Why Insist on a Five-Year Site When they Could Have a Twenty-Year Site Free of Cost – In some ways, it would appear that the Davis City Council gave in to the demands of the popular community organization STEAC, as not only did they uphold the staff recommendation but they increased the size allotment back to the preferred 80-foot modular building. But just beneath the surface, it became clear that this was not nearly as clear-cut a victory for STEAC as they may have liked.
What becomes clear here is that, while the council did not want to outright deny STEAC their preferred spot at 5th and D, the city views this land as extremely valuable from their perspective of redevelopment, and a majority on council made it very clear that in five years’ time, there is a good chance that the city will have other plans for this land – particularly if they can find a way to move the fire station to north Davis, freeing up the entire plot of land lining 5th Street.
STEAC was clearly concerned about the limited period of the agreement by which the city would lease the land to them free of charge. Right now, the modular building plan – a temporary structure – is a cost to the organization upwards of $200,000.
The city instead, at multiple times, attempted to encourage STEAC to take a 20-year deal, down the street on 5th Street, but STEAC held out, arguing that 5th and D was their preferred location. It was never made clear why this was the case.
The question is why is this particular spot so valuable to STEAC that it’s worth spending $200,000 for a site that they may have to dismantle in five years if the council comes up with an alternative use for the site?
The decision to stick to their 5th and D Street guns pushed the council into an awkward position, having to choose between the demands of a popular non-profit organization that provides vital services to many needy families in the community, and the well-founded concerns of the Old North Davis Neighborhood Association.
“We are bewildered to be here in this posture where we’ve been attacked for months through this process about being uncaring about STEAC and the members of our community that they serve,” Steve Tracy said, representing the neighborhood association. As he has argued before, they care about the organization, their mission, and about retaining client services, and even the storage, at this location.
Their concern was about the design guidelines that they viewed as being simply thrown away because the plan failed to meet them.
Mr. Tracy did not simply offer a negative, and he made it clear that they were not opposed to a facility. He spent a good deal of time showing the council examples throughout town where facilities were collocated within existing neighborhoods, and were done in a way that they matched the surrounding architecture and design guidelines.
The problem that becomes apparent, though, is that because STEAC has a five-year agreement, constructing a facility that matches the rest of the neighborhood would have been prohibitively expensive.
“On the one hand you want them to adhere to the design guidelines and make this very substantial investment in the property,” said Councilmember Brett Lee. “But on the other hand, we are telling them, we are correctly telling them, that they are a short-term occupant. After five years we may ask them to move.”
Councilmember Lee said if this property were owned by STEAC and they would be permanently there, it would be quite easy to tell them to follow the design guidelines.
Mayor Joe Krovoza argued that the staff recommendation was reasonable, but at the same time said, “The city has a very valuable well-positioned asset in its downtown that we’re not comfortable locking up for a long-term twenty-year period of time, but we don’t have any immediate plans for it.”
He argued that they could go for a twenty-year period at a neighboring site (actually down 5th street).
Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk was the strongest supporter of STEAC, arguing, “The work that STEAC does providing assistance to the neediest in our community, providing those services in the heart of our community, giving the dispossessed a helping hand and making, in the words of John F. Kennedy, ‘God’s work here on earth,’ truly their own, goes to who I am as a policy-maker.”
But despite the soaring and perhaps overbearing rhetoric here, and a fundamental agreement on the benefit of the community, the move by STEAC in the bigger picture is curious, at best.
They pushed for an up or down vote, and while the council was not going to vote against STEAC at this time, it was clear that there is a majority on council who have a clear vision for the site, as well as the site of the fire station. There was talk behind the scenes that a Greek Theater might be well-situated at this location if the council can find a new location for the fire station that better serves North Davis.
The council caved on both the design guidelines and, ultimately, the size of the modular facility, but they held firm on the five-year limitation and clearly pushed for STEAC to reconsider the alternative site.
The decision by STEAC is puzzling – why insist on the five-year lease at a space-challenged site, angering the neighbors, rather than choosing another location where the city would allow for a much longer, more stable lease, and where size is not an issue? If they wanted to go to 100 feet, it would be no problem at the alternative site.
If they wanted to fundraise to build a more permanent structure, that might make sense.
As one commenter on the Vanguard noted, “The enlightening questions came to a halt the minute Councilman Wolk feigned ignorance about the possibility of city designs for infill on the lot, gave dramatic testimony about how his personal dedication to the poor exceeds that of his colleagues and channeled John F. Kennedy.”
Councilmember Wolk did not respond to a Vanguard question about this.
STEAC clearly won this battle. The council was not going to oppose this well-regarded community organization, but more than one person told the Vanguard that the organization burned a lot of currency and maybe their good name by ramming this through.
We urge the STEAC board to re-examine this issue and consider that angering the neighbors in Old North Davis and ramming this through council is not in the long-term best interest of their organization. The fact is that STEAC is spending $200,000 that could be going to further their mission; instead, it is going to a temporary structure at a site that might have to be torn down in five years’ time.
This council is rapidly advancing their economic development interests, and to choose to willfully ignore the warnings by three councilmembers is to their own detriment.
In short, we remain committed to supporting the mission of STEAC, but believe that STEAC has harmed that mission by insisting on the modular building at this location, and we still do not understand why.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I agree. STEAC seemed unconcerned about the 5 yrs. we’re they promised more?
Dan Wolk’s posturing reminded me of his actions for Davis Diamonds. (Where are they now?). He is definitely garnering votes for the future.
The Davis neighbors complaining about this are most likely much less impacted than the alternative of having this parcel redeveloped.
Be careful what you agitate for.
Frankly: my view was that the neighbors and STEAC should come to a mutually acceptable agreement until I watched the meeting and talked to city sources and realized what was really going on here. The neighbors have reasonable objections, but the problem here was the insistence on this location – and frankly I still don’t understand why this location. All they said at the meeting was this was their preferred location and they were not in agreement as a board on the alternative site.
You ask, why is this a preferred location?
Have you ever relocated a business? Do you know how expensive that is? Do you know how much work that is?
Also, I’m sure this location is valued for its location… the employees and volunteers probably like being next to downtown.
Maybe the neighbors should pool some donations and meet with the ED and propose funding the move to help encourage a move to the alternative location.
I think you know how close I am to the neighbors, and from what I know, it is only a minority raising objections. Most support what STEAC wants to do.
They are having to relocate anyway, plus they are sinking in $200,000 into a temporary location.
You’re focused on the neighbors, the bigger problem is that the city eventually wants that as a location for economic development.
STEAC should have been moulded into an agreement that was more appropriate in several ways rather than caved to. There insistence here is short sighted and I hope they realize it and change course.
I also have very strong feelings and logic about cutting down large established valuable trees.
Say what you will about the building, temporary or not very temporary, but cutting down large, mature, shade providing, CO2 consuming trees (the WALNUT and OAK trees on the property) is short sighted and permanent. All they talked about were the misplaced palms. The building could have been reconfigured in shape and/or placement to accommodate the Oak and Walnut trees (even if they had had to also rearrange parking) but no one on council saw the value. I would not be surprised if the cost to remove the trees and the additional AC needed now that their building will bake with no shade, would have broken even or better with the additional expense of a reconfiguration. ” You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone…” Joni Mitchell
Cut down a tree, plant a tree. The circle of green life continues. I have had to cut down four of the seven full grown trees in my yard because they were sick. I planted new ones. They will eventually grow to the same size. Cut down big trees that completely shade an area, and smaller shrubs, plants and flowers can be planted. It can add more texture and visual appeal.
This crying over trees is a misplaced or false emotive argument in this city full of trees. And the way my allergies are raging now, I am thinking trees are over-rated.
David, I think you should try to talk to Cass Sylvia and ask her to explain the business case. I think you are making assumptions about cost comparisons that are only one-sided. Also, there are probably ancillary secondary business considerations. Moving a business is a big deal. The project has to be developed and managed. This effort tends to impact operations. It is entirely possible that STEAC does not have the personnel resources to undertakes this now, and will need five years to ramp up for it. I don’t know, but I suggest that you work a little harder to get that side of the story before making general assumptions.
I have to agree with Donna – the trees (which are not diseased, i gather?) are what hits me the most.
Picture the whining from STEAC leadership the moment the city gives notice for STEAC to move from 5th and D. I’d guess they expect future councils to be as wobbly about this great community support group as the current council proved to be. (“You want to force us out after we just spent $200,000 on our building 3–or 5, or 8, or 12–years ago?”).
If the prefab building really is seen as “temporary,” perhaps the design and appearance are not so offensive. However, it seemed clear that the $200,000 STEAC investment is being made with the expectation that the building isn’t going be moved within a few years.
The only explanation for STEAC’s decision to demand this option and the insistence on “an up or down vote” that very evening is your “power play” label. It’s difficult to understand, although before Tuesday the claim was made that the community location was a good one for their services. But, now that we all know that the lease is only five years (rather than 20 for larger space a few blocks away), the present location seems to have little going for it.
And why did the council–after the obvious efforts by four of them to signal encouragement that STEAC consider the corporation yard option–volunteer to go with an 80-foot building rather than the staff-recommended 60-foot building.
I assume STEAC leadership still has the option open to work toward establishing a better, long-term facility at the new location. Accepting the 20-year, no-cost lease offer from the city will help STEAC regain its lost respect and credibility…and allow the beleagered city ccouncil members a giant sigh of relief.
Donna: ask a certified arborist what the approximate appraisal value of those trees is. It’s a formula based on size, species, and health of the trees, among other factors. I’d be very surprised if they aren’t valued at many thousands of dollars.
Mitigation by STEAC has not been mentioned, probably being waived by the city. Unless it was real money in some way they are not likely to calculate it in. I can try and find out what the value and situation is.
I agree, Frankly, that it would be good to hear the business case from Cass. She certainly wasn’t very forthcoming when she spoke at the council meeting, just pointing out what a good job STEAC does in and for the community. Her pitch simply reinforced the STEAC board’s strategy to put the council in an awkward, up-or-down decision dilemma.
As a long time STEAC donor, I’m disappointed with the leadership’s business decision not to accept the city’s very generous offer of more space nearby that better allows city government to make decisions on our behalf regarding firefighting and economic development on the municipal 5th and D property.
At first, I figured it was a toss up decision on whether the cheap, prefab building should be allowed at the site in the face of neighborhood and established design considerations. What we learned Tuesday is there are many more concerns, including ones that STEAC leadership seems not to realize can have major impacts on the organization’s long term effectiveness.
Let’s hear from Cass.
Agree JS. Wonder what woukd have happened if Brett hadn’t brought up the usage issue ( and Dan hadn’t spoken so forcefully against the temporary possibility which sounds more probable).
It should be noted that a modular building could be relocated rather than torn down, and would involve transport a very short distance, relatively speaking, down 5th street to the corp. yard. Still, it would cost money.
As I recall, STEAC uses a nearby church or school site to interview potential families for eligibility for Christmas baskets, for example, and also uses a nearby site for large scale distribution of Christmas gifts. Nonetheless, sites are available close to the corp yard for the same purposes.
David, has Cass been willing to talk to you?
No wonder people don’t have faith in government. What a dog and pony show last night!
She didn’t respond to my email yesterday, Dan didn’t respond to my text.
The trees are not street trees. The palm trees would likely be taken out for any development of the property anyway. There are no owls in the palms. The building is temporary and can be moved. It will take the City much more than 5 years to build and move a fire station and develop that property (just look at how long it is taking them to make the improvements to 5th street). Trees (a mix of fast growing and slow growing) can be planted and landscaping can be installed that will improve the property over how it looks now. Volunteers will have a better place to work. Customers will have accessible bathrooms and more options when they come – by appointment only. It is City property and requiring a permanent building would essentially gift the land to the non-profit, which should not happen. We never heard from the owner of the commercial property to the south, but if he is complaining about the removal of the trees, he could plant some on his own property.
The palms can likely be moved and at that size would be quite valuable.
What is up with you people being so dismissive of Dan Wolk’s soaring rhetoric supporting the less fortunate? Personally, whether this was the right decision or not, i am glad we have leaders that want to help people who are in need.
As for moving the fire station there is zero chance that is going to happen any time soon. Not in the next five years. Probably not in the next 10.
“What is up with you people being so dismissive of Dan Wolk’s soaring rhetoric supporting the less fortunate?”
it seems less than sincere.
And because it came with a snarky, phony expression of surprise (and a call for a staff response) regarding Brett Lee’s reasonable, cautionary question about whether everyone realized that the city’s short term lease means a potential need for the city to develop the property.
And because it claimed that Dan Wolk would base his vote only on his personal God-like being and STEAC’s holy mission rather than any of the mundane considerations his colleagues had been expressing.
And because it brought the entire discussion to a screeching halt. Other than those things, “Dan Wolk’s soaring rhetoric” would have been just fine.
I didn’t watch the meeting. I don’t need to. I like the outcome. The North Davis community should work with STEAC and the City on landscaping plans for the project.
It seems that Dan Wolk backed up his rhetoric with his vote using what seems, oddly enough, his political capital to try to help those in our community that are in need. What is insincere about that?
1) To argue in favor of saving the trees AND preserving the economic development potential of the site is silly. The trees are toast under any likely development scenario. Don rightly pointed out that any developer would pay the mitigation fees and the trees are gone.
2) Some of the bloggers haven’t looked at a city map recently. A move to 5th and beyond is not a few blocks away. The current location is in Downtown, the corporate yard is way outside Downtown.
3) 5th Street is a major commercial corridor. There are few buildings along the south side which meet the neighborhood guidelines on the north side. There are a number of individuals that are pretending the subject property is located mid-block along D Street between 6th and 7th. In fact, Steve Tracy showed a number of building in his slide show that don’t meet the neighborhood design guidelines at all. They meet the Downtown design guidelines. Those are 2 completely different zoning districts with different design guidelines.
4) And the residents of Old North Davis aren’t neighbors; they’re residents of a Traditional Neighborhood. The actual STEAC neighbors are residents of a mixed-use, commercial district. According to the arguments of the STEAC opponents, the commercial buildings at 5th and Pena have to meet the design guidelines of the residential neighborhood north of 5th (they don’t). 5th Street is a boundary between mostly residential uses and mostly commercial/industrial uses. Or are my eyeballs betraying me?
-Michael Bisch
5) Executing your strategy to achieve your mission of assisting the needy is a powerplay? For those of you that think you can do it better, the city has a location for you on 5th Street between L & Poleline.
-Michael Bisch
Michael, one doesn’t need a map to count the blocks from D Street to L Street and to conclude it’s only a few blocks. Or, a calendar to count the difference between five years and 20 years–that’s the thing that doesn’t make sense here and might help lead David to consider the “up or down vote” demand as a power play. The trade offs to keep the facility at the current location seem pretty high to folks who haven’t heard the STEAC leadership rationale.
PS: You probably didn’t intend to suggest that those who argued about design guidelines really are “STEAC opponents.” Everyone has bent over backwards to express their love for STEAC and its work regardless of their opinions about the building proposal.
What I said about trees, shade and AC are real, whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not. My house is well shaded and it makes a huge difference, we barely ever even turn the thing on.
And mitigation is just an excuse someone invented to be able to do what’s wrong, whether it’s trees or CO2 or whatever.
Whoops, my error! “STEAC project opponents”.
-Michael Bisch