Where to begin? That’s my dilemma here, but it is really the same problem that the city of Davis has. To me the housing picture in Davis is really about balance – and the struggle to find that balance.
A lot of people in this community, myself included, felt like this city grew too fast and changed too much over the previous few decades and so, when 2000 came along, a narrow majority supported Measure J to better manage peripheral growth – and then backed that up with two much larger defeats of Measure J projects in 2005 and 2009.
But by the middle portion of this decade, a lot of people, again myself included, felt that the pendulum had swung too far in the other direction. Student housing was a big problem and, by a large margin, voters approved Nishi when it came before them the second time. You can put some blame on the university’s growth for creating that problem – but even if you had steady university growth over two decades, when you go from 2002 to 2020 before opening a new market rate apartment complex, you are asking for problems.
And for good measure, the voters of Davis also approved the senior housing project later in the year in 2018, also by a healthy margin.
The message here seems clear, as we saw with the city survey – the voters are concerned with the availability and affordability of housing in Davis.
While the city has done a good job along with the university in addressing the supply needs for student housing, there are a lot of other housing needs that the community has.
All indications are that RHNA (Regional Housing Need Allocation) and SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) are going to up the city’s requirements for housing in the next cycle. We could find out those numbers in the next few months.
The voters will be asked to weigh in on the renewal of Measure R at some point in 2020.
I know a lot of people probably believe otherwise, but for the most part I would prefer not to expand onto the periphery and I think the Measure J management tool is a sound one. The voters 
showed that they were willing to approve projects when they deemed them to be solid projects and deemed there to be a critical need for housing.
On the other hand, it is also clear the voters sensed by 2000, and certainly by 2005, that there was a need to put a brake on growth.
My only problem is that we have created wild pendulum swings – two decades of rapid growth led to the Measure J braking mechanism that probably slowed down growth by too much. Davis was unique in its growth control measure, but not unique in making building housing difficult in Davis.
Is there a way to better manage the boom and bust cycle here?
In a way that is going to be the challenge for the next eight to nine years.
My belief is that Davis will renew Measure R in a fairly similar capacity as already exists and, at the same time, both the state and voters see the need for more housing.
Where Davis will go to for more housing is going to be a huge challenge going forward.
Davis can continue to plug in some infill sites as it has in the past few years. But a lot of those have gone more for student housing. You have the Chiles Road apartments that will be workforce, and you still have possibly Plaza 2555, although it is not clear where that project stands right now. In addition, there is the mixed-use workforce housing project at University Research Park and the redevelopment at University Mall – which right now is slated to be student housing, but has yet to come to the Planning Commission.
There is a clear need for workforce housing and a clear need for family housing – the question is where we are going to get those.
Downtown could be one answer – but that’s tricky, as we have seen with fiscal modeling about the viability of developing mixed-use high-density housing in the downtown. That’s definitely where I see workforce housing going, as it doesn’t require peripheral development, paving over agricultural land or a vote. But it does require financing and that could be tricky.
The other option is peripheral really. The problem there is it is not clear where the next peripheral project is going to come from or be located. Even with the approvals in 2018, getting an approval on peripheral site is a bit of rolling the dice.
You have to invest a huge amount of time and money upfront with the understanding that you might not get housing on the backend. Moreover, the uncertainty of that process creates the economic incentive to develop large-lot, single-family homes where you can most easily get your return on investment.
The reality is that that is not the kind of housing Davis needs. So that is the other part of this puzzle. The Measure R mechanism gives the voters the control they need over the process and the allocation of housing, but it imposes costs and conditions which actually mean that most peripheral projects are going to be the type of housing the voters may not think we actually need.
Bottom line: Davis’ housing situation remains a puzzle. I think most people believe we need housing and we need to find a way to create more housing which is affordable, and most people are going to be reluctant to simply approve housing on the periphery that creates more of the same large single-family homes.
The challenge for the city leaders is finding a way to strike that balance between too slow and too fast, and doing so in a way that creates housing which is affordable and fills the needs of this community
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Zippy the Pinhead Says:
“I think that Davis should renew Measure R and solve it’s housing crisis by making single-family zoning illegal. Single-family homes are the spawn of the selfish white rich and must be eliminated. In addition, those in the less-affluent ‘opportunity zone’ are living in low-density squalor and though more affordable, the residents of these homes must make way for density and progress. These residents can apply for Affordable Housing in the new housing stock and be subsidized by the rich to live in modern stack ‘n packs instead of paying to live in blight homes. Historic and family neighborhoods are a relic of the past, and all such city codes supporting such designations must be abolished. City charm and character must give way to the needs of the many. But we will put in a bike rack and electric charging station. So as to conform to the ‘Davis Way’. ”
That’s what Zippy the Pinhead says.
This “puzzle” is created by trying to mesh the utopian fantasies of modern urbanist planning theories with the realities of what people actually want. The problem is you have removed the method of providing family housing, because that is precisely single-family homes and they are likeliest to occur on the periphery.
They don’t have to all be “large-lot,” as the density can be controlled by zoning or by development agreements. A typical housing development will include a range of densities. If you want “family housing” that meets market demand, it will include a fair number of detached units with yards. That’s what families want. They will make tradeoffs with respect to lot size, number of bedrooms, and even proximity to shopping. But for the most part, the single-family home remains the goal of the majority of family home buyers.
This sentence is the biggest problem: “The reality is that that is not the kind of housing Davis needs.”
The most desperate housing situation in Davis has been addressed with the approval of several high-density rental developments and the commitment from UC to build more on-campus housing. What remains is a need for housing for families. That need is presently being fulfilled in Woodland and Dixon.
Workforce housing has become a meaningless term at this point, used simply to send the discussion off into the weeds of housing/jobs ratios and other nonsense. In this century, people change jobs and households often have multiple working adults whose employment and housing simply don’t or won’t overlap. They commute, and in many cases they don’t choose where they live based on their current employment. Living where you work is almost a luxury nowadays. Trying to use it as a basis for urban planning becomes a circular argument, as evidenced by many past discussions on this blog.
The problem really is this fantasy that people want to live cheek-by-jowl in the middle of downtown bars and restaurants, and that somehow you’ll shoehorn families into those sorts of infill developments. Think about where you want your kids to live, and tell me if you’d buy or rent downtown. Some will, most won’t.
If you want families to move to Davis, you need to allow the kinds of houses families want to live in. That will involve peripheral development. A quick look at a map tells you where that would be likeliest to occur. No sane developer will bring a large peripheral proposal before the city in the current environment. If Measure R is going to be renewed, it needs to be used as a tool for orderly development, not as a tool for obstruction.
The outcome of the present policies will be a Davis that has increasing populations at the oldest and youngest ends — seniors and students — and whose workforce will live in Woodland and Dixon and West Sacramento and will simply seek to transfer their students into Davis. The simple answer to your puzzle is to annex some land and plan it well, so the developers know in advance what is expected of them. You won’t solve your “puzzle” with infill.
pretty much agree on the Utopian fantasy. Similar to the talk of fixing transportation for commuting from Winters, Woodland and Dixon with buses. You ain’t never gonna make buses attractive to the masses, without frequency and going from where you live to right where you are going to. There isn’t the density, and it takes too long. Most people will always drive.
Don Shor articulates much of what I have been saying on here for the last ten years. I feel like I am making progress. Now if I can get David to acquiesce to reality on Measure R and peripheral development we will be making real progress.
Ship = sailed. With lots more to come, regardless of what Davis approves.
No “problem” to be solved, other than perhaps UCD subsidizing the cost of public transit for their employees.
Some “need” will be also be met by the Chiles Ranch workforce housing development, if it ever gets off the ground. (And there’s no “Measure J/R” holding that one up.)
Man, the last nails haven’t even been pounded in, at the Cannery.
In any case, housing construction is on a decided downswing, across the state. Probably a recession looming on the horizon, as well.
The “boom” is over, time for the “bust”.
I’ll believe the “bust” in Davis when rental pricing collapses. Not likely in this town.
So what?
The problem is a shortage of housing statewide, and in the case of Davis a shortage of housing for families. IMO.
UCD has no greater or lesser obligation to provide transit for their employees than does any other employer.
About 96 homes, apparently. A percentage of what is needed over the next generation or so, but definitely helpful.
Seems to be turning into a lovely retirement community. Not sure how many families are going for the high-density, small-yard format at those prices.
And then the boom again, and then the bust again, and so on. This is completely irrelevant to the process of long-term planning. Spring Lake in Woodland was initiated in 1997, specific plan approved in 2001, and there are still subdivisions in the planning and construction process now in 2019. Overall it will probably take about 30 years for Woodland to fill that area that was annexed and planned.
The pace of build-out of any new subdivision is likely to overlap with at least one full economic cycle, sometimes more than one. All the recession does is change how quickly homes get built. Planning is a long-term process. Davis, like every city, needs to plan now for what housing is going to be built over the next 10 – 30 years.
Don – your post is unreadable on my phone. David told me that about half the traffic on the Vanguard is on a phone rather than a computer. It is impossible to follow what you are saying when you break it up like that.
Works fine on my phone, so I don’t know what the problem is.
You’re the one who noted where they’re living, and will continue to do so (Woodland, West Sacramento, and Dixon). Note that these communities were significantly less-expensive even prior to the approval of Measure J/R.
How is this an “crisis”?
Is this some type of argument against UCD doing so, as well?
I don’t know that your assumption is correct, but that’s the way it was marketed. If I’m not mistaken, UCD employees were at one time given preference. The development was ultimately marketed to those in the Bay Area.
Not sure what your point was, regarding that. I was simply noting that we appear to be entering into the point in the cycle in which the housing market collapses, to some degree. However, Davis does not experience the same upward (or downward) price change, as do other communities. (Again, that was true even before Measure J/R, as well.)
By the way, here’s a link to Yolobus routes. I guess they’re running the several “commuter express” lines to Davis/UCD totally “empty”?
http://yolobus.com/routes/index.php
(They’re also labeled as “commute bus” lines.)
Honestly, if folks are going to deny reality (when it’s staring at them right in the face), how is this any different than what people complain about regarding Trump?
Ron O.
Housing developed here will reduce housing demand in a neighboring community. That’s a fundamental fact about economics. In the 1980s and 90s, Roseville and Elk Grove expanded in large part because Joe Serna blocked development in West Sacramento. As a result, downtown Sacramento lost much of its economic momentum (even killing off a new downtown mall) as development was pushed away from Sacramento. Davis is now doing the same thing.
Subsidized transit will not solve the problem. As Alan points out the convenience factor overwhelms any reasonably expected subsidy for UCD employees. The GHG emissions from those commuters is large and we need to show how we can reduce it. Even peripheral development that reduces the round trip commute from 20 miles to 2 has a significant impact.
And Don’s point about economic cycles is dead on. This is not an issue that will be swept aside by a recession. The 2008 Great Recession only provided relief for a couple of years that was the worst one in 70 years.
Your Pollyanna outlook isn’t particularly well informed.
That’s why housing in surrounding communities reduces the demand in Davis.
Sacramento’s mall was redeveloped into the home of the Kings, and the entire area is being redeveloped.
Unfortunately, you are correct that development gets (at least temporarily) shifted to areas where it’s welcomed with “open arms”. (In other words, almost the entire valley, since that’s pretty much “business as usual” for most locations.)
Ironically, developers push hardest where development is resisted the most, due to the profit they can realize. (As long as they believe they have a “chance”, or a welcoming blog at least.)
The truth is that UCD provides a degree of stability that other communities don’t have.
Alan did not make that specific argument. Regardless, the bus schedule itself shows several commute lines to Davis/UCD. Are you suggesting that these are empty, and/or are you suggesting that there’s no need for further incentives?
Those “commutes” would go right through town, via a peripheral development. Not necessarily so, from a surrounding community. Even less likely, via existing commuter bus service.
Regardless, the massive developments will be continue to be built in surrounding communities, REGARDLESS of what Davis does. Are you suggesting that these shouldn’t be “counted”, or planned for?
The only “Pollyanna” outlook on here is coming from those who purposefully ignore the massive developments being built very near Davis. Including an innovation center, with an ADDITIONAL 1,600 homes and more than 2 million square feet of “innovation center” space. And, there’s nothing that Davis can (or should) do that will change this.
“The problem really is this fantasy that people want to live cheek-by-jowl in the middle of downtown bars and restaurants, and that somehow you’ll shoehorn families into those sorts of infill developments. ”
I don’t think anyone believes that housing in the downtown is going to be for families. But single and young workers, that would be great, especially if I had a job in there.
” . . . especially if I had a job in there.”
You won’t have one that pays enough for that location. Unless it’s subsidized housing.
You don’t know that and yet you speak in absolute terms.
Try it, now. And then, try it when they build new housing for the workers that they’ll bring with them.
You’ve already got a model of this, in the Bay Area. How’s that working out for you (or me)?
Assuming that their primary goal is actually related to commercial activity, in the first place. (And not just another housing development, under the guise of “mixed use”.)
The median salaries in some Bay Area counties are three times the national average. Of course they are having housing demand problems–everyone wants to move the nation’s economic nirvana. Davis is different in two important ways–we don’t have that same salary differential because state government which has capped salaries is by far our major employer, and we physically have much lower housing construction costs (the flatlands are completely built out in the Bay Area.) You keep making this comparison without understanding the critical differences in the two situations. The Bay Area has had housing prices significantly above the state and national averages since at least the 1960s. I remember joking in 1986 that an outhouse in Menlo Park where I was living could go for a quarter million. This is not a recent phenomenon created by recent policies. They just haven’t fixed what is a chronic problem.
We can create more single family housing by increasing student and senior housing. Right now we have a large proportion of students living in housing designed for families, and if we induce them to move into student oriented buildings, we open up that housing to families (and probably at lower cost to both them and society than new housing).
The story is much the same for seniors. At a City Council meeting it was mentioned that the average age of a resident on Miller was 70. All of that housing was built to service larger 1950s families. Clearly if we induce those seniors to move out, we create higher quality family housing (and the wealthier families that move into those houses relieve demand on the more peripheral smaller housing that less wealthy families can better afford.)
I am very late to this conversation but believe Rich has this right. We were in part sold on the development of large student housing projects by the promise of freeing up single-family homes. David also notes the swinging pendulum effect of housing in and around Davis. I think it would be more prudent, given that the student housing has not yet been constructed to see what we have achieved with this rather large step as well as the complete effects of the other already approved projects before launching into more, particularly at this volatile time in our overall economy.
Tell that to the people who are ALREADY complaining about the cost of housing, in Davis.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article233624652.html
And yet, according to Richard, there’s “no connection” with the Bay Area. (Never mind that some workers from the region commute the Bay Area, as well.)
If only there was a way to blame Measure J/R, for this. You know, I wouldn’t put it past some of the more creative development advocates, on here. Does anyone want to give it a try? 😉
I hope that this is a “figurative” statement.
I remember a time when “normal” families could (and did) live in the Bay Area – including places like San Francisco. (And, I’m not that old.) For the most part – they are gone, now.
I’ve gathered that a large population of Davis residents are former Bay Area residents. (Same thing is true regarding the entire region.)
The tech industry is a primary reason for the change in recent years. It’s certainly been good for “some” people, at least.
Could have sworn that someone just said something to me, regarding a “Pollyanna” syndrome.
Note that (as with anyone else), seniors may be leaving for a surrounding community (or beyond), as well. Haven’t seen any analysis, regarding this.
Does anyone remember where in the process West Davis Active Adult Community (WDAAC) is? Held up with a lawsuit?
Although I don’t know for sure, I doubt it is a legal matter… the precise planning and engineering is quite complex… the project is in a flood zone, so the process of designing the grading, detention/retention basins,possible improvements to downstream channels,then getting City and FEMA approvals alone,take a lot of effort and a lot of time… and that’s just drainage… other infrastructure promised in the project is similar…
I haven’t seen any names as part of the “development team” that indicate “builders”… the Dev team needs to get those folk truly ‘signed up’… then there is all the financing pieces that will need to take place… a lot of the initial infrastructure needing to be completed before the first house is constructed is significant…
With no legal challenges, I’ll go out on a limb, and opine that other than, perhaps, mass grading to deal with the flood zone issues, the project won’t be “shovel-ready” until Spring 2021. First structures started Fall 2021. Mass grading (and there will be a lot of it) might begin Spring 2020.
But just an opine… am not privy to actual status… if someone contacted Ash Feeney and/or City Engineer’s office, they could better inform as to status.
There is no currently pending legal action. It is moving forward in the post-Measure R planning process.
Just noticed this, from Don:
How odd. I could have sworn that a “colonizer/developer” claimed that this development was initiated as a result of Measure J/R – which wasn’t enacted until the year 2000.
I wonder if Measure J/R is also “responsible” for Woodland’s unreasonably excessive urban-limit line.
I’m still waiting to see if there’s any claims regarding Measure J/R being responsible for construction labor costs, in the region (see my earlier comment, above). Or possibly, Trump’s election. 😉
Oh, wait – I think that the claim (or another, related claim) was that the Spring Lake development was the result of the rejection of Covell Village, despite it not being rejected until 2005 – 8 years after Spring Lake was initiated.
(If I’m not mistaken, another pro-development commenter on here made this particular claim.)
I think the claim was made by the developer of Spring Lake itself. Just a thought… he might know.
I believe that Richard made or repeated the second claim. Perhaps he’ll confirm or clarify.
Just noticed this from Richard (above), as well:
And yet, there’s this:
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Sacramento-Mayor-Joe-Serna-Jr-Dies-First-2898066.php
(Perhaps he’ll clarify this discrepancy, as well.)
A rather interesting, surprising, and informative article regarding the California housing market:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/homes-for-sale-chinese-investors-are-purchasing-fewer-us-houses/ar-AAGe6Mj?ocid=spartandhp
The author of this article [name redacted] makes no mention of:
— the amount of affordable housing that was developed under the City of Davis Affordable Housing Ordinance in the past 15 years (hint: about 25% of the total number of units built),
— why/how this Ordinance was weakened, and
— who was responsible for the killing of the City’s Middle Income Ordinance that was put into place to provide workforce housing. (hint: a coalition of developers and the Chamber of Commerce, including major Vanguard funders).
It’s almost like the Vanguard doesn’t want to discuss how affordable housing is actually built or the powers who want to weaken these provisions as much as possible.
It’s only puzzling to David. Build it and they will come. If you don’t want them to come, don’t build it.
Except there are rules and restrictions you seem to be ignoring in your comment.
The reason the author of this article [name redacted] is ignoring the affordable housing policy context is because his largest funders have done the most to undermine this policy framework.
Rik: How so? (Honest question.)
Ron: just as one example (that I already mentioned above): the Chamber of Commerce led a developer coalition (including the Taorminos) to kill the Middle Income Ordinance. They still brag about it on the Chamber website.
Honest #crickets#?
Thanks, Rik. There would certainly be an incentive to do so.
Can you provide a link to what you’re referring to, on that website?
I thought I’d try to find something, myself. Here’s the first related thing I came across:
The chamber commissioned a study which recommended an “in lieu” fee that was about half the amount recommended by staff. Not sure what became of that. They also supported some kind of “cap and trade” program regarding second units to meet the RHNA need (which makes me wonder if this was driven be a desire to avoid building Affordable units):
http://www.davischamber.com/uploads/2/4/6/9/24698775/affordable_housing_ordinance_position_statement_may_22_2013.pdf
I vaguely seem to recall some kind of subsequent discussion on this blog regarding the second units being “counted” as Affordable housing, at the Cannery.
Ron: here’s your Chamber of Commerce info. [edited]
“Ultimately, we were successful in helping to get the Middle Income Ordinance suspended indefinitely.”
http://www.davischamber.com/uploads/2/4/6/9/24698775/board_positions_1999_to_present_updated_feb2016.pdf
Thanks, Rik.
Makes me wonder if you guys even know what the issue was or what the provision did.
So I guess you don’t want them to come. It really isn’t rocket science David. The ridiculous and onerous process to build any housing in Davis has made developers and home buyers go elsewhere.
Again, Davis has rules about how to develop. Unless you can get something passed by the voters, it’s not getting built. That’s what makes it challenging.
Yes, David, as to “the rules”… and the State has rules, Davis has rules… any project has to comply with both… and they have to pass the State tests first, then there is Measure J/R vote (as applicable), and the potential for referendum (which, I don’t believe is precluded by the J/R vote), and lawsuits on any grounds (which may or may not prevail, based on merit, or judicial fiat)…
A former CC member referred to the process as a “spanking machine”… some truth in that.
There are good rules, and bad/stupid rules. Probably some in between…
Ron. In his latest private newsletter, the author of this article [name redacted] claims that the 25% of housing built in Davis in the past 15 years that has been affordable somehow doesn’t count because some of it was “independent of other housing.” The author [name redacted] also makes other bizarre justifications for not addressing the actual policy context of how affordable housing has been built in Davis.