In it, there is a discussion of the Housing Element Steering Committee’s (HESC) housing plan. From the onset there were 15 members, 3 appointed by each of the councilmembers. The assumption was that with a 3-2 split on council between those aligned with local developers and those favoring less growth, that there would be a 9-6 pro-growth majority.
However, according to Vice Chair Mark Siegler, a Sue Greenwald appointee, that’s not what happened.
According to the article:
“It came as a surprise when a committee of 15 residents, appointed by council members to help shape the future of Davis, worked together for a year and reached agreement on an innovative housing plan.
It proposes modest growth within the city’s current borders. Infill projects deemed beneficial to the city would get priority.”
Mark Siegler is quoted saying:
“It was sort of an amazing outcome… I was ready to go in there and just do battle to the death.”
Instead now the fear is that the plan that was meticulously worked on over the course many months would be undermined by the city council with very different agendas and ideas than the committee members.
“Over the course of several months, we came to much more of a middle ground… I wouldn’t be surprised if members of the City Council are not happy with the outcome based on who they appointed… I hope they don’t just dismiss this thing out of hand.”
HESC Chairman Kevin Wolf said:
“We have the political consensus to force the City Council in a new direction.”
However, if the meeting last week is any indication, this consensus is about to break down into the usual fighting.
For example, Councilmember Stephen Souza and Don Saylor want to push for developing the Nishi property which was ranked No.17 by the steering committee. Mayor Ruth Asmundson complained that some of the properties like the PG&E site and the school district headquarters are not feasible since no one determined if the current occupants would be willing to move or develop their properties.
On the other side of fence, Councilmember Lamar Heystek worried that the list would lead to an artificial means by which to induce growth. Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued vehemently last week the city does not need to grow given the weak market.
However, in my discussion with Lamar Heystek on KDRT Radio last week, he agreed that the city council had considerable room for consensus building. There are clear philosophical differences between the two sides over the rate of growth and the willingness to develop on Measure J sites, however, there is also significant agreement on other areas.
The reason the HESC was able to come to consensus is that they avoided the more contentious “how much issue” and went toward the “where” issue. And in the immediate future, almost everyone agreed that we ought to grow in infill sites near the city’s core and move out.
The council majority of Souza, Saylor, and Asmundson have a choice. They certainly have the votes and the recent election results to push forward with any agenda they see fit to seek. On the other hand, strategically speaking, they may be better off tackling development projects where they have basic agreement on location first.
As the HESC report makes clear, there are more than enough of these infill projects to meet either the low end RHNA numbers for the next five years or even the high end, 1% growth cap numbers without looking to a single peripheral project.
However, there are still a lot of pitfalls along the way.
Covell Village: The return of Covell Village is one thing to look at. The group formerly known as the Covell Partners has repackaged the project splitting the development into three segments. The first segment which would be on the lower third is looking towards senior housing. Senior housing is probably the next huge hot potato in general. There is a divide within the community about the need for senior housing and the type of senior housing. Some have suggested that senior housing internal needs are small and any big project would pull from a more regional and even statewide basis, others suggest that residents in Davis ought to be able to move their senior parents into closer proximity.
The form of senior housing is another question. Some have suggested that ideally smaller condos are better suited for seniors than senior-only segregated communities. The argument here is that many seniors want to downsize, but not live in senior-only communities. Some seniors do not even want to downsize.
Nishe: If one looks to location alone this Measure J project would be ideal. But there is a huge hurdle–that is lack of road access. The only access right now would be the narrow Olive Drive leading to the congested Richard Blvd interchange. The road access is so prohibitive that developers have suggested having only campus access for cars and otherwise only direct access to the rest of the city via bicycle or pedestrian traffic. Sounds good in theory, but recognizing the need for special traffic provisions illustrates the pitfall of the development. One alternative might be to give it to the university and have the university use it to expand it’s on-campus housing base.
Lewis Property: This is the property that divides the progressive community. On the one hand, many believe that Lewis is an ideal place to develop as means to accommodate growth demands while at the same time not paving over farm land. The fact that it’s already paved over and has some of the infrastructure needs plays into that desire. Still, others worry about provisions that Lewis is developed with a mind toward its more controversial eastern neighbor, Covell. While Lewis is considerably smaller than Covell, some of the same concerns that plagued Covell, apply to Lewis. Others such as Councilmember Sue Greenwald have been steadfastly pressing for high tech industry, arguing that we have few high tech zoned sites, that this is the ideal way to bring in new industry, and that the site is not conducive to residential development. The current owners however are pressing hard for a residential development. This is not a Measure J site, and it seems like that the residential side will eventually win this fight much to the chagrin of a number of others.
Wildhorse Horse Ranch: This is another peripheral site that would trigger a Measure J vote. The property came up for consideration early this spring and the meeting was largely an unmitigated disaster as neighbors complained about the project and even council would-be supporters seemed close to pulling the plug on the deal. However, the project has been re-worked. Many of the neighbors are if not supportive of the project, at the very least had their criticism muted. This is likely the next Measure J project Davis will vote on. Probably sometime in 2009. How will it go? It’s only 40 acres. The project is said to be extremely environmentally innovative on the cutting edge. If the neighbors are brought along it could pass. If the neighbors remained as outspoken as they were at the last meeting before Council, it is a different story.
Those projects represent varying levels of political opposition. There are other projects within the city limits that would be slam dunks. I still believe one of the biggest mistakes of Covell Village was the timing. The council put all of their eggs into one basket on development and as a result, when Covell was voted down, there was nothing left in the queue. The result, few new housing permits the last three years of city council. The pro-growth majority, for a two-year stretch, a 4-1 pro-growth majority oversaw the period of the slowest growth in recent Davis history.
The question at this point is whether the council majority has learned a true lesson from Covell Village. The lesson is not that people do not want growth. However the lesson is also not that they did not explain the project or sell it well enough. The lesson is that the council tried to do too much, too quickly, with one project that was easy for people to understand the consequences of and easy for people to oppose. Moreover, it was polarizing. If the council can avoid polarizing future votes and issues, and instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do, they will be successful. If they cannot, their majority will likely be lost.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Other than the small 25 acre project on the SE corner of Wildhorse, I think any residential project built north of Covell has to have a solidly planned and funded public safety solution, especially the 5 minute response time issue for the fire fighters. (Hey, Eileen, you’re giving Lewis Homes a pass on this! Don’t do it.)
Make any new larger project PAY for the public safety solution, up front.
Other than the small 25 acre project on the SE corner of Wildhorse, I think any residential project built north of Covell has to have a solidly planned and funded public safety solution, especially the 5 minute response time issue for the fire fighters. (Hey, Eileen, you’re giving Lewis Homes a pass on this! Don’t do it.)
Make any new larger project PAY for the public safety solution, up front.
Other than the small 25 acre project on the SE corner of Wildhorse, I think any residential project built north of Covell has to have a solidly planned and funded public safety solution, especially the 5 minute response time issue for the fire fighters. (Hey, Eileen, you’re giving Lewis Homes a pass on this! Don’t do it.)
Make any new larger project PAY for the public safety solution, up front.
Other than the small 25 acre project on the SE corner of Wildhorse, I think any residential project built north of Covell has to have a solidly planned and funded public safety solution, especially the 5 minute response time issue for the fire fighters. (Hey, Eileen, you’re giving Lewis Homes a pass on this! Don’t do it.)
Make any new larger project PAY for the public safety solution, up front.
There are some conflicts in your story. You hope that the City Council, “instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do”. Remember the HESC has recommended the Nishi property as a green light site with access to UCD but you state that is not good enough. So you commend the work of the HESC (“broad community consensus”)and ask the CC to follow suit but quickly criticize HESC reccomnedations (UC access) if a project might move forward. Vehicular traffic from Nishi to UCD would also allow cars to travel downtown- but why would someone want to drive downtown from Nishi when they can walk or bike there? Your arguement is that it is not convenient enough for cars but all smart planning goals are to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking. I suggest you go the Borders parking lot and walk on the existing bike path under the RR tracks. Once you cross under the RR tracks that existing bike path that travels from downtown to South Davis is ON the Nishi property.
There are some conflicts in your story. You hope that the City Council, “instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do”. Remember the HESC has recommended the Nishi property as a green light site with access to UCD but you state that is not good enough. So you commend the work of the HESC (“broad community consensus”)and ask the CC to follow suit but quickly criticize HESC reccomnedations (UC access) if a project might move forward. Vehicular traffic from Nishi to UCD would also allow cars to travel downtown- but why would someone want to drive downtown from Nishi when they can walk or bike there? Your arguement is that it is not convenient enough for cars but all smart planning goals are to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking. I suggest you go the Borders parking lot and walk on the existing bike path under the RR tracks. Once you cross under the RR tracks that existing bike path that travels from downtown to South Davis is ON the Nishi property.
There are some conflicts in your story. You hope that the City Council, “instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do”. Remember the HESC has recommended the Nishi property as a green light site with access to UCD but you state that is not good enough. So you commend the work of the HESC (“broad community consensus”)and ask the CC to follow suit but quickly criticize HESC reccomnedations (UC access) if a project might move forward. Vehicular traffic from Nishi to UCD would also allow cars to travel downtown- but why would someone want to drive downtown from Nishi when they can walk or bike there? Your arguement is that it is not convenient enough for cars but all smart planning goals are to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking. I suggest you go the Borders parking lot and walk on the existing bike path under the RR tracks. Once you cross under the RR tracks that existing bike path that travels from downtown to South Davis is ON the Nishi property.
There are some conflicts in your story. You hope that the City Council, “instead form broader community consensus, much as the HESC was able to do”. Remember the HESC has recommended the Nishi property as a green light site with access to UCD but you state that is not good enough. So you commend the work of the HESC (“broad community consensus”)and ask the CC to follow suit but quickly criticize HESC reccomnedations (UC access) if a project might move forward. Vehicular traffic from Nishi to UCD would also allow cars to travel downtown- but why would someone want to drive downtown from Nishi when they can walk or bike there? Your arguement is that it is not convenient enough for cars but all smart planning goals are to reduce car trips and encourage walking and biking. I suggest you go the Borders parking lot and walk on the existing bike path under the RR tracks. Once you cross under the RR tracks that existing bike path that travels from downtown to South Davis is ON the Nishi property.
There are indeed conflicts in my story, because I am conflicted on some issues. Interesting that you tell me to walk by Borders, because I used to do that walk with Mike Harrington every morning. As we got up to Nishi, we were questioning how there would be development there.
As for the rankings, even that is a bit misleading. The HESC did two evaluations of Nishi, one with Olive Access, one without. The one without was No.17, the one with I think was in the yellow at 23 (I’m not looking at the list right now, so forgive me if that’s not accurate).
Just because in general I support the work of the HESC, doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they said, I don’t think my blog today suggested that I did.
My problem with their Nishi evaluation, is the same problem that others have with the PGE site–I don’t think it is realistic to have a development like that without access to Richards. And I think having access to Richards is problematic for the traffic reasons. Hence I think Nishi is a problem and I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.
There are indeed conflicts in my story, because I am conflicted on some issues. Interesting that you tell me to walk by Borders, because I used to do that walk with Mike Harrington every morning. As we got up to Nishi, we were questioning how there would be development there.
As for the rankings, even that is a bit misleading. The HESC did two evaluations of Nishi, one with Olive Access, one without. The one without was No.17, the one with I think was in the yellow at 23 (I’m not looking at the list right now, so forgive me if that’s not accurate).
Just because in general I support the work of the HESC, doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they said, I don’t think my blog today suggested that I did.
My problem with their Nishi evaluation, is the same problem that others have with the PGE site–I don’t think it is realistic to have a development like that without access to Richards. And I think having access to Richards is problematic for the traffic reasons. Hence I think Nishi is a problem and I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.
There are indeed conflicts in my story, because I am conflicted on some issues. Interesting that you tell me to walk by Borders, because I used to do that walk with Mike Harrington every morning. As we got up to Nishi, we were questioning how there would be development there.
As for the rankings, even that is a bit misleading. The HESC did two evaluations of Nishi, one with Olive Access, one without. The one without was No.17, the one with I think was in the yellow at 23 (I’m not looking at the list right now, so forgive me if that’s not accurate).
Just because in general I support the work of the HESC, doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they said, I don’t think my blog today suggested that I did.
My problem with their Nishi evaluation, is the same problem that others have with the PGE site–I don’t think it is realistic to have a development like that without access to Richards. And I think having access to Richards is problematic for the traffic reasons. Hence I think Nishi is a problem and I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.
There are indeed conflicts in my story, because I am conflicted on some issues. Interesting that you tell me to walk by Borders, because I used to do that walk with Mike Harrington every morning. As we got up to Nishi, we were questioning how there would be development there.
As for the rankings, even that is a bit misleading. The HESC did two evaluations of Nishi, one with Olive Access, one without. The one without was No.17, the one with I think was in the yellow at 23 (I’m not looking at the list right now, so forgive me if that’s not accurate).
Just because in general I support the work of the HESC, doesn’t mean I agree with every single thing they said, I don’t think my blog today suggested that I did.
My problem with their Nishi evaluation, is the same problem that others have with the PGE site–I don’t think it is realistic to have a development like that without access to Richards. And I think having access to Richards is problematic for the traffic reasons. Hence I think Nishi is a problem and I think those who believe that you can force people to bike and walk are sorely mistaken.
Check it out:
http//bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
This comment has links to an original article on housing prices and the continued decline in prices predicted in the article by an International Monetary Fund economist Vladimir Klyuev titled What Goes Up Must Come Down? House Price Dynamics In The United States.
If you go to the original article there is an interesting aspect of the analysis that is relevent to Davis real estate markets. The author explains that lack of land availability of land and zoning restrictions have caused the price bubble to be most extreme in the Northeast and the West. He also predicts further price declines nationally with the largest declines in the west.
While availability of land is not the issue in Davis the extremely tight zoning rules enacted over time by no growth advocates rstricting peripheral growth through measure J and other tools of governance have served to more than make up for the availability of land in restricting growth and inflating prices.
While I understand that homeowners acting in their own economic interest would want to restrict supply to prop up the price of their own homes I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values. What I find most irritating is the lack of disclosure about this inherent conflict while at the same time pounding the constant drumbeat about the greedy developers without regard to the benefit that their product can bring by increasing housing stock. The greatest irony is that both sides are acting out of economic self-interest but at least the developers are honest about it.
The IMF article is well worth a read especially for you econ types who can follow the methodology and the math.
Check it out:
http//bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
This comment has links to an original article on housing prices and the continued decline in prices predicted in the article by an International Monetary Fund economist Vladimir Klyuev titled What Goes Up Must Come Down? House Price Dynamics In The United States.
If you go to the original article there is an interesting aspect of the analysis that is relevent to Davis real estate markets. The author explains that lack of land availability of land and zoning restrictions have caused the price bubble to be most extreme in the Northeast and the West. He also predicts further price declines nationally with the largest declines in the west.
While availability of land is not the issue in Davis the extremely tight zoning rules enacted over time by no growth advocates rstricting peripheral growth through measure J and other tools of governance have served to more than make up for the availability of land in restricting growth and inflating prices.
While I understand that homeowners acting in their own economic interest would want to restrict supply to prop up the price of their own homes I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values. What I find most irritating is the lack of disclosure about this inherent conflict while at the same time pounding the constant drumbeat about the greedy developers without regard to the benefit that their product can bring by increasing housing stock. The greatest irony is that both sides are acting out of economic self-interest but at least the developers are honest about it.
The IMF article is well worth a read especially for you econ types who can follow the methodology and the math.
Check it out:
http//bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
This comment has links to an original article on housing prices and the continued decline in prices predicted in the article by an International Monetary Fund economist Vladimir Klyuev titled What Goes Up Must Come Down? House Price Dynamics In The United States.
If you go to the original article there is an interesting aspect of the analysis that is relevent to Davis real estate markets. The author explains that lack of land availability of land and zoning restrictions have caused the price bubble to be most extreme in the Northeast and the West. He also predicts further price declines nationally with the largest declines in the west.
While availability of land is not the issue in Davis the extremely tight zoning rules enacted over time by no growth advocates rstricting peripheral growth through measure J and other tools of governance have served to more than make up for the availability of land in restricting growth and inflating prices.
While I understand that homeowners acting in their own economic interest would want to restrict supply to prop up the price of their own homes I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values. What I find most irritating is the lack of disclosure about this inherent conflict while at the same time pounding the constant drumbeat about the greedy developers without regard to the benefit that their product can bring by increasing housing stock. The greatest irony is that both sides are acting out of economic self-interest but at least the developers are honest about it.
The IMF article is well worth a read especially for you econ types who can follow the methodology and the math.
Check it out:
http//bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/07/housing-still-w.html
This comment has links to an original article on housing prices and the continued decline in prices predicted in the article by an International Monetary Fund economist Vladimir Klyuev titled What Goes Up Must Come Down? House Price Dynamics In The United States.
If you go to the original article there is an interesting aspect of the analysis that is relevent to Davis real estate markets. The author explains that lack of land availability of land and zoning restrictions have caused the price bubble to be most extreme in the Northeast and the West. He also predicts further price declines nationally with the largest declines in the west.
While availability of land is not the issue in Davis the extremely tight zoning rules enacted over time by no growth advocates rstricting peripheral growth through measure J and other tools of governance have served to more than make up for the availability of land in restricting growth and inflating prices.
While I understand that homeowners acting in their own economic interest would want to restrict supply to prop up the price of their own homes I don’t think many of the nimby’s in Davis will admit their personal economic interest in restricting growth. If you listen its always about some other quality of life issue rather than home values. What I find most irritating is the lack of disclosure about this inherent conflict while at the same time pounding the constant drumbeat about the greedy developers without regard to the benefit that their product can bring by increasing housing stock. The greatest irony is that both sides are acting out of economic self-interest but at least the developers are honest about it.
The IMF article is well worth a read especially for you econ types who can follow the methodology and the math.