Key points:
- City of Davis kicks off General Plan Update process.
- Current general plan is 2001 vintage, needs updating.
- The city needs about 2000 new housing units to meet future needs.
The City of Davis kicked off its long-awaited General Plan Update process Tuesday night, with city leaders, consultants, and residents filling the Davis Senior Center for what officials said would be the first of many workshops designed to shape the city’s future.
Community Development Director Sherri Metzker opened the meeting by explaining why the city is beginning the update now.
“That means I’m in charge of coach planning and building divisions, as well as code enforcement and some other stuff, but mainly planning and buildings,” Metzker said. “And the reason we are here tonight is the planning division has been asked by the city council to process the approval of a new general plan. A current general plan is vintage about 2001, and most general plans have a life expectancy of around 20 to 25 years. And so it’s about time for us to take a look at it and update what we need, what we think we need to update”.
Vice Mayor Donna Neville welcomed attendees and highlighted the stakes of the planning process.
“Hi everyone, and welcome to this really important community meeting. We’re kicking off our general plan. I’m sorry that Mayor (Bapu) Vaitla could not be here tonight,” Neville said. “So our general plan is really the movement for what we want our community to look like. It deals with everything, land use, transportation, how we address climate change in our community, how we provide for equity for those living in our community is a really, really important (issue)”.
Eric Yurkovich, principal at Raimi + Associates, provided a detailed overview of the update process, the challenges Davis faces, and the opportunities ahead.
“About the future. It’s about coming together to address the challenges that we face today. So whether you’re interested in climate change, the housing crisis, urban ecology, there’s a space for all of you in this process and we want you all engaged throughout up,” Yurkovich said. “(A) General plan offers this really unique opportunity to really reflect back community conversations about what we love about the communities we work in and live in, what we want to see change, and what big ideas and solutions we have, and really about setting our vision for the future”.
He explained the central role of land use.
“One of the key pieces of every general plan update and really what I would call sort of the heart of the general plan is the land use and mobility plan. Land use is really how the city organizes its space, so it designates different parts of the city for housing, different parts for jobs, different parts for amenities and parks. Also places for a mix of all of those uses, right?” Yurkovich said. “Those land use decisions that we make in the general plan, they affect how we travel, the great places we have in our communities and how we foster different spaces in the sustainability of our community and our natural systems and ourselves”.
Yurkovich added, “We want to create neighborhoods that are safe, fair, healthy. We want to create places where there are homes for people of different cultures, different income, low and different places in their lives. These are places where businesses can grow and thrive and flourish over time, and they’re really opportunities to really create and nurture arts, community and culture all within the framework. So land use can help shape all of these different things”.
He reminded attendees that the General Plan Update is meant to build on past city work. “Part of our job is to really honor the work that’s been done by all of your commissioners, council over time, or that’s the general plan, but part of that’s these other initiatives that happened more recently,” he said. “It’s our job to really understand and reflect back the values, the goals, the ideas that were generated through all these different planning processes and capture those within the general plan update”.
Yurkovich described the update as unfolding in five phases. “Now, the update itself is really split into these sort of five distinct phases, and we’re in this kind of first listening and discovery phase,” he said. “We’ll then be moving into discussing more about land use and then we’ll talk about more general policy. We’ll pull all that together into the plan for public review and the final plan itself”.
He outlined the city’s demographic changes, noting that Davis has grown to over 65,000 residents since 1990, with an aging population and greater diversity. He said the city’s housing needs are pressing. “During that process, it was identified that the city needed about 2000 new housing units to meet the needs of future housing within the city. That’s an all income level, is everything from very low income to moderate and above moderate income levels,” Yurkovich said. “Likewise, UC Davis has a capacity need for about 2,500 additional students and about 3000 additional employees”.
He stressed that Davis is almost entirely built out. “Nearly 97% of the city is built out with only really a handful of vacant areas or sites within the city. So that means we’re going to need to be creative in how we problem solve, to figure out where we need our housing, jobs, needs in the future,” he said. “And many of you all know, how many of you all know about Measure JR and D, more than they know about the housing element”.
Jobs and housing imbalance was a key theme. “Only a fraction of the jobs themselves within the city are for folks who live and work in the city. About 75% of the jobs are serviced by people who come into the city and the work,” Yurkovich said. “On average, about 85% of you will be leaving the city of Davis for the job. So part of what we’re going to be talking about in general plan process is matching our jobs and housing needs so we can better create a more balanced transportation system and match up those needs better through this process”.
He also spoke about transportation. “All that Davidson is really a beacon for active transportation and modes, really bike infrastructure. You’ve been a leader here in the region and state and even further abroad. So we’re going to have a clean focus on active modes of travel, how they can be improved and how they can do that safely in this community”.
Parks and open space were also raised. “You guys have an amazing set of parks and open space, 450 acres, parks, plazas, and green belts here within the city that are city owned. Those have a ton of great community and recreational amenities within them. And then you have tons of different programming. Those are all already stressed by use and will be continu to be stressed in the future,” Yurkovich said.
Climate change was presented as a defining challenge. “Then finally, all of these areas are going to be affected by a changing climate, warmer days, heavier precipitation, extreme heat events. Those are going to affect the built environment, our natural systems, and our health as human beings,” Yurkovich said. “We also know that that climate change and those effects are going to fall disproportionately on the most sensitive populations within every community as well as habitats, and they’re going to fall on those who are already stressed and have a lot of burdens”.
He emphasized the importance of participation. “Key to this process is the engagement itself. We’ve been working with city staff to really define a process to engage as many people in Davis as we can. We will be doing that through a lot of different activities,” he said. “Our goal is really to allow you to have meaningful input and to understand how that input then gets reflected back into the work that we do”.
He urged residents to spread the word. “You’re all here, but there are many people who aren’t to tell your family, your friends, your neighbors, your colleagues to participate in the process,” Yurkovich said. “There’s a couple ways you can participate right now for folks who are not here. We have a survey, an online survey. It’s exactly what’s happening in the other room”.
The meeting concluded with breakout sessions. Melissa Starr from Raimi + Associates said, “The exciting part of our evening tonight is next. We have seven stations and one kids activity in the next room, and we invite you all to take about five to 10 minutes at each station answering some questions, giving your feedback ideas about things that are going to really help connect around to the general plan that we’re starting”.
Officials described this kickoff as the beginning of a multi-year process. Residents will have additional opportunities to participate in workshops, focus groups, and online surveys as the city moves toward adopting a new plan.
“We want to create neighborhoods that are safe, fair, healthy.”
What is a “fair” neighborhood?
““We want to create neighborhoods that are safe, fair, healthy.””
How about dealing with making existing neighbors safe, fair and healthy? Then we might believe ‘created’ new neighborhoods have a chance. My neighborhood has yet another new encampment with jittery folks 200ft from my yard — is that safe for our neighborhood? I’ve seen several human S’s laid by the street people, and once stepped in one, trying to retrieve box of neighbor’s stolen mail in the bushes. Is that healthy? Those of use near railroads, bikeways, parks, water channels have to put up with street people with those of you in the distant ‘burbs’ preach to us about taking it up the arse because ‘they are our neighbors’. Is that ‘fair’ ? It’s ‘fair’ for those of you in the rich burbs you privileged lefty hypocrites. How about they be YOUR neighbors??? But NO, you stick it to Davis Manor. Great town we got here.
From article: “On average, about 85% of you will be leaving the city of Davis for the job. So part of what we’re going to be talking about in general plan process is matching our jobs and housing needs so we can better create a more balanced transportation system and match up those needs better through this process”.
(Sounds like about 85% of the city’s housing needs to be torn down and rebuilt where the jobs are located. The first chart shown above also confirms that.)
If I were going to live another half-century, I’d place 1000 bet that this vision will not be achieved and isn’t worth the hot air that was breathed into it.
You probably are not wrong, but the city still has to do this.
From article: Likewise, the city uc, Davis has a capacity, a capacity for about 2,500 additional students and about 3000 additional employees”.
Don’t understand this sentence. But if it’s stating that UC Davis has a capacity for 3,000 additional employees in order to accommodate 2,500 additional/potential students, there’s a bigger problem here (in regard to hiring more than one additional employee for each additional student).
Regardless, is UCD participating in this process? Whatever happened to the employee housing they were going to provide? (Similar to what they did years ago, regarding the employee housing behind University Commons mall?)
There was a small transcription error – “Likewise, UC Davis has a capacity need for about 2,500 additional students and about 3000 additional employees.” However, that doesn’t change the question.
I have reached out to the city for clarification on this.
It’s far less robust than the Downtown Plan process and perhaps even Reimagine Russell.
That’s logical, given the anti-democratic changes to the commission structure and the focus on corporate style spin from the communications department.
It’s not the decision of a consultant to determine that the city is built out to the degree he mentioned – even if this is based on an earlier evaluation, it’s up to the citizens to decide what changes and sacrifices might need to be made to modify existing structures and space use.
In regards to cycling, I wonder what he’s really thinking. The city was a leader decades ago, and now it’s essentially resting on its laurels, old infrastructure and barely acceptable social behavior of most of the people operating motor vehicles. The quality is deteriorating, and the modal share is going down. Absolutely nothing in the skill set or integrity of current transportation staff leads me to believe that anything will improve.
“In regards to cycling, I wonder what he’s really thinking. The city was a leader decades ago, and now it’s essentially resting on its laurels, old infrastructure and barely acceptable social behavior of most of the people operating motor vehicles. ”
Truer words were never spoken. That the City is trying to push survey’s to win some ‘award’ based on it’s innovation with bikes a half-centruy ago is a joke. The City can’t even buy green paint that sticks to the pavement. The bike infrastructure is pathetic, there is no bike vision enthusiasm in the City that existed in decades past, and the only moral thing to do is for Davis to fall on its sword and admit it has failed the bike community and spend a few years bettering the town – SF, Oakland and Berkeley for example have far out-shined Davis in recent years. The e-bike tanks speeding down bike lanes in every direction is out-of-control, and there is no plan or enforcement to deal with it. The situation blows.
“…e-bike tanks…”? I’m no stranger to hyperbole, but I’m certain that you would agree that there are a lot of things much more similar to actual tanks moving around the city which cause way more problems than electric assist bicycles and scooters.
There’s three ways amongst many to address this:
* Significantly improving infrastructure on collectors and arterials – with narrowing on the former and physical buffers on the ladder. Combined with an educational campaign, this will relocate a lot of faster micromobility from multi-use paths to more appropriate locations. In regards to bike lanes on those arteries, the physical buffers should be part of a redesign that makes them wider to allow passing by people moving faster. This is what’s happening in New York City and other places. Something I’ve been talking about for years is that it should be wide enough for one person moving fast to pass to people riding side by side. If there’s not enough space, remove space for motor vehicles. Sometimes you can’t have it both ways.
* A different and possibly more challenging problems involves what we consider normal in relation to velocity of transportation devices: there’s a lot more complaints about e-bikes and scooters than there are about electric cars. This is partly because we consider the danger from the latter to be normal, often this is subconscious. (I am reminded that recently a local independent columnist referred to a vehicle going through a storefront window in Woodland as “oops”. ). It’s true, of course that these mobility devices are used in shared spaces, but that relates back to my first point and the objective reality, which is that the greenbelt paths in Davis are under- designed, not suited for the continually proclaimed platitudal nonsense from local cheerleaders amongst City staff and private citizens who like cycling as long as other people are doing it.
“On average, about 85% of you will be leaving the city of Davis for the job.”
So most of the working people who live in Davis will leave it for their jobs? Doesn’t that destroy the talking point that Davis must build housing so people don’t have to commute to Davis for their jobs theory? What am I missing here?
The other part of the equation – that 12,000 people commute to Davis for work, and another 10 to 18K commute to UC Davis. This is the point we have been highlighting since 2016 – the mismatch between jobs and housing in Davis.
Or as Eric put it yesterday, “So part of what we’re going to be talking about in general plan process is matching our jobs and housing needs so we can better create a more balanced transportation system and match up those needs better through this process”.
I was “exaggerating” regarding my earlier comment.
I actually do realize that the city only has to tear down about 8,649 units.
21,259 outbound commuters
12,610 (minus) inbound commuters
= 8649 housing units to be torn down, if the city can convince the outbound commuters to move to where their jobs are located (and the inbound commuters then occupy those houses).
Leaving aside, for the moment, any “complications” caused by having more than one worker per household, working in different locations.
Of course, having 12,610 fewer inbound commuters would likely decimate Spring Lake. (So be it – they can go ahead and tear down 12,610 housing units there.)
This is 100% why I have been saying for the past years that we dont need any more expensive single family housing.. We KNOW it will be occupied by higher wage earners who want to live in a “college town”, for cultural and school reasons but who dont necessarily work here.
And at the same time, we havent built almost any multifamily homes at lower pricepoints that are affordable by our university staff, our teachers, our local workforce etc etc.
I know that Ron is trying to be a troll with the “tearing down houses”. but one of the difficult things in this general plan IS going to be the topic of densification. We have a lot of people saying “densification” and “infill” but the true infill sites are gone… what is left is going to take the form of tearing down existing low-density housing and replacing it with higher density housing.
Want to “densify our arterterial corridors”… think of what that actually means… think of Anderson boulevard. A major north south corridor flanked with single family homes facing the street. Think of old east davis, a natural spot for densification and look at how the citizens there have fought against it.
There are no perfect answers here… but the focus needs to be pretty firmly on understand WHO we need to build housing for ( OUR workforce – not outbound commuters) and then find all the places we can to build it.
Tim –
You make a lot of good points.
The way I see it is that we put off making tough decisions for years and now we have only tough decisions. I think it’s going to be extremely difficult to build significant housing without single family homes – and I would also argue that if you look at the 25 year record, we have not built nearly enough of those type of homes. I don’t see given the federal and state budget situations how you can build significant affordable and missing middle housing without also building SFHs.
Why? There is nothing in it for the city to build single family homes. And apartment buildings already pencil in infill sites where the land cost is much greater. I don’t see any need for single family homes until multi family is the majority housing form and we start to see vacancy 3-5% vacancy in those property types. Until then, it can’t be a priority. We are SO behind the supply curve we just can’t wast time or land on money-losing homes for outbound commuters
“Think of old east davis, a natural spot for densification and look at how the citizens there have fought against it.”
We need to be very careful about redevelopment in east Davis as it is presently the largest amount of truly affordable housing in the city. Tearing down buildings and constructing new ones tends to increase the value of the surrounding properties, leading to increased housing prices and increased rents. Gentrification is a well-known unintended consequence of redevelopment.
Im okay with being careful… so long as that implies that we are DOING SOMEHTING… If “being careful” means sitting on our hands lest we let a neighbor be “annoyed” by seeing a 4-story building… then no… we dont need to be that careful.
I like this exchange between Tim and Don – honestly this is where the debate should go. The exchange is actually a classic housing debate tension. Don is warning about gentrification and loss of affordability from redevelopment, while Tim is pushing against paralysis and inaction in the face of a housing shortage. They both have valid points. Don worries about displacement from redevelopment, Tim worries about stagnation from resistance. Both perspectives are valid, and the policy challenge lies in finding ways to build more housing without pricing out existing residents.
TK say: “I know that Ron is trying to be a troll with the “tearing down houses”. but one of the difficult things in this general plan IS going to be the topic of densification. We have a lot of people saying “densification” and “infill” but the true infill sites are gone… what is left is going to take the form of tearing down existing low-density housing and replacing it with higher density housing . . . Think of old east davis, a natural spot for densification and look at how the citizens there have fought against it . . . the focus needs to be pretty firmly on understand WHO we need to build housing for . . . and then find all the places we can to build it.”
REALLY DUDE ??? If you wanted an enemy, you just made yourself one in the form of me. Old East Davis is already one of the densest neighborhoods in all of Davis. We have apartment complexes that fill entire blocks, and I and others have spent the last 40 years fighting to preserve the remainder of our historic fabric of block faces of historic tiny and large beautiful homes as the very first Davis ‘suburb’ of downtown Davis, without turning the place into a ‘house museum’ of only the designated historic homes.
And your answer is ‘let’s densify the most historic and densest neighborhood even MORE? I’m not saying there aren’t ways to do that, but “the citizens there have fought against it” is both true *and* inflammatory without context. The way to do this is plan *how* to densify and work with the residents who have lived and invested and fought for this place to come up with a plan, rather than how it’s been done in the past, which is to come up with a plan and then violate it and fight the residents when a couple of jerks show up with some money and a team of who’s-who Davis politically connected people as investors.
You want another fight? Keep pushing us. You want the best neighborhood ever to come up with solutions for how to densify here? Work with us! We have proven time and again we can work with the City on parking issues, and we can do the same on densification. But this time, we have to know the City isn’t going to f*ck us over the first time someone with money shows up and wants an “exception”.
Alan
You bring up one of the reasons why we need to expand our city with mixed use neighborhoods that are much more dense than the city average. That way we don’t destroy the areas that are already dense and affordable and we don’t challenge existing housing where seniors live. But to achieve that requires comprehensive planning that looks at all development holistically. The one by one approach dictated currently by Measure J/R/D blocks this approach. That’s why the measure needs to be modified to provide for urban limit lines and specified preconditions for developers.
Here’s the best set of residence/commuting numbers for Davis + UCD (which is the only valid way to look at our situation without looking like naive idiots.) I reconciled across the Census On the Map data (which is unfortunately off by 25%), Census Quick Facts, EDD labor data, UCD ITS Travel Survey and UCD employee location data.
Davis+UCD
Employed/Living In 33,451
Employed Outside 21,999
Employed Inside 10,133
Employed/Living Out 22,444
Jobs Inside 32,576
The combined population is 76,448 for Davis + UCD according to the Census in 2023.
If anyone wanted to see the ‘politically connected’ mixing (like oil and vinegar) with the ‘pains in the politically-connected’s arses’, one needed only have attended last night’s General Waste of Time kickoff, complete with carefully placed easels, boards, pens, and sticky notes, all leading in one direction: the Davis sheep to zoning slaughter.
A couple of general comments on the event last night:
1) I was really impressed with the team they have working on this, and it was clear to me that they are professionals and that they “get it”. They brought up all of the right questions and issues, including circulation, affordability, access to shopping etc. They are actual urban planners and they know the best practices that the pro-housing groups here in town have been trying to champion for years.
2) I was also really encouraged to see the post-it comments on the maps being so progressive with regards to our housing situation. Yes there were a few posts that were more typical of the Davis “Im hiding my nimbyism behind a veil of environmentalism”, kind of arguments, but there were a LOT MORE people calling for affordable housing, for better bike connectivity, de-emphasizing car use, multi-family housing, transit connectivity, energy efficiency… all of that. So that was really encouraging to me.
Tim Keller says: “We have a lot of people saying “densification” and “infill” but the true infill sites are gone… what is left is going to take the form of tearing down existing low-density housing and replacing it with higher density housing.”
That’s why it will never actually happen. There was an article a day or two ago in the The Chronicle which noted that Bay Area cities have permitted less than 10% of their own mandates. (“Permitted” – not even “constructed”.)
Here’s just one example from that article: “Walnut Creek is supposed to permit about 5,800 new homes from 2023 to 2031, according to the California housing department. As of the end of last year, it had approved just 85.”
https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/bay-area-housing-built-20805924.php
And if tearing down buildings to build denser ones isn’t happening in the Bay Area (where demand is supposedly a lot higher), it sure as heck isn’t going to happen in a place like Davis. The fake threat is probably more useful for the housing activists, to “scare” people into voting for sprawl. (From what I’m gathering, that’s also the approach from city officials.)
It’s not cost-effective in Davis. Which is why I suspect we will see a different solution.
Yeah, folks will either be scared into voting for sprawl, or they won’t.
And if any of the current proposals lose, the housing activists will continue suggesting that Measure J is under threat (and that the voters should eliminate it, before some other entity does so).
In other words, shoot yourself in the head – before a bad guy does it.
I’m not seeing much of a winning argument here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some folks fall for it. Especially if they’re led to believe that a 10-story apartment complex is going to replace the house next door to them. Which we already know isn’t happening.
The argument regarding “shooting yourself in the head” (gut Measure J) is less-effective than scaring people regarding the house next-door.
So if I was a housing activist, I’d focus on the 10-story apartment complex next door.
I was listening to the Armstrong & Getty radio show early this morning. A listener from Davis sent in the following text which they read on the air during their ‘mailbag’ segment:
“This evening I went to the community meeting in my liberal enclave. Various city people were presenting something of a pathway towards a master plan to justify their jobs and solicit resident feedback.
If “climate change”, “BIPOC”, “LGBTQ-plus-minus-etc.”, “marginalized”, “urban forest”, “ecological”, “open space”, “preservation”, “housing”, “climate hazard”, “heat wave”, “vulnerable and un-housed”, “pollution”, “vehicle traffic”, “electric vehicle”, “connected” and “bio-diverse” were on your bingo card — man you cleaned house!”
A&G added: “Buzzword Fest!”
Y say, “all of these areas are going to be affected by a changing climate, warmer days, heavier precipitation, extreme heat events.”
He doesn’t know that. A general warming of the Earth does not necessarily mean any particular area will be warmer or have more participation. Air pollution from industrialization and the effect of human’s has been going on for over two centuries. He’s just telling Blue Davis what it wants to hear: “CRISIS!!!” . . . so that the City will dedicate City money to a global issue and make the same impact as a flea on an elephant’s back while lining consultant pockets.
“He doesn’t know that. A general warming of the Earth does not necessarily mean any particular area will be warmer or have more participation.”
We do know that it will be warmer here in the coming decades. We do know that there will be more frequent and more severe extreme weather events. And we do know that there are actions we can take now to mitigate those impacts. His statement was accurate.
No, warmer overall planet can mean different things for different places. The climate system is complex, and local outcomes depend on regional atmospheric and oceanic patterns, topography, land use, and other factors. The odds are higher if the Earth is warmer overall, but no way to say for sure Davis, CA will experience overall warmer or more extreme weather.
“no way to say for sure Davis, CA will experience overall warmer or more extreme weather.”
It already is.
The extremes will get higher and there will be more of them. We have already seen that for example last summer when we set a record for most days over 110 and it wasn’t close.
DO & DG — true believers. Enjoy your cult
Wow
Wow what? There is absolutely no way to know that Davis will continue to get warmer. Global weather systems are dynamic and every changing. It might, it might not. On average, places are getting warmer. Some places will get cooler. I’m just saying the statement may or may not be true. Or it may be true for awhile and change.
The wow was directed to how you chose to respond rather than your viewpoint. (That said I disagree with your underlying point but I wouldn’t respond “wow” to it)
But I’m not wrong. I’m not saying that your prediction won’t turn out to be true, I’m saying it’s more likely, not certain.
I brought up the cult thing, because it’s almost like you want it to be true to prove a point. Like if a group wants to say they are being overly-victimized, and someone from their group gets victimized and they almost revel in it because it confirms their victim belief. Warming is even more squishy because there are so many data points, so many time-starting points, so many time points, and so many atmospheric and geologic variables.
“I brought up the cult thing, because it’s almost like you want it to be true to prove a point.”
The bigger problem is I believe the evidence is overwhelming that it’s true and we have collectively failed to act until the consequences could be catastrophic.
Alan M. says: “Like if a group wants to say they are being overly-victimized, and someone from their group gets victimized and they almost revel in it because it confirms their victim belief.”
(Reminds me of how it’s “unfortunate” when we had a relatively-cool spring and summer so far. Not hearing much about that, are we. Plus, nothing much is on fire around here this year.)
“(Reminds me of how it’s “unfortunate” when we had a relatively-cool spring and summer so far. Not hearing much about that, are we. Plus, nothing much is on fire around here this year.)”
Shhhh…
That doesn’t fit with the cult’s views. They’ll tell you that a cooler than normal summer is the result of global warming.
“The bigger problem is I believe the evidence is overwhelming that it’s true and we have collectively failed to act until the consequences could be catastrophic.”
You seem to be talking about global climate change. I was talking about Davis, or any other single point on Earth.
“We have already seen that for example last summer when we set a record for most days over 110 and it wasn’t close.” Any single season does not prove anything. What does this summer, so-far, tell you? That things are getting more mild and less extreme? Would that prove that things are getting less extreme?
True that in Davis the average temperature trend is an increase of about 2°F over the last half century. True that is not insignificant. My only point is climate is dynamic and no one can say for certain that this trend will definitively continue for Davis. That’s when it strays into politics.
Now sea-level rise is another thing, because that is global, not local. If there is a trend and the dynamics generating sea-level rise are continuing, that can be predicted to continue (even if amounts vary by model).
Don is absolutely correct. This is settled science. Keith and Alan, you’ve strayed too far out of your lane.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
I attended the presentation part of the meeting, but did not take part in the breakout sessions. Instead I chose to take the survey online. I am going to make several points here:
1. Some of the questions asked in the survey (the same questions as in the breakout sessions) were couched in such a way that I could not agree with them because of some clause that was distasteful. As an example, there was a question about supporting multi model transportation, with the added caveat of discouraging single occupancy vehicles. I was on the Transportation Advisory Group (TAG) many years ago, that was updating the General Plan Transportation Element (GPTE). The TAG was overrepresented by the bicycling community. As a result the GPTE was very bicycle centric. I and another TAG member strenuously objected, but we were overruled. The GPTE was then taken to the Planning Commission (PC) for review. The PC insisted the GPTE was two bicycle centric and needed to be changed! I was given the task of making those changes, which were later approved. Multimodal means just what it says – all modes of transportation need to be accommodated, including single occupancy vehicles. There is nothing wrong with encouraging bicycling, walking, or taking public transportation, but not at the exclusion of trying to discourage a particular mode of transportation. I would point out most people in town own a car, and more than likely are not willing to give their automobile up.
2. There seems to be a bad idea floating out there that single-family homes need to be discouraged in favor of rentals. In my considered opinion this is foolish. Homeownership is the only way for a person to build equity in regard to real estate. Renting does not build equity, and rents continue to rise at astronomical rates through “remodeling” that soon causes rents to become unaffordable. The city needs to encourage different types of housing that are more affordable, like duplexes and quadruplexes. A friend of mine just purchased a quadruplex in Citrus Heights, obtaining an FHA loan for first time homebuyers. When you enter the neighborhood, it looks like large, beautiful homes on small lots, giving the impression of a well to do community. In reality each large house is actually four individual units. My friend’s unit has two bedrooms, a living room, dining room and kitchen, albeit small in size. The smaller type housing choices can become affordable through state and federal programs that assist first time homebuyers and lower income folks. The city does not need to reinvent the wheel with its own down payment assistance program it cannot afford.
3. The city needs to foster more economic development with workforce housing. More than likely that will mean extending economic development beyond city limits – smart growth. But the reality is the city needs to diversify its tax base and collect more tax revenue in order to maintain its basic infrastructure and programs. I very much doubt more tax increases to address the city’s fiscal shortfall will be approved by taxpayers after the Measure Q debacle. Measure Q, the sales tax increase recently approved, was spent on city employee compensation rather than on fixing the city’s roads and bike paths or any of the other things promised in the ballot language. It was a bait and switch scam perpetrated by the City Council, pure and simple. It was laughable when they feigned shock at the city’s grim long-term forecast – how could they have not known?
Elaine, responses to two points:
1. We need to rebalance how we address travel in different modes. Right now single passenger cars dominate transportation planning. To rebalance means that cars will be less advantaged–some might view this discouraging that mode. We need to reduce VMT to reduce GHG emissions. We can’t do this through technology alone. And car use poses a safety risk to bikes and walking. The only solution will be to constrain car travel is some manner. We face trade offs–there no “win-win” solution.
2. Home ownership is very much overrated. And that this has become the primary means of building wealth for individuals is a huge problem, not something to be proud of. That wealth is built by increasing housing scarcity, and rewards those who were early entrants (who are predominantly whites who were not redlined out of home ownership.) Ownership makes workers immobile, locked into illiquid assets. Employers take advantage of this to suppress wages.
That said, I don’t know that more rental housing is the answer. The solution being offered is more missing middle market housing. The question yet to be answered is the composition of that housing. It most likely will not be single family housing because it won’t be dense enough per acre to pencil out for developers. That’s why multi-family is offered as the most viable option.
3. I agree with your points here on the fiscal situation and the need for more economic development.
Elaine brings up a point that I have the same concern about and that Alan M. mentions too. The consultants survey has lot’s of “buzz works” and seemingly environmentally oriented, yet the problem is where is this consultant group’s leading to, to achieve ” these goals” by continuing to eliminate and minimize parking when we has a growing population of senior citizens? Building only multi-family and high density housing with no yards, and little or no parking, and then making the false assumption that residents will be using our inadequate and inconvenient public transit? Tearing down and gentrifying East Davis making housing less affordable since East Davis has the most affordable housing in the City as Don pointed out. Also, Ron O explains the math of what it take to try to achieve the “infill” needed for the fairytale of a jobs:housing balance. That will never happened because UCD will continue to pay the lowest salaries they can to their staff and even their faculty, which is why they can’t seem to recruit the needed faculty for their enormous student population. Further it would ruin Davis’ most affordable neighborhoods all of which are in East Davis, and bring on gentrification.
So, in short, this consultants seems pretty rigged to get a pre-determined result of policies, actions, visions and goals that most Davis residents do not want. So far, this is the consultant’s General Plan process, not a citizen-based process as it was last time. Our current visions , goals and actions are still very reflective of our community’s residents and and needs to be preserved, rather then tanking on this consultant groups desires. This consultant group is suppose to facilitate, not define the update of our General Plan.
Eileen
First the comments posted at the workshop strongly reflected a vision very different than what you have expressed. Your views appear to not be aligned with those of the concerned citizens attending that meeting, many of whom are senior citizens that you are purporting to speak for.
We don’t need housing for senior citizens–we need it for those who currently commute into Davis and would like to live here. They represent the missing middle housing market that Davis has built for in decades.
You seem to believe that the transit system is stuck as is and can’t be modified to accommodate these housing changes. Yet Unitrans somehow started in 1968 and evolved to serve the community. That evolution is not now frozen forever. Planning for how we change transit needs to be part of the GPU.
Ron O has his own unstated agenda and he’s not a resident here. He doesn’t particularly add to the conversation in a meaningful way. He also knew that the jobs/housing math shown was incorrect because I have told him several times over the years. I posted the correct values separately.
As for UCD salaries, when the retirement and health benefits are included, the total pay is quite comparable to the private sector. (I made this calculation recently when my wife was looking at an on campus job.) UCD is not underpaying its staff by any means.
Finally, you offer no real solutions to the problems we face. UCD already houses more students on campus than any other large public university, and putting staff on campus creates a disenfranchised segregated community. We want more community participation, not less.
“…putting staff on campus creates a disenfranchised segregated community.”
So does putting students on campus. It’s just a demographic that the people of Davis are more comfortable disenfranchising.
Here’s the best set of residence/commuting numbers for Davis + UCD (which is the only valid way to look at our situation without looking like naive idiots.) I reconciled across the Census On the Map data (which is unfortunately off by 25%), Census Quick Facts, EDD labor data, UCD ITS Travel Survey and UCD employee location data.
Davis+UCD
Employed/Living In 33,451
Employed Outside 21,999
Employed Inside 10,133
Employed/Living Out 22,444
Jobs Inside 32,576
The combined population is 76,448 for Davis + UCD according to the Census in 2023.
I refer all of you to this insightful article from The Atlantic Monthly that discusses how our housing policies and choices led to our current predicament.
How Progressives Froze the American Dream
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/03/american-geographic-social-mobility/681439/