My concern at the time when this process was initiated last fall was that I did not believe at that time, nor do I believe now, that the top need in the city is to develop a new sports complex. I was also concerned that the make-up of this task force was predetermined to support a sports complex and, indeed, council made it quite clear that the job of the task force was to focus on the question of “how” rather than “if.”
We were told at the time of this formation that the reason we were creating a separate task force was to effectively separate the question of sports parks from that of roads and other needs. What has transpired since then is that the council decided it didn’t need to go forward with a parcel or other tax this spring and now the decision has been made de facto not to go forward with a revenue measure for November.
So, at the onset here, I have a grave concern that the city has now prioritized a much lower level need over existing facilities. I state this up front and note that the work of this committee is separate and distinct from these stated concerns.
The task force concluded that Davis needs both new and improved facilities. “As a community, we have simply outgrown the number and type of sports fields that were largely built decades ago,” they write.
They offer two distinct types of facility improvements: “Developing a new sports complex in a location that would not impact existing city neighborhoods with lights and traffic and parking, but that could be easily connected to existing city infrastructure.”
Second, they write, “Re-configuring and/or improving maintenance of a select number of existing fields to facilitate flexibility in their use with the goal of supporting a wide range of underserved and growing sports.”
Concerning how large the sports complex should be: “Our analysis suggests that a minimum of about 50 acres would be needed to accommodate users, but that a site of 125 acres or more would be desirable to allow for long-term future expansion.”
The task force also argues for the need for lights: “The Task Force concluded that lighting is a critical attribute of any new sports complex for several reasons. First, it allows leagues to schedule games after dark, when families and community members can more easily attend. Second, it allows many more games to be scheduled throughout the year, especially in winter and spring, when darkness occurs very early. Third, the availability of lighted fields expands the opportunities for practices at times when games have not been scheduled.”
Furthermore, they argue that another “critical attribute of a sports complex site is that it be easily accessible and not result in undue traffic and parking impacts on existing Davis neighborhoods.”
They argue for the need for “sufficient parking to accommodate tournaments, with controlled entry points to parking lots.”
Finally, they argue: “A sports complex should also be developed in keeping with our community’s strong environmental values. If a sports complex took the place of irrigated agricultural operations, it would, on the natural, be likely to decrease water demand at that site. Nonetheless, given the high cost and scarcity of water, it makes sense to design a sports complex that uses water efficiently.”
In short, I think they do a good job here of understanding the needs of the community as a whole, and in attempting to synthesize their needs.
That leads to the tricky questions: where should it be located? In looking at the three sites already analyzed, Old Davis Landfill, Mace Covell Gateway, and Howatt Ranch, the task force concluded that “our review did make us aware that all of the previously studied sites, to varying degrees, would spark some level of public controversy or discussion. The Old City Landfill, in particular, has already generated strong statements of opposition from some community members.”
They then come up with three potential locations – first, the location south of the golf course along Highway 113. The parcel is owned by the city already. Second, the 25-acre parcel outside of the Mace Curve owned by the city, and third, an area south of Legacy Fields.
In assessing the three parcels identified by the task force, I would rule out Parcel B immediately. First, it is too small. They identified the need for 50 acres with an additional 75 to accommodate future expansion. Second, until we figure out what will happen with MRIC (Mace Ranch Innovation Center), using the city’s 25-acre site makes little sense.
Parcel A makes a good deal of sense. I reject the notion that some suggested that objections from the Binning residents should eliminate it from consideration. Their early objections to the Davis Innovation Center may well have cost the city millions of dollars and, frankly, they are not entitled to live with a moat surrounding them.
However, that aside, it seems that Parcel C makes the most sense. It is next to existing sports fields. The road has capacity for traffic with easy access to the city and I-80.
As the task force notes, they conclude “the South of Legacy Fields site is particularly promising and warrants careful study.” As someone who lives in South Davis, I see that the fields are sufficiently blocked from existing neighborhoods, such that “[l]ighted fields, traffic, and parking at nearby Legacy fields have not resulted in any negative impacts on the neighborhood to the west, and a sports complex on this adjoining parcel could similarly avoid such problems.”
“Legacy does not object to having a sports complex nearby, and believes co-location of additional nearby sports fields could also be to their benefit,” they write.
Their analysis here is spot on and so I commend them on a job well done.
That leaves us to the issue of funding, where they brought forward a few models. The first idea would be “for the city to own the property and lease it to a single nonprofit foundation, which in turn would lease the space to other individual sports organizations.”
The second would allow for city ownership of the property “with the city playing the middle man and establishing separate leases with each sports association wishing to participate in a sports complex property.”
The third would have city ownership “with a lease to a for-profit sports corporation, which would be responsible for maintenance and operation of the facility.”
They note: “EPS [Consulting] suggested that such a private operation could maximize the generation of revenues and tourism for the city compared to the other alternatives. However, EPS said this approach would likely rely on city funding for construction of a facility. Also, it suggested such a facility would be most profitable for adult leagues, and that alcohol sales would be needed for high profitability. This could conflict with youth sports activities at the same location.”
The task force notes: First, the city of Davis lacks “financial advantages held by some other communities — dedicated revenue streams that are available to pay for construction and operation of new park facilities.” Second, construction by the city would be very expensive.
Third, “The use of private companies to operate a sports complex, such as occurred in Manteca, can minimize city operational costs for sports programs and maximize the revenues generated from the facility.”
But they would reduce local control over the direction of sports programs.
The task force noted the Davis Legacy and Blue and White Foundations provide a model for moving forward.
Writes the task force, “These two notable community-based efforts to improve and expand important local sports facilities begs the question as to whether other Davis sports leagues could join forces in a similar way to build and operate a new sports complex. The Task Force has concluded that they could do so. Under our proposed approach, a community-based non-profit foundation could be organized that would be comprised of representatives of interested sports teams. This new organization could build, own, and operate the new sports complex.”
However, they conclude, “This would not be an easy task,” and the city role would be limited but “still important.”
They also add, “While a community-based effort to remedy our deficiencies in sports fields is a promising new approach, it is important to also recognize that the city has an ongoing responsibility for providing park and recreation services that meet the needs of its citizenry. That responsibility would not and should not end with a community-based initiative to remedy our deficient sports facilities. Such an effort could not succeed without a true partnership with the city, which could include a financial investment.”
It is really here that I start going back to last year’s discussion. Back on July 7, 2015, a year ago, the city council directed that any discussion of a Sports Complex would be better explored as a stand-alone effort, separate from the utility user tax that council was considering as an infrastructure funding mechanism.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson made the motion that the city have a Davis sports park complex advisory committee or task force like the city has done in the past for other major infrastructure. She asked that it be brought back in the first meeting after the summer break.
“There’s a lot of concern about what the subject matter of the vote is,” Councilmember Swanson explained. “My fear is that we’re going to lose a lot of momentum whether it’s support for a tax, which is what we need.”
But that’s exactly what has happened. We lost all momentum for a tax for our overall financing needs, while we seem set to move forward on a very complex sports park proposal.
At the time, Robb Davis, then mayor pro tem, said, “I think we have to divorce the conversation about a sports park from the UUT or any type of tax measure that we would eventually have.” He added, “In my opinion we need to look at the existing infrastructure backlogs that we have for roads, key city building, the fleet… and other key infrastructure needs.”
Robb Davis added, “We need to clear the decks on this, we need to move the conversation about sports parks which is not even a city council goal at this point, we need to move it aside, do our homework, look at all of the options for improving what people need – but we need to focus our attention on the fundamental backlogs that we have already identified…”
Lucas Frerichs said that he was in agreement that we need to put core infrastructure – roads and parks, which in many cases are in disrepair – as a priority. However, “I also think that there is an ability for us to envision a future in this community that is grand and also is achievable. That includes building a sports park.”
Again, I think the task force report is excellent and exhaustive, and covers a number of contingencies. But I fear that we have completely lost the will to explore another revenue measure, despite the claims by councilmembers like Rochelle Swanson that, if innovation parks fall off the radar, we will have to seriously explore a parcel tax for city funding.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I am goggling for the date when hell freezes over . . .
You know it’s going to get built quickly
Say what?
It’s all about politics
Define “quickly”, if you would.
A great summary. I can tell you that definitely the sports reps that were on it came in on the “how” team on day 1. However the other members definitely made us go through the “do we need?” process FULLY!
And I think they were really shocked to hear where we stood in comparison to need, and especially in comparison to other towns comparable to davis. It was a real eye opener for them, and I think you can see that consensus in the report.
Wow. So just curious, David, how many car trips a day will this site be engendering? How much noise? How many nights a week/month/year will the night lights be used? You really think the nearby neighbors have no legitimate concerns about this?
The proponents of the sports complex need to acknowledge that this is a land use that really constitutes a serious nuisance to people living nearby. To the greatest extent possible the decision-makers should avoid those impacts. If they’re completely unavoidable, then mitigation needs to be addressed and factored into the costs. To simply dismiss the concerns of anyone who lives on rural properties from what appear to be some fit of pique over the business park issue is just bizarre.
How close to this thing would you want to live?
Over the past two years, I have spent countless hours at softball parks around northern California, many located smack in the middle of residential communities (including lights and night games). I have never seen anything close to the horror story that you have created in your mind about how this project will impact its neighbors. What I have seen are groups of families coming together to watch their children play a game that they love. Why would I not want that same experience in my own community? The simple answer to your questions of how close I would want to live? Next door, sounds perfectly fine to me.
The report says:
Mark West says:
Is the Little League park a ‘burden’ to its neighbors, with its night games seven days a week during the spring season? Probably, but it is also a wonderful community asset, where families gather together to see their children play sports. Are there community costs associated? Yes, but there is also a huge net benefit for our children and the quality of life for our community as a whole.
Will a sports park create traffic? Absolutely, but I am willing to bet that the number of daily trips associated with the park will be comparable to what is typical for a moderately sized retail establishment. Should be force Davis Ace to close due to the traffic it creates in Downtown? Has the Target complex lived up to the nightmare traffic scenarios claimed by some during the campaign? Daily gridlock on second and Mace?
It is easy to come up with reasons to say no. It takes courage to say yes, just as it takes courage to be 9 years old and learn how to hit a fastball (before it hits you).
I feel plenty courageous saying yes to the south Davis site. Go for it, raise the money, hit me up for donations. I’ll be happy to provide shade trees when it comes to that.
I urge you and others to give more consideration to the impact a large project has on the neighbors. I haven’t heard that acknowledgment, and I’m hearing disparagement. I am rather surprised that somewhere during the proceedings of this committee nobody appears to have asked “what about the people who live near that site?” The committee expressed concern on the impact on neighbors in town — so their solution includes a site that has neighbors out in the country. Evidently the needs of urban residents supersede those of rural residents.
Not to be cynical or anything, but the report says “in a location that would not impact existing city neighborhoods.” It doesn’t say anything about neighborhoods outside the city limits.
I certainly agree that the Binning Tract residents should be brought into the process early, their concerns heard and factored into the decision. However, I’m not willing to declare a “no build” zone around a small residential island without a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis if the site otherwise appears to be the best available.
Yes, it would suck if you bought in the Binning Tract because you wanted ag neighbors and suddenly you’re getting a sports park neighbor. But you also bought fully aware that you don’t control the land outside the lot you own, and that land uses are subject to change over time.
Want permanent ag neighbors? Buy the parcels around you!
Remember the Palms Playhouse? They used to keep horses on the property, but the neighborhood filled in and there were repeated complaints about flies and smells. The Palms property got rezoned (or otherwise restricted) such that horses were no longer allowed, and the owner had to remove them. She was bummed (pissed off is more like it), but circumstances had changed and she had to conform to the changes or move. She eventually moved, and her property got developed and is now worth many times what it was before.
Seems kind of ironic to say this, since you’ve often advocated for large-scale student housing within the city (apparently without a great deal of regard for nearby residents, such as those near the Sterling proposal).
Having said that, it seems that we should be sensitive to all existing neighbors of proposed, large-scale developments (including you). Overall, I’d never “wish” anything on anyone else, that I’m not willing to accept myself.
You and I have very different definitions of “large-scale student housing.”
Don: “You and I have very different definitions of “large-scale student housing.”
You’re up late, too?
How about if we put the Sterling proposal on the Binning tract (e.g., with 525 parking spaces)? (Just learning about this tract, now.)
In all seriousness, I can see that this is a sensitive topic for you. Therefore, I wouldn’t advocate a sports complex on that site, regardless of your other positions. (I assume that your neighbors would feel the same way as you.) However, I’m not sure that you’re being “fair”.
Just to flesh this out for you: there are presently over 900 apartment units already in the area along Fifth Street between Poleline and Mace. There are, of course, also hundreds of single-family homes, and a substantial commercial district as well. Sterling proposed initially adding 270 more apartment units. The total population increase, traffic increase, and other related impact is, though not totally trivial, pretty insignificant as a percentage of the existing population.
The proposal to add a sports park to an empty field next to some rural residents seems like a much more significant impact to the present conditions there. It would generate hundreds or thousands of car trips along a two-lane county road, create noise and night lighting issues.
The logical use of that site between Binning and North Davis Meadows would, some day, be more low-density residential development.
I live in a rural area. We’re used to this mentality. We get your stray dogs and cats, your abandoned cars and refrigerators, your dumps and sex offenders, and encounter these periodic episodes of urban residents thinking our space is empty and just waiting for them to fill it with stuff. The ultimate was when they were talking about putting a superconducting super collider in our area. http://www.dailyrepublic.com/opinion/localopinioncolumnists/remembering-areas-supercollider-bid/
That one went to Texas and finally died in a field of fire ants when the funding ran out.
Or, of course, the attempt to put a horse racing track east of town along the freeway:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/160378/dixon-voters-turn-down-proposed-racetrack
Or the “movie studio” proposal for the land southwest of Dixon:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article3599904.html
Don: “Just to flesh this out for you: there are presently over 900 apartment units already in the area along Fifth Street between Poleline and Mace.”
You’re choosing to argue with me, instead of acknowledging my overall agreement with you?
Seems like the area near the Sterling proposal has already accommodated its share. If so, perhaps Binning could accomodate the 525 parking spaces (and however many “rent-by-the-room” units that the Sterling proposal has)?
As you’ve noted, you’re not “immune” to bad proposals, just because you live on the periphery of Davis.
It is bizarre to put a metaphorical bullet in an idea for a site before word one has been put on paper, before any analysis or discussion has even happened. Before any detail on a proposal has even been crafted. that is bizarre.
The report is “word one.” This is the beginning of the discussion. I await your acknowledgment that this is a project that would have significant impacts. And I urge you and others to stop dismissing the likely concerns of the neighbors of the proposed sites.
Due diligence would have involved meeting with the impacted neighbors. Did you?
due diligence during the selection of the site of any proposed park would require that. That wasnt what we were doing.. so no, we didnt.
Of course it would have impacts, no one said it wouldnt. I would say the goal would be to find the site that balances the impact with the benefits. Are we going to find a site with no impact…? nope. I dont think anyone is dismissing your or anyone’s concerns, I would say we are giving them the weight that 1 persons opinion or complaint should have… and not allowing it to be a veto of any proposal or concept right off the bat.
One of the more valuable lessons that our children learn through participation in sports is that you have to ‘try’ before you may ‘succeed.’ The one way to guarantee failure is to give up without trying.
It is quite easy to list a number of reasons why we can not, or even should not, build a sports park. David lists several of them above, and they are all perfectly reasonable justifications for saying no to the concept without exploring the options. Our community has become quite adept at saying no without ever contemplating the options for success. Successful communities, however, are not satisfied with just saying ‘no,’ but instead, challenge each other to find a way to get to ‘yes.’
Give it a try. Instead of finding all the reasons to say no, look for ways we can use this project to maximize the quality of life benefits for the community. Contemplate success by saying ‘yes,’ first, rather than continuing with our community mindset of guaranteed failure.
Mr West, I think you said a moouthful, and applaud your intentions.
However, from thirty years of seeing Davis screw up, well, most everything since the 80’s, I can only say that IF they concentrated on Priorities, instead of generating Press Releases patting themselves on the back, they might have all they wish for.
Deciding on ONE THING costs another in this town, and the CC has a History of deciding on something that looks good or sounds good, while making 80% of others miserable. Stick to the Basics, accomplish something, then look to other things.
A Sports Complex starts out as “Upgraded Facilities” then morphs into “Tournaments” and “Alcohol Sales” that we have to understand whether these people are proposing a business, or Community Asset. Then there are the convenient “non-profits” or create one to serve (which really drains) the City.
Really? If that is real, Davis would build a place that almost necessitates driving, then will sell alcohol? It is the first thing I’ve heard that might explain how money could be gained from such an en devour, but at what cost? And the few kids who did bike that far would be out there with the buzzed on country roads. Peachy.
Most of the parks I have been to have some form of on-site food sales, which provides considerable income to the park. This can vary from something akin to the Little League’s Snack Shack up to a full restaurant and bar. Of those facilities that served alcohol, the sales were restricted to inside the restaurant, and many (but not all) banned sales during youth events. Serving alcohol to an already intoxicated customer is illegal everywhere in Califonia, but compliance with the law is dependent upon the character of the license holder. I don’t see a youth sports complex operated by a local non-profit as the location of choice for those wishing to become intoxicated. I do see value in the facility holding a liquor license, however, especially if there is an appropriate venue for fundraising activities on-site.
The other major revenues for the parks are usage fees (paid by teams or tournament organizers) and admissions fees from spectators. The greatest revenue potential for the City will be the transient occupancy taxes paid by visitors staying in town for multi-day tournaments. We will need to significantly increase the number of available hotel rooms in town if we wish to take full advantage of that revenue.
Thanks for the information.
Why can’t people believe this isn’t our top priority right now? Were you willing to give a sugar tax a try?
RE the Binning tract and the business park that now apparently will built in Woodland: Has anyone looked into whether this was more of a “pushed away” decision (in response to Binning tract residents’ concerns) or more of a “pulled in” decision (were the developers offered some extra benefit to build in Woodland)?
If it was more of a “pulled in” move, than mightn’t whoever did the “pulling in” be who really “may well have cost the city millions of dollars”?
I guess that is a chicken or an egg question. In the end, the reality is that from what I am told, the belief in the business community is that “davis” killed it. so whether woodland pulled them there or we pushed them… it doesnt matter… People who would build are growing an opinion of Davis, the people that live here, and how we react, into their decision making.
It would still be good to know if an offer from the north contributed to their decision not to build in Davis.
Davis is responsible for what happens or doesn’t happen in Davis. There is no value in looking to blame others for our own failures. The three economic development projects that were contemplated have all gone away, and we have no one to blame for that fact but ourselves, and our community’s ‘no on everything’ mindset.
Agree with Mark on that point.
As I understand it they walked away from Davis when they started getting opposition and when Rob White was being forced out. Woodland then stepped up with a landing spot. Poof, millions of dollars. Thanks Binning.
Yes, Davis is responsible for what does and doesn’t happen in Davis.
But knowing what happens outside Davis that may affect whether businesses come to or stay in Davis is useful. For example, if a generous offer was made by Woodland, and if Davis knew about it at the time, perhaps a counteroffer could have made a difference. Perhaps not. But not knowing about any possible offer from another jurisdiction never lets the option to make a counteroffer get onto the table.
I am not trying to assess blame. I am talking about having as much information as possible to help with strategy.
The only strategy we need is to stop allowing ‘no’ to be our default answer.
Mark: I like YES, but done reasonably, with good strategy.
Now we have a need for a sports park. I haven’t studied this yet, but it seems a little big? 50 acres? That’s larger than Nishi’s 47. And all that traffic on the frontage road along the freeway? I suggest you study the traffic on that road when the soccer families show up. A sports park would be far worse. I hope we do have some sort of park, somewhere, but at first blush it looks pretty big …..
And there needs to be a city governance re-do, and new budgets, reductions in employee comp, and a new revenue stream for class one priorities. A sports park would have to be down the list of “needs.”
Michael:
You are the poster child for the community’s ‘no on everything’ mindset and your public behavior is exactly what I believe the community needs to divest itself from if we want a viable and vibrant future.
Have a nice day.
In other words, “let’s never do anything”?
What types of, and magnitudes of, City employee compensation do you propose, Mr H?
should have read “… reductions in compensation…” don’t know how that ‘didn’t take’ on the post…
the reason this city has this imaginary gazillion dollar infrastructure backlog is the inability to have any vision or planning for the future. Always kicking cans down the road. We will tackle that “later” with future supposed $….
Saying no to studying a concept? Seriously? “We cant look at this at all until x is done.” That is childish. we werent looking to the future 15 years ago when this was needed to happen… and now we are in the hole, and you people want to wait even longer to EXAMINE the issue? Why?
the best place for such a sports complex is on the periphery of the current soccer fields out in South Davis…
and the best time, would be once money has been obtained from the other developments (which are already in progress or already approved and did not already pay what they “promised”….)
would pay their fair share (is it now too late to still force the cannery to honor their commitments? you know, the group which recently got a $10 million free pass from the current council)…
and, those who truly want it could dig in a bit and fundraise for the rest of the funds (kinda like the blue and white foundation on the DHS football complex) and the sports complex at UCD and so on….
the council should focus on fixing the myriad of problems their poor decisionmaking has resulted in around this town….
Just wondering:
What is the history of “parcel A” (Binning Tract)? (And, why doesn’t it already have an agricultural easement to ensure that it’s not developed?)
because, Doug Arnold (RIP) and his family who run Coldwell Banker, and friends own the area around it……I believe the “silent” partner David Taormino….I may be wrong, but I may also be correct….I don’t have the time to research at the moment….only up doing work and catching up a bit…
those overpriced “lots” haven’t been selling, but the market will catch up soon…..
as more and more development is allowed in Davis to drive up the “median pricing”….and more and more flee the pricing in the Bay Area for Davis..
Of course, that tower plunked in the middle of that land….those of us who understand EMFS wouldn’t want to live right there….perhaps that is why they are not selling still?
And, it is WAY too close to the 113 Freeway and WAY too much freeway noise…and, should I list the same reasons for No on Nishi for this land also….
Those with the money want privacy, peace and certainly no freeway emissions nor freeway noise….
the problem is that those with money buy up land that is NOT in the plan at a song, then manipulate the CC to build it up….they make billions and the locals suffer….that is how it has been for at least the decades I have been in tune with what is going on…
Woodland has better rules and regulations..for those who want to make a buck…..that is why Monsanto bailed for Woodland…it may also have something to do with the many protests against them on fifth st…way too visible and closer to UCD and easier for students and others to see them..
Back when that building was built as Calgene, the home of the flavor savor tomato, and when many of my friends were first in tune with genetic engineering, it was a booming place…
Some of my closest friends, execs of Calgene, have since died of cancer and other health issues, and were no longer in favor of GMOs when they were dying..
Monsanto bought out Calgene, and many of my old friends are now millionaires and, those who haven’t died way too young, are living simple lives organic farming out in lovely places like Montana…
What goes around comes around….read and learn and see why some things are harder in Davis and so on.
I would be very happy if the millions and billions Monsanto invests into trying to run this country and this campus and research in general, would close up and leave Woodland….and leave UCD….
however, as long as money flows, we will have research that proves the efficacy of whatever nonsense……that is “science” in this century….
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
(retiring soon) Manager of the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics….
PS> I share stories to illustrate my points…all true…always…and yet some of the not-quite-bright on this forum like to say “that is off-topic” – some don’t understand how things fit together….. and why so much still goes on in this town of many of the most highly educated on the planet…and why I share what I do when…..it is all part of the whole…everything is interconnected – we are all interconnected….and that is why…
I’ll just say that I think science doesn’t support Marina’s opinion:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-than-100-nobel-laureates-take-on-greenpeace-over-gmo-stance/