By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – Back in January the council created a subcommittee of Mayor Will Arnold and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla to examine among other things, “pathways for consideration of current or future proposed peripheral development projects.”
There are now four potential Measure J projects in the pipeline reflecting the intense need for housing in Davis—not to mention the state of California.
The fourth project which would be at Covell and Pole Line is anticipated to be submitted to the city around the 10th of April.
Thus far, Palomino Place has a full application. This project is located on the 26-acre horse ranch property in Wildhorse, within City limits with 149-164 dwelling units. Staff notes, “While located within the city limits the site is subject to Measure J/R/D due to land use designation change from agricultural use to urban use.”
The other two projects are in pre-application stage.
“Shriners” pre-application. Located on the Shriners property north of Covell Boulevard and directly east of Wildhorse, totaling approximately 234 acres and proposing 1,100 to 1,200 housing units.
“On the Curve” pre-application. Located on approximately 85 acres east of Mace Boulevard with 551-788 housing units.
Staff writes, “It is clear that there is considerable interest on the part of developers to pursue residential subdivisions on the city periphery.”
The subcommittee noted, “Absent a GP update there is little guidance in place on what the City and community priorities are for peripheral development.”
The subcommittee looked to develop “interim” criteria that could be used until a General Plan update is completed. They acknowledged, “These are not fully developed but provide a valuable starting point for pursuit of a more in-depth framework in the near future.”
The subcommittee created four guiding principles.
First, “Peripheral development should provide significant amounts of low-income affordable housing.” Second, “Peripheral development should have minimal traffic impact and emphasize non-fossil fuel transport.” Third, “Peripheral development should further the City’s habitat, agricultural, and open space conservation goals.” And fourth, “Peripheral development should accelerate the City’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2040.”
Among the other considerations included:
- The next RHNA cycle will begin in 2030, with an allocation expected by 2028.
- For any project proposal to make a November 2024 ballot would require final City Council action by the end of June, 2024.
- The legal tasks needed will take 12 to 14 months in order “to meet legal timelines associated with EIR preparation. To begin EIR preparation and a Notice of Preparation requires that the project description be solidified at the beginning of the EIR preparation process. This provides little time to influence the project description, and places a heavier burden on the applicant to craft a supportable proposal.”
- The City Community Development Department is currently short-staffed with two planning positions currently vacant.
- To review one peripheral development proposal would require an aggressive review schedule and strict adherence to timelines in order to provide the ability for the City Council to take action by no later than end of June, 2024.
- Further, “While reviewing one peripheral proposal may be feasible with contract resources, review of multiple peripheral development proposals concurrently would quickly exceed staff bandwidth capacity, would exceed city commission capacity, and could be perceived by the community as putting undue burden on their capacity to adequately track multiple proposals.”
The subcommittee argues, “The housing needs are great – especially for affordable and ‘missing middle’ housing.”
At the same time, they believe, “We must be thoughtful to put forward the best possible project(s) and, to the extent that peripheral growth is to be considered, maximize community support and the chances of Measure J/R/D project election success.”
As such, they think, “The city has an opportunity to set the stage to define the needs and expectations up front if the opportunity is afforded to do so.” Moreover, “There is an opportunity to engage with the community to envision and identify what the community needs and will support, to build community trust, and then seek out proposals to meet those needs (vs. reacting to developer proposals).”
They conclude, “In light of the significant affordable and ‘missing middle’ housing needs, the subcommittee recognizes that the City Council may wish to consider undertaking review of one proposal for a possible November, 2024 ballot measure.”
The subcommittee adds, “In anticipation of an application being filed on or about April 10th for the 400-acre site north of Covell Boulevard and bordered by Pole Line and F Street, the City Council could consider directing staff to return to the City Council on April 18th with a summary of the application and to seek direction from Council on whether to proceed with application review of that project proposal.”
Time is limited.
The subcommittee acknowledges that “to undertake review of any proposal for a November, 2024 ballot requires definitive direction from the Council of whether or not to undertake that review by no later than April 18th.”
Is it just me or does anyone else think that peripheral development would only serve to worsen all of these things?
Those are aspirational statements that suggest that peripheral development *should* attempt to mitigate those things.
One problem is that you are coming from the point of view that the alternative to peripheral development in Davis is the current status quo. Whereas the most likely outcome is that if development doesn’t get put in Davis, then it will go somewhere else, which will also impact open space, transportation and traffic – but in ways that we cannot mitigate. People are going to work at the university whether we build housing in Davis or not, and if they don’t live in Davis, they will drive to Davis… hence…
Adding thousands of people to Covell and Mace Blvd. will never have a minimal traffic impact.
Paving over habitat and farmland does not further open space and conservation.
Building thousands of homes with the accompanying autos and other carbon producing possessions of the people living there will not accelerate the City’s goal of achieving carbon neutrality.
This kind of reminds me of the council member who said something like DISC could save the planet.
There are any things that could go somewhere else, that doesn’t necessarily make it better if it goes in Davis. For example a virology lab or a giant auto wrecking yard.
But at least it won’t be impacting open space, transportation and traffic in Davis.
People will also move to Davis to work in Sacramento for the state or several other jobs. People from the bay area will also cash out and move to Davis and fill many of those homes. People also might prefer living outside of Davis while working in Davis….hence…
They’re already working there, and already living somewhere. Some live in Davis, some live in Woodland . . .
They’re not going to “move” to one of these 4 proposed developments, and abandon the housing unit they already live in. And if they did move out of wherever they’re living, they’d be replaced by some other new resident.
What this would do (collectively) is to just increase the size of Davis (massively). Pursuit of growth is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as long as demand can be summoned-up for it. There are self-interested market, government, and political forces at work which strive to continue this pattern.
There is also nothing that Davis can do to stop (or even slow) development of surrounding cities. Broader forces determine that. And for that matter, areas slated for development have already been determined/mapped-out for years. (That is, if the general economic, population, and housing downturn don’t cause abandonment or indefinite delay of those plans.)
For example, if Covell Village had been approved, there would be traffic and other impacts from Spring Lake AND Covell Village combined, by now. This is not an “opinion”, as Spring Lake was approved prior to the vote for Covell Village.
Again, this goes back to the forces which pursue growth in the first place.
Huh?
Average American adults move 11.4 times in their lives.
“The most popular factors influencing neighborhood choice were the quality of the neighborhood and proximity to family, friends, and workplaces.”
50% of home buyers expect to live in the home they just purchased for ten years or less.
47% expect to move because of life changes or career changes, or because they want a bigger home. 7% expect to downsize.
(National Association of Realtors 2022 home buyers and sellers )
Many people presently living in Woodland, Dixon, and West Sacramento who are working in Davis would very likely consider moving to homes in Davis in order to be closer to friends and family and their workplaces. In terms of home value, it would be a move up for many of them. It would be a prudent decision for financial reasons as well as personal reasons.
Don: The second sentence I wrote is the more-applicable quote, in regard to the impact of the area:
I’ll go ahead and address your comment below, as well:
People moving into the area selected those other towns for a reason. And if they actually would have “preferred” Davis (e.g., due to some connection to the town or UCD) they would have done so in the first place.
You (yourself) chose a different community than the one you own a business in. And yet, I suspect you could have moved to, or remained in Davis had you preferred to do so.
Also, what makes you assume that their “friends and family” are primarily in Davis, and/or will remain in Davis permanently? For that matter, don’t people generally form connections with others in the place that they actually do live in?
Is Davis some kind of “center of the universe” place? I must have missed that astronomy lesson.
For those who actually do have a connection, the primary reason that they select nearby cities (instead) is due to “more bang for their buck”. And that’s not going to change via any of the proposed developments.
It might be a “move up” in status (e.g., a Davis address, rather than a Woodland or Dixon address). But in terms of what they get for their money, it would likely be a “downward” step (e.g., square footage, garage and yard space, etc.).
There’s also some “quality of living” aspects that are increasingly becoming worse in Davis – primarily due to increased density. (And as a more minor consideration, lack of close access to businesses such as CostCo, Home Depot, etc. Though truth be told, the “CostCo Highway” provides that for Davis, as well.)
This is probably the most-incorrect statement you’ve put forth. Real estate transaction costs, as well as other costs of moving are a major deterrent. In addition, there’s the “less-bang-for-your-buck” issue, which is the reason that those with connections to Davis moved to surrounding cities in the first place.
People generally move to entirely different geographic areas, not some 7 miles away (unless they have an actual reason). And financial considerations are not one of the reasons to move to Davis, from one of those locations.
As shown repeatedly on here, surrounding areas are generally a better investment during times of “upturns” in the housing market, and a worse investment during times of downturns.
But the home that one lives in should not be thought of as an “investment” or “asset”. This is one of the first things that “financial gurus” point out.
Five comment rule is in effect for this article.
So I get 5 more comments from this point on, correct?
Just to be clear, it doesn’t reflect that at all. It reflects an opportunity for developers to make money, and for the city and school district to receive one-time funds.
I doubt that the council will be successful in their attempt to undermine Measure J when there’s 4 proposals in the pipeline, already. Good luck with that.
“On the Curve” is otherwise known as “100% Housing DISC”.
Covell Village is back again, as well? I’d say that’s the “big news”, here. (I already knew about the other three proposals.)
Changing the names of these developments doesn’t change what they are. Hopefully, residents at The Cannery will step up to help defeat Covell Village II, and residents at WildHorse will step up to defeat Shriner’s.
I’m personally less-concerned about sacrificing Palomino Place (aka “Wildhorse Ranch”), though it’s a shame to lose the space next to the path. Would have to look at the design again, to see if a parking lot would then face the path. (I used to enjoy jogging through there and through the golf course.) However, it certainly got its booty kicked, the last time they tried to develop that parcel.
Step right up, place your bets. The City of Davis development lottery is looking for another player to risk millions of dollars for the honor of running the Measure J gauntlet and publicly being called greedy in the town where they live. So far your chance of winning an election has been 33%. Never mind that the last player spent millions of dollars over a decade and got nothing. This time will be different.