The University Commons Redevelopment Project is heading to a Planning Commission hearing on May 27, where the commission will determine whether to recommend council certification of the EIR. The final EIR (available here) is now available online.
The proposed project will demolish the majority of the existing University Mall building for redevelopment as a dense, mixed-use project.
The project includes 264 new multi-family residential units and around 136 thousand square feet of retail space—about 50 percent larger than the existing commercial footprint. This does not include the separate 13,000-foot Trader Joe’s building which will remain untouched.
There will also be a three-level parking structure that contains 533 parking spaces and which would be situated on the west portion of the site with an additional 160 surface parking spaces.
The main structure will be five to seven levels, approximately 80 feet in height, with two small pads being proposed.
The description notes: “The 136,800 sq. ft. of retail space would accommodate shops, restaurants, offices, and other associated uses on the ground floor and second floor areas. There would be eight retail areas constructed generally within the footprint of the existing University Mall and underneath the proposed residential units and two new, free-standing, two-story retail buildings.”
The 264 residential units would have 622 bedrooms and up to 894 beds in a mix of unit types.
The residential portion of the project consists of four residential levels over three levels of parking.
Since the release of the Draft EIR, “the project applicant has made minor changes to the proposed site plan in response to modifications required by Mitigation Measure 4.6-8(b) of the Draft EIR.”
Among these changes are the elimination of proposed parking stalls along the drive aisle north of Trader Joe’s; outbound left- and right-turn lanes now proposed at the southern Sycamore Lane driveway; parking stalls in front of retail have been angled; and Russell Blvd. driveways have been aligned with garage entry.
Despite these changes, the total amount of parking remains the same, at 693 parking stalls consisting of 493 retail spaces and 264 residential spaces. The 264 residential spaces would still be located in the third garage level. The 493 retail spaces would be adjusted with 269 garage spaces and 160 surface spaces, and residential levels extend further east across the two retail levels toward Anderson.
Among the criticisms include the height of the building, which is at 80 feet and seven stories.
The initial study says “the proposed 80-foot-tall structures would be set back approximately 215 feet from the project frontage at Russell Boulevard.” The EIR notes “the Initial Study concluded that the proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Furthermore, the proposed project would not be the first seven-story structure along Russell Boulevard.”
The Davis Live Student Housing Project, “which is currently under construction to the west of the project site, would consist of seven stories totaling 85 feet in height.”
Parking is another complaint. However, the EIR notes that “the Draft EIR is not required to include an analysis of potential issues related to parking availability.”
The EIR further notes, “Parking management for the structured parking and surface level parking included in the proposed project would be actively supervised by on-site property management and regulated by access control technology.”
The EIR notes that there will be enforcement—as there is now: “The project would have an on-site property management team to enforce all retail and residential parking rules and regulations. Currently, the property has a non-customer tow policy for vehicles parked over one hour.”
In addition, for retail employee parking, they note, “The project applicant (Brixmor) has substantial experience enforcing retail employee parking to ensure preferred parking locations are available for retail customers. In most cases, retail tenants self-regulate, but Brixmor also utilizes language within the lease documents that designates the quantity and location of employee parking.”
They will also have controlled garage access and surface level parking would be “free to retail customers only and would not be permitted for residential parking, residential guest parking or 
student parking during business hours.”
Furthermore, “The residential neighborhoods surrounding the University Commons Project are located in preferential parking permit required areas H, P, Q, S, & U. The EIR notes, “These required parking permit areas restrict on-street parking to residents holding valid City permit. Vehicles parked without a permit would be fined by the City of Davis Parking Patrol. University Commons would support these permit programs through tenant education curricula and on-site.”
The city received a number of community responses to the project.
Ron Oertel, for example, wrote, “I am sorry that the city is (once again) moving away from commercial development, to a semi‐residential focus. That, combined with the additional congestion and lack of adequate parking will create a situation in which the mall will no longer serve existing residents of the city.”
He added, “It’s difficult to believe any claims put forth regarding the “lack of commercial space” within the city, as it continues to allow conversions for semi‐residential use ‐ rather than maximizing commercial potential.”
Greg Rowe was critical on a number of fronts. He wrote, “It is my observation and that of others that a high number of existing U-Mail surface parking spaces are used by UCD students who park and walk across Russell Blvd to class.” He argued, “This problem will increase over time because UCD student enrollment continues growing but on-campus housing construction has not caught up.”
He also noted that “Retail Only” was deemed the environmentally superior alternative, and that “the city should give strong consideration to specifying that it will only consider the retail only alternative, or perhaps the Existing Mixed Use Build Out Alternative.”
Later he noted that “the reality is that most non-students would not want to live in close proximity to noisy, unruly and partying students. The residential component will surely end up being almost completely occupied by students, unless it is reoriented toward a different demographic and aggressively marketed to that demographic.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Our rural and suburban life style gives way to dense, post-modern, urban, mixed use where the elevator replaces the car.
This choice brought to you by those dedicated to a limited footprint for the city amidst a growing community.
One reason I appreciate Ron – even though I don’t agree with him – is that his analysis largely is spot on. In this case there are really three school of thoughts in town – those who oppose most projects and want to limit growth, those who want to end Measure R and are okay with expanding the borders and those in the middle that see the need for growth but prefer it in the form of dense infill either in or near the core. Right now the middle path is one the city is primarily taking with very limited proposals and excursions onto the periphery (West Davis and ARC would be the two exceptions to that in the last 10 years).
One reason I appreciate David is that he provides this forum for me to kvetch.
While you claim there are three schools, as usual its more nuanced three competing visions. The problem with Measure R is that it constrains one option while amplifying another.
I’m for all three solutions. First, I think there are places where we should preserve open space. This would be riparian habitat and class I research land plus land placed in conservation easements by owners seeking preservation as a legacy.
Second, I think peripheral development is appropriate on commodity production land to provide more single family residences for families. This is exemplified by the rejected Covell Village proposal that would have supplied a good deal of the demand in that category over the last decade. Sadly because of Measure R, and a reason I’m opposed to its renewal, the Covell Village land hasn’t been developed and as a result our schools have had to recruit from the families who bought houses a short distance but longer commute away in Spring Lake.
Third is infill and I’m not opposed to infill where appropriate and sized correctly. This is why I support redevelopment of the U Mall but thought that Trackside was too big.
That approach damages both communities. One with more schools (and funding) than it actually needs, and the other without enough.
It also encourages unnecessary commuting, and allows the desires of those associated with the school district to dictate planning decisions.
So much for David’s conclusion that your analysis is “spot on”, or is in the broader interest of either community.
The more I learn about the goals and forces behind this approach, the more disappointed I am.
“That approach damages both communities.”
Judgement call on your part and, I might add, without foundation.
Trackside is quite a bit smaller, and closer to downtown. However, it would be directly impactful on adjacent neighbors.
The issue regarding University Mall is whether or not the city should support another megadorm.
There may also be questions related to the long-term impact of coronavirus (and telecommuting, online learning, college enrollments, etc.).
That leaves a lot of questions…
1. In what way is an approval “supporting”?
2. In what way is this a megadorm?
3. Who gets to decide issues 1 and 2?
4. Is creating dense housing near the campus an advantage or disadvantage to the community?
This approach reduces funding in home districts, encourages unnecessary commuting, and forces Davis property owners/residents (especially those in single-family dwellings) to subsidize non-resident students.
Those are facts, not judgments.
The “judgement” part is that this is rather unsavory and selfish. Unfortunately, some folks think that those associated with school districts can do no wrong.
“This approach reduces funding in home districts, encourages unnecessary commuting, and forces Davis property owners/residents (especially those in single-family dwellings) to subsidize non-resident students.”
How so?
Do you really need to ask questions that you already know the answer to? (And to which you’ve already answered yourself, multiple times?)
Do we really need to discuss (again) how school district funding works, Davis parcel taxes, the recruitment of out-of-district students, etc.?
You, of all people, are intimately familiar with that.
In any case, it sounds like you’re a fan of Ron G’s goals, which doesn’t surprise me.
You expected to state your position without a challenge?
What position? That school districts should generally be sized and funded to match the needs of a given community?
Is your position different than that?
For one thing this topic seems off-topic for this project.
I fall in the same camp as Mr. G. I would add to the end of the above . . . ‘for its location’ or ‘for its britches’.
People have been pushing for UCD to go to 7 or 8 stories (which they should), this is across the street from UCD and next to another seven story building that was just approved.
Interdistrict transfers are off topic for this thread. Ron has explained his opinion on the topic in great detail elsewhere on the Vanguard. Here is one example: https://www.davisvanguard.org/2020/01/my-view-school-finances-are-tricky-why-you-cant-right-size-the-district/
Please continue comments there if the topic interests you.
Agree on U-Mall and Campus — in a pre-Covid-19 world. I am not necessarily nixing dense housing in these places — but if Covid-19 continues, or mutates substantially, or another virus leaks out of a lab or wet market in China, or elsewhere, then — will people live in high-rises? I’m wondering how this will shake out. If it does end soon – a vaccine comes along and we quash outbreaks quickly — then maybe it’ll go back to how it was.
But what if it doesn’t? What if those under-writing dense housing projects start to wish to ‘wait and see’ if there will be a return on their investments before proceeding. Could put quite the kibosh on dense housing projects. Davis might actually be better off taking advantage of all that land out there and spreading people out a bit more. Parents may not want to send their students to high-density high-rises in LA or the Bay Area anymore, and seek out more rural colleges in counties with relatively low Covid-19 rates.
I think some basic planning assumptions about how and where people prefer to live will have to change. But that doesn’t mean this particular project would necessarily fail to fill with tenants; given the location and pent-up demand, I expect it would have good occupancy.
But: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/realestate/coronavirus-escape-city-to-suburbs.html
A rural suburban lifestyle is very resource intensive and unsustainable in our changing climate. We have to move towards 1) increasing density in cities and 2) making rural residents pay the full costs of services that they use.
People don’t want that.
We do.
Some people want that and they should be able to get it but others want a single family home to raise a family and they should be able to get that too. Joel Kotkin breaks it down as eloquently as ever in this piece in The Hill today:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/498198-the-new-geography-of-america-post-coronavirus
Ron G… you basically “pegged it”… I was fine in apartment, alone, or with spouse… when we had kids, wanted to go back to ‘our roots’ growing up… a SF home… others I’ve known, even with kids, are/have been happy in an apartment or a condo… both are valid choices, and Davis is ‘pro-choice’ (?)… some folk prefer more space, rural… but I’m lazy… don’t want to deal with a broken water well or failed septic tank on a weekend morning… others are OK with taking that risk…
Comes down to cogently evaluating benefits/risks, and acting on it…
I would not do well (at this point in life) in an apartment environment, nor my gardening spouse, so we do the SF suburban thing… to each, their own…
And, as to the proposed project, looks promising, but folk will make choices as to visiting the commercial, living there, and I’m good with that… big time…
From the artist rendering, it looks like New York City. I have been generally in favor of this project. But we should consider one thing — will people want to live, or want their children to live, in densely populated environments when this is built and the virus has passed? This was considered in an article yesterday in Politico (link below). Among the thoughts: “The density of social contact in urban areas—home to almost 60 percent of the global population—makes them Petri dishes for the spread of contagious diseases. The Covid-19 “attack rate” in New York City was five times the national average.”.
How Coronavirus Could Make People Move
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/05/13/how-coronavirus-could-upend-human-migration-251715
My guess is yes, people will gladly move back in to dense living situations, because humans are basically stupid. After all, fraternity/sorority row in Berkeley, as well as the sports stadium and several emergency service facilities, are built on top of the Hayward Fault. Yes, I’m sure people will live at University Village once the Covid-19 is under control. After all, it couldn’t happen again, so what, me worry?
I was thinking the Chicago Water Tower District. The blue steel and glass building behind the water tower. Of course Chicago was the place that first embraced the elevator to enable vertical densification.
You can see the image in the link below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Water_Tower
*Had* to recruit? Only because they don’t want to adjust the district facilities to match the district student population. (Administrators are loath to reduce the size of their fiefdom because it makes it harder to maintain the upward salary trajectory.)
There’s something to be said for maintaining a certain student body size in order to retain valuable programs, and closing schools is always disruptive, but on the other hand the high school is overcrowded (or was at the time my son graduated in 2016), so maybe a smaller student population wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all.
Side note: have you noticed that DJUSD advertises on Cap Radio? It’s nice that they support the station — I’m also an underwriter — but I’m not sure that filling seats with out-of-town students is the best way to manage a school district.
Damn right!
JF wrote,
Like all things, it depends… if the “out-of-town students” are the children of those who are employed in Davis (UC/City of Davis/DJUSD are examples), I see no problem… the ‘commute’ would occur, in any event… just more ‘passenger(s)’… [might even decrease total VMT, compared to the alternative!]
If DJUSD is ‘recruiting’ students, who may live in Elk Grove, but whose parent(s) work there, or Sacratomato, etc., that is not a good business model… nor “recruiting” from Woodland, absent the parent(s) working in Davis… same rationale as my Elk Grove example…
…depends…
Isn’t that what all the old boomers who comment on here wear? One thing we can all agree on.
Fortunately, not yet for us… but some younger folk seem to demand ‘Pamper-ing’…
Nice bon mot tho’… liked it!
We’re in the ‘middle’ of the boomer generation… during a ‘minor baby bust’… more kids born in the year before, and the year later…
But, when things get sh*&&y, and some folk get p#$$y, maybe the hoarders should stock up on Depends… leaves more TP for the rest of us…
I would think that (in addition to the other problems noted), encouraging out-of-district enrollments results in some kids being “left behind”, in their resulting inferior (home) school district. Which makes me wonder if those advocating for this approach actually care about the best interests of kids, in general.
I’d suggest ending this particular thread, as it’s only indirectly related to the topic of this article.
I recall that the EIR notes some unresolved problems regarding accessing the campus (across Russell), from this proposal. Would David care to post that wording, from the EIR?
You’re welcome to – the link to the EIR is in the article
My main point being that your articles would likely be more informative (and interesting), if you started off by discussing and examining the issues brought up in EIRs, traffic studies, etc.
There’s a wealth of information in these types of documents, but perhaps not easy to honestly discuss on a politically-oriented advocacy blog. Something about this format, the comments (and the articles in the first place) which seems to preclude that possiblility.
Hopefully, the Planning Commission (and Council) will examine them.
I try to highlight a few issues that seem to be of interest. I try not to write 4000 word articles that no one will read. People are welcome to bring out additional issues. In this article, other than providing the basics, I focused on height and parking which were previously of issue.