Polling shows that the top issue for Davis is the affordability of housing. The year 2020 figures to be an interesting year for housing issues. We will have the University Commons project coming forward with about 800 or so beds. We will have ARC (Aggie Research Campus) coming forward with 850 units of housing in addition to the 2.6 million square feet of commercial.
We will also have some interesting discussions, long term. We have the renewal of Measure R. We have the approval of the Downtown Plan. And the start perhaps of an update to the General Plan.
I keep pointing out that we have not had a discussion on the renewal of Measure R. In a podcast in November, Mayor Brett Lee basically said he would support a straight renewal of Measure R. I have heard a very small contingent of people who would like to see it go away.
One point that I don’t think enough people have given heed to – it’s not clear where Davis would grow housing even if it could.
I pointed this out in the a piece at the end of September, that because of various conservation easements and other boundaries, Davis is actually very limited in where it can grow in the long term.
To the south, Davis is largely bounded by the county line which functionally prevents the city from growing much further to the south. As we move west, we get UC Davis-owned lands immediately to the south.
Immediately to the west of town there are conservation easements preventing Davis from growing directly west.
To the immediate east, between conservation easements and other barriers, Davis is probably not going to be able to grow directly east.
That largely leaves the Covell Corridor as potential areas for growth. You have the remainder of the Northwest Quadrant to the northwest of the city.
There is a little area between the northern boundary of the city and conservation easements. There is the area that used to be known as Covell Village. And then to the east, you have Signature, 
Shriner, and Wild Horse Ranch as potential spots for immediate development.
Finally there is the Aggie Research Center proposed property that right now has the 850 units as well as the commercial space. But immediately to the north and east of that is conservation easement.
Realistically, the days of rapid growth in Davis are over. Those worried that Davis will end up destroying the farmland surrounding it are probably off. Those worried that Davis and Woodland will converge or merge have little to fear as well.
The challenge – as it has been for the last 20 years and figures to remain – is how does Davis responsibly grow in a sustainable way to prevent the city from pricing out the middle, specifically the middle class and people in the 30 to 50 age range?
On our podcast I posed the question to Mayor Brett Lee. I would consider Brett Lee a moderate on growth. He was willing to support projects like Nishi, but opposed to projects like Covell Village and the Cannery. He has taken a more skeptical view on some projects and supports a Measure R renewal as currently written.
One point that he made in our conversation is that the city has already approved around 4000 to 4500 beds in student housing. We have not seen the impact of those approvals.
His hope – as well as mine – is that by approving student apartments near campus, it will help to free up the single-family homes in the core of town that have transitioned away from families and toward mini-dorms.
In addition, the Downtown Plan provides for densification of the downtown core, which currently underutilizes land by placing on it single-story and in some cases two-story buildings, and looks to transform that land to perhaps as high as six stories – with several floors of residential above retail, office and flex space.
But while I have long been an advocate of this kind of transformative densification of the core, we have to face some reality – the cost of doing this is prohibitive. That means the process figures to be long and slow. Without the influx of capital – either private capital or redevelopment money – that figures to be a process that we probably won’t see come to fruition in our lifetimes.
The thing that we have to also be concerned about is, as we go more dense, we move away from detached single-family homes, and we are probably also moving away from the realm of families with children.
I see this as a real dilemma for Davis into the future. On the one hand, most people, myself included, would like to see Davis maintain its small town flavor and its urban-farmland interface. On the other hand, the current policies are moving us toward a much more expensive and exclusive community, which is likely to remove the vital force of young families with children and thus eat away at our prized schools.
I suppose this can be a discussion for the General Plan as the community and planners come together to discuss the future – but maintaining that balance has always been a precarious tightrope act, and now the margin for future growth is becoming more and more thin.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Yet another article in a long series from the Vanguard that supposedly discusses housing, but never once discusses the provision of affordable housing and the City’s weakened “interim” Affordable Housing Ordinance provisions whose update has been long-delayed.
The history of affordable housing policies in this town has ranged from sordid to ineffective. If you’ve got suggestions for specifics as to how affordable housing policy that really works could be developed and implemented, by all means post them. I suspect the council will be addressing this issue in 2020.
Don Shor stated “ The history of affordable housing policies in this town has ranged from sordid to ineffective….”
If you have documentation of this, by all means go ahead and present it.
Meanwhile, the reality is that in the dozen years before the City weakened its Affordable Housing Ordinance, about 25% of all housing produced in the City was affordable.
25% of not much is not much.
Don Shor is correct there have been scandals where Affordable houses were sold to relatives of the developers who off loaded them when they became market rate.
No reason for Don to present anything. Those of us who have lived here a while know that his statement is confirmed by the public record.
25% of a small number remains a small number. We won’t meaningfully address the housing affordability problem (big A or small a) until we start building more housing.
Ron G is correct, and sometimes it was relatives of City staff.
Ron G also raises another deep-seated problem with SF, for-sale, affordable housing… it morphs to market rate over time. Except for, perhaps, limited equity coops (where the coop has first right of refusal upon sale), I have yet to see an effective mechanism to keep affordable for-sale housing, affordable.
Better success has been had with affordable rental housing.
Mark West stated “No reason for Don to present anything.“
Your response champions unfounded claims presented with zero evidence. In other words, par for the course for you.
Google DACHA for starters.
Rik…
Mark simply pointed out that many of us have lived thru it… much is in the public records… it is not “on” Don, Mark, Ron G or me to “prove it”.
We ran a story probably in 2007 or 2008 on the scandals and the steps the city tried to take to prevent it.
Did one of the steps include the complete elimination of for-sale, Affordable housing?
Were the problems alluded to limited to Davis?
In any case, this topic seems worthy of a complete, updated article.
Formally they haven’t eliminated it. However, the city has definitely moved toward affordable rental housing in the last five years or so.
Don Shor stated “ Google DACHA for starters.”
I’m very familiar with the City if Davis’ affordable housing programs. Not requiring resale restrictions was a dumb idea that is not standard practice in the affordable housing world. The City modified its AHO in 2005 to address that.
You want to talk about housing policy in the last 15 years?
Let’s talk about the ways that developers try to get out of their public obligations. You want to start with Nishi and WDAAC?
As far as DACHA, that was a mess. But it also represents a tiny fraction of affordable housing units produced in the city. And the Grand Jury report found that “The City acted responsibly by making many attempts to preserve DACHA as part of its affordable housing program… The City’s actions were made in good faith and with transparency.”
So far, in reply to my suggestion that …
… you have replied, excerpted here:
and…
I can’t tell if you consider 25% a desirable goal, or are suggesting it as a requirement. Or if you just want to go back to the previous policy. But at least you’re being specific.
So are you basically proposing that the city mandate a ____ % (fill in the blank) affordable housing requirement on new developments and that they restrict equity for those units?
Wondering about the success of Aggie Village, as Affordable housing for university employees. The small single-family cottages seem appealing/popular, and are close to downtown as well.
https://localwiki.org/davis/Aggie_Village
Don Shor: how about we discuss your distortion of the record for providing affordable housing in Davis before we move onto future policy goals? After that we can talk about the subpar analysis in the Plescia & Co. report that the City had to backtrack on.
How about if you provide specific policy proposals instead of just attacking others who comment here?
Don Shor stated “How about if you provide specific policy proposals instead of just attacking others who comment here?”
1) your accusation that I am “attacking” others is false.
2) This article doesn’t even discuss the City’s current affordable housing policies. In many recent articles on housing, the Vanguard does not discuss affordable housing policies. The Vanguard is not an honest venue for such a discussion.
3) I’d be happy to provide links to some of my writing on affordable housing policies.
The history of developers trying to get out of local affordable housing obligations is sordid indeed. And I have pages of documentation that I’ve already published on Nishi and WDAAC in this regard.
Wrong. Easy to annex land from one county to another. Nishi used to be in Solano County.
“In a podcast in November, Mayor Brett Lee basically said he would support a straight renewal of Measure R.”
Pathetic and cowardly position for someone who knows better but wants to be re-elected. How do I know he knows better? From a conversation I had with him at The Grad several years ago where we discussed how to change Measure R to make it better.
Housing has been the major issue in Davis since Gerry Adler was on the council. When was that? 1980?
They (children attending Davis schools) are still there. They’re shipping them in from Woodland, on a daily basis. And, their families are not paying their fair share toward Davis schools.
In reality, I see no way that Davis will ever significantly increase the percentage of local young families, primarily as a result of what they’re building in Spring Lake. The price differential, size of the homes, and ability to attend Davis schools is too obvious to ignore.
With possible exception of wealthier families arriving from outside the area, who are willing to pay the “Davis premium”.
Nor do I see any reason for an increase in families to be a “goal”. (Doing so will not “pay” the city’s pre-existing bills.)
No discussion of housing in Davis is complete without examining the impact of development in nearby, surrounding communities. It is truly the “elephant in the chat room”.
“In reality, I see no way that Davis will ever significantly increase the percentage of local young families, primarily result of what they’re building in Spring Lake.”
I do think you have this reversed, the reason they built Spring Lake was because Davis didn’t have places for young families to move into.
I realize that this is what development interests might claim. In reality, I suspect that Woodland would pursue such development, regardless.
In any case, “Elvis has already left the building”, and there’s nothing that Davis can do about it now. (Except for perhaps limiting future school enrollments, from Woodland residents.)
I disagree that there is nothing Davis can do about it.
Also, note that some leaders in Woodland are hoping for government subsidies to improve levees, so that development can be pursued along I-5 (in the deep-water floodplain). This has nothing to do with development pressures from Davis, but is an indicator of the “goals” of some Woodland leaders.
Regarding your “disagreement” – it’s not based in reality, in any way, shape or form. Woodland will grow right up to its overly-generous urban limit line – regardless of what Davis does.
The only question is how much more development Davis will add to the area. That’s the only choice to be made.
Woodland doesn’t offer such choices.
You said there is nothing Davis could do about it. I disagree. They can approve 2000 single family homes in the northwest quadrant sized to be priced at $400K.
Greenwald stated “ They can approve 2000 single family homes in the northwest quadrant sized to be priced at $400K.”
What mechanism do you propose by which 100% of units are going to be priced far below market rate?
”Affordability by design” is a sham. Smaller units are far more expensive to build on a per square foot basis.
I believe it’s the same “mechanism” that David referred to in regard to the Olive Drive proposal, in which he claimed that the rent would be around $500, as I recall. 😉
If you are talking about detached SF construction, this may be true. Even so, smaller houses are cheaper to build and consequently sell for less, than larger ones on a whole-house basis and townhouses are cheaper to build than detached mansions.
New construction will always be more expensive than old on a ‘per square foot basis’ but that does not disqualify ‘affordable by design’ as a valid approach to building more reasonably priced housing.
One wonders what sort of mechanism that Greenwald thinks is going to produce a development of $400K detached single family houses in Davis. The going market rate median cost for Davis housing is $375/sf. New construction is higher. Smaller units are higher on a per-square-foot basis.
And why is he talking about Spring Lake as some bastion of affordable housing in the first place? The inclusionary requirements for Spring Lake ended up being 74 low-income multifamily units out of 2,579 single family market-rate units = 2.8% of the total.
Supplemental info Spring Lake to add to my previous comment:
Even the least expensive Spring Lake houses at ~$450K would be about $2,800/month PITI (at 5% down and 30-year 4.125% loan). That is well beyond the affordability range for lower-income households in Yolo County based on official 2019 income limits.
At the low-income upper limit (80%) of 2019 Yolo County area median income (AMI) a 3-4 person household could afford ~$1600-$1,750/month in housing costs.
Mark West stated “If you are talking about detached SF construction, this may be true.”
It’s not a “may”. It’s a fact. It’s also true for attached and multifamily housing types. The most expensive rooms are the kitchen and bathroom. And when you have smaller units, there is much less area to amortize those expensive elements. Then you start talking about separate HVAC units, the “dead” area of access infrastructure and so forth for apartments, and costs per square foot escalate dramatically. “Affordability by design” provides minimal bang for the buck– you have to have huge unit size cuts to achieve minimal savings.
Greenwald has been floating his pie-in-the-sky “affordable by design” theories that have no connection to reality: $400-500/month 1-bedroom apartment rents on Olive Drive, $400K detached single family homes in the NW periphery of Davis. It’s pure fantasy.
So what? Who buys a home by the square foot? The price that matters when it comes to affordability is that for the entire living space, and smaller, affordable by design, homes will cost less per house than will your standard McMansion. If we build townhouses instead of detached homes, we can create more houses per acre improving our land-use efficiency as well.
Now if you want to discuss the exorbitantly high, per square foot cost of housing, we need to look no further than the current standards mandated for the Affordable Housing projects.
The simple fact remains, that the only way to create affordable housing in a community is by building more housing.
Mark West said:
So what? The point is that “affordability by design” is not a real thing. The cost savings aren’t enough to actually provide affordability. I agree with improving land-use efficiency.
But contrary to Greenwald’s fantasies, we aren’t going get new market rate $500/month 1-bedrtoom apartments on Olive Drive or new $400K new detached single family housing in the NW quadrant.
You’re going to have to document those using real numbers.
Nope. Without strong government intervention, you just get a bunch of unaffordable housing that exacerbates the problem. Spring Lake, that for some reason is being touted as an icon of affordability in some of these comment, is not remotely affordable to households at the median income in Yolo County.
Why market-rate housing makes the crisis worse
https://48hills.org/2015/06/why-market-rate-housing-makes-the-crisis-worse/
And, while I’ll again be accused of bringing up the past, the Council and voters shot themselves in the foot by most recently approving a major housing development consisting of presumably moderately priced housing that explicitly excludes those young families.
When they passed/renewed Measures J/R.
Eric G: you rightly point out the lost opportunities for providing housing for the most critical needs in Davis.
Ron O. stated “ Nor do I see any reason for an increase in families to be a “goal”. (Doing so will not “pay” the city’s pre-existing bills.)”
I would point out that one of the consequences of UC Davis pushing its student housing demand into the city in the last decade of huge enrollment increases is that retail tax revenue per capita has declined dramatically. Student households have retail spending at a small fraction of non-student households.
Good point, Rik. Also, student housing has literally replaced commercial/industrial space, in the city. For that matter, it’s still occurring. (For example, see University Mall/Commons – as an example of student housing displacing potential space for increased commercial activity.)
Student and senior housing has also literally replaced peripheral innovation center proposals, as well.
Ron O. stated ” Also, student housing has literally replaced commercial/industrial space, in the city. For that matter, it’s still occurring. (For example, see University Mall/Commons – as an example of student housing displacing potential space for increased commercial activity.)
Student and senior housing has also literally replaced peripheral innovation center proposals, as well.”
And the Vanguard is complicit in pushing these projects. Then they come back and bemoan the lack of family/workforce housing and the need for commercial space.
In my opinion, this is a pre-planned, purposeful political tactic. Focus on one “shortage”, followed by the next “shortage”. (While disregarding the overall inter-connectedness.)
However – at a certain point, logic brings reality rushing back in – regardless of political skill or writing ability.
How do you propose that the city ensure that affordable housing is provided in Davis?
In general (and depending upon what the goal actually is), I’d do what you previously suggested is the only viable way – mandate it.
Davis’ market-rate housing is “extremely affordable” for Bay Area transplants. The same thing is occurring throughout the region, for that matter.
I wonder what percentage of Davis/region residents came from the Bay Area, or from other expensive locales.
If this was even possible, the most it might do is to “slow down” Woodland’s plans.
Even in your scenario, new residents to the area would compare what’s being offered for $400K in Davis, vs. what’s being offered for $400K in Spring Lake. And, I suspect that many (especially families) would choose the larger home/lot, in Spring Lake. With some sending their kids to Davis schools.
Again, I don’t see why pursuing development to attract families, for example, should be a specific goal. Unless you’re hoping that the newcomers will pay Davis’ pre-existing bills.
As time goes by, existing demographics will change – regardless.
And again, there’s already / likely some wealthier families moving into Davis. (The Cannery comes to mind.)
By the way (as I’ve asked a bunch of times), what’s the holdup with Chiles Ranch? I believe it’s been a decade or more, since a developer obtained this large infill site (described as “workforce housing” – by the city itself).
Given the repetitive interest in development for families, I would think that a blog such as the Vanguard might have covered this by now.
I will say that I’m becoming less-concerned about the pursuit of massive amounts of development in general, given that California’s population is essentially expected to stop growing. (Including fewer births.)
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-12-21/california-population-continues-to-decline-with-state-emigration-a-major-factor
No.
Wondering if anyone can provide an update regarding the status of West Village, including the single-family housing:
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ucd/ucd-first-50-west-village-homes-by-2018/
Yes. UCD is capable of providing such an update.
Yes – or a blog which is keenly focused on housing might explore this, as well. Along with the Chiles Ranch proposal.
That is, if they were honestly interested in the issue, vs. continuously attempting to promote sprawl.
Such a blog might also further explore the points that Rik brings up (regarding Affordable housing, the impacts of accommodating vast amounts of student housing in the city, etc.).
Such a blog might, true.
Or, an interested individual could research it themselves.
That’s true, as well. I would say that Rik’s efforts (in particular) consistently shine, regarding such efforts.
And for those with nothing useful to add – perhaps they might might consider refraining from responding. Otherwise, this space becomes littered with useless, irrelevant comments.
Sounds like a personal attack to me…
This might give some idea. Note that the faculty and staff housing is still “Financial analysis in progress” as of Jan 2019.
https://campusplanning.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk4656/files/inline-files/lrdp_student_housing_projections_2019-ucdavis.pdf
Thanks, Don – I see what you’re referring to.
I take it that none of the single-family housing in West Village was ready for sale in 2018 (as discussed in the Enterprise article above). And, still isn’t.
“Without strong government intervention, you just get a bunch of unaffordable housing that exacerbates the problem. Spring Lake, that for some reason is being touted as an icon of affordability in some of these comment, is not remotely affordable to households at the median income in Yolo County.”
I agree we need government to help solve the housing crisis but while we wait for Carson’s, Dan or Ben, to act, people with above the median income are buying in Spring Lake rather than Davis. I know two families who recently bought there. Both are families where both parents have advanced degrees. As one said to me “If I could afford another $200,000 I would have bought in Davis. My point is that it isn’t the median income but the marginal cost of housing that drives the market in Woodland.
The same can be said about market rate housing in Davis. Cannery, Nishi, WDAAC, Dinerstein, Brixmor and anyone else will all charge what the market will allow and who would blame them? So, by the way, will the people building public/ private housing on campus. Perhaps you can capture some of that back by requiring subsidized housing but in the long run we need government to solve the long term undersupply and don’t count on that happening while you have a landlord in the White House. Ultimately with a growing population driven by UC, Davis will never catch up with demand and create a balanced rental market until and unless we get rid of Measure R and build much more housing at market rates.
Amen
Woodland is building lots of housing at market rates, and it still isn’t affordable to people at median income. Spring Lake provided a tiny pittance of affordable rental housing at less than 3% of total units. That’s pathetic.
And even then, Spring Lake was a true “victim” of the housing crash, a few short years ago.
I view this entire issue as essentially an “imbalance” between those at the lower-end of the wage scale, vs. the cost of housing in California. But when examining net population outflow to other states, maybe it’s actually a sign that things are coming into “balance” in California, on a larger scale.
Maybe 40 million people is “enough”, in terms of existing infrastructure and the impact on the environment. Ultimately, continued “smart growth” is not going to be the answer, either. (I realized that, a long time ago.)
The “bad part” is that those who remain at the low-end of the wage scale (and who remain in California) will suffer, if provisions are not made and maintained for them.
Ron O. stated “I view this entire issue as essentially an “imbalance” between those at the lower-end of the wage scale, vs. the cost of housing in California.”
I’ve said for a long time that the housing affordability “crisis” is actually more of an income and wage gap crisis. And it is compounded by real estate speculation and foreign investment.
Yeah. Sometimes, I wonder if the entire capitalistic system will collapse at some point. Maybe ultimately for the better.
I can almost “hear” John Lennon’s song (“Imagine”), now. But, few will pursue that path willingly, on their own. (Not even John Lennon, I guess.)
Maybe humans need to “evolve”, some more – first. (But only after the earth “kicks their ass”, perhaps.) Or, maybe we’ll escape into outer space, and screw up some other place? 😉
I would like to see Davis go vertical in a big way.
I’m originally from Los Angeles but have been here since 1993. I hate urban sprawl with a PASSION.
If we want to be green, and if we want to be a bike-able city, then it makes a LOT of sense to me to nuke any restrictions on building height, especially near downtown and near the campus.
High Density means more effective mass transit, more biking and less cars for those who work / study on campus, and a better preservation of our surrounding ag land.
Why aren’t people talking about that? Is there something that I’m missing?
Tim Keller asked: “Is there something that I’m missing?”
I hate sprawl too. Wrote my master’s thesis in the early 1990’s on compact city planning.
Affordability is what you’re missing. Without good plans and strong policies in place, simply going vertical and high density ends up meaning building luxury condos for the rich and displacing low-income housing– this is what the YIMBY/SB50 crowd is pushing, backed by massive real estate/developer lobbying $.
Big question: why are you advocating for a project that is the exact opposite of what you are saying here? ARC is a retrograde, sprawling, peripheral, auto-dependent, highway-oriented office park development.
UC Davis needs an innovation campus period. I would rather that it be right next to campus, but that opportunity came and went with Nishi unfortunatley.
City of Davis needs revenue as well. Allowing the insanely valueable startups that start here in Davis to stay here, and pay their sales taxes here is a big deal.
That is a separate issue from Housing. The housing at ARC is supposed to be workforce housing – mostly to offset the housing demand created by jobs created at that same project.
There is a much larger, more generalist housing issue that the city has, and that is what is being discussed here. If we develop all of the infill sites, and all of the land north and south of the mace curve.. Im totally okay with that – so long as that is not the ONLY growth we have.
Remember that 40% of our residents are employed by the university. That, by itself is the largest argument for allowing the development of the highest density housing in the areas right around the university. But its not an either-or. I dont want JUST more housing, I want more housing that isnt JUST filling in around the outsides.
Wow. And you said earlier that you “don’t like” sprawl?
Sounds like you’re a fan of (both) overly-dense infill, AND sprawl.
“High Density means more effective mass transit, more biking and less cars for those who work / study on campus, and a better preservation of our surrounding ag land.”
Our ag land is well protected through the Williamson Act and the Davis Open Space Tax. The sad part of this argument is that while trying to preserve ag land and densifying the City of Davis we have changed the culture and the life style of the place. At the same time that we are trying to cram more people into the same space, creating all sorts of conflicts, we are now surrounded by 40 acre or larger estates with mansions creating an agrarian lifestyle for the few at the expense of the many.
So given that we have hedged ourselves in, doesn’t it make sense that we remove any barriers to more dense development in our city’s core?