By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – While Councilmember Will Arnold pointed out the planning for Innovation Parks in Davis began in October of 2010 when the City Council established the Innovation Park Task Force, opponents of the previous bill spoke out against the new project and its timeline.
“I suppose you could argue that [the timing of] five months from right now to when the city council will need to have a public hearing is compressed,” Arnold said. “I would disagree with that. I think by any reasonable measure of time, that five months is perfectly adequate for us to get what we need for this proposal.”
Public Comment
But for members of the public who opposed the first DISC project, this is again a rush job that adheres to developer timelines not the community’s needs.
Jeff Barbosa said, “I’m surprised, but I’m not shocked, that less than one year since voters rejected DISC — despite being outspent by the developers — we are seeing another version of this project, that we just voted on in November.”
He said one of the reasons it was rejected was “concern about negative impacts.” He said, “Those concerns have not been addressed. This proposal will only add to the traffic in that area and along Mace Blvd, Second Street, and Alhambra.”
Finally he said, “This processing timeline may be convenient for the applicant, but it’s not adequate for serious review by the commissions and community. Necessarily rushing the timeline benefits with developer, not the city, and it could prevent additional committee hearings on critical issues that arise.”
Roberta Millstein noted that two years ago many complained about a rushed timeline, and said, “unfortunately I’m seeing that same mistake made.”
She said, “Again, there’s only time for each commission to see the project once. There’s no time for them to review the EIR, and I think that’s a problem. And again, this was a problem last time and commissions ended up having to rush through and have multiple meetings — extra meetings — in order to do it.”
She noted that there are “substantial changes to look at,” arguing that it’s not just a smaller version of the previous proposal.
Ron Oertel said that what really bothers him is that the original EIR itself “stated that it’s going to create more jobs than housing. And that would be true of this one, too, if the commercial is successful. So why are the same people who are concerned about housing pushing this proposal?”
Pam Gunnell said, “If the city truly wants good planning, then DISC-2 is the antithesis of that. The proposed housing is located in the far Northeast corner, the furthest point in the project from any connection to the city. Why is the council even entertaining a proposal that would allow such extreme peripheral housing? We have a general plan predicated on not sprawling. We have a citizenry that clearly has voiced their support for infill both in terms of the environment and the future fiscal health of the city. It’s crucial that the city use existing infrastructure and not sprawl.”
Larry Guenther said, “It is distressing repeatedly to see the city bend its timeline and process to the will of a development applicant. Given the direction sought by the initiative, put forward by the commissioners and other community members in mid-2020, the timeline for the DISC 2.0 Project outlined in staff recommendation goes in precisely the opposite direction. It severely limits commission input, and asks for that input before the documents for the project are complete.”
He added, “There always seems to be a rush to get large development projects on for the next ballot.”
Alan Pryor, quoting from the staff report, said “… all of the advisory recommendations were provided to the planning commission and city council as part of the project staff report.”
He then said, “This is a very misleading statement.”
He explained that, “In fact, due to the extremely late release date of the final EIR, many commissions were forced to scramble and hold special meetings in order to submit their recommended baseline features for consideration, but even after doing so, staff then refused to provide any comments to the recommendations from the NRC, the Open Space Commission and the Bicycle and Transportation Commission in both the staff reports to the Planning Commission and to the council — claiming that there was not sufficient time for the staff to analyze them or provide comments.”
Heather Caswell said, “Our city government is being asked to create a special zoning disposition to the existing zoning of the DISC land so that Buzz Oates, a multi-billion dollar development company, can reap enormous benefit built around this development. This billion dollar development company has no legal rights to this rezoning. Our city has no obligation to grant it.”
She added, “There is no question that another multi-billion dollar development with benefit Buzz [Oates], which already manages and bills for 25 million square feet of commercial space in California.” She continued, “But I need to remind the public — and you, our council — that you were not elected to serve a billion dollar private development company. The question is for us is whether it benefits the people of the city that you are the city officials who are sworn to serve. The answer to that question remains a resounding, ‘No.’”
Eileen Samitz added, “It is hard to believe that yet another version of the DISC project is making yet another attempt for approval.” She argued the original intent for the Ramos developers “was for this to be only a commercial tech park for revenue generation for the city. But then there was the bait and switch by the developers to shoe horn in 850 housing units in the middle of this industrial commercial park. So the housing component has significantly diminished the net revenue generation of the commercial component.”
She continued, “Now the Ramos Developers are returning with yet another bait and switch — with the project eliminating over 63% of the research office and development lab, and also eliminating 38% of the advanced manufacturing prototyping and product testing commercial components.
“So the public needs to know that this is just another charade by the developers, which would bring costs to the city rather than the revenue that it was supposed to generate.”
Colin Walsh said “this time there is a new problem. While there are forward thinking plans that were answered, the staff is asking to limit commission input to a single commission meeting, and to disallow any commission subcommittee review. To be clear, the subcommittees allow [commissions] to dig deeper into the issues and come up with more solid recommendations.”
He argued, “In order for us to do a thoughtful analysis, we’re going to need to get the information from the developer. We’re going to need to have a subcommittee that meets on it, analyzes it, and then brings it back to the commission as a whole.”
Council Decision
The council ultimately adhered to the proposed timeline, although they allowed for subcommittees to make recommendations with commission feedback on the EIR, with any and all of those recommendations due by December 31.
Post-Meeting Public Input
For Colin Walsh while an improvement over staff’s proposal, it did not go far enough.
“Thank goodness (Will) Arnold and (Lucas) Frerichs pushed back on staff’s attempts to limit commission input, and allow the commissions some opportunity to analyze the project,” Walsh told the Vanguard later. “It’s a shame the staff so clearly devalued the work of the City Commissions.”
Another Measure J vote. Round up the usual suspects.
Another business/housing project vote. Round up the usual suspects.
I don’t think that had the effect you were intending.
What effect was I intending? Can you read minds now?
I can read yours. You were attempting to counter Ron Glick’s comment by saying the opposite, but you ended up saying the same thing.
Well you obviously got it, so my attempt worked. In my response the ‘usual suspects’ are the people pushing for the project.
But I could’ve worded it better, I’ll give you that.
Funny, I didn’t advocate for this project the last time it came up. You would be hard pressed to find anything I said that supported it back then. I even turned down a yes lawn sign when it was offered. BTW, I also don’t say I’m a yes here.
If I’m being predictable its only in that I’m poking fun at the opposition and pointing out the absurdity of their arguments that are obviously consequences of Measure D.
Ron, where did I say that you’re advocating for the project?
And believe me we all already know that you don’t like Measure J.
“It is distressing repeatedly to see the city bend its timeline and process to the will of development applicant.”
An unintended consequence of Measure J is that the date of the election ends up driving the timeline. All the people who complained about the timeline supported Measure D. They want it both ways. They want an election but they also want to delay the project the timeline. Remember we are 21 years since the passage of Measure J and not one project has broken ground under the ordinance. Complaining that the timeline is too short is laughable.
We recently had an election about a similar project, in the same location, with a larger footprint. The election is nine months away. That is adequate time for a vigorous debate. My guess is that not one of these people will change from being opposed no matter what gets proposed.
“An unintended consequence of Measure J is that the date of the election ends up driving the timeline”
Made this point in the newsletter this morning. They do in fact want it both ways – they want their vote, and want to complain that the vote has to adhere to a schedule that is not entirely driven by the public.
But at the end of the day, the voters make the decision to vote yay or nay, there will be vigorous debate as you note, and the opposition is not disadvantaged by the process.
You want it both ways too.
Funny that they complain BOTH about a project that brings more jobs than housing, and also that the project was changed last time to include housing….
No project is going to please any of these folk, and people like me who want to see reasonable development aren’t organized like these guys are…. I might have commented on this matter…. But didn’t even know the issue was being discussed. And that is the problem in this town. The “we oppose building everything” coalition Is just so well organized that their impact is disproportionate to their actual footprint in the population.
I would urge any city staff or officials to simply ignore these comments from this gang. This same list of people are against every development in this town, and the calls for more time and process are a lie. No amount of time or process will satisfy them. They will be against this proposal after the process just like they are now, and we ALL know that.
Tim, as a person who made public remarks last night, I’m ever so slightly offended by your comment above. But I will get over it very quickly … I’m already over it.
But your comment does bring up some interesting points that are worthy of discussion.
1) “they complain […] about a project that brings more jobs” I have yet to see any evidence that this project will actually bring more jobs to Davis. There are lots of promises, with regularly repeated instances of the expression “Trust us,” but so far there has been nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
2) “No project is going to please any of these folk.” Several different times in the DISC 2020 process I was contacted by the DISC team to try and garner my support. I was crystal clear with them on each occasion, all they needed to do to garner my support was to “make the project real” by showing evidence of the jobs that would come streaming form outside Davis to fill the project. Each time they promised that I would be contacted by their marketing partner, Reynolds and Brown, to review that evidence, and each time, that promise proved to be hollow. I was never contacted. Putting some clothes on this naked Emperor of a project would please me.
JMO
I’ve made similar criticisms of DISC in the past. But the more I thought about it the more I realized that the Developers are stuck. At this point they’re selling vaporware to everybody. They have no project. In real estate development; land development is the riskiest part of the venture. And unincorporated land that has to be annexed and entitled is the riskiest. And worse because it’s in Davis and they don’t know if they’ll even get voter approval. So there aren’t going to be companies that are committed to any significant degree because there’s nothing there yet. I’d equate it to not just seed stage funding to a tech company but money funded based on the idea written and drawn out on a napkin. In residential development, you can’t take deposits on lots until you’ve gotten a final map that legally subdivides the property into lots. So what you’re asking for is like asking the guy with an idea on a napkin for his signed and committed customers.
I understand your point Keith, but I don’t believe it is capitalistically logical. It makes sense in the vacuum of the real estate realities you describe, but like the points you made about housing prices in an earlier thread, I believe there is more at work here than what you have described.
When the supply/demand realities of a single source of demand meet multiple sources of supply, the demand side consciously works to create competition between the multiple sources. The best way to create that competition is to lett the multiple sources know that they are in competition with one another. The amount of money they are likely to save if the competing supply options really do get competitive is worth the effort. Amazon has done that over and over again when considering adding distribution locations to its network. Mori Seki did it here in Davis.
So, I reject the DISC team’s argument that none of the companies they are talking to are willing to be referenced. It seems pretty clear to me that the DISC team doesn’t know how to ask them to do so.
It also does not help that the City does not have an Economic Development Plan. As I mentioned earlier, Will Arnold stated in his comments last night that the planning for Innovation Parks in Davis began in October of 2010 when the City Council established the Innovation Park Task Force. My response to Will is that there is a huge difference between “planning” and actually having a plan. We need go no further than the recent events in Afghanistan to see the difference between “planning for an exit from Afghanistan” and actually having a plan for doing so.
JMO
Gonna have to agree to disagree. What gets deals done is trust in people and institutions. Davis has neither. Who’s THE GUY in the city that get deal done? Who keeps Davis open for business? Is there a development company that operates here that can guarantee success? Nope. Remember the article about Vacaville’s bio-tech facility? It said that once Spanos development was involved it attracted the attention of the big fish bio-tech company that eventually moved to the facility. Vacaville? Pro-growth. Players with reputations for getting deals done. The comparison with Amazon is completely apples to oranges; not applicable. Amazon is a big company that is engaging with cities that are bending over backwards for them. There is no doubt that if Amazon selects that city that they will have a facility built exactly to their needs.
There are no supply and demand forces at work when there’s no supply to speak of. It’s like looking to move to a new facility. You have a turn key facility ready to move into. Another one that is breaking ground and a year or so away. Lastly you have the idea of a project that has to be approved by voters, annexed, tentative and final maps approved…then comes the construction in a town where a good number of the people don’t want you or the new facility there to begin with. Are you going to back some vague idea of a business park that there’s a good chance won’t come to fruition? Probably not.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree. However, I think we are in more agreement than disagreement.
When you say “Who’s THE GUY in the city that get deal done? Who keeps Davis open for business? Is there a development company that operates here that can guarantee success? Nope.” and I say “It also does not help that the City does not have an Economic Development Plan” we are making the same point, just with different words.
Also, when you say, “There are no supply and demand forces at work when there’s no supply to speak of” I believe you are referring to the Davis marketplace alone, and I don’t disagree with that point. However, what I was referring to was the competition dynamic between cities that are competing with one another to attract a company that is looking to locate a new facility. The Mori Seki experience here in Davis is an example of what I was referring to. In addition to Davis they were also looking at locations in the Chicago area (and possibly elsewhere). I can not imagine them withholding their interest in Chicago from Davis, nor their interest in Davis from Chicago. Competition causes potential host cities to sharpen their pencils.
That’s my point. There is no competition that involves Davis. Davis barely has vaporware for commercial office space for tech companies. There’s nothing solid there. There’s not even a track record of business and commercial development to have faith in that there will be a commercial business park option. Davis is that weirdo flakey sketchy guy that you’re wary of doing business with so you avoid him and don’t mention him as an option. That’s why it’s difficult if impossible to get a reading of commitment by companies for future lease space.
Lol, then Matt, complain to David that he didn’t include your comments in his review.
I understand the desire to validate demand for this kind of space, but I’m with Keith in terms of expectations for what you are asking. It’s just not going to happen. No company wants their name as a potential tenant to be used as a political football, even if they felt it was even worth their time to engage in a sales process for a property that may or may not be actually available 5 years after an election and the post-election lawsuits…. Just the whole process is SO toxic… to actually expect these developers to have a list of tenants ready to move in just isn’t going to happen.
Moreover, the question of if there is actual demand for this space is like asking if the sun is going to come back tomorrow…. All of our experience points to yes, and our knowledge of why this is so is consistent with our observations…. I, for one have zero doubts regarding the demand.
That said, I have had “similar” experiences with these developers not answering my direct questions, so maybe that is just how they operate. There are a number of examples that people have pointed out where the last campaign decided NOT to be a really effective communicator… and I think that is unfortunate. It does not breed trust, that is for sure.
Matt keeps insisting that we know who is going to move in before the vote, He has been told why this isn’t the way it can work here by Keith, Tim and myself. Still he persists.
I agree. The only possible exception would be a local company who can wait five years before moving. Shilling was probably the only real possibility of that playing out.
Ron keeps insisting that we overturn Measure J/R/D, He has been told why this isn’t the way it can work here by many, many people. Still he persists.
I want to add, because it still makes me crazy when I hear it about this project “creating jobs”
This project isn’t going to “create” any jobs except for the temporary construction jobs to build it.
The companies that inhabit this park are creating those jobs, and there are only TWO categories of companies who would set up shop in a development like this:
1) Big companies who want access to our well educated residents
2) Startup companies who are founded by our well educated residents, and who want to employ our well educated residents
What does that mean? That this project is not “bringing” jobs to this town: it is keeping jobs from LEAVING this town. The people, for the most part, are already here.
whoever the traffic consultant is who said in the previous EIR that most of the people working here would be traveling in from sac should be fired. The only way that would actually be the case would be if this project changed to focus less on high-tech companies, and more on low-wage manufacturing or wares something like that. The startups that I work with source their labor from davis, and in the few cases where someone is not currently living in davis, it is only because they have been displaced from Davis for lack of housing.
We REALLY need to stop pushing our companies and our talent out of town. This same opposition group complains that UCD is “pushing students off campus and into town” when the campus doesn’t develop more student housing on campus. Well that is EXACTLY what the opposition is doing to the citizens of davis and the industry of davis – choking off supply so that it is forced to go elsewhere. It happened to my last company, it is happening to this day, and it is time that we stop letting the most lucrative potential components of our economy just slip away. It makes me sick.
Quite possibly the most outlandish claim that’s ever been made on this blog.
Of course it would add jobs (if the commercial portion is actually successful). If you’re claiming otherwise, where are those jobs located now?
Probably don’t need a parking lot, then. In any case, I love it when development backers start complaining about their own traffic consultants.
If they were already living in Davis, how/when were they “displaced”? Did they have to move “after” starting to work at your small company?
And when more jobs (than housing) is added as a result of this proposal (if it was actually successful), where are those (new) people going to live?
Let me know when you want a tour of available commercial sites within the city (e.g., at 2nd and Pena).
There has been, for as long as I have been here, a constant exodus of companies and talent. I can name multiple companies where the founders and employees all live in davis, yet work elsewhere, like in west sac, Dixon, Fairfield etc.. My own last company was the same. I founded it here, I lived here, and I commuted elsewhere because we didnt have the space.
I would love to be able to re-patriate some of those companies, but that is harder than just not losing them in the first place. So at the very minimum, we need to stop losing the new ones.
I fully support less parking in this development actually. I want walkable / bikeable and good transit links. I also want it really dense and with as much housing-on-top-of-commercial as humanly possible.
And Ron your tinfoil hat is showing when you say things like “development backers.. own traffic consultants”. I’m a member of the community, someone who unlike you, lives VERY close to this project. Your statement implies that the traffic consultant was “mine” which indicates that you think I’m somehow on the inside of this project…. Sorry to bust your conspiracy bubble, but there are lots of people who support growth who aren’t developers.
Some of us JUST want a place for the high-tech companies who start here to live… along with the employees of those ventures. Is that so much to ask?
I agree 100% with Tim’s comment above, we really do need to stop losing the new ones. There are two immediate steps the City could be doing … without any need for a Measure J/R/D vote … to begin the process of stopping losing the new ones.
1) The City should have an economic development initiative that (a) constantly monitors the currently vacant commercial space in Davis, (b) communicates with the owners of that vacant commercial space, to (c) put into motion the staps necessary to renovate/refit some of that vacant space to become the kind of innovation-supportive (wet labs for example) environment that would stop the loss of new companies … and even attract some new ones.
2) The City should share with the community its Economic Development Plan. Will Arnold stated in his comments last night that the planning for Innovation Parks in Davis began in October of 2010 when the City Council established the Innovation Park Task Force. My response to Will is that there is a huge difference between “planning” and actually having a plan. We need go no further than the recent events in Afghanistan to see the difference between “planning for an exit from Afghanistan” and actually having a plan for doing so.
Ron. You should really just stop commenting, you dont have any actually valueable insights to lend.
For example, you snidely offer a tour of the “avaliable” spaces at 2nd and Peña, while not knowing that all of those those spaces are under LOI to be occupied by a local company who is expanding. Why do I know this? Because in my pursuit of space for startups that I work with, I am already trying to get in-line to occupy the spaces that the same company is moving OUT of when they finally do move.. sometime early next year.
The commercial market is THAT tight. You only reveal your ignorance by claiming otherwise.
When a commercial market is that tight, it means that most companies just go elsewhere. Very few of them have the time or ability to wait for a property to come on the market. The only reason why I can have that kind of patience is because my non-profit is here to serve ALL the startups… and if I cant keep one in town today… at least I can plan to keep the ones that comes along next year here in town….
That is the level we are playing at in Davis; for the future of our local non-univeristy driven economy: its a crisis.
I’ll acknowledge that the one example I provided is based upon seeing a (for lease) sign for an extremely-extended period. Which company is planning to occupy it, and why was there still a sign on it last time I looked (which was quite recent)?
How “tight” is the commercial market? What is the vacancy rate?
Do you think that companies get better-rates in places like West Sacramento? Do you think that’s a factor (and will continue to be, even if this latest iteration is somehow approved)?
How much land is under-utilized (or totally vacant)?
Why does the city continuously allow commercial/industrial sites to be converted to housing? (I can provide LOTS of examples of that).
Why hasn’t the proposal in Woodland announced any commercial tenants, despite being abandoned at its original Davis location years ago (and adding 1,600 housing units during its “move”)?
Why, after more than a decade of multiple, failed attempts is there no new business park anywhere nearby? Why is the current proposal being cut “in half”, but still retains housing?
Seems like it’s time for Matt to “dust-off” those “vacancy” signs that he posted last time, perhaps adding a few more now. Should be a lot easier to accommodate a significantly-reduced proposal.
By the way, why would a hotel still be needed (for a reduced proposal), when there’s a brand-new one across the street?
Developers leave “for sale” signs up until the deposit is received and the deal is 100% done. As for the period of time… that is just the way that these deals are done, especially when working with large commpanies who need to plan their remodels, get quotes for everything, consult their financiers, their insurance providers… etc etc etc.
I will not reveal who is moving in because I do not think that is public knowledge, but I have no reason to be making this up.
There is another plot of land close to that that people like who are just driving by might think is avaliable… but it is in fact in the process of being sold from a state government entitiy to a federal government entity and THAT process will probably take over a full year to complete.
As for overall vacancy rates… you MIGHT be able to find that number for “commercial space” but I have never seen a good number for R&D zoned space… I dont pay any attention to spaces that are zoned for medical clinics or laywers offices.. or retail storefronts. None of those apply to my constiuency. what I can tell you is that the supply of R&D zoned space is effectivley zero – or potentially negative, if that is possible, given that I am already working with a broker to try to take over a space that is NOT YET vacant!
Because housing is the only kind of development that it seems voters have an appetite for, AND because although the commercial space situation is a crisis.. the housing supply situation is a larger crisis. We DO need to pursue both, but we MUST NOT just pursue one without the other. ( This is where Keith chimes in about losing money on housing… )
I dont know the status of that with regards to its approval process.. but the answer is “built it and they will come” That project has been proposed as “build to suit”… but no company will sign a contract to build something anywhere when approvals aren’t done, or basic property improvements like entry roads etc aren’t already in place. I stopped paying attention to that project because “build to suit” fundamentally doesn’t work for startup companies. Maybe there is a future there for cheap building space for bay area companies looking to move out this way… maybe a biotech manufacturing company or something might someday set up residence there… (?) That is the most likely scenario… but again, it is now fundamentaly outside of “my market” which is local tech companies.
Unless he can post vacancy signs for R&D zoned spaces that are equivalent to what is being proposed for DISC, then he need not bother. It is apples / oranges.
That is one of those things where I have an answer.. but I have no power to ensure that what is needed is actually what gets built… so I hope that someone from the city pays attention to these comments and writes this kind of stuff into the development agreement.
An “innovation park” is charachterized by lots of small, well equipped commercial space in a VERY high density mixed-use kind of scenario…. Which means that startups and investors, and advisors and vendors all have a community where they share coffee shops and some restaruaunts etc… Those kinds of “bumping into people” interactions are REALLY impoortant.
One of those things that define the community of a good innovation space is a place for community-related events. Tech demo days, entrepreneur workshops, conferences, lectures…. Those events make sense to be held at a hotel which has conference facilities attatched. It is part of that innovation-focused community which creates a ‘scene’ at this park, and which cannot be replaced by “other hotels across the street.”
That is the answer… but the admitted weakness of the entire DISC proposal and this process in general, is that we can only vote to entitle the property. We cant dictate details like “if a hotel gets built, it must also have a conference center”… ( or maybe we can through the development agrement? ) Dunno. I think those details are REALLY important, because I would much rather have a true, well designed innovation park than just an expansion of avaliable R&D space… though I would still vote for the latter.. because our situation is just THAT tight.
The manner in which commercial/industrial space is currently-zoned is irrelevant. It can easily be changed to accommodate “R&D”, depending upon the location.
The Sterling apartment complex was built on land that was zoned “industrial”, despite housing a facility for at-risk youth prior to that.
If one is going to claim a shortage of commercial space, supporters had better present FACTS regarding vacancy rates, available commercial space, underutilized space, etc. And just saying that “this one is too cold, this one is too hot, this one is too odd” isn’t going to convince anyone. I’ve found that people generally have common sense, when they see something with their own eyes (e.g., in-person, or via photos).
And really, that should be compared with space beyond Davis, as well. Because OF COURSE companies are going to look at that – regardless of this proposal. If the vacancy rate is high throughout the region (and beyond), that indicates a GLUT of space that companies would consider. Without even getting into vacant/underutilized space.
The fact is that this proposal wouldn’t even exist unless the developers could reap the profits of housing on farmland – outside of a logical boundary for the city.
Funny, that’s the OPPOSITE of what development activists usually claim (regarding approval of housing proposals).
So, I’ll just correctly put you in the camp of “MORE OF EVERYTHING” in regard to development, and “LESS OPEN SPACE” surrounding the city. Which is the same line that the Vanguard puts forth.
It’s either approved or guaranteed to be approved. I would think that the DISC developers are keeping a close eye on that, since they’re COMPETING with it.
How much further-along in the process do you think it is than DISC? How soon would DISC “rescue the city”, in your view?
Doesn’t sound like DISC would work either, then. Sounds like places such as West Sacramento would.
“Your market” is fundamentally-different than what was intended for these “innovation parks”. The city was looking for someone to pay its bills (which resulted directly from prior development decisions). The city’s point of view is, “Help Me, Mr. Wizard”.
How much space in ANY CITY, ANYWERE is currently-zoned for “R&D”? Again, are you suggesting that zoning of existing commercial/industrial sites can’t be changed?
The hotel is (supposedly) a big part of the promised “fiscal profit”. Given that it’s a reduced proposal, wouldn’t demand for an included hotel also be reduced? And isn’t demand for hotels significantly impacted on a permanent basis everywhere, as a result of “work-from-home” and “Zoom” options?
As I recall, hotels generally view large conference centers as a money-loser. And that one recent proposal near downtown “dropped” that part of the proposal, as a result.
Sounds like something that isn’t being proposed. They want to “re-use” the EIR, so they’re not going to densify or change it in the manner you advocate for.
See response above, regarding reduced demand for hotels (and money-losing conference centers).
Again, it’s a significantly-reduced proposal (for which there is no demonstrated commercial demand in the first place).
The market is probably *tight” for ANY startup looking for cheap space – anywhere. Your company is directly financially supported by the city, and probably wouldn’t even exist without their help.
Again, they want to re-use the EIR, which is the reason that they aren’t going to change it to your liking.
Ignore Commenter
Ron,
I have been involved with tech companies in Silicon Valley looking to expand and needed space. A good many of them needed specific costly tenant improvements. Ask any commercial broker that represents hi-tech companies. These companies often have specific needs that usually go far beyond basic commercial real estate space.
In my own experience; In the late 90’s, I had to expand an IT services company. The company wasn’t even a heavy user of space in terms of improvements or changes. But we had to add electrical power circuits and insulation to the server room because we had to run air conditioners and keep the room cool. And this is all very minor compared to an R&D tech company that is doing laboratory research or designing microchips. My former real estate company owned an office building in Sunnyvale as a side investment. The primary tenant that was there when we bought the place was a chip company that was being charged an exorbitant lease rate….like at least double or more what they could get if they looked elsewhere. But because of the specific improvements they made to the property for their business they were fine with the lease rate because it would have cost a fortune to make the improvements at a new location and the disruption to their business wasn’t worth it (I think later on they attempted to buy the office building…I don’t know how that went or what happened).
Ron, we are at the point where “the guy who has the most time to blather on gets to win the argument” I am a working man with school age children to support. I cant spend anymore time today on the back and forth with you.
I will leave the conversation with two things:
1) I consider most of your last rebuttals to my last comments incorrect or based on false assumptions / ignorance of what is in store “in reality”…. Maybe I’ll get to them at some other time.
2) Regarding the EIR… I am going to advocate for the best innovation center we can get. I care less about what that means for the EIR. I expect that all of the core research behind the EIR is already done, and that updating it is a matter of tweaking some values in a spreadsheet somewhere. Similarly, the City has already digested the previous EIR, so looking at the difference between the old one and an updated one really should NOT be that big of a deal.
I am going to advocate for the best innovation district that we can get. This development is going to set the tone for all of the rest of the development that should logically should be extended along both sides of the mace curve. As someone who lives adjacent to this development AND someone who cares about the economy of this town, I want that development do be done RIGHT. And THAT I think is the biggest danger here. With the well organized opposition, the developers have an incentive to actually compromise the quality and the vision of their project in order to win approval.
Sterling knocked off a full story from that development to appease local neighbors… For a city that NEEDS high density housing so desperately, this is almost criminal. I really do worry about the same thing happening here.
Quite possibly the most outlandish claim that’s ever been made on this blog. Shows near zero comprehension of how EIR’s are done.
And zero respect for the professionalism of City staff…
If a startup company is moving into a new facility, in all likelihood it’s growing. If it’s growing it’s creating new jobs. In my experience with startups that usually means bringing in outside workers. Yes the primary workers will still be the scientists and engineers; they are usually the core workers. But as companies grow you start to employ more and more business people…which usually comes from the outside.
Aren’t those companies that move here and employ those residents creating new jobs? Maybe not newly employed residents. Also, any big company that moves here is going to bring along a significant number of new employees to work here.
This is more than just a few cases and probably the primary reason new workers will be commuting here (if economic growth ever happens here). You’ll see a mix of people coming from Sac and likely North North Davis (Woodland).
I always find it odd that there is a debate about the virtue of adding jobs. Davis is the only place I’ve ever lived where people want to debate whether job creation is a good thing. In my mind its a through the looking glass kind of debate.
I’ll admit I’m a simpleton on this issue. People having jobs good. People unemployed bad.
Good point Ron. Sad that I even had to feel the need to point out that the jobs being created might not all just be for “non-davis outsiders”
Its a testament to how numb we have gotten to the self-defeating positions often argued here.
If there’s one thing that trumps all in the minds of the unwashed masses….even above jobs…it’s parking and traffic….which I don’t blame them but it is sort of funny.
Once in the Dog Patch in San Francisco I was at a community meeting where a developer came to talk about a huge amount of construction going on in the nearby neighborhoods of Bay View/Portero Hill. Not a peep from the community at the meeting. Then PG&E said they wanted to put in a power relay station near the water (the were running another huge power cable under the bay) and that it would have something like 1.21 Gigawatts of power going through it but the power station would be safe. Not a peep from the crowd. Then UCSF said that they need more space for the buses to drop off employees so they were going to have to take over 5-6 street parking spaces. The crowd got upset and wanted to burn down the UCSF research/hospital to the ground for suggesting taking away a handful of parking spaces.
Yes Keith, in the real world, all of those scenarios will be playing out, just as they are currently are today. And yes, if a company comes here and hires one person, then whatever job that person had before might need to be back-filled, so there is always growth.
I wasnt trying to claim that there would be no net growth of jobs. I was just trying to point out that the users of this development are for the most part, people who are already here. Whether they are actually in town, or recently displaced or whatever.
The arguments being advanced by the opposition to this development are arguments of FEAR. Fear of traffic, and I suspect, also xenophobic fear of unwashed mongrels commuting here from the east.
The point that I was trying to make is that this development is not being done for some outside group of companies or workforce. It is for US. It is for Davis residents and Davis companies. If the net effect of this is that there are MORE productive Davis residents and companies then all the better!
I don’t think there’s any xenophobia going on. And while I do support the project, I do think the fears about traffic are valid and that the developers need to either do something to mitigate it or at least convince the opposition that it’s not that bad.
I agree Keith. They could have done a LOT more with regards to addressing the traffic issue. The least of which could have been pushing back against an assumption of out-of-town traffic.
What gets me is that nobody has put in real work on understanding that traffic issue at its core… Is it people leaving town at the end of the day… or is it people getting off of 80 and onto surface streets in order to get around the backup further to the west…. ? How you resolve that problem depends quite a bit on understanding its cause. And I would think the developers would have invested some attention to that, given that is is probably the largest source of negative opinions for that project.
So for what exactly do these people want more time for the project? What info does Colin Walsh need from the developer that he doesn’t feel he can get in an adequate amount of time? Why isn’t it an adequate amount of time? Why is the project beholden to subcommittee meeting schedules? Why can’t the subcommittees meet more often and speed up their process? Otherwise it all sounds like complaining just so the opposition has enough time to rally the rabble to put up a fight against the project.
Correct me if I’m wrong but commissions are mostly ADVISORY correct? It often appears that the commissions have a jumped opinion of their function and seem interested in defending their advisory territory….it’s in essence; “how dare someone not wait around for us to give our advice”. I’ve often said that business development in Davis is contrary to the way it’s done in pro-economic growth cities. Those cities will do what they can to accommodate plans that will bring jobs to their city. Davis is all about: this is how we (Davis) are, these are the conditions in which you have the privilege to be an employer here…here’s the timeline in which you can jump through a bunch of hoops and entertain us with a socio-political song and dance….oh yeah…there’s a good chance that all your efforts will be for naught because our whacked out electorate directly has the final say.
She’s not wrong. But I look at the housing component of the project as a necessary evil…a bitter pill to swallow to appease some in Davis who want more housing as well as to make the developers more comfortable with being the first to build such a project in Davis. Davis needs to be able to show that it can get something done for business development and economic growth. It needs to be able to show that it’s open for business.
This person’s comment seems that her issue is that the developer is a billion dollar company. Uh..yeah the city has no obligation to anyone to grant rezoning anything. But who’s going to ask for a rezoning of a large parcel of land to develop? A well funded developer. It takes money (capital) to build stuff. I’m not sure what this person thinks is possible….does she think Habitat for Humanity can build those homes and the business park? Should we round up volunteers and the prospective companies that may lease space and have them pick up hammer and nails and build the business park? It’s this kind of whacked out crackpottery thinking is why businesses look at Davis as a weirdo college town.
This would be good thing; less homes for the city to have to provide services for. More workers to come here and work and go home to somewhere else.
He is correct. The small college town no sprawl thing is actually written into the General Plan’s vision. It’s also going to slowly going to cause the city to decay. Somebody sold a bunch of environmentally conscious people that infill development was a magical solution to all future growth needs. The reality is that infill alone can not meet the needs of the city. Infill requires development requires upgraded infrastructure. Here’s an example: Opponents of DISC site the potential traffic problems on Mace Blvd. created by the business park and the homes. If you took that same business park and homes and built a vertical project on 5th street (say on the PG&E property…yes, I know it’s not available), how do you think traffic will be in the city? Could even the local water and sewer lines handle that in one spot? Even if you split off the business and residential components to different spots in the city…the impact would still be huge.
But if Davis stays with the status quo, housing will continue to go up in price (it will likely continue to go up regardless of Davis’ efforts either way) and little economic growth will happen. Davis will become stagnant and the economy will stall and start to slip backwards. It will stick to it’s most basic function; catering to students….trying to sustain the needs of the city primarily on the rising property taxes (increased revenue for those that can move here) and sales tax on students purchases of burritos, burgers and pizza.
A lot of people would disagree with you regarding this. But the original plan was a commercial development, to support the existing city. They had plenty of opportunity to pursue that, but declined to do so – repeatedly.
If this proposal is approved, there will be an increased push to add another housing development – possibly on the “half” that’s being left-out of this version (thereby negating the so-called “fiscal profit”).
(Assuming that a fiscal profit even exists in “half-DISC”.)
.
When I look at the list of the seven commissions that weighed in on DISC 2020,
— Open Space and Habitat Commission
— Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety Commission
— Social Services Commission
— Recreation and Parks Commission
— Tree Commission
— Natural Resources Commission
— Finance and Budget Commission
I believe Keith’s comment above applies to many of them. There are, in my opinion, two notable exceptions, the Finance and Budget Commission and the Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety Commission. Why are those two different?
The key task of the Finance and Budget Commission (FBC) is to review the fiscal analysis for the project, which for the 2020 project was completed for the City by EPS. This current Half DISC project has very, very different fiscal realities from the 2020 DISC project, and EPS is going to have to completely rework its fiscal analysis to address the new project realities. That is no small task. Once the updated fiscal analysis is completed by EPS and reviewed by staff, it will be presented to the FBC for their analysis, questions, and feedback. In numerous prior projects that analysis, questions, and feedback does not happen in a single meeting. EPS and staff come back to the FBC with answers to their questions and responses to their feedback. Frequently that feedback and response loop takes more than two meetings.
Further, In June 2021 in response to the FBC’s unanimous formal communication “that the Finance & Budget Commission recommend to the City Council, based on the analysis completed by the Finance & Budget Commission sub-committee, which provides sufficient evidence that the current 75% marginal cost assumption is unlikely to be correct, that they commission an independent, expert consultant to develop a default marginal cost valuation methodology to use except in cases where a project-specific analysis has been completed by the developer. The Finance & Budget Commission makes this motion in the interest of ensuring that major project economic analysis is as accurate as reasonably possible.”
What does that mean? It means that the 75% Marginal Cost assumption that EPS used in the existing DISC 2020 fiscal analysis is at best suspect. The FBC communication wasn’t specific only to DISC. It applied to every City fiscal analysis of every new development project. Realistically, there is no way that the task of commissioning an independent, expert consultant to develop a default marginal cost valuation methodology can take place in one month, and even if Council could select that independent consultant in one month, it will take much longer than a month to complete the methodology.
Fortunately, City Finance Director Elena Adair provided the FBC with a recommendation that is very helpful and practical in this DISC situation. Her recommendation, provided to the FBC in writing in June, says “For the proposed recommendation related to usage of the 100% of average cost instead of 75%, I suggest that instead the policy would be to provide scenarios presented at two levels of the of average cost (100% vs. 75%) to demonstrate the impact.”
I personally believe that is an excellent alternative, but it does mean that EPS will need to produce two different fiscal analyses of DISC, one with a 75% Marginal Cost assumption and the other with a 100% Marginal Cost assumption. Then the FBC and staff will need to assess the results of those two scenarios, which will surely increase the complexity of the analysis, questions, and feedback process. In my personal opinion, there is absolutely no way all that can happen in a single FBC meeting.
I will address the Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety Commission in my next comment.
The reason I think Bicycling, Transportation and Street Safety Commission (BTSSC) will find the one meeting limit challenging is that the Half DISC project description appears to no longer have the bicycle/pedestrian tunnel underneath Mace. I imagine BTSSC will be asking staff and the DISC team for documentation on how they are going to protect the safety of the people crossing Mace from the project site. Once that documentation is provided, BTSSC will then complete the analysis, questions, and feedback cycle before giving the Planning Commission their recommendation on the Half DISC safety plan.
What gets me, is that the “traffic issue” is a foil… 55% of it is to pick for a “soft-underbelly”, to score coup on.
I still remember well a local proposal to provide a shelter for a battered women’s shelter and their kids (it would be illegal for me to say where)… the issue raised by the neighborhood, including a then PD officer, was “traffic” (secondary was ‘security’)… with like 18 beds, and how many battered women/children, escaping from a bad place, and own cars and/or drive a lot? Really?
‘Traffic” is often used as “the boogey-man”… a PM 10 and or 2.5 spectre… a smoke screen (as it were) that is ‘apocalyptic’ in presentation by folk who cannot/will not own their actual ‘agenda’ publicly… it is what it is.
Many will conclude I’m just being “argumentative”… so be it.
Zoning, true.
Infrastructure/utilities not so much… perhaps “easily” (technically), but for an improved lot, particularly with an existing building, the retro-fit costs can be huge, can overwhelm a tenant, particularly a growing company, or a ‘start-up’… Tim could explain better…
Landowners put all those costs on the initial tenant who requires those. Up-front… no ‘financing’…
Ask any competent accountant who knows what is involved.
There is no infrastructure at the DISC site. It’s a farm, with pretty good soil I believe.
I, for one – would like to see it remain that way. I like it.
I also like the large Shriner’s site, as is.
If the development activists want to propose something, do it INSIDE of the Mace Curve. Right next to the new Nugget Headquarters, etc.
Was thinking you were talking about in-fill… how easy it was to rezone, re-purpose…
DISC has most critical infrastructure close at hand.
So,
is only partially true…
The project narrative indicates that they intend to prepare any needed on site infrastructure to accommodate any future uses. Unlike existing properties.
You say,
It is being farmed, except when fallow… true. But the ‘farmer’ is a tenant… Corporations/trusts own most of the Ag land anywhere near Davis… it is not “American Gothic”, nor family owned businesses, no Ma and Pa Kettle…
Noted. ‘Why’ is a question, but not important. Your preference. As for me, I’m open to the new proposal but don’t have to take a position until June, and need more information before then. I believe I will get enough to make a rational position/decision before then.
You have appeared to have made your decision. Fine… vote against any proposal that changes the property status one iota. But please don’t throw red herrings in the path of those who want to evaluate, and decide… [yeah, like that’s going to happen…]
As much as I support the project, the those with objections that concern traffic are warranted.
I said in an earlier post that the developer needs to either focus on mitigating the traffic issue to the best of it’s ability and/or communicate with the public and alleviate their fears about potential traffic problems.
This is where I go back to the City needs to be a PARTNER with economic growth ventures; for attracting companies and commercial development. What could the city do to help this project along? Traffic seems to be the biggest objection to the project…and probably a legitimate one. The city could show the amount of projected revenue to the city from property and business taxes that will come from the project and then try to earmark some of it for a fund for Mace Blvd. improvements. Maybe explore (if they haven’t already) a special assessment district (Mell0 Roos?) that could also help fund road improvements to the Mace Blvd. area. And put all that on nice big colorful signs for people to read while stuck in traffic on Mace Blvd. I dunno…I’m spit balling ideas again but my point is that that the city leaders need to stop running around like a chicken with it’s head cut off trying to get push through something by the voters while having it’s people’s commissions all riled up in an agitated dither (and the commissions need to chill the !@#$ out and know their place).
I’m glad to see someone admit the goal of the “more of everything” (also known as “those who cry shortage”) activists.
But I’m sad that these folks have infiltrated the council. (Unless UCD proposes something that one of them doesn’t like, on “their” side of town. Of course, that was apparently a “valid” lawsuit.)
Popularly elected CC members represent the broader community than the less of everything coalition.
Yes, they should represent the 83% that voted for Measure J/R/D.
What does that have to do with DISC?
It means that the majority of the council (if it actually reflected the electorate) would be opposed to it, based upon the last outcome.
Same principle with any other development proposal.
There is a consistent (and persistent) difference between elected officials and constituents regarding development issues. Not just in Davis.
I suspect that this is true regarding other issues, as well.
This is reflected at the state level, as well.