Last week, the Vanguard covered the presentation by Dan Ramos and Prakosh Pinto of the Mace Innovation Center. You can read the Vanguard synopsis – here. To watch the video of the presentation – see Proposed Mace Innovation Center Presentation – Jul 28th, 2014.
As Dan Ramos explained, there are really two key drivers for this innovation park – (1) fiscal benefits to the city and (2) the expressed need to keep Tyler Schilling and Schilling Robotics in Davis. Mr. Ramos talked about the economic driver in terms of high-end use buildings, where the combined property tax and sales tax revenues exceed $4 to $7 million. This, he argued, would be instrumental in generating tax revenue to help fund city services.
“The location of the project is ideal from a standpoint of access and visibility to I-80, and will have a meaningful impact on the perception of the City as a technology-driven, high-value locale,” he stated, noting that the project will play a key role in the Davis real estate market, affecting demand for residential, commercial, and office/R&D property.
He stated, “The real estate markets in Davis will be redefined by the project, as the City historically has been held back by a dearth of clean, developable parcels by sufficient scale to accommodate campus users. The setting of near key services and amenities addresses the needs that have been well documented by the Brookings Institute and others regarding quality of life factors that are increasingly important in competing for talent.”
The second driver is Schilling Robotics. Dan Ramos laid out, and Community Development Director Mike Webb clarified, an aggressive timeline that he believes is tight, but can succeed in keeping Schilling Robotics in Davis.
Both Dan Ramos and Mike Webb expect that, sometime in September, the project will make a formal application. There will be an extensive outreach process, and the city has recently solicited requests for qualifications from consulting firms or teams, to provide planning project management and CEQA services for multiple development applications proposed for review by the City of Davis. The deadline for those requests is August 11.
They talked about, by this time next year, having the project ready for the city council to take action, as there are city, state and county deadlines. For that to happen, Mike Webb explained there needs to be a lot of outreach, even before they get to an application phase. There is scheduled at this time another outreach meeting on August 23.
The goal is to get this to a Measure R vote by November of 2015. If that vote is successful, the city would work with LAFCo (Local Agency Formation Commission) to initiate formal annexation proceedings. Mike Webb went on to explain that the city would be engaging LAFCo throughout the process so that once the project is ready, LAFCo is aware of the situation and ready to begin its process expeditiously.
Dan Ramos explained that his goal is to have the site ready for Tyler Schilling as early as winter or spring of 2017 – and he seemed confident, with Tyler Schilling sitting in the audience, that this timeframe would work for Mr. Schilling.
He said that they will do what they can to accommodate the use by Tyler Schilling and make sure they have the Schilling site up and going.
David, do you know if the city currently has any plans on what they would like to do with their parcel on the project site?
I don’t think they have gotten that specific. The original idea was an urban farm, but that may change.
I just hope they don’t put a strip mall or something of that sort in there.
That would be a recipe for Measure R defeat, imo.
So are you saying the City’s parcel will be subject to it’s own Measure R vote in addition to the Project site’s Measure R vote or will they both fall under the same vote?
If they attempt to use it for urban uses. An urban farm would not require a land use change.
Addition of any significant retail component would certainly lead to more opposition, and probably to Measure R defeat for this site. Retail for a peripheral site should be geared to the business users on that site; i.e., small convenience store, coffee shop, etc.
This is the perfect place to engage the citizens. What would they like to see for the city parcel? We have a lot of brilliant people in this town with fantastic ideas. I’d like to see a process that captures these ideas for consideration.
I think the Anderson family needs to negotiate with the city to relocate Davis Ace to that site surrounded by community farms (instant customers), expand their garden and building supplies (there is plenty of demand in this town… Redwood Barn and Hibbert Lumber will not be harmed), and then redevelop all of G street between 2nd and 4th.
How can I help make it so?
I like it.
Frank Lee:
A couple of years ago, before the teachers decided to get rid of the state’s RDAs, a developer approached Jennifer Anderson and the City of Davis with a proposal to redevelop the block of G Street from 2nd to 3rd back to the rail line, save the Chen Building. His proposal, if I recall correctly, was to build a 3 story building all along G Street to 3rd, with ground floor retail (including space for Davis Ace) and office/residential on the upper floors. He then would use some RDA funds to build a 4-story parking garage (plus roof parking) on the east side of the parcel. It would have provided more net new parking spaces than the 3rd-4th-E-F parking garage proposal. And it would have provided more retail square footage than is not on the site.
AFAIK, Jennifer Anderson was not interested; and perhaps because of that, no one on the city council supported it, either. But I think the idea, of having more density, more height, more street fronting retail and more parking, especially parking in the back, is sound. Of course, it’s not my property. Jennifer and Doby have to do what makes sense to them. And RDA money is now going to fund teacher pensions.
Rich – I had heard this story before. And I certainly understand why Jennifer and Doby would decline when they are well supported in their current business design. I was just thinking that the 25 acres that the city owns is a new chip to consider.
They can even retain a satellite Davis Ace retail location downtown if they wanted. I would do this and expand housewares if I were them.
They also have the rock yard that could be relocated to the Mace location. That would be a nice space for new retail expanding east.
I am seeing big dollar signs here. I would love to help with a feasibility study for this. I am guessing I will hear from Doby soon either telling me to go away, or that there is a sliver of interest to pursue.
They’re doing fine where they are. Why would they bother?
I think that is their mindset.
That is the problem with “just doing fine”. They could do much better but not unless they are motivated to do much better.
Yes, a community farm with a nice Ace Hardware facing the farm with a huge section out front showing off their plants. I was recently back in Fairfax VA and there were a couple of hardware stores that had huge plant areas out front that were very enticing to not only look at but also shop. You could hardly tell it was a hardware store from the beautiful way the plants were positioned out front for sale. Talk about a win-win for the city.
“David, do you know if the city currently has any plans on what they would like to do with their parcel on the project site?”
Perhaps a chemical factory which produces single use plastic grocery bags would be a winner?
LOL. Or better yet, a paper bag factory. Then those plastic bag banners can really see the environmental impacts of the alternative they demanded.
The paper bags should come with eye-holes in them. Then we can reinstitute plastic shopping bags for the 90% of Davis people who like them, and let those lefties, who are embarrassed to be seen toting plastic bags, wear paper bags over their heads.
http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/paper-bag-fans-2092174.jpg
LOL Too funny!
Rich, you made my day, LMAO.
We could call the new eyehole paper bags the “Brown Bagophobes”.
I have a philosophic question that I would like to ask that I think needs consideration. I do not know what I think about this question. I am ambivalent at best and am only posing it for the sake of discussion. I have the utmost respect for Mr. Schilling and his work so I am going to say up front that this is not a personal or business attack, nor is it an argument for no change.
The question is should the city be making sweeping plans with multiple implications for change ( freely admitted by both sides of the growth issue that dramatic change will occur , seen as desirable by one side and unwanted by the other) in order to accommodate the needs of any particular business ?
We have heard in past discussions the argument that downtown businesses have been artificially protected by not allowing peripheral business development. We have heard arguments that downtown is the major draw of our community outside the university and as such should be supported. It seems to me that the current discussion encompasses changes that could have equal impact on our community and that this concept of the picking of “winners and losers” in this is not being addressed at the most fundamental level.
This is not the first time we have heard pleas for the city to intervene to “save” a particular business. We have heard pleas to intervene with Davis Diamonds and with the laundromat that was being forced to close. Is it the role of the city to intervene for every business ? Only when specifically asked by enough residents? Only when the business is large enough to generate significant money for the city overall ? What standards are we choosing as a community for when to intervene or should we be taking this on a case by case basis ?
Again, no agenda. Just soliciting thoughts.
Schilling Robotics doesn’t need to be saved; they need a place to grow. The City of Davis needs to be saved fiscally, and building an innovation park is the most effective way of doing that. This isn’t about picking winners and losers, it is about creating a City with a broad tax base that helps pay for the amenities that we all love while at the same time keeping our tax rates at a more reasonable level. Some people are happy making Davis a more expensive place to live, but the way to make all of us winners is by reducing our taxes while still providing the services that we all want. That is what economic development will do for us.
I agree with most of what you say here.
Which parts do you not agree with?
The only part I didn’t really agree with was “some people are happy making Davis a more expensive place to live” – I think for most people there are critical trade offs there between affordability and other issues.
Interesting… I sense that you are uncomfortable with the idea that there are people living here that could really give a s _ _ _ about anyone not living here today, and happy that their property values are kept high and that the riff raff cannot easily afford to live here. I think this is absolutely spot on.
i don’t see property value as a driving force for people. for instance, i am happy with my home in old east, not interested in selling. my slow growth tendencies come from community concerns.
When demand for housing is rising, as it generally does in Davis over time, and you have people who oppose new residential development–“I want to keep Davis size it was when I moved here; I don’t want to live in Vacaville; I am against sprawl, and turning farmland into housing is sprawl.”–those people inherently are happy to make Davis a more expensive place to live. In other words, if you hold down supply while demand grows, prices go up, making Davis more expensive.
There is also another aspect of the “more expensive” calculus. Another large segment of people who live in Davis don’t want any more retail which tends to serve lower income consumers. They don’t personally need to economize, so they don’t give a sh**about people who do. So they fight all proposals to keep out big box stores which offer poor service and low prices. They might make up other excuses, about how this will affect downtown–never mind that downtown is mostly a restaurant and office district today–but the effect of their anti-competitive retail views is to make Davis more costly for poorer people and students.
We have retail that serves lower-income consumers, right here in East Davis. I don’t recall any objections when they went in.
What “community concerns”?
mr. rifkin – i think a lot of people in davis consider big box stores like target to be counter to good planning principles, harming the community, harming community retail, etc. you can disagree with them on this point, but the people i know who like myself voted against target did it out of those considerations.
i don’t see the need to vilify those people who like the community small and home grown.
Yes, a lot of us do hold those views.
DP, those are all fine excuses. Bottom line, the people who think that way don’t give a sh$* about poorer people who need to pay less for retail merchandise.
Rich RifkinWDE 73/ Davis Progressive: instead of focusing on Target, how would this work out, theoretically, if a Costco were to locate in Davis?
My search said that an average Costco location does $100M a year in business, a staggering amount. They are known for high quality and good (sometimes cheap) pricing. On top of this, their sites seem to be rather compact. And they pay a decent wage and benefits ($20 an hour for seasoned workers).
How many dollars per year would $100M a year in retail bring to city coffers?
And some of those that are opposed to big box stores have a financial interest in keeping them out whether or not they are willing to admit their conflict of interest.
i agree with both views here. ultimately we need to have good projects and rushing through to save schilling might kill the project. so let us do it right and if we can keep schilling here – great. if not – we’ll create space for new companies to develop and grow.
“The question is should the city be making sweeping plans with multiple implications for change ( freely admitted by both sides of the growth issue that dramatic change will occur , seen as desirable by one side and unwanted by the other) in order to accommodate the needs of any particular business ?”
the answer here is no they shouldn’t. the city should do this regardless of the status of schilling.
freely admitted by both sides of the growth issue that dramatic change will occur
I think this is a bit of hyperbole and I disagree that both sides agree that “drastic change” will occur.
“Drastic” as an emotive word that demands definition. And should deteriorating roads and parks and reduction of services for seniors and kids be considered “drastic” by comparison?
I was thinking about this position from you and others more inclined to be against peripheral development, and I keep coming back to an opinion that your concerns are largely irrational. Let me explain.
I think most of the people that are on the no-growth, or slower-than-tar-growth… other than those 10 or so greedy Republican types that just want to jack up their property values… are mostly focused on the downtown core area. Developing on the periphery does not change the downtown core area, does it?
Now there are certainly going to be some that oppose peripheral development because they already live or work adjacent to the new proposed development and are concerned about impacts to their lifestyle and property values. But again, a lot of the people I hear opposing new development are people that live in the core area. So this point that “drastic change” will occur, or that negative impacts will happen… it is irrational from the perspective of the downtown.
If we are not going to expand peripherally, and we agree that we need to develop the economy, then the alternative is to increase the scope and density of the downtown business capacity. Now, that would surely impact the lifestyles of the people living in the core area or that live just outside of the core and frequently visit the downtown.
Here is what we are missing in our valuation of impacts: neighborhoods.
Travel to S.F. or Boston… two of the best examples of dense walkable cities. The key is neighborhoods. They become self-contained “core areas” where residents can enjoy similar amenities that our single Davis downtown core area provides. The neighborhoods are all well-connected with walkable and bike-able roads and paths, and there is ample public transportation. Parking is constrained, but this then supports more people using public transportation.
My point is not that Davis become S.F. or Boston… we will never reach anything close to either… ever. My point is that we can open our minds to creating new residential/commercial “core areas” that are well-connected but allowing each to retain their special charm.
In cities that grow outward, often the downtown is branded “old town” and it retains its premium value. And by allowing peripheral development to create new core areas, we help retain the old charm of the old neighborhoods.
And let’s not forget the increase in the number of customers that would help all Davis retailers.
Frankly
‘drastic change”
I agree that “drastic”is an emotive word. The interesting thing is that I didn’t use it.
You did.
Tia said:
“The question is should the city be making sweeping plans with multiple implications for change ( freely admitted by both sides of the growth issue that dramatic change will occur , seen as desirable by one side and unwanted by the other) in order to accommodate the needs of any particular business ?”
dramatic vs. drastic
po-tay-to vs. po-tah-to
You are correct.
But if I could edit my post, I would just change the word “drastic” to “dramatic” and every point would remain the same. “Dramatic” is just another emotive.
I would say that Davis is guilty of a history of dramatic restrictions to growth.
Frankly
“That is the problem with “just doing fine”. They could do much better but not unless they are motivated to do much better.”
I agree with you that “dramatic” is an emotive. But it can be either a positive or negative emotive depending on perspective. I think that “drastic” would be agreed to be a negative. I find this particular misquote very telling about our differences in perspective.
I feel fundamentally different about your statement that there is a problem with “doing just fine”. Why is it a problem to be satisfied that your current business is enough for you and provides enough for the community. What I feel is a problem is the relentless belief that more must be better. If money is not your highest value, perhaps less will sometimes be better is it allows you more time or balance or peace in your life.
I believe it was Rochelle Swanson who stated that the first rule of community / city development was to keep the business that you already have. Business retention.
Let me ask the same questions on the opposite side of the equation: if Schilling Robotics exits town, how will you replace those jobs and revenues? What businesses do you envision that are as good as, or better than, Schilling Robotics? And, how many more pollutants will go into the air from citizens of Davis commuting to West Sacramento or Dixon? How will the families and children cope if their family moves to Dixon or Elk Grove?
I guess the biggest question is how much more are you willing to pay, per year, in property taxes, so that Davis adds few or no new businesses, yet maintains basic services? (Street repair, etc.) You may be willing to pay $1,000 or $1,500 per year more to maintain the status quo, but I don’t think most residents are willing to do that.
You know, its not all bad. New businesses, new restaurants, a hotel (or two) can ad to the vibrancy of the town.
so here’s a point and i’m not conceding that we lose schilling by any means. but let’s say we rush the process and can’t get the project to 50% and so in trying to rush to save schilling, we get nothing?
I don’t know Mr. Shilling, but my guess is that he is a savvy business person. If he sees the discussions making progress, if he sees city leaders being supportive and constructive, if he sees the ball rolling in the right direction(s), I don’t think an extra month or six will tarnish his views.
In contrast, if he sees the opposite, I’m sure he will consider his options, and neighboring communities will welcome him with warmth and open arms.
To Tia: I am a bit puzzled by your question. How is the city making sweeping changes to accommodate Schilling? As Mark West has noted, for the purposes of generating tax revenue there is a move to create innovation parks at three different locations. Schilling would like to move into one of the innovation parks, because it needs the additional space. If the city fails to create that additional space, Schilling will move elsewhere, Davis will continue to have its reputation of being anti-innovation park, other businesses will shy away from Davis and head for more fertile ground, and the city will have to continue raising taxes and/or cutting services as the only way out of its fiscal mess. Not accommodating Schilling has a cascading effect that could be very detrimental to Davis as a nascent center for start-up R&D business. As Chief Innovation Officer Rob White commented, it is all about “branding”. The city of Davis needs to “brand” itself as a welcoming community to tech businesses, otherwise these companies will go elsewhere where they are wanted if Davis shows no desire to house them. Schilling represents a first step in setting out the welcome mat and indicating Davis is open for tech business.
“I am a bit puzzled by your question. How is the city making sweeping changes to accommodate Schilling?”
i think from her perspective putting huge business parks on the periphery is making sweeping changes.
“Davis will continue to have its reputation of being anti-innovation park”
the question is going to be: will davis have space. if davis has space, its reputation is irrelevant.
Davis has the space, in fact there are 4 different spaces thus far. The question is more correctly, are citizens willing to open up Davis for R&D business? Davis’ reputation is hardly irrelevant. If Davis shows itself unwilling to accommodate existing businesses, what chance do you think Davis has of attracting more business? None. Tia particularly talked about making sweeping changes to accommodate Shilling specifically. But that is not what is going on here, as I mentioned in my previous post. I would assume Tia will let us know if she is opposed to innovation parks on the periphery of city limits in general.
if davis has the space – then we wouldn’t need to go through this process. davis doesn’t have the space and will have to anex the land and pass a measure r vote to get it.
Davis has copious space surrounding it. Annexing land is not rocket science. Cities do it all the time… especially when they are blessed with a new business park that will bring jobs and revenue to the city.
Man-made constraints are not absolutes and should not be talked about as being absolutes when there are simple man-made remedies.
Now S.F. and Santa Barbara… those are two cities with absolute space constraints.
davis has more constraints than you think. it can’t go much south, can’t go much east. it could go north or west. but that wasn’t my point. my point was that land is not available now.
Davis can grow east, west and north. There is plenty of land. All cities have to annex land to grow. Your point does not make any sense.
davis really can’t grow much to the east if at all.
You need to explain this. We can grow out to the causeway.