In 2020, Davis voters reauthorized Measure J, originally passed in 2000, for a third time until 2030 by a large majority of over 80 percent of the voters. There was no organized opposition, and the council did not really entertain any notion of changes to Measure J.
But times are clearly changing, and just four years later the council briefly considered possible changes to Measure J before shelving any discussion into the future.
In 2018, when asked about Measure J, there were 9 candidates for two seats on the city council—five of them were unequivocal supporters, one was outright opposed (Mark West), and two were willing to look into modifications while another was not committal.
In 2018, Gloria Partida, who would go on to win a seat that year and be reelected in 2022, opined: “I think that Measure J/R was needed when voted in but I do believe it needs to be modified. It has now caused a shortage of housing and I believe that when it comes up for renewal it will not pass and we will be unprotected against poorly designed growth. The modification I propose is that we draw a line with well delineated metrics around what the building should contain. If projects do not meet these metrics then the project would go to a vote. We should also delineate as part of the modification where and how much we should grow.”
My View: Taking a Closer Look at the Council Race on Land Use Issues
Among the candidates who unequivocally supported Measure J in 2018 were Dan Carson, who would go on to win in 2018 and then lose his seat in 2022, and Linda Deos, who is the only one of the nine on the ballot this year.
When we asked the three current candidates their view on revisions to Measure J, Deos was far more nuanced than in 2018, stating, “It is important to note that Measure D (the Measure J/R extension) was passed in 2020 by over 80% of voters. It is clear that Davis voters want input and a voice on what peripheral development looks like.”
However, she added, “At the same time, it’s clear that our current growth model isn’t sustainable long-term.”
She continued, “Most Davis residents will agree that the state and the City have not built enough housing in the past few decades. The recent struggle to pass our Housing Element underscores the limited infill options we have going forward.”
Ultimately, she wants to “prepare” for the next chapter of Davis’ growth, “while preserving our commitment to thoughtful development and community engagement.”
What does that mean? She said, “I am ready to step in on Day 1 to champion this process for addressing our community’s needs, whether that is an amendment to Measure J/R/D or through our general plan update.”
In short, while she attempts to thread the needle, she is at least open to amending Measure J.
That’s a lot of movement in six years.
Dillan Horton similarly attempts to parse the need to modify Measure J with the acknowledgement that “(w)e must approach this issue with extreme caution. Davis residents, especially those reliant on our farmlands, are rightfully concerned about harmful agricultural interference.”
He explains, “Measure J, while a useful and necessary tool for preserving agricultural land, poses challenges with addressing housing affordability in Davis”
Horton clearly sees the downside to the Measure J process: “Development proposals often result in contentious and expensive campaigns, and rarely gain voter approval. The need for a Measure J vote has stagnated several housing projects.”
Therefore, “It is worthwhile to explore reforms for Measure J, so our city can begin implementing long overdue sensible development.”
However, he clearly states that “smart infill development” is his priority, “especially near public transit and on unused/underused city land, so Davis can create more affordable housing options.”
Victor Lagunes also attempts to find the median between the concerns about housing affordability and “fears of sprawl” if Measure J is amended.
Lagunes said, “Most Davisites agree that housing is a top priority for the city of Davis, but consensus often breaks down over the specifics of where to build and what type of housing. Measure J was established to ensure any development would meet a threshold of consensus, but in recent years, some feel it stands in the way of urgently needed additional housing.”
He added, “I have been clear in my work and my campaign that we must build housing to address growing demand, but always with climate-smart design and fiscal responsibility as guiding principles.”
He concludes: “Until the community wants to place Measure J/R/D on the table for amendment, we must recommit to fully engaging and educating voters with upcoming projects that may be subject to J/R/D.”
Like so many issues, there is not a large amount of daylight between the candidates on this one. We don’t see any candidates coming out and saying they want to end Measure J. On the other hand, we don’t see any candidates coming out and saying that Measure J needs to remain as written with only technical amendments indefinitely into the future.
The center in Davis has clearly shifted in six years. It is not clear, however, where the voters come down on this and, in this election, they are not really going to get to select from competing visions.
That will be a question for the future as the city moves forward with its General Plan update, with two Measure J project votes in 2025 and 2026, and potentially a Measure J amendment put before the voters.
You don’t improve housing affordability by building 85 unaffordable residences for every 15 affordables you build. That makes affordability worse not better.
Trying to make Measure J the scapegoat here when the real problem is UCD not building nearly enough student housing on campus doesn’t solve anything. UCD is the largest UC campus with over 5,300 acres and a 900-acre core campus. Yet, it is the only UC not committed to building at least 50% on campus housing. As a result, UCD is pushing over 60% of its students off campus into Davis and surrounding communities impacting the housing supply for non-students. As a result our workforce and families are being pushed out of Davis’ housing supply.
There is a significant amount of housing that has been approved in the City that is in the pipeline. It is not Measure J’s fault that Chiles Ranch was approved 14 years ago and laid dormant all this time
In addition, when UCD does build any on-campus housing it not the higher density like other campuses are building. UC Irvine is a model with their Mesa complex of 6-story student housing that the students love. UC San Diego is building 16-story and taller student housing producing thousand of student beds. The UCD Orchard Park student housing project built on campus in recent years is an housing at only 4 -stories when right across the street on Russell Blvd. is Identity student housing in the City which is 7-stories and built by a private builder. The private builder had to purchase the land, pay the City property fees and pays development taxes, NONE of which UCD pays to build student housing.
So UCD can and needs to build more and higher density student housing on campus like the other UCs are but our City leaders and government are not applying any pressure to UCD to get that to happen. The other UCs understand that the ONLY way to control the cost of student housing is to build it on-campus. You cannot control the cost of housing off campus and so UCD is just worsening the situation by not stepping up to build far more housing on campus and higher density housing on campus. Further, on-campus housing is much more sustainable planning since it significantly reduces commuting distancing therefore reducing traffic, circulation and parking issues and lowers our carbon footprint. It also allows the student to be more conveniently closer to their classes on-campus and other activities. In turn, this frees up housing in the City for our workforce and families.
The City has approved a significant amount of housing that is in the pipeline. But it is not Measure J’s fault that Chiles Ranch which was approved within the City 14 years ago has laid dormant until now. Why did the City not include a clause in the entitlements that had a timeline for expiration if the project did not get built within a reasonable time?
Finally, beware of any one claiming that Measure J is responsible for projects being rejected by the voters. It is the voters who voted “No” because they were badly planned and designed projects with massive impacts and the City ignored the concerns raised by its citizens. This seems to be a trend with our current City government. Measure J is democracy in action. So, it is not Measure J that needs to be “amended” but the attitude of our City government.
I’m all for UCD housing their students; and not off loading their responsibility on the town. But to me, MEASURE J IS NOT ABOUT HOUSING BUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Commercial real estate that houses businesses…that houses RETAIL are limited by what is available in Davis. Many/most want new or custom facilities that infill solutions can’t fit or are economically feasible.
It doesn’t really matter if UC Davis builds more housing or not. The city has to hit its RHNA targets for this cycle and especially next cycle.
about the next cycle: part of the REGIONAL housing assessment of a community is the housing demand generated by surrounding areas. I’m not sure if that includes UC impacts on their respective host cities. If it does, then campus housing would effect the RHNA numbers and reduce the housing requirement.
and new UCD housing effects the affordability of existing housing in the city of Davis.
As of fall 2023, UCD is on track to meet the housing terms of the 2018 MOU with the City of Davis.
https://localhousingsolutions.org/housing-policy-case-studies/from-conflict-to-collaboration-how-davis-ca-built-a-partnership-with-uc-davis-to-address-housing-concerns/
https://ucdavis.app.box.com/s/bo1os2x2guza7kybfdkew7v0kdh0nwaf
That’s like your neighbor’s 10 dogs running all over your yard every day but then your neighbor promises to keep the two new dogs they bought on their own property.
Have you read the terms of the MOU?
Yes. UCD commits to provide housing for 100% of the actual student population over 34,000 students.
So I’m not sure where my analogy is wrong.
To Eileen first, no other large public university in the country houses more than 40% of its students on campus and more typically house 30%. Each community is expected to reciprocate the benefit that it gains from the presence of a university by welcoming the students to attend the university. As Don points out UCD has met the terms of its MOU and exceeded the housing share of any equivalent university. And as has been pointed out repeatedly to you, the construction costs of exceeding 4 stories rises significantly for a variety of issues. Further, UCD construction costs are much higher than private developers due to the requirement to pay prevailing wage. Your comments need a strong dose of realism.
To Keith E, the MOU does NOT say 100% of students. It says 100% of first year students plus another segment of the student body. UCD has met its commitments. Those dogs your seeing are someone else’s.
Richard,
Section C. HOUSING
Through this MOU, the university commits to provide on-campus housing for 100% for the actual student population in excess of the baseline enrollment of 33,825, as defined in the 2018 LRDP EIR (the “LRDP enrollment”). https://ucdavis.app.box.com/s/gq0jfianaphpgtafrzvoqe3hq5fwxlz8
“UC Davis has also exceeded an MOU milestone to house 100% of the enrollment growth on campus since the campus Long Range Development Plan’s base year of 2016-17. ”
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/report-davis-uc-davis-add-housing-nearly-7000-over-6-years
Don,
UCD has not done anything to build the backlog of student housing that they neglected to build before 2018. So, that 100% of “new” students does not fix the problem of the deficit of on campus student housing. UCD needs to build far more student beds on campus to catch up with what UCD did not build prior to 2018.
It is inexcusable that UCD is not committing to building at least 50% on-campus housing like the other UCs, particularly since it is the largest UC in the system with over 5,300 acres and a 900-acre core campus. Further, it is also inexcusable that UCD is not building higher density housing and going at least 7 stories as has been accomplished by a private developers who built “Identity” on Russell Blvd.. Identity is right across from Orchard Park on campus UCD student housing which is a mere 4-stories! How embarrassing that UCD allows a waste of the footprint of its land like this which is essentially sprawl.
It is pretty hypocritical that UCD teaches sustainability, but does it practice it itself. As Keith pointed out, UCD’s deficiency of on campus housing impacts the availability of housing in the City for workers and families ,but also affects the cost of housing to be higher in the City. Why isn’t the Vanguard talking about the lack of the faculty and staff housing that UCD has promised for years that hasn’t materialized.
UCD is clearly creating the biggest impacts causing any housing needs in Davis. What is going on with UCD’s demolished Solano Park site on campus? That is a huge piece of land on campus. No plans for UCD to redevelop that site for student housing so far. Why isn’t 7+ story student housing being planned now to be built there by UCD? Why isn’t UCD doing sustainable planning? Why isn’t the Vanguard talking about that?
The Vanguard need to stop running interference for UCD, and stop trying to scapegoat Measure J for any housing issues in Davis.
You appear to have a problem with the MOU between the City and UCD. Start there instead of scrapgoating UCD for living up to its end of the mutually agreed upon bargain.
Eileen, UCD has reached housing 48% of its students–you’re picking nits. In addition, further housing is likely to come out of its agricultural research acreage–acreage that is many times more valuable than an other acreage in Yolo County because of its global impact. You are advocating to undermine the mission of UCD as the leading international agricultural research institution.
Don’s statement is incorrect. UCD has not BUILT enough housing to cover 100% of its enrollment increase since 2018. They have produced additional beds enough to cover, but a substantial proportion/number of those additional beds were the result of changing the paperwork for existing … already built … units. That paperwork change converted existing single occupancy units into double occupancy units.
In making those conversions, the existing single occupancy rent was not cut in half for each of the double occupancy residents. The combined rent for the double occupancy was significantly greater than the original single occupancy rent was. So much for housing affordability on the campus.
I did not say that. It was a quote from the linked article. I said:
The university needs to build more housing and the city needs to build more housing and the county needs to build more housing.
The vacancy rate has gone up from 0.5% to 2.5%. We are now halfway to a 5% vacancy rate that is considered a balanced market by real estate economists. We did this because everyone pulled in the same direction and we need to keep it up until we get there.
Another reason to build the housing being proposed for Measure J elections is that new housing allows people to build equity. On campus housing does not do that except for Aggie Village where owners can only gain limited equity growth.
The great failure of the Boomers in the last 25 years in Davis has been not allowing an adequate supply of new housing where families can grow a nest egg by building equity in a home. For most Americans home equity is the biggest asset they own. This failure is fundamental to the DEI social goals many Boomers claim to embrace.
Davis has done pretty well on diversity and inclusion since the days of restrictive covenants but for the generations that followed the Boomers the
Lack of opportunities for equity growth through home ownership is a stain upon our legacy.
Increased supply of on campus housing increases the supply of available housing on the market for both rental and for sale in the city of Davis. Those rental units in town become available for those that want to rent or buy (and build equity)…AND unlike simply building more market rate housing; on campus student housing doesn’t aggravate gentrification effects and increase housing costs in town.
But with a 2.5% vacancy rate we still need more in aggregate to have a heathy supply and demand balance
How do you define “a healthy supply”?
5%
Why 5%?
From 2013 to 2023, the weighted average rental rate in Davis increased by 80%, an average of about 6% per year.
The only time it didn’t do that was when the pandemic created a sudden excess of housing units. In 2020 average rent only went up 2.21%. Then 4.68% the next year, and then the property owners made up for it with a 9.44% average rent increase in 2022.
I don’t expect the larger property owners who rent primarily to students to stop the practice of raising rent at least 5% every year. They have no reason to do so. My hope is that if the market gets to 5% vacancy, fewer of the smaller landlords (there’s a surprising number of small locally-owned units) will do so. Especially those further out in town who provide the rental housing for local workers in the service economy who live in town.
My understanding is that 5% vacancy is considered a standard for a healthy rental economy where there is enough choice for renters but adequate ROI for landlords. We’ve rarely seen anything close to that here. The effect of COVID and the lower rent increase suggests that a greater supply could, in fact, lead to a more sustainable rental housing market here. If UCD houses more of their students, that helps even more. People who live and work here can’t sustain 5% rent increase every year. It drives them out of the community, and they end up commuting in from nearby towns.
https://www.chase.com/personal/mortgage/education/finding-a-home/vacancy-rate
As you know I’m not an expert on housing policy but a simple internet search yielded this article from Chase.com on the subject of vacancy rates in a healthy market.
From the Chase article Ron G linked:
Analyzing vacancy rates
In general, a vacancy rate between 5-10% may be considered healthy, implying a balance between supply and demand. If the vacancy rate is under 5%, that could mean the demand for housing is greater than the supply. When demand outstrips supply, prices tend to rise, which may make it difficult for potential tenants to afford rental units.
Alternatively, if a vacancy rate is over 10%, it may mean the opposite — low demand and high supply. Vacancy rates that fall into this category may lead to lower rental prices, and subsequently, lower profits for the building’s owner.
Excuse the equine metaphors, but proposing rezoning peripheral land in Davis remains a “one trick pony “ argument that’s grown “long in the tooth “ while some “beat a dead horse “ claiming UCD, Measure J, Builders Remedy and the RHNA are all Boogymen. There is a multifaceted range of opinions about how best to move forward on housing. I can’t imagine anyone in Davis wants to permanently destroy our agricultural heritage or the fertile lands that surround us. Measure J has huge support amongst our city’s residents ( 80% as the article states). Voters put a stake in the heart of the proposed Covell Village. (Now repurposed as Village Farms to confuse the the listeners). A Measure J vote on VF is coming as well as a vote on the Davis Eastside LLC property (misnamed as the Shriners to mislead folks into thinking Shriners still owns the land). The argument that the math of meeting our hosing element with infill won’t pencil out has yet to be tested. My 8th grade algebra teacher always insisted I show my calculations first before declaring my solution. I would think it wise if we wait on sprawling outward until we have exhausted our current city footprint. I anticipate some “NIMBY” comments, which I can understand, but in 40 years in East Davis my BY “back yard “ has included the buildout of Mace Ranch and Wildhorse developments. I understand there will need to be a compromise in the end, but I’ll continue to work the gas, clutch and particularly the brakes on the issue of irreversible peripheral expansion.