DAVIS, Calif. — As the City of Davis moves forward with its long-awaited General Plan Update, city staff are urging elected officials to adopt a land use strategy that not only accommodates future housing demand but also addresses declining school enrollment, greenhouse gas emissions, fiscal sustainability and the realities of today’s construction market.
A staff report scheduled for discussion at the July 7 City Council meeting outlines the major policy questions shaping the Davis 2050 General Plan Update and signals that the city may need to plan for significantly more housing than previous growth projections alone would suggest.
The General Plan, first adopted in 2001, serves as the city’s blueprint for growth over the next two decades and beyond. City staff describe the current update as a comprehensive effort that will guide development while balancing housing, economic development, infrastructure, climate goals and quality of life.
According to the report, “The GPU will be a comprehensive update to the General Plan, which will serve as the City’s blueprint for future development in the city and will contain goals, policies, and implementation activities to guide the community through the next 20+ years. It builds on community strengths and assets, while tackling new and emerging challenges.”
Staff recommend that the City Council receive an update on the planning process, which has included more than a year of public engagement involving residents, commissions, community workshops, surveys and stakeholder meetings. A preferred land use map is expected to be presented later this year, followed by development of the General Plan’s policy elements in 2027.
At the heart of the discussion is the city’s future growth strategy.
The report notes that land use decisions remain “the most foundational” element of any general plan because they determine where housing, businesses, public facilities and open space will be located.
Quoting the California General Plan Guidelines, the report states, “The most fundamental decisions in planning begin with land use: what to put where?” It continues, “At its best, the land use element will reflect the community’s vision, promote thoughtful, equitable and accessible distribution of different land uses, including residential, commercial, industrial agricultural and open space and align well with other general plan elements.”
The report argues that Davis’ existing General Plan reflects priorities established decades ago, including maintaining slow growth and limiting buildout to fewer than 64,000 residents.
According to staff, the 2001 plan “contains policies focusing limited investment in Downtown, neighborhood centers and multifamily areas along arterials,” but also includes policies “about preservation of the ‘small, university oriented’ community.”
The report further notes that Policy LU 1.1 encouraged the city to work with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments “to ensure that, ‘the fair share numbers issued for RHNA reflect the City’s desire for slow growth’,” while also seeking “to maintain buildout under 64,000 residents.”
Staff suggest those assumptions no longer reflect the city’s present circumstances or state housing obligations.
One of the central questions before the city is how much housing should actually be planned.
The report reviews three major sources used to estimate future housing demand: projections from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), California Department of Finance population forecasts and future Regional Housing Needs Allocations from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
According to the report, SACOG expects Davis “to grow less rapidly than either Yolo County as a whole or Sacramento County” and projects the city will add approximately 4,300 housing units and 2,200 jobs by 2050.
The Department of Finance, however, paints a different picture.
Staff write that DOF projections are “less policy-driven and more market-driven than SACOG” and estimate Yolo County’s population will grow by more than 50 percent between 2020 and 2050.
The report concludes, “The DOF projections suggest that Yolo County’s potential long-term growth may be more robust than indicated by the SACOG projections. By extension, Davis’ underlying demand for residential growth may also be more robust than indicated by the SACOG projections.”
The city’s obligations under state housing law represent perhaps the strongest argument for planning additional housing.
The report explains that HCD determines regional housing needs while SACOG distributes those requirements among jurisdictions.
The report states, “Housing Element law requires local governments to be accountable for ensuring that projected housing needs reflected by the RHNA can be accommodated.”
It adds, “While land use planning is fundamentally a local issue, the availability of housing is a matter of statewide importance.”
Looking ahead, staff anticipate future housing allocations will continue increasing.
The report notes that Davis received an allocation of 2,075 housing units during the current Housing Element cycle, roughly double previous allocations.
Because future RHNA numbers are expected to grow, staff recommend that the city prepare now.
According to the report, “Early indicators from SACOG are that the RHNA numbers will increase.”
Staff therefore recommend planning “for a minimum of what was assigned in 2021 for each of the cycles.”
The report continues, “Staff recommends that the city plan for a minimum of 6,225 additional units beyond the previously assigned 6th Cycle RHNA’s 2,075 units.”
Staff note that recommendation could be reduced to 4,150 units if the City Council chooses not to plan for the third Housing Element cycle covered by the General Plan.
The report also acknowledges that planning for housing does not necessarily mean the housing will actually be built.
Construction costs remain one of the greatest uncertainties facing future development.
Staff write, “Residential development feasibility, in particular multifamily feasibility, is currently impacted by high construction and financing costs, making it difficult to achieve competitive financial returns and get projects started.”
The report notes that labor costs, building materials and financing expenses have risen dramatically while rents have not increased enough to offset those costs.
Although higher allowable densities improve financial feasibility, they are not a guarantee.
According to the report, “Increasing allowable height and density increases the theoretical development potential of a site, but it does not guarantee that housing will be built.”
The report points to the Downtown Specific Plan as an example.
Although buildings up to seven stories are permitted, “the City has not seen applications for more than five stories.”
Similarly, “UC Davis stayed at five stories or less with their new construction.”
Another major issue raised in the report concerns the future of the Davis Joint Unified School District.
Declining enrollment has become one of the community’s most pressing concerns, and staff recognize that housing policy may influence whether enrollment stabilizes.
According to the report, “The school district needs approximately 8,600 students (district wide) to operate efficiently.”
Instead, “the total student yield for Davis is closer to 6,000 students and continues to decline.”
The report attributes the decline to an aging population, lower birth rates and rising housing costs that make it difficult for younger families to remain in Davis.
Staff suggest that expanding housing opportunities could increase enrollment but acknowledge that different housing types produce very different numbers of students.
According to the report, a new single-family home generates approximately 0.44 students, while townhomes average 0.12 students and multifamily apartments only about 0.05 students per unit.
Climate policy also plays a significant role in the General Plan Update.
Transportation remains the city’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and staff argue that land use decisions can reduce driving by locating housing, employment and services closer together.
The report states, “Placing different land uses in close proximity to one another has been shown in recent environmental impact reports as an important way to reduce VMT.”
Staff also note that Davis has historically prohibited certain commercial uses, forcing residents to drive elsewhere.
“The result has been the loss of employment, shopping and services to surrounding cities, loss of retail sales and causing an increase in VMT as people drive to those locations.”
According to the report, “Designing a land use plan with the flexibility to accommodate those uses can lower VMT in the community.”
Beyond housing and transportation, the report discusses floodplain constraints, utility capacity and infrastructure financing.
Staff note that portions of land surrounding Davis lie within flood-prone areas, requiring careful planning before development occurs. They also state that additional technical studies will determine whether water, sewer and treatment systems can support future growth and what improvements may be necessary.
The report also emphasizes the importance of fiscal sustainability.
According to staff, different land uses generate different fiscal outcomes.
“Lodging, restaurant, retail and office uses typically generate significantly more revenue than they do expenses,” while residential development is “more often a fiscal wash.”
The report concludes that planning for both housing and employment opportunities will improve the city’s long-term financial outlook.
“To help plan for a fiscally sustainable future, the City may plan for enough housing units to handle the estimated need, while also encouraging enough non-residential land uses.”
The report adds, “While it is impossible to know exactly what those numbers would be, planning for a balanced future is good planning.”
Staff conclude that the General Plan Update must balance ambitious community goals with practical implementation.
According to the report, “The factors that staff outlines in this report all have to be taken into consideration concurrently to develop a plan that is realistic, while still meeting the community’s goals and objectives.”
The report concludes, “Providing enough land for housing to meet the City’s future housing needs while simultaneously providing land use opportunities for job growth over the next 20-30 years will have to happen both within and outside of the current city limits.”
Staff expect to return with a preferred land use plan for City Council consideration later this fall.
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.
”Transportation remains the city’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and staff argue that land use decisions can reduce driving by locating housing, employment and services closer together.”
Given the anemic history of virtually no jobs growth in Davis, which has resulted in a daily outflow from Davis of over 21,000 Davis residents going to jobs outside the City Limits, if the General Plan takes greenhouse gas emissions seriously, the General Plan should tie its housing production goals to two specifics
(A) minimizing the building of incremental high-priced housing that has no incremental high-wage jobs added within the City Limits or on the UCD campus.
(B) clearly articulate objectives (and incentives) for the production of modestly-priced, small-footprint, modest-amenities, owner-occupied, missing middle homes that can target reducing the 17,000+ local jobs that are currently filled by employees who have commute to those jobs from residences outside the City Limits.
(C) clearly acknowledge that the student housing MOU signed between the City, UCD and Yolo County reduces the incremental demand for student housing in the City down to zero as long as that MOU is in place. The MOU explicitly states that UCD will house all additional enrollment on campus.
(D) The signing of the MOU opens up the opportunity for Davis to focus any additional apartment unit construction on the workforce housing issues described earlier … in support of housing for the 17,000+ local jobs that are currently filled by employees who have commute to those jobs from residences outside the City Limits.
“(B) clearly articulate objectives (and incentives) for the production of modestly-priced, small-footprint, modest-amenities, owner-occupied, missing middle homes that can target reducing the 17,000+ local jobs that are currently filled by employees who have commute to those jobs from residences outside the City Limits.”
So are you endorsing Measure W, the Willow Grove project that addresses your stated concern?
I have already posted my thoughts on Willowgrove.
Now that their road to a Yes vote has been made easier by the June election results, they do not need the “politically expedient” regional park adjacent to Covell. Changing that location to the center of the project where it becomes a neighborhood park that can and will be walked to by the residents, would free up the Covell-adjacent footprint for transit-oriented multi-family and missing middle housing.
In addition the City Council needs to move quickly to update its one-time Impact Fees so that they aren’t by the lot. That doubles the $60,000+ cost to $120,000+ when/if a large lot is converted to two small lots. That is a major impediment to affordability, which causes developers to build fewer affordable homes rather than more affordable homes.
So Matt, is that a yes or a no? We are at the election stage on Measure W, the Willow Grove project. The question is yes or no to the project, as placed on the ballot, not some fantasy better project as imagined by busy bodies with no skin in the game. So, it’s time to choose Matt, not prognosticate about somebody else’s project.
Asked and answered. Go look it up. Don can help you find it if you have trouble. He paid a lot of moderation attention to that comment of mine.
I’ll take that as a no. Figures.
Ron G
We all have skin in the game. Wealthy developers don’t control all of the decision making entitlement in our democracy. We’re not a plutocracy.
The election is months away, so I have no idea why you’re insisting on an answer now other than just playing the standard old politicking that we’re all tired of. I’m not stating my position one way or another because, as with Matt, we still need to negotiate a better design for the community. That said, Willowgrove provides more than Village Farms did.
Might as well make it another 100,000, in regard to fake plans.
Did I say 100,000?
Hell, I’ll see that, and raise you ANOTHER 100,000.
Are you in, or out?
“Are you in, or out?”
Well with the declining birthrate and CA population it sounds like they’re out.
How do you define the term “birthrate”?
The birthrate is not open to personal interpretation – it’s an objectively-determined number – something that even a public school student can understand.
It’s 1.6 kids per woman, nationwide. A little less than that in California.
If you want to break it down further than that (e.g., Roseville vs. Davis), I don’t think those numbers are available.
But the birthrate is not a static statistic
The birth rate is just one component of the population. Population growth is a function of birth rate, death rate, and net immigration rate.
Population growth of the US dropped with the pandemic and then rebounded somewhat. Immigration enforcement 2024 – 5 reduced population growth from 0.96% per year in 2024 to 0.52% in 2025. In the absence of aggressive immigration enforcement, our population growth rate will likely go back up.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1X0Xn&height=490
While the rate of applications for legal immigration has dropped somewhat, what has really fallen off is US government processing of those applications. Case backlog is increasing, processing of legal applications is way down. Defunding and destaffing USCIS has had an impact. When the government returns to normal staffing and previous rates of processing of applicants for legal immigration, US population will increase somewhat.
“In April 2026, USCIS completed only 27,569 applications for naturalization. By comparison, in April 2025, USCIS completed over 97,000, and in the 12 months prior to that, USCIS completed an average of over 78,000 per month. The average processing time for an N-400, Application for Naturalization was 9.5 months in April 2026, compared to 6.4 months one year prior.”
https://www.niskanencenter.org/immigrationdata/
“But the birthrate is not a static statistic”
True – it’s been on its way to dropping further (and not just in the U.S.). It will probably drop further.
The birthrate in the entirety of Latin America (where the U.S. gets many of its immigrants) is well-below replacement levels.
It’s actually a worldwide trend.
There’s going to be a lot of “fighting over customers” (students) going forward.
In any case, I think we’ve answered Hiram’s question, and it’s not looking good for oversized school districts. Nor is it looking too good for those who want to maintain the status quo (endless growth). At best, these people are playing musical chairs at this point, but with more chairs than participants.
It is, however, looking a little better in regard to a sustainable habitability of the planet – regarding the population at least.
Per the Dept of Finance, population of Yolo County is expected to increase by about 20,725 people over the next decade. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/
With Davis at about 29% of the county population, that means Davis would be expected to grow by about 6,010 residents in the next decade. How exactly the RHNA numbers will be generated is not clear, but this does tell us that the staff recommendation of planning for 6,225 additional units in the next RHNA cycle is not without statistical basis. It is actually reasonable for planning purposes.
UCD is the main driver of population in our area. UC Davis enrollment will likely increase over that time period as the campus always has far more applicants than needed. UCD can choose its enrollment level.
The Congressional Budget Office projects total US population growth “from an average of 0.3 percent a year in the next decade to an average of 0.1 percent a year from 2037 to 2056.” That would be total population growth of more than 10 million people over the next decade, 15 million+ over the three decades, nationwide. California has about 10% of the US population. Hard to say how that population growth will distribute. In high-cost housing areas it is likely to lead to increased demand for rental housing vs for-sale housing.
US population growth is expected to stop in about 30 years.
Bottom line: “birth rate” isn’t the whole story and doesn’t provide a sound basis for planning.
The term “housing shortage” in sometimes used interchangeably with “housing gap.” Different agencies use different metrics. The changes in household formation compared to what would have occurred in a more plentiful market, target vacancy rates that vary (11 – 12% vacancy is typical), etc. Examples using different metrics:
Freddie Mac, 3.7 million housing units (2024)
Zillow, 4.7 million (2023)
Brookings, 4.9 million (2023)
Nat’l Assn of Realtors, 5.5 million (2020)
https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IN/PDF/IN12628/IN12628.1.pdf
“Estimates of Affordable Housing Shortages Some research has focused on the extent to which there is a sufficient supply of affordable housing units for homebuyers and renters, defined at various price points or household income levels. For homeownership, the National Association of Realtors found that although for-sale inventory increased on an annual basis early in 2025, a lower share of homes was affordable to lower- and moderate-income prospective homebuyers than would be the case in a balanced market.
….
The lowest-income households face particular challenges in obtaining affordable housing. The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) estimates a shortage of 7.1 million rental homes affordable and available to renters with extremely low incomes ….
On a national basis, NLIHC estimates that for every 100 extremely low-income renter households, there are 35 affordable and available rental homes, and that shortages exist in every state and major metropolitan area, although the size of the shortage varies.”
So:
Overall US population growth is expected to continue despite the low birth rate.
There is a housing gap from previous decades.
Affordable housing is the most critical gap.
The agencies that establish the RHNA numbers are going to be using these population projections in establishing numbers for Davis and elsewhere in Yolo County.
Yolo County population is expected to grow.
We need to plan for Davis to provide its share of that regional growth.
Well, Don – if that’s true (I didn’t dig through the link), then this is a CHOICE that’s being made by the agencies trying to force it, by “stealing” residents from other locales.
That’s how it works when the pie itself isn’t getting bigger and is quite literally shrinking regarding the number of young people/students.
Apparently, UCD has been taking lessons from DJUSD, regarding poaching students from other locations. (Or vice-versa, regarding who first came up with that plan.) That’s one reason that Sonoma State, for example, had to decimate its own sports programs. Severely-declining enrollment there, and at other community colleges and state universities.
So perhaps the real question is whether or not the populace itself supports this type of poaching, and the impact it’s having on other institutions.
“Overall US population growth is expected to continue despite the low birth rate.”
This will literally not be possible, unless immigration from countries (many of which are also experiencing a decline in birthrates) picks up. There may be a period of time when the older generations haven’t yet died off (resulting in continued growth while the country is adding fewer children), but there is no explanation provided regarding these numbers. A temporary “pause” in deaths is not a planning mechanism.
“There is a housing gap from previous decades.”
This is factually untrue, and I’ve provided university references which show it isn’t true.
“Affordable housing is the most critical gap.”
Wages/wealth are the most critical gap, for those who insist upon human janitors being able to live within a mile of Google’s headquarters. (Or at least, by those who claim that’s who they’re looking out for.)
“The agencies that establish the RHNA numbers are going to be using these population projections in establishing numbers for Davis and elsewhere in Yolo County.”
Fake numbers, just as they have already PROVEN THEMSELVES to be, statewide. This isn’t even in dispute.
“Yolo County population is expected to grow.”
Yes – because those in a position to (try) to dictate growth by stealing residents/students from other areas aren’t giving up that easily. But it’s not looking too good regarding the fake/arbitrary numbers that HCD has “assigned” statewide – especially as it relates to Affordable housing.
“We need to plan for Davis to provide its share of that regional growth.”
Sure – I’m all for fake plans. Get me a map of Davis and a marking pen, and I’ll come up with a plan within 5 minutes. (I can do so for any city, including the VAST MAJORITY along the coast which aren’t expanding outward. The places where people actually do live, and where the state’s efforts are supposedly focused.)
As a side note, am I missing something regarding the projected growth of this country?
I’m plugging 243,000,000 (the current population of the U.S.) into a compound interest calculator, at .3% “interest” compounded annually. Which is giving me a population number of 250,389,000 after 10 years. (A “gain” of approximately 7.4 million people.)
From there, I’m plugging in 250,389,000 X .1% over the next 15 years (compounded annually), and it’s giving me an answer of 254,171,000. (A gain of approximately 11,171,000 over the entirety of the next 25 years.)
Am I calculating this incorrectly, or is Don?
“As a side note, am I missing something regarding the projected growth of this country?
I’m plugging 243,000,000….”
There’s your problem.
O.K. – thanks. I won’t bother running the numbers again, using the correct starting point.
Well, let’s just hope they settle in Texas over the next 25 years – which is also experiencing declining school enrollment.
But hasn’t Davis’ population growth exceeded those U.S. projections, regardless?
I figure that I have (at most) 30 more years, and I’m a younger baby boomer. So, once we’re outta here, things should really stabilize (and perhaps decline, regarding population). I can pretty much guarantee that I won’t be living in ANY house around that time.
For sure, it can’t continue increasing when vast sections of the entire world (including the places where the interests that depend on the continued “harvesting” of immigrants) are below replacement levels.
Ron O.: “The birthrate is not open to personal interpretation – it’s an objectively-determined number – something that even a public school student can understand.
“It’s 1.6 kids per woman, nationwide. A little less than that in California.”
I hope that public school students could understand it, because you gave an incorrect definition. What you describe is the fertility rate.
From wikipedia, birthrate “is the total number of live human births per 1,000 population for a given period divided by the length of the period in years [usually one year].”
Fertility rate “is the average number of children that are born to a woman over her lifetime,” which is what you describe.
The birthrate of the U.S. is decreasing because there are more older people who are living longer than was the case with earlier generations. If a lot more people died by age 60, then the birthrate would appear to increase because older people would be taken out of the birthrate equation.
The birthrate of a retirement community will probably be close to 0, but the fertility rate of women in that retirement community could hypothetically be high; it’s just that all of the kids the women had would be adults. Davis is currently transitioning to a retirement community with a large public university. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the fertility rate in Davis is low.
O.K. – I was referring to the fertility rate.
It’s approximately 1.6 per woman nationwide, which is well-below replacement levels. This means that even if Davis, for example, had nothing but child-bearing couples, the population would decline over time (assuming that they reproduced at a rate that’s reflective of the national average). Unless the city continues to encourage those who would move to Davis from somewhere else.
It seems likely that the fertility rate in Davis is lower than the national average, as well. Given that it’s more educated, and is competing for the title of “most fertile” with places like Utah when comparing to the national average.
And that the current birthrate in Davis is much lower than that. Meaning that the population will decline even faster in places like Davis, unless it imports more people from somewhere else.
Birthrate is easier to calculate; it is confined to a particular point in time. You go to the county records office and find out how many birth certificates were issued in a given year for a given city, divide by the total population, and then normalize it to a per 1000 basis. It’s harder to get a handle on fertility rate, because we have to watch what happens over decades. What is happening with fertility rate at present is that fewer younger women (in their 20’s & 30’s) are having kids, but actually more women in their 40’s are. On a very positive side, there are many fewer teen pregnancies. An overall key factor to this fertility pattern is a lack of available housing.
Davis would be a natural magnet for younger families, if there were available housing. UC Davis is here. UCD students who had a nice experience living in Davis often like the idea of settling down here (that was my story). Davis can be a very nice and friendly place, until it comes to finding housing. The district has many more IDTs than most districts do, which is an indicator of desirability of schools for those who have kids.
But earlier generations of Davisites are becoming empty nesters and aging in place. And they’re living longer than was the case with earlier generations; many more are living into their 70s, 80s and 90s. It’s all very positive for those folks, but it squeezes out opportunities for younger adults to settle because we are stingy with building enough housing to accommodate a proportional size of Millennials and Gen Zers. Millennials and Gen Zers are each as large as or larger than the Baby Boomer population. But that’s not how it has played out. That’s what having a declining birthrate means in Davis.
Hiram: It seems like you’re the one who is now confusing the fertility rate (around 1.6 kids nationwide), with the birthrate. The entire country (which already includes places that are dirt cheap) is producing “new people” at a rate that’s lower than replacement levels.)
So is the entirety of Latin America, where the U.S. gets many of its “new Americans” (or illegal immigrants – take your pick).
Davis is a nice town, though – on that we agree. So is Roseville and a whole bunch of other towns.
But you can live in Spring Lake and still send your kids to Davis schools (without paying DJUSD parcel taxes). And Spring Lake (frankly, the entire city of Woodland) isn’t bad, either.
There are houses in Spring Lake that some young couples can’t afford, either. One of them sold for about $2.2 million a couple of years ago. (Ironically, I’ve heard that the owner is associated with WJUSD – not sure how.)
But of course, most of Spring Lake is going to appeal to the very population that you and others are supposedly trying to “recruit” to live in Davis, due to the price differential for a similar product. (As well as the lack of DJUSD parcel taxes – which are actually a permanent and increasing HOUSING cost.)
Keith and Ron O
You still haven’t passed your Econ 1 coursework. The measure of whether there is excess demand is the relationship of the Davis housing price to other prices in the region and nationally, and the metrics on who’s leaving and who’s commuting into Davis. On all of those measures, as I have said repeatedly, we have substantial excess demand for housing in Davis and our housing supply has not kept up with that demand. The birth rate issue won’t impact the housing market for decades, if at all. We’re planning for today as well as the future.
Per Wendy Weitzel’s Comings and Goings column posted on her substack today, two downtown projects are moving forward.
Conversion of the Davis Ace site begins this week. That will be six stories, 120 apartment units, 80 parking spots.
Conversion of the Hibbert Lumber site (The Lumberyard) will be approved by the council July 7. Demolition begins July 13. Five stories, 227 apartments, ground floor “retail”, no parking.
https://www.comingsandgoings.news/p/ace-hibbert-properties-set-to-rise
The two projects Don has referenced are part of 1,635 residential units the City has reported as being “Under Construction” or as “Entitled Projects Pending Construction.” Those 1,635 are
20 212 University
126 240 G Street
15 413 E Street
227 500 G Sterrt (Hibberts)
30 715 Pole Line Road
48 1031 Olive Drive
159 Bretton Woods Senior Affordable
96 Chiles Ranch
368 The Leonardo (1616 DaVincci)
193 Palomino Place
12 Sweetbriar Townhomes
300 Bretton Woods (SFRs)
41 Bretton Woods URC
1,635 Total
As these new subdivisions get approved, the conflict between housing density and shading is going to require careful consideration.
For example, per the Development Agreement:
“Willowgrove will add a new transit station central to the Community Park and a new bus stop adjacent to the affordable housing site, if agreed to by Unitrans and Yolobus.”
Having this station inside the park means that it will be shaded and cool. It’s important to have that tree canopy and irrigated landscaping where people gather.
The park is a significant community benefit as currently sited. I would love to see some smaller parks inside the project where they would get neighborhood use, but I suspect the housing density necessary for project affordability precludes that. So given a choice, having one larger community park seems preferable.
The retail necessary for peripheral housing developments is not really being discussed. Internal retail beyond boutiques will not likely be successful; at the least, it will not fulfill the main shopping needs of the residents. Residents of Willowgrove will be shopping via car at the major shopping centers already along Covell. It is likely that another shopping center will be needed along the Mace Curve if development is going to grow in that direction as seems likely. But given the reputation of our community in development circles, I seriously doubt that any project developer would waste time on a proposal unless the land were already annexed and provided with infrastructure.
Don
The park creates a barrier to accessing the transit center, especially if the transit access is made more difficult due to the alignment of the transit line entering the development. To have effective transit requires higher density housing on both sides of the line without intervening open space.
The East Bay has higher density similar to that proposed for WG and there is substantial shading. (I lived there for a decade and visit regularly.) There are many small parks scattered around the East Bay. The large park in WG with playfields will attract traffic from outside to the neighborhood, further increasing congestion there.
Developers can offer up land to be annexed by the City without also requesting a change in zoning. In that way, they hand over control of the zoning and planning decisions to the City and they can get the assurances they want.
I can’t imagine that a well-designed park specifically slated to include a transit station will create a barrier to accessing the transit center.
Don, the issue isn’t access. It is how to use the footprint of transit adjacent acreage to maximize the number of residents who can walk out their door immediately adjacent to Covell.
A secondary consideration is that school kids and adults living on the north side of the project will have the full depth of the project to traverse in order to get to their park-based activities. If the park is centrally located on the parcel the aggregate travel distances to the park from the 1,250 residences will be much lower than if the park is located on the south end of the project. Car travel to the park from within the project will almost surely be greater if the park is located on a boundary rather than in the center.
You know there’s a problem with the status quo (and fake housing shortage claims) when mainstream media starts noting things like this:
“America’s housing market could run out of something more important than homes”
“Soon, it may not have enough homebuyers.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/america-s-housing-market-could-run-out-of-something-more-important-than-homes/ar-AA273ijr?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=NMTS&cvid=6a4724dfb7974a3f9246028e167edd63&ei=19&cvpid=6a472952806b4495b0bbaba337935a25
By the way, let’s forget about “avocado toast” for a moment, in regard to not taking steps to save up for a house.
What about these losers spending literally hundreds of dollars on legal and illegal fireworks, while “not being able” to afford the cost of living?
Or the latest “Eye” phone?
In Davis, housing prices have roughly doubled the rate of inflation over the past 25 years, but you want to argue that it’s all an issue of poor spending habits by aspiring buyers?
Don’t know if it’s been double the rate of inflation, but how have housing prices been doing elsewhere regarding the rate of increase?
Put forth some numbers regarding the number of houses you think it will take to reduce housing prices in Davis.
But which won’t correspondingly reduce housing prices in surrounding cities that potential buyers also consider when moving to an area. Or when considering whether or not to move to a given area at all. (High housing prices in Silicon Valley, for example, are something that new workers consider when making such decisions.)
In other words, put forth a calculation regarding the number of houses that Davis would need to approve in order to have a meaningful impact on the Davis price difference, given that anything Davis approves would also supposedly reduce housing prices in surrounding cities (and vice-versa).
Of course, housing prices aren’t even the same WITHIN Davis (or any other city) in the first place. Housing near UCD and downtown is more expensive for an equivalent product, compared to housing east of Pole Line Road, for example.
But yes, there probably is an aspect of current generations who have been told that they can’t afford housing, and therefore engage in “doom spending” (as described in the media). They’ve also been told that life on earth is coming to an end as a result of climate change, so there is that as well.
I was told that same thing decades ago (regarding housing prices in the city I grew up in), but moved to somewhere I could afford as a result. I knew that it probably wasn’t a good plan to wait for someone to build me a cheap house, there (and I didn’t even need to go to school to realize that).
What about reverse engineering the problem. Instead of attempting to calculate how many units would reduce the cost, how about look at the difference in expected cost of not building any new homes versus building to the current RHNA projections?
Whatever calculation you’d prefer.
Let’s see it, though you really could use any numbers you want – since the RHNA numbers have nothing to do with the cost of housing. (That’s also a reason that almost all cities are failing to meet the mandates – the proposals don’t pencil out.)
But sure, let’s see what you’ve got (but don’t forget to include the impact of what’s occurring in surrounding cities).
Best I can do is formalize it right now
It’s hard to say, “Build exactly this many homes in Davis and prices will drop by that much.” Davis is part of a whole region. Too many moving parts for a precise equation so basically your question is unanswerable.
A better question is: What happens if Davis keeps building the way it has for the last 17 years instead of building enough to meet its current RHNA requirements?
Choice 1: Keep doing what we’ve been doing
• Davis has built about 165 homes per year.
• Meanwhile, the region keeps growing.
• More people want homes than there are homes available.
What that means:
• Home prices keep going up faster than nearby areas.
• Rents keep going up.
• More people get pushed out to other cities.
• People have to drive farther to work.
• It’s harder for Davis to hire teachers, nurses, city workers and young faculty.
• Fewer young families can afford to stay.
Choice 2: Build to our RHNA target
• That means building about 600 homes per year.
• That’s a lot more than we’ve built in the past.
• We still won’t build enough to meet all regional demand, but we close a big part of the gap.
What that means:
• Prices will probably still go up, but not as fast.
• Rents will go up, but more slowly.
• More people can find homes here instead of being pushed out.
• Fewer people have to commute long distances.
• It’s easier for Davis to keep and attract workers.
• More young families can afford to put down roots.
Economists don’t usually say, “Build X homes and prices will drop by Y percent.” Instead, they look at how building more homes changes the path we’re on compared to not building.
Thus, a better question is:
Compared to not building, how much higher will prices, rents and displacement become?
That’s a question we can study and answer. That does not mean we can figure out the answer today based on the data we currently have.
Looks like you already had that response prepared.
The first thing that jumps out at me is this: “More people want homes than there are homes available.”
This is a false statement, as written. What you mean to say is that more people want homes that are cheaper than what the market offers (and that’s always true regardless of housing prices or location). Or perhaps even more accurately, people want homes that are priced below market value.
That’s how supply/demand works. When prices rise, demand drops due to alternatives.
Alternatives in this case include not moving to Davis in the first place.
And again, the price gap is your target – not the overall regional housing price. Unfortunately (for your argument), anything built in Davis would not necessarily reduce that gap (since housing built in Davis would also impact housing prices in nearby cities, according to your own argument). And perhaps more importantly, vice-versa (housing in nearby cities already impacts the price of housing in Davis).
There’s only a limited number of people who (when moving to the immediate area) say that it’s “Davis or bust”.
And since UCD itself is not increasing the number of its employees at the Davis campus, what you’re actually referring to is regional demand caused by other pursuits of growth in the area.
If your explanation were sufficient, Davis prices would have stabilized long ago
In what city have housing prices (or any other prices) “stabilized”?
It’s not my “explanation” – this is how supply/demand works.
If Davis tore down all of its housing except for one house, the remaining house would not have infinite value. I’m going to guess that it wouldn’t even be worth double what it is now, despite “demand” – which you seem to view as inelastic.
A primary point/component of the supply/demand model is to demonstrate how elasticity works.
Ron O
Your argument appears to be that Davis will always have the same immutable price premium no matter how many houses we build. That’s false, as we’ve seen for example in Austin. (I provided a substantiating analysis earlier that you should have taken the time to read.) We don’t have precise control over how the housing market will respond but we do know if we build housing for the right market segment at a more rapid rate, the price premium will decline.
Richard, Austin and Ann Arbor are university cities that have a robust and growing jobs market. They are not comparable to Davis, which has a moribund job market.
In addition the Ann Arbor MSA is over 370,000 people and Austin’s MSA is 2,400,000 people. The combination of Davis and UCD has considerably less than 100,000 residents.
Ron O
I already provided you with the calculation and results for how more housing will reduce the prices of housing here. You should go back and finally read my comment on that.