Olive Drive mixed-use project is presented to the Planning Commission this week
By David M. Greenwald
Davis, California – A project to provide housing for the city’s “non-professional workforce”, who currently do not have access to housing opportunities in recent projects, will be presented to the Commission planning next week.
The Olive Drive mixed-use project combines four parcels on approximately half an acre of land (0.56 acres) along Olive Drive.
The project site is bordered to the north by the Davis Mobile Home Park. To the east is an auto repair shop. To the south is Olive Drive and across the roadway is a mix of uses ranging from a fast food restaurant, a single family home, a liquor store and an apartment complex of 60 units; and to the west by the Davis Design House (furniture store).
The site is currently vacant and previously housed four small single family homes which were demolished.
The applicant proposes to redevelop the vacant lots with four residential apartment buildings containing a total of 47 one bedroom apartments, approximately 100 square feet of office space and approximately 900 square feet of ground floor retail space .
Access to and from the project will be from Olive Drive. The staff explains, “The project as currently proposed would eliminate the existing four driveways and provide a single driveway off of Olive Drive.”
Staff explain: ‘To accommodate the possibility of having multiple driveways near the intersection of Olive Drive and Richards Boulevard, staff recommended that the applicant consider an alternative site plan which would provide for a shared driveway between the Davis Mobile Home Park, Design House property and subject project.
However, the applicant provided an amended site plan showing “a combined driveway of the proposed project with the existing driveway currently serving the Davis Mobile Estates”.
The applicant proposes to provide a total of 8 parking spaces, 4 of which will be allocated to commercial and office use, three to residential use and one to Zipcar.
Normally, Municipal Coe would require 47 parking spaces – one for each one-bedroom unit, plus three for retail and one for the office for a total of 51 spaces.
According to the applicant, “the objective of the project is to reflect the promotion of alternative modes of transport, such as walking, cycling, carpooling and public transport with a view to obtaining the designation of a priority transport project in common. …, the project’s proximity to bus and train stations, several city Unitrans stops, downtown, UC Davis grocery store and medical services (within a 15 minute walk) supports all alternative modes of transportation . The project will charge tenants separately for these 3 spaces which alone should discourage tenants from driving. The project will also provide an on-site Zip car for use by tenants. »
Staff write: ‘The claimant believes that these explanations justify the reduction in required parking spaces as proposed.’
The current Affordable Housing Plan would provide a total of seven deed-restricted affordable housing units – of which 1 will be allocated to a very low-income household and 1 to an extremely low-income household, while the remaining 5 to households low income. The 7 units represent 15% of the total 47 units, which is in accordance with the Municipal Code.
Staff note that the code, however, requires a 5% target for each of the three income levels.
“This proposal is inconsistent with the goal of affordability mix for all three income levels,” the staff wrote.
According to the applicant, “our initial proposal included an act restricting 13 units for low-income households. We felt that this proposal was unique in that we were not seeking any subsidy for this provision. This turned out to be a deed-restricted amount of 28% of their project as low-income housing in perpetuity.
However, the Social Services Commission liked the project and its features, but “requested that we provide a very low income unit and at least one very low income unit”.
This request “stretched the capacity of this provision”. So they changed their proposal to five low income units as well as one very low unit and one extremely low unit for a total of 7 restricted affordable units per deed.
“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 write, “(the) plaintiff’s position is justifiable given that the affordability suit is a target, not a requirement.”
Finally, the proposed infill project is “determined to be a priority public transport project” and therefore the CEQA excepted. Raney Planning found that “there are no significant environmental factors justifying the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)”.
The staff writes: “(we) cannot identify any significant issues with the proposed project.”
They add that a transportation study prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers analyzed potential impacts on the city’s road network, VMTs, pedestrian, bicycle and public transport facilities near the project.
“The transportation study provides recommendations for changes to both site plans. However, these recommendations are not necessary to ensure that the project would not significantly increase risk in the Olive Drive area,” staff wrote.
Fehr and Peers found that the proposal “does not significantly increase risk due to design features”, in part due to “the relatively limited amount of Project vehicular traffic to/from on-site parking and parking spaces”. carpooling”.