By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – Perhaps the most interesting item on the agenda is the Long Range Growth Subcommittee status report. The item lays out a possible path forwar—and on the surface it makes a good deal of sense.
On the one hand: “Concurrently, the City has been approached by multiple developers wishing to pursue review of housing applications on the periphery, and all desiring a November, 2024 ballot measure under Measure J/R/D.”
On the other hand, “To review any given peripheral development proposal requires significant bandwidth of staff, consultants, commissions, and the community.”
And as the city acknowledges, they are currently “short-staffed” with two planning positions vacant as they currently recruit for new staff in the Community Development Department.
In short, “To review one peripheral development proposal would require an aggressive review schedule and strict adherence to timelines in order to provide the ability for the City Council to take action by no later than end of June, 2024.”
Staff concludes: “While reviewing one peripheral proposal may be feasible with contract resources, review of multiple peripheral development proposals concurrently would quickly exceed staff bandwidth capacity, would exceed city commission capacity, and could be perceived by the community as putting undue burden on their capacity to adequately track multiple proposals.”
Moreover, from a practical political standpoint, having two land use measures on a ballot at the same time likely means that both would lose. Consider that only a small percentage of would-be supporters are likely to support both, a higher percentage would pick one or the other, splitting the vote and, given the razor thin margins in Davis to project approval by the voters, anything that splits the vote is likely to cause both measures to go down to 
defeat.
Thus I believe, from both a staffing and community perspective, having just one measure on the November 2024 ballot makes the most sense.
But there is a problem with this line of thinking.
If you have four projects, are you going to push some of the voting out until 2026, 2028, or even 2030 depending on bandwidth and willingness to approve the projects?
That of course assumes that these are the only four peripheral projects that might come forward over the next planning period.
One possible problem is that by delaying the processing of these projects potentially three to even seven years, you might run afoul with state law. Owners of property who put forward a project have an expectation that their proposals will be considered and if necessary adjudicated in a timely fashion.
If you start lining up projects for consideration for years to come, there is a potential at least that one or more of the developers will sue the city.
I have pointed out that Measure J has never actually been tested head on in the courts as to whether a required voter approval process is constitutional.
At the same time the fact that most developers locally have more than one project at stake over their lifetime may preclude an individual developer from filing a lawsuit—fearing that it would make future projects more difficult to gain approval.
A more serious threat may be the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). If the state sees city ordinances like Measure J as a significant barrier for the city’s ability to complete its fair housing share—specifically, of course, affordable housing, the state could step in.
The state has already shown it will be extremely aggressive in filing suits against cities that are seen to be dragging its feet or outright blocking housing.
A further complication is third parties have stepped in to sue as well. We have seen in Northern California YIMBY groups sue various state entities for non-compliance with state housing law.
Last fall, we saw nonprofits aiming to combat California’s “housing access and affordability crisis,” suing various cities as well for failing “to adopt valid housing elements.”
Amid all of the push to address the housing crisis, Davis remains a poster child for slow growth, development avoidance policies.
In the last several months, conversations I have had suggest that HCD is well aware of Davis and its anti-housing policies—indeed, a number of people who work for HCD in fact live in Davis—and there does seem to be some inclination to step in.
When that would happen remains unclear. The city expects that its current Housing Element will gain approval. That could take them off the clock this cycle.
But when I talked to City Manager Mike Webb nearly a year ago back in June 2022, he acknowledged that it will be very difficult for the city to infill its way into compliance for its Affordable Housing allotment.
That’s a huge reason why we have finally heard talk from councilmembers about looking into tweaks to Measure J.
But if Measure J causes projects with potentially hundreds if not thousands of affordable units to be delayed, backed up, and ultimately defeated, will HCD or even the Attorney General step in to start challenging Measure J?
I don’t know the answer to that. But in a worst-case scenario, that is a potential path forward.
I think Davis has put itself into a bind here not just with Measure J, but with its delay in initiating a General Plan update.
The subcommittee is calling for a “proposed framework to engage the community in visioning for future housing needs and peripheral growth expectations as a second stage (Downtown Plan was the first stage) of the General Plan update.”
The goal is, “The interim criteria would serve as a bridge and provide guidance for consideration of such proposals until such time that an updated General Plan is crafted and adopted.”
A strong General Plan could give the city multiple paths forward to compliance even with Measure J. But if the community and certain activists take the view that they should oppose all tweaks, all proposed projects, I think it becomes likely that the state or the courts or both could step in to force some change.
That’s why I think the conversations tonight are so critical to the future of Davis—they will lay the groundwork for future conversations and likely future actions.
David, aren’t you a supporter of Measure J? Would you be against Measure J being tested in the courts or challenged by the state?
My point is that if there isn’t a path to housing, the state will come and change things. My column can be read as a warning to the community that the current path is likely to have consequences.
But you do support Measure J?
Yes
I thought so but when I read your articles it seems as though you are against it. Thanks for clarifying.
I actually agree with this, and that the city should put (up to) all 4 development proposals on the ballot (together), if that’s what the process would normally result in.
The city should not be making politically-based decisions to “delay” one proposal (or another), based upon a belief that none of them would pass if placed simultaneously on a ballot. Displaying any favoritism at all seems like it could expose the city itself to some kind of legal action (not necessarily related to Measure J).
The same type of concern would be true in the absence of Measure J (e.g., a council displaying favoritism regarding the order/consideration of approvals/denials) for political or other “non-legitimate” reasons.
The city needs to put these projects forward. There are multitudes of Bay Area people wanting to cash out and move to Davis for cheaper housing.
Good point.
Perhaps they’ll need to implement some type of “Davis-connected buyer’s program” for each of these four proposals.
And price them so that all of the “local workers” (whatever that means) will move out of wherever they are now – into a smaller, but more-expensive unit with less (or no) parking, no yard, etc.
That way, they’ll be able to impress others when they say that they live in “oh-so-special” Davis. (As long as they don’t invite anyone over to see what they’re getting for their money.)
At which point, their visitors might think that their host is “special”.
I don’t get your point. The housing needs for these projects aren’t for current citizens.
The argument put forth on here at times is that there’s a bunch of current “local workers” who would move from wherever they live into the city, if (more) housing was built for them. Assuming that they live outside of the city in the first place.
In reality, every person with a connection to Davis (as well as those with no connection) make choices based upon a lot of factors.
Connections and choices can also change over time. For that matter, individual life itself isn’t permanent.
I, for example, expect to need “no housing at all” within 40 years, tops. And statistically, a lot sooner than that.
I think there are several different ideas that are being conflated.
The WDAAC theory was there are people who live in Davis in large homes, have empty nests and could downsize thus freeing up houses for new families.
There is a second issue where there is a large volume of people who come to Davis to work – a lot at UCD, but not all – and some of them would move to Davis if they could, but housing is both scarce and unaffordable.
There is a third issue, that the cost of housing has priced young families out of Davis, and if you provide small “a” affordable starter homes, they can move to Davis and then move into larger homes as they build equity.
What I see in the latest iteration of proposals is actually the third idea. Is it everyone who works at UCD? No.
I’m glad you labeled that as a theory, as that population includes more than those who currently live in Davis. But worse than that is the fact that the program was exclusionary (with all of the equity problems that entails). Something that you (for whatever reason) have never expressed much concern about.
UCD is not in Davis, nor are its workers “Davis workers”. It is also a very easy commute to UCD from the south side of Woodland.
Housing is not “scarce”. Just yesterday, I listed 3 single-family houses for sale that were in the $700-$800K range (and have been for awhile). And this is during a housing downturn, when few are willing to sell their homes (nationwide) due to locking-in low interest rates.
Again, assuming that the goal is to “grow” the city (for some undefined reason), new families (or anyone moving to the area) compare what’s available in Davis with surrounding communities.
And the “problem” (from the perspective of those who want to “grow the city”) is that you get more house and property for your money in nearby communities (Spring Lake in particular, given that it’s the closest major development to Davis).
Families in particular want yards, multi-car garages, square footage, etc. And they want it cheap and now – as they’re starting families (not later, when their kids have already left home).
And Davis will never match the price for what they get in nearby communities. This is the key.
But truth be told, it’s not all that cheap in nearby cities, either – for the type of housing that appeals to families. So again, anything similar in Davis is going to be in the $1 million dollar range.
But the main problem with all of these theories is that you can’t control “which” of your desired population moves into them, nor should you. (See The Cannery as an example of that.) That is, unless you implement some type of questionable “Davis-connected buyer’s program”.
Nor has any reason been put forth regarding the reason that the goal is to “grow the city” to some undefined level/amount.
So again, I’d ask why the goal is to grow the city, especially since there are no particular “drivers” of that growth in the city. Even UCD (which is OUTSIDE of the city) is probably not increasing its staff by any significant amount at this point.
This is also the reason that it was so disingenuous for the housing activists to be pushing for DISC. Had that passed, the next “step” for the activists would be for a housing development for those claimed new workers.
Of course, the failure of DISC (which already included some housing) isn’t stopping “100% Housing DISC” from proceeding, regardless.
Why do you want to create housing for people that work outside of the city? That’s creating a bedroom community. Most cities don’t want to be bedroom communities because that means they incur the cost of residence without the benefits of getting the tax revenue from their places of work. You could house all those employees and capture some of that tax revenue through retail spending generating sales tax ….but how much can you get from a weekly/monthly trip to Target and how many times can you go out and get food at Woodstock’s, Burgers and Brew and Sophia’s Thai Kitchen? Otherwise all that spending is going outside of Davis (I mean good god the selection of restaurants in Davis forces me to go to Sacramento, Winters and even Vacaville (there’s a Brazilian Steakhouse there). I mean I suppose there’s plans for expansive retail growth in the city….oh wait…..
You continue with these fairytale fallacies. It’s like you desperately want new housing so badly that you’ll believe anything. New homes are not affordable. They’re not meant to be affordable. Even smaller homes are not affordable. They’re still going to be priced on a higher per square foot basis than existing homes. You know what “starter homes” actually are? EXISTING HOMES. For profit builders build higher end products to attract a certain kind of buyer that can afford their homes (even the smaller ones that are “affordable”) so that home prices continue to rise. Or let me simplify this for you…for profit builders build to exacerbate gentrification.
I can not for the life of me understand how someone can believe that direct democracy over something as long term, detailed and nuanced as land planning and future economic growth and development should be directly managed by the unwashed masses. I know Davis has some misguided notion that it’s a really smart and intelligent community that can vote on these things sensibly….but yeah….you know that’s a load of b.s.
I wonder if the state runs into a Measure J problem that if it might consider a work around. Sure it could go through the courts but that’s not the most efficient way to deal with the problem. The state could simply work with developers by compelling the County to approve entitlements on property adjacent to the city of Davis and then either let the city annex it on it’s own or compel the city to annex it. Since the property is entitled (no longer zoned for ag or open space) it would not have to go through a Measure J vote. That is unless I’m missing something here.