Council Rams Through Development by 3-2 Vote While Re-Writing It From the Dais –
One of the key new provisions was the incorporation of townhouses into one of the design features rather than standalone homes. Everyone found the proposal intriguing, but Councilmember Sue Greenwald and Lamar Heystek repeatedly asked for a more concrete proposal before approval. When the council proceeded to push through the item anyway, they voted against the project.
Sadly this is an area of immense beauty and the case has never been convincingly made to me of the necessity of the development, particularly given the housing market and the very small size of the project. That point was hammered home to me when Councilmember Stephen Souza showed a series of slides supposedly to suggest that the project would not overly infringe on the neighbors quality of life. Instead it led me to question why the council would consider development in that location given the rustic beauty of the Putah Creek area.
The worst part is as Councilmember Lamar Heystek pointed out is that the council spent three hours on this discussion item – essentially crafting a development agreement and a project on the fly. The length of the item led to the postponement of the scheduled Budget Workshop. The City Manager was led to suggest that they would no longer schedule budget workshops after development discussions.
However, there is a more serious problem here, the city council is not prioritizing its discussion properly. The most important issue facing the city is not ramming through a development that the city does not need to meet its housing obligations and that during a housing slow down will not even be built in the near future. It should be spending itself time discussing the city’s budget crisis.
The city needs as much time as possible to discuss the very disturbing and concerning issues raised in the budget workshop. The city has an ongoing structural deficit. They will have to cut an additional $1.7 million. Much of that will be due to the fact that they failed to achieve the savings they needed from the last round of employee MOUs.
As a result, the city is now contemplating more services cuts and in particular the elimination of 20 positions including the parks and general services department.
In Councilmember Heystek’s mind, this was a far more pressing and urgent issue than the development that they spent three hours on.
This is not the first time that the issue of Council allotment of time has come up.
The famous case was when the Council spent several hours on a J project when it was on a time deadline to approve the Wildhorse Ranch Project. As a result, the project was discussed for the first time beginning over 10 pm and the discussion did not conclude until well past midnight.
The council in that case could no longer defer action because city staff had decided to place it on the agenda at the last possible moment to get it to a November 2009 vote.
The applicant in that case had requested a June hearing on the matter which would have allowed for more discussion and avoided the process issues that would later doom its Measure J campaign.
While that may have been the most famous case of poor time management and prioritization of goals, another case still sticks in this writer’s craw. That is the report on the Grand Jury Investigation by Bob Aaronson.
That item was not heard until after 1 am and by the time it was heard some on the council were so tired they were not thinking straight and failed to ask key questions that might have revealed to the community more about the report and what it found. This was a case where the report was hidden to the public and yet the council failed to allow for adequate discussion due to the late hour.
Last night’s time prioritization is the latest of these episodes and this one really is a problem in part because the city council did not need to act on the Willowbank at all. With a new proposal, it should have gone to a full staff report and have the new proposals incorporated into the staff recommendations.
Moreover, the neighbors had asked for additional time to work with the developers. At this point, given the housing market, what was the rush to approve a small project? Why prioritize it over the crucial budget discussion?
Now the next council meeting is not until March 30, that is less than three months before final approval of the budget has to take place.
There is much work to do, and the Vanguard urges the council to think long and hard about what its priorities are and how to achieve that within the confines of a council meeting that really should end no later than 11 pm in order for all members to act at maximum efficiency.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I strongly hope that the council majority does not hold public office again…
Just the usual “gang of three”.
David – I’m disappointed (and tired, frankly) of you claiming there is no need for additional housing in Davis. You may be right that the Putah Creek area at the edge of town isn’t the best place for more development, but let’s be honest, development anywhere else be rejected by the neighborhood, too. Chiles Ranch, the Grande site, Covell Village, you name it – Davis homeowners are some of the worst NIMBYs around. I’ve never lived anywhere where community planning is done by the ballot like it is here.
As a young professional with an excellent job and no debt, it is incredibly frustrating that I can’t buy a home where I work. Any housing in Davis sub $350k is also substandard (and usually an apartment), and then the available housing tends to jump in price by $100k or more. Plus, any reasonably priced house in good condition immediately sees a bidding war – I’ve experienced it.
There are a lot of things that contribute to high housing prices here, but supply, or lack of it, is certainly one of them. Davis homeowners need to remember that there is a whole subset of the community who rent (and are not made up of undergraduates), and who would like nothing more than to become a more permanent part of this community.
I’m sorry that you are disappointed that I am claiming that there is no need for additional housing in Davis.
However, there is also a market that you have not accounted for nor is there the fact that there have been a certain number of units that have already been approved but not built, and there is the additional fact that even these homes are unlikely to be built in the near future.
Finally, we’re not talking about more than three dozen units here. It’s not going to make any difference in your ability to purchase a home, but it does wreck a rather nice portion of town and the council rammed it through with an amount of haste that does not seem justified.
I don’t disagree with you about Putah Creek, I’ve just seen you make comments about no need for housing in several recent posts (like the recent article about the Community Development Director, under which the comments turned to development issues).
It is a fair point about approved units not built (although I’m not familiar to which site(s) you are referring), but in that case, better to say the City needs to focus on incentivizing the building of housing already planned for, not that in general we don’t need more housing.
I don’t think the market has as much influence on the lack of development/home-building around here as you suggest, considering how insulated we’ve been compared to our regional neighbors.
I disagree with your last point, one developer of Verona, took all the steps to get the project approved and then put the project up for sale citing the lack of a market right now.
Also you have to consider the fact that the public by and large does not want a lot of growth right now. They turned down a fairly small project at WHR just in November by huge numbers.
a fairly small project at WHR just in November by huge numbers.
A Measure J project which failed primarily because of that same ‘2000 unit’ argument.
Your first point speaks exactly to my point – we need more affordable (not Affordable) housing in Davis. When a developer says they lack a market, it means they lack buyers who can afford to give them the profit margin they want. So there are a lot of factors that play in to that, and a lack of interested homebuyers being just one on that list (I would agree there is a lack of a market for typical Davis prices, but we need to find a way to bring those prices within reach of qualified, desirable homebuyers).
Your second point proves mine – “the public” you are referring to is the homeowning public. The homeowning public rarely, if ever, wants growth. Renters are something of a second class in Davis, and I’d guess the voting turnout by renters is lower partly because they don’t feel engaged in the community like a homeowner does.
Of course, maybe all us renters will turn into NIMBYs when we get to buy houses here and we’ll try to restrict the next crop of interested homebuyers, but I guess we’d like the chance.
[b]DYP:[/b] [i]”I’m disappointed (and tired, frankly) of you claiming there is no need for additional housing in Davis. … There are a lot of things that contribute to high housing prices here, but supply, or lack of it, is certainly one of them.”[/i]
The problem with this contention is that hundreds of new home units have been approved inside the City of Davis in the last 5 years and the builders have not developed any of them. As far as I know, the reason they are now building there approved units is because the builders don’t believe the demand exists for them.
FWIW, I would have voted yes on the Willowbank project. I am not anti-growth or against the approval of new housing. But I don’t think the case can be made right now that we have a supply shortage. If we did, new homes would be sprouting out of the ground on all of the approved new housing sites and they are not.
Correction: “As far as I know, the reason they are [b]not[/b] building [b]their[/b] approved units is because the builders don’t believe the demand exists for them.”
“The ruling by Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch found the prosperous city of 68,000 at fault for a voter-approved cap on the number of housing units allowed within its borders. Roesch based his decision on a California law that requires cities to make land available to accommodate their share of regional housing needs – and that is a standard that most municipalities don’t meet.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17/MNGH1CGQ9H.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0iSeMj4FP
“
I think that the recent Alameda County court decision could affect Davis so each development proposal should be reviewed for compliance with the laws cited in that decision.
This is just another example of how Community Development Director Katherine Hess has been so destructive to our City’s planning process. As I have seen posted here before, Hess obviously advocates for the developer and disregards the neighbors concerns. It is good news that she has been outed from the Community Development Department as director. It is clear why Hess has alienated the community due to her lack of fairness and lack of concern for good planning. The Willowbank Park neighbors were treated terribly and got shafted by Hess.
Hess “Era of Destruction” needs to end now. I now understand why there have been so many postings for her to be fired. I agree that she is a detrimental to out city in any capacity and should be fired now.
As a young professional with an excellent job and no debt, it is incredibly frustrating that I can’t buy a home where I work. Any housing in Davis sub $350k is also substandard (and usually an apartment), and then the available housing tends to jump in price by $100k or more. Plus, any reasonably priced house in good condition immediately sees a bidding war – I’ve experienced it.
Young Pro: I have the same problem trying to buy a house in Santa Barbara and Tiburon.
Other than saving and building equity elsewhere until you can afford to buy here, your only hope make Davis a less attractive place to live.
[quote]martin said . . .
“Roesch based his decision on a California law that requires cities to make land available to accommodate their share of regional housing needs – and that is a standard that most municipalities don’t meet.”
I think that the recent Alameda County court decision could affect Davis so each development proposal should be reviewed for compliance with the laws cited in that decision.[/quote]
martin, lets start with the compliance with RHNA issue. In fact Davis had absolutely no problem meeting its RHNA allocation from SACOG. The biggest reason is that Davis has a huge inventory of housing sites that are fully zonned and entitled, but whose owners have little or no intention (or desire) to commence building a residence on their lot. Neither the City, nor the State, can force a landowner to “build or else.” As a result the chances of Davis being affected are extremely small.
Further, as one reads the article, Pleasanton chose to impose a hard cap, which is a fire marshal’s room capacity placard. Davis has set no such “room capacity” limit. Rather it has said that a certain amount of growth can and should be anticipated each and every year in perpetuity. The limits set by the 1% Growth Cap Ordinance actually support an “at capacity” growth rate that far exceeds the RHNA allocation that Superior Court Judge Roesch used as the threshold that Pleasanton was failing to achieve. It is important to note that the RHNA allocations are “make land available to accommodate their share of regional housing needs” standards. There are no standards for what proportion of the RHNA allocation standard actually gets built.
In closing, once a single family home lot (or a multi-family parcel) is zoned and entitled, the voters of Davis no longer have any voice at the ballot box regarding what is or isn’t built on that lot/parcel.
[quote]Davisyoungpro said . . .
We need more affordable (not Affordable) housing in Davis.
When a developer says they lack a market, it means they lack buyers who can afford to give them the profit margin they want. So there are a lot of factors that play in to that, and a lack of interested homebuyers being just one on that list (I would agree there is a lack of a market for typical Davis prices, but we need to find a way to bring those prices within reach of qualified, desirable homebuyers). [/quote]
DYP, it is one thing to state your goal. it is another thing to make it happen. What do you propose to do to achieve the goal?
Is it appropriate to tell the owner of a parcel of land that hey can not build any housing that exceeds a certain dollar amount?
If you were to tell them that, would you expect them to immediately commence a flurry of building activity? … or would you expect them to simply sit on their land until the price control is struck down some time in the future?
I really look forward to hearing your thoughts on how to address this challenge?
A quick response to DYP of 3/17 8:58 — Neighbors of the Willowbank Park project have publicly stated from the beginning that they have no quarrel with development of the parcel; they recognize a developer’s right to purchase a parcel, assume the financial risk, and attempt to improve the land to their benefit and profit.
Where the “process” breaks down relates to another point you stated, that “community planning is done by the ballot like it is here.” Would that this project was planned by the ballot as you assert! A measure J vote would have resulted in public review and likely pressure to improve its design. This infill project was rammed through with contempt for neighbors’ views on the part of CDD leadership, a bypassing of interested citizen commissions, and a double standard in favor of the developers that resulted in a sidestepping of standards enforced upon other development in the same area. This project does not meet greenbelt or open space requirements, encroaches upon a recognized 50′ habitat buffer upheld by the CA Dept of Fish and Game, has only the thinnest veneer of green in its design (despite developer assertions that “this will be the greenest development in Davis”), and will result (with Council facilitation) in the loss of significant established park and open space in the adjacent Willowbank 9 park in order to manage the development’s drainage. Katherine Hess sheperded this project through the approval process and is clearly personally invested (though not in a financial way as far as we know) in its approval.
On a parcel of this size (2.6 buildable acres, attached townhomes are the most effective way to provide a greater range of affordable housing. Neighbors suggested this to the developers months ago; we were advocating for a project with an innovative design and adequate open space which respects the very unique and attractive features of the project site. Neighbors felt that a project of this type would be quite marketable and an asset to the south Davis area. The developers do not want to build it. The latest revision to the proposal, hammered out on the fly from the dais, offers 10 townhomes along Putah Creek. The homes appear attractively designed in the renderings (not architectural drawings) offered for review. The developer was pressured to make this design change, substituting attached for single family units, by Councilmember Souza’s threatened “No” vote for their development.
Only under duress would this developer provide the kind of housing that (and I agree with your point) you are in search of here in Davis. The development team has been whining from the beginning that attached townhomes are not profitable due to insurance issues and the fee structure imposed by the City. So I respectfully submit that the lack of affordable housing is a problem laid as much at the doorstep of the development community as at NIMBY neighbors.
DYP: Do you ever watch House Hunters on HGTV? I ask because last summer they did an episode about a couple from Davis (dual income, no children), environmentally conscious, with a budget of 400-450K if I recall correctly. Definitely interested in green construction. The format of the show is that a realtor shows us three homes in their general price range and at the end of the show the viewer finds out which one they chose.
The Davis couple looked at 2 properties in West Sac – new or nearly new construction. Granite countertops, hardwood floors, many of the typical features of new construction. Not particularly green though. They insisted to their realtor that they wanted to see a house in Davis. From your experience perhaps you won’t be surprised to hear that the Davis home, new construction also, was the most expensive and on the smallest lot, with the least amount of outside space for patio, garden, whatever. That was not the deal-breaker, however. The finishes inside the house were the least attractive and of inferior grade to what was being offered in the West Sac properties. For 400-450K they wanted better than formica countertops and laminate flooring. Green features were lacking. In the end, although they were vocal in their commitment to Davis, they chose one of the West Sac properties. Knowing that they would have to move up to a larger home once they had children, it was not a wise choice to buy the Davis home, although the town itself was a huge attraction and benefit.
The developer of the Davis home surely could have offered more upscale finishes for a home in this price range and still made a tidy profit. Alternatively, they could have used the money to provide more green features. The fact that they don’t do either, in the interest of maximizing profit, shows me why people vote with their feet and move to Woodland or West Sac and get value on their investment.
I saw the same show on HGTV. As it happens, that couple picked the “greenest” of the three houses. But it seemed like they got a much better deal in West Sac, as you say.
[i]”The developer of the Davis home surely could have offered more upscale finishes for a home in this price range and still made a tidy profit. Alternatively, they could have used the money to provide more green features. The fact that they don’t do either, [b]in the interest of maximizing profit[/b], shows me why people vote with their feet and move to Woodland or West Sac and get value on their investment.”[/i]
What makes you think developers outside of Davis are not also doing everything they can to maximize profit? I used to build live-work lofts in the Bay Area and can assure you that every developer tries to maximize his profits.
What you are blaming on the developers in Davis is really not a byproduct of the motive to maximize profits. It is a byproduct of the regulatory environment in Davis, compared with the other cities you speak of. For better or for worse, we have much stricter growth limits in Davis, and that gives a lot of market power to developers who have regulatorily approved projects and takes power (and money) away from buyers.
If we relaxed our growth controls in Davis (in the way that has been done in the other towns you observed*), you would see a great transfer of market power away from the developers and toward the buyers. And the consequence would be that new homes in Davis would sell for much less and they would have all the green features and granite counters and so on that you observed on HGTV outside of Davis.
*Obviously, doing this brings on other problems that a majority in Davis wants to prevent.
It is a byproduct of the regulatory environment in Davis
I am sure that has some influence. Land prices are higher in Davis, so you get smaller lots and cutting of corners on materials quality for greater affordability. Over the years, the cost variance in materials has grown quite a bit. Fixture, countertops, tile, flooring… the difference between top-end and low-medium-end materials can make a big difference. For example, you can install laminate counter tops for about $20 a sq. ft., while granite is about $100. Wood and labor for high-end window and door casing and molding is expensive.
Start with a $200k lot compared to a $50k lot, and $150k buys a lot of nice materials.
I see your points Rich, thanks.
I am really disappointed in Souza and Saylor for saying that this project was a compromise between developer and neighbors. The neighbors ( representing all citizens of Davis) only succeeded in upholding the existing 50 foot buffer which the developer was trying to circumvent. This loss of open space and habitat along the only creek in Davis is such a shame and especially when it results in such a poor project. When did holding a developer to follow existing rules become the responsibility of a neighborhood group? Who at the city is driving this pro-development agenda? Who at the city is suppose to ensure we get high-quality projects and preserve the few remaining natural habitats within the city?