Immediately during public comment Don Villarejo and Mary Jo Bryan, representing Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA), argued that the council needed to consider the development of Yellow Sites and argued that the motion passed by council in 2009 authorized such consideration after January 2010. CHA is the astroturf group purportedly seeking housing options for seniors but really operating under the direction of the Covell Village Developers trying to create a popular movement among seniors to gain support for a massive senior housing facility at the Covell Village site.
The staff report read:
“Additional “yellow light” sites do not need to be considered at this time. 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.”
Bill Streng, one of the partners who are pushing for the massive senior development on the Covell Village site spoke before council asking for clarification on the “yellow light” policy. “If what you’re saying tonight is say that a yellow site can’t come forward until 2013,” he said. “Nevermind that it takes some years after that to get through the process.”
“It’s a little bit like saying, we haven’t got time to hear any evidence but we’re going to move right ahead to sentencing, if it were a criminal thing,” he said. Then evoking the martyrdom of the Covell Village campaign he added, “which often I feel like I am treated like.”
These questions raised entirely by the Covell Village developer and their surrogates, led council to ask Bob Wolcott to explain whether this marks a difference in the established policy from 2009 which would give “yellow light” sites the go ahead after January 2010.
As Mr. Wolcott explained, the policy had not changed, “yellow light” sites were always supposed to proceed with caution after 2010. “This does not change the resolution adopted a couple of years ago,” he explained. “One of the provisions of the resolution was after January 2010, consider processing applications for additional yellow sites for reasons of housing needs, housing mix, provision of extraordinary improvements, but consideration should proceed with caution.”
Bill Emlen then made the comment that this sort of discussion is exactly why the city needs to do long range planning for development. “I think it once again points out, the pitfalls of not having a long range plan,” he said. “I will continue to advocate for that as someone who supports that type of plan.”
“I know it’s difficult in this particular community because of the nature of the dialogue on growth – slow growth versus no growth,” he continued. “But I just can’t help but sitting here and listening to these discussions see that that is sort of the underpinnings of the struggles we’re having. I’m not putting any value judgments on that other than to say that I think that’s a reality.”
Councilmember Lamar Heystek had originally moved approval of the staff report, however, Stephen Souza moved and Don Saylor seconded a motion to amend the staff recommendation to allow “yellow light” sites to move forward “with caution.” That led to the typical council split and it ended up a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Heystek and Greenwald dissenting.
Commentary
CHA has previously fought against the city doing a survey of senior housing needs while at the same time they have spent considerable time and effort to attempt to demonstrate that the city’s senior population projections have been on the low side and therefore the city has underestimated future senior housing need.
What they have showed yet again is that they are not merely for senior housing, they are for senior housing at a specific site. While they have not explicitly stated their preference for the Covell Village site, even Stephen Souza acknowledged that is the 800 pound gorilla in the room as he made his substitute motion that would allow Covell Village Part Deux to come forward.
The problem that Covell Village Part Deux and all other Yellow Sites face is a housing market that has made Davis residents extremely reluctant to put forth new development. All the yellow sites save for Cannery Park would require a Measure J vote should the voters of Davis, as expected approve its renewal this June.
There is virtually no possibility that voters would approve Covell Village in the next five years and probably not the next ten. So this is almost a moot point. However, Bill Streng’s appearance demonstrates fairly conclusively that that is their intention.
Given the realities of a Measure J vote, there are good reasons why the son John Whitcombe would be attempting to spearhead the effort against the renewal of Measure J, now called Measure R on the June ballot. However, Mr. Whitcombe’s efforts to file a lawsuit to change the well-established ballot title for Measure R were almost farcical and it was inevitable that they would fail. All he achieved was galvanizing the pro-Measure J forces at an earlier stage.
In these times, it is unlikely that Whitcombe or anyone else would muster a serious challenge to Measure R. All five councilmembers supported it. It appears that all major council candidates support its renewal.
While it clear that Covell Village partners and CHA will continue to attempt to create a mass movement, it is equally clear that at least in the short-term that movement and those efforts are doomed to failure.
However, apparently we need to waste council and staff time in the pursuit of windmills. So be it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“I think it once again points out, the pitfalls of not having a long range plan,” he said. “I will continue to advocate for that as someone who supports that type of plan.”
Another “800 pound gorilla in the room” is the fact that we now have a manager running our city whose training, career experience and focus is development planning and not the pressing MANAGEMENT problems facing Davis.
It’s interesting you picked up on that part of the quote. The telling portion for me was when he referred to it as slow growth versus “no growth.” That’s the verbiage used by the development community to describe people on the left. There are very few no growthers in this town, instead there are pro-developer types and slow growth advocates. His language betrays his thinking.
Bill Emlen: “I think it once again points out, the pitfalls of not having a long range plan,” he said. “I will continue to advocate for that as someone who supports that type of plan.””
Does not a “long range plan” represent more “work” to justify keeping city staff busy and employed at a time when citizens clearly are opposed to peripheral residential housing development?
City staff was at least trying to defuse the Covell Village Part Deux problem, by recommending no yellow light sites be considered at this time. Kudos to Bob Wolcott for his efforts to do the right thing inre yellow light sites.
If you listened carefully, there was a brief comment that City Staff is having a “discussion” with CHA/CV developers about underlying data used for the Senior Housing Strategy, a strategy which CHA/CV developers are trying like the dickens to kill. I use the term “discussion” loosely, bc it is really behind the scenes “push-back” by CHA/CV developers of the severest order OUTSIDE OF COMMISSION PURVIEW.
Why are CHA/CV developers trying to radically change the Senior Housing Strategy? Embedded in the Senior Housing Strategy are the notions that 1)a developer must justify why the housing is needed (internal demand) and 2) the city needs to consider the proposed housing development’s fiscal impact on citizens. Why are CHA/CV developers so opposed to two such reasonable requirements? Or is it they just want what they want, when they want it – regardless of whether it is good for the citizens of Davis?
DPD: “It’s interesting you picked up on that part of the quote. The telling portion for me was when he referred to it as slow growth versus “no growth.” That’s the verbiage used by the development community to describe people on the left. There are very few no growthers in this town, instead there are pro-developer types and slow growth advocates. His language betrays his thinking.”
I would argue there are pro-developer types and SMART growth advocates!
SaylorSouza: “our substitute motion that up is truly up will clarify once and for all that up is truly up.”
Who knew?
“The telling portion for me was when he referred to it as slow growth versus “no growth.”
It is telling that Emlen was so clumsy in publicly ” showing his hand”. It probably has to do with his frustration with Measure J which empowers the voters to thwart his near-obsession with his plans for development of Whitcombe’s NE properties. This has been clear since measure X went down in defeat. He has been trying ever since to dilute/neutralize the citizen power Measure J gives to the voters; the city’s handling of the Wild Horse Ranch property proposal is a good example.
‘….whose training, career experience and focus is development planning and not the pressing MANAGEMENT problems facing Davis.”
…kind of reminds me of the Capt. Queeg character in “The Cain Mutiny” who harps back to his success in solving a food theft on his previous ship, by searching for an imaginary strawberry thief on the Cain, when confronted with his present command failures.
I agree with E. Roberts Musser. We have a wonderful general plan, which contains all the elements of smart growth. We will be adding a climate section. The housing element has to be upated every 5 years. The only thing a “long range growth plan” does is to foster faster growth and to decrease the city’s bargaining power.
When I was examining the development agreements that other cities had obtained during period when the Covell Village was being voted on, it was the cities that had not designated large tracts for development that were offered a far, far greater share of the windfall profits that result when councils turn cheap agricultural land into expensive residentially zoned land.
I see no real upside in a “long range growth plan”. We still have to entertain applications, and we can still turn them down if the location is less than optimal.
New general plans take an enormous amount of time and energy that would be better spent dealing with our fiscal crisis, trying to better plan and oversee our ruinously expensive water/wastewater projects, and trying to succeed in accomplishing actual projects that that we already know we want.
To embark on a new general plan when we already have an excellent general plan would be a massive, bureaucratic waste of time. It would also be unlikelely to produce the faster growth anyway, because citizens will have the last say.
I missed the early Public Comment that is supposed to be on topics not on the Agenda. I find it interesting that the CHA speakers weren’t committed enough to stay until its scheduled time on the Agenda. As they say, “the cupboard was bare.” Only four audience members (other than me) were present, Bill Streng, Eileen Sammitz, Rochelle Swanson, and a gentleman seated with Rochelle.
It certainly seems like the battle has transitioned to a less public venue.
Matt, I would argue that those items the most controversial are specifically placed at the end of the agenda in the hopes that the public will not stick around to watch. Call me cynical…