The Mace Ranch Innovation Center may be back in play for November. This week, Davis received a letter from the MRIC project applicant requesting consideration of a proposal to continue processing the application.
The revised proposal, which would include the southern half of the property, would be under consideration for the November 8, 2016, ballot. The item will be discussed on Tuesday as an informational item only at this point. Staff expressed concern about preparing a project on such short notice.
According to the staff report, “The Innovation Center component of the proposed project would occur on a site consisting of approximately 102-acres. Proposed base land uses would primarily be research, office, R&D and manufacturing uses. Other uses include supportive commercial uses, including a hotel, and supportive retail. The project will also include an agricultural buffer and green space.”
Urban Reserve: “Urban Reserve – The 110-acre site north of the proposed Innovation Center area is proposed as Urban Reserve. This area was previously incorporated into the project proposal for urban uses but is now proposed as an Urban Reserve designation. The land uses for the Urban Reserve area would be defined in a subsequent planning process and brought back for a future Measure R vote.”
Mace Triangle: “The 16.6-acre Mace Triangle site is included within the overall project boundaries to ensure that an agricultural and unincorporated island is not created and to allow the continuation and expansion of existing uses. A summary breakdown of different land use square footages and acreages is forthcoming.”
CEQA Considerations
According to staff, “[B]efore the application was placed on-hold, the City completed the following tasks in environmental review of the applications:
- Circulated the Notice of Preparation from November 6, 2014 to December 8, 2014, including a public scoping meeting on November 17, 2014.
- Circulated the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from August 13, 2015 to September 28, 2015 (agency comments) and to November 12, 2015 (community comments).
- Released the Final EIR on January 14, 2016. This included responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR, plus revisions to the draft document. Master Responses addressed topics of UPRR and County Road 32A closure, bicycle connection along CR 32A, the Mixed-Use alternative, guarantees of developer performance, project phasing, project ownership, western burrowing owl, and Swainson’s hawk.”
Staff writes: “The Draft EIR analyzed the proposed project and the Mixed-Use Alternative at equal weights. The statutorily-required ‘Alternatives’ Chapter also included analysis of a range of alternatives including a ‘Reduced Site Size’ alternative of 106 acres plus the Mace Triangle, and a ‘Reduced Project Alternative’ of 540,000 square feet on the MRIC site, plus the Mace Triangle. The Reduced Project Alternative is essentially the same as the anticipated ‘Phase 1’ of the Mace Ranch Innovation Center.
“If directed by the City Council, staff would confer with environmental and traffic consultants to determine whether this revised concept falls within ‘brackets’ established in the Draft and Final EIRs. If so, the City would be able to prepare an analysis showing that the revised project does not result in new environmental impacts, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact, or the need to recirculate the Draft EIR document for additional public review and comment.”
In addition, “staff or consultants would need to prepare Findings for Approval and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).”
Letter from Dan Ramos:
In April, we asked that the Mace Ranch Innovation Center be placed on hold after the City’s economic analysis, as well as our own, evidenced that the project as proposed was not feasible. The MRIC applicant team now requests that our application, as reformatted, be taken off hold and expeditiously moved to the City Council for action and placement on the November 2016 ballot.
Our reformulated application requests annexation of the entire 228 acres, including the Mace Triangle and the MRIC project site, but now seeks approval of innovation center uses on only the southern 102 acres. The northern half of the property, including the City’s 25 acres, is requested to be brought into the City with an urban reserve land use designation and will be subject to a future planning effort and subsequent Measure R vote before any development may occur.
This reformulated approach has been carefully crafted to meet the City’s goals of retaining local companies, enhancing economic development and strengthening the City’s tax base while allowing the applicant to pursue a project that is economically viable.
Finally, let me note that we are committed to placing MRIC before the citizens of Davis this year. We respectfully ask the City to commit the resources to allow us to do so.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is interesting but hope this is a real innovation park, not just a warehouse for Schilling
This is terrible from a process point of view. Scant details on the project. Hardly any time for commissions and citizens to weigh in (and, e.g., the Open Space and Habitat Commission usually doesn’t even meet in the summer). And it’s over the summer when people are often out of town. The timing is highly suspect. Maybe this is a good proposal (I don’t have enough info to determine one way or another), but this isn’t the right way to do it.
And still no information about the mitigation that I can see.
How can you determine that this is terrible if you don’t know what is being proposed? Perhaps you might consider learning the details before you start screaming ‘No.’
I agree with Mark West. It now looks like innovation park only without any housing which is what we were told we were getting in the first place. Any subsequent building on the Mace Curb or the north part of the site will be subject to a Measure R vote so at any future time we can make a determination if we want more innovation space or housing. We still have to see the new plans but I like it so far as long as they don’t try and introduce housing again.
Mark West,
Read what I wrote again. I did not say that the project was terrible. I even said explicitly that “Maybe this is a good proposal (I don’t have enough info to determine one way or another).” What I object to is the process: too little information, too little time, bad timing over the summer.
I understood you the first time Roberta, and my response is the same. You don’t have the information about either the project proposal or the process proposal, yet you chose a knee-jerk reaction all the same. Just scream ‘no’ as loudly as you can.
Once again I suggest you wait for the relevant information unless of course you are not really interested in seeing the community make a rational decision.
Well, if the Mace Triangle is the land bounded by Mace/UPRR/CR32 A, this is a good change… will put the City water tank, Park and Ride, and Ikeda’s fruit stand within City limits… see nothing to indicate that the remaining parcel [Chami?]would have any zoning other than it’s current A (Ag) zoning… since all are existing uses, “no harm, no foul, should have been done years ago if not for the NIMBY’s and BANANA’s”…
Annexing the other property is consistent with what was done for Sutter Hospital decades ago… the ‘closest’ portion being given full entitlements, the remainder being put in ‘Urban Reserve’, which would require additional approvals, but if annexed near term, would not require a separate R/J vote…
The analysis has already been done… this is a scaled down version of what was proposed previously, at least for immediate uses, except, possibly for the ‘Chami parcel’ but see no re-zone proposed… but, if there was, it would then be a City call, not the County’s.
Have no clue why you seem to have your skivies in a knot, Roberta, but I see no harm/no foul in proceeding (or process), based on what we’ve seen. Are you a BANANA?
Mark West,
Well, if you “understood” me, you misrepresented what I said. Please do not do that again.
I do in fact have information about the proposed timeline. Please see my comment to The Pugilist below. That timeline is too quick, with not enough consultation, and over the summer to boot, to vet this properly. There were commission reports presented right before the original proposal was due that have not been considered (because the project was withdrawn); those may or may not need to be redone in light of the new proposal — but they aren’t even part of the timeline. This is a major undertaking and it should not be a rush job. Many complained about Nishi being a rush job (even many of its supporters thought so). Let’s not make the same mistake again.
“Well, if you “understood” me, you misrepresented what I said. Please do not do that again.”
I didn’t misrepresent you at all. I correctly interpreted your response for what it was. You are uninformed yet feel entitled to your irrational response. Go for it. Keep screaming ‘no’ as loudly as you want.
If the initial reports are accurate, the analysis and consultations have already happened, and there will be no reason to repeat that process. This is not a new proposal, but an amendment of one that has been extensively analyzed. We still need to see the details of the proposal, for both the project and the process, before anyone can make a rational decision about moving forward. Nothing, though, will stop those who favor reflexive and irrational responses from weighing in at volume.
Mark West,
How does the revised project pencil out financially? What are the natural resource impacts? Which features of the proposal (which was never very well specified) remain and which will be eliminated? How many parking spaces will there be? What are the open space impacts? The answers to all of these questions (and more) are unclear because the analyses were done for the larger project, yet there is no time allotted to do them. You assume that I am uninformed, but I am actually quite informed about this original project, which is how I know that not enough time is being allotted to properly vet the revised project.
Roberta: You cannot know if there is not enough time for the simple reason that the City has not yet determined what the scope of work is that will be required. We need details in order to make a rational decision. You jumped the gun with your
comment because nobody currently knows what the process involves. Don’t worry, I fully expect that you will be screaming ‘no’ in the end anyway. Jump the gun and be irrational if you want. You will have more credibility however if you wait for the details before doing so.
Mark West,
You keep insulting me, but this is the last refuge of someone who lacks a good argument. I’m not really sure what you hope to gain by your insults, but I am not going to stoop to your level.
You say: “The City has not yet determined what the scope of work is that will be required.” The applicant wants this on the November ballot. There is not enough time to vet it. In the proposed staff timeline there is only one commission weighing in, and there is not enough time to have more of them weigh in. There is not enough time for citizens to see what the revised proposal is, and it’s over the summer when many are out of town. This isn’t complicated. The scope of work necessary is the amount of work it takes to decide if something should be put in front of the voters, and there simply isn’t enough time for that. Period.
Pure speculation on your part Roberta. If (and that is a big IF) it is determined that the project as now proposed was appropriately considered as part of the earlier EIR, there may well be little or no additional analysis needed. In that case, the project should move forward with the completed work. The problem here is that neither you or I know the answer to that question, and until that answer is determined, making any sort of assessment about the process or the project is entirely premature.
Mark West,
Well, I can tell you that a full analysis of the reduced project was not done in the EIR; whether or not they determine that the partial analysis was sufficient, I cannot say. (The only full analyses were done on the main proposal and the mixed use proposal). But the EIR is only one part of a proper determination of whether this is ballot-ready. The commissions are supposed to weigh in on the project apart from the EIR; for example, the commissions need to weigh on whether the new project is consistent with the City Council’s Guiding Principles for Davis Innovation Center(s). And again, there needs to be time for informed citizen input.
I completely agree. The problem is that you were making uninformed citizen input and jumping to a conclusion without the necessary data. Your analysis may well be correct, in the end, it was, however, entirely premature.
Mark West,
I am basing my judgment on my experience with the previous round of reviewing the MRIC proposal, which was still in process when it when it was interrupted. I know what was done and what was not done. I know that they have not allocated enough time to redo what was done and to get informed citizen input, especially over the summer. I am not uniformed on this issue.
I didn’t hear screaming either.
Roberta, re: 2:57 post…
Two months after the application was placed on hiatus, why does something that was then done need to be re-done? I just don’t understand that portion of your comment…
Doesn’t sound like it’s exactly the same proposal.
Roberta: There’s not even a formal proposal yet, way too soon to worry about the mitigation. It looks like about half the previous project, no housing.
Pugilist: There is nothing “too soon” about any of this. Here is the timeline, as it currently stands:
6/14 City Council meeting to receive a presentation from the applicant team on their request and the modifications to their proposal, receive public comments, and discuss the applicant’s revised project proposal that includes a request for the City Council to refer the revised project to the November 8, 2016 ballot for a Measure R vote. [This is four days from now!]
6/21 City Council meeting for further direction
6/29 Planning Commission Hearing (public hearing)
7/12 City Council Hearing (public hearing)
7/19 City Council Meeting
7/26 Last day for County to set November election for MRIC
11/8 November election; Measure R vote
This is an outrageously fast timeline. If there is information to be considered, it should be on the table now – or, rather, months ago.
Roberta, this is a scaled down version of a project that’s been in the works and hashed over for going on something like 6 years now. No, it isn’t being rushed or shoved on us.
When people are already raising red flags this quick it gives credence to those who say that there are some people in town who will never agree to an innovation park anywhere at anytime.
You truly have no clue, Roberta… there is nothing “new” in this, of substance… if you want a total “do-over” fine… you’re entitled to have that view… but I view it as uninformed/silly.
The commissions did not weigh in on the scaled-down project. They weighed in on the full project. Whether their previous findings are still relevant or need to be redone is unclear, but there is no time allotted to determine that. There is also not enough time – and it’s at a bad time – for citizens learn enough about the project to weigh in. (Note that they did not really get an opportunity to do that – the meetings where that was supposed to happen were cancelled). You all can insult me all you like, but this is a rushed process, period. The fact that the previous process was interrupted just complicates things – it’s hard to know how to pick up the pieces from where we were.
It looks like the “we’re never going to ever get any innovation park proposals as long as we have Measure R” crowd is wrong.
You are correct BP I was wrong. I guess the risk/reward profile is large enough for people with a lot of money to take a gamble. I couldn’t imagine myself ever taking such a risk. Its interesting that the timeline is once again being driven by the election calendar instead of the natural planning timeline. I don’t look forward to another exhausting campaign but it looks like it is coming to a polling place near you this November.
Remember they have already invested a lot of money into this.
Is this a “backdoor” approach, ultimately leading to housing on the site? Why not just present the actual 102-acre innovation park footprint for consideration, at this point?
Why do developers always have to push the envelope? These guys already had a chance to have the entire site considered for commercial development, but chose to withdraw.
Ron, you know I’m with you on the housing issue but if this is indeed a backdoor attempt we still get to vote on any future housing on the north side of the site and on Mace Curb. The citizens will still have the say. At some point we need to move forward and this scaled down innovation only park is a great start.
BP: I agree that we have similar views regarding housing at that site. However, I see no reason to put the northern section into an “urban reserve”, which I’m just now learning about. Perhaps someone will “enlighten me”.
What is the developer’s motivation for this? I suspect that it will be much easier to argue for housing on an “urban reserve”, in the future. (Especially after all of the “new jobs” are created, at the scaled-down innovation center.) That’s when we’ll hear more about the shortage of housing, for all of the new workers. And round-and-round it goes!
Roberta: Thanks for posting this, but I did briefly read it before posting my concerns. Again, what is the developer’s motivation for this? They already withdrew the proposal to have the entire site zoned for commercial, and are now coming back with this. (If not commercial, what else would motivate the developer to pursue this designation? Did someone say “housing”?)
It seems like an easier argument for the developer to make in the future, if the site is already designated as “urban reserve”.
Ron, your guess is as good as mine. I just wanted to pass along the information that I had. It does seem as though the main point is as a prelude to further development, perhaps of housing – I would not be surprised.
And the voters will have the option of voting no if they do. So I don’t quite see the problem here.
In a sense, neither do I. Despite the efforts expended on Nishi, I’m ready for this battle. Let’s see how the weary voters respond.
Why is a battle a good thing for the city? I seem to recall you stating that you would support MRIC with no housing, this would be half of MRIC, with no housing.
It’s not good. However, it’s worthwhile (see comments above).
I seem to recall that you keep pushing for an MRIC development, regardless of whether or not it includes housing. You also keep harping on the need for housing, in general (even at a site that’s clearly outside of the city’s boundaries, far removed from the University and downtown).
I do wish that you would acknowledge your biases. (And, I don’t necessarily mean “bias” in a bad sense. It’s simply misleading to pretend that you don’t have opinions/biases.)
Not sure of your point. Why would you be for a 200 acre MRIC without housing but not a 107 acre one without housing?
I think I’ve already stated the point, above. It seems that the developer will have an easier argument to make in the future (regarding the “need” for housing – e.g., for its “new workers”), if the remainder of the site is already designated as an “urban reserve”.
Why else would the developer withdraw his proposal to have the entire site designated as commercial, and come back with this (designating half of the site as “urban reserve”)?
Whatever manipulations they want to pursue are fine with me. (Just as they tried to include housing on the site, at the last minute.) I welcome all arguments, so that I’m that much more ready to respond when the time comes. (However, I won’t be hanging around at the computer all day.)
Urban reserve is a placeholder designation. You would need to get a Measure R vote through in the future to build anything. From talking to Mr. Ramos today, it sounded like he wanted to get something that the voters would approve, no doubt to house Schilling and then come back later for the rest. Measure R provides a mechanism so that he can’t pull the wool over people’s eyes.
Ron, we just got what we wanted, an innovation park with no housing. We get to vote in the future if they want to put housing out there. Even if the innovation park isn’t built some developer could come with a plan in the future for all housing on the entire site. Nothing has changed. Ron you sound like a good guy but in my opinion you’re starting to come across as being unreasonable.
I think you may have forgotten that these same guys tried to include housing at the last minute. Then, they withdrew their proposal to have the entire site zoned as commercial.
Now, they come back with this “urban reserve”. Knowing how developers operate, do you think that they’ll come back later with a commercial-only development proposal at that site? If so, why not do it now (to match the original proposal)? (Or, why not simply limit the proposal to the site that they want to develop, now?)
I suspect that developers are generally quite savvy, more so than you or I. They have the resources, talent and financial interest to think of ways to get what they want.
If this thing goes forward and is (somehow?) approved by voters, we’ll get a housing development proposal on that site in the future. They’ve already demonstrated that this is their goal.
Perhaps we’ll see how the voters react to this news. Developers will never give up.
First, we’ll have to see how the council reacts to this news.
Ron, what’s changed? Ramos will still have to come back to the voters either way if he wants housing.
Have you seen the current proposal? I haven’t… your view is uninformed, at best.
I believe that all there is at this point is a four page staff report and a one page letter from the applicant. See here:
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20160614/09-Mace-Ranch-Innovation-Ctr-Applicant-Letter.pdf
If this gets rushed through like the Nishi project did, I predict recall efforts.
Why? Something to consider, a recall to be successful would take more signatures than the number of people who voted No on Nishi.
There will be enough people frustrated enough to launch an effort. Lots of people want some sort of innovation park, and would be frustrated to see the City Council blow another opportunity like they blew the Nishi opportunity.
Go for it. Good luck. There’s many like me who were against MRIC because we didn’t want housing who will be happy with this new slimmed down innovation park. You’re losing allies by the minute.
I don’t think so. The one time there might have been a recall here was Nancy Peterson, who resigned and even then, I think a recall would have been difficult and polarizing. We’re far better trying to find common ground. The council hasn’t even had a chance to consider the new proposal and you’re already talking recall. 7500 people is a lot more than voted against Measure A, I don’t see the energy or organization to be able to pull that off and I don’t think it’s a fruitful discussion.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not predicting success, just all the ugly process.
David you should look at the Yolo Elections site, with 6,000 ballots left to count there are 7,693 No votes on A.
Okay. Doesn’t make it any easier.
B-P don’t for a minute think I am the one who will do. I am just predicting.
And that’s the point, it sounds like a good idea until you realize how difficult it is. How high a hurdle it would be. And at the end of the day, people may complain but no one is going to do the heavy-lifting
Fred, Why would there be a recall? Harrington is cooing about how perfectly Measure R worked. Though he also said that if Nishi failed, he would just file lawsuits to stop the project. So…. Measure R works if projects are voted down, but recall efforts and lawsuits and efforts to rewrite Measure R if a project receives approval? Does that make sense to you?
Well, it does seem like no matter how the final vote tally comes back on A that we found the boundary of what will pass under measure J/R and there were several problems with the project and campaign that could have been fixed so I would have to agree about Measure J/R working. as I argued on the Nishi article, Nishi would have past if Ruff had made a good offer to Redrum to start with, and Pope hadn’t been set on the owner like an attack dog.
As for MRIC, I don’t know enough about it to have a lot of opinions about the project yet. I do have a simple opinion about the process though: I think the council should take some time and do it right. Don’t rush it to the ballot and waste everyone’s time and effort or the developers money. Its if it gets rushed and messed up that I see people being sick of the unnecessary drama and calling for a recall (more drama). Here is to hoping the council and the staff get this one right so Davis can move ahead.
The council should just step up and do this because it’s becoming obvious that no matter what they do there will always be a faction in Davis that will fight it. I have to believe that with this new scaled down proposal the naysayers are highly in the minority.
BP: I don’t think so. There are some (like you and me) who don’t want housing at this site (beyond the city’s boundaries, far from downtown and the University). However, there are others who (apparently) wouldn’t support the site without housing, arguing that the site should house its own workers. I suspect that they are in the minority, but they may (also) not like the current proposal, which doesn’t including housing (at this time).
I wouldn’t actively fight a simple, commercial-only zoning of the site. (However, I am somewhat concerned about the pressure that this would add to the housing market.) Regardless, this latest attempt reeks of another manipulation (as did the last-minute housing component, prior to withdrawing the entire proposal).
I urge you to look at this from the developer’s point of view, and their motivation for the “urban reserve”. If it’s as simple as you state, why not leave this part out of the proposal?
Ron, should we never create new jobs in Davis and let Schilling Robotics and other companies leave because we don’t ever want to do or create anything that might put pressure on the housing market?
No. (Although I would argue that the financial concerns of the city are the primary concern regarding economic development. And, that the reason the problem occurred is NOT due to a lack of housing. (Just the opposite, since the cost of providing services to housing developments typically outpace tax revenues.) I suspect that most “new jobs” at MRIC may not go to current Davis residents.
That’s why I slowly became convinced of the need for commercial-only development. Let’s see that proposal (again), without complicating it unnecessarily.
BP
“should we never create new jobs in Davis and let Schilling Robotics and other companies leave because we don’t ever want to do or create anything that might put pressure on the housing market?”
I have a different perspective on your question. First, it is not a matter of “letting” Schilling and other companies leave. They are independent companies and will do what they see best for their private company whether that is staying in Davis or relocating.
As for pressure on the housing market, that already exists. I do not think that we do ourselves any favors when we add large scale business to our community which already has a peak demand rental availability of 0.2%. To add large scale business without consideration of where these workers will live, while knowing UCD plans to add large numbers of students is the height of irresponsibility.
Probably the single biggest factor in my support of Nishi was the close proximity of the on site housing, businesses, the university, and the downtown creating the option of a virtually commute free life style for those who currently have no such option. MRIC as a business only model guarantees the perpetuation of our current car dependent model which wastes not only our time, but is also harmful to our environment and our individual and community health.
It’s code for housing and/or retail. I see very little chance that the voters will annex urban reserve land into the City based on Ramos’ “we’ll tell you later” scheme.
I have no problem with the annexation of the “surplus” into the City; however, I see no reason to change the zoning of the “surplus” from agriculture to urban reserve. Annex it with an ag zoning designation.
Matt – I’m unclear why it makes a difference. It would require a vote either way?
David, since it requires a vote either way why not leave it agricultural and take that problem off of the table for the naysayers?
I’m trying to get my mind wrapped around the advantage/ disadvantage here.
Per the Davis Enterprise: “While the 102-acre version of the project would only include commercial property, Ramos confirmed that developers are still interested in adding workforce housing further down the line.”
http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=658026&preview_id=658026
I suspect that it will be “that much easier” to argue for housing on the Northern section of the site, if it’s already an “urban preserve”. By then, they’ll also have a stronger argument to provide “workforce housing” for the new employees at the scaled-back MRIC. (And, round-and-round it goes.)
Strange, I thought that the commercial market (and the city itself) needed a large area for commercial development. I guess not! (Does anyone remember that the developers already tried to include housing at the last minute?) This stinks more and more.
Support this, if you want to simply expand the size of the city, and ultimately “water down” any of the promised benefits by 1) reducing the size of commercial space, 2) adding housing later, on half of the site. (Unless you’re certain that the developer would lose that subsequent vote.) Note that some voters apparently already believe that housing should be included in an MRIC proposal.
In this case, I think the developer is telling us the truth, regarding his plans.
David, the simple answer to your question is optics. With that said, what advantage is there to establishing the land use designation as Urban Reserve as opposed to Agriculture?
Everything about this strains credibility. I look forward to the council’s input, but the old saying ‘once bitten, twice shy’ comes to mind.
OK, let me understand… (and, you said EVERYTHING)
Annexing the area called the Mace Triangle, composed of Ikeda’s, the Park and Ride, the City water tank, and a small ag parcel “strains credibility”?
Proposing a portion of what was initially proposed strains credibility?
It strains credibility that you say the proposal “strains credibility”…
Can you elaborate so I can understand why I am wrong/mistaken? If I am, will so admit, but need some facts…
[BTW, I really don’t care if the project moves forward or not… but when “logic”/arguments are flawed, I may point them out]
In case there’s any doubt regarding the developer’s long-term plans (from the Enterprise):
“While the 102-acre version of the project would only include commercial property, Ramos confirmed that developers are still interested in adding workforce housing further down the line.”
In this case, I think the developers are actually telling the truth!
(By the way, why does the development need “workforce housing”, if the “new jobs” are intended for current Davis residents?)
http://www.davisenterprise.com/?p=658026&preview_id=658026
Ron: “By the way, why does the development need “workforce housing”, if the “new jobs” are intended for current Davis residents?”
UCD grads just coming out of school who might work at a business within MRIC do not have housing and very well might like to live right next to where they work.
Just reading the above nonsense on several threads confirms for me the no growthers will come out in force to defeat MRIC. There is no question in my mind that the City Council/city needs to be more proactive in its support of innovation parks instead of remaining neutral.
Note to developers:
Go work with the county, Woodland and UCD and give Davis the big middle finger.
That is unless you are into self-abuse.
I wonder if down-scaled project will still have a glider?
Well, I do like the glider! Environmentally-friendly, quiet. (I think this works, subliminally. I hadn’t consciously thought about it, even though I noticed it.)
Maybe the “urban reserve” will be an airport. 🙂
It will, but with only one wing…or two half-wings… to answer Ron, that might have bad consequences for folk in MRP.
Don.. amazed by your abilities to channel the thoughts of another to whom I directly responded…
Truth… only thing I can see changing is a reduction of entitlements for about half the proposal originally out there, and including of properties, mostly already developed, and in the “existing condition” analysis.
If ten feet of floor plan changes up or down, that is clearly “not exactly the same”… OK, that’s one way of looking at it. A ~50% reduction of a proposal is different, and not exactly the same… but the analysis to date would OVERSTATE impacts, and yes benefits. But EIR’s are more about impacts than benefits, unless the benefits are necessary to mitigate the impacts.
Daily, traffic changes… should an EIR be re-done if not updated and re-circulated daily?
You and others see a bait-switch conspiracy… I see the same thing that was done when Sutter-Davis got the hospital project annexed, bringing the NW Triangle property in as well. A definite ‘conspiracy’. Understand that the main property is a single, legal lot. LAFCO will (99% confidence level) NOT allow a portion of a legal lot to be annexed… so, in order to avoid the potential of a “bogeyman”, the applicant would have to apply for a lot-split (Parcel Map) with the county, to be recorded concurrently with the annexation decision/Measure R/J vote results.
Am sure you have plenty of wooden stakes available at the nursery to place more in the heart of this obviously evil proposal.
hpierce:
These same guys already tried to include housing on the site, and then withdrew their proposal when that failed.
They have already repeatedly stated their desire to include housing on the site. They are not hiding their intentions.
If you eventually want housing on this site (with a reduced commercial component), then by all means support the developer’s plans.
I’ve already outlined some ways that this will occur.
Is there something in the agenda or in this article that reflects that belief? I don’t think there’s a specific proposal reflecting the proposed changes before the council at this time.
I, as many, don’t care much for the schedule timing to get the matter on the November ballot… but it is what it is…
Yet, am pretty sure many NIMBY’s and BANANA’s would love to push the matter off to 2018 (June 2018 at earliest) or force a “special election” with all costs on the proponents… they’ll never admit that, though…
Perhaps the applicant should go for a special election, VBM ONLY!
Responsibility for the compressed timeline is entirely with the applicants, from having withdrawn the project earlier. Staff could have been working on it for the last two months, commissions could have been reviewing it before the usual reduced summer schedules. That is on them, and more than likely will kill the proposal if the council is skeptical.
I have supported the idea of a business park at this site, and certainly am open to it. But this process has been a mess to date, and the council would do well to make sure the proposal and development agreement (for what those are worth, anyway) are vetted very carefully.
Don… as to you, your second paragraph makes sense, and I agree with… other posters, not so much.
But, you implied (earlier posts)[as others have] possibly nefarious motives, but I see ‘hesitancy to proceed’ on the applicant’s part, in the face of uncertainties, and quite frankly [yeah, pun intended at two levels], a ‘blunder’ of suspending the application, then wanting to ‘catch up’… clumsy, ill-advised, but I see no “conspiracy”.
We can definitely agree to disagree… the last two months have been ‘weird’ as to development…
The opposition to Nishi made an Achilles’s heel out of the affordable housing issue.
I believe the same group will make for MRIC an Achilles’s heel out of the urban reserve issue.
I’m not talking about facts, I’m talking about what will be said over and over to stomp out the yes vote.
(I say this as a Yes on A who will probably vote against MRIC).
Alan Miller:
(Given your earlier comment, I thought I’d better include your last name!)
I think that one thing you’re overlooking is that several of us “slow-growthers” apparently support a commercial-only MRIC, due to the financial challenges facing the city. At least, that’s what I’m gathering from comments on the Vanguard. (I suspect that I’m the most reluctant of the “bunch”.)
Regarding Nishi, my main concern was the 1,732 parking spaces and unknown effects of providing an additional access point for motor vehicles, to the University. However, I did repeatedly point out the developer’s apparent intention (based upon comments reported in the Vanguard) to partially disregard the requirements of the “mixed use” designation, which was the basis for excusing the affordable housing requirements.
It’s pretty clear that the MRIC developer doesn’t want the entire site to be zoned as commercial, and has already stated his intention to pursue/include housing on the site, at some point.