On Tuesday, Mayor Brett Lee announced out of closed session that the city and university have agreed on an extension to the deadline over the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) until September 19. They have agreed to a mediation process.
The question is, what does that mean? The Vanguard has not received a copy of the agreement despite several requests to the city.
On Tuesday, the mayor read the following statement: “The City, the County and UC Davis have entered into an agreement which extends the time for the City or County to file litigation on the LRDP and its EIR to September 19th. The City, the County and UC Davis have agreed to participate in a confidential mediation to see if the City’s and county’s concerns can be resolved without litigation. This was approved by the City Council by a unanimous vote of the Council.”
The good news is that the city of Davis will now get a choice to attempt to get their issues addressed with mediation rather than litigation. But that still means the two sides are apart.
The city of Davis remains concerned that UC Davis has not offered a concrete enough timeline to ensure that the housing they have promised to build will get built.
Mayor Brett Lee, in an interview with the Vanguard last week, expressed concerns about the ability of the university to meet its stated housing goals, to address the unmet student housing 
needs of this community.
“The university, in terms of what we’ve asked for, they’ve committed to the lion’s share of that,” he said. “But the commitment is probably not in the form that we’re comfortable with, given the fact that previous MOUs, there have been goals… in many instances we ended up nowhere near the goals we have set.”
He said, “We need something a little more tangible for the nature of the agreement.”
The university fired back late last week, showing their timeline.
They write: “UC Davis is well positioned to complete this housing. Housing for 6,115 students is well underway and either in construction, final design, or poised for approval.”
They state: “We expect and are committing with this letter that these housing projects for 6,115 students will all be completed by 2023, with over 4,700 beds online by 2021.”
They continue: “To reach the 9,050 housing number, we are forecasting that the additional projects for 2,935 students would occur in construction phases beginning at different times between 2023 and 2028.”
That is good news, because any prolonged conflict between the city and university will be, in our view, detrimental to both sides with students caught in the middle.
The university, in committing to housing over 6000 additional students over the next five years, has not offered language to the city that the city is comfortable with.
As we noted earlier this week, we tend to side with the city on this point – the university does not have a good track record here, although they may have plans and have paper commitments. But, as we have seen in the past, paper is just that – there is nothing concrete to ensure that the university will build what they say they will build.
But a lawsuit not only damages city-university relations, which are already frayed, it also threatens to delay any construction of new housing.
If history is any guide, we would expect a lawsuit to delay the start of construction by at least two years. That would push the completion of 4700 beds to 2023 at the earliest. Moreover, we feel that their timeline for completion is a bit ambitious anyway, and so we could be looking more reasonably at 2024 or 2025 before those 4700 beds are done.
Given the current state of things, that seems problematic. After all, we have students in large numbers living in housing insecurity. We have a dramatic increase in the number of students living in double occupancy, and it’s unclear what happens when our ability to fill existing housing with even more students will exhaust itself.
Besides, right now we have similar problems in the city. We have a total of 3600 beds approved so far at Lincoln40, Sterling and Nishi. Of those, 3000 are delayed by pending CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) litigation. That means that what might have come on line by 2020 is probably delayed until 2022 at the earliest.
In total, the city may approve somewhere between 4500 and 5000 beds. That could, at least in theory, accommodate maybe 80 to 90 percent of the new student growth, but the reason the university was pushed to go to 9000 and get to 50 percent of total enrollment on campus was not only to accommodate the 5100 or so new students, but also to make adequate space for current student populations.
Is the mediation process an acknowledgement by both sides that we have more to lose by continuing this dispute than we have to gain? We hope so. Any long and protracted legal battle figures to hurt the very people who are in need of help right now – the students.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Dagnabit. I was hoping for a long, protracted legal battle in which everyone lost except the lawyers.
I am betting that will be round #2.
The UC Santa Cruz agreement benefited the city, itself. (In more ways than just student housing.)
Also, pursuit of litigation might force UCD to temporarily cease enrollment increases under its proposed LRDP, at least until an agreement is reached.
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
Ron’s pipe dream I think. Why don’t you consider moving to Dixon where there is no world-class university that is in demand to support a world where a college degree is becoming the new requirement for a good life.
The mediation will cover areas other than just housing. It will review infrastructure costs, property tax revenues, joint planning, and more; all the items detailed in the council’s letter to the regents about the LRDP.
My opinion is that forcing them to cease enrollment increases would delay construction of the planned housing, as those appear to be interconnected from a UC budget standpoint.
I don’t think the mediation will work, unless the city essentially caves in (and somehow calls it a “win”). I recall that there has been difficulty in (even) arranging meetings between UCD officials and the city (as well as students), up to this point.
In any case, here’s a link to an Enterprise article, which includes bulleted points regarding the mitigations that the city is seeking. As with the UC Santa Cruz agreement, the city of Davis’ concerns go far beyond student housing.
And certainly, a temporary injunction against further enrollment increases would be helpful, until these issues are settled.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city-county-and-ucd-headed-to-mediation-over-lrdp/
I don’t think the outcome of the mediation will be satisfactory to you. That’s different.
Further enrollment increases above what is in the LRDP? Or those already planned?
You really, really, really want to sue UCD, apparently.
I want what’s best for the city, overall. (For example, the bulleted points in the Enterprise article I referenced, above.)
A mediation process yields what is the best compromise for both parties. So as I said, I don’t think the outcome of the mediation will be satisfactory to you.
Don: Perhaps you can tell us which of the bulleted points in the Enterprise article that you think the city should abandon.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city-county-and-ucd-headed-to-mediation-over-lrdp/
So in your world, “compromise” means “abandon.”
Yeah, no chance you’ll be satisfied.
Seems like there’s no chance that you won’t be satisfied, regardless of what the city agrees to. Apparently, you “really, really, really” don’t want the city to engage in litigation (to paraphrase your 9:58 a.m. comment to me, above). (Not sure why you make comments like that in the first place, as it serves no purpose other than to attack.)
Where would you suggest some compromises, in the bulleted list (link below)?
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city-county-and-ucd-headed-to-mediation-over-lrdp/
I’ll leave that to the negotiators.
“Is the mediation process an acknowledgement by both sides that we have more to lose by continuing this dispute than we have to gain? ”
Not likely, the University is just stroking the city. Time is on their side.
The fact that the Regents approved UCD’s LRDP also strengthens UCD’s position. Requiring UCD to “report back” to the Regents in September (regarding the city’s concerns) after the Regents already approved the LRDP and EIR really weakens the city’s position during mediation.
In most cases mediation is for suckers, which is why big companies insist on it in contracts.
For example if you have a dispute over a security deposit with your landlord will you go to mediation or small claims court?
If the mediators are Curry and Dodd then maybe there is some value, otherwise no.
My laugh for the day! 🙂
Spiro Agnew has been vindicated!
I count two “nattering nabobs of negativism” on this thread… accounting for most of these posts.
So much for the concept of “give meaningful discussions a chance”… was worded differently in the ’60’s…
Will agree that Dodd and A-Curry either be in the room, or fully updated in near ‘real-time’… actually, informed is the preference, as we need adults in the room, without any inclination to “posture” to play up to the nabobs…
See two folk who would prefer the threat of M.A.D., with a lot of delay, court time, and attorneys’ fees…
Yes, moderator, expect at least one of the two to cite this as a personal attack…
So Howard, how does your comment serve to “give meaningful discussions a chance”?
edited
Simple answer… by not tying to dismiss the possibility…
So, I’ll P-A back… what does the comments by the two referenced, serve to solve any damn thing?
Actually will have to add you to the other two… no purpose I see by your 11:32 post except to snipe or provoke… no football moved…
If mediated discussions fail, there are always the M.A.D options available…
No purpose in your original post except to snipe and or provoke.
Par for the course, as they say….
Noted.
Except in my post, was implicitly trying to convey to others, that perhaps a “wait and see”, rather than a “mediation is just a UCD/City hoax”, “false news” attitude was premature…
Feel free to tweet about it… don’t know (or care) how to do that…
Or, should we just blame Hilary?
This is the way I feel. Litigation is expensive and slow, the outcome uncertain and often unpalatable for all concerned save those with J.D. after their names.
Don’t confuse mediation with arbitration, particularly the binding variety. Mediation is pretty much an unalloyed good.
I guess I have a completely different view on this. Mediation can be a reality check for unsophisticated parties or those that have a lot of emotion in the decision making process. For more sophisticated parties it’s just a way to prolong and delay.
Many of the campuses have real housing problems with no easy solutions, especially UCB, UCLA, and UCSD. The only real problem with housing at UCD is the intransigence of a couple grumpy old hippies. If they wait a little longer maybe the opposition will die. In the meantime they are going to invest available funds in campuses with more serious problems such as the aggressive UCB build-out. In the meantime they can have some real heart-to-heart talks with the city. High level attendees, nice rooms, catered lunch, and professional mediators. Why not schedule them quarterly for the next 22 years? Really establish a relationship.
I guess what I do not understand is this:
What is the cost to UCD for what we are asking for?
Who has that much money?
I don’t understand why anyone would argue against the following. (In addition to the proposed mitigations regarding student housing.) These mitigations are not that different than what’s found in the UC Santa Cruz agreement.
From what I’ve heard, UCD has access to a lot more money than the city does.
The mitigations described above (along with other proposed mitigations) can be found on the Enterprise link I referenced, earlier (above). (I believe they can be found elsewhere, as well.) There’s at least one other mitigation on there, that goes beyond student housing.
Just to be clear, we have published the mitigations several times in previous articles.
Ron: I was traveling yesterday, so I am only seeing this now. What I see in the discussion is that people aren’t “arguing” against anything. They are talking about a process by which both sides can arrive at a solution. You’re arguing an outcome based solution, this is about setting up a process that doesn’t presuppose any particular outcome.
This comment that I am writing right now does nothing to advance the discussion.
You must be reading a different blog, than I am.
When folks state that they “really, really, really” don’t want the city to engage in litigation, they’re certainly “arguing against” something, which in this case is the tool that lurks behind the mediation effort. If anyone representing the city has that attitude, they’ve already conceded and will ultimately accept whatever UCD offers.
I also find it ironic that the Vanguard constantly advocates economic development, but is not so interested in obtaining assistance from UCD to help offset its impacts on the city.
Why do you find it ironic that the Vanguard “advocates economic development” but is not so interested “in attaining assistance from UCD” – why do you find irony there? Why are those views at odds? It would be like saying, I find it ironic that you advocate for economic development but oppose taxation – I see the two as different mechanisms.
Why do I find irony regarding the Vanguard’s position? Seems pretty obvious, since either could help address the underlying issue that you’re concerned about (the fiscal health of the city). And in the case of UCD, this might be the “low-hanging fruit” to help with that situation.
Regarding tax proposals, I’m certainly not opposed to all of them. Nor am I opposed to all economic development. (But I understand that your example is not directed at me, regardless.)
Different mechanisms – some people support some mechanisms and not others. You don’t seem to understand that. BTW, I want to make this clear, my opposition is in a process not an outcome. I am not interested in seeing litigation. If they mediate and come to an agreement, that’s fine with me.
Big difference between “interested in obtaining assistance…”, and legally “demanding reparations”…
You’re arguing against the tool/alternative that supports the mediation effort. Without the threat of that tool, the mediation effort will be just like all of the other meetings/agreements that the city has engaged in, with UCD officials. Again, the Regents have already approved the LRDP and EIR!
Me too. But, since you’re already arguing against anything further, are you going to automatically support whatever arises from the mediation – even if it doesn’t address the mitigations which go beyond student housing?
“You’re arguing against the tool/alternative that supports the mediation effort. Without the threat of that tool, the mediation effort will be just like all of the other meetings/agreements that the city has engaged in, with UCD officials. ”
That’s your opinion. There is nothing to stop the result of mediation from being legally binding.
David: You didn’t respond to my question:
I don’t view this process as outcome-based. I concede that there is no way you will ever be see satisfied.
There will be an outcome.
You still haven’t responded to my question.
Yes I have. You want an outcome based process. You have certain goals in mind. I want a process that both sides can agree to and live with. I don’t have an outcome in mind. That’s the answer to your question.
I was specifically asking if you’re only interested in the “student housing” issue (and the timing thereof), regarding mitigations. You have indeed focused on that “outcome/goal”, in prior articles/comments. (Repeatedly, from what I recall.)
I now understand that you simply won’t respond to my question.
I certainly didn’t get out of the question as posed that you were asking if I was interested beyond student housing. But I don’t think that changes my answer. My interest is not a specific issue or outcome.
Have you not repeatedly expressed concern regarding the timing of student housing build-out, on campus? That’s a “goal” of one of the city’s proposed mitigations.
This directly contradicts your statement, in which you state that you’re not interested in specific issues or outcomes of the mediation process.
I asked you about other goals, beyond student housing.
If I recall correctly, you actually oppose having UCD reimburse the city for its impacts. I’m basing this on memory, so feel free to correct me or clarify. But, it certainly is a strange position to take, while simultaneously expressing concern about the city’s fiscal health.
Funny… I read it as “not yet…” leg amputation is a last resort as a means to deal with a severe tone nail infection… you really, really, really don’t want to start with the amputation.
I, for one, would prefer a more clinical, targeted approach… failing that, more drastic measures may (or may not) be warranted. But, not yet…