Analysis: Further Examining Davis' Financial Situation

One of the issues came up last week with regards to the Budget discussion, was that of sales tax revenue. As a result, I wanted to look at total revenue for Davis per capita in comparison to other cities in region.

Assistant City Manager Paul Navazio provided me with that data, the only downside to it is that it is 2006 data from the State Controller's report. The upside is that it has a pretty good list of comparison cities, so it provides a pretty good picture and frankly I am not certain that much has changed in terms of rank order.



As one can see from the first slide here, the city of Davis is near the bottom in general fund revenue of the comparison cities. What is interesting is that cities like Vacaville, Chico, and Fairfield that have tremendously expanded their sales tax base in recent years by building a number of strip malls with big box stores, are almost identical in terms of general fund revenue (granted we are not looking at sales tax alone). Councilmember Greenwald's point is not far off that Vacaville does not have a tremendous difference.

Some have suggested that if we simply had a larger tax base, we would be in better financial shape right now. The problem is that larger tax base would mean more expenditures by the city. And once the economy reduces the revenue, the cities have found themselves in a deficit. And yes, I understand that cities should exercise greater degrees of fiscal responsibility, but the fact is they do not. Cities with greater revenue in fact are facing larger problems with the economic downturn.



The second point is really what I was trying to get at last week. Yes, Davis has lower sales tax revenues that other locales, but Davis is actually in a lot better shape that many other cities in terms of budget deficit.

Part of the reason for that is that more general fund revenue also means more general fund expenditures.

Now the expenditure data comes with a large caveat as Paul Navazio explained in his email to me. Basically no two cities are identical for purposes of this type of comparison. Some cities, for example, provide library services, paramedic transport, public health, etc. Very few cities operate there own water and sewer utility, whereas Roseville operates its own electric utility, some cities operate their own Housing Authority, etc. Navazio removed capital program expenditures, that will reduce the expenditures for some cities, for some reason Roseville is coming to mind, but it enables us to better gauge spending on comparable terms.

Based on these data, I make two more general points. First, with regards to city employee salaries--and the biggest concern there is going to be both retirement and rising health costs. Davis has seen as we have presented in the past a meteoric rise in employee salaries over just the eight years in this decade. Total compensation to city employees rose from just over $27 million in 2000-01 to just under $50 million in 2007-08, which is an increase of $21.7 million over an eight year period.

At the same time, tax revenues have not kept up. That is a big concern.

Part of that has been driven by the need to compete with neighboring communities for quality employees. That is indeed a concern and it is one that we need to take into consideration. In fact, as Paul Navazio showed in October, Davis is in fact in better condition than it's neighbors in terms of city salaries. The problem is that we have still seen a large rise.

Last week the Davis Enterprise surprisingly called for greater transparency in the salary contract process. They in fact, questioned the practice of using recent labor agreements from other nearby communities as benchmarks to help determine Davis' wages and benefits in an effort to remain competitive.

"Unfortunately, some of our neighbors have been overly generous and, like lemmings, we have followed them over the cliff's edge."

That's actually a pretty good description and so I respectfully have to disagree with the conclusions the city made back in October that simply because we are somewhat better off than our neighbors is not a rationale to continue the same policies that will lead more cities to bankruptcy such as Vallejo has faced.

A final point, I want to make here is that I actually agree that we should expand our sales tax revenue. I see that as a longer term solution to the city's budget. That is a prime reason I now oppose residential development on a 100 acre parcel of land that is currently zone for light industrial uses. It is the largest remaining parcel within the city limits so zoned and it would be a mistake to take that out of the market.

One of the things we are learning is that the Lewis Properties much like the owners of Westlake, never really marketed the property for business uses. The result is that while they claim there has been no interest, they have not actually tested that theory, and in fact, if that site were to be marketed there seems to evidence that there is some considerable interest just as there are grocers who apparently want to come to Westlake.

While there are considerable differences between Davis and San Luis Obispo, one of the things I have looked at is their model for economic development. In terms of residential development, San Luis Obispo has almost not grown since 1990. I think the population in 1990 was around 42,000 and now it's around 44,000. What they have done is develop their economic base. I would like to see some of that in Davis.

As I have stated in the past, I am generally opposed to the kind of big box retail companies like Target or Wal Mart. In part, I think they are inefficient producers of tax revenue, often taking more resources out of a location than they bring in. Moreover, from a long term perspective, their policies are not sustainable. We need to move in a different direction.

I think as Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza expressed pretty eloquently at the previous council meeting during the discussion on Lewis-Cannery, there is a huge and growing green technology industry. Davis is primly situated to take advantage of that. As Councilmember Greenwald suggested, we have missed out on past booms such as the dot.com one. We should not miss out on the green technology boom.

I would also like to see us expand some into retail, but I would prefer smaller and more sustainable types of business other than big box.

If we are smart and innovative, we can make a lot of the kinds of changes that we want without sacrificing the character of our community. Obviously there are some on this blog who do not give a darn about that and in fact want to get rid of that. One wonders why they have chosen to live if here if they dispise it so much. However, I think these people are in the very small minority of the populace in Davis who have repeatedly voted to continue relatively slow growth and strongly environmental principles. Many of these people are the same who derided Measure W and we found out that those people were in the very small minority of Davis residents. For much of Davis, the challenge is how to expand our base without sacrificing what makes Davis, Davis. How do we grow without becoming like Fairfield and Vacaville.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Power Shift on the Council: Souza Emerges As Power Center

The 2008 Elections saw Councilmember Don Saylor win the most votes to ascend to the position of Mayor Pro Tem, Davis' version of the mayor-in-waiting as Mr. Saylor will take over as Mayor in 2010. However, since the new session began, we have instead seen Don Saylor increasingly marginalized on the council. Emerging as the most powerful member of the council was Stephen Souza, who has acted as the swing vote on numerous key contented votes since September 8.

It is a small sample to be sure, just 12 contested votes (i.e. non-unanimous votes), but the pattern is clear. Souza has shaped the council's agenda voting with the majority on 11 of the 12 votes. Not only that, but he has played the role of kingmaker, shaping the direction of the policy. It is not only the number of votes, but the importance of the votes whether it has been on living wage, the Ogrydziak project, Cannery Park, and last week on both J Street and Hunt-Boyer.

Meanwhile it is top-vote getter Don Saylor who have been increasingly marginalized on the council as the vote of extremity, voting on the losing side of contested votes 8 of the 12 times. Mr. Saylor has been the lone dissenter on three of the votes including the Cannery Park, the letter on the Grand Jury Report, and the New Harmony CEQA. In addition, the Mayor Pro Tem has voted with Mayor Ruth Asmundson on the losing end of a 3-2 vote five times. The Mayor herself has been on the short-end of the vote on six votes.

By comparison, Lamar Heystek has found himself on the short-end of two votes, Councilmember Sue Greenwald has been on the losing end of just one vote.

These numbers alone understate the impact of Stephen Souza on the council. For one thing, these are just final votes. A good example is on the Cannery Park proposal. Councilmember Sue Greenwald made a motion to keep the current zoning in place and deny Lewis Planned Communities' application to change the zoning. That vote failed by a 3-2 vote. However, Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek would then join Mayor Asmundson and Stephen Souza in supporting City Manager Bill Emlen's recommendation to pursue an equal weight EIR.

In another example just this week, Mr. Souza forged out a compromise on the issue of the Hunt-Boyer building where the council had been split as to whether to turn it into a visitor's center or to pursue a restaurant. Mayor Asmundson and Mayor Pro Tem Saylor strongly supported the visitor's center option, while Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald supported the restaurant. Souza worked out a compromise that passed by a 3-2 vote which would explore both options including putting forward an RFP on a restaurant.

Souza was also the deciding vote on the living wage vote.

Perhaps the most interesting vote was on an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Marie Ogryziak's project on B Street. Councilmember Souza abstained from taking a position in that vote. His abstention meant that the project would be denied for at least a year. After that vote there was a public exchange between Souza and Saylor.

Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor was not happy. He informed Councilmember Souza that due to his vote the project would be killed. The councilmember was well aware of the implications of his actions.

The councilmember said:

"I have a major conflict here trying to pit history against the environment."

Mr. Saylor responded:

"So you deny the project by not doing either."

What is clear here is that Councilmember Stephen Souza now occupies the middle ground on the council on most contested votes. His is the swing vote. But for the most part, they are centrist votes. On both the Cannery vote and the Hunt-Boyer vote, he opposed to more progressive position of Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek and instead forged out his own compromise position.

But there is a notable point along those lines. On both of those votes (these are prime examples), Councilmembers Greenwald and Heystek did not get their preferred option. In both cases however they were willing to compromise and work with Councilmember Souza to get a project or an outcome that was closer to their preferred option than the alternative. In that sense both Greenwald and Heystek have been very strategic in their votes and willing to compromise to get things accomplished. As a result, both Greenwald and Heystek have been in the majority on contested votes 11 and 10 times respectively.

The same cannot be said for Mayor Pro Tem Saylor who has refused to compromise and move from his core position in order to get things done. Despite his rhetoric of moderation, his actions have placed him on the most extreme end of the council this term.

The main caveat to this pattern is that it is a very short period of time, since September 8, 2008 and only on a few votes, 12. But it seems, that a new pattern is emerging on the council and the sharp dividing lines that had existed previously are beginning to breakdown. This is to the credit not only of Councilmember Souza but also Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald who have been willing to work with Mr. Souza to get things done.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Council Goes with Equal Weight Alternative EIR on Cannery Site by 4-1 Vote

The Davis City Council eventually agreed by a 4-1 vote to go with City Manager Bill Emlen's recommendation for the Lewis-Cannery Project.

a. Evaluation, refinement and processing of the mixed use project concept proposed by Lewis or some variation thereof
b. Request Lewis to also prepare a full business park alternative plan for the site
c. Initiate City sponsored public outreach efforts with focus on the immediate neighborhood; and discussions with UCD and representatives in the tech sector regarding future business park land needs
d. Conduct an equal weight EIR analysis that evaluates the impacts of both the Cannery Park mixed use and Business Park Use concepts
e. Direct staff to conduct a more detailed analysis of options and strategies for meeting future business park land needs in light of current build out rates, including but not limited to, retaining the current zoning and the potential use of the Lewis site for other purposes
f. Direct staff to prepare a detailed timeline for completing this work; return to Council to adopt the timeline; make a strong commitment that the city will adhere to the timeline

The council eventually agreed to this well-crafted compromise with two modifications. First, they put a one-year time-frame on the EIR. Second, at the behest of Councilmember Sue Greenwald, the city with possible outside expert help will develop the full business park alternative in order to prevent a possible conflict of interest with the Lewis Planned Communities expressed desire to create a mixed-use project.

The centerpiece of this compromise was Bill Emlen's belief that there has not been a full study of the business park alternative. That the city has not fully considered the impact of a change in zoning from the current usage. Emlen argued the full-weight alternative EIR was needed to fully consider the business park alternative. In addition, having a full weight EIR would allow the council in a year's time to adopt this alternative and put it into place if that is the route they decide to go. Emlen did not believe that the city had enough information to make a decision on the form of the mixed use or even whether to go with a mixed-use approach exclusive to the site.

The eventual 4-1 vote with Mayor Pro Tem Don Saylor the lone dissenter, however belies quite a bit of difference in the council's general belief of what should be done on this site.

Councilmember Sue Greenwald was adamant that the current owners of the site have been strongly opposed to a business park alternative that would feature high-tech and possibly green technology industry. She made an alternative motion to deny the zoning change and direct the owners to find suitable business ventures for the site. Councilmember Lamar Heystek joined her on the motion, but the substitute motion was defeated 3-2.

Councilmember Don Saylor largely supported the current proposal and believes that it was the proper approach. However, it was clear from the beginning that he was outnumbered 4-1 in terms of his view of proceeding with the main project. He tried to argue for a substitute motion which would make the Lewis-Cannery proposal as the main EIR and the business park alternative as an alternative, but not an equal weight alternative. The Mayor Pro Tem was turned down by both the City Manager and Councilmember Souza on that approach, both of whom argued that such an EIR would not fully explore the business park alternative and if the council adopted that approach in a year, it would be required to do a new EIR with the business park option as the main project. This would slow things down. As it is, the cost to the developer according to the city manager will run from between $50,000 to $100,000 in additional money to do the equal weight EIR versus the more traditional main plan and then alternative project EIR.

The swing votes on the council ended up being Stephen Souza and Mayor Ruth Asmundson. The Mayor wanted some sort of mixed-use project. However, the definition of mixed-use to her was unclear in her own mind. She could foresee something that was anywhere from 50-50 to 80-20. Moreover, she could also mixed-use not as project-specific but rather area specific, where a large area of residential neighborhoods surrounds the business park.

Councilmember Stephen Souza was quite eloquent. He passionately argued for the need for Davis to take advantage of the green-technology revolution that is sweeping the country. He also argued that this project does not have the "wow factor" that he is looking for, and thus is not a project he is inclined to approve. However, he also stopped short of calling for the business park alternative. He wants 100 acres of dedicate business park, but said he is not convinced that this is the location for it. In fact, he believes it is not. He also wants the area studied with the adjacent Covell Village to determine the best usage.

While I do not fully agree with Stephen Souza, I think he did a very good job of articulating the need for the city to be on the edge of innovation in terms of its land use both in terms of green technology and also in terms of sustainable development. In the end, we probably do not see eye-to-eye on the issue of masterplanning the entire area of Lewis plus Covell, but I think he made a strong point on his concerns about completing the bike loop and road access to the east.

Lamar Heystek argued passionately that we need jobs and have good high-tech, green technology jobs was a strong way to go. Sue Greenwald continued her strong advocacy of high-tech, arguing that we have missed out on a number of these start-ups because we did not have the land available for high-tech. The period of build out is not prohibitive because the land is already zoned and in place. We need to however forcefully and strongly pursue these start-ups. She also made a good point about the proximity of the university. There are many university towns looking for high-tech jobs that are close in proximity to the university. People argue that our cost of housing is prohibitive, but places like Berkeley and Stanford for example actually have higher costs for housing. Davis has a lower cost of housing than many competing university towns.

In the end, I would argue that Bill Emlen and his staff did a commendable job laying out the issues and crafting a compromise that keeps the alternative of a business park and a high tech build out on the table. Lewis Planned Communities argued that they would accept business suitors for the property, but the problem is that they have not made a concerted effort to publicize that desire. They believe that the housing option would be more lucrative. But the city in fact has a number of housing options on the table already. For instance Grande has 41 units if approved, Verona another 83 and is already approved, Simmons 90-110, Wild Horse Ranch could feature another 191 if the voters approve that project following council approval. Right there is over 400 units that could be built if the market allows. That does not include the rather large West Village Development. Does the city really need an additional 600 units at this time, in this market? That's questionable.

For those arguing that we need more affordable housing, ask yourself, does Lewis provide that? And should we settle for what appears to be a mediocre housing proposal because we are desperate for housing? I agree with Stephen Souza, we need a wow factor. Don Saylor argued last night that we'll never find a wow project. I disagree. I saw a wow project just last week and I will be discussing that project in the future. I think there are wow projects that could come forward and can be on the cutting edge of innovation. We just need to raise our standards.

At the end of the day, Kevin Wolf, former chair of the Housing Element Steering Committee made a vital point, Lewis Planned Communities bought this property knowing its current zoning. We do not owe them anything. We need to do this process right. Bill Emlen, who I often disagree with, gave us a plan by which we can do exactly that.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Lewis-Cannery: Wrong Place, Wrong Time For Housing

The issue of what should be done on the long-vacant Lewis-Cannery Property has been discussed at great length in this community and on this blog. I invite everyone to hear the radio show where the Vanguard interviewed Lewis Planned Communities representatives Ken Topper and Jeanne Jones. In addition, Sue Greenwald yesterday had guest commentary in support of keeping the current high-tech zoning in place. Up until the last few days I have remained neutral on the issue of whether to keep Lewis-Cannery as currently zoned, high-tech, and create a 100-acre business park, or whether to change the zoning to mixed-use, and build up to 600 units of housing with a 20-acre business park.

There are indeed good reasons to change the zoning of this property. As we look for locations with which to accommodate new housing needs from within the city, this is an area that is already within the boundaries of Davis and more importantly already paved over. with infrastructure and many city services already in place The ideal of preserving farmland and agriculture is a strong priority for me as well as others in this community.

Additionally, some have argued that development on the 100-acre Cannery property would relieve pressure to build on the larger adjacent Covell Village site. Unfortunately, two recent developments belie that belief. First, the circulation of the map of the property which contains two rather telling arrows, one of which points north from the Cannery site towards Covell Village and the other points east from the Cannery site again towards Covell Village. The consultants for Lewis-Cannery argue that they are designing the site independently of Covell Village. Covell Village rests outside of the current city boundaries and would require a Measure J vote. Therefore different issues underlie the two properties including a 60-40 vote from just three years ago against the development of Covell Village. The goal of Lewis-Cannery is to enable a decision to made independent of their site.

However, by accommodating potential future growth at Covell, Cannery unwittingly perhaps is facilitating future development. A more sinister development occurred with the city's staff report on the site for tonight's city council meeting which includes a memo from City Manager Bill Emlen. The Davis Enterprise yesterday excerpted from the memo, but buried the lead on the key portion. The last two paragraphs of the big-headlined front page article: "City manager: Cannery site needs more study."

Emlen also would like the City Council to consider the cannery's neighboring property, an 800-acre parcel that is technically outside of city limits. The parcel was proposed as a large housing development, Covell Village, but Davis voters rejected it in 2005.

'While not in the city, it is designated industrial in the county and clearly has future development potential,' Emlen wrote. 'It seems a lost planning opportunity to not address both properties in a master plan concept.'

City Manager Bill Emlen spells it out quite clearly--the city is looking to plan for the two projects concurrently and there is no way to escape the conclusion that Lewis-Cannery is in fact the gateway to Covell Village. For this reason I can no longer remain neutral with regards to Lewis-Cannery.

Today for the first time, I publicly oppose the mixed-use option, the current proposal, and any change to the high-tech zoning of the site.

In fact, there are a number of other key issues that have led me to this conclusion including my recent visit to San Luis Obispo over the Thanksgiving Holiday. As many know, I grew up in San Luis Obispo. There are many similarities between San Luis Obispo and Davis including a strong commitment to the preservation of open space, agricultural land, natural habitat, and toward the implementation of public policy designed to produce slow and controlled growth. However, there is a big difference between the two besides the obvious climatic and geographic differences. San Luis Obispo while having almost the same population of 44,000 that it had when I moved in 1996, has a much more strongly developed commercial base.

People have expressed concern about housing in Davis, but given the development of West Village by the university, and the smaller developments such as Grande and Simmons within town, and the other available infill options over the next ten years. I am not that concerned about housing. We will meet many of our internal housing needs as well as our state mandated growth targets over the next decade.

However, the housing market makes any new housing development precarious at best. The credit market is in dire straights, and the ability to finance such projects remains in serious doubt for the foreseeable future.

From a commercial perspective, the city of Davis is in dire need of additional sources of revenue. We are staring down a deficit, unmet needs, the collapse of the revenue from automobile sales, the possibility of new taxes to pay for basic city services, and the certainty of rate hikes for utilities. We know from past discussions, that housing is not a good source for on-going revenue. In fact, given the costs of provisions of city services, new development is as likely to lose revenue for the city as gain it.

Even without the housing situation, the Lewis-Cannery property falls short of what City Councilmember Stephen Souza called the "wow-factor." This project could quite simply be dropped into any city, any town, any neighborhood. There is no great innovation. There is nothing to lend itself to suggest, wow, this is a great project that we need in this city. At best, it fills a need for housing that could be better addressed in other parts of the city in more innovative and eco-friendly ways. In terms of green innovations, there are vague mentions but nothing specific in terms of carbon-neutrality, design-efficiency, alternative power, energy neutrality. By way of comparison, the proposed-Wild Horse Ranch project is well ahead of Lewis in these areas despite the fact that Lewis-Cannery is further along in the process at this point in time.

If we are going to development new housing, we need it to be cutting edge housing that moves us forward into the next era of urban land use. The current proposal from Lewis-Cannery quite simply does not do that at this point. The proposal is fine, but there is no "wow factor." (Later in the week, I will talk about a "wow" moment I experienced in San Luis Obispo that gave me great insight into the type of housing that we need in Davis.)

The other great problem with the Lewis-Cannery property is that of traffic mitigation. The preliminary estimates are that the current proposed development would produce something between 11,000 and 14,000 (at minimum) additional car trips a day spilling onto the already congested Covell Blvd. When asked about the traffic impacts, the consultants suggested that the traffic study would help them figure out how to mitigate. The problem is that we have been down this road once before with Covell Village. There was no answer then to the traffic impacts and the mitigation thereof. And it seems unlikely that the Lewis Planned Communities plan will have any better luck. One of the reasons that Covell Village went down to such a large defeat was the impact on traffic and the fact that there is no clear outlet. Bike paths and alternative transportation are great, but cannot be relied upon to reduce traffic impacts. There does not seem to be an easy answer here.

The current Lewis plan is for 46 acres to be developed for 610 homes however once they are built there is nothing to stop the developer from organizing the new residents into supporting Lewis Planned Communities from converting the additional 20 acres from commercial/ light industrial to residential and finish building another 300 homes, for a full build out of 900 homes. So on a total 98 acre lot Lewis Homes will have built half of the homes originally proposed by Covell Village, 1900 homes on a 484 acre lot. In other words, this is not a small proposal. This is a huge proposal that would go forth with no Measure J mandated vote.

Given the lack of innovative housing plan, given the likely unmitigated traffic impacts, given the state of the housing market, given our need for commerce, the answer for what to do with the Lewis-Cannery property becomes much simpler. I recommend the city place the property in urban reserve for the next ten years. In the meantime, the city should assign a staffer full-time with the responsibility of bringing in new business and developing the business park. The viability study suggested a protracted build out, but if done properly and aggressively, this would not be an impossibility. I want to see green, high tech companies come in that produce jobs and revenue for the area. Davis should become a leader in green technology and there is frankly no better location in the city to do this than the Lewis-Cannery property. It is the largest parcel of land zoned for high-tech.

Unfortunately, the city has not put the type of effort needed to attract that kind of business. So the city council is going to have to direct city staff to do this and make it a priority. This is our shot at creating a lasting legacy that can transform Davis into the center for new and sustainable green business that it ought to be based on both the proximity of the university and the commitment that this community has toward environmental sustainability. Moreover, it is time for this community to stop developing huge sprawling new and expensive subdivisions that could be located anywhere and to once again become the cutting-edge for environmental sustainability in terms of sustainable and energy efficient housing, housing that achieves carbon neutrality, housing that is designed specifically to protect farmland from urban development. This is not the time to compromise on these principles.

Tonight, our city council needs to stand up for green high-tech industry and for moving Davis forward into a new era of sustainable development.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Guest Commentary: Keep The Old Cannery Site Zoned High-Tech

We are Running Out of Usable Parcels for High-Tech

by Sue Greenwald

On Tuesday, the City Council will be deciding the fate of the only significant remaining parcel of land within our City limits which is large enough to accommodate new medium-sized high-tech companies. If we don’t retain the existing business park zoning of the old cannery property, we are unlikely to attract substantial new high-technology industry to Davis, and Davis is likely to lose out on the green-energy research and development funding that is central to the incoming administration’s fast-tracked fiscal stimulus program.

The old Hunt-Wesson cannery site at Covell and F street is currently zoned for a high-tech oriented business park. Shortly after the old tomato cannery closed, the land was purchased by a southern California development corporation. The company, Lewis Planned Communities, bought high-tech industrially zoned land and has been lobbying to change the zoning from high-tech oriented business park to housing ever since they acquired it.

Lewis has presented their rezoning proposal as “mixed-use”, but in fact the parcel, at only about 66 usable acres, is not large enough to include a major residential component and still be a viable high-tech business park. I’ll be blunt: “Mixed-use” is, in the case of the Lewis proposal, a euphemism for a housing subdivision. If the council is serious about promoting economic development and serious about attracting high-technology companies to Davis, the council will turn down the Lewis proposal at our meeting this week.

A number of arguments have been raised by those who wish to turn our last significant business park parcel into housing. Let me dispense with a few key questions quite briefly. “Is this parcel viable as a business park?” According to industry realtors and to our city’s hired consultant, the answer is “yes”. “Would high-tech companies find the site attractive?” Again, the answer is “yes”. And, no, high-tech industry does not need, or necessarily prefer, to be near a freeway.

So why hasn’t this parcel already become a high-tech business park? As long as the council signals that we will entertain suggestions of rezoning, it is only natural that the parcel’s owners will hold out for more profitable housing. I have talked with mayors and planners from Cupertino to Seattle, and have found that they too struggle with the pressures from developers to rezone their scarce high-tech land to housing. At some point, the city has to give developers and land speculators a clear message that we will retain our industrial zoning. Only at that point will the owners decide to work cooperatively with the city to develop a business park or to sell the land priced realistically at its true business-park land value. In today’s financial climate, developers are unlikely to choose to tie up precious capital while paying property taxes if the council stands resolute.

Some have suggested that we rezone the Hunt-Wesson for housing and annex new peripheral land for a business park. But annexation is a long and cumbersome process with an uncertain outcome, it entails less revenue for the city, and it would result in poorer land use planning.

Fiscally, any hypothetical annexation of new land for a business park would result in less revenue for the city than using the cannery site. Land like the cannery parcel which is already within our city’s boundaries has a tax formula that was set many years ago. When we annex new land today, we must negotiate a tax split with the county, and such terms are certain to be less favorable to the city than our existing formula. If we annex new county land, the city will receive a lesser share of the revenue.

In terms of timing, annexation would take too long. We have attracted some important high-tech companies recently, but we are now out of land for additional mid-sized companies.

Although the national economy and residential real-estate are currently at a stand-still (Davis has approved 160 ownership housing units which remain unbuilt, not even counting the Grande or Simmons sites), there is a likelihood that the incoming administration is going to fast-track funds for green technology research and development. President-elect Obama has already pledged $10 billion for green technology R&D, and green technology is a major component of his fiscal stimulus plan. Davis should be a beneficiary of this program, but without the land zoned and ready to go, we will have no chance of becoming a green technology center. This opportunity will come only once.

Finally, in terms of land-use planning, it is far better to have our clean, high-tech jobs within walking and biking distance of our neighborhoods, rather than further from town.

Some have suggested that we use the PG&E site between 2nd and 5th Streets at L Street near downtown for high-tech industry. From a smart-growth perspective, this would be the saddest decision of all, because the twenty-five acre P.G.&E. site is the only site available for a visionary, high-quality, transit-oriented townhouse and condominium development within walking distance to downtown and AMTRAK.

We stand at a fork in the road. It is time to break the old patterns of suburban sprawl by building our jobs near our existing housing, and our housing downtown near our existing jobs and mass transit hub. We can do conventional planning, or we can do smart growth. We can position ourselves to become a high-technology and green-technology center, or we can let the chance slip by. We have the chance of a generation to make the right planning decisions, starting Tuesday night.

Sue Greenwald has served on the Davis City Council since 2000. She was Mayor from 2006-2008.

Proposed Lewis-Cannery Project on Vanguard Radio

On Wednesday, Vanguard Radio had Ken Topper and Jeanne Jones from Lewis Planned Communities on as guests, talking about their mixed=use proposal for Cannery Park.

• To listen to the full interview, click here.

What Should Happen with the Lewis-Cannery Property?

The Cannery Park property and how it should be developed is one of the biggest looming questions before the city in the next few years. Some have suggested it needs to remain zone light industrial in order to attract new cutting edge high tech business. Others have pointed out that this is not a viable use for the land and have favored either a residential development or a mixed-use that combines a business park with residential workforce housing.

The city commissioned a viability study that was discussed earlier this week at a joint BEDC-City Council Meeting.

According to the study:

"The Cannery Park site includes 66 acres of the remaining 138.9 acre vacant land supply currently designated for business and industrial park development in the City of Davis 2010 General Plan, or about half the total supply. It also represents the largest infill parcel considered by the 2013 General Plan Housing Element Update Steering Committee and Davis Planning Commission for housing possibilities."

In terms of feasibility the reported offered the following:

"Although the Cannery Park site is a viable and competitive location for business and park development, feasibility of development at the site will be driven in large part by the specific definition of entitlements for this property. This definition is policy driven and requires consideration of the types of uses, intensity of development, and development controls that the City of Davis will permit at the Cannery Park site."

"Currently, the Cannery Park site is partially entitled and it is unclear to what extent the site’s current “Planned Development #01-00 (Industrial)” zoning classification adopted in 2000 can accommodate the business park market opportunities identified in this report."

"Entitlements with highly restrictive, discretionary, and unclear regulatory controls will limit the site’s capture/absorption of business park market opportunities and will negatively impact project feasibility."

This is a key point that the report makes, because apparently the zoning for this site is unclear and incomplete and that may be contributing to some of the problems that they have had finding businesses to come in.

Thus the report suggests:

"Business park development at Cannery Park can be best facilitated by clear rules of development that accommodate business and tenant needs while providing economic incentives for the development to occur."

The study looks at five different scenarios of which we will look at three.

"Scenario 1 -Basic Business Park/No Residential. This scenario assumes that Cannery Park is developed as an 862,000 square foot basic business park that is similar in form, character, and tenanting to the overall Davis business park market. This scenario assumes that the site is entitled to compete for 100 percent of the demand for Davis business park space by permitting occupancy by all types of firms currently in office and flex space in Davis. It would have a 16 year projected buildout and assumes a 55,000 square foot annual absorption rate inclusive of ancillary support uses."

"Scenario 4 -High Tech Business Park/No Residential. This scenario assumes that Cannery Park is entirely developed as an 862,000 square foot high tech business park. This scenario assumes that the site is entitled to compete for about 40 percent of the market demand for Davis business park space by permitting occupancy by high tech uses while not allowing most other uses. This scenario is considered infeasible given its projected 39 year build out period and a 22,000 square foot annual absorption rate (inclusive of ancillary support uses)."

"Proposed Lewis Planned Communities Plan. This scenario summarizes the proposed Lewis plan for Cannery Park as provided by Lewis Planned Communities to ESG. This Plan assumes 225,000 square feet of business park space and 610 residential units. It is unknown to what extent the business park space includes (or does not include) ancillary support uses. This scenario assumes that the site is entitled to compete for 100 percent of market demand. Lewis estimates that this scenario would have 5 to 8 year buildout based on a 28,000 to 49,000 square feet annual absorption rate."

The report goes on to suggest the following impacts of those scenarios.

"Scenario 1 would generate the most jobs (2,586) and business activity with 862,000 square feet of building area and no residential. Annual business revenues are estimated at $301,700,000."

"In contrast, the proposed Lewis Planned Communities plan with 225,000 square feet of building area and 610 residential units would generate the least jobs and business activity of these scenarios. Its annual business revenues are estimated at $78,750,000."

"Scenario 4, the high tech business park with no residential, is excluded from this discussion because it is considered infeasible."

"Scenario 1 would generate fiscal surpluses because fiscal costs to service business park development are typically a fraction of fiscal revenues since employees generally utilize a smaller percentage of governmental services than residents."

"The fiscal impacts of Scenario 3, which would generate 1,034 jobs and business activity in combination with 500 residential units, and the proposed Lewis Planned Communities plan, which would generate 600 to 850 jobs and business activity in combination with 610 residential units, cannot be evaluated at this point because they both would include significant residential development."

Discussion and Commentary

The meeting on Monday generated no action, but there was a clear consensus from the BEDC Commission that the mixed-use model was the most appropriate model to move forward with. Indeed there is much to lend itself to Lewis' plan for the property. The goal is to provide workforce housing in the affordable range. This would be accomplished through a mix of smaller units, larger amounts of open space and shared space, and then about 20 percent of the property being used for a business park.

The breakdown of 80-20 is interesting because they suggest they would generate on the low end about 600 jobs in combination with about 610 residential units, roughly a one-to-one ratio. While there would likely not be overlap between the jobs and the residents, in theory it would make it feasible for less commute and therefore make the project more environmentally sustainable.

The other finding of interest here is that they found that the high tech business park with no residential to be infeasible. The study projects that it would require a roughly 40 year build out period that does not fit in with the goals of the community. Large users, in addition, according to staff want distance from residential and community uses.

The question now as the council decided to bring back the item before the council on a future Tuesday night is what the council will want to do and how quickly they want to go forward with this project.

The community still needs to assess whether they think a plan with 610 residential units and a corresponding number of jobs in the business park is the optimal use for the property.

The other key factor is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, the adjacent Covell Village. There are some on the council that believe that the two sites need to be planned concurrently. However, the people at Lewis do not necessarily concur with that assessment. They believe that there are separate issues on each site that make them very different planning challenges. Lewis is within the city limits, it is paved over and thus the issue of agricultural land and the issue of flood abatement are not there. There is no Measure J requirement for Lewis.

That said, obstacles remain. A plan that would include 600 new residences and 600 jobs will have a huge impact on traffic on Covell Blvd that must be dealt with. From their standpoint, the two sites can be dealt with separately, their plan calls for a community open space park to border the Lewis property on the East. Should a future development go there, the park could be expanded and adapted to accommodate increased needs, but it would not necessitate such a development. The goal seems to be to neither preclude nor require future development.

Nevertheless the future of Lewis seems very uncertain at this moment. The process has not moved forward very rapidly. The council called for a future discussion, but that future discussion may be in the distant rather than near future. In the meantime there has been no EIR planned and the project remains somewhat in flux.

We will see in the coming months what the future holds for the largest undeveloped parcel within the city limits.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Growth Discussions To Continue Tonight

Tonight at 7 PM at the school district conference room the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee will meet in part to discuss the results from the workshop two weeks ago.

It is not altogether clear what the results of the workshop were and how much they will affect the final decisions made by the panel. It seems that there were only nine ranking changes on six different sites that were suggested by 15 or more people. Three of these dealt with Covell Village and two Nishi.

Only two of the suggestions were to raise the ranking. That included the Lewis Cannery project which was recommended from Medium to High. And the full Covell Village property which was also recommended from Medium to High.

(see all eight summary charts of the workshop).

A few quick thoughts on these changes and then some more general comments.

First, the recommended move of PG&E makes some sense. I know it is a convenient area to consider since it is infill and not all that useful at this point in time. However, from what I understand the city would have to pay the moving costs for PG&E to relocate their property and that would run around $60 million. I know the Mayor has been a strong advocate for this project and location, and perhaps there is some aspect of this I am missing, however right now I tend to agree with the comment: "Not realistic for development."

Two of the Nishi proposals were lowered one from high to low and one from medium to low. I agree with that. Access is a huge concern. Right now realistically it looks like you would only have access from Olive Drive by car. That is a highly congested area as it is and adding more vehicle traffic would just be problematic. The bicycle access plans are a good idea, but this is just not realistic until you fix the traffic.

Many suggested that Signature be reduced from medium to low. In general, sprawl is opposed by the public. This is really something that our city leaders need to take into consideration. I do not believe that the sports park development is a sufficient reason to develop inside the Mace Curve at this time.

Then the 800 pound gorilla--Covell Village. There were significant recommendations moving the development in both directions. The traffic congestion issue is the big one that led voters to reject it in the first place but a close second would be the sprawl factor, the agricultural land factor and the very fact that the voters just rejected this a little over two years ago.

On the plus side, you have people citing it as a unique infill location (it is not infill), a great location for senior community, and close to shopping and schools.

The bottom line, is that you can argue that it is close to downtown relatively speaking, but overall it is a bad place to grow the way that Davis is currently configured. You simply lack the infrastructure and access to put more people in that location. There is no freeway access. All traffic would have to dump onto Covell, and Woodland is developing down Road 102, which means that traffic is going to be going from Davis to Woodland.

At the end of the day, I'm not completely unhappy with the way the HESC process has played out. But there are a number of concerns that I will go into briefly.

First, if Covell is the 800 gorilla, the 1% growth rate is the brontosaurus. Everything that was done by this committee now depends upon how much we should grow. At the last council meeting, the council majority, specifically Councilmember Don Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson, talked about the need for housing. I just couldn't disagree more at this point in time given the housing market, given the strains on city budget and infrastructure. People think of housing as a means to raise city revenue but you basically get a modest one-time development fee, and we do not get enough for that to begin with, but that is far trumped by the cost for service.

Bottom line here is there seems little or no need to surpass RHNA guidelines which adds just under 500 units in the next six years.

Second, I think we need to take a more holistic approach here. And I'll divide these comments two-fold.

The council has recently heard from the Simmons property folks and the Horse Ranch development. These two projects are moving along at this time along with the Lewis Property. That's three developments that are moving forward outside somewhat of the confines of the HESC. That does not make a lot of sense from the perspective of the work done by this committee and planning for the future.

Along the same lines we have multiple factors moving at the same time. We just spoke about the sphere of influence from LAFCO which will be discussed in February and March. The council is discussing the 1% growth rate next week. You have new RHNA numbers about growth allocation and fair share of growth. You still have the Yolo County general plan with the fact that those study areas are apparently not dead. Along with that you have the pass-through agreement. You have the HESC. None of this is being discussed in totem. How do all of these factors contribute to the overall growth picture?

In some ways I feel that this process is almost ad hoc. And that decisions are being made on each of these steps independently. There are different maps and different processes. And the result will be what exactly? Does the public or even our leaders on council know?

By the end of March we should have a good idea of the answers to some of those things--but on April first will our leaders be able to tell us what the future of Davis looks like?

Add one more point--is the council majority going to continue to support Measure J as we currently know it? A lot of these decisions are being made suggesting that Measure J will protect us from growth. It permeates each issue. But will they keep it in place in the current form?

These next few weeks of discussions should tell us a tale. We'll have to find out where we stand after that.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Guest Commentary: Defining Davis’ Slow Growth Vision

by Eileen M. Samitz

Background

Historically, Davis has been a city proud and protective of its agricultural heritage, small town character and quality of life. In 1986, the citizens of Davis overwhelmingly passed Measure L, an advisory vote that mandated that Davis should only grow “as slow as legally possible”. Instead, developer-driven growth was allowed by pro-developer City Council majorities for over a decade. They approved one large residential development after another paving over 25% of the city in 12 years rather than the 23 years that was intended. An update of the 1987 General Plan emerged in 2001. It was drafted by the input of more than 200 citizen volunteers on 14 committees and was subjected to extensive public review. The new citizen-based 2001 General Plan reiterated the slow growth desire by Davis residents and strengthened agricultural protection language. It also reiterated that when housing is built at least 25% would be affordable housing. It also reminded the University of its promise to provide its share of housing for its students and faculty as it grew.

In 1998, tired of pro-developer Council majorities accelerating our growth, Davis voters elected Ken Wagstaff to join Julie Partansky and Stan Forbes on the city council, thereby creating a slow-growth majority. In 2000, when Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington were elected to sustain a slow-growth council majority, Davis voters also approved the citizen-based Measure J ordinance. The Measure J ordinance empowered the citizens of Davis to decide if and when agricultural or open space land was to be developed. Measure J had strong developer opposition which poured an enormous amount of money into defeating the citizen-based measure, however Measure J passed. The new era that has evolved, enables the citizens to weigh in on the future of the city… however, developer pressure continues.

1% growth may sound slow, but is not slow growth

In more recent years, the public elected Don Saylor, Steve Souza and Ruth Asmundson, all of whom ran on “slow growth” platforms. Instead, they set out to justify a 1% housing growth rate. This seemingly innocuous 1% growth rate was based upon an impossible task assigned to city staff and the Bay Area Economics consulting firm of trying to define our “housing needs”. Since there are no standard formula’s for such a study the parameters were guided by Council. The genesis of this new 1% growth rate imposed by the current Council majority included Ruth Asmundson’s frustration expressed at Council meetings, that some of her children, and others could not afford to buy a home in Davis. Therefore, one of the goals for the “internal needs” study became that Davis should be able to build enough homes to provide a home for every child born since 18 years ago. This was deemed a “natural growth” factor. This invented factor wound up accounting for about half of the 1% growth rate. The 1% growth rate turns out to be at least 328 units per year, adding up to at least 2,300 units for every 7 year SACOG cycle. This means approximately 1 1/2 new Mace Ranch developments every 7 years. The astonishing part about this study is that no fiscal analysis was done to assess what the costs would be to the city and the citizens of Davis.

Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG) is a local entity whose primary job, is to try to do traffic planning regionally. They try to do this by dividing up projected population growth into the various SACOG cities (which includes Davis). An important concept to understand is that SACOG can not force cities to grow, but requests that cities plan for the number of units assigned. Sites that are designated for development towards the assigned growth cannot legally be forced to materialize, only to be planned. The SACOG number currently assigned to Davis between 2006 and 2013 is only 498 units. However, the Council majority of Asmundson, Souza and Saylor want Davis to grow by at least 2,300 units, which is almost five times faster than what is being asked of us. The language of Measure L is included in our General Plan to grow as slow as legally possible. Yet this new Council majority growth policy is clearly in the best interest of the developers, not Davis citizens.

Not only is the 1% growth policy inconsistent with the intentions of our slow growth citizen-based General Plan, but mandating this number of units encourages SACOG to increase Davis’ fair share assignment for future years. The Council majority never asked the citizens if they wanted this new growth rate added to the citizen-based General Plan, nor did they do any analysis of the impacts or the costs to the city and the citizens. Given that SACOG has asked us for only 498 units, that the current nationwide housing financial situation is in crisis, and that Spring Lake has 4,000 units under construction only 5 minutes north of Davis on Pole Line Road, why would we want to impose a mandatory growth rate contrary to Measure L?

The Covell Village site- a history of problems

Contrary to Kevin Wolf’s enthusiasm for another iteration of Covell Village, this parcel has inherent problems, which cannot be ignored and has a history to attest to these problems. The current developers had bought the huge parcel for only $3.1 million since the previous out of town developer was unable to resolve the traffic issues due to its access and egress problems. The land, located at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Road, is primarily prime agricultural land, which is not within city boundaries but is Yolo County land. This means that the city would not get all of the property tax if it were developed but the tax would be split with the County. In 1998 the developers offered it as Covell Center, a 386-acre parcel at Covell Blvd. and Pole Lane Road with 688 housing units and a school site. When the school district clarified that it was not interested in the site due to the location, the developers quickly substituted a sports complex hoping to harness the sports community to pull the project politically. It did not take long for the citizens to assess the infeasibility of the sports complex fiscal report. The sports community could not sustain it, and Davis residents would wind up inheriting the financial albatross as well as the traffic, noise, night lighting as well as the other impacts from day and night tournaments.

In 2005, Covell Village was their new iteration but this time 1,864 units were being proposed on the handicapped parcel which would have been the largest residential development proposed in the history of Davis. The project was strongly supported by Council members Asmundson, Saylor and Souza despite their slow growth campaign promises. The citizens review of the EIR which revealed that the traffic would double on Covell Blvd. to 39,000 cars per day and on Pole line to 26,900 cars per day. The analysis found that Level of service “F” would result on many streets defined as “conditions that are intolerable for most drivers”. Traffic would back up onto neighborhood streets and cause associated safety and pollution issues especially for children, seniors and those with respiratory conditions.

The Covell Village EIR also revealed that the majority of the soil is prime ag land and the 2002 FEMA maps demonstrated that almost half of the 386 parcel was in the 100-year flood plain. New flood control legislature this year will now force cities and counties to cover a share of damage caused by flooding so it will cost Davis citizens when there is a flood event. It is possible to engineer control of a small flood plain area but it is not “smart planning” to deliberately build homes on more than 150 acres of flood plain. The Covell Village developers advertised that their project would bring Davis citizens affordable housing, however, the EIR revealed that the average house in Covell Village would cost $683,945. Another consequence would have been that we would prematurely exhaust our waste water treatment capacity. The current estimates for expanding the waste water treatment plant is over $150 million.... a cost which would be hoisted upon Davis residents. The project would also put enormous pressure upon our water resources. Our Council majority is pursuing surface water to fuel the growth train at an estimate of another $150 million also to be paid for by Davis residents. Fire and police demands would increase significantly also at a high cost (see Rich Rifkin’s Lexicon Artist article Weds. December 26, 2008 in The Davis Enterprise). Despite over 1,000 EIR comments from citizens ( including engineers and other planning professionals) opposing the adequacy of the EIR, the Council majority approved it and the developers will try to use that same EIR for any future project. Fortunately, on November 8, 2005, Covell Village was voted down 60:40, but now only 2 years later, the developers are back with a new proposal.

The Covell Village site – the latest “carrot”

As if there had never been a vote against development on the problematic site, the Covell Village partners are back with yet another project. The partners have taken on a new name -- North Davis Land Company, and have a new “carrot” – senior housing, for the entire 386 acre parcel (including more than 150 acres of flood plain). According to a letter they submitted to the General Plan Update Housing Element Committee they interviewed 75 senior community members who would like quality homes, neighborhood services, and health care delivery. The developers submitted a letter to the Housing Element Committee recently hoping to get the committee to consider only the entire 386 acres, presumably as a condition to offer the new senior housing project. For size perspective, University Retirement Center (which is a continuum) is approximately 11 acres, so asking for 386 acres is more than excessive. Considering that the 386 acres cost the developers only $3.1 million means that they could develop only a third (or less) of the land and leave the rest for agricultural mitigation, and still make an enormous profit. However, while it would be good to plan for more senior housing, clearly this is another “carrot” or lure consistent with a number of other offers in the past, all of which had many more problems than benefits. There are other site options within the city that could be used for senior housing in Davis that are not huge peripheral sites needing annexation and are not such a distance from other services. These sites will be listed for the public’s review and comment at this Thursday’s public open house workshop, Jan. 24, 2008 at 7:00 pm- 9:30 pm at Holmes Jr. High School Multi Purpose Room.

In this newest project proposal the developers are offering to have three phases of the project. The first phase would be approximately 130 acres for 800 units, the second phase of approximately 110 acres would be for 400 units, and the last phase would be approximately 140 acres for “urban reserve”. The last phase would be reserved for an undefined number of units. The developers are so enthusiastic that they bought 650 of acres to the north of the parcel to use for the required agricultural mitigation expanding the footprint of the project to 1,036 acres. Apparently, the developers must feel that the gamble is worth the potential multimillion dollar gain. Were it not for a long history of offers, promises and packaging that did not turn out to be what the public first thought, one might be attracted to this proposal without hesitation. The reality is that the developers know that the northern end 2/3’s of the 386 acre parcel should never be developed because of the enormous flood plain and the liability that comes with it. Instead of even attempting to reduce the footprint to avoid the flood plain and reduce the traffic impacts they return with simply a new design. Whether this proposal goes to the ballot for another Measure J vote will be decided by the new City Council to be elected this June which will include incumbents Sue Greenwald (who opposed Covell Village), and Don Saylor and Steve Souza (who supported Covell Village).

Hunt-Wesson/Lewis Cannery - A better site for housing

The 100-acre Hunt-Wesson Cannery site was abandoned approximately eight years ago. To expand the uses of the site the zoning was changed shortly after to allow high tech industrial. Despite political desire to redevelop it into high tech, no company was willing to invest in it presumably, because it was surrounded to the west and south by residential. Also, since Mace Ranch has more than 70 acres of vacant commercial land available closer to I-80, any high tech companies wanting to come to Davis would most likely prefer to locate there. In 2004 Lewis Planned Communities purchased the land and asked the city and residents what they would like to see redeveloped there. The desire for more housing for the workforce was a clear objective by the City Council, so the developers were encouraged to proceed with a proposal by the city. The Hunt-Wesson site is clearly a better alternative for housing than its neighboring Covell Village site, since it is within the city limits. This allows the city to get far more property tax rather than having to split the property taxes with the County as we would need to with Covell Village. It is already zoned for urban use and is an underutilized site. Also, the units proposed are far less in cost than what Covell Village was proposing to build.

The project design is not a finished product, however the developers have had a series of public meetings to get input from the public which they have utilized and integrated into the proposal. As a result the design has changed due to citizen and city staff input. Davis planning director Katherine Hess first hobbled the project by recommending that an industrial viability study be done, which the Housing Committee unanimously did not support. However, the City Council approved the study. She then wanted another access to the project than the single entrance originally proposed. The developers responded with a second access point. But then, Hess wanted access through Covell Village to Pole Line Road. Since Hess was the city planner in charge of the failed Covell Village project, it seems rather interesting that she appears to be trying to link the Hunt-Wesson site and the Measure J dependant Covell Village site. Although the historical Simmons property parcel on East Eighth Street has similar access issues, Hess does not seem to have the same concerns. The Hunt-Wesson site does not need Pole Line Road access and the project would fall into a timeline when the city would get fair share credit for the next SACOG cycle. Hopefully, there will not be an attempt to blackmail the public into a package deal of Covell Village and Hunt-Wesson because the public will clearly see through such a ploy. Finally, since this land is within the city boundaries and has urban zoning it is not obligated to provide 2:1 agriculture mitigation. Contrary to a claim in Kevin Wolf’s recent guest commentary, there was a misstatement that this project be being exempted from the General Plan agriculture mitigation policy.

UCD needs to build more on-campus student apartments

Another issue of concern that needs to be addressed is the lack of student high rise apartments on the core campus. The University of California statewide has the goal of providing 42% of student housing by 2012. So far UC has admitted that it is shy of this 42% goal and has plans for 38% UC student housing. Yet its largest campus, Davis, with over 5,000 acres has never provided the 25% of on campus student housing that it promised in its current Memorandum of Understanding to the city. The university could control the cost of rents for students and reduce traffic and travel costs but instead UCD continues to try to hoist the responsibility of its housing needs on the city as it expands its student population. Unlike the city, only UCD can legally dedicate its housing to UCD students, staff, and faculty and offer permanently affordability. UCD is willing to expand other dorms which are temporary housing for freshman, rather than helping to solve the housing problems by building subsidized on-campus student apartments. UCD is currently complaining that the city does not have enough apartments although they increase their student population one year and decrease it the next due to their budget changes. Logical planning would call for increasing their student population after UCD builds more student housing on-campus. An added benefit of more on–campus student housing is that it would free up more housing within the city for non-student Davis residents.

So what do we do now?

As a member of the General Plan Housing Element Update Committee I have felt privileged to serve and I have a great deal of regard for the 14 other members as well as staff who have been serving. I know that everyone has good intentions for our city’s future, however, we agree on some issues and disagree on others. Some members believe that if we build many housing units in Davis the cost of housing will drop. Historically, this result has not been the case in Davis when even when large numbers of units were being built, the housing prices continued to rise. This is a consequence of Davis being a desirable community to live in. If Davis is to remain a small, compact university town surrounded by agriculture as our General Plan states, then we need to acknowledge that there are limits as to how much growth Davis will have without losing our quality of life and agricultural land around us. Smart planning begins with choosing sites which make sense to build on and then makes the best use of the land that you sacrifice for that growth. We can increase our densities to a certain extent but there is a finite point when you start overpopulating an area. The goal is to have well planned densification which is a delicate balance of how much works well to have livability as well as compatibility. Otherwise you create an inner city atmosphere with more crime and stress, rather than a community which is a good place to live. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that you can’t build your way out of city fiscal problems which only becomes exacerbated by adding much more residential growth. Given that the housing market is currently undergoing a fiscal crisis, and that SACOG has assigned only 498 units for Davis, the time for us to slow our growth is now.

In summary, none of the peripheral sites should be approved now, and at best, only the Hunt-Wesson/Lewis Cannery site should be planned to start no sooner then 2011 to assure that Davis will get SACOG fair share housing credit. Given the timelines we are facing, this can happen if the citizens of Davis make clear their desire to oppose and demand the repeal of the 1% growth rate imposed by the current Council majority. Notably, the 386-acre Covell Village site should not be developed now and the northern 2/3’s of this parcel should never be developed in the future because of the huge flood plain and its risks and liability to the city and residents. If this parcel was ever to be developed in the future, the northern 2/3’s of the 386-acre parcel should instead be used to fulfill the 2:1 agricultural mitigation requirement for a use such as organic farms, which would be compatible and would endure a flood event better than a massive residential tract. The Nishi property should not be developed either, due to the access issues that can never be resolved unless the University agreed to be the only access and egress. Otherwise the development of Nishi would be a disaster for Davis because of untenable traffic problems pouring traffic into the downtown at Richards Boulevard with no where to go. Finally, the university needs to provide more on-campus housing to help accommodate its own growth.

Now is the time to make it clear that it is the citizens of Davis, not the developers, who will plan future of their city.

Thank you for your time and please come to the General Plan Housing Element Update this Thursday to give your input at the open house workshop at 7pm at Holmes Junior High School at 1220 Drexel Drive in the Multi Purpose Room. This is such an important meeting and we need your input to help guide the future of Davis.


-Eileen M. Samitz, General Plan Housing Element Update Committee member

Commentary: Council Goes Forward with Examining Housing on the Lewis Property

The Lewis Property, Cannery Park, has been a tricky issue for the city and also for progressives to deal with. There are actually three different mindsets for what and how to develop that property, with progressives at times split between two of them.

The issue has come up for consideration and also has been tabled because the Council wanted to consider it jointly due to its proximity to Covell Village. Some on the side of developers, those on the side of the council majority would like to see the Lewis Property considered in conjunction with Covell Village.

On the other hand, progressives are opposed to any development in the near future on the Covell Village site but differ on what to do on the Lewis Property.

Mayor Sue Greenwald has long advocated for this property, which is currently zoned as high tech and light industrial to remain so. She argues that Davis needs to develop its own industry and business to avoid becoming just another bedroom town. She says we have enough housing but would like to see new high tech companies that can hire people directly out of college to stay in Davis and get work in the high tech field.

Councilmember Lamar Heystek said that the current proposal from the Lewis property owners is not one he would vote on. However, he believes that proposal will change in the future. His key focus was to avoid allowing the Lewis Property to be tied to Covell Village.

Councilmember Heystek argued that any such discussion of developing Lewis and Covell jointly flies in the face of the citizens' will that was expressed in the Measure X election in November 2005. The voters of Davis voted strongly against the wholesale loss of peripheral agricultural land. A city staff-promoted concept plan that envisions the joint development of the Lewis and Covell sites would most probably trigger a Measure J vote, reopening a discussion that we just had less than two years ago. This is not what Davis needs.

While I sympathesize with the arguments that Mayor Sue Greenwald makes here, as I have studied the issue, I have become firmly in the camp of Councilmember Lamar Heystek.

First of all, developing the Lewis Property does not require any sort of Measure J vote. And I think even in properties that are not controversial, a Measure J vote will be time consuming and costly. As such we need to look into developing areas first that do not require a Measure J vote.

Second, Davis is in need of housing. The question is where is the best place to put it. While I am not opposed to densification, I often think that densification results in loss of character of core areas of the town. If it is not done well, densification could make our problems worse rather than better. Therefore, I wish to look for housing sites first where we do not need to build four and five story buildings in the core of town, altering the site and landscape inalterably.

Third, unlike a lot of properties that are under consideration, Lewis Property is already paved and it is just sitting there. There is no agriculture there. We are not talking about paving over prime agricultural land.

Fourth and finally, while I like the idea in concept of a high tech zone in Davis, I do not see it as viable at this point in time and furthermore I am less than sure I would want it where Lewis property is. I think a better area for high tech development would be along Second Street out along I-80.

Last the night the agenda item to explore residential development on the Lewis Property was passed with a 4-1 vote, Mayor Sue Greenwald the only dissenting vote. Councilmember Heystek was able to limit the community feedback about the Lewis Property to that specific site rather than any sort of joint study with the Covell Property. This will hopefully go a long way towards an avoidance of developing these parcels jointly.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting with help from Simon Efrein

Housing Element Committee Agrees to Look At Covell Site for Future Development

Hold onto your hats folks, if last night was any indication of whats to come it is going to be a bumpy ride. The General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee last night heard two of the most controversial locations for future housing developments--the Covell Village Site and the Nishi Property.

As most people reading this undoubtedly know, Covell Village was the site of the first ever Measure J vote that would convert prime, class 1, agricultural land on the periphery of Davis at the intersection of Covell and Poleline into a housing development. The voters in November of 2005 overwhelmingly rejected the project by nearly a 60-40 margin. However, the Covell Partners, on this evening led by John Whitcombe, are bringing it back in a scaled down version.

The most alarming statement came from staff who suggested that according to City Attorney Harriet Steiner and City Manager Bill Emlen, if the Covell Property were combined with the adjacent Lewis Property (site of Hunt-Wesson), it would not need a Measure J vote. I have to greet that assertion with a good deal of skepticism.

According to John Whitcombe, instead of an 1800 unit project of single family homes designed to be affordable for families (if your family can afford 600,000 dollar homes), this will be an 800 unit site for senior housing complete with greenbelt access and oriented toward bikes, pedestrians, and electric vehicles. And, the seniors will have access to yet another golf course.

Mr. Whitcombe even stole a page from the Tsakapolous Stem Cell project, bringing in a geriatric medicine researcher to sell us on the need for a senior site that would provide housing and at-home medical facilities for seniors. Nevermind that the big need in housing is for new families. Nevermind that according to many on the Senior Citizens Commission we do not need Senior Housing, particularly on the periphery. Nevermind that these were many of the same reasons the proposal at Oeste Ranch was opposed by so many in this community.

The proponents of this offered several advantages to building on this property including that it is the peripheral property closest to the core of Davis, it would be contiguous with the city on three sides, it would free up other larger lots to go for families, and it would enable the completion of the greenbelt bikeway access across the northern part of town. Moreover, they argued it would create a permanent ag buffer along the northern line of the city to create an urban limit line.

One of the more interesting arguments came from Kevin Wolf, one of the chief proponents of the Measure X ballot measure in 2005 and chair of the committee. Mr. Wolf argued that by creating this development it would produce enough money to enable the city to fix the interection of Covell and Poleline that is going to be even more stressed with future traffic.

However, skeptics, and you can count me as one of them, argue that you are not going to fix that intersection by producing even more residences along the intersection. Furthermore you have at the Woodland end of Poleline the new massive Spring Lake Development, the new Costco, the Super-Target and other commercial developments that will greatly increase the traffic.

Furthermore, there is a question about how much revenue that this will produce because as county land, only a portion of the tax revenue goes to the city, even if annexed to the city.

Then, there are further problems of pollution that are exacerbated if they are planning to put seniors on that site. There is the wastewater treatment issue that sounds like a very big issue. Furthermore, other problems include a limited access to the site, previous agreements on housing mitigation along the Poleline corridor, and it's proximity to a flood plain.

Most vexing to me, is that the previous proposal was defeated handily by the voters of Davis. It has been less than two years and the developers cannot wait to go at it again. This is, class one, prime agricultural land, the infrastructure and access is extremely problematic. I understand the contiguity issue and the lure of having the core of Davis relatively close, but given these other issues, this is not a good place to build new housing, and I particularly have a problem with it being a senior housing project, which does nothing to solve the larger housing problems. So, they would develop this spot and still be looking for tracts for affordable and family housing. That makes no sense to me.

Overwhelmingly given the nature of the committee, this was approved, but the fight for this will go on for quite some time.

Meanwhile the Nishi property holds many strong allures to those looking to build high density housing near the city core. Kevin Wolf spoke very strongly about building this into a very high density property with over 1000 units, five to six story buildings, but no access to the Richards Blvd. This was a way to show as an example how new urbanism with environmentally friendly densification at the core would reduce the need for traffic. Or so he proposed.

But it's not clear that you can deny access to Richards Blvd, nor should you. The problem here is that they will be adding a large amount of traffic potentially to the Richards underpass as the only traffic outlet from this property to the core.

Proponents argued that it's proximity to the university and to bike paths leading directly onto campus make this an ideal spot for student housing.

However, there were a number of unrealistic assumptions brought into this discussion and it seemed clear as people such as Mark Spencer suggested there would need to be university buy-in to make access from this property by vehicle onto campus.

The assumption is that by providing housing here, less people would drive from the highway to campus via Richards. On the other hand, it is not clear what it would do to existing traffic flows to add a large number of people making a left at the Olive Blvd. intersection.

The problems of traffic and access are prohibitive. Several said problems with parking could be mitigated by charging for parking spots. It is my experience that this will not get students to give up their cars, rather it might impact the ability to rent the units at market rate since parking would become a built-in cost. Students indeed like easy access to campus and may utilize bikes. But, students also like the ability to leave town via the car and the idea that we could reduce traffic flow by adding housing seems to be very optimistic.

Another problem is that without an extremely high density housing, the project is not viable. So they are talking about a minimum of 462 units and now a high point of 770 or higher. The talk was of sacrificing views in favor of land preservation. Density is a laudable goal, particularly near the core, but this is an area that is characterized by bungalows and now they are talking about 5 or six story buildings?

Given the present design this seems like an attractive location--it's close to campus, close to the core, close to the highway, not building on prime agricultural land, but the problem of access and traffic could be fatal. Nevertheless, the committee overwhelmingly and enthusiastically endorsed the spot. I suspect the community will view this somewhat more circumspectly.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Interesting Split on the Cannery Park Property

Friday's Davis Enterprise captured an interesting debate within the progressive community as to what ought to be done with the roughly 100 acre Hunt-Wesson cannery site north of Covell Blvd that is currently zoned as light industrial.

The article quotes one of the General Plan Housing Element Update Steering committee members, Pam Gunnell, appointed by Mayor Sue Greenwald as favoring maintaining the property as currently zoned.

Said Ms. Gunnell, who ran for City Council in 2002:

“I have a real concern with preserving industrial land for the city... It's difficult for me to hear the word ‘workforce housing' because where are they going to work?”

On the other hand, Committee member Eileen Samitz appointed by Councilmember Lamar Heystek, strongly favored changing the designation to residential.

"The city has 160 acres of undeveloped industrial and light industrial land, not including the cannery property; the property is half paved already; and plenty of time has passed and the property has yet to attract proposals from industrial businesses."

This is a microcosm of an interesting debate within the progressive community. Mayor Greenwald has long been an advocate of bringing in high tech companies to Davis and believes this to be an ideal site for such industry.

Others in the community view the property and its development potential very differently. Many prefer that Davis has limited housing growth. They recognize that this 100 acre property is already partially paved, and therefore such a development would not require the development of agricultural land. Therefore if there must be new housing developed, it should be in this location.

There is a further problem however with the Hunt-Wesson site, although it is within the city limits already and would not require a Measure J vote, the adjacent property is the 800-acre elephant in the room--the Covell Village site.

One of the fears is that the two properties would be considered at the same time.

The Enterprise quotes Kevin Wolf, the committee chairman and a strong proponent of Covell Village during the Measure X campaign as saying,

“Do we really think we're going to take and leave that for the next 30 years and develop on other ag land?”

This is a tricky issue to be sure. One for which I can see both sides. In the end, I probably come down a bit closer to changing its use to housing while at the same time making it clear that Covell Village will be a huge fight if the Committee deems that it needs to revisit the issue. Keeping the property light industry would probably slightly reduce the chances for development on the Covell site, however, Davis does need more housing and if it is to develop housing, I would rather it not take ag land to do so.

Personally I think any decision to re-examine development on the Covell Village site is a huge show of disrespect for the will of the Davis voters, 60 percent of whom voted against the project. People have asked if I could foresee it never being developed as a realistic option. Never is a long time. However in the near future the concerns about infrastructure remain just as viable as they did in 2005. So in the foreseeable future, I remain opposed to development on the Covell Village site.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Don Saylor: "I feel disrespected and treated without dignity"

Late Tuesday night, and actually more accurately early Wednesday morning, the Davis City Council had a long discussion about what to do with the Cannery Park development project.

Part of the reason that the staff recommended that consideration of Cannery Park should be put off has to do with expectations perhaps that there would be a renewed development project with the adjacent site which is right now just outside of the city limits and that had been the location for the Covell Village development project.

Toward the end of this discussion Don Saylor made a statement that was rather surprising in its tone:

"I want to make one small observation, in our council ground rules, under the first paragraph, it says that each councilmember should treat each other with respect and dignity even when disagreements arise. I feel disrespected and treated without dignity when my motivations are questioned and it is assumed that I am leading to something that I have not said."

You can watch the full statement on the youtube link below.

However, I have to say when I heard this, I was taken aback by the tone. Because first of all, not one of the comments made by Mayor Sue Greenwald or Councilmember Lamar Heystek were personally directed toward Mr. Saylor. There was general discussion about what the plans were for the Covell Village development site. This was legitimate since it was mentioned in the City Staff report.

Councilmember Heystek said:

“November 2005 is not in our distant memory. I think it would be disingenuous to assume something for the North Central area. I think as a body, we are kind of tone-deaf.”

And for people who opposed Measure X and the development at Covell Village, it made perfect sense to remind the council of the bitter and cantankerous vote that occurred less than 15 months ago. Moreover, that this measure was very soundly defeated by a large sector of the population.

There was a debate during the meeting as to what that vote actually meant, and that is fine. But none of that debate could be interpreted as a personal swipe at anyone. And in fact, I would interpret it as concern about the language in the staff report that strongly suggested that the issue that was just defeated would be revisited.

Councilmember Saylor speaks in a very monotonic and measured manner. That is simply how he speaks, whether you talk to him in person, listen to him at a council meeting, or listen to him give a speech. This style I think serves him well for meetings of this sort, but when he gives a public speech, it tends to translate rather poorly.

In this case, Saylor's measured speaking style probably saves him. Because if you listen to what he says, rather than his tone, he is essentially whining. He was not disrespected and he was certainly not treated without dignity by his colleagues on the council. There was simply concern given the staff recommendation language about what the intentions were for this controversial development site.

For Mr. Saylor to take these questions as a personal affront, is rather appalling.

I think this sort of behavior strikes at the very heart of many people's concerns about Saylor as an individual. It certainly did nothing to add to the discussion. And as we have seen in the past when he feigned indignation about using a parliamentary maneuver in order to reconsider a city Park's consultant proposal, and then a few weeks later admitted that he had done as much, I think it harms his credibility. He clearly counts on the fact that this is occurring after midnight and few will get to witness it.

Mr. Saylor's tenor does very little to improve the tone on the council. More frankly on an evening that began with a strong show of unity on the part of the Davis City Council dealing with the county and the perceived threat from there, for Saylor to complain about such a trivial matter, severely undermined any progress that had earlier been made toward unity and reconciliation. In short it Saylor's comments were undignified and uncalled for.



---Doug Paul Davis reporting