By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – I never bought the idea that a small amount of supportive retail at DiSC would somehow cannibalize the downtown. That never seemed to be a realistic possibility.
If anything, the long-term economic growth and new businesses attracted to the city should “provide benefit to businesses in the Downtown and throughout the City.”
As explained in the staff report, “Retail uses shall be limited to support (to the Innovation Center) commercial uses, which may include lodging, conference space, restaurant, fitness and other convenience services. Said uses should not compete with the downtown and neighborhood shopping centers and shall be appropriately limited in size to achieve the objective of serving the Innovation Center and reducing the need for offsite vehicular trips.”
Still, it seems this was a concern by the subcommittee and the applicants, so they felt the need to allay the concerns of downtown businesses.
According to the staff report, “Prior to occupancy of retail space, Developer will demonstrate that the proposed ancillary retail will not exceed the anticipated demand increase generated by new project employees and residents.”
It continues, “If the analysis demonstrates that the proposed amount of ancillary retail space is outpacing employee- and resident-generated demand, then the ancillary retail uses shall be scaled back to be commensurate with the projected demand or omitted.”
During his presentation to council on Tuesday, attorney Matt Keasling addressed the issue of the impact to downtown.
EPS Consulting estimates that employees on the site will “spend on average $8.3 million offsite within Davis a year – that’s $8.3 million spent at other Davis businesses by the folks living and working here.” Keasling continued, saying “that does not include the almost $42 million in business-to-business transactions where the businesses at the 
DiSC site are doing business with other businesses within the city of Davis.”
He continued, “Additionally, what it shows is at full buildout, the annual employee compensation is around $200 million from the people that work at this site, which is a major boost to the regional economy.”
Finally he noted that “as sort of a safeguard against any concern that perhaps our retail will draw people away from the core, we do have a requirement that prior to developing any retail on site, we have to conduct a demand study to show that there is sufficient demand generated on our project site that warrants creation of that retail, or we are precluded from creating the retail until the demand exists from within the DiSC 2022 development.”
Councilmember Josh Chapman, who is a downtown business owner, said he was “extremely happy with and appreciates the retail demand market study.” He said, “That was a huge piece, as a small business owner downtown, that some of my business colleagues were wondering how it would affect the downtown. But I think that this a tool and mechanism to really help address some of those concerns.”
As I understand it, the reason you would put a small amount of retail at the center is that you have around 4000 employees at buildout, so you don’t want to force all of those employees to drive into town in order to get food during the day.
So just as having housing on-site can reduce traffic impacts, VMT and GHG, so too can having supportive retail.
While that makes intuitive sense, some downtown businesses see this as a potential competitor with the downtown.
The question is how can you address the need to provide the on-site employees with food and services during their workday, without creating a market that draws from external demand?
So the agreement calls for the developer to demonstrate that the retail “will not exceed the anticipated demand” that is generated by new project employees and residences.
If it finds that it does exceed that internal demand, then the retail uses will be scaled back or even omitted.
Will that win over nervous downtown businesses? Hard to know. Josh Chapman, a downtown business owner, who took no position on the last DISC project in 2020 when he ran for council, seemed pleased with the development.
This kind of move is probably not going to convert naysayers, but it could quell concerns in the business community, which is an important constituent.
As I said, in general, I think this only helps the downtown, particularly if it drives more business and capital into Davis.
The downtown plan is part of what the city sees as the way forward.
As Councilmember Dan 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 (path). 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.”
Overall, I see this as being nothing but a huge benefit for the downtown, infusing more energy, more business, and ultimately helping the city improve and upgrade the downtown as well.
If this agreement helps to allay the concerns of some business owners fearing this project will cannibalize the downtown, then that could help pave the way for project approval in June.
Translation – “Prior to occupancy of the chicken house, the Fox will demonstrate that the proposed guarding of such chicken house will not be undertaken while said Fox is hungry”
What a joke!
Alan,
It states quite clearly in the EIR that before any final planned development submission that includes ancillary retail, an analysis must be submitted to the Davis Department of Community Development and Sustainability which must demonstrate to the City’s satisfaction that the proposed ancillary retail will not exceed the anticipated demand increase from new employees. So, your claim that this is a ineffective constraint is simply not supported by the decision architecture here.
Moreover, I have never understood you and Heather’s position on this. At buildout, which is the only scenario where ancillary retail would be built out anyway, DiSC will be creating nearly $9 million in annual sales within Davis from residents and employees and B2B sales will be considerably higher. This is obviously a benefit to downtown Davis businesses. If you inject this much increased spending into the Davis economy it lifts all boats. Davis downtown businesses are constantly clamoring for more customers and more spending to be brought to Davis. Now that DiSC will bring tens of millions in new spending it suddenly is a bad thing? This rings really hollow to me.
So when has our Dept of Community Development and Sustainability ever said “No” to a Developer? I think the correct answer is “NEVER”…Like I said, this is the fox guarding the chicken house.
This is self-promoting, double-speak gibberish….very much like the “trickle-down” theory. I think we can all guess what will be trickling down from the Developer onto downtown Davis.
The City of Davis’ Department of Community Development and Sustainability is staffed by thoughtful individuals who work hard for the interests of the community and to ensure that planning and development are considered in a wholistic process. Denigrating City staff and accusing them of acting in bad faith is not a responsible or productive process. I suggest you reconsider your characterization.
As for increased spending lifting all boats I am surprised you find this to be such an objectionable assertion. Adding new customers via DiSC’s residents and employees as well as B2B transactions undoubtedly has positive spillovers that benefit businesses throughout Davis. The model you are presenting via your comments implies that either there is no new spending (which is just absurd prima facie) or that somehow DiSC will be an autarky which is just flatly contradicted by the economic analysis that was conducted by trained professionals.
The fact is that DiSC will add new customers who will create tens of millions of dollars in new annual spending that will benefit businesses throughout Davis. This isn’t double-speak or gibberish, just the economic reality of the project as analyzed by professional economists. Given the project’s robust transit connections to Downtown Davis and the nature of the goods and services offered by many of the businesses there, Downtown Davis businesses will be some of the biggest beneficiaries of this increased spending.
A strong contender for the stupidest statement of 2022.
Staff can’t say “yes” or “no”, per se… it is beyond their pay grade… all they can do, is process, evaluate, and make recommendations… to the extent they find that a proposal is not permitted under existing planning, other Codes, their determination is appealable to PC and/or CC.
Same is true if they say “yes”…
The problem is past history on this issue. Second Street Crossing (Target site) had a very detailed development agreement with respect to competition with downtown retail. That was what it took to get DDBA support. Then the owners came back seeking changes to the agreement for the auxiliary pads. The Cannery had restrictions on retail which they have tried to get changed.
I’d say there is a trust issue. 80,000 sq ft is a large retail space for businesses that are just intended to support the people and businesses that would work there. Store size restrictions will likely make the units hard to lease, which will almost certainly lead the developers to return for changes to allow larger units. In this instance, I’d say that past history is an indicator of future results.
As a side note I strongly suggest that Davis Downtown (formerly DDBA) should not take a position on this issue. They are fundamentally a tax agency and membership is not optional. Davis Chamber can do whatever it wants, and has already announced that they will be promoting this project. Davis Downtown should respect the rift within their membership and just stay out of it.
Personally, I’m more uncomfortable with the fact that this organization was created by the same city that’s pushing DiSC:
https://www.cooldavis.org/archived-pages/about/
And the fact that the DiSC boosters on the council are responsible for the city’s climate action plan.
They can go across the street to a large, fully-developed shopping center right now. There are restaurants present in Second Street Crossing, all kinds of retail stores already, and more would surely come if there is a demand for them within the existing commercial property that is actually within walking distance of the proposed development. This development doesn’t actually need ANY retail to support the people who work there.
If they have no retail I want to invest in a coffee cart the size of an 18 wheeler. 4000 employees and no coffee shop? Only in Davis.
If I’m not mistaken, there is exactly one restaurant there.
If you build it, they will come.
They could set aside 10% of their parking space for food trucks. Build a shade structure for them to park, cover it with solar panels, and have a seating area nearby with nice big shade trees.
My point was that there is a large amount of retail space already zoned and built within walking distance. I assure you the retail mix would change if there is an influx of new workers nearby.
Compete with Downtown retail? LOL!
There is little retail available in Downtown Davis that I patronize. Besides meeting friends at coffee shops, go to a restaurant or get a fro-yo, I go to a bank, pick up newspapers at Newsbeat once a week and get groceries at the Co-op. Once in a while I might go to a bike shop or Davis Ace for purchases that don’t amount to enough to warrant a trip to Home Depot. We do most of our retail shopping at Target or on-line. I do like the Farmers Market. I imagine there is some traffic for new or used clothes in downtown but for retail fun a trip to T.J. Maxx seems to be the preferred destination.
The largest improvement in over a decade was Target. It saved us from driving to Target in Woodland. A few times a year I might go downtown for professional services or a dental visit. Currently, there isn’t a grocery store or Pharmacy in Downtown and the Sears Catalog Store left decades ago. Whole Foods left after Nishi 1 was voted down.
The retail options downtown are not competitive with big box stores like Target, Walmart, Costco, Best Buy or on line options. It is so bad downtown that Davis is a major college town that can’t support a decent used book store.
While I remain uncommitted on Disc II in my mind impacts on Downtown retail are a complete non-issue .
Currently, the best retail option in Davis, in my humble opinion, is Redwood Barn. It seems to have the best selection of plants in the area.
Unfortunately, the owner of that establishment puts forth some pretty strong opinions on here (regarding development in particular), while suggesting that other business owners to “stay out of it” (as noted above).
As such, it makes for an uncomfortable situation for those who don’t agree with him (and know about his activities).
Of course, there wouldn’t be a plant nursery at DiSC, regardless.
I’ve always been surprised that Davis doesn’t have a large, stand-alone plant nursery. Then again, they’re pretty close to “outlawing” backyards, these days.
Davis has a good nursery. Its called Redwood Barn. With several other nurseries out of business and a limited selection at Davis Ace I went there for the first time recently and was pleasantly surprised.
As for not patronizing a business because of differences in opinion I believe doing so is petty and as Mike Pence said the other day “un-American.” If I did that I wouldn’t be able to shop anywhere.
To clarify, it’s more than a simple difference of opinion, and includes “how” the interactions are handled on here.
I wouldn’t know what the selection is at Redwood Barn anymore, since I’m not comfortable going there as a result. And I suspect that the owner might feel the same way.
I do periodically patronize Davis ACE’s nursery, and sometimes the small selection of plants at the Co-Op (which I patronize quite often).
Given their sizes, none are really a full-scale nursery. Home Depot is of course another option – but again, not really a nursery.
Compare it to some place like Harmony, in Sebastopol – if you want to see a full-scale nursery. Of course, that’s a more rural area, and one that seems to value its surrounding farmland more than Davis does.
I don’t suggest other business owners ‘stay out of it’. I suggest the DDBA stay out of it.
The more likely scenario is that their board will endorse this proposal.
Not sure what you’re basing that on, but (given your opinion on this) wouldn’t you logically suggest that they not put forth any opposition or endorsement?
Didn’t they oppose it, last time? If so, what’s changed that would cause them to endorse it? Isn’t there MORE retail at DiSC, this time?
And if businesses fail in downtown Davis, doesn’t that impact the amount of taxes that the city collects? Isn’t that a concern, of the city?
That is exactly what I said they should do.
No, Davis Downtown (formerly DDBA) endorsed Measure B. Some retailers objected to that endorsement afterwards.
Thanks for the clarification.
Pre-pandemic and after the Grad closed, I would occasionally go to Parkside Bar or some other watering hole to watch sports.
R.I.P. Jed.
Well, Sir, then you are part of the problem. No wonder you’re not worried about DISC cannabalizing downtown businesses.
Nice technique there.
The notion that my retail purchase choices make me part of the problem is a hoot. What problem is that anyway? Do I have some moral obligation to patronize non-competitive businesses?
By the way, there are a few places I like to go that are run by friends. I like to get Pizza from Symposium It is owned by a friend but the real reason is that he makes the best pizza in town.
“Nice technique there.”
Yeah, way to go after the undecided vote.
Ironically, most of the shopping choices in this household are made by my better half. Arguing that she is part of the problem is hilarious.
That would be Target and on-line shopping cannabalizing downtown Davis businesses…much the way that Walmart and the Gateway Plazza have decimated downtown Woodland.
Implying that you’re undecided…Right! That’s like saying the Vanguard is undecided.
Way to get into my head. I guess you know my mind better than I do.
And, County Fair Mall. Target literally moved out of there, to Gateway.
In that case, trading one big-box location for a bigger-box location.
Sort of like how University Mall used to actually be a mall, but is now on its way to be primarily a megadorm. Perhaps partly as a result of the 2nd Street development.
But to be honest, who doesn’t like CostCo?
I’m way over my five comment limit so this will be my last post here for the day.
While its true that I’m supportive of development, particularly housing but also businesses in general, I remain undecided on this project. I did vote for Disc last time but was not an active supporter. This time I’m less inclined because of the Mace mess but remain undecided at his point. I need to be convinced that serious efforts will be made to fix the traffic issues. That said, the impact on downtown by Disc, is the least of my worries.
It is a bad thing if it is accompanied by 54 million pounds of new GHG emissions and our world is turning to a climate-induced disaster. I know, I know…the Vanguard’s trained in-house climate expert, Mr. Greenwald, says that these same emissions would occur no matter where DISC is built so why not just build it in Davis?. But that analysis relies on bogus Fehr and Peers calculations showing that the average VMTs (Vehicle Miles Traveled)/Per Capita of Service Population for the SACOG region is 37.11 miles per day. (see Vanguard Monday Morning Thoughts_1-10-22)
But there is a teensy, weensy little problem here. That is, SACOG’s own VMT analysis actually says the region-wide average Resident VMT is 20.82 miles per day and the average Worker VMT for the entire SACOG region is 21.3 miles per day. How Fehr & Peers can deduce from SACOG’s own far lower estimates for the average Resident VMT (20.8) and Work VMT (21.3) to give an average Service Population VMT of 37.11 defies any plausible explanation. (Note that SACOG does not publish average VMTs for the Service Population either regionally or for specific locales).
Several weeks ago I promised an in-depth analyis of how VMTs varied throughout the region and they are especially high in Davis due to the longer commute distances compared to almost anywhere else in the rest of the SACOG region. Higher VMTs associated with the DiSC project directly translate into new higher GHG emissions for the project.
I admit that I have been slow on the draw in getting out this quantitative analysis that I promised. But seeing the Vanguard continue to make the erroneous assertion that building DiSC anywhere else will actually increase GHG emissions compared to building the project at DISC and basing this assertion on Fehr & Peers completely unsupported data has incentivized me to get this article into the Vanguard within several days (I hope). And I also promise it will be well supported with SACOG’s own VMT data and not the pie-in-the-sky “calculations” put out by the City’s’ favorite traffic engineer.
“It is a bad thing if it is accompanied by 54 million pounds of new GHG emissions and our world is turning to a climate-induced disaster. I know, I know…the Vanguard’s trained in-house climate expert, Mr. Greenwald, says that these same emissions would occur no matter where DISC is built so why not just build it in Davis?.”
Yep, I guess you think that those people aren’t going to work somewhere if they don’t get a job at DiSC? And they won’t have to drive at all to the other work. I’m sorry but this doesn’t take rocket science to figure out.
Sort of like how you might as well encourage mining, oil extraction, clear-cutting, and sprawl.
The reason being that if “we don’t do it, someone else will”.
And of course, “we’ll do it in a better way, than some other locale will”. So really, we’re “saving the planet, literally” (as one council member put it).
Where do you suppose that they’ll build DiSC, if they don’t build it in Davis? Are they proposing an alternative location?
Alan,
You have already admitted that the built environment at DiSC makes it one of the most sustainable projects in the state (in the country I would add). DiSC will be carbon neutral by 2040 which is a requirement that puts it well ahead of other jurisdictions in the region and the state. The “new” emissions you claim primarily show up in the modeling via transportation. But this is a failure to understand the counterfactual scenario. These new trips are not created out of thin air they are just shifting from one jurisdiction to another. So, yes, it is quite reasonable to ask if other jurisdictions will have the same requirements of the built environment, if counterfactual projects will benefit from the same transit network density and services, electric vehicle adoption, bicycle network, and trip reduction by creating private sector employment opportunities in research and r&d in a community with many researchers.
Expanding job opportunities in research and development oriented fields within Davis that will allow more Davisites to live and work in Davis rather than commute father afield was one of the benefits identified as part of the innovation center task force. The logic is pretty straightforward. Davis can capture and retain more companies and researchers within its borders rather than continue to hemorrhage them to other jurisdictions that will have fewer sustainability requirements and require Davisites to drive to these employment opportunities. The traffic data shows a pretty clear story: people who can afford to live in Davis by and large must commute outside of Davis in order to find work to earn a sufficient salary to live here. Many who work in Davis cannot afford to live here and must commute. DiSC provides new job opportunities in precisely the kind of sectors and firms that will allow more Davisites to live and work in Davis.
Dan Carson recently referred to downtown being a future “economic powerhouse”.
I guess that vision is limited to more high-rise housing, pizza parlors and coffee shops.
I realize that the Vanguard and council are trying to “pick-them-off”, one at a time (regarding peripheral development proposals). That’s what they do.
But it’s dishonest, in that they’ll come out in subsequently full-fledge support of Shriner’s, Palomino Ranch (already advertising on here), and the “other half” of DiSC, when it returns as a housing development.
This should all be analyzed together, in terms of traffic, infrastructure, fiscal and environmental impacts. And really, the first question to ask is whether or not the city should sprawl outward in that locale or any other, in the first place.
And, why does the city claim to be dependent upon sprawl, in regard to city finances? Doesn’t that indicate a more serious, structural problem with the way things are done? (Not limited to Davis, of course.)
Shouldn’t the first question be, “how does this continue to occur”? Followed by, “what will be different, this time?”
Of course, the location inside the Mace curve is a logical location to expand the city, if desired.
An unintended consequence of Measure J is piecemeal planning. It would definitely be better to master plan these contiguous or nearby parcels but with Measure J locked in that is not going to happen.
Actually, I believe it was an intended consequence… that way, the default argument to oppose any growth, is: “it is ‘piecemeal’, and ‘shows a lack of planning!'”.
Why is there an assumption that the majority of those in Davis want the city to sprawl outward onto prime farmland in the first place? (And/or, in a given area?)
Shouldn’t that be the first question to ask, before deciding what will replace that farmland?
(Another question to ask is why cities continue to rely on growth to temporarily address deficits. Doesn’t that indicate an underlying structural problem, and one that continually reappears?)
First, we overemphasize the importance of Downtown Davis. It can be a wonderful place and it a good natural center for our community, but the fact is that it’s not well placed to provide the day to day services that most Davisites use. We should instead have dispersed businesses in the neighborhoods that are easily accessible by pedestrians and transit with many fewer barriers. That should have been what was implemented at the Cannery and could be appropriate for DiSC. Those who want people to drive into downtown from Stonegate or El Macero aren’t being realistic about either what retail services those residents are looking for or about the environmental impacts of those trips.
Right now we have a much bigger economic problem in Downtown. We now have at least 5 of the largest restaurant spaces empty: DeVere’s, Bistro 33, Ketmoree, The House, Village Pizza & Grill. One of these may open in the near future, but these were keystones in the vitality of Downtown. With the Grad also closed, Davis has many fewer dining options, which makes it less attractive for those from out of town as well. Digging out of this hole is going to take some visionary efforts. Retail at DiSC is unlikely to compete with whatever replaces these and ancillary businesses simply due to the distance.
Regarding visitors, it depends upon whether or not they want to actually see and experience Davis, or an entirely-separate peripheral development and its 2,000 parking spaces (which really has nothing to do with Davis). My guess is that a lot of that depends upon ease of access (and parking), from the freeway. And we know which entity would win that battle.
Regarding the “hole”, why hasn’t it been “filled” with existing development within the city’s footprint? Shouldn’t that be among the first questions asked, particularly when existing restaurants and retail are struggling within the city’s footprint – as you noted?
If cities are dependent-upon forever expanding their footprint, there’s a much bigger problem to address. And one which is consistently avoided, by the sprawl activists. They flat-out “don’t like” that question.
Of course, the Bay Area has pretty-much figured out how to encourage economic development within its own footprint. Not that it has dug them out of their own “holes”, regardless of how much of economic development has occurred.