The question of whether and how much Davis needs to grow is rarely accompanied by the follow-up question: what type of housing needs and housing types the City of Davis needs in the foreseeable future.
In recent years, that conversation has been highjacked by special interest groups that purport to represent the aging population but are actually an astroturf group, designed to look like ordinary activists who are shilling for a specific type of housing on a specific parcel of land.
The staff report makes it clear that the issue is not what the city’s growth rate should be or what the regional housing needs allocation is.
Nevertheless, they make two recommendations, first to re-affirm that existing policies shall continue to be implemented; and second to “add to the housing resolution adopted in 2008 (based on Steering Committee recommendations) that it is the city’s intent with regard to proposed housing developments that certain housing types shall be emphasized while considering the individual context, and that superior planning and design shall be promoted.”
SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governmetns) has issued a “white paper” entitled, “Changing Demographics and Demand for Housing Types.”
In it, the agency explores national trends and finds that in the coming decades, the national housing market “will differ significantly from recent decades and the new housing stock produced will need to change too.”
They cite factors on both the demand and supply side. The demand is changes based on the aging of the large baby boomer population, the preference of the larger Generation Y group (1978 to 1994 births) and continued immigration.
On the supply side they believe that “the types and location of new housing construction over the past few decades may not match future demands.”
Interestingly, they do not take into account factors such as global warming, energy efficiency and smart growth principles in their analysis.
Instead, they look toward generational cohorts and immigrants as driving housing.
They predict a large wave of retirees over the next two decades. They write, “Many will seek more of a senior-friendly lifestyle and housing. Many will stay in their existing homes and communities, others will choose to downsize homes or seek more service-rich environments. Three-fourths will want to live in mixed-age amenity-rich communities with walkability and access to public transit.”
Meanwhile, Generation Y has been impacted by the recession, which affects its current housing choices.
SACOG writes, “Young adults have doubled up with roommates and are living with their parents. As the economy and job growth improve, they will start to form their own households and will demand apartments and small housing units over the next 15 years. Their debt load from college loans will limit their ability to take on a mortgage.”
Meanwhile they argue, “New immigrants tend to enter the U.S. as young adults and will increase the Generation Y group even more, yet they will have different characteristics. Immigrants are a diverse group and will seek a variety of housing product types and sizes in both urban and nonurban areas.”
The paper argues that the demographic changes will create a greater demand for compact housing than in the past. Moreover, the emerging adults are putting off marriages to later ages and will likely increase the pool of renters.
The existing housing in Davis is broken down as follows:
Housing needs in Davis:
Type of housing in the pipeline:
Staff argues that there are what they call “gaps” in the range of housing types. As we have noted, there is a lack of lower income and smaller housing both for sale andfor rent. There is also a lack of higher density condos, and they argue that the potential for accessory dwelling units is not being realized.
Writes city staff, “Innovative development forms which promote sustainability, link to nature, social interaction, community building, pedestrian-orientation, transit-orientation and New Urbanist principles” are also lacking.
Staff goes on to identify possible reasons for the gaps in housing types, including the fact that there are few large subdivisions being developed, thus “we are not seeing a wide mix of housing types on any one site” as the range of options are limited on smaller infill sites.
Current land use policies encourage large expensive houses, as they offset land costs and development impact fees. Moreover, “Large expensive houses are encouraged to subsidize affordable housing requirements.”
While staff may argue that they are not making recommendations on growth, they show their bias here in arguing that the current land use policies are to blame and that we would need less affordable housing requirements and larger subdivisions in order to obtain the range of housing to fill the future needs of the Davis population.
Moreover, neighborhoods get blame as well.
Staff writes, “Housing types are often determined by the context and neighborhood concerns, encouraging a continuation of existing surrounding housing types. Higher density mid-rise condos would be of concern on infill sites surrounded by lower density housing. Concerns include the increased traffic of high density developments on existing streets. Financing can be difficult to obtain for new, innovative housing types.”
The obvious implication is that the city ought to either ignore the concerns of neighbors or build on the periphery where the concerns of neighbors would be muted.
However, they also blame developers. Writes city staff, “Resistance of some developers to the marketability of higher density and cluster projects with homeowners associations (HOAs) to maintain open space, landscaping and buildings [sic]. HOAs can maintain common open space [that] can offset the loss of private open space in relation to the density of the project.”
Staff suggests that some of these gaps can be filled “with enhanced infill development” but warn that “infill development can be faced with multiple barriers.”
Instead, the city staff suggests that the city proactively plan and zone sites based on a community vision for infill, consider basic “pre-entitlements” for desired Core are infill, set development impact fees to encourage infill and discourage sprawl, reduce or delay development impact fees until the developer sees positive cash flow, while finally facilitating the development review and construction of accessory dwelling units to a greater extent.
The staff seems to recognize the move away from new development on the periphery, but that will come at a great cost as city interests bump into the interests of existing neighborhoods.
Staff ultimately seeks amendment to the council’s direction with, “The intent of the amended resolution is to expand upon the intent of the original resolution to: provide for the diverse housing needs of the community; reflect changing demographics and anticipated demands for housing types; encourage general housing types on sites that may be considered for housing development; and establish planning and design expectations for housing developments.”
As such, they look toward encouraging housing that meets the needs for small for-sale and rental units, small single-family units, townhouses, stacked flat condominium units, luxury condos, accessory dwelling units and innovative development forms which promote both sustainability and a sense of community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Frankly, I think all city staff is doing is echoing SACOG’s vision of denser infill. This seems to be the common mantra throughout the country. It is a shame. In my day, where I used to live on the East Coast, everyone had a small yard (at least a 1/4 acre) – even the smallest homes. There was some space between neighbors. When houses have no yards, common areas/parks must be built, which means those common areas/parks have to be maintained by the city or an HOA. Instead of everyone maintaining their own yard, now the city or an HOA does the work. Which sounds nice, but gets very, very expensive in more ways than one. If the city does it, suddenly we have to pay for the workers/planners/staff to carry out basic services – which gets very costly with health insurance and pensions a necessary corallary. If an HOA does it, they contract out, which can get very costly, and also opens up a whole can of worms when it comes to embezzlement of homeowner association funds and the like. I yearn for the days when everyone maintained their own yard and kept their money in their own pockets to spend as they see fit… there is nothing like being independent of gov’t…
The problem is Elaine is that times have changed. We no longer have the abundant land, we no longer can afford to sprawl and take up existing farmland, we can no longer pretend that fossil fuels and transportation are externalities. We have to change the mindset that people of your generation had that we are all entitled to land with space and yards and accept that open space has to be held in public areas and that we have to packed people closer together.
anything less than a quarter acre is a great place to store firewood or chickens…
Amen to Gunrock. The argument is based on a false premise: “The city of Davis needs additional housing and growth; what form should it take?” Davis has enough people living here–in fact, we should be encouraging a few to move out so it’s not so hard to find parking downtown. Sue Greenwald has written eloquently in this blog on this issue. Cities reach a maturity when further growth is detrimental. This is accepted on the East Coast, but not yet here. The question should be, “Do we want to live in Davis or do we want to recreate Roseville here?”
Gunrock. You are right on. We spent the first 20 years of our marriage in North Florida, where a yard was a place for multiple dead cars and motor homes, old boats, tires, etc. Livestock had to graze among the relics. Even in west Davis, there are individuals who have the urge to display their stuff prominently. We frequently have to avail ourselves of “workers/planners/staff” for these issues.
[b]ELAINE:[/b] [i]”Frankly, I think all city staff is doing is echoing SACOG’s vision of denser infill.”[/i]
[b]DAVID:[/b] [i]”We have to change the mindset that people of your generation had that we are all entitled to land with space and yards …” [/i]
One of the nicest things about living in Davis in almost any neighborhood built before the last 20 years is the dense canopy of trees. I’m not just talking about the street trees. I also mean the interior trees. When you favor densification, you end up destroying your urban forest.
It is also the case that when you build small lots with very little front yards on wide streets–as we have done in Davis for the last 20 years– you will never achieve the benefits of a shade-covered street. They don’t allow for tree species which will do the job. Denisfication has its plusses, but it’s impossible to argue that a shady street in Davis in the summer is not a great community asset.
Even worse is when we “denisfy” older neighborhoods. We do this by tearing out established, shade-giving trees.
Some examples: The densified Aiken project (now under construction on B Street across from Central Park, just north of Ciocolat). To build it, they tore out all of the interior trees and one major street tree (which will be replaced with a new tree). The new, much larger condos will not allow for any substantial interior canopy. That is what density brings.
The historic Hamel House at 2nd and D–home of Coldwell Banker real estate–has 3 large trees* on its west side. The realtors plan to tear them all down in order to build a new 2-story office building there between 2nd Street and the Pence Gallery. If that project goes forward, we will forever lose that part of our tree canopy.
Another example is with the new city parking garage which will be erected between 3rd and 4th and E and F. There are around 30 shade trees on that lot. All will be torn down to build the garage. Of course, with 4.5 stories of covered parking, we will have more shaded places to park than we have now. But we will have lost all the other benefits of the mature trees.
It’s fine to have trees and other greens in public parks and greenbelts. However, designing neighborhoods which don’t allow for very large shade-giving trees in a hot Central Valley city comes with a very high price. I’m not sure the trade-off is worth it.
———-
*Dave Taormino, one of the principals of Coldwell Banker, told me that one of the large black walnut trees is in bad shape and would likely have to be taken down no matter what. I understand that. Trees have a certain lifespan. It was pretty much the same story with the redwood tree at 5th and G which had to be taken down in order to build the new Yolo Federal Credit Union, now under construction. However, in both of these cases, the large trees cannot be replaced once we have densification. The space for these large species will be lost.
[i]”It is also the case that when you build small lots with very little front yards on wide streets–as we have done in Davis for the last 20 years– you will never achieve the benefits of a shade-covered street.”[/i]
Aggie Village is a good counter-example. It was built in the last 20 years, and the homes and granny-cottages have tiny yards. However, the development did two things right that most newer neighborhoods don’t do:
One, they have much [b]narrower streets[/b]. The argument in favor of these big broad streets is that they are necessary so giant fire trucks can get in quickly. Yet house fires in modern homes are exceedingly rare. So what happens is we have a lower quality of life for decades on the off chance that a house might catch on fire. And even if that happens it is probably the case (as long as it is not impossibly narrow) that the fire trucks will be able to get to the house in almost the same amount of time had the street been wider; and
Two, they chose [b]tree species which can grow quite tall with ample foliage on a small footprint[/b]. Those trees–I think they are a type of Sycamore–don’t yet provide sidewalk-to-sidewalk shade. But I would guess they will in 10 years or so.
“We no longer have the abundant land, we no longer can afford to sprawl and take up existing farmland, …”
Oh please, there is no shortage of land only a shortage of willingness to build on it. between Davis and its neighbors there are thousands of acres that could be developed.
Densification is only good in theory not in practice. I would like to hear from its advocates who actually live in it. Nobody wants it near their home.
It looks as though Davis might never again see a peripheral subdivision (unless we don’t have the cash to keep passing through millions to the county to keep development away from our borders). “Densification” was offered up as a solution to our future housing needs. It sounded good at first, but….
Several such projects have ended up as contrasts to, rather than parts of, the neighborhoods they’ve joined. The Aiken condo already looks out of place. Others that add a second story to a house that used to be single-story (like all of those around it) steal privacy from their neighbors. Add to this Rich’s concern about the old trees, and the higher constructions costs for small projects, one has to wonder we’re really improving our city with this concept.
In addition, the last few years of large and small infill proposals haven’t exactly been met with by neighbors and/or the rest of us with open arms. How can densification have much of a future here?
[i]”In addition, the last few years of large and small infill proposals haven’t exactly been met with by neighbors and/or the rest of us with open arms.”[/i]
Although some have argued that these disputes have been the fault of the city staff or of one individual on the city staff, I think the point “JustSaying” makes can also be–maybe even primarily be–the result of our General Plan’s densification conditions.
I don’t know all of the details of what was agreed to on the Chiles Ranch project (aka Simmons Ranch off E. 8th Street) between the developer and the neighbors. However, my understanding is that a major source of conflict grew up after staff determined that the plan agreed to with the nieghborhood was “not dense enough” to meet the GP’s requirements. So the developer agreed with staff that he would make the lots much smaller and have a whole lot more of them. And then the neighbors felt like all they had put into the project and the agreement they had reached was disregarded. If that is roughly the case, the blame lies with densification goals, where infill projects tend to be much more crowded than the nearby developments which came first.
When the City Council approved the parcel map on that school district propertyon Grande Avenue, it ultimately was not an unresolvable problem with the Grande neighbors. They too approved the densification plan. However, I was surprised by the fact that the agreement allowed 41 new single family homes. If the lots had been sized the same as in the rest of that neighborhood, there would have only been 24 or 25 new houses.
I don’t think everything is bad about small lots and smaller homes–they should in theory be a way to generate more affordable market rate houses. If we allowed only big lots, it’s likely only very large, expensive homes would be constructed, due to the high land prices. But when an infill project has roughly twice the density of the rest of the existing neighborhood, it seems likely to me to be an uneasy fit with what was there first.
A last thought on this before I go to sleep … Sue Greenwald has long advocated an urban village infill plan for the PG&E corporation yard property south of 5th Street and east of L Street. In contrast to some of the other infills–for example, the Third & B Visioning; Grande; Chiles Ranch–the PG&E idea is more attractive to me in most respects. Unlike those others, it is bordered by major streets. It won’t harm the quality of life of existing neighbors much. And if it includes some public amenities–either shopping or green space, it will (perhaps) be seen as complimentary to its closest neighbors.
“I don’t know all of the details of what was agreed to on the Chiles Ranch project (aka Simmons Ranch off E. 8th Street) between the developer and the neighbors. However, my understanding is that a major source of conflict grew up after staff determined that the plan agreed to with the nieghborhood was “not dense enough” to meet the GP’s requirements. So the developer agreed with staff that he would make the lots much smaller and have a whole lot more of them.”
I once spoke to the developer at the farmers market and he lamented having more lots. He didn’t say why he had more lots but felt a better and more profitable project could have been had if he had fewer homes.