On Wednesday, the Vanguard reported that the Davis City Council unanimously decided to delay the decision on Target until their December 11, 2012 meeting. The Davis Downtown’s Co-President Michael Bisch told the council that they were willing to support the amendment to the zoning of the Target pods in exchange for help with the Gateway Project.
There is no doubt that the process was ugly and the Davis Downtown board was very uncomfortable with it. The fact that it was all happening in the last few days exacerbated a process that was already very problematic. Keep in mind, the process including the pending vote, is/was going to happen with or without Davis Downtown participation. Davis Downtown was invited into the conversation and has every right to participate in it even had we not been invited (the same is true of any community stakeholder).
Previous Davis Downtown letters sent to the Planning Commission and sent to the Council, as well as quotes reported by the Vanguard in previous pieces accurately describe the Davis Downtown position for the most part. Davis Downtown has real concerns with the zoning amendment process undertaken by staff given the original process was a community vote. Davis Downtown has real concerns about the impact of Target and the potential impact of the pads development on our community sustainability in general and specifically the Downtown and neighborhood shopping centers. Davis Downtown has real concerns about certain statements in the City staff report as well as public City staff comments.
The concerns expressed by Davis Downtown regarding the impact on our community sustainability and the neighborhood shopping centers gained quite a bit of traction in 2006, but appeared to gain very little traction now. It did not appear to resonate on the Vanguard, the Enterprise, the neighborhood shopping center landlords or tenants, the sustainability advocates, etc. Advocacy is far more effective when it is shared by multiple stakeholders.
As with the community sustainability concerns, the Davis Downtown process concern regarding a community referendum to approve the project in the first place and then amending the zoning without a referendum, did not appear to gain traction in the community either.
Meanwhile, Davis Downtown was being urged, encouraged, whatever term one wishes to use, by the Planning Commission, City staff, and individual Council members to meet with the developer to explore a “win/win”. The Davis Downtown board after much debate, and with no shortage of misgivings, decided to do just that.
The Davis Downtown board is still very much influenced by the 2006 Target referendum. The opening of Target has no doubt had a profound effect on the Downtown, along with the increasing strength of online retail, and the economic malaise since 2008. That said, we don’t sit around bemoaning our fate. Nor do we sit around investing all our energy and resources in opposing what is happening in our competitive environment. Rather, we strive to improve the Downtown and our competitive position.
As much as the Davis Downtown board may wish to oppose something for the sake of opposition or to satisfy our emotions, we recognize that doing so is not always practical, meaningful, or likely to lead us to achieving our objectives.
Past City Councils had opportunities to meaningfully address the Downtown parking and circulation challenges, but did not take sufficient, effective action to do so. Many of those opportunities have now evaporated with the demise of the RDA. Meanwhile, these same City Councils have supported peripheral developments with great parking and access. This dichotomy has created an imbalance that is causing many of our residents from fully enjoying the Downtown.
The Davis Downtown board closely monitored individual council member positions toward the Target Pads zoning amendment. It appears far from certain that continuing to forcefully maintain our opposition to the zoning amendment would prove successful and lead us to achieving our objectives.
The Davis Downtown board is not uniformly opposed to peripheral development. Our Downtown impact concerns are weighed against community benefits such as reduction of sales tax leakage, shopping alternatives/variety for Davis residents, etc. Our concerns are also weighed against Downtown improvements being made to offset developments elsewhere. Furthermore, a purely protectionist strategy is hardly a winning strategy over the medium or long term and is challenging from a public relations perspective (albeit I’m fairly certain that some of our members do not share this position).
Extortion? That’s a fairly ridiculous assertion. It’s a proposal, nothing more, nothing less. The Davis Downtown exists, among other reasons, to advocate FOR the Downtown. Advocating for Downtown improvements is what we do. We don’t just advocate AGAINST developments elsewhere. Furthermore, what Davis Downtown has proposed is not the first time a Target related sum was agreed to by the City and the developer. For instance, a $100,000 Downtown mitigation fee was negotiated when Target was first built.
David Greenwald has the scope of work for the Downtown Gateway Improvement Project all wrong. Yes, it is intended to aesthetically improve the primary visitor entrance to the Downtown. But the scope of work will likely include much needed directional and parking signage, messaging, and landscaping. This is a joint priority of Davis Downtown, the Chamber, and the YCVB, and as far as I know, the City Council. It is an element of the Art & Entertainment district and an element of the economic development plan. Elements of the project have been approved by the Civic Arts Commission, is supported by the arts community, and other elements have been worked through with staff. This project has been in process for close to a year. It most certainly did not appear out of thin air. Furthermore, it is linked to another DD/YCVB/Chamber and Council priority, which is the CalTrans I80 Community Identification Program. These projects are intended to benefit the community, are for the enjoyment of the community, and are also intended to share something about our community with the outside world.
Councilmember Lee stated that he’s not sure he would prioritize “fixing the downtown gateway” as his #1 Downtown priority. It’s not Davis Downtown’s #1 priority either, but it’s one that could be readily achieved in short order as opposed to other ones that have been studied to death and have not moved forward. Furthermore, Brett has put his finger directly on the overarching problem. How are the Council priorities ranked within categories, Downtown for instance, and across categories? As far as I can tell there’s simply a grab bag of priorities with no clear overview as to how community resources are being allocated to foster a sustainable community. Where during the Target Pads zoning amendment debate did a meaningful discussion occur on the dais regarding how the proposed zoning amendment would fit within the Council’s overall vision for the community? I heard far more discussion of individual design aspects than I did regarding broader policy implications. Community investment appears to occur opportunistically here and that’s exactly what occurred again Tuesday evening. The Davis Downtown board certainly did not create this condition; rather, it finds itself operating within this condition.
Staff informed the council and the business community several weeks ago that they do not have the “bandwidth” or the financial resources to pursue the Downtown Gateway or Community Identity projects at this time, despite these being Council priorities. The business community has since been scrambling to figure out a way to pursue and complete these projects. In the case of the Downtown Gateway project, we have potentially found such a way. It depends on whether the Council agrees to what has been proposed.
Staff has told us that the developer will be paying $1.2 million in various fees, including a $142,600 construction tax to the City should the project proceed. These are future fees and all from the developer. Some are impact fees that are earmarked for infrastructure and some are discretionary fees. This is not City money, at least not yet. If the Council chooses not to approve the project for whatever reason, or if the developer pulls the plug on the project, then there isn’t $1.2 million to argue about how best to spend or invest.
The Davis Downtown board and staff are operating in very challenging conditions. We have created and executed many successful programs, the Downtown Gift Card and 2nd Friday Art About for instance. Downtown has more foot traffic than ever as far as I can tell. Regrettably, the increased foot traffic is not necessarily translating into increased retail sales. I can assure you, when the Davis Downtown board identifies an opportunity to increase the vitality of the Downtown, and by extension build community, it is certainly going to examine the opportunity.
I have no issue with criticizing the manner in which I delivered my comments last night, my appearance, anything else related to my persona, or my execution of board policy. But personalizing the Davis Downtown policy is counterproductive. The policy decisions that have been made or that have yet to be made are consensus, collaborative board decisions, not individual decisions. Indeed, I may not even agree with Board policy in whole or in part, but as a board officer, I’m obligated to set my personal beliefs aside and fulfill my responsibilities to the best of my ability. Were that not the case, I’m confident the board would/will take action.
This is not a comprehensive list of the factors that have flowed into the Davis Downtown decision making process, but it provides Vanguardians a pretty good idea of the fairly complex set of circumstances under which the Davis Downtown board is making decisions regarding the Target Pads zoning amendment.
Where is the Chamber in all of this?
It’s not difficult. In 2006, the voters approved Measure K, which was a detailed plan and limitation as to what could be built out there.
In 2012, the developer wants to change that voter-approved plan.
If our CC were showing leadership on this, and actually respected the Measure K process and direct democracy, they would have signaled months ago that to change a voter-approved plan and lift voter-approved limitations, the CC has to submit it to the voters. Period. Why is this so hard?
The developer is a local elite, and in 2006 knew the situation out there. He gambled, and he has a huge amount of money to see this through and make it work.
Mr. DT, this is not difficult, and I don’t know why you and your Board have rolled over and do not support your retail members or even try to protect the will of the 2006 voters.
If your Board votes to ask the CC to put it on the ballot, or in the alternative to run a referendum, the developer will certainly pull his plan and the CC will drop it. They know there is not a bat’s chance in heck that city voters would approve those Second St Crossing changes over the objections of the downtown and DDBA.
So make the objections. Or screw your retail members, again.
As three past presidents of DDBA said in their September op-ed in the Enterprise:
[i]”What requires the changes? The developers say the economic environment. How has it changed any more for them than for the rest of Davis retailers? We are relatively healthy in Davis, but there are stubborn vacancies in the downtown and neighborhood centers that are the same size as those spaces the developer is asking for. Together, they exceed the square footage he’s asking for.
There is also a neighborhood shopping center designated for Mace Ranch that has never been built out. Coincidentally, that center is owned by the same developer who owns the Target center. The city says there are no plans to develop the Mace Ranch center.”[/i]
This will just make things worse for the neighborhood centers, and possibly for downtown as well. I urge the council members to speak to owners and managers of businesses in the neighborhood centers to seek their input. And funding for the gateway project should not be tied to this, nor should funds be encumbered specially for it. Somehow the gateway project is vaulting past other city priorities, because the developer is willing to make a payoff to fill his pads?
If there are going to be zoning changes, relaxing the sizes and types of businesses, they should be city-wide. Specific measures should be taken to enhance the visibility and attractiveness of the existing neighborhood centers. All of that should happen before any changes are made to the voter-approved development agreement for Second Street Crossing.
“If our CC were showing leadership on this, and actually respected the Measure K process and direct democracy, they would have signaled months ago that to change a voter-approved plan and lift voter-approved limitations, the CC has to submit it to the voters.”
show me where in the measure k ballot language this contradicts what the voters approved.
that said, i don’t support this and i agree with don that the developers and the ddba have sold out neighborhood shopping centers.
“Yes, it is intended to aesthetically improve the primary visitor entrance to the Downtown. But the scope of work will likely include much needed directional and parking signage, messaging, and landscaping.”
because that’s so much better.
This is the position of the Chamber that was adopted in September 2012:
[quote]The Davis Chamber of Commerce supports a change in zoning at Second Street Crossing that allows for smaller-footprint, community-serving and/or regional-serving retail that complies with the original intent/acceptable uses for retail as voted by the citizens of Davis in November 2006.
Many larger retailers have responded to changes in the economy by decreasing the footprints of their stores. The City of Davis should be flexible in accommodating those changes while still respecting the delicate balance created in 2006 to protect the integrity of our downtown and existing neighborhood shopping centers.
Economic Development
Vibrant and aggressive economic development policies are critical elements in the long-term financial stability and vitality of a community. Clearly-defined programs and approaches which generate tax revenue, broaden the tax base and retain retail dollars within Davis are essential aspects within land-use decisions, development opportunities and General Plan considerations. Davis’ distinctive community, which include UC Davis, a unique Downtown experience and other marketable amenities should be leveraged and promoted when appropriate and possible. The Davis Chamber of Commerce seeks to promote jobs and industries, like clean tech, that reflect the values of our community and provide quality jobs to our residents.
The Chamber of Commerce strongly supports every effort to promote business opportunities in Davis, and will continue to educate and encourage residents to support the benefits of shopping and conducting business within Davis.
[/quote]
Thanks David for that from the Chamber.
Isnt the Gateway Project primarily Kemble Pope’s and Michael’s (DT Businssman) project?
Why weren’t more business owners at the Tues mtg and why did no one speak except Michael when prodded and then ‘the beans’ spilled out, at least that’s what it seemed to this viewer.
“
Why weren’t more business owners at the Tues mtg and why did no one speak except Michael when prodded and then ‘the beans’ spilled out, at least that’s what it seemed to this viewer.”
The whole thing seemed odd.
I think this needs to go back to the voters. I, for one, am not in favor.
“Meanwhile, Davis Downtown was being urged, encouraged, whatever term one wishes to use, by the Planning Commission, City staff, and individual Council members to meet with the developer to explore a “win/win”. The Davis Downtown board after much debate, and with no shortage of misgivings, decided to do just that.”
This was probably a mistake. Those on the board who had misgivings have been proven correct.
While the process might have been undertaken differently, I get the sense from previous posts that it doesn’t really matter what DT does… it’d gonna be wrong. People might have disagreements over process or the proposal (which is just that, a proposal), but I DO have to applaud DT for trying to get stuff done. I don’t see many others being so proactive on actually doing something to improve the downtown.