![](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hexter-2-765x510.jpg)
![](https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Hexter-3-500x333.jpg)
As fate would have it, the city of Davis released the UC Davis April 14 LRDP Response Letter from Interim Chancellor Ralph Hexter just two days after the entire community heard from the student leadership at UC Davis about the dire conditions of housing.
Students eloquently spoke about the difficulties of dedicating themselves to their studies amid housing insecurity, the need to work multiple jobs, preparing themselves for homelessness and steep rental increases, among other tangible impacts of a 0.2 percent vacancy rate.
While the Vanguard has been adamant that the city of Davis needed to step up to help resolve their end of the crisis, the bulk of the work falls to the university. The city can help solve the current situation by providing more housing, but UC Davis must accommodate new student housing demands.
To date, they have refused to go to the requested “minimum of 100 percent of the projected enrollment of all new incoming students starting with the 2017 academic year and at least 50 percent of total UC Davis campus student population in the LRDP.”
Instead, their commitment has topped out at 90 percent of new students and only 40 percent of the total UC Davis campus population.
The Vanguard received reassurances this week that UC Davis was aware of the gravity of the situation and looking to accelerate new housing – but the response from UC Davis in the letter from Ralph Hexter is tone deaf at best, and demonstrates less than full commitment to solving the problem.
As the Vanguard has previously noted, UC Davis must overcome a history that is replete with failed promises and unmet commitments. In 2002, the stated goal was that, by 2012, UC Davis would house 38 percent of its students on campus with an ultimate goal of 40 percent.
That goal has not been remotely met. Indeed, the current figure stands at just 29 percent of students living on campus. Other UCs have committed to well over 50 percent, with Cal Poly, a CSU in a similar community, now pledging that 65 percent of its students will be housed on campus.
While a new chancellor brings the opportunity of a fresh perspective, and renewed community and council pressure, along with the dramatic increase in student population, will undoubtedly put more pressure on UC Davis – the bottom line is their track record here engenders skepticism and not confidence.
The letter from Interim Chancellor Hexter merely exacerbates that mistrust.
The city of Davis pushed in their December letter and its follow up for UC Davis to commit to a “timing and sequence of campus delivery of net new residential and non-residential space vis-à-vis the timing of expected campus enrollment growth.”
The response from the Interim Chancellor is dismissive at best. He notes the document that summarizes “the timing and sequence of the first 3800-4000 of the 6200 new on-campus beds that are included in the current draft LRDP.”
However, then he adds, “Please note that many factors could affect the timing and sequence of individual residential projects, including but not limited to financial, weather, and/or construction delays. However, the single most critical factor for assuring that all 6200 beds are completed in a timely manner is the approval of the LRDP in March 2018 as called for in our current schedule. Delay in the LRDP approval will result in a delay of the EIR for the 1600-1800 beds at West Village that is included in the draft LRDP and draft LRDP documents. In turn, that would result in delayed delivery of future campus housing projects. We look forward to your support of timely approval of the LRDP next March.”
In other words, do not interfere with the implementation of the LRDP that you think is inadequate, otherwise you will further delay the building of housing units.
The interim chancellor then turns the issue back toward the city, writing that “since December, we have encountered greater difficulty in finding creative ways to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes on shared issues.”
The response by UC Davis to the city’s responses can best be summarized as, “Our response remains unchanged.”
While he pays lipservice to collaboration, it is not true collaboration.
In the meantime, it is the chancellor and not the city who has turned a deaf ear to the cries of the students. What has the university done in the last few years to ensure that students have housing security?
The normally cautious staff could hardly hide their anger and frustration with the university response.
Staff writes, “In light of the response received to the City’s correspondence to date, coupled with the continued forward progression and expected Fall 2017 release of the LRDP Draft EIR, staff believes it is prudent to begin preparation of our own series of analyses of potential impacts of the LRDP on the City. These areas of study and potential impacts include transportation, parks, greenbelts, and City services, as outlined in the City EIR scoping comment letter to UC Davis.”
Staff writes, “Having such studies in hand would enable the City to gain a better understanding of the potential LRDP impacts associated with the Draft EIR once released, allowing for a more thorough analysis and comments.”
Staff writes that “one key area of potential transportation impact includes the Russell Boulevard and Richards/First Street corridors where it will be important to understand how city traffic operations would be impacted if key campus access points, such as First and A, were to be altered. Such studies would also serve as a basis to formulate suggested mitigations and potential impact fee agreements between the City and UC Davis to account for the associated impacts of campus enrollment growth.”
Interesting that once again it sounds like the city needs to study our housing needs in order to gauge the impact of the university LRDP on city services and planning.
This is the biggest issue facing both the city and university. The bad news is that the current administration has dragged their heels in carrying out the planning process while students are suffering. The good news is that, within four months, a new chancellor will have an opportunity to look at this situation anew and hopefully rise to the challenge.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think it’s been pretty evident for some time now that UCD is not going to move from the 90/40 position. It seems that the most useful direction for the council and staff to take now is to mitigate the impact of that.
Yes… think Niebuhr said it best… quote starts out, “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change…” Time will tell.
As one poster has opined, perhaps the new ‘sheriff’ @ UCD will wish to/can shift the current trajectory… that would be a good thing…
.
Completely agree, Ron… you absolutely got that right!
Howard:
That’s apparently another, ongoing technical “glitch” with the Vanguard. At times, it won’t allow the complete deletion of a comment. (In this case, to move it somewhere else.)
Got it… enjoy what appears to be a perfect spring day…
And the council is taking those steps while continuing to press UCD. I think the council is doing it right
Going from 100 to 90 means about another 700 or so beds, larger than another Sterling.
Right. There won’t be any further “impacts” of changing existing zoning.
There’s a building (which had a “for sale” sign on it, on Pole Line Road. It was a skilled nursing facility for years. Like Sterling, it is also almost directly across the street from Rancho Yolo.
While operating as a skilled nursing facility (a couple of years ago), an electrical fire occurred. (There was no apparent visible damage, from the street.) I understand that the business had planned to re-open, and had started undergoing significant repairs. Then, all worked stopped, and the “for sale” sign appeared.
Anyone want to “guess” what might happen next? (If you can’t do so, I’d suggest that you might not be observing what’s generally occurring.)
Hint – it might be something that the Vanguard constantly advocates for. Is the probability of losing another business (which, in this case, helps to serve a growing senior population) another “loss” for the city? (Some seem to think it’s not.)
It’s “full speed ahead” (according to some), to change existing zoning and usage.
Ron, once again you are taking a thimble-full of information and expanding it to a bushel basket-full of inference. Have you actually take the time to research why the owners of the 715 Pole Line Road property stopped their repair plans before they even started? Once you do that basic research, you will have a Paul Harvey “the rest of the story” moment.
Further, if you look at the skilled-nursing business model, you will find (1) that it generates very, very little revenue for the City budget, (2) none of the services activities there generate any sales tax revenue, (3) because of Prop 13, the property tax revenues are very low, and (4) very few of the nursing and non-nursing professionals who work there actually live in Davis, because the amount of money they earn doesn’t provide them with enough fiscal where-with-all to afford housing in Davis.
With respect to the next-step use for that site, once again you have a location, location, location reality. From a location perspective, another skilled nursing facility would work there, but the recurring revenue stream from a traditional skilled nursing facility has reduced enough in recent years that it is questionable whether it can cover the debt service associated with the new construction costs. A senior-living apartment complex like Carlton Plaza on 5th Street would work better because it would have a much steadier revenue stream. They don’t have the constant turnover of residents that a traditional skilled-nursing facility has.
So here is a question for you, “From the perspective of the employers of young professionals that John D described in the prior thread, how attractive is the 715 Pole Line Road parcel as a location for those employment opportunities?”
Matt:
You’re asking a lot of questions, and are hinting that “you” know the answers. If so, then let’s hear it, including your sources.
Regarding “sales tax”, that’s true of many non-retail businesses. Regarding property tax, the property would be reassessed upon sale, regardless of subsequent use. However, unlike residential development, commercial development generally does not end up “costing” the city money, over time.
Regarding salaries, what would the salaries be, if the existing business was replaced with an apartment complex? Do apartment complexes provide a “higher salary”, for those working there?
Your suggestion regarding a senior apartment complex at the site would not address the other points I made. However, it might be a relatively low-impact use of the site.
Regarding your final statement, the fact that you “twisted it” to apply to 715 Pole Line Road makes no sense, since I didn’t suggest that employers of “young professionals” would otherwise occupy the site. (That conversation had to do with the Families First site, to which you did not respond.)
No Ron, I am not “hinting” at any answers. I’m simply asking you questions, which thus far you have not answered.
Your statement regarding property tax . . . that the property would be reassessed upon sale, regardless of subsequent use is 100% true, but only comes into play if the property is sold. Do you know of any potential non-residential buyers who have even entertained making an offer to either the owners of 2100 Fifth Street or the owners of 715 Pole Line Road? Until such a buyer steps forward the property tax stays the same.
Do you have any data to support your statement? That statement as written is 100% false.
I’m not sure what your point is with this question vis-a-vis the City budget. Please clarify your point.
How is Carlton Plaza (or University Retirement Community, etc.) a lower impact use of the 715 Pole Line Road site than the skilled-nursing facility? How is Carlton Plaza (or University Retirement Community, etc.) a lower impact use of the 2100 Fifth Street Road site than the Stirling proposal?
No, take another look at what you said,
Ron… although I already strongly suspect you won’t, try to get at least some facts straight, and try to be consistent with your approach towards other posters…
Your,
juxtaposed with your question, [in the form of an innuendo]
C’mon! How can you make both statements in the same day?
Fact: you said,
For many non-SF residential properties (MF, Commercial/Industrial, etc), that is very untrue, if the owners do it right (and many do)… there is a huge loophole in Prop 13 and subsequent legislation, that uses 50% ownership as a trigger for reassessment. so, if I sold 25% of a property’s rights to another, no reassessment… if 2 years later, I sold another 30% interest in the property, no reassessment… if 2 years later I sold the balance of my interest (45%), no reassessment. So I sold 100% of my interest in real property, and no reassessment.
Therefore, you are WRONG! That is a likely fact, if the seller and buyers were ‘savvy’… happens a great majority of the time, as it is a “win” for the buyer, getting the lower assessment, and a “win” for the seller, as it increases the value of the ‘asking price’. Any competent auditor/tax professional knows of this gambit. Has been used very often for business properties, including in Davis.
Enjoy this beautiful day… I know I will…
Also the difference between 40% and 50% is another 4000 units or so.
If your “unit” is beds, that sounds correct… if the “unit” is an ‘apartment unit’, you are way off… ex. when I was attending UCD in the 70’s, a typical ‘apartment unit’ had two bedrooms, two beds/room, so 4 beds/apartment unit. It had 2 full bathrooms, 1 kitchen. The complex had a laundry, and a pool. Nice place to live and study. If we built those again (except students today have ‘higher standards’), you could accommodate 4,000 students with 1000 ‘apartment units’.
Sorry – my bed – I meant bads.
No apologies needed… thought that was what you meant, but was concerned that some would interpret “units” differently, to raise a ‘hue and cry’ that was not ‘fact-based’… what sounds more ‘inflammatory’ to some… 4000 units with 4 students/unit, or 1000 units @ 4 students/unit…
And as Mark and John accurately state, the rental crisis is NOT just about students…
David,
Yes, the 10% that UCD keeps trying to blow-off is significant which is why the City is to be commended for responding appropriately to Interim Chancellor Hexter’s incredibly evasive and condescending letter.
Matt,
“Ron, once again you are taking a thimble-full of information and expanding it to a bushel basket-full of inference.”
I am disappointed to see this, your first sentence posting, starting off with such antagonism towards Ron. This is how the conversation starts to deteriorate on the Vanguard and why fewer folks post these days, or why they post far less often. So let’s please try to keep the tone positive whether we agree or not.
I think it is sad and detrimental to the City that we are losing community services, like what Families First offered, which I understand the tragic reasons for that circumstance. But that facility was built with public funding and to have it demolished is a terrible loss.
Now, the point Ron is pointing out is that another community service, a convalescent home, Sierra Convalescent Home, is going to be lost too, when Davis already has a deficiency of convalescent beds. I find it hard to believe that you try to make this a financial issue. Hopefully you, or anyone your know, will not need use of a convalescent home anytime soon for a knee or hip replacement or any post surgical support, because you will find that it is very difficult to get a bed in Davis. Convalescent nursing care in Davis is down to a very few places and to lose another is yet another loss for Davis.
You are focused on fiscal issues, what about the loss of revenue that the City just gave to Sterling by using an outdated developer impact fee schedule that charged the same for a one bedroom unit as a 5-bedrooms units at Sterling? What is the status of that very relevant fiscal issue? Is it being addressed by the Finance and Budget Commission or the City?
Howard: Understood. My only response on the rental crisis not just being about students, that’s true and not true at the same time. The lack of space for students, the growing demographic has the down hill impact of taking supply from everyone.
Eileen:
Thanks. Yes, it gets tiring to constantly respond to Matt. His tone is indeed disrespectful, he dodges or simply doesn’t answer questions, and he continually and purposefully twists meanings, and makes misleading statements. (The latest example being his denial that residential development tends to be a money-loser for cities, over time. Something that he has previously confirmed.)
I don’t know – I guess Matt enjoys this b.s., which is mostly directed at me. At some point, it’s not worth it. It’s not up to me (alone), to continue correcting his misstatements (especially when his supporters also chime in, at times).
The Vanguard itself has become largely a pro-development publication, in which the one and only story is the “vacancy rate”. I’d suggest letting these guys just talk with themselves, at some point.
“The Vanguard itself has become largely a pro-development publication, in which the one and only story is the “vacancy rate””
Ironically this was a column that called out the chancellor and you have highjacked part of the discussion away from that.
Eileen, it isn’t antagonism toward Ron. It is simply a dispassionate observation on his continuing and continual refusal to do his homework before making blanket value judgment statements like the one he made about 715 Pole Line Road. It is the throw anything (and everything) against the wall and see what sticks approach in action.
I don’t disagree with that “loss” principle at all Eileen, and I have worked with Mary Jo Bryan trying to find community services uses for the 2100 Fifth Street site. Mary Jo and I have met at least a dozen times on the subject. We met for two hours with Supervisor Provenza and Deputy Supervisor Reed exploring all the nooks and crannies of possible tenants, to try and put together a critical mass of monthly rental payments that would be sufficient to reimburse a buyer for their debt service and operational costs. The reality the four of us discussed is that local community services organizations are having a hard time covering their existing rent payments as their funding sources dry up. They are looking for ways to eliminate rent payments, not increase them.
Sierra Convalescent Home is already lost . . . and the reason it is lost is financial. The damage their building incurred necessitates enough reconstruction, that under the provisions of the City Municipal Code, they need to bring the whole structure “up to code” not hjust the damaged portion. The fiscal cost of that requirement is more than their revenues can support. As a result, they made the decision to go out of business.
I agree 100% Eileen, but the amount of money our society is willing to pay for convalescent services has continually decreased over recent years. That is not a Davis-specific issue. That is a nationwide issue. The safety provisions of the Davis Municipal Code regarding building standards is indeed a local decision, based on a desire to have convalescent home patients (and lots of other Davis residents) live in structures that are safe to live in.
As has been discussed extensively here in the Vanguard, the issue raised by the public comments made to the FBC focuses predominantly on social equity. I personally raised the issue with the Finance and Budget Commission, which democratically decided in open discussion that social equity policy is outside the fiscal advisory mission/purpose/function of the FBC. I also presented the issue to the City Council as a social equity policy consideration, and judging by his comments Tuesday night, Will Arnold believes Staff needs to perform an updated Development Impact Costs analysis (under the provisions of California law, Development Impact Fees can not exceed Development Impact Costs) and come back to Council with an agenda item presenting the findings of their analysis.
As was also pointed out here in the Vanguard, published fees can not be changed in mid-stream without exposing the City to a “bait and switch” law suit. How that legal liability reality figured into the negotiation of the terms of the Development Agreement is not a question I have any insight into.
David… in the ‘short-term’ (5-10 years) freeing up student choices to live on campus for others to backfill the available units by others, is not ‘a happening thing’… your theory is absolutely correct, but doesn’t help one scintilla to solve the problem in the ‘here and now’… but it indeed is the direction we should seek…
Ron said . . . “The latest example being his denial that residential development tends to be a money-loser for cities, over time. Something that he has previously confirmed.”
Ron, you clearly weren’t paying attention to Bob Leland’s April 4th presentation to the Council and the FBC on March 13th. The City hired Bob to get a current analysis of its costs, and that showed that the City has made progress on both Cost Containment and Revenues. The graph below which shows the Average Annual Real Pay trend since 2001 is the reason. The green line is the historical trend from 2001-2009 (the same trend reported to the HESC in 2008). The blue line is the year-by-year actuals.
Bob Leland also updated the Revenues trend, and he found that even including the 2008 Recession, the average revenue growth has risen from the 2008 trend of 2%, up to almost 3% (2.93% to be exact).
As a result, the 2008 cost/revenue calculation presented to the HESC, would appear to no longer be as clear cut as it used to be. Continued attention by the Council to Cost Containment is absolutely necessary in order to keep the Leland numbers at the same level. Ideally, further Cost Containment will result in even more improvements over 2008.
—————————————–
All of the above was provided to all Vanguard readers on April 18th.
https://davisvanguard.org/2017/04/analysis-can-elevate-level-dialogue/#comment-357086
Exactly. Costs to provide services for residential development have risen faster than revenues collected. Nothing has changed.
Matt: Sorry – meant to say that “nothing has changed”, except for your efforts to further twist facts and statements. It seems that those efforts have increased.
Have at it. The Vanguard is becoming something to avoid, for those who prefer honest discussion. Perhaps fine for some, with nothing better to do than argue all day.
Howard P,
I am trying to enjoy this beautiful day, but here we go again. Your comments would be far better received and responded too in a positive way, without the sarcasm in them (i.e. wRONg). It just is not needed to have a discussion. So can we all just try that? Maybe then, it could result with more info shared, whether we agree or not. Then, just maybe more people may actually come back to participate in posting on the Vanguard.
Ron, as Eileen can confirm, since she was on the HESC in 2007-08 when Paul Navazio made his presentation, the costs trend up to that point was a 4% annual increase, and the revenues trend up to that point was a 2% annual increase.
As Bob Leland has clearly and transparently and publicly presented in Council public meetings and FBC public meetings, the revenues trend has increased to 2.93%. So, your statement that “nothing has changed is contrary to the results of Bob Leland’s analysis.
Further, when you look at the Average Annual Real Pay graph, the 4% per year increase green line trend from 2001 through 2009 has dropped precipitously. If you compare the 2009 point on the graph (just under $45,000) to the 2015 point on the graph (just under $45,000, it is pretty easy to see that the annual increase for that (largest) component of the City’s General Fund costs has been 0%. So, again your statement that “nothing has changed is contrary to the results of Bob Leland’s analysis.
Matt:
I saw in the graph that you posted that “real pay” for local government employees went down during the recession, in California. However, as you can see in the graph, it’s now apparently on an upward trend again.
Same old, same old. (In the long term, still nothing in place to prevent costs from exceeding revenues.)
Ron said . . . “Same old, same old. (In the long term, still nothing in place to prevent costs from exceeding revenues.)”
Actually Ron, that is not true. Collective Bargaining Agreements are in place . . . all you have to do is ask DCEA and the Firefighters Union about the impact of those Collective Bargaining Agreements.
My posting was deleted, so I’ll state it again.
Collective bargaining agreements are not permanent, and are renegotiated periodically. Still nothing in place to permanently solve the problem.
If your posting got deleted, perhaps there was a reason for that – I see nothing in this that is remotely on topic.
A boycott of the Mondavi might get UCD’s attention. At least 70% of ticket sales are to Davis residents.
We have a housing shortage in Davis, not a ‘student housing shortage.’ This shortage was created by Davis artificially restricting the expansion of housing in the face of continually rising demand. Blame whoever you want if it makes you feel better, but the simple truth is that this shortage was caused by the community’s arrogance and an apparent belief that Davis is so ‘special’ that the laws of supply and demand don’t function here.
Time to stop whining about outsiders causing our problems (and needing to fix them) and start addressing the needs of all residents of Davis. We can start by building more high-density multi-family housing throughout town.
So lets remove the restriction on where housing is built.
“We have a housing shortage in Davis, not a ‘student housing shortage.’ This shortage was created by Davis artificially restricting the expansion of housing in the face of continually rising demand.”
That is so painfully obvious to all outside of Davisville, it has caused some of us to question the true intellectual capacities of its residents. A retired friend has a 20 unit apartment building in midtown Sacotomatoes. Many of those units are occupied by people who work or go to school in Davis.
And that’s just the rental market… good points, John…
And Mark…
Again, each time a property is rezoned to accommodate the “crisis”, an opportunity is lost to provide space for a different need (some of which might actually generate revenue for the city, as well).
Some might call that an “inconvenient truth”.
Some might call you an inconvenient troll, to whom truth and facts are foreign.
Liked your 8:35 post, though.
John,
This is really seems to be another invitation for the discussion to start deteriorating. I would really appreciate it if folks can post without trying to antagonize others.
“But that facility was built with public funding and to have it demolished is a terrible loss.”
Eileen has made a point here that is very important to me. We have community needs beyond just financial. There are other purposes appropriate for these buildings. A few would include a skilled nursing facility, a drug/alcohol recovery program, housing for the homeless, shelter for the victims of domestic abuse and/or human trafficking and probably others of which I have not thought. We have many needs in this city and in the county that this facility might have been appropriate for. I do not know the history ( right, I didn’t do my homework) re whether any consideration was given to such projects, but I suspect that this may have had to do with a focus on the money, which seems to always win out in the end even when other needs are just as critical.
Matt,
As Tia points out, it is not all about financial gain. It is also about critically needed community services being retained. What about churches, social services like services for kids, seniors, etc. Are you saying that unless they make money for the City that the community needs to phase them out? It is a balancing situation and since your focus is fiscal, it would seem that allowing a large company to profit like Sterling which got somewhere in the vicinity of several million dollars in a discount on developer impact fees going to a private company, would be a better place to re-focus where the real problem is. It would be a better issue to focus on rather than trying to defend the shut down of a needed service like a convalescent home.
The outdated developer impact fees is not a “social equity” issue. Five times as many residents per apartment “suite” like the the vast majority at Sterling, should not be charged the same developer impact fee as a one bedroom apartment. The City services costs need to be covered and the City should not be discounting or subsidizing these costs which get passed onto the rest of the community. It is an issue of fairness and trying to figure out how to help find solutions for the City’s fiscal deficiencies. If there is any “social equity issue”, it is that average families will not be able to rent at the Sterling Apts. project.
I agree with both you and Tia (and Mary Jo Bryan and Jim Provenza and Rich Reed and many others) that the most important issue is critically needed community services being retained. The problem is that purveyors of those critically needed community services are making their own independent decisions to cease operations. In the case of Sierra Convalescent Home, the decision to close their doors had nothing to do with the need for services. They knew there very clearly was a need. Their decision also had nothing to do with financial gain. What it had to do with was financial survival. They simply could see no way that they could pay for the construction costs to (A) rebuild the damaged portion of their facility, and (B) retrofit the undamaged portion of their building to comply with the legal requirement that it be brought up to code.
It has absolutely nothing to do with making money for the City. The simple reality is that churches have to pay their bills in order to stay open. Organizations providing social services for kids have to pay their bills in order to stay open. Organizations providing social services for seniors have to pay their bills in order to stay open. The Pence Gallery has to pay its bills in order to stay open. The Artery has to pay its bills in order to stay open. Explorit has to pay its bills in order to stay open. The Yolo Basin Foundation has to pay its bills in order to stay open. Yolo Adult Day Health Center has to pay its bills in order to stay open. Yolo First 5 has to pay its bills in order to stay open. The Davis Joint Unified School District has to pay its bills in order to stay open. The City makes no money from any of those organizations, but they all have to deal with financial realities each and every day.
I am not sure where you are getting your information, nor am I sure of its accuracy. (However, as is often the case, you seem to be “in the know”, somehow.)
Perhaps what you’re stating is true, in this case. (I have no way of verifying it, and you haven’t provided evidence to back up your statement.)
However, in general, businesses can also decide to “sell out”, if the reward for doing so exceeds the reward for staying in business. And, cities can “facilitate” this, via zoning changes.
Regarding your point about the Developer Impact Fees, why are you haranguing the one person who has worked the hardest to bring this issue to the table?
The reality is that until a legally-compliant Development Impact Costs analysis is completed we do not know whether the existing fees are too high or too low or just right. The one thing we do know is that since the current Development Impact Fees were implemented in 2009, not one single market-rate apartment complex has been built in the City (2005 was the last one), so there wasn’t an “event” that would have illuminated the social equity problem. They worked well in the overwhelmingly Single Family Residential construction environment that dominated the Davis scene for more than a decade.
If what has been pointed out about the “bait and switch” legal liability associated with changing existing fees in mid stream once a project has been submitted, it is unlikely that if a fee change was indeed fiscally warranted by the level of Development Impact Costs, it is unlikely that the City would have changed the Development Impact Fees for any project where a legal “bait and switch” argument could be made. I suspect the City Attorney would have been the one to make that call.
It also seems rather unusual to start significant and costly reconstruction efforts, only to halt them prior to completion. To an outsider, this might suggest that a realization was made, that more money could be made (in an easier manner), simply by selling the facility for a different use. (With the hope that the city would subsequently approve a different zoning/use.)
Again, I realize that this is simply speculation. However, your statement falls within that same realm, barring the presentation of additional “evidence”.
Ron said . . . “I am not sure where you are getting your information, nor am I sure of its accuracy. (However, as is often the case, you seem to be “in the know”, somehow.)
Perhaps what you’re stating is true, in this case. (I have no way of verifying it, and you haven’t provided evidence.) However, in general, businesses can also decide to “sell out”, if the reward for doing so exceeds the reward for staying in business. And, cities can “facilitate” this, via zoning changes.”
I get my information by asking relevant questions. Your modus operandi is to make statements. My modus operandi is to ask questions. A few years back a friend of mine said to me, “Having a conversation with you is like being on the $64,000 Question. As soon as I answer your question, you ask me another.” Since I listen to the answers I get when I ask the questions, I accumulate a lot of unusual pieces of knowledge. That reality is compounded because many people I know (and many I don’t know) come to me when they have a question of their own. If it is a new topic to me, I will almost always research it as a way to inform an ongoing dialogue with the original questioner.
You are right about businesses having the option of “selling out;” however, in this case, Sierra Convalescent would have to sell the business with the new owner having to face the legal obligation to (A) rebuild the burned out portions of the building, and (B) retrofit the not burned portions of the building to bring them up to the City’s Municipal Code. Given the revenues and cash flows of a convalescent home business in this era where Federal and state governments are reducing the level of their payments for healthcare services, the income statement of Sierra Convalescent and the income statement of anyone they “sold out” to would face the same challenges . . . not enough revenues and too many costs.
Regarding “evidence” I believe you will find that if you go into the Community Development Department in City Hall, you will be able to get all the “evidence” you desire.
With that said, what “evidence” do you have that any “reconstruction” has actually taken place on the site since the fire? To the best of my knowledge the activity on site since the fire has been limited to evaluation of the fire damage, as well as exploration for asbestos and other problematic issues in the portions of the building undamaged by fire.
That is actually a good question. I had observed significant “activity” around the building, after the fire. It appeared to be a remodeling effort. Also, I recall that there were initially plans to reopen the facility, which weren’t abandoned for some time. (I had a special interest in the facility, as I know someone who worked there.) But, your question is valid.
Given that you’re “in the know” so often, perhaps you’d be interested in finding out exactly what reconstruction may have already occurred, and how close it is to completion.
In general, I’m sure that you realize that what others have told you (in response to your questions) may not always be “the whole story”.
Ron said . . . “Given that you’re “in the know” so often, perhaps you’d be interested in finding out exactly what reconstruction may have already occurred, and how close it is to completion.”
Actually Ron, I will leave that homework task to you.
With responsibility for that homework handed to you, I will give you a hint about the likely answer. Given the Code Compliance aspects of the issue, unless you or your friend saw actual reconstruction on the unburned portion of the building, the chances are that “close to completion” wasn’t even in the design phase, much less the construction phase.
Ron said . . . “Again, I recall personally observing significant activity, and for an extended period, after the electrical fire. (And again, there’s no readily-apparent visible damage to the building.)”
Electrical fires more frequently than not happen inside wall structures. As a result, dismantling the wall to be able to visually inspect the electrical infrastructure is more often than not a necessity.
Matt,
Rather than getting defensive on this critical fiscal issue, I would suggest that you step up any efforts that you have raised about this issue about the outdated developer impact fees to get a solution to the enormous financial loss that the City is experiencing from this problem. This includes all the property tax revenue the City is losing due to UCD owned or leased properties like the 2000+ UCD master leased beds in the City because UCD is tax exempt. I have seen little or no coverage about this in the Vanguard.
I don’t think that properties with which UC has a master lease agreement are off the tax rolls. UCD owned would be. Probably this should be verified one way or another.
Eileen Samitz said . . . “I would suggest that you step up any efforts that you have raised about this issue about the outdated developer impact fees to get a solution to the enormous financial loss that the City is experiencing from this problem.”
Eileen, not sure where you saw any defensiveness on my part. The steps I have taken have produced the desired result. The City is proceeding with the necessary cost analysis that is the first step in setting Development Impact Fees that are aligned with Development Impact Costs. That was not the case as recently as two months ago.
How specifically would you like to see the efforts “stepped up”?
Eileen Samitz also said . . . “This includes all the property tax revenue the City is losing due to UCD owned or leased properties like the 2000+ UCD master leased beds in the City because UCD is tax exempt.”
The property tax issue has nothing to do with Development Impact Fees.
With that said, I have been working with Yolo County for several months to uncover the actual situation vis-a-vis property taxes. County Counsel has weighed in on the privacy issues mandated by Revenue and Taxation Code section 408, which places significant restrictions on the County’s ability to release certain taxpayer information to the public.
Don is correct. The Master Leased properties are not off the tax rolls. The owners of those properties have to pay taxes, and the County then routes the tax monies collected to UCD.
The problem now is that 4- and 5- bedroom single-room-occupancy units do nothing to help with providing apartments to non-students, particularly families. Had Sterling been 1,2, and 3 bedroom units that anyone can rent, that would have been at least contributed to helping provide rental housing available to all needing it. On top of that Sterling got a huge discount due to the outdated developer impact fees they were charged. This design of single-room-occupancy project belonged on-campus.
Howard P,
Seriously? The City charged Sterling the same on development fees for 1 bedroom apartments as the 82X 4- and 26X 5- bedroom apartments. The 4- and 5 bedroom apartments were for 458 beds out of the remaining 540 beds total, which leaves only 82 beds of the 1- and two bedroom apartments. Do you really think this is “fodder”? I mean come on… This was a sweet deal for Sterling that the City needs to make sure is not repeated.
Eileen, until we have an updated costs analysis, we don’t know if Sterling got a “sweet deal” (using your words, got a huge discount) relative to costs. Once completed, the costs analysis could show that Sterling got a “fair deal” (got no discount) and that all the Single Family Residences got a “bad deal” (paid a penalty). We simply don’t know enough to apply subjective (and somewhat pejorative) labels.
Regardless, I and Will Arnold and others are in agreement with you that an updated cost analysis needs to be completed and the fees aligned with that cost analysis . . . as they must be under the provisions of California Law.
Apartment units in the Cannery paid the same… don’t recall you saying they got a ‘sweet deal’… “Really”?
Matt,
I find it hard for you to defend the obvious sweet deal Sterling got relative to any other project in the City, which amounts to no other projects producing 5-bedroom units thus far except Sterling.
Eileen, I’m not defending it. You appear to be glossing over the fact that I formally brought this issue forward to the FBC, and I formally brought this issue forward in public comment to the Council, and have personally followed up with individual Council members and individual Staff members.
What is your objection with my actions? Are they too dispassionate for you?
In consideration of the interim chancellor’s letter (combined with the actions of the city, including approval of the Sterling development), students will see that they need to continue their efforts to encourage UCD to provide more housing.
Good point Ron. Several students stated that they were advocating for more on-campus housing. This letter to the City from Interim Chancellor Hexter makes clear that they need to continue and if anything step up their efforts to complain that UCD is not steeping up like all the other UC’s are which providing at least 50% on-campus housing. Hopefully, they were sincere with their comments and will take action regarding their concerns by responding to this very negative letter from the Chancellor to the City.
I hope that they will not only address the interim chancellor’s letter, but perhaps more importantly will step up proactively to address this situation with the new chancellor.
That would be great, because it’s pretty clear they aren’t going to be responsive to the city’s concerns. I would describe the letter as hostile.
— 90/40 is firm.
— Anything that delays the EIR will delay construction.
— They aren’t happy about the council subcommittee pressing them on the issue, and want to return discussion to the staff level.
From the city’s planning standpoint, this is what we have to work with. Pressure at this point would have to be exerted at the level of the UC Office of the President, and the regents. I’d be very surprised if they’re even remotely interested in this issue.
Perhaps it can be pointed out to them that homeless students are an issue that they should be interested in.
Perhaps the faculty and administration could be the best champions for this valid concern…
Rather than the Davis CC…
Tia,
You make another good point.
Matt,
I would say that yes, this issue regarding the need to correct the outdated developer impact fees needs to go back to the Finance and Budget Commission if the City Staff does not get it ironed out soon. Projects seem to be coming out of the woodwork now and these developer impact fees need to be straightened out before any more projects move forward. Particularly the large ones with 4 or more bedrooms.
Eileen, the FBC has weighed in (I was in the minority). Given the fiscal advisory role of the FBC, if the Development Impact Costs are no more than the Development Impact Fees, then there is no fiscal issue that falls under the purview of the FBC, and there is no evidence that Development Impact Costs are more than Development Impact Fees. Plenty of speculation, but no evidence.
That makes it a policy issue, and based on the prior discussions here in the Vanguard, the appropriate Commission for it would appear to be Social Services.
There is evidence which shows that an apartment unit is charged significantly less than a single family dwelling, regardless of the number of bedrooms. There is also evidence which shows that there is no differentiation in the amount of fees for apartment units, for any unit beyond 2 bedrooms. (In other words, a 2, 3, 4, or 5 bedroom apartment is charged the exact same fees, and are significantly less than the fees charged for a single-family dwelling – regardless of the number of bedrooms in the single family dwelling.)
https://davisvanguard.org/2017/03/sterling-comes-back-revised-proposal/#comment-354891
Also, it should be noted that impact fees are based upon the number of new residents, and not “type” of facility:
“Impact fees are assessed and dedicated principally for the provision of additional water and sewer systems, roads, schools, libraries and parks and recreation facilities made necessary by the presence of new residents in the area.”
http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/dif.pdf
I think this thread has run its course and is becoming querulous. I suggest you both move on.
Ron said . . . “Also, it should be noted that impact fees are based upon the number of new residents, and not “type” of facility”
Ron, your quote above uses Mark West’s comment in a thread from 5 weeks ago. Mark is not a source. Further the quote with accompanying link is from a 2001 Ohio academic paper by Carmen Carrión and Lawrence W. Libby, a Research Associate and Professor at Ohio State University. The actual text of the pertinent section of California Law is available as a primary source, rather than a secondary source. I will provide that text below.
In their academic paper, Carrión and Libby did quote a 1989 version of California language on page 7 as follows:
When you look at the City of Davis Development Impact Fee table (see http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=1799) you will see six categories of Fees … Roadways, Storm Sewer, Parks, Open Space, Public Safety, and General Facilities.
— Are the impacts for Roadways approximately per person? Arguably yes.
— Are the impacts for Parks approximately per person? Arguably yes.
— Are the impacts for Open Space approximately per person? Possibly yes.
— Are the impacts for Public Safety approximately per person? Arguably yes.
— Are the impacts for General Facilities approximately per person? God only knows. Carrión and Libby mention that prior to 1987 only three states had a general impact fee legislation: California, Arizona and New Jersey.
— Are the impacts for Storm Sewer approximately per person? Definitely not.
Bottom-line, there isn’t a broad brush that can paint all Development Impact fees the same color.
For the record, the 2017 specific language in California Law 66001 (4)(b) says:
David,
If you are truly “calling out the Interim Chancellor” then I would expect that you should be encouraging the UCD students to follow up on their statements at the Tuesday Council meeting stating that they do support far more on-campus housing. You have used plenty of Vanguard space advocating for the City to provide student housing, which it has just done. Why are you not spending as much space advocating for students to join in to respond to the Interim Chancellor’s response letter to the City? I would think the Interim Chancellor’s letter would be of concern to them.
Eileen: Doesn’t this article call out the chancellor?
David,
That is not what I asked about.
You started your comment by “if you are truly calling out the interim chancellor.” I don’t view it as my job to encourage students to do what I think they are already doing. I do view it as the place for an editorial to criticize people in power like the council and chancellor. At this point, it’s pretty clear that UCD has no intention of altering their course, the best hope will be for the new chancellor to have a new approach.
David,
I find it interesting that you now you are trying to segregate your “job responsibilities”. Today the point to make clear is how Interim Chancellor Hexter is doing harm to the students, to UCD, Davis and to surrounding communities with his antagonistic letter to the City (and to the students).
My point was that my hope is that the students, like non-students being impacted by the UCD current administration, will take more action to make clear UCD’s negligence is not acceptable, because this response from the Interim Chancellor which hurts all of us. It is a carry-over from the Chancellor Katehi era (maybe error is more accurate) which is when then Provost Hexter continued to try to perpetuate the concept that UCD still continues to not provide sustainable, long-term on-campus housing for UCD students, even though the other UC’s are.
It is clear that UCD is continuing to try to avoid helping with solutions to the problems they are imposing on the students and non-students, and continuing to try to pit one against the other.
I wonder how much falls on one or another chancellor and how much responsibility falls on The Napo.
Liz,
Sorry but it is Interim Chancellor Hexter who is more responsible than anyone else for not even trying to work with the City and his continued damage he is trying to railroad through with former Chancellor Katehi’s agenda to not provide the need on-campus housing for the UCD students.
UCD has over $1.7 BILLON dollars in funding and over 5,300 acres of land, the largest UC in the system, yet has historically provided the least amount of on campus housing. Clearly, Hexter wants to continue this very detrimental UCD “tradition” as he has spoken to in the past. His position is a disservice to the UCD students, Davis, the surrounding communities, but also to our environment. Hexter’s position is not sustainable planning. Hexter’s position is anti-sustainable planning.
Howard P,
The validity of “facts” seem to debated much here. But it certainly seems to be more of a “gang-up” at times, then a discussion here lately. In general, this is not supposed to be about taking sides of who is on what side of an issue, but instead decide what the issue is and where they stand on the issue. So let’s please leave any suggestion of “big sisters” out of the conversation, otherwise we could get into a “big brothers” or “bullies” discussion. I have asked all day for us not to have this discussion head in that direction.
Matt,
It would so help if you could just stick to discussing the issues.
It would help is a number of the posters would stay on topic. You can read from the top down and it becomes very clear where this topic got diverted.
Eileen, Ron raised the Sierra Convalescent issue. I responded to that issue, illuminating the factual “rest of the story” about the construction activity on that site.
You and Tia addressed the loss of community services issue. I responded to that issue, noting the historical and ongoing efforts of Mary Jo Bryan, Jim Provenza, Rich Reed and myself.
Ron raised the 2008 Paul Navazio assessment of city costs and revenues issue. I provided the 2017 Bob Leland update of Navazio’s assessment.
You brought up the Development Impact Fees issue, and I illuminated the process that is now under way to address that issue.
What Matt said…
You ignored all the factual things I posted (and where I accurately pointed out errors in another’s post), and focused on one unfortunate “pun” I made. Thank you so much for setting the example of “sticking to the issues”. Deeply appreciate the role modelling…
You’ve done no such thing. You’ve provided speculation.
No, not speculation… facts… here’s the deal… once building code repairs (as in an electrical fire) are needed, a threshold can be reached, where you need to bring everything up to current code [particularly for a care facility]… the building in question was built in the 60’s… 50+ years of changes in the building codes… once you tear into walls to fix the electrical, other updated code issues can show up… drywall, insulation, etc. materials… think dominoes lined up… when one falls, it can cascade.
This is what happened at the convalescent home.
It is you who dwell in the world of speculation. Not Matt [who,independently ascertained the same things], not me… YOU!
But, I only have sources at the highest levels in the Building Inspection division of the City, 35 years of experience with building codes, and relatives of those who had to be relocated. So you can feel free to ignore this. After all “it’s speculation”.
Howard:
When either you or Matt provide “evidence” regarding exactly what was done at the site in question, then I will concede that you are no longer “speculating”. Until that time, that’s exactly what you and Matt are engaging in.
If you’re now stating that you spoke with “sources” regarding that particular site, then that’s news to me. (Again, neither you, nor Matt previously disclosed any first-hand knowledge whatsoever._
Again, Matt didn’t know, and declined my suggestion that he research this.
Perhaps the conversation can be turned back to David’s original points early this morning. (Sorry to be late to the party, but I was actually outside most of the day enjoying the fantastic weather.) The tone of communications since last year from UCD regarding the LRDP has for the most part been condescending and dismissive at best. And, I can tell you based on the letters that I’ve sent to the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) on the UCD housing issue that UCOP simply refers inquiries back to UCD for response (and the responses are consistently “non-responsive.”)
The university came up with a completely fallacious rationale for the number of students for which it plans to provide housing between 2017 and 2027. It is based on the explanation that administrator Kelly Ratliff gave to the Regents last November, when she said that “…there is a tradition of students moving off campus after freshman year.” Yes, there is definitely such a tradition, but it’s one manufactured entirely by UCD’s historical refusal to construct a sufficient number of on-campus apartments to accommodate students after freshman year. This is the same meeting at which Interim Chancellor Hexter tried to mislead the Regents by stating that UCD now provides housing services to 11,500 students, or 33% of enrollment. This totally conflicts with the draft LRDP, which states that during the 2015-16 academic year, 9,500 students lived on campus, or 29%. Upon investigating this conflict, I learned that Hexter got his data from the campus housing office, which includes students living in privately owned, off-campus “master leased” apartments. Whether Hexter’s “fudging” of the numbers he gave to the Regents was on purpose is open to conjecture. One would think, however, that he’d at least want to be consistent with his own university’s draft long range plan. Oh, and keep in mind that those master leased apartments are exempt from paying Yolo County property taxes because the “master leassee” (UCD) is of course tax exempt.
UCD also continually states that the LRDP aims to house 90% of incoming students because this is the percentage of incoming students who have historically chosen to not live on campus. The other 10% live elsewhere (in other towns, perhaps at home with their parents). That may be fine and good, but it does nothing to address the tremendous backlog of student housing caused by UCD’s failure to meet the goals set in the November 2002 housing report by the Regents (38% housed on campus by 2012, with a goal of 40%). Keep in mind that UCD’s goal of housing 40% on campus by 2027-28 is not a goal in and of itself. It’s simply an artifact that results from housing 90% of the expected increase of almost 6,400 students between 2017 and 2027. (This was openly admitted by UCD planners in their March 7, 2017 presentation to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors.) As I’ve shown in previous posts, the LRDP will not by any stretch of the imagination reduce the number of students living off campus in the city of Davis during the 2027-28 academic year. In fact, the number is likely to slightly increase. At that same meeting of the Supervisors, the UCD planners lamely stated that they will soon start a transportation study to determine if the region’s transportation resources (biking, Unitrans, Capitol Corridor train) can be used to move members of the “UCD community” between the campus and sectors of the Sacramento region with lower priced housing. The logical question in response to this statement: why not simply build more on-campus housing?
The really unfortunate part of this sad saga is the completely obstinate, regressive and non-student friendly stance taken by the entire UCD administration, led by Hexter. Contrast this to the Chancellor of UC San Diego, who told the Regents Budget and Capital Strategies Committee on January 25 that he is pushing to provide every student with a 4-year on-campus housing guarantee by the 2024-25 academic year. This is on top of the UCSD’s proposal to replace the current 2-story campus apartments with an 8-story apartment tower and a 15-story apartment building. In an interview last year, UCSD’s long-time director of campus housing and dining said that when he started at the university 30 years ago, UCSD was a small, rural campus that gave no thought to efficient land use. Unlike UCD, he said that UCSD has now realized it is part of an urban area and most make more efficient use of its land resources to comprehensively provide for the needs of its students. This seems so logical; why can’t the insular administrators at UCD understand it?
One wonders whether incoming Chancellor Gary May will need to thoroughly “clean house” to adjust the thinking at UCD in the same manner.
“One wonders whether incoming Chancellor Gary May will need to thoroughly “clean house” to adjust the thinking at UCD in the same manner.”
Leadership at the top is usually sufficient.
Greg,
This is really well said and explains quite a bit.
Eileen… you appear to misinterpret my last sentence… was not addressing anything to do with you or any other poster… I guess I could see why you thought otherwise….
After having log-in problems for a couple of hours, I have come in and removed a number of comments that included personal sniping or were simply offensive. There is some intolerable behavior going on here and it needs to stop. I apologize for not having been able to get to it sooner.
Stick to the topics. Avoid personal comments. Think twice before you post.
Thanks.
Matt… you had your claws drawn back in your 10:26 post…
And, there are ‘deals within deals’… bottom line is likely, property owners pay the taxes, they go to UCD, not to County(?), City(?), and/or State(?), and that is likely part of the ‘consideration’ paid by UCD for the Master Leases. Nice. Kinda’ like ‘money laundering’.
It has been said, “Dutch treat is no treat at all”… we’ll probably never know the details…
But a sincere thank you for drilling down as much as you have… and/or can…
Might also apply to the non-res properties in town that UCD has leases on… don’t know, but have suspicions…
Matt,
I have asked his question several times. The answer I have gotten is that either the owner or UCD simply applies for the exemption and no property taxes are paid. The condition is that it needs to be a UCD function related to academic need, and student housing would qualify. A use like the downtown Davis UCD store however, would not quality.
I am not at all sure that my comment was ‘correct’. I have been told privately that UC does get an exemption. As does USDA for their big downtown building, as well as any other government-used facility (DMV? Post Office?). I don’t know how the assessor’s office would verify the exemption or calculate it, or how the exemption is handled in terms of payments received and disbursed.
Hmmm…
Suspect that Matt is correct, and that property taxes are paid, but then ‘laundered’. I am aware of his sources.
You say, “no property taxes”… can you (will you) cite your sources?
In either event, it appears the City and perhaps the County have the burden, but no accompanying revenue to provide services. That is a problem, in any event, so whether Eileen or Matt is correct, the main issue is providing services without proportionate revenue.
Eileen, who have you asked?
I have just confirmed again, that the following is the way it works:
Either the owner or UCD simply applies for the exemption and no property taxes are paid. The condition is that it needs to be a UCD function related to academic need, and student housing would qualify. A use like the downtown Davis UCD store however, would not quality. So Matt, there is no “passing through” of property taxes to UCD.
And yes, the City is totally getting ripped off by UCD on properties owned or leased by UCD in the City due to UC’s tax exempt status, as long as it is an academically related use (which includes student housing). In addition, it allows the owner of leased property to give UCD a discount, while taking that property off the market for other commercial that would benefit Davis and pay property tax as well. The City has enough financial problems without UCD adding to it.
Who provided you with that information? My sources are the County Assessor’s Office and County Counsel.
Matt,
Apparently you have not asked the right questions. MY source has spoken to you after you posted this, and they explained your misunderstanding. The bottom line is that the City of Davis and Yolo County get no property tax from any portion of UCD properties owned or leased in the City exempted from property tax.
Matt disclosed his sources… you seem reluctant to disclose your source… perhaps David has interest/time to ferret the facts out. As it stands, knowing the Assessor and County Counsel, in other issues, I lean heavily towards Matt’s info.
Bottom line, you and Matt are pointing out the same problem… there is no disagreement on the size of the gorilla… now we are talking nuances/details.
Can you be a tad more transparent as to what you claim to be true?
The highlighted parts of your post ring very false… UCD OWNED properties, yes… leased, or ‘master leased’, very much not so much… please consider being more transparent as to your source, or I will disregard (as others should) your “facts”…
David has been given the same info from the same source.
David? care to share?
As a side note, the comparison with CalPoly SLO is not appropriate because CPSLO has a much smaller graduate student population than UCD. Graduate students are much more likely to have families (and jobs) and want to live in single family housing.