Should Davis Develop the Northwest Quadrant?

Share:
I caught part of the General Plan Housing Element’s discussion of the Northwest Quadrant last night. It was actually a very good discussion that clarified in my mind at least a number of issues that still are lingering from the county’s discussion in July. The biggest issue it actually clarified for me is the pragmatic and practical reasons why the city and not the county should determine growth on city edge’s. At the very least we see why the county did things backwards.

If the county really felt the need to grow in the Northwest Quadrant and other areas on the Davis periphery it should have started with talks with the city of Davis. I understand full well that one of the things that Supervisor Mariko Yamada wanted to do was have a Yolo County Council of Governments along the same lines as SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments). However that proposal was rejected. Short of creating a formal mechanism, the existing structure exists at the two-by-two level to engage in those talks. It seems to me that the bigger problem here is less the lack of communication and more the fear that they would not like answer.

However, the need for these talks was underscored for me last night by some of the discussion of developing the Northwest Quadrant. Even some of the more development friendly members of the committee felt that given the time frame that the committee was charged with, looking ahead seven years, there is no way that the city should be developing there.

Several other issues also came up–lack of commercial development on the west side of town, distance from the city core, lack of adherence to smart growth principles, etc. The idea here is that this development is far from downtown, meaning people would have to drive a good distance just to get to the center of town. That forces people to drive more in order to shop and eat, which leads to traffic, congestions, pollution, more carbon emissions, more infrastructure problems.

In fact the feeling seemed to be as they considered four separate parcels in the area that the city needs to look at this area as a whole rather than piecemail and needs to plan commercial development alongside residential.

That seems like a very reasonable approach. All of which underscores why the county had no business talking about developing in this part of town because frankly the county was not considering any of these factors. And that is the problem in general, the county was thinking in terms of generating revenue (a dubious notion at best) and the county was not thinking about what growth in these areas would do to the city in terms of infrastructure, commerce, transportation, and even future development. Again, if this was something the county really desired they should have discussed it in advance in great detail, well before it came before them in terms of their General Plan update.

Two other issues to broach, one was the notion discussed by the public, which included some developers and non-developers about how the northwest quadrant should be developed. One of the ideas that came forward was that the citizens of Davis allow growth in these areas in order to gain permanent agricultural mitigation. In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.

The logic here was that we parcel and piecemail this development in order to avoid huge developments at any one time. The idea being that pressure is building for development and if we do not act as a spigot, we will get flooded. This analogy makes little sense to me. First of all we are talking about allowing a tremendous amount of growth to reach that point. Second, who is to say that the pressure would not continue to build even when there is land in permanent mitigation to change that land use status. I think we have to be careful about leaning too heavily toward mitigation as the solution to development pressures. I also think the amount of growth we are talking about might be over 50 years, not the next 7.

The other point that gets raised here is senior housing. What we now are seeing are several separate proposals for senior housing. The city of Davis has a Senior Citizens commission and part of their purview ought to be direct community discussion about the need for senior housing. I think one of the good things that came from last night’s discussion was the acknowledgment from the Housing Element Steering Committee members that their job was one of looking at land use not approving specific projects. I agree with that approach. Just as I agreed in July that talk about a stem cell facility was premature, the question then was whether land use designations should be changed and whether land should be included for future development in the general plan. That is precisely the question here as well.

Discussion about whether and to what extent senior housing needs to be developed should take place in the Senior Citizens Commission. I think it would behoove the council and the steering committee even to have that kind of community dialogue occurring while housing is considered–particularly in the controversial Covell Village area.

One of the issues that has to be resolved at the council level and probably will not be resolved until after the new council elections is whether we should be planning for RHNA mandated growth or whether we should be planning for 1 percent growth that was developed and implemented by the city council. That conversation started to occur two weeks ago but needs to continue. The Council Majority seemed to want to postpone it until they got a report from the Housing Element Steering Committee but it seemed last night that the steering committee really needs to have direction from council in deciding what property to include in their plan.

At the end of the day, I think there needs to be more broad-based discussion in the community about where, when, and what type of growth ought to take place.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

68 thoughts on “Should Davis Develop the Northwest Quadrant?”

  1. Diane

    Thank you David. You hit the nail on the head when you said that discussion needs to take place about when, where, and what type of development should take place.

    One major problem is that elected officials and some commissioners are making decisions without engaging the public.

  2. Diane

    Thank you David. You hit the nail on the head when you said that discussion needs to take place about when, where, and what type of development should take place.

    One major problem is that elected officials and some commissioners are making decisions without engaging the public.

  3. Diane

    Thank you David. You hit the nail on the head when you said that discussion needs to take place about when, where, and what type of development should take place.

    One major problem is that elected officials and some commissioners are making decisions without engaging the public.

  4. Diane

    Thank you David. You hit the nail on the head when you said that discussion needs to take place about when, where, and what type of development should take place.

    One major problem is that elected officials and some commissioners are making decisions without engaging the public.

  5. davisite

    Some years ago,Councilperson Asmundson’s late husband made the same argument concerning the NW quadrant, namely, look at it as a whole rather than plan residential development piecemeal.

  6. davisite

    Some years ago,Councilperson Asmundson’s late husband made the same argument concerning the NW quadrant, namely, look at it as a whole rather than plan residential development piecemeal.

  7. davisite

    Some years ago,Councilperson Asmundson’s late husband made the same argument concerning the NW quadrant, namely, look at it as a whole rather than plan residential development piecemeal.

  8. davisite

    Some years ago,Councilperson Asmundson’s late husband made the same argument concerning the NW quadrant, namely, look at it as a whole rather than plan residential development piecemeal.

  9. Anonymous

    I think they ought to fill in the area between Binning tract and the hospital, but no further west than the western end of Binning Tract. West of that should serve as a growth boundary. Maybe our growth plan should be to provide economic assistance to dying towns, like Detroit…sigh.

  10. Anonymous

    I think they ought to fill in the area between Binning tract and the hospital, but no further west than the western end of Binning Tract. West of that should serve as a growth boundary. Maybe our growth plan should be to provide economic assistance to dying towns, like Detroit…sigh.

  11. Anonymous

    I think they ought to fill in the area between Binning tract and the hospital, but no further west than the western end of Binning Tract. West of that should serve as a growth boundary. Maybe our growth plan should be to provide economic assistance to dying towns, like Detroit…sigh.

  12. Anonymous

    I think they ought to fill in the area between Binning tract and the hospital, but no further west than the western end of Binning Tract. West of that should serve as a growth boundary. Maybe our growth plan should be to provide economic assistance to dying towns, like Detroit…sigh.

  13. Matt Williams

    Good article David. You had to leave the meeting early so you missed some clarifying statements that were made by virtually everyone (Committee members, developers and non-developers) who discussed the idea of planning the parcels as a unit.

    One point was that no one was thinking about any development prior to 2013. Randy Yackzan, the owner/developer of Oeste Ranch was explicit on that subject, as was I. Planning now does not mean building now. You missed the point of the spigot analogy. Coming up with a long range plan for any area of the City, and agreeing on the eventual entitlements the developer will act on, is only one part of the process. The spigot would be a governor of the amount and timing of any building permits that the City would/could issue for the “entitled” land. For example, if a plan for the NW Quadrant were to be agreed to, it could be written up so that the developer(s) would transfer ownership to the Ag Mitigation portions of the planned area to the Yolo Land Trust now and also agree that there would be no building permits issued on the remaining developable portions until say 2020, and further that the maximum number of actual building permits issued each year after 2020 would be no more than X, with X being a number that is consistent with the kind of growth rate Davis residents want.

    One of the reasons to consider such an idea was addressed by the points Will Marshall, the longtime City of Davis expert on flood risk and flood management, made about why significant portions of the NW Quadrant are in the FEMA 100-Year Flod Plain. One of the options Marshall discussed was diverting the Dry Slough runoff (which currently flows across Davis through the Covell Drain) into South Putah Creek at a point further to the west. The practicality of such a solution were clear. The economics of implementing such a solution were not so clear, but as was pointed out by Marshall, would be much better with the active participation of the NW Quadrant developers.

    So, for me, the interesting issues in looking at the NW Quadrant are 1) making sure that there is a balance between short term zoning changes and long term building permit restrictions, 2) that the parcels be planned as a unit, 3) that no building be considered on any of the planned parcels until after 2020 at the very least, 4) that the Ag Mitigation lands be placed in the ownership of the Yolo Land Trust so that their Ag status becomes permanent, and 5) that the dream of a substantial Ag Buffer around Davis gets to move from dream to reality.

  14. Matt Williams

    Good article David. You had to leave the meeting early so you missed some clarifying statements that were made by virtually everyone (Committee members, developers and non-developers) who discussed the idea of planning the parcels as a unit.

    One point was that no one was thinking about any development prior to 2013. Randy Yackzan, the owner/developer of Oeste Ranch was explicit on that subject, as was I. Planning now does not mean building now. You missed the point of the spigot analogy. Coming up with a long range plan for any area of the City, and agreeing on the eventual entitlements the developer will act on, is only one part of the process. The spigot would be a governor of the amount and timing of any building permits that the City would/could issue for the “entitled” land. For example, if a plan for the NW Quadrant were to be agreed to, it could be written up so that the developer(s) would transfer ownership to the Ag Mitigation portions of the planned area to the Yolo Land Trust now and also agree that there would be no building permits issued on the remaining developable portions until say 2020, and further that the maximum number of actual building permits issued each year after 2020 would be no more than X, with X being a number that is consistent with the kind of growth rate Davis residents want.

    One of the reasons to consider such an idea was addressed by the points Will Marshall, the longtime City of Davis expert on flood risk and flood management, made about why significant portions of the NW Quadrant are in the FEMA 100-Year Flod Plain. One of the options Marshall discussed was diverting the Dry Slough runoff (which currently flows across Davis through the Covell Drain) into South Putah Creek at a point further to the west. The practicality of such a solution were clear. The economics of implementing such a solution were not so clear, but as was pointed out by Marshall, would be much better with the active participation of the NW Quadrant developers.

    So, for me, the interesting issues in looking at the NW Quadrant are 1) making sure that there is a balance between short term zoning changes and long term building permit restrictions, 2) that the parcels be planned as a unit, 3) that no building be considered on any of the planned parcels until after 2020 at the very least, 4) that the Ag Mitigation lands be placed in the ownership of the Yolo Land Trust so that their Ag status becomes permanent, and 5) that the dream of a substantial Ag Buffer around Davis gets to move from dream to reality.

  15. Matt Williams

    Good article David. You had to leave the meeting early so you missed some clarifying statements that were made by virtually everyone (Committee members, developers and non-developers) who discussed the idea of planning the parcels as a unit.

    One point was that no one was thinking about any development prior to 2013. Randy Yackzan, the owner/developer of Oeste Ranch was explicit on that subject, as was I. Planning now does not mean building now. You missed the point of the spigot analogy. Coming up with a long range plan for any area of the City, and agreeing on the eventual entitlements the developer will act on, is only one part of the process. The spigot would be a governor of the amount and timing of any building permits that the City would/could issue for the “entitled” land. For example, if a plan for the NW Quadrant were to be agreed to, it could be written up so that the developer(s) would transfer ownership to the Ag Mitigation portions of the planned area to the Yolo Land Trust now and also agree that there would be no building permits issued on the remaining developable portions until say 2020, and further that the maximum number of actual building permits issued each year after 2020 would be no more than X, with X being a number that is consistent with the kind of growth rate Davis residents want.

    One of the reasons to consider such an idea was addressed by the points Will Marshall, the longtime City of Davis expert on flood risk and flood management, made about why significant portions of the NW Quadrant are in the FEMA 100-Year Flod Plain. One of the options Marshall discussed was diverting the Dry Slough runoff (which currently flows across Davis through the Covell Drain) into South Putah Creek at a point further to the west. The practicality of such a solution were clear. The economics of implementing such a solution were not so clear, but as was pointed out by Marshall, would be much better with the active participation of the NW Quadrant developers.

    So, for me, the interesting issues in looking at the NW Quadrant are 1) making sure that there is a balance between short term zoning changes and long term building permit restrictions, 2) that the parcels be planned as a unit, 3) that no building be considered on any of the planned parcels until after 2020 at the very least, 4) that the Ag Mitigation lands be placed in the ownership of the Yolo Land Trust so that their Ag status becomes permanent, and 5) that the dream of a substantial Ag Buffer around Davis gets to move from dream to reality.

  16. Matt Williams

    Good article David. You had to leave the meeting early so you missed some clarifying statements that were made by virtually everyone (Committee members, developers and non-developers) who discussed the idea of planning the parcels as a unit.

    One point was that no one was thinking about any development prior to 2013. Randy Yackzan, the owner/developer of Oeste Ranch was explicit on that subject, as was I. Planning now does not mean building now. You missed the point of the spigot analogy. Coming up with a long range plan for any area of the City, and agreeing on the eventual entitlements the developer will act on, is only one part of the process. The spigot would be a governor of the amount and timing of any building permits that the City would/could issue for the “entitled” land. For example, if a plan for the NW Quadrant were to be agreed to, it could be written up so that the developer(s) would transfer ownership to the Ag Mitigation portions of the planned area to the Yolo Land Trust now and also agree that there would be no building permits issued on the remaining developable portions until say 2020, and further that the maximum number of actual building permits issued each year after 2020 would be no more than X, with X being a number that is consistent with the kind of growth rate Davis residents want.

    One of the reasons to consider such an idea was addressed by the points Will Marshall, the longtime City of Davis expert on flood risk and flood management, made about why significant portions of the NW Quadrant are in the FEMA 100-Year Flod Plain. One of the options Marshall discussed was diverting the Dry Slough runoff (which currently flows across Davis through the Covell Drain) into South Putah Creek at a point further to the west. The practicality of such a solution were clear. The economics of implementing such a solution were not so clear, but as was pointed out by Marshall, would be much better with the active participation of the NW Quadrant developers.

    So, for me, the interesting issues in looking at the NW Quadrant are 1) making sure that there is a balance between short term zoning changes and long term building permit restrictions, 2) that the parcels be planned as a unit, 3) that no building be considered on any of the planned parcels until after 2020 at the very least, 4) that the Ag Mitigation lands be placed in the ownership of the Yolo Land Trust so that their Ag status becomes permanent, and 5) that the dream of a substantial Ag Buffer around Davis gets to move from dream to reality.

  17. Rich Rifkin

    “In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.”

    Just to clarify, County Road 98 (which is the Yolo County name) and Pedrick Road (the Solano County name) are the same street.

  18. Rich Rifkin

    “In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.”

    Just to clarify, County Road 98 (which is the Yolo County name) and Pedrick Road (the Solano County name) are the same street.

  19. Rich Rifkin

    “In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.”

    Just to clarify, County Road 98 (which is the Yolo County name) and Pedrick Road (the Solano County name) are the same street.

  20. Rich Rifkin

    “In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.”

    Just to clarify, County Road 98 (which is the Yolo County name) and Pedrick Road (the Solano County name) are the same street.

  21. 無名 - wu ming

    the covell village tract seems a far better place to develop than the northwest quadrant. and any new development, it ought to go without saying, should be designed with flood drainage, walkability and non-car transportation options in mind.

    and all this talk about senior housing is rather laughable. davis is turning into a gated retirement community as we speak (i think i got 4 groups of trick-or-treaters last year for hallowe’en compared with the hordes of kids we used to have in the 80s, and one of those groups was college students), the housing demand we ought to be working towards addressing is for young families/working single people.

  22. 無名 - wu ming

    the covell village tract seems a far better place to develop than the northwest quadrant. and any new development, it ought to go without saying, should be designed with flood drainage, walkability and non-car transportation options in mind.

    and all this talk about senior housing is rather laughable. davis is turning into a gated retirement community as we speak (i think i got 4 groups of trick-or-treaters last year for hallowe’en compared with the hordes of kids we used to have in the 80s, and one of those groups was college students), the housing demand we ought to be working towards addressing is for young families/working single people.

  23. 無名 - wu ming

    the covell village tract seems a far better place to develop than the northwest quadrant. and any new development, it ought to go without saying, should be designed with flood drainage, walkability and non-car transportation options in mind.

    and all this talk about senior housing is rather laughable. davis is turning into a gated retirement community as we speak (i think i got 4 groups of trick-or-treaters last year for hallowe’en compared with the hordes of kids we used to have in the 80s, and one of those groups was college students), the housing demand we ought to be working towards addressing is for young families/working single people.

  24. 無名 - wu ming

    the covell village tract seems a far better place to develop than the northwest quadrant. and any new development, it ought to go without saying, should be designed with flood drainage, walkability and non-car transportation options in mind.

    and all this talk about senior housing is rather laughable. davis is turning into a gated retirement community as we speak (i think i got 4 groups of trick-or-treaters last year for hallowe’en compared with the hordes of kids we used to have in the 80s, and one of those groups was college students), the housing demand we ought to be working towards addressing is for young families/working single people.

  25. Matt Williams

    DPD said …

    Two other issues to broach, one was the notion discussed by the public, which included some developers and non-developers about how the northwest quadrant should be developed. One of the ideas that came forward was that the citizens of Davis allow growth in these areas in order to gain permanent agricultural mitigation. In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.

    Your statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it leaves out an important detail. In the Map that Randy Yackzan shared with the members of the committee there was an over one-half mile wide Ag Mitigation area starting at Pedrick Road on the west. If the region were planned according to Yackzan’s map the City would know that there would be no further housing toward the west beyond the current western edge of Stonegate.

    To the north the area being discussed does not go as far as Road 27. It goes only to half way between Road 31 (Covel Blvd) and Road 29. I’m not sure there is a Road 30, but in effect that is the most northerly edge of the area being discussed. Like the western edge, the first half-mile going south from Road 30 would be put into permanent agricultural easement, preferably in the ownership of the Yolo Land Trust.

    With all that said, there is no getting around the fact that even with 2-to-1 ag mitigation, the area that would be designated as developable would easily support 2-3,000 units. That is why passing some kind of ordinance (like Measure J) that places clear and enforceable limits on the number and timing of building permits issued in a year is essential.

  26. Matt Williams

    DPD said …

    Two other issues to broach, one was the notion discussed by the public, which included some developers and non-developers about how the northwest quadrant should be developed. One of the ideas that came forward was that the citizens of Davis allow growth in these areas in order to gain permanent agricultural mitigation. In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.

    Your statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it leaves out an important detail. In the Map that Randy Yackzan shared with the members of the committee there was an over one-half mile wide Ag Mitigation area starting at Pedrick Road on the west. If the region were planned according to Yackzan’s map the City would know that there would be no further housing toward the west beyond the current western edge of Stonegate.

    To the north the area being discussed does not go as far as Road 27. It goes only to half way between Road 31 (Covel Blvd) and Road 29. I’m not sure there is a Road 30, but in effect that is the most northerly edge of the area being discussed. Like the western edge, the first half-mile going south from Road 30 would be put into permanent agricultural easement, preferably in the ownership of the Yolo Land Trust.

    With all that said, there is no getting around the fact that even with 2-to-1 ag mitigation, the area that would be designated as developable would easily support 2-3,000 units. That is why passing some kind of ordinance (like Measure J) that places clear and enforceable limits on the number and timing of building permits issued in a year is essential.

  27. Matt Williams

    DPD said …

    Two other issues to broach, one was the notion discussed by the public, which included some developers and non-developers about how the northwest quadrant should be developed. One of the ideas that came forward was that the citizens of Davis allow growth in these areas in order to gain permanent agricultural mitigation. In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.

    Your statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it leaves out an important detail. In the Map that Randy Yackzan shared with the members of the committee there was an over one-half mile wide Ag Mitigation area starting at Pedrick Road on the west. If the region were planned according to Yackzan’s map the City would know that there would be no further housing toward the west beyond the current western edge of Stonegate.

    To the north the area being discussed does not go as far as Road 27. It goes only to half way between Road 31 (Covel Blvd) and Road 29. I’m not sure there is a Road 30, but in effect that is the most northerly edge of the area being discussed. Like the western edge, the first half-mile going south from Road 30 would be put into permanent agricultural easement, preferably in the ownership of the Yolo Land Trust.

    With all that said, there is no getting around the fact that even with 2-to-1 ag mitigation, the area that would be designated as developable would easily support 2-3,000 units. That is why passing some kind of ordinance (like Measure J) that places clear and enforceable limits on the number and timing of building permits issued in a year is essential.

  28. Matt Williams

    DPD said …

    Two other issues to broach, one was the notion discussed by the public, which included some developers and non-developers about how the northwest quadrant should be developed. One of the ideas that came forward was that the citizens of Davis allow growth in these areas in order to gain permanent agricultural mitigation. In theory, that sounds like an intriguing possibility. However, we are essentially talking about development up to road 27 and as far west as Pedrick Road and County Road 98. In other words, a huge swath of development.

    Your statement is accurate as far as it goes, but it leaves out an important detail. In the Map that Randy Yackzan shared with the members of the committee there was an over one-half mile wide Ag Mitigation area starting at Pedrick Road on the west. If the region were planned according to Yackzan’s map the City would know that there would be no further housing toward the west beyond the current western edge of Stonegate.

    To the north the area being discussed does not go as far as Road 27. It goes only to half way between Road 31 (Covel Blvd) and Road 29. I’m not sure there is a Road 30, but in effect that is the most northerly edge of the area being discussed. Like the western edge, the first half-mile going south from Road 30 would be put into permanent agricultural easement, preferably in the ownership of the Yolo Land Trust.

    With all that said, there is no getting around the fact that even with 2-to-1 ag mitigation, the area that would be designated as developable would easily support 2-3,000 units. That is why passing some kind of ordinance (like Measure J) that places clear and enforceable limits on the number and timing of building permits issued in a year is essential.

  29. Anonymous

    Did the Housing Update Committee take any action on the four candidate sites west of Hwy 113? (Previously, the Committee deleted all peripheral candidate sites east of Pole Line Road from further consideration. The reasons cited at that time apply equally, if not more, to the sites west of Hwy 113.)

  30. Anonymous

    Did the Housing Update Committee take any action on the four candidate sites west of Hwy 113? (Previously, the Committee deleted all peripheral candidate sites east of Pole Line Road from further consideration. The reasons cited at that time apply equally, if not more, to the sites west of Hwy 113.)

  31. Anonymous

    Did the Housing Update Committee take any action on the four candidate sites west of Hwy 113? (Previously, the Committee deleted all peripheral candidate sites east of Pole Line Road from further consideration. The reasons cited at that time apply equally, if not more, to the sites west of Hwy 113.)

  32. Anonymous

    Did the Housing Update Committee take any action on the four candidate sites west of Hwy 113? (Previously, the Committee deleted all peripheral candidate sites east of Pole Line Road from further consideration. The reasons cited at that time apply equally, if not more, to the sites west of Hwy 113.)

  33. Anonymous

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    Another very good point was brought up by at least two committee members and that is that the committee is going way beyond the direction given them by council. The council asked them to consider sites to accommodate the RHNA numbers and then the 1% growth rate between now and 2013, the current SACOG allocation period. It is clear that that has been accomplished already with the sites already covered. By including more potential development proposals, the number of potential units goes well beyond that needed to accommodate SACOG recommendations for this cycle, and the committee is actually planning for development well into the future. This is beyond the scope of the council direction to the committee. There was discussion of this also, and at one point, it appeared that the committee might decide to eliminate the northwest quadrant and far west Davis sites for this reason as well. However, some felt it was not fair to these developers that they were not accorded the same opportunity to discuss their projects as that given to other sites. So, the committee voted to continue and to include these properties in the process.

  34. Anonymous

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    Another very good point was brought up by at least two committee members and that is that the committee is going way beyond the direction given them by council. The council asked them to consider sites to accommodate the RHNA numbers and then the 1% growth rate between now and 2013, the current SACOG allocation period. It is clear that that has been accomplished already with the sites already covered. By including more potential development proposals, the number of potential units goes well beyond that needed to accommodate SACOG recommendations for this cycle, and the committee is actually planning for development well into the future. This is beyond the scope of the council direction to the committee. There was discussion of this also, and at one point, it appeared that the committee might decide to eliminate the northwest quadrant and far west Davis sites for this reason as well. However, some felt it was not fair to these developers that they were not accorded the same opportunity to discuss their projects as that given to other sites. So, the committee voted to continue and to include these properties in the process.

  35. Anonymous

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    Another very good point was brought up by at least two committee members and that is that the committee is going way beyond the direction given them by council. The council asked them to consider sites to accommodate the RHNA numbers and then the 1% growth rate between now and 2013, the current SACOG allocation period. It is clear that that has been accomplished already with the sites already covered. By including more potential development proposals, the number of potential units goes well beyond that needed to accommodate SACOG recommendations for this cycle, and the committee is actually planning for development well into the future. This is beyond the scope of the council direction to the committee. There was discussion of this also, and at one point, it appeared that the committee might decide to eliminate the northwest quadrant and far west Davis sites for this reason as well. However, some felt it was not fair to these developers that they were not accorded the same opportunity to discuss their projects as that given to other sites. So, the committee voted to continue and to include these properties in the process.

  36. Anonymous

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    Another very good point was brought up by at least two committee members and that is that the committee is going way beyond the direction given them by council. The council asked them to consider sites to accommodate the RHNA numbers and then the 1% growth rate between now and 2013, the current SACOG allocation period. It is clear that that has been accomplished already with the sites already covered. By including more potential development proposals, the number of potential units goes well beyond that needed to accommodate SACOG recommendations for this cycle, and the committee is actually planning for development well into the future. This is beyond the scope of the council direction to the committee. There was discussion of this also, and at one point, it appeared that the committee might decide to eliminate the northwest quadrant and far west Davis sites for this reason as well. However, some felt it was not fair to these developers that they were not accorded the same opportunity to discuss their projects as that given to other sites. So, the committee voted to continue and to include these properties in the process.

  37. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    Did the Housing Update Committee take any action on the four candidate sites west of Hwy 113?

    The simple answer to your question is “yes, by majority vote the HESC decided that each of the four parcels should be considered for housing.”

    However, that simple answer does not tell the whole story. The decision last night was the “Stage One” decision. The HESC has defined a three stage process that applies to all the properties that have been listed as possible sites for housing. I use the following three funnel graphic to describe their process.

    / Stage One
    | |
    / Stage Two
    | |
    / Stage Three
    | |

    Each stage reduces the number of sites in a logical fashion based on established criteria. At the end of Stage Three (some time in 2008) the HESC will have identified a list of potential housing sites that will meet their 1/17/2007 charge from the City Council, specifically, to identify enough potential housing sites to meet the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan allocation (RHNA)for the period of January 2006 through June 2013.

    The final Stage Three list to meet RHNA will be a distillation of the possible sites that make it through the Stage Two “funnel.” If I had my druthers, I would like to see the number of sites that comes out of Stage Two be a number that would meet, but not exceed, the parameters of the City Council’s March 8, 2005 Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter, otherwise known as the 1% Growth Guideline.

    Stage One, as completed by the HESC last night, was simply a first pass through all possible sites to 1) acquaint all the HESC members with each site, 2) cull those sites that did not meet the criteria set by the HESC based on input from the City Council, as well as those Davis residents who participated in the 5/24/2007 Community Workshop, and 3) pass identified sites into the top of the Stage Two funnel.

    The bottom-line answer to your question is that I don’t think there was a single person in the room last night who expected any of the four sites to make it through the Stage Three process, and probably no one expects any of them to make it through the Stage Two process either. While that was not decided last night, it was a clear concensus.

    Hope that answers your question.

  38. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    Did the Housing Update Committee take any action on the four candidate sites west of Hwy 113?

    The simple answer to your question is “yes, by majority vote the HESC decided that each of the four parcels should be considered for housing.”

    However, that simple answer does not tell the whole story. The decision last night was the “Stage One” decision. The HESC has defined a three stage process that applies to all the properties that have been listed as possible sites for housing. I use the following three funnel graphic to describe their process.

    / Stage One
    | |
    / Stage Two
    | |
    / Stage Three
    | |

    Each stage reduces the number of sites in a logical fashion based on established criteria. At the end of Stage Three (some time in 2008) the HESC will have identified a list of potential housing sites that will meet their 1/17/2007 charge from the City Council, specifically, to identify enough potential housing sites to meet the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan allocation (RHNA)for the period of January 2006 through June 2013.

    The final Stage Three list to meet RHNA will be a distillation of the possible sites that make it through the Stage Two “funnel.” If I had my druthers, I would like to see the number of sites that comes out of Stage Two be a number that would meet, but not exceed, the parameters of the City Council’s March 8, 2005 Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter, otherwise known as the 1% Growth Guideline.

    Stage One, as completed by the HESC last night, was simply a first pass through all possible sites to 1) acquaint all the HESC members with each site, 2) cull those sites that did not meet the criteria set by the HESC based on input from the City Council, as well as those Davis residents who participated in the 5/24/2007 Community Workshop, and 3) pass identified sites into the top of the Stage Two funnel.

    The bottom-line answer to your question is that I don’t think there was a single person in the room last night who expected any of the four sites to make it through the Stage Three process, and probably no one expects any of them to make it through the Stage Two process either. While that was not decided last night, it was a clear concensus.

    Hope that answers your question.

  39. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    Did the Housing Update Committee take any action on the four candidate sites west of Hwy 113?

    The simple answer to your question is “yes, by majority vote the HESC decided that each of the four parcels should be considered for housing.”

    However, that simple answer does not tell the whole story. The decision last night was the “Stage One” decision. The HESC has defined a three stage process that applies to all the properties that have been listed as possible sites for housing. I use the following three funnel graphic to describe their process.

    / Stage One
    | |
    / Stage Two
    | |
    / Stage Three
    | |

    Each stage reduces the number of sites in a logical fashion based on established criteria. At the end of Stage Three (some time in 2008) the HESC will have identified a list of potential housing sites that will meet their 1/17/2007 charge from the City Council, specifically, to identify enough potential housing sites to meet the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan allocation (RHNA)for the period of January 2006 through June 2013.

    The final Stage Three list to meet RHNA will be a distillation of the possible sites that make it through the Stage Two “funnel.” If I had my druthers, I would like to see the number of sites that comes out of Stage Two be a number that would meet, but not exceed, the parameters of the City Council’s March 8, 2005 Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter, otherwise known as the 1% Growth Guideline.

    Stage One, as completed by the HESC last night, was simply a first pass through all possible sites to 1) acquaint all the HESC members with each site, 2) cull those sites that did not meet the criteria set by the HESC based on input from the City Council, as well as those Davis residents who participated in the 5/24/2007 Community Workshop, and 3) pass identified sites into the top of the Stage Two funnel.

    The bottom-line answer to your question is that I don’t think there was a single person in the room last night who expected any of the four sites to make it through the Stage Three process, and probably no one expects any of them to make it through the Stage Two process either. While that was not decided last night, it was a clear concensus.

    Hope that answers your question.

  40. Matt Williams

    Anonymous said…

    Did the Housing Update Committee take any action on the four candidate sites west of Hwy 113?

    The simple answer to your question is “yes, by majority vote the HESC decided that each of the four parcels should be considered for housing.”

    However, that simple answer does not tell the whole story. The decision last night was the “Stage One” decision. The HESC has defined a three stage process that applies to all the properties that have been listed as possible sites for housing. I use the following three funnel graphic to describe their process.

    / Stage One
    | |
    / Stage Two
    | |
    / Stage Three
    | |

    Each stage reduces the number of sites in a logical fashion based on established criteria. At the end of Stage Three (some time in 2008) the HESC will have identified a list of potential housing sites that will meet their 1/17/2007 charge from the City Council, specifically, to identify enough potential housing sites to meet the SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan allocation (RHNA)for the period of January 2006 through June 2013.

    The final Stage Three list to meet RHNA will be a distillation of the possible sites that make it through the Stage Two “funnel.” If I had my druthers, I would like to see the number of sites that comes out of Stage Two be a number that would meet, but not exceed, the parameters of the City Council’s March 8, 2005 Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter, otherwise known as the 1% Growth Guideline.

    Stage One, as completed by the HESC last night, was simply a first pass through all possible sites to 1) acquaint all the HESC members with each site, 2) cull those sites that did not meet the criteria set by the HESC based on input from the City Council, as well as those Davis residents who participated in the 5/24/2007 Community Workshop, and 3) pass identified sites into the top of the Stage Two funnel.

    The bottom-line answer to your question is that I don’t think there was a single person in the room last night who expected any of the four sites to make it through the Stage Three process, and probably no one expects any of them to make it through the Stage Two process either. While that was not decided last night, it was a clear concensus.

    Hope that answers your question.

  41. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:55 AM said…

    Previously, the Committee deleted all peripheral candidate sites east of Pole Line Road from further consideration. The reasons cited at that time apply equally, if not more, to the sites west of Hwy 113.

    Anonymous 11:43 AM said…

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    The answer 11:43 has provided is accurate, but not complete. Another important difference between the NE sites (previously deleted) and the NW sites has to do with prime farmland conversion. According to public records (as well as a map distributed to the HESC members and meeting attendees), virtually all the land on the NE sites is prime farmland. Less than 25% of the land on the NW sites is prime farmland. Anyone who has tried to grow crops on the NE sites will tell you that the alkalai content is onerous at best. The strawberry farm on the south side of Covell thrives because they use raised beds made of soil they have brought in. The roots of the strawberry plants are not in contact with actual NW Quadrant soil.

    To be fair, the NW Quadrant land does grow hay reasonably well. But, bottom-line, the #2 criteria voiced by the Davis residents at the 5/24 Community Workshop does not apply to the parcels in the NW Quadrant.

  42. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:55 AM said…

    Previously, the Committee deleted all peripheral candidate sites east of Pole Line Road from further consideration. The reasons cited at that time apply equally, if not more, to the sites west of Hwy 113.

    Anonymous 11:43 AM said…

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    The answer 11:43 has provided is accurate, but not complete. Another important difference between the NE sites (previously deleted) and the NW sites has to do with prime farmland conversion. According to public records (as well as a map distributed to the HESC members and meeting attendees), virtually all the land on the NE sites is prime farmland. Less than 25% of the land on the NW sites is prime farmland. Anyone who has tried to grow crops on the NE sites will tell you that the alkalai content is onerous at best. The strawberry farm on the south side of Covell thrives because they use raised beds made of soil they have brought in. The roots of the strawberry plants are not in contact with actual NW Quadrant soil.

    To be fair, the NW Quadrant land does grow hay reasonably well. But, bottom-line, the #2 criteria voiced by the Davis residents at the 5/24 Community Workshop does not apply to the parcels in the NW Quadrant.

  43. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:55 AM said…

    Previously, the Committee deleted all peripheral candidate sites east of Pole Line Road from further consideration. The reasons cited at that time apply equally, if not more, to the sites west of Hwy 113.

    Anonymous 11:43 AM said…

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    The answer 11:43 has provided is accurate, but not complete. Another important difference between the NE sites (previously deleted) and the NW sites has to do with prime farmland conversion. According to public records (as well as a map distributed to the HESC members and meeting attendees), virtually all the land on the NE sites is prime farmland. Less than 25% of the land on the NW sites is prime farmland. Anyone who has tried to grow crops on the NE sites will tell you that the alkalai content is onerous at best. The strawberry farm on the south side of Covell thrives because they use raised beds made of soil they have brought in. The roots of the strawberry plants are not in contact with actual NW Quadrant soil.

    To be fair, the NW Quadrant land does grow hay reasonably well. But, bottom-line, the #2 criteria voiced by the Davis residents at the 5/24 Community Workshop does not apply to the parcels in the NW Quadrant.

  44. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 10:55 AM said…

    Previously, the Committee deleted all peripheral candidate sites east of Pole Line Road from further consideration. The reasons cited at that time apply equally, if not more, to the sites west of Hwy 113.

    Anonymous 11:43 AM said…

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    The answer 11:43 has provided is accurate, but not complete. Another important difference between the NE sites (previously deleted) and the NW sites has to do with prime farmland conversion. According to public records (as well as a map distributed to the HESC members and meeting attendees), virtually all the land on the NE sites is prime farmland. Less than 25% of the land on the NW sites is prime farmland. Anyone who has tried to grow crops on the NE sites will tell you that the alkalai content is onerous at best. The strawberry farm on the south side of Covell thrives because they use raised beds made of soil they have brought in. The roots of the strawberry plants are not in contact with actual NW Quadrant soil.

    To be fair, the NW Quadrant land does grow hay reasonably well. But, bottom-line, the #2 criteria voiced by the Davis residents at the 5/24 Community Workshop does not apply to the parcels in the NW Quadrant.

  45. Anonymous

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    The west Davis developers’ sites retained for further consideration because they were in the room? Give me a break.

    So….if developers of the east Davis peripheral parcels had been “in the room” on August 8, some of those sites would still be on the table? (This question assumes that they were not in the room on that night.) I think we all know the answer to that question.

  46. Anonymous

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    The west Davis developers’ sites retained for further consideration because they were in the room? Give me a break.

    So….if developers of the east Davis peripheral parcels had been “in the room” on August 8, some of those sites would still be on the table? (This question assumes that they were not in the room on that night.) I think we all know the answer to that question.

  47. Anonymous

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    The west Davis developers’ sites retained for further consideration because they were in the room? Give me a break.

    So….if developers of the east Davis peripheral parcels had been “in the room” on August 8, some of those sites would still be on the table? (This question assumes that they were not in the room on that night.) I think we all know the answer to that question.

  48. Anonymous

    The housing committee did discuss the issue of eliminating these sites from discussion for the same reasons as for the sites in east and south Davis. They decided that since these guys (developers) were in the room, that they owed them the respect of including the properties in the discussion.

    The west Davis developers’ sites retained for further consideration because they were in the room? Give me a break.

    So….if developers of the east Davis peripheral parcels had been “in the room” on August 8, some of those sites would still be on the table? (This question assumes that they were not in the room on that night.) I think we all know the answer to that question.

  49. Anonymous

    Less than 25% of the land on the NW sites is prime farmland. Anyone who has tried to grow crops on the NE sites will tell you that the alkalai content is onerous at best….

    ….To be fair, the NW Quadrant land does grow hay reasonably well. But, bottom-line, the #2 criteria voiced by the Davis residents at the 5/24 Community Workshop does not apply to the parcels in the NW Quadrant.

    I doubt the distinction between “prime” farmland and productive farmland that is not technically “prime” was intended intended by most residents who attended the workshop and voted with their sticky red dots. It certainly never occurred to this resident that my vote in favor of the “prime farm land” criterion would be construed to mean that development of productive non-prime farmland is somehow OK.

    Sites H6 and H7 have been actively and productively cultivated for at least the last 35 years (which is as far back as I can remember). “Prime” or not, the land has been – and is – productive. Not only hay is grown on sites H6 and H7, but also corn, tomatoes, alfalfa and probably other crops that I can’t recall. (In other words, the same kinds of crops that are grown on the now-deleted east Davis peripheral candidate sites.)

  50. Anonymous

    Less than 25% of the land on the NW sites is prime farmland. Anyone who has tried to grow crops on the NE sites will tell you that the alkalai content is onerous at best….

    ….To be fair, the NW Quadrant land does grow hay reasonably well. But, bottom-line, the #2 criteria voiced by the Davis residents at the 5/24 Community Workshop does not apply to the parcels in the NW Quadrant.

    I doubt the distinction between “prime” farmland and productive farmland that is not technically “prime” was intended intended by most residents who attended the workshop and voted with their sticky red dots. It certainly never occurred to this resident that my vote in favor of the “prime farm land” criterion would be construed to mean that development of productive non-prime farmland is somehow OK.

    Sites H6 and H7 have been actively and productively cultivated for at least the last 35 years (which is as far back as I can remember). “Prime” or not, the land has been – and is – productive. Not only hay is grown on sites H6 and H7, but also corn, tomatoes, alfalfa and probably other crops that I can’t recall. (In other words, the same kinds of crops that are grown on the now-deleted east Davis peripheral candidate sites.)

  51. Anonymous

    Less than 25% of the land on the NW sites is prime farmland. Anyone who has tried to grow crops on the NE sites will tell you that the alkalai content is onerous at best….

    ….To be fair, the NW Quadrant land does grow hay reasonably well. But, bottom-line, the #2 criteria voiced by the Davis residents at the 5/24 Community Workshop does not apply to the parcels in the NW Quadrant.

    I doubt the distinction between “prime” farmland and productive farmland that is not technically “prime” was intended intended by most residents who attended the workshop and voted with their sticky red dots. It certainly never occurred to this resident that my vote in favor of the “prime farm land” criterion would be construed to mean that development of productive non-prime farmland is somehow OK.

    Sites H6 and H7 have been actively and productively cultivated for at least the last 35 years (which is as far back as I can remember). “Prime” or not, the land has been – and is – productive. Not only hay is grown on sites H6 and H7, but also corn, tomatoes, alfalfa and probably other crops that I can’t recall. (In other words, the same kinds of crops that are grown on the now-deleted east Davis peripheral candidate sites.)

  52. Anonymous

    Less than 25% of the land on the NW sites is prime farmland. Anyone who has tried to grow crops on the NE sites will tell you that the alkalai content is onerous at best….

    ….To be fair, the NW Quadrant land does grow hay reasonably well. But, bottom-line, the #2 criteria voiced by the Davis residents at the 5/24 Community Workshop does not apply to the parcels in the NW Quadrant.

    I doubt the distinction between “prime” farmland and productive farmland that is not technically “prime” was intended intended by most residents who attended the workshop and voted with their sticky red dots. It certainly never occurred to this resident that my vote in favor of the “prime farm land” criterion would be construed to mean that development of productive non-prime farmland is somehow OK.

    Sites H6 and H7 have been actively and productively cultivated for at least the last 35 years (which is as far back as I can remember). “Prime” or not, the land has been – and is – productive. Not only hay is grown on sites H6 and H7, but also corn, tomatoes, alfalfa and probably other crops that I can’t recall. (In other words, the same kinds of crops that are grown on the now-deleted east Davis peripheral candidate sites.)

  53. Richard

    while I understand the reasons why Davis development is discussed in terms of specific sites, it seems to me that the real challenge is what kind of people are the subject of this development from a policy perspective, and what kinds of projects are required to attract them

    right now, the direction of the city is obvious, projects that will futher marginalize and drive out middle and lower income people, as well as students, while attracting new upper middle income residents

    of course, that makes a lot of money for developers, but is that what the residents want?

    here in Sacramento, the city has made, in my view, a major mistake in pursuing similar policies in downtown and midtown, with attendant gentrification

    –Richard Estes

  54. Richard

    while I understand the reasons why Davis development is discussed in terms of specific sites, it seems to me that the real challenge is what kind of people are the subject of this development from a policy perspective, and what kinds of projects are required to attract them

    right now, the direction of the city is obvious, projects that will futher marginalize and drive out middle and lower income people, as well as students, while attracting new upper middle income residents

    of course, that makes a lot of money for developers, but is that what the residents want?

    here in Sacramento, the city has made, in my view, a major mistake in pursuing similar policies in downtown and midtown, with attendant gentrification

    –Richard Estes

  55. Richard

    while I understand the reasons why Davis development is discussed in terms of specific sites, it seems to me that the real challenge is what kind of people are the subject of this development from a policy perspective, and what kinds of projects are required to attract them

    right now, the direction of the city is obvious, projects that will futher marginalize and drive out middle and lower income people, as well as students, while attracting new upper middle income residents

    of course, that makes a lot of money for developers, but is that what the residents want?

    here in Sacramento, the city has made, in my view, a major mistake in pursuing similar policies in downtown and midtown, with attendant gentrification

    –Richard Estes

  56. Richard

    while I understand the reasons why Davis development is discussed in terms of specific sites, it seems to me that the real challenge is what kind of people are the subject of this development from a policy perspective, and what kinds of projects are required to attract them

    right now, the direction of the city is obvious, projects that will futher marginalize and drive out middle and lower income people, as well as students, while attracting new upper middle income residents

    of course, that makes a lot of money for developers, but is that what the residents want?

    here in Sacramento, the city has made, in my view, a major mistake in pursuing similar policies in downtown and midtown, with attendant gentrification

    –Richard Estes

  57. Smart Growther

    It blows my mind that people are even talking about these truly peripheral sprawl ideas, NW Quadrant, etc., while they would leave a centrally located infill parcel like the Covell Village site vacant. It defies every smart growth principal there is to grow anywhere on the edge of Davis before figuring out what to do at Covell first.

  58. Smart Growther

    It blows my mind that people are even talking about these truly peripheral sprawl ideas, NW Quadrant, etc., while they would leave a centrally located infill parcel like the Covell Village site vacant. It defies every smart growth principal there is to grow anywhere on the edge of Davis before figuring out what to do at Covell first.

  59. Smart Growther

    It blows my mind that people are even talking about these truly peripheral sprawl ideas, NW Quadrant, etc., while they would leave a centrally located infill parcel like the Covell Village site vacant. It defies every smart growth principal there is to grow anywhere on the edge of Davis before figuring out what to do at Covell first.

  60. Smart Growther

    It blows my mind that people are even talking about these truly peripheral sprawl ideas, NW Quadrant, etc., while they would leave a centrally located infill parcel like the Covell Village site vacant. It defies every smart growth principal there is to grow anywhere on the edge of Davis before figuring out what to do at Covell first.

  61. Vincente

    It seems like this group is more willing to take your approach, they have left Covell on the list but probably will end up taking NW Quadrant off.

    I don’t like NW or Covell. Covell because we lack the infrastructure and road to accommodate the growth. NW because it’s moving us away from our population base and away from the center of town. It’s too bad in some respects because it’s not prime ag land. Covell is prime ag land near town and poor ag land away from town. Neither one appear to be good cites to me.

  62. Vincente

    It seems like this group is more willing to take your approach, they have left Covell on the list but probably will end up taking NW Quadrant off.

    I don’t like NW or Covell. Covell because we lack the infrastructure and road to accommodate the growth. NW because it’s moving us away from our population base and away from the center of town. It’s too bad in some respects because it’s not prime ag land. Covell is prime ag land near town and poor ag land away from town. Neither one appear to be good cites to me.

  63. Vincente

    It seems like this group is more willing to take your approach, they have left Covell on the list but probably will end up taking NW Quadrant off.

    I don’t like NW or Covell. Covell because we lack the infrastructure and road to accommodate the growth. NW because it’s moving us away from our population base and away from the center of town. It’s too bad in some respects because it’s not prime ag land. Covell is prime ag land near town and poor ag land away from town. Neither one appear to be good cites to me.

  64. Vincente

    It seems like this group is more willing to take your approach, they have left Covell on the list but probably will end up taking NW Quadrant off.

    I don’t like NW or Covell. Covell because we lack the infrastructure and road to accommodate the growth. NW because it’s moving us away from our population base and away from the center of town. It’s too bad in some respects because it’s not prime ag land. Covell is prime ag land near town and poor ag land away from town. Neither one appear to be good cites to me.

  65. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 4:00 PM said…

    The west Davis developers’ sites retained for further consideration because they were in the room? Give me a break.

    So….if developers of the east Davis peripheral parcels had been “in the room” on August 8, some of those sites would still be on the table? (This question assumes that they were not in the room on that night.) I think we all know the answer to that question.

    The reality is that several of the east Davis developers were in the room, either in person or in the form of specific position statements. The Signature Properties representative stood up and told the HESC members that Signature did not want their parcel outside the Mace Curve considered further. The Alhambra Group, ltd stated that given the April 26 vote in El Macero they would not proceed with their Vineyards @ El Macero proposal. We all know about the Sports Park discussions (with no residential component for the Shriners property. The Catholic Church sent the HESC a letter expressly reiterating their plans for no residences on their east Davis property. Bottom-line, only the parcel inside the Mace-Covell curve expressed an interest and it was kept in . . . with much more enthusiasm from the HESC than was shown for any of the four NW Quadrant parcels considered last night.

  66. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 4:00 PM said…

    The west Davis developers’ sites retained for further consideration because they were in the room? Give me a break.

    So….if developers of the east Davis peripheral parcels had been “in the room” on August 8, some of those sites would still be on the table? (This question assumes that they were not in the room on that night.) I think we all know the answer to that question.

    The reality is that several of the east Davis developers were in the room, either in person or in the form of specific position statements. The Signature Properties representative stood up and told the HESC members that Signature did not want their parcel outside the Mace Curve considered further. The Alhambra Group, ltd stated that given the April 26 vote in El Macero they would not proceed with their Vineyards @ El Macero proposal. We all know about the Sports Park discussions (with no residential component for the Shriners property. The Catholic Church sent the HESC a letter expressly reiterating their plans for no residences on their east Davis property. Bottom-line, only the parcel inside the Mace-Covell curve expressed an interest and it was kept in . . . with much more enthusiasm from the HESC than was shown for any of the four NW Quadrant parcels considered last night.

  67. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 4:00 PM said…

    The west Davis developers’ sites retained for further consideration because they were in the room? Give me a break.

    So….if developers of the east Davis peripheral parcels had been “in the room” on August 8, some of those sites would still be on the table? (This question assumes that they were not in the room on that night.) I think we all know the answer to that question.

    The reality is that several of the east Davis developers were in the room, either in person or in the form of specific position statements. The Signature Properties representative stood up and told the HESC members that Signature did not want their parcel outside the Mace Curve considered further. The Alhambra Group, ltd stated that given the April 26 vote in El Macero they would not proceed with their Vineyards @ El Macero proposal. We all know about the Sports Park discussions (with no residential component for the Shriners property. The Catholic Church sent the HESC a letter expressly reiterating their plans for no residences on their east Davis property. Bottom-line, only the parcel inside the Mace-Covell curve expressed an interest and it was kept in . . . with much more enthusiasm from the HESC than was shown for any of the four NW Quadrant parcels considered last night.

  68. Matt Williams

    Anonymous 4:00 PM said…

    The west Davis developers’ sites retained for further consideration because they were in the room? Give me a break.

    So….if developers of the east Davis peripheral parcels had been “in the room” on August 8, some of those sites would still be on the table? (This question assumes that they were not in the room on that night.) I think we all know the answer to that question.

    The reality is that several of the east Davis developers were in the room, either in person or in the form of specific position statements. The Signature Properties representative stood up and told the HESC members that Signature did not want their parcel outside the Mace Curve considered further. The Alhambra Group, ltd stated that given the April 26 vote in El Macero they would not proceed with their Vineyards @ El Macero proposal. We all know about the Sports Park discussions (with no residential component for the Shriners property. The Catholic Church sent the HESC a letter expressly reiterating their plans for no residences on their east Davis property. Bottom-line, only the parcel inside the Mace-Covell curve expressed an interest and it was kept in . . . with much more enthusiasm from the HESC than was shown for any of the four NW Quadrant parcels considered last night.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for