By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – Prior to the vote on Tuesday, Councilmember Dan Carson made a brief presentation to his colleagues, but also to the voters, arguing in part that the DiSC 2022 project would improve roadway conditions on Mace Blvd.
“This is going to pass tonight,” Carson said. “Why should folks vote for it? The question is, what’s in it for me?”
He responded to his own question, “The first thing that’s in it for them is that this provides the revenue. We need to help run our city without new taxes.”
Carson explained, “Right now, when you look at our budget financial forecast, we’re in the $6 to 7 million a year range for the next 20 years of the money, we need to be sustainable.
“We’ve got a downtown plan nearing completion that would get us a couple of million or more,” he said. “This could go a long way to helping us turn the corner and putting us on a fiscally sustainable. It’s almost 4 million plus almost 30 million in construction taxes and infrastructure. That means less pressure in the future for tax hikes and program cuts. And it helps schools and the county and other local agencies.”
Carson said, “It was said before, and I want to try to make this concrete, this project doesn’t in the long term worsen traffic, it solves the traffic problems. It makes things better. And that’s not my conclusion. That is the conclusion of the transportation experts at Fehr & Peers.”
He said, “There was document released in December referred to as Volume Two Traffic Study that has an amazing amount of detailed information here to sustain this.”
The mitigation calls for additional lanes and signalization.
“They conclude that the total number of intersections operating with an average level of service of F during one or more peak hours, would decrease from nine to zero,” Carson explained.
He explained that the above chart refers to the improvements that would make a big positive difference, by improving the level of service and reducing the amount of time delay.
“This slide shows… where, by their estimates, there’s a very significant improvement on intersections on Mace,” he said.
On Mace and Alhambra, for example, Carson said, “You got from LOS F to D in the afternoon and you save two minutes of delay. At the westbound ramps on I-80, you go from LOS F to LOS E and you save 24 seconds on the eastbound ramps. You save two and a half minutes in the morning.”
“It also helps things south of I-80, because it is all connected,” he said. “Mace and Chiles you go from LOS F to LOS E, and you have two and a half minutes in the morning.”
He adds, “Mace and Cowell improves. Mace and El Macero improves… In the afternoon, you save not quite four minutes of time and delays.”
“So even these impacts may be overstated. EPS, our fiscal consultant, did a more detailed analysis of how many people would live on the DiSC site and how many would work there. Their numbers are significantly lower than the population estimates that were built into the traffic model. I’m not an expert. I can’t run the numbers, but I can tell you the implication here is that it’s quite possible that the numbers I showed you aren’t all the good news,” he said.
Dan Carson argued that “this innovation center could help save our planet.”
He explained, “Our UC Davis colleagues are now managing $968 million in research. Every year. They’re leading in ag tech and sustainability. They’re going to lead to new basic research, but they’re also going to get us to products and things that will help address climate change and prevent it, but also things that if climate change is going to happen, help us adjust and cope with it.”
He said that are a lot of private companies that want to be near UC Davis. Some are their direct research partners while others are folks who work on campus and want to take their research and “turn it into the next generation of products.”
Carson added, “DiSC 2022 is itself a carbon neutral project.
“It’s in the baseline project features, it’s laid out in the EIR,” he said. “They have accountability with the city of Davis. They have to get there by 2040.”
Well there you go. Not only will DISC solve Davis traffic problems it “could” help save the planet.
Yes, and will end Covid permanently, and eliminate halitosis… that’s how hyperbole, plus sarcasm, will put a bike in every garage and a free-range chicken, eating pot, on every farm…
Lots of that going on, on every side of every issue.
Thank you for your contributions in these efforts. I’ll try to do my part.
With UCD as one of the two most important agricultural research universities in the world, facilitating commercialization of sustainable food technologies could save our planet. Agricultural GHG emissions are 14% of the global inventory. If the rest of the world ends up eating like Americans do today, those emissions will skyrocket.
DiSC could focus on this sector just at Woodland’s center is focuses on agricultural production technology. These are two different sides to the food technology coin and quite complementary with each other. If the DiSC developers make a commitment to this path, it could be just as influential in this field as the Stanford Research Park has been in information technology.
What evidence do you have for that statement?
Especially since neither of these planned developments have any announced commercial tenants.
All evidence points to housing being the drivers of both of these developments. The location in Woodland has been planned to accommodate a business park for the past 20 years or so.
And even with those decades-old plans, they needed 1,600 homes included to make it “pencil out”.
Which were included after it failed in Davis.
Of course, we all know the history of MRIC/ARC/DISC, and how it predictably morphed-into a housing development.
Same with Nishi, though they conveniently got-rid of the entire commercial component.
And of course, it was a “non-starter” at The Cannery.
Will that commitment be in the baseline commitments, or just in the developer agreement? 😐
Why and how would a developer make such a commitment? Their job is to fill spaces and bring in revenue to make their investment turn a profit.
If you build it, they will come.
Was that dollar amount before or after adding in the new, ongoing expenses approved by the City Council for purchase and staffing of the DFD ladder truck and the new social services and housing department? (The Director position for the new department is now being advertised at $134,000 to $164,000, plus benefits.)
If the council keeps approving more spending, it seems that the potential fiscal benefits of DISC will be committed to new, ongoing expenses even before ground could be broken.
“ If the council keeps approving more spending, it seems that the potential fiscal benefits of DISC will be committed to new, ongoing expenses even before ground could be broken.”
Completely agree on this point. Increased revenue without cost containment makes no little sense and doesn’t improve the fiscal outlook.
I agree. That’s why in a few years there “could” be a cry for the (wait for it) other half of DiSC to get built in order to pay for future deficits.
Regardless of cost containment, the Studio 30 plan called for 200 acres of innovation space for a 30 year build out. As I have said before, Ramos fully intended to bring back the full property, but the owner for the northern half backed out.
The “other half” of DISC would likely be entirely a housing development, to accommodate the increased RHNA requirements and demand for housing resulting from DiSC. (Assuming that the commercial is successful, in the first place.)
Look at where the bike crossing is proposed. It would serve the “other half” quite well. If I’m not mistaken, it’s already planned to be on the “other half”. It serves no purpose for existing residents of the city. Nor does it serve the commercial component very well, due to its location.
Housing would already be on the shared border, in regard to the current proposal. They would not build commercial adjacent to that border.
And in fact, the current proposal is looking to be partially “reimbursed” for that bike crossing, from other, future developments which benefit from it.
And since they don’t have to build it for years to come (if ever), they’ve got plenty of time to work on that type of deal. It would be part of upcoming campaigns, in support of the “other half” of DISC.
That is, if they can’t find government grants for it.
Again, that information is in the staff report, itself.
Rather than asking why current development patterns (and spending additional money it doesn’t have) have led to a deficit, the city wants to continue on that same path. Just like all the other cities throughout California which are also facing deficits – and which pursue the same Ponzi scheme.
Might the first question be, “why does this continue to occur, for cities throughout California”?
Leaving aside the self-centeredness of this question in the first place, getting stuck in traffic (and the costs associated with that)? Losing farmland and open space? Creating a situation in which further sprawl is pursued? The endless construction zone on local roadways and freeways? Roads that are already filled before they even completed?
Regardless, I believe that people do see a “separation” between themselves (personally), vs. the poor decisions that their cities make (over which they have no control in the first place). If folks are actually asking “what’s in it for me” (in terms of dollars in their own pockets), they may not like the answer. As “evidence”, I’d offer the current fiscal condition of the city – despite pursuing growth. I’d also point to just about every other city in California which attempts the same thing.
Wow, I was reading through this on traffic and budget and hit the above line and went, “WHAT???!!!”. I have to check and see if April 1 had come early this year. How does anybody say S like that with a straight face? Does that really help promote the project to say something that outrageous?
Hey, DiSC(iple) “could” end world hunger and “could” find a cure for cancer.
There’s a never ending list of what DiSC(iple) “could” accomplish.
A tire storage warehouse, for example.
Regarding road expansions (also known as “bigger pants to resolve obesity” – per another commenter), it’s pretty clear that the city and developers are targeting the entire Mace/Covell area for development/sprawl.
There’s no indication from voters that this is what they actually want for that area. And yet, Carson, Partida and others are actively campaigning for it.
Current/probable development proposals include Shriner’s, Palomino Ranch, the area inside the Mace curve, and of course – the “other half” of DISC.
I would argue that both halves of DISC, as well as Shriner’s are outright sprawl.
(Keep in mind that Carson was reportedly part of the group that sued UCD, when they wanted to expand on “his” side of town. That expansion included a possible innovation center, on campus.)
I was assured this was in the baseline features and would be built, and upon that assurance have given my support and vote to DISC. I’m good with the location — having it to the south doesn’t make a lick of sense to link it, and I do believe it should be in a location considering long-term planning, which inevitably will include a DISC North. I’m even OK with a few years of delay while DISC is being built. But I’m not OK with any wording in the baseline features that will allow the undercrossing to be delayed beyond when the housing is built or, as implied by some opponents of DISC, never.
I’d like DISC to tell me why I need not be concerned, so perhaps it is time to summon the Spirit of DISC and occasional Vanguard commenter Wesley Sagewalker:
Hail, hail, fire and snow
Call the angel we will go
Far away, for to see
Friendly Angel, come to me
No, whoops . . . that was the chant to summon the angel Gorgan on Star Trek. Let me try again:
Traffic, traffic, taxes and spawl
DISC has come to save us all
Come by bike or come by bus
Friendly Wesley, come to us
Wesley?
Then, it is a fact that you’re “not o.k.” with it.
They can (and will) build housing, before the bicycle crossing is built. And responsibility to fully pay for it isn’t clear. You can find the actual wording in the staff report.
They would not be able to proceed to Phase II, unless the bicycle crossing is completed. (There’s only two phases of the development, this time.)
You’ve got that right. My guess is that they’ll come close to completing Phase I, and then work with the “other half” of DISC to bring forth their (housing) proposal, on that site. Along with the bicycle crossing.
Again, they’re looking for reimbursement from “other developments” which would benefit from it. In other words, the other half of DISC.
They’re also looking for grants to pay for it.
(Again, this is in the staff report.)