When the state pondered raiding Redevelopment, the City of Davis like many cities, moved quickly to encumber as much money on existing projects as necessary. While RDA still looks uncertain, it appears more likely than not at this point that RDA will survive in one form or another.
Nevertheless, the council appears to have made two questionable decision that will account for more than half of all RDA funds, including the largest project, a new parking structure on E and F between 3rd and 4th Streets.
The Council agreed to move forward on a contentious 3-2 vote with Sue Greenwald and Joe Krovoza dissenting.
As Dan Wolk put it, the council wants to keep exploring the options and not just kill the project. However, he seems open to other ideas.
Joe Krovoza told the Vanguard on Wednesday night that not a single person from either the DDBA or the Chamber of Commerce came forward either that night or in writing to support the project or to argue that we this is what we need to move forward with our economic development.
Many have questioned the location of the project, which would appear to be in a prime spot for some sort of major economic development and retail-based planning.
The parking structure is so big and expensive that it locks up most of the RDA funds. Is parking really where we need to go to improve the downtown?
As Joe Krovoza pointed out, there is not even a great new innovative idea for converting the E Street Plaza’s parking into other uses.
As an article on the Vanguard on Tuesday argued, “Consuming one of the last big parcels right in the center of our downtown core with a massive and expensive garage for automobiles is outdated thinking, akin to bankrupting the city to build livery stables and hay barns on that site.”
The article adds, “But even more compelling is the evidence that we simply do not need this structure to park the vehicles we have downtown now, or large numbers of additional cars we may wish to accommodate in the future.”
Perhaps council will see this as the project moves forward, but right now this seems like a giant panic to commit money and this just happened to be the project that staff has had on the backburner for years waiting until we had the appropriate funds and impetus to move forward. Councilmember Sue Greenwald opposed the project, in part due to the huge pricetag and enormity of the project.
A parking garage will add little to no revenue to the city, and it moves us away from the transportation planning and climate action concerns that this city has engaged in the last two years and longer.
In contrast, the Hotel Conference Center, if done properly could be a huge boon to the city by attracting conferences and bringing in lucrative hotel tax fees to the city.
However, the finances here do not make as much sense as we might have hoped. Part of the deal will be to move Caffe Italia from its highly successful location on Richards Blvd to a new location where no less than ten restaurants have moved and failed over the last few decade – to Chiles Road where most notably Denny’s came and went.
The city will apparently buy the building, remodel and then lease it to Caffe Italia, the council decided in a unanimous vote on Tuesday night.
The RDA is paying up to $990,000 and the project could run as high as $1.4 million.
The decision triggered a critical comment from “Bob D” on the Davis Enterprise site, that we will assume, based on name and writing style (as well as content), is Bob Dunning.
He wrote, “So the City is using taxpayer funds to overpay for one of the worst retail locations in town. Mr. Shri Kuber must be laughing all the way to the bank having sold this ‘white elephant’ that he ‘had a hard time finding a buyer for’ to the City of Davis.”
He adds, “No sane person would spend their own money on the property, but the city has no problem using other peoples money to buy this money-pit. No wonder cities, counties and the state are in dire financial straits.”
“There has never been a successful business at this location. There is a reason for that. It’s a terrible location!! It’s a rundown beat-up building that should have been torn down after the last tenant failed there,” he concluded.
I agree. I think this is a disastrous move for the city. First, it’s very expensive. Second, it likely dooms Caffe Italia.
Mr. Dunning believes that Caffe Italia will take the deal, then find a better location as soon as they can get one. He said, “if the restaurant doesn’t thrive at the new location they can just leave and move to a better one. My guess is they will be keeping an eye out for a better location as soon as they move in.”
He added, “Mark my words, in three years that building will be empty again and the city will probably turn it into a ‘Teen Center or a Library.”
To me this is nothing short of a panic move by council, using up huge portions of redevelopment monies, first to build a parking garage, in a prime location for other uses, that we do not clearly need. And second, to move Caffe Italia to a poor location, overpaying for it, in a move that will likely end up backfiring.
I understand the need to encumber the funds, or at least a few months ago I did. Now it seems reactive and unnecessary. Moreover, we have not thought out the consequences of these expenditures.
I expected better from this council than these decisions.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is the problem with government, just spending money for the ability to spend it.
What a crazy waste of money, and it shows how this country was brought to its knees.
[quote]the Hotel Conference Center, if done properly could be a huge boon to the city by attracting conferences and bringing in lucrative hotel tax fees to the city.
[/quote]
UC Davis is proposing to expand its conference center. Since it is on campus, it is likley to be a better draw for university conferences (which I expect would be the biggest draw). Has anyone looked at this? I am worried here about the lack of coordination between City and university. Who is minding the store? What is our “planning” staff doing to plan for UC Davis’ expansion?
How does everyone feel now about some of the “new” members of the council?
It’s beginning to look like business as usual.
It would be awesome if the peanut gallery would actually show up to the noticed meetings and offer comment on the problems and alternative solutions to these plans, instead of complaining about their government after the fact.
I posted this previously, but will do so again, at the risk of repeating myself:
[quote]I listened carefully to last night’s discussion at the City Council meeting on the garage. IMHO, Mayor Krovoza and Sue Greenwald had this one right in not supporting this project, even tho it was approved for preliminary design sketches on a 3-2 vote. Here are the issues:
1) This project does not have a demonstrated need. It is far from clear that there is a parking problem bc of lack of parking spaces. Other less costly solutions could solve the parking problems – such as freeing up the already unexplained, existing 300 vacant spaces for employees.
2) The city is putting the cart before the horse. If we build the parking structure, and charge a fee to park, people will just park on the street to avoid the parking fees, leaving the garage empty. Thus parking problems will still exist, and building the garage will have solved nothing.
3) The DDBA itself apparently appears to be very lukewarm about this project. Many citizens are very opposed to the project, including neighboring businesses. It just does not and never has had wide community support. THe DDBA apparently has stated, from what I heard at the CC meeting, that parking “is not a pivotal problem downtown”.
4) At least two City Council members see the opportunity to build electric charging stations inside the garage, but such charging stations can be built downtown w/o building an entire new garage.
5) We are talking about a 5 story parking garage, with the bottom floor as street retail. Aesthetically this would seem to be completely out of character with the neighborhood it is being placed in – the dead center of downtown. It will replace the existing parking lot next to BoA between E and F streets.
6) The advisory committee formed to look at transportation issues has not even weighed in on this project or the parking problems and possible solutions.
7) There is a parking problem/lack of parking spaces at the train station, so the train station location would be a more logical place to build a parking garage to solve an actual problem. Also, such a garage would be on the periphery of Davis, so aesthetically would not be as much of an ugly monstrosity.
8) The cost of each parking space in this new garage will be approximately whopping $50,000 per space.
There is no question this project was moved forward on the fast track bc of the RDA crisis. The future of RDAs in CA is still very much up in the air. A court suit is being fast tracked to the state Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the legislation doing away w RDAs/ransom payments to state for schools to save RDAs in some more limited fashion. It is a shame that the rest of the CC did not listen to the minority to scrap this project and move on to more worthwhile projects that are far less controversial. In the end, if the garage is built, it would use up 60% of the current RDA funding for a solution in search of a problem.[/quote]
“It would be awesome if the peanut gallery would actually show up to the noticed meetings and offer comment on the problems and alternative solutions to these plans, instead of complaining about their government after the fact.”
Oh I’m sure what’s written here is read by the council so our opinions do get noticed. I often email the council with my views on upcoming issues because it can be hard to make the meetings.
Regards,
The Peanut Gallery
By the way, has anyone noticed how bad the traffic has been on 5th St. since they have the westbound side closed down to one lane for construction? Is this what we have to look forward to once it’s permanently one lane?
David, I don’t think that you have accurately reported this item. The discussion of the parking lot was not contentious at all; the public and the councilmembers presented their respective positions. I gave a number of reasons why I thought a parking lot was a good idea, especially in light of the fact that we do not own the fifth and G parking lot and have only 17 years left on the lease.
My concerns were aesthetic. I didn’t think that a five story parking lot in the middle of downtown would look good. I mentioned that if someone who owned property at G street along the railroad tracks and wanted to partner to build a five story structure, I would be fine with it as long we owned the public parking component this time. I also presented modified ideas for the site under consideration (the old Blockbuster’s video lot).
In terms of the Hotel Conference Center/Cafe Italia, I don’t think you understand the finances at all, David. It is critical that we go forward with this project for purposes of bottom-line revenue for the city as well as the synergy it would bring downtown.,
I don’t have time to explain the revenue implications for you now, but I will try to get back to the site later today or tomorrow to do so.
Rusty: Glad to hear you’re contacting the council directly, which is a good alternative if you can’t make the meetings (sometimes better). Part of my concern is that we received zero public comment or attendance when this went through the Planning Commission.
Justin, which item do you feel had little public input? There was a lot of public comment at council about the parking structure and massive public comment about the fifth street road configuration.
If we divorce the Cafe Italia project from the hotel project (which we can’t, as the hotel project is about the only thing we can do to bring significant net revenue to the city), we agreed to purchase the property at market appraised value. Market appraisal takes into account location.
The old Denny’s building has been vacant for many years and this is one of the most blighted areas of town. Cafe Italia could turn this entire area around, help improve and bring in revenue from the adjacent underused hotel. This project deals with both a blighted area and economic development.
Sue: Great comments about the RDA plans. Regarding public input, I thought the public participation at council was solid; that said, it would have been useful to get public comment at the Planning Commission before this got to council. But it was more directed at the usual discontent from blog posters about governance without participation in the process.
[quote]Part of my concern is that we received zero public comment or attendance when this went through the Planning Commission.[/quote]
Did the planning commission approve this project, and if so, what was the reasoning? I have an open mind, and would be curious to know. I am aware of one alleged positive: if the garage is built, it will somehow be coupled with an extension of the current lease, set to lapse in 17 years, at the garage (I assume the one near the train station?) currently owned by a private entity? Someone correct me if I am wrong about this…
[i]”The decision triggered a critical comment from “Bob D” on the Davis Enterprise site, that we will assume, based on name and writing style (as well as content), is Bob Dunning.”[/i]
I would not assume that. I don’t know, but I think your guess is wrong and it’s not a good idea to base your later comments upon the assumption that “Bob D” is anything but a pseudonym for someone too cowardly to use his own name.
We love Cafe Italia. Go there quite a bit. The kid gets all excited about going drawing on the paper table cloths. But would we go to the new location? Certainly I don’t think we would as much.
[quote]I am aware of one alleged positive: if the garage is built, it will somehow be coupled with an extension of the current lease, set to lapse in 17 years, at the garage (I assume the one near the train station?) currently owned by a private entity? Someone correct me if I am wrong about this…E. Roberts Musser[/quote]Yes, you are right about this. Staff is negotiating the proposed project with the Yakzan group, who also own the 5th and G parking lot. Staffs’ idea is to include a major extension of the 5th and G parking structure lease as part of the package deal.
No; I probably should have been more clear. Expenditures on projects including the Parking Garage and Conference Center were detailed in the Capital Improvement Program budget for 2011-12 back in June.
I personally am extremely skeptical of Cafe Italia moving to the new location. I do not think it is capable of anchoring business in that part of town. Hopefully I am incorrect.
Sue, I’m bringing back since you felt unable to discuss this project prior the council meeting:[quote]”For what reason(s) do you call the lease agreement with the Yackzan Group “the fatal flaw with the 5th and G parking structure….”
How did what was seen as a win-win by members of that council become a flaw (a fatal one, at that) and “something I would never have voted for”?
As I remember, the developer needed to guarantee on-site parking for the building tenants for the life of the their long lease. The city benefited by the agreement to add parking for city use in the structure.
You sound so determined about this issue, but what benefit would have come to the city (by spending the money) to build/own/manage that structure?[quote]”Ken Hiatt also figured that if we worked with the Yackzan’s on the (new parking) project, it would be contingent on extending our lease on the 5th and G project for many decades.”[/quote]If it’s important for the city to get a longer-term lease (and big blue and white P signs) at this point, couldn’t you just call up a Yackzan and ask to renegotiate, rather than threaten them with loss of the new project?[/quote]Why are you so anxious to force the Yackzans to make changes in the 5th & G lot arrangement that you’d identify that as a benefit to spending millions for another ugly, unnecessary parking structure?
I missed this week’s meeting, but I’m assuming you’ll continue to oppose this project in spite of seeing silver linings in it, right?
I see no reason to believe that Bob D is Bob Dunning, and have good reason to believe it isn’t.
For once we have an RDA project that directly addresses genuine blight, and is in South Davis!
Does anyone else recall, back around 1970, when that restaurant site was an Italian place called Valentino’s? It was decorated on the inside with pictures of the silent movie lothario, Rudolph Valentino.
[quote]At $50,000 a space, one councilmember dismissively scoffed that we would become known as the city with the finest parking lot.—David Greenwald[/quote]Why didn’t you identify this councilperson? You usually do. For the record, it wasn’t me.[quote]How did what was seen as a win-win by members of that council become a flaw (a fatal one, at that) and “something I would never have voted for”?
As I remember, the developer needed to guarantee on-site parking for the building tenants for the life of the their long lease. The city benefited by the agreement to add parking for city use in the structure.
You sound so determined about this issue, but what benefit would have come to the city (by spending the money) to build/own/manage that structure? — JustSaying[/quote]Okay, let me explain. We paid a lot of money for that project as a joint public/private venture. Part of the parking went for the USDA, part for the public. I felt that we should have owned or had rights in perpetuity to the public section of the parking, given how much we had paid.
The benefit of owning the public parking section of the parking lot is obvious. Our lease would not end in 17 years.
A few years ago I talked to one of the former councilmembers who voted for the project. When I asked why we did not own the public share of the parking structure, that councilmember answered: “We don’t? I didn’t know that”.
Here’s a condensed video of Greenwald’s reasons for voting against this parking structure: http://patch.com/A-kzVW
To whom it concerns ,
“”””””The RDA is paying up to $990,000 and the project could run as high as $1.4 million.””””””
These council people are making horrible decisions , lets do a recall starting with ” Krovoza ” !
Avatar: Without revenue from somewhere, we will not have money to meet payroll or to pay our firefighters, for example. The Denny’s purchase is part of the plan to bring the hotel/conference center, and that will be a huge ongoing source of net new revenue annually in perpetuity.
[quote]Here’s a condensed video of Greenwald’s reasons for voting against this parking structure: http://patch.com/A-kzVW%5B/quote%5D
Note however, Council member Greenwald had no problem building a “scaled down” version of a parking structure of two stories, the bottom story containing retail. All that would do is build retail but keep the exact same number of spots already there, at a huge cost – which does not in any way solve the parking problem, but in fact makes it worse by increasing the number of businesses w/o the commensurate spaces to go with it. I don’t see that as a better alternative…
E. Roberts Musser: I articulated the following reason for exploring that option: We have few large spaces for anchors downtown, such as a scaled-down electronics store or a larger clothing store. If we built the space, we could control the tenants and lease to needed anchors in areas where we have sales tax leakage.
I don’t know how much it would cost to simply replace the parking by putting it on top of the retail. That is way I suggested exploring the option — to do the cost analysis.
Typo: That is why I suggested exploring the option — to do the cost analysis.
Sue
In line with your comment about a larger clothing store, our downtown would seem to me to be a good fit for an Urban Outfitter’s.
Do you know if this has been explored?