Council Gets First Chance With Residential Development Status Report to Issue Forth Changes in Council Guidelines –
They request that the council directs staff to continue previously established policies of encouraging and processing applications for the remaining green light sites which “includes continued work on the planning of the Nishi site with the property owner and UC Davis representatives.”
Will this become an opportunity for the council to revisit some of their development policies? Change some of the previous council’s goals? And perhaps most critically, start reviewing ConAgra and other potential developments?
We also have a chance to examine where things currently stand.
Writes city staff, “The intent is to check-in with the Planning Commission and City Council to: ensure that the 1% growth cap is not exceeded; and to determine if different directions should be taken in terms of amount and types of housing. The 1% growth cap equals 260 “base” units and does not include exempted units of affordable housing, accessory dwelling units, and units in mixed use buildings.”
While 260 base units per year seems like a relatively small number, one also has to recognize that it means roughly a development the size of ConAgra every two years. Think about where those units would go. Think about how quickly we would have to be encroaching on swaths of farmland under such growth.
And yes, I fully recognize that (A) it’s a cap, not a target or goal and (B) we are not developing at near that rate. But one percent seems unrealistically high at this point in time.
In 2010, there were building permits issued for 21 new residential units, 18 of which were single family and three were for accessory units.
Writes city staff, “It is worth noting that in December applications for 31 residential building permits were submitted: 28 in the Willowbank 10 subdivision; two in the Central Park West project on B Street; and one accessory dwelling unit. Many of these applications are likely to be issued building permits in calendar year 2011.”
It would be helpful to see an historic context there, as I know basically, since Covell Village failed, the city has not had many new housing permits.
Staff believes, apparently, that will change. Part of the reason for that is that, while the council did not approve any new housing projects after Covell Village failed until 2008, since then it has approved several. Staff believes it is “reasonable to project that approximately 500 units will be issued building permits” for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
They continue, “The projection is intended to be a ‘middle of the road’ projection that is not extremely conservative or aggressive. The projection for 2011 through 2013 does not include 118 units (including 10 permitted ADU’s [Affordable Dwelling Units]) of the Chiles Ranch project because the new owners have not responded to staff regarding development timing.”
Amazing that the owners of Chiles Ranch had to ram through that project, angering the neighbors and now they are in no hurry to develop it.
Finally, the staff reports on several new actions that have occurred since April 2010 when this report was last given to council.
First, Willowbank Park and Carlton Plaza were both approved in 2010.
Verona and Willowbank 10 both had amendments to the previously-approved development plans were approved during 2010.
Letters were sent to both the DJUSD Administration Center and the PG&E Service Center by previous Mayor Ruth Asmundson “to the property owners to seek interest and request cooperation in exploring development potential of the sites.”
On June 1, 2010 DJUSD “responded that the District would be pleased to work with City Council and City staff on potential options for the site.”
On June 4, PG&E responded that it is “not interested in selling the site in the foreseeable future.”
They report on the Nishi Property for which on October 26, 2010, the City Council approved a Business Park Strategy Work PLan.
Writes city staff, “The work plan included the initiation of planning of the Nishi property as a mix of university-related research park development complemented by high density urban housing. Staff has been discussing options with the Nishi representatives and UC Davis and expects to provide options for how to proceed with City Council in March 2011. A pre-application has not been submitted by the property owner. Staff submitted two grant applications [sic] have been submitted to assist in planning for the area including Nishi property / West Olive Drive / Richards Boulevard / East Olive Drive / railroad crossing / depot area but were not selected for funding.”
Staff also reports on Cannery, though it is little that we do not already know. They expect that the formal application review and public hearings will likely take place from Fall 2011 through February 2012.
I believe there is a good possibility that the project could be killed long before it reaches that point and I would like to see the new council exercise some discretion and change the direction we have gone with development.
The bottom line is that we do not know what the housing market is going to look like in a few years and therefore, we are largely planning blindfolded. We have enough units in the works before what the council has already approved and what UC Davis is building out at West Village.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Before any development abutting any the rail line anywhere in town is approved, the developer must provide a crossing sufficient to accommodate a *minimum* of twenty percent of the estimated traffic load for the entire project. No exceptions.
And since the City has already adopted a ‘green’ ordinance, it would only be a small incremental cost to require full secondary wastewater treatment, and a full water recovery plan onsite.
[i]. . any [s]the[/s] rail line . . [/i]
Electronic whiteout.
For a “Neutral” person, you sure like to use absolute language. What’s with the “must” and “no exception”? Is the “minimum of 20%” a regulation you’re quoting? Smart planning policy? Command from God? Self evident fact? Personal preference? Enlighten us please.
dmg: “The bottom line is that we do not know what the housing market is going to look like in a few years and therefore, we are largely planning blindfolded. We have enough units in the works before what the council has already approved and what UC Davis is building out at West Village.”
Nicely said.
One point that I think needs to be strongly stressed is the issue of FISCAL IMPACT of any new development. In the past, developers have not necessarily paid their fair share of the costs of new development. Instead, much of any new city services required for new development have been borne by the citizens of Davis in the form of increased fees/taxes. It is important that for any proposed housing, its fiscal impact to the city be fully investigated, a proper analysis be conducted, and costs be borne by the developer and not citizens.
The bottom line is that the city is in dire fiscal straits right now, and cannot afford to provide city services to its current citizens. So it would not be appropriate to add any more fiscal burden on residents of this city. Especially in view of the massive water/sewer/garbage removal rates that are going to be imposed over the next 4 years (35% increase for city services each year for the next 4 years). In short, any proposal for new housing must “pencil out” so it does not cost the citizens of Davis anything – it must be net fiscally neutral.
Another issue that should be seriously considered is NEED. Is there a NEED for any new housing development? Or is this just a an issue of “if we build it they shall come”? I think it is high time the City Council took a long hard look at what type of housing is NEEDED in this town.
Thirdly, I would like to see the method by which housing is considered to be more equitable. In the past, some proponents of development have had great difficulty in getting their projects past city staff. Instead their applications are somehow “lost” in the city’s “bureaucratic vortex”. We saw this with Wildhorse Ranch and Carlton Plaza Davis. In other cases, the city staff wheels have been greased, and the application goes right through. It seems to me there should be consistent criteria followed by city staff, so that each and every applicant is treated fairly. Former City Manager Bill Emlen admitted the application process was inequitable, promised to “do better”, and continued on his merry way doing business as usual in a highly unfair manner. He paid mere lip service to his promises. I would like to see that change…
[i]We have enough units in the works before what the council has already approved and what UC Davis is building out at West Village.[/i]
Except rental housing.
Student housing is NEEDED. That would free up SFR’s for families that are currently occupied by students. There is currently a pretty dramatic mismatch between use and design.
To Don Shor and DT Businessman: And that is precisely what I meant when I said there should be a NEEDS ASSESSMENT. What type of housing is actually NEEDED…
DT: [i] What’s with the “must” and “no exception”?[/i]
Common sense and good planning.
[i]”Before any development abutting any the rail line anywhere in town is approved, the developer must provide a crossing sufficient to accommodate a *minimum* of twenty percent of the estimated traffic load for the entire project. No exceptions.”[/i]
This is one of the unfortunate realities of the Cannery site: it is physically not possible to build an overpass or underpass from that property to nearby F Street.
It seems to me that the logical solution would be an at-grade crossing connecting with Anderson Road. However, I have been told by many knowledgable people in Davis that the Calif. PUC will not grant an at-grade crossing there, for most of the same reasons they won’t agree to one at Olive Drive. (I don’t have any data suggesting this, but it does seem to me that there is far less train traffic on the rail line between Davis and Woodland than exists in the Olive Drive corridor.)
As to a bike/pedestrian crossing, if that is what Neutral is advising, I would agree. I recall that there is a bike underpass somewhere near where Anderson Road meets F Street. But that would not work for a project at the Cannery site. It seems reasonable to me that a mitigation for any new development at the Cannery, even if it is entirely industrial, should be a bike/foot underpass leading to the bike path on the east side of F Street. That would provide good ingress/egress for anyone not driving a car which avoids Covell Blvd. As is obvious, one of the planning problems with the Cannery site is having all of its traffic spill onto already crowded Covell Blvd.
Neutral, I’d like to think I have common sense. I’m still not following the 20% thing. How’s it good planning? “Must” we simply take your word for it? Why isn’t 15% sufficient? Perhaps it should be 40% minimum. Did you make the number up? Is 20% some kind of standard? Enlighten us.
DT: [i] How’s it good planning?[/i]
Because, as Rich notes: [i]As is obvious, one of the planning problems with the Cannery site is having all of its traffic spill onto already crowded Covell Blvd.[/i]
Neutral, I don’t see where Rich agreed with your position at all. You said, “Before any development abutting any rail line anywhere in town is approved, the developer must provide a crossing sufficient to accommodate a *minimum* of twenty percent of the estimated traffic load for the entire project. No exceptions.” Rich’s comment pertained exclusively to the Cannery site, your comments were far broader, pertaining to ALL sites abutting rail lines. Rich’s comment pertained to a bike/pedestrian crossing, while your comments pertained to motor vehicles. And Rich didn’t say anything about 20% minimum. I still have no idea where you got that percentage from.
Folks may be missing the “point”. The rail line goes from the east side of downtown Davis to the east side of downtown Woodland. This right of way, and tracks should be preserved, because in 50-100 years, this is the logical location for light/heavy rail between the two cities, to reduce/replace auto traffic. There are plans afoot to eliminate this precious corridor…
[i]Neutral, I don’t see where Rich agreed with your position at all.[/i]
His final sentence speaks for itself. As to percentages, mine was based on what I considered a reasonable alternative to the planning-by-braille of both Cannery and Covell; neither of which was able to resolve traffic issues, both of which abut the rail line.
Neutral, Rich’s final sentence speaks for itself only if you completely disregard all of his remaining sentences. Speaking of planning-by-braille, that’s exactly what your 20% amounts to since you haven’t expended any effort in providing a rationale to support it.