By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – On Thursday, the Vanguard reported that Pioneer pulled its project. It’s a pretty pointed letter that blames the city, citing “anticipated delays and unreasonable obstacles in obtaining the necessary approvals cannot justify our continued investment.”
The city pushed back, noting that they sent a letter on September 15, 2023, that garnered no response.
A number of people both publicly and privately tried to argue that the loss of Pioneer is not that big a deal. They have a point. It seemed unlikely that the project would have succeeded in the difficult market that Davis has been for the last 25 years, where projects not only have to navigate a minefield of obstacles at the city and community level, but at the end of that difficult process there is a vote of the people—which only two projects have thus far been able to navigate.
Most of the pointed comments by the developers were focused, however, at the stage before any of that comes into play.
They note, “The Legislature’s efforts to address the housing crisis will continually fall short when local jurisdictions fail to timely process or dedicate adequate staff for housing applications and ultimate approval remains unpredictable even after substantial capital is invested in exhaustive environmental review.”
They continued, “Despite the availability of land and forward thinking developers ready to take meaningful strides to build housing, the unreasonable and arbitrary obstacles in the approval process will prolong the state’s housing crisis.”
They added, “Thank you for your limited efforts in reviewing the preliminary application and we hope the City Council will take the opportunity to reconsider how it can provide adequate staffing and direction so that the City can actually achieve a compliant Housing Element and, more importantly, additional housing opportunities.”
I understand the city’s response—but I think all of us should be concerned with how many of these projects have been pulled before they even get very deep in the process.
My biggest concern is the overall math.
The city has some time right now to fix things—but not really that much time. There will be new RHNA numbers coming forward by 2027 or 2028 to guide us for what the next part of the process is likely to be.
But, as of now, there are really just two peripheral projects coming forward—Village and Shriners—a combined 3000 units. Already opponents are aiming their sites on the first of these projects to move forward, Village.
Palomino Place at this point will avoid a Measure J vote, but also is not going to move the needle much overall on housing.
A big problem that the city faces is that, without Pioneer, the city would have to pass both peripheral projects and find a way to increase the number of affordable units. That’s assuming a requirement of 2000 market rate and 1000 affordable—similar to this time as opposed to a more aggressive 4000 and 2000 which trends suggest could happen.
How the city is going to meet those requirements is anyone’s guess at this point.
Those who operated under the belief that the state would start to back off on the housing I don’t think will be proven correct.
We have seen in recent weeks the state filing lawsuits against jurisdictions for failing to adhere to state housing law, the state has pressured communities through the courts to adhere to the builder’s remedy, and they recently decertified one Housing Element when the community fell out of compliance with it.
Last fall, the city all but acknowledged it is going to have to go peripheral with the next housing element.
In December, then-Mayor Will Arnold warned, “I would just say to those who have said that we will be able to meet our next RHNA cycle numbers without going outside of the city limits… I suggest they tune in or watch the recording of this meeting as we really try to meet our current requirements simply with infill and the difficulty we’re having in doing so.”
If there is a recognition on the part of the community that the current way of doing things is no longer going to work, it doesn’t seem to have really sunk in.
The city has a little time to figure this stuff out through the next General Plan Update and a possible revision to Measure J—but not much. The margin for getting the last housing element approved was razor thin, the margin for keeping it certified is razor thin, but the margin for the housing element might be non-existent with the loss of Pioneer.
Without a pretty drastic change of direction in the next few years, it is only a matter of time before someone challenges Measure J and increasingly likely prevails.
Nothing is set in stone yet, but clearly the city and community should be on notice that we cannot continue to practice business as usual.