Council Liveblog: Budget and Cannery Park

Good evening, Davis. Welcome, once again, to the Davis Voice City Council Liveblog. Mr. Kemble Pope is out of town tonight, so I will be filling in as “host”. My name is Will Arnold.

We have a relatively thin agenda tonight in terms of number of items (only three regular items), but not in terms of importance to our city. The headliners are an update on the city budget and a workshop on the proposed development at Cannery Park.

Tonight’s action begins at (no earlier than) 6:30pm following the City Council / Human Relations Commission Joint Discussion. The meeting will begin with three presentations (two ceremonial and one informational) before the Council dives into the issues of the day.

But don’t take my word for it, check out the AGENDA (PDF) and the associated packet documents:

Presentations

• 03A Proclamation – Child Abuse Prevention 2011.pdf 
• 03B Proclamation – National Public Safety Telecom Week.pdf 
• 05B Long Range Calendar.pdf 
  

Consent Calendar

• 07A Weed Abatement 2011.pdf 
• 07B UCD Bike Plan Supplement to City Bike Plan.pdf 
• 07C Sister City Ambassador Guidelines.pdf 
• 07D Fifth Street Corridor Improvement CIP No 8138.pdf 
• 07E Environment Recognition Award 2011.pdf 
• 07F Single Audit Financial Report 2010.pdf 
• 07G Picnic Day Update.pdf 

Regular Calendar

• 08 Budget Update.pdf 
• 09 Fee for the Dissolution of LEHC or WHCT with Public Subsidy.pdf 
• 10 Cannery Park Workshop.pdf 

6:30pm- The Council is just wrapping up its discussion with the Human Relations Commission. The Mayor has announced that we will take a “3-5 minute break” after which the regular meeting will commence.

6:41pm- The gavel sounds and the meeting is in session. The Mayor reports that there are no reportable items coming from the closed session.

The first agenda item is a ceremonial presentation recognizing April 2011 as Child Abuse Prevention Month. Maypr Pro Tem Swanson reads the proclamation. 03A Proclamation – Child Abuse Prevention 2011.pdf 

From the proclamation:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED, that Yolo County officials, employees and residents are encouraged to join the important efforts of the Rotary Club of Davis, the Yolo County Children’s Alliance & Child Abuse Prevention Council, First 5 Yolo Children and Families Commission, Yolo County Department of Employment and Social Services, Yolo County Juvenile Court, Yolo County’s licensed foster care homes and the many public and private agencies and programs serving children and families in Yolo County.

The second proclamation recognizes April 10-16, 2011 as National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week. Councilmember Wolk reads the proclamation. 03B Proclamation – National Public Safety Telecom Week.pdf 

The Mayor also recognizes a member of the audience, the Governor of the Philippine province in which former Mayor Ruth Asmundson was born and raised.

6:50pm- We have an agenda approved unanimously. The Council now moves to item 4, a presentation from First 5 Yolo Commission. The presenter begins with a brief history of First 5, which began with the California Children and Families Act (Prop 10), which is funded via a 50 cent per-pack tobacco tax. First 5 Yolo invests about $3 million annually to its 26 different programs.

7:07pm- We now move to item 5, City Council, City Manager and City Attorney Brief Communications. Councilmember Greenwald reports that she attended a City/County 2×2 meeting (along with Councilmember Wolk).

The Mayor mentions “in the ceremonial category” that he welcomed a baseball team from Sens, France. “Their only shortcoming is that they were in Dodgers uniforms”. Agreed.

The Mayor also mentions a musician named Dave Alvin, who said that he was “banned from Davis”. The Mayor says he welcomed him to return to our city.

7:16pm- We move onto the long-range calendar. City Manager Navazio. 05B Long Range Calendar.pdf  The Mayor makes a request that the issue of striping of 2nd Street (for bicycle safety) be added to the April 17 meeting. It is agreed upon by the Council. City Manager Navazio will bring this item to staff and have a report for that meeting.

7:21pm- It is now time for public comment. This is for items not on tonight’s agenda, or for those who cannot stay for their desired agenda item:

Former Councilmember Lamar Heystek speaks first. He is here to talk about an event on April 9th: The Great Davis Race. Mr. Heystek was inspired by the tragic events in Japan and the event will raise money for the Japanese Red Cross Society.

Matt Williams speaks next. He will not be able to stay for the Cannery Park discussion, so he is speaking to that issue now. He has concerns with our city developing in a project-by-project basis, which he contends is not an effective manor of development. “We need to be looking at these things in a cohesive way.” He also has concerns about how the Cannery Park project will pencil-out financially for the city. He sees “no way” that it pencils-out. His final concern is that the potential for railroad relocation will change the landscape (literally).

Alan Pryor speaks next. He spoke last week regarding the waste produced at our July 4th celebration. He is reemphasizing his desire for the event to be zero-waste, and for the city to “get behind” that effort. “If you’re going to talk the talk, then walk the walk.”

Linda Robenalt (sp?) is unable to wait for the Cannery discussion. She states that she believes there is enough senior housing already in Davis for the number of seniors who wish to downsize. “CHA does not speak for seniors.” She would like to see a mix of ages in the housing. She would also like to see universal design for all the homes.

Steve Hayes is unable to stay for the Cannery Park discussion. He emphasizes that the proposed project should not be “hijacked” by a special interest group representing a specific age group. He would like to see a multi-generational project.

Marisa Roberts, a 2000 Davis High School graduate, speaks next. She would like to see a diverse development at Cannery Park so that she can afford to live in Davis.

Carol Marquez (sp?) speaks next. She also supports the Con-Agra (Cannery Park) project being diverse. “We need to give young families a chance to live in Davis.”

Public comment is now closed.

7:37pm- Now to consent calendar. Mayor Pro Tem Swanson pulls item F, and Mayor Krovoza pulls items C and G, off the calendar. The consent calendar passes unanimously without those items.

Regarding item C, The Mayor calls Former Mayor (and current Sister City Ambassador) Ruth Asmundson to discuss codifying the Sister City program. Councilmember Greenwald requests that the Council be provided with regular updates on planned Sister City visits as well as updated contact info for officials in our Sister Cities. Ambassador Asmundson agrees those are good suggestions and can be incorporated. Ambassador Asmunsdon also adds that she wishes more of the items given to us by our Sister Cities be on display. Many are hiding in a basement somewhere. Councilmember Greenwald moves to accept the proposed Sister City guidelines (with her changes). Seconded by Councilmember Souza and approved unanimously.

Regarding item F, Mayor Pro Tem Swanson points out some discrepancies she found in the report regarding fund allocation. She asks City Manager Navazio for clarification. The Mayor Pro Tem also suggests that more elements of the report be made available online “for transparency sake”. The Mayor Pro Tem moves acceptance of the report. Seconded by Councilmember Souza and approved unanimously.

Regarding item G, the Mayor says “no issue makes [him] more nervous than Picnic Day.” He specifically points out retail establishments selling discounted alcohol. He points out retail businesses (too many for me to type!) that have signed onto the Picnic Day pledge. No motion is necessary for this informational item.

7:56pm- On to the budget. City Manager Navazio hosts this workshop. The 2011/12 budget approval is scheduled for the middle of May. 08 Budget Update.pdf 

“We are hoping to end this fiscal year with a ‘surplus’,” says the City Manager, though he points out that we will be short of our 15% reserve policy. Projected risks to the city budget emphasized by the City Manager are increases in the PERS (Public Employment Retirement System) liability and a potential loss of RDA (Redevelopment Agency) funds. The latter currently funds eight full-time city employees, including two police officers. Other shortfalls to be addressed are Transportation Division Funding, Childcare Funding, and CDBG (Community Development Bloc Grant) Funding. The City Manager also points out unfunded budget priorities, which include CalPERS liabilities, transportation infrastructure and parks/city facilities, among others.

8:24pm- We now move to public comment regarding the budget presentation. No one commented. On to Council comments and questions.

Councilmember Wolk begins. He thanks the City Manager for his presentation. He hopes to bring “all parties” together as soon as possible to address the budget, specifically the OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefit) liability. He also wants to make “real progress” in funding our transportation liabilities. Finally he asks whether it is worth exploring our 15% reserve. The City Manager responds by noting that the unfunded liability is built into PERS rates and that we need to look at its overall costs. Regarding the 15% reserve, the City Manager responds that about half of the reserve is to buffer against economic cycles and the other half is for potential emergencies. He points out, however, that any use of reserve money is a “one-time fix”. Councilmember Wolk emphasizes that he is not advocating dipping into the reserve, but is interested in it being discussed.

Councilmember Greenwald speaks next. She points out that budget forecasts are “very sensitive to assumptions”. She asks whether the retiree medical forecast includes paying off our liability. The City Manager responds that we will be amortizing that liability on a 30-year projection. Councilmember Greenwald also has questions regarding the PERS rate of return assumption. The City Manager responds that any lowering of the investment return assumption by .25% results in about $1 million in real city dollars. The Councilmember also asks about potential increases in labor costs in the out-years. The City Manager says that his forecast assumes no salary increases. She also asks whether the budget forecast provides for any additional state and federal takeaways. The City Manager responds that he can only budget for such cuts that are already planed, and that his “crystal ball” doesn’t work at that level. Regarding unfunded budget priorities, Councilmember Greenwald asks specifically about street maintenance. The City Manager responds that staff is looking into other ways of funding street maintenance, including roadway impact fees. She concludes by thanking the City Manager for his work. “You’re on top of the numbers as usual.”

Councilmember Souza speaks next. He begins by saying he will keep his questions brief. “I have seen 10 people leave and only three enter [the chamber]. Many are here for another item.” His question is regarding a shift in property taxes and whether, if RDA goes away, the city stands to see increased property-tax revenue. The City Manager says that there is a potential for that eventuality. Councilmember Souza comments that our budget reflects community values and core services. He also commends the work of Mayor Pro Tem Swanson regarding economic development. “I applaud her efforts”. He mentions recent business openings, including Trader Joe’s and Forever 21 (the latter of which opened for business last weekend).

The Mayor Pro Tem speaks next. She asks about the timeframe for project-prioritizing. The City Manager responds that it is “probably a ways away”. He wants that process to be on a parallel track with the budget process. The Mayor Pro Tem also asks about the progress of the Council goal of multi-year budgeting and whether a discussion toward that end can take place in the coming months. The City Manager responds that there is a possibility of adopting the 2011/12 budget in mid-May, and potentially opening discussion of the 2012/13 budget mid-fiscal-year. The Mayor Pro Tem emphasizes her belief that the 15% reserve is a “bare minimum”. She also agrees with Councilmember Wolk that we need an “all-parties workshop” as soon as possible.

The Mayor speaks next. He asks whether the five-year forecast can be put into context of the 15% reserve. The City Manager says that we will be at about 14% next year ($4.9 million instead of $5.2 million). The City Manager says that we began the year with an 11.2% reserve and will come about 1% short of our goal of 15%. To bring us back to 15% in the following year, the City Manager emphasizes that we will need to implement some budget balancing measures to reach that goal. The Mayor also asks how we can “appropriately brace ourselves” for an adjustment in the PERS investment return assumption. The City Manager responds that there is “some logic” to taking a more conservative approach, but that the main conversation will be with bargaining groups at the negotiating table. The Mayor emphasizes that “We should assume [an adjustment] is coming” and should prepare adequately for it. Finally, the Mayor would like to see staff present a “baseline” parks budget and transportation budget. The City Manager responds that “funding sources have not kept up with demand”.

Finally, regarding the Parks Tax, that item has been deferred to a later meeting. The City Manager emphasizes, however, that we need to act fast to get it on the June 2012 ballot.

Councilmember Greenwald adds a final comment, that she hopes people do not over-emphasize economic development in a budget context. “Don’t get me wrong, jobs are important for people” but not as significant to the city budget.

The Mayor makes a motion that we bring our reserve to 15% by June 30. Seconded by the Mayor Pro Tem. Councilmember Wolk asks where the money will come from. The City Manager says he will bring that back to the Council, and that a “spending freeze” is one potential avenue. “It’s a moving target”. Councilmember Wolk would like to know where the money will come from before approving such a measure. Councilmember Souza echoes his sentiment. Souza asks rhetorically, “What is the reserve for? If these aren’t bad times, show me bad times.” Mayor Pro Tem Swanson speaks for the motion, saying that we will indeed have the flexibility to handle where the money comes from. The Mayor speaks for the motion, as he believes it has always been the direction of the Council. The motion passes 4-1 with Souza dissenting.

9:19pm- On to item 9, Resolution Adopting a City Procedure and Fee in Accordance withSection 817.2 of the California Civil Code. 09 Fee for the Dissolution of LEHC or WHCT with Public Subsidy.pdf 

The Mayor opens it for public comment. No one comments.

The Mayor Pro Tem asks the City Attorney whether this is a compliance issue. The City Attorney responds that this is an item required by state law. A motion is made to accept staff recommendation and passes unanimously.

9:24pm- The Council is now on a 10-minute break and will reconvene at 9:34 with the Cannery Park item.

9:36pm- The gavel has sounded and we are back. Up next is the final agenda item: Cannery Park Workshop. 10 Cannery Park Workshop.pdf 

The item begins with a presentation by Community Development Director Ken Hiatt. He emphasizes that this is the “largest contiguous undeveloped site” in the city. He is asking for “no decision” from the Council tonight, just feedback. They will be coming back on June 3rd for decision regarding an EIR (Environmental Impact Report).

Principal Planner Mike Webb speaks next. He offers some context for the discussion. The site is about 100 acres, located on the northeast corner of F Street and Covell Blvd. (Google Map). The site is within the city limits and, therefore, its development will not trigger a Measure J (Measure R) vote. He also outlines the community efforts that have taken place thusfar, which include two public meetings, meetings with various interest groups, and meetings with City Commissions. The latter also includes a meeting next week with the Senior Citizen Commission.

Now George Phillips from ConAgra (the project applicant) is speaking. He will present the project details. He is joined by planners and engineers for the project. He opens by saying that their original proposal (from September of last year) was a starting point, based on the previous proposal by Lewis Homes. The starting point was, according to Mr. Phillips, were the “open space issues”. “How do you turn this into a neighborhood? How do you make a place where people want to be?”. He emphasizes the green space, ag land, parks and greenbelt and how they all relate to one another. He continues by outlining many details of the project, most of which I will spare repeating (as they are available in the linked packet). But I will say that he put specific emphasis on xeriscaping, urban farming, universal design, telemedicine and general “livability”.

10:26- On to public comment. The Mayor counts more than 20 people lined up to comment and says he will limit the comments to 2 minutes each.

Mary Jo Bryan speaks first. She begins by taking issue with the time limitation. But the Mayor stands firm. She says that she works with CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging). She says that it is the “responsibility” of the city to serve the unmet needs of Davis seniors. She advocates a 80% of the housing be restricted to residents 50 years of age or older.

Another gentleman (whose name I missed) is also speaking on behalf of CHA. He emphasizes that the senior population is (by far) the most rapidly-growing segment of the population. He brought a graphic that shows his desired age-restricted housing.

Next is Curtis Houston. He is here to say that he is “strongly in favor” of the proposal put forth by CHA. He wants an “adult-oriented” community into which to downsize. He wants to “age in place”, but not in his current house. He wants a clubhouse and other senior-oriented features.

Next to speak is Francisco Gomez. He wants to speak about the proposed business park piece. He takes issue with approximately 1/5 of the project being “business park”. “If you want a business park, go somewhere else.” He believes having so much business park land is not family friendly.

Charlene Saylor speaks next. She speaks in favor of the proposal. First, she thinks it is great for middle-income family housing. “Its well-addressed in this project”. She also likes the mix of uses, specifically the potential for stores and restaurants she can walk to. Also she likes the reduction of carbon footprint included in the proposal.

Judy Feldman speaks next. She is excited about the proposal. She hopes the council sticks with diversity in this neighborhood, rather than restricting it to a certain age group. “Even though I am a senior, CHA does not speak for me.”

Sandy Parin (sp?) speaks next. She also wants housing that meets the needs of young families. “I have no desire to live in a generational community.” She believe’s an 80% senior project is not viable. She also thinks the need for a business park is “over-stated”.

David Laughlin speaks next. He is impressed with the development proposal and its “Davis” features, like greenbelt and parks. He also questions the need for a commercial area.

Nicole Ferguson speaks next. She is a young mother and hopes that the project can be a place for families. She believes an 80% senior development is “outrageous”.

The next speaker’s name I did not hear. He says he has atended every public meeting and commission meeting on this project. He is impressed with the applicant’s desire to work with the community. “This is an excellent applicant, in my opinion.”

Norb Kumagai speaks next. He supports the request by CHA that 80% of the project be limited to seniors. He tells a story of his elderly father, and how he learned that his existing home was not suitable for his father as he aged. He asks the council to consider the CHA proposal.

Eileen Samitz speaks next. She served on the 2001 Housing Element Steering Committee General Plan Update. She says that the intent was to have a diversity of housing at this location, and to provide workforce housing. She strongly supports that the project offer a diversity of housing.

Former Mayor Gerry Adler speaks next. He says that the Council has “put the cart before the horse”. “It only flies if there is a general plan amendment.” He believes that the decision to move forward with housing goes against the decision of the Business and Economic Development Commission, that we not replace commercial land with housing.

Elaine Roberts Musser speaks next. She speaks about need and fiscal impact. She believes that replacing this parcel, which is zoned for business park, should remain so. “We don’t need more housing.” She also addresses the “1000-ton elephant in the room”, that this project be NFI (No Fiscal Impact).

Bryce Jones speaks. He would like to commend ConAgra for including an urban farm in this proposal. He also looked over the census data and the potential impact of a growing senior population on the city. Specifically that an increasing senior population negatively impacts the school system.

Finally, David Greenwald speaks. He makes a couple of points that were not raised. First, that we are in the midst of an “historic” economic downturn and that we have a lot of housing already approved and not built. “We need to wait.” Also, if we take business park land off the table, we push it to the periphery. Finally, he argues that this project is “not really innovative.” He believes we should establish a “baseline” for sustainability and transportation access. “I would recommend you kill the project.”

11:01pm- On to Council comments and questions.

Councilmember Greenwald speaks first. She begins by echoing David Greenwald’s (no relation) comments regarding the need, or lack thereof, of more housing in Davis. She argues that we have plenty of housing in the pipeline, especially with West Village coming online. She also echoes Former Mayor Adler’s point that we should not exchange our only infill business park land for housing. She also argues that the tax-split would be worse on peripheral land (18%) compared to this parcel (25%). “If we’re serious about bringing more hi-tech to Davis” we shouldn’t re-zone our largest parcel so designated. She believes that all the arguments against this site as a hi-tech business park are the same or more-so for any other existing site in town.

Mayor Pro Tem Swanson speaks next. She begins by addressing the point that was made that a business park was not adequately considered. She recalls that the Council did, in fact, deliberate extensively about the viability of a business park at this site. Specifically, diring the previous iteration of this proposal, an equal-weight EIR was done and concluded that this site was not viable for a business park. Business parks want freeway access, she argues, and you could hardly be farther from a freeway and sill be in Davis. She says she wishes that this was a viable location for a business park, but that is just not the case. She also asks staff for information regarding the rate of buildout for West Village, as well as other infill sites in town. Staff indicates that they are moving slowly. The Mayor Pro Tem also asks whether universal design is being implemented in these projects. Staff indicates that very few units incorporate this feature. She then asks the representative from ConAgra how much of this project will incorporate universal design. He says that almost the entire project will incorporate this feature, “far more than any other project in the city.”

Councilmember Wolk speaks next. He begins by speaking about the need to address “two demographic cohorts,” young families and seniors. He has two general questions: First, what kind of housing do we need? He would like staff to look into that issue specifically. Second, do we need this much housing? He wants to address whether this is the time to pile on 600 more units. Finally, he echoes the concern expressed by Ms. Roberts Musser that the fiscal impact of this priject needs to be addressed.

Councilmember Souza speaks next. He also asks, what is the true housing need of our community? He believes we need to be cognizant of what is necessary for seniors to age in place in our community. He also wants to ask whether this (20 acres of business) is typical for a 100 acre project. he also has questions about the timeline of the project. “When will this project, if approved, be built?” Finally, he echoes the sentiment of Former Mayor Adler, that we need to discuss the “fundamental question” of whether re-zoning this land goes against the city’s general plan. “What is the best location for a business park?” He believes that, if Council is not prepared to amend the general plan, then they are “wasting everyone’s time.” Finally, he believes any project at this site needs a “wow-factor”. In fact, he says we need “wow-squared, a ‘zingo’ factor.” He says West Village “approaches zingo.” He then goes on to mention features he would like to see in this project, including solar features, zero-waste and sustainability.

The Mayor speaks next. He emphasizes the challenges facing this site. It is isolated on three sides, for one. We are also in a difficult economic time. He wants it to be “connected to the city in a Davis kind of way.” He then asks his colleagues and staff to think about performance standards they’d like to see for this project. Specifically, he emphasizes sustainability, transportation infrastructure and connection to the city. He finishes by saying that he believes the Council has already decided the issue of industrial viability of this site.

Councilwoman Greenwald disagrees, and says that nowhere does it say a business park is not viable on this site. She says she has contacted hi-tech business owners in town and that “all of them said ConAgra would a wonderful site” for a business park. She would like to bring back the discussion about what the land use studies actually said about the viability of a business park.

The Mayor Pro Tem speaks next to clarify which report she was referring to. There is some disagreement as to which report says what. The Mayor Pro Tem also echoes the concerns regarding the potential at-grade crossing of the railroad tracks and challenges to such crossings. Finally, she asks staff to look into safety issues regarding alley access.

Councilmember Greenwald reemphasizes her disagreement regarding what has been studied regarding the viability of industrial uses of this site.

One of the documents in question is a Draft Business Park Land Strategy Technical Report. Regarding viability of a business park, it says:

The study was conducted by Economic Strategies Group (ESG) and completed in August 2008. It concluded the site is viable as a business park provided a broad range of uses is allowed. If restricted to a narrow range of uses (e.g. research and technology uses only), it was projected to require an excessive, non-viable buildout time (39 years).

George Phillips of ConAgra speaks to thank the Council for its dedication to this issue.

Both Councilmembers Greenwald and Souza indicate their desire to see on a future agenda a discussion specifically about re-zoning this piece of land.

12:06am- The Mayor thanks everyone who stayed with us tonight and adjourns the meeting.

Bedtime for Will.