There has been a push by groups like The Davis Citizens Planning Group to increase density in the peripheral projects.
This week they argued, “with the understanding that “the great suburban experiment” was indeed a mistake, (it) is disheartening to see these new proposals for the future of our city, perpetuating those mistakes: Car-centric, 1950’s-style low density housing, which in Davis’ market, will be unaffordable to all but high-income households, with commuters out of town.”
They argue, “Housing like this exacerbates the climate crisis, with low energy efficiency structures, and the people who live in these single-family homes, at the edge of town, by definition, will need to get into an automobile for every single trip outside the home—causing both traffic and GHG emissions.”
In some ways, changes to the Village Farms project has given them more of what they may want. The newest proposal, as we reported this week, dramatically drops the number of single-family homes while increasing the density.
That may not go far enough for some, such as Tim Keller, who commented, “I’m wary however of what they mean by “affordable-by-design missing middle”. If that is still detached housing, its gonna be an “all-houses / no room for trees” kind of neighborhood like you see in the middle of the cannery. If it is townhomes / garden courts / cluster homes.. where you can get that (kind of) housing density while preserving a healthy amount of open space… then this would be a significant improvement.”
Alex Achimore, also in the group added, “I appreciate the developer’s wish to capture some of the folks who have bought houses elsewhere (my son lives in West Sacramento), but the resistance to duplexes and townhouses is an impediment to realizing any notable amount of “affordable by design/missing middle” housing.”
The problem of course is that groups like this are going to run smack into traditional groups, who are worried that even the 1800 units will generate too many traffic and other impacts.
While the project has picked off some opponents from previous Measure J fights, listening to the comments from Eileen Samitz should give us a flavor of what the fight will look like this time.
“As some of you know, I’ve served as a planning commissioner notes on the general plan update, but I’m very familiar with this project because there were previous proposals that presented the same problems that this project presents and that’s because the site has serious handicaps and issues and now this project has major design flaws.
“Well, there’s been some movement on the vernal pools protection thanks to the citizens that gave so much input on this. There are many other issues that have not had any movement those include but are not limited to the 200 acre floodplain.
Whereas good and rational planning dictates that you do not build on huge floodplains, particularly when climate change issues we’re facing. There’s a history of toxics and other contaminants leaking from the immediately adjacent unlined, old city landfill and sewage treatment plant, which more recently revealed PFASs, which are as everyone knows forever chemicals and these levels exceed the federal government levels that are permitted.
“So on top of that, I mean there’s why is there not an exclusionary zone around this landfill like there is around other landfills to protect the surrounding areas from the contaminants?
“Trying to shoehorn in 1800 housing units at Covell and pole line, which is one of the most impacted and congested intersections in the city makes no sense.
Adding tens of thousands of, or actually hundreds of thousands of more car trips is only going to exacerbate this diverting channel A, which is the main drainage system of the city. The entire city would rip up habitat and compromise a drainage which would cause flooding is another issue.
“Major costs for the infrastructure that the developer does not want to pay for, including the pole line OVERCROSSING or under crossing proposal and a new fire station that we don’t need because 90% of the fire station calls are medical, so we only need a EMS service.”
During public comment, several people mentioned the flood plain, which we will discuss in more detail at some point – but understand this – Davis is largely built on a flood plain. As much as 70 percent or more of the city was at one point a flood plain before development. By mitigating and improving drainage systems, you can handle that problem.
But getting back to the 1800 units…
This is an argument straight out of 2005. And I want to point out that I shared that concern back in 2005, but times have changed.
There doesn’t seem to be an acknowledgment of that.
As the Davis Citizens Planning Group noted in their first piece, “there are not enough infill opportunities, which means need to expand.”
At some point I’m sure, some group will create a new map with all the infill opportunities that we supposedly have – and most will have already been used for previous RHNA allotments and others will be not viable. Unlike previous times, the city has to actually build the units, they can’t simply lay the same places on the map time after time and say they’ve met their allotment.
That’s why the council and city manager have been very clear – we will not meet our next Housing Element with infill – and frankly, we may not do enough to make sufficient progress on the current housing element to stay in compliance – something people have forgotten.
So where is Davis going to expand? Mostly Davis is forced to go north of Covell. That’s going to put you into traffic issues at Covell and Pole Line or at Mace, it’s going to put you into flooding issues, such as we have north of the city, and it’s going, and it’s going to mean votes of the people.
Frankly the city is going to need to get both Shiners and Village Farms to pass in order to make the next RHNA cycle and then they will have to find more housing – especially affordable housing. That’s going to be a big challenge even if both projects pass.
As Councilmember Will Arnold pointed out, “We have a housing crisis that we are addressing, and we need a project of this size. I believe that’s undeniable.”
He added, “I believe this is also undeniable. This is the absolute best place in town for that project to be full stop.”
“A child could go to every level from kindergarten and graduate high school without traveling a full mile. The idea that it being near existing travel destinations is somehow a negative, and that because it’s near an intersection that a lot of people already use on a daily basis because they have to, because it’s a major crossroads of our community. The idea that that’s a negative is absurd,” he said.
“The alternative would be building it out in the middle of nowhere, right?” Councilmember Arnold quipped.
Not mentioned are the ramifications if the city doesn’t find a way to build housing – I’ve pointed this out many times, if Village and Shiners don’t pass, maybe even if one of them doesn’t pass, there is a good chance the state steps in to remove Measure J. People will say I’m scaremongering or whatever, but the state has absolutely litigated to enforce state housing laws.
The problem of course is that a number of people on Tuesday complained that 1800 units is big, they complained about traffic, that your opposition’s talking points against this project. How you are going to get this more dense and pass a vote, is beyond me.
