By Gloria Partida
With the number of issues, a City faces, writing a monthly column should be easy. However, the abundance of choices and the speed with which one issue rises and wanes makes catching relevant items challenging sometimes. This week the City council launched work on its Housing Element by establishment of the Housing Element Committee. The creation of the Housing Element is an opportunity to pause as a community and take stock of one of the most critical human needs. More importantly it calls upon us to plan for how we will meet that need. As with most things that are deeply important housing is an emotionally charged subject. The conversations involve not only future housing and its occupants, but the impacts on current occupants. While most can agree that housing is critical, how and where it is built is more of a question. Universally people want housing that is affordable, sustainable, infilled and that does not cause traffic or parking issues. Often, these are competing purposes. To further complicate the ability to compromise, sometimes the real driver is a desire to build nothing. Or at least build nothing here.
I understand the camp of people that want nothing built. When I moved to Davis, it was the first time I could see stars at night. The experience of living in a small town has many benefits. Usually affordability is not one of them and by default neither is diversity. There are many places where staying small and “charming” is possible. Many of those places are rural and isolated. Davis by contrast is on a major corridor and home to a world class University. Our fate was cast when we were built at the junction of railroad lines that connected us to the rest of the country and when California’s Flagship University placed its satellite here. Our connection to higher public education places a moral obligation on us. Most the young people that come here are 1st generation college students. Their path out of poverty begins at the door to our community. I agree whole heartly that the University needs to be a partner in housing students and that work has begun. The greater challenge is ensuring that there is a diversified stock of housing to afford opportunity to the rest of our community that wish to live where they work or where their children go 
to school.
There are some external forces that will dictate how many total units the City must build and what amount of those must be affordable. California has required, through its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), that all local governments (cities and counties) adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. This year the City of Davis By August 2021, must adopt a housing element that demonstrates how we plan to accommodate the assigned RHNA numbers, which are almost double of the previous cycle (2013-2021). This is an opportunity to seriously find solutions to not only meeting those numbers but to have conversations about how to keep the essence of our community alive.
For those that worry that the charm and lifestyle of our community is limited by size, I counter that the experience of a community is the relationship of its people. I think that the most important thing to support as our city grows is the facilitation of gathering spaces. We can have a strong and vibrant downtown by incentivizing and encouraging unique eateries rather than chains. We can make sure that all developments have spaces that support community gatherings so that neighbors can walk to catch coffee and conversations and perhaps some music. We have a strong cultural and arts division at the City. It is well poised to support artist and musicians to engage our community. We currently see how well the food trucks are received at the cannery. Neighbors go out for evening walks on Thursdays and catch up with each other. Food trucks are also a steady stream of innovation for unique brick and motor eateries. Many larger cities have an abundance of non-chain restaurants some of which originated as or were inspired by food trucks. I realize these things are limited currently but this will not always be the case.
I realize that the standard of living in a city is something that must be cultivated. It is also something that must be passed to the next generation. Currently that generation is priced out. While we have consistently built affordable stand-alone projects, we have struggled with inclusive housing since the loss of redevelopment revenue. The importance of affordable housing was highlighted to me after reading Mathew Desmond’s Pulitzer Prize winning book Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. It is a heart wrenching read that illuminates the struggle of families to build lives when there is no housing security. An interesting idea raised in Desmond’s book, is universal housing vouchers. This Idea is currently part of Joe Biden’s platform. A strength of housing vouchers is that they have generally allowed assisted families to disperse more widely and to live in lower-poverty, less segregated neighborhoods. This ability has enormous potential to improve lives. Just the exposure to good parks, quality afterschool programs and safe streets makes an incredible positive difference in a young life. Like any other housing program, the details are complicated, but just like opening our community to students, we can uplift lives for the future.
The Housing Element Committee’s main functions are:
- Provide comments and feedback. To review the existing housing element and other documents, background information, and public input. To provide comments and feedback on (rather than prepare) the draft Housing Element for 2021-2029 to City staff and the project consultants with the goals of creating documents which are responsive to community goals and aspirations.
- Provide recommendations. To make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council at key project milestones.
- Communicate information. To communicate information about the project to others, provide status updates to the City Commission they serve on and encourage others to participate in the process.
The Housing Element will meet on the following dates:
- Housing Element Committee Meeting #1: November 5, 2020
- Housing Element Virtual Needs Workshop: November 12, 2020
- Housing Element Committee Meeting #2: December 3, 2020
- Housing Element committee meeting #3: January 14, 2021
A virtual Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) workshop will be scheduled after the first Housing Element Committee meeting.
Gloria Partida is the Mayor of Davis
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
So, are the “megadorms” (which aren’t yet completed, other than Sterling) going to count toward the RHNA requirements? This question would also apply regarding Nishi (megadorms) and WDAAC.
If not, the council has some serious explaining to do.
Regarding diversity (in regard to UCD and housing), my understanding is that UCD does not proportionately represent some “people of color” categories. And if the affirmative action proposition passes, it would likely disproportionately hurt Asian students.
If you want an even higher RNHA number next time, I assume you’d support DISC – since SACOG bases its RNHA requirements partly upon the number of jobs in a given community. Yet another reason it would lead to more sprawl.
Truth be told, the “family/worker” housing ship sailed a long time ago – to Spring Lake in particular. With no end in sight.
UC Davis is consistently ranked as one of the colleges doing the most of low income students. It is one of the most diverse colleges in the nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/25/sunday-review/opinion-pell-table.html
Ron O, is your UCD question focused on the diversity of the student body or the diversity of the faculty and staff?
Matt: I don’t think I asked a question in the comment above, but your comment does point out another factor. Diversity of faculty was also an issue regarding age cohorts (e.g., older faculty, who would qualify for the the Davis buyer’s program for WDAAC). Most likely, over-representing “white” people.
In any case, my understanding is that the UCD student body “over-represents” Asian students (even more so, if you include international students), and “under-represents” all other categories.
So yeah – that pretty much supports what I suspected (as of whatever date that chart represents). With the exception of Hispanics/Latinos.
By the way, are all students and faculty “required” to provide this information in the first place? And if not (and they do not provide it), how would they know (and where is that documented) Is that in the “unknown” category?
Also – can’t they come up with a better label than “non-resident alien”? 😉
Actually, it appears that Hispanics/Latinos are (also) under-represented, compared to their percentage of population in California. I’m seeing various figures for that.
Now that I think about it, should this actually be compared to the statewide population percentages, Northern California, or regional percentages of each group?
Wouldn’t UCD (or pretty much any university) draw a higher percentage of those within closer proximity of campus, to some degree?
Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented – that’s why there is a push for Prop 16
The problem being that unless there’s an endless amount of money, there are limits to the number of enrollments (which are subsidized, for California residents).
Which ultimately means that if one group is favored over another (e.g., based upon skin color, vs. other measures), then the non-favored group loses out. In this case, Asians would disproportionately lose out, given their “over-representation” at UCD (and other universities).
I don’t know any other way to accomplish the goal you seek, given the constraints.
Good point Ron, Asians would likely get hurt as well as white students who are already underrepresented at UCD. A fact that most liberals don’t want to touch.
I believe that Asians would be hurt “more”, based upon the numbers/representation. Some Asian groups are among the staunchest opponents of that proposition (which apparently isn’t expected to pass).
I don’t know if the proposition would essentially “subdivide” different groups of Asians, in terms of representation/diversity. (But if so, it might start becoming truly absurd at that point.)
One Asian group has been a staunch opponent and even there, there is a strong generational effect (younger Chinese students are supportive of Affirmative Action).
I would like to pose a question to both Ron & Keith about an issue I am more than happy to “touch”.
I was in the UCD medical school class immediately following Baake. Yes, his lawsuit benefitted him, one white man. Yt I would point out that 30+ years later, blacks and Hispanics were still underrepresented in every major medical system in this area. I am not interested in finger-pointing. I am interested in what your suggestions would be to address this issue.
Have you looked into the white admissions rate for UCD as compared to the demographics of California? No finger pointing, just the facts.
My point was that affirmative action (at this point) would likely have a disproportionate impact on Asians, not whites.
As far as increasing representation of blacks and Hispanics, I would first point out that those are two different groups, and probably should not be “lumped together” if looking at representations (in any system or statistic).
Regarding increasing representation of any particular group (e.g., in the medical field), I don’t know of easy answers (or the degree to which this should be pursued, as a goal).
As a side note, are there more people of Indian descent (not “Native Americans”) represented in the medical field, or in other high-education fields? (For some reason, that’s my impression.) (Actually, are those of Indian descent considered Asians? Not sure.)
Bottom line is that there seems to be some cultural differences at play, as well. Some cultures (for whatever reason) seem to value education more highly than other cultures, for example. How do you “fix” that, assuming you think it should be fixed?
Ron O
You are so ignorant. It’s long been demonstrated that the pursuit of education on a statistical basis is driven by the combination of parents’ education and household wealth. And as has been pointed out here many times, white and Asian households have several fold more wealth than Black and Hispanic households. So of course those communities send fewer students to college. It has nothing to do with the “valuing” of education.
Yeah? Well, you’re a “poopyhead” at times. So there! 😉
I almost feel like leaving this up to marvel at it
One of the ways that Asian families get ahead is due to the fact that they don’t necessarily kick their kids out of the house at age 18, to get “experience” wasting money on rent.
That’s a (generalized) cultural difference. But increasingly, it seems like white people are catching on, to some degree.
I feel that it shouldn’t even be necessary to act on this exchange. But just in case: how about if we all avoid personal characterizations of this sort?
We have achieved “Peak Vanguard”. There is nowhere left to go.
I don’t know, but when someone throws a pejorative out there like:
then such a response might be applicable.
The result of months of effort and thought, regarding clever comebacks.
Or, could just be I’m having fun with it, on the day before election day. 😉
One other point I would note is that those in university towns such as Davis might have a “bias” regarding the value of education (and their own careers) in the first place.
Things are changing, regarding the value and cost of college education.
Last time I checked, construction workers (and the companies they work for) are among the few that are highly active at this time. I believe that the workers in particular are primarily Hispanic (with very few black or white people). Probably more white “owners” of those companies, though. How do you fix that?
I won’t go too far down this path of discussion, as it’s really a side note from Gloria’s article. But this notion of “build it for diversity” is pretty much a lie, as new residents would likely be “white” or “Asian” in the first place.
The discussion here seems to be veering off of the Housing Element topic. But, on the issue of Prop. 16, I would note that Asian opposition to Prop. 16 is not as prevalent as opponents of affirmative action would have one believe. It comes largely from recent, relatively affluent, Chinese immigrants.
I would also note that Prop. 16 deals with far more than undergraduate admissions in higher education. It also addresses government employment and contracting, where racial and ethnic disparities are a significant issue. Prop. 16 would, for example, allow targeted outreach to Latinx, Black, Native American, and underrepresented Asian communities in recruiting for medical school admissions, and government procurement programs and contractors, including in healthcare, where disparities in access and outcomes among these groups remains a significant problem.
Prop. 16 does not mandate anything. It would merely allow state and local entities to implement race-conscious affirmative action programs once again.
Here is some data. The student body in the UC system is far more diverse than the city of Davis. This is for UC overall. I didn’t bother to compile the numbers for UCD specifically but have little doubt it would be comparable, perhaps even higher in some non-white categories.
Since UC graduates can rarely settle and buy housing here, that disparity will continue. In the absence of single-family homes in a wider range of pricing, Davis will continue to get older and younger simultaneously: more students with greater diversity, and more older white residents. Fewer folks in the middle age demographic, and less diversity. People who work here will be increasingly unable to live here.
So, you’d probably need to get data from UCD itself (not the entire system), and compare it to statewide data.
From that, I assume you’d compare it to statewide demographic data, to see if UCD represents each category accurately (if that’s the goal).
But, I would be surprised if recent UCD graduates (of any “color” or “major”) could suddenly afford to purchase a house soon after graduation, on their own. Even outside of Davis (e.g., in Spring Lake or some other nearby community).
I don’t recall any “goal” that Davis suddenly becomes a home for those who graduate from UCD (regardless of skin color). Nor has it ever been a major employment center. This (along with the “diversity” argument) is a continuation of a long line of b.s., which also includes “green” arguments in regard to sprawl. But, you’ve got to hand it to those who come up with these arguments, on creativity alone.
More likely, any new housing in Davis would be purchased by white or Asian people, who are not necessarily recent graduates.
(I find it kind of amusing that international students are “not reported by ethnicity”.)
And again, the value of a degree is dropping, and college enrollments have been significantly declining across the country for the last decade.
By the way, can you imagine how large Davis would become (and how “far” it would forever sprawl outward) if the goal that Gloria and others are apparently implying became an official “policy” (e.g., “we aim to house XX percentage of former students, after graduation”.)
Given that there’s a continuing “supply” of new students.
By the way, has anyone looked into the state’s actual population growth rate, lately? Last I heard (prior to the pandemic), it was extremely low.
It’s going to be interesting to see the long-term impact of telecommuting, regarding development patterns.
The state Department of Finance has revised growth projections downward since 2017. Current growth projection for Sacramento County, which reflects the region where we are located, shows an expected population growth from 2019 – 2050 at 21.1% (down by 10.7%) which works out to about 0.7% per year.
With about 24,600 households in Davis, a growth rate of 0.7% per year would require 173 houses a year. Just about 5,190 houses or equivalent in multi-family units in the next thirty years.
I don’t feel the need to compare UCD to the systemwide numbers. I made my point.
No, they would rent first.
Your position leads to a whiter, older Davis.
Again, younger residents are likelier to rent first. In a more balanced housing market, there would be rentals and older housing stock they could rent, then perhaps purchase, then move up to higher-value homes.
And, again, as I’ve replied to this notion of yours repeatedly, UC Davis is very well-positioned to compete for students, even if overall college enrollment drops.
Here is the ethnic breakdown of Davis, Woodland, and Dixon. I suspect it corresponds very closely to income.
That’s not a great breakdown because it fails to distinguish Latinos are a discrete group
I’m aware of that. Hence the “Spanish-speaking” category.
This table is extremely misleading. It suggests, e.g., that Woodland and Dixon have a higher percentage of whites than Davis. In fact, Davis’ population of White alone, non-Hispanic or Latinx is 55.7% compared to 39.2% for Woodland and 46.5% for Dixon. Here’s a more accurate breakdown comparing Davis to Woodland and Dixon: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/dixoncitycalifornia,daviscitycalifornia,woodlandcitycalifornia/PST045219
Not everyone wants to click on a link, so here is the comparative data table from Eric’s comment
Looks like Davis is more diverse than either Woodland or Dixon, in regard to percentage of whites and black people.
Not so much regarding Asians (much higher percentage in Davis), and Hispanics (lower percentage).
Kind of interesting, I guess.
Oh, wait – Eric is posting something else as I write this. Stay tuned!
You suspect what “it” corresponds very closely to income?
I don’t have time to respond to all that Don claims, but I would note that apartments (other than megadorms – which presumably reflect whatever diversity is claimed by UCD) don’t seem to be penciling out very well. Even in places like Woodland/Spring Lake, where they’ve been planned (but unbuilt) for years.
Saving up for a downpayment without assistance (while paying rent) is likely quite challenging, regardless of skin color. I don’t recall Davis being a good “starter” market, even 20-plus years ago. I suspect that many white and Asian families are in a much-better position to help their kids as needed, which would continue giving them an advantage.
There are new families in Davis (e.g., in Mace Ranch), but I doubt that they are simply recent graduates of UCD, reliant upon their starting salaries (nor do they reflect the diversity that some claim would occur with new housing).
But truth be told, I suspect that most students actually want to leave, perhaps to places which aren’t sprawling AT ALL – e.g., the Bay Area, or to their original homes. (At least that’s the way it was before the pandemic.)
I do have a nearly fool-proof “solution” (partly tongue-in-cheek). “Reserve” a percentage of new or existing housing for a desired skin color. Works for the school board, doesn’t it? 😉
I would think that The Cannery might provide a pretty good reflection of “diversity” regarding new “family housing”. Maybe somebody should conduct a survey, and see what skin colors they predominantly have.
So the solution to lack of affordability is to restrict additional housing supply so that we can drive the price of housing up further? That’s completely illogical.
“So, are the “megadorms” (which aren’t yet completed, other than Sterling) going to count toward the RHNA requirements? ”
Getting off the off-topic veer and to the question that Ron raised – imo, student housing shouldn’t count toward RHNA numbers. Some will disagree. But if you end up only building student housing, it actually defeats the entire purpose of RHNA and housing need allocations. You need to be able to build to a variety of demographics. Yes, we did need to address student housing but we also need to address affordable housing, workforce housing, family housing, senior housing and something I missed…
The housing needs assessment includes: “An analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.” Gov’t Code § 65583(a)(7).
I couldn’t find any more info because the city website has been non-functional for several days.
RHNA numbers are a primary topic of the article.
Your opinion (and mine) doesn’t really matter regarding this. It either counts, or it doesn’t.
But I suspect a lot of people will be unpleasantly surprised (and justifiably angry at the council), if it “doesn’t count” at all.
Affirmative action was what I was referring to with the getting off topic remark.
Actually it doesn’t either count or it doesn’t. There is no real enforcement mechanism for going below and there is certainly nothing to prevent the city from going above the numbers, therefore the opinion on how to provide housing – an opinion everyone in this community should hold – matters greatly.
What are you talking about?
Are you suggesting that the city can (or should) just ignore the RHNA number?
Sure, there may not be any more SACOG funding for things like the “Mace Mess”, but it apparently can go beyond that. I doubt that Davis will be a “test case” though, given that the mayor herself (for one) is an advocate of growth and development.
But again, the megadorms either count, or they don’t. It’s not up to me or you.
If they don’t count at all, I suspect there’s going to be some who would be pretty pissed-off at the council, given that they were warned (repeatedly) about this possibility.
They certainly can surpass it. Whether there is enough teeth preventing them from going lower, I don’t know at this point. Ten years ago, there certainly wasn’t it.
According to the RHNA FAQ:
Still haven’t found a reference to surpassing, but found this on going under: “ On the implementation side, there are no direct penalties if the units are not built. Senate Bill 35 (2018) allows for a development project to receive a ministerial permit instead of a discretionary permit under certain conditions, provided that the parcel is already zoned for that type of development. One of the conditions is that it is located with a jurisdiction that did not issue enough permits to meet its RHNA allocation in certain income categories.”
In a letter dated Dec. 21 2019 from the city manager and staff to SACOG, they seek to develop a methodology for giving Davis credit for the unique multi-family units that the city had just approved or had under review. The letter specifically cites Davis Live, Lincoln 40, and Nishi.
Since they are proposing a formula for how to count those toward the city’s RHNA allocation in a manner more favorable to Davis, I think we can assume that those projects are included in the RHNA numbers in this cycle.
https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/appendix_e_menu_comments_and_responses_0.pdf
By the way, there is some interesting discussion in that appendix in response to a letter from Dave Taormino about how UCD’s housing is considered. See the SACOG staff reply to his letter. But it’s off topic here.
It’s like you’re addressing an entirely different topic, in your response.
The megadorms either count toward the RHNA requirements, or they don’t.
If they don’t, I suspect there’s going to be some who are pretty pissed-off at the council for approving them without checking into this, as specifically pointed out at the time. Especially since they had other options for those properties.
I’m certainly planning to remind folks of it.
Your quote has nothing to do with zoning to meet RHNA requirements. Permits are a different issue, AFTER zoning/plans.
I believe you’re trying to purposefully obfuscate, and shift attention away from the question.
Do the megadorms “count”, or not? If not, why did the council purposefully ignore this, and (as a result) are now presenting the city with “choices” they otherwise wouldn’t have faced? (While “blaming” that result on the state?)
I found no reference to megadorms in the RHNA guidelines.
Finally found it (you could have done the exact same thing I did btw): “ Group quarters facilities, such dormitories, bunkhouses, and barracks cannot be counted as housing units, but student housing that is set up as separate living quarters per the census definition can be counted. This type of student housing must be counted per unit, and not on a bedroom or per person basis.”
I don’t know where you’re referencing that from, but thanks.
I’m interpreting this to mean that they would likely count “by the unit”, even if rented by the bedroom. From Don’s post, it sounds like they’re still “working this out” (AFTER they were approved).
In any case, I’m a little more hopeful that the city might at least get “something” out of their approvals, regarding RHNA requirements. Which might make it a little easier to deal with these requirements (which have been known for some time, now).
However this works out is a key element regarding the requirements that the city now faces, regarding the housing element update process. They’ll need to know what their “actual” number is, after the megadorms (and possibly WDAAC?) are subtracted.
In other words, this shouldn’t just be a question that (only) I “personally” have. It is a key part of the process itself.
The bottom line is that they can’t go under the RHNA – though it is not clear how strong a sanction it would be. They can go over the RHNA from everything I saw.
I realize that there’s a total (singular) number, but that this is subdivided into various income level categories. Something that is sometimes glossed-over, as if market-rate housing would satisfy the specific requirements to address lower-income/affordable housing.
I wouldn’t take my word for it, but I believe student housing can count for purposes of the RHNA to the extent it meets specified income restriction requirements.
Thanks, Eric.
That seems to correspond with Don’s post.
Which would mean that the vast majority of the recently-approved student housing would not count toward RHNA requirements. Which would definitely be a “big deal”, regarding this process (and ultimately, upon the city as a whole).
I might keep track of how this unfolds. Certainly, someone should (e.g., the council, staff, etc.). They should have done so PRIOR to approving it, as was repeatedly suggested to them (by more than one person).
What opinion is it that everyone in this community should hold?
While new housing for all income groups tends to be both energy-efficient and climate-ready – the latter refers locally to shelter against extreme heat and wildfire fallout – there’s still a lot of housing in Davis which is sub-standard in this regard, and probably it’s disproportionately relatively modest rentals. I’ve moved a couple times this year, and always found everything from houses to apartments with no AC, no protection against smoke. There’s a City shelter, but only during the day.
Somehow this housing should count less than other housing… and the City, SACOG, State funding etc has to improve this housing to make it count as much as what’s newly-built. To be annoying and cheeky, I’m going to suggest that worst of it counts as 3/5 as much as one new unit.