On Tuesday night, the city council seemed to be leaning towards continued consideration of the main project proposal for the Mace Ranch Innovation Center, despite the request from the applicant to consider a mixed-use component and 850 high-density housing units.
In fact, council had a motion on the floor from Councilmember Lucas Frerichs moving forward the current option, when Councilmember Brett Lee pointed out that the council really did not have to take action at all. Instead, the council could simply wait until the final EIR comes out in early January and act accordingly at that point.
The council, while of mixed views on the consideration of a mixed-use housing proposal in concept, is leery of whether the voters would support such a measure. As Elaine Roberts Musser put it, “As you are well aware, a Measure R vote looms large, if citizens feel there has been a bait and switch from MRIC as proposed to a mixed-use option only, it very well may doom the MRIC project.”
Eileen Samitz added, “There have been concerns by the citizens from the beginning about housing being proposed at this project and we were told not to worry, that it’s going to be an innovation park because the city needed revenue.”
Ms. Samitz argued that everyone gave this project a chance due to the lack of housing and now, “lo and behold, here we are a year later and the developers are asking for not just some units, 850 housing units, that’s the same number of units in Wildhorse. They are going to somehow jam them into this innovation park.”
For his part, Dan Ramos argued that there was no attempt to deceive, he and his team have simply “become convinced that a viable innovation center should contain a housing component such as the one reflected in the mixed-use alternative.”
He said this was a change “because we initially were highly opposed to the inclusion of a housing component in our project.”
In his comments to council, he noted that the housing would be geared toward housing for workers. He said he is not advocating more housing than already currently planned, and that housing would simply be re-prioritized.
Prakash Pinto, who presented on their proposal, noted that it would be the same square footage for the research and development space, however, the housing would greatly increase the density on the site.
Council, however, for the most part was skeptical of the change.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson noted that she was one of those “who said, housing’s a third rail on this one, so don’t include it. I find myself in an interesting position because I also understand the SACOG principles and blueprint and all the good reasons.” At same time, she noted, with the “accusations of bait and switch,” that “I think it’s realistic to raise those concerns.”
Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis noted that going forward with the current plan does not preclude the council from switching course at a later point and propose a mixed-use project. He said, “I understand it may slow things down.”
He argued that we may need to do things differently from how we usually do things on these projects. “You’re hearing it in the comments of the community, some discomfort, and that means… we need to give more time for processing,” he said. He then pushed for the commissions to look more into some of these components for instance, the Natural Resources Commission to look more into the sustainability plan and Finance and Budget to look further into the EPS (Economic Planning Systems, Inc.) report and the mixed-use component.
He noted, “The EPS actually is mixed on the mixed use… On one hand it’s clear that it reduces the net revenue to the city to have a mixed-use approach. On the other, the EPS report is clear that the very feasibility of the study might depend on mixed use.”
Robb Davis noted that he wasn’t on the council that put out the RFEI (Request for Expressions of Interest), which was clear on no housing. He said that gives him the luxury of thinking outside that without being accused of baiting and switching.
“What I found troubling in the RFEI is that the prior Chief Innovation officer, even as he was presenting you with the RFEI, was also publishing article after article, that if you read the articles in their discussion of innovation was making it clear that the direction that innovation centers are going are towards housing,” he said. He noted that there was no courage at that time for people to ask what an innovation center was supposed to be and why there was no housing there.
He called that “a really serious error.” He added, “We can rectify that error by at least reconsidering what we’re doing.”
Robb Davis said when council agreed to add in a mixed-use component to study, he said, “I support that partly because we have a housing crisis in this town and we need to look at all options. Why would we entitle 200 acres and not at least consider putting dense, mixed-use housing on that.”
“I don’t have a particular axe to grind except to say that we have a housing crisis and we should be looking at all alternatives,” he said.
Nevertheless, he noted that he is happy to stay with the current option for now while reserving the right to switch down the line, knowing that it may slow things down.
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs made a motion to move the staff recommendation that would direct the staff to proceed with the current plan. Like his colleague, he said, “I will reserve the right moving forward to support or not support the potential of mixed use at that site.” But, in his opinion the council has been consistent all along that the innovation park proposals should not include housing.
He added that “there is no application before us other than the MRIC as proposed, I think we should be adhering to the principles articulated in the RFEI.”
“For me keeping the eye on the prize of economic activity, job creation and revenue enhancement for the city are the top priorities and I’m not personally at this point inclined to include housing or a mixed-use component as part of this process,” he said.
Councilmember Swanson said that the reason housing wasn’t included in this process was “frankly because nobody felt that housing could pass a Measure R vote.” She said that “that’s part of leadership, we have to look at the big picture… When you’re dealing with the threats that the project’s not going to get approved if we build a house on it, and we’re sitting here looking at the revenue measures.”
“I don’t know why we’re going to dance around the issue,” she said. “We have to make a choice about what’s going to be successful in the community.”
Dan Ramos said he acknowledged the risk of pushing this issue past next November, however, he thinks they have time to consider mixed use. Nevertheless, he told the council they were fine with them taking action at this time.
Councilmember Brett Lee suggested that, in fact, no action needed to be taken at this time. He said, “We’re a little blind here, we’re trying to go off the draft EIR trying to evaluate possibilities, I don’t see that any action is needed tonight.” He said making a choice at this time “seems reasonable except for the fact that within four weeks we will have the final EIR” which will take into account the concerns of the community and councilmembers.
At that time, he argued, they would be a in a better position to give staff a well-informed direction.
Councilmember Swanson stated, “I’m more comfortable without an action, that [would say] go on ‘2A’ and say even without a formal document we’re just willing to pretend like all that information’s not there.”
Mike Webb told the council they expect the Final EIR to be done by January 19 and Brett Lee suggested either January 26 or February 2 as dates for council consideration.
Mike Webb summed up the council’s direction as staying the course in terms of the current review of the project and keeping working on the EIR as though the path remains the same, but they will check in with the council once more information becomes available.
This was seen as a hybrid approach, where the council didn’t direct the applicant to prepare for two alternatives but it keeps both alternatives alive for now.
While the direction of council seems clear that there is a hard lean against a mixed-use approach, they have not foreclosed that possibility going forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I don’t often say this but kudos to Lucas Frerichs for putting forward the motion to stick with the original plan.
You should put up the tape of what Rob said, he was at his best and right on the mark. First he points out there is a housing shortage. Second, environmentally, building housing next to where the jobs are is the way to reduce greenhouse gas production to help meet those goals.
Both Sacog and other innovation centers get that a housing component is the way to go. Building housing there is environmentally state of the art.
Housing shortage? We have a college apartment shortage so how is any housing at MRIC supposed to alleviate that?
i’d like to hear an answer to this question because it seems like there is bleeding of separate needs here
To riff on the argument for senior housing … maybe Davis residents moving to the workforce housing on MRIC to be closer to their work will free up traditional housing in the city for more mini-dorms.
BP, I believe the answer to that question is pretty straightforward.
The housing crisis in Davis is driven not so much by a college apartment shortage, but rather from a huge spike in the demand for housing from the substantial increase in the UCD enrollment. That spike in student demand manifests itself in a number of ways:
1) The limited supply of apartments is experiencing a demographic shift, with single family tenants being displaced by student tenants. That means Davis is seeing a reduction in its population between the ages of 25 and 54 and between the ages of 0 and 19.
2) The limited supply of single family homes is experiencing a demographic shift, with single family residences (SFRs) being converted into mini-dorms that match the student tenant demand. That means Davis is seeing significant changes in the quality of life of its SFR neighborhoods, and at the same time seeing even further reduction in its population between the ages of 25 and 54 and between the ages of 0 and 19.
3) The high intellectual capital jobs that are projected to be created by the knowledge economy businesses that locate in Innovation Parks are overwhelmingly going to be filled by workers between the ages of 25 and 54. Given the demographic trends manifested in (1) and (2) above, the clear question is, “Where in Davis are those 25 to 54 year-old workers going to find a place to live?”
So, the bottom-line of the housing crisis in Davis is that our City is seeing a dramatic shrinkage of its 25 to 54 year old residents (down 1,500 from 2000 to 2010) and the 0 to 19 year old children of those residents (down 900 from 2000 to 2010). That crisis is sucking the lifeblood out of the Davis retail economy and the lifeblood out of the DJUSD schools.
So what is Robb’s position on Trackside out of curiosity?
It is very difficult to assign credibility to these voiced opinions of housing needs when the voiced opinions are all over the map.
The vast majority of business and research parks throughout the country do NOT include housing.
For one thing it is a bit of oil and water mix. You put residential buildings next to businesses and the residents start to complain about the business and what business they are willing to accept next to them. Likewise, businesses can have more problems with high-density housing next to them. Because high-density housing is generally low-income housing, and like it or not, low income housing invites renters that tend to be more apt to break the law.
By allowing the housing component to MRIC, it will increase the likelihood that the developer will come back within the 20+ year build-out and request approval for more housing as the existing housing built tends to reduce the utility as a business park and potentially results in a slower or more difficult population of business into the park.
I disagree that the inclusion of housing is beneficial to anyone other than the developer. Any potential business prospect moving here would note the vast supply of housing in the surrounding communities and be fine with it as a location.
You are questioning Robb’s credibility? The guy is so credible it borders on annoying at times. (sorry Robb, but it does, just once I wish you would get me out of a parking ticket;-).
The old ones don’t, but from what I understand housing is included in the newer more “innovative” developments. For someone who claims to be forward thinking I’m surprised at your reluctance to consider all possible options.
[moderator] edited. No personal attacks, please.
Comments like this invite responses from me that get moderated.
Here you are Ms. personal attacks…
http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/13030.html
I know it is not politically correct to bring up certain facts, but I live in the world of facts not political correctness.
I’m not sure what your point is. We shouldn’t provide affordable housing in our community out of fear that it might lead to more crime? I find that a short-sighted reaction, and its smacks of NIMBYism. Sometimes I think you say these obnoxious things in order to get the opportunity to show off your lack of political correctness.
Increased “likelihood”? I’d say more like a “complete metaphysical certitude.”
Particularly greenfield developments adjacent to existing residential. This argument from the developers in a red herring.
Frankly
“Any potential business prospect moving here would note the vast supply of housing in the surrounding communities and be fine with it as a location.”
And might that not be, at least in part, because the business does not really care about the adverse impacts on the environment and the impacts on the community as a whole. Their primary goal is to maximize their own profits ( at least as I understand business, please correct me if I am wrong) and to minimize their own costs of operation. However, we have those of us who do already live here and do not share your perspective on the balance of benefits vs disadvantages of growth ( either population or strictly business).
A business has to attract and retain good employees. The cost and availability of housing is one of the many attributes employees consider in their job offer decisions. So this would also be a factor for a business picking a location. Business owners are people too (one ot the things liberals tend to forget in their demonizing of business and CEOs). And like most people they don’t like to see real harm done to the environment. They also would not want to cause real harm to the community where the business is located and they are likely to live in.
But, I suspect that many of them would be willing to accept the fake harm that you and other residents fret about.
Unable to watch last night. Good article; you mention everyone but Dan Wolk, what were his comments/stand on housing? And was Rob White’s replacement there to offer comment? Diane Farro I think tho could be wrong on the name?
didn’t hear anything from wolk and parro said nothing.
Perhaps you missed it. Davis vacancy rate is under 1%. Building a project that creates jobs without a housing element adds to the shortage. Building housing where the jobs are reduces greenhouse gas emissions. I understand that from some of your other writings that you don’t think GHG’s are a problem. Hopefully, the rest of Davis is more interested in moving to a less GHG producing model.
It was interesting watching the public comment from the same old anti-housing voices. I kept thinking that they are still fighting the environmental battles of 20th century Davis.
It was sort of like how I think about the marijuana laws. Those laws make a good analogy. My parents generation never favored legalizing marijuana but that “Greatest Generation” is now almost gone and we see state after state moving towards legalization. I wonder how long it will be before the Millenials and Gen Exers of Davisites takes over and stops dealing with the sclerotic philosophy of the no growth baby boomers of Davis. It may yet still be a long time to come since voter turn out among the young in Davis is so low and the boomers saddled us with measures J and now R. Perhaps Mace Ranch will be the turning point, perhaps not. I was encouraged the other day when Michele Millet argued for doing the right thing instead of the politically expedient thing. Now Robb Davis is also speaking up for doing the right thing. The poll done by Ramos also is encouraging but the question of whether it was a push poll or not remains to be seen. The fact that Ramos and his partners, with so much money at state believe in the poll makes me hopeful.
i might be supportive of housing down the line but not on this project
Two questions DP:
1) Are you saying that we might have a housing crisis down the line, but that we don’t have one now?
2) Where would that housing down the line be located in your opinion?
“a less GHG producing model”
The model is bogus – based on a false assumption.
What assumption would that be CalAg?
That poll was a farce with many leading questions making housing sound all sugary (pardon the pun).
It reminded me somewhat of the water project telephone poll of which I participated. They asked questions like are you for a reliable water source, are you for clean water………..
By the time they got to the gist of what they were looking for, which was are you for or against the water project, one was so led that they would’ve sounded ridiculous to say no.
Overall, there are no environmental benefits from ANY proposed development on this site. Any development will eliminate farmland and open space, and will generate more traffic, not less! To state otherwise is an example of disingenuousness on full display. There are, of course, extremely significant financial incentives to make such misleading statements.
Mace Boulevard currently provides a clear, logical boundary for the city. This massive, proposed development “leapfrogs” over this boundary, and creates a precedent that will encourage further sprawl.
To review, the city is now stating that they can no longer live within their budget. (A primary justification for the initial proposal.) As a result, some are now hoping to “develop our way” out of a supposed problem.
Now, housing is also being proposed. This will COST the city money, wiping out the initial justification for the project. Housing would also bring workers to fill jobs (that are promised within the project, and elsewhere). This would reduce opportunities for CURRENT residents, thereby wiping out another supposed justification for the initial proposal.
To call it an “innovation center” is misleading. This is a commercial development (possibly with housing), plain and simple. (Do we need a designated place for innovation? Did Hewlett-Packard, Apple, and others need this to “innovate”?)
If the development proceeds without housing, it will still create additional pressure to include housing elsewhere. (If the development is approved, arguments will be made regarding our increased “internal need” to add more housing in the future.)
Where does a city get tax revenue to pay for the services needs by and demanded by the residents of the city?
Frankly:
I do not know the reasons that the city can (no longer) live within its budget. This is something to question (and examine carefully), before we attempt to “develop our way out” of a perceived problem.
Ron – Your comment might make sense in a Davis bubble, but you can simply check the metrics for every other comparable city in the state and see that we have a much smaller general fund budget per capita than they do.
You say we cannot “develop our way out”, but the greater truth would be the comment “we cannot cut our way out”.
If is frankly either a pipe dream or a deflection of the hard facts to keep pointing to city spending as the source of our budget problems. Yes, overspending is a contributor but this city is in very good company with almost all other cities. The difference is the low amount of revenue that Davis brings in.
And you are actually wrong that you cannot develop a way out of city budget problems. The point I was making is that a city’s positive tax revenue flows from economic activity and only economic activity. Economic activity requires business. Business requires land to be developed for business use. If you want to continue with that farmland moat around Davis to prevent business development and keep it same-same, then you will see the city eventually reach fiscal insolvency. Then a judge will take over the budget that the inept leaders and voters failed to manage.
Keep in mind Ron that Davis has been living outside its budget for decades. The politicians just hid this from you and me.
The orchards on Mace 391 are now the clear, logical boundary for the city. Using a major arterial as an urban limit is bad planning. MRIC should be 100% tech park.
The orchards on Mace 391 (or, using the OSHC term for the property, Mace 366, because 25 acres was retained by the City) are really quite impressive visually as you drive north on Mace. The impact of that visual almost makes me feel that the $3.9 million the City received at the time of the sale of the property.
BTW, one of the many benefits of the hard work of Tracie Reynolds (the City’s new Open Space/Facilities Coordinator) in providing a high level of transparency and accountability to the Open Space program is the good news that the Mace 366 proceeds amounted to just over $10,500 per acre, which is a fair market price for orchard land. Prior to Tracie’s hard work, the impression that most people had was that the City sold Mace 366 for a much lower “row crop land” value closer to $4,000 per acre. The other misconception that Tracie’s hard work has shed light on is the fact that Mace 391 was purchased for $3,807,578 and Mace 366 realized $3,900,455. The belief (that I and others had) that the Mace 391 property transactions produced a net negative bottom-line is incorrect. In addition to a small net positive balance, the City still owns the 25 acre parcel, which will realize additional revenue when/if sold.
Mace 391 was a net loss to the City. Analyze the spreadsheet in the Staff Report.
The limited supply of orchard-compatible acreage in this region is selling for substantially more than $10,500 per acre. Lillard Ranch, just NW of Mace 391, was just on the market for $15,500 per acre before they pulled it and did the orchard development themselves. That’s the lower end of the current market – and translates into an additional $2M paper loss to the City for selling the land at a discount.
CalAg said . . . “Mace 391 was a net loss to the City. Analyze the spreadsheet in the Staff Report.”
Spreadsheet analysis =
Cost of Purchase of Leland Ranch (Mace 391) = $3,807,578 with the first $150,000 expended in FY 2010-2011 for the option to purchase, and the remaining $3,657,578 expended in FY 2011-2012 when the closing for the Mace 391 purchase took place.
Proceeds received at the time of the sale of the Mace 366 remnant parcel after the 25 acres was carved off for retention by the City = $3,900,455, which came in two simultaneous parts during FY 2013-2014 when the closing for the Mace 366 sale took place. Part A was $3,093,371 and Part B was $807,084.
The net of those four transactions was/is a $92,877 surplus. The numbers do not lie.
CalAg said . . . “The limited supply of orchard-compatible acreage in this region is selling for substantially more than $10,500 per acre. Lillard Ranch, just NW of Mace 391, was just on the market for $15,500 per acre before they pulled it and did the orchard development themselves. “
I’m not sure where you got your information that the supply of orchard-compatible acreage in this region is limited. Given the high quality of soil types in this region, the supply of land that could be converted to orchard is quite substantial. With that said, the availability of such orchard-compatible land in a real estate transaction may indeed be limited.
The fact that the listing price of $15,500 per acre did not result in a sale would appear to indicate that $15,500 is the price per acre that currently is just above the “top of the market.” Your argument that the City could currently get a price above $10,500 per acre has merit … at this moment in time. Whether that was the case in the midst of the Great Recession is anyone’s guess.
Bottom-line, the reason I added my BTW was that there was a broadly held opinion by myself and others that Mace 366 only realized about $4,000 per acre, the row crop land market value, and that broadly held opinion was/is incorrect. $10,500 per acre is definitely an improvement over $4,000 per acre. Whether it could have been even higher is certainly possible.
1. The supply of orchard-compatible acreage > for sale < in this region is extremely limited.
2. Leland Ranch was underpriced. The fact that it was pulled from the market and developed into an orchard was a good business decision, not evidence of mispricing.
3. The numbers do not lie but accountants sometimes obscure the truth.
Your numbers do not sync with those in the Staff Report. Maybe this is worth an audit.
http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20131210/04E-Leland-Ranch-Resale.pdf
See page 04E-83
Based on the numbers in the Staff Report, I calculate a net loss of $1,362,331 to the City of Davis for the entire set of Mace 391 transactions, which is partially offset by the City's retention of 25 acres.
CalAg:
I don’t believe that we NEED development beyond Mace Boulevard. Why do you think it’s “bad planning” to keep our current urban boundary?
Seems like these battles are endless. Always someone trying to justify continued expansion of our city. (Oh, I remember – it’s because someone can make a ton of money, if they’re successful in convincing everyone that there’s a “need” to do so!)
Ron: We don’t need to do anything. However, in my opinion, we should develop the land between Mace Blvd and the Mace 391 orchard into a tech park (with zero residential). Regardless of who’s opinion has the most merit, its bad planning to use major arterials as urban limit lines. Its an inefficient use of infrastructure to single-load this type of roadway.
That doesn’t make sense. It’s only “bad planning” if you’re trying to grow. It is common to use roads as urban limit lines around cities surrounded by farmland, because there is no other less arbitrary or less logical choice.
Ron, how do you propose that the City address its precipitously shrinking 25-54 year-old demographic group, and the precipitously shrinking number of 0-19 year-old children of that 25-54 year-old demographic group?
I agree with Robb’s sentiment here and for the sake of putting forward the best possible project I wish housing had been considered from the beginning, regardless of whether it is eventually included or not. If we are going to build a project of this scale, why not consider all possible options before making a decision? I don’t agree with not looking at housing based on fear, as Yodi would say, this is the path to the dark side. (we’ve been binge watching).
I realize this is a hot-button subject, but I make the following statement and ask the following question with no other agenda then attempting to understand the situation better:
While I would be opposed to building large scale low-density housing anywhere on the periphery at this point in time, I’m not understanding the opposition to on-site high-density housing, especially if it reduces environmental impacts, and gives employees the opportunity to live near where they work. The one I keep hearing is that housing will kill the project, but no one is talking about why there is opposition to this type of housing proposal.
Michelle:
Davis is essentially the only place in the valley that has (at least) some viable method for citizens to limit endless sprawl.
The population of California has more than doubled, in my lifetime. (40 million, and counting.) I don’t believe that continued growth is sustainable (or desirable). From my perspective, continued sprawl has reduced the quality of life (for humans, and wildlife) everywhere it has occurred. And, very few seem to be questioning this.
This particular project simply represents the latest example, from my perspective. Unfortunately, those with significant financial/development interests will continue to do their best to convince others that there’s a “need” to do this.
In general I would agree with you that limiting growth on the east side of Mace is desirable to prevent sprawl. Given that Mace 391 was put into ag easement and the remaining parcel is essentially blocked on all sides, I think it is a reasonable compromise to develop it as a business park to help the city’s revenue problems and to provide some land for move-up businesses that need more space. If Mace 391 had not been preserved, I would be vigorously opposing this development, and I know many others would as well.
I think adding residential there is very problematic, and the council should stick to the original proposal with regard to housing on the site.
Well said.
Ron, I am going to agree with you on this. One of the reasons my husband and I choose to live in Davis is because it so actively limits sprawl, and in doing so increases the quality of life for those of us fortunate enough to live here, and the little wildlife we have left.
I’m not sure I will support this project. I would prefer we find ways to stimulate our local economy by maximizing use of our currently existing resources, and if we need to build I’d prefer we do so on already “disturbed” land.
That being said, if we are going forward with this large-scale development project, I want it to be the best it can be. If that means including high-density housing, then I think we should include it. If there are legitimate reasons for not including housing that go beyond fear of it passing a Measure R vote, I’d like to hear them, but so far I haven’t.
What criteria are you using to define “best”?
My primary interest in considering the MRIC site for development as an innovation park (or whatever the currently preferred term is) is the generation of general fund tax revenue to backfill the budget hole. I’m not interested in seeing it developed for housing because:
1. Housing is a long-term drag on the budget.
2. Housing takes up space that can otherwise be devoted to tax-net-positive uses.
The idea that you need on-site housing in order to attract business tenants doesn’t make sense to me. People who want to live close to their jobs at one of the business tenants will be competing for those on-site apartments/condos with a much larger pool of folks who don’t mind living miles from their jobs. And people tend to settle into their housing even through job changes, so someone who started out living and working at the site may well get a job elsewhere but not change domiciles.
The idea that you can squeeze the business space (increase its density) to free up space for housing has no appeal to me either. If you can successfully market a denser business park in order to include housing, then you can successfully market a denser business park that features no housing but more business space.
I’m not entirely sure. But I can say that I have issues with traditional business parks. I don’t like creating separate work, shopping, and living environments. It leads to these community silo’s that force people into their cars and it isolates us from one another.
My husband works downtown, there are loft spaces above his office where people live. People live and work in the same building, they can all walk a couple of blocks to restaurants, or coffee shops, or to the CO-Op for groceries.
Ideally all of our work, living, and shopping environments could be intermingled. This doesn’t happen in a traditional business park.
I’d prefer we look for ways to strengthen and build a locally based economy in ways that don’t require us to build a mammoth tech park. But if we are going to take this route, I think we should open to exploring the positive and negative impacts that come with including housing.
Dan Ramos sends in a letter on 12/9 asking for a major policy change, and by 12/13 there were at least two council members willing to consider an accommodation. Kudo’s to Lucas Frerichs and Brett Lee for not blinking.
Personally, I wish the final message to the applicant was more clear. Now we are going to have to endure another month or so of rationalization about why we should ignore the simple political reality that addition of housing to the MRIC at this stage will kill it at the ballot box.
The housing issue has been on the radar since 2010, and there have been no fundamentally new findings on this topic. The DEIR and technical studies are filling in the details, to be sure, but the council had all the information they needed for the policy decision when they adopted the RFEI.
The mistake that was made was allowing the equal weight analysis of the mixed used alternative. That came in under my radar, and it will be interesting to watch that public hearing and read the record.
This is directed to Ron on his 2:24 post.
So what is your solution to the population doubling in your lifetime? You identify the problem but you don’t seem to offer any solutions other than saying no.
Misanthrop:
I have some ideas, regarding how to help stabilize our population. This is a bigger question, compared to whether or not one supports a particular project.
The first step is acknowledging that there’s a problem with endless population growth (40 million people and counting, in semi-arid California alone). I’m not sure that most are even ready to acknowledge that this can’t continue, indefinitely. (Perhaps some would prefer to wait until we lose even more land and resources to development.)
In the meantime, I don’t feel any obligation to support such madness. At least Davis provides citizens with an opportunity to weigh in, regarding particular developments.
If this policy change results in a better project, then I think it would be remiss of our council not to consider it.
Then Ramos should withdraw his application and the City can issue another RFEI that allows workforce housing. Davis will have a level playing field and MRIC will probably have renewed competition from the NWQ … and a better project will result.
Thanks CalAg.
I think we know that if an innovation park with 850 planned housing units was put forward from the beginning that the public would’ve never stood for it.
Instead we get what many see as a bait and switch where there’s an attempt to add housing years later after the public was told it was just going to be an innovation park.
I’ll bet the NWQ developers will “re-activate” that application if the City allows them to include 850 units in their EIR. Maybe they will score some brownie points for straight shooting and resubmit after MRIC crashes and burns because of their housing play.
Given that fact that any project is up for voter approval, I’m not concerned about any “bait and swich” tactics that may or may not have been used. Ultimately voters get the final say. I just want to ensure that we are voting on the best possible proposal.
And I just want to ensure that the council follows the rules, maintains a level playing field, and respects the process.
I reject this idea that it’s okay to game and/or subvert the system if it “results in a better project” as defined by the proponents of this kind of behavior.
If we are going to put this on the ballot all I care about is getting a project put forward that best meets the needs of our community, or put another way minimizes the negatives impacts on our community. I don’t really care all the much how it impacts the developer.
“best meets the needs of our community”
Ignoring rules and process to accommodate developers and their political advocates (and investors, in the case of Trackside) is bad public policy.
I get it that some people believe it is okay to blow off the RFEI – which formed the foundation of MRIC’s initial political support – as long as it results in what these particular individuals define as a “better project.”
In my educated opinion, an innovation park project that fails at the ballot box does not meet the “best needs of the community” for anyone, including those that rationalize away the other obvious deficiencies in the mixed use alternative.
Boy, you hit a home run on that one.
Bypass commissions, ignore neighborhood guidelines, ignore the RFEI, ignore the General Plan, revise development agreements after the fact, give special tax deals to developers, on and on.
I would say this would set a bad precedent, but it actually seems like more of a bad pattern.
I should probably change my phrasing from “what is best for the community” to, “what will result in the fewest negative impacts on the community.”
If adding housing minimizes the negative impacts this type of project has on our community then I think we should consider it. I am unclear on why this is a controversial statement.
I am glad that the Council decided to “stay the course”. Special thanks to Lucas for clearly coming forward with not supporting any housing in the project, and to Bret for making the motion that no action really needed to be taken to stay the course.
The ONLY reason that this project was ever considered from the beginning was because it was to be a commercial only, innovation park to help the City generate revenue. It would have never gotten off the ground had the Ramos developers tried to include housing in the beginning. This last minute “bait and switch” attempt was bad enough. But then on top of that the last minute timing of releasing bogus self-serving poll results of polling questions (that were in no way objective since they were designed by the developer, and who arranged to have done) are pretty astonishing stunts pulled by the Ramos group.
It just makes clear how important it is for everyone to please write to our Council members now to let them know your opposition to any housing being added to the Mace Ranch Innovation Park.
Thinking back to my original conversation with Ramos at their initial project open house, when I asked him how many workers he anticipated would need local housing based on the project as initially proposed, he shrugged, smiled, and said “I don’t know. Thousands?” Now some will probably say that it is not the responsibility of the developer to be concerned about the housing needs of the work force that their project will generate. I disagree. I think it is very much the responsibility of those who will benefit from a project to mitigate the adverse consequences. Also, it is certainly the responsibility of our city leaders to consider all aspects of a proposed project, not just the potential city revenues when making this kind of decision.
I do not pretend to know, or even have a strong preference at this time for or against the inclusion of on site housing, but I do feel that it would be remiss not to reconsider all options given the withdrawal of the alternative proposed business park.