SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) has released their draft of the Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) for 2013-2021. Davis’ allocation is a relatively low number, 1065 units over the next eight years.
According to the cover letter: “SACOG is near the final steps in adopting its 2013-21 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), a state requirement to determine the number of housing units cities and counties must plan for in their housing element updates.”
They report, “No requests for revisions were received by SACOG, thereby closing the process by which the allocations can be altered. The final step in the RHNA process is to adopt the allocations in a plan document, referred to as the Regional Housing Needs Plan.”
According to information on their site, “The Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) allocates to SACOG cities and counties their ‘projected share’ of the region’s projected housing needs. The SACOG Board of Directors must adopt an update of the plan every eight years.”
Davis must then update its housing element to demonstrate how Davis will meet the expected growth in housing needs over this period of time.
RHNA requiries housing to meet four objectives. First, “Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities and counties with the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in all jurisdictions receiving an allocation of units for low and very low‐income households.”
Second, “Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns.”
Third, “Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.” And fourth, “Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category.”
(click to enlarge)
Because of the housing market collapse and the continued stagnation in real estate and growth, the projected growth for Davis remains relatively low.
The Vanguard looks at the last two housing analyses from May 2010 and May 2011 and notes that there are already between 492 and 794 units that are entitled and could count toward the RHNA total.
One question is the extent to which the completion of the West Village project will satisfy Davis’ requirement for growth. If it does, Davis easily meets the RHNA requirements in the first year.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Vanguard on Monday that he expects the city to be able to meet the current figures with no problem. He also noted that Davis is one of the only cities in the region that actually attempts to meet the numbers.
One of the critical issues in the coming months will be ConAgra. That project is projected to provide 610 units of additional housing. There are three types of questions about the ConAgra project. First is the question as to whether Davis should be focusing on residential development or even mixed use at that site, when there is a clear and designated need for land for business parks.
Second, there is the question about whether, given the current backlog of 500 to 600 entitled units in the city proper, and other batch of units coming on line at West Village, the city needs to take on additional growth.
Finally, there are questions about the current project and whether it meets standards set by the recent Wildhorse Ranch Proposal and the current West Village project in terms of sustainability.
At some point the real estate market figures are expected to turn around, but Davis may be above its growth allocation without developing the ConAgra/Cannery site as housing.
One thing that seems pretty clear at this point is that peripheral development, at least in terms of residential housing, is largely off the table until 2021. There is not the regional need for that level of development.
For a time, a group formed by developers at the Covell Village site pushed for a large senior housing project. Despite repeated attempts by the astroturf group CHA (Choices for Heatly Aging), and sympathy by some on the council, the group was too transparently backed by the developers and the movement never gained any real traction.
A development at Covell Village seems to be off the table for now and these RHNA numbers likely mean that it will remain off the table until at least after 2021.
To the extent we are likely to see a peripheral project either at Nishi (Measure R vote required) or at the Northwest Quadrant or East of Mace Blvd, we are most likely to see, at this point, plans for a business park rather than residential development.
The bottom line at this point is that the RHNA numbers do not support the need for additional growth in Davis. Davis should focus its energies on business and economic development, and we can leave the divisive growth issue at the door for now.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“One question is the extent to which the completion of the West Village project will satisfy Davis’ requirement for growth. If it does, Davis easily meets the RHNA requirements in the first year.”
West Village has been a point of contention for some time, is it or is it not part of the Davis allocation?
Sue Greenwald argued it was and backed annexation of West Village. Don Saylor opposed the annexation and won. The University wanted West Village annexed because they thought it was more cost effective to operate with city services. i wanted it annexed simply because allowing people that live there to participate in local politics is the right thing to do in spite of Davis’ long history of exclusion of students on campus from the municipal political process.
It seems to me that as long as it is not annexed into the city it can’t be considered as part of the city but should be counted as part of the county.
“City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Vanguard on Monday that he expects the city to be able to meet the current figures with no problem. He also noted that Davis is one of the only cities in the region that actually attempts to meet the numbers.”
I guess this means its only advisory anyway not set in stone
“Finally, there are questions about the current project and whether it meets standards set by the recent Wildhorse Ranch Proposal and the current West Village project in terms of sustainability.”
When did a project that was rejected and one financed by the University become the standards?
“A development at Covell Village seems to be off the table for now and these RHNA numbers likely mean that it will remain off the table until at least after 2021.”
Probably true but again its part of the county and if the pass through dies with the death of redevelopment it should be considered in the county numbers. I don’t think the votes are there to ram it through with the current board of supervisors but a future board might see things differently especially without the pass through money.
1065-492 leaves room for Conagra especially since this is only advisory.
Headline should read:
[quote]RHNA Numbers Take Peripheral [b]Residential[/b] Growth Further Off Davis’ Table[/quote]
Jeff Boone: Agree. Is the UCD West Village counting towards the City’s share, as it is right here, effectively, and those people come into town and use our services and such?
Eileen: please give us your take on this, as you are quite knowledgeable from years of study.
[i]”He also noted that Davis is one of the only cities in the region that actually attempts to meet the numbers.”
[/i]
If nobody else actually cares about these numbers, why should we (from a planning standpoint, that is)?
From the 2008 Final Housing Element Steering Committee Report
[i]”[b]Meeting the City’s RHNA[/b]
As stated earlier in this report, the conclusion of the Draft Housing Element is that the City could provide adequate sites to meet its RHNA, including provision of land for units in each required income category, by counting building permits and certificates of occupancies issued during the current planning period, tallying the capacity of existing sites already available for housing development, and including the processing of the Oakshade affordable housing project in South Davis (“New Harmony”) .”[/i]
Also stated in that same report is the following:
[i]PRIMARY SITES – Currently Planned and Zoned For Housing
TOTAL OF PRIMARY SITES – Currently Planned and Zoned For Housing = 516 – 569[/i]
Some of those 516-569 Primary Sites have been built out since 2008, but the vast majority of them are still standing as vacant lots due to the discretionary decision of the lot owner. For RHNA purposes every single vacant lot that is zoned for housing counts toward the RHNA Allocation.
West Village is not part of the city. Mike and his friends made sure that this neighborhood will not have direct access to the City, but rather will have to travel on Hwy 113 or through the University to get to the far West schools and shopping on Lake Blvd. But now you can’t count housing on campus just because people travel into town to “use services.” Don’t be absurd. If the City of Davis could count University housing in its planning, then every time the University built a new dorm, our housing needs would be met without the City having to ever build a house in town…but maybe that’s what you have in mind.
Don Shor asked . . .
[i]City Manager Steve Pinkerton also noted that Davis is one of the only cities in the region that actually attempts to meet the numbers.
If nobody else actually cares about these numbers, why should we (from a planning standpoint, that is)?[/i]
I certainly won’t speak for the City Manager, but the answer to your question is “because it is required under State law.” For many communities where growth is anticipated, there are substantial tracts of land that are already zoned for housing in amounts that dwarf the periodic RHNA Allocation numbers. The “attempt to meet the numbers” for those communities is as simple as pulling a single sheet of paper out of a drawer and updating the date on it. The reason that is the case is that the RHNA process does not require a jurisdiction to show [u]all[/u] the possibilities, but rather only enough to be able to meet the number.
To translate that into Davis terms, if Covell village had been approved and its 1,800 (or so) units were still sitting there with entitlements but were as yet unbuilt, the City would not submit a number of 1,800, but rather only the RHNA number of 1,065. It would be as if the other 735 entitled units on the Covell Village site didn’t exist (nor any of the other entitled units scattered throughout the City). So as long as a City has one or more developments with lots of unbuilt entitlements, their “attempt” is pro forma.
“If nobody else actually cares about these numbers, why should we?”
That was the question that I was wondering and I wonder, in response to Matt’s point, what it actually means that they don’t pay attention to those numbers.
Ryan:
“If the City of Davis could count University housing in its planning, then every time the University built a new dorm, our housing needs would be met without the City having to ever build a house in town…but maybe that’s what you have in mind. “
Shouldn’t it? I mean after all the purpose of supplying student housing fills a community need and is the effective equivalence of the city doing the same – so why shouldn’t it count?
David, they pay attention to those numbers, but because their community ethos is not slow growth, the way Davis’ is, the process of paying attention to those numbers was done historically when they proactively entitled land for growth. For example, how long do you think it takes Natomas to “pay attention” to its RHNA number. Roseville? Elk Grove? Eldorado Hills? Lincoln?
Ryan: thank you for giving me credit for Davis’ slow growth curve! Actually, there is a large team that looks after those things; I am just one of many. I was starting to think that I might have a day off from you and Mark West, but it looks like I was wrong?
David, University housing is not part of the City of Davis and the community took steps to make sure that it was separate from the City. If now treating University housing as satisfying City housing needs is to be the thinking, then we could count “student housing” in Woodland and Dixon as “meeting our housing needs” as more and more students are living in those communities with their lower rents.
Maybe what we want to do is to do more regional land planning and have Davis work with Woodland, Winters, West Sacramento and smaller communities in the region. But, from seeing what is happening with the water project, it seems improbable.
Again from the 2008 Final Housing Element Report (the bolded and underlined words are not bolded or underlined in the report)
[i]”Davis’ Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Very low income level, 31 units,
Low income level, 119 units,
Moderate income level, 163 units, and
Above moderate income level, 185 units.
In total, 498 units of new housing have been allocated to the City of Davis for the 71⁄2 year period from January 2006 through June 2013, which is the planning period for the new Housing Element. [b]An allocation of 1,400 units was given to U.C. Davis, based on the university’s plans to develop the West Village Project. [u]If annexed[/u], this allocation of 1,400 units would be added to the City’s allocation.[/b][/i]
The key to any discussion of West Village or dormitory housing units is annexation to the City. If no annexation, then no credit either for units or allocation.
[quote]If annexed, this allocation of 1,400 units would be added to the City’s allocation. [/quote]
Well, there you have it. Don’t look to West Village to offset City of Davis’ allocation. A better option would be to do as others have suggested – ignore it.
[quote]dmg: “City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Vanguard on Monday that he expects the city to be able to meet the current figures with no problem. He also noted that Davis is one of the only cities in the region that actually attempts to meet the numbers.”
Mr. Toad: I guess this means its only advisory anyway not set in stone[/quote]
[quote]dmg: He also noted that Davis is one of the only cities in the region that actually attempts to meet the numbers.”
Don shor: If nobody else actually cares about these numbers, why should we (from a planning standpoint, that is)?[/quote]
[quote]Don Shor: “If nobody else actually cares about these numbers, why should we?”
dmg: That was the question that I was wondering and I wonder, in response to Matt’s point, what it actually means that they don’t pay attention to those numbers.[/quote]
Here is my understanding of why the RHNA numbers are important. If the city wants to obtain grant funding for transportation projects and the like, it must have met the RHNA numbers. I cannot find any research to back up this contention, but I vaguely remember gleaning this from a SACOG report or something someone said at a SACOG meeting. Can anyone confirm this?
“Well, there you have it. Don’t look to West Village to offset City of Davis’ allocation. A better option would be to do as others have suggested – ignore it.”
No a better option would be to annex it so that the residents there could participate in city politics.
That would be fair. It wouldn’t change the allocation. Also, if we are going to annex, we should provide a direct link to the rest of the community via Russell Blvd.
Mr. Krovoza tear down this wall!
UCD had the option in the EIR process to put that housing on the main campus; I strongly remember the discussion when I was on the CC.
UCD planners chose to jump the Hwy 113 and pave over some of the best farmland in the world. That farmland was gifted to UCD to remain ag research farmland in perpetuity, and UCD’s promise was broken.
Let UCD deal with it. I don’t want their unwarranted new traffic jamming Russell Blvd.
It was in that same EIR that UCD tried to slip in the Level 4 Biolab, buried in the middle of over 500 page document.
Jean Jackman first brought that to my attention, and I pulled those couple of pages and brought them to the attention of the CC; all of us were stumped. You know the rest is history … and our town was saved, again by an alert and engaged population. Plus an escaped monkey!
Thank you, Jean, for what you did for us.
[quote]That would be fair. It wouldn’t change the allocation. Also, if we are going to annex, we should provide a direct link to the rest of the community via Russell Blvd.[/quote]
If you were to give residents of West Village access via Russell Blvd. many residents in W Davis would throw a hissy fit…
ERM: Correct!
Mike- The City of Davis jumped Hwy 113 and developed farm land long before the University. If you haven’t noticed, the university is building more student housing East of Hwy 113.
I’m going to assume from your posts, that you are opposed to annexation of West Village.
Mike, we are talking about housing allocations on this thread. Not you or your perceived importance, or the bio lab. Try to stay on topic.
Elaine
[quote]If you were to give residents of West Village access via Russell Blvd. many residents in W Davis would throw a hissy fit…[/quote]
Please forgive my ignorance on this issue. But, what do you foresee as their objections ?
[quote]Please forgive my ignorance on this issue. But, what do you foresee as their objections ?[/quote]
When the university proposed West Village, there was a meeting in West Davis at Emerson Junior High on the access to Russell Blvd issue. The meeting became so violent, the police had to intervene, and the meeting was shut down, if I remember correctly. The objections included everything but the kitchen sink, e.g too much traffic, the need for widening the road and destroying the walnut trees, etc. IMO the whole thing eventually backfired, bc now that West Village is online, they could have been routed to go by West Lake Plaza and supported the small grocery store there and other local businesses nearby. But as fate would have it, my understanding is that West Village is probably going to develop its own retail within the West Village complex itself. Some people can be very shortsighted and bite their noses to spite their faces…
I don’t think it’s fair to say “the whole thing backfired.”
The residents there correctly identified a very large number of traffic counts that would be added to Russell. Russell would probably have had to be widened. The walnuts there are historic (that is the old route of Hwy 40). And the university really didn’t seem very interested in their concerns until the neighbors got organized and started objecting loudly. So the current traffic flow, having egress on LaRue instead, was their solution to the residents’ concerns.
Don, I don’t think it is correct to say that the concerns of the residents were necessarily valid. The city/university was not advocating that the street be widened or the walnut trees be taken down. That was part of the hysteria of “what ifs” that was ginned up by the opposition…
In order to clarify the RHNA allocations, I attended the SACOG Land Use and Air Quality Committee meeting in Sacramento today. The result of that research is that the UCD allocation is incorporated in the Yolo County 1,890 unit number for the portion of Yolo County that is not in one of the three Cities.
One other point of clarification is that any lot that is entitled prior to 1/1/2013 meets the first level of qualification criteria, and if no building permit for such an entitled lot has been issued prior to 1/1/2013, the lot meets the second level of qualification criteria, and counts towards satisfying the RHNA allotment.
So, for example, the units at New Harmony and Willowbank 10 meet the first criteria, but do not meet the second criteria, and therefore do not count, but the units at Chiles Ranch currently meet both criteria and do count. However, if the Chiles Ranch owners do actually pull building permits prior to 1/1/2013 those currently “qualifying” lots will no longer qualify.
Hope that helps.