If the era of consensus is over for the Davis City Council, dying on the vine of the new council’s first 4-1 vote on a major decision, it died over the issue of fiscal prudence and land use.
The council stopped short of committing fully to spending more than one third of a million on predevelopment planning for the Nishi property, and instead agreed to check in with staff at $100,000 or six months – whichever comes first. Brett Lee cast the lone dissenting vote.
Mayor Joe Krovoza told the council, “I would ask everyone to understand and not impute or infer that somehow this is a proposal that has come before the council in significant years prior.”
He argued, “This is about jobs. This about connecting to the university. And this is not about peripheral development. There has never been a Measure R vote in this community that has been about those very different elements. It’s always been 100% residential. It has always been peripheral and it has not been necessarily connected to the life blood of this community – the university.”
Councilmember Brett Lee disagreed with the belief that the city was likely to replenish this money taken from the parking fund, arguing, “A realistic view of the situation would be that money will be lost based on the last Measure J/R votes, that’s an uphill battle.”
“I don’t think it’s safe to assume that number one, we will get to a vote,” he said. “And that number two it would be approved by the voters.”
Councilmember Lee’s idea was to commit to a smaller amount of money and look into a simple survey of the voters to see if there was any kind support for this project.
The mayor, however, downplayed a public survey, arguing that people would think about previous iterations of this project rather than the current proposal, which he called something that is “very very different.”
Instead, the mayor thinks this is an authorization of staff to engage as a real partner on this project.
“The reason I am comfortable with the [cost] splitting in this situation is because we’re looking at taking over, and owning, and managing over fifty percent of the land at issue,” the mayor said. “If that is the deal that we’re heading for, it’s very appropriate that we share in the costs of this deal.”
Moreover, Mayor Krovoza agreed with city staffer Ken Hiatt that “no developer’s probably going to take the risk on a piece of property like this given past community votes.”
Brett Lee argued that set an interesting precedent, noting that the ConAgra project was requiring large sums of money on the EIR from their own private funds. Those costs were not being shared 50-50 with ConAgra.
Both the Covell Village developer and Wildhorse Ranch developers had to spend their own money for the EIR and other preplanning aspects of their projects.
“I’m actually supportive of the development of the Nishi Property,” Councilmember Lee continued. “I’m very hesitant with spending such a large sum of money on a speculative endeavor, especially given the fiscal situation.”
He added, “It’s no secret that we’re expecting our employees to give back.”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs supported the development of the site, calling it a natural for the project that the council is discussing, but not right at the moment.
He expressed concern about the cost, recognizing that it might not be the full $350,000.
But his biggest concerns were access issues that have been laid out. “Access is a huge issue for me,” he told the council. “I think it’s going to be a very difficult sell to the public if it’s sort of primarily Olive Drive access.”
“I think that’s something that needs to be even more thoroughly vetted than it has over the years,” he said. That’s a huge part of the public outreach aspect.
He wants to see additional study of access through Solano Park to the university.
In the end, Mayor Krovoza supported an “intent to do $350 [thousand in city funding] but a check in” originally set at the $200,000 point but later reset to $100,000 with a six-month check in, after Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson pushed for an earlier check in.
Vanguard Commentary
The city is going to start out committing $100,000 on what is essentially a roll of the dice. This requires a Measure R vote, as Lucas Frerichs indicated, and given the access issues, a Measure R vote is “going to be a very difficult sell to the public.”
We frankly do not know if those access issues can be resolved at a rate that the city and the developer (who apparently is not interested in committing a ton of resources to the project) can afford.
Councilmember Brett Lee made a modest proposal that the city at least gauge the support of the public. The cost would be minimal compared to the $100,000 commitment, let alone the full $350,000 commitment. Without a Measure R passage, this project is doomed and the money unrecoverable.
While this is not general fund money, since the end of RDA (Redevelopment Agency), such funding is scarce, finite and one-time. We are asking our employees to take concessions, we are asking the public to do without city services, and then we are rather capriciously throwing around between $100,000 and $350,000.
Councilmember Lee, taking a fiscally conservative approach, suggested that a Measure R vote is problematic. However, Mayor Joe Krovoza disagreed, arguing that we have never tested a Measure R vote on a non-residential property.
His view, however, is contradicted by the messages sent by the landowner, who is unwilling, according to Ken Hiatt, to take the risk on a piece of property like this, given past community votes.
So there we have it. The owner of the property is unwilling to risk his own money, but the city is willing to risk public money to do what a private owner is reluctant to do?
It is nice that the city would own the land under this deal. Nishi looks like an inviting target, but until we at least figure out the access issues, this seems a lot more like fool’s gold than the inviting innovative project that we are being sold.
In these times, it makes more sense for the city to preserve its limited remaining RDA funding and save the roll of the dice for better times.
It is disappointing that a council that has argued for fiscal prudence for its employees and the community is unwilling to follow its own advice.
In the meantime, this vote comes with a cost. It marks the first 4-1 vote on a major policy issue for the new council.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It’s been studied over and over. The owner has to put in the RR undercrossing, and no general public access to West Olive Drive if you start with these two as givens, the developer will probably pass the Measure J/R vote
Yet again, the CC voted to give away our money for unnecessary planning.
Of course, all this pales in comparison to the planning malfeasance associated with the Surface water project
Mike, you’re such a joy-kill. What you are saying is that you looked at it once and couldn’t make it happen, so no one can.
Ryan: I personally haven’t looked at anything with Nishi. Staff did, with the developer. The developer also did a traffic study 5-6 years ago, and the results are clear. Go read the documents. The developer has to pay the cash for the RR undercrossing for direct campus access, and the Richards/Olice Drive intersection simply cannot accommodate general traffic on west Olive from a large Nishi development. The rest of it is … whatever. The $100K is a total waste of taxpayer money to re-study what the city already knows.
If the prior research had not been done, I would probably vote for a $25K city contribution to seed a study. But the City already paid a huge sum of money in the 2001 General Plan update to study that area.
Ryan, why dont you go pull the 2001 GP and related studies, ask Whitcomb for the report of what he did a few years ago, review it all, and write an article?
Or, go to City Planning and ask staff for the Nishi file.
Or, tell us what is new and different about the latest gee-whiz version that got $100K of our money last night that is somehow different than what we have already paid for?
Once again, Mike makes perfect sense. Why pay $100K for studies that have been fairly recently completed?
If I’m a developer, if I’m ConAgra, I got to council tomorrow and say, oh you want a development, you’re paying half or the land can lie fallow.
The ConAgra folks stand to make a lot of money with their residential project. Have them design something that it is zoned for – industrial – and I would support the City helping out.
Mike can demand 2 to 1 mitigation or demand a donation of a portion of the land for an urban farm before it gets his approval. Extortion takes all sorts of forms.
I don’t understand why this piece of land, surrounded by the City, is outside the city limits and needs a vote. Mike and his crew did this and it is just one more project that he doesn’t want and never will. He lacks imagination and resourcefulness that this City needs.
We cannot expect to overcome our failure with regards to past economic development by continuing with the same stale approach that created the crisis in the first place. The Council majority chose to partner with the land owner, developer and the University to leverage a unique opportunity to expand our economic base. This is an investment in our future and a demonstration that the City is moving forward with a new approach, and a renewed enthusiasm. The fact that some cannot see the value in this approach is not surprising as in many cases, they are the ones primarily responsible for our past failures. This is another example of strong, intelligent leadership on the part of our current City Council.
Two comments:
1. The comparison to Con Agra is not helpful since that site is not subject to a Measure J/R vote. The risk of a J/R vote failing is real and that is likely to give a developer (even one that would give the City what it really wants in this site) pause in terms of putting his/her money into play. I see the CC recognizing this reality (I am not saying I agree with the sum but I understand the rationale).
2. Your comment David: “In the meantime, this vote comes with a cost. It marks the first 4-1 vote on a major policy issue for the new council” and talk of the “death of consensus” are even less helpful. I do not elect council members in hopes they will achieve unanimity on every issue. That is unrealistic. I want good discussions, disagreement when appropriate, and dissenting votes when a motion simply does not permit unanimity. Portraying this as a “loss” or as if this is the first step towards the dysfuncationality we experienced with previous Councils is sensationalistic and I do not appreciate it. It means nothing except that on this issue Brett was not willing to agree with the rest of the Council. It will not be the last time we see this (or other members disagreeing with their colleagues), and we should hope it is not the last.
Robb:
“I do not elect council members in hopes they will achieve unanimity on every issue. That is unrealistic. “
I am in agreement with this. But there is a context to my comment which was the remark that a couple of councilmembers have been making to me in the past few weeks that we are going to see now in the next month or so how the rest of this council is going to shake out because while there has been consensus there is now a good deal of differentiation. Perhaps I overplayed the point, last night’s meeting was a difficult one.
David – I see where you are going. Yes, I watched the 2nd Street Crossing discussion from home and it was extremely painful to watch. I have respect for all the actors but it was not a real fine moment. So be it. These things happen. Cooler heads prevailed and there is some breathing room. If the CC is “shaking out” in new ways I am okay with that. What I see in the CC is a willingness to confront difficult issues. I see members coming to the meetings prepared. I see a Mayor who wants all voices heard (side note: I saw NO community members besides Matt, Elaine and Alan speak up on the water issue–strange that given the apparent high level of opposition). I see reasoned arguments and “good” conflict. I don’t think we can ask for anything more than this and we should not be worried about consensus giving way to differing views.
Much of the opposition to the water project is apparently waiting for things to be settled. We’ll see there. I think there are bigger problems on a number of other issues right now.
@David M. Greenwald “If I’m a developer, if I’m ConAgra, I got to council tomorrow and say, oh you want a development, you’re paying half or the land can lie fallow.”
@Ryan Kelly “The ConAgra folks stand to make a lot of money with their residential project. Have them design something that it is zoned for – industrial – and I would support the City helping out.”
The Nishi proposal that is currently on the table is for at least 300-350 units on 44 acres. The ConAgra proposal is about 600 units on 100 acres.
So with respect to residential, that’s about 7.5 units per acre on Nishi and 6.0 units per acre on ConAgra.
The representation that Nishi is a non-residential proposal (reinforced unfortunately by the Mayor’s comments) is incorrect.
It is also worth noting that there is support from some quarters for pushing the residential density of Nishi much higher than the threshold at which the developers want relief from affordable housing (300). Numbers out on the street range as high as 500 or more. In contrast, the residential density on ConAgra is reportedly now down below 550.
I meant to use the word “perception” rather than “representation.” Sorry
Depending on what they come up with this could be something nice. Of course you can’t please everyone. One thing that everyone is missing is that with the end of redevelopment if Davis passes on this deal it could go to the County and end the pass through agreement, something that will probably happen eventually anyway without a funding stream going forward. If the city says no the Developer and the University could turn to the County as neighbors and say we want to go forward with this its in all of our interest to do so and Davis voters will never allow anything through. The problem the anti-growth people are going to have is that this is not simply a peripheral growth issue. Either Davis gets on board the train or gets run over by it.
Yolo
It was billed as the site for Innovation Park. Do you know something different?
This goes back to the Business Park Land Strategy, adopted by the CC in 2010 if my memory is correct. The BPLS has always contemplated a mixed use project on Nishi including both high density residential and innovation park. The rationale is a critical need for this type of housing near the core. However, the real reason is that the residential component is necessary to fund the extraordinary infrastructure costs that the site will require. The only way to get enough residential on this small parcel to subsidize the infrastructure for the entire project is to go vertical/high density. Without the residential, the innovation park is a non-starter.
Thx Yolo
I watched last night, and although this one wasn’t as uncomfortable as the Taeget discussion, it seemed that something was missing. Maybe it was this since I did not hear any talk of residential.
I have no issue with a nice development at Nishi. The only two unbendable issues are: 1. The developer has to fund and build the undercrossing for direct access to the campus; and 2. there cannot be direct non-emergency vehicular access through west Olive Drive.
The RIchards Underpass and the Diamond Intersection cannot tolerate more traffic on west Olive Drive. Whitcomb’s study and the 2001 GP studies found those two items to be mandatory.
The $100K study money was a giveaway by the CC to Whitcomb, one of the town elites. And it funds positions in Planning, too, that needed to be funded in this down economy.
Robb: good comments. Thank you. We and our larger committee dont come to CC public comment on the water project because it’s a waste of time. The CC has been hell-bent on that project for years, and the past year is the same, with a WAC thrown in that the CC listens to, or not, depending if the WAC endorses what the CC already wanted.
Why should we come down and comment when this CC is so out of control that on 5/0 votes they separated the project costs, specifics, and even the rates from the ballot measure? There is nothing but contempt on this CC for direct democracy.
(And for me, same for Nishi. I’ve said my piece, and I put it into Measure J/R and the 2001 General Plan. If this CC screws it up, we will knock it back. The two items I raised today are the basics, and the redline in the sand for nearly every progressive political person I know in town. The rest of it is probably OK. There are many strategic reasons for these two red lines, and the political insiders and senior staff know why. I dont have to say them here.)
@Michael Harrington “The developer has to fund and build the undercrossing for direct access to the campus”
If you look at page 3 of the Hiatt/Hess staff report you will see a lost of “preliminary anticipated deal points.” Deal point #3 is “Costs for infrastructure will be shared equally.” If this deal point is adopted, the developer will get most of the value created by the entitlement action but the city will have to pay half the costs of the infrastructure. Residential is much more profitable than business park.
Yolo : thank you. Who’s fantasy is it that the city taxpayer is going to fund half the undercrossing? Again, a massive giveaway of our money to local business elites.
MH
MH
“The CC has been hell-bent on that project for years, and the past year is the same, with a WAC thrown in that the CC listens to, or not, depending if the WAC endorses what the CC already wanted. “
How ironic that you use the word “contempt” with regard to the current CC, when you cannot even be bothered to differentiate their very different approach, apparent to anyone who follows the CC, from that of the previous council. Could it perhaps be that you are contemptuous of anyone who does not agree with you on this issue ?
Was not your voice one of those calling for taking more time, further investigation, and a transparent process with regard to water issues? All of which the members of the WAC have provided with countless hours of their own time volunteered for the good of the community and being duly considered by the CC as requested. And now according to you the WAC has been “thrown in” because you do not like the outcome ?
Talk about contempt !
Michael Harrington wrote: “There are many strategic reasons for these two red lines, and the political insiders and senior staff know why. I dont have to say them here.”
As a mere citizen (neither political insider nor staff) I have no idea what you are talking about. So… enlighten me and the other plebeians here about the critical importance of these two red lines. I desperately want and need to be an “insider” (a very important person, apparently)–someone who knows what the political insiders know.
The palace intrigue here is killing me…
I want you to say them here. Please and thank you.