By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – In January, UC Davis students camped out in front of apartments overnight in frigid temperatures waiting for the rental offices to open. Make no mistake—while the city and university have both approved and built new housing in recent years, we remain in a housing crisis.
So it should be alarming that a prime cite for redevelopment, 8.25 acres at University Mall, across the street from the university with an approved project, wants to backtrack and go to commercial-only.
The revised project will come before the Planning Commission this week. It seems to me that the city ought to look at ways to keep this as housing. While having a viable commercial project there is important, the city has a once-in-a-lifetime chance to create dense housing on an underutilized property across from the university and it’s about to slip through our fingers.
We are not going to get another bite at the apple here.
In August 2020, the City Council approved the University Commons project for the multi-story development with a retail podium and parking structure and up to 4 stories of residential uses above. It allowed demolition of the University Mall building.
It was a contentious vote for sure, ending up 3-2 with the deciding vote cast by former Mayor Brett Lee as a compromise.
“Following the rezone approval, the applicant attempted to assemble the mixed-use project, which required a developer for the residential portion of it. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to find a suitable or interested partner,” the staff report notes.
As a result, “the applicant chose move forward to redevelop and revitalize the site for the community with the proposed retail-only project.”
We get it, Brixmor is a commercial developer. The only reason they came forward with a mixed-use project was prodding by the city.
But there is a reason the city saw the need for mixed-use here—the property is fairly large and across the street from the university. This was a prime-opportunity to densify the city with significant mixed-use housing that would have minimal impacts on traffic.
Staff notes, “If the project is approved, the applicant expects to proceed to construction documents in the very near future.”
They explain, “The currently proposed retail-only project is within the scope of the approved University Commons mixed-use project. However, build-out of the full mixed-use development with residential floors above the retail and garage levels is still allowed under the General Plan and Zoning of the site and Development Agreement.”
So at this point, what should the city do?
It’s worth noting that, while the city seems in need for additional student housing, constructing housing right now is difficult—construction is expensive, there remain supply-chain issues, and financing is difficult given high interest rates.
It seems to me that we need to ask some very fundamental questions, starting with this—if housing can’t be built at this location, what makes us think that we can get mixed-use housing in the core?
Second, is this a matter that the compromise that enabled the 3-2 approval took the project out of the realm of being viable? Is this a permanent problem, or will the full mixed-use project as proposed by the applicants in August 2020 work? In other words, can the applicants revise back to the original design?
Another question is: can the project be done in phases? Can they do the commercial project immediately and then follow it up with the residential portion?
There would seem to be critical questions that the Planning Commission and eventually the city council need to get answers for—what is possible at this point, and how can we salvage some sort of mixed-use project to bring us desperately needed housing across the street from the university?
Earlier this week there was an op-ed which argued that before we should consider peripheral housing, we ought to densify our existing areas. It is hard to imagine a better location or more perfect opportunity than the University Mall.
And yet, if the staff recommendation is followed, we are giving it up without even a murmur of protest.
That decision is perhaps made easier by the fact that the project was so controversial in the first place. But what is clear is if the city’s vision is for a denser, more compact city rather than additional peripheral growth, then these are eggs we are going to have to crack.
At the very least, we need to explore our options here, because unfortunately we are not going to get another shot at it, and there are not many other sites like this—both in size and location within the existing community.
In the end, maybe the only way forward is to move forward with this commercial-only proposal, but it seems we should concede that point as a last resort.
“’Following the rezone approval, the applicant attempted to assemble the mixed-use project, which required a developer for the residential portion of it. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to find a suitable or interested partner,’ the staff report notes.”
Taormino had the same problem with WDAAC. Davis has such a bad reputation that developers aren’t interested in working here. That is the real problem this community faces and needs to address.
What do you think the City should do? Tell Brixmor no?
The city can’t fix this. The Planning Commission should evaluate the project as presented, on its merits. An improved mall will yield greater sales tax revenues which will improve the city’s finances. There is no need for further delay.
You know the answer to that question and so does everyone else.
The City can fix this, and needs to, if we ever hope to change our reputation as a poor place to do business (and finally meet the needs of our residents). The problem here is our approach to negotiations, where we want developers to go through the entire process of bringing forward proposals for approval, only to add new demands from the dais at the last minute. Here it was a ‘negotiation’ to lower the height of the project in order to get approval, thus reducing the financial viability. In another instance it was a stated attempt to secure ‘another million’ from a project. These are popular moves with some constituents because they see the CC ‘standing up to those evil developers.’ What actually happens though is that these moves cause developers to take their business to other communities where the costs for development are known upfront and not ‘negotiated’ at the end. Consequently we never see the projects that we need. Measure J is just icing on the cake of our ‘foot shooting’ approach to managing development projects.
Many developers and businesses employ the strategy of ‘everywhere else but Davis’. This greatly reduces Davis’s tax base and greatly increases the cost of housing in Davis. The evidence is self evident in Woodland, Winters, Dixon and West Sacramento. This renders housing in Davis unaffordable to most people and contributes to the growing unhoused population. NIMBYISM directly leads to the ever rising cost of housing and is the height of selfishness.
Remind me again what classes the city of Davis teaches? Can I enroll in the City of Davis University so I can get housing?
This idiotic ongoing confusion of UCD’s needs the city’s needs just has to stop.
Now I’m all for more commercial development and no additional residential…..as residential is a cost to the city. But the answer for everyone involved is for the city to make a case to a developer that mixed use housing will increase the viability and success of the commercial component. What that means if the city has the vision for the right kind of destination commercial development then having a captive audience/market to feed the businesses in the commercial development component will create the foundation market that can help attract out of town customers too. Or to put it simply; create a place where young people (students) want to be, a place that has those people built in and it will attract the same market from out of town. What I mean is that the burdensome residential component becomes a financial and market driver towards the success of the commercial development. Which means a mixed use project would ultimately work for the developer…….if you can get it past the NIMBYs. Now if 51% of residential units were affordable housing (which overlaps with the student demographic anyway) then the developer can get around the NIMBYs too.
So someone in the city needs to make some calls to commercial brokers, residential brokers and get some market data; then start plugging in numbers for a pro forma and create the prototype for the project, present this vision in a nice Power Point presentation to developers. Serve up the project for them on a tee.
First, calling me an “idiot” goes beyond the pale. Have I personally attacked you here?
But more importantly, the continuing denial that this town owes virtually all of its robust economic value and cultural amenities to UCD must stop. I’ve presented evidence of the measurable quantified differences in household income, housing value and K-12 educational attainment compared to neighboring cities with comparable geographic settings. UCD recently released an updated study (they’ve done several in the past as well) showing that the City received nearly a billion dollars in added economic income from the university in 2019. (BTW, I’ve done similar studies for other types of projects and policy actions using the IMPLAN model.) The vast majority of that money came from California taxpayers and residents who live outside of Davis. And it is both ethically correct and civically responsible to respond in kind by doing what we can to accommodate UCD. The evidence is also overwhelming that it is not costing city residents or taxpayers a billion dollars a year to accommodate higher student enrollment. If that was true, our house values wouldn’t be 85% higher than Woodland or West Sacramento.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/chancell-ing-education-innovation-key-economic-growth
https://www.ucdavis.edu/sites/default/files/media/documents/182082%20UCD%20EIA%20fm01%2001-31-22%5B1%5D.pdf
If you believe that UCD doesn’t create those benefits, provide counter balancing evidence, not simple assertions that somehow the evidence I’ve provided isn’t true. Your arguments sound more like the type presented to evade any kind of civic responsibility in our society that have been gaining favor over the last four decades, much to the detriment of our nation.
And that’s not true, as noted perhaps a dozen times on here – with evidence.
But I have a question for you regarding this, as well.
Given that Woodland (in particular) has accommodated a lot of growth (that might otherwise occur in Davis), wouldn’t that also raise Woodland home values (and “reduce” the discrepancy)?
And since there is a discrepancy (not 85%), what’s your theory regarding the continued difference (which existed prior to Measure J, as well)?
Could it be some combination of factors?
But I do agree that proximity to UCD raises home values (for both communities), which is something that you have expressed concerns about.
Truth be told, anyone moving into the area these days “pays for” that value. It’s not a “gift” from UCD.
I agree with Richard.
Davis is a University town, and its only purpose is to provide community and support for the university.
Now, is true that there is no formal law that says so… but I suspect that most of the citizens feel the same way, and as Richard pointed out, it would be self-sabotage to act any other way.
That said… where i have agreed with Keith before in the past is around economics… I dont think that the city has any obligation to provide more money-losing single family housing… but that is NOT what we are talking about here!
Mixed-use residential commercial tends to be the MOST economically productive kind of zoning for cities… so we are now completely OUT of excuses to not consider mixed-use housing / commercial in such a central location to be the highest and best use of the site.
Wow. And here I thought it was to provide a place to live, for people who may (or may not) have a connection to UCD.
I don’t recall any contracts stipulating what you and Richard claim.
But again, anyone moving “into” Davis “pays” a premium, compared to lesser-locations. Now, if UCD paid that premium (instead of those purchasing or renting homes), perhaps they could stipulate “who” lives in Davis.
And anyone who does work for UCD is providing a service in exchange for their salary. Again, not a “gift’ from UCD.
I’m failing to see the “gift” that UCD is supposedly “giving” to Davis, in exchange for accommodating unbridled growth plans. Can you enlighten me, regarding that?
Oh for f#$%k sake…let’s not get our knickers it knot (I’m so tired of modern society’s overly sensitive BS). I called out the IDEA/BELIEF of confusing UCD and the City of Davis obligations idiotic. In fact it was a response to the article WRITTEN BY DAVID. Do your views and comments usually fall under the same umbrella? Yes. If you claim the earth is flat, I would call your comment idiotic too. Criticizing comments is fair game. It’s not a personal attack. I don’t care if you think or say my comments are idiotic (many of them are).
Around and around we go with same conversation. And you have yet to ever come up with a rational response to my comments. You continue to push data that supports your mystical devotion to the cult of UCD.
To what degree does the town owe the benefits it receives to OUTSIDE entities? Again does Davis owe some commitment to housing or other benefits to the many Davis residents employed by the state of California? How about to the largest private employers in Kaiser, Sutter and Dignity Health? Does Davis need to commit to housing their employees too? Or do you just have some soft spot for UCD?
The city and UCD long ago decided to go their separate ways. There are these boundaries, lines that create limits to the jurisdiction and responsibilities of both entities. Limits/boundaries that both parties agreed to. There’s a word for those lines that create limits….hmmmm…..Should UCD and the city work together to help each other? Yes. Is the city obligated to help UCD? NO. The city should only support UCD’s housing and expansion needs if it directly benefits the city. Otherwise…it’s UCD’s problem.
There is no rational reason that the city is OBLIGATED in anyway to support UCD. I’m all for working together in mutual self interest. But by itself student housing is UCD’s problem obligation…not the city’s.
Keith E
Please clarify what a “rational” response other than presenting data that shows the economic, educational and cultural benefits that UCD provides to Davis directly? Your response has no rational basis that I can discern. It appears to be entirely “we don’t have an obligation.” What is the basis for your claim? Trying to pretend that a jurisdictional boundary prevents benefits from flowing into town is a fantasy with no basis whatsoever, as the EPS study clearly demonstrates. Again, residents do not need to be taking classes on campus to gain benefits from the UCD, especially since the majority of UCD activity is actually research rather than teaching. Rather than trying to claim that the presentation of facts and quantitative analysis is somehow not rational, directly rebut the evidence that I’ve presented.
As it stands, it’s pretty clear that Davis residents benefit from UCD on the order of $15,000 per capita per year. At a 5% discount rate, that’s about $300,000 net present value that is flowing into our community from outside contributions from other Californians. Seems like we have an ethical obligation to accommodate how Californians want to educate our population, even to the extent that we need to collect more tax revenue to fund the housing required to deliver that educational benefit.
As I’ve shown, Davis does not really exist as a city independent of UCD, just as Sacramento does not exist independent of the state government. All of the staff and faculty pay taxes and purchase goods and services that create fiscal flows into the City’s coffers. Under your construct, none of the residential housing in the city pays for itself, which of course makes no mathematical sense–the City would have been bankrupt long ago. (Note that the older residents pay disproportionately less property tax so they are in fact a greater burden than newer residents who pay higher property taxes under Prop 13 for identical property.) As I’ve pointed out, Davis would look like Dixon or Woodland if UCD was not immediately proximate. If you think otherwise, describe what Davis would look like without UCD.
You’re understanding of how UCD functions is simplistic. Almost all faculty, who are the real economic engines of UCD, are focuses on research with teaching as an adjunct duty. Undergraduate students are taught directly, much of it by graduate students who are in training and being mentored by the faculty. Those faculty and grad students produce the economic activity that benefits Davis. Undergrads spending on pizza has a fairly minor effect on the local economy, but the American university system has shown that the synergism between education and research has created the most powerful institution of its type in the world, as evidenced by how many foreign students and researchers come here. So adding more students synergistically creates more research output that creates more local economic activity. What we’ve been missing is capturing more of the research benefits locally which would really supercharge those benefits. They also would create the additional tax revenue that would pay for the housing of employees and students locally.
Apparently you don’t understand the definition of Affordable housing to meet the legal requirements–it must be subsidized. Unsubsidized housing doesn’t qualify. And what we really need is housing in the “middle” for younger families. Getting students out of older duplexes is one way to meet demand for this market segment. It’s cheaper for build student apartments per capita than single family houses.
(I disagree with Tim’s assertion that there is no moral obligation to assist UCD. Our society requires unwritten reciprocal relationships to function. It is not possible (as shown in Nobel Prize winning studies six decades ago by Arrow and Debreu) to write contracts that can cover every contingency. We require informal understandings, and moral responsibilities is part of that.)
How is it “self sabotage” to not plan to house students in the city? It’s a cost to the existing residents in the city. What….is UCD suddenly going to uproot and move if the city doesn’t plan for more student housing?
WHY? This makes ZERO sense. The city is an independent entity OUTSIDE of UCD. I think you’re looking at the relationship with UCD colored glasses….and some personal self interest with your relationship dependency with UCD. I’m all for a direct mutually beneficial relationship between the city and UCD…..but this obligation stuff is as I said…idiotic.
As Davis has grown over the past 10 years, more and more of the residents have are independent of UCD. Most residents don’t even know that UCD and the city are separate entities. Most residents don’t understand the financial difficulties of the city and the strain that new residential development and especially student residential development places on the town’s fiscal health.
This was the point of my initial post (last paragraph). Someone in the city needs to sell that to the developers. That the residential aspect is viable and desirable. The problem is the local politics. But as I said, if you’re building residential units that target students you can make most of them affordable housing units. And if you do that you can by pass local jurisdiction over the project and get it rubber stamped for approval (ministerial) and get it past the NIMBYs.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that (full-time?) students qualify for Affordable (government-subsidized) housing off-campus. Perhaps if the developer subsidizes it, but it’s not clear who/how this is monitored. (I recall a similar issue with Nishi.)
Nor do the “megadorms” fully-count toward any RHNA requirements. (Not sure if they “count”, at all.)
A few reasons… but I will give two:
The students and staff will come here every day anyway, meaning increased traffic on our streets.. Ever tried getting out of downtown at 5pm? Ever tried parking downtown? Every out-of town person who needs acces to campus now requires a CAR… So we get utilization of our infrastructure with no compensation, and environmentaly we exacerbate tailpipe emissions etc…. ( that probably counts as more than one reason)
Foregone revenue. High Density Mixed use housing is good for our economy. When students live here they also shop here, thats good for our economy as well.
No its not. If it were single family housing I would agree with you. But per the above, high density housing plus the economic benefits of more shoppers in our economy is all an economic windfall for the community.
Which is also where I need to push back on your suggestion that student housing should be affordable housing… which to most people means subsidized housing. And thats not the case. The housing we need is just market-rate apartments and condos.
It doesn’t make ZERO sense. Every community should do what it has a competitive advantage at doing, most of the time it is around supporting its core industries that bring money INTO the towns from the outside.. . thats just basic economic strategy. In our case we really have one industry here in town to take care of. Why shouldnt we optimize our community around that resource instead of struggling with it? And yes, I do have a personal affinity for my alma mater, as do MANY people in this town. So im not alone there.
I would turn this around on its head.. I think that the CITY needs to understand that developers need to make money if they want something to be built. We decreased the 5th street project by a story because of the neighbors, andl luckily they still built it. the trackside development got attacked by the neighbors over its height and it failed, we did the same thing to the U-Mall and it ended up making THAT project fail.
Im of the opinion that the city needs to understand where the intersection is between what is profitable for developers and what is profitable for the city. We cant have mixed use developments AND keep them 3 stories… apparently that doesnt pencil…. so whatever it needs to be to get us the form factor of housing we want AND allow the developers to make money is what we need to do. The council, or neighbors dictating that without an understanding of what makes sense in the real world, and with an attitude that developers shouldn’t be making money is really counterproductive.
I really expected more than a simple sales tax answer from you. I mean really I thought we were beyond that.
Uh..so your response is that the key to less traffic downtown is not less people but less people with cars? If you have less or limited people…you’ll have less cars. Plus you’re still going to have to provide some parking for even mixed use semi-urban housing….so it’s a ridiculous claim anyway.
So you’re telling me that it’s definitive that mixed use housing is a benefit to the economy? HOW? It still requires the use of services and infrastructure…..if anything it taxes existing infrastructure even more than peripheral development. I swear people have glommed on to the magic of infill development like a some mystical cure all….. I mean sure infill generally (not always) has less of an impact than peripheral development. But it’s not like it’s it doesn’t have it’s costs too. That’s like expecting all the pollution caused by cars to go away because we switched from leaded to unleaded gasoline. I mean sure ones better than the other….but you know what’s best for the environment? LESS CARS. You want less traffic. LESS/LIMITED PEOPLE…and/or more roadways and better mass transit.
As for your silly students and sales tax comment, I’ll let South Park provide my explanation:
So…yeah….the solution to the city’s tax revenue problem isn’t trying to get more students in town to tax their beer money….or burrito binges…or boba tea habits…. I mean I guess tax revenue off of Raising Cains (good god is that place awful) is nice? But is that really an economic development plan?
That was a lot of babble about specifically nothing. It has little to do with the city planning for student housing and supporting UCD. I’m all for bringing more BUSINESS into the city.
Yes, and it makes you (and many others) unable to differentiate your alma matter and the city. If it helps, look at a map with the city limits drawn around it.
I never said anything about subsidized Housing. And all it takes is 51% of it to be affordable housing. You could make them subsidized. You could build them really small and cheaply. And as for your dream of a semi-urban mixed use city of market rate apartments and Condos…..sorry that’s just not the market we live in. Hey I miss living in San Francisco in an urban culture. But dense urban places like San Francisco exist because of their circumstances and geography. There really isn’t much around San Francisco to spread out anymore….or even in nearby cities and suburbs. The bay area has no choice but to build out. But here? If I’m looking for a place to live and I’m working in Davis….I’m thinking 1,400 sqft condo in Davis…or a 2,400 single family home with a yard in North, North Davis. I mean sure, some people will live in those condos. But the majority will keep looking for single family homes in the region.
That’s exactly what I said. In fact I said that the city needs to plan the project and project financials (collect market data, build a pro forma, create a presentation) and PROVE that residential housing works for developers and the city. Serve the project up on a tee…that’s how it works when you want something developed. I believe that creating destination entertainment and retail that targets the student demographic will help to draw more young people into town to spend money (cause young people like to hangout with young people).
Really Keith? South Park???
You cannot write off the fundamental core of our city’s economy with a hippie joke. Your minimization of that fact is the kind of willful logical deflection that I expect from Ron.. not you. And I have long since stopped responding to Ron.
You are correct that there is no legal, or moral obligation to grow with response to the university, and I understand that many people are here who have no connection.. which is why I tried to stick with economic arguments you might rationally engage with – but I guess Im out of luck there.
There is no arguing that everything that makes Davis different and distinct from the neighboring towns like Dixon, Woodland and Winters is the university and ONLY the university. For people to come into this town because of that distinctiveness, and then try to pull up the drawbridge and say “nope, no more people.. we are full” makes those people cultural parasites on our community.
We see that differently, and there is nothing to be done about that… .So lets just stick to the economics:
Every city’s economy hinges on those things that bring money into the economy FROM THE OUTSIDE. The money gets spend and re-spent within the local system many times of course and the government takes a slice at many of those events, but a city NEEDS some basic industry that brings money in from the outside or it really cannot be financially viable outside of milking developers for fees.
The university is obviously that primary industry for us. Its not just students and their beer money as you tried to trivialize it. It is the money they spend on housing, that they landlords pay in property tax, that they pay in sales taxes, and then it is the salaries of the staff and professors that are hired at higher rates who have much more than “beer money” to spend. They buy houses, cars, …
So what is in our best interests as a city? To do what we can to leverage the resources available to us! That is just strategy 101: evaluate your Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.
It seems obvious to me that our biggest opportunity is to provide services and opportunities for the natural commerce around this university to remain within this city. We have no obligation to take on things that lose money long-term like single family housing, but given that high density, mixed use development has been shown credibly to be the most lucrative type of property in a city, while simultaneously creating the kinds of neighborhoods that people MOST like to spend time in… the right decision is obvious. see: Suburbia is subsidized, here’s the math
Without a doubt, the University Mall site will be the greatest lost opportunity for housing in Davis in this ten year RHNA cycle. No other site will present the capacity for 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? 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 purse anything except a re-done mall. Time to be resolute, visionary and transfer words into real action. Your vote determines the future Davis will have.
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.
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.
Move the tall south to front on Russell, thus reducing or even eliminating most shadow impacts. It seems rather obivous.
To all participants: please stick to the topics and avoid personal attacks and derogatory comments.