When the city council met two weeks ago to ultimately approve Lincoln40, there were only five comments in opposition to the project. But we are often told that there are numerous emails that come in on a project – in support and opposition.
Under the California Public Records Act, each of these emails are public record and so we requested the last month of correspondence to city staff and the city council.
The Vanguard was interested in seeing if there was a hidden wave of opposition below the surface. The results of the records request shows there was not.
It is not clear if this has an implication for Nishi – but it might.
What we have here are some of the emails to council – which, again, represent public records.
The council received a lengthy email from MF Balash in opposition. They write: “I am writing with many concerns about the Lincoln40 mega-dorm and all of the environmental and financial impacts that it would bring. Furthermore, this project is not even ready for consideration because the City’s consultant has not yet determined recommendations for the determining equivalencies of the 4- and 5- bedroom apartment suites that dominate Lincoln40 and the other mega-dorm projects. The mega-dorms as designed are significantly short-changing the City in affordable housing requirements as well as developer impact fees and the City should not be allowing these discounts.”
They conclude that “it is critical that the City Council reject mega-dorm design proposals in the city which are exclusionary by design and to support 1-, 2- and 3- bedroom proposals which are inclusionary by design and provide needed rental housing for families, local workers, as well as students. It is critical that UCD provide the 10,000 beds needed on campus as defined by resolutions supporting the “50/100” plan from the Davis City Council, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, the ASUCD Student Senate, and the Sierra Club, Yolano Group, as well as a community petition.”
The council received a lengthy email from Donna Lemongello in opposition: “I oppose Lincoln 40 and I hope you will too. A housing complex that is $1000 per person/bed, creates traffic impacts at 
one of most problematic intersections in the city, includes electricity and water discouraging any kind of conservation or responsible use, and has a unit structure that simply does not serve any family structure, is not in our city’s best interest. Please vote it down and work on housing that is not exclusionary for one group at the expense of others. Meanwhile, hold UCD’s feet to the fire and do more than ask politely that they fulfill their housing obligations for students. It’s time for pressure, not ‘pretty please.'”
The council received a lengthy email from Susan Rainier in opposition: “The Lincoln 40 Development in its current state still has serious flaws that need correction prior to approval. It is incumbent on you to set the bar high for the community at this crucial time in our City’s growth at these crucial times of climate disruption and over population.”
She argued it was Fiscal Irresponsibility by the City: “In the rush to provide housing for the University the City is ignorantly making deals with the developer that loses a lot of money for the City. Why is Staff dividing the persons per apartments by a lower factor in favor of the developer? This reduces the amount that the developer pays in impact fees. Why are they not being charged properly? The City needs these fees because the impacts are numerous due to number of residents added. This project has a bathroom per bedroom with far more impacts unlike typical non-rental housing in the City. According to our calculations the City is discounting the developer impact fees just by gaming the calculation factor in favor of the developer. Has a risk management analysis been conducted by the City to assure that our risks are being covered by these mega dorms? This needs to be fully understood and analyzed before approval. Transparency for the entire Community is needed about this.”
She also argued against the affordable housing component: “Lincoln40 is violating the City’s affordable housing requirements by only offering 10% or 71 out of 708 beds as “affordable” for students of low and very low incomes which the developers have defined as $670-$800 per month, hardly affordable. Shame.
“The City’s affordable housing program requires 35% affordable housing, recently lowered to 15% – Shame. According to this old requirement the City needs to require the developer to build at least 45 more apartments “units” and to determine the equivalent number of bedrooms and beds relative to the market-rate units. The number of affordable housing residents should be proportional of 35% of the market-rate number of residents as it was intended in the City’s affordable housing policy.
“How can the City be so cold and heartless to ignore this policy so blatantly-especially with the number of homeless students and students commuting from other surrounding cities? SHAME!!! This needs to be corrected and fair according to original policy before approval.”
The council received a lengthy email from Tim Hoban: “I have testified to the Planning Commission and Mayor and City Council numerous times about the ever increasing number of huge mega dorms for students (not families, low income residents, local individuals) being approved and in the pipeline. This is another extremely poor project with significant environmental impacts of crowding, pollution, traffic on our city’s TINY footprint. Our city leaders are ENABLING UC Davis to shirk and avoid its essential responsibility to house a fair share of its students. Since the Board of Regents pays literally no attention to the voters of this state and continues to add very large numbers of new students, many International ones, and funnel them into our already very densely populated town. Each of these projects, very harmful in themselves and failing to deal with the real housing needs we have with better planning, is bad enough, but the worrying accumulation of many more will have (disastrous) effects. We can’t yet see these effects because none of the already approved projects of this type have yet to be built nor will this one and the large line up of others waiting in the wings.”
The council received a lengthy email from Eileen Samitz:
“I am writing regarding many concerns regarding the Lincoln40 project. This project is not nearly ready for even consideration right now due to a number of factors and the project needs to comeback for consideration when these issues are resolved.
“For one reason, the City Staff has not gotten recommendations back from the consultant working on equivalencies regarding affordable housing requirements regarding mega-dorm proposals like Lincoln40, due to the predominant number of 4- and 5- bedroom apartments counting as only one ‘unit’ which short-changes the affordable housing unit count requirement.
“Also, the 2009 City of Davis developer impact fee schedule is outdated as even the Finance and Budget Commission agrees. because the two ‘band-aid’ proposals that City Staff have suggested (pages 36-38) are inadequate since they significantly short-change the City as well. But if the City were to move forward the City needs to opt for the more 2.52 multiplier based upon number of occupants (since that is where the impacts are coming from), not the lower 1.68 multiplier based upon ‘beds’ recommended by Staff. In these difficult budgetary times, the City should not be subsidizing any mega-dorm projects.
“However, the Lincoln40 project proposal clearly needs to be rejected due to the many environmental and fiscal impacts on the City.”
She then goes on to list 17 bullet points that won’t be re-printed here.
All of those emails ran against the project. In addition, Robb Davis received an email from Claudia Krich opposing Nishi, Lincoln40, and other projects. The council received a letter from the Davis Chamber which voted unanimously in support of the Lincoln40 project.
They received an email from Brian Horsfield in support of the project: “I have paid close attention to the details available to the public about this project. I have also read most of the No-Growth folks arguments against it and they don’t seem to hold water. We have created a serious housing problem for present and future students in Davis and this is a chance to reduce that problem.”
The council received an email from Alan Miller calling the development group “amazing in their outreach.” He said. “I believe the developers should be commended for their outreach efforts. I am especially impressed at how they worked with tenants of the current properties who had to find new housing. They continue to be transparent and fully available. Other developers and the City should study this as the way to do things, and those developers who don’t adhere to this method should be thrown into Putah Creek, the part with green algae.”
The city received a letter from SACOG (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) on the blueprint review of Lincoln40: “The project supports the Blueprint principles of compact development. use existing assets and mixed use communities. The proposed project includes 130 units of student housing in downtown Davis along Olive Drive. The Blueprint study revealed the need to aggressively utilize existing infill and redevelopment opportunities to add more housing in the City of Davis to help balance the high number of jobs. The Blueprint assumes that 20 percent of all new homes in Davis will be in the downtown area through development of Land that is vacant or under-utilized today. The Blueprint shows that adding more housing in Davis will allow for more people to live near their work or school, which reduces the demand on the regional transportation system by allowing for shorter trips and encouraging alternative-mode trips such as walking, biking, and transit.”
UC Davis Graduate Student Don Gibson sent 32 support cards to the council: “I collected 32 support cards from undergrads, grad students, and postdocs who shared their support for Lincoln40. Many people added their stories about the housing crisis in Davis. Stefani Christienson wrote, ‘Many friends living with 3 plus people per room due to a lack of place to live and especially places they can afford.’ Emily Pascoe, a postdoc shared ‘(it is) Impossible to find for foreign people! Need to wait months to find somewhere.’ Connor Brent added, “Having to show up to an open house at 6:30am & there already being 50 people in line. Within an hour or two there were several hundred.'”
On January 10, 2018, the Graduate Student Association passed the attached resolution endorsing the Lincoln40 project on a overwhelming majority of 87 for, 2 against, and 8 abstentions.
Below is the text:
Resolution Endorsing the Approval to Build Lincoln40 Housing Complex
Sponsors: Don Gibson, Integrative Genetics and Genomics Graduate Group
Roy Taggueg, GSA President
Jeremy Prim, GSA External Vice President
WHEREAS, the UC Davis Graduate Student Association (UCD GSA) seeks to advocate on behalf current and future University of California Davis graduate student needs including, accessibility to campus, affordable housing, and economic opportunities; and
WHEREAS, advocacy and support of local measures which directly benefit University of California, Davis graduate students is critical to improve the standard of living; and
WHEREAS, a chronic shortage of housing in the City of Davis has led to an apartment vacancy of 0.3% or less for the last three years. 1; and
WHEREAS, Lincoln40 would add 708 beds to the housing supply in the City of Davis, with apartments designed for the student population2; and
WHEREAS, 71 Affordable units will created for UC Davis graduate and undergraduate students who are often unable to qualify for subsidized housing3; and
WHEREAS, locating Lincoln40 off Olive Drive is infill development supporting a bike friendly commute while preserving agricultural land while allowing close access to downtown Davis, Amtrak, and UC Davis; and
WHEREAS, the population of UC Davis is projected to continuously grow through 2020 further exasperating the housing shortage if new housing construction does not follow4; and
WHEREAS, Lincoln40 fulfils the will of voters in the City of Davis whom decided to reduce peripheral growth in favor of infill projects through Measure J/R; and
WHEREAS, Lincoln40 will achieve LEED Gold equivalency LEED Gold standard for environmentally responsible building; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the UCD GSA endorses the planned construction of the Lincoln40 housing complex;
THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the UCD GSA External Chair and GSA Secretary will inform the UCD graduate student community, City of Davis Planning Commission Members, City of Davis Major and City Councilmembers of GSA’s position in support of Lincoln40; and
THERFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the UCD GSA President and GSA External Chair maintain a priority to advocate for additional housing in the long range plans at UC Davis, in the City of Davis, Yolo County, and in the state of California.
“hold UCD’s feet to the fire and do more than ask politely that they fulfill their housing obligations for students. It’s time for pressure, not “pretty please”.”
I was especially interested in the comments from Donna Lemongello, a former voice of reason on the Vanguard, whose comments I truly miss. What I see as missing from the above comment is that who is actually “pressured” by the city’s lack of housing is not the regents, the chancellor, the university, but rather the students who have no fault at all in this matter. While true that non students and families seeking housing are also innocent, “pressuring the university” does nothing to house either group if it is unwilling or unable for any reason to not provide truly affordable housing.
Good points. I would add the university got 85% to 92% of the way to where people were calling for depending on which way you are looking. The city in my view also needs to do more and has stepped up but I am disappointed that some in this community have opposed affordable student housing.
David
“I would add the university got 85% to 92% of the way to where people were calling for “
True as written. However, in fairness to those who are skeptical, this is an “on paper” agreement while the university has a history of unkept promises in the recent past.
I’m skeptical as well but at this stage this is all we get.
The city will experience the impacts (singular and cumulative), after these developments are built. The city is on track to become even more student-oriented (in terms of its rental market), overly-dense/congested, and fiscally impacted. It will be interesting to see how Richards/Olive will be impacted, during and after construction. (Don’t hold your breath, regarding construction of the bicycle/pedestrian overpass.)
The city is student oriented regardless. At least this way, we will have space for them all
One of the arguments being that others are getting pushed out, as discussed multiple times on here. And, goes back to how the city should deal with UCD. (But, let’s not go down that path, again.)
On a somewhat related note, I see that the proposed bill to override local zoning is getting some push-back:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article206383274.html
“One of the arguments being that others are getting pushed out”
and building more student housing prevents that
Again, the city has a limited amount of space to house various populations, and to accommodate other uses (whether it’s commercial development, social service facilities, etc.).
That is, unless one advocates sprawling outward (as some are already suggesting).
It’s pretty difficult to create viable and stable plans for the city, when there’s no agreement with the organization (UCD) which is primarily causing the growth (and which is negatively impacting their own students).
I guess that some folks prefer to treat the “effect” (without challenging it, and regardless of the impact on the city as a whole), rather than the “cause”.
David
“we will have space for them all”
I would amend this to “we will have space for more of them”. Sorry to be a stickler, but these projects in the city do not guarantee universal student housing, nor do they give the city any more control ( or even input) into how many more students UCD may decide to admit in the future.
Yes. Somewhat distracted posting
The city is already experiencing negative impacts from the lack of appropriate housing in town, for students and others. These developments will help alleviate those impacts.
Students are and will always be a major component of our population as we are the Host City for a major University. Providing appropriate housing for residents will not change that fact.
The only impact of Lincoln 40 on traffic in Davis will be a reduction in the number of commuting students driving into the City every day. The additional bikes and pedestrians on the road will go unnoticed by all except those intent on blaming new development for all the ills their imaginations create.
In general, this approach (‘treating the “effect”, rather than the “cause”) will have some positive impacts (e.g., for some students and UCD as a whole), and some negative impacts (for non-students, commercial and other opportunities, and planning for the city as a whole).
It will also help “open the door” for those who constantly advocate for sprawl.
True. But again (from above): “The city has a limited amount of space to house various populations, and to accommodate other uses (whether it’s commercial development, social service facilities, etc.).
That is, unless one advocates sprawling outward (as some are already suggesting).
One would have to identify the alternatives (e.g., whether it’s on-campus housing, limitations on non-resident enrollments, or housing in locations that otherwise do not impact major intersections) to make a statement such as yours. (Not to mention safety, for those riding bikes or walking through Olive/Richards, for example.)
Regarding “imagination”, perhaps you simply imagine that the analyses such as the one created for Sterling, regarding fiscal impacts of megadorms) don’t exist. (Strange, given that you primarily campaign on fiscal issues.)
Then, there’s also some folks who “imagine” that continued growth/development is a sound answer, to all problems. While ignoring the problems that creates.
Supplying the opportunity for all residents to find appropriate housing in an efficient way will always be a net positive for the community.
The City has copious space to accommodate all of the necessary needs and uses. We just have a portion of the population that selfishly chooses to limit access to that land in order to protect their own property values (at the expense of renters and the fiscal health of the community). We need to be careful and use our land efficiently to meet the needs of the community.
Only if you are looking to justify your desire to block residents from finding appropriate housing in town.
The availability of appropriate housing is a service that City’s provide to their residents, not a source of revenue.
I see that you “hacked” my responses, rather than listing them completely (as I did for yours).
In any case, I’ll focus on your final statement, since I don’t want to spend the entire day arguing each point with you:
Nowhere did I state that it is (or should be) a “source of revenue”. The problem is that it’s often the exact opposite, of that (e.g., as demonstrated by the Sterling analysis).
In general, as more housing is built, one would also have to question whether it’s actually intended for (and will be occupied by) “residents” (as you stated).
City services cost money, Ron. At best they are revenue neutral. We might work to reduce those costs by becoming more efficient, but the costs will never go away.
Who else could housing located in Davis be for other than someone who lives in Davis? Someone built the house you moved into when you arrived, after all.
You don’t get to decide who chooses to live here.
That question makes no sense. As more housing is added (e.g., the Cannery), more folks who are not residents will move in.
Again, not something I said (or even implied). However, communities do have some ability to make decisions regarding how large they become, and the rate at which that occurs. (Some would apparently prefer to reduce that ability, and instead let the market decide how much and how fast a community should grow. As many other valley communities essentially do.)
And, some would apparently prefer to essentially let UCD dictate growth patterns.
Whereupon they become residents. I believe this is what is called a tautology.
Don: They do, indeed. And, I’m not suggesting that they are any “worse” or “better” than any other resident.
But, again, communities (including the “newest” residents) have some say regarding how large the community ultimately becomes, and how fast that occurs. (Some apparently want to reduce, or take away that ability. It’s not difficult to find examples in other communities, where that’s already the “norm”.)
And yet, there’s other communities (such as some in the Bay Area, and in the Sierra to some degree) where they’ve realized that this approach produces undesirable results for the community and environment.
“communities have some say”
They do, but isn’t that what you’re objecting to at this point?
It’s unfortunate that not (yet) every community has fully acknowledged that “planning via market demand” is not a good approach. However, I suspect that this issue will gain traction, as the state exceeds 40 million residents, and counting. (But, not before traffic/roadways, water, fiscal and environmental issues, etc., continue to become more pronounced.)
It’s unfortunate we let it get to the point where market demand reached the point where it drove the need for planning. It didn’t have to be that way.
It’s called, “I’m here, I’ve got mine, bring up the drawbridge”… there are many “newbies” of that ilk…
I only came here , post-student, in ’79… less than 40 years… (was also here ’72-’77)
When did you arrive, Ron? If the voters prevented those evil developers of the ’80’s, ’90’s, early ’00’s from building/expanding, would you be where you are?
Was Davis “right-sized” the day after you arrived?
Howard: I do find it ironic that it’s often the newcomers who realize what a “gem” a given place is. I’ve noticed this in other geographic areas, as well.
To me, it has nothing to do with how long one lives in a given place. For example, I’ve already noted that I’m inspired when other communities take steps to place limits on growth/development, as well. (Even those that I’ll likely never step foot in.) It’s an issue that I follow pretty closely throughout the region and beyond, as noted by my comments over time.
I’ve seen the alternative, and it’s not good for anyone.
That’s true. The city could have dealt with UCD in a more direct way, a long time ago.
No.
“The city could have dealt with UCD in a more direct way, a long time ago.”
That may be your preference. Mine would be to have anticipated the need for student housing before we got to 0.2% vacancy and planned on how to provide it (including how much of it).
“unnoticed by all except those intent on blaming new development for all the ills their imaginations create.”
Agree with Mark’s first two points in 9:09 post. Would modify the quote to read “unnoticed by all except those who insist upon using their single occupant cars when multiple other modes of transportation might be more appropriate and then complaining about traffic congestion.”
“Congestion”, except for nasal/respiratory, is in the mind of the beholder… except for a few hours, certain days, certain segments, intersections, there is no level D/E/F of service in Davis… unless of course, if someone fees congestion is waiting 10-20 seconds to transit a certain route/intersection… yes, Richards/Olive has “congestion” at certain times of day, certain days, but if one chooses to avoid peaks, no problemo. No ‘congestion’…
“Traffic Congestion” in Davis, tends to be a “strawman argument”… except to the spoiled brats…
We do have a difference of opinion. Your suggestion forever binds the city to continue to accommodate UCD’s plans (at the expense of the city’s own needs and plans). There also seems to be an incorrect implication embedded in your suggestion that the city’s needs, plans, and goals are nearly identical to those of UCD. (And, that the city should continue to bear the unreimbursed cost and impacts of UCD’s plans.)
Who was it that said, “what’s good for General Motors, is what’s good for America”? (Something like that.) In any case, that seems to sum up your approach, regarding forever accommodating UCD’s plans.
Unless you transport UCD to Sacramento, the city is bound by the decisions of UCD. And yes, I believe that city does benefit from UCD. Would you rather live in Davis, Woodland, West Sac or Dixon? I think on a number of levels Davis is the place most people would prefer to live (affordability notwithstanding) and UC Davis is the reason for it.
One might argue that UCD benefits individuals, more than the city itself. In fact, UCD might be more of an ongoing fiscal drain for the city at this point (in addition to all of the housing impacts). (Regarding my analogy above, at least General Motors pays taxes.)
Santa Cruz and Berkeley presumably considered the benefits of their associated UCs, before pursuing agreements with them. (Below is a summary of the Santa Cruz/UC Santa Cruz agreement.)
Sure, the situation is not identical, but I can’t imagine why anyone wouldn’t want the city to explore the options.
Nor can I imagine that anyone can realistically deny that UCD’s needs will continue to disrupt the city’s own plans (creating negative impacts for the city itself, as well as UCD’s own students), if not addressed. Leading to a forever-unstable planning environment, for the city.
http://lrdp.ucsc.edu/settlement-summary.shtml
What is the city but the aggregate of individuals? But the city’s standard of living, the quality of the schools, amenities are all enhanced by the university.
Well, the city is a separate “entity”, with its own government, infrastructure, services, budget, needs, and requirements that are not directly associated with UCD. And, not every individual has a direct connection to UCD.
I didn’t realize how close you actually viewed the relationship between the city and UCD. It seems that the analogy I repeated above (“what’s good for General Motors, is what’s good for the city”) is pretty close to your beliefs.
If UCD paid taxes (as General Motors does), you might have a somewhat better argument. (Or, if they helped offset their impacts in other ways, as UC Santa Cruz does.)
As it is, it’s like “pulling teeth” to get UCD to agree to house their own students (even when collecting full rent from students). While simultaneously pursuing even more non-resident students, who pay them $42K/year.
It has not been a good situation for the city, or for students.
Wouldn’t be here without the university. And I have a very close relationship with the students.
Regarding students, I believe that what I (and others) have suggested would actually create a more permanent/stable solution for them. However, students are not the only residents, nor are they the only ones with needs.
I suspect that many folks in Davis identify so closely with UCD that they fail to see the negative impacts on the city. And worse, some then expect the city to continue to “resolve” the resulting problems, regardless of the impact on the city as a whole.
In other words, they view the city (and its goals, needs, and requirements) as secondary to that of UCD. With the city essentially/primarily functioning as a “support unit”, for UCD.
I think I’m starting to understand the fundamental difference in views even more clearly, now.
> And I have a very close relationship with the students.
Somewhat of a God-like figure, from what they tell me.