Growth – The Elephant in the Room
October 01, 2018
No one in Davis talks about growth. We talk around growth, sure – the need for specific projects, or the need to preserve farmland. But we never talk about growth.
Consider our most recent City Council election. Did one of the candidates present themselves as pro-growth or slow-growth? Not that I can recall. “Smart-growth,” maybe – an infinitely flexible euphemism if I ever heard one.
I suspect that no one wants to talk about growth because not a moment passes before the conversation-distracting “pro-developer” and “NIMBY” labels (and similar labels) are slung. But we desperately need to talk about growth. We’re growing now and we are facing questions about future growth in the immediate future (Measure L and the West Davis Active Adult Community) and beyond.
It’s a bit hard to keep track of all the new proposals and developments, but thankfully, they were all summarized in a recent Davis Enterprise article by Jeff Hudson. I’m just going to trust his numbers, which I have entered into the following table:
|
Recent or pending houses/condos |
# dwellings |
|
Cannery |
457 |
|
Willow Creek Townhomes project |
35 |
|
Grande Village |
41 |
|
Villas at El Macero |
16 |
|
Mission Villas |
16 |
|
Chiles Ranch |
96 |
|
Total houses/condos |
661 |
|
Recent or pending apartments |
# units |
|
Trackside Center |
27 |
|
Sterling Fifth Street |
198 |
|
Lincoln 40 |
130 |
|
Davis Live Oxford Circle |
71 |
|
Nishi |
700 |
|
Total apartments |
1126 |
Of course, 661 dwellings and 1,126 apartments don’t tell us how many beds there will be, i.e., how many people will be housed in these dwellings and apartments. That’s a bit harder to calculate, but I’d be happy if someone wanted to take a stab at it.
Hudson’s article also tells us that UC Davis has committed to adding 3,265 students on campus, and that if Measure L is approved in November, 325 for-sale units and 150 affordable senior apartments would be built.
In other words, we already may be significantly adding to the numbers in the table if UC Davis follows through on its commitments and if Measure L passes.
So, let’s talk about growth. Where, when, why?
I do not have time to comment extensively right now on Roberta's piece. But I do want to say that I agree 110% with what she says. I am just sick and tired of all the pro-growthers accusing anyone who does not oppose their rampant pro-growth propaganda as being some old white, rich NIMBYs as someone who could not afford to buy his first house until I was 53 despite being a full professor at a CSU, and only then could I buy when I inherited a modest amount of money after my father died.
Roberta is right that no candidate for council had the courage to squarely take on the pro-growthers. I have been saying and writing for two years that the Council, its commissions, and of course the pro-growthers, never stop to consider what the CUMULATIVE IMPACTS of all these developments will be in tandem with the unmandated growth of UCD over the next 5-10 years. What will be the environmental impact on a relatively small city of this growth in all respects (to say nothing of the fiscal impacts and burdens)? The fast expansion of UCD, notwithstanding their LRDP, and their recent MOU with the city, is no cause for comfort. (I mean, to take one example, if UCD does not meet its already inadequate building timetable, they will face a massive fine of $500 per unit. That's really going to force them to meet their timetable isn't it?)
The CEQA lawsuit against the UCD LRDP, not to mention other lawsuits, is 100% justified especially on the grounds ALONE that, as required by CEQA, any project must take into account the CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. Just Google a little and find out for yourselves if you do not believe me.
Posted by: Dan Cornford | October 01, 2018 at 05:37 PM
Of course, labels get thrown around and that stops the conversation. The question that the Nimbys have raised in their opposition to some of the recent projects, including the student housing,...is what kind of growth, for whom, at what cost, where and what are the impacts in traffic and costs to the city and taxpayers, etc. While these topics are addressed by the so-called Nimbly in the recent campaigns against Nishi 1 and 2 and some of the infill and student housing, as made clear in this article...we only focus on the single projects though the issues raised for each project are broad and relate to development and growth overall. We simply don't have a comprehensive discussion. Now is the time for this long overdue discussio, such as is taking place over the downtown.
Posted by: Nancy Price | October 01, 2018 at 09:13 PM
One of the biggest problems with all of these developments is that perhaps at least 90% of the residents who live in these places will drive everywhere by themselves... exceptions in descending order include those with UC Davis destinations, junior high school kids, elementary school kids, people who can't afford cars, people who carpool or take Capitol Corridor etc.
It's hard to provide alternatives to cars when most people pretend that you're threatening to take away their car, when the City has parking minimums (though it's fortunately open to specific-case reductions), when parking is free in most of Downtown and everywhere off campus, when bikes that make shopping easy are hard to get here, when parents pretend that their children will melt in the rain, etc.
This is a huge sub-elephant in that room.
Smart growth has become a meaningless term. Measure R has not raised housing prices - we did this ourselves by not building enough housing at equitable prices, and much more densely - and only a small portion of the housing which is less car traffic inducing is affordable.
We can't have our cake and eat it, too. The planet cannot handle single story houses connected with cars to most places.
Posted by: Todd Edelman | October 02, 2018 at 08:49 AM
Quick response here, Todd... I think you're making a lot of assumptions here, among them is that UCD destinations don't tend to drive (there are a lot of cars on campus, including students) -- and a big part of that is the campus's failure to build housing on campus. That's not something that "we" did to ourselves.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 02, 2018 at 09:13 AM
I do agree, though, that the City could do more to facilitate and encourage biking.
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 02, 2018 at 09:19 AM
About UC Davis, all I meant is that it - and junior high schools - have the highest proportion of cycling and public transport use. I agree about more housing on campus in the sense that the campus and city should be radically integrated together - I've said that the City should annex the campus but perhaps the other way around is better as a conceptual exercise.
The City does a bit to encourage cycling but not nearly enough to discourage driving.
But "we" I meant everyone, to distinguish itself from Measure R, a thing.
Posted by: Todd Edelman | October 02, 2018 at 09:43 AM
The amount and pace of growth is a topic that indeed warrants more examination and discussion, particularly the resulting cumulative impacts. It must be kept in mind, however, that state law requires cities to provide a proportional share of regional housing needs. As noted in the 2013-21 General Plan Housing Element, the CA Dept of Finance and SACOG expected that allocation for Davis would be 1,066 housing units, comprised of 124 Extremely Low, 124 Very Low, 174 Low, 148 moderate income, and 446 above moderate income units. So, even if zero growth were the City's goal, it would nonetheless be the State's expectation that Davis absorb its "fair share" of regional growth.
That being said, there are many benefits to the controlled growth strategy adhered to in Davis. Some have heard me compare Davis with a city having an almost identical population of 68,000, that being Flagstaff, AZ. While Davis is contained within slightly less than 10 square miles, the same population is spread out over 64 square miles in Flagstaff. While it is relatively easy to bike or walk to most destinations in our town, I know as a frequent visitor that it's virtually impossible to do so in "Flag." While not everyone bikes, at least the opportunity to do is exists, as does the ability to vote on whether growth will be accommodated by annexation, infill or higher density.
Posted by: Greg Rowe | October 02, 2018 at 04:38 PM
Thanks, Greg, that’s helpful. And I know you’ve spoken before on the Planning Commission about the need for us to examine and talk about cumulative impacts. I meant to dig up your quote from the Enterprise, but it slipped my mind.
As for SACOG, does that mean that we have already exceeded the SACOG expectations?
Posted by: Roberta L. Millstein | October 02, 2018 at 04:55 PM