"What's going on Sacramento" Chit-Chat

[wburg]

Street infrastructure and underground utilities--electric, plumbing, sewer--for the first phase of residential construction. They already held a groundbreaking.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

Done and done! The city revised its regulations for parking lots a couple of years ago--it's now very hard to build a new parking lot. And a new parking standards ordinance went into effect the beginning of this year--in the central business district, you don't need to provide any parking at all for most projects, and in the rest of Midtown, parking requirements have been greatly reduced. New zoning codes are about to go into effect that increase densities, simplify processes, and (my favorite part) include density bonuses and code incentives for conversion of historic commercial buildings to residential use or mixed use.

10-15K residential units equals more like 15,000-30,000 people (assuming 1.5-2 people per residential unit) which would make up that 1950 population deficit. The nice thing about the current plan is that there are already plans on the books for the Railyards and Richards, the Docks and R Street--instead of having to invent something new and drive it through the approval process, the framework is there for a lot of central city growth.

But getting there takes more than just codes, and more than just "vision." It also requires reining in suburban sprawl and unlimited horizontal growth. If it's cheaper, easier and more profitable to build suburbs on farmland, that's what they will do, especially if there are still structural incentives like new freeway construction that drive growth outward.

Wow were have I been. Obviously not keeping up with the going-ons at City Hall. I must admit my eyes start to glaze over whenever I read bureaucratic reports.

Yes, you are right about wasteful ag land being converted to car-dependent housing and strip malls. How great would it be if we could somehow halt all new construction in Natomas for an indefinitely long time?

[ltsmotorsport]

I would much rather halt construction in Placer County, Elk Grove, and other outlying areas around Sacramento County before stopping Natomas. The is purely from an access/proximity to downtown point of view (floodplain issues be damned). The Cordova Hills fiasco is an especially troubling decision by the BOS.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

Street infrastructure and underground utilities--electric, plumbing, sewer--for the first phase of residential construction. They already held a groundbreaking.

I hope the ground breaking was last week, because it doesn't look like any actual construction is going on yet.

[wburg]

Not sure about T9 but excavation is going on at the CADA warehouse for the below-ground parts of the new construction, and they're starting to tear the hollow clay tile out of the walls in the warehouse itself.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

Not sure about T9 but excavation is going on at the CADA warehouse for the below-ground parts of the new construction, and they're starting to tear the hollow clay tile out of the walls in the warehouse itself.

Meh.

Way more interested in township 9 and the railyards. Those very small infill projects are "nice" but we need the large, big numbers of people that those two projects will bring. Neither project will bring 50 story towers but at least they will bring a lot of feet to the ground. None of these small infill projects in Midtown will do that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we shouldn't do these infill projects, just saying the grid needs the JOLT much bigger than these infill projects can bring.

[wburg]

The project at T9 is a five-story, 180 unit apartment building. The project on R Street is a five-story, 110 unit apartment building. Both are low-income, although I think the WAL is mixed-income (some low income, some market rate) and the T9 building is all low-income.

The difference is that the WAL is located in the heart of a vibrant district, with restaurants, nightclubs, cafes, art galleries, and tens of thousands of office jobs within a short walking distance. The T9 housing project's closest amenities are the Greyhound depot, a McDonald's, and a light rail line that stops running at 7:30. I'm sure that in the long run, more interesting things will start going in around Richards Boulevard and the Railyards, and you have to start somewhere. And hopefully they'll start running the Green Line more often and later at night. But in the short term, when both open in a year or two, would you rather live on R Street or Richards Boulevard? I suppose if you liked things quiet and didn't plan on going out in the evening, Richards might be your choice...

We need both, and really, they're both infill construction that will help the central city reach critical mass, and help pave the way for some 50 story towers and other fun things. They're two of the 100 or so similarly-sized projects (reuse, small-lot infill and planned TOD) that we'll need for that extra 10,000-150,00 residential units in the central city by 2030.

[ozone]

@ William Burg. I totally agree with you. There seems to be two opinions on how to revitalize downtown. One is looking for some "silver bullet" -a single new development that will magically cure all of downtown's ills. The other opinion, which I share, is that effective, long term improvement will most likely occur when lots of smaller developments/changes create a 'tipping point.' Only after this happens will some of those big flashy projects people dream about come to fruition.

[wburg]

Next week's Planning Commission meeting includes a couple of interesting tidbits: a development application for a Waterfront Museum on Front Street (basically the California Auto Museum combined with a new natural sciences museum) and for the new location of the Sacramento Natural Foods Co-Op on 28th and R Street. And, in other news, "The Warren" residential condos should start construction in January at 15th and N Street.

[snfenoc]

Thanks for the information, wburg. hopefully certain people in the area of R Street won't complain about the Foods Co-op like other projects. Dumb worries about smells, crowds and traffic can obstruct progress in a city that could use some more. You would think central city apartment owners want more businesses locating in the area.

That museum could be a nice way to kickstart activity in that part of the waterfront. I hope they release some renderings.

The Warren contruction to start in January? Really? The website says the building has just 12 reservations. Granted, the counter has been stuck at 12 for quite some time (a year or more since I've been checking it). Also, it reports that construction should have started the first quarter of 2012. Maybe it could use an update.

[wburg]

The co-op has the support of the surrounding neighborhoods, which happens quite a lot, it just doesn't tend to make the news when they support something.

There are some renderings of the proposed museum on the Planning Commission website--and yeah, hopefully it will kick things off, now that a big cleanup of the former coal gas manufacturing site just north of the auto museum is finished.

Not sure about the Warren's website, but yeah, supposedly they're going to break ground. The recent economic unpleasantness delayed a lot of projects but they seem to be getting back on track.

Oh yeah, and apparently there is a proposal for an Amtrak locomotive maintenance facility (to support expanded Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin trains) in between the old WP mainline and Sutter's Landing Park--with the land north of East Sacramento (the project formerly known as Centrage) as an alternate location.

[snfenoc]

Looks like special interests are trying to kill the museum bit.

[snfenoc]

Now the Sacramento Press "reports" that groups are "concerned" about the plans for a new Foods Co-op on R Street. Do these "activists" ever rest? It's either special interests who wanna exact a level of control on everyone else or homeowners who wanna prevent competing residences (with modern amenities) from being built.

By the way is the Sacramento Press really a "news" site, or simply a forum for these types? If so, that's fine. Maybe they should change the name, however.

It's sad that after a deep recession and while Sacramento is shaking off the dust, these jackasses simply wanna be....well, jackasses! This notion that development should be planned to the hilt and have minimum negative impacts is silly. Yes, I may have to deal with things I don't like (i.e., the awful smell of wort while passing by a new microbrew pub), but I can also enjoy the things I do like (i.e., enjoying a nice beer with friends or family). I don't want a city that is "well-planned". I want a city that is a collage of businesses and residences that were built because of market demand.

More than likely (hopefully) these jackasses won't have any effect, but they still annoy the crap out of me.

[goldcntry]

Consider the location: stuck smack-dab between the Nimby's of the Fab-Fourties and the Nimby's of Land Park.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Looks like special interests are trying to kill the museum bit.

Well to be honest what they have proposed would be embarrassing. It's something Stockton or Bakersfield would have.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Now the Sacramento Press "reports" that groups are "concerned" about the plans for a new Foods Co-op on R Street. Do these "activists" ever rest? It's either special interests who wanna exact a level of control on everyone else or homeowners who wanna prevent competing residences (with modern amenities) from being built.

By the way is the Sacramento Press really a "news" site, or simply a forum for these types? If so, that's fine. Maybe they should change the name, however.

It's sad that after a deep recession and while Sacramento is shaking off the dust, these jackasses simply wanna be....well, jackasses! This notion that development should be planned to the hilt and have minimum negative impacts is silly. Yes, I may have to deal with things I don't like (i.e., the awful smell of wort while passing by a new microbrew pub), but I can also enjoy the things I do like (i.e., enjoying a nice beer with friends or family). I don't want a city that is "well-planned". I want a city that is a collage of businesses and residences that were built because of market demand.

More than likely (hopefully) these jackasses won't have any effect, but they still annoy the crap out of me.

OK so the opposition is coming primarily from a couple of rental property owners who are worried about noise from the outside deck and from parking. The smell issue is really just being used as it is one of few things they legally have they have left to stop it. They are afraid the noise from the deck and from drunks going from bar to bar will cost them tenants (rental income) and that's their main source of income and retirement. They are not a bunch a jackasses. They are also residents who have put a lot of money, time and effort in fixing up the properties and improving the neighborhood and they don't want to see that spoiled by a bunch of outsiders who don't give a damn about what the consequences of their operation will have on the surrounding neighborhood. This whole thing partly stems from the poor behavior of Sacramento's unsophisticated young suburbanites who have used Midtown as a huge frat house party. Having said that as a neighbor I support the project. In the end the best way to improve things is to increase the population of central city so that businesses are not so dependent on outside dollars to survive.

[snfenoc]

Hmmmmm... If the only legal option this tiny group of apartment owners and tenants has is an imagined worry about smell, then I think their other concerns are probably largely imagined, or at least not as detrimental as they want us to believe. Certainly, there may be drunk twenty-somethings in the area from time to time. They may even be loud. However, I have my doubts this will negatively affect their properties...in the long run. It is possible some of their older, more cantankerous and ornery tenants will pick up and leave, but it's also possible they will be replaced with tenants who take the good with the bad. You know, those who realize that living in a growing city means they actually have to accept the presence of others?

Regarding the proposed museum (AKA, the Combination Classic Car - Hunting Trophy Storage Facility)... Personally, I don't find it that appealing. However, I try not to make the mistake of assuming everyone has my taste or my values. I certainly won't try to force my values down the throats of those who may enjoy it - a notion special interest groups of nearly all stripes don't seem to consider.

It is sad that a green, hipster co-op can't even relocate without "concerns" being raised from community activists. Sure, it would be nice if a little housing were included with the development. Maybe they could add a story to the market (15-20 units) and wrap the parking garage with 20-30 units and a couple retail/restaurant establishments. Tenants could get the added benefit of a 25% discount at the co-op (if the co-op by-laws allowed such a thing). However, Petrovich included housing with the R Street market, and he didn't make any money. I can't expect the co-op to destroy its business model, just so their new location fits in with my idea of a cool development. Homeowners and landlords need to stop worrying so much about traffic. The desirability (proximity to restaurants & stores, conviviality and community) of the neighborhood is what makes people want to spend extra $$ to live there. Well, now my values are leaking through. I really should say that is what makes ME want to live there.

[wburg]

Petrovich took a bath on the housing that was part of Safeway because he marketed them as high-end expensive loft units, when that isn't really the sort of housing demographic that you're going to attract on top of a Safeway. If he had built a larger number of small but moderately-priced apartments they would be full.

The "concerns" about the Co-Op were just the standard public comment type stuff that groups like Walk Sacramento and SABA produce when they review projects--they aren't suing the Co-Op or filing an appeal on the matter. It's also the same feedback they got from neighborhood groups when they made the rounds six months ago. The presentation at Planning Commission was "review and comment" so they reviewed and commented--that's what it's for. The main issue people took was an entrance that faced 29th Street and the parking lot, but not one facing 28th Street and the neighborhood where the Co-Op would be located. Having two entrances on a store isn't all that difficult, in fact it's a lot simpler than adding an apartment building to the top of the store.

[CAGeoNerd]

Did anyone hear about Sacramento being a contender for a future MLS team? Yesterday there was a story about the Sacramento Republic FC group joining forces with the Elk Grove group in an effort to build a stadium. I think we can all say that if Sacramento is to build a stadium, Elk Grove would not be the place to put it. I'd love to see something go up in the rail yards now that the new arena won't be going there.

[wburg]

The story wasn't really about Sacramento Republic FC joining forces with Elk Grove, but a story about how Sacramento Republic (part of a league that is junior to MLS) and the Elk Grove MLS proposal potentially butting heads, and Mayor Johnson suggesting that they work together, but I think the tone of it was "working together" means the MLS team coming to Sacramento instead of Elk Grove, which is what the Elk Grove MLS group wants to do. I'm pretty sure that there is not room on the city's lot for a soccer stadium, as I think they're larger than basketball arenas and the basketball arena didn't really fit on the city site without crowding out the train station. The majority of the Railyards is being sold to a private investor, so it's kind of up to them what they want to do with it--one assumes they will leave room for the 10,000 or so housing units planned for the Railyards somewhere.