"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?)

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"?

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.