by Matt Williams
I was one of the people who stayed to the very end of the Planning Commission meeting Wednesday night. As has been widely reported, the Planning Commission did not make a recommendation to the City Council, but instead has asked staff to provide answers to a long list of questions that the Planning Commissioners individually and collectively still have. The next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 9th, which is still before the first of three City Council meetings on The Cannery, which will begin on October 22nd.
Even though the Planning Commissioners weren’t able to make up their minds, 62 Davis residents took the time to share their thoughts during Public Comment. As best as I could tell, the vast majority of those 62 expressed little doubt about how they felt about The Cannery
By my tally the 62 public comments broke down into the following interest areas
- Senior Housing — 3 in favor of the proposal and 5 opposed to the proposal — All the opposed were looking for more single story homes. All the in favor supported the universal accessibility design incorporated into the homes. One interesting comment that was mentioned twice by those opposed to the proposal was the fact that they felt that “the flats” in multi-story structures were unfriendly to seniors, because the seniors would have to use elevators.
- Contributes to Economic Stability — 4 in favor of the proposal and zero opposed to the proposal — The common theme to the 4 comments was that Davis needs to add jobs in order to put its financial house in order, and the people who would fill those added jobs need homes to live in.
- Good for Schools and Agricultural Education — 5 in favor of the proposal and zero opposed to the proposal — The Center for Land-Based Learning component of the project was mentioned in 4 of the 5 comments, and the addition of students for the Davis School District was mentioned in 3 of the 5 comments.
- Contributes to Increased Housing Availabilty — 11 in favor of the proposal and zero opposed to the proposal – Most of the people who were in this group of 11 commenters were young and speaking for themselves, although at least two were speaking for their children who wanted to come live near their parents in Davis.
- A Well Conceived High Quality Plan — 7 in favor of the proposal and zero opposed to the proposal — These commenters were impressed with the overall quality of the project design.
- General Support of the Plan — 5 in favor of the proposal and zero opposed to the proposal – All of this group of 5 were strong supporters of the project, but none singled out any specific aspect of the project as being more important than any other aspect.
- Alternative Use Needs to Be Explored — 2 in favor of the proposal and 1 opposed to the proposal — I was surprised that there was only one person all night who said that the site should be used as a business park. I was also surprised that two people made the focus of their message that the idea of using the site only for business was a bad idea.
- Strong Support of the Process Thoroughness and Transparency — 1 in favor of the proposal and zero opposed to the proposal – Michael Bartolic was the person who made this comment, and I personally agree with him. When you look at the fact that 13 City of Davis Councils, Commissions and Committees and 2 NGOs, Valley Climate Action Center and the Cool Davis Foundation have conducted over 20 public hearings on The Cannery, it is hard not to agree with Michael’s assessment.
- Connectivity, Safety, Access and Traffic — 2 in favor of the proposal and 13 opposed to the proposal — This category of commenters was indeed the elephant in the room (or in one case the triathelete in the room). For the most part the message of this group was, “I like the project, but . . . ” The Cannery applicant projected some illustrations of what they expected the bicycle underpass/connectivity corridor to look like, and I hope those illustrations are able to be posted in the Vanguard in the very near future. They helped me conceptualize the proposed solution better, but I defer to minds that are much wiser than mine on bicycle issues about whether the proposed solution works or not. My own personal view of the connectivity issue is that the true solution is for all Davis citizens to get behind the Yolo Rail Relocation effort, which would eliminate the rail all along both the Cannery’s west border and on the south side of Covell Boulevard. Send your Council member an e-mail that you want the rail line to be relocated.
- Local Small Builder Involvement — ½ of one in favor and ½ of one opposed — The lone commenter in this category was a local builder who was for the project, but only if New Homes was willing to designate a certain number of lots/homes for construction by local small builders. His argument was that local small builders could address change orders more effectively than a big builder could.
- Other Issues — Zero in favor of the proposal and 2 opposed to the proposal – One of the two commenters in this category wanted the California Northern train tracks to be used for commuter trains from Downtown to The Cannery. The other commenter appeared to want the garden along the east side of the property replaced by a grove of trees. It wasn’t clear if she meant the tree grove should extend the whole length of the east side of the property, or just the southeast corner.
Total — 40 and ½ in favor of the proposal and 21 and ½ opposed to the proposal. The Planning Commission wasn’t able to make up its mind, but looking at those totals, the citizens in Council Chambers on Wednesday night weren’t as uncertain. If The Cannery can resolve the bicycle connectivity issues the number of those who are opposed to the project out of that sample of 62 might even drop down to less than 10.
One thing that the Planning Commissioners were very certain of is that whenever they next discuss The Cannery, there will not be an additional public comment period.
[quote]Total — 40 and ½ in favor of the proposal and 21 and ½ opposed to the proposal.[/quote]
No surprise there, it’s not uncommom for the developers to get there backers out in force at public hearings. If I remember right it was the same for the Wildhorse Ranch and Covell Village projects but when the votes were cast the public was overwhelmingly against.
So don’t put too much stock in how the people actually feel about this project from the few public comments.
I think drawing too from Measure P leads to questionable analysis. 2009 and 2013 are very different entities.
GI, that is precisely why I said, “looking at those totals, [u]the citizens in Council Chambers[/u] on Wednesday night weren’t as uncertain. “
Matt
[quote]Davis needs to add jobs in order to put its financial house in order, and the people who would fill those added jobs need homes to live in.
[/quote]
Maybe you can help me understand this. This reasoning seems backwards to me. Shouldn’t we be creating the jobs first, and then building the homes for the employees to live in. This seems to be a parallel to what happened with the schools. We estimated too high, built too many schools for the actual students, and then had to go through the painful process of closure. Wouldn’t it make more sense to focus on the economic growth first and then build the needed number of homes ? After all, the developer has made it clear that they are not going to use this site for anything other than “mixed use” to be interpreted as a large number of housing units. The ability to build homes is not going to suddenly go away.
medwoman, three of the four speakers for whom [i]Contributes to Economic Stability[/i] was the major theme were college age or slightly older, so their focus appeared to be that they had just graduated and wanted to stay and work in Davis. They didn’t appear to place housing above jobs or place jobs above housing. They appeared to be co-equal components of their comments. The fourth speaker in this category of speakers was older and he clearly (to me at least) said that Davis needs jobs in order to become more economically sustainable, but that companies will be reluctant to bring their jobs to Davis if their employees can’t find housing.
From my personal perspective we absolutely should be creating the jobs first, and only building housing when we actually can see the initial flow of jobs arrive, with the number of houses being dependent on the number of additional jobs.
Matt: “[i]From my personal perspective we absolutely should be creating the jobs first, and only building housing when we actually can see the initial flow of jobs arrive, with the number of houses being dependent on the number of additional jobs.[/i]”
While I agree that the most pressing need is more good jobs, I don’t see why we have to have an either/or philosophy with regards to jobs and housing. We have a shortage of both good jobs and available housing and I see no reason why we cannot work on solutions for both issues at the same time.
Mark West
[quote] I see no reason why we cannot work on solutions for both issues at the same time.[/quote]
I agree with you if by “working on ” you mean planning ahead for both. If however, what you mean is “go ahead and build, and they will come” I think we have evidence in our own town that this is not the best strategy.
Do you agree that part of our recent and current school situation was based on an over estimate of need ?
If so, how would you propose to avoid the same error with regard to the housing situation ?
[i]I think drawing too from Measure P leads to questionable analysis. 2009 and 2013 are very different entities.[/i]
I have made this point before and absolutely agree. The pulse of opinion for the population… even the often obstinate and unique one that beats in Davis’s population… is much different today. It a lot of respects, I see that change as a direct result of the national social transformation that liberals have succeeded in accomplishing having leveraged the fiscal and social tragedies of the Great Recession.
What these demanders of social transformation have failed to recognize or understand is the symbiotic relationship between a well-functioning economy, balanced budgets and a great society. Davis’s exclusivity has been propped up by these previously robust economic sources; but unfortunately those benefiting from them did not value them enough to protect them.
Hence, the demand for top-down, government-forced, socio-economic class leveling, is well underway. And today, the expectations of people at both ends have drastically changed. Those at the top have accepted defeat and concede the futility of working those extra hours and taking those extra business risks only to have more of their earnings taxed and redistributed while they are demonized for their success by the left political media apparatus. They have moved from uncertainty to certainty… negative certainty. Those at the bottom have also moved to certainty. They have moved to a more strongly-held belief that their shelter, food, transportation and healthcare should be largely provide them.
So there you have it Davis liberals. Your struggle to maintain your protected, elite, exclusive and affluent farmland-moat-surrounded little enclave of social and environmental activism is under siege by the very social transformation you have demanded. Those lower socioeconomic people that have been the subject of your obsession are now demanding a bigger piece of the pie that you had previously denied them and justified from issuance of social do-gooder credits. Those at the top have acquiesced their world view too. They no longer participate in the positive outlook of individual self-determination and free enterprise solving individual socioeconomic problems. They concede that government controls. Hence now they demand that government gets its economic development act together and performs.
In the end, this comes does to that principle “be careful what you ask for”.
Frankly
[quote]Those at the top have accepted defeat and concede the futility of working those extra hours and taking those extra business risks only to have more of their earnings taxed and redistributed while they are demonized for their success by the left political media apparatus.[/quote]
Ohhh…..you finally have convinced me. How I weep for the crushed expectations of those who feel they cannot afford yet another dressage horse.
Well like it or not medwoman, those collecting dressage horses create the jobs and derived tax revenue that helps folks like you fund your collection of altruism points.
Really it is a point of balance. You think the balance was tipped too far toward benefitting those that collected dressage horses. I don’t know why you would feel justified in judging them for that, but so be it.
So you have won and now we have tipped drastically back so that there are fewer collecting dressage horses, fewer motivated to pursue the wealth that would allow them to collect dressage horses, and fewer to fund your effort to collect altruism points… while we have launched many more that now demand that altruism.
My point was that the larger population of people successful enough to collect dressage horses was there for you to milk to protect your lifestyle and fund your collecting of altruism points. You would have been wiser to recognize that symbiotic relationship and protect it instead of letting envy and classism motivate you to dismantle and destroy it… “it” being your benefactor.
So now you have a new transformed population that demands a greater share of ALL wealth. Not just the wealth of dollars that you are fond of counting for determining who gets a seat at the table of caring people… but also the wealth of lifestyle which you and other Davisites have previously been so successful at protecting for yourselves.
There are many forms of dressage horses. For all the denigration and scorn you heap upon people living a certain lifestyle considered excessive, unfair and in need of greater distribution policy, there are just as many that do the same looking at how Davisites live. It is time to open the door and allow others to enjoy the wealth of lifestyle and exclusivity that you have enjoyed living in Davis. Frankly, it is unfair for you to continue to horde those benefits in our transformed society.
With all due respect to Robert and Anita, you two need to get a room!!! I suspect that the majority of life occurs somewhere between the pendulum extremes of your conversations. 8>)
Medwoman: “[i]I agree with you if by “working on ” you mean planning ahead for both.[/i]”
Whether one is discussing the management of one’s personal life, a business, or running a City, the general process is much the same. Planning and goal setting, evaluating opportunities, making decisions, evaluating results and moving on. This is an ongoing and ever changing process for the simple reason that life is not entirely predictable, and the realities of the day often times force a change in direction from the original plan. While many of us may have sat down at the end of high school and mapped out a plan for our career and lives, few if any have stuck to that plan, or worse, ignored opportunities at age 40 or 50 because we didn’t foresee the option when we were 18.
‘Working on’ to me is not synonymous with more planning. ‘Working on’ is setting goals, evaluating opportunities, making decisions, evaluating results, and moving on to the next issue, then repeating the process day in and day out. We will never have complete or perfect information with which to make decisions, so it is incumbent on us, and our leaders, to make the best decision with the available information and not allow calls for additional planning to result in paralysis.
With regards to the Cannery project, there are aspects that I like, and those that I don’t. I don’t expect that the project will ever meet all of my goals, just as I have no reason to expect that it will meet all of yours. It is however time to make a decision and move on to the next issue, so I encourage the City Council to do just that. If the citizens of Davis don’t like the decision that is made, we have appropriate means to address that issue.
“[i]Do you agree that part of our recent and current school situation was based on an over estimate of need ?[/i]”
No, I don’t. The School Board knew we didn’t need another school, but they voted to build two more anyway to appease the factions of the community that wanted elementary schools in their neighborhoods. It was a political decision. Demographically it made sense to build a new school in Mace Ranch as that was where the children lived (and to a lesser degree a second school in south Davis). The honest, upfront decision would have been for the School Board to vote to relocate one of the existing schools (North Davis, Valley Oak or Birch Lane) to the new neighborhood, then reassign the closed school buildings to a new function. Instead they built two schools we didn’t need, and then collectively wrung their hands over the ‘unfortunate need’ to close a beloved neighborhood school.
“[i]If so, how would you propose to avoid the same error with regard to the housing situation ?[/i]”
There is not doubt in my mind that we need more housing in Davis to meet the existing demand, let alone the increasing demand from the University and future economic development. We have a 1% growth cap in place, in addition to Measure R which places a high bar on approval of any expansion of the City. Together these ‘protections’ will force us to take several years of making decisions on projects to meet the existing demand, let alone any expansion bordering on ‘sprawl.’ As a consequence, I am not worried about one decision or another not working out exactly as we want along the way.
As a community we should not allow an unreasonable fear of making a decision to control the process of “working on” our future success.
Frankly, your a ranty old man.
Looking forward to the pictures of those Cannery connectivity ideas!
[quote]Frankly
Those at the top have accepted defeat and concede the futility of working those extra hours and taking those extra business risks only to have more of their earnings taxed and redistributed while they are demonized for their success by the left political media apparatus.
Medwoman
Ohhh…..you finally have convinced me. How I weep for the crushed expectations of those who feel they cannot afford yet another dressage horse.[/quote] Pretty ironic statement coming from someone who argued against new homes in Davis that would lower existing home values since some might be planning on using equity for retirement. Oh how the renting masses weep for the crushed expectations of those multiple homeowners in Davis who fear they might lose a few thousand dollars in equity for a few years. Boohoo.
I actually think that not wanting home values lowered is a perfectly reasonable point against building more houses in Davis. I also don’t resent people who own multiple dressage horses. In fact, I’m happy for them that they have found a slice of joy in life in the form of dancing horses. See how I’m consistent that way? See how it’s pretty hypocritical to live in an exclusive bubble like Davis that 99.9% of the world could only dream of enjoying, and then point to someone with a fancy horse and say THAT is where the line of excess is drawn?
A couple of data points.
Adding 551 units to our existing 25,869 housing units is a 2.1% increase in housing supply.
Population of Davis increased by 9.4% from 2000 – 2012 (city-data.com). Assuming the Cannery project adds 3 – 4 people per housing unit, those 2,000 will be about another 3% addition.
Don, what will the build out period be for that 2.1% increase?
You’ll have to ask ConAgra.
According to the city’s rather optimistic estimate, the project goes negative for the city around year 10 and accelerates in that direction for the remaining 5 years of the analysis. Open question: Is the eventual hit to the city budget adequately offset by the housing mix and the number of for-sale commercial sites?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”You’ll have to ask ConAgra.”[/i]
That’s a rather obtuse answer Don.
Lets play 20 questions. Question #1 . . . Do you think the buildout period is less than or greater than 24 months?
Jim, I haven’t as yet seen the financial analysis. I went to the City website and the link for the Finance and Budget Commission is empty. Can you share the analysis contents here?
[quote]That’s a rather obtuse answer Don.
Lets play 20 questions. Question #1 . . . Do you think the buildout period is less than or greater than 24 months?[/quote]
Obtuse? Great.
I have no idea, Matt. It’s an honest answer. Why don’t you ask them?
[quote]”Inherent in the model is the escalating costs that increase at a rate roughly twice that of revenues,” staff cautions. “The result of this disparity is that the positive general fund balance shown at buildout diminishes over time and goes negative in year ten (10) of the model. The condition where costs are rising more rapidly than revenues is a dilemma throughout the State in cities and counties and is representative of a problem that is not inherent to any particular development or project. Most jurisdictions have been making and will continue to make adjustments that either reduce cost inflation or enhance revenues to deal with this fiscal challenge.”
[/quote]
[url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7650:city-staff-projects-positive-economic-impact-for-cannery&catid=58:budgetfiscal&Itemid=79[/url]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Obtuse? Great.
I have no idea, Matt. It’s an honest answer. Why don’t you ask them?”[/i]
Well Don you are the person who posted the 2.1% statistic out of context. What were you trying to say when you posted that statistic in that way? Was it just a random flash of inspiration? If it wasn’t, then purposefully not sharing the context that you had going through your brain at the time you posted the stat is pretty obtuse.
Don, thanks for the financial report link. The report says the following about build out:[quote]”The model was also run with two distinct absorption schedules. The first was the schedule provided by the developer which had complete absorption of the project over three years. The summary sheet can be seen in Attachment 1. A second absorption schedule, covering a period of six years was provided by staff in the Community Development and Sustainability Department. [/quote]So 2.1% spread over three years is 0.7% per year. Spread over 6 years the annual rate of growth produced by The Cannery is 0.35%
If the developer says three years, it seems reasonable to assume three years is what they’ll try to do. So there’s 0.7% increase.
In addition, the HESC in 2008 identified:
Primary Sites totaling 515 – 569 units.
Secondary (“Green Light”) sites totaling 1322 – 2381 units (including Nishi @ 460 – 1000).
Bear in mind that the Cannery was neither a primary or secondary site.
How many of the primary sites have been filled, and how many have building permits pulled or underway?
How many of the secondary sites have project planning underway (Nishi does)?
How many units would those primary and secondary sites add?
If the Cannery project is approved, and we have a 1% cap, how many other units can be built in Davis in the next three years?
Jim, looking at the model info from the link Don provided a few things jump out at me. First is the assumed rate of increase in assessed value for the 4% of the SFR properties that are projected to turnover each year. That Annual Real Estate Market Price Appreciation is 2% in years 1-5, 3% in years 6-10 and 4% in years 11-15. For the past 12 month period the rate of increase was over 30%, which follows three years where the aggregate change was approximately 0% So 30% over 4 years is a bit over 7% per year. According to Money magazine the 2004-2005 home price gain was 19.8% From another source the 2000-2011 home price gain was 115%.
To put those various numbers into perspective, the City report says:[quote]A one percent increase in annual assessed value appreciations showed a positive cumulative balance of $545,000.[/quote]However, one shouldn’t get carried away because they also say:[quote]The model is extremely sensitive to certain changes in the assumptions. While all variations show a positive General Fund balance at buildout, staff notes, “the assumption driving the most pronounced change to the output is an adjustment to personnel cost inflation.”
Just a one percent increase in the personnel cost inflator changes the cumulative impact over 15 years to go from a positive $77,000 to a negative $849,000.[/quote]
2012 Residential Development Status Report:
[quote]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.
Projection for calendar years 2013 through 2015. Staff finds that it is reasonable to project that building permits will be requested and issued for approximately 200 residential units for the three calendar years of 2013, 2014 and 2015…
The projection of 200 units for the three years of 2013 through 2015 is equal to 67 units per year or approximately 1/4 percent annual growth. [/quote]
So: planned/projected 2013 – 2015 = 0.25% per year
Cannery project = 0.7%.
What’s left of the 1% cap? How many more units could be built in Davis?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”If the developer says three years, it seems reasonable to assume three years is what they’ll try to do.”[/i]
I agree Don, which makes you wonder why the City’s assumption is 6 years. Seems like a Yul Brynner moment.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”In addition, the HESC in 2008 identified:
Primary Sites totaling 515 – 569 units.
Secondary (“Green Light”) sites totaling 1322 – 2381 units (including Nishi @ 460 – 1000).”[/i]
Looking at Table 37 of the HESC Report [url]http://community-development.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/Housing Element 2008-13/Section-04-Site-Inventory-and-Local-Resources.pdf[/url] one gets a list of of the Primary Sites
#1 is completed, #2 is completed, #3 is completed, #4 is completed, #5 is completed, #6 is completed, #7 is currently under construction, #8 appears to be still available as a site (13 affordable-only units), #9 appears to be still available as a site (4 affordable-only units), #10 is completed, #11 is completed, #12 is completed, #13 is completed, #14 is completed, #15 (the 41 units at the Grande site) is still available.
If you go to the HESC Report at [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/media/default/documents/pdf/citycouncil/councilmeetings/agendas/20080422/packet/06a-housing-element-update-steering-committee-report.pdf[/url] you get the following list of Secondary Sites.
#1 is the DJUSD Headquarters on B Street which isn’t going to happen any time soon, #2 is Kennedy Place with approximately 15 units, but no action contemplated, #3 is Nugget Fields which isn’t going to happen any time soon, #4 is on Sweetbriar Drive near the Co-Op which isn’t going to happen any time soon, #5 doesn’t count against the 1% Cap, #6 is completed, #7 doesn’t count against the 1% Cap, #8 is the PG&E Yard which isn’t going to happen any time soon, #9 is the Anderson Road tear down and rebuild which isn’t going to happen any time soon, #10 is the Chiles Ranch Residential Subdivision on 8th Street which is entitled for 108 units, #11 is the 5th Street Corp Yards which isn’t going to happen any time soon, #12 and #13 aren’t going to happen any time soon, #14 is completed, #15 and #16 aren’t going to happen any time soon, #17 is Nishi, #18 and #19 aren’t going to happen any time soon, #20 is currently under construction, #21 is The Cannery.
What all of that means is that the only significant project that currently is entitled is the 1008 units at Chiles Ranch Residential Subdivision.
None of those units are apartments to the best of my knowledge.
The second to last paragraph should read.
What all of that means is that the only significant project that currently is entitled is the 108 units at Chiles Ranch Residential Subdivision.
[quote]Staff finds that it is reasonable to project that building permits will be requested and issued for approximately 200 residential units for the three calendar years of 2013, 2014 and 2015, on the planned and zoned sites of:
• Verona (34 [b]single family houses[/b] including 8 affordable units)
• Willowbank Park Unit (10 [b]single family houses[/b])
• 2990 E. Fifth Street (29 affordable [b]townhouses[/b]; there is uncertainty with this site as no
developer has been identified)
• Willow Creek Commons (21 [b]single family houses[/b]; there is uncertainty as the final map
has not been filed and the tentative map will expire on May 9, 2014 per Map act
§66452.23)
• Chiles Ranch (68 [b]single family houses[/b] including affordable units and accessory dwelling
units)
• Other planned and zoned sites (an estimate of 38 units on: the vacant sites of Hackberry,
Haussler, and scattered single family lots; the underutilized sites of R-2 zones, R-3 zones, and downtown infill; and anticipated accessory dwelling units)[/quote]
So, bottom line, the Cannery project, combined with these existing and projected building permits, would use up nearly the entire 1% housing allocation for the next 3 – 4 years. Nishi, if approved by the voters, could not add housing until these others are built out. Nishi would, as I understand it, provide high-density student housing. Cannery would not.
And a possible business park site would be lost.
So why are we rezoning this site at this time, exactly?
I cop to laziness, but given the dismal state of the city’s website search function, perhaps I can be forgiven for this question: What’s the nature of the 1% cap? Is is merely a suggestion, or is it ensconced in an ordinance? If the latter, how much work would a Council have to go through in order to override it?
Don Shor said . . .
“[i]Staff finds that it is reasonable to project that building permits will be requested and issued for approximately 200 residential units for the three calendar years of 2013, 2014 and 2015, on the planned and zoned sites of:
• Verona (34 single family houses including 8 affordable units)
• Willowbank Park Unit (10 single family houses)
• 2990 E. Fifth Street (29 affordable townhouses; there is uncertainty with this site as no
developer has been identified)
• Willow Creek Commons (21 single family houses; there is uncertainty as the final map
has not been filed and the tentative map will expire on May 9, 2014 per Map act
§66452.23)
• Chiles Ranch (68 single family houses including affordable units and accessory dwelling
units)
• Other planned and zoned sites (an estimate of 38 units on: the vacant sites of Hackberry,
Haussler, and scattered single family lots; the underutilized sites of R-2 zones, R-3 zones, and downtown infill; and anticipated accessory dwelling units)”[/i]
Don, you must not have taken the time to read the list I posted.
• Verona = already completed
• Willowbank Park = already completed (the affordable units son to be under construction)
• 2990 E. Fifth Street = under construction
• Willow Creek Commons = not yet done to the best of my knowledge
• Chiles Ranch = not yet done
• Other planned and zoned sites = already completed
As I said in my earlier post, Chiles Ranch is really the only site that makes any significant impact on the next three years. Reverse engineering your 2.1% number, that means we have 260-270 units per year under the Cap. With a 3 year buildout Cannery will fill 180 of those, leaving 80-90 per year. Chiles Ranch won’t even fill one year’s worth of those 80-90 values. If the Cannery buildout goes to four years the Cannery annual drops to 130. At five years it is 110.
Jim: here is the language of the cap: [url]http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/pdfs/Resolution08-019.pdf[/url]
Jim, the 1% Cap is discussed in the September 27, 2007 Vanguard article “Council Majority Votes to Maintain One-Percent Growth For Davis.” Note: the One-Percent Growth “parameter” was clarified by Council in a subsequent meeting as a Cap rather than as a Target. Council also clarified that there would be no “catch-up provisions” if any individual year did not have enough housing starts to reach the 1% Cap.
I have excerpted the key provisions of the ordinance below. Wherever you see […] that means that there is additional language omitted in this excerpted copy. The full language of the Ordinance is available at https://davisvanguard.org/index…&Itemid=86 in the first comment in that article.
RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS TO AMEND DIRECTION TO STAFF TO IMPLEMENT AN ANNUAL CITY GROWTH PARAMETER, PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND
PHASED HOUSING ALLOCATION ORDINANCE, AND PREPARE A JOINTHOUSING STRATEGY WITH UC DAVIS
WHEREAS, the City Council is interested in basing future City growth on internal housing needs; and […]
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City Council finds that an annual average growth parameter for the City is appropriate for future growth management and planning after considering:
a. The internal housing needs identified in the “Internal Housing Needs Analysis” report.
b. The most recent and likely future fair share housing needs issued by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
2. The City Council hereby directs staff to:
a. Prepare draft amendments to the growth management and housing sections of the General Plan and the Phased Housing Allocation Ordinance for City Council review. Base the amendments on the following concepts:
City growth concepts:
(1) One percent (1%) growth guideline. Implement an annual growth guideline for residential units of one percent (1%) to year 2010 based on internal housing needs.
(2) Exempted units. The following types of units are exempt and not subject to the annual growth guideline of 1%:
(a) Permanently affordable housing units […]
(b) Approved second units […]
(c) Residential units within “vertical” mixed use buildings.
(3) Control peripheral. Strictly control peripheral units to a maximum of 60% of
the 1% growth guideline per year. […]
(4) Manage infill. […]
(5) Allow for extraordinary project. […]
Growth management system concepts:
(1) Use development agreements where appropriate. […]
(2) Use tools to ensure that peripheral and infill development decisions are consistent with growth guidelines. […]
(3) Study changes to existing allocation ordinance. […]
(4) School impacts. Work with City and DJUSD legal counsel to determine means of mitigating school impacts.
(5) Study required findings. […]
As I said above, the whole text of the ordinance is available in the first comment of the 27 September 2007 Vanguard article at https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=603:council-majority-votes-to-maintain-one-percent-growth-for-davis&catid=53:land-useopen-space&Itemid=86
[quote](4) Manage infill. Manage infill units within the 1% growth guideline per year.
Infill may constitute 40% of the total units in a year if peripheral units
constitute 60% and infill units may constitute 100% of the total units in a year
if peripheral units constitute 0%. Provide flexibility to allow for multi-family
rental projects by designating a proportion of the yearly allocation to multi
family rental units that can be rolled over and accumulated over several years
as needed for the typical apartment complex.
(5) Allow for extraordinary project. Council shall have the ability to allow an
infill project with extraordinary circumstances and which provides for
particular community needs with extraordinary community benefits, even if it
would exceed the annual growth guideline of 1%.[/quote]
This language might give the council some wiggle room, though if applied to the Cannery project as ‘infill’ it would pretty much blow a hole in the 1% cap big enough to render it useless.
I’m not sure how it would be rendered useless Don. Can you explain? The infill vs. peripheral designation is for having some way to look at the proportioning of the 260-270 annual units. It doesn’t change the total in any way.
FWIW, if I remember the Council discussions correctly the demarcation between Infill and Peripheral was the City/County line, which pretty much coincided with the Measure J voting demarcation. The one exception may have been Wildhorse Ranch, which was definitely infill but also may have required a Measure J vote.
Wildhorse Ranch required a Measure J vote because it was zoned ag.
Let’s assume the Cannery project is approved by the council and goes to the voters and gets approved. So the housing allocation might begin in 2014.
Then let’s assume Nishi has a lot of high-density housing, gets approved by the council, and is put before the voters for a Measure R vote. So housing allocation for that would, if approved, begin in perhaps 2015.
Those two together, in any years that they overlap, would probably exceed the 1% cap. There isn’t any language that would allow Nishi to do that, because it is peripheral. So the ‘particular community needs with extraordinary community benefits’ would have to be applied to the Cannery project for those years.
Any rationale that allows Cannery on that basis would apply to pretty much any housing project. So if the council does that, it has made the 1% cap useless. I doubt that the language of the 1% cap was intended to apply to something like Cannery. But the council members who approved it could certainly address that issue.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Those two together, in any years that they overlap, would probably exceed the 1% cap.”[/i]
Interesting statement Don. How many housing units do you expect Nishi will include in total. What will the buildout period for Nishi be?
Said another way, how many annual housing units would you expect Nishi to add?
To put your answer into context the total 1% Cap is 260-270. If Cannery builds out in 3 years they take up 180 leaving 80-90. If Cannery builds out in 4 years they take up 135 leaving 125-135. Are you really expecting Nishi to add more than 125-135 units per year?
Again, Matt, I have no idea. I believe we’ll have an update on Nishi before the council soon.
Don, I’m confused. If you “have no idea” then why do you make assertions like “Those two together, in any years that they overlap, would probably exceed the 1% cap”?
Because the range of possible housing units listed at various sources for Nishi is sufficiently wide that I feel that it is accurate to say “I have no idea” how many housing units I would expect Nishi to add, or at what pace. That does not negate my other statement that they would, taken together, exceed the 1% cap — under many possible scenarios. It is very possible that approval of the Cannery could delay the development of higher-density rental housing in Davis. That would be an undesirable consequence. It isn’t insurmountable, but there are political risks involved.
I agree Don. I just think you should have put those disclaimers into your original presentation of your hypothetical.
By not doing so it came across as a political statement that was couched as an objective fact.
I agree Don. I just think you should have put those disclaimers into your original presentation of your hypothetical.
By not doing so it came across as a political statement that was couched as an objective fact.
Sorry for the double post. On my cell phone.
“Population of Davis increased by 9.4% from 2000 – 2012 (city-data.com). Assuming the Cannery project adds 3 – 4 people per housing unit, those 2,000 will be about another 3% addition.”
Don Shor’s obsessing over the 1% growth cap. He forgets that we haven’t exceeded one half percent annual growth for nearly a decade and after Cannery we won’t come close to 1% again for any the decade.
It’s the law, Mr. Toad, and it has to be overridden or abrogated by the council in order to achieve sufficient housing to accommodate the population growth we’ve discussed many times here. So it may prove to be an obstacle. It isn’t cumulative or averaged, as far as I can tell: it applies to each year. So if you want housing at Nishi or elsewhere, and the council has approved housing at Cannery, there may be conflicts.
That’s not an ‘obsession’. It’s a [i]reality[/i] a council may have to face in about two to three years. It’s easier to [i]say[/i] ‘override it’ than to actually find 3 council votes to do that.
I am fully aware of the rate of growth of housing, and the rate of growth of the population, over the last decade. I have posted about both [i]ad nauseum[/i]. I didn’t ‘forget’ that, Mr. Toad.
Cannery may be in conflict with other developments unless the development agreement is done with care, or the 1% growth cap is revisited.
“It isn’t cumulative or averaged, as far as I can tell: it applies to each year.”
So you don’t know then then but you start with this obnoxious “ITS THE LAW” remark. Why bother if you don’t know? The tone does however add to your denied narrative that you are anti growth.
[quote]The tone does however add to your denied narrative that you are anti growth.[/quote]
No, on that site I favor a business park or higher-density rental housing. Neither of those is anti-growth. And I have consistently advocated for construction of more rental housing in Davis, which is not anti-growth. You and others persist in lying about my positions, for reasons that, at this point, I assume are merely tactical.
My specific concern in this instance is that the 1% growth cap may prevent the development of more necessary housing, as Cannery provides less necessary housing. It is an issue that I urge the council to address as they review and move forward with Nishi. I think the housing at Nishi will probably (haven’t seen the proposal yet, just descriptions) provide much more of the housing that we are short of here. Cannery will not address our rental housing shortage. So if there is a conflict, I prefer that Nishi go forward.
It is possible that the time frame of the two projects won’t overlap. But if they do, it will be necessary to either
— make the development agreements conform to the 1% cap, or
— adjust the 1% cap somehow.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”It’s the law, Mr. Toad, and it has to be overridden or abrogated by the council [b]in order to achieve sufficient housing to accommodate the population growth we’ve discussed many times here[/b]. So it may prove to be an obstacle.”[/i]
Don, your bolded words are interesting. Can you help me better understand what you are saying?
What don’t you understand?
Let me try and answer that.
In the prior conversations, medwoman asked a number of times about population growth number targets. She asked Frankly. She asked Mark West. She asked Mr. Toad. The answer that came back was that having a target population was putting the cart before the horse. Rather, the problem starts with the current budget deficit, and that adding jobs to the Davis economy was the way to generate the necessary incremental revenue needed to balance the municipal budget. We went further and shared the contents of the Paul Navasio report on the fiscal realities of added housing’s inability to generate that revenue. With that said, it was acknowledged the hypothetical jobs growth would produce some need for housing growth to accommodate the additional workers who desired to live in Davis. Absent that kind of organic internal increase in housing demand, other than Mr. Toad and Frankly, virtually everyone said that there was no demonstrable need for adding SFRs to the Davis housing inventory. If no SFRs are added then there wouldn’t be any marked population growth.
We’ve already had the population growth. 9000+ increase between 2000 – 2012. Population of Davis increased by 9.4% in that time. 8000+ student enrollment increase over about 15 years, so — although there is not complete overlap because some students live in nearby cities — it is obvious where most of the population growth has come from. Housing increase in that time period, both on and off campus, is negligible.
So, to paraphrase what I think Don supports:
Housing for the university-related population growth supported only by new high density (apartments) housing with the expectation that this will relieve demand on the current SFR for student rentals will decline and will increase the number of SFR properties for sale or rent to meet the housing demand of the university employees.
Don also supports some smaller-company new business development on the Cannery property and some infill.
He does not support any peripheral development other than the Cannery or some nebulous ideas for West Davis around the hospital.
But it seems pretty clear that he does not support more SFR development for any new workers that would be added with the business development he supports.
So, unless I am wrong he expects those workers to live outside of Davis and commute.
If I have to chose between more homes and more business, I pick business for the simple reason that it generates the additional revenue that will help fix our city budget deficits. However, lacking homes for the owners and workers for these businesses reduces the value of the business property. It also creates more freeway commuting traffic and dumps more carbon in the air from the additional cars and miles of driving. It adds more demand to our under-supply of homes and drives costs even higher.
Ideally for me we develop the Cannery, the Mace 391 business park, we develop the area around he Hospital with peripheral retail and office, and then we develop Covell Village. In general we add business and jobs and just enough housing to meet that demand plus the demand for the university.
And I don’t have a clue about Nishi. That little strange-shaped parcel surrounded by freeway noise and train noise and with poor access options… it seems problematic for just about anything I can think of except open space easement.
[quote]So, unless I am wrong he expects those workers to live outside of Davis and commute.
[/quote]
That is what I am quite certain will happen, yes. But not because it’s what I want. Because we have added thousands of residents to the Davis population without adding rental housing. It’s already happening.
Not much point in building a handful of SFR’s if they are just going to be crammed full of students renting them. Where do you think the 8000 more students we added over the last decade+ are living? Where do you think the 5000 more students by 2020 will be living? Those workers who come here for the new jobs you want to create will be crowded out of the market.
We need to build the new high-density housing first, as our first housing priority. There will be no correlation between housing development and jobs until we deal with the backlog of missing rental housing.
[quote]Ideally for me we develop the Cannery, the Mace 391 business park, we develop the area around he Hospital with peripheral retail and office, and then we develop Covell Village. In general we add business and jobs and just enough housing to meet that demand plus the demand for the university. [/quote]
Ideally for me we have a business park on Cannery, or second choice high-density apartments. Whether “we” develop Covell Village depends on the owners of the property, who show no inclination to move forward. We develop a business park near the hospital.
It is pointless to try to argue for any connection between the jobs that might be created privately, and any housing that is built so long as the market is so skewed as it is now with
UCD enrollment increased by over 600 in 2012. It increased by over 600 again in 2013. To meet the 2020 initiative, it will increase by 500 – 600 for each of the next several years. A SFR holds 5 – 6 students, which is much more lucrative as a rental investment than renting to a single family. How many houses are there in your neighborhood that are being rented by groups of students?
I realize that many groups of students will continue to rent houses in the community because they choose to do so. But in many cases, they are doing it because of the absence of apartments and smaller units. The most effective way to provide SFR’s for employees of our current companies is by adding more apartments and duplex-type units, and other rental housing.
Adding high-density housing, as well as other rental housing options, will in fact “relieve demand on the current SFR for student rentals will decline and will increase the number of SFR properties for sale or rent to meet the housing demand of the university employees.” That seems self-evident.
It is fine to talk about building business sites here to increase jobs in Davis. But there won’t be any place for those workers to live in town. Making a place for larger companies will simply increase the problem even more. There is very limited space available to build large numbers of houses without destroying prime ag land. That is important to me, but not to you, so there isn’t much point in further discussion of that. Fortunately for me, a large number of Davisites and Yolo County residents seem to agree with me on that matter, and it is a matter of policy to protect ag land.
So with limited sites available for development, it is my opinion that we should prioritize our housing and business needs and use the space we have efficiently. That means high-density housing to meet the current critical shortage, and it means business sites that are dispersed and that focus on smaller startups. I also believe that small, local companies have advantages over larger non-local companies. You probably disagree. But the fact remains that creating jobs when we can’t create housing will just exacerbate our existing problem. So we need to plan and develop prudently, focusing on meeting our key needs with the space we have available.
Thank you Don. It never occurred to me that you were talking about past population growth.