Yesterday, in a column, I argued that UC Davis basically traded their proposed housing on Russell Fields for a more substantial win on the issue of providing housing for 90 percent of new students and 40 percent of all students, rather than the 100 percent and 50 percent that the city and other leaders preferred.
Today, I will argue that the council has signaled its intent to prioritize new housing, not just on the campus, but in the community.
While the council renewed its priority regarding the value of open space, conservation of agricultural land, and reduction of carbon footprint, the LRDP response is perhaps the most pro-housing document we have seen from a recent Davis City Council.
While the city did push for the university to accommodate 100 percent of new growth and expand its on-campus housing to 50 percent of all students, the city objective is, “Promote diversification of housing stock to accommodate full breadth of community needs (workforce, affordability, seniors, students),” while moving “towards healthier vacancy rate (currently 0.2%).”
While the city requests “UC Davis commit to more aggressive accommodation of on campus housing commensurate with anticipated growth and to balance community-wide housing needs (such as: 100% of first year students and 50% of student population, or more desirable vacancy rate of X% translates to Y units),” the city pledges “to continue to pursue consideration of all infill and apartment housing proposals within the City (with emphasis on student oriented housing proposals within 2 miles of campus in order to facilitate ease of access).”
One of the biggest pieces of news that has been obscured by the focus on Russell Fields has been the city’s renewed push on Nishi.
The city wants “to revisit Nishi proposal with consideration of increasing housing option onsite.” This may mean an all-housing component for Nishi as opposed to the more mixed-use project that the voters rejected back in June.
In order to do this, the city is going to have to fix the Richards Boulevard-Olive Drive corridor and fix the I-80 interchange.
Along those lines, the city is going “to pursue next steps for prioritization and implementation of the Richards/Olive Drive Corridor Plan, including pursuit of funding.”
Once again, they want to push – following the suggestions of the Vanguard and others – UC Davis to “evaluate full range of circulation assumptions and analyses related to flow of traffic from I-80 and City to campus for both existing and proposed campus growth.” That includes evaluating “options to route vehicle trips to and from campus away from Richards/Olive and to alternatives such as Old Davis Road and Hutchison.”
The city successfully pushed UC Davis to “include evaluation of potential future bicycle/ped/transit/vehicle connection to the Nishi site in the LRDP and EIR.” On Tuesday, Bob Segar indicated that the university had agreed to this.
None of this of course means that the city is going to add a lot of housing. On Nishi, what they have basically done is keep the option of a new proposal open and they have signaled to the developers that they want to see a proposal with more housing.
As we have said elsewhere, it makes a lot of sense in that the 300,000 square feet of R&D space, that was included in the June 2016 ballot measure, can be accommodated with the expanded plans for Area 52 and the University Research Park.
The university, for a variety of reasons, decided to draw the line at 90 percent of new student growth and 40 percent of all students. That leaves a host of housing needs for not only existing and new students, but also additional faculty and staff.
As we noted yesterday, the university argument that 10 percent of students simply want to live outside of the area is unconvincing.
The Vanguard has always believed that the city would need to accommodate some of the student growth with infill opportunities. While projects like Lincoln40 and Sterling will likely undergo changes as they go through the planning process, the ultimate approvals will provide for at least some of the needed city housing.
Clearly, the city sees the need for more housing than that, which is why they will push for Nishi again. That, of course, is somewhat outside of their control – needing a citizens’ vote. However, we would again suggest that, if the city really is convinced that Nishi should be a housing fix, they do two key steps.
First, they make progress on the Richards/Olive Drive corridor plan. Clearly, concerns about traffic impacts were probably fatal to the Nishi project, particularly given how narrow the vote was.
Second, the city partner on a study of the air quality concerns laid out by Thomas Cahill. In a close election, air quality might have been a turning point as well, and it would be best to get that issue off the table.
Finally, the city needs to do a third thing, and that is to identify housing needs and project locations, preferably on infill sites, which it can use to address their belief that housing stock needs diversification to accommodate needs for workforce housing, affordable housing, senior housing and student housing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I believe taking away the innovation park aspect out of the mix will hurt its chances of approval.
IMHO- With state of the art heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems (HVAC), with appropriate air exchange rates and regular filter maintenance, it would seem that Nishi’s internal air quality could be best in all of Davis. For both housing residents and innovation park workers.
You are correct… but there are many “deaf” ears…
of course it would do nothing for the external air…. open a window or spend much time outside.
BP
Brace yourself. We may be almost about to agree on something. I actually do not know whether or not going to all housing would “hurt the chances for approval”. But I do know that I personally would have favored a mixed use project such as was put forward.
The new developments with regard to the nearby planned business projects in South Davis have helped me to at least consider that an all housing option might be a good idea for Nishi if the health concerns regarding air quality can be adequately addressed through new studies, hopefully both air quality and epidemiologic.
“Clearly the city sees the need for more housing than that, which is why they will push for Nishi again. That of course is somewhat outside of their control – needing a citizens vote. ”
“Somewhat?” No its totally out of their control because of Measure R. It will take years to come up with a new plan at a huge cost and then it will be another crapshoot with the voters and the courts. Meanwhile expect huge infill projects the community hates brought to you by the paralysis of Measure R.
If the City wants to influence the Universities plans, they need to act ASAP. Currently the city seems to be on track to send a letter to UCD in February. EIR scoping ends on February 3rd. It is extremely unlikely UCD will adjust the project to add significantly more housing after that. The City Council seems to agree the University should build more housing, but at the moment it doesn’t sound like they are going to effectively advocate for it.
Grok: You are absolutely correct, in that the city is not going about this effectively.
I understand that the full council has not provided a formal response. The subcommittee and staff are responsible for the content (and perhaps the timing) of the response we’ve seen so far. (Gee, who was on that subcommittee, again?)
Unlike some here, the City Council is acting rationally. They clearly recognize that they have no authority to make demands on what happens on University property and in most cases are limited to offering their advice and opinions. Their response to the LRDP is primarily for local political consumption, not for any expectation of changing the University’s stated plans. The only place that the discussions involved actual ‘negotiation’ was where there is a specific nexus between the University’s interests and those of the City. Keeping the possibility of a connection between Nishi and the University is one example, getting rid of the Master Leases, being another.
How many students the University plans to house was decided long ago, and has not changed from the original proposal, despite all the noise from the community. Continuing to push on that issue is consistent with that adage concerning deceased equine and every bit as rational.
The City Council is now doing something they should have done from the start, which is to start addressing the housing needs in the City. That is where their focus should be, and where their time and efforts are rationally utilized (leaving the dead horses to the trolls).
Mark: I recall that you (and others) were “signing that same tune”, even before the university agreed to house 90% of new students, and 40% of all students. Your song continued as the university removed the housing proposal from Russell Fields. (All with no help from you, as you’ve previously acknowledged.)
The university also did not have to get rid of the master leases, either. One can argue that it’s not in the interest of the university, to do so. (Of course, that “commitment” is only words, at this point.)
I understand that the city is continuing their efforts to encourage the university to house 100% of new students, and 50% of all students. (If the university fails to change its current course, perhaps this will nevertheless be included as an alternative, in the EIR for the LRDP.)
Regarding the city’s “needs”, it does need to focus on meeting current SACOG “fair share” growth requirements (which it’s doing as a result of the Cannery, Chiles Ranch, Grande, a couple of developments near 5th and Pena – including a live/work development and an affordable housing apartment complex – which I believe was also densified during the recent approval process.) This list is not intended to be exhaustive, regarding all of the development occurring within the city. The city might also consider how they’re going to meet the next round of SACOG “fair share” growth requirements, which will be established around 2020 (3-4 years, from now).
From the city’s site, I found these numbers. I know there is a project for 5th & Peña, but couldn’t find it. So perhaps others can fill in the ?’s indicated.
The Cannery flats 96
The Cannery lofts 60
Chiles Ranch 22 low/mod housing condos
Lincoln 40 130 units
Trackside 27 apartments
Grande: ?
5th & Peña: ?
Sterling: 244 units
New: West Davis Active Adult Community (requires Measure R vote):
325 single-family homes
150 affordable senior apartments
Ron… your use of “signing that same tune” is ironic… UC is indeed essentially deaf as to the City, on many issues… ‘signing’ (metaphorically) would be one of the few ways, other than writings, that the City can communicate to UC at all. And Mark hasn’t “signed” anything melodic, I strongly suspect.
And to think that the CC has a strong chance to ‘force’ UC into anything, is indeed tuneful… called “whistling in the dark”… all the CC can do is to try to convince UC that housing of students is one of their “core missions”… I could argue it is, at least for undergrads… yet, am not optimistic that UC will be convinced, and even less so if idle threats are made…
As Don has recently pointed out to you, 90/40 idea was the University’s original position and has not changed. How could I or anyone else be ‘singing that same tune’ (let alone “signing” it) prior to the University’s original draft position on the subject?
I agree, and as this likely came about due to the discussions between the University and City Staff and/or CC subcommittee, we should all be congratulating those involved for their diligence in making this position known and negotiating the change.
As is the commitment for new housing.
The City should focus on the housing needs of the community, period. Your repeated comments regarding SACOG are nothing but a red herring and a sign of your desperation. You have no viable argument against building more apartments in the City so you cling to your SACOG horror story in the hopes of swaying the uninformed. You and your pal Collin might be successful with that effort, but that does not make your arguments honest or demonstrate any personal integrity on the issue.
hpierce:
O.K. Just pointing out that the university has already made some changes. And, that other UCs are not attempting to blame their host cities for failing to accommodate their enrollment plans. (There apparently is a video which was presented to the regents, which does just that. On that same video, another UC takes the opposite approach.) Other UCs are, in fact, densifying their housing.
If UC Davis continues on its current course, perhaps a more dense plan will be presented as an alternative, and found to be less impactful. Of course, I realize that the less-impactful alternative would not necessarily be chosen.
This has been discussed at length, elsewhere. One commenter had (unbelievably) suggested that these “fair share” growth requirements can be disregarded, with no consequence to the city. Another commenter pretended that he could accurately “predict the future”, regarding what the next round of requirements will be, despite his acknowledgement that there are significant unknowns.
Such statements are highly irresponsible.
Based on comments by the council earlier this week, I understand that at least some of them take these requirements more seriously than you apparently do. Perhaps you should think about that, when discussing the city’s “needs”.
Still waiting for you to show evidence of enforcement actions by SACOG against any city, ever, for anything. And just curious if you yet understand what possible enforcement SACOG could even take if it chose to do so, or how that might affect Davis in any way.
With respect to SACOG, you’ve made it clear over and over that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The last time, you literally managed to find their home page and link it here. That’s it.
I’ve provided information links to you about SACOG before, but obviously you choose not to avail yourself of them.
As a philosophical matter, I do wonder if you or others understand the purpose of the ‘fair share’ housing allocation process, and wonder whether you or others believe that Davis can or should provide its ‘fair share’ of the housing needs in the region. But that isn’t the key issue. SACOG has no enforcement mechanism. Some regional planning agencies can block the flow of federal dollars for various projects, to which I would — should it ever come to that — ask what flow of federal dollars could or would be affected if the city were not in compliance. But that is moot, because the city is in compliance and likely always will be.
Until you show that you know what you’re talking about, please don’t call me irresponsible.
Mark: “As Don has recently pointed out to you, 90/40 idea was the University’s original position and has not changed.”
This was absolutely not the university’s original position, and was only launched a few months ago. (Unlike your statement, I believe that Don’s statement acknowledged this fact.)
Yes, and your willful ignorance on this and many other subjects has been noted.
Do you understand the concept of ‘political posturing?’
For the purposes of meeting the housing needs of the residents of Davis, SACOG and the fair share allotment are non-issues, except perhaps for those individuals looking for any means possible (honest or otherwise) to obstruct new development.
Don wrote:
> Grande: ?
The Enterprise wrote last year:
“The Grande project will eight “affordable” units, six “middle-income” units and 27 market-rate homes that will be consistent with existing homes in the neighborhood.”
5th & Peña: ?
The Del Rio Live-Work Lofts (at 5th & Pena) consist of sixteen Live-Work townhouse units. Each unit has a first floor work space with separate entry and a two-car garage.
http://www.delriolivework.com/
Thanks, I’ll add those to my file. So, basically, no apartments in either.
Don wrote(about Ron)
> With respect to SACOG, you’ve made it clear over and over
> that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I don’t want to tell Don what to do, but long ago I realized that Ron has “no idea what he is talking about” and arguing with Ron is even less effective than arguing with a Tickle me Elmo doll (hopefully we won’t have another full day on SACOG of Ron saying “yes they do” and Don saying “no they don’t”)…
If your goal is to educate Ron, then your position is valid. If your goal is to rebut his irresponsible and inaccurate comments in order to better educate others, then you might see value in a different approach. Ron, Collin, and others of their ilk thrive when the populace is ignorant and easily swayed. The best defenses against their actions are education and rational discussion.
Don: Be sure to “add this to your files”, as well:
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/creekside-court-developer-wins-affordable-housing-bid/
Matt: Another serious, unsubstantiated accusation. I’ve “reported it”, but let’s see if Don agrees that it’s troubling. I am so glad that the voters rejected your bid for council.
Mark: Whatever. the usual, from you.
Actually, the Campus tomorrow website was originally much less specific about how many students would be housed simply stating “In no planning scenario are we able to house 100% of our projected growth.” That phrase seems to have been on the website as early as October 2015.
From what I can tell the 90/40 language was not added until September 2016,
May 2016: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/uc-davis-updates-scenario-long-range-development-plan/
Reported on the Vanguard here: http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/05/revised-lrdp-will-accommodate-90-of-student-growth-with-on-campus-housing/
Mark completely overlooks that the University actually has been asking for input on their plans for over a year, and has even been responsive to input. The City certainly has an opportunity to influence the process, but giving input in a a timely way is more likely to influence the process. Waiting to give formal input until February is far less likely to influence the process. I am glad mark at least has come to agree that it is appropriate for the City to offer their advice and opinions.
Don, thanks for this info. number of beds would be more useful. for example sterling and Lincoln 40 have a lot of 4 and 5 bedroom units so they actually have more like 800 beds each so just looking at the number of units only tells us so much. By comparison, the Active adult community units will have fewer beds per unit and will have age restrictions.
Grok:
Thanks for posting this information. In response to your question, there are actually two projects at/near 5th and Pena. Both of these projects are discussed in other comments, above:
A live/work complex consisting of 16 units – per South of Davis, and a recently-approved, 73-unit affordable apartment complex approved (as I mentioned, above). The live-work unit project appeared to be complete now, but I’m not sure if the units are occupied, yet.
I understand that the city’s website has information regarding proposed and recently-completed residential developments.
That one I can’t find info on, but I do also recall it.
So I believe this is the current list:
The Cannery flats 96
The Cannery lofts 60
Chiles Ranch 22 low/mod housing condos
Lincoln 40 130 units
Trackside 27 apartments
Grande: ? see below
5th & Peña: ? see below
Sterling: 244 units
New: West Davis Active Adult Community (requires Measure R vote):
325 single-family homes
150 affordable senior apartments
Per South of Davis, 12/9/16
“The Grande project will have eight “affordable” units, six “middle-income” units and 27 market-rate homes that will be consistent with existing homes in the neighborhood.”
5th & Peña:
The Del Rio Live-Work Lofts (at 5th & Pena) consist of sixteen Live-Work townhouse units. Each unit has a first floor work space with separate entry and a two-car garage.
http://www.delriolivework.com/
Per Ron, also at 5th & Peña:
“and a recently-approved, 73-unit affordable apartment complex approved (as I mentioned, above).”
“The new Creekside Court property will feature a total of 73 one-bedroom units for low-income residents with a particular focus on residents with special needs. Situated on 48,000 square feet, the Mace Ranch project will provide housing for residents earning 25 to 60 percent of the area’s median income.”
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/creekside-court-developer-wins-affordable-housing-bid/
Ron said . . . “Matt: Another serious, unsubstantiated accusation. I’ve “reported it”, but let’s see if Don agrees that it’s troubling.”
Ron, there is no shortage of substantiation. It will be interesting to see what Don decides given that over the past 5 days he has said all of the following about your behavior.
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/commentary-community-divided-on-growth-but-largely-opposes-russell-fields-development/comment-page-1/#comment-346136
“And people wondered what I was referring to when I criticized the ongoing character assassination on the Vanguard.”
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/sunday-commentary-council-hits-right-notes-lrdp-response/comment-page-1/#comment-345843
“It’s a miracle to me that anyone runs for public office in this town, considering the abuse they’re subjected to. I urge you to think about the extent to which you contribute to that when you make unfounded accusations.”
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/sunday-commentary-council-hits-right-notes-lrdp-response/comment-page-1/#comment-345838
“And you believe it is ok to make this allegation on a public blog without providing the readers your name and credentials to make the assertion. You consider that ethical, Ron?”
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/sunday-commentary-council-hits-right-notes-lrdp-response/comment-page-1/#comment-345836
“So you are asserting, on the basis of your experience as an auditor, that your opinion is that the mayor has a conflict of interest? You were unequivocal. Now you are claiming professional expertise. Is that correct?”
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/sunday-commentary-council-hits-right-notes-lrdp-response/comment-page-1/#comment-345834
“First:
Emphasis added.
Clear assertion of conflict of interest on your part. No ambiguity about what you are saying. It “is an inherent conflict of interest.”
Then come the weasel words:
But you just did make that determination. Very clearly. Even though you’re not an attorney, nor qualified to do so — so far as any of us know.”
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/sunday-commentary-council-hits-right-notes-lrdp-response/comment-page-1/#comment-345826
“A suggestion/accusation/assertion that a member of the city council has a conflict of interest can not reasonably be construed as anything other than an attack. And since you have no basis for it, it is an unfounded attack. Therefore it only serves to attempt to diminish the credibility of the one you are attacking.
Don’t be coy. That’s exactly what you’re doing. And you did it to me on Nishi. It’s your pattern, and that of others.
If you believe there is a conflict of interest, file a complaint with the city or something. Don’t just post your unfounded opinion anonymously on a public blog.”
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/sunday-commentary-council-hits-right-notes-lrdp-response/comment-page-1/#comment-345823
“Correct. So you are simply impugning his credibility without basis.
“The rest of your verbiage is simply expressing that you disagree with his positions.
I urge you to stop attacking the credibility of others and making unsubstantiated accusations.”
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/sunday-commentary-council-hits-right-notes-lrdp-response/comment-page-1/#comment-345823
“It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Robb Davis has a conflict of interest simply because he is employed by the university. UCD has nearly 30,000 employees, is the major employer in our town. We have had council members and mayors who have worked full time at UCD, much less some part time position such as what Robb has.
http://www.davisvanguard.org/2016/12/sunday-commentary-council-hits-right-notes-lrdp-response/comment-page-1/#comment-345817
This is clearly just an attempt at character assassination, trying to impugn his credibility because you disagree with his positions. And unfortunately, it is the modus operandi of several of the anonymous participants on the Vanguard.”
The following page on the City website lists all the current projects. The 73 unit Creekside project is listed as 72 units in that table. Current and Potential Planning Projects (updated 09/12/16)
Thanks Matt for posting the list of the 36 separate projects in process. No wonder the Staff and the Council regularly note how busy the staff is.
It would be very helpful to have a sense of how many beds these projects include since the units can be so different as to how many beds or bedrooms are included in a unit
I’m compiling this information, so if anybody has data on beds vs units I’d be happy to add that.
I agree Grok. I’ll work on updating the City’s table. The number of Beds may be a bit uncertain, but the number of Bedrooms should be possible.
Don,
I have further reviewed the Campus tomorrow website and I can not see the 90/40 language on the official website before September 2016 only the “we can not possibly do 100%” language. So I don’t doubt it may have been press released, i don’t see it on the more formal record.
I couldn’t find it either. It looks as though they updated the site. But David wrote about it here. It was notable at the time because it seemed like a real breakthrough in their level of commitment.
I have a couple of bed/bedroom counts handy to add to your table Don:
Sterling 801 bedrooms
Lincoln40 473 Bedrooms. 235 of these bedrooms are designed specifically for double occupancy. That brings the total number of beds to 708 beds.
Happy to update this with any more info. I’m not sure about the Cannery floor plans, for example. And obviously things like the senior housing project are at the very early stages of the process.
Agreed, it is frustrating how they don’t have a record online of the site changes. I am pulling my information from archives of the Campus tomorrow site.
From the May 16 press release that Don provided (emphasis added):
From the VG article Don linked to:
Some may argue that we have not pushed hard enough and that we need to increase our ask (as several CC members did on Tuesday night). But to suggest we have only lately engaged this process is inaccurate.
What I (and others) have suggested is that the full council’s first/initial response (which also included the first opportunity to provide in-person, public input to the council and university) should not have been scheduled one month prior to the university’s plan to proceed with an EIR (during the holiday season, no less).
Since past decisions cannot be undone, I’d suggest that the subcommittee now ask the university to delay its plans, until it receives and considers the formal response from the full council. As it stands now, the council will submit its response to the university during the same month that the university plans to proceed with its EIR.
Ron, I think technically it was scheduled after when the EIR process was set to start, and then the start date for the EIR process was moved back.
Rob, What does the phrase “council leadership ” mean in the text you just posted?
I do think the Council should be given some credit for appointing the LRDP subcommittee on July 12th 2016. Although it was after every single one of the scheduled public comment events had past. every public comment event after that was a result of citizen push back that caused the plans to be revised. One might of thought a subcommittee would be established after October 2105 when the UC planners presented to the University. What I find more puzzling is that it took the subcommittee 4 months to report back OR ask for input from the other council members as time ran out on the opportunity to give input to the campus.
Below is a list of all presentations and input events scheduled by the University at the time of the July 12, 2016 council meeting. this is pasted from the Campus tomorrow website. Notice every single date had already passed.
By being a “partner”, I assume that you’re advocating that the city help PAY for a study of a proposed development on private land.
“Second, the city partner on a study of the air quality concerns laid out by Thomas Cahill. In a close election, air quality might have been a turning point as well, and it would be best to get that issue off the table.”
This is a state with extensive experience in building near freeways. Hard to believe that there is a place with more experience in building near freeways anywhere. Perhaps we should find someone who specializes in this kind of work to determine if some full blown study is actually needed. Cahill may be right or he may be wrong but it does not seem reasonable to spent the time and money based solely on his off the cuff opinion. Having know many retired physicists would say they are more prone to making unjustified pronouncements than the average person, however he has experience in this particular area so he cannot be dismissed.
There must be people who do this regularly.
Thank you for calling for air quality studies at Nishi. It is the responsible thing to do.
Responsible, only if something is proposed to change the current uses of the land.
I agree with both Roberta and hpierce. Air Quality Studies at Nishi conducted by a firm with no ties to Davis need to be done if something is proposed to change the current uses of the Nishi land.
To clarify… (must have dumb-thumbed earlier)… I do not support a study, paid for by the City, unless the costs are fully reimbursable by the owner/future developer… and any such study, regardless of who pays, should be fully vetted by City staff, as to qualifications of those doing the study, scope, methodology, and the study itself… there are folk available, current and former, who are well qualified to do that vetting…
Roberta wrote:
> Thank you for calling for air quality studies at Nishi.
> It is the responsible thing to do.
It would have been great if Cahill’s last study (that many called ‘The Nishi Air Quality Study”) was done “on the Nishi site” not at the dead end of Olive near the railroad tracks, a smog check place and auto repair place and the small engine place that works on my lawn mower, leaf blower and hundreds of other high polluting two stroke engines…
We have been over this before; time was short and they did the best that he could given what was available. He would be the first to say – and was in fact the first to say – that we needed to do studies on site and to do them for a longer period of time. We now have the time to do it right. Let’s do it.
I agree 100% with Roberta.
I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a group (consisting of the same pro-development individuals, over-and-over) who really don’t want dissenting opinions posted on the Vanguard, and will attempt to diminish comments from those with whom they disagree (and/or, make outright false statements and personal attacks, in an apparent attempt to intimidate or otherwise silence others).
Unfortunately, the moderator appears to share (some) of the same sentiments at times, of these individuals.
These individuals would likely prefer everyone to have the same opinion, and to not critique or analyze the actions of some of our public/elected officials whom they clearly support. (They appear to take such actions personally.)
Perhaps it would be better if the Vanguard simply came out with a policy which states that dissenting opinions are not welcome, here. (It’s pretty close to that, now.) Perhaps it will be a much “happier place”, if that occurs.
Actually – not just “dissenting opinions”, but “dissenting facts”, as well.
Ron, what’s “highly irresponsible” is claiming that meeting your RHNA means you don’t need to build anything else. Using it as an anti-housing cudgel implies, to me, that you do not understand what the RHNA truly is. The RHNA is an anti-exclusionary law designed to prevent cities from engaging in exclusionary land use practices. That is what it is for. It is not (not yet) a comprehensive regional planning tool based on 100% ( or even 20%) accurate forecasts of future need. Indeed, at the MPO/COG level the process becomes very political, and true need is defined in political ways that may not reflect real need. This doesn’t mean the tool is unimportant. It is. As an anti-exclusionary zoning tool. But construing it as an excuse to say no to other housing is a contradiction of the intent/spirit of Housing Element Law! Also, its a planning tool not a building mandate.
“dissenting facts”? That’s a new concept to me… so, if I say that at 3:00 pm today, it is daytime in Davis, and someone says at the same time it is night, I should weigh the “dissenting fact” equally? Wow…
Ron and hpierce
“dissenting facts….”
I do not consider this to be conceptually new. I just see it from a different perspective. Often on the Vanguard as in many aspects of life, we see facts that are seemingly contradictory or that lead to different conclusions and decisions. . This kind of difference in emphasis can be seen frequently in day to day decision making.
For example, not long ago I was driving in Sacramento when I heard the weather reporter, broadcasting from the Sac State campus, report that there was a 30% chance of rain in Sacramento. At the time that he made this statement, the raindrops were pelting down on my windshield. Both the statement ” there is a 30% chance of rain” and the statement” it is raining ” would have been seemingly contradictory ( or in dissent) but technically correct. The first might have been more useful to students of meteorology listening to the report while the second would have been much more helpful to the individual trying to decide if they needed an umbrella.
There is also the tactic of deliberately choosing to ignore “facts” put forth by the opposition as “irrelevant to the topic” or to trivialize them.. This is done by those on both sides of the development issue as far as I can see. From the point of view of a “slow growth” the number of projects as listed may seem like a lot, while from an individual favoring rapid growth, it may seem woefully inadequate while both are looking at exactly the same numbers. I would suggest that it is not the “fact” so much as the importance or relevance that one assigns
This morning you informed us that my positions are “highly irresponsible.” Your basis for that is your clear misunderstanding about SACOG, which you repeat often. Not too surprising that I’m going to reply when I’m told I’m highly irresponsible.
I don’t want to intimidate or silence you, I just want you to provide evidence.
Don:
As far as “evidence”, that’s been discussed, over-and-over. (Including a lack of evidence for your absurd “position”, that there are no consequences for disregarding SACOG fair share growth requirements.)
Given your position, perhaps the city should submit a “fake” plan to SACOG (e.g., perhaps including a statement which indicates that the city has no intention of adhering to any requirements). Or, perhaps they can simply draw and submit a picture of a hand, with the middle finger extended?
Here we go again.
The city should file all appropriate planning documents with SACOG. My position is not absurd. I have asked repeatedly for evidence of any enforcement action by SACOG against any local government about anything, ever. Any one. You have never provided any evidence.
Here we go again, again.
Perhaps you should stop complaining about the tone and comments on the Vanguard when you post stuff like this.
Here, you can do some reading to understand how the housing allocations are made here:
http://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/appendix_e-5_regional_housing_needs_allocation_faq.pdf
Just for your edification, here are the allocations from the 2006 – 2013 plan:
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/SACOG%20allocations%20Yolo%20Co%202006%20-%2013.png
And here is a link to the 2006 – 2013 regional allocations:
http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/SACOG%20allocations%202006%20-%2013.png
Don… as a matter of written policy and law, SACOG does not have official sanctions for not meeting the “fair share” requirement… in reality, when SACOG recommends whether to fund transportation or other projects or not, we truly do not know what the individual motivations are, when they vote/recommend. Think “Chicago” (and I don’t mean the music group… although both could be “brassy”… or “bossy” (city of CHI)… both could ‘work’)…
Don:
And, your point is ??
I recall that our current allocation is 1,066 units, and that the current developments are meeting the requirements.
Future SACOG “fair share” growth requirements (in 3-4 years) have yet to be determined.
Here are some FAQ’s for you about the process. http://www.sacog.org/post/rhna-faqs
Although many factors go into the decision by SACOG as to each jurisdiction’s allocation (note how much lower Davis was than Woodland), this is the relevant comment:
There is no consequence for failing to build housing. There is no enforcement mechanism described anywhere on the SACOG site about what even happens if a city fails to zone sufficiently for it.
SACOG as an argument against planning now for housing development is a complete red herring.
Don:
The same absurd, irresponsible statements from you over and over, again. SACOG controls funding, for various transportation and other projects. (I’ve posted the link previously, not going to do it again.)
Really, I’m not trying to convince you of anything, since you’re obviously not going to accept facts. That’s o.k. But, I’d caution others regarding believing what you’ve stated.
I also find it strange that you (of all people) are advocating against adhering to “fair share” growth requirements. Oh, well.
As far as “tone” on the Vanguard, I started posting several months ago. In the beginning, I naively thought that this was a good place to exchange ideas, and to honestly debate ideas. My own tone at that time was much more polite. However, I’ve since discovered that there are apparently a lot of “unhappy” (probably mentally unhealthy) individuals who don’t want to respect other opinions, and would rather engage in personal attacks, etc. (“Online bullies”, actually.) I’ve heard from more than one source that some have given up on commenting on the Vanguard, as a result. (I haven’t made such a decision yet, but I sometimes wonder why I’m wasting time and energy with these types of individuals.)
As the moderator of the Vanguard, you have more responsibility (than most) to ensure that personal attacks are kept in check. Unfortunately, I don’t think you have enough objectivity, to define such attacks. (In fact, you initiate such attacks, at times.)
I’d suggest that eventually, the Vanguard will consist of only those who share a like-minded opinion, along with a few individuals who (for some reason) are willing to waste time and energy by engaging in communications with online bullies. (And, that will be unfortunate for the Vanguard and the community.) As that occurs, voices on the Vanguard will have less and less relationship to the actual views of the community, at large. (Let alone, actual facts.)
Oh – and to clarify your other statement, I never said that SACOG “forces” actual construction. However, cities are responsible for submitting a viable (not a “fake”) plan, and are not in total control regarding the actual number of “fair share” units assigned. And, once that plan is submitted, cities cannot unreasonably “prevent” construction, as noted in the information you provided.
Don you’re forgetting that if a city is out of compliance on Housing Element law, an advocacy group can sue and keep any new development from happening until compliance is attained.
SACOG, the DHC, and RHNA requirements. Note that I am absolutely open to correction on any points here. These are derived from SACOG and DHC sites, as well as some articles about local government compliance.
1. The Department of Finance determines the state’s overall housing needs and provides that to the Department of Housing and Community Development, which in turn apportions them to the Councils of Government (COG’s).
2. SACOG is the COG that determines the housing allocations for six northern California counties in the Sacramento region. They use a system that includes many factors to determine how much housing a community is allocated as its share of regional growth.
This appears to be the only point where the local comments by some slow-growth activists apply:
One of those factors is the rate at which the community grew during the last allocation cycle. There are many other factors.
SACOG also acts as a clearinghouse for information, does regional planning, and provides planning assistance.
3. The Department of Housing and Community Development (DHC) regulates the housing plans.
Once SACOG provides each city/county with the housing numbers, that jurisdiction is required to update the housing element of their General Plan.
That is submitted to DHC for review.
4. Status of local housing element compliance can be found here:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-center/plan/he/status.pdf
5. Neither SACOG nor the DHC can compel a city to grow. They provide incentives for compliance with the housing element plan. They can tell a city how it can achieve compliance (see Placerville, below).
6. Incentives for Housing Element Compliance include eligibility for certain grant programs. In some cases, compliance is a threshold requirement; in others, it is part of the point system for awarding grants.
“To incentivize and reward local governments that have adopted compliant and effective housing elements, several housing, community development and infrastructure funding programs include housing element compliance as a rating and ranking or threshold requirement.”
(http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-center/plan/he/loan_grant_hecompl011708.pdf)
Example:
In March 2015 the HCD notified Placerville that they were not in compliance. They did not have sufficient density to provide for their potential share of affordable housing.
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-center/plan/he/housing-element-review-letters/edoplacerville031915.pdf
Here’s what they did about it: they rezoned two parcels to higher density. There are no development plans for those parcels. The state lists their compliance as conditional.
(http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/02/19/to-satisfy-state-placerville-rezones-for.html)
7. General information: (http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-resource-center/plan/he/heoverview.pdf)
Factual and correct… thank you… SACOG, like most COGs are not without political/personal agenda components… but those are usually minor (but present) @ SACOG… not sure who the current CC member (if any, as it rotates) Davis has on SACOG… they have very nice office and meeting facilities… but not equal to ABAG (Bay Area COG)… they have the Claremont Hotel, in Bezerkley… extremely nice from what I saw… but it has been a few years… probably 20… since I last visited the ABAG facilities…