The Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Wednesday where they will review and provide comments on the University Commons Project Draft EIR. Planning Commission comments will be summarized and included in the Final EIR.
The project would demolish the existing building to create a new mixed-use development. Staff notes, “Buildout of the proposed project would result in the addition of 264 new multi-family residential units and approximately 136,800 square feet of retail space, not including the existing Trader Joe’s building, which would be retained as-is.”
The proposed 264 multi-family units would include a mix of sizes and result in a total of 622 bedrooms with 894 beds.
Staff notes: “The redeveloped University Mall building would include four levels of residential uses over three levels of parking and four levels of residential uses over retail uses. At buildout, the redeveloped University Mall building would be seven stories and approximately 80 feet in height, with the northeast portion along Anderson Road stepping down to three stories and 44 feet in height. Two new pad buildings would be added to the site.”
Parking and transportation will figure to be one area of interest for the public.
The total number of parking spaces is 693 – that includes 264 spaces for residential use and 429 for retail use – 518 of those spaces will be in the new three-story parking garage.
According to Davis Municipal Code, the city parking requirement for community shopping centers is one space per 350 square feet of non-residential use plus one space per dwelling unit. Thus there would be 693 required under that formula. But while those will be one space per dwelling unit, there will only be 264 for the 622 bedrooms and 894 beds.
However, given the proposed use primarily for students and the location across the street from campus, clearly the city can get away with fewer parking spots. The site is also along a “high quality transit corridor” served by Unitrans as well as Yolobus.
Also a total “of 1,018 bicycle parking spaces would be included as part of the proposed project, including on each level of the proposed parking structure. More specifically, bicycle parking would include 335 short-term spaces (32 percent of total) and 683 long-term spaces (68 percent of total).
“The majority of long-term bicycle parking (536 long-term spaces) would be provided on various levels within the proposed parking structure, with access provided via elevator. These spaces would be primarily utilized by project residents.”
Another area that the planning commission figures to examine more closely is the issue of type of housing.
At a recent joint city council and Planning Commission meeting, discussion focused on finding other types of housing besides student housing. The city has already approved over 4000 beds of student housing and commissioners were concerned with the lack of flexibility of existing approved housing.
The applicants continue to see this as primarily student housing. They write, “Due to the immediate proximity of the project site to the UC Davis campus and the demand for student housing, the proposed residential development would be focused on student use, but would be available for non-students as well. The residential units would be arranged around three separate courtyards, one of which would contain outdoor amenities such as an outdoor lounge area and potentially a pool.”
On November 14, 2019, the Bicycle, Transportation, and Street Safety Commission reviewed and commented on the Transportation and Circulation analysis of the Draft EIR.
Among the comments at that meeting were support for “the low parking alternative as part of a city goal to reduce GHG emissions and vehicle use.” They expressed concern about “insufficient involvement by UC Davis,” and argued that “more housing should be built instead of parking.”
The Draft EIR prepared for this period has been released for a 45-day public comment period – ending on December 20.
Staff notes that the Draft EIR “impacts were reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures. The Draft EIR that impacts related to Transportation and Circulation would remain significant and unavoidable even after implementation of feasible mitigation measures.”
Following the public comment period and review of the comments, a Final EIR will be prepared.
Staff anticipates that subsequent public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council will be held in order to consider the Final EIR and project entitlements. These will be publicly noticed when they are scheduled.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
and the other quote, the minutes for the BTSSC meeting last month have not yet been approved – my opinion on both matters was quite a bit stronger than the minutes indicate…
Relieving pent up demand for student housing through construction will incentivize the construction of housing for other market segments where returns will become more competitive. We see that with the Youmans proposal on Olive Drive.
Ron G.: that’s a nice bedtime fairytale!
Looking at the Youmans proposal for Olive Lane, it is striking that that project—which is not located next to high-density transit services and is considerably less conveniently-located to areas that its supposed target residents would try to travel to for work/shopping/etc.—is proposing far less car parking and far less bicycle parking than the University Commons project.
Similarly, the ARC proposal—a freeway-oriented development for which projections are that the vast majority of workers will arrive by car (90%+) and from outside Davis (~70%)—is trying to claim that it could suffice with a parking ratio for the residential portion at the same low 1:1 parking space per unit proposed for University Commons and at a highly-reduced parking ratio for the office/research park uses that are not feasible in the marketplace or in the reality of the projected travel demand and node split.
Just more fairytale stuff.
If it’s in the project baseline feature, it will have to suffice.
theoretically . . .
. . . and much less theoretically in a Measure-R free world.
. . . and that Olive Drive proposal has some #ahem# issues.
This article contains no discussion about the affordability requirements for the housing. Nor does it mention projected rent levels, including those for the apparent by-the-bed lease scheme. That would be helpful information to know.
Could it be that conformance to affordability standards and rent levels are not proper subject matter for an environmental impact report, under the applicable laws?
The EIR is a disclosure document, not a policy document. Your points are important for discussion/review… but not in the context of environmental review… in a separate venue.
Why do you consider by-the-bed a scheme rather than a plan? I would have dove at that as a student.
Alan M.: For by-the bed leases, I consider a “scheme” as a “plan”. In this case, if someone wants to ascribe a more negative connotation to “scheme,” I would not object. If someone went as far as to call it a “scam,” I’d have to look at the pricing details—which apparently are nowhere to be found for the U-Mall project.
However, if it is like Nishi, it would most certainly rise to the level of a scam.
This is because that while with unit leases one can often double-up beds in rooms to reduce rent costs per bed, the Nishi project will charge a much higher rate for the same room with two beds in it.
When I did an in-depth analysis of the pricing levels for Nishi, compared to average 2017 Davis rental rates for unit leases, 2/3 of the ‘affordable’ units (for the designated very low-income (VLI) students) would be renting at per-unit rates far in excess of existing Davis unit market rental rates: $2,688 for a 2-bedroom unit (compared to $1,660) and $4,032 for a 3-bedroom unit (compared to $2,270).
And that was for the small percentage of supposedly “affordable” units in the project!
Students prefer bed leases, not that you care.
Does the EIR even mention affordable housing?
Say “goodbye” to another mall that (at one time) was intended to serve the entire city – and not just future residents of the mall, itself.
The same type of effort that some are pushing for downtown.
Already, Trader Joe’s and World Market are barely worth dealing with regarding parking, traffic, etc.
In the near future, no one will even notice when “picnic day revelers” block Russell. It will already be constantly gridlocked.
One wonders if parking issues will “spread” to the neighborhood in back of this mall, due to inadequate on-site parking for this proposal.
You are lamenting the loss of a mall? University mall? And is it a loss?, it’s just gonna have stuff on top of it. Anyone know the original tag line for U-Mall? “University Mall: The Only Covered Mall in Yolo County”. From the 60’s I believe.
-ish
Every been to San Francisco?
Seems a bit of a hyperbolic statement. I mean, I don’t want to see Orange County in Yolo County either . . . Yolorange you might say. But it isn’t what Davis does . . . it’s what the region is doing. Unless we build that moat.
Now THAT is a valid point – and should be considered. I hope you turned in your comment card.
That “stuff” will make it that much more difficult (for anyone not living on top of it) to shop there. (Same concept that some are pushing for, downtown.)
Yes. Have you ever tried going to a Trader Joe’s, there? One that I’m aware of has a line of traffic blocking the street, just to enter the parking lot, in hopes of snagging a spot as other shoppers depart.
Another grocery mall that I’m aware of allowed condos (or apartments) above, and no doubt lost customers from surrounding neighborhoods. “Replaced” by those living above it. Is that some kind of “improvement”, or is it actually making life more challenging for existing residents?
Davis is becoming a “Mini-San Francisco”. A place where others attempt to make it difficult to simply go to a grocery or hardware store. Of course, in San Francisco – there aren’t easier/more convenient options nearby.
Thanks. That point (regarding parking spreading into surrounding neighborhoods) is also related to the effort to make access more difficult for anyone to patronize the mall – other than those living above it.
On that last point, yes. I question the parking drops as desire-able, but theoretical and largely developer-profit-driven more than reality at this point. Especially that Olive Drive site. I’d really have to be convinced by case-studies that those parking near-zeros are real. Saying Yolobus and Unitrans are ‘quality’ transit is, well, to be kind, ‘in the eye of the beholder’. Bus lines can be moved or cancelled at any time, and there are severe limitations to both services.
On the other hand, I think there is a real argument for minimization of parking for the residential with a student focus so close to campus. We need major bike ‘freeways’ between this site and downtown on at least two routes, with major improvements over everyone trying to get through Anderson and Russell intersection.
The key is to model this honestly for parking impacts, not pie-in-the-sky theories. Challenging, yes, but if the end product is spillover to adjacent areas, that would be a FAIL.
Yes, if it reduces VMT, then it is an improvement. That is one of the benefits of spreading retail throughout the town and for putting residences above retail. Customers walking to a store is a better solution environmentally than having them drive.
There was a Davis Futures Forum presentation a couple of years ago, I don’t have the speaker’s name at hand, that presented the information that the ‘parking minimums’ that drive much of our planning were completely arbitrary numbers chosen 40-50 years ago by fiat without any basis in data or actual need. The take-home message was that parking minimum standards, such as those in our municipal code, are gross overestimations of what is truly needed or desirable.
San Francisco has the lowest GHG emissions per capita in Northern California (despite doubling in population during the daytime). We have to head that direction if we are going to address the climate emergency. Increased density, fewer car trips, and yes, more inconvenience at times, although it can be offset by good planning that brings us other opportunities.
Not sure where you’re getting your data (or if it includes the “doubling” of population due to daytime commuters who live elsewhere, Uber, Lyft), etc. But, those who don’t want to deal with places like San Francisco are migrating out to car-centric areas, e.g., in the valley. Including Davis.
In fact, that’s been occurring for decades. It’s a pattern throughout the United States, as well.
And as places like Davis become more difficult, it simply pushes folks elsewhere (to do their shopping, and ultimately to live).
Unfortunately, the state of California has chosen to pursue (both) sprawl, and infill simultaneously.
If one is concerned about that, a good first step is to ensure that economic development does not “outpace” existing residential development. Otherwise, you get the Bay Area.
It’s always been a student-oriented shopping mall, at least since I arrived here in the 1970’s. I don’t think most of us were regular patrons of Forever 21. This is a student-centric shopping center in a student-centric neighborhood. It is surrounded on the west and north sides by apartments. Adding housing there makes perfect sense.
Most of the UC campuses that I’m familiar with have neighborhoods like this, basically little student centers right next to campus. I can’t really see why anybody over the age of 30 cares what happens to that mall, or even really cares about the impact on bicycles and cars on Russell Blvd.
Again, World Market and Trader Joe’s served the city (as well as visitors), not just the students living nearby.
That will change, as it becomes more difficult to drive and park there.
Also, Russell Blvd itself (as well as the surrounding streets) “serve” more than just the mall and its planned residents. (Did you really just say that “no one really cares” about that?)
Not sure that the folks sitting in idling traffic (and the resulting greenhouse emissions) would support that conclusion. (See “Mace Mess”, for example.)
Customers driving somewhere else (because they don’t want to deal with parking and congestion issues) is not a better solution. Might even increase VMTs.
I have yet to see the “war on cars” result in any tangible improvements – even in areas that are much more dense than Davis. (See example on this page regarding the “line of traffic blocking the street” to enter a Trader Joe’s in San Francisco, for example.)
Overall (and in general), I see density as deteriorating the quality of life, while sprawl deteriorates the environment (and quality of life). Either way, it’s a failure to acknowledge practical/realistic limitations. (And in this case, allows UCD to continue their practices.)
Unlike places such as San Francisco, folks in Davis have other choices to do their shopping, etc. (Leading to an increase in VMTs.)
Davis: “An island of density, in a sea of sprawl”. (Hey, that might make a good official slogan, for the city.)
Or, “Davis – the city that pretends that no one drives”.
When I came to town in ’72, Lawrence’s was one of the “anchors”… selection and prices much like a Mervyns… the other tenants were more geared towards neighborhood (including the dorms) shopping… when I lived in the apartments to the north, that’s where we also went for self-serve laundry, groceries, drug store, donuts, and later, “suds” (when the Grad opened)… Wingers served as the downtown ‘Mervyns’ but they were pricier, as I recall.
So, in the late ’60’s, 70’s, University Mall was NOT a city-wide mall/destination… that is a fiction. It was a mix of ‘neighborhood’ and ‘west Davis’ mall. Mainly neighborhood and dorms.
All of the peripheral shopping centers were planned and zoned as neighborhood shopping centers. Each was to have a grocery store, whose size was limited. Safeway, State Market, and now Trader Joe’s were the neighborhood grocery stores in the University Mall.
As you can see in the history of planning changes presented in the posted documents, the zoning change that allowed for World Market was a departure from that planning principle, since World Market would be expected to draw shoppers from all over the city.
The basic guiding planning principle is that the downtown is the hub of commerce, and peripheral shopping centers are not intended to compete with the downtown. They are intended to serve their immediate neighborhoods.
Zoning changes have occurred to reflect changing shopping and dining realities. The “grocery wars” occurred when the owner of the Marketplace sought to increase the size of the Safeway there, and led to the larger size of Nugget store in north Davis. The result was the closure of the grocery store in east Davis, followed by a long decline of that shopping center until the dollar store finally located there. The owner of the west Davis shopping center was apparently unaware that he had to have a grocery store in his site to serve that neighborhood. Second Street Crossing, where Target is located, blew a big hole in that whole planning concept, but it is still the core principle of the General Plan with respect to retail.
University Mall was and is not just a neighborhood shopping center in practice. It was the outcome of specific policies and zoning practices.
Ron O
Do you have any evidence that customers are driving out of Davis to shop elsewhere due to inconvenience of parking? I’ll answer the question for you: No. Your speculation is baseless.
Davis loses business to other communities because 1) we don’t have many franchises, 2) the Internet has hollowed out retail 3) rental prices are high due to restrictions on building new business space 4) city regulations slow down new businesses relative to other cities and 5) business people here have been too risk averse and tend to cater mostly to student shoppers. Parking doesn’t even make the list.
Has it even been studied? I do know of at least one retailer who has repeatedly/publicly stated that he’s concerned about the reduction of parking.
Do you have any evidence for your claims, in regard to Davis?
Also, did anyone ever examine the petition that Davis ACE asked customers to sign (as I recall), when someone (who simultaneously claimed to be concerned about business) inexplicably took steps to interfere with their plans to build their own small, solar-covered parking lot?
What a disgrace that was. Ended up hurting the credibility of all development activists who claim to be concerned about business.
Well, almost all of the residential areas nearby University Mall are already “preferential parking”… no permit, get ticket…
Would have to know more details regarding the times allowed, how far away the restrictions extend, etc.
Even with restrictions, non-residential parking is generally allowed (e.g., for limited times or overnight). Residents also have visitors, for that matter.
For sure, “preferential parking” has not solved parking problems in places like San Francisco. In fact, it seems to encourage some to park their vehicles for extended periods.
Bottom line is that development ALWAYS increases a demand for parking. It’s a question of degree.
Also, perhaps someone can explain why residents of University Mall would not be considered residents of that neighborhood. (Talk about a “bias” against students!)
Maybe, just maybe – developers should be held responsible for the impacts they create. (Which now seems to be a “radical idea” in the minds of some on here.)
Wondering how these folks (as well as new pedestrians) are going to get across the street, to UCD. Will they need to lengthen the period of time allowed (and/or increase frequency of signaling) for bicycles/pedestrians to cross Russell via the existing signal?
And, what will that do to traffic on Russell, as well as the cross streets?
Ron O.: these topics are covered in the DEIR and in the summary in the PC staff report materials. It would have been more helpful for a summary article like this to actually mention some of the major impacts identified.
As far as bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure impact and needs specifically, that can is getting kicked down the road, so to speak. A lot of the mitigation relies on UC Davis commitments that haven’t been secured yet, along with City of Davis corridor planning efforts for Russell Blvd. that are apparently just getting started:
Thanks, Rik. This doesn’t “surprise” me, in the least. Of course, it won’t stop the city from approving it, though.
Once again, appreciate your efforts to uncover such issues. I generally find your comments to be much more in-depth than the Vanguard’s articles.
I wonder what the “preferred improvements” are, and the reason that UCD hasn’t already agreed to them. I also wonder who exactly is paying for them. (For example, is the city paying a significant portion? And/or, does it depend upon SACOG funding?)
This type of issue could have been avoided, by building student housing on campus.
Yeah, “-ish”, in theory. But the reality is with all the union agreements and contract requirements, the U is its own worst enemy for building housing, and can’t build something affordable to save a squirrel’s life. So, wouldn’t look there for an all-around solution. Plus that lack of tax revenue thingy.
A table that was published on the Vanguard about a year ago showed that ongoing costs to the city (from the Sterling student housing development) increasingly exceed that “tax revenue thingy”, over time.
Unfortunately, the city has never fully analyzed the costs of megadorms.
Strange, how UCD has plenty of money to build projects other than student housing. And so far, has not even established a dedicated fund for student housing (for folks to contribute to), if they’re interested in helping – as suggested by others.
I don’t buy it, regarding unions or other interests standing in the way of student housing on campus. And frankly, some (not necessarily you) seem to support unions, until they think it’s going to cost them money, personally.
UCD is building a large amount of housing. You can see it as you drive down Russell. Or you can, evidently, watch the progress on seven webcams: https://app.oxblue.com/open/cbgbc/ucdaviswvillage
And here are their current and recent capital projects: https://app.oxblue.com/open/cbgbc/ucdaviswvillage
It would be nice if they would have been building this during the enrollment expansion of the last decade, which continues unabated — fall enrollment is up 1.2%. But at least they are finally building new housing stock again. A lot of the money they were spending in the last decade was replacement.
I haven’t seen this issue discussed: the project is converting the current General Plan land use designation/zoning from something that is commercial/retail-focused to something that is mostly residential.
The current GP designation is “Community Retail” (CR) that “allows for retail uses at a maximum floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of 0.50. Residential uses are permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit at an FAR of 0.15.” Based on that residential uses could only be a max of 23% of total floor area.
The project is proposing the creation of a new ad hoc GP land use designation—the somewhat deceptively named “Mixed Use Urban Retail”—that allows for up to 75% of the project floor area to be residential.
While the max FAR ratio is greatly increased under this new designation: 1.25 as a standard, and up to 1.75 with structured below-grade parking, it turns out that commercial/retail development FAR would be reduced if the residential component is maxed out. Even at the max 1.75 FAR, with 75% as residential, commercial/retail FAR would be just 0.44.
People can make their own decisions about whether that trade-off is good policy. But I would just point out that this de facto reduction of commercial/retail development—and the City tax revenue derived from it—is a very real consequence of UCD not doing its share in providing housing for its massive enrollment increases and pushing that demand to the city of Davis.
Additionally: perhaps the information is available, but I cannot find any discussion of the proposed housing affordability for the project in any of the material that the City has posted for the project on its website portal.
An “outside consultant” once mentioned that innovation-center type businesses are facilitated via proximity to campuses (e.g., within 200 yards). Gee, I wonder where a several-acre property meeting that description might be located? 😉
There is no “de facto reduction of commercial/retail.” The amount of retail space in this project will be the same. They are just adding housing on top of it.
There’s an opportunity cost involved, as well as direct costs to the city – as Rik alluded to.
Don Shor stated: “There is no “de facto reduction of commercial/retail.” The amount of retail space in this project will be the same. They are just adding housing on top of it.”
Wrong. Given the lack of viability of the existing U-Mall structure, if the developer just rebuilt commercial/retail at the max FAR currently allowed by existing GP/ zoning (0.50), there would be more commercial/retail than the project proposes.
If the City was really serious about “Urban Retail” it wouldn’t allow 75% residential and the de facto reduction of commercial/retail development potential. Instead, this is just an ad hoc planning process contrary to the City’s actual adopted plans.
The Raney analysis in the “Land Use & Planning” section of the DEIR is ludicrous. It essentially says that once the City adopts this new GP land use designation specifically for the project, the project will be in compliance with City plans, so no worries!
Wrong. The square footage of retail increases by 30,000 sq. ft. There is no “reduction” — de facto or otherwise.
There could be more housing – perhaps even larger, family-oriented apartments with child-height sinks and you-watch-my-kid-then-I’ll-watch-yours-optimized architecture – and lots more retail IF there is a reduction of parking and no surface parking — the latter – did you read my linked comment above? – is a war crime across street from campus.
“Homeless (students) not allowed to sleep in cars in surface lots not used instead for, you know, buildings for housing. City responds that it is trying to find a ‘balance’ between necessary housing for people and temporary vehicle storage for shoppers who have alternatives to driving.”
Sorta wrote “war crime” just to see how Alan will respond, but not really.
Don Shor: it’s really simple math. The proposal calls for a total of 150,000 if commercial space. That is only a FAR of 0.42 in the site. Even the existing GP land use designation/zoning allows up to 0,50 FAR of commercial.
If the City were actually serious about “Urban Retail” and tax revenue it would derive from it, it would 1) not allow the commercial development potential to be reduced in this ad hoc way, and 2) look at ways to re-zone to increase that commercial development potential. Instead, we had nice again see a proposal that calls for student housing that has not been sufficiently provided for on-campus by UCD to crowd out other uses.
You’re absolutely right. It’s really simple math. They’re adding 30,000 square feet of retail, and you call that a reduction.
Simple.
Don Shor: what part of reducing the commercial development potential on the site don’t you understand? 0.43 is less than 0.50. Why is the City contemplating a new ad hoc “Mixed Use Urban Retail” designation that does this?
Perhaps because they view this as a good project for the community and want to see it built.
Mark West: that was sort of a trick question on my part. Did the City really propose the new misleadingly-named ad hoc General Plan land use designation, or is the developer pushing it in order to try to build a bunch of luxury student apartments with no affordability requirements? Why would the City want to remove some of the commercial development potential—and sales tax revenue—from the site?
Ron O. stated:
Just to give an idea of the commercial/ office development capacity of the U-Mall site if the City prioritized that instead: redeveloping retail at 0.5 FAR would yield about 180,000 sf, a 20% increase over the current proposal. Then, office development at, say, 1.25 FAR would yield almost 450,000 sq. ft. and about 2,000 jobs at a standard ratio of 225sf/job.
I will point out 1) the University of California is not a housing agency–it’s an educational institution. And UC has rarely shown itself to be a particularly good landlord. (And I have 3 UC degrees…) and 2) part of any student’s education is learning how to function in the real world. That includes learning how to manage their life while living off campus away from the cocoon of campus. And that means that substantial housing is needed in the surrounding community.
The purpose of Davis is not to provide “life experiences” for those who refuse to live on campus – assuming that it’s available. (Which happens to be the only place where such housing is allowed to be legally restricted to students.)
These folks have plenty of time to get ripped-off by market-rate landlords, after they graduate. (The same ones that some of these students are apparently “coordinating with”.)
Alternatively, they can rent a place in the city, same as anyone else. And, perhaps not be surrounded by an entirely-student population within their own development. (Now, that’s a “life lesson”.)
Part of UC’s role is to function in the real world and take responsibility for providing its fair share of housing for students it is all too happy to take tuition money from. Other communities have negotiated impact fees from UC campuses to address the burden placed upon their infrastructure. The City of Davis, in contrast, has largely just rolled over.
You can (partly) “thank” the Vanguard, for that – assuming that anyone responsible for that agreement was influenced by the Vanguard.
Both David and Don opposed the pursuit of legal remedies, such as those used by other cities with UCs. (And in the case of Davis, the potential legal action provided at least some leverage which resulted in an admittedly-weak agreement. Better than nothing, I suppose.)
Another example of the Vanguard working against the interests of the city.
[edited]
MCCann stated “the University of California is not a housing agency–it’s an educational institution. And UC has rarely shown itself to be a particularly good landlord”
Weird that they provide so much housing then. Almost like they think it’s part of their mission.
Here’s what UCSD says about that “At UC San Diego, we believe you will find living on campus is an integral part of your education. As a result of your community living experience, we hope that you will develop a concern and respect for others; make responsible choices and decisions about a lifestyle which suits you best; share your academic, social, and cultural experience with other students; and learn to live peacefully in close quarters with a diverse group of people. We encourage you to work toward developing a positive involvement in your community, based on your rights and responsibilities as a resident living on campus.”
So the question then becomes, why do YOU not want the university to adequately provide for an integral part of their education, etc., etc.?
Two of my kids graduated from UCSD. Both lived on campus their first year, and one for her second. They did not have the option to live on campus after that. The expectation at most UC’s is for students to live on campus only for their first year. The local community is responsible for providing housing opportunities after that.
Mark…semi agree, and somewhat differ… in the 70’s, although I liked the dorms and the dining commons, UCD required me to go elsewhere (don’t think they cared, nor expected, where)… the UC’s have made it clear they are talking freshmen/sophomores, or first year JC transfers as “theirs”, as to providing housing opportunities… I believe they hope the host cities have housing available, but don’t necessarily demand (responsibility) that the host cities do so…
I would have been screwed if I could not have found affordable housing in Davis… no car, and the whole college thing was a big economic stretch for me and my family… my only vehicle had 2 wheels and pedals in college… I guess the other alternative to affordable student housing student housing in town, is assume they have to get cars, and commute, increasing VMT and GHG. Guess that is what some would prefer… I’m not one of those… it would be hypocritical.
Mark West: I’m glad to hear that UCSD actually served as a “housing agency”
But you realize that the different UC campuses actually have policies relating to how much housing they provide and what their “responsibility” actually is. Rather than anecdotal stories, an informed response to this public policy issue would reference those percentages, how much they vary, and why. It would also reference the impacts fees (or lack thereof) that various UC campuses pay to their surrounding communities to address their impacts.
I had to laugh at Ron’s comment worrying about the impact of bikes crossing Russell to get across the street and go to school. As if they will all come out at once or something. You want development where people can simply bike or walk across the street to get to work or class. Ron’s turned it into a negative. It just proves once again, he’s anti-student.
What a bunch of “malarkey”, as they say. (I can’t recall – isn’t that Biden’s slogan, now? Something like that? The “No Malarkey” tour? Do the “kids” say “malarkey” these days? Hell, they didn’t even say that in “my” day.)
In any case, Rik already noted the following problem:
Anybody know what the current status of any affordable housing in the project is? Here is where things stood a year ago (11/30/2018) when the developers were stating they wouldn’t build any at all:
“Leasing would be by both the unit and by the bed, Brixmor has said, but whether there will be an affordable housing component remains to be seen.
Brixmor representatives have said given the high cost of vertical mixed-use construction, an affordable component would not be financially feasible and under the city’s current affordable housing rules, such projects are exempt from providing affordable beds or units.
However, the City Council indicated this week a desire to remove that exemption for vertical mixed-use projects outside the downtown core, though council members also indicated some flexibility given other benefits a project provides to the city.
In any case, the environmental impact review process will move forward as planned, city planner Eric Lee said Thursday.”
The streets behind U-Mall already require residential permits for parking.
Thanks, Ron. How far out from the development, and for how long do they allow it? Also, what about overnight?
Once again, San Francisco can provide an example of how “effective” (or “ineffective”) these restrictions can be. I’ve seen locations where it doesn’t seem to make much difference, regarding the “availability” of parking for residents.
Sometimes, residents there seem “afraid” to give up their spots, with little “turnover”.