By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The Davis City Council is expected to move forward with planning for the Shriners Property, authorizing staff to issue the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Shriners Property project proposal for public review and comment, begin the Draft EIR process and appoint a council subcommittee to work with staff as the application moves forward.
On June 13, 2023, the applicant submitted the Shriners Property project proposal. The project is proposed for 232.4 acres north of Covell and to the east of Wildhorse and the proposed Palomino Project. It would generate 1200 units of housing and is subject to a Measure J vote, expected to go before the voters in 2026.
Among the objectives for the project: “Provide a meaningful number of critically needed housing [units] for the City, in a balanced and wide variety of densities, products and price points.”
The plan is to provide 20 percent of the total residential units as “Capital A affordable housing for low, very low and extremely low-income households.”
Further, they plan: “Provide another 10% of the total residential units for single family homes priced at an average of 70% of the Davis median home price” and “[p]rioritize the use of high and medium density housing for the missing middle and young families who are currently unable to find or afford housing in Davis.”
Finally, they are looking to “[c]reate the type of housing that will encourage young families to buy and live in Davis, increasing the number of children attending DJUSD schools.”
At the January 9, 2024, City Council meeting, the Council awarded the contract for the preparation of an EIR for the Shriners Property proposal to Raney Planning & Management, Inc.
Council directed staff at that time to have the NOP drafted and return to the Council for further direction before proceeding to commence the public review period for the NOP as the next step of the environmental review of the project.
According to the staff report, if the Council directs the release of the NOP, the Comment Period will commence on Friday, July 12, 2024, and will conclude on Monday, August 12, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
The city would accept written comments by any agency or interested member of the public at any time within that period.
A scoping meeting would take place on Thursday, July 25, starting at 6:30 p.m. in the Valente Room of the Senior Center.
According to staff, “The purpose of the meeting is to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the proposed scope of the analysis to be conducted for preparing the Draft EIR for the project. This meeting is anticipated to be an open house format and interested parties may drop in to review the proposed project exhibits and/or submit written comments.”
Representatives from the City of Davis, the EIR consultant, and the Applicant would “be available to address questions regarding the proposal and EIR process.”
Under CEQA, the EIR is required to analyze a “reasonable range” of alternative projects that potentially would have one or more lesser environmental impacts than the proposed project.
Staff notes, “CEQA also requires the analysis of a ‘no project’ alternative to compare impacts of the proposed project with that of no project.”
While the Raney contract scope includes evaluation of up to seven alternatives, all at a qualitative level of analysis, staff notes that “the City Council directed the Village Farms Davis project to use an approach of analyzing fewer alternatives, but including a greater depth analysis on a few of the alternatives, to afford a more nuanced understanding of the potential impacts, especially with regard to traffic and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts.”
Based on that, staff is recommending the analysis of five project alternatives for Shriners.
Staff adds, “The key factor at this stage of the EIR preparation launch is to ensure that the full breadth of project scope and possibilities is incorporated in the EIR analysis.”
Furthermore, they note, “A project proposal can always ‘reduce’ in size/scope/impacts after an EIR is initiated, but it can be problematic to try to ‘expand’ the size/scope/impacts of a project afterwards without triggering re-circulation of the EIR and/or preparation of subsequent EIR or addendums.”
