In the EPS (Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.) report that came out this week, one of the key issues for ongoing consideration is to “consider housing,” noting, “This use may help reduce trips, lower burden on infrastructure, and provide a more complete innovation environment.”
The issue of housing has always been considered tricky, and the early thinking on the innovation parks which would require Measure R votes of the public was to avoid the issue of housing, believing it the “third rail” in Davis and likely to doom the project.
It was not until last December that the staff put a mixed-use alternative into the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) alternatives for the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) to study. Staff writes, “This alternative assumes the introduction of a balance of high-density residential uses in both projects. The type of housing anticipated would be high density (over 30 du/ac [dwelling units per acre]), attached, multi-story live/work units designed specifically to house and support workers within the Innovation Center. It would include a mix of ownership and lease/rental units. Designs would incorporate green technology, high efficiency, compact form, with the latest technology and lifestyle features, and emphasis on low to no-vehicle use.”
Staff notes, “Housing was not recommended for inclusion in project(s) during the RFEI [Request for Expressions of Interest] process, nor are the applicants proposing housing as part of their proposals. However, CEQA requires that the lead agency test alternatives that could reasonably reduce significant impacts of the project.”
They continue, “Staff anticipates that the project EIRs may identify significant impacts related to vehicle miles traveled, and air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, staff has concluded that a mixed use alternative will likely be necessary to satisfy CEQA requirements.”
They add, “There is a growing field of study that demonstrates that mixed uses can lower the traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas, energy efficiency, and related impacts of separated land uses. This alternative will test the possibility that a mix of innovation center and residential uses will generate lowered amounts of regional traffic, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the business-only proposals.”
Many project proponents have argued against consideration of housing believing this would simply add another element to the project that opponents could grasp onto. It is worth noting that, in my conversations with the Binning folks back in February, they saw mixed-use housing components as a way to reduce potential traffic impacts on the site.
Even in an innovation center model that excludes the Davis Innovation Center, we are still looking at nearly 8000 new employees, granted, over a 9 to 27 year build out. With concerns about climate impacts, carbon emissions, and VMT – are we not being completely irresponsible not to even consider a mixed-use component?
If anything, a well-designed, mixed use component that would be tailor-made for workers at the innovation center, would be an asset that could reduce traffic impacts along with environmental factors.
There are those who would argue that this has been sold to the public in the wrong way – a way that will come back to bite us. At the same time, I lack the faith that the messaging on this would improve enough to make a strong case to the public for mixed use components in the project.
As such I prefer to think outside of the proverbial box. Last October it was presented to the community, at the Vanguard’s Innovation Park Forum, that the problem in Davis is a jobs-housing imbalance. For a long time, we have focused on scarcity of housing, but right now, there is also a scarcity of jobs.
The result is that every morning, a large number of people take to the highways. Some are headed out of Davis and toward Sacramento or the Bay Area. Another segment are headed into Davis, mostly to UC Davis. One idea floating around is that by building Innovation Parks with thousands of new jobs, we shift the dynamics so that people are not having to out-commute each day to go to work.
For me, I look at the puzzle a bit differently. If you read the two reports from this week, Davis has some natural advantages. We have the proximity of the university. We have an emerging tech industry. We have a large number of highly educated citizens. We have a ready labor supply.
We also have some critical disadvantages. We have a lack of space, which we are hoping to address through the innovation parks. We also have a lack of housing. And where we do have housing, it is far more expensive that neighboring areas.
There are those that believe that simply building housing will solve some of these problems. However, given the limitations of Measure R, it seems very unlikely that we are going to build sufficient housing to do anything more than be a pin-prick on a very large dam. Measure R is highly unlikely to be repealed. And even if it were to be repealed – the combination of quality of life, quality of public schools, and culture of Davis make it unlikely that the price of housing will reduce to levels around the region.
The question really needs to be why we are trying to address these problems locally rather than on a regional level. Allow Davis to do what it can do better than others – be a center around which startups, entrepreneurs and tech transfer can begin.
The experience of losing Bayer CropScience shows that we need to produce some places for growing companies to land – Davis is never going to have the massive areas for large companies. But Davis can be the incubator for small companies to form, to grow, and to mature.
We need to look regionally at the nexus of housing, transportation and economic development and create a system which allows each community to fill the niche according to its strengths.
That doesn’t mean we abandon housing or abandon land for large companies, but it does mean we have to pick our spots and go with our strengths.
As I look at the Mace Ranch Innovation Park, I keep thinking we have to utilize its location along two key transportation corridors – it is alongside both I-80 as well as the rail lines. Can we find a way to produce cheap housing, transport workers via rail, and create an transportation map that allows for people to bike and use alternative transportation to get around town?
That should be our goal – even if it appears unlikely that we could get a train-substation located near the Mace Ranch Innovation Center.
That doesn’t mean we preclude the possibility of mixed-housing, but we have to look at the primary goal here and understand that politics is really the art of the possibility and that “no project” is a worse outcome than a less than completely perfect one that has a mixed-use component.
The challenge I pose for the city leaders and the region is to start thinking outside of the box so that we can prosper as a region. Everyone benefits when companies come in, hire employees, and pump in local capital. We all have advantages and should make the most of them.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The question really needs to be is why are we trying to address these problems locally rather than on a regional level. Allow Davis to do what it can do better than others – be a center around which startups, entrepreneurs and tech transfer can begin.”
“We need to look regionally at the nexus of housing, transportation and economic development and create a system which allows each community to fill the niche according to its strengths.”
“Can we find a way to produce cheap housing, transport workers via rail, and create an transportation map that allows for people to bike and use alternative transportation to get around town?”
I am very glad to see you clearly articulating these positions. One of the things that was most troubling to me about the proposals that as put forth was that although the project leads freely admitted that adding thousands of jobs was likely to add thousands of residents, no allowance had been made ( due to the guidelines presented to them) for where these residents would live. This has been one major part of my opposition to date and part of why I have backed an automobile limited project such as I see as a possibility for Nishi. Wiih a really good regional transpiration system established and with housing as a required component, I would be much more likely to support a larger project than Nishi.
“that no-project is a worse outcome than a less than completely perfect one that has a mixed-use component.”
On this point, I am not in agreement. “Perfection” is never attainable since there will never be a consensus on what constitutes perfect. I disagree with the position that we should settle for a less than optimal proposal because no project is worse than “a completely perfect one”. I think the more realistic appraisal is that we should accept a mediocre project because mediocre is better than nothing. At least “nothing” presents the possibility for something better in the future. Mediocre, locks us into mediocre forever. And mediocre is the best that I think that can be said about projects that do not fully mitigate for the transportation and other infrastructure needs of the inevitable increase in population that these projects will bring.
With 50% of our population commuting outside of Davis to their jobs and back, we need to factor that by adding more good jobs to Davis, that number will start to come down as more Davis residents find jobs in Davis and as home turn over, more local employees will snatch them up.
And Dixon, Woodland and West Sacramento… and even mid-town Sacramento are all close in proximity in consideration of commuting times. Just think about the commute living and working in Sacramento or the Bay Area. For example, you can live and work in Sacramento and have a commute that is longer than would be if you worked in Davis and lived in West Sacramento, Dixon and Woodland.
But there is a conundrum here and UCD is going to have to be the entity to solve it primarily. By adding new workers to a city already facing .3% rental vacancy and $1400 monthly rent for a single bedroom unit, it will exacerbate the challenge for students. Therefore, if UCD wants the city to step up to allow the development of peripheral land to support their technology transfer strategy, then UCD needs to develop student housing on their land. Housing on UCD land can be student-only, while housing developed on private or city land would end up in competition with the new employees of the innovation parks.
I think we need to drop the innovation parks housing discussion. Davis has expanded in population to 72,000 primarily because it front-loaded a bunch of housing development 30+ years ago. Then Mace Ranch and Wildhorse were built. Evergreen and Oakshade were other sizable housing developments. There have been a number of smaller infill developments. Now the Cannery is coming. If we go back 40 years and actually count all the housing development, Davis has done a reasonable job providing housing in consideration the region and considering our slow growth demands. The problem with student housing vacancy rates is that there is a high demand for Davis housing for a couple of reasons. One is that Davis schools quality (real or perceived) attracts families here. Second, UCD has grown in size and has not created enough housing on campus or that the university owns and manages.
But there is absolutely no challenge to the point that we have failed to keep up with commercial development. Davis’s local economy is an order of magnitude smaller than it should be for a city our size.
If UCD wants to keep the innovation parks moving forward and to help ensure a successful Measure R vote, then UCD should announce its plans for adding more student housing on campus. This would help to kill the debate of housing in the innovation parks… which, IMO, is primarily a tactic being used to help kill the innovation parks… as Davis residents will vote down innovation parks with any significant housing included.
“If UCD wants to keep the innovation parks moving forward and to help ensure a successful Measure R vote, then UCD should announce its plans for adding more student housing on campus. This would help to kill the debate of housing in the innovation parks… which, IMO, is primarily a tactic being used to help kill the innovation parks… as Davis residents will vote down innovation parks with any significant housing included.”
not a bad idea, but what do you think of a more regional approach?
I will respond to that question!
I absolutely agree with the regional approach. Housing in Woodland, Dixon or Sacramento and public transportation. Silicone Valley runs a shuttle service between South Bay and North Bay (S.F.). The employees love it… they don’t have to drive. The buses have WiFi and seats with tables and they get work done going back and forth.
frankly delivers
“Frankly: I absolutely agree with the regional approach. Housing in Woodland, Dixon or Sacramento and public transportation. Silicone Valley runs a shuttle service between South Bay and North Bay (S.F.). The employees love it… they don’t have to drive. The buses have WiFi and seats with tables and they get work done going back and forth.”
SUPER IDEA!!!
Oops. I meant Silicon Valley. Not Silicone Value. That other place is somewhere in the LA area.
Silicone Valley? LOL
I’m not sure there are very many Silicone Valleys. Silicone Hills yes, but not the valleys that lie between those hills.
Regional approach to housing = slower adsorption rates = probable failure of economic development strategy
CalAg – While I see the point you are making, I think it misses the point of the relatively easy commute from these places. For the Mace Innovation Park, a trip from Woodland or Sacramento isn’t too big of a problem. The same would be true from Dixon. In fact, I think the commute from these places might be easier than commuting from one side of Davis to the other.
I think Davis certainly would be more desireable a place to live for some, but not for all given the amount of house that can be purchased in comparison to these surrounding communities. I know people that live in Davis and commute to the Bay Area for work for this very reason.
Regional housing should absolutley be considered part of the attraction for the Davis innovation parks.
If you are the CEO of a growing 50-100 person tech company looking to relocate, how do you justify selecting a community with a stagnant housing stock, political paralysis from an inability to make consensus decisions, a collapsing 25-55 demographic, and a low quality of life for most Millennials and GenXers without kids? What do you tell your employees? What do you tell your investors? Our strategy is that the staff will work in Davis and commute to Davis from Dixon, Woodland, Natomas, Elk Grove, West Sac, etc? Proximity to UC Davis is just not that important in today’s employee-centric world. The competition for workforce is real and younger tech employees are concerned with lifestyle as well as the company they work for.
These are the types of problems Davis needs to address to be competitive in the technology sector.
Well you bring up more points here than just the challenge of where your employee would live.
How many employees of these tech companies that reside in Palo Alto live in Palo Alto?
As a CEO of a 20 employee company, I can tell you that Woodland, Dixon and Sacramento are all included in my picture of regional housing. Davis is expensive, and will always be expensive. And so it isn’t just the availability of housing, it is also the price of housing that has an impact on attraction. Because if the cost of housing is high, salaries will need to be higher. If there is less expensive housing nearby, then all the better in consideration of what my compensation nut will be to attract quality employees. UCD, for example, benefits from this regional supply of more affordable housing as many employees of UCD live in Woodland, Dixon and Sacramento.
I agree that available housing in Davis is a factor, but I am of the mind that it is a smaller factor that are many other things given that there is adequate affordable housing within a pretty easy commute.
If housing at the tech parks is an option, then the RFEI needs to be reissued. That fundamentally changes the economics for potential applicants.
In all probability, that would bring both the NWQ and Davis Ranch proposals back to the table. It could also bring other new proposals into the discussion.
There seems to be a general consensus that it would reduce the likelihood of a successful Measure R vote. I’d love to see some polling done on that.
don: i think that’s a good point as well. everyone assumes that housing would hurt? but why? if it reduces traffic and impacts, why would it necessarily hurt? the property value concept is a red-herring, town houses on an innovation park are not going to reduce property values for existing residents.
Just for the record, I am not opposed to innovation park housing, never was. However, at this point, I think to add housing at this point just complicates the innovation park issue, and would result in delay, inaction, and paralysis by analysis. Better to move forward as planned, w/o housing as planned IMO.
There are different camps. There is the no change camp. There is the farmland preservation extreme camp. There is the protect home equity camp. And there is the “I can support more commercial use of peripheral land because it benefits the community, but not more housing”… camp.
The last two camps are more likely to vote yes on innovation parks without housing, and no if they do include significant housing. The first two will vote no no matter what.
When you add housing to the mix, you increase the size of the pool of voters that would have a reason to vote no.
I don’t think there are many Davis voters with would only vote yes if there was significant housing added to the innovation parks.
Frankly, nice summation of the situation!
first of all, the eir alternative was put in place before the davis innovation center pulled out. second, davis ranch is not a viable project. third, there is nothing preventing a new group coming forward.
I agree that DIC WAS PUT ON HOLD (it has not “pulled out”) AFTER EIR alternative that included housing was contemplated.
I think we can all agree that it’s a good thing that the DIC didn’t pull out.
I can’t see including owner-occupied housing in an innovation park — employees way too mobile these days, and it seems to me that one of the target markets for these parks comprises businesses that are getting started with a goal of outgrowing the park eventually. At some point either the employee moves or the job moves, so long-term owner-occupied doesn’t seem like a sensible fit.
I could see some high-density rental housing in a Mace Ranch innovation park if it could be shown that it would serve the needs of the employees who work in the park, but would those units end up being occupied by students and others who don’t work there? That would seem to defeat the purpose. And I do think that adding housing would incrementally increase the likelihood of a Measure R defeat, though I don’t know how big that increment would be.
Jim makes some good points, particularly the housing demand would appear to point to apartments, or some flavor of apartments/condos that allow someone to build at least a modicum of equity. It could be the modern equivalent of a “company town”, but hopefully without the negative aspects. There actually were some ‘good’ things about the old ‘company towns’.
i think you’re on track here. i would suggest rental rather than owner occuppied housing.
I agree that Jim has made some good points.
One thing I think might be a benefit instead of defeating the purpose is if some of these rentals did go to students. If it is true that proximity does build intellectual networks and benefits the both the individual and the community, then who would profit more than highly committed students from their proximity to those involved in these high tech endeavors ? I see this as a potential “incubator” of a different type.
. . . or maybe the influence would go the other way and we’d start to see more keggers at the new tech firms.
Jim Frame: “I can’t see including owner-occupied housing in an innovation park — employees way too mobile these days, and it seems to me that one of the target markets for these parks comprises businesses that are getting started with a goal of outgrowing the park eventually. At some point either the employee moves or the job moves, so long-term owner-occupied doesn’t seem like a sensible fit.”
Spot on!
DG: Constantly repeating this trope doesn’t make it true. Davis is not good in this space. We have a dismal track record of startups relative to the size and budget of UCD when compared to its peers around the county. Tech transfer, in particular, is famously bad. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is weak at best (and no need to recite the players in this space to try and rebut this point).
Where we excel relative to our size is in stable mid-size tech businesses. Calgene, Agraquest, Marrone, Schilling, HM.Clause, DMG, Arcadia, etc. This cohort took more than 35 years to build and would fill only a small fraction of the proposed tech parks. Two were lost to surrounding jurisdictions and only two were spun out of UCD.
The tech parks will hopefully attract similar businesses to the city. The early stage problems will eventually self-correct as the critical mass of established companies accumulates and UCD continues to get its house in order.
CalAg: “Constantly repeating this trope doesn’t make it true. Davis is not good in this space. We have a dismal track record of startups relative to the size and budget of UCD when compared to its peers around the county. Tech transfer, in particular, is famously bad. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is weak at best (and no need to recite the players in this space to try and rebut this point).”
Davis may not be good for startups now, but it COULD BE, especially if well planned innovation parks come online, no? I always like to encourage possibilities, not fixate on what doesn’t work!
Anon: As I said – “The early stage problems will eventually self-correct as the critical mass of established companies accumulates and UCD continues to get its house in order.” So yes, Davis could be a good place for startups in the future.
The tech parks are the only way we get critical mass. Critical mass is necessary but not sufficient.
Agreed! 😉
“Can we find a way to produce cheap housing, transport workers via rail, and create an transportation map that allows for people to bike and use alternative transportation to get around town? That should be our goal – even if it appears unlikely that we could get a train-substation located near the Mace Ranch Innovation Center.”
Nope. It’s an intercity corridor, as well the Capitol Corridor has guidelines for distance between stations and this wouldn’t even come close, stations now are in the $50 million range, there are limited slots on Union Pacific for passenger trains, and commuter service or light rail is only a vague future planning concept on the 25-year timeline if ever.
This may sound good, but the realities of doing this are simply not tangible in the time horizon of decades.
And to Alan’s point, I would argue, from a “regional” basis, that Davis. poised on I-80, SR 113, and the rail and bus lines with a well-used current station, is EXACTLY where increased population should be directed. Disclaimer: this should in no way be construed as reflecting Alan’s views…
Absolutely correct. Great sound bite.
It is not unreasonable to say that the realities of a passenger rail connection between Davis and Woodland are “simply not tangible in the time horizon of [ever].” Since Alan is as closest to a rail transportation expert of anyone who posts on the Vanguard, he may be able to give us some insight on the number of “person trips per day” that a route needs to generate in order to be fiscally viable/sustainable. Armed with Alan’s estimate, we can then compare that to the expected number of people who would be likely to commute between Woodland and Davis each day plus the number of people who would commute between Woodland and Sacramento each day. The sum of those two daily rip estimates less the daily trips viability threshold would give us a “go/no go” calcualtion. If that “go/no go” number is negative the route is not viable. If it is positive then the route is viable. It is that simple.
Further, Sacramento’s plans are to connect the Airport to their Regional Transit rail system. At that point, another alternative for the Woodland to Sacramento commuters would be to extend the Airport line to Woodland.
Feel free to label me a lowbrow, selfish moron for making these observations.
I should also note that long-range (25 years +) ideas — not at this point even in long-range plans — discussed for commuter rail service include Davis and Woodland. The selfish, low-forehead morons who advocate for Yolo Rail Relocation will permanently kill this idea if the north-south tracks are removed from Davis, as not only would the tracks to Woodland no longer do through Davis, but the proposed spaghetti re-route would be several miles longer and end up north of Woodland as well. “They” want to develop the land on the rail corridors, add population, then rely on the auto infrastructure to move all the new people. Once you build on a transportation corridor, you kill it, like cutting a ring of bark off a tree kills the tree. These people are thinking of no one but themselves.
Alan, you and I “so” agree on this… I think in the 25-100 year frameworks for things like transportation corridors.
AM: I’ve heard that the hidden agenda for rail relocation is to facilitate importation of huge amounts of garbage from Northern California and beyond to fuel Sierra Energy gasification plant(s) at the Yolo County Landfill and/or Port of Sacramento. The tracks proposed to be relocated are owned by the same people that own Sierra Energy. I agree with you that there is no chance in hell that this ever happens.
CalAg: had not heard about that ‘agenda’… if true, I support the technology, but then think this would be a reason to ADD a rail line, NOT “relocate” the existing N/S line. The only “agenda” I’ve seen is the use of taxpayer money to give a windfall to UP for their existing R/W, the rail line proponent, and perhaps certain developers who acquire UP’s R/W, and get it zoned to make another private sector profit.
If you are correct, about a Sierra Energy agenda, I could support a privately financed NEW rail line, and could support some public financial support, to the extent that it provides reasonably priced additional energy, and extends the life of landfills.
I apparently think about this opposite to the mainstream: I would vote against any of these projects *unless* they include housing. We’re never going to reach our carbon-emission goals if we don’t put the people and the jobs near each other.
Thanks Dan. I might have been wrong assuming that there are none in this camp. However, you might also be of a very small minority in this town. My general sense is that most Davis voters would vote no for any peripheral development having significant housing. So you position might just become that principle of perfection being the enemy of the good.
Dan and Frankly, the challenge that we face is that unless the housing is purchased/rented by the employees of the companies locating in the Innovation Park, the attempts to address our carbon emission issues are very likely to be trumped by the supply/demand realities of the Davis housing market, if/when other people who want to live in Davis outbid the employees for the added housing.
I have proposed a solution to this dilemma in past conversations. It involves the creative use of the Urban Reserve zoning designation.
I think I understand what you mean by “the supply/demand realities of the Davis housing market,” but I’m not sure: can you explain why you think that housing placed near jobs in a new business park wouldn’t be most favored by those who fill those jobs? I’m willing to accept that you may be right–I just need the economic calculations spelled out in more detail.
Thanks.
Dan, to answer your question first one needs to look at the current demand for housing in Davis. There is a substantial demographic cohort that is looking for rental housing … UC Davis students … and most of the demand from that cohort is external to the single family residential purchase part of the supply. The second substantial demographic cohort is made up of academics who come to work at UC Davis … many with school age children. Currently that segment finds that the supply of housing that they can afford is constrained. They have the financial where-with-all to pay, and as a result they are competitive bidders for the restricted supply. The third substantial demographic cohort is made up of UC Davis alumni who have gone off in the world, made their fortune, and see Davis as an idyllic magnetic mecca where the success and happiness of their lives (often of two such lives who got married as well as educated) all began. They have lots of financial where-with-all to pay, and as a result they are very competitive bidders for the restricted supply, and paying an over the market price for a Davis home is a fact that is easily trumped by the feelings that drive them to return to Davis. The fourth substantial demographic cohort is made up of people who have reached retirement age after making their fortune, and see Davis as an ideal place to retire … especially if they have grandchildren living in Davis. They too are very competitive bidders for the restricted supply, and paying an over the market price for a Davis home is a fact that is easily trumped by their desire to be close to their children and grandchildren. There are other demographic cohorts as well, but the ones above are going to see new housing in Davis as an opportunity to realize either their dream or an important step in their academic career. Compare the numbers in those demographic segments to the numbers of the employees of the companies locating in the Innovation Park. Further, think about the financial where-with-all of those employees. How much down payment money will they have saved? How much flexibility will they have to get into a bidding war with the competitive buyers from the other segments above?
Those are some of the key components of the supply demand realities of the Davis housing market.
Must have missed this. Please elaborate.
I’d prefer to discuss it in person. If that is acceptable to you, send me an e-mail at mattwill@pacbell.net and we can meet. I look forward to your input. One of the most important attributes of being an elected official is to listen to the citizens.
Who’s the elected official in this scenario?
I don’t think there is any Brown Act violation here.
Alan, the simple answer to your question is, “Any elected official.”
When you refer to “this scenario” what are you referring to?