By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – For the third time, a downtown project has now filed a preliminary application pursuant to SB 330. This one, the G Partners LLC have filed a proposed 120-apartment unit project at 240 G Street.
According to the project description, “The proposed housing development project would consist of 120 apartment units and 6 ground floor live/work units with garage parking in one building.”
“We are pleased and excited to submit our development application under the Form Based Code approval criteria in the Downtown Davis Core area,” the applicant stated in a project narrative submitted to the city. “We have been working non-stop on our development plan since the Downtown 
Plan was adopted in conformance with the Form Based Code criteria.”
The applicant considered several development plan options including renovating the existing structure as a commercial building and converting the existing structure to an on-grade 34-unit residential apartment complex.
The development application they are submitting, however, is to build a vertical mixed-use development “consisting of one level of commercial on grade which includes 6 live-work lofts and 120 apartment units in 5 levels of residential above.”
The applicant noted, “We have designed a very attractive exterior elevation with materials and colors tied to Davis downtown iconic buildings in the existing downtown core area.”
The development has subterranean parking, with five stories above it.
“Our building height is six stories which is one story less than what is allowed under the Form Based Code,” the applicant explained. “We considered going to 7 stories but the cost of construction for an additional level of Type I construction was economically infeasible.”
They added, “Our plan brings much needed housing to the city of Davis located immediately adjacent to services and Regional transportation.”
They believe their “mix and unit sizes are efficiently designed in an underserved mix of studio, 1 and 2 bedroom units.”
They continue, “We will be a ‘Green’ community encouraging the use of bicycles and pedestrian mobility located adjacent to services and regional transportation. The building will be all electric with solar panels on the roof top.”
While not going to zero parking, they said, “We are minimizing the parking to one level of parking to include a maximum of 80 spaces.”
The plan calls for 120 market rate units with six “moderate income” units to meet affordable requirements.
The project applicant said they will seek Density Bonus incentives.
“Our community will have affordable units on site pursuant to the City of Davis requirements for Vertical Mixed Use Developments; Affordable Housing Ordinance, 18.05.060, rental development affordable housing standards, section (4). Pursuant to the ordinance we have the right to ask for the affordable housing requirement to be waived and or modified subject to proposing an alternative affordable plan which would need to be approved by City Council,” the narrative explained.
The goal is to have the submitted application approved as soon as reasonably possible.
They said, “Our goal is to obtain Development approvals in the next 90 days which will put us in a position to be under construction in the Spring of 2024 and completion two years thereafter.”
Are you sure that’s not a drawing of a prison? Other than the missing guard towers, that’s what I would assume.
And “so much better” than a housewares store, serving the existing community. Next thing you know, they’ll replace a mall and and a lumberyard with housing. Probably every shopping center in town, eventually.
Thanks, Scott Wiener, Gavin Newsom, Rob Bonta, and (probably) Cecilia Aguiar-Curry. You’re “representing” your communities oh-so-well.
“Thanks, Scott Wiener, Gavin Newsom, and (probably) Cecilia Aguiar-Curry.”
It’s not a Builder’s Remedy project
Pretty funny, but I’d prefer the piano, housewares store, parking, and lack of congestion over the prison.
Certainly makes Trackside look “attractive” in comparison, though. (Actually, that proposed building wasn’t ugly in the first place.)
I understood (from a previous article) that they were pursuing a “builder’s remedy”?
You mean the empty houseware store?
It most likely would be “occupied” by a business, if they weren’t allowed to build housing.
That’s how it works. They know where the money is.
It’s been empty for a LONG time.
They’ve been expecting to redevelop it as housing for a LONG time.
What business would be willing to move in there, under such circumstances? And might Davis ACE never have left in the first place, if they knew it had to remain commercial?
I do notice that it has some parking spaces, at least. Don’t you and Richard McCann normally claim that folks moving to these type of dense developments “don’t have cars”, and therefore “don’t create congestion”?
What happened to the “builder’s remedy” at this place?
Like I said, I ultimately don’t care that much if Davis destroys its own downtown. It’s better than sprawl, at least.
So I say, go ahead and build a prison downtown, if you want. Lovely.
It doesn’t qualify for builder’s remedy. Also you keep forgetting the Downtown Specific Plan. That has nothing to do with the state.
The 5% BMR is a crime, as we all know.
Parking garage here? While it’s true that living people here won’t drive to Downtown, they will drive through Downtown get to I-80 as well as to other destinations. Also, an 80 space underground garage adds at least $3 million…. the City can allocate some space in the G Street parking lot for ADA purposes for residents and their visitors: We need to close the Richards tunnel during commute hours. Use the $3 million for a general use parking structure on the other side of the train tracks. Don’t allow residents here to park on an adjacent streets.
I still don’t understand which elementary school kids will walk to.
Also, this gets in the way of the guided ropeway/aerial tramway from Research Park….
Who will get the coveted reserved parking spaces? Will tenants have to pay extra for a space? Every unit really should have a reserved parking space included with their rent. This is simply another instance of poor planning just like at the Hibbert Lumber site.
Why do you need a car if you live downtown?
If you don’t want to buy all of your groceries at the Co-op. If you want to patronize restaurants to that aren’t in Downtown. If you want to attend events in Sacramento or the Bay Area without being late. If you want to visit family or friends that reside in rural areas. There are only a limited supply of Zip cars in Davis to go around, even worse if you require a specific type of vehicle.
Another entirely impractical, unreasonable and definitely unsafe idea from Todd Edelman.
That’s what Lft and Zipcars are for. And if you need a car, don’t live in the downtown. Problem solved.
Is turning the city parking lot into a park part of the plan? I don’t understand why the concept drawings show a park instead of a parking lot.
I was wondering about that as well, but I figured that it will be turned into the prisoner’s yard. Maybe they’re just not showing the security fences, yet.
Davis will indeed be proud of this. A real showpiece, in the heart of downtown.
I think I’ve figured out where the guard towers are, on top of the building – disguised as a couple of white utility structures. Very clever and inconspicuous.
And in regard to Todd’s suggestion, they won’t “need” to shut down the Richard’s tunnel, as it’s going to become unpassable, regardless. Isn’t it already pretty close to that at times, already? (Well, maybe after Nishi is built, as well. Oh, and Hibbert’s.)
Not a problem, though – some will just use the Mace freeway access point, instead.
David still hasn’t explained what happened with the “builder’s remedy” proposal, either.
“David still hasn’t explained what happened with the “builder’s remedy” proposal, either.”
What do you mean?
Isn’t this the same site that was proposed for a builder’s remedy, recently? (That thing looks like a builder’s remedy, itself.)
Actually, I think I answered my own question: No – my mistake.
https://www.davisvanguard.org/2023/06/third-project-filed-for-g-st-corridor/
So that’s three large proposals, including Hibbert’s.
Do you know the answer to Jim’s question?
Looking at the site map, it looks like the parking lot will remain
I like it.
It’s time to tune out the naysayers and just get on with it. I’d like to see the same thing go up along the east side of the railroad between 3rd Street and 4th Street. This brings more people downtown, not just students (who I love to death) that will diversify the customer base so that maybe we can start to attract better restaurants, etc.
This is one type of project envisioned in the Downtown Plan for this parcel. Another what a commercial research center, or a food court. (But those were pre-pandemic.) In any case, this is consistent with that plan that had a lot of public input in many workshops. If you don’t like this proposal, you should have participated in the Downtown Plan preparation like hundreds of other Davis citizens. It replaces a truly ugly building and gives us much more density around our transit center.
As for limiting cars, first many of the residents will not have families, but those that do have an easy commute up F St to North Davis and DHS. Every student in Davis should be expected to easily bike a mile to school. In addition, we don’t have many Zip cars yet because we haven’t created sufficient demand for them. These projects will make Zip cars financially viable. And if need be, peripheral shopping centers with excess parking can rent long term spaces (fenced off) for those wanting to have a car. But the bottom line is that we need to encourage people to downsize the number of cars they own to improvement the environment.
How many cars are parked and owned at your residence by your family Richard?
Two because we moved here with that many and I figure selling the car I drive 4,000 miles per year will end up being driven 10,000 miles and emitting more GHGs. We could get by pretty easily with one plus a periodic rental or an e-bike. We ride our bikes all over town. If we lived downtown, we definitely could use only one car.
Todd, the alternative route is up to 5th then down to B and up to the schools. Or they can ride up G St to 8th (where I always cross on my bike) and either ride down 8th which has very broad bike lanes or up the bike lane on F from 8th to 14th. I ride those routes myself frequently. And why would people living at 2nd and G go up to Covell (I assume you meant that) to catch I-80 to work? That makes no sense whatsoever. And why are you advocating for driving students to school?
“How do Zip cars “improve the environment” or congestion, in comparison to “regular” cars?”
When a single car can serve 10 to 20 households instead of one, that means less parking being used. Also, people who use ZIP cars use them much more judiciously for the trips they really value (because they are paying directly for those trips) so they will walk or bike or use the bus much more instead.
So not less driving, but fewer parking spaces. Hardly seems like an environmental “gain”. Does one car Zip car generally “serve” 10-20 households in the first place?
Also, is it a hassle if one isn’t available, when needed?
Interesting theory. Then again, maybe they drive more, due to convenience (assuming that a Zip car is actually available). Probably more convenient those forced to park their cars several blocks away, due to inadequate parking.
Does this account for the increased mileage that might be incurred to “temporarily park” in front of one’s dwelling, before moving the car to a Zip-car approved space?
Tried to add: There’s been many, many times that I’ve resisted driving my own car, due to fear and hassle of losing my current parking space. Not to mention the desire to “preserve” it, by not engaging in short trips. (Which Zip car users may not care about.)
I suspect that I drive more conservatively and efficiently (and encourages efficiency), vs. someone driving a rented car.
Then again, I’m someone who keeps vehicles for decades, not years. Thereby reducing the need to manufacture a new Zip car every few years (along with all of the environmental damage that entails).
Perhaps having a car of one’s own “discourages” driving, more than having access to a Zip car.
Or in other words, “save the environment – preserve private ownership of cars”. “Just park it, baby!” (A parked car emits no gas.) 🙂
Richard, then you should buy more cars to save the environment.
How do Zip cars “improve the environment” or congestion, in comparison to “regular” cars?
needs a wide, physically protected bike lane if it’s going to be the main route from Downtown to schools on 14th Street.
There’s no way to do this without removing private vehicle storage between 5th Street and 14th Street.
It’s not appropriate for this to be a bi-directional lane on one side of the street.
Obviously this is desirable.
If it’s not as safe as possible, parents with cars will drive their kids to the drop off on the way to Cowell Blvd to I-80.
I recommend that the City coordiante with the developer and put an RFP out for the parking lot to create affordable units that fit with the planned project. This could create permanently affordable units in the core of our downtown (25 or more?). Something that has not been done. The CC could authorize this process immediately.
Location is perfect for Amtrak Capitol Corridor commuters going to Sacramento or the Bay Area.