This particular letter was sent to the Yolo County Commission on Aging and Adult Services. It appears from the letter that the constitution of the committee has been altered since its inception.
“One appointment to the committee is being being (sic) requested from each of the following: Choices for Healthy Aging; Yolo County Commission on Aging and Adult Services; and Yolo County Health Council. Two appointments are also being requested from the each of the following city commissions: Planning Commission; Senior Citizens Commission; and Social Services Commission.”
One our arguments against this process continues to be the limited scope and constitution of the committees which do not include members from the broader Davis Community that have other interests aside from senior housing. Thus for example there are no representatives from the environmental community as this is still a land use decision. However, the constitution is now reducing the influence of a group such as CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging) which has been formed to lobby for and promote development at Covell Village.
We also now know the schedule for committee meetings which will take place Thursday from 7 to 9 PM at the Davis Senior Center: “July 30 or August 6, August 13, August 27, September 10, September 24, October 8, October 22, November 5, November 19.”
This still seems to be a very aggressive schedule and it is not clear what would really be determined in nine meetings over four months in time period.
The objective of these meetings remains rather vague.
The Committee, with the assistance of staff, shall recommend strategies to City Council to understand and plan for senior housing in Davis. Specifically, the strategies shall include:
• How many units?
• What types?
• Where?
• When?
While the membership of this group is coming into focus, we remain concerned about the process that was entirely driven by developer interests. To reiterate points that were made in the past, the city of Davis set up in 2006 a General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee. That group met over a period of time and went through the issue of housing needs and also had a discussion of the various properties and their suitability for development in the near term.
One of the sites that that group–which was fairly diverse even though it was stacked with 9 appointees by the council majority–examined was Covell Village. That site was deemed to be the 31st out of all of the sites considered–only one site was ranked below it. One of the chief reasons was that the committee looked to develop infill sites first and there is also a general recognition of the voters intentions. The voters by a 60-40 vote determined that the previous project proposal was not suitable for development.
The council majority wants to disregard the vote, arguing that it was a vote against a specific project not a vote against any development on that site. From our standpoint, that argument is partially true–people did vote against the specific project and a small project clearly would have garnered more votes than the massive project that was proposed. On the other hand, there are two contrary points. First, given the expenses to the city and citizens, there ought to be some sort of penalty for trying and losing. The developers should not merely be able to propose the site as many times as they can until the voters get too tired to block them.
Second, and more importantly, there are issues that were brought up with regards to the Measure X vote that were not project specific but rather site specific, and they are not going to go away.
I find it funny that people like Councilmembers Don Saylor and Stephen Souza are going to purport to know why people like me voted overwhelmingly against the project that they championed just three and a half years ago. How do they know whether we support future development there? If they were so attuned to know the will of the voters, would they have pushed the original Covell Village proposal as hard as they did?
Regardless of the rationale behind Covell Village, the process here is concerning. In short, we have already had a body weigh in on the suitability of that site, however, the developer here has spent a great amount of time and resources to mobilize a segment of the senior citizens population to lobby for reconsideration. This process is entirely driven by the developers.
Here are some questions that should be addressed by the Covell Village developers:
First, how much have they spent on this process to meet with and mobilize seniors to push for Covell Village?
Second, they claim to have spoken with 800 people, how many of them support development at Covell Village?
Third, who are the members of CHA and what are the requirements for membership in that group?
If they are going to drive this discussion, there ought to be some transparency in the process. Unfortunately what we saw during the Measure X campaign was the opposite of transparency. As we reported in early June, many people believed there was far more money spent on the Measure X campaign than was reported. By the time they filed their final papers in January of 2006, that number was at around $380,000. At the time, that represented a large increase from any number reported during the campaign despite strict rules as to reporting requirements in the last ten days of a campaign. Moreover, as we now know, they filed $215,000 in amendment expenditure reports (without disclosing where the money came from) in the spring of 2008, almost two and a half years after the conclusion of the Measure X campaign.
So how much are they spending to bring back Covell Village the Redux? How is a member of CHA? And how many people have actually supported the development at Covell Village?
All of these should be address if we are to proceed with this expenditure of city staff time. In the meantime, we continue to move forward with this process that it is not clear that we need to engage in at this time. It must be nice to have hundreds of thousands to throw around for paid staff and lobbyists.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
One thing to notice is that the makeup of the committee (which is now only 9 members large instead of the unwieldy 18 proposed by Souza) is not so pro-developer as it once was. UCD has been completely left out of the equation, which is interesting to note. City Staff has actually finessed away Souza’s attempt to heavily bias this committee – Souza wanted to stack it with pro-developer representatives equal to all the commissions (3 from CHA, 3 from UCD Med Ctr, 3 from UCD Business School).
(We know CHA is directly connected to Whitcombe; reps from UCD Med Ctr in alliance with Intel professed to be in favor of Covell Village Redux bc there was an opportunity for them to develop some sort of medicine by computer (translation: $$$$$$$$ for UCD in grant money for a pilot program)).
However, there is no question this whole discussion of the alleged need for senior housing is developer driven. But it will be interesting to see what conclusions this committee comes up with. Especially in the middle of this terrible economy.
What worries me is this committee is expected to make these monumental decisions in an essentially three month period (it will take the first meeting or two just to frame the issues and meet and greet). Why? Because Whitcombe and company want to be able to submit their proposal for Halloween Covell Village IV by Jan 2010 as they promised their supporters.
A developer driven process for sure – but one that was inevitable – SINCE CITY STAFF WOULD NOT PERMIT WHITCOMBE TO APPROACH ANY OF THE CITY COMMISSIONS WITH HIS VISION OF COVELL VILLAGE REDUX. This whole concept perhaps could have been killed at the commission level. Hard to say. But it is what it is. Let’s see what this committee comes up with…
Is there a January 1, 2010 project application deadline involoved here? What is driving the demanding schedule for this narrowly tailored effort?
No one has mentioned the staff time this will take. Time=money. Aren’t we in a budget mess?
Why are we waiting to see the outcome of the 9 committee meetings? What does it take to draft up:
1) A recall
2) A public “vote of no confidence” in vice-mayor Don Saylor and Souza and Ruth Asmundson who are driving another failed project
How much damage do they have to do to our city before people will rise up and say “enough?”
I strongly believe that this committee needs to include members of the community that are not interested in only senior issues. Let me just say that I am very definitely a senior, but do not believe we need or want an isolated senior community in Davis, but housing suitable for seniors throughout the city.
This whole thing is entirely driven by John Whitcombe. The CHA group is made up entirely of people who supported CV and who support anything John Whitcombe does. They are not representative of the senior community, and certainly do not represent the entire community. A committee that is going to be weighing in on a decision that will affect the entire community, should be representative of the entire community.
I was surprised that Saylor, Souza and Asmundson voted against my motion to undertake a statistically valid poll to ask seniors and soon to be seniors what their real housing preferences are, including such options as staying in their own homes, moving to a condo or townhouse near downtown, living in a senior-compatible house in an age-mixed neighborhood, etc.
I hope that the council reconsiders this approach. I don’t think such huge decision should be guided by a rather arbitrarily selected committee without even providing them with unbiased information concerning Davis senior desires.
Recall recall recall.
Agree, agree & agree again. The entire concept of a “need” to develop more land, when we already have vacant residences & businesses is a sham -pure & simple – to benefit Streng, Whitcombe & Ramos (to name a few).
I do not believe we should approve ANY development of ANY kind, until we fill the already-developed, vacant storefronts plaguing our city.
It just makes no sense to pave over more Ag land & open space to create more “business” space, when we are years away from filling the vacant spaces that have been developed already.
Eick E.
Recall? Why? The CC majority are just being themselves. We all knew their stances on CV and other projects before the elections. I would not support a recall on the current facts. Also, it’s easy to say RECALL, but try running a major citywide campaign.
Finally, a lot of you posters love to attack the CC majority, but none of you are willing to run for election. With good candidates, the progressives can win win win at least 3 seats. With three seats, we never would have had Target, Covell Village, etc. So why dont some of you get busy and run for office?
P.S., Sue, thanks for doing a great job on the CC. It’s a nasty, thankless job, and you are on your third term. Hope you want to run for the Supervisor seat, as I would be there for you and Michael.
FINALLY, I can agree with both Sue G., & Mike H., (great comments!) Let’s just keep a close (or dare I say “Wary”) eye on the CC majority. We’ll be o.k., if we just remain vigilant & involved.
I’d like to respond to Mike Harrington’s post above. I agree that there is no basis for a recall–The three developer candidates, in my opinion, have never tried to hide their pro-growth stance. In fact, it seems that they have never met a developer they didn’t like. Unfortunately, the majority of the voters in Davis are against growth (as indicated by support of Measure J) but at the same time vote on the basis of the number of glossy flyers funded by developers and the firemen’s union that appear in their mailboxes. As for running for office, I am sure there are many qualified people who would like to, but many of them have full time jobs and minimal political connections. Easier said than done. I would hope though that a few of the very articulate posters to this blog would consider running if they have the resources. Perhaps the Vanguard could serve as a place for some to express interest and a place where we could offer financial and time support.
“Unfortunately, the majority of the voters in Davis are against growth (as indicated by support of Measure J) but at the same time vote on the basis of the number of glossy flyers funded by developers and the firemen’s union that appear in their mailboxes. As for running for office, I am sure there are many qualified people who would like to, but many of them have full time jobs and minimal political connections. Easier said than done. I would hope though that a few of the very articulate posters to this blog would consider running if they have the resources. Perhaps the Vanguard could serve as a place for some to express interest and a place where we could offer financial and time support.”
This is key – we need more viable candidates to run for city council. The problem is it is a thankless virtually unpaid job, runs into the wee hours of the morning, and requires a cast iron stomach to put up with the unprofessional antics of Souza and Saylor, along with Asmundson.
The busy schedule below* is to warn busy, fully employed Davis residents desiring time with family that they should not apply. Go take your well earned summer vacation with your family, and let this “special” committee of seniors, developers, and related special interest groups tale care of business for you while you are gone.
____________
*Remember, the schedule is just the tip of the iceberg!
….We also now know the schedule for committee meetings which will take place Thursday from 7 to 9 PM at the Davis Senior Center: “July 30 or August 6, August 13, August 27, September 10, September 24, October 8, October 22, November 5, November 19.”….