One of the last acts that Lamar Heystek performed as Davis City Councilmember was to put on the long range calendar a discussion of Davis’ record retention policies. One of my continuing concerns is the fact that we discard video recordings of our City Council meetings after a period of six months or so. That leaves the only historical record of what happened in our meetings the minutes and whatever policies are enacted.
The problem with the minutes is that they are summary in nature and so we lose context for how issues arose and what was discussed. I bring this up at this particular time because I was attempting to backtrack to learn how and when the issue of rezoning two Davis Parks go grouped with the Sports Park Concept.
However going back to the agenda for that meeting, there was never a mention of rezoning two parks, Civic Fields and the Little League Parks. From the minutes of that meeting, it appears that council approved the staff report, there was an amendment to include the Signature Property site as a project alternative for the purpose of analysis within the EIR, but there was no mention in the minutes whatsoever about including the rezone of two parks in the EIR (see minutes).
And yet, “Partial funding for the project development maybe derived from the sale of the two rezoning sites which are currently in recreational use with the remainder funded by the sports groups.”
The original funding mechanism was the $200,000 from the supplemental fees from the Verona subdivision.
The February 2009 staff report continues, “Because previous discussions and documents indicate that rezoning and sell existing park assets is a possible funding mechanism the EIR is required to analyze the concept. In addition to documents related to the sports park the recently updated Housing Element also shows possible conversion of the sites to housing. A reasonable relationship exists between the rezoning of the sites and the sports park.”
The report went on to discuss the rezoning of the two sites.
Civic Center ball field is 3.1 acres and located at 23 Russell Blvd. It consists of one lighted baseball field. The site is immediately adjacent to public buildings (continuation high school, Senior Center, County offices, City offices, Civic Center pool/gym) on three side and single family residences across the street to the east. The site will require a General Plan Amendment from Public/Semi Public to Residential Medium density with a range of units of 26-60 and a rezoning from residential R-1-8 to Planned Development with residential medium density. The site is owned by the city of Davis.
Davis Little League Fields is 5.5 acres located at 1865 H Street. It consists of two (2) lighted and two (2) unlighted baseball fields, snack bar/restrooms, batting cages and announcer box. The site is immediately adjacent to a city pump station and Covell Blvd overcrossing, H Street and railroad tracks, multifamily housing and Community Park. The site will require a General Plan Amendment from Parks/Recreation to Residential High density with a range of 92-164 units and rezoning from Residential R-1-6 to Planned Development with residential high density. The site is owned by the city of Davis.
It should be pointed out that residents still have time to make comments on the site by emailing Anne Brunnette by this Friday, July 16.
“The proposed project would require General Plan Amendments and rezoning of two existing City-owned parks for future residential uses – the Civic Center Ball Field, located at 23 Russell Boulevard; and the Davis Little League Fields, located at 1865 H Street…” and “Following approval of entitlements, the City would sell the rezoned site and the proceeds would be used for the construction of the Sports Park.” (June 16, 2010; Notice of Preparation of an EIR.)
According to a comment on the Vanguard from Charlie Russell who has been active in this process, the idea of selling the Civic Center site was a late addition to the City proposal and can be removed if the Council wishes. He stated that this was not added at the request of the youth sports groups. The idea of selling that for housing came up as a separate idea by some of the members of the Council at that time.
Commentary
First, as expressed in a previous column, I am concerned about the development of the landfill site as one of the alternatives. There appears to be safety issues there. In addition to those safety issues, the infrastructure and road capacity at Covell and Pole Line is problematic to accommodate any large scale event.
There is also the fact that this site is directly north of the Covell Village site and may have some implications there. However, given Measure R, it seems unlikely that development would occur on that site any time in the near future. There is an equally compelling argument that a busy and noisy sports complex with lights and night time events would preclude residential development nearby.
Second, I oppose the conversion of current parks to residential development, particularly Civic Fields but also the Little League park. I understand the concerns about their size, but at the very least, I would like to see them continue their current use even if they are not suitable for other purposes to which the sports complex would specifically accommodate.
I understand the need for funding, but I would recommend the city find alternative funding sources.
Moreover, while I favor redevelopment, densification of the core, and the building of homes in the areas surrounding the core, I would prefer the focus to remain on already urbanized parcels whether that be the school district headquarters, the public works yard over on Fifth Street, the elusive PG&E site. Between those three areas, there would seem to be more than enough potential parcels for lower cost condos and other development that would create a denser and more tightly compact core of town.
To me, taking out existing open space and parkland is no better than paving over existing farmland on the periphery. I just do not see the need at this time to consider more development with the level of impact that we would be proposing.
I understand that Howatt is far from an ideal site, however, the other two equal weight alternatives are worse. The Shriner’s Property is adjacent to existing housing and comes with tremendous strings. That does not seem viable. We have discussed the landfill site and that is a problem.
At this point, I think if the sports leagues want the path of least resistance, Howatt is the way to go without the rezone and sale of existing parkland.
So I urge members of the public to submit your comments if you have not by July 16, 2010 and let the city know your concerns.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“To me, taking out existing open space and parkland is no better than paving over existing farmland on the periphery.”
I agree. You might also add that most people will drive to this site (of course they do already but placing the complex farther out makes it worse)–is there any way the complex can be built to avoid this?
Forgive me for being naive, but what is wrong with the current sports infrastructure. I don’t hear people complaining (and I am a parent).
As I have read the discussion and talked with the people, the sports people do not feel we have enough infrastructure right now to accommodate existing needs. There are also cost issues and the sites are all over impacted.
Second, Nugget Fields and some of the other facilities will be removed in the near future. The School Disrict has a 7/11 committee for Nugget Fields and they intend to do as they did with Grande and entitle and sell the property which would leave not enough facilities for existing soccer needs. The softball people apparently do not have sufficient regulation facilities in the city.
That’s my understanding of their concerns. The question then comes to the how and where. I’m mainly focusing on the how not (rezoning Civic Fields and the Little League sites) and the where not (Shriners or Landfill).
David: Thanks. I wish the school district was not going to entitle Nugget Fields. I am not sure what wnyone can do about it though. As a dedicated soccer area Nugget fields works quite well even if that was never to be a permanent solution. I’d like the EIR to at least consider an alternative that did not involve building fields on the periphery. That is what an EIR is for.
We know that there are three equal weight alternatives, one thing I don’t know is what the other project alternatives are.
DG: [b]”To me, taking out existing open space and parkland is no better than paving over existing farmland on the periphery.” [/b]
DOC: [i]”I agree.”[/i]
I wonder, David, if you really meant what you said here?
If you would amend that to “taking out existing … parkland … which our community needs … is no better than paving over existing farmland on the periphery” then I would think that better matches your philosophy
Yet what you wrote suggests that all infill development, such as at the Grande site or the Chiles Ranch site, which is “taking out existing open space,” is effectively the same as developing peripheral farms.
I don’t attach the same romantic value to peripheral farmland that you do. I believe that when Davis stops peripheral housing developments, those units will be built on farmland next to Vacaville, West Sac, Woodland, Natomas, etc.
My belief is that there are some negatives to infill — especially because we have decided that it needs to be much more dense than its surrounding neighbors would ever like — and there are some negatives to outfill. I don’t think an infill project is, ceteris paribus, better than an outfill project. But having read your thoughts on this topic many times, I would be surprised to hear you now state that an infill project is “no better than paving over existing farmland on the periphery.”
[quote]”To me, taking out existing open space and parkland is no better than paving over existing farmland on the periphery.”[/quote] I disagree: It’s [u]much worse[/u]! Paving over our existing open space/parkland within the city affects far more people than plopping down a sports facility a mile outside. Once made, a decision to build up to 220 houses on 8.6 acres of inside-city parkland can’t be fixed somehow down the road.
Some past Council members as well as some of the sports facility backers act as though the program “owns” the existing ballfields and “no problem” selling them off for the benefit of the Little League program. Of course, both sites are “owned by the city of Davis” for the benefit of all citizens. Where do such proposals come from? And who decides whether to proceed on them?
I see your point, I was trying to express that I was not in favor of taking out the two parks.
I do agree with your bottom point and I think this is something that we are going to have to work out, that is, if the goal is density in infill projects, you’re going to be going to war at times with neighbors over infill. Personally I don’t see from a planning standpoint a problem with building a new neighborhood with a lot of smaller homes, duplexes, and townhouses and even condos, as long as you figure out a way to reduce traffic and noise impacts. But I do think that is something that we need to have a full discussion on first rather than trying to implement it on the fly.
What does this community really want? No additional housing? Additional housing with similar densities to surrounding neighborhoods? No additional peripheral growth? We have to decide what we want.
[i]”the Davis City Council directed staff to solicit request for proposals for preparation of an EIR for a 100 acres public Sports Park and rezoning of two existing parks from park to residential use.”[/i]
It seems to me these two parks deserve very distinct treatment:
1. The Little League Park is not designed to serve its neighborhood. It is not a general use park. It is across F Stree from Community Park, which serves our city and that neighborhood. And if the sports complex includes new (and I would guess better) baseball fields, then we as a community would have no more use for that site and redeveloping it into, say, apartments harms no one and provides housing as infill;
2. The Civic Center Park is (mostly) a general use park, though it does have a dedicated softball field. It also serves its neighborhood, as the only quiet neighborhood park anywhere near central Davis. Unlike with the LL fields, there is a lack of open space in the area around Civic Center Park. Its loss would cause great harm to the people who live in that part of central Davis.
One other point of context: there is a half-baked proposal floating around to redevelop the school district headquarters on B Street into housing. That may never happen. However, if the community believes we need more housing near our civic center, it would make a lot more sense to build mid-rise apartments on the school district site across B Street than it would by paving over that neighborhood park.
[quote]However, if the community believes we need more housing near our civic center, it would make a lot more sense to build mid-rise apartments on the school district site across B Street than it would by paving over that neighborhood park. [/quote]
Can’t miss to find a topic (as quoted) where I agree with Rick Rifkin… if there is to be redevelopment in the vicinity of City Offices/Civic Center Park, it should be two-3 story mixed uses (primarily residential, except perhaps @ ground level) AT THE CURRENT DJUSD block. The edges next to existing single family uses should transition as to both height & density, to minimize perceived/actual impacts to “old north”.
That block is well served by both of our transit providers, supports easy pedestrian access to open space, City/County(some) services, including the Senior Center, and if the proposed modifications to Fifth/Russell are executed, bicycle lanes.
It’s so “obvious”, I’m sure it will never happen.
One of my continuing concerns is the fact that we discard video recordings of our City Council meetings after a period of six months or so.
David, have you checked for video recordings at the public library? DCTV may have some older meetings archived at their website.
DJUSD school board meetings are still available, archived online as early as January, 2008:
[url]http://djusd.davismedia.org/content/archived-school-board-meeting[/url]
Slightly more off topic, Davis Media Access, who broadcasts these meetings, is having its annual fundraiser. Click here to donate:
[url]http://beta.davismedia.org/index.php?q=civicrm/contribute/transact&reset=1&id=8&widgetID=1[/url]
[quote]”The Little League Park is not designed to serve its neighborhood….we as a community would have no more use for that site and redeveloping it into, say, apartments harms no one and provides housing as infill….”[/quote] City plans note we’re 100 acres short of park space. How can you suggest the community would’t have a use for the present ball fields if the Sport Park comes about?
How about re-designing the property to better meet neighborhood and wider community needs? Or, what about keeping the two large fields for practice and recreation games? Or, maybe replace the Teen Center? Or, what if we just keep the space for future park and recreation needs?
How does it serve the neighborhood or the rest of us to build 164 more units along the railroad tracks? How many sites already are zoned for housing with nothing being built? Selling off developed parks for housing should be a prohibited exception as we hum our infill mantra. I suspect we wouldn’t even be considering sale of these two parks if we weren’t way short of money for the Sports Park.
What this sounds like to me is an attempt to plan and build a new Sports Complex the city can ill afford, and sell off two athletic fields to accommodate more infill housing – at a time when we don’t really NEED either one. Someone has too much time on their hands to create the perceived need for work…
[i]”City plans note we’re 100 acres short of park space. How can you suggest the community would’t have a use for the present ball fields if the Sport Park comes about?”[/i]
You do know that the sports complex is that 100 acres of park space? Knowing that answers your question.
[i]”How about re-designing the property to better meet neighborhood and wider community needs?”[/i]
Other than the LL field, all of that stretch from F Street to H Street is apartments. It seems to me that would meet a community need and fit in very well, there.
[i]”Or, what about keeping the two large fields for practice and recreation games?”[/i]
I presume that the 100 acres sports complex will be designed to accomodate demand for practice fields.
[i]”Or, maybe replace the Teen Center?”[/i]
That’s a possibility. However, the last teen center and the teen center we had before that went largely unused by Davis teens, according to city staff.
[i]”Or, what if we just keep the space for future park and recreation needs?”[/i]
Again, the 100 acre sports complex is going to be designed to meet those future needs. (All 100 acres will not be built up in the first phase. It is supposed to be planned for growth.) Further, that specific site on F Street is right across the street from our largest city park, Community Park. So it is not as if removing the LL fields makes denies that area of town proximate green space.
Keep in mind also that all of this “proposed redevelopment” will not happen before a new sports complex is actually ready for use. So it is not as if there will be a period when there is an absence of LL fields. And from what the LL people are saying, the new fields will better meet their needs.
CORRECTION: “So it is not as if removing the LL fields [s]makes[/s] denies that area of town proximate green space.
Idon’t like what I hear so far about this complex.
1. Rumor has it that soccer parents count among their “needs” the ability to host huge tournaments drawing teams from states far away. I don’t want to spend tight city money on such a high carbon footprint activity for one group of people. If all other impacts were ok, they should at least raise money in their league and buy their own field.
2. Neighborhood parks are important. Don’t dump Civic Center.
3. So now all players must drive to a peripheral site rather than bike to a central site to play ball? More carbon footprint. And traffic.Plus, we shouldn’t sell our city asset of valuable central real estate during a real estate slump. That’s selling low.
4. The schools and university have lots of fields. Are they really all booked, always? I see them empty an awful lot. If soccer parents “needs” are to all be in the same place, too bad. My “need” is to keep the road I must cross every day navigable (Pole Line at Chestnut near Covell).
5. Outdoor lights and noise too? And the folks across from there? And the wonderful burrowing owl reserve for walkers and joggers and owls? All less important than a group of parents’ wish for a sports center? How many parents? Compare that with how many of us might lose some beauty and peace and yes enjoyable exercise while gaining traffic?
6. Where are the big volleyball tournaments held? That’s a lot of sports space. Wanting more may be a bit greedy, if it’s indeed for tournaments. (Plus it’s healthier for all kids involved if places less hot,sunburning and sometimes smoggy than Central Valley Davis hold the tournaments.
SO… supposing Davis hosts no tournaments and soccer parents have to make deals with schools and UCD, both strapped enough for cash to want deals. How many acres if any would they really need to replace Nugget Field?
Thanks again Vanguard for a very informative article. I for one had no idea that the City discarded critically important video recordings which document Council direction and public testimony. I for one can say that I have had to “correct the record” numerous times on staff reports that did not always “get it right”. I am not alone in having had to deal with this problem in the past so it is important that this policy be changed as soon as possible to save all of this important video information so we can refer to it when there there is any question on actions or what was said at Council. With digital technology we can save hours of taping on a single CD so there is no excuse for not saving the public records.
On the sports complex issue it is still astonishing to me that we are paying $200,000 for a sports complex EIR which includes a toxic landfill dump as a potential site in an EIR for a children’s sports complex. Also hard to understand is: the city does not own Shriner’s so where would our cash strapped city find the money to purchase this land? On the concept of selling our Civic Center Filed or Little League Field to help fund (Note: not completely pay for) a huge sports complex is objectionable because we would e sacrificing our in-town park sites and denying the downtown its ONLY active recreational field in order to put SOME money towards a large sports complex that nobody seems to know where ALL the money would be coming from to build it and finance maintaining it.
The only logical solution is
1) We DO NOT sell our in-town parks to try to help fund a sports park.
2) IF the sports groups can raise the money, the ONLY site to consider is the city owned Howet Ranch site. The Howet Ranch site is only one mile to the east of town and no further than where the sports groups are now commuting to go the soccer fields on the former outdoor movie theater site on the south side of I-80.
Rich:
Are you saying the city evaluation (we’re short 100 acres of parks) was aimed only at accommodating youth sports (someplace outside the city limits)? If our staff and council really think we have too much park space in town and that the 100-acre figure intentionally refers to the Sports Park proposal, I guess that would answer my question. I’m thinking it’s probably a coincidence, however.
[quote]”Keep in mind also that all of this “proposed redevelopment” will not happen before a new sports complex is actually ready for use.”[/quote] This could be correct, but what’s the plan for coming up with the money to build without selling off the park(s) first?
David: [quote]”The original funding mechanism was the $200,000 from the supplemental fees from the Verona subdivision.”[/quote] Has any of the “original” $200,000 been spent yet?
[u] How much have the youth sports programs saved to devote to initial construction?[/u]
Does the city have any other funds earmarked for construction and maintenance of the Sports Park?
Whats the estimated cost of the first phase?
How much do we expect to collect by selling off our park(s) to developers? (I agree with you that there are other city properties that should be a higher priority for infill projects. Parks should be off-limits for balancing our city budget, at least until Davis is ready to declare bankruptcy,)
It’s just a mystery how the current iteration of this project has moved along so far with only insiders involved. These surprising, late decisions to sell the city’s park/green space may be the “poison pill” for these decades-delayed sports facilities. When the public finally learns of the park sale proposal, folks may be outraged.
[i]”This could be correct, but what’s the plan for coming up with the money to build without selling off the park(s) first?”[/i]
I would guess — just guessing — that if the plan is to sell the LL park to a developer, the developer would finance the construction of the new LL park and that amount would be reduced from the sales price. So when the new ballfields are ready for use, the developer could then grade his lot, the old LL fields, for development.
As I was told at the scoping meeting, the city is paying for the infrastructure which would be paid for out of the sale of the entitled park lands and the sports groups have to come up with the money to build the fields.
WAY to much guessing going on about this. Just because something might make sense to the posters here, that doesn’t improve the odds that the planning staff and council will do things that way. If it weren’t for Charlie Russell’s comments here, it would be impossible to piece together the history, intentions, decisions, etc. that got the project to this point. The lack of efforts to communicate with ordinary Davis taxpayers about the options that have been considered the last two years is astounding for an undertaking of this magnitude. Did you get anything at the scoping meeting that would answer the cost questions above, David?
It is becoming clear that there is a great deal of concern about the city potentially using a toxic landfill site for a children’s sport’s complex and also considering financing it with development of the Shriner’s site or selling off existing parks like Civic Center Field and the Little League Field.
Please understand how important it is to get your comments and concerns sent into Anne Brunette who is the City Staff member working on the sport complex EIR. THE DEADLINE IS THIS COMING FRIDAY JULY 16, 2010 AT 5PM SO PLEASE SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS NOW BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. The email address for Anne Brunette is ABrunette@cityofdavis.org.
David, thank you for the quotes attributed to me in the article. Please note that those reflected my own opinion, and that I’m not representing any particular group or organization.
Many of the comments here are somewhat repetitive of comments on prior articles, so I’ll not repeat myself again.
Regarding the Davis Little League site, although it is currently owned by the City (as I understand it, but I’ll admit that I might not have a full understanding of the details of this issue), there are probably restrictions on what the City can do with that property based on the original deed where it was given to Davis Little League. It hasn’t always been owned by the City. Note also that with the sports park, the concept is that the user groups will maintain the facility at little or no cost to the City. Currently DLL covers all of the maintenance of the facility themselves. If the City was to turn that into park use for something other than DLL use, the city would have to come up with the funds to maintain it themselves.
Thanks again, Charlie, for continuing to contribute to the discussion even though you face some disagreements here. (This forum might provide good practice for the city and the sports groups in answering questions the public might have when the project gets more public exposure.)
[quote]Regarding the Davis Little League site, although it is currently owned by the City (as I understand it, but I’ll admit that I might not have a full understanding of the details of this issue), there are probably restrictions on what the City can do with that property based on the original deed where it was given to Davis Little League.[/quote] Has the city staff and attorney looked into this issue? One has to wonder whether the City has flexibility in converting the site to another park use OR to sell it off for housing, given this complicating factor. I now can understand how there’s a sense of obligation to DLL since the group owned the property and turned it over to the City.
That DLL has financed maintenance of the fields for all these years is impressive. DLL has served well many generations of kids in Davis. Can you answer any of these finance questions, or provide a source: [quote]Has any of the “original” $200,000 been spent yet?
How much have the youth sports programs saved to devote to initial construction?
Does the city have any other funds earmarked for construction and maintenance of the Sports Park?
Whats the estimated cost of the first phase?
How much do we expect to collect by selling off our park(s) to developers? [/quote]
City staff has investigated the issue of the ownership and rights of the DLL field, that had all been worked out some time ago as we started this issue. Originally, the current “sports park” idea got kick started when DLL proposed to swap “their” land for land near the golf course – that made the city look into the ownership issue and many other issues. That has all been worked out, you would have to talk to the City for the details.
Note that youth sports groups have a long established history of maintaining fields in Davis. Back when the Crossroads development was planned (the one that predated the Covell Center plan for that property) we were told that there was no way that youth groups could maintain property. Based on that challenge, several groups proceeded to show that it could be done, and more cost effectively than the city can do. You now have Davis Little League supporting their park, AYSO supporting Nugget Fields, and DYSL/Legacy supporting the DYSL fields.
I’m not sure which “original $200,000” you are referring to.
I am not on the board of any of the youth sports groups so I don’t know what amounts they have set aside for field development. AYSO has a considerable amount, I believe. Can’t say about the others, other than to say that I know that they work on this.
I am not aware that a value has been placed on the land that the city suggests be sold – values have changed quite a bit in the last few years as we are all aware. It may be that some of these things are put off until later. No timing has been formally set.
No funds have been earmarked by the City that I’m aware of (but I could easily be mistaken about that) and we don’t have a good estimate of the first phase of construction, really, although the City could probably put a ballpark figure on that based on experience in developing these things. Each of the proposed sites will have very different development costs. Each of the sites have very different sources for additional funding. The sports groups cannot do any serious fundraising for fields without a firm plan in hand, so we need to get further down the road before the details can be worked out. Note that we do have “conceptual” plans that show what COULD be done at the sites, but these are not final plans by any means. Also, the “phasing” of the facilities will have to be considered – some portions may take longer to implement than some people anticipate.
Formal plans can’t be drawn up until a site is chosen. Preliminary estimates for the cost of construction will require the completion of the EIR (and most likely other studies), as far as I see it.