Commentary: Hitting Reset on the Hyatt Hotel Discussion

Hyatt-House

On Wednesday, the Vanguard had a discussion with the initiator of the petition against the Hyatt hotel proposal.  The petitioners wish to remain anonymous until next week’s Planning Commission meeting on August 24, where the issue of the Hyatt Place Hotel will get its formal hearing.

During the course of the conversation, the views that have been presented by the Vanguard were disavowed and distanced.

As the petitioners stated in their formal statements, “We are running the online petition, not the people you have identified in your articles.”

They continued, “While the people you identified are entitled to their opinions, they are not in line with ours, nor are they in line with overall sentiment of the numerous households we have spoken with as well as online petition signers. While they do live in our neighborhood and have been invited to our group meetings to express their concerns, they in no way represent the greater initiative, sentiments, or outreach we are doing to educate our neighborhoods.”

They continued, “We are absolutely against any comments or ill will towards any of our neighbors including New Harmony. We will continue to remove any negative comments from our petition as we have been doing since the beginning.”

There are legitimate concerns that have been raised in the process that the city council and Planning Commission ought to deal with.

These concerns are the lack of current zoning to permit a hotel, the poor location for a hotel, the increase in foot and car traffic, the 24/7 operation in the back yards of some of the residents, the lack of restaurants in the area, and the lack of easy freeway access. And the ability of hotel occupants to see directly into neighbors’ homes.

While reasonable people may disagree with some or all of these stated concerns – they are part of a legitimate land use discussion.

While the Vanguard remains concerned about some of the comments that have come out in public comments, and emails that it has obtained, following our discussion with the petitioner, we are convinced that the initial statement in the petition was an innocent error, due to inexperience rather than reflective of malicious intent by the overwhelming number of residents.

At the same time, on the core issue of a hotel, we believe there needs to be a vigorous discussion.

The Planning Commission and especially the Davis City Council will have to weigh the concerns of the neighbors against the benefits to the community of the hotel.

Dan Carson, in his capacity as part of the Finance and Budget subcommittee looking at new revenues for the city, did a fiscal analysis of the project.  He was not compensated for his work.

The following is the summary of his findings:

  • The Hyatt House project would financially benefit the city and local agencies. For example, it would likely result in a net fiscal benefit to the City of Davis of almost $700,000 annually and one-time fiscal benefits exceeding $1.8 million. Yolo County, the Davis Joint Unified School District, and a local tourism district would also benefit financially from the project.
  • The estimate of hotel tax revenues from the project is sensitive to assumptions about the occupancy and room rates generated from the new hotel. The actual outcome could be higher or lower than estimated, perhaps by a couple hundred thousand dollars, on an ongoing basis.
  • The Hyatt House project is unlikely to financially undermine other existing or approved hotels.
  • The new hotel is almost certain to expand the city’s overall hotel tax revenue base. City hotel tax revenues increased in recent years even in the wake of past hotel expansions by UC Davis outside of the city limits.
  • Both the Hyatt House and a competing extended-stay hotel proposal may be able to move ahead in the Davis market, particularly if litigation over the Embassy Suites is resolved, allowing its conference center to move forward, and the growth planned for the UC Davis campus continues. However, this is a concern only if city policymakers determine that both projects meet written criteria adopted by the City Council, including the negotiation of development agreements with project applicants that could potentially provide additional benefits to the city from the project.
  • If both extended-stay projects are found to warrant approval, city policymakers may wish to allow the private marketplace to determine, via its investment and financing decisions, whether both projects can proceed at the same time. In this event, the city should examine whether city ordinances and the development agreements provide the applicants sufficient flexibility to adjust the timing of their projects to ensure their success.

As previously noted, “PKF Consulting, the hotel industry experts retained by the Hyatt House project applicant, projected last year that the new hotel would eventually achieve 78% occupancy and an Average Daily Rate of $186 per room because of its high-quality construction, location near I-80, and brand affiliation. If that were the result, I estimate that city TOT revenues would be about $767,000 annually.”

It is, of course, not just the neighbors who have concerns about the proposed hotel.  In a meeting with existing hoteliers, questions were cast about the validity of the PKF study.

PKF argues that at least three new sites can be “readily absorbed by the market,” and they find “occupancy is projected to increase to 67.0 percent in 2019 and further increase to approximately 70.0 percent in 2020 and 2021. It is at this level we project the Davis hotel market to stabilize. While this stabilized occupancy level is above the annual average occupancy level achieved by the Davis hotel market since 2007, it is in line with the year-to-date performance and is reflective of the growth occurring in Davis.”

Existing hotel owners are skeptical of these claims from PKF, and point to their own analysis that paints a very different picture.

They note that, while the occupancy rate has increased from 61 percent in 2012 to 67 percent in 2014 (the most recent data available), the rate varies by day and month. Basically, as indicated above, from Sunday through Thursday, hotels have trouble booking rooms, and it is only on the weekends, mainly Friday and Saturday, where hotels approach 70 to 80 percent capacity.

But even these are variable, depending on the time of the year, with the summer months generating heavy usage that falls way off during the late fall to early spring. In essence, there are only about five times during the year when the market is saturated – when UC Davis opens, Picnic Day, and during three separate graduations, in the spring, fall and for the law school.

The analysis notes that coupling additional hotels with the already-approved Embassy Suites would add about 328 rooms to the market that would have to be absorbed – the existing hotel owners do not see the demand generators at this time to justify that belief.

One the other hand, the city commissioned the HVS Consulting & Valuation report, which analyzed scenarios for the study performed for the Hyatt House and noted, “Based on the forecast, occupied room nights will have to increase by 40% over a two-year period to sustain a 65–66% occupancy level. Those figures are somewhat extraordinary, especially for a market that has yet to surpass 70%.”

However, HVS added that “although projected to be higher than historically achieved in the analysis completed by PKF, it is reasonable to assume that the entry of branded, high-quality hotels would have a positive impact on the rate structure of the market as a whole.”

HVS concluded that these projects “appear slightly aggressive but not entirely unreasonable.”

City staff writes, “Staff accepts the analysis that shows that construction of one extended stay hotel in Davis would benefit the City and the market by capturing room nights from visitors who are going elsewhere because they are seeking either amenities or a hotel brand that is not available here.”

“Additional rooms in an extended stay hotel could also complement the hotel conference center by accommodating overflow guests, provided there are mechanisms to address inefficiencies of shuttling meeting-goers,” staff adds.

However, staff concurred “with the HVS conclusion that there is not current capacity to absorb the rooms proposed for both the Hyatt House and the Residence Inn if they were to open within the same period of time.”

Where does that leave us?  It seems to leave us with a question as to whether the city should allow the already approved Embassy Suites, which is being held up with legal suits, to be built and then assess the situation and add one hotel, or add both hotels – and if they choose to add one hotel, the question turns to whether the Hyatt location or the one on Mace is better.

These are all important considerations that both the Planning Commission and the city council will have to weigh in on.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

168 Comments

  1. Barack Palin

    However, staff concurred “with the HVS conclusion that there is not current capacity to absorb the rooms proposed for both the Hyatt House and the Residence Inn if they were to open within the same period of time.”

    Obviously the future owners of all three hotels feel they’re going to be profitable ro they wouldn’t be trying to get them approved.  Since when is it the planning commission or the city council’s job to determine if there’s a need for a new business?  If someone wanted to build and open up a hair salon would the city make their permit determination based on the need for a hair salon and its viability?

    1. quielo

      BP, hairdressers use current space which can easily be repurposed. I believe the CC has to consider whether a large purpose built structure will be occupied in the future. If they believe there are too many hotels being proposed than the reasonable path is to approve the two which have the most benefits and revisit the third in a year or two. It may be possible to get  a binding and enforceable commitment to operate the structure in it’s intended purpose for some period of time. I would believe that the extended stay market is currently underserved and the room footprints are easiest to repurpose if necessary so that would be my bias.

    1. South of Davis

      Grok wrote:

      > Here is a link to the petition

      Interesting that even some people out of the area don’t want the hotel:

      There’s enough traffic in the area without having to exacerbate the issue.

      – Amanda Smith, Badin, NC

      I feel a 24 hour business with frequent strangers coming and going so  close to a residential neighborhood and Marguerite Montgomery School, could pose a safety risk.

      – Julianne Eberle, West Sacramento, CA

      My son and his mother live in Albany ave where tge hotel will be built behind. I want to keep they’re privacy and safety #1.

      – Shaun Mulhall, Folsom, CA

       

        1. rosecreek

          one problem with change.org is that when you sign in with Facebook it pulls your city and state from your profile. Several folks have their fb profile as an old location (due to many UC transplants to davis). The petitioners can download the signatures and it shows the address they entered to sign it – not the one it pulls from Facebook. There about 5 signatures from out of the area at this time and one double at this point. Which obviously don’t count.

        2. Davis Progressive

          i don’t get it – i make a statement that this petition is useless and you respond with another useless petition.  who cares?  why divert the point to useless drivel?

  2. South of Davis

    David wrote:

    > we are convinced that the initial statement in the petition was an

    > innocent error, due to inexperience rather than reflective of a

    > malicious intent by the overwhelming number of residents.

    I’m happy to hear that David no longer feels the “overwhelming number” of people in the Rose Creek neighborhood have “malicious intent ” in opposing the hotel.

    While I’m sure we can find a nut job in town who is worried that a new $186/night hotel will attract low class foreign born people of color, I hope David will realize we don’t have a lot of people like this here in Davis…

    1. Barack Palin

      Exactly SOD.  I remember David saying Black Lives Matter shouldn’t be defined by the actions or statements of a few people.  Why should this be any different?

    2. Davis Progressive

      having raised an african american daughter and had an african american ex-wife, i just don’t think people like bp and sod really know what it’s like to live in davis as a person of color.  the petitioners and some of the other neighbors let impolitic things slip out, but i think it represents a deeper problem and i think david is trying to be nice here to inexperienced people and give them the benefit of the doubt – a benefit i don’t extend.

      1. South of Davis

        DP wrote:

        > I just don’t think people like bp and sod really know

        > what it’s like to live in davis as a person of color.

        DP is correct since I am not black I don’t “really” know what it is like to be a person of color living in Davis.

        >  i think david is trying to be nice here to inexperienced

        > people and give them the benefit of the doubt – a

        > benefit i don’t extend.

        It is horrible that some racist people go through life thinking that all black people are bad and never give even one of them “the benefit of the doubt” and it is just as horrible that some racist people go through life thinking all white people are bad and never give even one of them “the benefit of the doubt”…

  3. Tia Will

    BP

    Since when is it the planning commission or the city council’s job to determine if there’s a need for a new business? “

    Since zoning change is a necessary consideration to move forward.

  4. ryankelly

    I think that the neighbors fears are unwarranted. They were aware that the site was zoned for commercial when they bought their home.  The city needs sources of revenue.  This kind of tweaking of the zoning to accomodate commercial development has happened all over town.  These people are not special.

      1. Tia Will

        ryankelly and BP

        I happen to agree with you in this instance that the concerns are likely to be overblown. However, I cannot help but wonder how either of you would feel if you were the owners of the homes that are the most exposed in the drone video. How would you feel if you had your bedroom at that particular space or that of one of your children. I am not talking about evil voyeur’s. I am talking about light and noise from the hotel such as was actually experienced and terribly disruptive for some of my personal friends at the time of the city lighting change despite   the test run and attempts to mitigate.

        Although I agree that their initial concerns were poorly expressed, probably due to lack of experience with community organization ( theyapparently did not have a neighborhood association prior to this), however, their are some legitimate lifestyle concerns here that are worthy of consideration and I applaud the efforts of the developers to elicit and attempt to mitigate those concerns.

    1. Tia Will

      ryankelly

      They were aware that the site was zoned for commercial when they bought their home.”

      True as written. But the commercial zoning at the time of their purchases apparently did not include hotels. If it had, there would be no need for a zoning change.

      1. Matt Williams

        True as written Tia.  However, using your field of obstetrics and gynecology as an example, d you follow a principle that you practice today does not follow a principle of “the Ob-Gyn at the time of your training did not include _________.  If it had, there would be no need for a change in Ob-Gyn methods and procedures.”

        The Zoning Code for Davis (which does have the force of law because it is legally memorialized as Chapter 40 of the City of Davis Municipal Code) contains Article 40.22 Planned Development (P-D) District with a Purpose statement that reads as follows:

        The purpose of the planned development district is to allow diversification in the relationship of various buildings, structures and open spaces in order to be relieved from the rigid standards of conventional zoning. A planned development district shall comply with the regulations and provisions of the general plan and any applicable specific plan and shall provide adequate standards to promote the public health, safety and general welfare without unduly inhibiting the advantages of modern building techniques and planning for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. The criteria upon which planned development districts shall be judged and approved will include the development of sound housing for persons of low, moderate and high income levels, residential developments which provide a mix of housing styles and costs, creative approaches in the development of land, more efficient and desirable use of open area, variety in the physical development pattern of the city and utilization of advances in technology which are innovative to land development. (Ord. 716 § 1)

        2750 Cowell Boulevard has a zoning designation of PD 2-12.

        1. hpierce

          Yes… which was at least one change after the previous PD… to accommodate the then owners.

          PD’s are indeed ordinances… just like parking restrictions… and those wax and wane as circumstances dictate.  However, using an alliteration by another poster who appears to want me “just to go away”, these Plans and ordinances did not come on stone tablets supposedly found on a mountain in the Middle East.

          If someone wants “bedrock” assurances that things won’t change, suggest metaphysics/religion.

          You think you know “precisely” where your property is?  Then I suggest you deny plate tectonics… at least in the very long haul.  On the island of Hawaii, whole subdivisions (and, perhaps the underlying zoning/land use entitlements) have disappeared under feet of solid rock.

        2. Grok

          Hi Matt,

          I have a question and you are the perfect person to answer it. What year was the current zoning established for the site the Hyatt House is proposed for?

        3. Tia Will

          Matt

          However, using your field of obstetrics and gynecology as an example, d you follow a principle that you practice today does not follow a principle of “the Ob-Gyn at the time of your training did not include _________.  If it had, there would be no need for a change in Ob-Gyn methods and procedures.”

          Well, that is a bit of a stretch. If the Ob/Gyn that you go to has not kept current, you can always go to someone more up to date. I doubt that any of these residents has the ability to simply move their home to a more favorable location if the zoning is changed.

           

        4. Matt Williams

          Tia, when my ex-wife and I were faced with a zoning change of the 125 acres of agriculturally zoned land adjacent to our residence, we knew that we had a number of options if the zoning change went through and the houses were built.  One of those options was to make the personal choice to sell our home and move.  We also knew that the decision regarding that proposed zoning change would be made by the Planning Commission and/or Supervisiors based on the principle of the Greatest Good.  When we considered purchasing the property in 1998, we also were diligent about understanding what the possible future of that adjacent prime and productive farmland was.  Phyllis Snow, the listing realtor, was very clear that (as hpierce has noted earlier today) absent a permanent ag conservation easement filed as a deed restriction, the realities of how Life evolves meant that no certainty existed regarding the future . . . other than death and taxes.

          The medical practice standards I referenced are like the zoning code.  Medical practice standards are subject to revision if the aggregate wisdom of the medical community believes the Greater Good is served by those revisions.  Zoning codes are subject to revision if the aggregate wisdom of the community/jurisdiction believes the Greater Good is served by those revisions.  For the 2750 Cowell Boulevard parcel the revision of PD 12-87 in 2012 to become PD 2-12 included the removal of one of the Permitted Uses, specifically, “(i)     Sex-oriented entertainment businesses, subject to the requirements of Section 40.26.410.”  Do you believe the Greater Good was served by that change?

        5. Ron

          Matt:  “We also knew that the decision regarding that proposed zoning change would be made by the Planning Commission and/or Supervisiors based on the principle of the Greatest Good.”

          Well, you’re definitely more generous in your views than I am, regarding motivations.

          What happened with the development?  Did the “greater good” prevail?

        6. Matt Williams

          Ron, it is a long story that we should discuss over a cup of coffee or a glass of wine/beer some time.  Bottom-line, the Planning Commission, as part of the General Plan Update process recognized that the 125 acres had been productively farmed each and every year for well over a decade, and that the Storie Index of the soil on the site categorized the parcel as prime as well as productive. As a result they unanimously voted to retain the Ag Land Use Category for the parcel in the updated General Plan. The developer attempted to get that zoning changed when discussion of the parcel came up in the Supervisors meetings.  To the Supervisors’ credit, after receiving a petition with over 750 signatures on it, they called for a special advisory mail-ballot election, which when held garnered a 69% voter turnout and an 84%-16% plurality supporting the Planning Commission decision.

          The parcel changed ownership in the last 24 months, and is currently owned by AKT Development as part of a large block of agricultural land to the east of Davis shown in yellow in the graphic below.

          http://www.davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Tsakopoulos-Land-2015.jpg

      2. ryankelly

        Something is going to be built there.  Anything will change their view and encroach on their sense of privacy.   I looked at these homes when they were first built and went on sale.  They are really close to the freeway and backed onto commercial property, as yet undeveloped.  They were priced lower for these reasons.  I doubt that these homeowners really checked out what the zoning entailed.    Now that things are being built, they complain as if they didn’t know that the development along Chiles Road would look different than their homes.  I would take a quiet hotel over other commercial – a restaurant, a nightclub, a manufacturing company, an auto dealership, etc.

        Zoning changes or conditional use permits have not been stopped by neighbors in the past.  Just ask the folks on Elmwood Drive behind the Cal Aggie Christian Assoc or the people behind Target.  Now that the changes have been made, it has not turned out to be so bad or people have accommodated the change.

        1. Barack Palin

          Often times people project the worst outcome.  For instance I was against the restructure of 5th avenue downtown but I do admit now that traffic for the most part is better than it was before.  I was also against allowing the Wildhorse condominium development to go to three stories in a two story neighborhood.  They did it in such a way with setbacks that you really don’t notice and it totally fits in the neighborhood.

        2. South of Davis

          BP wrote:

          > Often times people project the worst outcome.

          I’ve noticed that most people in favor of something tend “project the BEST possible outcome” while most people opposed to something tend to  “project the WORST possible outcome”.  At the end of the day the outcome is usually somewhere between the best and worst…

          P.S. Like BP I am happy to say that the changes to 5th street turned out a lot better than I though they would…

  5. Marina Kalugin

    none of that is the business of the planning commission nor the CC…both of those entitities exist to carry out the will of the people which in this case is very cut and dried…it is not zoned for that…the general plan is the document that these folks are supposed to be enforcing…

    not dancing around and finding ways on how to get the money this should bring in..

    again, that is the simple fact.

    if the CC members, because they are developers/ realtors, etc.  think otherwise…that is a conflict of interest….and they should be recalled and some folks who can and will do their jobs properly should be voted in…

    1. Tia Will

      the general plan is the document that these folks are supposed to be enforcing…”

      I think that you have struck upon one issue at the heart of the matter. Some of us believe that the general plan is a document to be “enforced”. Some of us believe that since it does not have the authority of law, it represents a set of “suggestions” or “best practices” that can be modified as felt needed by those who have been elected. This was the heart of my comment about a vote of three being necessary to make exemptions that elicited Robb Davis’s response on a previous thread. Until we reconcile these conflicting views of our general plan, we will continue to have this form of exception by majority vote that some of us consider suboptimal.

      1. Adam Smith

        Some of us believe that the general plan is a document to be “enforced”. Some of us believe that since it does not have the authority of law, it represents a set of “suggestions” or “best practices” that can be modified as felt needed by those who have been elected.

        This is an  interesting interpretation.   I don’t know how you can ever believe that a general plan document is a rigid document only to be enforced — it is approved by elected officials in the first place.  Why wouldn’t that same set of officials be entitled to change it if they so decide?

        I am unaware of any municipality that does not  provide zoning changes for specific parcels as needed  on an ad hoc basis.   I think it would be nearly  impossible to run an economically viable and active  city without parcel exceptions.

        1. Mark West

          “I think it would be nearly  impossible to run an economically viable and active  city without parcel exceptions.

          This is exactly right. Cities need the parcel exceptions to respond to changing environments. It would be foolish to treat the GP as if it were etched in stone.

        2. hpierce

          A General Plan is just that… a “framework”… important elements set our what is acceptable for levels of service:  transportation, utilities, Public Safety, etc.  It generally lays out, City-wide, what mix of land-use types are deemed important to the community.

          It is not meant to take the place of Specific Plans, preliminary planned developments, nor final planned developments.  There was a South Davis Specific Plan adopted.  It also has been amended several times… yet I hear no mention of it in the land use discussion.

          Those insisting on a “strict adherence” to a given more specific land use, at a “General Plan” leve,l either don’t understand the principles of land use designations, or choose to ignore those principles to meet their “view”.  I’d opine that a hotel use is ‘generally’ a commercial use (not open space, not residential, not quasi-public).  General Plan land use designations were determined, and should be viewed, as 20k foot overviews… not pin-point accuracy decisions.

          I’d be more concerned if a proposal would result in reductions of service levels below those required in the General Plan.  I just don’t see that with the current proposal.  If it does impinge on those service levels, it should either be rejected, or damn good reasons be found to take exception to those standards.  Example… if a project, located on a street operating at LOS A, will result in a quadrupling of traffic, resulting in a LOS B, yeah, a lot of increase in ‘traffic’, but well under the threshold levels of concern as outlined in the General Plan.  No harm, no foul.

  6. Davis Progressive

    “if the CC members, because they are developers/ realtors, etc.  think otherwise…that is a conflict of interest….”

    which cc members are developers or realtors?  none that i can think of.

    1. South of Davis

      DP wrote:

      > which cc members are developers or realtors?

      One cc member was involved with the re-development (and re-zoning) of the infill site where he currently lives and another cc member (who grew up in a family of realtors) is licensed by the state of California to sell real estate…

    2. hpierce

      Irrelevant… even if the CC members were developers or realtors, the “conflict of interest” standard applies ONLY to whether the member will be reasonably assumed to have a personal financial interest (pro or con) in a decision… there are “presumed” financial interests if the property under consideration lies within a certain distance from property/businesses owned by the member.

      I wish folk would try to understand terms before they wantonly throw them around.  Not bloody likely, though…

    3. Tia Will

      DP

      which cc members are developers or realtors?  none that i can think of.”

      Add to “developers” and “realtors” the term “investor” or former “investor” and you will get a different outcome.

       

      1. hpierce

        You do know that all CC members, PC commissioners, and most, if not all, mgt staff have to file Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests) every year with the FPPC?  Easy enough to look them up.

        1. Tia Will

          hpierce

          You do know that all CC members……”

          Yes, pierce. I do know that. And I also know that this is a statement about “economic interests”. What these do not cover is a difference of values. Some of us are more concerned about the difference in values of those who are elected to the CC than we are about their economic interests. I know that there are some who do not understand how this can be the case, so you will just have to either accept my word that this is not my primary concern…..or not.

        2. hpierce

          Well Tia, until there is “Conflict of Values” laws enacted, which I see as a somewhat scary scenario, I’ll rely on the laws we have in place.

          You of course my certainly continue to use the “values” litmus test every two years (for CC), but not sure how you could objectively discern such.

  7. Marina Kalugin

    go away you …I am too busy to spar..

    it is like the “defense” and “prosecute” system…  the CC is supposed to be impartial..

    and it is full of developers, including those on Trackside et al

    if we had an impartial CC yet again or at least one or two people who had a clue, then much of this wouldn’t even get this far..

    thank you South of Davis…..that is Lucas Frerichs and Trackside..

    and the same pastor was also involved in THAT one….jeez…  caps for emphasis..

    at least some are paying attention some of the time…

     

    1. Davis Progressive

      “the CC is supposed to be impartial..”

      no, they aren’t.  the cc is a political position.  the only thing that they are precluded from is profiting from their development.

      “thank you South of Davis…..that is Lucas Frerichs and Trackside..”

      which he has divested and will probably recuse himself on any decision.

      1. South of Davis

        I don’t want to give a lot of details since I am talking about completed multi-home re-development site where one cc member currently lives (I am not talking about the proposed Trackside development)…

        1. Davis Progressive

          you don’t need to – most of us know where lucas lives.  that doesn’t make him a developer (that’s not how he earns his income) and it certainly doesn’t mean that the council is full of developers.

  8. Marina Kalugin

    yes, and the general plan that was in effect back in the 80s and not sure how long before that.

    fact checkers…you are needed right now..

    and, I spent many hours with many at the planning and building and the CC, the mayor, each council member and I KNOW how to do “due diligence” and was told, shown docs, etc…that the Ricci farm/open space was set in stone…before I plunked down my meager savings to upgrade to a stlightly larger house on a slightly larger lot…

    those who don’t live what I live I wish they would just do their own research and get a clue…

    I am so sick of spoonfeeding…and hardly anyone ever getting a clue…

     

    1. hpierce

      The Ricci family asked for it to be zoned as farm/open space, while they were alive.  Their heirs successors didn’t feel that way.  You and your neighbors could have purchased the property and actually form a land trust.  You didn’t.  The City did not act to acquire the property.  To say that the designation was “set in stone” was ill-informed and/or an untruth.

        1. Marina Kalugin

          jeez were you there DP?   and really who cares…not too many who post here care what I have to say…and yet, the silent majority may listen and learn..

          I mean those who told me they no longer post because of how they were treated…

          and so on….

          including on the Chancellor topic and a few others…if even single person is helped when I rant, then I can feel it was a productive use of my time…

    2. Tia Will

      hose who don’t live what I live I wish they would just do their own research and get a clue…

      I am so sick of spoonfeeding…and hardly anyone ever getting a clue…

      You seem to be of the impression that everyone who “does their own research” will interpret the facts uncovered in the same way as you. Perhaps, if you were to spend more time presenting your factual information ( spoon-feeding), instead of repeatedly pointing out how others “don’t have a clue”, those “others” might be more likely to appreciate your points, even if they don’t necessarily agree. A recent example was Don’s interpretation of the Safeway controversy for me. I am sure it didn’t take him any longer to post the actual situation than it did for you to make innuendo’s regarding events that may have occurred while some of us were not even in town.

  9. Marina Kalugin

    and, since the developers/realtors currently on the cc do not do their jobs, that is how J/R was born..I was also involved in that…..many may know me by my then married name…

    that also goes back decades…..and

    the developers are the prosecutors…gonna get away with anything to get their way
    families/neighborhoods/ stakeholders become the defendents.
    the planning commision is sorta like the jury…supposed to help sort out the facts
    the CC is supposed to be IMPARTIAL>>>>>>yelling on purpose..
    edited

    1. ryankelly

      Marina, Your bragging  about your involvement over the decades and the amazing story of your life is not helpful to the current conversation.   It doesn’t give your opinion a higher value.  In fact, it is negligible.

        1. Ron

          ryankelly:  “She lies.  I know her.”

          Marina’s been temporarily banned (even though others also apparently used questionable language which required editing).  Therefore, she’s not here to defend that allegation.

          “This is all for her own entertainment.  You may enjoy it , but it is trolling and not helpful to the conversation.”

          A judgment call.  (Actually, I view the comments section in general as having an entertainment component.)

          Marina’s postings seem very “challenging” to the local establishment.  Perhaps some of her postings make others a “little too uncomfortable”.  I noticed that it’s primarily the “pro-development” types that have concerns, regarding Marina’s postings.  By censoring Marina only, the Vanguard could potentially be accused of siding with development.  (However, I have no problem when others challenge facts.) 

          [moderator] I am just putting her posts into moderation so I can read them before they appear. The topic of this thread is the Hyatt project. Please stick to that. When I get a chance to review her many posts, they will appear if they are on topic and don’t violate the Vanguard Comment Policy.

        2. hpierce

          Ron… I will not characterize a certain individual (not here, not now, at least)… however, when someone consistently presents “facts” or history that are flat out untrue, under the guise of ‘knowledge’, it is understandable (though perhaps not “right”, whatever that means) that folk will make assumptions about the person behind those, rather than tirelessly refuting the “untrue ‘facts'”.

          Particularly when that person, faced with the refutation of their ‘facts’, dissembles/changes the subject (i.e, going from land use to UCD angst), and/or characterizes those who do so, of being of ‘less than high intellectual capacity’, corrupt, etc.

          What term would you use for such a person? [some come to mind, but at least for now will be a ‘good puppy’]

          Should such a person be given ‘carte blanche’ to rant (sorry, a ‘pejorative’ that probably should be stricken) on, while deprecating/dismissing others who post?

          Both meant as honest questions.

        3. Ron

          hpierce:  “Should such a person be given ‘carte blanche’ to rant (sorry, a ‘pejorative’ that probably should be stricken) on, while deprecating/dismissing others who post?

          I understand your point, but Marina’s postings include some statements that appear to be true, as well as opinions.  When you or others challenge some of the facts that she presents, I (personally) take note of that, as well.  (For the record, you seem to be one of the more factually accurate posters on the Vanguard.)

          But, the value of Marina’s postings (for me) is not always necessarily related to the facts that you and others challenge.  (One example – her posting regarding “prosecutor, defendant, jury”.)  I find that interesting, because every time that there’s a development proposal, nearby residents are forced to “defend” their neighborhood, in a sense.  (Also, they now apparently have to “prove” why a given development that might require a zoning change is not conducive to their neighborhood.) And, the “jury” is indeed the council, for infill decisions at least.

          In any case, I’m not sure if “factual misrepresentation” is the reason that Marina was temporarily banned.  I had assumed it was due to some of the language that she (and others) were using.  (No explanation or citation of applicable policy was provided.)

        4. hpierce

          Ron…

          The analogy is SO flawed… the writer puts it in the context of criminal matters (perhaps you or they actually believe that).

          If one was to put it in a judicial setting [which I also believe is flawed], think it is more likened to civil proceedings, or better yet, family court.  Using the latter (which is marginal, at best), you have someone who is seeking constructive ‘custody’ (control) of the land they own; with a ‘spouse’ who is claiming property rights (control) over the same land (the kids, innocent pawns).  The one who seeks custody hires their counsel and consultants to assert their “rights”; the one who seeks to block that, does the same.  City staff and their consultants try to understand/resolve the issues, but are looking out for “the kids” as well.  They will cite legal principles and precedent.  They are arguably neutral.

          The Planning Commission is the referee… they pose an “opinion”, and if both parties agree, it is generally “done”… if not, the CC acts as judge.  If folk don’t like that, they can ‘appeal’, typically in the real Court system.

          Am not anywhere near an expert on Family Court, but fully believe the criminal court analogy is, well, (tempering myself), fallacious.

        5. Davis Progressive

          “Marina’s postings include some statements that appear to be true”

          problem is that they may appear to be true, but unless you were there or can access a fact checking mechanism, you have no way of knowing.  i think a lot of what she says is half-truth and some of it is complete falsehood – but how do we verify it?  so she’s completely unreliable as a source of information.   i have to be a skeptic for each statement she makes unless i know it true or know it false.  that’s not good

        6. Ron

          DP:  “problem is that they may appear to be true, but unless you were there or can access a fact checking mechanism, you have no way of knowing.”

          It didn’t take me long to find one thing that she cited which is “true” – (both) a council member and pastor’s previous involvement with Trackside.  (Although I don’t necessarily share Marina’s exact concern, in this case.)

          Actually, someone else had previously posted the link, but Marina was commenting about it.

          http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/trackside-center-project-goes-back-to-the-drawing-board/

        7. hpierce

          Yes, Ron, she had ‘facts’, previously generally known by others who had shared that (as to Lucas, months ago)… will you give my facts more credence if I tell you the sun is shining, expected to set his evening, and appear to rise tomorrow?  3 facts, which you may feel free to check.

          Something about a stopped clock being right twice a day… but not particularly useful to consult that clock all day.

          And, am still trying to figure out what term you would use for someone who writes, what was written @ 9:20 by a certain poster…

        8. Davis Progressive

          this is a good example that even where she’s right – she’s only part right.  this was widely reported last year.  lucas and bill are both divested from the project and therefore out.  so her statement was accurate, but incomplete and misleading if we were a fact-checker.  should we have to fact check every post she makes?  trackside was easy to do because it was just in the news.  give you a different example – hpierce – often disagree with him, but i trust the accuracy of his posts.

        9. Ron

          hpierce:

          Again, the value of Marina’s postings (for me) is often not related to the facts that you and others might dispute.

          In any case, she’s banned without explanation, at the moment.  So, she’s not here to defend herself (if she chose to do so). (And, she’s not the only one who engaged in questionable language, etc.)

          DP: And, your point is that the ban is appropriate? (You’re one of the commenters who apparently also required editing in your comments, above.)

        10. Ron

          David:

          O.K. – “moderation”, as noted below:

          [moderator] I’ve had it. All of your posts are going into moderation for the time being.

          I guess that means that all of her comments are scrutinized and possibly edited, before posting on the blog (not outright banned). Perhaps I misunderstood that. But, she’s still being singled out.

           

          1. David Greenwald

            Another key point Ron is that I leave the moderation decisions to Don – he is the only one removing or putting posts into moderation and I have not talked with him today about his thinking. Don is a volunteer, he is not a member of the board and he has no access to knowledge about who contributes to the Vanguard.

        11. Grok

          Watch out Ron, they are going to ban you next. They deleted my posts yesterday despite the fact that they in no way violated the posted comment guidelines. Meanwhile there are others (large financial contributes) who call for expelling people from town for ideological reasons who’s comments are left in place.

        12. Odin

          “my point is her unreliability of providing facts”

          90% of the bs I read on here is subjective, yet is sold as “fact”.  Semantics doesn’t make something factual.  Early in the Nishi stages, the development was being sold on the Vanguard with “could provide” benefits which were later revised as “will provide” since the earlier version did little to sell readers on the benefits of the project.  Don’t pretend that the Vanguard is an objective-based view of the future of Davis.  NOTHING in the future is certain and is why the Vanguard is called a blog, not a reliable place to find objectivity.

        13. Ron

          Grok:  “Meanwhile there are others (large financial contributes) who call for expelling people from town for ideological reasons who’s comments are left in place.”

          Did anything come of your questions to David, regarding financial contributions to the Vanguard?  (I missed several days of reading the Vanguard, recently.)

          Seems like this type of information should be permanently available and periodically updated, on the Vanguard. 

          In addition to outright contributions, it would be good to know the source/type of advertising revenue.

          Perhaps a permanently-available link to such information?

        14. Grok

          David Posted a reasonable breakdown of where the direct Vanguard funding comes from. It leaves many grey areas, but it is the best Davis is going to provide. It does go along way to explain where the funding is coming from. The Vanguard is clearly receiving significant funding from development interests that span several of the categories on Davids self reported chart, but it also seems the funding is coming from a diversity of sources.

        15. Ron

          Thanks, David and Grok.

          I took a quick look at the article.

          In response to that article, I noticed that Marina stated that some of the attorneys who are providing funding to the Vanguard might represent developers.

          The reason I’m bringing this up is to show that Marina provides more than “disputed information”.  (This all came up because some seem to want to exclude Marina from the blog.)  Maybe she’s too dangerous for some.

          Also – (comment edited). Just kidding!

          1. David Greenwald

            As far as I know none of the lawyers represent developers. Although come to think of it, Bill Kopper, who was a $100 sponsor at our event last month did represent Blondies. But he’s also been a long time social justice advocate and member of the local ACLU as well as a former Mayor from four decades ago.

        16. Ron

          Thanks, David.

          Marina actually said a little more than that (e.g., some are property owners, etc.).  In other words, having a vested interest in development issues, in some manner.

          In any case, it was an interesting point that she brought up.

           

        17. South of Davis

          Davis wrote:

          > Bill Kopper, who was a $100 sponsor at our

          > event last month did represent Blondies.

          Is the Bill Kopper you are talking about the former mayor of Davis?

          Any idea if he is related to the Paul Kopper that was a Davis real estate guy (that owned the Kopper Apartments) in the 90’s?

  10. Marina Kalugin

    the same jerks and a -holes that are on the wrong side of every damn issue in this town…at least since I showed up at the end of April as Alumni support the Chancellor..

    really??????  what a sorry bunch of losers….really…and I am done for the day…have at it idiots

     

  11. Marina Kalugin

    and, back in the more honest CC days, the CC folks would “recuse” themselves….if there is ever a conflict of interest…

    which would mean that Mr. Arnold would need to recuse on EACH development as his family all are realtors, as is he..

    and, also people still gripe about J/R   – when one has such a council how else can goals of the majority be carried out…  ?

     

    1. Davis Progressive

      mr. arnold ‘s family got bought out of the business when his father died, he no longer has a financial stake. you just irresponsibly throw stuff around here that you haven’t bothered to check and half the time you don’t even really understand.
      [moderator] edited. Certain words trigger the filter.

    2. Lindsay

      From what I know Will Arnold has never been a realtor and his only connection was through his family (and that connection is now over). But so what if he was a realtor? Do you even know what realtors do? They show people around who are buying or selling a house. It’s a service. That’s not the same as a developer at all. I guess they marginally benefit if there is a new development. But really, realtors benefit when home prices stay high, so they don’t want to see anything change that.

  12. ryankelly

    I don’t like being called a loser or an idiot.  This kind of post is meant to get an emotional response, which is then answered by an accusation of being attacked.  That, along with ridicule and off-topic posts and rants fits the definition of trolling.

    I hesitate to get involved in fact-checking posts about a person’s personal life, especially more so when they are off-topic and it is absolutely unnecessary.

    Some people will be entertained by this behavior and encourage it, but then this changes the purpose and value of the site.

     

  13. Tia Will

    the same jerks and a -holes that are on the wrong side of every damn issue in this town…at least since I showed up at the end of April as Alumni support the Chancellor..

    really??????  what a sorry bunch of losers….really…and I am done for the day…have at it idiots”

    I have two points to make about this. As one of the members of the editorial board at the time that we drew up the principles to be followed by posters, this is exactly the kind of comment, devoid of information, or even of opinion ( both of which I find to be of value)  but full of animosity and vitriol, that we targeted for moderation.

    Some of you are using a plural term with regard to “they” are “banning” or want to “kick Marina off”. This is completely inaccurate. In the 5 years that I have been with the Vanguard, there has been one volunteer moderator, Don Shor. None of the rest of us preview or remove comments. I have no more say on what is posted or left standing than does any other poster here. This has been made clear by Don repeatedly. Further, I am unaware of any time that anyone, regardless of the nature of their posts has been “banned” although a number have been heavily moderated.

    I am going to weigh in personally here though because this type of commenting is so far removed from what I would hope to see on the Vanguard. I would completely support Don if he began removing every comment not relevant to the topic of the article including this one of mine. Have at it Don.

    1. Ron

      Tia:  “Some of you are using a plural term with regard to “they” are “banning” or want to “kick Marina off”.”

      That would be me, I guess.

      Yes – I think that some are actively suggesting that she not post.

      As far as the Vanguard itself is concerned, she alone was “moderated”. (Take a look at the threads, today. “She lies. I know her“.)

      Regarding your point with language, I agree.  “Frankly” does the same thing, at times.  However, it’s never bothered me from either of these posters (at opposite ends of the spectrum).  Perhaps because it’s (usually) not directed at one person, but a “type” of person (or a general group).  (Sort of a stereotype/extreme example.)  And yet, I’d fall into at least one of “Frankly’s” categories.

      However, I seem to recall that Marina went after you personally, at least once.  (I don’t recall the details, and I couldn’t figure out the reason.)  But, I didn’t like it.

      Others on this blog make some rather mean-spirited personal comments at times, as well.

      1. ryankelly

        Ron, I was the one who called her a liar.  I regret posting that without being specific about her misrepresentation of facts.  I responded to her taunting.  That I regret.    If each and every post prompts corrections of fact, then one questions if this misrepresentation of facts is not purposeful and some sort of game.   I used to know her and am absolutely surprised by her manner of participation here.

  14. Marina Kalugin

    I do not appreciate being called a liar and especially by someone who claims they know me… and yet I don’t know this name…  I try to uphold the truth…unpleasant as it may be to some…and so on…

    I have no need to waste more time here but I also don’t like direct character assassinations on my character, or those of my friends and relatives….and that includes the Chancellor, and her family who are now as close to me or closer than some of my blood family…

    I may have been out of the loop on some things that have occurred, but I am always happy to be fact checked….I welcome that in fact…I like it when others do the research and present the docs..

    As far as who is a realtor or not, that is also public record….licenses can be looked up.

    I had some deadlines and raced around doing some errands…. drove by Coldwell Banker Doug Arnold Real Estate Co….it still uses the name….my buyers agent in 79 was Donna Arnold……..

    My ex used to socialize with the Taormino’s and until we split up, so did I..

    Of course, that was meant to elicit an emotional response…and it worked, right?????jeeez…

  15. Misanthrop

    Testy testy today.

    From my perspective I think the neighbors have a case to make that they bought homes with the neighboring land zoned for certain kinds of use. A use that requires a zoning change that causes interference of the quiet use of their home and property damages that quiet use. Therefore, the city council should not change the zoning but if the city council does feel compelled to change the zoning then the property owners should be compensated for the damages caused by the zoning change.

    1. South of Davis

      Misanthrop wrote:

      > the property owners should be compensated for the

      > damages caused by the zoning change.

      If the zoning is changed and some residents of Albany can see a 48 foot tall hotel (vs a 50 foot tall office building) when they walk to the north side of their yards and look over the fence and past the bike trail and greenbelt how much “compensation” do you think they deserve?

    2. ryankelly

      With the current zoning, do the neighbors have an expectation of quiet use?  I would say that their fears are unfounded and a mid-range hotel will be quieter and less intrusive than manufacturing, or other commercial uses than its current zoning will allow.

      Consider that the hotel might result in less highway noise impacting their homes. What then?

      1. hpierce

        With a decrease in freeway and UPRR noise, perhaps the project proponent should be seeking compensation for increasing property values, from the adjacent neighbors!  At least split the proceeds 50/50…

        1. Delia .

          Freeway noise- -one eventually gets used to that, like when a nearby train bothers you when one first buys a home near a train route. Or the noise of overhead planes near an airport.

          The visual view is more difficult to get used to. Those folks are near a greenbelt and an open field. The field is pretty.

          What about the star gazers?  Will the hotel lighting completely diminish their view of our constellations?

          What kind of trees will be killed? I seem to recall some nice citrus trees in that area?

    3. Jim Frame

      if the city council does feel compelled to change the zoning then the property owners should be compensated for the damages caused by the zoning change

      If the neighbors can convince a court that a taking has occurred, then compensation is in order.  Otherwise, it’s a gift of public funds.

       

      1. hpierce

        Jim is absolutely correct on both counts…. and good luck with providing sufficient evidence of a significant diminution of value (‘taking’) in any competent court.  The risk to the City is somewhat less than miniscule.

        1. Misanthrop

          I don’t think the city should pay off the neighbors but the developer should compensate them. As several of you have pointed out its a hard legal case to make but in my mind not a difficult moral one.

      2. hpierce

        Misanthrope… so, we’re going from “exactions” to “extortion”?

        I do not agree with what you portray as a “moral” issue…

        Perhaps ‘extortion’ is what some of the neighbors truly had in mind… I’d like to think not, but you raised the “pay off” concept, not me.  Are you suggesting the City should “strong arm” the applicant to consider the “pay off”?  Or, completely at the free, unpressured choice of the applicant?

        If the City helps ‘coerce’ your proposed “moral choice”, that is corruption, in my view.  Sort of a “pay to play” thing.  Which is far from moral, and against public policy, unless perhaps you come from Chicago.

  16. Tia Will

    Jim is absolutely correct on both counts…. and good luck with providing sufficient evidence of a significant diminution of value (‘taking’) in any competent court.  The risk to the City is somewhat less than miniscule.”

    I have no doubt that Jim and hpierce have this right. And what it says to me is how unilaterally our society has focused on money as our primary value to the detriment of other values.

    1. Jim Frame

      what it says to me is how unilaterally our society has focused on money as our primary value to the detriment of other values

      While we can all cite plenty of examples of ethical values pushed aside in the quest for money, money itself is inherently neutral.  (Recall that it’s not money that’s the traditional root of all evil, but rather the love of money.)  Monetary systems provide a means of establishing the relative value of non-monetary things, both tangible and intangible.  In many instances of property rights that have been unjustly taken, the court has no practical means of restoring the original rights, but by quantifying them in monetary terms they’re able to assign a fair, definite and fungible value to those rights as compensation.  It’s not a perfect system, but by and large it works.

       

  17. hpierce

    Just a thought, for those that think…

    The Planning Commission meeting packet/agenda is not up yet (as of 5 minutes ago)…

    I expect it to be, by COB tomorrow.  A thoughtful, rational person might want to read it before going too far on speculating on the history of the site, or details of the specific analysis of the proposal.  Just a thought.

    1. Marina Kalugin

      a thoughtful and reasonable expectation may be for the board to post the agenda and backup info prior to the beginning of the meeting..   in fact, by some deadline some days or a week or more before the meeting..

      this is also a tactic, when there are “touchy” subjects on the agenda, to ensure the word doesn’t get out to those who may come and speak up…

      on the flip side, they ( as all of us ) are very busy…

      it is usually one or the other….choose which resonates with you on this upcoming meeting…

  18. Ron

    Just a general thought:

    The concern that I have regarding all of the proposed infill developments is that the “will of the majority” will impose the city’s “needs” on the minority that are at risk for infill developments.  (Partly as a way to deflect those “needs” from one’s own neighborhood.)  In other words, NIMBYism at work, in a sense.

    This already seems to be a factor, in the hotel proposal.  I see a lot of “downplaying” of neighborhood concerns, even though very few neighbors seem to be commenting on the Vanguard.

    Seems like Trackside concerns were taken more seriously, as demonstrated by the result (so far, at least).

    Also, it benefits those with financial interests at stake to keep focusing on those “needs”.

    Updating the general plan won’t address this concern.  In fact, it will make it easier to override the concerns of neighbors in “at risk” neighborhoods.  (“Hey – didn’t you attend the hearing when the plan was updated?  Oh well, your loss.”)

    I suspect that many in the “at risk” neighborhoods/areas won’t even be aware of the changes proposed, until they see a new, unexpected development under construction.  (And yes – you can go ahead and “blame them” for not getting involved at the right time, I suppose.)

    If I lived next to the proposed hotel, I’d be concerned (even though many of you have made some valid points).

     

     

     

    1. hpierce

      The neighbors could always approach the applicant to acquire rights they do not have, nor are currently entitled to.  And compensate them as they mutually agree.  Implied rights, of one property owner over another, can be a very slippery slope….

      As someone else has said, “get a clue”… your property rights end at your property line, except in very few circumstances. Zoning is a right of the property zoned… not abutting ones… a basic legal principle…

    2. Delia .

      Freeway noise- -one eventually gets used to that, like when a nearby train bothers you when one first buys a home near a train route. Or the noise of overhead planes near an airport.

      The visual view is more difficult to get used to. Those folks are near a greenbelt and an open field. The field is pretty.

      What about the star gazers?  Will the hotel lighting completely diminish their view of our constellations?

      What kind of trees will be killed? I seem to recall some nice citrus trees in that area?

  19. Ron

    hpierce:  “Zoning is a right of the property zoned… not abutting ones… a basic legal principle…”

    I’ve never heard it expressed that way.  (I didn’t know the properties had “rights”, but I understand that you meant the property owner.)

    Zoning is a community-based regulation.  Otherwise, you and I would have the “right” to build whatever we want on our property.

    1. Ron

      Actually, before you correct me, I understand that the zoning is assigned to the property, not the owner.

      In any case, I think I’ve commented enough for awhile.  I’m not sure that this activity does any good, or is healthy for anyone.  (It certainly doesn’t create happiness, at least.)

      By the way, I didn’t catch the “Marina” reference right away (“get a clue”). Kind of clever, now that I realize it.

      Best wishes to you and all, if I you don’t hear from me for awhile. (Let’s see if I can stay away for awhile.)

    2. hpierce

      Ron… a primer… property rights (almost always) “run with the land”… a subsequent owner has the same rights (there are exceptions, but they would be too esoteric for most)… this doesn’t mean that a property owner can’t petition for property right changes, nor does it mean they are entitled to receive such changes.

      And no… your statement,

      you and I would have the “right” to build whatever we want on our property.

      is patently false… I have only the rights my property is entitled to, nothing more, nothing less.  I have to conform to the existing zoning, or seek to change it, with no guarantee of being granted the change…

      I DID NOT MEAN the property owner… I meant what I said… zoning runs with the LAND.  Ask any land use professional.

      [Ron,your 9:16 post coincided with mine, but have chosen to keep it in place]

       

       

        1. hpierce

          Have a great evening Ron, and continue to inquire and learn about land use principles… too many opine without the foundation of the principles and the law… the principles go back to English ‘common law’ (and the US Constitution)…  appears you are willing to learn…  good!

      1. Marina Kalugin

        wow now you are yelling….haha….I used to use caps for emphasis and kept being called out for yelling…and then I started using quotation marks sarcastically …

        and got a primer on the proper use of same….it is easier when one types fast to do those rather than bold..

         

  20. davisresident

    A lovely note to end the night for me, though I’m not sure the “appears you are willing to learn… good!” is my best hoped for outcome. Regardless, I do like to see any movement toward middle ground… Hopefully.

    1. hpierce

      As I have said before, I care not so much about “outcome”, as to what facts are brought to play in making a decision… I do not have much respect for “negotiated” outcomes as to land use issues… usually sub-optimal…

      Facts should govern, but if there is a “tweener”, have no problems with win-win’s… which is more problem solving than “compromise”, generally… yeah, there is a nuance there… I’ve seen the problem solving result in outcomes that exceeded both “parties'” expectations, and a better project… not so much for compromises/negotiations.

      Have not seen much in the way of “problem-solving” thus far….

      1. davisresident

        I like the attitude and approach toward “win-wins” and problem-solving. That is a mindset that resonates with me. Let’s end positive tonight everyone.

      2. Mark West

        “Have not seen much in the way of “problem-solving” thus far….”

        If we take Bill’s report at face value, the applicants met with and received feedback from the neighbors, and made adjustments to their design as a result. That sounds like the sort of ‘problem-solving’ that should be encouraged. The petition, the blather and 100’s of posts here…not so much.

        1. hpierce

          Had not seen Bill’s report.  First indication I’ve heard of a collaborative, rather than adversarial, approach.  May they built on that rather than…

        2. Mark West

          Three outreach meetings, when none were required. I think the applicants has worked to create a collaborative approach. That is one of the big reasons why I don’t think the opposition is being driven by the immediate neighbors, but rather some outside (so far anonymous) force.

        3. Marina Kalugin

          no-one came and it was a developer who “set up the meetings’>..

          jee,  how much advance notice did the developers give?

          and how come I, who live down the road never heard about those meetings…

          dox please…which houses were notified et al…

          dates, times, how much advance notice…. the truth is in the details….therefore I always ask for way more details than the average person…

           

        4. Grok

          That is one of the big reasons why I don’t think the opposition is being driven by the immediate neighbors, but rather some outside (so far anonymous) force.

          I have spoken with multiple people int he neighborhood. this is being driven by the people who live in the neighborhood.

          1. Don Shor

            Grok:

            8/17 I am not involved with the petition so I really have no idea what level of outreach the petitioners have done.

            8/17 Not sure what NIMBY thing your talking about since I don’t live in Rosecreek

            8/19 I have spoken with multiple people int he neighborhood.

        5. Mark West

          Grok:  “I have spoken with multiple people int he neighborhood. this is being driven by the people who live in the neighborhood.”

          I’ve seen no evidence to support that assertion, either from you or any other.  All I have seen are anonymous complaints purported to be on behalf of anonymous neighbors combined with innuendo and lame attempts at character assassination. Shills and trolls, but no real neighbors.

        6. Davis Progressive

          agree with mark.  seems like the petitioners case would be stronger with real names – i’ve not seen a comparable case.  and if you want to argue that the vanguard coverage played a role in this – even before the vanguard covered this, th petitioners name was not on it.

        7. davisresident

          Marina, they posted their third meeting on nextdoor.com on December 29th for the January 10th mtg. That’s almost 2 weeks notice. If you’re on Nextdoor, you can go check for yourself.

        8. hpierce

          Well, come Wednesday evening, the ‘petitioners’ will pretty much have to “out” themselves… pseudonyms may be fine here, but not in the Public Hearing format… will have to watch the video when I get back to town… we’ll see Wednesday night…

        9. Barack Palin

          That is one of the big reasons why I don’t think the opposition is being driven by the immediate neighbors, but rather some outside (so far anonymous) force.

          I agree.  Who’s behind the petition and how much local support do they have?  How many people that live close to the project have weighed in?  That’s who really counts, not out-of-towners who sign the online petition.  Do we really care what someone think of our zoning codes or development choices when they don’t even live in Davis?

          1. David Greenwald

            I guess it depends on what the petition s supposed to do. If the petition is going to sway council, then I think having people sign it who don’t live here (all due respect toe Delia) isn’t going to sway opinion. On the other hand, as I was talking to a Councilmember on my ride to the city this morning, if the goal was to elevate the issue of the hotel to make the community take notice, it has already succeeded.

  21. Marina Kalugin

    developers want profits now and don’t really care what they do to get them…

    in the future, if it doesn’t work out, they can just declare bankruptcy and move on to something more profitable..

    that is the legal, american way….at least that is the way it has been for some decades, and unless some things change, that is the way it will be into the future.

    it is the “little guy” against Goliath…the No on A against big business, big developers, and so on…

    it is what people are now throwing the Donald under the bus about…yet he, unlike HRC, has not committed any crimes…

    there are reasons I am so cynical…and it has to do with my experiences and the experiences of others …even in this very town…and it is not better, it is way worse now…

     

     

  22. Marina Kalugin

    PS   Ron is much sharper than many on this board and perhaps he would like to run for CC next time around…

    Ron for CC…whoever he is….

    in addition to Matt, though he also has some learning to do…   🙂

    with those 2 plus Brett, things may finally shift again in this town

    or Delia…love Delia also, though we have not met either I don’t think.

    then, there may be some “win-wins”….until we have an unbeholden council majority…that will not occur…

  23. Marina Kalugin

    there actually is case law  (fact checkers please report for duty)…where a new building encroached on one’s “light” and “sun”…or some such…

    that was my beef with the “single story” house built to the south of mine at Ricci/Woodbridge…

    at the time, there was no “height” limit attached to the single-story moniker……and we got 3 story high buildings which are disguised as single story….wow…

    that was subsequently changed, in this little ole town.. due to many complaints by those of my neighbors and me who no longer get any sun in our yard.

    it was not until decades later that the encroachment on light and sun was brought up in other communities – and the wording may have been a bit different, but the idea the same regardless…

    anyone know the correct terminology for that?   I know it exists….

     

  24. Delia .

    I signed that petition because I spent many hours sipping coffee at Abe’s Restaurant back in the day. Family members stayed at that Howard Johnsons, hotel, too. ( how funny, their nickname was HoJo)

    It’s true that I do not live on Albany Avenue. It’s also true that I am quite familiar with that neighborhood and I believe a hotel at that location will be a miserable financial failure for your village.

  25. David Greenwald

    The issue of Will Arnold and his real estate license was brought up.  He told me that prior to his run for council, as Lois Wolk approached retirement he applied for his license and a potential fallback for employment.  However, it got hung up due to problems live scanning his fingerprints (as one might imagine).  Anyway the approval came in this April (a year after he applied).  he is licensed but does not work in a brokerage and has never used his license and probably will not use it.  As I mentioned his father’s stake in Coldwell was bought out and that went into his purchase of Mother and Baby Source.  So it’s largely a non-issue but since it got brought up, and he shared it with me, I figured I’d post it here.

    1. hpierce

      Suspect they not only bought the shares, but the “name” and “good will” (pun unintended) that went with that ‘interest’.  Your main point is correct… CC member Arnold is “clean”… those who persist on pointing out the agency’s continued to use the “Arnold” name are either uninformed or true “trolls”…

    2. South of Davis

      David wrote:

      > As I mentioned his father’s stake in Coldwell was bought out

      It is public knowledge who bought his father’s stake (I’m just wondering if it was the Taormino family or someone new in town)?

  26. Marina Kalugin

    and, I am sure that one will no base any opinions on what is discussed around the kitchen table, correct?   with family all of whose livelihood depends on lots of inventory and if the prices are super high, even better.

    I have never met Will. and have only heard good things about him…  but because I was an anti-war protestor in the 60s, my son refused to go to West Point….

    though Sean’s dad tried so hard to convince me and him and both of us…that he should be there….for those who know Colonel Raycraft  (or is it General?)  he was the one who chose who in these counties should be “nominated” and so forth..

    sometimes the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree..

    one’s upbringing often colors one’s judgement as do experiences…

    for decades, the Taorminos and Arnolds were very close…and I believe there are some interrelationships…

    Dave handled the “large developer investments”……while the Arnold and family agents sold the houses and other real estate….

    at UCD>..over the decades the definition of “near relative” for the policy which Napo went after Katehi…. was expanded from husband/wife to spouse to significant other to any family member in the house to family living alone or apart  and finally, and in addition, to anyone residing in the same household.

    there was a reason for that….to make sure there are not conflicts of interest….

    and someone here is still not connecting the dots?

    of course, I also know that it is not completely fair to hold one’s parents against someone else…

    once we here though which side of issues Will is leaning on, and how he votes, we will certainly find out more about this topic.

     

     

    1. Ron

      ryankelly:

      I think the “larger” point (not directed at anyone in particular) is that if your close friends and relatives are developers and/or connected with real estate transactions, etc., it’s pretty likely that you’ll be influenced in some manner by that (even if one doesn’t participate, directly).

      And again, I can’t stress enough that this isn’t directed at anyone in particular. It’s a generalization, that may or may not hold for any particular individual.

      It’s also possible that an individual might use his/her internal knowledge in a different manner, than “expected”.
       

      1. Adam Smith

        I think this is a good point, which I suppose would hold true for those who were friends or relatives with  “anti-development” types, or   with those who might  benefit, if say, no more apartments or hotels were built in town.    I, like Ron, am not spotlighting anyone in particular.

        1. Ron

          Adam:

          You might be mixing at least two very different “types”:

          1)  Your “average” slow-growth type, who essentially has no (or very little) financial incentive.  (I don’t believe that any recently-proposed development would have a meaningful effect on most property values.)

          2)  Existing apartment owners.  (However, some apartment owners may also own undeveloped parcel(s), and would likely advocate development on it.)

          Other than that, point noted. (In general, I’m more “comfortable” with those who don’t advocate a position based on personal financial gain.)

        2. Adam Smith

          Other than that, point noted. (In general, I’m more “comfortable” with those who don’t advocate a position based on personal financial gain.)

          I think this statement would be better worded as “…personal financial gain or loss.”     Maybe this is what you meant, but I think you’ll find that say some of the existing hotel owners in Davis are advocating that the Hyatt not be built — not because it would be bad for the neighbors, but because it would be bad for their business.

           

  27. Delia .

    “For your consideration”

    Imagine if you will a super fancy conference at UCD. A nice doctor from Copenhagen wants to fly in, but the lovely Hyatt on campus is booked solid, as is that wonderful B n B near campus, and the pretty hotel adjacent to Cafe Bernardo. She is a very busy person, like another lady who writes on here. Said doctor must stay at your new Hyatt ext. stay, & fly home the very next day after your all important earth shattering medical conference is over. Will this doctor be able to get up early enough in the a.m. to walk or ride her bike to the conference, and get back on the red eye to Copenhagen the next day?

    1. davisresident

      What about the hotel shuttle?  Don’t high end hotels have hotel shuttles for situations like this.

      Here’s a different scenario:
      Imagine if you will a super fancy conference at UCD. A nice doctor from Copenhagen wants to fly in, but the lovely Hyatt on campus is booked solid, as is that wonderful B n B near campus, and the pretty hotel adjacent to Cafe Bernardo. She is a very busy person, like another lady who writes on here. Said doctor has no other options in town and has to stay at a hotel in West Sacramento or Woodland, & must fly home the very next day after your all important earth shattering medical conference is over. Will this doctor be able to get up early enough in the a.m. to take that hotel’s shuttle to the conference, and get back on the red eye to Copenhagen the next day?

    2. Barack Palin

      Will this doctor be able to get up early enough in the a.m. to walk or ride her bike to the conference, and get back on the red eye to Copenhagen the next day?

      Yes.

  28. Marina Kalugin

    interestingly enough, some of the same “concerns” ring true regardless of whether it is on campus or off, in this town or others… another thing mentioned above, the form 700 is the same conflict of interest form  that faculty, researchers el a (including the Chancellor) are required to sign…in the original hatchet letter of late April, Napolitano was “questioning” whether that paperwork was done on time, and appropriately…and it was found it was…just a few days later by the Academic Senate and later the investigators..

    ( that was in reference to DeVry).

    On another point, our department hosts many, many high level seminar speakers and also faculty recruitments.

    Even when very last minute, the only truly difficult days to reserve were during commencements.

    Once we used a lovely bed and breakfast as there were no suitable rooms left..

    (Motel 6 and econolodge, though the one in Davis is very nice….were not of the caliber ).

    Once we had single partners who wished to stay in Sac, even though there were plenty of rooms…and we used Embassy suites in old sac…

    Since the on-campus Hyatt opened up, we have not ever had a problem getting nice accomodations within walking distance to campus and/or downtown.

     

    1. davisresident

      Page 28, A13.  Hopefully, those photos can help put some concerned neighbors at ease.  I’ll be curious to hear the response to those photos.  Hoping to look through the rest of the packet tomorrow.

    2. hpierce

      See also, SR pg 5, re:  apparent fact that those present at the June meeting, attended by staff, that, “Staff offered to hold additional neighborhood meetings with or without the applicant if the residents were desirous of additional dialogue. The residents attending the meeting reiterated their opposition to the proposed hotel use and did not wish to pursue additional meetings.

      ‘Nuff said….

    3. Grok

      Now that I see the PC packet/agenda (thanks for the heads up hpierce), this is a much worse proposal than I initially thought. The thing is nothing but a laundry list of exception requests. One of them on its own might be acceptable, but all of them together make for a real problem.

      1. hpierce

        Then, I suggest you show up on Wednesday, and let the PC know of your concerns at the Public Hearing… perhaps you can enumerate further what items/combinations are particularly troubling to you.  I’d be interested in hearing them.

        If I had the concerns you suggest you have, that’s what I’d do.  But, mine are minor, so I won’t be there…

        Call the website cite a PSA… hpierce reporting…

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for