Has Walnut Creek's downtown construction mania killed Christmas?

Wow, I thought only the Grinch, Scrooge or Mr. Potter (above) could take the cheer out of the holiday season, but it turns out the massive reconstruction of Broadway Plaza is "so extensive" that Santa won't have a home in Walnut Creek this holiday season.

Elisabeth Nardi reports in the Contra Costa Times that the mall's multi-year, quarter-billion-dollar renovations means Santa won't have his usual storefront, and such holiday staples as the holiday lights parade will be canceled and the Hanukkah menorah lighting will be moved. Nothing will return to normal for another two years, the Times reports.

As usual, Broadway Plaza, downtown business association types and city leaders are trying to put a positive spin on all this. One day Walnut Creek will be even more fabulous than they like to imagine it already is. They say, there will be all those sales tax revenues from when Broadway Plaza adds those 230,000 square feet!

Meanwhile, these business and city leaders come off as tone deaf to the fact that a lot of people who actually live in Walnut Creek are getting a bit fed up with all the traffic and hassle and rightly question whether greed and crass commercialism have replaced any sense of true culture or community spirit in the civic ethos. Wow, has the greedy small-town mogul Mr. Potter of It's a Wonderful Life come to represent Walnut Creek's moral and cultural compass? Has he been the guiding spirit all along? One has to wonder when a spokesperson for Broadway Plaza described this shopping mall, with many of the same generic shops you find at shopping malls all around the country, as the "heart of Walnut Creek." 

Well, apparently there is more irksome news, according to the Times: there have been fewer spaces at the city’s garages and lots over the past year -- no kidding! -- apparently because of what apparently is the city’s not-so-well-timed decision – with all this Broadway Plaza and other downtown construction coming to fruition -- to raise meter rates and increase enforcement hours. Interesting planning choices among city leaders. For so long the city was urging us, nagging us, to give up parking on the street and park in city garages. There is parking there, they proclaimed and proclaimed. 

No, there isn't. There really isn't. 

Parking supply will be tight, and “anecdotally,” the Walnut Creek Downtown association has heard that business is down over the past year. 

Even more reason to shop on cyber Monday!

Police activity prompts city to want to roll back hours that 1515 Restaurant can serve alcohol

Tony and Jack Dudum, the son and father owners of 1515 Restaurant and Lounge, will be in front of the City Council Tuesday, once again to deal with the issue of 1515's  closing times. In September, the City Council said they had to stop serving alcohol at 1 a.m. They wanted to be able to serve alcohol at their North Main Street bar and restaurant until 1:45 a.m. 

The Dudums went to the city Planning Commission and Council last summer, asking for permission to extend their hours and to be able to provide live entertainment and dancing. At that time, they could only serve alcohol until 12 a.m. downstairs and 11:30 p.m. upstairs. After listening to the Dudums say that the extended hours would bring them additional revenue and allow them to serve loyal night-owl customers, the City Council on September 15, 2009 came up with a compromise. It said that 1515 could serve alcohol until 1 a.m.

However, this extension was subject to a six-month probationary period. The period is up, and the question stands whether the Dudums should be able to serve alcoho past 1 a.m.

Unfortunately for the Dudums, the city says their restaurant didn't do so well during the six months. There were eight incidents requiring a police response. These incidents include an assault, two thefts, someone being arrested on a warrant, another patron being arrested for public drunkenness, and the restaurant's valet parking cars in handicapped spaces. In February, 1515 employees were caught drinking in the back of the restaurant.

In the fall, the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Department also suspended 1515's liquor license for 15 days. This suspension stems from a July 23, 2009 violation in which 1515 was found to have been serving alcohol past its designated closing time. In lieu of the suspension, 1515 agreed to pay a fine of $3,000.

Walnut Creek Community Development staff say in their report to the City Council that some of these incidents are not unique to 1515, but are typical of any downtown bar or lounge that focuses on serving alcohol. "With increased consumption of alcohol in the later hours, midnight to 2 a.m., the customers engage in more activities that require police intervention," the report says. "At 1515 Restaurant and Lounge, the six-month probationary period with a later closing time of 1 a.m. has coincided with an increase of police incidents."

The question about 1515 's closing time comes as the city wrestles with the question of how to balance public safety against the desire to encourage commerce in Walnut Creek and to keep the downtown a happening Bay Area destination for dining and entertainment. Right now, there is a lot happening in downtown. Walnut Creek is "over-saturated" with serving alcohol. State Alcoholic Beverage Control guidelines say that nine establishments in the downtown would be satisfactory to serve the public's need for alcohol. Walnut Creek has 99. 

The Walnut Creek police try to regulate businesses' alcohol use by staggering their alcohol cutoff hours. While some owners find these regulations unfair, the city says it considers each establishment's request to on a case-by-case basis. 

With regard to 1515, city staff is recommending that the business stop serving alcohol at 12:30 a.m. Staff says 1515 should also be barred from providing most live entertainment, except for solo musicians, and from offering reduced-priced drink promotions. 1515 can hold special events, which could include dancing, but it must receive advanced written notice from the police chief. Finally, 1515 must maintain a monthly gross ratio of food to alcohol sales of 65 to 35 percent.

Small town? Big town? What's your view of Walnut Creek?

One of the key tensions among Walnut Creek residents is whether this community of 63,000 people should hold onto its quiet, small town roots--or it should become more urban, and less suburban. This tension shows up all the time in comments on this blog. Most recently I’ve seen this tension in reaction to posts I’ve done on the new library and about the City Council’s approval of a nine-unit housing project on the fringe of the historic Almond-Shuey neighborhood.

Contributing to this tension, it seems, is frustration--on one side and justified or not--with city leaders for not doing a good enough job listening to residents. On the other side are residents and business leaders who tend to be pro-development, whether the development involves a new high-end department store, a new library, new high-density "infill" housing projects in certain neighborhoods, or a new BART transit village. 

The following comments, to some degree, express different aspects of the tension. I thought I'd share a few and ask: Where do you fall on this small town/big town debate?

Here are views expressed by readers:

Regarding a post that referred to the new library (due to open this summer), a reader said:

Why is it so close to the street like every other newish building in Walnut Creek. Do we not value any set-backs anymore? ... I've noticed the same thing. I think the WC city council wants to make WC look like a true city (like NY city or SF) where the buildings are right on the sidewalk. I don't like it at all.

Regarding the City Council's decision on the Almond Lofts project, on a half-acre lot fronting Oakland Boulevard, many readers, who participated in this debate, offered different viewpoints on the small town/big town question:

It's only a matter of time before Walnut Creek is nothing but a shopping district surrounded by apartments. I get the distinct feeling that the City Council would love that.

But Steve Reiser, a realtor (and former president of the Contra Costa Board of Realtors), and Almond/Shuey resident and publisher of the Almond/Shuey Blog wrote:

Guess what? If you buy, rent or live in a downtown neighborhood, you have to deal with the consequences of downtown living. Disclosure laws are such that if you buy here today, you would need to sign a document acknowledging items such as BART, freeway, traffic and potential development. It cracks me up when someone moves to or lives in downtown Walnut Creek, then complains about traffic and noise. It goes with the territory.

[Reiser says he put together a petition drive, prior to the Almond Lofts decision, asking Almond/Shuey neighbors to voice their approval of the project.]

He explains that he put it together because “I personally believe that this is a smart project and ideal for that lot. … Oakland Blvd has unfortunately taken on somewhat of a hodge-podge element of urban blight; empty offices, run-down homes and apartment buildings, a new pot club, weekly abortion picketers, and of course the big (eyesore) empty lot in question which is often used to park trucks and trailers.”

Finally, another reader, commenting on the Almond Lofts project, took a bigger-picture view of the basic pro- or anti-development, small town/big town question:  

Of course we can't go back to the good old days, and quite honestly there is alot about the good old days that we would not find amusing or convenient.

But.......we must be better stewards of what is left of the older parts of town that add so much to our community.

The "tear it down and fill it up with multiples" attitude has got to come to an end, now!


For the council members who don't live in or any where near the older parts of town, seem to feel that their neighborhoods are the only ones worth preserving. Wrong.


Wake up people! It is only going to get worse and pretty soon we will have a totally "plastic" downtown created because our council is "infill" mad. No matter, it doesn't affect their way of life in the end.