More alarming is the fast-track 14-month timeline that the city has the project slated to take, for a project that includes 610 units of housing along with 20 acres of business park. A second community forum is tentatively scheduled for January of 2011. By March of 2011, they will be into the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) preparation phase. Commissions will make their reviews in January and February of 2012, with the council taking final action by February 2012, before the next council election.
At the same time, he defended the timetable, stating in an email, “The purpose of the preapplication process that they are going through is intended specifically to hear from the public and commissions on what changes they feel are needed to the land plan.”
He continued, “They desired to start with the Lewis Plan as it was influenced by the public input they received at that time – recognizing that many factors have changed since then and there is always room for improvement.”
“The timing of the actual development of the site is certainly an important aspect of the analysis and will require thoughtful discussion with the community before any final action is taken on the project,” Mr. Hiatt concluded.
Trouble comes not just in the form of public disapproval. The Vanguard has confirmed there are three very strong no votes to the current proposal, and a fourth vote is at least in doubt, as Mr. Souza had previously expressed concern about the proposal prior to a December 2008 vote to process an dual-weight EIR. Whether he has changed his mind in the last two years is always a question.
But at this point, the current proposal is DOA. Council was willing to process the application and start the public process, but the design leaves a lot to be desired.
So why not back off of the fast-track timeline? It is unclear that there is need for such speed. It is not as though they would build the units upon approval in the spring of 2012 anyway.
There are too many different questions that must be addressed, and too many different groups hate the project.
First, there was no senior housing component. The Senior Citizens and Social Services Commissions both spent an inordinate amount of time pushing through senior housing guidelines that could help guide future development efforts, not just to create senior housing, but also to enact policies that allow seniors and others to age in their current home. These are universal design guidelines.
Other projects have incorporated visitibility and accessibility features, and this one mentions neither. Indeed, during the entire presentation earlier in December, only five or six words were mentioned regarding senior housing.
The city has pushed and trumpeted its climate action plan, which some have criticized as being too limited and not aggressive enough. However, at least it is a starting place for a discussion on sustainability and direction for future developments.
However, as far as sustainability goes, this is a giant step backwards from previous projects.
Unlike the recent Wildhorse Ranch proposal or the West Village proposal, the sustainability component lacked anything specific.
George Philips presented their proposal to the public at Harper Junior High back in early December. He basically said that no one piece makes this a sustainable project, but put all together it forms a bigger picture. This sounds a lot like he is acknowledging that if we examine the sustainability components and the greenhouse gas reductions, we will be unimpressed.
There were no specifics on GHG reduction or a pledge to 100% elimination of GHG, like with Wildhorse Ranch or West Village.
There is a huge 800-pound elephant in the room right now, and that is whether we even need 610 homes built during this slow down in the real estate market. Right now, that is the single biggest issue. But forget that point for a moment, and let us look at the actual proposal.
Not only is ConAgra breaking out a very similar proposal to the Lewis one, they are using the the same sketches, graphics and talking points that Lewis did.
There are no specifics here – just guiding principles which seem more like talking points and platitude. This is 14 months out from the time the project is expected to be approved.
The other huge problem is that, while housing is not a high priority right now, the city has taken the approach of pushing for business park and business development.
And yet, here we are taking on 610 housing units while preserving only 20 of the 100 acres for business park usage. We just had a campaign against a 200-unit project trumpeting the tag line: “2000 homes is enough.” Well this would add three times the units to the city and the real estate market is no better and few, if any, of those 2000 homes have been built.
Meantime, taking this 100 acres out of business-park circulation means that the city will look toward peripheral land on Nishi, Northwest Quadrant, and north of the Mace-Signature Curve as areas for business park development.
Right now this project is DOA, but it is concerning just how many resources the city is putting into this project. Six staffers attended the entire meeting: Planners: Ken Hiatt, Mike Webb and Eric Lee, as well as Tim Ainsworth (Fire Department), Will Marshall (Public Works) and Danielle Foster (Social Services). They stayed the entire time. This paled in comparison with other recent outreach meetings in which perhaps one or two staffers attended.
To this point, ConAgra has declined invitations from the Vanguard to meet to lay out their proposal and hear community concerns. If that changes, we will have the full report.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
Happy Holudays!
Is there a community based ‘consultant’ hired by Con Agra on this project as others have had? Sounds Luke they are out if touch with the community. Also interesting you didn’t mention CV’s opinion ir role.
Type is so small on iPhone I cannot check for typos, sorry.
I hope this “train wreck is DOA. Speaking of trains, I believe the Con Agra acreage is the last remaining possible site with railroad access that has yet to be developed. What a shame to put up with the downside of the Cal Northern coming through Davis to service Woodland, and not take advantage of this site for something appropriate, like a recycling plant. Recycling Plant/Unneeded Housing? I’ll take the Plant.
I’m not sure there’s any particular problem with the timetable. The issue is that there is not council support or public support for this project. Surely the developers can see that already? Why waste everyone’s time with this? Only with a complete revamp would they be likely to get another council vote or two, and I don’t get the sense that the developers want to commit resources to that. They’re putting minimum effort into the planning process in the hopes of getting a quick approval, and I assume they would then unload the land at the higher value.
ConAgra doesn’t need this project. The city doesn’t need it right now. There is nothing at all wrong with holding out for a better use for this land. It would be great if there were some way to send that message to the landowner sooner rather than later.
[quote]Tim Ainsworth (Fire Department)[/quote]Did you mean Tim Annis? BTW, there were as I counted, as many or more City staffers attending the WHR meetings… partly, I’ve heard, so that they do not have to rely on the developer’s team or you as to what was said…
[i]” It would be great if there were some way to send that message to the landowner sooner rather than later.”[/i]
I have an idea, but I’m not sure that it’s good public policy.
The first thing to send that message would be to have a “sense of the council resolution” as to whether the council currently thinks the proposed zoning change is merited based on our community’s needs for more housing or more industry or other factors the council believes merits a zoning change. If the council votes down such a “sense of the council resolution,” the message would be sent.
Secondly, we could have an ordinance which requires a landowner who is requesting a zoning change to pay up front say half of all fees which would likely be due for his project were it to get approval. Those fees would be refunded, minus the full cost of staff time put into working on this project.
The combination of the two would reduce the likelihood that a land owner would submit a proposal for a zoning change which the council probably would not support.
[quote]Right now this project is DOA, but it is concerning just how many resources the city is putting into this project.[/quote]Why not? All those staff hours are billed to the applicant, at many times the actual hourly rates. As ‘management’, those employees probably put in a full day before the meeting, but got paid nothing extra for the hours they attended… revenue to the city, with no costs… life is good.
Rich: “…have a “sense of the council resolution” as to whether the council currently thinks the proposed zoning change is merited…”
I think a zoning change request would be the simplest way for the landowner to proceed. The very first thing we did when we wanted to build our business on 5th Street was go get our zoning permit, because the zoning on that street was not clear. It was a nominal fee, and we weren’t going to bother with preparing and submitting plans if that was going to be a stumbling block. So I think ConAgra could save a lot of trouble by just applying now for the zoning change. If the council rejects it at this time, it isn’t the end of the project. It just means that they know they haven’t got the votes at this time.
Perhaps housing will seem appropriate on that site at some future date. It doesn’t seem likely during the next year or so.
[quote]”However, even the planning department led by the Director Ken Hiatt is alarmed by public response to the first meeting and proposal. In a meeting with the Vanguard, Mr. Hiatt suggested that at this point it seems more likely than not there will be a third outreach meeting as the current proposal is not there yet.”[/quote] Please explain these comments. Hiatt is alarmed by what public response? (I assume you’re referring to the Dec. 9 meeting which you reported on the next day.) I missed much “public response” that could have alarmed the planning department and its director–what surprised/shocked them so much? I acknowledge we’re trying to gin up some opposition here with “Slow Down the ConAgra Train Wreck” commentaries, but I haven’t seen much public response.
What did Director Hiatt mean “the current proposal is not there yet”? Why have a meeting in a couple weeks if he’s concluded that ConAgra and/or the city staff won’t be prepared? (It’s starting to sound a little like a city council meeting.) If that’s his observation, why not just reschedule the public meeting? Why would we be looking at only two public meetings for a project as significant as this proposal anyway? [quote] “But at this point, the current proposal is DOA.” “Right now this project is DOA.”[/quote] Maybe I could see why a planning director might encourage a full-employment project like this one for his staff during slow development times. But, I can’t imagine the council members approving such a waste of time and money if they really are so close-minded and already dead-set against the project as you and Don think they are.
Stringing along a city landowner knowing it’s all for naught would be disingenuousness bordering on malfeasance. What possible reason(s) do you think justify your conclusions that the council has such intentions?
JustSaying: “Please explain these comments. Hiatt is alarmed by what public response?”
I was at the meeting, and I am just guessing here, but I suspect city staff did not expect the majority of the audience to be so negative in its response; or so hesitant to approve this project “as is”. And most of the comments were negative, until towards the end of the meeting when a few proponents finally spoke up…
I sense there is a real division within the community about economic business development, and where it ought to go. We know we need appropriate economic development, but some feel NIMBY. So where to locate it in conjunction with the feeling some have against developing outside city limits? And how do we work with UCD to encourage high tech business to locate here in Davis? It is not an easy balancing act, between so may differing agendas…