By Molly Mermin
I spent several hours the night of July 21st tuned into the Davis City Council meeting, listening to over 100 commenters express their views on the proposed University Commons project. This project would redevelop the University Mall area at the corner of Anderson and Russell, tearing down the aging, mostly-empty mall and replacing it with a mixed-use development.
While it may seem odd for a college student to spend her evening listening to public comment at a City Council meeting, I know how important projects like this are to the lives of my fellow students and the future of this community, and I wanted to see what the public and the City Council thought.
The population of Davis has grown greatly in the past few decades, to the benefit of our local economy. However, Davis has consistently failed to keep up with the increased demand for housing, with the result being an extremely low vacancy rate, causing a myriad of problems for renters that end up affecting the entire community.
I renewed my lease for the upcoming school year back in December, a full eight months before the lease takes effect. Renewing a lease eight months in advance is, unfortunately, standard practice among renters in Davis because quality apartments fill up so quickly.
The housing shortage incentivizes overcrowding, leading to the so-called “mini-dorms”’ that many Davis residents have complained about. Furthermore, many students turn to rent single-family homes in neighborhoods far from campus, where the neighbors may have moved, not expecting to live near so many students.
Some students have even moved out of the city and chosen to commute from Woodland or West Sacramento. Students living far from campus exacerbates traffic, creating a worse community for everyone.
This is not the worst of it, however. 18% of UC Davis students–approximately 6,104 people— have experienced housing insecurity, and 2.6% or 688, report having slept in their cars. Surely, this is something we can all agree on: no one in our community should be housing insecure.
The best way to fix the housing crisis is to build more housing. Although the city has voted to approve several projects in the last few years, it was almost 20 years since the last market-rate apartment was built until Sterling came online this summer.
Troublingly, the Nishi project I voted for in 2018 has not even broken ground, two years after it was approved by the voters. Some have estimated that Davis has a housing deficit of around 5,000 beds, which would still leave us with a housing shortage even if every approved project were built. Statewide, California has an estimated housing shortage of around 2,000,000 units.
The University Commons project would add almost 900 beds, and add them close to campus, where they are needed most. Students living at University Commons would feel little need to drive to campus, with a study finding that those living within 1 mile of campus use a car less than 5% of the time. The EIR found that the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would drop to an average of 38 VMT in Davis to 16 for those at University Commons.
If built, University Commons would help decrease traffic in the city, not increase it. Additionally, the University Mall is badly in need of redevelopment, with many of the storefronts empty even before the current recession. A mixed-use development would revitalize the retail portion of the mall, while providing housing where it is needed most.
Many residents of Davis from all stripes seemed to recognize this at the City Council meeting. Students, business owners, renters, homeowners, and neighbors all spoke in favor of the project. I was encouraged to see that comments were 2:1 in favor of the project, but saddened by the reasons a few were against it.
Virulent anti-student rhetoric was spewed by far too many in what I thought was a welcoming college town. Commenters repeatedly echoed the misguided sentiments of the planning commission—that this project is for the students and not the community.
I find it extremely offensive to suggest that students are not part of the community. We live, work, vote, and spend our money here. However, that did not stop commenters from saying the project was “too supportive of students,” or that they did not want to be turned into “a giant dormitory.”
One commenter even said that “we are inundated in this area with student housing, you’re turning our area into a student ghetto.”
You can listen to some of these comments I compiled here.
I think that one should expect to live near students if one lives near campus. Yet, this project isn’t even encroaching on a single-family-housing neighborhood—it is literally surrounded on three of the four sides by apartments and dorms, with the other side being a Rite Aid.
It’s essential to look at not just the numbers of commenters for or against the project, but critically their reasons. The commenters against the project largely had aesthetic concerns, with many noting the height of the proposed building or parking.
Those in favor were primarily concerned with housing insecurity. They highlighted that the housing shortage in Davis impacts our most vulnerable community members the most—people of color, first-generation students, and low-income people are most at risk of housing insecurity.
I was extremely disappointed to see the Council echo the sentiments of those opposed to the project while ignoring many of the points made by those in favor, even though the opposition was greatly outnumbered.
As a voter in District 2, I’m looking at this upcoming City Council vote closely. Many other students and I are closely following the three upcoming races for City Council. Land use planning is one of the most direct impacts to our lives as students in Davis the City Council can make.
If Davis wants to live its values as a progressive, inclusive city, it will do well to actually be welcoming to all—especially students of color—and to support the members of the community who are being pushed out by expensive housing. I hope that the City Council sees the light on this issue.
Molly Mermin is a UC Davis Student and member of the College Democrats.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Thank you for writing this. It is very compelling and aligns very much with my thinking on this project. Over the years I have heard much anti-student rhetoric, which is always perplexing in a college town.
I didn’t find the planning commission arguments or the commissioners’ public comments very useful on this project. The fact that they voted unanimously against a project that is oriented to student housing, and then voted unanimously in favor of a project on the edge of town that contains hundreds of housing units oriented to young urban professionals, seems contradictory (to be polite).
If the building height is an issue, perhaps the council can get them to reduce it somewhat. I wouldn’t be surprised if the developer is actually expecting that and considered 7 stories to be kind of an opening bid on that topic.
This is such a logical place for student housing, and checks so many boxes of current urban planning principles, that I am finding the opposition to be seemingly more based on emotional than actual planning issues. It would invigorate the shopping center and provide much-needed housing close to campus.
Bottom line as Don says – this is a logical place for student housing. Those who are adding up the number of projects are missing that point. If anything, you can make the case that Sterling really shouldn’t be student housing – but they jumped the queue and are about to open. I think in five years, maybe the city can talk with them about shifting their model to a more family and workforce oriented one.
Yes, there is a student housing need But why is it the city’s responsibility to house UCD’s students? These are mostly transient residents. They’re here for a few years and then gone. Why do students feel ENTITLED to housing? Anyone else that looks for housing in Davis, has to look for whatever is available. Why are students any different? Students tend to forget the UCD is not the City of Davis. Why aren’t the students focused on resolving this issue with UCD? I know UCD has some expensive dorm type projects in the pipeline. Maybe student pressure could get those built quicker and more affordable? Maybe UCD could truck in a bunch of living trailers for student housing and park them on their open land? How about a student tent city in the arboretum (just kidding…I’m sure someone was offended by that last comment)
As for the student economy? I can only take so many burger and pizza places…taquerias, $5 drip coffee shops and boba tea microbrews. How the heck does Winters a town of 6,000 have nicer restaurants than Davis? I’ll use the following scene from “South Park” to make my point….just sub “students” in for “hippies”:
Cartman
[walks to his cell door] Mayor! Mayor, I confirmed the data! The hippies are going to have a massive jam band concert!
Mayor McDaniels
I know. I signed the permit.
Cartman
[steps back, stunned] You… You what?
Mayor McDaniels
I signed a permit allowing them to have their concert here. Their little “festival” should pump some money into our economy.
Cartman
They’re hippies! They don’t HAVE any money! Does the city council know about this?!
Mayor McDaniels
They don’t have to know. I can sign whatever permit I want!
Cartman
You just SOLD OUT OUR TOWN! [Cartman snaps]
As for the project itself…yeah…it’s probably not a bad location for student housing. Personally, I think it’s better as a pure retail and biz office type of project (better potential revenue for the city) than a mixed use project…where I fear the retail component will end up playing second fiddle to the residential component.
“Yes, there is a student housing need But why is it the city’s responsibility to house UCD’s students? ”
I don’t know whose responsibility it is but this is a private not a city development, so I wonder if it’s a material question.
The city zones land and approves projects based on what is best for the city.
As for who’s responsibility? The students are UCD’s source of income. Their assets. It’s their job to take care of them.
In my view, zoning gives them authority to approve the zoning change. It doesn’t mean that the city is responsible. That said, I believe both city and university have shared responsibility for housing students. The university was lacking in that, but they have committed to increase their share from 29 percent to 48 percent, while some will quibble, it seems a good start.
We still disagree about the city having responsibility for housing students.
But it’s my understanding that UCD is not committed enough to student housing to offer affordable options (now or in the future). So it seems like UCD really isn’t addressing the need.
A private developer is proposing to build housing for students. Not the city. But to your larger question, a city exists to provide services and make space available for residents. Students are residents.
I don’t see the relevance of this, but you might want to know that most people – student or not – move every few years.
Oh, a lot of us stick around. – UCD ’80 here.
Hey, dude, given the response to your last comment on this topic I’d think you would give more consideration to what you post. But every human being is entitled to housing. It’s a basic human need.
Duh. That includes a lot of young adults who live and work here and aren’t UCD students.
They aren’t. They don’t. I don’t really get where you’re coming from. It’s a reasonable expectation that any college town will have off-campus housing as well as on-campus housing. I can’t think of any exceptions to that.
What makes you think students haven’t brought these issues up with UCD’s administrators?
Doubtful. But they’re building pretty fast now, finally. Definitely not more affordable, for a bund of policy reasons emanating from the UC Office of the President. Short answer: housing is not an essential mission of UC and is expected to pay for itself, including its share of all operating costs.
No, they won’t do that. More to the point, why should students not live among us? They’re actually normal human beings, though younger.
I sell lots of stuff to students, and so do many other retailers. Like many commenters here, you seem to be unaware that students shop at a lot of businesses in town.
Because a wealthy restauranteur happens to live there and created a little hub of fancy restaurants in a rural community. Otherwise, Winters would have all the amenities of Dunnigan and Corning with respect to restaurants.
I answered this question to David above. As a former private developer….I’m well aware of the differences between private and public development.
I don’t see the relevance of this, but you might want to know that most people – student or not – move every few years.
Because you’re subsidizing housing (by not approving a more lucrative…for the city… project) specifically for this special transient group. Sure people come and go but typically you don’t create long term proposals based on those people’s needs. Especially when they should be met by someone else (UCD in this case).
Of course some do. In fact a significant number stick around. But it’s minute fraction compared to the numbers of students that come and go every year. David said the same thing…why do you silly former students love to bring up the exception to the rule just because it fits your personal history? You don’t make policy based on exceptions to the rule.
I really think this silly blog has an over-inflated sense of itself and Davis in general. Yeah…that’s me…walking on eggshells around here. Of course every human being is entitled to housing. If you can’t afford housing on the market take it up with the government over public housing options….but no one has the right to live in any particular place. If that were true I’d still be living in the much more politically reasonable and conservative city of San Francisco (where I lived for close to a decade) and not Davis.
Obviously not to a degree that solves the student housing issue for UCD students.
That’s kind of my point. UCD feels little pressure to to solve it’s student housing problem. It’s the surrounding communities’ problem. If the surrounding community pushes back and pushes students to push back on UCD (consider academic alternatives) because of housing costs. Alternatively, maybe a for profit solution that isn’t financially detrimental to the city (I’m not completely against the Umall project…I’m good with retail supported by residential as long as the retail component is the star) might happen.
I’m not proposing we run anti-Sandmen around town to eliminate students (or those younger than 30?)from the city. If they want to live here…fine. I just don’t think the city of Davis should subsidize (in general residential is a cost to a city…that goes even more so for student housing) their housing needs when it’s UCD’s responsibility to take care of their assets.
I’m sure you do sell stuff to students. But in general a professional couple or a professional family with kids are going to spend more locally than students? Why? Because they have more money!
And WHY do nicer restaurants not locate in Davis? Because the market is dominated by pizza, burger, burrito eating…micro brew drinking students (btw…all things I love…though I’m still trying to find a really good burrito). But rent and the market dictate more of these kinds of eating places.
🙂
Would you believe – doing the Mexican Hat Dance on eggshells?
I like Guadalajara NW – but a good burrito is a very personal thing.
It’s unfortunate that the city doesn’t operate that way.
I am still unclear why zero students ask for more housing and less parking in the same footprint.
Why would they be asking for less parking? When I was @ UCD, didn’t have a car, so wouldn’t have asked for more parking… also wouldn’t have occurred to me to ask for less… parking did not affect me (except bicycle parking spaces)… guess I’m missing something in your 9:27 post…
More housing is… more housing. It’s as simple as that. More housing goes where parking was planned. It is as simple as that. Less parking means less traffic, too. And there could be some parking here.
Surface lots are a direct insult to housing-challenged students. That they don’t complain about these… is odd.
Davis Live is much better in this regard. Very little space wasted in parking.
Although . . .
“But why is it the city’s responsibility to house UCD’s students?”
Because the city can’t prohibit students from living in the city. As a result the consequences of not facilitating the housing of students only exacerbates the market’s current conditions of shortage.
Also your position is a radical alteration of the historic relationship between UCD and the City. For decades UC provided housing mostly for freshman and let the private sector house the rest of the student population off campus. Only in the last few decades has there been opposition to adding housing for students in the city.
Or mostly, anyone for that matter…
Um, I could as truthfully say only in the last few years has the City opened up to building mass complexes of dense, indoor-accesss housing suited mostly for freshman and sophomores.
As a result of the drive toward densification an unintended consequence of Measure R.
I disagree that its mostly for freshmen and sophomores. UCD has long been committed to housing freshman on campus because the parents demand it.
What’s being built now with access from indoors in much more dorm-like.
Of course we agree on Measure R, and yet Measure R will no doubt survive our deaths, while the College Dems continue to take pot shots at those who yell “pestilence”, as if that’s an effective strategy.
Not effective for either, frankly (altho’ I’m not)…
Guess I got ‘sanitized’ from ‘pestis studentious’ when I spent 2.5 years after graduating from UCD, in Bay Area, when the ‘cure’ was complete (a form of self isolation (?))… guess the 2.5 years away atoned for the 2 years living in the City, and 3 years on campus.
You’re conflating my dislike for living near students with good public housing policy. I do not advocate banning students. In fact if you read my post closer and if you understood my poor “Logan’s Run” anti-Sandmen reference you’d understand that I do not believe in simply pushing students or anyone out of the city.
What I do believe is that the city (or any city) does not owe housing to anyone. If Target hires a few employees from outside of Davis, do we fret about their housing needs? And those are employees and not revenue producing assets which students are for UCD. If Target needed to open a giant warehouse, would there be a sense of obligation to house Target’s assets like the mystical obligation many feel towards UCD?
All projects…housing or a warehouse for Target are judged on if they are a benefit for the city….(generally revenue to the city or some other community benefit like public parks or facilities…etc..). In general housing is a cost to a community. So if there is a housing project proposed it should have some way of being a benefit to the community. Again, this can come in the form of a new park or upgrading a nearby park or community facilities but usually the residential units should feed and support a new commercial part of a community. . The best situation is when that housing supports additional commercial projects (revenue producers for the city). But we can’t just build commercial projects alone or you’ll end up with a bunch of half empty under utilized commercial buildings. So there’s a balance to be struck. That’s the goal with DISC and the UMall. I fear DISC is leaning too far towards residential development despite the measures implemented in the development agreement to push the commercial component’s development. I think the project is badly planned as some utopian live work project. I think the commercial project needs to be built lean and mean to be competitive. In the future after the business park is established…then build housing and then build more business parks that support more of the things that were wanted in the biz park utopia vision. As for the Umall…I fear that the commercial component will also take second fiddle to the residential component. But I have less objections to it over all compared to the DISC project.
Also your position is a radical alteration of the historic relationship between UCD and the City.
About 11,000 years ago there was a religious site…..tall stone sculptures with the heads of various animals that was built in Turkey on a hill. It was one of the earliest known organized communities in history. Years went by and eventually the place was abandoned. People had moved on…..believed in different things….discovered agriculture…etc… they progressed.
Communities change. So just because there was some understanding that the city of Davis would support housing UCD’s student population (except the freshmen I guess)…it doesn’t mean that’s the way it has to be. Except in specific circumstances it makes no sense for the city to support UCD student housing. But for some reason there’s still this mythical obligation to by many in the Davis community to UCD. Your comment highlights this traditional belief that is stuck in the past. I may have to rethink my belief that the city of Davis is a progressive community.
True story… and not always for the better… there has been growing sentiment over the last few decades that ‘residents’ want not only control their own destinies, and property, but also that of any other property owner.
Often by “newbies”… in town less than 50 years, or their lifetime, whichever is less… we’re glad the city was allowing housing for us as students, and our future homes built in the late 60’s, and again in early 90’s… but folk have a perfect constitutional ‘right’ to try to get whatever they want, and deny it to others…
Bill,
I’m not sure of your point.
People always have some degree of control over other’s property. That’s what land use planning and zoning are for. The people are in the form of local, county, state and federal laws. In Davis they take that a step further with land outside of city limits (to be annexed) with direct voting on project proposals through measure R. I’m not a proponent of such direct influence by the voters…but it is what it is.
Obviously people have a right to voice their opinions and vote on things….I’m not sure where that comment fits in this conversation….I’m simply outlining how a rational community should make decisions concerning growth.
I do not understand your “newbies” comment and experience as a student comments about home in the 60’s and 90’s…could you please elaborate? I mean…of course students would be glad about housing options in Davis.
Parcel by parcel voting as you get with Measure R is not “rational planning.”
Rational planning would be the hard work of updating the General Plan and sticking to it.
Keith… you alluded to “project by project”… where even a project that fits with GP and zoning can die a ‘death by 1000 cuts’…
Davis Progressives would be better described as Rockefeller Republicans. Fiscally conservative and socially liberal with a zero population growth mentality.
I’m more of a dyed in the wool old time Democrat who predicted two years ago Biden would be the nominee. I believe in education, jobs, housing and prosperity through home ownership and the acquisition of property. Call me old fashioned if you like. I’m good with it.
They are far from “zero growth”.
But, it is interesting that you mentioned Rockefeller, since Grand Teton National Park wouldn’t exist in its current form, without one of the Rockefellers:
(Note the resistance he faced from locals and Congress, at first. Only to recognize later, the value of what he accomplished.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Teton_National_Park
Two years ago, did you predict Trump would be president?
Well, two years ago Trump was president… a no-brainer prediction two years ago, unless you thought the Republican Senate would convict him on impeachment charges… not bloody likely…
Trivia question… how many presidents were impeached? How many convicted/removed from office? [hint: one was a ‘tweener… depending on definitions used…]
If the electoral college is not impeded (by declaring someone other than the current POTUS is duly elected)[maybe yes, maybe no], and the incumbent rejects the results (POTUS has already questioned VBM’s, particularly in ‘blue states’, but not ‘in red’ [FL Ok, NV, not]), will the incumbent be removed from office by impeachment?
Republican Senators/candidates in ‘red states’ , or ‘purple states’ should tread cautiously, IMO… in the event the vote is ignored/decertified, and does not ‘work in their favor’… that type of event (except it was in H of Reps, prez) happened one time before… 1860. Ironically, first time a Republican was elected president… 160 years ago… some states did not accept the results… just might happen again… CA is over 10% of the national population, and somewhere between the 5th and 8th biggest economy in the world… add WA and OR, possibly NV, well… and those are just the contiguous states… add in NY, MA, IL, maybe PA and NJ… instead of N/S, might be coasts vs. the fly-over states… (IL not a coastal state, unless you count the great lakes)
WY, many red states, have much greater electoral college ‘power’ than their population justifies…
WY has two Senators, 1 Congressperson…
Four years ago I worried that Trump would win. Turned down election night 16 party invitation in advance because I was concerned Trump could win. Now its worse than I imagined.
If worries were predictions, candidates would ride . . .
Ha, almost no one did except for a few people like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore.