One of the big questions is going to be for the next election cycle – just how big a driver is traffic concerns. If we look at the survey results, the percentage of those polled who saw traffic as the most important project was 5 – the same as saw road quality. That ranked sixth on the list. Well behind housing.
Of course just because only one in twenty sees traffic as the most important project, doesn’t mean that a more encompassing question that asked people to rank the top 3 or 5 concerns wouldn’t list traffic.
The issue of Mace Blvd has consistently drawn large and angry crowds. That should be taken into account. Of course, a good percentage of those residents are not city residents, but rather from El Macero. There is another group of folks who are supportive of the road changes.
The more I have viewed the issues here, the less I think they have to do with changes to Mace Blvd. I have noted previously that at other times, the roadways have become impacted as traffic from I-80 causes back ups of those attempting to access the freeway.
I have noted an increase of traffic on Southbound Mace attempting to access I-80 from the north – that is not impacted at all by changes to Mace. Also, it seems that traffic along the frontage to the south of I-80 near the levy has also been increasingly impacted. This is also not impacted at all by changes to Mace.
My observation on Thursday around 5:30 noted that there was no traffic in the two-lane, it was all in the right lane, it extended from I-80 through the on-ramp, past the Mace-Chiles intersection and basically ended at Mace-Cowell with minimal levels of traffic backing up past that.
There are times clearly when the freeway back up goes even further and does back up past Cowell, but clearly, the problem here is less the new roadway configuration and more the traffic routed down Mace 
combined with freeway back ups.
I would prefer to see the city focus on dealing with queuing issues and helping the traffic flow better locally than a full redesign of the roadway.
In the longer run, I think there are probably three takeaways with specific regard to traffic. First, as traffic congests along Mace, the apps that are redirecting traffic that way should adjust. Second, we just may have to accept that there is going to be more traffic impacts in Davis than there used to be. That is just going to be a fact of life living not only a town that traverses I-80 but also contributes hugely to the congestion with bi-directional commutes in the morning and evening.
Third, the longer-term fixes are going to be a widening of I-80. Someone commented that in the long-run lane expansions are counter-productive. Perhaps. But they are missing a key point. The cause of back ups is not necessarily just traffic volume, but also bottlenecks.
The traffic backs up in Davis not just because the volume is high, but also on the west side because the lanes go from six lanes to three. And on the east side, because a volume of traffic enters at the levy which causes a back up there.
When I first moved to Davis, I used to travel up highway 101 to 680. There was a huge problem at San Jose because inexplicably, the lanes dropped down to two, before going back to four. That causes a huge and long bottleneck. When they expanded the full highway to four, it alleviated the bottleneck even though the traffic volume has only increased since.
To a certain extent, the traffic issues in Davis are out of our hands. However, I do believe that with better housing to jobs balance, some of the local traffic congestion could be eliminated or at least reduced.
We noted this with respect to Nishi in 2018. One of the contributors to traffic at Richards is the volume of people coming from I-80 in Sacramento and points beyond and driving through the corridor, exiting Richards and using Richards to access the university.
By building Nishi, for example, the students commuting from outside of the city, will now be able to live next to the university and walk and bike ride.
Likewise, a huge volume of those who work at UC Davis live outside of town and drive to work each day. Producing housing for those workers would alleviate some of the traffic congestion.
In addition, the models we have presented over the years, show a large volume of people living in Davis but commuting outside of town. Why is that? For one thing, the big economic drivers in Davis are government-related jobs – UC Davis, city, school district. But if you for instance work at UC Davis, unless you are tenured faculty or upper administration, you don’t live in Davis because you can’t afford it.
By the same token, if you live in Davis and want to be able to afford to live here, if you are not a college professor or upper brass at the university, school district or city, you can’t afford it. So many residents of Davis work in Sacramento or the Bay Area and commute.
Creating more jobs could allow fewer people to have to take to the roads.
It is true, Davis has jobs, especially at the university, but there is a sizable mismatch between the jobs we have and the ability for people with those jobs to live here. That is why increasingly we have to look at projects holistically.
It is why the first project at URP is not the expansion of their commercial capacity but rather a place for the existing employees to live. It is why we are looking at housing with commercial expansion in the downtown. And it is why ARC will have a housing component. The hope is by better addressing jobs-housing imbalance, we can better address traffic impacts.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“And it is why ARC will have a housing component. The hope is by better addressing jobs-housing imbalance, we can better address traffic impacts.”
Maybe, but this could also be a side benefit rather than the main driver of the housing component. The main component may be the financing. Not that I am opposed. In my view getting both housing and jobs is a twofer. As for the developers getting rich I prefer it to the alternative. I just hope they give back to the community.
The article below supports that statement:
https://www.davisenterprise.com/business/davis-based-company-hosts-meeting-of-biotech-executives-discussing-capital-challenges/
Although not mentioned in the article, the primary way to obtain funding appears to involve the inclusion of housing. Which provides further evidence that there’s greater market demand, for housing. (As if we don’t already see the obvious evidence of that market differential, in Davis and beyond.)
Part of the problem with trying to finance commercial of this sort is that if your build out is really 20 to 50 years, how do you recoup your investors money in a reasonable period of time. As I understand it however, ARC is not going to solve that problem with housing, because the housing is going to be attached to the commercial. It’s not stand alone.
What’s to prevent them from building what are primarily housing units, and leaving the commercial space below empty?
Uh, huh.
By the way, where are their “existing” employees living, now? And, will the new residential units be restricted to those existing employees?
“What’s to prevent them from building what are primarily housing units, and leaving the commercial space below empty?”
Most likely the developer agreement will insist that a certain percentage of commercial is built first. When I spoke with Ramos a month or so ago, he insistent the houses were an auxiliary to the project, not a main component and they would be part of the mixed use infrastructure, not stand alone.
“By the way, where are their “existing” employees living, now? And, will the new residential units be restricted to those existing employees?”
Probably a good question to ask for when the proposal is fleshed out (at least the second part – the first is not answerable).
Well, if it’s attached to the residential, what’s to prevent them from constructing the semi-residential buildings – and leaving the commercial space vacant?
I believe this is what has occurred on a smaller scale, at the Del Rio mixed-use development. That is, the primary market interest was “residential”, not commercial usage. I wonder if some of those commercial spaces are actually being used for residential purposes/storage.
The Del Rio site used to be strictly commercial zoning, I understand.
Are the new buildings planned for URP “mixed use”, or are they stand-alone residential? And, was this also a site that is/was previously commercial-only?
“Well, if it’s attached to the residential, what’s to prevent them from constructing the semi-residential buildings – and leaving the commercial space vacant?”
Because why would they have the housing over vacant commercial buildings? Because the city will require them to fill the commercial first (most likely). Because they are developing a research campus not a housing development. You’re getting into the realm of the absurd here. Dan Ramos stated point blank: this is not a housing project. Why don’t you believe him?
If the answers aren’t known, than why are you presenting it as the “reason” for including housing at the URC site?
Just because we don’t know the specifics of the proposal doesn’t mean we don’t know the reason for including the housing.
Again, you don’t know:
1. where their existing employees live,
2. whether or not they’d actually move to the new housing,
3. whether or not the new housing would be restricted to existing employees.
You have not put forward any support for your conclusion. It’s entirely possible that the developers want the housing to increase profitability, and/or obtain financing (which are closely-related reasons).
(Regardless of where their existing employees live.)
And by extension, you’re putting forth the same unsupported claim at MRIC – even though they have no employees at this point. (Other than the development team, I assume.)
Well, I’d like to see how that works. Are you suggesting that the city won’t allow a semi-residential building to be constructed, unless a commercial tenant is already lined up (and occupying either the semi-residential building, or some separate commercial building)?
Regardless, your response suggests that the city will manipulate the development for political reasons (rather than business reasons). Rarely a good sign, to attract businesses. But again, is that even the primary goal?
Yeah, you’re probably right. Why wouldn’t we believe a developer? Then again, it might have something to do with the (up to) 850 residential units, which I believe is more housing units than the entire Mace Ranch housing development.
I’m wondering if anyone has compared the lease or sales amount per square foot between residential, vs. commercial development.
Same question regarding vacancy rate (residential, vs. commercial).
And then, one might also want to compare that differential, vs. the differential in other communities.
The answer might point to the reason that developers primarily want to build housing – especially in Davis.
I think you really need to educate yourself before posting. You look like a guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about and anyone who understands how this stuff works recognizes it.
You complained the other day about comments going off track and then you go right back and take them there yourself. Developers don’t primarily prefer anything per se. There are residential developers. There are commercial developers. There is also the city that needs both types of development and needs to weigh the tradeoffs.
You really need to stop making personal insults like this. And really, the Vanguard should put a stop to it, as well – without it having to be called to their attention.
You’ve “called out” other commenters for making personal attacks, but it’s actually a routine part of your participation. I plan to consistently point this out whenever it occurs, from this point forward.
The topic here included a “justification” for housing. I, along with another commenter on here, noted what appears to be one of the actual reasons for including housing, from the developer’s standpoint. Which you’ve partially acknowledged as well, in your other comment.
You routinely “participate” in what you’re now labeling as off-topic conversations.
That is not a factual statement.
There are developers who do both types of development. That’s what MRIC is. There are many other examples, around town.
I would also ask if (in general), including residences above commercial space limits the types of businesses that would occupy the commercial space.
I also question the reason that the proposed housing is “attached” to the commercial space. This also appears to be driven by political considerations, rather that a decision intended to attract businesses.
Why not separate-out the housing, if the intention is to attract a variety of businesses (including possibly research and manufacturing)?
Mori Seiki occupies an entirely-commercial building.
Also wondering why the city hasn’t pursued conversion of the retail spaces (adjacent to Target – that no one wants to occupy) to help accommodate the “vast wave” of start-ups and innovative businesses that some are claiming want to do business in Davis, near the Mace Boulevard freeway access points.
Same question, regarding the vacant property inside the Mace Curve (though I don’t know who owns that, or why they’re keeping it undeveloped).
The city wouldn’t “pursue” it because it isn’t the city’s property to pursue such uses for. It would also violate the development agreement, which was pretty detailed for that site with respect to what uses could be considered, right down to which kinds of retail were acceptable and which weren’t to be allowed.
I’ve observed that (from the point of view of some city officials), the line between “pursue” and “allow” seems pretty blurry at times. Some even seem to cross the line into “advocacy”, at times.
I assume that you’re referring to the spaces adjacent to Target. Regardless, “allow” would be a better word – assuming that there’s actually demand. The city has already allowed zoning changes to the sites. Are you stating that it’s “impossible” to change the zoning, or allow it to be changed to accommodate other commercial uses?
What about the space inside the Mace Curve – do you know who owns that, or why they’re keeping it undeveloped?
It’s owned by Mariani Nut Company.
Thanks, Don.
Do you have any other information regarding this (such as the reason that they own it, why they’re holding onto it, why it hasn’t bee developed, etc.)?
No, but they also own two more parcels north of Covell as well as the other part of the parcel that was bisected by Covell. They’ve owned them for as long as I can remember. They are a farming company not a development company, and they didn’t actually even want to be included in the Housing Element task force process the city went through several years ago.
The property inside the Mace Curve seems like an odd parcel for a farming company to hang onto.
They own thousands of acres of farmland and they are not primarily or even secondarily in the land development business. But the land just keeps increasing in value the longer they hold onto it.
The increase is primarily related to its “develop-able” value.
It doesn’t seem likely that this parcel (inside the Mace curve) will remain undeveloped, indefinitely. I assume that it’s also within city limits.
From my perspective, the undeveloped land north and east of Mace/Covell provides a logical boundary, for the city. However, I fear that an attempt might be made at some point to develop the Shriner’s property.
If the zoning has to be changed from Ag, it is still subject to a Measure R vote.
I believe it would have to be annexed – it is definitely a Measure R vote.
Given that there’s a conservation easement to the east, why isn’t that the logical boundary?
Thanks – I didn’t realize that.
In any case, I suspect it might be an “easy win”, if a reasonable proposal ever arises there.
I also suspect that there wouldn’t be any significant resistance to rezoning the parcels adjacent to Target, to accommodate non-retail, commercial uses. (That’s also what occurred at the nearby space that will house Nugget’s headquarters.)
I believe there’s a similar trend nationwide at struggling, retail shopping malls (to accommodate non-retail uses).
The superfund site?
I was referring to the unused (or perhaps – soon to be unused) space at the 2nd Street mall.
The nearby Nugget site was also rezoned, but I’ve forgotten exactly what the former zoning was. I believe it was “intended” for a neighborhood grocery store.
I understand that re-use of the superfund site is years away. (Yet another example of businesses creating future/massive costs for taxpayers.)
The only thing that this “protects” is that property, itself.
The Mace Curve/Covell provides a logical boundary. Anything outside of that is also more costly to develop, and is physically separated from the city by a busy road.
I’m not following your reasoning here. The land in a conservation easement is locked in for perpetuity. The road isn’t.
And frankly, I still don’t really understand how some can look out at the site of the proposed MRIC (or Covell Village, or the Shriners’ property) and only see dollar signs. (Which won’t help them personally, regardless.)
With “bonus points” of creating gridlock, providing an opportunity for extensive viewing of the new developments which created it.
Here’s a question for you, David. Why did you choose to photograph the sunflowers at the site of Covell Village? I believe that you used that photo as part of an earlier, online fundraiser.
Do you think that a photo of a housing development would work as well?
Honestly, do you appreciate what others have done before you, in saving that site (so far)?
I voted against Measure X and walked precincts against it.
Some have suggested that you’ve changed, since that time.
I’m not familiar enough with your earlier efforts to make that judgement.
Since I’ve been following this blog, you’ve appeared to support every development proposal (and are suggesting others – which don’t even exist at this point).
Frankly, I’m surprised that you support Measure J/R.
People have made a lot of assumptions about what I have supported – I have supported the infill projects with the exception of Trackside and Nishi.
From your comments, I gathered that you wanted Trackside to be more “dense”.
I understood that you supported Nishi, but would have preferred the first version of it. Nishi wasn’t technically infill, but I realize that it seemed that way.
You clearly support MRIC, and have indicated support for another peripheral development (e.g., for “families”). In fact, you’ve suggested that the latter would alleviate infill pressures, without evidence.
I’m not entirely sure of your support for WDAAC, but you relentlessly criticized its opponents. And, the proponents attended your fundraiser with the council (and advertised on this blog, as I recall).
I realize that people have different views (and ranges of views), which sometimes change over time.
There were a lot of problems with Trackside. I think the developers poisoned the atmosphere with their approach and in the end, I didn’t think the number of units warranted the disruption to the neighborhood or the community.
I’ve supported a peripheral economic development project fo six years. I believe that if we add one, we won’t need to develop another for decades. In general, I have supported infill and opposed peripheral. The focus over the last five years has been largely on infill, hence the appearance that I am more pro-growth than I am.
I was largely neutral on WDAAC – recall I had the two columns – if I were to support and if I were to oppose which fairly accurately laid out my positions. I disagreed with tactics and approach of the opponents of the project which also made me seen more pro-the project than I was.
In fact, didn’t you refer to the WDAAC developers as “social justice champions”, or something to that effect? (I’m referring to another commenter’s statements, regarding this.)
I didn’t. They sponsored an event we held at the level of sponsorship called “Social Justice Champions”
If I were in your position, I’d probably be uncomfortable having a developer sponsor that event. Even more so, given the controversy regarding the Davis preferential buyer’s program proposal.
Actually, I’m pretty sure that developers wouldn’t want to have anything to do with any blog I’d run.
To each their own.
Yes – and you’re the only one (of the two of us) who’s running (what I presume to be) a financially successful blog, perhaps with more growth opportunity in the future. Probably no easy task.
I appreciated the exchange here, regardless.
Now THAT, folks, is IRONY.
Ron: you are exactly correct. The Vanguard sold the title “Social Justice Champions” to the WDAAC developers. It is my belief that the Vanguard sat down with them to develop arguments for them, as well as relentlessly attacked their opponents. I believe the Vanguard also received tens of thousands of advertising dollars from them.
Relevant notes from the EIR for MRIC, the Mixed-Use Alternative Analysis:
Thanks for posting this. I wonder how many of the underlying assumptions in these notes (and from other portions of the EIR) may ultimately be challenged. As well as exactly how these conditions would be implemented.
I guess we’ll see.
Ron – what’s in the project baseline features?
Why are you asking me this question?
It seems like most if not all of what you’re worried about would be covered by the project baseline features. So I was wondering if you knew what was in them?
Where did I say that I was “worried”? Also, what would prevent them from being challenged, regardless?
It’s kind of obvious though unstated
I would think that the developer (and/or supporters of the development) might be more concerned about challenges to the EIR, than I am.
You’re not challenging the EIR.
In fact, it’s becoming very clear, you don’t know what you’re doing. Nor did you realize that at this stage there are no project baseline features.
Look through my responses, and you’ll see that I made no such assumption.
I immediately realized that your question was simply another attempt to set me up, for a personal attack.
Do you think you’ll ever learn to avoid engaging in personal attacks? So far, your track record has not been good.
As I said above, I’m going to point this out each and every time you do this, unless/until the moderator does his job without being prompted to do so.
Actually my intent was simply to make the point that the project baseline features would lock into place all the concerns you raised (whether they are your concerns or not). The beauty of it is that you never even made the obvious point in response to my initial question indicating that you had no idea that there was no project baseline features at this stage of a project. Everyone who reads this will be well aware of your ignorance of the process. You haven’t raised a single point that can’t be addressed prior to the matter being put on the ballot. But thanks, I needed a good laugh today.
[edited]
My comment was in reference to the EIR. When the baseline features are established, I suspect they may be challenged in some manner, as well.
I already knew that details of the proposal have not been released. I assumed that baseline features would follow.