DAVIS, Calif. — For years, Davis officials have wrestled with the same challenge confronting cities across California: how to require affordable housing without discouraging development altogether.
On Wednesday night, the Davis City Council took what they believe to be a small but potentially consequential step in that debate, voting to clarify language in the city’s inclusionary housing ordinance after several councilmembers warned that developers could exploit a loophole allowing them to meet affordable housing obligations simply by dedicating land — even if the city lacked the resources to build homes on it.
The amendment, approved unanimously after a modest amount of discussion, aims to ensure that land dedication is accompanied by sufficient resources to realistically allow affordable housing units to be constructed. The vote also directs a council subcommittee and staff to begin a broader overhaul of the city’s ownership inclusionary housing ordinance.
The discussion highlighted a tension that has long defined housing policy debates in Davis: the desire to secure deeply affordable housing while also avoiding rules that could slow or discourage new projects.
Councilmember Bapu Vaitla framed the issue as a matter of correcting a misunderstanding in the existing ordinance.
“As far as I remember this process, council for a few years has said that we wanted to focus on pushing developers to actually construct affordable units,” Vaitla said during the meeting. “If they’re not going to construct units, then to provide us with some commensurate resources that we could actually do so.”
He argued the current ordinance unintentionally allows a third path that was never intended by the council: land dedication with little or no financial contribution.
“The third option is around land dedication and I’m entirely certain that council never intended the code to provide two options that are roughly equivalent and then a third option that’s something around five to 10% of the value of constructing housing,” Vaitla said.
In practice, he said, that scenario could leave the city with land but no feasible way to build housing.
“So to me, this is just simply a loophole that needs to be closed,” he added.
Councilmembers said developers in recent negotiations have suggested they could simply dedicate land to satisfy the requirement.
Councilmember Josh Chapman said that interpretation had surfaced repeatedly in discussions about housing projects.
“There were conversations that were had where like, ‘Well, look, we don’t even have to have this conversation with you around affordable housing because we can just give you this land,’” Chapman said.
Chapman noted the problem such an arrangement could create.
“Right? And then we’re sitting on 10 acres of land with no financial mechanism to build the units,” he said.
Under the proposed clarification, developers who choose land dedication would also be expected to provide additional resources to support the construction of the required affordable units.
Supporters of the change say it does not impose a rigid formula but instead preserves council discretion during negotiations.
Councilmember Gloria Partida said the amendment would make the city’s expectations clearer.
“Right now a developer can just dedicate land and meet the requirement,” she said. “At least with this language, there is this expectation that we will be expecting more than that.”
Partida also stressed that the ordinance itself needs a broader reexamination.
“I think we have to, as I said, do the overhaul so that we can think about whether or not we are really incentivizing developers to produce the units, but not put up barriers for developments to go forward,” she said.
That concern — whether the change could inadvertently slow housing construction — became a central theme of the discussion.
Councilmember Linda Deos said she worried the amendment might send the wrong signal at a time when the city has been trying to reduce obstacles to development.
“I do see some irony in the fact of just an hour ago talking about removing barriers and I want to make sure that doing something here isn’t creating a barrier for housing,” Deos said. “Because I want the housing built. And if this is going to be an impediment to housing being built, I don’t like it.”
Deos said she would prefer addressing the issue as part of a comprehensive review of the inclusionary housing ordinance rather than through a narrower amendment.
“I would prefer myself to see this done in the context of addressing the whole ordinance on inclusionary housing,” she said.
City staff acknowledged the concern, noting that uncertainty in development regulations can sometimes be perceived as a risk by developers.
“I think from a developer standpoint, this does present some uncertainty and in that world, uncertainty equals unmitigated risk and this could be perceived as a barrier,” a staff member said.
At the same time, the city attorney’s office emphasized that the council already has broad authority to reject land dedications that are not workable.
“The city council has no obligation to accept a land dedication,” a city attorney representative told the council. “You can refuse it on any grounds, including that you don’t think that it is developable without additional resources.”
Mayor Donna Neville said the amendment could help clear up widespread confusion about what developers are required to do.
“I’ve heard it from members of the public who think it’s this clear thing is, ‘If we just offer you X acres, we’re out of here. That’s all we have to do,’” Neville said.
Even so, Neville acknowledged lingering questions about how the policy will operate in practice and whether the financial contributions expected from developers could realistically close the gap needed to build affordable homes.
“I fully support doing everything we can to get the units built,” Neville said. “I’m not fully persuaded that it isn’t going to actually act as a detriment, but given what I’ve heard here tonight about the flexibility, the subjectivity, the fact that we can always walk from this option, I’m going to go along and we’re going to see how this plays out as we go forward.”
Ultimately, the council voted unanimously to introduce the amendment and direct staff to begin developing options for a more comprehensive revision of the city’s ownership inclusionary housing ordinance — a process that could take months or longer.
The goal, councilmembers said, is to ensure Davis actually produces affordable housing rather than simply acquiring land that may never be developed.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
More a clarification than closure of a loophole.
The question nobody asked is where is there land dedication that hasn’t been built?
Good question to ask, although there have been some that have taken a few decades to build. Still, it seems like if the goal is to maximize affordable housing, land dedication is the most cost-effective way to proceed.
Ron, this is a good research project. David with his contacts probably can put together a list of Davis’ historical developments with their approval dates as well as their Affordable Housing certificates of occupancy issuance dates. I’m pretty sure it will be a sad history painting a pretty stark picture.
Moving forward with a Measure J/R/D vote (alias Measure V), demonstrates City Council got totally “Loopholed” by the proposed Village Farms developers. A promise of land and a token compensatory financial donation was agreed upon. Sorry in the land of 3/4 million dollar homes, a 6 million dollar promise for affordable housing is insultingly small. But the slick monied campaign by the Whitcombe group convinced the council to bet the “Village” Farm while playing with the chips belonging to all Davis residents. The need for new housing deserved better vetting before a flawed proposal with a myriad of problems was prematurely placed on June ballot. In my 45 years in Davis, I’ve never been more concerned that our city’s community spirit is on the brink of fracture.
I knew that the practical outcome of Vaitla’s “loophole closing” would be the immediate accusation that somehow Village Farms had gamed the system, and well, here we are.
This is the problem with all of Vaitla’s machinations they are designed to produce fodder for the no vote. Vaitla’s said from the dais that he would fight the project all the way and it appears that is exactly what he is doing
“Sorry in the land of 3/4 million dollar homes, a 6 million dollar promise for affordable housing is insultingly small.”
You are insulted by 16 acres of land with infrastructure and $6 million dollar commitment? How much do you think would be appropriate?
I simply don’t see how any builder will be enticed into taking on a low profit project on those 16 acres. There is a reason for the give away here. It’s the proverbial “lipstick on a pig” for sure. And our bankrupt city can hardly be expected to take on the task of construction. $6 million dollars sounds like a lot of money, until it is split amongst 360 proposed affordable housing units.
Actually they aren’t low profit projects, they are non-profit projects which requires grant funding, etc.
No one ever seems to question the wisdom/sustainability of purposefully-seeking out a higher percentage of “poor” residents (and Affordable housing proposals that pay little or no property taxes) in a city that’s already facing fiscal challenges.
Seems to me that cities (in general) are better-off seeking “rich” people, instead of “poor” people. Especially decidedly “middle class” cities like Davis. Davis isn’t Atherton (or even Granite Bay). You’re not as rich as you seem to think you are, Davis! (If you were, you’d pave your bike paths.)
You mean following the law?
If you’re referring to the state’s “mandates”, very few cities are “following the law”.
Then again, the law doesn’t actually require building anything whatsoever, so maybe all of them are following the law in that sense.
They’re certainly not following “YIMBY Law”, however. Those guys have an awful lot of suing left to do. (As I said before, they’d have more success if they got out of the courtroom and into the construction field themselves. Here’s a tip for those “newbies”: The blunt end of the hammer faces the nail (though they rarely use manual hammers these days).
https://cities.fairhousingelements.org/
I’m referring to the law with regard to affordable housing
Still not clear if you’re referring to the state’s fake housing mandates, or the city’s ever-changing “laws” (more like a local ordinance).
Honestly, the voters themselves are going to apply “the law” when they reject Village Farms.
So I’m not sure why the council even needs to decide anything regarding this.
Let the developer propose whatever he wants for the spanking machine. :-) Who knows, he might even convince the majority of voters.