Housing is always a huge topic in the city of Davis—but one thing that has concerned me of late is that we have not really had any sort of public engagement on the issue of the housing element. And when you look at a map, you quickly realize that additional housing is about to become far more challenging than ever before.
Sizable infill spots are dwindling, redevelopment is expensive and slow, and Measure J limits our ability to build outside of the city limits.
Davis is undergoing a new Housing Element. RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Assessment) requirements are for over 2000 units of market rate housing and over 900 units of affordable housing.
According to Ash Feeney: “We have to identify that we have available land zoned to accommodate the RHNA allocation. To the extent we do not have enough land to meet the allocation, we need to identify sites that could be rezoned to meet the need and move ahead with rezoning as an implementation measure of the Housing Element.
“We can identify sites that have existing uses on them but they need to have a good probability for conversion during the cycle period.”
The webinar asked three questions of the panel:
What kind of housing does Davis need?
Where should it put the housing?
How can it get more affordable housing?
They also took audience questions.
Guests:
Mayor Gloria Partida
Georgina Valencia
Don Gibson
Larry Guenther
Kelsey Fortune
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
“OMG, did you see the chat section? That Alan Miller guy just would not shut up!”
–Babs Bendix
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (12:28 PM)
The neighbors hated the building on B Street because the developers told the neighbors they were building a different building that the neighbors were OK with — then changed it later without informing the neighbors.
Greenbelts – that’s a good place to build infill housing 😐
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (12:37 PM)
There are very reasonably priced apartments in Old East Davis (for Davis). Some of the most reasonable in Davis.
Bret Stevens to Panelists and Attendees (12:38 PM)
How do we deal with the problem of hyper-local participation? Whenever new developments are proposed the neighbors who currently live in the neighborhood are given a much louder voice than the people who could become neighbors with construction of the new housing. Partially because the people who could benefit from the development have already been pushed out of Davis all together.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (12:40 PM)
In stark contrast to what Larry G. referred to (the development we opposed), Lincoln 40 developers came to the neighborhood and worked with us – just as Larry G. proposed developers could do – COLLABORATE with the neighbors. Lincoln 40 did this and that should be a MODEL. I am looking out my kitchen window right now at the 5 story building that used to be sky. Sure I hate it, but I accept it and am OK with it and DIDN’T OPPOSE IT because the developers asked us what we wanted and we worked it out with them.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (12:51 PM)
A lot of those same apartments were in a bad state of repair decades ago – decades before the <1% vacancy rate. True, the <1% vacancy rate has only made that worse.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (12:52 PM)
“hyper-local participation” – more NIMBY shaming. How shocking that people would be concerned about a development altering their neighborhood.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (12:59 PM)
“Innovation comes from people, not from City Hall” – Go Dos Pinos! Go SCHA!
Very important to “factor out the students” 😐
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:07 PM)
Another thing that takes longer than a win-win with a cooperative developer – a lawsuit
Joe Bolte to Panelists and Attendees (1:11 PM)
Should the community negotiate and vote on every every truckload of food that might enter Davis? Would that be a good way to improve the food supply?
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:11 PM)
Another thing that can slow down and kill projects, DG, is obstinate developers and enabling city staff. Lincoln 40 who DID REACH OUT to Old East Davis GOT THEIR FULL SIZE BUILDING BUILT!!!! (Note: the people who did sue them where th OTHER members of the city and DID NOT live in our neighborhood)
SO . . . maybe stop blaming the so-called NIMBYs and blame instead obstinate developers and no-growther types
Joe Bolte to Panelists and Attendees (1:16 PM)
Many many junior faculty cannot afford to live in Davis.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:18 PM)
Lincoln 40 made changes – but DID NOT lose any units!!! We actually SAVED them a great deal of money by eliminating a proposed expensive mitigation the neighborhood did not need or want.
Amen Kelsey! Annex UCD!!!!!!
Larry Guenther to Panelists and Attendees (1:22 PM)
Great question Kelsey!
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:23 PM)
Put the people underground 😐
Joe Bolte to Panelists and Attendees (1:23 PM)
Professional consultant have been quite clear there is a surplus of parking in Davis. It is mismanaged.
Larry Guenther to Panelists and Attendees (1:24 PM)
Great point Joe Bolte!
Kelsey Fortune to Panelists and Attendees (1:24 PM)
absolutely agree, Joe!
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:25 PM)
Parking has to be adjacent to where it is needed – lacking in some areas, plenty in others. Old East just worked with City to add city employee spaces – more cooperation!!!
Joe Bolte to Panelists and Attendees (1:26 PM)
Alan Miller that’s not correct.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:27 PM)
What’s not correct?
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:28 PM)
Alan Miller said a couple of things Joe Bolte. Which one did you have issue with?
Joe Bolte to Panelists and Attendees (1:29 PM)
“Parking supply is insufficient in some areas of Davis” Expensive professionals have submitted reports to the city.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:30 PM)
It’s insufficient around campus and downtown. Isn’t that a part of Davis?
Larry Guenther to Panelists and Attendees (1:31 PM)
I think the City needs to be more effective and pro-active in engaging the community.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:31 PM)
And by insufficient, that’s the wrong word – but there are times one cannot find a parking space.
Joe Bolte to Panelists and Attendees (1:31 PM)
Yes that’s exactly what the reports address.
Alan Miller to All panelists and other attendees (1:31 PM)
I’m all for more shuttles and bicycle access – but that isn’t a solution unless people use them
Just ranting, thank you 😐
Vera Sandronsky to Panelists and Attendees (1:32 PM)
I was just going to ask how we participate.
David Greenwald to Panelists and Attendees (1:32 PM)
http://www.DavisHousingElement.com
Larry Guenther to Panelists and Attendees (1:32 PM)
Be engaged! If you don’t change your world, someone else will!
“Early technical analysis completed for the Housing Element Update has identified enough sites to meet the requirements for single-family housing, accessory dwelling units (in-law units), small-scale rental buildings, and condominiums/townhouses. ”
“Much ado about nothing.”
Here is a key point from Ash Feeney’s comment:
According to Ash Feeney: “We have to identify that we have available land zoned to accommodate the RHNA allocation. To the extent we do not have enough land to meet the allocation, we need to identify sites that could be rezoned to meet the need and move ahead with rezoning as an implementation measure of the Housing Element.
“We can identify sites that have existing uses on them but they need to have a good probability for conversion during the cycle period.”
There is no doubt that we can meet the legal requirements. How feasible those will be is what is in question and the focus on our discussion.
Not sure who you’re quoting, but the survey included a map with some vacant land, as well.
Certainly enough sites in the city to accommodate the 230 apartment units – which is the only requirement that hasn’t already been addressed.
Feasibility is different than legal requirements, as you noted.
Couldn’t have said it better, myself. 🙂