By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – It will be interesting to see what comes of the legal threat by Legal Services of Northern California. They demanded that the city adopt its Housing Element by September 13, 2023. In response, the City of Davis basically shrugged.
In the letter, the City Attorney Inder Khalsa writes, “The City has commenced the rezoning process, but even under the most optimistic time frame, the legal constraints above mean that the rezoning actions will not be effective for several months. The City anticipates that the rezoning will be complete and the third version of the Housing Element will be ready for Council to adopt by the end of this year.”
City Manager Mike Webb in his email to the Vanguard after the city sent the response on Friday, noted, “The candidate rezone sites are found in Appendix E as adopted in the version 1 and version 2 of the Housing Element. There are a few additional candidate sites that have since been identified that we are analyzing as well.”
One of the points I raised in Saturday’s commentary that seemingly got lost is the notion that the city is reaching out to commercial property owners looking for some that are willing to pursue rezoning in order to build residential.
While that approach will undoubtedly help the city reach its rezoning needs to be able to complete its Housing Element, it struck me and some others as effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. We’re in danger of losing more commercially zoned property in order to meet the needs of the housing crisis—a 
practice that will have long term consequences.
Given the letter sent by Legal Services which had a date of September 13 on it, and the city’s insistence that December is the soonest they can act, you would think they would almost have to file a suit.
This becomes an interesting prospect now.
“A jurisdiction must identify an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the locality’s housing need,” Legal Services argue in their letter.
Will it be Legal Services that actually pulls the trigger on challenging Measure J/R/D?
They argue, “Housing Element Version 2 continues to conclude that Measure J is only a constraint if the City lacks sufficient infill sites. However, a constraint to housing development exists even when the City may be able to demonstrate sufficient sites to address the RHNA. Further, the City currently lacks sufficient infill sites to meet its current housing need. This is proven by its 23.6 acre rezone obligation. Therefore, the City continues to have a duty to remove or further mitigate the impacts of this identified constraint.”
A lot of this is self-inflicted.
Going before the Woodland Planning Commission this week is the Woodland Research and Technology Park Specific Plan.
Once upon a time it was Davis that this project was aiming for. But after getting pushback from neighbors outside of the city, they quickly pivoted. Now they have a proposed 350-acre project immediately adjacent to Spring Lake and bounded by Highway 113 on the west.
In the time it has taken to plan this project fully, Davis voters have shot down three innovation centers—the first being relatively small as a part of Nishi, and the second and third, as standalones in DISC.
So, with Davis walling itself off, this project figures to fill that vacuum.
According to the project description, “The Woodland Research & Technology Park Specific Plan is envisioned as a new technology hub for the City of Woodland, intended to serve an array of research and technology companies interested in locating and growing near UC Davis, and other research and technology institutions within the Sacramento region.”
To add insult to injury, the project also contains 1600 housing units—and while I erred in reporting that the number was 3200—even at 1600 it is large enough to nearly single-handedly fill the city of Davis’ need for market rate housing for the next RHNA cycle.
In short, Davis’ land use policies and voter apprehension with DISC will lead to commercial development and housing opportunities to the north that are desperately needed in Davis.
Worse yet—Davis is likely to see a good deal of impact without gaining the benefits of the project.
Woodland will get the housing. Woodland will get the tax revenue. Woodland will end up being a key spot for tech jobs spinning off from UC Davis. Those jobs and revenue will leave the city of Davis and travel north.
But Davis is still going to have traffic impacts because now, instead of staying within the city, the back and forth between the tech park and university has to travel through Davis, on Davis roads and on local highways.
It’s a win for Woodland. It’s a win for UC Davis. And it’s another self-inflicted loss for the city.
In the meantime, the city is going to have to find the housing to meet its RHNA needs. And even without RHNA requirements, it is going to have to find housing that fills its internal housing needs.
The only question now is whether it is Legal Services, the State, or perhaps California YIMBY who ultimately pulls the trigger on a lawsuit against Measure J—and then, of course, which way the courts decide to rule.
It would be highly ironic if it is Legal Services, a non-profit that advocates for low-income renters, who ultimately is the one to topple Davis’ seminal and landmark land use law.
If that does happen, it will be the shortsightedness of citizens that led to its downfall. It really didn’t have to be this way. But the community is likely leaving no other choice.
If DISC had been approved the traffic impacts would’ve been much worse with most of the traffic from UCD and the tech park traveling across town mostly on local roads. At least with travel from UCD to Woodland the traffic will mostly shoot straight down 113.
You’re missing the point… again. Yes, there is probably more impact in Davis with DISC (although with the shuttle service, who actually knows, but a separate issue). But with DISC Davis gets something for it – revenue. It gets only the downside with this.
Then add to that all the traffic impacts of the 850 housing units that would’ve been built at DISC.
850 units that will have to be built elsewhere in Davis.
Never gonna happen, nor does it need to happen in regard to any state targets.
See reference in my comment below.
It’s never going to happen that the city is going to build its allotted housing?
BTW, you’ve almost shot your wad for today already.
If DISC had been approved the traffic impacts would’ve been much worse with most of the traffic from UCD and the tech park traveling across town mostly on local roads. At least with travel from UCD to Woodland the traffic will mostly shoot straight down 113.
What??? Really???
Are you saying that that Davis workers live at the 113 offramp or magically dont have to take those “across town local roads” to GET to 113?
The premise regarding Measure J is that the state looks at Davis “differently” than all of the other jurisdictions across California which aren’t expanding outward.
In other words, the premise is that the state intends for cities to remove all barriers to sprawl, and that the state laws consider land outside of city limits as fair game.
And in this specific case (in which a client claims fear of being “priced out”), I would think that one of the potential mitigations would be enacting rent control.
But really, it seems that this type of potential legal action might be made in cities which (despite having an approved plan) cannot actually implement those plans. For example:
Further complicating San Francisco’s path to meeting its housing goal is the fact that more than half of the new homes it needs to add — about 46,000 units — must be affordable to households with low or moderate incomes. But the state hasn’t provided any new financing mechanisms to help those expensive projects pencil out. Supervisor Hillary Ronen has publicly called the goals “a farce.”
“That is a preposterous goal. It’s dreamland,” said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor. “The planning exercise is built on something of a fiction.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2023/san-francisco-housing/
You know that there’s a problem when a supervisor starts calling these plans a “farce”, and when Elmendorf calls them “fiction”. And when the Chronicle actually starts reporting on the reality.
“ The premise regarding Measure J is that the state looks at Davis “differently” than all of the other jurisdictions across California which aren’t expanding outward.”
Your rhetorical premise is that the state is going to look at an artificial legal barrier the same way it does a physical barrier like an ocean or another city.
Your rhetorical premise is that the state is going to look at an artificial legal barrier the same way it does a physical barrier like an ocean or another city.
There are “artificial barriers” in the form of voter-approved urban limit lines, zoning, conservation easements (and others) across the entire state.
Here’s another example:
Show me where the state intends for cities to eliminate those barriers, in any of the recently-enacted state laws.
And that’s without getting into the specifics of this case, in which a client is claiming fear of being priced-out. That’s going to open up a whole host of arguments which have nothing to do with “artificial barriers”, as you call them.
There are plenty of other cities with such rules, the question is whether those rules will present problems with adhering to state housing laws. In other words, your argument is jumping ahead five steps. Davis may end up being the first to face this music in part because so many people who work for HCD actually live in Davis.
Three problems with that premise: 1) rent control doesn’t impact home purchase prices significantly, 2) rent control discourages building of new rentals so housing prices rise and the number of rentals eventually decreases as landlords convert to ownership, and 3) rent control has been shown to help upper middle class households the most because they tend to have longer tenure in a specific residence.
As for San Francisco, I don’t know why you insist on going there specifically. SF is in a very different situation from Davis–it actually has a physical constraint and has very expensive land. It’s left with expensive infill, which is not Davis’ situation. (In fact, your reliance on SF shows why infill won’t work to meet Davis’ housing needs.)
If there’s any connection whatsoever to UCD, the traffic will flow down Highway 113 – totally bypassing most of Davis itself.
It is none of those things.
To make it “pencil out”, 1,600 housing units had to be added. And for that matter, who knows when it will actually get built.
And if DISC had actually passed, it would have created a housing shortage. You know that, already. And one in which the state would eventually require the city to address, assuming that the state’s “mandates” don’t totally disintegrate by then.
Yeah, I know you don’t like it when I start commenting, and would prefer to shut me down. But Don hasn’t actually established a 5-comment limit in this article so far.
But here’s another point: Measure J already includes an exemption for Affordable housing. The fact that it hasn’t been pursued is irrelevant, given that there’s infill sites available.
LOTS of potential sites for Affordable housing across the entire state haven’t been built, either
Darn that’s five. I guess we’ll have to wait until tomorrow.
This is definitely far from always true Ron. Many people drive between Davis and Woodland utilizing county roads rather than Route 113. This includes me as well as 3 members of my sister’s family. People that live in Central, East and occasionally South Davis use County Road 102. People in West Davis sometimes opt to travel on County Road 99. Sometimes not taking 113 is the fastest way for drivers to get where they desire to go. This trend should accelerate as Woodland adds much needed development. You really should know better having lived in this area a long time.
Did you actually read what Ron wrote, any connection between UCD and the business park, not all of Davis and the business park. But thanks for the geography lesson anyway that everyone already knows.
Those routes also directly apply to UCD travel. The business park also includes 1,600 homes, the equivalent of a town.
Five comment rule is in effect, retroactive for this article.
“To make it “pencil out”, 1,600 housing units had to be added. And for that matter, who knows when it will actually get built.”
LOL. What was the build out time frame for Ramos’ project that failed? I bet this project gets built out faster than Ramos’ would have.
Great news for Woodland and the area. Even good news for Davis. Bad news for City of Davis finances but as Forest Gump opined “Stupid is as stupid does.”
It looks like Davis isn’t going to try to defend its inability to meet State housing mandates and the City of Davis is going to let the chips fall when Lisnic files a lawsuit and the courts rule.
Will it be Legal Services that actually pulls the trigger on challenging Measure J/R/D?
They argue, “Housing Element Version 2 continues to conclude that Measure J is only a constraint if the City lacks sufficient infill sites. However, a constraint to housing development exists even when the City may be able to demonstrate sufficient sites to address the RHNA. Further, the City currently lacks sufficient infill sites to meet its current housing need. This is proven by its 23.6 acre rezone obligation. Therefore, the City continues to have a duty to remove or further mitigate the impacts of this identified constraint.”
.
This is a very interesting legal argument. It is particularly interesting in how it relates to City Limits … in all cities. The argument appears to be saying that the City (and all cities with similar housing constraints have a duty to remove identified constraints in the form of City Limits boundaries.
As Arte Johnson was known to say, “Ver-r-r-ry Interesting, but …”