As Regional and State Growth Rates Fall, What Will Be the Impact on Davis?

The Sacramento Bee reported back on December 18, 2008 that the regional and state growth rates have fallen to its lowest levels in more than a decade.

In six counties surrounding Sacramento which include Yolo, Sutter, Yuba, Placer, El Dorado and Sacramento Counties, the growth rate from July 1, 2007 to July 1, 2008 was only 1.39%. Separately, Yolo County grew at 1.46 percent adding around 3,000 people. Placer was the fastest growing county in California at 2.6 percent. Sacramento grew at a rate below the statewide level at 1.11 percent.

Statewide the growth rate was actually lower at 1.16%.

More people moved out of California than moved into California during this time period.

What does all of this mean for Yolo County and Davis?



Davis has spent considerable time and energy focusing on the issue of growth. One of the arguments in recent years has been that Davis must take on its fair share of new growth. That was a more poignant argument in the early part of this decade was population growth was exploding and the housing market booming.

Regional governance groups like SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) and RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) have developed models for growth based on allocations of fair share. In other words, the basic model determines how much of the region's growth a given area should accommodate.

The problem is that this has become a moving target for local growth politics. Back during the Measure X debate, the argument used by proponents was the Davis would be penalized if it did not take on its supposed fair share of growth.

However, by 2007, RHNA had come out with new numbers suggesting that Davis needed to take on a much smaller share of growth--considerably less than the current projected growth rate of 1%. When it did however, the debate was shifted in Davis.

First, the 1% growth requirement became a growth cap. Now 1% is the target and the limit rather than the threshold that we need to meet.

Second, the debate in Davis is about internal housing needs rather than regional fair share growth allocations. Frankly this is what the debate always should have been about from the beginning.

In this sense, falling state and regional rates may relieve some pressure for Davis to grow. However, perceptions about the internal needs of Davis, which have thus far been more theoretic and less concrete, have continued to drive the debate.

Frankly, for everyone but the most ardent no-growther, the question is really about where, how, and how quickly we grow. I am not in the no-growth camp. I would also prefer not to put a number on our growth rate.

From my perspective one problem with housing in Davis is that UC Davis has taken on less than its share of student housing. UC Davis has the lowest percentage of on-campus housing in the UC system. There are several advantages for UC Davis to provide more housing. First, they can subsidize it, which lowers the costs to the students. Second, they have a large amount of available land. A good, dense, and environmentally friendly project on the UC campus would go a long way toward helping the city better assess its own needs.

A recent survey of apartments in Davis found that the vacancy rate in the city of Davis increased slightly this fall to .8 percent. However, the rental rates continued to rise by an average of 4.36 percent. Interestingly, though the vacancy rate was higher this year, the rate of increase was also higher than the previous year where a .7 percent vacancy yielded a 4.18 percent increase in rent. This despite the depressed housing market and economy.

In the comparable cities, Woodland saw a 4.1 percent vacancy rate but a 4.8 percent rent increase. On the other hand, West Sacramento nearly has 20% of its apartments vacant and the resultant rate only saw a .6 percent increase.

Clearly Davis needs more student housing. The argument again for UC Davis to provide on-campus housing is first that they have the land and can subsidize the property, but second that UC Davis' growth in recent years is a large culprit in the lack of student housing in Davis. By providing more housing, more single family units within the city could be freed up for people who work in Davis but have not been able to live here.

This is the strongest pressure driving the need for Davis to grow. Earlier this month, the Vanguard suggested one option, similar to what Cal Poly did, which is create a large and dense housing complex on campus. A facility of that sort, highly innovative and land conscious, could take a huge pressure off the city to have to expand its borders.

For all of the talk about internal housing needs, very few of the proposed projects in the Housing Element Steering Committee's top sites have a sizable student housing component. Almost all of them focus instead on single family residences with a few affordable and multifamily dwellings thrown in the mix.

In other words, with perhaps the exception of Nishi, which has other problems, there are no plans put forth to deal with the largest internal housing need we have.

The West Village will break ground this year and provide an additional 2000 units or so for student housing. That is a good start, but with UC Davis continuing to grow and not enough student housing at present, West Village is clearly not enough.

Many residents are not opposed to growth with good, environmentally friendly projects that continue to preserve the character of Davis. The problem is from many of our perspectives, the new subdivisions that we have seen in town could have been plopped down anywhere in the country. That's not the kind of large scale growth we would like to see.

Give me a housing project I can get behind and I will. I would like to focus on environmentally sustainable, smaller houses so that middle income people can afford them, a student housing component, a senior housing component, and a work force housing component.

The city of Davis has already approved housing for Verona, for Simmons, and for Grande. That's over 200 units right there. In addition, West Village will provide a large number of units over three phases. In addition, Lewis is proposing 600 units, on a property that would be better served with a business park. The Wild Horse Ranch will be proposing somewhere just under 200 units in the coming months for a project that would require a Measure J vote.

In this housing market, that is more than enough housing to last us the foreseeable future. I would like to see one additional project, and that would be a high density, UC Davis campus project that provides 3000 to 5000 beds on the UC Campus in an environmentally sustainable way. If we do that, I think we our needs for a while in terms of housing.

The external pressures have lessened and the housing market is in bad shape. That will give us time to work on making what we do have as carbon neutral as possible--a very worthwhile endeavor in the coming years.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Paradigm Shift: A Bold New Plan for Davis

During the course of the last Davis City Council campaign, one of the big debates was the extent to which Davis needs more housing. The argument from the pro-development candidates was always that we do not have enough housing to fill our internal needs. For them, we needed more student housing because of a large number of students who do not reside in Davis, we need more faculty and workforce housing, we need more senior housing. To them this means we need developments like Nishi and Covell Village.

I do not necessarily disagree with some of this. I have always said that if you give me a housing development I can support, I would be happy to do so. The problem I have is that most of the current proposals for new housing, especially those outside of the city, are not especially appealing. I'm not a fan of the newer subdivisions in town which have predominantly large houses and neighborhoods that could really be part of any city in this state and really this country. I want to see new and innovative urban design. And frankly I have not seen that. I want to see as Stephen Souza would say, the wow factor.

During the campaign, one of the things we talked about as slower growth advocates, was the need for UC Davis to provide its fair share of housing. West Village in some ways is a good start, but not really all that innovative, and not really what I was primarily getting at. UC Davis has the lowest percentage of on-campus student housing in the UC system. Think about that. That means that the city of Davis is responsible for finding housing for up to and exceeding three-quarters of the thirty thousand or so students who attend the university. A town of 64,000 people has to provide for nearly 50% of its population. If UC Davis could just provide a larger percentage of housing on campus, in an environmentally friendly and sustainable manner it could be a huge pressure release for growth on Davis.

Keep this in mind as I share the next portion of this story. As many regular readers know, I grew up in San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo is a similar city to Davis in some respects. It is a college town, in fact, a very similar college to UC Davis with a large degree of cross-applicants because of similar programs. Cal Poly has about 18,000 students and the city of San Luis Obispo is also somewhat smaller at 44,000 people in population. I attended Cal Poly for undergraduate school.

This past week over Thanksgiving, my wife and I went down to San Luis Obispo to visit my family who still lives there. During the course of the week, Cecilia and I drove to Cal Poly and around the campus. I guess I have not been on campus in a while because I was startled to see a huge new student housing development. We drove through it, and let me tell you, talk about WOW factor. The housing development blew us away.

It is called Poly Canyon Village, named after Poly Canyon a popular hiking and jogging area that extends from the Cal Poly campus up into the foothills of the local mountain range. Very scenic.

Poly Canyon Village from what we could see at night was a very dense development, but it was huge, with four story buildings, and in the center of them, a good array of amenities--coffee shops, eateries, a mini-grocery store, a bank, another store. There is a good sized parking garage. A gym with a swimming pool. It was really impressive.

Our thoughts as we drove through Poly Canyon Village: this is what UC Davis needs. We want to believe we are innovative and on the cutting edge, but we quite simply are not.

I have since done some research on the project. It has 2700 units on 30 acres of land. Talk about density. And yet, despite that density, it is well-done and very appealing and attractive. It is the largest on-campus housing development in the nation. It is the first LEED-certified student housing in the CSU system. The project contains nine four and five-story buildings. And these are apartment-style units, usually four bedrooms with a common kitchen. The size is from 900 to 1100 square feet, so these are good sized units.

It is a fully sustainable project. I am not going to sit here and advocate for an identical project for Davis or UC Davis. What I am going to argue for is that we take this as a model, a goal, and then we improve upon it and adapt to make it work here. This is what we need. Imagine an innovative, environmentally sustainable, carbon neutral, energy neutral development on the edge of the UC Davis campus that could provide housing, on-campus, for 3000 students just for starters. These students do not need to drive because they can bike and walk everywhere. There are amenities right there. It's a mixed-used housing development right on campus. But they will have access to parking and roads for when they want to drive. That would free up a large number of housing units in the city. Those housing units could then supply housing to faculty and staff.

• Here is a link to a live-camera view of the project

One of the big advantages of on-campus housing is that the university can subsidize it and make it more affordable for the students. In addition, it would free up West Village to become a staff and faculty housing development. We often complain about the price of housing in Davis, but Davis is really neither unique in that respect nor is it worse than other university towns. I've often discussed on this blog and shared others what they do at Stanford to attract young assistant professors. UC Davis could develop their own system by which young professors can get housing near the campus and build equity with that housing. There are models out there, we simply can look at these models and adapt them to our own unique situation.

My biggest problem is not the development but the kind of development we want to create. We need to change the way we do things if we want to have a future. I am not just talking about this community. I am talking about on a national and global scale. Poly Canyon Village has almost 50 percent more housing units on less than one tenth the land that Covell Village proposed. That is what we need to do and the great thing is that you don't feel like it is overwhelmingly dense. It is attractive, it is nice, it is a place I would have loved to have lived in as a student.

It is time that UC Davis and Davis make a paradigm shift with a bold new plan.

---David M. Greenwald

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

West Village Development Takes a Major Step Forward

For those wondering when the West Village development will get moving, the answer is apparently very soon. The University announced yesterday that they had signed the "ground lease" for the West Village and thus taken a major step toward the first phase of development.

According to the release:

"UC Davis and its development partner, West Village Community Partnership LLC, last week signed a ground lease for the project, clearing the way for the design and construction phase of the project."

The University will begin construction this fall on the project's off-site infrastructure, including water and sewer connections to campus systems, a storm water drainage system and entry road improvements.

Ground is expected to be broken in the spring of 2009.

Faculty/ staff housing and student housing could be available as early as fall 2010.

Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef applauded the announcement.

"After years of planning, we are excited to be moving on to the design and construction phase of the project with our private development partners. We are confident that West Village Community Partnership will be delivering an exceptional neighborhood not only for our university community, but for our region, as well."

Ron Zeff, CEO of Carmel Partners of San Franiciso, on of the groups that makes up West Village Community Partnership, said:

"This successful milestone represents our continued collaborative approach with the university to address UC Davis' long-term housing needs. West Village Community Partnership can now focus our full energies and resources to design and construct the West Village neighborhood that incorporates the values, and reflects the aspirations, of the university and the Davis community."

The release laid out the three phases of the construction plan, this being the first.

"As currently planned, the 130-acre Phase 1 includes 343 single-family homes for faculty and staff, apartment housing for up to 1,980 students and a village square surrounded by ground-floor commercial space and the Los Rios Community College District's new Davis Center.

In all, the plan for West Village comprises two phases for a combined 475 new homes for faculty and staff, and housing for 3,000 students. Many of the faculty and staff homes will include small cottages, like those at the 37-unit Aggie Village project adjacent to campus. Cottages will increase the population density and provide more student-housing options.

When the final phase is completed, planners estimate that West Village will be home to about 4,350 people -- including 500 faculty and staff members and their families, plus students. The plan calls for a generous open-space network that offers integrated bike and pedestrian connections to the campus. UNITRANS will provide frequent bus service to the neighborhood."

A key part of the plan is that this provides faculty and staff with below market price housing. The university is believes that this will "assist in recruiting and retaining top talent by enabling them to live locally and participate fully in the life of the campus and community."

"West Village will make this possible by adding to the Davis housing supply and selling the homes at below-market prices for the Davis area. The homes will also have certain resale price limitations to maintain affordability over time."

Commentary

One of the reasons I have long advocated for the university to help provide housing to students and faculty-staff is their ability to offer housing at below market value. I think the city of Davis needs to work closer in concert with the university toward these ends.

There are a number of very interesting and promising models out there for how to accomplish it. This is one model, but it appears from the last statement that there will not be full equity.

One of the models I would like to see leadership at the university and the city take a look at is what they have done in Stanford. I have mentioned this on the blog a number of times. The housing market in Palo Alto is prohibitive and Stanford found themselves at a severe competitive disadvantage in trying to get top-notch academic talent.

As a result, they developed an innovative program whereby they would help guarantee and finance the loans to faculty for new housing, the faculty members would own the house outright and retain full equity. I would be very interested in seeing how they do that.

In addition the issue of student housing needs to be addressed. UC Davis is the UC with the lowest percentage of on-campus housing. As is the case with faculty and staff housing, the campus can better provide housing at below market cost than the city. They also have available land to make it work.

As we discuss further the concept of internal housing needs, the university must be a part of this discussion. Too often the city and university have been at odds with each other on these projects.

There is one further issue that needs to be addressed now that the development at West Village is imminent. That is the issue of annexation. The models from both the University and the city show that the city is the entity that can best provide the necessary services to West Davis. In both cases, there is a net loss in terms of revenue. However, the project loses less when the city annexes it than when the University runs it on campus. That means it is in the interest of both sides to negotiate an appropriate agreement on how it is to be annexed and run.

There are a number of political issues however that would have been resolved in order for that to be accomplished including whether the annexation of West Village would count toward Davis' growth requirements.

From a personal standpoint as someone who frequently uses the path along Russell as it extends from Highway 113 out to Pedrick Road, I will be saddened with the lose of that beautiful open space as the path heads out west lined with trees and the feeling of serenity. I can only hope they do a good job of design and construction so that they do not turn that area into an eyesore.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Beware of the Growth Boogie Man in the School Budget Debate

In two days, there have been two letters to the editor in the Davis Enterprise that have linked the issue of growth to the issue of the school budget deficit that is projected at $4 million for this year.

On Wednesday, February 27, 2008, Larry Moore of Davis writes:

"The situation with the school budget, the charter school and the growth of Davis are serious issues that should be carefully and continually evaluated as they have been. However, I have not seen mentioned that maybe these issues are related to each other. Not withstanding the state budget, the plight of our schools is related in part to the declining enrollment."

He concludes:

"The plight of the school budget and the no-growth mantra of Davis are related."

Yesterday, a similar letter by John Foraker with a similar vein:

"Are you frustrated that Davis schools' educational programs are soon to be gutted, at least one school closed, while band and other 'non- essential' curriculum are also sacrificed? Me too! But even more frustrating is the inability, or intellectual unwillingness, of many to connect the dots from our recent city track record.

Allow me to help with the basic math: Virtually no new family housing or major developments for five-plus years equals fewer families buying Davis homes equals fewer kids of school age equals less revenue for daily operation of our schools. It is, unfortunately, that simple.

So, next time you stand up to decry a new development, or to sign a petition supporting small-footprint infill development over the kinds of homes more families actually want to buy, remember that your well-intentioned position is not without consequence."

It was only a matter of time before these two issues became intertwined--with the growth boogie man popping its head out to suggest we had better grow or our schools are imperiled.

However before we plunge head long into new developments let us take a brief examination of the problem.

It is interesting that both gentlemen focused on declining enrollment. And indeed with a steeper decline this year of 180 students, that is a concern. But even at 180 students, that only accounts for $1 million of the $4 million deficit. Or 25% of the problem.

$1.5 million are due to the budget cuts, but more concerning is the $1.5 million that is due to fiscal mismanagement under the previous CBO of the district. We will talk more about this problem next week, but the basics are that one-time monies were used to fund ongoing programs. When those monies dried up, the district was left in a budget deficit that ate away at its voluntary (as opposed to state mandate reserves).

The result is two-fold. First it caused a budget deficit that we have to correct for. But just as bad, it eliminated reserves that we could have used this year for a softer landing.

The state fundings cuts also amount to roughly $1.5 million. Experts suspect that Democrats will greatly reduce that number, but even if that $1.5 million is cut to $.5 million, the district will have to cut $3 million this year. So even in the best case scenario, that's a problem.

Declining enrollment is indeed the problem, but even under a rosier economic projection it only amounts to 33% of the deficit. Even if we had no declining enrollment we would be facing $2 to $3 million in cuts.

The second part of the picture is looking at the growth policies. The only substantial development project that was nixed was Covell Village. Are these two letter writers suggesting that declining enrollment is a reason that we should have passed Covell Village?

There are a number of reasons that Covell Village was a poor project. The average cost of a home there would have been between $400,000 and $600,000. It is true that there would have been affordable housing there, but realistically speaking, the majority of the units there would probably not have contributed much to the school district's population and it would have been phased in over 10 years.

Aside from Covell Village, what housing development has been nixed? So to attribute all of the declining enrollment to the failure of Covell Village seems to be a bit extreme.

I don't disagree with the premise that we need more affordable housing for younger families. Along those lines the best way to produce that would be to provide housing for young faculty members to move into the city. A project like say, West Village.

If the city would partner with the university to provide specifically for faculty and student housing, we could increase the amount of housing for particularly young faculty members who were just hired by the university. Those young faculty members are most likely to have young children and would then bring their young children to our district.

What is clear at this point is that they are going to attempt to use the budget deficit with the school as a wedge to demand new development. We need to keep in mind two things. First, that declining enrollment only accounts for a small percentage of the budget deficit. And second, that many of the projects proposed in recent years were not going to bring in a lot of families with children. We need to be smart in the face of adversity and not panic to try to implement simple solutions that do not solve the problem.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Carrots and Sticks in Development Can be Transposed

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:

"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 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."

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.

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

Commentary: What Changed in the West Village Discussion

Back in early April, the Council majority was not only against annexation of the West Village development on the outskirts of the UC Davis campus, they were nasty about it. (See: Enterprise Article on Mayor Slanted; Mayor Greenwald's Response)

At that time, Mayor Greenwald supported a very basic motion:

"It shall be the position of the City of Davis that annexation of the University’s West Davis neighborhood is a goal that we strongly support in concept."

As Don Saylor said at the time:

“We have no staff analysis in front of us, there are questions of the analysis that are not before us, there are questions of the assumptions that are not before us. This is incredible... And then there's a request to change council policy.”

What Saylor and in fact the Davis Enterprise at the time failed to note was the reason that there is no staff analysis was that the council majority refused to allow this to be agendized as a normal agenda item and instead had to be brought before the council as an item submitted by a councilmember which allows for no staff work to be done on it.

After much debate, ranquor, and sheer tenacity, the issue was back on the agenda, this time with full staff report. Mayor Greenwald deserves much of the credit for keeping this issue alive and forcing the council majority to put it on the agenda. Without her tenacity on this issue, there is no doubt, that this issue would have gone away.

Staff of course, remained very skeptical on the cost impact on the city. The basic view of staff was summed up in this statement:

"Staff acknowledges that annexation of West Village poses a number of challenging issues related to governance and delivery of services that need to be further addressed and fully understood prior to final Council action on the annexation question. The fact that the City would not gain land use authority with annexation is already a significant factor that diminishes the value of annexation. If police and fire services were also retained and provided by UCD, it would be difficult for staff to justify bringing West Village under city jurisdiction given that we would not be directly in control of most urban services provided its future residents."

As Paul Navazio, the city's director of finance said on Tuesday,

"The current assessment of the fiscal analysis, on the operating revenues and the operating costs, is that overall the project does not generate sufficient revenue to cover costs, it generates more revenue under an annexation, then in a non-annexation, if the city with council direction sat down with the campus to explore revenue sharing or supplemental revenues, to help off-set the city costs, it's our sense it would be potentially cost effective from a fiscal standpoint and it would cost the tenants and the residents less and make-up the costs of the campus providing services."

The elements were aligned here once again that pointed to the same result as April: you had a council that previously expressed skepticism (and criticism of this issue) and a staff declaring the project does not generate enough revenue to cover the costs.

The key concern that Greenwald expressed is the infeasibility of having a huge development on the border of Davis, without connection to city governance. This notion was also affirmed by Councilmember Heystek.

Moreover, the staff report revealed that the cheapest alternative--the one that was most cost effective was for the city to annex West Village. That means that with a concerted effort on the part of the city and university, a deal can and should be arrived at that would benefit all sides and pave the way for annexation. The only reason that this was discovered was the vigilance of Mayor Greenwald, who would not allow the issue to die.

On the other hand, even as part of the city of Davis, the annexation would not grant the city any kind of land use authority, which gives UC Davis design control. There will be no access point to Russell Blvd., meaning that the neighborhood will be somewhat isolated from the rest of the city, even as part of the city.

What changed that made this annexation a possibility now, whereas just two months ago, it was dismissed almost out of hand?

One difference was the presence of ASUCD and numerous UC Davis students.

A key concern for students was having access to city government and municipal representation. In their resolution passed unanimously on May 24, 2007, ASUCD affirmed their support of the annexation of the West Village Development by the City of Davis. ASUCD Senator Andrew Peake read this resolution into the record. Several other UC Davis students also came forward in support.

While the students and also resident Ron Glick, made compelling cases for the enfranchisement of students, Saylor remained concerned about the costs to the current residents of the city and the current voters and taxpayers. Saylor's stated principle that "any new project would pay for itself." This is an interesting viewpoint in light of previous fiscal decisions by Saylor that have been less than fiscally sound.

Councilmember Heystek urged the discussion to continue. He countered Saylor's argument by suggesting:

"If that were a standard adopted by council, then we would cease to have affordable housing, because it is clear that affordable housing projects do not pay for themselves. But I think it is ludicrous to say that all of our affordable housing costs need to be mitigated by an overall revenue stream. I don't think that would ever be a philosophy that this council would adopt."

Heystek went on to point out how many different projects would not get done if this philosophy were adopted. His core point that gets back to the issue of enfranchisement was this:

"The thing that we cannot quantify in this whole discussion is the value of civic engagement as the result of inclusion of students, faculty, staff in this new neighborhood. We cannot put a price on that. "

"But we're not talking about what we really do embrace as a whole council. I think the whole council embraces the sentiments of ASUCD, embraces the sentiment of increased civic engagement, the sentiment that we cannot continue to divide our university community between voters and non-voters in the city. I do not think that is something that the council embraces."

One of the key differences in this discussion was the presence of the students and the issue of enfranchisement. Talking to a councilmember after the meeting, it seemed clear that their presence changed the course and trajectory of the debate, and injected energy and passion that were absent in April. The council simply could not look the students in the face and deny annexation. That does not mean that this will go forward, but at least there was consensus about reopening negotiations between city, county, and university.

My own take on this follows from many of the comments expressed on Tuesday. First, I agree wholly with the students, with Sue Greenwald, and with Lamar Heystek on the need for enfranchisement. That I think was the most compelling argument.

I think Ron Glick who spoke at public comments summed it up very well when he discussed the mistake made 50 years ago that denied students on campus voting rights in city elections:

"To deny our students the right to vote is a great tragedy, and I would like to aspire to higher things than property taxes."

Second, I think Sue Greenwald's point is very important:

"We can't have a massive development the size of Winters perched on our borders."

I have seen cities with massive developments on their border that are not annexed by the city, and in general it is a huge problem for the city. It often leads to commercial development that ends up sucking money out of the city without giving money to the city. Looking at this from a strict fiscal analysis now assumes that all things will remain constant into the future. Saylor's argument while compelling, I think was easily countered by Heystek, but moreover, is very short-sighted in terms of its fiscal view.

My biggest concern is really the lack of access point onto Russell. This is a problem because it isolates the community from the rest of the city. Frankly, this is a problem regardless of annexation. It is not a reason to not annex it, it is a reason to negotiate with neighbors and the university to fix that problem.

Overall, the difference between April and June, illustrates the need for transparency in government processes. Moreover, it illustrates a debate point that seems to recur at every council meeting and that is, we need to have our meetings end by 11 pm to ensure public involvement. I will comment more on this later, but I think one of the responsibilities of councilmembers should be that they should expect to meet every Tuesday night. And if they are to be out of town, the show must go on without them.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting