Two weeks ago, the UC Davis Chancellor called for “ideas and concepts” to develop an “Innovation Hub” that “would better connect UC Davis research with entrepreneurs, accelerate the transfer of campus discoveries into commercial products, and develop the local and regional economy.”
According to a release from the UC Davis News Service, “The Innovation Hub could take many forms. It might involve creating virtual networks of existing resources, or building new space dedicated to fostering start-up companies — or all of those things, or something else entirely. At this stage, campus officials want to gather a wide range of ideas and strategies from the community.”
“We also want to explore matching that objective with local communities’ economic development aspirations,” he said.
UC Davis, with annual research funding approaching $700 million, has secured more than 400 U.S. patents and earned $110 million in licensing revenue over the past 10 years. Now the campus is seeking to expand technology transfer and become an even more important force for innovation and economic development.
The campus is looking for concepts that mesh with local goals to help UC Davis meet five objectives that include: advance the economic prosperity of our region and enable transfer of knowledge and technology from UC Davis to the marketplace; lead the development of the clean energy, life science and agriculture-based economy of northern California; deepen connections to the regional, national and global business communities; support a culture of entrepreneurship to transform UC Davis research into for-profit enterprises; and provide educational opportunities for faculty, staff and students to develop and demonstrate the commercial value of their inventions.
This week, Davis city staff is recommending three actions in response to the call for the creation of the “Innovation Hub.”
First, “Work to form a partnership with Yolo County, interested property owners, local business community, and other stakeholders to submit a proposal for collaboration with UC Davis on the (re)development of Downtown – Nishi/Gateway as an integrated and dynamic mixed-use innovation district.”
Second, “Return to City Council with the draft proposal on or prior to their March 29th meeting.”
Third, “Continue to encourage, and support as needed, the efforts of other local entities seeking to respond to the Request with concepts to strengthen the transfer of UC Davis related research into the local economy consistent with the City’s economic development goals.”
According to city staff, while the idea of the “Innovation Hub” is not well-defined, the city believes that it is “currently involved in a number of efforts intended to promote economic development consistent with our community values and niche as home of a world-class university.”
First, it argues that its Business Park Land Strategy report, which was approved as a work plan back in October, would allow the city “to maximize use of existing vacant business park/industrial land and buildings; pursue (re)development of Downtown and Nishi/Gateway as a dynamic mixed-use innovation district; move forward to explore peripheral sites for future business park development; and return to Council with recommended actions in response to the Chancellor’s Request for Ideas.”
Second the city is looking for joint planning for the area, including the Nishi property.
Third, the city is exploring peripheral sites for future business park development to accommodate medium-scale businesses, defined as those with less than 150 employees.
Furthermore, the council has approved a packages of incentives “designed to encourage the Mori Seiki company to choose Davis for its first manufacturing facility. Mori Seiki is moving forward and has submitted plans for zoning entitlements.”
Commentary
It is ironic that at the same time the City of Davis was approving the business park plan, and looking at peripheral sites including the Northwest Quadrant and east of Mace for business parks, it was in the process of approving an application to take 100 acres of already-zoned land out of that zoning and to convert the land to residential and mixed use.
The Nishi property looks like an inviting site for development, but the lack of access to the city and the congestion of Richards Blvd suggests that any future use must have university access and probably be used for university purposes. We remain opposed to efforts to put high density urban housing on the Nishi site, as the council directed staff to pursue back in October, but remain open to it as a possible university-affiliated high tech business land park site.
We remain concerned about the collateral impact of developing peripheral sites in Davis for business park purposes and believe that any joint efforts should take place near the university rather than on the outskirts of town, far from the university and freeway access.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
How about Con Agra?
[quote]We remain opposed to efforts to put high density urban housing on the Nishi site[/quote]
To me, the Nishi parcel has always seemed like a logical place for dorms. Connect it to campus with a tunnel under the railroad for service and emergency vehicle access, hooking up with the extension of Old Davis Road near the new hotel. Students don’t need car access. Bike/pedestrian access can be had via the new tunnel and via connection to the existing bike tunnel on the north end. An emergency vehicle-only connection to Olive Drive could also be provided if necessary. No traffic impacts on the Richards undercrossing, let’s leave that alone, please.
dmg: “It is ironic that at the same time the City of Davis was approving the business park plan, and looking at peripheral sites including the Northwest Quadrant and east of Mace for business parks, it was in the process of approving an application to take 100 acres of already-zoned land out of that zoning and to convert the land to residential and mixed use.”
So the city staff is facilitating ConAgra’s proposal for taking the one large site zoned for a high tech business park, ConAgra, out of commission for a business park – and propose to convert it to virtually all residential to build 600 houses we definitely don’t need; while the city claims at the same time it needs more land for a business park! Does this make sense to anyone?
dmg: “The Nishi property looks like an inviting site for development, but the lack of access to the city and the congestion of Richards Blvd suggests that any future use must have university access and probably be used for university purposes. We remain opposed to efforts to put high density urban housing on the Nishi site, as the council directed staff to pursue back in October, but remain open to it as a possible university-affiliated high tech business land park site.”
Nishi needs to be zoned industrial w university access – it is simply not suitable for residential use, as Sue Greenwald has pointed out time and time again.
dmg: “We remain concerned about the collateral impact of developing peripheral sites in Davis for business park purposes and believe that any joint efforts should take place near the university rather than on the outskirts of town, far from the university and freeway access.”
Why not start w the ConAgra site, already zoned light industrial. It was a canning factory, so high tech should be quite an improvement. 600 unneeded residential houses that will end up being a net negative to the city will not be an improvement to Davis, and could add to our already dire financial situation.
dmg: “Two weeks ago, the UC Davis Chancellor called for “ideas and concepts” to develop an “Innovation Hub” that “would better connect UC Davis research with entrepreneurs, accelerate the transfer of campus discoveries into commercial products, and develop the local and regional economy.”
Is this really practical now, in the face of 450 proposed layoffs at UCD? To quote the Sunday’s Davis Enterprise: “The chancellor’s goal of reinvesting into academics and other top priorities the money saved through a “shared services center” now looks less like a boost, and more like a life vest”.”
“Is this really practical now, in the face of 450 proposed layoffs at UCD?”
Is 450 UCD layoffs a product of state funding reductions, or a product of a fiscally mismanaged operation? What would have been wrong with a history of constant efficiency improvements resulting in an operating surplus that could be used to carry the UC system through these difficult financial times?
For example, the $500 million saved by consolidating 16 separate HR and payroll systems into one seems like an idea that should have happened long ago.
We are crying crocodile tears for all these people that will lose their jobs. However, had the UC system had an management/operations mindset to always do more with less, it is more likely that RIF by attrition combined with fewer new hires would have resulted in fewer layoffs. The empire was expanded, and now the empire must shrink.
With a $1 billion deficit, UC president Yudof told the chancellors in January to submit budget cut proposals. The deficit is about half state cuts from the governor’s budget, and half pension/energy cost issues. Chancellor Katehi responded by proposing 450 layoffs in response to the $107 million budget shortfall that is UCD’s share of this. Her proposal is based on voters extending the taxes as proposed by the governor. If that fails, or doesn’t get on the ballot, the cuts would likely double what has been proposed.
I don’t know what your customer base is, but the loss of 450 jobs — staff, faculty, or otherwise — is not good for local businesses.
1) From a smart growth / sustainability perspective, I have no hesitation in endorsing a Nishi development. While technically a peripheral site outside the city limits, it’s difficult to make a persuasive argument that the Nishi property is a greenfield site given it’s surrounded by freeway, railroad and development.
2)From a downtown perspective, I favor a research park on the Nishi site above all other possible sites. I also favor high-density housing on the Nishi site above all other possible sites. Why not do both? Either one or both would dramatically improve the economic vitality of the community in general and the downtown in particular. And the Nishi site would be ideal for housing students, research assistants, faculty, UCD and Downtown workers, and anyone else interested in living in a vibrant urban community.
3)My primary concern is access, but we should be able to devise an innovative solution since we’re so smart and we can tap into the knowledge base of a world-class research university. My secondary concern is the size of any possible retail component. A case can be made for providing some onsite neighborhood support services, but the case for creating a 2nd downtown has yet to be persuasively made (not that I’ve heard anybody trying to make such a case).
4) Myth Buster: The ConAgra site is not zoned business park / light industrial. It’s zoned industrial, i.e. manufacturing/processing/research. Business park has many permitted uses that are not permitted uses for light industrial.
Nishi: research park + innovative housing. I absolutely agree. It would be a great asset to the downtown and the whole community. The university would need to help find a solution to the access problem. I disagree with those who think it is unsuitable for housing.
Nishi site = Innovation Hub?? You’ve got to be kidding. Sorry DS and DTBus but you certainly must be kidding or not aware of the constraints.
JF has it nailed. And that is any Nishi project that proposes access via Olive/Richards is a project that is DOA. After everyone hypes this or similar proposals, let the City/UCD spend very little money and dig up past traffic studies reviewing impacts to Olive/Richards with the full development of Nishi. Is anyone surprised that Richards Blvd can’t handle Nishi? If you drive Richards today it’s obvious even to the non-traffic engineer. But you can bet the City will spend new money and then force the ‘correct answer’. Nishi could work if Richards and the tunnel went to 4 lanes. Who wants that?
If Nishi development was UCD centered and connectivity was via small tunnels for bikes and limited vehicles for light access/emergency to the UCD (per JimF above), then perhaps it could work since all the travel/trips would be UCD primarily. But Union Pacific and the cost of “tunnels” would be prohibitive.
It was pointed out that Nishi is not in the City (and RDA). Boy, wouldn’t the pro RDAers love to annex Nishi. It’s perfect because there’s no blight-see later comment.
Regarding previous Conagra discussion: DG mentioned ‘city is reimbursed for effort expended by applicant’ and “…having six city staffer attend a full meeting, with numerous planners involved, means that they cannot work on other projects…”. However, the City welcomes the fees because of City’s no growth, it’s very hard to find meaningful work with attached revenue for its planners and thus no alternate projects to study (to death I might add). And, plus, mounds of paper will be generated which is a shame since nobody reads the reams including the Council.
Regarding previous RDA discussion: Back to “blight”. One reason the Gov should get rid of at least the Davis RDA is because it’s a sham from the start. Look at the RDA map and envision that area 25 years ago. Question-where’s the blight? In south Davis, nothing existed 25 years ago except the Mace/Chiles area. North of I80 only the downtown existed and Olive Drive. So most of the RDA area is now developed and all the property taxes, essentially all, flow to the RDA instead of corretly going to county, city and school district. Curiously you might say Olive was blight then and it’s unchanged today except for the new apartmentsi per private development. So really, City created a pure revenue machine for love projects at the expense of the county, school district and the city general fund. Swell.
Not to say the RDA hasn’t built some good projects but also some duds. And DT Bus fears that if RDA was disbanded that the tax increment would go to the general fund for payroll and pensions. Question-you think RDA doesn’t fund payroll and pensions? Please. Surely staff working on RDA stuff is paid by RDA revenus-don’t you think? You can bet RDA stuff creates a lot of staff work.
I assume that Nishi traffic would flow toward campus. Otherwise it probably can’t be developed.
I’d be willing to bet that Richards Blvd. will not be widened in our lifetime.
DTB: “4) Myth Buster: The ConAgra site is not zoned business park / light industrial. It’s zoned industrial, i.e. manufacturing/processing/research. Business park has many permitted uses that are not permitted uses for light industrial.”
Thanks for the clarification.
DS: “I’d be willing to bet that Richards Blvd. will not be widened in our lifetime.”
Absolutely.
d007: “So most of the RDA area is now developed and all the property taxes, essentially all, flow to the RDA instead of corretly going to county, city and school district.”
The entire city has benefitted from RDA projects. If RDA expenditures improve the city’s attractability, it increases property values for all (which it has). And that increases tax revenue…
007, you’ve contradited yourself. You state “Sorry DS and DTBus but you certainly must be kidding or not aware of the constraints.” But then you go on to outline how some of the constraints might be overcome (not to mention solutions that you haven’t thought of). There are some smart people on campus, the city, and the privat sector; they’ll figure it out.
“Boy, wouldn’t the pro RDAers love to annex Nishi.” Nishi cannot be annexed by the RDA; it’s not in the RDA district. Why would the pro-RDAers love to annex it?
I could go on pointing out errors in the argument, but that should suffice for now.