By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – This weekend there was an op-ed that argued, “Davis must grow up, not out.” In it, Judy Corbett, Robert Thayer, Stephen Wheeler and James Zanetto argue that the council looking at ways of “pre-approving housing developments on sites at the periphery of Davis in order to meet the city’s long-term ‘regional housing needs’ allocation runs counter to the entire momentum of urban development economics and city finance.”
They argue, “The two-pronged realities of the climate crisis and city budget shortfalls caused by low-density peripheral development demonstrate that Davis must now confront the fallacy of continued, sprawled development.
“Instead, we must concentrate on building up the downtown core (and upzoning existing neighborhood shopping centers) with mixed use development and dense urban-centric housing. This is what we mean by ‘growing up,’ both literally and figuratively.”
While I certainly don’t oppose dense infill, particularly in the core, I wonder how practical is such an approach?
The first problem: they continue to perpetuate the myth that the PG&E parcel is a possibility.
They write, “The PG&E parcel will be a tremendous asset to this redevelopment strategy when it eventually becomes available.”
Even if you believe that somehow the parcel will “eventually” become available, it’s certainly not a short term solution.
The second problem is neighborhood opposition to densification. The demise of the University Commons project is a perfect illustration of why this strategy is fraught. On paper, the University Mall was the perfect location for high density redevelopment—you have an underutilized parcel, across the street from the university and across the street from another seven-story building and yet there was pushback by the immediate adjacent neighborhood and the council compromised, which ultimately led to the project not penciling out.
It’s now coming back as commercial only.
While I agree with the need for density, infill is just as contentious as peripheral—perhaps even more so except for the lack of a required public vote.
The demise of Commons also demonstrates another problem—construction costs make infill and density difficult. In order to pencil out, the Commons project needed to be around seven stories. Right now construction costs, land costs, and financing makes it hard to do redevelopment and densification.
The margins and rate of return is not there to sustain the amount that we need.
And that leads to a fourth problem here—affordable housing.
The authors of the piece did not seem to recognize that the reason the council is starting to look at peripheral housing again, and in particular exemptions for affordable housing, was that the consultant report showed how difficult it will be to build affordable housing on infill projects, given construction costs and the decline of subsidies from the state and federal government.
The consultant report showed it would be very difficult to reach 15 percent affordable on infill projects. And while you might be able to build dense infill in Davis in the core and in places like the University Mall and the like, the margins are such that getting to 15 percent affordable is problematic.
Corbett et al. acknowledge that “there is a significant need for increased affordable housing, but any consideration of peripheral housing sites should be part of a much needed updating of the city’s General Plan in the context of a community-wide discussion.”
I agree that the consideration of changes to land use policies should take place within the framework of a General Plan update. But at the same time, let’s not kid ourselves—the city has been looking at how it can reach the required allotment of affordable housing in the current RHNA cycle and is much more concerned longer term for the next cycle.
Corbett and her co-authors write, “We are not opposed to the city growing as may be required to meet our ‘housing needs,’ but perimeter growth should only occur after infill densification opportunities are achieved.”
While that sounds good, and, in principle, I agree, where I think they fall short here is in recognizing that we are already in large part exhausting our densification ability.
For example, in the current Housing Element, the city projects a significant percentage of new housing in the core. While I have argued that the new Downtown Plan with mixed-use potential is going to be more difficult to achieve than is presented in the plan, the fact is that the city has already counted that housing toward meeting current RHNA requirements, including for affordable housing.
Beyond that, the PG&E site is impractical, and the Fifth Street Corp. yard limited even if it ends up being practical.
In short, I think the council has already exhausted most of their feasible short-term options for densification. The cost and fiscal considerations mean that affordable housing is going to have to be decided based on land dedication rather than attempting to bleed more from inclusionary housing.
Corbett et al. conclude: “It is always easier for Council members to cave into the developer pressure to build yet another peripheral development, just because it takes less effort and seems like a short-term housing band aid.
“But the long-term, fiscally and environmentally sound alternative is to develop a dense, mixed use, walkable, urban core and compact mixed use, walkable neighborhoods. We need a council with a long-term vision for our community. Davis must grow up, not out.”
I agree that Davis must continue to grow up, but believe that we have likely maxed out a lot of our infill potential already and that the solutions put forth here have either already been implemented or are not of short term feasibility.
Here is the 5th Street corporation yard. It is a little more than 3 acres.
Please note that there are residences directly to the north of it that will be shaded by any buildings taller than 2 – 3 stories.
Thanks for posting that. So three acres isn’t going to solve anything, not even enough to put a land dedication site on it.
The council will fail (badly) if it tries to mess with Measure J.
The state’s efforts will also fail (statewide). And that will occur THIS cycle, let alone the next cycle. Watch and see.
Davis doesn’t have a “housing problem”.
Any state Affordable housing funds that aren’t used in Davis are then available elsewhere, where the need might actually be greater.
The state itself is LOSING population.
I predict if the council is unable to revise Measure J to make it more workable for affordable housing, the state will step in.
Measure J already has an exemption for Affordable housing. That exemption hasn’t been “needed” (and still isn’t needed).
I understand that Measure J was written very-carefully, as the RHNA requirements existed when it was written, as well.
Again, most cities that are subject to the state’s requirements are NOT expanding outward. Given that this is factually true, the state has no justification to single-out Davis.
Maybe it’s time for the state (and their developer friends) to “put up, or shut up” regarding any threats. I do believe that the more they push this type of threat, the more they’ll ultimately lose. Again, there are organized efforts underway to take control back from the state.
The state’s efforts are focused on infill (primarily coastal cities), in a declining-population state. Many of those cities are actively fighting the state.
The war is still in its early stages. So, even if someone successfully undermines Measure J, you can be sure that the war will not end at that point. If anything, that’s when it “begins”.
Let’s see how it unfolds. It may not lead to a full-blown war, as developments aren’t “penciling out” regardless.
But keep up the fear-mongering. Maybe it will work for you and the council, but I doubt it.
Please correct me if I am wrong David, but doesn’t the State’s “builders remedy” require 20% Affordable units in the RHNA proportions?
If that is indeed correct, and the City’s recent economic study of the financial realities of building housing in Davis, will any developer be willing to agree to a State “builders remedy” contract?
The economic study was performed by Cascadia Partners, and Don Gibson’s comment below is very much on point.
But all of what you posted refers to inclusionary housing on an infill site. You can easily get to 20% on a peripheral site, because you can just dedicate 5 or 10 acres of land. You could probably easily go to 40%.
Developers can propose whatever they want right now (in regard to percentage of Affordable housing), under Measure J. And again, councils don’t necessarily approve every development which comes before them in the first place. (Elect people like me on a council somewhere, and see what happens.)
But if some developer is going to argue that elimination of urban limit lines is needed to accommodate a higher percentage of Affordable housing (than can be accommodated within city limits), then every urban limit line throughout the state would be threatened.
As such, the court system would have to weigh-in regarding the legality of voter-approved urban limit lines – not just Measure J. Even Woodland has a voter-approved urban limit line (which would someday be “tested” under this scenario).
I believe there are communities throughout the state which have urban limit lines, with development already abutted-against them.
Again, eliminate urban limit lines, and see what happens regarding the war that’s been declared on communities.
There’s also likely challenges that would be launched regarding climate change and sprawl, given that this is a state goal as well.
For that matter, even the attorney general effectively shut down a proposal in/near Lake county (due to climate change and wildfire concerns), a couple of years ago.
David, land dedication is a sham at best in terms of actually adding affordable housing to the (any) community. Look at how long it took for the land dedications from prior developments to actually get certificates of occupancy. They have taken forever (well over a decade in many cases). What is the current inventory of still vacant land dedication sites in Davis? When were those vacant sites dedicated?
Davis does NOT have a $900,000 market price homes problem. It has an affordable home problem. Further, the City’s fears about achieving future RHNA allocation compliance is not for market rate homes, but rather for affordable homes.
Keep your eye on the ball/prize. Jim Frame has done so in his 12:02 pm proposal.
I suspect that neither the council nor a developer is going to be running a “successful” campaign to either undermine Measure J, or approve a development by using threats to Measure J, itself. My guess is that voters don’t like to be threatened in such a manner, and are not likely to vote out of “fear” of a government that’s SUPPOSED to be representing them.
And any “legal” win they might have will set their cause further back than the Mace Ranch debacle.
In addition, they’d likely have to ensure that their development proposal (used to challenge Measure J) would need to contain enough Affordable housing that even their “pencils” would shudder at the finances. That is, after they’ve incurred years of legal expenses.
But again, Davis isn’t in this fight (alone). Those concerned about the state/developer efforts may need to work as a “team” with other cities and counties that are fighting the state.
Here’s one such group:
https://ourneighborhoodvoices.com/
But yeah, I’ll be “reporting for duty” at least, depending upon how this plays out. For now, I’ll just sit back and find amusement regarding the cities which actually ARE fighting the state. As they say, “you go, girl”.
My guess is that the biggest factor in all of this is the housing and economic downturn, itself. No way does the state even come close to forcing communities to build what they have in mind. Even David acknowledges this.
Is broadening an affordable housing exemption tantamount to undermining Measure J?
Probably, as it would likely include market-rate housing.
Developers can (already) propose something like this, under Measure J. In fact, they already routinely do (though it usually consists of a small land dedication site, with the government paying for the cost of the Affordable development, itself). In fact, that’s what WDAAC consisted of.
The only difference being that voters approve such proposals under Measure J, rather than the council. (It should be noted that councils are not necessarily “automatic approval” systems, either. Though in Davis, I’m not so sure about the latter – given the makeup of the current council. In fact, I suspect they’d approve darn-near anything – if they’re successful at undermining Measure J.)
So I guess their “campaign strategy” will be some combination of threatening Measure J, along with an appeal to “trust us” (instead of yourselves).
We need both densification and expansion if we are going to meet our needs and the best way forward is to do both at the same time, not sequentially. In fact, because infill densification is so expensive and difficult (perhaps not even feasible in some cases) I believe that the argument that we must take advantage of all infill densification before even looking at expansion is really just an argument to do nothing.
I agree and think that if we are going to look at expansion, it should be accomplished by adding dense, mixed use and walkable neighborhoods on the periphery. Our approach should not be limited to maintaining a single core area.
California Department of Finance demographers who are professionals, not gadflies, project a continuing rise in the state’s population. I previously posted this information as well. It must be directly refuted with in depth analysis if we are to accept an alternative viewpoint developed from a single year seat of the pants assessment.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/projections/
Your link doesn’t actually show what the latest projections are.
Here’s an article showing what happened regarding previous projections (before it was determined that the state lost another 500,000 residents):
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/04/california-population-decline/
Instead, California’s population has dropped for three years in a row.
https://calmatters.org/newsletters/whatmatters/2023/02/california-population-exodus-housing/
These aren’t “gadflies” (as you put it) who are noting these facts. If anything, this is coming from those who think like you do.
If you’d like, I could also post links to multiple articles showing that millennials aren’t having children at a rate anywhere near their own “replacement” level.
I realize this is “bad news” to the gadflies who don’t like hearing about sustainability.
The downward trend has been occurring for some time, and ultimately turned into a net loss over the past 3 years.
So yeah, a declining population does “complicate” the state’s efforts to “force” growth.
Whereas, Davis citizens have repeatedly expressed a desire to grow as slowly as legally possible;
Whereas, the State of California has determined that the provision of affordable housing is a compelling state interest;
Whereas, the implementing program for satisfying that interest is the RHNA process;
Whereas, the RHNA process requires that land be made available for affordable housing development but does not require the construction of that housing;
Whereas, the City of Davis can meet the next RHNA cycle affordable allocation on about 100 acres of land;
Therefore, the City of Davis can demonstrate a compelling need to acquire 100 acres of land by eminent domain and zone it entirely for the development of the RHNA affordable allocation. How and if it gets built is a matter for the market too resolve.
It is very strange to me that most of the people who participate on this blog would apparently vote against the kind of neighborhood in which they choose to live.
Very few people want to live in high-density high rises in downtown areas, given any choice in the matter.
The Davis downtown cannot provide the material needs of most people any more. A long time ago, yes: you could buy groceries, pick up prescriptions, buy a wide range of clothing, have an enjoyable evening out with your family. Now, if you lived downtown you’d have to travel out to one of the neighborhood shopping centers and out of town for your basic needs.
There are not enough infill sites to meet the state’s requirements.
No developers in their right minds would take on a major redevelopment project that included high rises, mixed uses, some arbitrary amount of affordable housing, and all of the other things that Davis residents seem to want to require.
PG&E is not going anywhere. This corporation yard is an important regional maintenance hub for them. They have just completed some major capital improvements on the site and have more in the works. It would require a large, complicated land swap in order to move their corporation yard. It would mean paving over farmland and moving a large number of workers to some site out in the country, at considerable cost, and they have zero incentive to do that.
The city’s corporation yard is only a little more than three acres. Yes, feel free to put out RFP’s for it, for some combination of housing and commercial. But please understand that you are proposing to plunk this down among existing single-family homes and existing businesses. Our part of east Davis there has some of the only ACTUAL affordable housing and lower-cost commercial property in the city.
I have enormous respect for the authors of the Enterprise op-ed and understand their arguments at the theoretical level. But at the practical level, it just won’t get the housing built that we need and won’t lead to commercial development any time soon.
Not to me. Of course, I would (also) vote to prevent businesses coming in which result in pricing me out of where I came from.
There are people who like this type of living. In fact, some of the wealthiest people on the planet live in places like San Francisco (condos) Manhattan (or probably, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc.). Or at least, have one of their domiciles there.
Downtown provides restaurants, which is highly-desired by many people. Co-Op is also very nearby (and is essentially adjacent to the monstrosity that will no doubt be built at the Hibbert’s site. I don’t know of any time (in my multi-decade lifetime) that a place like downtown Davis would be expected to provide “clothing” (or even “prescriptions”).
Of course, if it was up to me – I’d be joining in with those who are fighting the state’s mandates, rather than asking “please sir, may I have another”? And that includes housing downtown, which I don’t see as an advantage for Davis itself.
Davis has a lot MORE opportunities for infill than other, more dense cities (which are subject to the same type of housing requirements).
But regardless, the state’s efforts will fail – miserably. Give it maybe 3-4 years, and you’ll see.
It’s not “Davis residents” who are requiring Affordable housing. It’s the state that’s “requiring” it.
I’m failing to see how redevelopment of that site for Affordable housing would impact other “affordable” housing or businesses.
But if it was up to me, you already know that I’d suggest that the real solution is to wait for the state’s requirements to fail (statewide).
“We” don’t need housing or commercial development (which then creates “more” of a housing need). And yeap, I’m speaking on behalf of “we”, just as you are.
“We” probably includes 90 percent of Davis residents – who are just fine, thank you very much.