.

Green store provides affordable shopping and fits Davis' values

Printed in the Davis Enterprise, Sunday, October 8, 2006

There is widespread community support for a "green" Target in Davis. We've heard from third-generation Davisites, long-time downtown business owners, seniors, teachers, students, moms, dads and kids who want to shop more in town.

The idea of locating a general merchandise lower-cost retail store at Second Street Crossing (near Mace Blvd.) did not happen overnight. For the past three years, city staff has worked to collect information from Davis residents about what we want in the way of new shopping venues.

A 2002 Davis Chamber of Commerce study during "Neighborhood Days" showed that 62 percent of respondents supported a Target in Davis. In 2003, the Business and Economic Development Commission of the City of Davis mailed surveys to Davis households in an attempt to gain a clear understanding about what shopping options Davis residents want here. People responded with a clear desire to see more choices for discount household goods and moderate-to-discount priced clothing, amid other options.

Based upon this information from city residents, the City of Davis started a dialogue about whether Target would be interested in locating a store in Davis.

From the outset, the City of Davis had a series of very specific conditions for the project:

• First, that there was only one suitable location in the City for a store such as Target, on Second Street near Mace Boulevard, next to an existing EPA Superfund site;
• Second, the store would have to be a registered "green" building, incorporating energy and water conservation features, other landscaping and environmental features, and a new bus stop, making it one of only 10 LEED® (Leadership in Energy Efficient Design) registered environmental retail buildings in the world;
• Third, the City worked with Target to create a 110-foot setback from the commercial property line, rather than the 25-foot setback currently allowed by zoning.

Target not only agreed to the conditions but went even further to create a store that is a design fit for Davis. The Target Second Street Crossing project also includes:

• A 3-acre greenbelt planted with trees to provide a natural buffer around the project and reduce noise from I-80 and the rail corridor;
• Trees to shade at least 50% of the parking lot;
• Covered bike parking and bike accessibility;
• Recharge stations for electric-powered vehicles;
• Landscaping and run-off control methods, and;
• The use of wood, stone and other design features to make the store unique to Davis.

Despite all of the discussion, and specific conditions about the Target Second Street Crossing project, there seems to be some confusion about what a "yes" vote means.

Voting Yes on Measure K allows Davis residents a direct voice in what will be developed at the Second Street Crossing site. The infill site is currently zoned for development that could include manufacturing and distribution facilities, but with Measure K, local voters will know exactly what we are getting: a green Target store and specific conditions for four other complementary retail or restaurant facilities. Local police, firefighters and city planning staff are for building the store because it offers a stable source of income to pay for city services. By its third year of operation, the Davis Target alone is expected to generate $1 million in sales tax for city services.

Approving Measure K would not allow any other development or any other "big boxes" in Davis. Measure K is site-specific with exact terms about what can and cannot be built at the site. Based on the development agreement between the City and Target, no other retail store or facilities could be substituted in place of the proposed Target store.

Some critics have said that a Target in Davis will change shopping behavior. They also said the same thing when University Mall was proposed. They said it again about the Nugget Market and the building of Borders Books. Is our community better today with these projects or should they not have been built? In Chico, Albany, and many other Northern California towns, a Target has served to complement diverse and unique downtown retail and a vibrant local economy.

Others say we have to protect our city's values. If so, we should recognize the values of all employers - big and small. Target has been honored as one of the best companies for working mothers, for women executives, for commitment to the arts and for its charitable giving. Do these efforts mean less because they are made by a large employer instead of a small one?

The question for Davis residents is whether we would be better off by providing more affordable local shopping choices for Davis residents, or better off by sending Davis residents out-of-town for purchases of household goods?

By measure of what the site is zoned for today, what it would bring to Davis and the example of establishing a "green" retail complex in our community, it is hard to argue that someone else has a better project in mind. In fact, NOT ONE PROJECT has been proposed in Davis that would deliver the same exemplary design principles, revenue for local programs or a better use of land currently zoned for manufacturing or industrial/commercial development. Measure K is a good choice for those who care about sustainable principles at work in Davis.

Beth Annon-Lovering, 9-year Downtown Davis business owner
Kate Bowen, Teacher/36-year Davis resident
Jeremy Brooks, Davis business owner
Sam & Gwen Harrison, 45-year Davis residents/business owners
Neil & Julie Hershberger, 19-year East Davis residents
Sharon Knox, Downtown Davis resident/Community volunteer
Tom Lovering, 30-year Downtown Davis business owner
Michelle McKim, South Davis resident/PTA volunteer
Jean Miller, Rancho Yolo Senior Park resident
Beth Post, North Davis resident/UCD faculty
Scott & Joanna Purves, Davis business owners/Wildhorse residents
Chris Snow, Realtor/37-year Davis resident

Target goes green to please Davis

By Claire St. John ENTERPRISE STAFF WRITER

Published Oct 12, 2006 - 14:24:37 CDT.

The Target Corp. knew it had to do more to get approval in Davis as the city's first big-box store, so it planned on several green measures, including planting 250 trees, supporting an extra bus line and making sure a bike path runs alongside it.

"Davis is very unique and has a unique character," said John Dewes, Target senior development manager. "What we've worked very hard on is creating a store which does fit the character of Davis."

Target wants to build a 136,842-square-foot store that includes a 10,000-square-foot garden center on Second Street near Mace Boulevard. Accompanying the Target would be other, unnamed stores totaling 46,000 square feet.

Davis residents will decide the stores' fate when they vote on Measure K on Nov. 7.

Target's biggest concession to the Davis lifestyle is making the building LEED-certified, joining only about 10 other retail buildings worldwide.

LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, was conceived of by the U.S. Green Building Council to "define 'green building' by establishing a common standard of measurement," according to the U.S. Green Building Council's Web site. LEED also promotes sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, building material selection and indoor environmental quality.

Certification is based on points granted for each energy or green building attribute, with 26 points required for basic certification. Target is covering its bases by striving for more than 26 points in case some fall through along the way, ensuring that it will be LEED-certified.

The company has some practice with certification, and if the Davis Target is approved by voters, it will be the fourth LEED-certified Target.

A Target approved for County Road 102 and Interstate 5 in Woodland will not be built to LEED standards, but that doesn't preclude the company from taking green measures there, Dewes said. The reason Davis will get the greener store is because Target knows the city views itself as a leader in environmentalism, he added.

"We realized that was a step we had to take to fit into the uniqueness of Davis," Dewes said.

He said it will cost Target about $1.3 million extra to meet all the LEED criteria, which could include things as simple as providing showers for bike-riding employees, planting water-efficient landscaping, using less water or prohibiting smoking, to things as complex as installing a high-reflectance roof membrane to reduce a "heat island" effect; reducing CFCs in heating, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment; or using paint, sealant, glues and other building materials that don't emit air quality-affecting chemicals.

"Target has proven to be a responsive applicant and has shown a strong willingness to work with the community to arrive at a project that fits with Davis in terms of site planning, architecture, uses and energy efficiency," a city staff report reads.

But no matter what Target does, it can't change the fact that its Davis location is near a Superfund cleanup site, caused by Frontier Fertilizer illegally dumping pesticides into unlined pits for 10 years in the 1980s.

Test wells are able to monitor the contamination of a ground water plume 30 feet below ground, but the Target project will be displacing a cluster of testing wells and rebuilding them nearby.

Another problem is air quality, the one thing noted in the environmental impact report as "significant and unavoidable," even with LEED certification.

Between idling delivery trucks and thousands of estimated car trips made to and from the new shopping center every day, the air quality will be worse than what it might be under current zoning, according to the report.

"On one hand, yes, Target should be congratulated (for its LEED certification), but itís the bare minimum" said Rob Westergaard, a member of the group opposed to Target and a neighbor of the site. "Davis should make LEED a baseline, it shouldnít be something to congratulate them on."

For more information, visit www.cityofdavis.org/target, www.dontbigboxtarget.org and www.targetindavis.com.

ó Reach Claire St. John at cstjohn@davisenterprise.net or 747-8057.

Davis voters take aim. Measure K offers a choice on Target store

By Claire St. John ENTERPRISE STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

If Measure K is approved by Davis voters on Nov. 7, an environmentally friendly Target store and four accompanying mid-sized stores will be built at Second Street and Mace Boulevard.

This is the first time a Target store has been on a ballot, said John Dewes,

Target's senior development manager, but the word "Target" actually won't appear in the measure. Instead, Davis voters will see this:

Shall the City Council's approval of Ordinance 2259, approving the Second Street Crossing Project, a retail development of approximately 183,000 square feet, including a General Merchandise Store of 137,000 square feet and other retail buildings totaling 46,000 square feet, including a General Plan Amendment (Ordinance 2259, Exhibit A, Specific Plan Amendment (Exhibit B), Rezone (Exhibit C), and

Development Agreement (Exhibit D) be ratified?

The lack of name specificity has led some people to believe that a yes vote on Measure K will open Davis' doors to any big-box developer anywhere in the city, but city staff members say Target would be bound by a stringent development agreement that outlines the building's design and LEED certification. The zoning changes residents will vote on are so specific as to limit big-box development to that one site, according to city staff.

This is contrary to a message on the Don't Big-Box Davis Web site, created by the group in opposition to the project.

"This is not a simple zoning change for one neighborhood; this is a new zoning designation for the entire city, effectively crippling the current General Plan," the Web site reads. "The City Council majority wants to create a new 'General Retail' zoning designation to accommodate big-box stores."

"What you just said to me is incorrect," said the city's principal planner, Mike Webb, after the Web site was read to him. A city staff report backs him up.

"The suggestion that approval of this project means approval of additional big-box retail in Davis is a foregone conclusion is both inaccurate and speculative," it reads. "Ultimately, the City Council has full authority to approve or deny projects and such decisions are not entered into lightly."

But if Target were to get voter approval and then sell its interest in the project, it could be taken over by something like Wal-Mart, according to the development agreement.

Such a switch would go in front of the City Council, but the council would only be able to deny a big-box retailer other than Target if the new occupant didn't have "the financial ability to meet the obligations proposed" or the new occupant didn't have experience with "non-residential developments of comparable scope and complexity."

Target, however, says it's not going anywhere if it gets voter approval.

"Target has absolutely no intention of abandoning our plans in Davis," said Brie Heath, Target spokeswoman. "We open stores because we are confident that they will be successful and forge a strong partnership with the community."

A long dance

Currently, big-box stores, or any retail stores above 30,000 square feet, are not allowed under Davis zoning. The city's General Plan does not allow for them, either, so letting Target in requires several changes, changes that the opposition says are too great for the city to undertake without first revamping the General Plan.

The City Council approved those changes on a 4-1 vote in June, then unanimously sent the item on to Davis voters.

"Since it was such a large decision, it was appropriate to see if there was a consensus to have this done and have a Target in the community," said Councilman Stephen Souza on the council's decision to put Measure K on the ballot.

Davis' history with the Target Corp. started in 2002 when a development company worked up plans to build a retail center on Second Street, likely to be anchored by a Target store. The plan called for a 70-acre center with a 125,000-square-foot anchor store, another 100,000-square-foot store, about 10 spaces that ranged between 18,000 and 50,000 square feet and another 15 small spaces.

The developer spoke with City Council members, who expressed some interest in the project, but ultimately, an application was never submitted.

In 2003, surveys were distributed at Neighborhood Days, a Davis Chamber of Commerce effort that was a precursor to Celebrate Davis!, and many residents responded that a Target would be welcome within city limits.

A survey mailed to all households by the city's Business and Economic Development Commission that same year garnered 330 write-in pleas for a Target. But on the same survey, 270 people specifically said they disapproved of any big-box retail.

Target filed a pre-application in 2004, and the city's Planning Commission voted 3-2 to see a full application from the corporation, suggesting that Target stay at or below 136,000 square feet, create a buffer between the store and nearby Mace Ranch neighbors, and focus on environmentalism, all of which Target did.

The City Council voted 4-1 that a full application be brought forward.

"We came through (pre-approval) fairly unscathed," Dewes said.

Later souring

But by the time Target got to the Planning Commission in the last stretch of the approval process, the tide had turned, at least in the Community Chambers.

Dozens of outraged Davisites spoke against locating a Target in the city, some of whom said they expressed an interest in Target on surveys, but didn't realize how big the store would be.

City Council members faced the public's ire at their meetings on Target, and on the night they approved the zoning changes and sent the matter on to voters, all on-duty police officers were called in to calm an angry crowd.

But Dewes said he thinks most of Davis would like a Target, which is why the company is acquiescing to a vote, the first in its history.

Through polling and meeting with the public at pro-Target events and at the Farmers' Market, Dewes said he and his team have met an "overwhelming majority" of Target supporters.

A ripple effect?

City commissions and local businesses, however, have not been so welcoming.

The Business and Economic Development Commission voted in favor of the store, but the Planning Commission, the Open Space Commission and the Finance and Budget Commission all gave strong thumbs down.

Although a fiscal analysis showed the project would bring in about $675,000 in sales tax to the city in the first year, finance and budget commissioners compared it to possible projects allowable under current zoning, and found that the tax increase represented a $2 benefit for each Davis resident.

"Approval of Target should not be based on how it fiscally benefits the city budget, because the margin of profit between Target and possible projects allowable is so slight," said then-Commission Chairman Mark Siegler. "It's a net fiscal benefit of less than $2 per person."

Allowable uses include things like car dealerships, hotels and offices, among many other things.

The Finance and Budget Commission was also concerned about Targetís effects on downtown Davis.

A socioeconomic report found that Target and its satellite stores at the Second Street site could divert about $10.8 million from local retailers, but because the downtown is strong and has a low vacancy rate, the impact was deemed "less than significant."

The report only calculated whether the downtown would fall into blight, however, not whether individual businesses would survive.

The Davis Downtown Business Associationís board of directors is neutral on the project, but a signature drive gathered about 40 downtown businesses who said they were against Target.

Dan Urazandi, owner of Bizarro World on Fifth Street, initiated the signature drive and said most business owners he talked to did not want a Target built on the edge of town.

"In general, the consensus of the downtown merchants is a big box on the periphery displaces sales," Urazandi said. "Once local businesses start going under, it displaces jobs and everything else.

"People need to know before they vote on Measure K that they're making a choice. Pretty soon, the neighborhood centers and the downtown start to dwindle, and pretty soon, you donít have a choice. That's what is happening in every other town."

According to a city staff report, Davis residents already spend money at nearby Target stores - making 276,000 credit card transactions at the three nearest stores in 2004 - and the effects of a Target closer by won't change those behaviors much.

"Itís an amusing argument," Urazandi responded. "It sounds good at face value, but I can tell you that Target is not building in Davis to get sales they're already getting in Woodland."

Downtown merchants are also concerned about the four as-yet-unnamed stores that will spring up around Target.

According to a staff report, however, the zoning for those stores will ensure they are mid-sized retailers such as electronics or housewares stores that don't directly compete with the downtown.

"You can't have a Savvy Shoppe there, you can't have a small shoe store there," said Jen Baker, community outreach coordinator for the Yes on K campaign.

Not enough shopping?

The few people who spoke to the City Council in favor of Target apologized to the anti-Target crowds - one even asked that he not be attacked on his way out - but said there just isn't a store in Davis to meet their basic needs.

"Last time I checked, this is a family-oriented town and there's lots of families," said Sam Harrison, who's listed as a Target supporter. "Most of them at this point drive some distance to get the kinds of product that Target sells. I think that's a waste of fuel and a waste of their time, and it's not going to injure the Davis retail by having a Target here."

Harrison was a member of an economic development committee that informed the 1996 General Plan update. The committee recommended setting aside a piece of land big enough to accommodate a Target or similar retailer, he said. The Second Street site was specifically recommended, but was shot down by groups who didn't want growth, Harrison said.

"That's one reason we wanted to get these places identified so that neighbors, when they came, didn't have these heartburns," he said. "Even if (the site) wasn't specifically identified that it was going to be a Target there, it was going to be commercial or industrial."

Harrison said he understand why neighbors would be miffed about a nearby Target, since the possibility of one was wiped from the General Plan. But as for the downtown, it's weathered worse storms that this, he said.

"The Marketplace has gone ahead, and that one had more small stores than this one, and it really competed with downtown more," Harrison said. "But since Marketplace opened, the downtown has thrived. That one was really opposed because it was going to close everybody."

Darnell Holloway, president of the Associated Students of UC Davis, is serving on the committee to pass Measure K, and said from a student's perspective, Target is needed.

"Every student I've talked to said, 'I'm tired of driving to Woodland,' " Holloway said.

And those trips happen frequently. With every year's influx of student comes a bevy of needs, most of which can be fulfilled at Target, Holloway said.

"All that money coming in is going to be generating sales tax for Davis, and there's also going to be jobs created," he said.

But Rob Westergaard, a Mace Ranch resident, said the need for convenient shopping isn't great enough to warrant landing a large store so near to a neighborhood.

"I think it boils down to size and fairness and appropriateness," Westergaard said. "No neighborhood in town would want this, no neighborhood would want an additional 10,000 car trips a day."

When Westergaard and his wife Deb moved in to Mace Ranch 2 1/2 years ago, they thought the empty field nearby would be built out mostly with offices.

"Like so many other people in Mace Ranch, we were told by our real estate agent that it's going to be used for office buildings, 9-to-5 people going to work and then leaving," Westergaard said.

Many arguments in favor of Target focus on the lack of shopping in Davis, especially for students and the parents of young children.

The Westergaards, who have a toddler, said comparison shopping revealed that better bargains could often be found at local stores like Rite-Aid and Longs.

"None of them have a huge advantage over each other," Rob Westergaard said.

Biggest neighbor

Target, however, says it has done everything possible to make having a big box nearby easier on the neighbors, the nearest of which is 220 feet from the store.

"We're not a cookie cutter in terms of store development," Dewes said.

Plans for the Davis Target call for a loading dock flipped from its customary position to a point as far from neighbors as possible, a lot of rock and wood used on the exterior of the building, and nothing but a green swath of grass at the back of the building, planted in a special material that will allow fire trucks - and only fire trucks - access to the rear in case of an emergency.

If approved, Target will contribute $200,000 to the Mace Ranch park, and has closed access between the store and the park per neighbors' request. In addition, Target will put in a landscaped berm and trees between the development and Mace Ranch.

"Those houses are going to be looking at a park," Dewes said.

The size of the store, long hours of activity, close proximity to an existing neighborhood and easy access to more than a dozen other big-box retailers have led to an active campaign against Target, however.

"I don't think there was very much consideration given to alternative sites," Westergaard said. "There's no negotiation on the size of the store, there's no negotiation on location. It's on the extreme edge of town, it's right off the freeway. If it was for Davis people, it would be more centrally located."

Reach Claire St. John at cstjohn@davisenterprise.net or 747-8057.

Forum aims at informing people about Target vote

Aimee Theron/Enterprise correspondent

Supporters and opponents of Measure K - the controversial ballot measure before Davis voters in November - faced off Friday night at a forum sponsored by the Davis League of Women Voters.

The forum, in the Community Chambers of City Hall, was intended to be an "exchange of ideas" about the Second Street Crossing project, said moderator Jean Canary, League vice president. If approved by the City Council after this advisory vote, the center would include a 137,000-square-foot Target, as well as several smaller retail stores.

The advantages of the project were presented by Dick Dorf, chairman of the Business and Economic Development Commission, while Davis resident Suzanne O'Keefe presented the opposing side, on behalf of the group Don't Big-Box Davis.

Dorf started by noting that he had been with the project from the beginning and that he had been involved in similar projects during his time working with the city. He also noted the City Council's 4-1 approval of the project and unanimous decision to give voters a say.

Dorf also said that, having lived in Davis for more than 30 years, there were two values that he considered when looking at the project's impact on the community. First, he said, Target would "support social economic justice" and provide opportunities for "those of all classes" to shop for their common needs. Secondly, he added, the store would be environmentally friendly.

He also pointed out that Davis residents visit Targets in surrounding areas, which has a negative impact on the environment.

"Half your citizens are driving out of Davis because we have in the past refused to let them have a Target or its equivalent," he said, adding that Target is a "reputable supplier" that offers "affordable and attractive goods.

"I don't know what other offer you have, but it's a damn good offer," Dorf concluded.

O'Keefe began her presentation with the assertion that the project is "wrong for Davis" and that part of the city's charm is its lack of "mall and sprawl freeway development."

She also called the proposed development too big, noting that it would be larger than the Wal-Mart in Woodland, which she said covers 80,000 square feet. She said she believes council members did not pursue a careful analysis of the land use and that the allotted space could be used for projects more suited to Davis, such as a business park or smaller retailers.

O'Keefe also voiced concern about the detrimental effect the project could have on local retailers. She said Davis would be faced with "empty stores" and that smaller businesses such as local drug stores, bookstores and music stores would be affected because Target would "cannibalize" them. Also, she said, downtown businesses such as restaurants that rely on foot traffic could suffer.

On a personal note, O'Keefe said she and her family had recently moved to South Davis from a home close to the proposed site on Second Street because of the threat of the big-box retailer.

Responding to O'Keefe's analysis, Dorf called it "blatantly false" and said she was presenting the worst-case scenario. He said he had heard similar scenarios presented in response to previous retail projects - such as the University Mall and Davis Commons - for the past 35 years and that they had repeatedly been proven wrong.

In response to the claim that Target would leech business from downtown stores, Dorf said the downtown has "kept blooming" despite other retail projects and that it has an independent vitality because of its function as an arts and entertainment provider, as well as a marketplace.

O'Keefe said it was unrealistic to compare the project to past ones because they fit into the city's general plan.

"This is not Davis Commons. This is not Nugget," she said.

O'Keefe also delved deeper into the project's environmental impact, saying that although the proposed store would have Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification, it would only fulfill basic requirements for certification rather than reaching the silver, gold or platinum level of certification offered. She also noted that the Sierra Club endorses the No on K campaign and that if the project were "really green," it would have won its endorsement.

After the debate, both sides answered written questions from the audience's roughly 30 members.

One attendee asked if Dorf or O'Keefe shop at Target. Dorf said that, yes, he, his wife and his two daughters shopped at the Woodland store and that Target has "a price level that fits a middle-income person of reasonable means." O'Keefe said she had shopped at the store in the past, but has stopped since they proposed building one so near her home.

Another concern raised was that the passing of K could allow for other "big-box" retailers to enter Davis. Both O'Keefe and Dorf said the passing of the measure would not inherently allow for other such stores to enter, but O'Keefe said she believed it would "open the floodgate" for more proposals from retailers wishing to come to Davis. Dorf said that there were no such retailers "rushing in," calling the concern a "red herring."

In response to environmental concerns, Dorf brought up the aforementioned LEED certification, and also noted that 250 trees would be planted along the back of the building to shield residents from the store.

When asked what would happen to the proposed site if Target backed out, O'Keefe, quoting Davis Mayor Sue Greenwald, said the zoning change would exist for 15 years, and that it would be difficult to say no to other businesses wishing to move in. Dorf responded that he believed Target was committed and that it was therefore not an issue.

In response to a question regarding Target's potential to fill the employment needs to Davis' student population, Dorf said Target could provide residents in the 18-to-24 age range with the opportunity to gain experience with a "reputable, well-managed company." While O'Keefe acknowledged this potential, she said Target would be on the outskirts of town and not close enough to where many students live.

Yolo Measure K: Opportunity or Downtown Davis Threat?

Written for the web by Nicole Chavez, Reporter

A controversy in the city of Davis continues to brew as the idea of a massive Target store making its way into Davis, makes its way onto the November ballot. If Yolo Measure K is passed by voters on November 7, it would give the go-ahead for specific plans to build a Target store at the Second Street Crossing project near Mace Boulevard.

The plan includes building a 126,842-square-foot Target, in addition to a 10,000-square-foot garden center. Also included in the plan is a shopping center that would house other retail buildings. While it is still undecided what kinds of retail would move in, city officials speculate it would likely include smaller shops, such as bookstores and restaurants.

The movement to approve a retailer like Target, advanced quickly earlier this year but not without some setbacks. Davis' Finance and Budget Commission and Planning Commission both rejected the project with the conclusions that building a Target would not be a worthwhile economic benefit to the city. They also determined the project would negatively impact downtown Davis businesses because so many retail centers, including one on Alhambra Drive, have already been approved but haven't been built yet.

Target supporters quickly fired back though, pulling statistics from Davis residents' credit card purchases. Those statistics showed that nearly 300,000 purchases were made by people who live in Davis over the course of a year at Target stores in Vacaville, Woodland or Sacramento. Supporters say this illustrates the need for a store in Davis. "That meant they were driving all over the place to buy the things they need for basic life," said City Councilmember Don Saylor, who voted in favor of Measure K.

The Davis City Council began public discussion on the idea in June. By the end of the month, the council voted to approve the proposal 4-1.

"We heard, 'Oh, they're talking about building a Target and my dad said, 'That'll be the day.' Now we find ourselves looking at a vote in November," lamented Rob Westergaard, a vocal activist against Measure K.

He pointed out the project would be built near the Mace Ranch neighborhood in an area that was originally zoned for only light industrial use. Measure K would re-zone the spot for general retail use.

"We have zoning in place that allows for stores that are 30,000 square feet or grocery stores that are 50,000 square feet and this store is 137,000 square feet," Westergaard said. "The people who bought their houses in the spaces that were adjoining that parcel thought, 'OK, these uses will be Monday through Friday, 8 to 5, people commuting in, working in their buildings and leaving.' Target is 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week with delivery trucks."

Councilman Saylor said the project won't be as intrusive as it sounds. He argued that the Davis Target would include a setback of at least 200 feet from the Mace Ranch property lines. The plan also calls for trees and shrubbery to be placed along the project line and in the parking lot in order to block neighbors' views of the retail center. "Trees are pretty valuable both for air quality, for temperature control and just for general feel for ambiance, so that's required here," he said.

Saylor said the project would also be only one of a handful of Target stores in the country to be classified as a "green building." That means the store would include water and energy-saving designs that are environmentally friendly, according to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design and Green Building Rating System requirements.

In addition to the intrusion, some residents near the proposed project fear it will take a toll on Davis' popular downtown, Westergaard said. He fears the massive retailer will take away from Davis' small-town charm, hurting family-owned businesses in the downtown area in the process. "The city has spent an awful lot of money making that downtown vibrant, and I'd like to see it stay that way," he said.

Saylor said the project would do just the opposite, bringing in an estimated $1 million annually to the city in sales tax revenue, while keeping more people shopping in town. "My vision for Davis is our downtown is strong, but we're able to provide balanced retail opportunities so that people have a place to shop for the things they need," Saylor said.

In the City of Davis, Politics Drift Off Target

The Sacramento Bee; 7/2/2006

Jul. 2--The Davis City Council has decided that building the first Target store in town is beyond its job description. That decision belongs to the mob.

The council in the wee hours Wednesday morning placed the Target proposal on the November ballot. It's true, neighbors of Mace Ranch might have ginned up enough signatures to place it on the ballot anyway, but does the council have much relevance if it gets into the habit of turning city planning into a popularity contest?

It is hard to imagine a more politically constrained Target, or a more diplomatic response by a retailer that must be wondering what it has gotten itself into.

Its 137,000-square-foot design will have to be certified by the U.S. Green Building Council. To protect existing grocery stores, the council limited the food products in the Target to no more than 10 percent of the floor space. To prevent a mega-pharmacy, Target's prescription footprint could not exceed 10 percent. The transplanted trees for the parking lot (which must create enough shade to cover half the lot on Aug. 1, 2021) must come in containers of 15 gallons or greater. The city's bicycle coordinator must determine the number of bicycle stalls. Construction waste must be recycled. And Target will have to pay $80,000 to put the proposal before voters.

Target is aptly named, for the retailer finds itself as the debate du jour in Davis (see www.notargetindavis.org) that has prompted descriptions of the horrors in rezoning industrial land for a commercial use, harming downtown and placing a popular store near where people live.

There's nothing wrong with bike racks, trees, recycling and other environmentally friendly features. But there is something wrong when elected officials abandon all pretense of making the decisions they actually were elected to make.

In the City of Davis, Politics Drift Off Target

Sacramento Business Journal - June 22, 2006 by Kelly Johnson Staff writer

Davis city leaders this week decided to let voters determine whether the city gets a proposed Target store.

The Davis City Council late Tuesday unanimously agreed to place on the Nov. 7 ballot a Target store proposed for Second Street near Interstate 80.

The city leaders decided residents should vote on the project because allowing the almost 137,000-square-foot store would represent a significant policy change for the city, said Mike Webb, city economic development coordinator.

For years the city has followed a no big-box policy that bans stores of more than 30,000 square feet, except for grocery stores with a limit of 50,000 square feet.

The council paved the way for the store in case voters support it in November.

The council voted 4-1, with Councilwoman Sue Greenwald dissenting, to introduce an ordinance approving the rezone, the environmental-impact report and other changes necessary for the project to proceed.

On Tuesday, the city leaders are scheduled to prepare the resolution for the ballot measure, vote a second -- and final -- time on the ordinance approving the project, and consider the remaining project entitlements, including a conditional-use permit and a tentative map.

Police officers were called into the meeting this week when citizens became rowdy. They became angry when the council halted public comment after about an hour, Webb said. One citizen was asked to leave.

Target to go to voters

By Beth Curda/Enterprise staff writer

Published Jun 21, 2006 - 14:37:03 CDT.

At the end of a meeting that had drawn all on-duty Davis police officers to the City Hall Community Chambers, the Davis City Council approved the proposed Target store and decided to send it to the voters for the final say.

Since some of the documents approved shortly before midnight Tuesday are required by law to be voted on twice, they will return next week to be considered a second time.

If approved again by the council and in November by voters, a 136,842-square-foot Target and other, unnamed businesses will be built on Second Street between Mace Ranch homes and Interstate 80.

All votes except the unanimous one that sent the issue to the voters were 4-1 with Mayor Pro Tem Sue Greenwald dissenting.

While Greenwald voted to put the issue on the ballot following the council's approval of it, she had called that move “cowardly” by the rest of the council, whom she had wanted to oppose the project. She sent a rallying message to Target opponents that they can defeat the project and set an example for the rest of the country that a city can control its zoning and stand up to major retailers.

Greenwald predicted the Target would hurt the downtown area and the city's neighborhood shopping centers, put some local stores out of business and hurt the city's image and the Mace Ranch neighborhood. She said all of that would be in exchange for just being a few minutes closer to a Target store.

The fact that Trader Joe's and Cost Plus World Market have chosen the existing University Mall proves it is possible to recruit desired retailers “on Davis' terms,” she said.

“We have tremendous potential to do retail our way, and to do it well, and to do it right,” Greenwald said.

She also called repeatedly during the meeting for additional hearings on several aspects of the project, but that idea was not supported by her colleagues.

Councilman Don Saylor, who supported Target, touted an array of Davis attributes, including UC Davis and popular local events, and said local surveys show interest in general merchandise stores with affordable prices.

“I've had (many) Davis residents tell me they need affordable shopping,” he said, reading a statement he had written. “My vision for Davis includes affordable shopping for general merchandise so that students, seniors and families on a budget can live here.“

He said the location is reasonable, the proximity would reduce the air quality effects of driving to another city, and the existing zoning for the Second Street site would not necessarily have led to 9 a.m.-to-5 p.m. business operations there. The zoning permits warehousing, distribution centers and manufacturing plants, he said.

Saylor called for a three-pronged approach to economic development: enhancing the downtown area and making Davis more of a destination, leveraging UC Davis for high-tech jobs and businesses, and diversifying local retail. Too much of Davis' sales tax relies on one type of sales (automobile), he said.

The explosive, lengthy Target debate was the second in as many weeks. This week's four-hour discussion was marked at several times by tension and arguing, both among council members and between the council and community members.

Mayor Ruth Asmundson nearly postponed the discussion until this afternoon after police were called to resolve an uproar among community members who were angry at the mayor.

It began at 9 p.m., when Asmundson ended the public comment period. Earlier, there had been an exchange between the council and public over whether speakers who had commented the week earlier could speak again.

Asmundson's closing of the public comment period incited anger from some community members, including resident Samantha McCarthy, who for several minutes protested by sitting on the floor and ignoring requests by Davis police officers and council members that she leave the meeting.

Many of those gathered took McCarthy's side, outraged at the situation. Some yelled, “Shame on Ruth.” One shouted, “How can you represent us if we can't talk?“ Another yelled, “Recall.”

Asmundson halted the meeting and most council members left the dais. According to Police Chief Jim Hyde, four officers and one sergeant - all of the officers on duty at the time - reported to the meeting. At one time, four patrol cars were in the City Hall parking lot.

McCarthy eventually left the room on her own, Hyde said; the meeting got back on track at 9:25 p.m.

Supporters of the proposed Target, including the four council members, have said the store would increase shopping options for Davis residents and generate needed sales tax. Some have predicted it would encourage more local shopping by keeping people in town who would be driving to other cities for general merchandise and other items.

A fiscal analysis showed the city would earn $675,000 or more per year in sales tax, although Greenwald and some other Target opponents have criticized that calculation method for comparing the Target revenue to that of a vacant field.

Greenwald said the field will be developed someday, as it is zoned for industry or other businesses. She cited another calculation method that puts the sales tax figure at - at best, she said - $125,000 per year, or about $2 per Davis resident.

Target opponents also cite concerns about its effect on neighboring homes and on the downtown area. Some have predicted an increase in crime and a decline in the quality of life.

“I just want to say when I go out of town, I actually look forward to coming home,” said Davis resident Mardelle Moreno, who said Davis is unique and she lives here because there are no big-box stores.

Many opponents wore T-shirts or carried signs reading “Don't Big-box Davis.”

In other business Tuesday, the council approved an approximately $116 million budget for the 2006-07 fiscal year and voted to increase sanitation fees by about $1.20 per month per household.

-Reach Beth Curda at bcurda@davisenterprise.net or 747-8045.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Student activists? Target courts UCD on Davis store

Sacramento Business Journal - June 9, 2006

It looks like Target Corp. has painted a bull's-eye on University of California Davis students, hoping they'll rally behind a proposal to build a store in the college city.

In advance of Tuesday's City Council meeting on the project, a pro-Target flier aimed at students could be found posted on the bulletin board at a south Davis coffee shop. UCD's Aggie newspaper, meanwhile, ran an ad that read: "Would you shop at a Target in Davis? Speak Up!" An Aggie editorial backed the 19-acre project.

As of Wednesday, Target's Web site targetindavis.com listed names of 342 people who had signed a petition in support of the 137,000-square-foot store, proposed for 2nd Street west of Mace Boulevard. The Davis Planning Commission recommends denial.

After 5 hours of comment, council to revisit issue next week

By Claire St. John

ENTERPRISE STAFF WRITER

A marathon City Council meeting Tuesday night involved a lot of discussion, opinion and passion about a proposed Target store on Second Street near Mace Boulevard, but no decision.

Council members heard a quick rundown on the second street crossing project, a 137,000-square-foot Target plus additional space for several other retail stores, then invited a representative of Target and Mace ranch neighbors to make their points.

As a Target Senior development manager John Dewes approached the podium, calls came from the packed audience to “go home.”

Mayor Ruth Asmundson managed to quiet the crowd, but Dews was left looking shaky and betrayed.

Referring to Planning Commission Chairman Mark DuPree’s question at an earlier meeting of how the Target proposal got so far, Dewes said, “as I look around the room this evening I wonder how the heck we got here, also.”

Dewes explained that three years ago Davis approached Target, and both the Planning commission and the City Council encouraged the company to propose a project.

Before Asmundson could invite speakers to line up, Mayor Pro Tem Sue Greenwald criticized a process that had council members looking at documents and asking questions for the first time with the option to approve the project that night.

“The City Council hasn’t had a single agendized meeting on the development agreement, fiscal analysis, (environmental impact report)…” Greenwald said “These are huge issues. We need separate agendized meetings.”

Her suggestion was met with loud cheering and applause that overwhelmed Asmundson’s efforts to quiet the chamber

Despite the initial ruckus, the next five hours of public comment, with all seats filled and people standing three deep in the back, were relatively calm. Of the 85 people who spoke, 63 were against the proposal and 18 were in favor. Four others offered suggestions for the process or brought up issues to consider.

As the hours slipped by, speakers started bribing and cajoling council members to vote against Target.

Probable Councilman Lamar Heystek (the final results from June 6 election aren’t in yet) left $10 on the lectern, saying if the council wanted the estimated $2 per person a Target would bring to the city budget, he’d pay for the council’s share.

Unsuccessful council candidate Rob Roy brought up a trio of sodas to illustrate his point on choice.

Others offered locally purchased pain medication and a year’s supply of toothpaste. Another pulled out the waist band of his purchased-in-Vacaville boxer shorts “green with white polar bears on them” and modeled his leggings, purchased in a thrift shop.

Local attorney Don Mooney simply offered council members a referendum if they approved Target.

“That process is moving forward,” he said. “That’s not intended to be a threat; I just don’t want anyone to be surprised when it happens.”

The few people who did speak in favor of Target said support for the store is strong in Davis, but couldn’t be at the meeting because they have young children to go to bed.

“There is a huge amount of support for Target” said Jackie Rutheiser. “To Target, please don’t be scared off, even with the threat of a referendum.”

One man who spoke in favor of Target made his comments, then turned toward the audience. “Please don’t hurt me on my way out,” he said.

Councilman Stephen Souza broached the idea of putting the issue on the November ballot, but even so, he and his colleagues asked dozens of technical, hypothetical and rhetorical questions.

Greenwald followed suit, occasionally interrupting herself to angrily denounce the fact that she was seeing documents and ask questions for the first time at about the same time the bars were closing in downtown.

“It’s ten to 2 in the morning,” she said. “This is my first chance. I’m pretty angry about the way this has been organized.”

At 2 a.m. on the dot, a woman walked into the meeting in a Lanz nightgown holding a handwritten sign that read “Basta!!! (Stop) Bedtime!”

Shortly after, Souza agreed with Greenwald that the hour was too late to even make comments on the project, let alone make a decision.

Next Tuesday, Asmundson said, public comment will be limited as the council revisits the Target proposal. Staff promised to bring information on putting the issue to a public vote, though the council did not emphasize that it would take that route.

When the meeting wrapped up at close to 3 a.m. today, about 40 people were still in the audience. One man held up a “Don’t Big Box Davis” sign for the entire seven hours.

“You have to bear with us while we grapple with this issue,” Asmundson said. “I think its important that we follow some process, a public process.”

City has Target in its sights

Issue goes before council Tuesday

By Claire St. John

ENTERPRISE STAFF WRITER

On Tuesday, the Davis City Council will ask itself if a 136,842–square foot–Target is appropriate for Davis, if its location on Second Street is best, if four other future buildings totaling 46,000 square feet are good for the site and the community, and if a new shopping center would hurt the downtown and neighborhood shopping centers.

Because Target’s proposal involves a one–time zoning change and a General Plan amendment, City Council members also will have to consider if the project will weaken the council’s ability to keep other big–box stores out of Davis.

Target has received mixed reviews from the city’s commissions, getting a thumbs up from the Business and Economic Development Commission, and a recommendation against from the Finance and Budget Commission and al but one member of the Planning Commission.

The City Council, however, made more retail in Davis a priority, and residents asked for Target by name in a 2003 survey. The survey was mailed out in the summer, ensuring that a higher number of permanent residents would respond. More than 300 people were specific about their desire for a local Target, beat out only by the more than 900 people who asked for Trader Joe’s by name.

On the other end of the spectrum, about 270 people wrote that they did not want big–box stores of any kind, malls or chains.

No matter how people feel about Target, most who have spoken at council and commission meetings admit to shopping there. About 276,000 Davis credit card transactions were recorded at nearby Target stores in 2004, representing a large loss of sales tax to the city. The city’s Finance Department estimated a Davis Target could benefit the city’s budget by about $675,000 per year.

Some Mace Ranch residents, however, say the city has broken trust with them by proposing the largest store in Davis 200 feet from the nearest home.

  

Current zoning for the site is service–commercial and light industrial/business park, allowing for a range of uses, but nothing the size of the proposed Target, a store almost three times the size of Davis’ largest stores.

“No other single retail tenant in the city is close to as large as Target,” a staff report reads. “No current General Plan land use designation allows retail tenants the size of Target.”

As a concession to the public, however, Target has proposed a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certified building, the fourth the company has proposed. City staff and Target agree that the Second Street location is best for Target and the city.

“It is logical to conclude that if a Target store is going to locate in Davis, then it should be sited so that it is as successful a store as possible in order to maximize sales revenues and minimize chances tha it will become a marginal performing store or close in the future,” a staff report reads.

Target might have an uphill battle, however. The Sierra Club Yolano Group Management Committee voted to oppose Target and its accompanying and as–of–yet unknown stores.

“Some of the group’s concerns include environmental impacts noted in the (environmental impact report), zoning changes and General Plan amendments to permit the project, proximity to a Superfund site and breach of faith with the neighbors of the proposed project,” committee co–chairwomen Pam Nieberg and Holly Bishop wrote in a news release.

A group called “No Big–Box in Davis” has also formed, and was passing around a petition Saturday at the Davis Farmers’ Market, as well as fliers, maps and the project’s final EIR, and asking for donations to fund legal expenses of a referendum, “if necessary.”

The City Council will ask for public comment on the proposed project but is not expected to make a final decision Tuesday night.

The final staff report on the proposed Target is available at the city’s Web site, www.cityofdavis.org, or at City Hall, 23 Russell Blvd.

– Reach Claire St. John at

cstjohn@davisenterprise.netor 747-8057.

– Monday, June 12, 2006

Editorial: Target inevitable, should be planned for

Issue date: 6/1/06 Section: Opinion in The California Aggie

The Davis City Planning Commission decided last week to recommend against the construction of a Target store, displaying an unrealistic view of the city's future.

With the primary intention of preventing the general commercialization of Davis and preserving its small-town appeal, the commission appears to be seeking this end by disallowing any major businesses or chain stores from entering the city. However, Davis maintains its charm despite the introduction of multiple franchises in recent years.

Many students and residents already travel to neighboring cities for Target stores. A franchise in Davis would not only be widely used by the residents, but provide hundreds of new jobs and thousands of dollars in increased tax revenue for the city.

Commissioner Chris Ochoa said a Target store would adversely affect downtown business. This might be true if the store were built directly downtown, but it would be miles away on the Davis-Woodland border - far from the downtown atmosphere, which is dominated by niche market shops.

The city's expansion is inevitable and anticipated under the general plan. Trying to block the introduction of major chain stores such as Target is a futile effort and unwise when the benefits obviously outweigh the fears of a few.

Instead of holding out as long as possible, the planning commission should take proactive steps in facilitating the integration of a Target store into the concept of a city it wishes to uphold. For instance, the Davis Target could be different from others by incorporating bike paths to funnel patrons to the store, planting trees around the perimeter and being energy-efficient.

It appears Terry Whittier, the only commissioner in favor of the construction of a Target store, is also the only one who understands the city's history well enough to make an informed decision: “I remember when the first big box came to this town,” he said. “It was about the size of this council chamber and [it was seen as] the worst thing that could ever happen; it was open on Sunday.”

Lexicon Artist: This election is all about finances

By Rich Rifkin

Publication Date: 5/31/06The Davis Enterprise

retrospection: n. looking backward, not ahead

It is not only generals who prepare to fight the last war. Voters often make the same mistake.

In Davis, we have a series of critical questions now before us. Yet, to read the endorsements for Lamar Heystek and Stan Forbes for City Council, you'd think last year's vote on Measure X is this year's biggest issue.

It's not.

The ultimate question for the council is the budget. Measure G, Target and a Berkeley-style police oversight commission are all important considerations, because which way each is decided will have a tremendous impact on our city's finances.

Heystek, for example, has centered his campaign around his desire to see Davis adopt a politicized police commission, one where his biased buddies on the Human Relations Commission would decide the fates of the careers of sworn police officers. Not only is Heystek's anti-law enforcement agenda divisive and unwise, it will be very expensive.

Lamar would have the city spend about $500,000 a year for his friends to interrogate the cops. Before Heystek spends this much money, he should at least concede that it would mean taking five to six patrol officers off the streets to pay for his creation.

Fortunately, the other four candidates have enough sense to favor what the city has done: hire an impartial ombudsman to oversee the police.

Measure G -- the renewal of the $49-per-parcel parks tax -- is the most crucial question before us in financial terms. If voters reject that levy, the city will be in the hole $1.3 million this year, and $5.2 million over the next four.

What would the sudden loss of $1.3 million to the city mean? In terms of park maintenance employees, it means firing 22 full-time workers. Of course, not all of that devastation would be laid on the Parks Department.

The city currently has five contingency proposals. One option prorates the Measure G loss across the board, taking $453,000 from the Police Department and $279,000 from our firefighters.

Of the five candidates for the two seats on the council, all but Rob Roy favor Measure G. Rob explained to me in an e-mail that he knows we need a parks tax, but he dislikes the structure of this proposal. I agree that in a perfect world we could do better than G. But G is all that is before us, and we would clearly be worse off as a community if it fails.

Target on East Second Street is also an important question for city finances. As everyone in Davis knows, we love to shop at Target. We drive to Target in Woodland, Vacaville and Sacramento, every day. In 2004, Davis residents made 279,000 credit card purchases at that store. We probably burned 558,000 gallons of gas doing that. But not one cent of our Target sales tax now goes in our city's coffers, because we don't have Target, or any of its competitors, in Davis.

According to Paul Navazio, the finance director for the city of Davis, the proposed Target shopping complex in Mace Ranch would generate $659,000 a year for our city, once the stores were fully operational in 2008. That is a serious chunk of change. That money could pay for free summer recreation programs for every low-income child in Davis, for example.

Yet shockingly, not every candidate for City Council wants to give Davis residents the chance to shop locally. Only Ruth Asmundson tells me she favors Target.

While Forbes and Heystek have made noise about the General Plan - as if we should cripple ourselves as a community if that's what the gospel of the General Plan calls for -- all of the opponents seem to be kowtowing to the NIMBYism of a few neighbors.

Mike Levy, for instance, told me, “If the neighbors' concerns cannot be adequately mitigated, I would oppose it.”

That's ridiculous. Bringing Target to town is in the best interests of our community. It has to be placed somewhere. Those who oppose it are certainly not offering a viable alternative site. The impact on neighbors should be mitigated as much as possible. But a few homeowners shouldn't tie a noose around the necks of the vast majority.

Even less defensible is the notion that allowing a Target in Mace Ranch will harm our downtown merchants. It won't. That's just the babble of ideologues who go around preaching against the evils of "big box."

Our core area is successful because it offers stores and restaurants that are unique. Target is anything but. The lost sales to a Davis Target will not be by local boutiques and cafes. Target in Davis will take away customers from out-of-town clones and chains like Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Mervyn's. In other words, stores where we already shop.

One thing is sure to come out of this City Council election. If we focus our attention on last year's issue, we'll crash into a financial train wreck that we never saw coming.

Rich Rifkin is a Davis resident; his column appears every other week. Reach him at Lxartist@yahoo.com

Big-box retail would destroy the character and charm of our city

By Holly Bishop and Norma Turner, Special to The Enterprise

Publication Date 5/28/06 The Davis Enterprise

The marketing push for another significant development in Davis is under way. The same majority of our City Council that touted Covell Village as "cutting edge" in November now wants you to accept a plan that will start a parade of new developments that will include big-box retailers like Target and Wal-Mart on the perimeter of town.

The parallels between the push for Covell Village and the big-box model are sobering. The residents of Davis must once again remind the City Council that our city's core values and beliefs are not for sale.

Myth: Davis doesn't provide enough retail variety.

Fact: In just the past 12 months, the Davis City Council and/or Planning Commission have approved a 58,000-square-foot retail center (larger than Davis Commons) in South Davis (Interland), a 68,000-square-foot retail center (50 percent larger than Davis Commons) at the corner of Mace and Alhambra, and a 12,500-square-foot Dollar Tree store on East Eighth Street.

Moreover, owners of the former Hunt-Wesson cannery site are considering several development options, including one that would add as much as 240,000 square feet of additional retail to the city. Tat's more than twice the size of The Marketplace shopping center.

Myth: The zoning changes are no big deal.

Fact: This is not a simple zoning change for one neighborhood; this is a new zoning designation for the entire city, effectively crippling the current General Plan. The City Council majority wants to create a new "general retail" zoning designation to accommodate big-box stores. Once that zoning exists, developers can build big-box stores in any neighborhood in town.

The current city zoning allows for retail of up to 30,000 square feet, and grocery stores up to 50,000 square feet. The proposed big-box Target is 137,000 square feet, significantly larger than the combined square footage of all the stores in The Marketplace shopping center. The Target store in Woodland is "only" 80,000 square feet.

Myth: This store will be good for the city's finances.

Fact: The sales tax generated from the proposed big-box Target would be less than one-half of 1 percent of the city's annual budget. The city's Finance and Budget Commission voted unanimously on May 10 that "the proposed project would not generate significant net fiscal benefits to the city."

Moreover, the socioeconomic analysis in the environmental impact report prepared for the proposal is suspect. CB Richard Ellis, a firm that, coincidentally, is a national real estate broker, did the analysis. It lists among its biggest clients Target Corp.! The financial analysis claims the city of Davis had retail sales leakage of $93 million from 1998 to 2002.

However, the city paid for its own retail sales analysis using a well-known and respected company -- Bay Area Economics -- in the summer of 2004. In that analysis, using the same data, BAE found the city of Davis actually realized sales tax injections of $65 million! Conveniently, CB Richard Ellis won't share its methodology with the Finance and Budget Commission, claiming "proprietary interests."

Myth: Our downtown won't be affected.

Fact: Twenty-five local retailers signed an opposition letter to the proposed Target, which was submitted to the Finance and Budget Commission. The retailers aren't as concerned about the competition for goods as they are about the creation of an alternate shopping destination to downtown.

Our city staff, previous councils and residents have worked hard to make our downtown special. Why is the council majority now undoing that work by supporting an alternate shopping destination in Davis? We only have to look up Highway 113 for evidence of what happens to a downtown when big-box stores spring up on the perimeter of a city.

Myth: Building a big-box store in town will help the environment by cutting down car trips out of town.

Fact: The EIR found that the proposed Target's "cumulative air quality impact would be considered significant and unavoidable." Also, the Open Space Commission concluded 7-0 that the analysis of the Target EIR is inadequate for a variety of reasons, including survey methods, hydrology and inadequate analysis of alternatives.

Myth: Crime won't be an issue.

Fact: Data from the Sacramento Sheriff's Department on the Elk Grove Target store profiled 49 arrests during a 12-month span from September 2004 to August 2005. These arrests do not include the dozens of additional times the Sacramento Sheriff's Department responded to an incident at the Elk Grove Target store, which did not result in a formal arrest.

Myth: We can just vote on it, right?

Fact: This change of zoning and General Plan amendment requires a simple majority council vote. Unlike Covell Village, we do not get to vote on this proposal, despite the huge impacts and significant ramifications that could last for decades.

Myth: There's nothing we can do about all of this.

Fact: That's the worst myth of all. Call your City Council members and let them know you expect them to honor the General Plan, and that you don't want Davis to become the next big-box destination off Interstate 80. Take the time to research the City Council candidates running for election on June 6, and decide for yourself which candidates will truly oppose big-box retail such as the Target proposal.

We've chosen to live in Davis for a reason. We've made certain sacrifices in cost of living and more limited shopping options because cities like Vacaville, Roseville and Woodland don't have the character and uniqueness of Davis. That uniqueness could easily be lost with this proposal.

Please join us in letting the City Council know that you don't want them to destroy the character and charm of our city.

Holly Bishop lives in South Davis; Norma Turner lives in West Davis. They are joined by Cynthia Basinger and David Suder, who live in West Davis; Johannes Troost, who lives in South Davis; Daniel Boone, who lives in Central Davis; Lesley Crowell, who lives in Wildhorse; Kathleen Groody, who lives in Old North Davis; Valerie Jones and Michael Knepp, who live in Old East Davis; and Pam Nieberg, Nora Oldwin and Anne Richardson, who live in East Davis.

We need, and deserve, more shopping opportunities here at home

By Jen Baker

Publication Date 5/28/06 The Davis Enterprise

Do you enjoy shopping at Nugget on Covell or Davis Commons — Borders, Papyrus, GapKids? If so, thank city officials who were wise enough to say “yes” when these controversial projects were proposed. For perspective, more than 3500 “Friends of Davis” signed a petition to block Borders, a group who then filed a lawsuit against it that ultimately failed.

City leaders are reviewing another shopping opportunity for Davis residents: the proposed Second Street Crossing project, consisting of a traditional Target store and up to four buildings of community-serving retail slated for larger electronics, specialty grocery or other complementary stores.

Residents have long joked “you can't buy underwear in Davis” (even though Samira's, Longs and Gottschalks' carry it, among others). That refrain, while humorous and a little misguided, underscores our town's need for basic, affordable items difficult to find here — the reason that Davis residents made 276,000 non-cash transactions at the three closest Target stores in 2004. Responding to these statistics and resident retail surveys, the City of Davis asked Target Corporation to present a proposal for a Davis store. When the Target representative presented the City's request to corporate, they hesitated, knowing full well Davis' reputation as a less-than-welcoming climate for business. Target moved forward, though, presenting its pre-application in fall 2004, and was encouraged to proceed by the Chamber of Commerce, DDBA and city officials.

That brings us to now, when the issue is really no longer a laughing matter. The proposed project is conservatively estimated to bring in $675,000 net revenue to the City in 2008 — equal to 51% of the projected $1.32 million generated annually by the Parks Maintenance Tax (Measure G), paid by Davis homeowners. Currently, Davis receives more than 50% of its sales tax revenue from auto-related sources.

Opponents charge Target will undermine downtown and existing commercial centers; in reality, vibrant downtowns and box retail now peacefully coexist, especially in college towns. Chico and San Luis Obispo are examples. An ad claimed City Council won't be able to stop other box retail, an outright lie: this General Plan amendment creates a new General Retail category specifically for THIS site and nowhere else in town.

Davis prides itself on environmental sensitivity; residents may not be aware that 1/3 of the current Target trips dumps an extra 4500 pounds of CO2 into the air. Target recognizes it has a responsibility to minimize its environmental footprint. The Davis store would be LEED®-certified, employing state-of-the-art strategies for water savings, energy efficiency and indoor environmental quality.

These issues, and the fact that gas prices have reached an all-time high with no end in sight, motivated hundreds of Davisites to talk to Target at Celebrate Davis!. The plea “What can I do to get you here?!” came from UCD students, kids, families, seniors…male and female voices of varied ethnicities.

Some Mace Ranch neighbors are concerned about rezoning, although definitely not all: “My family lives at Lake Alhambra Estates, very near where Target is planned. We would love to have Target in our neighbourhood rather than driving out of town,” Ilhan Eser wrote.

Current zoning allows permitted uses such as warehouse/distribution facilities, auto dealers, gas stations, hazardous material storage, hotels — with possible 24-hour/7-day-a-week operation. Allowable property setbacks range from 25 to 40 feet, and permitted uses allow parking, loading docks or other activity-intense uses at this distance. Target is proposing a minimum clearance of 220 feet from the rear property line of adjacent neighbors, with the quiet building backside and landscape buffer as the closest points to Arroyo homes.

Target is committed to making its communities better places to live, donating 5% of pretax profits, the highest percentage of any retailer, to good causes — now totalling more than $1 billion. Chico K-12 schools have received nearly $70,000 through the Take Charge of Education program. Individual grants, focusing on arts, family violence prevention and reading, begin and end with the local Target store. As part of the project's development agreement, Target will donate $200,000 toward the design and construction of Mace Ranch Neighborhood Park, not accessible from the Target site. Even part-time associates are eligible for benefits.

As we continue this community discussion, it's important to remember what really makes our town unique. It's parks; greenbelts; bike lanes and paths; trees; Rotary BBQ; Turkey Trot; Farmers Market; Parks & Community Services programs; UCD; “Friday Nights Downtown”; festivals; artists; fitness fanatics; top-of-the-charts schools; countless volunteer hours for every possible worthy cause. People are what ultimately make Davis Davis, not the fact that we have to drive out of town for affordable clothing and other basics.

So ask yourself…if not Target, what? Wal-Mart? Kmart? Costco? Or will Davis residents always be locked into driving to and spending tax dollars in the next town over?

Studio 66 is the Davis-based firm working with Target Corporation on community outreach for the Second Street Crossing project. A past Davis Chamber of Commerce board member, she is a recent member of the Planning Commission and Business & Economic Development Commission, and also served as chair of the two Chamber Neighborhood Days community events. She loves living in Davis with her husband and two young children.

Panel: Target misses mark

By Claire St. John, Enterprise staff writer

Publication Date: 5/25/06 The Davis Enterprise

After listening to several hours of public comment Wednesday with few speakers in favor of a large Target store proposed for Second Street, Davis Planning Commissioners voted 4-1 to recommend against approval.

The recommendation, along with proposed changes to the project if it is approved by City Council, will be considered by the council at its June 13 meeting.

If Wednesday night's meeting was any indication, the City Council can expect a long night of testimony when it takes up the topic.

Dozens of people voiced concerns about the effects of a big-box store on Davis, including quality of life, deterioration of the downtown, a Superfund cleanup site on the property, contributions to poor air quality and a significant shift in city policy, upping the ceiling on store-size limitations from 50,000 to 137,000 square feet, but just for this site.

“This is a huge policy change for the community, and it would be a bad policy change,” said Don Mooney. “It's nothing against Target, it's the big-box retail.”

Several others echoed Mooney when they said they liked Target, they just didn't want it in Davis.

“I drive out to Woodland, and I'm fine with that,” said a resident of Arroyo Drive, a street very near the proposed store site. “I think that's where it belongs.”

Others specifically cited Target as a purveyor of sweat-shop goods.

Target senior development manager John Dewes defended the Minnesota chain against the accusation.

“In terms of human relations or, as it's called, sweat-shop labor, Target does have very strong policies related to that,” Dewes told the commission. “Target doesn't hire directly, we work through vendors. We did have some problems with vendors. Since 2003-2004, I'm not aware of any lawsuits involving Target.”

The proposal

Target proposes building a 136,842-square-foot store with a 10,000-square-foot garden center on 19 acres on Second Street west of Mace Boulevard. At the closest point, it would be 110 feet from the nearest house.

The building would follow Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design standards, the fourth such Target in the U.S.

Space totaling 46,000 square feet would be set aside for additional, unnamed stores.

An environmental report found that after steps to lessen impacts, only air quality would be significantly affected.

Because the store would be almost three times bigger than what's allowed in Davis, the City Council would have to approve a site-specific, one-time General Plan amendment and zoning change.

A fiscal analysis said the project would bring in $675,000 to the city's coffers in the first year, with slight increases every year.

About five people spoke in favor of a Target, including former Planning Commissioner Jen Baker, who stepped down recently to handle Target's community outreach.

“City officials have seen this kind of opposition in the past," she said, citing arguments against Nugget Market and Davis Commons. "Fortunately for all of us, the vibrant downtown and box stores co-exist, especially in college towns.”

Of the commissioners, only Terry Whittier was inclined to agree.

Whittier offered a historical perspective, noting that he had worried about an increasingly competitive market quashing the downtown several times in the past.

“If people are against shopping in a big-box store, they're not shopping in Nugget, Albertsons or Longs,” he said, adding that he remembered when a “big-box store” meant something about the size of the Community Chambers.

“It's my duty to look out for the people who are yet to come, not the people who are here already,” he said. “I have to decide what's best for the city.”

The majority of the commission, however, did not agree.

“This whole project is the antithesis of Davis," said Commission Chairman Mark DuPree. “How in the hell did we get this far along? That's what I asked myself.”

Commissioner Chris Ochoa focused on Target supporters' pleas for more affordable and diverse retail options.

“In the last 12 months, this commission has recommended 140,000 square feet of retail in Davis," Ochoa said. “Plus Target, that's 325,000. You're talking 30 percent of what's out there now, and that doesn't take into account the old Hunt-Wesson plant. To think that's not going to have an effect on our downtown, that's just naive."

Commissioner Sheryl Patterson said Davis could use more retail, but it should be done on the public's terms.

“Let's do it right,” she said. “We need to come up with a community vision, not just react to developer proposals.”

Commissioner Mark Braly agreed.

“I do think Davis needs to meet the retail needs of its citizens, but I think we can do it in a way that is interesting and unique to our town,” he said.

The City Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation, but because the council can still approve the project, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the council not certify the environmental impact report as adequate and that the project wait until the General Plan is updated to include it, instead of amending the General Plan.

“If the city of Davis truly wants the kind of retail we're talking about, the General Plan shouldn't be amended, it should be updated,” Ochoa said. “This is huge.”

Reach Claire St. John at cstjohn@davisenterprise.net or 747-8057.

Target bid enters the final stretch

By Claire St. John, Enterprise staff writer

Publication Date: 5/23/06The Davis Enterprise

The proposal to build a 136,842-square-foot Target on Second Street near Mace Boulevard has entered the approval race with a strong start, getting an 8-1 vote in favor Monday night from the Davis Business and Economic Development Commission.

On Wednesday night, the proposal goes before the Planning Commission, which, although down two members, still has enough commissioners to make a recommendation to the City Council.

Commissioner Linda Matthew resigned March 31, and Commissioner Jen Baker gave her resignation early this month, both citing conflicts between work and upcoming projects, specifically Target.

“I really wanted to do both, but it just got to the point where it was compromising my work on both the Planning Commission and my job,” said Matthew, a consultant for Bay Area Economics, which prepares some environmental impact reports for the city.

Alternate Greg Clumpner took Matthew's place, and Baker's seventh seat probably will go unfilled for the time being, said Community Development Director Katherine Hess.

“The cycle calls for appointments after the (June 6) elections to begin seating at the beginning of September,” Hess said. “The business of the city should be able to continue.”

Baker, whose design company Studio 66 has been handling Target's community outreach efforts in Davis since April 26, has recused herself from discussion about the project since she was hired by the Minnesota company.

“This public participation, while approved by (the city attorney) as legal, makes me uncomfortable, and the last thing I want to do is compromise the overall integrity of the commission over one project,” Baker wrote in an e-mail last week to the City Council and her fellow commissioners.

“I'm really going to miss being involved and on the inside for important projects and the camaraderie and the respect people have for each other,” Baker told The Enterprise. “I'm going to miss that passion.”

The Planning Commission's passion doesn't manifest in sharp words or infighting, but Target has proved a difficult issue in Davis.

At almost three times the size of Davis' largest stores, a Target would be the only “big box” in the city.

The site on Second Street near Mace Boulevard is zoned for service commercial and light industrial/business park projects. Along with a General Plan amendment, zoning would have to be changed for Target.

There were easier ways for the city to allow a Target in Davis under the General Plan, but by requiring an amendment specific to the site, the City Council has more discretionary powers than otherwise.

“The General Plan amendment is specific to this site, and any future big-box retail, if proposed, would have to propose also a General Plan amendment, and City Council has full discretion over that,” said Economic Development Director Mike Webb.

The Target proposal, a staff report says, must be weighed against community need and the language limiting other big boxes from rooting in Davis.

By some figures, community need for a Target is strong.

A study conducted in 2004 found that Davis residents made about 276,000 credit card transactions at the three closest Target stores, indicating that hundreds of thousands of trips are made outside the city, resulting in sales tax that doesn't benefit Davis.

Davis hopes to recapture some of that sales tax "leakage” if a Target is placed within city limits.

“The business community, including the retailers and restaurants in the downtown and neighborhood centers, benefit from this as customers who remain within the community are likely to frequent local establishments,” the report says.

The Finance and Budget Commission, however, said unanimously that the sales tax to be gotten from a Target is comparable to other projects that could be built on the site under current zoning.

“Approval of Target should not be based on how it fiscally benefits the city budget, because the margin of profit between Target and possible projects allowable is so slight,” said Commission Chairman Mark Siegler. “It's a net fiscal benefit of less than $2 per person.”

Many nearby Mace Ranch residents also are concerned about the project, which, if built, would be close to several homes.

“The neighborhood already backs up to an EPA Superfund remediation site,” the staff report reads. “Development of the Target site, with extensive landscaping and buffers on the periphery, may promote revitalization of this area.”

The Planning Commission meets at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Community Chambers at City Hall, 23 Russell Blvd. The City Council is expected to make a final decision on the Target proposal sometime next month.

Reach Claire St. John at cstjohn@davisenterprise.net or 747-8057.

No council candidate fully backs Target plan

By Claire St. John, Enterprise staff writer

Publication Date: 5/5/06 The Davis Enterprise

A 136,842-square-foot Target, proposed for Second Street near Mace Boulevard, signals a big change for Davis. Today, the biggest stores in Davis clock in at 50,000 square feet, and a city ordinance keeps it that way.

If a Target is approved, it will require a zoning change and a General Plan change, and it would be built almost in the back yards of some Mace Ranch residents, who have spoken against the project at council meetings.

But a study proves that Davis people do love their Target, even if some don't curry to the idea of a big box within city limits.

About 276,000 credit card transactions were made at nearby Target stores by people living in the 95616 ZIP code by Davis residents last year. And that doesn't count purchases made with cash or check.

Although the Target decision could be made before any council hopefuls are on board -- except for current Mayor Ruth Asmundson, who is running for re-election -- their views on the matter could indicate how they would act in a similar situation if Davis is, as some fear, inundated with big box applications if Target is approved.

Because Asmundson will most likely have an opportunity to vote on a Target, she calls it inappropriate to make a decision before the final environmental impact report is complete. However, she said, she does have a criteria to evaluate projects, including service impacts, neighborhood impacts, community benefits and what the environmental impact report says.

“We need to think of Davis' future,” she said. “We should have a diverse revenue base to support city programs, but I work to ensure that new projects won't displace successful businesses.”

The other four candidates -- bookseller/farmer Stan Forbes, university lecturer Lamar Heystek, environmental lawyer Mike Levy and university student Rob Roy -- are not exactly jumping for joy at the prospect of a Target, in fact, two say they would never allow such a thing in Davis.

“I oppose the current proposal to bring a Target to Davis,” Heystek said. “While there is an obvious need to expand our retail tax base, I will not vote to do so when it undermines the quality of life of a certain segment of our population. Placing anything on Second and Mace other than what is called for in the current zoning is dishonest to the homeowners of Mace Ranch.”

Forbes agreed.

“Davis needs to maintain the integrity of the General Plan,” he said.

To allow big boxes in Davis signals a philosophical change, not just a zoning change, he said.

“Changing that philosophical view should only be done as part of a new General Plan involving the entire community, not just a zoning change,” he said.

Levy said he doesn't support the Target proposal for three reasons.

One, changing the General Plan designation for a specific project obscures the dialogue about where to put the store with whether the store should be in Davis at all.

“Second, the size of the proposed store is a bit abrasive to me given the current structure of the city,” he said.

Finally, the project is unfair to the Mace Ranch residents who would live within shouting distance of the store.

“There no way the neighbors could have conceived that a project of that size would be sited behind their homes,” he said. “People should generally be able to rely upon the regulations we establish for specified time frame.”

Roy said he'd be amicable to a Target if there were certain changes.

“Balancing supply-and-demand economics with maintaining a unique community is tricky business,” he said. “Now we are in a position where hundreds of thousands of automobile trips are being made to leave Davis every year for shopping purposes and our options are growing slim.”

Roy said he'd prefer to find an alternative to the current proposal, citing the large size of the store, in particular.

“Target must drastically reduce its store size, plant an urban forest, build a park, pay to make Second Street safe for bikes, and give a sizable subsidy to Unitrans,” he said. "The council must find a compromise for the sake of the environment and the community.”

The five candidates are vying for two seats on the council. The last day to register to vote in the June 6 election is May 22.

Reach Claire St. John at cstjohn@davisenterprise.net or 747-8057.

Letter to DDBA Membership Regarding Target

Letter from DDBA Board President Matt Kowta regarding the DDBA Board Position on Target

Greetings DDBA Members,

Recently, a downtown merchant wrote to the Editor of the Davis Enterprise to complain about the way the Davis Downtown Business Association Board of Directors has represented the DDBA membership in regard to the Target issue.

I am writing to correct some false statements that appeared in the letter and to invite any downtown business person who does not feel that their views are being represented by the Board take a step towards remedying that situation by dedicating some of their time to get involved with the organization.

As President of the DDBA Board, I can attest to the fact that there are ample opportunities for any person who wishes to get involved in the DDBA. This can range from volunteering an hour or so to help out with a specific downtown project, to dedicating several hours per month to serving on one of DDBA's standing committees, to dedicating considerably more time by chairing a committee and/or serving on the Board of Directors.

I have not known this organization to exclude anybody who wanted to serve the downtown business community. Rather sadly, I feel that the real problem is that insufficient numbers of our own members are willing to spare some of their time to support the organization that aims to maintain and improve their downtown business environment.

Several weeks ago, I personally invited the person who wrote the letter that was critical of the Board to step up and get involved in the organization, but was turned down flatly. Apparently, it is preferable to criticize from the outside, rather than to work to improve an organization from the inside through positive actions…

read the whole article

target.com| city of davis| studio66