In July, 2003, the Davis City Council considered the University's Long Range Development Plan EIR, especially the West Village portion. In response to the proposed design of West Village, the Council unanimously voted to request that the University make two specific changes to the plan. First, the Council asked the University to meet its growth needs by housing students on the Central Campus area to the maximum extent possible. Second, the Council asked the University to adopt a north-south footprint, as close to Highway 113 as possible. If elected, what would you do, if anything, to attempt to persuade the University to alter their West Village project to minimize the impact on the City and residents? What would you do to ensure that those impacts are mitigated? And, under what conditions, would you support annexation of West Village?
For the good of the overall Davis community, the City and the University must maintain a cooperative government-to-government relationship. Strictly speaking, though, the City and the University are separate government entities, and neither can impose requirements on the other. So the relationship gets complicated.
The Long Range Development Plan was a legitimate part of the University’s planning functions within its own jurisdiction. In turn, the City of Davis acted appropriately on behalf of its citizens in making substantive suggestions to revise that plan. Ultimately, the decision to proceed with the West Village project rests with the University, and the University has chosen to proceed with its design. Further, the associated environmental document for the project has withstood several legal challenges, and decisions by the courts must be respected.
Both the City and the University understand that the effects of campus growth are going to be felt within the City. Whatever level of growth the city may find desirable, the University must ensure it has housing to accommodate its faculty, staff, and students. This “town-gown” issue is felt by college and university cities all over the state: who should pay for off-campus costs, including those associated with expansion, such as infrastructure and public services in neighboring jurisdictions? A pending State Supreme Court case – City of Marina v. the Board of Trustees of the California State University – may eventually provide a ruling on at least part of this issue – i.e., whether a university can provide funds to a local agency to mitigate the effects of expansion and other “externalities.” (The West Village neighborhood group and the City of Davis have both filed “friend of the court” briefs in this case, so the Davis community has many reasons to watch for this ruling.)
It is my understanding that the University intends to pay for needed mitigation of the effects of the West Village project within the City, but it has concerns regarding the implications of the pending Marina case. To ensure that the effects of campus growth and development are mitigated, we need to have trust and cooperation among people in leadership roles at both the City and the University. I have served in several professional and community capacities that would foster such a relationship, including serving on the Board of Directors of the Cal Aggie Alumni Association, and as a Superior Court appointed mediator. As a member of the Davis City Council, I would strive to negotiate a fair agreement between our two governments to ensure the University contributes its fair share for the necessary infrastructure and services to meet the needs of these new residents. I also believe that we should not focus only on mitigating the impacts of the development, but continue looking at ways to improve the project for the overall benefit of the community. For instance, perhaps the University might include an indoor recreation facility, or a media center, that could be available to the community as a whole. The University has a very real incentive to ensure that Davis remains a functional and desirable city—otherwise students, faculty, and staff will not want to come to UCD. In other words, while we may often have different approaches and perspectives, maintaining a cooperative relationship will enable us to collaborate to address each others’ interests.
Finally, with regard to annexation, I believe that we need to consider a number of factors. The primary reasons that the City might annex this area or any potential area would be to have more say over its development, to ensure land use compatibility, and to obtain the property tax revenues necessary to fund City services. The University, however, is not likely to waive its right control these matters with respect to West Village, and annexation cannot happen without the University’s consent. If the option becomes available, I believe the City Council should consider annexation only if it would be economically beneficial to the City. In any case, we should be preparing to accept these new faculty members, employees, and students as welcome members of our Davis community.
|