by Rob White
With all of the discussion around a technology (or innovation) business park in Davis, questions that are often asked include the appropriate size (acreage), location, and justification. Though I can’t fully answer any of these questions, partially because some of the answers are dependent on community preference, I was asked by some in the community to attempt to provide a framework for some of the discussion.
Before we explore some of these parameters, I think it is important to note that this conversation in Davis (and the US in general) is not a new one. But there does seem to be a lot of energy lately, both at the local and national levels. And let’s make sure we are calibrated with the understanding that the terms tech park, innovation park, science park and business park are all relatively interchangeable for the purposes of our discussion.
Though we have seen several media articles about this topic lately, a simple internet search provided an article from the Sacramento Business Journal dated May 7, 2000 describing the Davis community looking at the potential for three business park locations.
These locations included a 25-acre park on UC Davis, a proposed 319-acre Davis Technology Campus sponsored by PG&E on Chiles Road in southeast Davis, and a proposed 175-acre Oeste Campus off of Covell Blvd. If you read the article, you will find many of the names familiar and many of which are still active in the local community. Ironically, Pam Marrone is quoted in the article as saying “We suffer in… Davis… from not having enough space for technology businesses.” Her concern was raised based on the need for expansion space by then AgraQuest. As we all know, the company grew, was purchased by Bayer and (as she predicted) since room was not made, Bayer is moving the renamed CropScience unit to West Sacramento.
Though I am pretty sure that these were not the first tech park proposals to address the obvious need in Davis, there appears to be an increased focus on the issue now. One example is the very robust process occurring between the city, county, UC Davis and the land owners on identifying options for the 40+ acre Nishi Property, just south of the Mondovi Center, between the railroad tracks and Interstate 80. There are several infrastructure items to address with this site, but several well-vetted options will be coming forward for community input, likely in late Winter/early spring 2014.
And though Nishi will take care of some of the need for technology and research space in Davis, the facilities will be smaller in scale and will address only a fraction of the need for new, modern research space. This seems to be a similar conclusion arrived at by the Innovation Park Task Force and City Council in November 2012 when they made several recommendations to look at some other opportunities in town. And though the intention seemed to be a model that would get Nishi moving forward and then look at other locations, we now have learned that the proposed Nishi development would not be large enough for some of the self-identified users, like Schilling Robotics.
Tyler Schilling has recently commented at a public forum that he needs to expand his operations to about 500,000 square feet of facility on 40 acres in the next 2 to 3 years. This would include multiple factory buildings, a test pool complex, and accessory use yard. There is no available commercial or industrial properties currently in the City of Davis that can accommodate this need. Note I said ‘available’. Yes, the Cannery property could fit this use, BUT the owner has other plans and has said very cogently that they are not interested in making an industrial park on that property. More importantly, Mr. Schilling has made it clear that he is not interested in that location for his business expansion and if given that option, he will have to seek other alternatives outside of Davis. In fact, Mr. Schilling has specifically stated his preference is at the Mace Blvd and Interstate 80 interchange.
And it should be noted again that Mr. Schilling is not the only one supporting a tech park in Davis. Expanding companies that have now publically self-identified and will require significant additional space in the next 2 to 3 years include Marrone Bio Innovations, Engage3, HM Clause and Cedaron Medical. It was first discussed that these companies were talking to the City staff about their needs back in the spring. Other tech companies are growing at a very fast rate and I expect that those that will add their names to list will increase over the coming months.
One way to look at this may be to introduce some facts from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website. Their webpages on science parks reads “Silicon Valley (USA) was a pioneer in the development of science parks the world. Originally known as Stanford University Science Park, Silicon Valley dates back to the early 1950s. It was followed by Sophia Antipolis (France) in Europe in the 1960s and Tsukuba Science City (Japan) in Asia in the early 1970s. This trio represents the oldest and the most well-known science parks in the world.”
The page continues with, “Today, there are over 400 science parks worldwide and their number is still growing. At the top of the list comes the USA, which is reported to have more than 150 science parks. Japan comes next with 111 science parks. China began developing science parks in the mid-1980s and now has around 100, 52 of which were approved by the national government and the remainder by local governments.”
If you click the link for North America, you will get a partial list of the 150+ science parks for the US. But will be immediately noticeable is that many of them are associated with academia or local government (or both). Some are also hosted by federal labs. And if you peruse the list you will find that sizes range from 100s to 1000s of acres and sector focus ranges from clean tech to bio medical to manufacturing.
So maybe a better comparison for a discussion is Davis might be to look at some of the tech parks associated with universities in California. By no means an exhaustive list, most would probably put the following major research parks on their list:
Stanford Research Park – over 700 acres, anchored by Stanford University and Stanford Research Institute.
San Francisco Mission Bay – 303 acres, anchored by the expansion of the UC San Francisco Medical Center.
Torrey Pines Mesa Technology Center – about 400 acres, anchored by UC San Diego, Scripps Institutes and CSU San Diego.
NASA Ames Research Park – about 500 acres, anchored by NASA, UC Santa Cruz, Carnegie Mellon, Purdue and Singular University. Includes expansion of Google campus.
And a new comer to the discussion might include:
Sacramento’s recently announced plans for an innovation center – about 250 acres, south of Sacramento State.
These parks range in size from a proposed 250 acres to about 700 acres, with the arguably most successful park being Stanford Research Park, mostly because of its ideal location, enterprising university, long research history, and length of time operating.
There is much to be assessed from just this basic overview, and I will tackle more of this topic in my next article. But I wanted to provide some beginning resources for the discussion and to present some analogies of what we are discussing as framed by similar research parks.
If you want to get engaged in the dialogue in person, there are also several opportunities coming up at public meetings, as listed below.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
There are several ways for you to get involved in the discussion of about innovation parks in Davis. These include 1) attending and providing a public comment at the upcoming meeting of the Innovation Park Task Force, 2) attendance at the Innovation Park Community Forum, 3) attending an upcoming City Council meeting, or 4) providing your feedback to the City Council or City Manager through an email or letter. Information about the first 3 items is detailed below.
** Innovation Park Task Force **
1st Meeting- Tuesday OCT 29th @ 5:30 pm
Reconvening the Task Force (as directed by Council) includes a first meeting of the previous members of the Task Force to begin the community dialogue around the topics of innovation, entrepreneurs, technology, research, and academia with the potential for business park(s) to serve these sectors. The Brown Act open meeting processes will be followed. The following are a set of topics that will be discussed. The agenda will be posted on the City Website and at City Hall.
1. Reviewing what was done and formalized in Nov 2012
2. Setting goals and desired outcomes from the new process
3. Directing staff to hold a series of open forums on the topic so that the community can have a dialogue.
4. Identify initial questions to address and confirm dates of community forums
5. Adjourn the Task Force until December (date TBD), where staff will bring back a summary of the community forums.
Location: Community Chambers, City Hall, 23 Russell Blvd.
** Innovation Park Community Forum(s) **
1st Forum – Tuesday NOV 5th @ 5:30 pm
The first of what is proposed to be a series of community forums will be held by the City to increase community level dialogue as a result of the Innovation Park Task Force recommendations from November 2012’s City Council meeting. The meeting will be noticed and information made available in accordance with open meeting requirements, though it is not an official Brown Act meeting.
In a dialogue-based format, city staff will provide information, invite representative stakeholders to provide brief presentations, and provide an opportunity for the community to give input and share ideas on locations, size, purpose and need for innovation business park(s) in and around Davis. The topics below will be addressed:
1. Provide brief overview of Innovation Park Task Force findings & recommendations.
2. Inform the community what was discussed at the Oct 22nd Council meeting and how to that direction can fit in to the larger plan for an innovation park.
3. Use structure similar to a typical Council meeting, with a brief staff report of any relevant info and 3 minutes for folks to speak or provide input.
Some questions that will be addressed at the community forum will likely include:
- What are appropriate tech uses at Nishi – size and scope?
- What are the specific needs of users like Schilling, Marrone, Engage3, HM Clause, etc?
- Based on case studies, what is the appropriate size to be both financially viable and attractive to the region?
Location: Tentatively Planned for Community Chambers, City Hall, 23 Russell Blvd
** City Council Meetings **
Typical – 2nd and 4th Tuesday Nights @ 6:30 pm, City Hall Community Chambers
The Council meets regularly to attend to the City’s normal course of business.
NOTE: Tuesday, NOV 12th @ 6:30 pm is a specific meeting regarding the future uses of the Mace 391/Leland Ranch parcel, east of Mace Blvd. This is currently city-owned land that is planned for a future Ag conservation easement to be finalized in March 2013. The City Council will be weighing options for the Mace 391/Leland Ranch parcel, including its proximity and interaction with privately owned lands adjacent to the west (between Mace Blvd and the city’s parcel). This privately held land has been previously identified as a potential location for a future innovation park.
If you would like more information on any of these items, you can always reach me at rwhite@cityofdavis.org.
[quote]In fact, Mr. Schilling has specifically stated his preference is at the Mace Blvd and Interstate 80 interchange.[/quote]
The land at the Mace Blvd. and I-80 interchange is the parcel owned by Ramos.
Don – correct. And the Bruner Trust north of them. And the Mariani Nut Company further around the Curve. And the much discussed Shriner’s parcel just to the west od that and north of Covell.
Is Mr. Schilling actively pursuing any of those sites?
I am told he is, but have no proof that is the case.
rob: how does interland fit the picture/ needs?
DP, as part of my personal due diligence on this subject I recently met with Tom Shipley the senior executive of Interland’s Davis location. Tom was very clear that he sees little or no conflict between the Interland model, which is predominantly a rental model. He said that he has no choice other than to turn down companies coming to Interland like Schilling, whose needs are greater than Interland’s existing infrastructure can support. He felt that Interland and the technology parks envisioned by the Innovation Park Task Force are both additive and synergistic in a vertically complete Davis ecosystem that is supportive of technology transfer out of UCD.