In what turned out to be a fairly simple and straightforward vote, the Davis Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend the Davis City Council certify the Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC) Environmental Impact Report.
Staff clearly laid out what certification in this case means, that the EIR document, adequately analyzes “the potential environmental impacts of the project for the purposes of CEQA [California Environmental Quality Act], with the project description as set forth in the EIR.”
Staff was also clear that this action “is limited to certification of the FEIR and is not an action on or approval of the project.”
The staff report explains that the question before the commission “is whether or not the EIR document, as prepared by the City, provides adequate analysis to certify under CEQA based on the project description contained in the EIR document. A Planning Commission recommendation focused on the adequacy of the EIR document has been requested by the City Council.”
Staff believes that, while the approach here is “unusual,” it is permissible under CEQA. They write, “The requested certification of the EIR will require the City Council to make the findings and determinations required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 (Certification of the EIR), but the findings and determinations under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 (Findings for Significant Effects), 15092 (Project Approval), and 15093 (Statement of Overriding Considerations) will not be made until an action on the project is before the Council.”
Dan Ramos, on behalf of the applicant, who requested certification in a letter dated October 5, told the Planning Commission on Wednesday that, in the fall of 2014, the developers engaged in an 
environmental review process pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for MRIC. Over the next year and a half they, along with the city and others, “spent considerable time and effort which has resulted in a very thorough environmental impact report.
“We now respectfully request that the council take action to certify that EIR so it can formally bring that environmental review process to a close,” he said. “We recognize that the certification of the EIR does not approve Mace Ranch Innovation Center nor commit the city to any future course of action with respect to the project. To be clear, we’re not requesting that any project be approved at this time.”
He added, “We also recognize that any future approval action may require further environmental analysis.” However, he believes certification would acknowledge that the environmental review process is “adequate and complete.”
The certification of the process is not without its critics. David Robertson said, as a land use attorney, he knows this is legal, but has not seen it happen before.
During public comment, Eileen Samitz again argued against certification of the MRIC project. She once again argued, “There is no project defined so far from the project developers. There is an application on hold with a number of alternative projects and two equal weights.”
She also called “serious flaws in the EIR, particularly the false assumptions that you have to have 60 percent of the units – 850 units – would have to be occupied by at least one employee. It’s ridiculous to assume that that [can] happen when it can’t be reinforced legally.”
Ms. Samitz is referring to the equal weight alternative, that the staff concluded is the environmentally superior alternative, “assuming the addition of a legally enforceable mechanism to ensure that at least 60 percent of the on-site units would be occupied by at least one MRIC employee can be provided.”
Commissioner Cheryl Essex said “the challenge for the future of the Mace Ranch Innovation Center is with this list of significant unavoidable impacts, is it possible to get a Measure R positive vote on a project with the level of concern from folks about environmental impacts. Can a feasible project be proposed to reduce these significant unavoidable impacts to make it more likely that we can have an innovation center that we really need?”
She noted the tension between densifying and building more in the community and sprawling out to build beyond our borders – “these significant unavoidable impacts really point that out.”
Nevertheless, she was supportive of certifying the EIR given the limited findings. “I believe that this EIR does adequately disclose the potential environmental impacts of this project, and I’m certainly willing to make a motion to that effect,” she said. “It’s hard to imagine that we would actually finally approve a project with this number of significant unavoidable impacts.”
Dan Ramos told the Vanguard, “In a big project like this, you expect those (significant unavoidable impacts), it gives everybody the opportunity to look at how you handle those.”
Commissioner Darryl Rutherford noted that he understood and appreciated the risk that the developers are taking on proposing this sort of project. He believed that the amount of money that has been spent “is pretty astronomical and outside of the realm of what most of us would comprehend.”
Dan Ramos told reporters following the meeting that they have already spent $3 million on this project.
Mr. Rutherford stated, “We’re not talking about philanthropists here, we’re talking about people who are essentially looking to make profit.
“That’s not bad,” he said. “Where it does become bad is when it’s not a huge benefit back to the community.
“In order to move these things forward and to pass a Measure R vote I would strongly recommend that the city council figure out some way that this becomes a true community benefits agreement for all parties at stake here,” he said. “The environmentalists are going to play a huge role in these discussions.”
He said a lot of good-faith negotiations need to occur and “this is a good time for these negotiations to start prior to a project being proposed.” He said, “If they can do this for the Hyatt House, they can definitely do it for something like this.”
One of the commissioners cited a letter that questioned the need for the business park which said, “If there is truly a need for a business park space, we already have land in the city that can accommodate those uses. There’s already abundant commercial industrial space in Mace Ranch and South Davis, that’s available, properly zoned, and sitting idle.”
Mike Webb, in response, diplomatically stated, “I would consider that a statement of opinion.”
He noted that the single largest available site within the city is 14 acres, with the PGE site at 25 acres, which would require redevelopment of the existing use, not to mention a current user vacating.
The commission, on a motion by Stephen Mikesell and second by Cheryl Essex, passed the motion 6-0 to recommend certification of the EIR.
Dan Ramos told the Vanguard following the meeting it is their intention to bring forward a project. “We’re very much interested.” He said, “We wanted to see if we can at least get to this milestone and then sit down with the council and see what’s going to be on the horizon in 2018, what kind of project they would like, and keep working on it.”
When asked if he anticipated significant enough changes to warrant a new EIR, he responded, “Who knows.” He added, “Obviously there will be something that we have to go study.”
He stated, “We are going to take significant efforts once this gets to market to find an anchor tenant.” Finding an anchor tenant now is crucial to allow the project to move forward, he said.
Mr. Ramos said he is looking to get in touch with the university and talk to the new chancellor about his plans and how they might be able to work together.
“We have a lot of work to do,” he said.
Mr. Ramos is unsure when this would come back to the council for final certification of the EIR, but he saw this as a huge step, which he believes will allow them to move forward.
In an email this morning, Mike Webb told the Vanguard there was no specific date set at this time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A procedural gripe: Trackside was cancelled at the last minute (around 4 o’clock, I was told) and so this item was moved up. There is an email list that the City uses to notify people of agendas. There is also a City Facebook page. Either or both — preferably both — of these venues could have been used to notify people of the change, especially since there was a Recreation and Parks Commission meeting running at the same time. This should be a no-brainer.
I had wanted to comment at this meeting and thought I could do both it and the R&P. Maybe I wouldn’t have been able to do both anyway, given the schedule modification, but it would have been nice to have that choice. Instead I showed up to locked doors at the Community Chambers and only happened to luck into a staff member who could tell me what had happened.
As I sat there and the room was almost empty I had similar thoughts. I think you have a fair gripe.
Thanks. I figured I was not the only one who wanted to give feedback and was thwarted.
I agree that there is a fair gripe about the impact of the late schedule change, but with a 6-0 final vote, do you really think that additional public comment would have changed anything? This was not the only opportunity (or the last for that matter) for making public comment.
Maybe not, but maybe so. We’ll never know.
Actually, I think we do know. The PC’s decision should be based on a technical analysis of the sufficiency of the FEIR, not a political analysis of the sentiments expressed during public comment. If the PC is doing their job correctly, your comment at this point should have very little (if any) impact on their decision. The political decision is the purview of the CC, which is where non-expert public comment might still have an impact.
If I were doing commentary on this, I would put out that the staff report laid out very clearly what the standard was for certification and that’s why it was a 6-0 vote even though there were clear questions about the project itself. As much as I admonished the Planning Commission on B St, they did it exactly right here
Care to post your comments here?
Why? What’s the point? It’s moot now.
It’s not completely moot because this still has to go to council for final certification.
Good point. I will send my comments to the Council when it’s in front of them. Given the tenor of the comments here, and the unwillingness of the Vanguard to adhere to its own stated policies and promises, I see little point in posting them now.
For what’s worth, my comments were directed toward the EIR itself and not about the project itself.
I suspect that the actual “superior alternative” is the one that will ultimately “win”, in the end (“no project”).
I’m hoping to help voters “select” that alternative, whether it’s one year from now, five years from now, etc. (I suspect that the Vanguard’s “position” won’t make much difference – especially in impacted neighborhoods.)
A long-term battle, perhaps more accurately described as a “war”. Not looking forward to it, but feel ready for it.
What neighborhood are impacted?
Actually, all (including anyone who uses the Mace Boulevard exchange/freeway access), but especially nearby neighborhoods.
Anyone who doesn’t prefer sprawl, in the end.
All the neighborhoods, due to increased pressure on already scarce housing, increased traffic downtown, higher home and rental prices. See Silicon Valley.
You said impacted neighborhoods, now you’ve changed the comment to people who use Mace Blvd, so what you’re talking about isn’t impacted neighborhoods but impacted transit.
David: No time to go down the rabbit hole, today. (In any case, you’re already misstating what I wrote above.)
Actually, I think Roberta’s comment is more applicable, anyway.
Let’s give it a rest, for today. It’s going to be a long-term war, anyway.
Ron I note that you reduced the term “environmentally superior project” to “superior project”… interesting. One might argue that everyone on earth stopped breathing an hour from now might be “environmentally superior”.
CEQA and common sense informs us that here are always ‘choices’ and ‘trade-offs’… CEQA does not include ‘economic’ factors… CEQA and common sense does not require adoption/action of an “environmentally superior” nature. It is a disclosure document… nothing more, nothing less. We make choices that we feel are ‘superior’ to other choices, one of which is inaction/do nothing.
So why is it happening now?
Because the applicant had requested it.
Has it ever happened before?
Have other applicants ever requested it?
Have other applicants requested it and been denied?
In Davis or anywhere? Basically it appears that according to the law, there was no reason if the EIR was in order, not to certify it. The fact that it’s unusual had no bearing on that decision.
anywhere……..
I don’t know.
Keith, the sequence of events in this case is (somewhat) unique.
Under normal circumstances when a project application that requires a CEQA disclosure process is received, the CEQA jurisdiction (the City in this case) determines whether the application is complete. Once the jurisdiction declares the application complete, under the provisions of CEQA a “completion clock” begins ticking. The statutory duration of that “clock” is one year … meaning the CEQA jurisdiction must complete the CEQA report within one year of the date the application was deemed complete.
Because of a series of CEQA lawsuits, the provisions of CEQA now allow the CEQA jurisdiction issuing the EIR to request time limit extensions of the one-year completion requirement if intervening circumstances mean the CEQA jurisdiction can not complete the EIR in a year or less. However, such a time limit extension is only granted if the project applicant agrees that an extension is needed/warranted. If the applicant does not agree to the extension, the CEQA jurisdiction has to “complete” the EIR by the end of the original year (or previously agreed to limited duration extension period).
In this case the MRIC applicant could have achieved their desired end result without the “optics” overhead that came when they asked the City to certify the EIR. All they had to do was inform the City that they would not agree to any further extension.
I personally do not know whether other applicants have followed that “I don’t agree to an extension” path; however, my suspicions are that it has happened many times, but that as a percentage of all project applications, the frequency of it happening is very low.
David R had not encountered it in his practice (he said so)… staff responded to previous examples, but not explicitly… in my ‘practice’ have encountered many, particularly for ‘program EIRs’, Specific Plan EIRs, and General Plan EIRs… the vast majority of which had no specific details for any specific project.
Staff/consultant addressed the fact that additional CEQA review may well be necessary. When a specific project is ‘on the table’.
Certifications of defensible/valid EIRs, absent a current, detailed project, happen a LOT.
Question asked, and answered. Move on. [often quoted in legal proceedings]
Keith and David may think the “rabbit hole” is a ‘gateway’ … in my experience and opinion, on this matter, it is not.
oops… first sentence/question was to be in ‘quotes’… the rest was mine… to be clear.
Certifying an EIR before a project is even defined has not happened in Davis before and with good reason. It gives more value to the land for the developers, which could just be sold now potentially to another developer and no innovation park would emerge. Instead who knows what would emerge from new owners? Also, the City loses leverage to get design, sustainability, and timelines negotiated. This was a huge give away to the developers and in particular due to the ridiculous assumption that in the mixed-use alternative 60% of the 850 residential units would be occupied by an MRIC employee for the EIR to argue that their traffic and circulation impacts would be reduced.
Even if they did somehow get that unrealistic number of residential units (at least 510 units) to be occupied by one MRIC worker, there is no way that the developers can control or avoid the added traffic and circulation impacts by co-occupants in the apartment units spouses, roommates or any other automobile driver(s) in the same residential units as the MRIC workers. So the whole traffic and circulation assumption is a fantasy for the mixed-use alternative as is the assumption that it is “superior”, yet the EIR was considered adequate.
“Certifying an EIR before a project is even defined has not happened in Davis before and with good reason.”
No one has tried to? People usually continue in their planning once they’ve spent the money on an EIR? There is a logical problem with your statement – you’re presuming the answer is because the notion is absurd rather than the circumstances unusual.
“the City loses leverage to get design, sustainability, and timelines negotiated. ”
Not true at all, they still have to approve the project and get it through a Measure R vote, both of which will be huge hurdles.
“ridiculous assumption that in the mixed-use alternative 60% of the 850 residential units would be occupied by an MRIC employee for the EIR to argue that their traffic and circulation impacts would be reduced.”
It’s not clear that’s a ridiculous assumption.
I think it would be helpful to better understand what the standard is for certifying an EIR and what that certification means.
David,
You can defend this project and this process all you want. When the staff was asked this question of where this was done, they could not even come up with a specific example of where something as “unusual” as this has happened. It is a bad idea and hopefully it will not be precedent setting because it is not a good process and it is not in the best interests of the community to proceed this way.
And in regard to the 60% of the 850 residential units “being an MRIC worker” issue, it is pretty clear to most others that this an absurd assumption and not sustainable either. Also who would be monitoring to assure if at least 60% of the residential units would be occupied by an MRIC worker? The City? The developers? What reinforcement mechanism(s) are there? What happens when there are less than 60% of the units occupied by an MRIC worker? What are the consequences? The entire concept is a fairy tale.
So a fundamental of what the certification of an EIR means, starts with the EIR having correct information and at least believable assumptions, and this MRIC EIR does not even pass the smell test, so it should not have been certified.
The question is whether it follows the law, of course its going to be highly unusual.
I do think the 60% issue is a moot point since the council precluded the progression of the mixed-use alternative last year.
Is it a fairy tale? I don’t think so. Just as I believe you can build apartments for students, I believe you can build workforce housing for workers.
Correct information is subjective. It’s an estimate and a projection at its best. It’s someone’s opinion. And that’s the whole rub you’re missing here.
But it’s supposed to be a well-founded, well-justified, evidence-backed opinion. Not just any old opinion, otherwise, what would certification mean? Everything would get certified just by representing someone’s opinion.
Roberta Millstein said . . . “But it’s supposed to be a well-founded, well-justified, evidence-backed opinion. Not just any old opinion, otherwise, what would certification mean? Everything would get certified just by representing someone’s opinion.”
The principle Roberta is arguing for is solid as far as it goes. However, the realities of the provisions of CEQA make the following statement even more solid … “But it’s supposed to be a well-founded, well-justified, evidence-backed disclosure. Not just any old disclosure, otherwise, what would certification mean?”
I purposely held back Roberta’s final sentence, “Everything would get certified just by representing someone’s opinion.” because it has very specific (and powerful) meaning when you look at a CEQA document as an opinion piece, but almost all of that specific and powerful meaning evaporates when Roberta’s word “opinion” is replaced with the word “disclosure.”\
If the MRIC EIR is indeed a disclosure document, the paramount question revolves around whether it fails to disclose relevant, pertinent factual information about the project. If there is clearly identifiable failure, then the City needs to be very forthright and transparent about any such failure.
First, I think the value of a certified EIR is quite modest under any circumstance, but especially so given the many uncertainties associated with this one. Second, the developers paid for the EIR, so I hardly think certification warrants description as a “give away.” It’s simply a matter of the city putting the last formal touch on a statutorily-mandated process.
Well, at least the PG&E site was mentioned! Leaving aside its unsubstantiated toxic groundsoil and unproven bête noire gas line issues and its concrete position within the residential danger zone of I-80 – a zone which also covers a substantial part of the MRIC site – I am curious if the conceptualization of MRIC above – minus its above ground hyper parking craters – would fit into the PG&E site. Has my oft-suggested swap of the two sites been considered by any formally-involved parties?
There’s not just three but four actors here: 1) The MRIC site, 2) the PG&E site, 3) the 1-80… and 4) Davis Downtown.
What do we as directors – we Davisians and Davisiennes – I trust that near future City Council candidates will propose a gender-neutral term – have substantial control over amongst those four?
Downtown and MRIC for sure – I-80 definitely the least unless we’re part of a successful class action against the Federal Government that wins environmental and social reparations for communities along Interstate Highways that would substantially-mitigate their noise, particle and gas pollution. PG&E? Definitely a challenge, but it is within our borders. No they do not have to accept any suggestion of a swap; yes, they could be Eminent Domain’d into a swap supported by the argument that a location at Mace provides better access to road networks; yes, perhaps the gasline could have a digging corridor similar to what it has with L St. , and no.. have the supposed toxics from PG&E ever leached into the adjacent seasonally-flooded park?
So here’s the thing: As with Covell Village, building anything – commercial or residential – on the periphery without robust transport solutions such as a rail connection, a dedicated buslane and a bicycle superhighway, should be impossible. (Decades on, both sites could be connected by rail… the first steps of plans are in the works…). The PG&E site – if it could fit the smartsized MRIC without its ridiculous space-hogging and heat-retaining surface parking – could avoid the I-80’s toxic threats by being 100% commercial – at least on its southern half – which would allow HVAC architecture that with over-pressuring and filtration keeps people relatively safe. So there would be a lot of jobs here, yes! But where do they people live in addition to possibly on its northern side? Davis Downtown, of course, connected by the amazing and famous, safe and efficient cycling boulevard all the way to UC Davis campus.
In conclusion: + Davis Downtown goes to three- and four-stories, with many residents working at the two protected-by-HVAC I-80 danger zone sites of PG&E and Nishi*, both minutes away by bike, automated shuttle… and just a bit longer by foot;+ Covell Village(-variants) and MRIC developments are – by force of law via an amendment to anti-sprawl law – impossible to construct until both sites have rail and cycle superhighway connections in addition to a dedicated bus lane on the I-80;+ PG&E gets – by choice or under duress – a site with better general access to not only Davis but its entire existing service area.
Cover and feature story in Newsweek magazine, July 20, 2032: “Davis, California: The VMT killer, the Past and Future of Cycling – How a university town in an agro region with nearly insane regional economic pressures got over its fear and pessimism to be the urban environmental champion of the United States”
* If the Depot moves to the southeastern corner of the Nishi property after the higher speed rail project is finished any commercial-only developments there would be well under 20 or 25-min away by public transport from the Capitol District and around 70 to 75 min from Downtown SF. The station here would also be on the edge of the UC Davis campus and only a couple minutes further by foot from e.g. the existing Second Street Parking Lot (& Patio) compared to the current Davis Depot.
It has been abundantly made clear that the PG&E site is not currently “in play”, and likely to remain that way for the next 25-50 years. It is a fascinating “what if” exercise to look at it, but “no way” is the current reality.
Howard P. wrote
How so, Howard P(izza)?
Why do you believe it is available? Who have you discussed it with @ PG&E? At what price? How soon?
Commissioner Essex said, “I believe that this EIR does adequately disclose the potential environmental impacts of this project.”
Will someone take pity on me and explain this to me as though I were a five year old. I know it has probably been discussed in detail on previous threads and my eyes have glazed over. So patience, please.
However, it seems that there is no project currently before the city. How can it be that the EIR adequately addresses something that does not exist ?
But if it were to exist……..
My whole problem with this is the council already denied the housing component so shouldn’t we just be looking at the EIR for the business park only? Why is the housing component still part of the equation? Just asking, I know I’m uninformed as someone I’m sure will soon let me know.
Because it is a reasonable ‘alternative’ to use for the environmental study, just as is ‘no project.’
Tia –
There is a project, and alternatives, described in the EIR, which is the basis for what was studied.
There currently is no project that is under consideration by the City because that process has been stopped/paused by the applicant.
Two different processes that are being conflated by some.
Pretty much all EIR’s address projects “that don’t exist”.
Thanks for trying Mark. I don’t mean to be obtuse, but then, to which “project” is the commissioner referring in her comment ? The original project ? One of the alternatives ? Some hypothetical project ? I really do not understand.
They filed an application for a project in that project remains on the books. That is what the EIR was turn on and that’s with the EIR will be certified for
So David, since the council has already denied the housing component of this project can that be brought back? Just curious.
It can be brought back, but they’d probably have to do a new EIR or an update. However, given the sentiments in the community, I don’t see that happening.
Wanna bet that it gets brought back?
I’ll bet you lunch that mixed use definately comes back next time around.
They’ll just wait for a more compliant city council. Land developers have a much longer planning horizon than other investors. Just look at how the Cannery unfolded. The council debated equal-weight EIR’s, went back and forth about business vs. housing vs. mixed-use. The land owner never wanted anything other than to build houses on the site. So they waited, and that’s what they got.
David, I agree with Keith. It will come back. It is just a matter of time. It may not be for a decade, but it will indeed come back in one form or another.
You’re saying a mixed use proposal? Or a project?
They have not “denied” it, because it has not come to them as an actionable ‘project’.
BTW, “update” is usually due to passage of time, changed external conditions; “supplement” is done to account for changes in proposal/plan.
If something similar to the alternatives is brought forward, will bet on “supplemental” document.
David Greenwald asked . . . “You’re saying a mixed use proposal? Or a project?”
A mixed use proposal would require a project application, so I’m not sure what you mean by your question.
I wasn’t sure what you meant by your comment – so I guess we’re even.
Fair enough David. My point was/is that that parcel of land will not continue as a productive agricultural parcel forever. A proposal for its urbanization will be brought forward at some point in time.
Tia, Commissioner Essex is referring to the one and only project submitted by the applicant to the City. To date, that originally proposed project is the only proposed project. There is no hypothetical project, only the project proposed in November 2014.
Under the provisions of CEQA regulations, an EIR process is begun if and only if a CEQA jurisdiction (in this case the City of Davis) receives a “complete” project application.
On November 6, 2014 the City of Davis formally and officially notified all interested parties that it had received a complete project application for MRIC, and that on November 17th a public scoping meeting for the proposed EIR for that proposed project would be held. From that November 2014 date until the release of the Draft EIR by the City in August 2015, the project was unchanged. Further, from the August 2015 Draft EIR Release date until the release of the Final EIR in January 2016, the project was unchanged.
The seven project alternatives that appear in the EIR documents were not formulated or articulated by the project applicant. They were solely the work of City Staff and the City’s EIR consultant. The function of those seven alternatives is to provide a structure to disclose (to the public and to the City Council) possible ways the environmental impacts of the proposed project could possibly be mitigated. Nothing more, nothing less.
Compare the financial and conviviality benefits to Davis of these scenarios:
1) Drive from Sac to work at MRIC. Eat at work (eventually getting bored with variety). Drive home.
1a) Drive from Sac to work at MRIC. Eat at work. Drive to Downtown. Drive home.
OR
2a) Drive from Sac to work at MRIC. Eat at work, take advantage of its smart design by members of the Davis Vanguard curmudgeon committee and City of Davis staff and future mayor and the Enterprise, Bee, Huffington Post, Al Jazeera and RT who conceived it as an independent village and visit its many shops and services on site (this applies to all alternatives)
2b) Drive from Sac to work at MRIC. Ride electric-assist bike on cyclesuperhighway to Downtown in ten min for lunch. Drive back to Sac.
2c) Take short haul train from Sac to work at MRIC. Ride electric-assist bike on cyclesuperhighway to Downtown in ten min. Eat dinner with friends. Go see live show. Take Capitol Corridor train home.
2d) Take short haul train from Sac to work at MRIC. Take shorl-haul train to Downtown in 5 to 10 min. Eat dinner with friends. Go see live show. Take Capitol Corridor train home.
2e) Take point-to-point bus from West Davis via 113 and 80 to MRIC in ten minutes. Reverse for home, or add elements of one or more of the above such as using cyclesuperhighway to get home.
2f) Similar from North Davis, Cannery, Wildhorse, South Davis, etc.
2g) Add housing on-site with at various price ranges with minimal, unbundled parking.
2h) Add high school focused on commercial and research activities at MRIC, the first high school conceived and integral as such. Include students from West Sacramento and eventually Dixon and Woodland as these become connected by rail.
Thanks Matt
I had gotten lost in the conversation about original project and alternatives. Appreciate the clarification.