The Sacramento Valley Station parking lot has been re-striped to redirect and ease traffic flow. Drivers entering the parking lot from 5th Street will traverse in a counter-clockwise direction and head straight, rather than a clockwise direction and go left. Drivers heading to the parking lot should pay close attention to directional signage and/or personnel.

The re-striping is part of several improvements made to the Sacramento Valley Station parking lot, which includes additional parking lot lights, angled parking, an additional 20 parking stalls, slurry seal, traffic flow improvements, and passenger drop-off/pick-up improvements. The entire project is scheduled to be completed by the end of next week.

The following are improvements the City of Sacramento has made, or is in the process of making, since the change in management of the parking lot and ownership of the depot:

*Free Wi-Fi internet access in waiting area

*Reduced overall parking rate that previously ranged from $6.50 to $13.00 for daily parking to a flat $6.50 per day.

*New parking equipment (Pay-by-Space Kiosks)

*Exploring Pay-by-Cell Phone technology (currently handling these requests manually)

*Off-site, discounted parking for Amtrak/Capitol Corridor employees and commuters

*Improved, unrestricted ingress/egress to the parking lot

*Conducted customer surveys (with overwhelmingly positive comments received)

For project details, please call Matt Eierman at 804-5849.

Tower Bridge Closed September 15 - November 20, 2007

Although sidewalk and adjacent lane closures have been in effect since construction on the Tower Bridge Pedestrian & Bikeway Improvements Project began in January 2007, beginning September 15 the Tower Bridge will be closed to all motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians through November 20. The timing of this closure – between baseball season and the holiday season – was selected by the project team to ensure Sacramento River Cats fans and holiday shoppers can continue to use the bridge.

Parking meter technology expands throughout downtown and midtown: Pay & Display Stations eliminate hunting for quarters

Paying for parking downtown and midtown got easier today when 100 of 300 new Pay & Display Stations went live. Pay & Display Stations accept credit cards and any combination of change (except pennies).

The green kiosks will be replacing 538 single space parking meters on J Street between 10th and 29th streets and some adjacent streets, in the City’s first wave of installation. Other areas of midtown and downtown are targeted to get stations in the coming months.

The solar-powered stations accept credit cards or coins. The machines have been shown to be quite popular with parkers over the last two years, since trial kiosks were installed around Cesar Chavez Park at 11th and J streets.

Drivers walk to the kiosk, pay for parking then return to their vehicles to display the receipt. The receipt has a peel and stick backing for users to tape the receipt to the inside of the street side window.

Drivers can also take their time with them. Unexpired time is transferable to another parking spot downtown, which is an added value. They also will have a receipt and a record of parking expenses in a credit card statement for expense purposes.

In addition to offering a more convenient payment option, the new Pay & Display Stations will reduce coin counting and processing costs for the City and reduce the risks of theft. Another business benefit is the real time reporting of meter trouble, which means fewer meters will be out of service, due to repairs..

The City wants to be sure the transition goes smoothly. To help the public with the initial learning curve, City Parking Enforcement Officers as well as Community Service Guides from the Downtown Sacramento Partnership will be standing by to help the public get acquainted with the new machines as they go on line in the coming week(s).

The machines cost about $7,500 each and replace five to six regular parking meters. They have an average life span of ten years.

For more information, visit http://www.cityofsacramento.org/transportation/parking/onstreetpay-display.html.

Crocker Art Museum expansion project to require closure and relocation of 2nd Street between O and P streets

One block of 2nd Street will be closed til 2010 to accommodate construction to expand the Crocker Art Museum.

The adjacent parking lot used by museum visitors and staff will also be closed. When the road reopens in early 2010,  2nd Street will be located west, at the site of the current parking lot. At that time, 2nd Street will be converted to one-way, going north.

To ease confusion for drivers heading to and from downtown from Old Sacramento, signage will be placed along P Street between 4th and 6th streets to prevent drivers from inadvertently getting on I-5 as well as at 2nd and O streets advising motorists to use N Street to access downtown.

The public can also expect periodic lane closures around the perimeter of the museum on 3rd between O and P and O between 2nd and 3rd and P between 2nd and 3rd, with work generally starting around 8 a.m. and ending around 4 p.m.

City to permanently close ramp between Capitol and N Street

The City of Sacramento Department of Transportation will permanently close the ramp between Capitol and N Street on Monday, July 9, in anticipation of the sale of the 2.6 acres of property abutting the ramp.

The ramp will eventually be removed when the property is developed.

The ramp, constructed and owned by Caltrans until the City took ownership of a portion of Capitol Mall in January 2006, has been used by motorists as a short-cut to N Street from eastbound Capitol.

The City-owned parking lot, west of the ramp, will continue to remain open to customers until further notice.

The sale of the property is expected to close sometime in the fall. Proceeds will fund the Crocker Art Museum Expansion Project.

Seven central city streets converted

Five central city streets from one-way to two-way and narrowing two streets from three lanes one-way to two lanes following the June 26 Council meeting where final approval was given to the environmental document. The City Council approved the following package of seven first priority streets for conversion:

¨ 19th Street (H Street to Broadway, from three lanes to two lanes with bike lanes)

¨ 21st Street (I Street to W Street, from three lanes to two lanes with bike lanes)

¨ N Street (21st Street to 28th Street, to two-way)

¨ 3rd Street (I Street to J Street, to two-way)

¨ J Street (30th Street to Alhambra Boulevard, to two-way)

¨ 9th Street (E Street to I Street, to two-way)

¨ 10th Street (E Street to I Street, to two-way)

City transportation staff is aiming to have portions of 19th and 21st streets converted this year and the rest by early 2008. In fact, conversion of 18th Street from R to X streets will get underway July 20.

K Street  (July 2005) 

The multimillionaire owner of 72 Z Gallerie stores, Zeiden, plans to spend $35 million to turn two blocks of K Street into a classy shopping district. Zeiden, based in Gardena, is competing for the site with local developer John Saca, who wants to build about 300 condominiums along K Street with stores on the ground floor.  For the city, the question is which developer and which project would best turn the section of K between 7th and 9th streets into a downtown asset that inspires further redevelopment.

If it picks Saca's mostly residential project, it would add people living downtown to patronize local shops and offices. If it picks Zeiden's upscale retail project, the stores would presumably attract shoppers -- and future homebuyers downtown.

Zeiden wants to redevelop the south side of K from 7th Street to 816 K. He wants to restore the historic buildings, then install 17 stores and restaurants in about 86,000 square feet of retail, most of it on the ground floor. On the upper floors he plans 16 to 24 apartments or condos, and 10,000 square feet of offices. Zeiden has restored six historic sites for stores in downtowns around the country.

His Z Gallerie would move to the 700 block from its spot in the Westfield Downtown Plaza nearby. It has been in the mall 11 years, generating $31 million in sales and $2.5 million in sales tax for the city.  Those numbers mean Z Gallerie would be a strong anchor for the redevelopment area.

The retail would blend with bistros featuring outdoor dining on K Street's broad sidewalks. The extra shoppers should spill over to Westfield's mall too.  So far, other stores that have signed letters of interest in the site are:

* Borders Books and Music * Anthropologie, a division of Urban Outfitters Inc., of Philadelphia, which sells clothes, jewelry and housewares * Urban Outfitters, which sells clothes, accessories and home decor * Selland's Market Cafe, an East Sacramento eatery run by the owners of The Kitchen Restaurant * Sur La Table, a kitchen-goods store * Firewood Cafe, a San Francisco restaurant chain * American Apparel, a Los Angeles clothes store that features non-sweatshop casual clothes made in the United States * Draper's & Damon's, an Irvine apparel store with one local store in Loehmann's Plaza * Lucky Brand Dungarees, a chain of jean stores based in Vernon, which has no local stores * Pinkies Nail Salons, a Bay Area nail-care chain.

Zeiden believes the project would draw customers from the region, considering that some of the potential tenants have few if any shops in Greater Sacramento. The string of shops and eateries could generate $40 million a year in sales, including $3.1 million in sales taxes.

The retailers signed letters of interest for Zeiden's project for several reasons, they know he is a developer with a passion for historical buildings, they know about his successes, and they are attracted to the collection of potential tenants Zeiden assembled for K Street, Whisnant said.

Saca has teamed with Cole, Mohammed Mohanna and John Lambeth.  Mohanna and Lambeth are partners in many of the buildings in 700 and 800 blocks. Mohanna controls three-quarters of the site targeted by the city, so little eminent domain, if any, would be needed. Mohanna has also cornered the vacant land on 7th and 8th near K, and the Berry Hotel at 729 L St., for potential development.  Saca would build his K Street condos in a way that does not interfere with the renovation of the existing buildings and their use for ground-floor retail.

Cole's proposal in April called for building 955 apartments, plus some offices and stores in an area that included part of L Street. Cole initially asked for a subsidy of $100 million, mainly to make the apartments work. But the venture might no longer need a subsidy because Saca would build condos for sale. Demand is high enough that they don't need a subsidy.

The city is also looking at a third proposal at 10th and K streets, headed by developer David Taylor. It's not competing with the other two.

The cost to Sacramento is a factor. Zeiden is not asking for a subsidy but has asked the city to assemble the land, which could mean taking the property by eminent domain.

Industry observers estimate the assembly could cost around $7 million per half-block, give or take $2 million. That would, in theory, put the cost for the city at around $11 million. But Zeiden owns the locations at 708 K St. and 812 K St., which would reduce the cost.  The city has told Zeiden's group that it could take about six months to assemble the land.

Zeiden would plan to have the renovation done and all the stores open a year after the land is assembled, which means the project could be open by 2007.

The developers proposed their projects after the city asked for ideas in February to implement goals set by the JKL Corridor "visioning process" of late 2004. Participants in those sessions advised the city to pay strategic attention to the 700, 800 and 1000 blocks of K Street.

Downtown Development

For more than a decade, city leaders have championed the promise of a revitalized downtown, but efforts to build the necessary housing face numerous -- and sometimes overwhelming -- obstacles.  The construction of many thousands of new homes in downtown Sacramento is a priority for the city, downtown landlords and even for some homebuilders.  But will it ever happen?

Some see new downtown housing bringing in residents to breathe new life into the inner city's retail and entertainment sectors and populate streets that become almost empty after work. Core area housing is seen by environmentalists as a way to make a dent in the worsening commute to downtown offices and stores.

By one estimate, downtown and its immediate environs might hold another 27,500 homes by the year 2050. And it seems builders are on their way: Currently, 1,400 units are being built or being processed for approval. That's probably a record volume for downtown new-home development.

But that's a long way from 27,500 new homes. And some say it will not likely happen, because there are powerful forces that hobble homebuilding in the central city and its environs, and they are not likely to go away. The forces constraining development are formidable. They include:

The city's own ponderous process for approving projects
The greed of land speculators whose pricing can drive homebuilders away
The maddening difficulty of assembling acreage from many small parcels, most of which already have buildings on them
The old city's aged, battered, inadequate infrastructure
The demand by activists that virtually any old building be preserved for its historical significance
The unknown depth of demand for such housing -- a de-motivator for homebuilders.
All of these forces and more are cooperating to block development downtown. And even if homes are carved out for a handful, those units will be pricey due to the cost of overcoming all the constraints. Meanwhile, the production of affordable housing for store clerks, beginning state workers, policemen, librarians and other lower-income downtowners is likely to fade almost to nothing.

Although there has been a flurry of proposals for high-density, high-rise condominium projects, the high cost of the steel-frame construction eliminates their affordability to the average worker. It's likely the production of high-rise condos and apartments will be constricted by the relatively small market for them. It's not a pretty picture.

But proponents still have high hopes.

The potential for new homes: In an area that includes downtown, midtown, the Union Pacific railyard and the Richards Boulevard neighborhood, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments' Blueprint Program has projected that 27,500 homes could be built, said Gordon Garry, SACOG's manager of research and analysis.

At least that's the number of homes that should be built to create a downtown that supports such smart-growth principles as higher-density development near work and transit centers -- major goals of the Blueprint Program.

The city's Planning Department will use the blueprint as a reference while it studies where new housing can be placed and how much can be built, said Steve Peterson, the city planner overseeing the update of the Sacramento's general plan -- its guide for future development.

Some of the new housing can surely fit in the railyard area. The developer buying the property, Millennia Associates, estimates that it can build 4,500 homes or more on the 240-acre parcel, said Carol Shearly, the city planner working on the railyard project. Millennia itself did not return calls.

The Richards Boulevard area can hold at least 2,000 new homes, according to a coalition of Richards Boulevard-area landlords.

And there may be room for 1,000 units just south of the Capitol, plus another 2,900 along the R Street corridor, estimated John Dangberg, director of the Capitol Area Development Authority, the agency that oversees state-owned land downtown.

Just where these and the additional 17,000 homes might be built will be the subject of Peterson's study. Most pundits believe there is enough land in the whole area to produce many thousands of new homes, although some existing buildings may have to be torn down and some housing might be in the form of high-rise towers.

Housing, a priority in limbo: Making room for more housing is the priority for most of the forces that operate in the downtown area. A recent brainstorming session called by Mayor Heather Fargo asked city officials, landlords, merchants and downtown activists to come up with a vision for the central city's core area around K Street. The top priority among participants was more housing.

"One thing that came out loud and clear is that everyone wanted more housing downtown," said Evan Rose, associate principal with SMWM Architects & Engineers, the consultancy that organized the event for the city.

"Housing is critical," said Michael Ault, executive director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, a coalition of central-city landlords that badly wants the housing to foster downtown's retail, office and ambiance.

"I'm counting on housing, even if I have to build it myself," Miottel said.

But if past performance is an indicator, not much will happen. The city's redevelopment officials and downtown interests have pushed for housing during much of the past decade. The result? Since 1996, just 415 new homes have been built in the area, said Leslie Fritzsche, a manager with the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency.

The Gregory Group, which tracks the new-home market, estimates that 102,000 or so homes were built since 1996 in the four-county Sacramento area.

Pundits say the difference in production levels is not due to lack of demand. Demand is there, quietly waiting in many of downtown's 100,000-plus workers, plus those who want to live downtown to enjoy an urban lifestyle, said John Schleimer, head of Market Perspectives, which also analyzes the local new-home market.

But despite the 1,400 homes that seem to be in the pipeline, the chances don't look good for a high volume of homebuilding. Observers say it's just too hard to build downtown.

Why it's so tough: "It's not simple, that's for sure," said Ron Vrilakas, one of the most active downtown architects.

During the past decade, he said he's seen little improvement in the chances for housing projects. Although the city of Sacramento is often criticized for poor handling of development proposals, there are other reasons why so little housing has been built, he said.

Among the toughest constraints to development are those downtown property owners who hold out for such high prices that new-home projects become financially infeasible.

"People think residential projects are a big windfall for developers," he said. "But they are often harder to pull off."

A related problem is the difficulty of assembling acreage for new development in an already developed area. It is "extremely difficult to get enough acreage to build something that will pencil out, because you need to deal with a lot of landowners," said Bob Holmes, a project manager with Regis Homes, a successful infill developer. "In the suburbs, you can buy 15 acres easy. Downtown you might have six or seven landowners, and a lot of their land already has uses that are producing income, so they won't get the same return if they sell."

Land assemblage is so difficult in the city that homebuilders naturally gravitate to the suburbs, where land is much easier to find, said Brendan O'Neill, chief financial officer for Beazer Homes, one of the region's largest homebuilders.

The city's role: Builders also pointed to the city's sometimes inefficient processing of development applications.

"The city has the key role in making a residential boom happen," Vrilakas said. "There are a tremendous amount of good intentions by the city, but very little results." Oakland, Portland, Ore., Seattle and other cities with large, older city cores have successfully created a renaissance of downtown home development, he said. "It is a matter of leadership. We need to do more than just talk about it," Vrilakas said.

The city, he said, has sometimes taken a "prescriptive" view of development, forcing it to run the gauntlet of a sometimes unfriendly bureaucracy. "It's not just a bottom-up process," he said. "It's a top-down process. We seem to be a little weak at the top. There just isn't a culture of getting things done."

And the city has, perhaps, taken the too-passive role of a spectator. "The developers don't need subsidies, they need the city to cooperate," said Robert Fountain, a real estate economist with California State University Sacramento. "Downtown development requires a very proactive, positive approach on the part of the city."

Perhaps a prime victim of the city's passive approach is one of the few successful downtown developers -- Sotiris Kolokotronis.

He built the Fremont Building apartments and the Capitol Park Homes. The two projects accounted for a third of those 415 new homes built downtown since 1996.

Although Kolokotronis would not comment, it is well known that he has withdrawn from infill development out of frustration with the process.

"He's been willing to try to put projects together on very thin profit margins, and he's done projects we needed as a community," Vrilakas said. "We need to take that kind of drive and nurture it. But it seems we've kind of squished it."

Observers believe Kolokotronis' gripe is that the city, despite its leadership's goodwill, has a confused, unhelpful approach to development, especially visible in the Building Department.

His most recent project, a 175-unit apartment complex with ground-floor retail at 18th and L streets, was put on hold this summer when the rapid increase in materials prices and changes in the plan ordered by the Building Department ate away at that project's slender budget. It's the largest downtown housing project in at least a quarter century. But construction has been stopped, and Kolokotronis is trying to arrange additional financing.

Some builders say another ball and chain on downtown development is the city's kowtowing to the preservationist community. The activists aggressively battle to preserve old buildings, including some of marginal significance or in a state of serious deterioration. The city tends to give in to their demands. But the cost of preservation can make projects infeasible, say builders.

Vrilakas, Holmes and others added that the city is improving its approach to development, partly because the City Council appointed a Development Oversight Commission composed of industry figures who gave some level-headed advice. The group has wrought some changes in the way the city handles development. "We don't want to ding the city for past behavior when they're trying to fix it," Holmes said.

Indeed, while the city should continue streamlining the development process, it has invested in upgrading the inner city's inadequate, aged infrastructure -- its sewer, water, streets and the like -- to encourage development, said Dangberg, whose own territory on R Street is benefiting from an $800,000 city project to add storage to the limited sewer-stormwater system.

But even if the city streamlines its process and further reduces its much-criticized development fees, the combined hazards still make it tough for builders to make money downtown, he added.

"If there was money to be made, the real estate industry would be there building," he said. "Many developers would love to do urban development. It's different. It's fun. But they need to make money to do it."

On the other hand, developers and lenders could help the cause by putting less emphasis on their bottom line and more on the community's need for downtown housing, Vrilakas said.

Holmes noted that lenders are often out of touch with downtown's realities.

There is one imponderable, however, that causes builders to think twice about downtown. No one really knows how big the demand is for downtown for-sale housing, said Schleimer of Market Perspectives.

Although several high-rise condo projects have recently been proposed with more than 1,000 units, those homes will probably be priced at around $400,000 and up -- far too expensive for most buyers. Schleimer estimated that the demand could amount to no more than 150 units per year.

The demand for more affordable units is no doubt greater, but is also a mystery. Any builder venturing into that uncharted territory would need an extra shot of grit, said the pundits.

The price spiral: As housing prices rise, encouraging more builders to risk the troubled waters of downtown development, lower-income workers will not likely find many places to live in the new homes.

To some extent, the city has made provisions for affordable homes downtown. For instance, when the redevelopment agency subsidizes a project, it typically requires that a percentage of the units be affordable to lower-wage residents.

But even that does not create the numbers of such housing needed, said Chris Gaudel, director of housing development for Mercy Housing California, a nonprofit group that builds affordable houses and apartments.

He said affordable-home builders like Mercy are discouraged from downtown building for several reasons.

One big problem is that because Mercy relies on public money to finance projects, it must spend more time lining up financing than would a private developer. This means private developers can move faster to buy land, eliminating the affordable-home builder from a project, he said.

On top of that the city and CADA seem to prefer market-rate units or mixed-income to all affordable units, he said.

Moreover, recent state legislation requires any subsidized project to pay union wages, driving up the cost of affordable-home development, he said.

And, of course, the cost of a new home has risen dramatically, giving the market-rate builder some incentive and further eroding the chances of affordable-home builders to secure land. "I'm glad I bought my house in midtown before the market went crazy," Gaudel said. "I couldn't afford it today."