The city of Davis is suffering from a number of simultaneous challenges. Over the last few years, it has worked hard to address a student housing shortfall. But, while the city has approved housing for students, there are clear housing needs which have gone unaddressed for young workers, for university employees, and for families.
At the same time, the city is looking at ways to foster economic and commercial development, both as a means for job creation as well as out of the need for more certain tax revenue.
All of these challenges present themselves within a limited framework that makes growth on the periphery a slow, arduous, expensive and uncertain process. Many in the community have opposed further expansion outward. That leaves the internal option of infill and densification as an alternative.
At the same time, while the Davis Downtown remains vibrant, there are signs of cracks there as well. In recent decades, we have seen a shift in the downtown from a retail center to an entertainment center. While some people come to the core area to shop, most come for restaurants, bars, and movie theaters, along with coffee shops and other sources of entertainment.
There are key challenges that have been identified by the city as they head into a future downtown planning phase.
First, the core is an underutilized area. As we have noted, many of the buildings are single story and few go as high as four stories. That leaves very few residents in the core area. There is a 
work-live imbalance in the city of Davis as a whole, but in particular in the core area, as almost all of the employees live outside of the area.
Moreover, the site remains a challenge. The downtown has few vacant parcels, which means that redevelopment will require demolition and then rebuilding, an expensive process.
The city has commissioned consultants Opticos Design and appointed a citizen body to review the downtown and make recommendations. Their preliminary recommendations are to add residential opportunities in the downtown, increase building heights, mitigate costs and uncertainty through a uniform set of rules, and push for sustainability, among other things.
But change in Davis will prove to be difficult. Here I want to address some of the concerns about changes to the downtown and why these changes could improve things in the city.
We start with a smart growth perspective. There are those who believe we should focus on eliminating Measure R and growing on the periphery. For the most part, I don’t see the community supporting that approach and I think it is poor planning as well as poor environmental policy.
But that means if we are not willing to grow outward, we need to consider densification. Densification is problematic, as it puts existing residents into conflict with new growth.
If there is any place we should densify, it should be in the downtown core, as we put people into close proximity with jobs and commerce.
There are, in fact, jobs in the core area, with nearly 2500 – about 29 percent of all jobs located within the city (presumably excluding the university, just outside of the city). That is with a largely under-utilized downtown. Imagine what we could do with more residents in close proximity to retail and other establishments.
Imagine if we could produce flex space and additional office space, and undergo at least small-scale economic development.
Imagine if we could add incubators and startups to places where there is workforce housing, so that young professionals just out of college and looking to start their own company or looking to work for a startup have an actual place to live, in a new and exciting, more urban environment.
That seems to be at least one vision for what the downtown, in close proximity with the biggest economic engine in the region, could become.
But it will take some work to get there and not just because many in the community will resist.
As we have reported, the economic analysis is less than encouraging here. The Bay Area Economics (BAE) model found, as Matt Kowta put it, “the financial analysis demonstrates that it will be challenging for developers to put together feasible projects in the downtown area, particularly if they have to acquire sites in the open market that most likely include an existing structure with some economic life left.”
Those who believe that this effort is largely being pushed forward by developers are largely mistaken. The people on the Downtown Plan Advisory Committee (DPAC) are not developers. Most are community members. But they see the possibility of what the downtown could become.
But we will have to take steps to make this kind of redevelopment – particularly in an era without RDA (Redevelopment Agency) money – possible.
A big part of that is to reduce project risk and establish clear planning guidelines. This isn’t just an issue for developers. We saw this battle over Trackside, where the neighbors were the ones pushing back that the project violated existing guidelines. Part of the problem, as the city points out, is, “The current regulatory framework is confusing because of the six policy documents, two sets of guidelines, and the existing zoning.”
Certainty means certainty for everyone – neighbor and developer alike.
One thing that is clear is if we are going to redevelop, we are going to have to go bigger. BAE recommends we allow “increased densities, so that developers can achieve greater efficiencies of scale on the limited number of available sites, including better spreading the high cost of site acquisition.”
But there is also going to be conflict. There are those who want to impose affordable housing requirements, even on vertical mixed use. There are those who are pushing to go big on sustainability. In the words of Michelle Byars, Vice Chair of the DPAC, “It has been expressed by the citizens and DPAC as a desire for Davis to do something bold, cutting edge, and to be a global sustainability leader.”
Both the city council and the DPAC recognize the conflict there – the need for a balancing act.
Make no mistake – the challenges are real to try to find the resources to remake our downtown. It will be a challenge to figure out the financing. But the upside is, through this process, we may find a way to revitalize the downtown and the broader community – without the need to blow out our borders.
That is probably one area where consensus might be able to form. We have to remember, if we do not end up going up in the core, the pressure to go out on the periphery is going to ratchet up over the next decade and the trajectory of the city might depend on the perception of the residents for how things are going.
Through good planning, however, we may be able to be proactive and reshape our future using smart growth and environmentally responsible models.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Get Tickets To Vanguard’s Immigration Rights Event
Actually, the opposite might occur. As the city is densified (with all of the challenges that presents – including compromising existing commercial areas), this may ultimately cause some folks to say, “hey – how about developing that farmland just outside the city, instead”?
Although I’m not particularly a fan of Nancy Reagan, there comes a point when we might want to apply her statement – “just say no” (e.g., in reference to unjustified residentialization of commercial areas, exceeding SACOG requirements and the 1% annual growth cap, continuing to accommodate UCD’s plans at the expense of the city, etc.).
By the way – I like the drawing for this article: Two new buildings, surrounded by nothing but a plaza and trees! A “fantasy” vision of downtown Davis?
The neighborhood my Aunt lived in the outskirts of Pittsburgh, PA was indeed vibrant with mixed use… the neighborhood was similar to what is proposed…
Are you a ‘one trick pony’? Where anything that results in one more person, one more vehicle (of any kind) is unacceptable? Suggested before… check out Wyoming, Montana… we’ll miss you, but… follow your dreams…
And let the rest of us follow theirs…
Right back at you. They’d probably welcome someone with your views. (Actually, I’m pretty sure that Jackson Hole, Wyoming would not be a good fit for you – given your views.)
Regarding my initial comment, I’m challenging the assumption that increased density prevents sprawl. (In fact, it might lead to it, as commercial areas are compromised, traffic and parking become more challenging, nearby residents object to proposals which dwarf and impact their own residences, etc.)
Again, we have existing guidelines regarding growth and development (e.g., SACOG requirements, the 1% growth cap, etc.). By how much would you propose exceeding those guidelines?
Yet more unsubstantiated speculation from someone who really doesn’t need to be held socially accountable for his statements. On what basis do you make such wild claims about how the downtown develops might lead to sprawl? Do you have any evidence (other than some anecdote from your unknown past)? Bring forward real evidence to the discussion. Otherwise you’re not contributing.
Hey Richard, how does your post contribute?
And how does your’s, Keith?
Thanks, Keith.
My intention today was simply to challenge the assumption that “smart growth” prevents sprawl. I don’t necessarily view it as an “either/or” choice, as presented by the Vanguard and some others. But, as the city is allowed to become more impacted/crowded, at some point folks might look outward as a result. (In that sense, allowing never-ending “smart growth” might very well lead to sprawl.)
I foresaw some of the problems with “smart growth” as soon as it was “announced” as a permanent strategy. And, I realized that some development activists would then “jump onto the smart growth bandwagon”.
I’m not necessarily as opposed to increased density as my posts might suggest, today. But, I am questioning some of the assumptions.
If I could delete and redesign the core and near core of Davis, this is the way I would make it. 4-6 story buildings with retail on the ground floors, underground parking and office and residential in the upper floors, but with a requirement for a percentage of the land being open parks, community farms and natural habitat… and with copious bike and pedestrian paths.
The aesthetic assault of “sprawl” is that which lacks sufficient open space… is a concrete jungle. The way to densify while mitigating that aesthetic assault is to build in sufficient open space.
Because if you don’t then it is density that becomes the new aesthetic assault.
With 85k people using the smallish downtown, it must be close to a 10+k per square mile concentration of humanity. This gets us to a dense urban aesthetic… not a small university farming city aesthetic.
My sense of the conflict about Davis growth is almost 100% connected to individual residents’ perceptions and opinions of aesthetics. My business neighbor who strongly objected to the original design of our office building project now likes to proclaim that he designed “our beautiful building”. Which, in addition to being hilarious, is just one of many examples of people objecting to a development change because they believe it will assault their aesthetic senses.
The other related challenge to this that I note… 90%+ people are TERRIBLE at making decisions related to their aesthetic senses. They are professional critics of the ideas of others, but incapable of designing any beautiful space themselves. My business neighbor must be of that other 10%, LOL.
But I believe that is how development can be done in Davis…. instead of mandating affordable housing that causes us to eliminate open space for a social justice pursuit, mandate open spaces in and around the development that would be of higher density. In other words, instead of the good doctor that posts on the VG having her big yard while blocking the Trackside building, she would eventually come to accept having a smaller yard noting the larger community park and community gardens in her neighborhood. And then more housing can go in and THAT will help address the affordable housing problems from a true supply and demand response.
Jeff: Regarding “aesthetics”, weren’t you (just the other day) advocating for mass removal of trees, downtown? 🙂
In any case, what you’re advocating will not provide affordable housing. (Actually, downtown will probably be the most expensive location in the city, even if all of the “normal” development requirements are essentially eliminated.)
For me, it’s about more than aesthetics. It’s about a refusal to accept that there are practical limits (e.g., regarding the ability to “start over” downtown, what the “purpose” of downtown actually is, impacts on existing businesses, traffic, parking, etc.). Adding more residents would also increase demand for city services, and would drastically alter the downtown environment.
Other cities that have “residentialized” their downtowns have generally allowed them to “die” first, by building peripheral big-box developments. Therefore, those cities had a legitimate argument regarding the need to change their downtowns. This is not the case, in Davis.
I will acknowledge that I’d rather have developers destroy downtown first, before they focus on peripheral developments. (However, I’m not sure that such a “deal” is actually in place.)
But again, my main argument (in reference to this article) is that infill does not necessarily “prevent” peripheral sprawl. (In fact, it might facilitate it, as existing areas are compromised and impacted.)
I’d also wonder which businesses would be able to justify/afford paying a much higher rent downtown, if it’s redeveloped. Especially if some are already struggling due to Internet competition, etc.
Existing restaurants and bars would also be subject to increased rents, possible conflicts with new neighbors (newly-located “above and adjacent” to them), more challenges regarding parking/traffic, “one-at-a-time” construction activity extending for decades all around them, etc.
(Of course, I understand that there could be a conflict between property owners who want to cash-in on the residential opportunities, vs. businesses who might be renting their space.)
If there’s actually a demand for more commercial space (in a “functional” city of 85,000 people), I’m wondering why we’re allowing existing commercial space to be converted (and sometimes completely eliminated – e.g., outside of downtown). I’m also wondering why we’re not seeing more (actual) commercial proposals downtown.
Talked to someone in the know that Ket Mo Ree’s rent is $20k per month. Other than location, that is a small and crappy space for $20k per month.
The problem happening to Davis is the artificial hit to supply is causing rents to exceed the ability of certain retail to locate there. Ket Mo Ree can only survive with a night club.
Pizza and coffee are low labor cost, low materials cost, businesses that can absorb higher rents. Sit-down restaurants and retail… not so much.
If you looking for material impacts where you can use a calculator and not those subjective types connected to undefined feelings, they should be focused on the LACK of commercial development.
Checking Loopnet, the Davis Ace building that is 12,000 sq ft does not have its asking lease price disclosed. Same with several other properties downtown. This is unique in Yolo County and a strong indication that landlords believe they have a seller’s leverage. There is a 7,478 sq ft space at 221-227 G Street for $28.56 per sq ft per year plus CAM. That is $18k per month plus CAM which also gets it to $20k per month.
Restaurant and retail tend to work on thin margins at best. These rents are crazy high and cause many types of businesses to no longer pencil out… especially when the customer demographic continues to trend students and old people.
Jeff: Your 11:54 a.m. comment does not seem to be in dispute with the point that I made.
If commercial space is at a premium, then perhaps that’s what needs to be “densified”. And, perhaps the city should stop converting other commercial spaces (e.g., outside of downtown) to accommodate residential development.
Um, yeah. By replacing them with taller buildings. With retail on the ground floor, commercial on the next floor, and residential above. That’s kind of the idea.
You obviously don’t understand business. Smaller commercial spaces don’t support enough business to generate enough sales to pay for the higher rents.
Retail already exists, on the ground floor (which would likely be displaced, due to increased rent in a redeveloped building). I have yet to see any commercial interest beyond that.
Regardless, the majority of the space would be dedicated for (expensive) residential usage. (All evidence shows that this is what developers and vested interests are actually pushing for.)
False.
False.
Then allow for expansion the commercial space downtown, and perhaps express concern as the city allows conversion of large commercial spaces (for residential usage) outside of downtown, as well.
But again, this doesn’t seem to be what vested interests actually want to do.
If there was some honesty regarding this effort, there’d be an acknowledgement that this is entirely about adding more residential development (since that’s where the money is, for vested interests).
Unfortunately, this is not going to lead to affordable housing downtown, due to the challenges associated with adding a residential neighborhood to an existing, downtown commercial neighborhood. It will be expensive, even if “normal” building requirements are eliminated.
Redevelopment of commercial property to include residential is not generally intended to provide affordable housing.
That is false.
Ron:
(A) Name a developer pushing for this
(B) I think you have to think in terms of prime space. The prime space of mixed use is going to be ground floor retail. In terms of expensive – why? Could go with small units that are relatively inexpensive.
There are vested interests posting on here all the time (including possibly today). (Note that identifying such individuals would directly violate Vanguard policy.)
Not all vested interests are developers. And, since this doesn’t (yet) involve individual proposals, one would not necessarily expect developers to be weighing in (yet).
Besides the Vanguard (and perhaps some on the council), who else is “pushing for this”?
Good, now name one.
David: It seems that you didn’t read, understand, or respond to my 12:54 p.m. comment. (Pretty sure that I can name more than one vested interest who have commented on here regarding this issue over the past few months. But again, this would violate your own policy.)
Now, name someone (other than the development activists associated with the Vanguard), and perhaps some on the council who are pushing for this. (I realize there may be a few others who could be fooled into thinking this would provide affordable housing.)
Read what I wrote again. I said remove them from where we need higher buildings and put them in the open spaces. I think the Hobbs unit posted a picture of Oxford UK.
You claim it is NOT aesthetics, and then you go one to express nebulous concerns that strongly indicate that it IS aesthetics. Maybe you can otherwise quantify your definition of these impacts you are concerned about.
Sure it will. I think you are missing the math.
Today the downtown core area and near core area is mostly single-residences with large lots… most of them are single-story. Magically change that to a large quantity of 4-6 story buildings with open space around them and near-by, and you increase the housing density while also keeping the aesthetic value high. This is just math Mr. Ron. Not rocket science.
This is not my definition (or understanding) of “downtown” commercial areas. Are you suggesting converting existing residential zoning to accommodate mixed-use? (Exactly what areas are you referring to?)
My 11:04 a.m. and 11:38 a.m. comments address some of your other points.
Core and near core areas. We cannot address the housing shortage by focusing only on the existing core commercial areas and not expand the core into the existing core with more commercial and mixed use. This is already happening… we just need more of it.
I’m guessing that you’re referring to Old East Davis (e.g., the area around Trackside)?
(You’re probably stepping right into a hornet’s nest, regarding that. Not to mention the challenges regarding wholesale redevelopment of an entire area, where residents are already located.)
In the “old days”, cities used redevelopment money to tear down entire neighborhoods to redevelop them (and “evict” the residents). (This happened all over the place, including Sacramento. It often permanently displaced “people of color”, as well.)
There is always the racism card to play when all else fails.
I wasn’t alleging that racism would be a factor, in this case. (But, I think there’d be plenty of other challenges regarding your suggestion.)
The purpose of redevelopment is not provision of housing per se. It is to increase commerce in the district. Adding residential does that. Adding commercial square footage on top of retail does that. Your assertion that the primary purpose is residential development is false.
Don: Again, this argument assumes that the downtown has suddenly become “unviable” without adding more residents. (Despite the fact that residents have been added for decades in the city and on campus, without expanding downtown commercial space.)
That argument defies logic, and has no factual basis. Redevelopment will displace existing businesses, which won’t be able to afford the increased rent, as well as the other new challenges, including conflicts with new residential usage (above and adjacent to businesses), parking, traffic, operating in a constant construction zone for decades to come, etc.
No, it is based on the premise that the city would benefit from increasing revenues, and that with a compact downtown the only way to increase the revenues per square foot would be to go vertical.
False.
Those are all factors in redevelopment, yes.
In general, residential development does not generate (net) revenues for the city.
Actually, mixed-use redevelopment is recognized as one of the best ways for a city to increase net revenues.
There’s no support presented for this statement. An analysis would have to be conducted (which includes projections regarding revenues and costs to the city over time), as well as a comparison to other options (e.g., existing or additional commercial development, e.g., downtown).
Ron –
The ‘support’ for the statement has been presented by multiple experts as part of the Davis Future’s Forum. I have posted the link multiple times.
Mark: Perhaps you have (and my apologies if that’s the case). But, I’m wondering if it addresses the following:
If you’re arguing that it does address those points, perhaps you could specifically point out where your link does so?
Some commenters seem to post links to lengthy documents on here in response to specific questions – apparently with the hopes that others won’t actually read/analyze it. I’m not suggesting that you have personally done so, however.
Best bet for tax revenue: mixed-use downtown development
PHILIP LANGDON SEP. 13, 2010
https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2010/09/13/best-bet-tax-revenue-mixed-use-downtown-development
Mixed-Use Development: A Look at What’s Driving the Trend in Cities and Suburbs Alike
Jan 12, 2017
https://www.reonomy.com/blog/post/mixed-use-development-a-look-at-whats-driving-the-trend-in-cities-and-suburbs-alike
A National Examination of the Fiscal Benefits of Smart Growth Development
https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/building-better-budgets.pdf
Don: Ironically, it was you I was thinking of (regarding the posting of general documents which don’t address the specific questions I posted). You’ve done so in the past, as well.
I can already tell that the links you posted are along those same lines.
I’d suggest that the type of questions I’m asking would be of interest to anyone who is actually interested in the fiscal impacts of the proposed changes, downtown. (I’m writing this in anticipation of the comments I often hear suggesting that “I do the research”, in regard to what “you’re” alleging. One of the oldest tricks on here, to deflect the questions.)
Again, here’s the questions I asked (specifically in reference to Davis’ downtown):
See pages 4 – 5 of the third link. Please actually read it before you reply again.
Don: Are you kidding me? It took me all of a couple of minutes to determine that this has nothing to do with the questions I asked regarding redevelopment of Davis’ downtown. Why would you even post these links in response?
What you posted is a generalized document regarding the difference between traditional suburban development, vs. infill development. (Not what I asked.)
Care to try again? Here’s what I asked (for the third time):
(I strongly suspect that such an analysis has not been conducted.)
I was replying to this exchange:
There is plenty of support for the principle that mixed-use redevelopment increases net revenues for a city.
As to
That type of analysis would be done on a project by project basis, by staff and evaluated by the F&B Commission. So you are correct that
because there is, as yet, nothing to analyze to that level of detail.
Mark’s statement has considerable support by those who do urban planning and analysis.
Again, revenues and costs (over time) would have to be analyzed, and compared with alternatives. Without such an analysis, such statements are meaningless.
See? That wasn’t so difficult to acknowledge after all, was it? (Actually, it’s more than a specific “project”, in this case.)
Again, revenues and costs (over time) would have to be analyzed, and compared with alternatives (including the revenues and costs of existing developments. In other words, the “no change” alternative.)
Until such an analysis is conducted, any statements regarding fiscal impacts are premature. (Since there’s apparently some interest by development activists in proceeding without such an analysis, the logical conclusion is that this interest is primarily driven by the opportunity to take advantage of residential market opportunities.)
False.
This may come as a surprise to some, but there actually are people who have been studying these issues for many years, both in academia and the private sector. I am not one of them, but I am capable of reading or listening to their presentations and analysis and understanding the conclusions. The statement that I made above has been well documented by this cohort of experts and will likely only be seen as controversial to those who have a vested interest in remaining ignorant. The Davis Futures Forum speaker series has brought some of these experts to Davis to help educate us all on this and other related topics. For those who missed the presentations, many of them are available online, and as I have posted the links before I will simply state now that Google is your friend.
One of those speakers, Joe Minicozzi, AICP, has several presentations on this topic available on YouTube. In my experience, they are informative and entertaining. There really is no reason or need for anyone here to be ‘wondering’ about this topic. Enjoy.
Mark: What you’re referring to (including the only references that have been provided here) are general statements, comparing “smart growth” vs. “peripheral/suburban” development. This is not the choice that’s being considered, regarding downtown redevelopment. A fiscal analysis would include a “no change” alternative for comparison, and would examine revenues and costs, over time.
No such analysis has been performed.
At least Don has finally acknowledged that there has been no such fiscal analysis, regarding the wholesale changes being proposed for downtown. (Actually, the same thing occurred regarding the megadorm proposals, despite recommendations by some to consider the cumulative fiscal impacts. We had a single example in the form of an analysis of Sterling, which should have raised concern.)
Ron –
Your argument would only make sense if one believes that Davis, CA is such a unique location that everything that happens here works contrary to how things work elsewhere and consequently needs to be studied anew. That isn’t the case so we have no need here to either reinvent the wheel or explain to you how a wheel works.
Mark: Again, the links that were posted today compare infill development, vs. peripheral development.
This has nothing to do with the options being considered for downtown Davis. One of the appropriate fiscal comparisons in this case would be the “no change” option. Another option might be to accommodate an increase in commercial development/density. A third option might be mixed-use, at different densities.
An analysis would compare revenues and costs for these options, over time. This has not been done. Posting irrelevant information does not consist of an analysis.
Redevelopment also allows for poorly utilized private parking lots to be replaced with new mixed-use buildings. The block between 3rd and 4th, and F and G, being a prime example. At least 1/3 of that block is occupied by single-use private lots that provide virtually no revenue. Replacing those private lots with buildings would increase the available commercial space downtown, add much needed residential space, and dramatically increase the property tax revenues generated by the parcels.
The Cool Climate Network out of UC Berkeley (run by Chris Jones who lives in Davis) has maps showing relative GHG emissions by zip code. The more dense communities generally have lower emissions. Interestingly, 95616 is better than average at 40 tons/person/year, while 95618 is worse than average at 65 tons/person/year.
http://coolclimate.berkeley.edu/maps
Thread cleanup: 4 comments removed.
As an ordinary retired person who has lived in Davis since the 60s, I favor densification. But a statement made about the expense of tearing diwna building to build a taller one remimds me to ask about two properties that we drive by frequently – the abandoned insurance/UCD building on Chiles Rd and the abandoned convalescent hospital on Pole Line Rd. The cost to tear them down must be horrific since no one is doing it yet. Will those two eyesores ever be developed?
Laurie: If I’m not mistaken, you’re referring to 1) 3820 Chiles Road, and 2) the former home of Davis Healthcare, on Pole Line Road.
3820 Chiles Road will be developed into an apartment complex, and the former Davis Healthcare building (which also isn’t far from the Sterling development) likely awaits the same fate.
In other words, both sites are likely being changed from commercial to high-density residential development (as occurred with the Sterling site, which was previously zoned industrial). (While some are simultaneously claiming that there’s a shortage/demand for commercial space, but which will only occur if there’s even “more” residential development downtown.)
Just in case you’d like to see a link regarding 3820 Chiles Road (as well as other development proposals):
https://cityofdavis.org/city-hall/community-development-and-sustainability/test-development-projects