By David M. Greenwald
Davis, CA – There were no motions made, no direction taken yet, but the course of the council was laid out during this workshop pretty clearly. Several dozen public commenters largely split between two extremes—on the one side arguing that the Housing Element Committee didn’t go far enough, and, on the other side, arguing that they went too far … subverted the will of the voters … and that the city should pressure UC Davis to build more housing.
Sherri Metzger, Principal Planner in the Department of Community Development and Sustainability explained that the 10 recommendations from the HEC “are not currently in the draft housing element.
“They are represented on a list of recommendations that came out of the housing element committee process,” she explained. “What our intention is, is to take all of the comments that we receive from everyone, housing element committee members, planning, commission members, city, council members, members of the general public, and last but not least the HCD, and then take all of those recommendations and comments and come back to the city council and the planning commission with a list of recommendations of what staff think needs to be included in the housing element.”
However, in their discussion, the council focused heavily on the ten proposals—supporting some and opposing others.
Dan Carson, for example, argued that we should “keep our one percent annual growth cap.
“This is admittedly a symbolic action, but it is an important symbol to our community. The Legislature passed a 2019 measure, SB 330, that overrode this longstanding city policy until at least 2025. But the truth is, we’ve easily been able to abide by this policy,” he said.
He also opposed exemptions to Measure J/R/D.
“I don’t support the proposal to ‘pre- approve’ land inside the Mace Curve and at Shriner’s, and thus exempt them from Measure J/R/D,” he said. “This approach probably would not work, because any 
controversial proposal would still be subject to voter approval under state law via a referendum.”
With respect to Collaboration with UC Davis, he was of the view, “UC Davis is living up to the commitments it made to the city in a 2018 memorandum of understanding (Yolo County is also a signatory) to provide additional on-campus housing for its students.”
At the same time, he argued, “on-campus housing is not an affordable option for some students.”
He said, “Before the COVID pandemic hit, the campus convened an on-campus task force to improve affordable housing options at UC Davis. The city should employ its “2 by 2 by 2” process and staff-to-staff contacts to engage the campus and county housing officials in further discussion of what steps could be taken next by the campus and our community to address the problem.”
Lucas Frerichs and others expressed that, while ADUs are an important tool, they are not a solution to affordable housing, especially in Davis.
“I don’t think that holds true in Davis,” he said. “We’ve had a lot of debate over that over the course of a number of years, and I just don’t believe that it really passes muster.
“Very useful type of housing, especially to have more of, but I don’t think it should be included as what would be defined as ‘big A’ affordable housing,” he added.
Vice-Mayor Frerichs noted that one percent growth cap and parking minimums are “really good policy discussions, but I think we should have further follow up policy discussions” rather than discussing them during the housing element process.
On the other hand, regarding the R1 Zoning of single-family homes and the allowance of duplexes (or more) on a single-family lot, he said “this may actually already be something that’s taken out of our hands by the state legislature.”
The bill from Senate President Toni Atkins, SB 9, would automatically allow for duplexes on a single-family zoned lot. He said that was something that they may not find out until September though.
He said he was in favor of “up zoning” at the Neighborhood Shopping Centers.
“Let’s allow for up zoning there,” he said. “There’s already a number of shopping centers in town (where) there’s already mixed use. That’s not a bad thing. There will be more of that in the future.
“Whether it’s done as part of the General Plan update, which is coming in the next year, or some other mechanism, separate policy discussion, I definitely would favor a concept like that.”
With respect to UC Davis, “I do support asking UC Davis for additional housing on campus. I think they’ve been an excellent partner.
“I think the key point for me in all of this is we need more housing, there’s no question,” Frerichs said. “But the key is of course where, what type, you know, I mean, how do we facilitate that?”
Councilmember Josh Chapman came down in largely the same place. “Starting this conversation knowing and acknowledging (in my opinion) that we need more housing, that we are in a crisis.”
He added, “I think overall in general, we have a community that genuinely recognizes that we need more affordable housing. How we get to that point is what we’re here to do.”
Chapman is in favor of looking at R1 Zoning but also “figuring out ways to put guard rails on that.” He said, “Not one big fell swoop of hey now R1 is gone.”
Staff had suggested one approach was to eliminate R1 for future zoning but not change existing neighborhoods, which would seem to quell a big fear of some of the public commenters.
“We know that infill has been a priority,” he said. “We know that that infill has been a priority, some of the projects that have gone to Measure J/R/D have not passed and the community has signaled that we want to look at infill and densify.”
But he added, “I am again not wanting to take and put a four-unit house or a four-story building right next to a single story, but I think there’s ways for us to figure that out and look at project by project or certain areas in neighborhoods and what that looks like.”
He agreed with Lucas Frerichs that “ADUs should (not) be counted” in the affordable housing tool kit.
“I think that they’re a great piece of housing, but not when we talk about the affordability side of what we’re trying to do,” he said.
He said he found the growth cap to be interesting: “But I think it’s hard to move that piece around” and toyed with the idea of finding “ways for us to suspend it for a period of time.”
He also favored looking at rezoning strip malls, perhaps project by project, but again not in one fell swoop.
Will Arnold noted, “My colleagues here have some similar approaches to what I have been considering.”
He did address some public comment with respect to students and the suggestion that council should be listening to long-term residents because students are only here a few years.
Councilmember Arnold noted that “it’s true factually that an individual student probably typically is only in town for a few years.” But he pointed out, “students as a cohort predate the city of Davis,” He said “the needs of students is an integral need for our community.”
He added that he rejects the idea that students or the needs of students should be secondary to the needs of long-term residents.
“Not only did that not come from the council, or from the public comment, but it’s also a concept that I reject,” he said.
As Will Arnold pointed out this is not an approval of the Housing Element at this point, the process still will have a public comment period, staff will then take all of the comments from council and the commissions and create a draft Housing Element that will go back to the Planning Commission and then the Council—with public hearings before its approval.
Based on the comments of council, it doesn’t seem like most of the more controversial proposals have a lot of traction at this point, but R1 Zoning and Mixed Use for neighborhood centers appears on the table at this point.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Seems reasonable. That way when people are buying a home in a new community at least they know the rules going in that a single family home next to them could possibly be reconfigured into a fourplex.
Yes… gets to the general prohibition of “ex post facto” laws… zoning is adopted via ‘ordinance’, aka, ‘law’… pretty sure city staff knew that, and/or, City Counsel reminded staff of that…
Besides the ex post facto thingy, there is also the Fifth Amendment…
The Fifth Amendment does not protect a right to preclude development or uses of other properties–only an individual property. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that changes in regulations is not a “taking”. (I’ve been on a couple of losing sides on that issue.)
Context is everything, Richard… you want to rezone my existing property (my context!)? Do you wish to re-assert it is not a Fifth Amendment issue? You’re on yet another losing side if you choose to. The immediate referent was,
A neighborhood is made up of ‘individual properties’… “aggregating them” does not change that fact. Just multiple issues.
Let them that have eyes, see…
Why would it matter if someone reconfigured it into a duplex or quadplex?
“Ex post facto laws,” “Fifth Amendment.”
Neither is applicable here. Zoning laws are not written in stone and are subject to amendment, variances, etc.
Not without due process, and possibly compensation… re-read your law tomes… both relate to ex post facto and Fifth Amendment…
Involuntary re-zoning is definitely a potential “taking”…
Too complicated to get into. But allowing additional residential uses in a residential zone would almost certainly not constitute a sufficient “taking” to implicate the 5th Amendment.
Ex post facto applies to criminal law.
Allowing additional densification (upzoning) is generally the opposite of a “taking”, as it results in an increase in value.
If anything, it is a “giving”.
Though for those still trying to make it a home, it may not be viewed that way. 🙂
Increased value isn’t of much value, until a property is sold. (Might make one “feel better” to see a theoretical amount of increase, but that’s about it.)
Eric is right. The statements re: ex-post facto and the 5th ammendment really dont apply here. The government can re-zone, it can seize through eminent domain… the 5th ONLY guarantees due process and compensation.
This whole thing about eliminating R1 only for future projects and not for existing ones is just a matter of political expediency – them not wanting to piss people off without reason. But indeed, the city COULD re-zone a residential neighborhood to industrial if they round it was in the greater common interest to do so.
So while the City is choosing to not pick a fight at this time with this zoning change, we nevertheless ARE going to have to wade through these issues to a significant extent very soon. I pointed this out in the article the other day regarding the old east davis neighborhood.
There are some nice historic homes in that neighborhood which I would agree should be protected long-term. There are also some homes which are indeed old, but I wouldnt qualify as “worth preserving, AND there are a number of multi-family and commercial properties mixed in there, a few of which are in immediate need of redevelopment.
The economic fundamentals of that neighborhood WILL drive owners to replace the older structures with stuff that is taller and can give the owners a higher return, and the neighbors WILL have problems with that as they did with trackside.
If we dont learn how to re-zone and manage the process thereof in a robust and fair way however, then what is going to happen is that the properties in question will become derelicts which reduce the quality of the neighborhood. In fact, I would argue that several properties in that neighborhood are already at that state.
So re-zoning IS going to be something we need to learn to do as this city grows, and I pray we find a way to do it fairly, transparently and wiseley. Because it is going to be unavoidable, and while the council has figured out how to not pick that fight at the moment… the time will soon come when we cant avoid those challenges anymore.
Hey, TK, how about you take your pro-development drooling on the Old East Davis neighborhood and [expletive deleted verb] your [expletive deleted noun] the [expletive deleted] out of our neighborhood?
After spending thirty years fighting for and upholding the historic value of Davis’ first neighborhood, you can’t imagine how much I love people like you coming in with dollar signs for eyes and viewing those who us who call this home as prey. We’ve all worked on the historic guidelines, attended too many city meetings to count on all 150 of my toes, put money and time into lawsuits, and what do we get? Another round of pot-shot throwing pro-development types seeing ‘blight’ everywhere so they can justify ‘condemnation’ in their eyes for their drooling dreams of ‘downtown creep’. Well, that last word is right.
How about recognizing the fact that our neighborhood is already among the densest neighborhoods in Davis? Why don’t you go talk to the folks at Stonegate Lake and Willowbank and North Davis Farms and tell them all those big back yards are a ‘waste of space’, and really they should sacrifice those big backyards for a five-story apartment because they live in the least dense neighborhoods in Davis (because they are rich). See how that flies!!!! But at least be honest about who is wasting land in this town that should be sacrificed for housing. And it ain’t us!
[expletive deleted adjective][expletive deleted noun]!
Hey Alan,
Thank you for your wise, and always eloquent contribution to this discussion.
The opinion of “this is my neighborhood you don’t get a say what happens here” is REALLY RICH, coming from someone who has zero problems chiming in on issues pretty much everywhere else in the city.
I will gladly trade if you are up for it: I will stop posting my opinion about “your” neighborhood if you stop posting your opinion about what happens in “MY” neighborhood. ( I live in eastern mace ranch, VERY close to the Mace exit. So you would have to shut up about anything that happens around the mace curve, or at the former DISC site etc.) Deal?
Yeah I didn’t think so.
Also, I think your comment is VERY telling about the way you see the world.
You obviously know NOTHING about me if you think I’m eyeing your neighborhood with dollar signs in my eyes. Im not a developer. Hell, I’m not even someone who can afford to OWN a home in this town because I run a non-profit helping OTHER starving entrepreneurs try to get themselves established and get their products to market…. and you know what? People like you aren’t helping.
You seem to believe that everyone who thinks that Davis should grow WITH the demand for homes and commercial space here, MUST be a greedy developer, or at least in the pocket of one, and I’m sorry, it’s just NOT true. I have NO financial interest in your neighborhood, nor did I have any stake in the DISC proposal which you felt entitled to oppose, even though it wouldn’t have apparently affected you at all.
The personal attacks just expose you for what you are. Before you got your self-rightrous hackles up, you might noticed that my comments were SYMPATHETIC to the situation that “your” neighborhood is in.
So lets be clear: It is not ME eyeing your neighborhood. You don’t need to spend a second worrying about ME. You are fighting your neighbors who own properties there and who have their own best interests in mind. It is THOSE people including the owners of the commercial spaces, and the multi-family properties, who will be pressuring your neighborhood to change. I was only pointing out that reality, because despite your opposition to change, you are fighting the realities of capitalism itself, and in the long term, you ARE going to lose. I really don’t see it playing out any other way.
The city has the obligation to maintain its zoning laws whatever way is best for the city as a whole. You indeed have a right to fight for what you want in “your” neighborhood, but at the end of the day, what is best for ALL of Davis is what must end up prevailing.
So either take a deep breath and come to peace with the fact that “your” neighborhood will go through the EXACT set of issues that MOST older downtown-adjacent neighborhoods go through, or start tying balloons to your roof and see if you can make it someplace nicer.
Hey Tim . . .
Buttering me up! Flattery will get you everywhere. Thank you, thank you very much.
Rich, Richard, or Dick?
I do? I’ve got Zero problems chiming in? Should chiming be a problem?
Um . . . OK?
Close enough a car losing control will end up in your backyard?
I do? Have to ‘shut up’? Could I ‘shut the F up’ instead? Has there been some issue with my talking about the mace curve, or at the former DISC site etc. ? Anything specific you had an issue with my saying?
Maybe? . . . Old East is 4×4 blocks. So if you’re saying you’d rather I not but† in (as if I had) about what goes in your neighborhood, like where you live, fine. Like I won’t recommend they locate the homeless camping area next to your house . . . or within 4 blocks, OK? Mace Curve and DISC are much much larger, and DISC got voted on, and no one is doing a Measure D vote on the interior. There is nothing to compare, we are a tiny, existing historic neighborhood. Apples and Watermelons.
I said Maybe! What are you shoving words in my mouth for!?!!!
That’s why it’s *my* comment. If it were your comment it would be telling about the way *you* see the world.
You’re that Inventopia guy.
Not necessarily. I think you’re eyeing our neighborhood with a way of thinking that doesn’t respect the people who live in the neighborhood or the hard work they’ve put into making that neighborhood a place they wish to live in, and instead focus on some vague ‘common good’ values that are often espoused by developers.
As I said, you espouse similar values. That doesn’t make you one.
A large club.
Sounds worthy.
What?
There are other people like me? Please tell me their names, I’ve never met anyone like me, and neither has anyone else I know.
Aren’t helping with what?
I didn’t say that. And, as you said, *you* are a perfect example.
And I voted *against* Measure J, Measure R, and Measure D. So you can’t call me a no growther.
We agree. It’s not true.
Good to know.
I didn’t oppose it. I talked to the developer’s representative and to the developer themselves to address my concerns, and decided to vote *for* DISC. So what, in God’s name, are you talking about? Why are you saying I opposed DISC when I didn’t? Is that an assumption on your part? You are 100% wrong in stating that.
At all? You think giant commercial and housing developments don’t affect people who aren’t directly adjacent? How to come to *that* conclusion?
I admit you are correct that I’m an [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted], but at least I’m not an [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted], such as yourself.
Perhaps I owe you an apology. I didn’t read it that way. And it’s not “my” neighborhood, it’s mine and many other’s who live here.
Good to know.
Good to know.
Yes, we know. All too well.
As happened in 1988, and again in 2016.
I really didn’t need that reality pointed out. We live that reality.
Opposition to change? No. I do have opposition to change that s¨cks.
Strange comment for this blog, considering the lean towards Democratic Socialists of America types, who make me look like Spiro Agnew.
In the long run, we’re all going to die.
Lose what? There are plenty of cities that protect and invest in their historic neighborhoods, as part of the very fabric and vibrancy of the city and even as tourist attractions. Davis has so little left, in my humble, that it should protect what it’s got.
I do. Fight it. Fight the Power! Fight it. Fight the Power!
And what’s best for the city as a whole is what TK thinks is best for the city as a whole.?
Been there, done that, doing that, will continue doing that.
ALL of Davis? Newsflash, sir. Nothing is “best” for ALL of Davis. There is what some people THINK is best for all of Davis. What is it with you and the ALL CAPS ?
Om
We have been going through those EXACT issues for decades now, and will continue to, as long as the wolves are waiting on the other side of the tracks, smacking their lips and drooling our way. Why did you all caps EXACT, exactly? It didn’t need that emphasis.
You’re about four years late with the ‘clever’ “Up” reference. Went through all that already.
Are you sure you’re “sympathetic”? You have a strange way of showing it.
Removing R-1 for future zoning of what?
I think you left out the biggest news of the night. Both Partida and Carson seemed willing to have a discussion about putting before the voters the possibility of amending Measure D. Partida’s remark was more general and Carson’s was more specific to looking at the affordable exemption in Measure D to make it workable.
My takeaway is that there is an opportunity to actually reach consensus on how to produce more Affordable Housing by amending the Affordable exemption. Many people on all sides seemed to agree on finding innovative ways to build more affordable housing. Now is the time to get everyone in a room and figure out how to amend Measure D to make the exemption work.
There will be some additional articles coming out on this, a lot to unpack.
Removing R-1 for future zoning of what? With no land in the city available for new development the point is moot.
Sure sounds good though, eh?
My thought too with the push for a growth cap and Measure J/R/D in place.
Since when does the staff make the decisions for the City? The staff should be facilitating a discussion among the parties, not trying to control it. I really don’t care about staff’s opinion on what should be included–it’s the citizens’ opinions that only matter, even if expressed through our Council members.
The claims by long-term residents are the same types of arguments to maintain segregation. Length of residency confers NO additional decision power in a democracy. Will’s response was dead on.
Ultimately council could add or subtract whatever they want