By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – A month or so ago one of the Vanguard commenters asked the question as to why the existing commercial development along Second Street hadn’t fixed the city’s fiscal problems. The answer probably should be obvious—the city is anywhere between $7 and $10 million per year in the hole (maybe more depending on whom you ask) and the development along Second Street, while helpful, is not sufficient to bridge that gap (indeed, even with that development, there remains a huge gap).
When EPS (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.) analyzed development prototypes in Davis, they looked at existing “tech clusters” on the 2nd Street Corridor and Interland, which is now University Research Park.
In particular, it looked at flex-R&D/Office structures.
They write, “Schilling Robotics’ main facility and the DMG Mori Digital Technology Lab, both in the Second Street Corridor, as well as the Marrone facility in Interland URP are classic examples, showing some similarities to office but having larger workstations, more internal equipment, and often roll-up doors to facilitate equipment and materials delivery. Because of the nature of activity involving larger work stations and laboratory facilities, employment density usually is lower than office uses. In many cases, these operations generate substantial B2B transactions resulting in sales and use tax receipts for their host Jurisdictions.”
They noted the following key prototypes for Davis:
- Wet laboratories are ventilated spaces designed for the handling of chemicals and biological materials. They are a necessity for Life Sciences & Health Services and Agriculture & Food Production, even though this type of space is in very short supply in Davis and the region.
- High-load capacity is a concern for many innovative companies that need to power equipment for advanced manufacturing.
- High-speed broadband is a necessity for Information & Communications Technology companies and many other technology-related companies
But we asked the question—how much square footage is there along Second Street? Starting with the 2015 EPS report, they added in the more recent buildings to arrive at a number just over one million square feet.
As of 2015 when EPS ran the initial analysis for MRIC (Mace Ranch Innovation Center) there was roughly 1.03 million SF along Second Street. There has been some construction since then—Resonetics on Cantrill, plus a couple of warehouses. And then there is the Marriott Residence Inn and a few additionally built out Target pad buildings.
Even with Target, Mori Seiki, Schilling Robotics, the Marriott and two cannabis dispensaries, we are looking at a square footage remarkably similar to DiSC and we know from the EPS projections at DiSC that’s bringing in about $4 million per year in revenue at build out.
Broken out in 2015, there was 390K sf of Flex space, 320K sf of Office, 248K of industrial and about 73K of general commercial. Overall in 2015, 37.6% was flex space, 30.9 percent office and 23.9 percent was industrial.
If you drive along Second Street you can generally see why there isn’t more square footage. First, there is a lot of open space. You have the huge swath of the Superfund area from Frontier Fertilizer. There is also the dog park with its open space.
Second, some of the land is owned by the university and thus off the tax rolls for the city. For example, the greenhouse site is owned by the UC Regents but being sold to the USDA. The USDA will be putting additional research facilities there.
The only buildable spot on the corridor at the moment is the spot in front of Mori Seiki—we should have news about that spot relatively soon.
Third, it’s not very dense to begin with. Most buildings are spread out and they are one or two stories.
Further, as EPS notes, “The Buzz Oates properties in the 2nd Street Corridor and Interland URP always have been seen as the ‘overflow’ for UC Davis, and there is very limited available supply with little if any remaining large floor plate spaces available.”
This is a critical point that Tim Keller makes in his recent column.
As we know from previous analysis, this is a problem overall in the city with just 124 acres of private vacant commercial land in the city. And once you take into account the availability of that land, that number quickly gets cut in half.
For instance, on Second Street, the Frontier Fertilizer site leaves just a few spots for development along the corridor.
Not only is there limited remaining space, but the density of the Second Street corridor is also fairly low. In fact, the FAR of this area is only 0.4. That’s well below the 0.8 to 1.0 FAR that DiSC is projected to be.
The EPS report sees the innovation center at Mace as being an addition to the existing Second Street Corridor.
It notes, “While Davis has a solid track record of incrementally growing a tech sector concentrated in two parts of the City (Interland URP and the 2nd Street Corridor), the Innovation Center proposals seek to provide more compelling urban design, use mixes, and levels of investment than have been traditionally realized in Davis.”
However, a straight continuation of the Second Street development patterns, which would result in an FAR of 0.38, while consistent with the existing development along Second Street, would “not provide the end-state concentration of uses contributing to a dynamic environment.”
In short, while the Second Street Corridor is a huge boost to the city, overall it represents about the same size of development that would be concentrated at DiSC in much greater density. Moreover, it is, with the exception of the one key spot, exhausted its ability to expand.
While the city was not able to provide the precise tax take of the Second Street Corridor, we know that DiSC 2022 at just over 1 million square feet is projected at buildout to generate about $3.9 million net. Second Street is probably comparable to that—give or take. To really close the funding gap, the city probably needs the capacity for about 3 million square feet of R&D space. DiSC 2022 only gets them about one-third of the way there.
I disagree! What’s odd in the EPS analysis is that low-level buildings of relatively low-value (storage businesses) and parking lots are somehow sacrosanct, i.e. they can’t be developed or-developed. Somehow surface parking lots are the only possibility (just like a huge part of the surface of DISC). The town symbol – and often abused mascot – is still a bicycle, not an SUV.
In my version of your map everything in RED is available:
* All the low-value buildings and “thicker” parking lots are available, indicated.
* The area behind the superfund site is available.
* The UC land is available because my sub-analysis is about the synergy-through-proximity argument that’s used for DISC, not merely tax revenue.
* The large area across I-80 is included, as in a small section to the west on Chiles.
* What’s on the northside of I-80 plus everything fronting the freeway is corporate (light industrial/offices) and most of what’s south is housing (except for the side facing the
freeway, which could be offices or parking).
* The existing Pelz bridge becomes a direct connector for active transport between the two sides of I-80: The TDM plan for everything here includes an e-bike for all employees and residents, and very little parking.
* It’s possible to add an additional several stores over existing buildings without destroying them but this is an expensive technique.
* Most or nearly all of the parking lots are privately-owned; the City can negotiate this to its advantage — wouldn’t supermarkets want a couple hundred new people nearby? (Parking can be kept on the ground level or put underground).
* Inclusive of the two existing hotels, the new housing on Research Park Dr, some similar low-density and/or greyfields areas in and around Research Park, the shopping center on Pole Line and Cowell (for housing), and the 5th street corridor and eventually the PG&E space and the new direct connection for active transportation from Research Park via Pole Line and the connector to east Olive, and the TDM-mandated e-bikes… there’s a great argument for very low parking provision in the area combined with a cheap to run, electric semi-autonomous shuttle operating on 2nd St to and from Davis Depot most of the day that’s also synced with trains – it could also go to the areas to the south via Pole Line and possibly the two bike-ped connections (Pelz and Olive-Pole Line) if it’s light enough and doesn’t interfere with other users. The PG&E space itself is a short walk to and from Davis Depot and a few minutes by bike to Downtown.
Not sure where you come up with the notion that they are sacrosanct. After all, EPS notes that the proposed site will have about 2.5 times the density of the existing corridor.
The article mentions a superfund site which means there was ground contamination that makes a long term human presence unhealthy/unwise/prohibited. Storage facilities and parking lots are often built on top of such sites. I wonder if the storage facility on 2nd street falls under a similar situation.
You need to be realistic. Workers aren’t going pedal their silly selves to work from Sacramento or Woodland to 2nd Street. You can’t force people to use alternative forms of transportation when the rest of the region supports far more convenient personal automotive transportation and parking.
Tax revenue is the primary (only?) reason to encourage and support more development; commercial or residential.
I’ve had similar thoughts. It would be an incredible break through if some engineering genius could figure out an inexpensive way to add on top of existing structures. But at this point it’s about as realistic as a personal jetpack (which exist….but they’re not widely used and not cheap).
You know underground parking is prohibitively expensive right?
I really like all your ideas about a walkable bikable and mass transit semi-urban area. I miss living in the city and taking the N-Judah to where I need to go or just walking a few blocks to go to a restaurant, bar, go to the gym or buy groceries (or hardware store…there was an Ace Hardware in my neighborhood). But I’m realistic. Davis may feel like an island of “progressive culture” but it’s part of the greater Sacramento region (sprawl). That means that companies and workers have alternatives for commercial space that supports convenient automobile transportation; so that workers can cram their kids in their SUVs to go to school and then drive to work. So like it or not, you have to accept that if you want new commercial development to be part of Davis; it’s going to have to have basic automobile amenities that the rest of the region enjoys.
One thing I kind of appreciate here – reading what I will call Todd’s romantic idealism – a lot of which I agree with in concept – with Keith E’s practical realism – a lot of which I agree with in practice.
-ism
The umbrella is sustainable-ism.
People with cars or families with single cars take the train and express buses from Davis to Sac for reasons including the expense of parking on the Sac side. UC Davis main campus has a similar dynamic, but the rest of Davis does not: Create this dynamic and…. voila! A bit more fortified – a TDM plan that also mandate transit passes in addition to e-bikes to compensate for the proximity of the freeway – to make it work better, and there’s still some surface parking, by the way. In the future we don’t want 2nd St or Alhambra/5th to be long on-ramps as-it-were from Mace to the PG&E space.
One small element I left out is protected bike lanes on 2nd St…. and one VERY large one is the Vic Fazio Mixed-Use Proximity-through-Proximity Plan atop the below-grade section of CA-113. It’s not a superfund site, it’s directly adjacent to UC Davis and existing surface infrastructure (parking would waste space but it could be made to allow egress only to 113), it connects directly to multiple existing neighborhoods and while an engineering challenge it could probably get funding related to its inventive method of doing actual infill (unlike Palomino Place… and the organic ch-ch-ch-cherry on top is that it’s not named after things that formerly lived at the space it uses, like horses, Oak Trees and Woods.)
DISC is based on freeway access; this 2nd St Corporate Proximity-through-Densification Plan is based on existing public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure. Please check out what’s happening with transit-oriented development directly on the BART corridor on the Peninsula between SF and San Jose. The aggregate of the PG&E space, 5th St and 2nd St combined with an upgraded, high speed dedicated passenger railway and an amazing walking-priority Downtown could be done with zero car parking for residents and employees. Idealism, sure, but also – as we speak – being implemented in our Megaregion to great beneficial effect. The new General Plan starts now.
Todd, I actually spoke at a SPUR gathering about TOD about 10-15 years ago in the city. I was tracking because of the significant density bonuses it was providing for development near BART stations. I think it was back in 09 0r 10 that I looked at the Concord BART station area as ripe for redevelopment because it allowed for a huge FAR for a density bonus (I don’t remember the specific details why). It’s taken a while but I think there is some construction going on around there now.
There is no voila to all of this. You don’t just stuff a bunch of transit development in an area and expect people to just start taking mass transit to work. People take transit when it’s the most convenient or best economically viable option. The Bay Area has become so congested that driving to and from work in many cases has become too difficult and expensive (gas…but also bridge tolls). The bay area is building denser transit oriented projects out of necessity (I think Communications Hill in San Jose back in the early 00’s was the last significant sized single family residential development in the South Bay area….probably also including the Peninsula and parts of the inner East Bay). The point being is that there is no more land to sprawl out in the Bay Area so it has little choice but to grow up and denser which will facilitate the NECCESITY for the use of more public transit. But that isn’t the Sacramento region. The Sac region continues to sprawl outward. People in the Sacramento region still enjoy the freedom to drive wherever they want. The result is that commercial biz centers require easy car access (freeway) and parking. To change people’s behavior you need a stick or a carrot incentive. The Bay Area’s lack of housing options and need for density and crowded freeways (I’ve commuted from all over the Bay Area to other parts of the Bay Area over the years….the only part of the Bay Area I haven’t lived or worked is the outer East Bay) are the stick for many people to get them to use public transit and live in denser neighborhoods. And there is nothing appealing enough (the carrot) for the day to day worker in the Sac region to want to take mass transit or live in a dense area that has biking options.
Could you expand on this. I’m not sure what or where you’re talking about but it sounds interesting.
Keith:
Thanks for filling in the blanks.
is over-simplified and carrot-and-stick is I think sort of passe but I can’t recall the Millennial-upgrade.
Davis doesn’t have to swell sickly and smell like the rest of Sac. If people are offered a good job here and they don’t live local and neither walk/bike + transit nor high speed e-biking from West Sac works for them they can park at a train station or express bus stop close to them in the Greater Sprawltomato region and enjoy their own bio-engineered locally-grown coffee on the way as they Wifiwork.
Keith
is my concept and is essentially what I wrote. We use one of many engineering strategies to make it possible for buildings of some sort housing mixed-used activities to exist over 113 in the section roughly between Hutchinson and Covell. (This can be e.g. piles driven into the bedrock to support the buildings, two tunnel-shells and then filled in with dirt…. but that’s a lot of dirt.) Construction of buildings could be done off-site and trucked in, there are options to 113 for construction periods…. it would have a dedicated cycleway, a transitway for autonomous shuttles or buses, etc. ) Extra benefits are that it makes the surrounding neighborhoods much quieter, thus adding value to these properties (not just financial) and gives these folks new ways to get to campus and around.
Well, you were labeled a dreamer. That’s one way of putting it I suppose.
Yeah…no…sorry, I don’t know how else to put it but that’s not how reality works. You can’t just dictate to people how they’re going to live in the community. You don’t seem to accept that people will do whatever is easiest/convenient or least expensive. And that’s not living in a dense little area in an expensive little town riding mass transit and bicycles. Jobs? Jobs go where people want to live.
Once again, this is idea is not grounded in reality. It sounds clever. But that kind of construction is EXPENSIVE. That kind of expense gets passed down to the residents and commercial tenants. That makes it PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE. If this kind of thing was to happen; it have to be a public works project and only a rich city (certainly not one that runs $9M deficit) or a supremely wealthy person could afford to do something like that.
Keith, please stop it with the “Forced”. People are given many options to get to the destination… just like UC Davis main campus or many job sites in Sacramento or other large cities where parking tends to be realistically-priced to reflect its cost, or – in the case of everything from UC Davis to the MTC-managed bridges in the west half of the Megaregion where tolls are used to subsidize public transport.
(The latter issue is big problem with transportation equity in the region: People who live in SF and drive to Sac or Tahoe pay two tolls for every trip; people who live in Sac or Davis pay the same tolls… but in both cases all the money goes to the West Megaregion. Also, while people on either end can energize (gas or electricity) their vehicle on either end and never stop to re-energize en route, the SF-Sac/Tahoe-SF trips bring absolutely nothing in direct economic benefits that respects their noisy and sometimes stinky journey within a few hundred feet of thousands in our town.)
True. In addition, there are lots of workers in downtown Sacramento who have their public transportation costs subsidized by their employer. That, combined with expensive parking makes it a “no-brainer” choice, for many workers (assuming that they’re not eligible for telecommuting in the first place).
Carrot-and-a-stick works, unless you want to spend the first hour or two of your workday paying for the cost of going to work.
Followed by another couple of hours paying for taxes, etc., as a result of that work. (Hopefully, without also having to pay for child care, as a result of going to work.)
You just don’t see the whole picture. DAVIS IS PART OF THE GREATER SAC REGION. There’s nothing in Davis that warrants paying extra for parking or enduring less parking and driving options. So any company looking for commercial space in the region is going to take that into consideration and more than likely go somewhere that allows their employees to easily drive and park were they work. As for residential…again nothing in Davis is worth putting up with less parking and driving options. You keep making references to the bay area. This isn’t the bay area. The bay area has few other options making mass transit a more desirable option. So simply building whatever you think is a good idea is not realistic. You build what people want not what you want.
I have no idea what your latter comment about SF to Tahoe driving is about. All I can say is that I used to do day trips from San Francisco to the Tahoe region (usually Kirkwood) and back quite frequently. In fact the skipals rideshare site still lists one of my posts from over 10 years ago as an examples of a detailed rideshare posting.
Davis is full of this kind of unrealistic “out of the box” thinking. It may be fun to imagine but until you can come up with an economically feasible proposal its a complete waste of time.
Todd
I have to agree with Keith E here, as appealing as your vision is. People generally don’t make changes that are less convenient voluntarily–they only respond on a large scale to either economic incentives or legal mandates. In the Sacramento region, driving is still much, much more convenient than any other alternative mode, versus the Bay Area where transit is at least comparable due to the high densities. We have to focus more on how to facilitate EVs than transit in Davis for now.
Open your eyes, and go see how many people take public transit to downtown Sacramento for work. Including many from Davis.
Are you not even aware of the YoloBus express service? When I was taking it, it was packed (standing-room only, at times.) Employers subsidize this, and parking is expensive in downtown Sacramento.
I’d estimate that 80% of the people in my office used public transportation, to go to work. Including those from locations east of Sacramento.
Though it would be interesting to know how many workers primarily work from home, these days.
Let us know when the electrical grid doesn’t rely heavily upon fossil fuels, and/or harmful mining activities. Not to mention the energy needed to create the Teslas, expand the roadways, etc.
It’s really sad to see people who claim to be concerned about the environment so willing to present and support dishonest claims.
So, the Vanguard is now claiming that the city was planned without sufficient commercial space, relative to the housing developments?
And that DiSC will now “fix” this problem – and that it won’t facilitate even more housing as a result?
Good luck with that argument.
Is David even aware of the developments that advertise on his own publication, such as Palomino Place? Not to mention Shriner’s, the space inside of Mace curve, the “other half” of DiSC, etc.?
The Second Street corridor is not the only commercial area in Davis, by the way.
That seems to be less what the Vanguard is arguing and more your own agenda. In fact, I could have missed it, but no mention of housing at all. The article notes 2nd Street Corridor and URP as the two areas of “tech clusters” (not commercial).
Are you f*cking kidding me, regarding how often and how intensely the Vanguard advocates for more housing development?
For that matter, it’s not just “up to the Vanguard”, regarding the peripheral housing proposals that come forth. The Vanguard (and you) only “shill” for them, but you don’t initiate them.
And since DiSC, for example, would create 2,500 jobs (if the commercial is actually successful), but only 460 housing units, the Vanguard would (the very next day) start advocating for more housing developments. In fact, one of the usual “College Democrats” was doing that just yesterday – did you not read that article?
As would SACOG, since they base their fair share housing requirements on the number of jobs in a community.
DiSC creates a “shortage” of 1,269 housing units that won’t be provided on site. Says so, right in the EIR.
Folks like you claim that the existing housing element plan would accommodate this need, while simultaneously advocating for more housing. Talking out of both sides of your mouth, as usual. Or maybe even a third side, when you start claiming that DiSC also creates “open space”. (The hutzpah of some of these arguments is impressive based upon that, alone!)
The existing housing element was not created in anticipation of DiSC. It only addresses existing demand, without DiSC.
I hope the mods leave this up. It’s probably one of the more telling comments I have read here.
They should, as it’s a description of reality on here.
Even if David now wants to protect his “fragile” students, or so he claims. Despite the heaping mounds of abuse that commenters themselves experience on here, on a daily basis.
Five comment limit is in effect.
Please monitor your own comment count.
Todd makes some valid points, like pointing out the open space on the other side of the freeway needing to be part of the availability grid, as well as the wierd property in the corner of the railroad and mace over-crossing.
But some of the other claims of avaliability are indeed “idealistic” as David and Keith point out.
The greenhouse site is not on the market period. I tried to work with an investor behind one of our local startups ( one NOT on my list the other day because they dont want people to know they exist yet)… person had plenty of money to buy that site… but it is under contract being sold to USDA… theories about synergy be damned.. its just not available.
I’d be interested to hear if the “top” side of the superfund site is actually buildable, but I suspect not. There was a group that came to town looking at the 70k former DMG site and they passed on the deal because of proximity to that site.
I have mentioned it this idea elsewhere, but I recently heared something new which re-inforces this concept…. Which is the fact that the coming downtown plan for davis is going to allow for a LOT of residential redevelopment in our core with NO requirements for parking…. That is an AWESOME step in terms of planning a non-car-centric community, and I fully support it…. but as Keith still points out… we live in a metro area which is still developed around the car… so the people who live downtown will still likely to have a car SOMEWHERE…
I think that the superfund site could be used as a secure remote parking lot for people who live downtown. We only need to provide transit / bikelanes to the remote lot and downtown people can go pick up their car at the superfund site when they need to get out of town…
Anything more than that… I think even if you were a potential owner occupant of something to be built there, I suspect you would find ZERO insurance providers willing to underwrite anything that involves disturbing the soil on that property.
I suggest nobody make any plans for the superfund site for at least a decade or so.
I wonder if federal money could be available for superfund clean up? If someone’s able to throw some housing into the commercial mix on 2nd street, I wonder if state funds (because of the state wide push for more housing) could be found to clean up the site?
Not a problem, as there’s not even commercial demand for it now.
This entire premise – that the city is “running out of” commercial or residential space will always apply – unless the city continues to expand indefinitely and forever. As such, the claim has no meaning whatsoever, but will continue to be used whenever a boundary is established.
And yet, there’s a 350-acre site in Woodland, with no commercial tenants. (The one that failed in Davis, and added 1,600 housing units during its 7-mile “move”.)
Meanwhile, the city is full of empty commercial space, and continues to convert the remainder for housing. (Probably time for Matt to publish those “vacancy” photos, again.)
Remind us why there’s a need for a fourth new hotel as well, including right-across the street from a brand-new Residence Inn.
That has been the main source of money, to date… there are also tax incentives for ‘brownfields’ developers to take over the remediation… there were ‘nibbles’ (expressed interest) from folk as far back as 20 years ago…
But talk about “gauntlets”…
EPA, having charge of the site/remediation/monitoring, and their ever-changing rules/standards, pushed from both ends of the environmental/political spectrum;
City Commissions, particularly NRC, many of whom believe the existing rules/regulations are far too lenient…
Local and some not so local activists who might well press for even less lenient measures than the current NRC might accept…
Risk of acquiring property, then being ‘successors in interest’ responsible for any remediation (the standard for which is in flux)
Lenders, and insurers, goosey about what costs/risks may be involved, and whether any proposal would “pencil out”…
The economy, with interest rates and inflation going up (and rest assured NRC, and the activists don’t care a scintilla about THAT! “Irrelevent!”)
Don pegged it… barring major changes in politics, economy, process, environmental/civil law, not bloody likely that the Frontier site, or those immediately adjacent properties, will develop in the next 10 years, at best.
Frankly (although I’m not he…) many very knowledgeable City staff were pleasantly surprised when DTL, then Mori Sekei were successfully approved, a little less so for Target complex, and properties immediately south of Second Street…
The reality is that just about every town on (or even somewhat near) the coast either doesn’t (or can’t) expand outward, and yet – their economic activity is just fine, thank you very much. In fact, that’s where the vast majority of California’s population lives and works – by far.
Those cities have a lot more economic activity than the sprawling hellholes that make up most of the valley.
(Though despite their strong economic activity, they still generally have significant long-term deficits. The difference is that they don’t have a blog constantly pointing that out in an effort to create more sprawl.)
This is the basic problem that Davis has that other cities don’t.
Retail is not an expanding business. Regardless, the (Bay Area) cities you’ve listed on there are not expanding outward.
Walnut Creek embarked upon a significant expansion of their retail/shopping area maybe 10 years ago, I’m guessing. It’s very nice, but did not require an expansion of their city boundaries.
How about San Luis Obispo? Do they sprawl ever-outward? (I understand you’re familiar with that town.)
Wondering also how all of this compares with (say) Marin county (and/or the cities therein). It seems that they don’t have a great deal of retail OR other business activity, relative to their population. But I haven’t studied in in depth, for the purpose of convincing others that sprawl is needed to sustain a city.
Palo Alto strikes me as a pretty wealthy city, with a population size that’s equivalent to Davis’. (And again, not expanding outward.) I do vaguely recall some fancy shopping areas around there.
I’ve got no problem with expanding business opportunities within Davis’ city limits.
I didn’t know that Isla Vista even had any retail businesses! Looks like Claremont has the same problem as Davis.
Per the state auditor’s website, Davis has three areas of concern: pension funding, future pension costs, and OPEB funding. All other categories are rated as moderate (including revenue trends), with the exception of liquidity (which is rated as positive).
There is not a great deal of consistency regarding direct connections between economic activity, vs. fiscal health of various cities throughout the state. For example, Los Angeles is rated much lower than Davis, but for different reasons. (Not pension funding, for example.)
Here’s a relevant article from 2019, as well:
https://reason.org/commentary/california-state-auditor-ranks-471-cities-on-financial-health-finds-18-at-high-risk/
Fortunately, Davis is not one of the worst cities in this regard. But again, the other cities don’t have a blog to constantly claim that sprawl is needed to “improve” their situation.