The Planning Commission is not happy with more student housing and they worry about the lack of parking on the large mixed-use project – that was a take home message from the public hearing on the EIR on Wednesday night.
The project seeks to demolish the existing, largely single story commercial entity and replace it with 264 new multi-family residential units and approximately 136,800 square feet of retail space. 
The proposed 264 multi-family units would include a mix of sizes and result in a total of 622 bedrooms with 894 beds.
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 Nick Pappani, a consultant with Raney Planning and Management, he noted that the Retail Project Only Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative as it would “reduce greatest number of project impacts, including reduced traffic impacts, and would not require implementation of GHG MMs.”
Commissioners were critical of a number of aspects of the project.
Steve Streeter, the chair, said, “Some of my key concerns are the building height, residential density, focus on student occupancy and parking.” He recommends a five-story maximum height. “The University Mall is a neighborhood shopping center that the density proposed would only be suitable in some downtown locations.”
He also noted, “The project objections focuses on students, employees, university-related personnel. The student focus needs to be balanced in relation to other student apartment projects completed or underway to the west.”
Greg Rowe had concerns about how the 894 “is going to be controlled.” He said, “I’m really having trouble understanding why this could be instead of 894 (beds)… next thing you know you have 900 to 1000 to 1200 students living here which then throws all of your environmental analysis (out).”
He said, “I’m really uncomfortable with the way this project is proposed because we don’t know how many students are going to live in each bedroom and we don’t know how it affects our RHNA.”
Mr. Rowe added, “We keep having these large projects coming forward. Especially these large student-oriented projects and in reality that’s what this is, this is another student oriented housing project.”
He noted that Davis Live “is really an experiment” with 71 units and 71 parking spaces. “I’m really uncomfortable going forward with another project that just assumes one parking space per unit for residences.” He would rather wait to see how it works for Davis Live.
In sum, he said, “It’s really not a shopping center renovation, it’s another large student housing project masquerading as a project to redo a shopping center.”
On the other hand, Emily Shandy said, “I don’t share your concerns about the lack of parking. I think we as a community need to move away from parking and away from driving in our own cars by ourselves all the time, to get everywhere. One of the ways that the city can encourage that shift to happen is to start making parking less convenient.”
Darryl Rutherford said, “I was taken aback by the size and scope of it all. The height really threw me off. It seems a little out of place.” He added, “It doesn’t look like it conforms with the community there.”
He said, “I want to see more commercial as well in that spot.”
“I want to see a dense project,” he added. “But I also don’t want to see a student-oriented project here.”
Herman Boschken noted, “In order for it to be anything but student housing, it probably would have to be redesigned – the units themselves.”
He said for workforce or low-cost housing, “this structure is simply not designed for their living habits or desires.”
He said while the student housing used to be deficit, “but more and more I think we’re finding that our real deficit is now for the Davis workforce and low cost housing.”
He also had parking concerns: “Where are they going to park?” He argued that students are going to “insist on bringing a car anyway, whether they use it or not.” He suggested that they look at alternatives with off-site parking, which he didn’t see anything in the proposals.
Eileen Samitz was among the public commenters.
She said, “This UMall proposal is basically this monolithic project of a 264 apartment monolith.” She called it “completely inappropriate,” “out-of-scale” and a “lose-lose for the city.
“The proposed project is far too large and would have devastating impacts not only upon the neighborhoods around it but the community as a whole.”
“This project needs to be a retail only project,” she said, arguing that that is what this site was intended for. “There are few retail sites left that are viable. UMall needs to expand its retail – if anything it needs two stories with offices on top. The city needs the sales tax.”
She too called this “basically a charade… for another student oriented project or mega-dorm.”
She was concerned that the retail would shift to “student serving retail” and argued “we need community serving retail.”
The Draft EIR review period is scheduled to end on December 20. They will prepare a Final EIR with a response to these comments and a mitigation and monitoring plan.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The proposed project is far too large and would have devastating impacts not only upon the neighborhoods around it but the community as a whole.”
Did anyone from the neighborhood object?
One person
Let’s play this fun Vanguard game:
– Did any UC Davis students show up with concerns about affordable housing?
– Did any economic development supporters show up with concerns about limiting retail space and City sales tax revenue?
Truly, a game… not playing…
If someone raises an objection to the lack of affordable housing in the project, the response from the Vanguard peanut gallery is, “it’s just the preliminary EIR stage; too early to talk about that.”
Later on it will be: “if you really cared about that,you should have raised that concern at [insert commission meeting here ].”
In this case, we have the classic “nobody cares about issue X because they didn’t attend an obscure meeting for a prelim EIR draft” comment.
Sounds like the planning commission is doing its job, overall.
From article/Greg Rowe:
Thank you!
(My comment above was intended as a “stand-alone” comment, and not in response to Rik’s comment.)
So, Rik, you were there, spoke, and/or made written comment? If not, “cry me a river”…
This meeting was far from an “obscure meeting”.
As someone who lives in the neighborhood I didn’t see anything about my major concern the constant left turn back up from Russell onto Sycamore. It currently takes two cycles on average to make that turn. I’m curious if there is anything in the plan to address that issue.
I’m sure that there is a “plan”, which is pretty much limited to an increase in the number of cycles to get through it (while simultaneously implying that no one should be driving, anyway). And, that students and their visitors never drive (or use Uber/Lyft), regardless.
Oh – and a vast increase in the number of bicycles/pedestrians attempting to cross Richards (to reach campus) will have “no impact”.
(Sorry – that couldn’t resist.) 😉
Damn – Russell, not Richards. Always get those names confused.
Not as bad as Covell/Cowell, though.
Most of the student population numbers that are crossing Russell to campus are already residing north of campus. The incremental impact should be minimal if they’ve done their market analysis correctly.
McCann said “ Most of the student population numbers that are crossing Russell to campus are already residing north of campus. The incremental impact should be minimal if they’ve done their market analysis correctly.”
The EIR draft states that there will be very large incremental impacts.
I have a lot of questions about how they calculate such impacts. For instance, they decide that the retail option is the lowest impact. But how are they measuring because as we know, putting more people, closer to the campus, means less overall traffic. So why would the mixed use project be more impactful overall? That leads me to question how they calculate this stuff.
By the way, will those who will be living at the “Davis Live” development add to even more crossings at this intersection?
I am curious about the Commission pathway process: I am not clear which Commissions have seen this previous to the PC, aside from BTSSC. Is the Commission review meant to be both robust and systematic, i.e. is the PC always the last step during the DEIR public review period and should the minutes from earlier review from other Commissions be approved before PC review?
I ask because while the BTSSC review of “University Commons” was last month, the minutes will not be approved until this evening, the evening after the PC review. Certainly PC members could see our unapproved minutes, which are nearly always available on the City website the Friday before our monthly meeting. But these minutes could not be a part of the PC Agenda, right?
So… I suppose my question is if the minutes really only need to be approved before the relevant City Council meeting – i.e. the one that looks at the project in question – or if the PC is actually “officially” meant to see only approved minutes due to its formally higher position that the other Commissions?
The low-cost solution to our shortage of working family housing it to get students out of the lower rent single family homes that they currently occupy. That also will make much more of the housing supply affordable (vs. Affordable) as the demand pressure is relieved. Currently 75% of students live off campus. It’s unlikely that the apartments near campus will empty to this new project as location is at a premium for students. That means that students will be drawn, directly or indirectly, from more distant duplexes and other neighborhoods. Our most affordable housing supply is not new houses, but rather older houses that are already rentals. This frees up those houses for working families.
If they’re occupying “lower-rent” single family homes, why would they move to a more costly, smaller-unit situation with no parking and less “freedom”?
More likely that these megadorms will be occupied by new students. (The ones that UCD doesn’t want to provide housing for.) I suspect that very few existing students will “migrate out” of their current living arrangements.
Most students don’t want to cram into a single family home. Yeah, you can pay less money. But you have more roommates, more conflict, less privacy, more neighbor conflicts. And btw, most students don’t have cars these days.
More “malarkey”, as Biden might say.
Have you ever listened to what students say when they come to public comment? They have made these points over and over again. Look at Don Gibson’s report if you want more.
Are you referring to the ones who are apparently “coordinated” by development interests? I don’t have much interest in what they have to say.
Nor do I think that students (in general) should drive all of the city decisions. Too bad that some of them have expressed such little interest in confronting UCD.
Regardless, the comments from the development activists show what this proposal actually is – another megadorm. The planning commissioners see this, as well.
You can read the quotes from Don Gibson, who was on GSA and the Affordable Housing Task Force: https://davisvanguard.org/2018/07/details-emerge-student-housing-survey/
Well, this immediately stood out regarding your reference:
I thought they “didn’t have cars” – according to you.
But again, it’s another megadorm.
I didn’t say the number of students with cars are zero.
Megadorm is just what you call it when you want to make it go away.
And, those living in their cars won’t be able to afford it in the first place. (So yeah, at least those folks won’t need a place to park, there. They’ll continue living at an “unidentified Safeway parking lot”, I guess.
You’re being silly
Again, UCD houses the entire freshman class and guarantees housing for all incoming first-year transfer students.
Richard, surely your position is not that families deserve lower cost housing than students?
With one exception, single level, single level homes should not have more excessive regulation in relation to number of occupants until there’s more affordable supply of housing. But the whole Cult of Beds in Davis – perhaps ordinationem rerum stratoria – instead of room-based solutions seems to completely undermine the same being formally-forbidden. (The exception is that vehicle parking maximum requirements should be considered, though this should be case-specific: Some people need vehicles more than others, some vehicles sit most of the time, as their owners use other types of mobility, garages are available and not, some streets have plenty of parking and others do not. I inherited an old car that mostly sits in our driveway, right now only one roommate’s vehicle that’s used daily is regularly in the street.)
Students should be integrated into existing housing off campus as sustainably as possible; new housing should address all needs fairly and should have integration-by-design in um, tandem, with affordability-by-design. Eventually there should be no shared rooms allowed in leases (and no living room conversions) and eventually no shared rooms in dorms, and housing for people without cars and without any university connection on campus and eventually UC Davis should be located in the City of Davis.
The unintended consequence of a policy of this sort would be a huge, adverse financial impact on lower-income renters.
Shouldn’t that be the renter’s decision whether they want to share a room.
I clearly said “eventually” and earlier, “single level, single level homes should not have more excessive regulation in relation to number of occupants until there’s more affordable supply of housing”. I also suggested a lot of variability for any vehicle restrictions.
These are medium to long-term goals.
There is no reason to regulate the number of people that can live in a home. Ordinances of this type have been used to try to prevent group home facilities. There are housing co-ops in Davis that would be affected, as well as extended families.
This idea is not well considered.
Couldn’t exceptions be made for those situations (e.g., in regard to rental housing at least)?
Has this ever been thoroughly explored, and not simply dismissed via comment on a blog?
And do some regulations already exist – either locally or elsewhere?
I’m at a loss here. If someone wants to share a room, why is it an appropriate use of governmental power to prevent that?
And if such regulations do not exist, what’s to prevent landlords and tenants from cramming as many as possible into a unit (thereby appealing to budget-minded individuals) – even if expensive megadorms are built?
Really? The plan is to hope that expensive megadorms will “solve” that problem?
I never really (fully) considered that this is exactly what some are claiming (without reason) will occur.
Good luck with that.
I would say people’s sense of personal space and privacy would dictate some of that. Although I have heard horror stories. There is definitely a good deal of distance between room sharing and cramming as many as possible into a unit.
Reminds me of the implied argument that density will prevent sprawl (when in reality, both are simultaneously and aggressively pursued).
Another 8,000 homes approved for Placer county – over the objections of residents, as is often the case. Along with a hoped-for “satellite” Sacramento State campus (which I understand to be “unfunded”).
And all this, despite the projected lack of population growth in coming years – statewide. Shows that some are purposefully attempting to deny that reality, and/or “create” their own.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article238253484.html
Greenwald said “ I’m at a loss here. If someone wants to share a room, why is it an appropriate use of governmental power to prevent that?”
Are you not familiar with the by-the-bed lease schemes that the landlords/developers are instituting in rentals like Nishi and others? If you share a bedroom, you end up paying for the bed, and the total bedroom price is WAY more than a single bed rental. Why is it appropriate to do that?
As Don Shor states, this is a “huge, adverse financial impact on lower-income renters.”
No more choosing to split a room to reduce costs. Extra $ in the landlords’ pockets?
You’re kidding, right? After the Vanguard’s repeated and relentless “focus” on neighborhood concerns regarding “mini-dorms”? With “megadorms” presented as the solution?
Again, what makes anyone think that megadorms will “prevent” mini-dorms? Given that “mini-dorms” likely remain much cheaper, offer parking, more freedom, etc.?
Even the city has recognized this problem, from a “physical structure” point of view (in reference to increasing the physical size of existing small dwellings).
WOW! Same true for UCD dorms?
Also, for some students, puts a big damper on (well, you know…)…
Maybe also add “no shared beds” to be clear?
All through college, in the dorms and in off-campus apartments, rooms were shared… 1970’s. Cost of structures for 1 room, one person, kinda’ kills the affordability thingy… whatever…
McCann: you didn’t post a link to your blog this time where the very first article cited states that strong governmental intervention is needed to ensure that housing has affordability restrictions.
Can’t wait for the near-zero-parking on Olive to come up — ha ha.
This to me is a scary, utopian, bullsh*t comment. I am an alternate transportation planner. The reason public transit/biking/walking works in Eurpope is because we built the infrastructure. Making driving worse doesn’t help — and it really doesn’t help the elderly, other-abled or those who don’t want to bike in the rain. Seriously, this is an awful attitude, and just plays into the hands of developers who don’t care about transit but just don’t want those pesky, non-profit parking spaces.
I don’t think it’s out-of-place at all. This is the best possible place in town to build student housing off campus. Everyone around is temporary, the only shadow falls on apartments to the north that people can choose beforehand to live in or not — no shadowing properties someone invested their life savings in.
Did someone say, “mega-dorm” ??? 😐
Interesting to note that:
Right down the street from this project is Cuarto, the residence complex owned by UCD that is in the city limits. The former Emerson Hall has been remodeled, now called Yosemite Hall, and was raised to four stories.
Residents of residence halls, including Cuarto, are not allowed to bring cars.
Evidently this doesn’t deter them from living there.
The vacant lots across Russell Blvd from the proposed project site are slated for development in the next couple of years (Orchard Park and Russell Park). Hard to say how many stories tall those will be; I couldn’t find any current plans on line. But I find Daryl’s comment a little odd, given the current housing on that stretch of Russell, the increased height of existing buildings, and the planned developments on the adjacent campus sites.
University Mall is a neighborhood shopping center, serving primarily the surrounding housing which is almost entirely student housing. It is not unreasonable to think that the young adults who move into this housing will be capable of living there without cars. They will likely already be accustomed to that.
I am pretty skeptical of the new urbanist concept of reduced parking in many situations. But it is being explored in many places and there are sites where it makes sense. This is one of them. I cannot figure out why people are objecting to building more student housing in a neighborhood surrounded by student housing across the street from a university.
What is the apartment vacancy rate in town? Have the approved projects made a difference yet? Until we see the apartment vacancy rate near 5% for consecutive years we have not approved nearly enough apartments to meet the demand.
I agree that this is a good spot (perhaps even a great spot) for this type of development, but the best location for student housing was along A street where it was intended so that the students would do their shopping downtown.
People in town (including our Commissioners) need to get over their irrational fear of ‘tall’ buildings. You would think someone was proposing a 50 story office complex or something.
“was intended” ??? The way you word it, it’s like it was ‘intended’ by the Good Lord himself.
Things are not intended by blue smoke. Who, exactly, ‘intended’ this? It’s not your 1960 plan again is it? That plan is older than me. And that’s actually a question, as I haven’t read that 60-year-old plan.
Regarding the war on cars, I’m tempted to post a link to Devo’s song – in which the lyrics go something like this:
“I say whip it, whip it good”.
But really, the biggest concern is the complete lack of Affordable housing proposed, and how the city will address that need (if it’s not included in this several-acre site).
As Greg Rowe noted, the city must also deal with RHNA requirements. Here’s a perfect opportunity to do so.
(Sarcasm intended, regarding Devo’s song. The “war on cars” doesn’t work in valley towns. It doesn’t even work in the Bay Area.)
Even Todd had a rather nuanced comment this time, regarding cars (earlier/above).
But again, this gets away from a primary issue – Affordable housing requirements and needs, on a site that’s large enough to accommodate it.
But, it is somewhat “refreshing” to see that everyone pretty much acknowledges that this is essentially a loss of a mall (that at one time, was intended to serve the city) and is yet another megadorm.
It’s not like retail malls need parking and ease of access, to serve a city. Should we now “cross-off” this property, on the list of commercial sites (that some claim a shortage of)?
(Sarcasm intended, again.)
I’d still like to know how all of these folks are going to get across the street to UCD, without creating gridlock. Also, won’t Davis Live and other developments add to that problem?
“ But, it is somewhat “refreshing” to see that everyone pretty much acknowledges that this is essentially a loss of a mall (that at one time, was intended to serve the city) and is yet another megadorm”
That was largely Eileen’s point, not sure that’s what everyone acknowledged.
There are some problems with that statement. The Mall was not necessarily catering to the broader community as it was. How often did you go to Forever 21 or the Grad? Predominantly students. Other than World Market, was there anywhere in the mall itself that you went? Frankly World Market could go anywhere and would be better served in another location.
Trader Joe’s. (Already avoiding it.)
The original proposal was to redevelop the mall, without housing. It’s still the “environmentally superior” alternative, as well – as noted in the article above.
Gee, I wonder “where else” a commercial site/proposal has morphed into residential (or semi-residential) uses. Sounds “vaguely familiar”.
Retail uses are not the only possible alternatives on commercial property.
But truth be told, I’d probably be (personally) satisfied if this particular proposal included sufficient Affordable housing, parking, and some way to get across the street without creating a permanent traffic nightmare.
The only way you can consider it the environmentally superior option is if you look at the site impact completely cut off from the rest of the community. Otherwise it makes no sense at all.
Did you do some of the brown acid, man?
“The original proposal was to redevelop the mall, without housing. ”
The current proposal is the only one I have seen to redevelop the mall.
Oh – I’d also prefer that it be analyzed to ensure that it pays for its own long-term costs to the city. (And perhaps compare this to other potential uses, before proceeding.)
The conclusion regarding the “environmentally superior” alternative did not come from me (see article, above).
Ron O.: I wonder if the commenters who apparently have questions and concerns about the EIR methodology and the identified impacts bothered to comment beforehand about the EIR scoping, or showed up to comment at the PC meeting? 😉
Ha!
(The cleverest guy on here. Who happens to be the same one who “does his homework”.)
“ The conclusion regarding the “environmentally superior” alternative did not come from me ”
I’m aware of that. Doesn’t change my concern.
“ But, it is somewhat “refreshing” to see that everyone pretty much acknowledges that this is essentially a loss of a mall (that at one time, was intended to serve the city) and is yet another megadorm”
I went to the Grad regularly. Watched five consecutive years of Warriors championships there. I don’t see this as the loss of the mall. I see this as redevelopment of the mall adding mixed use apartments above. Isn’t that what the speaker on form based zoning claimed was the biggest bang for the buck for the city? As for cars most of these people will have elevators to get what they need at the mall or Trader Joes and carry it upstairs.
I definitely see it as a loss of a mall, in terms of serving the city at large.
The same type of effort that some are advocating for downtown. This effort also goes “hand-in-hand” with the effort to eliminate parking.
Conversion of commercial space to residential (or semi-residential) is a trend throughout the city (and for proposals on the periphery). While some simultaneously and constantly bemoan the lack of commercial space.
Retail is not the only potential use of commercial space.
All of this points to what developers actually want to build.
I personally couldn’t care less about what some speaker says, regarding “form based” housing.
Then again, I’d rather see developers and their supporters ruin what’s already inside the city, vs. outside the city. But unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. “They” want to ruin both. (And they do this by eliminating what’s already in the city, first. And then claiming a “shortage” of the very thing that they eliminated.)
The question was raised yesterday – to what extent does the mall serve the city at large? There has been huge turnover of businesses, most of them seem to be niches and don’t serve the broader community. When I go to Starbucks there, I predominantly see students. And more importantly, malls are failing across the country. So what makes you think that a simple redevelopment that goes to two stories would succeed?
It was never intended to serve the city at large. It’s a neighborhood shopping center. That’s a basic planning principle in Davis. And it will have 30,000 more square feet of retail when it’s done than it has now.
The “neighborhood” (originally) included more than what’s directly above it.
Also, there are businesses in there that originally appealed to more than just the neighborhood. And, there’s no reason that such uses couldn’t have been expanded (not just retail, for that matter).
Didn’t another outside speaker state that innovation-center type businesses do well when located within 200 yards of campus, for example? (As opposed to about 4 miles away on prime farmland, accessed through town?)
And for that matter, wasn’t there a relatively small “innovation center” type component at Nishi, demonstrating the “claimed need” for such space? Which vanished into the night?
And, what about the other “University Research” park mall, which is also proposed on an infill site?
Don Shor: the current configuration is low-density retail. The proposal to re-zone and the uses proposed actually removes commercial/retail potential from the site from what even the existing zoning allows.
Planning Commissioner Greg Rowe got it exactly right when he stated “It’s really not a shopping center renovation, it’s another large student housing project masquerading as a project to redo a shopping center.”
I did confirm with the city – Eric Lee – that the only project submitted by Brixmor was for a mixed use, they never submitted an official proposal for commercial only. So if they made that comment, that reflected private planning and thinking, not official proposal that was submitted. When I met with them, they discussed a mixed use.
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/university-mall-redevelopment-moving-forward/
So apparently, you can “thank” city staff for that. And of course, the developer apparently “liked” this idea.
I believe another commenter claimed that the same thing occurred, regarding MRIC.
Given everything, I think mixed use makes a lot of sense there. I know you don’t agree, which is your prerogative.
I actually never said that.
I just pointed out the loss of commercial opportunity, as well as concerns regarding the complete lack of Affordable housing, inadequate parking for businesses and residents, and the ensuing “traffic nightmare” as a result of a significant increase in bicycles and pedestrians attempting to cross Richards.
And of course, continuing to let UCD off-the-hook, for its impacts. Including any UCD cooperation regarding access to UCD, from this development.
Other than that, it’s just “peachy-keen”. (Sorry – I think Biden is influencing me to dig up other old expressions.)
Yeah given all that, I think my inference is safe.
Some of those issues can, and should be addressed – even if the proposal is ultimately approved (essentially as proposed – but with modifications as needed).
Seems to me that the biggest issue is probably the complete lack of Affordable housing, at a large infill site. And as Greg Rowe pointed out – without adequately considering RHNA requirements that the city is facing.