Tag Cloud
Friday, February 10, 2012
800 K/L-Belvue Demolition Plan Returns To City Council
by William Burg, published on August 24, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Storyline: Central City Neighborhoods
Community Tags
bel-vue
bob leach
consus
hotel
john dangberg
landmark
mohanna
preservation
redevelopment
Loading images
On Tuesday, August 25, the Sacramento City Council will hear a proposal by developers Bob Leach and Parkcrest Development to build a hotel at the corner of 8th and K Street and a parking structure at the corner of 8th and L Street, a project that would require demolition of city landmark the Bel-Vue Apartments and adjacent buildings. The meeting will be held at New City Hall, 915 I Street, at 6:00 PM in the main City Council chambers.
The item was originally to be heard at the August 11 meeting of the City Council (see sacramentopress.com/headline/11884/City_to_decide_on_fate_of_BelVue_Apartments_and_Berry_Hotel_today ) but was taken off the agenda at the last minute. According to the staff report, the "Exclusive Right to Negotiate" between the city of Sacramento and the developers expired on Sunday, August 23, but city staff can still work with the development group while a new RFQ (Request for Qualifications) is being prepared, a process that should take about 90 days according to the staff report. If city staff and developers cannot reach an agreement, the new RFQ will request proposals from other developers and development groups for a different project on the 800 K Street site.
Also according to the staff report, city staff had not fully analyzed the new proposal as of its submittal date of Friday, August 21, and could not provide complete comment. One change from previous proposals is a change to requested exemption from the hotel's "Transient Occupancy Tax": instead of 100% exemption from TOT for 10 years, they are asking for 50% exemption for 14 years. According to the accompanying financial documents, this would add up to approximately the same total subsidy for the project, but over a different span of time.
Another change is that Mohammed "Mo" Mohanna is no longer listed as a member of the development team. The staff report does not specify whether another investor has joined the team in Mohanna's place, or whether one of the existing investors will contribute more funds to make up for Mohanna's financial contribution to the project, or why this change has taken place. Most of the financial commitment comes from the Korean firm Consus, but the city has not yet received a formal commitment with complete terms and conditions from Consus.
The staff report does mention that the original "Exclusive Right to Negotiate" for this project occurred as a condition of a lawsuit settlement between the city of Sacramento and Mohanna, in addition to the city's payment of about $18 million to Mohanna for the land.
The total subsidy for the project is estimated at $31.5 million in land and tax exemption (both transient occupancy tax and tax-increment fund exemption.) This amount does not include the money previously paid to Mohanna for the property as a result of the lawsuit settlement.
The staff report does not address the issue of a potentially competing hotel project planned for the corner of 10th and K Street, nor does it address the issue of the demolition of the Bel-Vue landmark.
The staff report for this item can be found here:
sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php
The agenda for this week's City Council meeting can be found here:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
I truly cant believe how much money that is...$31.5 million!
Also it is amazing with all of the city owned and empty at night parking lots that the developer wants to put up another garage. Most hotels in most modern cities have partnerships with garage operators and rarely seek to own their own parking lot. Propose a condo tower and get some people downtown. oops I forgot the city will require parking structure for that.
Mo is still involved, the city cut a deal with him when they bought 700-800 blocks of K street. They are keeping him hiding because they are about to get hit with a FAT LAWSUIT for the gifting of public funds, which is unconstitutional.
We really don't need another hotel and parking garage right now. Certianly not at the expense of an historic structure. There is so little that is intact-historical left downtown that we should really think about cataloging and grading the quality of historcial structures so we can develop a policy that says if anyone who wants to build something they need to try to incorporate the higher grade old structures into the design. There are plenty of other sites downtown full of sub-standard structures (including some ugly long mutilated 'historical' buildings) and surface lots in which to build.
I'm just afraid of yet another hole or surface parking lot downtown. Can we really trust the same unsophisticated, small thinking people who have insulted us and degraded our urban environment?
I'd hate to see more buildings/history lost because short sighted people want to build on those sites, rather than check out other areas which would be less harmful to the city's history. How long is it until they tear down the governor's mansion because it happens to be a prime spot and they need another hotel?
I'd prefer that they get the concessions that they are asking for on the vacant lot, in exchange for bringing up the existing hotel to code and entirely renovating it. Something similar to what was done at the Sheraton at 13th and K.
http://www.preservation.lacity.org/survey
Sacramento's Preservation Department currently consists of ONE PERSON, who is already pretty overloaded, so they don't exactly have a bunch of staff to do surveys (or, well, any staff.) There have been surveys performed over the years, but the current city management is not particularly interested in preservation.
About the Governor's Mansion, I know you meant it as a joke, but it is actually on the list of State Parks that is likely to close because of the recent cuts to the Parks budget.
There's not much to it but it could be rehab'd like the Firestone Building was but I wouldn't be opposed to replacing it altogether (as long as it wasn't replaced by another parking garage).
The Preservation Department currently consists of only ONE person? Maybe that's the problem. Not enough people are involved. Why couldn't we get together local architects, historians, preservationists and other interested citizens and do 'working tours' of downtown -where we use the existing data and take a section of the central city each time and go block-by-block, photograph the buildings, learn the history, discuss the merits of it's physical and social contribution and then everyone vote or grade each building.
They could be comfortable Sunday brunch walks limited to say 1-2 hours, every 2nd Sunday. It would get people involved, make them more aware of what Sacramento does have or what it lacks and do a public service. We not only will have addtional information in which to use we will also have more people who are knowledgeable and now a stake in the outcome of our downtown .
Some of that information can be found here:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/preservation/
An informal, volunteer-based group would have a tough time producing a consistent, rigorous survey. That requires central coordination. Buildings in historic districts are not decided upon by vote--assessments of buildings is based on analysis of the building, comparison to the applicable criteria, and available primary and secondary sources. It's not just about whether a building is pretty or not.
The Greyhound Building was not "removed" as such, basically an older list using "homebrewed" criteria was scrapped and a new list (that was based on national criteria for historic buildings) was created. Most of the old buildings were put back onto the new register, but the Greyhound and Berry were not, despite the fact that both were identified as eligible by a survey of the central city done in 2001. The condition of the buildings did not significantly change (loss of integrity) nor did the criteria by which the buildings were nominated change (change in significance.) They were just left off, for reasons unknown.
Sacramento's Preservation Department used to have several staff and a supervisor, but several positions were eliminated in recent budget cuts. Some city planners were cross-trained in preservation to temporarily fill the gap, but those planners were then moved to other departments, leaving nobody trained in preservation except one person who had previously been the unit supervisor. Currently there is one unpaid intern working under the one remaining staff person, on a part-time basis. I suppose in the eyes of some folks at City Hall, one preservation staff person is one too many.
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/preservation/faqs/demolition.cfm
Also, if they do end up arranging that walkthrough as Mr. Leech(?) suggested, I'd be interested in going along, if that's an option.
Mr. Leach doesn't own the property, the city of Sacramento does, so he doesn't have the authority to authorize a walk-through. City Councilmember Cohn suggested a walk-through of the site, and invited me to go along, but I don't know how many other people will be allowed to go, as there are safety and liability issues. Rest assured that if I do get a tour I will take plenty of photos and post them here!