The Cannery Project has become one of the big issues that is facing this community as the fall of 2013 rapidly approaches. George Phillips, a long-time land use attorney and consultant for ConAgra, sat down with the Vanguard last week to talk about the key features of the project and to attempt to address some of its controversies.
This is the first of a two-part series.
“I think when you look at the property,” began George Phillips, who said that land use is all he has done from the last 28 years, “When you look at the property at what it should or could be, even though it’s zoned industrial, it makes sense in our mind that it’s a residential mixed use.”
To them residential mixed-use means a mixture of a business component, a retail component and a residential component that would interact with one another as a single neighborhood.
“It didn’t and doesn’t make sense to us that it’s a business park site,” he said. In his opinion, that is because it was an anomaly that it was zoned industrial to begin with. It was an industrial site for agricultural purposes as a tomato cannery that the city grew around. “Neighborhoods grew up around this industrial site. So if you chose a site today for an industrial or business park, you wouldn’t say this is the place to put it because of the residential neighborhoods around it.”
He noted that people have legitimate concerns about traffic and those types of impacts, and he believes, “If it was a business park, it would generate more traffic.”
George Phillips argues that in the highest, best and most efficient use of the land, “we look at it as a residential mixed use site. That’s where we start from.”
The next question is what the appropriate mix is in terms of residential versus non-residential, and the type of non-residential, so that there is the appropriate interaction on the site.
“We think that the mix we’ve struck here – we’re at 547 units, 15 acres of non-residential, about 151,000 square feet – is going to be a retail component, there’s going to be an office component,” he said. “This flex space is going to be able to accommodate labs… Very flexible as to how you devise that space, so that the neighborhood, the Cannery itself, is looked at as one entire neighborhood that interacts with one another. “
What they want to avoid is a residential neighborhood with a business park in front. Rather they want a “seamless interactive neighborhood.”
That is the concept of the project, and the next question is, based on that concept, how do you create a design that works, and works in Davis. Part of that is a challenge, as you have the rail line to the west, county agricultural land to the north, and Covell Village to the east, with existing neighborhoods both on the south side of Covell Blvd. as well as on the other side of the railroad tracks.
That requires them to have a setback from the railroad and to have an agricultural buffer on both the north and east. “That kind of framed the picture, so to speak,” George Phillips commented. That helped to define the periphery and where the concept of the urban farm came from. “Otherwise we would just have an ag buffer that just sat there and would be unproductive.”
The idea of the urban farm was to make the ag buffer both productive and turn it into a “major theme and component of character, to build a piece of character to the neighborhood, where the neighborhood can take its identity from a piece of agricultural history but have that interaction between what’s produced on the farm and the neighborhood itself.”
Another challenge is how to circulate people within the property which sits at one-quarter mile wide but five-eighths of a mile from north to south. They have now designed the property with the park going down the center of the property. They stretched the park north to south so that it was readily accessible for everyone living within the neighborhood.
“The idea here was to make it more of a center attraction and also have it be a center spine for bike and ped connections,” he said.
New Homes came and joined the effort in the spring of last year.
“They did a significant redesign, changing the street pattern to a grid pattern,” George Phillips noted. “That was trying to go back to neo-traditional land planning, smaller blocks, grid streets, not curvilinear.”
He said that this would free up the circulation within the streets and at the same time it allowed them to stretch the park and north and south to give more access to more of the residents of the neighborhood.
By extending it into the business space, it would allow for a gathering space not just for the residents, but also for the people who work at the business park during the day.
“From a design standpoint, we really like the vitality that it’s a truly mixed neighborhood,” he said.
As we have covered previously during this process, the group CHA approached the ConAgra developers and pressed them on providing more senior housing on the site.
George Phillips said that, in response to CHA’s input and feedback, they made site modifications. From the start, they told the council that they did not want to segregate or cordon off a senior-only, age restrictive housing component.
“We wanted a multigenerational neighborhood,” he said. “I think we’ve really accomplished that with what we have done with universal design.”
What they have developed is a Livable Design program that they have done with Eskaton.
“The design of the homes themselves are going to be very friendly for aging in place,” Mr. Phillips said. “The house plans will be reviewed and verified by Eskaton as qualifying for this Livable Design.”
The home design itself will be set up in a way where it’s conducive to people aging in place.
“A young family can move there and the parents can grow old there and it still functions for them even though it may be a two story home,” he said. “There’s a bedroom and a bathroom downstairs. The hallways are wider. The kitchens designed a little differently as far as the working surfaces, the countertops.”
“That’s something that we’ve told the council we would do and I think we really delivered,” Mr. Phillips said. “That’s a component that’s significant. We heard from the Senior Commission and others in testimony that there hasn’t been a project in Davis that’s designed for seniors in mind and I think that this project has been.”
One of the big issues that has come up is that of connectivity. They understand the problems and constraints of this property with a railroad on the west and ag land in the county on the north and the east, the question is how do they connect to the existing city bike network.
“Clearly, because of some of those constraints, we are connecting north-south,” Mr. Phillips said. “We have great connections north-south.”
There is a reconstructed intersection at J St. and East Covell, designed Mr. Phillips assured “with bike and ped safety in mind, in terms of how people on bike or by foot can head south and head downtown on J St.”
“We’ve designed the grade-separated connection where we go under the existing bridge on East Covell going over the tracks, which is really taking advantage of existing infrastructure to be able to get under East Covell,” he said.
That leads to two options for making the connection once they get the people south of East Covell. At that point, in a sense, he punts, stating, “It’s really for the council to decide which one they like the best.”
One of them goes under the existing bridge to pick up with the trail on the south side of East Covell. The other goes down parallel with the tracks through two existing apartment complexes to connect to the H Street tunnel.
“The challenge to us has been two things on that connection,” he said. “First, it’s tight. Getting the trail down to the H Street tunnel, given that we have to stay out of the railroad right of way. Between that we have to thread the needle between existing buildings on those two apartment (complexes) and the fact that the one landowner, in particular, doesn’t want to grant an easement for that right of way.”
If that route were selected, he said, the city would have to use eminent domain. “We as a project would have to for the cost of that,” he said. “So it’s more complicated.”
He noted that there was an option that looked at going over the tracks to the west. “Very expensive,” George Phillips noted. “One that we would like to avoid because… we hope someday those tracks go away and if they do, then a multimillion dollar overcrossing over a track that’s no longer there doesn’t make much sense to us.”
He said that if the tracks go away, then there are many opportunities for connections to the west that would be not very expensive.
The project has a required affordable housing component that is onsite. “The city is used to land dedication sites,” he said. “What we’re proposing here is not just to hand the land over to the city and say it’s your problem.”
ConAgra is looking to work with and bring in a developer of affordable housing and work with them to get that component of the project built. They will obligate themselves with the city on the timing of that affordable housing project to ensure that it is built in a timely fashion.
The land dedication site is part of the affordable housing component, and the other is the accessory dwelling units (ADUs). This, of course, has been the subject of some controversy in the city with many affordable housing proponents criticizing a city plan to allow ADUs to count up to half of the affordable housing requirement.
George Phillips is well aware of the controversy and the criticism.
“We know there’s a difference of opinion on that issue,” he said. “We just see it as a great way to integrate affordable housing into the neighborhoods throughout the neighborhood. It gets built at the same time the market rate units get built. It’s absolutely woven into the fabric of the neighborhood because it adjacent and part of a market-rate home.”
“There’s no public subsidy, so it’s a way to generate (affordable) homes without a public subsidy,” he added. He acknowledged, “It’s more of a challenge to accommodate families in that setting but that’s where we feel with the affordable housing site, we’ll have a multifamily site that will accommodate famliies and then the accessory dwelling units is a good compliment to that.”
“We think that between those two, it’s actually a creative way to address the affordable housing issue,” he said.
On the urban farm component, he said that ConAgra has been working collaboratively with the Center for Land-Based Learning. Under the plan, the developers would set up the farm to be operated – they would build the buildings, provide the equipment, and then dedicate that land to the city.
“Our hope is that the city will then enter into a lease with a non-profit,” Mr. Phillips said. “We’re anticipating that they’ll enter into a lease with the Center for Land-Based Learning and then the Center for Land-Based Learning would then use the site as part of their farm academy,” in training young people and those of all ages who want to go into farming on a smaller scale.
This would become part of their training program and incubator space where farmers are producing produce from the site and selling it locally on the market.
Mr. Phillips said they are hoping for a vegetable box program to allow people from the neighborhood to buy or subscribe to that program. There would be a market hall as part of the mixed-use component, and it would be a single space with different vendors or food producers, with common seating. It would be similar to Oxbow Market in Napa, but smaller, providing a connection between the farm and the neighborhood.
“The farming component is one that we’re really proud of,” he said. “It’s something that we’re hoping to turn into a model of an urban neighborhood that has a farm component to it.”
He also wanted to emphasize that they are using this land efficiently. “This is a 100 acre former canning facility, an industrial site, that we’re turning into a true urban neighborhood. It’s not a suburban neighborhood. This is not traditional suburban lot sizes. Not traditional cul-de-sac, curvilinear streets. This is an urban type development.”
“The purpose of which is all to make a more efficient use of vacant land so we’re not sprawling out on farmland,” he said.
Tomorrow, George Phillip will respond to questions that hit on some of the other controversies that have developed over the course of discussions of this development.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“…with many affordable housing proponents criticizing a city plan to allow ADUs to count up to half of the affordable housing requirement.”
Who are these “many affordable housing proponents” Wo are criticizing the change? Are they against any ADUs in the requirement or against allowing them to count up to half? Are any affordable housing advocates for ADUs?
Put it on the ballot.
Why?
JS: Just read the article from when the city passed the AHO in July and you’ll answer that question.
How did it go from 600+ units in 2011 to 547 units in 2013?
Don’t put it on the ballot.
Don’t put it on the ballot.
Put it on the ballot, the citizens deserve a vote because the property is being rezoned.
For what it is, with the constraints that exist, I do think that they have done a good job designing a nice neighborhood. The open space in the middle of the development, urban farm area, and buffers are well-thought out. If the neighboring property could be easily accessed, I do think that problems of access would be easier to solve. I like the idea of universal design over dedicated senior only housing.
Clustering senior housing in the north east corner might not be the best idea. Senior housing tends to generate emergency response and the lights/sirens from responding units will be a continuous disruption to the neighborhood as they roar all the way to the back of the neighborhood. Without that emergency access road suggested by the Covell Village developers, the only access is J street. It would be better to cluster it nearer to Covell Blvd.
I do like the grid pattern of the streets with defined “blocks.” I love the urban farm area.
[quote]Put it on the ballot, the citizens deserve a vote because the property is being rezoned. [/quote]
So every time someone wants to change the zoning everywhere around town, we should vote on it? This would include rezoning land around 2nd street to allow daycare centers, restaurants, gyms, senior housing and on and on?
Let’s say we vote on it. If it passes anyway, then opponents will just file lawsuits to try and stop it or slow it down until the developers abandon the project, costing us millions in legal fees.
Frankly, this doesn’t demand a vote and we have too many other “votes” that we are having to continue to pay for to add another one.
[I]Frankly, this doesn’t demand a vote and we have too many other “votes” that we are having to continue to pay for to add another one.[/I]
Frankly agrees.
The Con Agra site is technically in the City, but that does not mean it gets a free ride from the political process. The Target project was a smaller, less signicant project than ConAgra, and Measure K was on the ballot (and passed). The voters knocked down the small project on the 25 acres (Measure P).
The impact footprint of Con Agra Project is much larger than the 25 acres by Wildhorse, Target, or Nishi.
The voters really need to have their direct say-so on these impacts.
Also, I personally think there should be 2/1 on-site, fee-simple to the City, mitigation on this parcel. Covell, when it comes back someday, is going to have to give at least that level of mitigation, IMHO, to have a chance at passing the ballot test.
Put Con Agra on the ballot.
Ryan Kelly
[quote]So every time someone wants to change the zoning everywhere around town, we should vote on it? This would include rezoning land around 2nd street to allow daycare centers, restaurants, gyms, senior housing and on and on?
[/quote]
No, daycares, restaurants, etc. are small time items that the city council should still decide but something as rezoning as huge as the Cannery needs to be voted on by the citizenry.
“Also, I personally think there should be 2/1 on-site, fee-simple to the City, mitigation on this parcel.”
Please explain what and why for those of us who don’t know what this mitigation, its purpose and the history of it use in past developments. Thanks.
The 2/1 mitigation is one of many broken record demands by Mike and is a figment of his imagination. It is not something that has been applied ever in the City and I don’t think it is legal. It is extortion, plain and simple.
When Mike was on the City Council, this was his mantra and one landowner finally agreed to gift a substantial amount of land in exchange for approval of his proposed development of houses near Hwy 113 near the municipal golf course. The project was voted down by the Council despite Mike’s advocacy for the housing development outside City limits. The landowner divided the property into 10-12 mini-mansion sized lots and sold the project. You can see the parcels and the entrance just off the highway on the left going toward Woodland.
Mike needs to butt out of City planning. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. It would be great if he moved out of town. He is costing us millions with all of his political games and lawsuits.
[quote]No, daycares, restaurants, etc. are small time items that the city council should still decide[/quote]
The rules have to be consistent to be legal. What size of rezoning prompts a vote, per existing laws?
You just can’t make up new rules as you go along.
The council has such a poor history managing firefighter salaries and benefits, affordable housing, streets and parks that I’m ready to have all-citizen elections to decide how much to pay employees, whether to build duplexes or apartments, which streets to fix first and whether to close a nearby swimming pool.
I’m sure we can drastically reduce city expenses and get the right things done in the right order if we just take these decisions out of the city council’s hands and decide via elections.
If this works effectively for a few years, we can move into other special election arenas such as establishing speed limits, trash collection schedules and farmers’ market vegetable pricing.
What Davis needs is more citizen participation.
There is a tree that appears to be dying down the street. We should have a public vote to determine if it needs to be removed and then another vote to decide what kind of tree should be planted to replace it. The homeowner should be forced to pay for it to be put on the ballot.
[i]Reductio ad absurdum[/i] … well done, folks.
But if there appears to be substantial opposition to something (as with Target), it’s probably better to just go ahead and put it on the ballot.
If there were a major rezoning of all the properties along Second Street, along with a proposal for more flexible zoning near the downtown — all as part of an economic development proposal, it might be worth getting that ratified by the voters. A development adding 500+ houses? Maybe. It’s really up to the council to assess the depth and breadth of the likely opposition on the issue.
I seriously don’t care about fluoride, for example. But some folks sure do. They really, really care about fluoride, some on both sides of that issue. So it probably needs to go on the ballot. Rezoning for a single instance for a small business? Probably not.
Trying to turn matters of degree into all-or-nothing thinking is just that: [i]reductio ad absurdum[/i].
I still don’t understand the Target vote. Was it really about having a business near their homes or as it because people didn’t like a big store moving into Davis? Were their fears real (now that Target is there and functioning for some time)? Probably not, since we haven’t heard a peep about the TJMaxx store that they are now building.
Don’t think that just because someone (and it always seems to be the same people) adopts a cause, we have to have a community vote on it. I think that option has been abused.
I will repeat some ideas I tried to share last week on this topic. BECAUSE land is a constrained resource in our region, it makes sense to me for Davisites to vote on key land use decisions. What is “key”? I do not have an easy answer but it has to do with size of development or the significance of use changes. The point is that a wise City Council will anticipate and seek to understand which land use decisions are of concern (even if to a vocal minority) and place them on the ballot–NOT because they are legally required to do so but because they understand the importance of doing so.
However, even in saying the foregoing I am concerned about what appears to be a belief that by placing these things on the ballot we will achieve an informed decision. My concern is grounded in the reality that public campaigns around such issues (for they ARE campaigns) do not always lead to greater understanding but are often hijacked by those spreading misinformation, via fear, to achieve a narrow interest. If we could figure out a way to engage in honest debate and avoid ad hominem attacks, misinformation, fear mongering and outright lies I would feel much better about such processes.
[quote]I still don’t understand the Target vote. Was it really about having a business near their homes or as it because people didn’t like a big store moving into Davis?[/quote]
It was a major rezoning that set a significant precedent, and in the view of many was in violation of some of the key principles embodied in the General Plan.
I agree with you Robb. Elections are just opportunities for blockers to spread fear, uncertainly and doubt. And for them, the end they prefer justifies almost any legal means. There is no consequence for lying in politics if the liar is not running for office.
One way to look at this is like a tax. A new development is a potential real or perceived tax on our present lifestyle. If the development is next door, we may perceive a greater tax impact. Others of us may perceive of taxes of added traffic and/or possible reductions in our property values. However, there is also the positive impact that offsets the tax. For example, fixing our lack of balance in our supply of housing and commercial real estate; creating more jobs, and more room for new people to contribute to our great community.
But regardless, this is a tax that is already approved. The parcel is within the city limits. It is already zoned for development. We should not allow double jeopardy here; and just like for other taxes, voters should not be allowed to drive the minutia of detail for how these taxes are “spent”. That is the job of the leaders we elect. We can contact these leaders, and lobby these leaders. We can form committees and groups to participate in so that our voice is stronger in influence. But, we should not be voting individually on things already approved.
And you are correct in that the average voter will not understand enough of the big picture to be effective with his vote if required to do it again. Those that block everything count on that… because fear of change is much easier to leverage than is the visualization of a beneficial future state. For example, Target was almost defeated… yet I’m sure many of the people that voted against it are now happy that it is here.
Leaders are leaders because they can lead us to a more beneficial future state even while followers unable to grasp it kick and scream along the way. If these followers are that determined to change course to a different direction, they should run for a leadership position.
I read over the General Plan and the only thing that I could see was that Target didn’t fit into the perceived “values” of Davis – small, specialty stores, with employees making minimum wage, and people on the lower economic end of the ladder shopping at thrift stores or traveling out of town to shop. Don’t get me wrong, I like our vibrant, busy downtown area and our locally owned businesses and am willing to pay more or tip higher to support those businesses.
I think that the ConAgra project is doing its best to design a project that meets Davis’ values with easily accessible open space, non-gated, non-exclusionary design, and an urban farm rather than packing in more houses. Bike routes are a real concern as this is an essential element in how we view living in Davis. I don’t get that the project is in violation of key principles embodied in the General Plan and I think the call for a special vote on the project is only because the call for direct democracy on just about every thing has become the new hobby.
there are two reasons to put it on the ballot. i don’t buy into the blind the people have the right to vote, because then we’d have everything on the ballot and a direct democracy.
so you either want to kill it. or you want to use it as leverage to fix it.
so i’d like to hear from the proelection side – which is it?
“For what it is, with the constraints that exist, I do think that they have done a good job designing a nice neighborhood. The open space in the middle of the development, urban farm area, and buffers are well-thought out. If the neighboring property could be easily accessed, I do think that problems of access would be easier to solve. I like the idea of universal design over dedicated senior only housing.”
tend to agree on that. that leaves an eminent domain in the south.
“The 2/1 mitigation is one of many broken record demands by Mike and is a figment of his imagination. It is not something that has been applied ever in the City and I don’t think it is legal. “
are you sure about that?
this is from the city’s municipal code:
[quote] 40A.03.025 Agricultural land mitigation requirements.
(a) The city shall require agricultural mitigation as a condition of approval for any development project that would change the general plan designation or zoning from agricultural land to nonagricultural land and for discretionary land use approvals that would change an agricultural use to a nonagricultural use.
(b) The city has determined that effectively locating mitigation lands provides increased protection of agricultural lands threatened with conversion to non-agricultural uses. Requirements and incentives are established in this article to direct mitigation to areas that are under threat of conversion. In recognizing the importance of the location of mitigation, the city has identified two general categories of agricultural mitigation: (1) adjacent mitigation; and (2) remainder mitigation. For every applicable development project, the determination as to whether a combination of adjacent and remainder mitigation shall be required or whether only remainder mitigation shall be required shall be based on site specific factors, as specified in this article. Adjacent mitigation is addressed in Section 40A.03.030; remainder mitigation is addressed in Section 40A.03.035.
(c) [u][b]Total mitigation for a development project shall not be less than a ratio of two acres of protected agricultural land for each acre converted from agricultural land to nonagricultural land. [/b][/u]Location based factors (credits) for remainder mitigation contained in Section 40A.03.035 may result in ratios greater than 2:1. (Ord. 2300 § 1, 2007)[/quote]
“because people didn’t like a big store moving into Davis?”
this
Davis Progressive – Interesting. But I don’t believe that this could ever be applied to the ConAgra project. It is not zoned agricultural.
correct. the whole point of ag mitigation is that when you build on agricultural land, you preserve land to keep as farmland. here, the project has an ag buffer and interesting urban farm concept, but no need for 2:1 mitigation.
[quote]I read over the General Plan and the only thing that I could see was that Target didn’t fit into the perceived “values” of Davis[/quote]
Second Street Crossing required an entirely new class of zoning that didn’t exist in Davis before. It violated the store size limitation that had been the subject of significant controversy just a few years prior. It conflicted with the neighborhood shopping center (not magnet center) principle of the General Plan. But it won, so those issues are settled in that particular case.
If there is a credible threat that a referendum will be started against the Cannery project, and the council members feel that such a referendum has a high likelihood of getting on the ballot, they might as well just go ahead and put it there. This is a lot of housing to add in one place, and there are many who feel the site should be reserved for other uses.
“The 2/1 mitigation is one of many broken record demands by Mike and is a figment of his imagination. It is not something that has been applied ever in the City and I don’t think it is legal. It is extortion, plain and simple.”
So, the city would take fee-simple title to two acres of the developer’s land for every acre used for housing (or one acre for every two) in exchange for approving a subdivision? What bad acts are being mitigated? What’s the justification for this taking? What would the city do with its new holdings?
Don, more than credible.
No, make them earn it.
What is there to mitigate? Its essentially an industrial brown field.
Development of this site will have a ripple effect on development plans elsewhere in and adjacent to the city. Major growth decisions are usually put before the voters here. I would like to see the cannery project on the ballot, along with a Measure R vote on Nishi, and at the same time I’d like to see the city council move forward on other of the ‘near-term’ economic development proposals listed in the Innovation Task Force report. That would give the community a chance to discuss the economic development issues and the housing issues at the same time.
They are inter-related. If you develop one thing one place, you increase the likelihood of developing the other thing elsewhere. There is ongoing pressure from various quarters to open up more land for business. Meanwhile, the last site zoned for business on a large scale is slated to be rezoned. That is a decision with consequences beyond just how nicely packaged the Cannery project is. Residents of far west or far east Davis will ultimately be affected by what happens on the cannery site.
You can’t look at each project in isolation, just as you can’t ignore the ongoing housing problem or the lack of developable sites for move-up businesses in isolation. If the residents of Davis are going to add land for various purposes, it should be part of an overall plan for development. Not a piecemeal approach where decisions are being pushed on them by landowners. As I said before: the zoning decision by the council should be based on what is best for the community. And since it’s all part of the same issue — an insufficiency of land for all of these competing needs — the citizens of Davis should participate in that decision.
Don, thanks for the thoughtful articulation of many of our concerns
“If there is a credible threat that a referendum will be started….”
..
“Don, more than credible.”
Why should the city council change our process because of threats from the same old folks (anonymous and otherwise)?
“Development of this site will have a ripple effect on development plans elsewhere in and adjacent to the city. Major growth decisions are usually put before the voters here.”
Usually? What are some examples of similar developments put before voters? I’m not aware that projects inside the city have required as routine a voting process as you’re suggesting.
What ripple effects will occur in Davis and outside the city as a result of this development? If you’re now saying that this development is much more than it appears to be, what kind of widespread impacts would we be approving with a vote?
Sounds to me as though this approach just opens the door for those against the project to try to kill it with scare talk about imaginary gigantic effects from the causeway to Berryessa, from Galt to Chico.
Michael, please offer what’s behind the “2/1 mitigation” you said should be required for this development.
JustSaying: I’m sure you could answer your own questions.
You give me too much credit, Don. I never heard of Michael’s concept until today. And, I’m confused by your newest comments about voting on other than J/R developments as some kind of historical routine. Maybe I didn’t understand our point, or maybe you didn’t under my questions. I wouldn’t have asked if I knew the answers already.
Regarding the logical and monetary justification of a ballot:
The need to have a vote implies an unresolved conflict. The justification to [i]spend money[/i] just to have a vote implies a threat that has the potential to cost the deciding entity more in compensation, either required by law or by ethics.
Putting a decision on a ballot is a method for an entity (that would normally makes decision) to insure itself against uncertainties that it cannot financially absorb.
A King may make decision on his own if he has enough money personally to compensate the victims of his decision.
A council member may make decision on his own if he has enough money from his personal account to compensate the victims of his decision.
A King may not make decision on his own if he has not enough personal wealth to compensate the victims, but expects to tax its people to pay for the victims created by his own decision. For the King to make such decision, the King must get consent from its people that [i]they[/i] collectively would pay for the victims of [i]his[/i] decision.
Similarly, a council or its council members may not ethically make a decision that they are not personally accountable for unless they have the consent from the people that the people will shoulder that burden.
Therefore, to evaluate whether an issue should be on the ballot, two of the necessary pieces of information are:
1. Who is the [b]victim[/b] if the decider decides one way or another? (There is no reason to vote if there is no victim either way.)
2. How much is the [b]damage[/b] if the decider decides one way or another? (There is no monetary justification to have a vote if the vote itself costs more than the projected damage.)
When I look at the cannery project I don’t see myself as a victim, and I don’t claim that it is causing me any damage. Therefore I have no reason to ask for a vote. Someone can convince me that a vote is needed if they can identify the victims and a damage greater than the cost of the ballot.
To request a ballot,
Don Shor: “You can’t look at each project in isolation, just as you can’t ignore the ongoing housing problem or the lack of developable sites for move-up businesses in isolation. If the residents of Davis are going to add land for various purposes, it should be part of an overall plan for development. Not a piecemeal approach where decisions are being pushed on them by landowners.”
Mike Harrington: “Don, thanks for the thoughtful articulation of many of our concerns “
The irony is that Harrington was on the council that brought Measure J and there is no ordinance that did more to create a piecemeal approach to land use than measure J. If it wasn’t for measure J you could master plan Covell Village and Cannery. If it wasn’t for Measure J you could master plan the land use decisions for a generation of development. Mike Harrington has more responsibility for the piecemeal approach to development, or lack thereof, than almost anybody in town. I’m sure he is proud of this fact but for him to concur with Don Shor about how we should plan for the future of Davis after trying to stymie everything in the last decade is laughable beyond belief.
“Major growth decisions are usually put before the voters here.”
But who should decide what should go to the voters [u]here[/u]. Certainly not citizens of Dixon, Woodland or West Sac. There is a process for calling a vote. Those of you that favor a vote should use it if you want but the idea that the City Council should simply abdicate its roll to save you money, time and effort is a dog that will not hunt.
Edgar Wai said . . .
[i]”When I look at the cannery project I don’t see myself as a victim, and I don’t claim that it is causing me any damage. Therefore I have no reason to ask for a vote. [b]Someone can convince me that a vote is needed if they can identify the victims[/b] and a damage greater than the cost of the ballot. “[/i]
Edgar asks a very interesting and insightful question here. Hopefully Michael, Don and Growth Izzue will jump in and share their thoughts about Edgar’s analysis. Definitely thought provoking.
Mike Harrington is acting like an attorney who has won a case. An attorney that has never one a case gets the go ahead and sue me finger but a lawyer who has won a case often gets a can we negotiate response to the next case. Because Mike got enough signatures to put Measure I on the ballot he acts as if he can put anything on the ballot. The City Council should call his bluff. Maybe he can and maybe he can’t but make him spend the money and get the signatures. Don’t be cowed by his threats. After all, Mike said he “didn’t care about the money” when he sued over water, so he should have no problem parting with some to get the signatures he needs this time.
never won a case
Toad But i do believe the two parcels should be master planned together. I want the outboard mitigation to seal off the new development and end the political fight on our northern border.
CV was directly informed by me in 2000
Con Agra has not asked me
It is completely unfair to our local business people that out of state ConAgra can waltz in here, get 3 CC votes, and waltz out with our local money
These CC members are being Anti Local Business.
ConAgra will be on the ballot, snd they wont get their project until they give the same onsite outboard mitigation that our local ownersof CV will have to give to get a smaller project than the huge one in 2005
Treat everyone the same!
Toad: I have a crystal clear plan for land use planning.in Davis for the next couple of General Plans.
If our CC and staff want to continue making.bad.decisions such as the current Con Agra, then I expect remedies from the powers of initiatives and referenda.
What a ballot regarding The Cannery will do is formally check in with “the voice of the people.” The real question for all of us really isn’t one about voting procedure, but rather, [b]”What currently is the voice of the people vis-a-vis The Cannery project?” [/b]
Lets take a moment to try and come up with an answer to that question. So far in 2013 there have been more than 11 public hearings about The Cannery conducted before the following City of Davis governmental bodies:
Senior Citizen Commission,
Natural Resources Commission,
Open Space and Habitat Commission,
Bicycle Advisory Commission,
Safety and Traffic Commission,
Social Services Commission,
Park and Recreation Commission,
Business and Economic Development Commission,
Tree Commission,
Planning Commission, and
City Council
In addition there have been non-governmental workshops conducted by
Valley Climate Action Center, and
The Cool Davis Foundation
That is a lot of opportunity for Davis “people” to exercise their “voice.”
How loud has that “voice” been?
If you add up all the citizen attendees for all those 13 different venues, not worrying about duplications ( I attended the NRC, Planning Commission, City Council, and Valley Climate Action Center meetings which collectively count as 4 “attendees” ), the total number of attendees doesn’t exceed 200 (an average of 15 per meeting)?
What does participation by 200 out of a population of 65,000 tell us? It tells us that [u]at best[/u] only one out of every 325 people cares enough about The Cannery to attend a public meeting. Further, those 200 attendees were probably evenly split between supporters and detractors. Bottom-line, over 99 percent of Davis residents appear to be saying that the voice of the people is [i]”I don’t care!!!!” [/i]
So . . . my sense is that the best way to proceed is to let the signature gathering process give us a much better sense of whether the 99% of the Davis residents who appear to be in the “don’t care” column is indeed the true voice of the people.
Mike Harrington lost his bid for re-election. He does not serve on any City commission. He is suing the City. He gets one vote.
I don’t think that people don’t care. I think that people believe that we have elected representatives to deal with these proposals and deal with the distasteful aspect of Davis politics.
“It is completely unfair to our local business people that out of state ConAgra can waltz in here, get 3 CC votes, and waltz out with our local money”
First that cannery operated here for 36 years providing lots of jobs as both an aggregator of tomatoes in support of local farms and as a union operated manufacturing facility. It only closed in 1999 when imported fresh produce reduced demand for frozen and canned fruits and vegetables that resulted in an industry wide consolidation . So Con Agra didn’t just waltz in here and the plant has been closed for 14 years so they aren’t just waltzing out either.
Second, its not “our local money” as Harrington claims. If anything the value added to the property by taxes will enrich our community and especially our schools through payrolls and taxes. Like most of the detractors, beyond his personal real estate speculations, Harrington has no skin in the game. To imply otherwise is a complete fabrication.
“Toad But i do believe the two parcels should be master planned together.”
Too bad Mike an unintended consequence of Measures J and R is that it isn’t going to happen that way.