Information & Questions about the ARC

The following comments were submitted by Greg Rowe, member of the Planning Commission, for the February 26 Planning Commission workshop on the Aggie Research Campus (ARC).  They are addressed to the Chair and staff liaison to the Commission, respectively.

Matt Keasling speaks to the Planning Commission, 2/26

Cheryl and Sherri:

As you know, I'll be out of town for the Feb 26 Planning Commission meeting; I’ll be leaving early Thursday AM. 

I met on January 7 for over 2 hours with Dan Ramos and attorney Matt Keasling (Taylor & Wiley).  Below are a few of the questions I asked, and their responses.  This information may be relevant to next week's workshop.

1. UCD As Anchor Tenants and Property Tax Exemption: The consultant's scope of work for the updated fiscal analysis says that it will be assumed that UCD will be one of the early anchor tenants. If this turns out to be the case, will the developer (Ramos, et al.) apply for a property tax exemption?  This is a concern because elsewhere in Davis it has been the pattern of practice for commercial and residential developers/property owners to file for a property tax exemption on properties leased by UCD.  Answer: Ramos said he would not do this. He is philosophically opposed to this practice.  I replied that if that is the case, such a provisions needs to be included in the development agreement.  More important, it must be included in the baseline conditions, because Council can at any time amend the DA, but cannot alter the baseline conditions approved on a Measure J/R ballot.
2. Student Housing:  I said that in my opinion any multi-family housing (apartments) should not follow the same design as recent student oriented housing projects like Sterling, Lincoln40, etc., in which each unit has multiple locking bedrooms, each with its bathroom; i.e., a "rent by the bed" format.  Any multifamily apartments constructed at the ARC site should be explicitly designed and intended for rental by workers at the site.  Answer:  Ramos said that, of course, ARC residential developers cannot discriminate, but that it would be his intention to have apartments constructed according to the needs of ARC workers, and not UCD students. 
3. Why the name "Aggie Research Campus," which is very similar to UCD's "Aggie Square" in Sacramento?  Answer: Discussions with potential tenants showed strong positive feelings for association with UCD by used of the word "Aggie" in the project title. UCD said "Aggie" is not a copyrighted name, so the university has no objection.
4. Affordable Housing: They emphasized the strong desire for maximum flexibility in how the City's requirements would be met.  I said that they need to take the City's RHNA obligations into account, which they recognize. I also said that I am very concerned about "bait and switch," such as the Planning Commission experienced with the Cannery project during 2018.
5. Environmentally Superior Alternative in the MRIC FEIR: Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the City Council concurred that in order for the equal weight alternative to be "environmentally superior," 60% of the on-site housing units must be occupied by at least one ARC employee.  I questioned how this criteria could be met, especially if the project's affordable housing requirements were allowed to be met by providing affordable housing off-site.
6. Traffic: I cited the traffic study for the Buzz Oates/Nugget project, along with the Fehr & Peers study of the impacts of WAZE on Mace Blvd., and also cited my personal observations of afternoon traffic backups on Mace and 2nd Street (especially on Friday afternoons).  On this basis, I question whether any amount of mitigation by the ARC developer would prevent congestion from becoming appreciably worse.  Answer:  They recognize this is a big challenge.  
7. The other partners: I asked why the other development partners, Buzz Oates and Reynolds & Brown, are never seen at any of the public meetings.  Answer:  The other partners have delegated such responsibilities to RAMCO.  The project managers of the other 2 companies are not local (especially Reynolds and Brown), so getting to meetings is difficult. 
8. Can RAMCO be trusted?: I cited the chapter in the City's on-line book about the history of development in Davis, as it relates to development of Mace Ranch and how RAMCO attempted to leverage the City and County against each other.  I said that in my opinion, many Davis residents with long memories may be skeptical of the ARC project, or any other project involving RAMCO.  Answer:  Ramos conceded this is something that will have to be dealt with, but is of the opinion that RAMCO had no choice with regard to Mace Ranch because, in his opinion, the City was unresponsive.

I hope this information is useful.  Have a good meeting.  Regards, Greg