By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – While the council pulled the item on Bretton Woods off the consent calendar and had a roughly 20-minute discussion, the general consensus was that there was no fundamental change in the proposal from what was approved on the ballot. Moreover, the developer indicated talks are ongoing about URC purchasing the property.
“The proposal remains unchanged from what was proposed and approved by the City Council and the voters in 2018,” City Manager Mike Webb said.
Attorney Matt Keasling agreed.
“With respect to that parcel, we agree with your city manager, that it’s not actually before you tonight as part of the final maps that are being approved, nor is it part of what’s being acquired by Denova homes and therefore not relevant to the assignment.”
He said, “With respect to that parcel, we’re still committed to utilizing that for ongoing senior care and believe that a proposal will be coming before you likely this 
year.”
He added, “I’ve been authorized by my client to say that, though there’s been lots of speculation that what is occurring tonight is precluding URC for moving forward. The likely purchaser of that property is URC, that’s who we’re, we’re in conversations with.”
He added that “we’re hopeful that they’ll be closing within the month.”
During public comment, Rik Keller charged, “The project developer wrote in November 2018 ‘if Measure L fails, we will miss the opportunity for the university retirement community to expand and build a memory care facility for people with Alzheimer’s and dementia.’ And what happened to these promises? Now they’ve been replaced with 30 detached housing units on the face of it this is not what Davis was promised.”
Colin Walsh said, “I’m even more disappointed now, as I see the item for the consent calendar, that makes it clear, the required baseline feature for a senior care facility is quietly being switched to 30 detached senior houses.”
He added, “There is no way this is a memory unit as was promised. It is not even really a specialized senior care facility as is specifically required by the baseline features that were on the ballot on the ballot and voted on. This appears to be a terrible double cross of Davis, and it does not belong on the consent calendar tonight.”
Councilmember Will Arnold read information from the April 2018 EIR, “approximately three acre continuing care retirement community, which would likely consist of 30 assisted living age, restricted detached units…”
Then he read from the development agreement, “approximately three acre continuing care retirement community, which would likely consist of 30 assisted living age, restricted detached units.”
And from the item tonight, he read, “an approximately three acre continuing care retirement community site, which would likely contain 30 assisted living age restricted detached units.”
“So from April 2018 to March 2022, the language hasn’t changed,” Councilmember Arnold said. The baseline features are actually briefer than the DA or the EIR, but it says, “provide an approximately three-acre parcel for senior care facilities.”
“This is the first Measure J/R/D approved project that is going to construction,” said Dan Carson. “I keep reading blogs that say, we’ll never be able to build anything under Measure J/R/D. The answer is that we can do it.”
He said, “This is also the answer why we do so through that process, if we just left ourselves to the referendum process, our city would not have the very significant bargaining power it has to produce a project this good.”
Councilmember Carson called it “a critical need for this community” and said that “we’re harnessing, and we’re leveraging this project to bring these units forward.”
Mayor Gloria Partida said, “There were a number of statements that were made this evening about changing of the baseline features and what had been promised to the voters.
“I want to state again, that everything is as it was,” she said.
So does that mean that the original Davis-Based Buyers Program reserving 90% of the units for Davis-connected buyers is still on…”as it was“?
And does that also mean the Oak-Foundation under the guidance of Tree Davis is still on…as it was“?
And finally, does that mean the home purchase contracts with “nearly 300 individuals and couples already committed to purchasing a home” are still in place“…as it was“?
…Just asking
“And finally, does that mean the home purchase contracts with ‘nearly 300 individuals and couples already committed to purchasing a home” are still in place’…as it was“?”
This is the question I haven’t heard answered. What happened with those deals and why? The rest of it is all bull manure.
Uhh…what does that mean?
It means he believes that Measure J results in the community getting better project proposals.
I disagree because Measure J creates disincentives to master plan. In this case we got a proposal for Bretton Woods instead of a master plan for the entire Northwest Quadrant. In another case we got Cannery with a single access instead of master planning Cannery and Covell Village together where we could have gotten multiple access points and a grade separated pedestrian underpass to Nugget Market.
Felt like to me that Dan Carson was spiking the ball at the ten yard line last night (and maybe not even the ten).
This made me cry. Measure J sücks.
On the other hand, there’s a terrific farm on the “Covell Village” site which remains to this day. Along with a lack of traffic that would otherwise exist.
Beautiful-looking soil and plants. Every time I go past it (or shop at Nugget), I thank the Measure J gods.
And with The Cannery now in place, I suspect that those folks also want to keep it that way.
Given that there’s no houses across the street from Nugget, seems to me that an underpass is not needed there. Unless there’s farm tractors using the Nugget parking lot as a staging area, before/after accessing the property. 🙂
I agree Ron. It’s so nice to have that beautiful view on the edge of the city and everytime I’ve shopped at Nugget or drive by it I truly appreciate that openness and view.
You and I won’t agree on J, RO. I thought that was a great project — and one thing is almost certain — whatever is eventually built there is going to be much less than we could have had. Of course, we’ll never know if the City would have allowed the developer to go back on the promises, but I had a good feeling about CV. We’ll never know. Farm yes, always nice, but the iconic tree fell over right after the election, as if to say — ‘y’all got it wrong’.
I’m not certain that anything will be built there.
But who is this “we” you refer to? For that matter, “we” have a farm there. 🙂
When that tree died soon not too long after the election, someone noted to me that it gave its life in the battle. Hung-on just long enough, like an old soldier.
Honestly, I never understood why anyone supports these developments (other than those with a direct or indirect interest in them).
I look at it differently. The iconic tree, even though in its death throes, managed to stay upright until after the election in order to save the farm.
Well, the tree falling over goes to show that God may send a ‘sign’, and everyone will interpret it as they please.
I like the farm and that tree was a big reason. It’s just that it’s clear the region is growing, and not growing along with that pressure puts further pressure on rents. When I see a project that is well-planned and meets many Davis need and values, I’m willing to vote for it in balance with the love of particular piece of open space. Now people vote for ‘puppies, children, old people’ and some bullsh*t local buyers program that a 7-year-old could have identified as a scam, a ploy, full of holes and probably racist. That’s what the maturation of Measure J has brought us. Good projects lose, bullsh*t wins.
The fact that the region has chosen to grow has very little to do with the cost of renting in Davis.
If I’m not mistaken, Covell Village was primarily “for sale” housing, regardless. Given that Woodland has never met a new development it didn’t like, I see no “shortage” of that nearby.
“Well-planned and meets many Davis needs and values” sounds an awful lot like the following, to me:
One has to examine the drivers of growth, which is almost always the pursuit of “more jobs” (pursuit of economic activity). With the exception of places that are more of a destination/vacation area, if you’re lucky enough to be able to telecommute these days (or retire).
But thanks for explaining your thoughts.
In all honesty, Bretton Woods and Nishi don’t bother me that much. And, they actually correspond with the population demographics in Davis, rather than trying to force that which doesn’t exist.
(Well actually, it exists in the new developments in Woodland – families.)
And ultimately, turnover will ensure that “new” people move into existing housing, as well. Including that which is in Davis.
To clarify, it wouldn’t make much difference (regarding regional demand).
Also, I suspect that Davis has approved far more rental housing (for its relative size) than any other community in the entire region. The reason being demand generated by UCD.
I believe there’s several plots of blank land in Spring Lake (that are slated for apartment buildings) which haven’t been built (apparently because it hasn’t “penciled out”). With the exception of some Affordable complexes.
Meanwhile, the single-family dwellings have been selling very well. Even though they pretty much start above $600K, now. (One might ask how much an equivalent new dwelling would cost in Davis, before concluding that non-wealthy families would choose to move there – assuming that they want to be near Davis or UCD.) Seems to me that it certainly wouldn’t be any “cheaper” than The Cannery was (which were sold before the latest run-up in prices).
But I’ve also heard that the situation is changing (nationwide), regarding apartment buildings “penciling out”.
To clarify The Davis Based Buyers program language in the DA remains unchanged from the language that was approved in 2018.
In reviewing the Superior Court website, it appears that the lawsuit by the developer against URC is ongoing. Next hearing is set for July.
Binning Ranch (the developer) is claiming that they’ve already terminated the agreement with URC (retyped from complaint, below):
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Binning-Ranch-v-URC-Complaint.pdf
I’m gathering that URC likely still wants the property, but the developer does not want to sell it to them at the price negotiated via the option agreement. As such, the developer initiated the lawsuit, claiming that URC did not do enough to campaign for them (as a way to pressure URC to drop their pursuit of the property). In addition, the developer wants to retain all option payments already made by URC for the property.
By the way, does anyone know what happened with the lawsuit initiated by the city, against the same development team (Binning Ranch)?
(In regard to $691,000 in city costs that were allegedly not paid by the development team for the failed Davis Innovation Center proposal.)
https://www.davisite.org/2021/08/city-of-davis-sues-sacramento-developer-and-binning-ranch-holding-co-.html
Well, given that the URC didn’t sue the developer for breach of the option contract; maybe the developer took a legitimate legal action in cancelling the option agreement.
That’s how option agreements work. If the optionee fails to fulfill their end of the option (usually through purchase but in this case other commitments) agreement the optioner keeps option payments.
Not understanding your comment. Seems to me that this is exactly what the developer sued for. An alleged failure to campaign for the proposal, which (in the developer’s view) negated the option agreement to purchase the property at a specified price (and allows them to keep the option payments).
No, what I’m saying is that if the developer violated the option agreement as you implied in your initial comment (“As such, the developer initiated the lawsuit, claiming that URC did not do enough to campaign for them (as a way to pressure URC to drop their pursuit of the property)”. then the URC would have or could have sued (counter sued) the developer. Instead it appears that the URC did not meet their obligations for the option agreement. So they’re back to the negotiating table with the developer.
I didn’t say or imply that the developer violated the option agreement. The developer is the party that initiated the lawsuit, and is claiming that URC violated the agreement. I have no idea how you concluded something different based upon anything I said or quoted.
As Alan P. noted earlier, the developer’s lawsuit against URC seems to be based upon a very flimsy pretext of not campaigning for a proposal that won.
As I recall from the other article, Alan also put forth some dollar amounts regarding the agreed-upon price, which is way below what the developer can get for the property by cancelling the agreement with URC. (While also keeping the payments URC already made.)
I’d say that it’s pretty easy to draw conclusions regarding motivation, based upon the actual facts.
Define “flimsy”. It’s probably pretty simple. X amount of money was supposed to go into a campaign fund by URC. That money wasn’t put up by the URC. How is that “flimsy”?
The implication in your initial comment was that the developer did something wrong to URC to get out of the option agreement. What I’m saying is that if that was true; URC would counter sue the developer. The fact that the URC wants to proceed with purchasing the property for themselves from the developer is a strong indication that they’re fine with not making their campaign contributions at the time (maybe they didn’t want to dive into Davis politics/spanking machine with the developer?) and proceeding on trying to purchase the property….even at a greater purchase price….which is what would be expected; buy property before 2018 was way cheaper than buying it now.
I went back to read the ballot language, but could only find the summary. It read that 3 acres would be set aside for URC expansion or other specialized senior living. We never voted on specifically URC memory care facility and it appears that URC was/is interested but did not want to be included in any Measure J type of campaign to change land use zoning. Doesn’t assisted living for aging seniors fit with this? I feeling that this has been misrepresented in recent letters. There is a lot of suspicion, anger and outrage that is unnecessary. Maybe URC is still interested in expanding its very expensive facilities, but an affordable option for assisted living for frail elderly would be welcomed and fits the ballot language that was voted on and approved.
This was my interpretation of the recent outcry and the actual response to all of this. I believe it’s incumbent on the Council leaders and staff to provide clearer analysis/interpretation and transparent updates on projects voted on by the people This round of explanation was mostly a reaction of the Council to all of the vocal protests of the project. But the Council should really think about providing more ongoing project data and analysis for the people to preemptively answer and explain questions and avoid public outcry. It’s in the Council’s best interests to keep the voters informed and relatively happy….or at least not unhappy.
Alan Pryor sure stirred the pot with his “memory care” issue here on the Vanguard a few days ago but now it appears to be a non-issue. I confess to getting a little worked up at the time based on his commentary and assuming he was presenting the issue accurately. He’s got zero credibility with me on any issue from this point on.