In terms of where Davis will grow, the 15 person panel split 9-6 along the Council Majority-Progressive lines is not all that far apart. It seems unlikely that any of the contentious peripheral properties will make the final cut. The debate will be over which of the infill projects make the most sense.
Moreover, the real debate that will be carried out not by this body, but by the city council, will be over how fast we ought to grow.
As one of the Steering Committee Members, Eileen Samitz wrote last week in a guest-spot on the Vanguard:
“The SACOG number currently assigned to Davis between 2006 and 2013 is only 498 units. However, the Council majority of Asmundson, Souza and Saylor want Davis to grow by at least 2,300 units, which is almost five times faster than what is being asked of us. The language of Measure L is included in our General Plan to grow as slow as legally possible. Yet this new Council majority growth policy is clearly in the best interest of the developers, not Davis citizens.”
This revised SACOG number combined with a severe collapse of the housing market on a regional basis, has forced this council majority to attempt to re-package their argument. Back in the Covell Village days, they argued that the 1% growth guideline was the minimum required by law. Law meaning SACOG and RHNA guidelines–even though being out of compliance with such laws would be tantamount to a slap with a wet noodle.
However, now that RHNA has significantly lowered its targeted growth, the council majority is attempting to redefine what the 1% growth guideline means. Most recently, Councilmember Stephen Souza argued that it was merely a parameter or a target–a ceiling rather than a floor. This shift conveniently comes at a time when Mr. Souza and his colleague Don Saylor are running for reelection. It also demonstrates the changing environment for growth.
Nevertheless it seems likely that the progressives on council, Mayor Sue Greenwald and Councilmember Lamar Heystek will fight to reduce that 1% number further.
A one-percent growth rate sounds small, but it is really an equivalent of 300 units a year or a development the size of Wildhorse every three years. Think about that. Now think about the limited infrastructure, water, and services that the city has at present.
The battle lines have been drawn over the 1% growth guideline and what it means for Davis.
From the start, I was opposed to the idea of a steering committee. There was a very basic reason that is going to eventually play out. While the committee has proven to be a bit more than the rubber-stamp group some feared, it has also dragged out the process substantially. As several members have suggested to me, this process of ranking sites could have been performed by a few people in four hours. The council majority wanted political cover on this issue, but the real issue is not the where but the how much.
One good thing did come out of last week–a political miscalculation by the Covell Partners. The email from the Project Coordinator for North Davis Land Company, Lydia Delis-Schlosser was a huge political mistake on a number of levels. A number of members of the steering committee–on both sides–were not happy that the email was sent out and felt it inappropriate for it to contain instructions on how to fill out a form.
Let me be clear again because these things seem to get lost in debate, I have no problem with anyone emailing a group of likely supporters to come to housing element meeting. I also have no problem with anyone advocating support or opposition for a specific project. If Ms. Delis-Schlosser had sent out an email urging her people to support Covell Village, Part Deux, we would not be having this conversation. She claims this was sent to a small amount of people–that appears likely to be an accurate statement, but no one had anyway of knowing that at the time. Given past events, few probably would have taken their word for it.
But that’s neither her nor there. The bottom line is that this was a monumental blunder on a number of different levels. It angered some of the steering committee who felt it undermined the process. It angered those who had opposed Covell Village and felt this was an end-run.
But most of all it actually made Covell Village Part Deux, DOA. In the ensuing days, I have spoken to a large number of people who read the article in the blog and for them this was the first they even knew that Covell Village was coming back for reconsideration in a new and better packaged form. And they were outraged about this.
The confluence of Valley Oak and Housing last week instead of dividing people’s attention, focused people’s attention. So people at the Valley Oak meeting were asking about housing and people at the housing meeting were asking about Valley Oak. The result was a huge amount of attention on the blog in general and people in large numbers found out about the new Covell plan.
Furthermore any community interest in Covell Village would be viewed with suspicion. It would seem artificially rather than legitimately generated.
Finally, the denials by Ms. Lydia Delis-Schlosser simply did not ring true.
She wrote:
“I must emphasize that I sent this email only to people who have come to our conference room and spent hours talking to us and sharing their thoughts and concerns regarding senior housing and the lack of choices in our town. Neither we nor they have any intention to manipulate the public process. We ARE, however, interested in stimulating discussion among people who have been dissatisfied with the present inadequacy in senior-oriented housing in Davis, and in involving them as advisers to help us in conceiving a solution. This email went to those who expressed interest and want to support a new type of senior housing opportunity for Davis.”
The problem with this view is the how-to sheet. It was not set up to place senior housing as a high priority, it was set up to place Covell Village as a high priority.
We can see that in the instructions. First, she requested that they selected the “expand city boundaries option.” This obviously goes beyond simply senior housing. Second, she request that they select the do not approve infill projects that have a greater density than their surrounding neighborhoods. At first glance that seems innocuous until you realize that pretty much precludes creating a senior housing facility on infill development. Unless this were aimed at advocacy for a very specific project, these choices would not aim a more generalized concern of senior housing.
The bottom line here is that this email has effectively helped to kill any realistic prospect for a re-visitation of Covell Village in probably the next two general plan cycles.
Tough fights still remain particularly with regards to the 1% growth guideline and also eventually a re-examination of Measure J. But for the moment some of the worst alternative appear to be fairly low on the priority scale. However, there remains many tough fights this year. The next meeting of the Housing Element in a week and a half should be very instructive in deciding the next steps that will be taken.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
dougpauldavis said …
The bottom line here is that this email has effectively helped to kill any realistic prospect for a re-visitation of Covell Village in probably the next two general plan cycles.
dpd, I think you are expressing unrealistic optimism in the above statement. The amount of financial profit that a completed development generates for the developer is a powerful incentive to keep trying. Your statement will only come true if the community practices just as much vigilance as the CV developer practices.
In the words of Dan Ramos, “The land entitlement process is a marathon, not a sprint.”
dougpauldavis said …
The bottom line here is that this email has effectively helped to kill any realistic prospect for a re-visitation of Covell Village in probably the next two general plan cycles.
dpd, I think you are expressing unrealistic optimism in the above statement. The amount of financial profit that a completed development generates for the developer is a powerful incentive to keep trying. Your statement will only come true if the community practices just as much vigilance as the CV developer practices.
In the words of Dan Ramos, “The land entitlement process is a marathon, not a sprint.”
dougpauldavis said …
The bottom line here is that this email has effectively helped to kill any realistic prospect for a re-visitation of Covell Village in probably the next two general plan cycles.
dpd, I think you are expressing unrealistic optimism in the above statement. The amount of financial profit that a completed development generates for the developer is a powerful incentive to keep trying. Your statement will only come true if the community practices just as much vigilance as the CV developer practices.
In the words of Dan Ramos, “The land entitlement process is a marathon, not a sprint.”
dougpauldavis said …
The bottom line here is that this email has effectively helped to kill any realistic prospect for a re-visitation of Covell Village in probably the next two general plan cycles.
dpd, I think you are expressing unrealistic optimism in the above statement. The amount of financial profit that a completed development generates for the developer is a powerful incentive to keep trying. Your statement will only come true if the community practices just as much vigilance as the CV developer practices.
In the words of Dan Ramos, “The land entitlement process is a marathon, not a sprint.”
I understand what you are saying, but it’s not going to be in the top projects in this general plan–right? So that will automatically push it off the screen for at least five or six years.
I understand what you are saying, but it’s not going to be in the top projects in this general plan–right? So that will automatically push it off the screen for at least five or six years.
I understand what you are saying, but it’s not going to be in the top projects in this general plan–right? So that will automatically push it off the screen for at least five or six years.
I understand what you are saying, but it’s not going to be in the top projects in this general plan–right? So that will automatically push it off the screen for at least five or six years.
One would hope so, but I reserve some caution. The reason is that both Simmons and Cannery are currently going through SACOG-funded “visioning” processes that are seperate from (parallel to) the HESC process. It isn’t clear to me how those two situations are going to play out. Neither Simmons nor Cannery are needed to meet the RHNA Allocation for the current period, but nonetheless they are going through active processes. If another SACOG grant can be conveniently identified, I don’t rule out the possibility of an active study of any parcel in the Davis Planning Area.
Just color me “cautious.”
One would hope so, but I reserve some caution. The reason is that both Simmons and Cannery are currently going through SACOG-funded “visioning” processes that are seperate from (parallel to) the HESC process. It isn’t clear to me how those two situations are going to play out. Neither Simmons nor Cannery are needed to meet the RHNA Allocation for the current period, but nonetheless they are going through active processes. If another SACOG grant can be conveniently identified, I don’t rule out the possibility of an active study of any parcel in the Davis Planning Area.
Just color me “cautious.”
One would hope so, but I reserve some caution. The reason is that both Simmons and Cannery are currently going through SACOG-funded “visioning” processes that are seperate from (parallel to) the HESC process. It isn’t clear to me how those two situations are going to play out. Neither Simmons nor Cannery are needed to meet the RHNA Allocation for the current period, but nonetheless they are going through active processes. If another SACOG grant can be conveniently identified, I don’t rule out the possibility of an active study of any parcel in the Davis Planning Area.
Just color me “cautious.”
One would hope so, but I reserve some caution. The reason is that both Simmons and Cannery are currently going through SACOG-funded “visioning” processes that are seperate from (parallel to) the HESC process. It isn’t clear to me how those two situations are going to play out. Neither Simmons nor Cannery are needed to meet the RHNA Allocation for the current period, but nonetheless they are going through active processes. If another SACOG grant can be conveniently identified, I don’t rule out the possibility of an active study of any parcel in the Davis Planning Area.
Just color me “cautious.”
Not only the 1% growth rate is being “repackaged”. Steve Souza and Don Saylor have also “repackaged” themselves in preparation for their reelection campaigns. Measure J WILL be neutered in the next Council cycle if the Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza is left to stand.
Matt could not be more right on.. This battle will never end and Davis has survived as it is only because of CONSTANT,COMMITED VIGILANCE.
Not only the 1% growth rate is being “repackaged”. Steve Souza and Don Saylor have also “repackaged” themselves in preparation for their reelection campaigns. Measure J WILL be neutered in the next Council cycle if the Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza is left to stand.
Matt could not be more right on.. This battle will never end and Davis has survived as it is only because of CONSTANT,COMMITED VIGILANCE.
Not only the 1% growth rate is being “repackaged”. Steve Souza and Don Saylor have also “repackaged” themselves in preparation for their reelection campaigns. Measure J WILL be neutered in the next Council cycle if the Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza is left to stand.
Matt could not be more right on.. This battle will never end and Davis has survived as it is only because of CONSTANT,COMMITED VIGILANCE.
Not only the 1% growth rate is being “repackaged”. Steve Souza and Don Saylor have also “repackaged” themselves in preparation for their reelection campaigns. Measure J WILL be neutered in the next Council cycle if the Council majority of Asmundson, Saylor and Souza is left to stand.
Matt could not be more right on.. This battle will never end and Davis has survived as it is only because of CONSTANT,COMMITED VIGILANCE.
SAMITZ: “The language of Measure L is included in our General Plan to grow as slow as legally possible. Yet this new Council majority growth policy is clearly in the best interest of the developers, not Davis citizens.”
David,
I have a minor suggestion. Whenever the “slow growth Measure L” is referenced in your blog — as Eileen did above — identify it as “1986 Measure L.” We’ve had a number of different Measure L’s since that 1986 measure, including “Choice Voting Measure L” in 2006.
SAMITZ: “The language of Measure L is included in our General Plan to grow as slow as legally possible. Yet this new Council majority growth policy is clearly in the best interest of the developers, not Davis citizens.”
David,
I have a minor suggestion. Whenever the “slow growth Measure L” is referenced in your blog — as Eileen did above — identify it as “1986 Measure L.” We’ve had a number of different Measure L’s since that 1986 measure, including “Choice Voting Measure L” in 2006.
SAMITZ: “The language of Measure L is included in our General Plan to grow as slow as legally possible. Yet this new Council majority growth policy is clearly in the best interest of the developers, not Davis citizens.”
David,
I have a minor suggestion. Whenever the “slow growth Measure L” is referenced in your blog — as Eileen did above — identify it as “1986 Measure L.” We’ve had a number of different Measure L’s since that 1986 measure, including “Choice Voting Measure L” in 2006.
SAMITZ: “The language of Measure L is included in our General Plan to grow as slow as legally possible. Yet this new Council majority growth policy is clearly in the best interest of the developers, not Davis citizens.”
David,
I have a minor suggestion. Whenever the “slow growth Measure L” is referenced in your blog — as Eileen did above — identify it as “1986 Measure L.” We’ve had a number of different Measure L’s since that 1986 measure, including “Choice Voting Measure L” in 2006.
That’s a good point, I’ll do that.
That’s a good point, I’ll do that.
That’s a good point, I’ll do that.
That’s a good point, I’ll do that.
The Hunt-Wesson (now Cannery) 100-acre site is proceeding without any justifiable need. The 1% target of the CC majority is completely baseless. I was on the CC subcommittee that studied the local housing need, and what we found was there might be a need for about a 1/2% per year (using 2002 housing counts), but the CC majority, over my and Sue’s objections, arbitrarily doubled the “need” to 1%, It fit very nicely with “justifying” the need for Covell Village’s 1800 units, which was on their “must develop” list of projects they directed staff to work on.
However, as DPD says, it is a whole new world out there in real estate land, folks.
There are tons and tons of houses listed for sale in Davis, and the market will almost certainly continue to fall for at least two years.
There is need for job-creation in this town, to complement and supplement what UCD does for us, but there is absolutely NO need for lots of houses, especially north of Covell, unless the public mitigation benefit is so great (2/1 or higher, outboard, on-site, in fee simple to the city or nonprofit, thus sealing the “northern frontier” off), that we cannot say no.
(I would add that any exterior site in my view would have to have mostly affordale housing, ie, no more “McMansions”, comply with the most stringent new standards to combat global warming, and would have to have a “fast, frequent, and free” electric shuttle for direct service directly to downtown and UCD Memorial Union bus stop.
Also, the nationwide developer that is pushing the Hunt Wesson project is pushing it without any public benefit mitigation like similar border parcels. Yes, the Hunt Wesson site is within the city’s borders, but environmentally it is a large (100 acre) exterior parcel north of Covell. They don’t have a “diety-given” right to upzone to the desireable residential zoning (which produces a huge windfall to the owners), yet they appear to be given a “pass” by handful of local progressives as to ANY of the public and environmental benefits that I list above. Don’t give these land speculators a pass!!
We should not use the 1% growth target to justify this or any other bad project.
The City Council should vote immediately to shut down the processing and direct staff to make a serious, sustained, and publically accountable marketing effort with the owners to develop the site for what it is: R & D, light industrial, some commercial. Generate some high-paying jobs for local folks! We need them.
Again, I support Sue Greenwald’s firm stand on keeping the zoning as-is.
Mike Harrington
Member, CC 2000-04
Member, Housing Committee, 2007-08
The Hunt-Wesson (now Cannery) 100-acre site is proceeding without any justifiable need. The 1% target of the CC majority is completely baseless. I was on the CC subcommittee that studied the local housing need, and what we found was there might be a need for about a 1/2% per year (using 2002 housing counts), but the CC majority, over my and Sue’s objections, arbitrarily doubled the “need” to 1%, It fit very nicely with “justifying” the need for Covell Village’s 1800 units, which was on their “must develop” list of projects they directed staff to work on.
However, as DPD says, it is a whole new world out there in real estate land, folks.
There are tons and tons of houses listed for sale in Davis, and the market will almost certainly continue to fall for at least two years.
There is need for job-creation in this town, to complement and supplement what UCD does for us, but there is absolutely NO need for lots of houses, especially north of Covell, unless the public mitigation benefit is so great (2/1 or higher, outboard, on-site, in fee simple to the city or nonprofit, thus sealing the “northern frontier” off), that we cannot say no.
(I would add that any exterior site in my view would have to have mostly affordale housing, ie, no more “McMansions”, comply with the most stringent new standards to combat global warming, and would have to have a “fast, frequent, and free” electric shuttle for direct service directly to downtown and UCD Memorial Union bus stop.
Also, the nationwide developer that is pushing the Hunt Wesson project is pushing it without any public benefit mitigation like similar border parcels. Yes, the Hunt Wesson site is within the city’s borders, but environmentally it is a large (100 acre) exterior parcel north of Covell. They don’t have a “diety-given” right to upzone to the desireable residential zoning (which produces a huge windfall to the owners), yet they appear to be given a “pass” by handful of local progressives as to ANY of the public and environmental benefits that I list above. Don’t give these land speculators a pass!!
We should not use the 1% growth target to justify this or any other bad project.
The City Council should vote immediately to shut down the processing and direct staff to make a serious, sustained, and publically accountable marketing effort with the owners to develop the site for what it is: R & D, light industrial, some commercial. Generate some high-paying jobs for local folks! We need them.
Again, I support Sue Greenwald’s firm stand on keeping the zoning as-is.
Mike Harrington
Member, CC 2000-04
Member, Housing Committee, 2007-08
The Hunt-Wesson (now Cannery) 100-acre site is proceeding without any justifiable need. The 1% target of the CC majority is completely baseless. I was on the CC subcommittee that studied the local housing need, and what we found was there might be a need for about a 1/2% per year (using 2002 housing counts), but the CC majority, over my and Sue’s objections, arbitrarily doubled the “need” to 1%, It fit very nicely with “justifying” the need for Covell Village’s 1800 units, which was on their “must develop” list of projects they directed staff to work on.
However, as DPD says, it is a whole new world out there in real estate land, folks.
There are tons and tons of houses listed for sale in Davis, and the market will almost certainly continue to fall for at least two years.
There is need for job-creation in this town, to complement and supplement what UCD does for us, but there is absolutely NO need for lots of houses, especially north of Covell, unless the public mitigation benefit is so great (2/1 or higher, outboard, on-site, in fee simple to the city or nonprofit, thus sealing the “northern frontier” off), that we cannot say no.
(I would add that any exterior site in my view would have to have mostly affordale housing, ie, no more “McMansions”, comply with the most stringent new standards to combat global warming, and would have to have a “fast, frequent, and free” electric shuttle for direct service directly to downtown and UCD Memorial Union bus stop.
Also, the nationwide developer that is pushing the Hunt Wesson project is pushing it without any public benefit mitigation like similar border parcels. Yes, the Hunt Wesson site is within the city’s borders, but environmentally it is a large (100 acre) exterior parcel north of Covell. They don’t have a “diety-given” right to upzone to the desireable residential zoning (which produces a huge windfall to the owners), yet they appear to be given a “pass” by handful of local progressives as to ANY of the public and environmental benefits that I list above. Don’t give these land speculators a pass!!
We should not use the 1% growth target to justify this or any other bad project.
The City Council should vote immediately to shut down the processing and direct staff to make a serious, sustained, and publically accountable marketing effort with the owners to develop the site for what it is: R & D, light industrial, some commercial. Generate some high-paying jobs for local folks! We need them.
Again, I support Sue Greenwald’s firm stand on keeping the zoning as-is.
Mike Harrington
Member, CC 2000-04
Member, Housing Committee, 2007-08
The Hunt-Wesson (now Cannery) 100-acre site is proceeding without any justifiable need. The 1% target of the CC majority is completely baseless. I was on the CC subcommittee that studied the local housing need, and what we found was there might be a need for about a 1/2% per year (using 2002 housing counts), but the CC majority, over my and Sue’s objections, arbitrarily doubled the “need” to 1%, It fit very nicely with “justifying” the need for Covell Village’s 1800 units, which was on their “must develop” list of projects they directed staff to work on.
However, as DPD says, it is a whole new world out there in real estate land, folks.
There are tons and tons of houses listed for sale in Davis, and the market will almost certainly continue to fall for at least two years.
There is need for job-creation in this town, to complement and supplement what UCD does for us, but there is absolutely NO need for lots of houses, especially north of Covell, unless the public mitigation benefit is so great (2/1 or higher, outboard, on-site, in fee simple to the city or nonprofit, thus sealing the “northern frontier” off), that we cannot say no.
(I would add that any exterior site in my view would have to have mostly affordale housing, ie, no more “McMansions”, comply with the most stringent new standards to combat global warming, and would have to have a “fast, frequent, and free” electric shuttle for direct service directly to downtown and UCD Memorial Union bus stop.
Also, the nationwide developer that is pushing the Hunt Wesson project is pushing it without any public benefit mitigation like similar border parcels. Yes, the Hunt Wesson site is within the city’s borders, but environmentally it is a large (100 acre) exterior parcel north of Covell. They don’t have a “diety-given” right to upzone to the desireable residential zoning (which produces a huge windfall to the owners), yet they appear to be given a “pass” by handful of local progressives as to ANY of the public and environmental benefits that I list above. Don’t give these land speculators a pass!!
We should not use the 1% growth target to justify this or any other bad project.
The City Council should vote immediately to shut down the processing and direct staff to make a serious, sustained, and publically accountable marketing effort with the owners to develop the site for what it is: R & D, light industrial, some commercial. Generate some high-paying jobs for local folks! We need them.
Again, I support Sue Greenwald’s firm stand on keeping the zoning as-is.
Mike Harrington
Member, CC 2000-04
Member, Housing Committee, 2007-08
One last thing: everyone needs to know that Hunt Wesson is quietly working with staff and Covell Village for a joint project stretching north of Covell as far as the eye can see, and across from F St east to Poleline. What a slap in the face to the 60% No on X vote against Covell only 2 1/2 years ago!
As you might not know, Covell’s “mitigation” is what some of us on the Housing Committee call the “Rooster Tail Fantasy Dream to Woodland.” CV offers NO onsite mitigation; it’s all well north of the city, mostly on land that is completely non-appropriate for development in my lifetime. In other words, more “junk land” in the County for “mitigation” when the mitigation land means NOTHING in terms of environmental benefits or stopping urban sprawl.
In today’s economic climant, and in light of the urgency of fighting global warming, I think any large exterior parcels that lack meaningful mitigation, affordable housing, and significantly favorable environmental designs will go down HARD at the ballot box. This includes the current sprawl proposal of Hunt Wesson. (If the CC approves that project, it should sent it to the voters for a Measure J vote.)
One last thing: everyone needs to know that Hunt Wesson is quietly working with staff and Covell Village for a joint project stretching north of Covell as far as the eye can see, and across from F St east to Poleline. What a slap in the face to the 60% No on X vote against Covell only 2 1/2 years ago!
As you might not know, Covell’s “mitigation” is what some of us on the Housing Committee call the “Rooster Tail Fantasy Dream to Woodland.” CV offers NO onsite mitigation; it’s all well north of the city, mostly on land that is completely non-appropriate for development in my lifetime. In other words, more “junk land” in the County for “mitigation” when the mitigation land means NOTHING in terms of environmental benefits or stopping urban sprawl.
In today’s economic climant, and in light of the urgency of fighting global warming, I think any large exterior parcels that lack meaningful mitigation, affordable housing, and significantly favorable environmental designs will go down HARD at the ballot box. This includes the current sprawl proposal of Hunt Wesson. (If the CC approves that project, it should sent it to the voters for a Measure J vote.)
One last thing: everyone needs to know that Hunt Wesson is quietly working with staff and Covell Village for a joint project stretching north of Covell as far as the eye can see, and across from F St east to Poleline. What a slap in the face to the 60% No on X vote against Covell only 2 1/2 years ago!
As you might not know, Covell’s “mitigation” is what some of us on the Housing Committee call the “Rooster Tail Fantasy Dream to Woodland.” CV offers NO onsite mitigation; it’s all well north of the city, mostly on land that is completely non-appropriate for development in my lifetime. In other words, more “junk land” in the County for “mitigation” when the mitigation land means NOTHING in terms of environmental benefits or stopping urban sprawl.
In today’s economic climant, and in light of the urgency of fighting global warming, I think any large exterior parcels that lack meaningful mitigation, affordable housing, and significantly favorable environmental designs will go down HARD at the ballot box. This includes the current sprawl proposal of Hunt Wesson. (If the CC approves that project, it should sent it to the voters for a Measure J vote.)
One last thing: everyone needs to know that Hunt Wesson is quietly working with staff and Covell Village for a joint project stretching north of Covell as far as the eye can see, and across from F St east to Poleline. What a slap in the face to the 60% No on X vote against Covell only 2 1/2 years ago!
As you might not know, Covell’s “mitigation” is what some of us on the Housing Committee call the “Rooster Tail Fantasy Dream to Woodland.” CV offers NO onsite mitigation; it’s all well north of the city, mostly on land that is completely non-appropriate for development in my lifetime. In other words, more “junk land” in the County for “mitigation” when the mitigation land means NOTHING in terms of environmental benefits or stopping urban sprawl.
In today’s economic climant, and in light of the urgency of fighting global warming, I think any large exterior parcels that lack meaningful mitigation, affordable housing, and significantly favorable environmental designs will go down HARD at the ballot box. This includes the current sprawl proposal of Hunt Wesson. (If the CC approves that project, it should sent it to the voters for a Measure J vote.)
“Sacrificing” the Hunt-Wessen site to residential development appears for some to be grounded in a personal emotional commitment to stop the development of the CV property at all costs. This is unfortunate as it potentially erodes the solidarity of those who wish to resist developer-driven sprawl and dilutes the well-reasoned arguments for opposing the development of the CV property in its own right irrespective of the future of the Cannery Park proposal.
“Sacrificing” the Hunt-Wessen site to residential development appears for some to be grounded in a personal emotional commitment to stop the development of the CV property at all costs. This is unfortunate as it potentially erodes the solidarity of those who wish to resist developer-driven sprawl and dilutes the well-reasoned arguments for opposing the development of the CV property in its own right irrespective of the future of the Cannery Park proposal.
“Sacrificing” the Hunt-Wessen site to residential development appears for some to be grounded in a personal emotional commitment to stop the development of the CV property at all costs. This is unfortunate as it potentially erodes the solidarity of those who wish to resist developer-driven sprawl and dilutes the well-reasoned arguments for opposing the development of the CV property in its own right irrespective of the future of the Cannery Park proposal.
“Sacrificing” the Hunt-Wessen site to residential development appears for some to be grounded in a personal emotional commitment to stop the development of the CV property at all costs. This is unfortunate as it potentially erodes the solidarity of those who wish to resist developer-driven sprawl and dilutes the well-reasoned arguments for opposing the development of the CV property in its own right irrespective of the future of the Cannery Park proposal.
“in light of the urgency of fighting global warming, I think any large exterior parcels that lack meaningful mitigation, affordable housing”
Mike,
I don’t get the connection: how would building so-called affordable housing fight global warming?
“in light of the urgency of fighting global warming, I think any large exterior parcels that lack meaningful mitigation, affordable housing”
Mike,
I don’t get the connection: how would building so-called affordable housing fight global warming?
“in light of the urgency of fighting global warming, I think any large exterior parcels that lack meaningful mitigation, affordable housing”
Mike,
I don’t get the connection: how would building so-called affordable housing fight global warming?
“in light of the urgency of fighting global warming, I think any large exterior parcels that lack meaningful mitigation, affordable housing”
Mike,
I don’t get the connection: how would building so-called affordable housing fight global warming?
The city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.
The city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.
The city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.
The city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.
Housing Element
City of Davis General PlanCommunity Workshop #2 Guide
Ranking of Housing Sites (Station #4)
10 – Simmons, E. Eighth Street
21 – Lewis Cannery
27 – Wildhorse Horse Ranch Mix of Housing Types
Earlier in this thread I noted that Simmons and Cannery are going through processes that are parallel with the HESC process. As if that wasn’t enough, tonight’s Enterprise informs us that tomorrow night Wildhorse Ranch “will seek guidance from the City Council on how best to build 237 housing units there.”
I can’t help but wonder why Council is creating this confusion?
Housing Element
City of Davis General PlanCommunity Workshop #2 Guide
Ranking of Housing Sites (Station #4)
10 – Simmons, E. Eighth Street
21 – Lewis Cannery
27 – Wildhorse Horse Ranch Mix of Housing Types
Earlier in this thread I noted that Simmons and Cannery are going through processes that are parallel with the HESC process. As if that wasn’t enough, tonight’s Enterprise informs us that tomorrow night Wildhorse Ranch “will seek guidance from the City Council on how best to build 237 housing units there.”
I can’t help but wonder why Council is creating this confusion?
Housing Element
City of Davis General PlanCommunity Workshop #2 Guide
Ranking of Housing Sites (Station #4)
10 – Simmons, E. Eighth Street
21 – Lewis Cannery
27 – Wildhorse Horse Ranch Mix of Housing Types
Earlier in this thread I noted that Simmons and Cannery are going through processes that are parallel with the HESC process. As if that wasn’t enough, tonight’s Enterprise informs us that tomorrow night Wildhorse Ranch “will seek guidance from the City Council on how best to build 237 housing units there.”
I can’t help but wonder why Council is creating this confusion?
Housing Element
City of Davis General PlanCommunity Workshop #2 Guide
Ranking of Housing Sites (Station #4)
10 – Simmons, E. Eighth Street
21 – Lewis Cannery
27 – Wildhorse Horse Ranch Mix of Housing Types
Earlier in this thread I noted that Simmons and Cannery are going through processes that are parallel with the HESC process. As if that wasn’t enough, tonight’s Enterprise informs us that tomorrow night Wildhorse Ranch “will seek guidance from the City Council on how best to build 237 housing units there.”
I can’t help but wonder why Council is creating this confusion?
Anonymous said…
T
he city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.
Anonymous, what facts do you have on which to base that opinion? Is there something in the Yolo County General Plan Update process that supports your assertion? Help us understand your logic.
Anonymous said…
T
he city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.
Anonymous, what facts do you have on which to base that opinion? Is there something in the Yolo County General Plan Update process that supports your assertion? Help us understand your logic.
Anonymous said…
T
he city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.
Anonymous, what facts do you have on which to base that opinion? Is there something in the Yolo County General Plan Update process that supports your assertion? Help us understand your logic.
Anonymous said…
T
he city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.
Anonymous, what facts do you have on which to base that opinion? Is there something in the Yolo County General Plan Update process that supports your assertion? Help us understand your logic.
anonymous 6:36 PM Davis is under no obligation to “hook-up” infrastructure water,power and sewer with a parcel that the County builds on our periphery. In addition to these massive County costs, they would lose our Pass-through money. The County would also be in danger of having to pay Davis for the impacts(traffic,additional police)that its development would have on Davis. Although not identical in the facts, a case was litigated in the Bay area not long ago and the community won the case against a County development(a casino, as I remember) right on its borders.
anonymous 6:36 PM Davis is under no obligation to “hook-up” infrastructure water,power and sewer with a parcel that the County builds on our periphery. In addition to these massive County costs, they would lose our Pass-through money. The County would also be in danger of having to pay Davis for the impacts(traffic,additional police)that its development would have on Davis. Although not identical in the facts, a case was litigated in the Bay area not long ago and the community won the case against a County development(a casino, as I remember) right on its borders.
anonymous 6:36 PM Davis is under no obligation to “hook-up” infrastructure water,power and sewer with a parcel that the County builds on our periphery. In addition to these massive County costs, they would lose our Pass-through money. The County would also be in danger of having to pay Davis for the impacts(traffic,additional police)that its development would have on Davis. Although not identical in the facts, a case was litigated in the Bay area not long ago and the community won the case against a County development(a casino, as I remember) right on its borders.
anonymous 6:36 PM Davis is under no obligation to “hook-up” infrastructure water,power and sewer with a parcel that the County builds on our periphery. In addition to these massive County costs, they would lose our Pass-through money. The County would also be in danger of having to pay Davis for the impacts(traffic,additional police)that its development would have on Davis. Although not identical in the facts, a case was litigated in the Bay area not long ago and the community won the case against a County development(a casino, as I remember) right on its borders.
Anonymous said…
“The city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.”
That was one of the many threats that have been tried by the developers and their political operatives (unfortunately including Helen Thomson and, more recently, Mariko Yamada).
1) “If Davis doesn’t meet its ‘fair share’ growth ‘requirements,’ growth will be forced on us”
This myth has been disproven through reporting here and elsewhere. Davis has and will meet the RHNA goals, which, by the way, are not requirements.
2) “If Davis doesn’t develop Covell Village, the evil Steve Gidaro will force development of a much worse subdivision on the land he owns NE of Davis.”
No. Those parcels have been completely removed from the sites currently under consideration, and Gidaro is certainly not going to get support from THIS Board of Supes.
3) above: “the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.”
We saw what happened when Thomson and Yamada tried to push the “special study areas” on us. It drew so much ire that Yamada’s political future is toast. Helen is done after this term, anyway. If the BOS had followed through with that, there would have been a recall election for Helen and Mariko.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing any of these 3 ploys again for a while.
The current campaign is a sudden outpouring of concern for “senior housing.” (What kind of city planning encourages age-restricted subdivisions?) Did Whitcomb, Yakzan, the Parlin guy or the late Al Smith give a rip about senior housing prior to 2005? Nope; it’s just the profit model du jour. I think they learn this stuff in their trade magazines or at conferences in Las Vegas and Florida, and there are always willing minions to implement them.
Anonymous said…
“The city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.”
That was one of the many threats that have been tried by the developers and their political operatives (unfortunately including Helen Thomson and, more recently, Mariko Yamada).
1) “If Davis doesn’t meet its ‘fair share’ growth ‘requirements,’ growth will be forced on us”
This myth has been disproven through reporting here and elsewhere. Davis has and will meet the RHNA goals, which, by the way, are not requirements.
2) “If Davis doesn’t develop Covell Village, the evil Steve Gidaro will force development of a much worse subdivision on the land he owns NE of Davis.”
No. Those parcels have been completely removed from the sites currently under consideration, and Gidaro is certainly not going to get support from THIS Board of Supes.
3) above: “the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.”
We saw what happened when Thomson and Yamada tried to push the “special study areas” on us. It drew so much ire that Yamada’s political future is toast. Helen is done after this term, anyway. If the BOS had followed through with that, there would have been a recall election for Helen and Mariko.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing any of these 3 ploys again for a while.
The current campaign is a sudden outpouring of concern for “senior housing.” (What kind of city planning encourages age-restricted subdivisions?) Did Whitcomb, Yakzan, the Parlin guy or the late Al Smith give a rip about senior housing prior to 2005? Nope; it’s just the profit model du jour. I think they learn this stuff in their trade magazines or at conferences in Las Vegas and Florida, and there are always willing minions to implement them.
Anonymous said…
“The city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.”
That was one of the many threats that have been tried by the developers and their political operatives (unfortunately including Helen Thomson and, more recently, Mariko Yamada).
1) “If Davis doesn’t meet its ‘fair share’ growth ‘requirements,’ growth will be forced on us”
This myth has been disproven through reporting here and elsewhere. Davis has and will meet the RHNA goals, which, by the way, are not requirements.
2) “If Davis doesn’t develop Covell Village, the evil Steve Gidaro will force development of a much worse subdivision on the land he owns NE of Davis.”
No. Those parcels have been completely removed from the sites currently under consideration, and Gidaro is certainly not going to get support from THIS Board of Supes.
3) above: “the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.”
We saw what happened when Thomson and Yamada tried to push the “special study areas” on us. It drew so much ire that Yamada’s political future is toast. Helen is done after this term, anyway. If the BOS had followed through with that, there would have been a recall election for Helen and Mariko.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing any of these 3 ploys again for a while.
The current campaign is a sudden outpouring of concern for “senior housing.” (What kind of city planning encourages age-restricted subdivisions?) Did Whitcomb, Yakzan, the Parlin guy or the late Al Smith give a rip about senior housing prior to 2005? Nope; it’s just the profit model du jour. I think they learn this stuff in their trade magazines or at conferences in Las Vegas and Florida, and there are always willing minions to implement them.
Anonymous said…
“The city plan is one part of what may or may not happen with peripheral development. If Davis falls on the very low side of growth, I think the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.”
That was one of the many threats that have been tried by the developers and their political operatives (unfortunately including Helen Thomson and, more recently, Mariko Yamada).
1) “If Davis doesn’t meet its ‘fair share’ growth ‘requirements,’ growth will be forced on us”
This myth has been disproven through reporting here and elsewhere. Davis has and will meet the RHNA goals, which, by the way, are not requirements.
2) “If Davis doesn’t develop Covell Village, the evil Steve Gidaro will force development of a much worse subdivision on the land he owns NE of Davis.”
No. Those parcels have been completely removed from the sites currently under consideration, and Gidaro is certainly not going to get support from THIS Board of Supes.
3) above: “the county will begin to develop some of these peripheral parcels, or demand that the good citizens of Davis pay up for their desire to grow at much less than their fair share.”
We saw what happened when Thomson and Yamada tried to push the “special study areas” on us. It drew so much ire that Yamada’s political future is toast. Helen is done after this term, anyway. If the BOS had followed through with that, there would have been a recall election for Helen and Mariko.
I don’t think we’ll be seeing any of these 3 ploys again for a while.
The current campaign is a sudden outpouring of concern for “senior housing.” (What kind of city planning encourages age-restricted subdivisions?) Did Whitcomb, Yakzan, the Parlin guy or the late Al Smith give a rip about senior housing prior to 2005? Nope; it’s just the profit model du jour. I think they learn this stuff in their trade magazines or at conferences in Las Vegas and Florida, and there are always willing minions to implement them.
Upon reflection, I should not have included Yakzan in the list of developers who have suddenly discovered senior housing. The Yakzans were already building senior housing in Davis in 2005.
Their proposed “Oeste Ranch” project, however, would be nothing like Glacier Point. Instead, it would be a 640-acre (that’s a square mile, folks) 2,100-unit age-restricted subdivision that is as far as one could possibly get from downtown Davis and still claim to be “adjacent” to the existing City boundary. I think it is fair to surmise that a large fraction of the residents of that subdivision would be imported from the Bay Area and elsewhere, and would be only minimally integrated into the fabric of Davis.
Upon reflection, I should not have included Yakzan in the list of developers who have suddenly discovered senior housing. The Yakzans were already building senior housing in Davis in 2005.
Their proposed “Oeste Ranch” project, however, would be nothing like Glacier Point. Instead, it would be a 640-acre (that’s a square mile, folks) 2,100-unit age-restricted subdivision that is as far as one could possibly get from downtown Davis and still claim to be “adjacent” to the existing City boundary. I think it is fair to surmise that a large fraction of the residents of that subdivision would be imported from the Bay Area and elsewhere, and would be only minimally integrated into the fabric of Davis.
Upon reflection, I should not have included Yakzan in the list of developers who have suddenly discovered senior housing. The Yakzans were already building senior housing in Davis in 2005.
Their proposed “Oeste Ranch” project, however, would be nothing like Glacier Point. Instead, it would be a 640-acre (that’s a square mile, folks) 2,100-unit age-restricted subdivision that is as far as one could possibly get from downtown Davis and still claim to be “adjacent” to the existing City boundary. I think it is fair to surmise that a large fraction of the residents of that subdivision would be imported from the Bay Area and elsewhere, and would be only minimally integrated into the fabric of Davis.
Upon reflection, I should not have included Yakzan in the list of developers who have suddenly discovered senior housing. The Yakzans were already building senior housing in Davis in 2005.
Their proposed “Oeste Ranch” project, however, would be nothing like Glacier Point. Instead, it would be a 640-acre (that’s a square mile, folks) 2,100-unit age-restricted subdivision that is as far as one could possibly get from downtown Davis and still claim to be “adjacent” to the existing City boundary. I think it is fair to surmise that a large fraction of the residents of that subdivision would be imported from the Bay Area and elsewhere, and would be only minimally integrated into the fabric of Davis.
Original Long Memory,
Your information about what Yakzan proposes for the NW Quadrant is dated. His presentation to the HESC was sensitive to both 1) smart long range Davis planning, and 2) the fact that housing demand in Davis makes any thoughts of a NW Quadrant project prior to 2013 (maybe even 2020) totally unrealistic. The map he presented showed a willingness to transform the long-standing Davis dream/goal of an agricultural buffer around the City, from dream to reality.
IMHO, proactive planning is much better than reactive planning, and Randy Yakzan’s long-term vision for the NW Quadrant is well worth carefully considering in the next General Plan Update.
Original Long Memory,
Your information about what Yakzan proposes for the NW Quadrant is dated. His presentation to the HESC was sensitive to both 1) smart long range Davis planning, and 2) the fact that housing demand in Davis makes any thoughts of a NW Quadrant project prior to 2013 (maybe even 2020) totally unrealistic. The map he presented showed a willingness to transform the long-standing Davis dream/goal of an agricultural buffer around the City, from dream to reality.
IMHO, proactive planning is much better than reactive planning, and Randy Yakzan’s long-term vision for the NW Quadrant is well worth carefully considering in the next General Plan Update.
Original Long Memory,
Your information about what Yakzan proposes for the NW Quadrant is dated. His presentation to the HESC was sensitive to both 1) smart long range Davis planning, and 2) the fact that housing demand in Davis makes any thoughts of a NW Quadrant project prior to 2013 (maybe even 2020) totally unrealistic. The map he presented showed a willingness to transform the long-standing Davis dream/goal of an agricultural buffer around the City, from dream to reality.
IMHO, proactive planning is much better than reactive planning, and Randy Yakzan’s long-term vision for the NW Quadrant is well worth carefully considering in the next General Plan Update.
Original Long Memory,
Your information about what Yakzan proposes for the NW Quadrant is dated. His presentation to the HESC was sensitive to both 1) smart long range Davis planning, and 2) the fact that housing demand in Davis makes any thoughts of a NW Quadrant project prior to 2013 (maybe even 2020) totally unrealistic. The map he presented showed a willingness to transform the long-standing Davis dream/goal of an agricultural buffer around the City, from dream to reality.
IMHO, proactive planning is much better than reactive planning, and Randy Yakzan’s long-term vision for the NW Quadrant is well worth carefully considering in the next General Plan Update.
I don’t get the connection: how would building so-called affordable housing fight global warming?
——————
“Affordable housing” = (presumably) -not- “McMansions” = smaller home size = less energy usage = smaller carbon footprint = less of a contributor to global warming.
I don’t get the connection: how would building so-called affordable housing fight global warming?
——————
“Affordable housing” = (presumably) -not- “McMansions” = smaller home size = less energy usage = smaller carbon footprint = less of a contributor to global warming.
I don’t get the connection: how would building so-called affordable housing fight global warming?
——————
“Affordable housing” = (presumably) -not- “McMansions” = smaller home size = less energy usage = smaller carbon footprint = less of a contributor to global warming.
I don’t get the connection: how would building so-called affordable housing fight global warming?
——————
“Affordable housing” = (presumably) -not- “McMansions” = smaller home size = less energy usage = smaller carbon footprint = less of a contributor to global warming.