Thai Restaurant Pros and Cons

— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 29 June 2008 — 2 comments below »

It is easy to understand why many residents want to see Sala Thai move-in to the restored Civic Arts Building on Railroad Avenue. We have waited a long time for development to flourish along the Waterfront, and because of misguided actions by the City Council and City Manager, as well as market forces, we have not seen that growth. However, commercial business was never intended for the southern end of Railroad, and the proximity of the restaurant to historic homes and a neighborhood park seem counter-intuitive when evaluating the nature of the restaurant and its supposed operating hours. In turn, it is just as easy to understand why residents do not support the restaurant.

Let’s look at the pros and cons for the proposed eatery…

PROS

We need something. One resident put it best, explaining that he supports the restaurant “because it is the only sign of anything happening at all [in the Waterfront].” Unfortunately, that statement is true. The Powder Keg will be opening within the next month, but after that, there isn’t anything on the horizon. The Waterfront will continue to be a project “with promise” for the foreseeable future.

The City needs to do something. They have been pushed (or pulled) into a corner. The City now openly admits the Szabo plan was a complete disaster, so they are honestly trying to right that ship. People want a place to eat; Sala Thai will serve that demand.

Sala Thai is an established business. There is already a dedicated patronage, so the restaurant should not be starting from scratch. And once again, it’s a restaurant, not a gun store or medical marijuana dispensary. If Sala Thai proves to be successful, it should be able to mesh with the neighborhood as a whole over time.

CONS

This wasn’t the plan. The commercial part of Bayfront was supposed to be (and still is) on the northern end, towards the future rail and ferry terminals. That is the plan brought forth by Anderson-Pacific. That is Hercules Bayfront. That is the Waterfront Now initiative. The restored Civic Arts Building was supposed to be for civic use, and neither a new center of commercial activity nor an outlier late-night hot-spot.

There is a child’s park down-slope, and there are historic homes that back against the historic building. Neither of these two existing realities tend to support the plan for an eatery that will serve alcohol and play music for outdoor dining until late into the night. It will be wholly appropriate for nearby residents to phone-in the police with noise complaints.

What ever happened to Lot 16? Anderson-Pacific submitted plans to construct a unit at the corner of Bayfront Boulevard and Railroad Avenue (adjacent to the Coldwell-Banker realty office) but the plans were summarily rejected by Louise Lopeman (the City’s consultant). The reasons for the rejection have never been disclosed, nor will the City want to release those “reasons” anytime soon. The first floor of the project was supposed to serve a medium-sized restaurant. The location would have been ideal. This is the space Sala Thai was supposed to lease. Should the long-term plans for the Waterfront suffer because of a mistake by Louise Lopeman? Or should the City fast-track Lot 16* approval and fix their mistake?

* Lot 16 is not a part of the land within the Waterfront Now initiative. The lot has full entitlements and is ready-to-go.


2 comments already …

  1. # Robert Reber commented on 21-Jul-08 @ 10:31am

    Although you posted this some time ago, you should know that your are grossly mistaken regarding Lot 16. I’m not sure where you got your misinformation, but please know that:

    1. Anderson Pacific has NEVER submitted an application for Lot 16. Quite some time ago, the property owners did discuss building code and zoning compliance issues with the Building Dept. and Planning Dept., but the City has to date not received any formal application to develop the lot.

    2. No project can be considered entitled until a complete application is submitted, reviewed, and approved. Thus Lot 16 is NOT “fully entitled and ready-to-go.” However, the Historic Town-Center Sub-District Plan (an amendment to the Waterfront District Master Plan) clearly established the architectural and zoning requirements for Lot 16.

    3. Even before she retired earlier this year, Louise Lopeman never had any authority over Lot 16. Therefore, she could not have rejected any alleged plans for the parcel. The Planning Department would be responsible for processing applications to develop Lot 16. Assuming the project meets all code requirements, then only the Planning Commission could approve or reject an application, and either way, the Planning Commission would need to publicly declare findings and facts to support its decision.

  2. # Jeffrey Wisniewski commented on 22-Jul-08 @ 4:18am

    Wow, that completely changes my last point of argument. My sources told me differently. Maybe it was back-door dealings in the hey-day of Lopeman? She was in charge of the multi-modal station, which was being squashed for the Szabo plan.

Trackbacks so far …