Davis, CA – Over the past ten years or so there has been a subtle sleight of hand used by opponents of more housing—blame UC Davis.
This happened recently when I analyzed the candidate positions on amending Measure J.
“Trying to make Measure J the scapegoat here when the real problem is UCD not building nearly enough student housing on campus doesn’t solve anything,” wrote Eileen Samitz, a steadfast supporter of the current version of Measure J.
She added, “There is a significant amount of housing that has been approved in the City that is in the pipeline. It is not Measure J’s fault that Chiles Ranch was approved 14 years ago and laid dormant all this time.”
This led to a protracted discussion over the extent to which UC Davis has fulfilled its obligations under the MOU.
There is plenty of blame to go around in terms of housing, but the problem is pointing the finger at UC Davis is not going to solve the current problem before the city.
The problem the city faces right now is that under RHNA they—not UC Davis—have to build housing.
You can argue that RHNA should apply to UC Davis, that the city’s share of housing is in part mitigated by UC Davis—but that’s not how things work and there is virtually no chance that in the future that fact will change.
So pointing at UC Davis distracts from what the city must do – now.
You can argue—as some have—that the city has already had its Sixth Cycle Housing Element approved by the state. That’s true. But this isn’t the old days, where you only had to theoretically show on the map the capacity to build the allotted number of units.
The city has to actually build those 2000 units and over 900 units of affordable housing—and if it doesn’t show sufficient progress, the state can put the city back into Builder’s Remedy status. Worse yet, from the state point of the city, the state can litigate against the city to build housing.
The clock is not only ticking away on building the housing required under the Sixth Cycle, the time is rapidly approaching for another allotment of housing that will be required under the Seventh Cycle.
None of that housing is going to be on the UC Davis campus—and while citizens can argue that should change, it’s highly unlikely to occur.
The city was able to get its Housing Element approved using infill sites to do so. It is understandable that the city would want to do that—especially given that a Measure J vote is contentious and problematic.
But it created two problems that the city will have to address at some point.
The first, and more immediate, is whether the city can make progress toward actually rezoning and developing those plots on the map.
The second, and more long-term, is how the city is going to fulfill its next RHNA allotment which figures to be at least the same size as this cycle—if not larger. And it will have to do so on peripheral rather than infill, because the city simply does not have enough infill to make the math work.
For those complaining about UC Davis not doing its part, the city of Davis actually gets a break, not having to plan for nearly as much housing as either West Sacramento or Woodland.
I have been arguing for some time that Measure J is in jeopardy—particularly if the city shows it cannot fulfill its housing obligations.
There are some key guideposts to that. First, the city is planning to put two projects on the ballot in 2025 and 2026, respectively. If those projects pass, the city will be in at least decent shape. If one passes, it becomes more dicey. And if both fail, the city could be in a world of hurt—remember they have to actually rezone land, which requires a vote of the people if it is a Measure J parcel.
I know some folks believe that the public will support housing projects but I have considerable doubt. Village Farms is going to be a heavily contested project—opponents are already gearing up for a fight.
The city could mitigate some of the risk by attempting to create expanded exemptions for Measure J projects to allow projects that meet certain criteria to gain approval without required votes—but that figures to be highly contentious.
In addition, the city is working on a General Plan update, to hopefully facilitate housing development in the future. But we’ll see what transpires from that.
At the end of the day, all of this is going to be a heavy lift for this community, and none of it will be resolved by pointing the finger at UC Davis.
None of this matters if your goal is to do the easiest thing in California politics, get people to vote no on a ballot measure.
Elections are a one day sale. You cast your vote one time and then you live with the outcome of that vote for years. The defeat of Covell Village bought the neighborhood almost 20 years without the land being developed.
With the owners finally returning to the ballot with a new development proposal you can expect the opposition to use any argument they can think of, no matter how absurd, to get voters to reject the ballot measure.
It’s good to call out the opposition for these fallacious arguments but don’t expect to deter the constant Chicken little staccato from the neighbors. They will throw in the kitchen sink to protect what they see as their territory even if it isn’t their own land.
Ron G
There’s other good reasons to demand more of the developers which could lead to a “no” on the VF proposal. Perhaps the most important is a total lack of integration with the other proposals along Covell. This will lead to a lot of adverse consequences that will just sour the citizenry on further development. We need to have a strong show of leadership that can take us down a better path than what developers who have a singular motive prefer.
In fairness Eileen deserves a lot of credit for pushing UC to build more housing. Thanks for doing that, even if it was done with a motive that I disagree with, stopping more housing from being built in the city.
Completely agree
Excuse the equine metaphors, but proposing rezoning peripheral land in Davis remains “one trick pony “ argument that’s grown “long in the tooth “ while some “beat a dead horse “ claiming UCD, Measure J, Builders Remedy and the RHNA are all Boogymen. There is a multifaceted range of opinions about how best to move forward on housing. I can’t imagine anyone in Davis wants to permanently destroy our agricultural heritage or the fertile lands that surround us. Measure J has huge support amongst our city’s residents ( 80% as the article states). Voters put a stake in the heart of the proposed Covell Village. (Now repurposed as Village Farms to confuse the the listeners). A Measure J vote on this likely coming on VF as well as a vote on the Davis Eastside LLC property (misnamed as the Shriners to mislead folks into thinking Shriners still owns the land). The argument that the math of meeting our hosing element with infill won’t pencil out has yet to be tested. My 8th grade algebra teacher always insisted I show my calculations first before declaring my solution. I would think it wise if we wait on sprawling outward until we have exhausted our current city footprint. I anticipate some “NIMBY” comments, which I can understand, but in 40 years in East Davis my BY “back yard “ has included the buildout of Mace Ranch and Wildhorse developments. I understand there will need a compromise in the end, but I’ll continue to work the gas, clutch and particularly the brakes on the issue of irreversible growth.
And this is why you don’t give direct control about long term planning to the unwashed masses.
“I can’t imagine anyone in Davis wants to permanently destroy our agricultural heritage or the fertile lands that surround us.”
Yes, peripheral development will be an apocalyptic event that will DESTROY the agricultural heritage and fertile lands that surround us. IN FACT I JUST SAW AN ANNEXATION PROPOSAL FOR A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITH A LAKE OF FIRE AMENITY. My wife remembers when much of West Davis, Mace Ranch….and such didn’t exist. She can’t believe the horror that those place impose on Davis and wishes the town she knew in the 70’s and 80’s still existed….oh wait she doesn’t; she’s a sane and reasonable person that recognizes that sometimes Davis needs to grow.
“The argument that the math of meeting our hosing element with infill won’t pencil out has yet to be tested. My 8th grade algebra teacher always insisted I show my calculations first before declaring my solution. I would think it wise if we wait on sprawling outward until we have exhausted our current city footprint.”
If you got any sort of grade for critical thinking; it should be rescinded if you think a simplistic accounting of developable space is how you figure out what is LIKELY to be developed. I mean sure we could plan for a dozen 20 story residential towers to be built downtown (that’s called “Manhattanization in 1960’s urban planner speak)…is that going to happen? No. Even with the “builder’s remedy” enough infill units will be built to meet state needs…which you don’t want anyway because then locals lose control of what is built in the city. Some of us with experience in this field know that Davis isn’t going to meet it’s RHNA requirements in the next cycle as things continue.
But even worse is the CITY’S FINANCIAL SITUATION IS STRANGLED by people with similar views and their REGRESSIVE views and lack of understanding of urban planning and city economics The city’s “footprint” is made with a foot that is atrophying, decaying, withering away…slowly dying off. Continue to completely restrict peripheral development and Davis will not be able to continue to fund infrastructure and services to the current standard of living the Davis enjoys. The city needs income…and not just new tax income. It needs new RETAIL tax income and to and immediate and significant degree that’s not going to come from the decaying and sad little downtown area in Davis. The answer is newly planned shopping districts/neighborhoods with planned integrated retail, commercial and residential communities…on the peripheries…because you’re forcing square pegs into round holes (which prevent development) in little infill foot print spaces.
You mention planned neighborhoods with commercial, retail and residential. Pretty sure that was the initial promise of the Cannery. But I went there the other day to get gas and a latte, but there was no retail in site. There is a reason those of us who are “unwashed” don’t trust developers. BTW, I did bathe today.
That’s like interviewing for a job, getting it and the job isn’t what it said it was. So you decide you don’t want to interview for jobs anymore and bother working because you could be lied to. I mean who needs to bother with income for that pesky standard of living stuff.
Btw. It’s not like the developers can just magically change the terms of their development agreement. So they must have convinced the city leaders that they had to change the original scope of the project. If you don’t like the results; blame the city leaders and not the developers.
Keith is correct. Further, there have been calculations presented on these pages several times showing how the city can’t meet its requirements with infill alone. And even more likely, the infill estimates are too high because they presume development of land that the owners may not be prepared to do.
But John Cooper ignores a more fundamental truth: because Davis requires more dense development than other nearby cities, when we “preserve” an acre of ag land, we’re actually destroying more than an acre in another community where that development will occur instead. It’s this shortsightedness that is perhaps the most frustrating part.
“But in my 40 years in East Davis”
Another boomer favoring the preservation of farmland at the expense of letting younger generations build equity
I’ve herd folks at scoping meetings decry that the younger generations are needing to wait for boomers to die before houses are available. What I think the sentiment is that when boomers stop voting in Measure J elections, Davis will have its housing boom. Don’t worry though, I’m taking my Geritol daily and plan to vote for many more years.
There is one key point missing here – the state is mandating a certain amount of housing and has shown they will litigate in order to get that.