While much will be made about the amount spent by the two sides in this race, criticism leveled toward the project applicant for pushing forward with this vote in a year where the housing market was the worst we have seen, the bottom line is that this result is not simply about a campaign, it is too wide a result to be about errors and mistakes and we can certainly go down the list of them again, this is a wholesale rejection once again by the voters of peripheral development and growth.
So yes, it would appear to have been a mistake to push so hard for a vote this year. They would have been much better off waiting a year. There were a lot of reasons that they did not want to do this, but that decision was clearly the nail in their coffin.
Given the economy and the public’s general apprehension for new development, the Yes on P side would have had to have run a brilliant and flawless campaign and convince the public that the project itself was worth voting for despite the housing market and the apparent large amount of housing units already improved. While I take issue still with the 2000 housing total given the large number of on-campus student housing that entails, I think the case could have just as easily have been made with the 500 that are in Davis, or the 1000 that are in Davis and the faculty houses of West Village. There was no overwhelming need given the market and the already approved housing for more housing.
I still believe that the project had considerable merit and that it was the best project that I have seen in my time in Davis. The sustainability features alone will hopefully even in defeat push the ball forward in terms of the type of development we need in the future. We are going to need more dense development that keeps growth near existing development and closer to lines of transportation to save open space, farmland, and energy. The accessibility features were underrated and would have been implemented at great expense. These were not huge sprawling 600,000 dollar homes. There was tremendous open space and urban forest features on the project. Hopefully none of these features are lost to future applicants and developers.
The bigger questions are far more interesting to me as this to the end remained a small development on a 25 acre parcel of land. This is the second time that a Measure J project has gone down to massive defeat. The Measure X campaign in fact, spent at least $300,000 (in 2005 dollars) more than Measure P and perhaps nearly three times more. Does the Measure J process mean that there will be no approved peripheral housing developments in the foreseeable future?
We know that in the past, Measure J style votes have yielded approval such as the one for Wildhorse itself. Also while not a housing development, Target was able to narrowly win a citywide vote.
The next project coming down the pike is likely to be Covell Village again, recast on one-third of the land, around 800 units, as a senior housing project. The developers, much to our criticism, are attempting to manufacture grassroots support in the senior community for the housing. That of course is one of the big failures of the Measure P campaign, there was never any mass support for the project. Much of that was an artifact of the process and the fact that it was rushed at the end onto the ballot without bringing the community on board with the concepts.
Nevertheless, I think that Covell is going to have a very difficult time convincing the public that we need more housing, particularly for only a specialized group of citizens. We may have reached a point in our development as a city, that we are no longer going to be able to get public approval to expand beyond our borders.
Polling done in advance of this campaign shows that Measure J is safe and very strongly supported by three-quarters of the population. There was some concern mentioned in the beginning of the campaign that a defeat of Measure P will doom Measure J. That was shouted down as fear-mongering and certainly from the standpoint of the ballot box that is true. The question is whether at some point there might be a legal challenge to Measure J arguing that the process makes it impossible to pass any project no matter how small or how innovative and efficient. That will not happen now. But that it could happen after another defeat of Covell Village is a distinct possibility.
Much as been made about the division of the so-called progressive camp in Davis on this issue. Less has been made about the division of the more pro-development camp with the divide between Councilmember Saylor a strong supporter of the project and Councilmember Souza who was a strong opponent of the process. Much of that was driven by Mr. Whitcombe himself, as he behind the scenes, opposed the project in part as a measure of revenge for his own defeat and in part because he saw it in his best interest for this project to not be approved.
There is also the question of what will happen at the council level. The point has been made that Measure J gives the public a sense of security that they have the final say on any new peripheral development. As a result, since Measure J was enacted, the so-called progressive camp has only elected two councilmembers–Sue Greenwald twice and Lamar Heystek in 2006. And yet in both 2005 and 2009, Measure J votes have been very handily defeated.
With Mr. Heystek leaving the council, there is a very real chance that the pro-development side will once again have a 4-1 majority on council. There would appear to be a disconnect between the way the public has voted on development projects and the way they have cast their vote in council elections. Measure J has appeared to free people up to vote for the personalities they prefer rather than the policies they like.
For me, though I would have preferred this project to have passed, this is but one small piece of a much larger puzzle. I have often joked in public that I cover land use issues so that I have enough readers who will get to read about other issues of import. The issue of growth is polarizing and interesting to Davis, but it has been surpassed in my mind by the issue of the fiscal health of the city. Along those lines, Davis in my mind is in very deep trouble unless they can fix the employee compensation system including pensions and retiree health care.
Along similar lines, the public seems content living in this town that on the surface functions quite nicely. Our streets, even when they have occasional problems, are fairly well-maintained, we have nice parks, and array of services. All of that is jeopardy. Below the surface is a city staff and council that do not operate very well. They have gotten away with it because of the affluence of the city and the availability of money and the generosity of the citizenry in the form of parks taxes, sales taxes, parcel taxes, etc.
All of that is in a bit of danger if we do not fix our employee compensation system. In the next six months, the city faces a number of challenges starting with the collective bargaining process that has gone on for months and still has not yielded an agreement. We face the renewal of our sales tax. We face a renewal of Measure J. And we face new council elections. Bottom line is that we need to remain engaged, because the issues facing our city did not stop last night with the vote against Measure P.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, No to new growth?, no way is it that simple!
Nothing ever is.
When 75% of the voters reject a proposition that is more than a landslide and the City Council should take notice. How could this project be approved 3-2 (with one of the two only voting no because he wanted to support another developer!) when the voters rejected this by at least a 2 to 1 margin in every precinct except one.
Is everyone in Davis a NIMBY?
We need a new City Council that reflects the will of the people. One of the key decisions that any City council makes is whether to develop property and rezone land. Our City council has shown itself a miserable failure on this account. Not only was this project unwanted, but the City council did not do its due diligence on this one. In the end this probably helped the No on P side, but everyone who voted No on P (the vast majority of us) as well as many who voted yes should demand a better City council.
City Council–you are on notice now. You are next. We are tired of fighting ballot measures. We want to use our energy constructively. To do so we need a City council who understands what Davis needs and wants. Lets have green slow growth which does not make the City’s fiscal situation worse. Lets have honest campaigns where people debate actual issues.
75% of 29% of registered voters makes 21%. 8,499 voters out of 40,000ish. the number of no voters last night is, ironically, nearly the same amount who voted for measure X in 2005.
it is a mistake with such a low turnout election to too forcefully assert a bellweather for some underlying shift in city politics.71% of the electorate in this politically active town obsessed with its local politics – and during the school year when UCD students are in town, unlike some previous summer school board or city council races – chose to sit this one out. not vote against it, and certainly not vote for it, but not to bother with it at all.
i would be willing to bet that most of those who feel strongly about no growth came out and voted. i am not so sure that their margin today represents an expansion in their overall numbers in the electorate. from my conversations with friends and family (statistically meaningless anecdotes, i know), i get the impression that a lot of the good government types who tend to be neutral on the progs v mods feuds were quite offended by the process of this election, and felt the developer was trying to buy the illusion of support.
hard to say. at any rate, i certainly hope the next proposal is for a dense mixed-use infill project actually within walking distance of downtown or campus.
Wu Ming:
Despite a low turnout (though one should remember that in most elections in this country turnout is low) the message is clear here.
I agree that many voters voted No due to the process–that is precisely the point (and one the No on P campaign hammered away on). The City council bears a great deal of responsibility for this process. They have been running and hiding from their vote to approve WHR for months. It is up to us to remind folks that the City council has foisted these projects on an electorate that doesn’t want them and done so in a way which has not represented the interest of the City but seems to be more concerned with making developers happy.
The voters clearly saw serious flaws here–why didn’t our Council see the same flaws? Are we going to continue to reelect these people? I hope not.
David mentioned the clear disconnect between the will of the voters and the positions of the city council. Don’t forget who on the city council consistently represents the voters. Sue Greenwald. He also mentioned the apparent divide among our town’s “progressives”. Though the pre-election nastiness ofen castigated her, again, she represents the progressives who also represent the will of the voters.
Though Wu Ming described her hesitation at making too much out of such a low-turnout election. I believe that, regardless of the turnout, voters matter, not registered voters!
If, as “Slow Growther” suggests, we need to elect people to the city council who truly represent the interests of the voters, keep in mind which “progressives” fall into that camp!
Sue deserves an enormous amount of credit here. She has been completely trashed on this blog. Not only did she represent the will of the vast majority of the people, she tracked down a lot of the problems in the WHR project and made them public. Her reward–she was thrown off a City commission and denigrated by her colleagues. We all owe Sue an enormous debt of gratitude on this one.
Please show me an example of Sue being “completely trashed” on this blog.
Agree with what you say, slowgrowther. Our CC didn’t see it as you say, because it was 1am and Ruth was asking Parlin when they wanted the election. I saw that and it was my first questionmark. As I live in South Davis (why the SODA), I didn’t know much at that point but the reasons began to mount: the Housing Steering Committee low ranking and the CC apparent lack of concern about that, and then the campaign where I was completely turned off by the excess and ridiculous ads.
Bottom line is we need more choice in CC.
The paid part was minor but seemed to reinforce the manipulation perception. Perhaps the extreme was the Yes’s using fear tactics that a No vote could jeopardize Measure J. I was a believer in the 2000 unit theory especially when it was fully vetted as it seemed to be by the No’s.
I thank the Vanguard for being a forum for facts, views and counterviews. I was disappointed in some of your coverage David as the race went on, but realize you have views too and want to express them. Thanks.
@crilly –
my point was simply to caution against assuming that those who didn’t vote yesterday but regularly do in higher-turnout elections will necessarily follow the same voting proportions (and for the same reasons) as those 30% who showed up in this election. many progressives assumed that measure x’s 60% no vote would grant them a council majority; it didn’t.
my argument is basically that the davis electorate is a bit more complex than for-against growth, and that majorities in high-turnout races tend to be built from coalitions more complicated than just the ideological bases. if one is to get that majority, one needs to be careful not to talk to all voters as if they were motivated by the same things. this was a major failing of the no on K campaign IMO.
There is no more genuine local advocacy(or interest) for Whitecombe’s senior citizen project,which goes against the grain of most Davis voter’s vision of the type of community that they would want to live in, than Parlin’s now-defunct WHR project. The message is crystal clear. No more housing development approval while we continue to experience this glut of regional housing inventory. Now is the time for our city development staff to focus on commercial development to augment our tax base.
Wu Ming: “many progressives assumed that measure x’s 60% no vote would grant them a council majority; it didn’t. “
In fact, I’d argue that Measure J in part makes that possible. People seem more anti-growth in terms of voting for projects than they are when they vote for candidates.
Wu Ming:
This election was also about process and a CC that cow-towed to a developer rather than looking out for our City. We should all expect more from our CC regardless of whether we are slow growth, no growth or fast growth. This issue cuts beyond ideological lines and is ultimately about good government.
I agree that a narrow ideological approach is self-defeating, but regardless of one’s views we should all agree that this CC (except for Sue) did not do its homework here. They should be held accountable.
Having all these ballot propositions is not a good use of our time and energy. If we elect responsible, diligent and honest folks in the first place that could solve many problems.
“Much of that was driven by Mr. Whitcombe himself, as he behind the scenes, opposed the project in part as a measure of revenge for his own defeat and in part because he saw it in his best interest for this project to be be approved.”
David: Are you saying that Whitcombe both opposed and backed approval of the WHR project simultaneously?
No I just wrote it poorly–should read “to [b]not[/b] be approved.”
WOOOOO HOOOOO
I have so much faith in the Davis voters.
I have so little faith in 4 of the 5 city council members.
Sue Greenwald rocks!
Bob Dunning rocks!
I was intrigued by the early comment that the measure failed by more than 2 to 1 in every district except one. WHICH one? Turns out it’s district 4, sort of downtown/UCDavis-edge. They had 16 for, 30 against – not quite 2 to 1.
Given that many other districts have 10 to 20 times that number of votes registered this one district was just a statistical fluke.
Well, I looked it up, figured I ought to share.
Every precinct overwhelmingly voted “P” down. So it wasn’t just the Wildhorse so-called NIMBYS who were against this. GET A CLUE!
. . to focus on commercial development . .
Good luck with that. No CC has followed the recommendations of the various economic development committees going back to *at least* the 1987 General Plan. It’s called a ‘jobs/housing balance’, and it completely out of whack for this town. We grow *houses* here, not businesses, and it shows.
Neutral, I totally agree. The Cannery should be for business only, bring in some high tech corp. and create good jobs then housing will follow because a “NEED WILL BE CREATED”.
“But that it could happen after another defeat of Covell Village is a distinct possibility.”
As I recall, Don Shor responded to this issue on this blog with CONCRETE examples( Petaluma and somewhere in NE US) where Measure J-like controls on growth have withstood legal challenge.
We need Measure J.
Can you imagine how this current city council would run amok with new developements if we didn’t have “J” as a check and balance?
I have a novel idea, I think Parlin should now sell Wildhorse Ranch to someone who intends to run it as a “horse ranch”.
another novel idea… use our Measure O money(which was “sold” to us as a citizen-approved self-tax that would be used for land/easements immediately adjacent to the city rather than way out in Yolo County) to purchase the WHR property for the city. Parlin may be willing to part with it now for about 2 mil. The city could lease it out for a showcase organic farming commercial operation or some other concept that would be benefical to the entire city.
Ok folks now that WHR is over, there’s the question of CHILES RANCH. Our esteemed City Council has quietly approved a 129 unit development on the eastern side of the Davis Cemetery. The units are on 13 acres of land. Large old oaks will be cut down. Our City Council ignored a legal agreement between developers and residents. City Developer Director Katherine Hess completely ignored citizen input. This development has NO cute green features of any kind. Time to protest! CHILES RANCH!
Davisite: I don’t think we have enough Measure O money to do that, and if we did, shouldn’t we use it to buy Covell rather than WHR?
Jim: Just remember who was on your side.
Measure “O” turned out to be a joke.
If people haven’t learned it yet the election last night proves it once again. Special elections don’t sell in California. From the recall of Gray Davis through Arnold’s two attempts to pass initiatives through special elections, to Measure P in Davis, special elections energize those who are opposed to what is going on while the complacent sleep through it all. This election was lost the moment it went on as a special elecion.
The conventional wisdom would tell you that since Wildhorse passed this way it is the way to go, but remember, Wildhorse was a referendum. The people opposing Wildhorse called the election so the developer was able to turn out voters by front loading the election with absentee ballots. Today many of us, myself included, are registered with the county clerk as permanent absentee voters so that strategy doesn’t hold.
Still the overwhelming opposition cannot be denied. Even in the face low turnout the no votes would represent a formidable block to overcome in a much larger turnout election. The question now is can any proposal pass a measure J vote when anyone can nit pik a proposal and say no as I did because I didn’t like the third story? I don’t think it can. The need for measure J developers to cater to every whim of the electorate big and small will preclude anything ever getting passed on a measure J vote. As one no on P advocagte admitted to me in a moment of candid honesty at the Farmers market he doesn’t want any peripheral housing built. So really that is what renewal of Measure J is really about, a yes vote is a vote to stop any growth on the periphery.
The big losers last night were Parlin of course,who spent money for nothing, and Bill Ritter’s friends, many of whom wrote letters or made other public statements in support of their friend’s campaign. Ritter himself was well paid so it remains to be seen if the heavy defeat hurts his business or not.
David: haven’t forgotten and do appreciate. Do CR per WHR? Might find support for it.
Not only did she represent the will of the vast majority of the people, she tracked down a lot of the problems in the WHR project and made them public.
Question: would Sue have supported this without Covell Village going in?
Question #2: would it have passed without Covell Village going in?
As I’m moving next summer, I did not vote on this issue as I feel I have no vested interest in the city anymore. But I thank the residents for voting against it. It will help me get more for my house when I put it on the market next spring, since there won’t be some nice new housing on the horizon.
Fool yourselves all you want, but three of my neighbors voted against Measure P solely for this reason – to protect their property values.
As I’m moving next summer, I did not vote on this issue as I feel I have no vested interest in the city anymore. But I thank the residents for voting against it. It will help me get more for my house when I put it on the market next spring, since there won’t be any nice new housing on the horizon.
Fool yourselves all you want, but three of my neighbors voted against Measure P solely for this reason – to protect their property values. They candidly admit that this was their major concern about the development.
Alisande, so what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with homeowners who have seen their property values decline voting against a project that wasn’t needed at this time of housing depression?
Alisade: you just said thanks to those folks for preserving your own property value. Also, the rest of Davis agreed w/ your neighbors about WHR.
Our mayor told the citizens of Davis at a City Council meeting in January 2008 that they would have to accept the project at Wildhorse Ranch.
Well guess what? We don’t have to accept it.
What I cannot accept is a mayor and City Council who don’t get it. Different people had different reasons for voting this down. I keep coming back to this question–why is our City Council so out of touch? Why did they ask the developer when to schedule the election? Why did the No on P campaign have to ferret out all this information about future housing, fiscal issues, lack of affordability? What exactly is our CC doing?
Alisande: . . .but three of my neighbors voted against Measure P solely for this reason . . .
Cool, three people with no clue about the local real estate market. The only subdivision that had any real impact on this community in the past 20 years was/is Mace Ranch, and for the most part those new houses tended to push values *higher* in the rest of town.
DEVELOPMENT – too many people have absolutely ZERO idea how the current CC is changing the character and physical landscape of this city. Lots of “under the radar stuff”. There are 541 units currently approved for development w/in city boundaries. At least one member of CC should be recalled. Slow; you’re right. CC is so out of touch.
CHILES RANCH – CC pushed hard for a development here. It was zoned for 79 units. Formal (reluctant) citizen/developer agreement was for 108 units. The CIty of Davis (Katherine Hess) pushed for even more units (129) which was ultimately accepted. The current CC publicly stated that the formal citizen/developer agreement “had no legal value”. One CC member is running for Country Supervisor. Support developers and they support you.
CC/City of Davis supports developers in many less obvious ways. One unique example is work hours allowed. STANDARD policy is Mon – Fri 7:00 am – 7:00 pm. Sat 8-8. Imagine living next to this. Who benefits from this policy? Certainly not the neighbors
Neutral, in the last 20 years we havn’t had a housing depression like we’re in now. With so many unsold houses on the market, declining values and 2000 new homes in the mix already I’d say those three people did have a clue, oh wait, make that four, I too agree with them.
Jim
The real story here is that we have voters who want slow growth, for whatever reason, and a CC that is paid for by developers.
We also have “political consultants” who call themselves progressives who work for these developers cutting deals and calling in favors from past campaigns. This is not healthy for Davis’ democracy.
Measure J puts a check on this, but the basic problem still remains. Unfortunately in our poltical culture, money talks. This election was a huge win for a campaign that was outspent 50:1 or more.
However, despite all this effort and an overwhelming 75:25 slaughter, we go back to the same Mayor and the same City Council that voted for this.
From my perspective, the “wow factor” for the Parlin Project (Wildhorse Ranch) is how the approval and voting process highlighted the DISCONNECT between the City Council and the Davis electorate. Do we really have to go through this again with Covell Village II!
[quote] [b]Vincente:[/b] Please show me an example of Sue being “completely trashed” on this blog.[/quote] This is one of dozens of similar posts by Mike Harrington on this blog: [i]”Sue does it again. Wrecks the process that everyone else follows. Blames it on others. Sucks a few of her political supporters into her meltdown. Plays the victim. How boring. How predictable.”[/i]
I have no idea why Mike likes to make personal attacks against Sue Greenwald. If I recall correctly, he made personal attacks against Eileen Samitz during the discussions around the Cannery Park proposal. At least Mike uses his name when he makes these comments. However, I don’t think they were ever warranted in either case. It’s one thing if they had attacked Mike. However, from all I could see, he seems to have a personal grudge against them.
As far as others trashing Sue, they mostly do that using fake names. But any regular reader of this blog knows she gets personally attacked on here quite often (as do Stephen Souza and Don Saylor).
Steve:
Given the outcome of this election and the fact that CV is much bigger, I’d suggest an organized effort, starting now, to recall any CC member who votes for CV.
Announce it ahead of time and make it credible.
We have to get off this merry go round of ballot propositions.
[quote] [b]Jim Watson:[/b] The CIty of Davis (Katherine Hess) pushed for even more units (129) which was ultimately accepted. [/quote] I think your charge against Ms. Hess is unwarranted. What you have to realize is that her job is to follow the full panoply of ordinances and directives of the council with regard to the planning process, especially as ordained in the General Plan. And high among them is the GP’s explicit desire for high density land use. Katherine did not invent that. The developers did not invent that. That is our city council’s (and GP’s) directive.
http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/gp/
From page 48 of the General Plan ([url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/gp/[/url]): [i]”New housing shall meet minimum densities in the General Plan. A percentage of small residential lots and structures shall be considered as a requirement in new large residential developments to contribute to the variety of housing opportunities.”[/i]
In the current GP, the densities were all increased; the increases for East Davis and all other neighborhoods were laid out on the pages following the above statement.
Perhaps a majority of Davis residents don’t agree with the council on this or other issues. But that should not be reason to find fault with Ms. Hess.
“Alisande, so what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong with homeowners who have seen their property values decline voting against a project that wasn’t needed at this time of housing depression?”
What’s wrong with it is that it says capitalism on the way up but socailism on the way down. I guess you like the bailout of B of A, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo by the Fed and Treasury by paying full value to counterparties at AIG and Citigroup too.
I remember Sue Greenwald arguing that supply and demand didn’t apply to the Davis market on the way up (and yes I like to bash her whenever I can) but really what this position seems to be is I’m protecing my own interest even though if I bought before 2003 I’m still ahead in Davis. In doing so she is also protecting the interests of other home owners. Yes she is the champion of the self interested home owners of Davis who by the way never took her to task when she made the ridiculous argument that supply and demand didn’t apply to Davis housing prices a notion that many voters rejected in the measure P campaign.
This has only registered low on everybody’s comments, but I think the fact that the site was pretty low ranked put it at a huge disadvantage, even early on.
If there is anything Davis voters tend to hang their hat on, it is process. The housing element steering committee (or whatever it was called), no matter what flaws it had, or no matter what political insiders know about it, it was in fact a LONG PROCESS that most people will respect when it comes to development – since no ONE person alone can decide the best place to build.
I’m surprised to see the people who backed this project not respect that list and that PROCESS little bit more. Location and The Housing Steering Element Committee (or whatever it was called) are the big winners here.
“What’s wrong with it is that it says capitalism on the way up but socailism on the way down. I guess you like the bailout of B of A, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo by the Fed and Treasury by paying full value to counterparties at AIG and Citigroup too.”
Tell me what was capitalistic about this project? The developer had to put in low income apartments, had to build supposedly affordable housing, was mandated that the site had to have open space and be green. If it was cpatialistic the developer could’ve built whatever he felt he could sell on his plot of land. Sounded like a very socialistic developement to me. The only thing that was democratic is that we the voters had a say in it all. And wooo hooo, we won.
Mr. Greenwald, it’s time to remove the Yes on P advertisement on the bottom of the page. That was money well spent.
Toward Civil Discourses point, I hope people remember the site ranking argument when Covell comes forward in two months, a site ranked even lower than WHR.
I was particularly intrigued by Kevin Wolf’s post on the Vanguard and letter to the editor:
[quote]I learned a lot about Davis housing options as the chair of the city’s 2007-2008 Housing Element Committee. In that process, the 12 members of our committee reached near concensus on a number of housing issues. We based our decisions on citizen input that encouraged us to prioritize housing sites on a number of goals with ag land preservation and a reduction in driving, traffic and related pollution being the most important. The later goal is obtained by the site’s proximity to schools, stores and jobs, with UCD being the major job center.
Based on these goals and in comparison to other sites, Wildhorse Ranch was rated 27th out of 37. [/quote]
As many know, Mr. Wolf was one of the leaders of the Yes on Measure X campaign and it would seem that if he was opposing P on these grounds, he would have no choice but to oppose the next Covell on the same grounds.
Rich: for more than 2 years (and many meetings) we worked personally with the developers of Chiles Ranch. Mayor Don Saylor encouraged our participation in this “model program to encourage citizen input”. At substantial cost, SACOG organized a series of “design charettes” again to recruit citizen input. The formal MOU between Sunrise Neighborhood Assoc (SNA) and the developers approved 107 units. This is for land that was zoned for 79 units. The MOU was written by an attorney and signed by all parties.
The result? Several months later, Ms Hess and staff delivered a written proposal to CC for approval. She recommended one hundred twenty nine (129) units. It was approved that night by CC.
When asked, Katherine Hess stated at that CC session that the MOU had no legal value. Harriet Steiner also said the same thing at the same CC meeting. Does this recognize citizen input in the development process?
I do “find fault” w/ someone who recommended 20 additional units (and other smaller changes) despite the months of meetings and previous formal citizen/developer agreement. I “find fault” with someone who made no attempt to contact a neighborhood association to discuss the proposed revision w/ substantial changes.
I understand your position and your frustration, Jim. I just assume that Katherine and Harriet were trying to follow the laws and regulations put in effect by the City Council in our General Plan. My personal feeling is that when you have an infill project, you should generally design the lots in accord with the density of the surrounding, already developed lots. However, as I understand the GP, that is not what our city’s adopted plan calls for. The idea is that we will “avoid sprawl” by increasing density. So the GP calls for very high densities. And thus, even if a developer and the neighbors have no desire for the higher densities, a person in Katherine Hess’s position is required to implement what the law requires. Keep in mind that she did not make this decision on Chiles Ranch. Ultimately, it was up to the five people elected by the citizens. And (it seems) they decided that Katherine’s view was in line with the GP.
It might help to build some community confidence in future Measure J vote proposals if the developers would finish up some larger infill projects first. Maybe even build a few demo-type houses in these infill regions that might be built in greater number in hypothetical peripheral projects.
The other motivation, by the way, of “high density infill” is the belief that smaller lots (and thus smaller homes) will create more affordable houses for “the workforce.” That makes logical sense if that is your desire. My own view is that the developer will (or should) know what size of homes and lots buyers want; and that may or may not be the micro-lots called for in our GP.
A problem having so many small lots in an infill project like Chiles Ranch, as the GP wants, is that the higher number of residents will cause a greater impact on the existing neighbors than a less dense project would. And we don’t have (like the English Common Law does) a system for compensating those neighbors who suffer losses from this density.
People are under the mistaken belief that the city and its citizens alone will be able to control Davis’ peripheral growth. In fact, it is the county that will control our peripheral growth in the coming decade.
The reason that citizens are unaware of the county threat is because, in recent years, the county has not developed on our borders because the county pass-through agreement has financially penalized the county for growing on Davis’ borders. But that financial penalty diminishes over time.
At this point, the county tax revenues from a large enough development of very, very expensive houses and commercial development between Davis and the by-pass could well outweigh the financial penalties of breaking the pass-through agreement.
Under this scenario, neither Measure J nor the Davis City Council could stop growth on Davis’ borders. It will be entirely in the hands of three votes on the county board of supervisors.
At this point, Don Saylor is the only candidate running in the second supervisorial district. To be frank, I am very worried about future growth on Davis’ boundaries unless someone will step forward immediately and run for supervisor.
Most of the new thinking in City planning calls for higher densities. Higher densities are more environmnetally friendly in many ways but neighbors, for legitimate reasons, don’t like it. In my opinion density makes the most sense downtown or near campus. That was one of many problems with WHR–building 3 story houses on the periphery is just dumb.
There will always be conflict over these issues, but surely we can come up with a better process than what we have now.
Sue:
You are probably one of the few folks in Davis who understands this issue. How can the County force growth on Davis? Would these houses be part of Davis? How can land be annexed w/o the City’s approval? What legal recourse do we have?
[quote]How can the County force growth on Davis? Would these houses be part of Davis? How can land be annexed w/o the City’s approval? What legal recourse do we have?[/quote]The county can simply approve development on land that is not within the city boundaries. Jurisdictionally, this housing is then in the unincorporated county, as, for example, El Macero or North Davis Meadows. The county then gets all of the local property tax dollars and provides all of the services.
Such development never has to be annexed. Typically, the city has tried to annex development in the unincorporated county that is adjacent to the city, because, once the county builds it, the city is then stuck with all the impacts and none of the revenue or control.
There is no legal recourse. The only protection is to elect county supervisors that you trust to honor the principles set forth in the pass-through agreement.
Sue:
That is what I thought you would say. I believe that this land is in a flood plane. The State is now asking us to plan for a 1.4 meter sea level rise (SLR) by 2100. Such an increase in SLR would be devatating in an area already prone to flooding. We should look at the legal issues involved with building in an area that would almost surely be prone to flooding (vis a vis AB 32)…or maybe we should just get rid of Saylor…
“At this point, Don Saylor is the only candidate running in the second supervisorial district. To be frank, I am very worried about future growth on Davis’ boundaries unless someone will step forward immediately and run for supervisor.”
Phil King and I met with Don Saylor many months ago to discuss our concerns re the WHR project, to which after a brief chat, he stated, “It’s best if you find some common ground with the developers”..well, Mr. Saylor, if we followed your sage advice, we wouldn’t be sitting here today with a 75% victory! How are you, Ruth, and Lamar all feeling today after voting to approve this project on 7/28 to a Nov ballot?
I too am worried that Don Saylor and his pro-growth agenda will run unopposed for county supervisor; I will help on the campaign of any candidate who is truly “slow growth” (not these “wanna-be’s” like Stan Forbes!)
[quote]There is no legal recourse. The only protection is to elect county supervisors that you trust to honor the principles set forth in the pass-through agreement. [/quote] There is another option: If the people of Yolo County want its agricultural lands (almost all of which are zoned A-1 or A-2) to remain as farms and ranches, the people can pass a Measure J-like initiative, which could do two things at once:
1. Give the incorporated cities a veto over zoning changes proposed by the Board of Supervisors on any county land within 1 mile of the incorporated cities; and
2. Prohibit the redesignation of any other county lands now zoned A-1 or A-2 to industrial, residential, commercial, etc., without majority vote approval by the residents of Yolo County.
I know Supervisor Matt Rexroad supports this idea; and I suspect Duane Chamberlain does as well. Jim Provenza’s entire campaign for Supervisor was built on the idea of keeping the Ag zoning in the county in place, so maybe he would support this concept.
Some fear a Measure J for the County, because they think it will cause a lot of very expensive votes of the citizens every time a development in proposed on county lands. But that is not true. The city council’s of Davis*, Woodland, Winters and West Sacramento would have the final say on almost all projects, because almost all projects would be on their peripheries.
As to projects far from the cities, they won’t be too common, because there is such widespread agreement in Yolo County that we want to keep that land as agriculture.
*If the Davis City Council did not veto a county plan to change zoning away from A-1 or A-2 on our periphery and the City wanted to incorporate that development into the City of Davis, it would trigger a regular Measure J vote in Davis. That is not the case in any of the other cities in our county.
Greg:
Saylor was extremely contemptuous of us when we met him at Mishkas. I’d be willing to bet he doesn’t even remember us. Everyone said we had no chance to win this campaign—such was the conventional wisdom at the time. People forget. Folks are now saying that this was inevitable, but Greg and I can tell you that over the summer when we planned this we thought we’d lose, but we had to take a chance.
Lets work just hard to defeat Saylor just as we did on this campaign. We don’t need 75%…50.00001% defeat will be fine.
Phil
Fascinating. I have no love for Saylor, but before you go running off and storming the barricades, you do need a candidate.
You also need to consider the following: whether you would rather him be Supervisor or Mayor of Davis. That is your choice here. I would submit, that we are better off with him as Supervisor than as Mayor. The key though is that we need to take at least one of the seats on the council to force a 2-2 deadlock, or better yet, both seats. To do that, you need to reach out to the progressives that you have fought on Measure P for so long. There are fences to be mended.
David M. Greenwald- you are exactly right about Kevin Wolf. The great thing about subscribing to process is that it can cut both ways. Though of course the Covell Village people have learned from Measure P’s campaign failure: it never really tried to address the argument of the low ranking, other than some random remarks. Look to see Covell Village proponents try and discredit the ranking process even more. Wonderful how people can so easily adjust their thinking to suit their wants.
Vicente:
Could you let me know what your definition of “progressive” is?
The “progressives” supporting P were backed by a Republican developer with no track record of green development. Parlin ran an extremely dishonest campaign which the vast majority of people in Davis saw through except for the “progressives” who backed this project (many of whom were paid by or had a financial interest in this development).
I am not sure I want to be this type of “progressive.”
Also, there are other folks in town with political views that may not be the same as mine, but who want a good community. Are these “non-progressives” who saw through Parlin’s lies somehow inferior and to be shunned? That doesn’t sound very inclusive to me.
The Solano County Orderly Growth Initiative would be a good model for Yolo County to follow.
[url]http://www.orderlygrowth.org/landusepolicy.html[/url]
@ Sue Greenwald[quote]At this point, the county tax revenues from a large enough development of very, very expensive houses and commercial development between Davis and the by-pass could well outweigh the financial penalties of breaking the pass-through agreement.
Under this scenario, neither Measure J nor the Davis City Council could stop growth on Davis’ borders. It will be entirely in the hands of three votes on the county board of supervisors.[/quote]Sue:
Under this scenario, how does the peripheral development get access to water, sewer, police, and fire? Would a pro-growth council majority have the authority to provide these services without a Measure J vote? If so, couldn’t a referendum negate the decision?
If you’re speculating that a very large development could provide its own services, then it would effectively be a new “city” … and there would be no need to locate it on our border.
Could you please clarify the threat?
Gadfly,
Yes, a very large development could provide/contract out its own services. [quote]If you’re speculating that a very large development could provide its own services, then it would effectively be a new “city” … and there would be no need to locate it on our border. Could you please clarify the threat? [/quote]I don’t understand what you don’t understand. The land around Davis is convenient to I-80 and sales prices would be higher due to its proximity to Davis. It is owned by people who want to develop. What’s there to clarify?
Vincente:[quote]You also need to consider the following: whether you would rather him be Supervisor or Mayor of Davis. That is your choice here. I would submit, that we are better off with him as Supervisor than as Mayor.[/quote]I think I already explained why I think the Supervisor position is more important. Citizens of Davis can conduct, and have a chance of winning, a city-wide referendum or Measure J vote. It would be much, much harder to conduct and win a county-wide referendum on an issue that only effects Davis.
@ David Greenwald[quote]The question is whether at some point there might be a legal challenge to Measure J arguing that the process makes it impossible to pass any project no matter how small or how innovative and efficient. That will not happen now. But that it could happen after another defeat of Covell Village is a distinct possibility.[/quote]David:
Why would a developer invest the time and money required for a legal challenge of Measure J? Assuming Measure J was overturned (not a certainty), they would still face a highly contentious application process and, in all likelihood, a citizen-driven referendum. Why assume the added risks of litigation? It would obviously anger the electorate (and possibly the council); and, at the end of the day, the developer would still have to face the voters.
Gadfly: You raise a point about the expense of litigation. The idea would be, at least as expressed to me, if a project already fails a Measure J vote, the applicant could sue. The city would be forced to defend which might be more problematic. Litigation is definitely costly but not given how much they would make from an approved entitlement of their project, perhaps a reasonable risk. I’m not a lawyer, but the ones I talked to spoke of a possible risk. I don’t remember Don Shor’s examples and whether those lawsuits occurred in cities where the electoral process had never been successful for the applicants. All of this of course speculation, I think J is safe for the time being.
Sue:
I gather from your answer that you perceive the threat to be from a development that provides its own infrastructure (and not from a development that somehow gains access to city services).
Do you have any idea what the scope of such a development would have to be in order to generate a large enough margin to pay for its own water, sewer, police, and fire? I’m assuming that a development large enough to adsorb these costs would be more than large enough to provide the county with sufficient new tax revenue to offset the loss of pass-through revenue. The point of the question is that estimates of the size threshold for such a project would have a direct bearing on any threat assessment.
David: Are you saying that successful litigation in response to a rejected project might preclude the possibility of a follow-on referendum to block the project a second time? If this is possible, then it is a significant issue that needs to be understood vis-à-vis Covell.
That is what I am saying and my concern. I want to study the issue far more before I get into specifics at this point.
Sue: “I think I already explained why I think the Supervisor position is more important. Citizens of Davis can conduct, and have a chance of winning, a city-wide referendum or Measure J vote. It would be much, much harder to conduct and win a county-wide referendum on an issue that only effects Davis.”
I apologize if this was explained before, but why hasn’t the county proposed peripheral development before now? Do you think Saylor’s views on development are significantly different from Helen Thompson’s?
[quote]I apologize if this was explained before, but why hasn’t the county proposed peripheral development before now? Do you think Saylor’s views on development are significantly different from Helen Thompson’s?[/quote]Yes, I did explain why the county has not been approving growth on the Davis border in recent years, and why we can’t assume that such restraint on the part of the county will continue (see my 3:07 P.M. post above). The short answer, again, is because the financial penalty for violating the pass-through agreement decreases over time.
I should remind people that the county was ready to unilaterally permit the building of Mace Ranch in l986. This forced the city to annex and approve Mace Ranch. In response to the county’s threat to unilaterally approve the development of Mace Ranch and to its subsequent forced annexation, the city negotiated the City-County Pass-Through agreement in 1987. But the financial incentive for the county to refrain from building on the city’s border that was written into the Pass-Through agreement decreases over time because the redevelopment agency’s lifespan and its revenue is limited and starts to decline with age (and it is now vulnerable to raids by the state as well).
Sue:
How can Davis prevent the County from developing land nearby ? If Saylor is the issue then who could run against him and win? What is to be done?
[i]How can Davis prevent the County from developing land nearby?[/i]
1. Perimeter fence
2. Moat
3. Mine the area
How can Davis prevent the County from developing land nearby?
Release an army of scientists to the surrounding land to find any and all endangered species.
Consider planting a few to see if they take.
[quote]Release an army of scientists to the surrounding land to find any and all endangered species. [/quote] Maybe we could plant some dittoheads out on our periphery, Jeff? Apparently because of the New York Times and CNN and so on, they are an endangered species.
How can Davis prevent the County from developing land nearby?
Maintain our growth per our General Plan. LAFCO-approved sphere of influence puts a number a properties – including Covell X – off limits for 10 years. We have the properties/projects approved and available as the ‘No on P’ group so forcefully argued. The trick now is to make sure they get built in a reasonable amount of time. Not easy in this market.
= = = =
Dittoheads? Differently enabled males who suffer from the ‘Sychophantia Pachydermitis’. Individuals who tend to travel through life with their noses wrapped around the tail of the guy in front.
Maybe we could plant some dittoheads out on our periphery, Jeff? Apparently because of the New York Times and CNN and so on, they are an endangered species.
Ha! Actually, attracting more Republicans might be a good idea… especially the business-owning kind.
Dittoheads? Differently enabled males who suffer from the ‘Sychophantia Pachydermitis’. Individuals who tend to travel through life with their noses wrapped around the tail of the guy in front.
Elephants never forget. Also, they generally have a better sense of humor.
[quote]How can Davis prevent the County from developing land nearby?
1. Perimeter fence
2. Moat
3. Mine the area [/quote]
I laughed.
Anyhow, not impressed at all by this vote. Many of the “No on P” folks were outside my office, I went to get their reasoning:
“Davis doesn’t need more housing.” Really? Don’t we have one of the lowest regional vacancy rates? If I’m wrong, please direct me to more accurate statistics. Population growth is realistic. Of course most people who already live here don’t feel like it needs more housing, but those of us living in temporary housing here, or working here and living out-of-town, might disagree.
“They say it’s green but it’s not really green. What could be greener than no development?” Sure. Eating vegan isn’t really being eco-conscious, but eating nothing at all would be much more eco-conscious! This was a development that was making national headlines. I got a phone call from a guy in Florida who saw this and was impressed. I had to tell him it wouldn’t happen.
Hell, the slogan for the opposition is “PLEASE HELP US SLOW PERIPHERAL SPRAWL. 2000 UNITS ARE ENOUGH FOR NOW. VOTE NO ON MEASURE P”. Really? Medium-density infill is peripheral sprawl? This is as dishonest as the nutcases talking about Death Panel provisions in the health care bill.
I really could have gone either way on Measure P. The way they ended up presenting the project pushed me a bit into the yes column… it was a good way to do a project if you have to build something. What really upsets me though is that the No on P waged a dishonest campaign that won through scare tactics and screaming louder.
Also, for the sake of information, statistics on historical growth for Davis:
1950 3,554 (pop)112.6% (growth rate)
1960 8,910 150.7%
1970 23,488 163.6%
1980 36,640 56.0%
1990 46,209 26.1%
2000 60,308 30.5%
2007 64,938 7.7% (estimated)
For comparison, Woodland grew 9.2%. West Sac has grown almost 50%. Winters grew 8.8%.
Justin – drive thru West Sacramento and see the MANY foreclosures in the new developments. Check out the stopped traffic (often a 10 min wait) for the very short commute to the new developments. Try and find your way around those developments. This is an example of badly thought out, quickly built development. It was probably quite profitable for the mortgage companies and builders. Now West Sac has to take care of the mess for years.
People live in Davis because it hasn’t been paved over (yet) and still has a smaller town feel. Over and over, I hear “there’s no affordable housing” complaints. What developer in this universe is going to sell houses for less than market? Look at the “affordable” prices in Wildhorse Ranch and Chiles Ranch. Starting price for most of the units is in the low 400’s.
Thanks for the jokes!
Jim, I agree that West Sac is not as desireable as Davis, but there are tradoffs. I have relatives that live in the older section down Linden drive… now surrounded by the big track home residential developments with all the foreclosure signs. West Sac also build a new school and a community gym and pool in this area. Nugget is there as well as a number of new shopping alternatives.
My relatives dislike the track homes, but love all the new shopping and the new community facilities.
I live in West Davis and try to avoid driving downtown or accross town becausd it takes so long. I disagree that traffic is much worse in West Sac. Yes there are more cars, but there are also more lanes and turnouts to keep the flow moving. That may not be the look we want, but it works for this area.
West Sac is also close to downtown Sac which is more and more a happenin’ scene. Not that many nice sit-down restaurants in Davis considering the size. I have an employee who is single (moved from the Bay Area) and she is looking to buy in West Sac even though she can afford Davis. She likes the proximity to the downtown and says Davis is not a good place for singles older than college age.
If the West Sac track home developments had more custom-lot development with more open and green space… with connecting bike lanes, I think this area could have been a winner. Still not Davis, but not a bad alternative for those that cannot afford Davis prices.
Foreclosure signs have to do with the fact that a large number of homes were sold right before the housing market crashed… thus, it’s really a non sequitur.
Still, you’re comparing Measure P to thousands of units of track housing which expands city limits in a extremely high growth area. This was 191 houses of infill and a smart growth project which had higher standards that I only wish other development would match up to. It’s like saying Hummers are bad and cause pollution, so don’t buy a Prius because it’ll be the same.
Infill? That’s laughable
[quote]you’re comparing Measure P to thousands of units of track housing[/quote] For what it’s worth, the term is “tract” homes, not “track” homes. It comes from the term “housing tract,” meaning an expanse or stretch of property dedicated to houses.
Tract comes from the Latin [i]tractus[/i], meaning “drawn” or “drawn out” or “dragged” or “dealt with.” I don’t know exactly how tract came into English to mean “an expanse” or “a stretch,” but it seems reasonable to guess it was a figurative use of “drawn out.”
Some other common English words with the same Latin origin are trace (“to draw,” as an outline); trait (“a distinguishing characteristic,” as in something drawn); tractor (“something used for drawing or pulling”); train (originally “something which pulled or dragged” other things); retract (“to draw back within itself or oneself”); detract (“to draw away or divert”); treat (“to deal with”); traction (“the action of drawing a body, vehicle, train, or the like, along a surface, as a road, track, railroad, or waterway”); extract (“to get, pull, or draw out, usually with special effort, skill, or force”); abstract (“to draw apart; to take away; remove”); contract (“to draw together”); protract (“to draw out or lengthen in time”); and subtract (“to take away; deduct”).
Jeff/Justin – I’m not trying to compare P and new West Sac. I’m commenting on what rapid development usually seems to produce. For me, the new part of West Sac seems to be an example of too much growth too fast. Yeah some of the foreclosures are financial but some of the house/developments are simply badly designed. Stuff like 2 story properties (“high density”) literally crammed together w/ zero lot lines. Some similarity to the upcoming Chiles Ranch architecturally (the $400k townhouses). Some are impossible to find; it takes 27 left + rights to get a couple of blocks.
Jeff – actually, WS is an interesting place. New mayor has some good ideas. If the new developments had more creative design, walking paths and other adds, it could have been a winner. Glad to hear shopping malls appeal. The State Steets area is cool; def sense of neighborhoods and has some architectural variety. Proximity to a happening downtown Sac. The houses are LOT cheaper too. $200k buys a nice house (it doesn’t get you a condo here!) I can understand Davis not being attractive to non college age singles (altho if athletic or political, many social ops)
Again, no bias against West Sac. Think it’s a city w/ many interesting aspects. Davis isn’t the only place in the universe to live.
Rich: Sorry, total brain fart there. You’re quite the etymologist though!
Jim: I understand what you’re saying about development, and there’s definitely a lot of cases I’d be against it, this just isn’t one of them due to the nature of the development. Just remember the current state of foreclosures is a pretty darn exceptional situation – tremendous development growth coupled with the most severe economic collapse of a generation.
Rich: Sorry, total brain fart there. You’re quite the etymologist though!
Jim: I understand what you’re saying about development, and there’s definitely a lot of cases I’d be against it, this just isn’t one of them due to the nature of the development. Just remember the current state of foreclosures is a pretty darn exceptional situation – tremendous development growth coupled with the most severe economic collapse of a generation.
For what it’s worth, the term is “tract” homes, not “track” homes
Thanks for the correction. I knew that, but the brain was using my phonetic brain cells to type.
I’m happy to be of help. It gave me a reason to look up in my OED [i]tractus.[/i] I hope it’s clear that before looking that stuff up, I didn’t know off the top of my bald head that all of those other words had the same origin.
And speaking of phonetics, I hear a lot of people say “duck tape” for “duct tape.” I think there is a brand of “duct tape” called “Duck Tape.” However, I’m fairly certain that the name of the generic product comes from tape once principally used to hold together heating ducts.
Of course, once women discovered duct tape, their creative minds found some new uses for it, like this:
[img]http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funnypics/images/d/duct_tape_dress-13204.jpg[/img]
Guest: agree the foreclosures comment.
The obvious question is do we really need lots of growth? Right now, there are 541 units currently approved in the City. We’ve long ago met the local government requirements for growth. I’ve lived in Davis for 30 years. Now I see the cars choking the downtown area and bicycle use disappearing. I hear about the many proposed developments w/ very little original thinking. I see the ridiculous housing prices. Building more houses will NOT provide lower cost housing (well maybe a few per project so the developer can get the project approved). Davis has had a distinctive small town identity. So let’s do SLOW growth. We get the chance to do innovative things and keep the quality of life.
Sure WHR had some cool stuff. It was also on the edge of town and would have been built on ag land. It added 400-600 new cars driving the 3 miles downtown and back. PV or not, I just don’t see how that’s green. Do something w/ some WHR features. Do it as a truly infill project close to downtown! Do it where people can walk and bike. Using existing land (which is more expensive for the developer of course). Put it close to downtown. Then it becomes a lot more green. Downtown Sac is cool. It’s also true high density w/ where you can walk and bike to your destinations. It uses existing land to provide more housing.
I’d like to keep the quality of life here. Good for me? Of course. Good for anyone that moves here or future residents? I hope so. Slow growth hopefully maintains the quality of life. Smart growth is encouraging projects like WHR IF they are truly green when you look at ALL the aspects of the project.