Round Two, Live from City Hall!

For coverage on the first half of the meeting, click HERE.

9:25 pm – And now, consideration of Item 06 – Cannery Park development proposal.  Summary, from the Staff report (06 Cannery Park Proposal.pdf ):

On September 7, 2010 ConAgra submitted a land use application to the City for consideration of the Cannery Park project. Lewis Planned Communities was the previous applicant for this project proposal. However, on March 16, 2009, just prior to embarking on the EIR preparation for the Cannery park application, Lewis Planned Communities withdrew their application. The property owner, ConAgra, now wishes to reinitiate an application for development of the Cannery Park project.

Planner Mike Webb is discussing all of the considerations that have changed since the original plan was proposed, including GHG emission reduction standards and the BPLS (see previous thread).  Staff would like some guidance from Council on fundamental principles IF Council agrees to accept this application.  There is more detail on page 5 of the staff report, but in short the fundamental principles deal with

1. Address Community Needs
2. Community Character / Context
3. Sustainability / Low Impact Development
4. Fiscal Responsibility
5. Transparency of Process

9:32 pm – Now it’s time for Council questions and Greenwald asks if Staff has done any fiscal analysis on the use of this site… Staff’s response is, “No.”  Greenwald’s next question deals with the timing of building new houses during such a weak housing market.  Sue has said many times in the past that she’d prefer all business park and no residential on this site.  Krovoza has no questions.  Swanson’s question deals with the role of a potential business park in this plan.  Souza has a question about fiscal analysis for potential land uses… is the best use of this land the use that generates the most tax, and if so, is that 100% housing?  The answer is… “it’s complicated, but yes.”

9:46 pm – Souza’s next question is about conversation with the adjoining property owners… Will staff engage the railroad owners and the owners of the Covell site in this process?  Staff’s answer is, “Yes.”

9:49 pm – Saylor’s question is, “What is the advantage of having a full-weight Environmental Impact Report (EIR) alternative for a full Business Park plan.”  Staff: It gives Council more power at the end of the process, to be able to choose between alternatives… Staff’s recommending that Council not make that decision tonight, but wait until an EIR determination has to be made in the future, which would be in March 2011.

9:52 pm – The applicant and owner of the site, ConAgra, has asked for a 5 minute presentation.  The ConAgra rep. says that they are bringing back the exact plan that was previously developed because so much community effort went into creating that plan.  Their goal in making this proposal is that this is a beginning of a process to create an environmentally friendly mixed-use development.  ConAgra would prefer that Council make a determination about the full-weight EIR alternative for a Business Park tonight, rather than later, due to the extreme costs for such and environmental document.  In response to a question from Souza about the 100% Business Park, the ConAgra rep. responded that it wouldn’t make financial sense, and the he hopes that the Council would recognize that they can’t force property owners to develop in a manner not of their choosing.

10:00 pm – Greenwald asks the ConAgra rep. if any developers have options on the property; the answer is that ConAgra has been in conversations and discussions with multiple developers and will continue to do so.  Swanson is trying to understand why ConAgra doesn’t want a Business Park… the response is that the challenges in such a plan are outweighed by the surety of a more mixed-use plan.

10:03 pm – Public Comment for this item is on.  I’m just going to chalk it up for you, rather than summarize comments.

PRO-Cannery Park proposal – 9

ANTI-Cannery Park proposal – 0

OTHER – 1 (Finance & Budget Commission needs to be consulted),

10:19 pm – Public Comment is over.  Now, it’s time for council comments before a motion is made.  Rather than summarize what we already know they’re going to say, how about a little game!?!  I propose the following, time each council member during this section and see who is the biggest talker!!  I’ve got my handy dandy iPhone stopwatch ready, get set, GO!

BIG TALKER CONTEST!

Greenwald – 08 min 05 sec (we need jobs near housing, so Biz Park here is appropriate; deny this application) + 01 min 47 sec = TOTAL 09 min 52 sec

Krovoza – 03 min 02 sec (indicates he’s for the process to begin, but zoning should come first. would support removing the Business Park EIR)

Saylor – 00 min 25 sec (supportive of the process and to remove the BizPark EIR alternative)

Souza – 06 min 05 sec (no longer supports an equal weight BizPark EIR, mainly bc of BPLS; plan would need work re: livability and sustainability… still needs a WOW factor; fiscal analysis needs to be emphasized)

Swanson – 05 min 013 sec (vacant/unfarmed site needs our attention; local housing market is VERY different from national; freeway access for BizPark IS important) + 00 min 55 sec = TOTAL 06 min 08 sec

The BIG TALKER contest goes to Greenwald by a whopping 9 minutes and 27 seconds over the real winner, Mr. Succinct-himself, Don Saylor.  I’m going to try and continue to log the minutes on the mic until a motion is passed (not counting any procedural voices, making motions etc).

Souza has a motion to accept the application, accept staff’s rec. for procedure, remove the equal weight EIR Biz Park alternative, add Finance & Budget Commission, and change the BizPark language to “approximately 20 acres”. Substitute motion by Greenwald fails 2-3 with Krovoza joining her.  Main motion by Souza passes 3-2 with Krovoza and Greenwald dissenting.  Not sure what I missed in Krovoza’s comments earlier… did he change his mind, or did I hear him wrong?  I heard him wrong, Krovoza favored deciding zoning first, then talking about plans.

Cannery Park is moving forward without the BizPark EIR equal weight alternative.

10:53 pm – FIVE MINUTE BREAK

11:00 pm – 07 Pacifico Project Forclosure and Proposals.pdf

This item is continued from the September 21st meeting, Item 5.  I had this to say last time,

For all of you wondering just what is going on here, basically, the City saved this affordable housing project from foreclosure in 2009 with a $1.6 million dollar loan.  The project is still only 37% occupied, so something is wrong over there.  The question now is how to increase occupancy and maintain affordable rents while spending tax dollars wisely.

That same evening, a decision was made,

Is there a motion?  Swanson has one! Staff should go back to both EAH and Yolo County Housing and ask for a more “apples to apples” comparison that focuses on maintaining affordability and protecting the City’s financial interests.  Greenwald seconds.  Motion passed 3-2 with Saylor and Krovoza dissenting.

Staff recommendation tonight is the same as last time, to work with Yolo County Housing to rehab the site.  Last time around, I also wondered where all of the other local co-op experts were to help this site… good to see Ben Pearl of Solar Community Housing Association here tonight.

11:06 pm - Council question time.  Souza’s question is if the management portion of the recommendation is important and staff replies, yes, it is time sensitive.  Souza’s second question is regarding the land lease and the potential to leverage the property, and Staff’s response is that the YCH would have a more participatory agreement and that shouldn’t affect the City’s investment/financial opportunities.  Swanson’s questions speak to her motion from 09/21, one of which is,  Can the YCH match the commitment to 8 beds for foster youth? … the short answer from staff, yes.  Swanson’s next question is, Can some of these decisions be made tonight while waiting on the longer-term commitments? Maybe…

11:15 pm – Greenwald’s questions… are not really questions… and the Mayor thinks that Greenwald is “badgering” staff…  Greenwald thinks that YCH proposal is lacking in financial details in comparison to the other proposal.  Interim City Manager Paul Navazio believes that there is a comparable amount of detail in both proposals.

11:21 pm – oh, wow… this is going to be a long night… it doesn’t seem like we’re anywhere near a decision on this item, and there are still two regular items to consider as well as a couple of consent items that were pulled…

11:23 pm – Krovoza has questions concerning the affordability component in the proposals… how are the numbers so widely divergent?  Staff’s answer is that YCH is only proposing that 2 of the buildings are remodeled, while the other applicant, EAH Housing, would remodel all 4 buildings.

11:26 pm – Saylor has a great question, where is this City money coming from? The answer is… (some pot of money dedicated to affordable housing) I missed it, but I’ll find out.

11:28 pm – The EAH Housing representative is now speaking.  She believes that their proposal is actually more affordable because of the number of beds in each apartment AND because utilities are inclusive.  Also, EAH, as a private non-profit, can discriminate in the market place to ensure student and foster youth housing… YCH does not have this discriminatory ability because they will be operating under fair housing guidelines.  Also, with these renovations, the new apartment style would be more marketable if Council ever decided to remove these properties from managed affordability.  And lastly, UC Davis will have a shortage of 800 beds in 2011 due to scheduled renovations… protecting student affordable units should be the City’s goal.

11:38 pm – Now, the representative from Yolo County Housing will make their case.  I’m sorry, she’s mumbling and I can’t understand what she’s saying.

11:44 pm – Public Comment time on this item, there are 4 members of the public lined up.  First speaker is a cooperative development expert from the California Center for Cooperative Development and argues that the failure of Pacifico is not due to the cooperative structure… she also offers their services to help manage the site during the iterim period.  Next up is a current resident and part of the foster youth program and would like for the city to ensure that foster youth have a place in this cooperative.

Lucas Frerichs is our next commenter… he’s got a background in cooperative structures (Davis Food Coop) and is currently Board Chair of previously mentioned California Center for Cooperative Development and wants to second their proposal for interim management.  Ben Pearl is speaking now and he is impressed with CCCD’s offer of support… he also thinks that the staff report, while doing a good job with current residents, might perhaps be missing some options for a successful future.

11:55 pm – Public Comment is over.  Do we have a motion?  Please, someone, end this thing.  oh noes, Greenwald has more questions…  C’mon, let’s giturdun!!  Rochelle & Steve consent to give Sue one more question… She’s now asked 5 questions of the EAH rep.

Krovoza was trying to make a motion and Greenwald interrupted him, Souza called a Point of Order and now….

Krovoza has a very long motion in three parts that involves accepting the Staff Recommendation 3 to move forward with the YCH proposal and includes CCCD for interim management… he thinks that the affordability component by YCH is stronger AND he’s not comfortable giving up the cooperative structure.  Seconded by Souza.

Greenwald has a substitute motion to move forward with EAH instead, seconded by Swanson.  Greenwald thinks that this proposed configuration would be better for low-income students.

12:14 am – Now, it’s voting time.  After a little late night confusion, the substitute motion fails 2-3 with Saylor, Souza & Krovoza dissenting.  The main motion (Krovoza’s) is now on the table.  It passes 3-2, with Greenwald and Swanson dissenting.  The process moves forward with YCH and CCCD at the helm.

Oh, yeah!

12:18 am – Oh, yeah! Now an update from Councilmember Krovoza on the City Manager hiring process… he and Greenwald have been discussing, talking, phoning, comparing, basically doing lots of stuff with gerunds to find a new City Manager: 08 City Manager Recruitment.pdf I think that they’re all patting each other on the back for a job well done (not jacking up another RFP process, no doubt), but I was busy looking for a Kool-Aid guy image on the interwebs… and I may have found my Halloween costume in the process!

Members of the public that would like to provide input on the selection of a search agency for the City Manager position should email Krovoza (JKrovoza@cityofdavis.org) and Greenwald (SGreenwald@cityofdavis.org) directly.

12:35 am – Still here, and next up is the East Area Water Tank Art vs. Billboard Smackdown, Round 2.  Here’s the staff report: 09 East Area Water Tank Reconsideration.pdf .

There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this item over the past few weeks with a veritable slew of Letters to the Editor of The Davis Enterprise in support of the proposed Public Art that was forwarded by the Civic Arts Commission.  Earlier, at a reasonable hour, during Public Comment, 9 folks came to speak in support of the artwork as originally proposed and to decry the unprofessional RFP process.

Here is the original staff report: 05 East Area Water Tank Art Selection.pdf

Saylor is commenting now… and generally agrees with Greenwald’s proposal.  Souza would like to see the proposal with the Latin changed to read “Let the sun shine on Davis.”  I just asked in public comment for some clarification on the wording… if it could be in English.  Swanson just asked the artist if they would consider changing the script to English, and she said, “No, art is a very delicate thing and the Latin is part of our carefully considered art.”

At the risk of getting into a Ayn Rand debate here, and with all due respect to the artists… this is just the type of situation where the reactionary forces in the Tea Party and other far-right conservatives get the fuel for their anti-intellectualism fire… What exactly are we trying to prove with an inaccessible, if lovely, Latin phrase?

More comments from Council now, and I’m fading in and out… Saylor has a motion to adopt Items A, B & C in Greenwald’s reconsideration.  Souza seconds.  If passes, this will be coming back to Council in the form of an agreement between the Council and the artist.  Motion passes 5-0.  We have art!

12:59 am – 04A Negotiation Consultant Contract.pdf is now under consideration.  Greenwald feels that Staff is taking too much leeway here… she wanted more input on the process to find a negotiator.

From the staff report:

As the Council is well aware, after many months of good faith negotiations, the Council determined it was necessary to impose a Last, Best, Final Offer for  FY2009/2010 on the DCEA in June and contract negotiations have remained at a standstill since. The City needs to begin contract negotiations for FY2010/2011 with DCEA. Council has indicated its preference is to hire an independent labor negotiator to conduct those negotiations. As requested by City Council, staff began a search for potential negotiators. Based on recommendations from the City Attorney’s Office and other cities in the area, staff contacted a number of labor negotiators and interviewed the four potential contractors who had the availability to begin immediately and/or who were interested in acquiring new clients.

1:04 am – Souza moves the resolution to hire a Chief Negotiator in the form of William Avery of Avery & Associates. Saylor seconds. Passes 4-0-1 with Greenwald abstaining.

1:06 am – Next item: 04F SCADA System Upgrade-Wireless Guys Contract.pdf It’s the data management and control system for our water utilities…  this would follow up on a pilot project that provides us with real time data about all of our water resources, and costs us about $67,000.  Greenwald is concerned about water in general, but it seems to me that the more data, the better when it comes to water.  Greenwald must agree bc she just moved it and it passes 5-0.

1:11 am – Wrapping it up with reporting from Councilmembers on announcements, long range calendars and state mandated financials.

1:16 am – Almost 7 hours later (and about 4,700 words later…), the meeting is adjourned and I need to find an adult beverage STAT!  Next meeting November 9th, same bat time, same bat channel… see ya then People of the People’s Republic.