By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – Slow growth advocates in the city have for the last five or six years pushed for more housing on the UC Davis campus (which makes sense), but also opposed most student housing projects in the city—including large student-oriented apartments that some have disparagingly referred to as mega-dorms.
Despite strong opposition from some in the community, the council approved large apartment complexes that rented by the bed at a number of locations including Sterling, Lincoln40 and the voter-approved Nishi.
Having approved a number of projects that will largely serve students, the city council has made it clear that they are not inclined to approve more such projects—at least in this cycle.
According to city staff, the city did attempt to get additional credit for bed-rental “large-format” households and were rejected by HCD (Housing & Community Development) itself.
I will lay out their finding briefly and why I believe the city should not have pushed for this.
Staff at the Planning Commission noted, “RHNA allocation is not within the control of the City. Final RHNA numbers were adopted by SACOG in March 2020. City participated in the RHNA allocation methodology process with SACOG.”
They confirmed that the decision on how to count the by-the-bed rentals toward RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) “has already been made by HCD.”
And that “HCD has already rejected City’s proposal for additional credit for large-format households.”
This was fleshed out more fully in the staff report, where they noted: “By-the-bed rentals do not meet the federal definition of a housing unit, but they are located in apartment units that do meet the standard, with separate bathroom facilities and a separate entrance from other units.
“The methodology for RHNA credit for these bed rentals acknowledges that each bed is not, and should not be, counted as a separate unit for RHNA purposes, but it establishes an equivalency.”
Staff elaborated that they met with HCD in December and at that time, staff for HCD “confirmed that HCD would not accept any alternative methodology for calculating RHNA credit for larger format (i.e., 4 or 5+ bedroom) apartments.”
Slow growth advocates will hem and holler about this, of course, as they have. Some have suggested that city council was negligent to have approved such housing before knowing if it would count for RHNA.
But it does count for RHNA. Each unit counts toward the city’s fair share allocation requirements. They just don’t get extra credit for having large-format, bed-rental units. Nor would I argue should they.
One of the arguments against these large-format bed-rental, student-oriented apartments is that the city has other needs for housing. So these advocates used these other needs to push back against the format and, in all likelihood used concerns about the format to push back against this kind of development in the first place.
I largely supported the student housing format. We had an acute housing need that became glaring in 2015-16. The campus clearly needs to and needed to add housing, and they have been working to fulfill those obligations. But the city also needed to step up. The city had not build new student housing since 2002.
Building large scale housing near campus is actually a responsible strategy from a land use perspective—it limits the footprint, and puts students in walking and biking distance from campus. Even Sterling, which is a bit further from some of the others, is an easy bike or bus ride to campus.
I always believed that, while student housing wasn’t the only need, it was the key to addressing housing overall in Davis. It alleviates pressure on the rental market, and shifts housing away from the neighborhoods and toward the campus.
But, the rationale for counting it as more than just a single unit is dubious in my view.
Functionally, a four- or five-bedroom, unit rented apartment serves about the same purpose as a bed rental. Simply because there are individual rooms with private bathrooms and a lock for privacy doesn’t change the structure of housing.
Most rental housing in Davis, especially near campus, will be dominated by students anyway.
But more importantly, the push to count large-format rental housing as more than just a single unit, belies the actual push from slow growth advocates—they were opposed to the format in the first place and now want the housing to count more highly.
But every time we do that, we end up reducing the housing elsewhere and thus we fail to meet other housing needs—which were supposedly so important in the first place that we could not build exclusively student housing.
Overall this decision will probably have pretty limited impact. The council seems highly unlikely to approve any more bed-rental apartments that are student oriented in the near future. While I can understand that rationale, I do think, for the sake of condensing our land use footprint and putting housing near campus, that option should remain on the table.
While slow growth advocates look at this as a way to get more housing—which it does—it is also beneficial to preserving other space for infill housing. Because the housing that was approved was dense and efficient, we were able to meet most of the needs for student housing with projects like Davis Live, Sterling, Lincoln40 and Nishi—which then leave open other infill land for other land uses.
So it should not be looked at exclusively as a negative, even from the perspective of the slow growth communities. Many, however, are disappointed because they thought they could possibly count each bed separately rather than part of the unit overall.
For years, the opponents of student housing didn’t understand the real issue. It doesn’t matter if these beds are expensive, what matters is they’re there. For years, a land lord could give you a faulty apartment and your only recourse was to go pound sand. The city wouldn’t do jack and you had nowhere to live. Now at least you can tell the landlord, fix the problem or I’m moving. Supply matters. Getting quick supply mattered more than any other variable.
What’s not to understand? Supporting the revenue producing assets for an entity (UCD) OUTSIDE of the city’s jurisdiction and tax base makes no sense. Should Davis go out of it’s way to approve storage space of assets for companies located in Woodland or Dixon?
Do what the rest of us have do in that situation, move (happened to me 4 years ago). Why are students some protected unicorn species that deserves special consideration?
Uh…what? Why? Now you’ve got expensive beds/units that raise the cost of housing for everyone else. (I’ve written over and over about how incremental new housing increases that do not meet supply only serve to INCREASE housing costs).
Sterling is one craptacular looking project. I cringe every time I see it (about every other day). It could have been a wonderful mixed use project that brought some vibrancy and neighborhood community to 5th street.
Yeah, I can tell the landlord fix my pad or I’m moving. Before he could say, be my guest. If there’s housing available, I have a viable option.
Also don’t get the money assets point. We need housing to live in.
Again, like everyone else…if you have no other choice…move OUTSIDE OF DAVIS.
Also don’t get the money assets point. We need housing to live in.
Students are UCD’s responsibility….students are UCD’s assets (students are a primary source of revenue for UCD)…..just like whatever revenue producing assets that any other company would want to store somewhere.
That’s a very simple (simplistic?) statement. WHO needs housing to live in (Davis)? WHY do they need housing to live in (Davis)? HOW should they have housing (in Davis)?
There is a reason why most students don’t do that. You’re either adding a lot of time or costs. For me, I didn’t own a car. Yolo Bus is a hella slow. It only goes certain places. It takes me out of the ability to engage in social activities and also be able to get to campus during other times. So moving out of town would have been a huge disadvantage. You’ve put no real thought into what you are proposing because you don’t have to live it, you just don’t want students around for some reason even though you chose to live in a college town. It’s weird.
Craig [edited] it really isn’t weird at all. The reason you don’t understand Keith’s point is because you have blinders on, and are looking at his point with tunnel vision. Thake you blinders off and you will be able to understand Keith’s point.
What Keith has been consistently saying has nothing to do with liking or not liking students. What he has said is that UCD has unilaterally created the additional housing demand by increasing its enrollment and not providing housing for that increased enrollment. (note: the enrollment increases have also produced additional housing demand for the increased faculty and staff needed to support the additional students). Keith has consistently argued that UCD has been very happy to accept the additional revenues that each additional student represents, but isn’t willing to accept the expenses that supporting those additional students entails.
To put UCD’s actions into personal terms it is a lot like you running up a bunch of charges on your credit card and expecting your neighbor to pay the credit card bill.
Actually Matt, Keith has made it very clear that while he doesn’t mind students, he doesn’t want them living anywhere near him (he said those words almost verbatim). So I think part of your defense is misplaced. The truth seems to be that both sides ar speaking through the lens of their own perception. Then again, we all do, even you.
Did Keith consider potential hardship on students when he blithely said that they can just live out of town? one of Don Gibson’s more astonishing findings was that the housing shortage was leading to greater density not more students living out of town, that speaks toward that issue. Keith summarily dismissed the point without much reflection it seems.
David, there is no hardship on the students if UCD provides housing for them on campus, as Keith has argued for.
You keep ignoring that, while focusing on the status quo. Look to solutions, don’t just whine about problems.
It is more expensive, which is a clear hardship, and it separates them from the community. I can’t think why so many people want UCD students — and by more recent arguments we’ve heard, faculty and staff — to be isolated from the city in which they are studying and working. But the key factor is that UCD housing is costly.
I also do not understand why people want to micromanage the number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, which doors have locks on them, etc. Builders will build what they think will sell or rent. They probably know the market better than the folks who want to micromanage all these details.
Realistically, UC Davis isn’t going beyond 50 percent. So I think it’s an issue regardless.
I can understand why my posts about my views on housing and students can get confusing. I’m against new development. I’m for development. I’m against students. I propose a student development. My personal feelings and what I think about housing are different things.
Yes, I do not like living near students. Most students are quiet and ride their bikes to and from campus. However, I if there had been families or seniors living in the rental houses near me, I probably wouldn’t have had to deal with a garage band next door and loud amplified bands playing at parties nearby (one time when I lived a block from where I live now and from where the music originated, I could feel the music in the walls a block away). I’d also like to live in a town that caters more than primarily to the student market; I’d like more retail and dining options (how many pizza, burger and burrito places can Davis support?)
I am against new market rate housing UNLESS it provides a tangible benefit for the community. UCD only builds new housing if it pays for itself. Shouldn’t the city do the same in the very least? The community should get something for providing support services (roads, water, sewer, police, fire..etc..). New developments could add new or expanded roads, new bus line?, firehouse?, fund additional social services to support the police and new public pool..etc.. I don’t think that the housing market can be controlled by incremental additions to housing supply. Builders aren’t going to build out enough to impact housing prices. It’s too risky for them financially (and their lenders/investors wouldn’t agree to it anyway) to build out and increase supply. Also, the current infrastructure doesn’t support mass home construction.
I support for affordable housing solutions by cities, counties and the states. I think there should be more work force and affordable housing available for those in the lower income brackets (by one definition as low as 30% of the median income). HOWEVER, I believe affordable/subsidized housing should be for Davis residents and for those that work in Davis (UCD is not in the city of Davis). Workforce housing for teachers, police officers, health care workers, fire fighers, first responders, care givers..etc… Affordable homes for those living in Davis or employed in Davis. So a barista, a house cleaner, field worker that has lived in Davis and is working in Davis should qualify for an affordable home in Davis. If that person also happens to be a student, that’s fine too. But the person IMO qualifies for a house based on having lived in Davis for a period of time and/or being employed in Davis. How much affordable housing should be built would be determined by state and county mandates along with the city’s fiscal situation.
I have in the past proposed a mixed use student housing area near A & 3rd. Why? Because I think a student focused zone with living and entertainment would make money for the city. Plus it’s near UCD so traffic impact would be lessened and possibly some agreement with UCD where some of the policing would be done by UCD police (just spit balling an idea). For much the same reasoning I also begrudging supported the redeveloped University Mall (though I’m not a big fan of the proposed project).
Now what would I do if a revenue positive student housing project was proposed near where I live? Personally, I’d object. But purely on the merits of the project, I’d objectively have to support it.
What I object to is the notion that students need to be specially protected and supported by the city/community. That the city has some obligation to UCD. I choose to view students as any other person in this town.
I don’t recall this comment. Though I may have said that if housing prices keep going up, it won’t be a problem. More city laws on density (persons/unit) should be in place and enforced. Something like the number of bedrooms plus one (maybe 2); the city imposes an annual fee of $2000 per person beyond the threshold. I mean pushing people/housing unit past a point has to be unsafe.
.
Like-to-like housing on campus is no more expensive than off-campus housing. Close to 100% of the housing on campus is new construction with a current level of amenities. Compare the prices of new construction off-campus with the same level of amenities (Sterling, Lincoln 40, University Commons, Davis Live, etc. ) and you will find that living on-campus is actually less expensive.
We did this analysis last month and found that even the comparison of the Greens to Sterling, Greens was still more expensive. And you can get cheaper housing off-campus than Sterling.
I said:
That is provable in an instant and does not require a link. The point isn’t “new to new” housing. The point is the housing market off campus has many less expensive options. In the past UCD didn’t allow doubling up in rooms. They do now, I believe, in some of their units, but they choose the price.
.
Cheaper new housing off campus than Sterling? Where?
The cost of existing “legacy” rental apartments in Davis are irrelevant to any discussion of the costs to students of any housing that is being considered for addition to the City. In your analysis did you compare The Greens to Davis Live? How about The Greens to Lincoln 40? The Greens to the University Commons proposed rents provided to the City in their application?
Further did you include the cost of transportation in your comparison? How likely are on-campus students to incur the cost of an automobile for transportation? How likely are off-campus students to incur the cost of an automobile for transportation?
A LINK to your analysis would be very helpful.
.
Don, your comment above is not consistent with either the topic of David’s article or the rich thread of comments, which like the article are focused on new housing. RHNA does not give any credit for existing housing. So, the point absolutely is a comparison of “new to new” housing.
Regarding your UCD chooses the room price comment, are you saying that Sterling and Lincoln 40 don’t “choose the price” of their units? Having the landlord choose the price of the units they are renting is standard operating procedure in a free market economy … and in almost all cases housing in Davis is a free market economy.
If Dixon or Woodland right next to us and we shared a border, yes, we should provide services that support businesses in that community. There are direct spillover effects in business activity and employment, and indirect spillover in retail and other economic activity from the neighboring community. Just ask Menlo Park and Mountain View about the effects from neighboring Palo Alto as one just one simple example–the entire Silicon Valley is a bigger example. South San Francisco is built on the premise of serving San Francisco. As it is, Dixon and Woodland are quite distant from Davis; UCD is not.
Students are a protected group for several reasons. First they are at point in their careers that they are much more likely to have limited access to transportation to get them to campus. An agglomeration of students in a location is one of the key aspects of the education process-that’s why universities that facilitate student residence near campus have better educational experiences than commuter schools. And the grand bargain Davis has with state taxpayers is that we host UCD students in return for gaining substantial economic and cultural benefits. We would be Dixon without UCD and the flow of state and federal funds. (At least one-third of UC funds for campus operations come from those sources.)
You’re simply wrong about housing and supply. I’ve given our real world example of how increased supply in Davis in the 1990s suppressed housing prices compared to the rest of the region. There are many empirical economic studies that show you’re wrong. Please provide a peer-reviewed study that supports your unsubstantiated assertion. Respond with data, not your perceptions.
My god, I couldn’t disagree and believe someone could be so wrong about a subject.
SERIOULSY???? How is any of this relevant to the city of Davis? All the rest of what you wrote is IRRELEVANT. None of the student’s experience (holy Christ I can’t believe I have to write about the student experience) is any concern of the city of Davis. The city and UCD are separate entities! Student access to transportation is an issue for that student and UCD.
If Dixon or Woodland right next to us and we shared a border, yes, we should provide services that support businesses in that community. There are direct spillover effects in business activity and employment, and indirect spillover in retail and other economic activity from the neighboring community.
The border is irrelevant. UCD does not pay taxes into the city. It does not support the city’s cost for infrastructure. You know what makes more economical sense for the city? Having those people come to Davis to spend their money and leave. You don’t have to support them with infrastructure costs.
Just ask Menlo Park and Mountain View about the effects from neighboring Palo Alto as one just one simple example–the entire Silicon Valley is a bigger example. South San Francisco is built on the premise of serving San Francisco. As it is, Dixon and Woodland are quite distant from Davis; UCD is not.
I lived in Palo Alto. I had family there since the 60’s up until a few years ago. You know what Menlo Park and Mountain View didn’t do? BUILD STUDENT HOUSING. The spill over effect from Stanford was businesses moving out of there and into those cities. When that happens those cities plan for housing. If companies come out of UCD and locate in Davis and housing is needed; Davis should plan for it.
Multiple replies in previous threads countered this comment. You’re out of your depth. Your understanding about housing supply and prices is simplistic. As was pointed out previously (something you refuse to grasp) PRICES IN THE 90’S WENT DOWN BECAUSE OF LACK OF DEMAND. That led to increased supply. Overbuilding just doesn’t happen. Builders don’t add to supply that softens prices. I was PAID BY DEVEVELOPERS to make this kind of analysis. I had my own development company and risked my own money to enter markets. I’M THE EXPERT. Let me make it simple for you. You know where homebuilders build houses? It’s not where they can add to supply and watch prices soften or stabilize. It’s where home prices are projected to go up. The goal of a developer is to continue to drive up prices.
CRAIG
What’s weird? Why do you feel entitled to city services? Wow, you’d be at a disadvantage? That’s just too bad. I really feel for you and your social activities. You’re telling a community to take care of you so that you’re not inconvenienced. The sense of entitlement from your comment is astounding.
“Why do you feel entitled to city services? Wow, you’d be at a disadvantage? That’s just too bad. I really feel for you and your social activities. You’re telling a community to take care of you so that you’re not inconvenienced. The sense of entitlement from your comment is astounding.”
You’re stepping into it deeper.
That’s really something actually. What makes you the arbiter of all of this, even assuming you’re characterization is accurate, which I don’t believe it is.
What do you mean by “additional credit”? What does the word “additional” mean in what you and city staff are saying?
Do you have any evidence that your bolded statement is true, or is that just conjecture on your part?
The apartment vacancy rate will provide the evidence, but we’ll have to wait for the pandemic discombobulation to dissipate before we’ll know.
I agree with Don’s point in principle; however, UCD’s rental vacancy survey only looks at apartments, and the rental market in Davis for “non-apartments” is probably just as large as the rental market in Davis for apartments. So the rental vacancy survey only tells half of the story.
You are ignoring the much more important issue, which is that the City (both staff and Council) should have known that this counting by unit limitation was the “law of the land” and as a result have mandated that no unit in a student-oriented apartment be greater than three bedrooms.
I agree with half your statement – the city should have known…. That said, limiting housing to three units is a value judgment that would depend on whether your goal is to maximize or minimize housing.
three, single occupant bedrooms vs. the two bedroom 4 student units that most of us experienced in Davis in the 60’s-80’s? Which has more impact? A four bdrm apt, one occupant/bdrm same as a two bdrm 4 occupant unit.
I don’t understand your point. Can you translate it into English for me?
Note: In the student-oriented projects under discussion, all units (whether five, four, or three bedrooms) are designed to have two beds per bedroom.
I believe that’s false. In fact, Sterling had none so designated. Nishi and Lincoln40 only had some rooms that were two beds per.
designed vs. designated
Mais non, certainment pas.
Knowing the pattern, going all the way back to Greystone (1990’s) there were very few 3-4 bedroom apartments that were occupied by more than one resident… even then, it was generally ‘same bed’, if you catch my drift. There were no more names on the lease than there were bedrooms… suspect that has been true of the apts on Cantrill, and will be true on the new apartments, as well… the apts in the 70’s 80’s were generally 2 bdrm, 4 occupants, and all four were signatories to the lease… when one ‘roommate’ was gone, yes there were some ‘guests’ but generally (almost never) they did not occupy the missing roommate’s bed.