A developer is eying a large, single-story commercial development and proposing that they transform it into a seven-story mixed-use building, with retail on the ground floor and rental housing above retail, office and parking. Sound familiar? It fits right into the discussion over the Davis Downtown, except that this proposal, which was revised on Friday, is for redeveloping University Mall.
The Brixmor Property Group is proposing that they redevelop University Mall “to enhance existing retail uses and add residential units to create a vibrant mixed-use development. The purpose of the project is to provide a shopping and residential environment that meets the needs of the local Davis community.”
They write: “This experiential project is designed to create a pedestrian and bike friendly environment while providing better and more functional retail, restaurants, and residential amenities.”
The current use of the 8.25 acre parcel is a 103,695 square foot neighborhood shopping center that features commercial uses and restaurants.
Over the years it has had various occupants, including Safeway, Harvest Market, and Gottschalks, among others. Currently the major tenants are Trader Joe’s, Forever 21, Cost Plus World Market, and The Davis Graduate. Professional offices are located on a partial second floor.
Trader Joe’s is located on its own stand-alone pad that is located at the corner of Russell Boulevard and Sycamore Lane. There are currently 427 parking spaces, mostly lining Russell Blvd.
The ARCO service station is not part of the property, and is located on Anderson and Russell in the southeast corner of the block. UC Davis is located immediately across the south side of the site 
with multi-family apartments located to the north of the site, and a single-family neighborhood farther north and east of the site.
The developer proposes the demolition of the entire approximately 90,653 square feet of the existing mall to create a mixed-use development. They are proposing the addition of 264 multi-family residential units and 136,800 square feet of retail space.
The proposal would not touch the existing 13,000-square-foot Trader Joe’s.
They propose the new retail space would accommodate shops, restaurants and other uses.
“The proposed improvements and uses would intensify and revitalize the center,” the developer writes. It includes a garage structure with three levels of parking. “At buildout, the project would include approximately 808,500 sf.”
That includes 412,500 in residential, 150,000 in retail, and a 246,000 parking garage.
“The existing building that currently houses the mall retail uses would be demolished and rebuilt to include four levels of residential units over three levels of parking and four levels of residential uses over retail uses,” they write.
They are proposing that two new pads would be added to the site adjacent to Russell Boulevard and would add approximately 30,000 sf of retail space.
They note, “It is the intent of Brixmor to retain as many of the existing tenants as possible.”
The proposed building height would be seven stories or approximately 80 feet. That would be comparable in height to the proposed Davis Live housing across Sycamore to the west.
The developers note: “The intent is to design the project to a LEED Gold equivalency with contemporary architectural elements. The design of the building will utilize energy efficient lighting and HVAC systems.”
They note, “The redeveloped site landscaping would include outdoor seating and congregating areas, bicycle parking, plazas and pedestrian connections among buildings. These new nodes will be designed to provide a pleasant experience for both the residences and shoppers alike.
“Through the intensification of an existing retail development verses converting an open space into a new development a high level of sustainability will be achieved,” they add.
On the residential usage, the developers are planning four levels of multi-family residential units over parking and retail that would create a vertical mixed-use project.
The project proposes 264 multi-family units which would consist of one, two, four and five-bedroom units that range in size from 700 to 18000 square feet. They estimate the total bed count to be 894.
They write: “Due to the immediate proximity to the University of Davis campus, the residential is primarily focused on student use, but will also welcome and include many options for non-students as well.”
The residential units will be arranged around a courtyard with a pool and an outdoor lounge area. Additional amenities will include will include a fitness room, extensive bike storage, a bike repair station, rooftop terrace and resident services.
To serve that population will be 693 parking spaces, of which 264 are for residential use and 429 are for retail use.
The 429 retail parking spaces for retail uses are planned in the first, second and third floors of the parking structure (249 spaces) and surface parking (200 spaces).
The shopping center community parking requirements for the site is 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf, which equates to 429 required parking spaces. All parking for residential units will be on the third level of the parking structure with 0.30 parking spaces per bed.
There will be bike parking on the first level of the residential building and each floor of the garage. One biking space will be provided per bed with 124 garage and surface-level spots to serve retail uses.
To achieve this project, it proposes a Rezone/Preliminary Development and a General Plan Amendment to permit the mix of retail and residential uses at the proposed density and building height.
Modifications to PD #2-97 are proposed to reflect development standards for the proposed project. A General Plan Amendment is needed to address the mix of uses with the larger residential component, as well as addressing the allowable floor area ratio to accommodate the project’s 1.48 floor area ratio for the residential and retail building area.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Good God, man — you do not list Nations Giant Hamburgers!???!!!??
And, Lawrences, Clockworks, the laundromat (which I used exclusively Senior year)… but Nations!
Their ham/cheese, onion, tomato sandwich (on toasted bread)! the “gross burger” (huge gross, not other gross)… “those were the days, my friend…” Great breakfasts for small cost, too…
We need to recruit Nations to come back as an integral part of our economic development strategy!
There is still a Nations in San Ramon… main reason I’ll visit my brother in law…
> We need to recruit Nations to come back as an integral part of our economic development strategy!
Much agreed! I was the last person to buy a food order there on their last day of operation (July 13, 1997).
I called corporate at the time and they said the Davis store was no longer economical and the landlord (at the time) wanted a rent increase, plus it allowed them to turn their supply trucks at Vacaville, saving money.
Note: there is still a Vacaville Nations.
But with a Nations now in Folsom, the supply truck turn is not an issue no more. Come back to Davis, Nations! Your old U-Mall is waiting.
I am very glad it is an experiential project. I hate going to places and not experiencing them.
Their word, not mine. Apparently meaning it’s not a conceptual project.
“Are you a good witch or a bad witch?”
– Dorothy
“Are you a good developer or a bad developer?”
– Nala
For too many in town,
is like asking, “are you are a good plague (only killing thousands and raping the environment), or a bad plague (killing 100’s of thousands, and raping the environment)… in either event all developers must go thru the gauntlet, with the intent being to make sure, as far as we can, that they not get a single dime of profit out of their efforts when all is said and done…
And no, Alan, not aimed at you, but others…
No, it’s really not.
I’d probably be fighting Lincoln 40 right now, which is the future view out my living-room window. However, they came to us early, asked us our concerns, incorporated our concerns that they could feasibly mitigate, and signed an MOU with our neighborhood. If they keep their promises, I decree thee: GOOD DEVELOPER
Then there was Trackside. They lied to us early and often. They ignored or argued away the Design Guidelines and all our other concerns. They failed to mitigate and then said they had (they had, in their world): BAD DEVELOPER One of them floated a particular Design to the residents near 8th and B Streets at outreach meetings and then came back with a different design and ignored the residents concerns about the new design. Lies, deception. I decree thee: BAD DEVELOPER
Our neighborhood is suing the City over the latter, not the former. That is a coincidence, of course.
(Note: some other entity is suing over Lincoln40, true, but it ain’t us. Proving that no good deed goes unpunished).
I’m kind of surprised there aren’t more serious comments about this project given the magnitude of it.
Perhaps because there’s fewer readers (or at least those willing to engage in endless arguments, on the Vanguard).
In reference to the ongoing mediation between the city and UCD, this seems like a particularly bad time to be entertaining yet another megadorm proposal in the city.
Responses:
1. Our readership and commenter data doesn’t bare that out.
2. This is not a megadorm proposal. It’s a vertical mixed use development. They anticipate student renters because that’s the location and the market, but they have designed in such a way that it won’t be exclusively so.
3. Not sure why it’s a bad time. There was a student who posted a few days ago that pointed out even if everything is built, we need additional student housing.
Wow! You were just waiting for a comment.
1. You’re the one who noted the lack of comments regarding this article.
2. From article:
3. Seems self-evident.
Also, note that vertical mixed-use is exempt from Affordable housing requirements.
It certainly would (further) impact adjacent intersections (e.g., at Russell/Sycamore, and Russell/Anderson). Not to mention parking, for retail customers.
1. That doesn’t mean I have to accept your explanation. See the discussion on the VCE for my concern here.
2. that’s a dishonest quote because you cut off the part where they talk about options for non-students as well – a point I made in my initial response to you.
3. If they are willing to invest what has to be tens of millions into a huge project, they obviously disagree with you.
Regarding your #3: What does that have to do with the sensitive mediation going on now, between the city and UCD?
Also, what about the exemption from Affordable housing, for vertical mixed-use? (And, the impacts on the intersections I mentioned, as well as parking for retail customers?)
Or more to the point, what does the mediation have to do with any of this?
I thought it was obvious, but maybe not. One of the primary issues that is being dealt with in mediation is student housing. Why would UCD build agree to build any housing on campus, with all of these megadorm proposals in the city?
Parking and traffic is already difficult, when shopping at this mall. And again, mixed-use is exempt from Affordable housing requirements.
UCD has already agreed to build housing on campus. That’s not really at issue.
This is not a “megadorm” proposal.
This private development proposal doesn’t really have any connection to city/UC mediation.
Looks like this proposal will move most of the parking indoors. My guess is you and I aren’t the demographic they’re aiming for. I suggest we will be shopping elsewhere.
Yep. That probably makes this project more likely to go forward.
I hope staff and the various commissions can expedite this, as it will enhance the city’s revenues.
Don: There is currently no agreement with UCD. (That’s why it’s headed to mediation.) This is a megadorm proposal, just above existing retail.
Regarding demographics, maybe so. We’ve already established that students spend very little, in the city. I do currently shop at this mall (e.g. Trader Joe’s). Probably won’t, if they make it even more difficult to travel/park there than it already is.
Regarding your last comment, it’s good to know that you’re actually against Affordable housing.
So what?
I think I can state with some confidence that students make up a significant percentage of the shoppers at the University Mall.
I’ve made my views on the city’s affordable housing policies clear on dozens of occasions. In a nutshell: I’m against affordable housing policies that don’t lead to affordable housing.
You are against ALL new housing, so what is your point?
Don just stated a fact, you are the one who improperly changed the meaning of his comment to match your own bias.
Don: “I’m against affordable housing policies that don’t lead to affordable housing.”
Ron: “Good to know you’re against affordable housing.”
Bottom line: are you against vertical mixed use, Ron? Because that’s going to mean no affordable housing, generally speaking.
Hard to believe you made a comment like that.
If the city has no binding agreement, history will repeat itself – e.g., not providing adequate/promised student housing on campus – resulting in proposals such as this one which compromise existing commercial space (and bypass Affordable housing requirements), continued unreimbursed impacts on the city as a result of UCD’s plans, master leases from UCD – which deprive the community of property taxes, continued displacement of non-student renters, etc.
“If the city has no binding agreement, history will repeat itself ”
What does tht have to do with this project?
Fact: Vertical mixed use is exempt from Affordable housing requirements..
David and Don: Do both of you support this exemption?
Requiring affordable housing in vertical mixed use would reduce the likelihood of those developments actually occurring.
I am against affordable housing policies that don’t lead to affordable housing.
So I support the exemption.
I would also support a complete, top-to-bottom revision of the city’s affordable housing policies. IMO they are presently hopeless and have been for years; in fact, the history of affordable housing in this town is quite a story. I understand that there are strong interest groups aligned against such a revision, and that it is very unlikely to occur. So I may support or oppose various proposals that tinker around at the margins of the current policy, depending primarily on whether they actually encourage the development of affordable housing or whether they simply act to inhibit residential development.
There is no evidence to support your opinion, particularly with the low vacancy rate that you often complain about. There is no reason why Affordable housing should not be included for all multi-family housing, including vertical mixed-use proposals.
If it is less profitable to the point that it doesn’t meet the expected or customary return on investment, it is less likely.
Don: The terms “expected or customary returns” has no meaning, in and of itself. It’s entirely possible that the proposal exceeds “customary” returns.
What is the “expected or customary return”, in this case? (I don’t expect that you would know. Hence, you have no evidence to support your opinion.)
If it is less profitable, it is less likely. Do you disagree with that?
Don: I don’t necessarily agree that it’s less likely. Especially in a city with low vacancy rates.
We would see a dearth of proposals, if profitability was insufficient.
You do not agree with the statement that a project being less profitable makes it less likely to occur? Really?
Seems like a pretty simple concept.
Why do you think the city council chose to waive the affordable housing requirement for stacked units?
Whatever the motivation was previously, there certainly appears to be sufficient demand for multi-family housing, now. There is no excuse to waive Affordable housing requirements for any multi-family housing proposals, including vertical mixed use.
Why do you think the city council chose to waive the affordable housing requirement for stacked units, Ron?
No excuse other than the pre-existing exemption in the ordinance.
Ron, if the sun comes up in the morning, you’d say,
even when it isn’t a “mega-dorm” except as you, Eileen, and a few others like to define/re-define that as often as someone changes the thrusts of his tweets…
I assume that the “18,000” figure is a typo, and should actually be 1,800 square feet. (Regardless, I would guess that this is larger than most houses, in Davis.) If they’re counting beds, then it’s probably rent-by-the-bed.
Regardless of what you want to call it, it’s primarily student housing (as noted in the article itself), over an existing retail space.
And yes, student housing (on campus) is a primary issue of the mediation. Expect to see even more of these types of proposals, if the mediation fails (and if the city fails to grow a backbone).
“I assume that the “18,000” figure is a typo, and should actually be 1,800 square feet. ”
If you read the article, it states 1800.
David: No, it doesn’t. I cited it exactly as written. But – a typo is not particularly important.
1,800 square feet (and up to 5 bedrooms) is pretty large for an apartment unit.
You did not refute my comment on timing, Ron, so will accept it as a given… you dissembled as to term mega-dorm…
On the surface it appears to be a great project. Hope it becomes an example for the other neighborhood centers, not to mention the downtown. The one initial question I have has to do with parking. Parking minimums have been a point of discussion the past couple of years so I wonder if our requirements fit with the current best practices. If not, now is the time to make a change.
I agree wholeheartedly Mark.
It was important for every apartment to have a phone jack 30 years ago but today few (if any) kids have (or want) a landline. As the cost of owning (and insuring) a modern car keeps increasing and more kids use ride sharing services we will need less and less parking at student apartments (and should think about adding things like UBER car waiting spaces)…
One size does not fit all, Mark…
I think this is a very promising, if not great project (great remains to be seen, but see that as potential)… yet the proposal is surrounded (buffered?) by two-story apartments on two sides, commercial on one, and UCD across Russell from the other.
Same would not be true of the strip mall on Eighth, between N & Pole Line, nor the one on G, between Seventh and Sweetbriar (aka Cemetery Road)…
Yet even those sites could ripen into 3 stories with same concept with retail below, residences above…
Suggesting that one project could be a model for another is not the same as calling for a duplication. Every project is different so the end-point will not be the same, even if all are based on the same basic idea or model.
The financial analysis provided with the downtown plan shows that three-story mixed-use projects are no longer viable (minimum 4 plus). Your three-story fantasy will not be built so if you want redevelopment you need to change your expectations.
How would the proposed development ensure parking availability for retail customers (which retail relies upon, to survive)? In other words, what would prevent new residents or visitors to those residences from parking in spots intended for retail customers?
Time limits? Fines for exceeding a certain period of time? Who would pay for the enforcement (e.g., issuance and collection of fines)?
Do the research, Ron… works @ Marketplace and many other places locally, statewide, nation-wide and internationally… I have no inclination to “spoon-feed” you… and spaghetti is best eaten with forks or chopsticks…
Howard: You constantly make these kind of remarks, in which you suggest that you have some special knowledge (but are unwilling to share it). While simultaneously suggesting that the logical concerns I noted are somehow my responsibility to research and provide answers to, presumably before even bringing them up.
If you have something useful to share, why don’t you do so? Isn’t that the purpose of this blog?
Or, do you just like “throwing spaghetti”, of your own?
(Given your history, I suspect that I already know the answer to that.)
Little, no logic in your posts… pseudo-logic, maybe…
Howard: In fact, your example (“Marketplace”) is not vertical mixed use. It’s strictly a commercial development (as University Mall currently is). Why would you even bring that up as an example, in regard to the mixed-use proposal (e.g., and related issues regarding parking that’s shared with residences)?
Shared parking between an apt complex and a retail site? Think, learn, before you presume to challenge… tu est bete, je pense…
Je me desengage… bonne nuit…
Howard: Again, enough with the half-responses and half-insults, while simultaneously suggesting that you know something that you’re not sharing.
Are you stating that Marketplace (your example) shares parking spots with off-site residences? If so, then just say so. And, perhaps address how that works.
Also, are you suggesting that adding residences to an existing commercial/retail center (which draws customers from throughout the city) will have no impact on traffic and parking challenges at/near the site? Perhaps even impacting the viability of some of the existing businesses (assuming that they simultaneously might want to pay increased rent)?
There is an agreement between Marketplace and the apartments to the north… I reviewed it when it was created…
I believe that this far enough removed from the people living downtown and in the near core area that exhibit NIMBY and NO-GROWTH tendencies and it is not endangering any high-qualify farm land, so you would think that it would not be opposed.
However, I hear that there is a movement to prevent environmental impacts to the daily migrating crows that use the parking lot to purge their bowels every evening about the time I go to Trader Joes.
OOOooooawoooOOOOO!!! Just like Trackside!
Novel.
Sustainable! Will it also be transformational?
Easier to get around in than a horizontal mixed-use project.
Will the insurer require a suicide net?
Also known as ‘wasted space’ since Davisites won’t park in structures.
I cannot hear of thissssss; only cradle my ears wisssss parking maximooooms.
Where each student will park 30% of their car.
And finally, where will The Graduate be during construction? We cannot have a Davis without a Graduate. No City Coucilmember that allows The Graduate to be shut down will ever survive an election.
David: I’ll repeat this, since you did not respond to it (from above):
Fact: Vertical mixed use is exempt from Affordable housing requirements..
David and Don: Do both of you support this exemption? (Don has “sort of” responded, but nothing except “crickets” from David so far.)
You will not be satisfied with my answer.
The first point is that I view this entire discussion as disingenuous on your part. If you were so concerned about affordable housing, you would not oppose every project (or nearly so) that comes before the council. There are two ways to build affordable housing and both involve building housing right now.
The second point is that the exemption discussion misses the key point. The exemption was put into place when RDA disappeared. Prior to that, you could fund affordable housing regardless of the type of project and you could do so at a much higher rate. Until we find a replacement for that funding stream, we are forced to coddle together approaches – none of which will happen if we do not build more housing.
The third point is that if you believe that vertical mixed use in a town that cannot go horizontal easily is necessary, then you have to look at ways to facilitate it.
but if you oppose every project, you get no new affordable housing. And so your argument here makes no sense. You say you want affordable housing but you oppose all mechanisms by which to build it.
David: You made an accurate prediction, since you did not actually answer the question.
You did make comments and incorrect assumptions/conclusions regarding me and my motivations, though. This type of response (and some of the others on here) show exactly why the Vanguard will never be anything but a biased political blog, increasingly supporting any type of development, and encouraging (and sometimes participating in) personal attacks against anyone who raises concerns.
This approach is also very likely a reason that you (initially) noted a dearth of comments regarding this proposal, on your blog.
RDA money may never come back. Also, note that we are no longer in a recession, as evidenced by the multiple proposals we are witnessing.
I’ll ask again, since you continue to avoid responding. (Which is yet another political tactic.)
Do you support the Affordable housing exemption for vertical mixed-use?
LOL. I gave you my answer and it carefully lays out my position and fully addresses your question. You believe that this is a poison pill for housing developments and are attempting to use the issue as a wedge to stop them. That’s fine, but it likely will not work.
Again, no answer – while simultaneously and incorrectly attempting to determine my thoughts.
It’s a pretty simple question, e.g., for anyone who isn’t a political science major.
I suggest you read my answer again, especially points two and three, it answers your question. I just don’t give a straight yes or no that you wanted to see. But the answer is clearly there. Goodnight.
Like Don did, let me help you.
David: “Until we find a replacement for that funding stream, we are forced to coddle together approaches – none of which will happen if we do not build more housing.
The third point is that if you believe that vertical mixed use in a town that cannot go horizontal easily is necessary, then you have to look at ways to facilitate it.”
Isn’t it very clear what I’m saying here?
No, not in response to my question. I’ll repeat it, for clarity:
Do you support the Affordable housing exemption for vertical mixed-use?
Uncle
David: You might want to take a lesson from Don, here. At least he was clear, as noted below.
I can provide an example for you, as well: I do not support the exemption. I haven’t seen any justification to keep it in place. (In fact, the elimination of RDA money is yet another reason to eliminate the Affordable housing exemption for vertical mixed-use.)
See? Not really that hard to do.
My response was very clear. Stuff your “sort of.”
Don: Like David, you didn’t answer the question, either. Lots of sidetracking, instead.
It seems that the question is a lot more difficult for you and David to answer than I would have guessed.
Ron: David and Don: Do both of you support this exemption?
Don: “Requiring affordable housing in vertical mixed use would reduce the likelihood of those developments actually occurring.
I am against affordable housing policies that don’t lead to affordable housing.
So I support the exemption.”
Ron: “Like David, you didn’t answer the question”
Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Do you not see words that are right in front of you? Do you understand why people get so completely fed up with you here?
“Sort of.”
Give me a friggin’ break.
I support the exemption.
Got it?
Don: My apologies – I missed that, earlier. Fending off you, David, (and sometimes other “development activists”) can be overwhelming, at times.
You do support the Affordable housing exemption for mixed use. Which would mean that no Affordable housing would be built, for any mixed-use proposals. Got it.
David has still not answered the question.
Did you answer MY question?