Sunday Commentary: Woodland Moves Forward with a Good Economic Development Project, while Davis Still Fights over the Perfect

The news out of Woodland hits home hard this week.  At a time when Davis faces an annual shortfall of at least $8 million over at least the next 20 years, the loss can be measured in so many ways.

It was less than three months ago when it was officially announced that what had been known as the Davis Innovation Center moved up the road to become the Woodland Research and Technology Park, combining a high-tech commercial campus with mixed-­use development, including residential neighborhoods and a community retail and recreation center.

This week it is a done deal, a 351-acre project with the development group, according to the Sacramento Business Journal, getting 15 months to refine the project with the city council deciding at that point whether to go forward with the final project.

John Hodgson told the Business Journal that build out would take 25 to 30 years, with the project expected to produce 5000 to 7000 jobs.

The Woodland Research and Technology Group in March submitted a revised land use plan and project description for its Specific Plan application. The proposed Specific Plan lies within the identified area of the General Plan, SP-­‐1A, and includes 351 acres of mixed-­use neighborhoods anchored by a research and technology business park at the City of Woodland’s “Southern Gateway” at County Road 25A and Highway 113.

Of that 350 or so acres, 130 will be some type of commercial.  The biggest part of that is an 80-acre business park.  There will be 34 acres of “light industrial.”  There will be small retail for employees and neighbors to hang out, “but nothing major.”

The housing is on 150 acres – low, medium and high density.  A small majority of the housing, 55 percent, will be low density, traditional single family homes.  Then there is a component of medium density which will be smaller units – condos and townhouses.

High density in Woodland is 20 to 40 units per acre.  That would be three-story apartments or condos.

The good news is that the region will be boosted by the jobs and Woodland will benefit from the proximity of the university.

“It is a way to capitalize on the innovation that overflows from UC Davis,” Councilmember Enrique Fernandez is quoted as saying.

The bad news – this is what Davis was looking to do back in 2014 with its push for innovation centers and its RFEI (Request for Expressions of Interest).  Instead, Davis got bogged down in the development process and, by 2015, the Davis Innovation Center had officially “paused.”  That pause is now permanent.

It was just last fall, back in September, that Davis Chamber President Jason Taormino was lamenting the need for jobs.

He wrote in a September op-ed, “To sustain the amenities such as our parks, pools, community services and other infrastructure, we need 10,000 new high-paying jobs in Davis. We need to increase our commercial space from 1.75 million square feet to 4 million in order to achieve this goal.”

Instead, we see those 5000 to 7000 jobs headed up north and we are still trying to fight over whether or not to certify an EIR for the Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC), even as our budget analysis shows we need that revenue for the same parks, pools, community services and infrastructure that Mr. Taormino was talking about nine months ago.

And yes – we may be able to fill some of that revenue gap with taxes.  But think about the difference between filling a revenue gap with taxes and filling a revenue gap with new economic development that produces high paying jobs for students graduating from UC Davis.

This is now a lost opportunity – the question now is how not to lose the next opportunity.

As I have made clear, I am not in favor of doing away with Measure R.  I think that the community and the voters need a chance to weigh in on development projects.

At the same time, the message that we have received from developers is pretty clear.  There are legitimate questions as to why anyone would invest millions of dollars into a process that is likely to incur strong opposition, when they can do as the developers of the Davis Innovation Center have done and move the project literally four miles up the road and be able to get approval in a matter of months.

Clearly, Davis has value for developers as they looked to Davis first, but the advantage of Davis quickly evaporated when it became clear that it would be an uphill battle at best to do what they could do easily in Woodland.

When we talked to John Hodgson in March, he wouldn’t say it on the record, but clearly he saw Woodland as an easier path to completion and they could get their mixed-use project that Davis would outright reject.

“I’m not saying anything’s easy, because I’ve never had a project that’s been easy,” he said.

But from this vantage point, it clearly was easy.

Critics scoffed at the idea that MRIC is the last best chance in the near-term to develop a peripheral innovation park – something that can generate perhaps $10 million or more in city revenue on an annual basis – but clearly that is where we are headed.

Davis receives less in per capita sales tax than many other comparable cities, as our work from last summer demonstrates.  But it is actually worse than that – Davis heavily relies on auto sales, which is ironic for a community that purports to be green and wants to be on the technological edge.

Without finding ways to shore up its revenue generation, the city will struggle to be fiscally viable, as it is struggling now with the latest budget estimates showing an $8 million average revenue shortfall for the next 20 years at least.

This is a crucial time for Davis – not only does it face serious fiscal challenges but it lacks jobs and opportunities for students graduating from college.  By developing an innovation center, we accomplish several of our goals while, I believe, maintaining Davis as the small and vibrant community that we all love.

—David M. Greenwald reporting



Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$
USD
Sign up for

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

54 Comments

  1. Ron

    “John Hodgson told the Business Journal that build out would take 25 to 30 years, with the project expected to produce 5000 to 7000 jobs.”

    If this number is accurate in the first place, the vast majority are probably temporary construction jobs, to build the facility itself.

    If there’s such a “pent-up” demand for these types of facilities, why hasn’t “pro-development” Woodland seen a whole slew of proposals? In fact, why has it taken this long?

    This project hasn’t even been defined in detail, yet. I suspect that (even in Woodland) the motivation is to build another housing project, with some business-park structures that likely won’t even provide many jobs.

    1. David Greenwald

      I’m sure you can look up how they arrived at that figure. There is a similar document for MRIC.

      For instance, the Davis economic analysis wrote: “Together, the two projects are expected to generate approximately 3.1 million square feet of commercial development at buildout, capable of accommodating about 6,500 jobs.”

      So no, they aren’t talking about temporary construction jobs building the facility, they are talking about the build out capacity.

  2. Ron

    By the way, David:  This is the most blatant article you’ve written, regarding your constant push for MRIC. It’s almost like reading a business journal/advertisement, with a complete lack of critical/objective analysis.

  3. Ron

    David:  Once again, I can’t see your posts when I’m logged in.

    Regarding jobs (and finances, for that matter), I’d like to see more discussion and TRULY objective analyses regarding the assumptions that were made in arriving at such figures.  (For example, this assumes that such businesses would actually arrive, etc.)  No doubt, they’d have no difficulty filling the residences.

    And no – we haven’t seen any analysis which shows if the “5,000 jobs” are related to construction of the facility, itself. Why would you even report this number without checking into the source and assumptions that were made?

    You might recall that our own budget and finance committee “disagreed” with a professional, external analytical firm regarding how to allocate costs associated with Nishi.  It often becomes quite complicated and detailed.  (And yet, as in the case of Nishi, developers will harp on the most objective projections as “fact”.)

    In any case, simply repeating numbers from a business journal (and developers) does not lend much credibility regarding your reporting.

    Again, where’s the demand from businesses, and why (even in Woodland) do they apparently need housing to make this “pencil out”, from the developer’s point of view?  If there’s such a large demand, why hasn’t Woodland and other communities seen more of these proposals? Is this really just an “excuse” to build more housing, without sufficient demand to make the development work as a stand-alone business park? (Those are the types of questions a more objective journalist might seek to answer.)

    1. David Greenwald

      The 5000 jobs are not related to construction.  They are ongoing jobs as the result of providing space for companies to move in and expand.

      The question you have to ask is how many employees you are likely to have per 1000 square feet and do the calculation on that basis.

      1. David Greenwald

        The industry standard appears to be 2.5 employees per 1000 square feet which appears how they got to the 5000 figure.  Categorically say that it’s completely false to say that the 5000 includes construction or temporary employees.

    2. Don Shor

      why (even in Woodland) do they apparently need housing to make this “pencil out”,

      They don’t ‘need’ housing, they prefer it. It pays back faster. Woodland planning staff and council members are more developer-friendly, so they aren’t likely to put any objections in the path of this project. So the investors will get a faster and higher return on their project.

  4. Ron

    David:  I’m sure you can look up how they arrived at that figure. There is a similar document for MRIC.

    For instance, the Davis economic analysis wrote: “Together, the two projects are expected to generate . . .”

    I like how you state that there’s a “similar document” for MRIC, and then proceed to cite a statement which apparently combines MRIC AND Nishi.

    Another question for an “objective” journalist: If there is in fact “demand” for an innovation center, has Woodland now stepped up to “fill that need”? How many “innovation centers” are needed, in terms of actual demand?

    1. Don Shor

      If there is in fact “demand” for an innovation center, has Woodland now stepped up to “fill that need”?

      I think it is reasonable to assume that development of a business park on the south edge of Woodland reduces the likelihood of one developing on the periphery of Davis.
      At this point the land need the hospital is probably better off being planned for housing.

        1. Ron

          David and Matt:  It would be interesting to see what the revised projections would be (for Nishi and MRIC), when considering the impact of the innovation center planned for Woodland. (This wasn’t part of the original analysis.)

          Again, I’m not sure how many “innovation centers” the area can actually support, in terms of business/commercial demand.  (Probably should ask a developer who is interested in including housing, for an “objective” opinion.)

          1. David Greenwald

            Bear in mind that Nishi, Davis Innovation and MRIC were all willing to go through the development process simultaneously. UC Davis is an $8 billion generator of economic activity and there is the belief that it is actually under utilized. I think you’re limiting your scope here artificially.

    2. David Greenwald

      “Another question for an “objective” journalist: If there is in fact “demand” for an innovation center, has Woodland now stepped up to “fill that need”? How many “innovation centers” are needed, in terms of actual demand?”

      That depends on whether you believe that demand is only for 2 million or so square feet of R&D.  I happen to believe it is a lot higher, but if that’s the case, then we are even more screwed than my analysis suggested.

  5. Colin Walsh

    This article misses a major part of the development picture for Woodland. The New Woodland General Plan adds very large tracts of land to the South and East city and anticipates population growth from 55,690 to 94,290 residents. That is 38,600 more people in Woodland. Woodland is about to undergo a very large and rapid expansion and this new business park is only part of it.

     

    1. Ron

      Colin:  Yeap.  And, unlike Davis residents, Woodland does not provide an opportunity for residents to weigh-in, on those plans.

      Woodland is also considering massive “leap-frog” development in a deep-water floodplain (east of Costco), which would require taxpayers to pay for levee improvements (from two different rivers).  (However, this does not appear to be an imminent plan.) Still, I understand that the developer behind this has some powerful political connections (not just locally).

      Right – Davis should “strive” to be more like Woodland (and Natomas).

      1. David Greenwald

        I believe Woodland citizens while not having the right to vote (unless they petition it), can weigh in during planning hearings, scoping, and council.  So it’s not exactly true as written above that  “Woodland does not provide an opportunity for residents to weigh-in on those plans.”

        1. Colin Walsh

          To be clear, the residents of Woodland have no opportunity to have a general election opportunity to approve or deny this large new growth without a much more difficult referendum process.

        2. Ron

          David:  Seems strange for you to say this, when your quote above states,

          “This week it is a done deal, a 351-acre project with the development group, according to the Sacramento Business Journal, getting 15 months to refine the project with the city council deciding at that point whether to go forward with the final project.”

          C’mon.  We’re talking about Woodland, here.  Do you honestly believe that they would do anything, other than approve it?  (Especially when considering the information provided by Colin, above.)

          By the way, what might happen regarding the Davis “housing crisis”, as Woodland almost doubles its planned population, with the majority of the development on the south side of town (closest to Davis)?

          A different type of “housing crisis” (from approximately 2007-2012), comes to mind.

        3. David Greenwald

          Colin: Correct and to be clear, I support our Measure R process.

          Ron: That’s kind of the point.  We like our process better, but we still have strengths and weaknesses and a big one is going to be finding revenue to close the fund gap we have that is growing.

        4. Ron

          Colin:  Not sure if you’re asking me, but I would definitely say “yes”.  (Of course, even residents are generally more pro-development, in Woodland.  And, I’m guessing they’re less likely to question numbers put forth by development interests.)

          However, in general, I suspect that if voters (across the region, state, and country) were allowed to decide if they want their cities to continuously expand, they would likely say “no” much more frequently than elected officials do.

        5. David Greenwald

          Colin: It’s kind of an irrelevant question – they won’t get to vote on the project unless they petition it.  I think ultimately the question is up for their community to decide.  My column was about lost opportunities for Davis in midst of a long-term budget crisis.

        6. Matt Williams

          Colin, the simple answer to your question is that the Citizens of Woodland currently do have the right to vote on this Business Park.

          Your question might be more accurately phrased as follows:  Will the Citizens of Woodland choose to exercise their right to vote on this Business Park?

           

        7. Ron

          Matt:  No, it’s unlikely that the residents of Woodland will start a petition drive/referendum process to undo the approvals that are forthcoming, from the council  (Some would like Davis to return to that model of decision-making.)

      1. Ron

        Don:  Do you mean that it was “well-received” by the council, itself?

        That “compromise” ultimately included potential development in a deep-water floodplain, which would require taxpayer-funded improvements to two levees.  (In fact, that part was not “well-received” by at least one council member, as noted in your referenced article.)

        Again, the developer behind this apparently has some powerful connections (beyond the council). As demonstrated in the “Natomas Basin” (by one of the same developers, I believe), the “constraints” may not be as formidable as one would normally expect. (Nothing imminent that I’m aware of, but let’s see in the long run.)

        1. Ron

          Also, the article notes the contention regarding developing on prime farmland, south of town.

          The “compromise” essentially stated, “lets allow both” (develop prime farmland, AND in a deep-water flood plain – which is also far removed from already-developed areas).

          That definitely sounds like a Woodland-style “compromise”, to me.

          1. Don Shor

            A final document which was cheered by both Gary Sandy and Jim Hilliard is, indeed, a compromise. I know that some people think ‘compromise’ is a dirty word, but it’s generally how decisions get made when there’s conflict. Otherwise you just get paralysis.

        2. Ron

          Don:  I don’t know anything about one of those individuals.

          But again, there was significant concern regarding both of those issues (developing on prime farmland, and developing in a deep-water floodplain – requiring taxpayers to significantly “bail out” the development, both now (for levee improvements) – and in the future (when it inevitably floods, regardless of improvements). Two council members were ultimately quite concerned about that issue.

          In fact, there was a significant campaign (funded by development interests) to ensure that the floodplain was included in the final plan.  As an argument for doing so, they stated that the deep-water floodplain development would “save” the prime farmland.

          Ironically (but not for Woodland, I guess), the “compromise” included potential development in BOTH areas (prime farmland, and the deep-water floodplain).  The “innovation center” proposal is on prime farmland.  The majority of the proposed development is low-density housing, as confirmed by David in his article, above.

          Why am I not surprised that you would view this as a “reasonable compromise”?

           

           

          1. Don Shor

            I don’t know anything about one of those individuals.

            Then you don’t know anything about Woodland politics.

            Why am I not surprised that you would view this as a “reasonable compromise”?

            Let the record show that I never used the term that Ron has put in quotation marks.

        3. Ron

          Don:  I’ve been following this issue pretty closely, so yeah – I know something about it.  (Apparently, more than you know about it.)  The fact that I don’t know one of the individuals you mentioned is not relevant. If you have some point to make regarding those two individuals – I’d suggest that you make it, rather than state that I know nothing about the issue. (Again, I can name two council members who weren’t too happy about the potential floodplain development in particular – to say the least. Your own referenced article cites the concerns of one of them.)

          O.K. – you referred to it as a “compromise that seems to be well-received”, and suggested that the alternative is “paralysis”.  Both of these statements are incorrect.

          1. Don Shor

            If you have some point to make regarding those two individuals – I’d suggest that you make it

            These two former mayors of Woodland span the spectrum of growth politics there, so the fact that they were both celebrating the passage of the General Plan does, in fact, suggest that it seems to be well-received.

        4. Ron

          Don:  On which ends of the spectrum do you view those individuals?

          Hilliard is ?

          Sandy is ?

          Regardless, is that “proof” of a well-received plan?  Especially when two current council members (and a significant number of the public) expressed concerns (particularly regarding the potential deep-water flood plain development)?  I strongly suspect that you are totally in the dark, regarding those concerns.

          Or, perhaps you believe that “leap-frog” development in a deep-water floodplain, requiring taxpayer-funded improvements to two levees is a reasonable thing to do. (As noted above, two council members would strongly disagree with you.)

          Perhaps you are also unaware of the campaign (funded by developers interested in the flood-plain development) to confuse residents and influence decision-makers, by suggesting that “farmland” can be saved – by approving potential development in the floodplain, instead of on prime farmland.

          In the end, the “compromise” allows potential development in BOTH locations.  The “innovation center” proposal is on prime farmland, and primarily consists of low-density housing.  (Yeah, what a “loss”, for Davis.)

          Again, I’m not particularly surprised that you would view this as a reasonable compromise (based upon the apparent thoughts of two individuals), or that the alternative is “paralysis”.

           

          1. Don Shor

            Again, I’m not particularly surprised that you would view this as a reasonable compromise (based upon the apparent thoughts of two individuals).

            Again, I didn’t say that. Since you now know that I didn’t say that, why did you repeat it?
            This would not be what I would advocate for Davis. Woodland politics, planning, and values are very different from those of Davis.

            Hilliard is ?

            Sandy is ?

            If you knew anything about Woodland politics, I wouldn’t have to answer those questions.

            Regardless, is that “proof” of a well-received plan? Especially when two current council members (and a significant number of the public) expressed concerns (particularly regarding the potential deep-water flood plain development)? I strongly suspect that you are totally in the dark, regarding those concerns.

            I strongly suspect you are totally wrong about what I know.

        5. Ron

          Don:  “If you knew anything about Woodland politics, I wouldn’t have to answer those questions.”

          I do know something about it (review this thread), and you still haven’t answered those questions.  (As if that’s “proof” of your initial argument, regardless.)

          Again, you are clearly in the dark regarding the concerns that were raised (by many). If you actually followed this issue, you wouldn’t be arguing about this. (If you don’t believe me, ask the current council member referenced in the article you cited.)

        6. Ron

          Don: Here is one article, before the opposition really got stirred up:

          http://www.dailydemocrat.com/article/NI/20170405/NEWS/170409950

          Here is another article, after concerns were raised:

          http://www.dailydemocrat.com/article/NI/20170419/NEWS/170419881

          Although concerns were noted, the Daily Democrat is not always the best source for objectiveness. Still, it provides some perspective.

          Now that I’m reviewing the article, I see that the person you referenced (“Sandy”) actually DID express concerns regarding development in the flood plain. (So, I guess you misunderstood your own reference.)

          1. Don Shor

            Now that I’m reviewing the article, I see that the person you referenced (“Sandy”) actually DID express concerns regarding development in the flood plain. (So, I guess you misunderstood your own reference.)

            No, Ron, I very well understood my own reference. That’s why they compromised with respect to how and when those areas might get developed.
            The constraints on developing in a floodplain are much more significant now than they were before Katrina and since Natomas was developed. It will be complicated developing east of 102, it will involve federal funding and approval, and sale of the city land requires a 4/5 vote of the council (there were some dubious land deals in recent past that probably prompted that requirement).

        7. David Greenwald

          Ron: I’m reading this exchange and quibbling over an insignificant point and wondering why you’re engaging in this conversation?  My point of writing this column was the loss to Davis.  Woodland can manage their own affairs quite well and I wouldn’t presume to tell them how to handle their affairs any more than I would want my friends Angel Barajas or Enrique Fernandez to come down here and tell us how to conduct ours.  But at the core here is the issue – how does Davis become sustainable fiscally speaking?  Is it really your intention to tax ourselves to a balanced budget?  Or pound and pray, hoping the state will step in?  Those are the issues that matter, not whether or not the proposal was well received in Woodland and by whom.

        8. Ron

          Don:

          O.K. – they “compromised” regarding the conditions of the potential sale of the city-owned land (which would be part of the deep-water, flood-plain development, in addition to the vast private holdings of the developer).  (I believe that this land was GIVEN to the city by the federal government, in the first place.)  A “super-majority” is needed (for now), for this sale to occur.

          Given the underlying developer’s wealth and influence (extending beyond Woodland), let’s see what happens, in the long-term. (They certainly were successful regarding the Natomas Basin. Also, just within the last week or so, another large-scale housing development was approved in Natomas – near the airport.)

          And yet, the floodplain was included in the plan (for potential development), as was ALL of the farmland (south of the city), which was supposed to be “saved” by including the floodplain development in the plan.  (Not just limited to the 350-acre “innovation center/housing development.)

          ALL areas that were considered for development ended up being included in the plan.  And while I’m glad that the sale of the city-owned land now requires a super-majority of the council (4-1, or higher), the inclusion of all parcels in the plan for development (including the deep-water flood plain, and all of the farmland parcels south of town) is what I call a typical “Woodland compromise”.

           

        9. Ron

          David:  “Ron: I’m reading this exchange and quibbling over an insignificant point and wondering why you’re engaging in this conversation.”

          I personally don’t view development surrounding Davis as an “insignificant point”.  Nor do I view the facts regarding the “innovation center” that will likely be approved in Woodland to be “insignificant”.  (Including the fact that the majority of the site will be low-density housing.) After all, you’re the one who’s wringing his hands regarding this supposed “loss” to Davis. (Regardless, you’re not considering the impacts that the innovation center will have regarding the need for a “duplicate”, in Davis. Instead, it’s business as usual, regarding your arguments.)

          But, if you’re concerned about the conversation, why single me out?  Why not ask your moderator why he’s engaging on this?

          I do think that you (and others) mistakenly disregard what’s going on around Davis (in terms of developments), and pretend that it has no impact.

        10. David Greenwald

          On the contrary, it’s clear that Davis lost out tremendously when Davis Innovation Center left and then went to Woodland.  I don’t think it precludes MRIC, but it certainly was not a good day for Davis – hence the column.

        11. Ron

          David:  If you look at what Woodland is actually “getting”, I’m not sure that it’s as good as you believe it is. Regardless, it will certainly impact the “market” for another innovation center (or two?) in Davis.

          Even in Woodland, it’s primarily a housing development.

  6. Tia Will

    The bad news – this is what Davis was looking to do back in 2014 with its push for Innovation Centers and its RFEI. “

    Actually, this plan is not similar to what Davis was “looking to do” back in 2014. The city had specifically requested projects that did not include housing of any type ( targeted at work force or otherwise) despite the fact that the planners of DI said openly that a project having housing would have advantages and that they favored that approach. When MRIC later said the same, there was a large outcry about “bait and switch”.

    1. Ron

      Yeah, Dave.  You got that right.

      Pretty soon, there won’t be many fights regarding development in Davis, since Woodland is closing in regardless.  (Except for that short distance between Road 27 and 29 – for now, at least.) West Sacramento would “be here already”, if it wasn’t for the engineered flood area between the two communities.

      Truthfully, I fail to understand why some seem to think that never-ending development and sprawl is a “good thing”. Haven’t we seen enough examples of that, around the valley (and pretty much everywhere)?

      Oh, well. I’m guessing that it’s ultimately a losing battle (since it’s been that way consistently, so far).

      1. Don Shor

        I strongly suggest that Davis get going on a review of the General Plan. It would be worthwhile for Measure O funds to be prioritized to enact conservation easements between Davis and Woodland. An urban limit line should be considered, and future possible housing and commercial sites should be identified and placed within the city’s sphere of influence. By my odometer reading, the southeast corner of Woodland is now 5.8 miles from the northeast corner of Davis. There are ways that cities can work together to protect farmland and natural sites. We know what Woodland is going to do. Davis is long overdue for a General Plan update, and this business park project should be a wakeup call about the urgency of that.

  7. Todd Edelman

    I’m curious if there are projections of how this will affect Davis in terms of traffic. For everyone who chooses to travel between the new development and Davis more-or-less east of the train tracks, two-lane undivided 102 will go straight to hell with  ground zero at Pole Line and E. Covell. The alternative route from this area and West Sacramento – which might be interesting if 5 is  congested – goes through or near Davis one of three ways: 113 to 80, 102/Pole Line to E. Covell, Mace and 80and possibly – though unlikely – 102, 28H, 105 and 32A/B to 80. I am sure that there will be a demand to widen 102.

    One border of the area is noisy highway, and it’s just far enough from any future passenger rail service in the ROW between Davis and Woodland to be create extreme park & ride stupidity — if the development straddled the rail line it would be 5 minutes to downtown Woodland and less than 15 to downtown Davis and the depot.  Nevertheless the less than ideal siting, I am sure that it was required to fund any development of the ROW in the future in order to get approval. Yeah, right.

    This place is going to be so car-dependent – no doubt they’ll encircle with a meaningless bike path like the one at the Cannery – that people will only shop at the free parking big-lot stores in Woodland when they don’t stop at Davis Target on the way home or the parking garage at 1st and F, or of course shopping for a new car on Chiles.

  8. Ron

    Todd:  “I’m curious if there are projections of how this will affect Davis in terms of traffic.  For everyone who chooses to travel between the new development and Davis more-or-less east of the train tracks, two-lane undivided 102 will go straight to hell with  ground zero at Pole Line and E. Covell.  The alternative route from this area and West Sacramento – which might be interesting if 5 is  congested – goes through or near Davis one of three ways: 113 to 80, 102/Pole Line to E. Covell, Mace and 80 and possibly – though unlikely – 102, 28H, 105 and 32A/B to 80. I am sure that there will be a demand to widen 102.”

    Your analysis is absolutely spot-on, particularly if the flood-plain development (East of Road 102) is approved (assuming developers are ultimately successful in making this occur).   But, even the “innovation center” (the majority of which consists of low-density housing) will have an impact.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for