by David M. Greenwald
The question with these things is always how much of an impact does a newspaper endorsement have for a project before the voters? Under the best of circumstances, probably not much.
Amid signs that the paper is more disconnected from the community, the impact here might be less than usual. But I still find it instructive to look at these endorsements and note the points made.
The paper frames this as “new opportunities” and a “chance to set the roadmap for the future.”
They write: “A research park in Davis has been a longtime dream for civic and business leaders tired of watching brilliant minds educated at UC Davis go elsewhere. The proposed Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus, on November’s ballot as Measure B, offers Davis a chance to leverage its home-grown brainpower and build a true economic dynamo for the future.”
That’s definitely the upside of the project. The question is: will the paper identify and address the concern of some sectors of the public? The verdict on that is mixed.
The editorial attempts to address the gorilla in the room: traffic.
They write: “The specter of more traffic on Mace Boulevard is concerning but pales next to the existing buildup along the Mace/I-80 area. But the key to fixing the Mace and I-80 backups will be 
regional collaboration between the city, county and CalTrans, and while a commercial center north of the freeway adds an extra potential (future) complication, it’s not going to be the determining factor in the big picture. Traffic problems are solvable, lost jobs are not.”
That’s probably not an argument that is going to convince anyone opposed to the project to support it.
But what about those on the fence? Those who see the need for jobs and city revenue, but who worry about traffic and adding more cars and thus GHG emissions?
They don’t address greenhouse gas for the most part, but they do offer the argument we have: “The worst-case alternative is that we continue to be a bedroom community for other tech businesses that do end up being built to the east and to the west. Then we get all the traffic and all the pollution, but none of the economic benefits.”
That’s not bad. I would probably point out that Davis has a competitive advantage in proximity to the university plus stronger environmental standards. And I would have hit on the sustainability issue that the paper completely whiffs on.
But the paper instead doubles down on the fiscal benefits.
They note: “The city expects the project to add a net $5 million annually to its budget to support essential services and amenities like parks, greenbelts, and sports facilities without raising taxes. Additionally, it would generate more than $1.3 million annually in new revenues for the Davis Joint Unified School District.”
They raise several other points.
First, they note the much needed “research and innovation space” and that the project over a 20-year buildout (that’s very optimistic, by the way) would bring about 2.65 million square feet of business and innovation space.
Second, they argue that this would slow the “brain drain” of students and others leaving the area by attracting high-paying companies that could look to the east rather than here.
Third, they note our “retail base” such as it was is “shrinking” and argue that “nobody knows what the total long-term effect of the coronavirus is going to be, but we can count on it making the situation much worse.”
They also view the 850 units and 153 affordable units as “a welcome addition.”
They pay minimal homage to those concerned that this will become a housing project: “As a Measure R vote, the project’s ‘baseline features’ would be locked in. One of these is that housing construction can’t begin until 200,000 square feet of commercial development are developed. After that, it’s one unit per 2,000 square feet of commercial space. DISC’s priorities would be set into law.”
All in all, this is an argument that is likely to appeal to the core supporter of DISC and unlikely to address people on the fence or skeptics to give it another look.
They conclude: “It’s a big decision, but Davis voters have never shied away from big decisions. A yes vote gives us a chance to take control of future growth in this town. By approving Measure B, we can establish a roadmap for what the economy and what our community will be.”
Hey, you’d rather have these if you are supporting the project than not, but this argument is unlikely to move the needle.
Councilmember Dan Carson posted a couple of comments: “As co-chair of the Yes on B campaign, thank you so much Davis Enterprise for your support for our cause.”
He added, “To learn more about Measure B and the most environmentally friendly project of its kind it would authorize, please check out our website…”
That prompted Roberta Millstein, one of the folks spearheading the opposition to the project to quip: “It is very telling when a councilmember refers to the website for a developer funded project as ‘our website.’ Democracies should promote informed decisions.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
If you want to listen to a discussion on economic development in Davis, on Tuesday at noon, join Barry Broome and others for a discussion on Zoom. To register, hit this link.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
Thankfully, a local blog flies overhead shouting, “Here I Come to Save the Daaaaaaaaay!”
Wait, what? A City councilmember can be the chair of a campaign for a local measure that benefits a development project? Maybe there isn’t an issue with that, but it sure seems like there should be.
Why not? There’s no conflict of interest. All five current Council members and our local Assemblymember are listed as endorsers of Measure B.
Another problem with the term “conflict of interest”… under the law, it means getting a special or unique “FINANCIAL benefit” from items considered… Eric accurately points out that does not apply to the endorsers. All those mentioned must annually do Form 700… which is public record, and discloses financial interests…
Too bad we don’t have a Federal Form 700… headlines in the Bee might have been different today, if we had that…
There may not be a legal conflict of interest, but one might say that it’s hypocritical for Dan Carson to have reportedly been a party to the lawsuit against UCD in regard to the housing and “innovation center” that was proposed on campus a few years ago – on “his” side of town, citing traffic as a concern.
Actually, in reviewing a copy of the lawsuit (from 2003), it appears that the “research park” (on campus) would have been primarily on the south side of I-80 (at Old Davis Road). 27 acres on the south side of I-80, and 11 acres on the north side. With 1,400 parking spaces.
Bottom line is that I’m not sure if the research park itself would have been accessed from “Dan’s neighborhood”. As I recall, that was an issue with access to the housing, instead.
Perhaps UCD simply figured out (like everyone else) that these types of proposals are simply not viable, unless they’re subsidized by housing. Even if the entity is not subject to property taxes, etc.
Perhaps the only difference being that UCD figured this out almost 20 years ago.
They weren’t concerned about the ‘research park’, they were concerned about traffic from West Village clogging Russell Blvd. So the university just blocked that egress. Traffic from West Village exits onto La Rue Rd.
Thanks for confirming what I wrote.
Did UCD ever formally explain the reason that they didn’t pursue the “research park” on campus?
It was because they didn’t need to. Davis, West Sacramento, Woodland, and Sacramento all had proposals.
David: Was that the official reason given?
Also, did all of those communities have proposals 20 years ago?
Note that the only “successful” one is the heavily government-subsidized (small) development on UCD’s medical center campus.
Actually, I’ve never heard of one in West Sacramento, as the entire city looks like a commercial redevelopment zone. (Exaggerating somewhat here.)
West Sacramento reminds me of that slogan painted on San Bruno mountain: “South San Francisco – the Industrial City” (something like that).
West Sacramento is home to all of the industries that Sacramento or Davis don’t want, or cannot house as cheaply and easily. To some degree, that’s kind of true with Woodland (in regard to Davis).
It doesn’t make him a hypocrite. I think NIMBY describes his behavior better and that puts him right in the mainstream of Davis politics.
Dr. Millstein:
This is an informed decision. Her comment is off base. This project has been discussed and debated every way up and down and sideways. It is perfectly appropriate for a council member to take a position and work toward approval.
https://davisvanguard.org/2020/06/planning-commission-unanimously-moves-disc-forward-to-council/
The Davis Enterprise endorses Measure B. OMG as predictable as heat in summer. When have they ever opposed a measure J/R vote? Even the Sierra Club has a more mixed record having endorsed 1 of six votes.
They have the same record. The Enterprise opposed Wild Horse Ranch in 2009. So they supported 5 of 6 while the Sierra Club, only supported 1 of 6.
I’m not surprised to see the Enterprise endorse the proposal. They’ve been development-oriented for decades, as are many of these small-town newspapers. I’d be shocked if they changed that, now.
In any case, they have this completely backwards:
DISC (assuming that it’s actually built beyond the stages which include a minimal amount of housing) will increasingly ensure that other communities become bedroom communities for Davis. (That’s already the case, when considering employment at UCD. That’s why there’s already a net inflow of commuters through Davis.)
Ensuring that other communities become “bedroom” communities (for Davis) is a logical result when you add thousands of (claimed) jobs, but only 850 units of housing. (Of which approximately 130 are income-restricted, and which may therefore preclude most workers.)
Even more so, given that other communities have cheaper housing than Davis.
That’s why there’s 5,600 parking spots proposed at DISC (which may not even be enough, if it’s actually built-out).
But the most likely outcome (if DISC is approved) is an immediate clamoring for yet another sprawling housing development, using DISC as part of the justification.
Is the objection that there would be a clamoring for another housing development or that the housing development would result in sprawl? Are the two things necessarily linked? Could additional housing be positive if properly planned—e.g., high density rather than sprawled? Seems to me the issue of sprawl is one for the city council (and voters if Measure J/R/D is involved) to address through proper city planning.
5,000 (or so) “claimed” jobs, but only 850 units of housing (of which 130 are income-restricted – and may therefore preclude workers).
You do the math, as I’ve already noted what’s in the EIR many times. At a certain point, I realize I’m just talking to brick walls, on here.
(As a side note, that EIR “assumed” that a certain number/percentage of workers would be housed in those 850 units. That assumption has apparently since been abandoned.)
I get that. But you used the pejorative term “sprawl” to be the result of the increased demand for housing. My question is whether proper and planned housing development necessarily results in sprawl.
In general, not necessarily (of course).
I don’t view “sprawl” as pejorative term. I view it as a factual one. The never-ending quest to convert open space/farmland, outside of urban boundaries.
(And not necessarily limited to Davis – as a result of DISC.)
OK. I’ve just never heard anyone refer to urban sprawl in anything other than a derogatory manner. The issue is developer-driven growth vs. planned growth.
Ron O
First your conflating sprawl into ag land with increased housing in Davis. As Eric G said, such housing can be supplied increased density with City boundaries.
As to future housing demand, this project sets out 4 phases over a 25 year period, not tomorrow. Over a 25 year period at a 1% growth rate, the Davis population would grow by 20,000. This project would mean that 5,000 jobs would be located within City boundaries rather than in another city. That would reduce the commuting emissions for those 5,000 employees.
I have made this point to Ron a number of times. He’ll argue on the one percent, but at the end of the day, we can accommodate the demand within normal growth projections and Davis retains the ability to reject projects on the periphery.
Richard and (more especially, David):
Again, I’m addressing demand created by the proposal. The supply/demand model is cited by you and others on an almost daily basis, as a justification to approve more housing.
But you purposefully ignore the demand side of the equation, and instead focus all of your efforts on supply.
As far as the “one percent”, I believe that the city is already exceeding that policy.
Then, there’s SACOG RHNA requirements, which are partly based upon the number of jobs in a community.
If you’re suggesting that this proposal wouldn’t increase pressure to develop (additional) peripheral lands, then you’re simply not being honest.
In a sense, I don’t mind “honest” arguments, such as the ones that Don or Keith E. put forth – even if I’m not necessarily supportive of those arguments.
“But you purposefully ignore the demand side of the equation, and instead focus all of your efforts on supply.”
“In a sense, I don’t mind “honest” arguments, such as the ones that Don or Keith E. put forth – even if I’m not necessarily supportive of those arguments.”
I’m going to not address your points.
Instead, I will point out a few things.
1. Richard is opposing the project and he disagrees with your argument.
2. You state “purposefully” as though, you cna read my mind
3. You state I “ignore” – I disagree that “ignore” anything
4. You imply that my argument is not “honest” – that’s another unprovoked personal attack
I have laid out my position. You disagree with it. It’s fine that you disagree with it. It is not fine that you have used that disagreement to personally disparage me. I do have thick skin and the ability to shrug things off, which I will here as well, however, you complain that I’m not making an honest argument, when you are in fact doing the same by not taking mine seriously. I simply disagree – I believe over a long period of time, we can accommodate the housing needs generated and have mechanisms in place to deal with them.
The bottom line is that the “supply” of local housing is not necessarily a fixed number, as you seem to be claiming.
And if your claim was actually true, then you’d be supporting a development which will create a shortage.
Don’t both of you ALREADY claim that there’s a local “housing shortage”? How does creating even more unaddressed need fit into your arguments?
Don’t you think those politically mutually exclusive concepts? The urban density housing build up thing is a myth (for a city like Davis). Yes, it’s nice and it can put some nice small units in the city boundaries. But do you really think you can stuff some significant number of the 20,000 projected growth into urban dense units in a city like Davis? I mean, personally I’m all for urban density communities. I miss being able to walk to coffee shops, bars, restaurants and the ability to hop on the N Judah to get to more restaurants and entertainment. But I’m realistic too about development. Single family tract homes are what sell and what sells is what gets built.
There is no way Davis can provide for sufficient housing growth using only infill projects. There is no way those projects will be affordable. The way to provide for sufficient housing will be to expand the city’s boundaries. We need to stop pretending otherwise.
And by the way, the “one percent” is a soft cap, not a requirement to fulfill. (Addressing RHNA is a requirement.) The “one percent” policy is based upon units (regardless of the number of bedrooms), not people.
The entire region is expected to grow at less than one percent, for years to come.
Keith E. is correct, in that there is no way that Davis would absorb 20,000 (people?), without approving even more peripheral developments.
Again, David – your position is dishonest, as it is fraught with internal conflicts (regarding your overall position). Sorry, but that’s the truth.
One needs to look no further than The Cannery, regarding the type of housing that appeals to families.
And if they can’t get it in Davis at a price they like, they’ll just look to other nearby communities – which will continue to provide it. That’s why DISC would be a commuter-oriented workplace (if it was viable).
The ENTIRE regional and state housing market is more expensive than it was in the “old days”, leading people to seek housing in locales where they can afford it (and get more for their money).
Maybe it’s time to stop chasing one’s own tail.
As a side note, there are families who can easily afford Davis, El Dorado Hills, Folsom, etc.
It’s not really all that expensive, in Davis (e.g., compared to what some can afford).
In Mace Ranch, I think houses sell for around $650K or so. I’ve seen new families in that neighborhood, recently.
“One needs to look no further than The Cannery, regarding the type of housing that appeals to families.”
How many families live in the Cannery?
And truth be told, that’s been going on since the gold rush days. I read somewhere that San Francisco prices really took off (in a VERY extreme manner), during the period soon after the gold rush started.
Prior to that – prices never changed, when Native Americans controlled things. Strangely enough, I believe they had very few homeless people, as well. I won’t go into the lack of parking problems or keeping Yosemite “open”, at that time. 😉
Brick walls don’t reply.
I don’t know.
But, I do know that this is the type of housing that other nearby communities provide, at a lower price. With yards, to boot.
I’m sure this is the type of thing that families weigh, when deciding to move into a given area.
Don,
Yes, this is part of the point I was trying to make. But the other part is that I don’t necessarily advocate for more housing. To me it’s not fait accompli that there will be 20,000 more people and that houses will be built for them. By the other extreme Davis could decide to not build any additional housing and it’ll effect the number of people that choose to live in Davis. Obviously that extreme possibility isn’t likely either. The second part of the point I was trying to make is that growth itself should not be a goal or resigned to be an inevitable fact. Growth should be a tool used to enhance the existing community. This is why I believe that business park should happen and that it should happen incrementally. Housing growth can go along incrementally as well when a tangible economic benefit (to the existing community) can be made for growth.
Eric…
Neither have I…
Why do you believe this?
The DISC project by itself isn’t a reason for new housing.
I do not know what the metrics are for figuring out when to add new housing becomes beneficial to the community (I’ve actually been working on that with some city planners…from other cities… and a former city planner). But at some point a justification can be made that additional housing will be an added benefit to the community. The most obvious first benefit might be a traffic benefit. Politically an environmental argument could be made if there are enough commuters to the business park. But then you have to add into the mix of people spending locally. But to do that you need to plan on an additional commercial component to go with any planned residential growth to better capture that revenue for the city.
Simple math shows that the proposal would increase demand for housing, beyond that which is provided by the development.
It really doesn’t get much more obvious, than this.
The development activists on here (and elsewhere) cite the “supply/demand” model (on an almost daily basis), as a reason to build more housing.
“Demand” is one side of that equation. However, the development activists only focus on “supply”. If they were truly concerned about creating housing shortages, they would focus on both sides of the equation.
Beyond that, there are also SACOG RHNA housing requirements, which are partly based upon the number of jobs in a given community.
So what if there’s demand. What difference does it make to the city or it’s electorate?
It makes a difference to those concerned about housing shortages, net influxes of commuters, etc.
But truth be told, it doesn’t appear that the proposal is actually viable beyond the stages which include housing in the first place. Some on the finance and budget commission noted this, as well. One of them called the assumptions a “fairytale”, and a “fundamentally flawed” analysis.
There were also concerns about long-term infrastructure costs, which would ultimately be paid by the city as a whole.
There was a substantial document listing concerns from the finance and budget commission, which was submitted to the external analyst. The analyst responded about 2 hours before the final commission meeting regarding this proposal. (They forwarded those questions and responses to the council, and that’s the last I heard of it.) I didn’t read all of the concerns, but I listened to the finance and budget commission meeting itself, quite carefully (and more than once).
I’m sure that someone could find and discuss that document, if they were interested. But, I believe that the concerns were for the most part, ignored. (As were the concerns from various commissions.)
It always comes down to WHY people are concerned about perceived housing shortages. Many have some poorly informed idea that the the immediate constraints on the housing supply effects housing affordability (it doesn’t).
Influxes of commuters are a good thing. Traffic is a bad thing. People coming into a community to work generate revenue for the city without being major costs to the city as residents (until it gets to the point that it becomes more beneficial for them to be residents).
I’m curious if the projected financial impacts on the city by the project are segregated by the residential and the business park components?
I don’t think that the fiscal analysis is separated into “residential” vs. “commercial” components.
It is, however, separated into phases. The early phases which include housing are the most profitable for the developer.
As I recall, other concerns included an over-valuation of property in regard to assumptions (and resulting property taxes). As well as the permanent impact of increased telecommuting which was “kickstarted” by Covid, etc.
Yeah, this shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. Unfortunately it almost appears that the housing component is propping up the commercial component (and all it’s expensive issues/benefits). I didn’t even have to look at the financial analysis report; to me it looks like financial/developmental house of cards. I think the developer knows fully well that it won’t work as it is….but it’s planned the way it is to get passed by voters.
It’s in the city’s best interest to get an up and running successful business park in the city of Davis. The most effective way to do that is a lean and mean project that is focused on primarily being a business park….and not some idealistic sustainable…quasi-mixed use project (and I love mixed use projects). A business park that offers a competitive advantage over other business parks (and like I said, the cost of rent is the biggest competitive issue).
Yes. That is exactly what I support for that site, and what I believe the planning process we went through originally was proposing. The bells and whistles and housing are all add-ons. Hence I am neutral on this proposal. If it passes, fine. If it fails at the polls, I hope the developers will come back with a normal business park proposal.
The housing is good for the developer in terms of ROI, I guess, but not great for the city and it dilutes the fiscal benefit.
Don,
I wonder how a stand alone business park project with a Mello Roos district tacked onto it (for infrastructure) financially pencils out for both a developer and the city. I’m more familiar with those bond measures used to support infrastructure for housing.
I support more of a staged commercial build out. Start with one lean and mean business park. Then plan for more subsequent business parks to be built (with more bells and whistles/sustainability added on in later parts). I think it would also be less of a shock to the infrastructure initially. Infrastructure could be built out as it financially makes sense for both the developer and the city.
While I believe this project is an overly convoluted and extremely poorly thought out project (forced to be so by whims of Davis electorate), ultimately a business park for Davis is a good idea. The project will under go some painful development problems. I suspect that after the the business center will have problems attracting tenants at the rates they needed for the business park owner (probably still the developer at that point). The developer will cry about the the economy (regionally and/or locally) and tell Davis that it needs to built out the homes…or you’re going to be stuck with a partially built housing project next to a floundering business park. At some point in the future it will all stabilize…..probably after a bunch of houses have been built the biz park operates in the red for a while.
What exactly is this magical competitive advantage? One thing I know is that other than some industry specifics (that are usually put in as specific tenant improvements) START UPS LOOK FOR CHEAP RENT. They also tend to be located near their investors. So why is this business park any more special than one in Woodland, Sac/West Sac? What magic does UCD produce that makes the added cost worth it? And doesn’t UCD have it’s own plans for a business center? Environmental stronger standards from the perspective of the companies (and their investors) just mean more rent cost.
On an unrelated but amusing note; I was at the grocery store yesterday evening and told a checker how I was surprised they were out of so many things. The checker said that the students are back and descended on the store like locusts.
I’m just glad that you didn’t say that. 😉
It’s something I would have said if I was annoyed enough. But while there were numerous things missing on the shelves, the only thing I didn’t get was cheap parmesan cheese for the kids.
The lofty ideas behind the DISC project remind me of the Sony Metreon in San Francisco. It also had lofty overly convoluted ideas about itself. It was supposed to be a cultural commercial technology exhibit kind of place with Microsoft and Sony taking up large retail spaces there. But by 2009 all that was left was the movie theater. There was some sort of farmers market kind of thing there where the Sony store used to be for a short while. Now that beautiful space (right next to Yerba Buena Gardens) is completely wasted on a Target store. I had no problem when Target took over Best Buy on Geary. But Target at the Metreon is a complete waste of a beautiful urban space. Oh well….at least for DISC, there’s already a Target located nearby.
Note that a change in the phasing of residential buildout does not trigger another Measure J/R/D vote, per Resolution 06-40:
So the scenario Keith describes could turn out to be the same kind of wink-and-nod limitation as we saw with The Cannery CFD.
I haven’t been following Bretton Woods too closely but isn’t that sort of what happened with that project? Something (or in DISC’s case a bunch of somethings) promised in order to entice voters to pass the project?
Almost everyone commenting knows more about the details of the project than I. I have not yet taken a position on the project. But I did find one comment amusing and this line of “nonreasoning” is part of why I usually ignore the Enterprise.
“Traffic problems are solvable, lost jobs are not.”
This statement was made in support of a development whose conception was based on the idea of bringing in jobs “lost” to other communities.
Pretty much all of them… family of 3-5, family of two, family of 1… all ‘family’…
Good point, and one that I neglected to mention in my response to David’s question.
Wow… at least for some, the ‘shot clock’ ends with 3 minutes remaining… what got cut off,
How many dead people are buried @ Davis Cemetery? Hopefully, all…
Some of them “family members”, as well (as defined by some).
The rest of them, well – who cares. (Sarcastic comment, not directed at you.)