Anyone watching the council meeting this Tuesday should be stunned and dismayed by what they saw. The voters of Davis have sent a clear message on growth, that if you want to grow you need to stay in the current city boundaries.
The voters in November of 2009 threw down a fairly modest 200-unit proposal by a 3-1 margin. The economy is not going to get better and the real estate market is not going to improve anytime soon.
I get buzzwords, and while they drive me crazy, I understand the need to use them to market images to the rest of the region and to attract potential start-up companies.
But I am going to tell the city council, the business community and everyone involved right now, they are wasting their time. They are wasting resources, staff time and community energy if they do not take the land use realities into account.
That is the fatal flaw in this whole plan. The ConAgra site is currently the largest zoned industrial land in the city. It is already zoned for this use.
Is it in the perfect location? No. There are lots of flaws with the location. But it is the best we have.
Moreover, the spokesperson from ConAgra basically told the council you either rezone or it lies vacant.
They have no interest in building a business park and if the council keeps the land use as currently designated, the property sits for a very long time, according to ConAgra representative George Phillips.
“You can’t force landowners to do what they ultimately do not want to do,” he told the council.
So, a developer says jump and we say, how high? Is that a good and responsible way for a city to govern itself?
As I said yesterday, nevermind the fact that when the site was purchased it was zoned this way and the city has kept that land use designation.
I have been told behind the scenes that ConAgra has a portfolio and is responsible to shareholders. They will not develop a project that will not pencil out, and they will not sell at a loss. Which means they will hold the property until they get what they want.
There is collateral damage from this that is just devastating. If we take 100 acres of potential business park land out of circulation and replace it with 600 units, we end up scrambling trying to find land. It turns out that scramble will take us to Nishi, above the Mace Curve, and the Northwest Quadrant.
Somehow the council believes that the voters are going to support this?
But it is really much much worse than this. The basic sense I am getting is the argument that if Davis wants to attract business, it needs to build more workforce housing, otherwise the companies will not want to come to Davis and start-ups from the University will go to Solano County.
There is definitely an argument to be made that the voters might support a Measure R vote for business development, where they would not for housing. The problem is that the two are going to have to be linked together – at least according to this argument.
The pressure to grow is going to increase. 600 units is a large development for Davis, but in the bigger scheme it is quite small and thus, to really sustain economic growth according to this model and these discussions, we need a lot more housing to be built in the city.
We hear about declining school enrollment and the need for workforce housing, and we start forgetting that no one is building or buying housing in this area right now. We forget the realities and we go back to the old models of growth that were exploded in September of 2008.
And we also forget that that is not what this community wants. They have time and again opposed this type of residential growth.
So, if this new economic vision is predicated on the belief that we are going to have to grow more workforce housing, that is not reality. We need to find a new model very quickly or this whole plan is dead on arrival.
That is the reality that the leaders in this city, giddy in their belief that they can fix the Davis rut of low economic growth, need to come to terms with very quickly.
We need to take a step back very quickly here and go back to the discussions we were having during the campaign. Everything there was about slow growth, densification, and developing more in the core.
That is a realistic vision for Davis. We have gotten side-tracked from that by what appears to be a convergence of factors – DSIDE, business park studies, the Hunt-Wesson site – all of this emanates from the agenda of the person about to exit as Mayor of Davis after a brief tenure. But guess what, while the voters of Davis have supported Mr. Saylor in his elections, they have not supported his policies at the voting booth.
I will state it again, any economic strategy that assumes that the voters will approve peripheral development is flawed. In fact, it is more than flawed, it is probably dead on arrival.
Any future discussion of developing business, jobs or economics needs to take into account the typical Davisite’s proclivity for slow and sustainable growth and limiting encroachment onto the farmland.
Guess what folks, it is a red herring to suggest that ConAgra is building over non-farmland, because the opportunity cost for developing ConAgra as mixed-use is that we have to find business park land, and that does involve paving over farmland.
That is going to lose and this vision will die with it. Council better heed this warning.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]the spokesperson from ConAgra basically told the council you either rezone or it lies vacant.[/quote]
THe fact that a ConAgra spokesperson says this does not make it true–what would you expect them to say? I suspect in this case they may actually be telling the truth but never ever assume anything a developer says is true.
[quote]”You can’t force landowners to do what they ultimately do not want to do,”[/quote]
I think this statement is untrue. I am not a lawyer and unlike some will not render a precise legal opinion. However I am a landowner (my home) and I am required to mow my lawn and have other restrictions placed on property. Property rights do not give one absolute control over property. Society paces limits on what property owners can do all the time.
The ConAgra property is blighted and has been so for a very long time. I think it would be reasonable for the City to expect ConAgra to do something about this. WE cannot force development but I believe we could force the company to spend some money making the site something other than an eyesore.
If our CC stops bending over for every developer who stops by and if they find a competent attorney perhaps this is an option that could be explored. I believe that the City can pass ordinances against blight or make determinations to the effect that the site cannot remain as it is. At a minimum that would help but if the cost of improving the property was high enough it might force ConAgra’s hand somehow.
It would certainly be an improvement on what we have now–a large company telling us that they can do whatever they want and there is nothing we (as a City) can do about it. Talk about corporate arrogance.
THis may indeed be a lousy place for a business park. Once again I actually have an open mind (to rational argument not self-serving developer speak or silly cliches like if you build it they will come), but this process stinks and our City Council has not learned its lesson despite being hammered over the head again and again–don’t let developers run the process.
The land will sit vacant because business park at this site is non-economic.
It does not pencil out. It would cost more to build the infrastructure than the project could recover in leases or land sales. No bank will make a construction loan to support this stupid idea. No developer will build it on a charitable basis.
David Greenwald is twisting a simple statement of fact into a threat that wasn’t made.
This isn’t about the community’s economic development strategy or the highest and best use for the ConAgra site …
It’s about petty Davis power politics and payback for WHR. Unpure and simple.
“It does not pencil out. It would cost more to build the infrastructure than the project could recover in leases or land sales. No bank will make a construction loan to support this stupid idea. No developer will build it on a charitable basis.”
You know what I don’t buy it. I think if you build a state of the art complex and promote it properly it works. Things tend to become self-fulfilling prophesies.
But the bigger problem is that you are actually missing my broader, which is I agree that it is not ideal for a business park. But the alternative is worse and that’s where we are. So it is up to the city to focus the leadership, not the developer, but the city. The city has a lot of options and actions that it can take to assure that something happens and that this works.
“It’s about petty Davis power politics and payback for WHR. Unpure and simple.”
That’s comical.
This issue could easily be resolved if ConAgra would support and pay for an unbiased evaluation of the viability of this site as a business park. The cost would not be substantial when measured against ConAgra’s potential profits. As a matter of fact, it might even be a money-saver when measured against a potential citizen-launched initiative battle.
“You know what I don’t buy it. I think if you build a state of the art complex and promote it properly it works. Things tend to become self-fulfilling prophesies.”
You know what … you don’t know what you are talking about.
“… the alternative is worse ..”
That’s your opinion. For you, the intellectually honest position would be no project, but then you couldn’t leverage Sue Greenwald’s coalition.
“That’s comical.”
What’s comical is the notion that you have special insight into this problem. You don’t have the appropriate professional experience. You don’t have the facts. You don’t understand many of the facts that you do have. And you routinely spin a highly biased and misleading narrative to try and achieve a political end.
It didn’t work for you on WHR, despite a heroic effort. And I don’t believe it’s not going to work for you on this one either.
We have a very serious problem confronting the community. And we now have effective leadership in place that I believe will deal appropriately with it. The wild card is whether or not you, Sue, and Covell can create a big enough ****storm to force the decision makers to run for cover.
davisite2: There have already been three city-sponsored economic studies over the last 20 years that have looked at ConAgra for business park. The latest was the ESG study … which would qualify under your standard as “an unbiased evaluation of the viability of this site as a business park” paid for by developers (the first two were paid for by the city). All three reached the same conclusion. ConAgra won’t work.
In addition, the city staff just completed a two year process that finally came to the conclusion that we need to have a business park at Mace or the NW quadrant, in addition to a smaller business park at Nishi.
BEDC has now recommended three separate times that the site should be mixed use. The PC has made the same recommendation twice.
Although I believe you are sincere in making your suggestion, another study has become code for “kill the proposal with delay tactics.”
It’s time to move on.
“And I don’t believe it’s not going to work for you on this one either.”
How’s that for a double negative? David, you’ve cast such a negative vibe on this problem that it’s affecting my sentence structure.
Translation … “Ain’t gonna work.”
Let’s suppose for a second that the ConAgra site isn’t suitable for a business park. I don’t know this to be true but wouldn’t be shocked if that was the case.
It does not follow that we need to develop the site right now for primarily housing (“mixed use” has now become the buzzword but the current plan implies that its primarily a housing site with a few commercial properties tacked on–and if a business park isn’t viable why would mixed use be? As I blogged yesterday it may very well end up as 80-90% housing–its already 66%-75% depending upon how one counts it).
And if we do develop the site, as davisite2 stated yesterday, we should negotiate hard with the developer before we start changing the zoning and giving away the candy store.
My biggest concern isn’t whether we build on the ConAgra site, its how the City negotiates.
So what if the land lies empty?
The City can ask ConAgra to improve the land so that it meets community standards. At some point the property will be developed. It makes more sense to develop this land than CV or WHR, but the vast majority of people who live in Davis do not want more housing built now. I want to see the City negotiate hard and not roll over.
[quote]I am not a lawyer [/quote]
’nuff said… changing a land use designation, against a property owner’s wishes, has been found to be a “taking” under California and US constitutions. This means that the agency doing so may be responsible for compensation, up to the fair market value of the land as originally zoned. This makes it obviously different that the agency’s police power to compel you to follow the zoning rules in place when you acquire the property. Keep mowing.
That being said, the property owner is NOT entitled to have the agency change the rules (zoning) as they wish. We can say NO, without it being a compensable action.
“My biggest concern isn’t whether we build on the ConAgra site, its how the City negotiates.”
Dr. Wu: Trust Paul Navazio and Ken Hiatt. They are outstanding public servants and doing a great job. The Emlen/Hess era is over. Economic development. by its very nature, requires a broad public/private partnership. If we always come to the table with the mindset that everyone is out to screw the city, then this partnership will fail.
[quote]My biggest concern isn’t whether we build on the ConAgra site, its how the City negotiates.
[/quote]
Sounds like you’re advocating a principle found in the “oldest profession”… I hope you don’t mean that we would approve ANYTHING if the price is right. Access to the public street system at this location is a horrendous problem for any use of the site other than ‘vacant’ (we had a lot less going on when Hunt-Wesson was producing, and most of that activity was in the summer — UCD not in session). Access to Covell @ L, and to Pole Line are obvious mitigations, but wait… that means we’d have to have access thru ag within the County.
Local: I’ve run out of trust. I’m happy to be proven wrong but remain a skeptic. From what I heard Navazio knew the fiscal analysis for WHR was sloppy but didn’t want to stick his neck out–will he be more assertive now?
hpierce: I’m not talking about changing the land use designation just enforcing community standards. I do work with someone form Stanford Law school who is an expert on “takings” on the coast and the law is a bit more subtle than you present it, but I’m not talking about taking anything away from ConAgra, just asking them to behave responsible–I’ll go back to the analog of my mowing my lawn
Traffic under the mixed use proposal would be significantly less than the traffic currently allocated to the site as industrial under the current General Plan.
Dr. Wu: One of the go-to tactics in the NOPE play book is to manufacture this mistrust.
Dr. Wu,
With all due respect, your analogy about lawn mowing is completely off. With that analogy, you are talking about blight and keeping one’s property clean and presentable.
By all means, ConAgra is obligated to do so. However, they will never be obligated to build a business park. They have a choice, as their attorney asserted, to develop or not develop.
The better analogy is one where you, as a homeowner, applies to the City to add a couple of bedrooms to your house. The City responds by requiring you to provide one of the rooms for public use, or for a dentist office, or ….
At that point, I would imagine that you would simply give up on the room addition.
DMG,
I would respect your opinion so much more if you actually stood in a developer’s shoes for one moment. We all live in homes, shop at stores (thank you for Trader Joes), and conduct business in offices – all of which were built by developers.
Why don’t you go purchase a piece of land in Davis, design a project, commit all of your financial and personal resources, appease neighbors, go through the review process of City Commissions and Council, obtain building permits, and then enter the variable market place? Then I would totally respect your opinions, because you would actually understand the ins and outs of real estate development.
While you are at it, take a few classes in land planning.
I always try to understand the profession and expertise of those I criticize, or with whom I negotiate. I just don’t see that knowledge or understanding from you.
I know you were talking to David, but….
Why don’t you go purchase a piece of land in Davis, design a project, commit all of your financial and personal resources, appease neighbors, go through the review process of City Commissions and Council, obtain building permits, and then enter the variable market place?
I did.
While you are at it, take a few classes in land planning.
I did.
Citizen Concerned: “By all means, ConAgra is obligated to do so. However, they will never be obligated to build a business park. They have a choice, as their attorney asserted, to develop or not develop.”
And the city has the choice – to approve a zoning change or not approve a zoning change to mixed use.
I listened to the rerun of the CC discussion last night. What bothered me was the way in which the development of the ConAgra site is being linked to the development of business on peripheral sites such as on I-80 and the Northwest Quadrant. I got the distinct impression that ConAgra is driving this entire process, but there seems to be an underpinning of a hidden agenda to develop more peripheral sites bc they are more desirable from a business point of view. The idea seems to be to force the hand of the public, by setting things up in such a way that peripheral development will be a necessity if ConAgra is zoned “mixed use” (essentially residential), bc that way there will be no more viable infill sites to develop commercial business. And I think ConAgra being zoned “residential” is seen as a way of being more palatable to the public bc it would prevent, at least temporarily, the development of the old Covell Village site, which is highly controversial and probably would never get past a Measure J vote.
Like Dr. Wu, I am not necessarily opposed to a mixed use on the ConAgra site, but I don’t feel the procedure here is in any way honest. The developer is driving this process, it fits nicely with a hidden agenda to get peripheral business development approved, without weighing each site on its own merits. It is a set-up for a preconceived outcome, which may or may not be in the best interests of the city. And I am not necessarily opposed to peripheral business development, by the way. BUT I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN AN HONEST AND ABOVE BOARD PROCESS, THAT IS NOT DEVELOPER DRIVEN, AND ONE THAT DOES NOT GAME THE SYSTEM TO ACHIEVE A PRECONCEIVED OUTCOME.
Furthermore, what in heaven’s name is this city going to do with 600 more houses, at a time when houses are not selling, and we have a glut of already existing real estate? And does anyone really believe this housing is going to be “affordable workforce housing”? And how much in the way of additional taxes are the rest of us going to have to pay for this new unneeded housing development, bc the City Council strikes a deal favorable to the developer but not to the city, that has to provide additional services?
Furthermore, a “task force” of Rochelle Swanson and Joe Krovoza (with BEDC) have been assigned by Don Saylor (a lame duck mayor) to “work out the details”. Forgive me Jo and Ro, but neither one of you are experienced, and may step into land mines bc you have no idea how land use dirty politics is played in this town. Sue Greenwald, who has far more experience, was completely shut out of this process altogether (as was Steve Souza), bc for her to talk to other CC members would be a Brown Act violation. Sue has been the only CC member who has been consistently correct on land use issues. (Who led the fight to prevent peripheral growth on the Northwest Quadrant? I believe it was Sue Greenwald, if my memory serves me right. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.)
The entire process smells to high heaven… And bc of that, I suspect there is going to be a good deal of citizen resistence, which needn’t have occurred had the process been more up front and above board.
local: “Dr. Wu: One of the go-to tactics in the NOPE play book is to manufacture this mistrust.”
The mistrust has been generated by the way in which this project has been handled by the city, the developer, the Mayor. I listened closely to the CC meeting, and development of the ConAgra site for mixed use is directly linked to peripheral business development on I-80 and the Northwest Quadrant. Each should be judged on its own merits, rather than forcing commercial development to peripheral development bc the one viable site for commercial development (ConAgra) has suddenly and conveniently been taken off the table. This little “game/scheme” was not “played/brought forth” at the DSIDE conference.
local: “Traffic under the mixed use proposal would be significantly less than the traffic currently allocated to the site as industrial under the current General Plan.”
How could you possibly know this since no EIR will be done for an all business park?
local: “Dr. Wu: Trust Paul Navazio and Ken Hiatt. They are outstanding public servants and doing a great job. The Emlen/Hess era is over. Economic development. by its very nature, requires a broad public/private partnership. If we always come to the table with the mindset that everyone is out to screw the city, then this partnership will fail.”
If everything is so “honest” as you claim, then why wasn’t a workshop done as Rochelle suggested, so all City Council members could be included in the initial discussions? Why isn’t an equal weight EIR for a an all business park being done? Why is the lame duck mayor rushing this through before he leaves office, setting up what is essentially “dead hand control”?
“We need to take a step back very quickly here and go back to the discussions we were having during the campaign. Everything there was about slow growth, densification, and developing more in the core.”
This statement is consistent with the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint. DG, I ask that you stay focused on this objective. Instead, I hear you arguing against it. A 100% business park build-out at the ConAgra site is at odds with the statement above. Are the ConAgra office workers going to walk to Downtown to grab a coffee, have lunch, purchase a birthday gift, etc.? I don’ think so.
Where will the ConAgra office workers live? I have participated in policy discussion with Sue Greenwald regarding this matter and she has insisted that the ConAgra office workers were going to live in Woodland, Dixon, and West Sac, i.e. commuters. I stared at her in disbelief. Is that consistent with the GP, CASP, and SACOG Blueprint. I don’t think so.
What is consistent with all our planning documents is to declare/develop the Downtown, Gateway/Olive Drive area, and Nishi property as an innovation ecosystem district. True, the Nishi property requires a Measure R vote. But do you seriously consider the Nishi property, bounded on all sides by disturbed/developed sites, a greenfield site? I don’t think so.
Sure, there are access challenges, but that’s where creativity is called for. This innovation ecosystem district, in close proximity to the university, and including our urban core, goes straight to the heart of a dense, urban core, surrounded by open areas. It is a very exciting prospect and the exact opposite of urban sprawl. This is the smartest growth proposal I have heard in quite some time.
DT:“What is consistent with all our planning documents is to declare/develop the Downtown, Gateway/Olive Drive area, and Nishi property as an innovation ecosystem district. ….
…. It is a very exciting prospect and the exact opposite of urban sprawl. This is the smartest growth proposal I have heard in quite some time.”
I completely agree. I do hope that the existing service businesses clustered along Olive Drive won’t be driven out by redevelopment.
Please enlighten me, those of you with land use training, actual large development experience or who have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express: How did we get locked into this decision in the first place?
Why did we select an interior site for a business park when there are other locations with good access for businesses (along 2nd street, Mace, auto row, etc.)? It must be something counter-intuitive. Given our announced dedication to in-fill housing development (now proposed even for our parks!), why wouldn’t we have looked to other sites to plan for a business park?
Why do we think that planning a business park along Mace somehow would force additional, undesirable peripheral development? We’ve made it pretty clear we won’t permit our city council to allow [u]any[/u] new development around Davis. Building a business park in any specific location will require a willing populace and a willing developer. What does it matter if it evolves from a resident-driven or a developer-driven initiative?
Sue points out that we’ve got many approved, but unbuilt, housing units. A drive around town would suggest we still have many acres of approved, but unbuilt, business/LI space. When will we be needing a 100-acre business park here?
But, my real question still relates to the history of specifying that the ConAgra site would be the best large business park location for us? Thanks.
[quote]Dr. Wu: One of the go-to tactics in the NOPE play book is to manufacture this mistrust.
[/quote]
Elaine pretty much answered this one above (thanks ERM). All I have to add is that Don Saylor and Co. are the ones who have created the mistrust–at least as far as I am concerned.
I am not someone who always says no and the 75% of people who recently voted against WHR and to support R are not all naysayers. But most folks do not want more housing whether its mixed use or not. I’m prefectly happy if the land lies where it is for the time being.
If the developer wants to alienate moderate voters they can keep doing what they are doing and stereotype all of us as wild-eyed radicals who don’t want any development (and yes there certainly are people who fit in this category but they are a minority). But ultimately they lose because if this is crammed down our throats there will be a backlash.
ConAgra wants to unload this property after it has been entitled. There is nothing necessarilly wrong with that. But if their gain is our loss, then we have failed as a City.
DTB: “”We need to take a step back very quickly here and go back to the discussions we were having during the campaign. Everything there was about slow growth, densification, and developing more in the core.”
This statement is consistent with the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint. DG, I ask that you stay focused on this objective. Instead, I hear you arguing against it. A 100% business park build-out at the ConAgra site is at odds with the statement above. Are the ConAgra office workers going to walk to Downtown to grab a coffee, have lunch, purchase a birthday gift, etc.? I don’ think so.”
Explain to me how building mostly residential housing at the ConAgra site, which takes it off the table as the only viable site for commercial development of a large business park, which sets up the excuse to justify developing commercially on the periphery is somehow in keeping with “slow growth, densification, and developing more in the core”? Your logic escapes me here…
ERM: “I listened to the rerun of the CC discussion last night.”
That’s a start. It’s unfortunate that you entrenched yourself into an adversarial position on the prior threads before actually getting all the facts. Have you also read the BPLS and the two staff reports? What about the ESG study?
“What bothered me was the way in which the development of the ConAgra site is being linked to the development of business on peripheral sites such as on I-80 and the Northwest Quadrant.”
Sorry that you’re bothered, but there is no linkage. A ConAgra business park is economically infeasible. Accordingly, the decision on whether of not we annex in more business park land via Measure R is, as a practical matter, a completely independent issue. The Mace and Nishi processes will go forward independently of each other and the ConAgra decision. My personal opinion is that NW Quadrant is a non-starter that will only emerge if the Mace decision is negative (but it’s obviously up to the landowners to determine if they want to risk the time and money to throw their hat in early).
To repeat, ConAgra is not driving the process. The process is being driven by DSIDE, the BPLS, BEDC, the PC, the city staff (now under new management), and the City Council. That should be abundantly clear to you as an attorney. Are you implying that they are all in some grand conspiracy with the developer to defraud the public? Why spout rhetoric from GGN (Greenwald, Greenwald, and NOPE) and Associates?
Regarding the “hidden agenda” point, we discussed this on the previous thread. The agenda is not hidden. It is front and center. We need to take serious steps to develop and implement a 25-year economic development strategy. This will almost certainly involve asking the community to independently annex both Mace and Nishi. And the voters will make the decision per Measure R.
The hand of the public can no more be forced on this issue than the private sector can be forced to burn money on an infeasible business park. The ConAgra site is not viable, no matter how hard you push the myth that it is.
I have never once seen a controversial proposal come before the city without opponents attacking the process as rushed (rammed?), developer driven, and fostered by corrupt city council members. In defense of Joe and Rochelle, I am absolutely certain they understand what game is being played, how it is being played, and who the players are … and they do not need to be patronized on this point.
“How could you possibly know this since no EIR will be done for an all business park?”
The traffic yields for different land uses are already known. Depending on final site design, a 100% business park would generate up to 30,000 trips per day if (1) built out at the increased F.A.R. as proposed by staff to maximize the use of our existing business park land inventory and maintain a compact urban form and (2) a small retail/support services component is included per the ESG recommendation (in order to get the adsorption time down to *only* 16 years). At current densities with no retail/support services I’d guess that the current General Plan probably has it about right.
But then all this is irrelevant because a business park will never be built on this site.
“If everything is so “honest” as you claim, then why wasn’t a workshop done as Rochelle suggested, so all City Council members could be included in the initial discussions? Why isn’t an equal weight EIR for a an all business park being done? Why is the lame duck mayor rushing this through before he leaves office, setting up what is essentially “dead hand control”?”
Is this really about input, or are you upset that it wasn’t teed up early for GGN to attack?
The equal weight alternative was eliminated (as you already know since you carefully listened to the replay) because the council majority ruled that it was a waste of resources to force the city staff and applicant to spend large amounts of time and money to design a business park to equal weight EIR standards that would never be built. It’s not a trivial exercise. To do so because of political pressure for a fantasy business park that can never be financed, constructed, or adequately adsorbed would have been a stupid decision.
@ DT Businessman[quote]This is the smartest growth proposal I have heard in quite some time.[/quote]I agree 100% … and would add congratulations to the city staff for hitting a home run on this.
[quote]But, my real question still relates to the history of specifying that the ConAgra site would be the best large business park location for us?[/quote]It’s been one of Sue Greenwald’s pet projects since the 90’s. It was a bad idea then, and a worse idea today.
The strategy of devaluing the land by holding firm on the zoning (apparently in hopes that a philanthropic business park developer will magically appear) is also her’s.
What is not widely acknowledged is that ConAgra was there first. The city rendered the land unsuitable for its industrial zoning by approving residential on two sides.
ERM, I thought my logic fairly straight forward. A large business park at ConAgra is commercial growth on the periphery that otherwise could be accomadated in close proximity to the Core and UCED. Furthermore, according to Sue Greenwald, the workers in a ConAgra business park will likely be commuters from Woodland, Dixon, and West Sac. Said workers are likely to export their paychecks. How does that help build a sustainable community in Davis? Finally, we have a lightly developed Core and it is unlikely to densify if we keep building competing commercial space on the periphery.
Are you sure that’s all? Doesn’t everybody’s concept, pet or otherwise, have to go through an extensive land use planning process to become a part of the official plan for our future?
JustSaying: I’m not sure exactly what your question is. Sorry.
The ConAgra proposal has been in the planning process for about 5 years, and still has at least 18 months to go. The city has been analyzing business park strategy for at least 20 years in four separate studies that I am aware of. The ConAgra property has been zoned industrial at least since the early 60’s when the tomato plant opened. On Tuesday the Business Park Land Strategy was adopted which lays out a road map for an important piece of a broader economic development strategy that is still under formulation.
The ConAgra site has never been specified as the best large business park location for us. That’s just political rhetoric which has been repeated to the point that people who are casual observers of the process are justifiably confused. It has, however, been officially specified as the worst site in one city analysis.
I think that answers my historical questions. So, all this implication about how the ConAgra property is “our 100-acre business park site” isn’t accurate, or, more likely, is a misunderstanding on my part? It seems as though we would have started looking at the place as in-fill housing as soon as the cannery closed since we build up around it. So, why this emphasis on “they knew what it was zoned when they bought it”?
The ConAgra site isn’t even zoned “business park”; it’s zoned industrial.
Come to think of it, I don’t think anything in Davis is zoned “business park”, which is half the problem.
JustSaying: David Greenwald’s quote “they knew what it was when they bought it” is self-serving political rhetoric. Just ignore it.
My understanding of the history of the property (which may not be entirely accurate) is that (1) it was purchased in 1956 by Hunt Foods, (2) there was an ugly political battle against industrial use, (3) the property was entitled after four votes in the late 50’s, (4) the cannery was built in the early 60’s, (5) the cannery closed in 1999, (6) Lewis bought the property around 2004, (7) Lewis returned the property to it’s former owner in lieu of foreclosure in 2008, and (8) in 2010 were still fighting over the zoning 54 years later.
The property must be cursed.
Maybe the City’s economic development folk should invest some time in attracting an industrial user. No Council action would be necessary and the naysayers can all relax. A steel mill, or a lumber mill, perhaps a cement plant, those would all be appropriate uses.
And there’d be no worry about additional housing because the industrial workers will all commute from Elk Grove. That should make Sue Greenwald happy.
I find this whole thread perplexing.
DT businessmen and local, who clearly support this project (do they have an economic interest?) say that its not viable as a business park.
Therefore we should develop it as housing and business:
1. If its not viable for a large business park why would it be viable with a smaller portion for business? In effect the smaller business component was clearly political. I’d prefer the developer was honest and proposed 100% housing. Of course this would be shot down immediately–so this proposal is basically a ruse. ConAgra wants this property entitled and their consultants figured this was the best way to do it–sell it to the public as “mixed use.”
2. Most of the project is housing and most of us don’t want more housing right now. To tell the truth most Davisites hate the idea of “workforce housing” even more.
We are told to trust the process, which has failed us before and then they trash Sue, who has consistently opposed projects which voters also rejected.
You guys have a credibility problem.
local said: “@ DT Businessman
This is the smartest growth proposal I have heard in quite some time.
I agree 100% … and would add congratulations to the city staff for hitting a home run on this.
local, lets not get carried away. This proposal is a single at best. For this proposal to be anything more than a single, ConAgra will need to bring as many added High Tech/Green Tech jobs to Davis as the number of residents they propose for the Cannery site. Since they propose 600 houses, that means 1,500 – 1,800 new High Tech/Green Tech jobs . . . assuming between 2.5 and 3.0 residents in each of those 600 homes.
Those additional jobs would mean one of two things, 1) development of a substantial portion of the acres of already zoned commercial land we have in Davis, or 2) a tangible lead tenant for a business park. Absent those added jobs we are simply “putting the cart before the horse” . . . and with absolutely no assurances that a horse will ever come after the cart. That over-used metaphor is true in this case on two levels, A) the houses Con Agra appears to be proposing will consume more in City services than they will generate in annual City revenues, making the City better off fiscally if the Con Agra land stays fallow, and B) absent a lead tenent (or lead tenets) with 1,500 – 1,800 employees, a Davis Business Park will simply add more vacant acres to the current vacant commercially-zoned acres in Davis.
An entitlement change is no guarantee of added jobs. If Con Agra wants to move forward with a mixed use development then it needs to bring Davis added jobs [u]first[/u]. Then the horse will be in its rightful place . . . in front of the cart. No jobs means no entitlements change. Its as simple as that IMHO.
BTW local, is there a reason you aren’t using your real name?
DT Businessman said . . . “Come to think of it, I don’t think anything in Davis is zoned “business park”, which is half the problem.”
DT, what is so sacred about “business park” zoning. Virtually all of the length of 2nd Street is effectively Business Park and yet large portions of it remain fallow. What, if anything is there about a “Business Park” that the open land on 2nd Street doesn’t have?
@ Dr. Wu: “If its not viable for a large business park why would it be viable with a smaller portion for business?”
The 20 acres of business park in the mixed use plan is subsidized by the residential. Without the residential component to pay for it, it too would be financially infeasible. It is in the proposal because the city staff has recommended that we have an immediate need to add to the business park land inventory and the city council agrees. They recognize that 20 acres that can be financed by residential is better than 100 acres of a non-viable project that can’t be financed and will never be built. It is a rational decision that works for both sides. The 20 acre cap is there because the economics of the project can’t withstand a subsidy of any more than this amount of business park.
There are some participants in this blog that are so convinced that there’s a conspiracy going on here that they are not capable of understanding the written word. I do not care if a single house is built on the ConAgra site. But I do not want to see a large business park being developed on the ConAgra site. I don’t even want to see 20 acres of business park built on the ConAgra site. I’ve stated repeatedly that business park construction on the periphery is anathema to the GP, the CASP, the SACOG Blueprint, and any number of sustainable development principals. I have even explained why that is so. What part of my position is difficult to understand? Geez!
Honestly, I can’t quite wrap my brain around some of the comments I’m reading here. Some of the participants are so paranoid about a house being built somewhere in the city that they actually favor a massive commercial development on the ConAgra site to block home building. As I said before, if that’s your strategy, why don’t you go ahead and build a sawmill on the ConAgra site. Then there’d certainly be no homes built around it. Jimmney Cricket! What kind of strategy is that?
Where does it say in the GP, the CASP, or the SACOG Blueprint that the core is to be lightly developed and the periphery intensively developed? It actually says the exact opposite. A dense urban area surrounded by greenbelt. Again, don’t build a single home on the ConAgra site for all I care. But don’t totaly screw-up the community, the Downtown in particular, by building a large business park on the site.
And Dr. Wu, you can kiss my business park with your credibility comment. As I’ve said repeatedly, I do not support any projects on the ConAgra site. I support a densification of the Core. Growth should be occuring in and around the Core. Growth should be occuring in and around the Core. Growth should be occuring in and around the Core. Knock, knock. Am I still not making myself clear?
Dt businessman
Glad you oppose this project. Sorry if I confused your position.
Growth should be occuring in and around the Core. Growth should be occuring in and around the Core.
Again, we are in full agreement.
local said . . . “The 20 acres of business park in the mixed use plan is subsidized by the residential. Without the residential component to pay for it, it too would be financially infeasible. It is in the proposal because the city staff has recommended that we have an immediate need to add to the business park land inventory and the city council agrees. They recognize that 20 acres that can be financed by residential is better than 100 acres of a non-viable project that can’t be financed and will never be built. It is a rational decision that works for both sides. The 20 acre cap is there because the economics of the project can’t withstand a subsidy of any more than this amount of business park.”
local, since the residential component will be a fiscal loss for the City (more expenses for services to its residents than it brings in in taxes), how does your statement “The 20 acres of business park in the mixed use plan is subsidized by the residential” make any sense? How can a portion of the project that is already a fiscal loser subsidize another part of the project that you yourself characterize as being a loser too? You would simply be making a loser into a bigger loser.
You are clearly smart. Help me understand your perspective on this conundrum.
local: “JustSaying: David Greenwald’s quote “they knew what it was when they bought it” is self-serving political rhetoric. Just ignore it.”
And your comments aren’t self-serving rhetoric of course…
DTB: ” I’ve stated repeatedly that business park construction on the periphery is anathema to the GP, the CASP, the SACOG Blueprint, and any number of sustainable development principals. I have even explained why that is so. What part of my position is difficult to understand? Geez!”
I guess we have a different definition of “periphery”. I assume peripheral development refers to development outside the city limits. The ConAgra site is not outside the city limits. It is considered “infill” by most of us.
Secondly, if the ConAgra site is taken off the table as a viable business park, then to build a business park will require peripheral development outside the city limits on Nishi, I-80, and Northwest Quadrant – which would be against the “GP, the CASP, the SACOG Blueprint, no? This is not a conspiracy theory. The business plan to develop the peripheral sites of Nishi, I-80, and the NW Q was directly linked by CC members to taking the ConAgra site off the table as a viable business park site. It was said in the intro to discussion of the ConAgra site right after the discussion on peripheral business park sites.
Nice summation in comments by Dr. Wu and Matt Williams…
Elaine, I’m not sure that development on Nishi per se would be against the General Plan or the SACOG Blueprint. Development on Nishi with the sole access out to Richards would be. If UCD built a parking garage to the east of the Mondavi, Business School and Hyatt Place, they could extend the up ramp into the second floor of the garage as an overpass over the railroad tracks to provide access. Doing so would mean that the focus of anything that might be built on the Nishi property would be UCD oriented, but would that be bad?
You and I have talked in the past about how higher density housing is done near DC and Philadelphia. I see no reason why the lessons learned from those higher density successes can’t be replicated on Nishi.
In every conversation that I have had with policy makers, there was the “Core”, or expanded, the “Traditional Downtown”, and the “periphery”. Office space development on the ConAgra site is office space development on the periphery. It’s not in the Core and therefore is inconsistent with community planning documents. The Nishi property is not the periphery, it is immediately adjacent to the Core. Better yet, it is adjacent to the Core and the University. It is a unique property from that perspective. A Nishi development would benefit the Downtown and the University, is surrounded by development so it is not a true “greenfield” site, and for all the foregoing reasons, would be consistent with all community planning documents. True, it would require a measure J vote. But because such a development is consistent with community planning documents and community values, it would likely be approved by the voters. Unless of course, some well known strident voices throw so many red herrigns out there that our fellow citizens can no longer seperate fact from fiction.
[quote]”But because such a development is consistent with community planning documents and community values, it would likely be approved by the voters.”[/quote] You are joking, of course. I wonder if anyone thinks [u]anything[/u] will be approved by Davis voters as long as Measure J and Son of… and Son of Son of… determine development in and around the city? Logic, careful planning, city interests, our future–all have departed our planning process. Apparently we have plenty of money, however, to plan away on things that never will happen.)
“in-fill” is what we’re after. Unless someone wants do something in your neighborhood. Unless it’s the ConAgra site. Unless it includes bulldozing an old, dilapidated house. (Of course, it’s okay to sell off our parklands for housing developments. Why are we considering this when we’d rather have open-space concrete a couple blocks away at ConAgra?)
Nishi is “infill”. It is not bordered by natural habit on any side or even ag land for that matter. It is completely surrounded by developed/”disturbed” habitat. I’m completely comfortable making a compelling argument. However, making a compelling argument becomes increasingly difficult as more and more “distractions” or irrelevant arguements are inserted into the debate.
DT, what “distractions” and/or irrelevant arguments do you see that are being inserted into the debate?
DTB: “In every conversation that I have had with policy makers, there was the “Core”, or expanded, the “Traditional Downtown”, and the “periphery”. Office space development on the ConAgra site is office space development on the periphery. It’s not in the Core and therefore is inconsistent with community planning documents. The Nishi property is not the periphery, it is immediately adjacent to the Core. Better yet, it is adjacent to the Core and the University. It is a unique property from that perspective. A Nishi development would benefit the Downtown and the University, is surrounded by development so it is not a true “greenfield” site, and for all the foregoing reasons, would be consistent with all community planning documents.”
Now I better understand where you are coming from. I think our disparate use of the word “peripheral” was causing us to talk at cross purposes. I would echo Matt Williams question: “DT, what “distractions” and/or irrelevant arguments do you see that are being inserted into the debate?”
Matt Williams: “You [ERM] and I have talked in the past about how higher density housing is done near DC and Philadelphia. I see no reason why the lessons learned from those higher density successes can’t be replicated on Nishi.”
Yes, and as I have told you, I hate densification, even tho I suppose in CA it might be necessary. I’m used to everyone having a bit of land to call their own, so they can have a little space between their neighbors. Here, you can stick your arm out and “reach out and touch your next door neighbor”! That said, I don’t have real strong feelings about Nishi one way or the other, except something has to be done about access/lack of access and the attendant traffic problems that could result from developing this property. But why anyone would want to live in such tightly controlled surroundings is beyond me. It would seem more appropriate for business development rather than residential. As DT points out, Nishi is near the core downtown area, so commercial development might be a nice fit.