City of Davis

One of the last acts that Lamar Heystek performed as Davis City Councilmember was to put on the long range calendar a discussion of Davis’ record retention policies.  One of my continuing concerns is the fact that we discard video recordings of our City Council meetings after a period of six months or so.  That leaves the only historical record of what happened in our meetings the minutes and whatever policies are enacted.

The problem with the minutes is that they are summary in nature and so we lose context for how issues arose and what was discussed.  I bring this up at this particular time because I was attempting to backtrack to learn how and when the issue of rezoning two Davis Parks go grouped with the Sports Park Concept.

Last Thursday, the Davis Redevelopment Agency became the owner of the homes in DACHA.  The foreclosure auction finally occurred after legal hurdles were breached when a judge dismissed efforts by Neighborhood Partners to declare involuntary bankruptcy.

A long series of events led to this outcome.  The city of Davis had previously decided to lower the cost of shares and monthly payments to the members of the Co-Op.  Included in that was a refinance by the city of Davis, meaning that the Redevelopment Agency became the effective bank for DACHA.

Last week the Vanguard discussed three possible sites for the Sports Complex as well as the need for such a complex and the cost associated with it.  It seems that some believe that the former landfill site is the best of the three locations for such a complex.  They view it as relatively close to town, it is closer to a greenbelt hook up for a bike path, it is still a distance from homes, at least to the south (although perhaps not the east), and it is city owned property and would not be contingent on a deal with a developer.

There are some expressed concerns that having a sports complex with be growth inducing, however, the general belief is that Measure R would mitigate such concerns and sports complexes with the noise and lights are not ideal neighbors.

Last night the city had an EIR Scoping Meeting for the Sports Complex.  Members of the public were able to come to an open meeting and ask questions and also make comments about three proposed sites for a sports complex. 

There is strong support for the sports complex which would consist almost entirely outdoor fields in the sports community, however, there are specific oppositions both among some neighbor groups who oppose the city selling existing  fields such as the Civic Field between A and B north of City Hall.  There are also people concerned about some of the proposed locations, which we will get to shortly.

From the beginning of our coverage it did not make any sense for the city of Davis to give money back to the developers either by waiving, reducing, or otherwise altering the supplemental fees.  The good news in this case was that the council agreed with that view, and determined that there was not logical or rational basis for allowing the supplemental fee to remain at 6000 dollars for the formerly middle income affordable units.

As a result, the developer now has a decision to make.  As City Manager Bill Emlen and City Attorney Harriet Steiner pointed out, the council cannot impose anything on the developer.  However, at the same time, the developer really has two choices, they can accept the changes and we will get into the most objectionable in a moment, or they can allow the development agreement to stand as is.  As Sue Greenwald pointed out, she believes it would be of greater value to leave the property as it was zoned prior to the council approval as commercial, so the developer can take it or leave.

Late last fall the Davis City Council had approved an MOU that both the neighbors and the Davis Community Church had agreed to for the provision of winter shelter services.  The council had formed a subcommittee made up of Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Councilmember Sue Greenwald who evaluated the situation, gained an idea of the types of services provided, and the concerns of neighbors.  Their ultimate recommendation that was passed by council December 1 by a 4-1 vote would cap services at the Davis Community Church to 25 people.

However, mother nature and a large organized contingent of community residents and church members would intervene.  A severe cold snap in early December showed the 25 person cap to be problematic and when people were turned away a large section of the community became outraged and mobilized.

In 2008, the City Council approved the development agreement for the Verona Subdivision.  The vote was not unusual, but was 3-2 with Councilmembers Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek dissenting.  The reason for the dissent was that these councilmembers believed that the density was too high for that location.

The neighbors were in opposition to the project as well, particularly on the density issue.  And now just two years later, the council is considering the possibility of increasing that density even more.  13 units does not sound like a lot, but it represents more than a 15% increase in the density of the project.

Last week the Vanguard reported that the city had backtracked and had restored the supplemental fees at 12,000 dollars for the Verona Subdivision, we however missed the fine print.

It turns out that while the city is removing the middle income affordable requirement, they are keeping those units at the lower rate, 6000 dollars per unit rather than the 12,000 dollars the rest of the units are subject to.

Sometimes persistence pays off.  City staff after criticism following the Finance and Budget Commission has reversed itself on the reduction of residential supplemental contributions for the Verona Subdivision and has decided to retain the 12,000 residential contribution that was originally approved in 2008.

The commission was concerned about the precedent for renegotiating the Development Agreement two years after the fact to more favorable terms for the developer.  The original proposal would have seen the elimination of the middle income affordable requirement of 17 units per the city’s amendment policy that suspends that ordinance, the reduction of Supplemental Fees from $12,000 to $5,000 per unit, the elimination of the Parkland Dedication, the imposition of a park in-lieu fee and change in the timing of the water/ sewer connection fee.