By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The Planning Commission this week will hold a public hearing on the Housing Element. There are some really interesting comments and responses that I will spend the majority of this column highlighting.
I will make two general comments at the outset here. First, it feels like the city is losing a huge opportunity here. The city has a big problem with respect to housing—it doesn’t really have a place to put the housing it needs to build, especially the affordable housing. So why not center the Housing Element discussion and public outreach around this important issue?
Second, most people do not have a good sense of what the Housing Element is.
The staff tries to unpack that: “It is worth noting that the Housing Element is not an ordinance. It does not set any development standards and it does not rezone any properties mentioned within it. Instead, as a part of the General Plan, the Housing Element is a policy document. It sets the framework for what the City sets out to accomplish during the life cycle of the Housing Element.”
But that does not “ensure the units will be built.”
Buried in this explanation is the key point that I mentioned above: “The City does not currently contain enough vacant land appropriately zoned for the development of the housing necessary to meet 
the City’s estimated housing needs for the period between 2021 and 2029.”
They also point out: “Inclusion on this list does not necessarily mean that an identified property will be rezoned or developed.”
Finally: “The intent of soliciting comments from the public is to get a general sense from the community of common themes across comments and to ensure that the Housing Element reflects the community’s overall concerns.”
My problem here is that the city is burying the lead. The lead should be: we don’t have enough land that is zoned appropriately to accommodate the housing that the state says we should be planning for. And then ask them how they would solve that problem.
What happened instead is that the HEC came down with a list of ten recommendations and people weighed in on whether they were agreeable to them—including the council. I would argue that is “bassackwards.” Start with the community actually responding to the problem rather than the proposed solutions and you get a much better discussion.
(As an aside, I would strongly encourage readers to pick out some of their own comments and responses to discuss as well).
One comment addressed the R-1 Zoning.
As I keep pointing out, the impact of this proposal is much more limited than anyone thinks.
For example, “The State of California has already passed mandatory legislation requiring cities to approve certain accessory dwelling units by right. Therefore, a homeowner can already have up to two accessory units (an ADU and JADU) on their property, effectively making the single family dwelling a 3 unit dwelling. Of course, certain criteria must be met. Nevertheless, it is already possible.”
The city believes, “This item may be appropriate to explore as part of the General Plan update rather than as an implementation measure in the Housing Element. If supported during the General Plan update process, the Housing Element could be amended accordingly with adoption of an updated General Plan.”
They further note: “There is not a great deal of available land to subdivide to achieve high densities. Therefore, the net effect would be limited.”
Comment: The city should focus on its need for workforce and family housing. No more 4 and 5 bedroom units should be permitted. But when they are, how does the city get RHNA credit for these large units. How is the city receiving credit for the by the bed methodology? Why use by the bed if it doesn’t meet the federal definition of affordable housing? Do we have any indication of what other university towns are doing in their efforts to align university growth pressures and RHNA numbers?
Some interesting parts to this response.
First, I don’t really understand the logic of counting bed rental as individual units. If you have a five-bedroom apartment or a house that houses 10 people, it’s still a single unit.
The city notes: “By-the-bed rentals do not meet the federal definition of a housing unit, but they are located in apartment units that do meet the standard, with separate bathroom facilities and a separate entrance from other units. The methodology for RHNA credit for these bed rentals acknowledges that each bed is not, and should be, counted as a separate unit for RHNA purposes, but it establishes an equivalency.”
Staff adds: “HCD staff confirmed that HCD would not accept any alternative methodology for calculating RHNA credit for larger format (i.e., 4 or 5+ bedroom) apartments.”
That doesn’t mean that they won’t be counted. It just means that a five-bedroom unit is simply a single unit for the purpose of RHNA.
At least to me, that makes sense. You really believe we can build Nishi and that should count for our entire eight-year housing needs? That would seem to violate the spirit of housing needs, in my mind.
On the PG&E Corp yard, perhaps this will settle this point for the near future (probably not). Staff writes: “Earlier this year, PG&E came to the city with a request for an entitlement for a new building on their corporation yard site at 5th and L Street. PG&E indicated to staff that they have no intention at this time of moving their corporation yard from Davis. They find that the location is very centralized to their northern California operations. Therefore, the PG&E site would not meet the Legislature’s requirement for a property to be ‘reasonably likely to develop.'”
In addition, staff notes: “Both the city and the School District have not indicated that their properties are surplus and available for development.”
Finally this was interesting: “How and why are the Nishi project and WDACC projects acceptable to count when there is no existing utility connection or infrastructure? If WDACC is in the floodplain, how is the infrastructure to be funded? How can Trackside be counted when it is in court? Will Chiles Ranch subdivision ever be built?”
Here is the staff response in full:
The central question in all of these comments is how can the City take credit for projects that seem to have construction obstacles. Each one of the above referenced projects still plans to move forward. Granted, each one is in a different place in the approval process, but it is the expectation of the developer to construct. For example, staff has been in discussion recently with the Nishi developer. When the project was brought to the city, the developer knew and has accepted conditions of approval to extend the utilities onto the project site at the developer’s expense. The same is true of the WDACC project. When a project site is approved and the utilities are conditioned to be provided by the developer, it is acceptable to count the site as a viable site. It is worth noting that both sites are adjacent to existing utilities, which will enable them to connect.
It is also true that the WDACC site is in the floodplain. The developer plans to put additional fill on the site to raise it out of the floodplain. All expenses related to the work will be paid by the developer. The condition to do so has been agreed to by the developer.
The Trackside project is on appeal in a Yolo County court. Until the developer decides they no longer want to defend the lawsuit and the courts have decided in favor of the plaintiff, the project remains viable.
The Chiles Ranch project was approved many years ago. However, a development agreement was also approved, which extended the time available to the developer to build. The City has received a very recent email from the developer stating that the project is still planned to move forward.
In closing here, I will once again point out that I think a much more fruitful discussion would be to engage the community on a problem that they have to solve rather than a serious of recommendations that they are free to oppose in a vacuum.
For those who have longed for a visioning process, this is another lost opportunity. For those who wish to see a certain city ordinance repealed, this is a lost opportunity.
“The City does not currently contain enough vacant land appropriately zoned for the development of the housing necessary to meet the city’s estimated housing needs for the period 2021 and 2029.”
Wow! Did you just notice this or were you aware of it before supporting measure D? If you were aware of it before Measure D did you ignore it? If you were unaware of it does it now change your support for the limit line?
You won’t get anywhere with this RD. DG admit he was wrong? About as likely as Donald Trump admitting he was wrong. Instead he beats us with the 83-17 cane, but comes up with his own crashing jetliner, pre-Measure D approval of land, and digs in on that, despite the fact that won’t even get on the ballot – but hey, we can’t beat him with 83-17 like he beats us – because there are no numbers. But the point is, there never will be numbers because that crashing jetliner won’t ever take off.
I have actually admitted I was wrong a lot. But the more important point is I suggest a way forward for you guys, but you don’t seem to want to take it.
Actually, so has DT.
Us? Who are we but mere commenters. What you do has influence, as you — well, you’re a local blogger.
I’m sorry, I thought you were being serious before. Now I see you’re not. I’ll ignore in the future.
As Snopes would say, partially true… but, when you do, it almost always has a “but, …” or other qualifier in it… ex., DJUSD Parcel Tax measure, and outcome… time after time, you kept saying that although you supported it, it was ‘failing’, as if that were a fact of the end result… when it passed, you admitted you were incorrect, and then went into a string of “but‘s”… not an exception… pattern…
The correct way to, convincingly, say “I was wrong.” is to say “I was wrong.” No qualifiers, no “spin”.
Bill Marshall reveals the secret to a successful marriage:
“The correct way to, convincingly, say ‘I was wrong.’ is to say ‘I was wrong.’ No qualifiers, no ‘spin’”.
I think you guys are making an error here conflating opinion with errors. We make plenty of factual errors in our reporting, we fix them and correct them. An opinion is not subject to being right or wrong. There’s a big difference.
Alan M… let’s see… a fuselage, heavily loaded, stubby wings, and a single rubber-band powered propeller… only way that could crash, is if it’s launched with a catapult… but then, it truly will…
“Half-stepping” won’t succeed…. it can’t… the ‘true believers’ won’t buy it, nor will those philosophically and/or practically favoring the end of the “JeRkeD process”… such a proposal might get a 5% positive vote…
The only answers seem to lie in education, convincing of much of the recent 83%, or having things deteriorate to the point they switch on their own…
Or students actually voting en masse and winning out of the self-interest of voting owners wishing to shore up property values.
Alan M… I’m definitely a staunch opponent of the JeRkeD process, it’s not just the
… there are also the true-blue “control freaks” that want to play ‘voter-may-I?’, and the “inertia” folk, needing to see a convincing reason to change before going against the status quo… the latter two have little ‘economic self-interest’ on their minds…
There is a smaller segment of ‘activists’ who believe everyone should have the right to vote on anything.
I believe that the most fervent pro-“JeRkeD process” folk, who post here, are in the first two groups… including, in your posit, those who own property in Davis, see it as an ‘investment’ (and, some don’t even live in town).
If you’re talking off-campus (Davis residents) “students actually voting en masse”, we are in agreement.
On-campus students voting to change City mechanisms may be politically practical, but I somewhat oppose it philosophically.
Yes, they’ve just completed a very large building in the corp yard. Looks to be about three stories tall. I wonder if it has solar panels on it. Between that and the reconstruction of Fifth Street, it’s been very noisy in our business district for the whole spring and summer so far.
PG&E is not going to vacate those properties in the next generation, I’d say. And the likelihood of the city or DJUSD moving out of their current sites is very low. This housing element needs to be realistic.
Name for new movie… “The Truest Story Ever Told”… There has been “talk-talk” about moving the PG&E facility, the PW Corp Yard, Parks Corp Yard, DJUSD Admin offices, etc., for maybe 10-20 years now… nada even came close to serious consideration…
Far more likely: Greenwald family relocating to Zamora; Shor family relocating to College Park…
Perhaps all of this can be remembered, when DISC comes up for a vote again. HCD bases its numbers on the amount of jobs in a given locale. Add jobs, and HCD will try to force the city to add even more housing in future rounds. Strange, how little attention this gets on here.
As a result of the DISC campaign, the slow-growthers have done the city an enormous favor – as well as those who claim that there’s already a “housing shortage”.
[edited]
Ron O
As a resident of Woodland you have no skin or stake in this issue, and you don’t represent any element of concerned Davis citizens. You’re not part of the community here and I have no idea why you want to support the “fill the moat” view in a town where you don’t live. You’re commentary can go elsewhere. (Isn’t there a blog in Woodland you can comment on, or even start?)
Not necessarily true…
An example… my parents lived in San Mateo… I was the one who inherited the house… had I kept it as a rental, then I would have ‘skin in the game’ related to San Mateo rental, and/or housing policies…
Yes, and Don is a business owner in Davis who lives elsewhere. Ron doesn’t meet those criteria from what information I have so far. But if he’s a landlord, then is his financial interests in keeping a tight rental market are readily apparent.
Richard:
A landlord would not normally be arguing against “upzoning” (from R1), nor would they oppose DISC, nor would they be promoting student housing on campus, don’t you think?
Especially DISC, since that would tend to tighten the housing rental market even further, at least up until the time that they build more sprawl.
Those work in the opposite direction of the interests of a landlord. For that matter, working against DISC is also not necessarily in the best interest of someone living in Woodland. That site is an extremely easy commute from Woodland. (Probably easier than from many locales within Davis.)
Though if one owned an apartment building, one might be concerned about the elimination of R1.
The bottom line is that not everyone comments on here out of self-interest. And if they are, they’re wasting their time anyway. (I have no doubt of that.)
Actually, everyone might be wasting their time.
Says someone who complains about state policy makers sticking their noses into local decision making. Considering that you’ve been against expanded voting by undocumented workers and others who may not be considered citizens or residents of Davis, your viewpoint is inconsistent.
Ron doesn’t represent Davis interests in any way. He is trying to impose on Davis values that from outside the community. He’s arguing for closing down the community even further even though he won’t be impacted at all by those types of policies. He’s not a stakeholder in any way in these discussions. Unless he’s offering a valid experienced or professional viewpoint with empirical evidence, what he says should have not impact on what others in Davis think about these issues. He can comment all he wants on what happens in Woodland, Yolo County or at the state level. Just not here.
Here, I’ll disagree, Richard McC (inadvertent rhyme)…
Anyone should be able to comment… civilly [yet some feel that only applies when they are the recipients of a comment]… some folk just feel compelled to dig their own hole as to credibility, which will mitigate your concerns as to influencing others…
David said “But the more important point is I suggest a way forward for you guys, but you don’t seem to want to take it.”
Now this is the most supercilious retort I can imagine so much so that an appropriate malapropism might be to call it supersillyous.
First as Alan M. points out who are we but commenters. But more importantly you readily admit that the proposed solutions only nibble at the edges of the problem. You support the 800 pound gorilla in the room then condemn the courageous critics, daring to call out the dominant paradigm of Davis land use politics, for not getting on board with what generously might be called half measures, while you repeatedly support the dark underbelly of local housing policy.
Oh and by the way, there are real alternative solutions to adding housing supply that will make a dent regionally being implemented, but they aren’t the ones you are fixated on like ADU’s, infill lot splits, or pre-approval of Measure D annexations.
Ron O wrote “As a result of the DISC campaign, the slow-growthers have done the city an enormous favor – as well as those who claim that there’s already a ‘housing shortage’.”
Thanks to those responsible for restricting supply. Zillow says the value of my house went up an astonishing $55,000 last month. But sadly for those who have asked me why I don’t move to “Oklahoma or someplace” I have no plans to move out. Still I do wonder how much more the value of my 50+ year old Strang home would have gone up if Disc had passed because as Keith E. points out adding supply drives up prices.
And for all you Cannery haters out there. I went to a social event at the Cannery yesterday. It was lovely.
DISC would add to “demand”, more than “supply” of housing. Said so right in the EIR.
I’m not sure why the development activists ignore that.
As such, it’s pretty tough to blame the slow-growthers (or Measure D) in regard to the impact of DISC’s failure in regard to supply/demand for housing. You’d think that those concerned about manufactured housing shortages would be celebrating. The fact that they’re not tells me that some of them aren’t actually concerned about housing shortages in the first place. It’s a ruse.
“Supply” includes surrounding areas, as well. Your $55,000 rise in value (in one month), probably says more about Zillow than reality. I wouldn’t be surprised if it said the same thing about houses in Woodland, example. I’m sure that you realize that housing prices have been occurring across the entire country, but that appears to be leveling-off.
Regarding your consistent challenge to David (e.g., to launch a campaign against Measure D), he tried to start a “community discussion” several times on this blog. It failed.
And I’m not sure that even David wants to be known as someone actively campaigning against Measure D, even though he pretty much was.
Your personal crusade against Measure D seems to be that it’s holding back sprawl that would otherwise occur. I’m not sure that’s a winning argument. The fact that two peripheral proposals were recently-approved doesn’t bode well for your arguments, either.
You mentioned The Cannery. Did that “lower” housing prices?
Ron
Given that you live in Woodland, you really don’t have a valid perspective on what’s happening in the Davis housing market. Why don’t you check the housing market in your hometown since you asked the question?
Tell you what:
Why don’t you check that, since you’re the “professional economist”.
I’ve been priced-out of my original hometown, but I don’t go whining on here to others about it.
Instead, I moved on. What a concept!
“And I’m not sure that even David wants to be known as someone actively campaigning against Measure D, even though he pretty much was.”
I agree with your assessment of David’s intent about not wanting to take a position that sets him apart on the limit line. He is, of course, free to correct us about his intent if we are wrong.
David did not take any position against Measure D. He repeatedly said he supported it.
One thing for sure – if I were against Measure J and wanted it defeated, I would not take your scorched earth approach.
One day you ridicule me for doing nothing the next for having a scorched earth approach. I wish you would make up your mind.
You’re not helping the situation. Nor are you realistic. The pre-Measure B poll I saw was that 40 percent or so of the voters would vote against ANY Measure J project regardless. That means just to get a project passed, you need all the persuadables. That’s not even touching Measure J, that’s just to pass a housing project.
Talk to people like Ron Oertel and tell them that we need more housing and their response was either I don’t care or no we don’t. He fights against jobs because he is afraid that jobs will force more housing. So if the problem is that we need more housing – how does your approach – one note – get us there when the voters are not with you?
Measure B would not have been on any ballot, except via the JeRkeD process, so that’s a ‘false equivalency’ right there… and, if you are correct, a referendum (another process, not subject to the JeRkeD thingy) against an approved project [think Wildhorse and Mace Ranch] would fail 60-40 and the project would move forward…
You’re mixing equines with avacados…
Perhaps it is you who are not helpful, nor realistic?
The point is that if you can’t get people to support individual projects, you’re not going to get them to eliminate their ability to vote on them, right?
David seeks to persuade the unpersuadable anti-housing bullies who support policies that take the lunch money of poor kids by supporting policies that lead to confiscatory rents leaving many of them deeply indebted to loan companies and their loan servicers.
While I call them out, David, for whatever reason, whether its fear of losing his readership, his advertisers, his advisory board members, bearing the wrath of the nimby’s or a true belief in the policy might prefer nuance over confrontation. But as you say your failure to speak truth to power when it mattered has left the housing policy of Davis in tact for ten more years. Arguing that it doesn’t matter for another ten years begs the question, where were you when it mattered?
But there is another question that ten year argument fails. Where are you on pushing for amendments to Measure D or arguing that due to the pandemic the CC should put before the voters another election on the ordinance when a real campaign could be held? By saying nothing can be done for ten years you make a very long punt.
Actually I believe there is a huge percentage of the population in the middle. Most of the people in the fray are more on the extremes, but they are largely unpersuadable.
Ron G. takes a “principled” stand (based upon his beliefs), while David takes a “political” (or “practical”) stand (while not fully-stating his beliefs).
Seems to me that Ron G. wants David to state/stand behind his principles, even if it’s not popular or realistic. (And would be disastrous, of course. But that’s a different issue.) But I believe this is why Ron G. is not satisfied with David’s responses.
Their views are actually quite similar, but David doesn’t want to acknowledge it. As such, Ron G. is continuing to push him.
But Ron G. may be overestimating David’s influence, regardless. Even in 10 years from now.
As soon as another housing crash hits, we probably won’t hear a peep about this – anywhere.
Scorched Earth? Do you even know what that means? Oh, yeah, you figured it out through statistics and science 😐
How is pointing out the damage done by Measure D ‘scorched Earth’ ?
“he is afraid”
He is afraid? What are you afraid of?
I find it interesting that no one has really dug into a lot of very interesting things that I pulled out of the staff report. Instead, you guys seem content to badger about Measure J which was effectively put to rest for the next ten years last November by a huge margin.
Hate to burst your ego bubble, David, but perhaps you were the only one that found them interesting… I read the article twice before I first posted… much more yawning (stuff I already knew) than interest…
Guess we have different lens… yours are probably newer, original equipment… mine are based on much more experience and cataract surgery…
And, am street legal without glasses, for driving… close to, but not quite 20/20…
I tend to be ‘far-sighted’… not so sure of your ‘vision’…
Hate to burst your ego bubble, David, but perhaps you were the only one that found them interesting… I read the article twice before I first posted… much more yawning (stuff I already knew) than interest…
Guess we have different lens… yours are probably newer, original equipment… mine are based on much more experience and cataract surgery…
A reminder that there is a limit of five comments per person per article per day. A few of you are at or reaching that #.
Sure it is… if the opinion is formed from false and/or incorrect “facts”… or, if it is a ‘fake’ opinion, as in one that is posited to deceive and/or deliberately ‘question’ others…
1. There is no residency requirement for commenting on the Vanguard. Residents of nearby cities, or anywhere else for that matter, are welcome to post and comment here.
2. The topic of this article is the Housing Element. Please stick to that.
Are those the values established by professional, Ph.D., business-owning Davis elites? The ones who claim to want to include more of those from other communities, but don’t want their input?
You know, pretty much the opposite of everything else they say?
I don’t like continuing sprawl – Davis, Woodland, or anywhere. Woodland is hopeless regarding this. It’s like Davis “used to” be.