By Dan Carson
City leaders are wrestling with the issue of whether to include up to 850 units of housing as part of the Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC) project.
On the one hand, inclusion of the proposed housing was found in the recently released draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the MRIC project to be the environmentally superior alternative for reducing traffic and greenhouse gas emission impacts. Also, adding housing might help MRIC attract high-tech tenants in a competitive economic environment.
On the other hand, inclusion of any housing in the 229-acre proposal is a big departure from the economic development approach the city had been pursuing for its innovation centers. Objections to more housing could imperil voter approval next year of annexation of MRIC land to the city. One council member, Brett Lee, has already said he will oppose including any housing as a part of MRIC.
Let me propose, for discussion purposes, a third approach that potentially offers a way out of this dilemma. This is not a recommendation, but an option that I hope will stimulate further discussion about this important decision. (For the record, I am speaking here as a private citizen and not in behalf of the Finance and Budget Commission of which I am vice chair.)
This proposed approach would let the voters of the City of Davis have their say on MRIC and the housing issue in two separate ballot measures next year. The first ballot measure would authorize MRIC as originally proposed without a housing component. A second separate ballot measure would allow modification of the plan to add up to the 850 units of housing that have been proposed.
There are a number of factors to consider here, but this approach, I would argue, is consistent with the spirit of Measures J and R, which require a vote of the Davis electorate before farmland can be annexed to the city.
The concept behind Measures J and R is that the city’s most important long-term land-use decisions need to be settled through direct democracy and not by City Council action alone. I would submit that a decision about whether the innovation center model should be changed to allow for employee-oriented housing employees is just the kind of major land-use issue that Davis voters should decide.
Before I get into some of the details here, let me clarify my personal position on these matters. While I am a declared supporter of economic development, I won’t support the MRIC proposal unless the environmental mitigation issues are worked out, unless forthcoming economic analysis shows a good fiscal benefit to the city, and unless city staff is able to work out a development agreement that is beneficial to the city and the public as a whole. However, based on my reading of the EIR and the economic analysis I have seen so far, I am optimistic all of those things will come to pass.
I am ambivalent about adding a housing component to the innovation park. I’d like to see more evidence that adding housing would improve MRIC’s chances of attracting potential tenants, a key step before many of the fiscal benefits of the project flow to the city. I’m wondering also how the additional housing proposed in both the MRIC and Gateway/Nishi projects aligns with current city housing growth policies and whether their approval would mean those policies would now have to be changed. Finally, I am deeply concerned that adding housing into MRIC would kill a bright possibility for economic development needed for the long-term fiscal health of this city.
Splitting the issue into two components could greatly reduce the latter risk, however. The scenario that most makes sense to me, based on my discussions so far, involves having the public vote on the “clean” original version of MRIC in June 2016, with a separate measure to amend that plan to include housing voted upon in November 2016. The wait for a second election over the housing issue would likely cause few problems for the applicant, because no housing was going be built until Phase II of the project probably years from now anyway.
While they are by no means responsible for my idea, I have checked with city staff and they have confirmed that a dual-vote approach is feasible. Other variations are possible that would load two companion measures onto the same ballot in June. Any dual-vote option would have to carefully crafted to avoid legal and voter confusion while being mindful of the additional election costs that would be borne by city taxpayers.
The biggest benefit of a dual-vote option, in my view, is that it would clearly distill the two major policy choices the city faces at this crossroads in its economic development plans. First, voters would decide whether they felt the benefits promised to the city in the development deal outweighed the loss of farmland on the eastern edge of the city for a high-tech innovation park. Then, voters would separately decide if they would like to add housing to the mix to reduce the impact of the projects on traffic and GHG emissions.
Trying to resolve both issues at once in a single ballot measure would be more problematic. If such a measure were to be defeated, it would be hard to know whether it was because voters objected just to the housing component, or because they didn’t like the terms of the underlying development deal, or both. After such a defeat, would it be worth it to try submitting the project again to the voters without a housing component? It would be hard to know. Settling the MRIC issues one at a time would provide clarity about the wishes of Davis voters, consistent with the spirit of Measures J and R, permitting them to weigh in directly – and separately — on these two major land-use policy questions.
Dan Carson worked for 17 years in the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan fiscal and policy adviser to the California Legislature, retiring in 2012 as deputy legislative analyst. He now serves as vice chair of the city’s Finance and Budget Commission. This commentary reflects his views only and does not represent the position of the commission on this issue.
I really feel as a voter that we’re being played. First it was just a business park being pushed, then somehow housing creeped into the conversation, now when it’s starting to look obvious that housing won’t fly we have a new idea to put two measures on the ballot, one with housing, one without. The council needs to ensure that this project is just a business park as it was presented to the citizens from the outset.
You do have to consider the source of some of these things – with all due respect, Dan Carson’s piece is the first I have heard of the idea.
Dan makes a creative proposal here. Ask the voters if they want a new innovation park, or a new innovation park with a lot of housing, or neither. The only problem I can see is that sometimes when you ask voters too many questions they get fearful, grumpy or confused and just vote no to everything.
I was thinking more about this demand from some for more local housing to support the innovation park employess. And then it hit me that we are really talking about two actual considerations: geographic proximity relative to transportation, and access to the Davis public schools.
That is really it if you think about it.
We are wringing our hands over housing mostly over the first consideration. And, frankly, for this we demonstrate inability to understand the big picture.
First, not every employee of the innovation park will want to live in Davis. In fact, dowtown Sacramento is on a tear right now with the new Golden 1 Arena and is attracting a much younger and hipper vibe and population.
Davis is still going to outprice the homes in the surrounding communities, and many employees will not want to pay the Davis premium.
Davisites will demand small and dense housing and many employees will want a yard and space.
Note that for tech employees, it is more common these days for them to spend at least part of their work week working from home. Others have to frequently travel to branch offices and client locations.
Lastly, unless we invest in significant improvements to bike paths, most people living at the innovation park are going to require cars to get their kids to school and to shop. And considering the relative shopping wasteland that Davis is, they are going to need a car to drive to other communities to shop.
Instead of wringing our hands over housing, we should be putting effort into a true progressive and creative Davis DNA solution for public transportation to and from the park from the surrounding communities.
For example, a consortium of Silicon Valley businnesses operate a suttle service between San Franscisco and other surrounding communities to the South Bay. Employees love it. They get to live in the city and work during their hour+ shuttle ride to and from the office.
The issue about innovation park employees being able to enroll their kids in the Davis schools can be solved without the demand for more housing.
I say we all just drop the debate for housing in the innovation parks, and instead focus on creative transportation solutions.
From The Oxford Mail 20/08/2015:
“SOME people may wonder what all of the fuss is about in Woodstock The need for homes is being felt everywhere, and why should one neighbourhood be protected from the oncoming diggers over anywhere else?
But there is good reason why the outcry over plans to build some 1,500 homes by Blenheim Palace should be of interest to others in the county.
The entire situation is indicative of the planning crisis we are facing. Proud villagers pitted against ambitious developers pitted against hand-wringing local authorities who wonder just where on earth everyone is going to go. That, combined with the historic importance of Blenheim Palace and the further issues that come with a grand and notable past, echoes a battle being played out across Oxfordshire.
There’s people in South and Vale worried about their green belt, people in Bicester feeling surrounded by developments, and those in the city seeing all brownfield land snapped up for extortionately-priced homes that no local could afford.
Everywhere you look the same concerns and heated discussions are flying across dinner tables and conference rooms.
The character of a place provides a foundation for a community to identify itself and feel some pride in their neighbourhood. Protecting heritage assets must be considered, but so must the desperate housing need.”
And they’ve been arguing about it for centuries…
;>)/
And, we see the same thing for “Trackside” and the former Families First site.
Everyone wants “smart growth”, unless their world changes one iota/scintilla.
Find it ironic that a vocal member of Rancho Yolo came out in strong opposition to the latter. Yet, if I would propose a trailer park somewhere, as affordable housing (which it is), no City ‘Planner’ nor citizen would do anything but laugh. Whatever.
Well, a simple solution would be to vote on the project AS APPLIED FOR. Nothing precludes the potential of the property owner subsequently to ask for a re-zone for some housing, in the future. It’s not like the currently sought approval (no-housing) will be written in stone and delivered from a mountain in the middle east.
If the project as proposed passes the voters’ litmus test, it will be annexed, and the non-res project can proceed. In the future, rezones may well not be subject to the Measure R vote.
If the project is fully rejected, the project may proceed, with or without voter approval, if the County approves a project there (the pass-thru agreements are basically DOA), and so the city can enjoy the impacts without having to worry much about revenues.
Exactly. I don’t really understand why we are even discussing housing on that site at all.
Unless the applicant modifies the application submitted, the CC can’t put a Measure R vote on the ballot that is inconsistent with the application (or applicant-led modifications to that). The CC can only vote “yes/no” on what is proposed/agreed to by the applicant. Despite what some “report”, and others “opine”, the application has not changed.
Don… to make it simple… true ‘live/work’ housing would decrease peak hour (and general) trip generation for MV. If it can be reliably done, that, in my opinion, would be a good thing.
I hadn’t thought about this before. What’s to prevent a developer from proposing commercial and getting Measure R approval on that basis, then immediately (or with a fig leaf of time lapse) applying to a friendly City Council for a rezone to residential?
Absolutely nothing.
But, the CC can follow Nancy Reagan’s advice, and “just say no”, And, if the CC says “yes”, think it only takes ~ 5% of the most recent voters to referendize (gawd, is that a word?) that, and/or mount a recall effort.
I’m good with the odds and/or remedies.
I’m not going to lose any sleep over it, but I probably won’t vote in favor of a project that has a significant level of housing that isn’t clearly ‘live/work’ at that site. A component of clearly ‘live/work’ I could accept.
Housing proponents have a very high bar to clear for me to vote in favor of housing. I’m very skeptical that any housing at the Mace site would serve only onsite employees. People’s jobs and domestic situations change too frequently to think that only onsite employees would live there. And any housing designed to appeal to young employees (i.e. multifamily rental) would also appeal to students; there’s a dire shortage of apartments in town would make the site attractive to them.
Lest you think that no student in his/her right mind would live that far from campus, allow me to relate an experience I had on Wednesday: I needed to take my truck into the Toyota dealer in South Davis for some recall repairs. On the phone they told me it might take an hour or two, and I was prepared to sit somewhere nearby and deal with the boatload of email that was waiting for me when I returned from vacation on Monday. But when I actually dropped the truck off, the “hour or two” turned into the whole morning, and I wasn’t really up for that much sitting around. So I pulled out my phone and checked the Unitrans schedule, and saw that an inbound bus was due at Mace and Cowell in 9 minutes. 9 minutes later I was on the bus heading downtown, a bus that runs right in front of the MRIC site. A few minutes after that I was walking the few blocks to my home office, thinking that the bus thing was pretty slick. The bus was full, and most of the riders were students.
Jim, you lost me on that last paragraph… logic, at least… yeah there’s a bunch of student housing @ the SE corner of town. Glad to hear a lot are using transit, particularly given reduced schedules during summer break. Not getting your ‘logic’ relating to the Mace project, IF it has any housing, being primarily student housing.
Please note that I said IF there was a component of the project that was RELIABLY LIVE/WORK… my caveats speak for themselves. As it stands today, the proposal on the table has NO residential. What do you not understand about THAT?
I will say again (third time?), I believe the proposal, as is, without housing, should be (as it is the only “submitted” project) the project the CC approves, and folk vote on.
IF and/or when the project as submitted is approved, and IF future owners wish to have housing considered for portions of the site, I feel comfortable that there are safeguards for you (and perhaps me) to oppose/prevent housing on the site. Am just not getting your apparent angst.
Jim Frame, I can also see college students living at the Mace business park. If it’s too expensive they’ll just double, triple or go four to a unit. I live out in Wildhorse and for many years the house next to me has been rented to four to five college students. One set will move out and a new set will come in. Mace is just a a little more up the road. So there’s no way to guarantee that any proposed housing on that site is going to be mostly employees living there.
Almost forgot… any residential would bear a higher standard for ‘flood-plain development’ issues than would non-res. The flood plain issue at this site is “de minimus”, as it is easily engineered away.
Measure R would preclude that kind of change without a new vote
David, respectfully suggest you re-read measure R. Pretty sure it only applies to properties to be annexed, and/or are zoned AG. Otherwise, arguably both the Trackside and Family First site proposals (in City, not zoned AG) would require Measure R votes. Am 93.867% sure.
What I was responding was the idea that they could pass a Measure R for commercial and then asking the council to change the zoning residential – Measure R precludes that without a new vote.
http://qcode.us/codes/davis/view.php?topic=41-41_01-41_01_020&frames=off
I challenge you to cite the text that supports your claim, David. I read it three times and, looking to challenge my opinion, cannot find it. Put up or…
You are “called” . Legal beagles, look at Chapter 41, DMC.
David either cite sections or apologize.
“Measure R requires an affirmative citizen vote for General Plan Amendments that re-designate land from agricultural or open space to urban uses. After completion of environmental review and public hearings, the City Council may choose to put a proposed land use change on the ballot for voter consideration. The Measure R process also includes identification of “Baseline Project Features” which may not be changed without subsequent voter approval.”
http://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/open-space-program/policy-framework
David… OK, was not obvious, but I get it… I was incorrect.
You should have cited the MC though, instead of the summary…
I guess you don’t remember the whole exchange over the baseline features with Sue Greenwald on Wildhorse Ranch.
Here is from the city’s FAQ on Innovation Centers. Clearly Harriet reviewed this.
I don’t have the energy to search through municipal code. You can do it, look up “baseline features,” they’re there.
Found it, it’s in the link you provided: “(A) Establishment of baseline project features and requirements such as recreation facilities, public facilities, significant project design features, sequencing or phasing, or similar features and requirements as shown on project exhibits and plans submitted for voter approval, which
cannot be eliminated, significantly modified or reduced without subsequent voter approval
;”
while i like creativity, i think dan is too clever by far. the point i think that should be raised is this: keep it simple. tech park proposal – yay or nay. housing introduces too many variables.
Which Dan? Carson? Wolk? Ramos?
While I appreciate the desire to come up with a compromise solution, I think this one is not helpful, and will totally confuse voters. This project was touted as no housing, should remain no housing, and as hpierce said, zoning can always be changed down the road to include housing, if that seems like a fruitful alternative in the distant future. Right now what we need is economic development, period. Let’s get on with it.