City of Davis

Two weeks ago, the Planning Commission listened to the comments of 62 members of the public, but made no recommendation to the city council.  Instead, they asked staff to provide answers to a long list of questions that the Planning Commissioners individually and collectively still have.   On Wednesday they will once again be asked to make a recommendation ahead of the October 22 Davis City Council Meeting.

Staff continues to propose that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the applications for the Cannery.  Staff writes, “Although Commissioners expressed general support for the concept of a mixed-use development on the project site, individual Commissioners also expressed opinions on possible modifications or recommendations to the City Council.”

On Sunday, the Vanguard supported the Davis City Council re-examining whether putting a permanent Agricultural Easement on Mace 391 was the best use of the city-owned land asset.  While this was not support for putting a business park on the easement, the City’s Chief Innovation Officer reminded Vanguard readers that the idea of pausing the grant application process was originally floated at the June 11 meeting and that such a move would not be without consequences.

“I want to remind our own dialogue here on the Vanguard that the staff report (both original and modified) for the June 11th was to pause and take a harder look at more than just the one option for an easement,” Rob White wrote on Sunday.

When the proposal for Mace 391 first emerged, the process under which it came forward was so bad, so convoluted, that council needed to send a strong message and summarily reject it.  Essentially, a long and complicated process that had been worked on extensively behind closed doors was thrown at the public at the very last second.

Despite these problems, the proposal itself has merit.  The city of Davis is badly in need of business park space so that it can become a location that taps into the research innovation and energy at the university.  If the city fails to act and create business park space, not only will it lose the money and revenue from the Bayer/AgraQuests of the world, but many of the most innovative startups will go to West Sacramento, Sacramento, Natomas, or Solano County on the southwest side of the university.

by Matt Williams

As we discussed yesterday, the 2002 Davis Open Space Acquisition and Management Plan (the A&M Plan), which built on the 1989 Davis Greenway Plan, identified four types of open space categories for spending Measure O funds:

• Urban Fringe: Open space lands that help define the urban limits of Davis and provide an adequate buffer between urban and rural land uses.

by Matt Williams

The Dream: “To share a growing awareness that the preservation of open space, much like the operations of our schools and libraries, is an essential community goal, which will not be accomplished without our sustained support.

On Nov. 7, Davis citizens will have an opportunity to vote for Measure O – a City of Davis ballot measure which will provide the funding necessary to enable our city to enhance our own quality of life by creating wildlife habitat reserves, with areas set aside where Davis citizens will be able enjoy strolling, bicycling, bird watching and bringing their children. And we will be slowly creating a green buffer to help define our city limits. Davis citizens of all ages will have the opportunity to leave a lasting legacy to future generations.” (Source).

It was a show of force during the public comment period and some of the top business and tech leaders in this community asked the council to at least further examine their decision to put the parcel east of Mace known as Mace 391 into permanent conservation easement.

While steadfastly maintaining they were not asking for a reconsideration – which was not possible anyway – Councilmembers Brett Lee and Lucas Frerichs pushed the council to put an information-only item on Mace 391 on the October 15 city council meeting agenda.  While they would not be able to act on any information, it does crack the door open slightly.

by Rob White

At least once a day, and sometimes many times a day, I get the question from a Davis community member wanting me to share my vision of economic development (or shall we say economic vitality) of the city. And every time I ask that questioner the same of them. Because my job in Davis is to synthesize the vast array of input into a coherent and reasonably achievable community vision, and then strive purposefully for that outcome.

Some have said my job is an impossible task. Others have quipped that there will never be a universal community vision around economic development. And my favorite comment continues to be something to the effect of ‘we’ve tried economic development in Davis, and it doesn’t work.’

Back in November 2012, the Davis City Council approved a “Pre-Development Cost Funding and Negotiation Agreement for the Nishi Property, with the goal of planning the site as a mix of university-related research park development complemented by high density urban housing.”

The pre-development concept was for the city to share predevelopment costs with the property owner, but upon completion of the environmental review and successful voter approval through a Measure R vote, the city’s contribution would be reimbursed by the developer.