New name more clearly reflects project vision
Just under a year after the Mace Ranch Innovation Center relaunched as the Aggie Research Center, the name is changing again—this time bringing back both the notion of innovation as well sustainability, in what is believed to be the first 100 percent renewable energy project of its type.
On Wednesday, the team behind the Aggie Research Campus (ARC) has has announced that the project moving forward will be named the Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus (DISC).
According to the announcement, the idea for the new name emerged from discussions with the City of Davis, UC Davis and regional economic-development stakeholders about the vision for the project as a strategically located hub for next-generation businesses born out of scientific research.
“With the Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus name, we’re more clearly putting into action our vision for the project, which is that we’re here to attract researchers, entrepreneurs and businesses that want to create a better world,” said Dan Ramos, project manager. “We want the message to be clear: if you’re deploying research to solve the problems of the next generation, and 
want easy access to great talent, major markets and reliable distribution networks, Davis is the answer.”
The DISC renaming demonstrates the project’s close association with the City of Davis, its focus on attracting green and innovative businesses, and the commitment to supporting the needs of scientists, faculty, students and startups from UC Davis.
“There isn’t nearly enough space in Davis to accommodate all of the innovation-focused business development that’s already occurring here. If we want to see more of the research done at UC Davis turning into locally based businesses that grow here long term, this is exactly the type of project that will help with that,” said Justin Siegel, a Davis-based entrepreneur and founder of five biotech companies.
One of the companies Siegel founded—Digestiva, Inc.—spent more than one year finding space locally and currently operates out of temporary facilities in Sacramento. “We really wanted to be in Davis closer to the university, but just couldn’t find a suitable space here,” said Siegel.
The new name in addition highlights the DISC’s sustainable design, most notably on-site photovoltaic energy generation, fully electric residential units, and a commitment to sourcing 100 percent clean 
energy. It also avoids confusion with other Sacramento-area projects.
“The Greater Sacramento region is quickly becoming an innovation hub in many industries. Aggie Square in Sacramento is focused on life sciences and cell therapies. The DISC will advance environmental sustainability, keeping California as the leader in the nation in green initiatives and innovation to fight climate change, which also ties in with work that will be done at the California Mobility Center,” said Barry Broome, president and CEO of the Greater Sacramento Economic Council.
He added, “The DISC plays an important role in diversifying our business ecosystem, and in broadening our reach and pace of creating an inclusive economy.”
The Davis Innovation & Sustainability Campus is proposed by Ramco Enterprises, The Buzz Oates Group of Companies, and Reynolds & Brown on 187 acres at the northeast corner of Mace Boulevard and Interstate 80. The project is anticipated to accommodate approximately 5,800 jobs and includes 850 housing units, including the most significant investment in affordable housing in City of Davis history. The City’s fiscal impact analysis indicates the project will generate an annual General Fund surplus of $5.44 million at buildout.
The project is currently under review by several city commissions. If approved by the Davis City Council, it will still require voter approval under the City’s Measure J/R process this November. For more information, please visit: www.davisisc.com.
This project has had many faces.
No housing, housing, back to no housing, now housing,
MRIC, ARC, now DISC.
How about the Davis Innovation, Sustainability, Creative and Unique Square?
Otherwise known as DISCUS
…and keeps them from getting sued.
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”
“But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Ramos is the sun. Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon, Who is already sick and pale with grief, That thou her maid art far more fair than she: Be not her maid, since she is envious; Her vestal livery is but sick and green And none but fools do wear it; cast it off.”
And fairies by any other name would still be dancing in their heads…
Looks like every rose has its thorn… and every cowboy sings a sad song
But if it’s no longer the ARC, how will Ramos gather the animals, two by two?
Pretty amusing.
In any case:
After watching Michael Moore’s “Planet of the Humans”, you realize that there’s no such thing.
If only Moore’s film was factually sound….
Leaving aside the approximately 6,000 parking spaces for a moment, there’s no such thing as a 100% renewable energy result.
There’s also a lot of other environmental damage that occurs as a result of the renewable energy industry (e.g., mining, leveling of mountains, use of non-renewable energy in production, etc.).
Not to mention the damage and energy used to construct the development in the first place.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/emerson-invest-100-million-create-130000822.html
From Business Wire today:
Center will enhance advanced measurement technologies for life sciences, food and beverage, chemical, power and energy industries
Emerson (NYSE: EMR), a global engineering and technology company, today announced it will invest more than $100 million in Boulder to significantly expand its manufacturing space and launch a new innovation center focused on research, new product development and industry training for its advanced flow measurement products.
“This U.S. investment significantly expands our ability to serve as industry leaders, helping customers in essential industries optimize their operations with the latest technologies,” said David N. Farr, chairman and chief executive officer of Emerson. “Our new facility demonstrates our continued commitment to customer-driven innovation and high-tech manufacturing, as well as our focus on attracting the best and brightest talent to work for Emerson.”
As they head into the backstretch its still Palo Alto in the lead with Boston in second. Raliegh, Seattle and Austin are bunched up on the rail with Seattle in third by a nose. Sacramento and Boulder are starting to make moves coming up on the outside. Lagging far behind in last place is Davis.
The upside is that there are lots of companies that would love to come here if there was space as Justin Siegel attests. I think we’ll hear from a lot of these companies and CEOs over the next six months.
The downside is Measure R. If it wasn’t for Measure R this thing would have been approved long ago.
Or maybe someone would have put it on the ballot anyway or maybe it will be better having to go through the process.
If it wasn’t for Measure R, there’d be no room for MRIC/ARC/DISC. That land would have been covered with houses 15 years ago.
“The downside is Measure R. If it wasn’t for Measure R this thing would have been approved long ago.”
And as David alluded to, it may be a much better project for having to have made a number of changes. For me, this is the real purpose and utility of measure R. Not to deny all projects, but to obtain the best projects possible, certainly not as judged by me, but by the majority of the qualified voters in Davis.
A noble goal, but it completely ignores the nearly twenty years worth of projects that were never proposed due to Measure J/R, resulting in our current shortage of both housing and commercial space in town (not to mention the lost revenues that would have helped fund City services).
Yes, I was going to post what Mark said. Unfortunately the political/electoral process around Measure R makes these projects much riskier for developers, so they are unwilling to begin the process of bringing good projects to Davis. Instead, they can go to other communities with projects that are less beneficial, particularly environmentally, for the region. It’s the lack of those proposals that we can’t readily see that are the real damage of Measure R.
Tia, I think you are also conflating a good project with a Measure R vote. Under Measure R the planning becomes more about what will win an election instead of good project planning. For example, every City Council member said that Nishi I was a better project than Nishi II. So in the end the”direct democracy” of Measure R got us a poorer project.
Ron, do you mean good project planning like The Cannery?
You’re both right
The article above states the company of which Justin Siegel is a co-founder in Degestiva Inc. According to their website, Digestiva is now renting at 2700 Stockton Blvd which appears to be a 2-story Class B conventional office bldg. It is in very close proximity to both UC Davis Med Center and Shriners Hospital which makes sense because they are a biomedial company developing enzymes to make proteins more digestible for folks with digestive problems (e.g. celiac disease or gluten intolerent). One would wonder if they want to be so very close to the Med Center and Shriners now, why they would they instead want to locate in Davis “if there was space”.
The 2700 Stockton Blvd property itself is described as follows, (see https://www.commercialcafe.com/commercial-property/us/ca/sacramento/oak-park-research-building/ )
Oak Park Research Building Sacramento CA 95817 – Office Space
Oak Park Research Building is located at 2700 Stockton Blvd in the North Oak Park neighborhood, CA, Sacramento, 95817. The Class B Office building was completed in 2005 and features a total of 47,118 Sqft.
There is 1 office space for lease in the North Oak Park neighborhood, totaling 8,496 Sqft of available office space. The office space availability for the 95817 zip code is 8,496 Sqft, in 1 office space. The average asking office rent per sq. ft. in North Oak Park is $9.48/sqft/year. (Bold emphasis added).
I dug into local office rents some more and found out that there is one property some blocks away (3301-3307 Broadway) that is a litlle larger than 16,000 sq ft and is a Class C building. 8,496 sq ft of that building is available for $9.48/sq ft. But average rents for Class B office space in the area around the Med Center seem to be about $20 – $22/sq ft.
But the EPS study is projecting the following average rents for MRIC (oops, I mean ARC…dang, oops again, I mean DISC)
Table 8 Office and Flex/R&D Rent Comparable Projects
Property Adress, Property Type, Annual Rent, Mo Rent, Lease Type
1590 Drew Avenue Class A Office $36.00 $3.00 Full Service Gross
1450 Drew Avenue Class B Office $26.52 $2.21 Modified Gross
501 2nd Street Class B Office $28.44 $2.37 Modified Gross
215 C Street Class B Office $30.00 $2.50 Triple Net
ARC Assumption – Office $35.00 $2.92 Full Service Gross
ARC Assumption – Flex/R&D $28.00 $2.33 Triple Net
Source: CoStar; EPS. (Bold emphasis added)
Sounds to me like the medical-oriented company, Digestiva, would be far better off staying right where they are in immediate proximity to the Med Center and paying only 60-70% of the rent that they would otherwise have to fork out at ARC (shoot!…did it again…I mean DISC….boy, this alphabet soup is getting confusing) .
But Justin Siegel still “attests” they would have rented in Davis if only they could find the space…?
Excuse me, I have to run now. My Online BS Meter is blaring in the background!
You’re not taking a lot of other factors into account – where does Justin live? Where does Justin work? He works on campus. He lives in town. A lot of people would prefer to pay more in rent to locate in Davis. But you didn’t talk to Justin, you just googled a bunch of information and decided you knew that he was lying.
And you just took his word for it without any quantitative information to support the statement because you are an unabashed supporter of the business park.
I didn’t write the article. But you subjectively determined he was a liar based on very limited amounts of information. That seems antithetical to the public process that you purport to support through a Measure R process.
David, where does Alan call Justin a “liar”? Your prejudgment of anything that Alan has to say is overwhelming any balance in your responses.
As a neutral observer I see nothing in any of the contextual information that Alan provided that is inaccurate or biased. It is all objective information.
You happen to be privy to additional personal information about Justin that any “average” Davis resident would not have. Perhaps next time you can simply share the additional information and leave it to the reader to come to his/her own conclusion based on the sum total of the available/shared information.
===============
With that said, Alan, “My Online BS Meter is blaring in the background!” shows your biases about David as well. That transformed an otherwise thought-provoking comment into a pissing match.
===============
Perhaps both of you can dial back on your good friend Ad Hominem.
“As a neutral observer I see nothing in any of the contextual information that Alan provided that is inaccurate or biased. It is all objective information.”
The contextual information is fine. The conclusion from that information was the point in question.
Do you mean the following conclusion, gleaned from information that you did not provide?
Even leaving off the inflammatory last sentence, I still maintain that there are additional factors that Alan does not explore including where he lives and works as I mentioned. There may be other factors as well unaccounted for in either. Moreover, Alan also misses a point that if Justin wanted to move to Davis, the city and landlord may well have negotiated costs to even them out. With no facility available, he cannot even open that dialogue. This was a key point that Danielle Casey made last August about the lack of available space. Alan looked a single piece of data comparison and decided that he knew the answer.
Guilty as charged…But I just couldn’t resist, your honor!
The fiscal analysis is based upon assumptions.
The assumption that jumps out at me (at the moment, based upon what Alan P. and others have uncovered) is that commercial rents are not what is presented/assumed in the EPS feasibility analysis.
Which means that there would be difficulty in attracting commercial tenants at the minimum rent required to make the development feasible, beyond the first two phases (in which the housing subsidizes the commercial development).
This would also include the hotel, since demand for that is not expected until sometime after the first two phases.
All of which points to the obvious conclusion – it’s primarily a housing development at this point, with commercial reluctantly “tacked on”.
That conclusion is also supported by the failure of MRIC (even in a smaller version of itself), the failure of other “innovation centers” proposed for Davis (and subsequently converted entirely to housing), etc.
You bring up the commercial rents, but the rents do not impact either sales tax or property tax – so they don’t impact revenue which is primarily what EPS was looking at. We know from Mori Seiki, that there is a negotiation involved in landing a major company. We know that the city is willing to find a way to make these things work and we also know that Mori Seiki has been a huge benefit to the city.
Regarding companies like Mori Seiki, MRIC (and the other “innovation” centers) have had an opportunity to land one for the past 15 years or so.
For that matter, that includes locations that wouldn’t even require a Measure R vote (e.g., The Cannery site). The owners of The Cannery FLAT-OUT weren’t interested in a business park, as I recall.
None of them could find a way to make that work. Hence, the repeated reliance upon housing, instead.
By the way, if UCD was going to be involved, they had a chance with the adjacent Nishi development (but weren’t interested, as I recall you acknowledging). That’s the one that could have been called “Aggie-Whatever”. But, it would have wrecked the main intersection, into town. (As ARC now promises to do, on the edge of town.)
“Regarding companies like Mori Seiki, MRIC (and the other “innovation” centers) have had an opportunity to land one for the past 15 years or so. ”
That’s completely wrong. You can’t land something when you don’t have a place for a company to move into. In this respect, I do agree with Ron and some of the other anti-Jers, Measure J means that any project has to go to a vote and until it passes a vote, companies looking for a landing spot are not going to commit.
Dan Ramos explained the housing issue. Housing is easier to build and quicker to fill and therefore, if you have housing in a project, you can use that to help front the costs. But they are – as again he explained – not doing it that way. SO they are actually negating the advantage of housing in that respect.
I believe that they could impact assessments (value) of property, and therefore property tax.
And, if commercial development is not feasible beyond the first two phases, it would impact (both) property and sales tax.
(But, this wasn’t my primary point.)
Why are they going to do something that’s not feasible?
Again, there’s places in the city that wouldn’t have even required a Measure R vote. I just provided some examples, including The Cannery. They FLAT-OUT weren’t interested.
The city is busy allowing conversions of existing commercial/industrial sites, throughout the city. One might even include the upcoming University Mall conversion, to semi-residential.
The developers won’t “commit” without housing. MRIC and the other developments have ALREADY PROVED that – REPEATEDLY.
They are exactly doing it “that way”. The housing is subsidizing the commercial development.
The problem with that approach will become more evident after the housing is built (during the first two phases). The final phases either won’t be built, or will rely upon housing on-site (or elsewhere, in the city and beyond). In fact, it says so, right in the SEIR. Of course, the fiscal analysis doesn’t address the impact of that subsequent housing.
Here’s a “test” for you (and the other “claimed believers”): Allow the developers to build “whatever they want”, and see what happens. (Actually, that’s pretty much what’s been happening anyway, which is the very reason that all of the proposals have been converted to housing, instead.)
It’s difficult to fabricate stories, when repeated and clear evidence is staring at you, right in the face.
There is nothing in the city available that is big enough to accommodate a Mori Seiki size project. The Cannery was headed to housing well before 2008. The city didn’t get serious on economic development until DSIDE, Studio 30, and Rob White culminating in 2014 – Cannery was approved as housing 2013.
“Here’s a “test” for you (and the other “claimed believers”): Allow the developers to build “whatever they want”, and see what happens.”
That’s not a test because there is no functional way to do that.
We know that MRIC passed on building a commercial development, which probably could have housed a dozen Mori Seikis. In fact, they passed on a commercial development twice: A full sized-one, and a reduced-size one.
Then there’s Nishi, The Davis Innovation Center (which moved to Woodland, and might not even be viable there), The Cannery, etc. ALL of which are now housing, instead.
If you’d like, we can also discuss all of the conversions of large properties within the city, that have been (or will soon be undergoing) conversion to residential, or semi-residential usage.
Honestly, are you still denying what developers actually want to build?
MRICARCDISC!