Project Scope Generates Fiscal, Transportation, and Land Use Concerns –
Project Scope Generates Fiscal, Transportation, and Land Use Concerns – According to the release, because the Sports Park provides replacement fields for both Civic and Davis Little League the city is required to address the environmental impacts that would be associated with the fields being converted to housing. On November 5, 2009, the Davis City Council adopted an Updated Housing Element for the General Plan. Included in the Housing Element Update were designation of the Civic Center ball field and Davis Little League Complex as future infill housing sites in the General Plan.
The City of Davis is hosting an EIR NOP Scoping meeting for the Davis Sports Park on June 30, 2010 at the Davis Police Station Community Room located at 2600 Fifth Street. The purpose of a scoping meeting is to review what the city intends to study in the EIR and provide the public with an opportunity to suggest additional environmental issues which should be studied.
After preparation of the Draft EIR and subsequent release to the public for review and comment, the City Council will be provided with the EIR, including responses to all public comments on the DEIR, disclosing what the impact to the environment will be before taking any final action on rezoning either Civic Center ball field, Davis Little League fields or approval of a Sport Park alternative.
The scoping meeting will be in a workshop format so participants may drop in any time between 7-9PM. Representatives from the various youth sports groups involved in the Sports Complex, city staff and EIR consultant will be available to answer questions. Comment sheets will be available at the workshop.
Commentary
First, the cost is a factor. As we have already discussed in previous articles, it appears that the city is prepared, if council approves it, to use the supplemental fees from the Verona Project to finance the one-time cost of an EIR of the Sports Park. Given the city’s current fiscal problems, this does not appear to be a good use of public money. The city would be better off putting that money either into road repair which is in dire straights or perhaps better yet into reserves to increase the buffer in case the city has been too rosy in its fiscal projection in the out years.
While we have no reason at this time to believe that the city would incur the costs of construction, it is worth at least considering whether the city would have operational costs associated with the complex. Given these would be outdoor fields rather than some sort of building, those costs probably would not be prohibitive, but there are other considerations here as well.
The second problem is that of location. And really two factors in the location, the possibility that it would be growth inducing and then there is the travel and transportation factor.
The three proposed sites are all fairly far out of town. One is north of what might be Covell Village near the old landfill off of Road 102. One is the property east of Wildhorse and north of Covell Blvd, the Shiner’s Property. And the third way out on I-80, east of town as you go towards the causeway. It is on County Road 32A and County Road 105, it would appear to be parallel to the eastern edge of El Marcero.
From a development stand point, one would have to wonder the growth inducing implications of putting a sports complex on three pieces of undeveloped peripheral land. For instance, does putting a sports complex north of Covell Village, make it more likely that at some point that land is developed? I know a lot of people would like to see the greenbelt connected to go all around Davis, but at what price?
Putting a sports complex north of Covell and East of Wildhorse, may add additional growth pressure north of the Mace Curve or possibly inside of the curve to the east of the Junior High.
Finally, putting a sports complex way out east of town, puts possible growth pressure on the I-80 corridor where the county has already proposed studying for future development.
The other problem with location has to do with transportation and ease of access. Right now, the children play in parks and amenities that are in the core of town. By focusing sports and recreation well outside of the core, we are basically conceding that children will be driven to the sports complex on the periphery. That will produce increased traffic, more car trips, and decrease the possibility of biking or walking to sporting events.
In short, this would seem to encourage the type of behavior and transportation that we have been discussing ways to avoid. Everyone in the last few years have talked about moving amenities closer to the core of town. If moving amenities closer to the core means moving other activities to the periphery it is almost self-defeating.
We need to find ways to get more children to ride their bikes to school and to recreational events, not ensure that they never will.
The bottom line is that the sports complex has been a council priority that was planned during a different era for a different type of use than we currently need. Unfortunately, the council will be bombarded by parents, children, and sports coaches who will pose this in terms of the children not having adequate sports amenities. That is certainly a concern that the city must address, unfortunately from a budgetary and land use standpoint this move makes little sense right now. The best solution would be for the new council to reconsider the necessity of this decision at this time given the fiscal and land use implications.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What are the available options in town? Do all sports need to be concentrated in one center? I suppose there are advantages to having one complex but it would also reduce what neighborhood feel that is left in Davis. . Its not just GHG, it enforces a whole way of life which revolves around cars.
Most people already drive but the City needs to do what it can to encourage people to walk, ride bikes, etc. Part of the reason for the obesity epidemic in the US is that most people in this country walk very little and drive a lot–this sports complex, ironically, would encourage more driving.
Krovoza made much of his experience and expertise on transportation issues and this could be his first test.
My gut reaction is that this will get built eventually and be very popular with parents/kids so how the EIR is done and what it looks at matters. CEQA requires the EIR to look at options–are there any viable options in town, perhaps at multiple venues? If we cannot get some options closer to the center of town in the EIR it will be harder down the road.
Lets partner with UCD , it keeps it central and bike friendly , its a win win .
Just the city doing business as usual, and mark my words, a new Sports Complex will cost taxpayers dearly. Those of you who voted for Measure Q sent the message that you don’t mind having your pockets picked by the city to provide more services. $400,000+ being spent on an EIR for a Sports Complex (frill), while our roads (basic) deteriorate immeasurably, city workers are laid off, and other services are cut like police. Frills before basics – just more of the same old same old…
While I agree with you more than I don’t, I do object somewhat in that none of the money from Measure Q will go to the EIR as far as I can.
This sports complex already has the smell of a done deal.
With the old council you may have been correct, with a new council, not necessarily.
DMG: “While I agree with you more than I don’t, I do object somewhat in that none of the money from Measure Q will go to the EIR as far as I can.”
Don’t you think the money from Measure Q will go to OPERATE the sports complex? Furthermore, the money spent on the EIR could be used to fix roads, no?
I haven’t seen a financing or operational plan for the sports complex, so it’s shear conjecture, but my guess is that the money to run it would come out of parks maintenance rather than general fund. Also by the time it gets built, Measure Q may well have expired.
Well whose bright idea was it to even consider putting a sports park primarily for children on the old landfill dump site which is loaded with toxics? Who is going to want to have their child playing on a field which is technically a “brownfield”? Was this staff’s stupid idea or Council’s? If City Council supported this ridiculous idea Vanguard please let us know which Council members voted for it.
Also, what about the enormous amount of traffic and night lighting it would bring to the already impacted Covell and Pole Line area and those neighborhoods? I’ll bet these neighborhoods don’t even know about this and wait until they find out. The Covell Center proposal years ago tried using this stunt of offering a sports park years ago in this vicinity and the traffic impacts revealed in the EIR were astronomical and damning. Furthermore, the fiscal analysis of that sports park proposal was also damning since it revealed that such a project would be financial disaster destined to be inherited by the city.
During this entire previous sports complex proposal episode the sports groups claimed that they could get it to “pencil out”. Yet the sports groups, then and now, have had a hard enough time getting volunteers and raising enough money to keep the sports groups they have now afloat. I am not against childrens sports but in these economic times this is expecting way too much when the City is laying off employees and trying to survive financially and we should not be expected to pick up the expensive tab for a sports park.
“The other problem with location has to do with transportation and ease of access. Right now, the children play in parks and amenities that are in the core of town. By focusing sports and recreation well outside of the core, we are basically conceding that children will be driven to the sports complex on the periphery. That will produce increased traffic, more car trips, and decrease the possibility of biking or walking to sporting events.
In short, this would seem to encourage the type of behavior and transportation that we have been discussing ways to avoid. Everyone in the last few years have talked about moving amenities closer to the core of town. If moving amenities closer to the core means moving other activities to the periphery it is almost self-defeating.”
Densification meets reality.
DPD: “Given the city’s current fiscal problems, this does not appear to be a good use of public money. The city would be better off putting that money either into road repair which is in dire straights or perhaps better yet into reserves to increase the buffer in case the city has been too rosy in its fiscal projection in the out years.”
so what else is new. the city was wasting our money before Q, and they will continue to waste it afterward. you rightly pointed out on your blog that it was wrong to continue to ask the public for more $, but considering the fact that they have been given a blank check for years with tax renewals/increases, why should the city begin to save and spend wisely?
“why should the city begin to save and spend wisely?”
For one thing they’ll have two new members of the city council who ran on bringing fiscal responsibility to the city.
[i]”First, the cost is a factor.”[/i]
Is there an estimate on cost?
[i]”As we have already discussed in previous articles, it appears that the city is prepared, if council approves it, to use the supplemental fees from the Verona Project to finance the one-time cost of an EIR of the Sports Park.”[/i]
The “parkland in-lieu fee” is $606,907. I would not think an EIR would eat up all of that.
[i]”Given the city’s current fiscal problems, this does not appear to be a good use of public money.”[/i]
I don’t think the real problem here is the upfront costs for an EIR (unless an EIR costs far more than I would suppose). I think the real problem is with the underlying assumption–that a sports complex will be constructed by a developer on land dedicated to the city as part of a large peripheral development.
[b]First[/b], our housing market is dead now. So there is absolutely no hurry with this.
[b]Second, our housing market is very unlikely to be hot for the next five years, because A) the university is not growing jobs; B) the state government is not growing jobs or consultancy contracts; C) private employers in our region are not growing jobsl and D) any possible increase in local housing demand is likely to be eaten up by West Village, Verona, Grande, Willowbank, Chiles Ranch, etc. So with no real demand for a large housing development–keep in mind that only a very large project would be able to dedicate 100 acres to the city and pay for the improvements for a sports complex–a developer would have to be a fool to propose one.
[b]Third[/b], the voters of Davis will not vote in favor of any large peripheral growth in the next 5 years. Maybe there will be a change of heart at some point in the future, but it seems pretty clear that for a variety of reasons, the Measure J process will kill all developments on our periphery.
That then raises the question: Why pay for an EIR in 2010 for a sports complex that has no chance of being approved before 2016 or later?
I think a possible answer, and one which has the least suggestion of improper dealings*, is inertia: that is, the ball got rolling on this three or four years ago, we still have a need for more sports facilities and so staff is just moving this along on its natural next step, regardless of the three huge external changes which make this EIR pointless right now.
*I can think of some improper reasons why this might be moving forward now. However, because I don’t know enough to say for sure, I will keep those notions to myself. Moreover, I don’t agree with “wesley”–I don’t think this is a done deal. My guess is that the incoming council will kill it before any money is expended on it.
“The “parkland in-lieu fee” is $606,907. I would not think an EIR would eat up all of that. “
It won’t eat up any of that, because the park in-lieu fee cannot be used for an EIR.
[i]”… the park in-lieu fee cannot be used for an EIR.”[/i]
Quimby fees can be used “to prepare master plans for park and recreation facilities ([url]http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_2901-2950/ab_2936_cfa_20020530_124919_sen_comm.html[/url]).” That is what this would be. So yes, they can be used for this EIR.
“I think a possible answer, and one which has the least suggestion of improper dealings*, is inertia…..”
I agree with Rich Rifkin here, and will add that it appears to be more “make-work” for Emlen’s current under-worked city staff DPD: Are these 3 sites within the current city limits? Are they already owned by the city? Does building a sports complex potentially change the need for a measure R vote if residential development is in its future?
According to Navazio, no. That’s why if you read the staff report, they specify the supplement fees would go for the EIR.
Davisite: None of the sites are in the city, but I believe parks are exempted from Measure R votes.
DMG: “I haven’t seen a financing or operational plan for the sports complex, so it’s shear conjecture, but my guess is that the money to run it would come out of parks maintenance rather than general fund. Also by the time it gets built, Measure Q may well have expired.”
Let me get this straight. The $400,000+ being spent on an EIR for a Sports Complex could have been spent on fixing roads in Davis, no? But what did the city do – placed the $400,000+ in a pot of money that will not allow it to be placed in the General Fund so that it can only be spent on master planning/acquiring new parkland(Quimby fees vs supplemental fees) – in otherwords, a shell game was played that the city denied was going on. Now there are $400,000 that would have been available to fix potholes that is now not available to fix potholes, but is available to pay for an EIR for a new Sports Complex. Have I got the logic right? So in essence won’t Measure Q funds now have to be used to fix potholes? You have to connect the dots, unless I am missing something. This is the kind of slight of hand the city constantly uses to hide the ball to go ahead and do what they want, despite the city’s fiscal realities.
Now lets take this a step further. Once the city does an EIR, it sets the whole process in motion to build the Sports Complex. After all, the argument will go, if we already paid for the EIR, it would be a waste of $400,000+ not to build it. The city will hide the fact that the city will have to pay to operate the Sports Complex – the creation of a new city service that citizens will now become addicted to and have to have as a “necessity”. The way this game is played is to introduce a frill, start the process of beginning the project for the frill, make it almost impossible to stop the process. Once it is a fait accompli, then it becomes a necessity – and a service that will have to be cut in economic hard times unless we raise taxes to pay for it. And don’t be surprised if the city actually institutes a separate Sports Complex Tax to pay for operating it.
AND ON AND ON IT GOES…
DMG: “”why should the city begin to save and spend wisely?” For one thing they’ll have two new members of the city council who ran on bringing fiscal responsibility to the city.”
This is wishful thinking. City staff does all sorts of slights of hands and accounting techniques that force the hand of the City Council, e.g. put funding in a pot of money that can only be used for certain things. Furthermore, the jury is still out on how Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson will operate/vote wrt to issues. Also, they are only TWO votes, not THREE.
Rich Rifkin: “I don’t think the real problem here is the upfront costs for an EIR (unless an EIR costs far more than I would suppose). I think the real problem is with the underlying assumption–that a sports complex will be constructed by a developer on land dedicated to the city as part of a large peripheral development.”
That is one problem, but the cost to run the complex is another big problem.
“This is wishful thinking. City staff does all sorts of slights of hands and accounting techniques that force the hand of the City Council, e.g. put funding in a pot of money that can only be used for certain things. Furthermore, the jury is still out on how Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson will operate/vote wrt to issues. Also, they are only TWO votes, not THREE. “
In view, we’ll see if it’s wishful thinking or not. I suspect/ hope that Sue will join with the others if they wish to oppose this kind of project. If Joe and Rochelle prove to be more of the same, then at least we’ll know and go back to the drawing board. However, from my discussions with them, I don’t think that will be the case.
“That is one problem, but the cost to run the complex is another big problem.”
The complex is a bunch of sports fields, there are certainly parks maintenance costs there, but it’s probably not the most expensive operation we could run.
DMG: “The complex is a bunch of sports fields, there are certainly parks maintenance costs there, but it’s probably not the most expensive operation we could run.”
Mowing the grass of large fields weekly, paying for the water to irrigate the grass, upkeep of any infrastructure can be a sizeable expense. However, my understanding is at one time they were talking about building an indoor swimming pool in a huge clubhouse of some sort. Can you tell me that possibility is no longer under consideration?
I’m still trying to figure out whether the nice (but restricted and usually vacant) ballfields near COMCAST provide the type of park space Davis really needs.
Now we’ve decided to move our other sports fields from convenient residential locations to some large complex out of town accessible to our kids only by car? And to one of three properties we don’t own?
And since we can’t afford it in the foreseeable future, let’s just get started now by spending a bunch of money for which we can’t dream up a better purpose than an environmental evaluation for a project that might never go forward (and if it does, might end up in much different scope or another location)?
Does the infill concept really allow or encourage covering up ANY of our park green spaces with buildings that aren’t for recreation purposes?
[i]”The $400,000+ being spent on an EIR for a Sports Complex could have been spent on fixing roads in Davis, no?”[/i]
Elaine, where did you get that $400,000 figure?
This comes from a staff report ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/pgs/sportspark/pdfs/Feb 10 2009 Staff Report-Sports Park EIR Consultant.pdf[/url]) from February, 2009: [quote]The cost of EIR is $199,981 without the equal weight alternative and $308,255 with the equal weight alternatives (attachment 3).[/quote] Considering that there is NO CHANCE for any of the sites other than Howatt Ranch, which the city already owns, the $199,981 figure is operative. However, I would think that if the city could do this in-house, it would be less than that.
Davis has miles and miles of bike paths. Davis is famous for bicycling. No new building would be needed to field bicycling teams, bicycling competitions and such. Yes, of course it’s important for kids to be active, but that does not require soccer or any other “team sport”. We’re well-equipped for kids to do cycling and other “personal best” sports. So… we’re building a sports complex specifically for those who choose to get their all-important and truly excellent exercise in a way that’s not supported by the current infrastructure… I’m not sure quite where I’m going with this, but overall I just can’t see spending the money to build such a complex. Now or ever. (Unless money for such projects begins to fall from the sky)
Rich: The link takes me to a “Page Not Found” page; do you have another?
What dollar value do you put on the one-acre parcel that would go to a park when you’ve been calculating the benefits of the change?
Just, I see the link does not work. I don’t know why. If you don’t trust what I quoted (which came from that link), go to the city of Davis website and search its pdf documents for “EIR cost $199,981.”
[i]”What dollar value do you put on the one-acre parcel that [u]would go to a park[/u] when you’ve been calculating the benefits of the change?”[/i]
I have no idea. However, the “parkland in-lieu fee” for it is now set at $606,907, so I suppose our city staff thinks that is its value.
Note also that the 1 acre parcel never would have been “a park.” It would have been “burrowing owl habitat,” which would have been off-limits to the people of Davis. In other words, it would have just been an empty lot, likely one covered in weeds.
http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20090609/05 Sports Park Conceptual Plans.pdf
This is the url in question.
I see what is going on: The Vanguard software is chopping up the URL, so it won’t work.
Here is the council agenda for that date, but I couldn’t get that pdf to open:
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/packet.cfm?agenda=B251F114-1143-EEBD-B076DC335A774BE5[/url]
“but I believe parks are exempted from Measure R votes…”
Are you suggesting that the sports complex field would be annexed into the city without a Measure R vote? Since this will essentially be open fields, could the city then “sell” this land to a developer for residential development without a Measure R vote sometime in the future??
No they would have to have a Measure J/ R vote to convert from a non-urban use to an urban use, there is no loophole that would allow for develop of parkland without a vote.
David, you were right the first time: [i]”None of the sites are in the city, but I believe parks are exempted from Measure R votes.”[/i]
And wrong the second time: [i]”No they would have to have a Measure J/ R vote to convert from a non-urban use to an urban use. There is no [u]loophole[/u] that would allow for develop of parkland without a vote.”[/i]
Here is the verbiage at question from Measure J ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/topic/pdfs/ord2008.pdf[/url]): [quote] Section 1. The City of Davis General Plan, Land Use Element is hereby amended to add the following Guiding Policy, Policy 2.1.H.1 to read as follows:
H.1. Establish and require a citizens’ vote process for any proposed amendment to the Land Use Map as amended …
—snip—
[u]Section 29-12.4.3. Voter Approval[/u].
A. Voter Approval of Changes to Land Use Designations on the Land Use Map from Agricultural or Urban Reserve to Urban land use designations or from Agricultural to Urban Reserve land use designations.
(1) Each and every proposed amendment or modification of the Land Use Map to modify the land use designation … [b]requires[/b] … [b]voter approval[/b] of the proposed amendment or modification of the Land Use Map.
—snip—
[u]Section 29-12.4.4 Exemptions[/u].
The requirement for voter approval set forth in this Article shall not apply to any of the following:
—snip—
[b](b) Land to be used for public parks;[/b] except:
(1) Should any such land be deemed not needed for public park purposes, any proposal to convert such land to urban use shall be subject to the voter approval requirements of this Article.[/quote] So if the city council decides that Howatt Ranch is needed for a public park (sports complex), there would not be a Measure J (or Measure R) vote.
Correct to convert Howatt to a public they do not need a Measure J/ R vote, but to convert from the park to residential housing they would. That’s what I was trying to say in the second one in response to the question by Davisite. There’s no loophole by changing it to a park first and then residential housing.
Looking at the list of people who have commented, I don’t recognize many (if any) names of people who have attended any of the meetings that have been held on this issue in the past. I could be mistaken.
There are a few misconceptions listed here, in my opinion.
I’ve been involved with a number of “athletic field requirements” studies over the years conducted by the city. It is clear that there is a need for additional fields. The last General Plan laid this out clearly, and as we have moved forward with the General Plan, the planned facilities have not been built.
There is a need for both neighborhood facilities as well as a “complex”, and the complex is better sited on the periphery of town rather than internally. To get the most efficient use of facilities some of them should be lit fields (such as Little League), and this kind of facility should not be placed in a neighborhood. Therefore a peripheral site.
As far as Howatt being “growth inducing”, city staff says it will not. In fact, it may be the opposite. As a part of the development of the facility we can put a development buffer around it that says that no housing can be built within one mile. It just so happens that it is one mile from Howatt to Mace Ranch Blvd – so that would effectively stop housing development on the east side of that road – actually a boon to no-growth proponents.
One thing that isn’t apparent in the EIR process is what the general concept for this is. It started off as a “private/public partnership” concept, similar to what we have successfully done (on a smaller scale) with Nugget Fields. Note that at Nugget Fields the cost to the city (and school district) is minimal, as the sports groups handle just about all operational costs (both from staff and actual maintenance). The concept of the “sports park” is that the member groups will handle a large part, if not all, of the costs of management.
In my mind there are three “costs” to developing athletic fields, based on my experience with Nugget Fields. You have the cost of land acquisition, the cost of facility development, and the cost of maintainence/operation. Sports groups have a hard time with land acquisition, but the City can do that fairly easily. Howatt is already owned by the City. The Landfill is already owned by the City. The other site – that is an open question at this time.
Development – there are things that the City can do more cost effectively and things that the sports groups can do more cost effectively. This will probably be split, but the details have not yet been worked out. We can’t work out the details until a site is picked. Looking at Nugget Fields as an example, most of the development cost was born by private groups (sports groups, Nugget Market, many donations). The city waived some fees, assisted in several smaller issues, donation of asphalt grindings from road resurfacing, and so forth. Private groups can usually build something for less than the City can.
Maintenance – this is where the City has the biggest problem. Anything that adds to the annual budget is a big issue. On the other hand, this is where sports groups can do the best. Smaller annual costs are easier to manage than big one time development costs. The working concept for a sports park at this time is that the City will have minimal annual costs – probably just staff time to do some monitoring, possibly some issues with water supply. The majority, if not all, of the cost of maintaining and operating will be born by the sports groups.
THIS CAN WORK – we do it at Nugget Fields already. The larger youth sports groups are ALREADY setting aside funds to be used for this, and have been for some time.
Thank you.