by Rob White
There has been a fair amount of discussion on the Vanguard about where, what and when an Innovation Park might (or should) be in Davis, especially recently. In light of the Bayer CropScience announcement last week to relocate to West Sacramento, the City leadership has had many conversations, internal and external, about what are the next steps and would an Innovation Park have made the difference.
Even more compelling is that this last week the City was informed by more technology companies in Davis that they are experiencing similar growth and making plans for expansion. This is likely due to the Bayer announcement as the timing is too coincidental.
The good news is that they have reached out and are asking to meet with the City staff. The bad news is that at least one has already decided to leave and several of the others are struggling to see facility options in Davis as a viable alternative. Due to requested confidentiality, I won’t enumerate who these companies are, but you can probably make at least a few educated guesses.
City staff is meeting with each of these companies and discussing needs, options, and local alternatives. Unlike the Bayer CropScience’s scenario, we are meeting directly with the local decision makers and have a chance to make our case for them to stay and grow in Davis. In the case of Bayer, the process and decision making was filtered through SACTO, the regional economic development organization. But the companies we are talking to do have national or global level influencers, either in the form of parent companies or investors, so the decision is not completely just local.
It goes without saying that these technology companies and the jobs they represent are important to Davis. More important is to recognize what they contribute to the local economy. Unlike a small startup or business, medium sized companies that are on a growth trajectory become active in the local community activities and organizations.
Some of these companies have done more than give their time and have been significant philanthropist locally. And that is something that was really lost when Bayer decided to go to West Sacramento… the opportunity for the corporation to play a more significant role in local organizations through their charitable contributions. Like they do in Berkeley, Emeryville and now San Francisco (due to their new investment in Mission Bay). I witnessed firsthand through my time in the East Bay the amount of sponsorship and charitable giving that went on in these cities due to being located there. And it is significant.
So, what I want to do in this article is share with you the City’s plans on next steps in this discussion and the actions over the fall, winter and spring that are planned.
As many of you are aware, the City Council created an Innovation Park Task Force back in October 2010. The members included representatives from the Planning Commission, Business and Economic Development Commission, Mayor Joe Krovoza, and Council Member (then Mayor Pro Tem) Rochelle Swanson. And according to City documents, they were charges with the following:
- Conducting business outreach and public discussion regarding community benefits and impacts of a peripheral business park;
- Evaluate peripheral opportunity sites, focusing on, Mace Ranch/I-80 and the Northwest quadrant as initial site options;
- Identify attributes of world-class next-generation university-related business park and how they would apply to a future business park in Davis
- Return to City Council with summary of findings and recommendation on future peripheral business park.
On November 13, 2012, the Task Force returned to the City Council with a report out and made several recommendations (http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/Agendas/20121113/Packet/06-Innovation-Park-Task-Force-amended.pdf). These were ultimately adopted by resolution of the City Council and specifically included the following language:
Pursue a “Dispersed Innovation Strategy” offering flexible space (scalability) supporting needs of growing and new businesses. A combined approach of near term close-in hub with mid-term, larger less constrained edge sites offer the best mix of University proximity and expansion capability for the City:
•1) Maximize Existing Inventory to increase development certainty, and flexibility.
•2) Review existing land use, zoning and tax structure with objectives of supporting retention and growth of innovation businesses and maximizing revenue opportunities.
•3) Near Term – The Gateway (Downtown Research & University Innovation District) option offers the best close/in location due to the proximity to University and property owner and University interest, and should be pursued as the City’s top innovation center priority.
•4) Mid-Term – The East and West “edge” sites offer viable options for location and size of larger innovation centers meeting needs of growing mid-sized companies, and should be continued to be explored as part of a mid-term Dispersed Innovation Strategy.
As you can see from the list, there are several approaches that are being taken to the issue. Staff continues to meet on a regular basis with community organizations, companies, brokers, land owners, developers, etc. to address Items #1 and #2. This is an ongoing process and will continue to be a priority.
For Item #3, staff and other involved parties continue to have discussions on how this approach might be fulfilled, including discussions with downtown land owners, PG&E, the University and the Nishi Property interests. This item does not entirely address the needs for build-ready parcels that are about 10-acres and larger that are being requested, but it is an important element to the Davis strategy and will continue to be a strong focus for the community in trying to address as many of the needs as viable.
Item #4 is of course the one that has the most interest for the quickly growing companies that are in need of larger facilities (similar to what Mori Seiki recently completed). It is also the one that will be the hardest for the Davis community to struggle with for an answer. And it is specifically focused on two specific areas, the Mace Curve properties and the Northwest Quadrant properties.
The staff report also included suggested direction on the next steps, including holding community meetings and creating engagement opportunities. With these directions in mind, staff will be internally drafting an Action Plan from these recommendations by Council. The draft will be initially shared with several of our community organizations like the Chamber for input, and then taken to Council this fall for discussion and direction.
Once the Action Plan is affirmed by the City Council, staff will begin vetting the information and recommendations made by the Innovation Task Force with local and regional partners to determine areas needed for additional input. Staff will also work this fall and winter with community groups to bring these recommendations forward and gather ideas for implementation. Several community workshops will be recommended as part of the Action Plan.
And this coming spring (2013), once staff has gathered ideas for implementation of the Council recommendations, we will synthesize that information and go back to Council for discussion and then potentially adoption of a set of distinct opportunities to implement their recommendations.
I wanted to begin that outreach process here with the Vanguard to solicit constructive feedback and ideas. I realize that some of you may not agree with the Council’s adopted recommendations, but I would like to focus now on implementation of their direction from November 2012, so input along those lines would be very informative and helpful.
i’m back with the uncomfortable thought that all of this is an excuse/ rationale for encroaching onto ag land and expanding our borders.
There is an implicit assumption in this article that an “innovation park” is a net revenue gain for the City. This is rarely the case, given the type of development that is typically approved.
The City should not pursue any development that is a net revenue loss, even for short term financial gains. A good first step for the City is to gain a true internal understanding of all of its property related service costs, and to stop relying on consultants and their exaggerated projections.
[quote]i’m back with the uncomfortable thought that all of this is an excuse/ rationale for encroaching onto ag land and expanding our borders.
[/quote]
DP, I agree with you and my first thought was we’re coming back to this so soon after the last debacle.
they just lost bayer, that will trigger the urgency.
We [u]already have the land. It is already zoned correctly[/u]. It is the ConAgra 100 acres with all utilities, roads etc. already in place.
What we lack is a city council that is finally willing to tell the property owners once and forever that the property is NOT GOING TO BE REZONED. Until that happens we will continue to get proposals to build still more houses there.
I have been told that “they” say that the property isn’t quite right for this use- nonsense. “They” are the collection of consultants who seem to have attached themselves to this property like barnacles for over a decade now preventing any actual users from getting close to it. The property we need as a city to create jobs, keep business etc. is being blocked from use by a small group of consultants who in my opinion seem to be convinced that they can convince the city council into working against the public interest and rezone the property on September 10th.
There is an urgent need for an innovation park. It would have worked a lot better before the current ConAgra “team” bulldozed all of the buildings and infrastructure to (this is how it appears to me) make it less attractive to commercial users.
Mike Hart is correct. Here we have an emergency for business land. Bayer would locate in the Northwest Quandrant or behind the fruit stand at mace curve but would find the cannery site unacceptable? Until such time as voters approve an alternate location for business, I certainly wouldn’t rezone the only spot remaining.
i’ve heard rumblings that any housing development would be put on the ballot through a referendum or initiative process akin to a measure j vote. the message from the community seems to be the preference for business over housing, but the leadership for the city and conagra are not listening.
Any city council person who trys to do an end-run around Measure J should be recalled. Its as simple as that. It is the third-rail in Davis politics and any candididate who has ever talked to the citizens of Davis knows this. Taking 100 acres of potential jobs and turning it into money-losing housing should result in the loss of their job- period.
you have it backwards cannery is not a measure j site, but the voters would petition it so becomes as though it were.
Hi Davis Progressive- I understand that it is not a Measure J site, yet, but it would be entirely appropriate for the city council to recognize that rezoning the property is the kind of sweeping addition of more housing that Measure J was designed to give the citizens a say in. The best solution with this property is to leave it alone and hope the current owners will get out of the way and let people actually use it for what it is zoned for. If they insist on trying to get around the zoning and make 100 acres of more housing- then let the citizens have a say through Measure J.
Most high tech businesses will want visibility and easy access, which precludes the Cannery site. The site is both too far from the University and too far from I-80 to be useful as an innovation hub. Anyone who proclaims this site as the best site for business development in town is really saying that they don’t want business development in town.
best or best available?
[quote]Most high tech businesses will want visibility and easy access, which precludes the Cannery site. [/quote]
So that also precludes the Northwest Quadrant.
If somebody will send me a map showing the parcels in question, I’d be happy to save it and post it during these discussions.
Maybe if people actually saw progress on items 1 – 3 above, they’d be more open to discussing item 4.
“So that also precludes the Northwest Quadrant.”
A block or two off of 113 is nothing compared to the lack of access at the Cannery site Don, so how do you come to the conclusion that the Northwest Quadrant is precluded?
I was assuming you meant major freeway (ie. I-80) access. I suppose 113 access would be sufficient. Do you think Hwy 113 is visible enough?
I am a bit confused by Mark West’s comment about lack of access. For whom? If they are Davis Residents, the location is ideal. If they are coming from Sacramento, it is 6 minutes from the Mace Exit, as opposed to 9 minutes to reach the vacant land on Davis Research Park Drive… If they are coming from the Bay Area, and take 113, it is closer than anything else along 80.
Besides, the argument is simply silly. The competition is West Sacramento, which is 20 minutes further from both the University and anyone coming from the Bay area.
This is a regurgitated excuse that has been dredged up by the consultants for Lewis Homes (original geniuses with idea of building houses here) for years without any basis.
The property is ideal for what it is zoned for and could give Davis a serious opportunity to create jobs and keep businesses here.
You know, all this time I’ve assumed that ‘northwest quadrant’ was referring to something further down the road than the land directly adjacent to the hospital. How far down toward Road 98 are we talking about?
Okay, so we don,t want any development adjacent to out out present city limits. So, why don’t we want housing built inside the city limits either?
For some reason the text for this story and comments is so tiny ton my phone that I cannot rread my comments as I type them. I meant to type “our cur city limits.”
“Adjacent to our present city limits”
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Most high tech businesses will want visibility and easy access, which precludes the Cannery site.
So that also precludes the Northwest Quadrant.
[b]If somebody will send me a map showing the parcels in question, I’d be happy to save it and post it during these discussions. [/b]
Maybe if people actually saw progress on items 1 – 3 above, they’d be more open to discussing item 4.”[/i]
Don, the links to the information on the NW Quadrant parcels can be accessed in the August 23, 2007 Agenda Packet at [url]http://community-development.cityofdavis.org/documents—2006-2013-general-plan-housing-element-update[/url]
With specific information on the respective parcels as follows:
Site Worksheet – Parlin – [url]http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/pdfs/20070823/H4_EVALUATION_FACTORS.pdf[/url]
Site Worksheet – Boschken/Elliott/Schaal/Smith – [url]http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/pdfs/20070823/H5_EVALUATION_FACTORS.pdf[/url]
Site Worksheet – Oeste Ranch – [url]http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/pdfs/20070823/H6_EVALUATION_FACTORS.pdf[/url]
Site Worksheet – West of Stonegate – [url]http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/pdfs/20070823/H7_EVALUATION_FACTORS.pdf[/url]
(continued)
Here is a summary comparison of the four NW Quadrant sites, Nishi and Covell Villages
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/pdfs/20070823/Comparison_Summary_of_H_Sites_Draft_Only.pdf[/url]
(continued)
Later in the Housing Element Steering Committee process the summary comparison document was updated. Here’s a link to that summary document.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CDD/Advance-Planning/2008-Housing-GPU/pdfs/20070906/Comparison_Summary_of_H_Sites.doc.pdf[/url]
Was this done? From the Task Force report:
[quote]4.
b. Move forward to explore peripheral sites for future business park development to accommodate medium-scale (~150 employees) businesses. Appoint two City Councilmembers to form a Task Force with two representatives selected by the Planning Commission, and the Business and Economic Development Commission to return to the City Council with recommendations.[/quote]
Mike Hart: “[i]The property is ideal for what it is zoned for and could give Davis a serious opportunity to create jobs and keep businesses here.[/i]”
You are absolutely correct, it is a perfect location for a tomato cannery (or some other form of agricultural processing facility). Unfortunately the people of Davis don’t view that sort of business as an appropriate neighbor.
what an odd situation…
I am the CEO of a high-tech company based in Davis (Sierra Energy) that has just had to purchase 18.8 acres in West Sacramento to build my project. I know several other CEOs of high-tech companies who have had to to do the same. Not just Marrone (Beyer)… We all wish there was land available in Davis. I have a series of people in these comments who all seem quite certain what is best for companies like mine. We don’t give a damn about visibility or easy access- we want a decent price for reasonably zoned land near the university (being in Davis counts). Why do people keep making assertions about things they don’t personally understand here?
The 100-acres is ideal for its current zoning and once the current landowner gets the idea of building houses out of their head, it can be sold for a fair price and actual business people can purchase it and put it to appropriate use.
The city of Davis needs to stop this silly idea in its tracks.
Thank you Mike Hart. I and others have said all along that the Cannery site needs to stay zoned for business but the naysayers always came back with freeway access problems. Baloney!!! It’s about 1.5 miles from 80 going East on Covell, 2 miles from 113 going West on Covell, easy access to most of Davis and as an added plus only a few hundred yards from Poleline/102 for access to Woodland and Highway 5. Having a CEO of a high-tech company school these people is EXACTLY WHAT IT TAKES to get them to Wake UP.
Mike Hart:
Touche. I stand corrected.
Re Mike Hart:“I am the CEO of a high-tech company based in Davis (Sierra Energy) that has just had to purchase 18.8 acres in West Sacramento to build my project…”
I just Googled your name and your company “Sierra Energy” which is a garbage processing business. One article spoke about your “industrial blast furnace and gasifier” to process many tons of garbage.
Personally I find it astonishing that you would advocate for placing a huge garbage processing business in the middle of North Davis neighborhoods by trying to scuttle the well-designed Cannery mixed-use project to, instead, locate one of your blast furnace “gasifier” garbage processing businesses.
What if one of these blast furnace “gasifiers” that you propose in this residential area was to explode? I can’t wait to hear the neighborhood response to your proposal. How long have you been in the garbage processing business and why not propose putting your garbage processing business processing tons of garbage in your neighborhood? It would be interesting to see what the response by your neighbors would be.
[quote]So, why don’t we want housing built inside the city limits either?[/quote]
For me it is not a matter of not wanting housing built inside the city limits, it is about the type of housing.
I do believe we need more affordable housing. I do not believe that the city has a need for more single family residences in the $400,000 to $ 600,000 range. We do not have need for the Cannery Project as proposed.
Mike Hart,
Correct me if I am wrong, but if I were to map the location of medium-sized industrial properties across the north state, 80 percent of them would be adjacent to freeways or multi-lane highways.
I assume that your business requires the delivery of raw-materials via large tracker trailer rig. Do you really want to have these trucks drive through town to reach your business location?
I think Mark West makes a reasonable point except maybe for visibility. Certainly there is brand advertising benefit for a large commercial property with signage adjacent to a major freeway; but there are a large percentage of businesses that would not value this benefit and would just as soon be in nondescript digs. However, I think freeway access is a big deal for business that requires a lot of truck deliveries and/or shipping. The Cannery site seems quite problematic for this. I think the idea of a lot of truck traffic down Mace and Covell would turn many in the town against the development.
The Northwest quadrant would be acceptable with I-113 access. The Mace curve area is the other obvious choice given that it would only require a short trip on Mace. The Cannery would seem to be more limited to the type and size of businesses it could support.
[quote]I think freeway access is a big deal for business that requires a lot of truck deliveries and/or shipping.[/quote]
Redwood Barn, Hibbert Lumber, and Davis Ace Hardware all receive most of our deliveries via big-rig trucks.
I am not sure who the excitable and anonymous “Ryan” is who has googled me (that tickles) and discovered that among our technologies we do research and development on waste to energy… true! In fact we are teamed with a half-dozen companied doing research on various forms of biomass including municpal solid waste to turn it into clean fuels.
I am not sure if “Ryan” is serious or not in his message- he sounds like he is kidding, but hard to tell. The fact that he says the 100 acre ConAgra site is in the middle of a neighborhood is kind of odd- which one? You mean the one across F street, the railroad tracks, the drainage ditch then 1700′ of open ground? Kinda confused here.
Extrapolating the area or research into a garbage-fueled armageddon for Ryan’s neighbors is misleading at best. It would be like finding out that a medical research company is coming to Davis and assuming that zombie-borne monkey-pox is the logical next step… oh wait, this is Davis…
In short, the property is well suited for R&D and the complete nonsense that keeps coming up about access and visibility is just misleading. Have ANY of the people on this site who don’t work for ConAgra or their consultants actually thought about any of this?
Palo Alto was born at Xerox Parc, care to guess its distance from 280? Cambridge Mass, anyone heard of it? None of their R&D parks front on the freeways. Fresh Pond is 2 miles from Harvard and not on a freeway. Cupertino CA where Apple was born wasn’t anywhere near the freeway at their original offices etc., their HQ isn’t even close. Can anyone please tell me why you keep listening to the consultants for the developer and believing what they say?
The cannery has more than adequate access for a business (an area I am quite familiar with), while it is dreadful for a housing development (not my words- that is from the reviews of their proposal).
RE: Mike Hart.
Glad to see you seem to be flattered by being Googled but researching a bit more it looks like you are in the railroad business as well as the garbage processing business. Hummm…that does make one wonder if your objective of trying to de-rail the nicely designed mixed-use Cannery project is to one locate of your massive garbage processing plants there and railroading and trucking in tons of garbage to north Davis.
Maybe you are new in town or unfamiliar with north Davis and the hundreds of apartments and houses which are located directly across from the Cannery site along Covell Boulevard as well as F St.(which is my neighborhood). So sorry if I can’t agree with welcoming your absurd idea of having your big garbage processing plant into my backyard with all the noise, fumes, and trucking etc. that it would bring. The Cannery site is totally inappropriate for an industrial park or for an all commercial park of any kind.
I agree with others who have commented on the lack of access from a major highway being one of the many reasons why the Cannery site it is a terrible location for a large commercial park. However, it’s a great site for residential or mixed use. The current mixed use project that has been proposed is a very nice design, particularly with the community farm aspect.
“Ryan” (do you have a rest of your name or are you one of the developers?)
You seem to spend a lot of time trying to go in a very random and odd direction- I am no longer interested in the property- they tore down the buildings and did everything they could (it appears) to make it unappealing for my use. The issue at hand is if the property should be held out for other uses- through the magic of google I suppose you could try to make argument that any business annoys you- but that seems pointless.
I am not advocating my project there- I have already purchased property in West Sac. I am specifically in favor of retaining the zoning for other businesses as I am in favor of having Davis be more than just a bedroom community for Sacramento.
As to your comment about my being a railroader- that is also true. Google a bit further and you will find that it is my plan to close the railroad next to your house along F street and turn it into a bike path… sorry- this is not about self-interest. I am trying to find the right solution for Davis and I do firmly believe that there is a jobs imbalance and we have the right solution here.
If you want to keep talking about garbage trucks feel free- but it has nothing to do with the discussion about this property.