In the weeks that have followed the June election, the Vanguard has met with pretty much the entire incoming city council, as well as members of the community and city staff. One issue that is a matter of some urgency – how will the city find the revenue needed to finance key infrastructure in the wake of the defeat of the roads tax (Measure I)?
While the city will probably dodge one bullet it didn’t see coming in the form of a two-thirds vote requirement, it does have to get the current one-percent sales tax renewed in 2020. That likely takes additional funding off the table for 2020, as the city relies on the $9 million in tax revenue from that measure to supply about 15 percent (give or take) of its general fund budget.
There seems to be a clear desire on the part of the council to push for economic development, and, for the first time in probably four years, a strong desire from city management to put the pieces in place to do so.
The question is really going to be: Where is that leadership going to come from to push the agenda from the conceptual phase into a workable action plan?
One thing that seems clear is we do not need to go back to the drawing board, we already have a plan that still seems viable – the dispersed innovation strategy.
Looking back over the resolution passed by the city council back in November 2012, for the most part the strategy seems to hold. Some modifications are likely in order to proceed with both the short-term and 
mid-term strategies, however.
Off the table is Nishi as a near-term strategy, which the July 2012 Studio 30 report described as “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.”
But while voters turned down Nishi in that respect, we have seen other opportunities arise, including University Research Park, which is in the process of being redeveloped and densified as well under the name of Area 52. Another intriguing idea might come from the Downtown Core Area Specific Plan, where we might see the creation of mixed-use flex space that could create labs and space for startups in the downtown.
Still, if you read the Studio 30 report, the main finding holds: “The current isolated and dispersed sites that are available and appropriately zoned are not adequate in terms of size, location, or configuration (and related constraints) to address the emerging market need of an Innovation Center.”
The study continues, “With available reasonably priced land and effective marketing to innovative high tech companies, Studio 30 estimates Davis could absorb up to 10 percent or around 100,000 square feet of the 1-1.5 million industrial/office square footage absorbed annually in the Sacramento region. Because of this Studio 30 estimates Davis needs at least 200 acres for business development and expansion over a 20 +/- year time horizon.”
They continue, “A combination of one ‘close in’ hub or incubator with one (or in some future time, two) larger, less constrained (and presumably less costly) edge site offers the right mix of University proximity and identity with the expansion capability to address job growth and rapid business expansion.”
The report concludes: “Studio 30’s research suggests that the City pursue a broad strategy to attract innovative businesses that offers a number of sites that are scalable and range in size so the community can accommodate an incubator, startups and expanding businesses. Some should be directly in contact with the University. This mix of small and large sites allows the city the flexibility to successfully attract, grow and retain innovation businesses. External sites have the potential to support the most jobs because of their size and ability to accommodate a wider variety of both size and type of businesses.”
The world has changed course in the years since November 2012. At the time, things seemed very promising for a full implementation of this plan.
By 2014, the council had received a number of proposals, and eventually two applications for innovation centers in the identified Mace Ranch Innovation Center (MRIC) and Davis Innovation Center locations.
The council also voted 5-0 to put Nishi on the ballot in 2016 with 300,000 square feet of innovation space. Nishi was narrowly voted down by the voters in 2016, and the 2018 resubmitted project, which gained voter approval, has no R&D space. The Davis Innovation Center has moved up to Woodland and been approved. MRIC is on hold and may remain so.
We have seen innovation center proposals in Woodland, West Sacramento, Dixon, and now the Aggie Square in Sacramento.
However, Davis remains ripe for an innovation center. The proximity to the university continues to be advantageous, even as UC Davis takes steps to toward Sacramento expansion opportunities.
The key is probably going to be Davis creating zoned and entitled space capable of supporting an innovation center, and once the land use hurdles are cleared, it seems likely that the university and other private actors would get involved.
However, what appears to be unarguable at this point is that, without dealing with the land use issues, the current political climate in Davis will act as a deterrent toward investors – including the university – getting involved.
Think about how much money the developers at Nishi likely put into their two plans. Think about the millions that MRIC has already spent getting to the point where their EIR was certified but got no further. Who wants to spend high-risk money like that, when other communities will roll out the red carpet for them?
In Sacramento, not only did Mayor Steinberg bring the university into a partnership, they secured $2.8 million in state funds to help build the partnership.
The next two years in Davis needs to be about figuring out how to re-ignite the energy and excitement that existed just a few years ago in 2014. But more importantly we need to find a way to get past the land use debates that will cripple our efforts, and to the point where we can utilize our advantages to woo potential investors and companies to come to our community.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
That ship has sailed, in the form of Nishi. (Perhaps unless the legal and access challenges result in abandonment of the current proposal.)
There are no other viable sites, adjacent to UCD. MRIC (and other sites) would generate traffic through town, to reach UCD and the city core. (Even the site proposed in Woodland would not have that type of impact. Probably easier to reach, as well.)
By the way, wondering how successful the Woodland and Dixon sites have been in attracting commercial tenants. That should provide a clue, regarding any challenges in attracting commercial tenants at a possible Davis location.
As other cities fill the supposed “void”, that will impact market demand for commercial space. (Much more likely that the “real” goal of some is to get peripheral housing approved. All evidence shows that’s where the money is, for developers.)
I believe that’s been the “real” goal too. Bait and switch?
Even the site in Woodland includes a significant amount of housing.
Why wouldn’t it? They don’t have barriers to entry in Woodland.
Just saying that there’s a chance Nishi won’t go forward, given the access challenges with the railroad, UCD, and the legal challenge. Probably other challenges, as well.
Note that the land wasn’t developed even before Measure R existed (despite its proximity to campus and downtown).
(I really doubt that it would be developed in “short order”, regardless.)
Regarding the site in Woodland, I’m not sure of your point (other than to reinforce my point regarding the likelihood of including housing for any proposal in Davis). If that’s your goal, then I can see why you’re stirring this up, again.
Again, you might want to look into the site in Woodland, to see if it’s actually attracting any commercial tenants (along with any connections to UCD). That would provide some idea of the commercial market demand for such proposals.
Nonsense.
There’s always a chance, but Ron’s failing to recognize the amount of invstment by the developers and the need for housing by the university, will drive them to make it work.
Not for me. The real goal is to be able to alleviate your concerns about being taxed too much by building up our revenue base.
You missed the point, we’re not referring to your or my goals.
Ron and I are referring to what we feel are the contractor goals.
Almost doesn’t matter what the contractor goals are, I expect the next process will be city rather than developer initiated.
Developer goals do matter… sometimes, they want to “better the community”… always they want to make a profit, considering direct costs (land acquisition and building), indirect costs (processing costs and fees), interest on loans, risk, etc.
If they can do both, life is good…
Measure R and the commission/CC process increase the “risk”, and often, the processing costs…
What (new) process do you think (or are hoping) that the city will “initiate”?
This statement has no apparent meaning. Development proposals are initiated by developers.
Development proposals do not have to be initiated by developers. The city can set aside land with a vote of the people and specific parameters on it.
How can you say that? It matters very much what the contractor goals are. The city wanted and asked for an innovation park only without housing at the Mace curve. MRIC was approved for just that, an innovation center without housing, and they backed out because they didn’t get a housing component.
So the contractor goals are very important.
I almost feel like you’re trying to put lipstick on what actually took place.
MRIC hasn’t been approved for anything.
I disagree with you, the next innovation proposal is going to have to be put forward by the city without the developer getting involved until after an approval by the voters. That’s the only way we are going to see one.
David’s statements (at 8:49 a.m., and elsewhere on this page) are yet another example of the “noise” that Rik previously referred to, regarding the Vanguard’s effort to gut Measure R. Based upon the Vanguard’s previous campaigns, it seems likely that this will continue to occur for the next couple of years.
And, this is after David said that it wouldn’t matter, regarding who is elected to the council.
There is nothing that needs to be changed in Measure R to do it
How? Land brought in by a proposal initiated by the city would be subject to a Measure R vote. Measure R would act exactly as it was intended: to give the voters a chance to approve the annexation and/or rezoning of land.
“MRIC hasn’t been approved for anything.”
Maybe not actual approval and a Measure R vote, but as I recall the city council gave the green light for the innovation park only which btw was what they initially asked for.
I feel like you are trying to play on words for what actually took place.
No Keith, all the council did was give direction to the developers to come forward without a housing proposal. That wasn’t an approval. There would be nothing to prevent the developers from coming forward with a proposal that has housing right now and the council could approve it or reject it. That’s not what I’m talking about here, but it appears that is what you are referring to.
Don: It seems like you and David found some kind of loophole, regarding Measure R. Did you guys coordinate on that idea, before presenting it here? And, how/why does David “expect” that the city will do this? Is there some type of communication going on, that we’re unaware of?
Essentially a “city-initiated development proposal”, in the absence of a proposed development. Gee, I wonder what could go wrong with that?
Kind of reminds me of the effort by the guy who wants to gather signatures, to avoid a 2/3 vote requirement for a new school parcel tax.
Regardless, statements elsewhere on this page (and previously) provide examples of the Measure R “noise” that Rik previously referred to.
It’s not a loophole if it requires a vote. In fact, it’s better because it allows the city and not the developers to be in charge of the process.
No, it is not a loophole.
No, we did not coordinate. Try not to sound paranoid.
I am unaware of any communication with “the city.” I suggested this at least a couple of years ago. I have not talked to David, any city staff, any city council member, any city council candidate, any columnist, journalist, citizen activist, or anybody else about it other than to suggest it here.
You, Rik, and Eileen are spinning a fable about the Vanguard and Measure R at this point. I’m not sure why.
David – That idea would also eliminate those “pesky” questions from voters, regarding exactly what the future proposed development would actually be under those parameters. Thereby allowing the city to subsequently “negotiate” such deals with developers, directly. (Kind of like the Cannery, perhaps.)
You guys are really reaching, at this point. Honestly, you guys don’t have a moment of peace, before moving on to the next development goal.
You’re missing the fact that if the voters don’t feel there is enough information, they can vote no (which you know is the default position of many in this community).
Baseline features are required in a Measure R vote.
“(Perhaps unless the legal and access challenges result in abandonment of the current proposal.)”
That’s basically either a red herring or a fantasy, not sure which. I’ll take all bets that housing is built there in relatively short order.
I think this point about peripheral housing is well illustrated by the fact that the DIC developers had initially favored, and wanted to place before the city, an Innovation Center which included onsite worker appropriate housing. However, I see this problem from a different perspective than a “bait and switch”.
The city declined to accept such a proposal in favor of only no housing proposals. A short sighted view in my opinion. Ironically, such a proposal would have embodied the advantages that all five of our current city council members found to be better in the narrowly defeated Nishi 1 but absent in Nishi 2.
Instead what this decision making left us with is the automobile dependent Cannery as our large, non student housing development with no innovation component, and Nishi 2, albeit much better located for housing, but also with no innovation component.
The landowner and developers emphatically rejected any non-housing component at The Cannery, over and over again. They were not going to build anything but housing there, ever, and made that very clear. They simply chose to wait until they had a compliant council majority, and since they had basically no carrying costs for the land and ample time and resources, they could wait as long as they wished.
Both the Cannery and Nishi help to illuminate where the money is, for developers. As does the site in Woodland, and the temporarily withdrawn MRIC proposal.
Even the effort to “residentialize” downtown shows where the money is, for developers.
(It’s in housing, not commercial development.)
Put out a new request for proposals for the DIC site. The city should consider bringing the land in via a Measure R vote prior to development proposals.
If MRIC isn’t ever going to move forward, look at options for the land inside the Mace Curve.
Review the 5th Street portion of the Studio 30 report.
Raise the sales tax 0.25% at the time of renewal.
“The city should consider bringing the land in via a Measure R vote prior to development proposals.”
This would be my preference – the advantage to the community is that we could dictate the terms of the development and the advantage to the developers if they get through the most uncertain part of the process.
Ron,
Developer interest surrounding the co-location of housing at the Innovation Center sites is driven by the latest findings in other successful innovation center locations. Practically speaking, and as you observe, housing in Davis has traditionally carried a much lower risk coefficient for the developer. Thirdly, and has been conclusively demonstrated by results of the most recent existing conditions reports accompanying the Downtown Core Area Planning process, there exists a significant shortage of educational-achievement-appropriate technology employment within the City of Davis – a condition that manifests in underperforming, per capita retail sales and corresponding suppression of associated municipal operating revenues from sales taxes and commercial property taxes
There are numerous ways to help mitigate developer risk in undertaking a new Innovation Center development – thereby making a prospective investment fall within the bounds of acceptable risk. Other than housing, one of these options might be for the University to declare it’s willingness to co-locate an Innovation Center within the project – hopefully providing the impetus for co-location by some of the industry’s leading private sector ag & bio-tech companies like Mars, Kellogg, AMD, Nestles, Bayer and others who might benefit from increased proximity and closer working relationships with the university, its researchers (i.e. faculty & graduate students) and the endless stream of world leading ideas which together they generate.
Personally, I would view such a development as a win-win for the Davis community, the university, and its many deserving graduates – eager to begin a career in their chosen field.
It is my greatest hope that we might see the community, and the university, embrace such opportunities to explore the full potential for such collaborative ventures, together, as we develop new pathways to the future.
In reference to the city’s ongoing fiscal challenges, here (again) is proposed mitigation #5 from the city, regarding the EIR for the LRDP.
“the Vanguard has met with pretty much the entire incoming city council” So you met with one of the two new members?
What is Gloria going to want? From the campaign I have no idea.
She’s told me both in our interview and since that economic development is a huge push for her.
David… you posted,
that is pretty much a “fact” in all communities… has been for many decades… one of the reasons Gann pushed the “super-majority” vote… on anything, it should be somewhere between 50% + 1 or 60%…
Gann was a very reactionary, stingy, right-wing ‘radical’… he did understand the “math” though… that’s why he set the bar @ 67%…
In 10th century China the elite would bind the feet of young girls because it was considered a status symbol as well as a mark of beauty. The idea was to prevent foot sprawl.
Don’t really care what ‘Ron’ or Keith O” or any other (semi)-anonymous poster thinks about this issue. If they don’t have the conviction to put their name ‘on the line,’ they are nothing but noise…
What the City could, and perhaps should, do is include the annexation of new lands for commercial development as part of the General Plan update. If the community believes that we need more commercial development then we could annex that new land and adjust the zoning to meet community needs. The result would be that the risk associated with new development would be shared by the entire community in exchange for the community’s control over the specifics of that new development. We (the community) would get to choose, for example, whether or not we wanted to follow current ‘best practices’ and include work-force housing in the new zoning, rather than leaving that decision up to the developer. We, of course, would also have the option of blocking new development and relying instead on increased taxes on current residents, if that is what we think is best. I see no reason to believe we will see a new proposal for new commercial development beyond the current City boundary as long as Measure R is in existence. If we are unwilling to get rid of Measure R, then having the City take on the responsibility of land annexation is the next best option.
Nuance… the City should annex no lands (which also requires zoning) except with the application by, and/or full consent of the property owner… constitutional issue…
Howard: As a fellow founding member of the “semi-anonymous” club, your thoughts would also classified as “noise”, by Mark at least.
This would apply to several other commenters on here, as well.
Mark knows who I am… we even shared a brew…
I offered him “background”, when he ran….
I am not anonymous to folk I trust… I have had other reasons to be semi-anonymous… you?
Howard: I am also not anonymous to folks I trust.
Online ID parameters are the decision of the Vanguard itself. The fact that Mark knows you makes no difference regarding your choice of an online ID. You are not “special”, regarding that.
But frankly, I’m just as glad if neither of you respond to my comments. Don’t really care.
Ron…
K…
Last sentiment is mutual…
> As a fellow founding member of the “semi-anonymous” club . . .
Nothing semi- about it, it’s full on anonymous, just like there’s nothing semi- about a semi-truck. It’s still a truck.
Considering the current relative value of undeveloped land inside vs outside the City limits, I doubt many property owners will object to annexation but agree with your concern regarding consent all the same. I see no need or value of prior ‘application’ or any other expression of desire, however.
There are also taxes… those change upon annexation…
And, the “value of the land”… any change in that would be a “gift” originated by the City… you OK with that?
The processing of the “gift annexation”, absent an application, has “costs”… a gift of public funds? You OK with that?
Who will “profit more”? The City or the property owner?
> The city should consider bringing the land in via a Measure R vote prior to development proposals.
Just how are citizens supposed to vote on a project that hasn’t been defined?
Easier to define baseline features…
Off topic, but for the sake of pedantry: it’s not a semi-truck, it’s a semi-trailer, because it has axles only at one end and can’t roll on its own. It requires a 5th-wheel tractor in order to function as intended.
Yep! Like!