An Open Letter to the Community

My vision for Davis is a great place to grow up and to grow old. We value our parks and bike paths. We value our neighbors and strive for connection and peace in our neighborhoods. We support education and the arts. We are proud to be the home of a world class university. We are proud that our library is open seven days a week. We celebrate our vibrant downtown and enjoy the Farmers' Market and all the throwback events like Picnic Day and July 4 pancake breakfast. We care about the environment — our air and water and the air and water of other communities — and take actions to keep our footprint on the planet light. We value diversity and want Davis to be a welcoming home for all its residents, regardless of their background or economic status. We expect high quality public services and we are optimistic that we can make a difference in the world. Davis is a special place to me. It is my family's home by choice.

I have now read the hundreds of e-mail messages and letters sent to the Council on this project. I have listened to the views of more than 100 community members in public meetings. I have sought and talked to community residents with a variety of perspectives in other settings. In addition, I have read the DEIR, the fiscal study, and the 340 page Staff Report. The Council deliberated on the concept of a Target pre-application in 2004. City Commissions have spent considerable time reviewing the project. We now have heard from members of the public on several occasions, including tonight. Having listened to and considered the comments, it is clear that our community is deeply divided on this issue. The staff report did an excellent job of laying out the policy considerations.

1. Is Target store appropriate for our community?
2. Is this site appropriate for the proposed use?
3. Are the uses and sizes of the proposed pads appropriate for the site and the community?
4. Will the project negatively compete with the existing local retailers and the community?
5. Do the EIR mitigation measures, project conditions, and Development Agreement provisions adequately offset potential impacts of the development?
6. Would approval of this project "open the door" for additional big box retail to locate in Davis?
7. Should the Council consider placing this proposal up for a vote on the November election?

I want to point out that the staff report and the related documents contain a wealth of information on each of these questions. I find these documents extremely thorough and well grounded. You can see the complete materials on the City of Davis website. These documents fully address each of the policy questions and I am prepared to vote on this proposal this evening.

I think the issues boil down to shopping convenience and affordability, environmental considerations, fiscal benefits to the City, neighborhood impacts and the tangible and intangible changes to our community that would come from a change like the Second Street Crossing.

There is significant unmet community demand for general merchandise retail in Davis. I appreciate that some residents of Davis never shop at Target or similar stores for a variety of reasons. However, many of us do shop at these stores now and will continue to do so. It seems clear to me that there is a high demand for affordable general merchandise retail services and that the current Davis economy does not meet that demand.

• Many Davis shoppers currently shop at Target stores in other communities. Reports are that 276,000 non-cash purchases by Davis zip code took place in 2004 – and that doesn't count the cash transactions. That is a lot of purchases not currently made in Davis and it doesn't include purchases made at other general merchandise stores that might be made at a Target if one was located in Davis.
• Our retail surveys show high community interest in general merchandise at affordable prices. Many residents have expressed a desire to have this shopping available for convenience, product range and pricing. I have had a number of Davis residents tell me they need affordable shopping. My vision for Davis includes affordable shopping for general merchandise so that students, seniors and families on a budget can live here.
• The analysis of retail sales categories shows an over reliance on auto sales and very low sales in the categories of business addressed in this project. This is a problem. If this one sector has competitive problems or a downturn, our City finances are in serious trouble. It is ironic that a city that prides itself on environmental concern should rely on auto related sales for 51% of its sales tax revenue.
• The other businesses approved over the past two years do not include any business in this category of general merchandise. Based on the purchases made by Davis shoppers outside the community, the fiscal study for this project shows that there may be as much as 223,000 square feet of “supportable” retail space in the general merchandise and apparel categories. This is well in excess of the roughly 70,000 square feet this project might bring.
• This center is a component of the City's overall economic development approach that focuses on a three-legged stool – 1) support and enhance the downtown and enhance Davis as a destination; 2) leverage the presence of the UCD for high tech and related job and economic development; and 3) diversify the retail base to provide shopping variety and stable sales tax revenues.

Further, the analysis presented in the staff report and EIR and fiscal study show that the presence of a Target store will not undermine the downtown as a center for Davis. The downtown is a well established market that serves its purpose very well. It simply does not fully serve the market categories that Target will serve. Vibrant downtown areas co-exist with appropriate and limited large retailers in Napa, Chico, and San Luis Obispo. Even the Monterrey area has general merchandise shopping outside the core area. The fiscal analyses show that Davis downtown will continue to thrive with this project. The downtown is very strong; it a unique assemblage of nearly 500 businesses in a grid. It is not a single street downtown. Downtown businesses currently compete with general merchandise stores by providing quality service and unique products. Davis is special and this project will simply add a missing component to our economy.

I have looked at the EIR carefully. The single significant and unavoidable impact identified in the EIR is in the area of air quality. This is a serious issue for all of us. Looking into the analysis, however, I conclude that the finding that AIR QUALITY will be significantly impacted is actually a legally required finding based on the cumulative impact of any change in zoning that intensifies use. This is a “mandatory finding of significance” in the wording of CEQA. In fact, the project itself is not expected to contribute measurably to air quality degradation. This project does not result in air quality impacts that take Davis into an area for nonattainment of any national ambient air quality standards. Many of the alternatives allowable under current zoning would carry this and greater environmental impacts.

Moreover, the largest contributor to air pollution in our region and community is freeway traffic. By having these stores in Davis we can meet shopping demands here and reduce freeway trips. That will cut down on the air quality degradation that we currently experience and inflict on the region by having 11 trips per year per Davis household from Davis to a Target store in another community. Very few shoppers from outside Davis will make the Davis Target a destination, because other communities have this type of service already; the typical out of town shopper is already driving by. We cannot pretend that it is not a problem to drive to other cities for basic retail services that many residents demand. How does that gel with our environmental ethic? The environment does not end at the Davis city limits. We have an ethical obligation to consider the environmental impacts of our residents on the region, not just inside our borders.

I am pleased to report that city staff have worked with Target to alter the prototype designs to be more suitable to Davis. The most significant aspect of this work is to require LEED certification of the project as environmentally sound. There are only 5 retail buildings in the world that meet this requirement. None of the 1400 Target stores have met this requirement; this is one of four that is being advanced to LEED certification.

I am convinced that this is the most appropriate site in Davis for a center like this. This location is near the freeway. Traffic would not impact neighborhood traffic patterns and the analyses show that the existing interchange on I-80 can handle the predicted traffic. The site is remote from downtown so the conflict with downtown shopping is minimized, yet easily reachable by most Davis residents. The site is challenged for some uses due to its proximity to the highway, railroad, and superfund site. All other sites of 10 or more acres would have much more serious environmental and traffic considerations and not nearly the market feasibility of this site.

Any use of this site will change the current condition and have some impact on the adjacent neighborhood. It seems that some of the allowable uses under current zoning could be much more intrusive than the proposed Second Street Crossing Project. The existing zoning at a portion of this location would permit a wide range of uses, including manufacturing of food products, electric devices and pharmaceuticals; offices; laboratories; warehousing and distribution centers. The current zoning does not restrict hours of operation for any of these uses. Other conditional uses could include hazardous materials storage or treatment. At the rest of the site, permitted uses could include inns, hotels, conference centers, restaurants or similar businesses. Allowable uses with conditions include auto sales, boat and trailer sales, commercial recreation facilities, and Laundromats.

As a community we have chosen to not follow the path of many California cities to fund local services by growing just for growth's sake. I support that choice to not sell our soul, but there has to be balance.

This city cannot sustain the high quality of services we demand to support our vision and quality of life without a series of financial initiatives. We continue to work on how to fund a fourth fire station to meet basic five-minute response time emergency service for all residents; we are struggling to complete the financing package for the Mace Ranch Neighborhood Park and a south Davis pool. Quality public services cost money.

In the past two years, Davis voters have passed the Parks Maintenance Tax and a half cent sales tax. We have improved cost recovery on fee supported programs and are tightening the budget belt.

Economic development is an additional component of the City's ongoing efforts to make ends meet over time. Our unique niche in the regional economy is that we have a world class university to leverage, a wonderful downtown to build upon as a destination and an untapped and out of balance retail sector to complement. We have attracted Trader Joe's and Dollar Tree and other businesses. We are focusing significant energy downtown – Bistro 33, revitalized Varsity Theater and infrastructure improvements. This project fits within the context of these larger economic development strategies. It is part of a comprehensive approach to economic development that is in turn part of the larger set of strategies to maintain and enhance the community values we all enjoy.

The fiscal benefits to the city from this project as shown in the fiscal study and Development Agreement are substantial.

• Net new revenue to the city that will range from $750,000 to $1,000,000 each year. This is a conservative figure and assumes that only 75% of the sales are new sales. Please do not be confused by comparisons to alternative projects that do not exist and are overvalued. The estimates of net new revenues for this project are specific and very conservatively projected.
• $472,000 in one-time construction tax revenues.
• At least $2.235 million in development impact fees.
• $200,000 contribution to the unfunded costs for the Mace Ranch Neighborhood Park
• $100,000 contribution for a general city discretionary fund.
• Full mitigations for all traffic and other EIR impacts.

I see that there is a community demand for the type of retail being proposed, the EIR adequately addresses the environmental issues, and the fiscal study shows a substantial net revenue gain to the city and no significant loss to the vibrancy of downtown. That leaves assuring that impacts on the local neighborhood are mitigated to the extent possible. Like so much of any matter considered by this or any other City Council a part of this issue focuses on balancing community wide benefits with localized or neighborhood impacts and finding ways to minimize any harm.

The project applicants have taken a number of steps to lessen the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods.

• Buildings are orientated so that they face away from the neighborhood.
• Hours for deliveries are restricted to 8 AM to 7 PM for large trucks and 8 AM to noon for small vans.
• Berms and landscaping are added to a 200 foot buffer zone between any building and the property line of any adjacent residence. This is the closest property line; others angle away and are farther. The nearest house is 220 feet away from the nearest building.
• Parking is located on the far side of the buildings from the adjacent residences so that they are not disturbed by vehicle traffic.
• Because Second Street does not intersect any neighborhood street, the traffic to and from the center will not intrude upon the neighborhood.

These are unprecedented steps for mitigation. The permitted uses under current zoning would not be required to implement this array of mitigations and restrictions.

Nevertheless, additional mitigations may be appropriate to strike an even better balance between community benefit and neighborhood impacts. If the Council moves ahead with this project in some form, I would like City staff to meet with neighbors to discuss additional ways that their concerns can be mitigated. For example, perhaps the building pad can be moved closer to Second Street if the alternative truck routing is approved. Perhaps the plantings can include a mix of tree maturities so that the berm is a visual screen from the outset of the project. Probably most importantly the neighbors are very concerned about potential access between the center and the Neighborhood Park. I would like staff to work with the neighbors and the applicant to be sure we capture the most significant mitigations to concerns they may have if the project goes forward.

Let me summarize my views on this.

Target fills an identified unmet community retail need that has been demonstrated by large volume of purchases and many community members expressing their support. The positive effects on the community include:

• Greater access to retail goods at affordable prices desired by many residents.
• Reduced car trips to other communities resulting in less air pollution and lower costs for gas and less depletion of scarce fuels.
• Significant fiscal benefit to the City.

On the other hand, many in the community have expressed their heartfelt opposition to this project for a variety of reasons, including a sense for some that this project may be in conflict with the vision and values we hold collectively as a community.

I hear and appreciate that view but I cannot endorse it. I believe that the spirit of our community is strong and that this project with LEED certification and other accommodations has been made to fit within our standards.

Nevertheless, I recognize that the move to include this center in our shared vision of the future is a big decision for all of us and I welcome the prospect of placing this proposal before the voters in November.