The Region is Watching to See What Davis Does

NW-RFEI-4A source late last week laid out to the Vanguard a doomsday scenario suggesting that the regional leaders and investors will keep a close eye on what Davis does in terms of the innovation park proposals laid out last week in the RFEI.

“If this goes down, regardless of reason, we are done in investment by others in Davis,” the source warned.

Looking at regional coverage may bear that out. The Sacramento Business Journal on Tuesday afternoon wrote, “A who’s who of prominent developers in the region have submitted ideas to the city of Davis for developing a research and development park that could capitalize on the nearby University of California campus.”

The article notes, “The proposal on the eastern side of the city, titled ‘Mace Innovation Center,’ involves Buzz Oates Group of Cos., Ramco Enterprises and Barbara Brunner. That proposal would be on 186 acres east of Mace Boulevard and north of Interstate 80 and calls for a business park of both office and industrial buildings and parks, also including complementary land uses such as recreational facilities, lodging, gyms and day care sites.

“A second proposal for the northwestern side of the city by Hines and SKK Development also includes The Hodgson Co., AECOM and Pioneer Law Group. That idea calls for the ‘Davis Innovation Center’ on 207 acres near Highway 113 and Covell Boulevard, with such features as outdoor gathering spaces, a mix of building heights and types, relative proximity to University of California Davis and alternative transit integrated into project design.

“Though not as fleshed out as the other two, the final proposal suggests the Tsakopoulos family of AKT Investments would donate 200 acres of its Davis Ranch property to be developed into an innovation center with partners Capital Corridor Ventures, based in Davis, land entitlement guru George Phillips and Panattoni Development Co.”

Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee and Davis Enterprise were slow to get the stories out, each waiting until their Sunday publications.

Writes the Bee, “Davis came a bit closer to becoming a mini-Silicon Valley last week when it received responses from three developers seeking to build an ‘innovation center’ to bolster the city’s research and technology sectors.

“It’s the first step in a long path. But supporters, such as the city’s chief innovation officer, Rob White, say the innovation center could harness the research power of the University of California, Davis, to lure new technology and research companies and persuade existing ones to stay, creating jobs and much-needed revenue for the city’s beleaguered budget.”

Dan Wolk takes over as mayor on Tuesday, and he said, “The goal is to attract forward-thinking companies that could help transform Davis’ economy.”

“It’s one thing to have a new restaurant open up in your downtown or a new small business,” Mr. Wolk told the Bee. “That’s great, but this is really huge. These proposals would be the kind of big economic development measures that we need, the kind of thing where we could really have large companies either relocate to Davis or stay in Davis and grow.”

“The city envisions more than a typical office park,” the Bee notes. “The ‘request for expressions of interest’ issued last month asked for preliminary proposals that would include a mix of building heights and types, ‘net-zero’ energy goals and the integration of alternative transit such as biking and public transportation. The city said it was ‘not looking for general warehousing or processing plants’ but rather space for research, labs and commercial services, as well as potential corporate headquarter buildings. It likened the proposed business campus to the 700-acre Stanford Research Park, near Stanford University in Palo Alto, or the NASA Ames Research Center near San Jose.”

“Our intent is to create an office campus where people have chances to get together, whether that’s in coffee shops, cafeterias or recreational facilities,” said John Hodgson, president of The Hodgson Company, a Sacramento developer. “Think of what you see in Silicon Valley or Mission Bay, San Francisco: cutting edge design, attractive buildings.”

Rob White told the Bee that the third proposal, submitted by Capitol Corridor Ventures CEO David Morris, was “the only to come as a surprise.”

He told the Bee, “While the latter proposal doesn’t address all of the city’s proposed criteria, what’s intriguing about this is the idea of the gift of 200 acres to the city and putting it completely in city control.”

However, the Bee also interjects uncertainty. They write, “It’s unclear, however, whether voters would support the innovation center project. Davis voters recently rejected two large-scale residential development projects after builders expended millions of dollars during the planning stages; the Ramco, Oates and Brunner group wants to hold the ballot vote in November partly to avoid that fate.”

Dan Wolk told the Bee that “he thinks voters will distinguish between the earlier projects, which were entirely residential, and the new plans for a business center.”

“I think that we’ve really reached a tipping point in our community,” Mr. Wolk said. “I think folks recognize we need to be doing more in the area of economic development.”

Meanwhile, Rob White said “that quick action on the project is imperative, as Davis is home to a number of growing tech, research and manufacturing companies in need of space, leased or owned, that an innovation center could provide.”

One of those companies is Schilling Robotics, founded in 1985 by Davis-born Tyler Schilling.

“The business is going to continue to grow and we’re going to need space and we’ve got to find it somewhere,” Mr. Schilling said. “I dearly hope that Davis can move expeditiously on an innovation park and we can move a mile, rather than 20 or 30 or 50 miles.”

All of this reminds us of comments made by Councilmember Rochelle Swanson, who urged the council to action in mid-May following her Cap-to-Cap trip.

Councilmember Swanson said of her trip to DC, “This year I was lobbied. This year I was pressured. This year the region is wanting to know what are we doing and why aren’t we moving forward because they’re getting really worried because we have assets that nobody else has.”

“It’s not Davis versus West Sac, it’s not Davis versus Woodland or Folsom or Roseville,” she continued. “It’s Davis versus Austin. It’s Davis versus Chicago. It’s Davis versus cities in China. We’re losing and our region loses if we don’t step up.”

“There’s a lot of criticism in the community from certain pockets about things like the Cap-to-Cap trip and some of the investments we’re doing,” she said. “Usually when you go to these meetings, you thank them for the time and you tell them how you need help. Congressman Garamendi was very generous in that he gave us time to talk about Davis.”

“It was really unique in all the meetings, he sat back and he turned to me and he said, there are things I need from you,” she explained. “That was a very different tone and I asked him to please write me a letter so I could share it with the community.”

Councilmember Swanson said, “The reason why I share this, and maybe there is a sense of frustration, is that we have been talking for a long time about what we’re going to do. The innovation task force has been talking for a number of years. We’ve talked about waiting for proposals… I do worry that this search for the perfect is going to kill the good.”

“We have support like no other,” she continued. “I was not an hour there at a reception and had at least six to ten people, many I didn’t know, who looked at my badge and said, ‘What’s up with the innovation center? What’s going on? How come this hasn’t moved forward? You know that we need you. We have companies asking us when things are coming on line.’”

“Other communities around us are very literate, whether it’s their staff or their councilmembers on we have to work with these companies,” she said. “It was telling people were asking why we just have a handful here, why is it just you. I applaud Sarah (Worley) coming out of her own pocket. Other communities they walk the walk, they don’t just talk the talk.”

“We don’t have to change the character of our community,” she said. “I just want to make sure that people are aware that now is the time, we are going to have to work together.”

Rochelle Swanson referenced Paul Tsongas in 1992. “He talked about how there are people on canoes and they’re rowing, and other countries are rowing and they’re all in step. And we’re standing up hitting each other over the head with paddles. When I see what the other communities are doing, they’re in lock step. They get it. They’re rowing in order. And I think we still tend to beat each other up over certain things. I want to encourage us to really move forward.”

–David M. Greenwald reporting

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts


  1. Tia Will

    “The business is going to continue to grow and we’re going to need space and we’ve got to find it somewhere,” Mr. Schilling said. “I dearly hope that Davis can move expeditiously on an innovation park and we can move a mile, rather than 20 or 30 or 50 miles.” Schilling

    ““It’s not Davis versus West Sac, it’s not Davis versus Woodland or Folsom or Roseville,” she continued. “It’s Davis versus Austin. It’s Davis versus Chicago. It’s Davis versus cities in China. We’re losing and our region loses if we don’t step up.” Swanson

    Regardless of one’s position on an innovation park, these two views by individuals both in favor of an innovation park would seem to be expressing contradictory views of whom Davis is “against”. I feel that Mr. Schillings view is the more realistic. Contrary to Ms. Swanson’s view, placing an innovation park in Davis is pitting Davis against
    other communities in the region for the money that would be generated by this park. One can argue whether or not that is good for our city and for our region, but I do believe that it is important to acknowledge where the competition actually exists and it is not primarily in China in the words of our own Mr. Schilling.

    1. Davis Progressive

      i don’t think simply offering space in davis pits davis against other communities. our main focus is to provide space to start ups at the university so they can stay in town. every so often a mori seiki opportunity might come along.

    2. Frankly

      Tia – here is the way I see it.

      You are generally consistent in fighting to keep Davis stuck in a no-growth mode. You have said it before that you want to retire here and you would like it to go back in time to 50,000. You say you are in favor of innovation parks, but then posts like this one clearly indicate that you are still not supportive.

      I purchased a small second home in a mountain community for my family and friends to enjoy. It is next to a lake and surrounded by national forest. When we acquire the place it was 3 blocks away from a restaurant and bowling alley. That was a big feature as we could walk there, eat, bowl, have drinks and walk back home.

      That bowling alley closed and was replaced by a Dollar General. After the recession, people up there don’t have enough money to bowl. We lost a lot of value relative to our way of living up there.

      The point I am making here is inertia for community change. In many cases… in most cases… people living in a place cannot control it. The can try, but eventually there are things that just happen and need to happen that change the environment and we have to recalibrate and decide what we want to do.

      The city of Davis cannot control what happens with UCD. UCD has grown and succeeded in a number of areas that requires the city to accommodate it. I see it as a positive opportunity, and you see it as negative change. But the change is inevitable and uncontrollable… and you and others are going too have recalibrate and decide what it is you want to do. Do you still want to retire in Davis after the change? My personal opinion is that you don’t really know what the future of Davis will be and you are making it out to be negative in the void of inadequate comprehension. But then it is a personal preference thing and you might very well not like it. I think you will be the minority, but I can’t tell you or anyone else that you will like it.

      But if you don’t like it, you can always move somewhere else that better suits your desires. There are a lot of more small a rural communities around the state. Just come up to the mountains if you really want to be in a place with few people and lots of open space.

      The bottom line here is that we are either lucky or unlucky, depending on your preferences, to live in a city that is anchored by a successful and growing university. But at this point you are on the wrong side of what is right fighting to keep Davis from having to respond to that growth and success. And when you add the point that we have a severe underdeveloped business sector and severe budget problems, the wrongness of anti-growth is amplified.

      Now let’s go to work making sure that new development is world class to match our university.

      1. Tia Will


        “You have said it before that you want to retire here and you would like it to go back in time to 50,000”

        I have never said that I would like it to go back in time to 50,000. I know that this is not a possibility and I am accepting of that. What I have said repeatedly is that I preferred it when there were 50,000 people. You also seem again to believe that you know better than I what I believe. I have stated repeatedly that I am in support of an innovation park. I am not necessarily in favor of any innovation park. I think that again, just like any project or product, the requirements of those who will be affected by this project should be taken into account.

      2. TrueBlueDevil

        I recall Chancellor Hullar hitting this wall of the “keep Davis small” mindset. I think that
        s the first time I recall someone putting forward an idea for a large development project. I did see in The Enterprise that some San Francisco design firm put together some huge plan for Davis in the 60s or 70s, which thankfully went nowhere as it was so overblown and out of character.

    3. Good Government

      Mr. Schilling is speaking about his own company. Councilmember Swanson is speaking about all the potential tenants if an Innovation Canter in Davis.

      1. Tia Will

        Good Government and DavisVoter

        I understand that and agree. However, the question that should be addressed is whether any company that would be considering tenancy in Davis would not share Mr. Shillings geographic range ?

    1. davisite4

      And unless those who want to see this happen start working with (and not just talking at and insulting) those who have concerns about a new business park. I said it on the other thread, but I’ll say it again here: I think the proposal that has the most chance of succeeding with Davis’s voters is the one in the NW Quadrant (because of its location, developer attitude, and relatively poorer soils), and people would do well to focus their energies on that.

      1. Mark West

        I think at this point, all three proposals have merit that should be considered. That does not mean they should all be accepted as a blanket proposal, but that we should consider the merits of all three. Foreclosing on any of these options in an attempt to satisfy the naysayers is not beneficial to anyone.

        The fact is we will ultimately need 1000-2000 acres of business development over the next 20 years or so to pay for maintaining all of the amenities that have already been ‘consumed’ but have so far not been paid for. Our only other option is to tax ourselves to the point that Davis is no longer an affordable place to live except for the most affluent.

        1. Tia Will


          I agree with you that all three proposals should be investigated thoroughly.
          The whole point of soliciting multiple proposals from my point of view is to do a through review of the pros and cons of each. While this is definitely more arduous and time consuming, I see it as the most appropriate approach.

      2. Frankly

        Nice to know your preference. I’m sure you have your reasons. But freeway access is a real problem for that site. Also, there are more residents adjacent to that location and concerns over traffic and other impacts are going to mobilize the neighborhood. Look what happened with University Village and the attempt to connect it to Russel. I think that is going the be the most difficult site to pull off.

        I live in Stongate and I support the development. But I support all three. I think we need all three and should be working on all three simultaneously or in rapid sequence. And the Davis Ranch property has a time line. The owner is donating the land but with a requirement that building on it starts within 24 months. The city will own it so there is no problem with designing it to be cool.

        That is the project we all need to get behind as the first priority for many obvious reasons.

        1. Don Shor

          The owner is donating the land but with a requirement that building on it starts within 24 months. The city will own it so there is no problem with designing it to be cool.

          That is the project we all need to get behind as the first priority for many obvious reasons.

          There is no urgency to developing that site. Tsakopolous offered land in South Davis before, seven years ago; that time it was for a stem cell research facility — and some housing. Probably the same site. That kind of development, far from the current city’s edge, is a significant planning decision that should be undertaken with care. The land isn’t going anywhere, and neither is his company.

          1. Frankly

            The offer to donate the land requires that construction starts within 24 months. You want the city to piss that away like Mace 391? You are astounding.

          2. Don Shor

            There is no urgency, Frankly. I realize you are fronting for David Morris here, and he obviously feels some urgency. But Tsakopolous has offered land, probably this site, before. He has also proposed solar panels on 600+ acres just east and south of the site. His company is in this for the long haul. We know very well what the Tsakopolous vision for southeast Davis is. The question is whether that is the vision of the city’s residents.
            There is no urgency. Nothing is going to be pissed away. A major land development proposal of this magnitude requires commission review, and the county supervisors will need to weigh in (they’ve looked unfavorably on prior proposals for that area).
            I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that Morris and you and others would try to do an end run around the land planning policies and practices of the City of Davis and Yolo County, given that is the modus operandi we’ve seen. But unlike the other business park proposals, this one came out of nowhere. It is not a site that was reviewed or considered by the Innovation Park Task Force. It is not in the planning process of the County for development.
            I understand you are trying to create urgency. That is a standard sales tactic. So it needs to be said right now: any “requirement” that construction start “within 24 months” is completely bogus. You know that, David Morris knows that. The Tsakopolous family will donate the land if it serves their purposes, and not otherwise.

          3. Frankly

            I don’t have any chicken in this pen other than my concern for the city and my concern that the city might screw up yet again.

            Angelo is something like 83. No, you are wrong. The offer is not going to wait for the enemies of progress to stall and block again.

            Do you get the gift benefit to the city? The proceeds from the sale of the business park and the ability to completely control the design and the development. Which other proposal gives us that?

            Just more Donisms. Those definitive claims lacking a basis of knowledge but repeated ad nauseum as if an adequate replacement for knowledge.

          4. Don Shor

            No urgency, Frankly. Mace 200 and the NWQ will move forward sooner. I’m still curious what the supervisors have to say. This one may be DOA. If not, then there is a lot to discuss with the public before anything moves to a vote.
            I am aware of the known benefits. We don’t know if there are any other constraints on the proposal. There are also significant possible drawbacks. From an urban planning standpoint, it’s terrible as presented so far. I realize you have zero interest in urban planning and land uses other than development, but it is a reality that Davis residents and Yolo County supervisors DO have an interest in those things.

            I see you’ve already moved past reason and on to your derogatories. Also your MO. I suggest you back off that approach if you want to have a public discussion. Actually, since I’m sure you have David Morrs’es contacts, suggest he log in and discuss his ideas in public for a change. I think the NWQ team and Dan Ramos have shown much, much better awareness of how to get a project going and approved.
            I’m not against the idea of possibly annexing this site in conjunction with reasonable planning for the area around it. That takes public input, and we have structures in place for getting that input.
            I think you’re afraid of how the public is going to react, so you are trying to create this false sense of urgency. It doesn’t matter what age Mr. Tsakopolous is. It’s his company we’re dealing with. They’re not going anywhere.

          5. Frankly

            All we have is responses from an RFI. You make it sound like there has been significant work done already on the designs of the other 2. It is simply not the case.

            And with the Davis Ranch project, we own it, we control it. The simple fact that you never acknowledge that difference is very telling.

          6. Don Shor

            Ok: I fully acknowledge that if they donate the land “we” own it and control the development. Ok? Got it? I hereby freely acknowledge that. What is “telling” about the fact that I haven’t stated the obvious before, I don’t know, but I’ll just get that out of the way now for ya. Ok?
            Do you acknowledge that annexing land a mile down the road is leapfrog development? Do you acknowledge that annexing land apart from the city would have an effect on the value and development likelihood of the properties in between?

          7. David Greenwald

            One thing I was told yesterday is we cannot simply annex one segment of land cut off from the rest of the city. We would have to annex all of the land between the city boundaries and Davis Ranch, including the soccer fields.

          8. Frankly

            But the soccer fields are not annexed at this point.

            Was all the land between the east edge of Stonegate and the west side of 113 annexed when it was developed 30+ years ago?

            I don’t really care. Davis is less than 10 square miles. We can annex land and keep it open space, farmland… or we can develop it into something.

            I am in fact furious at this argument. And I have to watch my language at this point. Measure J/R is the tool of the no-growther, the false farmland-is-vanishing, and the I-don’t-want-Daivs-to-change NIMBY hand-wringers… they have this tool to get out and block development that they don’t like. And they have succeeded time and time again. And now we also have to accept additional arguments that Davis will sprawl and there will be rampant development if we develop a single parcel not already connected to the existing border. This is just a bunch of crap. It is the babble fools.

            There is absolutely no validity in this “leapfrog” argument in Davis. There is not material different in “risk” that we will develop more if we allow a development that is not already touching the periphery.

            Get rid of Measure J/R and you might have a point. But otherwise stop with the foolish argument.

          9. Don Shor

            See David’s comment above. There is nothing “foolish” about my argument. I’m sorry you are so angry.

          10. Mark West

            David: ” We would have to annex all of the land between the city boundaries and Davis Ranch, including the soccer fields.”

            Annexing the intervening land does not mean that those lands have to be developed any time soon, if ever. It would certainly increase pressure for such development, but there is nothing inherent about annexation that necessitates development.

            Don: “From an urban planning standpoint, it’s terrible as presented so far.”

            There is nothing terrible about the proposal as it stands, unless you are coming from a zero growth perspective (or believe that only you know what is best for Davis).

            It is a proposal that should be fully analyzed by our planning staff and commissions, just as is true for the other two sites, and was also true for the Mace 391 proposal.

          11. Don Shor

            There is nothing wrong with annexing the intervening land. It could present some real opportunities for Davis.

          12. DavisBurns

            I understood the land to be donated was inside the mace curve–north of I80 and west of Mace, where there is currently crops being grown. Is the donated land actually in south Davis?

          13. Frankly

            I understood the land to be donated was inside the mace curve–north of I80

            Nope… across the freeway on the south side outside of south Davis. Take the frontage road out of town pass the last car/RV Dealer. It is the field about half way from there and the fruit stand by the exit onto the causeway. It is hundreds of acres from any south Davis homes.

            It is a beautiful spot for a business park.

      3. Good Government

        I would assert that the Mace Innovation Center is the location most ready for immediate consideration. It has existing access and frontage to I-80, and it is surrounded by an ag buffer and would create the permanent eastern border of our town, so I believe the location is best. There is also an anchor tennant, Schilling Robotics, ready to move in day one.

      4. Good Government

        d4 – Would you please define “developer attitude”? I think your reasoning for why you prefer the NW proposal is a little odd. The location is the worst of the three, in my opinion, given lack of I-80 frontage, impacts on residential neighborhoods, and lack of infrastructure. And the “relatively poorer soil quality” argument doesn’t resonate with me at all. That should not be the basis upon which we choose where an Innovation Center fits best into the needs of our community and the needs of potential tenants. That’s why I would like a clearer idea of what “developer attitude” means to you, and what the NW folks have demonstrated in their attitude that the others have not.

  2. Michael Harrington

    I love good old USA competition.

    Where’s the mitigation? Don’t see much, and certaintly not enough to interest me.

    We used to have some proposals that had 3-1 mitigation, on the outer borders of the project

    1. Good Government

      Michael, would you support a project that included 3-1 mitigation? If not, what would be the criteria by which you would support a 200 acre innovation center?

  3. Davis Progressive

    want harrington to explain why we need 3 to 1 mitigation when mace is surrounded by permanent ag land and the city asked them to apply and build a business park?

  4. davisite4

    A number of you responded to my comment above, where I said “I think the proposal that has the most chance of succeeding with Davis’s voters is the one in the NW Quadrant” by saying that you think that the other proposal have as much or more merit, speaking from the perspectives of those who are convinced that Davis really needs a business park (or three). That may be so, but that wasn’t the point I was making. I am making a judgment call about how someone who lukewarm about a business park might feel, someone who does care about things like soil quality, even if that is low priority for some of the commenters here. As for developer attitude, the developer of the NW property expressed a clear willingness to work with Davisites to develop a workable plan, has offered a plan with details, and has not tried to rush things or to circumvent the system. I cannot say that about those involved with the other two plans. Again, I am giving you my impression. My impressions might be mistaken, of course, but I’m fairly sure that they are representative of at least some others in Davis. Those of you who think we really need a new business park (or three) in Davis can ignore such views, but if David Greenwald is right that “failure is not an option,” where failure=failure of the first proposal to go on the ballot, then you’d be wise not to. You need the votes of those who are lukewarm on the business park idea. But hey, ignore me if you want. I’m not convinced that it would be such a tragedy if they all failed, and I’d rather see no park than a bad one.

    Frankly does raise a good point about the adjoining neighborhood for the NW proposal. Here is where I think the developer’s demonstrated willingness to work with the city on the plans might make a difference, although time will tell. That is, time will tell if everyone doesn’t pour all of their energies into the other two plans and ignore the NW one.

  5. Jim Frame

    Frankly does raise a good point about the adjoining neighborhood for the NW proposal.

    What adjoining neighborhood? The NW Quadrant is on the north side of Covell, a 45 mph arterial with no homes fronting it. The “neighbors” won’t even see the business park until they venture out of their subdivisions onto Covell. (I’m not counting the apartments, because apartment-dwellers typically don’t get involved in development issues.) There’ll be additional traffic on Covell, but no reason for any of it to head into the residential areas, and I assume the business park proposal will include widening the stretch that’s currently 2 lane plus a turn lane to 4 lanes plus turn pockets. The “neighbor issues” seem like non-issues to me.

    1. Frankly

      University Retirement Village is right there. There are homes all along Covell west of 113 and up to Denali.

      When University Village wanted to connect with Russel the neighborhood went nuts and prevented it.

      There are apartments on both sides of Covell east of 113.

      I support the development, but I think discounting the likely opposition from this largely residential part of town would be silly.

      The other two options have no residential impacts. There is one apartment complex set back west of Mace… otherwise it is all commercial frontage on all corners of Mace and I80. And the Davis Ranch property is even more removed from any residential impacts.

      I think that is a big deal with respect to Measure J/R votes. And there are a lot of residents that live in West Davis. And if they are looking at options for where to locate a business park, they will certainly see the other two options as being more appropriate.

      1. Jim Frame

        There are homes all along Covell west of 113 and up to Denali.

        There are no single-family homes on Covell between 113 and Lake Boulevard. Starting at 113 and going west:

        URC (which has no access to Covell);

        A couple of apartment complexes (with no access to Covell, the parking lot and parking sheds being closest to the street);

        Denali Drive;

        A commercial complex, which has a driveway fronting Covell, but all front doors face the interior parking lot;

        Another commercial complex. This one faces Covell, but is set back about 100 feet from the street;

        A mini-storage facility with a driveway onto Covell;

        Two more commercial complexes set back about 60 feet from the street;

        And finally, Lake Boulevard.

        I agree that Mace 200 is the best choice, but NWQ has some pluses that make it worth exploring. Davis Ranch is the most problematic in my mind.

        1. Frankly

          So apartment dwellers and seniors don’t register in your list of concerned neighbors? And apparently you also don’t think those a couple of lots off Covell will mind either.

          Compared to the south Davis and Mace options, you are still coming up short with your explanation. There is an order of magnitude difference in the residential impact concerns for both of the other options and the NWQ site.

          We have not seen the Davis Ranch proposal yet because we can make it anything we want.

          Here it is…

          You can take door number one… working with a land owner and developer that will always seek ways to maximize profit by cutting corners… or door number two… accept free land that you can develop any way you want to.

          And by the way… you get to keep the money from the sale of the land to those individual businesses and use it for great things. Instead of seeing it go into the developer’s pocket.

          Seems pretty clear to me. Door number two is by far the most attractive door for a Davis business park.

          1. Jim Frame

            Seems pretty clear to me. Door number two is by far the most attractive door for a Davis business park.

            I think the proposal is still too sketchy to bring it to the top, especially with the level of city control so fuzzy. The AKT letter reportedly said that following annexation, rezone and entitlement — which I interpret to be conditions precedent to the donation — the parcel would be “placed in an endowment for the benefit of the City.” It didn’t specify which entity would control development of the parcel and what restrictions would be placed on the proceeds from land sales and/or rents. (I don’t think tax revenues can be restricted by the controlling entity.) And the 24-month timeline to resolve the questions about the leapfrog nature of the project (e.g., radical departure from the general plan, infrastructure extensions) as well as flood zone considerations seems overly optimistic to me. But it’ll be interesting to see what comes forward, and with enough detail I might be persuaded to support the project.

  6. DavisBurns

    Does anyone have any ideas where the new employees of the innovation parks are going to live? How many employees do they anticipate? If we approve one or more developments, are we setting ourselves up for making additional housing available? This is a real concern to me. New subdivisions do not pay for themselves in the long run and the further out city services extend, the more expensive they are to provide.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for