In our last two articles, we explored modern best practices in urban planning and why they matter for Davis. In particular, we introduced a strategy called Transit-Oriented Arterial Development (TOAD) — a smarter, more sustainable way to grow.
This isn’t a new idea. For most of human history, cities were built around walking, and as they grew beyond walking distance, they created transit first and built around it. Over the past 30 years and around the world, communities have been rediscovering this approach to planning (but only after they realized that designing everything around just cars was a huge mistake).
In the first article of this series, we discussed the idea of a “hierarchy of centers.” We showed why the concept of “everything is downtown” doesn’t work, and mapped out how Davis already has several secondary nodes — potential “village squares” distributed around the city — that could provide daily needs within easy reach.
In our second article, we demonstrated that focusing new housing along these corridors and intentionally developing the “village squares’ would meet all of Davis’s housing needs for the next 40 years while limiting peripheral growth to just what’s needed to address our short-term shortage.
This analysis proves something important: sprawl is not inevitable.
We can grow sustainably, affordably, and economically — if we start planning intentionally and expecting better.
Village Farms: A Perfect Site for Transit-Oriented Growth
Now, let’s apply those ideas to a specific place: the proposed Village Farms development at Pole Line Road and East Covell Boulevard.
This is one of Davis’s most important intersections. If we were following best urban-planning practices, this area would evolve into a vibrant, mixed-use district offering housing, shops, restaurants, and services within walking or biking distance, all connected by transit to downtown and campus.
“Village squares” are not only social and commercial centers for neighborhoods, they are also the best opportunity to house our workforce. Davis lacks mixed-use multifamily housing, and this site — already surrounded by development on three sides, and at a major intersection for future transit — is the perfect place to add it. It could deliver much-needed homes with minimal impact on farmland or traffic.
Unfortunately, the current plan for Village Farms entirely misses the mark.
A Park in the Wrong Place
On the map above, we’ve overlaid the proposed Village Farms site plan on the surrounding area. The dotted circle shows a ¼-mile radius from the existing bus stop at Oak Tree Plaza — roughly the distance people are willing to walk to transit.
Notice the problem? Most of that circle is occupied by a park.
That means the vast majority of residents are outside that ¼ mile threshold, and those few that are, will have to walk through the park just to reach transit or local shopping.
In practice, almost no one outside the circle will do that. They’ll drive instead.
It’s hard to overstate how poor this design decision is.
(And to be fair, the Willowgrove proposal makes the same mistake, and likely for the same political reasons as we will discuss below.)
Transit-oriented development only works when housing is clustered around the transit line. Placing a park in that prime location — one of the most important places in Davis where higher-density, mixed-use zoning makes the most sense — not only isolates residents from transit, it also reduces potential ridership for any future bus or rail line along East Covell, which, in turn, threatens the viability of transit citywide.
Simply put: It would be irresponsible for the council to put this proposal on the ballot with this feature as-is. It runs counter to all urban planning best practices as well the best interests of Davis citizens.
Note: this isn’t about seeking a “perfect” proposal — it’s about responsibility. The current plan isn’t “good but imperfect”; it’s fundamentally flawed,and misaligned with both modern planning principles and the actual needs of our community. But the good news is, it can be fixed easily.
A Better Vision: Sonoma Square in Davis
Instead of merely complaining about the various deficiencies of the project, we’d like to invest some time in demonstrating a vision for what IS possible here.
Picture a plan that starts with the mature trees already on the site and creates a central town square surrounded by housing, small shops, and cafes — much like Sonoma Plaza, one of California’s most beloved public spaces. Healdsburg and Paso Robles have similar vibrant town squares, and Davis itself has mixed use development around our beloved Central Park.
Source: https://sonomaplaza.com/
Why not create a similar gathering point centered on the mature oaks in Village Farms? This would give the northeast corner of town a distinctive destination to be enjoyed by residents across the city.
Around that square, mixed-use buildings could provide apartments, condos, and co-ops — similar to the successful multifamily housing we already see at the Cannery. A few of these buildings should have retail space on the ground floor to host neighborhood businesses: a café, a salon, a small restaurant, an ice cream shop, maybe even a local pub.
If we coordinate planning across the street, the aging Oak Tree Plaza (already suffering from dry rot and vacancy) could be redeveloped in tandem. The two sites could be linked by a pedestrian and bike crossing, creating one unified, walkable district at this critical neighborhood hub.
If we were master planning this neighborhood, rather than responding to a developer’s proposal, that is exactly what we would be doing.
Other key design elements might include:
- A dedicated transit line (blue line) running through the site, extending service deeper into the neighborhood.
- Smaller, distributed parks and greenbelts instead of one large park, giving everyone nearby access to open space.
- A protected bike corridor (yellow line) connecting north to south, providing a safe and direct route to the shopping center and transit stops.
This approach would produce the same total park space and housing count — but in a far more livable, affordable, and environmentally responsible pattern. Utilizing more multifamily housing forms like the condos and apartments at the south end of the cannery would drive the average price of the housing down, and putting that multifamily construction at the south end of the park in would also provide housing without generating the “traffic” so many residents fear.
The Real Problem: Measure J/R/D
It’s important to be clear: the flaws in the Village Farms plan are not because the developer is acting in bad faith. In fact, this is exactly the kind of plan we should expect under the incentives created by Measure J/R/D.
Measure J/R/D has three major effects that prevent good planning:
- It makes developers our default planning department.
Developers design neighborhoods that serve their short-term financial goals, not necessarily the city’s long-term needs. There’s no required process for coordinated citywide planning before a project is proposed.
2. It makes master-planning and transit planning impossible.
Developers can only plan within their own parcels. Regional issues like transit routing, employment balance, making sure that bike paths line up, and the long term coordination of city services and facilities is put aside.
For example we now have two proposals before us in Village Farms and Willowgrove, yet there is no public discussion about how they relate to each other or to the East Covell corridor. They are being discussed separately in every forum.
Even though transit-oriented development is considered superior and is well proven, these developers don’t even have a chance to propose anything transit-oriented because they cannot influence transit planning or control any coordination of city functions outside their parcel.
3. Projects designed to win a campaign, not to live in.
Finally, Developers must shape their proposals to ”pass a measure J vote,” not necessarily to be “good proposals for the city.” Those are unfortunately very different things.
The placement of the parks at the bottom edge of Village Farms and at Willowgrove was not done randomly. It was a calculated tactic, to make developments appear smaller and less intrusive to neighboring voters, and as a bribe to the closeby voters who might appreciate a park nearby and otherwise be against the proposal.
Similarly, the developers have an incentive to not build anything controversial, anything that might stick out and draw opposition.
We fully understand that our alternative of “Sonoma Square in Davis” would draw criticisms and concerns because it is different from the run-of-the-mill tract home model, and things that are new are often things that worry residents.
Those kinds of concerns would get worked out through the course of a normal planning process. But that’s not how measure J elections work! The developer pays a lot of money to put a proposal together, and they have one shot at the ballot box to get a win. Everything is subservient to that fact.
So what do we actually get as Measure J proposals? More-of-the-same suburbia, a development model that is thoroughly discredited, but that we have nonetheless become accepting of as “normal”.
Ironically, a law meant to prevent car-dependent tract-home sprawl like this has made that kind of sprawl the only kind of development that makes it to the ballot!
How to Get to “Yes”
The Davis Citizens Planning Group wants to support new housing — but not housing designed around outdated 1950s planning ideas. This is the kind of bad housing design that Measure J/R/D was designed to stop!
The good news is that there’s still time to fix it. The City Council has not yet finalized the ballot language or baseline features. And under CEQA, any later revisions that reduce environmental impact should be permissible — which our proposed changes certainly would.
There are two main paths forward that we believe are possible:
The developer can revise the plan now, relocating the park, adding multifamily housing along Covell, and incorporating mixed-use zoning.
Move affordable and denser housing south toward Covell, closer to transit. Change plans for at least half of the planned single family homes in that area to townhomes, cluster homes, 4-plex apartments, condos and co-ops.
Keep the upper portions of the site largely the same..
Increasing density in the lower portions will free up land in the north if the overall unit count remains the same. Reserve that space in the north for future development under the General Plan.
The City Council can “de-feature” the project before sending it to voters:
Remove specific fixed details like park placement, housing types, and densities from the baseline features.
Treat the ballot measure as a “blank sheet entitlement” — annexing the land for housing, but requiring the final plan and layout, to be shaped through the General Plan update and a proper master-planning process.
This last option could actually be a win-win. It would allow Davis to annex land proactively while ensuring that its design is coordinated with the city’s broader vision — rather than locked into the current flawed layout.
Keep in mind that because of Measure J/R/D, even if we create a “good” layout for our peripheral neighborhoods via the general plan process, there STILL has to be a Measure J/R/D vote to annex them. Creating a restricted entitlement that brings the property into the city subject to the planning requirements we are currently considering removes any doubt about our intentions for the site, but creates an opportunity for more reasonable design decisions to be brought to the table.
This property should not be designed as a one-off proposal, but as part of a vision for how the entire Covell and Pole Line intersection evolves to serve northeast Davis.
Annexing the property now but requiring it to pass through the General Plan process is perhaps the best way to get both a well planned addition to our city and produce the housing we need in the shortest period of time, especially keeping in mind that the odds of voters approving the project in its current form are quite low.
But if we adopt the developer’s current proposal, once streets are laid out, parcel lines drawn, and properties sold off, those features are functionally permanent. We will have locked ourselves into a bad decision forever.
It would be irresponsible for the city to permit this plan to go forward as-is.
A Call to Build Wisely
Davis has a rare opportunity. The Village Farms and Willowgrove sites are blank slates, the former at one of our city’s most important intersections — exactly the kind of place where great transit-oriented neighborhoods are born.
We face a choice: Keep repeating the mistakes of auto-era sprawl, or set a higher standard for the next generation of Davis neighborhoods.
Let’s not squander this chance by approving a design rooted in discredited 1950s planning that nobody wants.
Instead, let’s insist on a project that aligns with our values — one that supports transit, reduces emissions, and builds real community.
If the developer can make those changes, we’ll support it.
If not, the City Council should send a simpler Measure J/R/D proposal to the ballot — one that annexes the land but requires a proper master plan conforming with the voters’ city-wide vision in the new General Plan before a single shovel hits the ground.
We do need to annex this land. We just need to do it wisely.
— The Davis Citizens Planning Group
Alex Achimore
Anthony Palmere
Richard McCann
David Thompson
Tim Keller
“the City Council should send a simpler Measure J/R/D proposal to the ballot — one that annexes the land but requires a proper master plan conforming with the voters’ city-wide vision in the new General Plan”
In practice, this is a return to the old model: trust the City Council to do what’s best for the city rather than what the developer wants. History shows that City Councils aren’t very good at that, and it’s how we got to Measure J in the first place.
Once the land is annexed, there are two parallel paths to “developer rule” in this case:
1. The General Plan that eventually gets approved doesn’t embody the transit-oriented ideal put forth by DCPG.
2. General Plans can be amended (4 times a year, if memory serves) and the entire Village Farms site can revert to the plan the developer wants.
Color me skeptical.
Jim, I think your skepticism is well warranted.
I think the intent here is merely to approve the project but do the actual “planning” outside the warped reality that is created by a Measure J campaign.
As you noted, the general plan process could go through and not end up with the DCPG ideas being embodied…. that is 100% fine!
This city belongs to all of us and if professional plan consultants and our elected representatives and our commissioners want to go a different direction, then that is how those processes work. DCPG has a chance to put their ideas forward just like anyone else.
Its not a perfect system, but what we DO know is that the political realities of measure J warp the planning process in the ways pointed out here, and ANY public master-planning process is going to be better than a plan we get from a developer under measure J. Whether it takes up the ideas from DCPG or not.
“In practice, this is a return to the old model: trust the City Council to do what’s best for the city rather than what the developer wants.:
Indeed. The city of Woodland changed the plan for Spring Lake many times. It was originally supposed to have several schools, a fire station, commercial hubs, etc. None of those things came to pass, and housing is covering most of those sites.
There’s still an undeveloped commercial site in the neighborhood.
There was also a very similar commercial site in Davis adjacent to Mace Ranch park that was developed into housing, instead. I accurately predicted that this would occur, and attempted to get the Davis city council to incorporate that site into the park, instead. Ted Puntillo reacted with hostility toward me at the time, when I suggested it.
As a side note, I realize that various individuals and groups try to change the definition of words (such as “sprawl”) over time. So far, they haven’t done so with Wikipedia, but I’m sure they’re working on it. In any case, here’s their definition today, at least. I believe it’s changed since the last time I looked at it, and the article itself seems shorter:
“Urban sprawl is the name of a city growing in areas which have been unpopulated so far.”
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl
Seems to me that it’s best to just stick with what it actually means, rather than try to add subjective terms to “exclude” some types of sprawl (e.g., claims regarding “transit-oriented” – whatever that means, etc.) Slap a potential bus line on it to Sacramento (since that’s where these people would work), densify it, relocate or eliminate a park, and it’s no longer “sprawl”?
Really? How convenient.
Ron O
Wikipedia is far from an “authoritative” source on any topic. It was probably written by a college undergrad who just had an introductory urban design class. Importantly, that simplistic, misrepresentative definition leaves how the key terms “uncontrolled” or “unplanned” which is in every other definition–the one you pulled up is far too simplistic.
Notably, Britannica uses this definition: “Urban sprawl, the rapid expansion of the geographic extent of cities and towns, often characterized by low-density residential housing, single-use zoning, and increased reliance on the private automobile for transportation.” This is the definition that EVERYONE else uses. Going forward I propose this is the definition that we will all use in our discussions here on the Vanguard. Without a common language our conversations will go no where.
Here is a far more comprehensive and authoritative summary of the definition.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0197397524000390
Urban sprawl is a multidimensional phenomenon that is observed as a pattern (He et al., 2017; Lv et al., 2010), process (Galster et al., 2001; Kepe et al., 2015), cause (Fuladlu et al., 2021), and consequence (Cho et al., 2010; Sutton, 2003). Defining this multidimensional phenomenon has always been challenging among scholars due to its various economic, social, cultural, physical, and environmental dimensions and its broad scope of concepts
Based on the conducted coding, definitions in this research consists of six main categories: 1. The patterns of urban sprawl, 2. The process of urban sprawl, 3. The nature of urban sprawl, 4. The location of urban sprawl, 5. actors shaping urban sprawl, and 6. The driving factors of urban sprawl. This new classification has eliminated the gaps in the existing classifications.
Based on the research findings, definitions of urban sprawl can be classified into 6 categories. These categories are not mutually exclusive and are interconnected. Based on the relationships between these categories, the essence of urban sprawl can be considered based on 4 categories of process-oriented, nature-oriented, pattern-oriented, and location-oriented definitions.
“This is the definition that EVERYONE else uses.”
Everyone on your five-person committee certainly does. It’s not that complicated. As noted, interested parties attempt to change the meaning of words over time, to suit their preferences. This is not the only example of that.
Here’s a more complete citation which is still on Wikipedia:
“Urban sprawl (also known as suburban sprawl or urban encroachment)[1] is defined as “the spreading of urban developments (such as houses and shopping centers) on undeveloped land near a city”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl
Ron O
Read the Talk commentary on the Wikipedia page. Much criticism of the definition proposed there. No one who is working on land use issues uses that simplistic overly broad definition. Only NIMBYs reaching for straws will use that one so they can oppose ALL new development regardless of its merits. Make it someone else’s problem.
Also note that only one of the 4 citations used for that definition actually use the work “sprawl” and that’s only the simple dictionary reference. Hardly authoritative.
The definition that you prefer relies upon subjective terminology, such as “transit-oriented”, “dense”, etc. I don’t think you can even objectively define “transit-oriented”. Run a bus line through it – does that mean it’s transit-oriented? Ban cars – is that what you’re proposing?
In contrast, the Wikipedia source also states the following:
“Sometimes the urban areas described as the most “sprawling” are the most densely populated.[6][7]”
(As a side note, the word “sprawl” is generally related to the word “spread”.)
You might be able to sell your preferred definition to gullible people (or those who have an interest in changing its meaning), but I’m not sure that this is the battle you should hang your hat on.
But if you’d like, we could just describe it as continued destruction of prime farmland/open space, I suppose. What do you think? (I could probably agree to that – without even referring to any external sources.) Or perhaps an “urban eyesore” – compared to looking at sunflowers and tomatoes growing?
Ron O
The definition of urban sprawl I rely on uses “uncontrolled” and “unplanned.” Leaving development to a developer’s whims too often fits this definition. Compact development leads to well planned and controlled growth.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, what you’re calling for is to kill compact growth in Davis so that there will be uncontrolled expansive sprawl in other regional communities such as Elk Grove, Folsom and Roseville that will consume even prime farmland. That development is going in somewhere given the greater demand revealed by the housing price premium for the region compared to the US. You’re failing to “think globally, act locally.”
Richard: 1.6 kids per woman (nationwide). The country is not growing (except for immigration, which Trump has “taken care of”, so to speak).
Also, I’m not sure that Folsom is a direct competitor to Davis, nor do I know if it’s “prime farmland” (but I doubt it).
But if you’re concerned about sprawl in Folsom, Roseville, and Elk Grove, what are you doing about it? Or do you just say, “I don’t live there, so I don’t care” as you’ve said so often on the Vanguard?
The ENTIRE Sacramento region is “dirt cheap” in regard to California standards. That’s why it’s attracted, and continued to attract refugees from the Bay Area. (To a place where they now absolutely need a car, air conditioning, etc.) Davis is no different regard that.
Ron O
What happens with global population is irrelevant. The local real estate market prices tell us that we have excess demand. That’s because people move to jobs and positive amenities. Perhaps you want to deny people jobs and better lives?
As for stopping sprawl elsewhere, I’m doing the most effective task I can–advocating for smart growth in Davis that diminishes the demand for sprawl in those other places (including Vacaville.) I don’t and shouldn’t go to those other communities to tell them what to do–I act indirectly to reduce the demand for consuming prime farmland (and wilderness)–apparently you haven’t been to Folsom.
Your ignorant simplistic definition of sprawl defines the entirety of Manhattan as urban sprawl because it was once farmland. (Read your Revolutionary War history.) Of course that is so ludicrous that everyone rejects that definition. The Empire State Building is not “sprawl”–quite the opposite. So once you reject that definition for obvious reasons, we have to come up with a definition that accurately describes the true situation, which what the ones I listed do.
Where did I mention anything regarding “global population”?
As far as encouraging sprawl in Davis, it has no effect whatsoever regarding the sprawl that other nearby communities are pursuing. The only “choice” that Davis has is whether or not it “also” wants sprawl (e.g., from folks escaping the Bay Area).
Your solution to sprawl is apparently more sprawl.
“Davis lacks mixed-use multifamily housing, and this site — already surrounded by development on three sides, and at a major intersection for future transit — is the perfect place to add it.”
Of course this is the kind of nonsense you get when people who have no investment in a project start telling others, people who actually are putting capital at risk, how to invest.
The problem is there is no demand for additional commercial property in Davis. In fact, to date, after around ten years, none of the commercially zoned property next door at the Cannery has been built.
Ron, you have a strange concept of what is going on here.
The developer needs approval at the polls. The people get to give him an up or down vote. Thats how it works.
I really do want to vote yes on this proposal, but the developer needs to earn MY yes by putting forward a plan I personally think is good.
We all get to make that determination for ourselves in paralell, whether or not we have “investment” in the project.
“I really do want to vote yes on this proposal, but the developer needs to earn MY yes by putting forward a plan I personally think is good.”
Pretty sure that you (and the rest of the 5-person self-appointed “committee”) on here will vote “yes”, despite having no impact on the proposal (or on anyone else).
But that the proposal will likely lose. Who in their right mind votes to make a city worse? However, I was surprised the first time – that there was a significant percentage who voted to do so.
Are people just nuts? They WANT to make their own lives more difficult in regard to traffic, costs, blight, etc.?
In some ways, Measure J is dangerous because it allows those loonies to vote “yes”. Honestly, these are people who seem normal in most ways, and yet . . .
Ron O
You have no stake in the outcome of this vote since you don’t live in Davis and have not discernable connection to the community, so you’re opinion or endorsement is meaningless to the rest of us. Talk about having no stake in the matter, you’re prime case number 1.
Our proposal does not rise or fall on whether there is commercial uses around the village square, although that would be a desirable amenity. The issue for The Cannery is that there was little imagination and no real connection to the neighborhood. Integrated commercial is more likely to succeed than the stand alone version that appears to be the proposal for the Cannery. Remember the LA Fitness center proposed there? How was that going to work?
Instead look at how businesses are thriving in Midtown Sac where they are mixed into the neighborhood.
“Discernible” being perhaps a key (but ultimately irrelevant) word. Regardless, you certainly seem to be paying attention to my comments, even if the developer isn’t paying attention to yours.
I’m not the one advocating for non-residents to move to the city – you are.
But I do find it amusing that you think the “problem” with the Cannery’s commercial component is that it’s not “integrated enough” into that community. Really? That’s your professional economic opinion? Regarding midtown Sacramento, the main thing I notice about that area is that it doesn’t feel particularly safe at night to me. Aren’t there bars (both the kind you drink at, and the kind you put around your windows) there?
Again, these type of “integrated commercial” sites were proposed in Spring Lake AND Mace Ranch – both of which failed (and are now mostly covered with housing, instead.
There isn’t even demand for a “technology center” in the area, UNLESS the developer can make money by including housing.
But I am sorry that you’re not concerned about what’s going on in nearby cities (such as Woodland AND Vacaville – in regard to Lagoon Valley for example). The latter in particular is where you and I are fundamentally different.
Ron O
You have no idea about my opinion of Lagoon Valley. I go run at Pena Adobe regularly so I’m much aware of the project. But unlike you I’m not going to butt my unwanted nose into another community’s business on this matter in a specific way. (State policy is a different matter.)
If you want to justify your participation in this conversation, you can reveal how you’re connected to Davis. I have a suspicion, but I won’t dox you with information that you haven’t already revealed (as you have in your comments in Daily Democrat articles.)
Well apparently, you think Lagoon Valley is just dandy:
“I don’t live in Vacaville, and unlike you, not going to plunge into commenting on a neighboring city’s policies since I am a non resident and non voter there.”
(Maybe you should stop jogging in other people’s communities, if that’s how you feel.)
(By the way, what makes you think that those in Vacaville have any vote regarding such issues? I already understand that you want to remove that ability for the residents of Davis.)
Again Ron, don’t attribute to me something I didn’t say. You’re trying to push be to express an opinion about another community’s situation so that you can accuse me of the same ill behavior that you exhibit. I will not be trapped into that. I will ask David to ban you from the Vanguard if you continue to misrepresent my statements when I’ve explicitly directed you to stop doing so.
Vacaville residents vote on this through their council members. That’s how representative democracy works in almost all of the other cities in California.
“Pretty sure that you (and the rest of the 5-person self-appointed “committee”) on here will vote “yes”, despite having no impact on the proposal (or on anyone else).”
Incorrect. We do want it to be developed, but the backup option of the general plan process and what might be done there isnt too far away, so there IS a viable plan B if we cant make headway with this project as-is.
“But that the proposal will likely lose.”
I agree, and that is what makes this hard. Its not just us that are frustrated with this project. There are MULTIPLE pro-housing groups in this city now, and we DO talk to each-other… and I have yet to speak to anyone who is genuinely excited about this proposal. Everyone has at least a few gripes. Some are going to vote yes while holdingi their nose, others I know are already a “no” …and that says a LOT.
In Davis, if you want to win with a measure J vote, and you ARENT winning over the people who are activley PROMOTING more housing development in our city, then you have a BIG problem… truly.
I suspected that this project was doomed when I watched the property owner at the Draft EIR scoping meeting arguing with the leader of one of the other pro-housing groups in town and a small cluster of other people who are all nominally pro-housing… and ending saying “Im proud of my proposal, I’m comfortable in letting the voters have their say on it”
In other words: “Im not going to listen to any suggestions, im going to do my thing, feel free to vote against it if you dont like it.”
We very much want to see more housing in this town, but that attitude of “my way or the highway” is NOT how you get it done.
“That means the vast majority of residents are outside that ¼ mile threshold, and those few that are, will have to walk through the park just to reach transit or local shopping.”
I live a little less than a mile from Trader Joe’s. I see lots of my neighbors walking there and carrying things home in bags. I even do it myself on occasion.
First, are those neighbors young college students? If so, they walk because they most likely don’t have access to a car. That likely won’t be the case in Village Farms and Willowgrove.
Even if otherwise, are you keeping a census of how many walk there? Have done a comparable census in other similarly situated neighborhoods? We live less than a mile from the Coop and I rarely see anyone walking from the Coop with groceries, and I often travel that direction via bike or running.
“We live less than a mile from the Coop and I rarely see anyone walking from the Coop with groceries, and I often travel that direction via bike or running.”
(And that’s the problem with your entire concept, unless you’re proposing to ban cars in these developments. In which case, the following would be the likely residents):
“First, are those neighbors young college students?”
Ron O
Of UCD employees who live in Davis, only one third commute by car. We can expect a similar commute pattern for those who live in more dense housing in the new development. No one is proposing a ban on cars, but local employees will need fewer cars on average as they will get around town using other means. As Ron G points out, e-bikes are coming and they will be particularly interested in using these to commute to their jobs in Davis.
Would have to see the statistics regarding that, by neighborhood.
And the statistics regarding those who don’t work at UCD.
E-Bikes are already here – what is everyone waiting for? Could it be that we ALREADY HAVE HAD very similar vehicles, for years (motorcycles)? Which “somehow” haven’t taken the place of cars?
Probably half of what you’re referring to ARE electric motorcycles – operating illegally on the road and bike paths. Though I will admit to being impressed at the “wheelies” I’ve seen from teenagers riding these things in Davis. (As for me, I was able to do so as well on motorcycles – but only on hills in regard to extended wheelies. I sometimes wonder if I can still do so without cracking open my skull (or someone else’s skull).
The UCD ITS travel survey gives us a clear view into Davis commuting practices. Unless you have better data, this is what we should expect to occur with the right type of development. This is the default assumption to work from. Your speculation on the matter is worthless and unsupported. Bring your own data to rebut it.
E-bikes are much different that motorcycles (unless you’re not paying attention.) They are much, much easier to handle and more convenient. As I pointed out to Ron G yesterday, the state needs to impose regulations that limit the most extreme uses.
The 1/4 mile ( or 400 meter) comes from actual research. Its not a hard limit, its an average based on observed behaviour. Some people are willing to walk more, some less.
https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/pedestrians-and-park-planning-how-far-will-people-walk/24937/
They are all sorts of people. I think the best way to describe them is to say they are my neighbors.
What is the difference between Davis and the Third World?
We drive to the well with our water containers instead of carrying them on our heads to get purified drinking water. At around 1Kg/liter I still see people driving to get drinking water.
In reference to this article’s source regarding the definition of “sprawl”, I see that this group endorses Scott Wiener – gave him an “A” grade, on their “environmental scorecard”. (I believe there’s other supporters of sprawl on that list, as well.)
Why am I not surprised?
Also, what was this group’s position regarding the destruction that’s occurring in Lagoon Valley, for example?
https://envirovoters.org/give-green-california/2024-scorecard-candidates/
Ron G
I looked at many different definitions of urban sprawl. I just happened to grab that one. I saw none that matched what Ron O submitted. See my comment above.
My sister worked with Smart Growth and edited two books on managing urban sprawl. https://islandpress.org/books/sprawl-costs#desc. Here’s a further review of that book: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/sprawl-costs-economic-impacts-unchecked (She also coined the term “complete streets” which is now widely used.) She recently retired as a special assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Transportation. (https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/knowledge-hub/news/20-years-of-complete-streets/)
I don’t live in Vacaville, and unlike you, not going to plunge into commenting on a neighboring city’s policies since I am a non resident and non voter there.
You probably SHOULD weigh in on what’s going on in Woodland, since its housing market is intertwined with Davis’ housing market. As are its students, in regard to DJUSD.
1,600 more housing units coming in Spring Lake (in addition to the ones they’re currently building). (As usual, they apparently had to rezone a commercial site to accommodate that housing in the planned “technology park”. In other words, no actual demand for commercial – as Ron G noted. And yet, it still hasn’t even broken ground, despite “moving” from Davis years ago, at this point. From a site that’s now covered with housing, itself – Bretton Woods.
It seems likely that your push for expensive, car-less density in Davis will push more families to Woodland’s new developments. Leaving others (such as UCD students) to occupy your imaginary European village on farmland.
Families want 2-car garages, at a minimum. Along with a yard, multiple bedrooms, etc. And they don’t want to pay a lot for it.
We’re pushing for less expensive housing in Davis by increasing density. The house price premium for Davis over other nearby cities indicates that demand is high here. Families want a wider variety of housing than your uninformed generalization. That’s obvious from the variety of new housing developments in the state.
As for Woodland, I will stay out of that. You should focus on the issues there and leave us alone.
Families don’t want to pay a lot for a small house without adequate space for their kids, cars, pets, etc. Not when they can get a bigger one with the features they want nearby, for less money.
It’s that simple.
What you’re proposing (and the developer is ignoring) would appeal to UCD students, some single people/couples.
Not young families without much money (assuming that’s the target market you’re trying to attract). They’re headed straight to Spring Lake (where they already have to pay more than $500K for a small house on a small lot).
(See Ruby Cottages – small houses, on small lots for $500K – $600K or so.) You really think that Davis can compete with that?
https://www.lennar.com/new-homes/california/sacramento/woodland/ruby-cottages
Ron O
There are many families buying and renting the types of housing we are proposing. We’re not cooking this up out of thin air. You’re making gross generalizations with absolutely no evidence or experience. Not that “It’s simple”–what you said is “simplistic.” We are aiming for $600000 small houses on small lots (often duplexes) that families will pay for so they have ready access to schools and the many children-oriented activities in this community. Davis is already outcompeting Woodland–that’s why Davis has a 50% house price premium over Woodland! The market is already giving us the answer of what people prefer and what they are willing to pay for! You keep on trying to deny the information that is right in front of us about what buyers want and how restricting housing supply severely has made it more expensive.
“Davis is already outcompeting Woodland–that’s why Davis has a 50% house price premium over Woodland!”
O.K. – so for something like Ruby Cottages in Spring Lake (very small lots, small houses costing between $500K-$600K), you’re stating that a similar house at Covell Village would cost between $750K – $900K. (Sounds about right, except to families moving to the area.)
Personally, I’d prefer an existing house in Davis, in the $700K range (e.g., a Stanley Davis house).
Ron
No, $600k houses is what we’re calling for, not the houses in your neighborhood in Woodland. And not more expensive houses. Again, please don’t twist what I say.
Consider that the neighborhood south of Covell has very little open space. The park located as it appears would provide easily accessible open space to the surrounding neighborhoods and not give us a wall of apartments or condos. I suggest that your committee not just look at the plans in isolation from the existing neighborhoods and consider that the park is centrally located in this East Davis neighborhood.
Sharla
We are proposing that the park be moved away from the arterial where traffic will be more annoying in open spaces compared putting buildings there. There will still be a public square. In addition, having the park there will increase the vehicle traffic adjacent to those neighborhoods because people will have to drive more instead of using transit or other ways to travel.
Those neighborhoods have Chestnut and Slide Hill Parks nearby plus the Cemetery space, and Cannery has the space in the middle. I’m not seeing a lack of parks nearby.
Sure – make the development even more of an eyesore for everyone else who has to see it, and “hide” the park in the interior so that others don’t see or use it.
All so that more of its residents will supposedly use public transit (to get to their jobs in Sacramento, unless they’re UCD students).
That’s the ticket to success at the ballot box.
Sometimes, I think that you and the rest of the 5-person committee are actually trying to sabotage the proposal. So keep up the good work!
Ron O
Again, we’re proposing changes that makes the development much more attractive to the 17,000 who currently commute into Davis and less attractive to those who commute to other cities. In the end, the development should have much less traffic than the current proposed configuration, which would make it more attractive to the voters.
The development need not be an eyesore. Drive into Healdsburg from the south into downtown and there are many attractive multi story residential buildings along the way. And there’s a public square about the size of what we’re proposing. This all has worked in another setting.
“Again, we’re proposing changes that makes the development much more attractive to the 17,000 who currently commute into Davis and less attractive to those who commute to other cities.”
Sure – just say something, and it will be true. Regardless of whether or not it makes any sense.
By the way, those people are NOT commuting to Davis.
“In the end, the development should have much less traffic than the current proposed configuration, which would make it more attractive to the voters.”
Sure – I’ve always noticed that more sprawl decreases traffic. Pretty sure those pesky farm tractors on site (a couple times per year) are creating major traffic jams every day.
And when a tomato spills out onto the road, there’s serious accidents as a result of drivers trying to avoid killing a tomato, bless their heart.
Ron O
And what you say will just be true. But instead we’ve researched what the going prices are likely to be for the types of housing we’re developing. Where’s your research.
Where’s your data saying that people are not commuting to Davis. I’ve reconciled the US Census (https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/), ACS and CA EDD data to calculate the number of commuters in and out. Do you have data saying otherwise?
This isn’t sprawl. I’ve already provided the appropriate definition of sprawl which is car oriented unplanned, uncontrolled growth. I have no idea what tractors have to do with this.
“My” research is based on what you already claim – a 50% premium for Davis houses (or so you say), compared to Woodland.
So, a $500K house in Woodland costs $750K, per your own references. A $600K house in Woodland costs $900K in Davis.
Which do you suppose a family without a lot of money would choose? Especially if folks like you force them to live with a one-car garage, for example?
Regarding farm tractors, they’re not normally causing backups every single day on the “Costco Highway” – unlike the non-residents that you propose to house at Covell Village. And again, NO ONE IS WORKING IN DAVIS (in regard to your claims) – they work at UCD, while others in the SAME HOUSEHOLD might work in Sacramento.
No amount of sprawl that Davis pursues will impact the amount of sprawl that Woodland is ALREADY PLANNING to pursue.
But what you’re suggesting will make the problem worse, not better. To put it another way: Isn’t the answer then to equalize it by building more housing?
Right – put forth some numbers regarding the amount of new housing that you think it will take to “equalize prices” between Woodland and Davis. And be sure to let Whitcombe know those prices, as well.
But let’s also compare apples-to-apples. In other words, a 2-car garage, yard, multiple bedrooms for kids, etc.
There aren’t many families like yours (cramming into an Affordable unit – if they even qualify in the first place.) But unlike you, those families actually DO find a place to live (e.g., in Spring Lake) and are not trying to force Davis to change to suit their personal preferences.
One of these types is a “winner”, and one is a “loser” in regard to their personal/family finances. Care to guess which is which? (Here’s a hint – they’re generally the same type of people who didn’t try to force the Bay Area to change to suit their individual preferences.)
These (the winners) are also the same type of people who don’t try to make a living from a blog.
That’s not how it works, but again, what you are suggesting makes it worse not better.
Pretty sure that’s how it works, since I witness it all the time.
But Woodland (for example) is one of the reasons that Davis housing prices are kept in check.
If there was only “one” house in Davis (with all else being equal), it would NOT be worth a billion dollars.
Ultimately (as I previously noted), demand for housing in the area is limited, as well. Depends on price, partly. The market pretty much always reflects supply/demand.
This also impacts decisions to attend particular universities. Davis is cheaper than Berkeley, but is more expensive than Merced for example.
Housing prices also impact where people choose to move to, for work. Or leave from.
Does this really need to be explained? I ask because it seems like common sense. And I don’t understand why some believe that housing prices can “suddenly” be made to be the same everywhere, despite the fact that’s NEVER OCCURRED. Even prior to the time that the growth monkeys insulted pre-existing residents with terminology such as NIMBYs.
Your comment confuses supply with demand elasticity.
Pretty sure it’s you who denies demand elasticity. Seems like you don’t understand it at all.
Those are also called “alternatives”.
Davis itself is an “alternative” for those who don’t think the Bay Area is worth it. The entire region is.
Thanks for reminding me it’s pointless to try to discuss anything with you. So I don’t get accused of bailing because I don’t have a point, I will leave you with this and then bail.
Since it’s the WS, I will use a baseball analogy. There is only one Shohei Ohtani -— a unique, irreplaceable asset with extraordinary demand — so scarcity drives his value. The Dodgers didn’t literally pay a billion dollars, but the market-clearing price was close to it once you factor in the $700 million contract and deferred payments. There are of course limits and tradeoffs.
In the situation where there was only one house in Davis, and everyone needed to live there, then the price would indeed skyrocket — perhaps not exactly a billion, but the logic of scarcity says the price would approach whatever the richest potential buyer is willing to pay.
(But of course in the real world, a single house in Davis would not have that much value because part of the value of living in Davis is the community, not the location or the house).
It doesn’t sound like you’d be a very good real estate appraiser, especially if you’re comparing a single baseball player with however many houses and communities there are in the United States. Unless you think there’s a house or location that’s comparable to that one player. (If there is, it’s certainly not in Davis.)
Also, since when did everyone “need” a high paid baseball player (compared to just having a rather generic place to live)?
Though I am curious as to your thoughts regarding a $700 million dollar ball-thrower, in regard to your apparent concerns regarding equity, etc. Maybe because he’s not white, you’re o.k. with that – not sure. Then again, he’s not black (and is part of the group that does well in general) – so you must have a real quandary regarding that.
Do you really want to open that door? And do you really have no sense of humor?
The door is open, and yes I do have a sense of humor.
But seriously, I have yet to see any actual calculations regarding how much housing you or the other growth monkeys think it would take in (pick your locations) to equalize housing prices everywhere, or why you think it’s necessary to do so at the expense of sprawl.
When you do so, I’d suggest that you also include locations (such as Detroit, the rust belt in general, New Orleans, etc.), where housing should be torn down – since the price is “too low” for your liking.
Actually, since housing prices are now dropping in most places – including Davis, I’d like to know how much housing should be torn down in Davis, as well. Put forth some numbers (e.g., tear down XX houses to ensure that housing prices retain XX preferred value).
That’s because you’re creating a straw man argument since no serious housing advocate is trying to “equalize housing prices everywhere.” That’s not even possible in a market economy. The real issue is modest, sustained increases in supply in high-demand areas can prevent runaway prices and expand access, even if they don’t eliminate price differences entirely.
Your attempt to sound “reasonable” also falls flat, since you have no idea what it would take to “moderate housing prices” in a market that’s now declining in value, and has competition (e.g., in the form of Spring Lake).
It’s an absurd goal, and one that will cause irreparable harm to communities, farmland, open space, etc.
You’d be better off looking at the “causes” of demand, and addressing those.
Locally, the causes of demand include job creation, people fleeing a higher-priced market, etc.
If housing prices were as high as the Bay Area, for example, you wouldn’t have people looking to flee to this area (where cars and air conditioning are a “must have”.) It is an area that’s inferior to the Bay Area, in most ways. It’s also inferior to your home town.
That’s why I have to laugh when someone like Barry Broome refers to the “Greater Sacramento Area” (when the entire area is “Lesser” than the Bay Area).
If it wasn’t for the “consolation prize” awarded to Sacramento (the state capitol), the entire area would be even “lesser” than it already is. An annoyance to people traveling to the Sierra – from the Bay Area.
There is also no exact formula that tells us, “Add X units and prices will fall by Y percent.”
Right – and yet, that’s what you and others based your advocacy on.
Again, housing prices are dropping without your interference.
I’m fine with establishing a size (or size range) for a given locale, and letting the chips fall where they may. Always have been. And yes, that means that “Davis isn’t for everyone” at every stage of their life. No community is.
When I see housing developments in places like Lagoon Valley, I see a tragedy that will impact future generations forever (and won’t result in any reduction in housing prices – since there are too many other factors at play).
Again, it always has to do with alternatives. And Davis is an alternative for those who are priced out of (or otherwise don’t want to deal with) the Bay Area. (Personally, I think it’s starting to take on some of the negative attributes associated with the Bay Area – largely as a result of the growth monkeys.)
“Right – and yet, that’s what you and others based your advocacy on.”
False.
“Again, housing prices are dropping without your interference.”
Not really. It’s more a fiscal mirage.
A mirage? Well, that would mean that all housing prices are a mirage.
But sellers are cutting the “mirage”, these days (if they actually want to sell the house).
The word “fiscal” has to do with the government, not individual home sellers. (But you are inadvertently correct that there’s also a fiscal impact when housing prices drop.)
In a sense, all money is a mirage (fake – we make it up). But it doesn’t seem that way when our expectations don’t match our personal mirage.
But yes, I’ll repeat that I’m fine with communities deciding how large they want to be, and let the chips fall where they may. Ultimately, jobs will adjust to a community’s actual needs, as well. Though in the case of Silicon Valley, the high level of compensation ensures that the flunkies are kept out. (And yes, I’m one of the flunkies.)
Recent changes in housing-cost trends are being driven in large part by mortgage-rate and inflation dynamics — and the picture is more nuanced than simply “housing costs dropped.”
I’m not sure we’re disagreeing on anything at this point.
Ultimately, housing prices reflect what people are willing/able to pay. But there’s so many alternatives that one location (or even an entire state, for example) can’t prevent people from finding a place they can afford. Unless, for example, someone simply doesn’t make enough money for a business to respond to their needs – regardless of location. (There are people who fall into that category in regard to “normal” housing at least. These are the same people who can’t afford food, medical care, etc.)
There’s no shortage of housing, just as there’s no shortage of food or medical care in a broader sense. There is at times, a sense of “entitlement” unrelated to actual need – which is mostly what we’re dealing with (though we rarely actually hear from the people who supposedly make such comments. Instead, we hear from their supposed “representatives” on here.)
Ron O
People who work at UCD work in Davis. We are a totally physically integrated community. Those who try to claim they are separate are living a fiction. They only are separated by institutional rules. And you’re wrong that “nobody” works in Davis. The reconciled Census and EDD numbers show that 33,000 people work in Davis, and of that only about 11,000 work at UCD, leaving 22,000 work in town. If you have contrary data, please present your empirical evidence. Otherwise, cease making a false claim.
As for housing prices, again you’re ignoring the fact that people move to jobs, and Davis offers better and more jobs than other places. Combined with the education system value and the amenities provided by UCD, people are willing to pay more for a Davis house because they get access to more here. That’s why they are willing to pay $750K for a house that goes for $500K in Woodland. Our proposal offers more lower cost housing so more people can move to Davis. They aren’t going to move to Oklahoma City because it doesn’t offer the same opportunities and amenities. It’s not about “entitlement” — it’s about basic economics.
“People who work at UCD work in Davis.”
(That is factually incorrect.)
“We are a totally physically integrated community. Those who try to claim they are separate are living a fiction.”
(Again, factually incorrect – as demonstrated by UCD’s previous independent decisions to increase the number of students – including International students – without any input from the city, and without any coordination with the city.)
“They only are separated by institutional rules.”
(Yes – the same rules which separate the two entities. Those are called physical boundaries – the same type of “institutional rules” that separate one city from an adjacent city. Or one county from another county. Or one state from another state. Or one country from another country.)
“And you’re wrong that “nobody” works in Davis. The reconciled Census and EDD numbers show that 33,000 people work in Davis, and of that only about 11,000 work at UCD, leaving 22,000 work in town. If you have contrary data, please present your empirical evidence. Otherwise, cease making a false claim.”
(If census and EDD numbers are including 11,000 working at UCD (within that 33,000 number), it’s ALREADY (“by definition”) incorrect regarding the number of people working in Davis. But I suspect that it’s YOU who is misquoting numbers – not EDD or the census.)
(But sure, there are jobs in Davis. Most of them are flunky jobs. And there’s a lot of Davis residents who work elsewhere – I was one of them.)
“That’s why they are willing to pay $750K for a house that goes for $500K in Woodland. Our proposal offers more lower cost housing so more people can move to Davis.”
(Seems like you’re the one “living in fiction” if you think that your “proposal” will result in an equivalent house, for an equivalent price. If you’re claiming otherwise, put forth the details regarding the size of the house/lot you’re proposing, and what you’ll “require” the developer to sell them for. Heck, I might even buy one myself, given the deal you’re offering.)
“ “People who work at UCD work in Davis.” (That is factually incorrect.)”
One Shields Hall, DAVIS, CA 95616
David: The campus is not in the city. Maybe you can explain why Shields Hall apparently has a Davis mailing address. Some of the campus isn’t even in Yolo county.
From UC Davis’ website:
“Where is UC Davis?”
“Our main campus borders the Northern California city of Davis. The UC Davis Heath campus is located in Sacramento, California’s state capital.”
https://www.ucdavis.edu/about/visit/directions-parking#:~:text=Where%20is%20UC%20Davis?,in%20Sacramento%2C%20California’s%20state%20capital.
(You do understand what the word “borders” means, in regard to the citation above – right?)
I recently submitted a public records request of UC Davis asking, “What percent of current (non-retired) UC Davis employees who work at the Davis campus live outside of the City of Davis?” Last week I received the answer: 80%.
That’s probably around 20K who potentially commute to Davis. Wikipedia’s source in the Davis, CA article gives UCD Davis 2020 total employment at slightly over 25K.
I don’t know why the reality is so hard to understand, for some people.
UCD is not in Davis. And it’s a very easy commute from Spring Lake in particular, without even having to go through Davis to any significant degree.
1,600 more housing units planned for the technology park (since they’re apparently never viable to build without housing). That’s 1,600 housing units directly adjacent to Highway 113.
And the university isn’t even hiring anyone, these days.
There is no housing shortage – and yet, that’s what the entire argument is based on, apparently. Well, that – plus a school district that’s desperately trying to hang onto their jobs.
The ONLY choice that Davis has is whether or not to approve sprawl IN ADDITION to what surrounding communities constantly pursue. (And yet, some want to take away Davis’ control regarding that, as well. They will never give up – ever (even in the face of declining overall population). Not when there’s money or interests to protect.
I wish I could personally show folks “the door” to a community that they’d like Davis to emulate. (Here’s a hint – one of them is planning 1,600 more housing units, as discussed above.)
The other aspect of this is that Davis cannot compete regarding price of housing.
Hiram says: “I recently submitted a public records request of UC Davis asking, “What percent of current (non-retired) UC Davis employees who work at the Davis campus live outside of the City of Davis?” Last week I received the answer: 80%.”
Seems like that doesn’t quite correspond with the Vanguard itself (apparently, 31% of UCD employees who work at the adjacent university live in the city).
https://davisvanguard.org/2025/04/davis-housing-workforce-equity/#:~:text=The%20numbers%20are%20striking.,but%20refuses%20to%20house%20them.
Though truth be told, I’m wondering why the university even tracks this. Does the university have an agenda? (They do house some of their own employees on campus – right behind Davis commons.) Whatever happened to the plan to house its own employees in West Village?
For the houses south of Oak Tree plaza, Chestnut park is closer and you don’t have to walk around and acrosss covell.
Conversely, if this park is put at the bottom of village farms, the people who live at the NORTH end of the development will need to drive almost a mile to get to the park intended to serve “their” development…
The neighborhoods to the south of Covell deserve some relief. The tiny Chestnut Park is a heavily used and minimally maintained park and not big enough for the neighborhood it is required to serve. What we don’t want is all the burdens of new development, but no benefits. I like the park where it is where open space and views are not replaced with a wall of apartments with parking lots to further hem us in. It would be easily accessible for the neighborhoods south of this new development. Your critique ignores East Davis issues and looks at the project in isolation from the surrounding neighborhoods.
Sharla
A park along the major northern arterial will be largely inaccessible by pedestrians and bikes from the south side of Covell and east side of Poleline. The park in that location will increase the traffic running by your neighborhood because the new residents will be discouraged from walking and biking to the rest of Davis. This is the tradeoff you face.
No one told College Park residents to be satisfied with their small park and nearby Central Park and City fields when UCD proposed building apartments on the intermural field along Russell Blvd. The field was considered valuable open space for the neighborhoods and UCD backed down from building apartments right next to the core of the campus. The park at Covell placed as it is would retain some of the open view and be an asset to our neighborhood, mitigating somewhat the burdens of new development. (BTW-the cemetery is not a park)
I would love to be able to walk down the street to a coffee shop, corner store/bodega…maybe even a local bar…neighborhood brunch place (now I’m starting to miss Cole Valley). I’d love for neighborhood commercial and mixed use walkable communities to exist in Davis. But that’s not reality.
The problem with all this “new urbanism” planning (of which I’ve studied and even been involved in to a degree for about 25 years) is that it doesn’t take into account what works for the builder ($$$). Or in other words the actual market. It just assumes that if you build whatever, it’ll sell and that’s that. Never mind the additional infrastructure and construction costs. Never mind the target market in this region for new homes is generally is about a 2,000 sqft single family home….because…well…that’s what you can get in neighboring communities. Instead we have a take it or leave it attitude by the Davis public. That’s why we have city leaders that are supposed to manage this for us. Direct input by the public just makes things difficult. It’s the job of the leaders to represent the both the wishes of the community as well as the long term good/vision for the city. In some cases that’s going to mean strict requirements on new proposed projects. But when you need housing those leaders COMPROMISE (or sellout to builder shills if you take an extremist’s view) to get something built. Or we can just keep laying down our demands and requirements and hold Measure J over developer’s heads. But that’s okay, I’m sure there’s a long line of builders ready to take on such a project in a community that is such a joy to do business with.
Btw. What plans does the city have to pay for all the services and infrastructure maintenance required for all these new homes?
Keith E
We have calculated the revenue per acre for the different configurations, and that revenue increases significantly for the developer. Clearly higher density is working in other places such as West Sac–developers are finding it sufficiently profitable. And those developments are selling. Given the house price premium in Davis, the builders will be able to sell just about anything they build–there’s no shortage of demand. (They probably could sell outhouses!) In this case, the developers are using heuristics based on what worked for them before. They probably didn’t even bother to look at other options.
The problem is that the urban sprawl model being proposed for Village Farms and Willowgrove only exacerbates the housing problem. We don’t actually solve the shortage of housing for the middle income households who have commuters into Davis, and we make the environment worse with greater traffic. And we are stuck with that configuration for decades with all of the detriments accruing. We don’t need just ANY housing–we need a specific kind of housing, and that type is not being proposed.
As Alan Miller pointed out yesterday, the problem isn’t so much a land use issue as a transportation issue. We need to conform our land use to a transportation plan that meets our vision and needs.
Higher density will lead to lower comparative infrastructure costs. Studies show these types of developments are much less of a fiscal strain. Work by Strong Towns and Urban3 show this.
“We have calculated the revenue per acre for the different configurations, . . .”
Oh, geez.
Keith, I totally agree that these are things that are easy to get wrong. Just waving a wand and saying “mixed use” doesnt work. The west village on campus is a good example of that… really nice walkable town square, but SO much ground floor commercial was specced there for way too little housing… so the university ended up taking most of those ground floor commercial units.
Cities do evolve over time, and viability of retail in different spots is sometimes hard to predict. I think the key to to create a city plan that is resilient, that can change over time and meet the citizens needs.
the idea for a town square like sonoma square in this case is never going to have enough demand for commercial to fill the ground floor of ALL of those buildings around the square. But so long as we plan a city layout and zoning that ALLOWS such development to happen, then the market will tell us what it wants. Some of those buildings might have a cafe at the bottom, most likely wont, we only want the zoning to be permissive.
What we DONT want is to have a gimmick like the park become an irreversible mistake for the city. Its unknown if it will help the project pass, but it DEFINALTEY is a transit-hostile decision. There is ZERO chance we will see significant ridership coming from this development if the park is put there, and we DO know from experience with Unitrans that in the places we have higher density housing in this city we DO indeed have much more people (students) riding unitrans, AND unitrans is willing to send more busses there because the demand is so high.
THAT is the point of this. We can have single family housing in the northern parts of the development, the developer will make plenty of money doing that. There are also enough infill multifamily projects going forward elsewhere in town that we know that higher density stuff pencils out as well.. so the developer’s-side of the “whats in it for me” question is not an issue. we know that based on what is already happening.
As far as maintenance for all of this…. Strong towns’ work in other cities shows that multifamily north of 12 units per acre is about the threshold for these developments to be net-positive financially… that might be different in Davis, but for sure the single family is going to be a drain on us in the long-term.
The only “gimmick” here is your contention that there’s any demand for commercial/retail.
Again, we have example-after-example that it doesn’t exist. Should we run through them again (both in terms of retail OR a technology/business park)?
But again, I do appreciate your efforts to derail the proposal, entirely. (And I mean that from the bottom of my heart.)
Hopefully, you guys will continue trying to eliminate Measure J as well. Couldn’t ask for a better ally, regarding that.
“I really do want to vote yes on this proposal, but the developer needs to earn MY yes by putting forward a plan I personally think is good.”
Ballot Box Bullies
The owners have spent millions of dollars over decades trying to come up with a plan to create a project that helps people have a home and get a piece of the pie (equity). A project that has many additional benefits for the community. And yes, hopefully, they can make money doing it. That’s the normal system in America.
But not in Davis. In Davis, we have this ordinance that allows people to make all sorts of demands, like those expressed by these guys, or else they will try to veto your project at the polls. The arrogance saddens me and I feel compelled to ask those who understand my feelings about the attitude expressed above if you are ready to be done with Measure J?
It’s definitely concerning when I start agreeing with the “anti-choice” Ron, but I do find you more honest than most commenters on here at least.
Though truth be told, I heard that Whitcombe got a pretty good deal on this property (and isn’t exactly “asset-poor”). So I think he can stand to hear from those who aren’t satisfied, at least. (In other words, I do think that the density people are for the most part putting forth honest concerns, as well.)
Personally, I like tomatoes, corn, and sunflowers (and not getting stuck in traffic).
And for those who wat a good deal (on a “new” house at least), it’s not going to be found in Davis. New housing is never as good of a deal as a pre-existing house (regarding price, lot size, location, Mello Roos, quality of materials, etc.). There is almost a “depreciation factor” for new housing, compared to pre-existing housing. No one is going to go wrong buying a Stanley Davis house for $700K or so, and they’ll get hardwood flooring, a decent lot size, and a better location to boot. And a garage, streets that are sufficiently-wide, etc.
It will be interesting to see the price of the new houses in Chiles Ranch.
Left out an ‘n’ in “want”.
Forgot to add – trees that have a diameter more than 2 inches, in pre-existing neighborhoods. Don’t have to wait 30 years for them to provide shade.
Then again, I understand that they’ve outlawed yards entirely, in new developments. Along with natural gas lines, etc. (Of course, the latter has “nothing to do with cost”, says the man behind the curtain. The purpose behind eliminating gas lines is to save the planet, of course.)
But the purpose of inadequate rooftop solar panels is to provide nesting grounds for pigeons, or so I’ve learned from others.
Ron G
Davis is far from the only community that sets down requirements for housing developments. Measure J/R/D makes it nearly impossible to clearly convey those desires to developers. Look at West Sac where the neighborhoods around the stadium and in Southport are defined by community standards, not just developer desires. We don’t really care what the developer has done if they have not had substantial community input into their proposal and accepted that input in a constructive way. Just spending money doesn’t mean that they deserve a “yes.” The ballot bully is the one who makes these types of arguments rather than engaging in the issues at hand.
Measure J/R/D still has some usefulness as leverage to get a developer to comply with the development parameters such as the ones we are proposing in this series. Why give the developers a completely free hand again? That’s how we got into this mess with Measure J in the first place. Let’s learn our lessons.
Questions:
* Isn’t regional planning or at least coordination extremely important? Consider that:
+ The sprawl of Woodland especially southeast of downtown and the train station has made passenger rail surfaces on the north-south line completely unviable. There could be stations with huge pedestrian catchment huge pedestrian catchment – and potentially full cycling capture – directly adjacent to both the Cannery and Village Farms. (I’m actually imagining a service which is like heavy rail between the towns and a streetcar in downtown Woodland and on UCD campus.)
* If the disaster in Solano County, “California Forever” Is constructed as conceived with no robust rail connection, everyone who lives there will drive around the region including to and through Davis.
* There is a concept, 25 years out, for trains every 15 minutes to the East and every 30 minutes to the West… But this is dependent on so many things including funding for which California will be competing with other states: everyone who has a car and lives at Village Farms will drive around the region and especially just a few minutes to Woodland for shopping etc. The thickened I-80 will fill up again well before any new rail happens, and people will still go this way whether they like it or not.
Joining projects across Covell is a great idea, but I certainly wouldn’t want to live on a noisy street… And placing denser, lower income housing next to the noise certainly has its equity contradictions, right? We need to be clear that for a truly robust cycling connection towards downtown and campus from this area, a lot of car parking will need to be removed from J and L Streets… All the way to 3rd Street.
An overcrossing of the train tracks is essential. This will require a much longer footprint than the crossing of the train tracks for the stalled Promenade project if it’s going to have the industry standard 4% maximum gradient. While it will be considerably less expensive to build than that crossing which includes capacity for motor vehicles, it will still be really long. While I find the kind of open palette concept for approval, interesting, this crossing should be guaranteed as a result of any annexation. There’s absolutely no hint that Union Pacific is going to allow an undercrossing here. Let’s not forget that the same developer went ahead with Promenade, supported by the full city council, without any kind of agreement with Union Pacific about an undercrossing, which was in the visualizations for the public vote in 2018.
“Measure J/R/D still has some usefulness as leverage to get a developer to comply with the development parameters such as the ones we are proposing in this series.”
If only. But in the last few days one member of your ad hoc, self appointed group, wrote an op-ed telling people to vote no on the subdivision and another has said that the developer must put forward a proposal he personally must approve of to earn his vote. It seems to me that you guys are not simply trying to make the project better but rather you are willing to try to kill much needed housing if it isn’t built to your imagined ideals.
Whatever the intent, the result is housing doesn’t get approved and Davis is facing a lot of problems from that
Whatever the intent, the result is housing might not get approved and Davis is facing a lot of problems from that.
Time will tell.
Ron G:
“and another {member of the group} has said that the developer must put forward a proposal he personally must approve of to earn his vote.”
it is wierd that you dont understand that this is exactly how direct democracy works. Each of our votes gets counted once. None of us can “veto” anything, we vote for what we want out community to be.
“Whatever the intent, the result is housing might not get approved and Davis is facing a lot of problems from that.”
This is bordering on gaslighting.
We do need housing. But treating housing as an all-inclusive catagory is not helpful. We need apartments, condos and multifamily housing, we do NOT need any more single family housing (and for MANY reasons.)
Now, would I be willing to choke down some single family housing if it helped pay for more multifamily and affordable housing? Sure. Riding an intellectual high-horse doesnt serve anyone. But this project, not only fails to provide the market-rate affordable, and skips across the defined minimums of Capital A affordable…, but the final straw is the location of the park.
That park means that even in the infinite future, this peice of peoperty is NEVER going to be capable of being densified, or otherwise become part of a transit-friendly planning landscape. It is a planning mistake made for short-term ‘lets win the election” type of reasons but it is a long term mistake that will never be undone.
Think of the regrets people have around the U-mall… This is actually worse.
The Heritage Oak Park on the south side of the Village Farms project proposal is one of the best aspects of this development from the standpoint of the whole community.
It will provide much-needed recreational resources for the folks in the surrounding neighborhoods as well as in the new housing developed on site.
It will integrate this project visually and aesthetically with the rest of the Covell corridor.
It will provide significant local environmental benefits, cooling and cleaning the air and making a more comfortable living and walking and playing area.
Large parks in urban settings have been a core principle of urban planning and landscape architecture for generations in the US. Frederick Law Olmsted and his son, who literally pioneered urban planning, made certain that parks like Central Park and Golden Gate Park were included and developed for the benefit of the whole city. Preventing those central pockets of nature from being urbanized is one of their great legacies and one often ignored in the ‘new urbanist’ framework.
“That park means that even in the infinite future, this piece of property is NEVER going to be capable of being densified….”
That is precisely the purpose of these kinds of parks. The benefits of these regional parks are well understood. They create community spaces, bring people together, and make a more livable environment. They are the precise counterbalance needed to high-density housing.
Don
We agree the park is a great amenity. But it’s in the wrong place for the benefit of the whole community. A large park imposes a significant barrier to pedestrian travel. It is NOT an amenity that encourages more walking for commuting and errands. That’s why we object to the currently proposed configuration. It will NOT integrate the development with the rest of the city–it will stand as a barrier that separates it from Covell. We can see that with the large empty space on the south side of the Cannery. This is NOT a regional park–its a neighborhood park. As its currently configured with a the major northside arterial, its relatively inaccessible from the southside. If we want a regional park in that parcel, it should be on the northside along the slough/drainage ditch. No one has really thought through the appropriate placement of the park.
“… it will stand as a barrier that separates it from Covell. We can see that with the large empty space on the south side of the Cannery.”
The south side of The Cannery was supposed to be a commercial development with retail and commercial tenants. That won’t happen, but it was approved by the voters as is so it can’t be changed easily. A park there would be great, but not likely to occur.
Shopping needs for people who live in The Cannery and who will live in Village Farms will be provided by the existing shopping centers that are already along Covell. They will travel to them by vehicle, hopefully powered by electricity. That’s a reality.
Parks are not a “barrier.” People walk through parks all the time. In fact, that is one of their functions: recreational walking and biking in a natural environment.
Putting a park on the “northside along the slough” would not be great for public usage, but those types of open spaces are good for providing habitat for wildlife as well as drainage and flood control. That’s not the same thing at all. A park for the public to use would be well-situated at the entrance to this development project and would likely get lots of public usage just as Nugget Fields and Sandy Motley Park do.
It is unfortunately clear that parks, trees, and greenbelts are low priorities for your planning group.
Is this park named after the oak that gave it’s life and fell over right after Measure X failed?
Don says: “Shopping needs for people who live in The Cannery and who will live in Village Farms will be provided by the existing shopping centers that are already along Covell. They will travel to them by vehicle, hopefully powered by electricity. That’s a reality.”
The reality is that Nugget is ALREADY too-crowded in its narrow aisles.
Though I agree with some of the other things you’ve noted in general – such as the type of housing that families seek (and can find at a somewhat reasonable price some 7 miles north of this place – which so far, hasn’t been obtructed by housing development roadblocks to any significant degree so far). Reference to the Costco Highway – as Davisites call it.
(Personally, I think pre-owned houses in Davis are a better deal for multiple reasons, however.)
Ron G
If the housing makes Davis worse off because its simply suburban sprawl that only serves wealthy commuters, then we don’t need that housing. You’re mistaken if you think that developers short term self interest best serves the community as a whole. That libertarian BS that’s been pushed for the last 50 years has made us worse off, not better off, and we’re now seeing that play out on the national stage.
Who is this we you are speaking of when you say “We don’t need that housing?” Don’t you already have a house? Are you speaking for yourself? Wouldn’t that be singular? Your group of five who think they know how others should live? Certainly you are not speaking for the community as none of you guys have been elected to anything.
Don – I’m not sure if there is a limit to the number of replies, but for some reason I cannot reply in this the right place:
I’m not sure how many people walk or even bike cross Central Park from the east side to the west side to get on the subway…
Another very dense place I lived in is Prague: It has huge parks which I visited frequently. But I never had to walk across them to access a major transit corridor.
How many people who live on the north side of Nugget Fields walk to… Nugget or the 42 bus?
We agree that a large park imposes a significant barrier to pedestrian travel. It is NOT an amenity that encourages more walking for commuting and errands. That’s why we object to the currently proposed configuration. The park needs to be moved north farther into the development where its much more appropriate.
Moving the park (to the center, where it would be less visible and accessible to those outside of the neighborhood) should make it that much easier to let Nugget shoppers know about the ugly student apartment buildings/condos (directly across the street) that they have the power to reject.
I still don’t know who in their right minds votes to make a city worse, other than those with a direct interest in doing so. (This is the REAL concern regarding Measure J – it allows ignorant people to vote “yes”.)
Matt Walsh might be right – “too many people” are allowed to vote in the first place (tongue-in-cheek comment). His point, made somewhat humorously, is that there are no qualification requirements for people to vote. As such, there’s a lot of uniformed, ignorant people who do so. The price of democracy, I guess.)
I was shocked that something like 40% of voters voted “yes” the first time, regarding Covell Village. Who does that, and why?
I am not so concerned about the location of the park, in fact I rather like it. Covell is a bigger barrier than the extra walk. I will not vote yes unless there is an undercrossing – that’s my one vote veto. Also, the transit should go from the transit corridor to the east and pass through to Moore, then cross over and come down and across at L Street to serve the west edge of Oak Tree Plaza. Otherwise, the population is missed. I explained this concept to Tim and drew it on a map. I’d focus on transit quality and leave the park be.
Personally, I think that those who support this proposal should just accept the fact that it’s going to appeal to those with money (e.g., from the Bay Area).
And truth be told, I’m not sure why so many want to make Davis “poorer”. If anything, I’d vote (if qualified) to house more people “richer” than me, for example. (That is, if I was going to vote to approve sprawl.)
Why would I want people around me, who are less-successful than me? I already have enough problems with that. I want people around me who are MORE successful than I am (not just in regard to money). (Though truth be told, some of the latter don’t have much money. The difference, perhaps, is that they’re also not causing a lot of problems for everyone else – as some who envy others apparently do).
Who is this we you are speaking of when you say “We don’t need that housing?” Don’t you already have a house? Are you speaking for yourself? Wouldn’t that be singular? Your group of five who think they know how others should live? Certainly you are not speaking for the community as none of you guys have been elected to anything.