While Davis residents continue to push back against greater heights and density, the Obama Administration is calling on cities to allow more density, recommending actions that the new urbanist movement has long supported.
Earlier this week, the Vanguard published an article about the White House “white paper” that indicated that antiquated land-use regulations are responsible for not only holding back economic growth, but also increasing housing costs and inequality.
Among other things, the toolkit released by the administration this week calls for the elimination of off-street parking requirements, the allowance of accessory dwelling units (something Davis encourages), “high-density and multifamily zoning,” “streamlining or shortening permitting processes and timelines,” and allowing “by-right development,” which are consistent with many form-based codes.
“Significant barriers to new housing development can cause working families to be pushed out of the job markets with the best opportunities for them, or prevent them from moving to regions with higher-paying jobs and stronger career tracks. Excessive barriers to housing development result in increasing drag on national economic growth and exacerbate income inequality,” the report says.
“Cities like Chicago, Seattle, Sacramento, and Tacoma and states like California and Massachusetts have already begun to foster more affordable housing opportunities by removing restrictions, implementing transit-oriented-oriented zoning ordinances, and speeding up permitting and construction processes,” the report notes.
Politico writes this week, “City zoning battles usually are fought block by block, and the president’s involvement will create friction, particularly among environmental groups and the not-in-my-backyard crowd.”
The report has something to please many and anger others: “The prescriptions call for more density, speedier permitting and fewer restrictions on accessory dwelling units such as basement and garage apartments. The plan rejects some of the arguments made by environmentalists, labor unions and other liberal constituencies that have stood in the way of development and endorses changes long sought by builders and the business community.”
“When unnecessary barriers restrict the supply of housing and costs increase, then workers, particularly lower-income workers who would benefit the most, are less able to move to high-productivity cities,” said Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. “All told, this means slower economic growth.”
Where does this leave Davis? A few weeks ago the city had a discussion on form-based codes.
As city planner Ashley Feeney explained in the intro to the discussion: “Form-based codes are focused on the look and feel of the public realm. They put a little less emphasis on land use … to focus on a desired urban form outcome.”
But if the discussions on the Vanguard are any indication, these land-use battles are likely to grow worse, not easier, even with improvements to the city code.
We have seen that the proposals to create more density have been met with opposition from not only neighbors, but also other residents. Trackside, for example, had enough community pushback to come back to the public with a scaled down project – however, even that development at four stories has neighborhood critics, and perhaps other critics.
The plans for the Sterling Apartments, which call for tearing down an existing facility to put up higher-density apartments, is drawing fire from residents in a nearby housing area.
Plans to develop Nishi Gateway were thwarted by a citizen vote in June.
The city is looking toward additional hotels as a revenue source. The Marriott proposal out on Mace and Second Street sailed through the planning commission vote, but the planning commission voted down the Hyatt House – citing, among other things, concerns about the density and neighborhood impacts on a long-time vacant parcel that runs along Cowell Boulevard.
Davis seems to have largely settled on the idea that it will not do a lot of mass expansion on its borders. There is some pushback against growth control measures like Measure R, but that pushback seems limited.
On the other hand, the view of many who are more growth-oriented is that, if we are not going to expand our borders, we have to use density to fill our housing needs. This means tighter packed, more height and less width – and greater impacts on existing neighbors.
These tensions have led to the pushback against Paso Fino that resulted in a greatly scaled down project last year. And they have led to clashes at Trackside and Sterling.
One of the concepts introduced during the form-based codes discussion was “Missing Middle Housing.”
Missing Middle Housing is described as a “range of multi-unit or clustered housing types compatible in scale with single-family homes that help meet the growing demand for walkable urban living.”
“Well-designed ‘Missing Middle’ buildings unify the walkable streetscape as they greatly diversify the choices available for households of different age, size, and income. Smaller households tend to eat out more, helping our neighborhood attract wonderful restaurants. Diverse households keep diverse hours meaning we have more people out walking our streets at more varied hours—keeping them safer.” says Ellen Dunham-Jones, professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology and co-author of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs.
The advantage of Missing Middle Housing it that offers “greater choice in housing types that still blend in to existing single family neighborhoods, unlike mid-rise apartment buildings. They are typically more affordable than a single-family home because they are smaller and share communal parking and lawns.”
Clearly the council is looking for tools by which they can increase density while decreasing tensions with existing neighbors. The slow growth community has pushed for the housing for students and potentially faculty and staff to be located on the UC Davis campus.
But if the council has a tool to increase density without impacts on existing neighbors, they might be able to accomplish a lot more than the current divide has allowed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
I would like to point out a couple of thoughts on your use of Trackside, followed by the concept of “missing middle housing”. While it was probably not your intent, I feel that it opens the door for the false contention that opposition to Trackside equates to opposition to any housing proposal.
1) The Trackside proposal, as initially presented, did not represent “middle housing” nor did it represent a “transitional” project. There are no eight to nine story buildings in Davis to represent the “transition”of the Trackside project from the one to two story buildings typical of Old East Davis to the current downtown. The Trackside project as initially proposed would have been two stories higher than any existing occupied building in Davis.
2) The Trackside project was never intended to be densification to provide housing for those who otherwise could not afford to live in Davis. It was designed and advertised as “luxury apartments” and “a good investment” for those in town fortunate enough to have had enough insider status to be invited to invest.
These two points were the reasons for my personal opposition. Again, I speak only for myself and for no other individual, organization, or associatioon. Had the proposal met either of these objectives, as in my opinion did Nishi, the Lincoln40, and possibly even Sterling ( on which I am at this point completely neutral), I would likely have either actively supported the project or remained silent.
Tia wrote:
> I feel that it opens the door for the false contention that opposition to
> Trackside equates to opposition to any housing proposal.
Most people know that there are not many true “BANANAs” (those that say Built Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) in town that are opposed to “ANY” “housing proposal”. As Frankly has pointed out (more often than most would like) that most people tend to oppose the projects near their “Back Yards”. Many in Old East Davis that are opposed to Trackside (that they can see from their back yards) are fine with high rise luxury apartments at the Nishi site (I did not hear any of the Old East Davis supporters of Nishi complain that the Nishi developers were even richer and more politically connected than the Trackside team) and Many in Rose Creek that are opposed with a hotel on Cowell (that they can see from their back yards) are fine with a hotel being built near Target.
P.S. I have heard of dozens of “Rancho Yolo” residents that are opposed to the Sterling Apartment (that they can see from their back yards), I’m wondering if anyone can name even a single resident of “Royal Oak” (on the other side of the freeway) that has publicly come out in opposition to the Sterling Apartments?
SOD
“ Many in Old East Davis that are opposed to Trackside (that they can see from their back yards) are fine with high rise luxury apartments at the Nishi site (I did not hear any of the Old East Davis supporters of Nishi”
I have not heard any opinion at all from any ( well ok, one exception) of my neighbors with regard to their position on Nishi, or Lincoln40 ( which we will be able to see from our front yard, and which I will probably support), or Sterling. “Not hearing” is a lack of knowledge, not a confirmation of position.
Many of my neighbors work full time and thus have limited time and energy to devote to public participation. I hardly think that anyone can be blamed for participating in those discussion of most interest to them regardless of how they feel about other projects.
So even though Lincoln40 reflects exactly what Trackside proposed (as you state above: luxury, 5 stories high dominating Olive Drive) you support it? As I tell my neighbors on Olive, no doubt our neighborhood will become the sacrificial lamb of surrounding neighborhoods unwilling to put high density housing in their own neighborhoods. Sad, but a true example of the gentrification of poor neighborhoods throughout California right here in Davis.
I had the same question Odin. It seemed to me that Lincoln40 checked all of the boxes that Tia checked off as reasons to be opposed to Trackside. Tia, how do you see Lincoln40 as being better than Trackside (if you do)?
Odin wrote:
> Sad, but a true example of the gentrification of poor neighborhoods
> throughout California right here in Davis.
If you don’t like gentrification you are in luck since for every neighborhood in California that is getting “gentrfied” (and having richer people move in) there are at least two others that are going the other direction (with current residents falling out of the “middle class” and poor people moving in).
Odin and Grok
I can certainly see how this thought could arise for you. However, my home, although separated by the tracks is actually about as close ( if not closer) to the Lincoln40 site as it is too the Trackside site. So location is not the differentiating factor.
There are some very critical differences in the two projects, both in terms of who are likely to inhabit the projects and the processes that were used to develop the process.
First : Process
– Unlike with Trackside, the developers of Lincoln40 were transparent about their plans as far as I can tell from initial contact. Not just a quick superficial and misleading communication with immediately adjacent neighbors followed by an announcement of the project and community support in the Enterprise.
– Unlike with Trackside, Lincoln40 voluntarily reached out to more peripheral neighbors who they felt were also to be impacted albeit less directly, namely those of us who live in Old East Davis.
– Unlike with Trackside, Lincoln40 has made extensive efforts to help all those displaced to find accommodations. While it is true that there are no comparable folks living at the current Trackside site, there are business owners there for whom ( at least initially, no comparable accommodation was being suggested).
Second : Likely inhabitants
– Lincoln40 is specifically being targeted towards students. I perceive students as one of the underserved populations of our community in terms of housing needs.
– Trackside was and is targeted towards the very affluent in what were advertised as “luxury” apartments, as originally planned with a “concierge service”. I do not perceive folks who can afford this kind of accommodation as needing assistance in the form of zoning changes.
Thanks for your thoughtful answer Tia.
I agree that the Lincoln40 developers have done a much better job of informing and outreach. I understand they even hired a Spanish language translator to help go door to door.
I am not sure about the efforts to relocate current residents, but 2 points. 1) it is probably difficult to find comparably affordable accommodations. 2) the project destroys more affordable housing than it will create with its paltry (but all that is legally required) $2.1 million in lieu fee.
While it is true that Lincoln40 claims to be targeting students, it is also clearly a luxury apartment complex.
To get to the points you noted above. Lincoln 40 can be pretty easily swapped in for Trackside as you wrote them, with the main difference being it is the current Lincoln40 proposal as opposed to the original Trackside proposal..
1) The Lincoln40 proposal, does not represent “middle housing” nor does it represent a “transitional” project. There are no eight to nine story buildings in Davis to represent the “transition”of the Lincoln40 project from the one story buildings on the adjacent property on Olive Drive to the current downtown. . The Lincoln40 project as proposed will be one story higher than any existing occupied building in Davis.
2) The Lincoln40 project was never intended to be densification to provide housing for those who otherwise could not afford to live in Davis. It was designed and advertised as “luxury apartments” for those in town fortunate enough to be able to afford high end apartments.
Odin, what is there about Lincoln 40 that qualifies as “luxury”? Everything that I have seen so far says that Lincoln 40 is going to be a very densely packed quasi dormitory. What is luxury about that?
Because it is new construction, Lincoln 40 will be expensive, but are expensive and luxury the same thing. For example, a John Deere tractor is expensive, but is it luxury? The surface water plant Davis and Woodland just built is expensive, but is it a luxury?
On a separate subject, I went into the Davis Beer Shoppe last week and they had an Avery beer on tap. I thought of you. I’ll check later today to see if they still have it, and if they do, let’s try and catch that beer we discussed. I missed you at the meeting at ML King a week ago. You were deep in conversation and I chose not to horn in, and you were gone by the time I circled back to catch up with you.
Expensive…Luxury…whatever you want to call it, it’s just not affordable living which is what we really need for students in Davis and what is needed to maintain the current demographic on Olive.
To quote their literature:
Included within the development will be a student community center complete with a leasing office, fitness & yoga facilities, study lounges, game rooms, a cafe lounge, bike storage and repair facilities, and outdoor site amenities to include, but not be limited to a resort-style pool, outdoor barbecue station, cabanas, game areas and lounges with gas fire pits.
If you want further evidence check out progress910.com to see another of Highbridges student campus projects. Also notice how much they hate trees and vegetation.
Side note: Matt, I mistakenly thought you were a city council member. I see no need to meet. I don’t trust the intentions of anyone in town these days given all the money to be made. Not saying you stand to profit off Lincoln40, but who knows.
Understood Odin, but let’s compare the costs for Slater’s Court (which we both agree is affordable) to Lincoln 40.
Starting with Construction Labor costs. Slater’s Court’s were very low by comparison to Lincoln 40’s. Is there anything Lincoln 40 can do to bring its Construction Labor costs down? Not if they are going to pay prevailing wage.
Continuing with Construction Materials costs. Slater’s Court’s were very low by comparison to Lincoln 40’s. Is there anything Lincoln 40 can do to bring its Construction Materials costs down?
Continuing with Governmental Entitlement costs. Slater’s Court’s were very low by comparison to Lincoln 40’s. Is there anything Lincoln 40 can do to bring its Governmental Entitlement costs down? Only if they bypass the City of Davis entitlement process, which we all know can’t be done.
Continuing with Land Acquisition costs. Slater’s Court’s were very low by comparison to Lincoln 40’s. Is there anything Lincoln 40 can do to bring its Land Acquisition costs down to Slater’s Court levels? In a word, “no.”
Continuing with Property Tax costs. Thanks to Proposition 13, Slater’s Court’s were very low by comparison to Lincoln 40’s. Is there anything Lincoln 40 can do to bring its Property Tax costs down to Slater’s Court levels? In a word, “no.”
Bottom-line, if any new construction project wants to be affordable, like Slater’s Court is, their only options are only to do so by pricing their rentals at a loss, which they can’t and won’t do.
Side note: I was hoping to share an Avery with you regardless of whether I was a city council member or not. With that said, regarding your fears about any bias on my part, I can assure you that I have no relationship whatsoever to Highbridge either directly or indirectly, and will back my assurance up with a public pledge witnessed by all the Vanguard readers that I will pay you personally $100,000 if I profit as much as one penny off of Lincoln 40 either directly, or indirectly. I hope that answers your “but who knows.”
Why would Lincoln 40 be subject to prevailing wage rules? It’s not a public works project. Does it propose to receive federal, state or local subsidies? (Those could turn out to be expensive subsidies.)
Jim, prevailing wage is not the same as Prevailing Wage. The latter is a formal legal expression, while the latter is a generic term. Sorry for any confusion I caused by using the uncapitalized term. Slater’s Court was built using the prevailing wage at the time. I’m not sure that Prevailing Wage statutes existed when Slater’s Court was built.
Sorry for any confusion I created by using the non-capitalized term. Is there a better term to use to reference the then-prevailing wage level? I will be glad to use that term going forward.
I’m not aware of a universally-recognized term, but perhaps “customary wage levels” would better describe contemporary labor costs without confusing them with statutory mandates.
Thanks Jim.
Hi Matt,
I saw you write a fairly extensive set of comments at the Lincoln 40 meeting. Any chance you would care to share with us the character of what you wrote?
For equal disclosure, I sent in comments mostly asking that they include a parking lot for the train station or a parking and mixed use project as alternative uses to be considered in the EIR. I also included comments about the need for grade separated crossing and the need “socioeconomic consequences of the physical change be analyzed. This means evaluating the impacts on an existing community.”
Grok, your comment is confusing. I’ve scanned my three comments above, and nothing I have written is about the Lincoln 40 meeting. Can you point me to the fairly extensive set of comments you are referring to? I’ll be glad to give you a comprehensive response once I know what you are referencing. I look forward to your response.
Grok, now I understand what you are asking. I’ll be glad to share. My written comments for Lincoln 40 were very similar to my verbal comments on Thursday night for Sterling.
The Draft EIRs for both projects show a significant net contribution to vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gasses. Under CEQA law a Draft EIR needs to present alternative(s) that put forward mitigation strategies for reducing (ideally eliminating) those vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas impacts.
In my comments I argued that the simplest and most direct way to accomplish that mitigation was to reduce the car ownership for the tenants of the project to as close as possible to 0.0 (zero) cars per bed, and the most direct way to accomplish zero cars is to provide zero parking spaces per bed.
My comment also stated that achieving zero cars per bed will only be attainable if robust UNITRANS service is provided between the respective site and the UCD Campus.
I went on to say that even with increased UNITRANS service, the increase in bicycle miles traveled will adversely impact the already compromised Olive – Richards intersection, and that one or more EIR alternative should include the construction of a grade-separated crossing, with at least two options being worthy of analysis. The first being a crossing from the Lincoln 40 site across the UPRR tracks to the Amtrak Station. The second being the Davis Arch alternative for crossing Richards.
Further mitigation of greenhouse gases in the alternative would be through the provision of a certain number of dedicated ZipCar spaces to serve the residents’ occasional needs for out of town transportation.
In aggregate the proposed components of the suggested alternative would achieve the maximal vehicle miles traveled mitigation, as well as the maximal greenhouse gas mitigation.
In addition to the CEQA imperatives, as I noted in Thursday night’s Sterling meeting, City policy in the form of the Beyond Platinum Bicycle Action Plan has set a vision that is consistent with zero cars per bed. The Vision Statment of that City policy reads as follows, “Davis will become a world-class bicycling city where a majority of people of all ages and abilities choose bicycling as theirprimary mode of transportation for everyday trips.”
Thanks for sharing Matt. That was what I was curious about.
Even though we don’t agree on everything, there are many things we do. Either way though I am glad to have active engaged citizens like your self in Davis who take the time to go to a meeting like that and write detailed comments.
Just a (general) comment, not necessarily a comment regarding Davis in particular:
Regarding “never-ending” infill, how many “angels” (people) can dance on the head of a pin? (Of course, angels have very few needs or impacts.)
Still preferable to sprawl, however. (Assuming that a community is “forced” to choose between those two alternatives.)
The “other” option – a population that stabilizes, at some point? (Just a hope, for now.)
There are actually two —
(1) Extremely high rent and house prices.
(2) A devastating disease that kill 30% or more of the population.
I don’t have the numbers out, but I recall that Davis already has a very dense number of people per square mile? David, I think your article should have placed Davis in the context of other similar cities? The article is good in that it does inform us of the White House national study, but your article does not take that generic article and fairly apply it to Davis?
In other words, I think Davis already does the things the W.H. article advocates, so what’s the point?
Davis is 10 square miles not including UCD. That means 6600 people per square mile. It is an unusual situation.
The is no other comparable city. We are way more population dense than any other small rural town. We are more dense than many other larger urban cities. And when add the 12000 additional on campus residents… our small downtown has the congestion of a typical big city… it plays more like a 10,000 person per square mile location.
Frankly, I dislike high density. I dislike congestion. I get the small dense city attraction, but it is mostly for milinneals, the poorly employed, the independently wealthy and the retired. It is not so good for families and people that want some yard space and separation between neighbors.
But I support some peripheral development AND some reasonable infill densification because both are needed and it is the right thing to do.
The Obama administration is espousing an ultra-left liberal agenda to gain the backing of naive greenies to support the unleashing of developer-corporate exploitation of the destruction of our city core through T.O.D. and “Affordable” housing laws designed to legitimize the wholesale rezoning without local citizen input. This is Agneda 21. Look it up.
There are consulting firms in urban planning who’s sole purpose is aiding cities and their developer backers in how to stamp down current zoning, parking requirements, citizen input. Their purpose is to grease the wheels for developers to take advantage of misguided T.O.D. and “Affrodable” housing laws.
Yes, the tea-party conservative view of Agenda 21 is paranoid and conspiratorial . . . but they are partially correct — but it is not about world domination — it’s about money — and from money, power. Many foresight-eschewed lefties hear the words “green” and “sustainable” and cream their under-garments to allow anything placed in front of them — be it by state initiative or city zoning — to pass. This creates a split in the community between the blind and the sighted (no offense to those with actual visual disabilities, it was a metaphor). The idealistic principals are great — beware the implementation! Take off your blinders, oh Davis masses, lest we lose the core of what makes us Dave Is.
Reject the Obama initiative! Reject Agenda 21 for Davis!
I say this as a supporter of Nishi, Covell Village, a Trackside Project within the scope of agreed-upon Design Guidelines, Lincoln 40 (if certain traffic and parking concerns are met), and a redeveloped, multi-story downtown (with the understanding that downtown ENDS at 5th Street on the north (Old North) and the Railroad tracks on the east (Old East). No downtown CREEP-ing into the historic neighborhoods).
Frankly
“The is no other comparable city.”
This is for me a strange comment coming from a poster who routinely picks other cities with which to make comparisons when it bolsters the point that you are trying to make. I have often pointed out that in many ways, Davis is a unique city in our region and us such should perhaps not be making the same choices as other communities that you have deemed “comparable”since I highly value the unique character of our community.
True that.
Yeah Tia… we are really “special” and more cognizant than the other 6 billion people in the world… hold onto that myth, if it comforts you…
hpierce
Please note that it was Frankly who made the comment that spurred my response in which I made no comparison whatsoever to the remainder of the population of the planet. I also did not make the very obvious comment that every place on the face of the earth also has some unique characteristics as I would have found that too obvious to need mentioning. I guess I was wrong.
Nice mental gymnastics Tia. The point is that we are not any brighter than these other cities, and so if we are so far out of balance from the general norm it is evidence that we are foolish and making big mistakes.
Frankly
“The point is that we are not any brighter than these other cities,”
The only gymnastics that might be necessary here would be to leap over the straw man argument that you have created. I do not recall anyone saying that we are any brighter than any of these other communities. You had stated that there were no comparable communities. And I simply agreed that Davis is distinct within our region ( as is every other community in some way). I just found the comment strange coming from you since you are quick to draw comparisons when they suit your purpose.
Matt: Given your comments above regarding the Sterling project and CEQA alternatives, what do you think of the Lower Density Student Apartment alternative (i.e., the 2nd ranked Environmentally Superior Alternative)?
Edison, I find the Lower Density Student Apartment alternative fatally flawed, and as a result I vigorously oppose it.
My reasons stem from my life experience as the sole parent raising my son 24-7-365 from age 9 to 18 when he left home for college. The Lower Density Student Apartment alternative includes 39 affordable apartment units integrated with the market-rate units instead of provided as a separate building and site. I believe it is irresponsible (dare I say criminally negligent) parenting to put children into an all-student environment like the one proposed in the Lower Density Student Apartment alternative.
Hi Matt
“I believe it is irresponsible (dare I say criminally negligent) parenting to put children into an all-student environment”
Can you elaborate on your concern ? I also was a single parent of two children for a similar amount of time and yet do not understand your point.
I would think that the party atmosphere of predominantly-student housing would be unsuitable for children under 18.
The “concerns” of our white affluent hamlet are quite laughable when contrasted with the general state of life.
Gladly Tia. As I understand the Reduced Density Student Apartment Alternative, the 39 affordable apartments would be physically dispersed amongst the 150 student apartments. The 150 student apartments would have approximately 537 bedrooms (727 times 150 divided by 203), all of which are going to be leased by the bed. That means the children in the 39 affordable apartments will have approximately 1,000 student neighbors the vast majority of whom will range in age from 19 to 22 years old. In the worst case environmental impact scenario the 39 affordables will be dispersed so that there will be 25 student neighbors between each affordable unit. Those 25 neighbors will have social life including alcohol, and if Proposition 64 is passed, marijuana. Further, the circadian clock of those 25 neighbors will be substantially out of synch with the children’s clock.
As a single parent, which many (most) of the affordable units will have as a family structure, how would you describe the “lead by example” characteristics of the child guidance environment described above? I personally describe it as detrimental and/or damaging to the healthy development of a child.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Matt
I honestly don’t know. I think that you have taken a pretty bleak view of the behavior of college aged individuals. While it is true that some are heavier partiers, it is also true that many are very dedicated to their educations. I would have had no qualms whatsoever about young children living in close proximity to the student homes ( housing co-ops) in which my son and daughter lived during their time in Berkeley. I myself live on a street with three student housing co-0ps and two apartment buildings that cater largely to students and yet the children on our street do not seem to be having difficulty growing up in these circumstances.
I think that your concerns may actually speak more to the fears of parents than to any actual risks to the children in these situations. It reminds me a little bit of the actual fears of parents who did not want the Hyatt Hotel located near their homes. Many folks here did not attribute any credibility to these concerns, and yet the concerns that you are stating seem quite similar to me. I honestly do not think that there would be that much interaction between children and the adjacent student neighbors. My evidence for the latter is that when I was in my teens, my mother and I lived in little a affordable housing, pretty much surrounded by college student apartments. I rarely saw them, and when I did it was not to say more than “Hi ! How are classes going ?”
Tia, your examples describe a SFR environment with green space and street right of way buffering the children’s activities from the students’ activities.
In the apartment environment described in the EIR, the children living in the affordable units will exit the front door of their apartment and walk down a hallway they share with the students. Students from multiple apartments will frequently congregate in the hallway between their respective apartments, jawing about their classes, their love life, the 49ers and/or the Raiders, the Warriors and/or the Kings, the Giants, the Sharks, their current favorite beer, and a litany of other topics that resonate for 19-22 year-olds. In those hall congregation situations, the children will effectively run a gauntlet to get to the stairs. Alan Miller has described a similar (more extreme) gauntlet on G Street when the Ket-Mo-Ree incident and the addition of Blondies was being actively discussed.
The situation you described with your mother had you (in your words) surrounded by college student apartments, which is considerably different than being integrated into student apartments. I also suspect your mother and daughter example displays considerably more caution/prudence than is exercised with sons. Sons are often encouraged to think of themselves as invulnerable, while daughters are encouraged to be aware of the implications of pregnancy. Very different risk profiles across the two genders. Said a different way, if you “rarely saw them” it is not unreasonable to believe you weren’t looking for them.
Matt and Tia: If the affordable units were to be integrated among the student units, then I think Matt’s concerns may be completely valid. I was too busy studying and working in college to have a party life, but would often not return home from the computer lab until late at night. And in grad school, I often did not leave the grad student office until after midnight. The original proposal has the 41 affordable units in a separate, 4-story building. I made the assumption that under the Reduced Student Apartment Density alternative (RSAD), the 39 units of affordable housing would remain in a separate building. It’s been a week or so since I read the DEIR, but I don’t think it was specific on that matter. In thinking about it now, I don’t see how or why the developer would intersperse families with young childern among students.
The DEIR is also not specific about the assumed allocation of apartments in the RSAD among 1, 2, 4 and 5 bedroom apartments (there are no 3-bedroom apartments in the project proposal). The table showing the number of units by each bedroom size and as a % of units is shown the site plan. Because the DEIR does not make any bedroom allocation assumption in the RSAD alternative, I applied the same percentages and got these numbers: 6 one-bed units, 36 two-bedroom units, 76 four bedroom units, and 30 five-bedroom units. This produced 532 total students; pretty closer to Matt’s 537. There is no way of knowing if my calculations are correct, however. I’ve asked the project proponent’s attorney to find out if the proponent has produced a revised project using the RSAD. I’m waiting to hear back from him. (I often worked with this attorney in my pre-retirement job; he’s reputable and well-regarded.)
Edison said . . . I applied the same percentages and got these numbers: 6 one-bed units, 36 two-bedroom units, 76 four bedroom units, and 30 five-bedroom units. This produced 532 total students; pretty close to Matt’s 537.
It is always good to have two different methods come to essentially the same result. However, the last sentence of Edison’s statement above needs one correction. It should read “This produced 532 total bedrooms; pretty close to Matt’s 537.” Each bedroom has the potential to have two beds and two students. If 100% of the bedrooms have two beds then the number of student would be 1,064 with Edison’s calculation and 1,074 with mine.
Matt wrote:
> Each bedroom has the potential to have two beds and two students.
Each bedroom has the “potential” to have four beds and four (or more) students, but can you name a single three, four or five bedroom apartment in town with two people in every room?
> If 100% of the bedrooms have two beds then the number of
> student would be 1,064
And with four per room there would be over “two thousand kids”. Legally you can’t restrict the number of people in a bedroom (as the managers of West Village recently found out) but only a manager desperate to lease a unit will ever allow the wear and tear of multiple people per bedroom in a three four or five bedroom unit (with vacancy under 1% the managers in Davis are not “desperate” to rent units).
SoD, okay, I’m willing to live with your assumptions. Given the current city-wide vacancy rate and the highly publicized move to “double-ups” at West Village, what do you predict will be the approximate number of beds in the 150 units with an estimated 532-537 bedrooms?
Matt wrote:
> what do you predict will be the approximate number of beds in
> the 150 units with an estimated 532-537 bedrooms?
If they lease the place (like most apartments in town) “by the unit” (and don’t get a penny more for a “double up”) the number of bedrooms with more than one person will be very low (probably well under 10%). If they lease the place using the (increasing in popularity) “by the bed” system and actually get paid ~50% more per month for a “double up” unit the number will be a lot higher but probably not be over 25% (since there is only a small number of people who will pay a lot to share a room in a “fancy newer” apartment when they can lease their “own room” in “typical older” Davis apartment or home for LESS per month).
P.S. I forget if you shared what you recently rented a room for, but I heard West Village is asking $1,300 ($650 each person) for a shared room.
P.P.S. At current interest rates $1,300/month will just about cover a $300K loan…
Thank you SoD.
At the Thursday evening Sterling meeting at the Families First site, I asked a two part question to get as much possible clarity on how Sterling Fifth Street will charge rent. Josh Vasbinder, the Sterling representative was very quick to respond “by the bed.” The second part of my question was to Staff to clarify if the City has any regulations on “by the bed” rentals. Both the City representatives said “No, we do not”
Bottom-line, it appears quite clear that just like at West Village, double ups will produce more revenue for the complex owners. I do not know what the historical monthly rental has been for the West Village units that are now being doubled up, but I suspect it was significantly lower than $1,250 per bedroom.
My spreadsheet says your $300,000 figure is spot on. So that begs the question, what are the construction costs per bedroom in an apartment complex like the one proposed at Sterling or Lincoln 40? I asked that question of both Vasbinder after Thursday’s Sterling meeting and the Lincoln 40 principals at last week’s Lincoln 40 meeting.
Matt
“I also suspect your mother and daughter example displays considerably more caution/prudence than is exercised with sons. Sons are often encouraged to think of themselves as invulnerable, while daughters are encouraged to be aware of the implications of pregnancy. Very different risk profiles across the two genders. Said a different way, if you “rarely saw them” it is not unreasonable to believe you weren’t looking for them.”
Wow ! And I thought before reading this post that you were presenting a “bleak picture” of college aged student behavior. Now, you have added both generational twist and gender twists that I actually find both alarming and depressing.
“Running a gauntlet” ! Do you really see such a one sided, negative image of our youth ? Do these students never stand around talking about classes, aspirations, the state of their medical school applications or theses ? Can you never imagine that they might serve as inspirations and/or examples to the younger aspiring musicians, or robotics team members, or athletes or scientists at the younger age levels. While I did state that I rarely “saw” them as in had the opportunity to really talk with them, I knew that they were in college which represented something that I had never seen before. In my family that was not the norm and their presence offered new possibilities that I could see passing by on their bikes or with their back packs. I knew that they lived in a different world than I did and that their way was a possibility that perhaps I could obtain.
And now you have essentially doubled down on the dread expressed by the Hyatt opponent parents. That of sexual molestation of their daughters while encouraging their sons to think in terms of their invulnerability. Should we not be attempting to build a world in which neither our sons nor our daughters fear being around either strangers or their own neighbors ? Do we really want to perpetuate these fears or would we better off addressing them directly and dealing with them. Do we want a society in which certain people have to be cloistered ( almost always women) either for their own “protection” or so that they are not tempting males thus denying them the opportunities available to others ?
Tia, you are taking what is essentially a risk evaluation of the chances of an untoward incident and applying it as a universal truth proposition about all humankind. You are the one who stated, “I rarely saw them,” Your explanation above clearly shows you were interested in them. You may want to ask yourself why you remained in the world of “rarely saw them” as opposed to “went up and exercised my curiosity.” Based on your “surrounded” description, they were there to both see and interact with.
To illustrate my point, ask yourself what was the statistical likelihood of the death at Ket-Mo-Ree? Then ask yourself whether the actions of the people associated with that death paint a “bleak picture” of college aged student behavior.
With those two answers in your mind, then ask yourself whether it is wise to take steps to do our best to make sure another similar incident doesn’t happen.
Of course many students stand around talking about classes, aspirations, the state of their medical school applications or theses, and about younger aspiring musicians, or robotics team members, or athletes or scientists at the younger age levels. Those conversations are like the activity of a normal night on G Street. Conversations like those are not social gatherings, they are intellectual meetings of the minds. The passions they produce in the students are (for the most part) cerebral rather than physical. Social gatherings, especially if they involve alcohol are much more likely to become physical. How does an 8-year old child walking down the hall from his/her apartment to the stairwell know whether the congregated group of students is there to exercise their intellect or for social interaction? They don’t, and as a result they will exercise an abundance of caution, just the same way many people exercise an abundance of caution when walking G Street late at night. The statistics say that they are being overly cautious, but the downside risk associated with an untoward event is bad enough that the statistics get thrown out the window.
As a professional family of two, I very much welcome more options in the middle housing realm in the urban core. If more upscale townhouses, similar to those of Central Park West, were available within walking distance of downtown, we would buy one in a heartbeat. Not everyone wants a single family house they need to maintain and not everyone who wants a townhouse, wants one geared toward college students. High quality middle housing is what I desire. This type of housing is greatly lacking in most of Davis, unless you want to live at the Cannery (which isn’t exactly walking distance to our downtown restaurants, etc.). If Davis wants to attract more tech businesses, this sort of housing is critical. Please bring more urban housing for professionals!
You mean like Trackside?
No, I said townhouses more like Central Park West (two story preferred)….more like row house style. My understanding is that trackside is much higher rise and more like condos or apartments. There is a huge difference in living quality.
Thanks for the clarification. With yard space?
Central Park West Apartments are mostly a LOT nicer than Trackside:
https://www.6sqft.com/bruce-willis-lists-central-park-west-apartment-for-13m/