By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – One of the biggest contentions during the DiSC 2022 campaign was that the project size had not actually been reduced—the belief being that the northern portion of the original DISC project would be submitted at a later date.
However, the Vanguard learned this week that, in fact, Reynolds & Brown have submitted a preapplication for a residential project on the 85 acres along the Mace/Covell Curve.
“Our submittal of this preapplication is meant to commence the City’s consideration and review of the subdivision proposal and commence a Sphere of Influence amendment in light of the ongoing housing crisis,” Attorney Matt Keasling of Taylor and Wiley wrote the city this week.
“This project provides an excellent opportunity for the City to increase its housing stock, including a considerable number of multi-family and high density single-family residential units,” he added. “The project will provide an opportunity for families and individuals at all socioeconomic levels to rent or buy a home in Davis. In addition to housing, the project provides an extension of Davis’s green belt system, 26-acres of agricultural buffer area and an inviting 5-acre neighborhood park.”
The project, “On the Curve” is the third project that has been submitted to the city in the area following Palomino Place and the Signature Property. It would require a Measure J vote.
“For more than twenty years, with the exception of the redevelopment of the Hunt-Wesson industrial canning site into The Cannery, Davis has not constructed any meaningful housing subdivisions and has lagged behind the region in overall housing development,” the developers write. “Reynolds & Brown presents a residential subdivision ‘On the Curve’ as an 
opportunity for Davis to do its part to combat the Statewide housing crisis.”
In 2019, Governor Newsom along with the state legislature “officially declared California to be in the midst of a housing crisis.”
SB 330, “The Housing Crisis Act of 2019,” “paints an ominous picture of the situation the State is facing when it comes to housing the population and the detrimental consequences of our inaction.”
The act states, “California has a housing supply and affordability crisis of historic proportions. The consequences of failing to effectively and aggressively confront this crisis are hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.”
Of relevance to Davis, California is experiencing “a housing supply crisis” where housing demand is greatly outstripping supply. “In 2018, California ranked 49th out of the 50 states in housing units per capita,” the legislature wrote. “Consequently, existing housing in this state, especially in its largest cities, has become very expensive. Seven of the 10 most expensive real estate markets in the United States are in California…”
Moreover, “California needs an estimated 180,000 additional homes annually to keep up with population growth, and the Governor has called for 3.5 million new homes to be built over the next 7 years.”
Davis has its own housing crisis. As noted in the preapplication, “in the twenty years from 2000 to 2020, the City of Davis grew by only 6,542 people: a 10.8% population increase.5 That is a growth rate of roughly one-half of one percent annually for twenty years.”
They add, “As a result of Davis’ inaction, we see large discrepancies between the City of Davis and the remainder of the region when it comes to the issues of housing affordability, age, diversity and opportunity.”
According to the submittals, the project is looking at between 551 and 788 units ranging from multi-family housing both for rent and sale to small lot detached and a small number of traditional detached single-family homes (between 67 and 89 units).
“The Project includes an array of housing types proposed at cumulative densities well above the Davis average,” the description reads. “The subdivision will include more than fifty-percent of units built as high-density multi-family housing, roughly one-third of the units will be medium density single-family/small lot detached housing, and just over ten-percent of units will be built as traditional single-family detached housing.”
The description adds, “The Project has been designed to offer the full gamut of housing options, taking into consideration those unit types identified in the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (‘RHNA’), independent market demand analysis, and attempting to fill gaps in the existing supply that have been clearly articulated by City staff and Council.”
The for-sale small lot detached units may include townhomes, row homes, or small-lot detached units and “will provide a housing type and price point that is within reach for moderate income earners, first-time homebuyers, and an array of civil servants currently priced-out of the housing market in Davis.”
Finally, “the traditional single-family detached homes will meet an identified need within Davis (nearly 39% of Davis’s RHNA is for single-family detached) providing a ‘move-up’ opportunity and rounding off a community that offers housing opportunities for a broad range of socio-economic levels.”
The description adds, “Compared to Davis’s RHNA, the Project offers a greater percentage of multi-family housing and homes designed for moderate income earners and less emphasis on traditional single-family homes.
“Thus, the balanced array of housing types and affordability levels offer individuals in the region who may be currently priced-out of the market an opportunity to live in Davis and contribute to the community.”
Well that didn’t take long. How long has this been in the “works” for?
From what I understand, it’s been in the works for quite some time. Part of why they backed out of the innovation center.
Did you have knowledge of this (that you purposefully weren’t sharing) during the DiSC campaign?
It’s not on a curve. It’s off the curve and would endanger the rare leap frog. Even I will vote no on this unless there’s some kind of Frank Lloyd Wright magical way of making such a remote parcel a desirable place to live. Vacavillian. Are these guys (I assume they are men) serious?
Not meaning to go off on a “tangent”, technically, the project IS “on the curve”… at least the SW corner of it [yeah, I’m a geometry/surveyor nerd]
That said, absent the commercial/research/innovation space components of the original project proposed, the current proposal, is indeed on a curve (policitically),,, not a favorable one…
I voted in favor of both the original project and the DiSC one… time will tell if it gets to a vote, and how I might vote… in the meantime, considering the pre-app will (should) be a zero sum game as to paying for City staff time in reviewing, processing the pre-app…
I believe that the original proposal was ‘best’ for both meeting the housing needs, and the revenue stream for the community… but many are BANANA’s (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone)… there is at least two of those who regularly post here and/or on “the Davisite”…
Unbelievable.
I predicted all-along that they’d propose a housing development on the “other half” of the DiSC site, but I figured it was at least temporarily dead – when DiSC was rejected again.
The “original proposal” was for a commercial development on the site.
As with the other sites (e.g., Nishi, the Davis Innovation Center, and some may argue – The Cannery), it has now “morphed” into a housing development.
In the case of DiSC, this has occurred over the course of several proposed iterations.
And by the way, what was the “purpose” of (also) including housing in the most-recent DiSC proposal, if the plan was to build nothing but housing on the “other half”, anyway?
Man, the developers are really trying to break down the doors, this time (e.g., Shriner’s property, etc.).
But in a sense, we’re now seeing what the most “honest” interest actually is – and it’s not an “innovation center”.
Housing, housing, and housing. And in this case, I think Dave Hart is right – it has elements of “leapfrog” housing.
This comment isn’t accurate. Reynolds’s and Brown are not Ramos. They did partner on the original DISC project. But they were not part of the second one. To suggest that a project has morphed here is false.
You already know that the entire site (including what you’re now referring to as “Reynolds’ and Brown”) was originally proposed for commercial only development.
And that this was one of the sites that arose out of the process (which lasted more than a decade) that brought forward “innovation center” proposals.
To suggest otherwise is false. The site absolutely morphed into a housing development proposal, over more than one stage. (In the case of the first DISC proposal which was presented to voters, it had already morphed into a “partial” housing development – along with the half that was subsequently rejected by voters.)
Now a completely different developer is proposing a completely different project after you and your friends killed the last one.
Same owners, same site. The “temporarily silent” half of the former DISC site.
Looking forward to killing this one, as well. Though I certainly can’t take much credit for any of that.
Ultimately, the voters at large took care of that problem, by a margin of some 2-1.
Should be interesting as all these plans come forward to revisit the fact that Davis has a 1% growth cap, established in 2005 and reaffirmed in 2007. That works out to about 300 – 325 houses per year, depending on how you count them, and there are already projects in the pipeline. So if all three of the current proposals — Shriners (1200 units), Palomino Place (164 units) and now this one (788 units) — were to get approved, on top of the current projects, that would use up anywhere from 7 – 10 years of the Davis growth limit. I suppose it depends on how fast they plan to build out, but more likely they’ve forgotten about that 1% limit or just assume that it will be lifted.
There was never any indication that previous years being less than 1% would in any way affect that ceiling. It’s there, it’s city policy, and it pertains to the advisory 1985 vote (Measure L) in which the voters approved the advisory referendum that the city should grow “as slow as legally possible.”
The earliest any of these likely goes on the ballot is 2024 probably November. Whoever goes first will have an advantage, although you see the immediate reaction to all of them is going to be negative in some circles. The city is going to have a problem meeting its RHNA requirements particularly if HCD is requiring cities to show they can and will actually build the housing.
For example, SF has five months to convince HCD it can build 82K units by 2030. A lot of people I have talked to think Davis is will have trouble with its affordable requirement this time.
I believe that affordable housing projects are exempt from the 1% growth cap.
Just like they can avoid Measure J requirements under some circumstances.
The first place more housing should get built is on the Covell Village site. We all know this whether we like it or not. These other peripheral projects may or may not be desirable in terms of design and amenities, but until our fellow neighbors in Davis, at large, see the wisdom of the parcel at Pole Line and East Covell Blvd., these other ones are sprawlish, auto-centric, 1970s era projects that do more harm than good for the community. I’m certainly not interested in the opinions of people who come up with arguments for not building there. I’m most interested in the opinions of people who have a vision of how it can be done in ways that benefits the whole area. Those benefits include making Pole Line Road an undesirable pass through for commuter traffic through Davis. Development there needs to include traffic control like traffic circles, narrowed lanes, etc., so that living there is desirable for families and any others and the pass-through traffic ends up on 113 where it belongs.
One of the problems is that this is not the “last” place, either. No such agreement exists, or can exist. The truth is that developers will continue pursuing any and all sites that the city entertains.
I do not know this, nor do I like it.
The other sites are indeed worse.
Well, that leaves me out. And yet, here I am commenting anyway.
There are no benefits for the “whole area”.
How is that a “benefit”? And if it is, would such a benefit include dragging them out of their cars and beating them with sticks?
Note that this is also the “CostCo Highway” for Davis residents.
Davis does not have authority to implement “traffic circles, narrowed lanes”, etc. – beyond the confines of Davis itself. And given that 102 extends a lot farther than that, it’s not likely that the “local war” on cars would make much difference. (Though it would cause some hassle for those living east of the former Covell Village site.)
And Highway 113 is increasingly no-picnic, either. (Watch for that to get worse, regardless of what Davis does.)
Every time I see the so-called “Covell Village” site, I appreciate the sunflowers (or whatever other crop is rotated there in other years), instead of a housing tract development. Even the soil itself seems to be of prime quality. In short, I like it just the way it is.
Can’t imagine that the newer residents in The Cannery would be thrilled about having the adjacent farmland paved-over, either. One of the “justifications” for The Cannery is that it would prevent the so-called “need” for Covell Village.
Maybe, just maybe – our society should stop looking toward growth and development as an “answer” (to whatever “problem” is being claimed).