Chamber Board Supports Sterling Apartments Proposal

The Davis Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors voted in support of the proposed Sterling Housing project that is slated to be reviewed and voted on by the City Council on April 18, 2017.  This is the public statement that the chamber board approved in April 2016 and updated in March 2017 .

The Davis Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors supports The Dinerstein Companies Sterling student housing project proposed at 2100 Fifth Street. Based on the project as presented, the Davis Chamber Board of Directors supports the current design at expected density or higher.

The Dinerstein Companies is the largest builder/developer of off-campus student housing in the country and the leading green developer with $1.91 billion in LEED Gold apartment product completed or currently in development.

The Sterling project is slated to include 203 market rate units with an additional 41 affordable housing units (Note: the revised project proposes 160 market-rate units, a separate parcel and apartment building for 38 affordable units). The plan incorporates a dense, compact design to make the best use of the site space available. The Sterling project will help to provide much need supply to the housing market for the influx of students that UC Davis expects to add over the next three years.

Housing Supply The Davis Chamber of Commerce generally supports the goals and policies of the Davis General Plan’s Housing Element which promotes an adequate supply of affordable ownership and rental housing for local employees, students, low income and disabled persons, and seniors (2001 General Plan Goals 6.1 and 6.2). Specifically, the chamber supports the city standards and actions which implement these goals and policies, including:

• Providing a range of unit sizes and a mix of housing types, densities, designs, prices,
• Providing a buyer’s selection process for low, moderate, and middle income ownership units which gives the highest priority to households with a member of the local workforce (General Plan Policy 4.3); and
• Encouraging a variety of housing types and care choices for seniors of all income levels (General Plan Policy 1.8).

The mission of the Davis Chamber of Commerce is to promote, support and advocate on the general economic vitality of its membership and the quality of life for the community.

For additional details on the project, please visit

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts


  1. Alan Miller

    Chamber Board Supports Sterling Apartments Proposal

    Please tune in tomorrow when the Davis Vanguard breaks a similarly surprising story, “The Sun is Hot”.

      1. Ron

        I take it you don’t know the answer, but just wanted to chime in.

        Well, it’s pretty obvious that this incident (and the other problems noted) is how we “got to where we are”, today. Might also be related to a reluctance to sell the property at its actual (currently-zoned) value, thereby preventing another non-profit from assuming ownership.

        1. Howard P

          You take it somewhat correctly… but it may have been sold to the applicants, independent of approvals… just don’t know… it is pretty clear that Families First will never operate from the site… as to,

          Might also be related to a reluctance to sell the property at its actual (currently-zoned) value, thereby preventing another non-profit from assuming ownership.

          “might” is indeed the operative word… pure speculation on your or my part… as is, was “families first” truly a non-profit… time may tell… some clues that FF was a non-profit in name only… a non-profit can pay its founders in the high 6 figures, yet still qualify as a “non-profit”…


          1. Don Shor

            Might also be related to a reluctance to sell the property at its actual (currently-zoned) value,

            It was on the market for quite awhile before this project proposal came along.

        2. Ron


          Well, that’s “the story”, anyway.  No idea what the price was or if the effort was just to “prove” that it couldn’t be sold, with its current zoning (industrial, which nevertheless was suitable to house the existing facility.  Not sure exactly how that unfolded, in the first place.)

          Not likely that it “couldn’t be sold”, if the price reflected actual value with existing zoning.  (Unless there’s no need for several acres of industrial space, whatsoever.) Perhaps the problems and restructuring that Families First went through also contributed to delays.

          I recall reading that Families First still owned the site, relatively recently. I’m guessing that the sale to the developer is dependent upon approval of the rezoning application and proposed development (but I don’t really know).

        3. Ron

          It would be interesting to know how much value would be “created”, via the rezoning request. (That could certainly provide a motivation to “wait it out”, until a developer/savior with sufficient resources comes along to push it though.)  

        4. Ron

          I do wonder how much the legal actions will end up costing Families First, in total (e.g., the $4.5 million verdict, possible/pending punitive damages – as discussed in the article, attorney fees, any other pending cases that I’m not aware of?)

          Of course, decisions to stay in business/reorganize, rather than declare bankruptcy for example, can influence decisions regarding the disposition of a site.  (Not sure exactly what happened or all of the ramifications, in the case of Families First.)

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for