By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – One of the key questions facing communities like Davis will be how it can meet the housing demands that are expected grow over the next ten years—even as population growth, at least temporarily, slowed in the wake of the pandemic.
Sustainable Growth Yolo on Monday held a webinar and, later in the week, released a statement on the Housing Element which concluded that “the current draft of the Davis Housing Element does not go nearly far enough to address the city’s severe housing affordability crisis, and if adopted in its current form, will only further exacerbate housing inequity in Davis and the Yolo County region.”
(You can watch the video and look at their full list of recommendations – here).
The group makes a number of recommendations. They seek to eliminate parking minimums, fully fund the housing trust fund, rezone all strip malls to mixed use, include city-owned underutilized locations in the site inventory and legalize a small increase in density in residential areas.
I am interested to see the rezoning of strip malls to mixed use. We saw a big battle last year over the University Mall.
The group writes: “In the sites inventory, the draft housing element includes only one property to be rezoned as mixed-use. Together the Westlake Shopping Center, The Marketplace on Covell, Davis Manor, and Target Shopping Center have 16.5 acres of underused surface parking. By rezoning these properties for mixed-use, the city will immediately create the opportunity for denser and often 
more affordable housing to be developed with minimal impact.”
We saw with the U-Mall this could be a win-win. It could increase the viability of the strip mall sites—many like Westlake, we know have long struggled. It could also provide housing and improve greatly city revenues, as U-Mall was projected to do.
But another of the more interesting proposals is the by-right approval process.
What they say: “Davis currently has an approval process consisting of multiple public hearings and veto-holding unelected commissions, resulting in not only a decrease in approved housing projects but even housing proposals.
“Uncertain processes lead to long politically contentious meetings, ultimately delaying projects and adding significant development costs.
“For example, the Sterling Apartment complex was first proposed to be a four to five story project with 203 units, but through the public hearing, the process was reduced to a mere 160 units. Plaza 2555 was first proposed with 646 bedrooms, but later reduced to 500 beds after a two-year delay between the penultimate public hearing and approval by council.
“Allowing projects to avoid the extended public hearing process if they meet the local zoning and Affordable Housing ordinance adds certainty and stability to the process, which will increase development and bring down costs.”
It is an interesting thought, but as I understand it, one of the big problems is the out-of-date General Plan—which, if updated, could streamline the process.
As Robb Davis put it in a comment on Monday during the webinar, “Do you think that moving to ‘by right’ development can have a serious impact here in the absence of a General Plan update? Experience of recent large projects shows that they ALL required General Plan amendments.”
That is clearly a problem that would have to be grappled with. It would probably require the city to do update its General Plan—something that it is seeking to do anyway.
An issue that the group did not address that would be related to not only this issue, but also serves as a constraint on housing development, is financial viability.
As Greg Rowe, who chairs the Housing Element Committee as well as sits on the Planning Commission, noted in a comment, “Financial viability is a big challenge to higher density. For example, the draft Davis Housing Element says that almost 800 housing units will be built in the downtown area. However, a (2018) financial analysis found that of 5 different development prototypes, none would be feasible in downtown Davis w/o very high subsidies, ranging from $50,000 to $135,000/unit.”
This is what the Bay Area Economics group found when they were asked to analyze financial viability of redevelopment in the downtown back in June 2018.
They studied 10 scenarios and found that 10 were infeasible financially.
They concluded: “These results indicate that under current conditions, it will be very difficult for developers to undertake projects similar to the prototype projects, with a few exceptions. As mentioned previously, it appears that a medium-sized mixed-use project incorporating high density for-sale residential units could be feasible.”
BAE concluded that “development feasibility in Downtown Davis is challenging under current conditions.”
However, and this plays into the by-rights potential, they found also that a huge mitigation would be finding a way to reduce time and risk for the developers.
BAE suggests providing “clear planning guidelines,” limiting discretionary decision-making, providing environmental clearance such as Specific Plan EIRs, providing fast-track path to entitlements, and to “follow through with streamlines and efficient building permit and inspection procedures.”
A by-rights process could accomplish that.
But in order to even have that be possible is to get the General Plan updated and stipulate under what conditions redevelopment and infill can be by right.
That of course will not satisfy those who believe that Measure R needs to be done away with or drastically altered in order to facilitate the development of new housing, but this could be a start.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
The fix to get to the by-right approval process is to set up a clear set of development requirements that are approved by voters. These requirements would address sustainability, resilience and equity matters that come up in these cases. These requirements can be established in a parallel process to the General Plan update, and probably should be built out from the ongoing Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.
A good way to solve that is to eliminate zoning, eliminate due process, eliminate mitigation and sustainability offsets, have developers build lots of new high-rises all over Davis, and then rent and sell them way below market rate so that ‘anyone can live in Davis’, and have the developers lose their shirts, and all their money. Problem solved.
Bad idea. Some places need parking. Some not so much. Case by case. ‘eliminate’ without considering need is the thinking of infants.
Trust what?
Great idea. How mixed?
Define underutilized
Define small. Hey, get that camel’s nose out of our tent!
I’m interested in origami.
There’s a memorial for the dead NW corner of Covell and Russell.
The horror
Unused surface parking must be made into housing. Unused surface parking must be made into housing. Unused surface parking must be made into housing.
Often more affordable. Like when the government subsidizes your rent. Otherwise, not so much . . .
A win-win is when both sides agree. U-Mall, not so much . . .
by-right? Do tell . . .
The people of Davis have input, yes.
So does Measure JeRked. Except it so hinders development, the long politically contentious meetings never even happen, because the developers just say F this and go elsewhere.
Mere? You mean anything the developers ask for Davis should grant, because more is better. More more more More More more!
At least it wasn’t a *mere* 500 beds.
For developers.
For developers.
I hear a new general plan is coming, right after the new Messiah lands in their UFO in Chestnut Park
A minor consideration, don’t worry about it . . . demand affordable housing instead.
Just to bring it to market rate?!??? Add more for ‘affordable’.
And how much more now, with the huge increases in construction costs – not to mention the coming inflation tsunami?
How about 11? They should have studied 11.
Conditions are worse now.
Go for it
Sayeth they in 2018.
The meaning of which you still haven’t explained.
And yet, Davis has a huge number of huge mitigations which do exactly the opposite.
Easy for them to say. And get paid to say it.
Which you still haven’t explained what that is.
So some time after 2067.
Um, YEA-UH!
Drastically altered doesn’t seem to be in the pipeline either, given how the Council treated the last decade-long renewal.
And the Messiah’s UFO could land in Chestnut Park tomorrow at 4:20pm.
Is it impossible to write a few paragraphs on what you think?
I don’t think. I only criticize how others think 😐
Not when the limit is only 5 comments.
I think Alan M. summed this up pretty-well, overall.
But let’s start with the name: “Sustainable Growth Yolo”. That’s an oxymoron in-and-of-itself, whether it’s endless infill efforts or sprawl.
I asked these people (including the YIMBY representative that attended this meeting) what they’re doing to contain sprawl, such as what’s occurring throughout the region. They had no answer.
Also, the city cannot continue converting commercial space into housing, while simultaneously claiming that there’s a lack of commercial space.
Robb Davis also attended this meeting (online), and seemed to be pushing for the “by-rights” process that Alan M. mentioned. It was not fully explained there, either. Perhaps Davis voters should be paying more attention to who they’re electing to represent them, as this line of thinking seems to have succeeded him.
And of course, no figures whatsoever were presented regarding how the projected sales prices of this effort would be. (Which is supposedly the entire “justification” for their effort in the first place.) Nor was it explained how the new residents would supposedly “not have cars”, nor would their visitors.
By-right would be a way to make infill easier to accomplish which would help contain sprawl.
Ron O: What are any of these organizations doing to discourage sprawl?
Ron O: For example, the massive development south of Highway 50 in the Folsom area, which is requiring a NEW FREEWAY to serve it?
Ron O: Or, the sprawl which is advancing toward Davis, from Woodland?
Ron O: And – who actually funds YIMBY? And, when are you going to post your tax returns from 2019?
It’s interesting, in that some seem to be claiming that pushing infill will work to contain sprawl, in the absence of any restrictions against sprawl.
When all evidence suggests otherwise.
I also pointed out that the population of California has essentially stopped growing. I believe it was the SACOG representative who pointed out that this was not true for the region. However, I then pointed out that the reason for this is because folks are moving-out of denser areas (such as the Bay Area), to move to sprawling locations in the valley and foothills. Which is the opposite of what the “infill effort” is supposed to “fix”.
Turns out that infill efforts don’t “prevent sprawl” on their own, which anyone with integrity and common sense would have known.
As a “non-profit”, YIMBY should be posting updated versions of their tax returns. It would be interesting to see who is supporting them, and to what degree. Also, it was unclear if YIMBY Law (which employed the representative at this meeting) is a separate legal entity.
As it is, you have to “sign-up” for an online account, just to see the outdated tax returns, as I recall. (I haven’t checked for awhile, so maybe it’s been updated by now.)
The local group literally just started. Not sure of their structure. But probably would not even have to file anything until next spring if they are a non-profit.
Why would SGY have to be a non profit? If they aren’t accepting donations in a way that provides a tax deduction, they don’t need to file as a 501c3. And if they accept less than $50,000 they don’t have to file detailed financial statements.
If they are a non profit, you can go the State AG’s website and get the info you want. They don’t need to post it on their own website. Do some of your own research for once….
Ron O
You haven’t proposed a workable alternative in the face of inevitable global population growth. It is going to happen at least until the end of the century. So we need to come up with a sustainable way to accommodate that growth. What’s your proposed solution to stop sprawl across the region? Note that supposedly stopping sprawl in Davis by preventing projects just creates sprawl elsewhere with all of the same commensurate environmental and social consequences. (I’m not particularly interested in hearing your segregationist/apartheid rationales for imposing adverse consequences on other communities so that you can selfishly pretend to preserve your imaginary “make Davis great again” world.) It appears all you can do is stick your head in the sand…
We contain sprawl by creating a set of development sustainability requirements for any new projects, and by providing the incentives and guidelines for increasing density in our urban footprint. If we don’t increase density here in Davis, there will be sprawl in a nearby community. People with integrity understand that this does work, but its hard to implement politically because people are unwilling to accept that they may have to make some personal changes to accommodate it.
New residents would have fewer cars per residence (not “no” cars). There is MORE than enough parking here to accommodate almost any number of visitors.
Ron O; So what is your global solution to this problem? Despite your claim about slowing population growth, California is still short on housing in locations where good paying jobs exist. (And don’t say “the market will sort this out” because when I point out how the market works, you deny my explanation. (I’m a professional economist and you’re not.))
Its not Ron O. alone although he is certainly outspoken. The biggest failure of the “Population Bomb” generation was the idea that growth should be resisted instead of planned for and accommodated.
The results in Davis are obvious. My brother visited for the first time since the pandemic began today. We were sitting outside of Peet’s having coffee. He made an astute observation. He said “This town is all seniors and students.” That pretty much sums things up.
On the other hand there is much irony when people who live in the least dense part of Davis advocate for increased density for new housing. It does lack leadership by example.
True story, but of course, not anywhere near them… an example of ‘do what I claim to “value”, but not as I do’…
“Inevitable global population growth” is irrelevant to decisions made in Davis (and beyond).
See above. Also, California has essentially stopped growing.
The real question is, what is YIMBY, Sustainable Yolo, and SACOG doing about that, given that their proposed “solution” is not addressing the actual trend toward less density when nearby communities are willing to accommodate sprawl. (See the “El Dorado Hills” example mentioned above, and the new freeway it’s requiring.)
I don’t believe it does, when some communities go out of their way to accommodate it regardless of what Davis does.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. But my interest in this actually goes beyond Davis. I’ve seen what occurred in some places in the Bay Area, and was inspired by those who fought against it.
It simply is not working that way, on a regional level. The reason that the Sacramento region is growing is because people are moving out of dense areas, such as the Bay Area. The exact opposite of what these groups are (supposedly) advocating for.
Again, if these organizations are going to advocate for density, they should also advocate against sprawl (with actual measures). And yet, they seem entirely silent regarding that issue. And truth be told, I suspect that some of them are also strong supporters of sprawl.
In the meantime, I’d suggest that “Sustainable Growth Yolo” drop the word “Sustainable” from its title. (That ultimately applies to advocating for infill as well, but is not my primary concern.)
It will occur regardless. They already have plans in place to do so, with very little or non-existent opposition.
How many? And, are you claiming that there are (and/or will be) few additional cars parked on the street from new residents and their visitors? Have you actually done any study regarding conditions on existing streets throughout Davis, as well as how many additional cars throughout neighborhoods would likely result from eliminating on-site parking minimums?
I’m not putting forth a global solution.
How are you measuring “shortness”? But you are correct, in that economic activity (such as that found in Silicon Valley) is almost the entire reason for high housing prices, there. It’s also a reason that many people moved to places like Davis, as well as the entire region. And are continuing to do so. Turns out that (given an opportunity), people will “cash in” as an area becomes more dense and expensive, and move to communities willing to accommodate that sprawl. Meanwhile, even SACOG seems to be “burying its head in the sand” regarding that.
But again, California’s growth has slowed dramatically, overall. And actually dropped last year.
Congratulations. And you’re denying that the “market will work this out”?
I am a fan of rent control (and have personally witnessed how effective that can be), but which is rarely discussed on this development-oriented blog. Nor does it seem to be mentioned by YIMBY, or other similar groups. Nor do they seem to address the gentrification their efforts cause. And of course, their “deadening silence” regarding sprawl. What does that tell you, regarding their interests? (I’m still trying to find out who is funding them, and to what degree.)
In any case, perhaps you can tell us how much the new housing that you’re advocating for will sell for, and who that’s supposed to accommodate. Because no one else seems to put forth any projected numbers at all, to support their advocacy. Just blindly saying, “build, baby build”.
He might prefer the motto: “Build Davis Back Better”