There was a good piece earlier this week that looked at SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) and likely requirements for Cycle 6 of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) which covers the years 2021-2029.
Dov Kadin of SACOG tweeted, a few days ago: “SACOGs regional determination for cycle 6 of RHNA (2021-2029) is 153,512 units. That’s a 46% increase over (the) last cycle. The understanding was that the numbers were going (to) dramatically increase across the state. It will likely be a higher increase in coastal markets.”
Of the 153,512 in the region, 40 percent will be required to be from very low to moderate income.
These numbers are based on two factors. First, the anticipated or projected new growth. Second, the existing need.
Mr. Kadin, however, clarified: “When I say that the numbers are increasing across the state, it’s not because we are expecting more growth. It’s entirely because the existing need is higher than its ever been. In SACOG, they make up over a quarter of our total number.”
This figures to be important for Davis. Mr. Kadin writes: “Vacancy rate is the biggest one for (SACOG).”
He notes that, “HCD multiplies the difference between our vacancy rate and a healthy rate of 5 by our projected households in 2029. Its adding ~23k units. Worth noting we subtracted 12k units last cycle due to abnormally high rates so the swing is 35k.”
In Davis, as we have frequently noted, the vacancy rate is less than 0.5 percent, while a healthy vacancy rate is 5 percent. What is of course unknown is the impact of the all of the proposed student housing – roughly 
4500 beds in town and another over 9000 on campus.
Here is another factor we should be paying attention to – overcrowding.
Mr. Kadin writes: “Overcrowding is a new one due to SB 828.”
Under SB 828, there is required “data relating to the percentage of renter’s households that are overcrowded and vacancy rates for healthy housing market functioning and regional mobility.”
The bill goes on to require “the council of governments to provide data on the overcrowding rate for a comparable housing market, and would define the vacancy rate for a healthy rental housing market for those purposes to be no less than 5%.”
For the purposes of the bill, “The term ‘overcrowded’ means more than one resident per room in each room in a dwelling.”
We have noted, based on data from the Housing Task Force at UC Davis, that there has been a large increase in the density of units in Davis to compensate for the shortfall of housing units.
As we previously reported, Don Gibson, who chaired the ASUCD Graduate Student Association (GSA) Housing Task Force, wrote last year, “The density of the units in Davis for multi-families has gone from 2.4 to almost 3.”
That means that in 2000, the average unit had 2.37 (rounded up to 2.4) people per unit and it now has almost 3 people per unit. This is not due to changes in the structure of units, and there have been almost no additional units built in that time – that is due to more students moving into existing housing units.
That means that while the density in owner-occupied homes is declining, density in rental homes is increasing as more students are packing into the units.
He said, “Not as many students as I suspected were actually leaving town – they were just having to double-up in rooms.”
He added, “That’s led to the mini-dorm problem that has garnered a lot of discussion here in town.”
It appears that SB 828 will now take these factors into account when calculating the housing needs.
For the purposes of SACOG, “Your adjustment is based on the difference in overcrowding rates between your region and comparable regions. We worked extensively with HCD to identify our comparable regions based on economic metrics.”
At the regional level, RHNA then applies “an adjustment for cost burden to both the lower income and higher income units, recognizing cost burden is experienced very differently across income groups. This one is also based on the difference between your region and comparable regions.”
Mr. Kadin explains, “As political and opaque as this process seems, HCD is pretty formulaic about how they apply these adjustments and are not just going to leave one out to avoid conflict. These are all written into state law. Next step: adopting a methodology for distributing these numbers!”
From everyone we have spoken to, the expectation is the RHNA requirements for the next period are going to go way up. These projected numbers are just at the regional level. But given how they are calculated at the regional level and the factors of low vacancy and overcrowding in Davis, the expectation will be that requirements will go up.
How Davis expects to meet those requirements will become the political football of the next few years. Once again, there has been a lot of discussion about things like district elections and sales tax renewal, and none so far about Measure R renewal.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A large number of units have been approved in Davis. A key question will be how they allocate the housing units proposed on campus.
If they are consistent, they’d consider UCD/Davis as a ‘sub-region’… not two entities… and act accordingly…
We’ll see…
But, then again, they can’t ‘control’ UC… so definitely a “we’ll see”…
Historically SACOG has considered UCD to be part of the Unincorporated Yolo County. Both their allocated requirement and actual attainment flow to that fifth SACOG region within Yolo County. The other four SACOG regions are the incorporated cities … Davis, West Sac, Winters, and Woodland.
That standard makes sense in a non-student setting, but does it make sense in a student setting? Are they going to declare all the UCD dormitories as “over crowded”? Are they going to declare all the rent by the bed leases as “over crowded”?
More homework needs to be done on this.
Matt – first of all, a lot of UCD dorms are over-crowded and they are stuffing two and three students into rooms that should hold one.
Second, it is an average, so a few double occupancy rooms by design are probably not going to tilt the scale that much.
Criteria? Honest question, as a dorm student for 3 years in the 70’s…
Sq footage/person?
Also you might be able to consider the double-occupancy by design a manifestation of capacity and cost as well.
Non responsive… deflecting… lived in a dorm of 60… two bathrooms (multiple urinals, toilets, showers and one bath each, double occupancy of rooms @ maybe 12X 15 each… including beds, desks, etc. In apartments, rooms were bigger, but still, 2/bedroom, 2 bathrooms per 2 residents…
Again, I ask what is your criteria (oh, wait, deflection coming)…
My criteria? Maybe your question should be, what is SACOG or RHNA’s criteria, because we’re not talking about mine.
Really? I know a lot of students and I’ve not heard this. The dorm rooms I was in, some of which still exist, this would be next-to-impossible.
Have you seen the triple dorm rooms?
There were Quads in my original dorm. But from singles to Quads, once you put in a bed, dresser and desk per person, the place was pretty much full. Three in room intended for one? I don’t see how.
Craig, in 1966 three of my best friends were in a triple for freshman year Three to a dorm room has a long and honored history/legacy.
The rumor is that RHNA is not going to let you backdate approvals
SACOG never has allowed a jurisdiction to backdate approvals. You are blowing smoke out your a$$ Craig.
In other words, they are not going to allow the city council approved units now for future allocations.
If that turns out to be true, you can “thank” the council for the mass approvals (prior to knowing whether or not they can be counted toward the next round of allocations).
And this, despite warnings made at the time.
I’m sure that you’ll be happy about it, though. Probably the Vanguard, as well.
After all they should have just not dealt with a glaring housing need in the community, that would have been the responsible thing to do – right Ron?
David: Your immediate response gives away your position, as if it weren’t already obvious.
The housing need could have been coordinated with the next round of requirements, if the council was more responsible. Perhaps it’s not too late, but the council already took a big chance, which may or may not create SIGNIFICANT problems.
The rental housing shortage in Davis goes back over a decade. It would be irresponsible to the needs of Davis renters to hold off just because of the timing of the RHNA cycle. I was being told by slow-growth advocates before the last round of allocations that the city should ‘hold off’ so as not to affect the allocations then.
Until we have a 5% apartment vacancy rate, obstructing the provision of rental housing is detrimental to the needs of those in our community who are least able to afford that delay.
My position has always been to deal with the immediate “crisis” – shortage of student housing. And I’ve always said our goal needs to be to get to 5 percent vacancy, because that’s the level it starts making a difference in people’s lives.
You’re more concerned with controlling overall housing growth than you are the shortage of housing that exists now.
We don’t have much control over what the state decides to do, but we have plenty of measures in place that control time and location for that housing.
Had the CC’s been ‘responsible’ they would have addressed the need when it arose and not waited a decade or more for some outside organization to point out their failure.
We should be building housing to meet the needs of our residents, not in order to meet the requirements of SACOG.
Don: The city has not had a 5% vacancy rate for decades. I’m pretty sure that the vacancy rate for the entire region is lower than that.
Now, instead of the city determining its destiny, they may have given away their ability to do so – without even speeding up housing production or affordability.
All the more disturbing, in that these new requirements were on the immediate horizon at the time of recent approvals.
I’d call that beyond irresponsible, especially since warnings were made at the time.
Perhaps the development activists will now tell us how the new requirements will be met, if prior approvals won’t count.
Correct. I’ve been arguing for more rental housing for decades. As I’ve said many times, just reversing the trend would be a start. It’s hard to imagine it getting much lower.
I doubt that any nearby city has a rental vacancy rate as low as Davis. Yes, the vacancy rate for the region, broadly defined, is less than 5%. Davis had, the last time I checked, the lowest vacancy rate in the region.
Actually, SACOG cannot force a city to grow in geographic area, nor can it force a city to build housing. So the voters still, as of now, determine the destiny.
So you think the plans for Nishi, Lincoln 40, etc., should have been held in abeyance to wait for the RHNA numbers?
What is irresponsible is blocking residential development when there is a pressing need.
IMO it is time for Davis to consider a new subdivision as it updates the housing element of the General Plan. If the region is growing, Davis will need to grow along with it. I don’t personally believe that higher-density infill is going to meet the needs of most of those who are seeking housing in this area.
The city determined its destiny when it failed to meet the housing needs of its residents. Facing the consequences of that poor decision is the destiny that was chosen.
Don: All of your statements related to the need created by UCD. That’s why some foresaw this problem in advance, regarding the need for UCD to create sufficient housing on campus (which they’ve been neglecting to do, for decades).
Unlike housing in the city, campus housing can be reserved for students. Housing in the city can then be available to anyone, including students (while simultaneously meeting SACOG requirements).
For these reasons (among others – including the unwise conversion of commercial space), I didn’t support the megadorms, at all. But, if the city was determined to approve them, it was highly irresponsible for them to do so, when new SACOG requirements were on the immediate horizon at the time of approval. (Other than Sterling, they aren’t even under construction.)
Yeap – that’s already the Vanguard’s next push. It’s already been hinted about (in addition to MRIC). And, it’s a natural “outgrowth” of the Vanguard’s advocacy. But hope that others recognize the Vanguard for what it is, and what it actually advocates for. (Including both sprawl, and overly-densified developments). Folks, the Vanguard has developers sponsoring its fundraisers, for god sake. Coupled with developer advertising, can it get any more clear than this?
If folks are happy with the way things are going (including the council’s legal actions against its own residents, and its support of Vanguard fundraisers), then by all means continue to support them.
I am not “the Vanguard.” I have no idea what David Greenwald supports with regard to housing development. Please don’t misconstrue what I’ve said as reflecting anyone’s position other than mine. I’ve said it several times, actually. Others will probably push for more high-density infill. I think that’s a particular market niche that tends to exclude a lot of people. But I’m almost certain others who comment here will object to a development of single-family homes.
Yes. It is by far the biggest generator of jobs, housing needs, income, and economic activity in Davis, and in the region. If UCD grows, the region grows. Davis and UCD are joined at the hip. I cannot fathom why anyone would choose to live here who objects to the economic impact of UCD on the town and the region.
If the city is growing, it is by definition primarily meeting the “need” of NON-residents. In this case, primarily the need created by UCD (which is now dropping, according to the latest enrollment estimates).
Again, I’d call the actions by the council BEYOND irresponsible. I wonder how many more developments they might approve, before the upcoming round of SACOG requirements?
I do recall that the council had directed staff to check into the possibility of using previously-approved developments, to meet the next round of SACOG requirements. Something that should have occurred PRIOR to approval.
“If the city is growing, it is by definition primarily meeting the “need” of NON-residents. ”
False
this is why the overcrowding Measure is important
Those who are crowding into existing units (primarily to save on costs) are not likely to be the same ones moving into new, full-priced units.
Even more true, in places such as the Bay Area.
The truth is that limiting development absolutely limits population, in a given area. This is obvious and already-proven in areas that don’t allow much development.
If there’s 10 houses in a given town or area, do you think that there would be 10,000 residents? (Maybe 10,000 commuters, if economic development is pursued – and housing is available nearby.)
No, Ron. Growth is needed to meet the changing needs of City residents. The only residents whose needs are being met by the ‘no growth’ approach you advocate are those who ‘already have theirs’ and ‘who don’t care about anyone else.’
What is “beyond irresponsible” is failing to build the housing that is clearly needed. Having a vacancy rate below 1% is irresponsible. Having a vacancy rate below 1% for the better part of a decade is unconscionable.
“Changing needs” does not indicate a need for “more” housing. The only residents that you’re referring to are non-residents. That’s true of growth and development everywhere – not just Davis.
SACOG “fair share” growth requirements were created to meet the need of new regional residents, not existing ones. And, the city may have given-away a great deal of control over its own destiny, regarding its responsibility to meet those needs. Not sure if I’d call that irresponsible, or just plain stupid. Probably both.
There’s been a dearth of proposals, until recently. However, if you’re concerned about the need created by UCD, your previous lack of concern with on-campus housing indicates that you don’t actually care about it.
I’d conclude that you’re interested in development for other reasons. (Actually, I came to that conclusion a long time ago.) But rest assured – you’re not the only one on here in that category.
So, when the four teens currently living in my home come of age and decide they want to live on their own you don’t consider them to be residents? How about the recent graduate who, after living here while in school decides they want to remain and start their career and perhaps a family here, are they, not residents too in your view? How long does someone need to live here before you consider them to be a resident? Are you going to propose that we use longevity in town to determine whose opinion rates? I hope so because you will lose…
I’m not really sure what you are talking about here, Ron, but it is clear that you do not understand my position and are only projecting your own biases upon me. Therefore, let me repeat myself…
People who live in the immediate vicinity of Davis (whether or not they are actually living in the City limits) create costs for services that the City has to cover. They drive on our roads, use our parks, and demand police and fire protection while in town for a few examples. If their domicile is not within the City limits, either on the unincorporated County land or UCD property, they do not pay property taxes to help cover those costs of those services (unless there is some agreement between the County and the City as in the case of El Macero, etc.). As a consequence, housing on campus increases the costs to the City, and to City residents, without providing new revenues to compensate. The net result is that housing on campus makes living in the City more expensive for City residents. My position all along has been that campus housing belongs in the City proper so that those living in that housing are sharing in the costs of operating the City with the rest of us. Don’t worry, though, Ron, I have no expectation that you will be able to understand this explanation any more than you were able to the last time. Just keep posting your nonsense.
Mark: Your four teens are indeed residents, in your home. I wouldn’t expect them to be able to afford housing anywhere in the region, until they’re able to do so financially. And if they’re trying to buy a house, that would include a significant down-payment.
I’ve been priced-out of my original home, but I would not want that city to attempt to “build its way” to affordability, on my behalf. (Actually, prices have skyrocketed there, despite lots of new, market-rate housing.)
In any case, I view my original home (both the city, and region), as more important than my individual desires, regarding my personal choice of locale. Maybe I’m unique that way. All I can tell you is that I’ve witnessed a lot of development in some areas (making them far less livable), while simultaneously witnessing other areas that have preserved open space – as a result of citizen effort. Interestingly enough, both of these areas are expensive – but the areas that have pursued lots of economic development AND housing are (by far) the most expensive of all.
Mark: In response to your comment regarding “fiscal expense”, most housing is a fiscal drain, on cities. That’s the very reason that cities such as Davis are struggling in the first place.
If those residents live elsewhere (e.g., on campus or nearby), than those entities cover much of the cost (e.g., police, fire, etc.).
No, Ron, they are residents of the City, and when they reach their majority their rights will be equal to your own. Contrary to your contention above, growth is needed in order to meet the needs of current residents.
No argument there. But, they’ll need money regardless of where they choose to live. I also have just as much “right” to live in the town where I originated from, but again – I don’t expect them to build a house for me, let alone one that’s “affordable” to me.
I guess some folks think differently. Never understood that line of thinking.
It would be interesting to know how much development demand is actually created by those who have children, assuming that they even desire to stay in the city. My guess is that it’s a very small number, considering that people are also moving away or dying every day.
I’m also wondering how anyone thinks that market-rate housing can be specifically reserved for their own children (who haven’t even started careers), although we did have a recent development approved that attempted something “similar”.
If there was ever a “weird red herring” argument, this one is near the top of the list.
It’s too bad that my parents weren’t able to convince that city to build housing for me. I’m not sure if this is a “failure” of my parents, a failure of me – personally, or a “failure” of the city. 😉 But for sure, I didn’t get what was “owed” to me, apparently in the eyes of some.
A sub 1% vacancy rate means that housing is functionally not available, regardless of cost. We don’t need to provide an affordable house for everyone who wants one, but we should provide the opportunity to find appropriate housing for all those who need it.
In your response regarding my teens (and by extension others who grow up here), you ignored the equally relevant cohort that I also mentioned, university students. As most of those students are already over 18, they have exactly the same rights to appropriate housing that you have. It really does not matter why someone chooses to live here, if they live inside the City limits they are City residents and deserve to be treated with the same rights and respect as those who might have lived here longer. If you have ‘no argument’ about the needs my children may have when they turn 18, then you should also have ‘no argument’ about the needs of students who desire to remain here after they finish school.
It’s certainly not “1%” when UCD is not in session. I suspect housing is available right now (in some form), if one has the resources. Regardless, your lack of concern regarding on-campus housing makes your stated concern difficult to believe.
No argument there. Many likely do, and/or move back when they’re able. If they’re already living in housing, then their “needs” are being met.
Those living on campus are not living in the city, and would be considered “new” residents to the city, if they choose to move to the city after graduation. Nothing “wrong” with that, but also not seeing where that’s a specific “internal” need.
I agree that this argument of yours is a ‘weird red herring.’ Please show where anyone here has suggested that:
or even that such a thing would be desirable?
Again, yes – they are residents. If you’re suggesting that the children of residents are the ones driving the need for (and occupying) most new market-rate housing stock, I’d suggest that you don’t have the data to back this up. In fact, the data would likely suggest otherwise.
If you were concerned about new market-rate apartments (that aren’t megadorms), you certainly had the opportunity to speak up at the time. Again, this is a perfect example of one of the reasons that some were concerned about the lack of student housing, on-campus. Had the megadorms been built there, those spaces (such as Sterling) could have accommodated traditional apartments, such as the type that might appeal to your children.
But again, the city completely dropped the ball regarding coordination with upcoming SACOG requirements – which would also impact the TYPE of developments that are approved.
The fact is, most students eventually live off-campus, most of those in the City. Those who do are residents of Davis, equal in rights to you and me. It is time we treat them as equals, and not as invaders.
And had traditional apartments been approved instead of the megadorms, they probably would have been a better “fit” for students who have completed their studies, and are embarking on their careers. (Assuming that they want to stay in, or move to Davis from campus.)
Regardless, many of the development activists on here argued that the megadorms are suitable for working adults, as well. (Maybe they’re changing their story, now. It wouldn’t surprise me, in the least.)
There’s so many disingenuous arguments put forth by some that it’s difficult to keep track of them all. But, I have a pretty good memory. The only question I have is whether or not it’s worth continually pointing them out, on here. Especially since other slow-growthers have long-since abandoned this blog.
You like to say all of this stuff and you have said it a lot on here, but if you talk to students. That’s not what they’ll tell you.
I personally like and admire most students. It’s also not particularly easy to get into a UC, in the first place. (Perhaps easier as a transfer student, but I’m not sure of that.)
I suspect that most of them will do quite well (probably and hopefully better than me, as they advance in their careers). But again, if they’re voluntarily moving from campus to the city, they would fall into the same category as anyone else moving to Davis.
As you are the one most frequently known for repeating disingenuous and false arguments, not to mention your many ‘red herrings’ and frequent misrepresentations of what other posters say, you must have a ‘pretty good memory.’ An especially creative one at that.
I don’t “like” saying any of this. I wish that I didn’t feel compelled to point out things that you don’t discuss.
Regardless, where have I “misquoted” or “misinterpreted” students? Are you stating that they envision staying long-term in the megadorms, after they graduate? (Of course, we don’t yet have real-life locl examples, either way.)
My comments here primarily address city planning, SACOG requirements, etc.
David: If the argument is that the megadorms are appealing to young, working adults, then presumably that’s an alternative for Mark’s kids, if they so chose. Perhaps yours, as well.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if they do what so many other millennials are doing, in staying home with their parents for a period of time until they’re financially secure. (And have paid off any ill-advised student loan debt, as well.)
And frankly, it just doesn’t make sense for most kids to move out of their homes, to attend college. Especially for the first couple of years, when community colleges offer the same courses. Nor does it make any sense for a city to “specifically accommodate” those who want to “experience life” before they’re ready.
I just posted an article regarding large numbers of millennials staying at home with their parents (for now), in the Sacramento region.
Again though – it was irresponsible to approve the megadorms, when new SACOG requirements were on the immediate horizon.
This argument, which you have now made something like a dozen times in this thread, is nonsense. Housing at Nishi was first approved by the city council in 2015, which wasn’t even halfway through the 2013 – 2021 cycle of SACOG allocations.
Based on your logic, cities would never approve housing because they would always be waiting for the next cycle of allocations. Davis has somehow managed to game the system for years now, receiving far fewer housing units allocated than other cities in Yolo County. I’d guess that is about to end.
And if one wants to discuss increased costs for students, perhaps a good place to begin is the vastly increased cost of tuition, in recent years.
But again, I don’t see why the city itself has to make special accommodations for those who aren’t in a position to live life as a full-fledged adult, paying their way as everyone else does. Especially when it compromises city planning, as it’s clearly done in this case.
It’s nearly impossible to earn sufficient wages to live on one’s own, while also attending college as an undergraduate. It’s simply not a reasonable goal, nor is it one that should dictate city planning.
I do realize that there are exceptions (e.g., students who don’t have many other options). But, I strongly suspect that these students are in the minority.
Mark understates the history. With a handful of anomalous years, the vacancy rate has been below 1% for well over 2 decades.
Matt: Sure – talk with UCD, about that. The timeframe that you’ve listed shows that it’s in no way related to Measure J/R, or any “disapprovals” from the city.
Again, what is the city’s responsibility? Isn’t a primary one to meet the upcoming SACOG requirements? How, exactly, is this going to be accomplished (If if approved proposals don’t “count”)?
Or, is the city’s primary responsibility to accommodate students who may be voluntarily leaving home early, when local (and less-expensive) options are available to them? Is it Davis’ “job” to specifically accommodate those who wish to have a “traditional” college experience, in the face of rising costs? (Including vastly increased tuition costs?) A societal change is needed, here.
There is some correlation between the housing downturn, and increased vacancy rate. (Which seems to conflict with the theory that those who lost their homes became renters, locally.)
By the way, if you want to talk about an actual “crisis” for students (nationwide), we’d be talking about student loan debt. A large part of which is due to vastly increased tuition costs, coupled with those who believe that a “traditional college experience” (e.g., living on one’s own, without sufficient income) is an “essential” part of life. (Assuming other options are available to them, such as living at home for the first couple of years at least – while attending community college.)
Those folks will be paying for that belief and related decisions, for the rest of their lives. Even when the megadorms are built, locally.
I don’t have a great deal of empathy for those who make such decisions. However, I realize that this in no way applies to all.
It does appear that a large number of millenials are living at home with their parents these days -at least until they’re financially able to live on their own. I just posted an article regarding that, for the Sacramento region. So, perhaps there is some acknowledgement of reality, when you come right down to it.
The student loan problem is a problem for students and former students. No doubt. But that’s not a local issue that we can address. Housing is a local issue. That’s the difference.
David: Voluntarily putting oneself into financial hardship is a personal decision. Again, I’m referring to those who have other options (which I suspect is the majority).
Personally, I don’t think that such decisions should be the primary driver of city policy.
There are signs that things have changed, though (e.g., more staying at home with parents, for longer periods of time). Even after completing college, especially since many degrees aren’t worth all that much.
I wonder what the future holds for universities, as population growth drops (and interest from non-resident students falls – as is already occurring).
You’re entitled to your views – I respectfully disagree.
Thanks – I realize that.
The problem is that the city will now have to deal with SACOG requirements, perhaps without any “credit” for the developments already-approved (e.g., Sterling, Nishi, Lincoln40, Plaza 2555, Chiles Road apartments, Davis Live, WDAAC, etc.).
I’d call that a SERIOUS problem, and one that could have been avoided to a large degree (without much impact on construction schedules). Including the completion dates of the megadorms.
I’m not sure that voters (or even your readers) realize what the council has done – and with the Vanguard’s support. Again, it’s irresponsible, especially since the issue was brought up at the time.
It doesn’t even have anything to do with support or opposition to the megadorms.
Again, you’re wrong.
We have gone through about five election cycles since a council majority, starting roughly with Krovoza and through to the current council, steadily took action to break the logjam and get rental housing underway in Davis. I actually never thought I would see the day, and I strongly commend the series of council majorities for taking the very responsible steps needed to get apartments built and try to change the trajectory of the city’s disastrously low apartment vacancy rate.
Planning for housing takes time. It takes considerably longer in Davis than it does in other cities. The discussions about annexing and building on the Nishi site began in about 2010, and the first housing proposal for the site was put forth in 2015.
It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the whole planning process should grind to a halt because SACOG is going to be releasing their 8-year housing allocation. It just becomes another tool for obstruction. The city doesn’t have to build housing to meet the SACOG requirements, it has to provide for the possibility of building housing. It has to update the housing element of the General Plan. You keep asking how that will happen. It’s a public process and you can be as involved in it as you like.
Your argument seems to be that Davis should have intentionally delayed the start of housing projects so as to credit them to the next round of allocations. That is gaming the system. Housing is built in response to need. There is a clear, undeniable need for housing in Davis. The lack of certain types of housing is materially harming individuals.
You keep going off on these weird tangents about how people should live at home, go to community colleges, etc. Those discussions are irrelevant to the current and likely future state of the Davis housing market. The university is the major driver of that market here. The university causes the demand for housing off campus for upper division and graduate students as well as for staff and faculty.
There is very little likelihood that the campus enrollment will decrease over time. The current drop is a trivial amount in the context of the housing market, and UCD is not planning for continued declines in enrollment.
So the current market demand is high. The current rental housing situation is desperate. Any short-term housing recession is irrelevant to the long-term planning issues. Any short-term drop in enrollment is irrelevant to the long-term planning issues. There is a clear demand for homes for families. The consequence of your housing policies would be to continue to drive those renters and home-buyers to nearby cities, because that is where the housing is being provided.
SACOG requirements are a reflection of the state of the market. You seem to want to ignore that, and seem to think that Davis can act in isolation from the market forces around it. That would be, to borrow a term, irresponsible.
Proposals come from developers, not the city. None of this addresses the point.)
Never said that it should grind to a halt. However, there have been thousands of units approved, with new SACOG requirements on the immediate horizon. It appears that NONE of these developments may be counted toward the next round of requirements.
That’s the very definition of irresponsibility.
It is not “gaming the system”, unless you believe that the RHNA requirements are a “game” to begin with.
Take it up with UCD, if you’re concerned about their decades-long abdication of responsibility. Regardless, some of these students are VOLUNTARILY subjecting themselves to costs they could avoid, by attending a local community college for the first couple of years (for example).
They are entirely relevant, and are never discussed. The Vanguard only addresses predictable impacts, resulting from a lack of planning (and is a direct result of its own advocacy).
Yes – upper division and graduate students are in a different category, than undergraduate students. Graduate students generally have less choice regarding university selection, and are often working as well. UCD has failed to adequately address their needs, as well.
That is flat-out false. Would you like for me to post the article again, showing a significant drop-off in expected enrollment, for 2019? (Especially among non-resident students.)
How does this relate to the council’s abdication of duty, regarding failure to even consider the consequences of not being able to count the THOUSANDS of units already-approved, toward the upcoming round of SACOG requirements? (Note also that the “type” of housing matters, regarding these requirements. Will megadorms “qualify”, even if they’re somehow able to be counted – despite their earlier approval date?)
You’re the one who is advocating that these upcoming requirements be ignored, when approving developments.
Would you like to continue this conversation? Because no matter how many times you challenge me, it’s not going to change the facts regarding what the council did.
If you do respond, take some responsibility yourself, for this continued argument. Usually, this is just “blamed” on me, as I’m the only slow-growther left on this blog.
“It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that the whole planning process should grind to a halt because SACOG is going to be releasing their 8-year housing allocation. ”
To add to Don’s point, those projects were approved in most cases 3 or 4 years before SACOG’s new housing cycle. So you’re talking about halfway through the previous cycle. The implications of that are that you can’t approve new housing except in the first half a cycle apparently.
The following statement (from above) should not have been included as a quote. Unfortunately, the Vanguard’s technically-challenged website did not provide the full timeframe needed to fix this. And, when the “string” gets as long as this one is, it’s extremely difficult to properly address comments.
In any case, I’ll put my response to Don using the quotation feature here, so that it stands out from the rest of this comment:
I’d suggest ENDING this conversation, at this point. But again, I hope that the Vanguard’s readers fully understand the predicament that the council has put the city in, regarding upcoming SACOG requirements.
I see that David is chiming in again, as well. Again, the council has approved THOUSANDS of units, without any consideration regarding whether or not they can be counted toward the upcoming round of SACOG requirements. These requirements also address the TYPE of housing that must be accounted for. (Another factor that received ZERO consideration, by the council.)
But, I”m sure that the Vanguard will have lots of suggestions regarding where another 10,000 or so units might be built (in addition to those already-approved). Just keep in mind HOW this actually occurred. And note that the recent approvals have not even resulted in any occupiable units, at this point.
The dilemma being approving desperately needed apartment (three of them) halfway through the RHNA cycle and several years before there was an indication that SACOG might change how they are allocated (might being the operative word).
There’s a lot more than “three” approved, or pending approval.
I hope that the operative word is as you suggest – “might”. But, it was entirely predictable that the requirements would be tightened.
Wondering if there are any more on the immediate horizon, that the council will approve without knowing the answer.
(I assume that you and Don do not have to go back to the top of the thread to “reply”, as everyone else does. You seem to have some kind of special ability, regarding your responses.)
You and David have both suggested support for yet another peripheral development (in addition to Nishi, WDAAC, and MRIC). I’d call that the “Vanguard”. I believe that you’ve also both indicated strong support for most, if not all infill development proposals. You’re also both apparently unconcerned about coordination with SACOG requirements. I’d call that irresponsible.
David has continuously attempted to create “discussion” regarding Measure J/R, while claiming that he supports it.
How can you, as moderator and frequent commenter “claim” that you have “no idea what David Greenwald supports with regard to housing development”? Really? Also, why do you think he wrote this article, and others like it? And, why do you think that the Vanguard attracts a handful of development activists, while most of the slow-growthers don’t even bother with this blog anymore?
You’re also part of the development team, for Nishi. However, for what it’s worth, I wouldn’t call you a developer, nor do I view in quite the same was as some of the other obvious development supporters on this blog.
I think most of your comment is false. I continue to support Measure R and have stated multiple times I would be reluctant to develop additional housing (other than in the innovation center) on the periphery.
No. I speak only for myself. Please don’t do this again.
Fine, Don. It makes it much easier when you make comments like this in the same article:
Couple of interesting articles regarding RHNA requirements in Southern California:
https://www.ocregister.com/2019/02/28/just-26-of-needed-housing-approved-in-state-since-2013-report-finds/
Not unexpectedly, developers continue to focus on expensive, market-rate housing:
https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2019/04/12/whats-behind-southern-californias-housing-crunch
Overall, the state is going to have its hands full, fighting some of the wealthier/coastal cities around the state. Including communities that have outright ignored reporting requirements, in the first place. I suspect that some of these cities have (both) the resources and political will to put forth a formidable challenge, against the state. And, despite the fact that I won’t “personally benefit”, I’m hoping that these cities ultimately prevail.
I suspect that the backlash against the state will continue to grow, and that the state’s “solution” will continue to fall short for those actually in need of assistance.
So, Ron, if providing for housing for non-residents is wrong, it must have always been wrong. Simple logic.
So Ron, do you live, have you always lived, where you were born?
Didn’t think so… certain level of hypocrisy in your arguments. On a scale of 1 to 10, I’d say a [edited]
Bill: Just a bunch of your usual noise, not worth addressing.
Mark: In response to your comment regarding “fiscal expense”, most housing is a fiscal drain, on cities. That’s the very reason that cities such as Davis are struggling in the first place.
If those residents live elsewhere (e.g., on campus or nearby), than those entities cover much of the cost (e.g., police, fire, etc.).
Simultaneously, those non-residents will spend some money, in the city itself.
I’m not sure if a fiscal analysis has ever been attempted, regarding the impact on the city resulting from non-residents (e.g., on-campus, or nearby).
But, we have a “real-life” analysis of the impact of the current housing stock, on the city’s finances. That’s why there’s a long-term deficit.
Ron’s favorite falsehood.
No, they cover none of the costs for City services. They may cover similar services on Campus or in the County, but they pay nothing towards the City’s incremental costs.
I’m sure they do, but the bulk of City services are paid for with property and parcel taxes, not with sales tax. We might change that with different choices, but you and many others have worked to prevent business expansion in town in order to meet your own personal agenda.
We have a long-term deficit due to one, and only one, reason, poor fiscal management. We made promises we couldn’t afford.
The ‘real-life’ analysis you are referring to only exists in your head.
The real-life analysis exists in the form of long-term fiscal projections (for Davis, and just about every other city and county throughout the state). It’s discussed on here just about every other day, sometimes in conjunction with the “need” for even more deficit-creating developments.
Folks like you put forth falsehoods that costs to serve these developments are somehow “separate” from the developments, themselves. That is truly a piece of creative analysis.
It’s also the reason that there’s a long-term deficit in just about every other California city and county. Housing (and the cost of services it creates) doesn’t pay for itself, in the long-term.
But, this is drifting off-topic from the original point, regarding the absolute irresponsibility of the council (regarding their approval of housing without coordinating with upcoming SACOG requirements).
Ron, the biggest cost for cities and counties in California is employee-related. And in California, possibly the biggest fiscal problem is retirement and health care costs. That’s pretty well known. Do you have evidence of the costs of housing on cities and counties?
What do you think the purpose of those employees is? Are you one of the commenters who think the cost of city employees should (for some unexplained reason) be “separated” from the developments (and residents who live in those developments) that these employees serve?
Is there some kind of Vanguard award for the “weirdest red herring” argument, ever?
What do you think the cost of city employees is, in places where there is no development?
By the way, look for the Vanguard to try to drive a wedge between those who are concerned about overly-dense infill, vs. a sprawling peripheral development. It’s not an “either/or” choice, despite what you’ll probably hear on this blog, ad nauseam.
“Divide and conquer”.
In the meantime, you might want to ask the council why they neglected to consider upcoming SACOG requirements, when approving recent developments. (Which otherwise could have been used to meet said requirements.) And, you might want to ask them if they’re planning to continue this practice.
It’s no surprise if this leads to a significant problem. It was entirely predictable, and was was mentioned at the time.
Voters rejected the attempt that you are referring to. The authority to approve Nishi ultimately rests with voters (not the council), many of whom may not even be aware of the ramifications regarding the failure of the council to even consider (or communicate to voters) whether or not these units would count toward the upcoming round of SACOG requirements.
Again, SACOG requirements also determine the type of housing that must be accounted for. Nishi may not qualify, nor may Sterling, Lincoln40, Davis Live, Chiles Road (conversion from commercial to residential), Plaza 2555, WDAAC, etc. Again, all approved (or pending immediate approval) without the city taking any steps to determine if they can be used to meet the upcoming round of SACOG requirements.
Again, this is no surprise, as it was specifically mentioned at the time. Those warnings were ignored. This is beyond irresponsible. And, the Vanguard itself shares this irresponsibility.
Not one shovel of dirt has been moved, at most of these developments. Approving them prematurely has not expedited their construction. Some of them have been tied up by legal actions as well – which probably wouldn’t occur if the council wasn’t so hell-bent on approving developments, regardless of consequences.
I guess so. And again, perhaps you and the other development activists will now tell us how the city will now meet those requirements, since the previously approved (but unbuilt) developments may not count. (Actually, you’ve already started to do so.)
At one fairly recent council meeting, the subject did come up, but only AFTER all of these developments were approved. It appears that no one knows the results at this point, with any degree of certainty. And yet, that didn’t stop the council from approving them without knowing. Perhaps they’re planning to approve even more, without knowing.
Again, keep supporting the current council (and the developer-supported Vanguard itself), if you like the results.
I’m getting to the point where it’s not worth my time to respond to you, you distort so much.
But I will address this misleading statement: “Not one shovel of dirt has been moved, at most of these developments.”
Let us look at the three largest projects.
Sterling – almost built, will open next fall.
Lincoln40 – sued and just now has the appeal been dismissed. SO THEY COULDN’T HAVE MOVED DIRT UNTIL LAST WEEK. To imply there is ulterior motives is dishonest beyond belief
Nishi – attempted to pass in 2016 as Don indicated, so I’m not sure how you can claim there is something nefarious on timing. Passed finally in 2018 and sued. It isn’t resolved, so THEY CAN’T MOVE DIRT. Can you at least try to be an honest person. Otherwise, I think a lot of us are simply going to start ignoring you.
If there was any degree of honesty on this site, you would disclose your connection with development interests.
Again, none of these developments have been expedited, as a result of approving them without consideration of upcoming SACOG requirements.
Way to completely deflect on the main problem with your theory – lawsuits preventing progress on the projects. Otherwise all of these projects would be opening by 2020.
They can’t be expedited Ron, they were sued.
Not all of them. Regardless, the city probably wouldn’t be faced with lawsuits if they worked with residents, instead of against them.
Even the ones that weren’t sued aren’t open, and will not be open until the upcoming round of SACOG requirements have been established.
That’s irrelevant to your point about gaming the system. The developments were prevented from going forward. The one that was allowed to do so, did so
As you’ve said to me below, I have no idea what you’re trying to say, here. Nor am I particularly interested.
But I’m pretty sure that you’re happy with the way that the city has handled this issue, and are looking forward to “crowing” about the upcoming round of SACOG requirements – as is the Vanguard, itself.
That’s what development interests do. Well, that plus present misinformation.
Again, if voters want to stick their heads in the sand regarding what’s occurring, that’s up to them. But some are going to at least point out what’s going on here.
Actually my preference would have been for the housing they approved to open next fall.
I’d prefer that the city take a holistic approach to planning and development. I’d also prefer that the city not sacrifice its own needs and plans, in order to suddenly and half-hazardly attempt to meet the needs of those ignored by UCD, for decades.
With no consideration of how the city will meet the upcoming round of SACOG requirements, how it will address its own needs for commercial development within city limits, the needs of those who don’t want to live in megadorms (which could have been accommodated on campus), etc.
That’s what I’d call irresponsible.
As far as “gaming” the system, I don’t think so. Most of the surrounding communities are dominated by leaders who welcome development with open arms. To them, SACOG requirements are probably viewed as an entirely “inadequate” number.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here
It’s pretty obvious.
Maybe someone else knows what you’re saying. I don’t
That exchange was painful. We know your opinions on growth, Davis extremists on both sides. Just stop. Please.
Oh course, I’m the fool that read it.
#doh!#
As far as my part in this, the only thing I wanted to point out was the impact of not considering the upcoming round of SACOG requirements, for recently-approved developments. Especially since one of those activists starting “crowing” about the upcoming round of requirements.
The development activists apparently didn’t like this statement, and launched into a host of other challenges (as usual). I could let them go unchallenged, and save myself (and others I guess), some grief. But again, there’s reasons that the city has now put itself into a predicament – which aren’t otherwise discussed on here. Maybe some are interested in this, or maybe all just want to bury their heads in the sand – not sure.
But for sure, the challenges in addressing the upcoming round of SACOG requirements have been amplified by the city’s prior, and ongoing decisions.
That flame-thrower won’t keep the tire-pile burning. Thank you!
Just explaining how my participation in this article unfolded, in an entirely accurate manner. If you can tolerate it – go back through it, and see for yourself.
Regarding “extremists”, some might view those who are highly concerned about one extra floor (or partial floor) on an infill building to be “extreme”. (I’m not one of them, but I can see how some might think that.)
The new requirements might essentially “force” those additional floors. Perhaps a good time to consider how this has all occurred, since the article itself mentions these requirements. (It’s not the first time, nor will it be the last time these requirements are suddenly of interest to the Vanguard.) But what’s consistently left out is the impact of prior decisions.
My objection was only to the insinuation that projects were intentionally delayed to increase the SACOG allocation for next time.
I didn’t say that, nor did I intend to imply it. Not sure what statement led you to believe this, but suggest we just leave it at that.
Seems to me that any “intentional” delays were not made for that purpose, and did not have anything to do with SACOG requirements. However, if they are able to be counted as a result of the delay, perhaps they may help with the next round of requirements – if they’re counted as such.
It’s probable that most of these developments wouldn’t have been occupied until the next round of requirements are in place, regardless of any delay.
I think his objection was to this: “Not one shovel of dirt has been moved, at most of these developments. Approving them prematurely has not expedited their construction.”
I think his point is that Sterling will be occupied in 2020 before the next RHNA numbers take effect, and both Lincoln40 and Nishi could have been built but for the aforementioned lawsuits
By the way, I see that Sacramento is leading the way (locally), regarding the only proven way to keep rents in check (for long-term renters). (Other than Affordable housing.) RHNA requirements aren’t going to do it.
Not a very aggressive measure, and appears to be a “compromise” intended to keep a more aggressive measure off the ballot. Regardless, it’s a start:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article233624652.html
Seems kind of surprising that Sacramento is taking action, where Davis won’t.
An aggressive measure would run into political and legal problems.
It would run into well-financed opposition, as did the statewide measure to repeal Costa-Hawkins. As it is, even this modest proposal (in the article, above) is facing opposition.
All these comments. Half of them by Ron! Most of them looking back, rather than ahead. The city basically addressed one issue with the last round of housing. The next ten years is going to be a different type of housing. The question will be what. Fortunately, Ron isn’t the one controlling things.
Here’s another one for you:
As pretty much the only slow-growther left on this blog, every comment I make is challenged (usually “unsuccessfully”) by the more-numerous development activists (including those who seem to be tied directly to development interests).
There’s a reason that development activists have found a “home” on here. It’s a good fit for them.
Unfortunately, the council really blew it, by approving thousands of units without any consideration whatsoever regarding whether or not they can be counted toward the upcoming round of SACOG requirements. They were specifically warned about this issue, at the time.
And to date, not one of those units is ready for occupation, regardless.
Keep supporting them (the council, and the Vanguard), if you’re happy with the results.