On April 18, the Davis City Council is going to be asked to approve the Sterling Apartments. Like Nishi before it, Sterling Apartments is a rather modest project with just 540 beds in the scaled-down version, but, also like Nishi before it, it is becoming a proxy battle for a much bigger fight.
Unlike Nishi, this is not a Measure R vote, the voters will not be asked ultimately to weigh in – barring an unexpected petition drive. There may well be a legal battle – we will have to wait and see on this.
What is clear is that, while issues like budget may serve a more existential threat to the community, the battle over housing drives the community’s passion like no other issue.
I personally find myself in a precarious position. I am not a believer in paving over additional peripheral land, but housing – and in particular student housing – is a big problem in Davis. The question I have is whether we have a possible middle ground that can alleviate the 0.2 percent vacancy rate while protecting both the existing homeowners and residents, as well as our environment and our farmland.
The lines have seemingly been drawn. On one side are slow-growth advocates, many of whom have argued that this is primarily a university problem. Here’s the thing that everyone should understand, and it makes this issue tricky – they have a strong point here.
For decades UC Davis has promised and failed to deliver on housing. Citizens pushed back for the last year against an LRDP (Long Range Development Plan) where the university position started out that they would not be able to supply housing on campus to meet expected student enrollment rates.
For many, this was an untenable position, and citizens mobilized and pushed back. The university, clearly sensing the tide, either expanded or elaborated on their number – they would house in the LRDP 90 percent of new students on campus and 40 percent of the population overall.
But again for many, including those on council, that was not enough. The council has pushed for 100 percent of new students to be housed on campus with 50 percent overall – that would put UC Davis much closer to the system-wide average than the current 28 percent housed on campus.
I don’t think UC Davis is going to go that far. Some have pushed back that this is a defeatist position. Others have argued that the city offering to build any housing at all will simply allow UC Davis to dither, to sit back and wait for the city to supply student housing.
As Eileen Samitz put it, “The biggest need is for UCD to build far more on-campus student housing for its own needs. That is what is very clear. They have plenty of land and the financial resources to do it. They just need more motivation and fewer excuses. You continue to excuse them and try to push their responsibilities on the City, which is really counter-productive.”
While I think it is important for Ms. Samitz to continue to push for the university to expand on their current commitments and fulfill them, I don’t agree with her reasoning here.
UC Davis is smart enough to figure out that any housing that the city provides is not going to be sufficient to accommodate their growth. The city has hardly built any student housing in the last 15 years, and any housing they build now is going to have a marginal impact when it comes to housing to accommodate 7000 to 8000 new students over the next decade.
Far more likely is the students, having insufficient housing in Davis and on campus, will go elsewhere in the region. Is that to UC Davis’ advantage? Not really.
The more students commute from out of town, the more they will have to drive to campus. That means there is a need for more housing, which would also greatly lower their carbon emissions.
The bottom line is that UC Davis is going to have to build housing, and I think they know it.
However, my point has been that even if UC Davis does go to 90/40 as promised, or even if they go to 100/50 as the city council has requested, we still have a housing shortage in the city. The current housing situation is tenuous at 0.2 percent vacancy.
That means less than 30 units are available out of the nearly 10,000 surveyed by the apartment study last fall. That means rising rents and students being vulnerable to landlords taking advantage of the situation. It means more and more students will have to commute, have cars, and clog roadways.
That is in no one’s best interest.
How many apartment units do we need for students? That is a good question and one that no one can answer right now. We have asked the city to do a study to determine how many housing units are needed to be added in the next decade.
By doing this it is not our intent to take the pressure off the university – the university knows or ought to know that the city isn’t building anywhere near 7000 units to accommodate student enrollment growth.
At the same time, everyone has seemed to have forgotten that, increasingly, faculty and in particular staff are not able to live in Davis and that means that thousands of employees are commuting to campus each day – which has led to an increase in traffic as well.
If residents are concerned about traffic, we have to figure out a way to get more faculty and staff housing, both on campus and in this community.
We are not asking for large peripheral developments. What we are asking for is modest and middle-based approaches to alleviate these problems.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Middle Ground” sounds too much like compromise, and not enough like consensus…
We need regulations to reach our goals, but we have to be sure we’re informing ourselves as best as we can about cause & effect in the realm of development in our city. So, “university students” doesn’t have to mean wild, loud, drunk etc., “low income people” don’t need to be separated from others, and more people does not have to result in more car traffic.
Any housing built in the city being flexible by-design in regards to tenant types. And if, for example, Sterling 5th is built according to the current plan, well, of course non-students are going to try to live there, because they’re desperate. But that is not proof that it’s a good design! (Sterling silver, fool’s gold, LEED Platinum — how is this or any environmentally-related accolade possible with a project where there is no feedback on use of electricity, has high hardware requirements to build the 1:1 bed-to-bathroom, probably does not respect the spirit of the law on housing discrimination with this design, has car storage provision above current levels, and provides parking instead of beds in the Davis and regional context?)
I’m not sure how to define “flexible”, but this does mean the very vague “some people need cars” should be the modus. (See below on a more specifc “some”, please.) I don’t precise understand the city’s climate change goals (and not to be dismissive, but comparisons on pounds of carbon also seems odd to me without an explanation of what this “pound” means), but I do better understand the city’s general goals on things like “building community” and more specific goals – numbers! – on bicycle modal share (which is, as I have written previously, really an indicator of the general health of a mobility system).
“Building community” cannot be based on assumptions and misunderstandings, or creating bad side effects – for example, with Sterling, that eliminating balconies with the goal of reducing noise will do nothing to prevent windows on inside rooms from staying open, but also that denying someone living on upper floors to go outside is simply… not nice. And then – also at Sterling – the pool is not accessible by design, as the lower-income people on the site will not be able to use it. (Imagine if it was the other way around! And – very curious – how come Mutual Housing doesn’t have a problem with this?).
And quite obviously – I hope – building community is impossible if we’re all fighting against something we all want: More housing! I don’t refer to slow- or no-growth, I’m referring the collective folly that we just HAVE to build car storage. And my argument is not only – or perhaps even primarily – about having to get people who own cars and pay for parking at home to use their bikes – it’s about prioritizing parking spots over beds. A development the size of Sterling could house 15 or 20% more people if there’s no private automobile storage (with exceptions for ADA and a narrow range of job types, such as fire department personnel, medical staff that normally works in the ER, and perhaps even single-person businesses that require a non-standard vehicle) with tight regulations related to “black parking” – not just general illegal parking but parking not permitted for specific classes of person, such as students in campus residences halls AND there are a rich range of mobility options that replace everything possible with a private vehicle, from carshare to great transit access at all hours to not only bike infrastructure that feels safe and plenty of bike parking – that’s in a direct line as much as possible from an apt. to the street, not like in the Sterling proposal! – but provision of bikes optimized for shopping and carrying kids.
This needs to be written into code – if all, two or perhaps even just one of the factors such as the following are present there should be no parking minimum and also a parking maximum:
* When the city is not meeting – or is significantly under – its official goals for modal share for cycling or transit; or
* When the city has a vacancy rate below x%;
* When more than x% of people who work or go to school in town are more than 30 minutes – or whatever is best – away by bike or transit –for the latter including its “last mile” services.
Another article, same advocacy for more housing. Glad to see that David is acknowledging that UCD is creating most of the demand, however.
Something that no one seems to want to acknowledge: Communities can choose to restrict growth/development in some manner (as many communities do, especially in the Bay Area). Slow growth is a reasonable goal. But, doing so means that “market demand” is not being met, and that some who otherwise would choose to move to a community may not do so. However, there’s plenty of nearby places that don’t even try to restrict development (and I think we all understand that impacts of that approach).
If UCD was any other type of institution, many in the community would probably not even support plans to build more housing on their own property (due to impacts in the adjacent community). In this case, the “slow growth” community is not only refraining from objecting, it is actively supporting more development on campus.
Bottom line, Davis is already meeting it’s regional “fair share” growth requirements. Exceeding those requirements (to accommodate UCD’s enrollment plans – largely consisting of more “profitable” international students) will ensure that our “silent partner” (UCD) does not respond. (UCD will continue to sit on the sidelines, watching the community “dance and fret”, with plenty of development-minded individuals willing to appease UCD’s demands.)
Yesterday I went to San Francisco, and at SF MOMA I saw a photography exhibition by Diane Arbus that contained the following quote that made me think of you Ron … and of the Vanguard as a dialogue space.
“The thing that’s important to know is that you never know. You’re always sort of feeling your way.” – Diane Arbus
Has to be joined-up slow growth, suppose ya could call it smart: Match jobs and housing needs (and don’t displace anyone.) That’s of course what they screwed up in SF and Peninsula.
The University of California must expand enrollment to meet rising statewide demand for a college education. That education benefits all of us by increasing the productivity of our workforce, which allows us to provide more societal benefits. As part of that UCD must take its share of the increased enrollment. That means that the campus population must grow. Davis as a community has no right to deny others in the state a college education by forcing UCD to stop growing. We must figure out how to accommodate that growth.
We also have been too focused solely on housing for students. Increased enrollment brings increased staff. We already lack housing for UCD staff based on the jobs-housing balance. We probably need to add at least as much housing for staff and faculty as for students (given that a staff person requires one house per household, while multiple students will live in a house or apartment.) If we are to be true to our environmental goals, we must reduce commuting from outside communities by bringing staff to Davis. That means more housing.
Unfortunately, UCD has not demonstrated an ability to build and manage a new community. West Campus has difficulty filling its student beds and has built only a pittance of the planned staff/faculty housing. We’re going to have to solve this problem ourselves, so lets have a real productive discussion.
Starting to come around to Todd’s and Ron’s way of thinking… think I’ve got a solution that will reduce traffic, free up housing, and really make this community better…
Everyone who originally came to Davis since 1980 should leave… now… will consider exceptions for those born while their parents (pre-1980 residents, of course) lived in Davis…
That’s a compromise I could easily live with…
Howard:
Great! Now, if we could just apply that to my own home town, I could probably move back there. (And yet, not something I would advocate.)
There’s a vast difference between “uprooting” those who already live in a community, vs. “accommodating” those who might choose to do so in the future, especially if the primary driver of the “need” (UCD) continues to sit back and watch the community squirm (aided by pro-development agitators).
That’s fine, Howard Panonymous — because with the money I save not owning a car I was able to buy a time machine.
There is a technical term… the “moat mentality”… get into the gates of Nirvana, then pull up the drawbridge, and if questioned, cite moral superiority as to why ‘some are more equal than others’…
You question me as “up-rooting”… I see others wanting to forbid anyone new “putting down roots”…
[I love watching folk step up at Public Comment @ PC or CC, and start their objections to projects with, “I’m a long time resident of Davis, been here for 5 years, and don’t want to lose the small-town ambience”… yeah, right]
Let’s face it… if development had not occurred in the past, where you reside would not exist…
Howard:
I wouldn’t describe Davis (or anywhere) as “Nirvana”, but it will become the opposite if those constantly advocating for more development have their way. (Indeed, some might argue that this has already occurred, throughout California.)
“Pro-development” types never seem to put forth any numbers or consideration, regarding how much growth a particular area should ultimately accommodate (via “sprawl” or “infill”), and the impacts of failing to do so. It’s got to start somewhere. (“Now” is always a good time to consider it.)
If a community hosts a large business or university that is growing in employment and attendance, those people will need to live somewhere. We are presently thousands of beds short in the region of UCD, which is by far the largest employer in the area. A very high percentage of the beds/units needed will be on campus, but some percentage of them will be in the nearby cities. If they aren’t in Davis, they are in Woodland or Dixon primarily, leading those staff people and students (presently numbering several thousand every day) to commute in to their jobs and classes on campus. The best metrics we have for assessing this need are the apartment vacancy rate and the rate of increase of rents locally.
We need thousands of beds. Several hundred of them need to be in town, as the rest will be on campus. If we don’t provide them, it entails costs that are mostly born by those least able to afford that cost. It also increases congestion at the points of entry to town.
OK, substitute “Davis” for “Nirvana”… works for me…
And, you always have choices… the birthplace of Denver Pyle (Jesse Duke character) was born in Bethune, CO… population under 300… almost no traffic, houses available under $30 k (with acreage), and real nice people… unlikely to grow much in the next 75 years…
For a more urban setting, with low growth, there is Cheyenne, WY.
#Phew# . . . made the cut by three months!
Alan: One of the few who can consistently make amusing comments. 🙂
Howard and Matt
Thanks for my first Vanguard induced smiles of the day. Not sure whom to credit so thought I would share.
Tia: Although I didn’t take those comments seriously, what did you find amusing about them? Howard’s comment was inane, and Matt’s comment was insulting (and somewhat “pseudo-intellectual” in nature – as usual).
I didn’t find either particularly amusing either.
Thanks, Keith.
Somehow, I can’t help but continue to comment on these “dead horse” articles. Even though most of the same arguments (from everyone) are repetitively stated. (I’ll try to add something new, if I continue.)
Ron, it’s gotten to the point where one could just cut and paste the comments from another article and post them here and nobody would be able to tell the difference.
Keith said . . . “I didn’t find either particularly amusing either.”
I can’t speak for Howard’s comment, but I doubt that either Diane Arbus or I intended anything about her comment (or my quoting it) to be amusing. Smiles can come from a lot of sources. In this case, the smile that came to my face when I read the quote was the result of an appreciation of its resonance.
Ron said . . . “Matt’s comment was insulting (and somewhat “pseudo-intellectual” in nature – as usual).”
Your belief that Diane Arbus’ comment was insulting is not a surprise given your world-view. If you stepped back and looked at the comment from the broad human condition/human nature framing that Diane Arbus made the comment from, you would see how insightful a comment it is.
“one” does.
Yeah, Tia…wanted to ensure you, me, and ours could remain… I could have said 1972, and still have been safe…
There are reasonable concerns with growth, and those need to be addressed… but too many want to be out on the third deviations [either side] of the ‘bell curve’… actually gets to the substance of the article…
I found this community to be friendly, accessible, safe, desirable in 1972… 44 years later, my opinion hasn’t changed… despite a “huge” increase in population… reminds me about the old man at the crossroads story… community is not about population, but many fear it is… unreasonably, to my way of thinking, based on experience…
No more ad hominems, please. Stick to the issues.
I will note that this comment page, and others, are starting to be dominated by 3 or 4 anonymous posters, with lots of useless back and forth.
Point noted… will do my best to not be provoked, and not respond in kind…
Thank you for trying to “be the adult” … I mean that sincerely…
” 3 or 4 anonymous posters,”
They must be favourites of David’s or how else could they remain anonymous?
John: Now you’ve done it. You’re in trouble, again! 🙂
But, rest-assured, I don’t think David (or Don) like me, much. (To say the least.) Perhaps you’re referring to another “anonymous” poster.
Sorry Don, I know that you’ll delete this, and I won’t comment further on it.
There’s no such agreement between UCD and the city. Even if “several hundred” student-oriented units are provided in the city, this could mean that “several hundred less” will be provided by UCD (in a better location). There’s no way to determine this, at this point.
My main point is this: ANY restrictions on growth/development inevitably has an impact, of some type. (In other words, there’s plenty of “demand” to “justify” developing vast amounts of land outside city limits, as well. Who is “speaking up” for those theoretical “future residents” who might otherwise live in a vastly-expanded Davis? (Certainly not the folks who advocate “some” growth/development, in an apparent attempt to sound “reasonable”.)
Richard: I agree that some of this banter is repetitive, and ultimately of little use. However, the nature of such banter often has very little correlation with the “anonymity” of the poster.
The university has committed to providing for 90% of new enrollees and 40% of students overall.
I don’t advocate annexing “vast amounts of land” and have argued strongly against peripheral annexation in most cases. Furthermore, the main points of discussion have been either in the city limits, or in situations like Nishi where there was no risk of encouraging urban sprawl as there were no adjoining parcels.
To the greatest extent possible, Davis voters have expressed a preference for infill over expansion. But unfortunately, some residents strongly oppose infill as well. That leads to our current condition of nearly zero new rental housing.
Your turn. Numbers, please? How much growth should the City of Davis accommodate? What are the impacts of failing to do so?
Don:
Let’s not do this. You already know that the LRDP (and efforts by those concerned – including the city council) have not been settled.
If you actually read my comment regarding the “demand” for annexing vast amounts of land, you’ll understand the point I was trying to make. (That doing so impacts theoretical “future residents”, which is the same argument that you and others make against those with slower-growth views.) There really is no basic difference, other than perhaps the degree.
I see that you’re choosing to not answer my question regarding how much growth/development Davis should seek to accommodate, and are instead asking me. That’s o.k. My response is that we should basically adhere to SACOG fair share growth requirements. (In contrast, I know that you advocate changing plans and zoning, based on the “vacancy rate”. Apparently, without considering other impacts that this will have.)
The city of Davis has already put their growth goals at 1% or less per year. I think we should stick to that.
The population of Yolo County has been growing by roughly 2% per year for the past few decades. By artificially limiting our growth to 1% (instead of matching our region’s growth rate) we exacerbate all the housing shortage problems that already exist in town. Continuing with an approach that has already proven to not work is not the smartest path we could take.
No, let’s do this. The university has agreed to house 90% of future enrollment and 40% overall. They have not agree to anything further than that. Do you agree or disagree that what I have just described is what is in the draft LRDP?
They have not agreed to 100/50. If they did, do you believe there is no need for further rental housing to be built in the city limits? Do you believe that if the university provided for 100% of enrollment growth and 50% of housing overall, the rental housing market would be better, worse, or stay the same?
I will say it again. We need thousands of beds, UC will be providing most of those, so we need hundreds of beds in the city. How many units that translates to would depend on how they’re designed and built. Sterling + Nishi + something like what is proposed on Olive Drive would have provided hundreds of beds. If Sterling is smaller, we need another project of about the same size somewhere else in town. The loss of Nishi and the likely problems with the Olive Drive projects increases our need for another project elsewhere, especially if Sterling is smaller.
If SACOG comes back with a significantly higher number in the next round of fair share allotments, would support that, or would you seek to have the city appeal it?
Don:
We’ve discussed all of this, previously. No need to hash it out, again. The LRDP process is not even complete, and you’ve been constantly advocating for more development in the city, apparently before the LRDP process even started.
Regarding SACOG, you’re the one who has stated/implied that there are “no consequences” for ignoring fair share growth requirements. However, to answer your question – yes, I would support an appeal (if possible) if the rate/number was above 1%/year, for example. I am not necessarily a “fan” of SACOG, due to its “growth requirements”. (However, you’re advocating that we exceed even those requirements.)
I’ll try this again.
The university has agreed to house 90% of future enrollment and 40% overall. They have not agree to anything further than that. Do you agree or disagree that what I have just described is what is in the draft LRDP?
They have not agreed to 100/50. If they did, do you believe there is no need for further rental housing to be built in the city limits? Do you believe that if the university provided for 100% of enrollment growth and 50% of housing overall, the rental housing market would be better, worse, or stay the same?
The purpose of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation used by SACOG is to plan for housing, not produce housing. It is developed over a period of a couple of years prior to the start date (2013 for the current round of 2013-21). It uses macro data such as the growth rate of the whole 6-county SACOG region and apportions the numbers to cities and unincorporated areas based on many factors.
The 2010 Chancellor’s Initiative of an increase of 5000 students, plus proportional staff and faculty, is the main factor behind UCD’s growth. Plus another 1000 students that were added on at the behest of the legislature when confronted with anger about the % of slots going to non-resident students. That is a local population increase substantially greater than our recent (post 1970’s) numbers and greater than what SACOG allocated for Davis. It seems clear that the RHNA did not factor in the Chancellor’s Initiative.
Given their methodology, it is unlikely that the UC increase will factor into their next round of allocations, though I’d welcome feedback from anyone more directly involved in the process about that. Most likely Davis will again get an allocation that does not reflect the current or projected local growth, nor would the allocation sufficiently mitigate the serious rental housing shortage.
SACOG tells the city the minimum of what it needs to have zoned, not what it needs to build. The demand is obvious and present shortages are causing hardship. The city’s planning and development need to adjust to the university’s growth, whether we like that growth or not.
Well Don, you’re nothing if not “determined”.
Again, the LRDP process is not complete, nor are ANY of the numbers that have been put forth (including projected enrollment).
Regarding the 5,000 projected increase in enrollment, I recall that 4,500 of that is non-resident (mostly international) students. UCD is looking to reap the increased “profits” from such students, and pass the costs and obligations of that plan onto the city (where the transportation and possibly financial impacts will be worse, as well).
Regarding more rental housing (in general), I’m not necessarily opposed to including that in the “mix” of new housing that Davis will supply in the future (e.g., after the next round of SACOG requirements, in about 3-4 years from now). I realize that Davis will not totally stop growing, at this point. However, I don’t support housing that’s specifically designed for students, far from campus (e.g., 4-5 bedrooms, each with its own bathroom, each resident with his/her own lease).
One other thing that should be examined is the “mix” of overall housing that already exists in the city, as well as other needs. For example, if Davis starts rezoning existing properties from industrial/commercial to high-density rental, what are the ramifications (financial, and otherwise) of doing so? Also, should the city encourage Davis to become (even more) a city of rentals, by specifically constructing large-scale megadorms out in neighborhoods, far from campus? (I realize that such questions take away from the Vanguard’s repeated mantra of using the vacancy rate as a planning tool, without considering much else).
Perhaps on this, the 100th year of Davis’ founding, the city could undergo another name change. (Instead of reverting back to Davisville, how about “Mega-Dormville”?)
Got to run, for awhile.
That is a false statement. Despite the repetitiveness of the arguments, I guess you haven’t actually been reading them.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article68782827.html
Also, if we’re worried about “statewide” demand why does UCD currently have 12% international enrollment and many out-of-state students? I couldn’t find the out of state numbers.
Ron’s undying commitment to propaganda frequently leads him to providing only one side of a many faceted story.
As noted in that same SacBee article:
“UC sharply and summarily dismissed the audit’s findings and most of its recommendations, including a suggestion that the Legislature limit the percentage of nonresident students UC can enroll. In an unprecedented move, the university released its own report disputing characterizations of its admissions policies and finances.”
All 36 pages of the UC report Straight Talk on Hot-Button Issues can be read at http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/Straight-Talk-Report-3-29-16.pdf
The Executive Summary reads as follows:
Ok, I will be the first to admit that humor is highly individual and that I am very easily amused. Having said that, I will attempt to explain what I found amusing.
First with regard to Howard’s comment. I found it an absurdity and absurdist commentary frequently brings a smile of recognition to my face especially since my opinions are frequently felt to be “absurd” by those who choose to see our current reality as the only way that things can possibly be.
My amusement at Matt’s quote from Arbus, ““The thing that’s important to know is that you never know. You’re always sort of feeling your way.” came from the multiple times when he and I argued opposite sides of an issue on the editorial board, both acting as though we “knew” when in fact, we did not.
Not sure why such an innocently intended comment on my part drew such attention or why anyone might think that my amusement was of any relevance to anyone other than myself and the individual commenters.
Tia: Thanks for clarifying.
The reason I brought it up is due to the history of significant animosity that arises between commenters, when this issue is discussed. I detected some of that, in the comments you found amusing.
BTW… Tia, was not trying to be funny (much)… was meaning to show the irony inherent in “newbies” crying “no mas!”
If you got a smile, even better…
Having set humor aside, I have a theoretical but serious question that I would like your thoughts on.
I truly would love to live in Carmel. But I cannot afford the prices. But lets say that I and 8,000 of my family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances decide that we want to live there and lets say that we manage to convince some major state agency that Carmel is an appropriate place for our suggested enterprise. Does Carmel have the obligation to provide affordable housing for all of us ? Why, or why not ?
The same point I’ve made several times except I used different expensive locals. You’re right, one doesn’t have the right to demand that expensive places to live must provide them with affordable housing.
Tia: The first thing I would note is that “8,000” units cannot be reserved for your family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. In fact, it’s probably likely that you still wouldn’t even be able to compete for those units, if you can’t do so now.
Of course, if Carmel had a university (with 5,300 acres, for example), then those units could be built and “reserved” for you and your friends on university property, if you were associated with that university (as a student, staff, or faculty member).
P.S. – I’d like to live in Marin county! “Unfortunately”, that county also has some rather strict growth controls. Years ago, there were viable proposals to build a freeway out to (and develop) Pt. Reyes, and a large community in the headlands, near Sausalito/Golden Gate. Today, these are popular recreational areas (despite the determined opposition of some, at the time).
Your premise is nonsensical as described. The State would have no say in your opening a new private business (that would be a local decision based on the availability of space) unless it were part of a highly regulated industry where the State has the right to preclude locations (e.g. power plants). Simply put, the State cannot demand that your new entity is accepted by the local community. If instead of a private enterprise, your intent is to open a new State agency, then the location of that entity will be subject to negotiations between the State and the local jurisdictions, often involving, in effect, a bidding war between jurisdictions for the right to be the host. In that case, if a local jurisdiction (Carmel in your example) actively pursues the new entity, then it also accepts the obligation to provide appropriate housing opportunities for the new employees. If the local jurisdiction did not want that responsibility for housing, then they should not have engaged in the bidding for the new entity.
In the case of Davis, the community accepted the ‘privilege’ of being a host city for the University of California, and in so doing, also accepted the obligation of providing appropriate housing for those associated with that campus. The fact that the decision was made back before you or I were born is of no consequence. Our elected officials accepted the obligation on our behalf, which we have since inherited. With the 100+ year history of steady increases in the population of the campus (students, faculty, and staff) it is entirely disingenuous to now complain about the continuation of that trend.
So, for something “nonsensical” you certainly felt the need to elaborate which of course was exactly what I had asked for. So let’s take it one step further. Let’s suppose that there is a faction of the population in Carmel that wants the new medical center, feeling that it will be an asset to the community, and unfortunately a portion of the community that would be happy with a small hospital, but not the grand enterprise that I am envisioning( and presumably have obtained permission for from whatever regulatory bodies necessary. Now what should be the responsibility of the city for housing the additional population ?
Tia… you could ask the same questions about providing affordable/market rate housing opportunities for DJUSD or City/State/County employees… that makes the question more real, less hypothetical… good question, tho’…
Might also be a good question relating to providing housing for service workers, farmworkers, or any other members of our community when their employers expand operations… damn good question.
The part that is nonsensical is your assumption that the State has the authority to put your new entity in Carmel (because you want it) without the agreement of the local jurisdiction. Here I don’t mean the agreement of the voters, but that of the elected officials who represent those voters. I responded to the premise I thought you ‘meant,’ not the one you ‘described.’
Your hypothetical split electorate is no longer relevant to the question of responsibility once the local jurisdiction has agreed to be the home of the new entity. If some of the voters have buyers remorse they are out of luck because the commitment has already been made. If you move to town after the entity is present with a history of growing larger, you have no realistic basis for complaining about the impact of that growth as it was your responsibility to do your own due diligence prior to coming to town. Consider it a pre-existing condition.
Hi Ron,
I perhaps was not clear. I was not asking for clarification of what the situation is now. I was asking what commenters thought would be the right thing to do under the circumstance where a large group of people, ostensibly associated with some large scale project ( such as a university, or in my case, lets say a medical center) wanted to locate there and also wanted the community to provide “affordable housing”. Should the enterprise itself be responsible for housing ? Should the city, which may or may not be in favor of such large numbers of new residents, be responsible ? Should the enterprise and the city agree on some kind of collaborative process ? What do people see as the moral obligation of each group ? What do they see as the optimal process ?
David,
I just got a chance to see the Vanguard article and while I appreciate you quoting me, I stand by the comment. There is nothing “middle-ground” about continue allowing UCD to push its enormous housing needs on the City. You have said before that we “just” need 4 or so more apartment complexes which implied accommodating UCD’s housing needs. Well just where are they to go? Which neighborhoods are to be impacted next with UCD housing needs which UCD is perfectly willing to let the City take care of it for them? Then where would apartments needed for non-students be located when our next SACOG fair share is assigned to the City in 2021? Furthermore, we would not even get any credit for all of the additional student targeted rental housing that you are advocating for now. So your “middle-ground” position is counterproductive and just enables UCD to continue the opportunistic relationship it has imposed on the City on this issue and others.
For instance, what about all of the property tax that the City is losing on the many properties that UCD continues to expand to in the City including the master leasing of an enormous number of apartment beds in the City? Even the students are advocating for the 50/100 plan. Meanwhile the City actually loses ground with the current 40/90 plan moving forward in the UCD LRDP EIR, since it actually yields more students living off campus in the City and in other neighboring cities due to the magnitude of the total student population.
To make matters worse, the mega-dorm proposal of Sterling Apartments are single-room-occupancy exclusionary by design since it would not accommodate families needing rental housing and most workers due to its design. On top of that Sterling will have 540 single-room-occupancy bedrooms where the water and electricity would be flat rated and included in the rent regardless of the amount of water and electricity used. This is the same major mistake made at West Village being duplicated in the City at Sterling which gives renter no incentive to conserve electricity or water. This was reported in the media regarding a major problem UCD created for itself at West Village now being perpetuated in the City. That means 540 sinks, showers, and toilets plus 160 kitchens using unlimited water at the Sterling student targeted “market” units. And here we are trying to come out of years of drought. This is not sustainable planning.
That’s o.k. It’s not like we have periodic droughts, or anything like that. And, in the “unlikely event” that we do, the “rest of us” can simply be ordered to conserve more, to make up for those who don’t. (Including the ones that aren’t here yet, who would occupy the Sterling development.) Best of all, UCD’s water supply/allotment (and sewage system) won’t be affected.
Our “ever-silent partner” (UCD) is really the “smartest guy(s) in the room”, to quote a documentary movie.
Also – a built-in lack of incentive to conserve electricity is “green, indeed”.
I’m guessing that neither of these “lack of incentives” to conserve water or electricity is addressed in the EIR. Does anyone beg to differ?
Sure, I’ll bite… our child lived in such a complex, and was a bit frustrated that by her conservation, she couldn’t affect her rental cost… yet, if ALL tenants realized that they were paying, perhaps indirectly, perhaps the ‘community’ would figure out that it was in their best interests to be frugal with utility use.
And no, “conservation” (or lack thereof) of readily sufficient supplies (in the aggregate) of utility services and consumption are not a ‘deficiency’ of the EIR (seems like that’s where you seek to go), as the impact would be either insignificant, or at worse, mitigable with ‘educational’ programs, ‘encouragement to conserve’, etc. Struck with the irony that those upset about number of plumbing fixtures want individual meters for most, if not all utilities. Those are “fixtures’, too…
Those who want to use more resources (water, electricity, NG, etc.) and not conserve, will do so, if they have the $ to do so… an inconvenient truth… if someone wants a one-ton pickup @ 10 mpg, rather than a small hybrid sedan, if they can afford it, including fuel, might well opt for the truck… CEQA is not an appropriate vehicle to control others to conform to one’s values…
I think it’s very likely that you personally use significantly more water than any resident of Sterling ever will, unless you have no outdoor landscaping.
But that’s “his” water, that he is ENTITLED to, and he doesn’t like the concept of ‘sharing’?
Same goes for housing, roads, etc. All “entitlements”, apparently…
And I thought that the concept of gated communities, needing permission to join the country club (with the right to blackball you), etc. was on the wane… apparently, not…
Howard:
Another “inane” comment. Batting 100%, today!
I pay attention to my water and electricity usage, partly because I’m charged for it – based upon such usage. (If I’m not mistaken, there’s also a “tiered” fee structure in place for both of these resources, which further encourages conservation.) This incentive doesn’t exist, regarding the Sterling proposal (and other existing apartments – at least regarding water usage). I recall that apartment complexes are charged a different (lesser?) rate (than single family dwellings), as well.
You’re confusing this with a broader argument, in which there are in fact limited resources to some degree (e.g., buildable land, water supplies, road capacity). 40 million people in California now, all depending upon the same basic infrastructure as existed when there was less than half that number, not so long ago.
How busy is traffic on your street at this moment, Ron?
Yes there is a tiered rate structure for some utilities, and those who can pay on that basis, can consume as much as they wish…
Untrue, patently, as MF is also under tiered rates… try again… the incentive is in the rental rates… albeit “diffused”.
Untrue, again as to consumption… perhaps as to “connection fees” [based on service size/ability to sere](one time) huge, freaking difference. You either recall incorrectly, or… it is an untruth.
See http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/finance/city-services/utility-rates/schedule-of-base-rate-and-meter-retrofit-charges… MF pays slightly more per CCF… inconvenient fact
Who is being inane?
Was that an ad hominem attack?
Ron said . . . “I pay attention to my water and electricity usage, partly because I’m charged for it – based upon such usage. (If I’m not mistaken, there’s also a “tiered” fee structure in place for both of these resources, which further encourages conservation.)”
Ron, Ron, Ron, are you sure you don’t live in Woodland? If you live in Woodland your comment is correct. If you live in Davis your comment is not correct.
Woodland’s water rates are tiered (see http://www.cityofwoodland.org/gov/depts/pw/waterrates.asp) but Davis’ water rates are not (see http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/public-works/water/water-rates)
The thing that’s important to know is that you never know. You’re always sort of feeling your way.
Error in my last post (?)… maybe the tiers have disappeared on both SF& MF, based on my cite… my bad (?)
To be clear, the monthly charge based on meter size goes primarily to pay for the maintenance/repair/replacement of the meter, not water consumption…
Will let others judge my “batting average”…
Damn, Matt! Reminds me of Ghostbusters, where you need to not “cross streams”…
For others, Matt W and I disagree on many things, but we both believe in facts, and are therefore very amicable…
Note we cited pretty much the same cite…
And yes, Ron, Davis water rates USED to be tiered… past tense…
Howard (and Matt):
No – my comments were referencing Davis, and I (like Howard) thought that the tiered structure was still in place. I hadn’t noticed that change, on my water bill.
It is not the primary point, however. And, it seems that Howard in particular seems to be confusing the point.
The bottom line is that there is no plan to bill based on usage, for either water or electricity. Sterling is planning to charge a “flat rate” for these utilities, for each renter. There is no financial incentive to conserve water or electricity.
Do you live in a single-family residence? Unless you have a very unusual property, there is almost no chance that a resident of Sterling Apartments will use anywhere near as much water as you do.
Ron, if you had been paying attention you would know that tiered water rates in Davis went out the window in November 2014 after the Proposition 218 vote on the City’s 87/13 water rate structure. So much for the veracity of your statement, “I pay attention to my water and electricity usage, partly because I’m charged for it – based upon such usage.”
The thing that’s important to know is that you never know. You’re always sort of feeling your way.
Don: Your basis for that statement? Also, are you comparing an entire single-family household with an individual living in an apartment complex (who may not even have a washer), etc.?
And Matt, again – the tiered structure is not central to the argument. Tiered or not, single-family dwellings are billed based upon usage.
Again, there is no financial incentive for residents of complexes such as Sterling to conserve water or electricity, on an individual basis.
Refer to the following quote from a student at West Village (the same situation as Sterling):
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article2584057.html
Per capita water consumption for single-family residences is much higher than for multi-family residences because the majority of water use, by a significant factor, is landscaping.
I can find you reams of data to prove that. And for the record, this is an area in which I do have expertise.
Regarding your quote from the West Village student:
One data point — The average American shower uses 17.2 gallons (65.1 liters) and lasts for 8.2 minutes at average flow rate of 2.1 gallons per minute (gpm) (7.9 lpm).
A properly watered lawn in the Sacramento Valley uses about one gallon per square foot per week. Do you still have a lawn?
Don:
Again, there’s a fundamental difference between charging users for the amount of water and electricity they use on an individual basis (as with single family dwellings), vs. charging them a flat rate (which provides no such financial incentive).
The financial cost of water is a primary motivating factor regarding the elimination of lawns that we’ve seen, lately.
However, I would like to address one other point, regarding yards. As you know, backyard gardens can provide organic food (that would require subsidized water, if grown on farms instead. Not to mention fossil-based pesticides and energy, as well.) We have such a garden, which also provides an opportunity to compost waste (and save rainwater), which we also do.
If no one has a yard at all, I suspect that you’ll be out of business quite soon (unless you’re also serving commercial farmers). Unfortunately, the trend is to eliminate or drastically reduce yards in new developments (which I would argue is reducing quality of life, and is not necessarily saving water, overall). This is partly a result of the effort to “over-densify” the city. It should also be noted that apartment dwellers may be even more reliant upon public “green” spaces (also requiring water), since they don’t have yards.
Back to the main point: There is no personal financial incentive at development proposals such as Sterling to save water or electricity. It’s really as simple as that. If you think that’s a responsible way to create a development (and to encourage conservation of water and electricity), than I’m not sure what else to say.
You live in a single-family home and can make the choice to garden, or not. An apartment dweller can’t make that choice and has no control over the irrigation of the common landscape area. Your vegetable garden uses about as much water per square foot of actual plant space as does a lawn. You may well have reduced lawn areas to grow food, and directly irrigate only 30 – 50% of the same space for food plants, because you have paths and working areas. The landscape coefficient for vegetable plants is very nearly the same as for lawn.
In any event, you almost certainly use more water per capita than does any apartment dweller, as do nearly all of those posting on the Vanguard. It would be a very rare situation in Davis for a resident to do otherwise than that. I think it is very unseemly for anybody who lives in a single family residence to be critical of the water use of apartment dwellers in Davis. You use more. Probably a lot more. Your vegetable garden very likely uses more water in a week than the extra water used by the student in West Village for her long showers.
Yes, it would be great if the city council would address the water conservation measures being applied at Sterling. But anybody who casts stones on this subject here perhaps should tell us first how much water they use.
This is actually an issue that often comes up with multi-family rental developments. Residents have no control over the landscape watering, but they pay proportionally for it in their rent. Likewise for any laundry facilities, since they’re often shared. Water conservation measures are generally mandated and built into the construction details, if I recall: low-flow shower heads and low-water toilets are mandatory. So the water savings of metering are probably minimal unless people are taking ridiculously long showers. Water conservation efforts for multi-family rental units would generally focus on the landscape irrigation of the common areas, the management of the pools, etc., all of which is in the purview of the property owner. I think focusing on the renter’s water use is probably misplaced if your goal is really to maximize efficiency.
I am open to data showing significant savings from installing meters on individual apartments or even bedrooms, but from a city-wide perspective that isn’t where we’re going to find the biggest savings in water use.
Well, in my case you’d have to calculate and compare the amount of water saved by not purchasing fruits and vegetables grown by farmers (not to mention the pesticides they often use and the greenhouse gasses they create, to produce and transport the same amount of food). Not to mention more frequent trips (by auto) to the grocery store, which weren’t needed because we only had to take a few steps into our garden, instead.
Me too. Good thing I didn’t do that. We’re talking about a lack of financial incentive to conserve water and electricity that is uniquely attributed to apartment complexes such as Sterling.
Agreed. (And the same goes for the lack of financial incentive to conserve electricity.)
There is really no excuse to build a project like Sterling with a design that we know doesn’t work in so many ways. West Village is a huge embarrassment to the UCD since it is wasting so much electricity and water because they screwed up so badly with the design which should have been able to attribute the cost of the water and electricity to each resident unit depending on their usage.
So why is the City repeating this same serious mistake that UCD made and allowing the serious waste of so much electricity and precious water on an enormous scale of 540 bathrooms for 540 bedrooms plus the 160 kitchens? This significant waste of water and electricity undermines all the efforts that the City says it is working on to help our City reduce our carbon footprint and to try to conserve water that California cannot afford to waste.
One person’s “waste” is another person’s “need”… someone with a home dialysis unit uses a bunch of water and electricity…
But, be honest [with us and with yourself], this (your?) issue with Sterling has nothing to do with either consumption or waste… just like when the possibility of placing a battered women’s shelter in Davis was met with concerns about ‘traffic’… a diversion for something else… make your ‘true’ case, based on your heartfelt, true concerns… I suggest this as someone who has known you (NOT in the biblical sense!), pretty much respects you, but strongly disagrees with you in several areas. When we have run into each other, we have met as friends… despite disagreements…
I wish you a great evening and life, Eileen… serious… not messing with you…
Howard P,
To be completely honest, the issue(s) with Sterling are multiple including the subjects I covered about the single-room-occupancy not helping with housing for families and vast majority of working folks. And now this issue about repeating the mistake that West Village made allowing the perpetuation of not giving any incentive to conserve water or electricity. The quote from the Sac Bee that Ron just posted explains the problem. I mean really…not messing with you.
Below are some additional quotes from the Sacbee article, regarding the lack of financial incentive to conserve water and electricity at West Village. The same basic “flat fee” structure for water and electricity is being proposed for Sterling:
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article2584057.html#storylink=cpy
Ron is right, if water and electricity is already built into the rent people will tend not to conserve. Is this really arguable?
Keith:
Last night, some seemed to be doing just that (quite forcefully, in the comments, above). (I couldn’t post then, due to technical problems.) I thought this article might shed some honest light on the subject.
I was discussing water consumption. I don’t have any data or expertise regarding per capita consumption of electricity. Unlike water, there is not a significant amount of outdoor usage.
Worth noting that the residents don’t have control over the clubhouse consumption rates for anything, but nevertheless they share the expense.
Keith, I think you are missing Don’s point, which is that outdoor landscape water use is considerably greater than indoor water use . . . and as a result the water consumption difference (as a measurement of water conservation) between shower length with an individual apartment meter versus shower length without an individual apartment meter will be relatively small when compared to the water consumption difference between current efficient landscape irrigation versus historically standard landscape irrigation.
As part of our Water Advisory Committee deliberations we were provided information that placed the consumption ratio of indoor water use to outdoor water use at 2:1. If you go to the Single Family Residence table at http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/public-works/water/production-and-consumption you will see the January consumption values dipped from 82 and 95 in 2013 and 2014 to 64, 55 and 58 the past three years. February consumption values dipped from 82 in 2013 to 64, 62 and 60 the past three years. December consumption values dipped from 95 in 2013 to 71, 66 and 66 the past three years. Those three months are essentially 100% indoor consumption. By comparison July consumption values dipped from 239 and 225 in 2013 and 2014 to 140 and 163 the past two years. Major difference in the impact of indoor consumption conservation vs. outdoor consumption conservation.
At a more granular level, the typical 3/4 inch irrigation pipe distributes 1,860 gallons of water in an hour of irrigating. The historically standard shower head delivers 7-10 gallons per minute. So a 10-minute shower (typical for me personally) delivers 70-100 gallons per shower. If I increase my shower time 50% because I have no meter, I’ve only added 35-50 gallons of consumption per day. If I upgrade my irrigation to the current efficient technology I can cut that 1,860 gallons in half, saving over 900 gallons per irrigation cycle. Don was simply pointing out the stark difference when you compare 900 to 35-50
Matt, I was simply agreeing with Ron that when one’s rent will be the same no matter how much water and electricity they use they will tend not to conserve. I don’t know what this has to do with landscape.
Matt:
Once again, missing the point. Single-family homeowners are billed based on usage, for water and electricity. That’s a built-in incentive to conserve, which is not the case for those living at places like Sterling and West Village (which also has landscaping, as well as a pool) are not subject to. Suggest you re-read the quotes from the article above, if you’d care to continue your denials. (And again, it’s both water AND electricity usage.)
Also, I’m not sure what options apartment owners have to force compliance from individual users with government-ordered conservation measures, during times of drought.