Here we go again. The Vanguard believes that the city needs an innovation center at Mace. It is difficult to see the city fixing its fiscal problems without expanding the amount of commercial space it has in the city, and the most logical location and form is at the Mace Ranch Innovation Center.
But in order for that to happen, first there must be a project at MRIC – currently there is not. And second, they must put forward a project that can pass a Measure R vote – a tall order in Davis.
From the start, the MRIC operation has been their own worst enemy in regards to building trust. We understand the challenging environment of Davis with regards to land use issues and Measure R votes. But, almost from the start, MRIC stumbled – asking for ways around the Measure R process, an advisory vote, before yielding to political pressure.
Then it was a mixed-use plan that council, fearing a defeat at the polls, quashed, and finally a brief and ill-fated scaled-down project return.
While MRIC doesn’t have a project, it has apparently spent at least $1.6 million (and we have heard a higher figure) and it has financing concerns, it also has an opening. There has been a behind-the-scenes push to get a World Food Center proposal at MRIC. Such a project would be a win for MRIC and a win for the community.
But none of that happens if they can’t get the project past a Measure R vote.
The push for certification of the EIR on the surface seems innocuous. As Dan Ramos told the city in an October letter, “To be clear, we are not requesting that any project be approved at this time.”
On the one hand, it does not seem that getting the certification would preclude having to do another EIR in the future.
Mr. Ramos told the city, “We also recognize that any future approval action may require further environmental analysis. Nonetheless, your certification of the EIR would officially acknowledge that the voluminous environmental document prepared for MRIC is adequate and complete.”
According to the city’s analysis, “Certification of an EIR is required prior to approving a project, but approval of a project is not required following certification.”
The city also points out: “If significant new information relevant to a project emerges prior to certification of an EIR, recirculation may be required.”
In short, even if the EIR is certified, almost any new project is probably going to trigger a new EIR – either legally or from public pressure.
The upside here for the project seems thin at best.
Mr. Ramos explained, “It would also provide us with an environmental document which we will be able to use to help attract potential tenants and investors, all of whom are likely to look more favorably on our project if we can show them a certified EIR.
“A certified EIR should accordingly serve as a tool for economic development as certification signals to potential users that this site, though not approved for any development, has undergone the most substantial part of the entitlement process and that the City of Davis is serious about keeping and attracting innovation employers,” he stated.
Finally, Mr. Ramos added, “We believe that the certification process should provide the City an additional opportunity to discuss how our project might move forward in the future.”
But how much gain do they actually get with this? It seems they think they might be able to save money – but the reality is that public pressure will likely force their hand when a new project comes forward. Will the certified EIR really help investors? I question that rationale.
Again, that thin upside is a tremendous downside. The problem here is about optics.
The city is mindful of this: “If directed to move forward, staff is mindful of the importance of clearly communicating to the community throughout the process that certification is not a project action. Direction to proceed with processing this request does not obligate the City Council to certify the EIR. Ultimately that decision would be made if and when a project proposal comes before the City Council.”
As one commenter put it: “Another way to look at this is that premature EIR certification removes an important point of accountability.”
That is not clear to me – after all – the project needs to pass a Measure R. So I think this is the more relevant point: “There is a difference between violation of process and violation of trust. This move is a violation of trust.”
As we learned with Nishi, it is simply not worth it to have even an appearance of cutting corners. We are not talking about legality, we are talking about creating and fostering public trust.
Another poster is correct: “The EIR is a disclosure document… nothing more, nothing less… those who use CEQA as a tool to ‘get their way’ are ignorant of the purpose and spirit of CEQA, and/or Luddites.”
While an accurate statement, the public doesn’t see it that way. They see process as a protection against a developer concerned more about private gain than the public good. Any attempt to even appear to short-circuit that public process is likely to result in an electoral defeat.
In a close election, legal efforts by Nishi to avoid affordable housing requirements may well have caused electoral defeat.
In the end, MRIC needs to do its best to create a project that can gain public trust at the polls while avoiding any appearance of short-circuiting the process.
Ultimately this will be council’s call on Tuesday night, but for once they may have to step up to save MRIC from itself.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m not particularly concerned about the “optics” of this. Approving the EIR or not isn’t a big deal. It has been pointed out about a dozen times that this is not anything like a final approval. Those who oppose growth in general don’t want the EIR approved because it is just another tool they can use to slow down the project and galvanize their opposition.
I am beginning to wonder if this site is viable as a business park. It seems that the story keeps changing. First we needed business parks for all the pent-up demand that Davis wasn’t meeting. We needed a site for Schilling, ASAP. Then the site only worked with housing. Now the UC food center is somehow going to make it work. Neither of those optimize revenue to the city, and so they undercut the development of business parks as part of an economic development/fiscal remedy strategy.
The city’s goals are not the same as the developer’s. That is what I hope the council will keep in mind as they consider each step of this process. The council controls the development agreement.
All good points Don. However, “I am beginning to wonder if this site is viable as a business park. It seems that the story keeps changing. First we needed business parks for all the pent-up demand that Davis wasn’t meeting. ”
On the other hand both Sierra and Fulcrum have invested millions in Davis believing that there is pent-up demand.
If the EIR is not certified for MRIC, can pretty much opine that there will be NO proposal for the site for 3-5 years. Not business/innovation park, not WFC… nada. That is not “optics”, that is likely reality. So, stick with your optics, the politics… it is apparent that planning and facts cannot withstand those.
The ‘optics’ argument is just one of the many examples of obstruction that pervades the Davis political terrain and it is a shame that David continues to push that effort. If the EIR is judged to meet the legal requirements then it should be certified, as that is how the process is designed. Anything else is political gamesmanship.
Yep…
Mark: It’s a political process and as we saw with Nishi any appearance of cutting corners is going to doom a project.
The EIR is a disclosure process, not a political one. Attempting to hold the EIR hostage to prevent development is a political act.
Another thought… as your ‘headline’ says, the developer should not ask (one should be playing “mother may I” or get your/others permission to ‘ask’?!? … that ship sailed… it was the CC choice as when to agendize… it will be the CC’s job to determine, hopefully not based on ‘optics’, whether the doc is certified as being sufficient to make a decision, within the parameters in the doc.
CEQA is supposed to be a ‘cognitive’ process, but apparently you and some others see it differently… fine… please “own” the ramifications of those views… and be judged by the community accordingly.
I really don’t care about the project, or lack of a ‘current’ one… I am very disturbed about the sabotage of a legal process by those who want to control others. By not considering certifying the EIR, the CC would be unfair, to say the absolute least. The one thing, the only thing, that the CC should consider, is given the facts, the analysis, is the EIR sufficient, as a disclosure document, to use to evaluate a future decision, knowing fully that any future proposal will need to be the same or less than those studied to rely on the doc.
David… you need to learn the term, “substantial conformance”, and I suggest you think about CEQA as a fact-based disclosure process rather than a ‘second’ Measure J/R vote. Your statement,
is patently untrue… if a proposal is made that is substantially the same as those identified in the analysis, no new EIR would be required, yet additional environmental review, including but not necessarily limited to, might well be legally required, to make the review “bullet-proof”… that could include a ND, a MND (both tiering off the EIR, if certified), but more likely (and what I would recommend), a supplemental EIR… NOT a do-over, from square one, which is what I think you implied in the quoted statement. That’s on the legal side.
On the political side, use of CEQA is a perversion (think of what we normally think of as perversions) to achieve political/personal opinion ends, and is totally against the letter, intent, and spirit of the law. I remember Ted Puntillo referring to the city’s development review process, at the time, as a “spanking machine”… guess some folk are into “spanking”… some love it, others consider it as a perversion.
I sincerely hope the CC shows some spine, and either certifies the EIR, or does not, and if the latter, fully explain why they feel it is inadequate, and fully take public responsibility for their rationale(s). If they want to postpone consideration for a week or two, they can cite “optics”… beyond that, I don’t want to hear the term “optics” from them… that word does not appear in ANY of the State codes related to development. As to CEQA, vox populi be damned. Particularly thinking of ‘tyranny of the VOCAL minority’.
Said my piece. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their actions/opinions. I stand by mine.
I assume that they can approve (or not) the EIR with conditions? Or state their reservations and make clear what they expect if the project changes substantially? I am gathering from the discussion that any new application might need a modified EIR or an entirely new one, depending on what is in it. I think we can assume that a new proposal from the same development team would likely not require an entirely new EIR; they’ve already spent funds and cost staff time for what they’ve done, so there would be little need to re-do all of that. I guess just clarity from the council during discussion would be good as to what they expect going forward.
Well, there is the “MMP” (mitigation monitoring program) which in effect are ‘conditions’… have not read this particular document, but based on 25+ years of experience, assume it is there.
There are inherent ‘conditions’, as well, to be able to cite the EIR for a future project [they operate by State law… the CC can do nothing to subtract, and little to add]… does it substantially conform to the certified EIR (if that’s how the CC goes)?… if so, the CC will,in the future, have to make those findings… if not, or if there are reasonable questions, additional environmental review may be needed, but could be focused as to likely impacts for changes… Embassy Suites site was ‘covered’ under the Gateway/Olive Drive EIR… yet there were enough changes from the designation back then, where a supplemental/focused EIR was warranted (in my opinion)[said that more than once before]. But not a start from scratch do-over, with a full blown EIR…
What other conditions did you have in mind? If you elaborate, would be glad to factually respond.
There are some who have posted on this discussion, who appear to want nothing less than a “go back to square one” approach for anything… think they are NOT nimby’s, but banana’s… they like the spanking machine and just want the force to be greater. [opinion]
Howard, you have done a good job of talking me off the emotional ledge of not certifying this EIR. I do want to see an “innovation park” like development and, in the process, add some net revenue to our city’s long term financial picture. My need as a citizen voter is for the CC to prove through words and deeds that they understand the need for transparency and a complete picture of what the city needs or can tolerate. The optics are all that matters when it comes to a vote and I really need to feel that the CC understands and communicates all the nuance of what is ultimately proposed and has my back. Even so, I’m afraid the “no” voters are hard to win over in an age of distrust of anyone in authority or with responsibility.
Howard P : I think of the Measure R process as one big political gauntlet, where CEQA is used not only as a disclosure tool but as a bar that must be surmounted.
Howard
“CEQA is supposed to be a ‘cognitive’ process, but apparently you and some others see it differently… fine… please “own” the ramifications of those views… and be judged by the community accordingly.”
I have really appreciated your factual comments and patient explanation of what goes into this process. I am, however, confused by the above statement. I am not at all clear who you think is seeing this as a non “cognitive” process and how you believe that they are thinking about it. Can you clarify ?
Let’s see… I guess I put “optics” (unless a doctor is evaluating my vision) as non-cognitive… much more opinion and ‘feelings’. Same for “political goals”. Agree that terms like cognitive, rational, ‘optics’, ‘feelings’, ‘gut instincts’, opinions, desires, values, may all in the eye of the beholder. I only have two eyes…
Actually, the buzz words of a social psychologist
Referent? Unclear.
David
I was not sure .
I’m confused here – I thought the developers withdrew the project that was reviewed in the EIR because it did not “pencil out.” Are they now suggesting it might “pencil out” after all? Or are they going to try propose a different project without a new EIR, as they tried to do last spring?
Nothing about this seems professional, transparent, or straightforward. Why should the City approve an EIR for a non-existent proposal?
My read is that they put the project in ‘abeyance’… but did not want to lose the work leadfing up to the document.
If they propose a project different from what was proposed, or the alternatives analyzed, they would need to do additional environmental review… might range from a ND to a new, full blown EIR… most likely a supplemental EIR. [how many times have I pointed this out? Guess it doesn’t matter…] If they activated/reproposed the original proposal, the EIR could support, as a disclosure document, an action (approval, likely with conditions, or denial).
The process has followed all legal requirements. All public hearings to date have been noticed, held, and documented.
So, my confusion is you saying,
Are you being transparent or straightforward in why you say that? Am thinking, not.
Core Area Specific Plan/guidelines, etc. revisions, to be ‘form oriented’, etc. [another thread/topic]… those revisions will require an EIR/environmental review, affecting properties where no project is proposed. Do you object to that? If not why not? And is that consistent with,
I think you need to really look at any positions you may have.
My read is that they put the project in ‘abeyance’… but did not want to lose the work leadfing up to the document.
If they propose a project different from what was proposed, or the alternatives analyzed, they would need to do additional environmental review… might range from a ND to a new, full blown EIR… most likely a supplemental EIR. [how many times have I pointed this out? Guess it doesn’t matter…] If they activated/reproposed the original proposal, the EIR could support, as a disclosure document, an action (approval, likely with conditions, or denial).
The process has followed all legal requirements. All public hearings to date have been noticed, held, and documented.
So, my confusion is you saying,
Are you being transparent or straightforward in why you say that? Am thinking, not.
Core Area Specific Plan/guidelines, etc. revisions, to be ‘form oriented’, etc. [another thread/topic]… those revisions will require an EIR/environmental review, affecting properties where no project is proposed. Do you object to that? If not why not? And is that consistent with,