While Dan Ramos and his team made a strong push for consideration of a mixed-use housing proposal on the proposed 218-acre Mace Ranch Innovation Center site, there was a lot of pushback from the community on the idea of adding housing to the mix. City staff made it clear that consideration of housing would be a heavy lift to get on a November ballot.
In the spring of 2014, the city put out an RFEI (Request for Expressions of Interest) for innovation parks, which included a provision that there be no housing on the project site. Mace Ranch, one of three respondents, put forth a proposal for 2.5 million square feet of R&D (research and development) space with no housing component.
However, during the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process, staff and council asked the proponent to put in a mixed-use alternative, which they were reluctant to include at first. However, as Dan Ramos explained, their examination of other parks came to the conclusion that housing was an important component to provide living space for employees and reduce the impact of traffic and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
They asked council to consider allowing them to go forward with a mixed-use project.
In the end, only Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis was willing to ask the developers to come forward with a formal proposal for a mixed-use project. The other four members of the council were adamantly opposed to the option, and so Robb Davis moved that the staff proceed with the current proposal with no housing.
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson said, “Intellectually, mixed use can make sense.” She added, “For most communities I do believe it is a necessity.” But she said, “We’re in Davis and we’re very uniquely positioned on a global scale… we have to have a Davis DNA Innovation Park.”
For Councilmember Swanson, the key consideration was making sure that this project could pass and, quite simply, she did not believe a project with housing could pass.
She made the point that it is not just the developer who bears the cost in this process. “Who bears the cost if this doesn’t pass, (it) is $2.2 million fiscal annually… a net $6 million potentially and a one-time $10 million fee,” she said. “It’s not hyperbole, if this doesn’t pass in November, I’m going to be a big cheerleader to bring back a really big parcel tax, either that or we’re going to start closing things.”
“That’s not being a scare tactic, that’s being real,” she said. “We have a huge infrastructure problem. We need organic revenue. It’s why I agreed to run for council in the first place and why I agreed to run for a second term.”
She said that a mixed-use project would grade as a “A,” without it is a “B” but “with no project it’s an F.” She added, “I really do see why the mixed use can work well… I just don’t think in this time frame, the November 2016 vote, I don’t think that this community will pass it.”
Councilmember Rochelle Swanson concluded that, while she thinks the mixed-use project would be best, there are other ways to address housing and vehicles miles traveled, and “at the end of the day I do think we have to look at the big picture… I really think that it’s important that we put a ballot measure out there that will pass and be successful. Because I feel very strongly that if we put something on the ballot like this and it fails, that fails a lot more to our community than just this one project.”
Mayor Pro Tem Robb Davis noted that the council in the Measure R environment faces “a bit of a puzzle,” in that do they bring forward the best project that they can or do they bring forward a project that can pass? “What do we do if there’s a conflict between those?” he asked.
For Robb Davis, the city of Davis is “already in a housing crisis,” and “that crisis isn’t going to get better anytime soon.” He added that “we’re going to add a lot of jobs.” He said, “I do have a concern about where some of the people (are going to live).”
At the same time, he noted that there is no proposal on the table for mixed use. “This staff works on a basis of project proposals, we need proposals,” he said. “We don’t have a proposal on the table.”
He suggested that if the project proponents want to have a November vote, then the staff needs to process the project on the table. However, “if you want a mixed use, then bring us a proposal.”
The conversation never got much further, however, as it became clear that Robb Davis was alone in wanting to consider a mixed-use proposal.
Councilmember Brett Lee said, “I respectfully disagree with Robb… I think the council has sufficient information to know whether we are supportive of housing on the site or not.” He said that having the project applicants put forward a housing proposal would require “a fair amount of time, energy and money to prepare that.”
He said, “I’ll just say it, I’m not in favor of housing on that site.” Instead, he thinks the focus for housing should be in the center of Davis where we centralize housing to the community and focus on densification.
Councilmember Lee did acknowledge that “the applicant has made a pretty good case for this idea that the better designed innovation centers do have a mixed-use component.” However, “specific to the city of Davis, I am not in favor of a mixed-use component for this proposal.”
Councilmember Lucas Frerichs stated, “I’m not in favor of mixed use at the Mace Ranch site and have been consistent on that for a long time.” He noted the long public process that led to the development of the dispersed innovation strategy.
He stated, “I think that the proposal to now head in the direction of a mixed-use option at the Mace Ranch Innovation Center asks us to consider an option which is not even officially on the table.” He continued, “I think that the inclusion of housing… dilutes the effectiveness of the city’s dispersed economic development strategy.”
He added that it wastes potential revenue-generating business space. “Frankly,” he said, “I think it threatens the electoral success of not only the Mace Ranch Innovation Center but very possibly any future innovation park plans.”
Councilmember Frerichs believes that, without housing, the project offers the opportunity to create new jobs and expand the workforce. The focus for several years has been on the need to diversify revenue making for the city’s many needs.
He reiterated that he has consistently been opposed to a mixed-use component at the MRIC, saying, “I’m really concerned about the situation that we’re in, that the perfect being the enemy of the good with mixed-use housing versus innovation park without housing which I think will endanger the success of the project overall – the potential that the park itself would fail.” He said, “That’s a gamble at this point that I’m not willing to make.”
Mayor Dan Wolk, seeing the writing on the wall, added that he was skeptical at first, “but I think there are a lot of strong arguments for the housing.” Like the others, he saw the politics as a hindrance to the consideration of housing. “I get at the same time the political calculation,” he stated.
Based on this discussion, Robb Davis moved that staff proceed with the current project proposal and MRIC go forward for consideration without housing. Rochelle Swanson seconded it and the motion eventually passed unanimously.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
They voted down the housing not because it wasn’t a good idea but because they didn’t think it could pass at the polls proving once again that Measure R is a failure.
To me this demonstrates that Measure R is a success, in that when the CC chooses to make land use decisions that aren’t aligned with the desires of the electorate, those decisions will be vetoed.
^^^^DITTO^^^^
What’s wrong with the people having a say in how our city is developed? After all we’re are the ones living here who will be most impacted by any projects.
I completely support Measure R, however, I think Misathrop has a point. To a person, the councilmembers with the possible exception of Brett, felt that the project could be or would be better with housing, but they didn’t want to risk the measure failing and therefore are going forward with what they think is an inferior project.
David, the point you and Misanthrop make would be correct if there were no other available sites for housing, but that is not the case. One of the great strengths of the Vanguard is the breadth of perspective that comes from the various posters, and the wealth of information they bring to the conversations. During the MRIC housing discussions it was pointed out (I believe by CalAg, but I could be wrong on that) that there are a number of currently available housing sites close by MRIC. One of them is the 44-acre Mariani property inside the Mace Curve. Another is the 6 acre property on the northwest corner of the Alhambra and Mace intersection. A third is the 25-acre Wildhorse Ranch property.
One of my fellow FBC commissioners made an interesting point to me in a late Monday afternoon telephone conversation. Specifically, that even if housing were approved for MRIC, the developer’s discussions to date appeared to indicate that Phase One of the project would not include any housing. Without any actual proposal on the table, it was impossible to know if that would be the final gameplan, but the discussions pointed that way. So, his argument was “Why rush a housing decision when all we have is theoretical housing demand?” He then went on to make the point that the development of Phase One and the marketing of Phase Two to Innovation companies would provide the developer and the community with real information about real housing demand. Armed with that real information, the community could then look at its housing options. The Inside the Mace Curve property is zoned Agriculture, so it and Wildhorse Ranch would be subject to a Measure R vote. He argued that armed with real information about real demand from their tenants and prospective tenants, the MRIC developers might actually bring forward a Measure R plan of their own.
Matt: I preferred further inquiry into whether this was a better approach and electorally viable. However, after talking with Rochelle Swanson following the meeting, I really came to agree with her. That said, my point was and remains, that the decision was more about electoral calculation than it was the best project. The points that you are making are good but they don’t really undercut that point that Misanthrop makes. People will read this as supportive of housing, whereas in reality I am joining your call for more evidence-based decision making.
The other factor that clearly came into play last night was timing. Because a complete and accurate analysis of the fiscal impact of MRIC with a housing component is currently not available, and won’t be possible until an actual proposal is received by the city, a November ballot date for MRIC with housing was in serious jeopardy.
The Council members last night clearly said that MRIC with housing might be “better” on paper whenever that paper actually arrived, but that a MRIC Measure R vote delayed beyond November 2016 was “not better.” With the possible exception of Robb, what they were saying was that the timing of the “not better” wiped out the possibility of “better on paper” in this case.
Timing is a strange concept here. I mean we are talking about a vote that is at least eight months away. We should’ve used some of that time for a better understanding of the benefits and the voter preferences. The council is capitulating to the loudest voices in the room.
“The other factor that clearly came into play last night was timing.”
This is a second problem with Measure R, projects are being evaluated based on the electoral calendar instead of the analysis required to get the best possible project.
In the case of Nishi the vote to put it on the June ballot was done despite calls for more traffic analysis.
For MRIC an honest study of the merits of housing was precluded by the desire to get it on the November ballot.
A delay of Nishi might put two proposals on the same ballot and fear of a Measure R rejection of a ballot with too many projects on it foreclosed that possibility.
It all adds up to Measure R resulting in bad planning.
Measure R is a success for those who favor mob rule and has been a particular success for the anti-development contingent in town. It has been an absolute failure for those who prefer good planning and smart development. We should be looking to create the best projects that optimize land use while addressing the City’s needs for business and residential growth. Measure R is just a blunt instrument designed to frustrate all development and has changed the calculus from creating the best projects to accepting those that are considered politically possible.
When you talk like this you discredit yourself. It’s hard to take someone seriously when they equate the voters with mob rule.
Under-informed voters are no different than a mob, more responsive to emotion and less so to rational discussions of facts. That is exactly what the anti-development faction needs, a populace that responds to their emotional pleas on ‘quality of life’ impacts rather than the rational ones on how we manage growth and also ‘pay our bills.’
What percentage of the voters in Davis are qualified City Planners? What percentage pay close enough attention to the details to make rational, rather than emotional, decisions on development projects? We have a representative form of government for the very reason that most voters do not have the time to understand all of the details of each issue. We elect a City Council to be responsible for those details and to oversee the professional staff responsible for carrying out the decisions. Measure R negates our representative government and replaces it with an under-informed and often irrational mob.
Council voted to pass the Cannery and there’s many that thought and still think that they dropped the ball on that for many reasons. If a Measure R vote was involved in the Cannery project it might have resulted in a better development.
I’ll second that reality.
It’s the right decision and will now pass a Measure R vote. If we have future innovation parks still in the mix I would advise the council and any developers to come forward from the beginning that they want housing on the site, not present a plan just to try and change it down the road.
I’m not so sure. A lot of the people whaling the most last night and elsewhere have been opposed to most projects in town. Will they hold their nose and vote for it? Maybe.
Sorry, but I can’t resist: while there may be a large contingent in Davis who are active in killing marine mammals and opposed to any facility that processes whale meat, I must remind everyone that wailing about what bothers one most is the duty of every citizen.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
One thing that this Council decision did was make this Monday’s meeting of the Open Space and Habitat Commission much more interesting. Based on the OSHC commissioners’ questions and input in their first MRIC meeting three weeks ago, the following topics should all be very active.
— preservation of open space,
— denser footprint,
— building up rather than building out,
— phasing of parking decisions so that parking can be more vertically matched to actual tenants rather than horizontally spread
— preservation of the eastbound Covell Blvd viewscape of the Sacramento skyline
— integration of a Center for Land Based Learning complex into the project
— ag land mitigation
Ha!
With the orchards that have been planted in the last few months it won’t be long before that view is gone.
Pistachios are relatively low profile trees.
To get a sense of how tall those new Mace 366 trees are likely to be after pruning, drive west on Russell along the north edge of West Village, and then look at the blooming trees to the south on the UCD land just before Patwin Road turns off to the left.
I’m not a fan of Measure R because I don’t have faith in the voting public to be educated enough to make accurate decisions on complex issues related to the city development needs.
I don’t see this correct decision by the CC to be an endorsement of Measure R. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
In this case the right decision just happened to align with the NIMBY, change-averse, no-growth voters. That will happen sometimes.
This is not even a “perfection is the enemy of the good” lesson. Putting housing in the innovation park would have made the innovation park less perfect from the perspective that Davis is not short of housing development over the last 40 years… it is short of commercial space.
Yes, the housing shortage is the result of UCD growth… but only because Davis has also grown in population over the years. If you build housing and that housing is consumed by people that want to live in Davis, you can always claim a housing shortage. There is demand elasticity with Davis housing… if we build 100 units because we are 100 units short due to UCD growth, we will maybe be 80 units short after they are built, because there is an existing demand for 80 units for people that just want to live here. You cannot hold the housing exclusive for the employees of the innovation park, and you cannot hold city housing exclusive for the students. So we must factor in that existing pent-up demand.
Housing gets the press because it directly impacts more people.
But the lack of commercial space is a BIG problem in this city that fewer people understand.
We are at risk of losing more and more of our local companies… including retail… because they are either growing or being priced out of their space. And there is really nowhere for them to go.
The few commercial lots that exist are owned by people that know that the demand far exceed the demand and they play games with that land. For example, I am aware of one beloved downtown business that needs to move and got the city to pre-approve a slight zoning exception with a lot they would make an offer on. The land-owner hearing about the exception pulled the lot from sale demanding that the city grant HIM the same zoning exception because it increased the value of his lot.
These games are played because Davis lacks commercial space. The land-owners and the landlords have complete leverage and many of them jack around our local business owners and prospective new businesses.
40 years ago when our population was less than half what it is today we had less commercial acreage than any other comparable city. We were expecting live off the soft money of the university.
And over that next 40 years we developed significant new housing and all of it was consumed by the demand that exceeded the supply. However, we did not develop much new commercial space. We rejected peripheral retail. We rejected peripheral industrial.
Consequently the ratio of population to commercial space grew to the point where the local Davis economy became too small to support our city budget needs.
We need more housing primarily because the demand to live in Davis is high. To build enough housing to counter that demand would mean Davis would quickly grow to 100,000 residents or more.
We need more commercial development because we have failed to build enough and because our local economy is way too small for our population size and budget needs.
The CC got this right but not because of Measure R…
Frankly said . . . “We are at risk of losing more and more of our local companies… including retail… because they are either growing or being priced out of their space. And there is really nowhere for them to go.”
Frankly, in the non-retail commercial sector, I agree with you. However, in the retail sector, not so much. What retail business is Davis losing because that retail business is growing? I can’t think of a single one. With the exception of the retail grocery segment and possibly Davis Ace, because of the shrinking demographics of the portion of our population that buys the lions share of retail products, most Davis retailers are experiencing significant revenue pressures. I would argue that those downward revenue trends are even more important than “being priced out of their space” pressures. Rental prices are less important to a retail business than rental location. Most Davis retail business have the location they want, and would gladly pay the somewhat higher rental rates that those locations command IF their revenues weren’t shrinking, but unfortunately fewer people in the 25-54 age bracket means fewer potential customers, and fewer customers means fewer revenues.
We are losing retail because the rents of our measly commercial retail supply are going up. A pizza restaurant that converts to a night club becomes the new tenant because the business model for a pizza restaurant that converts to a nigh club is the only retail business model that can support those higher rents.
Compared to other cities, our retail space rents are not overly high. You regularly cite Palo Alto as a comparative city. How do Davis retail rents per square foot compare to Palo Alto? Santa Rosa? San Luis Obispo? Alameda? Berkeley? Walnut Creek?
I suspect that Davis will be somewhere around the median of those cities … perhaps even below the median. The problem is that Davis is almost surely at the very bottom of all those cities in dollars of retail sales per square foot.
Your restaurant and night club examples are both services, not retail. Services businesses are not constrained impacted by the demographics shift. Most services serve all the demographic groups. Retail, not so much. I doubt you can cite a retail example.
Why did Deluna’s close? What do you think will come in to replace them in that space?
Frankly: Why did Deluna’s close? What do you think will come in to replace them in that space?
Also the retail clothing store across the street from De Luna’s on the NE corner of the 2nd & E intersection closed down recently. Other stores in the Brinley buildings will also be affected soon, including Watermelon Music. See this.
In terms of retail lease availability, Loopnet has 14 listings for Davis and 29 listings for Palo Alto.
However two of the Davis listings are for property yet to be developed: The Cannery and the Alhambra Center (not approved yet). One is for the the 3 Target Center pads. About 50% 0f the properties are restaurants are used to be restaurants. One is for the Monticello property.
Most of the Davis properties are listed as Negotiable Rate (not surprising given the lack of competition). However, one at 737 Russel Blvd (next to Subway in University Mall) is listed at $37.52 per sq ft per year. It is about 3000 sq ft. There is not a good match in the Palo Alto list, but an example smaller 1,295 sq ft restaurant in a strip mall close to campus is $45 per sq ft per year. That is materially the same given a smaller place will tend to command a higher per sq ft cost. My general sense is that Palo Alto commercial retail is 10-15% higher than Davis… but commands a much bigger retail customer base with all those employees.
Now with the Target pads, the commercial space at the Cannery… and Nishi and MRIC assuming they are approved, Davis will have a healthy supply of commercial properties including retail. Not sure about the Alhambra Center project. I assume that will come up on the CC agenda at some point.
But today, if you are a retail business that needs to start or move, your choices are limited and expensive for Davis.
Other stores in the Brinley buildings will also be affected soon, including Watermelon Music.
Yup.
And they are having a very had time finding a suitable alternative location in Davis.
Frankly: Am I reading you correctly that we have enough housing in Davis?
My point is that we will never build enough housing to meet the demand. We should build housing at 1-2% per year. And if you look at over the last 40 years we have done that plus some. However, in the last 15 years we have stalled a bit. So I am open to front-loading some housing development to “catch-up” but not at the expense of meeting or commercial development needs… which are in a severe deficit.
If we build housing at 1-2% per year, then we are doing enough. If the university wants to grow by 2-3% every year, they will need to build at least as much housing as Davis to keep up with the need.
I agree then with your point.
40 years ago, there was no Prop 13… nor 218… things were VERY different 40 years ago… as to municipal finances…
Facts, not judgements…
I walked out of the CC meeting after that 5/0 vote, dejected. They didn’t put housing in. Makes our job harder. The opposition is winnable, but an easy win is always preferred.
Thanks for being frank and honest.
You wanted housing because you believed it would guaranty a Measure R vote failure. Now it is a long-shot for you to stir up enough stuff to cause enough voters to oppose it. Do I have that right?
I think you should not waste time on opposing the MRIC. Just check the VG… many of the people that tend to agree with your no-growth, no-development position are in favor of MRIC as a complete commercial project.
Without housing – MRIC should now win its Measure R vote.
This assumes that Ramos doesn’t try another stunt (he’s sitting at strike two after first trying to get a Measure R exemption and then the housing bait-and-switch). If he plays this straight down the middle, my opinion is that enough of his initial base of support will come back home and it won’t matter if Harrington’s mischief metastasizes to MRIC.
You assume it was a “developer stunt”…. am thinking it was the City planning staff that generated the ‘push’… might be wrong, but I generally ‘trust my gut’…
CalAg, I realize that your gut tells you otherwise, but I concur with hpierce.
FWIW, I have personally been on the other side of Dan Ramos maneuverings back in 2006-2007 with respect to The Vineyards at El Macero development. First hand. That very clearly felt like maneuverings. This really doesn’t. Staff,with a lot of help from CEQA, was the “pushing” force. JMO.
Blaming “staff” is the same as blaming no one. Which staff member(s) do you believe was championing the addition of housing to the application? Webb? Brazil? Hess? Steiner? White? Pinkerton?
They were following the letter of CEQA Law. The principal staff members charged with that responsibility were Katherine Hess and Mike Webb, with active support by the CEQA-expert consultant Heidi Tschudin, who was introduced by Mike Webb to the Council as “The Contract Project Manager for the Innovation Center Applications.” December 16, 2014 was at the very tail end of Rob White’s tenure, and I would expect that his most active involvement pretty much ended with the RFEI process. I would be surprised if Harriet didn’t review the December 16, 2014 Staff Report prior to its distribution to Council by Staff. The video of the December 16, 2014 Council meeting can be viewed at this LINK
No they weren’t. CEQA law does not require that an alternative with housing be analysed in a commercial project – no matter how many times you repeat this canard or post the rationalization given in the staff report.
You’ve given the well documented names and roles of some of the major players, but have dodged the question of who you think on the staff was driving the housing decision.
CalAg, you are dancing on the head of a pin. CEQA Law very specifically states:
As noted by both Brett and Robb in the December 16, 2014 discussion of the item, VMT mitigation is a quite new modification to CEQA. The question they asked that night and I ask you now is what other alternative can mitigate the impact of the VMTs? Other than a No Project alternative, there really isn’t an alternative other than providing on site housing.
So CEQA does not SPECIFICALLY or EXPLICITLY require that an alternative with housing be analysed, but it does mandate that an alternative that mitigates the VMT impact be analysed.
I’m not sure why it is so important to you to not acknowledge the role that CEQA Law played in the decision.
If you really want a name (for God knows what reason) the most knowledgeable CEQA expert on the City Staff team was/is Heidi Tschudin, so she was probably the “go to” person when it came to the decision to include the mixed-use alternative, which put housing on the table. That is my speculation as to whom you should play the “blame” card on. She was/is also the Contract Project Manager for the Innovation Center Applications.
Just calling you on your “CEQA made staff do it” BS – which is obviously a waste of time.
That is your prerogative. You clearly have your reasons for your competitive approach to this issue. You are passionate about it. I respect that. FWIW, I am as dispassionate as you are passionate. With that said, it probably makes sense to agree to disagree at this time. You have your beliefs and I have mine.
“I walked out of the CC meeting after that 5/0 vote, dejected. They didn’t put housing in. Makes our job harder. The opposition is winnable, but an easy win is always preferred.”
Thanks for lifting my spirits. I went out of there dejected because we have a worse project than we would have.