However, the Vanguard with the help of concerned community members intercepted the email and the plot was largely foiled.
However, collectively, the diverse community based HESC slated the development as No.31, in the yellow zone, designated as those projects that were not foreseen prior to 2013.
On the agenda for Tuesday is an item which presents staff’s recommendations. Staff again does not recommend this site for development prior to 2013.
However that has not stopped the Covell Village developers from trying again, this time by generating the appearance of a community based call for development.
On May 28, 2009, Lydia Delis-Schlosser, the Project Coordinator for the newly repackaged Covell Village sent out an email to their predesignated group of seniors that they have identified through vast community outreach as supportive of a possible plan. Once again the Vanguard has intercepted that letter with the help of concerned community members.
The letter calls on the Davis Seniors to:
“Accept an application in January 2010 for a ‘yellow-light site’* that envisions a neighborhood with a comprehensive approach to senior housing opportunities, services, and lifestyle choices that will meet the needs of Davis’ growing senior population.” (*Covell site is a ‘yellow-light site’)
They seek to bring out a large number (over 100) of “supportive seniors” to the meeting this week in order to “demonstrate the need for senior housing choices in Davis.”
However, as the Vanguard has argued in the past, seniors do not uniformly see the need for this sort of segregated senior housing and many would prefer senior housing options that are mixed within a more diverse community.
Moreover, the fundamental problem here is that this agenda and this demand is being explicitly driven by the developers working with a few seniors that were largely supporters of Covell Village the first time. A chief example of that would be Janice Bridge, who was among the leaders in Covell Village I and has now been repackaged as needing a large new senior development, now presumably that she’s four years older than she was in 2005.
The Davis Enterprise has done its part, leading the way back in January with a story on Ms. Bridge that could have been written as a promo-piece by Covell Village developers themselves. That piece was written by now departed Davis Enterprise reporter Claire St. John. As one person later told me, “I was a supporter of Covell Village, but that article read like a paid advertisement for Covell Village.”
The Davis Enterprise has a new reporter, Crystal Lee formerly of the Woodland Daily Democrat. However, from this article, it seems that the new boss is the same as the old boss.
She reports:
Supporters of the senior housing component of Covell Village plan to ask the City Council Tuesday to allow a smaller 800-home development at the site for residents who are 55 and older.
The homes would be built out over 10 years, said Lydia Delis-Schlosser, project coordinator with Davis Neighbors, the entity that owns the property.
Delis-Schlosser said the new concept for the Covell site offers affordable homeownership opportunities for Davis’ elderly and provides amenities, such as a health clinic, nearby coffee shops and infrastructure that would accommodate or easily adapt for wheelchairs and other needs.
But the concept also supports a community of mixed ages, Delis-Schlosser said, because it would require only one person on the deed to be 55 or older, allowing younger spouses, children or grandchildren to also live in the neighborhood.
Delis-Schlosser said no other community in Davis offers seniors the opportunity to downsize their living arrangements, while owning their home and property in an accessible and active neighborhood.
For some reason, must be some sort of omission she fails to solicit the views of people who might be in opposition to the Covell Village. Welcome to Davis, Crystal Lee. You might want to run a more balanced story next time.
This is a completely developer-driven phenomenon with the help of activists such as Janice Bridge posing as average seniors in need of new housing options. No one doubts that there is a need for senior housing, but the problem here is that when the developer leads the discussion, we get one option foisted upon us.
If the city of Davis wants to consider senior housing, they might want to talk to members of the Senior Citizens Commission and they might also want to talk to seniors not hand recruited by Covell Village partners.
The danger here is the long-held suspicion that certain developers such as those from Covell Village have received preferential treatment from staff over non-Covell Village developers. John Whitcombe has close allies both on city staff as well as on the council.
As the Vanguard has learned, son of Community Development Director [formerly known as planning] Katherine Hess now works as a maintenance person on the Arlington Farms apartment site. Arlington Farms is of course owned by Tandem Properties which is owned by John Whitcombe. Once again, while this may be innocuous, it has the appearance of impropriety that the person in charge of community development for the city has a son working for one of the largest developers who just happens to be lobbying the city to consider a highly polarizing and controversial development.
The Covell Village developers had their chance to interest the Housing Element Steering Committee as they spent months on the consideration of new sites for development. This group of citizens decided that Covell Village was not a site that should be developed prior to 2013. They determined that we ought to focus on infill sites within in the current city limits prior to considering Measure J sites. They also respected the 60-40 vote of the people to oppose a new development on this site less than four years ago.
However, the Covell Partners are relentless and they have been using the Senior community to further their agenda which is transparent and self-serving. The public light of scrutiny needs to be shown on their tactics which are bound to fail once again, but only if good citizens, especially seniors who do not desire to live in segregated, seniors-only communities step forward and speak out. If 100 people show up for the Covell Partners, who will speak for you?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Where are the free donuts?” I can’t wait for the mob or octogenarians to arrive at the council chambers demanding what they were promised before they were led onto the bus…
Covell Village will continue to be an issue until we decide what we want to see happening there, not just rejecting a developer’s plan. Nature abhors a vacuum.
Where’s the water for this development? By State law, developers must show they have 20 years of water for a project. Last time Covell Village was on the table, water and wastewater treatment was a major issue and it still is. Where’s the water? In fact, if I am correct, it is the city, by providing the water hook-ups to the municipal system, that is actually guaranteeing water for 20 years. Let’s be honest. All the talk about need the hugely expensive water pipeline from the Sacramento River is to have a “new” water source for development, not just about the quality of Davis well water and wastewater treatment to meet Federal standards.
Nancy
Not only do the majority of seniors not support seniors-only housing developments, such use of scarce resources is bad public policy. The City should not be supporting the development of segregated housing that excludes others who have similar needs for housing and ancillary services, including families with children, people with disabilities, singles, and others who cannot afford or do not want large homes.
“Where’s the water for this development? By State law, developers must show they have 20 years of water for a project.”
Housing takes about 7% of the water per acre a tomato farm uses in Yolo County. Housing takes less than 1% of the water a rice farm uses in Yolo County.
http://www.landwateruse.water.ca.gov/docs/annualdata/2001/ET_2001_WA_by_Co(AF-Ac).xls
City Staff indicated in a previous report that at most the city would need approximately 150 new senior units between now and 2013, a far cry from the 800 units being pushed by the Covell Village folks. What the seniors in favor of this project perhaps haven’t thought of is the cost of this project to the city and its taxpayers. Such a large senior project will require new city services, new city services the developers will not be paying for (parks maintenance, fire/ambulance service, law enforcement, water/sewer, etc.). It will also strain county social services (in home supportive services, adult protective services, mental health services, etc.). Where is the money for such services going to come from, if not from the developers? From the very seniors who are in favor of this mammoth project (as well as every other taxpayer living in this city), at a time when these same seniors (and every other taxpayer living in this city) will be facing massive sewer/water rate increases as well as gov’t tax/fee increases to cover budget shortfalls.
It is an inconvenient truth that large residential development will incur great costs to every citizen of the city within which it is built. If city finances are solid, and the economy is in good shape, then new development may be appropriate. But when the city is facing a huge deficit, cannot currently pay for its own obligations such as simple road repairs, and the national/state economy is sliding downward on a daily basis, w no bottom in site – it is financial suicide to the city and its citizens to encourage development of this size and magnitude.
The Davis Senior Citizens Commission has developed a set of housing guidelines, soon to be referred to the City Council, which addresses these very issues. It calls for an independent evaluation of 1)the INTERNAL need for Davis senior housing, and 2)its financial impact on citizens, the city and county. None of that important evaluation has taken place – which should happen prior to moving up any site from its present position in the HESC devised list.
No matter how you feel about the New Covell Senior Village, now is not the time to put this project front and center for consideration. It could literally financially ruin this city. We need to take a more careful, measured approach to senior housing development, taking into account a) what ALL Davis seniors want; b) the financial impacts on seniors of any future development; c) how development will effect the provision of city and county services.
Do we have to be careful where our children find jobs in this town, lest it demonstrate political connection in some way for us as parents? Our kids have a hard enough time finding jobs here. Let’s not do this. It is a poor choice to make this argument.
I do not support seniors-only developments. It is unnatural. I feel the same way about seniors-only developments as I do about whites only developments.
“”Where’s the water for this development? By State law, developers must show they have 20 years of water for a project.”
Housing takes about 7% of the water per acre a tomato farm uses in Yolo County. Housing takes less than 1% of the water a rice farm uses in Yolo County.”
But the farmers do not use the wastewater treatment plant of the city. The less residential water used, the smaller the wastewater treatment plant the city will need, and the less sewer rates will have to go up. Unfortunately, the subject of how much water farmers use is irrelevant to the issue of how much water is available for city residential use, and its cost relative to the proposed water/sewer projects.
Hey, has Claire St. John actually left the Davis Enterprise? Anyone know where she went? I think she lost her ethical way of late. Hope she finds the right ethical journalism path again.
Where is the Poleline Expressway? Who is going to pay for the “Poleline Expressway,” Johnny Whitcombe?
Every thinking person knows that the development does not stop at “desperately-needed” 800 senior housing units. Poleline is a two-lane country road. Any development of the Covell site requires a hell of a lot bigger road.
The lack of roads makes further development at Covell and Poleline the dumbest place to build in Davis. Even if the 800 units of desperately-needed senior housing (soon to be solar-powered) were to be built, why not build them off existing roads, say, like, Highway 113?
This is Davis, we can do better than developer-driven planning over planning-driven development.
“Delis-Schlosser said no other community in Davis offers seniors the opportunity to downsize their living arrangements, while owning their home and property in an accessible and active neighborhood.”
Am I crazy, or just stupid? If I wanted to downsize and own my own home in Davis, I could easily do that without even leaving my neighborhood; coincidentally the same neighborhood as Jan Bridge. I could sell my home, and since I am over 55, pay no capital gains, buy a smaller home and pocket the difference. I don’t need a special community to do it. There are plenty of old people where I live and plenty of young ones, too. I like it this way.
“I could sell my home, and since I am over 55, pay no capital gains, buy a smaller home and pocket the difference.”
If you’ve owned your previous home for a long time, the property tax you will owe on the new one will be much higher. For example, if your old house is valued at $100,000 (even if it sold for $700,000), your annual property tax bill (not including Mello-Roos, library, school or other taxes) will be $1,000/year. If you buy a new, much smaller house nearby for $300,000, your property tax on the new place will start at $3,000/year.
David Greenwald …
“a smaller senior housing development”
Crystal Lee …
“a smaller 800-home development at the site for residents who are 55 and older”
Let’s not drop the ball here with faulty analysis.
As was apparent from the site plan presented at their Celebrate Davis booth on May 14th, the developers are proposing approximately 100 acres of open space on the north end of the project and senior housing on about 60% of the remaining acreage. They are not disclosing what will eventually go on about 100 additional acres — one piece above the cannery property and another long piece along Poleline Road. This acreage is not being included in the discussion as if it will remain open space.
Excluding this acreage from the discussion is both inaccurate and misleading. The acreage will become two in-fill sites that will almost certainly be brought forward for development in the future. So what will it be? More senior housing? High density residential? Apartments? Commercial? Industrial?
So, let’s not parrot the developer’s frame that this as a smaller 800 unit project. It could be 1,400 units or more of senior housing at build-out if the two in-fill sites are ultimately developed as senior housing. Or it could be 800 units of senior housing and 100 acres of high density residential, pushing the unit count back towards the 1,864 that has already been rejected once by the voters. Or it could be mixed use with objectionable land uses along Poleline Road.
Bottom line … for there to be any rationale discussion of the merits of the proposed senior project, the developers need to put a complete plan on the table.
The City Council should not be a party to this kind of misleading proposal, and should leave the property in its current status.
Davis Resident:
In fairness to David he said “been repackaged after the 2005 defeat as a smaller senior housing development”–not that it was a smaller senior housing development only that they are trying to package it as such. A point that you bolster with your additional information.
Sorry “Out of context”, but I’m not bolstering with additional information David’s statement that the Covell project has been repackaged. The repackaging is obvious. They are two very different proposals. Nor am I selectively quoting him to be unfair. His full quote is directly above and he obviously repeats the “smaller” theme.
If you want to parse my underlying motive(s), it is simply to point out that that the developer’s have framed the proposal to their advantage (which I suppose is their job) … and have not been challenged on a key issue (perhaps [u]the[/u] key issue) in the two journalistic reports that I am aware of.
Whitcombe seems to use the strategy of getting a key group to “pull” his campaigns for his projects again and again. Here is a little history.
First, he got the Waldorf school to root for his North Davis Farms McMansion project (which has NO affordable housing in it), which he did get approved and Waldorf got built there.
Then he tried to get the school district to take the bait by offering land for a junior high school site at the Covell Center proposal (which was an earlier iteration of Covell Village), but the school district was not interested. So then he tried to get the sports groups to advocate for Covell Center in exchange for a sports complex. The sports complex turned out to be financially infeasible and the traffic would have been a disaster, so that proposal went away.
Next with Covell Village he offered “affordable housing” to folks who rent who wanted to buy a home. However, it turns out the average home at Covell Village would have been over $600,000. Added to the fact that the site had a 200 acre flood plain and, AGAIN, the traffic would be a disaster plus the air quality issues and the infrastructure costs to Davis residents, that plan went down 60:40 at the polls in 2005.
So now, he is recruiting vulnerable seniors to advocate for his latest proposal for a huge senior project. He is also carefully selecting key “players” in the community as “representatives” for his “healthy aging” campaign for this senior project.
Is Whitcombe ever going to work with the community, rather then stage campaign after campaign to get his projects through that divide the community? Also, given the interesting info posted by “Davis Resident” above, how about can he start being straight with what he intends the project plan to be? 800 units is ONLY PHASE ONE of THREE phases! So the project build out would be 1,500 -1,800 units! Deja Vu!
Another HUGE residential development which CAN NOT work at that location because of the access and traffic issues. The original 1,200 unit Crossroads project proposal over a decade ago at the Covell Village site went bankrupt because the traffic did not work. Whitcombe and his partners bought the entire (almost)400 acre parcel for only $3.1 million. At this price Whitcombe can afford to do his 2:1 ag mitigation on site (on the flood plain)and develop just the bottom 1/3 as the Housing Element Steering Committee suggested at a density that can work. But, no, he has a mission to have a huge project with huge profits.
No matter how hard he tries to push his newest version of an enormous Covell Village through, the traffic, air quality, flood plain, and infrastructure costs will not go away!
i need a job, and if we build homes maybe we can have some construction in this area as people like to live in Davis.
I am not talking about some craphole Wildhorse tract home, something like the street of dreams would be proud of. Maybe no one will be able to afford them, but hopefully a few fireman, and perhaps the police chief will finally feel like living here.
besides, as long as prop 13 dominates are ability to raise taxes we are going to have to sell a lot of cards. . . well it looks like building houses is the only way.
Thanks much Vanguard for all of the interesting background and the “heads up” on this issue. The new information that really caught my attention is that the Community Development Director Catherine Hess’s son works for Whitcombe. I find this astonishing and it explains allot. I remember hearing that Catherine Hess was the staff member on the Covell Village the last time around and how she “railroaded” that 400 acre project in only a year. Well now we know why. Looks like she takes good care of any project Whitcombe comes up with.
Talk about a conflict of interest! It seems that she is pretty selective about which projects she katapults through and which projects she strangulates like the Cannery Park proposal where the developers finally got disgusted enough to give up. If they were “local boys” like Whitcombe who paid their “dues” they probably would not have gotten the treatment that they got.
Hess needs to be fired and we need to get an objective Planning Director who also knows what the heck they are doing. These staff people are supposed to work for the citizens, but Hess, CLEARLY, is not.
“Catherine Hess’s son works for Whitcombe”
You hate women.
“Is Whitcombe ever going to work with the community, rather then stage campaign after campaign to get his projects through that divide the community?”
I fear that the ultimate answer to the above is “No.” He won’t work with the community, but at some point in time, “yes,” he will get his development through. Time after time, the developers ultimately get what they want. That land is just too valuable to keep growing tomatoes on, and one day, he or his replacement will buy enough city council members and run enough ads to win. I’ve seen it happen too many times. I think that we, as a city, would be wise to make a decision on what kind of development we could live with, and then promote it. Personally, I’d love to see a medical center or light industrial development that would bring some jobs to the city, but that is only a thought.
“But the concept also supports a community of mixed ages, Delis-Schlosser said, because it would require only one person on the deed to be 55 or older, allowing younger spouses, children or grandchildren to also live in the neighborhood.”
Does this mean that there only needs to be someone over 55 on the deed, not living in the home? If so, then what is “senior” about this proposed development?
I agree that Hess is a huge problem. She worked on a development issue in my neighborhood and advocated consistently for the developers. We as a neighborhood tried to negociate but she always went with the developer and the project is a mess as a result of her terrible handling of the “process”. I for one would not mind seeing us get better leadership in our City staff administration especially in the “Community Development” Department. (As the Vanguard pointed out it used to be called “Community Planning” Department, but the new name should have given us a clue.)
[quote]…sent out an email to their predesignated group of seniors that they have identified through vast community outreach as supportive of a possible plan. Once again the Vanguard has intercepted that letter with the help of concerned community members.[/quote]
As an advocate of thorough community discussions about planning, I’ve been thoroughly impressed by the “vast community outreach” that these folks have been doing. I went to one meeting about a year ago and have since talked to many friends with varying views who also attended… point being, their door is open to anyone who wants to attend.
“Supportive of a possible plan” sounds pretty good to me… it means that these folks feel like their voices have been heard and incorporated. Although the developer may be providing the vehicle, it is starting to sound like real live Davis citizens are driving the discussion.
Also, I don’t know about anyone else, but the language in these “intercepted” emails seem benign and actually remind me of standard community organizer language, which goes something like,
“We recognize that you have a problem! This [insert feedback] is what I heard. We empathize. Here is the time, place and venue for you to make your voice heard about this issue we both think is important. We support you! Let us know if we can help.”
Please stop trying to make this scandalous… it’s just not.
I think the whole thing is dishonest trying to play it off like this is some community based movement when it’s being driven by developers. Moreover, I think the real scandal is pretending to be senior advocates when in fact they are just developers who want to create demand for a housing project.
[quote]@ Mike Hart “Where are the free donuts?” I can’t wait for the mob or octogenarians to arrive at the council chambers demanding what they were promised before they were led onto the bus…”[/quote]
This comment is exactly why I think that it is great that the Covell owners are ensuring that seniors get a fair shake with new housing in Davis.
You and the person who wrote this internet article think that seniors are more prone to being led by the nose by whomever is willing to manipulate them. That is not only discriminatory but supremely insulting.
Active and healthy people in their 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and YES even 90’s have been known to use their accumulated wisdom and rational reasons to make independent judgments. Davis seniors deserve more housing options; they deserve the best housing options that can be created. They also deserve to make those decisions themselves.
Let these builders come forward with a proposal, I’d like to see it and decide for myself… free donuts or not.
[quote]…seniors do not uniformly see the need for this sort of segregated senior housing and many would prefer senior housing options that are mixed within a more diverse community.[/quote]
You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that this concept, as presented in the Enterprise article and the “intercepted” email, seems unlike any other senior neighborhood that I know of.
From the Enterprise, “the concept supports a community of mixed ages because it would require only one person on the deed to be 55 or older, allowing younger spouses, children or grandchildren to also live in the neighborhood.”
Also, wouldn’t existing requirements ensure that 40% or more of the houses would be affordable?
So, if it is not segregated nor would it discourage diversity… then, why say it?
If you don’t want anything ever built here because you’re a no-growther or you simply like the tomato fields there, then that would make for an honorable and worthwhile discussion.
“You seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that this concept, as presented in the Enterprise article and the “intercepted” email, seems unlike any other senior neighborhood that I know of.”
Yes, the story changes every time the developers talk to a different group of seniors. Nor do the developers talk about the cost of this project to the city and its citizens. For instance, do you have any idea how much in the way of new city services are going to be needed for such a large project? And how do you think we are going to pay for such city services, when at the moment we cannot even pay for simple road repairs.