An old face has reemerged in the past few weeks in the face of the discussion over the Draft EIR of the Cannery Project.
In 2005, the Covell Village project was rejected by voters by a 60-40 margin. Following that setback, the city has moved forward with consideration of rezoning the adjacent property at the old Hunt-Wesson site.
While the Covell Village developers pushed unsuccessfully for a senior housing facility on the Covell Village site, they have also pushed for joint planning of the two sites. However, despite some agreement from the former city manager Bill Emlen, the plan has never made real headway.
There are two critical problems. One is that the two sites are different in terms of zoning, and also status. While the Cannery site is within the town and would not require a Measure R vote, the Covell Village site would.
Second, the contested political nature of the setback in the Measure X election of November 2005 has marred the site with an albatross that will not be easily overcome in the near future.
But that has not stopped the Covell Village developers from attempting to hijack the conversation.
At the Planning Commission meeting, spokesperson Lydia Dellis-Schosser indicated that since the setback for the Covell project, they have continued to work with the adjacent site for connectivity both to Pole Line Road and also a bike path through Cranbrook Apartments in the Southwest Corner of the Cannery site.
Ms. Dellis-Schlosser noted that when Lewis Communities returned the property to ConAgra, unable to proceed on a project, “[a]s ConAgra came forward with a new proposal we met with them to discuss working together on a new agreement.”
“ConAgra was unable to justify working with us and felt they had allowed for effective circulation and connectivity and were able to stand alone as a new neighborhood,” she said. “We understood their position from the political side of things, but from the planning side it seems we would want to have an overall idea for what to expect from this new area of town and plan for future needs and impacts collectively.”
She argued that the Covell Property was the next obvious place to grow in the next twenty to thirty years.
As the discussion has shifted to the issue of transportation, the Bicycle Advisory Commission and the Safety and Parking Advisory Commission met jointly, and narrowly passed two motions based on the issue of bicycle connectivity.
Bicycle and other transportation advocates criticize the site for not meeting the city’s objectives for providing a development plan that allows for connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and the city core, through improvements and enhancements to the city’s bike and pedestrian trails.
The bodies passed a motion that requires the applicant to mitigate the impact of increased bike and pedestrian traffic through the H Street tunnel by upgrading the tunnel to increase its width, improve its lighting, improve sight lines on the western side of the tunnel, and remove the 90 degree turn required to enter and exit the tunnel from the west end.
Second, they require the applicant to work with the city in order to develop a plan for a grade-separated crossing on the east side of the project.
The current plan, which has been criticized by a number of bicycling advocates, calls for one grade-separated crossing at the southwest side of the project.
“Whatever happens with that grade-separated crossing it’s going to require people to use an existing piece of bicycle infrastructure that is arguably the worst in the city, which is the H Street Tunnel,” said Robb Davis of the Bicycle Advisory Commission during the Planning Commission meeting. “Any connection between the east and the west parts of Davis, bicycle wise, will use that tunnel.”
Worse yet, there is no assurance that they can even get that grade-separated crossing.
The plan would call for the bike path to go through a right of way on the aforementioned Cranbrook Apartments property, owned by Tandem Properties.
The Vanguard learned that on Thursday night, at the joint meeting of the BAC and SPAC, it became known that the owners of that property, Tandem Properties, owned by the Covell Village developers, are unwilling to cooperate with the city and the ConAgra developers unless the city puts joint planning of the two parcels on the table.
George Phillips of ConAgra did not return a Vanguard email request for further elaboration. However, some in attendance at the meeting told the Vanguard that the move by Tandem Properties sets up a potential eminent domain situation which would likely greatly increase the costs of the property.
So, on the one hand Ms. Dellis-Schlosser tells the Planning Commission of the need to work collaboratively with their neighbors in a planning capacity and exalts their cooperation with PG&E on a pipeline that splits the two properties.
On the other hand, they are willing to potentially hijack the Cannery Property in order to force their way back into the planning picture.
It was only a few years ago that the developers attempted to create an AstroTurf group, CHA or Choices For Healthy Aging, as a pseudo-grassroots movement to advocate for a senior housing development at the Covell site.
But they overplayed their hand. In the spring of 2010, they manufactured a candidate’s forum for the city council candidates, ostensibly as a senior advocacy discussion, but “the answer to every question was Covell Village.”
The 800-unit project proposal has gone nowhere, however. Joint planning would at least give them an in, in terms of future development discussions even if that development would require a vote of the people.
The issue of transportation and bicycling connectivity is emerging as a critical issue in the discussions about the ConAgra proposal, if now Covell Village developers are attempting to leverage what they can to get their proposal back on the table.
At this time, that appears to be a non-starter. But things can change and can change quickly.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“…some in attendance at the meeting told the Vanguard that the move by Tandem Properties sets up a potential eminent domain situation which would likely greatly increase the costs of the property.”
How much would such an eminent domain situation add to the project costs? Who would pay? Who are these “some in attendance” people and what is their connection to the project? Do they have any agenda or expertise in the discussions?
“The (bike and safety commissions) passed a motion that requires the applicant to mitigate the impact of increased bike and pedestrian traffic through the H Street tunnel by upgrading the tunnel to increase its width, improve its lighting, improve sight lines on the western side of the tunnel, and remove the 90 degree turn required to enter and exit the tunnel from the west end. Second, they require the applicant to work with the city in order to develop a plan for a grade separated crossing on the east side of the project.”
What authority has been been assigned/delegated to city commissions allowing them to “require” anything of applicants (rather than recommending that councils act to impose such requirements)?
On the one hand, it seems as though this commentary is pointing out insurmountable problems and weaknesses that appear to doom the current project proposals. Yet, it also seems to be documenting a process that identifies problems and then finds the various parties working to res works to resolve them. Isn’t this a good thing?
“How much would such an eminent domain situation add to the project costs?”
That’s one of the questions I had for the developer who next responded.
” Who would pay?”
The developer presumably.
“Who are these “some in attendance” people and what is their connection to the project? Do they have any agenda or expertise in the discussions?”
No comment
“What authority has been been assigned/delegated to city commissions allowing them to “require” anything of applicants (rather than recommending that councils act to impose such requirements)?”
It’s the latter – they can recommend, they have no authority to require.
JustSaying – I made the motions in question on Thursday night. A few points:
1) Commissioners understand VERY well that our role is advisory. We have no authority to require anything.
2) We were asked to “make the following recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council…
The project’s location, configuration, and amenities appropriately meet the City objective of providing a development plan that is focused on connectivity to adjacent neighborhoods and the City core through improvements and enhancements to the City’s bike and pedestrian trails.”
The motion I put forward said that we did not agree that, as proposed, this project met the objective in question and laid out two things that must happen if the objective is to be reached.
As far as I understand my role as a commissioner, this is exactly what we are called upon to do: respond to staff’s recommendation based on the City’s goals/objectives and our understanding of how a given project contributes to them (or not). We did nothing more than this on Thursday. The Planning Commission and, eventually, the City Council will decide whether to accept our recommendations or not.
Hope that helps.
JS:”Who are these “some in attendance” people and what is their connection to the project? Do they have any agenda or expertise in the discussions?”
DG: “No comment.”
In which case, they (the 3-15 secret folks who “told the Vanguard” about some imaginary complication) could have zero credibility if readers knew their identities, very likely are pushing some agenda that could discredit anything they say and/or are using scare tactics and unsupportable propaganda (rather than some expertise or informed opinions) for which they will not take even the slightest responsibility.
Or, they’re imaginary themselves and just a rhetorical device being used to strengthen the writer’s case.
Or, maybe I’m being a little too cynical?
My understanding as a member of the Natural Resources Commission is the same as Robb’s. The NRC assembled a list of recommendations that was provided to the Planning Commission at their EIR review meeting.
One timeline challenge that the NRC is facing is that the comment period currently ends on April 12th. Now that we have seen the Planning Commission deliberations, it would seem that creating a final set of comments would make sense; however, the next NRC meeting isn’t until May 6th, which is past the comment deadline. Given the way that the City has scheduled the events of this process, a 30 day extension of the EIR Comment Period would seem to be consistent with an open/transparent process.
Thanks, Robb, for adding to David’s reply. It seemed that requiring actions by applicants was a little stronger than a city commission could/would do. The way you acted appears perfect for an advisory committee. It seems an excellent service to have dedicated, qualified commissioners helping assure that critical considerations don’t get overlooked and that city staff, contractors or others who might have bias don’t push through things that that council members with (possibly) less expertise might not challenge. City commissions must be earning their pay.
The following were the NRC comments on the draft EIR provided to the Planning Commission.
[b]Photovoltaic Solar[/b]
— All single family homes should include a solar component. (CEQA comment)
— Suggest a 1 kilowatt per bedroom in a single family home standard with a 3 kilowatt maximum requirement unless demonstrated that smaller system is sufficient given other energy efficiency features in the home.
— Multi-family, low income housing project should have solar incorporated – look at New Harmony as an example. (CEQA comment)
— Should design to provide Net-Zero electric; show what would be required for evaluation of feasibility (CEQA comment)
— If the Davis Energy Group projected energy usage for a home showed a smaller PV system can achieve Net-Zero electricity, then the smaller sized PV system would be appropriate.
[b]Water[/b]
— Need to provide specific information on how water usage inside the house will be minimized (CEQA comment)
— Request analysis on the feasibility of a greywater system, including to irrigate open space and urban farm. (CEQA comment)
[b]Fireplaces[/b]
— Need to reflect applicant commitment that all fireplaces will be natural gas (CEQA comment)
[b]Urban Farm[/b]
— Allow in zoning the opportunity for the direct distribution and/or sale of farm produce from the Urban Farm site
[b]Solid Waste[/b]
— Explore with DWR the possibility of adding food scraps to the organic refuse cart
[b]Rail Crossing[/b]
— Bicycle and pedestrian access across the railroad tracks must be provided. (CEQA comment)
[b]Transportation[/b]
— Added traffic lights at impacted intersections might increase automobile idling time which adds to vehicle emissions (CEQA comment)
— Include key bicycling destinations in a graphic that shows how the proposed bicycle trails in the project will be connected to key destinations
Whatever happens at the Hunt-Wesson site or at some point at the Covell Village site will affect and be affected by supply and demand. I am not sure if there is any excess supply now–I suspect there is not. However, I understand that it’s very hard to finance the purchase of a new home, so the demand is likely not very strong either.
As the regional economy picks up, however, it seems likely we are going to have a lot more demand for housing in Davis; and if there is no more supply, then prices will go up. That’s a win for wealthier, older current homeowners; and a big loss for younger, poorer homeowners (and likely renters) who want to live in Davis. Some can pollute our air driving here from homes they buy in Woodland and West Sac.
The interesting thing about the response of the no-growth ideology, which kills supply and causes unaffordable housing, is to DEMAND the construction of “affordable” housing units* built, managed and run in order to enrich the middlemen “altruists” who brag about the wonders of co-ops and other b.s.
The ideological answer is never to allow more market rate homes and apartment buildings to be developed. Increasing supply is apparently off the table when supply is lacking. It’s the old, “I’ve got mine, you get lost, buddy,” thinking.
I recently read an interesting quote on the Paul Petrovic website ([url]http://www.petrovichdevelopment.com/news.aspx-33.htm[/url]) penned by the Sacramento Business Journal which suggests what class of people benefits most from the anti-growth ideology in Davis: [quote]The sale of a Davis apartment complex in December set the price-per-unit record for the Sacramento region. Two large apartment complexes sold in Davis at the end of the year, [b]showing again the popularity of the growth-restricted college town with investors.[/b] … “The Davis apartment market is highly sought after by investors because of its favorable supply/demand dynamics that are [b]a by-product of the town’s no-growth development policies[/b] and steadily increasing demand generated by UC Davis,” said Marc Ross, who leads the Sacramento Multi-Housing Group at CBRE, in a news release. “We anticipate continued rent growth and healthy fundamentals in Davis for years to come.” [/quote] So very rich guys, like Paul Petrovich get even richer, the lower income as a class get screwed, and “progressives” in Davis high-five each other in celebration of their “progressive values.” Awesome.
================
*The end of the Davis RDA, which set aside 20% of its money to line the pockets of the fake altruists, might make it no longer possible to build more fake affordable housing.
[quote]… they have also pushed for joint planning of the two sites. However, despite some agreement from the former city manager Bill Emlen, the plan has never made real headway.[/quote]As I understand, true as far as it goes. Emlen was nevermore than “tepid” as I understand it. Yet, when CV originally came forward, and some senior staff urged them to coordinate with the “cannery” owners, the CV folks [b]dismissed[/b] it, as it complicated their project. The three main areas that some staff cited as a reason to plan the sites together included transportation, drainage and particularly, flood zone issues. Later, when CV was shot down, they ‘got religion’, and now seem to value the concept of joint planning. Too bad they didn’t listen to reason at their first time “at bat”. The portion of property east and north of the cannery site, up to Channel A, still should be planned together with the cannery site. But that makes too much sense, and so it won’t happen.
Rich’s post, above mine, is pretty much “spot on”. Also happened in Davis in the early 80’s. Those developers who got “allocations” made out like bandits. Then, the “cork popped” in the late 80’s with a new General Plan, which gave the go-ahead for Aspen, Evergreen, Oakshade, Willowcreek, Wildhorse, and Mace Ranch
Rich, thanks for letting us know that Paul Petrovich knows and profits from what most of us refuse to admit. I suspect that we know inside the truth of your evaluation and are please that we, too, get a little richer with our healthy house values.
Does anybody keep track of the number of affordable house units built during the years before 2010 and determine how many of them still sell at below market value? I’ve gotten the impression that most of Davis’s affordable houses only benefited their first owners (which included city employees as well as middleman/developer friends and family). Also, how many of the affordable housing buyers have remained Davis residents?
A related issue is the public cost of building affordable housing and maintaining programs. I’m especially curious how the city’s DACHA inventory of spread-out and frequently vacant units is faring. Am still hoping for a Vanguard investigation of the costs of running this program vs. the benefits of selling them off (even at affordable rates) and pocketing the cash.
They just need to scrap the affordable housing program and build more apartments.
Don wrote:
> They just need to scrap the affordable housing
> program and build more apartments
The main goal of “affordable housing” programs are not to provide “affordable housing” but to funnel excess profits to developers to build them (and make sure they kick back a lot in campaign donations) and provide high paying jobs for union workers that run and maintain them (and make sure they kick back plenty of campaign donations).
I have not been able to get the exact total numbers, but is looks like the cost per unit for the new 69 unit New Harmony apartments on Cowell (visible from Interstate 80) will end up being close to $500K each (when you include the value of the land). If New Harmony is like most “affordable” housing projects in the nation the cost to run it will be more than the cost of paying the rent at 69 market rate apartments in town.
P.S. I drove through the New Harmony lot after the place opened and EVERY car in their was newer than my (13 year old) car and two of the cars were brand new with the paper dealer plates still on the cars (I’ve never owned a new car)… After writing a five figure check to the IRS this month (and an even bigger five figure check to the Yolo County tax assessor) it is nice to know that I’m helping the “less fortunate” to pay low rent so they can afford new cars (while I hope to save up enough money in the next month to fix the AC fan on my old car before it gets real hot)…
Rich wrote:
> So very rich guys, like Paul Petrovich get even
> richer, the lower income as a class get screwed,
> and “progressives” in Davis high-five each other
> in celebration of their “progressive values.”
Does anyone know if Paul Petrovich got started (was his family in real estate)?
When I moved to Davis I knew that he owned the Safeway/Oakshade Mall, the (just sold for $17.5mm) Oakshade apartments and was developing the huge Target Costo Mall in Woodland (and heard he had developed other big Safeway anchored retail sites in Sacramento).
I figured he was probably in his 70’s and was at the end of a long real estate career and was real surprised to meet him at an event a couple years back and see that he looks younger than me…
P.S. To Rich, most of the “Progressives” I know in Davis don’t have a lot of money but they really don’t want any “regular low income” (poor uneducated that watch a lot of TV and dream of buying an Escalade with big chrome rims) people to move to Davis just more people like themselves (socially progressive bike riders with multiple advanced degrees that are not in high demand like “medieval art, social work or woman’s studies)…
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”A related issue is [b]the public cost of building affordable housing and maintaining programs.[/b] I’m especially curious how the city’s DACHA inventory of spread-out and frequently vacant units is faring. Am still hoping for a Vanguard investigation of the costs of running this program vs. the benefits of selling them off (even at affordable rates) and pocketing the cash.”[/i]
Your bolded statement is only true if we try and perpetuate the myth that home ownership is a fiscally more robust (and wise) course of action than renting. Perhaps if we stepped away from that myth and focused our affordable housing efforts on rental housing we would address the affordable housing supply/demand relationship in a way that actually does bring down the cost of housing in Davis for those who truly need that housing cost to come down.
As was noted in the NRC meeting by Chair Gene Wilson, we have a seen a decline in bicycle commuting because the people who could afford to buy the new single family homes in Mace Ranch and Wildhorse were going to places of employment in Sacramento or the Bay Area rather than here in Davis. Simultaneously, the number of UCD employees who were coming to work from outside Davis continued to rise. Concentrating our building efforts on apartment housing in the coming years should result in more bicycle commuters to work, more UCD employees who live in Davis, and a greater supply of housing that is affordable for those who need affordable housing.
Disregarding the tone deaf hardball antics of the CV owners it does make more sense to plan both the Cannery and CV properties together especially for transportation purposes. The problem is the self imposed choke hold of Measure R. There are, of course, good options available. The easiest solution politically could simply have the Cannery allow for a future build out of CV in their plans.
As for blocking access and eminent domain for bikes you are making it all too complicated. Such issues will derail nothing. The council should simply put in that these improvements should be put in at some future time when it is feasible. It sucks for the bike lovers and will not garner any goodwill towards CV. If they were smart CV would try to get along and build goodwill for the future.
[quote]As was noted in the NRC meeting by Chair Gene Wilson, we have a seen a decline in bicycle commuting because the people who could afford to buy the new single family homes in Mace Ranch and Wildhorse were going to places of employment in Sacramento or the Bay Area [/quote]
I think this comment illustrates very nicely the flip side of the observation that if workers in Davis cannot buy houses here, they will commute by car from surrounding communities. And yet, when I lived in North Star,
most if not all of my neighbors commuted, by car to their work in Sacramento, Vacaville or in some cases the Bay area. With a walkability index of approximately 80 using North Star as the basis for comparison, what]
the Cannery site represents is a very old model of development based on the automobile. I do not see an argument for reduction in air pollution here when we are talking about the addition of 550 additional housing units. Most of these folks, due to the distance to downtown Davis, freeway access and shopping will be using their cars. I doubt that given the numbers of children that walk or bike to school, given the current configuration will choose not to drive their kids to school. Also to be more blunt with regard to Matt’s observation, I think that the concept that it is desirable for almost everyone to own their own home is a thing of the past. If my kids and their friends ( in their 20s ) are any example, many of them are choosing not to own finding it not worth while to secure financing and then assume all the responsibilities of ownership. If we were really being proactive and forward thinking we would be looking in terms of developing apartments, not another car dependent community with expensive single family home in a location with obvious access and transportation issues.
[i]”They just need to scrap the affordable housing program and build more apartments.”[/i]
I’m for that. But, if we have public money available for “affordable housing,” I would be in favor of having a rent subsidy program* and/or a community “down payment bank.”
In the former case, give a voucher**, based on income, to people who cannot afford to pay full market rents. The renter would pay out of pocket for most of the rent and the rest would be covered by his voucher. If it does not require a lot of oversight, that would be far more efficient than building, owning and operating low-income designated “projects.” My observation is that the big winners in those are the “operators” and the “consultants”. They can be good for many of the renters, too. But the trouble is that the supply of these units is always tight. So instead of helping everyone who needs help a little bit, you end up helping only a small share of that class and do nothing for folks on waiting lists.
*The problem, which perhaps cannot be overcome, is to qualify only Davis residents who have lived here for a few years for such rent subsidies, and, ideally, give favor to low-income earners whose jobs are in Davis. If that is illegal, you run into the problem of attracting low-income people from the region, who then would crowd out the Davis people you set out to help.
**Section 8 has in the last decade become more of a voucher program. A problem with Section 8-designated “projects” is they often concentrated other social ills (like crime, drugs, etc.) which resulted in blight.
In the latter case, instead of spending millions of dollars on homes (as we did with DACHA) or selling below market-rate homes and requiring the re-sale price of the house to be much less than it is worth***, I would favor helping first time home owners with a down payment bank. If the family makes a decent living in Davis, but, because they have spent so much on rent, they have insufficient cash savings, I would not be against giving such residents of Davis help with the down payment. The down payment loan would in effect be a low or no interest second mortgage secured by the real property. As these loans get repaid, the returns could be re-used to help a second, third and fourth generation of new home buyers in Davis.
***Arguably the dumbest idea, which, of course, we have adopted in Davis, is to sell someone a below market house and then tell them, years down the road, that they cannot sell it for what it is worth. There are only two possible outcomes of this and they both always will apply: the first is that, while you call this “home ownership,” in reality, it is just renting. No matter how much the property market improves in the time you “own” your house, you will never capture any of that value, because the city wants it to remain “affordable.” Given that, why not just let those people rent. They don’t get a primary benefit of being a home owner. The second, and more troublesome outcome of this meshuggenah ideology, is that the so-called “home owner” will never have an incentive to keep up or repair his house. In good condition, it’s worth $600,000. With no repairs, no paint, a leaky roof, cracked windows, dead trees, etc., it’s worth just $400,000. And the city tells this sucker that he cannot sell his house for more than $200,000. Whoopeeee! No one sane would ever pay for upkeep in a house like that. God forbid the city builds one of these carcasses in your neighborhood. It will be the damndest eyesore in no time.
[i]”And yet, when I lived in North Star, most if not all of my neighbors commuted, by car to their work in Sacramento, Vacaville or in some cases the Bay area.”[/i]
That’s a fair point. However, having less housing available in Davis* doesn’t make it [i]more likely[/i] that Davis homeowners will be Davis workers.
If the normal mix is something like 50% of employed Davis homeowners commute to work out of town and 50% work in Davis or at UCD, then the more available houses for sale in Davis will mean a greater percentage of people who make their living in Davis will also live here. But if the housing stock in Davis is artificially frozen, then the ratio of people who work in Davis but live out of the city will increase.
*Less available housing is, as noted before, good for those of us who own property here, especially when the market tanks and our values don’t drop so much. It’s a plus for the haves; a minus for the have-nots. Anti-growthers seem to hate the have-nots.
I’m not sure why we would have any money for voucher programs any more. I thought that was RDA money. And I think you’ve identified the problems with trying to manage that. I prefer a market-based approach to providing affordable housing, but the regulations have to be there in the planning and zoning process.
The council needs to revisit its housing goals and policies. Highest density housing should be top priority. Rezoning to allow greater density may be necessary. The university, of course, needs to provide at least 3 – 4,000 more beds in the next decade. But that still will leave us 5 – 6,000 beds short for accommodating the growth UCD is implementing. If we don’t build at least a thousand rental units in the next decade, the vacancy rate will not drop and there won’t be affordable housing.
Affordable housing = rental housing. That is the reality now. If the council keeps focusing on houses for families, on projects like ConAgra, there won’t be affordable housing.
I often think that our planning goals are based on unrealistic expectations, given the regional realities. People are going to use cars no matter where they live. If we are concerned about transportation, bus service can be extended everywhere. But really, a regional transportation approach is needed. Transportation links between Davis, Dixon, Woodland, West Sac, and Sacramento are very inefficient.
From the Davis Enterprise article about Roger Niello’s presentation at a recent Chamber meeting, describing the regional business approach for the Sacramento area economy… What was the role he saw for Davis?
[quote]when asked what Davis’ role could be in the plan, Niello spoke about it as an ideal place to live.
“Can you think of another region in California where you can live in a rural environment, an urban environment, a traditional suburban environment, an agricultural environment, a country environment, the mountains, any of those living opportunities and still be within 20 minutes’ drive to work?” Niello said. “Davis is one of the unique communities that provides that choice of quality of life.”[/quote]
It’s a great place to live. In other words: Davis is a desirable bedroom community for people who work in Sacramento. That’s also the reality. There aren’t, and won’t be, jobs for most of the people who move here. It’s great to make neighborhoods walkable and provide local transportation, and bike access, and all those amenities that make Davis nice. But you aren’t going to get people out of their cars.
Rich wrote:
> I would favor helping first time home owners with
> a down payment bank. If the family makes a decent
> living in Davis, but, because they have spent so
> much on rent, they have insufficient cash savings,
> I would not be against giving such residents of
> Davis help with the down payment.
I worked my way through six years of undergrad (paying taxes) and taking a lighter than average load of classes since I needed to work a lot of hours to pay for school and rent and I graduated without any debt.
After graduation without any deductions I paid even more taxes working full time and I lived in a crappy rent control apartment with a strange roommate for years. I worked part time on weekend consulting projects (getting 1099 income and paying even more taxes AND self-employment taxes) to save to buy my first condo.
I don’t see why I have to pay even more just so someone that does not want to work as hard as I did (or get a roommate or move to Dixon or Woodland for lower rent) should get my tax money for the down payment on a home (when the money should go for fixing the streets or paying down our pension shortfall)…
There is another form of affordable housing that Davis has, but has not been expanded for ~ 40 years. It allows folks to buy “property”, gain equity, and keep their costs low. Think ‘Rancho Yolo’. It was built with private funds, there is no public maintenance for the streets, utilities, and modular/mobile housing isn’t “trailers”, as they can be quite nice. Yet, I don’t think that this has been on the radar for the community for 40 years. Perhaps, now is the time. Perhaps we can start with the Cannery site.
BTW, does ANYONE understand that ConAgra will not build out the project? Looks like they are trying to lock in entitlements, then market the property to actual home builders… who would probably want to re-negotiate the terms of the approvals.
Slatter’s Court is the most affordable housing in Davis. And even that is increasing in cost.
I understand, and assume others do, that ConAgra isn’t likely to build anything on the site. This is the city council’s chance to establish the most stringent requirements for density and the other details. I’m afraid that the current council is likely to accept the housing types and densities mostly as presented, and will likely follow previous council patterns of quibbling about minor details to ‘green up’ the project. I think it’s a shame to lose the last business site, and to lose the last large parcel available for significant amounts of rental housing. But I think that when they were elected, Dan and Rochelle indicated how they were likely to vote, so I think there’s a majority already there for the ConAgra proposal mostly as it is right now.
hpierce said . . .
[i]”BTW, does ANYONE understand that ConAgra will not build out the project? Looks like they are trying to lock in entitlements, then market the property to actual home builders… who would probably want to re-negotiate the terms of the approvals.”[/i]
That is crystal clear to me. They want to exit town. Their interest begins and ends there.
“Slatter’s Court is the most affordable housing in Davis. And even that is increasing in cost.”
No, the most affordable housing is something that was paid off years ago has no mortgage and a low tax basis with no Mello-Roos fees.
“I think it’s a shame to lose the last large business site, and to lose the last large parcel available for significant amounts of rental housing.”
Don’t worry about that. There is lots of land available for whatever we need, it lies just outside the city limit, and, has land owners eager to develop their properties. The barrier is not having the space the barrier is not having the political will to build out.
“If I were emperor of Davis, I’d mandate it half apartments, half business park. But someone will certainly come along now and tell me that then ‘nothing would get built there’ and therefore we have to proceed with what the property owner wants.”
No, they will tell you that you are not the emperor of Davis.
“The barrier is not having the space the barrier is not having the political will to build out.”
Seems to me it’s not political will but rather the political agreement that that’s what we need to do.
“After writing a five figure check to the IRS this month (and an even bigger five figure check to the Yolo County tax assessor) it is nice to know that I’m helping the “less fortunate” to pay low rent so they can afford new cars (while I hope to save up enough money in the next month to fix the AC fan on my old car before it gets real hot)…”
To owe a five figure check to the Yolo county tax assessor your property must be worth at least $2,000,000 since you would have had to write a check in December for the same amount as well. Of course this doesn’t tell us what amount of equity you have. Still it seems odd that you could have such a property and complain about people living in subsidized condo’s having too much because they need transportation to get to work..
Interesting that this property is just perfect for a business park, but has all kinds of problems that make it totally unsuitable for housing.
Interesting that it was just fine for us to drive all over the region to buy our basic stuff rather than allow stores to be build in and close to Davis, but now we’re upset that new housing might not be encouraging us to start using bicycles as our principle transportation.
Interesting that no one has the slightest interest in developing a business park there, but every time someone wants to develop housing, it’s argued that shouldn’t happen because we need to reserve the site for a business park because the people would vote against one if we’re given the chance.
As Mr.Toad points out, Davis is surrounded by land (even better situated for the type of business development Davis supposedly needs).
All of these things suggest that our political will or political agreement are based on a belief that Davis should remain just as it is. But, we fight having to pay for the things that really make it a special place–like the schools, streets, parks, programs, etc. Instead, we think Davis can stay Davis if we keep housing and shopping from moving in on us.
In the meantime, things will be fine if we can keep our house values moving up and our rental properties productive by keeping out competitive properties.
[i]”..no one has the slightest interest in developing a business park there”
[/i]The only thing we know is that ConAgra has no interest in developing a business park there.
[i]our political will or political agreement are based on a belief that Davis should remain just as it is[/i]
I think most people want the place they live to retain the character and feel that it had when they moved there. The expressed will of the public, based on actual votes, is that Davis should grow as slowly as legally possible. The voters have approved some subdivisions, and rejected others.
[i]we fight having to pay for the things that really make it a special place[/i]
Last time I checked, Davis voters routinely approved, by large margins, special assessments to pay for those things.
[i]As Mr.Toad points out, Davis is surrounded by land (even better situated for the type of business development Davis supposedly needs). [/i]
Davis is surrounded by some of the best agricultural soil in the world, in a county with the expressed policy of retaining that soil for farming.
Here’s a great resource: [url]http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soilweb_gmap/[/url]
Try not to build on the ones that say “loam.”
Announced in the Democrat this morning – Davis is losing Ken Hiatt, who has taken the position of Community Development Director in Woodland. That makes two key people who have left Davis for Woodland. Woodland does need help to develop its downtown area and maybe has more opportunity for someone as creative as Ken to flourish.
[quote]In the meantime, things will be fine if we can keep our house values moving up and our rental properties productive by keeping out competitive properties. [/quote]Truly, the mantra of the no-growthers, past and present.
[quote]JS: “..no one has the slightest interest in developing a business park there”
DS: “The only thing we know is that ConAgra has no interest in developing a business park there.”[/quote]
I thought I knew for sure that no one with the money and other where with all has expressed any interest, Don. We’re both correct about ConAgra. Who do you think is interested? I must have missed the announcement.
With respect to our parcel tax votes, I’m glad you’re satisfied they’re adequate. My point (reinforced by all the discussion about what level of school tax we’d dare propose) is that we’re setting up a tax-advoidance atmosphere that fails to maintain our quality of life. (Senior exclusions of the very school parcel taxes you cite, Prop. 13, two-thirds vote requirements, etc.) Anybody proposing tax levies to get caught up on our deteriorating streets?
We agree that a majority Davis voters force the city to “grow as slowly as legally possible.” We also agree on that thousands of acres of prime farmland surround Davis. All I’m saying is that if Davis voters ever want a business park here, they’ll be glad to convert the Nishi parcel or another similar acreage to that higher priority use.
Don, by your reasoning Cannery should be preserved for agriculture because it has loam soils. While there is merit in retaining ag land for ag the extremist argument that it all should be reserved for ag is absurd. As such, there is plenty of land here for all our development needs.
By my reasoning we should not annex prime farmland for the purpose of development.
[i]I thought I knew for sure that no one with the money and other where with all has expressed any interest[/i]
The owners have made it very clear that all they are interested in is residential development.
Don, the reason that ConAgra is not interested in anything other than housing (with a petite curtsy in the direction of a commercial component) is that that is the only way that ConAgra can fully terminate its relationship to the property and thereby fully liquidate its assets here in Davis. Pursuing the business park direction would more than likely mean Con Agra would have to keep a financial interest in the business park until a certain build-out percentage is reached. That could be decades.
[i]”Davis is losing Ken Hiatt, who has taken the position of Community Development Director in Woodland. That makes two key people who have left Davis for Woodland.”[/i]
Ken Hiatt leaving employment with the city of Davis is unfortunate for us. Ken is a very competent guy, who does not have an outsized ego. He wrote a letter last Monday to his colleagues informing them that he will be on the job in Davis for 4 more weeks.
Howver, Ken was on vacation last week. So I was not able to ask him why he took that job in Woodland. It surprised me, because, at best, it’s a lateral move. By contrast, Paul Navazio’s move to the City of Woodland was his first chance to be a full-time city manager, after being bypassed for that job in Davis.
It was suggested to me last week that his move exposed a rift in the personalities among upper management in the City of Davis. However, I am told that Ken Hiatt bought a home in Woodland some time ago and that his children attend a private school, there. So it’s not unlikely that his actual motivation for changing jobs is simply to work closer to his new home in that city.
Unrelated Woodland news … Someone on this blog recommended to me a cafe in Wooldand called the Yolo Coffee Company. It’s at the Food 4 Less mall at Pioneer Ave. and E. Main Street (near the I-5 south exit). My review: the coffee was excellent. The owners, who are very nice, told me they used to work at Peet’s in Davis, and their coffee, in my opinion, is every bit as good as Peet’s. The inside of the restaurant, also, is nice and comfortable. Because my dog Truman chooses to tag along with me, I tend to prefer to sip my coffee outside. Yolo Coffee Company built as nice an outdoor facility as they could, given their limited space. However, the real problem is that their location fronts a large, ugly asphalt parking lot which itself is unattractive and uninteresting. I don’t think there is much YCC could do about that. And, I suspect, most of their customers would prefer to dine inside. The real shame is that city planners (in Davis, Woodland and seemingly everywhere) think that a large ugly asphalt parking lot is acceptable. In my opinion, shopping malls ought to be forced to concentrate their parking in such a way that the cars are out of the view of the shoppers. Davis Commons is about the only mall–a very small mall, of course–that does this right.
Mr. Toadd wrote:
> To owe a five figure check to the Yolo county tax
> assessor your property must be worth at least
> $2,000,000 since you would have had to write a
> check in December for the same amount as well.
> Of course this doesn’t tell us what amount of
> equity you have.
The first house I bought in Central Davis was worth less than I paid for it when I moved “South of Davis” so I still own that home (thanks to low interest rates).
Don’t forget that with school taxes of over $1K per home per year (and other “direct charges”) you can pay over $20K a year to Yolo County with just two older homes worth less than $750K each.
[quote]”Don’t forget that with school taxes of over $1K per home per year (and other ‘direct charges’) you can pay over $20K a year to Yolo County with just two older homes worth less than $750K each.”[/quote]Congratulations on your good fortune and hard work. We’ve all done our part to make a city that keeps housing prices strong and high even during the recession and vacancy rates low all the time. Let’s rejoice in getting to pay lots of taxes to keep Davis one of the most livable communities around.
[quote]*Less available housing is, as noted before, good for those of us who own property here, especially when the market tanks and our values don’t drop so much. It’s a plus for the haves; a minus for the have-nots. Anti-growthers seem to hate the have-nots.[/quote]
I agree it is a plus for the haves, and am myself a very slow ( to no growther). This however, does not mean that I hate the “have nots”. I would love to see those who work in Davis be able to live in Davis. However, I do not see
building more high end housing as a way to help those who do not make high wages. If our goal is to provide affordable housing, then I agree with Don that we should be focusing on the provision of apartments not high end single family houses, a major component of the Cannery project despite the distracting window dressing.
I would personally be very supportive of a truly innovative project such as Village Homes was in its time. I am not all the way through the EIR, but am simply not seeing that kind of thoughtful approach at this time.
[quote]The expressed will of the public, based on actual votes, is that Davis should grow as slowly as legally possible[/quote]
Don would seem to be accurate in this assessment. One thing that truly baffles me is the expressed desire of some posters to convert Davis into a rapid growth community. The reason for my confusion is that if a rapid growth model is what they desire, there are no lack of less expensive homes in the surrounding communities who have adopted that as their model. Presumably, something is attractive enough to keep those who own homes here, and yet want rapid growth, to stay in Davis. Now it is true that some who are posting here may own or be employed in Davis and see it as to their economic advantage to have more people on hand to utilize their businesses. But we do not all share the same values. Some of us chose Davis instead of Woodland, Vacaville or Sacramento specifically because we wanted the small town university atmosphere. This is not something that can be regained once lost and Davis is the only town in this area where this particular ambience is available.
[quote]In the spring of 2010, they manufactured a candidate’s forum for the city council candidates, ostensibly as a senior advocacy discussion, but ‘the answer to every question was Covell Village.'[/quote]
I was at that forum, and the line “the answer to every question is Covell Village” was said by candidate Jon Li.
Just giving credit where credit is due for a witty line.
MEDS: [i]”However, I do not see building more high end housing as a way to help those who do not make high wages.”[/i]
If you don’t understand how dynamic housing markets work, then I can understand why you are confused. I will give it a shot to explain to you how it works, and thus why you are so very wrong on this matter.
Aside from any supply planning decisions made by the City of Davis, there is a given amount of demand for housing here: some of that is for high-income earners; some for semi-high; some for middle; some for just below middle; and some for low-income.
If the given housing stock, which you have chosen to freeze in place, does not include sufficient high-end properties, the market will (over time) respond by either demolishing older, cheaper homes and replacing them on-site with new, larger, fancier homes, or by simply adding square footage to existing homes and remodeling them so that they meet the needs of high end buyers.
When that happens, the supply of homes in the categories which were stripped to satisfy the higher end homes goes down, and hence the prices of those available homes become more and more expensive, pricing out folks from the upper-middle to the bottom end of the market.
If the profits become high enough, some investors will take lower and middle end homes and add to them so they become middle and upper-middle category properties.
None of this, in and of itself, is a bad thing. It drives some investment in older Davis properties. If the market were left alone, most of that investment would not occur.
Consider this scenario from the other end, where Davis allows the housing market to work and we drop your bigotry against the high-end home buyers and allow developments which are attractive to them.
When that happens, some new development will be large houses (McMansions, if you will). However, not all of it will be. Supply will meet demand right where it is. The profits likely won’t be there for really low-income buyers. But developers would (as they always do) produce some middle, some upper-middle and some high-end homes.
What that would do would then raise the total housing stock in Davis. Some houses which were high-end when they were built 20 or 40 years earlier would be seen as upper-middle, and their prices would decline to meet that. Some that were upper-middle decades before would fall into the middle category. Houses (like mine) which were middle income would fall into the lower-middle tier. And lower-middle homes would become affordable to lower-end buyers.
Moreover, if we also allowed the development of a lot more for-rent apartment units, a lot of houses which currently are occupied by student renters would become available for lower-income family renters and in some cases add to the for-sale housing stock at the lower end.
In essence, in a dynamic market, developers will build products which return to them the best profits. But in so doing, they will create a new supply and that will affect every category of the existing stock, and that is what will redound to the benefit of those with less money.
There are some real problems to consider when considering allowing the market to function: there may be real costs (like auto traffic or car pollution*) imposed on existing residents which are not well accounted for by new neighborhoods; and the City government (due to its bad labor policies) may become underfunded for vital services with some new housing. However, I get the sense that the biggest drivers of the no-growthers is first and foremost selfishness: “I’m here; I don’t care about you.” And secondly, it is a false sense of Davis being good at its present size but bad if it is ever larger. Davis tripled in size from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. That allowed my family space to live here. It then tripled in size from the early 1970s (despite Bob Black and the other growth-control ideologues) to the early 2000s, which allowed you to have space to live here. It strikes me as terribly selfish to no longer allow new residents a chance to live here.
*Car pollution is a bit of a farce, today. New cars don’t pollute too much. A Davis mechanic told me a few months ago that there is so little carbon monoxide emitted from a tailpipe in a new car that the old method of suicide by running a car in a closed garage will no longer work. I’m not about to test that theory, however.
Rifkin: “It strikes me as terribly selfish to no longer allow new residents a chance to live here.”
That, in a nutshell…
[quote]It strikes me as terribly selfish to no longer allow new residents a chance to live here.[/quote]
If that were what was being said, I would agree. However, I do not hear people calling for no new residents.
I do hear people calling for not destroying the charm of the community that brought many of us here.
There will never be a time when there are “no new residents”. People die, people choose to leave the community for many different reasons. My own children and my ex have chosen to live elsewhere freeing up those homes for others. I do not believe that there is an “ideal town size” or number of residents. There are certainly people who have different preferences for size of community. That does not make one group selfish and others virtuous. If we were going to see it that way, why not demonize developers for their “selfishness” in wanting to maximize their profits, or the “selfishness” of those who want to buy a home in a new development knowing that the building of their home may have helped to drive down the value of someone’s home who is depending on their equity to help support them in retirement ?
Medwoman, couch it however you want, but the unstated mantra of the no-growth and extremely slow-growth crowd is “I have mine and the rest of you can go to h…” I have no problem with ‘smart’ growth, but no-growth and extreme slow-growth need to be called out as both selfish and unsustainable.
Rich, there are a lot of assumptions in your model. First, when you say, [i]”If the given housing stock, which you have chosen to freeze in place, does not include sufficient high-end properties, the market will (over time) respond by either demolishing older, cheaper homes and replacing them on-site with new, larger, fancier homes, or by simply adding square footage to existing homes and remodeling them so that they meet the needs of high end buyers.” [/i] you are assuming that the new buyers of homes actually do want more square feet of space. Given the significant greying of the Davis population, I question whether that assumption is indeed playing out in Davis. When was the last time that you saw a teardown in Davis? Looking at the Planning Commission agendas over the recent years, how many applications to add space have there been? The answer to both questions are [i]”Very, very few.”[/i]
The historical davis trends of increasing population from in the Under 25 cohort due to UCD’s expanding student population and the over 55 cohort. I fully expect the proportional decline of the cohorts between 25 and 55 will continue, and it is those cohorts that are likely to want the kind of larger house that you describe. The only way I see those cohorts growing in the future is if Davis is successful in its efforts to bring a number of new companies like Mori Seiki to Davis.
The other assumption you make is that existing Davis lots will be able to handle the kind of teardown/expansion decisions you describe. Because of the strong historical bias in Davis toward one story homes, the amount of available lot footprint in the pre-Wild Horse, pre-Mace Ranch portions of town is minimal. Building a second story on an existing one-story dwelling is much harder than expanding a home’s footprint on the lot. It also results in a house that is out of step with the architectural character of the neighborhood. Taking that kind of urban pioneering step takes significant chutzpah. Chutzpah that is more often associated with couples with careers rather than couples with lots of kids and lots of kid expenses. I can’t help but wonder what couples with careers will want with all that second story space?
All of the things you have described apply to a “normal” housing market, but Davis is anything but “normal.”
Building 5,000 apartment units might do the trick . . . or a couple of 10 story dormitories on the A Street Intramural Field.
[i]However, not all of it will be. Supply will meet demand right where it is.
[/i]
Supply has never met demand for rental housing in Davis sufficiently to have a healthy vacancy rate that keeps rental prices affordable. The university is the driver of the Davis housing market at all levels, but especially of the market for those least able to afford it: young adults who are living on their own, who work in our businesses and at the university.
A little comparison: [img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/growthratesDavisWdldWestSac.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/growthratesDavisWdldWestSac.png[/url]
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Medwoman, couch it however you want, but the unstated mantra of the no-growth and extremely slow-growth crowd is “I have mine and the rest of you can go to h…” I have no problem with ‘smart’ growth, but no-growth and extreme slow-growth need to be called out as both selfish and unsustainable.”[/i]
Mark, I don’t think that is what is being said at all (well maybe by some). What I hear being said is [i]”Look at the Supply/Demand relationships in Davis.”[/i] and [i]”Look at the impending tsunami of additional students needing housing.”[/i] Rental housing is where Demand is most out of whack with Supply. As a result neighborhoods are being degraded by the conversion of family homes into student rentals. As Rich Rifkin correctly pointed out, addressing the apartment issue will result in the reconversion of single family homes back into dwellings that actually house families.
A number of neighborhoods in Davis have specific provisions in their CC&Rs explicitly prohibiting conversion of single family residences to student rentals.
Mark
I agree with Mattt that this is not “the unstated mantra” of most slow growthers. But let’s suppose for the moment that it were.
How is that any more selfish than the “unspoken mantra” of the developers, “Let’s make all the profit we can and to h…” with the costs to the community ? Or the “unspoken mantra” of people wanting to lessen the cost of their first home and “to h…” with the equity built up over years of hard work by the current homeowners ? Again, different people have different interests and values. I simply do not believe that one group is demonstrating more “selfishness” than another when all parties are clearly advocating for their own perceived best interest.
Well said medwoman. It is all about whose ox is being gored.
I strongly support building more apartments because there really isn’t anyone’s ox that is going to be gored because of Mrs. Katehi’s student growth initiative. We could probably add 5,000 apartment beds and not harm the current apartment owners bottom-lines at all
Matt
And this idea I strongly support. It is not that I oppose all growth. What I oppose is growth that pits us against each other and against the other communities in this area by turning Davis into a mini me of Sacramento, Vacaville or Woodland. This competition is one we will inevitably lose for reasons put forth by Matt and Don on the accompanying thread. So, instead of attempting to compete on the basis of mall or big box retail why not play to our natural strength ? We have something that those locations will never have and that is the immediate proximity of the university. It is this immediate proximity that we should be highlighting and building upon.
Matt wrote:
> We could probably add 5,000 apartment beds and not
> harm the current apartment owners bottom-lines at all
Adding 5,000 units to a city with less than 10,000 current apartment units would CRUSH the apartment owners bottom lines (and flood Davis with section 8 renters from Woodland and Sacramento and owners desperate for cash flow did anything they could to fill units.
To out things in perspective Wildhorse AND El Macero COMBINED have about 1,000 homes, think what building five more of EACH would do to the Davis housing market (and rental landlords bottom line)?
I didn’t say 5,000 apartment units, but rather 5,000 apartment beds.
But setting that aside, where do you expect the 5,000 additional students to put their heads each night?
Further, El Macero and Wildhorse are poor comparisons because the first bed in each of those units contains 2 people. Do you expect the 5,000 additional UCD students to be sharing beds like my wife and I do?
Figure 3 people per unit. West Village is averaging 2.9 – 3.2 people per unit. So we need a total of about 1600 units in the next decade. It would be good if at least half of those were on campus, but that would be higher than their historic rate of housing.