By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – A busy time in Davis got even busier as the city received pre-applications from two new projects in the downtown, bringing the total number to five since the Davis Downtown Plan was approved—although the Hilton Project is an expansion of the existing hotel. For good measure, Palomino Place has again revised their project.
The Hilton on 110 F St. would demolish an existing 2-story rear addition to the existing downtown Hilton Hotel and construct a new 6-story, 90-room hotel rear addition with a rooftop bar.
On E Street is the Four13 Apartments—a new 15-unit, four-story apartment building located at 413 E Street.
In addition, Palomino has modified their plan to create 163 residential units on its 25-acre site. The site is currently located within the city, but would require rezoning to residential uses which would trigger a Measure J vote.
The project narrative notes, “It will create housing opportunities for many who currently commute into Davis for work and school but who live in neighboring 
jurisdictions due to the lack of available housing in Davis and the high cost associated with the existing supply.”
In addition to providing 130 new home ownership opportunities, “the Project will include a multifamily apartment building located north of Covell Boulevard comprised of at least 33 deed restricted affordable units.”
The project therefore has upgraded its affordable housing plan to better meets the requirements of the Builder’s Remedy—it was previously proposing to reach that through ADUs.
Now it calls for “a mixture of moderate-income ownership housing to accommodate the ‘missing middle,” a first-time homebuyer’s program, and one 33-unit multi-family structure in which units shall be deed-restricted low-income rental units.”
It now believes “this individualized affordable housing plan exceeds City code requirements, meets the state’s definition as a housing development project for low-income households, and offers a broad mix of housing opportunities that are currently lacking in Davis.”
The project description notes, “To qualify as a ‘Builder’s Remedy’ project under the HAA, a project must meet the statutory definition of ‘housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.’”
It continues, “As noted above, 33 of the Project’s 163 units will be rented to lower income households. This equates to slightly more than 20% of total units and thus satisfies the statutory definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.” Accordingly, the Project meets the affordable housing requirement to qualify as a ‘Builder’s Remedy’ project.”
As reported in the Business Journal, project manager David Taormino is upset that the city has not processed their project, which he believes “flies in the face of what Builder’s Remedy is supposed to do.
“Our perspective is that the law requires the city of Davis to process our project in a certain time frame,” he said. “They’re dragging their feet and not doing that.”
Meanwhile, the Four13 Project is a more modest undertaking.
“This project proposes to construct a 15-unit apartment building on a 0.14-acre site in the Downtown Davis Core,” the narrative notes. “The building will be four stories tall and will have no on-site parking and no elevator. The project is designed to be zero net energy (ZNE) and will include a number of energy-efficient features…”
The applicant believes, “The project is in keeping with the pattern, scale, and character of the surrounding area. The site is located on a generally flat parcel within the Downtown Core, and the proposed building is similar in height and massing to the existing buildings in the area.”
“The project will not have a significant impact on traffic or noise levels in the area,” the narrative continues. “The project is expected to generate 20-40 new residents. These new residents will be a mix of students, young professionals, families with children, and empty nesters. The project will improve housing availability in the Downtown Core and will help to meet the needs of a growing population.”
Meanwhile the Hilton offers an expansion of the existing hotel.
The highlight of the six-story, 90-room hotel project is “the 3,500 square foot rooftop bar offering a panoramic view of the city.”
Located facing G Street, near the Amtrak station, “The hotel’s main entry offers easy access for guests but also acts as a gateway to explore the town’s attractions.”
They note, “As the hotel shares the existing courtyard with Hilton Garden Inn, visitors can utilize the convenience of accessing amenities from both hotels.”
The ground floor features public functions, including a lobby, lounge, fitness center, and 2,200 sf of event space.
In regards to Four13:
* No parking! Great. The project narrative mentions “encourage a carfree lifestyle.”
* Four stories is a great balance point between density and construction costs – and dicated by a small lot in this case – but only in an area with similar density. This area does not have that… yet.
* Obviously people or visitiors with mobility requirements for an essentially level and assisted lifestyle are not accommodated above the first floor here. While on hand it seems necessary to give first floor priority to people with these needs, I see nothing about ADA-compliant or adaptable bathrooms etc.
* Solar, electric etc all good!
SO:
* The bicycle parking is AWFUL. First of all, it seems like all of it is outside. This can make it less secure, and while it doesn’t rain a lot in Davis much of the year, it’s a very dusty place. Second: People are replacing cars with e-bikes costing $5,000 or more, especially those used for carrying kids, large dogs or cargo. The indicated spaces are not only not secure, but don’t have any specific space for bicycles with larger dimensions. Third: Some of the indicated bicycle is not on the first floor, and some apparently intended to be on balconies That’s absolutely terrible.
It’s clear to me that the lack of updated standards in residential bicycle parking in Davis – delayed for years by staff, with seeming acquiesence by the BTSSC – has resulted in the otherwise smart designers to come up with the crap mentioned… but it’s also clear that the just threw in parking in extra space. Granted, it’s a small lot. Read on….
* Access for residents is one thing but people should be able to have private, social visits from friends and family who use mobility devices such as wheelchairs. Read on….
+ The solution for the bike parking insult and the social mobility thing I mention directly above seems to have to be basement space. It doesn’t have to be the full footprint, only enough to accommodate enough bikes, also of different sizes… and fully-separated from that some kind of meeting room – inclusive of – hold on to your seats: A place for residents who live above the first floor and guests to be intimate.
Unfortunately those two things require an elevator, and a huge added expense for the basement. Alternatives? Secure, enclosed bicycle parking on the sidewalk and street for all bicycles including those of short term visitors AND sacrifice a small part of the planned first floor for the intimacy space.
* BACK to cars: Will residents be able to register vehicles at this address and rent spaces nearby? “Encourage” – from the project narrative – is a really dangerous term in relation to automotive entitlement.
I am corrrectly assuming that everything above will be addressed by the time this comes to the Planning Commission!