Fresh off an approval of the 540-bed Sterling Apartments, the City of Davis on Tuesday approved the scope of the EIR for Lincoln40, which proposes 708 beds on a nearly six-acre site along East Olive Drive, with a new 130-unit, three-, four- and five-story student-oriented housing project.
Staff notes, “As currently submitted, Lincoln40 will include a mix of 2-bedroom to 5-bedroom fully furnished living units that will be accessed via interior hallways and elevators. 64% of the 130 units will be 4-bedroom/4-bathroom units, which range in sizes from approximately 1,024 square feet to 1,797 square feet. All units will have a kitchen, dining area and secure bedrooms each complete with a private bathroom.”
There will be a total of 473 bedrooms with 235 of these bedrooms designed for double occupancy.
The report notes, “The double occupancy rooms will be slightly larger and will include double vanities in the private bathroom. The amenities that will be provided will include, but not be limited to a swimming pool, fitness center, indoor and outdoor lounge areas, outdoor barbecues, cabanas and each floor will offer private study areas complete with wireless internet, charging stations and desks.”
The apartment complex will contain 708 beds, a total of 240 surface parking spaces of which 23 will be covered and under the building envelope, and 60 tandem spaces, while approximately 100 spaces may be designed with carports.
While much of the council discussion focused on the components of an EIR, the public comments show many gearing up for a new fight along similar lines as Sterling, but with the twist of this project being on Olive Drive – with concerns about the impact of the Richards-Olive intersection, the possibility of the tight diamond formation for the freeway interchange project and the closure of the Olive Drive off-ramp.
The council heard some of these concerns in the public comments.
Alan Hirsch told the council he was concerned that having five-bedroom apartments created “obviously ways to reduce the amount of revenue the city is getting by putting more and more bedrooms and fewer and fewer units. City fees are assessed on a per unit, not a per bed basis.”
He called for the city to review this thing to make sure it is optimal for the students and city finances.
He also noted, “The citizens didn’t like Nishi largely because of the air quality concerns, this is sitting right next to the train station [where the] biggest belching smoke comes out of the trains. I have real concerns this is not an appropriate place for housing.”
Eileen Samitz expressed concerns about affordable housing, stating, “Lincoln40 should not be able to buy its way out affordable housing – nor should any project of this size, because that’s where we get our affordable housing from.”
She was also concerned again about size, stating that “projects should have 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms, traditional apartments to be available to students and non-students. The four and five bedroom suites do nothing to help provide rental housing for non-students, particularly families.”
She also brought up concerns about the need for water metering to encourage water conservation. She noted that the Natural Resources Commission “has been advocating for this process for multi-family housing for a while.”
Ms. Samitz argued that the project needs to be significantly downsized because “to try to jam in over 700 occupants for what’s going to be essentially a cul-de-sac, because if and when the Olive Drive exit is closed down which I keep on hearing, it’s going to be basically a fire trap.” She said, “It would be best to downsize it to some extent.”
She was also concerned that there is not enough parking, “this idea that if we just don’t build parking that cars will not exist or need to park… parking provides storage for cars, it doesn’t necessarily translate into vehicle trips.” She said that they should have enough parking so it doesn’t push the problem down to the next apartment complex or surrounding businesses.
Mayor Robb Davis noted in his comments that “the EIR is great, but people really want to talk about the project. I think we should figure out… a way to do that so that we’re not talking about the project in the guise of an EIR, which is two very different things.”
The mayor noted, with regard to affordability, “we’re not bound by ordinance on this, we have an opportunity where we can discuss and decide what makes most sense.” He said he believes there is some misunderstanding on the issue of affordability. “I think we should be clear, we have an existing affordable housing stock in the city and one of the reasons we allow for in lieu fees is because we have found over time that we need resources to maintain some of that stock.
“We’re not letting anybody off the hook, we’re basically saying sometimes it’s good to have cash to take care of some of our needs,” he said. “We have multiple ways of dealing with affordability. We saw that last week.”
He said this is something they to talk about in the coming months.
For this meeting, under the advice of Mayor Pro Tem Brett Lee, the council added a mixed-use alternative and staff will have to determine which of the eight other alternatives to keep in the EIR:
No Project Alternative – CEQA requires the evaluation of the comparative impacts of the “No Project” alternative which “would assume that the project site remains in its existing state and no additional development would occur.” Unfortunately, as the Vanguard has noted, a no project alternative does not consider the opportunity costs involved with having no project.
Existing Gateway / Olive Drive Specific Plan Alternative – Under the Existing Gateway / Olive Drive Specific Plan Alternative, it would be assumed that the project site would be redeveloped pursuant to the current Specific Plan land use assumptions for the project site.
Conventional Apartments Alternative – Under the Conventional Apartments Alternative, the project site would be redeveloped similar to the proposed project with 130 units, but with conventional apartments leased by unit, rather than student-oriented apartments with the option to lease by bedroom.
Reduced Density Student Apartments Alternative – The Reduced Density Student Apartments Alternative would maintain the project as student-oriented apartments, but with a reduced number of units. The Reduced Density Student Apartments Alternative would involve development of the site with 100 student apartment units (an approximately 23 percent reduction in the number of proposed units).
Aggressive Transportation and Parking Demand Management Alternative – The Aggressive Transportation and Parking Demand Management Alternative would involve development of the site similar to the proposed project, but with fewer parking spaces. The same number of units, mix of unit type, layout, and building design would occur under the Aggressive Transportation and Parking Demand Management Alternative as the proposed project. The only difference from the proposed project would be to impose restrictions on parking in order to aggressively discourage the use of single-occupancy vehicles and reduce vehicle miles traveled associated with future residents at the site.
Off-Site City (3820 Chiles Road) Alternative – The Off-Site (3820 Chiles Road) Alternative would involve development similar to the proposed project at an off-site location. Parcels of similar size that are designated and/or zoned for multifamily residential uses are not currently available for development within the City. For the purposes of evaluating an off-site alternative location within the City, City staff has identified a 7.4-acre property located at 3820 Chiles Road. The property currently contains an existing UC Davis office building and associated parking lot. Existing uses surrounding the property include commercial, as well as multi-family and single-family residential. The property faces Interstate 80 (I-80) directly to the north.
Off-Site Woodland Alternative – The Off-Site Woodland Alternative would involve development similar to the proposed project at an off-site location within the City of Woodland. The same number of units, mix of unit type, layout, and building design would occur under the Off-Site Woodland Alternative as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, the Off-Site Woodland Alternative would include a mix of two-bedroom to five-bedroom furnished student apartments with buildings from three- to five-stories tall, for a maximum height of 60 feet. Parking would be provided consistent with City of Woodland standards. The Off-Site Woodland Alternative would include the same amenities as the proposed project.
Off-Site UCD On-campus Alternative – The proposed additional UCD On-campus Alternative would evaluate the construction of a similar project (i.e., a 130-unit with 708 bedroom, and two- to 5-story multi-family project) on the UCD campus without specifying a site. It might not be prudent to speculate the appropriate site to accommodate a similar project on Campus. However, it is reasonable to believe that UCD could accommodate a similar project if it chose to do so. Additionally, staff concurs with interested citizens who have commented that adding this alternative would be consistent with the City Council’s December 2016 resolution and letter to the UCD Interim Chancellor regarding the Long Range Development Plan.
Staff reports that completion of the Draft EIR is progress, and upon completion the Draft EIR will be released for public review in the coming weeks. The Draft EIR will be presented to various commissions for review and comments. Upon completion of the Final EIR, public hearings on the planning application entitlements and the Final EIR adoption are anticipated to occur later this year.
(Correction: The eighth alternative was inadvertently not included above, but has been added.)
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I thought there was an On-Campus Alternative being considered as well. I don’t see that Alternative in the article list.
My bad, they added that this week and I failed to include it.
Please edit the article to add it so that there aren’t unnecessary questions from your readers.
From the Staff Report
Alternatives to be Considered In the Lincoln40 EIR
Eight alternatives to the proposed project were developed based on City of Davis staff, City Council and public comments. The Sterling EIR Alternatives analysis was considered as well, and input from the public during the NOP review period, and the technical analysis performed to identify the environmental effects of the proposed project are other considerations. The alternatives proposed to be analyzed in the EIR include the following eight alternatives in addition to the proposed Lincoln40 Apartments Project:
1. No Project Alternative
2. Existing Gateway / Olive Drive Specific Plan Alternative
3. Conventional Apartments Alternative
4. Reduced Density Student Apartments Alternative
5. Aggressive Transportation and Parking Demand Management Alternative
6. Off-Site City (3820 Chiles Road) Alternative
7. Off-Site Woodland Alternative
8. UCD On-campus Alternative
Off-Site UCD On-campus Alternative
The proposed additional UCD On-campus Alternative would evaluate the construction of a similar project (i.e., a 130-unit with 708 bedroom, and two- to 5-story multi-family project) on the UCD campus without specifying a site. It might not be prudent to speculate the appropriate site to accommodate a similar project on Campus. However, it is reasonable to believe that UCD could accommodate a similar project if it chose to do so. Additionally, staff concurs with interested citizens who have commented that adding this alternative would be consistent with the City Council’s December 2016 resolution and letter to the UCD Interim Chancellor regarding the Long Range Development Plan.
It (on-campus alternative) should, in my mind be same number of beds/units IN ADDITION to those envisioned in he LRDP… otherwise we won’t get the same apples and apples as to cumulative impacts…
David, you might find it useful, as an SOP, to provide a link to the staff report if one is available on the ‘topic du jour’… meant as a friendly, positive suggestion…
Quick! Bulldoze the apartments on Olive Drive! Tear down the Hallmark Inn! Raze Old East Davis! Demolish the Chen Building! These are all near the train station with “belching smoke” from trains! CHILDREN live near the train station. What were their parents thinking? Call out Child Protective Services! This is an inappropriate place for housing! An inappropriate place for CHILDREN!!!!!! Oh the humanity!!!!!!
This is not an easy issue
It isn’t? I’ll explain — no one is going to remove existing housing due to proximity to a railroad or highway. If it’s “OK” for children to live there now, it’s OK for new housing to be there as well. Air pollutants are real, but how they disperse and the duration of exposure that leads to what percentage increase in possible risk is extremely complex as well as entirely unpredictable for any particular individual.
Davis isn’t special — new housing within 1500′ or any number of feet of rail and highway is going in all over the state. Just drive around LA and see it EVERYWHERE. This certainly isn’t an issue the state Air Resources Board is fighting for. So what I’m saying is this is a purple herring argument against certain projects, and is entirely illogical. If you are concerned about pollutants due to proximity to a source, do not choose to site your family near that source.
You are correct – no one is going to remove existing housing.
However, a few months ago as I read the research emerging from LA, I think the burden to build new housing near freeways is going to go up a lot. And again, I think we do need to start getting baseline levels of particulate matter near I-80 to have a sense. As I recall, I think Dr. Cahill was concerned about Nishi due to its specific location and he was less concerned about other areas in Davis.
That Covell Village site is looking better and better for some nice high-density housing.
(….ducks and runs for cover….)
Covell Village could work after the railway ROW between Woodland and Davis is available for a robust public transport and high-speed bicycle link, if it’s carfree, if Pole Line is not widened and also is slowed, if Pole Line and East Covell gets a proper roundabout, if it has multiple point-to-point buses to Sac until the Capitol Corridor is speeded up, if it’s relatively self-contained… if further areas next to the ROW are densified…
Alan, please. “Choice” is also an oddly-colored fish.
He wants a study. I can’t say what his true motivations or concerns are.
Alan
Respectfully ( and I mean that because I do respect your knowledge) I have to disagree with you about the wisdom of repeating past mistakes. Just because housing was put in a harmful place in the past and it is unfeasible to move all the inhabitants, does not mean that we should subject yet more people to the same known hazards. I am not applying that comment to the Lincoln 40 situation, but rather as a general principle.
I’ll provide a bit of an exaggerated, but timely example. Just because the citizens of Flint currently have contaminated water, does not mean that we should link up the pipes of new homes to the same source.
When there are no slow orders, station to station Sac to Davis on the Capitol Corridor is 13 minutes at 79mph top speed. I don’t see that as getting speeded up much anytime soon.
Carfree, the I-80 and Me:
I wrote to the Council (and staff) at the end of the last week proposing something similar to the following: A Carfree Alternative and a Carfree & More Housing Alternative. Right off the bat: Both would have exceptions for ADA and certain professions, such as certain trades (e.g. “Commercial”-designated van owned by a one-person business/contractor) or emergency personnel (Paramedics… not sure how this would work with hospital staff, as anyone not currently assigned to the ER could be called in for exceptional reasons.)
“Carfree” means private automobile free: Last week I wrote about a e.g. “carfree car” and what I meant to do was distinguish an “automobile” – more of a technical term – from “car” – more of a marketing term. Associated language would be: “For the residents of Lincoln40, there will be provision of shared automobiles in the ratio of 10:1 (10 residents per one vehicle), which is roughly similar to the use pattern of “carshare”, i.e. where one carshare vehicle provides the same mobility as ten cars, as the latter sit around 95% of the time… VS “You need a car! Being green when you’re young is fine, but when you have families it is necessary to own a car. A car! What if it’s raining and you need some milk for your coffee! Don’t ask your neighbor! Drive to the store! What if taxes are too low and there’s no reliable ambulance service in your city? You need a car to drive your child to the hospital!!”
Another Alternative could be a variation on the “Aggressive…” Alternative above, which would add “More Housing”. I’m not actually clear on why the that Alternative does not replace add housing in the space otherwise used for parking. This is project specific: Lincoln40 has some restrictions on height and perhaps proximity to the residential property next door; Sterling had a different situation where the parking structure was reduced in height, and only a commercial neighbor to the south, so a redesign which added a similar wing here might have been easier… but also the “Aggressive” plan in the EIR for Sterling was not seen to have any benefits in transportation and circulation, because it was assumed that people would just park off-site. The EIR analysis of the “Aggressive” Alternative completely ignored a tool we know well: The parking permit system used all over Davis to control this issue. Did anyone at least informally – i.e in comments in the Vanguard – notice that? Eileen?
So… the “More Housing” in the Alternative gives something back as it reduces use of the “car”. And not only carshare vehicles – and specific ones, like 12-person vans which an individual would be unlikely to own, or moving vans, larger off-road capable SUV… i.e. a finely-tuned supply of automobile technology – but bikes that can carry cargo, e-bikes, bikeshare – the contract was finally signed last week and Davis will get bikes in the fall…
BUT: We have this elephant in the room that we’re not dealing with, right? The I-80. Gases, particles, noise, vibration. There are plenty of general/non Davis-specific studies which show that a street as proximate as Olive and all the housing along it is in a danger zone extending 1,500 feet on either side of a major highway. I know that at least the gases and particles part was an issue with Nishi, and my understanding is that two of the main thoughts on this were: 1 – “It’s okay for commercial buildings which don’t need windows that open like on residential buildings, as these can use over-pressure” ; 2 – “Why is this such a big issue with Nishi when all sorts of other projects have been built near the 80? This is a dishonest tactic…”
So…. death, taxes and highway gases, particles, noise and vibration?
When will the gases and particles and some of noise be solved with a largely-electric vehicle fleet? How does this pollution affect areas beyond the 3,000 ft. zone due to winds? How about allowing only commercial buildings in this zone? If these buildings have sound-deadening surfaces facing the 80 will it help? How much will new pavement surfaces mitigate the noise and vibration? Can we build a hanger over the 80 within city boundaries, define it as an “anti-noise bridge” and then – using wonderful pro bono services from our nation’s top environmental lawyers – justify the use of a toll to help pay for its construction in addition to the revenue from solar panels on its south side which could eventually generate nearly 50% as much energy annually as the Monticello Dam? Is there any pollution monitoring in any of the commercial or residential properties within 1,500 ft. of I-80?
With all these thoughts in my head, I’m not certain that there should be any new housing in areas so close to I-80.
Logic does indeed seem to be absent in some of the arguments… if it’s wrong to add 708 units due to fire traps concerns, it’s OK is the unit count (beds) is reduced to, say, 500?
Prediction… a certain CalTrans planner will make a faxed comment, rec’d by the City at 4:59:30 PM on the last day of the EIR comment period (which ends at 5:00:00 PM that day), calling for a mitigation of closing the Olive Drive off-ramp, and other mitigations for CalTrans improvements. Based on past behavior, will give odds if someone takes that sucker bet. Depending on the amount wagered, might need to improve my odds, and stipulate 4:58:00 PM. I’m assuming he has not yet retired.
[warning, have seen this on the Gateway/Nishi EIR, and two others…]
I like Eileen and think she’s been a huge asset in focusing attention on the issue of lack of university cooperation on housing, but I’ve yet to hear a fire expert raise that issue on Olive.
David… you say this is not an easy issue… somewhat true… but for the issues expressed to date, most of the issues would be the same for 1 bed or 708… or 1000…
With the requirement for fire sprinklers/fire suppression, and possibility of EVA from the I-80 end of Olive, even if closed to general vehicular traffic, that indeed is very likely a non-issue… Slater’s Court is the fire-trap.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out, and some of the issues raised moving forward may well be “spaghetti driven”… limp noodle strawmen, as it were… others will be very valid and very important… the trick will be discerning which is which…
For the record, am skeptical as to whether this is a good project, but will remind all, that is what CEQA is about… disclosing information that can be used for rational, appropriate decisions, whatever those may be. I look forward to the information, rather than rhetoric.
Thank God the CEQA process is free from politics and 100% rational.
Were that it were so… je compris, d’accord… yet I think it’s the only game in town that comes anywhere near the ideal… without it… don’t want to contemplate it.
Something about better to light one candle, rather than curse the darkness…
Just to be clear – the issue of how to deal with emissions along I80 is not an easy issue. I don’t think the apartment issue is particularly difficult.
Clearly the former would be a great uneasy issue for a joint task force of the BTSSC, Planning Commission, etc. to mentally aggregate on…