Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Letter: Hibbert’s 224 Apartment Proposal Will Have NO Parking and NO Poor

This Loophole Must Be Removed

Hibbert’s SB 330 development avoids the Builder’s Remedy which at least requires 20% of the units for Low Income (LI) so on the face of it for 224 units projected there should be 44 units for low income households.

So by adding a measly 8,000 sq. ft. retail to a four story project, Hibbert’s avoids providing 33 low income units. Under SB 330 only 11 low income units are proposed which is 5%. None of units will serve very low income (VLI) households which is the city’ biggest gap in meeting the RHNA numbers of 580 VLI.

The project is exclusionary by design.

For the Hibbert’s site proposal under SB330 there will be no parking requirements. Think of the impact on G street neighbors and the Co-op in particular. Where will 250-300 vehicles park in the neighborhood?

David J Thompson

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

23 responses to “Letter: Hibbert’s 224 Apartment Proposal Will Have NO Parking and NO Poor”

  1. Darell

    While wishing away parked cars is no solution, we also don’t benefit from assuming and stipulating that everybody who lives anywhere in Davis will need to own and park a car.
    I contend that figuring how to allow an excellent quality of life without needing a car can solve at least some of the need for low-income housing. Removing all the expenses involved in car ownership mitigates some of the consternation of not being able to afford a place to live. So instead of insisting on every project having parking, perhaps we should put significant effort into eliminating the need for private car ownership.

    Reply
  2. Alan C. Miller

    They will park wherever they can;
    So, now we know why Arnold was so adamant about the City allowing them to add a 5th story, after it was decided in the Downtown Plan meetings after considerable discussion — and even requested by the Hibbert family in a letter to the City — to be FOUR stories. By adding a retail floor, they can reduce the requirement for affordable units and make more money. Is that correct?
    Glad to have this refuted. Anyone?

    Reply
  3. Roberta L. Millstein

    ACM, I believe you are correct. The way that I read the interim affordable ordinance (which may be on the Council’s agenda for renewal or modification this Tuesday), the percentage of affordable housing expected drops from an already low 15% to an even lower 5%. I say “expected” rather than “required” because another feature of the interim ordinance is that the CC has a huge amount of flexibility to make all sorts of exceptions.

    Reply
  4. Alan C. Miller

    DDD: “instead of insisting on every project having parking, perhaps we should put significant effort into eliminating the need for private car ownership.”
    Fine. I’ve dedicated my life to that, but we aren’t even 10% of the way there. That is not a project-level issue, that is a societal level issue. Maybe for starters we can get the City council not to approve the state-level mitigation bribe to funnel money to the City to build development infrastructure and call it ‘VMT reducing’, and the lie of calling a highway expansion a ‘sustainable’ transportation solution. That’s Orwellian speak.
    Building 224 units with no parking in a world without the sort of infrastructure that you wish where a car is not needed for most people and wishing they won’t have cars is foolery. Many of them will have cars. So where will those cars go? Many of you may not know this, but there is a huge underground market in Davis of students renting driveways around Davis to store their cars at. And they’ll go in the nearest area without parking permits.
    So as I said, they will park where the can. And where is the nearest non-permitted street parking? Just 1 block away on the northern block of Old East Davis on the north side of 5th Street, and will also include the Huntwood Neighborhood to the north, in other words along I Street and J Street north of 5th Street. As I have lived the nightmare myself and why I created the “T” parking district, those who are most and severely effected are those who are closest to the source, and it radiates out from there. Therefore, those at 5th & I, and radiating east and north, will be DROWNED from parked cars from the Hibbert project.
    Or, the City will require that everyone in those 224 units will live sans car . . . how, exactly?

    Reply
  5. Walter Shwe

    The City should require every housing unit to provide 1 full size parking space that can easily accommodate a full size SUV or full size pickup truck. Hopefully this so called project is DOA.

    Reply
  6. Alan C. Miller

    WS, I’m not even saying that – I’m no fan of our automobile culture, but neither am I deluded by the fantasy that you can build a building with 224 units (so 400-500 people?) and expect that they will be carefree because there is no parking and they are Davis climate angels. You can model this stuff – in similar environments, what would be the total expected number of cars owned by residents? Then, the City must ask, where will these automobiles be stored, and prepare for this.
    I asked ChatGPT for an estimate:
    Assuming each unit has two people, there would be a total of 448 residents (224 units * 2 people per unit). In a small college town with limited access to public transportation and no parking provided, it’s likely that a significant number of residents would still own automobiles for their transportation needs.
    Typically, a reasonable estimate for automobile ownership in the United States is around 1.5 to 2 vehicles per household. Considering this, if we assume an average of 1.5 automobiles per household in the 224 units, we can estimate that there might be approximately 336 automobiles owned by the residents (224 units * 1.5 vehicles per unit).
    Please note that this is a rough estimate, and the actual number of automobiles owned by residents could vary based on various factors such as the town’s transportation infrastructure, proximity to amenities, availability of alternative transportation options, and individual preferences.
    I would argue that the number would likely be less due to Davis options, demographics, ideology and infrastructure, but still in the hundreds. Where will these hundreds of cars go, oh City?

    Reply
  7. Walter Shwe

    I would argue that the number would likely be less due to Davis options, demographics, ideology and infrastructure, but still in the hundreds. Where will these hundreds of cars go, oh City?
    Then the housing development should not be built unless there is an adequate underground parking garage. Corner properties are coveted by retail stores. That’s why the Rite Aid on Russell Boulevard, the Woodland Rite Aid and the Woodland Walgreens are all located on corner spaces.

    Reply
  8. Alan C. Miller

    Underground parking is insanely expensive; that’s why we knew the initial Trackside proposal was a lie designed to make it look like going to four stories was some sort of compromise.

    Reply
  9. darell

    ACM:

    Building 224 units with no parking in a world without the sort of infrastructure that you wish where a car is not needed for most people and wishing they won’t have cars is foolery. <<
    Then don’t build the 224 units. That’s kinda my point… we keep wanting to put the cart before the horse. We seem to worry exclusively about where to park all these cars when we supply housing for more people with cars… instead of “what should we be building first…. if anything?”
    We seem to want more people everywhere who can live places cheaper. But then we don’t know what to do with all the things that more people will want to do. We can’t even begin to afford having more people. But we for SURE want more people. Or our economy collapses, apparently. I’m not a fan of the popular, global pyramid scheme of borrowing from the future to pay for today. But that’s how we got to today, and that seems to be our tomorrow.

    Reply
  10. Walter Shwe

    If underground parking isn’t an viable option, build housing elsewhere.

    Reply
  11. Roberta L. Millstein

    WS, wait, I had gotten the impression that you were in favor of building as much housing as possible. So environmental considerations aren’t a reason not to build, but lack of parking is a reason not to build?
    [Warning: saying that a project shouldn’t be built will get you called a NIMBY. Not by me, but by others].

    Reply
  12. Walter Shwe

    But not every site is suitable for a housing development comprised of hundreds of units. A few units would definitely be suitable. I doubt the vast majority of the commenters on this site would be willing to give up their private parking spaces, garages or carports. In that sense, they are hypocrites and fail to lead by example.
    As I have said elsewhere, I am a proud YIMBY.This site is no more suitable for hundreds of units as a site in the middle of a large industrial district or in the middle of nowhere.

    Reply
  13. Walter Shwe

    I have never said that environmental reasons where not a reason to construct new housing, but others have. In the case of NIMBYs making the argument that environmental reasons preclude new housing construction, their own homes also have negative consequences for the environment. In that manner, NIMBYs are also hypocrites.

    Reply
  14. Roberta L. Millstein

    You are saying that there is something about the project that you don’t like and therefore it shouldn’t be built, even though you yourself have housing. That’s a “no” and not a “yes” and the same sort of reasoning used to call people NIMBYs.

    Reply
  15. Walter Shwe

    David Thompson: Where will 250-300 vehicles park in the neighborhood?
    Alan Miller: Where will these hundreds of cars go, oh City?
    It’s not just something I don’t like, but something many won’t like. The parking situation is entirely impractical. I am all for practicality. Hypocritical NIMBYs are people that offer a host of possible reasons why housing shouldn’t be built, particularly single family homes, when they occupy single family homes. For the record I live in a 2 bedroom half duplex in West Davis.
    Go ahead and allow this proposal to be built. People like me will tell the developer and their supporters after the resulting disaster, we told you so.

    Reply
  16. Ron O

    “Hypocritical NIMBYs are people that offer a host of possible reasons why housing shouldn’t be built, particularly single family homes, when they occupy single family homes.”
    Not sure if “hypocritical” is the right word for those who support something like DISC (which CREATES demand for housing), while purposefully ignoring that impact.
    Nor do I know what word applies regarding those who believe that any given community (that they “might” want to move to) “owes them” a brand-new house.
    In fact, I don’t know “who” the latter actually group is, but I’d refer them to Zillow to get themselves a “pre-owned” model – if they’re set on a given community.
    “Go ahead and allow this proposal to be built. People like me will tell the developer and their supporters after the resulting disaster, we told you so.”
    You’re right about that. The only question is to what “degree” this will occur. But as far as “telling the developer” about it afterward, that has no impact. (First of all, they’d have to “care”.)

    Reply
  17. Walter Shwe

    You’re right about that. The only question is to what “degree” this will occur. But as far as “telling the developer” about it afterward, that has no impact. (First of all, they’d have to “care”.)
    The developer would definitely care if they lost a ton of money when most of the units aren’t rented due to lack of interest.

    Reply
  18. Ron O

    “The developer would definitely care if they lost a ton of money when most of the units aren’t rented due to lack of interest.”
    They would, but that’s not going to happen. Folks with cars will find a place to park – somewhere.
    As will their visitors.
    Many residents of places like San Francisco (e.g., without on-site parking) nevertheless have and/or use cars, as do their visitors. If they can do so in San Francisco, they can certainly do so in Davis.
    However, it probably is true that the more difficult you make it to drive and park, the less likely that folks in those locales will have cars. At some point, some car owners do cry “uncle” – probably more so among younger generations.
    However, this is (no doubt) one of the reasons that folks are abandoning places like San Francisco, for locales which accommodate parking. In other words, it’s one of the reasons for sprawl.
    I don’t believe that most people prefer living in “density”, though it does come with some advantages (e.g., walkability, nearby restaurants, etc.). It also may depend upon what “stage” of life you’re in (e.g., young people sometimes like the “excitement” of cities, and “old” people also like not having to drive). However, young people are probably those most-willing and able to park their cars several blocks away from their homes or destination, as needed.
    I recall (Herb Caen?) once stating that if you are driving-around San Francisco and happen to see a parking spot, go ahead and park and THEN figure out what you need to do in that area – even if you had no plan to do so in advance. Sound advice, if you ask me.
    And I think that was like 35 years ago.

    Reply
  19. Walter Shwe

    If young tenants are bringing home a week’s worth of groceries they will naturally want to park close by. The same thing would apply in hot, cold or bad weather or when running short of time.

    Reply
  20. Roberta L. Millstein

    What if they made more effort to make car-free easier? E.g., more bike parking, bikes and e-bikes to share, a place for car-drop off, a place for car share. Just some ideas of how people can go car free in this location, as many people do.

    Reply
  21. Ron O

    “What if they made more effort to make car-free easier? E.g., more bike parking, bikes and e-bikes to share, a place for car-drop off, a place for car share. Just some ideas of how people can go car free in this location, as many people do.”
    Great ideas, but still won’t define the level of impact (for others – e.g., the neighborhood) by not providing parking. Walter’s example of someone (or a small group) shopping for a week’s worth of groceries already occurs (e.g., at CostCo). What do you suppose the chances are that whatever drop-off point that might be included won’t be adequate for all of those engaging in those type of activities? Not to mention visitors, etc.
    No one cares if the folks in the proposed development have parking – it’s the impact outside of that development.
    Onsite parking is a “mitigation” for impacts created by developments. Now, does providing parking also increase traffic (yet another impact)? Probably.
    Someone once told me that it’s “cheaper if you don’t do it at all”. (Not in reference to development, but it still comes to mind.)
    In my opinion, the fundamental flaw in all of this is the assumption that Davis (or any other locale) needs to “find ways” to grow indefinitely. Development activists have been rather “successful” regarding engraining that belief – without ever even defining what that means, how much, or whether or not it continues indefinitely. All they do is say “yes”, in response.

    Reply
  22. Alan C. Miller

    RO: However, it probably is true that the more difficult you make it to drive and park, the less likely that folks in those locales will have cars.
    More precisely, the percentage of people who will own cars will decrease. But by how much? If we had robust public transit and you could reach many of the destinations available by automobile, it could reach zero. But without targeting first year students or seniors or somehow demanding people be auto-free, it’s still going to hundreds of cars — y’all are welcome to convince me otherwise.
    RM: What if they made more effort to make car-free easier? E.g., more bike parking, bikes and e-bikes to share, a place for car-drop off, a place for car share. Just some ideas of how people can go car free in this location, as many people do.
    Is that kind of like our Target with all those rarely-used charging stations? And there was recently a study that most department-store charging stations barely charge your car at all! It’s largely publicity green-washing.
    So yes, bike parking and car share are all nice and should be part of any new developments. But without robust rail and transit infrastructure, only a small percentage are like to be car free. And thus the City has to be real about where those cars will go.

    Reply
  23. Roberta L. Millstein

    ACM: You and I must go to Target at different times, because I do see those charging stations in use often. Ditto for the one in the parking lot at City Hall.
    I’m with you on creating robust rail and transit infrastructure. That should be part of the story. But I still think we can do a lot to make it easier for folks in a particular location to go car free. Hell, advertise as green, 21st century, car-free living. Make it a selling point. Show pictures of a row of e-bikes that can be borrowed at a low cost. Easily available car share if you need to head up to Costco. I think you could dramatically reduce the number of people living there who owned cars and thus the parking impact on surrounding areas.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Ron O Cancel reply