By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – Periodically the city of Davis over the last decade-plus has looked into renter protections. On Monday evening, there was a presentation to the Social Services commission by a Subcommittee, laying out some of what that could look like.
This follows a presentation last summer in which the commission voted to “potential pathways for strengthening tenant protections.”
According to their data, there are an estimated 14,745 rental units in the city, accounting for 57% of the 25,869 housing units in Davis.
The vacancy rate has hovered between 1.5 and 0.5 percent based on the most recent fall 2022 “Apartment Vacancy and Rental Rate Survey.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly UC Davis students represent about 45 percent of all 
renters, but only occupy about one third of estimated rental units.
According to UC Davis data, 18 percent of students—6104—experienced some form of “homelessness” or “housing insecurity.”
The most cited reason for that is “housing costs.”
Meanwhile, the university houses 38 percent of students on campus—a vast improvement over a decade ago and progress toward the goal of 48.4% by 2030-31.
Under AB 1482, the Tenant Protections Act (TPA), it cites a “ceiling on rent increases for specific types of dwellings” as well as a “Just Cause” eviction protection.
They note, under Just Cause, “a tenant in a unit continuously for 12 months, cannot be evicted unless allowable just cause reason in provided in the eviction notice.”
The rent cap, “Limits raises in rent during any 12-month period, which is the lower of 10% or 5% plus the annual CPI. Currently, the limit is 9.2% in Yolo.”
What is NOT protected under TPA?
“Rent cap and just cause protections don’t apply to housing 15 years old or younger, dormitories, deed-restricted low-income housing, certain owner-occupied housing, and certain single-family homes and condos,” the presentation notes.
It adds, “Just cause protections don’t apply to certain hotel occupancy housing, certain care facility housing, and additional owner-occupied housing TPA does not PREEMPT cities from taking more protective action.”
In addition, under Costa-Hawkins, local jurisdictions are prevented “from applying rent caps to properties dated after February 1, 1995 and properties that are “alienable separate” from other units.”
The subcommittee consulted with Legal Services of Northern California.
They made three key recommendations:
1) Adopt a rent control ordinance that is more protective than the Tenant Protection Act;
2) Improve Code Enforcement’s effectiveness in enforcing code compliance complaints;
and
3) Better regulate the City’s rental market through the Rental Resources Program and limiting the amount of fees charged to create tenancies.
They argue that the city could supplement the protections for Just Cause and Rent Cap under TPA.
They write, “To supplement these protections, the City can make just cause protections effective at move-in, impose higher relocation benefits, and lower rent caps.” They recommend using ordinances developed in Fairfax, Inglewood and Larkspur as models.
The TPA rent cap, likewise only applies to certain housing, which “leaves many types of housing exempt,” including for newer housing, dorms, low-income housing with deed restrictions, owner-occupied and single-family homes and condos.
They note, “This means that the just cause requirements and rent caps in the TPA already apply to by-the-bed leases, certain accessory dwelling units, and certain single-family homes, if the units are older than 15 years old.”
But the exemptions “leave many units in Davis without TPA protections.”
Legal Serices adds, “Unfortunately, the City is not able to impose rent caps on many of the TPA exempted properties because the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act prevents local jurisdictions from applying rent caps to properties that were built after February 1, 1995 and properties that are “alienable separate” from other units.”
But they recommended that “if the City wants to protect tenants in exempted housing, the City could impose just cause requirements on many TPA exempted properties since Costa Hawkins does not limit a local jurisdiction’s ability to impose just cause protections.”
In addition, TPA lacks any kind of strong enforcement mechanism.
“Considering there is no rent board or state agency enforcing the TPA, tenants must interpret the law and advocate for themselves,” they warn and that leaves tenants in a risky position if they wish to defend themselves in an unlawful detainer or eviction.
They add, “If the subcommittee recommends and the City chooses to adopt a rent control ordinance, LSNC strongly encourages the City to create an enforcement mechanism and hearing right outside of the judicial process. Specifically, the City could require landlords to submit their notices to the City and empower a local enforcement body to make determinations on the legal sufficiency of the notices.”
The subcommittee recommends that the city improve the rental resources program by more strictly enforcing registration requirements.
“As of January 3rd, 2024 3,526 units listed on registry out of an estimated 14,745 units eligible, leaving fees uncollected and resources unused,” the subcommittee found. “If registration fee was $100 per year annually, the city could collect $1.4 million per year.”
The subcommittee recommended, “Direct city staff to develop a set of revisions to the ordinance for stronger tenant protections and take SSC recommendations under advisement for the revision process.”
They also asked the Commission to “[d]irect city staff to enforce the rental registration requirement and utilize the fees collected to support the Department of Housing and Social Services and Housing Trust Fund.”
That sounds like UCD problem. Do we also need to address Woodland or Dixon’s homeless problems too?
“A vast improvement”? That’s like my neighbors’ dog coming over and messing up my lawn and the neighbors taking care of it by preventing the dog from going on to my property 3 days a week. So apparently the city of Davis community is expected to subsidize housing UCD’s revenue producing assets (because those rent control/caps effect landlord rental income and sale price). How is the property value for these apartment units assessed for property taxes? I would guess it’s based on rental income (maybe assessed market value which is based on rental income). So rent control/caps will impact the city’s income too.
While I don’t really favor any type of rent regulation; I would favor rent control over a rent cap. At least rent control is intended to protect long term residents of a community.
How is something that encompasses 45% of Davis renters and 33 percent of rental units in DAVIS, strictly a UC Davis problem?
It’s a problem in terms of cause and responsibility. I think my analogy pretty much summed up my comment about UCD’s policy towards housing their revenue producing assets and the city of Davis. It’s like saying that, yes the mess my neighbor’s dogs create on my lawn are my problem. But the solution should be to make it my neighbor’s responsibility to fix the problem. The most likely scenario would be to come up with a formal mutually beneficial solution.
The issue is that a certain percentage of people live in rental units in the town and the question is whether the city’s current rental protection is sufficient and the Social Services Commission and Legal Service are arguing that it’s not and therefore, here are recommendation.
Well, the article brought some focus on the student population and I commented on that part. As I said, I might be okay with rent control because it protects long term residents from the impact of price hikes (in fact students would probably be the ones subsidizing long term residents). But not rent caps.
There was a little focus on students, but at the end of the day, even if you could evict all the students (which you can’t), you would still have rental units and the question of how to protect the tenants.
Do you like twisting reality and my words? I never said anything about evicting students. Students are like everyone else. I just don’t believe they should be afforded any special protected status or considerations. I also believe the root of the student housing problem is UCD and it’s UCD’s problem to fix and not the city of Davis .
This was all from your article that had to do with students:
The student population is the only population specifically mentioned in your article. It’s a significant part of the article. So I don’t think it’s out of bounds for me to comment on it.
Sort of, it was mentioned that 55% percent of the renters and two-thirds of the units are rented by non-students.
For example, remember a week or so ago we were all talking about Stanford’s business incubator that was a collaboration between the city of Palo Alto and Stanford? If something like that was agreed upon between Davis and UCD; I’d be willing to agree to more student friendly housing policies on a project by project basis.
As the apartment vacancy rate dropped to very low levels, the number of renters in a unit increased. Occupancy of 3-bedroom apartments has ranged from 4.1 to 4.5 renters over the last five years.
Keith, it doesn’t matter why someone is living here. It also doesn’t matter whether they are short- or long-term renters. If they’re living in town, they’re part of the community. If they are renters, they’re entitled to equitable and safe living conditions.
Of course it matters. Most of my comments about students and housing are mostly about addressing the cause of the problem (UCD). But the city can’t just continue to be UCD’s housing solution and just suck it up and address their problem.
What constitutes being “part of the community”? Does the guy that signs a lease, moves here and then is immediately out of a job or is kicked out of school part of the community? Is it because he signed a lease? What if the renter has been here 2 months? Or what about couch surfers? Are they part of the community? I mean if you’ve couch surfed in Davis for the past 5 years…then yeah sure maybe….but what if you’re a couch surfer for the past month? How do you define the community’s responsibility? Is it anyone within the city limits? Is it the same degree of responsibility? Should someone that’s been here 10 years be afforded more community support then someone here for a year and plans to move out in a year?
“the city can’t just continue to be UCD’s housing solution and just suck it up and address their problem.”
In one sense, that ship has already sailed.
In another sense, the university agreed already to build for any student growth.
This is really less about that than dealing with the housing that would exist going forward regardless of how the university and city address future housing.
Uh….that’s like having a neighbor that owns 10 dogs that go on to your property and mess it up. The neighbor says: don’t worry! I’ll make sure my next two dogs won’t go on to your property!
So back to rent. I’m not for rent control or rent caps. They’ll both drive up the prices of housing in Davis. But if I had to pick one , I’d pick rent control because it protects the long term residents of the community.
“Uh….that’s like having a neighbor that owns 10 dogs that go on to your property and mess it up. The neighbor says: don’t worry! I’ll make sure my next two dogs won’t go on to your property!”
Not really
Care to explain? Or is your remark a simple snide arrogant reply without any facts? UCD has says it will plan to house all future growth. There’s about 40,000 students at UCD. Currently about 10,000 of them live on Campus. That leaves about 30,000 that live elsewhere. 55% of the Davis population are renters. 45% of the population of renters are students. So that’s about 16,500 student renters in the city of Davis. Is that student population just going to be Davis’ burden to bear? Btw. I’m fine with creating a student housing quarter/district that has student focused retail and restaurants. That works out to both UCD and the city’s benefit. But I don’t believe we need to create special renters’ protection because they exist the city.
It’s absurd for anyone to insist that UCD house every single UCD student. No US university the size of UCD has enough student housing for all of their students. None. Students have the right to choose where they want to live. Some desire to live on campus while others choose off campus housing. Private landlords depend to a large extent upon students living in their properties.
Walter, I know it’s hard for you to keep up but please try. Nowhere in any of the comments has anyone said that students don’t have the right to live where they choose. I’ve stated here in the comments on this very article STUDENTS ARE JUST LIKE EVERONE ELSE”. That means they can either afford to live here or they can’t just like everyone else. So the private landlords can continue to rent to students….good god no one is suggesting they should be prevented from doing so….(again, please read more carefully and keep up). What I’ve said is that I do not believe students need any special rent protections that will ultimately contribute to further driving up the cost of housing in Davis. As a homeowner…that’s great for me. But I don’t think it’s good for the community.