LIVE City Council: The “D” Word

June 21, 2011
1 Comment
City Council, Current Affairs, Everything Else, Growing Pains, People's Government, Show Up or Stop Whining, Sustainable Living

Good evening, once again, my fellow Davisites! It is I, Will Arnold, back for your LIVE Blogging enjoyment. Mr. Kemble Pope has the evening off (doing something fabulous, no doubt).

Tonight’s meeting will begin at (no earlier than) 6:30pm with a ceremonial presentation of the 2011 Thong Hy Huynh Humanitarian Award. The Council will then delve into what is commonly known as “the ‘D’ word” in Davis politics, Development. Such a topic in this community is never without its share of fireworks and tonight’s meeting looks to be no exception.

So sit back, grab a cold drink, put your finger on the refresh button, and enjoy!

Prior to the meeting, might I suggest checking out tonight’s agenda and associated staff reports for each item:

Agenda Tuesday June 21, 2011 This document is in PDF Format 500Kbytes

6:37pm- The Mayor calls the meeting to order and asks that those carrying signs “hold their signs down rather than up” so everyone may see. This will indeed be an interesting meeting. The Mayor then pulls item 10 off of the agenda regarding the Pacifico property to another meeting. He then indicates that he will take Public Comment for ANY item on the agenda during the regular Public Comment portion, but for only 1 minute. Those who want the full 3 minutes must stay for the agenda item to be taken.

6:43pm- We move to item 2, a ceremonial presentation of the 2011 Thong Hy Huynh Humanitarian Award to Lea Rosenberg. Mayor Pro Tem Swanson presents Ms. Rosenberg with a proclamation from the City Council as well as from State Assemblymember Mariko Yamada. Ms. Rosenberg is receiving the award, in part, for her recent service on behalf of emancipated foster youth.

6:48pm- The Council moves to item 3, City Manager, City Attorney and City Council brief communications. The City Manager indicates the community meetings will soon take place regarding the proposed water rate increases. Councilmember Greenwald indicates her concern that she was misrepresented in a recent Davis Enterprise article on this issue, and that her support for the project is “not unconditional”.

6:55pm- The Council moves to its long range calendar. The Mayor and City Manager discuss the date for the upcoming retreat/goal-setting session, scheduled for early July. The Mayor also asks the City Manager to direct staff to take up the item of making “modest changes” to Community Chambers to make it easier for public input. Such changes might include making the projector screen larger and having presentations emailed to the Council so they may read them on the dias.

7:02pm- The Mayor now moves to items 12A and 12B. These are two items submitted by Councilmembers. The first is submitted by the Mayor, a resolution to support CARB’s (the California Air Resources Board) leadership in promoting clean and energy efficient motor vehicles. The second is submitted by the Mayor Pro Tem, a resolution in support of proposed Berryessa Snow Mountain National Conservation Area.

Bob Schneider speaks first regarding item 12B. He believes a designated National Conservation Area near Davis, in addition to its environmental benefits, may have additional economic benefits to the region.

Bob Holstein speaks next. He, too, is in favor of a National Conservation Area being designated in this region.

The items are taken in order, and both are approved unanimously.

7:11pm- On to general Public Comment.

Pam Pachelli and Anna Heller speak first. They are Co-VPs of Emerson PTA. They are speaking on behalf of ConAgra. They indicate that ConAgra has been very generous in allowing the use of its land for a carnival and they believe the proposed development will bring young families to Davis.

A young swimmer speaks next. She is a member of Davis Aquadarts and indicates her desire to see Community Pool not be closed.

Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald speaks next. She believes now is not the “appropriate time or appropriate project” for the ConAgra development. She believes we need more businesses, not new homes.

Tim Hoben speaks next. He requests that the Council support the Cannery Park project and oppose a 100-acre business park. He believes the project is supported by the larger community.

Matthew Wise speaks next. He is an applicant for the Social Services Commission.

Heidi Homeblad speaks next. She speaks against the Community Pool closure.

Ben Hughes speaks next. He also speaks in opposition to Community Pool closure. He believes that Community Pool is the only pool suitable for syncronized swimming.

Elaine Clark speaks next. She also speaks against Community Pool closure. She is the mother of swimmers. She indicates her belief that Special Olympics and MiniDarts might both be cancelled if this pool closes.

Brian Horsefield speaks next. He is an alternate member of the Business and Economic Development Commission. He hopes to become a full member. He believes the BEDC business-walk was an important program and would like to continue to reach out to businesses.

Chris Chan speaks next. She is also a mother of swimmers. She speaks against Community Pool closure and believe swimming provides a great opportunity for young people.

Carolee Gregg speaks next. She is a head coach for Davis Aquadarts. She speaks against Community Pool closure. “We’re already fighting for pool space anyway.”

Matt Muller speaks next. He is a City of Davis employee. He asks other City of Davis employees to please stand up. There are lots of them. He says “we are more than FTE’s (Full-Time Employees), we are people.” That sentiment is indicated on a sign in the audience as well.

Public comment is now closed.

7:28pm- The Council moves to the Consent Calendar. The Mayor specifically recognizes the Yackzan Group for its efforts in making the USDA building on 5th and Gst LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified. The Consent Calendar is approved unanimously.

Proposed Development at the corner of Second Street and Cantrill Drive

 

7:33pm- The Council moves to item 6, the proposed development of the 1.24 acre vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of Second Street and Cantrill Drive. From the packet:

“The applicant, Expression Systems (ES), a bio-tech company that cultivates and manufactures cell culture media, is requesting multiple entitlements to development the 1.24 acre vacant parcel located at the northwest corner of Second Street and Cantrill Drive. The company is currently located in Woodland, CA. The project proposal includes construction of an approximately 27,484 square foot two-story building for laboratory, manufacturing and office uses.”

Councilmember Greenwald thanks the applicant for choosing to move to Davis. Mayor Pro Tem Swanson echoes that sentiment. The Mayor indicates his only concern, that the design allow for “connectivity” for cyclists and pedestrians.

Councilmember Wolk moves the recommendations, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Swanson, and approved unanimously.

Cannery Park Development Proposal

 

7:44pm- The Council moves to item 7, Cannery Park Development Proposal.

Staff begins by presenting their summary report, followed by George Phillips, a representative from ConAgra. He requests that the development be allowed tonight to move from a pre-application to a full application, and for the City to allow for an environmental consultant to be hired to study the project. He is specifically not asking for the Council to “bless” a specific land plan.

Public Comment is now open.

John Quick speaks first. He was a member of the consultant team hired by the Lewis Group three years ago to investigate the viability of a business park at this location. He says they tried marketing this parcel as a business park and were rebuffed. Concerns included its distance from highways and its infill (neighborhood) location.

Elaine Roberts Musser speaks next. She indicates her belief that the development not have a negative fiscal impact on the city. She also indicates her concern regarding access issues into the proposed development.

Bill Ritter speaks next. He reads a letter from former Mayor Maynard Skinner. The letter indicates a belief that Davis needs no more housing at this time.

Holly Bishop speaks next. She indicates her belief that the zoning for the land remain industrial. “It’s the soul of the city”.

Francisco Gomez speaks next. He supports the residential component of the proposal. He does not support, however, the business park portion of the proposal. He is a traffic safety engineer and says building a business park in the middle of the city would present traffic safety issues.

Tia Will speaks next. She is a Northstar resident. She is “strongly opposed” to the project. “The last thing we need is another suburban residential project”.

John Buckle speaks next. He speaks in support of the staff recommendation. From his experience as a commercial real estate broker, large companies like Mori Seiki would only consider a location like te Cannery as “a last resort”.

Pam Neiberg speaks next. She urges the Council to delay any decision on this project until a “full fiscal analysis” is done.

Raina Neyer speaks next. She urges the Council support the project. She says she does not “usually support” housing projects, but that this one “meets the needs” of the community.

Jenna Templeton speaks next. She is an alternate to the Social Services Commission. She “enthusiastically supports” the proposal. She is concerned that the City is “losing its younger generation”, and that the proposal could provide needed housing for young families.

The next speaker (name not heard). He does not want a business park in this location.

Matt Williams speaks next. He is from El Macero. He compares this discussion to the Tower of Babel, that “we are hearing from different interest groups”. He believes the City needs to do a full fiscal analysis before moving forward. He believes such an analysis is available to be done immediately by the developers.

Steve Hayes speaks next. He indicates his belief that the proposal is a result of community input and “not a developer driven project”. He believes that the project should not be “hijacked” by one interest group representing one generation.

Jack Chapman speaks next. He has a real estate development background. He has “reviewed the project several times” and believed it is “not a desirable site” for R&D development. He believes the project deserves to move forward as proposed.

Charlene Saylor speaks next. She strongly supports the project. She especially likes its mixed-use design and smaller, affordable housing.

Alan Pryor speaks next. He indicates his belief that it is “premature” to build housing at this site given the current real estate market.

Starr Walton-Hurley speaks next. She represents CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging). She sees that the “CHA model” has not been incorporated, and thus does not support the development. She believes it does not meet the needs of seniors.

Mary Jo Bryan speaks next. She also speaks on behalf of CHA. She indicates that CHA has abandoned the “age restriction” portion of their requests, but that the development still does not “meet the needs of seniors” at this time.

Eileen Samitz speaks next. She served on the Housing Element Steering Committee (HESC), as well as the Planning Commission. She indicates that the HESC supported housing at this development. She also reiterates the findings of the 1998 Business Park Study that this site is not appropriate for a business park. Dhe urges the Council to move forward with the proposal.

Bill Streng speaks next. He is an owner of the neighboring property. He indicates that he sent an email to Council on behalf of the neighboring property owners offering some easements that would “make the proposal better”.

Public Comment is now closed.

8:43pm- The Council moves on to questions.

Councilmember Greenwald begins. She indicates a belief that there has been a “rewriting of history” regarding the HESC and Business Park feasibility study. She asks Staff whether the City has any land left for “medium-size” companies. Staff indicates the are around 100-net-acres around the City for this use. The Councilmember then asks what guarantees there are that, if this parcel is rezoned, peripheral land would be used for a business park. Staff indicates that, given Measure R, there are no such guarantees. The Councilmember then asks about the property tax rate at this site (26%) versus recently acquired peripheral sites (6%). She then asks about point-of-sale tax splits in annexed land, and whether the City could risk losing some sales tax if such sales took place on annexed land. Staff indicates that could be the case. She then asks a “technical question” regarding how much of the proposed development is outside of the 5-minute response time for our existing fire stations. Staff indicates that the majority of the proposed development is with that range, but some of it may not be. She then asks how much housing is currently unbuilt, but slated for development, in town, including West Village. Staff indicates that there are up to 7,000 houses that fit that description.

Councilmember Souza speaks next. He confirms that there are 95 houses for sale, with 5 in foreclosure, according to the Multiple Listing Service. He then asks about the fiscal model assumptions, and whether changes can be made to the development that would lower the service demands of the development. He asks about the level of connectivity between the proposed development and the rest of the city, as well as the quality of the soil in the “ag buffer” Staff is not able to speak with confidence on these issues, but will do further research. He also asks whether Council is being asked to approve a design, but instead “just to move forward”. Staff indicates that is the case. The Councilmember asks how many single-family lots are approved and slated for development. Staff indicates that number is 350. He also asks how many permits have been issued this year. Staff indicates it is close to 40.

Councilmember Wolk speaks next. He begins by clarifying that the Council is not being asked for approval of the project, but only to allow the process to move forward. Staff reiterates that is the case. The Councilmember then asks about the fiscal neutrality issue. He indicates his impression that such an analysis in general, and a requirement of fiscal neutrality in particular, could be part of the final proposal. Staff indicates that is the case. The Councilmember also asks whether the affordable housing portion of the proposal is a big part of its potential net fiscal negativity. Staff indicates this is the case. The Councilmember asks whether a nonprofit could own/control the affordable housing portion, and whether it would negatively impact the fiscal outcome. Staff indicates that is the case as well, but that something like a downpayment assistance program would not carry such a negative impact. The Councilmember then asks about the potential for phasing the project in to mitigate the concern regarding need for housing. Staff says that “absolutely” such phasing would occur and that, even if approved today, the first house would likely not be built for three years. The Councilmember also asks about the history of this issue. He asks how many houses were indicated as desirable by the HESC. Staff indicates that a range of 500-776 houses was recommended. The Councilmember also asks whether BEDC indicated a desire for mixed-use, including housing. Staff indicates this is the case.

The Mayor Pro Tem speaks next. She asks, of the 500 units within the city that are approved, how many are required to be universally designed. Staff indicates that number is zero. The Mayor Pro Tem also asks whether Mori Seiki looked into occupying this site. Staff indicates they looked at it as a “C-site”.

The Mayor speaks next. He asks whether an attempt has been made to understand the impact of West Village on he existing Davis housing stock. Staff says “time will tell who these units will serve”. The Mayor also asks about the Covell Village proposal, and whether an at-grade crossing was explored as part of that proposal. Staff indicates that is the case.

9:30pm- We move to Council comments.

Councilmember Greenwald speaks first. She reiterates her desire for a high-tech-campus-like, neighborhood compatible, low-noise, no truck traffic, etc. business park at that location, and how that would be “good for the neighborhood”. She also believes the “big myth” is that a high-tech will not locate there. She says she spoke with “all the high-tech players” in town, and that they would all love to locate there. She specifically indicates that Pam Marrone indicated a desire to move her high-tech company to that location. The Councilmember also takes issue with reports that have been referenced at the meeting. Specifically the HESC, she believes, did not indicate a “preference” for housing at this site. Also, the Business Park Viability Study, she believes, said a high-tech business park would be viable for this site. She indicates a belief that she is on a pro-economic development Council, and that if this is the case, the Council should not re-zone its only high-tech land. “You can’t say you’re for high-tech, you can’t re-zone your only high-tech land”.

Councilmember Souza speaks next. He reads from Pam Marrone’s letter. She indicates in the letter her support for the proposed development.

At this time, Councilmember Greenwald interrupts to “clarify” the letter. The Mayor indicates he will let her respond after Councilmember Souza finishes speaking.

Councilmember Souza continues. He indicates his desire that all housing approved in the city meet universal design requirements. He also says he believes that demands on city services be minimized in the design, including using less water for irrigation. Next, he wants to look at “new models of affordability”. He also says he wants to “complete the bike loop” and have better connectivity throughout town.

The Mayor now recognizes Councilmember Greenwald. She reads from her correspondence with Pam Marrone. The letter indicates Ms. Marrone’s belief that 20 acres of business park is “on the light side”.

The Mayor Pro Tem speaks next. She reads the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) online and that it states only one to two foreclosures per month. She also indicates her understanding that Cannery Park would be highly undesirable as a “monolithic” business park. She also believes the Council should be consistent with its previous vote not to move forward with an equal-weight EIR on a 100-acre business park on this parcel. The Mayor Pro Tem reiterates what she likes about the proposal, its universal design, ag buffer, walkability, etc.

Councilmember Wolk speaks next. He indicates a belief that this project presents an opportunity for the community to address two needs in this community, the 25-40 age group and the 55 and older group. He also reiterates his interest in moving this project along with certain parameters. He believes it must be fiscally neutral, it must have safe crossings over the train tracks and over Covell, multi-generational housing, that it be environmentally sustainable, and that it be phased-in.

The Mayor speaks last. He views his vote as very important, and does not feel a “rush” to move forward at this time. He wants to see more on the finances. He also indicates he will vote “no” until a safe crossing of the railroad tracks is included. He also believes it does not approach zero-net energy. He believes it is a “very, very difficult site to develop”.

The Mayor Pro Tem speaks next. She indicates her comfort with moving the proposal forward and a belief that Council will have the opportunity fr more review. She moves staff recommendations 1-5, seconded by Councilmember Souza:

1. Receive an update on the following project components, as requested by the City Council at the April 5, 2011 Cannery Park Workshop:
a. Appropriate land use mix
b. Timeliness of application review and considerationc. Appropriate mix of housing typesd. Bicycle/pedestrian connectivity to the sitee. Preliminary fiscal analysis

2. Identify Council priorities that should be integrated into the project proposal; and

3. Direct staff to accept, and begin review and processing, a full entitlement applicationfrom the project proponents; and

4. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an updatedcontract with DeNovo Planning Group for EIR preparation; and

5. Direct staff to return to the City Council in September with:
a. Project review timeline
b. Refined site plan reflecting input received to date including:
i. refinements outlined at the April 5thCouncil Workshop and staff report
ii. refinements discussed in this report, including returning with a square footagegoal for commercial floor area in the approximately 20 acre business park
c. Updated project description for purposes of initiating an EIR
d. Proposed alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR

Councilmember Greenwald makes a substitute motion that the zoning mix include “50% business park”, seconded by the Mayor. The motion fails 2-3, with Councilmembers Souza, Swanson and Wolk dissenting.

The main motion is now on the table. Councilmember Greenwald reiterates her belief that, if industrial land is re-zoned, “we are anti-economic development”.

The main motion passes 3-2, with Councilmembers Krovoza and Greenwald dissenting.

10:21pm- The Council is now on a 10-minute break.

10:30pm- The Council returns and takes up item 8, continuing budget discussion. The City Manager presents items from the packet to the Council. It is a thorough presentation, most of which is in the packet, none of which will be rehashed here.

11:00pm- Council moves to questions and comments.

Councilmember Souza speaks first. He says to the many City Staff members in the audience, his belief that “we have the best darn employees on Earth”. He indicates his desire to have a thoughtful, planned, constructive process for the budget.

Councilmember Greenwald speaks next. She indicates her belief that it will be hard for the taxpayer to make up the shortfall in the budget, especially with the poor economy and impending water-rate increase.

The Mayor Pro Tem speaks next. She indicates her gratitude for the City employees who have stuck it out in the meeting.

Councilmember Wolk shares that sentiment. He also indicates that he, too, is a public employee (Deputy Solano County Council) and that they are making the “same wrenching decisions” being made in Davis.

The Mayor echoes the comments being made, and indicates he has received many accolades of the City staff in Davis. He wants to build “a sustainable city, not just in an environmental sense, but a budgetary sense.”

Councilmember Greenwald asks the City Manager how much the City brings in in sales and property tax. The answer is $4.5 million.

11:20pm- Public comment is now open.

Bobby Weist speaks first. He is the President of the Davis Firefighters Local 3494. He indicates his disagreement with the decision of the Council to lay off five employees “just to keep the 15% reserve”. The believes the approach that has been taken is “shameful”.

Jeff York speaks next. He is a board member of the Davis Peace Officer Association. He believes layoffs should be a “last resort”.

Billy Dowdy speaks next. He is the head coach of the Davis Aquadarts and the liaison for the Aquatic Council. He wants to meet with staff to gain a better understanding of how the proposed pool closures will impact swimmers and swim groups.

Larry King speaks next. He is a water systems expert in the city. He believes the City Council should “think outside the box” regarding budget solutions. He believes the City should fight other entities besides its employees when balancing the budget.

Josie (last name not said) speaks next. She works for the Dept. of Public Works. She moved from Boston to Davis. Even though she works in Davis, she still cannot afford to live in Davis. She believes the public employees have been overlooked. “Our future is in your hands”.

Kirk Talent speaks next. He is a firefighter for 28 years. He says he understands sacrifice. “We’re not numbers, we’re people.”

11:37pm- The Council moves to Councilmember questions and comments.

Councilmember Souza raises the issue of the time. He believes that, if the Council is going to take any additional items, a vote should be taken to continue. Council agrees to table item 11 to another week.

And, sadly, this is where I must call it a night. Thanks for joining me in this blog-venture! Keep it going in the comment section if you like.

My unlimited love to y’all!

Will Arnold has been a Davis resident since birth.

Discussion

  1. Bernie Goldsmith says:
    June 21, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    I was in council chambers – it’s a zoo! I’ve never seen them so packed. We overloaded the air conditioning system. They propped open the exit doors so that people could come and go as they please, and linger about outside.

Leave a Comment