In Saturday’s column, I presented the full summary of the city’s response to the university’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). For the most part, the city council subcommittee’s expressed position jibes well with the views the Vanguard has expressed over much of the last six months.
In terms of housing – the Vanguard has strongly agreed that UC Davis needs to provide more housing on campus than they have. The city hits this point hard and unequivocally, saying, “Request UC Davis commit to more aggressive accommodation of on campus housing commensurate with anticipated growth and to balance community-wide housing needs.”
We need to remember, the city is not a party in this, it can only make requests. However, there are some who believe that the city and community should focus all their energy on pushing UC Davis to provide more housing and that any housing provided in the city will let UC Davis off the hook.
Our view has always been a more balanced approach – UC Davis should build more housing, but the city should provide some housing in order to deal with current shortages. The response puts forth this as well: “City to continue to pursue consideration of all infill and apartment housing proposals within the City (with emphasis on student oriented housing proposals within 2 miles of campus in order to facilitate ease of access).”
This has been somewhat controversial – perhaps surprisingly – but it seems like a solid moderate approach.
A few other strong points here. First is the pushing for the university to maximize land efficiency and higher density, which goes along well with the commitment to preserve open space, conservation of ag land and a reduction of carbon footprint.
Another important point is to encourage the elimination of master leases of apartments by UC Davis within the city – these have been problematic because they reduce the city’s property tax take.
Finally, the council through this – if approved – would recognize “the community interests expressed in preserving the physical and cultural attributes of the Russell Fields as a key City/Campus edge and ‘shared community space,’ request that UC Davis withdraw the proposed conversion of field areas to housing from the LRDP and shift housing units to other areas of campus.”
The Vanguard strongly supports this – however, as a reader noted yesterday, the city council should go one step further and request that UC Davis refrain from putting housing or any buildings on the athletic fields. That would seem an important addendum.
More controversial, I suspect, will be the statements on Nishi. First, “City to revisit Nishi proposal with consideration of increasing housing option onsite.” Second, “Request that UC Davis include evaluation of potential future bicycle/ped/transit/vehicle connection to the Nishi site in the LRDP and EIR.”
Nishi, of course, was defeated by the voters, narrowly, back in June. From the city’s perspective, by requesting the campus connection to Nishi, that puts the decision making in the hands of the city and voters, rather than UC Davis. Opponents of Nishi will likely cry foul at the former.
With Sierra Energy’s expansion plans at Area 52 and the investment by Fulcrum Property in University Research Park, it probably makes more sense now to focus Nishi on housing rather than R&D space (although we need more of the latter too). The opponents of Nishi will object on the grounds of traffic as well as air quality. The city should proactively study and address the latter issue.
The report hits on two key objectives with respect to commercial space, noting, “Increase availability of limited supply of commercial/R&D space within City for private companies,” and a reduction in the “impact of property tax base by UCD owned/leased space within City.”
There are good thoughts here on exploring opportunities for city-UC Davis collaboration. But I would like to see the city go further here. First, I’d like to see the city and university look into opportunities for an innovation center/research park with UC Davis investment. Second, and related, I would like to see one of the goals be bringing the World Food Center to Davis and explore opportunities for spinoffs and investment in the aforementioned research park.
Finally, on the circulation issue, the report makes reference to some of the key points that the Vanguard has raised with regards to Richards Boulevard.
The key item there is: “Evaluate options to route vehicle trips to and from campus away from Richards/Olive and to alternatives such as Old Davis Road and Hutchison. Partner with Caltrans to assess ideas such as reader board directory signs and real-time congestion monitoring and routing, including pricing access to downtown via Richards undercrossing of UPRR using dynamic pricing options.”
The report also requests “that UC Davis evaluate alternative connection configurations at Russell/Howard Way and Russell/California and Orchard Park/Russell Avenue for ‘right in/out only’ (except for transit).”
Along with that, the city and UC Davis should explore the potential of making the campus entrance at A Street and 1st Street for transit and bicycles only. That would assist with routing vehicle trips away from the Richards Blvd. corridor.
Overall, there is a lot to like with this response, as it incorporates a number of themes the Vanguard has been pushing for several months. We urge the council to go a little further on the items we have brought up with respect to the Russell fields (precluding buildings in addition to housing), Richards Blvd. (adding an A St./1st St. limitation), and finally pushing for the World Food Center at a university-city-private research park.
A lot of this will have broad community support, but there is likely to be pushback both on the infill apartment proposal and the Nishi one.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I, for one, am sad to see that the LRDP does not aggressively use Russell and Howard Fields for housing and campus space. I bike past those fields 4 times a day every work day and often on weekends and they are the most UNDERUSED athletic fields on the campus.
I’ve seen the debate on this issue either on the Vanguard or the Enterprise and there is no longer any question in my mind – the community wants UC Davis to put its growth AWAY from the community. That’s it – far away. We didn’t let West Village have access to Russell Blvd, we don’t want Nishi and now we must maintain the buffer provided by two big grass fields that are underused.
Here we have a MASSIVE, underused grass field that we are pouring water into. Did I mention that it was underused? Well, it is. I’ve been taking pictures on several days to show how empty it is. It is perfect for student housing and lecture space. It currently acts as an ugly setback – campus is set back from the city. It’s like a front lawn that we all rail against in private homes – why do we need a grass front lawn for campus? Having housing here will be better for traffic because, when these fields are acutally used (by visiting teams) they get a lot of traffic. However, if students are housed there, they will minimize travel to campus.
Look at the beautiful new International Center on California and Russell. New construction can be done nicely while maintaining smaller athletic fields for the students to use.
I see comments in the Enterprise complaining that “this will only provide housing for 200 students” – of course this is the new LRDP that was developed after the university compromised on the first LRDP which would have provided more. Additionally, it is not only about housing, but about lecture hall space.
Davis development is turning into rule by NIMBY. Every new idea is confronted with a plethora of constraints and rationale that, ultimately boils down to NIMBY. It seems like the loudest voices don’t want any growth by the university, but are happy to reap the benefits of past university growth.
Russell and Howard fields are big front lawns. Build on them to bring students closer to downtown. As for the neighbors, relax, please – it won’t be bad for your housing value or for the traffic.
^^^DITTO^^^^
Well said Joseph, I completely agree.
JosephBiello
I think that your picture taking brings up a good point with regard to evidence. My first thought, since I also frequently pass those fields was that I could also present pictures of many times when those fields have been in full use. This illustrates the pitfalls of judging on the basis of what we ourselves actually “see”. You see them as wasted space and an opportunity for housing. I see them as recreational space well used. When we have these kinds of discrepancies in perception, perhaps what is really needed is a study of the utilization of this space. Since this is not an issue that I have been following closely, I do not even know if one has been done. Does anyone know if the university has audited the use of this space objectively ?
Tia – these fields are underused. They are not used at night because of lighting – so that’s half the time, and they are mostly not used during the day. Of course, I didn’t argue that they are NEVER used. My argument is more nuanced than this – although we can’t keep engaging in this back and forth. The fields are not used enough compared to the NEEDS of the university and the NEEDS of the community. Arguing for retaining them based on some sports using them every so often is misguided.
The university could easily provide data as to their use, and I would argue we would still see a woefully underused space. Ultimately, the activities that occur here could still occur under the current (and previous) LRDP. Wouldn’t it be nicer to look down from College and see a beautiful building rather than the back of a parking lot or chain link fences from a tennis court?
The sports activities can be moved – closer to the ARC during the day (Hutchison field, is that what its called?).
This is not a matter of your data collection versus my data collection. This is the community finding every possible way to squelch development. I’m not arguing for huge development, but we are bursting at the seams here and not allowing anything to relieve the pressure.
I was out there yesterday and there where hundreds of people on the fields playing multiple sports.
In any case Joe B. makes a false argument. the University is not considering building big beautiful new buildings like the International student center, The university is planning on building about 200 bedrooms in relatively low wood frame apartments. and turning the rest of Russell into a sunken retention basin where storm water will be piped from the surrounding areas.
None of Joe’s so called alternative locations are of the size and quality of the existing fields, but all the fields he points out by the new stadium would be excellent places to build new housing. There are several open areas by the new stadium that would be ideal locations for tall new student housing buildings. with the stadium in the middle this new “Stadium District” Housing would e a great place to live.
@Grok – I didn’t say they were never used, I said they were underused.
Anyway, as we see, there is a lot of matter of taste here. I think the fields are ugly and a great place for housing. I think housing in the Stadium District just puts students farther from downtown, where they could frequent the businesses more conveniently. Also, it is not only housing, but mixed use that is intended for Russell field.
And of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder – nicely done housing can be aesthetically pleasing.
The point is, all of the counter arguments to the LRDP are squeezing university options.
I want way more student housing right up to the bike path on Russell. That would look great and give the campus the high density urban feel that we NEED to have a sustainable, bike-able city.
Think of the European campuses. These are old towns whose buildings come right up to the street. This is how high density was done when high density was the only option. Courtyards on the inside for sport and leisure. Not ugly front lawns.
@Grok, it is you who are misrepresenting the LRDP
http://campustomorrow.ucdavis.edu/app_pages/view/85
It will retain a recreational field that will have dual use as a storm water basin in times when it is flooding!
“The stormwater master plan for campus also designates Russell Field as an important detention basin that will be inundated during extreme flooding events.”
It is incredible how Grok twists good ideas into bad ideas by selective quotation. This is not the first time I’ve seen Grok do this.
I agree that taller buildings on campus are preferable to sprawling low rise apartments, but if you look at the LRDP, there are extensive areas being redeveloped for housing, but the University plans on building 3 and 4 story wood frame apartments, not apartment towers as is being done at UC Irvine for example. Instead of making enemies arguing against saving the valuable open space on Russell, you should advocate that the University build taller in all of the other places. there is a capacity to greatly increase housing on campus AND save the fields.
Once that space is built on it will the fields that make an inviting well used and much loved open space between the City and the University will be gone for ever.
JB, guess it is a matter of taste…sounds like you do not like grassy fields, but that is probably an unfair assumption. You are not suggesting that all fields be built upon? And certainly you realize that finding an unused time is not necessarily indicative of an underused or unused field…most of the time the football field is not visibly in use, the Hutchison and ARC fields are often empty…and through many hours of the day, and through most of the night, the Quad is virtually empty. Except during WEF. I agree that lighting, as on Toomey, would seem to increase the use, but perhaps there is another reason that UCD has not already implemented lighting on Russell and Howard. Just saying.
Underused field.
Having “love” for a grass field is really strange – and, ultimately, irrational. That’s why there is no convincing anyone who is against the housing on Russell – they are not rational, they are in love.
I understand that you don’t get why the student athletes love playing on those fields. But there are good rational reasons to save the fields beyond the fact that they are much loved.
For example. The fields in their current location are well used because they are central to the campus. The students and others are able to easily bike to them and they fit practice and games into their busy lives more easily because of the central location. If you go out on the fields you will see piles of bicycles and back packs at the side of the fields. Keep in mind the students an others who use these fields are coming from all across town, building new fields on the far side of West Village as the University proposes will make it more difficult for people coming from South Davis, East Davis Central Davis and North Davis.
Consider that 60% of students live in town, for the majority of them, moving the fields to the far side of campus would make it less likely that they will bike to the fields. If you were to take the time to talk to the people who use the fields as I have, you would find that the Club sports in particular are very concerned about loosing participants if the fields move. Several members of different teams have expressed that moving the fields from central campus will reduce their teams to only students who have access to cars. Converting all of these students from cyclists to drivers on Russell Blvd is not a good plan for the campus or the City.
The good news is there is absolutely no need to build on the fields because there are plenty of other places to build and build denser on campus. you advocate for building on the fields because it is close to down town, you should instead advocate that Solano Park, which is slated for redevelopment be built taller and denser. This part of the campus is just across Putah Creek from Whole foods and actually closer to downtown than the fields you are advocating to build on. The current redevelopment for Soalno calls for no significant increase in Density at Solano Park.
Frankly your advocacy for building on the fields sounds mean spirited and based entirely on your idea of urban aesthetics that does not include include open green fields. Would you build on Central park in New York? how about Central Park in Davis?
Your specious accusations are poorly placed. No, I have not misrepresented what is in the LRDP proposal says. I have additional information from extensive discussions and meetings with the campus planners. After several meetings with the campus planers and the Rugby team and it has become very clear that the dual use with the Rugby field will not work. There is not enough space for the Rugby field the campus plans to put in the detention basin and further Rugby is played in the winter months and will have excessive games cancelled. What you also can not tell from only looking online, this field will be sunken by as much as 4 feet to hold the water.
Joseph
“Wouldn’t it be nicer to look down from College and see a beautiful building rather than the back of a parking lot or chain link fences from a tennis court?”
This is exactly what I mean about using subjective criteria. I have yet to see any student housing building that I would describe as “beautiful” on the UCD campus. I started to say ever, but realized that this was not true as some of the very old residential buildings on the Ivy League campuses I consider beautiful. So I prefer open space to any likely building on this campus if aesthetics are what is being considered.
I do believe that this is about what you and I subjectively believe to be true and consider of value. And I do not believe given that subjectivity that either of our perspectives should be weighed heavily in these decisions. There is however a difference, I am asking questions, whereas you have come to and are promoting your views as though they were objective.
Tia wrote:
> I also frequently pass those fields was that I could also present
> pictures of many times when those fields have been in full use.
How many people are in your picture of the fields in “full use”?
South of Davis
Sorry that I wrote in a confusing fashion. I do not actually have any photos for comparison. My statement was intended to convey that I could have if I had taken any on the occasions when I have been there while there was full utilization of the fields. One anecdotal example. When my son was in high school about 5-6 years ago, he played initially club and subsequently varsity lacrosse. Prior to the development of a varsity lacrosse team, it was not unusual for the boys to use these fields to practice but frequently had to share with a number of other athletes using the fields.
“The city should proactively study and address the latter issue.”
With regard to any plans to revisit Nishi, especially with a housing component, I would like to stress the importance of further study of air quality. What we had during the pre vote debate was Dr. Cahill’s concern based on his limited study of air quality and some small and questionably relevant studies of childhood development within distance of freeways with essentially no local epidemiological support for their relevance here. My request would be to actually take the time and expense to study the local situation rather than either side entrenching behind their “experts” or their pre biased attitudes. It may be that the Nishi air quality is not adequate for housing in this area, or that may not be the case. We simply do not know because of insufficient information and both sides need to be open to the implications of new information.
FYI, I uploaded a picture – does that work on the Vanguard? That previous comment was supposed to be a picture.
If the picture didn’t work, here’s the link to the picture of Russell fields on a typical fall quarter Wednesday afternoon.
Build some nice sport field on that ugly barely used field by the football stadium (Southwest corner of LaRue and Hutch) and allow more student use of the football field. Your sports problems are solved. (@Tia).
This would be a great place to build more housing. There is no good reason to tear up well loved high quality working fields on Russell to build housing when sites like this that are well suited for housing are available.
“Well loved” – they are only loved by a few people who shout loudly. Some of you love these fields.
I don’t understand how one can love a patch of grass more than the human children and young adults who come here to study and try to improve their lives.
Build housing on that field – build for 1000 kids or more. Care about the humans, not about the grass.
Joseph
“Build some nice sport field on that ugly barely used field by the football stadium (Southwest corner of LaRue and Hutch) and allow more student use of the football field”
That might be a reasonable alternative. I suspect that there may be other considerations with regard to land use and facility placement that I am unaware of. However, it does seem to me that what you are suggesting is to replace already existing sports fields ( that you have chosen to call lawns) with another grass covered venue ( that you have chosen to call “a nice sport field”) without really stating why you prefer the change of venue for the sports fields.
“I don’t understand how one can love a patch of grass more than the human children and young adults who come here to study and try to improve their lives.”
And I certainly do not either when put this way. However, you are the only person who I have ever heard put it this way. I do not know anyone, either proponents nor opponents of housing on these sites who “can love a patch grass more than the human children….”. The argument that I hear most often is that people feel that these fields have well served generations of athletes, both UCD students and city athletes, and that they find them preferable to housing on this particular site. I have not heard any opposition to more on campus housing in general.
I think that hyperbole, false equivalency, and frankly false representations of those whose opinion differ from yours does not help to advance an honest conversation about the pros and cons of any controversial subject.
I remain interested in your ideas about why it is better to build a new field as well as new housing, when new housing on a different site alone would achieve the same goal.
I’ll concur, places for people, especially those trying to improve their own lives through their own efforts, should rank higher than places for grass.
As I said recently when I rode my bike by Russell there seems to be plenty of space for both housing and recreation. I think part of the problem is that many in Davis want to focus on retaining UCD as they remember it while UC and UCD are focused on what UCD needs to do to fulfill its mission in the future. Housing by the new football field is a lot farther from the campus core than housing by the tennis courts. I think Grok would be equally outraged if UCD wanted to build new housing to densify where he lived on campus back in the day, a low density area centrally located near the core. Of course when UC proposed doing so the opposition howled.
Nobody likes change but the demands being placed on UC for making space for increased numbers of students while public support from the state for UC is decreasing is going to create an environment where UCD will be forced to change in ways that Davis residents are not going to be happy about. Its simply the reality of the moment.
Tia… when you post…
You realize you are shouting, right? Follow the fonts…
The fonts did not appear in my response… Tia, look at your posts, and verify whether your font differences were intended… thx…
If you were to actually talk to the Club sport teams about there needs you would quickly learn that the plan to build on part of the field and turn the rest of the field into a storm water retention basin actually makes the entire field unusable for sports. especially winter sports.
Keeping centrally located fields actually helps fulfill UCDs mission in the future.
It is also a lot closer than most of the student housing in Davis. In fact if you look at “The Colleges” student apartments that is already close to this area website you will learn that it is the top rated student apartment in Davis/UCDavis.
Actually, there is plenty of space to build student housing on Campus, and it there are quality companies that can finance it and build it. Just look at UC Irvine, they are currently undertaking 5 high rise student housing buildings and project delivering them with affordable rents. the chang you speak of – increased enrollment – can happen and the growth on campus can be done in intelligent ways that preserve the good parts from the past and the present while moving into the future.
@Tia, it is not false equivalence to say that I’m putting the needs of students above the aesthetics of a field; nor have I used any more hyperbole than the anti development people when they use of the word “love” when it comes to a grass field. You want me to accept the anti-development people’s framing of the discussion. I do not accept their framework because I see a larger framework at play here. The university is trying to live up to its commitments to the state of California to serve more students, with less state money and therefore has to take on more in and out of state students to provide the service. This is a greater good – a much greater good.
Working on this campus I see the acute constraints that are imposed by several constituencies. An additional, and I have concluded, arbitrary constraint of “how these fields have served generations of athletes” is simply a nostalgic argument. The library, too, has served generations of scholars, but it seeks to modernize itself in the age of the internet. So, too am I asked to modernize my lecture techniques (a technique that has served generations of students) as we have learned about better pedagogical methods.
I didn’t start the “love” hyperbole – that was Grok. So, “what’s love got to do with it?” I ask you. If you bring up love, I will kick it back at you – I really would like to properly serve our students – and a field at the north end of campus that, in my 11 years of daily observation (I also live very close to campus and used to live just north of Howard field) that is clearly underused, is not serving the needs of students as is.
You can throw 1 million arguments against it – but none of them carry the weight of the need of the Davis community to take pressure off of housing, and the need of the of California students to have public education and be served by the university.
@misanthrop – you nail it right on. It’s really about change or no change.
Sigh. This is intractable.
Joe
It is not about change or no change. It is about how to grow in a way that keeps the good qualities while making way for new uses and increased enrollment. it is not a binary mathematical choice.
This is not intractable. Your goals of increased housing near the core can be met, and the the Fields can be save for all of the new students who will live in the housing to enjoy.
“the community wants UC Davis to put its growth AWAY from the community.”
Exactly, no car access at First and A does the same thing sealing another entrance to the campus from cars. At the same time Davis refuses to annex new land for housing. Davis also wants to make it harder for people driving to access campus. Yes, the report wants to take another crack at Nishi but the city council doesn’t have the power. The voters reserved that unto themselves in 2000 and have forever since refused to allow any annexation.
The irony here is that this wish list by the city puts nothing on the table. It makes demands of the University but offers them no incentives to get them to negotiate. It ignores what Hexter told the Regents about the city offering up some options.
Here we agree. The wish list reads more like a late night brainstorming session than a well thought out staff report. Large parts of it actually are not things. the one I downloaded on Thursday night still had redline text in it like it was being thrown together up to the last minute. The subcommittee had months to put this together and what they delivered could have been thrown together on day 1.
Do you know who was in the group that put this together for the city?
I meant large parts it are probably d things that do not belong in the LRDP discussion with the representative from the University on Tuesday.
The LRDP Subcommittee are Mayor Davis and Council member Swanson. The staff are Mike Webb and Ashley Feeney. Some or all of them probably wrote the report.
This is a document designed to stimulate discussion with the City Council about elements that the group determines should be in a formal letter to the University. It is purposefully broad and inclusive of a variety of ideas.
Snarky comments about Richards ignore the point that the CC has put resolving the circulation problems there as a top priority and the ideas in this report are intended to open up evaluation opportunities. They are not all vetted but could be part of an environmental review process to determine their impacts. That is what we are supposed to be doing at this time.
We have spent a great deal of time over the past months discussing, in detail, housing and circulation issues with UCD–as well as the issue of Russell Fields (as we thought many in the community wanted us to). The majority of our time has been trying to make sure we understand University perspectives on these issues and that we share our own. These are not simple or easy conversations. We meet for about an hour at a time and so it has been some months it has not been a constant set of meetings. These are not musings, they are grist for discussion at the CC meeting and I would think people should be pleased that we have included joint project planning, dealing with circulation challenges, how to assess commercial space and deal with UCD occupation of said space, reduction in master leases, and the potential for broadband to allow more people to work off campus from home.
The City Council has prioritized housing, it has prioritized dealing with circulation around Richards, it has prioritized maximizing tax revenue and using commercial spaces more efficiently. These things are expressed in this document.
Most importantly, the design of this document is intended to lay the groundwork for a set of joint objectives and actions that UCD and the City can jointly monitor over the coming 10 years. It is designed to be an outcomes focused document with a monitoring plan. This is a new way of dealing with the City/UCD relationship and one that both groups agree creates more transparency and accountability than what has come before.
Robb:
Just wondering – was the “toll road” your idea?
Also, I understand that you’re working for the university (at the Services for International Students and Scholars), now. Is that correct? If so, do you see some inherent conflict of interest, given the somewhat adversarial relationship between the city and university? (Or, at least somewhat different goals?)
“Snarky”
What is snarky about pointing out what variable pricing means or recognition that not allowing any auto access at 1st and A onto campus further isolates the community from the campus? Its only snarky to those whose ultimate objective is a car free society.
Shame, shame, Mr. Mayor, now that is snarky.
Ron – I have worked with SISS for the past year–started as a temp worker and was just hired full time. Student Advisor I. I advise international students on visa and status issues.
Do you think there is a conflict of interest?
If so, what is it?
Curious…
Robb:
Thanks for the clarification.
I’m kind of surprised that I’d need to explain the inherent conflict of interest in representing the city as our mayor (and on the LRDP subcommittee), while at the same time working at the university whose growth plants are creating a lot of conflict, within the city.
The university has historically “dragged its feet” in meeting previous commitments to house more students on campus. In other words, they’ve already demonstrated reluctance.
Now, they’re increasing enrollment, without a sufficient, corresponding response to increase housing on campus. And, the university has focused its efforts to increase enrollment by adding more international students (the same department you’re now working in). (Sometimes, at the expense of resident students, I understand.)
Due to the university’s reluctance to fully step up, you and others are proposing to create more student-oriented housing in the city, up to 2 miles away from campus (despite the obvious financial and non-financial impacts to our already-dense city, as well as opposition from significant numbers of neighbors that you’re supposed to be representing).
In my view, you were already the least-preferred person on the council to be part of the LRDP subcommittee. (I base that on your prior statements.) The fact that you’re now also working at the university adds “insult to injury”.
That’s my short response. I might explain more fully, later.
Ron – I can accept that you don’t want me on the LRDP subcommittee because my views differ from yours. My commitment to more and denser housing began when I ran for office (you can check out my campaign literature or read statements I made). There is nothing new here. BTW, the “2-mile” has everything to do with the findings in the Campus Travel Survey, which I am sure you have seen. I am trying to help the CC make decisions that are in the interests of the City and since I do not have any more power than anyone else, my colleagues are not obligated to agree to my preferred direction (that has been evidenced several times over in the two years since I have been on the CC).
What I cannot accept is the idea that somehow my employment at the University means I will not work for the best interests of the City. That is why I was elected and that is what I do every day. The fact that you do not agree with me does not change the fact that my commitments are to the City I serve.
I speak my mind, advance the positions I feel are in the best interests of the City. My day to day work at the University is about serving international students. This has nothing to do with my City work.
Are you suggesting that I would pull back for fear that the University will punish me for my actions? You don’t know me. I have no such concern 1) because I am a professional that brings needed experience to SISS and 2) the University cannot punish employees for holding such positions.
I will have nothing more to say on this matter here.
Robb:
O.K. – thanks again for the clarification.
I’ve found that in my former line of work (as an auditor), those with an inherent conflict of interest often fail to see it. (A lot of times, the response is, “I’d never do that”, etc.) And, they might even believe that.
The fact that other council members were not on the LRDP sub-committee means that they were not directly privy to the communications that you (and the other member of that sub-committee) engaged in, with university officials. In effect, you and the other member were assigned to represent the city and its interests, and on behalf of the entire council.
The relationship that the city has with the university is somewhat adversarial, in that many of us would prefer mega-dorms to be located on campus (despite the university’s reluctance to do so). These types of developments create negative financial and non-financial impacts for the city and its existing residents, and do nothing to help with workforce housing, either. Other examples of the adversarial relationship are demonstrated by the university’s pursuit of master leases (e.g., apartment complexes) and purchases (e.g., the university’s $60-$70 million dollar unsuccessful bid to purchase Interland).
And with Nishi, it seems that the University doesn’t want to engage in a “deal” with the developer on its own (and might prefer that the city assume such obligations).
Also, your employment with the university was made permanent during a period of negotiations/communications with the university.
Of course, I’m not in an authority position, to make a determination regarding the appropriateness of your employment with the university’s international student department, while simultaneously representing the city as mayor (and on the LRDP sub-committee).
I noticed that you didn’t answer my other question, regarding the proposed toll road. Was that your idea?
“My commitment to more and denser housing began when I ran for office”
Yes it did Robb but if your experience on the council hasn’t taught you that the people of Davis don’t want denser housing you have been too busy leading and haven’t spent enough time listening.
What the resistance to Paso Fino, Trackside, Sterling and 40 on Olive is saying is that Davis residents don’t want to densify with large in-fill projects. Instead of listening you continue to pursue your vision without re-thinking in view of what the community is repeatedly saying. The choice you should put before the citizens of Davis is do you want in-fill or peripheral development. Until that choice is revisited the community will not be able to address its fundamental conflict on growth.
And what the votes on Wildhorse Ranch and Covell Village tell us is that Davis residents don’t want peripheral development. What the renewal vote on Measure R told us is that voters like it. So embarking on a crusade to overturn Measure R is definitely quixotic at best, proposing peripheral housing is going to be very challenging, whereas infill projects can possibly squeak by with a majority of the city council (see The Cannery). A referendum is always possible, but a harder hurdle for opponents.
Your constant refrain about overturning Measure R is about as fruitful as those who want to overturn Prop 13. Not going to happen, so why keep harping on it?
Unfortunately, I agree that this is a possible outcome regarding mega-dorms and other “oversized” proposals (despite the wishes of many residents, as Misanthrop pointed out). In other words, it appears that some on the council are determined to force this upon the city, like it or not. (And, never mind that mega-dorms do not help those seeking work-force housing, and that the master lease issue has not been resolved.)
Ron…
The Mayor’s employment was most likely vetted by the City Attorney… Robb is certainly aware of the rules… he files a Form 700 each year disclosing his financial interests… as have I for the last 30 years… it is publicly available…
I know I have always been conscientious about not even having a “whiff” of COI, much less than having one… do you even understand what a COI is? It is a legal term, not a liberal arts major’s concept of something to slap people with when they disagree with them.
Knowing Robb (somewhat), am sure he sought advice/confirmation before he took on his new responsibilities…
Maybe, but I wouldn’t necessarily assume that. Nor would I assume that adherence to legality (laws) is the only criteria.
Yes – I think I understand this, given my education and background as an auditor. (Sorry if this disappoints you, but I’m not a “liberal arts” major.) Also, legality (which I don’t know if it has been determined) does not necessarily translate into a “good idea”, for an elected official.
On a perhaps somewhat related note, remember Katehi? Probably didn’t break any “laws”, but perhaps not such a “good idea”, either. (Perhaps went against some policy.) However, I didn’t follow the details that closely.
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Robb Davis has a conflict of interest simply because he is employed by the university. UCD has nearly 30,000 employees, is the major employer in our town. We have had council members and mayors who have worked full time at UCD, much less some part time position such as what Robb has.
This is clearly just an attempt at character assassination, trying to impugn his credibility because you disagree with his positions. And unfortunately, it is the modus operandi of several of the anonymous participants on the Vanguard.
I agree up to a point Don. Davis has said it doesn’t want to grow externally but if the alternative is internal growth on the scale needed by the community Davis is also rejecting that, albeit on a project by project basis. The Mayor is in a position to lead the community in an honest debate about what we want Davis to look like in the future. I would welcome his leadership in laying out the choices for the community.
That’s pure b.s., Don. You’ve made this type of unfounded allegation in the past, as well. Perhaps you should review your own comments, before you accuse others of character assassination.
Obtaining employment at the university while mayor, while simultaneously meeting with the university (on behalf of the council) to convey the city’s concerns regarding the university’s plans is an inherent conflict of interest. The university has already demonstrated their reluctance to assume the responsibilities and costs of housing associated with their plans to increase enrollment. The mayor, who was (self?) assigned to the LRDP sub-committee is in a position to help ensure that the university can continue to avoid this responsibility, as they’ve done for years. (Despite the fact that other public universities are stepping up, with less available land than UCD has.) The mayor is also in a position in which the other council members are relying upon him to communicate in good faith and provide accurate information.
I recall that you’re one of the frequent commenters who has repeatedly stated that the university hasn’t lived up to prior agreements.
And again, the mayor was already the council member most likely to support (force) large-scale student-oriented housing projects in the city, even before he obtained employment in the international student department. He had already demonstrated his general lack of concern regarding neighbor’s concerns, and a general disregard of the overall preference by most in the city to ensure that excessive development is kept in check. (My view, at least.) He is also quick to demonstrate anger, with those he disagrees with. (Much like you, it seems.)
I don’t know if the city has any policies regarding working for the university, while simultaneously meeting with them to convey concerns regarding the university’s plans. As a former auditor, such policies are one of the first things that I’d look for. If such policies do not exist, that would also likely create an audit finding.
It is also quite possible that Robb’s position as the mayor made him more appealing as a job applicant, for the university’s international student department.
But again, it’s not up to me, to make a determination regarding the mayor’s recent appointment at the university. I’m just noting the concern, and noting that I do have some professional experience as an auditor, in analyzing such situations.
Are you an attorney?
Correct. So you are simply impugning his credibility without basis.
The rest of your verbiage is simply expressing that you disagree with his positions.
I urge you to stop attacking the credibility of others and making unsubstantiated accusations.
No – I was an auditor. I thought I wrote that about 4-5 times, now.
Conflicts of interest are not always defined by law. Often, they are defined by policies.
And, I urge you to stop characterizing my postings in that manner. There is nothing that I’m aware of that’s incorrect, in my posting.
I’d also suggest that you delete …edited
[moderator] Agree and done.
A suggestion/accusation/assertion that a member of the city council has a conflict of interest can not reasonably be construed as anything other than an attack. And since you have no basis for it, it is an unfounded attack. Therefore it only serves to attempt to diminish the credibility of the one you are attacking.
Don’t be coy. That’s exactly what you’re doing. And you did it to me on Nishi. It’s your pattern, and that of others.
If you believe there is a conflict of interest, file a complaint with the city or something. Don’t just post your unfounded opinion anonymously on a public blog.
Don:
An inherent conflict of interest is not usually an attack on the person, in the audit world. In this case, it’s the choice to have employment ties with the organization that you’re simultaneously expressing concerns to, on behalf of a different organization (the city).
I think you’re being overly-sensitive, regarding what constitutes a personal attack (at least from an auditing perspective).
This is not an audit world. City council members have lives outside their public service. There is no connection between what Robb does on campus and what he is doing as council member. To try to link those two things is either pointless, or an attempt at diminishing his credibility. Joe Krovoza was a full-time career employee of UCD when he was mayor.
How can I put this nicely? I’m sick of this crap. That should cover it.
Don:
I’m pretty sure that city government and its structure/policies are often included within the scope of the “audit world”. And again, audit findings sometimes note the lack of sufficient policies, as well.
Then I suggest you file a complaint through legitimate channels. This isn’t one of them.
Don:
Why isn’t it legitimate to point this out on the Vanguard? Isn’t the position as mayor a public position? Is there some reason that we can’t discuss activities that can create a conflict with that public position? (Especially when reporting on activities that relate to the potential conflict – e.g., the activities and report of the LRDP subcommitee)? Isn’t the Vanguard a public blog?
Was there a similar attempt on the Vanguard to “put a lid on it”, regarding Katehi? Or, Trump’s potential conflicts?
There’s nothing preventing Robb and his supporters from disputing my statements on the Vanguard (as you’ve done), either.
First:
Emphasis added.
Clear assertion of conflict of interest on your part. No ambiguity about what you are saying. It “is an inherent conflict of interest.”
Then come the weasel words:
But you just did make that determination. Very clearly. Even though you’re not an attorney, nor qualified to do so — so far as any of us know.
Earlier, I had stated that I was not in an authoritative position. (In other words, I’m not involved in an audit of city policies, nor do I have any authority over what the city council does.) That’s all I was stating.
Not sure why you keep bringing up attorneys. Again, many conflicts of interest are uncovered and reported by auditors, such as I was. It’s one of the primary areas that auditors examine. As I’ve repeatedly stated, it’s often addressed by policies, not necessarily laws. (And, there can be a lack of policy, which also leads to audit findings.)
I brought up the example of Katehi, whom I understand did not break any “laws”.
So you are asserting, on the basis of your experience as an auditor, that your opinion is that the mayor has a conflict of interest? You were unequivocal. Now you are claiming professional expertise. Is that correct?
Don: Yes – that’s what I’ve been stating, and I noted my experience previously. From my experience, this would have a high potential of creating an audit finding, depending upon the scope/purpose of the audit. And, it wouldn’t matter if it was Robb, or any other council member who is conveying the city’s concerns to the university, and reporting back to the full council.
I’m signing off, shortly.
And you believe it is ok to make this allegation on a public blog without providing the readers your name and credentials to make the assertion. You consider that ethical, Ron?
Yes, I do, Don. I wouldn’t make the statement, otherwise. Hopefully, other council members will read this, as well. Of course, anyone is free to believe that I’m lying about my background.
Regarding anonymity, I’d suggest that the Vanguard either has a policy, or that it doesn’t. If anonymity is maintained, I’d suggest that the Vanguard develop a policy against “outing” those who wish to remain anonymous. And, that it be enforced evenly.
Apparently, Matt is not trustworthy, and perhaps you aren’t either. How you both conduct yourselves is, of course, not in my control.
[moderator] I have not outed you. Please do not assert that I am “perhaps” not trustworthy. There is not an explicit policy about it, but it has been the standard since I began moderating the Vanguard that we do not allow ‘outing’. It is enforced evenly. Please do not suggest otherwise. And please do not pretend that you were not suggesting otherwise. In response to your request I removed previous posts. Now you bring them up again. That really does not make sense.
Nobody knows if you’re lying about your background because we don’t know what it is. We know that you say you’ve been an auditor. That’s it. What kind, where, for whom, for how long, what areas of expertise? We don’t know.
Don:
[moderator] edited
Regarding my experience, I’m wondering if you are truly interested in it. Also, regardless of my background or name, I doubt that anyone within the city would (or should) totally/completely rely upon my statements in this blog. In any case, I’ll provide a little more information, if that helps. I was a federal compliance auditor for about 10 years.
I would add that many of the principles/techniques that auditors use are similar, regardless of the subject of the audit (or even the individual employer). In fact, each audit can be quite different from the previous one, while working in the same organization. (Significant preparation and research is often required, prior to the start of audit work.)
I’m signing off, for the night. I’m sorry that you’re taking this more personally than I intended. Perhaps that’s why you felt compelled to comment.
I’m also starting to question whether it’s worth it (to me), to continue commenting much on the Vanguard. Seems like it creates a lot of negative feelings, and I’m not sure that much good comes of it. I don’t know – maybe it feeds some kind of a need for negativity, for some. (Not directed at anyone in particular.) I’ve managed to stay off in the past, for a period of time. However, I usually end up reading an issue on the Vanguard which compels me to begin commenting, again. (And then, it turns negative.) Perhaps it’s time to try to focus on some more positive activities, again.
It’s a miracle to me that anyone runs for public office in this town, considering the abuse they’re subjected to. I urge you to think about the extent to which you contribute to that when you make unfounded accusations.
Don:
It’s not “unfounded”. The facts are out in the open. Based on my experience (and the reasons that I’ve provided), it would likely create an audit finding, depending upon the scope and purpose of the audit. You and others can dispute whether or not it’s a concern.
The result would not differ, regardless of the individual (and whether or not one agreed with him/her).
But I agree that one has to have a “thick skin” to run for council (or comment on the Vanguard).
And variable pricing on Richards? Are they suggesting we make Richards a toll road or that it not be used by cars at all by making it bus, bike and safety vehicles only? This is a joke right? Maybe South Davis residents would get a fast track lane through the tunnel or a free pass. Of course we all know how fast a one lane toll road into the city will work.
I agree, it’s an ignorant idea and will never gain any steam.
Right? Why is the city bringing up this unvetted weird idea as part of the LRDP discussion? that is just one example.
ahhhh… the proposal for a toll road shows the true value of recreational MJ… (or, a ‘toke road’?)
I think whoever came up with the idea is smoking something.
I agree that making Richards a toll road makes no sense. It would be detrimental to South Davis residents and to the downtown. This is just one of a number of items and language in the proposed list in the LRDP staff report which is problematic and counterproductive.
Hopefully, the views of the subcommittee do not reflect the views of the entire council.
Gee, I wonder what proposals this applies to. (Sarcasm intended.)
I sincerely hope that the city would not pay for such studies for a proposed, private development.
Wow – talk about stubbornness. The subcommittee is still pushing this? O.K. – here we go again, I guess.
What’s missing? Any discussion regarding high-rise housing on campus. (Despite commenters who have repeatedly posted contact information for companies that provide it at no cost to the university.)
Strange, how the sub-committee’s response to the university’s LRDP immediately leads to a recommendation that the “city” must facilitate more development.
Ron
“I sincerely hope that the city would not pay for such studies for a proposed, private development.”
I have a different perspective on this issue. If there are city, as well as developer advantages, especially in terms of increased city revenues and/or help with meeting the housing needs of the city, then I think that the city and the developers should be willing to each contribute to the cost of the necessary studies. I would classify this as one of my many “If we want it, then we should be willing to pay for it” city goals.
Tia:
We definitely have a different view, regarding city subsidies for private development. Regarding “goals”, increasing residential development/density to accommodate the university’s enrollment plans is generally not one that I support (particularly at the financial expense of the city).
Ron
I fully respect both points of view. There is a fine line between public subsidization of private business and public – private partnerships. From your past posts, I feel that there may be a great deal of overlap between how you and I would fall on these issues depending upon how we viewed the pros and cons of any given project.
Actually, Tia, it is not a fine line… although there are some in CO who agree with your view… it is not OK to “partner” with a private interest by waiving/reducing fees, expediting processes ahead of those already “in-line”… that’s not “partnering”… it’s properly referred to as “corruption”…
Putting your A-team on a project, with the applicant fully paying for their time… that could be a valid “partnering”…
There is even a lower term I’d use for what was ‘suggested’ as “partnering” by some @ CH in the past… starts with “wh”, and might lead to a STD…
At the present time, I am neutral on the idea of the establishment of a toll road. I know that it would be a large departure from what we are used to, but I would like to play devil’s advocate for just a moment. When in the south of France two years ago, we used a rental car to get from our fairly remote lodgings to surrounding towns. There were many areas that were fairly cramped and congested such as what we see at the Richards underpass and 1st street intersections. The two solutions that we saw involved roundabouts and toll roads. The role of the roundabout is perhaps more obvious. The role of the toll road is to alter route selection. This encourages people to either pay for the convenience of this particular route into town while retaining the option of “going around” to either the east or the west. Choice is good, revenue is good. This proposal has the possibility of both. Again spoken as someone who just wants to consider all the options ( including those that seem our of the box) at this point in time.
Tia, Personally, I don’t think it is fair to south Davis to cut be cut off from the downtown with a toll road, but I am more than willing to have a study, and hear new ideas it just makes no sense to me on process to lump that into the consideration of the UC Davis LRDP. This laundry list /wish list of half baked ideas is not ready for primetime, but the city is inviting the University planner to council to discuss them?
Houseflipper
If I were speaking as someone who would not be affected by this change and and were only targeting the denizens of South Davis I would agree with you. However, I have advocated for toll roads for years, and until very recently would have myself been affected as I live on the north side of the tunnel and worked at the South Sac Kaiser MOB for years. So we are not just speaking to fairness to those who live in South Davis, but what is optimal for all who use this route and those who chose other alternatives as well.
Whenever, we are speaking of what is “fair” it is important to consider to whom and under what circumstances, and what tradeoffs pertain to any given plan. I applaud your willingness to maintain and open mind and base your opinion on evidence.
Also, I see a discussion of “half baked” ideas as preferable to waiting until everyone’s version of “what is best” is “fully baked” or more likely “set in stone”. I am a strong proponent of discussions held early and often between all stakeholders, in this case the city and the university.
I know that this is not usual practice, but I have seen it work amongst very confrontational groups ( doctors of different specialities often with conflicting interests, different factions of doctors within a given specialty, doctors and nurses, management and unions). Early collaborative process frequently works in unanticipated ways beneficial to all concerned.
Tia, I think everything you write is fine. I think discussing half baked ideas is how they become fully baked. But, why is this in the LRDP subcommittee report for the night they bring a UCD planner to the City Council? and not being hashed out at the Transportation Commission? Why would this be part of what is discussed with the University representative at City Council before going through any of the collaborative process we agree is important? That is what makes this seem half baked.
Tia… please engage your synapses… the costs of instituting and managing a toll road in Davis? Really? New employees (current and future employer costs), new infrastructure, maintenance/sinking fund for replacement… enforcement? $’s just don’t work… but it doesn’t for sugary drinks, either…
Really?
Uhm – yeah. That is “problematic”. (Really, even this hasn’t been addressed, yet?)
Same with outright purchases. Didn’t the university recently submit an unsuccessful (approximately $60-$70 million?) bid for Interland?
Where have you been, Ron… I’ve ‘addressed’ UC ownership and leases many times… over years… but I guess you don’t understand ‘troll’… if you mean nothing has been done, I agree – big time… it is only part of the answer (but an important part)… yet it is not within my ken nor power to change that. If you can change it, please go for it, with my full blessings and support…
The Russel Field open space is a “city” amenity that the NIMBY and NOE people don’t deserve to have any say in preserving because they have made their bed opposing and rejecting all other significant housing development.
They just need to be silenced and trumped by the university.
Build out Russel Fields.
They will be a beautiful wall of buildings.
Why is it such a major item as the City’s response to the LRDP comes up with the staff report and recommendations released with few days to dig in and analyze and discuss.
If the Mayor and the other City Council member of the subcommittee, Rochelle Swanson, who has been out of town for many weeks, have been meeting for many months with UCD officials, why have there not been interim reports to the City Council and to the public with prior public comment and discussion…why wait until this Dec. 6th meeting on Tuesday?
I have in mind a number of times when major issues with pressing discussion and needed votes have come before the Council around the holidays when people are focused on other matters.
While UCD has stated that they want to finalize the LRDP process and get to the EIR stage by mid-December, I urge not just the sub-committee members, but the other members of the City Council to step up to say that this is too important a matter to rush, that the process has not been transparent (there have been no public reports of the meetings that I know of to the other City Council members) to the entire City Council or to the public.
Nancy:
Very-well stated.
hpierce
Thank you for clarifying what would and would not be legal in terms of public / private partnership. Obviously I would not be advocating for a corrupt process but would be in favor of collaboration as early in any process as is possible.
As for your request that I “engage m y synapses”…..no hostility there right ? Has it occurred to you that our differing life experiences have led us to different views of what might or might not be reasonable. If you believe that I have made a totally unreasonable suggestion, then why not educate me rather than attack my thought processes ? I doubt that I would be anything like as effective as a teacher of patients, students, residents and younger doctors if I started to correct their errors in thinking by advising them to “engage their synapses”.
Was looking for a technical term for “think”… a sign most IBM folk were given, and kept on their desks… pretty innocuous concept… guess I could say “cogitate”… I know you are very intelligent… but sometimes you post without thinking things through… I can recognize this, because I often do the same… “partnering” by the City, often could (and occaisonally has) lead to the “art of the deal”, where the city could be tempted to focus more on ‘making the deal’ than doing what is legal or ‘right’…
There are many “partnering” opportunities that are actually “a gift of public funds”… which is illegal… often affordable housing projects have asked for waivers of water/sewer connection fees otherwise called for by ordinance… legal counsel has always warned against this… fees have to be based on ‘demand’… you can’t raise the cost for some to give waivers for others… at least not if you get caught doing that…
hpierce
“Tia, look at your posts, and verify whether your font differences were intended… thx
Thank you for pointing this out. Shouting is never intended. Lack of sophistication and understanding how my posts will actually look is a weakness which I can try to address. However, given my relative ignorance of how to manipulate fonts on my computer, I do not guarantee improvement, let alone perfection
“Nobody knows if you’re lying”
https://cloud.lovindublin.com/images/uploads/2015/06/_blogWide/24no.gif?mtime=20150610160621
“I’m also starting to question whether it’s worth it (to me), to continue commenting…”
Sure you are.
Biddlin, it is interesting to come back to the Vanguard 24 hours after one’s last post . . . especially when that post no longer exists.
Ron is an interesting bird. He apparently has complained to Don about being “outed” in a manner that is/was not trustworthy, and Don has responded to the complaint by deleting my post that purportedly “outed” Ron. It is interesting to speculate on what exactly was “outed.” Was it Ron’s first name? Was it Ron’s last name? Was it the fact that I identified Ron as a “real person”? Was it some other confidential piece of information about Ron?
Given the fact that Ron outs himself every single time he posts a comment, his complaint is laughable . . . even more laughable given the fact that his self-outing has historically gone to double-down and triple-down levels over the last 12 months, first in his original back and forth conversations with Frankly about how/why he has unfettered concerns about sprawl and endless growth in Davis, in California and in the World, and later when he waited for me outside the 2100 5th Street building after a City-conducted Sterling Apartments public meeting, introduced himself, and asked me a litany of questions, all of which I answered.
Now, when his accusation that Robb Davis has “inherent conflict of interest” is being questioned . . . and even more importantly the intent behind his willful assassination of Robb’s character, he is trying to tell the Vanguard universe that his name isn’t Ron, and is asserting that he isn’t a real person. Regardless of whether Ron is real or fantasy, the definition of a conflict of interest isn’t. It is “a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.” The definition of inherent isn’t fantasy either, specifically it means “vested in (someone) as a right or privilege.”
The fact that there is no personal benefit that Robb Davis can derive from either his official capacity for the City or his official capacity for the University doesn’t seem to matter to Ron. That is simply an inconvenient truth. Ron asserts that the reality of Robb’s position “would have a high potential of creating an audit finding, depending upon the scope/purpose of the audit.” He doesn’t provide any description or parameters of the scope/purpose of such an audit. It is all fantasy for Ron.
In simple terms, there isn’t any scope/purpose of an audit of the student counseling work Robb does for the University that either directly or indirectly is affected by official or unofficial actions of the Davis City Council. Further there isn’t any scope/purpose of an audit of the official or unofficial actions of the Davis City Council that is either directly or indirectly affected by the counseling that Robb provides to UC Davis students.
Ron has willfully and publicly defamed Robb Davis’ character. Since that wilful, public, and repeated defamation is in writing, it falls under the definition of libel. If Ron has repeated the same accusations verbally, then that would add slander to the libel. All in all December 4, 2016 has been a red letter day for Ron. He has achieved a whole new level for himself.
Ron, Eileen Samitz works at UCD. Are you saying that she should butt out too? Just so you are consistent……
Ryan, in fairness to Eileen, she is retired from UCD, and she had no official position with the City since her tenure on the HESC ended.