City Can Better Utilize Hunt-Boyer Mansion with a Restaurant

Back in December, the city council met to decide the future reuse of the Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer Mansion. Currently city staff are located in that building, however, they will soon be relocated to other city facilities and the city now has the choice as to how to use the building.

The city hired a consultant to do a feasibility study and consider reuse options which were narrowed down to a restaurant or a visitor's center. At the December 9, 2008 council meeting, the majority of the city council concurred with the staff report "that the visitor’s center concept is a better fit than a restaurant for this historic structure, as it would have the least physical impact on the building and would be far more economical to implement." However, in a compromise, Councilmember Stephen Souza constructed a motion that would allow the city to at least test the restaurant option.

Unfortunately by putting out a RFP (Request for Proposal) for only two months during these economic times may not be doing far enough in terms of actually allowing a potential restaurant owner to use the site.

The feasibility study identified a number of challenges with the proproposed restaurant.

The bottom line was:

"While the report acknowledges that the location is ideal for a restaurant and the building’s ambience would make for an elegant dining experience, the architect also determined that this use would require significant modifications and cost to accomplish."

Challenges include the following:

"The most logical place for the kitchen would be in the rear (southeast corner) of building with seating in the front rooms and upstairs. The typical restaurant would utilize approximately half of its square footage in kitchen space. The first floor is approximately 1330 square feet total. Loading would need to come from the rear (south) side of the building. The feasibility architect calls for an elevator inside the building. The Building Official believes that if similar spaces are provided on both floors an elevator could be avoided. The kitchen would need hood venting out the walls and roof of the building. A trash enclosure and grease storage/inceptor would need to be added in the vicinity of the building."

As a result of these challenges and the costs associated with them, the city staff went with the visitor's center option.

From the staff report, here's the central argument for the Visitor's center information:

"Several entities, including the city’s Promotions staff, downtown redevelopment staff, the Davis Downtown Business Association, the Davis Farmers Market, the Davis Chamber of Commerce, UC Davis and the Yolo Conference and Visitors Bureau regularly interact and partner to promote the downtown and the broader community. Each entity has a distinct purpose and personality, yet functions often overlap.

The concept for a Community Events and Visitor Information Center is to consolidate as many providers/promoters of community events, information, and attractions in one location. Ideally, a consolidated location would provide information about events, attractions and lodging; maps of the community and campus; a calendar of events; a small retail section of Davis/UC Davis/Yolo goods; ticket sales; and offices for the several of the organizations primarily responsible for promoting Davis. Unlike the traditional visitor’s center model, this co-location of Davis resources would serve as a central resource for Davis residents seeking information/tickets for local (City/Campus/County) events in addition to being a location for visitors to the community to get information. The benefit to the groups in the building would be shared resources and information, resulting in more efficient use of resources and successful collaborations. The benefit to the city would be increases in participation in local and regional events and spill over business activity."

From our standpoint, the Visitor's Center makes little sense in this particular location. The idea that these entities have shared functions is acknowledged, but that doesn't seem to require (a) the same location and (b) more importantly this particular location.

The visitor's center might be utilized by people who come from out of town to visit Davis, perhaps, but a restaurant would attract people not only from the city but also from out of town. Moreover, a restaurant would bring much needed tax revenue to the city.

While we acknowledge the current limitations of the building, the city actually has a pretty decent option in terms of making the upgrades necessary. The city estimates such costs would be between $750,000 and $1 million. However, due to the much higher rent the city could charge a restaurant as opposed to office usage they could offset those costs over a 10 to 15 year period by taking around 80% of the rent and paying off the costs while using 20% as the revenue the city would get from a visitor's center.

The restaurant has much to offer Davis. It seems a shame frankly to waste such a nice and attractive location on more offices. A high restaurant could provide fine food and dining experiences that Davis lacks at the moment. Moreover, if done properly the restaurant could have a more modest lunch menu that would cator to the university crowd during the day. The location could allow for both food and some sort of entertainment as well.

The city appears to be selling its property short by going for the quick fix in terms of a visitor's center. However, and this is part of the issue at hand, the city would need to be patient in terms of finding the proper suitor given the current economic downturn. However, the upside would be enormous and it is not like the building is being properly utilized at this moment.

The model would be to look at something like Bistro 33 and imagine the amount of revenue and the dining experience an upscale restaurant would bring to that part of Davis while adaptively reusing an historic building.

To me, the choice seems obvious, but the council to this point in time seems inclined to go another direction.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Power Shift on the Council: Souza Emerges As Power Center

The 2008 Elections saw Councilmember Don Saylor win the most votes to ascend to the position of Mayor Pro Tem, Davis' version of the mayor-in-waiting as Mr. Saylor will take over as Mayor in 2010. However, since the new session began, we have instead seen Don Saylor increasingly marginalized on the council. Emerging as the most powerful member of the council was Stephen Souza, who has acted as the swing vote on numerous key contented votes since September 8.

It is a small sample to be sure, just 12 contested votes (i.e. non-unanimous votes), but the pattern is clear. Souza has shaped the council's agenda voting with the majority on 11 of the 12 votes. Not only that, but he has played the role of kingmaker, shaping the direction of the policy. It is not only the number of votes, but the importance of the votes whether it has been on living wage, the Ogrydziak project, Cannery Park, and last week on both J Street and Hunt-Boyer.

Meanwhile it is top-vote getter Don Saylor who have been increasingly marginalized on the council as the vote of extremity, voting on the losing side of contested votes 8 of the 12 times. Mr. Saylor has been the lone dissenter on three of the votes including the Cannery Park, the letter on the Grand Jury Report, and the New Harmony CEQA. In addition, the Mayor Pro Tem has voted with Mayor Ruth Asmundson on the losing end of a 3-2 vote five times. The Mayor herself has been on the short-end of the vote on six votes.

By comparison, Lamar Heystek has found himself on the short-end of two votes, Councilmember Sue Greenwald has been on the losing end of just one vote.

These numbers alone understate the impact of Stephen Souza on the council. For one thing, these are just final votes. A good example is on the Cannery Park proposal. Councilmember Sue Greenwald made a motion to keep the current zoning in place and deny Lewis Planned Communities' application to change the zoning. That vote failed by a 3-2 vote. However, Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek would then join Mayor Asmundson and Stephen Souza in supporting City Manager Bill Emlen's recommendation to pursue an equal weight EIR.

In another example just this week, Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor's center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor's center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.

Souza was also the deciding vote on the living wage vote.

Perhaps the most interesting vote was on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Marie Ogryziak's project on B Street. Councilmember Souza abstained from taking a position in that vote. His abstention meant that the project would be denied for at least a year. After that vote there was a public exchange between Souza and Saylor.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

"I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment."

Mr. Saylor responded:

"So you deny the project by not doing either."

What is clear here is that Councilmember Stephen Souza now occupies the middle ground on the council on most contested votes. His is the swing vote. But for the most part, they are centrist votes. On both the Cannery vote and the Hunt-Boyer vote, he opposed to more progressive position of Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek and instead forged out his own compromise position.

But there is a notable point along those lines. On both of those votes (these are prime examples), Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek did not get their preferred option. In both cases however they were willing to compromise and work with Councilmember Souza to get a project or an outcome that was closer to their preferred option than the alternative. In that sense both Greenwald and Heystek have been very strategic in their votes and willing to compromise to get things accomplished. As a result, both Greenwald and Heystek have been in the majority on contested votes 11 and 10 times respectively.

The same cannot be said for Mayor Pro Tem Saylor who has refused to compromise and move from his core position in order to get things done. Despite his rhetoric of moderation, his actions have placed him on the most extreme end of the council this term.

The main caveat to this pattern is that it is a very short period of time, since September 8, 2008 and only on a few votes, 12. But it seems, that a new pattern is emerging on the council and the sharp dividing lines that had existed previously are beginning to breakdown. This is to the credit not only of Councilmember Souza but also Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald who have been willing to work with Mr. Souza to get things done.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Mishkas Cafe Project: Evaluating Historic Preservation with Commercial Development

The latest project that appears once again to threaten the historic nature of our downtown is the proposed redevelopment of a City-owned parcel at 604 Second Street between the historic Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer Mansion and the Varsity Theater. Currently, the site contains the Tank House and orange trees that contribute to the historic resources of the mansion.

The Mansion was built in 1874 and the Tank House was constructed sometime between 1874 and 1888. It was built to provide water to the Mansion and the grounds. It was originally located behind the house but was moved to its present location in 1979 to accommodate the construction of commercial development south of the mansion.

The Mishkas Cafe project would seek to demolish the Tank house, remove ten of the orange trees and then construct a three-story commercial building with the new Mishkas Cafe on the ground floor and two stories of office space above.

According to the Draft Environmental Impact report, the Mishkas Cafe project features competing goals and objectives. On one hand, the city is committed to commercial revitalization of the Downtown Commercial Core through the work of the Redevelopment Agency. On the other hand, the site being proposed contributes to the historic setting on the Hunt-Boyer Mansion.

The question here is whether one can achieve the proper balance between economic and commercial redevelopment and historic preservation.

The project proposal would have a number of significant and unavoidable impacts. First it would significantly impact the immediate visual context of the location. Second the removal of the 10 organge trees which are eligible for listing as Landmark trees represents a significant impact.

Third, "The Proposed Project would demolish the Tank House and 10 historic orange trees, contributing resources to the listed Dresbach-Hunt-Boyer Mansion, and would trench for foundation and utilities for a new three-story building. This would be a significant impact."

Fourth, the demolition of the Tank House would remove a listed contributing structure to a National Register property, again a significant impact. Also fifth, the height of the building would reduce the open space around the Mansion and again be a significant impact on the historic setting. Sixth, the trenching for the foundation and utilities for a three-story building would have a significant impact on loss of cultural resources.

While the project proposal contains a number of significant and unavoidable impacts, there are six project alternatives. These range from no project, to reducing the height to two stories to moving and rehabilitating rather than demolishing the Tank House.

According to the EIR, the sixth alternative which involves disassemble/ reassemble and rehabilitating the Tank House in its present location for commercial or public use--such as as a visitor or public information kiosk. There would be no significant environmental issues associated with this alternative. However, while it would meet historic preservation goals, it would not meet Downtown Core Commercial goals and policies including the creation of an economically viable project that generates direct fiscal benefit to the city.

According to one source, a two story building would be acceptable to the developer. As mentioned above, the tank house was originally moved from behind the mansion to the east side of the property. Moving the pump house to the west side of the property would be preserve it and be viable in terms of historic preservation. In fact, it would give it more visibility as it would move it closer to the street rather than between the Mansion and the Varsity Theater.

There is great concern about the downtown area's economic viability. We have recently lost or are losing a number of long-time businesses. Running an independent coffee shop is the type of economic activity I would like to encourage in the downtown area rather than discourage as long as key aspects of historic preservation can be maintained. Moreover, having a coffee shop next to the theater seems like a good use of coordinate commerce.

Therefore, so long as the pump house is in some way preserved, I would like to see an alternative aspect of this project go forward.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting