It was last summer that Yolo County received an offer from developer Angelo Tsakopoulos in exchange for him being allowed to develop a huge swath of land west of the causeway, he would use some of that money to produce a stem cell research facility. However, the idea of the stem cell research facility, the size, the location, and the proximity to a flood plain weighed heavily against such a proposal. As did the fact that the proposed site was on the periphery of Davis and the Davis City Council had not been involved in any of the discussions.
Eventually this site was eliminated more or less as a viable option for the County General Plan update.
Now we get a similar story from El Dorado. Here the housing development was not the problem, however there were other concerns.
From yesterday's Sacramento Bee:
For there is a second lesson for all involved here and that has to do with development agreements themselves. Imagine in the next development that Davis considers, if the developer has to pay some of the huge costs that the city would ordinarily have to eat. For example, the amount of cost in services for West Village is prohibitive. UC Davis will lose money on it regardless. The City of Davis if they annex it, loses somewhat less money. But imagine if one of the conditions upon which the developer is entitled to develop the property is that they have to find a way to mitigate some of the costs for the city?
In short, the real question is are we asking developers to do enough in the city of Davis when we approve their plans?
I am not advocating more development here. Nor am I suggesting that developers need to take a loss on their project.
What I am suggesting is that we ask our developers to do more than we presently do. If they want to develop land adjacent to Davis, and we think these are good projects for the future, maybe, just maybe, we should ask for things in return, so that these developments do not negatively impact the city as much as they presently do.
Just some food for thought.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
Eventually this site was eliminated more or less as a viable option for the County General Plan update.
Now we get a similar story from El Dorado. Here the housing development was not the problem, however there were other concerns.
From yesterday's Sacramento Bee:
"A developer's willingness to purchase water services in advance of home construction will help the El Dorado Irrigation District weather the downturn in the housing market.The story illustrates two things. First, that Tsakopoulos is willing to do a tremendous amount in exchange for the ability to develop housing developments, even in the midst of a construction slow down that is dissuading and encumbering many. A stem cell research facility would be a nice thing to bring to Yolo County, but not at this cost. Certainly not at the cost of having to allow Tsakopoulos to sink his teeth into our local community. But by the same measure, he does get it in a way some of our local leadership do not.
The district board Monday approved an agreement with AKT Carson Creek Investors LLC that calls for the firm to pay nearly $4.34 million in facility capacity charges for water, wastewater and recycled water service in 2008 as an advance deposit on the fees that will be levied when the residential units are built. The company owns the Carson Creek properties in the El Dorado Hills area.
District counsel Tom Cumpston said the pact is similar to contracts the district entered into in the past through assessment districts and other advance funding agreements.
"The issue is an overarching one," Cumpston said of the impetus for the agreement. "The volatility of the regional housing market has a significant effect on the district's budgeting."
Without the advance payment, he said, the district would have difficulty providing the debt service coverage for its bond program in 2008. To meet the bond obligation requirements, the district's total revenues must exceed operating expenditures, including debt payments, by 125 percent."
For there is a second lesson for all involved here and that has to do with development agreements themselves. Imagine in the next development that Davis considers, if the developer has to pay some of the huge costs that the city would ordinarily have to eat. For example, the amount of cost in services for West Village is prohibitive. UC Davis will lose money on it regardless. The City of Davis if they annex it, loses somewhat less money. But imagine if one of the conditions upon which the developer is entitled to develop the property is that they have to find a way to mitigate some of the costs for the city?
In short, the real question is are we asking developers to do enough in the city of Davis when we approve their plans?
I am not advocating more development here. Nor am I suggesting that developers need to take a loss on their project.
What I am suggesting is that we ask our developers to do more than we presently do. If they want to develop land adjacent to Davis, and we think these are good projects for the future, maybe, just maybe, we should ask for things in return, so that these developments do not negatively impact the city as much as they presently do.
Just some food for thought.
---Doug Paul Davis reporting
