Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
City to decide on fate of Bel-Vue Apartments and Berry Hotel today
by William Burg, published on August 11, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Storyline: Central City Neighborhoods
Loading images
On Tuesday, August 11, the Sacramento city council will decide whether to give away the half-block from K to L on 8th Street, containing the Bel-Vue Apartments and several other buildings to developers Bob Leach, Mohammed Mohanna and Parkcrest Development. The land was recently purchased by the city from Mohanna at a price of $18.6 million, and the developers are asking not only for free land but several years of tax-free operation. The net cost to the city will be about $34 million, 25% of the total investment for the project, in return for about 10% of the return. The proposed project is a 300-foot luxury hotel at 8th and K and a parking lot on 8th & L where the Bel-Vue stands. The project would destroy all surviving structures on the project site. In addition to the landmark Bel-Vue, the 1895 Feldhusen Building and the circa 1910 Sam's Club building would be demolished, although neither has the status of city landmark.
The proposed project would also demolish two half-blocks of Sacramento's underground sidewalks, along the corner of 8th and K Street. The sidewalks are still clearly visible from the alley, as the photograph above shows. As with the loss of the Bel-Vue, approval of this project would mean the loss of structures that, despite having fallen into disrepair and disuse, are part of the city's historic fabric. By restoring these elements instead of demolishing them, the city can maintain resources that cannot be duplicated in modern construction, and provide valuable downtown housing and a potential historic site of great tourism interest.
The staff report mentions that city staff and the developer have not been able to come to agreement on business terms, due to the low rate of return for the city and the large investment the project represents. The "Exclusive Right to Negotiate" (ERN) between the city and the developers has been extended twice in order to work out details, but city staff is still not confident in the developer's proposal. The council has been asked to advise city staff how to proceed.
Full staff report is visible here:
sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php
In slightly brighter news, at the same meeting the City Council will hear (and hopefully approve) a plan to restore the Berry Hotel, just across the street from the Bel-Vue. The hotel was acquired by the city after another developer's plan to restore the building failed last year. The hotel is currently being vacated by the city, and is almost completely vacant. This plan would restore the interior of the building, providing long-needed repairs, and reopen the Berry as permanent housing for very low income individuals. The Berry has filled this role for years, but if this plan is approved, the building will be completely renovated and restored, and a social services agency will provide a staff person to work with disabled residents. The staff report is visible here:
sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php
These two projects are almost polar opposites. The restoration of the Berry Hotel promises to bring back a city landmark, restoring to occupancy a 1920s hotel. The project will house those least able to find housing, those with very low income, and it will be completed for far less than a new project of similar scale would cost. Across the street, the Bel-Vue was occupied by tenants until shortly before it was taken over by SHRA. It will be demolished and replaced with a parking structure. The proposed hotel project will be utterly infeasible without a massive subsidy, one that a city in the throes of a financial crisis cannot afford. Perhaps the City Council will review the Berry project and consider what else they might do with the Bel-Vue, a city landmark and apartment building, for less money than the developers' subsidy.
The meeting will be held at New City Hall, 915 I Street, Sacramento, at 6:00 PM in the main council chambers.
The full city council meeting agenda is viewable here:
sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php
(In the interest of disclosure, I oppose the demolition of the Bel-Vue and plan to attend in order to voice my opposition to the 8th & K project--and my support for the restoration of the Berry Hotel.)
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The Bel-Vue wasn't low-income housing, nor does it necessarily have to be; it could just as easily be market-rate or middle-income housing, or for-sale lofts. Repairing it would be much cheaper than building a new building. In fact, personally I'd rather see the Bel-Vue market rate, in order to encourage people with a wider variety of incomes in the neighborhood.
Just because a building is old doesn't mean it is a landmark--but the Bel-Vue is a landmark. It is a limited resource, one we can't get back if we demolish it. I'm not opposed to a good project on the corner of 8th and K--but let it use the vacant lot and fill the vacant space, and revitalize the existing corner by repairing and rehabbing the landmark. Saving old buildings doesn't mean you can't build brand-new ones right next door.
As for the other project ...ANY project that enriches that bottom feeder Mohana needs to be rejected out of hand, no matter who he brings to the table to make it appear to be legitimate.
Roseville technically has a "low-income housing" program but their idea of low-income housing is mandating "moderate-income housing" for people earning an amount roughly equal to the median income--their income thresholds for what they call low-income housing is much higher. And yes, I agree, that's not right, but it's not a decision that Sacramento can make for them. Because we are the big city in the region, and not a dependent suburb, we can't avoid the problem of low-income housing (or homelessness, the even bigger problem that occurs when there isn't enough) the way that Roseville can.
SRO housing is a special category of low-income housing called "extremely low income" or ELI housing. 15% of new housing is supposed to be low-income, but 5% of that is for people making 40K or less, and 9.5% is for people making about $25K or less. Only .5% (one two-hundredth) of new housing is affordable to people making $15,000 or less (the amount you make on Social Security or minimum wage) even though that represents about a fifth of the population.
I doubt the rehab of these hotels is as expensive as you think. I am sure the ADA compliance will cost a pretty penny. As well as the fire safety required by new codes.
The City can offer the developers incentive to retain both of the buildings but the City of Sacramento doesn't seem to understand redevelopment in the same way other cities do. It's a shame.
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/preservation/documents/Final-Sac-Reg-2007.pdf
Historic buildings can use the State Historic Building Code, which exempts them from some modern code compliance requirements, but there are ways to provide ADA access and fire suppression to historic buildings in cost-effective ways. Put it this way--the plan for the Berry will cost around $13 million, including ADA accessibility, fire suppresson and earthquake retrofit. How much would a new, 7-story building with 80 residential units cost, even using the cheapest materials?
Low bidders often apply "production" methods of slapping things together and do not hire skilled crafts people with applicable knowledge and experience as they are supposed to. Then they moan that their costs rise as they make one mistake after another.
There are examples of this kind of work in the central city already: the 14th & R lofts turned an old brick bakery into lofts and retail: within four months of opening, almost all of the lofts are sold and the retail units are full--primarily because the prices were very reasonable. ADA, fire suppression etcetera were not insurmountable problems there, and the proof is in the SOLD signs and the active storefronts. Meanwhile, new-construction condo projects down the street didn't fare so well: the condos were converted to rentals, the retail units often still vacant.