By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – Last week the Vanguard broke the story on the pre-app submitted for a housing development on the Mace Curve. That makes it the third project lining up for consideration and there could be at least one or perhaps two or more additional projects that emerge in the coming months.
Reading some of the discussion about which project should come forward got me thinking about the need to be a little more strategic and having a plan, rather than arbitrarily processing projects as they come forward.
In other words, what we really need is a General Plan update that can help provide clarity and prioritize projects by which projects provide us with the most needed housing and where those projects should go.
The problem right now: we are nowhere near having such clarity because we have not even begun the General Plan update process. Given what’s happening at the state level with housing and the HCD and given our housing needs, this is a big problem.
The fact is I have been more patient on this point than most. Some wanted the city to have their General Plan done before even embarking on projects like DISC (2020 or 2022). I largely saw that as an effort to delay processing vital projects.
The city had made the decision to proceed with the Downtown Plan first and then go into the General Plan. I won’t weigh in on whether that was wise or necessary. It was what was done.
However, the downtown plan has been ready to go for several years now and has been largely delayed by COVID. It was not until July 15 that the city finally opened the Downtown Plan Draft EIR comment period.
That comment period closes on September 16. Best case scenario, that means that the city council might approval the plan by the end of 2022. That’s three years after the majority of the work was done.
That would mean that the earliest a General Plan update begins officially would be the Winter or Spring of 2023. Realistically, with all of the work needed to be done and community feedback, we would be looking at 2025 by the time a new General Plan Update is actually adopted.
This is a problem.
Right now the city is struggling to get its Housing Element approved by the state. The city is going to have find around 1000 units of affordable housing. As I have pointed out, that’s going to be problematic unless the city can go peripheral.
While the city manager has said he believes they can do it, HCD is tightening the screws on speculative development. The feasibility of infill affordable housing seems to be very much in doubt, particularly in the downtown where it would be dense, tall, infill.
So how does the city plan to get there without going peripheral?
One answer to this puzzle might be to loosen the Measure J requirements for affordable housing on periphery—but that is going take a vote of the people and it would make a lot of sense to attempt to do it in conjunction with a broader housing plan that would be taken with extensive community discussion in the General Plan. The problem is now the RHNA cycle will now be nearly half over by the earliest we can get a General Plan amendment done.
Another key issue is this. The projects that are entering the pre-application phase are looking at November 2024 for a potential vote date. To state the obvious, the first project to go forward is going to have a tremendous advantage.
But the city needs to be strategic. Chances are, most of the projects are not going to get approval by the voters. That means the city should put forward the project that both best meets the needs of the community and has the best chance of passing.
How does it determine both of those things? Well, having a General Plan update would provide guidance and clarity to the planning process. The community could talk about its housing needs and prioritize both types of housing and locations.
The problem now is that because we have delayed the General Plan update so much, the update might not provide us with the guidance we need because projects are likely to be coming up before the plan is ready.
Some will be tempted to say, what is the rush? We don’t know yet. One possible rush however is that the city may be out of compliance with HCD and its Housing Element. Another possible rush is that we might not have enough identified affordable housing in the pipeline. And a third problem is the general housing crisis—we don’t have enough housing for our internal housing needs, which is driving up cost and causing downstream problems.
That’s the problem. I understand that COVID disrupted a lot of what the city was hoping to do. At the same time, the city had to know this crunch was coming, with projects bearing down on them and the state likely demanding more action in the face of the housing crisis.
And now, instead of a plan that is laid out for how the city will likely want to develop over the next ten to twenty years, we are likely to have an ad hoc process or, worse yet, paralysis that leads the state to step in.
Davis might not have the importance of San Francisco, but I have been told by too many different people that the state absolutely has its eyes on Davis and could be prepared to step in if Davis cannot figure things out. That’s the last thing anyone who actually lives in Davis really wants.
“Davis might not have the importance of San Francisco, but I have been told by too many different people that the state absolutely has its eyes on Davis and could be prepared to step in if Davis cannot figure things out. That’s the last thing anyone who actually lives in Davis really wants.”
I live in Davis and I wouldn’t mind if the state came in because this community can’t get its housing act together.
I completely agree with Mr. Glick. HCD needs to make an example by stepping in our city. Slow growth ordinances statewide should be placed under the microscope. I personally think such ordinances are illegal.
This article uses the inclusionary model for providing affordable housing as its default. There is no discussion anywhere in the article of working toward 100% affordable projects like Creekside and New Harmony.
In the inclusionary model Davis only gets 15 affordable units for every 85 market rate units (dare we say unaffordable units). In order to “find around 1000 units of affordable housing” over 5,600 market rate units will need to be built, and as Keith Echols has pointed out numerous times here in the Vanguard building new market rate units with their high $ per square foot costs causes the $ per square foot sales price of existing homes to rise … making Davis even more unaffordable that it already is.
Further, as we have seen play out so clearly at The Cannery, the market rate homes don’t end up being bought by working families with jobs here in Davis, but rather by Bay Area expatriots who arrive with essentially no children to add to DJUSD’s enrollment.
Davis needs some leadership in pursuing State and Federal grant funding to jump start 100% affordable projects that target the kinds of families that Bapu Vaitla talks about in his campaign announcement.
Creekside was a land dedication site for Mace Ranch.
New Harmony was also partially on a land dedication site.
Furthermore, I actually did address the issue: “One answer to this puzzle might be to loosen the Measure J requirements for affordable housing on periphery—but that is going take a vote of the people and it would make a lot of sense to attempt to do it in conjunction with a broader housing plan that would be taken with extensive community discussion in the General Plan.”
David, loosening Measure J requirements is simply a smoke and mirrors move. It doesn’t address the real issue … funding. The only way that 1,000 units of affordable housing will actually get built is by pursuing and obtaining additional affordable housing funding sources from the State and the Feds.
We need to be looking at a LOT more than “Capital A” affordable housing. Its not just the poor that the city is failing. We are a university town, with a university that has grown 20% in the past 20 years while the town has grown 2%.
The people we are under-serving the most are the students, staff, faculty of the institution we host. Yet the only development to have broken ground in the past 20 years is for seniors?
If we do have the state trample down our measure J, it would be tragic… we would get exactly the kind of develpment we need the least: low-density, high profitability, single family housing… And if it is done like the cannery… marketed to bay area telecommuters…. NOT what we need.
Yet the only development to have broken ground in the past 20 years is for seniors?
Tim, you have blinders on. Sterling was not only not for seniors it was for students. Lincoln 40 was not for seniors it was for students. 3820 Chiles Road is not for seniors it is workforce housing. Cannery was not for seniors it was for the general housing market (unfortunately dominated by Bay Area ex-patriots/refugees.) Grande was not for seniors it was for the general housing market. Plaza 2555 is not for seniors. University Research Park Mixed Use is not for seniors. Davis Live was not only not for seniors it was for students.
You are right Matt, my statement was quippy and overly broad. Apologies… point taken.
The general point to be made remains however… and I think it is a fair guiding principle when we consider new developments… is the housing proposed actually going to fit the needs of the most displaced people in this town? Housing for the sake of housing, and housing that is pointed at people who COULD live almost anywhere ( like the cannery ) is not really what we are after.
I wonder how cities such as San Francisco (and all of the other cities along the coast – which also aren’t expanding outward) are going to meet the next round of requirements (in 7-8 years from now) that David is so worried about.
My guess is that the wind is going to get knocked out of the state’s sails (one way or another), by then. Either by outright failure/collapse on its own, or by the continuing effort by some cities (which are wealthier and more opposed to the requirements than Davis is) to sabotage the requirements.
But for sure, any development in (or outside of) Davis would have to be “timed” to count toward that next round, so that it’s not prematurely built and occupied during the current round (which wouldn’t “count”). For example, I don’t believe that Sterling “counted” toward anything, other than an “excess” approval (beyond the existing round of requirements).
And then there’s the problem with megadorms not counting toward Affordable housing, along with the fact that multi-bedroom units “count” the same as single-bedroom units.
Nishi had the potential to meet a lot of the requirements, but the city didn’t come clean about that to voters. As strictly student housing, the Nishi property will not count at all, regarding the Affordable housing requirements. I believe this restriction (for students only) is also what the lawsuit was about (that David complained about).
< ![endif]-->
S.F. has 5 months to convince the state it can build 82,000 housing units.
I’d say that the state itself has five months to find a way to approve plans in multiple cities, across the state. With most of the major cities not expanding outward at all.
Otherwise, the state itself is going to have its hands full – on multiple fronts (and in multiple ways). Davis won’t be one of those cities, as the city’s leaders themselves might as well be part of HCD. (Lucas himself is part of SACOG, as I recall.)
Plus, Davis has a history of meeting the requirements, unlike many of the other cities.
I suspect that ultimately, the state’s war on its own cities is going to fail. If for no other reason that the plans (even if approved) don’t likely “pencil out” during the housing downturn (and declining population in places like San Francisco).
By the way, what’s the breakdown (in terms of income level restrictions for potential occupants) of those theoretical 82,000 units in San Francisco?
And, is any of this reliant upon public (government) funding for Affordable housing? In which case a city such as San Francisco might respond to the state by saying, “show us the money” – if “feasibility” is an issue?
Since the failure of H, I have been having a LOT of conversations with people in this community, people who opposed H, people who were for it… City staff, councilmembers, comission members…
The general feedback is that people agree: we REALLY need to do better, not everyone has the same vision for HOW… but I think that we are at a point where there are enough level-headed people in this town who do want to see a better way forward that if we just talk to each-other we can find that way.
I called for a citizen-led process in one of my articles last month, but I have also been looking for feedback as to why my idea might not work, or if there are other ideas which are better. So far in my conversations I have yet to uncover any compelling alternatives, AND I have found plenty of people who are willing to help…
So I’m still thinking that the citizen planning approach is probably our best shot. If anyone who reads that I haven’t talked to yet wants to chat about this.. please reach out to me directly: tkeller (at) inventopia (dot) org. I want to hear from / collaborate with ANYONE who is willing to engage on these issues in good faith.
[Think ‘Lost in Space’ TV show] Warning, warning Tim Keller!
Last time we had what purported to be a ‘citizen-led process’, it was one where only the most ‘strident’ citizens took part [another example of the ‘1%’], and the voices of professional staff, particularly PW were directed to be silent… given those two, I could easily see where a citizen-led GP would require that water (domestic, sewer, drainage flow uphill, with no expenditure of energy [particularly not “green” energy])…
That said, the citizen based INPUT is essential… it should not be a table-top exercise for staff… however, having the strident/vocal citizens lead it, without staff (many of whom were/are citizens) input, direction, can lead to many unintended consequences for the 99% of citizens who are too busy with life [including jobs and family] to participate.
“Citizen-led process” is not well defined, is squishy at best, and might well have ‘unintended consequences’… be careful what you ask for, but I defend your right to ask… just don’t hold me responsible for the results… that’s on those who choose that…
What was the process you refer to?
There are two conflicting thoughts here which occupy the space, one aspirational, one cynical…
The aspirational one resonates with the quote from Margaret Mead:
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, its the only thing that ever has”
The cynical one acknowledges the reality that the only actually organized political constituency in this town is the one that is vehemently against growth… Indeed, as I started discussing this potential approach here on the vanguard, one of our favorite vanguard commentators had already declared his intent to oppose ANY planning process and the PEOPLE who want to make such plans… and made that statement BEFORE hearing any details about what the goals of the process might be or how it might work…
certainly the open hostility to change in this town is complication, because such people have already declared an intent to de-rail the process
So the “warning” is well taken (!) but the best path forward hasnt changed… unless someone comes up with a better idea that actually adresses the problem… Still waiting on that one…
Seems to me that the primary constituency (on the Vanguard at least) is the one that is vehemently for sprawl, and is predictably and constantly trying to shove that “vision” down the throat of Davis. But I’m sure that you’d judge that view to be “cynical”, even if it reflects reality.
To me, the “aspirational” side is the one that appreciates and works toward preservation of farmland/open space, rather than copying every other sprawling development pattern in the region in the name of “endless progress”. Not so coincidentally, this is also the side that had a lawsuit initiated against them by a council member and his developer friends. (Though that certainly would make one “cynical”, wouldn’t it.)
Nobody is “for” sprawl. Unless you have decided that any greenfield development is by definition “sprawl”.
There is consensus from what I have seen that infill and redevelopment are better than greenfield developments, and there is ample evidence that infill and redevelopment are not going to get us even to the minimum growth goals.
So rational discourse would look at those opportuniteis first, discover what kind of population growth really is needed to support our university and our economy… and whatever we cant do with infill, we create a rational plan for doing on the periphery.
Rational, reasoned, objective, evidence-driven.
Thats all I want. I definitely do not want “sprawl”
I’d define endless expansion by any city onto surrounding farmland/open space as “sprawl”.
The state is attempting to force “minimum growth goals” on cities throughout the state, including major cities which aren’t expanding outward at all. As well as some that have actually been LOSING POPULATION. Which is simultaneously occurring during a housing downturn, to boot.
Other than the state’s war on its own cities, “minimum growth goals” haven’t been defined by anyone.
“Support the university”? Really? They need “help”, do they?
As far as a “rational plan” for continued sprawl, I don’t know who you believe is going to agree to that – other than those who already favor it.
All of those are subjective, including the factors that you choose to measure.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t you one of the advocates for a development that would have added a claimed 2,500 jobs, but only 460 housing units? With the “other half” of that site finally admitting that they’re pushing for a sprawling housing development (instead of commercial) – which also has aspects of “leapfrog” development?
Which I (and no doubt others) predicted all-along, in the first place? (Though I didn’t think they’d have the nerve to do so immediately after the “other half” of DiSC failed.)
Uhm, yeah – I’d say that you’re one of the primary proponents of continued sprawl. A poster child for it, really.
The one used in 2000-2003…
We can talk off-line, but on this topic, too many trolls, boors, and zealots (who accuse others of being zealots) to waste time explaining further here.
Left my contact info at the Inventopia website…
“Endless expansion”… so yeah, again, nobody wants that, AND nobody has proposed that.
This is the problem with this dialogue. People who think like Ron see ANY growth as acceptance of RUNAWAY growth, its an all-or-nothing / life-or-death struggle between them and the people they think are dead-set on ruining our community forever…
But that’s just not the world we actually inhabit.
All of us live on converted farmland, every single one of us. Should the next generation have the right to the same opportunities given to the generation before? I say yes. It doesnt take “endless” expansion to do that… this really shouldn’t be a big deal.
Now, we DO want to do this RIGHT… we want density, we want sustainability, we want “neighborhoods” and not just “developments”. But this hyperbolic all-or-nothing, demonizing, fundamentalist view of growth only hurts our community and ensures that the growth that finally does happen, has to happen in an un-planned, reactionary type of way. Its the wrong way.
Of course they do. The City’s only real reason for existence is to provide community around the university. Its what cities are FOR… organizing the support for a population that needs to live in a certain geographical area… right? Of course the city needs to support the university.. it’s our ONE JOB.
The university grows, we should grow. Not too hard. I shouldn’t need to even say this.
Also Measure J precludes “endless” expansion, so by definition, sprawl is impossible in a Measure J system.
edit to the above which should read… “of course the university needs the support of the city”…. obviously not the reverse as I wrote it…
What’s ironic about Ron’s comments are that he’s so concerned about “unending” expansion by Davis into surrounding farmland, but I see little evidence that he’s fighting as a Woodland resident the same expansion in his hometown. Focusing at home is a good starting point instead.
Again, I’ve never discussed any connections I have to any particular city (or my possible involvement), but Woodland is almost a “lost cause”. Development interests are firmly in control (and supported by leadership), there.
For that matter, the residents of Woodland themselves are more supportive of development and sprawl than those in Davis (on average).
The same is true for cities throughout the region. That’s the problem.
Two edged sword, David…
A GP revision will not be “cheap”… all coming from the GF… it may be lengthy… it will certainly be contentious… and will require at least an EIR…
It will require staff to shift what they are doing currently, to focus on it… means prioritizing either what ‘doesn’t get done’, or hiring more consultants, staff to do it.
At the end of the day, after all those monies have been expended, arguably, the new GP, if it pre-zones land outside the corporate limits, it would, in IT’S ENTIRETY, including anything related to anything other than housing (transportation element, public services (infrastructure and public safety) element, etc., etc., etc.) would have to be approved via a JeRkeD measure vote.
Given the differences in strongly held philosophies, desires, across all the elements, you need to ask yourself, how likely will it be to achieve consensus in a reasonable period of time, to put it to a vote, and have it approved? If not approved, would be a tremendous amount of GF money, wasted, a lot of staff focus, projects deferred/eliminated, wasted.
I don’t like the odds…
Now, if you said “an updated GP related to the Housing element…”, the odds improve… but not likely as there are many voices who want to tackle and make significant changes in the other elements, as well, and they would have a good ‘case’ for saying all of the elements are inter-related. And, I’d agree with them, having been thru a new GP and several ‘updates’.
Arguably, those projects in the pre-App phase would be put on hold until ‘all the dominoes fall’ (including potential litigation from those who disagree @ any step in the way)… figure 2-5 years…
Yes, an updated GP would be great… but looking at costs, risks, everyone has to ask themselves how much $$$ they are willing to put ‘on the table’… given the risks… given their personal philosophies… or, do we just ‘muddle through’ with the pattern of the last two decades… and just deal with any State control, if it occurs…
And that is a choice the community should make, after reflection, on costs/benefits/risks… and am fully OK with that…
But, be careful what you ask for, because you might just get it.
And, if a new GP includes rezoning my property (SF house), I’ll be first in line to exercise my 5th amendment right to redress it. The ‘taking’ doctrine…
I also wonder if it is ‘clarity‘ sought, or a mandate for one’s ‘vision‘…
I like clear rules, plans, so I know ‘the rules of the game’… a new GP could well change the rules…
An update to a largely out of date General Plan another unintended consequence of Measure J.
To date, arguably yes… but it is a vote… so, folk could vote for ‘sprawl’ (and Ron O’s definition is lacking… objectively 90+ % of us live in ‘sprawl’, by that definition… and he most certainly does) [The definition implies any growth since incorporation as a City is “sprawl”… and some who oppose ‘sprawl’ also oppose “spawning”… some go ZPG, others go to NPG (negative population growth)… you will know the latter two from what they espouse… including (but not limited to) “right-sizing”… it appears it is all about them, tho’ they couch it as “environmental”… but the apparent motive is, “it’s all about me“…]
How is sprawl or right-sizing the school system “all about me” (or anyone else)?
Those are indeed environmental concerns. And apparently, some don’t support limits to sprawl.
What exactly are you proposing, then (e.g., in regard to Shriner’s, the “housing half” of DiSC, the Covell Village site . . .)? How many and how much of those sites would you like to see converted to housing?
Almost all of us rely upon cars, energy, water, food, too. As well as extractions from the land in the form of mining, oil, logging, etc. We’re getting to the point where our impact is too great for the planet to absorb, not to mention quality of life issues such as traffic – which also ultimately impact the environment.
Are you actually claiming that there’s a “shortage” of ongoing conversions of agricultural land in the region?
They do have opportunities, as well as existing housing that turns over. Those opportunities are also not limited to one community in particular.
So again, how much more expansion do you propose? Put a number on it, in terms of additional people, land converted to urban uses, etc. And when that’s “accomplished”, how long would that “satisfy” you, before you advocate for more?
That’s what Measure J is for. Two housing developments already approved via Measure J. Apparently, that’s not good enough for some folks, for now.
And again, most of the population of California lives in cities that aren’t expanding outward at all. But that certainly isn’t the case with the valley, is it?
Why is it that so many on this blog advocate for Davis to follow the “example” led by other valley cities? Why not just look to those cities, for your unsustainable “opportunities”?
Is that right? And here I understood that many Davis residents don’t even work at UCD.
Bill M
All very true.