At last week’s Planning Commission meeting where the commission unanimously rejected the University Commons redevelopment proposal, there was a notable element missing from the public comment period. Only two students showed up and the opposition outnumbered proponents by a 20-2 margin.
Despite the setback, the project is still likely to come before the council this month and, if it does, the message sent on Tuesday during public comment at the council meeting demonstrated that students will likely not be standing on the sidelines if the matter comes back.
While the issue of re-opening the pools clearly dominated the general public comment period, at least 10 to 15 students also spoke out in favor of the University Commons proposal.
Jacob Hertzman, a second-year student at UC Davis, drawing on the homelessness problem, noted that the housing crisis has impacted the entire city.
“Rent is getting much higher, as there are hardly any vacancies in Davis,” he said. “I share a 100-square-foot bedroom and still pay $500 a month and there’s really nowhere better to go.” He added, “I’m sure many other students are in the same state.”
On University Commons, he said, “Those few hundred units of housing can be crucial to helping students find decent and affordable places to live.”
Andy Fell, who many know as a university spokesperson in the news center, speaking in a personal capacity joined many of the students in support of the project.
“It’s the right project in absolutely the right place for Davis,” he said, noting that “housing like this will draw students out of the other single family homes, freeing up more rental housing for working families and other people.”
Fell also noted that retail malls are dying, and “trying to fill the mall with the same retail we’ve seen the past is not going to work. This mall needs retail that will attract students, the main audience
for these type of retail stores from the campus and from other housing nearby.”
He said this will revitalize the entire area “instead of having a dying mall.”
A graduate student in biochemistry noted how “tight and expensive the housing market here is.
“I was very surprised to find out that the Planning Commission rejected the proposed University Mall redevelopment,” he said. “Davis needs more housing for all types of people including the campus community. Rents went up over five percent this year. UC Davis vacancy rate has been between 0 and one percent for the last six years.
“It was surprising to find out that a project that would build housing immediately next to campus was rejected,” he said.
Ally O’Brien, a junior at UC Davis who works in the student executive office, also supported the project, noting how difficult it was to find decently priced student housing in the Davis area right now.
She noted a number of her friends live in Woodland, unable to find housing in Davis, and commute to and from campus each day.
“That obviously creates a lot of extra traffic in Davis,” she said, “but it also causes a lot of stress for them.”
The need to commute home each day has strained their social lives and created other stressors that students who are able to live in town and bike and walk to campus do not face.
She noted that many people do not want students to spread out far from campus. “For the most part students want that too,” she said. “For the most part we don’t want to live far away from campus—so we can truly be part of the school community.”
University Commons, she said, fills that need and would alleviate the need to drive to campus.
Another student emphasized, “I think it’s really unfortunate that students have to convert their living rooms into extra bedrooms to rent out in order to afford rent.”
She called for the city to build more housing close to campus like the University Commons project.
Brooke Pritchard pushed for more housing for students in Davis.
“It is especially important that we all have a place where we can live, especially with corona and the uncertainty of what’s going on,” she said, noting that young students are struggling to find jobs in order to afford their rent.
Maya, a second year student at UC Davis and a member of the campus environmental policy and planning commission, expressed concern about the housing situation, noting the increase in rent and the difficulty of finding places to live for many students.
“My friends have had to deal with inadequate landlords who take advantage of the tight housing market,” she said. “This is wrong, we are part of the Davis community too.”
She said, “I’m lucky, I have been able to stay in my apartment for over a year, but I know people who have faced housing insecurity and their college career has suffered as a result.”
She said, “We need more affordable housing in Davis and having it close to campus will reduce traffic as well.”
Don Gibson, who was one of the two students to speak at public comment last week, is a recent PhD graduate and served as chair of the UC Davis advocacy group on housing.
“Last Wednesday I was shocked at the outright dismissal of the university commons project by the Planning Commission,” he said. “Davis and all of California is still in a massive statewide housing shortage. Yet this shortage was ignored by the opponents of the project and barely mentioned by the commissioners.”
He noted that this project is on a transit line and literally across the street from campus, which he said meant that many students can walk or bike to campus “and not be dependent on a car.”
Don Gibson noted with irony that at the same time the commission rejected staff recommendations to move forward on University Commons, the commission voted to move forward with Measure R.
“They recommended continuation of Measure R, a very restrictive land use measure,” he said. “Yet one of the concerns brought up by people on all sides was affordability—well if you’re not going to build on ag land, and you’re not going to build on infill, then housing will only continue to get more expensive in Davis, drowning people in all classes from students to workforce to young families.”
He said, “Worst of all I heard some comments that we need housing for ‘the community’—not for students. It’s almost, sometimes, I hear that students are not part of this community.”
The incoming ASUCD President, Kyle Krueger, said, “Usually it is difficult for me to represent all 30,000 students with a single voice,” noting that he cannot claim to know how all the students feel on a given issue and students often disagree.
“Over the past week, every student that I’ve talked to has overwhelmingly expressed disappointment and frustration with the Planning Commission vote,” he said. He said, “Every student that I’ve talked to has expressed the need to have more housing now.”
Krueger talked about students struggling because they have to start their housing search in January or February to find a place for the fall and other students are forced to drive 20 miles or more to get to campus on a daily basis. Others are juggling classwork with multiple part-time jobs, living paycheck to paycheck in a single room with multiple roommates.
“This is all because the housing prices in Davis are wholly unaffordable,” he said.
Francois Kaepplin, the legislative director for ASUCD, said of the vote, “I am beyond shocked. This is a project that is across the street from campus surrounded by student housing and in many ways is similar to Davis Live which passed last year.
“This is a project (as much) for the city of Davis as it is for the UC Davis students,” he said. “We are a part of the Davis community and we help to make it what it is today—whether people know it or not.”
He argued that the reason the U-Mall is a “gem” is “because of students.”
Gwen Coder, the external Vice President of the Graduate Student Association, said a mixed-use infill project would be a great use at this space, noting that the proximity to campus will reduce the need for cars to commute, “making this project environmentally friendly.”
She said she regretted the lack of the student voice present at last week’s Planning Commission meeting, which she said “conflicted with our own GSA meeting.
“I feel the need to comment on the language I have seen in regards to this and other housing projects,” she said, noting “an online commenter on the Vanguard last week referred to students as a ‘pestilence’ and students have been referred to as public nuisances.
“I think we all recognize that the student population is much more diverse than the remainder of Davis residents,” she said. “Given what is playing out around our country right now and as a person of Jewish descent, I cannot state strongly enough that these dog whistlers uttered at students are abhorrent and I’m appalled to see them discussed so casually in these issues.”
The project is expected to come to council some time this month—whether there will be changes remains to be seen.
—David M. Greeenwald reporting
The Empire Strikes Back.
Way to go students. Stand up, vote and be counted.
Don Gibson nailed it. If we can’t go out and we can’t go up where are we going to go.
Death to Measure R.
Maybe the CC will do the right thing after all.
Ron, I believe that by law the Council has to put it on the ballot for a renewal vote. Given that reality, what exactly is “the right thing” that you believe the CC should do?
Matt is correct. The law makes it clear that the council must put the matter before the voters and the voters decide whether or not to renew.
“Maybe the CC will do the right thing after all.”
Sorry about my post being confusing. This last line was referring to the Brixmor project at U Mall. At least it was in my head but after going off about J/R, by putting a pronoun in the last sentence instead of being more specific, I failed to communicate that I meant the CC might do the right thing and approve the project.
Matt… the CC has a number of choices, under current law… they can put J/R forward basically as is; and, they could put a competing measure on the ballot that (as some, including David) would add affordable housing and maybe zero net energy to the already onerous requirements; and, they could put a measure on to fully repeal Measure J/R… all three… the measure gets the most votes, prevails…
I’d recommend the three choices (we’re a pro-choice city, right?)… but will not hold my breath… David’s main issue with ‘lack of community input’ appears to be to up the ante… make it more difficult… those of us who seek weakening or repeal, are not even allowed to discuss that option, and David and others have no problem at all with that.
It is what it is…
Maybe we should all protest with these students to make the point that Measure R is discriminatory… possibly even racist.
But this was the Planning Commission. I support the Planning Commission making these decisions instead of the voters.
The point about Measure J/R being racial discriminatory has been made numerous times here. That the electorate is overwhelmingly older, white homeowners perpetuates this impediment. Advocates ignore that there are projects that never even get proposed the risks and costs of the compaigns are too high.
And I agree that the Planning Commission should be making these decisions on an informed fashion. I can see how the Commission was misinformed on this project, but at least they were still better informed than the electorate at large. It’s simply not possible for the entire electorate to be adequately informed about every decision. We need to delegate to those who can be held accountable.
Why isn’t the Planning Commission represented by someone from the student and/or UCD community?
Richard,
Wait….what? The problem is the electorte and the Planning Commision that serves them? Isn’t the whole point of the system to serve at the will of the electorate?
I’d argue that it’s up to the leaders (City Council) to inform the electorate. I think an effective cost benefit arguement for projects (ie…revnue brought into the city and and what the benefits are for the city…public works projects..etc…) would work to get voters to approve more projects.
“serve the will of the electorate”
But the electorate is housed, the people who need housing aren’t. That’s a problem that no one has addressed adequately.
Also building housing on campus perpetuates that discrimination because the thousands of students who live on campus are excluded from voting in the city.
I would feel better about building on campus instead of in town if the housing was annexed into the city so that students could participate in the civic life of the city at the ballot box.
Ron raises an interesting dilemma – a lot of voters want to be able to vote on housing projects and many residents want more housing on campus, which means that students don’t get a say in voting on housing projects. So a group of people who are most impacted by these decisions are systematically excluded from participation
The electorate plus campus students plus small babies and the undocumented, I think.
I would reword: “But the Davis electorate is housed in Davis, the people who need Davis housing aren’t.”
I know this is going to sound callous…but doesn’t that meaan it’s not their problem?
You know my stance. These students came to go to school at UCD (paid a lot of money). So it should be UCD that they take the housing issue up with.
So this is the heart of the issue. There are those that feel that there is some obligtion on the part of the electorate to house students. Why? I haven’t heard a convincing reason yet. Others believe that student housing is a UCD problem.
If I had to guess it probably has to do with students wanting the community to have direct control over projects due to environmental issues and to combat real or perceived sprawl. They tend to (and I know I’m stereotyping) be more activist oriented and less pragmatic…which in this case could effect student housing and cold go against their personal self interests. Or if you think about it from their view point…a big bad development will happen in the next 2-5 years. Better that it conceptually doesn’t effect the environment….and housing probably won’t be their personal issue in that time as they will have graduated and probably not thought about it again.
I agree that it is. But students don’t seem to want to fight measure J/R. Never understood why. Maybe because developers don’t give them talking points and favors for speaking on J/R.
Did ever occur to these kids to take the issue up with UCD?
There are several answers to that:
(1) They have
(2) Path of least resistence is to support the project in front of you
(3) It costs way more to live on campus than off campus and UCD has been reluctant to do it
I think the overriding consideration here is (a) it’s across the street from the university and (b) it’s surrounded by other student housing.
Hopefully the Commission’s stance has increased the resistance enough for students to take more aggressive action with UCD about housing.
I know what you’re saying (you said it last time we discussed this) about the location being around student housing so it might as well serve students. I realize that not every project is going to be for the longterm Davis citizens. So if a project gets approved for the students….I suppose this one makes sense. But in principle I think it’s best for the city to do it’s best to resist supporting student housing and turn student housing problems back on to UCD.
That is pretty much what the community has done for the past 20 years, which is why we have a housing shortage. I think it is time to try something new, like actually addressing the needs in the community instead of making excuses for not doing so.
Additionally, community members then sued UC, delaying even further UC’s attempts to fill the gap created by the city’s failure to treat the ephemeral and transient student population humanely.
Wasn’t that ASFCME – the employee union? Unless you are referring to something else.
There were two different lawsuits one by the West Davis Neighbors that Dan Carson was a party to and one over prevailing wages in public private partnerships from union interests. The results have been that both suits led to delays.
Oh okay, but you’re talking 10 years ago there.
Housing supply has a long lag time. When I moved here there wasn’t the shortage that exists today. The policies that have been implemented over the last 20 years have led to the current shortage. The ancillary litigation associated with those policy implementations have only served to make the deficit in supply worse.
Ron,
The housing supply problem isn’t just caused by city and state restrictions. Yes, they are major factor but the truth is tht even if they weren’t obstacles, there would still be a housing shortage. Why? Because:
1. Cities haven’t created enough infrastructure to support enough new housing to the degree that it would effect prices.
2. Builders aren’t going to build a ton of houses just because they can. They’re going to do it at what ever is optimal for their financial return. In other words it often works out to their benefit to keep houing prices high by adding to the housing shortage by constraining supply. In 2008 there was what builders called “shadow inventory” of 1000’s of undeveloped lots that remianed undeveloped. Did builders just rush to develop these lots and flood the supply and drive down prices? No. They sat on them and released them when it was optimal for them to do so.
Addressing the needs of the elecotrate is what has been done. And the needs to the electorate has been to discourage development and appears more recently student housing.
Then why do we have a housing shortage – not only here – but across the state?
Same reasons as here. No will to devalue existing homes by flooding supply by existing home owners and home builders. No will to spend on infratructure required to build out enough homes to get home prices to soften (go down or stop appreceiating). And of course environmental restrictions set forth locally, the state and feds. And finally…obviously the continuing rising population.
That is exactly why we have a housing shortage.
The electorate is how we decide policy but it is not the community. That is one of the problems with Measure J/R.
Ron,
Around and around we go.
The city is the electorate. Those that live here with some degree of permanence. Not people that pass through here for 2-4 years. You talk about a housing shortage like it’s a problem. It’s not a problem for those that already have houses. Why is there some obligation by the electorate to provide housing to others (aside from shelters for the homeless…etc..)? If the electorate deems it worthy to approve housing; then there needs to be some benefit for the electorate.
Student leaders bring up the housing supply and costs to UCD leadership all the time. 2 to 3 times a year the Chancellor does townhalls with student groups and housing is always brought up. These townhalls rarely make the Vanguard or Enterprise to let the rest of Davis know that advocacy happens on campus too.
Given the degree of student advocacy here, I think it would be interesting if the Vanguard had a student repesentative to give their voice on these matters for us to read and report on these matters like these meetings you’ve described. I know that I’ll probably disagree with him/her most of the time and continue to believe they belong on campus….but I’d still read their reports and opinions (trying to keep an open mind and all).
We’ve had somethings like that in the past with COVID it’s a bit harder.
Alan,
I am by no means a supporter of this project but I think I understand what was meant by the comment. TheU-Mall is a “gem” because of it’s location. It is ideally located for a mixed use type of project with retail around it as well as residential units near it and of course UCD across the street.
Old white people?….or (hopefully) middle aged? The age thing I think is just the way things are everywhere. Older people tend to be home owners. Even older renters tend to be longer term residence than younger ones.
Oh….my stars and garters! Our knickers are still in a ruffle over that little comment from over a week ago? I even apologized if it actually hurt anyone’s feelings given that it wasn’t directed at anyone specifically. I continue to be suprised at how overly sensetive the internet is.
Gem – OK, I can see that.
Diverse – I was asking “much more diverse” in what way, not what is the majority race of Davis homeowners
Interesting phrase.
Not mine. I love the entertainment value of watching people’s reaction to trolling, and unable to disengage, like they got in contact with a 440 volt power line. I never got on Facebook (cuz I’m not on social media) and spread it “all over” as DG claimed happened. I mean, I do think its an offensive way to characterize a group of people, but it’s not exactly racism. It’s so over-the-top as to be ridiculous, but people are a bit over-sensitive these days and lacking a sense irony, self-refection or the ability to laugh at oneself.
That is the very definition of a non-apology: apologize if
Or even a race of people.
Me too. Then again, you did call students “a deadly and overwhelming disease that affects an entire community”. Then again, that’s silly. Then again, I’ve been called worse . . . right here in the Vaguard comments section.
This could be the first time in the history of Davis that someone referred to U-Mall as a “gem”.
One. Troll. Did. This is the problem with the internet. The troll would never have said this at a City Council Meeting — but the comment reaches “Facebook”, and people are “outraged” because “this is how Davis residents feel about students”. The internet s@cks.
Diverse in what way?
Oh, hey, me too! But that’s relevant here, how?
Um . . . OK. Calling students a pestilence is abhorrent. I honestly have never heard another human being ever say that about anyone. Clearly he was just trying to get a rise and enjoy a good online argument and attract some negative attention to himself. Can’t we just call this one guy an arsehole and leave it at that?
Nah… I considered it so in the 1972-77 period, when I lived on-campus or right behind, or just down the street, and walking and bicycle were my only two modes of transportation… Lawrences was great for reasonably priced clothing (compared to Wingers), there was Fluffy’s and Giant Hamburger (loved their grilled cheese and ham sandwich with onion, tomato, lettuce, and ‘secret sauce’), the grocery store, and the equivalent of Longs/CVS/Rite Aid… plus the laundromat… it was a “gem” then, to me…
Met all my needs and wants (and once I turned 21, the Grad was good, too!)… guess you had to be there… perhaps you were, and forgot it did indeed, have a heyday… long since lost…
I was there, a bit later. I will once again bring up my proudest Davis distinction . . . I purchased the last burger (veggie) at the Davis Nations (Giant Hamburger).
Still wouldn’t call it a gem. A dump maybe. But I did go there alot when I lived nearby as a student. Still have the milk crates I stole from the old Safeway in ’82. I don’t know if this is still a thing, but back in the day, many students had shelves made from stolen milk crates.
Abundantly clear on both the student comments on U-Mall and the lap swimming comments is that nearly everyone was reading from the same set of talking points. I guess that’s part of free speech, but wouldn’t it be better if people at least tried to make their own comments, if for no other reason than to keep from boring the City Council to death?
We clearly have an issue to deal with now that public comment is virtual. People not only don’t have to go to the meeting, they don’t even have to watch it. Now they can just call in — it takes two minutes — and if sixty people take two minutes out of their life to read talking points provided by a developer or other interest group, that’s two hours.
Now imagine if we have both in-person and virtual comments. The City Council will be having breakfast delivered on Wednesday morning and a cup of coffee to watch the sunrise.
Rents in Silicon Valley and San Francisco have dipped 10% for new rentals, and many college towns are experiencing drops in rents for new units with the uncertainties of the levels of new students for Fall. Will be interesting to see how this impacts the Davis rental market.
David:
That’s been my impression, as well – repeatedly.
Not necessarily what’s possible, what’s best for the city (e.g., fiscally), impacts on traffic flow and safety, impact on neighborhoods, space that’s claimed to be “in-demand” for commercial uses, what’s best for future students, etc.
As you know, the university is the only institution that can legally discriminate on behalf of student housing. (Nothing wrong with that.)
“But in principle I think it’s best for the city to do it’s best to resist supporting student housing and turn student housing problems back on to UCD.”
This is a position that say Davis wants the benefits of hosting a UC campus but none of the responsibility.
Why is there any responsibility? If it was a Toyota manufacturing plant would the city have any responsibity to house their workers when they decide to expand?
Is there something magical about UCD that requires some sort of tithe or sacrafice by the city elders
For many years UCD was focused on its educational mission and let the locals prosper by building the infrastructure for housing the growing population. Over the last 20 years that model has no longer been operable.
Still the benefits to Davis of hosting a UC campus are many. First and foremost among these benefits are the billions of dollars that UCD brings into the local economy annually.
While you are correct there is no legal obligation, for some of us, there is a sense that the city should at least provide the students who come here with humane living conditions.
There are benefits to having a Toyota manufacturing plant. Again, I don’t see the magic vodoo obligation to UCD that you do. And the point is moot…. I’m pretty sure UCD isn’t going anywhere anyway.
Then there’s the rest of us that believe the city only has so many resources and that UCD has benefited for years from the city’s ability to house it’s students (due to relatively inexpensive housing costs…up until now). It’s UCD’s problem; why should it be the city’s problem?
I guess we have different visions of what the community should be.
Personally and for the well being of the city, I think there should be a general area designated as a “student zone” tht encourages businesses that cater to students and eventually student residences built on top of and around the student oriented retail. The entire area around 1st through 3rd street to University Ave. All those single story buildings could be mowed over and multi-level student retail and housing could go there. I just don’t think the city can afford the infrastructure improvements to make that happen. So it either has to be privately funded or UCD has to be involved and fund some of it.
I suppose if you were designing a city from scratch you could do that. In large part though, I would suggest that 90 percent of student housing is clustered near campus.
You could still do it. If you zone that area for high density commercial and residential and give FAR bonuses to projects with multiple land owners. Of course you’d have to do it in stages as the city has resources for infrastructure growth (obviously getting developers to chip in and maybe even UCD).
On a broader level (beyond Davis), I’m not sure how a “housing shortage” is actually being defined. For sure, the “cause” of it is almost never discussed.
In general, housing demand is “created” (e.g., by universities adding students, or developments adding jobs). Davis has an example of a proposal right now that will increase demand, without fully addressing that demand.
There’s no “mystery” involved.
I understand that there are nice areas in the state that are actually losing population.
Housing demand is created by conception.
Housing demand (on a local level) is almost entirely and artificially “created”.
For example, increased demand for student housing at UCD was created by UCD’s pursuit of an increasing number of students. (For example, non-resident students who pay full tuition costs.)
And yet, college enrollment (nationwide) is expected to significantly drop, in coming years. Just like local school districts, universities are not a “growing industry”.
Regarding developments such as DISC, the SEIR itself tells you how much additional demand (above-and-beyond the 850 units on-site) would be created. I didn’t “make up” those numbers.
The Bay Area provides another example, regarding pursuit of jobs in a space that cannot easily accommodate more housing.
If we dig deeper, you’ll find that the root cause of this never-ending pursuit is related to self-interest and money.
Only if you think that the desire by talented people to develop their individual human capital is artificial.
That’s quite a leap you’re making, compared to what I noted.
Why do you think students want to come here?
What does it mean to be artificially created and what would a non-artificial creation look like?
David: Suggest you re-read what I wrote, regarding the “creation” of housing demand.
Or, you could just read the SEIR for DISC, for example.
Or, possibly the EIR for UCD’s Long-Range Development Plan.
Or, you might just want to look at what happened in the Bay Area (regarding the impact of the technology industry as it relates to housing demand), for example.
David,
I’d like to take a stab at this question:
The removal of artificial restraints on the housing supply would be:
the removal of measures like Measure J
streamlined or next to non-existent environmental concerns (no EIR)…….(Keep in mind I’m not saying the total removal of these restraints are necessarily a good thing)
city will to build out infrastructure.
and builder will to mass produce homes at low cost.
Basically imagine a modern day Levittownn (without the discriminatory practices). Homes quickly and cheaply built in one day. MASSIVE production. 1400 Levittown homes sold in one day back in 1947. The rented 2000 rental homes in 2 days. That’s what home building looks like without restraints.
“1. Cities haven’t created enough infrastructure to support enough new housing to the degree that it would effect prices.”
Agreed. One of the worst things that has happened in places like Davis in the last fifty years, since Ehrlich published the Population Bomb, was the idea that we could and should resist growth. It has been like putting your fingers in the dam to prevent the deluge. Sadly we would have been much better off if we had spent much more effort on putting the infrastructure in place to facilitate the demographic imperative of educating the next generation in an ever growing world population.
“2. Builders aren’t going to build a ton of houses just because they can. They’re going to do it at what ever is optimal for their financial return.”
Yes, that is how our system works, and I personally don’t have a problem with free markets. But let’s look at Covell Village that was voted down in 2006. It would have provided much needed family housing with the risk of construction taken on by private investors. As a result of losing the Measure J vote the land is still growing low margin commodity crops to this day while young, well educated, professional, employable, tax paying families move with their families to Woodland.
I would think that even someone like you, who thinks we should favor such families in our housing policy, would find the unintended consequences of such market interventions objectionable.
I’m not dogmatic about any of this. There are times to support growth and certain kinds of growth and times not to. If you’re land owner it certainly makes sense to restrict growth for the sake of your property values. On the other hand you don’t want to strangle growth and have it impact economic growth, city revenues…etc..
If we’re talking about Measure J, I’m not a fan of sweeping blanket approval measures. I can understand the public wanting some direct oversight (though the developer in me cringes at the thought). I would prefer a more narrowly defined Measure that states what you can’t put in new ag space…and then leave all else alone. As for new residential units? Though my background is primarily in residential development, I’m not a fan of simply approving new homes in a community. There is a certain mix or balance that I look for. I prefer to lead off with commercial office and destination retail development approvals. This (hopefully) leads the way for city revenue to support increased infrastructure for housing. Then approve housing as a follow up to get those professionals to spend their money here….(with out the retail…people will continue to leave Davis to by many things other than at Target).
Your experience on sequencing provides valuable insight. I wonder how having a multi-billion dollar a year public university skews the marketplace and the sequencing?
It’s the engine that initially drives the growth behind whatever the optimal sequencing of approvals are for the city. Other things that effect sequencing are the areas of land available to develop and the areas that need redevelopment. As they say in real estate it’s all about location, location, location…..and that even means the specific area of a city or community you’re looking at developing or redeveloping.
One thing about Measure J I have to ask about? Shouldn’t the city have a 20 year plan so that future zoning of all infill property should already be set. Why not build in some of the things the electorate wants…the guidelines and hard no’s…into that future plan…so that even if it’s ag land there’s no need to jump through so many hoops every time someone wants to develop. That should also go for ag land adjacent to the city. The property in the sphere of influence can be future planned as well (future zoning…etc..). Again get all the wants of the electorate in their for the planning but then just leave them out of it…no need for measure J.
One of the failures of J/R and the current renewal is that the existing city limit is the boundary. As a result most of the best infill sites have already been developed.
If the CC wanted to be responsible they would have had a robust discussion about what areas should be developed over the life of the reauthorization. This would allow for growth without infinite sprawl.
That’s why there’s a sphere of influence and what most cities call their 20 year plan. Nearest that I can tell Davis’ sphere of influence really doesn’t extend all that much outward beyond city limits. It goes around UCD. But other than that there’s the area by the hosptial near 113 an Covell which is probably the most signficant area. There are some odd non-adjacent to city limits area ear county rd. 29. As far as I can tell Davis does not have a 20 year plan to go with the general plan (maybe I just can’t find it). But it seems like Davis’ plan is simply to not plan for any growth (other than obvious areas that were virutally infill like the Cannery.). That kind of long range plan along with the sphere of influence projects growth and the kind of growth the city desires in the future.