However, it would be helpful to take another look at the other potential housing sites. The city is likely going to have to focus on infill sites in the near future to meet whatever housing needs it has. Recall that there are roughly 500 already approved but not built units already in town. In addition, there will be just under 500 faculty homes built on the West Village site to go along with around 1000 student housing units.
We’re going to briefly go down the list. One of the problems with the list is that some of these sites are more realistic than others. We can start with No.1 on the list, DJUSD Headquarters. It is a great location located between B and C immediately north of Fifth Street, though small, for a good infill project. However, it is unclear that DJUSD has any immediate plans to move their offices and allow for redevelopment to occur.
Kennedy Place would be a small development on a single acre of land near an existing business park and senior housing. It would accommodate somewhere around 12 units, give or take.
Grande as many know is a small infill project that was owned by the school district and the subject to quite a controversial history. However, the district re-committed to working with the neighbors and came up with a solution that both district and neighbors could live with. It is not the most innovative site, but given the turmoil in the first phases of planning, it was settled fairly amicably.
Nugget Fields is also owned by DJUSD. The District has convened a “7/11 Committee” to determine the disposition of the site. The city projects at this point a potential for 114 units on the 9 acre site. This was originally ranked No.28 but was bumped up by staff to 5 after the district moved more seriously to sell and develop the property.
Sweet Briar Drive is a small, half acre property between G and H street, just south of Eighth Street. The city is look at perhaps 16 units there.
The city is also looking at the addition of accessory dwelling units in various spots around the city as a means to add a small number of units.
Verona has already been approved for 83 units, but the property is now up for sale and it appears that any development of the property will have to wait for sale of the property and an improvement of the housing market.
The city is looking to expand downtown upward and add residential units on the higher floors. While there have been some preliminary talks of redoing the downtown, that would appear to be a ways off.
The PG&E center has been identified by some as a prime spot for an infill redevelopment project as it is extremely close to the core and a large swath of land that is no longer well suited for its current use. However, that would assume that PG&E is willing to sell and the city could afford to move the existing infrastructure. This is certainly not a near term prospect.
The Transit Corridor is located on Anderson Road between Russell and Radcliffe and consists of 14 acres. It is a good location but would require action from existing property owners. Again, this would seem like a good spot for infill, but does not seem to be something that imminent.
Simmons Ranch also known as Chiles Ranch was approved for 129 units over the strong objections of the residents who had a signed agreement with the developer that the city simply set aside in increasing the number of units among other factors. The location of the site is good, but the project itself is lacking of the kind of strong sustainability the city needs to be pushing for all future developments.
The City/ DJUSD Corporation yards would appear to be a good place for infill located on the North side of E. Eight Street between L Street and Pole Line. It is close to the core. But this again would be pending relocation of the existing uses and it is not clear how imminent that would be.
There is an RHD Zone (Residential High Density) on Oxford Circle, the only RHD zone in the city. The HESC argued that the site at 525 Oxford is underutilized and are proposing an additional 16 to 32 units per acre on top of the current 18 units per acre density. An interesting idea and a decent location but not something likely to happen any time soon.
Fifth Avenue Place is located on the Northeast corner of Fifth Street and Pole Line, it is 2.2 acres and they are looking at a small development there adding units to existing housing.
Willowbank was approved for development in 2007. In September of this year, the city granted an extension on the commencement development of the affordable housing units until September of 2010. The project consists of 31 single family dwelling units, eight of which are for-sale affordable housing units. The affordable housing plan is for moderate income levels as defined by Yolo County.
Civic Center Fields is on B Street just north of the City Hall and South of Senior Center. The current use is for recreation. While this might be a good location for housing, it does not seem like a wise move to remove the current usage.
Willow Creek Neighborhood Commercial Site located on the Southeast Corner of Drummond Ave and Cowell, it would be a small project on 1.7 acres.
Nishi propety is listed twice. It looks inviting with its close proximity to downtown, but it is a logistical nightmare given that it has very limited access which would either be via Richard Blvd right before the underpass or the higher rated proposal would be UCD access only and it might be a high density student housing facility. To me the logistics of this site make it a quagmire waiting to occur.
They also looked at developing neighborhood shopping centers as redevelopment arguing that the current shopping centers are underutilized. There was even talk about using part of the Westlake Shopping Center site as a new development in order to make it more likely for a shopping center to succeed. I think we need to renew our commitment to neighborhood shopping centers and would be reluctant to use them for residential housing.
That takes us out of the “green” sites. Of the yellow sites, we have already talked enough about the Wildhorse Ranch site. The Lewis Cannery site was considered for mixed use development at 610 units. Obviously the city is not in need of 610 residential units at this time. The upside of Lewis is that it is already paved over and thus this would not be a case of paving over farmland. However it is also the largest available site for a business park and is currently zoned for one. The current owners have claimed there was little interest though critics have argued that there was never a concerted effort to market and develop it as a business park. At this point, there is some talk that the property will be sold to Covell Partners and the city has expressed a strong interest in joint planning for the two sites.
We also have Covell Village which again will try to force its way up the chart and be considered. The next Measure J battle with either be Covell or Nishi. However, it seems unlikely that a Measure J project will be approved by the voters any time soon.
Given the economy and the amount of unbuilt units, right now the city probably does not need to force the issue of even additional infill development. The city should wait on development until the economic picture clears up.
There are more pressing concerns such as getting the fiscal house in order. The city needs to reexamine how it models development costs.
There has been pressure to revise the General Plan. That also makes little sense until the economic and housing picture clears up. While the recession is officially over in the country, it is unclear what will happen in California where the budget crisis has forced cuts to state jobs, university jobs, furloughs, and fee hikes. Given the number of people affected by these cuts in Davis, it would be well worth the time to take a wait and see approach when making additional planning.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
. . . assume that PG&E is willing to sell . . .
Big assumption. Why would they sell? They’re perfectly capable of building a ‘zero footprint’ development. Among others, Sue Greenwald’s talked about this project for awhile now, for obvious reasons.
From the looks of it, any parcel that is not subject to Measure J is infinitely more likely to be developed than any parcel that is.
I was thinking last night that Davis could see some years of negative growth in the next few years. Most families in Davis aren’t moving anywhere. A lot of families (ours, for one) moved here with small children or plans to have children. But then these children grow up and leave, and many of the households shrink. I know many families whose home populations have shrunk by 1-2 people. Eventually the parents will retire and move, but that is still decades away.
Of course, if you have accepted the slogan that “2000 homes are enough”, then you would count West Village as part of the city of Davis whether or not it is annexed, and argue that Davis will still grow. But, without annexation, the Census and the state won’t count West Village that way. (And if you wanted to count all of West Village that way, why not include the existing on-campus dorms? Why not count El Macero? Generally they are not included in head counts.)
“But, without annexation, the Census and the state won’t count West Village that way. (And if you wanted to count all of West Village that way, why not include the existing on-campus dorms? Why not count El Macero? Generally they are not included in head counts.)”
When DJUSD does demographic projections, they include El Macero and other unincorporated areas. At some level, the city has to do the same to evaluate urban impacts.
There is also a current older population in Davis, kids moved off, who have more house than they want or use, who also move on and sell or pass their homes to their grown kids. I don’t know how big that population is in Davis, but I am aware of it anecdotally.
But I agree that the scenario you describe — potential negative growth — is a likely scenario.
David Greenwald: There are 2000 homes approved and unbuilt. Why don’t you give it a rest. You seem to be assuming that we need more growth now. It is the developer camp and the fast growth camp that talk about where to build when building isn’t needed.
As to PG&E, I support that site because I think we could do something there that would provide a type of housing that we don’t currently have and that many people want, and because it would help the downtown immeasurably — not because we need more housing now. I support that site not to fill some artificial concept of quantitative “need”, and I would be supporting that site no matter how much other housing we approve or don’t approve.
The site can work, but like all good infill sites, it will take commitment and enthusiasm of the council to make it happen.
Hopefully the next council will have that enthusiasm.
Sue:
Give what a rest exactly.
Here’s my conclusion: “Given the economy and the amount of unbuilt units, right now the city probably does not need to force the issue of even additional infill development. The city should wait on development until the economic picture clears up.”
What exactly would you like me to give a rest to?
[quote]The city should wait on development until the economic picture clears up.[/quote] I suspect this is what will happen. However, it is a fallacy to think that developers will build new homes in Davis if they and their bankers don’t think they will sell. So if that is the case — and I think it is, especially because of the budget cuts at UCD — then no matter what the city approves, new for-profit housing won’t be built until the economy improves.
I’m sorry; I guess I am just a little fatigued with the discussion of ranking of unneeded development sites, and with the continual denigrating of the possibility of an exciting infill project at PG&E site. Just my personal opinion.
I’m not denigrating it, but I think it is unlikely in the short-term. Maybe you with a new progressive majority could get it underway with the next council, I hope you do in fact, but short of that, I don’t see it happening in the near term. That’s all I meant by it.
I find it very interesting that Sue states that she would be supporting the PG&E corporation yard regardless of how much other housing we approve or don’t approve, while at the same time she was the coiner of “2000 homes are enough” in relation to the WHR project. 2000 are enough when you are talking about WHR but not enough when you are talking about your pet project? It is also ironic that she is talking about providing some of the same type of housing at that site (town homes and condominiums)that we don’t have and many people want (her words, that were proposed for the WHR site and that she helped to shoot down.
Sue also states that it is the fast-growth camp and the developer camp that keep talking about where to build more housing when it isn’t needed. Isn’t that exactly what Sue is doing in continuing to talk about building on the PG&E site? Which is it, Sue? Do we need more housing or not? Or do we need it when it is your pet site only?
The PG&E site may be a good site for future growth, but I have already heard a great deal of opposition to it from people currently living near down town. Fortunately for Sue, this site won’t require a J vote, so the council and Sue can just vote it done and it will be, regardless of what the neighbors want.
I am also fatigued at hearing about the ranking of sites that are never going to be built. Sue made a big issue of the in the campaign, but now does not want to hear it. In reality, the majority of the sites ranked above the WHR site are not viable, as the current owners have no plans at all for either developing the sites or selling them for development. Just look closely at what David posted. Of all of these, the only ones ranked above the WHR site that are viable in that there is any plan whatsoever to develop them are Grande, Verona and Chiles Ranch. We all know the status of those.
As to the idea of an exciting infill project at PG&E, maybe, but we just shot one down. Why are we talking about another one so soon.
To those who keep talking up the Cannery site: The site was never completely paved over, and it certainly is not now. It has been vacant for more than a decade, and you don’t think that it has become a haven for many wild species? It is bordered on the north by hundreds of acres of open space and on the east by nearly 400 acres of the same. The Cannery site provides about 100 acres of great habitat for wild life and is more than likely used by many special status species. Go out there and check it out sometime.
No Friend of Covell Villa:
When we are building for the sake of meeting artificial quantitative goals, then 2,000 homes is more than enough. That doesn’t mean that I oppose building a major project near downtown that provides a type of housing that we don’t currently have.
In my personal opinion, Wildhorse Ranch was a peripheral site that did not fill a unique need, whereas the PG&E, being downtown and near the Amtrak station, could be a model transit-oriented development and would be a major asset for community.
This is just my personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinion.
[i]When we are building for the sake of meeting artificial quantitative goals, then 2,000 homes is more than enough.[/i]
Now that the election is over, I don’t think that there is any further point to describing university dorms built on university property as a thousand “homes”. “SACOG housing units”, maybe, but not “homes”.
Otherwise, you have a point. 2,000 artificial homes are indeed more than enough to meet artificial quotas.
Greg: The University describes the development as including “1,012 student apartments”. The city has always counted apartments as housing. The city is on record that we wish to annex West Village. Annexation talks are on-going. We have always counted apartments as housing units. The city has always counted apartments as housing units. Student apartments are the students’ homes.
I know that the United States tends to have a higher percentage of home ownership than most countries, but I don’t understand why you would object to calling apartments homes.
No one was talking about meeting artificial quantitative goals with the WHR project. We were talking about building a small, compact project with many of the type of housing you say we need and do not have, smaller townhomes for empty nesters or starting families, and with significant, major energy and water conservation features. Something we definitely do not have and desperately need in this decidely ungreen town.
The city may be on record for wanting to annex West Village, but it is never going to happen. The U does not want it. Student apartments are indeed student homes, but they are NOT available for any one else. And the other 475 campus units will be available only for university affiliated faculty and staff, and of those, mostly new incoming faculty as a perk.
The 2000 homes claim was a complete distortion if not worse.
[quote]The city may be on record for wanting to annex West Village, but it is never going to happen. The U does not want it.[/quote]You do not know what the Uiversity wants or doesn’t want.
[i]Greg: The University describes the development as including “1,012 student apartments”. The city has always counted apartments as housing. The city is on record that we wish to annex West Village. Annexation talks are on-going. We have always counted apartments as housing units. The city has always counted apartments as housing units. Student apartments are the students’ homes.[/i]
This is an attempt to turn a string of loose associations into an equation. You can’t make a fast rope out of 20 feet of soft noodles. I think that whoever put together the No on P flyer was quietly aware of that, since the flyer describes “approved” homes “in West Davis” without even mentioning the university.
I guess all those dumb Davis voters were duped then by the 2000 homes claim, even though the brochures and ballot statements made very clear that university hosuing was being counted.
[i]I guess all those dumb Davis voters were duped then by the 2000 homes claim, even though the brochures and ballot statements made very clear that university hosuing was being counted.[/i]
I don’t think that more than a handful of people were fooled by anything on any of the brochures or ballot statements. For the most part, people simply voted for what they wanted.
But the slogans — on both sides, probably — were useful rationalizations.
Joke for the day.
Multiple choice: What is the best model of growth for Davis?
A) Mexico City
B) Half Moon Bay
C) Martha’s Vineyard
D) Brigadoon
“I guess all those dumb Davis voters were duped then by the 2000 homes claim, even though the brochures and ballot statements made very clear that university hosuing was being counted.”
They weren’t duped, like the Enterprise they just chose capricious reasons to oppose the project.
Greg: Our flyer stated the following:
“According to City staff there are already 2000 housing units entitled and yet to be built in Davis and the University’s West Village subdivision.
This includes 541 City units, 474 faculty units, 65 mixed-use units and 1,015 student units.”
The ballot statement also explicitly stated that we included university property. You might disagree with our analysis (though I think university housing counts for reasons many of us have already gone into), but the facts are laid out in the flyer so folks could decide.
[quote]I think that whoever put together the No on P flyer was quietly aware of that, since the flyer describes “approved” homes “in West Davis” without even mentioning the university– Greg Kuperberg[/quote]
The flyer that I have in front of me says: “According to city staff, there are already 2,000 housing units entitled and yet to be built in Davis or on University property.
Greg:
E) Marin County
There are a number of different renditions of the flyer, the ballot statement, or the website. They all specify that we counted housing on University land, or the University’s West Village. We were scrupulously careful about that.
Okay, maybe I’m not remember the flyer properly. I didn’t keep it. If indeed there was only one flyer, then I suppose that I’m wrong and it did somewhere mention the university.
Still, if a developer had a reason to count things this way, then I don’t think that people would have been very happy about it. The real argument is, the university is building dorms, so therefore let’s not build houses.
The first iteration of the flyer and the ballor statement specifically mention university property. The second (final) version which constitutes 85% of all flyers printed and distributed is as I quoted above.
I might further add that Sue insisted that we be as factual and detailed as possible and now I understand why. We have always said that we were counting university property.
Did anyone have a problem with Parlin claiming that WHR was “workforce housing” while simultaneously arguing that university housing (UCD is our largest employer) does not count?
Why am I doing this? The voters have spoken.
You may have included reference to the University property in the flyer, but it was deliberately left vague enough that no one reading it could tell where the 2000 units would be or what they would be. It was a deliberate attempt to fool the voters and it worked.
Unfortunately, I am not sure most voters really knew what the true facts were when they voted. The No on P literature contained a great deal of distortion and spin.
The actual housing not for students on campus is not going to be work force housing. It is mostly for faculty and high level staff and most of that is for incoming faculty as a perk. It is also shared equity, so the buyer gets far less bang for his buck than if he/she purchased a home in the city, such as the work force housing at WHR if it had passed.
Sue: You might want to have a conversation with John Meyer re annexation.
No friend:
” 541 City units, 474 faculty units, 65 mixed-use units and 1,015 student units.”
541 + 474 + 65 + 1015 = more than 2000 units
What was vague? You don’t appear to have any problem with statements made by Yes on P…you think everything they said was totally honest I guess…
slow growther:
I was referring only to the university housing in my statement and the fact that the reference did not clarify in any way how much of the housing was to be on campus and unavailable to anyone not affiliated with the U, and how much was actually only for incoming faculty.
I made no reference to the city housing units supposedly already approved. But of those units, only Chiles Ranch with 108 may move forward any time soon. Verona is for sale, and the school district has no plans for Grande. that is a total of about 232 homes, not 541. The rest (about 300) are lots spread all over the city that have been on the books for years and for which the property owner has no plans to development. The No side also knew this. This was a clear attempt to fool the voters, and as I said, it worked.
Those dumb voters. If they had only listened to Masud and Bill they would have been enlightened like you…
Pam: 1) We couldn’t have been more explicit regarding the facts about the approved housing.
2) I have met recently and at length with John Meyer.
The election is over. The people have spoken. Our campaign was low key and accurate, and we are proud of it.
Pam: I would second what Sue said. We tried to run an honest campaign. Obviously in a campaign each side has differences, but to argue that Yes on P was honest and we were liars is completely out of touch…
[quote]The No on P literature contained a great deal of distortion and spin. [/quote] My sense is the very best No on P literature was the Yes on P campaign, starting with the idea that they wanted to hold a special election to approve a new housing development during a depression.
This was a clear attempt to fool the voters, and as I said, it worked.
Well Pam, you know what didn’t fool the voters, the Yolano Chapter-Sierra Club endorsement! WOW, if anything was written more about in the Letters to the Editor, was that endorsement. How many memberships (and renewals) are going to be lost as a result of that endorsement.
Even better, was your picture in the Sac Bee article (which Dunning referred to) standing next to horses and trees on a clear cloudless sky in a bucolic setting. What that image conveyed more than anything was how “ungreen” it was to pave over a horse farm for unnecessary housing. I would bet that picture alone got us a couple of hundred votes! Thank you!
Sue,
Did you just “out” Pam Nieberg (4:07 pm)?
Hudson Sangree (Davis resident, as far as I know) article on WHR and Davis:
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2311312.html[/url]
The Sierra Club endorsement, Pam Nieberg’s doing, was a huge nail in the coffin of the Yes on P side. Speaking with many people at the Farmers Market they were sickened by this. I wrote to the board of the SC from our Yolano Chapter up to State level. Teri Davis of the SC wrote back and stated how proud of Pam he was for bringing this project to the Club’s attention and helping to get the endorsement. Barbara Williams just responded with a generic email to me. Then she never bothered to respond back to me when I gave her the facts of the project. But an interesting change occurred after I sent that email. The facts were changed in the ads for Yes on P— look carefully!!! This is still an issue that many people have asked to be exposed and better guidelines drawn. The Sierra Club has not heard the last of this issue.
The No on P people were described as newbies’ that did not know what they were doing and have not been involved before, and “Why now?” Well, guess what– we are involved and we will continue to be a force to be reckoned with. The split in the progressive side, which people are talking about, was good. We now know were people’s deeper values can be found.
MichelleR1,
If you are worried about inappropriate politicization of the Yolono Chapter of the Sierra Club, I would strongly encourage you and all like-minded individuals to join up and vote on local business. The mischief that was done could not have occurred if more than a few people had been watching. And like all elected officials, the parties involved can be voted out of office.
The people who supported WHR inadvertently killed any future development, especially Covell Village 2. Perhaps that was the diabolical plan after all!
wdf1 Thanks for posting the link. THe Sac Bee article makes clear that future development on Davis’ periphery is dead for quite some time and measure J is safe.
“The people who supported WHR inadvertently killed any future development, especially Covell Village 2.”
It wasn’t inadvertent, it just didn’t come about the way that was intended.
MichelleR1 Said:
“:The Sierra Club endorsement, Pam Nieberg’s doing, was a huge nail in the coffin of the Yes on P side.”
Yes Michelle God forbid the Sierra Club endorse something really beneficial to the environment. I’m so sick of all the hate and personal attacks against the Yes on P people. We truly cared about this project because it TRULy was good for the environment. Most of the wildhorse lot was already paved over and the only “agricultural” use it was going to be put to was to raise thoroughbred horses. Hardly a loss to “ag” land but great semantics that the No on P side used to their advantage.
Greg, you live in a HUGE house in Wildhorse and your carbon footprint is probably bigger than half the wildhorse development had it been approved.
The only IMPACT and COST to Davis would have been to everyone’s personal pocketbook..or so your thought. This great campaign was destroyed by a bunch of overzealous hateful people that used fearmongering and bullying to convince people to vote against something they fundamentally believe in.
Ahh well so we have learnt, hate, ignorance and greed trumped idealism…yet once again… hmmmm not surprising.
if wildhorse was approved, it actually would have raised your property values, but you were naiive and fell for the propaganda. Right now in the house, there is a debate over whether to approve universal health care, or at least a public option, but now it’s a watered down version, all because of the lynch mob style tactics of hate and anger of a few priveledged few in town hall meetings.
It came down to a few people, who dominated the debate with screaming and shouting, who convinced people with blatant outright lies, and fearmongering, just like the No on P people. Well congratulations..
ps. log on to pge.com and check out how large your carbon foot print is..
at this rate, with the greedy fear mongerers that we have in Davis, we will never get down to 350ppm. Wildhorse village was a chance to start a nation wide trend of mainstreaming environmentalism.
I hope you are all happy with yourselves. I hope you’ll think about the way in which you behaved (calling women prostitutes for working for Parlin development; screaming; yelling; fear mongering; bullying)
looks like you got your way, and you won’t have to deal with a green project that will make you green with envy and force you to spend some green to make your house green and keep up with the joneses.
IMBECILES