How Should Davis Proceed with Business Park Development in Light of Mace Curve Decision?

On May 23, 2013, City of Davis Chief Innovation Officer Rob White, in his weekly column with the Vanguard, posed the question to Vanguard readers, “Where Will All the Business Go?”

In it he suggested that if Davis is to become more than an incubator for startups who then either move to other regional destinations like West Sacramento, Woodland, Dixon and North Natomas or down the I-80 corridor to places like San Francisco and the Bay Area, we have to address a key problem, “a significant lack of space for the growth.”

“Our downtown doesn’t have a very large inventory of for-sale buildings and spaces for lease can require costly tenant improvements,” he writes. “There is an extreme shortage of commercial and light industrial spaces that are greater than 10,000 square feet and appropriate for technology companies. And we have very few options for companies that need to develop facilities greater than 100,000 square feet.”

He adds, “For every company that can’t find a home in Davis right now, whether a local startup or one trying to move in to town, there is an unintended message that gets sent to the business community – we are full.”

He adds on a more positive note, “Though this is a challenge, I believe that the Davis community has proven time and again that we can meet these obstacles and turn them in to opportunities.  I think there is a growing awareness of the need for more jobs, more revenue for community needs and more diversity in our business landscape.  And if we can address this issue effectively, we will set ourselves on a pathway to economic vitality that will increase local employment and provide us with a robust business sector that can be heavily engaged in philanthropy and community-building activities.”

The article triggered 87 comments and a number of spinoff articles.  And then a few weeks after its publication, we moved from the realm of the hypothetical to the concrete.  The idea of a business park at the Mace Curve 391 spot was bogged down with numerous procedural issues that precluded the full discussion of the idea of shifting the easement down the street to the northwest, to the Shriner’s Property.

Those problems, in addition to land use concerns by three councilmembers, effectively killed that option.

The question before us now is whether that means we abandon the idea that Davis could become a new model for innovation as the home to university-produced spinoffs or whether there are alternatives.

David Morris runs both techDavis, that currently provides 50% of the CIO’s funding, and Capitol Corridor Ventures (CCV), which has recently purchased the rights to the Shiner’s Property.  He said, “One of the things that became clear early is that we need to have a place to attract and retain larger companies to create critical mass.”

He argued there is only one place in Yolo County where that makes any sense, from a technology perspective.

“People can debate this, but that’s just the fact,” he stated.  “It’s Mace and I-80.  Looking at that site and the conservation piece, it became pretty clear that if that easement goes down it’s going to push that type of development into Solano County.”

“I think it involves Davis,” he said.  “I think it should be integrated into Davis with our bike system… with our community as a major revenue source.”

The fear by some is without that property, the university will find their own space to develop a business/tech park – and that spot is to the southwest of the campus in Solano County, which would preclude Davis from getting the economic bang for the buck.

However, others we have spoken to have talked in terms of a Plan B, but they cannot seem to agree on what that Plan B is.

So, in the style of my often-contributor Matt Williams, I present here the options that Davis has.  This may not be an exclusive list and I would encourage the readers to post additional ideas in the comment areas.

One caveat – no alternative here is without both strengths and weaknesses.  That includes the do-nothing alternative.

Possibilities for Business Park Development:

As we noted, each of these properties have some advantages, but all of them have disadvantages.

Both (1) and (2) are really fallback options.  I think everyone wants to have some economic development, but what the form of that is depends on what the community is willing to support in terms of land use decisions through Measure R votes.  However, I do believe that the city and business community should at least consider the possibility that we end up with (2), which is that Davis becomes a place where we get great ideas off the ground, but do not have the space to allow for major expansions of the young companies.

That means we will face what we are already starting to face, native Davis companies – that have been with us 10 to 20 years – ultimately leaving.

A number of people favor the Nishi Property.  There are critical advantages there, namely the location next to both the university and the proximity to the core.  However, the site is a nightmare in terms of transportation and infrastructure.  The city will have to get creative if it looks as if they are going forward with it.  Any notion of traffic congestion adding to the Richards Blvd. problem could be the death knell for a Measure R vote.

Many have suggested that Cannery is better suited for industrial rather than the current mixed-use proposal.  The officials I have talked to, however, believe that new business startups want immediate freeway access.  However, I can’t help but wonder if we make the deal right, whether we could get one of the businesses forced to leave Davis to at least consider it.

One idea that might be worth looking into is only the eastern half of Mace Curve 391 being put into an easement.  That would effectively limit growth to the east – and the city would need to mitigate to the north as well.  But it might be worth looking into developing part of the park at Mace Curve 391 and the rest to the north at Shriner’s.  While not ideal, it might be viable.

The other area that has been talked about is the land to the west of Sutter Davis.  It is relatively close to Highway 113 and some of the soil out there is quite poor.  However, residents have been reluctant to develop in that direction out of fear of new sprawl, and any decision would require voter approval.

It doesn’t have the advantage of I-80 but as a fallback, it may be workable.

We throw out the idea of developing that entire area of Covell Village and Cannery, though most officials concede Covell Village will not be developed in most of our lifetimes.

We throw out the idea of Shiner’s as a stand-alone proposal, although we conceded it is unlikely, given it is relatively far from freeway access and residents are reluctant to develop in that area.

Finally, we throw out the idea of Howatt Ranch.  This was Stephen Souza’s suggestion.  He said we already owned over 700 acres in the Howatt Ranch area that he argued would be better suited for development of a business park.  “We have Howatt Ranch, we don’t need to add any more land,” he said.

City officials seem uninterested in that possibility, as it is far from town and would produce a number of other problems.

Are there other possibilities?  Again, please suggest them in comments as well as discussing the merits of these alternatives.

—David M. Greenwald reporting