Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

Category: Land use

  • NE Transportation Corridor – Tonight on City Council Agenda @8:40pm

    Open Letter to City Council on NE Transportation Corridor Item 7 (8:40pm, Tues 4/1)

    City Council,

    I may not be able to attend tonight so am making email comments here.

    I appreciate your taking up the NE Transportation Corridor.  As specified, the item as written would be part of the General Plan.  From the staff report, this involves more detail than the concept suggested by the Davis Citizens Planning Group (DCPG or close to that name).  

    I also came up with the almost identical idea of a transportation corridor north and east of Covell/Mace to run through the new suburbs, as a BRT or Bus Rapid Transit corridor parallel to a bike line.  As separate citizens came up with almost identical comments, perhaps the consultants should meet soon with the citizens for initial input, rather than or in addition to the consultants having citizens comment on the consultant's plans.

    Here are the basic features that I believe I and DCPG agree on:

    • There would be minimal stops as per BRT standards (1/4-1/2 mile spacing).
    • The corridor would not be for automobiles
    • There would be and adjacent and parallel bike track on the south/west of the corridor.
    • There would be minimal intersections, with only major arteries crossing the corridor to minimize conflicts.
    • The BRT would continue into Davis on regular roads, with some upgrades for the BRT infrastructure.
    • The Route:
      • The BRT would start at shopping center south of Hwy. 80 along Mace (Nugget) for a SE anchor.
      • The route would cut east on the north side of the tracks to access the corridor.
      • The dedicated corridor would continue in an arc north and west parallel to the curve of Mace and Covell.
      • At Wildhorse, the BRT could divert south to Covell, or use the 'cut-through lot' to access Moore and run to Moore & Pole Line.
      • From there the BRT could continue through Village Homes or south on Pole Line.
      • The BRT would serve Oakshade Shopping Center
      • The BRT would then continue Covell–>F Street–>Amtrak–>First Street–>South Campus (Library Silo)–>West Village
    • Each development could proceed on its own once the basic route is confirmed through the to-be-developed areas, as long as all developers agreed to link to the future through corridor once each segment is built.
    • The new route should minimize turns and instead follow a smooth arc.
    • IMPORTANT:  Building density for each development should be at its maximum nearest bus stops and along the corridor, and step to medium and to lowest densities (per project) as one gets further from the corridor.

    I believe the transportation corridor placement needs to be negotiated and agreed to with each landowner/developer far in advance of the General Plan Update.  This will allow the corridor to be whole and usable once all developments are in place.

    Alan C. Miller

  • Sierra Club Yolano Group Comments on Village Farms DEIR

    The following comments were emailed by the Sierra Club Yolano Group to Dara Dungworth, Principal Planner City of Davis Department of Community Development, on Feb 25. 2025, concerning the Village Farms DEIR. (See https://newdavisite.wordpress.com/2025/02/02/draft-eir-for-village-farms-released-for-public-comment/).

    1. Alternatives

      a) Recommend Consideration of Co-op Housing – Evidence suggests that a housing co-op model can provide stable, affordable workforce housing for individuals and families (see California Cooperatives: Today's Landscape of Worker, Housing and Childcare Cooperatives). Providing affordable local housing for people currently commuting to Davis from outside Davis will lessen the VMT and GHG emissions impact of this project and should be considered as an effective mitigation measure.

      We recommend that the FEIR analyze as a Project Alternative a co-op model (perhaps similar to Dos Pinos or Muir Woods) as a supplement to the proposed starter-home program to explore the environmental benefits that such a model could produce.

      b) Recommend Consideration of Alternative Only Below Channel A – On December 8, 2023, the County of Yolo Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments sent a letter to the City of Davis commenting on the Village Farms NOP which stated, "The Draft EIR should consider a reduced footprint alternative that defines the northern project boundary south of the existing Davis Drain and explores the opportunity for increased density, thereby maximizing housing options without compromising economic returns". Quoting from Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14: "Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. "

      We similarly recommend that a reduced footprint alternative be examined with its northern project boundary south of the existing Davis Drain to determine if building 1,000 or more units on such a reduced footprint can provide increased density and maximize housing options while preserving more trees and habitat and still meeting project objectives.

    (more…)

  • The Gravel Mining Companies Operating Adjacent to Cache Creek are Continually Violating Numerous Provisions of the Yolo County Surface Mine Reclamation Ordinance

    The following was emailed to Stephanie.Cormier@yolocounty.gov and clerkoftheboard@yolocounty.gov on Feb 7, 2025 with a request that the memo be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors

    From:  Alan Pryor, Chair – Sierra Club Yolano Group
    To:       Yolo County Planning Commissioners
    Date:   February 7, 2025
    Re:       The Gravel Mining Companies Operating Adjacent to Cache Creek are Continually Violating Numerous Provisions of the Yolo County Surface Mine Reclamation Ordinance

    On behalf on the Sierra Club Yolano Group, attached please find a report in which numerous violations of Yolo County’s Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance are disclosed and documented.   Download Yolo County Gravel Mining C

    Further, these violations were not disclosed last year to the Planning Commission when it was charged with certifying the 2023 Annual Compliance Report regarding off-channel gravel mining as required by County Code.

    Instead, as explained in the attached report, false representations that all of the mining companies were in compliance with the provisions of all applicable mining ordinances in the State and Yolo County were made to the Planning Commission in Findings of Fact statements.

    The ongoing failure by the County to enforce the provisions of the applicable mining ordinances in Yolo County has resulted in continued production and bioaccumulation of methyl mercury to excessive levels in fish in most of the impoundment pits on the mining sites and required Lake Management Plans to remediate the problems have not been implemented. These compliance shortcomings have also resulted in the ongoing failure by the mining companies to fully restore formerly mined farmland back to its pre-existing soil quality and crop productivity. 

    This is fully explained in the attached report entitled, “Yolo County Gravel Mining Companies are Continually Violating Numerous Provisions of the Surface Mining Reclamation Ordinance_2-7-25”.

    We request that the Planning Commission refrain from wrongfully certifying that mining companies are in compliance with Yolo County mining ordinances in the future. We additionally request that the Planning Commission not permit or entitle any future new mines or extensions or expansions of existing mines in Yolo County until such mining companies are in full compliance with all existing ordinances.

    Toward that end,  we ask that the following questions be addressed with detailed written answers.

    (more…)

  • Letter: Workforce Housing is Needed in Davis

    Davis is a city that prides itself on being a welcoming, forward-thinking community. Yet, as many as 25,000 people who work in Davis—including teachers, firefighters, police officers, UC Davis staff, and service workers—are unable to live here due to the high cost of housing. Instead, they are forced to commute from surrounding areas, contributing to traffic congestion and increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

    The average price of an older detached home in Davis is a staggering $850,000,  and new 2-bedroom houses start in the mid- $700,000’s (see Bretton Woods). Duplexes and townhouses, on the other hand, sell in the mid- $500,000’s (3-bedrooms, 2-baths—see Zillow).  These “missing middle” housing options are critical for keeping our workforce in the community, yet there is a glaring shortage of such products in recent development proposals. Will Davis step up to build them?

    The rental market is no better. Many new apartments are leased by the bed, catering primarily to students. This leaves non-student workers and families with limited rental options. Larger, family-friendly rental units with play areas are desperately needed to accommodate those who contribute daily to the vitality of our city.

    Interfaith Housing Justice Davis is committed to just and equitable housing for our community, including ensuring that our workforce is not priced out of living here. Providing the people who serve our city with the opportunity to live here strengthens our community and our schools, while reducing environmental impacts from commuter traffic.

    Alex Achimore and Barbara Clutter, Interfaith Housing Justice Davis

  • Draft EIR for Village Farms released for public comment

    Screen Shot 2025-02-02 at 3.24.20 PM
    The project site is bounded by Pole Line Road to the east; East Covell Boulevard to the south; the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) mainline, F Street, and Cannery development to the west; and Davis Paintball, Blue Max Kart Club, and agricultural land to the north.


    By Roberta Millstein

    On January 7, the City of Davis released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Village Farms Davis Project for public review.  The approximately 497.6-acre project site is located north of East Covell Boulevard, east of F Street, and west of Pole Line Road in a currently unincorporated portion of Yolo County, California.  The City has invited public comment on this document for a 45-day period extending from January 7, 2025 through February 25, 2025. (Sorry for the late notice, but there is still time to submit comments).  EIRs are part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process.

    The DEIR materials can be found within the ‘CEQA Documents and Information’ tab at: https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development/development-projects/village-farms-davis

    It's a very long document, but citizens can start with:

    And then, you can peruse particular areas of interest or concern:

    (more…)

  • Update on Suisun City’s Council Meeting on Expanding City Boundaries and Exploring Land Annexation

    SolanoMap

    By Nate Huntington
    Solano Together Coalition Member

    Thank you to those who showed up last week at the Suisun City Council meeting to voice your concerns about the discussion on expanding city boundaries and exploring land annexation.  

    In Short: Last Tuesday, January 21, the Suisun City Council voted 4-1 to “provide direction to staff to explore strategic opportunities for expanding Suisun City’s boundaries and advancing the goals outlined in the Resiliency Plan.”

    Right before the meeting, Solano Together sent out an action alert urging supporters to attend and voice their concern for the lack of government transparency and the intention to expand boundaries into parcels in the Sphere of Influence—defined as a boundary that shows the probable future service area and physical boundaries of a local agency. We also had representatives in attendance for public comment.

    (more…)

  • URGENT: Attend Suisun City Council Meeting Discussion on Expanding City Limits

     

    Map

    Suisun City, Suisun City’s sphere of influence and Flannery Associates land parcels. Map by Solano Together using QGIS. Datasources: OSM Standard, MTC/ABAG Data Library, Solano County parcel data

     

     

    Nate Huntington 
    Solano Together Coalition

    This Tuesday, January 21, at 6:30 p.m., we urge you to attend the City of Suisun Council Meeting, where there will be a discussion on potentially expanding Suisun City limits.

    What? Suisun City Council Meeting
    When? TODAY – Tuesday, January 21, at 6:30 p.m.
    Where? Suisun City Council Chambers, 701 Civic Center Boulevard, Suisun City, CA – or
    Zoom Meeting Information:
    Link: https://zoom.us/join
    MEETING ID: 829 2890 4906
    CALL IN PHONE NUMBER: (707) 438-1720

    WHY IT'S IMPORTANT

    Late Friday evening, the City of Suisun City released the agenda for today’s City Council meeting. Agenda item number 17 is inconspicuously titled, “Vision for Suisun City: Building Resilience and Expanding Opportunities.” This appears to be a plan by the City of Suisun to annex land owned by California Forever and work with them to develop outside of existing city limits. California Forever is continuing their secretive, behind closed doors approach even after committing to a public process.

    In the agenda packet, starting on page 179, the item discusses the city’s economic “Resiliency Plan” and suggests “the Resiliency Plan’s ultimate success depends on increasing the city’s population and strategically expanding its boundaries.”

    (more…)

  • Al’s Corner October – Vote NO on Measure Q – Or “Spend On!”

    OutputOpen to all topics of course, but this month we'll focus on cutting off the City Council's allowance money!

     

     

     

    To highlight this month's primary topic, here is my testimony sing-a-long from last night's City Council meeting (2 minutes):

    Here are the lyrics:

    Spend On (sung to the tune of "Dream On" by Aerosmith)

    Every time that I look at the budget
    All these lines on the books, they try to fudge it
    The money's gone
    It went by like a unwatered lawn
    Isn't that the way?
    The City always spends more than it can pay, yeah

    I know, nobody knows
    Where the money comes and where the money goes
    I know it's the City Council’s sin
    You've got overspend in order to win

    [ kazoo bridge ]

    Half the spending is on bottomless budget pages
    Ladder trucks, zip lines and climate changes
    You know it's true, oh . . .
    All this spending, come back to you

    Spend with me, Spend through the years
    Spend on the soccer field, and on housing crisis fears
    Spend with me, not just for today
    Maybe tomorrow, the good Lord will take the City Debt, away

    But until then . . .

    Vote No, Vote No, Vote No
    Vote No on Measure Q!

    Vote No, Vote No, or Spend On!  Spend On!
    Vote No!, Vote No!, Vote No! – Waaaaaaaaa-oooooooo!

    [ kazoo piano fade ]

  • Reminder: Palomino Place meeting, Wed Sep 11, 7 PM

    As mentioned in this earlier post:

    On September 11, 2024, starting at 7:00 PM, the City of Davis Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public meeting to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the Draft SEIR for the Palomino Place Project. This meeting will be held at the City of Davis Community Chambers, located at 23 Russell Boulevard, Davis, CA 95616.

    There will be no transcription of oral comments at these meetings. Comments received will be summarized by staff for inclusion in the Final EIR. Those who wish to have their verbatim comments incorporated in the Final EIR must submit their comments in writing.

  • Palomino Place Project receiving comments on environmental impact report until Sep 23

    By Roberta Millstein

    Screen Shot 2024-09-02 at 1.29.22 PMA Davisite reader sent me the following information.  Until that point, I hadn't realized that comments were being sought on the environmental impact report for the proposed Palomino Place Project, so I thought I would share the information with other Davisites, too.  I haven't seen anything in the Davis Enterprise or Vanguard about it (though it is possible I just missed it).

    Apparently, the draft Subsequent EIR ("subsequent" to the EIR from 2009) for the Palomino Place Project has been available since early August. Comments on the draft are due September 23. Comments would typically point out errors, inconsistencies, omissions of data or analyses, conclusions not based on evidence, or failures to provide discussion required by CEQA.

    As the post below indicates, there is also a public meeting about the project on Sep. 11.

    City link to Palomino Place documents:

    https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/palomino-place

    Draft Subsequent EIR released August 2024:

    https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Palomino-Place-2023/Supplemental%20EIR/Draft-Palomino-Place-SEIR-August%202024.pdf

    Notice of Availability (NOA) of Palomino Place Subsequent EIR:

    https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Palomino-Place-2023/Supplemental%20EIR/NOA-20240807-Palomino-Place-SEIR.pdf

    (more…)