Council Majority Votes to Maintain One-Percent Growth For Davis

by Simon Efrein

At the recent Davis City Council Meeting, a side debate emerged during discussion of an update of the Davis General Plan Housing Element steering committee. It concerned whether or not Davis should pursue further housing development in the near future. Mayor Sue Greenwald put forth a motion to have staff look at amending the growth resolution passed in 2005 by the City Council. Her goal was to lower the amount of growth specified in the General Plan to the Fair Share guidelines outlined by RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) until 2013. Councilmember Lamar Heystek seconded the motion as both council members encouraged holding off development until it was firmly ascertained whether or not it would be prudent to engage in large development in such areas as Covell Village, the project that was voted down in the last election by a 60-40 vote.

The other three council members, consisting of Don Saylor, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson and Stephen Souza, all argued against changing the projected city growth rate of 1 percent, arguing that the 1 percent number represented a ceiling for development rather than a minimum rate. After both Councilmember Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson voted no, Councilmember Souza decided to abstain from the vote after it was clear that his no-vote would not be required. During the debate about the motion, Councilmember Souza clearly opposed any change to growth policies established two years ago by the current council majority.

Mr. Souza directly declared that it does not matter what the growth parameter is for Davis, because the City Council can determine, of their own accord, exactly how much they want to grow each year, and that the 1% growth parameter was simply a recommendation.

Mayor GREENWALD:

I read our council growth resolution very, very closely, and it doesn’t say it’s a cap, the one percent minus affordable, which is, IS, about 325 houses a year if you average it out over any reasonable period. And that is not stated as a cap, it is stated as our policy. It’s very carefully worded, to not say it’s a floor, not say it’s a cap, but definitely to say it’s a policy. And that’s how it was presented to the growth steering committee, to plan for this much growth, because that’s the council’s growth policy. And that’s the policy that, given the current housing slowdown, and the desires of the community in every poll we’ve ever seen, and every vote we’ve ever taken, to grow more slowly, that we should … lower our growth policy.

Councilmember SOUZA:

Well in essence we’re a community that grows by initiative now, anything that we’re gonna have before us except for infill and one last piece of property that is of a substantial size, that’s the Lewis property, is via initiative. We as a body, will be a body that designs as we did with the Covell Village project. But the community is the part of our process that decides whether the project, whatever project that comes before us on any piece of property outside the city limits will be determined by the community. That is the process by which we determine growth in this community now. So it doesn’t matter if you have a one percent, a half percent, ten percent, whatever the percent may be. The determination of where, when and how much we shall grow is determined by the residents of this town. That’s the policy we have, and unless we’re going to amend that policy, that’s the true policy that determines when, where and how we’ll grow.

Don Saylor tried to play the middle ground here, suggesting while at the same time opposing any changes to the growth policy:

“We should wait until the Housing Element Steering Committee results are known.”

Councilmember Saylor misses the point, the key part of this process is in fact the direction given to the Housing Element Steering Committee. As Kevin Wolf, chair said, the committee can plan for whatever growth rate the city wants. But that growth rate is in fact going to determine which projects are included and which are not.

The major concern that Mayor Greenwald has here, and that is shared by the broader community, is that they are now disregarding the 1% growth parameter to establish housing allocations and projects from 2008 until 2013 in the Housing Element Update. Furthermore, projects included in the Housing Element Update for the general plan have a tendency to become reality.

Mr. Souza is correct that some of these projects will face the voters in a Measure J vote. However, advocates of slower growth, such as Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek, also understand that with limited resources available to slow growth advocates, opposing every Measure J vote is an inadequate way to control growth. The most effective method is to set a reasonable growth goal in the General Plan and allocate housing in the update accordingly.

While Stephen Souza abstained from voting, his position on this issue was clear, and he was largely joined by his colleagues Don Saylor and Ruth Asmundson. Mayor Greenwald did well to get the council majority on the record favoring a higher than 1% growth rate in the city of Davis. Davis voters have a clear choice in the next election. The current course set by the council majority will have a 1% growth rate equivalent to 325 units per year, which is higher than that required by RHNA. Given the housing market at this time, it is not clear that this is a sensible direction for Davis. However, this council majority has rarely seen a development project that they have not voted for. If left to them, we know exactly where this is going.

Simon Efrein is a beat reporter covering the Davis City Council for the People’s Vanguard of Davis.

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Categories:

Land Use/Open Space

44 comments

  1. RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS TO AMEND
    DIRECTION TO STAFF TO IMPLEMENT AN ANNUAL CITY GROWTH
    PARAMETER, PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND
    PHASED HOUSING ALLOCATION ORDINANCE, AND PREPARE A JOINT
    HOUSING STRATEGY WITH UC DAVIS
    WHEREAS, the City Council is interested in basing future City growth on internal
    housing needs; and
    WHEREAS, on March 12, 2003 the City Council received an “Internal Housing Needs
    Analysis” report; and
    WHEREAS, on August 2, 2004, the City Council received a “Middle Income Housing
    Analysis – Needs and Impacts” report; and
    WHEREAS, on October 12, 2004, the City Council appointed a subcommittee to
    recommend a growth and growth management model for the City of Davis: and
    WHEREAS, the City and UC Davis should share the responsibility for housing needed
    due to local growth; and
    WHEREAS, diverse housing opportunities, including affordable housing, are needed by
    local employees; and
    WHEREAS, the City Council continues to refine housing objectives for the City;
    NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS DOES
    RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
    1. The City Council finds that an annual average growth parameter for the City is
    appropriate for future growth management and planning after considering:
    a. The internal housing needs identified in the “Internal Housing Needs Analysis”
    report.
    b. The most recent and likely future fair share housing needs issued by the
    Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
    2. The City Council hereby directs staff to:
    a. Prepare draft amendments to the growth management and housing sections of the
    General Plan and the Phased Housing Allocation Ordinance for City Council
    review. Base the amendments on the following concepts:
    Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter
    Page 2
    City growth concepts:
    (1) One percent (1%) growth guideline. Implement an annual growth guideline
    for residential units of one percent (1%) to year 2010 based on internal
    housing needs.
    (2) Exempted units. The following types of units are exempt and not subject to
    the annual growth guideline of 1%:
    (a) Permanently affordable housing units for very low, low and moderate
    income households including both required units and units provided in
    excess of standard requirements. This exemption includes permanently
    affordable housing units for seniors. This exemption does not include
    middle income units.
    (b) Approved second units as defined by State law including both ministerial
    and discretionary units.
    (c) Residential units within “vertical” mixed use buildings.
    (3) Control peripheral. Strictly control peripheral units to a maximum of 60% of
    the 1% growth guideline per year. It is recognized that building permits for
    new peripheral development probably would not occur until at least 2007.
    (4) Manage infill. Manage infill units within the 1% growth guideline per year.
    Infill may constitute 40% of the total units in a year if peripheral units
    constitute 60% and infill units may constitute 100% of the total units in a year
    if peripheral units constitute 0%. Provide flexibility to allow for multi-family
    rental projects by designating a proportion of the yearly allocation to multi
    family rental units that can be rolled over and accumulated over several years
    as needed for the typical apartment complex.
    (5) Allow for extraordinary project. Council shall have the ability to allow an
    infill project with extraordinary circumstances and which provides for
    particular community needs with extraordinary community benefits, even if it
    would exceed the annual growth guideline of 1%.
    Growth management system concepts:
    (1) Use development agreements where appropriate. Use development
    agreements or a metered allocation system to phase peripheral units. Use
    development agreements where appropriate for large infill projects (such as
    100 or more units).
    (2) Use tools to ensure that peripheral and infill development decisions are
    consistent with growth guidelines. Create a new development status
    monitoring and reporting system. Use reports in decisions on projects and
    their timing. Provide annual report and adopt annual resolution to direct
    prospective developers and staff where the city will consider growth and
    development in the short term (one to two years) and longer term (three to ten
    years).
    (3) Study changes to existing allocation ordinance. Study whether changes are
    needed to the existing phased allocation ordinance. If appropriate, pass a
    resolution to clarify that formal allocations pursuant to the ordinance will not
    be required unless / until the Council deems such allocations are needed.
    Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter
    Page 3
    (4) School impacts. Work with City and DJUSD legal counsel to determine
    means of mitigating school impacts.
    (5) Study required findings. Study whether growth limitation ordinance findings
    are required pursuant to State Government Code 65863.6 regarding the public
    health, safety, and welfare of the city to be promoted by the adoption of the
    ordinance.
    b. Incorporate the following items as part of amendments to plans and ordinances,
    subject to review and approval by City Council, to provide a reasonable link
    between new housing production and internal housing needs:
    (1) Add growth guideline to General Plan. Amend the General Plan to add the
    growth guideline outlined in this resolution.
    (2) Strengthen housing mix policies in the General Plan and design/density
    standards in Zoning Ordinance. Amend the General Plan and Zoning
    Ordinance to address internal housing needs and to provide housing
    opportunities for local employees. Strengthen the language of policies in the
    General Plan which call for a mix of housing types and prices. Add standards
    to the Zoning Ordinance addressing the mix of housing types, densities and
    designs in new, large residential developments. The standards would include
    a mix of densities (with minimums and maximums) and maximum house
    sizes.
    (3) Expand action related to workforce housing options. Expand Action
    HOUSING 1.7a to read: “Explore programs to assist City staff, UC Davis
    staff and faculty, Yolo County staff, school district staff, and other local
    employees. Add: “Explore options such as developing public-owned sites
    (possibly as a joint venture with a private developer) and encouraging land
    dedication sites in large development projects. Public-owned sites could also
    provide for other critical housing needs in the community.”
    (4) Include purpose and policy basis. Include the purpose and policy basis in the
    amendments to plans and ordinances, including the reasons that housing
    opportunities for local employees are linked to public safety, quality of life,
    and community sustainability.
    c. Prepare a joint housing strategy, Memorandum of Understanding, or similar
    document in cooperation with UCD. Consider as one issue whether UCD should
    increase the planned student housing to meet the UC system wide planned
    average of 38% of enrollment.
    d. Determine the appropriate level of environmental review and fiscal impact
    analysis as part of the General Plan Amendment, Phased Housing Allocation
    Ordinance amendment, and development project reviews involving a General
    Plan Amendment.

  2. RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS TO AMEND
    DIRECTION TO STAFF TO IMPLEMENT AN ANNUAL CITY GROWTH
    PARAMETER, PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND
    PHASED HOUSING ALLOCATION ORDINANCE, AND PREPARE A JOINT
    HOUSING STRATEGY WITH UC DAVIS
    WHEREAS, the City Council is interested in basing future City growth on internal
    housing needs; and
    WHEREAS, on March 12, 2003 the City Council received an “Internal Housing Needs
    Analysis” report; and
    WHEREAS, on August 2, 2004, the City Council received a “Middle Income Housing
    Analysis – Needs and Impacts” report; and
    WHEREAS, on October 12, 2004, the City Council appointed a subcommittee to
    recommend a growth and growth management model for the City of Davis: and
    WHEREAS, the City and UC Davis should share the responsibility for housing needed
    due to local growth; and
    WHEREAS, diverse housing opportunities, including affordable housing, are needed by
    local employees; and
    WHEREAS, the City Council continues to refine housing objectives for the City;
    NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS DOES
    RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
    1. The City Council finds that an annual average growth parameter for the City is
    appropriate for future growth management and planning after considering:
    a. The internal housing needs identified in the “Internal Housing Needs Analysis”
    report.
    b. The most recent and likely future fair share housing needs issued by the
    Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
    2. The City Council hereby directs staff to:
    a. Prepare draft amendments to the growth management and housing sections of the
    General Plan and the Phased Housing Allocation Ordinance for City Council
    review. Base the amendments on the following concepts:
    Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter
    Page 2
    City growth concepts:
    (1) One percent (1%) growth guideline. Implement an annual growth guideline
    for residential units of one percent (1%) to year 2010 based on internal
    housing needs.
    (2) Exempted units. The following types of units are exempt and not subject to
    the annual growth guideline of 1%:
    (a) Permanently affordable housing units for very low, low and moderate
    income households including both required units and units provided in
    excess of standard requirements. This exemption includes permanently
    affordable housing units for seniors. This exemption does not include
    middle income units.
    (b) Approved second units as defined by State law including both ministerial
    and discretionary units.
    (c) Residential units within “vertical” mixed use buildings.
    (3) Control peripheral. Strictly control peripheral units to a maximum of 60% of
    the 1% growth guideline per year. It is recognized that building permits for
    new peripheral development probably would not occur until at least 2007.
    (4) Manage infill. Manage infill units within the 1% growth guideline per year.
    Infill may constitute 40% of the total units in a year if peripheral units
    constitute 60% and infill units may constitute 100% of the total units in a year
    if peripheral units constitute 0%. Provide flexibility to allow for multi-family
    rental projects by designating a proportion of the yearly allocation to multi
    family rental units that can be rolled over and accumulated over several years
    as needed for the typical apartment complex.
    (5) Allow for extraordinary project. Council shall have the ability to allow an
    infill project with extraordinary circumstances and which provides for
    particular community needs with extraordinary community benefits, even if it
    would exceed the annual growth guideline of 1%.
    Growth management system concepts:
    (1) Use development agreements where appropriate. Use development
    agreements or a metered allocation system to phase peripheral units. Use
    development agreements where appropriate for large infill projects (such as
    100 or more units).
    (2) Use tools to ensure that peripheral and infill development decisions are
    consistent with growth guidelines. Create a new development status
    monitoring and reporting system. Use reports in decisions on projects and
    their timing. Provide annual report and adopt annual resolution to direct
    prospective developers and staff where the city will consider growth and
    development in the short term (one to two years) and longer term (three to ten
    years).
    (3) Study changes to existing allocation ordinance. Study whether changes are
    needed to the existing phased allocation ordinance. If appropriate, pass a
    resolution to clarify that formal allocations pursuant to the ordinance will not
    be required unless / until the Council deems such allocations are needed.
    Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter
    Page 3
    (4) School impacts. Work with City and DJUSD legal counsel to determine
    means of mitigating school impacts.
    (5) Study required findings. Study whether growth limitation ordinance findings
    are required pursuant to State Government Code 65863.6 regarding the public
    health, safety, and welfare of the city to be promoted by the adoption of the
    ordinance.
    b. Incorporate the following items as part of amendments to plans and ordinances,
    subject to review and approval by City Council, to provide a reasonable link
    between new housing production and internal housing needs:
    (1) Add growth guideline to General Plan. Amend the General Plan to add the
    growth guideline outlined in this resolution.
    (2) Strengthen housing mix policies in the General Plan and design/density
    standards in Zoning Ordinance. Amend the General Plan and Zoning
    Ordinance to address internal housing needs and to provide housing
    opportunities for local employees. Strengthen the language of policies in the
    General Plan which call for a mix of housing types and prices. Add standards
    to the Zoning Ordinance addressing the mix of housing types, densities and
    designs in new, large residential developments. The standards would include
    a mix of densities (with minimums and maximums) and maximum house
    sizes.
    (3) Expand action related to workforce housing options. Expand Action
    HOUSING 1.7a to read: “Explore programs to assist City staff, UC Davis
    staff and faculty, Yolo County staff, school district staff, and other local
    employees. Add: “Explore options such as developing public-owned sites
    (possibly as a joint venture with a private developer) and encouraging land
    dedication sites in large development projects. Public-owned sites could also
    provide for other critical housing needs in the community.”
    (4) Include purpose and policy basis. Include the purpose and policy basis in the
    amendments to plans and ordinances, including the reasons that housing
    opportunities for local employees are linked to public safety, quality of life,
    and community sustainability.
    c. Prepare a joint housing strategy, Memorandum of Understanding, or similar
    document in cooperation with UCD. Consider as one issue whether UCD should
    increase the planned student housing to meet the UC system wide planned
    average of 38% of enrollment.
    d. Determine the appropriate level of environmental review and fiscal impact
    analysis as part of the General Plan Amendment, Phased Housing Allocation
    Ordinance amendment, and development project reviews involving a General
    Plan Amendment.

  3. RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS TO AMEND
    DIRECTION TO STAFF TO IMPLEMENT AN ANNUAL CITY GROWTH
    PARAMETER, PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND
    PHASED HOUSING ALLOCATION ORDINANCE, AND PREPARE A JOINT
    HOUSING STRATEGY WITH UC DAVIS
    WHEREAS, the City Council is interested in basing future City growth on internal
    housing needs; and
    WHEREAS, on March 12, 2003 the City Council received an “Internal Housing Needs
    Analysis” report; and
    WHEREAS, on August 2, 2004, the City Council received a “Middle Income Housing
    Analysis – Needs and Impacts” report; and
    WHEREAS, on October 12, 2004, the City Council appointed a subcommittee to
    recommend a growth and growth management model for the City of Davis: and
    WHEREAS, the City and UC Davis should share the responsibility for housing needed
    due to local growth; and
    WHEREAS, diverse housing opportunities, including affordable housing, are needed by
    local employees; and
    WHEREAS, the City Council continues to refine housing objectives for the City;
    NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS DOES
    RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
    1. The City Council finds that an annual average growth parameter for the City is
    appropriate for future growth management and planning after considering:
    a. The internal housing needs identified in the “Internal Housing Needs Analysis”
    report.
    b. The most recent and likely future fair share housing needs issued by the
    Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
    2. The City Council hereby directs staff to:
    a. Prepare draft amendments to the growth management and housing sections of the
    General Plan and the Phased Housing Allocation Ordinance for City Council
    review. Base the amendments on the following concepts:
    Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter
    Page 2
    City growth concepts:
    (1) One percent (1%) growth guideline. Implement an annual growth guideline
    for residential units of one percent (1%) to year 2010 based on internal
    housing needs.
    (2) Exempted units. The following types of units are exempt and not subject to
    the annual growth guideline of 1%:
    (a) Permanently affordable housing units for very low, low and moderate
    income households including both required units and units provided in
    excess of standard requirements. This exemption includes permanently
    affordable housing units for seniors. This exemption does not include
    middle income units.
    (b) Approved second units as defined by State law including both ministerial
    and discretionary units.
    (c) Residential units within “vertical” mixed use buildings.
    (3) Control peripheral. Strictly control peripheral units to a maximum of 60% of
    the 1% growth guideline per year. It is recognized that building permits for
    new peripheral development probably would not occur until at least 2007.
    (4) Manage infill. Manage infill units within the 1% growth guideline per year.
    Infill may constitute 40% of the total units in a year if peripheral units
    constitute 60% and infill units may constitute 100% of the total units in a year
    if peripheral units constitute 0%. Provide flexibility to allow for multi-family
    rental projects by designating a proportion of the yearly allocation to multi
    family rental units that can be rolled over and accumulated over several years
    as needed for the typical apartment complex.
    (5) Allow for extraordinary project. Council shall have the ability to allow an
    infill project with extraordinary circumstances and which provides for
    particular community needs with extraordinary community benefits, even if it
    would exceed the annual growth guideline of 1%.
    Growth management system concepts:
    (1) Use development agreements where appropriate. Use development
    agreements or a metered allocation system to phase peripheral units. Use
    development agreements where appropriate for large infill projects (such as
    100 or more units).
    (2) Use tools to ensure that peripheral and infill development decisions are
    consistent with growth guidelines. Create a new development status
    monitoring and reporting system. Use reports in decisions on projects and
    their timing. Provide annual report and adopt annual resolution to direct
    prospective developers and staff where the city will consider growth and
    development in the short term (one to two years) and longer term (three to ten
    years).
    (3) Study changes to existing allocation ordinance. Study whether changes are
    needed to the existing phased allocation ordinance. If appropriate, pass a
    resolution to clarify that formal allocations pursuant to the ordinance will not
    be required unless / until the Council deems such allocations are needed.
    Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter
    Page 3
    (4) School impacts. Work with City and DJUSD legal counsel to determine
    means of mitigating school impacts.
    (5) Study required findings. Study whether growth limitation ordinance findings
    are required pursuant to State Government Code 65863.6 regarding the public
    health, safety, and welfare of the city to be promoted by the adoption of the
    ordinance.
    b. Incorporate the following items as part of amendments to plans and ordinances,
    subject to review and approval by City Council, to provide a reasonable link
    between new housing production and internal housing needs:
    (1) Add growth guideline to General Plan. Amend the General Plan to add the
    growth guideline outlined in this resolution.
    (2) Strengthen housing mix policies in the General Plan and design/density
    standards in Zoning Ordinance. Amend the General Plan and Zoning
    Ordinance to address internal housing needs and to provide housing
    opportunities for local employees. Strengthen the language of policies in the
    General Plan which call for a mix of housing types and prices. Add standards
    to the Zoning Ordinance addressing the mix of housing types, densities and
    designs in new, large residential developments. The standards would include
    a mix of densities (with minimums and maximums) and maximum house
    sizes.
    (3) Expand action related to workforce housing options. Expand Action
    HOUSING 1.7a to read: “Explore programs to assist City staff, UC Davis
    staff and faculty, Yolo County staff, school district staff, and other local
    employees. Add: “Explore options such as developing public-owned sites
    (possibly as a joint venture with a private developer) and encouraging land
    dedication sites in large development projects. Public-owned sites could also
    provide for other critical housing needs in the community.”
    (4) Include purpose and policy basis. Include the purpose and policy basis in the
    amendments to plans and ordinances, including the reasons that housing
    opportunities for local employees are linked to public safety, quality of life,
    and community sustainability.
    c. Prepare a joint housing strategy, Memorandum of Understanding, or similar
    document in cooperation with UCD. Consider as one issue whether UCD should
    increase the planned student housing to meet the UC system wide planned
    average of 38% of enrollment.
    d. Determine the appropriate level of environmental review and fiscal impact
    analysis as part of the General Plan Amendment, Phased Housing Allocation
    Ordinance amendment, and development project reviews involving a General
    Plan Amendment.

  4. RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS TO AMEND
    DIRECTION TO STAFF TO IMPLEMENT AN ANNUAL CITY GROWTH
    PARAMETER, PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND
    PHASED HOUSING ALLOCATION ORDINANCE, AND PREPARE A JOINT
    HOUSING STRATEGY WITH UC DAVIS
    WHEREAS, the City Council is interested in basing future City growth on internal
    housing needs; and
    WHEREAS, on March 12, 2003 the City Council received an “Internal Housing Needs
    Analysis” report; and
    WHEREAS, on August 2, 2004, the City Council received a “Middle Income Housing
    Analysis – Needs and Impacts” report; and
    WHEREAS, on October 12, 2004, the City Council appointed a subcommittee to
    recommend a growth and growth management model for the City of Davis: and
    WHEREAS, the City and UC Davis should share the responsibility for housing needed
    due to local growth; and
    WHEREAS, diverse housing opportunities, including affordable housing, are needed by
    local employees; and
    WHEREAS, the City Council continues to refine housing objectives for the City;
    NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DAVIS DOES
    RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
    1. The City Council finds that an annual average growth parameter for the City is
    appropriate for future growth management and planning after considering:
    a. The internal housing needs identified in the “Internal Housing Needs Analysis”
    report.
    b. The most recent and likely future fair share housing needs issued by the
    Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
    2. The City Council hereby directs staff to:
    a. Prepare draft amendments to the growth management and housing sections of the
    General Plan and the Phased Housing Allocation Ordinance for City Council
    review. Base the amendments on the following concepts:
    Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter
    Page 2
    City growth concepts:
    (1) One percent (1%) growth guideline. Implement an annual growth guideline
    for residential units of one percent (1%) to year 2010 based on internal
    housing needs.
    (2) Exempted units. The following types of units are exempt and not subject to
    the annual growth guideline of 1%:
    (a) Permanently affordable housing units for very low, low and moderate
    income households including both required units and units provided in
    excess of standard requirements. This exemption includes permanently
    affordable housing units for seniors. This exemption does not include
    middle income units.
    (b) Approved second units as defined by State law including both ministerial
    and discretionary units.
    (c) Residential units within “vertical” mixed use buildings.
    (3) Control peripheral. Strictly control peripheral units to a maximum of 60% of
    the 1% growth guideline per year. It is recognized that building permits for
    new peripheral development probably would not occur until at least 2007.
    (4) Manage infill. Manage infill units within the 1% growth guideline per year.
    Infill may constitute 40% of the total units in a year if peripheral units
    constitute 60% and infill units may constitute 100% of the total units in a year
    if peripheral units constitute 0%. Provide flexibility to allow for multi-family
    rental projects by designating a proportion of the yearly allocation to multi
    family rental units that can be rolled over and accumulated over several years
    as needed for the typical apartment complex.
    (5) Allow for extraordinary project. Council shall have the ability to allow an
    infill project with extraordinary circumstances and which provides for
    particular community needs with extraordinary community benefits, even if it
    would exceed the annual growth guideline of 1%.
    Growth management system concepts:
    (1) Use development agreements where appropriate. Use development
    agreements or a metered allocation system to phase peripheral units. Use
    development agreements where appropriate for large infill projects (such as
    100 or more units).
    (2) Use tools to ensure that peripheral and infill development decisions are
    consistent with growth guidelines. Create a new development status
    monitoring and reporting system. Use reports in decisions on projects and
    their timing. Provide annual report and adopt annual resolution to direct
    prospective developers and staff where the city will consider growth and
    development in the short term (one to two years) and longer term (three to ten
    years).
    (3) Study changes to existing allocation ordinance. Study whether changes are
    needed to the existing phased allocation ordinance. If appropriate, pass a
    resolution to clarify that formal allocations pursuant to the ordinance will not
    be required unless / until the Council deems such allocations are needed.
    Resolution Regarding Annual Growth Parameter
    Page 3
    (4) School impacts. Work with City and DJUSD legal counsel to determine
    means of mitigating school impacts.
    (5) Study required findings. Study whether growth limitation ordinance findings
    are required pursuant to State Government Code 65863.6 regarding the public
    health, safety, and welfare of the city to be promoted by the adoption of the
    ordinance.
    b. Incorporate the following items as part of amendments to plans and ordinances,
    subject to review and approval by City Council, to provide a reasonable link
    between new housing production and internal housing needs:
    (1) Add growth guideline to General Plan. Amend the General Plan to add the
    growth guideline outlined in this resolution.
    (2) Strengthen housing mix policies in the General Plan and design/density
    standards in Zoning Ordinance. Amend the General Plan and Zoning
    Ordinance to address internal housing needs and to provide housing
    opportunities for local employees. Strengthen the language of policies in the
    General Plan which call for a mix of housing types and prices. Add standards
    to the Zoning Ordinance addressing the mix of housing types, densities and
    designs in new, large residential developments. The standards would include
    a mix of densities (with minimums and maximums) and maximum house
    sizes.
    (3) Expand action related to workforce housing options. Expand Action
    HOUSING 1.7a to read: “Explore programs to assist City staff, UC Davis
    staff and faculty, Yolo County staff, school district staff, and other local
    employees. Add: “Explore options such as developing public-owned sites
    (possibly as a joint venture with a private developer) and encouraging land
    dedication sites in large development projects. Public-owned sites could also
    provide for other critical housing needs in the community.”
    (4) Include purpose and policy basis. Include the purpose and policy basis in the
    amendments to plans and ordinances, including the reasons that housing
    opportunities for local employees are linked to public safety, quality of life,
    and community sustainability.
    c. Prepare a joint housing strategy, Memorandum of Understanding, or similar
    document in cooperation with UCD. Consider as one issue whether UCD should
    increase the planned student housing to meet the UC system wide planned
    average of 38% of enrollment.
    d. Determine the appropriate level of environmental review and fiscal impact
    analysis as part of the General Plan Amendment, Phased Housing Allocation
    Ordinance amendment, and development project reviews involving a General
    Plan Amendment.

  5. According to the census bureau, the non-UC Davis student population of Davis has declined every year since 2001. We have seen this with the decline in our K-12 student population. The only element of our population which is growing is seniors 65+ and their growth has only been by a small amount. More houses which once had 5-7 family members now have just 2. If we don’t want another school to close in the next 5 years, we will have to approve some housing which young families can afford to live in.

  6. According to the census bureau, the non-UC Davis student population of Davis has declined every year since 2001. We have seen this with the decline in our K-12 student population. The only element of our population which is growing is seniors 65+ and their growth has only been by a small amount. More houses which once had 5-7 family members now have just 2. If we don’t want another school to close in the next 5 years, we will have to approve some housing which young families can afford to live in.

  7. According to the census bureau, the non-UC Davis student population of Davis has declined every year since 2001. We have seen this with the decline in our K-12 student population. The only element of our population which is growing is seniors 65+ and their growth has only been by a small amount. More houses which once had 5-7 family members now have just 2. If we don’t want another school to close in the next 5 years, we will have to approve some housing which young families can afford to live in.

  8. According to the census bureau, the non-UC Davis student population of Davis has declined every year since 2001. We have seen this with the decline in our K-12 student population. The only element of our population which is growing is seniors 65+ and their growth has only been by a small amount. More houses which once had 5-7 family members now have just 2. If we don’t want another school to close in the next 5 years, we will have to approve some housing which young families can afford to live in.

  9. “If we don’t want another school to close in the next 5 years, we will have to approve some housing which young families can afford to live in.”

    I agree completely but unfortunately, I’m not sure they are building that kind of housing. Covell I was not going to accomodate that, Covell II is a senior housing, Nishi is targeted it appears for students, so where is that housing going to go and how much of it will there be?

  10. “If we don’t want another school to close in the next 5 years, we will have to approve some housing which young families can afford to live in.”

    I agree completely but unfortunately, I’m not sure they are building that kind of housing. Covell I was not going to accomodate that, Covell II is a senior housing, Nishi is targeted it appears for students, so where is that housing going to go and how much of it will there be?

  11. “If we don’t want another school to close in the next 5 years, we will have to approve some housing which young families can afford to live in.”

    I agree completely but unfortunately, I’m not sure they are building that kind of housing. Covell I was not going to accomodate that, Covell II is a senior housing, Nishi is targeted it appears for students, so where is that housing going to go and how much of it will there be?

  12. “If we don’t want another school to close in the next 5 years, we will have to approve some housing which young families can afford to live in.”

    I agree completely but unfortunately, I’m not sure they are building that kind of housing. Covell I was not going to accomodate that, Covell II is a senior housing, Nishi is targeted it appears for students, so where is that housing going to go and how much of it will there be?

  13. Saylor and Souza have disqualified themselves from sitting on our Council again with these statements. They are guilty of a “breach of the public trust” as their statements at the last Council meeting are not supported by the video archives of their arguments during the Covell Village discussions. At that time, the streaming video records that they argued that Covell Village was necessary in order for Davis to meet its 1% growth REQUIREMENT. In addition, they had the audacity to argue that there was also a penalty if we did not meet this growth rate, a ridiculous argument on its face as the Gang of Four had themselves created(and could cancel) this fictional “mandatory” growth rate.

  14. Saylor and Souza have disqualified themselves from sitting on our Council again with these statements. They are guilty of a “breach of the public trust” as their statements at the last Council meeting are not supported by the video archives of their arguments during the Covell Village discussions. At that time, the streaming video records that they argued that Covell Village was necessary in order for Davis to meet its 1% growth REQUIREMENT. In addition, they had the audacity to argue that there was also a penalty if we did not meet this growth rate, a ridiculous argument on its face as the Gang of Four had themselves created(and could cancel) this fictional “mandatory” growth rate.

  15. Saylor and Souza have disqualified themselves from sitting on our Council again with these statements. They are guilty of a “breach of the public trust” as their statements at the last Council meeting are not supported by the video archives of their arguments during the Covell Village discussions. At that time, the streaming video records that they argued that Covell Village was necessary in order for Davis to meet its 1% growth REQUIREMENT. In addition, they had the audacity to argue that there was also a penalty if we did not meet this growth rate, a ridiculous argument on its face as the Gang of Four had themselves created(and could cancel) this fictional “mandatory” growth rate.

  16. Saylor and Souza have disqualified themselves from sitting on our Council again with these statements. They are guilty of a “breach of the public trust” as their statements at the last Council meeting are not supported by the video archives of their arguments during the Covell Village discussions. At that time, the streaming video records that they argued that Covell Village was necessary in order for Davis to meet its 1% growth REQUIREMENT. In addition, they had the audacity to argue that there was also a penalty if we did not meet this growth rate, a ridiculous argument on its face as the Gang of Four had themselves created(and could cancel) this fictional “mandatory” growth rate.

  17. We always have reasons to have more development. It brings money to ambitious politicians, it paves over more land, it increases population, more cars, more students, more schools, more smog, more stress, and greater need for services. Councilperson Sousa is willing to leave much of it up to the Initiative Process which of course in the long run favors those with money. The Council majority continues to play games with the development card. Figure it out yourself they support all growth proposals. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek offer something reasonable that is discarded by the Developer Supported majority. I think we need a moratorium on growth so that our infrastructure can catch up with the existing growth.

    Richard Livingston

  18. We always have reasons to have more development. It brings money to ambitious politicians, it paves over more land, it increases population, more cars, more students, more schools, more smog, more stress, and greater need for services. Councilperson Sousa is willing to leave much of it up to the Initiative Process which of course in the long run favors those with money. The Council majority continues to play games with the development card. Figure it out yourself they support all growth proposals. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek offer something reasonable that is discarded by the Developer Supported majority. I think we need a moratorium on growth so that our infrastructure can catch up with the existing growth.

    Richard Livingston

  19. We always have reasons to have more development. It brings money to ambitious politicians, it paves over more land, it increases population, more cars, more students, more schools, more smog, more stress, and greater need for services. Councilperson Sousa is willing to leave much of it up to the Initiative Process which of course in the long run favors those with money. The Council majority continues to play games with the development card. Figure it out yourself they support all growth proposals. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek offer something reasonable that is discarded by the Developer Supported majority. I think we need a moratorium on growth so that our infrastructure can catch up with the existing growth.

    Richard Livingston

  20. We always have reasons to have more development. It brings money to ambitious politicians, it paves over more land, it increases population, more cars, more students, more schools, more smog, more stress, and greater need for services. Councilperson Sousa is willing to leave much of it up to the Initiative Process which of course in the long run favors those with money. The Council majority continues to play games with the development card. Figure it out yourself they support all growth proposals. Mayor Greenwald and Councilmember Heystek offer something reasonable that is discarded by the Developer Supported majority. I think we need a moratorium on growth so that our infrastructure can catch up with the existing growth.

    Richard Livingston

  21. Greenwald and Heystek have flushed them out of their political holes with this issue.
    First Saylor,Souza and Asmundson argued that SACOG’s Fair Share numbers were sacrosanct when they argued for the Covell Village development. The current Fair Share numbers are down and Asmundson publicly pouted that the new number must somehow be inaccurate(see Council streaming video). SACOG’s reduced Fair Share number is suddenly not of any real importance to this most duplicitous and hypocritical Council Majority.

  22. Greenwald and Heystek have flushed them out of their political holes with this issue.
    First Saylor,Souza and Asmundson argued that SACOG’s Fair Share numbers were sacrosanct when they argued for the Covell Village development. The current Fair Share numbers are down and Asmundson publicly pouted that the new number must somehow be inaccurate(see Council streaming video). SACOG’s reduced Fair Share number is suddenly not of any real importance to this most duplicitous and hypocritical Council Majority.

  23. Greenwald and Heystek have flushed them out of their political holes with this issue.
    First Saylor,Souza and Asmundson argued that SACOG’s Fair Share numbers were sacrosanct when they argued for the Covell Village development. The current Fair Share numbers are down and Asmundson publicly pouted that the new number must somehow be inaccurate(see Council streaming video). SACOG’s reduced Fair Share number is suddenly not of any real importance to this most duplicitous and hypocritical Council Majority.

  24. Greenwald and Heystek have flushed them out of their political holes with this issue.
    First Saylor,Souza and Asmundson argued that SACOG’s Fair Share numbers were sacrosanct when they argued for the Covell Village development. The current Fair Share numbers are down and Asmundson publicly pouted that the new number must somehow be inaccurate(see Council streaming video). SACOG’s reduced Fair Share number is suddenly not of any real importance to this most duplicitous and hypocritical Council Majority.

  25. 9/27 NY Times Reuters News : KB Home sales plunge as housing market worsens
    “At this time, we see no signs that the housing market is stabilizing and believe it will be some time before a recovery begins,” KB (KBH.N) Chief Executive Jeffrey Mezger said in a statement.

    The KB’s Spring Lake housing inventory will be more than enough to meet our regional housing needs without adding a Davis peripheral development to the already flooded housing market.

  26. 9/27 NY Times Reuters News : KB Home sales plunge as housing market worsens
    “At this time, we see no signs that the housing market is stabilizing and believe it will be some time before a recovery begins,” KB (KBH.N) Chief Executive Jeffrey Mezger said in a statement.

    The KB’s Spring Lake housing inventory will be more than enough to meet our regional housing needs without adding a Davis peripheral development to the already flooded housing market.

  27. 9/27 NY Times Reuters News : KB Home sales plunge as housing market worsens
    “At this time, we see no signs that the housing market is stabilizing and believe it will be some time before a recovery begins,” KB (KBH.N) Chief Executive Jeffrey Mezger said in a statement.

    The KB’s Spring Lake housing inventory will be more than enough to meet our regional housing needs without adding a Davis peripheral development to the already flooded housing market.

  28. 9/27 NY Times Reuters News : KB Home sales plunge as housing market worsens
    “At this time, we see no signs that the housing market is stabilizing and believe it will be some time before a recovery begins,” KB (KBH.N) Chief Executive Jeffrey Mezger said in a statement.

    The KB’s Spring Lake housing inventory will be more than enough to meet our regional housing needs without adding a Davis peripheral development to the already flooded housing market.

  29. Councilperson Sousa is willing to leave much of it up to the Initiative Process……….

    Interesting… Is this the same Councilperson Souza who blustered from the Council dais(recorded in the Council meeting video archives) that they were the Deciders?

  30. Councilperson Sousa is willing to leave much of it up to the Initiative Process……….

    Interesting… Is this the same Councilperson Souza who blustered from the Council dais(recorded in the Council meeting video archives) that they were the Deciders?

  31. Councilperson Sousa is willing to leave much of it up to the Initiative Process……….

    Interesting… Is this the same Councilperson Souza who blustered from the Council dais(recorded in the Council meeting video archives) that they were the Deciders?

  32. Councilperson Sousa is willing to leave much of it up to the Initiative Process……….

    Interesting… Is this the same Councilperson Souza who blustered from the Council dais(recorded in the Council meeting video archives) that they were the Deciders?

Leave a Comment