Revised Plan Reduces Rear Stories to Three, Rooms to 118
After several months of discussions about the Hyatt House, the council will finally consider approval of the extended stay hotel proposed for 2750 Cowell Blvd, with 120 guest rooms and a four-story structure, which after negotiations with neighbors will be reduced to 118 rooms and three and a half stories, with the elimination of the fourth story facing the neighbors.
At the last public meeting on November 1, 2016, the council directed a city-sponsored professionally facilitated conversation between the project applicant and neighborhood representatives. The meeting was held on November 29 and facilitated by Orit Kalman. According to the staff report, “The meeting consisted of identifying issues and concerns from the perspectives of the neighborhood and the development team.”
While there was some headway in that meeting, issues of lighting, noise, parking and size remained. A second meeting occurred on January 10.
Staff reports, “Progress was made on a number of items by jointly agreeing to project modifications and developing conditions of approval to deal with the concerns surrounding noise, parking and lighting which will be elaborated on later in the staff report.”
At this point two issues remained: size of the building and a contribution to support local neighborhood improvements.
At the January 10 meeting, “the development team presented a redesigned building that eliminated all fourth floor rooms that faced south towards the neighborhood by incorporating a single-loaded corridor at the rear of the fourth floor with the remaining guest rooms facing north with views towards Cowell Boulevard.”
While the redesign significantly reduces the massing on the rear and reduces the overall room count to 118 rooms, “[t]he neighborhood representatives expressed appreciation for the development team’s efforts but also voiced disappointment that the entire building was not reduced to three stories.”
On the second issue, “After reviewing the redesigned building, the neighborhood representatives requested the applicant consider if there is anything that could be done to help address neighborhood concerns regarding a potential change to their quality of life and property value by making a contribution to targeted park and greenbelt enhancements within the Rose Creek neighborhood.”
The neighborhood took the view, “considering the redesign of the building did not go as far as the neighbors had desired in reducing massing, that a contribution, coupled with all of the other efforts may help in reducing opposition for the majority of the neighbors if there were specific benefits the neighborhood would receive should the hotel be built.”
The applicant has created a proposed Rose Creek Neighborhood Park and Greenbelt Enhancement Fund. The fund contributions would be calculated based upon a formula of $1.00 per night for each guest room sold. The fund would be administered by Parks and Community Services.
The neighbors “desire a one-time contribution to redesign and reconstruct a greenbelt mini park at the end of Brentwood Place and to utilize any remaining contributions at Village Park.” The neighborhood also “desires the funding commitment to be binding and either be made by the City through the use of fees generated from the project or if that is not possible, by the applicant directly.”
In addition to the one-time contribution, ”the neighborhood desires the Rose Creek Neighborhood Greenbelt and Park Enhancement Fund proposed by the applicant be increased from $1.00 per night, to $2.00-$3.00 per night and have the term continue as long as there is a hotel operating in the project location.”
Staff writes, “In reviewing the requests associated with the park improvements, staff concurs that the playgrounds referenced are nearing completion of their useful life and staff supports playground replacement, pending identification of funds through the budget process.”
Staff notes the new design: “The building height facing the neighborhood to the south is reduced to three stories and 37 feet. The northern portion, facing Cowell Boulevard, would remain at four stories and 48 feet (and a higher tower element). Room count would be reduced from 120 to 118 guestrooms. The fourth floor hallway facing south would have clerestory windows and motion controlled, bi-level lighting, with a condition of approval (COA# 66) that reduces or eliminates the exterior view of corridor lighting.
“The screening for the south-facing windows proposed earlier would be added to the second story guestrooms, as well as the third-floor rooms.
“The building redesign allows for the previously ground mounted photovoltaics to be relocated to the roof on the third story increasing optimal efficiency addressing previous concerns voiced during public comment.”
The pool area will have a wall facing the south in order to block noise to the greenbelt and neighborhood. All parking lot lighting would be mounted on bollards or shorter-than-standard poles. Moreover, they will make parking adjacent to the greenbelt as employees only. Staff notes, “This condition was developed to address concerns with the potential for parking lot noise adjacent to the greenbelt and nearby neighbors.”
Staff adds, “In addition to reducing potential noise by limiting the parking in this area to employees, it also ensures that there is parking available to employees which helps address a concern about offsite employee parking.
“While this requirement reduces guest parking flexibility, neither the applicant nor staff is concerned with the adequacy of guest parking given the proposed transportation program that would be provided by the hotel coupled with the increasingly car free travel patterns of business travelers,” staff continues.
The existing bike path connection from the greenbelt to Cowell will be located to the western edge, which staff believes “would reduce the likelihood of hotel guests or employees parking on Albany, as well as provide greater convenience to hotel guests with UC Davis or downtown destinations.”
Finally, the city staff report notes, “To address concerns with privacy and building screening, the property owner would revamp and maintain the greenbelt plantings adjacent to the property as long as a hotel or building of similar mass remained on the site (COA#111). This would be enforced through a covenant recorded on title to the property.”
The question is – the applicant and city have made a concerted effort to address neighborhood concerns about noise and privacy. They clearly do not go as far as the neighbors wanted by reducing the project to three stories, but they have gone a long way towards addressing neighbor concerns. Will this be enough to get neighborhood support or at least non-opposition? Or will the neighbors continue to oppose the project at the meeting on Tuesday?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Does it really matter? Even if the council gives it a green light it I’m sure it wouldn’t surprise anyone if an endangered rodent or butterfly was currently habitating in that field.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.
I was being facetious, but it wouldn’t surprise me if something similar to the burrowing owl litigation filed against Marriot Residence Inn doesn’t come into play here too.
After all, this is Davis.
The more serious threat was the letter from attorney Don Mooney, objecting to the mitigated negative declaration
https://i2.wp.com/www.davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Hyatt-Jan-2017-e1484919738577.jpg?resize=1000%2C399
Those are the biggest burrowing owls I ever saw!
LOL, good find.
Ahhh… ‘blackmail’ … the neighborhood will not support the project, despite payment of wehrgelt… big down payment, then $3/night/room in perpetuity to serve “the neighborhood”… one should understand it is not good to try to negotiate with ‘terrorists’… so much for someone’s concept of ‘collaboration’… and if they don’t get the $ from the developer/owner, they want it from the rest of us… cute… it is clear this is a neighborhood that Mr Rogers might well have shunned… how ’bout just giving the neighborhood a “Big Bird”? They apparently already have the Grouch and the Cookie Monster… and perhaps Miss ‘Piggy’.
[moderator]. CONTENT DISCOURAGED (or “FOR SELF-RESTRICTION”)
Generic Insults. Pejorative references to any general class of people are strongly discouraged. The Editorial Board asks commenters to understand that general insults discourage the participation of others. They contribute to a negative tone and strongly suggest disrespect for the views of others. In some cases, general insults oversimplify the positions of others, which is detrimental to informed and respectful debate. General insults that are provocative are especially discouraged.
I agree with Howard P. This sets a bad precedent. Anytime a developer puts forward a project will this lead to people living nextdoor seeing how much they can extract from the project before they’ll give it the ‘nod’?
I would point out that this is not something new and therefore doesn’t set a precedent.
I know the city will sometimes negotiate tradeoffs but I’ve never heard of neighbors demanding special fees being added on an ongoing basis like this?
Really? In perpetuity?
Where else has a development paid a special exaction, over an extended period of time, for the specific benefit of an adjacent “neighborhood”? I can’t think of a single project, yet you say there has been… please expound…
I didn’t realize we were being that specific.
Being that specific?
This is a whole new ballgame. It’s perpetual income for the neighborhood’s use and it’s not just pocket change.
David…you wrote…
I would suggest you give one cite to support that “truth”… if it is…
Then, when I asked for an example, you wrote,
“I didn’t realize we were being that specific.”
Are you copying the new President’s modus operandi?
Selective enforcement tactics also “discourage the participation of others.”
“Really? In perpetuity?”
Not saying that I agree or disagree since I had not ever considered this before. But I would like to point out the the effects of the presence of the hotel, both good and bad, will be present “in perpetuity” throughout the life time of the hotel.
As would any project anywhere in Davis. So don’t you think this sets a precedent where a neighborhood will have a stream of continual money coming their way? Why wouldn’t the next project in Davis be exposed to the same type of demands if this were allowed here?
Let’s say that the hotel averages 75% occupancy. That’s 90 rooms x $3/day x 365 =$98,550/year.
Heck, they might have to hire an accountant for that kind of funds.
Keith
“ So don’t you think this sets a precedent where a neighborhood will have a stream of continual money coming their way?”
I don’t know whether or not it would set a precedent. What I do know is that those who profit from the hotel are intending to do so for as long as it is in operation. So I am a little unclear that if there operation is detrimental to others, why the mitigation should not also last the duration of the project.
Let’s use Trackside as an example. What if the Trackside neighbors demanded a $3 per night fee on all of the condos for sale or rent? Do you see where this can lead?
“The Rose Creek Neighborhood Greenbelt and Park Enhancement Fund” even sounds like a mob protection scam, lol.
Kieth
“Do you see where this can lead?”
I certainly see “where this can lead”. I also have seen and can see where development by exception has and will continue to lead. I do not favor either. What I favor is a collaborative process beginning well before any extensive plans have been made. I favor projects that conform to zoning and design guidelines.
No, there are amendments to zoning, amendments/clarifications/modifications to design guidelines… do you not realize that current zoning and design guidelines were “exceptions” to what previously existed? “Development by exception” may well be a Davis “urban myth”…
I think this is brilliant. It isn’t a tax that local residents will pay. It will be paid by people visiting Davis. It’s a local transient-occupancy tax that will fund local greenbelt and park improvements. If it sets a precedent, great. There’s nothing new about TOT’s. The only thing unique is that the funds will be specifically directed to one part of town. Nobody complained about the RDA taxes only being spent in one part of town. Evidently that wasn’t an issue. And this isn’t even taxing local residents. What’s the big deal?
So, Don, will it be ADDED to the TOT taxes, or will it be a portion of the TOT taxes, diverted to one neighborhood? If the former, how does that affect the competitiveness of the proposed project? If the latter, what benefit, as far as TOT revenue, will the project have to the City as a whole?
Please explain… should the TOT taxes from Embassy Suites go to Olive Drive? Should the TOT from the proposed project on Second go to Mace Ranch Park?
So much for the concept of economic development for the City as a whole… perhaps the City should reject all proposals that favor immediate neighborhoods… at the ‘expense’ of the entire City…
And, for the record, there were many who complained about where RDA revenues were spent… yet, RDA revenues did not affect anyone’s tax rates… another myth…
From the description I would say added to the TOT taxes.
I would assume the developers would not be entertaining the idea if they felt it would jeopardize the project’s competitiveness.
Sure. An additional TOT of this sort could be implemented there, above the existing TOT. They could use some greenbelt and park improvements there. Like, really seriously they could.
Excellent idea. Same principle. This is additional.
This is just one of the many ways funds are raised and spent. The project overall would still benefit the city as a whole.
I don’t know, I raised the issue here repeatedly and nobody ever seemed to agree with me. I felt RDA funds were needed in East Davis more than they needed pedestrian bulbouts and such downtown. I felt the RDA funding mechanism had long outlived its intended purpose. So I would favor a high degree of specificity as to what these funds could be spent on. I also think it’s a good idea for things like this to sunset eventually. Perpetuity is a really long time.
So, you supported diverting taxes, diverted from the downtown and South Davis (no additional taxes from anyone) to East Davis… interesting…
Ken Hiatt tried to spend RDA funds on E. Eighth… perhaps he should have proposed diverting some of the funds to Fifth Street, between L and Pole Line…
No, I didn’t support that. I supported abolishing the RDA and using tax dollars more generally for economic development in the actually blighted parts of the city. I took a lot of flak for that here.
I assume Ken couldn’t “spend” funds on E. Eighth because it was not in the redevelopment district.
No, our portion of Fifth Street is fine, thank you. I specifically addressed, repeatedly, the blighted shopping center on E. Eighth that declined for so many years after the grocery store closed. I felt that signage along the busier corridors might help direct traffic to it. I felt that curbside improvements could have been made to make the center more attractive. I felt that the city could work with the property owners to improve the appearance. I said this repeatedly. I also commented on the issues with the shopping center on Arlington. I felt that it was wasteful to siphon off property tax increment to special projects downtown when we had other parts of the city where actual blight was obvious.
Why are you now making this personal? I don’t get it.
Don… I acknowledged the E Eighth Street ploy… you did not clarify that, particularly when you posted a quote, apparently attributed to me, that has since been removed… you did not specify E Eighth Street… you said “East Davis”… that includes Fifth between L and Pole Line…
Was not meant as ‘personal’, but not so sure about your references to me/my posts.
Said my piece… I’m good if you are. have a wonderful evening… sincerely meant…
It was ‘blighted’ because the City’s protectionist policies required a specific type of store at the location, one of the many protectionist policies that you have consistently supported over the years.
A bit more to that, Mark… once the occupants moved out, for various (including ‘corporate’ reasons… the Albertsons/Luckys thing) reasons, the site had ‘asbestos’ issues… tile and insulation… the owner/new tenants had to deal with updated codes…but your points were very much in play, and I don’t know which predominated…
And yet, curiously, after they fixed the place up they were able to find tenants who met the city’s requirements and appear to be popular in the neighborhood. Perhaps that would have happened sooner with some help from the city in making the site more attractive and providing better signage for passing motorists. My point was with respect to the unequal and inequitable distribution of tax revenues for beautification projects.
Don… think your 9:29 post would have been best placed under Mark’s, not mine… but truly, I care not…
“And yet, curiously, after they fixed the place up they were able to find tenants who met the city’s requirements”
Actually, no. The Dollar Tree did not meet the City’s requirements and required a zoning exception before it was allowed. The property remained vacant for years at significant cost to the neighborhood and the other stores in the complex while waiting for the City to agree to the change.
Oh… you should check in with David… he declares [as ‘fact’] that the precedent has already been set… yet demures as to where/when…
Suspect you will do likewise as to my questions…
You suspect wrong. Why are you so pissed off all the time?
Apparently there was a connection failure when I responded (or, more accurately, tried) to your 7:10 post… will try to reconstruct… (and elaborate, based on your subsequent post)
I appreciated your fair responses to my fair questions… I disagree, on principle, to “designer” fees/taxes… DDBA assesses themselves… no problem with that…
I do believe the $2-3 per day per room, to benefit a small area of Davis is a form of ‘blackmail’… and even then it is not clear that even if the developer/owner agrees to that, the “neighborhood” will sign off… maybe if it was $8-10 they could get the neighborhood to agree, but even that is speculative… all the spokespersons said was they’ll attempt to get a sign-off…
I’m a “process” person, and do get ‘pissed off’ with folk who appear to be acting in a ‘bullying’ manner, using the planning process and the ‘raw’ politics as their ‘foil’… guilty as charged… I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of the mob… guilty as charged…
Yeah, when I see ‘bullying’, raw politics, etc., I get ‘pissed’… guilty as charged… guess I’m wired that way…
If that offends you, get David to ban me from this site… I won’t protest…
Oh… so a portion of your 7:10 post later disappeared… you had attributed a quote (apparently) to me that I never wrote… it’s gone now, apparently… good to have the “controls”, n’ est pas? My 7:53 post was composed when the false attribution was still “in play”…
My only point was that neighbors are always extracting things from developers, to me this just continues that practice, I was meaning to comment as specifically as my comment seemed to be taken.
Is there a “not” missing? Just seeking clarification…
Yes, hard to accurately type on a phone sometimes
And David, the accurate way of wording your apparent point is that “neighbors have often gotten the CC to ‘exact‘ special benefits” … this indeed has happened frequently… usually deeding a portion of the developer’s property to them… Arlington Farms/Hudson Court, Covell Park Northstar, Senda Nueva, etc. The term is ‘squishy’, as the neighbors in the three cited specifically had the developers’ acquiescence… the CC just “blessed” it. [Same was proposed for the failed WH project]
None were ongoing exactions, as far as I know… this is different…
I can see that point and it’s a legitimate one.
I think this sets a very bad precedent. It’s already hard for projects to go forward in this town as has been outlined by the Vanguard many times. All this will do is create another obstacle for developers as neighbors from now on will see what happened here and expect the same type of dividend.
There is another way of potentially looking at this. The neighbors believe – that this hotel will have an ongoing negative impact on their neighborhood. Over the last several months there has been a fairly robust and at times contentious discussion over just how much of a negative impact it will have on the neighborhood. But I know that for some of the neighbors they will have a direct line of sight impact for others it’s more indirect. Bottom line is that to offset that ongoing impact, the hotel is making a relatively small contribution somewhere between $1 and $3 on a $175 or so a night room. That creates an ongoing fund to off-set that harm. I don’t think that’s the most unreasonable thing in the world. I would definitely prefer that to a reduction in rooms which could impact city finances.
A relatively small contribution? As I pointed out at $3/night that amounts to @$100,000/year forever (or as long as there’s a hotel there). I’ll bet the Trackside neighbors and other communities that have developments going in are paying very close attention to this.
Even at $3, which has not been approved, it’s still a less than 2% fee. And I see this as a possible solution going forward to off-setting negative neighborhood impacts.
I like how you frame it to try and make it look small, it could possibly amount to $100,000/year.
Question, if this goes through do you think other neighborhoods are going to go for the bucks anytime there’s a new project coming their way?
Trackside for instance?
It could also be $30,000 a year. If it’s $100,000 a year, it’s still out of more than $6 million. Put it this way, we pay what 8.5% on sales taxes.
Here’s my thinking – right now, we have all of these proposals that are putting more dense projects in the midst of less dense existing neighborhoods. That creates some sort of negative impact on the neighborhood. There is also huge uncertainty in the process going forward for applicants. So what if we create a system whereby, negative impacts are off-set by on-going funding for neighborhood enhancements in exchange for greater certainty for applicants going forward. That could be a win-win.
I can imagine the possibilities, just think about it, all new Trackside residents being hit with a $50/month neighborhood tax or something else along those lines. That’s not far fetched either, each Hyatt hotel room could provide up to $90/month.
How is that any different than the residents of Cannery being hit for a CFD?
I’m thinking the Paso Fino neighbors wish they could now go back and renegotiate.
Paso Fino neighbors got the project reduced to six units preserved the trees and the greenbelts.
Yeah but where’s the monthly fees?
So if the neighbors are wrong and their property values rise due to the improvements in the neighborhood from the Hotel, are they going to share that increased value with the developers?
If one used recreational marijuana, one could think so… otherwise, something about a snowball’s chance in hell… yeah, I thought about that aspect, too, but was reluctant to post the thought… I affirm yours, though…
Weren’t you against the Cannery CFD?
This nothing like a CFD… [thought we covered this ground before]… what is proposed is an ongoing contribution for a earmarked benefit for a tiny slice of Davis. If it was a one-time contribution, it could be seen as similar to the ‘community benefit’ contributions outlined in the DA, and then later ‘financed’ by the CFD mechanism, which arguably reduced the developer’s “cash flow” problems (most of the major infrastructure financed could not be “phased” to match home sales). Yet, the ‘community benefit’ portion of the infrastructure financed by the CFD, was a very, very small piece of that.
The ‘community benefit’ piece, was intended for City-wide benefit, not ‘payola’ for abutting properties…
Perhaps we need a ‘chief negotiator’ for the Planning division… they need to have auctioneer training, and have studied “The Art of Making the Deal”… depending on the true motivation of actual ‘participants’/concerned, ‘collaboration’ vs. ‘extortion’ might be a murky distinction… but, it appears the die is cast… at least for Hyatt… those who support this approach need to own its ramifications on future projects…
If I am correct, I’ll be doing the “I told you so” thing in the future… if I am wrong, I’ll own that.
I’m with you there Howard P. After this I don’t see too many projects going forward without the project’s neighbors getting a slice.
The question will more likely be “is it a slice, or a pound of flesh”….
“So what if we create a system whereby, negative impacts are off-set by on-going funding for neighborhood enhancements in exchange for greater certainty for applicants going forward. That could be a win-win.”
John Gotti?
This is extortion, plain and simple.
Not if you create an external structure to the process
I may be reading this proposal wrong, but it appears to me to be a Greenbelts Maintenance Tax (said another way, a subset of a Parks Tax). The money will be sequestered in a new Special Fund by the City and administered by the Parks Department. This is an approach that is similar to the way the Measure O Open Space Tax revenues are managed.
The one question I have, as both a citizen and a Finance and Budget Commission member, is what level of Fund balance will be considered to be “enough” to ensure both flexibility and speedy responsiveness in the continued maintenance of the Greenbelt trees in the specific geography immediately between the hotel and the neighborhood. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that amount is $100,000. That would appear to support a robust level of tree replacement in the case of wind storm damage (like the City has experienced in the past few days) or replacement of diseased trees.
Also for the purposes of discussion let’s split the difference, and set the daily fee half way between $3 and $1. That generates $64,000 each year. So imagine that in years 1 and 2 there is no expense to the fund (no trees need to be replaced). That means you begin year three with a Fund balance in excess of the target $100,000. In Year 3 how should the Parks Department use the combined Fund surplus and year 3 revenues?
Wrong question Matt… nothing like measure O…which collect money from the entire community, and disperse it arguably for the benefit of the entire community. There used to be LLAD’s, which collected additional taxes/fees from certain areas, to pay for the maintenance in that area. Parks tax is collected city-wide, and apportioned city-wide.
The “neighborhood” wants the money spent for improvements to a mini-park and a park… appears they’ll still be expecting the City as a whole to cover the greenbelt trees…
Your commission will be facing a new animal… where revenues come from a specific property, but are dispersed to a very narrow slice of the community… good luck with that…
Your idea of compromising on the amount of what I believe amounts to extortion, I cannot support…
Howard, serious question . . . how is this any different than any one of the myriad of current development impact fees that projects have been paying in one form or another for decades?
Regarding the differences/similarities to Measure O. Both are maintaining and/or acquiring a public asset. Both are serviced by a standard City Department. The public asset in both cases does not serve all citizens equally, but it does serve any individual Davis citizen who chooses to interact with the asset. If anything, the greenbelt between the hotel and the Albany Street lots is more universally valuable than the open space land affected by Measure O transactions.
The access to the greenbelt in that specific geography is unfettered and currently very actively used/accessed by hundreds of Davis residents each and every day. How many Davis residents use/access the Measure O Open Space parcels on a daily, weekly, monthly, annual basis?
If any of the money were going into private hands (to the residents of the Rose Creek neighborhood), I would oppose the idea, but as I understand the proposal, no money does go into private hands. It goes into the City’s coffers to maintain a City asset/amenity.
Measure O… where are the revenues generated… CITY-WIDE!
The greenbelt… common to the project and the Rosecreek neighborhood… the neighbors do not want the money used there… (according to the accounts I’ve seen, to date)…
Where the neighbors want the money spent is the mini-park at the end of Brentwood, and Village Park… period… end of sentence…
Current park tax… all pay, whether they use the parks/greenbelts or not…
There is no “nexus” that I think would stand up in court, for the hotel paying 100% for the local enhancements, and having neither benefit nor “impact” to those facilities…
If the ‘neighborhood’ said that the common greenbelt got the ‘first fruits’ of the assessment, and/or ponied up the same assessment for their properties @ $1-3 per night of use of their homes, I could get on board… but neither of those appear to be happening things… I’ll give you a call, later…
But the City has little or no say in how the money is spent. The City needs to retain the ability to prioritize spending, and special accounts like this prevent that from happening. This would be very bad policy and I am surprised that a member of the FBC would support it.
Mark West said . . . “But the City has little or no say in how the money is spent.”
Is that correct Mark. According to the staff report, “In consideration of the neighborhood representatives’ request, the applicant has revised their project description to include a Rose Creek Neighborhood Park and Greenbelt Enhancement Fund. The fund contributions would be calculated based upon a formula of $1.00 per night for each guest room sold. The fund would be administered by the Parks & Community Services Department and used for targeted park and greenbelt improvements within the Rose Creek neighborhood based upon neighborhood feedback
In reviewing the requests associated with the park improvements, staff concurs that the playgrounds referenced are nearing completion of their useful life and staff supports playground replacement, pending identification of funds through the budget process. Staff has been actively preparing a preliminary, 5-year implementation plan for park & playground equipment replacement which includes an allocation of $80,000 for Village Park playground equipment replacement in 2019. The replacement of targeted greenbelt play structures in the area is also budgeted for in the following years. The 5-year implementation plan is preliminary and would require approval by the Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission and the City Council. If there was a desire by Council to increase programming at either location, an increase in funding would require further budget allocation as the replacement costs staff is currently anticipating would be similar to existing programming.”
Matt – My comments refer to the neighbor’s demand for fees that continue in perpetuity and benefit only the neighbors, not the short-duration fee that the Developer offered to help fund a specific project.
The proposal from the applicant is ten years, not in perpetuity. The request is from the neighbors to increase the fee and make it in perpetuity. I don’t believe the council is going to do both (but who knows).
Also as Matt points out, it’s actually a community benefit because not only is the park open to all but removing the city from needing to fund its upgrade/ maintenance is a full community benefit.
Mark, you have come around full circle to the underlying reason I asked my original question.
There are only a limited amount of public amenities in the Hyatt neighborhood. The staff report addresses the trees in the greenbelt between the Hyatt and the lots on the north side of Albany, and the City-owned “Village Park” for which the City is facing a capital infrastructure maintenance expense replacing the playground structures that are approaching the end of their useful life. So the key question, for me at least, is how should the Parks Department use any ongoing Fund surplus and/or surplus annual revenues? If there is no publicly-owned neighborhood amenity that requires funds do the funds then become available for use in maintaining Parks infrastructure outside the designated neighborhood?
Note: I haven’t said I support it. I said I have questions that need to be answered/clarified. With that said, the fact that the hotel team is not objecting to it outright tells me that it is worth understanding better. It may have potential as a City funding mechanism. I emphasize . . . may.
Matt – my understanding is that the hotel team views this as the best way forward, but they aren’t happy about it.
It precludes the City from spending the funds on higher priority projects, so it does not benefit the entire community. It is a tax that benefits one specific group over the City as a whole and is an example of bad policy. The neighbor’s demand for increasing the tax and making it permanent is an attempt at extortion.
David, you are probably right about the hotel team’s sentiments. I haven’t spoken to them to know, but it does sound like a Jagger/Richards moment.
Mark said . . . “It precludes the City from spending the funds on higher priority projects,”
No it does not, because absent this particular agreement with its particular terms, there would be no such funds to spend.
Matt –
The City has a number of infrastructure maintenance issues that are currently unfunded. Just because the City has identified this park as one that will need to be rebuilt does not mean that the City will choose to prioritize this park over all the other projects that also require funding. This is intended as a tax that allows the neighbors to determine how the City should prioritize spending its limited resources. Why this park and not another? If this is intended as a City wide benefit, it should be placed into a fund that can be spent on any park project in town, not just the one or two in the specified neighborhood.
I hear you Mark, and what you illuminate is a three scenario decision tree.
Scenario One — within the limitation of the existing City revenue sources, the infrastructure items in the proposed Hyatt neighborhood would be low enough priority that their maintenance would not get funded, and they would continue on their current life cycle trajectory.
Scenario Two — within the the limitation of the existing City revenue sources, the infrastructure items in the proposed Hyatt neighborhood would be high enough priority that their maintenance would get funded, and they would bump other capital infrastructure maintenance items off the budget, and those bumped items would continue on their current life cycle trajectory.
Scenario Three — with the supplementation of the existing City revenue sources through the expanded/enhanced by the Rose Creek Neighborhood Greenbelt and Park Enhancement Fund revenues, all the infrastructure items in Scenario One plus the proposed Hyatt neighborhood projects will get done. Further, since the number of neighborhood projects is limited, once those projects have been done, the combined expanded/enhanced revenue streams will mean there will be completion of projects elsewhere in the City that otherwise would not have otherwise gotten completed.
So, in the words of Monty Hall, which door do you want to select, door one, door two or door three?
Perhaps, in the spirit of transparency, the fee should be shown on each bill for what it is… as a special neighborhood appeasement charge (SNAC) [or, add the term Rosecreek, and we could call it SNARC]
Anti-development B.S.
Nah… ‘ABS’ might be confused with a plastic pipe material… a non-transparent one…