It is not altogether clear what the results of the workshop were and how much they will affect the final decisions made by the panel. It seems that there were only nine ranking changes on six different sites that were suggested by 15 or more people. Three of these dealt with Covell Village and two Nishi.
Only two of the suggestions were to raise the ranking. That included the Lewis Cannery project which was recommended from Medium to High. And the full Covell Village property which was also recommended from Medium to High.
A few quick thoughts on these changes and then some more general comments.
First, the recommended move of PG&E makes some sense. I know it is a convenient area to consider since it is infill and not all that useful at this point in time. However, from what I understand the city would have to pay the moving costs for PG&E to relocate their property and that would run around $60 million. I know the Mayor has been a strong advocate for this project and location, and perhaps there is some aspect of this I am missing, however right now I tend to agree with the comment: “Not realistic for development.”
Two of the Nishi proposals were lowered one from high to low and one from medium to low. I agree with that. Access is a huge concern. Right now realistically it looks like you would only have access from Olive Drive by car. That is a highly congested area as it is and adding more vehicle traffic would just be problematic. The bicycle access plans are a good idea, but this is just not realistic until you fix the traffic.
Many suggested that Signature be reduced from medium to low. In general, sprawl is opposed by the public. This is really something that our city leaders need to take into consideration. I do not believe that the sports park development is a sufficient reason to develop inside the Mace Curve at this time.
Then the 800 pound gorilla–Covell Village. There were significant recommendations moving the development in both directions. The traffic congestion issue is the big one that led voters to reject it in the first place but a close second would be the sprawl factor, the agricultural land factor and the very fact that the voters just rejected this a little over two years ago.
On the plus side, you have people citing it as a unique infill location (it is not infill), a great location for senior community, and close to shopping and schools.
The bottom line, is that you can argue that it is close to downtown relatively speaking, but overall it is a bad place to grow the way that Davis is currently configured. You simply lack the infrastructure and access to put more people in that location. There is no freeway access. All traffic would have to dump onto Covell, and Woodland is developing down Road 102, which means that traffic is going to be going from Davis to Woodland.
At the end of the day, I’m not completely unhappy with the way the HESC process has played out. But there are a number of concerns that I will go into briefly.
First, if Covell is the 800 gorilla, the 1% growth rate is the brontosaurus. Everything that was done by this committee now depends upon how much we should grow. At the last council meeting, the council majority, specifically Councilmember Don Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson, talked about the need for housing. I just couldn’t disagree more at this point in time given the housing market, given the strains on city budget and infrastructure. People think of housing as a means to raise city revenue but you basically get a modest one-time development fee, and we do not get enough for that to begin with, but that is far trumped by the cost for service.
Bottom line here is there seems little or no need to surpass RHNA guidelines which adds just under 500 units in the next six years.
Second, I think we need to take a more holistic approach here. And I’ll divide these comments two-fold.
The council has recently heard from the Simmons property folks and the Horse Ranch development. These two projects are moving along at this time along with the Lewis Property. That’s three developments that are moving forward outside somewhat of the confines of the HESC. That does not make a lot of sense from the perspective of the work done by this committee and planning for the future.
Along the same lines we have multiple factors moving at the same time. We just spoke about the sphere of influence from LAFCO which will be discussed in February and March. The council is discussing the 1% growth rate next week. You have new RHNA numbers about growth allocation and fair share of growth. You still have the Yolo County general plan with the fact that those study areas are apparently not dead. Along with that you have the pass-through agreement. You have the HESC. None of this is being discussed in totem. How do all of these factors contribute to the overall growth picture?
In some ways I feel that this process is almost ad hoc. And that decisions are being made on each of these steps independently. There are different maps and different processes. And the result will be what exactly? Does the public or even our leaders on council know?
By the end of March we should have a good idea of the answers to some of those things–but on April first will our leaders be able to tell us what the future of Davis looks like?
Add one more point–is the council majority going to continue to support Measure J as we currently know it? A lot of these decisions are being made suggesting that Measure J will protect us from growth. It permeates each issue. But will they keep it in place in the current form?
These next few weeks of discussions should tell us a tale. We’ll have to find out where we stand after that.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
A difficult question to broach..perhaps for later discussion:
Do we need an independant analysis of city staffing for Davis’vision of its future development? If we are really to go from the fastest growing (slow-growth) city in the region,as we have been for the past 20 years, to a truly slow growth city, what ARE our city staffing needs? These are difficult questions, especially if the analysis is left in the hand of those who have an inherent conflict-of-interest. We would be well-served to elect Council members who have the leadership “spine” to take on this question,however personally uncomforable or damaging to their ambitions for higher office.
A difficult question to broach..perhaps for later discussion:
Do we need an independant analysis of city staffing for Davis’vision of its future development? If we are really to go from the fastest growing (slow-growth) city in the region,as we have been for the past 20 years, to a truly slow growth city, what ARE our city staffing needs? These are difficult questions, especially if the analysis is left in the hand of those who have an inherent conflict-of-interest. We would be well-served to elect Council members who have the leadership “spine” to take on this question,however personally uncomforable or damaging to their ambitions for higher office.
A difficult question to broach..perhaps for later discussion:
Do we need an independant analysis of city staffing for Davis’vision of its future development? If we are really to go from the fastest growing (slow-growth) city in the region,as we have been for the past 20 years, to a truly slow growth city, what ARE our city staffing needs? These are difficult questions, especially if the analysis is left in the hand of those who have an inherent conflict-of-interest. We would be well-served to elect Council members who have the leadership “spine” to take on this question,however personally uncomforable or damaging to their ambitions for higher office.
A difficult question to broach..perhaps for later discussion:
Do we need an independant analysis of city staffing for Davis’vision of its future development? If we are really to go from the fastest growing (slow-growth) city in the region,as we have been for the past 20 years, to a truly slow growth city, what ARE our city staffing needs? These are difficult questions, especially if the analysis is left in the hand of those who have an inherent conflict-of-interest. We would be well-served to elect Council members who have the leadership “spine” to take on this question,however personally uncomforable or damaging to their ambitions for higher office.
“If we are really to go from the fastest growing (slow-growth) city in the region, as we have been for the past 20 years…”
We have not grown at all for 6 years. There is not one signficant housing development which has been approved for Davis but is yet unbuilt. On top of that, due to the wider real estate situation, there is insufficient demand for the available houses in Davis, now. Calling us “fast-growth” in 2008 is wrong.
“If we are really to go from the fastest growing (slow-growth) city in the region, as we have been for the past 20 years…”
We have not grown at all for 6 years. There is not one signficant housing development which has been approved for Davis but is yet unbuilt. On top of that, due to the wider real estate situation, there is insufficient demand for the available houses in Davis, now. Calling us “fast-growth” in 2008 is wrong.
“If we are really to go from the fastest growing (slow-growth) city in the region, as we have been for the past 20 years…”
We have not grown at all for 6 years. There is not one signficant housing development which has been approved for Davis but is yet unbuilt. On top of that, due to the wider real estate situation, there is insufficient demand for the available houses in Davis, now. Calling us “fast-growth” in 2008 is wrong.
“If we are really to go from the fastest growing (slow-growth) city in the region, as we have been for the past 20 years…”
We have not grown at all for 6 years. There is not one signficant housing development which has been approved for Davis but is yet unbuilt. On top of that, due to the wider real estate situation, there is insufficient demand for the available houses in Davis, now. Calling us “fast-growth” in 2008 is wrong.
“Calling us “fast-growth” in 2008 is wrong.”
Of course, THIS was not the point I was making. The question I raise is whether the city staff(development)which has been overseeing Davis growth for the past 20 years, when we WERE the fastest growing “slow-growth” city in the region, is appropriate NOW.
“Calling us “fast-growth” in 2008 is wrong.”
Of course, THIS was not the point I was making. The question I raise is whether the city staff(development)which has been overseeing Davis growth for the past 20 years, when we WERE the fastest growing “slow-growth” city in the region, is appropriate NOW.
“Calling us “fast-growth” in 2008 is wrong.”
Of course, THIS was not the point I was making. The question I raise is whether the city staff(development)which has been overseeing Davis growth for the past 20 years, when we WERE the fastest growing “slow-growth” city in the region, is appropriate NOW.
“Calling us “fast-growth” in 2008 is wrong.”
Of course, THIS was not the point I was making. The question I raise is whether the city staff(development)which has been overseeing Davis growth for the past 20 years, when we WERE the fastest growing “slow-growth” city in the region, is appropriate NOW.
I still don’t understand your point about city staff. Who is it you want fired, the people who worked for Davis 10 years ago?
I still don’t understand your point about city staff. Who is it you want fired, the people who worked for Davis 10 years ago?
I still don’t understand your point about city staff. Who is it you want fired, the people who worked for Davis 10 years ago?
I still don’t understand your point about city staff. Who is it you want fired, the people who worked for Davis 10 years ago?
I don’t know where DPD/David Greenwald gets his information on the 25 acre PG&E site between 2nd and 5th. In my opinion, this is the single most exciting site in town.
It is walking distance to downtown and the AMTRAK station. At twenty-five acres it is about as large as the entire commercial core. We could add units near downtown by building taller at this site, while maintaining the character and charm of downtown, and avoiding the parking conflicts with retail that would occur if we built housing units directly over retail.
I am not aware that the city would incur any net cost by helping PG&E move.
I don’t know where DPD/David Greenwald gets his information on the 25 acre PG&E site between 2nd and 5th. In my opinion, this is the single most exciting site in town.
It is walking distance to downtown and the AMTRAK station. At twenty-five acres it is about as large as the entire commercial core. We could add units near downtown by building taller at this site, while maintaining the character and charm of downtown, and avoiding the parking conflicts with retail that would occur if we built housing units directly over retail.
I am not aware that the city would incur any net cost by helping PG&E move.
I don’t know where DPD/David Greenwald gets his information on the 25 acre PG&E site between 2nd and 5th. In my opinion, this is the single most exciting site in town.
It is walking distance to downtown and the AMTRAK station. At twenty-five acres it is about as large as the entire commercial core. We could add units near downtown by building taller at this site, while maintaining the character and charm of downtown, and avoiding the parking conflicts with retail that would occur if we built housing units directly over retail.
I am not aware that the city would incur any net cost by helping PG&E move.
I don’t know where DPD/David Greenwald gets his information on the 25 acre PG&E site between 2nd and 5th. In my opinion, this is the single most exciting site in town.
It is walking distance to downtown and the AMTRAK station. At twenty-five acres it is about as large as the entire commercial core. We could add units near downtown by building taller at this site, while maintaining the character and charm of downtown, and avoiding the parking conflicts with retail that would occur if we built housing units directly over retail.
I am not aware that the city would incur any net cost by helping PG&E move.
Sue…. very informative posting but ONCE is quite enough!…one punch at the PUBLISH icon please.
Sue…. very informative posting but ONCE is quite enough!…one punch at the PUBLISH icon please.
Sue…. very informative posting but ONCE is quite enough!…one punch at the PUBLISH icon please.
Sue…. very informative posting but ONCE is quite enough!…one punch at the PUBLISH icon please.
Blog administrator,
When I press publish, it sometimes says that I have the wrong password, even though I have typed in the correct password. I do this over and over. Then, I type in my user name again, and the password. Last time, three posts then turned up.
I don’t know what the problem is.
Blog administrator,
When I press publish, it sometimes says that I have the wrong password, even though I have typed in the correct password. I do this over and over. Then, I type in my user name again, and the password. Last time, three posts then turned up.
I don’t know what the problem is.
Blog administrator,
When I press publish, it sometimes says that I have the wrong password, even though I have typed in the correct password. I do this over and over. Then, I type in my user name again, and the password. Last time, three posts then turned up.
I don’t know what the problem is.
Blog administrator,
When I press publish, it sometimes says that I have the wrong password, even though I have typed in the correct password. I do this over and over. Then, I type in my user name again, and the password. Last time, three posts then turned up.
I don’t know what the problem is.
I don’t know what the problem is, but clearly it is posting your comment. Perhaps you should check next time to make sure it publishes, because despite the appearance of an error, it clearly is still publishing.
I don’t know what the problem is, but clearly it is posting your comment. Perhaps you should check next time to make sure it publishes, because despite the appearance of an error, it clearly is still publishing.
I don’t know what the problem is, but clearly it is posting your comment. Perhaps you should check next time to make sure it publishes, because despite the appearance of an error, it clearly is still publishing.
I don’t know what the problem is, but clearly it is posting your comment. Perhaps you should check next time to make sure it publishes, because despite the appearance of an error, it clearly is still publishing.