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

  • Recommendation to the Social Services Commission for Changes in Davis’ Affordable Housing Ordinance

    The following was emailed as an attachment to the Social Services Commission yesterday for their meeting this evening (7 PM, Monday May 15) where they will be taking up proposed changes to Davis's Affordable Housing Ordinance.

    by Roberta Millstein and Alan Pryor

    5/14/2023

    Introduction

    The Davis Affordable Housing Ordinance (available at https://library.qcode.us/lib/davis_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/chapter_18-article_18_05?view=all) is now implemented on a temporary basis to account for changes in state law requiring economic justification if minimum affordable housing requirements for new projects exceed 15% of total housing units.  The current temporary ordinance is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2023, with proposed changes under consideration by the Social Services Commission at its May 13, 2023 meeting.

    However, even with these proposed changes, the existing Affordable Housing Ordinance has provisions which we believe do not provide social justice, equity, and fairness in terms of meeting the needs of the City’s low-income population because it is biased toward the financial benefit of developers rather than maximizing the availability of affordable income housing in Davis.

    We recommend the following changes to the temporary ordinance if it is renewed by the sunset date of June 30, 2023 and to a revised permanent ordinance.

    1. Eliminate ADUs as an acceptable alternative to provide on-site Affordable Housing – We recommend that Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) be completely eliminated as a way for developers to avoid constructing real Affordable Housing.
    2. Substantially increase in-lieu fees if chosen by a developer as an acceptable alternative to provide on-site Affordable Housing – We recommend that in-lieu fees be substantially increased so that it is no longer a financially preferable option for developers to pursue. 

    We elaborate on each of these recommendations further below.

    (more…)

  • The Proposed Village Farms Davis Development Project is NOT Threatened by Groundwater Contamination from the Former Davis Landfill Site

    By Alan Pryor

    Executive Summary and Conclusions

    This article reports on potential groundwater contamination beneath the former Davis Landfill site north of the City of Davis on Poleline Rd. and the adjacent site proposed for the Village Farms Davis development project immediately south and southeast of the old landfill site.

    During the contentious Measure X election in November, 2005 in which the proposed Covell Village project (on the same site as the current proposed development, Village Farms Davis) was rejected by voters, allegations were made that the site’s groundwater was contaminated by leaching of pollutants from the former Davis landfill site just north of the project. In particular, it was alleged that a carcinogen, vinyl chloride, was in the groundwater beneath the project site rendering the project unsuitable for development in as much as a deep well was proposed for the site to add to the City of Davis potable water supply.

    In a recent City Council meeting (April 4, 2023) in which the possible timing of bringing peripheral projects before the voters were discussed, one public comment again stated that vinyl chloride was in the groundwater beneath the old Davis landfill and the proposed site for the Village Farms Davis project.

    “The parcel itself has so many problems. It has toxics in the north end from the land fill site. The old land fill site was not lined so there is vinyl chloride leakage from the old land fill and it’s substantial. Vinyl chloride does not go away.”

    These claims of vinyl chloride and other toxic compounds in the groundwater were based on data from the early 1990s though 2005 which showed some intermittent groundwater contamination (including some tests showing the presence of vinyl chloride) in shallow groundwater test wells beneath the old landfill and immediately to the south beneath the then proposed Covell Village project. These earlier monitoring well test results were reported in the EIR issued in the Covell Village EIR issued in 2005 and are further discussed below in the section entitled Summary of Well Monitoring Findings.

    These reported findings were considered important at the time because, as stated above, the Covell Village project proposal included a new deep well on the project site to provide drinking water capacity for the proposed project and connecting into the City’s potable water supply network. Concerns were expressed that the shallow water contamination could worsen and impact the deep aquifer from which potable water would be drawn. Potentially compounding the problem was the discovery that the groundwater plume was migrating from the landfill toward the south and southwest in the direction of the proposed Covell Village project.

    Annual testing of the monitoring wells subsequently occurred in the period since the Covell Village EIR from 2012 – 2019. These later tests showed a substantial reduction in groundwater contamination in the intervening years and the report from consulting engineers engaged by the City to evaluate the groundwater contamination showed the following results;

    1. NO Vinyl Chloride was found at all in any sampled groundwater from 2012 – 2019 nor were there ANY other VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) or metals found in any of the test well samples above the EPA's Primary Maximum Concentration Levels (MCLs) for drinking water.
    1. There were some measurements of nitrate (probably from past agricultural fertilization on the site) in the monitored wells that were in excess of Primary MCLs and some other naturally occurring minerals (selenium, manganese, and sulfate) that were intermittently in excess of Secondary MCLs but not hugely in excess of other well waters in the area.

      However, these are NOT a human health concern because the groundwater beneath the Village Farms Davis project site will NOT be pumped and used for drinking water purposes. Instead, the project will rely on City of Davis municipal drinking water supplies as delivered to the rest of the City.

    1. The plume of groundwater beneath the former landfill site and the proposed development project site was most recently determined to be moving toward the northeast away from the Village Farms Davis project site as a result in changes in groundwater extraction rates in the area. Thus, even if there was very unlikely leaching from the landfill site future in the future it would NOT migrate in the direction of the proposed development project.
    1. Based on the sampling results from 2012 – 2019 indicating no detectable amounts of vinyl chloride and no amounts of volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs) or heavy metals in excess of established EPA MCLs, it was recommended that the City discontinue annual testing and request a No Further Action letter from the Regional Water Board thus confirming the area is no longer considered a threat to groundwater contamination.

    These later test monitoring results from 2012 – 2019 are also further discussed below in the section entitled Summary of Well Monitoring Findings.

    (more…)

  • Potential irregularities underlying decisions made about the U-Mall site

    There were significant errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations about zoning, the EIR, and contractual obligations.

    By Rik Keller

    Screen Shot 2023-04-18 at 8.10.10 AM

    Screen Shot from the City of Davis website

    Note: The following has been set to members of the Planning Commission and members of the City Council

    I’ve been following the U-Mall/University Commons/The Davis Collection discussions with interest. I have decades of land use planning experience as a consultant for cities and counties since receiving my Master of Science in Community and Regional Planning degree in the mid-1990s, including general plan policy review and development, zoning ordinances, housing elements, and project consistency review. Based on my knowledge and experience in the field, I have some very strong questions about the process that the City has conducted.

    Looking at the 3/8/2023 staff report for the Planning Commission in detail:

    1. There are significant errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations about the Mixed Use (MU) land use designation and associated Planned Development (PD) zoning district adopted for the site by the City Council on August 25, 2020. I believe these errors may be significant enough to re-open the discussion about a required residential component for the site and possibly require additional City Council votes;
    2. There are also significant errors, omissions, and mischaracterizations about the required environmental analysis under CEQA for the revised project. Specifically, because the project no longer has a residential component, the streamlining procedures that allowed for some CEQA analysis exemptions no longer apply, and additional EIR analysis appears to be required;
    3. Finally, many of the contractual obligations under Development Agreement (DA) no longer apply, but an amended DA was not completed by the project proponent and City Council.

    In summary, there appear to be numerous shortcuts taken to approve the modified project that aren’t legally adequate.

    As a note: In his 3/20/23 appeal to the 3/8/2023 PC decision, Councilmember Bapu Vaitla did question the consistency of The Davis Collection proposal with broader General Plan vision statements but did not directly address the specific language and requirements for the Mixed Use designation and the PD zoning district for the site.

    (more…)

  • Don’t lose the opportunity for housing at University Mall site

    By David J Thompson

    Without a doubt, the University Mall site will be the greatest lost opportunity for housing in Davis in this ten year RHNA cycle. At 14+ acres, no other site presents the capacity for affordable housing as does University Mall. In terms of a real (not imagined) site that the developer wishes to re-develop, the closest proximity to the UCD campus of any site, the opportunity to reduce student traffic, an option to swap parking spaces for housing, with thoughtful site planning an ability to accommodate additional stories of housing, a valuable site for affordable housing, the possibilities are endless and the benefits accrue to many of us that envision the future projects that Davis must foster. 

    There will be no bigger loss to Davis’s needed future if a retail only plan is the regretful permanent outcome. There is no other site within Davis that provides such immediate and real value for the changes we need in land use.

    However, it seems like Brixmor is intent on replacing a mall with a mall. In this era which requires a radical rethinking of city planning can we really be so bankrupt of options that a redone mall is the only outcome? We need big changes where we have big opportunities. So the City must turn down the Brixmor plan.

    What could change the outcome?

    1. The City should pause the application process and enter into negotiations with Brixmor as to the best way for the City and the neighborhood to achieve a mixed use project. Every reasonable effort and inducement by the City should be looked at to encourage Brixmor to withdraw this present application and return with a mixed use application.
    2. Could the City use eminent domain to obtain the site for a housing only proposal that would eliminate the parking structures needed for the commercial site and replace it with housing? Repurposed as just housing at 40 units per acre the site can accommodate 560 apartments of which at 20% around 112 units would be affordable. The most ever affordable units in the history of Davis.

    What an achievement that could be for the Davis future many of us want to build.

    To the Planning Commission and City Council I ask you to pursue anything except a re-done mall.

  • Those ‘pesky’ City Commissions

    Scooby-gang-1969By Roberta Millstein

    As a Gen-Xer, I grew up watching a lot of fairly silly cartoons, Scooby-Doo among them.  The plot of Scooby-Doo was pretty much always the same.  The main characters would ask a lot of hard questions, and always end up unmasking the “bad guy,” who would utter a phrase along the lines of “if it weren’t for those pesky kids!”

    Reading Item 5 of tonight’s City Council agenda makes me feel like I am in an episode of Scooby-Doo.  Commission meetings are too long, the staff report suggests.  They duplicate efforts, staff implies.

    Yet it was the commissions who asked hard questions about DISC.  They asked, for example, about the carbon emissions from the project and better ways to mitigate them.  They asked about the percentage of affordable housing.  They asked about the number of trees and protection for burrowing owls.  They asked about the effect of the project on our downtown.

    These were hard questions that were not asked by staff and not asked by the City Council.   They all ended up being issues in the campaign that resulted in voters rejecting the DISC project.

    Now, it seems, staff would like to reduce the power of those “pesky” commissions with all of their questions.

    Are the commission meetings really too long?  One easy way to make them shorter would be to put a time limit on presentations by developers and others; we can expect that commissioners have read the provided written materials.

    Are the commissions really duplicating effort?  As evidence, staff provides a table where different commissions weigh in on the same topic.  What staff fails to mention is that they are looking at different aspects of the same topic.  For example, when Open Space & Habitat looks at a park, it considers habitat values. Rec & Park considers recreational values. Tree Commission looks at the number and species of trees.  Yes, these can overlap, but they are distinctive issues that require distinctive expertise. There is no duplication.

    Commissions are treated as pesky by those who have to answer their hard questions, but commissions keep the democratic process in Davis strong.  If we want to revisit the commissions, let’s at least involve them – something that was not done for this meeting.  Our past and present commissioners can provide needed insight into this process.

  • Davis Enterprise should promote better discourse

    The following was sent to the Davis Enterprise to be published as a letter to the editor, but as of the time of this posting they have declined to publish it.

    Edit: The letter finally appeared in the 12 February 2023 print edition, but I don't believe that it ever appeared online.

    By Roberta Millstein

    The recent article, "Planning Commission OKs R&D facility for Second Street" elicited a number of comments on the Davis Enterprise's Facebook page where the article was posted. Of these comments, the one that was picked as the "Editors' choice for the web comment of the week" stated "In a town that's absolutely jam-packed with know-it-alls somebody will come up with an objection."

    Why did the Editors pick this comment out of all the others?

    Surely the 2nd Street project is exactly the sort of infill project that most Davisites preferred when they voted overwhelmingly to defeat the sprawling peripheral DISC project. I for one have no objection to it.

    Will someone object? No doubt. Name me one issue that all Davisites agree on. I am guessing that there is no such issue.

    But that isn't really the point of the "Editors choice" comment, is it? The point is to denigrate Davisites who dare to raise objections to developer's projects. Or maybe it's just to denigrate Davisites more generally.

    So, I ask again, why would the Editors choose to reprint this comment in the newspaper? Is this the sort of discourse that the Davis Enterprise wants to promote? And if so, why?

    We can do better and so can the Davis Enterprise.

  • Tree Davis Welcomes New Executive Director

    Torin DunnavantBy Torin Dunnavant and Greg McPherson

    In this interview Torin Dunnavant, Tree Davis’ new Executive Director is interviewed by Tree Davis Board President Greg McPherson.

    Greg: Torin, it’s great to have you at the helm of Tree Davis. You spent the last five years as Director of Education and Engagement with the Sacramento Tree Foundation. Prior to that you were Director of Engagement and Partnerships with TreePeople in Los Angeles. How will you be applying your experience with Tree Davis?

    Torin: Thank you Greg, I am so excited to be a part of the Tree Davis team. It’s a fantastic organization and I am humbled to step into this role. I have been a part of the urban forestry world for fourteen years now – and a big part of my focus has been canopy equity. One of the greatest predictors of the health of a community is its urban forest – healthy trees means healthy people. Some neighborhoods have greater obstacles than others to plant trees, but that doesn’t mean that we should wait for the obstacles to remove themselves, it means the opposite – that we need to work harder to plant trees in places where there are less, so that more folks can be supported by the many benefits that trees bring. I look forward to connecting with the groups that partner with Tree Davis and learning from community leaders throughout the area to understand how Tree Davis can support them.

    Davis is in the process of developing a new Urban Forest Management Plan and is hosting feedback sessions (the first virtual public meeting was on Nov. 10). Why and how should Davis residents get involved?

    (more…)

  • Kelsey Fortune: The Climate Expert We Need to On City Council

    31CACCAD-90BF-4FE7-80B9-88FBy Juliette Beck

    With the existential threat of climate breakdown looming, this is quite possibly the most important election in human history.  We need to elect leaders at all levels that will help navigate our sinking ship to safer shores. The City of Davis has the potential to lead a just transition to ecologically sustainable, socially just and climate-resilient communities, but we need to elect the right leaders and make some significant changes in how this city operates.

    I've watched with great interest as the city council election has unfolded with two progressive candidates in West Davis running on a climate platform – Kelsey Fortune and Bapu Vaitla. There are differences between these two candidates and I'm supporting Kelsey Fortune because I believe she has the right combination of skills, knowledge, experience and the dogged determination to help our city chart a course to safety through these troubled times. 

    Kelsey Fortune came to Davis nine years ago to pursue a PhD in Economics with a focus on transportation, energy and climate policies that drive equitable outcomes to ensure that all community members are included in a just transition to a green economy.  Over the past decade, as an active community member and a city council candidate, Fortune has stepped up to offer her pragmatic, evidence-based solutions to guide our community. During her first campaign for city council two years ago, I was impressed with Fortune’s knowledge of our city – who owns property and who doesn’t, our transportation system, zoning laws, the needs and rights of renters, etc. Fortune has consistently advocated for infill development and affordable housing for working families and low-income individuals. Her expertise in designing climate-friendly communities are at the heart of a just transition.

    (more…)

  • Developer asks for reconsideration of conditions for Bretton Woods

    Bretton-Woods-Tentative-Site-PlanThe following background information for the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, October 12th was shared with the Davisite yesterday: 

    The following is my position on the Paths:

    “Why am I requesting reconsideration of path Map Conditions?
    Staff’s insistence on wide concrete paths destroys the character of Bretton Woods. It will have both physical and mental negative ramifications on its residents.

    This is not the pedestrian path design that I campaigned on and that went to the voters for approval. It’s not the path concept envisioned by the Development Agreement nor the one that the Planning Commission and City Council approved to be submitted to voters nor is it the plan the voters thought they would be getting when they voted yes on the project.”

    Cordially,
    Dave Taormino

    ~~

    October 3, 2022

    Dear members of the Planning Commission:

    At your Commission hearing next week, October 12, you will be presented with a request for reconsideration of a handful of conditions that were imposed on the Bretton Woods tentative maps after the Development Agreement was executed. In some cases, we are requesting reconsideration because the staff interpretation of the conditions at the design level exceeded the condition, and in others, because the condition imposed is the opposite of what was presented to the public from 2016-2020, as well as the Development Agreement and Preliminary Planned Development. After two years of thoughtful consideration talking to future residents, working on engineering, and computing the cost of implementation we have reached the conclusion that these particular conditions, as imposed, are either infeasible or do not align with the vision for Bretton Woods or are contrary to specific Development Agreement negotiated terms.

    (more…)

  • Carson Used City Resources for Measure H Campaign

    Carson picPublicly-Funded City of Davis Email Account

    Councilmember Carson Sent Numerous Messages on Measure H and Private Lawsuit Over Three Months

    By David L. Johnson and Colin Walsh

    In a series of 15 emails improperly sent over several months from his publicly-funded City of Davis email account, Councilmember Dan Carson:

    • Campaigned for the Yes on H 2022 ballot measure to approve the Davis Innovation Sustainability Campus (DiSC) development project,
    • Sent an invitation to multiple persons for a Yes on H campaign kick-off event to be held at his home,
    • Sent emails defending his private lawsuit against Davis residents who wrote ballot arguments against Measure H, even though his lawsuit had nothing to do with city business,
    • Provided information to DiSC developer Dan Ramos and Ramos’s campaign associates and attorneys about No on H advocates sending campaign information to city commissions,
    • Invited Congressman Mike Thompson for a Yes on H briefing about “this important project,”
    • Denigrated a No on H campaign leader about living with his mother.

    Carson’s emails were obtained based on a Public Records Act request to the City of Davis.  Carson sent these emails from his City of Davis account between March and May 2022 either advocating for Measure H or defending his private lawsuit.

    It is a violation of Government Code Section 8314 for any elected local officer to use public resources for a campaign activity or personal purposes, except for incidental and minimal use of those public resources.

    (more…)