By Eileen Samitz
(Editor’s note: this was originally a post but since it was of length to be an article, it is being published on its own, we will endeavor to answer this piece by piece during the week, in the meantime, feel free to comment or ask further questions).
Once again, your articles continue to ignore and side-step the serious problems and impacts by a mega-dorm project like Lincoln40 and try to simplify it to a numbers or ratio issue. You have not responded to any of the issues that have been raised regarding the problems and impacts of mega-dorms like Lincoln40 on the City. Just a few regarding Lincoln40 specifically include:
1) The massive size of the Lincoln40 project which would be located on the far east end of Olive Drive would bring enormous traffic and circulation impacts on Olive Drive and Richards Blvd.
There would be over 700 Lincoln40 residents needing to get across Richards to UCD which would necessitate interrupting the traffic signal at Richards and Olive Drive constantly for the students to get to the UCD campus all day long, not just peak hours. This in turn will further the backed-up traffic along Richards corridor to more like 30 minutes or more, rather than 10-minutes or more currently. That longer back-up of traffic means that far more car fuel will be burned and far more fumes will deteriorate the air quality.
2) What about the safety issues of placing a mega-dorm at the east 
end of Olive Drive which will at some point become a cul-de-sac since Cal Trans plans to close off the Olive Drive exit and would make it a firetrap. How are fire engines to get to an emergency there, particularly with all the backed-up traffic? What if there were a train derailment for instance there?
3) Due to the Lincoln40 project the subject a pedestrian/bike railroad underpass (or more expensive overpass) is being floated as an idea, but who is going to pay for the $7 million price tag for that? Lincoln40 would be creating the tipping point to need such infrastructure which would cost $7 million. The Lincoln40 developer has made clear that he is not going to pay the bill for that bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, even though it is his Lincoln40 project exacerbating the traffic and circulation situation to need it. Plus, Lincoln40 will be expensive, luxury apartments designed exclusively for student housing only primarily with 4- and 5- bedroom “suites” with single-room-occupancy renting by the bed, rather than being a traditional 1,2, 3 bedroom apartment complex which would be for non-students as well like families and local workers needing rental housing. So, are you saying that Davis residents need to subsidize Lincoln40 by helping to pay for infrastructure for UCD student housing needs?
4) What about the toxic plume headed toward Lincoln40? Is it going to be investigated? Apparently, the developer wants to ignore this issue. What about the health and safety issues to the residents from the volatile toxics that need to be analyzed as to their impacts sooner or later? The City would be liable for any health issues later that emerged if this project is allowed to move forward without a complete analysis is this plume. The developers responsible for this and the City needs to not subsidize this Lincoln40 problem either. Why is there no Vanguard discussion about this? Instead there is the “merry-go-round” of the same Vanguard article repeated over and over again saying the same thing, which is putting the focus on the City, rather than giving at least equal time to the UCD’s responsibility on of all of this.
So, it is really not helpful for articles like this continue to side-step so many of the real issues and try to reduce the problem to a ration calculation issue. When is the Vanguard going to address these relevant issues and impacts on the City rather than trying to continue to simplify it to a math ratio? And on that subject, this is not really about Sterling and Lincoln40 being the endpoint solution. UCD is trying to continue deflecting its massive housing needs onto the City while continuing its long history of irresponsibility to its students and its opportunism towards to City. So why isn’t the Vanguard giving equal time to that subject? There are at least two more projects in the pipeline targeting student housing in the City. One makes absolutely no sense, proposed near Playfields park in South Davis which would create even more problems trying to get students across I-80 to the UCD campus daily. This would only further exacerbate the Richards corridor traffic problem.
The other project is a private company proposing a student project on Oxford Circle which does makes sense since it is near Russell Blvd. and right across from UCD. This project will be at least 5-stories. Meanwhile UCD is going to the expense of demolishing its 3-story Webster Hall right near it on Oxford Circle to build only a 4-story replacement! What an enormous waste by UCD of land and financial resources. I wonder how much of that funding is public funding from our taxes? So why isn’t the Vanguard talking about this Webster Hall lost opportunity occurring?
Instead of placing the focus on where the primary problem is, of UCD’s negligence and continuing the discussion of how UCD needs to step-up, the Vanguard continues to try to impose the problem UCD has created on the City. Why does the Vanguard continue to sidestep and ignore covering the massive impacts and problems brought on by mega-dorms and UCD’s constantly deflected housing needs? Why isn’t the Vanguard giving at least equal time now on how UCD needs to help solve this problem that they have created instead of articles which are not balanced and do not help, like this one?
I would be curious as to Eileen’s basis for this statement about the city’s liability.
Still not convinced there is evidence of a plume other than an unnamed consultant who according to Eileen (and I don’t doubt her) raised it at an NRC meeting.
It is indeed, a curious statement. One not based in fact.
That’s not typically the way it works, either. Somebody who has direct knowledge of how the 15 – 20 other sites in town have been handled could probably give more detail, but my recollection is that the past or present property owners of the site are usually responsible, if possible, for any cleanup and mitigation. If I recall from how other sites have been handled, if it’s too much for them, or they can’t be held responsible, it shifts to state or federal agencies. Neither the city, nor the owner of an adjacent or nearby property being developed, would have responsibility, liability, or expense in the case of an identified site. And of course (assuming there is a hazard identified) the question is what the actual risk is.
You have the basics correct Don. Has everything to do with the source of the contamination… not where the plume (if any) has migrated. Not all contamination results in a ‘plume’. Even then conditions have to be ‘right’ for it to migrate.
The ‘actual risk’ depends on nature of the contaminant, concentration, and likelihood of exposure.
If true, that creates motivation for poor planning decisions and corruption. (Approved by the city, but responsibility shifts to taxpayers statewide, and/or nationwide.) Reminds me of flood-plain developments.
(Note – this is not a comment regarding this site in particular.)
Not really. It’s simply that cleanup of these sites is so costly and the pollution goes back so far that property owners are often no longer accessible, or they immediately file for bankruptcy. Most of these cases occurred before anyone realized that the materials were that toxic or needed to be handled differently. I’m not sure where you get “corruption” in any of these cases. Are you familiar with any of the 15 – 20 sites in Davis?
Got it – that’s not a “problem”, in your view.
I’m not sure if your conclusion that cities aren’t responsible for the impacts of their decisions is entirely accurate. However, if true, this creates a situation ripe for corrupted decisions.
In many cities, development interests and local officials have an uncomfortably “close” relationship. (Developer campaign contributions are often focused on those with “similar” viewpoints.)
If you believe that the inevitable “result” (taxpayer-funded cleanups and liability) is not corruption, then you must have a different definition than I do. (Again, I’m not necessarily commenting on this particular proposed development.)
Don’t put words in my mouth or attribute things to me that I haven’t said.
It’s a problem. Even cleaning up an old fuel tank on private property is extremely costly, often beyond the resources of private property owners. Every cleanup site is different. Sometimes the mitigation is very costly and time-consuming, while in other cases they just monitor it to see how the toxic agent progresses and disperses.
You drive by several of these sites on a regular basis without knowing about them. If you live in Mace Ranch (I have no idea where you live), you’re near one of the bigger ones in the area, the subject of ongoing mitigation over a couple of decades now. Clearly that one didn’t stop residential development from happening. They even moved the monitoring wells when Target was built, so commercial development wasn’t impeded either. The gas station at the corner of 5th and L is another, but far less extensive.
No, I don’t consider spreading the costs and liabilities to be a form of corruption. They would be unmanageable for any single entity, in some cases.
I am, Don, and Ron is way out of line on this, particularly the “corruption” clap-trap. Same on the flood-plain issue… there City ordinances/county ordinances, and Federal laws and rules are VERY clear in this (development in flood-plain area)… yeah, am somewhat a SME in that…
[moderator] edited
Howard: Yes – those regulations must be quite “clear”. That’s why we have government-funded cleanup sites, levee “improvements”, and “bail-out” programs (when levees ultimately fail, anyway). Combined with significant development interests, influencing decisions.
[moderator] edited
Don’t flatter yourself, Ron… that was a random sentence related to something that has nothing to do with this blog… tried to delete it, ran out of time…
Have a great day…
Corruption is one of the most serious charges one can make about a public employee, or an elected.
If there is any evidence, bring it forward… that is your duty as a citizen…
If not, why do you bring that term into the discussion?
In this case, I’m describing a “system” of decision-making which is corrupted. You’d see that, if you actually read my post.
Bring forward the evidence… it is your duty as a citizen…
And yes, read it…
Howard: Outcomes such as “Katrina” (continuing to allow development below sea-level) is one example. (Are you actually challenging me on this?)
Having taxpayers fund “improvements” to the levee system around the Natomas basin (so that developers can profit from the result) is another example. Also, having taxpayers “bail out” homeowners (if the levee ultimately fails, anyway) is another example.
On a somewhat related note, I believe that there’s some action against the government (by private individuals, who were affected by the Oroville dam fiasco). (However, I don’t have time verify/look up the article right now.)
Got to run soon, but here’s one article regarding the Oroville dam fiasco:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article165110037.html
Of course, in this case, at least the individuals are apparently suing the agency that actually made the decisions (the state).
In that case, a single entity (with no responsibility for the outcome) should not have authority regarding such decisions. (Common sense.)
Ok, next point. Development plans are all submitted to safety agencies, I assume. I know when we built our building, and when we did some construction on our private property, the plans were checked by the fire department which required some specific modifications. So I assume that the appropriate agencies would never allow a development to become a firetrap, and that they would review the traffic flow for emergency access.
Is there some reason to believe this project would create a uniquely dangerous situation?
Don,
Lincoln40 would be on essentially cul-de-sac which could only be approached one-way, to a already enormously impacted Richards Blvd.. So yes, this is uniquely more dangerous location and shoe-horning in an enormous project with over 700 more people on what would be a narrow dead-end street is not good planning. It would be hard to understand even how a fire truck is supposed to maneuver or turn around on what would be a narrow dead-end street after trying to get though a typical Richards Blvd. traffic jam in an emergency like a fire.
Ignoring most of the hyperbole and the three paragraphs of non-project specific complaining at the end, I want to respond to the concerns about this project that Eileen has enumerated.
This is a serious concern, and of course a focus of the EIR. Instead of speculating, wait for the results of the analysis.
This is a possible concern, depending on analysis by professionals. Safety analysis is a requirement of all new development projects and this project will not be approved if it is considered unsafe.
Cal Trans has wanted to remove this exit for years but cannot force the City to do so. It will be a local decision and is not something that is unique to this project.
Same way they get anywhere they are needed (despite traffic). Traffic moves aside. This is only a problem if it changes the emergency services response time in the City.
The exact same thing that will happen now if there is a derailment without this project. Should we evacuate all those living next to the railroad tracks now? Are they not in the same danger? Are you proposing we close down Slater Court for instance because it is unsafe to live there due to the threat of derailment?
It is inaccurate to state this is being discussed only because of this project. A bike/pedestrian crossing has been a serious topic of discussion for many years (decades) prior to this project being proposed.
The same taxpayers who pay for new infrastructure now.
Probably not. It would be useful to know the percentage net increase in residents along Olive Drive from this project. Will this project double the total number of residents, or something somewhat less than a 100% increase? I don’t know the answer.
All new apartments will be expensive, that is the nature of new development.
Designed primarily for students, but not exclusively. Making obviously false claims diminishes the quality of the discussion.
Davis residents need to pay for the infrastructure needed for other Davis residents. Whether they are students, janitors, professors, or retired public employees (living on a taxpayer funded pension) doesn’t change the calculation. If we need new infrastructure, we all should pay for it. It is not a subsidy, it is our obligation. It is the same obligation as for paying to build and maintain the street in front of your house. It is reasonable to have new developments partially fund necessary infrastructure, but not in its entirety.
Spaghetti on the wall. Not worthy of further discussion.
I have some interesting stuff for the next few weeks now.
‘Ya think? Yes, definitely…
Only to the extent that the newbies increase the impacts, or create new infrastructure needs… the newbies should not be viewed as “cash cows”… some here appear to think/believe new development should reduce their own “dues”, in order to allow new development to happen…
Given Measure R, talk about corruption! Wanting a ‘pay-off’ to get their vote…
Mark:
Well thanks for agreeing on what is obvious.
This close off of Olive Drive has been raised by City Staff over and over again. Why would they be bringing this up as a concern if there is little reason it will not happen? Also, I am not certain about your assertion here since Cal Trans does have authority to force this closure since they seem to call the shots on issues like this.
This response is in complete disregard of the reality of the reality of the complete back-up which typically is at Richards particularly at rush hour, where here is no space for any cars to “pull-over” for an enormous fire truck t try to get past them.
All the more reason why more than 700 more people should not be placed in the line of danger in this area.
It is an issue that this project creates a massive impact to this area and pushing a threshold for a massively expensive railroad crossing. The City cannot even afford to pave the streets, and now it is supposed to subsidize this infrastructure for Lincoln40 which is targeting UCD student housing needs only?
Wow, how generous of you Mark, to offer a $7 million subsidy for Lincoln40 by Davis taxpayers.
“Probably not?” Seriously? Adding more than 700 people on the east of Olive Drive is massive.
Really? Well how is are expensive, luxury student housing supposed to help students who are expecting affordable student housing at Lincoln40?
No, it is very exclusive by design specifically for students with its primarily 4-bedroom and 5-bedroom bedroom apartment “suites” which are single room occupancy and rented by the bed. Lincoln40 is a mega-dorm. This is not housing designed for, nor desirable by non-students. Your false accusations do not validate your incorrect assertion here.
I find your response astonishing. You defend a huge subsidy of Lincoln40 for a $7 million making the assumption that Davis taxpayers should pay for this subsidy. Well we will just have to see how Davis taxpayers feel about this given that the City has quite a few other priorities like trying to fix our street which we can’t even afford. What you are asking for is not reasonable.
Your condescending response to this concern that I raised does not deserve repeating, so I won’t re-post it. But for the record this is an issue that has been raised and which needs to be investigated since it is a public health, welfare and safety issue.
# Everything I said about the toxic plume yesterday #
I’m not sure I like this “taking comment and turning it into an article” thing. I hope it doesn’t set a precedent. I mean, at least take out the Turtle Wax and polish it a bit.
Alan,
For what it is worth, I did not ask for my comments yesterday to be re-printed as an article.