City Hall » Community Development

Davis Development Rubric

Font Size: + -
Share & Bookmark, Press Enter to show all options, press Tab go to next option
Print
Welcome to the City of Davis Development Rubric. This pilot rubric is still in development as a tool to assess the contribution of proposed development projects to our community’s social and environmental well-being.  It identifies a number of important categories and indicators that allow the City to better understand how different development projects would be meeting our community's values. The City Council has established a subcommittee of Mayor Arnold and Council Member Vaitla to formulate this pilot rubric, solicit community feedback, and continue making refinements to the rubric. Certain components of the draft rubric, such as indicators, weighting, and benchmarks, are subject to further review and consideration by the full City Council. 

Sections 1 - 3 below provide a detailed explanation of the rubric, its components, and how to use it. Section 4 (Input Form) is the scoring rubric where you may enter the relevant project information and obtain the rubric results.  This rubric is intended as a living document and may be updated and changed. We also welcome any feedback, which you may provide by clicking on the feedback button below.  The City Council Subcommittee is particularly interested in feedback on the draft indicators and the benchmark levels. If you believe a new or different indicator should be incorporated, please provide comments accordingly and specify which indicator should be removed accordingly (in an effort to keep the rubric manageable). Please also include feedback on benchmark levels and how those might be adjusted. 

This development rubric is based on three principles.

    First, it is an interim, in progress tool—one among many, including the City’s various sector-specific planning documents—to be used as we advance towards an updated General Plan, the most important articulation of our City’s vision for the future. The rubric helps evaluate the various development proposals currently in front of the City while serving as an “on-ramp” for the General Plan. The rubric’s five categories—Housing, Environmental Justice & Climate, Circulation, Conservation & Open Space, and Land Use—pertain directly to six of the nine General Plan elements required by the State of California.1

     

    Second, the rubric proposes as a list of planning features essential to “neighborhoods of the future.” Proposed development projects must already meet all requirements laid out in our General Plan and Municipal Code. The rubric goes further, seeking to identify projects that surpass these minimum requirements. These are neighborhoods in which best practices in planning intersect with the ambitious visions laid out in the City’s recent planning documents, including the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), the Davis Downtown Specific Plan (DDSP), and the 2021-2029 Housing Element (HE). The rubric itself is a living tool: as we move through the General Plan update process, and thus towards a more detailed vision of “neighborhoods of the future,” the rubric should itself be updated.

    Third, the rubric is designed to be simple. Project applicants should be able to quickly complete the data input form, and the results can be easily summarized for public communication. Feedback from City Commissions has greatly helped to contextualize the tool for Davis and pare down its content to essential questions. The rubric has no single composite score, but rather provides scores for each of its five categories.

    Following this Introduction: 

    • Section 2 describes the five categories and 24 indicators used by the rubric, as well as each indicator’s relationship to the existing General Plan, the Municipal Code, and other City planning documents. 
    • Section 3 summarizes the methods used by the rubric, including how the indicators are benchmarked and category scores calculated. 
    • Section 4 allows users to fill out the rubric input form and see results. The section also offers users the ability to change indicator benchmarks and weights.

The rubric collects data on 24 indicators. These indicators were selected through consultation with City Council members, City Staff, and City Commissions; review of City planning documents; and review of other evaluation tools for neighborhood development, most importantly the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) tool. To keep the rubric simple and reduce applicant burden, a number of candidate indicators were excluded. The indicators that remain were identified during the consultative process as most important.

As mentioned earlier, all requirements specified in the City of Davis Municipal Code, General Plan, and other legally enforceable documents must be met by the project applicant. For example, affordable housing percentages must conform to those specified within Article 18.05 of the City of Davis Municipal Code. The indicators in the rubric provide credit for features that exceed these minimum requirements. Note also that environmental justice (EJ) and accessibility are cross-cutting themes throughout the rubric. While EJ/climate is an indicator category, considerations at the intersection of equity and environment appear in all other categories. The same is true for accessibility.

  1. Gross density. Number of rental and for-sale dwelling units divided by the project’s total acreage, excluding arterials and all non-residential development. This indicator relates to the current urgent need for additional housing in Davis, as identified in the 2021-2029 Housing Element. Note that, for mixed use parcels, the General Plan defines gross density as the density on the entire parcel, without regard to any other uses on the parcel (General Plan, p355). By utilizing this definition, we acknowledge the need for mixed-use developments (and penalize all-residential developments accordingly). Note that projects must build at or above 3.0 dwelling units/gross acre, which is the lowest allowable end of the General Plan’s low gross density category (General Plan Amendment, Resolution 18-159). This item also pertains to CAAP Transportation and Land Use action TR.11 (Develop sustainable housing).

  2. Net density. Number of dwelling units per acre of buildable land, based on “the land area of the development parcels only, and not including public streets, parks and public open spaces. For calculation purposes, the net density includes private streets and private open spaces” (General Plan, p359). Note that, while the General Plan does specify that net density on mixed-use parcels should be “density on the entire parcel, without regard to any other uses on the parcel,” we define this indicator with reference to buildable land only. Note that projects must build at or above 3.6 dwelling units/net acre, which is the lowest allowable end of the General Plan’s low net density category (General Plan, p76).

  3. Very low-income (VLI) housing. The percentage of total units reserved for households at or below 50% of area median income (AMI). Note that projects must make 7.5% or more of all units affordable to very low-income households, per the requirement of Chapter 18.05.060 of the Davis Municipal Code. The Housing Element stresses the serious challenges of meeting VLI housing needs, and the State of California’s required Environmental Justice element emphasizes housing.

  4. Low-income (LI) housing. The percentage of total units reserved for families at or below 80% of AMI. Note that projects must make 7.5% or more of all units affordable to low-income households, not including very low-income households, per the requirement of Chapter 18.05.060 of the Davis Municipal Code. The Housing Element discusses the importance of building adequate LI housing stock.

  5. Moderate-income/workforce (MI) housing. The percentage of total units reserved for households at or below 120% of AMI. The current Davis Municipal Code does not require projects to reserve dwelling units specifically for moderate-income households. Credit is given for projects making any units available for families at or below 120% AMI, not including those made available for very low-income and low-income households.

  6. Housing Trust Fund (HTF) contributions per gross acre. The total value of contributions the project provides to the Housing Trust Fund, per gross acre. The contribution is calculated in net present value terms with the currently prevailing discount rate. For example, a one-time immediate contribution of $10,000,000 to the Housing Trust Fund is valued at $10,000,000, while the same contribution over 20 years at the federal discount rate of 5.5% (in October 2023) has a net present value of $3,400,000. The current City Municipal Code does not require Housing Trust Fund contributions, but the Housing Element emphasizes the need for permanent and predictable revenue sources for the HTF.

  1. All-electric infrastructure. Yes/no question about whether the project’s energy infrastructure is 100% electric. This indicator relates to CAAP Building Energy action BE.4 (All-electric new construction), as well as legislative trends across California mandating all-electric new construction.

  2. On-site clean energy generation. Percentage of annual energy demand generated by on-site renewable sources, including solar panels on parking lot shade structures, residential buildings, and non-residential buildings. This figure should include both public/community facilities and estimated private installations. This indicator relates to CAAP Building Energy action BE.5 (Community solar energy). Note that all projects must meet the renewable energy and solar photo-voltaic requirements outlined in Chapter 8 (Buildings) of the Municipal Code.

  3. On-site clean energy storage. Percentage of total on-site energy demand met by storage and on-site generation capacity in the event of a multi-day utility grid outage. This indicator deals with the creation of energy resilience in the project, and thus pertains to CAAP action BE.8 (Create community micro-grids and resiliency hubs). No requirement to create energy storage facilities currently exists in the Municipal Code.

  4. Cool surfaces. Percentage of the project’s roads, sidewalks, parking areas, and other hardscape surfaces covered by shade (at tree maturity, at approximately 15 years), installed with open-grid permeable pavement, or solar-reflective paving (cool paving). This indicator pertains to CAAP Climate Adaptation action AD.1 (Cool surfaces) and links to action AD.2 (Urban forest), furthering the goal of a cooler City. Note that all projects must meet shade requirements outlined in the Municipal Code, as well as the guidelines in the General Plan, Goal UD 2, Policy UD 2.2, Standards(c) (“Streets that are planted in the future are expected to have wide canopies, sufficient to eventually provide, at maturity, at least 50 percent shade coverage of the pavement area of local streets and 30 percent shade coverage of the pavement area of collector and arterial streets”).

  5. Climate Trust Fund. The total value of contributions the project provides to the Climate Trust Fund, calculated in net present value terms with the currently prevailing discount rate. For example, a one-time immediate contribution of $10,000,000 to the Climate Trust Fund is valued at that amount, while the same contribution over 20 years at the prevailing federal discount rate of 5.5% would be calculated at a value of $3,400,000. This item links to CAAP Building Energy action BE.6 (Carbon mitigation fund); revenues generated by that fund could be kept in the CTF.

  1. Grade-separated crossings. Yes/no question about the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian grade-separated crossings of all major barriers, including arterial streets, railroad crossings, and drainage channels, as well as securing property rights for the needed right-of-ways on property on the other side of all project edges. Davis currently has 25 grade-separated crossings, which are considered the gold standard for pedestrian and bicycle safety. This item builds on values expressed in the General Plan and the Transportation Element, as well as CAAP Transportation and Land Use action TR.5 (Pedestrian and bike safety).

  2. Transit access. The percentage of dwelling units and nonresidential buildings within 0.25 miles of a transit stop or micro-mobility docking facility. The item pertains to CAAP Transportation and Land Use actions TR.4 (Electric micro-mobilty vehicles), TR.6 (Expand public transit), TR.7 (Strengthen regional transit), and TR.9 (Transportation Demand Management program), as well as the strong focus within the Davis Downtown Specific Plan on expanding transit availability. The 0.25 mile radius comes from the LEED-ND credit for Access to Quality Transit.

  3. Universal design. The percentage of dwelling units and nonresidential buildings with universal design features. Universal design offers people of diverse abilities the opportunity to lead healthy lives, including with respect to mobility. The relevant design features are provided in Article 18.09 of the Municipal Code (Universal Design Checklist). While Article 18.09 requires developers to provide a checklist of features, the City does not currently mandate that such features be provided in residential buildings. Note also that required accessibility features are provided in Article 18.10 (Universal Access) of the Municipal Code, and LEED-ND offers Visitability and Universal Design credit for neighborhoods with >20% dwelling units offering universal accessibility.

  4. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Yes/no question about provision of electric vehicle charging facilities at all multifamily properties and high-use civic spaces, including community centers and recreational facilities. The indicator links to CAAP Transportation and Land Use actions TR.1 (Electric vehicle charging plan) and TR.10 (Low emissions vehicle program). The CAAP notes the large fraction of greenhouse gas emissions linked to fossil-fuel vehicles. The Davis Municipal Code requires an increase in EV infrastructure over minimum Cal Green Standards.

  5. Parking spaces per dwelling unit2. Amount of parking spaces per dwelling unit in the project as a whole. Credit is given for reducing parking space, which, in concert with strong transit, bicycling, and pedestrian infrastructure, will reduce traffic in the area of the proposed development. Davis is uniquely capable of supporting low parking capacity. This item links to a range of CAAP Transportation and Land Use actions, including TR.3 (First mile/last mile transportation) and TR.4 (Electric micro-mobility vehicles). Chapter 40.25.090 of the Municipal Code specifies parking requirements, although State of California law relaxes requirements, and in some cases eliminates minimum parking requirements altogether, based on location (e.g, near transit).

  1. Agricultural land mitigation. The ratio of conserved agricultural land to project acreage. Chapter 40A.03.025 of the Davis Municipal Code establishes a minimum 2:1 ratio, with adjustments made depending on the location of conserved land. Policies POS 1.7 and POS 1.8 of the General Plan, as well as the broader concept of a Davis Greenway, emphasize the importance of open space; the 2030 Strategic Plan of the City of Davis Open Space Program goes into greater detail. Credit is given for ratios exceeding the 2:1 minimum.

  2. Open space connectivity. Yes/no item about connectivity between on-site open space and habitat to off-site mitigation areas. The critical importance of connectivity for habitat is discussed in the 2030 Open Space Strategic Plan, specifically in Objective HRE-1B and the decision-making process outlined in Appendix A.

  3. Tree canopy cover3. Percentage of walkways, bike paths, and high-use civic spaces (exempting sports fields, but not spectator areas) that will have 80% canopy cover after trees reach maturity (approximately 15 years). The 2023 Urban Forest Management Plan emphasizes the importance of preserving and expanding canopy cover as a key metric for assessing the state of Davis’s urban forest. This item also links to CAAP action AD.2 (Urban forest) and is also highlighted in Chapter 3 of the General Plan. Minimum requirements for tree planting, preservation, and protection are given in Chapter 37 of the Municipal Code.

  4. Street trees. Percentage of street length planted with climate-ready (drought- and heat-resistant), predominantly native trees. Again, the Urban Forest Management Plan, CAAP action AD.3, Chapter 3 of the General Plan, and Chapter 37 of the Davis Municipal Code highlight the importance of this item.

  5. Total green space. Percentage of the total project area devoted to green space, including habitat areas, greenbelts, and parks. The value of green space is discussed in Chapter 9 of the General Plan. Note that the Quimby Act requires five acres of park space per 1000 residents, and Chapter 36.08.040 of the Municipal Code discusses parkland dedication guidelines.

  1. Mixed-use development. Number of diverse land uses within a half-mile of the project edge, including grocery stores, farmer’s market, hardware stores, pharmacies, bodegas/conveniences stores, banks, and other facilities. Mixed-use development has long been best practice in urban planning, and the General Plan and the Davis Downtown Specific Plan (DDSP)’s form-based code both speak to the vitality and livability of mixed-use neighborhoods.

  2. Sphere of Influence. Yes/no question about whether the proposed development falls within the City of Davis’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). As p360 of the General Plan states, the SOI is a “representation of the probable ultimate physical boundaries and service areas of the City of Davis as adopted by the Yolo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).”

  3. Community amenities. Net present value of all community amenities offered by the project above those that are required by other City ordinances, the Environmental Impact Report, and other binding laws and regulations. Amenities would be facilities that the City has expressed an interest in obtaining, such as fire stations, senior facilities, or childcare centers.

A future version of the rubric will allow users to choose from among an expanded set of indicators.

 

 

Benchmarking a 100-score project

The Davis Development Rubric does not directly assign point values or weights to the indicators. Instead, it assumes that a project with a perfect (100) score should have the minimum levels of each feature specified in the table below.

Indicator Benchmark (a 100-score project should have at least:)
Gross density 7.0 dwelling units/acre
Net density 10.0 dwelling units/acre
Very low-income housing 10%
Low-income housing 15%
Moderate-income/workforce housing 20%
Housing Trust Fund $12,000 per gross acre contribution
Electrification All-electric energy infrastructure
Energy generation 75% of energy demand generated on-site
Energy storage 50% of energy demand met during multi-day grid outages
Cool surfaces 80% of hardscape is cool-surfaced
Climate Trust Fund $12,000 per gross acre contribution
Grade separations All major barriers have grade separations
Transit access 80% of dwellings are within 0.25 miles of transit stop or micro-mobility facility
Universal design 30% of dwellings are built with universal design
Electric vehicle charging All multifamily properties have EV chargers
Parking spaces per dwelling unit 1.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit
Agricultural land mitigation 3:1 ratio of conserved land to total project area
Open space connectivity on-site and off-site open space connected
Canopy cover 40% of walkways, bike paths, and civic spaces have 80% canopy cover after 15 years
Street trees 80% of street length planted with climate-resilient, native trees
Green space 20% of project acreage is greenbelts, parks, and habitat
Mixed-use development 10 different land uses within 0.25 miles of project edge
Sphere of influence Project is within City of Davis SOI
Community amenities $20,000 per gross acre of community amenities

 

Note that the tool in Section 4 allows user to change the benchmark values listed above.

Each indicator is scored relative to its benchmark to achieve a point value between 0 and 1. For example, a project with 3.5 dwelling units/gross acre attains 50% (0.5) of the benchmark of 7.0. The gross density indicator would thus have a value of 0.5.

 

Category scores

The indicator scores within each category are then summed for an overall category score. For example, with respect to the Housing category:

  • A hypothetical development has a 3.5 DU/acre gross density (half, or 0.5, of the 7.0 DU/acre benchmark), 6.5 DU/acre net density (0.65 of the benchmark), 7.5% VLI housing (0.75 of the benchmark), 15% LI housing (1.0 of the benchmark), 10% workforce housing (0.5 of the benchmark), and a $5,000 per gross acre contribution to the Housing Trust Fund (0.5 of the benchmark).
  • The indicator scores relative to their benchmarks are summed: 0.5 + 0.65 + 0.75 + 1.0 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 3.9.
  • The total score is divided by the maximum possible of 6.0 (i.e., 1.0 for each indicator): 3.9/6 = 0.65.
  • The result is multiplied by 10 to give a category score on a scale of 0 to 100: 0.65*100 = 65 Housing Category Score for this project.

Indicators are credited for exceeding the benchmark value, but only up to 1.25 times the benchmark. For example, if the above example had 30% LI housing (2.0 times the benchmark), it would be given 1.25 points. The above project’s category score for Housing (with other indicator values held constant) would then be 70.

There are multiple pathways by which a project can receive any score, including 100, while missing some of the benchmarks, but the 1.25 ceiling for each indicator forces the project to perform reasonably well on all indicators to receive a high score.

 

Weighting indicators

This scheme considers each indicator within a given category to be of equal importance. Choosing a set of category indicators of equal importance is thus critical. A future version of the rubric will provide users with the option to change this equal weighting scheme.

The input form below can be filled and submitted to obtain scores for each of the five rubric categories. Enter a value for each question and click “Submit” at the bottom of the form to see results.

The rubric is deployed using the indicator benchmark levels given in Section 3. To change the benchmarks that characterize a maximum (100)-score project, select “Yes” in the “Change indicator benchmarks?” drop-down menu. The indicator benchmark sliders will appear in the right column. The results will then be evaluated with respect to the newly chosen benchmarks.

Note: This pilot rubric is intended to be a living document. Please provide comments below.

 

  1. The three required elements not explicitly considered by the rubric are Air Quality, Noise, and Public Safety.↩︎

  2. Note that this indicator may require applicant commitment to the stated goal with documentation on plans to come at a later stage (Tentative Map and/or Design Review).↩︎

  3. Note that this indicator may require applicant commitment to the stated goal with documentation on plans to come at a later stage (Tentative Map and/or Design Review).↩︎

Click below to provide feedback.

The City Council Subcommittee is particularly interested in feedback on the draft indicators and the benchmark levels. If you believe a new or different indicator should be incorporated, please provide comments accordingly and specify which indicator should be removed accordingly (in an effort to keep the rubric manageable). Please also include feedback on benchmark levels and how those might be adjusted.