For the third time, the Verona revisions will be on the agenda and yet again only to push it off until June 29, 2010. That will be the second to last meeting of the lame duck council between Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Lamar Heystek are replaced by newly elected Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson.
But as we see there is a good amount of last second dealing going on. From my perspective the biggest question before council on the Verona project is whether to give back to the developer more than half a million dollars in impact fees. It is greatly ironic that Verona has been pushed back so many times.
Staff justifies the cut in impact fees arguing that the current economic climate makes it difficult to secure project funding.
At their May 12, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended that the project fees be revised so that there is equity among all recently approved developments, relative to the supplemental fees, but did not provide a specific figure for the Verona project. Under the Commission’s recommendation, based on the project fees shown above, the suggested supplemental residential fee for Verona would be closer to $3,000 than the current $6,000 to $12,000 per market rate unit. This would generate $198,000 based on 66 market rate units (assuming elimination of the middle income units), which would be commensurate with other recent projects.
Due to the current economic climate and difficulty in securing project financing, most of the recently entitled residential projects are not proceeding to Final Map or construction. An exception to this is the first phase of Willowbank Park. Relief from a portion of the Verona supplemental fees could facilitate financing for the project if the city desires the project to be built in the near term. While consideration of a reduced supplemental fee may be appropriate, the city anticipated utilizing a significant portion of the Verona supplemental fees to fund the Sports Complex EIR when it initiated the study. Too great a reduction in the development agreement supplemental fees would require the city to use other discretionary funds to backfill this effort. However, staff believes that with the rejection of the parkland, it would be possible to restructure the Verona project fees to enable project financing and construction to move forward, while generating more fees overall for the city than the approved project. Under staff’s proposal shown below, with park in-lieu fees, the recommended revisions would result in an increase of $404,907 to the city above current project fees.
The problem at this point is that council has insisted on continuing to push forth projects despite the fact that the economic climate is such that projects are not going to be built. The developer for Verona spoke before council a few weeks ago to say that they were ready to build if these changes are approved. But I do not see the rush that would necessitate the council giving huge chunks of money back to the developers. Why not allow the market to rebound and the developer can build the project then?
We were concerned that the council had rammed through the Willowbank Development believing that the agreement could have been better constructed. Now already we see an item brought back to council for reconsideration.
In a letter to council, the developer requested on June 10, 2010 that to make lot line adjustments to create a 10 foot backyard for lot 18 and adjust the fence line on lots 17 and 19 accordingly. This issue came up at the Planning Commission meeting, but apparently had not been agendized and therefore could not be acted upon.
According to several of the neighbors this is a very sensitive point that they consider very significant. They see this as another effort to encroach upon the fifty foot riparian buffer they had to fight for to get from the city.
This item is not immediately before council this week. According to a communication from Mike Webb, Principal PLanner, the city would “require a lot line adjustment application at a minimum” and “it would not be a “variance” application.”
Would the council approve such as variance? It is important to note that on March 30, 2010, Councilmember Stephen Souza gave the neighbors the following assurance, “Within the Development Agreement is assurances of a minimum 50 foot habitat buffer as measured from the top of the southern bank of the Putah Creek drainage canal to the rear fences of all units along the northern project perimeter. That is ironclad. It is in the Development Agreement and cannot be breached unless the developer and the Council agree to change it. I’m sitting up here, I’m going to be here for another two years. I’m not going to breach that. I have no intention whatsoever…I feel assured that these parameters within this Development Agreement will not be breached. That they will hold.”
On the other hand, the movements on Verona indicate that such agreements really are done at the will and perhaps the whims of the council. Hopefully this is something the new council will change in terms of their approach to land use and their dealings with the communities. The neighbors right now, with this council, ought to have very little confidence that they will uphold their word as their word is only only three votes on council which they can muster at any time.
To me these are all issues that need to be left to the new council to create their own new policy direction. There is a good deal of doubt as to whether that will happen. One can recall in 2006, the lame duck council made major decisions such as putting Target on the ballot and shutting down the Human Relations Commission. That council change was a single member that did not alter the balance of the council. This one potentially does. And particularly with Verona, where we have a huge financial issue, the new council ought to weigh in on the matter.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I hope the new council discusses process as Joe has stated. In this whole area I believe there should be a time limit and approval sunsets after a certain time and no building.
Willowbank Park has already put ads in paper and cleared land. What is their hurry. Why can they begin so quickly and others can’t?
I don’t know all the particulars of this case but I do know that there is a reason for these supplemental fees–because Prop 13 limits property taxes and increases housing projects are generally losers for cities in California.
Cutting these supplemental fees due to market conditions is ridiculous–if market conditions are bad don’t build the project. One could always approve the project with current fees and let the developer wait until market conditions improve.
Not allowing the finance and budget committee to look at a change in the supplemental fees is a folly of the highest order but certainly consistent with this Council’s past behavior.
I agree it makes sense to wait. I am also tired of a CC that seems to want to bend over backwards to cater to developers. THere will be a time for infill development but what’s the rush?
Since breaking ground the developers of WP have:
Ripped out a stand of Valley Oaks without permit or approval.
Ignored the Swainson’s Hawk mitigation measures. ( There is a nest within 800ft. of the project)
Ignored the Red Fox mitigation measures. (There is an active den adjacent to the project)
Destroyed fox habitat along the creek with approval from the city.
I don’t understand how the city can give this project an EIR negative declaration when they don’t hold the developers to the mitigation measures.
Tim Ranstrom… are you prepared to document your claims? Particularly given what was done to build your home?
DPD: “But I do not see the rush that would necessitate the council giving huge chunks of money back to the developers.”
This is indeed what is happening, despite Councilmember Souza’s assertion (on 3/16/10) that “I’m sure they (citizens) would like us to get as much as we could get, and that’s what we’re here for. If we are going to grant entitlements I think part of it is encumbent upon us to get what is duly required and necessary to ease the impacts as much as we can.” [quote][/quote]
Sue Greenwald has consistently voiced the position that the City needs to extract more from developers. This is never more true than with infill projects, which strain existing infrastructure and create significant impacts to current residents. If infill development can be an avenue to more creative planning and design (which I believe), and peripheral development in Davis has been choked off for the forseeable future, and there are all these buyers out there (according to Stephen Souza) who want only new construction, I believe that developers should pay more for the ability to exploit this situation. And, if market conditions do not dictate that course of action now, shelve the project until those conditions improve.
If a motion by Sue to table this for consideration by the next Council is defeated, she should certainly vote yes on the subsequent motion put forth by the lame-duck Council Majority so that her first order of business at the first seating of the new Council could be her motion to bring this lame-duck Council decision back for immediate reconsideration. Don Saylor’s vote should be burned indelibly in the political memory of Davis voters when considering supporting his future bid for an Assembly seat.
The conflict of interest of Emlen’s staff is transparent as aiding developers with their projects is the foundation of the Ponzi scheme strategy to backfill the city’s growing deficit, a deficit that threatens staff jobs and salaries.
Tim
suggest contact Steve Souza who promised rules would be obeyed. Like he could!
This concept of “lame duck” council…. if the two vacancies/new members were the result of a recall, I would agree 100% that the out-going council shouldn’t do anything except ‘ministerial’ (non-policy) actions…. that is not the case here. To think that the council needs to “sit on its hands” for a month every two years (~ 4%, ~12% given the Council’s bent to take August off) is, IMHO, ludicrous… there is no new Council until the County elections office declares the result official… move on…
So you think a council about to leave should make a major policy decision that will bind and constrain the next council?
One of the biggest concerns with this Council has been process. Not letting the finance and budget committee look at this is terrible process.
Its not just that this is a lame duck council–they appear to want to rush a bad deal through before two very pro-development council people leave to be replaced by folks who we hope will be more concerned with overall interests of the City.
If this project had gone through all the necessary steps and not had an additional (ridiculous) request to lower developer’s fees, then one might be able to make an argument that the project should go through, lame duck council or not. That clearly isn’t the case here.
Yes… that is their responsibility. If the projects you mention were campaign issues, where the outcome of the election could be viewed as a referendum, I might feel differently. What if you applied for a building permit to add an addition to your home? You apply in February, having costed it all out, and due to the time to process the permit, a new Council was elected & they decided (presumably legally) to add a 75% surcharge to your permit fees… how would you feel? Would you say that is right? The fact of the matter is Verona HAS ENTITLEMENTS. The ONLY thing a new council could do is say no to the changes in the rules. The new council will have no power to add one iota to their requirements (unless, for some stupid reason, the developer agreed to that).
Do you think that Lamar &/or Ruth would vote differently on the proposal than they would had they have another year to serve?
Like many, you avoid responding to my question… should there be no effective decision making for ~12 % of the time due to elections & Council’s insistence of being ‘off the clock’ during August?
AS I understand it the developer is asking for the council to make changes in this entitlement–specifically the fees–my objection is to these changes. I don’t buy the argument that market conditions should imply that the City should lower its fees.
The costs to the City of supporting the project and providing services to its residents does not change appreciably because the market is down. Indeed if sales prices for houses fall, property taxes on those houses fall and thus the City of Davis receives even less in compensation (its share of property tax revenues).
The real issue here, as I mentioned above, is that Prop 13 ensures that houses are fiscal burdens on most cities (except for very expensive housing) over time. I didn’t make up the rules and I don’t especially like Prop 13, but its the law in California and here to stay, most likely, especially on private residences.
I don’t object to infill development if its vetted and approved. I do object to changing the rules of the game and I can’t help but be suspicious when these changes are proposed right before two very pro-development CC people are going to step down.
I disagree that it was not a campaign issue, the fact that the city is considering giving back $500,000 at a time when the budget is the biggest issue and was the biggest issue of the election is illogical. The new council needs to deal with the budget impact of this decision in addition to the potential precedence.
“Like many, you avoid responding to my question… should there be no effective decision making for ~12 % of the time due to elections & Council’s insistence of being ‘off the clock’ during August? “
I answered your question, I don’t have a problem with the council making some decisions in June after the election and before the council members are sworn in. The issue didn’t come up two years ago because the council did not change membership. There was less of a problem four years ago because control of the council did not change. However, I don’t think the council should take up issues like Verona at this stage.
Do I think Lamar and Ruth would have voted differently? No. But I think Lamar and Ruth will vote differently than Joe and Rochelle.
And btw, I don’t think the council should take August off. Especially when the city is facing serious fiscal crisis.
David… I concede that “fiscal health” was an issue… how these projects have a ‘significant impact’ is what I question, except for the short term “fix” of fees for the development (and reductions in one-time ‘fees’ are also somewhat “irrelevant”… the city’s issues are long-term, although short term are of concern, also… yet, bottom line, Verona is entitled to proceed under their previous approvals… if they choose to do so (I have indications that they may very well do so, despite their public protestations to the contrary), it will not change the fiscal issues significantly, and, as I said before, the new Council cannot change those one iota, unless the developer agrees…
Let’s agree to disagree on whether people elected to make decisions should refrain from doing so when their replacements are identified. I could make arguments both ways, but don’t see being able to draw a completely ‘logical’ conclusion… live long and prosper…
Let’s put it this, I suspect you are somehow tied in with employee groups, if you are on the bargaining group for employees, aren’t you going to tell the city, hey you’re giving away half a million to developers, why not give that half million to us? One time money, fine. But half a million is a lot of one-time money for a given bargaining group or even the entire employees. Think about it, our goal last year was to cut $1.25 million from compensation, $500,000 is a huge chunk of that. That’s one way of looking at it at least.
DG: [i]”… the fact that the city is considering giving back $500,000 at a time when the budget is the biggest issue and was the biggest issue of the election is illogical.”[/i]
I don’t know where your [u]$500,000[/u] number comes from. However, this revision is not a loss of any money at all to the city now–for this project.
As you point out from the staff report, “… with park in-lieu fees, the recommended revisions would result in [u]an increase[/u] of $404,907 to the city above current project fees.”
Under the revised plan, the developer will pay an additional $606,907 for a “park in-lieu fee.” The developer will also be required to pay $110,000 to the City for “Mace Ranch Park enhancements.” The impact fees would then be reduced by $312,000. The net effect is an increase of $404,907 to the city.
The reason the developer would prefer to pay the park in-lieu fee is because he won’t have to dedicate 1 acre of land to the city for additional park space. That doesn’t seem like much of a loss to the citizens of Davis, because Verona is right next to Mace Ranch Community Park, which itself is about 19 acres. And on top of that, there are an additional 5-6 acres of open space adjoining the school and the wildlife habitat area. (Also, the city will save about $7,000 a year in maintenance fees by not having this extra 1 acre of parkland.)
The main reason this 1 acre was set aside was for the burrowing owls*. That no longer is a consideration: [quote] … staff recommends eliminating the parkland dedication and instead require park in-lieu fees. The burrowing owls that once existed on the passive portion of Mace Ranch Park are no longer present and staff no longer believes it is necessary to provide a buffer from the new residential development.[/quote] Yet the real problem with this change in fee structures is what it means for the long-term for other housing developments. The development impact fees need to be set at a (reasonable) level which 1) covers the cost to provide new city services and 2) will cover the cost of maintaining our existing infrastructure and 3) to pay for mitigations for impacted neighbors.
None of those costs is reduced just because the housing market in Davis is now soft. We set a terrible precedent when we adjust downward our fees due to temporary economic conditions. Beyond the fact that we don’t need any new housing in Davis right now — if we did, the prices would be going up and the developer would have no trouble paying the current fees — we risk all future developers requesting and getting lower fees, which won’t cover the impact of development to the city or the neighborhood.
——–
*If you would like to see a parliament of owls, go out to the nature path which wraps around the Wild Horse Golf Course. At the northeast most point of that map, there are maybe a dozen pairs of breeding owls, which you can see popping up around the mounds.
A secondary positive impact from this proposed change for Verona is the elimination of the “middle-income” housing component. If our city council had any sense of fiscal responsibility, they would also get rid of the low-income housing component for Verona. (The MUCH higher amounts that the developer would make from selling those dedicated “low-income” units, which cost the city millions of dollars down the road in lost property taxes, could be then charged to the developer and put in a low-income housing fund. That fund would then pay for services (rent, food, medicine, clothing, etc.) to people who are truly needy in Davis. That cuts out the middle-man and really helps poor people.
DPD: “First, it was placed on the Planning Commission as an emergency item, as though there were some kind of rush to put a project that has not been built for nearly two years on the agenda. Second, it appears that the council has violated their own new policy on commissions and developments by not having the Finance and Budget Commission analyze it.”
On the Finance and Budget Commission’s agenda for Monday, June 14, 2010 at 7pm (DJUSD Offices, South Conference Room, 526 B Street) is the following item: “Verona Subdivision Project Fiscal Impact Analysis – For commission review of the fiscal impacts of the proposal changes in the Verona project. (45 minutes)”
So the Finance and Budget Commission IS going to analyze the attempt to decrease developer impact fees for Verona, but not until the night before the City Council meeting on June 15, 2010. This runs counter to the direction the City Council gave City Manager Bill Emlen to have development issues brought to the appropriate commissions IN A TIMELY MANNER. However, to say that the Finance and Budget Commission has been left out of the review process inre reducing developer impact fees for Verona is inaccurate.
City staff report: “While consideration of a reduced supplemental fee may be appropriate, the city anticipated utilizing a significant portion of the Verona supplemental fees to fund the Sports Complex EIR when it initiated the study. Too great a reduction in the development agreement supplemental fees would require the city to use other discretionary funds to backfill this effort. However, staff believes that with the rejection of the parkland, it would be possible to restructure the Verona project fees to enable project financing and construction to move forward, while generating more fees overall for the city than the approved project. Under staff’s proposal shown below, with park in-lieu fees, the recommended revisions would result in an increase of $404,907 to the city above current project fees.”
To me, this represents the reason city staff is pushing through Verona under “emergency” conditions – to fund the EIR for a new Sports Complex. (Correct me if I am reading this wrong.) If the city does not have the money to do something as simple as repairing our roads, the city has no business even thinking about something like erecting a new Sports Complex. But Measure Q passed, the continuation of the 1/2 cent sales tax – which sent the message to city staff they can continue doing business as usual bc citizens will agree to pay whatever is necessary so that their “city services” are not interrupted.
Now I am sure I am going to get a firestorm of comments that I am way off base; if we didn’t pass Measure Q how would we deal with the $3 million dollar deficit that would result bc of the failure of Measure Q? But let me ask you – how are we going to fund a new Sports Complex the city seems hell bent on building, no matter what the state of the city coffers are? At what point do citizens say enough is enough? Or is it that most people think we should go ahead and build the Sports Complex bc it is a “city service” the city just has to have?
Elaine: I’m glad to see that the Finance and Budget commission is now taking up the issue, it had been on the council agenda twice before it ended up on the F&B. So we’ll have a financial assessment, I don’t believe Rich’s analysis is correct, I think he’s making the same mistake the city is, counting monies going to different funds as offsetting. Obviously there is an advantage for the developers here, and likely that means there is a disadvantage for the city.
In terms of the Sports Complex, the city is not funding that other than an EIR.
[i]”I don’t believe Rich’s analysis is correct. I think he’s making the same mistake the city is, counting monies going to different funds as offsetting.”[/i]
Different funds? I don’t have any idea where you find that. The $606,907 park fee is going into the general fund, AFAICT. Of the $404,907 to the city above current project fees,” $110,000 of that is going to go to one-time improvements at Mace Ranch Park. So it is fairer to say that the GF will grow by a net of only $294,907. The CC also has plans to use some of the Verona impact fees for the Sports Complex EIR. However, that has no net effect on the GF, because the CC had planned that with the previous fee structure and this proposed structure will not change that.
[i]”Obviously there is an advantage for the developers here, and likely that means there is a disadvantage for the city.”[/i]
The advantages for the developer are 1) that he has ownership of 1 acre more of land which can become houses; and 2) he does not have to build the “middle-income” units, which would have been money losers for him.
Your conclusion that this change “means there is a disadvantage for the city” is meritless–for this project. There is no disadvantage to the city for Verona itself. The real questions are 1) should the city adjust its fees in order to spur more housing growth when demand for housing is slack; and 2) will this change cause problems with our development impact fees for later projects.
Those could be real problems. But without any facts to prove it, don’t say “this is bad in and of itself.” It’s not. It’s a positive for the General Fund. That is not at question.
DMG: “In terms of the Sports Complex, the city is not funding that other than an EIR.”
Now why the heck would the city fund an EIR for the Sports Complex unless it plans to build it? Your logic escapes me here.
Rich Rifkin: “Your conclusion that this change “means there is a disadvantage for the city” is meritless–for this project. There is no disadvantage to the city for Verona itself. The real questions are 1) should the city adjust its fees in order to spur more housing growth when demand for housing is slack; and 2) will this change cause problems with our development impact fees for later projects.”
Am I missing something here? The city said “While consideration of a reduced supplemental fee may be appropriate, the city anticipated utilizing a significant portion of the Verona supplemental fees to fund the Sports Complex EIR when it initiated the study. Too great a reduction in the development agreement supplemental fees would require the city to use other discretionary funds to backfill this effort. However, staff believes that with the rejection of the parkland, it would be possible to restructure the Verona project fees to enable project financing and construction to move forward, while generating more fees overall for the city than the approved project. Under staff’s proposal shown below, with park in-lieu fees, the recommended revisions would result in an increase of $404,907 to the city above current project fees.”
Parkland is being given up, to restructure Verona project fees, to enable the city to gain $400,000 to pay for an EIR for a new Sports Complex. How is planning for the building of a new Sports Complex to the advantage of the city at a time when it cannot pay for basic road repairs? And as you so aptly point out, this sets the stage for more funny business down the road with respect to “readjusting” developer impact fees based on hidden agendas that may not be in the best interests of the city.
Elaine, the city wouldn’t build the sports complex, a developer would.
“Elaine, the city wouldn’t build the sports complex, a developer would.”
Is it not clear why the city is paying for an EIR for a sports complex that has not been proposed YET by any developer as part of their development proposal? Make the city pay for the EIR rather than the developer,as I believe would be the developer’s cost when it comes forward as part of a development proposal, and get the EIR finished and approved “under the radar of public scrutiny” which would be intense once it was part of a development proposal.
DMG: “Elaine, the city wouldn’t build the sports complex, a developer would.”
OK, so are you saying a private developer will own the Sports Complex and run it too? That the city will not be expected to put one dime out to facilitate this facility? If the city is paying for the EIR, I don’t believe that for one minute… Let me know if you know something I don’t.
Almost all of the above comments have to do with process, transparency and increasing citizen participation in the decisions that will determine the future of their city. These have all been articulated by our Mayor-pro-tem elect as his first priority when he takes his seat on our Council dais. Sue Greenwald has a clear history of supporting these principles. Newly-elected Councilperson Swanson will be called upon rather quickly to declare where she stands on these critical issues as the potential “swing vote”. We all are well aware of where Saylor and Souza stand with respect to Krovoza’s declared agenda.
David… I’m not sure where you’re coming from… I CONCEDED that there are long term issues with City finances… the current proposals would not change that… how you want to twist that to say that I’m implying [quote]“aren’t you going to tell the city, hey you’re giving away half a million to developers, why not give that half million to us?”[/quote] is beyond me. I’m arguing process… you seem to equate everything to $$$$… if the city doesn’t concede the exactions they already require, in my opinion, those $$$’s should go towards increased reserves, one-time costs (accelerating street maintenance investments, for example), but NOT for on-going employee salary/benefit enhancements…whether I have been in past employee negotiations is “irrelevant”, a term members of your generation like to use to dismiss points of view they disagree with… what I AM saying is that the Verona approvals are what they are. I could care less if they get off the hook for anything… the fact of the matter is that subsequent approvals have been given to other projects that are less onerous, from the developers’ perspective. I see no reason why the current Council cannot make a decision. Would you have the new Council go back and modify the other development entitlements? The Grande site was a “sweetheart” deal between the city & DJUSD… look @ their ‘exactions’ vs. the more recent ones.
Since you seem to believe that all my opinions are structured on trying benefit public employees @ the expense of everything else, and cannot fathom any merit to my thoughts/opinions, I’ll sign off so you & your sycophants can wallow in your “world view”, where you are right and everyone else is wrong &/or stupid. Paix.
davisite2: “Is it not clear why the city is paying for an EIR for a sports complex that has not been proposed YET by any developer as part of their development proposal? Make the city pay for the EIR rather than the developer,as I believe would be the developer’s cost when it comes forward as part of a development proposal, and get the EIR finished and approved “under the radar of public scrutiny” which would be intense once it was part of a development proposal.”
Good points. Why would the city be paying for an EIR for a Sports Complex that a developer has not even proposed yet? There is no question in my mind that a Sports Complex is going to require money from the city coffers to build (if nothing else, the cost of the EIR) and run. Something is not right here…
Closing note: if Rifkin is advising you that I’m an employee “activist”, I’ll add to you as I did to him.. I AIN’T BOBBY! Although I often disagree with Mr. Weist, I respect him as a person… the concept of disagreeing, but still respecting, is often, in my opinion, “lost” on this site… I invite Don Shor to opine on that last comment…
Ok… probably my last day on this site (see above)… whoever said that the sports complex isn’t being proposed as a city project (tho’ probably financed by future developers) is suffering from a lack of facts or a R-C inversion (davisite2, consider an evaluation). Therefore it IS appropriate for the city to do the environmental analysis to determine if it’s viable from an ENVIRONMENTAL perspective. It remains to be seen if it is fiscally appropriate.
hpierce: I think you misunderstood the intent of my post, I was trying to use that as an example to suggest that in this climate, even a little short term money will have a huge impact. I was not trying to start something with you and if that’s the way it came across, I apologize.
“the concept of disagreeing, but still respecting, is often, in my opinion, “lost” on this site…”
I agree with you on this point, we have been working on that, but it is a work in progress.
I didn’t think you were Bobby, though I do suspect you are an employee.
“is beyond me. I’m arguing process… you seem to equate everything to $$$$… if the city doesn’t concede the exactions they already require, in my opinion, those $$$’s should go towards increased reserves, one-time costs (accelerating street maintenance investments, for example), but NOT for on-going employee salary/benefit enhancements..”
I agree with your point there as well, I was merely trying to suggest (and I don’t think I did it well apparently) that if I were an employee group, I would look at this and use it against the city. That said, I would use the money for reserves, as I suggested previously, that’s regardless if it ends up being park impact or developer impact fees.
I’m with you, maybe, on the process issue, I think the process of reconsidering approved developments is problematic.
As I understand the sports complex issue, they are doing the EIR in order to determine where to put the sports complex. The location will determine whose land it is on. For the record, I am probably against a sports complex on any site at this time, though not primarily due to financial reasons. First, I think having one complex will take sports and rec programs out of the neighborhoods and will induce more traffic and car rides. That is not the sort of policy I am interested in promoting, particularly at a time when we may be cutting back on sports and rec programs in the city.
David… is there an e-mail address that I can give you input/suggestions “off-line”?
[i]”Am I missing something here? Parkland is being given up, to restructure Verona project fees, to enable the city to gain $400,000 to pay for an EIR for a new Sports Complex.”[/i]
Yes, you are missing something. With or without this change in fees, the CC had already planned to fund the EIR for the sports complex*. So that does not change. The $404,907 is a NET GAIN to the city above and beyond the old formula.
On the surface of it, you might think that the 1 acre of parkland is some kind of terrible loss. But keep in mind that space would have been fenced off and unusable by the public. It was merely to preserve the habitat of the burrowing owls, which are no longer there. Moreover, that 1 acre is in the larger Mace Ranch Community Park and Korematsu Elementary School complex which has roughly 25 acres of open space (and there are other smaller parks very nearby as well as greenbelt space to the northeast, west and south).
*As David points out, the Sports Complex, which will be an obvious benefit to the citizens of Davis and will be needed, esp. for all the soccer players we have in town, will be paid for by developers, not by the GF.
[i]”Why would the city be paying for an EIR for a Sports Complex that a developer has not even proposed yet?”[/i]
This is backwards. The plan is that the city, which has a current need for a Sports Complex, would REQUIRE a developer to build the facility as a condition of approval of his large, new housing project. Howevever, as we have no need for any large, new housing projects, that plan won’t go through until there is one and it is approved by the people.
But insofar as your point is that we should not use any of the impact fees from Verona for a Sports Complex, I agree. If you look at the documents which approved the Verona project, there is no mention of funding the sports complex EIR. ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/councilpackets/20080729/05_Verona_Subdivision.pdf[/url]) As such, these are not dedicated funds. The money could go into the general fund, along with all of the other Verona-paid fees. The council decided in 2007 and reaffirmed in 2008 that WE NEED A SPORTS COMPLEX. That likely is still true. But it was to be constructed as a perk from a large peripheral development, and in reality all large peripheral developments are off the table now. So while we have a GF shortage (to pay for road repairs, etc.), the council ought to forego the use of the Verona money for the sports complex EIR. Instead, when the council is later considering a new large peripheral development, a condition of approval ought to be the funding of this sports complex EIR as well as the construction of the complex itself.
[i]”Closing note: if Rifkin is advising you that I’m an employee “activist”, I’ll add to you as I did to him.. I AIN’T BOBBY!”[/i]
I have never mentioned you to David, nor has he ever mentioned you to me. I realize that you are a union activist. But I have never said you were Bobby Weist. He uses a different name when he posts on here.
Elaine: We all can guess where this “sports complex” proposal will come from. Remember the 2nd iteration of Whitcombe’s Covell Project proposal with its sports complex as the “carrot”? It will undoubtedly be resurrected as another try at their well-worn strategy of promising “free dirt” to different Davis voter interest groups on which to build their pet projects. As we remember, that Sports Complex idea fizzled when the voters focused in on the traffic/general vehicle congestion that it would undoubtedly bring to N. Davis/Covell Blvd.
hpierce: info@davisvanguard.org
Rich… I assume you understand that an EIR needs to be initiated 1-2 years in advance of a project “approval”, at the least…
DG: [i]”As I understand the sports complex issue, they are doing the EIR in order to determine where to put the sports complex.”[/i]
There are a few different places under consideration. The reason this EIR will be more expensive is in part because the plan is to study the environmental impact of each of those locations.
From the Davis Enterprise (2/9/09): [quote] City officials envision a 100-acre sports park, 60 acres of which would be developed first, and 40 acres of which would be held in reserve for about 10 years, or whenever Davis’ growth warranted more fields.
The new sports complex has long been envisioned on Howat Ranch, 774 acres of city-owned land east of County Road 105, north of County Road 32A and the railroad tracks, west of the Yolo Causeway levee and south of County Road 30.
About a year ago, two council members suggested two other properties that should get some attention as prospective sports park sites. Councilman Stephen Souza said Steve Gidaro, the owner of Mace Covell Gateway LLC, was willing to sell 100 acres of the Shriners property — north of Covell Boulevard and east of Wildhorse Ranch — to the city to be used as a sports park. Then-Mayor Sue Greenwald, who is still on the City Council, said she had spoken to the owner of the Signature property, north of Covell Boulevard across the street from Harper Junior High, and he was willing to donate the land to the city in exchange for the rights to build residential units on 43 acres nearby. That option is still on the table, said Anne Brunette, the city’s property management coordinator.
A year ago, the City Council decided to evaluate all three properties, but the cost of preparing an environmental impact review goes up with each property added. To examine the Howat property alone would cost the city $199,981, which will be paid for by development fees, set aside specifically for this purpose. To examine the Shriners property would add $46,822 to the price tag, and to look at the Signature property would cost an additional $61,452.
The EIR process is expected to take about a year, after which time the City Council could decide to proceed with the project on one of the properties. [/quote]
HP LABOR ACTIVIST: [i]”Rich… I assume you understand that an EIR needs to be initiated 1-2 years in advance of a project “approval”, at the least…”[/i]
Yes, at least that. However, that timeframe is less than it would take to approve a major housing development, which, of course, we are not going to approve any time soon.
Above, I typed this: [quote]So while we have a GF shortage (to pay for road repairs, etc.), the council ought to forego the use of the Verona money for the sports complex EIR. Instead, when the council is later considering a new large peripheral development, a condition of approval ought to be the funding of this sports complex EIR as well as the construction of the complex itself. [/quote] I should clarify that. What I think the CC should do is, a few years from now (when perhaps there is agreement we need more new peripheral housing), require each developer to include in his EIR for his housing project an EIR for a sports complex on the 100 acres he plans to dedicate. That way, the EIR money would never wind up in the GF; and all of the Verona fees would be available for general purposes.
“suffering from a lack of facts or a R-C inversion (davisite2, consider an evaluation).”
name-calling attacks(what is a R-C inversion, anyway?) is usually the last stand for a failed argument. Adios, hpierce. .. and yes, I have little doubt that the city is doing the sports complex EIR under the guise of it being a city project. IMO, there can be little doubt that there have been “discussions” between Emlen, the current Council Majority and most likely John Whitcombe laying out when,what and who will be responsible for laying down this groundwork for the debut of the next Whitcombe Covell Village proposal.
“davisite2, consider an evaluation” – no name calling, please.
Rich, quoting Davis Enterprise: “the owner of the Signature property, north of Covell Boulevard across the street from Harper Junior High, and he was willing to donate the land to the city in exchange for the rights to build residential units on 43 acres nearby.”
Let’s focus on process. Why would the city do an EIR, much less pay for one, for a site that the HERC has identified as a Yellow Light site? At least Nugget Fields is a Green LIght site. Yellow Light sites shouldn’t even be on the development radar for 5 – 10 years minimum, even in a normal economy. I really think the work of the Housing Element committee should be respected, as that was a broad-based community process with considerable public input.
HP: “whoever said that the sports complex isn’t being proposed as a city project (tho’ probably financed by future developers) is suffering from a lack of facts …”
No one said it would not be a city project per se. What Davis said, correctly, is that it would be built and paid for by a developer. It would be built on land the developer would gift to the city.
HP: [i]”… or a R-C inversion (davisite2, consider an evaluation).”[/i]
D2: [i]”what is a R-C inversion, anyway?”[/i]
I have no idea. I think HP just made up that term. R in zoning parlance means residential. C in zoning parlance means commercial. A sports complex would not be either, but it could be part of what is called a P-D (planned development).
HP: [i]”Therefore it IS appropriate for the city to do the environmental analysis to determine if it’s viable from an ENVIRONMENTAL perspective.”[/i]
The city, in fact, almost certainly would not do this EIR. It would use the developer’s funds to pay an outside consultant to perform the EIR. State law (CEQA) requires EIR’s to be performed when land is developed for a new use such as would be the case with a sports complex.
CORRECTION: “What [b]David[/b] said, correctly, is that it would be built and paid for by a developer.
One more note: an outside consultant would produce the EIR. However, the city council would have to vote to affirm that the EIR is adequate for CEQA purposes. As such, the DCC could amend the EIR in any ways it sees fit.
“suffering from a lack of facts or a R-C inversion”:
Rectal-Cranial inversion. come on people.
Thanks davistownie… I had a feeling that hpierce was not just attempting to educate me concerning the complexities of zoning.
This whole Verona thing reminds me of the midnight executive order that Bush signed, as his bags were being carried out of the White House, to open just about all US coastal waters to undersea drilling. Both are cynical,”giving the finger” to the electorate, parting shots. In Bush’s case, it was promptly canceled by the incoming administration. Let’s hope that our new Council follows suit.
President Bush apparently made a big impression on D2. He has been quoted on these pages of saying: [quote] This whole Chiles Ranch thing reminds me of the midnight executive order that Bush signed, as his bags were being carried out of the White House, to open just about all US coastal waters to undersea drilling.
This whole Wildhorse Ranch thing reminds me of the midnight executive order that Bush signed, as his bags were being carried out of the White House, to open just about all US coastal waters to undersea drilling.
This whole Grande thing reminds me of the midnight executive order that Bush signed, as his bags were being carried out of the White House, to open just about all US coastal waters to undersea drilling.
This whole Old North Davis thing reminds me of the midnight executive order that Bush signed, as his bags were being carried out of the White House, to open just about all US coastal waters to undersea drilling.
This whole Roman Coliseum thing reminds me of the midnight executive order that Bush signed, as his bags were being carried out of the White House, to open just about all US coastal waters to undersea drilling.
This whole David & Goliath thing reminds me of the midnight executive order that Bush signed, as his bags were being carried out of the White House, to open just about all US coastal waters to undersea drilling.[/quote]
I found the discussion above rather confusing. Does this project pay for itself or not? Perhaps the Finance and Budget Committee will shed some light, though some of the fiscal impact reports prepared for the City in the past have been awful.
[i]”Does this project pay for itself or not?”[/i]
Doc, originally, the Verona project was thought to be a slight money loser — about $14,000/year in the red. But the new changes should make it a slight money winner for the city.
First, it gets rid of the middle-income units. Those homes will thus pay full market rate property tax (and full Mello Roos). That means a lot more money to the city.
Second, by eliminating the 1 acre of fenced in burrowing owl habitat, the city should save about $7,000 per year in maintenance costs.
Third, the net fee increase is $404,907. Of that, the city expects to spend $110,000 on improvements at MRC Park. But none of the rest of that money is dedicated. (They don’t have to pay for an EIR for the sports complex. That decision has not been made.) So this new plan adds $294,907 to the general fund, after the $110,000 is spent. That represents an annual stream of $14,745.35, if they never touch the principal.
The great unknown — why we can never know if a project “pays for itself” — is because we have no idea what future city councils will do with regard to labor compensation costs. The determination of “pays for itself” or does not pay for itself is based on assumptions about how much it is going to cost us to pay cops, firefighters and public works crews 5, 10 and 15 years down the road. If we have councils going forward with the same irresponsible attitude that we have had since 1998 who raised employee compensation 10% per year (compounded), no project will ever pay for itself. If we have fiscally sensible councils, who understand that the taxpayers of Davis are getting ripped off right now and things need to change, we can afford new housing projects.
The only reason a development ever costs our city money it does not have is because 1) we force these stupid sub-market units on developers; 2) we don’t charge developers sufficient impact fees; and 3) we increase our employees total comp by too much too fast.
In the case of Verona, we still have the stupid low-income units which DO NOT HELP POOR PEOPLE and HARM THE TAXPAYERS. But the fees are sufficient and we don’t yet know about future labor costs.
To all: Even if a developer paid to plan and build a Sports Complex in exchange for a permit to develop land, who will pay to RUN the Sports Complex? I very much doubt it will be the developer!
And if the city is paying for the Sports Complex EIR, then the developer is certainly not paying the full cost of building the facility. The city is footing some of the bill.
And on and on it goes… Whenever the city gets involved in any project, it invariably costs the taxpayer money! Or am I missing something here? And if I am, then I suspect it is bc this whole Sports Complex thing is flying below the radar screen in terms of process…