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

<

>

Letter concerning the Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan

[The following letter was shared for posting to the Davisite by the author]

October 12, 2025

Dear Mayor Vaitla, Social Services Commission Chair Sverdlov, Planning Commission Chair Weiss and to all the council and commission members and Community Development Director Sherri Metzker.

I saw last week in a recent Davis Enterprise the city’s public notice re

The Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan.

The core elements of the revision are as follows;

The number of units will drop from 226 units to 205 units

A reduction of 21 units

However, the number of bedrooms will increase from 322 to 444

An increase of 122 bedrooms and therefore at least 122 more people at one person per bedroom but many more if any of the bedrooms allow 2 people

If various fees are based upon people and vehicle usage, then the project will; 

Reduce project income to the city by about 10% 

While increasing the number of noncontributing municipal users by 37+%.

It appears to me therefore that the reduction of 21 units, the city will have a measurable loss of project-based income to cover the long-term costs while substantially subsidizing and increasing dollars spent on the wear and tear on the city.

I would like one of you to pose this question to the Community Development Director;

“How much income will the city and other entities lose across the board in various city fees such as parks, schools, utilities, special districts, etc., and in development project costs assessed by the city due to the decrease of about 10% in applicable units?

Therefore, what is the economic loss to the city in every applicable category by having 21 less units to be charged for?

It is my assumption that the loss to the city could be sizeable and the cost of the city accommodating 37% more municipal usage is measurable.

If that is the case, then I request that the city review its project fee structure and adopt a scale that at minimum covers the city’s project and long term true costs. 

Due to this project there could be up to 444 vehicles soon to have to find parking spaces on city streets mainly in the downtown and using those vehicles throughout the town.

Is that additional cost to the city covered?

And how many of those up to 444 vehicles parked on city streets will lessen the ability for a number of shoppers to park downtown and thereby likely diminish business income and sales tax revenue.

Has the city found a way to recapture the dollars lost for these reasons?

I also think that the city should revise the number of affordable units required from 11 upwards. The applicant has added 122 additional bedrooms. Surely the affordable unit number should go up. 

It seems to me that the city’s cost format has major loopholes. And that the city is unknowingly neglecting to pursue equity on behalf of tax paying citizens and local downtown businesses. 

David J Thompson

Citizen, taxpayer and affordable housing advocate

Ps: I may be using some wrong terms so I hope you will get the essence of my questions

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

7 responses to “Letter concerning the Lumberyard Revised Affordable Housing Plan”

  1. Alan C. Miller

    Everyone will be car free. What me worry?

    Reply
  2. Eileen Samitz

    Thanks for this informative article David. Looks like the Lumberyard project is turning out to be another megadorm, which is not what the City needs. And this is after we were assured by City Council members that since the City approved over 4,000 student beds in the City that we were “done” with building expensive megadorms are exclusive by design for UCD students. These megadorms are predominatly 3 or more bedrooms per apartment and rented by the bed and this Lumberyard “redesign” shoehorning more bedrooms per apartment has a megadorm floor plan format. Meanwhile, the City’s vacancy rate is higher then it has been in years, with a high percentage of the vacancies being in the megadorms. So the last thing Davis needs is yet another expensive megadorm.

    Instead of building the needed traditional apartments, particularly more 1- and 2- bedroom apartments with some 3 bedroom apartments that anyone can live in, the new Lumberyard is focusing on primarily 3 bedroom apartments, likely to rent by the bed like the other megadorms.

    Renting by the bed is not for working people or families, plus they need parking, so this Lumberyard project will not help with the need for singles or couples (with or without a child) for our workforce. The other downside of this megadorm model is that the City does not get full credit for each megadorm type apartment towards our RHNA fair share since it is “group housing” that cannot be used by average workers or families.

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    The answer is “yes”, in regard to whether or not this is yet another megadorm.

    Reply
  4. South of Davis

    David says:

    > I also think that the city should revise the number of
    > affordable units required from 11 upwards.

    Does anyone know if Davis (or any other city) requires any buainess other than real estate developers an apartment owners to provide “affordable” units (aka aell cheaper homes and rent cheaper apartments to the politically connected friends of politicians and raise the cost for everyone else)?

    I have never heard of food stores or restraunts being forced by a city to provide “affordable” food to some people when foos is more important to live than a home or apartment.

    Reply
    1. Valerie Vann

      This situation is a result of a State law (California’s Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) requiring cities to provide a designated number of housing units, while “streamlining” environmental & reglulatory review. What happens is that developers propose outrageous projects, putting a gun to the head of the city to force negotiations to get the project approved with as few modifications as possible. Search on “Builders Remedy in California”

      Reply
      1. Eileen Samitz

        But the City is not subject to Builders Remedy now that the City has an approved Housing Element which satisfies Davis’ “fair share” requirement.

  5. Valerie Vann

    A recent post by a UCD student looking for an outside place to live so they could leave their UCD dorm room. They included a photo of their dorm room. It was for 3 students with one BUNK BED and a single bed. Their was a small desk with a lamp crammed between the bunk and and the single, so the desk was supposed to double (triple?) as a night stand. the desk was backed up to a window (try using that reading or using a laptop). The same is also happening with these new multiple bedroom appartment projects, they will be rented by the bed.

    Look at the apartment projects already approved for Davis (not just the Lumberyard), they are these car-free deals (one substitutes 4 dozen outside bike parking spots) and not workforce or family w/ child-friendly. Most have minimal bathrooms with showers only and are not accessible for walkers, let alone wheelchairs. (the same goes for some senior projects.) Car-free is just impossible for families. Having no secure parking is not feasible either: consider how many times NextDoor posts have reported some had the a vehicle used with a craft or profession stolen along with the tools of the trade?

    Reply

Leave a reply to Eileen Samitz Cancel reply