Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[travis bickle]

Parking requirements are always the bane for any urban project. Parking lots/structures can cost anywhere between $12k and $50k per space. It doesn't take too many required spaces to turn a black project into one bleeding red.

Some cities offer an "in-lieu" fee where if your project doesn't meet the required number of spaces (a far more discretionary number than simple formula spouting bureaucrats would have you believe) you can contribute to a parking fund instead. These are similar to affordable housing in-lieu fees that some cities have. San Diego has such a program but I haven't found anyone in love with it. I'm not sure if funds from this program have been used to finance any multi-storey garages downtown but they might have been. That was the idea anyway.

Your project can also get parking credits if it's close to transit lines and/or stations or part of a TOD. These categories include bus,light rail and rail.

I once proposed an "in-lieu" fee that would have financed a transit jitney system in specific districts which would have offered nearly 24 hour door-to-door service. I thought this was a better idea than using the money to build more garages. Unfortunately, I was the only one who thought that...

[Cynikal]

The City is looking into many of the stratagies you just suggested as part of the Central City Parking Master Plan. Stay tuned.

[econgrad]

^ Thanks in advanced for keeping us posted.

[TWAK]

took this today

[wburg]

travis bickle: Some local midtown activists, specifically Dale Kooyman, are advocating for a private "jitney" system using mini-buses for short-headway public transit in the downtown area. If such an idea comes up again, it might be worthwhile to have a meeting with them. From what I have seen, developers (and public commissions) seem to like it a lot when neighborhood groups show up to support a project, rather than to oppose it, and when it comes to measures that enhance public transit it seems like a logical combination.

[ozone]

wburg I get your point about the parking. As I said I'm keenly aware of the parking and traffic issues in the central city. while I choose to live in a place where I don't have to drive every day almost all of my clients do. And that's not going change anytime soon.

The point some of us are making is that many of those underutilized lots should be utilized for more than just storing cars. And I just don't see why developers who are building infill projects in the central city (which already is typically more costly than the suburbs) should be 'on the hook' for parking in the first place. Why is it their responsiblity to provide any amount of parking in a transit-oriented or tranist supportable district? That type of thinking seems outdated and counter productive to me.

Look nobody is trying to convince themselves that bad traffic will make us into a world-class city. Maybe you missed my point. But yes parking scarcity in the city typically does come with prosperity. We can chose to have empty restaurants and shops or traffic/parking issues. Which do you chose? Actually it's not that big of a problem yet compared to other cities. It's just that so many in Sacramento are real suburanites and are not used to city life.

We have a choice to make here in Sacramento. Do we tinker with what we have so we get a few more parking spaces OR do we realize that there is a simply a limit to how many cars we can accomodate (before we start to lose quality of life and business) and start to get serious about providing people with viable options to driving in the first place? Study after study has proven that the more you try accommodate the automobile the worst traffic will become, not the reverse.

So what would your solution to the parking problem be? IMO transit pases and free scooters are not real solutions. And while I'm not opposed to a jitney "system" idea I seriously doubt it will work here. Plus it just allows the city to "opt out" of it's responsiblity to provide an actual transportation alternative.

[Majin]

What housing projects are in the pipeline for downtown/midtown after L street lofts are done?

We need to get a lot more people in the central city, but it seems like there is going to be a huge gap after that project is completed...

[sugit]

There still around 600 u/c even though stuff is being canceled all over the place. (I try and keep the first page of this thread updated with project statuses) The Globe Mills is 143 units, the Cooper Union Building is 50 units. Plus, there is are quite a few townhouse type projects going on.

Tapestri Square: 21st and T Street - 58 Town homes
Washington Park Homes: 17th and D Street - 52 Town homes
Alchemy at R Street: 23rd and R Street - 23 Rentals
Whiskey Hill Lofts: 22nd and S Street - 28 Rentals
North End Lofts: 14th and C Street - 14 Town homes
SoCap Lofts: 7th and R Street - 32 loft style Town homes
14th and R Warehouse Rehad: 14th and R Street - 6 for sale lofts

I also went to the CADA meeting for the 15-story high rise at 16th and N. They have it scheduled to break ground November next year. Its 125 condos and 5K Retail. CADA is giving Lambert what comes to about a 5-6M subsidy on the project. So that one sounds promising. Lambert is also working on 50+ units (around 6-8 stories) at 16th and P which will also get a subsidy from CADA.

Another 84 apartments (4 and 5 stories) and 13K in retail on the two lots at 16th and O by Ravel Rasmussen Properties. That one is scheduled to break ground mid next year. I have a rendering of the 16th and O projects on my camera, so I'll try and post it later. The two buildings look similar to the Fremont Building, but much better.

Surprisingly, Capitol Lofts on R Street is still in motion as well.

You know the one at 10th and K (150+) by Taylor and CIM is going to get a subsidy from the city, so that one you would think is looking good as well.

Trammell Crow (200+) project, Newton Booth (36), Cathedral Square seems be moving along, but who knows. Who knows with the The Metropolitan as well.

Plus, if you go through out midtown and parts of downtown north and south of the CBD, there are small infill projects in a lot of places that you just don't hear about since they are smaller.

I'm not optimistic on The Towers and Auras size projects of the world in the near to intermediate future, but the mid'ish-rise 15-20ish story ones, and the smaller 4 and 5 stories infill projects still look promising and they still add a lot of people (and retail) to the areas.

[wburg]

I passed by Globe Mills on the way back into Sacramento on the train and was amazed by how much they have done there.

Is Whiskey Hill rental or for-sale? I see "condos" on the side and assume they are selling them, although I know that when the plans were going through they were billed as apartments.

Hopefully the RR buildings look better than the Fremont: that one just looks like a La Quinta hotel.

[Majin]

Anybody know what the current progress of the railyards are? Are they still doing the cleanup? Or is it on-hold for now?

[TowerDistrict]

There's also a few mid-rise residential projects slated for R Street. The joint between Regional Transit and CADA (was it?). Then there's the Sares Regis project on 3rd & Q which is around 300 units. And then there's Crystal Ice as well...

Originally Posted by sugit

I also went to the CADA meeting for the 15-story high rise at 16th and N. They have it scheduled to break ground November next year. Its 125 condos and 5K Retail. CADA is giving Lambert what comes to about a 5-6M subsidy on the project. So that one sounds promising. Lambert is also working on 50+ units (around 6-8 stories) at 16th and P which will also get a subsidy from CADA.

Another 84 apartments (4 and 5 stories) and 13K in retail on the two lots at 16th and O by Ravel Rasmussen Properties. That one is scheduled to break ground mid next year. I have a rendering of the 16th and O projects on my camera, so I'll try and post it later. The two buildings look similar to the Fremont Building, but much better.

Thanks for the update! Were there any renderings for Lambert's long awaited project??

[TowerDistrict]

I believe the railyards plan is almost approved. They just published the EIR for public review last week. It's a horribly dry read. I skimmed all 4,000+ pages for some eye candy, but the best visual example is right on the cover or the Thomas Ent. website.

City of Sacramento Railyards Webpage

[TowerDistrict]

I'm a visual person, so it's hard for me to track all these developments from a list. And that's basically why I worked up the map in my signature. Even though there may be a couple that have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely on that list, the vast majority are still a go. Even more encouraging yet, is that I haven't included many many projects on that map - and it's still a jungle of infill projects.

[wburg]

The railyards EIR is a draft, there will still be a final one. They presented to Preservation this week, there will be more advise & comment type meetings before it's over. They are clearing dirt and have pledged that none of the remaining Shops buildings will be demolished, PERIOD.

[innov8]

That's not a surprise... I don't think anyone proposed demolishing any of the buildings anyway

[wburg]

Actually it was an item of some question: as of a couple years ago, one of the Shops buildings was considered so compromised that it probably wouldn't stand. At this point, Thomas Enterprises considers all of the buildings, from the big ones to the three-story brick shithouse, to be irreplaceable treasures that should be saved. I certainly can't argue with that.

A big issue in the Shops complex area is how much space will be utilized by the Railroad Technology Museum. Thomas has mentioned the Boiler Shop and Erecting Shop specifically, and the turntable, but there are other issues like the space in between these two shops, currently occupied by an electric transfer table, and the yards area to the west of the Boiler Shop, currently used to store CSRM equipment, as well as tracks to access this yard area and the turntable. Simply put, the RTM needs land around it to make the buildings useful and usable.

This was a presentation to Preservation, so the focus was on that area. Thomas Enterprises says they want the existing Shops structures declared a Historic Preservation District, and will rehabilitate the buildings to Secretary of Interior standards. In addition to height limitations around the Shops buildings, adjacent new buildings will also follow Secretary of Interior standards regarding structures in a historic district. In addition to the Boiler Shop and Erecting Shop space, museum space is planned in the Blacksmith Shop, although they didn't specifiy what it would cover: my guess is that it is the proposed home for the Yee Fow museum, documenting the history of the Chinese in Sacramento.

Oh yeah, and speaking of other slated projects, don't forget the Ice Blocks and adjacent properties.

[sugit]

Originally Posted by wburg

Is Whiskey Hill rental or for-sale? I see "condos" on the side and assume they are selling them, although I know that when the plans were going through they were billed as apartments.

They orignally were supposed to be rentals, but by the condos name, I guess they changed their minds.

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

Thanks for the update! Were there any renderings for Lambert's long awaited project??

No rendering yet. They will have it next month at the cada meeting. They said they have sketches, but they wanted to have the meeting first and make changes before they present the idea they have. They plan to go through DR, PC and PC during the first part of the new year (even though they do not need formal approval). What they did us was the building is planned for 15 stories along 16th street, with the N Street side being 4-stories tall. The ground level won't have retail, but stoop like entries to the units.

Also about 5K in retail all facing 16th street. What I do like is they said the plan for the retail was to attract non-restaurant establishments, because they would save some work (and money) on the vents and other stuff needed for restaurants. They said they would have to go by the market though so if a restaurant wants to open there, they would have to consider it.

They do have a shot of the one planned at 16th and P in their offices, but I haven't had a chance to make it over there to see it.

[TowerDistrict]

15 stories eh? I think that's fne to have the stoop entries on the N Street Side when they include retail on the 16th Street side. There's going to be more traffic on 16th anyway - both foot and car.

For anyone interested, here's the scribble diagram that i got from CADA a few months ago for East End Gateway sites 2 & 3...

[Majin]

duplicate post

[sugit]

Yeah, I like the stoop entries on N Street as well.

I really with they could have made more use of those O Street sites though. I do know CADA is trying to make those sites work with as little, if no, subsidy on the project, and I'm sure structured parking would be a tough go. I have to think they will at least get the land for free though. I have to remember to post the renderings of those two sites tonight.

The surface lot on EEG3 was supposed to be a 4 story garage in the first plan by Loftworks. That would have been a much more efficient land use wise, but they said since the lot the garage would be on was so small with a lot of inefficient dead space, it would be built at a big loss costing too much money to build and not being able so squeeze enough revenue generating spots. That was the final nail in the coffin of the original plan.