By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – And then there were five. Another project has been submitted in a pre-application to the city of Davis, on Tuesday morning.
The applicants are touting Pioneer Community Master Plan as “a new and game changing project proposed along the southeastern limit of the City of Davis in unincorporated Yolo County.”
They added, “This revolutionary project will re-imagine what residential community projects can look like for the future by meeting and exceeding sustainability goals for the City of Davis.”
The project becomes the fifth potential Measure J project that the city will ultimately have to sort through, though the applicants are looking more towards 2026.
The centerpiece of the project is a “residential planned unit development that is being designed for 100% of its electricity to be generated, stored, and delivered onsite.”
The project includes 597 acres of agricultural land mitigation, land for a City owned sports park to be built by the City next to Legacy Soccer Complex, a mixed-use residential community which has a focus on the “missing middle” of housing, affordable housing and continuum care for seniors in Davis, and a zero-emission vehicle fueling and charging facility to serve light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles with both electric and hydrogen refueling options.
“This project will combine an onsite energy park and a community microgrid, which will not only allow the Pioneer Community to be self-sufficient in its energy needs, but it is also expected to generate an excess of clean energy that will flow back into the power grid to help power an additional 1,000+/- Davis homes yearly with true clean green energy and daily deliver green hydrogen for the transportation sector,” says project proponent Angelo K. Tsakopoulos.
Michael Faust, President of Velocity Strategies and Project Manager stated, “The Community will redefine how housing projects are envisioned and built in the future by incorporating not only daily energy storage but also seasonal storage that will allow the community to run on green energy all day, every day of the year.”
According to the applicants, the energy park will have the capacity to export clean green electricity back into the City of Davis and the power grid during peak hours as well as export green hydrogen for the transportation sector.
Tsakopoulos stated, “This concept showcases an innovative strategy for carbon neutrality and cutting out fossil fuel usage entirely in the residential sector for electricity generation and usage. I am proud to help the City of Davis continue to lead the nation in its sustainable development and environmental goals.”
The Agricultural Land Mitigation Area, is approximately 597+/- acres and will preserve existing agricultural land, ensure no urban development occurs on those lands and help the City of Davis meet its Measure O vision.
In addition, the Pioneer Community proposal includes approximately 46 acres of land to be developed by the City into the City of Davis Sports Park and approximately 280 acres of combined multi-family and single-family housing units, including a senior retirement community with continuum care to support Davis’s aging population.
The residential portion will include a multitude of green spaces, multi-use paths, a community clubhouse and center, and other commercial amenities to create an enjoyable living experience for its residents.
Finally, the Pioneer Community Master Plan will include a Zero-Emission Energy and Transportation Center (ZE-ETC), an approximately 32-acre site along Interstate 80, which will provide refueling and charging for light and mid-sized vehicles as well as heavy trucks. The site will be easily accessible for those traveling along I-80 and utilize both electricity and hydrogen produced from the energy park.
The Pioneer Community Master Plan, currently in the pre-application phase, is envisioned to go to the ballot for Davis voters in 2026.
Michael Faust told the Vanguard, “The Pioneer Community project truly reflects the values of Davis by providing a comprehensive response to multiple issues facing our community. It preserves agricultural land in perpetuity.”
The project, he said, “addresses the climate crisis directly by implementing a real decarbonization solution in each of in the energy, housing and transportation sectors. It provides land for a City Sports Park and provides housing for the missing middle as well as seniors seeking continuum of care.
At this point, I’m thinking that the various developers are just trying to be funny. (Mission accomplished.)
Put all 5 of them on the ballot simultaneously.
You’re missing the big picture here.
“5” (so far) IS the “big picture”.
I say make it a half-dozen. There must be at least one more waiting in the wings to achieve that number.
But I do appreciate that the local developers seem to have a sense of humor.
The big picture is the housing crisis and high demand for housing coupled with an expectation that something is probably going to give with current regulations.
Again, the regulations (as noted in the other article) have nothing to do with forced annexations. Even you acknowledged that.
The regulations themselves are what’s going to “give” (statewide). (Again, acknowledged by you, in regard to what actually gets built in a state with a declining housing market and declining population.)
That is, unless the attorney general picks up a hammer and personally joins Habitat for Humanity. You can’t sue your way into forcing someone else to pick up a hammer.
There’s an old saying, that when you have a hammer in your hand – everything looks like a nail. But from an attorney (general’s) perspective, the saying is probably more accurately restated as “when you have the ability to threaten and sue, your own costituents look like a legal target” (even when that no longer works).
The declining housing market itself will address the “housing crisis”, as does the exodus from the state. (Which are inter-related.)
David, thank you for bringing this immediately to our attention.
Within your details there appears to be no clarification of what acreage or number of units are set aside for affordable housing for the low income categories. Is that specific information yet available?
Man, the “mace mess” advocacy contingent is gonna LOVE this one…
See – I knew that others have a sense of humor, as well. Thanks for that!
It’ll probably funnel traffic onto Chiles and 32A.
Hmmm….I do not hate this as much as Covell Village….partly because it’s Not In My Back Yard. But I also like that there’s a mixed use commercial component. If you’re going to build out there you need to make it’s own neighborhood community. I can only hope that it has a substantial enough of a commercial component to at least make the project pay for itself in terms of services and maintenance necessary. The energy thing….eh, will just add more to the cost of the homes for “the missing middle”…lol…(new homes for the missing middle is silly). But maybe with the increasing PG&E costs; the added costs of “renewable energy” may become a serious selling point. In the very least the environmental hype will make the project more palatable to the crunchy granola folks.
Funny, Don Shor and I were just talking about this area for future development. We had in mind massive retail (so the city can pay for stuff). Hopefully a residential project (even with mixed use commercial space) does not impede the commercial development potential of the area.
New homes that comply with the Davis Reach Code have lower overall energy costs. Developers have been catering to the perceived desire for gas appliances and heating although its more expensive. Modern heat pumps and induction cooktops have turned the tide.
Elk Grove will have nothing on Davis.
So much for the claim that developers are “scared away” by Measure J.
I WISH that they were scared away.
It’s sort of becoming comical, at this point. But one more is needed for an even “half-dozen”.
I personally think they should put at least a half-dozen on ballots, simultaneously. (Just don’t go with a voter ranking system.)
As I said at the outset, I don’t think you’re really seeing the big picture here.
I AM seeing the “big picture” – all five of them, at this point.
And I’m finding it amusing, so far. For the first time, I’m actually starting to enjoy seeing these proposals arise. (And it’s probably not a good sign for the development activists, if someone like me is finding it amusing.)
Well, I guess we’ll see if I continue to laugh, as they proceed. Hopefully, it’s not one of those “he who laughs last” situations. But for now, I’m enjoying myself.
See if you can get them to drum-up a sixth one, to make it an even half-dozen.
Think about it – from 2000 until 2022 there were a total of FIVE MEASURE J projects that came forward. (Nishi and DISC twice each). In the last year, five Measure J projects have come forward.
So what’s changed?
The demand for housing? The anticipation that maybe the state will change the rules?
“Hmmm….I do not hate this as much as Covell Village….partly because it’s Not In My Back Yard.”
I appreciate your candor.
Here’s a “big picture” for you, and a different type of “housing crisis”:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/home-prices-see-largest-decline-since-2012-as-banking-crisis-hits-demand-there-s-this-fear-that-everything-will-crash/ar-AA1a3BEH?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=3f7230c061ae439b83d7d1cc6b6ece2f&ei=11
That’s not a big picture, that’s a snapshot.
Once upon a time, we stopped approving and building housing during the great recession, the result was once the immediate situation ended, we experienced a housing crisis which was worsened because we had a several year period where there was no housing approved or built.
The reality is that the market is speaking to us – developers and builder’s are coming forward with projects even though there are current economic hardships.
What you are proposing is bad public policy.
So is your so-called “housing crisis”. In contrast, the “crisis” described in the article I referenced is helping to address “your” housing crisis. Give it time, as there’s evidence it’s only in the early stages. (It’s a “real” crisis already, regarding commercial loans.)
The “big picture” is continued sprawl, in a state with a declining population.
What do you believe I’m proposing?
“So is your so-called “housing crisis”.”
At the end of the day, you don’t believe there is a problem. Most people don’t agree with you. Those who don’t agree with you, don’t necessarily agree on the solution. You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, the problem you have from a public policy perspective is that by denying the problem, you’ve placed yourself outside of the discussion on what to do about it.
I don’t know what most people believe, or agree with. I do know that resistance to the state’s mandates seems to be increasing.
Seems to me that the problem hasn’t been specified. For example, how many supposed “local workers” are there, who are camping out near the causeway – waiting for someone to build them a house?
Again, I don’t think I’m actually in the minority, regarding the increasing resistance to state mandates (or the desire to refrain from continued sprawl, in a state with a declining population).
In any case, you didn’t answer my question, in regard to your presumption.
I’ll ask again – what do you believe I’m proposing? (And for that matter, in regard to what problem? And by “problem”, I’m asking you to specifically define it, since you’re the one presenting it.) Put some numbers on it – how many “local workers” are you referring to, what can they afford, how that compares to whatever the market would provide (in addition to what already exists), where they’re living now, etc.
And then, put forth the amount of acreage (sacrificed to sprawl) you believe will solve this problem, both now, and in the future. Put some numbers on the housing prices you expect, as a result (for both existing housing, and potential new housing). You’ll need to separate-out the impact of a declining housing market (and declining population), regarding those calculations. (For sure, not an easy task.)
And you already know what my response is going to be if you say (for example) that the school system needs more students to sustain itself.
“I don’t know what most people believe, or agree with. I do know that resistance to the state’s mandates seems to be increasing.”
This is a pretty audacious statement. On the one hand, we have polling that consistently shows between 70 to 85 percent of the public agrees that we are in a housing crisis, a poll from March showed that number is still increasing.
And yet, we have no such data on “resistance.” How would you measure resistance and how would you document it’s increasing?
What poll are you referring to, and how is “housing crisis” defined (if at all)? And is this just a general “feeling” that it should be cheaper, and for whom? (Again, there’s a lot more that’s “missing” from this, compared to what’s stated.) And yet, folks like you seem to be making a lot of assumptions, and basing policy on it.
You haven’t answered ANY of my questions, in response to the questions you asked of me. Would you like for me to repeat them? I’ll go ahead and do so, below:
Let me know when you want to respond to those questions.
Here’s one such poll, from a couple of years ago:
But mostly, I’m seeing this in regard to the resistance that cities (and citizens therein) are mounting against the state’s mandates. I’ve posted quite a few articles regarding this (as have you). As well as resistance from organizations such as the League of California Cities, which you’ve cited yourself.
I’m not sure if all of the resistance has been officially compiled, but we’re certainly seeing more reports of resistance.
That’s direct evidence that cities aren’t supporting these mandates. Interestingly-enough, Davis doesn’t seem to be one of those cities (despite allegations from development activists).
Not all parts of California are witnessing significant population declines. I thought conservatives generally believed in less government regulation and are in favor of allowing the free market to balance competing interests. Measure J smacks of government regulation stifling the free market. The most signifcant population loss in California isn’t occcuring in the Greater Sacramento Region. Red states seem to be sprawling all over the place.
Please provide evidence that more than just a few cities are resisting state housing mandates.
Seems to me that this issue is not cleanly-divided between “conservatives”, “liberals”, or “progressives”.
I would agree with that. And I also believe that this is a “good” thing.
I believe you’re right again – the biggest loss is from places like San Francisco (and Los Angeles, I believe). The article you cite comprises those with low populations in the first place.
Some of those leaving the Bay Area (for example) are migrating to the Sacramento region – which (due to its pursuit of sprawl) results in farm more environmentally-damaging impacts than the locations that the in-state migrants originated from, had they simply stayed where they were. The exact opposite of the state’s (claimed) intended result.
It would have been better (environmentally) if the Sacramento region did not purposefully encourage this type of migration.
Yeah – they’re the worst regarding that.
Only a few are “willing” to acknowledge it.
But again, when you have an organization like the League of California Cities” opposing some of these mandates, that indicates a real problem that the state has in imposing them.
Other than what I cited from “Housing is a Human Right” (above), I don’t believe that there’s been a comprehensive survey of the state’s residents regarding their view of the state’s mandates.
But since the state’s mandates have been largely ineffective at this point, I suspect that a survey isn’t going to accurately gauge the general public’s view, at this point. Also, there’s the question of “who” (other than the survey already mentioned) would take the initiative to conduct a survey, at this point.
It would appear that El Macero should be annexed into the city as well. Those Mace Messers will finally be able to vote for city council. Real progress.