By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – It was a provocative article in which Judy Corbett argued, “It appears that there are already enough opportunities for the City to provide the 7,036 more units that we need to meet State housing mandates.”
She said, “Rather than giving into the pressures of developers controlling properties to the East, the City should rely on its ability to promote development within the City’s boundaries. To expedite development, the City should redirect the economic development staff to interview parcel owners to find out what the city can do to help them move forward with development proposals.”
It sounds good—some readers immediately jumped on board with unqualified approvals. But the proof is in the pudding here and, drilling down, it doesn’t seem like this solves the dilemma of 2028—how will we meet the housing needs for the next RHNA?
Part of the problem here is that the analysis of sites is a bit dated. For instance, it lists University Commons as being plausible, when of course we know that is not the case.
A second problem is that, while she counts the overall units, she makes no effort to calculate how many of those will count toward Affordable Housing. That’s a bigger barrier for the city at this point.
Moreover—over and aside from RHNA—there is an over-reliance on apartments here, and one of the biggest problems Davis faces overall is the need for housing for families.
In terms of state requirements, about half her “infill potential sites” are already on the Housing Element draft to rezone to meet the current RHNA. For instance, Mace and Montgomery are already on there, 315 Mace is, Kennedy Place is, and 480 Mace is the site that has already been approved for the car wash.
If her goal is to demonstrate that the city has enough infill for the current Housing Element, I think that’s probably true.
She mentioned the 1000 units for the downtown which was also included in the current 
housing element. This week the Hibbert Lumber site dropped. They are expecting the ACE site to be submitted. A permit was pulled to begin the Research Park Mixed Use project.
Her recommendation that “the City should redirect the economic development staff” … the city currently doesn’t have any Economic Development staff.
The key question is not the current RHNA—although that is not yet certified—but the next one. How does she plan to address that? Interestingly enough, she puts the Covell Farms project and its 1400 units as an infill candidate.
While I would probably argue that Covell Farms is technically an infill site, it is also one of the five peripheral projects that have been proposed. Other than that, she recommends a few infill sites in town including the shopping center at the end of East Eighth Street, the City Corp yards and the District Headquarters—all of which could work for some infill.
The problem of course is finding enough affordable housing to meet what figures to be another 900 to 1000 units (at least) in the next cycle.
In short, for all the audacity of the initial claim, she is in the same boat as everyone else—how does Davis get enough housing with sufficient affordable housing to meet the needs of the community and the requirements of the state?
The suggestion of one of the foremost housing opponents is that Davis should do as “the massive population centers along the coast” do.
The strategy of following what cities like San Francisco are doing, meanwhile, doesn’t make a lot of sense for Davis. San Francisco has no choice but to build dense infill projects. They are going a lot higher and a lot more dense than Davis wants to do.
Moreover, why would you emulate one of the most expensive cities in the nation? Particularly if you don’t have to.
But perhaps the most ironic thing in all, is looking at how San Francisco is attempting to meet their housing obligations.
For instance, there is the 750-acre Shipyard at Hunters Point. It’s a master-planned community that accounts for 12,000 housing units and numerous affordable housing projects. Think about it, that’s about the size of Village Farms and Pioneer Community Project.
It seems important to note that Davis doesn’t have infill opportunities along that magnitude.
Of course, while Village and Pioneer contain about 2500 units, the Shipyard contains 12,000 units, nearly five times more dense.
Another point that seemingly gets lost here—San Francisco has nearly $100 million in funding going into one of the affordable projects in the Shipyard. That’s allowing people at 20 to 40 percent median income—basically less than $70,000—to be able to afford to move in.
Davis doesn’t have anything even approaching that in terms of affordable housing funding or infill land.
What Davis does have is the ability to build housing on the periphery—something that San Francisco lacks. Davis also remains far more affordable than San Francisco.
We can debate whether Village Farms or Pioneer Community Project are dense enough—I would agree that they probably are not.
But to me, meeting our housing needs the way San Francisco is going to approach it doesn’t make a lot of sense either.
A more intriguing approach is the one put forward by former Mayor Robb Davis. He argues—and I agree—the city “cannot successfully fulfill its RHNA requirements without a concerted effort to change the housing development landscape in the City.”
Ironically, I think Judy Corbett’s op-ed actually bears this out.
Davis makes a four-pronged proposal:
- Amend Measure D (formerly Measures J and R) to permit peripheral development to move forward without a citizen’s vote under specific conditions.
- Rezone specific current commercial sites to allow housing development by right if specified density goals are achieved.
- Designate key City-owned properties to develop permanently affordable rental units and release requests for proposals (RFPs) for their development in a phased approach.
- Negotiate with public and private entities to obtain land from them or encourage/incentivize them to develop the land themselves (either market-rate or affordable)
I think we need to look at ways that we can make Measure J work better because the overwhelming majority of residents at this point support it.
The city does have some vacant sites that could be rezoned for housing—but we need to carefully evaluate those sites as some of them are among the few vacant parcels that can be used for economic development, another critical need still.
While I am in favor of finding dense infill opportunities, we need to be mindful that they are not a solution to all our housing problems. It is difficult to build affordable housing on dense infill without substantial subsidies from the state and the federal government.
Moreover, dense infill is probably not going to attract the demographic of 30- to 50-year-olds, families with children that Davis so desperately needs.
What we need is a wide range of housing opportunities in town—and even with Judy Corbett’s optimistic attempt, it seems that the only way to get those is move outward not upward.
“San Francisco has no choice but to build dense infill projects.”
The bay and the ocean serve as a moat around SF. Measure J, the ordinance you continue to support, does the same thing for Davis. The difference is one barrier is natural the other artificial.
The problems with Davis’ housing market are addressable but sadly none of our community leaders or influencers have the courage to take on Measure J directly. As long as we pussy foot around it this city will continue to be unaffordable to the demographics that are already priced out.
My favorite thing about the LEED survey story was Matt Williams comment about affordability. As long as the perfect is the enemy of the good then don’t expect things to change much on the margins of cost or the city limits.
There are five proposals before the city for large peripheral projects right now to address the need for new housing. What does the subcommittee do? They put up roadblock after roadblock. First it was nothing on the ballot in 24. When the manure hit the fan about that they pivoted to this LEED survey. Its difficult to take seriously the claim that this City Council wants to build the housing Davis needs.
Ron G., regarding your comment above, do you dispute or agree with the belief/opinion (A) that Davis does not need any additional houses that sell for more than $600,000, (B) that $600,000 is a reasonable threshold for “affordability”, and (C) that Davis needs a significant number of additional houses that sell for under $600,000 to house its existing workforce, which in many cases one or more of the existing workers is part of a young family?
Ron G
I think Robb has presented a good work around for Measure J/R/D that preserves the control over development quality that citizens have preferred since the Mace Ranch debacle while facilitating much more housing and economic development here. Davis can show that we can promote sustainable development with a thoughtful approach that also provides developers more assurance, and we can do this without completely eliminating local control. Let’s move that forward instead.
Right – the very first suggestion regarding Robb’s “infill article” was to gut Measure J to enable sprawl.
And again, economic development (such as the pursuit of DISC) is what causes “housing shortages” in the first place.
It’s not just San Francisco – it’s every city along the coast.
But the point is that it’s going to fail in San Francisco and everywhere else along the coast.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it (also) fails in cities which pursue sprawl (especially in regard to Affordable housing).
And by “fail” – I mean two things:
1) The current round of RHNA targets won’t get built (assuming that the plans are approved in the first place).
2) None of these cities will be able to address subsequent rounds, unless (perhaps) they’re able to “recount” what didn’t get built in the previous round.
This is what happens when the selection (presented to voters) consist of folks like Newsom, Bonta, and Wiener, vs. some Republican (who would pursue even more damaging policies). Though it’s not likely that Republicans would push so hard for infill.
I suspect that it will be amusing to watch the state backtrack on all of this – especially in the very cities in which they were trying to force infill (e.g., where population has been simultaneously declining).
One of the big problems for the NEXT RHNA cycle is when the HCD figures out what is LIKELY to be developed. Remember that cities only need to PLAN for housing to meet their RHNA requirements. But part of the assessment phase is when the HCD figures out what is LIKELY to be built. Most of what is considered are environmental obstacles (like a city planning for housing on a contaminated site without realistic mitigation considerations). But the HCD is going to look at how likely a community is actually going to get things built. So if a community has a track record of not getting things built, then the likelihood that their housing plans/elements will be approved decreases. So does Davis have a history of slowing down and even preventing infill projects? Seems to me that everyone is all for infill and affordable housing until it’s almost literally in their back yard. Now there ways around the NIMBYs if a developer builds enough affordable housing. But to do that either makes the project less feasible financially (so it doesn’t pencil and doesn’t happen) or jacks up the price of the market rate units (thus is one of the major flaws of relying on for profit developers to create affordable housing).
The other obstacle to consider is the cost of infill. I’ve said this before but the infill at all costs crowd doesn’t seem to understand that it costs $$$$ to build infill from an infrastructure standpoint. You’d think that putting in new infrastructure would be more costly. And yes, if a peripheral development is out in the middle of no where and you have to run 10 miles of sewer, water and electrical to the site….yeah it can get costly. But usually peripheral sites that are adjacent to existing city infrastructure are easier (and often cheaper) to build then having to possibly increase existing infrastructure (sewer, water…etc…), roads/traffic mitigation…etc…(generally in the more urban type areas of a town….like downtown) So all this jacks of the cost of creating of those quasi-urban infill projects. That increased infrastructure cost for developing infill does two things: 1. it makes the homes less affordable. 2. it decreases the likelihood that the projects will be developed (unless given some optimal circumstances and terms)….that decreased likelihood of actual development may be considered during the next cycle of housing assessment is done.
It’s just politics. The council is putting lipstick on a pig. In order to get anything built they have to appease the environmentalist faction of the No Growthers. The No Growthers (justifiably) believe that new development will negatively impact their local environment. So in this case the LEEDs requirement is the appeasement offering by
Chamberlainthe Council to the environmentalist No Growthers.It’s not that the environmentalist faction of the No Growthers are wrong. Most environmental problems have a root problem of too many people. Most environmental solutions other than population reduction is just temporarily mitigating the problem at best…..or as they say shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. But addressing these environmental problems with stop gap measures hinders the immediate problem of getting enough housing that is required to be planned (and eventually built) in the community. It’s like being stuck in a room that is filling with smoke. Yes, we need to figure out why there is smoke filling the room (hopefully not a fire burning down the building). But first and foremost we need to either get the smoke immediately out of the room so we can breathe or just get out of the room.
“The No Growthers (justifiably) believe that new development will negatively impact their local environment. ”
This was a pretty good analysis overall, but I think we end up with a problem about here.
You qualify impact on the environment with local. There is of course a number of trade offs here.
First, as I have pointed out before, the overall environmental impact of new development is questionable because you are not creating new people by building new houses. You are simply moving them around. So the environmental impacts are far more complicated to assess – if you are moving people closer to where they are working that reduces VMT. Adding people in one place might increase traffic impacts, but they might also lessen traffic impacts by putting people closer to work or even enabling them to not drive to work.
One of my problems is that for years we have argued – protect ag land, protect the environment, without recoginizing that we are trading farmland here for farmland somewhere else, and the we might help the environment by putting people closer to work and also building more efficiently.
In some ways then, the tool being developed by the city can at least address one part of the equation – environmental efficiency.
A lot of “pro-growthers” advocate for trees, LEED certifications, etc. Or at least “point to” such factors to justify their advocacy for growth and sprawl.
One of the things that’s occurring is that folks are “abandoning” dense, more-environmentally “friendly” places like San Francisco, to move to sprawling communities such as the Sacramento region. The more sprawl that’s built, the more this occurs. Davis is not immune to this.
But on a related note, there actually is some correlation between “not pursuing growth” and “reduced population growth”. High costs are correlated with decisions to not have children – ask any millennial or subsequent generation(s). They’re not having kids at a level to even replace themselves.
This isn’t just my “opinion” – it’s been cited in media. No doubt, there’s other factors which are resulting in a lower birth rate, as well. But “high costs” (for housing, and cost of living in general) are indeed a factor regarding the choice to delay, not have, or have fewer children than previous generations. It’s difficult to measure, as some just leave the area entirely (e.g., for places like Texas). But again, the size of each generation is becoming “smaller” at this point – regardless.
Or, they might move out of the dense Bay Area, to new sprawl in Davis. (This appears to be the most-likely scenario.)
But for sure, nothing that Davis does will discourage other nearby communities from following-through on their own sprawl. You can see that (even in Davis), there’s plenty of supporters of sprawl. (In fact, I’d argue that Davis’ “slow-growth reputation” is somewhat of a myth.
I know that it’s contrary to the UCD cult mindset here; but the majority of people in Davis already commute outside of Davis. And many of the people moving here also commute outside of Davis or work from home.
Yes, but that’s farmland somewhere else. We’re working on Davis problems not County, State, National or Global problems. Maybe somewhere else has better reasons for converting their ag land? I’m arguing this strictly to make a rational argument (counter argument) for the No Growthers.
As I said, it’s just an obstacle to actually getting affordable housing built in Davis. It sounds nice and granola green. But you should solve one problem or another at a time. Fix the environmental problems with the new construction later….or as you go a long….to make it more palatable. Have the changes be implemented over time (and bind them to the CC&Rs on some sort of schedule). But don’t implement environmental requirements that will likely serve as obstacles to getting affordable housing built.
I personally would love this. But realistically I see a giant traffic bomb and infrastructure boondoggle if this kind of development was implemented across Davis’ downtown area.
I get your point but it doesn’t make any sense to me to defer environmental considerations given the magnitude and urgency of climate change.
It won’t happen. But even if it did, the state will ultimately feel the “heat” from that, if it ever even comes “close” to the targets – across the entire state.
Last time I checked, these guys don’t have the power of dictators (yet).
I agree – they should stay in San Francisco (and the Bay Area) where they belong, and where they work (or at least “used to” work, before telecommuting, business and population exodus, and layoffs). That’s actually the focus of the state’s targets in the first place, even though it’s D.O.A.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. As with most things in life and the management of resources it’s all about triage. So which problem do you address first? If you try to address them all you’ll accomplish little. Pick a lane; if you walk down the middle of the road; you’ll get run over. I can’t think of any other lame metaphors.
“You can’t have your cake and eat it too. ”
The cake metaphor that might be more appropriate here is “let them eat cake.” We’re basically telling the next generation, you get no housing, you get no jobs and with climate change, you get no future. But at least you can eat cake.
Bread and Circuses. Yeah, I get it.
But what I’m saying is that by trying to fix all the problems all at once you’ll fix little to nothing for the current generations and tomorrow’s generation. Pick the most immediate need and fix it. Then work your way from there.
It’s not obvious that growth in Davis will reduce the quality for current residents. Using that argument, Davis should never have gone beyond the farm experiment station established by UC in 1906. But of course we know that expansion of Davis has generally improved the quality of life in Davis over the decades. There have been some cases where unfettered additions such as Mace Ranch may have been adverse but we now have a wonderful greenbelt in North Davis thanks to a contemporaneous development, and of course there’s Village Homes which is globally recognized.
As for protecting ag land, this is not portrayed as a local issue by those opposing growth. The claim is that we need to protect ag land globally and Davis needs to do its part. But they fail to acknowledge that most of the development pushed out of Davis consumes ag land elsewhere and probably even more because the development requirements are more lax.
I can confirm that infill infrastructure is much more costly than “greenfield” expansion. Replacing utility systems cost anywhere from 4 to 10 times more based on cost filings by the utilities at the CPUC. In addition, aggregating sufficient parcels for a large project can cost 15%-40% more than acquiring an undeveloped large parcel.
“I know that it’s contrary to the UCD cult mindset here; but the majority of people in Davis already commute outside of Davis. And many of the people moving here also commute outside of Davis or work from home.”
That ignores the very large group that commutes into UCD who would prefer to live here. I believe that the number commuting is comparable with the number commuting out.
The reason they “fail” to acknowledge this is because it’s simply not true. There is nothing that Davis can do about this.
Also, claiming that development requirements are more “lax”‘ means nothing, without specifics.
But again, the only “choice” that Davis has is whether or not it also wants to approve sprawl.
If true (and not sure it is), who cares? Look – you either support infill, or you support sprawl. (Or, not much additional construction at all – my personal favorite).
They can move to Davis RIGHT NOW if they chose do to so. Should I show you some listings from Zillow?
This is how they’re going to do it:
“Corner of Shattuck and University. Few corners in #Berkeley have changed as much as this one recently – except for the smaller buildings above the bus, everything else is from the last few years. When done, 1 out of every 50 people in Berkeley will live on these blocks.”
https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1664090847636520961
Davis could turn every downtown building into a ten-story housing/commercial complex, if that’s what people want to do. I’m guessing there would be pushback against it.
Not much explanation included with this – is the result of the state’s new RHNA targets?
Last time I checked, the state hadn’t even approved Berkeley’s current housing element.
Regardless, there won’t be enough of these type of proposals anywhere to address the “Affordable” components of housing plans – in Berkeley or anywhere else.
Look no further than University Mall, to see what “pencils out” in Davis. And for that matter, even Hibbert’s isn’t pursuing the builder’s remedy. (Nor does the developer of Palomino Place seem to prefer that.) Apparently, the reason being that they’d be required to have 20% Affordable units.
As noted in 48 Hills (yesterday), the “math” to ensure sufficient Affordable housing (in regard to the state’s targets) does not “pencil out”. There simply aren’t funds to do so, and relying upon private developers to address that would require a massive increase in market-rate housing – well above even the state’s targets. (Assuming there’d even be sufficient demand for that level of market-rate housing.)
This is why the state’s efforts are doomed. The math (and funding) are not within the realm of possibility – pretty much anywhere.
According to the state site, Berkeley is in compliance.
It may be (by now). But as already noted, the article I found (which I haven’t read in its entirety) shows that it wasn’t as of the date of the article (February 1st of this year). Also, as of the date of this article – only San Francisco and Alameda’s plans had been approved.
(And yet, San Francisco’s “plan” is not viable – go figure.)
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2023/02/01/berkeley-housing-element-builders-remedy-hcd
These comments boggle my mind to be honest. Why are you relying on a four month article when there is an up to date database you can look at?
Probably because it wasn’t my primary point.
Go ahead and provide a link to it, if you want.
Is your Google broken?
Is that what “we are telling them”?
Someone should tell them that they will receive the largest inheritance/transfer of wealth in the history of mankind – much of it in the form of housing.
And that in the not-so-distant future, there will be a housing glut as baby boomers die-off. This is not just my opinion – I’ve already posted several articles showing this. Demographics don’t lie.
The population of the world is not decreasing, neither is the population of the Country. If the population of California is decreasing, it is only a temporary blip. There will not be a housing glut in California baring a major nuclear disaster or some catastrophy of similar scale. Your argument is as ignorant as always.
World population is irrelevant.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/us-housing-crash-bubble-market-home-prices-millennials-baby-boomers-2023-4
Unlike you, I’m able to back-up what I write – and do so without insulting others.
The really strange part (when I note such things) is that those who cry “housing crisis” never seem to be happy about such news. If anything, it’s the opposite. (The same type of people who actively denied that DISC would create more demand for housing.)
These are also the same people who view the exodus from California (which reduces demand for housing) in a negative light.
Go figure.
“by the mid-2030s”
Ron logic – don’t build the housing you need now because in 15 years, the pendulum may swing the other way. But remember demographics are not destiny.
Any time that farmland is sacrificed for housing, that’s a permanent decision, not a 10-15 year one.
But I would think that Davis housing (in particular) will experience this turnover much more than other locales, due to the relatively high number of older homeowners. And it won’t occur all at once – every day, another boomer bites the dust, so to speak.
Existing housing won’t be continuously “re-occupied” by an endless supply of old people. Every person in Davis will be replaced by someone born before them, forever. That’s how life works.
Regardless, there’s not even a housing shortage “now”. If there was, prices wouldn’t be dropping by almost 13% in Sacramento (so far):
https://www.redfin.com/city/16409/CA/Sacramento/housing-market
And then there’s articles like this, as well:
Note the “wording” of this article – he is not a “slow-growther” and views this situation as “unfortunate”. (He puts out some very informative videos, as well – with easy-to-understand graphs, etc.)
https://reventureconsulting.com/the-myth-of-the-us-housing-shortage/
There’s TONS of articles like this on the Internet:
https://fortune.com/2023/01/25/us-population-growth-immigration-millennials-gen-z-deficit-births-marriage/
The “only” difference (between the authors of such articles, vs. me) is that I view this as good news, not bad news.