WDAAC Is a Sprawling Urban Planning Disaster

by Alan Pryor and Pam Nieberg

The Davis City Council has approved a sprawling senior housing development project located in West Davis along Covell. Voters will have a chance to approve or reject the project in this year’s November election. The project is called West Davis Active Adult Community (WDAAC).

On Tuesday, 8/28, an article by the author was published in the Vanguard (http://www.davisvanguard.org/2018/08/guest-commentary-wdaac-includes-massive-developer-give-aways/) which discussed the massive reductions in Development Fees given away by the City to the Developer.

On Thursday, 8/30 another article was published (http://www.davisvanguard.org/2018/08/guest-commentary-wdaac-includes-massive-developer-giveaways-guest-commentary-part-ii/) which discussed the erroneous financial assumptions used by the City to project a positive annual financial benefit to the City. That article also discussed how the Development Agreement and Baseline Features for the project are so vague so as to make them functionally  unenforceable

This current article focuses on the gross deficiencies in general land use and planning for the project and how it fails to meet objective City guidelines for senior housing nor regional sustainable urban planning standards.

1. The Far Edge of Town is Exactly the Wrong Location for a Senior Development and This Project has Exceedingly Poor Connectivity for Seniors.

A. Wrong Location: – Even if the WDAAC did serve a needed demographic segment in our community with the right down-sized units needed by seniors who might be able to afford them, the location of this project on the very edge of town is a serious shortcoming. Seniors need to be close to amenities, services, and the vibrancy of downtown and not warehoused on the edge of town.

Earlier this year on January 7, 2018, former Davis Mayor Robb Davis published an article in the Davis Vanguard entitled “Creating a Vibrant Downtown.” In that article he stated,

…we have an aging population—one that is interested in downsizing, aging in place, and living in walkable and bikeable places.  Providing options for this population and these needs is best done in dense urban cores.  Even as we remain a “young” university town, our aging population will benefit by the creation of a vibrant downtown.”

Further, the project fails to meet most of the Location Guidelines in the City’s own “Guidelines for Housing that serves Seniors and Persons with Disabilities.” That document states as follows:

“LOCATION – Since seniors and persons with disabilities may not have personal transportation, the preferred location for any proposed housing for seniors and persons with disabilities should be close to the following:

  • Public transit lines (Unitrans and/or Yolo Bus) if there is no on-site shuttle, preferably within 200 feet of a transit stop.
  • A neighborhood shopping center, especially a grocery store and pharmacy.
  • A medical facility that could provide general health services and prescriptions.
  • A variety of housing options should be provided for local seniors and persons with disabilities, including options that are within close proximity to the downtown and other destination areas within the city.”

The WDAAC project meets only one of these four Location Guidelines established by the City which is its proximity to health facilities at Sutter Hospital directly to the East.

However, as discussed below, the nearest bus stop for the entire development is on Covell Blvd. which is far greater than 200 ft. from the for-sale units. And there are otherwise NO nearby shopping centers within walking distance as also discussed below which means residents will need to get in their cars and drive for every retail need. The project is clearly not “within close proximity to the downtown” or other amenities as otherwise specified in the Guidelines.

One most important question to ask is: If this isn’t the right location, “What other more suitable parcels in Davis are available?”

First, the City itself sits on prime developable real estate within easy walking distance of downtown and that is the City’s facility yards right on 5th St. This large parcel is ideal for a development that would serve seniors, but this prime real estate is still held by the City for the lowest possible use – portable office trailers and parking. Perhaps the City should overcome its own inertia, move its facility yard, and use this extremely valuable real estate for an affordable senior and/or working family housing development complex.

Second, many local land use experts claim the school district’s offices on 5th St across from City Hall would also be a prime development site for intensive senior and/or family housing, offering immediate adjacent access to the downtown core.

The proponent claims to be offering a “self-sufficient” senior housing development, but is actually proposing to warehouse our seniors away on the edge of town instead of integrating them into the broader community. It is one thing to have a multi-story building or small, dense complex of buildings such as University Retirement Community or Eleanor Roosevelt Circle dedicated to senior living as this allows provision of specialized services that might not otherwise be cost effective to provide. However, the WDAAC, a sprawling community on the edge of town, is the antithesis of smart urban planning, especially for independent seniors. This type of segregation is non-inclusive and does not integrate seniors into the broader community.

  1. Poor Connectivity: – Illustrative of this lack of integration with the community is the extremely poor connectivity of the project for resident seniors. For instance, there would be no neighborhood shopping center to which seniors can walk or comfortably bike. To get to the Stonegate shopping center, one has to walk out to Covell continuing west down to Lake Blvd and then cross a minimum of 4 lanes of traffic and then south for a total of about 1.5 miles. Getting to the Marketplace shopping center to the east across 113 is not as long (about 0.75 miles), but equally harrowing for seniors as they negotiate the Hwy 113 over-crossing and associated freeway on- and off-ramps. Other than minimal changes to curbs and sidewalks along the Covell frontage of the property, the developer is not contributing anything to make these journeys easier. Neither of these routes is shaded and those who are able to walk to stores will be immediately adjacent to traffic generating auto exhaust and poor air quality, to say nothing of the difficulties walking back with groceries, purchases, etc.

By contrast, when The Cannery was built in North Davis and access across Covell Blvd was a key connectivity consideration. The developer, New Homes Company, contributed over $1,000,000 in additional traffic impact fees solely for construction of the under-crossing to allow safe passage for children and seniors across Covell. Unfortunately, our City Council failed to make a similar demand when it was proposed that the WDAAC make such a contribution for a Covell crossing. This is just one more instance when our Council has bestowed give-aways on this project to the detriment of the community.

One has again only to read the City’s own “Guidelines for Housing that serves Seniors and Persons with Disabilities” for guidance on Transportation needs of seniors. That document states as follows:

“TRANSPORTATION – Continue to promote and encourage public transit as an affordable and environmentally-sound alternative to personal vehicles.

Locate new ownership and rental housing projects conveniently near public transit access (e.g. bus stop) and make it accessible through a safe and easily navigated route. Preference for distance to transit access to be within 200 feet.

Assess transportation for new housing projects based on project size. Based on size, projects should contribute to City public transit needs by one of the following:

Provision of a shuttle service for project residents to use for daily living & activity needs (i.e. medical appointments, shopping, entertainment); or

Payment of the appropriate development impact fees and any additional funds negotiated via Development Agreement that could be utilized to enhance City transit services, particularly on weekends and holidays.”

Unfortunately, as stated above, all residents in purchased units will be far in excess of 200 ft. from the bus stop. Some residents will actually be required to walk up to 1/3 of a mile to get to the bus stop and the developer has made no contributions to City public transportation to improve the transportation infrastructure for the project.

In summary, this development meets almost none of the City’s Transportation needs specified in the City’s Guidelines for senior housing development.

  1. WDAAC is a Sprawling Development Reminiscent of the 1950s and 1960s. It does NOT Meet any of the Sacramento Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Seven Principles for Smart Growth and Clearly Needs More Density, Different and Diverse Building Types, and Good Transportation Infrastructure.

Over the past several years, a number of notable urban development consultants have been retained to speak at public forums in Davis in hopes of spearheading new and innovative ways of thinking about development in the community. This was done with the knowledge that a number of major developments were being proposed in the community and a serious attempt was made to educate the Council, Staff, and the public about pitfalls to avoid when planning and entitling these developments. Unfortunately, all of these lessons learned were lost during the planning and entitlement approval process for the WDAAC.

Among the speakers were representatives of SACOG who presented their Blueprint Principles for Smart Growth (www.sacog.org). These include:

  1. Compact development
  2. Mix of land uses
  3. Transportation options
  4. Quality design
  5. Use of existing assets (land or buildings)
  6. Housing options
  7. Preserving natural resources

This development does not really meet any of these smart growth objectives. The project otherwise meets every reasonable definition of “sprawl”. The lot sizes for the 161 “Greenway” homes proposed are almost 4,600 sq. ft. (16.87 acres x 43,560 sq. ft./acre / 161 homes). Although the project developer has the option to build 1,400, and 1,800 sq ft. homes, he is not required to have a fixed mix of different size units and all of the units built could be 1,800 sq. ft. to maximize his profits.

The proposed “Custom Small Builder” lots are even bigger at almost 5,200 sq. ft. (5.96 acres x 43,560 sq. ft./acre / 50 homes). Further, as was discussed in an earlier article (Guest Commentary, Part II: WDAAC Includes Massive Developer Giveaways) there are no guarantees that any of the other proposed smaller units will ever be built because they are not listed as required in either the Baseline Features or the Development Agreement!

There are virtually no form-based design principles incorporated into the development, as all the structures (with the exception of the affordable units) are proposed to be single-story. In fact, the entire development is functionally a uniform sea of monolithic single story homes laid out in rectangular fashion using off-the-shelf architectural designs. Only the affordable housing multistory buildings provide any change in the terrain of the project and these may never even be built because the developer is not putting any money into the actual construction costs as was done by every single other major development in Davis (Cannery, Nishi, Lincoln40, Sterling and even the proposed new developments in South Davis).

While stairs can present challenges to seniors, families often prefer the compact design afforded by multiple story structures, while stacked flat condos (utilizing elevators) are proving popular with seniors seeking down-sized quarters. There are innumerable options to a sea of single-story homes but it requires a developer with imagination and vision and a City Council that actually demands what they profess in terms of smart urban planning.

As also discussed, there are no significant transportation alternatives to driving as the only public bus stop will be too far for most seniors to walk. Use of existing assets (such as rehabilitation of older buildings which admittedly there are none on this site) is non-existent and there is no preservation of natural resources because the land is currently productive (albeit not Class I) farm land which will become a housing development.

Rather than focusing on a modern, dense but diverse development model, the WDAAC project proposes a huge number of sprawling ranch-style homes on 5,000 sq ft lots reminding us of the excesses of the past. In addition to being a waste of precious farm land on our periphery, this type of sprawl development does not provide diverse housing benefits necessary for an integrated, inclusive community.  Instead, additional 2- and 3- story residential buildings in much greater density would result in many more units at the site, being more dense, much more appropriate and better use of the land, AND much higher fees for the City.

Further, although both the Baseline Features and the Development Agreement refer to the possibility of additional types of buildings at the project including bungalows, cottages, and attached condos, a close reading of the Baseline Features and the Development Agreement show THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEES THAT THIS TYPE OF HOUSING IN ANY APPRECIABLE NUMBERS WILL EVER BE BUILT!

These documents do not specify the minimum number of different types and/or sizes of homes to be built! They only specify the maximum number of units that can be built, so it is entirely possible, and consistent with the Baseline Features and Development Agreement that the vast majority of the homes at built at WDAAC will be 1,800 sq. ft homes with very few smaller homes, bungalows, cottages, or condos.

Once again, as further discussed above, our City Planning Department and Council have agreed to a very poorly worded Development Agreement and Baseline Features that clearly benefit the interests of the project developer without regard to City and community needs.

And readers should be reminded that the Planning Commission did not approve nor recommend approval of the Development Agreement or the Baseline features of the project because they were too vague and unenforceable. However, instead of requiring the Planning Dept and developer to revise the agreement to meet objective enforceable standards, our City Council rushed approval of the project to get it on the November ballot. This project approval process was not deliberate nor thoughtful.

It must be emphasized that to approve a project with these fundamental problems in the Development Agreement and Baseline Features would set a terrible precedent for future developers by setting the lowest of expectations.

  1. WDAAC Opens Up the Entire Northwest Quadrant of the City to Speculative, Piecemeal Development with Absolutely No Overall, Comprehensive Specific or Master Plan for the Area.

Approval of this project would open up the northwest quadrant, a huge tract of land, for development with no planning guidelines or restrictions. With no previous community Specific or Master Plan for this entire area, it would allow developers to bring forward any type of project with no regard for what is best for the community or its residents.

According to the article by Bob Schneider, Davis resident and former builder/developer, titled “Planning First” published in the Davis Enterprise and the Vanguard on June 9, 2018 (http://www.davisvanguard.org/2018/06/letter-planning-first/#)…

“Properly planned, the northwest corner of Davis offers an important opportunity for meeting development needs in Davis in a manner that reflects Davis values. Neighborhoods, a natural habitat swale for the Covell drainage, flood water pond storage, edible vegetation, affordable co-housing, senior housing, community gardens, appropriate commercial, and live-work buildings, bordered by protected farmland and open space reflects my values and I believe our Davis values. Working towards this vision necessitates a General Plan update or a Northwest Specific Plan. Piecemeal development, focusing on one development at a time, may preclude this important opportunity.(Emphasis added)

Yet, by this entitlement, the Davis City Council has rushed to open the door to piecemeal development and sprawl without first calling for a thoughtful community discussion on what should be done with the entire northwest quadrant, and how any development there should reflect community values and needs, not the needs of a single developer.

It is time to stop this project until we have had a community discussion on what we want for this entire area.

The authors are officers or affiliated with the  No on Measure L Campaign

 

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

33 Comments

  1. Eric Gelber

    1. The Far Edge of Town is Exactly the Wrong Location for a Senior Development and This Project has Exceedingly Poor Connectivity for Seniors.

    The location may be wrong for some seniors–those with physical/mobility limitations or limited transportation options, for example. But the location will not be an issue for many other seniors. The intent is in the name, after all: The AA in WDAAC stands for “Active Adult.” Despite the fact that WDAAC is being promoted as senior housing, it is actually housing for those seniors who do not have physical disabilities or other significant functional limitations associated with aging. It does not provide support services, such as are available in a continuing care retirement community. This is just another example (in addition to age restrictions and “outsider” exclusions) of how WDAAC is anything but an inclusive community–even for the population it purportedly intends to serve.

    1. David Greenwald

      The location is actually a good location for a lot of seniors.  First, it’s across the street from URC.  Talking with David and Luke, they felt like proximity to Sutter with not just the hospital but clinics was a big plus for a lot of seniors.  They point out the proximity to the Marketplace and Safeway and CVS as another plus.  Basically everything many people need will be within about half a mile where they can walk or perhaps have some sort of shuttle to transport them.  And they pointed out that a lot of seniors don’t like going downtown – too much bustle, too many young people, and that having the Marketplace was just as good.

      Is that a correct assessment?  I don’t know, but I doubt the authors really looked into this from the perspective of the resident needs.

        1. David Greenwald

          Nothing has really changed for me.  I just feel like for the most part, Alan/ opponents are putting forth bad arguments, some of which are factually inaccurate against the project.

        2. Alan Pryor

          Alan/ opponents are putting forth bad arguments, some of which are factually inaccurate against the project

          David – You’ve repeated this so many times it’s starting to sound like a sound bite. You can say “bad arguments” because that is your opinion which is your right (albeit an opinion that consistently panders to the developers, “in my opinion”)  . But if you say “factually inaccurate”, I would suggest that requires some objective facts to substantiate…care to share?

        3. David Greenwald

          I’ve pointed out what I deem to be factual inaccuracies in the previous articles especially the affordable housing, about you claiming that the developers gave nothing (ignoring the land value), etc.

          In this case, I wouldn’t call it a factual inaccuracy, I just don’t agree – as I explain above, the location for seniors based on my discussions is actually pretty good.

          I agree with your argument btw, and meant to post something and was distracted, that this is not “Smart Growth” – I think that is one of your stronger points here.  This is an old school, peripheral development that has been ginned up a bit with some bells as whistles.

          The other key point I would raise that is problematic is that their theory of the development is that people will move from existing homes to WDAAC.  That’s backed by the Davis Based Buyer’s program that is at best untested in a court.  But then they argue families will move into existing homes,but existing homes are large and expensive, so who is going to move there?

        4. Alan Pryor

          about you claiming that the developers gave nothing (ignoring the land value)

          I believe the record will show that I said the developers are not giving anything toward the “construction costs” of the low-income apartments and that all they are giving is the land. I believe they are also not providing any of the infrastructure costs of the development but only bringing roads and utilities to the property line. The point I was making was that this is fundmentally different than every other large development in town in the past 10 years where the developer contributed not only the land but also built the low income housing or, in the case of Sterling, contributed $55,000+/apartment towards their construction. If the WDAAC developer contributed $55,000 only toward each of the 76 low-income units they are obligated to provide for in the development, this would equal over $4,000,000 in contributions to the construction costs (76 x $55,000).

          It has been stated that just donating the land is enough value because it is valued at over $1,000,000/acre. My question was, “Valued by whom?”. It turns out that the WDAAC developer and the non-profit developer trying to develop the project made this valuation “estimate” but did not give any substantiation to their estimates. Is this the raw land value as a stand-alone plot deed-restricted for low-income housing? Is it the value of the land for tax purposes when fully built out with infrastructure? Is it the price Taormino is paying for the land?

          No one knows. All we have is verbal representations made to David by the developers and this $4,000,000 is then repeated as fact in this blog. There was otherwise no appraisal or formal assessment of value made.

          And I am the one being accused of “factually inaccurate” statements here…..wow!

      1. Howard P

        Eric… authors have axes to grind… [edited]… too many mis-truths, too little time…

        I was opposed to the proposal for practical reasons… the authors have convinced me to vote in favor, and to encourage others to do the same… yes, ‘reactionary’… mea culpa…

        The opponents have, in all three “posts”, have twisted truth (and/or made up things)… [edited] nothing new under the sun…

        [moderator: edited; please avoid personal attacks.]

        1. Howard P

          If considered a personal attack, please delete my entire post of 9:57… I accused people of mis-truths, having axes to grind, twisting truth (kept in)… should be deleted in its entirety as a “personal attack”… no problem.

          Authors are well known to many (is that a ‘personal attack’? If so, edit/delete)… they have zero biases, just “truth-tellers”… yeah. Right.

      2. Howard P

        URC has a shuttle… maybe the proponents can help support that to serve the proposed community… they (URC) has capacity in their vans, based on observations… more efficient… same for Covell Gardens, Carlton, Davis Community Transit, etc., etc., etc…

        Their weakest argument, blatant untruth…

  2. David Greenwald

    Here is a question for people like Alan and Todd: If you oppose the location of this project, does that mean that you oppose any additional peripheral growth?  That appears to be the implication of this argument.

    1. Alan Pryor

      Here is a question for people like Alan and Todd: If you oppose the location of this project, does that mean that you oppose any additional peripheral growth?

      “…for people like Todd and Alan….”…really, David, isn’t that a bit snarky?

      Well I can’t speak for Todd but I would support a peripheral project if it had a mixture of different housing types; the majority of which would be little “A” affordable for young families and/or seniors. This would include smaller units (probably row houses or two-three story condos where seniors could have the first floor) on the order of 800 – 1,000 sq ft. which would easily accomodate 2-3 bedrooms and 1-2 bathrooms each. If they are put in as inexpensively as possible (no marble countertops, no solid hardwood floors, no hanging chandeliers in each room like we see with most new single family homes), I’m told the price could be driven down to $350/sq ft. And I would not even mind giving this developer a break on development fees if they are not otherwise going for luxury senior homes. All of a sudden you get homes from $280,000 – $350,000. Hey David, maybe even you could then afford a home in Davis.

      And if we had a couple of 75 acre unit developments like this that filled with young families (and some seniors too), all  of a sudden we could get familes back in Davis that would help solve our money-losing problem of importing 700 kids a day into Davis schools.

      I will have another article next week on the issue of affordable housing in Davis and how the WDAAC does nothing to increase our little “A” affordable housing for seniors and families. In fact, it makes it worse and exacerbates our demographic imbalances in Davis which will also be addressed in a follow-up article.

      1. David Greenwald

        It was meant as an honest question.  But I’m still not clear here given your location based objections (the reason for the question in the first place) – how are those overcome for any peripheral site in Davis.

      2. Don Shor

        1. The Far Edge of Town is Exactly the Wrong Location for a Senior Development and This Project has Exceedingly Poor Connectivity for Seniors. …”

        It’s right near another very large senior development, and very close to medical offices and the hospital. In fact, I think that’s kind of the point.

        Seniors need to be close to amenities, services, and the vibrancy of downtown and not warehoused on the edge of town. …”

        Seniors may or may not want want to be near “the vibrancy of downtown.” I’m actually pretty mystified by this notion. Downtown is trending toward entertainment venues and doesn’t seem very senior-oriented to me. I don’t really think the retail mix there is geared to older people. Is there a pharmacy at the Co-op yet?

        The WDAAC project meets only one of these four Location Guidelines established by the City which is its proximity to health facilities at Sutter Hospital directly to the East. …”

        No, there is shopping nearby, with a grocery store and pharmacy. By almost any measure the Marketplace Shopping Center is “nearby” and has more shopping options than the downtown for seniors.

        “What other more suitable parcels in Davis are available?” First, the City itself sits on prime developable real estate within easy walking distance of downtown and that is the City’s facility yards right on 5th St. …”

        Yeah, right. Eight years ago our little stretch of 5th St. was identified for economic development. Not a word since about that.
        So:

        Perhaps the City should overcome its own inertia, move its facility yard, and use this extremely valuable real estate for an affordable senior and/or working family housing development complex. …”

        Well, I’m willing to bet they won’t. But since Todd has already spoken for the school district headquarters, and everyone else wants PG&E to vacate so their site would be developable, I do wish to ask where you all think the city offices (and the school district, and PG&E) should move their base of operations to? This is just an academic exercise, since I consider the likelihood of this actually happening to be very slim. Moreover, even if it did, I don’t get why you and Todd keep looking for “alternative” sites as though this is some kind of binary choice.

        “many local land use experts claim the school district’s offices on 5th St across from City Hall would also be a prime development site…”

        Much as I would certainly like to see that happen, as it would enrich me considerably, there are several steps involved in moving the city or school district or PG&E. Of all the development options, those are probably the least likely. Too many moving parts, no obvious site to move them to, and likely pushback from the same staff that would be expected to expedite it. Good luck.

        Approval of this project would open up the northwest quadrant, a huge tract of land, for development with no planning guidelines or restrictions. With no previous community Specific or Master Plan for this entire area, it would allow developers to bring forward any type of project with no regard for what is best for the community or its residents.

        Yes, that is certainly possible. The problem is, getting Davis residents and staff to do any planning takes forever. We still need an update to the General Plan. We’re talking endlessly about downtown. So literally the only thing I can think of that might jump-start the process of planning for the northwest quadrant is for someone to do exactly what the Taorminos have done: propose a specific project out there. Otherwise I’d guess planning that part of town might get started in five years or so, finished in a decade.
        This project does expand Davis boundaries, and that’s a useful discussion point and probably your most compelling argument. But while developers can certainly “bring forward any type of project with no regard for what is best for the community,” every such project will be subject to a Measure R vote.

  3. Richard McCann

    While I support developing a vital downtown, I do not support trying to concentrate everything downtown. If we want a truly walkable city, we need to spread commercial centers and higher density residential developments around town as well. I haven’t yet formed an opinion on this project, but just because it’s not located next to downtown is not a reason to oppose it. As pointed out by Council members, it has other desirable locational attributes which are likely to reduce auto trips for that specific population.

  4. Jeff M

    Well I can’t speak for Todd but I would support a peripheral project if it had a mixture of different housing types; the majority of which would be little “A” affordable for young families and/or seniors. This would include smaller units (probably row houses or two-three story condos where seniors could have the first floor) on the order of 800 – 1,000 sq ft. which would easily accomodate 2-3 bedrooms and 1-2 bathrooms each. If they are put in as inexpensively as possible (no marble countertops, no solid hardwood floors, no hanging chandeliers in each room like we see with most new single family homes), I’m told the price could be driven down to $350/sq ft.

    This gives me a giant headache from laughing.

    The NOT IN ANY OF DAVIS’S OPEN-SPACE BACKYARDS people (NIADOBs) constrain development exploiting our great Measure J/R mistake, thus artificially driving up the cost of housing… and then demand that we build smaller, more closely packed housing using cheap materials so that they remain affordable.

    I guess dropping acid is still a thing in this town.

  5. David Thompson

    Alan Pryor wrote today, “The point I was making was that this is fundmentally different than every other large development in town in the past 10 years where the developer contributed not only the land but also built the low income housing…

    I have pointed out on this blog before that his statement is factually not true.  Alan please do not keep repeating untruths.  We don’t mind having a debate but when it comes to building needed housing for low income seniors  lies become costly to those most in need in our community. With the waiting lists for affordable housing being as long as they are with no affordable senior housing on the horizon Davis seniors are being forced to leave town.

    The developers in the same category are the following over nearly a 30 year history. The donation of land to be set aside for affordable housing is the most valuable mechanism used by the city. The value of the land contributed to a non profit allows that land to be leveraged through state and federal programs to provide the highest subsidies and the lowest apartment rents. This category has provided more affordable housing apartments than any other during this past nearly 30 years.

    The accusation you make is incorrect. Every major development in this same category since the policy began in recent years is listed below.

    Almost all the developments over the past nearly 30 years are in the same category as WDAAC . They donated land for  570 affordable apartment units available to Davis residents and did not provide any funds for any affordable units.
     Windmere 1 and 2 106 units land donated no other developer funds

    Fox Creek 36 units land donated no other developer funds

    Heather Glen 62 units land donated no other developer funds

    Homestead 16 units land donated no other developer funds

    Tuscany Villas 30 units land donated no other developer funds

    Walnut Terrace 31 units land donated no other developer funds

    Twin Pines Community 36 units land donated no other developer funds

    Owendale Community 45 units land donated no other developer funds

    Tremont Green 36 units land donated no other developer funds

    Moore Village 59 units land donated no other developer funds

    Cesar Chavez Plaza 53 units land donated no other developer funds

    Eleanor Roosevelt Circle 60 units land donated no other developer funds

    Please vote yes on Measure L to add another 150 affordable senior apartments to meet the needs of the 441 already on the waiting lists in Davis.
     

    For the sake of the reader and the citizen voter, sensible planning and meeting internal need we completely agree with the Vanguard’s title “We Need to Be Able to Have an Informed Discussion on WDAAC.”

    In an attempt at providing factual information to the Davis resident and voter.
    We are, Neighborhood Partners, LLC

    1. Ken A

      David thanks for your post with all the info on affordable housing in town over the past 30 years, but I noticed that Alan said  “every other large development in town in the past 10 years”…

      NPR just reported that 10 years ago “today” the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and other than “The Canary” (and New Harmony that was 100% affordable) I can’t think of another “large development in town in the past 10 years”.

      Did the Canary donate land “and” build the affordable units?  Can anyone name another large market rate “development in town in the past 10 years” where the developer donated land and built affordable units?

  6. David Thompson

    Did the Cannery donate land “and” build the affordable units?

    In an attempt to bring about a fair comparison of ‘apples to apples’ the correct answer is actually “No”.

    The forms of affordable housing in Davis are complex and clearly need explanation.

    New Home Company are the developers of the Cannery.

    Their development plan set aside a parcel of land to meet their affordable housing requirement.

    The New Home Company gave that affordable housing parcel to CFY, a completely  separate entity which agreed to fulfill the affordable housing requirement placed on that parcel. From that moment on the New Home Company had no further role at the affordable housing site.

    CFY took on the complete responsibility for the project and built and financed the affordable housing required for that specific site.

    New Home Company did not build that housing nor did the New Home Company provide any funding of any kind to the project. There are no New Home Company dollars in that project other than their donation of the land.

    So, did the Cannery donate land “and” build the affordable units?

    The correct answer is No.

    WDAAC is repeating exactly the same model as The New Home Company and the model used by almost every other similar development over nearly thirty years in Davis as shown by my earlier post on this blog.

    Neighborhood Partners, LLC.

    1. Ken A

      Thanks for the detailed answer, I’m hoping Alan might jump in and tell us the location of  the affordable units he was talking about when he wrote “every other large development in town in the past 10 years”…

  7. Todd Edelman

    Ooops, a day late here:
    * No development north of West Covell; can be considered after we substantially in-fill and dense-fill.
    * Sutter and related services are terrible location if you don’t have access to a car. There are almost no bikes parked there, ever, just like the Marketplace. Transit use is probably also very low. We need a general clinic Downtown.

    * PG&E would re-locate to NW of Mace and I-80, instead of MRIC.
    * MRIC in some form + housing moves to where PG&E is.

    * DJUSD offices go under new housing; also everything north of City Hall all the way to 7th St and between A and B goes to three to four stories, aside from the park, and with limited parking and parking permit restrictions to please neighbors. County offices go underneath. Clinic in Senior Center goes underneath housing for seniors.

    * Downtown has to be made senior friendly; we talk about changing things (Downtown Plan) but then base other plans on those things not changing!

    * Walk, walk, walk… walk.

    * I like hardwood and linoleum floors. They are healthy and cozy. Surely we can reduce the spend on other things to make this possible.

    1. Todd Edelman

      Correction: Northeast of Mace and 80.

      Also ex-PG&E + Corp. Yard should be a unified development in some way. Both highlight the need for a main bike route on 4th and 3rd to UC Davis. 5th won’t work.

      1. Howard P

        Used to be a bike route on Fourth (btw, 4th is not the legal name of a street!  Lazy folk…), cut off by the “citizen” driven expansion of Central Park… I used it frequently on bike in 70’s/early 80’s… ahhhh… newbies!

        They want a return to the “good old days”, before they were ever here, with no sense that their arrival worked to end those… and want newer newbies to pay for it!

    2. Howard P

      Interesting…

      Sutter and related services are terrible location if you don’t have access to a car.

      Related to the proposal, I think not.  Big time.

      PG&E would re-locate to NW of Mace and I-80, instead of MRIC.

      Right… PG&E would relocate from across the street from the Davis electrical substation, and the juncture of the major NG lines… are you still thinking of the cannabis article?

      MRIC in some form + housing moves to where PG&E is.

      Think Phase I and II site assessments… Ex. PG&E site is no ‘super-fund’ site, but it is nowhere near as “clean” as MRIC site.

      DJUSD offices go under new housing; also everything north of City Hall all the way to 7th St and between A and B goes to three to four stories, aside from the park, and with limited parking and parking permit restrictions to please neighbors. County offices go underneath. Clinic in Senior Center goes underneath housing for seniors.

      Again, the cannabis thing?  Where would the money come from?

      Other than those, …

      1. Ken A

        We could always make Todd happy (even before the dome goes over I80) by getting rid of all the parking lots around Sutter and making people walk or ride to the hospital (We could convert the “Davis Bike Bus” in to the “Davis Bike Ambulance” and the hospital could have loner trailers for Dad’s to use to transport pregnant woman to Sutter before they give birth in the maternity ward)…

        https://www.davispedals.com/

        P.S. Todd is the first person I have ever heard describe linoleum as “cozy”…

        1. Howard P

          Historically, the underlayment for linoleum contained asbestos fibers… removing pre-mid-70-s linoleum requires folk with respirators/moon suits… and special disposal protocols… but, to each their own…

    3. Don Shor

      I know you have a propensity for central planning and seem to prefer a command economy, but I hope you can come to understand that almost none of the principals who would need to make the decisions to implement these goals would be in support of them.
      PG&E doesn’t want to move. There are various excellent reasons why.
      I don’t think city staff want to work in basements.
      Health-related services tend to be auto-focused for a number of good reasons.
      Downtown is going to be less senior-friendly, not more, as time goes by, and there is literally almost nothing that you or I or anyone else can do about that.

      1. Howard P

        I don’t think city staff want to work in basements.

        History… City PW and Planning each worked in the basement of 226 F for years… there was a certain “coolness” to that (from what I’ve heard from those who did), but it wore off quickly… County Elections and Clerk/Recorder’s offices are BNG…

        About the only folk who I know who reside UG for long periods (with no known complaints) are located in the “E Davis Greenbelt”, located in the NE corner of E Eighth and Pole Line…

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