The main purpose of the item on Tuesday night on Sterling dealt with the structuring of alternatives for the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for the apartment housing proposal at the current site of the FamiliesFirst facility on 5th Street in Davis.
Sterling Apartments is a proposed redevelopment of the former FamiliesFirst site located at 2100 5th Street, with a residential apartment proposal. Approximately 5.16 acres of the 6-acre site would be developed as a 4- and 5-story, 203-unit university student-oriented apartment project. The remaining 0.84-acre portion of the site would be developed as a 4-story, 41-unit affordable housing project. There would be a total of 244 apartment units between the two portions of the site.
The 203-unit market-rate apartment site would include 727 beds with 545 parking spaces in a parking garage.
The proposal is controversial with some neighbors, specifically Rancho Yolo residents concerned about issues like parking, traffic impacts and visual blight.
While some commenters pushed for a re-consideration of the original use of the property, and others expressed concerns about traffic and other impacts, two students hammered home their concern about the rental housing crisis facing Davis.
Hayley Benham-Archdeacon talked about the affordable housing component. She is a student who lives at Slatter’s Court and works in Davis, and she said, “I feel really fortunate to have found that spot. It is one of the only affordable housing areas in Davis.”
She noted that as a student she has had a lot of her costs covered. She has a full scholarship to UC Davis and a Pell Grant. She said, “I’m not saying that to brag. I’m saying that because, on top of that, I still have to work at least 25 hours a week just to cover utilities and food.”
“As an extremely low income student, I was lucky enough to find that particular housing situation that made it possible for me to scrape by,” she said. “I would say many low income students, families and single mothers, as was said to me by one of the parents earlier, they don’t really have that. They’re not as lucky.”
“There is an extreme scarcity of affordable housing among Davis residents,” she continued, noting that many people hound her weekly to get on the wait-list for the place where she lives. “I think we need to realize that the city of Davis needs to relieve some of the pressure on the housing market, both for students that can afford market rate housing and low income students like me who would not be able to complete their degree without affordably priced housing.
“I would not have gotten my degree if I did not live where I live,” she stated. “The only other option for students is to pile on another student loan to cover their basic living costs while they go to school. The city of Davis doesn’t have to make college even more costly for UC Davis students.
“The city can do its part in handling our growing student population. I know there will be some Davis residents who will always oppose new growth … but with the university admitting 1000 more students every year, the city has to put them somewhere,” she said. “That’s the reality of it. It’s become a crisis. We need more housing and the Sterling Development is a realistic solution.”
Whitney Davis, also a student at UC Davis, added that, personally, her experience as a student from a low-income family makes it really challenging to focus on her studies and academics, trying to figure out how to earn money and make rent. “I know I’m not alone in this struggle,” she told the council.
She explained that, at one point, she had three part-time jobs in addition to being a full-time student. “This was very taxing physically, emotionally, spiritually,” she explained.
“I think this (development) can be a strong addition to our community for students who don’t necessarily have the financial means to afford some of the other housing options here. I’ve personally been homeless twice as a result of not being able to pass a credit check – I am a young adult – so it has been very challenging,” she said. “I have been very grateful that I have been able to connect with a lot of individuals who have similar stories.
“In order to help our students in this community, and connect their financial needs,” we need projects like Sterling, she explained. “I think that would be really positive.”
The Sterling Project is early in the process. On Tuesday, the council laid out alternatives that would allow the EIR to progress.
An EIR, according to CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) guidelines, “shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”
CEQA doesn’t require alternatives to have the same level of detail and analysis as the proposed project, but rather it “only requires that a reasonable range of alternatives be considered and that the information be sufficient to provide a meaningful analysis and comparison to the proposed project.”
This project will lay out an unusual number of alternatives, ranging from a no-project alternative to an alternative site, to alternatives for student and affordable housing.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is an example of competing interests. Sterling is located near three senior housing complexes – Rancho Yolo Senior Mobile Home Park, Eleanor Roosevelt Circle and Carlton Plaza Davis Assisted Living Facility. If Sterling is permitted to be a student housing complex, it would most definitely impact seniors in the area. On the other hand, the city desperately needs student housing. The City Council has to weigh both interests and make a decision. From what I could ascertain, the City Council is favoring student housing.
What is particularly interesting with this parcel is that many heavy hitters (Helen Thomson, Jerry Adler, Betsy Marchand) favor keeping the existing buildings for a nonprofit(s) to use. But as Councilmember Swanson noted, this parcel has sat for 5 years waiting for some nonprofit to make an offer for the property, but no such solution has materialized.
The other issue with this parcel is the size of this project, which I assume the Planning Commission will address. The proposal is for 5 stories I believe. There was some talk of 5 and 6 bedroom suites, which of course are specifically designed for students. At the Davis Senior Citizens Commission meeting the developer indicated the parcel was being designed for 737 beds, whereas numbers that have been previously floated out there have talked about 1,500 beds. It would be nice to get some factual information so everyone would be on the same page as to specific details.
nameless, Good summary of the 2100 Fifth Street issue. To answer your question, some who have had experience administering student housing feel that, particularly in a city with a housing shortage, more students will actually live in the rooms than the conservative numbers claimed in the developer’s application. Greater crowding, they suggest, is indicated by the design and ratio of units, bedrooms and bathrooms. The “sardine can” effect may be exacerbated by realistic economics wherein students will try to divide the unit rent among many tenants.
Another number in dispute: Early in the discussion, Councilwoman Rochelle Swanson expressed doubt of the feasibility of ideas suggested by many of the public comment speakers that the existing “Families First” campus could be saved — rather than demolished as proposed by the developer — for highest and best use (HBU) by a variety of non-profit public service agencies, whose many and varied causes they had represented. She asked the city staff how long they had been trying to find interested parties for such an alternative. Ms Swanson became impatient with their fumbling for an answer, and interrupted, “I know. Five years!” A dramatic moment, that sent some of us into Google to determine when exactly it was that FamiliesFirst lost their license. (Presumably, city staff would not have known of the availability of the property for a different use prior to that.)
Don Sherman:
Yeap – I’m appalled regarding Ms. Swanson’s statements and actions, at this point. (Not the first time.) In any case, I recall a very recent comment from a (normally) “pro-development” commenter (Misanthrop?) regarding an effort by some officials to encourage re-use of the existing, relatively new facility to meet other community needs. (I understand/recall that taxpayer dollars were used to help build that facility.) Perhaps if the city did not encourage proposals that require a zoning change (to accommodate this large-scale development proposal), the facility would be priced within reach of such organizations.
Also noticed a very pro-development slant in the Vanguard, these days. Not much discussion regarding the wisdom of replacing the existing facility with a large-scale “rent-by-the-room” (dormitory-type) design, far from the campus, with 525 parking spaces. (This would require a zoning change, with an impact well-beyond Rancho Yolo.)
If I’m not mistaken, the EIR will examine traffic in the surrounding area during the summer months (when many students are not in Davis). (This was mentioned to the council, but I don’t think it was addressed.)
“Also noticed a very pro-development slant in the Vanguard, these days. ”
I don’t see this as pro-development. Instead I see that the Vanguard has highlighted an issue that they have been pounding on for some time – lack of affordable student housing.
The Pugilist:
By “pounding on” (as you’ve described) the need for student housing, and not reporting other concerns (such as the suitability of having a large-scale dormitory (rent-by-the-room) development with 525 parking spaces located far from the campus (which requires a zoning change), and not reporting/exploring other possible re-use of the existing facility to serve the community (which was apparently paid for with tax dollars), I’m not sure how you can argue that the Vanguard isn’t functioning as a vehicle to support development. (And, this is just one example.)
Of course, that argument is weakened somewhat, by the University’s agreement to house 90% of the planned increase in enrollment (acknowledged by the Vanguard). There are some (e.g., Eileen Samitz) that are actively working to ensure that the University follows-through (and improves upon) that plan. (I understand that she’s doing this out of genuine concern, for students. However, it also makes sense for the city.)
If the Vanguard continues operating in this manner, it will cease functioning as a neutral source of information/debate. (Actually, I’m not sure that it ever intended to function that way.) And, soon enough, it might just be ignored – much as the Enterprise’s “endorsements” often are.
I think the Vanguard has covered those issues fairly heavily in previous articles but has not covered the student perspective until now. So I don’t see quite the problem you do.
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/04/letter-opposing-sterling/
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/03/feedback-on-sterling-fifth-street-apartments-project/
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/03/city-backtracks-neg-dec-sterling/
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/04/analysis-mutually-agreeable-path-forward-sterling/
The Pugilist:
Some of these articles are written by others (not the Vanguard). Of the ones written by the Vanguard, an argument is essentially made that it IS the right site for the type of development proposed. (And, of course, the word “crisis” is used, as always.)
You’re the one who noted that David is “pounding on” student housing. And, (without looking up all of the articles) we all know that he’s been doing so for some time, now. David (and the Vanguard) will no doubt continue to continuously sound the drumbeat. (And, not just for this particular development proposal.)
And yet – no reporting on Eileen’s successful and ongoing efforts to encourage the University to do more, etc. (I understand that some city officials also deserve credit for this.) Or, the effort that was mentioned by another commenter, to re-use the existing facility to serve the community (which was apparently paid for with taxpayer dollars).
All this article does is quote two students who spoke.
Anyway, I’m not sure of your other point:
https://davisvanguard.org/2016/05/revised-lrdp-will-accommodate-90-of-student-growth-with-on-campus-housing/
The Pugilist:
O.K. – you win. David hasn’t been “pushing” the need for student housing in this article, and in many other articles. Despite his repeated use of the word “crisis”, the urgent need for “thousands of units” etc. (Apparently, without much thought about where they’d go, or the impact on the city.) Also, the fact that the current article focuses primarily on statements from two students “apparently” isn’t reflective of David’s views. And, that your statement/acknowledgement that David has been “pounding on this issue for some time” doesn’t mean anything. (Is that really what you’re arguing?)
Normally, I find you to be a reasonable commenter. However, this exchange is reflective of the reason that I’m sometimes reluctant to engage in “proof”, on the Vanguard. It’s a lot of work (to “prove” a point) that you’ve already acknowledged, in this case. I’m not sure why you’re doing this.
Hey Ron, I don’t understand why you are picking a fight here. I wrote the article to highlight the student view. We have posted several that highlight the view of those who live at Rancho Yolo. I don’t have a view on this particular project, it will go through the planning process.
Whitney was one of our interns last fall. She ended up being illegally evicted from her living area, homeless for a time, she had to drop out of school, got a job out of the area where she was able to make enough to find a place to live in Davis and re-enroll in school. She has a remarkable story to tell and you’re only concern is that I wrote about her story and Hayley’s story and appear to be pro-development.
O.K. David:
You and the Pugilist both win. You haven’t been repeatedly pushing the “crisis” in housing, and the need for “thousands of units” in the city. You’re completely and totally neutral. You’re only presenting “evidence-based” information, which (of course) leads to only one “logical conclusion”. (Conveniently, you wash your hands regarding endorsement of any “particular” development proposal.)
And, you “appropriately” gave credit exclusively to Robb Davis (regarding the successful efforts to encourage the University to house more of its students), while not mentioning the continuing efforts of citizens such as Eileen Samitz.
And just today, you mentioned something about the “minor change” proposed by MRIC, and the need to compromise. (Something to that effect.) Based on that comment (and other comments), it seems that you believe that rezoning the MRIC site to include housing is a “minor” change, that others should accept.
Regarding the experiences of your intern and the other student, that is a story that should be reported and shared. (Without questioning the legitimacy of the challenge that these students faced, I would like to know more about the “illegal eviction”.) However, reporting the experiences of these two students (at length) regarding a particular proposed development (located far from campus), while not reporting on other concerns presented at ths same hearing is a pretty strong indicator of your views. (Just look at your headline, for crying out loud!)
Also, no reporting on the actions of Rochelle Swanson, which were partly reported by a commenter. (Rochelle also insisted upon changing one of the alternatives, in the EIR. Her motives seem pretty clear, to me.)
As someone responsible for maintaining the integrity of the Vanguard, I find it frustrating that you won’t acknowledge your views. (Again, there’s nothing wrong with having a view, but it’s misleading to claim that you’re neutral, when your reporting shows something different.)
Ron, are you saying that Davis does not have a housing crisis?
If it isn’t a crisis, what is it?
They do seem to be joined at the hip.
Matt:
I knew that someone would ask that question (rather than the main point I was making, regarding David’s constant advocacy).
To respond to your question, I took a quick look at the definition of the word “crisis”. (The first thing that popped up online: “A time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger.”)
I don’t think that the final word (“danger”) applies. Regarding “intense difficulty, trouble” – maybe so, for some who are only willing to limit their search to Davis, and have limited funds.
In any case, I’d acknowledge that there’s a concern. I’d also suggest that the University’s decision to house 90% of the planned increase in enrollment is a positive step toward addressing this concern. I wouldn’t necessarily suggest that the city respond by placing large-scale, rent-by-the-room complexes with 525 parking spaces, located far from campus, requiring a zoning change and destruction of a relatively new taxpayer-funded facility that can also serve other community purposes.
I’d also suggest that many on the Vanguard have (incorrectly) stated that the University would not respond (and many still continue to state this). By undermining efforts to encourage the University to do even more, perhaps these individuals represent the real “danger” regarding the interests of both students and residents. (Perhaps their “solution” – to bypass sound planning practices and zoning, would ultimately create the true “crisis” for the entire city.)
Families First was shut down barely 3 years ago, and Families First claims that they are still actively using the facility for training and administration, though there is no sign that that is true. No one comes or goes. A car, or now a little pickup truck, sits perpetually in the parking lot 24 hours a day.
City staff have made virtually no effort to find an agency that would want the property.
Families First wants top dollar from a developer. At the right price the property would sell quickly to another social service agency. It’s a ridiculous claim, insulting to everyone’s intelligence, to claim no one would buy the complex and use it as is.
Are you suggesting they should sell it below the market value?
tj, Don has asked a valid question, which thus far you have left unanswered. Are you going to engage his question?
Don and Matt:
Does the “market value” correspond with current zoning, or “speculative” zoning? (The proposed complex would require a zoning change.)
I assume that the owner can maximize profits by holding out for speculative zoning value (as with the proposed development).
I’m also wondering about the taxpayer funding that I’ve heard about, to build the existing facility. (I know nothing about this, other than what I recall reading in the Vanguard.)
Assuming that this information is correct, would taxpayers be reimbursed for the amount that they contributed? (Especially if the site is sold for a large profit?)
Ron, I’m guessing that the answer to your question depends on the corporate structure and the specific bond terms. If the land ownership is in the hands of one corporate entity and the operations/fiscal liability is in a separate corporation, then the answer is probably “no.”
I personally would use the I (Industrial) zoning, which is what the largest proportion of the closest properties are.
What are the odds the 2 students above were paid in one way or another to speak for the project?
Zero. I know both students, in fact, one was one of our past court watch interns. The other is one of the Raise the Wage activist leaders.
I’m new to Davis so I do not have the sense of history of trajectory on many of these issues. I am opposed to the type of affordable housing that is proposed here. With a project like this 41 people get a ticket on the gravy train and everybody else gets squat. To my way of thinking this is a gift of public funds. The developer looks at it like “we have to pay xxx money to get this deal done” and rather than benefiting the community it is a giveaway to some individuals. The problem is exacerbated by policies that encourage people to stay in these units for life.
I guess I’m missing something here. What type of affordable housing do you support? We just watched Nishi go down, one of the complaints was that they didn’t provide affordable housing either on-site or make the in-lieu payment. This project will provide a portion of student housing and then their required affordable housing component on-site. That follows the city affordable housing ordinance. What is your complaint here?
There is a lot of gravitas to quielo’s argument in my opinion. His “ticket to the gravy train” point is even more powerful when you consider that many of the people who rise high enough in the queue to get one of the Davis affordables (at New Harmony for example) did/do not even live in Davis, because the queue is regional rather than local.
David Greenwald, I prefer to have everything on a cash basis so the taxpayor can see what is coming and going out. For affordable housing there is no easy fix, there needs to be more housing. This can mean building more or policies to fit more people into existing structures. Alternatively the answer is ease of transportation to cheaper geographies. If the idea is to offset the costs of additional people then it should be paid in cash, why should we increase costs to schools and infrastructure and then offset it by giving someone a sweet deal on a place to live? It makes no sense to me at all. Tax breaks are also an crazy way to finance anything.
So you prefer what they call a small “a” affordable rather than a big “A” affordable housing program. There is certainly merit to that, although that is not how the city’s affordable housing ordinance is written.
David
I would definitely prefer small “a” affordable housing. I would much prefer to do away with in lieu payments with the stipulation that all developments provide an allotment of affordable housing. I would much prefer a dispersed economic status model rather than packing all of those less financially blessed into one geographic location.
Not saying I’m opposed to that approach, but there are several complications to it. First, the units have to be quite small. Second, they have to be dense which people seem opposed to at least when they are next to them. Third, we would need to build a lot of them.
DAMN! 150% agree with your second sentence in that post! First sentence, agree at least @ a 50% level…
Thanks, Matt.
I understand that you would use the “existing” market value (which seems to be less than the “speculative” value). I wonder which value is actually being used, assuming that an offer has been made (or is forthcoming).
If I’m understanding this correctly, what we have is a taxpayer-supported entity (Families First) that has a probable financial incentive to discourage proposals that would re-use the existing facility to serve the community. (As a side note, I think we all remember the reason that Families First was forced to close.) Also, the proposal includes the destruction of the relatively new facility (that was apparently funded with taxpayer dollars), with no apparent mechanism to reimburse taxpayers for the loss of the structure or the purpose that is was designed to address. And the proposed result is a large-scale, rent-by-the-room structure, with 525 parking spaces, located far from campus.
Nope – nothing wrong, here!
I wish someone would cite this continuing reference for “tax-payer supported” (is ‘tax exempt’ meant?), and/or “taxpayer funded”… am thinking at least the latter is “urban myth” at least as to City of Davis funded… put up, or…
hpierce:
I’d like to see that, as well. (Like I said, I seem to recall seeing this from a commenter on the Vanguard.)
This is the type of “actual” reporting that I’d like to see from the Vanguard, itself. Especially if Families First is going to profit from a rezoning, which seems to be “pushed” by some on the council. (It seems that most organizations with a “mission” that’s similar to Families First would receive some type of public funding.)
In any case, I started researching them, via the Davis Wiki. Then, I clicked on a couple of links to reach the following:
http://emqff.org/about/agency/faq/
If anyone is interested in researching this (along with the specific funding for the Davis site), please let us know what you find.
Ron provided this definition . . . “The first thing that popped up online: “A time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger.”)”
The operative word in that definition is “or”
Tia, the practical challenge I see with your approach is that for the foreseeable future any new residential unit construction is likely to be 95% or more multi-family, and targeted for students. Unless the affordable units are for empty nesters, won’t you be putting vulnerable children in harm’s way?
Robb Davi’ solution seems much better suited to Davis’ current and future realities.