by Pam Marrone
I have been reading the letters criticizing the City Council’s Measure B support. The City Council voted on what they thought would be best for the city. Why? Thousands of R&D-based workers drive over the causeway twice every day to West Sacramento instead of living and working in Davis because we do not have adequate R&D-based facilities for all the companies and workers.
I understand the criticism about the environmental footprint of the proposed R&D park but what about all the tons of emissions from all those cars driving out of Davis every day? Furthermore, the last time a R&D park was built in Davis was 1990 — University Research Park on Drew. I was the first tenant, founding Entotech then AgraQuest in 1995 (bought by Bayer, moved to West Sac in 
2012) and now Marrone Bio and Novo Nordisk Biotech reside there. The buildings are old and energy inefficient.
Marrone Bio pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to PG&E in utility costs due to the single-pane windows and poor energy efficiency of the buildings. To get solar panels on this rented building (need both roof and new carports for all the panels) has not been possible because of landlord objections. Each week, an entrepreneur with a green agtech startup contacts me about space in Davis to set up shop. Nearly impossible.
Should we not want home grown green/clean businesses here? Therefore, we need modern, energy efficient research park so employees don’t jump in their cars to commute out to their jobs. I urge the developer to come back to the table and address the traffic issue (btw it’s not like the Mace traffic situation is good now) as we truly do need a place for UCD spinouts and other startups and green businesses to locate.
Pam Marrone lives in Davis and founded Entotech, AgraQuest and Marrone Bio Innovations.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
.
This comment highlights the abject failure of the DISC development team and the City of Davis Economic Development staff to establish a communication channel where the interest of entrepreneurs like the ones Pam Marone mentions becomes evidence rather than rumor.
Secret whispering isn’t going to make economic development happen. Those behind the scenes whispers need to become open dialogue with the community. Otherwise they are simply more examples of the same Emperor’s New Clothes approach to spin that the DISC team has used to date. If DISC is going to come back, as Pam Marrone hopes for, it needs to show Davis that it is real, not just smoke and mirrors.
Businesses that are looking to locate don’t do their searches in public because they don’t feel like being subjected to the scrutiny exemplified by this rhetoric. I have no reason to disbelieve Pam Marrone that there are such businesses out there.
Its actually no secret that this area is becoming an ag and biotech hub. Look no further than Woodland, Vacaville or West Sac. Matt’s continued accusations that without public commitments if you build it they will not come seems short sighted. They are already here. The problem isn’t if they will come. The problem is if they will leave when its time to scale up taking all that added value to other communities.
Take-away the 1,600 housing units planned for the site in Woodland and see how quickly it would likely fold.
And by the way, how many commercial tenants have been announced for the site in Woodland, some 3 years or so after it failed in Davis?
I believe the correct answer is “none”.
Take away the housing and you get commuters. Look at Vacaville where they have built the housing nearby the Genentech plant and the Kaiser Hospital. The future is building the housing near the jobs.
In Woodland, Monsanto, now Bayer, built a new research campus for its Seminis subsidiary a few years ago.
If you believe that if you build it they will not come you don’t have anything to worry about.
In Woodland, Monsanto, now Bayer, built a new research campus for its Seminis subsidiary a few years ago.
If you believe that if you build it they will not come you don’t have anything to worry about.
Take away the housing and you don’t have a business park, unless it spreads like cancer up Highway 505, for example.
People are not cancer cells. However, I think equating them as such is revealing of your mind set.
I’ve often wondered why those who like sprawl don’t simply move to areas which have plenty of it, rather than try to ensure that it occurs everywhere.
There’s no shortage of it, throughout the region and beyond.
Matt’s point, which I agree with, is that innovation park developers MUST be transparent in their plans if they want to gain sufficient political support in Davis. That’s the simple reality. Unfortunately, the citizenry has been burned here by “trust me” statements about the Cannery and Mace Ranch (the latter also developed by Ramos–why be burned twice?) Simply trying to dismiss those requirements will not solve the problem.
As for the Woodland project, look to Vacaville’s as the strong counterpoint. Housing is not a necessary component. Remember that housing was added to DISC at the request of the City to meet environmental goals.
Well put. I also agree with a point you’ve made before about the project needing to go through commissions in a more meaningful manner and actually address their feedback.
Have you read the financial analysis, regarding the viability of the proposal beyond the stages which included housing? Did you witness the FBC meeting, in which this came up?
I’ve discussed this a number of times on here.
Did you note that MRIC was given the green-light to proceed as a commercial development, as planned? (And, that the developers withdrew that plan?)
Did you note that The Cannery owners flat-out refused to consider a commercial development?
Did you note that Nishi conveniently “lost” its commercial component? (Since the original “mixed use” plans would have allowed them to avoid affordable housing requirements, some might suspect that this is the primary reason that they even considered a commercial component.)
Have you noticed all of the commercial sites within the city being converted to housing (or semi-residential), instead?
Did you note that the Davis Innovation Center was abandoned (with the former site becoming the future home of the WDAAC housing development)? And that the Davis Innovation Center then “moved” to Woodland, with 1,600 housing units now planned? And still does not have any announced commercial tenants that I’m aware of, some 3 years after the move?
But regardless of “viability”, don’t some claim that there’s a “housing shortage” in Davis, to begin with?
Nishii lost its commercial component due to the community calling for more housing. You’re just wrong about MRIC getting the green light as a commercial development–the DEIR was conditioned on requiring housing to proceed under CEQA. The Cannery is located in a poor location for a business park because it can’t be accessed easily from outside Davis. That isolation is one reason why the original cannery closed. The other two innovation centers died in Davis for reasons other than simple financial viability, as Matt Williams has pointed out elsewhere here. That had more to do with politics and lack of follow through on the part of the City.
There’s not a single simplistic answer to each of these events. Each has a much more complex story. And still Vacaville puts up business parks successfully without housing. This counterexample is most salient and belies your attempt at a single answer. You’ve already shown that you’re unable/unwilling to accept other financial explanations when you were shown that your speculation about cost savings from downsizing the school district was incorrect. Once you start accepting answers that are counter to your initial statements, then you’ll have enough credibility to back up your claims.
Did it end up with more housing, than originally planned?
That is factually incorrect.
I’m sorry – isn’t one of the primary purposes of these business parks to provide jobs for Davis residents? As Pam Marone is stating, in her letter?
The city also grew up around it.
Where did Matt point that out? Was a financial analysis done? Which two are you referring to? (The Davis Innovation Center, and ?)
Why is is that developers don’t need “follow-through” on the part of the city, to build housing (as on the former site of the Davis Innovation Center?)
Vacaville’s housing is spreading up Highway 505.
Are you referring to a cost-savings analysis from the school district itself? The same institution that has an incentive to avoid downsizing, to correspond with a declining enrollment? You’ll forgive me if I’d like to see an independent analysis, regarding that.
Again, did you read that fiscal/financial analysis for DISC, or view the FBC meeting in which it was called a “fairytale”, among other things? This would be the same meeting in which three of the commissioners did not agree that DISC would have created any “fiscal” profit for the city, whatsoever.
The level of arrogance in your responses (not just to me) is just astounding. Apparently, you’re not aware of how this diminishes the effectiveness of your responses. (Probably due to that “arrogance” thing, again.)
And again, MRIC itself was not financially viable. It was given the green light to proceed, but the developers pulled the plug.
As I recall, they tried a couple of different configurations, to explore that possibility. Neither one worked for them.
The housing that was subsequently added subsidized the commercial component, according to the financial analysis. No, that’s not my “opinion” – it’s in the analysis.
And that analysis was created prior to Covid, and the massive shift towards telecommuting. Which, if nothing else, will continue freeing up a lot of existing commercially-zoned space throughout California.
Pinterest paid approximately $90 million to cancel a lease (for a building that I believe they hadn’t even occupied, yet).
Hewlett Packard, Oracle, and Tesla have all announced plans (at some level/amount) to leave California. I doubt that they will be the last.
I agree with Pam Marrone and hope that the Ramos team will come back with a proposal that has a strong traffic mitigation plan. I personally would prefer less housing and more business in a business park, as that is more fiscally advantageous to the city and adheres more to the planning process that led to the proposal in the first place. The margin of the vote was narrow, so I believe an improved plan could get broader support and prevail at the polls.
Don, you point out the “double-bind”… if housing is included, you have arguable posits that peak hour traffic impacts would be reduced somewhat (but total trips may increase), and housing demand elsewhere in the City is ‘offset’ (mitigated)… if you don’t include housing, you have arguable posits that peak hour impacts would be more significant, and increases housing pressures…
Either way, folk could posit that the only solution is “no project”… classic ‘no-win’, if any new development is considered ‘evil’…
Who the hell is this referring to? How many, where are they going, where are they coming from?
Do all commuters to West Sacramento come from Davis? Or, do they come from throughout the region?
And given that there’s already a claimed “housing shortage” in Davis (but not so much in places like West Sacramento), what kind of “logic” is being employed in this letter?
And, how would another business park fix windows on an existing building?
They drive to Bayer in West Sac. They drive to Genentech in Vacaville. Both companies have a history with Davis. One left Davis the other looked at Davis but ended up building in business friendly Vacaville.
Vacaville continues to develop its biotech hub at the 505, I-80 junction. Where do you think they get the skilled labor needed to staff these facilities? They get it from U.C. Davis and U.C. Berkeley. They get it from Sac State and Sonoma State. They get it from East Coast big pharma.
This assumes that the majority of their workers live in Davis, rather than closer to where they work – despite the abundance of housing in those areas.
Probably not true in the first place (especially over time), but let’s explore this a little further.
So now, another business park is built in Davis, and all of these businesses that have left (such as Bayer – which apparently received a “fire-sale” (inexpensive) arrangement on the space it’s now occupying in West Sacramento) move back to Davis (and pay a lot more money for both the move, and a lease at the new business park).
And the buildings in West Sacramento that were formerly occupied by “Davis businesses” then become vacant, and must then attract other businesses (and other commuters from throughout the region).
Maybe somebody can explain how any of this makes sense.
Ron G, why would a recently-graduated UCD student that is a newly-minted Genentech employee choose to live in Davis and commute rather than live in Vacaville? Same question for Bayer and Southport in West Sacramento.
My sister in Philadelphia works closely(as an independent third party) with Comcast finding homes for their relocations from other parts of the country. It is a very active part of the support that Comcast provides its new employees. Does Genentech have a similar program? Is locating their East Coast big pharma recruits in Davis part of that program?
Because they might find Davis a more desirable place to live, especially if the school district is a factor in their decision. Any realtor can tell you that the quality of local schools is a major factor in where people choose to live, even if that entails a long commute.
When my son was looking for a job, living in Dixon, he looked as far afield as Fairfield, Roseville, and Elk Grove. He had no intention of moving to those places. Like most people in a two-income household, his partner was working elsewhere. It’s actually pretty much a luxury these days to have both partners living and working in the same town.
The reality is that modern employment demographics don’t align with housing opportunities, and never will. The “jobs-housing balance” is an unattainable goal unless you broaden your analysis to include the whole region. Davis/Woodland/West Sac form a housing and jobs regional market. At this point those who oppose housing growth find themselves arguing against local jobs because it would cause housing demand. I will politely call that argument elitist.
Sounds to me, Don – that you would not agree with the premise of Pam’s letter (but fail to acknowledge that, as usual).
I’m sorry – did you say something regarding “elitist”?
The cost of moving and living elsewhere was the primary reason.
Matt, not all of them live in Davis, but those that are recruited from UCD likely already live here. Also many of the young single employees at Genentech, Alza or Bayer choose Davis because of the proximity to other young talented singles.
I’m not sure what support programs these companies offer recruits.
Probably a reason that businesses aren’t going to “move back” to Davis, after landing inexpensive digs in places like West Sacramento.
Sacramento itself is a job hub for the entire region (including Davis). Effective, employer-subsidized commuter bus lines serve it quite well – especially from Davis.
I suspect there’s a lot of people who live in Davis, work in downtown Sacramento, and wouldn’t want Sacramento to “come to” Davis (or vice-versa).
It’s a frickin relief to come over the causeway, and leave that mess behind.
.
Ron, I agree that those that are recruited from UCD likely already live here, especially if they are single. If they are single, chances are that they share an apartment with other students and the lease for that apartment ends sometime between June and September. So, unless they are going to continue living in an apartment with other UCD students, they are going to be looking for a residence other than the one they have occupied most recently. In Davis the apartment rental opportunities for a young, single non-student are both very limited and very expensive.
I agree with your premise about the attractiveness of proximity to other talented people of your own age (I don’t think single or married matters at that stage of life) … and the perfect demographic match will be with talented people in your chosen field. Genentech and Alza and Bayer are loaded with people who match that demographic profile, and only a very small proportion of them live in Davis. The proportion of young, married, and talented employees of Genentech and Alza and Bayer is probably significantly higher than young, single, and talented employees of those companies.
One of the challenges for people who are no longer students, are young, are single, and are talented in Davis is that there is really very little to do in Davis in the evenings. The Mondavi has concerts. Bars have lots of students. Restaurants are also student-oriented. What scene exists in Davis for young, single, talented non-students?
Commercial tenants are not going to make a public commitment to a site that isn’t even going to break ground for a couple of years at least. The best you’re likely to get is a general expression of support, such as this site had from Schilling and here in general terms from Pam Marrone. When we were looking for a site for our business, we weren’t going to make that public for any number of reasons. Certainly a business is not likely to make a firm commitment in the midst of a hotly contested local political campaign, as most businesses are averse to that kind of publicity. Even (maybe especially) UCD is not going to get involved in something like that.
There is no question that the demand is there regionally. Companies are choosing to go to cities that have allowed the development to occur which will provide the types of modern facilities that they need.
I would note that Schilling got attacked on this blog because of the nature of some of their work. That’s the kind of thing business owners wish to avoid.
David, you and other held up Schilling as a “model” of a green business. It wasn’t until I pointed out that they receive a lot of their money from undersea oil exploration that the truth came out.
The Vanguard is completely derelict in their “reporting”.
I’ve never made any representation about Schilling as a green business.
My apologies – I recall that others have, including the Vanguard itself.
But to characterize the truth as an “attack” is something that you just did.
Ron O
I have NEVER seen anyone trying to claim that Schilling is a “green” business. You’ll have to provide real documentation to support that outlandish claim.
Ron O…
You have brown eyes, right?
Look it up yourself. Truth be told, I believe that even Don has a “selective memory” regarding that, because I’m pretty sure that he claimed that “future” business would not be as focused on the oil industry, in defense of Schilling.
Clarification regarding what Schilling does (in response to what was claimed on here) is not an “attack”.
But, it does show how screwed-up this blog is, including Don’s interpretation of what constitutes an “attack” (and the others now chiming in).
Don, you make my point for me. Your statement takes a reactive approach rather that a proactive approach. Hotly contested local political campaigns last for a very limited duration of time. The failure of the DISC team and the City of Davis and UC Davis is to not be promoting communication about entrepreneurship and intellectual capital generation in the wealth of months (sometimes years) between the political contests.
Rob White worked hard to try and create that kind of community dialogue. The Vanguard hosted a well attended event at the UCD Convention Center several years ago that was a good example of positive communication, but Rob White was shown the door, and the Vanguard event became a solitary blip rather that part of a continual and continuing dialogue.
You vigorously opposed development of the DISC site because you said it wasn’t necessary, so I can’t think how this “communication” by their team that you are now advocating would have changed your rhetoric.
Don
You confuse opposition to development at a single site with opposition to an overall policy that focuses on building the positive attributes of Davis. Matt was very clear that he saw more attractive sites for new business in town.
Don, you clearly filtered what you heard through your own sensibilities. That is your right to do. However, what you “heard” and what I said over and over and over again to the DISC team in face to face meetings, both in private and in public was to “make it real.” Those conversations took place over an eight year span, and my message was consistent throughout. The site was never a problem for me. The ability of the DISC team to put clothes on the Emperor has always been the impediment. In terms of reality, at one point the project had a lead tenant, but the development team let that slip away. They made the project less reality and more fantasy … and then when the realities of COVID arrived, they chose to ignore those realities and double down on the “ten years of planning” message.
Your final sentence sums up the wide gulf between us. You appear to be looking for rhetoric and spin spoon-fed to the community. I am looking for continual ongoing education of the community so that our individual and collective inventory of knowledge and intellectual capital is increased. In effect a log series of continuous OLLI courses that help us better understand how the economic opportunity will better the community.
Other universities have publicly supported new tech business campuses in other cities, and UCD did so in Sacramento. There’s no reason why UCD can’t step forward and do so here as well.
Maybe they should stop doing work of that nature if they don’t want to be criticized. (I have no idea what that work is, because I don’t follow everything all-the-time, but I don’t see how criticizing what a company does has anything to do with the issue of business park development).
Seems to me that the DISC developers are on a “fishing expedition”, lately. Trying to resurrect interest, despite a massive shift and shutdown in the economy, zero growth throughout the state, etc.
Pam Marrone unintentionally reinforces a point that (I think) I’ve made here before: the University Research Park campus is a prime spot to redevelopment. It’s clearly obsolete and not developed intensely enough. That space between Research Park Dr and Cowell should be pulled down and rebuilt. The City should look at what it would take to move on that, including approaching UCD to for discussions. But first this should be done in the context of a vision plan created by the community in this next year.
I agree that the URP site is a prime location for redevelopment, but what incentives do the owners have for doing so? Is there a shortage of tenants and copious empty buildings on the site or around town? Not the last time I looked. One of Pam’s other comments indicated that the current owners were not interested in making the requested upgrades to their property in order to allow for solar installation. This could be because they are planning on tearing everything down and rebuilding (as Richard proposes), or perhaps more likely it is because the properties are already fully leased and making money and the owners are already stretched financially by their recent land acquisitions and their upcoming development project (not to mention the current economic environment).
The primary method for incentivizing redevelopment of commercial property is to increase the competition for available tenants. Simply put, if your long-standing tenant has a viable opportunity to move elsewhere in town and you expect to have difficulty replacing them, then the current landlord may look more favorably at reinvesting in order to keep that tenant. Even if the goal is to redevelop an existing building though, there needs to be space for the tenant to move to, at least temporarily, during construction. Davis lacks both the space needed for real competition or to allow for redevelopment of existing buildings. DISC would have offered both, and the community’s rejection of the project will have the impact of reducing the likelihood of any meaningful redevelopment of the existing building stock at URP (or elsewhere in town).
This is patently false, in that Davis is “competing” with its own vacant and underutilized sites, but more importantly – with sites in West Sacramento, Woodland, etc. As noted in the letter, itself.
Businesses have “plenty” of options. There is no “shortage”, thereof – especially with businesses leaving the state and opportunities provided by telecommuting. This itself “frees up” space (also “pretending{, for the sake of your argument – that every other valley town would not gladly welcome the sprawl from something like DISC). Those towns would figuratively “piss-their-respective” pants to sacrifice farmland.
Aggie Square is requiring massive public subsidies, just to be viable in the first place.
Mark was talking about the reduction of the likelihood of redevelopment in town and you shifted to talking about out of town sites.
And then, there’s the lease price that something like DISC would need to charge, assuming that they don’t land an initial business as a “loss leader” – so that they can “prove” market demand. (Seriously, they couldn’t even do that?) Geez, I think even I could manage to do that!
Then, compare that REAL lease price to the plethora of space throughout the region, and the incentives that other cities would likely provide.
Shortage, my arse.
How? Cars is cars. Monorail, perhaps?
I don’t know, levy a fee on the site and pay a bunch of money to Unitrans or something. You’re the transportation expert, not me.
That sounds remarkably similar to the plan that was presented. 😉
And likely, the only one that can be.
I used to know (and recite) the number of proposed parking spots, but I’m drawing a blank at the moment. Around 5,000 or so?
Did that # (5,000) include bike parking spaces (spots)? Delivery spaces? EV spaces? Just curious…
Yes, you seemed to have the # memorized… past posts… hoping that is not a sign of loss of cognitive function…
Best to you and yours in 2021… for reals…
I think they did several things if all were followed through: provided housing on site, proposed a shuttle down 2nd to Amtrak and UCD, and proposed an under-crossing of Mace. There also was the diverting of the Yolobus — better to have stops and free bikes, buggies, scooters available to get the last few 1000 feet to work. Either way I think they did what could be done, and I voted for the project. However, there’s only so much you can do. Most people living there probably won’t be working there, and most people still prefer the convenience of driving. There’s only so much you can do to incentivize otherwise.
“Other universities have publicly supported new tech business campuses in other cities, and UCD did so in Sacramento. There’s no reason why UCD can’t step forward and do so here as well.”
I think the impact of the protests against US Bank on campus are under appreciated. Not only did US Bank close the branch but any talk of a research park on the Davis campus also evaporated.
Additionally, UC land being developed as a public private Research Park does nothing for the economic woes of the city.