By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – The Housing Element Committee last week voted in favor of ten largely pro-housing comments in the draft housing element proposal. Ultimately the council and the broader community will have to approve of these as well as the overall proposal for them to take effect, but these additions are likely to rile up some members of the community — once they actually read the substance of what is included.
While I agree in concept with a lot of the proposals, I think, in her comment on the article last night, Eileen Samitz raised a number of important concerns.
For example, she noted that the article did not mention the issue of, “a very reasonable motion made by one of the Planning Commissioners, which was then followed up by a Social Services Commissioner, which sadly failed due to a split vote. That motion was simply to request that UCD to provide more on-campus housing to relieve some of the housing pressure for Davis workers and families.”
I agree that that proposal is very reasonable. While there is a group of people who have strongly pushed for UC Davis to develop more on campus — perhaps to the exclusion of housing in the community — I have long supported both as the best way to alleviate the housing crunch.
As such, I supported the 50-50 plan — 50 percent of all the new housing in the community (City and UCD combined) and 50 percent of the overall student housing on campus. During the LRDP, we fell a bit short of the aspirational target of 10,000 new housing units, but I see no reason why we shouldn’t continue to push for more on-campus housing, while at the same time we push for more housing in town.
That’s especially true given the limited housing opportunities in town, which I believe we shall see soon.
Eileen Samitz continues: “It made clear that in the future, the City needs to have more than ten people on a committee determining the future of the city, with a more fair and better balanced representation of the community. As a result, the recommendations did not represent a broad cross section of the community, particularly since a number of the committee members had not had the advantage and experience of participating on any City committees in the past on housing land use issues in order to be more familiar with the issues.”
Again, I absolutely agree with this point. One of the reasons the 2007-08 Housing Element (HESC) was so good was that it really had a broad range of citizens serving as its fifteen (15) members, and all of the community voices were heard.
It is also the reason I have lamented the recent chain of events where certain citizens have either stepped away from, or been excluded from, commissions. I have pointed out that one of the failures of the Innovation Park Task Force process was the failure to have half of the Davis community in the meeting room during the key discussions of that Task Force.
And I believe that will be a problem here, because there are a number of the ten proposals that are very good, but that do not currently have sufficient community buy-in.
With those points of agreement stated, let me go through a couple of points of divergence now with Eileen Samitz, and express my support (mostly) for the proposals adopted.
On the removal of single-family zoning. I think that is largely the direction the state is headed. We have seen a number of proposals at the state level on this. The city should at the very least start this discussion, so that it is an informed community decision rather than a state-imposed change.
Samitz doesn’t agree with the concept of removing single-family zoning, which I can understand. She writes that “the concept of eliminating single-family housing zoning to allow 2-4 (or more) units built on a single-family lot lot next to a single-family residential unit — bought because it was in a single-family zoned neighborhood — had the reasonable expectation for it to remain a single-family neighborhood.”
She argues, “This proposal would particularly impact lower income neighborhoods, such as in East Davis since some of the lots may be cheaper if the house on it is needing major renovation or repairs. However, the seller makes a bundle of money exiting the neighborhood, then placing the impacts upon the rest of the remaining neighborhood.”
There is some risk of that — but on the other hand, one way to achieve better affordability is to downsize lots from single-family homes to duplexes and quadplexes. Also, the city is going to take another hard look at ADUs as a way to get affordability by design.
On the pre-approval of development on the two properties — Inside the Mace Curve and Wildhorse Ranch — I have long viewed this as an important step.
Eileen Samitz sees this as an “end-run” around Measure J, but actually it has to adhere to Measure J. It simply puts the vote for rezoning the parcels from agriculture to residential up front — and the voters get to decide whether or not they will support a zoning change at a given location. The up or down nature of such a vote means the voters may not aprove such a zoning change.
Eileen Samitz continues, “So, Davis citizens need to understand that if they support an initiative like this they would have no say on what got built on these properties. It would basically be a ‘blank check’ for the developers of those properties to build anything without the public having any meaningful input.”
Actually I don’t think it would be a blank check. First, any proposed residential zoning would almost surely have parameters such as units and density.
Second, the voters would have to approve.
Third, the council would then have to approve it through a normal planning process, just like they did with Cannery.
She writes, “For instance, it could mean more mega-dorms or more McMansions on these parcels, neither of which help to provide affordable housing for our average workforce or families.”
The council has kind of soured on mega-dorms, and they have not approved McMansions in recent years either. But most of that could be baked into a baseline features that governs the development of the property on the pre-approval. Baseline features, which have to be part of a Measure J/R/D vote.
If it is too vague, the voters will likely vote no.
Ironically, I question the two choices. The property under the Mace Curve seems like a good area to develop without expanding the current boundaries, but the owner has never had the inclination to do so. Wildhorse Ranch also appears to be a decent location, except we know what happened in 2009.
Those are definitely two locations to look at, but I would also look at the Northwest Quadrant as well as a portion of Covell Village—I could see a mixed-use development with commercial along Covell and maybe 400 to 500 units of housing north of there on the lower quarter or third of the property.
Those are alternatives to explore. I like the concept of pre-approval, and I think a pre-approval could be designed to avoid the pitfalls that Eileen Samitz rightly points out.
I like the by-right approval for new housing. One key there is it would have to meeting Zoning Code and the Affordable Housing ordinance. One of the problems that I have pointed out is that right now it is cost prohibitive to redevelop infill. That is a huge red flag, and streamlining the process would alleviate some of that.
Eileen Samitz is concerned about going above the RHNA assignment of 2,075 units, writing, “The other issue — adding more units than the RHNA assignment of 2,075 units — is another disastrous proposal since the City does not even have enough land for traditional housing including smaller housing units on a small lot, for 2,075 units.”
She is clearly worried about more “mega-dorms,” but the reality is we have probably seen the last of those for the foreseeable future — maybe forever.
They also propose removing the one percent growth cap.
Both of those seem aspirational. Neither are likely to impact anything. As Eileen Samitz points out, we seem to lack the land to get to 2,075 in the first place, and since the one percent growth cap was passed, we have never come close to approaching the one percent growth limitations.
Bottom line, I agree more people should have been engaged in the Housing Element Process, and I think some of Eileen Samitz’s fears are reasonable, but can and should be addressed — and with effort and community involvement, most of them can be avoided.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Darn, ya think? So one buys a home in what is designated a single family zoned community and at any time a close neighbor could sell to a developer and “2-4 (or more)” units could be erected possibly right next door? Who would be okay with that?
I live in a townhouse next to a single family home. It pretty much blends into the rest of the street. Not sure what the problem is.
I don’t think most people who made a huge investment in what they thought was a single family zoned neighborhood wants to wake up someday just to find a 4 plex (or more) is going up right next door to them on a single home lot. But that’s just me.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here because you wrote in the article:
So is it you’re “Not sure what the problem is” or is it “which I can understand”.
They’re already having houses on single-family lots remodeled to add bedrooms, enclose garages, and add granny flats — all increasing the density of the housing unit, primarily for the purpose of adding rental units. This has caused conflicts in existing older neighborhoods near campus and elsewhere. The city may wish to simply put an upper limit on the number of bedrooms.
I can understand her not wanting to remove the single-family zoning. I don’t understand what your problem is with adding duplexes or quadplexes.
An in law unit or an extra bedroom is far different than having a 4 Plex (or more) constructed right next door to your home because it becomes the residence of 4 new families (or more) with all the resulting impacts , for instance extra vehicles and parking.
My point is that those impacts are already occurring in older neighborhoods near campus. 8 – 10 young adults living in single-family homes, with all the extra vehicles and parking.
If this were approved, I wonder how many proposals there would be in neighborhoods further from campus.
Eileen makes a good point about disparate impacts on lower-cost neighborhoods such as east Davis.
We’ve lived in both… fully agree with you, David (on this), and wonder if the ‘problem’ is based on some sort of ‘inherent bias’…
If someone took 2 lots on our SF cul-de-sac (even next door), and turned it into a 4-5-plex, might raise some issues as to aesthetics (if they were really bad), conditions re: construction staging, but would not worry about property values, type of neighbors, even if they were “very low income” affordable units… but that’s just me [perhaps in your view, David, a “privileged” white male]…
So, not understanding the “problem” Ms Samitz cites…
Single family zoning expectations have been superseded by demands for densification. You can’t have both.
Although I am slightly sympathetic with Ms Samitz’s concern, I do not share it…
I share Ron Glick’s view…
‘Funny’ tho’, how those opposed to ‘sprawl’, say the alternative is densification, just don’t want the densification near them…
Then, there are those who want no growth, or even negative growth…
Those who bought pre 1971 also had racial covenants that excluded Blacks. Should we also respect those expectations too? The fact is that the world changes and some expectations are will have to be cast aside if we are going to achieve higher societal goals on the environment and social equity. The problem is that SF zoning was wrong in the first place because it is inherently exclusionary, so as with racial covenants, it needs to be cast aside.
And I’m a homeowner fine with duplex quadplex on my street. You can already identify the rentals on a street in most cases. Whether they are SF or not doesn’t really change the appearance (and MF is more likely to be better maintained anyway.)
The McMansion and Mega-dorms bugaboos. You have to give it to no growth for their rhetoric.
Building more on campus means more young people being excluded from voting in Measure D elections. So much for direct democracy.
.
I would ask that you review “Parkinson’s Law” that finds committees of greater then nine lose the ability to get the work done and end up with subcommittees actually doing the work.
.
Actually, adding new supply reduces pricing pressure on existing supply.
.
The city has plenty of land that is in its planning area that could be annexed into the city. This is a beat the Devil argument. Restrict annexation then claim there is nowhere to build.
You, I believe, misunderstand what may well be Ms Samitz’s true point… the membership of the Committee… I do not share her concerns… usually complaining about “representation” means “it’s not loaded towards my views/values/beliefs”…
Housing Element Committee (2020-2021) | City of Davis, CA
The meetings, as I understand it, were open and anyone could have made comments… and still can, in writing, or appearing at the next public steps… plenty of time to represent one’s views… I suspect the underlying issue is control… of outcomes… either the committee is composed of folk having their own agendas (hard to believe, given the near unanimity of votes), “pawns”, or a reasonable cross-section is an open question… I see two questionable names… but, given the level of apparent consensus, I’m good to go, except I wonder who has ties to the County group (did a ‘search’, membership not disclosed) that has effused their support (another thread)…
The amount of influence, direct or indirect, is unknown to me… might be de minimus, might have been substantial… not a ‘transparent’ group/organization…
Do tell 😐
Don Fouts is one…
Again, the concern is that there was not enough balance on the committee to reflect the views of the broader Davis community. The need for more on-campus housing to relieve some of the pressure on the City has been expressed over and over again by a major part of the Davis community, proposed by two commissioners yet was not approved as a reasonable comment in the Housing Element? In fact, one member of the Housing Element Committee who made some of the motions, is not even a Davis resident. So, how is it that a non-Davis resident gets the ability to give input to define Davis’ future land use when they are not even a Davis resident?
I agree, that should’ve been an easy approval vote. I can’t understand the thinking behind that.
Eileen, I imagine without realizing it, makes the case for my objection to more on campus housing. The future residents will not be able to participate in Measure D elections.
If more on campus housing, in lieu of in City housing, were coupled with annexation, I would agree with her.
You could ask several posters on the VG the exact same question… but, they do so… called free speech, inclusionary, other terms du jour…
That a portion of the population prefers more housing on the UCD campus, that doesn’t mean that it is a majority of the voters. That the motion garnered little support reflects the fact that it probably doesn’t have much support more broadly.
I agree with Ron G’s point that more on campus housing, particularly for staff, further disenfranchises and disengages that population from local decision making. UC is not governed by direct democratic processes, so those living there are in essentially a company town with no stake or authority in the place they live. In addition, UC doesn’t have a particularly great record as a landlord over the decades. And further, our local responsibility to help these young adults transition to living on their own, responsibly. They shouldn’t be babysat on campus.
A couple of years ago I found the data that showed the ratio of students to the City population has remained remarkably stable, varying by at most 5% each direction from 50%. We should keep that benchmark in mind.
LOL, how do you figure that? We’re talking about a whole 10 people and their vote was split.
I’d like to complement David on this article. Many (dare I say most) of his land-use/housing articles are one-sided, but today’s article displays a balance and inclusion that I believe is constructive in the polarized Davis atmosphere when it comes to land-use.
And never will
. . . unless the Vanguard writes even more articles on housing, over and over again, week after week after week for years. Maybe, just maybe, there will be ‘sufficient community buy-in’.
That or a NIMBY fatwa.
I don’t think I’ll let you.
Headed, with the literal head of ‘Waldo Weiner’ photo-bombing photo shoots everywhere.
The discussion already started 😐 You may have noticed. You may have induced it.
If the state is imposing it, the only choice the City has is to go so build-build-build that we don’t show up on the radar to be imposed upon. So that’s not really a ‘choice’.
You are very understanding.
Nothing to worry about — the City designated East Davis as an “opportunity zone” . . . in other words, the ‘opportunity’ for developers to evict people living in already-existing lower-rent-for-Davis dwellings, in order to build several dwellings on the same lot at a higher rent for each. But don’t worry, the displaced will be placed in *subsidized* (Affordable #cough# #cough#) housing subsidized by federal and state taxpayers . . . in Esparto.
There is a büttload of risk of that —
Bullshˆt
Bill,
Regarding, your 11:41 am comment. This is not about free speech. It is about appointments made to a very small committee who would be making important recommendations for the future of Davis’ land use.
How many members should have been on the committee? Meant as a fair question…
How should the members been chosen? Meant as a fair question…
How many comments are you allowed (above 5)? Meant as a fair question…
Seems to me that when you don’t like the makeup of (other) commissions, you note that they weren’t elected. No such complaint this time, apparently. Though you did note concerns regarding a couple of them, yourself.
Don Gibson hosted what I would call as the YIMBY seminar, the other day.
Bill,
It would need to be more than 10 members allowing broader representation, and all members need to be Davis residents for starters.
Also, I think it is especially disappointing to see that Don Gibson was the first to oppose the Housing Element recommendation for more on-campus housing made by two City of Davis commissioners, despite the fact that he had a leading role on the UCD Student Housing Task Force advocating for more on-campus student housing (see point #2 below). The UCD Student Housing Task Force recommended that UCD build more on-campus housing beyond the inadequate amount of on-campus student housing that UCD is now planning in its current LRDP.
Here is the link to the article that Gibson wrote in the March 6th, 2021 Vanguard followed by my comment to his article which he has never responded to. I raised several the questions including why Orchard Park was still vacant after 7 years and why higher density housing was not being pursued on campus?
https://davisvanguard.org/2021/03/guest-commentary-davis-should-adopt-policies-to-support-affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing-in-housing-element-update/
“I agree with Matt’s comments and particularly the point not covered in Don Gibson’s article which excludes any reference to the need for UCD to be more responsible for providing the need for affordable housing on campus for its students and its faculty and staff as well. As has been pointed out many times, UCD is the largest UC with over 5,300 acres and a 900-acre core campus. UCD is completely capable of providing far more housing that the minimum they agreed to to simply providing housing for just their current LRDP additional growth, while completely ignoring the backlog of on-campus housing that they needed to provide for the past 20 years.
If UCD actually did what they need to do, is build far more housing than they are trying to get away with, then student housing would be affordable on campus. Further, there would not be the issue of students needing to get out of leases like the present situation in the City, if and when issues like the pandemic present. The land component is the biggest cost factor in building housing now, and UCD has plenty of land which is free, and which can provide far higher density housing than what is being built. Yet, UCD prefers to continue pushing its housing needs off campus impacting the cost of housing in Davis more than any other factor to students as well as Davis’ workforce and families. The way to get more affordable housing in Davis is clearly for UCD to provide far more on-campus housing instead of deflecting UCD’s housing needs onto the city and surrounding cities.
UCD’s last MOU with the City did nothing to address the backlog of two decades of negligence to provide on campus housing despite UCD’s accelerated student population growth. The low density of the housing planned by UCD on campus is embarrassing compared to the two enormous 7-story student housing projects approved in the City. This also raises the blatant hypocrisy of UCD teaching “sustainable planning”, yet not practicing it itself with its own on-campus planning.
Further, while all the other UC campuses have committed to providing at least 50% on campus housing for it students, UCD has not. Why not? Why is that issue not being addressed by housing advocates like Don Gibson and other students concerned about the affordability of housing?
That said, Don, himself, was part of a Task Force of UCD students working with UCD administration, and while I raised this subject before on the Vanguard with some follow-up questions, none of those questions were addressed. So, I will post them again and I would so appreciate a response from Don.
Also, while one of the points “agreed to” by the UCD administration was limiting increases of admission of new students (so that the campus is not so over-impacted as it has been and reducing housing demand). Instead, this year UCD has admitted more new students then ever before. (Note: this is also during a pandemic which is still not under control, which seems rather unwise). Also, why does UCD continue to refuse to start a student housing fund like USC did which yielded hundreds of new student beds? Why has this none of this mentioned or addressed either?
Here is a section of what I had previously posted:
“So at least 5,281 student beds have been approved in the City of Davis. Therefore, even without Nishi, 3,081 student beds would be produced compared to 2,200 beds at Nishi. However, rather than you continuing to try to imply that more student housing is needed in Davis, what is the update of progress from the 2018 UCD task force report that you helped developed for UCD to address the need for more affordable housing?
Since you took a leading role in this task force, thanks if you can provide feedback on what actions that you or others advocating for more student housing have taken to get UCD to produce more affordable student housing on-campus.
Also, if you can also please give feedback on why Orchard Park, the former large graduate student complex demolished over 6 years, is still a vacant development site (i.e. located on Russell, near Hwy 113)? What progress has been made on it by UCD? UCD was originally proposing very low-density apartments, compared to Davis which has approved high-density 7-story student housing. Is there any progress on this density issue to get at least 6-7 stories there as well? Also, what is the plan for the site, and when will it be built? Have you met with UCD on this recently and if so, what was the update?
Also, here are just a few excerpts from the task force’s 2018 document “Turning the Curve on Affordable UCD Student Housing” that you (Don) helped develop with other task force members including UCD administration members:
From: Turning the Curve on Affordable UCD Student Housing:
1) “Limit future enrollment increases. The time has come for an era of much slower, incremental growth in the student population, enabling the campus to catch up with infrastructure needs, including housing, classroom space, and student support services.”
2) “Increase the campus housing supply by building more units. We welcome the Chancellor’s recent decision to increase the target of new housing units to be built on-campus to include 9,050 beds, but our analysis of the available data suggests that number needs to be higher in order to reverse the trend toward increasingly unaffordable housing.”
3)“Identify funds to support student housing…” including philanthropic sources… like USC. which raises millions in private donations to help fund student housing in USC Village.
4) “Design for Affordability and Prioritize Affordable Designs in New Campus Housing.”
USC has an endowment of $5.5 billion–of course it can fund student housing. It’s in competition with a multitude of other elite private universities.
https://thebestschools.org/features/richest-universities-endowments-generosity-research/#:~:text=USC's%20current%20endowment%20is%20%245.54%20billion.
The cost of building on campus is substantially greater than in the community, which is why West Village was so slow to get going and probably why Orchard Park hasn’t been redeveloped. These costs also preclude affordable housing on campus.
There are so many arguments against relying on campus housing for our solutions once we dig into the underlying facts and situation.
Here’s some underlying facts for you –
New housing on-campus is cheaper than new housing off-campus:
https://solatwestvillage.com/floorplans/
https://www.sterlinghousing.com/davis-ca/sterling-5th-street/floor-plans
Actually, I’m not sure that’s true. I think one is pricing by the bed and the other is by the room. But it’s hard to tell from how it’s presented.
It appears to me that it’s cheaper either way.
About 1/2 the cost of Sterling – for a shared room (which Sterling doesn’t even offer), and still cheaper for your own room.
It’s not something I “searched” for, just happened upon it.
But, certainly throws a monkey-wrench into the argument on here that on-campus housing is more expensive.
The other thing to note is that the studios and 1-bedrooms at Sterling have been sold-out for some time. Turns out that even students don’t like “student” (group) housing, if they can avoid it. And apparently, some can – presumably with external financial assistance (e.g., parents, etc.).
And if that “group housing” in the city ends up not counting toward RHNA requirements, someone should pay for that – politically. Eileen (and I) had been repeatedly warning about that prior to approval, to no avail.
Just think of what Nishi could have housed, regarding those requirements. Let-alone all of the other megadorms that were approved – even well-after the council promised to stop doing so.
1) “Limit future enrollment increases. The time has come for an era of much slower, incremental growth in the student population, enabling the campus to catch up with infrastructure needs, including housing, classroom space, and student support services.”
This is hilarious and I’m sure the regents in Oakland and the politicians in Sacramento as well as parents all over California think that UCD should slow down in accommodating the demand growth for a UC education because it inconveniences the residents of Davis, a city that has benefitted tremendously from its proximity to the campus and the billions of dollars UC brings to this region each year.
The notion that the dreams of a better life through education for young people should be deferred or re-directed because a bunch of Baby Boomers in the City of Davis can’t be bothered and want to bite the hand that feeds them is a truly sad reflection on this community.
Ron G
Well said. As a community we have a responsibility to the other citizens of California to help educate their children. Their tax and tuition dollars flow into our community in different ways and we are better off than most other cities in the state. We need to stop being selfish whiners and instead figure out how we contribute to the solution.
So people that want more student housing on campus are selfish whiners but people who want more student housing in town aren’t?
People who want to limit enrollment increases at UCD for their own provincial comfort as stated in the quote in my 8:14 post.
Gotta’ affirm you, Ron G… KO didn’t get a KO… twisted your point to dissemble… typical of some folk who post…