Olive Drive Mixed-Use Project Goes to Planning Commission This Week

By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor

Davis, CA – A project whose goal is to provide housing to city’s “non-professional workforce” that is currently not afforded housing opportunities in the recent projects is going to the Planning Commission next week.

The Olive Drive Mixed Use project combines four parcels on approximately half an acres of land (0.56 acres) along Olive Drive.

The project site is bordered on the north by the Davis Mobile Home Park.  To the east is an auto repair shop.  On the south is Olive Drive and across from the roadway is a mix of uses ranging from a fast-food restaurant, a single-family home, a liquor store, and a 60-unit apartment complex.  And on the west is the Davis Design House (furniture store).

The site is currently vacant and previously contained four small single-families homes which have been demolished.

The applicant is proposing to redevelop the vacant parcels with four residential apartment buildings containing a total of 47 one-bedroom apartment units, approximately 100 sf of office space, and approximately 900 sf of ground floor commercial space.

Access to and from the project will be off of Olive Drive. Staff explains, “The project as currently proposed would eliminate all four existing driveways, and provide a single driveway off of Olive Drive.”

Staff explains, “To address the potential of having multiple driveways near the intersection of Olive Drive and Richards Boulevard, staff recommended for the applicant’s consideration an alternate site plan that would provide for a shared driveway between the Davis Mobile Home Park, Design House property and the subject project.

However, the applicant has provided a modified site plan showing “a combined driveway from the proposed project with the existing driveway currently serving the Davis Mobile Estates.”

The applicant proposes to provide a total of 8 parking spaces, of which 4 will be assigned to the commercial and office uses, three to residential use and one to Zipcar.

Ordinarily the Municipal Code would require 47 parking spaces—one per each one-bedroom unit, plus three for the retail and one for the office for a total of 51 spaces.

According to the applicant, the project’s “goal is to reflect promotion of alternative transportation modes, such as walking, biking, ride hailing and public transit in pursuit of a designation of a Transit Priority Project. …, the project’s proximity to bus and train depots, several of the City’s Unitrans stops, the downtown, and UC Davis grocery, and medical services (within a 15-minute walk) all support alternative modes of transportation. The project will separately charge tenants for these 3 spaces which alone should discourage tenants from driving. The project also will provide a Zip Car on site for the use of the tenants.”

Staff writes, “The applicant believes these explanations justify reduction of the required parking spaces as proposed.”

The current Affordable Housing Plan would provide a total of seven deed-restricted affordable units—of which 1 will be assigned to very low-income household, and 1 to extremely low-income household, while the remaining 5 to low-income households. The 7 units represents 15% of the 47 total units, which is consistent with Municipal Code.

Staff notes that the code, however, requires a target of 5 percent for each of the three income levels.

“This proposal does not comply with the affordability mix target for the three income levels,” staff writes.

According to the applicant, “Our original proposal included deed restricting 13 units for low-income households.  We had felt this proposal is unique in that we are seeking no subsidy for this provision.  This worked out to be a deed-restricted amount of 28% of their project as low-income housing perpetuity.”

However, the Social Services Commission liked the project and its features, but “asked that we provide one very low-income unit and at least one extremely low-income unit.”

That request “stretched the ability of this provision.”  So they changed their proposal to five low-income units along with one very low and one extremely low unit for a total of 7 deed restricted affordable units.

“We believe this will meet the recommendations of the Social Services commissions and provide the community with privately subsidized affordable housing,” the applicant wrote.

Staff writes that “(the) applicant’s position is supportable given that affordability mix is a target not a requirement.”

Finally, the proposed infill project is “determined to be a transit priority project” and thus CEQA-exempt.  Raney Planning found “there are no significant environmental factors warranting the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR).”

Staff writes that “(we) cannot identify any significant issues with the proposed project.”

They add, a Transportation Study prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers analyzed potential impacts on the City’s roadway network, VMT, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities within the project vicinity.

“The Transportation Study provides modifications’ recommendations for both site plans. However, these recommendations are not required to ensure that the project would not substantially increase hazards in the Olive Drive area,” staff writes.

Fehr & Peers found that the proposal does not “substantially increase hazards due to design features” in part that is due to “the relatively limited amount of project vehicle traffic to/from the on-site parking lot and ride-hailing spaces.”

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

54 Comments

  1. Don Shor

    containing a total of 47 one-bedroom apartment units,

    This project is an outstanding example of repurposed infill with affordability provided by design.

    1. Ron Oertel

      How do you know what the rent will be?

      Not that I’m opposed to this, but how is this not student housing, rather than “non-professional workforce housing”?

      Seems to me that Olive Drive needs a bicycle/pedestrian overpass – yesterday. Which goes over Richards toward campus.

      1. Don Shor

        How do you know what the rent will be?

        It doesn’t matter. They’ll be market rate for one-bedroom apartments. That’s affordable by design, as I said. Two people sharing a one-bedroom apartment is the market solution to the Davis affordability issue.
        Affordability by design = “units that cost less because they are small and efficiently designed, and in many cases do not come with a parking space.” (https://www.spur.org/publications/spur-report/2007-11-20/affordable-design)

        1. Ron Oertel

          I’m not seeing where these units are designed to be shared.

          Two people sharing each bedroom in any kind of housing unit is “affordable”.

          If anything, smaller units cost more per square foot.

          I’m not seeing anything particularly-affordable about these, with the exception of limited parking.

          And since they’re assumed to be shared (by you, since I’m not seeing any reference to that in the article), how is this not student housing?

          Seems to me that the only people willing to share bedrooms (with someone other than a significant other) are students.

          1. Don Shor

            Seems to me that the only people willing to share bedrooms (with someone other than a significant other) are students.

            That is a remarkably uninformed statement.

        2. Ron Oertel

          Well, why don’t you “inform” me.  Put forth some actual, local statistics.  I’m not referring to isolated exceptions.

          I’ll go further, and state that students are also the only ones willing to do without parking – if reasonably close to campus.

          So far, I’m seeing nothing to support your claim that these are “affordable by design” (with the exception of the lack of parking), nor the article’s claim that these are “non-professional workforce housing” units.

          1. Don Shor

            I’ll go further, and state that students are also the only ones willing to do without parking – if reasonably close to campus.

            That is also a very uninformed statement.
            Go do something else today, Ron.

        3. Keith Y Echols

          Don, please be real.  Yes young people share apartments and houses.  I rented rooms throughout most of my 20’s because the Bay Area was expensive.  But I never shared a room.  Who’s going to share a room but students?  Who makes up the majority of renters that would share a room in Davis?  Students.  If you’re not a student WHY WOULD YOU SHARE A ROOM IN DAVIS?  For that matter for the cost of the units, it’s more likely you’d want to rent a room somewhere else in Davis or in Woodland or Dixon.  The only reason to share a room in that area of Davis is to conveniently walk or ride to the UCD Campus.

          1. Don Shor

            Don, please be real.

            I am.

            Who’s going to share a room but students?

            Young adults who work here and who are in a relationship.

            it’s more likely you’d want to rent a room somewhere else in Davis

            The inventory is very, very, very low and has been for over a decade.

            or in Woodland or Dixon.

            More likely Sacramento in my experience.

        4. Ron Oertel

          Don Shor March 19, 2022 at 10:02 am

          Seems to me that the only people willing to share bedrooms (with someone other than a significant other) are students.

          That is a remarkably uninformed statement.

          Followed by this, supporting the “remarkably uninformed” statement:

          Who’s going to share a room but students?
          Don:  Young adults who work here and who are in a relationship.

          And I suspect that even this is a low number (e.g. “non-professional Davis workers, who aren’t students and are willing to go without any parking spots, in a location that’s very near UCD and is increasingly student-oriented”).

        5. Ron Oertel

          My first response was deleted for unknown reasons, so I’ll simply this and see if that works.

          Don doesn’t know everything about his employees, their relationship status, the other person involved in that relationship, where they both work or go to school, or their living situations. Let alone whether or not they’re both willing to forgo parking, and live in a rather inconvenient, newly-built location (if one isn’t a student at UCD).

        6. Ron Oertel

          I don’t know that he does (in terms of the arguments being presented that the housing on Olive Drive won’t primarily be occupied by students).

          Now, if he wants to ask them (both parties) if they’d be willing to move from Sacramento (assuming that they’re both non-student, non-professionals working in Davis, in a relationship and already sharing a bedroom) to the newly-built location on Olive Drive (without parking) and report the results, that (might) be somewhat more-interesting anecdotal evidence.

        7. Ron Oertel

          In that comment, I’m also assuming that Don may only know/employ one of the parties who are in a relationship, and reportedly sharing a bedroom. So, he would need to ask both of them, to gather that anecdotal evidence.

          My guess is that NONE of the proposed development on Olive Drive will be occupied by “non-student, non-professional Davis workers”. Probably not even one of the two parties, sharing a bedroom.

        8. Keith Y Echols

          ME: Who’s going to share a room but students?
          DON: Young adults who work here and who are in a relationship.

          You’re starting to cut a very narrow submarket.  Because they’d have to be young adults, in a relationship (and I question the social skills of today’s youth….they got no game.) and have a need to be close to UCD or downtown.  And downtown isn’t exactly a bustling place with jobs for those that really need to live there.

          I mean seriously, it doesn’t take a real estate marketing genius to figure out that the shared room market in Davis is dominated by students.

          It’s cool that the project isn’t for students only (is that even legal?) but let’s not kid ourselves on who the predominate (if not total) market for this project is.

          The inventory is very, very, very low and has been for over a decade.

          Yes but it’s still available and working adults probably have a better chance at getting a rental rooms than students.

  2. Ron Glick

    People complain when there are apartments with four or five bedrooms. They complain when there are apartments with one bedroom. I think they like to complain.

    1. Ron Oertel

      “They” complain when claims are made which aren’t true.  Both in the articles themselves, and in regard to subsequent comments. The latter of which seems to apply to your comment. (Was that comment really necessary? Especially after all of Don’s unsupported claims?)

      Not that I’m opposed to this, but how is this not student housing, rather than “non-professional workforce housing”?

      Truth be told, the “non-professional workforce” probably are students, for the most part. But that’s not the primary reason that they’re in Davis. (Unless they choose the wrong major, in which case they might end up being “non-professionals” on a more permanent basis.)

      The housing that was torn down on that spot was probably more affordable, at least. But may not have been an efficient use of the land, especially as that entire street becomes more student housing-oriented.

       

       

  3. Ron Glick

    “Who’s going to share a room but students?”

    Parents with kids if the rent is too high. I know a mom with two teenagers renting a two bedroom apartment in Davis who shares one of the n\bedrooms with her daughter.

    1. Keith Y Echols

      Parents with kids if the rent is too high. I know a mom with two teenagers renting a two bedroom apartment in Davis who shares one of the n\bedrooms with her daughter.

      Ron, I don’t want to be mean….really…I don’t….but come on!   Once again you’re simply drawing conclusions from your personal experience.  It’s called poor sample size.  Are there outlier cases…sure.  But who do you think dominates the shared room rental market in Davis.  Especially for a project relatively close to UCD.

      1. Ron Glick

        You made a blanket statement. I gave an exception. Years ago I knew a taxi driver that shared a 1 bedroom apartment with his daughter. She got the bedroom. He got the living room.

        People are adaptive. You seem to be too dismissive of the possibilities.

        1. Keith Y Echols

          I’m dismissive of discussing planning and policy based on outliers.  That’s like playing the lottery as your best investment because occasionally has a great return on investment.

          Of course people are adaptive.  What the heck does a guy his kid, an apartment and their sleeping arrangements have anything to do with how a project is targeting it’s market?  I’m sure there are families that have squeezed half a dozen people into the same sized space.  It happens.  Davis is a college town.  You’re HIGHLY likely to be targeting college kids with a shared room residential development.  Or a rich former UCD student could rent the whole thing for themselves.  I mean it’s possible.  But I’m betting on the students renting the rooms.

  4. Alan Miller

    A project whose goal is to provide housing to city’s “non-professional workforce” . . .

    I’m shocked at this whole conversation.  At how low brow and stupid it is.  The issue and the reason it’s a stupid conversation is no one addresses the real issue:  the above quote is wrong.  The project’s goal is to make money for the project investors.  The investors then make statements, such as the above one, that the Vanguard states as a goal rather than correctly identifying as a sales pitch.  Then people in the comments section get in an argument over who is going to live there?   What point does that serve? Who cares who lives there?  We’ll probably never know even after people move in, because no one is ever going to survey the place. The developer is putting in what the developer believes is a marketable space.

    My concern is parking.  Are they really going to find 44 units worth of people none of whom have cars?  That will be an interesting experiment.  And if they do have cars, where will those cars be stored?  I hope we find out, but may never know.  But more importantly, where are people visiting these people going to park?  I sometimes go to an apartment complex and find all the ‘visitor’ parking spaces occupied.  Olive Drive has no on-street parking in that area, and there’s no place to park anywhere nearby, legally anyhow.  I imagine they’ll park at Design House and the apartments across the street and the auto repair place and Slater’s Court.  Someone isn’t thinking this through.

    1. Ron Oertel

      A project whose goal is to provide housing to city’s “non-professional workforce” . . .

      The issue and the reason it’s a stupid conversation is no one addresses the real issue:  the above quote is wrong.  

      That was my entire point.  And though I can’t speak for Keith E, I believe that was his point, as well.  And yet, Don and “Craig” continued to claim otherwise – to the point of absurdity.

      Then people in the comments section get in an argument over who is going to live there?   What point does that serve? Who cares who lives there? 

      Goes back to the claim that you noted, regarding “workforce housing”. Given all the reasons pointed out by me and Keith E., it’s much more likely that it will be “student” housing. Of course, a lot of students are (also) part of the “non-professional workforce”. But first and foremost, they are students.

      My concern is parking.

      Regardless of this (particular) development, you’ll see this issue arise more-and-more often, as cities eliminate off-street parking requirements for developers.

       

      1. Craig Ross

        “Ron” what’s really funny is whenever there was a student housing project, the townsfolk cried, do workforce housing, put the students on campus.  Now that they have a workforce housing project, the same people are yelling, it will be student housing.  Make up your mind.

        1. Ron Oertel

          I understand that the objection was to megadorms, not these type of single-bedroom units.  Especially megadorms that are farther from campus, such as Sterling.

          I’m not hearing anyone “yelling”, or even objecting to this one.  Only objecting to the reported lie, regarding who would occupy it – for all of the reasons already discussed.

        1. Ron Oertel

          Non-professional workforce housing has to be in a location conducive to it.  And, needs parking.

          They (also) might be the least-likely of all, to rent a single bedroom unit by themselves. Much more likely to share a multiple-bedroom unit, even if they have their own bedroom.

          These type of workers probably have the highest turnover of all, and aren’t going to be working in one place forever.

          I do feel sorry for any (permanent) “non-professional workers” who aren’t also students. (Some might live in the small number of Affordable units.) For example, working at Starbucks as a barista is not a career, depending upon how “non-professional worker” is defined/classified.

    2. Ron Oertel

      But more important (than whether the Vanguard believes the claim, or claims to believe it), is whether the planning commission and council believe it.

      Not that it necessarily should derail the proposal, regardless.

      “Non-professional workforce housing”, my arse.

    3. Ron Oertel

      Got cut-off, before adding this:

      I suspect that “non-professional local workers” are more likely to want/need a car, compared to students.  So, maybe the developer should quit claiming this, if they want to eliminate parking.

      1. Craig Ross

        Again “ron” complaint about disc, it’s a car-centered development.  Come forward with a no car development. You can’t do that people have to drive.  Make up your mind.

        1. Ron Oertel

          Make up your mind.

          I think you need to make up your mind regarding the development you’re referring to.

          This article deals with the Olive Drive proposal.

          You can’t do that people have to drive.

          Sounds like you advocate for MORE parking, at the Olive Drive proposal. I’d agree with that, if it was actually “non-professional workforce housing”.

    4. Craig Ross

      You just said Alan, the people who move there aren’t going to be able to have a car.  You think someone is going to rent for a year and park their car every night at design house and then move it everyday so they don’t get towed?  You could do what you suggest for a week, but not a year.

      1. Ron Oertel

        I’d park it in old East Davis.  🙂 Even more convenient, when that absurdly-located overpass to the train station is built.

        I’ve parked much farther than that, in my lifetime.

        Let’s just hope that the cavalcade of future Tracksides and downtown redevelopment doesn’t take up all the parking spaces, as the city continues to eliminate off-street parking requirements.

      2. Alan Miller

        You just said Alan, the people who move there aren’t going to be able to have a car.  You think someone is going to rent for a year and park their car every night at design house and then move it everyday so they don’t get towed?  You could do what you suggest for a week, but not a year.

        I don’t understand your point CR.  Did you understand mine?  To answer you question, “No”.  But I never said that, so I’m not sure why I am answering.

  5. Alan Miller

    I’d park it in old East Davis. 

    We have a parking district.  I should know.  I created it. So . . . no.

    Even more convenient, when that absurdly-located

    How so?

    overpass

    underpass

    to the train station is built.

    1. Todd Edelman

      In Belgium some people needed to prove that they didn’t own cars to live in carfree housing. I am curious if that could be a condition for signing a lease here. If in addition to that a parking district was created for Olive Dr and people who live at this place were not allowed one of these permits… anyway you get the point. It’s a kind of inverted permit.

      Before anyone replies with ridicule about various impossible things and formal FUBARS, consider that if the thing from Belgium was about saving children more directly with some kind of cardiac therapy, probably everyone would support it.

      1. Alan Miller

        TE, you correctly pointed out there actually is parking on Olive Drive across from this proposed place, and it appears to be unregulated except for in front of the mini-mart.  That’s just a few spaces, and I’ll bet they are forever 100% clogged should this be built.

  6. Ron Glick

    If people want to own a car there will always be somewhere to park it. I knew a guy who parked his car in Davis on streets where he only had to move it once every three days.

    I remember Robb Davis trying to disincentivized driving for people who live at the new Dinerstein building next to the post office by restricting how many times a month they could take the car out. I thought it was stupid because as you approached the limit you could park on the street somewhere in someone else’s neighborhood.

    The problem with this kind of thinking is that it neglects the impact of game theory on your policy proposals.

    Personally, I don’t have a problem with building for living without cars and I support construction of more housing with the goal of supplying housing for working people who want to live here but can’t afford to buy. But all this hand wringing about controlling who lives there to make sure its not a student, or if they stash a car somewhere, is tiresome and I doubt useful toward the goal of supplying housing to an under supplied market.

  7. Ron Oertel

    Me:  when that absurdly-located overpass to the train station is built.

    Alan M.  How so?

    Since the UCD students living on that street will be traveling to campus via bicycle on most days, the logical/primary place for a bicycle overpass is from Olive over Richards.  I recall seeing a design for that, previously.

    In contrast, they’re not going to be traveling to the train station on a daily basis.  I strongly suspect that this less-preferred “alternative” is influenced by SACOG money.

    Of course, none of this type of infrastructure is needed, when student housing is built on campus.

    Ron G.  But all this hand wringing about controlling who lives there to make sure its not a student, 

    Do you even read comments, before chiming in like this?  No one said anything about “controlling” who lives there.  The comments you’re referring to deal with the reality of who would live there, vs. what the article and developer claim.

    Ron G.  If people want to own a car there will always be somewhere to park it. I knew a guy who parked his car in Davis on streets where he only had to move it once every three days.

    I agree, and suspect that this would be an even bigger issue if the proposal actually was “non-professional workforce housing”.  As such, the bogus claim that it isn’t student housing would logically require the developer to include parking.  In that sense, the developer is working against their own interests, via that bogus claim. Of course, that would require decision makers to have common sense in the first place.

    In the future, look for developers to continue putting forth fake reasons why off-street parking should be eliminated.  Thereby shifting that cost and impact onto existing residents, visitors, and businesses. This trend started some time ago, and isn’t limited to Davis.

     

     

  8. Alan Miller

    RO, it currently takes 10-12 minutes to reach the train station / downtown edge from Ryder (L-40).  It will only take a couple of minutes directly.  The current route involves crossing Richards / 1st twice to get to the other side, both long lights, and not particular safe at Olive/Richards.

    For some reason the promised improvements to the bike lane from Olive East to Olive West haven’t been implemented.  City: is there a reason for this?  I asked the City, but probably TE will respond.

    The purpose is to get Olive residents downtown and more quickly to the east and north.  One major advantage is school children trying to get up to the schools to the east and west of the northern end of J Street.  They can go through the tunnel to the station and then (if built properly, continue to the foot of J Street and take the bike lane straight north.  Currently as planned they would have to cross the tracks twice and head behind the abandoned ACE housewares building, but I’m betting this gets fixed so the tunnel continues under the northern-most track.

     

    1. Ron Oertel

      I had forgotten about the need to cross Richards “twice”, to get to the train station.  I don’t really look at that area all that closely very often. In particular, I do everything I can to avoid driving through the Richards tunnel.

      Still, it seems to me that the primary traffic from Olive will be from students heading toward UCD.  And once Nishi is built, they’ll also be able to go through that.  I do recall seeing a giant looping structure that was floated or proposed, across Olive.  (I recall Matt posting it on here, years ago.) Probably quite expensive.

      I also haven’t seen how Ryder is impacting the Olive/Richards intersection, so far.  (I prefer the term “Lincoln 40”, due to its historical roots.  “Ryder” is something that’s needed to move your stuff to/from there.

      The problem with Olive (in general) is that it’s so cut-off from the city.  Then again, I guess that’s a good reason to stick student housing in there, compared to anywhere else in the city.  (Just kidding, sort-of.)

      Nishi will also be an “island” of student housing.

      I’ll stop short of saying that school children should be “banned” from Olive, but one might ask how much expensive infrastructure is needed per student, if that’s the primary justification. (Just kidding about “banning” them.) But this is also the same type of question I have regarding the “Mace Mess”. Is this the tail wagging the dog, again?

      1. Ron Oertel

        Across Richards, not Olive.  “From” Olive.

        Don’t get me started regarding Russell vs. Richards, Cowell vs. Covell.

        I’ve never been adept at remembering street names, even in my original home town. Even though I always knew where I was.

        However, I have a keen memory when it comes to the names of MRIC, ARC, DISC, DiSC, The Davis Innovation Center . . . (As well as the “Studio 54” report, from the 1970s.)

        1. Bill Marshall

          Don’t get me started regarding Russell vs. Richards, Cowell vs. Covell.

          Wouldn’t dare… but know there is a Covell Place that isn’t particularly near either… do you know the correct pronunciation for ‘Cowell’, ‘Covell’, or ‘Oeste’?

          Russell vs, Richards referent eludes me… except they, Olive Drive, and B Street were all part of Lincoln 40 (US 40)… do you know the origin and terminus of US 40, and the other piece in Davis that is NOT Russell, /Richards/B/Olive?  It still exists… but has been overlaid/reconstructed…

          If you don’t know these things, know that many do…

    2. Todd Edelman

      “For some reason the promised improvements to the bike lane from Olive East to Olive West haven’t been implemented.  City: is there a reason for this?  I asked the City, but probably TE will respond.”

      There is no plan to do anything at all on Olive until AFTER the replacement for the WB 80 exit to NB Richards is completed. During construction east Olive is planned to be used as a detour for ALL WB traffic to east Olive, both ways on Richards, In & Out, perhaps picking up coffee at Dutch Bros before heading north or south on Richards. 

      This means for a few months – perhaps starting this summer or early fall – the new school route made possible by the new connector will be dangerous. They just got a lot of money to do the opposite with the connector. It’s perhaps a bit better if it all happens during the summer, but that’s just a few months from now. Perhaps it will wait until much later, or even summer 2023 as 80-Richards is supposed to take 18 months from start to finish (perhaps Caltrans will be successful in keeping that timeline, but the new connector is three months behind schedule and Cannery to F was much, much worse. And clocks built when the Mace project started are already in the landfill.). Or perhaps they are not planning to do it during the summer, or can’t for some reason.

  9. Alan Miller

    a giant looping structure that was floated or proposed, across Olive.

    Yeah I think this was called the Davis Gateway or some such.  It was brilliant — peds/bikes “U” up to the track bridge so they are at the same elevation the whole time and don’t have to cross Richards at grade because it is below them.  Hard to describe without a picture.  It also expands the entrance so there are turn lanes that soak up some traffic, adding through capacity without damaging the ‘keyhole’.  Again really quite a brilliant design, and I wish the City would adopt it as a goal and find a way to fund it.

    Yes, the primary direction for Lincoln 40 is to campus, and the path to there is terrible — one a shared narrow lane on West Olive that is that way only to accommodate ‘the business that Davis must save and assist and make excptions for at all costs’, the drive-thru coffee place.  Not even the center bike lane has been built between the straight and turn lanes at the west end of East Olive.  That was part of Lincoln 40 plans and it’s shameful the City hasn’t put this in before Lincoln 40 opened.

    The young students are there.  There are a couple of trailer parks and some large apartment complexes all of which have children.  You can’t ‘will then away’.  Regardless, when the Olive-PoleLine connection is opened (imminent it would seem) the Lincoln40-Downtown connector  will offer a direct route from Pole Line (south Davis) to downtown, cutting ten minutes off the trip relative to using Richards/Olive.  As well for those souls using the Hwy.40 trial.  That’s an important connection.

    But not only that, a legal/safe way for people to get downtown/train is highly important for everyone there.  Despite the fence going in years ago, people go under/over/through it all the time.  I see it daily.  Without a legal crossing and so much added time to go legally, many will find a way to disable the fence, and do.  You build paths where people go, or they do it for you.

    1. Ron Oertel

      Thanks for the info/response.

      Regarding the kids on that street, it seems like a less-than-ideal spot for them in the first place.  Not sure how many of them will ride to school, when the multi-million dollar connection is opened. Now, or in future years.

      Probably should think of such things before approving housing that will specifically appeal to families, including any Affordable housing that is designed (or would likely have appeal) for) families. Of course, if they’re relying upon grants to fund overpasses/crossings, there’s a lot less motivation to use funds efficiently.

      But as you note, the crossing is likely to be used by others, as well.

    2. Ron Oertel

      By the way, is there any word regarding the timing of the more direct (underpass?) to the train station itself that you’re aware of?

      Hey – they can have “three” crossings: one at the east end, one at the west end, and one in the middle (toward the train station). A billion-dollar endeavor!

      All thanks to being a “leftover” from Highway 40 days, and trying to force it to function for housing.

      They’d BETTER all be riding bicycles, after that! To paraphrase the Soup Nazi: “No parking for you!” 🙂

      1. Alan Miller

        The underpass will be in conjunction with rebuilding the station with an island platform that must be accessed via a tunnel to reach either track for boarding.  The tunnel will be extended through to the other side and double as a link between Olive and downtown.  Very similar to the Santa Clara train station.  This is a very expensive and complex project, and it will be several years most likely.

        As to discouraging children on Olive — they will be coming via Pole Line as well soon, so that point will be moot. This is a good thing — both these connectors are well needed a great alternative to the routes they would otherwise take.

    3. Todd Edelman

      brilliant

      Conceptually, a level crossing developed this way is interesting, but the street is about 40 ft across here and motor vehicles (and eventually buses?) will use it, as will pedestrians crossing Richards, as well as some people on bikes who make the light…. some will use the “U” thing, but as bikes will go both ways – there’s no way to allow peds but not bikes on the crosswalk – and eastbound bikes do what exactly? There is essentially no safety improvement and lots of people will find that the light changed and will go direct the next time…. this whole area inclusive of 80-Richards is a mess and all the infrastructure needs to be completely re-built.  There is no partial fix.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for