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

<

>

Don’t lose the opportunity for housing at University Mall site

By David J Thompson

Without a doubt, the University Mall site will be the greatest lost opportunity for housing in Davis in this ten year RHNA cycle. At 14+ acres, no other site presents the capacity for affordable housing as does University Mall. In terms of a real (not imagined) site that the developer wishes to re-develop, the closest proximity to the UCD campus of any site, the opportunity to reduce student traffic, an option to swap parking spaces for housing, with thoughtful site planning an ability to accommodate additional stories of housing, a valuable site for affordable housing, the possibilities are endless and the benefits accrue to many of us that envision the future projects that Davis must foster. 

There will be no bigger loss to Davis’s needed future if a retail only plan is the regretful permanent outcome. There is no other site within Davis that provides such immediate and real value for the changes we need in land use.

However, it seems like Brixmor is intent on replacing a mall with a mall. In this era which requires a radical rethinking of city planning can we really be so bankrupt of options that a redone mall is the only outcome? We need big changes where we have big opportunities. So the City must turn down the Brixmor plan.

What could change the outcome?

  1. The City should pause the application process and enter into negotiations with Brixmor as to the best way for the City and the neighborhood to achieve a mixed use project. Every reasonable effort and inducement by the City should be looked at to encourage Brixmor to withdraw this present application and return with a mixed use application.
  2. Could the City use eminent domain to obtain the site for a housing only proposal that would eliminate the parking structures needed for the commercial site and replace it with housing? Repurposed as just housing at 40 units per acre the site can accommodate 560 apartments of which at 20% around 112 units would be affordable. The most ever affordable units in the history of Davis.

What an achievement that could be for the Davis future many of us want to build.

To the Planning Commission and City Council I ask you to pursue anything except a re-done mall.

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, ,
Davisite logo

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

Comments

15 responses to “Don’t lose the opportunity for housing at University Mall site”

  1. Ron O

    I’m glad to see someone like Dave Thompson willing to post his letter on the Davisite, in addition to the Vanguard. In any case, I’ll just go ahead and repost my Vanguard comment, here:

    From Mr. Thompson’s letter: Could the City use eminent domain to obtain the site for a housing only proposal that would eliminate the parking structures needed for the commercial site and replace it with housing?

    My response: Commercial sites (especially those outside of downtown) need parking. That is, unless there’s a shift to a customer base which consists (only) of those who live above the mall (or within walking distance).
    At which point, it would no longer be a mall for the city at large.

    Maybe we can stop “pretending” that most people (outside of the immediate vicinity) would bike to a mall.

    From Thompson’s letter: The City should pause the application process and enter into negotiations with Brixmor as to the best way for the City and the neighborhood to achieve a mixed use project.

    My response: Already attempted, and declined. And already resulted in a “compromise” that the neighbors weren’t happy with in the first place.
    Perhaps there’s already “enough” student housing recently-built, under construction, or in the pipeline (in terms of what the market will actually support)? Could that be the reason that Brixmor decided against it?
    And for sure, this thing would have been primarily student housing – regardless of configuration.

    Reply
  2. Roberta L. Millstein

    Ron writes, “Commercial sites (especially those outside of downtown) need parking.”
    I think proposal #2 was for a “housing only” project, no commercial at all. Trader Joe’s would squawk, for sure.
    It is true that #1 has already been tried and failed. Perhaps it’s worth trying again, I dunno. But this is so close to campus that housing really does seem to make sense and could feed into the retail. I guess the devil is, as always, in the details.

    Reply
  3. Aaron Wedra

    I have the same general feelings toward the project. I keep telling people that it’s painful to see the housing taken away in this new proposal. I’ve spoken to one of the project developers for a couple minutes and the reasoning was weak for the changes in proposal. Something about “we’re really more of a retail developer. Retail is our specialty—not housing”.
    I’d be more involved and vocal if there were any grounds for making demands/requests of the developer. Technically what powers do our City staff and City Council have in this situation. A part of me thinks “who are we to tell a developer who already owns the property that they should add more housing. If they want to give their property a facelift, why do we think we can come in and ask for things suddenly?”
    I wish I knew more about the political process in this situation to help brainstorm methods of getting a better proposal. I’m grateful to all of you for your interest and activism around this project. Fingers crossed that something good comes of community members’ concerns and suggestions.

    Reply
  4. Ron O

    Thanks for the clarification, Roberta. I missed that upon initial reading.
    Yeah – Trader Joe’s wouldn’t be happy with no parking. And the city wouldn’t be happy with no revenue from a mall that was sacrificed.
    And residents who would otherwise patronize a refurbished commercial mall wouldn’t be happy, either. Including students and others who already live in the area, or will live in one of the student housing projects under construction nearby.
    Perhaps there’s already enough student housing under construction (or planned) to accommodate any growth plans from UCD. (I recall that the MOU already requires UCD to accommodate future growth on campus.)
    Nishi still has to “pencil out”, as well. And they no doubt have a “heavy load” to lift, when digging out that tunnel under the railroad tracks.
    One might simply appreciate that Brixmor is willing to refurbish the commercial mall in the first place. Maybe the city should stop pushing them into doing something they don’t want to do. (Perhaps if staff hadn’t done so, the mall would have been refurbished by now – bringing in tax revenue and providing increased retail/restaurant services for residents.)
    Or for that matter, how about a “mini-DISC”, there? After all, I think it was Barry Broome who previously stated that such facilities are ideally-located within 200 yards of a university. (Yeah, I’m kidding – because I already can see that there’s no real demand for that. If there was, the Woodland “technology park” would have broken ground by now. The one that failed in Davis, and added 1,600 housing units during its 7-mile “move” up Highway 113.)

    Reply
  5. Alan C. Miller

    Well, if anyone is wondering what the weather is in Davis, the answer is “a cold day in Hell”, because I am agreeing with both Davis Greenwald & David Thompson. I published this earlier in Al’s Corner, but it fits better in today’s discussion:
    SUBJECT: “University Mall Location Too Valuable to Just Give Up As a Mixed-Use Site” [DV back a few days ago]
    DG: “Make no mistake—while the city and university have both approved and built new housing in recent years, we remain in a housing crisis.” Yeah, thanks for that DG. I think we can decide for ourselves what a crisis is without you patronizing us.
    BUT — Well, y’all gonna be shocked — other than that obligatory swipe at the Vanguard, I actually AGREE 100% with David Greenwald this morning.
    The University Mall is indeed the perfect spot for housing and a missed opportunity. “It is hard to imagine a better location or more perfect opportunity than the University Mall.” To let this opportunity go is indeed a tragedy. And it seems that a couple of council-persons who are normally pro-development are ironically the cause.
    I come at this with my values rooted in historic & neighborhood preservation, as well as the impact on those adjacent. I believe those very nearby a project DO have a say (not a trump card), and old buildings and neighborhoods are the character that makes a city what it is and worth living in and visiting.
    But don’t call me that overused acceptable-pejorative “N”-word — because right out my living-room window are five-stories and 700 students in a project I did not oppose. I won’t say I supported it either — I would much prefer the sky and stars that used to be there, but I knew that area would be developed someday and the developer was a decent guy who worked with us and mitigated a few things in what otherwise could have been a much-worse impact.
    As far as U-Mall goes, the opponents weren’t literally ‘not in my backyard’ – because it wasn’t in anyone’s backyard. To the north and west, high-turnover, predominantly student apartments, with commercial further north; to the south the University, to the east CVS and few houses just north but across a wide street.
    Slightly-higher traffic is not to me the same as having a four-story building go up next to one-story houses as a missing-middle transition concept fail (the cluster-F of Trackside). The shadow of even the originally-proposed tall building at U-Mall would not fall on any residential neighborhoods. The minor incremental traffic increase was not a good enough excuse for council-members to have opposed this project. Fail.
    There truly isn’t another opportunity like this and never will be. And yes, the ‘not-on-the-periphery’ letter was so full-of-sh*t regarding PG&E. Even if they were winding down the property it would take decades to mitigate such a site for housing — but indeed PG&E is investing in infrastructure there currently — please everyone give up on this fantasy. Yes, it is an ideal location for infill. No, it is not happening in our children’s grandchildren’s lifetimes. And DG’s question about the core is a very relevant one — and no, the economics of any-but-a-few projects of housing there are just not going to pencil out for any developer.
    So what will happen? In a few years there are going to be some infill projects proposed that will be UGLY and will cause MASSIVE community division, lost friendships, and possible nuclear war. You thought Trackside was divisive? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Strap on your seat belts. Better yet, invest in ejection seats.
    So yes, I think we should tell Brixmore “NO”, RG, even though this is not their fault. And the current City Council should put the original project back on the table and not allow a project to go in at University Mall that doesn’t include mixed-use and hundreds of units of student-oriented housing.
    Posted by: Alan C. Miller | March 05, 2023 at 08:49 AM

    Reply
  6. Alan C. Miller

    . . . as clarification, I don’t agree that it should be ‘housing only’. Just that there should be housing.

    Reply
  7. Roberta L. Millstein

    I seem to be playing “clarifier” today. DJT’s first proposal is to negotiate for mixed use. His second proposal is to invoke eminent domain for housing only, presumably because one has to really make the case for a serious need in order to invoke eminent domain (kind of a nuclear option).

    Reply
  8. Keith

    ” DJT’s first proposal is to negotiate for mixed use.”
    You might want to think twice about using those initials, particularly in Davis. (wink, wink)

    Reply
  9. Alan C. Miller

    Yeah, well . . . using eminent domain for housing is a diseased idea. So less and less agreement on the details, just that retail-only is a bad outcome for the site. Eminent domain will not be used imminently in this domain.

    Reply
  10. Roberta L. Millstein

    Keith, ha! I didn’t notice or think about that. 😄

    Reply
  11. David J Thompson

    Thank you Roberta for clarifying between my two separate proposals. You are correct, the second one is for an all housing project. The affordable housing future in Davis is ominous given the RHNA numbers and the lack of reality of ever reaching those numbers within the City.
    I do think that given the housing and affordable housing shortage there is a public purpose to using eminent domain.
    I did say in my article “Family” housing as I believe there are thousands of UCD employees and faculty members that would love to rent an apartment at the site and to be able to walk or cycle to work. I would not wish to see four and five bedroom units designed to attract students. UCD needs to house its own students and provide affordable rents.
    In hind sight, and I include myself in this category, The Council, the Commissions and the citizenry should have all placed this opportunity on high alert. By not doing so we missed a huge opportunity and there will be nothing else like this within Davis in this RHNA cycle.
    Tis a shame,
    David J Thompson

    Reply
  12. Ron O

    So what will happen? In a few years there are going to be some infill projects proposed that will be UGLY and will cause MASSIVE community division, lost friendships, and possible nuclear war. You thought Trackside was divisive? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Strap on your seat belts. Better yet, invest in ejection seats.
    I don’t think so. For one thing, they don’t pencil-out (as can be seen even at University Mall).
    RHNA requirements are going to fail statewide, partly due to this same reason – but also due to resistance.
    (This almost isn’t even an “opinion” – it’s a fact. Even David Greenwald acknowledges it.)
    The state itself has lost a half millions residents over the past couple of years. Even all of the “Wieners of the World” haven’t been able to stop it. Nor will they be able to.
    It’s well-past time to stop being afraid of the Wieners.

    Reply
  13. Ron O

    Dave Thomspon: I did say in my article “Family” housing as I believe there are thousands of UCD employees and faculty members that would love to rent an apartment at the site and to be able to walk or cycle to work. I would not wish to see four and five bedroom units designed to attract students. UCD needs to house its own students and provide affordable rents.
    Forget-about-it. Regardless of the “type” of housing proposed, it’s student housing.
    I suspect that not even ONE “family” (consisting of more than two people) would rent a unit that the site. Families rent (or purchase) houses, not expensive apartment units.
    The city would be “asking for trouble”, if it defaulted on (negated) the proposal that they already forced upon the neighborhood. Again, they weren’t even happy with THAT proposal.
    There is no evidence (as in “NONE”) that the so-called compromise was the reason that Brixmor declined to pursue it.
    Staff has already caused damage to the city regarding Brixmor’s plans, at this point.

    Reply
  14. R Keller

    The second proposal is WILDLY irresponsible! Remove a huge amount of retail/commercial space and revenue to put in a revenue-negative (for the City budget) housing project? Using eminent domain?!
    If anything, the City needs to pressure Brixmor to put in a more intensive commercial/retail project. Weren’t we all just told by City leaders a little while ago as justification for the DiSC project that we needed more commercial development to increase the tax base?
    And as far meeting RHNA numbers, everybody know that’s just a hollow paper exercise. If the City were serious about actually wanting affordable housing production, it would have strengthened its Affordable Housing Ordinance some time in the past 4 years since it was impoverished. Instead they produced a half-assed amateur-hour pro forma “analysis” to try to justify weakening it further.

    Reply
  15. R Keller

    David J Thompson said “I did say in my article “Family” housing as I believe there are thousands of UCD employees and faculty members that would love to rent an apartment at the site and to be able to walk or cycle to work. I would not wish to see four and five bedroom units designed to attract students. UCD needs to house its own students and provide affordable rents.”
    I agree with the statement that UCD needs to take more responsibility to house its own students. But the reality is that if there were housing at that site, it would be predominantly student residents.
    Related to this: the City has been trying to convince the CA Dept. of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that the approved student group housing at Nishi wouldn’t be for students only and that others could and would live there. The City is doing this in an attempt to try to get “credit” for some of those units meeting the RHNA (group quarters don’t “count”). Many of us warned the City that they would be in just this quandary, but they refused to listen.
    However, the City Council last night just reviewed a demographic report commissioned by DJUSD that doesn’t buy the City’s argument at all: https://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/2023/2023-03-07/04-DJUSD-Demographics-Update-Presentation.pdf
    The table on p. 9 specifically classifies Nishi as “Student Housing” and it excludes it from the calculations in the forecast for future DJUSD enrollment: “Only city approved non-student housing developments are included in forecast.” They know that the Nishi occupancy will be entirely UCD students.
    Interestingly, the report is very biased against multifamily housing being a viable affordable family housing option. On p. 15 under “Observations” it states “New Housing
    • 902 city approved residential units planned within the next 5 years
    • 81% are multi-family that typically do not house school age children”
    I don’t agree with this statement that MF housing doesn’t typically house school-age children (in many places MF housing is the only affordable option for families!), and it of course contradicts David’s stated goal of apartments housing UCD-related families.
    The City appears to be setting the table to use the demographic report as justification for pushing large amounts of peripheral low-density development that will not be affordable in the slightest.

    Reply

Leave a comment