At a recent Davis City Council meeting, Councilmember Bapu Vaitla proposed prioritizing transportation planning in the city’s north-northeast corridor as part of the ongoing general plan update. The idea, originally suggested by Councilmember Donna Neville, aims to ensure that transportation considerations are addressed early in the planning process, especially with upcoming peripheral development proposals in the area.
“I would love it if we could think about that northeast quadrant and staff could work with the general plan consultant to come up with some options on how we can push that towards the beginning of the general plan process,” Vaitla stated during the discussion.
Councilmember Gloria Partida expressed support for the idea but sought clarification on the logistics of integrating this shift into the general plan timeline.
City Manager Mike Webb explained that if the council provides direction, city staff would work with the general plan consultant to determine what advancing the transportation review would entail, including the associated process, cost, and timeline.
These findings would then be presented to the council for further consideration and potential adjustments to the plan’s scope.
Like I said before, high-density expansion to the northeast side of Davis would primarily appeal to those commuting to/from Sacramento.
If that’s the goal, I’d say “mission accomplished” (if any of this actually happened). Truth be told, they could just use the existing route (Covell to Mace, to I-80). No “extra planning” needed.
Maybe the council should stop “planning” for developments that they have no say in, regarding whether or not ANY of them are approved.
No one mentioned that
No one mentioned that
This is about not making the suburbs auto-centric by design. Whether you would connect to the 42 at Mace, Amtrak downtown, or going downtown or to campus, there would be a route that all developments would build around, instead of having blobs that emptied out onto Mace or Covell. Fighting the developments is another matter. But if they are going to be built, they need to be built right. Don’t confuse the two issues.
Higher density will bring lower housing prices which will be more attractive to those 20,000 workers who commute into Davis but are currently priced out of our market. The Council clearly has a say in how developments are planned. They can say no to putting them on the ballot if they don’t comply.
“At a *recent* Davis City Council meeting, . . . ”
You mean like last night at about 10:30pm? LOL
It was merely putting something on the calendar for future discussion.
Development all along Covell to the freeway will occur. it is just when each portion will be developed that is the question. Planning now along that corridor could induce developments that create their portion of higher density housing in the right areas to make public transportation more frequent in service and less costly to maintain.
The Davis Planning Group has previously pointed out the value of planning as if transportation mattered.
I applaud Neville and Vaitla for putting this in the GP mix.
David says: “Development all along Covell to the freeway will occur.”
We shall see about that. My guess right now is that neither Village Farms nor Shriner’s will be approved.
And DISC has been rejected twice, now? Or is it three times?
And that’s not just “wishful thinking”.
Davis has to put housing somewhere and that corridor makes the most sense – but it’s not without challenges, so we’ll see what happens with this transportation piece.
Davis doesn’t have to put new housing anywhere.
See what happens in the Bay Area (which isn’t sprawling outward) over the next few years.
The state’s mandates are already failing.
I understand that a lot of the recent actions by the state have a sunset date, as well.
HCD says otherwise.
Again, let’s see how HCD handles the failure that’s ALREADY occurring.
Places like the Bay Area are absolutely not going to meet those “mandates”.
So unless the good folks at HCD pick up a hammer themselves, there’s not anything they’re going to be able to do about that.
Depends on how you view things…
For example here’s an analysis of San Francisco. The downside is that they won’t meet their housing goals, the upside is that they have seen vast improvement in both their numbers and their future ability to produce.
San Francisco has set an ambitious goal to construct 82,000 new housing units by 2031. However, recent data indicates that the city is currently falling short of this target.
Current Housing Production:
• In 2024, San Francisco added approximately 1,200 new housing units, marking a 12-year low in housing production. This figure is less than 10% of the annual quota needed to meet the state’s mandate, requiring an average of 13,000 units per year over the next six years.  
Initiatives and Policy Changes:
• Pro-Housing Designation: The California Department of Housing and Community Development recognized San Francisco’s commitment to housing by granting it a “Prohousing” designation. This acknowledges the city’s efforts to build innovative housing types, reduce barriers to homeownership, and encourage sustainable development. 
• Process Improvements: The San Francisco Planning Department has embarked on significant improvements to streamline the permit process for housing. This includes efforts to eliminate unnecessary processes, standardize zoning requirements, and enhance incentives for new affordable housing. 
Recent Developments:
• Balboa Reservoir Project: After a decade of planning, construction is set to begin on a 1,100-unit housing project in the Balboa Reservoir area. The initial phase includes two 100% affordable complexes with 128 and 159 units, respectively. 
• Office-to-Housing Conversions: To address high office vacancy rates and revitalize downtown, the Board of Supervisors advanced legislation to incentivize converting office spaces into housing. The plan aims to streamline the construction process for these conversions, though financial and bureaucratic challenges remain. 
Challenges:
• Homelessness: Despite efforts to increase shelter capacity and enforce anti-camping laws, homelessness remains a pressing issue. While the number of people sleeping outdoors has decreased, advocates emphasize the need for more affordable housing solutions. 
• Economic Factors: The pandemic’s impact has led to high commercial vacancies and reduced tourism, affecting the city’s economic recovery. Strategies to revitalize downtown include mixed-use development, tax incentives, and enhanced public safety measures. 
In summary, while San Francisco has implemented several initiatives to boost housing production and streamline processes, current output remains below the levels required to meet state-mandated goals. Ongoing efforts to address economic challenges and homelessness are crucial to achieving these objectives. 
Davis is going to have its own challenges to meet its housing goals, but none of that means Davis doesn’t need to build housing and Davis shouldn’t try to build housing.
At some point Ron there is no point to even discussing stuff with you because everything is the same answer – can’t do it, won’t do it, don’t need it, don’t bother.
Let me sum up your long-winded answer: San Francisco is failing to meet the mandates. And it’s not just San Francisco.
In other words give up.
Here’s the problem with your argument, David:
You bring up the state’s mandates as a “threat”, but then fail to note that the mandates aren’t achievable (statewide) in the first place.
As such, the state’s threats are hollow, unless they want to punish most of the cities in California for failing to meet unachievable targets.
There’s another way to look at the mandates. The mandates are pushing locales to increase their housing production. They are aspirational. BTW, not all the mandates are unachievable. For example, Davis’ 2000 or so units is realistic. The state threats aren’t hollow, they have been willing to back up them with court action and courts have generally sided with the state. It will probably take a few cycles to get the housing production to where it needs to be — if future administrations hold strong on housing.
You’re right about one thing – they’re “aspirational”, as you said.
But most of the targeted communities don’t share the state’s “aspiration” in the first place. And even if they do, the word “achievable” comes into play again.
Going forward, the state is not going to grow as it once did, though there will be some shifting of population to areas (like the Sacramento region) which purposefully pursue growth. And a lot of times, the population that they’re pursuing are coming from an area that is more environmentally-responsible (e.g., the Bay Area, where air conditioning isn’t always needed, public transit is already more-robust, etc.).
Actually, it is the entire public transit system that needs an overhaul, not just the north-area. It starts with getting UCD provide substantial funding for Unitrans instead of hoisting those costs onto the UCD students. Further, since the Unitrans system is designed 90% for UCD’s needs, not the community’s needs, UCD (not the students) should pay that “fair share” of the Unitrans costs. UCD brags about their breaking fundraisng annually and includes discretionary money. For starters, there would be the need to provide bus shelters of a decent size and design for the riders at every stop due to the extreme weather we experience here.
But even if the City’s current inadequate transit could be improved (i.e. Question: Where would the funding come from since the City and State have budgetary shortfalls and federal funds being cut?) it would not solve the many problems that Village Farms has. This includes, but is not limited to the toxics, 200-acre flood plain, lack of safe access, habitat destruction, enormous infrastructure costs, and proposing the massive 1,800 units at Covell Blvd. and Pole Line Rd. which cannot possibly work.
Eileen,
Yet somehow Shriners, the project you support, will avoid most of these problems?
https://www.davisenterprise.com/news/city_government/developer-wants-covell-project-on-2024-ballot/article_bc9722f2-1389-5c2a-a071-4fc41e034c3c.html
Richard,
For starters, Village Farms has serious toxics issues, 200-acre flood plain taking at least half of its land, unsafe access issues none of which Shriners has.