On Tuesday, the Davis City Council got its first look at the criticism of the Mace Ranch Innovation Center proposal from members of the public. Several members of the public spoke during public comment time to ask for an extension in the public review for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), citing the massive size of the documents – some illustrating that size by holding up the more than 4000 pages worth of documents.
The Sacramento Business Journal was quick to label these commenters as “opponents” in an article that appeared Wednesday afternoon.
It is easy to chalk up the call for the delay as a tactic to kill the project. But it is a mistake to write off the public commenters as strictly opponents. Our analysis suggests that there is a large mix of people joining in the call for delay – some have opposed every project but others are more open-minded and willing to support good and well-planned development in the community.
For instance, Alan Pryor illustrated the amount of material, holding up volumes 1 and 2 of the EIR for the Mace Ranch Innovation Center. “Twenty-seven pounds, 4000 pages, there’s absolutely no way we can give this a real good review in the amount of time allocated,” he said. He asked for at least 45 days. “Let’s be reasonable about this, this is a lot of work for people to go through.”
Mr. Pryor, who was critical of both the Mace Ranch Innovation Park proposal as well as the analysis for the Hotel-Conference Center, is no knee-jerk opponent of development. Strongly committed to the environment, he was nonetheless a strong advocate of the 2009 Wildhorse Ranch Project, as well as the city’s water project. He was also a leader of the city’s sales tax effort last year.
Eileen Samitz has likewise been all over the map in terms of her support or opposition for various developments. She was fiercely opposed to Covell Village but a strong supporter of the recently approved and developed Cannery project.
On Tuesday, she expressed concern about the addition of housing to the Mace Ranch Proposal. She told council, “The only reason I was considering this innovation park concept was because of the economics and realizing we need to come up with a better solution for how we’re going to support the city and not depend on housing as being temporary fixes.”
In a separate statement to the Vanguard, she said, “The recent suggested proposed modification of adding high density housing to the Mace Innovation Tech Park is unreasonable given the original economic reasons for adding a high tech park, but is quite hypocritical as well. One concern early on was that the Mace site was not big enough for a tech park, so the concept of using any of the land for housing is illogical. Since housing creates more costs and impacts, adding it would also negate the original reason for building the innovation park which was to raise revenue, not create more costs.”
She has also asked for more time, “since this is a large and significant project, more time is needed to review the four-volume document with thousands of pages of the EIR for the community to have an adequate chance to review and comment.”
Ms. Samitz, in fact, told the Vanguard she could not remember such a sizable EIR, even on the Covell Village project that proposed 2000 housing units.
As others have pointed out, however, the timeline for getting this onto the June 2016 ballot is tight – very tight. A 45-day delay may well push June 2016 out of reach.
The Vanguard has mixed views on this issue. On the one hand, the EIR documents are very weighty, dense and extensive. On the other hand, the core issues like transportation and circulation, for instance, are fairly well-defined.
There were certainly those who spoke up on Tuesday that have never supported a development in their lives and will likely be strong opponents of the project no matter how much time they have to review. However, there were others that are more process-oriented, and attempting to ram this through could turn people like Alan Pryor and Eileen Samitz into opponents of the innovation center unnecessarily.
The issue of housing is clearly going to be pivotal for a number of people’s support, as well. A number of people have told me that they support the innovation park concept, but without the housing.
As Ms. Samitz put it, “The Mace Innovation Tech Park proposal needs to stick to what it was originally proposed as, a commercial only high-tech park, and not try to ‘bait-and-switch’ into a mixed-use, including high density housing which will trigger opposition and is not likely to survive a Measure J/R vote.”
However, that is not universally the case. I have heard from others who firmly believe that a mixed-use housing project is a better project, not just environmentally but for the community. They point out that the financing for the developer becomes easier with housing and that may enable them to better finance some of the amenities everyone in the community wants.
It is unfortunate that the perception in the community is that these projects are being rushed. As Michael Bisch pointed out, with regard to the Hotel-Conference Center, he first read about the project more than four years ago. The Innovation Parks have been in discussion for just over a year in their specific form.
And as Eileen Samitz put it, “For over two decades, the concept of a business park or high tech park for Davis has been discussed as a potential solution to provide income to the City that would be more sustainable.“
But the public does not come to this information in the same way as the stakeholders. The public is not immersed in the planning and deliberation until the proposal becomes concrete.
Based on that assessment, it seems like a wise idea to slow down the project and make sure there is full discussion on these critical issues. If the EIR is going to become a sticking point for people who might otherwise support the project, then take away that burden.
Council has agendized this issue for discussion on Tuesday. If half a dozen people showed up last week, you can bet far more will show up next week. We urge both the developer and the council to recognize that not everyone asking for delay is doing so in order to kill the project.
It is reasonable for both sides to ensure that there is proper time to review extensive documents and, if that pushes Mace Ranch Innovation Center’s Measure R into late 2016 or spring of 2017, so be it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
We have to pass the
billproject so that you can find out what is in itThe EIR isn’t a project description.
So BP, how much time are YOU planning to spend in the next 4 weeks (28 days) in drilling down thru the EIR? David?
How will it help you to extend the review/comment period another 6+ weeks?
I’m not reviewing it at all, I was just being facetious with the Nancy Pelosi comment being applied to this. I’m all for the business park as long as no housing is included.
i think that’s an emerging consensus among many – hopefully dan ramos will get the message.
That’s hilarious, BP. Not sure everyone will get the obtuse reference . . . which, being a fan of the obtuse reference . . .
For those that were not paying attention, or with short memories…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU
[moderator] this is a local topic. Please no more references to national politics on this thread. Thanks.
Really? Okay, Frankly, watch the Dennis Miller video on the link that comes on after the one you posted.
for a guy who i think rightly complains about the local business climate, you sure take every opportunity you can to distract from that discussion.
Of course the EIR comment period should be extended … what’s 45 days more? Nothing to the insiders who already know the project, but everything to the public who just now are reading about the details.
So what if the project moves to the November 2016 ballot? It’ll be a high turnout election, and the project will get more voter input.
Photos of Rodney, Alan and Eileen all in the same article … nice!
So Mr H, are you reading it? Heck, what’s 45 years more?
okay by why does the public know the details of the eir 10 months prior to their vote on the project which will be based on little of the technical descriptions of that dense document?
To clarify for the folk who might be interested… the document being reviewed at this point is NOT the “EIR”… it is the DRAFT EIR. Here’s the process (Readers’ Digest version)…
A project is identified. An Environmental Assessment is prepared by Staff. It is reviewed by staff across department lines. A ‘determination’ is made as to what environmental document is deemed needed. This could result in a “Cat EX” (Categorical Exemption, defined by law), a “Stat EX” (Statutory Exemption, also defined by law), a focussed EIR (limited to areas of concern, based on EA), or a ‘full’ EIR. [can’t find form on City website, or I would cite]. This determination is publicly available, and is subject to challenge.
IF either a focussed EIR or ‘full’ EIR is called for, there is a ‘scoping’ outreach, noticed and available to the public, either by attending meetings, or submitting comments in writing.
Once the scoping is complete (usually a Consultant has been selected earlier, based on the EA, and staff’s judgement of ‘scope’), the consultant does their analysis, with input from staff as to basic information, including background on capacities of systems, etc. They often collect their own data (ex. “traffic”). It should be noted that the consultant is HIRED by the City, its ‘client’, but the applicant is charged for the full cost of the consultant and staff review.
Then, an “Admin Draft” is prepared and reviewed by staff for completeness and accuracy… it is NOT a public document. Traditionally, COD staff work to make sure it is “bullet proof”… unlikely to be questioned by ANYONE, whether proponents or opponents (or, at least “defensible”). This timeline often has a lot of pressure on staff to “hurry up” (short timelines).
After reviewing, consulting, etc., the staff is given a “screen check” EIR. Remember the EIR is a City document. An additional time to “get it right” before public release.
Next is the “Draft EIR” where we are now on Mace.
NOW the public can review, ask questions, make comments/challenges to technical info, etc.
After the review period is complete, staff and consultant will address all questions, comments, etc., and issue a “Response to Comments”. This may include changes, clarifications to the Draft EIR. If substantial errors, changes, etc. are identified, the Draft must be ‘recirculated’, with a new public review period (limited to ‘changes’, no “late hits”, unless circumstances have actually changed). And new “Response to Comments”.
Once all this has taken place, the City Council (following a PH, as I recall) is asked to ‘certify’ the EIR as adequate disclosure to make a decision on the application. That action is subject to legal challenge within a certain period of time.
Yeah, sounds to me like “rushing things”. NOT!
Here is how it works.
There are enemies of change. Typically the ony change these people will support is those that put change in their pockets.
And enemies of change need time to mount a campaign of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to convince more tenuous or currently undecided voters to oppose the project.
Also, with more time there is more opportunity to put change in their pockets.
So their first order of business is to push for delays.
And in Davis – a city with many hand-wringin’, change-averse, perfectionists, and city council members that tend to want to please everyone – it is usually pretty easy to win the delay.
As a long-time project management professional with lots of experience in organizational change management, there is another phenomenon to consider… that of momentum. Efforts to implement change have a natural systems lifecycle. There is a ramp-up of discovery and education, and then design, planning and implementation have to occur within some scheduling proximity or else supporters start falling away from shear boredom and mental exhaustion. Successful projects rely on support momentum to carry them through. Smart opponents know this and do everything they can to break down momentum. If only they can delay the project until enough energy leaves the room, the thing will break down and fall apart.
The key is leadership. Who are the champions of the project? Are they pushing the vision for change to make something happen; or are they working with a hidden agenda or to please everyone?
I am looking at leadership for this. So far it gets a C+. When Rob White was employed and working on the project, it was an A-.
Frankly, you have your acronym wrong… should be Fear, Uncertainty, Confusion, and KAOS. [For fans of Get Smart].
That works too!
i’m fine with extending the eir 45 days if it takes an issue off the plate of the negativity squad, but really this is a technical document and the most important stuff will have to be laid out in the election.
Frankly
“Also, with more time there is more opportunity to put change in their pockets.”
I am unclear at whom you are directly this comment. One might arguably make the case for Mr. Harrington were he to sue. However, I find it hard to believe that you could make the case the Ms. Samitz or Alan Pryor are profiting from requesting more time for project review.
I also have no financial interest at stake here. I will be completely off the grid for the next three weeks and would also benefit from an extension to allow more time for review. This would be true even if I were not leaving. And I am one of David’s “threes” with regard to development. I favored the water project, opposed the Cannery, favor Nishi, marginally favored the project that has now been withdrawn and am conditionally opposed to the current project at Mace because I did not find it particularly forward looking at the informational events that I attended.
“Successful projects rely on support momentum to carry them through. Smart opponents know this and do everything they can to break down momentum. “
While I do not have your extensive project management background, I do have ten years of experience evaluating and approving projects for our now almost 80 member department. I believe that what you are saying may be very true for small, limited or pilot projects. But that is not what is being discussed here. We are talking about a project that will have major impacts on not only the revenue stream, but also other major impacts affecting all of Davis for at least the next 30 years. I think that for such a substantial, long term project it would be remiss not to allow plenty of time for all of the vetting needed to make the best possible long term as well as short term decision.
Some, not all.
Actually, the opposite. Small projects can suffer delays. It is the large projects that die from lack of momentum because it takes so much effort to make it happen. You ramp up all the resources and get them motivated and focused and then someone drops a bomb “let’s slow down because I am worried it is not perfect.” and then momentum crashes, and it takes a huge effort to get it revved up again. Do that enough times of pause for a long enough time, and there is not sufficient energy left to get it revved up.
Perfection is the enemy of the good.
You mean the additional revenue coming to the city?
I think what you lack in vision for positive change, you make up for making up gloom and doom projections. Nothing is as every as good nor as bad than the excited or worried, respectively, think it will be.
All the people who ‘need’ to read the EIR have already done so or will do so in the allotted time. Those who claim to want to read the document have had plenty of time to do so and if they have not done so yet, it is simply a matter of their own choice. There is no justifiable basis for needing an extension at this time unless your underlying desire is to stop the project through repeated delays.
you have a very dogmatic view that not everyone subscribes to. everyone comes aboard with different levels of comfort and levels of detail that they want to see before they approve a project. if you short-circuit the process you risk their vote. a big example is alan prior. he’s a guy who will support projects – he will work for them – but he will come to that support on his own time. you’re approach is dismissive and ultimately self-defeating.
In my experience, now in excess of 50 years in this town, those doing the most complaining will never support the project. Just look at the articles and comments from last week regarding the conference center, a project that had been vetted for a couple of years. For some, there will always be insufficient time allocated to ‘study’ a project because the best way to prevent a project from going forward is to spend more time discussing it.
Bottom line is timing. The time frame for getting it on the June 2016 ballot is very tight. Meanwhile, Shilling is chomping at the bit to get this done sooner rather than later, or they may leave Davis. I honestly see no benefit in extending this discussion of the EIR out another 45 days – it will almost certainly delay the project and push it out to another election cycle. Even if you granted another 45 days, trust me, the opposition will then ask for another 45 days, and on and on it goes.
I totally agree with Eileen Samitz – no housing. It just adds an unnecessary layer of complexity. I also agree with Frankly, who insists we need to keep the momentum going. To lengthen the process to another election cycle will only result in the opposition dreaming up ways to defeat the project.
For me, the most important aspect is how much in the way of tax revenue is this project going to generate. That is where I think most people are.
I don’t think most people are anywhere close to that. My sense is that a very small percentage of the electorate is paying any attention to this matter, consistent with most projects of this nature. They may have a vague awareness that something has been proposed for the Mace site, but likely couldn’t describe the project beyond “commercial” and haven’t begun to consider what its implementation might mean for the city, in terms of either benefits or detriments.
The Measure R vote will come down to a sales job, with proponents and opponents — the people who *are* following the process — each trying to win over a majority of the electorate. As election day approaches, the voters will start reading their ballot pamphlets, the more interested will start reading the Enterprise articles and letters to the editor more closely, and endorsements will start to get people lined up on their decisions. There will be howls of protest from some, with indignant cries of “Why weren’t we informed that this was being proposed?”
It really is an insider’s game, and I don’t see anyway to avoid that. I think it’s important for those who *are* paying attention to get their views out there where the City Council can see them, and to be prepared to support the PR effort that best represents their opinion on the project once the Measure R campaign cranks up.
“It really is an insider’s game, and I don’t see anyway to avoid that. I think it’s important for those who *are* paying attention to get their views out there where the City Council can see them, and to be prepared to support the PR effort that best represents their opinion on the project once the Measure R campaign cranks up.”
While this is somewhat self-serving, I’d point out that I know that four of the five members of council are reading the articles and comments relatively closely. I know this because whenever I make a mistake or there is an omission or misstatement, I hear it from them. And while I don’t think the fifth councilmember is reading as closely, they certainly are aware of sentiment.