Another one of the more controversial proposals is the repurposing of the six-acre city property that formerly housed the EMQ FamiliesFirst residential treatment facility, which has been closed since September 2013. The plan calls for the existing buildings to be demolished and replaced by two separate projects that total 244 units.
The plan calls for most of the site, about 5.16 acres of it, to be developed as a four- and five-story, 203-unit university student apartment project with the remainder to be a four-story, 41-unit affordable housing project.
The student portion of the site would include 727 beds with a six-story residential parking garage, with 545 spaces and other bike parking areas to accommodate 727 bike spaces.
The affordable housing site would consist of a 54-foot-high building, 41 units, and a mix of one-bedroom to three-bedroom units ranging from 646 square feet to 1125 square feet. Forty-four percent of the units would be single bedroom units.
The project “would include a General Plan Amendment to change the designation to Residential High Density. The project site is currently zoned as PD 3-92; the project would also include a rezoning to a new PD (Planned Development).”
As mentioned, the repurposing of the site has been seen as controversial, particularly from residents who live in Rancho Yolo across the street.
The Draft EIR notes that the city received 20 comment letters prior to the scoping meeting. While many of these appear to be a form letter, of note is communication from Legal Services of Northern California.
The letter, signed by Alysa Meyer (Managing Attorney) and Salma Enan (Staff Attorney), notes, “We have reviewed the Initial Study and we agree that the draft EIR should address the environmental impacts on transportation/traffic, noise, land use and planning, and population and housing, We believe that the project as proposed will create a potentially significant impact on each of these areas.”
They propose “an off-site alternative,” noting that the site is “targeted towards and intended for university students” but its location “in the east-central portion of the City (is) many blocks from campus. Therefore, a more suitable location for the project would seem to be West Village or elsewhere on UC Davis property. We believe an off-site alternative would achieve the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any of its significant environmental effects.”
They also “propose a reduced-density alternative on the Student Site including a change in the configuration of bedrooms and bathrooms planned.”
A letter from resident CM Kriens asks “the city to work for a sensible plan of growth to retain the existing General Plan’s 16.8 to 30 unit density limit that does not deny development.” The resident notes, “The Apartment Project is not consistent with the Davis ‘small town character.’ It would present many hazards to the elderly neighbors from resident student parties and the greatly increased traffic of cars and bicycles on the streets when walking or driving to and from the Post Office, the DMV, the Rite Aid and Safeway Shopping Center, and to and from the university.”
Mary Jo Bryan writes, “It is my opinion that there are a number of deficiencies in regards to the staff response to public transit and transportation…” She notes, for instance, “The project site is served by Unitrans, but Unitrans serves the University and the city of Davis, but not Woodland, West Sacramento and Sacramento. For University students that may be sufficient but for low-income family, seniors and persons with disabilities, it is not adequate. I checked with Yolo Bus and confirmed that there are no routes serving 5th Street or Pole Line Road.”
Ron Oertel writes, “The proposed development is overwhelming large, and would require a zoning change to accommodate the density and type of use. It seems that the willingness of the city to prematurely entertain a possible zoning change has encouraged ‘speculative’ pricing, thereby (artificially) increasing the value of the site. Therefore, organizations that might otherwise be able to purchase the site (and re-use the existing, relatively new facility in a manner that was intended under existing zoning) are effectively blocked from consideration, since the value no longer has any relation to the existing facility (and the original, intended use of the site). I ask the city to consider retaining the existing zoning.”
The EIR notes the following concerns from the public:
- Destruction/demolition of existing buildings that otherwise could have the potential to be made available for re-use;
- Traffic congestion;
- Noise associated with project traffic and on-site recreational activities;
- Draft Environmental Impact Report – Sterling 5th Street Apartments ES-3
- Introduction of new housing units and residents to the City of Davis, and related impact on City-enacted growth limitations;
- Loss or degradation of biological resources and habitat;
- Project contribution to air pollution;
- Project contribution to global climate change/greenhouse gas emissions;
- Lack of safe bicycle and pedestrian connectivity;
- Lack of adequate public transit service;
- Inconsistency with City “small town character”;
- The potential for the proposed project to set a precedent (with regard to the size and scope of future developments projects within the City).
Based on concerns about the impact of traffic, the city went from a Mitigated Negative Declaration to an EIR. For the most part, the traffic analysis found that impacts from the project and the cumulative effects of the project plus other projects are less than significant. Roadway conditions operate at LOS (Level of Service) A or B now and, in the worst case scenarios, do not fall below C (where LOS E is the cutoff point for the city).
One area where the analysis found impacts significant and unavoidable was at the unsignalized intersection of 2nd Street and Cantrill Drive. This is already a problematic intersection, where there was the fatal collision earlier this year and there are heavy traffic impacts.
Their analysis is that, by 2035, “The 2nd Street / Cantrill Drive intersection will operate at LOS F with a delay of 79 seconds and will meet the peak hour signal warrant in the PM peak hour. Installation of a traffic signal at the 2nd Street / Cantrill Drive intersection would result in an LOS B condition with 10.6 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour.”
They also found that project implementation of MRIC (Mace Ranch Innovation Center) and Nishi, now both in question, could produce significant and unavoidable impacts at Pole Line and Cowell Blvd. intersections.
The key issue going forward seems to be the issue of density, which is not surprisingly a common refrain in infill development and one that the city has still not adequately addressed.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Ron Oertel writes, ‘The proposed development is overwhelming large, and would require a zoning change to accommodate the density and type of use. It seems that the willingness of the city to prematurely entertain a possible zoning change has encouraged “speculative” pricing, thereby (artificially) increasing the value of the site.'”
Another unintended consequence of Measure R.
After watching infill fights the last year, I think your blame on Measure R is completely misplaced.
He can’t help himself, everything is Measure R’s fault.
But if not for the killing of peripheral development proposals that could included rental housing there would be less need for this type of high-density rental housing infill. And if not for Measure R, our city planning professionals and representative leaders could make the decisions as is the standard in all other communities.
So this is an unintended consequence of Measure R. But one that anyone with half a brain should be able to see coming.
“After watching infill fights the last year, I think your blame on Measure R is completely misplaced.”
Why?
Legal Services of Northern California wrote:
> it’s location “in the east-central portion of the City (is) many
> blocks from campus. Therefore, a more suitable location for
> the project would seem to be West Village
I just went to Google maps and it says the Solstice Apartment on Jade Street in the West Village is a 1.8 mile bike ride to Young Hall on the UCD Campus. It is just a 1.7 mile ride from Young Hall to the EMQ Families First property at 2100 5th Street.
P.S. Why does “Legal Services of Northern California” care about about the “number of blocks” apartments are from the UCD campus?
It is really hard to comment without seeing a plan. The description seems too dense, but I only see the property from the street.
“Legal Services of Northern California is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that provides quality legal services to empower the poor to identify and defeat the causes and effects of poverty within our community, efficiently utilizing all available resources.”
Curious in light of their mission statement they would be fighting affordable housing. Any idea why?
Because they’re not an affordable housing advocacy group, they are advocates for low income people and Rancho Yolo is an affordable housing mobile home park.
David wrote:
> Rancho Yolo is an affordable housing mobile home park.
Rancho Yolo is a “senior” mobile home park but I have never heard of any income restrictions that would make it an “affordable” (what we used to call “low income”) mobile home park (that we now call “manufactured home communities”)…
P.S. The guy that wrote the park description on the link below has a sale pending in the park at $161K.
http://dickstinehomesales.com/?page_id=3
Ok, but that doesn’t really change the answer to the question
Thank you David
Actually, the reason Legal Services is involved is that they are interested in the development of the 41 affordable apartments proposed in this project.
From their letter, they appear to oppose the density of the project.
SOD
“The guy that wrote the park description on the link below has a sale pending in the park at $161K.”
I am not sure what point you were making with this PS. With a median home sales price in Davis being $518 K over the past few months, a sale price of $161K would look like affordable ( little a) housing to me.
As for an income restriction, I also am unaware of one. However, I have met or known a number of people who have lived there over the years ( because of my job) and they would fit the description of “low income”.
Tia wrote:
> a sale price of $161K would look like affordable
It “looks” affordable since they are not buying the land (and have to pay pad rent FOREVER)…
Just like buying a Toyota would “look” affordable at $10K if you had to rent the engine at $500/month FOREVER…
Don’t forget that you’d still have to pay monthly rent on the space. You buy the mobile home, but you only rent the space
Jim wrote:
> Don’t forget that you’d still have to pay monthly rent on the space.
AKA “you pay your loan on the home and the park owners loan on the land every month”
> You buy the mobile home, but you only rent the space
With rare exceptions buying a mobile home (or timeshare) is a horrible investment and 99% of mobile home owners would have been better off buying a home AND land somewhere else
“RENT” includes water, sewer, trash, 2 club houses, 2 swimming pools, a Jacuzzi, and 2 saunas. Senior parks offer a good happy environment at minimal expense, and home values have historically risen ever since they became popular in the early 1970’s.
Tenants are pre-screened but income is not an issue. Some have minimal Social Security, other folks are millionaires. Most residents owned stick built houses before down sizing to a manufactured home.
Jim Frame
Good point. A quick Google search so not sure of the accuracy put the rental cost at between $545 to $575/ monthly. Still sounds like it would fall within the” affordable” range.
Tia wrote:
> Do you know how much the spaces cost ?
I heard the pad rent/HOA payment was $600 (more than the median US monthly mortgage payment on a home “and” the land under it)…
Tia wrote:
> Still sounds like it would fall within the” affordable” range.
When you add in the cost of a mobile home (that will have a shorter term and higher rate than a typical home loan) the cost to buy a a mobile home and rent the pad and pay HOA will be MORE than the cost of renting a home in Davis (that will usually be bigger, have a bigger yard and have a garage). mobile homes (like payday loans) are one of the ways that the poor (and people bad at math) stay poor…
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/the-mobile-home-trap-how-a-warren-buffett-empire-preys-on-the-poor/
Davis is no longer a small town and the expectation that it remain so is irrational.
Now, if it is character that we want to preserve then I am all in.
I don’t know, Frankly, I think we have more than our share of ‘small town characters.’
Agree.
Small-town, but not a “small town”. We are a small city.
Here is the definition that I rely on:
Frankly: we do enjoy character in this small city, and we definitely want to preserve and keep your character around. Don’t go anywhere !
Small city is fine Mike. Not small town.
SOD
“With rare exceptions buying a mobile home (or timeshare) is a horrible investment”
This I do not dispute as written. But not everyone who buys a property is buying it as a financial investment. If your intent is to live in a location for the remainder of your life for physical location, or or to be near family members, or for whatever non monetary reason, it may be worth the price for your purposes.
Tia wrote:
> If your intent is to live in a location for the remainder of your life
If you know anyone that wants to “live in a location for the remainder of their life” tell them NOT to buy in a mobile home park. Over 500 mobile home parks (just in California) have closed in the past 20 years and the “land” owners have forced the “mobile” home (that are not really “mobile”) owners to sell their homes (most people that own mobile homes like the grandparents of my firefighter friend I often talk about don’t have the money to move a (not really mobile) mobile home and end up leaving it for the land owner to tear down)…
My apologies for not talking about mobile home parks, but regarding the Sterling proposal, why can’t the old Families First campus be operated as a student dorm with the existing 80 beds? Maybe some other similar kind of residential campus for artists and musicians?
Anyway, I don’t like the idea of demolishing what appears to be good construction and an attractive place to live. Also, another line of interest should be in the developer who, it has been stated elsewhere in our little berg, has a history of building similar mega-dorms and unloading them very quickly with all kind of problems on the community. I think more information on the builder/developers is in order here.
Correction to the opening paragraph, which was based on City Planning’s misrepresentation:
The entire site will be demolished, not just the buildings.
All the pavement, sidewalks, hundreds of trees, and all underground utility lines and pipes will be torn up and out. It will be a massive demolition which will take many months and seriously disrupt traffic. The noise will be horrendous.