By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – When they first rolled out the sequencing here, it made a little bit of sense—the city of Davis would roll out the Downtown Plan first and then roll into a General Plan update. A big problem now is that we still don’t have the Downtown Plan done—I’m told by city officials early 2022 now—and at this point, we should probably re-think some of it in light of COVID-inspired changes.
The bigger problem is probably what that does to a General Plan update—which is desperately needed and, because it is likely to represent an all-out war, I’m sure the city officials are not that anxious to get it underway.
In the meantime, we have approved a Housing Element that doesn’t make a ton of sense, which establishes housing for the next eight years—again, outside of a broader community discussion and a General Plan update.
The city has included plans to add housing for which there is no room, there is no fiscal feasibility and for which they cannot likely get through a vote.
At some point, there has to be a reckoning that the infill locations which we have relied on for our housing with very few exceptions over 
the last 20 years is essentially gone. I think the city wanted to think about housing in the core, but the feasibility of that housing—absence subsidies—seems unlikely.
In the meantime, we are about to head to another election cycle where there is likely to be at least one Measure J project on the ballot, with no clear community direction except for their project by project opposition to any and all new development—housing or not.
But it’s a whole lot worse than that. At this rate, we probably won’t have a new General Plan approved until 2025 at the earliest—halfway through the next RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) cycle, with the state raining down pressure to build housing, and Davis still operating under a quarter-century old plan from another world.
But wait, it is worse than that. The dam on Measure J projects is about to break loose and we could see at least four by 2024—again, all of them before the General Plan is done.
Slow-growthers want to preserve this community. I hear all the time that they don’t want this community to look like Elk Grove or Natomas.
Okay, but the reality is that by trying to preserve the community, you’re actually still changing it.
This past week the council heard caller after caller calling to return Mace Blvd. back to the way it was. But the reality is that Mace, as people knew it ten years ago, does not exist anymore. The reason for that is a combination of factors—mainly that I-80 is impacting the entire corridor from Dixon to Sacramento and Waze apps are redirecting traffic, trying to bypass that bottleneck, through Mace which is creating its own bottleneck
The city has made plans—and I think the lack of speed on this is a legitimate complaint—to alter the design, but at the end of the day, they will make changes on the margins.
We have seen the city over the last 20 years increasingly struggle to generate city revenue. When they have asked the voters for new taxes to fund basic infrastructure, the voters voted it down. When they have asked for the voters to approve economic development, the voters voted it down (twice).
Housing remains problematic as well. The voters have thus far voted down four of the six Measure J projects before. The city has approved and built one major single-family housing site in the last 20 years.
That fact is dramatically changing the nature of this city—housing is getting more expensive, and we are seeing fewer families with children moving into town. That is leading to declining enrollment and more stress on the schools.
You can argue that this change is okay—but you can’t argue that it represents a major change in the community many claim to want to preserve.
There is no magic bullet here. But we are seeing very drastic changes to Davis and what troubles me is that most of these changes are happening as the result of lack of action rather than the result of carefully discussed planning.
We hear the council comments that we operate in a time of COVID for nearly the past two years. But the problem is that the city was dragging its heels before COVID happened. And, frankly, COVID makes community discussion more feasible, not less. The city could have a series of presentations and discussions over Zoom that frankly are easier for families and people to attend than it was in the old days when we had to crowd into a public space for a few hours.
Part of my problem—the public, when we examined polling from a few years ago, had only a cursory understanding of the looming problems.
For instance, one poll found that housing and lack of affordable housing were tops on the list—and then the voters went and voted down the largest affordable housing proposal the city has ever seen.
At the same time, however, they have consistently overestimated the health of city finances. Most respondents have said that city finances are good to fair, while the reality is that we have a balanced budget on paper only and it’s held together with silly string and deferred maintenance on critical infrastructure.
With monies coming available from the state and feds, we might get a break on infrastructure and affordable housing—although that money might unfortunately be just a drop in the bucket compared to what our built up needs are.
But the bigger issue is that there needs to be an honest discussion with the community about our challenges, but our leaders do not have the incentive to give that talk—and those who have in the past have been either ignored or have exaggerated the problem to the extent that they were not deemed credible.
Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – ING!
The General Plan Schedule: Perpetually Kicking the Can Down the Road . . . . . .
We don’t need to update the entire General Plan. The Housing Element was required by law. The downtown plan is nearly done. We don’t need to waste the time on a massive fight about housing development that isn’t going to occur anyway without the public voting on each project.
We spend way too much money on consultant-driven planning processes which don’t reflect public input or sentiment, don’t lead to any actionable goals, and don’t even begin to bridge the divisions in this community.
Measure J is our General Plan.
It will be interesting to see what happens when Measure J butts heads with the RHNA. I could see it going to the CA Supreme Court. IMO there’s a good chance that it gets overturned.
In the interim, I could see the city officials doing a CYA by doing an expansion of the sphere of influence and zone those areas for residential growth. But of course those areas couldn’t be annexed and developed in the city without a Measure J vote. That way the city can say; hey we tried but the voters didn’t approve it.
And now that has me wondering if an El Macero kind of development might be a work around. A county development adjacent to the city that pays for/uses city services. That wouldn’t have to go through a Measure J vote? Would it count towards Davis’ required RHNA housing requirement?
The same might be said for any and all voter-approved urban limit lines, and probably other land preservation measures throughout the state as well.
Maybe it’s time to change leaders at the state level.
In the meantime, the fight will probably be focused on communities that essentially IGNORE state mandates, and have the money and determination to fight it. In other words, not Davis.
For that matter, it seems to include San Francisco itself, to some degree.
I predict a “great awakening”.
But really, the state mandates are focused on infill, not sprawl. (Though they do nothing to contain the latter.)
You’re conflating the state mandates and their focus on infill with the RHNA housing requirements by the state. I’m not sure what your definition of ignoring state mandates are. Davis not approving new housing because of Measure J is an example. Bottom line is a city that fails to plan for the housing required by the RHNA could possibly face corrective measures….the ultimate of which would be to lose control of the land use approval process.
I was referring to the 97% of cities which haven’t been doing so.
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/09/losing-the-rhna-battle-97-of-cities-counties-fail-to-meet-state-housing-goals/
Of which some of them will be fighting the state mandates. For example:
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2021/01/02/wealthy-southern-california-cities-fight-affordable-housing-mandates/
That is a demonstrably false statement. Davis has submitted a housing element which does not rely upon peripheral development.
But I suspect that if Davis attempts to present a peripheral housing development proposal to SACOG as part of its housing element in the future (subject to a Measure J vote), SACOG probably wouldn’t even approve it.
The majority of major population areas in California are NOT expanding their boundaries as a result of RHNA requirements. In fact, I can’t even name ONE that is doing so. Many of them are restricted by urban growth boundaries, as well. While others have already grown right up to other cities or natural boundaries, already. (In other words, the usual pattern.)
It is interesting, though – that approval of DISC would likely result in HIGHER RNNA numbers during future allocations, if it is approved. And yet, the growth [edited: proponents] never want to talk about that.
So you’re differentiating the cities in court vs. the cities that simply aren’t complying? Why?
Look up the history of the court fights between cities and the mandates. They’ve all LOST.
Fine…if you want to split hairs. Davis isn’t approving a SIGNIFICANT amount of new housing that would go towards the RHNA requirements mostly because of Measure J….WHY? Because there isn’t enough infill property/opportunities to REALISTICALLY build out enough new homes. One of the requirements of the mandate is the ability to REALITICALLY build out homes that have been planned/zoned for. No measure J and the city council could far more easily approve annexations for new housing…..it’s that simple.
WHY? If Davis is the one providing the services.
Really? Have you been to the inland CA area? Have you looked at the greater Sacramento area? Where is building happening? (I used to be paid to drive all over Southern CA to look for property to annex and develop…Temecula, Moreno Valley, Ontario, Coachella Valley, the Imperial Valley the High Desert….). I was personally involved in the annexation of property for development in the Fresno area.
Not sure what you’re asking.
I think you’re right, that they’ve lost their appeals with the organization that’s forcing this. But, I suspect that this is just a battle in a longer war
Nope. Just a fact.
The reason why is because it’s a number that Davis has already accounted for, in its housing element.
If that’s the case, then I suspect that the state won’t approve the housing element (for Davis, and many, many other cities).
I don’t think it’s that simple. For one thing, much of the RHNA requirements focus on “affordable” housing. And unless the requirements are actually spelled-out, “realistically” is a subjective term, perhaps it’s one that SACOG should consider going forward.
By the way, those places are no longer all that inexpensive, either.
Regardless, “more easily” is not necessarily what SACOG considers. They look at the housing element, and (supposedly) aren’t eyeing surrounding farmland like a developer would.
Because Davis has Measure J. If you’re referring to a county development (such as Mace Ranch was), I’m sure that some developer will try that again, if they can find a way to do so.
Yes – they’ve been doing that for years. They like it, and it has nothing to do with RHNA requirements. All of those places suck, by the way. Though “suck” is a subjective term.
I recall that Matt Williams noted that Woodland ASKED FOR a higher RHNA number than otherwise would have been required.
Ignore Commenter
My comment got screwed-up, as follows:
I meant to say that perhaps SACOG should consider the impacts of their requirements on continued sprawl, going forward. (Or in other words, how much they want a particular place to continue sucking into the future.)
Check it out, though – looks like this place still has room to sprawl, along with a willingness to do so.
And yet its housing costs have soared:
https://calmatters.org/housing/2021/09/california-housing-podcasat-fresno-market/
I’m not sure what your point is. You’re talking to the guy that has stated that building new housing leads to increases in home prices.
Well…if you say so….?
This was your previous statement:
My statement was that there’s no differentiation between those actively fighting the mandates and those simply not in compliance with them. The court cases will get the headlines and reinforce the RHNA’s legal authority but I don’t think it’ll effect who gets forced to be compliant with the mandates.
You answered your own question statement about my comment regarding splitting hairs. Realistic planning for housing is a big deal. So you’re right that if Davis’ housing element isn’t realistic and not much gets built then the RHNA will look at Davis and it’s lack of peripheral development and string of shot down measure J projects.
I’ve stated that the housing requirements by DISC created by the RHNA or the developers are a bitter pill to swallow necessary to swallow if it means getting it approved for future economic growth. I’m not a fan of new market rate housing. But I’ll accept it if I think it has enough of a benefit for the greater community.
I was referring to two possibilities: 1. The CC approves the expansion of the sphere of influence and zones for future housing. That shows the RHNA that they’ve at least planned for the housing. That then leaves the nebulous if it actually will be housing….how realistic…because of Measure J approval of annexation…but then you jump off that bridge when you get to it. But at least that planning might stave off the RHNA for awhile. 2. A county community adjacent to the city like El Macero. I was wondering if something like that got approved, if it would count towards the RHNA requirements for Davis.
I like Palm Springs and Indio.
I was VERY deep into the Fresno new home market a couple decades ago. It was before my time but look up: Fresno FBI REZONE. What’s mind blowing is that the former suspicious police chief of Fresno was recently elected mayor!
I’m referring to the housing element. It’s been completed and submitted.
If so, I guess they’ll look at every other city throughout California that isn’t expanding its boundaries, as well. Some of which are hemmed-in by urban growth boundaries. Many of which are VASTLY more expensive than Davis, and yet will be required to set aside much more for “affordable housing”. How “realistic” is that (unless it’s subsidized)?
Again, I don’t see SACOG approving that type of plan (in regard to a housing element), nor do I see (even this council) being so irresponsible as to submit something like that in the first place.
But again, the housing element has been completed, for this cycle. I suspect that Davis’ housing element is a lot more “realistic” than many other housing elements throughout the state.
I don’t see how Davis is going to submit something like that as part of its housing element in the future.
By the way, why doesn’t UCD have a “housing element” and RHNA requirements?
And, why not look at the housing element and RHNA requirements for every other city around California (those which aren’t expanding their boundaries at all)?
There’s an outright dishonesty on here, which pretends that Davis is somehow oh-so-unique. It is not.
It’s all just a bunch of b.s. to try to find a way to attack Measure J, on this blog. Like every other article which tries to do the same thing – almost every day.
Searching and searching, but continuously coming up empty. Tomorrow, expect more of the same.
Not sure what your point is. Of course they’ll look at every other city that can’t come into compliance. I’m from the Bay Area and developed houses…OF COURSE I know how expensive other areas in CA. If you’re curious how the expensive areas are going to handle new housing requirements; check out Summerhill Homes.
Why? What’s irresponsible about it?
Dense infill in Davis is prohibitively expensive to build. So much so that it’s far less likely to be built to the degree that meets RHNA requirements. You can force infill development when the area is so expensive and constrained that there’s little other choice and you can charge $1M+ per townhome (like in the Bay Area). I’m not sure why you believe otherwise and compare them to other housing elements throughout the state.
I don’t know….does El Macero count towards Davis’ housing count? If it does, then would another census designated community adjacent to Davis that uses Davis services count towards RHNA housing requirements?
Uhm…that’s what the RHNA will be doing. But we’re just talking about Davis.
I’m not sure what you mean. I don’t think anyone has said that Davis was unique while discussing the General Plan and the RHNA requirements. We’re talking about Davis because…well…this blog was dedicated to the city of Davis (initially…and David has an interest in it). Are you commenting on why we’re not discussing other cities? Unless there’s something to gain in regards to Davis….I’m not sure what the point is.
Uh…I think David supports Measure J. Counterintuitively he also supports growth. I for one attack Measure J because letting the unwashed masses directly run things is just bad governance…..letting the inmates run the asylum.
Submitting a plan that would either 1) be rejected by SACOG, or 2) might endanger Measure J is “responsible”?
Certainly not when compared to the Bay Area, Santa Barbara, San Diego, or really anywhere along the coast.
It’s a statewide requirement, and is actually more focused on places like the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
Yes.
It’s a statewide requirement.
And again, there’s other cities that are far more-expensive (and far-less willing to go along with state plans), compared to Davis. I’m looking to them, to see what they do (and how they take on the state). In the meantime, I’d also be looking to them to see how they address their OWN requirements.
That’s something for him to respond to. It seems that (given a choice between supporting it as is, versus rejecting it), he supports it – while constantly criticizing it.
But he is correct in that the underlying reasons for its existence are still largely in place.
Are you suggesting that some of the council members are “experts” in land use planning, etc.? Because I can think of one whom I’d primarily describe as a social justice warrior. (Seems like a nice person, though.) But for sure, the entire council is more supportive of growth than the populace is. And it’s that way in other cities, as well (and at the state level).
Part of the reason for that is due to developer (and technology industry) support of politicians who support it.
Ignore Commenter
What’s the harm? 1. If SACOG rejects it; in the very least you’ve bought yourself some more time. 2. Measure J will be endangered peripheral plan or not…simply not complying will put it in danger.
I’m guessing you’re not a home builder? The way you make it all pencil out is based on the sales prices of the homes. It’s far easier to stomach the costs of building infill if you’re getting $1M+ for townhomes vs. $600K.
Yes it is a statewide requirement. What gave you the idea that it was more focused on the Bay Area and LA?
Why do you want to discuss other cities in a blog posting about the city of Davis?
That’s fine. Tell us what you find. I know what I know about other cities…because…well…I’ve been around the state as a developer. I just don’t see why you question others why they’re not discussing other cities.
That sounds about right
No the underlying reason for it is to give the arrogant people of Davis direct say in things they know little about (land use) outside of how it effects their little lives. Inmates running the asylum.
I suggest that the City Council are more likely to listen to the experts than the unwashed masses. Not all of them. But in theory they should act far more rationally than extremist that are the most vocal in the crowd.
Yep, but that doesn’t mean that people should be making these decisions for themselves. Most people are caught up in their day to day lives and don’t have the time or interest in deep diving into a general plan like a policy wonk. Even most leaders can’t deep dive…but at least they can dedicate their time to listen to the policy wonks.
I’ll just pick this one thing to respond to, for now.
It’s likely that neither one of those will meet the RHNA requirements that are most-challenging to address.
And from what I understand, the more expensive the area, the more that RHNA requirements are focused on “affordable” units. Kind of diabolical, in that way.
So bottom line is that I doubt that Davis is among the most “at-risk” for not meeting RHNA requirements within the state. If anything, these mofos bend-over backwards, worrying about them.
But really, it’s just used as a way to attack Measure J on here, at least.
What you almost never hear about on here is the reason that some want to preserve farmland and prevent sprawl. I, for one, appreciate the DISC site, Shriner’s, and Covell Village just the way they are. (It’s unfortunate that some are already named-after development proposals.) I see no advantage, as in NONE, to develop them.
I changed my mind: I’ll address this, as well:
Your experience is not relevant, when it comes to addressing the new requirements. As such, I would look around the state to see how other communities are both reacting to, and addressing them.
Again, up until this point, 97% of cities apparently weren’t addressing the old requirements. (Though I’m not sure how this is defined.)
The fact that some are so focused on Davis (in regard to these requirements) is evidence that they simply want to attack Measure J. Again, there’s lots of places with urban limit lines and housing that is MUCH more expensive than Davis.
And yeah, the requirements were born out of places like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Mr. Wiener is from San Francisco, and another key player is from Los Angeles. The former is also the home of the technology industry and money that is supporting these efforts.
They don’t give a rats ass about places like Davis. Davis is SURROUNDED by “affordable” housing. And frankly, Davis is “affordable” housing, itself – depending upon what it’s being compared to.
But hopefully, the places that actually fight the state efforts will eventually wear them down.
Really? You seem pretty certain about that. While I am no longer an active developer (no 100’s of lots or anything), I do still advise others with projects in this state. And yes, one of the things I advised was on the interpretation of the recent SB 9 for a possible project.
So you’re criticizing commenters for focusing on Davis on a blog that focuses on Davis; who’s article is about Davis?
I don’t know what the relevance of that is. I and others here have lived in those places that are far more expensive than Davis.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
O.K. – SB 9 has to do with infill. Did you end up interpreting this brand-new law correctly?
When they try to criticize Measure J in regard to a statewide requirement (without looking at how other communities with urban limit lines and/or other land preservation measures), then yes.
And when they try to pretend that Davis is somehow particularly unique in regard to these requirements, then yes.
And when they try to pretend that Davis is (already) much more dense than places like San Francisco (which also has RHNA requirements), then yes.
Again, we’re referring to statewide requirements here. Which apply to a lot more than Davis, including places that are much more likely to have concerns regarding those requirements.
I’ve noted the relevance several times in this thread, already.
Ignore Commenter
Part of my problem—the public, when we examined polling from a few years ago, had only a cursory understanding of the looming problems.
I think you can just stop after the word public. I think you’re having a hard time accepting that the public is the problem and getting that to fit with your principled belief that people be informed and have direct say in matters like land use in their lives. I’ve always said that Measure J let the inmates run the asylum.
I think part of your problem here is that you’re a policy wonk and you think or assume everyone else is or should be a policy wonk. You assume people make rational decisions. Most people make decisions based on simple beliefs and feelings. The majority of voters voted for Obama because it felt good to make a change from the previous guy. The majority voters voted for Trump because they weren’t happy with things and were against who had been in charge (the Democrats). Then people weren’t happy with Trump and voted in Biden. But ask the majority of these people anything about the actual policies any of the presidents planned and implemented and the vast majority of them will have no clue outside of Obama Care and maybe Trump’s immigration policy (maybe). No, most people vote because they like this guy or don’t or like this group or don’t. It’s tribal.
The same goes for the growth and no-growthers. Like most things people tend to be dogmatic about one view or the other. So you’ll not get a meeting of the minds or a consensus among the unwashed masses because the extremist tend to the most heard and sway the people’s views/understanding of the issues. This is why we have representative government. We have people to be our policy wonks (or leaders that will listen to the policy wonks) for us. But Measure J short circuited that part of our local government.
So what’s left? If you want to get any land use projects done in Davis that requires a vote you’re going to need to do a sales job on the voters. And this can’t come from the developers, it has to come from city leaders. They have to sell the vision of a new and better Davis. Project X will created $$$ for the city which will get you better roads, more services (parks and rec? police? social services?)….What if 50% of all city tax revenue generated by DISC went directly towards improving Mace Blvd (and possibly Covell by extension)? Or city leaders could say that tax revenue would directly fund cleaning up the homeless/providing more services for them. Bottom line, connect the project and the benefits of growth to tangible benefits for the community.
C’mon, David. Get real! The voters did not vote down an “affordable housing proposal” at DISC as you claim. They voted down a sprawling industrial park that had a smidgeon of affordable housing that represented 15% of the total housing which in itself represented only about 15% of the land use at DISC.
Also worth noting that DISC wasn’t even supposed to be a housing development at all, much less an affordable housing proposal.
Assuming that you could get the CC to approve a service provision agreement with the proposed development, I would expect that agreement to get reversed via referendum.
Like it was for Royal Oaks, “old Willowbank”, El Macero, North Davis Meadows?
Maybe in today’s climate… a “climate change” if you will…
I assume you’d be opposed to that mechanism…
You missed my point. It’s in the city council’s best interest to approve such an agreement if it possibly meets the RHNA requirements for Davis. Otherwise the RHNA comes and takes over the approval process from the city and it’s voters.
The RHNA likely has the power to override any referendum that would prevent such a development from happening.
I’m not so sure about that — the notion that the state can force a political subdivision to share its resources might be a tough sell in court. And it might be relatively easy for the city to include a financial poison pill in a forced sharing agreement that would cause the other agency to withdraw.
Every legal challenge to the RHNA so far has failed. If the RHNA completely takes over a city’s approval process “ministerial” how can there be a poison pill implemented by the city?
It’s one thing to mandate compliance with statewide housing standards, but quite another to wrest control over a city’s municipal infrastructure and finances. It’s been done in extreme cases (e.g. Flint MI), but I think it’s a bridge too far in our case.
In the past, there’s been minimal penalties for noncompliance, but due to the housing crisis, some teeth have been added to the statutes.
According to ABAG, “State Housing Element Law requires that jurisdictions plan for all types of housing based on the allocations they receive from the RHNA process. The state requires this planning, in the form of having a compliant housing element, and submitting housing element annual progress reports, as a threshold or points-related requirement for certain funding programs (SB 1 Sustainable Community Planning Grants, SB 2 Planning Grants and Permanent Local Housing Allocation, etc.). Late submittal of a housing element can result in a jurisdiction being required to submit a four-year update to their housing element.
“HCD may refer jurisdictions to the Attorney General if they do not have a compliant housing element, fail to comply with their HCD-approved housing element, or violate housing element law, the housing accountability act, density bonus law, no net loss law, or land use discrimination law. The consequences of those cases brought by the Attorney General are up to the courts, but can include financial penalties.”
In addition, as the housing element is one of the required components of the general plan, a jurisdiction without a compliant housing element may risk legal challenges to their general plan from interested parties outside of HCD.
Local governments must also implement their commitments from the housing element, and the statute has several consequences for the lack of implementation. For example, failure to rezone in a timely manner may impact a local government’s land use authority and result in a carryover of RHNA to the next cycle. The HCD may investigate any action or lack of action in the housing element.
In jurisdictions that don’t issue permits for enough housing to keep pace consistent with RHNA goals, a developer can elect to use a ministerial process to get project approval for residential projects that meet certain conditions, which means in essence a local agency no longer has approval over the project and it can be built “by right.”
The most important housing legislation you’ve never heard of
I agree with Jim F on this… a separation of powers and/or unfunded mandate thingy… the opportunities for litigation make me wonder why I chose engineering rather than getting a law degree… would be ‘easy money’ on either side of the argument… cha-ching, cha-ching…
Jim F is correct, with the Flint, MI analogy… attorneys have/will do very well on that, as well… as will politicians…
You’re conflating development approval with surrender of local resources. They’re not the same thing.
When land is zoned residential, commercial or industrial it has rights to local resources (water, power, sewer, roads, police, fire…). That’s why entitlements are so valuable. If a development goes through ministerial; then it automatically receives the rights it was zone for or would be zoned for regardless of the local jurisdiction’s wishes.
Only semi-correct… not “rights” as to resources, but rights to seek them (resources)… there are impact fees, mitigation requirements, even ‘moratoriums’ if the local resources aren’t there… one of the purposes of CEQA is to disclose whether a zoning/use will negatively affect access to local resources…
Impact fees, mitigation requirements can well mean an approved zoning “will not pencil out” if one tries to act on the zoning…
BILL
Wanna take a guess at what the ministerial process does with CEQA? lol….
The HCD’s scope of powers are pretty broad.
RON
Yup. My point is that I still know what’s going on state wide with current development issues like SB 9, SB 35 and the current RHNA housing requirements.
It impedes housing growth. I’d say it’s absolutely fair game to criticize Measure J….that and for it’s appalling short circuiting of good governance. So far everyone ( 4 cities) that has fought the requirements has lost. If you have any additional information regarding how RHNA housing element requirements are being impacted by other cities and their local growth restrictions….by all means…educate the rest of us. So far it’s just been rich communities that don’t want to grow that have gone to trial (and lost).
I asked you before where anyone has stated that Davis is some how unique in these regards and requirements. No, we’re just focused on Davis because…well…we live here (or near here).
Again, no one has made that assertion.
No, you keep going on about outside of Davis without connecting it to the conversation at hand. Do you have anything from outside of Davis that you believe should be included in the discussion? Or are you just criticizing others for not being aware of information that isn’t really out there yet in the first place? To my knowledge, the RHNA considers growth restrictions (natural ones I believe) but probably won’t consider imposed ones like Measure J….but I don’t have any hard evidence of this to prove this. Bottom line for HCD is that cities comply with their requirements.
I thought it was more than 4. But again, they were appealing their allocation, which is not something that Davis is even attempting. Are you sure that they actually went to trial? I understood that they simply appealed their allocation to the state.
Well, don’t you think that places which have RHNA requirements but AREN’T expanding their boundaries is a worthwhile topic to explore, before attacking Measure J? (Which, by the way has resulted in two recent approvals.)
Probably should know if this is true, before speculating on Measure J (or urban limit lines, or any other land preservation measure). Or, we can just spout b.s. on here. 🙂
Because if it is true, then the law is going beyond what was intended. The state’s efforts are focused on infill, not sprawl.
Do you have any evidence at all that the state is looking at land outside of city boundaries, when coming up with RHNA numbers? And if so, how is that quantified (e.g., do they look at say, 50 acres immediately outside of a city and say, “hey – you can fit a couple hundred houses there, as long as XX are very low-income, X are low-income, Y are medium income, and Z are any income levels?
But again, Davis is not having any problems so far meeting its RHNA requirements. And really, there’s no evidence that it ever will.
Things change, laws change, politicians change.
Ignore Commenter
But, I would suggest that anyone concerned about growth should probably pay a lot more attention as to who they elect to office.
Seems like social justice posturing is what occurs more often within the past 3-4 years. (And truth be told, this is another area that politicians are likely out of touch with most voters on.)
I don’t believe that most people, including people “of color” are as obsessed with that as politicians and the media portray. (Of course, “of color” seems to have varying meanings, as well – primarily depending upon how Asians are counted.)
But getting back to the RHNA requirements, I guess we’ll hear about that on here until the next cycle, some 7-8 years from now. And in each and every conversation, Measure J will come up.
But again, I’d suggest not supporting DISC, if one is concerned about resulting RHNA requirements.
My point is that the RHNA’s authority is being recognized by the courts. I may have misspoke about “trial” : Court dismisses lawsuit by four small cities over SANDAG housing allocation
Huntington Beach City Council votes against suing the state over mandated housing numbers
Most recently and unresolved: City Officials Across Orange County Are Taking The State Mandated Housing Battle to Court
So not suing: Too much housing? Palo Alto among cities appealing their regional mandates
Can’t we do both? If you have anything to add about how other cities with their self imposed housing restrictions are dealing with the RHNA requirements, by all means share. But there’s not a lot out there yet.
I believe you’re conflating Weiner’s bills and the RHNA requirements. The way it reads is that the RHNA requires cities to meet their requirements. If what is proposed is not sufficient (or likely to be built) then cities will be penalized as well as proposed developments will be eligible for ministerial approval process. Does that equate newly annexed developments? Probably not for completely raw land outside of city limits. But for property in the the sphere of influence planned for future growth? That I could see falling under their interests if there are projects trying to go through the annexation process and meet established zone requirements.
Again, this whole thing is in it’s infancy. So yes it’s all speculation/B.S. at this point. But I’d say they’re educated guesses.
Again, you say that with certainty. But like I (and others have said) it really comes down to what is likely or feasible to actually be developed if the city actually does meet the RHNA requirements.
I’ll say again, I believe the housing requirements by DISC either by RHNA requirements or by the developers are a necessary evil/bitter pill to swallow (as I’m generally against new market rate housing) necessary for needed economic growth in Davis.
Davis already does “both”. Peripheral development should be a last resort. General comments regarding “housing crises” are not something to build a foundation on.
You seem to be conflating what you think Davis “should” do, vs. what it’s “required” to do. A common issue on here.
I don’t, and I’m not planning to look into it. But, I’m also not writing daily articles talking about “housing crises”, in the hopes of damaging Measure J. I’d suggest you ask the author regarding how other cities are responding.
My understanding is that RHNA requirements are addressed in housing elements. They are directly related.
I’d suggest not submitting potential developments in a “sphere of influence” as part of a housing element.
I’m looking forward to seeing how other cities challenge this, since Davis doesn’t have the cahoonas to do so. Leadership in Davis is already ALIGNED with state efforts. For god sake, I understand that Lucas is (or was?) PART OF SACOG. (Not sure of his exact title or role, but it would be interesting to know how the SACOG-funded “Mace Mess” was pursued and approved.)
Again, that’s for the state to decide. Once a housing element is approved, “likelihood” and “feasibility” are no longer relevant, unless there’s also some type of follow-up ensuring that cities are forcing developers to build what’s in the housing element.
One thing I haven’t seen discussed much is the role of subsidized infill housing. That’s the only way that places like San Francisco are going to have housing elements that are “feasible”.
Assuming that commercial is actually viable (and creates a “fiscal profit”) that profit is then “eaten” by the housing. Again, I’d look at the reason that cities across California are experiencing fiscal deficits in the first place, despite pursuing development.
I wouldn’t expect newcomers to bail-out problems that cities have created for themselves by relying upon a dying Ponzi scheme. But, that’s just me, I guess.
Ignore Commenter
Of course peripheral development should be a last resort. But what “last” is debatable. You don’t seem to accept the limitations of infill development. You seem to take the attitude that if that’s the only option we give developers, that it will happen. I’m perfectly willing to compromise on my desire to limit peripheral development to gain for the community. You appear to have an inflexible and dogmatic view of the subject.
Why are you bringing up housing crisis in this discussion. I haven’t said it. No one else has either. We’re talking about RHNA requirements. So weather those are a result of a “housing crisis” or simply planned allotment of future housing needs…it’s irrelevant…they are what they are and cities need to address them. So who’s building a foundation on a housing crisis???
I’m not conflating anything. I saying what I think they should or could do within the requirements.
You seem a bit sensitive about Measure J. It’s a stupid measure (don’t take it personally). It’s bad governance. Again, the writer (David) SUPPORTS measure J. He just encourages some growth. He’s not dogmatic about it as you are (but more than me). We write and discuss with the information we have on hand. If you want to add outside info…go for it. I’d bet David would be willing to publish any findings you come across about other cities and how they relate to Davis. But to criticize Davis for talking about Davis policies seems irrational.
What is it you want discussed? Most affordable housing is going to be subsidized by new market rate housing. I’m still don’t understand why keep mentioning San Francisco. It’s irrelevant when talking about Davis. It’s a completely different market and set of circumstances.
It’s the pursuit of residential development that is a ponzi scheme for financing cities. Residential development costs cities because of the services required to support them. But new developments bring development fees, impact fees….etc…immediate cash into the coffers. But then that leaves the long term ongoing costs of servicing those homes. So many communities choose to continue to pursue more development for that immediate cash infusion by developers.
Commercial and Industrial development on the other hand is generally a fiscal plus for cities. The servicing for those kinds of businesses aren’t nearly as costly as servicing residences. Plus you have business and sales tax revenue that go to the cities.
But here’s the thing. You usually have to have some supporting residential development to go with the desired commercial and industrial development. I mean fiscally speaking the ideal is grow only commercial and industrial projects. The extreme example of that is the city of Vernon, CA that at one point only had 60 residence and a massive amount of commercial and residential development. They for years severely limited residential growth. The city officials were brought down due to corruption but the city itself was forced to add homes and grow. But back to the normal world…new commercial and industrial developments usually want to go where things are growing (people). Also, obviously employers would like places for their employees to be able to live nearby. So if we’re talking fiscally; commercial and industrial growth is what is desirable followed by necessary residential growth (which is how I view the residential component of DISC). Davis, desperately needs to grow it’s commercial and industrial areas….in the very least to be fiscally sound going forward. DISC is a poorly planned project that is hamstrung by the voters but it’s necessary to signal to the world that Davis can be a place for businesses to move to and succeed. And if Davis needs to stomach some housing to get there…then it’s a necessary evil.
Have you seen the amount of sprawl that’s continuing throughout the region? It seems to me that leaders and much of the populace has not accepted the limitations of the environment, itself.
As far as infill is concerned, that’s also subject to practical limitations.
Fortunately, the state isn’t growing, anymore.
Again, have you seen the amount of sprawl that’s still occurring throughout the region (and beyond)? Are you (or anyone) claiming that there’s a “shortage” of that?
David. Every day.
It seems to me that Measure J is the only thing preventing the type of sprawl that Davis used to pursue. Again, the council itself is more supportive of development than the populace is.
I mention San Francisco (and the Bay Area) as examples of communities that aren’t expanding their boundaries, and yet are subject to RHNA requirements. As such, this can be a model for communities like Davis, which don’t necessarily look to expand their boundaries onto adjacent farmland. I thought this point was pretty obvious the first half-dozen times I pointed it out.
I flat-out don’t believe that San Francisco (and places like it) are going to meet their RHNA “goals” without mostly relying upon subsidized housing, given that much of the requirements are focused on lower income households. And in that case, it will be “infill” subsidized housing, as there’s no other choice.
Yes, I’ve seen the sprawl and I don’t like it. Let me be clear, I don’t like having to build new homes. But the RHNA mandate is clear, so I’m simply saying what I think is the best way to play the hand we’re dealt.
This is moving past my point of patience. I’ve explained to you many times that the Bay Area and especially San Francisco is mostly IRRELVEVANT while discussing land use in Davis. Take if rom someone has actually developed land in the bay area and someone who used to look for land to acquire for affordable housing in the city of San Francisco.
Let’s start with the obvious. San Francisco CAN’T grow peripherally because of geographic limitations. It has little choice but to grow through infill. Much of the same can be said about the rest of the Bay Area. I mean San Jose can grow beyond the Almaden Valley and is to a certain degree but there’s a green belt to the south that limits growth in that direction (there’s also Morgan Hill and Gilroy beyond that greenbelt but they’re kind of cut off from the rest of the Bay Area and they did pursue aggressive growth 20 years ago). It’s a VALLEY. There are hills/Santa Cruz mountains on each side.
In Davis, if a perspective home buyer wants to live in a more affordable area…they can go to Woodland, Dixon, Winters, West Sac…. In the Bay Area…where can they go? It used to be you could go to the South Bay. But the median home price is now over $1M. Then you could go to the East Bay. Dublin, CA median home price is $1M+. Good lord the median home price all the way out in Livermore is $1M+! You have to go as far out as Concord to get to a “reasonable” median home price of $600K. So geographically and financially there isn’t really any place to go but to develop infill in the Bay Area.
But there is still room for growth in the surrounding towns if Davis chooses not to grow. This decreases the pressure necessary to make costly infill projects viable fiscally speaking. Bottom line, most of the Bay Areas growth limitations are geographic, market based…as well as NIMBYism. Davis’ growth limitations are purely self imposed NIMBYism.
Of course San Francisco and most other places are going to rely on subsidized housing to meet their RHNA requirements. That subsidy is going to come from developers building new for market homes. Where are most developers going to build new homes in the Sac area? Peripherally. In the Bay Area they have little choice but to build infill.
All part of my diabolical plan. 🙂
Though truth be told, I think I’m kind of running out of steam this time, as well.
I’m thinking it must be about the 16th round, by now.
OK OK OK. I would like some financials on the following. I mostly leave out financial stuff which I don’t understand:
1) Re-direct I-80 south of Davis from Kidwell to the current junction with I-50. There are some environmental risks in the east end of the Putah Creek. The highway would be in a trench roughly west of County Road 104 and from transitioning to an elevated section east of there, all the way over industrial West Sacramento.
It could be built in two-layers in order to reduce its footprint and sound impacts, and in any case there would be multiple crossing for wildlife and agricultural vehicles. There would be no egress points at all between Kidwell and West Sac.
Major logistics companies in this part of West Sac would have direct access to I-80, greatly reducing impacts on local streets.
The current area used by I-80 would be re-developed with some kind of tree-lined arterial road fronted by mixed-use development and a space for a dedicated passenger rail corridor, partly sub-surface. The existing UP corridor would remain until it is replaced by a new route on the other side of the Delta, already in the long term plans of Capitol Corridor.
There would be a ton of new housing and businesses, all located on sustainable, electrified rail route to and from the Bay Area and minutes away from development at the Railyards in Sac. Existing housing near I-80 would have benefits from reduced air and noise pollution and resulting value increases.
The PG&E yard on 2nd and L would eventually be re-developed and joined with this.
2) Eminent domain as necessary all parking lots within a 15 min bike ride of E St. Plaza and build housing and mixed use on them. In many or most cases existing parking can be preserved. Many of these parking lots are not more than half full much of the time, so it’s not rocket science to shift parking around during construction. Public transport and bicycles can be optimized so that people can shop without a car, at least as a temporary measure.
3) Build housing and mixed-use over 113 roughly between Richardson and Covell bicycle and bus routes to Davis Depot and UCD. This would require some innovative engineering, possibly arches or similar that could fabricated off site, installed, and then housing built on top of it, necessary lightweight. Similar to the half-ring roading of I-80, this would increase value of homes next to sometimes noisy 113.
True, this is all very ambitious, but should prove to be a central and sustainable concrete concept of the General Plan. It would result in easy fulfillment of affordable housing construction and economic development, would be extremely innovative and would make Davis, UC Davis and all partners heroes of the environment and housing and transportation equity.