In just under a month the voters of Davis will have a decision to make as to whether or not to approve the West Davis Active Adult Community (WDAAC). Over the course of the next few weeks, we hope to raise issues that will help the voters make up their own minds as to whether or not to support the project, which will also include coverage of the forum scheduled for 2 pm next Sunday.
While a lot of issues have been raised in the last two months, I think the core issue comes down to this: What type of housing do we need in Davis? There are several components to that, which I will break down in this piece.
Here I look at three issues: Who we should provide housing for, where we should provide that housing, and what that housing should look like.
The proponents of this project have made the case that Davis has a large and growing senior population. With a growing senior population, there is at least a sizable segment living in homes which they purchased at other stages of their lives – when they were younger, had families and children in the home, and were working and active.
At this stage of their lives, their children are grown, they may still be in good health, but they no longer need the large, single-family home and they may be looking to downsize. The developers have presented a theory that those people will look to move to a smaller place, and that in turn will free up their existing homes for other families to move into.
We have already spent some time arguing against this theory, both from the questions about whether they could limit purchases to those with ties to Davis and questions about whether freeing up such
homes will allow families to move to Davis – or simply wealthy people fleeing the high market of the Bay Area.
Aside from this are questions about the appropriateness of a senior-oriented housing. We note that there have been lots of questions over the last two years about building housing that caters to students, and there are similar questions about housing that caters to seniors.
Davis has a lot of housing needs, ranging from student housing – which we have addressed but remains up in the air, given litigation – to affordable housing for families and others to be able to purchase homes, to workforce housing for people who work in Davis but either cannot find housing or cannot afford it, and we also have needs for senior housing.
One of the key questions for the voters to unpack is whether the city should be providing housing designed primarily for one group of needs or whether each project should seek to serve a broader cross-section of needs.
These are critical questions that will of course come down somewhat to individual preferences.
The second question is where we should provide housing. I see two basic issues here. The first has been raised by opponents of the campaign – and one that I disagree with, as the point has been made that West Davis Active Adult Community is isolated and located too far from the central core.
I have countered that actually the location for seniors is fairly good – it is across the street from other senior housing, it is next door to medical facilities and less than half a mile from critical services.
However, there is another issue – should Davis be building additional housing at this time on the periphery? Every time we build over farmland, I think we have to ask the question – is this most efficient and best use of this land? In recent years, I have been very supportive of infill development and densification – within reason, but moving beyond our de facto urban limit line is a big deal and one that should not be taken lightly.
Can we serve the needs of seniors elsewhere? Is this the most efficient and best use of the land?
As I pointed out in my column this week, we are not going to get many peripheral bites at the apple as long as Measure R is in effect. This may be the only peripheral project for the next ten years. Are we doing what we should here?
Finally, the question I had earlier this week: Is this the type of housing that we need? We are primarily building two kinds of housing here. Single-family homes that are detached, with fairly low density. These are traditional, for sale, detached homes. And then we have much higher density, smaller, affordable apartments.
As such, we are serving people who already own homes looking to downsize, and are we serving extremely low income folks, who are in need of affordable housing?
What we don’t have here is anything really in the middle. We don’t have attached townhouses. We don’t have condos or other smaller ownership homes.
The developers have compared the density of West Davis to other similar developments and found it to be right in the middle.
But they aren’t comparing it to much higher density homes. A reader calculated density at some of the other senior housing facilities – URC, Shasta Point and Atria.
Here’s what he found:
URC has a total of 244 units on 11.1 acres for a gross density of 22.0 and a net density close to 30.0
Shasta Point, the affordable component built in conjunction with the URC project, has a total of 68 units on 1.6 acres for a gross density of 43.6 and a net density close to 50.0
Atria Covell Gardens has a total of 157 units on 4.4 acres for a gross density of 35.7 and a net density close between 40.0 and 50.0.
The WDAAC applicants present the figures for their project at 560 units on 42.7 acres, a net density of 13.1 units per acre.
The developers would argue and have argued that they are providing housing that they think their targeted customers want to purchase. But this project, while it provides some downsizing, really could do much more on the space that it has and it could move the ball forward in terms of efficiency and densification, as our world is going to have to grapple with real change in the next 20 years.
These are of course tough questions that we have to consider – much bigger than a single development in a small community in California – but, nevertheless, if we do not ask these questions now, when is the right time? If not us, then who?
Can we afford to build housing that doesn’t move the ball significantly forward toward a more responsible future?
All of these are questions that voters must grapple with in deciding in the next month how they will vote on this project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
“they are providing housing that they think their targeted customers what to purchase”
This is a major problem I have with this development. In a conversation I had with one of the developers, I questioned how they had decided on this project as opposed to another type. What I had expected to hear was some kind of evidence based approach to making the decision. What I got was anecdotal evidence on how many people were interested in buying and had put their name on a list at one of the presentation forums.
If land were abundant, I would not have a problem with this approach. It is not. It seemed to me based on that conversation, that what the developers have done is to decide what they want to build, rather than meeting a demonstrated community need and are now trying to sell it based on only those who have expressed interest for themselves. I know this is traditionally how housing has been built. I do not think we, as a society, can afford this one-sided approach to housing development any longer.
It’s always interesting watching people who live in single-family homes arguing that everyone else needs to live more densely than they do.
You know I don’t live in a traditional single family home, right?
“It’s always interesting watching people who live in single-family homes arguing that everyone else needs to live more densely than they do.”
It is also very interesting to hear people make judgmental comments without a full understanding of other people’s decision making. I have lived in all kinds of housing in my 66 years including very high density. The home I live in now was built in 1950. I expressed that I would feel differently if there were an abundance of land. I believe that was likely the case in 1950. There are many different reasons for choosing housing as well as career, family size, car type. I believe those choices should reflect changing societal and environmental factors as well as just personal preference.
True as stated.
Yet, as Don points out this does not seem to stop you from continually expressing your opinion that additional housing should not be single-family and should be dense… except of course if the housing will be in your neighborhood.
You are clearly stuck in a cul de sac of double standards on this topic.
“except of course if the housing will be in your neighborhood.”
Wrong as usual.
1. I spoke openly in favor of Lincoln 40 which is much closer to my own home and will have a greater impact on me than Trackside. I also spoke in favor of Nishi which due to my walking patterns may have almost as much impact on me as Trackside.
2. I would have favored Trackside had one of two criteria been met:
– if it had met a genuine community need instead of provision of luxury accommodations for a few.
-if it had been within the zoning and design guidelines.
Unlike some, I am not in favor of any housing anywhere as a good growth policy. I believe in addressing agreed upon community needs first and then addressing nice to haves as secondary priorities.
Does Davis need more housing? Yes.
Does WDAAC provide more housing? Yes.
All of these back-and-forth antagonizing articles have lost sight of the bigger issue here, and we need to stop letting the anti-growth crowd move the goal posts. Davis has a housing crisis, and the addition of ANY new housing helps relieve that.
Without even taking either side, that’s a bad argument.
“Davis has a housing crisis, and the addition of ANY new housing helps relieve that.”
But, it does not do so with nearly the same degree of efficiency. Doubling down on previous errors in planning ( such as single family residences on relatively large lots) may have met the immediate needs of 1950’s construction. It should not be seen as a best use model in 2018.
Who is “we”?
There is more than a whiff of arrogance, and “control-freak” arrogance in that quote… many ascribe to that, tho’.
Did we “need” (from title of article) marijuana dispensaries? Do we “need” more than one hardware store in town? Do we need the full range of products each provides? Do we believe those hardware stores located in the optimal places? Should we dictate how I plant/maintain my backyard?
Some control/standards are needed… but not necessarily at the “micro” level. There is the second part of the Fifth Amendment, as well.
I don’t believe we can achieve any sort of consensus (thru a collaborative process, of course) on just about anything.
I am disinclined to vote in favor of Measure L. I also don’t believe it should be up to “a vote of the people”… 90% of who will be voting basing their decision on ‘gut feelings’. Or prejudices, mantras, etc.
This (deciding on land use/entitlements) has morphed from a rational process to a political process… that is not good… another sort of man-made ‘climate change’, IMO… has and will have negative consequences…
But, it is what it is… if you’re eligible to vote, make sure you’re registered… then vote… and if you don’t, quitcherb——-…
First of all, “we” is an acceptable pronoun in an editorial. Second, in this case “we” refers to the community, AS IS MADE CLEAR in not only the title of the article but the body of the article. Since “we” the community is voting on a project as a collection of individuals (which is still technically we), we seems the appropriate pronoun. As long as the law “Measure R” is on the books, we get to decide these sorts of issues. Don’t agree? Then you have to change the law. I find it weird that you are disinclined to vote for Measure L and yet don’t believe it should be up to a vote of the people. That is a contradiction if I’ve seen one.
Weird, David… I believe measure J/R is wrong. But it is. So, are you recommending I don’t vote on a measure J/R vote? Very, very weird!
Logically you have two choices:
Choice 1 is that you don’t vote on the measure. That would be a non-participatory protest.
The second however is that you vote yes. Why vote yes? Well if there is no measure R, the council makes the decisions regarding projects. So if you vote yes, you are voting basically to ratify the decision of council and therefore acting as though there is no measure r.
By being against Measure R and voting no on the project, you’re acting illogically. You’re saying, I don’t agree with Measure R, but I don’t like the project, so I’ll vote against it even though I don’t like the process. That’s the one that makes no sense to me.
There is no way of ‘knowing’ for sure, but I suspect that if Measure R was not current law, that the CC would have been more skeptical of this project. I just think you act differently if you know you are the final arbiter on a project versus simply deciding if a project is sufficiently defined to allow the public to make the final decision. Measure R effectively takes the CC out of the process since they no longer have the authority to make the final decision on the project.
I oppose Measure R. I also oppose discriminatory housing and this project is discriminatory. Though legal, discrimination by age is still discrimination, and I oppose this project on those grounds. These positions are in no way illogical or contradictory.
I’d still like to know where, exactly, the seniors are “downsizing” from. What is the average size of a Davis house? And, are those living in the few neighborhoods with very large homes really going to trade those in?
Moving is an expensive hassle for anyone, let alone seniors.
I understand that the houses proposed at WDAAC are up to 1,800 square feet in size. This is hardly “downsizing”, for most folks.
It seems much more likely that this proposal will appeal to those looking to move to (or back to) Davis.
Ron, this use of periphery land is most likely a one time shot for many years to come and this project doesn’t fill what I feel are the most dire needs for Davis housing.
Vote NO!
It might be more accurate to state that it’s the “second shot” in as many years (when Nishi is considered).
Developers are, no doubt, watching what happens with WDAAC. There are other peripheral lands owned by developers.
As a side note, I understand that the site of WDAAC was once part of the land under consideration for the Davis Innovation Center, as noted in the link below. Strange that the website is still “up and running”.
http://davisinnovationcenter.org/the-project/project-location/
Ron, I never considered Nishi a periphery development. It was more infill and dense and helped fill a student housing need.
I don’t consider Nishi peripheral either. Some of that is naturally subjective. But for me, there are clear differences in that Nishi was self-contained and bound by barriers, surrounded by developed land and in walking distance to the university and downtown that made it not peripheral. The exact definition of peripheral is on the edge – and in one sense it was on the edge, but in more senses it was right in the middle of the core. But again, that is an admittedly subjective definition. I see WDAAC as a clear difference in that it clearly expands the boundaries of the city beyond the current limit line. Whereas Nishi filled in the last gap between city and I-80.
Ron… Nishi is the very ‘definition’ of “infill”… actually annexed to County of Yolo from County of Solano… [BTW, no vote of the people was, or is, required for THAT!]
Nishi was “divorced” from the main property when I-80 was realigned from US 40… a remnant… there is a R/W between the remnant and the main. Appurtenant to the property, not a public R/W. [although, it could become public access]
There is no reasonable way the Nishi property could be served, except by UCD or the City… either could/should/did annex it.
I speak from knowledge… and experience.
Strange, I thought it was outside of city limits, and subject to a recent Measure R vote. (Two of them, to be more precise.) I must have been dreaming.
“I’d still like to know where, exactly, the seniors are “downsizing” from. ”
That’s unknowable at this point.
Surprised you didn’t pick up on the word “exactly”… who the hell’s business is that!?! Suggest a rolled up newspaper… preferably soaked in water for a day…
There are such things as “stupid questions”… as Dunning might say, “trust me on this”…
There are also “loaded questions”… meant as ‘bait’.
“Exactly” meaning, for example, those escaping the Bay Area. (Not specific addresses, of course.)
Which will also be facilitated by the expected approval of Proposition 5 (which will enable seniors to transfer their Proposition 13-level property taxes, anywhere in California).
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_5,_Property_Tax_Transfer_Initiative_(2018)
Try this exercise: Make a ranked list of the priority housing needs in Davis and the specific target groups (e.g., students, low to moderate income households, seniors needing assisted living, local workers who must commute to Davis, people with disabilities who need accessible housing, first-time homebuyers, families with children, etc.), highest priority on top.
Now, where on your list did you put seniors who already own relatively large and expensive homes who would like to downsize? Where on your list did you put people who can afford the relatively large and expensive homes these downsizing seniors might sell? Where on your list did you put “active” seniors who don’t need age-related services and supports (as in assisted living)? Did any of these make your list? In light of limited peripheral development opportunities, will WDAAC address local priority housing needs? Is this the best use of a limited resource?
I do think we need to expand your analysis weighing the market rate homes which are you describe against the 150 affordable units which would serve extremely low income seniors.
I still think that an honest evaluation regarding the likelihood of the Affordable component being built anytime soon has not been conducted. As I previously noted (http://www.davisvanguard.org/2018/10/guest-commentary-wdaac-not-meet-real-housing-needs-davis/#comment-395936):
The following article is essentially a “fluff piece” regarding the Creekside Affordable housing development (and notes that the same Affordable housing developers have signed on to WDAAC).
And yet, this article notes the following, regarding Creekside:
So, if there was only one award in the six-county region in that round of funding, why would anyone assume that the Affordable component at WDAAC would be selected for funding anytime soon? Especially with the elimination of RDA funds?
Also, might the fact that the Creekside site remained empty for a couple of decades (after being identified as an Affordable site) have resulted in it being put on some kind of priority list – which wouldn’t apply at the WDAAC site?
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/construction-set-to-begin-on-latest-affordable-housing-site-in-davis/
“I still think that an honest evaluation regarding the likelihood of the Affordable component being built anytime soon has not been conducted.”
I disagree.
The evaluation is:
1. The affordable developers have a long history
2. They affordable developers have never failed to develop a project
3. They recently completed development on a similar project in Dixon and obtained the funding for an affordable development in Davis
4. If they fail to get the funding in three years, the city can take it over again
5. The developers are required to set aside the land and lay the infrastructure
Does that absolutely 100% guarantee that the housing will be built? No. But nothing does.
You asked for an honest evaluation, where do you believe my evaluation is wrong?
Again, this quote (from above) stands out:
And, one would (also) have to ask if it was on a priority list (or given priority), due to the decades-long delay prior to that point.
There are articles on the Internet, regarding the funding challenges that Affordable housing developers are facing due to the loss of RDA funds.
You’re stabbing very blindly in the dark and also pulling the quote out of context.
First, half a dozen funding sources were used.
Second, the one source that you are citing is one of those six
Third, it explains in the article the source of those funds: ” the state’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, which uses revenue from the Cap-and-Trade Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support affordable housing.”
Fourth, that source of funding carries with it a max of $20 million according to the website with a single developer receiving no more than $40 million per funding cycle.
My conclusion: you are implying lack of money was the reason for the lack of other projects funded this cycle by this program rather than lack of eligible projects. You don’t know. You didn’t try to find out. You’re using one quote to cast doubt. But that’s a guess and from what I can see, not a good one given the source of where that money would come from. My conclusion is that the quote was used not to illustrate the scarcity of the funding (as you continue to suggest without evidence) but rather to suggest the quality nature of their project, which is what David meant by the quote.
The “Cap and Trade” program has not fully replaced RDA funds.
https://www.scpr.org/news/2015/06/23/52596/california-cap-trade-program-affordable-housing/
I’m not running a political blog. At times, the extent of your fact-finding seems to be limited to asking developers for their response (while simultaneously criticizing those who point out information which seems to conflict with, or at least call into question the claims).
The rest of your post does not address the following citation. Nor does it address whether or not this proposal was given priority, due to the decades-long delay prior to approval.
Re-read my post. That funding source was one of six sources. RDA was in the billions, this funded a project for $11 million. And it wasn’t their only source of funding. Have you tried to find out how projects are funded? Have you tried to learn anything here? You are great a casting aspersions and repeating them, but you’re horrible about doing actual research. Who cares if you’re running this site or not, you have a responsibility not to fire blindly.
Please point out specifically (in other words, my statements – not yours) where I have “fired blindly”. I’ve cited sources, and asked a logical question.
You took the quote out of context. You failed to seek out what it meant. You failed to note it was only one of six sources of funding. You failed to explore reasons why it was the only grant awarded this cycle in six counties (ignoring of course that the state is much larger). And you used that to impugn the project and the prospects for developing the affordable. And you claim that you were only asking a question – when that’s disingenuous as best. You weren’t only asking a question, you were posting that in order to cast doubt – in fact in your initial post you express doubts about funding multiple times. That’s not merely asking a question. You’re not being honest here.
David: I’m responding to your 10:42 a.m., comment, but I’m also reporting it to the moderator. I am not being “dishonest”.
You are reading too much into my comments, and are starting to initiate more personal attacks. I’d suggest that this isn’t a good path to go down.
In reference to Creekside, it appears that $11.8 million came from the program that uses “cap and trade” funds, per the article I cited.
“I’d suggest that this isn’t a good path to go down.”
Then maybe you should stop taking cheap shots: “At times, the extent of your fact-finding seems to be limited to asking developers for their response (while simultaneously criticizing those who point out information which seems to conflict with, or at least call into question the claims).” Normally I shrug it off, but I’m not in the mood today.
“In reference to Creekside, it appears that $11.8 million came from the program that uses “cap and trade” funds, per the article I cited.”
How much came from the other five sources?
David: You had criticized me (earlier) for not asking the developer about these questions. That is certainly one source, but perhaps not the most impartial one.
In general, I’ve noticed that some prefer to shut down conversation and questions, by implying that one shouldn’t even attempt to do so on here (unless they have all the answers to begin with).
It seems likely that some simply don’t like the questions being asked, at times.
In general, I try to look up questions I have first. Then I try to ask someone who I think I can get a quick response from who I trust to give me an accurate answer. You end up creating a lot of work for people and I’m not sure you fully appreciate that. You see this as a small blog, but in fact, over 5000 people on a daily basis read it. When you post something here, people from the city, people who work on these projects, members of the public all read it. They don’t normally post here, but they end up reacting to what you post. In this case, I object to the fact that you repeatedly pulled out one quote from the article when as I note, there are a lot of pieces of information that would have balanced that quote out. (As an aside, let’s say you want to know how much was received other than the one grant we know about? The only people that would know would be the developers. So now you’re in a catch 22 – you either ask the developer or you don’t find out.)
David: No one has any responsibility to respond to questions, on here.
If they’re not good questions, then they can simply be ignored.
In general, there’s too much “advocacy” put forth on here (regardless of the issue), and not enough actual information. There are pieces of information put forth, at times.
Unfortunately, it appears that actual discussion and questions are strongly discouraged.
“If they’re not good questions, then they can simply be ignored.”
I’ll remember that
Since we’re already gone down this rabbit hole, interesting comparing New Harmony with Creekside.
Creekside received $11.8 million from AHSC. New Harmony received $8 million from RDA.
Creekside received the rest of their money from five other sources.
New Harmony received $1.7 million from HOME funds, and then money from a variety of private contributors – 9 in total ranging from B of A to Home Depot.
Hey Ron – at the forum today, David Thompson said they raised $34 million to build the 90 units of affordable housing at Creekside.
David: Wow – that’s one pricey Affordable housing development.
Did he ever address if it was on some kind of “priority list”, due to the decades of delay prior to that point? If not, did he ever address the ramifications of the following citation?
And, how is it that there are “no funding challenges” at this point, when Los Angeles is facing a 3 billion loss of Affordable housing (for dwellings that are already occupied – according to the link/article, below)?
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/why-los-angeles-county-could-lose-3-billion-in-affordable-housing
In any case, what a disaster Los Angeles is facing. It probably would have been better to not approve Affordable housing in the first place, if it’s going to be subsequently “taken away” from those occupying the dwellings. Honestly, what was the thought process, here? (Other than subsequently providing a place for those folks to live in their cars, according to the article.)
He just made the comment in passing, but he did not that they only had control over the land as of 2016. And yes, I would agree, that was a lot more than I expected. I may ask him why it comes to nearly $380,000 per unit.
The affordable apartments are a positive feature of the development. But there’s no reason they couldn’t be built even if the market rate homes were not age-restricted.
That is true.
I also haven’t seen much discussion regarding whether or not peripheral land dedication sites are the only way to gain funding for Affordable housing.
If that actually is the only way, then Affordable housing developers would always be “agents/advocates of sprawl”.
“If that actually is the only way, then Affordable housing developers would always be “agents/advocates of sprawl”.”
Remember the story I told you last time you brought this up. When I went on the Affordable Housing tour, I learned how some of the sites were acquired by the affordable housing organizations. There are other ways to acquire them, but it takes a big non-profit to pull it off. Sacramento has such an organization. I think in Davis, New Harmony was acquired that way as well. But in general, you are looking at tagging an affordable project to a market rate one and that does mean that Affordable Housing developers are going to be advocates of more housing.
Wondering if a market-rate, infill development can include (externally-funded) Affordable units within the same building?
The “150 units” is just an illusion. Those are all proposed as studio and 1-bedroom units at 600 sq. ft. max. By the City of Davis’ own Affordable Housing Ordinance, they would only count as a max 60 equivalent dwelling units (at 2.5 bedrooms/unit), and probably less depending on how the studios are counted.
In reality, the only commitment the developer is making is a 4-acre land dedication. The City counts that as “credit” for 60 units (at their standard of 15 units/acre). That 4 acres represents just 5% of the total project site area of 74 acres.
Interesting… the first 23 years of my life were spent in a 2 bdr, 1 bath house of 850 sf.
Parents and me… guess I was abused… it was not considered “affordable housing” (it was market rate)… it was a ‘stretch’ for the family, then … but it was all I knew, and I liked it… still think of it fondly… no bedroom in that house was 250 sf… 1 car garage.
Guessing “expectations” have changed.
That’s the max size figure I’ve seen from the developers. The studios would be smaller still.
And 600 sq. ft. is 30% smaller than 850 sq. ft.
From the project baseline features: “Provide land to accommodate 150 subsidized affordable senior apartments.”
I don’t agree that the only commitment is the land dedication. It doesn’t matter what the “credit” is, they have to provide 150. In fact, it doesn’t look like in the baseline features they’ve committed to four acres, only 150 affordable units.
They will just claim that the 4 acres is sufficient to build 150 “units”. Never mind that that City’s regs state those “units” only count for 60 equivalent dwelling units (or less).
WDAAC’s plan for bad health, poor social inclusion and gasoline-purchasing:
* Put low-income folks in their own building next to a noisy street;
* Use location at the edge of town, in order to make it as inaccessible as possible by means others than car;
* Free parking for grandchildren driving themselves from most of town, even though they cannot drive;
* Lots of gas used by family who visit, since it’s at the edge of town and cycling to destinations with free parking is looked down upon in Davis (Be honest, folks! Most Left people also drive everywhere they can…);
* Large parking lot to walk across to hospital;
* 10 to 15 min. walk along major street with no destinations along the way to the Marketplace, with on and off-ramps and sometimes frail pedestrians sharing space with cyclists;
* Make bland, corporate shopping center in small, unique, family-oriented town the closest destination;
* Focus on nearby hospital as a solution for health, rather than having diverse people and a multitude of environments nearby as a solution for health;
* Ensure that expensive homes are dis-proportionately owned by white people, and keep these at the opposite end of the development from poor people (and the noisy street).
“Use location at the edge of town, in order to make it as inaccessible as possible by means others than car;”
I don’t agree with you on this. Part of the problem you are overlooking is let’s say a senior housing facility was located in the central core – how do they get to the hospital or doctor? Oh, they have to drive or set up an alternative means. They are actually a good deal closer to the hospital and other health centers at this location and than elsewhere. So I’m not exactly following your point.
If people live in the ‘core and need to get to the hospital quickly, they will call 911. There is a fire dept. station seconds away. If people need urgent care they’d likely drive from anywhere. If people have an appt. once a week or a month, they can get there by car, bus, a provided shuttle for this purpose, etc. If there’s a full-service clinic in the ‘core – check this box in the Downtown Plan, thanks! – everyone can use it.
Anyway, up to 20% of planned residents who are younger and many in the 55 to 75 range don’t need to go to a medical facility very often. As mentioned, the ‘core is roughly in between two medical facilities, and current community members go to both of these. It’s extremely unlikely that any Northern California region Kaiser member from in town or not is going to switch to Sutter if they live at the proposed development, which means that they would have to drive etc all the way across town to visit their doctor when they need to.
Pretty much true of anyone in Davis, depending on their health plan… depending on the issue, we have to go to Sac, Vallejo, or Vacaville, even tho’ we’re with Kaiser… most HC plans provide that you’re covered, in an emergency, at the closest facility… we only have one real ER in town.
Understand things… focus.
I was referring to normal visits… not ER and not Urgent Care. A ‘core clinic would do a lot for that. I was not arguing that Kaiser has the same range of services as Sutter.
By the way the Communicare Clinic next to Sutter seems to be very inconvenient for most people who use it, as they are less likely to have easy access to a vehicle (since many have Medi-Cal). It’s peripheral — I accept that it might be convenient for people in the county who can use a car. Any low-income people at WDAAC would likely be on Medicare, and use Sutter and not the clinic- on the one or two days a month when they’re happy that they’re not in the pedestrian-friendly ‘core, the region’s first Downtown specifically-created to be elder-friendly. If you want it.
Communicare is short distance from Unitrans P/Q lines. Unitrans has free passes for free fares, for seniors (anyone over 60). Davis Community Transit is an even more flexible option.
Todd…
Again you seem not to understand.
Ambulance transport is NOT provided by Davis FD. At any given time, emergency transport may come from across town, big time… and I mean BIG time (as to your emergency)… Davis FD is usually FR (first responder)… they do not transport… they are trained for Basic Life Support… pretty sure there is only one ambulance within 5 minutes in Davis.
Please learn. Please think.
It seems like the anticipated housing market correction is upon us (see article, below). Another tough day on Wall Street today, as well. That oughta help “knock the stuffing” out of things. (Watch how fast the “shortage” of housing will disappear, as it did the last time.)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/mortgages-fast-approaching-5-percent-a-fresh-blow-to-housing-market/ar-BBOeBHg?ocid=spartandhp
Whether you like Trump or not he right about the Fed raising rates too fast. Not much of a sign of inflation yet the Fed is being very hawkish.
https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/
For history, you can drill down @
https://www.federalreserve.gov/data.htm
Go for it…..
David Greenwald said . . . The WDAAC applicants present the figures for their project at 560 units on 42.7 acres, a net density of 13.1 units per acre.
David’s reporting about WDAAC’s density is strangely incomplete. WDAAC may indeed have 42.7 net acres, but as shown HERE the WDAAC site has 74.49 acres, which makes the gross density for the project only 7.5 units per acre. I’m not sure why David didn’t calculate the project’s gross density.
I calculated it for him in a comment on the recent article he did on the subject. It is unclear why he didn’t do so himself originally.
Another consideration: the 150 affordable “units” are all proposed as studio and 1-bedroom. The City considers those as a max of 6o equivalent dwelling units (at 2.5 bedrooms/unit), and probably lower, depending on how the studio units are counted.
The project residential density is therefore something closer to 470 units (410 market and 60 or fewer affordable) on 74.5 gross acres = 6.3 units/acre.
Thread cleanup: 1 comment removed.