1200-Unit Project Proposed for Shriners Property

Share:

By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor

Davis, CA – With the housing crisis facing Davis like much of the rest of the region, housing projects are starting to come forward to help address the housing shortfall.  Last summer, a new project came forward from the Taorminos at Wildhorse Ranch and now, next door at the Shriners property, a new pre-application has been submitted proposing development of that property.

“The purpose of this submittal is to formally begin a dialogue with city staff and decision makers on the development potential of the property. The submittal itself presents preliminary development concepts for a quality new residential neighborhood that provides community building amenities benefitting all Davis residents, while also addressing the City’s critical need for new housing,” wrote Greg Bardini, President of Morton and Pitalo in a pre-application letter dated October 19, 2021.

The proposal calls for the development of a 234-acre parcel located north of Covell to the East of Wildhorse and Wildhorse Ranch.

The submittal explains, “While no longer owned by the Shriners, the property has been commonly referred to as the Shriners property.”

It explains, “The proposed new residential neighborhood would include a range of 1,100 to 1,200 residential units geared toward families in varying lot sizes and densities on approximately 145 acres.”

The proposal would naturally be subjected to a Measure J vote and, while it could help the city address its housing crunch, it is unlikely to reach the ballot during the next election cycle.

“The primary objectives of this proposal are to create both a new residential neighborhood geared toward families for the City of Davis and new amenities for current residents to enjoy,” the submittal explains.  “Such a new residential neighborhood would contribute substantially to the City’s critical need for more rental and ownership housing at diverse price points.”

The project is aiming to address critical housing needs in the city.

“It is well documented that California is currently experiencing a housing crisis. Davis is no different as the housing supply at all densities and price points is in short supply,” they explain.

They compare the media cost of housing in Davis first quarter 2021—$743,000—to other neighboring communities: Dixon, $511,000; Woodland, $463,000; Winters, $462,000; West Sacramento, $428,000; and Sacramento, $449,000.

“These median home prices have only increased over the intervening six months,” they write.

They add, “This proposal for 1,100 to 1,200 new residential units offers a meaningful contribution to mitigating the City’s dire need for additional housing.”

Included in the proposal is Big “A” affordable “in the form of multi-family rental units consistent with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, that will be affordable to low, very low and extremely low-income households.”

The applicant adds, “An additional 10% of the total units proposed are Price Point homes targeted to sell at an average price of 70% of the City’s median home price.

“While not deed-restricted, these homes will be designed and priced to be more attainable when compared to existing and other new housing stock in the City,” they continue.

Finally, “the proposal includes constructing additional for-sale homes at a more affordable level in collaboration with a housing non-profit builder.”

The applicant also sees an impact on Davis schools.

“The short supply and high cost of housing in Davis have had negative impacts on Davis Joint Unified School District (District). The District finds itself accommodating an unprecedented number of students from outside district boundaries,” they write.

Currently, Davis “has 20% fewer families with children per capita than the average U.S. city.”

They attribute this to the lack of affordable housing in Davis which has led “to the shrinking demographic of families with school-aged children in Davis.

“This ongoing shrinking number of students coming from Davis presents long-term challenges to the fiscal health of the District, as well as the vitality of the entire City,” they write.  “The new for-sale and rental housing proposed will make a meaningful contribution to the City’s housing supply and bring much needed new in-district families with school-aged children to the District and the Davis community.”

The also note that lack of housing has led to a jobs/housing imbalance in Davis.

“The jobs/housing ratio in Davis when including the jobs and residential units at UC Davis is out of balance compared with other cities in the region,” they write. “This negatively impacts the ability of the City to recruit and retain private-sector employers. The project proposal creates opportunities for employees to live in the same town in which they work, thereby helping to attract private-sector employers, reducing commutes of those already working in Davis, and building a more vibrant economy in Davis.”

The timeline for this project is not clear, but it could go on the ballot either in late 2022, or more likely perhaps in 2024.

Share:

About The Author

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

Related posts

29 thoughts on “1200-Unit Project Proposed for Shriners Property”

  1. Alan Miller

    I predict RO and AP will be opposed to this.

    This is shaped like the Cannery.

    I discovered this area a couple of years ago and bike along the edge.  I thought this property was a wildlife refuge.  I guess not.

    With the housing crisis facing Davis like much of the rest of the region, housing projects are starting to come forward to help address the housing shortfall.

    Yes, that’s why they come forward.  To address the housing shortfall  😐

    a quality new residential neighborhood that provides community building amenities benefitting all Davis residents, while also addressing the City’s critical need for new housing

    Uh huh.

    “While not deed-restricted, these homes will be designed and priced to be more attainable when compared to existing and other new housing stock in the City,” they continue.

    What does deed-restricted mean?  Does that mean you can buy it affordably and sell it for a windfall profit?

    Finally, “the proposal includes constructing additional for-sale homes at a more affordable level in collaboration with a housing non-profit builder.”

    Oooooooooooooo!  A “non profit”.  They must be designated by gods and angels sayeth the people of Davis.  Not being money driven and all.  Evil capitalism.

    The new for-sale and rental housing proposed will make a meaningful contribution to the City’s housing supply and bring much needed new in-district families with school-aged children to the District and the Davis community.”

    It’s for the children!

    “The jobs/housing ratio in Davis when including the jobs and residential units at UC Davis is out of balance compared with other cities in the region,”

    Heaven forbid Davis creates jobs.  It might make the imbalance worse!  No more jobs!  No more jobs!

     

    1. Ron Oertel

      I predict RO and AP will be opposed to this.

      I won’t speak for AP, but I know that RO hates this – more than any other development proposal.

      How sad.

      I assume that the respective EIRs for DISC and the smaller Wildhorse ranch proposal do not address the cumulative impacts of this development proposal.

      Seems to me that the city and developers should be focusing on land that’s still undeveloped inside the Mace curve.

      1. Richard_McCann

        David G

        Why do you care what Ron O thinks about this development, as you wrote in your email newsletter? He lives in Woodland and doesn’t have any connection to Davis. He has no more standing in this debate than someone living in Los Angeles or San Francisco.

        1. Ron Oertel

          Says the environmental consultant, who said (the other day) that idling cars (stuck in traffic) don’t create greenhouse gasses.  Something like that.

          Unless they’re what was on “his” side of town, in regard to UCD’s proposal from a few years back.

  2. Keith Y Echols

    Not much to like about this project.  It’s pretty much simply sprawl.  At least with DISC it helps to kick off possible economic development with a  business park.

    What do the current residents get out of it for providing services to the new homes?  It does not improve Davis.

    Fire, Police, Water, Sewer…etc…  and of course TRAFFIC (use of roads) on Mace.

    This project produces a whopping 10% inclusionary housing units?…wow….

    The developers are playing that absolutely stupid school age children card.

    There’s no attempt to actually build an integrated community.  It’s pretty much just a bunch of residential units.  It shows about as much vision as the craptacular developments on 5th Street.  At least a nicer design would have significant neighborhood commercial space integrated into it….something better than a near worthless faux barn.

    1. Richard_McCann

      I’ll repeat it here: Davis exists as it is at the behest of the State of California. Without UCD we are Dixon. That privilege comes with obligations, among them welcoming the students and staff of UCD that serve the other citizens of this state. We don’t get to decide to exclude those people while enjoying all of the amenities that UCD delivers to us. We should not shirk our responsibilities.

      1. Ron Oertel

        Unless, of course – they want to access “your” precious streets (in regard to the earlier proposal to connect UCD’s residential development to Covell, at the time you were living on that side of town).

        Those streets are reserved for white, wealthy business owners – of course!

        By the way, did that also “kill” UCD’s “innovation center” proposal, thereby “denying jobs” to UCD students and graduates?

  3. Todd Edelman

    This is sprawl. The only things close by are an elementary school and a junior high. There’s a pond — that’s nice. Nothing should be built that doesn’t allow two eight year-olds walk five minutes or less to get some ice cream. Aside from trips to those schools, bicycle and walking modal share will be abysmal.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      What do you mean it’s sprawl, it’s right on the edge of existing development – it abuts Wildhorse to the west and is across the street from Mace Ranch, the eastern edge is the junior high.

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          So you’re arguing that any housing that is built on the periphery is sprawl? That’s fine, but that eliminates the necessarily pejorative definition of it. Which then renders the point made by several here useless.

        2. Keith Y Echols

          It’s sprawl.  It’s simply housing built on the periphery.  It has no connection to the existing community nor has any local community of it’s own.  Basically if you live there, you have to get in your car and drive to get anywhere else in the community and the rest of the community has no reason to go to the local neighborhood.

          1. Don Shor

            It’s sprawl. It’s simply housing built on the periphery.

            Like literally almost every neighborhood in town at the time it was built.

        3. Keith Y Echols

          Like literally almost every neighborhood in town at the time it was built.

          What’s your point?  Most homes were built with asbestos ceilings.  We don’t do that anymore.  You think there are other things we shouldn’t do anymore too?

          1. Don Shor

            Most homes were built with asbestos ceilings. We don’t do that anymore. You think there are other things we shouldn’t do anymore too?

            Davis is in a growing region where jobs and housing demand are increasing. Every nearby community is permitting housing development in response to that demand. Where do you think people should live?

        4. Ron Oertel

          Don:  That type of comment (and underlying view) is the reason that it will never end, in the absence of urban growth boundaries. Which of course, aren’t totally set in stone – even in Davis.

          Davis is fortunate that it allows its own residents to weigh in. Other communities aren’t so fortunate. You can thank the people who made that happen, in Davis.

          Unless the impetus to sprawl outward ends on its own (see Detroit, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, etc.).

          1. Don Shor

            That type of comment (and underlying view) is the reason that it will never end,

            Yes, because people like you buy those houses and then try to prevent more of them from being built.

        5. Ron Oertel

          Yes, because people like you buy those houses and then try to prevent more of them from being built.

          Not my motivation.  If it were, I wouldn’t be advocating for this to end everywhere.

          Regardless, preventing additional sprawl does not prevent people from moving into the community.  Nor do housing prices continue to rise above a point which the market supports.

          A reason that I also suggest not purposefully adding more jobs to a community that doesn’t want to continue sprawling outward.

        6. Keith Y Echols

          Davis is in a growing region where jobs and housing demand are increasing.

          Uhm…thank you for the basic regional economic status update.  You realize that I’m the one that used to get paid to provide economic data to homebuilders.

           Every nearby community is permitting housing development in response to that demand. Where do you think people should live?

          Every community should make a decision on what best works for them.  Many cities believe they can keep printing money through development fees in a homebuilding ponzi scheme of sorts.

          Jaylen French, Modesto’s economic development director, said developing new land is always risky for a city. Because entitled land needs to be fitted with utilities and maintained in perpetuity, embarking on a large-scale development typically results in a “net negative” for a city’s budget.

          A tale of two cities: Modesto and Manteca’s contrasting approaches to housing development

          1. Don Shor

            Every community should make a decision on what best works for them.

            The state is increasingly telling them otherwise.
            Where should people live, Keith? Does a local community have any housing obligation to the region in your view?

        7. Keith Y Echols

           Does a local community have any MARKET RATE housing obligation to the region in your view?

          Beyond some affordable housing for specific segments of the population?

          NO.

    2. Alan Miller

      There’s a pond — that’s nice.

      Mosuquito hazard and kids could drown in it . . . not to mention it could attract ducks that would then be fed improper food by unstable humans.

      1. Todd Edelman

        Mosuquito

         
        I assume that this is a portmanteau of a mouse and a mosquito, or Mosul and a mosquito, or all of that plus a mosque. If we need another mosque in town, that’s cool, but it shouldn’t be here. If some arcane lab at UC Davis is breeding rodents with insects, we certainly don’t want peripheral places for them to breed, or feed.

        Ducks

        Yes, peripheral places for breeding/Not blessed, and leave less time for reading. Quack.

        Also lots of rabbits of some kind live out here.

    3. Richard_McCann

      This development does look somewhat like sprawl, but not because it is simply adding houses. Sprawl has a very specific definition — the addition of uniform single family zoning with automobile centric design without features that facilitate walking, biking or transit. The lack of mixed use commercial facilitates sprawl.

      West Campus in UCD does not fit the definition of sprawl (even if I disagree with its design choice that inhibits non auto travel). The Cannery appeared to promise reduced sprawl but those features haven’t really appeared yet.

  4. Todd Edelman

    Yes, it’s MORE sprawl. Parts of Wildhorse are actually pretty close to e.g. Nugget, but that’s about it. How many kids from Wildhorse walk to get ice cream cones at Nugget?

    Wildhorse and Cowell Farms should have never been built. It’s amazing how the Shriners area feels walking in… Covell quickly disappears behind you. Already the horses seem to be gone, but the rabbits are out and playing. In a way this short stretch – a driveway to a big house and some much smaller ones – feels more magical than the Wildhorse Ag Buffer next door as it doesn’t have the modern houses on one side. It’s more organic.

    There are huge parking lots all over town, with lots of electrical and water infrastructure underneath and stores that would be extremely convenient to people living in housing built on top or over the lots.  Some of this is already sort of peripheral, so it’s not perfect, but it very smartly concentrates development.

    When was the last time some development in Davis was on the front of Sustainable and Innovative Development Monthly?

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