It was at the last council meeting, after some prodding, that DDBA Co-President Michael Bisch told council that the Davis Downtown, while not supporting the current motion on zoning changes to Target Pads, was willing to agree to the proposal moving forward, in exchange for what turned out to be monetary support for the Gateway Project.
“There are things that the developer has expressed the willingness to do that would make the Davis Downtown much more comfortable with whatever decision you’re going to make this evening,” Mr. Bisch said.
“The developer has expressed an interest in fostering a more vibrant downtown,” he continued. “They don’t view their development as in competition with the downtown.”
The developer, according to Mr. Bisch, offered to help them move forward “to improve the gateway to the downtown.” He said that there is a proposed improvement project and “the developer has agreed to provide support for that both in manpower and in financing.”
They agreed to assign a project manager to manage the project, going forward. More importantly, “They agreed to provide $20,000 in financing toward the build out of the Gateway Improvement Project.”
“But that’s not nearly enough to get the job done,” Mr. Bisch said. “So what the Davis Downtown would like to see go down is for the city council to earmark the Target Pad Construction tax, which amounts to $142,600 towards the build out of the Gateway Downtown Improvement project.”
The council balked at the notion of putting general fund money toward the Gateway project, but agreed to bring the Target proposal back this week after continued talks, apparently between the Target developers and the Davis Downtown.
The staff report this week makes no mention of this interchange and fails to report on the results of those talks.
Staff is bringing essentially the same proposal on the Target Pad back to the council for Tuesday’s meeting with a recommendation that council determine that the EIR for the Second Street Crossing project adequately addressed the environmental issues associated with the project and no additional CEQA evaluation is required.
Moreover, a recommendation that the council approve “revisions to the Development Agreement, Preliminary Planned Development, and Design Review approval for the four pad buildings at the Second Street Crossing (Target) development, to reduce the minimum sizes of some retail uses and make minor adjustments to the site plan and elevation, based on the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in this staff report.”
Staff argues that the construction “of the pads will generate construction tax and impact fee revenues to support city capital programs. Full development and occupancy of the Second Street Crossing project is expected to generate ongoing property and sales taxes to the city.”
Staff once again provides no analysis as to the impact on neighborhood shopping centers.
Interestingly enough, not only does the Target proposal come back for Tuesday, the council will also hear about the Richards Blvd Gateway Aesthetic Improvement Project.
One of the criticisms that the Vanguard had was that it seemed that the developer and the Davis Downtown privately cut a deal on the Gateway project. Unrepresented in those talks were concerns about the loss of visits to neighborhood shopping centers and unrepresented were the general public.
Despite these concerns, with regard to the Gateway project, staff is recommending that the council “direct staff to work with Davis Downtown and the Davis Chamber of Commerce to prepare a project scope and funding plan for the Richards Boulevard Gateway Aesthetic Improvements, including a Memorandum of Understanding with the organizations to implement the design and construction of the improvements.”
According to the staff report, “Davis Downtown, Davis Chamber of Commerce, and other business interests are proposing to initiate a planning and design effort for aesthetic improvements to the Richards Boulevard entry into downtown.”
“The effort will focus on lighting, landscaping, signs and other design elements between Olive Drive and the railroad tracks, and potentially north to First Street. The Chamber has maintained the ‘Welcome to Davis’ sign for several decades with support of community service clubs and over the past year has investigated options to improve the condition and visibility of the sign,” the staff report continues.
The MOU would involve a number of shared commitments of both private and public resources. However, according to the staff report, “The recommendation would necessitate the expenditure of staff time and legal resources to further define the project scope and draft an MOU.”
In terms of the current item, “These expenditures are the only commitments made with this recommendation and would be covered by existing budgeted resources. The proposed deal points call for waiver of staff time and fees for the planning and permitting processes as well 50% of construction related costs.”
However, in the long run, there will be costs associated with the project that have yet to be defined.
From the staff perspective, “Staff recognizes that the Richards Boulevard entrance would greatly benefit from aesthetic upgrades.” Staff adds, “However, the City does not have funds currently identified for its share of the proposed process or improvements.”
Clearly, the Davis Downtown believes in this project as they are willing to drop their opposition to the Target zoning changes in exchange for some support here.
However, the Vanguard continues to question whether the city can make the zoning changes to the Target pads without taking the issue back to the voters.
Two weeks ago, City Staffer Katherine Hess read the ballot language and argued, “When it comes to what was actually on the ballot the recommended changes to the store sizes do not go counter to any of the numbers or the description that was on the ballot.”
Except for one problem – the Rezone represented by Exhibit C to Ordinance 2259 is on the ballot. In Section 5 (Permitted Uses), the size specifications are laid out in explicit and specific detail. That includes size specifications for apparel stores, shoe stores, restaurants, etc. These are specific permitted uses for Pad Buildings A, B, C, and D.
The Vanguard two weeks ago argued that Katherine Hess and, indeed, city staff were being very disingenuous when they said, as indicated, “When it comes to what was actually on the ballot the recommended changes to the store sizes do not go counter to any of the numbers or the description that was on the ballot.”
The exact sizes and zoning were the result of complex negotiations that were placed on the ballot in order to gain enough support to get the project passed. As such, the city should be much more reticent about making changes outside of voter approval than they are.
The Vanguard is not convinced by any means that the city has the ability to make these changes and believes that a legal challenge to them doing so could prove interesting.
But the biggest problem was that the entire episode that occurred two weeks ago was unseemly.
The Davis Downtown was negotiating for developer and city support on the Gateway project as a sort of quid pro quo in exchange for dropping objections to the changes to the Target pads. They even tried to leverage their way into $142,000 in general fund tax revenue.
The public seemed to be the group left out of these discussions two weeks ago, and we will see if the council remembers that this time around.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Changes have to be submitted to the voters, and the DDBA should be asserting this. Why aren’t they, Mr. Bisch?
I hope the whole issue is presented much more transparently this time around and urge the Mayor to ensure this.
Mayor Joe: as a lawyer, you can easily do your own research to conclude voter approved zoning has to be resubmitted to voters for changes.
I don’t recall seeing the City Attorney’s legal memo refuting this? I’ll send a PRA, and do Michael Bisch’s job for him.
David, have you seen anything by the CityAttorney other than the staff report ?
Had the initial referendum on the Target been non controversial, or had the placement of the local Target won by a large majority, I would see this as much less of an issue and would probably think that those calling for a vote were merely being obstructionist. However, that is not the case. The vote was a 51-49 split with at least some of those yes votes likely contingent on the specifics of the proposed types and sizes of stores allowable.
To change this now without returning the issue to the voters, I believe gives at least the appearance of a “bait and switch” on the part of the developers and at least the appearance of a willingness to play along on the part of some city staff and some members of specific interest groups who are willing to cut deals without consideration of the well being of the entire community.
I feel that burden is on staff to show us why this should NOT go back to the voters. I agree with Michael Harrington on this. If I understand things correctly, the developer can go ahead with the TJ Maxx (sp?) store without the proposed change. Please someone correct me if I am wrong about this. This seems to be the most pressing issue for the developer.
Robb
I believe the developer’s contention is that TJ Maxx will not sign unless changes are made for other future tenants.
“David, have you seen anything by the CityAttorney other than the staff report ?”
I have not.
” If I understand things correctly, the developer can go ahead with the TJ Maxx (sp?) store without the proposed change.”
I believe that’s correct, they just might not be able to put anything else in there.
We should be removing zoning restrictions on retail sites, not increasing them. This nonsense of taking this back to the voters is just another example of why this town has such a poor record for economic development and a paucity of good retail options. Let the Council do the job they were elected to do.
In general I agree with you Mark. My concern here is fairly narrow: if the citizens directly approved, via ballot, specific size requirements, are they also required to approve changes via a direct vote? I do not know the answer to that question but I think staff should clarify this point. If it is clear to everyone that there is no legal requirement to take this back to the voters then I am (personally) okay giving the CC the final say on this as our elected officials. I doubt others would agree with me on that but I am willing.
On November 7, 2006, voters in Davis were asked: “Shall the City Council’s approval of Ordinance 2259, approving the Second Street Crossing Project, a retail development of approximately 183,000 square feet, including a General Merchandise Store of 137,000 square feet and other retail buildings totaling 46,000 square feet, including a General Plan Amendment (Ordinance ___, Exhibit A, Specific Plan Amendment (Exhibit B), Rezone (Exhibit C), and Development Agreement (Exhibit. D)) be ratified.”
Exhibits link: [url]http://community-development.cityofdavis.org/Media/CommunityDevelopment/Documents/PDF/CDD/Projects/Target-Store/Final-Actions/Ordinance-2259-20062706.pdf[/url]
Staff report with amendment to Ordinance 2259: [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20121211/08 Second St Crossing Pad Sites.pdf[/url]
I dont see why this should be contentious or disagreeable. Clearly those changes have to go to the voters.
If staff had told the developer it has to go back to the voters, then the project applicant would know the score.
Why is this controversy being dumped on us, the public, to straighten out?
Anyone seen any reasonable legal analysis from the CIty Attorney supporting her comments at the hearing? I have not.
But: the bigger question here for me is: why is the DDBA through OUR elected leaders and Board Members not making it clear that the Target area changes have to go back to the voters??
Steve: Thanks for the comments and links. Your CC kindly put it on the ballot as Measure K, so we did not have to do a referendum. What’s your take on the intent of the CC to put those specific details on the ballot? I remember the DDBA really wanted the specifics, and the CC obliged. Do you think the proposed changes should go to the ballot or not, and why? Thanks.
This article should be called “Much Ado About Nothing.” In response to Mike Harrington’s question to the Mayor I would respond, maybe, but the only way you will find out is to file suit.
If there is no legal requirement to take the changes back to the voters, then I am OK with whatever the city and DDBA and local retail merchants come up with.
I think the DDBA should be paying attentiont to this, since the pad limitations were all about issues that the DDBA and Don Shor (if memory serves …) raised. If those interested persons and businesses dont stand up for themselves, then I am not going to waste a second on it.
However, if in terms of fair and legal process, if the law says that changes to a voter-approved development cannot be changed without voter approval (ie, Measure J/R), then I believe the local bar should joint together and file the public interest case that protects the rights of voters. Direct democracy must be protected.
Robb Davis: [i]”My concern here is fairly narrow: if the citizens directly approved, via ballot, specific size requirements, are they also required to approve changes via a direct vote?”[/i]
I doubt that there is a clear answer to this question as some aspect of the answer will involve an interpretation of what the voters actually approved. I personally don’t think it is a question worth answering as the world has changed in the past six years and along with it, the economic needs of the city and the citizens. Anyone who desperately wants to get a final answer is welcome to file a lawsuit, otherwise we should let the Council decide and move on to one of the many real problems we are facing.
“We should be removing zoning restrictions on retail sites, not increasing them. This nonsense of taking this back to the voters is just another example of why this town has such a poor record for economic development and a paucity of good retail options. Let the Council do the job they were elected to do.”
The problem is that it went to the voters to begin with – so that cat is out of the bag already.
Stephen: Thanks for the links. My question is given the fact that the zoning is contained in the exhibits, do you see changing the zoning as changing the parameters of what was approved by the voters, and thus requiring a new vote?
“[i]The problem is that it went to the voters to begin with – so that cat is out of the bag already.[/i]”
I see no reason to repeat a decision (good or bad) just because we made that choice before. In this case, I see no value in putting this question to another vote unless there is an unarguable evidence that it is required.
What we need to stop doing is giving up every time someone threatens a lawsuit or a referendum. We cannot move forward if we are too scared to make the right decisions. If someone wants to try to block progress, let them win their lawsuit, pass their referendum, or win the next election. Otherwise, the Council should listen to all of the concerns expressed, make the best decision for the City as a whole, and then move on.
Mark: the point I am making is I think it is required by law, not optional. And it’s annoying when the City pooh-poohs this issue, without any legal analysis or codes or case law. I’m not a land-use zoning expert attorney, but I know a decent brief when I see one, and there hasn’t been one made public yet by the City Attorney. Maybe she has one, maybe not.
But remember: this is the same attorney attorney who advised the CC last fall that the water rate referendum is illegal. And she did it in a memo without citations to law.
So look for the brief. If she doen’t put one up, then she lacks a legal basis for shining on the ballot matter, and at that point you know it is required by law.
My only interest on this one, since the DDBA leadership seems conflicted out and are not doing what they should be doing to protect the retail members, is to at least protect the rights of Davis voters when legally required.
MH: “[i]Mark: the point I am making is I think it is required by law[/i]”
I understand that Michael, but what you or I ‘think’ simply doesn’t matter. Neither of us are land-use/zoning attorneys (nor do we play one on TV). We can offer an opinion, but neither of us knows the answer. My point is that unless there is clear, unimpeachable evidence that this ‘must’ go back to the electorate, then I don’t think it is worth the time or effort to do so. Let the City Council decide and move on. Anyone who disagrees with the decision can always sue (or win a referendum, or run for office).
In general, while I think it is important that the City Council [b]listen[/b] to the concerns of all citizens, I don’t think they should [b]make decisions[/b] based on the [b]threat[/b] of lawsuits, referenda, or other forms of blocking actions preferred by some members of the community.
Mark: I understand. But the law is the law, and if the CC doesn’t follow it, then what hope is there? I am not interested in being the town policeman, and I hate it when I see this stuff, and because I have the training and history and time in the local saddle, it sometimes falls to me to be the one to call time out.
But I have publically committed to requiring a citywide vote, if the law calls for it. It’s a point I am trying to make to the City Attorney: follow the law. Keep your CC out of trouble. And, tell Ramos and his friends to follow the law, and the City voters mean what they approve, and come back to them if you want to change what they approved.
It’s strictly a process issue.
I told Jaque de Bra in about 2001 that if he didn’t put the surface water project on the ballot, I would force it there for him.
I’m telling you that if the Target area zoning changes have to be re-submitted to the voters, I will attempt to return it back to them.
I have been trying all day to get from the City a memo, a sentence, anything from the City Attorney that supports her legal conclusion that she seems to pull out of thin air, and nothing yet.
You know, with three lawyers on the CC, I do not understand why they continuously abdicate all of their knowledge and training and let the City Attorney control their votes.
It’s all crazy, sorry to say.