YES!!!

Please read the staff report - thankfully it is honest. There is no possible way to fund the 99 Million dollars in subsidy (ie: taxpayer dollars) that Rubicon Partners is asking for. The two plans selected by the Selection Committee and supported by the Downtown Sacramento Partnership and preservation advocates alike (dismissed outright by the Council Ad-hoc Committee) are doable, spread out the risk therefore lessening the risk of failure, and ask for only a few million dollars in subsidy. The plan the Selection Committee recommended is doable within 18-24 months (not five years or more) and can be financed with current resources. This plan from Rubicon cannot. The Boqueria idea was lifted almost verbatim from the Railyards. So it's not even their vision. It is a great idea that can be incorporated into the Taylor/ D & S Plan. The very nature of the Promenade (D & S Development) and the rehab of Landmarks and housing and retail mix proposed by David Taylor - adding local destination retail, two live music venues and workforce housing so people who work downtown might actually be able to live there too - is a grand and bold vision for K street - reminding us of our urban hertiage not trying to destroy it. The Rubicon plan takes too long and costs too much - not just dollars. It chokes off funds from other worthy projects in other parts of the city. The Ad-hoc Committee -our electeds - ignored the professionals on the Selection Committee and the professionals in our city Economic Development Department and are setting us all up for another expensive failure on K Street. This attitude that our urban history is not worth preserving, and that our home-grown businesses aren't good enough for the rest of the region is absurd. We seriously need to get over our inferiority complex. Thanks Council Ad-hoc committee for setting us up once again for a colossal failure on K Street.

url (link) to the staff report on the council agenda webpage:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=21&event_id=98

The Rubicon proposal has too much financial uncertainty. Look at the Staff Report closely. The recommendation made by the Selection Committee, Downtown Sacramento Partnership, and Sacramento Old City Association is the correct one. Staff says on page 9 flat out that the parking bonds Rubicon seeks are not possible! And permit fee waivers are expected too!? Yeah right!

If anything, it's the Rubicon proposal offering very little substance...financial substance, that is...

Read the staff report. I want a project that gets built. How shall we raise the non-existent 125 M dollars - is Rubicon hiding a money tree somewhere? Maybe a bake sale. How will this get built? These are the ugly facts. The most extraordinary project doesn't matter if it never gets built. The other project plans are far from ordinary and they too meet to goals for K Street. Sacramento's experiments with 'bold' and visionary has left us holes in the ground like like the never built Saca Tower at 3rd & Capitol (still a hole in the ground). And that was during the boom that we failed and now in this environment we are sure to fail - as noted by several economic forecasts that agree California's recovery will be slow. The successful blocks downtown are a bold blend of old and new. It takes a lot more creativity and vision to work in an urban environment / the already built environment. Rubicon is all style and no substance. When one examines the facts and hard truth the pretty pictures aren't so pretty.

The staff report really is some interesting reading.

This isn't a final decision--this is the result of an "ad-hoc" City Council subcommittee consisting of Mayor Johnson and the three city council members in the central city (Tretheway, Cohn, Fong.) It's a very political decision--they chose the dramatic and expensive project, while the city-appointed committee of architects, planners and city staff chose the reasonably-priced project.

This decision, along with the staff report, goes to city council this Tuesday the 13th. At that meeting, Council will decide whether to enter an Exclusive Right to Negotiate with Rubicon.

Some interesting bits from the staff report:

Page 2: "As this plan was broader than the RFQ requirements, staff requested a revised proposal with project concept and finance plan clarifying what could be developed on Agency-owned property. No consideration was given to the inclusion or acquisition of the non-Agency-owned parcels since the RFQ was based on property owned by the Agency."

Page 4: "The Selection Committee met three times to review the initial RFQ responses, conduct developer interviews, and evaluate additional information. Based on the qualifications, proposed concepts, proposed financing plans and evaluation criteria in the RFQ, the Selection Committee recommended that Promenade on K (D&S Development and CFY Development) be selected for the 700 block of K Street, and that the 700/800 Block LLC (David Taylor Interest, the CIM Group, Domus Development and Zeiden Properties) be selected for the Agency sites on the 800 blocks of K and L Streets."

Page 7: "The project cost, assuming free land for the revised plan (only for development on Agency-owned property), is projected to be $210M with a public subsidy need of $99M. Identified subsidies total $19M with a subsidy gap of approximately $80M. In addition, the team is proposing a parking bond of $25M to construct on-site parking. (Note: At this time, there is no identified capacity for the City to issue this $25M debt."

Page 8: Project Costs/Funding Sources (for project on Agency-owned property)
(note: figures are 700 Block + 800 Block)
Private Equity/Debt: $110.88M
Public Resources
Agency Tax Increment $14.8M+$14.23M
Agency Contribution for Hist/CEQA $1M+$1M
Permit Fee Credits $3.35M+$4.35M
Public Resources (State/Federal) $36M
Subtotal Public Resources $19.15M+$55.58M=$74.73M
Parking Bond $14.45M+$10.28M=$24.73M
TOTAL PROJECT COST $210.34M
Maximum Tax Increment Currently Available $19M
Unidentified Funding Gap $80.46M

The total proposed project cost is $210.34M with $110.9M of private debt and equity and a balance of $99.46M proposed from public or public/private sources."

page 8-9:"At this time, the Agency has approximately $19M of unobligated commercial and low/moderate income income funds available to support new projects in the Downtown area. No additional funds are anticipated for approximately two years.
"As part of the proposed finance plan as listed above, the team is proposing a public/private parking bond of $25M to build necessary parking. During these economic times, the City does not anticipate issuing any additional bonds or incurring any City backed debt thus alternatives would have to be developed for the parking elements of the project.
"It will be the development team's responsibility to further refine concepts and identify funding to fill the gap during the ERN performance period."

Public outreach is listed on page 18, including endorsements of the Selection Committee recommendation (the D&S/Taylor split plan) by the Downtown Sacramento Partnership and the Sacramento Old City Association.

So...the city has $19 million in redevelopment funds. Rubicon is asking for $99 million, including forgiveness of about $8 million in projected development fees, and around $2 million from the city to pay for environmental review documents. The $25 million parking bond is above and beyond that $99 million, for a grand total of $124 million in public subsidy. So, they are asking a city that just had to slash programs left and right to fill a $44 million deficit to provide, in addition to all the money in our redevelopment fund, twice the amount of the last deficit, PLUS bankroll a $25 million bond (while the bond market is sluggish at best and the city is in no position to be borrowing money) AND they somehow obtain another $100 million in the current lending/housing market from private investors.

Yup, $124 million in public subsidy. Ludicrous.

Would I be deemed a visionary genius if I propose to build 25 Dubai like towers throughout the central city but just need $400 billion in city subsidy to do it?!

Slashing programs and doing rolling brown outs of fire stations to balance our 2010-2011 Budget. Yeah we're really able to support this project.

Observation:
I've been following this K Street discussion for several weeks now and attempted to shed some light on most of the comments expressed above in earlier SacPress articles. I greatly respect the passion and time everyone places on a public project discussion of this kind, but . . . few of you seemed to be willing to consider other explanations to your conclusions.

Does everyone really think that the four members of the Ad-hoc committee, all publicly elected officials, and the members of The Sacramento Alliance Team (made up of Rubicon Partners, St Anton Partners, and Preferred Capital Advisors, with respective resumes of $400M of Commercial Development, 4,000 Residential Units Owned and Managed, and $4.5B of Real Estate Transactions, who have been involved is such projects as The Citizen Hotel, The St Anton Bldg at 2110 L St, MAARS, and The R St Safeway Project – many which involved forms of Public Funding) are involved in a conspiracy to rob the City blind?

If these groups had this intention, why would they do it in a highly public process like this one? There are other ways to steal from Municipal coffers that are much less visible, with higher chances of success.

Furthermore, no one has considered what the result of a larger project with Civic Amenities, Entertainment and Dense Workforce Housing over Unique Retail Establishments that attract customers from through-out the region is:
-more construction and permanent jobs,
-more sales tax generated,
-more real estate tax generated,
-more blight removed,
-new visitors to our Downtown,
-more cars parked in our empty parking garages in the evenings and on weekends,
-more business to the existing shops and restaurants on K Street,
-less cannibalization of local neighborhoods, etc.
When Sacramento gets more, We all win. All of us.

We are better than this, Sacramento. We have such amazing Potential, it’s time to Unlock it.

The members of the Ad-Hoc Committee and the Sacramento Alliance have a proven track record of Making Sacramento Better Tomorrow than it was Yesterday. Why would this change on the 700/800 Blocks of K Street?

In the end I predict David Taylor will get the project this is all smoke and mirrors - the blatant bid steering to David Taylor over the years has gotten soooo blatant that they want it to look like a competition and a fight for the project...

Council members will use this project to leverage more campaign money from Taylor.

Theft? No. Too strong of an adjective.
Misleading? Yes. Inaccurate? Yes. Totally outright NOT POSSIBLE? Absolutely.

Paino, you've been all over these comments. So let's see answers to my key questions and be done with it. Staff report says parking bonds aren't possible. So how are you going to obtain? Don't just say it's been possible in other cities. And same with permit fee waivers? And same with equity evidence? And same with construction lender? Can you confirm that you've obtained? Staff Report says NONONO! Finally, why did THREE significant groups NOT vote for Rubicon?

Two questions. Is this public market going to be some sort of upscale high rent farmers market? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Let's get Nugget, Raley's or Whole Foods in on this and integrate the Boqueria with a larger concept, of an actual grocery store in the downtown area. The boqueria is great and all, but are all these new residents of downtown going to live off of produce, wine and cheese alone? And another thing... in regards to the rendering. I think I've seen about thirty different architectural renderings in the past 12-18 months, none of which have even begun to look like actual buildings, save for the mermaid bar, geriatric rhythm, and pizza rock. Enough with all the "render-smut" and build something! Stop getting my hopes up!

There is so much skepticism and reluctance when it comes to proposing new developments. I certainly hope that, that fear doesn't prevent us from reaching for greatness. We constantly whittle away our ideas and visions at the earliest stages so that they somehow feel 'achievable' before we've even realized if they may not be. As a designer, we learn to not edit ourselves out of reluctance, but to constantly push our ideas further and further and ask what if anything were possible? What would we do then?

Reviving K street and downtown Sacramento is not about what's easiest, or cheapest, or simply preserving the old or replacing it with the new, but about crafting fresh, rich experiential ideas that transcend. Ideas that are not only bold, but imaginative and energetic, that say here you are, and there is no place like it.

The concept of a regional market is as old as trade itself, it predates our entire country and draws inspiration from the oldest market places of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. I want amenities like the Boqueria in my city because I grew up in California and I know and love all it has to offer. To me the Boqeuria is a destination portal, through which we can see, taste and feel California's legacy of food and abundance in all it's glory and share it with the rest of the world. In my humble opinion The Boqueria is not a 'flashy' cover up but a genuine attempt at creating greatness and flaunting our natural resources, the earth, the sea, the sun and all the abundance it yields for us.

We need more big dreamers, wild-eyed visionaries and unbridled entrepreneurs to lead us into a future of greatness.

From Staff Report:
"No additional funds are anticipated for approximately two years. As part of the proposed finance plan as listed above, the team is proposing a public/private parking bond of $25M to build necessary parking. During these economic times, the City does not anticipate issuing any additional bonds or incurring any City backed debt thus alternatives would have to be developed for the parking elements of the project."

If this passes, it will be your classic demolish historical old buildings, run out of funding and leave a gaping hole in the ground. We still have vacant lots/parking lots left from the 60's in downtown. I really hope this doesn't get chosen. Those of us have spent time the buildings and basements of the 700 block know how great those buildings are.

This is about Vision, but it has to be Achievable.
Personally I get confused with all the different numbers flying around in Sac Press, SN&R, SacBee, and BizJrnl
Let's give Rubicon a couple of months to try to make this work, if they can't prove that it's achievable then we have some good alternatives, and all we've lost is some time.
Sacrificing a couple of months is worth the shot at a Grander Vision, in my opinion.

No! Lets's not give Rubicon Partners a few months. We have been waiting over six years and while Rubicon Partners tries to scramble for cash that isn't there, the two projects selected by the Selection Committee would have been already completed or darn close. In the time it will take them and the money they'll suck from the rest of the city, the other two projects would be completed. Rubicon is trying to bring a typical (not visionary) and formulaic suburban development downtown and instead of clearing trees and fields they're clearing our urban hertiage and the only asset that distiguishes us from the suburbs. Their concept drawing looks very much like the totally unimaginitive city of Irvine (sorry Irvine but it's true you are not interesting at all). Just because it's big and new does not mean it is visionary. I am so sick of hearing 'it's bold'. What is really bold is actually getting commercial tenants and residents back to the area, both of which will happen if the Council does the right thing and listens to their Selection Committee. Besides Rubicon lifted the Boqueria idea almost in its entiretly from the Railyards cause it polled well. The farmers market comes in phase 4 over five years out which translates to real people speak - it never gets built. If phase 1 is even started it will take up so much money it is likely phases 2-4 will never get built because the city will have nothing left to give in subsidy for the other phases. So keep dreaming everyone because if the Council chooses this (Rubicon et. al) that's all you'll have is your dreams cause there won't be anything happening on K Street.

I was at the Boqueria Open Forum a few weeks ago. This market is clearly backed by the Agriculture and Tourism community - which generate Hundreds of Billions of Dollars in revenue a year(Food+Ag alone is $300+ Billion). Sounds like they will be called on to bridge the funding gap, and they are definitely capable of bridging it!
In my opinion it's worth choosing the bigger vision, give Rubicon 3-6 months and see if they can pull it off.
K Street needs some Vision!

JSS - the lobbies are lovely but that is about 10% of the building. I was in it many times before Rubicon got their hands on it and many times since. 90% of the interior was gutted and dumpstered and the exterior alterations did not meet Secretary of the Interior Standards for rehabilitation and the Citizen 'rehab' missed out on federal tax credits becuase of the extent of the alterations. They did a nice job in ensuring the building is still around and making it a viable use -that is true. But let us not confuse the issue. The comparisons Mr. Paino makes are apples to lemons. The Rubicon K Street plan will not keep anything except the front few feet - this is NOT preservation or adaptive re-use. It is facadism- the most disingenuous form of rehab and largest possible insult to environmental sustainability and an existing building. The citizen barely squeeks by as adaptive re-use -what is left is only a shell. The Bel-Vue on the other hand was an occupied market rate apartment building until the city took ownership in 2008 and evicted everyone. A few structural engineers (including one at the communty meeting sponsored by the city in April) said rehabbing the Bel-Vue as an apartment building would not take a huge amount of money - likely a main reason Taylor wanted to rehab it as an apartment building. Rubicon will gut this one. The audacity of them to compare the Citizen to what they plan for the Bel-Vue and the Pacific States Bank Bldg (aka Mens Warehouse) is an outright fabrication on their part. These buildings are just in their way.

Mr. Burg's historic preservation credentials are unmatched. It seems he is constantly championing the cause of promoting Sacramento history and preventing it from slipping away as time and development take their toll. The passion expressed here by all is a testament to the vision everyone has for Sacramento's future. I have had the opportunity to peek behind the curtain at Rubicon Partners and I can assure you that preserving Sacramento history is a top priority in their consideration of project development. I would urge all the critics to seek out Rubicon and offer your suggestions for molding the project to best preserve the historical integrity some fear we may be losing. Mr. Paino has an ear for everyone and a personal vision for maintaining an historic Sacramento.

Sacramento needs additional destinations to help draw visitors to showcase the history we value. The Boqueria California will be a destination for international visitors and a boon for the Convention and Visitors Bureau to bring more food and agriculturally related conventions to the Golden State capital. I urge you to take another look at what this project brings to Sacramento, and get on board. Give Rubicon your support and your input, you will find a receptive audience open to change.

Talk is cheap. Actions speak. It is premature to believe anything you hear - from any developer frankly not just Rubicon Partners. What is their plan for the Landmark Bel Vue - save wall or two! What is their plan for the Pacific States Bank - gut it and put in the knitting factory - a music venue whose time had come and gone 20 years ago. The rest of the buildings will be destroyed if they get their way, The only hope for the buildings on K is a scaled back project because the city is out of cash. K Street does not need tourist attractions, in need residents and a neighborhood and reconnection to the rest of the city. The Rubicon plan is modeled after the same garbage ideas that gave us downtown plaza - bring the burbs downtown- it didn't work then and it won't work now.

Staff report states in several areas the Rubicon parking bond subsidy requests are not possible. Throw in Rubicon's ridiculous request for millions in permit fee waivers and the lack of full preservation. Rubicon proposal can't be built. Taylor and D&S/CFY proposals are exciting and can be completed in 2 years. Every group backs Taylor and D&S/CFY except for this mysterious ad hoc committee with who knows what political motives behind them. This discussion is over.