On an item that might seem to be a relatively mundane status report on development, a few things really jump out as staff seems to be pushing for new development and following the council 1% growth guidelines despite 362 units that city staff admits have been approved but “stalled” due to current housing market conditions. That’s what the council faces on Tuesday night as it considers an item entitled “Residential Development Status Report” but is actually not merely the informational item the title implies, but rather an action plan that could Davis on a path to far more development in the next three years.
Despite admitting that the housing market is in poor shape, the city would appear to be pushing for 692 units through 2013, a number that apparently includes 362 units that are already approved.
“The rationale for this finding includes: (1) Specific approved projects consisting of 362 units are “stalled” due to the current housing market conditions; (2) More than 800 units are approved and reasonably foreseeable from 2010 through 2013 (including the recently approved Carlton Plaza and Willowbank Park projects); and (3) Development applications shall be considered on other “green light” sites.”
The staff report then recommends that City Council “direct staff to” “continue to encourage and process applications on the remaining 16 “green light” sites.” Specifically they push for initiating preliminary planning efforts on the two potential infill sites of DJUSD Headquarters and PG&E Service Center, both of these in cooperation with the property owners. According to the staff report, “The intended end product of such efforts would be a set of development objectives and a conceptual plan for each site for review by City Council.”
By itself this is interesting given that to my knowledge neither the district nor PG&E have a good deal of interest at least at this time of vacating the site. Nevertheless, the staff is asking for the council to “direct staff to prepare, for the Mayor’s signature, a letter to the property owners requesting confirmation of their agreement with the planning effort and their cooperation” and then, “subject to the agreements, return to Council with work programs including steps, timeframes and costs.”
More concerning is recommendation 2c which would, “encourage representatives of the Nishi property (“green light” site 18) to submit a preapplication for City review. The purpose of the pre-application is to take a first step in the consideration of development on the site by assessing the feasibility of vehicular /bicycle / pedestrian access via UC Davis, prior to the submittal of formal development applications for the site.”
First of all Nishi unlike the other Green light sites is a Measure J vote and for all intents and purposes Measure J voted sites should be taken out of consideration at this time given the strong unlikelihood that there would be voter approval particularly now.
Second, as the recommendation indicates, the site looks alluring but it is a logistical nightmare in that it would not have vehicle access to the rest of the city, only through UC Davis. The other option would be the narrow exit at Olive Drive via Richards, which would be another kind of traffic nightmare.
Finally at this point, given the economy, why be asking developers to submit proposals at all, as the staff points out, there are 362 units that have been approved but not developed.
In 2008, the council candidates Don Saylor and Stephen Souza complained about the lack of building permits which at that point had fallen from 250 in 2005 to 104 in 2006 to 43 in 2007.
At that time they argued that it had to do with the lack of approved projects. Since that point, as seen above, there have been 362 approved units and yet only 27 permits pulled in both 2008 and 2009 (slightly higher than the number that candidate Jon Li cited in the debate).
The problem at this point is obviously not supply but demand. Staff acknowledges this problem.
They write:
The current uncertainty in the housing market will continue to limit the amount of building activity in the next few years. Buyers are being cautious due to job insecurity and tighter restrictions on lending by mortgage institutions make it more difficult to secure a mortgage. Developers are concerned with the absorption of new units once developed. The reluctance of banks to lend due to risks can make some projects infeasible or cause delays, forcing developers to carry the burden of financing a project for longer periods of time.
The selling of bank-owned foreclosed houses at cut-rate prices in nearby communities (and to a lesser degree in Davis) causes price competition for the new affordable units in Davis developments. This reduces the number of qualified buyers for new affordable units in Davis which increases the financial burden on the rest of the development. In summary, until bad debts are reduced, banks are going to be reluctant to provide loans for the development and purchasing of new residential development. Until the number of foreclosed homes stabilizes or decreases, new homes are more difficult to sell. All of these conditions in the current market cause developers to be less motivated to develop residential properties at this time.”
And yet we see staff pushing for what appears to be up to 864 units through 2013 which includes that 362 figure.
During the original Willowbank discussion back in November, council pointed out that one of the reasons for the 1% growth cap was to avoid a situation where a huge amount of houses hit the market at the same time. So what is staff pushing for? Right now it appears that they are pushing for exactly that. At some point the housing market will improve and developers will have the incentive to build. In the mean time, a huge amount of housing is moving into the queue. If the number of reasonably foreseeable or projected houses ends up being 864 by 2013, then we are looking at nearly 1000 homes hitting the market at some future date.
The real question is why this would be needed. Council already rammed through a fairly small Willowbank 10 subdivision at 30 units, but why the rush? Just so the property can lie undisturbed until the market improves?
From a policy standpoint it would make a lot more sense if the city suspends its normal policies on growth targets until the economy improves and demand for new housing rises. That would mean not writing letters to ask developers to submit proposals. That would mean not seek out the two sites already owned and in use (i.e. DJUSD and PG&E). And that would mean if a developer did submit a proposal, that they take the time and care to meet the needs not only of the community but the neighbors who have invested in many cases their life’s savings into their homes and deserve more respect than the Willowbank 10 residents received from the council. There was no need to push that through without full agreement that was very attainable at that point.
From our perspective, pushing for development at Nishi at this time makes little sense. There are too many different types of obstacles there including a Measure J vote and traffic design. If we were desperate for housing, then it might make sense to take some risks, but given the costs associated in staff and planning time, why now?
Finally, another note of concern comes from a note on page two of the staff report that basically alters an alternative if the council does not concur on avoiding going forward with yellow light sites at this time. Remember, that Covell Village is a yellow light site and the developers there have been working very hard to stir up popular support for senior housing that they would offer at that site.
They suggest the following language:
“Development applications for “yellow sites” should be considered now due to housing needs and the time involved from development application to actual construction.”
Due to housing needs? What housing needs? We have 362 approved but unbuilt units.
It continues:
“Authorize the processing of development applications on the following “yellow light” sites without a presumption of approval:
1. The Cannery site (“yellow light” site 21) and the adjacent Covell site (“yellow light” site 31) subject to a planning and citizen involvement process to develop a coordinated plan for both sites. The planning for the Cannery site should be able to stand alone and not be dependent on the approval of a Measure J citizen vote on the Covell site.
2. Wildhorse horse ranch site (“yellow light” site 22).
3. Signature Properties site (“yellow light” site 26).”
This would put Covell, Cannery, and Signature back in play with Wildhorse Ranch probably being out given the recent election.
Now you know that council is going to go with this because otherwise they would effectively be precluding any new development at Covell Village until after 2013, and given the expense and efforts of the Covell planners and their astroturf campaign to produce support for senior housing, it seems very unlikely that their council allies would allow that to happen.
For those who believe that simply because Measure J is on the books and the housing market is in depression, that growth and development are off the table, here is the staff coming forward with a proposal that would continue to promote growth and development.
Almost all of the development on the table right now is infill, but understand they have an incentive to develop as many infill sites as possible so as to use them up and then try to force the residents of Davis to expand growth outside of the current boundaries.
Or at least that would appear to be the logic of continuing an active attempt to get development during a time when 362 units remain undeveloped but approved in the city at the same time the university is underway in efforts to produce eventually over 500 housing units at West Village.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Keep it simple: no “Measure J” properties need to be considered. Period. And for me that’s top of the list of questions needing answers in your forum.
Who is the author of the report ? Has Katherine been replaced yet? ’nuff said
One can easily imagine this “make-work” staff recommendation originating at a meeting where the unspoken “elephant in the living room” question is…”How do we forestall any further staff reductions and appear busy now that significant new Davis residential development is not projected to be viable some years into the future.
That’s a good point as it appears there are 11 planners and two economic developers working on essentially 27 building permits each of the last two years.
I see no problem with going forward with general, long-term planning for the DJUSD and PG&E sites. Obviously this is a very conceptual stage, but seeking a cooperative relationship with the property owners is reasonable. I also think Nishi would be an excellent site for rental housing, which is definitely needed. I believe a well-considered plan for Nishi could pass a Measure J vote.
“Due to housing needs? What housing needs? We have 362 approved but unbuilt units.”
David, we need rental housing. I don’t believe any of those 362 units would address that need.
27 building permits
Nonsense. You need to ask the question before you ass/u/me the answer.
Don: My position is that we need rental housing on the UCD campus, now maybe Nishi can accommodate that, I don’t know. I have not seen a lot of proposals for rentals, it’s almost all single family homes with a small number of duplexes and apartments.
Neutral: Who are you responding to?
[i]”I see no problem with going forward with general, long-term planning for the DJUSD and PG&E sites. Obviously this is a very conceptual stage, but seeking a cooperative relationship with the property owners is reasonable.”[/i]
I agree with Don.
[i]”I also think Nishi would be an excellent site for rental housing, which is definitely needed. I believe a well-considered plan for Nishi could pass a Measure J vote.”[/i]
I think there are always going to be some noise and air-quality issues on that site for housing. Also, if it is going to be incorporated into the city of Davis, it bothers me that its only access — as the developer explained to me his hope — will be in and out of campus. Nonetheless, I agree that it is fine to plan for this site and perhaps some solutions can be found to that site’s problems in the planning process. I also agree that its proximity to campus and to the downtown would be attractive to some people.
[i]”Finally at this point, given the economy, why (should we) be asking developers to submit proposals at all, as the staff points out, there are 362 units that have been approved but not developed.”[/i]
It is true that we have approved more units than demand suggests we need right now. It is also true that, because of West Village and budget cuts at UCD, it is very unlikely we will have much of a supply problem for the next few years. Yet that question, “why submit proposals at all?” is nonsense, David. You won’t know when the demand has turned around until it is too late, if you follow this shortsighted strategy David advocates.
If there is one thing you should have learned since Verona and Chiles Ranch were approved but not built is that, if the demand is (thought to be) insufficient, developers will wait. They are not going to flood the market with homes they cannot sell and apartments they cannot lease. Even your friends, the developers of WHR, would not have built a single unit until they were sure the market was ready for their product.
So no one is really hurt by approving housing projects inside the city limits ahead of the demand. However, letting demand outpace supply by clogging up the development process does create winners and losers.
The winners, of course, would be current homeowners and landlords in Davis — that is, the wealthiest among us — who benefit by the resultant higher home prices and higher rents.
The losers would be s.o.l. homebuyers and renters, who suffer from an artificial inflation of home prices and rents.
Thus, if your desire is to help the (relatively) rich and harm the (relatively) poor, you should oppose planning for new housing units in Davis under the theory that we don’t need them right now; and if we find ourselves short of housing in five years, too #$%&ing bad for those who need housing.
“Yet that question, “why submit proposals at all?” is nonsense, David. You won’t know when the demand has turned around until it is too late, if you follow this shortsighted strategy David advocates.”
The problem with that theory is that we already have 362 units which have not been built, and will not be built for some time. Plus the units at West Village. So it’s not like if the market turned around we would not have housing options while new projects would move through the system.
One of the complaints was that Davis in the fast would have lurches in growth, that is one of the reasons why the council majority has argued we need the 1 percent goal, and yet the current situation is now setting up to do exactly what they were trying to avoid.
First off, it seems highly inappropriate to me for for this council to take action on future growth plans when a new council will be seated in two months.
Secondly, concerning the Nishi property:
Back about 15 years ago when the Nishi came forward, the housing option was eliminated early on due to the obvious noise and safety issues involved with placing housing on a property crammed between the freeway and the railroad tracks. A freeway mall was then proposed. Ultimately, consensus developed around the idea that the land, if it were to be developed, would best be developed as a business park.
The site is still too noisy and dangerous to be developed as housing. We have already created a safety nightmare in East Olive Drive. Why on earth repeat the mistake?
The idea of developing Nishi for housing is ridiculous since it is not a good location for housing given its location right next to I-80 and the access, traffic, and noise issues it has. The Council needs to get real and not try to bring on what would only be a huge impact on the city planning-wise and financially.
The Whitcombe developers obviously want to corner the market with trying to ram through huge developments at the Nishi and Covell Vlllage sites so they can control the majority of growth in Davis. Since Nishi and Covell Village are both subject to Measure J they don’t Measure J renewed and have taken a formal position against Measure R (which renews Measure J).
I seen Katherine Hess helped write this staff report. Is her son still working for Whitcombe?
I’m with Neutral. Looking at Nishi and/or other Measure J/R sites is probably a complete waste of time (the bar is, IMO, insurmountable). The fact that this is in the staff report supports davisite2’s speculation that CDD is just trying to find ways to look busy – especially in light of DG’s stats.
“One of the complaints was that Davis in the fast would have lurches in growth, that is one of the reasons why the council majority has argued we need the 1 percent goal, and yet the current situation is now setting up to do exactly what they were trying to avoid.”
I think this is incorrect. My understanding is that the mechanism that was put in place to avoid future growth surges was to eliminate carryover of allocations year over year. If my recollection is correct, the number of units in the pipeline is subordinate to the 1% growth cap, and therefore largely irrelevant.
In other words, it technically doesn’t matter if the line is 362 units long or 10,000 units long since we have a 1% growth cap.
It seems to me that the much bigger risk in terms of growth control is whether or not UCD decides to do additional projects because growth in the city is unacceptably low.
“So no one is really hurt by approving housing projects inside the city limits ahead of the demand.”
The developers battle to obtain Council “entitlement” to build on their property before their competitors. Once they have this entitlement, they are relatively comfortable sitting on it until the new residential housing market improves. In that situation, the Council has lost the ability to assess the future conditions and make the best decision. This will be the danger if Whitcombe attempts to get future entitlement for his entire 400 acres included in his new CV project of the approx. 100 acres which he seems to be planning to present to the Council.
Developers strive,mainly with campaign funding, to get people on the Council who will support development of their property annexed into the city for residential development. This was overwhelmingly the driving force in Davis local politics before Measure J took this power away from a 3 vote Council majority and gave it to the Davis voters. Before Measure J, we clearly saw the Council members divided between those who supported peripheral annexation of Whitcombe’s NE property and those who supported annexation of Davis’ NW peripheral property. In spite of Measure J, this underlying driving force on Council politics still has considerable enertia. Whitcombe has been able to create a majority Council favorable to his plans for some years now but this may very well significantly altered in the next Council.
davisite2:
Who benefits if another Covell project comes forward?
The developers? No. They’ll just spend a lot of money and ultimately be defeated at the ballot box.
The city staff? Yes. They get to bill hundreds of thousands of dollars of staff time to “process” the application.
The politicians? Yes. They get political support and contributions regardless of whether they are pro or con … the only requirement is community polarization.
From this perspective, Whitcombe and company are being conned by the staff and pro-Covell politicians into betting that “this time it will be different.” Well it won’t be different. Seniors, sport parks, green – pick your political driver(s) – the outcome will be the same. The electorate will not approve a residential project.
Jack: It’s ALL a conspiracy by unscrupulous Davis politicians and Davis city staff to foist this proposal on Whitcombe, the naive victim?? Really!!
davisite2: I never used terms like conspiracy and victim. You know better than that. Your pejorative spin on my post adds nothing useful to the dialog, so why bother?
The developers are driven by greed and move forward with eyes wide open. The staff and supportive politicians play a proactive enabling role because they have a conflict of interest.
Even without hope of development impact fees, the processing of doomed Measure J-governed applications (staff time billed to the developer) supports a healthy food chain. When Whitcombe and Streng come in with their next application, the CDD gets to ring the cash register. And the more we fight about the proposal, the better it is for the staff, city contractors, and politicians.
“From this perspective, Whitcombe and company are being CONNED by the staff and pro-Covell politicians into betting that “this time it will be different.”
…your words, Jack(with my caps for emphasis). Whitcombe and company are being conned?….. This is the guy who has been the virtual “godfather” of Davis residential development.
davisite2: If you want to quibble over semantics, I would note that Whitcombe’s track record with Nishi and Covell hasn’t been very “godfather” like. Measure J functioned as intended, and Whitcombe does not have the same power that he once did.
That being said, hope springs eternal and he will almost certainly come forward with a senior-driven proposal that will ultimately fail at the ballot box. While the proposal is being processed, the planning staff will be billing out their time with a healthy “profit margin” and the whole dysfunctional machine will continue to grind away per the status quo.