Last week Plaza 2555 went to the Davis Planning Commission, and the project got forwarded to council with a recommendation that the project is CEQA-exempt, and for approval with a General Plan amendment.
There were some questions about the affordable housing plan, which led to a 4-3 vote against recommending the plan to council – it had to do with how the 15 percent was allocated between beds and units, and that is something the council will have to reconcile when the project comes to them on September 25.
However, the big discussion was over what kind of project this is. In our previous coverage we have pointed out that this project really is designed for a mix of uses. It includes a mix of micro flat, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom, 4-bedroom, and 5-bedroom apartments in a total of up to 200 apartments (approximately 607 bedrooms). Most of the units are smaller apartments.
Moreover, it has a mix of townhouses and apartments, and the rent is by the unit rather than by the bed.
The developers said that the project is aimed at a mix of people: workforce, young professionals, families and people downsizing, as well as students. But there were questions from the commission as well as the public about exactly who will live at this project.
Eileen Samitz has been attacking this project from the start – calling it a mega- dorm, even as the unit configuration and rental scheme does not fit that narrative.
“The project is basically a reconstituted mega-dorm,” she told the commission on Wednesday. “In one of the worst locations in the city. How much more remote can it be from the campus?”
This point clearly needs to be addressed. It seems like every project is in one of the worst locations in the city – given that we are looking at vacant parcels for the most part or blighted existing land uses in other cases, there may be something to do that.
But why is this location so bad? It is a pretty straight shot to campus via bike simply by crossing Research Park Drive onto the campus bike path. One would not even have to go onto the congested Richards Blvd. to get there. There are also plenty of buses and the distance from campus is not that bad.
The students who live at this site mostly are going to bike and bus to campus, not drive. So I fail to see the logic here.
She noted that they wanted to “jam” in a 607-bedroom project onto this land, and she accused them of “charading as a project for everyone. But it’s clearly designed to target students. Seventy-eight percent of the apartments are 3-4-5 bedroom.”
Notice the sleight of hand here. In her previous speeches, she has called for more 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom apartments, which she believes could accommodate families. Here she says the mix is 78 percent 3, 4, and 5.
The developers claim that 67 percent are 1, 2, and 3. Eileen Samitz shifts that to claim the inverse – 78 percent are 3, 4, and 5.
Semantics? Somewhat. There are 30 micro units, 4 one-bedroom, 11 two-bedroom, 29 three-bedroom townhouses, and 60 three-bedroom flats. And then 46 four-bedroom and 20 five-bedroom units. What’s clear? The project aims for the middle, with 89 of the units in the middle tier.
She adds, “Meanwhile the biggest demand for workforce is studios, 1 and 2 bedrooms.”
She cites no source to support that claim. But again, 45 of the 200 units are in fact studios, 1 and 2 bedrooms. But again, notice she moved the goalposts, because in previous iterations, she claimed the key was 1, 2, 3 bedrooms. Here she cut off 3 bedrooms and added studios.
I think it is reasonable to ask, as Commissioner Herman Boschken did, “who these units are being made for.”
But what is also clear is that Plaza 2555 offers a much broader range of housing types than any of the previous projects.
We have to recognize the time we are in. Right now, there is a huge glut of students on the market. There is a huge demand for rental units, with a low vacancy and with students making up a huge proportion of the renters in Davis – anywhere from 65 to 85 percent right now.
I have talked to a number of the developers and one of the points they made is that right now the rental market is so tight that students are going to eat up the lion’s share of available apartments, no matter how they are configured. I know that some have an inherent distrust of developers, but these are folks betting their own money on a given market, and their research tells them that that market will be students.
What is different from Plaza 2555 compared with some of the other projects is that this site can cater to students, but it is not necessarily having to cater to students in the future.
That is, if the market shifts, the project does offer a range of options from students to workforce to family. Contrary to Eileen Samitz’s point, I don’t believe that families are going to make up the bulk of renters at projects like these.
What we are more likely to see is younger workforce folks needing a place to live, and many of them will go into larger apartment-style living arrangements due to cost considerations.
What we do not see here are bed rentals. That definitely opens it up to non-students. Moreover, we do not see the private bathroom arrangements here.
But, at the same time, we should not be oblivious to the fact that over the next 10 years, the overwhelming rental housing demand is going to be to accommodate students – whether the project directly caters to them or not.
Students definitely don’t see the market for student housing as saturated, especially with litigation holding up development of approved projects. The more we recognize this, the less we will get bogged down in these sorts of debates.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
The staff report (pg. 05A-189, in the link below) states that this is not true, for the Affordable units. Those units will be rented “by the bedroom”.
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocuments.cityofdavis.org%2FMedia%2FDefault%2FDocuments%2FPDF%2FCityCouncil%2FPlanning-Commission%2FAgendas%2F20180829%2F05A-Plaza-2555.pdf&data=02%7C01%7C%7C3a692498057b404da48308d611b1d890%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636715852868297502&sdata=BXLxXmKoV4qmivfXDqwNihgnSXuX2aFgIa2L3SrlmFE%3D&reserved=0
Alluded to in this paragraph: “There were some questions about the affordable housing plan, which led to a 4-3 vote against recommending the plan to council – it had to do with how the 15 percent was allocated between beds and units, and that is something the council will have to reconcile when the project comes to them on September 25.”
But I was trying to avoid getting into the affordable housing issue for this piece.
Eileen Samitz’s strategy for the last 20 plus years has been to “move the goal posts.” She knows that most people don’t follow these issues closely and that if one of her arguments are answered, then someone coming to the issue afresh won’t be familiar with what she said previously. That’s why she (and others) find the commentary of and on the Vanguard so frustrating, because there’s an ongoing conversation that brings up what others have said in the past. She (and others) claim bringing up these inconsistencies as “personal attacks” and stomp off to play their own game.
Keep up the good work.
I stopped reading the Vanguard a while ago because of the lack of objectivity and often misleading information, in addition to the frequent insults and mean-spirited comments. However, I was notified that this article was posted with misleading information needing a response. So here are just a few of the problems regarding the Plaza 2555 project proposal.
1) To begin with, the Plaza 2555 project is a huge 6-acre 200 project proposed with an estimated 650-900 residents. Why does Plaza 2555 not have an EIR since it will have impacts that need to be analyzed? Sterling Apts. And Lincoln40 were smaller projects but did EIR’s. Why is Plaza 2555, which is located right next to I-80 and a remote area being fast-tracked and not doing an EIR, like similar projects did? This is a significant land use change which would be a generous up-zoning, yet it is not focusing on the need for local workers and family rental housing. These generous land use changes would include: 1) rezoning from highway commercial to high density residential, 2) a General Plan Amendment, and 3) a South Davis Specific Plan. Yet, no EIR for this enormous project? Why not?
2) With this laundry list of “asks” by the developer and the remote location from the UCD campus why doesn’t Plaza 2555 have an apartment mix that works for our local workforce and families rather than continuing to target students? The location of Plaza 2555 site is at least 2.5 miles from campus and too far and too difficult and circuitous a route to be targeting students and the 78% of 3-, 4- and 5- bedrooms apartments is not a mix that helps provide rental housing for our local workers and families.
Meanwhile, Plaza 2555 is only offering 2% 1-bedroom apts. totaling only 4 apts., 5.5% 2-bedrooms totaling only 11 apts. Yet, they want to have almost 45% 3-bedroom apts. (totaling 89), 23% 4-bedrooms (totaling 46) and 10% 5-bedrooms (totaling 20). Rather than 78% of the project focusing on 3-,4-, and 5- bedroom apartments, which are the highest rent costs and do not focus enough on the rental needs of local workers, the apartment bedroom mix needs to be inverted to allow more workers and families access to the apartments most needed.
The project it totally top heavy with 45% 3-bedroom apartments (totaling 89 of 200 apts.) when far more studios, 1-bedrooms, and 2-bedroom apartments are needed. The excessively high number of 3-bedroom apartments are not needed in that volume, plus they will wind up being student housing with 3 students pooling rent, which families cannot compete with. The 4- and 5-bedroom apartments are clearly targeting students as well, since the rent would also be far too high for families.
If this project moves forward is needs to have an apartment mix to help provide rental housing for our local workers and families. This means which is more like 75-85% studio, 1- and 2-bedtooms for local workers (and small families needing 2-bedrooms) and the remaining 15-25% for 3-bedooms for families. No 4- or 5- bedrooms are needed because most families can afford them, plus we already have plenty of 4- and 5- bedroom mega-dorms with almost 3,900 beds offering predominately that mega-apt. format for students. We need housing that is designed for our workers and families, not continuing to focus on students.
3) The affordable housing plan is grossly inadequate. In this enormous 200-apt. complex it is embarrassing to see the developers trying to get away with only 10 studio/” micro” units and 64 student beds to be rented by the bedroom. This project needs to offer apartment units for affordable not more rent-by -the bedroom units targeting students, particularly since this location is so far from campus.
4) Why is it this project being rushed forward before the Pleasia report is released (which has a draft completed but soon to be released) which will report on how much affordable housing is feasible to ask of multi-family housing? Could it be because the developers are trying to squeeze this re-constituted mega-dorm in under the wire before the current affordable housing “amendment” which only “targets” 15% affordable housing even of a huge project like Plaza 2555 expires Dec. 31, 2018?
5) The question “What is wrong with this location?” is asked but the answer would seem rather obvious. Plaza 2555 is a highway commercial site which was zoned this way for the obvious reason of being located adjacent to I-80. The developer is asking for a huge “up-zoning” to high-density residential. It very close to I-80 where there is be very high noise impacts (it exceeds allowable limits) as well as fumes and particulate matter from the highway. Even the Housing Element Steering Committee raised these concerns when it was evaluated for housing deeming the site “unsuitable for housing”. Plus, it is at least 2.5 miles from the UCD campus with a very difficult and circuitous route to the campus along a very busy, fast moving road that is neither bicycle, nor pedestrian friendly.
It is disappointing that the Vanguard continues to ignore the need for rental housing for our local workers and families and continues to prioritize student housing in Davis. The only way that the cost of student rental housing from be controlled long-term is on-campus, not market rate rental housing off-campus. This is precisely why the other UCs are committed to providing 50% on campus housing, but not UCD so far. Yet, UCD is the largest campus with over 5,300 acres and a 900-core campus and is completely capable of providing at least 50% on campus high-density student housing long-term.
The City has now approved almost 4,000 student beds in the City and it needs to now focus on housing for our local workers and families. Plaza 2555 apartment mix proposed is inverted from what it needed to be to begin addressing that need.
Eileen stopped reading the Vanguard (except when she is magically informed about me writing an article that mentions here) because she doesn’t like being called out when she is inaccurate or contradicts herself.
Many times over the last nine months she has made the statement that she wants housing with 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms.
For example this post from February 8: “Any new multi-family housing built now in the City needs to be 1-, 2- and 3- bedroom apartments, which is inclusionary by design and available to families, local workers, and students. That is the strategy that needs to be used now, not “later”.”
What do we have here? Oh just a design with primarily (66 percent) 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments. But she moves the goalpost and claims that three bedroom apartments suddenly don’t work.
Responding to her points…
We shouldn’t need EIRs for infill projects. That just adds cost to the project which means less of other things like amenities. It’s interesting, the staff up until Lincoln40 was going with EIRs as a way to avert lawsuits, but once Lincoln40 got sued even with an unnecessary EIR, they reverted away from them again. So both Davis Live and Plaza 2555 do not have EIRs. You can thank Susan for that.
Second, it’s nonsense to call Plaza 2555 remote. It’s a little over a mile from campus. According to my map, it’s 1.1 to Dutch Brothers which is down the street from the bike path. That’s hardly remote.
Third, you are calling everything apartments, but the four and five bedrooms are townhouses.
Fourth, you write, “Why is it this project being rushed forward before the Pleasia report is released (which has a draft completed but soon to be released) which will report on how much affordable housing is feasible to ask of multi-family housing?”
Given that the report is completed but not released, my guess is that the city has a pretty good idea that Plescia is not going to be recommending increasing the affordable housing allotment. So your charge seems misplaced, especially based on what we know from both the 2015 report and the report from Plescia on downtown.
“It is disappointing that the Vanguard continues to ignore the need for rental housing for our local workers and families and continues to prioritize student housing in Davis.”
Well maybe she hasn’t read the Vanguard after all. We have noted that workforce housing can take the form of adult dorms and have argued that we need a larger affordable housing plan to address family housing, market rate rental apartments are not going to work for most families.
You prevaricate, Eileen… no other way to say it. Nearest “highway” access is Richards/Cowell… next closest is Mace… neither conducive to “highway commercial”… look at all the failures of the site just west of Hanlees over the years. It was zoned in the SDSP as an after-thought… it was encumbered with utility easements on the north side (which is why the drive aisle/parking is there), and very awkwardly shaped…
It is closer to campus than Sterling, not much farther than Lincoln 40, and between transit and bicycle and ped access, is in a more favorable location than Lincoln 40. Excusing the pun, ,”it is far from remote”.
Flat out untruth, on several levels… Research Park Drive, and Cowell both have bike lanes, and neither have high traffic volumes (assume that is what is meant, as I’ve never encountered a ‘fast-moving road’)… Research Park Drive leads to the PC bike/ped path that goes under W Chiles and I-80 and into campus. Close to a shopping center, with easy bike/ped access to Oakshade Town Center (grade separated crossing of Pole Line).
How many workers or their families are able to live in apartments that are never built? How do they find housing when the community refuses to build it? David has been advocating for more rental housing in town for some time, while it is others who have actively fought against it. It is, in fact, those anti-development activists who are guilty of ignoring the need for rental housing for our local workers and families, and it is time that we all stop listening to their ‘advice.’
The more important question is why did we waste time and money performing environmental reviews on those other projects when they were not required? Glad to see that the CC and Staff have finally moved away from those poor decisions.
David,
Wow. Rather than focusing on the issue, you focus on false accusations. Nothing magical about why I don’t read the Vanguard anymore. Your article and response are good examples why. But when my name is brought up together with false information, I am grateful than anyone notifies me of this so I can set the record straight (when it is worth the time).
1) The Plaza 2555 proposal at 6-acres for 650-900 resident is not a small “infill project” particularly in that it needs a ) rezoning from highway commercial to high density residential, b) a General Plan Amendment, and c) a South Davis Specific Plan amendment. These are huge “asks” for a project. It is hard to believe that you would try to trivialize the major land use changes here and impacts it would bring. Lincoln 40 and Sterling did EIR’s recognizing this and they were smaller projects.
2) I am not sure why this is hard to understand but I will try again. One of the problems with Plaza 2555 is that the apartment mix is wrong. There are far too many 3-bedrooms (45%) and there would be no 4- and 5- bedrooms (33%). When you do the math that is 78% or 155 or 200 total apartments. Just re-read my post and I explain that this mix is the inverse of what is needed of more studios, 1- and 2- bedrooms which is more like 75%-85% and then 3- bedrooms 15%-25%. So, not sure what you are not understanding.
3) David, that may be as the crow flies, but it is 2.5 miles from UCD per the staff report. That is a long and difficult route including a fast moving street un-friendly to bicycles and pedestrians which which endures a lot of highway traffic avoiding I-80 back-ups.
4) Whether they are 4- or 5-bedroom townhouses or apartments, the rent for this enormous size apartment or townhouse is far too expensive for families. They are clearly targeting pooling rents from students. This is why one Planning Commissioner asked the developers who they asking targeting and where were their marketing studies? Just who will these 33% (66 total) 4- and 5 bedroom units be rented to?
5) It is hard to understand defending why the Plescia affordable multi-family housing report (which was to be released in January of 2018 ready in draft form now) not being released. Why aren’t you asking for the report results instead of projecting your guesses about it to support your position? Even the Social Services Commission has raised this issue and asked for this information and also raised the concern that the City should pause on approving any more multi-family projects until the report is released.
It seems apparently that developers want to “lock in” the temporary and mere 15% affordable housing requirement (rather than the 35% requirement) expiring in December 31, 2018. Plaza 2555, like the other mega-dorms, is being fast-tracked to outrun the expiration of the 15% affordable housing temporary “amendment” to the City affordable housing policies. This is quite a deal for the developers while it is in effect. Meanwhile, we are using up even commercial sites needed for economic development like the Plaza 2555 proposal and could potentially be getting more affordable housing than only 15% of project like Plaza 2555.
5) Well, I wonder how many families are interested in “adult dorms”? Or even local workers?
“David, that may be as the crow flies, but it is 2.5 miles from UCD per the staff report. That is a long and difficult route including a fast moving street un-friendly to bicycles and pedestrians which which endures a lot of highway traffic avoiding I-80 back-ups.”
You clearly don’t bike. I mapped it out on Google maps. It’s 1.1 miles from 2555 Research Park Drive to the BIKE PATH at the end of West Olive Drive. That takes you right onto campus. You don’t have to get on a major street to do that.
David,
Whatever you are coming up with to support your claim, where I am getting my info from the Staff report. Further, there is noting easy about that route including traveling Research Park Drive to get the the bike tunnel and then still getting to campus. Imagine that route in rain or wind especially.
I don’t have to imagine it. I have done it many times. Generally speaking, you don’t bike in the rain. So you take the bus, this is right on the bus route.
In terms of the EIR, what’s the major change – it’s a weird triangular property, down the street from other apartments including New Harmony.
Plaza 2555 is over 6 acres and 200 units so it is more than twice as big as New Harmony. New Harmony is less than half its size with 69 units and on around 3 acres of land.
Also, New Harmony had an EIR, so there is no excuse why Plaza 2555 does not have one. The impacts with be much greater with Plaza 2555. It needs an EIR.
New Harmony had to resolve a key issue of air quality.
The Planning Commission disagreed with you about the EIR. Perhaps Greg Rowe will get on here and explain why.
I’m wondering if there’s a law firm (e.g., in Sacramento) that might have a different opinion, if they’re asked.
I’m sure there is, but I’m sure they’ll lose.
BTW, I just verified that Greg Rowe was at the meeting and therefore voted in favor of certifying that the project was exempt from CEQA. I wonder how Eileen will reconcile that with her view that the project should have had an EIR.
David: I’m sure that both you and Greg have less legal expertise, than a law firm.
It’s pretty difficult to stay in business, if you lose every one of your cases.
I’ve provided examples of a couple of local decisions that were overturned, by a judge. If I actually researched it (rather than just stumbling across a couple of articles that I read), I’m reasonably sure that I’d find more.
Eileen…
3) (your referent) Staff report may have erred, and perhaps references ‘centroid’ of campus… site in question is less than 1.5 miles to Mrak, on the most circuitous route (as an impaired crow flies?). Site is less than 1 mile from campus (east end of PC arboretum) on surface streets, which feature bike lanes, signalized intersection of Cowell/RPD, and bike/ped path at W Olive. You dissemble.
The rest of your points are not within my expertise, so will not comment, as it is all opinion, anyhow…
“Well, I wonder how many families are interested in “adult dorms”? Or even local workers?”
I wonder how many families can rent a two or three bedroom apartment for $2000 or more per month.
Well, I wonder how many families can rent a 4- or 5- bedroom apartment? Not many I’ll bet. So why build 33% of them at Plaza 2555?
But I’ll bet far more adults can rent studios, 1-bedrooms and 2- bedroom apts. So, thanks for helping me make the point about the over-abundance of 3-bedrooms proposed at Plaza 2555 and also why there should be no 4- and 5- bedrooms instead of the 33% they are proposing (totaling 66 units).
Meanwhile, you are sound like you are backing into admitting that Plaza 2555 is targeting students with the introduction of “adult dorms” as well now, rather then recognizing the need for far more studios, 1-bedrooms, and 2-bedrooms apartments than having 45% 3-bedroom apts. (89 total).
It is ridiculous that the developers claim that this is housing for all with only 4 one-bedroom apts (2%) and only 11 two-bedroom apts (5.5%) out of 200 apts. I’ll bet you backed up their false claim.
They’ve clearly targeted (and acknowledge targetting) students in the 33 percent of units that are four and five bedroom townhouses. the rest is debatable. In this market, most rental units are going to go to students. Last February, I called a sampling of apartments around campus and they ran 95% student – sometimes higher.
Again, studio apartments and one bedrooms are not going to work for a lot of families. But can work for a few without children. Two bedrooms are going to generally be too expensive to rent in Davis. Be interested to know how many market rate apartments are rented by families in Davis – expect that number is exceedingly low.
How many families need a 4-5 bedroom apt? Very few…
Need or could use? I’m sure as a percentage, you’re probably right. On the other hand, there are probably 46 families in town that could use a four bedroom – I would be one of them.
In fact, we have three kids in our family. I grew up in a family with three kids in a four bedroom. My wife was the youngest of eight. Two of my closest friends from college each have three kids.
Could we afford a four bedroom rental in Davis? Probably not. But could use one.
Wanna’ have vs, “need”… I “could use” a house 5 X larger than what we have… don’t need it, can’t afford it…
The house we live is way too small for five people, for awhile six. But regardless, the question is not one of need with regards to supply, it’s could use.
Since s many people either don’t read the Vanguard anymore or are too tired of the lack of objectivity in the articles I would not get my hopes up for any of the commissioners posting. This is why many most other people who use to post don’t any more, like me.
Speaking of which, I have other things to do so I am signing off. I have explained my position and why and don’t have the time to keep repeating it.
Some people may not read anymore, but we’ve had our highest readership year by far.
In any case, I know most of the commission reads the Vanguard, whether they will read it on Labor Day, is a fair question.
“It is hard to understand defending why the Plescia affordable multi-family housing report (which was to be released in January of 2018 ready in draft form now) not being released. Why aren’t you asking for the report results instead of projecting your guesses about it to support your position? ”
Maybe because I have already done the research and know what the results are. The other day I posted from their 2015 study, it’s basically the same numbers.
“This means which is more like 75-85% studio, 1- and 2-bedtooms for local workers (and small families needing 2-bedrooms) and the remaining 15-25% for 3-bedooms for families. ”
Six months ago you said a mix of 1, 2, 3 bedrooms. You never specified what the mix should be. Hence my moving goalpost comment.
No one asked me for a breakdown and who could imagine such a ridiculous proposal like Plaza 2555 offering only 4 one-bedroom apartments and only 11 two-bedroom apartments out of 200 apartments on a huge 6 acre site. I mean seriously…
Again they are not offering any four bedroom apartments. Those are all townhouses.
Here we go again. It is rental 4-bedroom, whether it is a townhouse or apartment. In fact it is more likely to be even more expensive as a townhouse.
I am done with this now. Other things to do rather going in circles on this issue.
I thought it was important to be accurate that they were townhouses not apartments. As townhouses renting by the unit, a family could conceivably live there.
6 Acres is not HUGE! Less than 1% of a sq mi. for R-1-8, less than 50 SF units… how huge is your complex/neighborhood Eileen? How dense? How many affordable units, with breakdowns as to degree of “affordability”?