Yesterday’s article (Analysis: Additional Campus Housing Will Help but Will Not Solve Housing Problems) attempted to analyze the revisions to the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) put forward by UC Davis. The intent was to analyze the extent to which the university’s plan addresses the housing shortfall in our community – the purpose was not to advocate a particular policy position.
In this column, I want to further distill a few points. My basic position at this point is that the LRDP put forward by UC Davis represents a good step forward in terms of the university willing to house more of the student population, accounting for most but not all of the enrollment increases.
First, there was a discussion stream where one poster stated that “you’re now including single-family housing, into the mix.”
The reason for that is pretty simple – the information released showed that the university would be adding about 500 faculty and staff on-campus housing in the next decade. Some plans have suggested that the university will be adding as much as 2000 faculty and staff to support the next wave of enrollment increases.
The commenter notes, “[I]f you’re going to include single-family housing in your argument, you should also include (‘add up the numbers’) of single-family dwellings under construction or imminent (e.g., The Cannery, Chiles Ranch, West Village, etc.).”
First of all, I’m not making an “argument” here, I’m assessing the extent to which the university is prepared to address housing needs.
Moreover, we are not talking about a lot of units. Cannery is 547 units total, Chiles Village is 108 and West Village will have 500 faculty and staff units. Of those, of course, only West Village is guaranteed to have faculty and staff residing in the housing. Given the timelines for hiring additional faculty and staff, it is unclear how much the other developments will take in. All told, we are talking well short of 1000 single family homes in the city – how many of those would go to faculty and staff remains undetermined.
Is this an important consideration? I think if you are adding employees without adding housing for them, then the question is where those people are going to live and, if they are commuting into town, that adds to traffic and carbon impacts. Again, I’m not making an argument about how to house them, only pointing out that is a consideration.
Second, in terms of student housing it seems clear at this point that, while the university is planning to increase their lot, what they are planning will not solve the problem.
There are several factors here that should be considered:
- UC Davis will house, at most, 40 percent of their students on campus – that would bring them closer to the top of the list than they are now. However, as a commenter pointed out yesterday, other campuses are planning to increase their lot as well.
- We know from history that just because the campus says they will build more housing does not mean that they will, in fact, build more housing.
- We have a housing crisis now. The 0.2 percent vacancy rate is causing problems ranging from exploitation of students, increased costs, inability for renters to assert rights to live in working housing, the increase in mini-dorms and students cramming into formerly single-family homes.
- We have not analyzed how many beds it would take to alleviate the above problems.
- UC Davis is planning to house 6200 students but they are adding 7000 or so. That means, on top of the current shortfalls or tight housing market, we need to find 800 more students places to stay in the next decade.
- Another commenter pointed out a timing issue. “Plus, the plan makes no estimate of when the new housing will appear. This means enrollment will continue steadily increasing from 32,130 in 2014-2015 to 39,000 in 2027-28, but that growth could very well outpace housing construction.” UC Davis is adding students and housing, but what happens if they add students on the front end and housing on the back end?
We are left with this. There is a group of people who believe that UC Davis has created the housing crisis. They have done so by adding more students without accommodating more housing. That is certainly a reasonable conclusion.
The question is whether the proposed solution is reasonable – pressure the campus to provide as much of the housing on campus as possible.
Certainly I have no disagreement with the idea that the university should take on more housing. Where I balk is on the implication that the city should take on no additional housing, even to accommodate current needs or the gap between the university’s enrollment and their proposed housing.
I am also concerned that the university does not have a good track record for following through on their commitments.
I am sensitive to the concern that the university could exploit the city by forcing the city to build more housing, but, at the same time, who would throw their basket of eggs into the idea that the city has the ability to solve the housing crisis?
In short, I believe a mixed strategy can and should work. There is a clear gap between housing needs and what the university is willing to build in the next decade. It is not such a huge gap that the city needs to radically change land use policies – three or more moderately-sized apartment complexes could do the trick.
The city should be able to add those complexes without taking the pressure off the university to follow through on their commitments. I think this should be a collaborative process rather than a contentious one.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I pointed out last night the flaw in this comparison. The new UCD LRDP should be compared to other UC LRDPs not existing housing on the other campuses. All of the UC’s are increasing their on campus housing. Most other UCs are aiming for 50% of their students to be housed on campus. All of the other campuses are doing more than Davis.
here is my post from yesterday:
This paragraph is making the wrong comparison. Rather than comparing UCDs housing goal as stated in the LRDP to existing housing on other campuses, it is more appropriate to compare UCD’s LRDP goal to the LRDP goals of other UCs.
UC Berkeley’s LRDP Strives to provide housing for at least 2 years for incoming freshman and for 3 years to incoming ladder faculty. It strives to increase available campus housing by 35% over what is currently offered by UCB. UCB seems to be the only campus that has housing goals as low as UCD.
UC Irvine’s LRDP projects providing over 50% of student housing
UC Riverside projects providing housing for over 50% of students
UC San Diego projects housing over 50% of students
UC Santa Barbara projects “House 100% of additional students (50 percent of total students on campus”
UC Merced plans on housing 50% of students
UC Santa Cruz: 50% of undergrads, 25% of grads, 25% of faculty, 3% of staff
UCLA Housing Plan Goals:
UCD Davis has the space and the resources to provide student housing on par with the other campuses. There is no excuse for UCD’s low ball 40% housing number in the LRDP.
All Davis would need to do to achieve the 50% goal is build taller housing on all of the sites they already propose to build on. They could even do that without building on Russell field.
Davis’s new LRDP continues to put Davis at the bottom of the list for providing student housing – not the top as the Vanguard unbelievably suggests.
That’s also a misrepresentation of what I said.
fair enough, you claimed it moved UCD “closer tot the top,” It doesn’t.
The full statement is: “UC Davis will house, at most, 40 percent of their students on campus – that would bring them closer to the top of the list than they are now. However, as a commenter pointed out yesterday, other campuses are planning to increase their lot as well.”
Yes, I actually reposted your full statement further up too. If you stand by your statement that UCDs LRDP projecting housing 40% of students is moving UCD “up the list” please tell me how 40% brings them closer to the top of the list, when the other schools are planning on doing 50%?
While it is true the LRDP does not have a specific timeline, the attempt to create fear around when the housing will be built is not based in fact. It is important to understand that the new LRDP is an update to the existing LRDP and the existing LRDP is still being built out even as the new LRDP is being put together. More housing was completed at the Trecero dorms even just this summer and is available this school year as was proposed in the current operative LRDP.
Also, don’t forget the LRDP only covers a 10 year period.
The current active, regent approved and CEQA certified LRDP has multiple areas of proposed housing that are still in process these areas are included in the new LRDP with little change. One can expect these areas to be built soon. They can begin before the new LRDP is even approved.
3 notable housing sites already approved in the current LRDP that one can expect to be developed first are: West Village, Orchard Park and the area immediately to the east of the Domes. It has already been announced that funding is in place and that development will proceed within the year on new housing in West Village. Orchard Park has already been shuttered and is a high priority for redevelopment and new plans for redevelopment are being drafted now.
So on the one hand it is understandable to be concerned about the timeline when you consider just the new Draft LRDP, but if you put it in context it is easier to understand that it is a draft update to an existing and still active LRDP, and that aspects of the existing LRDP are still being completed even as the new plan is being drafted.
The UC may move slowly, but they are already moving towards building more housing so it is not right to try to sow fear that they are not going to add additional housing they plan soon. The real issue is UCD is not planning on adding enough housing.
“the attempt to create fear around when the housing will be built is not based in fact. ”
I take exception to the idea that raising an issue is tantamount to an attempt to create fear. Not only that but it’s a legitimate issue. There is no guarantee that UCD will produce the amount of housing in the next ten years to house all the new students. So instead of planning to house the students in tents, maybe we should plan accordingly.
Both sides of this highly polarized debate play the “no guarantee” card.
Regardless of which side is doing it, it degrades the quality of the dialogue into harangues lobbed from the opposing trenches. It is a time machine effect taking us all back 100 years to reliving of the trenches in World War I mentality.
Let’s just assume that they will, and that it will proceed at about the pace of enrollment increase. I realize that’s optimistic, to put it mildly. But even if it did, we’d just be a little worse off than we are now. Instead of a lot worse off.
Yeah, right. (By the way, you should include ALL planned housing in the city, if you’re going to make a comparison.) Don previously posted this link to development projects throughout the city:
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/test-development-project
The city’s website includes this statement: “In general, all homes within Chiles Ranch will be designed for workforce buyers.”
I suspect that the single-family total still will be “short” of the numbers you posted, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with pointing that out. (However, one would have to assume that faculty and staff prefer single-family housing, and are willing to pay a higher price to live in Davis, to accept the comparison you are making as “fact”. I’m not sure that either of those assumptions are true.) In any case, you certainly are advocating more housing in the city (including, it seems, more single-family houses), and are basing it on the University’s unsettled plans.
I’d suggest that at some point, residents are simply not going to tolerate more housing crammed into the city – even if the University doesn’t respond in a manner that most of us would prefer. (That’s why I’d suggest that housing advocates focus their efforts on the University, rather than resistant residents.) But, it seems that some are more interested in “forcing” residents to accept it, even before the University’s plans are finalized. Perhaps some on the council agree with that approach, but I sincerely hope not.
Woops – looks like I didn’t post the complete link, above. Here’s the complete link:
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/test-development-projects
I’m not sure your point. It’s still only 108 units.
David: “Only” 108 units (including single-family housing) in the city is not a small number.
There are other developments on the city’s website that you haven’t addressed, either.
But again, you’re basing the 2,000 number on assumptions that I’ve challenged, above (off the top-of-my-head). There’s probably other factors, as well.
My primary point is that you and some other housing advocates seem to be focusing your efforts on the wrong target (resistant residents). Not sure how successful that approach will be, but it’s certainly creating acrimony. I guess it depends on the council, and whether or not they agree that resistant residents should be “forced” to accommodate the University’s unsettled plans (or lack thereof).
I feel like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing. If UCD is adding 2000 faculty and staff, 108 units is not going to cover much of that.
Ron, change always creates acrimony regardless of what field of endeavor it happens in.
One of the top problems with Davd’s 2,000 number is it is the number he is projecting for the end of the 10 year LRDP period, and we have not even gotten to the beginning yet. Ron on the other hand is talking about much more immediate concrete things. Housing that is already built or housing that is in line to be built soon.
David: “I feel like you’re arguing for the sake of arguing.”
I’d suggest that you re-read my statements, above. Not comparing 108 units to 2,000 faculty and staff.
But again, I’m surprised that you (and some other housing advocates) are not focusing your efforts on the University, but have chosen to focus most of your efforts on resistant residents. And yet, the University is seeking input.
Oh, well. I suppose you’ll keep hammering away, it seems.
I’m focusing my efforts on what the UCD LRDP plan is calling for, what it covers, what it doesn’t cover.
David: When you make statements such as the one below, you’ve already concluded that the University’s plans are finalized, even though they’re essentially still asking for more input:
Again, I’m just surprised that housing advocates such as you are not taking the lead, regarding efforts to house more students on campus.
No, what I’m doing is analyzing their current plan and its implications.
I have to assume that they’ve already received dozens of letters and emails advocating higher numbers and greater density on campus, yet I don’t think they’ve changed the total numbers they’re proposing since they announced their new goals in late winter. So I see little reason to believe that UCD is going to increase the numbers from what they’ve already committed. Their modifications in response to public input appear to be entirely where and how, not how many.
I urge the city to focus on what the city can provide, given that we now know pretty much what UCD will provide.
Don: You’re arriving at conclusions that aren’t supported by anything but conjecture, and are ignoring the continuing outreach from the University regarding their unfinalized plans.
I find it particularly galling that you constantly advocate construction that is opposed by neighbors in the city, while simultaneously opposing projects in rural areas (e.g., a sports park near the Binning Tract, Field and Pond, and “urban residents” impacting residents of rural areas, in general).
If you look back at my comments, I don’t advocate such a “dual approach”, based on whether neighbors live in the city, or in rural areas.
I also find it kind of “unusual” that you’re constantly putting yourself at some risk of pissing off your own customers.
Again, I’d suggest that your efforts will be more fruitful, and less acrimonious, if you focused primarily on the University that is causing most of your concerns. (Especially since they’re still asking for input.) But, that’s up to you.
The conclusions are supported by evidence, not conjecture.
I oppose strongly incompatible uses. The sports park is a very incompatible land use, IMO, next to Binning Tract. It is not an incompatible land use in South Davis. The addition of a couple of hundred apartments where there are already over 900 apartments (Poleline to Mace) is not an incompatible use. It’s not a “dual approach,” it has to do with compatibility of land uses.
Your comment about pissing off my customers is gratuitous and I consider comments like that to be an abuse of your privilege in posting anonymously. I urge you to stop with these personal attacks.
I have consistently advocated for more student housing on campus, and more rental housing in town. I took the opportunity when the university posted their initial plans online to submit my comments then. I have commented privately and publicly to the city council in regard to the university’s planning deficiencies, as cited here:
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/03/vanguard-analysis-uc-davis-driving-housing-crisis-in-davis/
I do not disagree that more housing on campus is necessary. I think it’s also fine to continue to advocate for more than they have apparently agreed to. But I think it’s unwise to plan on any more on campus, and I think that solving the current rental housing shortage will require that the city move forward on projects that provide beds in town. So continuing to obstruct rental housing in town while waiting for further concessions from UC is, in my view, unwise and harmful to those who need housing now.
We know what the University has promised, and we know how successful they have been fulfilling previous promises. Has anything really changed?
If we want the City’s housing crisis to be addressed, then the rational approach is to address it ourselves. Those advocating for the University to do it, are really not interested in helping their neighbors or in solving the crisis. Apparently, protecting the feelings of the “resistant residents” as Ron describes them, is more important to some than providing appropriate housing for the residents of Davis. I guess it is easy to dismiss the needs of those looking for appropriate housing when you already ‘have yours.’
Mark’s approach: “Cram them in, and force neighbors to accept it.” And, “don’t lift a finger” to encourage the University.
(Actually, Mark is “lifting a finger” – aimed at current residents.)
Ron: I’m perplexed by your opposition to any housing in the city – why is that?
And, you can make the argument that your opposition to projects in rural areas are harmful to those seeking such changes, including youth who would benefit from a sports park, for example. And, in the case of Field and Pond, one can argue that your opposition impacts county finances, and makes the new residents feel “less welcome” (which you subsequently realized and addressed).
Your use of the word “concession” demonstrates a bias in your thinking, regarding the University’s role.
What you’re constantly advocating for is something that will impact current urban residents (which you don’t seem to care about as much, compared to rural residents). I stand by that comment.
Again, Ron, I opposed a specific proposal for a sports park near Binning, while expressing support for a sports park in South Davis. So no children will be harmed by my position.
To the university, it’s a concession to add more housing. They gain almost nothing from it and have little incentive to do provide housing, as evidenced by their behavior over the last decades. So if they provide more in response to public pressure, it is almost certainly a concession.
I don’t know how you want me to “take the lead in encouraging the University.”
Campus enrollment growth will impact current urban residents somewhere, Ron. They’ve got to live somewhere.
Agreed, and appreciate your efforts. But, please don’t spread misinformation that the University’s plans are finalized. The campus is the least impactful location for housing.
But have they gotten one from Don Shor, housing advocate, nursery man and radio personality? It might be what tips the balance. (meant in good and friendly humor)
Seriously though, a letter from you might make a difference.
Chamber Fan:
I’m not opposed to all housing in the city. I did not oppose The Cannery or Chiles Ranch, for example. (And, I knew about them, in general.) I believe that these developments also helped meet our current SACOG requirements.
What I’m generally opposed to is large-scale infill developments that require zoning changes, especially in advance of the next round of SACOG requirements. There are consequences (including other “opportunity costs”) when doing so.
Also, at some point, increasing density generally reduces quality of life, including (but not limited to) ease of movement.
And, there are future SACOG requirements to consider. (We don’t get any “credit” for excess development that occurs prior to the next round of requirements, around the year 2020 or 2021.) There are a limited number of locations available within the city, for future development. (And, there are unknown ramifications, regarding what might happen at that point. There are disputes regarding what these ramifications might be.)
That’s all I have time for, at the moment.
Ron said . . . “And, there are future SACOG requirements to consider. (We don’t get any “credit” for excess development that occurs prior to the next round of requirements, around the year 2020 or 2021.) “
Here’s “the rest of the story” for the 2021-2029 SACOG housing need requirement for Davis, which must be reported to the State and SACOG in 2023. The needs requirement will be met through a combination of development on entitled sites including some which have received certificates of occupancy or building permits since January 1, 2021. Given the application, entitlement, design and build times that the recent large projects have experienced, a 48 month duration from application to certificate of occupancy is a reasonable approximation, so any project that starts its application process after January 1, 2017 is likely to still be somewhere between building permit and certificate of occupancy as of January 1, 2021.
With that said, how Davis meets its assigned need is not the key issue when it comes to RHNA.
What is much more important is what SACOG determines Davis’ actual allocation is. SACOG’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation FAQ Sheet explains the allocation process as follows:
Looking at those factors:
(1) the demise of Measure A and the Distributed Innovation Center strategy means that the number of incremental/additional jobs added within the existing Davis City Limits between now and January 1, 2021 is likely to be very small. All jobs that are outside the Davis City Limits are “credited” in the SACOG allocation to the Unicorporated portions of Yolo County, of which UCD is a part.
(2a) is not a constraint given the City’s investments in both water and wastewater capacity.
(2b) is the real Elephant in the Tent because by 2021 the amount of “land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use” within the existing City Limits will have been reduced to five sites, Nugget Fields, Wildhorse Ranch, north of Sutter Davis Hospital, the Lincoln 40 site, and the Families First site. Once any of those five sites is actually built out, it no longer is available to be part of the allocation assignment algorithm (as is the current trajectory for The Cannery). Table 46 of the 2013-2021 Housing Element submission lists 30 sites that are “local resources to address housing needs.” The four Red Light sites are all in the unincorporated portion of Yolo County, so until and unless they are annexed to the City, they only count toward the County’s RHNA allocation. Of the 10 Yellow Light sites, three are in the unincorporated County, one is Wildhorse Ranch, one is the Hyatt House/Davis Diamonds site, and the remaining six are all very small, and as such would not add in any significant way to the RHNA allocation calculation. Of the 16 Green Light sites, a few have been entitled and built out, but most are in the same impeded status they were in both 2008 and 2013. As such they will not qualify under the “land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use” standard used in calculating the RHNA allocation. The PG&E site and the Nishi site are two good examples in that category. For a myriad of reasons SACOG is highly unlikely to consider either of those sites when calculating Davis’ RHNA allocation.
(2c) does not apply in our urbanized setting.
(2d) applies in the unincorporated Yolo County areas around Davis, but does not apply within the current Davis City Limits.
(2e) is an unknown
(3) Market Demand for housing in Davis is massive and will be even more massive in the future, but its largest component comes from a jurisdiction outside the City Limits, and as such it is unclear whether SACOG RHNA will point that Market Demand factor at UCD (and West Village) or at the City, or both.
(4) is definitely a factor, but is proportionally very minor when compared to other factors in our overall community (City/County/University) housing market
(5) might exist for Davis if Slater’s Court or Rancho Yolo or Davis Mobile Estates were redeveloped from their current affordable state, but until and unless that happens Davis shouldn’t be losing any units contained in assisted housing developments.
(6) high housing cost burdens definitely apply in Davis for new construction. How that factor plays out in the RHNA allocation calculations is not clear.
(7) applies in the unincorporated Yolo County areas around Davis, but does not apply within the current Davis City Limits.
(8) like Market Demand this issue is massive and will be even more massive in the future, but again it is unclear whether SACOG RHNA will point that Market Demand factor at UCD (and West Village) or at the City, or both.
Bottom-line, in my opinion, the high allocation assigned by SACOG for the 2013-2021 RHNA was very much a function of the impending or completed entitlements granted to Chiles Ranch, the Cannery, and Grande . . . and was an anomaly. I believe Davis’ allocation will drop back from 2013’s allocation of 1,066 units (for a 9 year period) back to something closer to 2008’s allocation of 498 units (for a 7.5 year period). Given the evaporation of “land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use” it is possible that the next allocation will actually be lower than 498. Time will tell.
Matt:
I appreciate this detailed explanation, and I will probably save and study it further. However, I also observed that you and Eileen had some recent, significant disagreement regarding the ramifications of SACOG requirements, which wasn’t settled. (Since she hasn’t commented much over the past few days, perhaps she’s busy with other concerns.)
SACOG “fair share” growth requirements appear to be a complex subject, with some significant unknowns. However, I understand that (if approved), Sterling and Lincoln40 would be completed prior to the next round of SACOG requirements, and that we would not be getting any “credit” for doing so (resulting in less space available within the city, to meet subsequent requirements).
I’m not sure that any one person has “all the answers” regarding this subject (at this time). And, that’s really unfortunate, since it seems critical to have a good understanding of this subject.
I’ve previously suggested that the Vanguard examine these requirements (via an article, or series of articles), to no avail (so far).
Ron, I’m willing to bet you a dinner for four at your favorite restaurant or mine (chosen by the winner of the bet) that the only way that Lincoln 40 will miss the 2021-2029 Housing Element window will be if its schedule is delayed past the deadline for the filing of that Housing Element. Given the consideration (dare I say requirement) of the approval and funding of a grade-separated crossing of the UPRR right of way from Olive Drive to the Amtrak Station, as well as a bike lane connection from the Amtrak Station to the Arboretum at the shovels sculpture, any hypothetical timeline for Lincoln 40 will mean a Certificate of Occupancy (COA) issue date later than January 1, 2021.
My belief is that any hypothetical units at Sterling will not be available for students to sign bed leases prior to June 2021, which will mean any hypothetical Sterling COA date will also be after January 1, 2021. The reason I say that is that the realities of a student target market is that it is synchronized with the Academic Year starting date in September, and getting all the approvals, entitlements, permits, construction tasks, and inspections done by June 2020 is probably unrealistic. When hpierce reads this post perhaps he will jump in with a more informed sense of what the key milestones would need to be in order for Sterling to hit a June 2020 COA date.
Ron said . . . “I’m not sure that any one person has “all the answers” regarding this subject (at this time). And, that’s really unfortunate, since it seems critical to have a good understanding of this subject.
I’ve previously suggested that the Vanguard examine these requirements (via an article, or series of articles), to no avail (so far).”
I do not believe there is any group of people who “has all the answers” regarding the 2021-2029 RHNA. I don’t believe SACOG currently has those answers, and I don’t believe the California Department of Housing and Community Development currently has those answers. As a result any article that the Vanguard might write would be very short on understanding and very long on speculation. As a result the wording of your second paragraph would be more accurate if it read as follows, “I’ve previously suggested that the Vanguard examine these speculations (via a hypothetical article, or series of hypothetical articles), to no avail (so far).”
Ron the following quote from 2013-2021 Yolo County Housing Element (see LINK) will provide you with at least one of the answer components you are looking for.
Ron:
First you write: “I’m not opposed to all housing in the city. I did not oppose The Cannery or Chiles Ranch, for example.”
But then you write: “What I’m generally opposed to is large-scale infill developments that require zoning changes”
The Cannery of course was zoned “light industrial” and changed to accommodate residential and mixed use.
So on the one hand you state quite unambiguously that you are opposed to “large-scale infill developments that require zoning changes” but the two projects that you state to have supported are precisely “large-scale infill developments that require zoning changes.” So I guess I’m confused.
David:
That is a good point, and I don’t think I presented my thoughts well the first time. (I believe I was getting “attacked” by several pro-growth posters at the time, and had other tasks to do as well.)
Regarding The Cannery, I understood that it helped meet SACOG requirements, and was essentially an “alternative” to approving Covell Village (which was a far worse proposed development). Also, it seemed to be a poor location for commercial development, due to its location. And, it was essentially a paved, unused industrial lot.
Regarding Chiles Ranch, I understood that it would be ultimately used for housing, due to its unique circumstances (a large-sized parcel well-within the city limits, that was held by an elderly person who had passed away fairly recently). However, I must admit that I was still saddened to see the old barn (and horse) removed, and to see another old farm site disappear. I didn’t really pay much attention to the specific rezoning (from low-density residential to medium-density), but it seems that it was already zoned for housing, regardless.
Matt:
Again, I understand something entirely different regarding SACOG requirements, especially regarding Sterling and Lincoln40. But, neither of us has access to definitive answers, regarding this. And yet, these two proposals will likely be decided, prior to having answers. Seems like an unwise approach.
There are a lot of assumptions in your statements, above. And, a lot of unknowns in the actual requirements (that you’ve listed, above).
Unfortunately, the other person who knows a lot more about this than I do doesn’t seem to be online, lately. (Probably has better things to do.) And again, you had a significant disagreement with that person regarding SACOG requirements, which wasn’t resolved.
I recall that I had a disagreement with you, due to your apparent oversight of the word “unless” (in regard to the simple, short TOT ordinance). That disagreement went on and on, until others suggested that you were wrong. (For some reason, you couldn’t see it, when I pointed it out.)
Regarding my suggestion that the Vanguard explore SACOG requirements, I’m disappointed that you don’t support that idea. Conclusions may be difficult to come by, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying to understand an actual growth requirement for cities such as Davis (that’s not simply based on the latest vacancy rate data, opinions, or what the University might/might not do.)
Actually, I’d like to see a Vanguard-hosted forum, due to the complexities of the requirements.
I think this is becoming a misplaced discussion. There was a time when SACOG was kind of driving the bus for city housing requirements – the reality is the city has internal needs being generated by the shortfall of housing for students and you guys don’t want to deal with that because you’re afraid that will mean we have to take on more growth in the future. That’s at best a misplaced priority but it’s also a blindness to what our true needs are. We are artificially trying to game the system to keep requirements low when real world, we have much higher housing needs. I would suggest rather than wasting time with this issue, we focus on how to address our real world needs before SACOG gets wise and changes the rules.
“Says the wolves, knocking at the door” 🙂
In all seriousness, I recall the same types of arguments with Covell Village. And, I wouldn’t lump together “you guys”, as you’ve implied above. There are a very wide range of views, among those with “slow-growth” views.