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.
Ron, if you sense any hostility from me, there is none there. However, perception is reality, so lets accept the fact that you are interpreting my responses as hostile. To help you shed that perception of hostility, let me try again to communicate what I have been saying.
I didn’t present the Davis Arch as a solution. I presented it as a catalyst to open, inclusive dialogue. If I had presented it as a solution, I would have been falling into the trap of conducting the conversation at the Position level rather than the Interests level in Robb Davis’ Positions – Interests – Needs hierarchical triangle shown in the graphic below.
https://davisvanguard.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08-30-CC-Item-08-Mayor-Davis-Conflict-Resolution-Presentation.jpg
You say I did not answer your question about the feasibility of the Davis Arch. I gave you all the information I had available to me. Further, I provided you with the “road signs” to be able to get more specific information. What more would you have liked me to give you?
When my answers were insufficient to satisfy you I tried to put the Arch into a context that you have expressed a considerable identification with . . . the housing component of the LRDP. I apologize if that parallel example did not resonate with you. I am always willing to learn. In that spirit, based on what you know now, what is a project in the Davis community that you would have used as a parallel example to illuminate where you think the Davis Arch is? I am all ears.
Thanks, but I don’t really need a parallel example (assuming that one exists) to understand the likelihood of the Davis Arch being approved/constructed. I was trying to determine what (if anything) you knew about it (and the reason you brought it up), beyond the text that you provided.
And now – we also have a pyramid! 🙂
Ron, 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”.
I realize you don’t really need a parallel example. I was asking you whether you could share one. I shared my triangle in the interests of fostering continuing dialogue. I’m sorry if it upset you.
Matt:
Now it’s just getting weird.
Did you not see my smiley face? I’m not upset.
I was poking some fun at you, however. You tend to communicate using graphs, statistics, etc. – instead of directly responding. Partly just a different communication style, I suppose.
Ron, it got weird a long time ago, but not as weird as an e-mail dialogue I am in the midst of, nor as unexpected/weird as a pair of telephone calls I got around dinner time.
I was poking right back attcha. Turnabout is fair play, as they say.
Good Night Chet. Good Night David. And Good Night For Texaco.
BP re: appearance, 2nd time we’re in agreement.. Refilling my xanax rx today.
Odin brings up very valid points. And to add insult to injury, these Lincoln40 developers are trying to get away without including any affordable housing. It is astonishing that the City would even consider letting these developer do in lieu fees when this project would eliminate the affordable housing that exists there now, and then not even replace or add any affordable housing in this enormous project. The City needs to take this “in lieu” buy out option off the table for any large multi-family proposal in the City.
And Mark, regarding your comment above, it is UCD that has mismanaged its provision of on-campus housing by not building the many apartments they knew they needed over the years for there own growth, and UCD’s negligence is more responsible for the diminished availability of rental housing in Davis than anything else.
Finally, it will be interesting to see how the traffic is supposed to work, particularly if it is possible that the Olive Drive exit off I-80 may be closed off by Cal-Trans at one point, making the east end of Oliver drive a cul-de-sac with a huge amount of multi-family housing. What about access and egress for regular traffic and safety like fire trucks?
I think it would be very useful for someone to do an article explaining the actual income limits for affordable housing in Yolo County. I think most people think that it is for the very poor. In fact, the upper limit on income to qualify for “affordable housing” is higher than you’d imagine.
Depends. New Harmony caps at $30 to $40K. Some of the city ones go up as high as $70K. Different between very low, low, median, and 120% median income.
Chambers Fan wrote:
> Some of the city ones go up as high as $70K.
Does anyone know of a link to the “affordable” income limits in Yolo County. Mutual Housing now hides the numbers and just says:
“The average annual income of households may not exceed the maximum income limits for the property’s program. Please speak with the Marketing Agent or Manager for specific information regarding these income limits”
I have always been amazed at how much money you can make and still qualify for (subsidized) “affordable” housing. In San Francisco you can make $127K a year, that’s right OVER $125K a year and you are poor enough for “affordable” housing (see link below):
http://sfmohcd.org/sites/default/files/Documents/MOH/2016_AMI_InclusionaryPurchaseCalcs_SanFranHMFA.pdf
Eileen, I’m a bit curious why they propose 485 beds, but only offer about half of that amount for parking. Where do they expect the rest of the cars to go? Park on Olive??
Perhaps they don’t expect students to all have cars, especially when they can drive across the bike path on Olive to campus?
There are no bike paths on Olive… did you intend to say bike lanes? Huge difference…
There is a bike path that begins on the west side of Olive that takes people directly onto campus, no?
Odin,
Good question, and these developers are apparently going to wave their magic wand and reduce the car usage to half. This will result in the cars parking in other areas near this enormous project and imposing those parking impacts there.
I’ll bet that they will try to charge a parking fee to increase their profit margin even more while eliminating all affordable housing. It is astonishing that City Staff would even consider any of this. Talk about throwing anything out there to see what will “stick”. Seems like there is no bottom to hit with poor planning in Davis lately.
There is no magic wand – what is the car usage currently? Again, they have to bike down Olive to the bike path to get to campus, how many are going to need cars under those conditions?
Eileen, when you look at a map of that area, where do you see any space for that kind of cannibalization of existing parking spaces? I believe that on street parking is currently not available along the entire length of Olive Drive. Any student who parks a car on any of the private parcels along Olive will have their car quickly towed. There simply isn’t anywhere to actually make the fear you have expressed come true. I am 100% open to having that belief of mine corrected if you have evidence of available locations. Please post them here if you do have them.
What is the car usage Eileen?
“the estimated total beds for the proposed project is 708”. They definitely need a bike/ped underpass to downtown.
We don’t need “affordable housing” we need “more housing” and then it will get more affordable. Would be a good spot for all the hotels.
Matt,
Lack of availability of parking on the streets will simply set up a situation of competition for parking spots on the street spilling out beyond to other areas. How does Lincoln40 plan to control the number of cars from its residents when they are providing only half of what is needed for that number of residents? Particularly since they are proposing 4-5 bedroom apartments, where bedroom numbers is usually associated with determining the number of parking slots needed.
Odin, the City should be taking proactive steps to massively reduce the number of cars per bed in apartment complexes targeted at 100% students, which Lincoln 40 is. As was actively discussed during the Nishi debates, parking spaces should only be available for a monthly rental fee, and the minimum monthly rental should be targeted to match the typical monthly rental fee in San Francisco, which I believe is currently in the vicinity of $500 per month per space. Having to pay $500 per month should squeeze the demand for parking spaces down to practically zero. Having a certain number of Zip Cars on site (20?) would affordably and conveniently allow the students to make out-of-town road trips.
Further, if the elimination of unnecessary parking spaces from the project design frees up considerable space for additional living units, (A) the rental housing market deficit will be further reduced, (B) the project owners will receive thousands of additional/incremental monthly rental dollars, and (C) the project owners will be able to redirect that additional/incremental revenue into a significant contribution to the construction of the grade separated railroad crossing needed for the students to bicycle to the UCD campus each day.
JMHO
Matt, I’m sure hoping you’re right, but again I worry that if it’s not properly mitigated we will have cars parking all along Olive further congesting the area, especially if Olive is eventually shut off from I-80, where folks will be doing u-turns to find parking.
Agreed 100% Odin. It is an outcome worth fighting for . . . both for you and your neighbors on Olive and for the City of Davis as a whole. Fewer unnecessary cars means a better quality of life for all the citizens of Davis. Necessary cars are a different matter, but UCD students have a full-time job pursuing their education on the UCD campus, and the best transportation to and from the campus for them is either UNITRANS, their bicycle or their feet.
Matt, I’m sorry to say that your comment doesn’t fit with reality for many students, who have to work a lot of hours outside of the classroom to make ends meet – and many of those jobs are not on campus, and are not necessarily in Davis, either. Educational costs are out of control these days, as I am sure you’ve heard. I wish that university activities could be full time for them, but not given current financial realities.
Roberta, I completely agree with your point about many students not having the financial wherewithal to make ends meet without working a job. The reality is that the vast majority of the students you describe are not going to be remotely interested in new construction for their rental housing. They see West Village as way too expensive. They see many of the newer, up-to-date apartment complexes as way too expensive. They gravitate toward rental accommodations in one of the decades-old houses or apartments for rent around Davis. The UCD 2015 Apartment Rate Survey (see LINK) shows a rental range for a four-bedroom apartment of $1,750 to $3,175. New construction is going to be at the top end of that scale. A 20-30 year old four-bedroom house will be at the low end of that scale, and that is where the vast majority of the students you describe will be looking for their rental . . . not at Lincoln 40. Other, more fiscally affluent students will be interested in Lincoln 40 . . . and the idea off having $500 per month to spend on their entertainment versus spending it on a dust-gathering garaged car, most of them will choose the party money.
That is human nature.
However, if we give the parking space to them for free they won’t care if the car gathers dust, because it won’t be costing them anything.
You need to freshen your script, Eileen, you have become a one-note fiddle.
If we want affordable housing in Davis, we need to build housing in Davis. Nothing else will address the problem.
Mark,
You need to practice what you preach. If you did not continue to insist that our City needs to fix a problem that UCD is causing, I would not need to keep repeating myself. The real solution is for UCD to fix the problem they are imposing on our City, other cities and their own students. That means building significantly more on-campus housing which in turn would reduce some of the pressure on our City’s rental housing. Otherwise, the problem will never end since UCD will continue to defer its housing needs onto our community and nearby communities.
Eileen – If the University built all the housing you wanted (not just what they have promised) it still would not solve the housing shortage in Davis.
You have ‘blame the University’ blinders on and until you take them off, there will be no solution to the housing shortage that you will find acceptable. Your one-note approach has made you nothing more than an impediment to our success. Quite the shame, actually.
Objectively speaking — in that I’m not either one of you — and expanding more broadly — extreme-end, one-note sambas: please stick a sock in it.
Mark – if the University built all of the housing Mark West was willing to ask for there would be no additional new housing built on campus and it would do zero to help the housing shortage in Davis.
You have blame the victim blinders on. Your one note approach is alienating and makes you nothing more than an impediment to Davis having smart growth respectful of the neighborhoods and people who live here. Quite the shame, actually.
Eilleen wrote:
> these Lincoln40 developers are trying to get away
> without including any affordable housing
They are not “trying to get away” with anything, their plan (to quote David) “would pay in-lieu fees for the required affordable units”.
Rich college students and poor families typically have even more conflicts than rich college students and retired slow growth people so it makes since to let the city build affordable housing somewhere else.
It would be great if the the rich college kids took the poor kids down the hall to winemaker dinners at the Sutter Club or invited them to play in the member guest tournaments at their home clubs, but this rarely (if ever) happens…
“This monstrosity is displacing many low income workers, students, and folks on disability. ”
My understanding is that the students and others will have an opportunity to rent at the new facility and the displaced people have been or will be accommodated.
Not according to what I heard. The renters I talked to next door told me they were just notified that they had to move.
A mild tangent but what is the status of Pacifico rental apts? Are they now full occupancy? That’s a start, I realize just a drop in the bucket but good location for biking to campus. Last I heard it was very low occupancy and city was managing…..
SODA wrote:
> A mild tangent but what is the status of Pacifico rental apts?
You must have missed my post on “low hanging fruit” just two days ago (see below)
> Are they now full occupancy?
No still MORE than half empty (I estimate over 75% empty) way to go City of Davis I hope the leasing agent (that was not in his office when I stopped by this week) gets a BIG bonus or maybe a promotion to manage a bigger property.
On September 7th David wrote:
> UC Davis makes a lot of sense for supplying much needed rental
> housing, but it does not appear to represent low-hanging fruit.
The real “low hanging fruit” is the city owned Symphony/Pacifico property that has been MORE than half empty for OVER TEN (10) YEARS.
I took some time to ride around the place just yesterday on my way downtown. The two north buildings have never had even one resident since I moved South of Davis in 2010 (a former Sharps & Flats manager told me the place went to over half empty after they stopped managing it in 2006).
It looks like only a handful of people are living in the two south buildings. A sign in the (closed) office window said rent for a bed was $455 (it has been over $400 since at least 2010).
Since the place has 112 beds keeping it MORE than half empty has resulted in MORE than $300K year in lost rent a year (or MORE than $3 MILLION over the past decade). It seems to me that we should fix this problem first (before we go after the former election office people who were buying iPads and traveling with their government credit cards).
Sorry, have been traveling so didn’t ‘pick the low hanging fruit’. But agree with all you say, tho it isnt just the lost revenue, it is also lost bed opportunities for students.
But with respect, I disagree with your dismissal of the election article and hope to hear more about it.
“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.”
It costs nothing to post on the Vanguard or come to a planning commission meeting.
That statement seems to come from a very priveladged point of view.
Internet access has a cost for service. Owning a device that can access the Internet has a cost. The time to get to the very few publicly available computers in Davis has a cost of time. Going to city meetings takes time in the evening and if you work in the evening (like the several food service workers who live in Slaters) you might have to take time off from work to attend. Don’t disregard these costs. They are very real to truly low income people.
The area effected by this project houses some of the lowest income residents in Davis. They should be treated with respect and dignity. Their voices need to be heard.
HF wrote:
> Internet access has a cost for service.
Not if you use FREE wi-fi:
https://localwiki.org/davis/WiFi_Hotspots
> Owning a device that can access the Internet has a cost
True but most people (even the poor making <$15/hr) can save up the $50 it costs to buy a new Tablet or used smartphone…
SOD since they are so inexpensive to you, then perhaps you should pick some up and drop them off at Slaters. $50 may not mean much to you, but it is not an insignificant cost for some.
Putting students near campus are going to inconvenience people. At the end of the day, apartments are needed in town.
Chamber Fan, you are only reacting this way because you aren’t the one being “inconvenienced”. Don’t flippantly disregard something because it doesn’t affect you. I’ve gotten sick of this argument and insinuation that no one should be able to complain about something that affects their living space. No, we shouldn’t have to bend over every time the city rezones properties, proposes mitigation but rarely follows through on them, and gives the go ahead on projects that don’t fit in aesthetically in neighborhoods.
That’s mighty presumptuous of you. How do you know that I haven’t been inconvenienced in the past or won’t be in the future?
“No, we shouldn’t have to bend over every time the city rezones properties, proposes mitigation but rarely follows through on them, and gives the go ahead on projects that don’t fit in aesthetically in neighborhoods.”
Odin: You realize I hope that the attitude expressed in the above quote is a significant part of the reason why there is insufficient affordable housing in Davis? We can’t fight every development project and still hope to have a place for people to live.
Mark,
You need to freshen your script, you have become a one-note fiddle.
First, I agree with Eileen. I’d put up less of a stink if I knew UCD was doing their part to remedy a problem they created.
Secondly, as she stated somehow Lincoln 40 got away with NOT providing affordable housing.
Third, we on Olive aren’t fighting the project. Most in the neighborhood have no idea of the scope and impact caused by it anyway. What I am pointing out is that there is an obvious bias against a low income neighborhood as indicated by here on the DV. This thread sat silent for nearly 2 hours this morning when any thread regarding the Hyatt received over 100 responses in the first few hour of posting. Most people in my neighborhood have no idea of the scope of this project. As I said before, many don’t even have internet access or can afford a local paper.
This is a project offering up to 500 beds compared to other smaller projects in town yet receives little discussion on the impact on those of us who will be displaced because soon we will no longer afford to live in one of the last affordable (by the town’s standards) places we can live in town. People yell about hotel occupants seeing in their back yards. People yell about a 5 story building blocking sunlight into their yards (trackside) and others complaining about traffic problems (Sterling). So here we have an issue involving the displacement of folks who keep the town running and suddenly every goes mum.
I have a problem with the notion that increased access to a UC education is a “problem.” We’re a host city of a major university, we have an obligation to provide housing for students, faculty and staff and not consider it a burden.
I don’t think anyone disputes this. In fact Davis already houses more than 70% of the students at UCD and a large number of faculty and Staff. the problem is UCD does less to house students than any other UC. UCD needs to do more.
“don’t fit in aesthetically” What, in your opinion would fit aesthetically in that area? I’m thinking shipping container houses with “vintage” containers.
Chamber Fan,
At the end of the day, UCD needs to build a very large number of on-campus apartments now to catch up with what they promised the City and what they need for their own growth, and UCD needs to stop doing “master leases” cutting further into reducing the availability of City rental housing for non-students. There is no point in building new apartment complexes if UCD is going to get away with “master leasing” them out. These master leases are just enabling UCD to avoid building on campus housing for its own needs and so that situation needs to be resolved, and soon.
I think you have convinced yourself that this is a practical and viable way around the difficulties of building housing in Davis. I don’t believe you’re right.
Chamber Fan,
Given the many others who agree with what I just posted in previous threads, this is not only my opinion. The root of problem of any apartment shortage is primarily due to UCD’s negligence to produce the on-campus housing needed for their own growth. There is nothing complicated or hard to understand regarding that.
We apparently don’t agree on this and you have convinced yourself that our City should try to build its way out of a major problem that UCD is imposing on our City, other nearby cities, and its own students. Logically that will not work and is not in the best interest of our City or its residents or the UCD students. UCD simply needs to step-up and build the needed on-campus housing for its own growth and soon.
Appeal to popular belief is fallacious reasoning – you could all be wrong. I believe that the city is going to have to have to add rental housing.
How many housing units has the university added in the last 30 years? How many students?
I only have the last 20 years of data handy at the moment.
UCD enrollment 1997: 24,299
UCD enrollment 2012: 32,354
UCD enrollment 2016 – 17: 34,665
West Village: “At build-out, the project will include 663 apartments, 343 single-family homes….” Estimate 2 – 3,000 beds at completion.
Tercero, Phase 3: 1176 beds
Somewhere in there they removed Orchard and Solano Park, and a long time back they added the housing complex along LaRue.
The university is thousands of beds short.
So is the city, though less thousands.
So the university has added 10,000 but only 4000, and we expect a viable strategy to count on them to supply the housing? Isn’t that up there with duck & cover and pound & pray?
Don wrote:
> UCD enrollment 1997: 24,299> UCD enrollment 2016-17: 34,665
Davis population 1997: 53,607
Davis population 2016-17: ~67,000
I know that Don in in favor of more apartments in town, but I’m wondering where Eileen (and others opposed to growth in town) think that the ~4,000 non students who have come to Davis in the past 20 years should live?
P.S. Some people may not be aware that only people affiliated with the University are allowed to live in University owned housing like all the new apartments west of 113…
This is what infill looks like, folks. It will rent out in a flash. I wouldn’t live there now, but my younger self would have. Too bad that the improvements at Richards and Olive Drive are not being done. It’s not an ideal location and it would help to have bike and pedestrian access over the RR tracks to give better access to the downtown for the residents along Olive Drive. Maybe this will necessitate a 2nd tunnel on the East side of the tunnel. Some sort of relief for the existing Olive Drive residents may garner some support for the project. Olive Drive should have been maintained as light industry, like the West end, but the Council changed the focus to residential back when Harrington was on the Council. It may be wise to close off the off ramp from highway to reduce traffic bombing down that street.
I agree with you Ryan. The problem is that I wouldn’t want to put student housing out on the periphery, that doesn’t make sense either. Someone is going to have to be inconvenienced.
Chamber Fan,
Not sure where you are getting your math from by Bob Segar recently confirmed that UCD is only providing 9,400 beds for 36,000 students and we are not even certain if this number includes master leases in the City.
This is about continuing to let UCD know that they have created this problem and they need to take action to address it now, rather than try to dupe the City into fixing it for them which would be endless situation of opportunism by UCD.
I would love to continue this discussion, but need to get some errands done now.
Eileen, you’re not really engaging in a discussion. It is more like an argument. You keep saying the same thing over and over and over, along terms and phrases that are meant to demean the people you are arguing with. That’s not really a discussion.
ryankelly,
Your comments are pretty much the same as Mark West. Perhaps you know each other, or are one and the same person. So rather than repeat this conversation on line yet again, I do not see how you yourself are adding anything to this discussion but your own demeaning comments.
Eileen, I’m offended by your posts. You just don’t care about other people who live in Davis and make an effort to comment here. You just don’t care about any other opinion than your own. I think you and your friends have lost your way and you lack a moral compass and are too quick to abandon civility for something that really has little or no value in its absence. You have no sense of pride regarding the contributions of the University, our hard working city staff and community representatives and repeatedly trash the institution that provides you with employment. You are just plain mean. What’s worse is that you don’t seem to care.
[moderator] edited for language
This project needs a new pedestrian and bike crossing to downtown to really work out.
I have heard that there is some talk about a connector to J St.
Yes there is, and it is a necessity. The developers have a real problem with access via a one-way-out intersection — “the worst intersection in Davis” (Davis Wiki) — and they know it. The problem with the crossing is cost. By itself, the project probably cannot afford the multi-millions to dig this tunnel. It has to be done in conjunction with rebuilding the railroad platform, some safe-route-to-school funds, etc. It’s a huge coordination and timing and funding issue that is almost beyond comprehension.
The developers have set out right-of-way — in the wrong place where they first put it as it created a “chute” which is not the way to do it anymore because it scares people to use it — but they have that in the plans. The lowered parking requirement is to managed in some way, probably economic incentives. Then, however, the tunnel is a necessity as Olive/Richards is a traffic engineering joke and hazard to cyclists.
My concern, and I stated it months ago before the City Council, is we are promised a railroad crossing, and once the project is approved there is no real funding path to get there and the reality of it vaporizes. For an example of this, see the bike path path from the Cannery to the H-Street tunnel, one of the most necessary safe-routes-to-school and bicycle-connectivity routes for out City. OH you can’t see it?!??!!! That’s because it isn’t there.
Just because there is an IMPLICATION that something will be done, doesn’t mean a flying F— if the agreement to fund — not to mention acquire right-of-way — isn’t completed BEFORE the development is approved.
The City Council knows Alan Miller is watching this. We need actual bike/ped/srts projects, not unfunded plans. No more vapor trails!
Very well said Alan. Solid logic expressed cleanly and succinctly.
Thanks Old Moonbeam for the rape of RDA making it much more difficult to partner with these developments on the infrastructure needs.
Odin,
I for one would very much like to hear more from the neighborhood folks about what they think about the project. Do you have any thoughts on how information could best get to them, and their voices could best be heard?
The first neighborhood meeting regarding Lincoln 40 was barely advertised so few attended. The meeting was informational at best without offers for input. We DID receive notices for the upcoming EIR meeting and I’m thinking the reasoning is Maynard Skinner found out how much we opposed Nishi due to the lack of community input (from renters) and decided they better include us in the discussion.
People have to recognize that low income people lack the knowledge, and the time necessary to offer input. Heck, I read the EIR and got confused. I wish they would write them so average folk can understand what is going on.
The pictures of the project don’t offer anything either. An overhead shot makes it look like their is ample open space surrounding the project, but the front and side view show little of it (http://cityofdavis.org/home/showdocument?id=5966).
So to answer your question, we need help from the educated minds here on the DV. I am hoping folks on here will offer similar input and discussion as given to other projects and not ignore that this project should be vetted like the rest. No one here is saying it shouldn’t be built, especially considering unlike Nishi it’s not periphery development where we got to vote on it. But sure, I’d like to see balloons checking for visibility and drones analyzing overhead views to be as fair to us as the folks living near the Hyatt.
Odin, I think those are very reasonable suggestions. I will commit to reading up on the project so i have a better understanding of what is being proposed. I definitely want to here more from the folks who live over there because their point of view is very important. I completely understand the different challenges for engagement in that neighborhood.
Thanks Grok, good to know someone cares.
Grok, thought I’d point out, I just talked to someone who looked at those pictures in the EIR. They pointed out the second shot is just of the building exclusive of the rest of the property so I may have misjudged the proximity to Slatters. My mistake. I am hoping according to the overhead view we have a buffer (parking lot) to give a little distance between us and the complex. Still, I am hoping Lincoln 40 gets the proper review before they just plop a five story building down in this neighborhood and need others like you to help guide the discussion for the upcoming EIR meeting. Thanks.
Too bad Slatter’s Court didn’t have any environmental review, public scrutiny when it was ‘built’… but it is what it is… you bring up “displacement”… you looking forward to that and getting “reparations”?
How respectful of your ‘living conditions’ has the owner been? Energy efficiency? Security? Safety (electric outlets, etc.)?
Just curious…
If it was up to me (and, isn’t), I’d promote redeveloping the entire north side of Olive, and offering all the existing tenants a 5-10 year subsidized rent (or even a no increase provision) to get rid of the fire trap(s). Particularly if the emergency access off I-80 disappears… (current off-ramp). Properties (most, not all) on the north side of Olive are dilapidated, and ripe for re-development…
hpierce wrote:
> If it was up to me (and, isn’t), I’d promote redeveloping
> the entire north side of Olive
It will probably happen soon enough since Bob the owner seemed about 80 when I met him 10 years ago…
It would happen even sooner if the city sent code inspectors out there to make sure every bathroom had a GFI plug, every unit has the proper number of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and all the plumbing was to code…
hpierce: “Properties (most, not all) on the north side of Olive are dilapidated, and ripe for re-development…”
There you go again, hpierce, using logic on the VG. Pretty soon AM will be telling you to put a sock in it (while dancing the samba).
Great to see more bashing of Olive Drive from the DV. You folks are so much better than us. You’re right, we should move and make way for all the upscale apartments and boutiques you seem to prefer over poor folk. We’re just trash to all you anyway.
Why are posters rooting for the destruction of another posters home? That seems very harsh.
Odin, I looked at the drawings and the two dimensional drawings of the building only shows the buildings and doesn’t include the parking areas on either side. From the plan view, there is a substantial set back from Slater’s Court to accommodate parking all the way around the buildings and comparing the plan and the existing photograph, it looks like they plan to retain the existing mature trees. The buildings start just beyond the end of the apartments across the street, if that helps you see where the new buildings would be positioned on the property. I think your idea of balloons would help you see what you might be able to view. I hope you don’t think you will not see the building at all, but the set back won’t give the looming feel that you might be worried about.
Ryan, yeah I mentioned above someone pointed out to me the 2nd pics are just of the structure. My error. Where I am confused is the EIR states up to 500 beds, but today’s Enterprise states up to 800. And they wonder why we get so confused. I remember with Nishi they first advertised it would be surrounded by 33 acres of open space, a week later it dropped down to 20 before eventually dropped down to 14 acres; all within a span of a couple of weeks. So with Lincoln 40 how are we to know if what we see in their EIR is what we will end out with? It makes it confusing for the average Joe (like me) and deters people offering input because they really aren’t sure what the “real” plans are.
Mark West,
Your comments are not only condescending but insensitive to the proposed eviction and elimination of housing for some of the lowest income residents in the City. You really need to try to put yourself in the place of these folks, even if it is just fore a few minutes, to try to understand their situation.
It is outrageous that this Lincoln40 proposal is proposing evicting all of these low income residents at this site, without replacing any affordable housing. Then, to propose a project with less than half of the parking needed for the enormous number of residents it would house. Undoubtedly, the developers would extract a high fee per parking slot, to increase their profits.
The proposed 4-5 bedroom apartments by Lincokn40 are not in demand for non-students, particularly if none of them are affordable. The rent for apartments that large is ridiculous and any family would be better off purchasing a home rather than sending thousands of dollars on apartment rent. Any additional rental housing that the City considers needs to be practical and available to average renters including our workforce and families. The proposed 4- 5 bedroom apartments are not practical, instead 1,2, and 3 bedroom apartments work the best for our community, now and long-term.
What comments are you referring to Eileen? It seems you have added me to your list of who is to blame, even when I am trying to follow AM’s advice. Perhaps you should take a look in the mirror next time you are assigning blame, or at least manage to put your ‘reply’ below my comment so I know what you are accusing me of.
Have a nice night.
There is a big difference between eviction, and non-renewal of leases.
There is no evidence of, just an assertion of, proposed “evictions”.
Given the span of time between now, and (under the most favorable timelines, from the applicant’s perspective) demolition of existing structures, anyone who resides within the proposed project limits has at least two years notice. Sounds reasonable…
You could perhaps get together folk to acquire the property, and protect the tenants that you express concern for.
Eileen… thinking more… even if the proposal were dropped in its entirety, the property owner could non-renew leases, and raze the entire site… the owners have no legal obligation to replace any housing under that scenario, affordable or not. The current owner has no obligation to provide any housing.
These are significant discrepancies that need to be clarified. It sounds like Lincoln40 is testing to see what it can “get through” the planning process.
Seriously South of Davis? What about UCD catching up on the large amount of housing that they were supposed to build for their existing student population over the last 27 years since the City-UCD MOU? And that means providing on-campus apartments for the 4-5 years the students attend UCD, not just freshman dorms housing the students for only one year who are then forced off campus to find housing elsewhere, which is primarily in our community’s rental housing.
What RK says is all true, from direct discussions with the reps. They purposefully set back both from Slater’s Court and the tracks, to avoid the looming, and I’m sure to give some distance from the tracks. They have so far been very responsive to our suggestions and asks, and had documents and studies at the ready.
While we have been through the process numerous times and had things changed on us without notification in several projects , I see no advantage to Lincoln 40 developers politically to move the buildings, which seem to be optimally located on the lot, though quite large.
Average Joe: you can’t.
As expected, many diverse viewpoints have been expressed about the proposed Lincoln 40 student apartment project. Many valid points have been raised by those supporting and opposing the proposal. I would hope that everyone could agree on one aspect, however. That is, the City should seriously consider amending its affordable housing ordinance to eliminate the option for a developer to pay “in lieu” fees instead of actually devoting a portion of the project to housing that meets current affordability guidelines. The current situation is somewhat analogous to Sacramento County’s tree preservation ordinance, which is intended to make developers mitigate for removal of native oak trees. Instead of actually planting new oak trees, developers have the option of paying “in lieu” fees to a County tree fund. Over the years the fund has grown, but few–if any–new oak trees have been planted.
I would hope that most people could agree on several points:
UCD needs to build much more on-campus housing to meet the needs of its growing student enrollment.
The City of Davis needs to find creative ways to facilitate construction of more rental housing in suitable locations; i.e., sites that conform to the General Plan and are consistent with contiguous neighborhoods.
Chamber fan made a statement that I don’t totally support: “We have an obligation to provide housing to university students, faculty and staff.” I don’t see why the City of Davis has an obligation to facilitate the creation of student housing. The demand for student housing has been solely created by UCD, exacerbated in recent years by its aggressive recruitment of out-of-state and international students. UCD’s rapid enrollment growth without a commensurate increase in on-campus student housing is simply irresponsible and negligent. Shifting the burden to the City of Davis will simply enable a continuation of UCD ‘s bad behavior.
And what, just for our edification, are those affordability guidelines? What income level qualifies for affordable housing in Davis?
Some discussion from 2009. Some things have changed, others haven’t. Perhaps it’s time for an update to this. https://davisvanguard.org/2009/11/vanguard-study-citys-affordable-housing-program-falls-short/
http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/letters/its-time-to-blame-ourselves/
For the record, I am not Ryan Kelly, nor am I the author of this letter to the editor, despite what some may think.
I can confirm that I am not Mark West, nor have I endorsed Donald Trump for President, unlike the commenter of the referenced letter to the editor.