By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – As the Davis City Council on Tuesday was discussing critical housing issues for Davis, unbeknownst to the public, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for a second time sent back a letter seeking revisions to the Housing Element.
The letter notes, “The adopted element with revisions addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.”
A chief problem is the fact that the Housing Element included University Commons.
HCD wrote, “In accordance with public comment received by HCD, it appears University Commons, a project set to develop 264 units of mixed-income housing will no longer have a residential component.”
They add, “The absence of residential units from this project would require the City to identify additional sites to accommodate a revised shortfall of 485 units of lower-income housing and 227 units of above-moderate housing. The element must be revised to address this shortfall.”
On Tuesday, the council failed to get the votes necessary to hear an appeal on the University Commons project. While they would not have been able to discuss the ramifications of this, the community would have had knowledge of the issue.
This might have also played a role in the council’s other major action on Tuesday, where they pushed off consideration of four potential Measure J projects to past November 2024.
Another issue that HCD raised was the Nishi Student Housing project.
In January, the city believed they had resolved this issue.
According to the August 2022 letter from HCD, “To credit the 105 units toward the RHNA, the City must verify that the Nishi project meets the census definition of a housing unit and is not considered group quarters.”
In response, the city noted, “The Nishi Student Housing project is intended to provide housing to help address the City’s long-standing low vacancy rates by providing by-the-bed rentals primarily marketed to UC Davis students, due to its proximity to UC Davis.”
However, consistent with fair housing laws, the units are available for rent to anyone “with no preference given to students over members of the general public.”
The city notes, “The rental model would be unlikely to appeal to families, but it could provide for some workforce housing, which, in addition to student-oriented housing, is also a great need in Davis.”
As such, “The project currently falls into a gray area within the Census definitions for housing units versus noninstitutionalized group quarters for college/university student housing. Each apartment would be a fully-contained housing unit with living and eating facilities and direct access to the outside of the building that is separate from other units.”
The city believes that this aligns with the Census definition of a housing unit.
But HCD responds, “The element is unclear as to whether the existing development agreement for Nishi Student Housing was revised to comply with all applicable fair housing laws.”
As stated on HCD’s December 8, 2021 letter, “the element was required to analyze the existing development agreement to ensure restricted leases were not exclusive to students.”
The fact that Nishi has not been cleared to break ground is an additional cause for concern.
HCD writes that “significant time has passed since HCD’s initial review of the City’s draft element, therefore the element should be revised to include expected timing and steps for annexation including pending site access for this project.”
This is in fact a problem overall.
HCD writes that “the City is two years into the planning cycle. Currently, the housing element has several programs with completion set for 2023.”
Thus, HCD writes, “The element should be revised to include alternative timing as applicable. In addition, the element must revise programs targeted towards providing affordable housing opportunities for lower-income households. Program goals and objectives should facilitate and incentivize site development in accordance with the elements site strategy.”
While HCD has not cleared the city of Davis, they did indicate, “The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the above requirements.”
Just to clarify, does this mean that units within the student megadorm model do not necessarily qualify as a housing unit at all? I’ve seen various interpretations of this. And if that’s the case, how are any of the other megadorms being counted (or not)? (In regard to the previous RHNA cycle, or current cycle – depending upon the timing of completion.)
For example, did Lincoln 40 and Sterling “count” during the previous cycle? And what about any other megadorms currently in the pipeline?
And if the megadorms don’t “count” at all, what would the ramifications of that have been if University Mall had gone forward with that model (as previously proposed by the developer)? Would that have also “not counted” toward the RHNA requirements?
This cannot be done with infill alone.
That would be my take as well.
It’s widely-acknowledged (even by David) that the state’s mandates will fail (statewide). Most cities aren’t expanding outward at all, and don’t (or can’t) even consider doing so.
If I was “in charge” of one of these cities, I’d ask HCD what they want me to do about this. (For that matter, HCD and the state itself are going to be under increasing self-inflicted pressure. Should be fun to watch, over the next few years.)
But does anyone want to take a shot at answering my question regarding the megadorms (first comment, above)?
THe only thing we know is what HCD said in the letter: “The element is unclear as to whether the existing development agreement for Nishi Student Housing was revised to comply with all applicable fair housing laws.”
THe city in January believed it was, so it might just be a matter of clarification.
Apparently, even the “builder’s remedy” doesn’t usually pencil-out.
Is there any current “count” regarding the number of cities (statewide) which haven’t had their housing elements approved by the state?
Developing infill ain’t as easy as it sounds.
From the HCD when considering Housing Element compliance:
It makes me think that University Commons and Trackside are strikes against Davis and it’s ability to realistically to develop/redevelop vacant or occupied infill sites.
“It makes me think that University Commons and Trackside are strikes against Davis and it’s ability to realistically to develop/redevelop vacant or occupied infill sites.”
Yep