for smart growth) should be reaffirmed. What was that I said a couple weeks ago about how easy it was to go from the darling of the development community to an anti-growth NIMBY?

The 31 members of SACOG's governing board are set to vote on a resolution that reaffirms the council's support for the region's prizewinning "Blueprint" growth strategy. Board members, all local elected officials from SACOG's six counties and 22 cities, are being asked to back the agency's staff. Will the planners, scientists and policy analysts who make up the SACOG staff have the latitude to comment whether a proposed development violates or complies with the Blueprint? Or will they have to pull their punches?

The vote is necessary because SACOG is under attack. Influential developers and their elected allies complain that SACOG staffers have gone beyond providing technical assistance to "lobbying against projects." In a letter to the SACOG board, Region Builders, a recently established trade association representing some local developers and construction firms, stated it plainly: "We are concerned about SACOG's opposition to projects … ."

Region Builders has even gone after West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon, a strong SACOG supporter. In a recent State of the City speech, Cabaldon laid out the stakes should Region Builders weaken or gut the Blueprint. He then added he would "make sure that not one penny of the hundreds of millions of dollars" his city spends on construction projects would go to companies that would undercut the Blueprint and thereby hurt West Sacramento.

Cabaldon may have crossed a line with that comment, but Region Builders has gone even more overboard with its response. The group has hired a lawyer – Harmeet K. Dhillon, vice chair of the California Republican Party – to threaten a lawsuit against Cabaldon, according to a letter received Friday by Cabaldon and West Sacramento's city attorney. It's an obvious attempt to muzzle Cabaldon after previously trying to muzzle SACOG Executive Director Mike McKeever.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/06/19/550...#storylink=cpy