For too long the city of Davis has been polarized and, as a result, paralyzed on the issue of growth. Even as we go forward here, with the Mace Ranch Innovation Center slowly moving towards a potential spring 2016 vote, there are doubts about the viability of an innovation park and whether one can pass Measure R muster.
While Measure R is blamed for making it difficult to pass a project – expensive and uncertain for developers – it gives the community a say in what this community will ultimately look like.
Like Brett Lee, I support the idea of an innovation/tech park for Davis, but my ultimate support will “depend” on what that tech park looks like.
Last year we conceptualized four sets of voters. Those in the first category will support any development proposal that gets put on the ballot. Now that’s perhaps more theoretical than not, but remember, as much as Covell Village went down to defeat, 40 percent of the voters voted yes. There is another class of voters that are simply anti-growth and will vote against any project.
I believe that the future Measure R votes will come down to a middle set of voters. There is a group of people who are generally supportive of the innovation park concept but want to see the details before signing on. And there is a group of people more skeptical of the concept that will have to be convinced to vote for it. These are category 2 and 3 voters.
I would put myself in the second category and, based on Brett Lee’s column from last week, he is pretty close to where I stand.
On the upside, he notes that it will create high-paying jobs in Davis which will help reduce and alleviate the problem of hundreds or thousands of residents who leave Davis each morning headed east or west to work. Moreover, it will help bring in additional customers to help existing businesses, and, finally and from my perspective most importantly, it would provide much needed revenue to the city to enable us to maintain a high level of city services.
But we can get lost in this positive vision. As Brett Lee put it, “We must clearly identify and mitigate the negative aspects of a tech park.” He adds, “Poor design is difficult to mitigate; therefore, any proposal must have a well thought out design that includes planning best practices with a heavy emphasis on sustainability.”
This is exactly where I stand, and where any innovation park proposal will earn or lose my vote.
I am a slow-growther at my core. I opposed Covell Village, as I believed that it was too large, would change the nature of the community too much, and that it had unmitigated traffic impacts on core infrastructure with limited ways to mitigate the impacts.
I take to heart the concerns that residents have of entitling 200 acres for projects that will project 40-year build outs.
At the same time, I believe that, if constructed properly, an innovation park can augment and enhance our community. I see the activity and need for space arising out of the technology transfer from UC Davis that is revving up its economic engines to help fuel economic growth in the entire region for the next century.
Sacramento this week made Entrepreneur Magazine’s “hot startup cities” list, and part of that, if not most of that, is based on its 18 agriculture and food tech startups and the $40 million grant from Mars candy to help UC Davis build its World Food Center.
I am not asking that Davis become the home of all that activity, but, as we saw in the report from a few weeks ago, Davis is a center of startup and technology transfer activities. At the same time, I hear from those in the commercial property industry that we simply lack the facilities and the space for these startups to come in and, as we know, we lack the space for the native industries like AgraQuest to growth.
So for me, a 200-acre tech park is a compromise – it is probably not enough to house the kind of activity that UC Davis figures to generate, but it is enough to tap into some of it, get some of the revenue and help put our community on firmer feet, while helping the region become a new center for innovation and technology.
And I am willing to go to 200 acres if we can do it the right way.
To me the right way is that we build with a heavy emphasis on sustainability. That means we create environmentally efficient design, helping to be energy efficient and net carbon neutral, and we look toward alternative energy sources to power some of the features.
But that also means we have to mitigate transportation impacts because what good does a net carbon neutral building do for us if we simply are driving people across I-80 and forcing them to drive 40 miles a day to get to work?
That means if we are not going to go mixed use, we work to advance our transportation system. We take advantage of the Capitol Corridor train system, improve our road design to mitigate traffic impacts, and tap into existing infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians and existing public transit networks.
As Brett Lee put it, “It would be reasonable and proper to expect that the project proponent (developer) would cover the lion’s share of these costs.”
And we have to have assurances that this project will generate the revenue we need. As Brett Lee puts it, “The revenue-sharing agreement with the developer must be made concurrent with the developer agreement, and any agreement on a community facilities district. There should be no surprises and no ‘oh, we will work that out later.’”
The city council in my view lost a lot of trust in my circles by allowing the New Homes Company to dictate the terms of the CFD (Community Facilities District) after the fact. Fortunately, with a Measure R vote, we have leverage we never had on the Cannery to get it right.
If we can design this the right way up front to deal with the major issues that are before us – carbon emissions, transportation, and concern about opening the door to future housing developments – then I think the project can win a Measure R vote.
It will not be easy, but the aim of the campaign should be to address the concerns of those in categories two and three, knowing that those in category one will support the Measure R vote and those in the fourth category will oppose it.
Brett Lee’s contribution here is starting to formulate a blueprint for success. There is much work to do, however, and a short period of time in which to do it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What Brett Lee and Robb Davis have consistently advocated for from the dais is more evidence-based decision-making, and less political calculation. Brett’s OpEd regarding the Innovation Parks is one more chapter in his strong focus on keeping the quality of life of Davis at the high level we all desire. I strongly support that approach to both decision-making and governance … transparent, open and evidence-based.
“The city council in my view lost a lot of trust in my circles by allowing the New Homes Company to dictate the terms of the CFD (Community Facilities District) after the fact.”
I do not believe this is a correct assessment of the Cannery CFD issue, but I don’t want to digress from the main thrust of this article, which I think is excellent.
As a (small time) Davis small business owner and fan of David’s work I’m surprised and disappointed he would pull so much of his reporting from somewhere without pointing readers to the source.
two or three quotes?
Only the second phase of the Financial Analysis will truly explain how the Innovation Center projects might contribute to an improved fiscal picture for the community. That report is due out in early September.
It is true that many do believe the projects, long term, will provide much needed supplemental revenues to help stabilize municipal operating expenses. Indeed, these revenues could prove essential in supporting new, long term enhancements to our public transit and infrastructure needs.
This is different, however, than saying the developer and the development should be saddled with all of the investment costs and responsibilities to help improve Davis’ transit options over the next 30 years.
The city has gotten itself into a financial pickle, particularly over the past 15 years by failing to address its revenue needs. That is not the fault of the developer. Through new investment like those imagined for the innovation centers, it should be possible for the community to get to a more sustainable model, which in turn could provide us with the means to finance much needed infrastructure investment.
Hopefully, the financial models will reveal that these new employment centers are “net contributors” to both the economy and to municipal revenues. This would be a far cry from the financial equations common to most new housing developments – which are generally neutral at best. Placing unreasonable, long overdue, community level infrastructure investment demands on these projects could spell a premature end to the conversation.
Well said Doby!
Great points worth repeating. Like many other California cities and states… and even at the Federal level… instead of investing in necessary infrastructure, we have instead spent it on millionaire retirement benefits for government employees.
More and more of my government employee friends are retired in their 50s with big cheesy grins and a life-long commitment to vote Democrat. I encourage them to thank people like me paying near 50% income tax, who will not retire until late 60s or maybe 70s (depending on the markets and cost of healthcare) for funding their cheesy grin.
so just for fun… what would it take for frankly to vote against an innovation park on the ballot? and what would it take for tia to vote for one?
I would vote against an innovation park that includes significant housing. I would vote against an innovation park that is heavy industrial. I would vote against an innovation park that does not include adequate connectivity and traffic mitigation. I would vote against an innovation park that UCD says will not meet their needs and expectations for ongoing technology transfer development. I would vote against an innovation park that does not provide some retail space. I would vote against an innovation park that is too small to provide enough of the tax revenue benefits we need if it was deemed a compromise to appease the no-growers.
It is interesting to note that what Frankly has laid out above is a set of evidence-based criteria that would guide his decision process. Noticeably absent from his list are political calculations.
We need more evidence-based decision-making, and less political calculation.
Matt: I would say the lack of inclusion of housing is a political calculation more than an evidence-based calculation.
David, that really depends on the reasons that Frankly includes that criteria in his list. If he is doing so in order to maximize the fiscal effect of the Innovation Park, then I would disagree with you. If he is doing so in response to Davis’ housing ethos, then I would agree with you. I suspect it is not the latter given the wording of Frankly’s final point “… deemed a compromise to appease the no-growers”
David,
And then there is “reality based” criteria – if you are actually hoping something might get built.
No doubt there would be any number of developers (and maybe even a few Davis residents) who would be strong advocates for some combination of 10 and 12 story luxury condos and highly desirable for rent units. Unparalleled views of the valley, easy access to work, town and transit. Sounds great……unless you are a competing housing sector developer, or one of Davis’ many advocates of slower population growth.
On top of these rather conflicting scenarios, your dreamy scenarios of “community controlled and allocated housing” sound like a high risk, regulatory nightmare for any developer.
In this context, is it really any wonder that Frankly opposes this controversial aspect of a project which might otherwise pass muster with a majority of Davis residents?
Nope, it is a calculation. And I have provided it before. The fact is that since the 1970’s Davis has significantly grown in population and housing. However, during that time we grew a fantastic imbalance of commercial space to population.
The REAL problem with Davis’s housing supply is student-only. And UCD is under-performing in supplying adequate housing. Other than this, Davis will likely always have a problem in that the overall demand of housing will exceed supply. It is because Davis is an attractive community to live in for many people that we could never supply enough housing to meet this demand. We should not get caught up in hand wringing about this. Over the last 45 years Davis has done its part for regional housing.
The other part of the calculation is the reality of so many no-growers and farmland preservation zealots. It turns out that every acre we can develop requires a slug-fest to get past these people. So I am not in favor of using any of that acreage for anything other than commercial because that is the thing we lack and that is the thing that will bring in the long-term revenue that the city needs.
There is a small political consideration in that for me or others to opine that we would be supportive of a housing component might contribute to certain politicians pushing hard for it and then ensure a failed Measure R vote because it would swell the ranks of voter-types that would be motivated to vote against it.
I agree with this (certain rhetoric notwithstanding…). I think that housing at any of these parks can be permitted, such as a small number of top-floor units. But I definitely don’t see making housing a mandatory part of it, nor should housing occupy any ground level square footage that could be used for business or for the small retail component that serves the employees of the park.
Huh? How small is “too small?” “Deemed” by whom? I don’t really follow this logic.
Think about it. We have a city of change-averse. You can possibly compromise with smaller developments to get them comfortable, but then you blow your opportunity to do what is needed.
There are several ways to measure the need for commercial development in our city of 72,000 people. The aggregate conclusion is that Davis needs at least 1000 acres of additional commercial development to put at anything reasonable to what we should have compared to all other comparable cities. And it is also what we need to meet our city revenue needs.
Davis is only 10 square miles in size. 1000 acres adds another 1.5 square miles. At 11.5 square miles we STILL remain one of the most population dense smaller standalone cities in the nation.
Accepting developments that are too small just satiates the irrational demands of those that don’t accept these facts. It also limits the types and sizes of tech businesses that might locate here.
Business needs space.
I guess, then, that I’m not understanding what you meant with your statement that:
You say we need 1000 acres. Nishi plus Mace will not equal 1000 acres. You will, or will not, support those? I can easily see them, or at least Mace, being portrayed as compromise proposals. If someone were to ask me why I support the loss of farmland and open space by annexation of the 200 acres across Mace, I could readily explain it as a compromise now that Mace 391 is in a conservation easement. It certainly seems like a small business park; a compromise compared to what was being proposed (in general) before. I can’t really understand why it is undesirable to describe something as a compromise. In fact, I can’t really understand why compromise would be a bad thing in general.
Don, the fiscal analysis will define the meaning of “small” and at the same time determine the important part of Frankly’s point … ” provide enough of the tax revenue benefits we need”
Nishi is more student housing and does not add much commercial space. I will vote against it in an either-or scenario. I would also vote against it if I believe there has been political wrangling to favor it over other parks. Lastly, I will vote against it if I believe it will become a “enough for now” position from city leadership and others.
I would prefer it be put on the back-burner while we focus on the Mace innovation center and also try to bring back the West Davis innovation center.