Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Notice of Preparation (NOP) for so-called “Shriners Property Project”

Location of proposed project

Window opens for citizen input on the scope of the environmental analysis

By Roberta Millstein

Another step has been taken for a proposed housing project to the east of Wildhorse, near the Mace Curve, using the misleading name “Shriners Property Project” (misleading because the project has no current connection to the Shriners).  The site is approximately 232 acres and is currently being farmed.  The developers are proposing a 1,200-unit residential community.

Because the land is zoned for agriculture and is outside of the current City limits, it will eventually be subject to a Measure J/R/D vote of Davis’s citizens.  But first, it must undergo environmental review to produce an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and before that happens, the scope of the review must be decided on. That’s the stage we’re at now – the comment period for citizens and groups to give input on the scope and content of the environmental information to be obtained opened on July 12 and will continue through August 12.  

Further details of the project and the scope of review can be found here:

https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/CommunityDevelopment/Documents/PDF/CDD/Planning/Special-Projects/Shriner's%20Property/Shriners%20Notice%20of%20Preparation.pdf

For even more detail, see the City’s webpage concerning the project:

https://www.cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/development-projects/shriners-property

EIRs must always analyze alternatives to the proposed project.  A recent Davis Enterprise article stated that Vice Mayor Bapu Vaitla “asked that of the five alternatives offered for the project, that at least two have densities that are 15% below current city of Davis vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, with one being on the total project footprint” noting that “Vaitla also asked that these detailed alternatives be brought back to the council for final consideration.”

Citizens and groups can also weigh in on which project alternatives they think should be analyzed.  According to the Davis Enterprise article, preliminary project alternative concepts for the project include:

  1. No Project
  2. Lower Number of Units – Same Footprint (232 acres,930 dwelling units, 4.01 dwelling units/acre)
  3. Same Number of Units – Smaller Footprint (170 acres, 1,200 dwelling units, 7.06 dwelling units/acre)
  4. Same Number of Units – Smallest Footprint (100 acres, 1,200 units, 12 dwelling units/acre)
  5. Higher Number of Units – Same Footprint (232 acres, Number of dwelling units TBD, Gross density TBD)

Note in particular this opportunity to learn more – quoting from the NOP:

“On Thursday, July 25, 2024, starting at 6:30 PM, the City of Davis Department of Community Development and Sustainability will conduct a public scoping meeting to solicit input and comments from public agencies and the general public on the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shriners Property Project. This meeting will be held at the City of Davis Senior Center, Valente Room 646 A Street, Davis.

This meeting is anticipated to be an open house format, and interested parties may drop in to review the proposed project exhibits and/or submit written comments. Representatives from the City of Davis, the EIR consultant, and the Applicant will be available to address questions regarding the EIR process. Members of the public may provide written comments throughout the meeting.”

You can send your input, comments or responses (including the name for a contact person in your agency) to:

Attn: Dara Dungworth, Principal Planner
City of Davis Department of Community Development and Sustainability
23 Russell Boulevard
Davis, CA 95616
ddungworth@cityofdavis.org

Posted by

Roberta Millstein

on

in

, , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

7 responses to “Notice of Preparation (NOP) for so-called “Shriners Property Project””

  1. Ron O

    “at least two have densities that are 15% below current city of Davis vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, with one being on the total project footprint” noting that “Vaitla also asked that these detailed alternatives be brought back to the council for final consideration.”
    Sounds like they just make these claims up. This site is even worse (farther from UCD, and closer to I-80 – thereby encouraging commuters) than Covell Village.
    But even if true, is “15% less VMT than average” something to be proud of?
    Ever since the state changed from “congestion” to VMTs, they are essentially promoting a lie regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone knows that a vehicle stuck in stop/go traffic emits far more greenhouse gasses vs, one which is moving.
    Are they also making any unsupported claims regarding the number of bicyclists who would commute to campus?
    It’s easier and more direct to get to UCD from Spring Lake, than it is from Shriner’s. (Shriner’s is an easy/direct commute to Sacramento.)
    It is sprawl in every sense of the word. And just like with Covell Village, it does not address RHNA targets.
    For that matter, what’s to prevent developers from using the “builder’s remedy” at Covell Village and Shriner’s, AFTER voter approval? (Assuming that the city is still/subsequently not able to address RHNA targets?)

    Reply
  2. Roberta L. Millstein

    Vaitla is not talking about the project as proposed. He is talking about project alternatives that he would like the EIR to analyze.

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    Roberta: I understood that – the five alternatives are listed above.
    Certainly, the first alternative (“no project”) has some exceedingly-low VMTs – primarily consisting of occasional farm equipment traveling to/from the site.
    But again, the claims regarding the 15% “reduction” in VMTs (compared to the existing city) is no doubt based upon a number of questionable assumptions.
    On a related note, didn’t Bapu run on a platform of “infill”?

    Reply
  4. Roberta L. Millstein

    I did not take Vaitla to be describing on or more of the 5 alternatives already planned and listed above. I thought he was describing an alternative that is not yet planned but that he would like to see analyzed, which is why he asked for it to be brought back to the CC again.
    To be clear, I’m not defending (or critiquing for that matter) Vaitla, just describing the situation as I understand it.

    Reply
  5. Tuvia ben Olam

    LOL…. Yet another name for a proposed development which is the opposite of what’s intended or as mentioned has nothing to do with the site itself.
    “Density” is misleading if it’s multi-story housing on a small lot on top of a two-car garage, with more spaces available for teenagers’ vehicles when they turn 16.
    Tim Keller over the past year or longer proposed some kind of BRT and Cycling corridor connecting new and existing developments via Covell and F St to Downtown, Davis Depot and Campus, but that would eliminate a lot of existing moving and storage spaces for private vehicles… Magnitudes more than the paltry amount
    which was already controversial on a tiny part of G Street. Also any cycling connection using the overpass is non-viable. Existing cycling connections to those destinations from this area are inconsistent in terms of capacity, safety and ease of use. Also even a dedicated public transport service would find it hard to compete against a two-car garage and cheap or free parking Downtown.
    If an overwhelming number of people who live here had their lives based on Campus and if Campus became extremely difficult to park cars at, things could be better, but there’s no guarantee on who’s going to live here. It’s a super friendly destination for people who want to drive their kids to school and then pop on to I-80.
    Who is going to walk 5 minutes and then take a 15 minute public transport ride to the train station to get to Sacramento one of the same amount of time they can be most of the way there in their own car?
    All these cars driven by people who find it most convenient to drive Downtown even if parking is difficult. Few people move to Davis from a place where the transportation situation is better, so they don’t realize what’s missing here.
    I don’t really understand this VMT suggestion. Look who’s taking public transportation in town. Notice the tiny amounts of bikes parked at shopping centers and other destinations outside of downtown and more than a mile from Campus. Aside from people with campus destinations, and those under 18, few are cycling or taking public transportation… no more than 5%>
    Aside from campus travel, transportation in Davis is a failure. It’s great that some people take Amtrak or carpool or use the express bus but these proportions are not significant.

    Reply
  6. Ron O

    Roberta: The manner in which the quote is worded seems to indicate that Bapu is referring to two of the five alternatives listed above.
    “at least two have densities that are 15% below current city of Davis vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita, with one being on the total project footprint” noting that “Vaitla also asked that these detailed alternatives be brought back to the council for final consideration.”

    Reply
  7. Roberta L. Millstein

    It says that he asked that two of the analyzed alternatives to meet those criteria, not that they do. Those 5 could be what staff suggested or what the analyst suggested. I am not 100% sure of my read, but again, that would make sense of why he wanted this brought back to the CC again before the EIR is started.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Roberta L. Millstein Cancel reply