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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.