northgate boulevard streetscape master plan - part 1

8/3/2019 Northgate Boulevard Streetscape Master Plan - Part 1

1/68

City of Sacramento

City of Sacramento

NORTHGATE BOULEVARD

STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN

February 2006


2/68


3/68

NORTHGATE BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN

February 2006 City of Sacramento

PREPARED FOR:

Department of Transportation

915 I Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 808- 8300

Contact: Saed Hasan

PREPARED BY:

3765 South Higuera Street, Suit e 200San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

City of Sacramento


4/68


5/68



TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

INTRODUCTION 1Project Purpose And Scope 1Master Plann ing Process 2

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS 3Review of Previous Studies 3Initial Stakeholder Input 4Inventory of Existing Condi tions 5

Sub- Areas 6Sub- Area 1 Rosin Court to San Juan Road 7Sub- Area 2 San Juan Road to West El Camino Avenue 8Sub- Area 3 West El Camino Avenue to Arden- Garden Connector10

Existing Conditi ons Exhib its 11Traffi c Analysis 13

LAND USE ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15Exist ing Land Use 15Criteria 15Zoning Options 16

Bene ts Of RMX Zoning 16Proposed Zoning Designation 17Eff ect Of RMX Zoning 17Block- by- Block Descript ions 18

Blocks A, B, C, A- 1 and B- 1 18Block D 18Block E 19Block F 19Blocks G, H and I 19Blocks J and K 20Blocks L and M 20Block N 21Block O 21Blocks P, Q, R, S, T, V, R- 1, and S- 1 23Block T- 1 23Parks And Green Space 23


6/68


7/68



DRAFT MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES 25Re nements to Draft Master Plan 25

Stakeholder Input , December 2004 25Northgate Boulevard Business Association 25Smythe School Meeting 26GNNA Meeting 26

Regional Transit Distr ict Review 26Further Re nement 27Publ ic Meeting, February 2005 27

PLAN OBJECTIVES 31Land Use 31Safety 32

Appearance and Image 32Roadway Geometry 32Adjustments to Utilit ies 33Major Intersections 36Landscape Concept 38

Tree Plant ing 38Shrub and Ground Cover Plant ing 38

Site Furnishings 41Benches 42Sample Monument 42Non- standard Improvements 44

Proposed Phasing 44Fencing Recommendations 47Public Meeting, July 2005 48

OPINION OF COST 49Assumptions 49Exclusions 49

MAINTENANCE ANALYSIS 51General Descript ion of Improvements 51

Landscaping 51Irrigation 51Lighting 52Street Furnishings 52District Signage 52


8/68


9/68



Monuments 52Graffi t i Abatement 52

Infrastructure Impacts 52NEXT STEPS 53

APPENDIX A. OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS A- 1

APPENDIX B. BASELINE TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS B- 1Introduction B- 1Pedestrians B- 3Bicycles B- 4Transit B- 6Motor Vehicles B- 6Parking B- 9

APPENDIX C. ZONING C- 1

APPENDIX D. REPORT CARD D- 1

APPENDIX E. CONCEPTUAL STREETSCAPE PLANS E- 1

APPENDIX F. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST F- 1


10/68


11/68



LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Northgate Redevelopm ent Study Area Key Map 2

Figure 2.1. Site Photo of the project team noting existing eld conditions 5

Figure 2.2. Site Phot o of one of the areas along Northgate Boulevard 5

Figure 2.3. Northgate Boulevard Sub- Area Map 6

Figure 2.4. View look ing at Rosin Court and Northgate Boulevard 7

Figure 2.5. View look ing nort h near Rosin Court 7

Figure 2.6. Typical exist ing street cross section for Sub- Area 1 7

Figure 2.7. View look ing nort h near Senator Avenue 8

Figure 2.8. View look ing nort h near Senator Avenue 8

Figure 2.9. View look ing nort h near Tenaya Avenue 9

Figure 2.10 . View look ing nort h near Indiana Avenue 9

Figure 2.11 . Typical existi ng street cross section for Sub- Area 2 9

Figure 2.13 . Typical existi ng street cross section for Sub- Area 3 10

Figure 2.12. View looking north near Harding Avenue 10

Figure 2.14. View looking north near Arden- Garden Connector 11

Figure 2.15 . Example of the Opport uni ties and Constraints Maps 12

Figure 2.16. Projected Increase in Traffi c by 2005 13

Figure 2.17 . Northgate Boulevard Exi sting Intersection Level of Service Table 14

Figure 3.1. Proposed Land Use for Blocks A, B, C, A- 1 and B- 1 18

Figure 3.2. Proposed Land Use for Block D 18

Figure 3.3 . Prop osed Land Use for Block E 19

Figure 3.4 . Prop osed Land Use for Block F 19

Figure 3.5 . Prop osed Land Use for Blocks G, H and I 19

Figure 3.6 . Prop osed Land Use for Block J and K 20

Figure 3.7 . Prop osed Land Use for Blocks L and M 20

Figure 3.8 . Prop osed Land Use for Block N 21


12/68


13/68



Figure 3.9 . Prop osed Land Use for Block O 21

Figure 3.10. Proposed Land Use fo r Blocks P, Q, R, S, T, V, R- 1, S- 1 and T- 1 22

Figure 4.1. Communi ty Report Card Summary 28

Figure 4.2. Selection of Gateway Entr y Monum ent Examples 29

Figure 5.1. Typical plan view of imp rovements 33

Figure 5.2 . Typical Street Sections 34

Figure 5.3. Typical Street Sections continued 35

Figure 5.4. Major Intersections Map 36

Figure 5.5. Typical Intersection Diagram 37

Figure 5.6. Plant List and Phot os 39

Figure 5.7. Structur al Soil Diagram 40

Figure 5.8. Examples of Vehicular- Scaled and Pedestri an- Scaled Street Lighting 41

Figure 5.9 . Bench Example 42

Figure 5.10 . Example Gateway Ent ry Monum ent 43

Figure 5.11. Example Master Plan Road Section. 45

Figure 5.12 . Phasing Map 46

Figure 5.13 . Example Fencing 47

Figure A.1. Opportunit ies and Constraints - Sheet 1 A- 1









Figure A.10. Opportuni ties and Constraints - Sheet 10 A- 10

Figure B.1. Nort hgate Boulevard Cross Sections B- 2


14/68


15/68



Figure B.2. Constrained sidewalk on Northgate Boulevard near Tenaya Avenue B- 3

Figure B.3. Advance lim it lines at Northgate Boulevard/ Potomac Avenue B- 3

Figure B.4. Site phot o of a cyclist rid ing on the sidewalk B- 4

Figure B.5. Pedestr ian and Bicycle Colli sions B- 4

Figure B.6. Bicycle, Pedestr ian, and Transit Condit ions B- 5

Figure B.7. Existi ng Traffi c Volumes and Speeds B- 7

Figure B.8. Northgate Boulevard Exi sting Intersection Level of Service Table B- 8

Figure C.1. Current Zoning Designation C- 1

Figure C.2. Proposed Zoning Designation C- 2

Figure D.1. Report Card D-1

Figure D.2. Report Card continued D-2

Figure D.3. Report Card conti nued D-3

Figure E.1. Conceptual Str eetscape Plans - Sheet 1 E- 1







Figure E.8. Conceptual Str eetscape Plans - Sheet 7a E- 8


Figure E.10 . Conceptual Str eetscape Plans - Sheet 9 E- 10

Figure E.11 . Conceptual Streetscape Plans - Sheet 10 E- 11

Figure E.12 . Conceptual Streetscape Plans - Sheet 10a E- 12

Figure F.1. Prelim inary Estim ate of Probable Cost F- 1


16/68


17/68


February 2006 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Streetscape Master Plan Project for NorthgateBoulevard was initiated in the winter of 2003 inresponse to comm uni ty needs and desires expressedin the Gardenland- Northgate Strategic NeighborhoodAction Plan (SNAP). The project speci c area for th isMaster Plan is Nor thgate Boulevard f rom Rosin Courtat the north end to Arden- Garden Connector at thesouth end. The objectives of the streetscape MasterPlan are:

improving pedestrian and bicycle safety,

encouraging walking op tions,

identifying land use changes that wouldencourage residential and commercialdevelopment, and

enhancing the overall image of the area.

The proposed im provements have been de nedthrough a series of stakeholder m eetings, comm unitymeetings, Project Development Team meetings,and meetings with the Council District 1 staff andCouncilmember. Stakeholders included the Smyt heSchool, Gardenland Northgate NeighborhoodAssociation (GNNA), business groups, NatomasCommuni ty Association , and others. Overall, theproposed improvements have the support of the

community. On April 14 , 2005, the GNNA voted insupport of the proposed imp rovements in t he MastePlan. Also, on September 28, 2005, the NatomasCommunity Association (NCA) voted in support ofthe vision of t he proposed improvements.

The proposed improvements in the streetscapeMaster Plan include providing a landscaped medianlight ing, vertical curb, and planter strips separatingsidewalks from the street. Other improvementsinclude providing enhanced crosswalks, benchesbus shelters, and street monuments. In additionthis Master Plan also includes making land use

changes to suppor t the objectives. The land usechanges include rezoning some of the existinggeneral commercial and single- family residentiazoned properties to residential mix ed- use andupdating the Northgate Special Planning District(SPD).

The total cost of the proposed improvements inthe streetscape Master Plan is approximately $19mil lion. Based on the feedback gathered throughthe public outreach, the proposed improvementscould be phased in the following order: FromArden- Garden Connector t o West El Camino Avenue

rst, then fr om West El Camino Avenue to Potom acAvenue, then from Rosin Court to San Juan Roadthen f rom San Juan Road to Potom ac Avenue.

Executive Summary


18/68


City of Sacramentoi i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the following for theirparticipation in the preparation of this document:

City of Sacramento

Saed Hasan

Senior Engineer

Department o f Transportation

Hector Barron

Supervising Engineer


Dean Peckham

Senior Management Analyst

Economic Development Department

Susanne Cook

Assistant Planner

Developm ent Services Department

Ed Cox

Alternate Modes Coordinator


David Edrosolan

Associate Civil Engineer


Jim McDonald

Senior Planner

Developm ent Services Department

Niko King

Public Information Offi cer

Fire Departm ent

Sacramento City Council

Ray Tretheway

Councilmember District 1

Sacrament o Housing and Redevelopm ent Agency

Vickie Smi th

Redevelopment Manager

Sandra Piekarsi

Redevelopment Planner

Sacramento Regional Transit

Don Smi th

Senior Administ rative Analyst

Smyth Elementary School

Kurt Fuji kawa, Principal

Major Stakeholders

Gardenland - Northgate Neighbor hood

Association

Northgate Boulevard Business Association

Natom as Jour nal

Natomas Community Association

Project Design Team

RRM Design Group

Fehr & Peers Transport ation Consultants

Mark Thom as & Company, Inc.


19/68


February 2006 1

Introduction

INTRODUCTION

The Gardenland- Northgate communi ty hasprogressively evolved from one of Sacramentosearliest subdivisions of agriculturally oriented landto the urban enclave we know today. This evolut ionbegan in about 1915 after the drainage and leveesystem Reclamation Districts 1000 and 1001 werecompleted and large tracts of agricultural l and weredivided into 10 acre parcels. This was done wit hthe intent of bringing more people into the areawhil e maint aining a rural feel and character. In1926, the land was further subdivided into smallerlots. Over tim e, the intensity of developm ent inthis area continued to increase with annexation ofthe Northgate neighborhood (west of NorthgateBoulevard) in 1960 and then annexation of theGardenland neighborhood in 196 2.

The land use pattern that resulted from thisevolution includes smaller commercial propertiesand some residential lots fronting on NorthgateBoulevard and more residential lots in the adjacentneighborhoods.

Until recently, the residential development in theGardenland neighborhood, wit h it s larger deep lot s,is less suburban feeling than that in the Northgateneighb orhood, which was developed mor e as a typi calsuburban subdivision. With this intensi cation ofdevelopment, the density of population and traffi cvolumes have steadily increased, and the resultingimpacts are evident in t he current condit ions of t heBoulevard.

One signi cant event in the history of t his areaoccurred in the 1950s when Northgate Boulevardwas widened to four lanes to accommodate theshipment of airplane parts from the SacramentoRiver nort h to McClell an Air Force Base. This is

when commercial uses started developing along

the corridor. Now, with a bridge over the AmericanRiver, the Nort hgate corr idor has convenient accessto downtown Sacramento, and the Gardenland-Northgate neighborhood is positioned such that itcould become a sought after location for housingand business wit hin the Sacramento urban area.

Although the tie to downtown is an asset to thearea, it also has a downside; Northgate Boulevardhas become a busy commuter connection todowntown for communities to the north resultingin a signi cant increase in traffi c volume passingthrough the neighborhood.

Over the past 10 to 15 years, the Gardenland-Northgate community has been the subject ofseveral planning studies focused on improving theimage, safety, and economic viability of the areaThough well int ended, these eff orts have resulted inlitt le physical change to t he commun ity. This MasterPlan is intended to break the cycle of planninganalysis and establish a design concept to serve asa framework with in which r eal pr ojects that respondto the speci c concerns of the comm unit y can beimplemented as funding becomes available.

Project Pur pose And ScopeThis Master Plan was initiated in response tocommunity needs and desires expressed in theGardenland- Northgate Strategic Neighbor hoodAction Plan (2003). Some of the speci c objectivesof this plan include implementing traffi c calmingmeasures, improving pedestrian and bicycle safetyencouraging walking options along the boulevardidentifying land use changes that will encourageboth residential and commercial development, andenhancing the over all image of the area.


20/68


City of Sacramento2

Introduction

The speci c project area for thi s Master Plan isNorthgate Boulevard from Rosin Court at the northend to Arden- Garden Connector at the south end.Further, the scope of this Master Plan is limitedto t he area within the existing r ight - of- way (ROW),except f or prop osed acquisition of very minor sliverpieces of ROW to accommodate U- tur n movementsat some int ersections. In addi tion, the Master Planincludes recommendations for the rezoning ofparcels adjacent to the existi ng ROW.

Master Plann ing ProcessCommunity input was integrated throughout thisprocess via stakeholder meetings and general pub lic

presentations. The general steps of this processwere as foll ows:

Analysis of Exi sting Condit ions

Land Use Assessment andRecommendations

Preparation of Conceptual Options

Master Plan Re nement

The following t hree sections describe generally whattranspi red during each step of thi s process. Publ ic

input received during t he process is described withineach step, generally at the point at whi ch it occurred.The fth section p resents the Master Plan thatevolved from t his process and the sixth and seventhsections address the general cost and maintenanceimp lications of im plementing the Master Plan. Figure 1.1. Northgate Redevelopm ent Study Area

Key Map


21/68


February 2006 3

Analysis of Existi ng Conditi ons

This step in the process provided the foundationfor developing the Master Plan. To establi sh th isfoundation, the project team reviewed previousplanning studies, met with key stakeholders,invento ried and evaluated exist ing physicalconditions along the corridor, and conducted aqualitative analysis of existing traffi c conditions.Below is a summ ary of the project team s observationsand conclusions resulting from this analysis.

Review of Previous Stud iesThe following previously prepared studies werereviewed and their ndings considered during t heanalysis phase of master planning:

Natomas Gardens Neighborhood EarlyRevitalization Program, 1996

Gardenland/ Northgate Neighbor hoodAssociation Action Plan, 2000

Pedestrian Safety Guidelines, 2003

Neighbor hood Comm ercial Design

Principles, 2003

Gardenland/ Northgate StrategicNeighborhood Action Plan (SNAP), 2003

Dan Burden, Walkable Comm uni ties Report ,2002

City of Sacramento Design Standards

These studies provided depth and backgroundabout community desires and attitudes as well asknowledge regarding regulatory issues to wh ich the

Master Plan needed to respond.

Of these previous studies, two stand out becauseof their focus on action and pedestrian walkability- - the Gardenland- Northgate Strategic NeighborhoodAction Plan (SNAP) and the Northgate BoulevardNeighbor hood Report by Mr. Dan Burden of WalkableCommuni ties, Inc. These docum ents were mostvaluable in gaining an understanding of issuesconcerns and desired solution.

The Burden report, which was completed in 2002provided some very speci c recomm endations thagrew out of input from t he communit y.

These speci c recomm endations can be summarizedas follows:

Create a true boulevard with medians

Improve safety at Smythe School

Promote mixed use development

Establish easement s for w ider sidewalks

Promo te public/ private partnerships

Establish better links to adjacentneighborhoods

In March of 2003 , the Gardenland- Northgate StrategicNeighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) was completedThe SNAP report was also the result of signi canpubli c input and re ected many of the ideas raisedby Dan Burden. It identi ed many very speci c actionitems, one of which was the preparation of a MasterPlan for Northgate Boulevard (Action Item #21)The Northgate Boulevard Master Plan is speci callyintended to ful ll that Action Item.

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS


22/68


City of Sacramento4

Analysis of Existin g Condition s

Other speci c action items that are directly relatedto the Nor thgate Boulevard Master Plan are:

Action Item # 17, Improve Safety at Smyt heSchool, and

Action Item #7, Allow Housing in theCommercial Zones.

In addition to the action items, the SNAP alsocaptured the communitys sentiments regardingsome very speci c priorit ies one of which was to:

Improve appearance, safety, and range ofcommercial services along Northgate Boulevard,including:

Provide landscaped medians

Create focused commercial areas;

Improve safety in front of Smythe School;

Improve landscaping and lighting

Promote housing on Northgate Boulevard;

Expand architectural review."

The background and community attitudes gleanedfrom these studies established the basic goals forthi s Master Plan to addr ess.

Init ial Stakeholder Inpu tPrior to conducting analysis or design, the projectteam met with representatives of the Gardenland/Northgate Neighborhood Association (GNNA) and theNorthgate Boulevard Business Association (NBBA) toget a rst hand feel for current attit udes and desiresfor redevelopm ent of the corridor.

Many of those present had been involved in t he DanBurden study as well and had participated in theworkshops that led to the SNAP report . It becameobvious in this meeting that the residents andbusiness owners were anx ious to see action - not

just more analysis.

In addit ion to GNNA and NBBA, the pro ject team m etwith Smythe Elementary School Principal, Mr. KurtFujikawa, to discuss issues related speci cally to t hevehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns of theschool sit e. This meeting revealed many concernsabout safety and congestion related to the peakdrop and pick up times.

A general review of the schools layout furtherrevealed that these concerns could not be fullyaddressed without signi cant on- site modi cationswhich are outside the scope of th is Master Plan. It

was agreed that it would take modi cation to theNorthgate Boulevard on- site con guration andoperational f unctions to full y address the breadth ofissues discussed.


23/68


February 2006 5


Inventory of ExistingConditionsIn February 2004, an inventory of existing conditi onswas conducted by members of the project team. Thisinventory entailed t he members of t he project teamwalking the length of the project area several timestaking photographs, and recording observation onbase maps of the project area. The purpose of thi swalk through was to develop baseline informationabout the character and condition of the projectarea.

From information gleaned through this processthe team was able to identify opportunities and

constraints to be considered during the MasterPlan process. Some of the speci c conditions thawere the focus of this process included currenttraffi c patterns and ow, turn lane con gurationsignalization, median opportunities, sidewalks in-place and missing, t he level of compliance with t heAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirementsdriveway locations, above ground utilities, wallsand fencing, lighting, bus stop locations, andopport uniti es for landscaping.

Photogr aphs were taken thr oughout the proj ect areaand a series of maps were prepared to illustrate the

apparent oppor tuni ties and constraints of the projecarea. The Opport uni ties and Constraints Maps areattached as Appendix A. Addi tional sit e visits wereconducted throughout the process and these mapswere used to record the information observed atthese various times. The fol lowing sections describethe general character and conditions observed, andthe Opportunities and Constraints Maps provide agraphic delineation of speci c existing conditionssuch as signal locations, roadway striping, medianlocations, walkways (or lack thereof), landscapingbus stops, lighting, and adjacent land uses.

Figure 2.1. Site Photo of the project team notingexist ing eld condit ions

Figure 2.2. Site Phot o of one of the areas alongNorthgate Boulevard where sidewalks turn into dirt

pathways


24/68


City of Sacramento6


Figure 2.3. Northgate Boulevard Sub- Area Map

Sub- Area 1

Rosin Court to San Juan Road

Sub- Area 2

San Juan Road toWest El Camino Avenue

Sub- Area 3

West El Camino Avenue t oArden- Garden Connector

Sub- AreasOne result of the existing conditions analysis wasthat th ree distinct sub- areas along NorthgateBoulevard were identi ed. These sub- areas arede ned primarily by the type of development thatoccurs within each sub- area. Sub- areas 1 and 3are prim arily commercial/ retail, while Sub- area2 is prim arily residential. The opport uniti es andconstraints wit hin these sub- areas vary slight lybased on a variety of factors, such as the relativeage of construction, width of ROW, or whether ornot adjacent properties remain undeveloped. Thisreport will discuss the apparent opportunities andconstraint s with respect to each sub- area. For the

purpose of this summary, the sub- areas will beidenti ed as Sub- areas 1, 2 and 3, comm encing atthe north end of t he study area.


25/68


February 2006 7


Sub- Area 1Rosin Cour t to San Juan Road

The land use within this portion of the project areais predominantly newer commercial, with someundeveloped land remaining. Having been newlydeveloped or redeveloped within the past 10- 15years, improvements are of newer constructionthe ROW is 110, and roadway improvementsgenerally meet Cit y standards. Newly developedparcels have included sidewalks and landscapingalong the Northgate Boulevard frontage; howeverdue to int ermitt ent developm ent, in some areas thesidewalks end abrupt ly leading to undeveloped di rtpaths.

With new, comparatively generous landscapingand most utility lines underground, the generaappearance of this segment i s new . Some segmentsof sidewalks are in poor shape and bike lanes arenot m arked nort h of San Juan Road. Intersectionshave multiple turn lanes presenting long distancesfor pedestrians to cross.

The vehicular orientation of existing developmentlack of pedestrian amenities; however, there areopportunities for improvements that would softenthis appearance and establish a more pedestrian-

fri endly scale. Such improvement s may includecompleting the m issing sidewalk segments ahead ofdevelopment, adding pedestrian- oriented amenities(benches, pedestrian- scale light ing , and signage)and developing raised landscape medians in placeof the existing painted medians.

Figure 2.5. View looking north near Rosin Court.Intersections with mul tiple turning l anes and longdistances for pedestrians to cross

Figure 2.4. View looking at Rosin Court andNorthgate Boulevard. Predominant ly comm ercialland uses, with some undeveloped land remaining

Figure 2.6. Typical exi sting st reet cross section fo r Sub- Area 1


26/68


City of Sacramento8


Figure 2.8. View looking north near SenatorAvenue. Exi sting sidewalks are narrow and of tenhave obstacles, such as utilities, which impedepedestrians

Figure 2.7. View looking north near SenatorAvenue. Sub- Area 2 showing both residential andcommercial properti es with l imi ted space availablefor landscaping

Sub- Area 2San Juan Road to West El Camino

AvenueThis portion diff ers signi cantly from Sub- Areas 1and 3 largely because of t he type of land use and the80 ROW. The land use bord ering t he west edge ofthis segment is predominantly residential with thebackyard fences lin ing the boulevard. On the eastside, there is a mix of aging small lot commercialand residential.

Sidewalks are narrow, often less than 4, and haveobstacles such as utility poles and pedestals,which imp ede pedestrian ow. Several locations

are missing ADA- compliant curb ramps. Bothresidential and commercial properties have limitedspace available for landscape improvements underexisting conditions.

Commercial development on the east side generallyappears to be 25 50 years old . As such, it wasdeveloped with many parking lots buil t up t o the ROWlimit with limit ed or no landscape buff er. Adding tothis undesirable condit ion is the presence of mul tip ledriveways for t he many small properties, which t endsto create a predominantly vehicular atmosphere.Utilities have not been placed underground andpresent both visual clutter and physical obstacles.Rolled curbs are predominant.

The fencing along the west side of thi s sub- area iscomprised of a variety of materials, such as wood,block, chain- link , and brick, which create a fracturedvisual image. Many of these residenti al fences are indisrepair, which pr esents a run- down appearance;although t here is one unique segment of und ulatingbri ck wall on t he west side between Potomac Avenueand Bridgeford Drive, which is generally in goodrepair.


27/68


February 2006 9


Smythe Elementary School is located in the midportion of this sub- area. This facility is a signi canelement presenting unique challenges and needfor im provement. It generates high pedestrian andvehicular traffi c at several times during a typicaschool day. This creates signi cant localizedcongestion and p resents access and safety concernsand nearby safe crossings are limited in the areaStudent pick- up and drop- off patterns are notideal as a result of the school s site con gurationSigni cant improvement to the pedestrian andvehicular circulation in the school area will requireon- site modi cations to the school site. Completeresolution of the negative issues at this location isnot within the scope of this Master Plan and would

need to be addressed by the school district.

Lighting is basic and appears minimally adequatebut would bene t from increased light levels andaesthetic/ themed t reatments to help de ne thisneighborhood.

Figure 2.10. View look ing north near IndianaAvenue. Unique undulating brick wall on t he westside between Potomac Avenue and Bridgefor d Dri ve

Figure 2.9. View look ing nort h near Tenaya Avenue.Fencing along the west side creating a fr acturedimage

Figure 2.11. Typical existi ng street cross section fo r Sub- Area 2


28/68


City of Sacramento10


Figure 2.12 . View look ing north near HardingAvenue. Sub- Area 3, which is predominantly smallscale commercial, with some non- compatible landuses

Sub- Area 3West El Camino Avenue to Arden-

Garden ConnectorSub- Area 3 is somewhat similar t o Area 1 in that itis predominantly commercial, but its scale is smallerand older than the commercial that occurs in Sub-Area 1. The shoppi ng center at the southwest cornerof Northgate Boulevard and West El Camino Avenueis a signi cant communit y feature in t hat it appearsto be a destinati on for locals. This comm ercialcenter includes locally owned businesses on whichmany in the imm ediate neighborhood rely. Bothvehicular and pedestrian access to this commercialnode appears to be important to the community.

Additionally, further south at about Jeff erson Avenuebut on the east side is a popular locally- owned foodstore, La Superio r Market.

Review of aerial photographs indicate that in at leastone instance there appears to be encroachment int othe ROW wit h private imp rovements and uses. Thelandscape supply yard located at Columbus Avenueappears to be one situation where the encroachmentis signi cant enough to be further investigated bycity staff and remedied.

Many of the streetscape opport uni ties and constraintsin Sub- Area 3 are simi lar to Sub- Area 2 wit h oneimportant distinctionat the extreme south end,between Jeff erson Avenue and the Arden- GardenConnector, there is a large expanse of ROW on thewest side that could be developed as a signi cantgateway landscape treatm ent. The adjacent parcelis developing as a min i- storage facilit y which wouldbene t from buff er/ screen planting.

Figure 2.13. Typical existi ng street cross section fo r Sub- Area 3


29/68


February 2006 11


Figure 2.14. View look ing north near Arden- GardenConnector. Ex isting large expanse of ROW on t hewest side that could be utilized for a signi cantgateway landscape tr eatm ent

Existing Conditions ExhibitsThe inventory of existing conditions is graphicallydepicted in a series of Opport unit ies and ConstraintsMaps included as Appendix A. Figure 2.15 on thefollowing page provides an example Opportunitiesand Constraints Map. These exhibit s depict existi ngconditions such as landscaping, lighting, fencingsidewalks, bike lanes, int ersections, crosswalks, busstops, etc. This graphic exhibit is intended as a toofor the reader to locate and evaluate these existingconditions and to be used by designers as detaileddesign of the Master Plan is comm enced.


30/68




Figure 2.15. Example of the Opportunities and Constraints Maps


31/68


February 2006 13


Traffi c AnalysisIn addition to inventorying and evaluatingphysical conditions and appearance a qualitativetraffi c analysis of exist ing traffi c condit ions wasconducted. A preliminary assessment of the baselinetransportation conditions was conducted. Thisassessment included descriptions and observationsabout the setting, travel lanes, parking, bike lanessidewalks, signage, transit and traffi c volumeand operations of the existing boulevard. Theobservations noted and data provided by the baselineconditions information were used as criteria fordeveloping the Master Plan.

Based on City records, the daily traffi c volumebet ween San Juan Road and West El Camino Avenueis currently around 20,000 vehicles per day, with anexpected increase of approxi mately 20% by 2025which represents a one percent increase annuallyand is considered a reasonable increase in tr affi cvolume for this corridor.

The traffi c analysis report is included for referenceas Appendix B.

Figure 2.16. Projected Increase in Traffi c by 2005

Arden- Ga

rdenCon

nector

I -80

Garden Hwy

Turnstone Drive

Potom ac Avenue

San Juan Road

Rosin

Cou

rt

Northgate

Boulevard

Haggin Road

El Camino Avenue


32/68




Figure 2.17. Nor thgate Boulevard Ex isting Int ersection Level of Service Table

Average Delay LOS Average Delay LOS

14 B 17 B

27 C 31 C

27 C 35 D

4 A 3 A

28 C 36 D

Source: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Redevelopment Plan for Northgate Project Area, 2002

Notes: LOS based on intersection counts taken in Decenber 2001, Average delay is in seconds per vehicle.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

Northgate Boulevard/Arden Garden Connector

Northgate Boulevard/Garden Highway/Jefferson Avenue

Intersection

Northgate Boulevard Existing Intersection Level of Service

Northgate Boulevard/West El Camino

Northgate Boulevard/San Juan

Northgate Boulevard/Rosin Court


33/68


February 2006

Land Use Assessment and Recomm endations

15

The project team and the community realize thatthe image, character, viability, and even perceivedsafety of an area is in uenced by the type of landuses. So, as part of th is master planning eff ort, theexisting land uses were evaluated and alternativeland use designations were explored. The int entwas to identify new zoning designations that mayserve as a catalyst for change.

Exist ing Land UseEx isting parcels along Northgate Boulevard arewit hin the Northgate Special Planning District (SPD).On the east side of Northgate Boulevard, the SPDgenerally includes the parcels between Patio Avenueand the Arden- Garden Connector . These parcelsare currently zoned commercial (C2 under the SPD)and most are currently commercial uses, althoughthere are some vacant parcels as well as someresidenti al uses within thi s area. With the currentzoning, residential is a nonconforming use; hence,a zone change is required to respond to the desireto pr omot e more residential development along thecorridor . On the west side of Northgate Boulevardat the north end of the corridor, the SPD includes

the commercial parcels from just south of TurnstoneDrive to just south of Rio Tierro Road. At the sout hend of t he corridor, t he SPD includes the commercialparcels on the west side from just north of West ElCamino Avenue to the Arden- Garden Connector .Refer to the Current Zoning Designation Map shownin Appendix C, Figure C- 1, for delineation of t heSPD.

CriteriaThe overall objective of this land use assessmentwas to examine the possibility of zoning and landuse changes from commercial uses to residentiaor offi ce uses in order to create a more pedestrian-oriented environment that provides greateropportunities to energize existing commerciauses along the corridor. In addition, based oncommunity input , more housing is desired along thecorridor. The evaluati on assessed existi ng uses andmade recommendations for p ossible modi cationsto t he existing l and uses. A number of criteria wereidenti ed to rate potential conversion of propertyfrom a commercial designation to a residential oroffi ce designat ion.

These criteria included:

Parcel Con guration: lot depth and size

Utilization: fully utilized, under util ized, orvacant

Condition

Viability

LAND USE ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS


34/68


City of Sacramento


16

Zoning OptionsInitial thoughts regarding new land use designationsrevolved around identifying areas for rezoning tomedium or high density housing; however, a coupleof key issues were raised that led the team awayfrom th is approach. One was that most of theparcels were too small and/ or not deep enough tobe suitable for medium or high density residentialdevelopment . Assembl ing several smaller parcelswould be required to create a viable medium or highdensity project. The other issue was that mediumor high density residential zoning would generallypreclude commercial use, which is not entirelydesirable.

Considering the above issues, rezoning portionsof the area to Residential Mixed Use (RMX) wasconsidered. The Cit y of Sacramento created the RMXzone designation t o allow a mix of m oderate densityresidential and neighborhood- serving comm ercialuses to be developed together. Under RMX zon ing ,residential densities would be generally the same asthat of the R- 3A, which allows up to 36 units peracre. Commercial uses perm it ted wit h an RMX zonewould be similar to those of the C- 1 zone.

Given the concentration of existing commercial

uses at the north and south ends of the corridor,maintaining commercial zoning at these locationsseemed to be the most logical option .

Bene ts Of RMX ZoningThe proposed Residential Mixed Use (RMX)designation responds to the desire to create awalkable and vibrant streetscape environment.Concentration of residential units together withneighborhood- serving commercial should result insigni cantly more people- oriented activity on t hestreet. This type of developm ent will be much morelikely to occur if the RMX is suppor ted by developmentand design guidelines that encourage generous andcomfortable pedestrian accommodations along thecorridor and development of off - street parking in theback of new development . Furt her, the residenti alcomponent will ensure that there are people present

throughout t he corridor at all tim es of day and night .This 24- hour p resence of people provides a highersense of community and with that comes a highersense of security. With approp riate developmentand architectural design guid elines, the RMX zon ingprovides a great opport unity for establishing a senseof place with a unique character that re ects thelocal community.

In addit ion t o the positive bene ts RMX has on thedesign and character aspects of a neighborhood,the exibility within this zoning designation shouldallow market forces to ultimately drive transition

along the corrid or. As development occurs overtime, the proportion of residential to retail to offi cecan be more easily adjusted to meet current marketconditions than under more traditional zoningregulations.


35/68


February 2006


17

Proposed Zoning Designati onUpon review of the RMX zoning option and itspotential bene ts to t he community, the Teamdetermined that a large part of the east side ofNorthgate Boulevard should be rezoned to RMX.However, as each parcel was evaluated for r ezoning,it was determined t hat some parcels should be zonedcommercial due to t heir current use, condit ion, andlocation. As noted above, the north and south endsare proposed to remain commercial, as shown inthe Proposed Zoning Designation Map in AppendixC, Figure C- 2. Existing nonconforming uses shallbe addressed as per the Sacramento MunicipalCode Section 17.88.030 and the RMX Zoning Code

Section 17 .28. All proposed zoning shall become acomponent of the existing SPD.

Eff ect Of RMX ZoningRezoning large areas as RMX will not change thecharacter of the corridor overnight, nor will itrequire existing business to cease operation or befor ced to relocate. However, the RMX designationwill establish the framework within which creativeredevelopment can occur. It will allow more exibilityfor property owners who choose to convert theirparcels to residential uses or create a combinationof residential and commercial uses.

The Residential Mixed Use zone is well suited tothe condit ions along Northgate Boulevard. Withappropriate comm unity- driven developm ent anddesign guidelines and other possible incentives, itsets the stage for establishing a highly desirablestreet edge and walking environment along theboulevard.


36/68


City of Sacramento


18

Block- by- Block Descrip t ionsFollowing is a block by block description of theproposed zoning recommended for implementationas part of the Master Plan.

The references in the following paragraphs are toblock numbers identi ed in the Proposed ZoningDesignation Map located i n Appendix C, Figure C- 2.

Blocks A, B, C, A- 1 and B- 1

These blocks are proposed as primarily Commercialas they are the very core of the Commercial nodeat San Juan Road and Northgate Boulevard. Thecenter portion of Block A is proposed as ResidentialMixed Use as it is currently part of the mobi le homepark that extends back beyond the Special PlanningDistrict Boundary and into a larger mobile homepark area to the east. The mobile home park is anunder ut ilized use for thi s property and ResidentialMixed Use is an appropriate designation that mayspur economic reuse of t he property.

Block D

This block is proposed as RMX as it is currently amin i- storage facility that is virtually maximized on

the parcel. This zoning will allow it to remain inuse as a mini- storage facilit y as a non- conforminguse; however, it will allow for the introductionof residential uses in the future if redeveloped.Residential at this location would be within closeproximity to the Commercial node being created inthis location.

Figure 3.1. Proposed Land Use for Blocks A, B, C,

A- 1 and B- 1

Figure 3.2. Proposed Land Use for Block D


37/68


February 2006


19

Figure 3.3. Proposed Land Use for Block E

Figure 3.4. Proposed Land Use for Block F

Block E

This block is a relatively committed Commercial Use

and is close enough to the commercial node to bejusti ed to remain as commercial.

Block F

Block F has a variety of underutilized uses on theparcels in th is vicinity. Properties identi ed asunderutil ized i nclude developed p arcels containingvacant build ings or undeveloped parcels. Block Falso backs up to a new residential subdivision tothe east. There is, in fact, access to t hat subdivisionthr ough Block F. Therefore, the proposed Land Usefor this frontage is a very compatible and suitableuse to int erface with t he adjoining residential.

Blocks G, H and I

These blocks have a series of underut ili zed or vacanproperties that aff ord the opportunity to promotethe Residential Mix ed Use land use designation .

Figure 3.5. Proposed Land Use for Blocks G, H and I


38/68


City of Sacramento


20

Figure 3.7. Proposed Land Use for Blocks L and M

Blocks J and K

With the exception of the two corner parcels on

Wisconsin Avenue and Northgate Boulevard theseblocks are proposed as Residential Mixed Use.The parcels on each side of Wisconsin Avenue arecurrently neighborhood- serving comm ercial uses.The location is at present a good opportunity toprovide convenience shopping for the adjacentneighborhood and as such will promote walking,rather than driving, for convenience shopping.

Blocks L and M

Block L is proposed as RMX with the exception ofthe two parcels at the corner of Bowman Avenueand Northgate Boulevard. This corner, along wit hthe majority of the Block M, either has an existingneighborhood- serving commercial use or approvalof a viable commercial use that serves nearbyresidents. Viable commercial uses may be de ned assmall neighborhood centers off ering neighborhoodservice retail or professional services (e.g. drycleaners, beauty parlors, medical and dental offi ces, nancial services, real estate offi ces, etc.) thatcreate commercial nodes thr oughout the SPD. Theproposed Commercial designation responds to thissituation.

Figure 3.6. Proposed Land Use for Block J and K


39/68


February 2006


21

Figure 3.9. Proposed Land Use for Block O

Figure 3.8. Proposed Land Use for Block N

Block N

Block N is substantially under utilized property

Other than a small church, the area is mostly vacantRMX zoning is proposed for t his block as it includesone of the larger und erdeveloped parcels and wouldbe suitable for a sizable mix ed use developm ent withlitt le or no lot consolidation required. Further, it isdirectly across from the elementary school, allowingfor convenient pedestrian access for school child renwho might l ive in the residential units.

Block O

Block O is proposed to be mostly RMX in responseto the condit ions of existing land uses. The parcelson which the existing market and Ricos Pizza arelocated are proposed as commercial as these areestablished local businesses.


40/68


City of Sacramento


22

Figure 3.10 . Proposed Land Use for Blocks P, Q, R, S, T, V, R- 1, S- 1 and T- 1

T

V


41/68


February 2006


23

Blocks P, Q, R, S, T, V, R- 1, and S- 1

These blocks represent the southern concentrated

commercial mixeduse node of the NorthgateBoulevard corridor and are proposed to remainpredominantly zoned as commercial. Portions ofBlocks P, Q, and R are proposed to be rezonedas RMX to allow for and encourage the concept ofbring ing in higher density residential in proxim ity tothe commercial uses.

Block T- 1

A mini - storage use has been approved within t hisblock; however, it is still proposed as RMX as itprovides an oppor tunit y to develop residential withineasy walking distance of the existing commercialcenter. Furt her, if developed as a residential mixeduse product it could architecturally establish a verystrong entry statement for the Northgate Boulevardcorridor.

Parks And Green Space

Part of creating a walkable community includes

establishing urban open spaces such as pocketparks and plazas. The proposed land use planidenti es the need fo r these types of spaces alongthe corridor ; however, speci c parcels have not beenidenti ed for th is use. Rather, a general location isnoted with a symbo l.

Development and design guidelines prepared as anoverlay to the RMX zone should have provisions toencourage integrating quasi- publi c spaces such asthese as redevelopment occurs.


42/68


City of Sacramento


24

This page intentionally left b lank.


43/68


February 2006

Draft Master Plan

25

Re nements to Draft MasterPlanSeveral alternative methods were exp lored to achievethe proper roadway geometry, pedestrian- friendlyfeatures, and design safety. These alternatives werereviewed and a preferred approach was developedfor f urther study.

One of the most prom ising alternatives exp lored wasleaving the easterly curb line and sidewalk in placeand focusing all improvements to the west of this

line. This scenario allowed for the landscape andpedestrian area along the west side t o be maximi zed;however, it would have required an easementacross the frontage of the properties on the eastas well as conditioning those properties to makespeci c landscape and sidewalk im provements asredevelopment of each individual parcel occurred.

Although this concept had merits, it was agreedthat since it was likely redevelopment would takemany years and be fragm ented, th is concept was notnecessaril y the best scenario to pu rsue.

The soluti on that came out of exp loring the variousalternatives is generally ill ustrated in Figures 5.2 and5.3 in t he following chapter. This soluti on proposedreplacing t he 10 wide center tu rn lane with a raised7 wide median and reducing lane widths to aminimum of 11 wide. The additional space gainedby this approach allowed both the western andeastern curb lines to be moved toward the center ofthe road, freeing up landscape and walkway space.

In most segments on t he west side a 5 wide planterstrip and 5 wide walkway was achieved. In mostsegments along the east side a 5 wide planter was

achieved, but a 4 walkway was settled on with theintent t hat an additional 4 of width wou ld be addedwhen adjacent parcels were redeveloped.

Stakeholder Input , December2004The Draft Master Plan was presented in a series ofseparate meetings with the Northgate BoulevardBusiness Associat ion (NBBA), Smyt he School, and theGardenland Northgate Neighborhood Association(GNNA) for f urther input .

Nort hgate Boulevard BusinessAssociation

NBBAs response to t he proposed imp rovements wasgenerally favorable. As expected, the int roductionof raised landscaped medians was the topic ofconsiderable discussion. The business ownerspresent liked and appreciated t he vast im provemento the appearance of the boulevard with thelandscaped medians; however, they realized thatthe trade- off was eliminating mid- block left turnsthat were previously possible with the two- way turnlane. This discussion revolved around determiningif openings in the median to allow mid- block lefturn movements could be accomplished without

signi cantly reducing the aesthetic aff ect.

The outcome of this discussion was a generaconsensus that the vastly improved aestheticsand image gained with the landscaped mediansoutweighed most of the perceived negative impactof lim iting left t urn movements; however, the designteam was asked to add a northbound, mid- block tur nlane into the shopping center on the southwest corneof West El Camino Avenue and Northgate Boulevardintersection. Further, this group suggested that ifother left turn pockets were created, they should becreated onl y at locations t hat provide a community-

wide bene t as opposed to bene ting a singleproperty.

DRAFT MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVES


44/68


City of Sacramento

Draft Master Plan

26

Smythe School Meeting

Representatives of the School District met to review

the proposed impr ovements in the Master Plan. Theirmain concerns revolved around accommodatingingress and egress for school busses. Theyindicated that the median proposed in front of theschool would require them to alter their current busrouting, which would not be possible in the nearfutu re. In response to thi s, it was agreed that theproposed design should include an option for nomedian along this segment.

GNNA Meet ing

The primary comment s received from GNNA includedthe following:

Need better street li ghti ng (possibly li ghtsin t he median);

Improvements need to consider in terfacewith the east- west b icycle routes;

The appearance of the of the various fencesalong the west side need t o be im proved;

More openings in the proposed medians

are needed

Gateway and t heme elements should r e ecta "Gardenland" character.

Regional Transit Di str ictReviewThe preferred alternative was submitted to RegionalTransit District for review and comment. Upon theirreview, they conveyed the foll owing verbal comm entsvia telephone conference in January 2005:

1. Provide lighti ng near bus shelters.

2. Bus shelters will requi re an 8 deep x 8wide loading zone.

3. Try to shade bus shelters wit h canopy trees.

4. Regional Transit will provide bus shelters,benches and t rash cans at bus stops andwill provide m aintenance.

5. More crosswalks near Rio Tierro Road andPotomac Avenue would be bene cial.

Recommendations 1- 3 made by Regional Transitwere incorp orated int o the Master Plan. Theadditional crosswalks recommended in item 5 wasnot incorporated because warrants have not beenmet t o justif y the installation of a crosswalk.


45/68


February 2006

Draft Master Plan

27

Furt her Re nementBuilding on the input received from these meetings,the proposed im provements in the Master Plan werefurther re ned in preparation for presentation to t hegeneral public. Speci c re nements included:

Addition of a northbound turn lane into theManor Drug shopping center;

Preparation of a no median opti on at t heschool front age;

Addition of a southbound U- turn atJeff erson Avenue

Addition of an optional southbound lefttur n lane int o La Superior Market

Pub li c Meet ing, February 2005In February 2005, the proposed improvements inthe Master Plan were presented at a publi c meetingThis presentation included a comprehensive reviewof the planning process to date, the proposed landuse changes, and the proposed Master Plan. Theformat of the meeting was an informal open housefollowed by a formal presentation, followed by aquestion/ answer period. In addition to the question/answer period, all participants were provided areport card on which to rate speci c elements ofthe proposed improvements as well as to providewrit ten comments. The Report Card is att ached asAppendix D.

Comm ents were wide ranging, but one area of strongconsensus (as evidenced in the results of the reportcard) was the need to provide more opportunitiesfor turns through the medians to better serve theresidential neighborhoods.

In response to the strong desire for more left turnopport uniti es as expressed at the publi c meeting, t heproject team reviewed potential left turn locationswith regard to where these turn locations wouldprovide the most communi ty bene t as balancedagainst the communities desire for an improved

aesthetic image. Potent ial left tur n locationswere also reviewed with regard to whether or notmin imum engineering standards could be met. Thisprocess resulted in adding left t urn opp ortuni ties atthe following locations:

Wilson Avenue (south bound left)

Bowman Avenue (south bound left)

Indiana Avenue (south bound left)

Senator Avenue (merge lane)

New Herit age Road (sout h bound l eft andmerge lane)

Manor Drug Shopping Center (north boundleft)


46/68


City of Sacramento

Draft Master Plan

28

Figure 4.1. Community Report Card Summary


47/68


February 2006

Draft Master Plan

29

Figure 4.2 . Selection of Gateway Entr y MonumentExamples Presented to the Communi ty

Improvements were ranked by attendees in order ofpriori ty as follows:

1. Lighting

2. Landscape

3. Neighborhood Identi cation

4. Site Furn itu re

5. Ent ry Monum ents

Fifteen out of 20 report cards were in favor of theSmyt he School opt ion wit hout a center median. Onerespondent preferred the median at this locationand four did not respond to t he question.


48/68


City of Sacramento

Draft Master Plan

30



49/68


February 2006

Master Plan

31

Developing this Master Plan required balancingmany diff ering priorit ies as well as responding tosigni cant physical constraints. However, as notedpreviously in the Analysis of Exi sting Condi tions, verystrong guidance was provided via the Gardenland-Northgate Strategic Neighborhood Action Plan(SNAP) that was prepared in 2003 . To recap, one ofSNAPs key prior it ies regarding Northgate Boulevardwas:

Improve appearance, safety, and range ofcommercial services along Northgate Boulevardincluding:

Provide landscaped medians;

Create focused commercial areas;

Improve safety in front of Smythe School;

Improve landscaping and lighting;

Promote housing on Northgate Boulevard;

Expand architectural review."

These SNAP priorities were a further validation ofthe 2002 Dan Burden Report:

Create a true boulevard with medians

Improve safety at Smythe School

Promote mixed use development

Establish easement s for wider sidewalks

Promote public/ private partnerships

Establish better links to adjacentneighborhoods

These priorities and objectives were again validatedin the community and stakeholder meetings heldduring the master plan process.

The Master Plan that evolved from this planningprocess successfull y addr essed each of t hese speci cpriori ties as best as possible within the constraints ofthe corr idor. The Master Plan Conceptual StreetscapePlans are attached as Appendix E.

Land Use

With the int roduction of RMX zoning, the proposedland use plan provides a means to prom ote housingalong the corridor . Further, the proposed land useplan also clearly addresses the priority of creatingfocused commercial areas by maintaining thecommercial centers at the north and south endsof the corridor and identifying only very speci clocations with in the middle segment f or commerciazoning to address the SNAP priority of expandedarchitectur al review. This land use plan should besupplemented with an appropriate architecturareview process.

PLAN OBJECTIVES


50/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

32

SafetyPhysical d esign changes proposed in the Master Planwill increase safety and improve both pedestrianand vehicular circulation throughout the corridor.Sidewalks have been set back from the curbwherever possible to provide a physical separationbetween pedestr ians and vehicles. Bike lanes wil lalso be added nort h of San Juan Avenue. The MasterPlan also proposes introducing landscaped mediansthroughout, which will imp rove pedestrian safety.

The proposed medians will reduce the number ofpoint s of potential pedestrian/ vehicle interface bylim iting mid - block left turns into driveways. Thesemeasures are reinforced by proposed improvementsto signals, signs, and pavement markings atintersections and lighting improvements.

Appearance and ImageIn addition to improving safety, the introductionof landscaped medians will dramatically improvethe appearance of the boulevard. The medians,together with t he parkway planter strips behind t hecurbs, allow a strong tree canopy to be developed,which wi ll create more of a true boulevard character.This change in itself will establish a new, positive

image for the area. Improved light ing, uni ed streetfurni shings at bus stops, and development of sometype of gateway monuments that re ect the uniquecharacter of this community will enhance this newimage.

Following are speci c components of the MasterPlan and a proposed phasing scenario described inmore detail.

Roadw ay Geomet ryThe preferred option is designed to work entirelywithin t he exi sting ROW except fo r selected locationson corners where 1- 2 of ROW acquisition is requiredto accommodate U- turns. This option maintains twonorthbound and two southbound lanes plus bicyclelanes in each dir ection. The mi ddle tur n lane iseliminated and replaced wi th a median that varies inwidth to a minimum of 6. The median extends fromRosin Court t o Arden- Garden Connector . Roadsideparkways are intermitt ent along t he boulevard wherespace is available to accommodate a 3 plantedarea.

Sidewalks on t he east side are a min imum of 5- 0wide and run continuously. Sidewalks on the westside are a min imum of 4 - 0 wide and are continuousthroughout the project area. Property owners onthe east side would be conditioned to provide anadditional 4- 0 of sidewalk adjacent to the proposedsidewalk when fut ure development occurs, providingan overall 8 wide sidewalk.


51/68


February 2006

Master Plan

33

Adjustm ents t o Uti l i t i esTo fully implement the improvements describedin the Master Plan and to avoid potential physicacon icts, many existi ng utili ty structur es will needto be relocated. These adjustment s includ e:

Utility under- groundi ng of phone, cable TV,and power lines will be necessary to avoidcon icts with poles and utility boxes in thenew path of travel.

Streetlight and traffi c signal relocation m aybe necessary.

Curb and gu tter relocation will be required

to m eet t he new road alignm ent.

Fire hydrants will need to be relocatedadjacent to new curbs.

Existing d rainage structures will berelocated to coordinate with the location ofnew curb and gut ters.

OA

Figure 5.1. Typical plan view of improvements


52/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

34

Figure 5.2. Typical Street Sections


53/68


February 2006

Master Plan

35

Figure 5.3 . Typical Street Sections cont inued


54/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

36

Major IntersectionsMajor intersections have been designed toaccomm odate U- tur ns based on the Sacrament oDepartment of Transportation requirement of 44 asmeasured from the outside of the turn lane to faceof curb.

These majo r in tersections are:

Rosin Court

San Juan Road

Potomac Avenue

Wisconsin Avenue

Haggin Avenue

West El Camino Avenue

Jeff erson Avenue (southbound only)

Pedestrian and accessible intersection features areintended to increase safety and promote improvedpedestrian walkabilit y. The items noted i n Figure 5.5are part of t he Master Plan, including high visibility

crosswalks, advance stop bars, and accessible curbramps. Optional features which could be providedinclude countdown signals, audible devices, safetysignage, and increased enforcement and educationabout pedestrian safety. Figure 5.4. Major Intersections Map


55/68


February 2006

Master Plan

37

Figure 5.5. Typical Intersection Diagram. Noted it ems represent po tent ial features to be added at eachintersection


56/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

38

Landscape Concept

Tree PlantingAs a long established arterial, Northgate Boulevardhas mature landscaping in t he form of well establishedtrees along it s perim eter. Varieti es include severalOak and Pine species with occasional Sycamoresand other ornamental species. There is no form alspacing or m onocul tur e of species establi shed alongthe corridor.

As a priority, the Master Plan seeks to betterestabli sh a tree canopy over sidewalks and paving toprovide shade. Other goals are to select t ree speciesthat provide seasonal foliage color and seasonal owering. The Master Plan does not seek to establisha monoculture and a form al tree planting r egiment;rather it i ntends to use a mix of t ree species and sizesin gr oupings to accentuate tree forms, text ures, andcolors. This design approach provides a maxim umof exibility for design and implementation overtime.

For the purpose of fostering the healthiest rootgrowth and development possible, a structural soilsystem shall be installed at each street tree wherethe planter is less than 6 wid e. This method shall be

used for trees located in medians and parkways. Thestructural soil system, such as the Duck- bill InvisibleStaking system illustrated in Figure 5.7, will deteruplif ts in pavement from root structures. Duck-bill staking eliminates tree stakes and promoteshealthier and stronger trees.

Shrub and Ground Cover Plant ing

The Master Plan ident i es a range of shrub species

that provide dense foliage growth and seasonal ower color and have low water consumptionrequir ements. Shrubs are to be planted in mass freeform groupings of sim ilar species; contrast betweengroupings should be considered f or seasonal color,textu re, and plant form . Shrub massing should becontained to areas within 24 inches of all parkwayand median islands.

Ground covers are to be planted in mass groupings,forming a uni ed carpet of plant material surroundingthe shrub areas. A continuous non- planted 12 wideband of decomposed granite mineral mulch shouldbe placed at the perimeter of all median islands.This non- planted perimeter pr ovides a clear edgeto the planter and shall provide a setback area toensure plants do not encroach on the roadway.


57/68


February 2006

Master Plan

39

Figure 5.6 . Plant List and Phot os

Botanical Name Common Name Canopy

Calocedrus decurrens California Incense Cedar 10-20

Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 10-15

Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Raintree 15-35

Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache 25-35

Robinia ambiqua Purple Robe Idaho Locust 20-35

Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo 20-40

Quercus suber Cork Oak 30-60

Tilia cordata Little Leaf Linden 25-40

Achillea millefol ium Fire King Red Yarrow

Agapanthus Queen Anne Lily-of-the-Nile

Asparagus densiflorus Myers Myers AsparagusAstilbe arendsii Glow False Spiraea

Berberis buxifolia nana Dwarf Barberry

Cistus Sunset Rockrose

Hebe Autumn Glory Dwarf Hebe

Helictotrichon sempervirens Blue Oat Grass

Hemerocallis fluva Daylily

Heuchera sanguinea Coral Bells

Lantana montevidensis Lantana

Lavandula dentate French Lavender

Mahonia aquifloium Oragon Grape

Muhlenbergia regens Deer Grass

Phormiun tenax Bronze Baby Dwarf New Zealand Flax

Rhaphiolepis indica Ballerina Indian Hawthorn

Rosmarinus officinalis Prostratus Dwarf Rosemary

Sollya heterophylla Australian Bluebell Creeper

*Note: All shrubs listed are less than 3 in height at maturity.

Ajuga reptans Carpet Bugle

Arctostaphylos Emerald Carpet Manzanita

Baccharis pilularis Twin Peaks Dwarf Coyote Brush

Bergenia crassifolia Winter-Blooming Bergenia

Carissa macrocarpa Prostrata Natal Plum

Ceanothus griseus horizontalis Carmel Creeper

Clytostoma callistegioides Violet Trumpet Vine

Cotoneaster dammeri Lowfast Bearberry Cotoneaster

Fragaria chiloensis Wild Strawberry

Jasminum parkeri Dwarf Jasmine

Juniperus horizontalis Bar Harbor Bar Harbor Juniper

Stachys byzantina Lambs Ears

Wisteria sinensis Chinese Wisteria


58/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

40

Figure 5.7. Structural Soil Diagram. Trees in medians and parkways may require structur al soil

Note: Exact specifications and dimensions of structuralsoil and related components shall be determined in theconstruction documentation phase of work.

Duck- Bill Invisible Staking System,in l ieu of Wood Tree Staking

Street Tree

Planted Median or Concrete Sidewalk(median condition shown)

Structural So

Subgrade

Asphalt Pavi


59/68


February 2006

Master Plan

41

Sit e Fur nishingsSite furnishings will include historic decorativelight ing at bus stops, medallion signs with districtidenti cation attached to streetlights, entrymonuments at major intersections (Rosin CourtSan Juan Road, West El Camino Avenue and Arden-Garden Connector ), and preservation of the existingcommunity bui lt sign, now located at the south endof the boulevard. The feasibilit y of sign attachmentto the streetlights will require analysis from astructural engineer.

Figure 5.8. Examples of Vehicular- Scaled andPedestr ian- Scaled Street Lighti ng


60/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

42

Figure 5.9. Bench Example (Manuf acturer:

Timberform, Model: Renaissance)

BenchesBench type and style were selected to providedurability, vandal resistance, and attractive styling,with m id- bench armrest to deter sleeping on benches.Benches are constructed with a powdercoated steelframe and would be secured to the pavement withapprop riate hardware. Locations for benches wouldbe determined when construction documents areprepared. It should be noted that these benchesare to be located in proximity to activity hubs andretail centers. These benches are in addit ion to thefurniture provided by Sacramento Regional Transit(RT) and would be funded t hrough t he area BID.

Sample MonumentThe example depicted in Figure 5.9 is an appropriatedesign re ecting the historical context of theGardenland Northgate Neighbor hood . Furt herdesign development of this feature should bepursued through a call for artists to implement thisfeature.


61/68


February 2006

Master Plan

43

Figure 5.10. Example Gateway Ent ry Monument


62/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

44

Non- standard ImprovementsDuring the master planning process, a wide varietyof design ideas were proposed, some of whichwould not have been in conformance with currentCity standards. In response to the understandingthat the community wanted a plan that could beimplemented soon, the project team developeddesign solutions that fell within the current Citystandards as best as possible.

However, the proposed Master Plan does includesome elements that deviate slightly from thesestandards, includi ng:

A 4 wide walk on the east side of theboulevard is proposed; whereas the Citystandard walk in thi s situation woul d be5 wide. It is proposed that this deviationbe remedied as properties along the eastside are redeveloped. These properti es fallwithin the RMX zone and can be conditionedthat as the properties are redeveloped arequirement is to construct an addit ional 4width of sidewalk to achieve a total widt hof 8, ultimately resulting in a comfortablewalking environment adjacent to fut ureresidential/ commercial/ retail mix ed use

development.

Bus turn outs are not pr ovided at bus stopsdue to restricted hor izont al distances thatmake it im possible to meet t he requireddesign template.

Proposed PhasingPhasing was developed based on request from theresidents during the commun ity meetings. Therewas consensus among those in attendance to beginimp rovements at the Southern por tion of the corridorand proceed nort h. Based on communit y requeststhe following phased im plementations of t he MasterPlan are proposed:

Phase 1 West El Camino Avenue to Arden-Garden Connector

Phase 2 Potomac Avenue to West El CaminoAvenue

Phase 3 Rosin Cour t to San Juan Road

Phase 4 San Juan Road to Pot om ac Avenue

Note: A pilot project will precede Phase 1 and isproposed for the medians beginning at Rosin Courtand ext ending south for approx imately one block.

The abilit y to construct partial segments or systems(i.e. medians only, etc.) of the Master Plan islim ited. This approach, in most cases, would createcondit ions that are undesirable. Partiall y constructing

systems would lead to interim conditions that mayrequire signi cant temporary m easures to mitigateunsafe condi tions. The Master Plan relies on certainreductions of width at critical areas to achieve theproposed sidewalk, bike lane, travel lanes andmedian wid ths requi red. Since these improvementsare dimensionally linked, partial construction of theMaster Plan systems wou ld require the bike lanes tobe temporarily eliminated. This tempor ary conditionis considered unacceptable.


63/68


February 2006

Master Plan

45

Figure 5.11. Example Master Plan Road Section.

The narrowing of the t raveled way and t he locationof the existing curb proh ibit s partial construction ofMaster Plan road sections, as depicted in Figure 5.11As monies are available to ful ly fund each identi edphase, the Master Plan should only be consideredfor impl ementation of t he entir e cross section.


64/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

46

Figure 5.12. Phasing Map


65/68


February 2006

Master Plan

47

Fencing Recom mendati onsThroughout the planning process, the need todramatically impr ove the conditi on and appearanceof existing fencing along the west side of the corridorwas repeatedly raised by stakeholders and thecommunity. This fencing was originally constructedas backyard fencing for the adjacent residentiadevelopment that occurs generally between RioTierro Road and West El Camino Avenue.

Unfortunately, this fencing is on private propertytherefore, addressing it directly is not a part ofthis master planning eff ort. However, during theplanning process, it was recognized that the f encingshould be addressed as a future separate project inan appropriate publi c/ private partnership. Figure5.13 is an example of a fencing t reatment that wouldwork well for this situation, as it can be constructedwith minimal encroachment on either the ROW orprivate property.

Figure 5.13. Example Fencing. This is a suggestedtreatment of residential fences and is not a part ofthis Master Plan.


66/68


City of Sacramento

Master Plan

48

Pub li c Meeting , Jul y 2005In July 2005, a pub lic meeting was held to presentmodi cations to the Draft Master Plan. Thispresentation included modi cations implementedin response to comments received at the February2005 public meeting. These modi cations included:additional and optional left turn lanes, potentialphasing, landscaping, lighting, furnishings,neighborhood identi cation, and entry monum ents.The format of the meeting was an informal openhouse followed by a review of previous meetings,a formal pr esentation, a question/ answer period.The meeting was well attended by the community;approximately 40 residents and property owners

were present .

Questions from the community generally focusedon t he rezoning process for t he RMX zone, projectcost, plan approval process, and project schedule.Questions were answered and responses from thosein attendance seemed t o ind icate they were satis edwith answers provided.

A speci c focus by community memb ers were theadditional left turn lanes added since the previousmeeting. The design team provided inform ationon why these locations where were selected and

why other locations considered for turn lanes didnot meet design criteria and were not included.Some community members present continuedto voice concern over limiting left turns and thepotential impact on their businesses; however, atthe conclusion of the meeting, most were in supportof the Master Plan and indicated they would like tosee this plan continue to m ove forward.

A budget scenario for implementing the NorthgateMaster Plan was developed on a phase by phasebasis based in mid - 2005 dollars.


67/68


February 2006

Opinion of Cost

49

OPINION OF COST

AssumptionsThe Opinion of Probable Cost has been preparedbased on conceptual plans, aerial photographs, and eld survey inform ation. Roadway and civil it ems thatcould be quanti ed directly from pl ans, such as draininlets, hydrants, and lighting, were tabulated fromthe available plans and survey data. The roadwayquantities, such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, asphalticconcrete, and roadway excavation, were calculatedbased on assumed cross section quantities alongthe length of the project.

It was assumed that a majority of the existingpavement would remain and only 3 adjacent toeach curb would be removed and replaced toaccommodate construction of the new curbs. A 2 ACoverlay was assumed as preventative maintenancefor t he roadway. If it is found by future geotechnicalinvestigation that the existing pavement sectionwill not be suffi cient to support future demand, itmay be necessary to replace the entire roadway atsigni cant additional cost.

Landscape and ir rigation costs were developed from

plan documents based on area takeoff s, and unitcost was applied as approp riate. Other items in theopinion of cost i nclude water connections, structur alsoil, site furnishings, and entry monum ents.

For i ncidental imp rovements t hat were not accountedfor with the roadway items, a 20%contingency wasadded to t he estim ate.

The Pilot Project would consist of construction ofthe median beginning at Rosin Court and extendingone block south along Northgate Boulevard. Theprobable cost of the Pilot Project is estimated at

$729,000.

Phase 1 wou ld commence at Arden- GardenConnector and include im provements

nor therly to West El Camino Avenue. Theprobable cost of Phase 1 i s estimated at$4,027,000.

Phase 2 would commence at West El CaminoAvenue and include im provements northerlyto Potomac Avenue. The probable cost ofPhase 2 is estimated at $6,294,000.

Phase 3 would com mence at San Juan Roadand include imp rovements southerly toPotomac Avenue. The probable cost of

Phase 3 is estimated at $4,648,000.

Phase 4 would comm ence at Rosin Courtand include improvements southerly to SanJuan Road. The probable cost of Phase 4 isestimated at $4,122,000.

The total cost of probable construction is estimated aapproxim ately $19 to $20 m illion dollars, estim atedat mid - 2005 dollars. A Preliminary Estimate ofProbable Cost is attached as Appendix F.

ExclusionsUtility undergrounding costs have not beenincluded in the cost estimate as this work shouldbe completed under a franchise agreement wi th theutility company.


68/68


Opinion of Cost


northgate boulevard streetscape master plan - part 1

Documents