Next Thursday, September 15, at 6 pm, the city of Davis will conduct a public scoping meeting to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Lincoln40 Project. The meeting will be held at Cesar Chavez Plaza at 1220 Olive Drive.
The proposed apartment complex is located on a nearly six-acre site along Olive Drive near the railroad tracks. Currently there are 23 residential units on the site, including nine single-family homes and an old lodging facility that was previously converted into a 14-unit apartment complex.
According to the city, six of the nine single family homes are currently occupied, as is the apartment complex.
“The proposed project consists of a residential in-fill project that would include the demolition of the existing on-site structures and the construction of one multi-family residential building, totaling 130 units within 249,875 square feet (sf) of building space, for the purpose of providing student-oriented housing,” staff notes.
Among the issues are the following: General Plan, Gateway/Olive Drive Specific Plan, and Zoning land use map amendment changing the project site from EOMU and RMD to RHD, including text amendments; an affordable housing plan that would pay in-lieu fees for the required affordable units, a development agreement (“City staff believes that this will be applicable in light of the request for vacation of the Hickory Lane right of way”), demolition of existing structures and an EIR.
Staff notes, “The City of Davis has recently amended the Residential High Density General Plan land use designation to increase the range of allowable densities. The text of the Gateway/Olive Drive Specific Plan also needs to be amended to increase the range of allowable densities in conformance with the City’s current Residential High Density General Plan category. Other anticipated Specific Plan text amendments associated with the proposed project include maximum allowable height and lot coverage for the Residential High Density district.”
The proposed site plan: “The proposed project would develop the in-fill project site for residential land uses and is anticipated to include a main building footprint of 55,032 sf, with associated parking, patio and walkway paved areas covering an additional 96,969 sf, resulting in an overall lot coverage of 60 percent (see Figure 4). With a site area of 5.92 acres, and 130 proposed units, the proposed project would include a residential density of 21.96 units per acre.
“The proposed residential structures would range from three to five stories, and would include a mix of two-bedroom to five-bedroom fully-furnished units, each with a floor space ranging from 1,024 square feet (sf) to 1,797 sf (see Figure 5). Of the 473 total bedrooms included in the proposed project, 239 bedrooms would be designed as double-occupancy rooms with attached bathrooms; thus, the estimated total beds for the proposed project is 708. The proposed project would also include the construction of a manager’s facility, fitness center, bike-repair facility, indoor and outdoor lounge areas, and a resort-style pool with barbeques and fire pits. Parking would be provided for both vehicles and bicycles, with 239 proposed parking stalls and 708 bicycle parking spaces.”
Staff notes that in addition to the primary purpose of the proposed project, the project is being pursued with the following objectives:
- Reduce overcrowded living conditions that currently exist for students residing in the City by developing a new off-campus apartment housing project with easy access to UC Davis.
- Revitalize an underutilized tract of land along East Olive Drive by developing a three- to five-story for-lease student housing apartment community that provides a mix of 2-bedroom to 5-bedroom furnished living units.
- Provide residents with a range of indoor amenities including a student community center with fitness facilities, study lounges, game rooms, café areas, bike storage areas.
- Provide bike maintenance and repair facilities, and a range of outdoor amenities including a pool, outdoor barbecue area, cabanas, game areas and lounge areas to create a safe and active onsite community environment.
- Utilize a project location and design principles that encourage and support the use of alternate forms of transportation (public transit/pedestrian/cycling) to both downtown Davis and the UC Davis campus.
- Incorporate sustainable design strategies consistent with LEED Silver certification standards.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The pictures above of the apartments don’t look very appealing. What does everyone else think?
Lovely. This monstrosity is displacing many low income workers, students, and folks on disability. Those of us in Slatter’s Court will be losing just about all the privacy we have with this 5 story behemoth looking down on us. Our street will become much busier with up to an additional 500 people using it to commute and they aren’t even offering up a bike path over the tracks for easier access to downtown.
The Hyatt goes up and homeowners scream. The Vanguard has extensive discussions on how to appease those homeowners.
Many folks in my neighborhood don’t have internet access to even discover how this project will impact them.
So I ask. If this town is so “progressive” then why don’t they even look after those who are poor? Where is the support for a neighborhood that houses many workers who work downtown and for the university? We are renters. Where are our rights?
Why does the Vanguard explode when a very small group of homeowners complain about losing their view, but remain silent as an entire neighborhood of poor folk gets wiped out for gentrification?
Don’t forget about us. We exist. Just because we can’t afford to speak up doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a voice.
Unfortunately, the City has completely mismanaged our rental housing stock, which is the real cause of the displacement that you are now addressing. If we had a healthy rental market, there would be sufficient affordable places for all of those who live and work here. That isn’t the case today due to our past poor decisions, and it will take years of concerted effort (and some displacement) in order to correct the problem.
You are probably right and that loss should be mitigated if possible.
Do you have any idea of the cost of a grade-separated crossing? The crossing is not something that will be paid for by a single development project, but rather one that the City as a whole needs to invest in. I agree it is needed (for years now), unfortunately, the community’s no-first mindset has destroyed our City’s fiscal health with our demands for amenities without first creating the revenues to pay for them. As it stands today, we simply cannot afford to do what is needed.
A good description of the response from the no-first crowd.
Most of the discussion has been a repetition of the neighbor’s unreasonable demands for appeasement.
It is not, it is a town run by the selfish and self-centered.
Because they have convinced themselves that their selfishness is really altruism.
The best way for the City to support those in your neighborhood is by building more high-density apartments throughout town. We cannot create affordable housing until we are willing to build more housing, preferably those same high-density apartments. The simple truth is that as long as we fight every development project as if we were discussing the end of the world, you and your neighbors will never receive the support that you deserve.
The City does not ‘manage’ the housing stock. The City does not ‘build apartments’. I hope we don’t add those “services”…
A key concept is to add a bike/ped connection across Richards on NW side of UPRR (envisioned for ~ 20 years)… the ‘Davis Arch’ concept is ludicrous, financially, for engineering and right of way issues, and too much out-of-direction travel.
I thought it was going to be in November when we vote on recreational marijuana use. Apparently, am living in a time warp. Am seeing folk proposing/espousing “pipe dreams”…
Odin wrote:
> This monstrosity is displacing many low income workers,
> students, and folks on disability.
Any idea of the exact number of people that will be displaced? It looks to me like most of the land is currently vacant and an article in the Enterprise a while back said that a single old lady rents 2 of the 14 units at the Kober apartments that are still standing.
> we have with this 5 story behemoth looking down on us.
Some of the most expensive real estate in the world in Pacific Heights and midtown Manhattan is across the street from 5+ story buildings with “people looking down”. It doesen’t bother me when my neighbors (or 50 neighbors when I lived in SF) “looks down” on me. I’m wondering why this seems to be such a big problem for people behind the Hayatt and across from Lincoln 40 when it does not seem to be a problem for most other people…
Agreed. But, the pictures don’t do justice to the impact that this thing would have on the Richards/Olive intersection, the tunnel into downtown, etc.
Any additional large-scale development on Olive requires a grade-separated crossing, for bikes/pedestrians. Without that, any proposed development should be D.O.A.
Seems like the city is hell-bent on entertaining/forcing these revenue-losing, gridlock-creating developments.
And – the “in lieu of” fees for affordable housing will likely not (directly) help those would be displaced by such a development.
Most of the occupants are going to bike across Olive and onto campus.
If approved, probably true – via the impacted Richards/Olive intersection.
And all those bicyclists will be pressing the bike/walk button at Richards/Olive slowing traffic down even more at the intersection.
Ron and Odin, would that be true? Won’t the Davis Arch (see graphic below), that is part of the upgrade to the Richards Corridor, eliminate 100% of the bicycle traffic that otherwise would go through the Richards-Olive intersection?
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2015-02-04-1323-01-02-C1-DAVIS-ARCH-CONCEPT-PLAN-SH1.jpg
Matt, I have to plead ignorance. This is the first time I’ve seen that plan. From what I see it may alleviate some, but most students I see prefer to go straight on Olive to access the bike path at the west end which provides a quieter, safer route to campus.
Fair enough Odin.
If you would like, I am willing to sit down with you, and anyone else you want to join us, and listen to your thoughts and concerns and questions. I will gladly share any information I have that will be useful to you. Please e-mail me at mattwill@pacbell.net.
Matt:
Your “non-response” to Odin does not explain where the “Davis Arch” came from. Is this a legitimate proposal, and not dependent upon any other development?
Matt:
My apologies. Your earlier response seems to indicate that the “Davis Arch” is part of the (already-funded?) upgrade to the Richards Corridor. If that’s the case, I would like to retract my previous comment (regarding your “non-response” to Odin).
Matt:
Please do explain, further. For example, is the “Davis Arch” connected to the previous Nishi proposal? Or, is it already funded?
Ron, if you go to the City website and search using the expression “Davis Arch” you get 12 hits. The first is the flyer for the March 15th 2014 community meeting to discuss the Arch proposal. See LINK You will note that Nishi is nowhere to be seen anywhere in the flyer. It was/is a joint project of Davis Downtown and the Davis Chamber of Commerce, and has been discussed by those two organizations with Council in their 2×2 meetings. Here is the text from the Davis Patch announcement of the meeting.
Here is the text of the Davis Enterprise article on the Arch.
Matt:
Thanks – I skimmed the information you provided. It appears that the “Davis Arch” bikepath (to cross Richards Boulevard, from Olive) is only a proposal from 2014, and has nothing to do with the proposed Lincoln40 development. Therefore, it appears that my original note regarding the impact of bicycle/pedestrian traffic on Richard/Olive (from the proposed Lincoln 40 development) is still a concern.
Although the Davis Arch proposal is interesting, I’m not sure why you brought it up in connection with the Lincoln40 development, if it’s not really a viable proposal at this time.
Odin said . . . “From what I see it may alleviate some, but most students I see prefer to go straight on Olive to access the bike path at the west end which provides a quieter, safer route to campus.”
Ron said . . . “Therefore, it appears that my original note regarding the impact of bicycle/pedestrian traffic on Richard/Olive (from the proposed Lincoln 40 development) is still a concern.”
Ron and Odin, addressing Odin’s point (implied question) will also address Ron’s point. In the graphic below I have highlighted the westbound bicycle lane in yellow. Imagine you are a bicyclist traveling west on East Olive Drive (at the top of the graphic) approaching the Richards intersection (in the middle of the graphic) . You look at the traffic light and see it is red. Are you going to stop your bike at the light, wait until the light changes to green, and then cross Richards and resume riding on Olive? . . . or are you going to not stop, bear to the right off East Olive Drive and cycle without stopping along the yellow, grade-separated Davis Arch bike path, until it rejoins West Olive (at the bottom of the graphic), and then continue your journey to UCD?
The whole idea behind grade-separated crossings is that it allows cyclists and pedestrians to safely continue their journey without having to stop.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2015-02-04-1323-01-02-C1-DAVIS-ARCH-Bike-Route.jpg
Matt:
Perhaps you didn’t fully read my comment above your latest posting? If not, I’ve pasted it again, below.
————————————————————————————————————–
It appears that the “Davis Arch” bikepath (to cross Richards Boulevard, from Olive) is only a proposal from 2014, and has nothing to do with the proposed Lincoln40 development. Therefore, it appears that my original note regarding the impact of bicycle/pedestrian traffic on Richard/Olive (from the proposed Lincoln 40 development) is still a concern.
Although the Davis Arch proposal is interesting, I’m not sure why you brought it up in connection with the Lincoln40 development, if it’s not really a viable proposal at this time.
Ron said . . . “It appears that the “Davis Arch” bikepath . . . “
Ron, what is your basis for making the above statement? What homework have you done to support that opinion?
Did you contact Davis Downtown?
Did you contact the Chamber of Commerce?
Did you contact the City?
The reason I brought it up is simple . . . a Lincoln 40 bicyclist or pedestrian who used the Davis Arch as a grade-separated crossing of Richards would result in zero incremental impact on the Richards-Olive intersection.
You’ve got this backwards. I brought up the concern regarding the impact of bicycle/pedestrian traffic on the already-impacted Olive/Richards intersection.
You then “presented” the arch as a “solution”, without any comment regarding its feasibility. You also provided some information which appears to show that it’s only a proposal.
If you’ve concluded something different, then by all means please share your knowledge, and the basis for it. However, if it’s not something that will likely be built anytime soon, then it’s not a “solution” (as you presented it).
Ron, I asked you a question. It was a very simple question. The question, which still stands, was: Won’t the Davis Arch (see graphic below), that is part of the upgrade to the Richards Corridor, eliminate 100% of the bicycle traffic that otherwise would go through the Richards-Olive intersection? If you were paying attention to the details of the upgrade to the Richards Corridor you would know the answer to the question. If you weren’t paying attention to those details, then you have some homework to do. It is up to you whether you want to do that homework or not. I don’t have control of your calendar, only you do.
Matt: “Ron, I asked you a question. It was a very simple question. The question, which still stands, was: Won’t the Davis Arch (see graphic below), that is part of the upgrade to the Richards Corridor, eliminate 100% of the bicycle traffic that otherwise would go through the Richards-Olive intersection? If you were paying attention to the details of the upgrade to the Richards Corridor you would know the answer to the question.”
This thread is getting kind of lengthy again, but I’m not sure that you did ask me that question.
In any case, I’ll go ahead and answer it. If the Davis Arch is actually built, then yes – I suspect that most (perhaps not 100%) bicyclists from the proposed Lincoln40 development would use it.
You’ll note that I’ve also (indirectly) asked you a question, as well. Is the Davis Arch something that is likely to be built, anytime soon? Or, is it simply a proposal that may never be built?
(An unlikely “proposal” does not represent a solution.)
Ron, the City’s discussions of the Richards Corridor Upgrade and UCD’s discussions of additional on-campus student housing in the LRDP are at the same stage . . . although the City has established identified, segregated funding for their upgrade, which is a step beyond what the University has done for the LRDP.
Matt:
Thank you. Your response is another way of confirming what I suspected – the “Davis Arch” is only a proposal, and does not address the concern I pointed out at the beginning of this lengthy thread regarding the impact on Richards/Olive from the proposed Lincoln40 development. (Seems like this back-and-forth communication could have been shortened, if you had acknowledged the uncertainty when you brought up the Davis Arch.)
From the text you provided, it appears that the Davis Arch is only a *potential* part of the Richards Boulevard improvement:
Not sure why you’re comparing the University’s LRDP with the Richards Boulevard improvements.
Suggest that we move on, from this thread.
Ron said . . . “Not sure why you’re comparing the University’s LRDP with the Richards Boulevard improvements.
Suggest that we move on, from this thread.”
The housing component of the LRDP is something that you have shown a huge amount of interest in in your past comments in many threads. You were looking for a relative certainty of the Arch project, so I put that relative certainty into terms that you clearly understood. The Arch is a certain to happen as the housing component of the LRDP is certain to happen . . . and the Arch has identified and segregated funding, which the housing component of the LRDP does not have. It is a very clear and direct parallel.
I agree it is time to move on.
Matt:
I’m finding your responses to be increasingly hostile, with passive-aggressive connotations. I’m not sure where this is coming from, as I don’t view you as an “enemy”.
Again, you brought up the “Davis Arch” as a “solution” to the concern I brought up regarding the impact of bicycle traffic (on Richards/Olive) from the proposed Lincoln40 development.
I didn’t know anything about the Davis Arch, previously. So, I asked you if this was something that is actually feasible. You avoided answering, and tried to establish some non-existent connection with the LRDP (which wasn’t even a part of this conversation).
I hope that you won’t respond this way, if you’re eventually elected to the council.