He writes:
Hi David, First of all, thanks for all of the time and effort that you put forth in maintaining the Davis Vanguard as an independent source of information and as a gathering place for interested Davisites.
Yes, flattery will probably get me to pay attention and at least consider helping you out.
As you are aware, the Parks & Rec Master Plan update is underway. A survey is available online that gives residents a first opportunity to voice their opinion on the future of parks, recreation, and natural habitat in our community. I was hoping that you could encourage your readers to take 6-8 minutes out of their busy day to complete this survey… there are plenty of opportunities to broaden the assumptions of the survey questions/choices by typing your personal responses as well.
http://www.city.davis.ca.us/pcs/masterplan/
FYI, the OS&H Commission will be meeting in joint session with Parks & Rec Commission in February to discuss matters of mutual interest.
Yes, and as Mr. Pope should be aware, I have been a strong opponent of using city funds in conducting another Parks and Rec Master Plan Survey, particularly when we had a large amount of unfinished projects from the previous survey. I am far from convinced that we need to do a survey to find out what people’s usage of parks resources is and how we can better serve their needs.
It’s not that I do not think these are important questions–but given limited resources, I do not believe this is the best use of $75,000.
Nevertheless, I give Mr. Pope space here for the very reason that he indeed asked. I want to encourage the city to start thinking outside of the box. The city did a survey back in the spring and discovered an amazing thing, while most people still received their information about the city of Davis from the Davis Enterprise, the percentage had dropped steeply from the previous survey. The internet had strongly increased as a source for information and news about the city. For the city, trying to get information out to the public, that means that they have to use non-traditional means.
I took the survey, it is a difficult survey to take in some ways unless you use the parks a lot, I’m not sure how helpful the feedback will be. It was interesting that in the end, it asked if people should be able to smoke in the parks and then if people should be able to drink in the parks.
The big thing I have noticed in the parks especially when I take my young nieces and nephews there is that we need to be able to keep the equipment in good maintenance. Other than that, I really do not have much to say about the parks, we seem to have a good amount of parks in the city, a good mix of large parks and small neighborhood parks. In any case, the city doesn’t ask the one question I wish they would, whether they should be spending $75,000 trying to figure out what the public’s needs are in terms of parks and rec.
Along the same lines, I note that the owner of Westlake Plaza is requesting a change:
“to the General Plan and zoning for the center to allow a remodel of the vacant 22,000 square foot supermarket space into new retail and office suites ranging from approximately 160 square feet up to 3,000 square feet. The owner of the center has signed a lease with a small food store to occupy 3,000 square feet at the front of the former grocery store space.”
So let me get this straight, the owner wants permission to take what is currently a very small grocery store space and reduce it down to 3,000 square feet for a small food store? And they already have signed a lease with a small food store? There is a Circle K less than three blocks away, what would be the difference between the “small food store” and the Circle K that is literally right down the street?
“The General Plan currently requires the center to have a grocery store/ supermarket. The new food store does not meet the 15,000 square foot requirement. With the requested amendments a grocery store would be allowed but not required at the shopping center.”
There are a few things I do not understand. First, why the city is not more supportive of continuing neighborhood grocery stores. Second, the owner of Westlake has allowed the quality of the building to degrade substantially over the past 10 years. They are finally doing some basic upgrades to the facilities. The city has a continued policy that rewards owners that allow their property to degrade.
Unfortunately there was a neighborhood meeting for this last week. Now this goes before the planning commission in January and before the city council in February.
I just think West Davis can do better than to take what was once a small but functional 22,000 foot grocery store and turn it into a 3,000 foot food store.
Then again, I am still dreaming of having a Trader Joe’s there as I think the proposed location in the University Mall would be a disaster in a lot of ways.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Actually, the revised proposal for the Westlake Plaza is a 6,000 sq ft grocery store. The issue is that none of the larger markets were able to make the space profitable, and the owner of the center has been unable to get anyone else interested in moving into the space. The space has been empty for over a year. The owner decided to pursue 6,000 sq ft, rather than 3,000 sq ft, due to community concerns. Also, the owner is putting in about $1.5 million to renovate and upgrade the center.
I think it’s far more important to have a thriving center with a small grocery store than it is to hold out for a larger grocery store and let the center become even more of a waste than it currently is.
Actually, the revised proposal for the Westlake Plaza is a 6,000 sq ft grocery store. The issue is that none of the larger markets were able to make the space profitable, and the owner of the center has been unable to get anyone else interested in moving into the space. The space has been empty for over a year. The owner decided to pursue 6,000 sq ft, rather than 3,000 sq ft, due to community concerns. Also, the owner is putting in about $1.5 million to renovate and upgrade the center.
I think it’s far more important to have a thriving center with a small grocery store than it is to hold out for a larger grocery store and let the center become even more of a waste than it currently is.
Actually, the revised proposal for the Westlake Plaza is a 6,000 sq ft grocery store. The issue is that none of the larger markets were able to make the space profitable, and the owner of the center has been unable to get anyone else interested in moving into the space. The space has been empty for over a year. The owner decided to pursue 6,000 sq ft, rather than 3,000 sq ft, due to community concerns. Also, the owner is putting in about $1.5 million to renovate and upgrade the center.
I think it’s far more important to have a thriving center with a small grocery store than it is to hold out for a larger grocery store and let the center become even more of a waste than it currently is.
Actually, the revised proposal for the Westlake Plaza is a 6,000 sq ft grocery store. The issue is that none of the larger markets were able to make the space profitable, and the owner of the center has been unable to get anyone else interested in moving into the space. The space has been empty for over a year. The owner decided to pursue 6,000 sq ft, rather than 3,000 sq ft, due to community concerns. Also, the owner is putting in about $1.5 million to renovate and upgrade the center.
I think it’s far more important to have a thriving center with a small grocery store than it is to hold out for a larger grocery store and let the center become even more of a waste than it currently is.
6000 is better than 3. However, 22,000 was a small grocery story, this is just over one quarter the size. So we’re talking more like a convenience store than a grocery store.
6000 is better than 3. However, 22,000 was a small grocery story, this is just over one quarter the size. So we’re talking more like a convenience store than a grocery store.
6000 is better than 3. However, 22,000 was a small grocery story, this is just over one quarter the size. So we’re talking more like a convenience store than a grocery store.
6000 is better than 3. However, 22,000 was a small grocery story, this is just over one quarter the size. So we’re talking more like a convenience store than a grocery store.
I’m glad they are putting in $1.5 million to renovate and upgrade, they needed to do that five years ago rather than letting the place go to hell. It’s not just the location that has driven away other vendors, it’s that the place was poorly run and maintained.
I’m glad they are putting in $1.5 million to renovate and upgrade, they needed to do that five years ago rather than letting the place go to hell. It’s not just the location that has driven away other vendors, it’s that the place was poorly run and maintained.
I’m glad they are putting in $1.5 million to renovate and upgrade, they needed to do that five years ago rather than letting the place go to hell. It’s not just the location that has driven away other vendors, it’s that the place was poorly run and maintained.
I’m glad they are putting in $1.5 million to renovate and upgrade, they needed to do that five years ago rather than letting the place go to hell. It’s not just the location that has driven away other vendors, it’s that the place was poorly run and maintained.
Agreed – it would be more like a convenience store and the owners did let that place go to hell.
Agreed – it would be more like a convenience store and the owners did let that place go to hell.
Agreed – it would be more like a convenience store and the owners did let that place go to hell.
Agreed – it would be more like a convenience store and the owners did let that place go to hell.
Davis Republican- No, it’s 3,000 SF, not 6,000. I have seen the plans. He does have plans (although currently no tenants) for some other “food service” places adjacent to the store, but the store, itself, would be 3,000 SF.
The owner, Jim Barcewski, bought the strip mall knowing that the CUP requires a 15,000 SF grocery store. The grocery tenants have gone from mediocre (Ray’s) to pathetic (Food Fair). Who wants to shop at a grocery store that carries wilted produce?
Mr. Barcewski says he has made an effort to find a grocery tenant, but it is unclear how serious he is about that. He insists on a rent of $1.50/SF. His local effort to find a tenant appears to consist of running a 1″ ad in the Enterprise.
What Mr. Barcewski WANTS to do is to convert the space into offices (which are more profitable for him). He is asking to have the grocery store requirement eliminated from the CUP.
If he had bought the center with an unrestricted CUP, that would be one thing. However, he bought it knowing of that condition. Now he wants to change the rules to benefit himself – to the detriment of the neighborhood.
I am reminded of the man who bought a cat at a pet store. After a month, he wanted to return the cat. When asked why, he replied that the cat didn’t act like a dog.
Mr. Barcewski may not like his cat….but that’s what he bought.
It is clear to me that another grocery store of Food Fair quality would suffer the same fate. However, a somewhat downsized, high quality, specialty store might do very well.
I don’t know what the “right” solution to the problem is, but I hope the eventual solution will provide some benefit to the community, as well as Mr. Barcewski. To simply allow him to change the rules to his maximum benefit without an associated community benefit would be literally “giving away the store.”
West Davis does not need another convenience store. How many times has Circle K been robbed?
Davis Republican- No, it’s 3,000 SF, not 6,000. I have seen the plans. He does have plans (although currently no tenants) for some other “food service” places adjacent to the store, but the store, itself, would be 3,000 SF.
The owner, Jim Barcewski, bought the strip mall knowing that the CUP requires a 15,000 SF grocery store. The grocery tenants have gone from mediocre (Ray’s) to pathetic (Food Fair). Who wants to shop at a grocery store that carries wilted produce?
Mr. Barcewski says he has made an effort to find a grocery tenant, but it is unclear how serious he is about that. He insists on a rent of $1.50/SF. His local effort to find a tenant appears to consist of running a 1″ ad in the Enterprise.
What Mr. Barcewski WANTS to do is to convert the space into offices (which are more profitable for him). He is asking to have the grocery store requirement eliminated from the CUP.
If he had bought the center with an unrestricted CUP, that would be one thing. However, he bought it knowing of that condition. Now he wants to change the rules to benefit himself – to the detriment of the neighborhood.
I am reminded of the man who bought a cat at a pet store. After a month, he wanted to return the cat. When asked why, he replied that the cat didn’t act like a dog.
Mr. Barcewski may not like his cat….but that’s what he bought.
It is clear to me that another grocery store of Food Fair quality would suffer the same fate. However, a somewhat downsized, high quality, specialty store might do very well.
I don’t know what the “right” solution to the problem is, but I hope the eventual solution will provide some benefit to the community, as well as Mr. Barcewski. To simply allow him to change the rules to his maximum benefit without an associated community benefit would be literally “giving away the store.”
West Davis does not need another convenience store. How many times has Circle K been robbed?