The writing was frankly on the wall, back in December of 2008, when the Davis City Council voted to move forward with an equal-weight EIR on the former Cannery Site in North Davis. At the time the city wanted to look equally at both a business park alternative and a mixed-use housing project.
However, Lewis Planned Communities balked at the cost and despite Councilmember Stephen Souza literally begging them from the dais to come back, they withdrew their application.
Lewis Planned Communities, who previously submitted the application that was withdrawn in March of 2009, consistently maintained they have had no takers to use the site as a business park, although many have questioned how hard they really looked.
The council has now voted 3-2 to give ConAgra what Lewis wanted. ConAgra insists that it has 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.
Joe Krovoza ended up opposing the changes, at least at this time, on procedural grounds. He has consistently argued that development needs to be community-based rather than developer-driven, and for him this seems like the developer is driving the process.
“It feels here, for such an important site for our city, that is zoned industrial currently, that we’re driving our decision by a proposal that comes in that is proposing housing where we’ve carved out 20 acres maximum if we’re going with the developer’s preference for a business park,” Councilmember Krovoza said Tuesday during his comments.
He argued that he would prefer that the city figure out zoning that makes sense, and then make that be known to the developers.
“I think putting this out to the City of Davis and responding to what the developer has put here is to some extent almost disrespecting our own ability to think about this fresh and right direction,” he said.
The deciding vote was cast by Councilmember Rochelle Swanson. She said that she found it compelling that no one came out to speak in opposition to this development and that she had been approached by numerous people around town begging for more workforce housing.
She said that the representative from SACOG believes that this property needs to be included in Davis’ housing stock.
But mainly she argued this from the standpoint of declining school enrollment and the need for market-rate workforce housing.
“I’ve been talking to the school district about their declining enrollment. We’re at 180 this year, 200 next year, and it’s not looking any better,” she said. “I said, as a Councilperson, what is the one thing that I can do that can help make a difference and it’s resounding. ‘We know you’re not a fan of growth but we’ve got to have some market-rate affordable housing, we have to have something for the families to come here. Otherwise we are going to continue to see declining enrollment.’”
“When I think about the quality of our schools and how important [that is], I just think it’s incumbent on me to have the staff looking at this proposal, getting community input,” she said.
We can talk about the need for workforce housing, but really, is now the time to build housing? The market is slow and uncertain. The demand is not there. The anecdotal evidence cited by Ms. Swanson is thin at best. And we may talk more about this down the line. In my view, now is not the time for 600 housing units, regardless of the bigger picture.
But the big picture as was laid out yesterday is becoming clear, and it is frightening to those who believe we ought not be developing on the periphery at this time.
Joe Krovoza is right, this is completely developer-driven, and the collateral consequences of this move are huge. ConAgra is threatening not to build on this property? They bought this property knowing full well it was zoned industrial, so they have no right to complain if it remains that way. If they have no intention of building a business park, then they ought to sell the property to someone who does.
The city is basically throwing their entire land use policy into chaos, based on the threats of a developer during a time when we do not need new housing. This is the worst economy since the Great Depression. The housing market is down and not going up any time soon. Why does ConAgra have any leverage whatsoever?
The fallout is that now we will be exploring the building of business parks, something that we really do not need at this time on the periphery, whether it be the Mace Curve or Northwest Quadrant. In addition, the problematic Nishi property is also in play here, despite the fact that it is a logistical nightmare that is either going to be dumping traffic onto Richards or be cut off from the rest of the city.
All of these require Measure R votes if they are to be approved, but that does not mean we get to propose stuff freely. The planning costs, the EIR costs, the staff time, the effort it will take to put on an election are all huge expenses that city really cannot afford at this time. To make matters worse, we have no way of knowing if the voters will approve any of this.
We are sitting there with land that is already appropriately zoned and we are about to change that zoning for the whims of a developer who bought the land for a purpose that was very different from the way the land was zoned and they were willing to sit and wait until they got the right council to change the zoning.
If we do end up with business parks, particularly above the Mace Curve and in the Northwest Quadrant, the prospects and pressures for housing out there will be enormous. So yes, the entire city’s land use and landscape will be altered by this simple move. And we do not need to do it.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]…we have to have something for the families to come here. Otherwise we are going to continue to see declining enrollment.[/quote]
Filling school desks (or, not), in my opinion, is one of the least valid arguments for land use decisions…
“ConAgra is threatening not to build on this property? They bought this property knowing full well it was zoned industrial, they have no right to complain if it remains that way. If they have no intention of building a business park, then they ought to sell the property to someone who does.”
David, exactly, perfectly said. Thanks to Joe Krovoza for finally stepping up but Rochelle gets a big thumbs down.
Let them build. But they – along with any developers with rails bordering the property – should be required to bear the total costs of *either* a grade or tunnel crossing (Northern property line for this one). Further, and just as important in these times, any development should be required to be zero impact for water + wastewater. Those minor requirements would at least mitigate the load on this City’s infrastructure.
“Filling school desks (or, not), in my opinion, is one of the least valid arguments for land use decisions…”
It’s certainly better than importing students from outside the district to help keep our schools open … which is what’s happening now.
Nothing — I repeat, nothing — will have a more devastating impact on our property values than letting our school system erode because we have almost no growth and a high proportion of our residents are rightfully electing to age-in-place. Our outstanding school system is one of the main drivers of property values in Davis.
Because of Measure R, the only place we now can get new housing is in-fill. ConAgra is a perfect site for some of this in-fill because it is within easy reach of an elementary school, a middle school, and the high school.
So maybe in ten to fifteen years when the houses are built and housing market has improved a few families might have moved in? If the problem is that severe, this is akin to sticking a finger in a dike ten years from now.
sad… what a genuine waste of a real industrial resource for Davis.
Building houses to fill schools is perhaps one of the most bizarre arguments I have ever heard.
Final point, there is zero urgency on this property, it doesn’t matter when (if ever) the right user comes along, it is supposed to be there when it does. Scampering after the ball every time someone waves it is simply weak.
“maybe in ten to fifteen years when the houses are built and housing market has improved”
Issues such as jobs:housing balance, unfunded liabilities, enrollment census projections, etc. need to be addressed over very long time horizons (your obvious exaggeration of the the timeline notwithstanding). When our leadership fails to do this for reasons of political expediency, we all suffer down the road.
Gunrock: That’s right out of the NOPE playbook.
The council and staff showed extraordinary political strength in finally beginning to address several long festering problems. The weak response would have been to run for cover because a virulent vocal minority is opposed.
[quote]She said that she found it compelling that no one came out to speak in opposition to this development [/quote]
CV and WHR were defeated overwhelmingly at the polls, so I am not sure who Rochelle is talking to. Very few people came out to CC meetings to speak out against WHR, the most recent development our esteemed CC tried to cram down our throats, but it lost by 75% so clearly there is a perception gap.
The people I speak with are overwhelmingly opposed to more housing at this time, for a variety of reasons. As for our schools, I agree that our housing policy should not be dictated by declining school enrollments. If necessary some schools might have to be closed or downsized. That would be sad, but it would hardly ruin our schools. At any rate developing the ConAgra site would take years, so it would not solve our current school situation.
The ConAgra site is closer to downtown and is lying unused, so at some point it makes sense to develop that site, but how? when? We are in the midst of a serious downturn in residential and commercial property and if we do develop the site it certainly needs community input and it needs to pay for itself.
I have the feeling I’ve seen this movie before (genre: crime/horror) and it doesn’t end well.
Dr. Wu: Rochelle was referring to the public comment. Here is the relevant entry from the live blog of the public hearing …
10:03 pm – Public Comment for this item is on. I’m just going to chalk it up for you, rather than summarize comments.
PRO-Cannery Park proposal – 9
ANTI-Cannery Park proposal – 0
OTHER – 1 (Finance & Budget Commission needs to be consulted)
“The weak response would have been to run for cover because a virulent vocal minority is opposed.”
A “virulent vocal minority”? Try 75% of the voting community.
The attempt to launch this project at this time has a lot to do with the extremely attractive interest rates that the developer can get now for construction which will ultimately make this a very profitable venture.Assuming this is a done-deal, as David suggests, our City Council needs to be aggressive in its own negotiations and its oversight of our historically too compliant Planning Staff to extract the MAXIMUM benefit(impact fees and returns to city coffers) to the city for granting the developer this profitable opportunity. The rezoning of this property to mixed-use/residential should take place AFTER the development agreement details have been finalized, not before.
ConAgra is threatening not to build on this property? They bought this property knowing full well it was zoned industrial, so they have no right to complain if it remains that way. If they have no intention of building a business park, then they ought to sell the property to someone who does.
I believe this statement is factually incorrect. Con Agra regained ownership of this property earlier this year when they foreclosed on Lewis Properties, after Lewis gave up on convincing the City to change the zoning. ConAgra originally owned this property when it was a tomato processing facility, then sold it to Lewis after the tomato facility had been shut down.
The school issue is one that should be addressed by the city council. Declining enrollment will have a very deleterious impact on the funding and therefore the quality of our schools. Once the quality of our schools decline, then one of the primary drivers of why families are willing to “pay up” to live in the Davis School District is removed. Property values would then decline, unless we make ourselves attractive to some other affluent demographic. Perhaps there are many viable alternative solutions, but the addition of 600 houses, if it would provide stability for the school populations, might be a small price to pay compared to an alternative of declining school quality.
Attempting to translate the results of the Wildhorse Ranch (residential) vote to a proposed high tech business park is not particularly informative. A more valid comparison would be the Target vote – which was pretty evenly split.
In my opinion, a 100% high tech business park at the Mace interchange will be more favorably received than Target. Just like the shopping issue that drove Target, I’m sure most people in town understand that we need to do something about economic development. Too many people in town have to get up every morning and drive to Sacramento, the Bay Area, etc.
“The planning costs, the EIR costs, the staff time, the effort it will take to put on an election are all huge expenses that city really cannot afford at this time.”
DMG: With all due respect, these costs are borne by the applicant. I’m having a very hard time believing that you are truly this misinformed. Please tell me this is just rhetoric.
“Attempting to translate the results of the Wildhorse Ranch (residential) vote to a proposed high tech business park is not particularly informative. A more valid comparison would be the Target vote – which was pretty evenly split.”
Wrong!
The target vote didn’t have 600 houses lopped in with it.
Somehow you left that little item out.
[quote]our City Council needs to be aggressive in its own negotiations and its oversight of our historically too compliant Planning Staff to extract the MAXIMUM benefit(impact fees and returns to city coffers) to the city for granting the developer this profitable opportunity. The rezoning of this property to mixed-use/residential should take place AFTER the development agreement details have been finalized, not before.[/quote]
davisite2: I couldn’t agree with you more though if you would like to make a wager I’ll give you 3:1 odds that our CC doesn’t do anything of the sort.
As far as public comment is anyone surprised that a developer can turn out folks to a City Council meeting in support? Does anyone seriously believe that most folks in Davis want more housing at this time?
Ro ran as a slow-growth candidate but it took her only a few months to have an epiphany and discover that people in Davis really want more houses.
Jo actually didn’t run as hard as a slow-growther, but at least realizes the importance of community involvement–though personally I am most concerned about the potential negative fiscal impacts to the City.
I’m sorry but I don’t have much good to say about this process and it looks like the other business park exploration was indeed just cover for this move.
Davisite2 has captured the essence of the problem here and I urge readers to ponder his/her words carefully. After WHR both sides agreed that the process needed to be improved yet to quote the great philosopher Yogi Berra:
[quote]It’s déjà vu all over again.[/quote]
dmg: “Joe Krovoza ended up opposing the changes, at least at this time, on procedural grounds. He has consistently argued that development needs to be community-based rather than developer-driven, and for him this seems like the developer is driving the process.
“It feels here, for such an important site for our city, that is zoned industrial currently, that we’re driving our decision by a proposal that comes in that is proposing housing where we’ve carved out 20 acres maximum if we’re going with the developer’s preference for a business park,” Councilmember Krovoza said Tuesday during his comments.
He argued that he would prefer that the city figure out zoning that makes sense, and then make that be known to the developers.
“I think putting this out to the City of Davis and responding to what the developer has put here is to some extent almost disrespecting our own ability to think about this fresh and right direction,” he said.”
Joe’s reasoning is very sound here. Too often projects are developer driven, which seems to be what is happening here.
dmg: “But mainly she argued this from the standpoint of declining school enrollment and the need for market-rate workforce housing.
“I’ve been talking to the school district about their declining enrollment. We’re at 180 this year, 200 next year, and it’s not looking any better,” she said. “I said, as a Councilperson, what is the one thing that I can do that can help make a difference and it’s resounding. ‘We know you’re not a fan of growth but we’ve got to have some market-rate affordable housing, we have to have something for the families to come here. Otherwise we are going to continue to see declining enrollment.’”
“When I think about the quality of our schools and how important [that is], I just think it’s incumbent on me to have the staff looking at this proposal, getting community input,” she said.”
What does the quality of our schools have to do with workforce housing? It is not likely the quality of our schools is going to change one iota if we don’t build a mixed used housing development at the Cannery site. Furthermore, how can you guarantee any of this housing is going to be affordable to the workforce? As we have seen previously, houses built in Davis almost always end up being prohibitively expensive for the average worker. Building more homes is not likely to change that phenomenon.
dmg: “The deciding vote was cast by Councilmember Rochelle Swanson. She said that she found it compelling that no one came out to speak in opposition to this development and that she had been approached by numerous people around town begging for more workforce housing.”
So a Councilmember is going to base their vote depending on who shows up at public comment, count the number of pros and cons, and then cast her vote depending on who is in the majority? Land use planning deserves more thought than that. I did not show up to speak against the proposal bc I didn’t feel I knew enough about the situation to comment. I don’t mind exploring options, but why wasn’t an equal weight EIR done for solely a business park? What were the developers afraid of? That such an option (business park only) would be more viable and attractive to the city than a mixed use? The City Council needs to think long and hard before deciding to turn the Cannery into a mixed use project, and all the consequences that may result.
I’m glad Sue Greenwald and Joe Krovoza had the courage to vote “no” on this one, and be somewhat skeptical of the motives behind the idea. Land use planning is just too important to rush through. We need to get it right, especially now, when the economy is so poor – especially in CA.
“….but why wasn’t an equal weight EIR done for solely a business park? What were the developers afraid of?”
I thought that the Council had just recently voted to go through the process of examining all the options for this property, including just as a business park. Is my recollection here wrong? Has the Council now decided to begin processing the mixed use/residential option BEFORE they have the results of their previous decision?
ERM: “So a Councilmember is going to base their vote depending on … ” That is such an ugly pejorative spin on what happened. Did you even watch the proceedings?
Rochelle gave a long list of reasons of why she voted as she did. She had obviously done a huge amount of homework and thinking about her vote.
[quote]Rochelle gave a long list of reasons of why she voted as she did. She had obviously done a huge amount of homework and thinking about her vote.[/quote]
Nice try local but given the past history of our City Council and given the fact that Rochelle courted the vote of people who clearly want to limit development this is a betrayal.
Developers make money on housing; the City will likely lose money unless proper safeguards are put in place. The developer will hire a well paid consultant to cover up the fact that the project will lose money for the rest of us (see CV and WHR).
Also, in the past developers have supported some City Council member’s campaigns generously. Jo and Ro were supposed to be different. Jo seems to be sticking to that. Ro may have the best of intentions, but excuse us for being skeptical. We have plenty of past experiences, so I believe this skepticism is well founded.
Dr. Wu: Rochelle simply noted the trend of public comment. It was just one of a list of thoughtfully considered reasons why she was favorable.
IMO, what occurred during public comment was notable because an email from a community leader had been circulating seeking to gin up opposition with false and inflammatory rhetoric.
Why assume the worst about everything?
davisite2: As I understand it, the 100% business park option will be considered as part of the CEQA no project requirement. By eliminating the equal weigh requirement, the council has decided it is not worth it to force the developer and staff to develop a fully designed business park plan that will never get build. Why waste the time and money?
[quote]Why assume the worst about everything?[/quote]
After the CC attempted to force CV and WHR down citizens, throats are you serious? And this does not require a measure J vote which makes it all the more scary.
[quote]the 100% business park option will be considered as part of the CEQA no project requirement[/quote]
I’ve been involved in dozens of EIRs, mostly for commercial developments and “no Project” typically means just that. CEQA does require the EIR to look at alternatives where feasible but this is almost always pro-forma. If the CC directs that the EIR looks at a business park it will do so. The mixed use plan may very well be more viable, but how are we to know?
Why be cynical/skeptical:
1. A Council member who ran on slow growth has voted for more housing.
2. The site is zoned for industrial use. Many of us (myself included) are willing to look at mixed use, but we are concerned that the fix is in here –we ought to look at the business park as well. I don’t think it would cost much more money and at any rate the developer will pay.
3. I’ve blogged over and over that I’d like to see business development in town and I do have an open mind, but I do not want to see a rerun of CV or WHR. The fact that the Council voted to look at these other areas as business parks at precisely the same time as they wanted to change the zoning of the ConAgra site doesn’t make me feel better.
Most people concerned about this issue are not wild eyed radicals–we live in this community and we have seen how the CC has ignored the wishes of 75% of davis residents in the very recent past. There are at least two CC members who clearly have sided with developers in the past. Ro may have good intentions but we have every right to be skeptical. And I would not be shocked to see “mixed use” turn out to be primarily housing with a token amount of commercial development and lofts that are ostensibly work/live arrangements that turn out to be primarily housing (I work out of my home but that is not “mixed use).
“I’ve been involved in dozens of EIRs, mostly for commercial developments and “no Project” typically means just that. CEQA does require the EIR to look at alternatives where feasible but this is almost always pro-forma…”
Thanks for the clarification, Dr. Wu. The last thing I remembered concerning this was the Council’s direction for an equal weight analysis of all of the proposed options. I was out of the country for most of the past month and thought that there might have been some Council action that I missed. It sounds like Rochelle has buckled to ConAgra’s threats to not allow this property to be developed unless they get their way.
This is her first baptism of fire in bare-knuckled developer Davis local politics and let’s hope that her backbone stiffens with experience as our Council rep. I would support exploring a citizen-initiative action to force the city to do a full equal weight analysis for a business park before any zone change.
The question in these matters is almost always, “who blinks first!”. ConAgra wants to get a project well on its way on their property before the economy inevitably turns with the accompanying increase in interest rates and inflation construction costs. Let them sit with their empty property,if they so choose, until these financial pressures build to a point that results in a development agreement with the city calling the shots.
Just heard on the news that there are 3.2 million projected foreclosures in 2011 with that number getting worse in 2012 with no let up yet in sight. It’s not a great time to be planning new housing. What are they thinking?
It was reported in the Wallstreet Journal that the Federal budget reduction team is considering a proposal to eliminate or at least cut the home interest deduction. What’s that going to do to the real estate market?
Dr. Wu: “And I would not be shocked to see “mixed use” turn out to be primarily housing with a token amount of commercial development…”
You can find the plan in the council agenda packet. Here is the site plan:
[url]http://peoplesvanguard.com/CanneryParkMap.jpg[/url]
It is 41 acres of residential, 23 acres of park/greenbelt associated with the residential, and 20 acres of business park/office. I would say this is primarily a residential development with a small office/business component.
You can search for current homes in foreclosure at trulia.com.
96 in Davis: [url]http://www.trulia.com/CA/Davis/#for_sale/Davis,CA/foreclosure_lt/[/url]
436 in Woodland.
216 in Dixon.
988 in Vacaville.
550 in West Sacramento.
Don:
Thanks for the info. Its worse than I thought. Its being billed as “mixed use” but only about 25% is devoted to business including office space.
Despite the downturn in the economy, there is still a demand for housing in Davis, in part because we limited housing growth during the boom era (with little help from City Council majorities). That is why developers are salivating over land in Davis.
However there is not necessarily a booming demand for office space–witness the vacancies we have already.
What if the developer builds out the housing first and then says there is no demand for the office/business space. Again I am not saying this will happen but its far from impossible. What does the City do? What is the order of buildout for the property?
Despite the downturn in the economy, there is still a demand for housing in Davis, in part because we limited housing growth during the boom era (with little help from City Council majorities)
Dr. Wu – I’m not sure I follow your point….up until the Covell Village vote (2006, I think), the city council (and by definition, the council majority) was approving any developments. The Peak of the boom was probably late 2006, so the constraints on housing during the boom were due to the city council. Since then, the citizens have voted down two developments, neither of which was likely to have been built in any substantial way until a stronger housing market returned.
It is interesting to think through why housing prices have remained stronger in Davis than in the surrounding area. Certainly, fewer houses were built here, but importantly, the income levels of Davis residents have remained more stable than surrounding areas. Davis has higher income demographic, most of which is derived from tax payer funded jobs, and job losses and pay have been more stable here than other areas, where private industry makes up a much larger percentage of the work force.
“Just heard on the news that there are 3.2 million projected foreclosures in 2011 with that number getting worse in 2012 with no let up yet in sight. It’s not a great time to be planning new housing. What are they thinking?”
They are thinking that this is the last place you can still make money off new housing because prices here are kept high by supply restrictions and good schools. Remember they already own the land so whatever they make off the housing minus the development and construction costs will be profit. The correct role for the council would be to make sure that the final project meets the needs of the community and not just maximizes profits for Conagra.
“They are thinking that this is the last place you can still make money off new housing…”
Vacaville city council, with nearly 1000 homes in foreclosure, just approved the processing of a development agreement that would build 700 new homes near Elmira Rd. Why? Because the developer promised to build a Catholic high school.
[quote]As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce.
Adam Smith 1776 [/quote]
[quote]up until the Covell Village vote (2006, I think), the city council (and by definition, the council majority) was approving any developments
Adam Smith 2010[/quote]
The fact that incomes in Davis are higher is definitely a factor in the stability of housing prices. But I think it is also that we limited growth.
Despite our CC’s propensity to help out developers its clear that it is politically unpopular and this has placed some checks on development. So both income and supply limitations are factors.
It doesn’t matter which factor predominates. The point is that Davis is still a desirable place for developers to make money. That does not mean that more housing is good for Davis. Prop 13 ensured that housing is a loser for most cities, unless we build McMansions, which are also anathema to many people who are politically active in Davis, though my own informal polling indicates that many people in the silent majority would not object to a few more McMansions if it brought in money to the City.
Dr. Wu: “Why be cynical/skeptical:
1. A Council member who ran on slow growth has voted for more housing.
2. The site is zoned for industrial use. Many of us (myself included) are willing to look at mixed use, but we are concerned that the fix is in here –we ought to look at the business park as well. I don’t think it would cost much more money and at any rate the developer will pay.
3. I’ve blogged over and over that I’d like to see business development in town and I do have an open mind, but I do not want to see a rerun of CV or WHR. The fact that the Council voted to look at these other areas as business parks at precisely the same time as they wanted to change the zoning of the ConAgra site doesn’t make me feel better.
Most people concerned about this issue are not wild eyed radicals–we live in this community and we have seen how the CC has ignored the wishes of 75% of davis residents in the very recent past. There are at least two CC members who clearly have sided with developers in the past. Ro may have good intentions but we have every right to be skeptical. And I would not be shocked to see “mixed use” turn out to be primarily housing with a token amount of commercial development and lofts that are ostensibly work/live arrangements that turn out to be primarily housing (I work out of my home but that is not “mixed use).”
Nicely said! My sentiments exactly…
“I’ve blogged over and over that I’d like to see business development in town and I do have an open mind, but I do not want to see a rerun of CV or WHR.”
ConAgra is an infill site. There can’t be a rerun of CV or WHR.
As long as ConAgra is on-the-table as our business park site, we will have no business park. It’s been 20 years and counting.
“As long as ConAgra is on-the-table as our business park site, we will have no business park.”
Your whole rationale leads to peripheral development, which is considered growth-inducing, uses ag land, and violates the spirit of the general plan.
Since the only other reasonable sites for a large business park that don’t require annexation and a Measure J vote are on university land, it doesn’t really matter how the ConAgra site is zoned in that context. Taking ConAgra out of the equation won’t lead to a business park, either.
Dr. Wu: It’s 1/3 business park and 2/3 residential. See the staff report.
If one is truly concerned about economic development and maintaining a healthy business park land inventory, then 33% of something is always better than 100% of nothing.
“Your whole rationale …”
That’s why we have Measure J/R. The community will decide if the fear-mongering on growth has merit, whether it’s necessary to preserve this particular patch of ag land on the freeway, and whether or not the GP should be held sacrosanct or modified by popular vote.
What are you afraid of? Let the process work. WHR was soundly defeated despite the best efforts of The Vanguard and a ton of money from Parlin Development.
If the proposals at Mace and/or Nishi lack merit, they won’t get community support and they will fail.
I think that serious discussion about a business park on the Mace curve substantially increases the likelihood of big box retail development along that area. Given who the property owner is, and the past history of land development in east Davis, it is not “fear-mongering” to state the obvious: if you increase the value of the farmland with the prospect of commercial development, land developers are going to submit proposals. In fact, proposals have been submitted in the past for land east of town in that area. To paraphrase Stephen Souza: “if you build [near] it, they will come.”
Let’s just take it out of consideration once and for all. No peripheral development need be considered. It is not necessary for the purpose of providing a business park that meets Chancellor Katehi’s needs. Nishi and campus land provide that. There is land for infill commercial development for small startup firms. There is no need to consider annexing land for commercial development, and it would have very undesirable consequences. The city council should clarify this once and for all for the landowners, the voters, and the residents of east Davis.
That is why I think it is important that Stephen Souza state, for the record, what site he has in mind. Because there is a long history in Davis of local political leaders encouraging private development projects that contravene the general plan and the community-based planning decisions. Why even consider a housing site that is a yellow light site? Why even suggest that peripheral ag land could be considered? Both suggestions encourage land speculation, and both would violate established planning guidelines that have been provided by the voters and by citizen groups.
DS: Playing the big box retail card is fear-mongering.
You know it. I know it.
You also know that the project will be fully specified prior to the Measure R vote. If the project that comes forward has big box, it will be defeated at the polls.
“The city council should clarify this once and for all for the landowners, the voters, and the residents of east Davis.”
Why? Measure J/R works fine.
In fact, I would suspect that some fraction of the population might resent efforts to suppress all proposals and deny them their right to weigh in under Measure J/R.
And by the way. Playing the East Davis card is another cheap tactic out of the NOPE play book (pitting neighbor against neighbor).
If impacts on existing residents were truly a concern, then your position on ConAgra would be no project … not business park.
DS: Playing the big box retail card is fear-mongering.
You know it. I know it.
It is not fear-mongering.
I have looked at the planning history of communities all over the country, and what I am stating is reality. If you increase the value of the land for purposes other than farmland, proposals will be brought forward. The most likely proposal for land near Target, along Mace, is another big box store. Any further retail development along that corridor — big box or otherwise — would be detrimental to the downtown and the neighborhood shopping centers.
Answer this: who is the landowner? Land developers don’t care what the general plan says, what commissions have suggested, or what is fiscally prudent for the city over the long run. Do you recall how Mace Ranch came to be developed? Are you aware of the development proposals that have been submitted or thwarted for the exact area we are discussing here?
“the project will be fully specified….” Nothing occurs in a vacuum, particularly land-use planning. Proposals for peripheral development benefit the landowners, not just of the project land but also of all the land around it. All adjacent land becomes potential development. But if a city establishes an urban limit line and sticks to it, developers won’t even try. Then a city can proceed with consensus-based planning, rather than reactive developer-driven development.
“Pitting neighbor against neighbor.” People who bought their houses in the new east Davis development along Second Street expected that their backdoor neighbor would be office or commercial development. Instead, they got Target. Go look at how the precincts voted. Talk about pitting neighbor against neighbor.
The landowner you refer to has one parcel east of Mace. It is 100 acres in size. They have stated their desire to bring forward a business park proposal in open public meeting.
If approved and built, they will have no more land east of Mace..
The idea that a business park on that site will in any way increase the likelihood of a successful Measure R annexation of more land for big box retail has no merit … and hence is fear-mongering.
Your domino theory is absurd.
local: The landowner you refer to has one parcel east of Mace….If approved and built, they will have no more land east of Mace.
LOL! And that landowner is?
From Dan Ramos to Bill Emlen, June 3, 2010
Bill,
On behalf of the owners of Mace Ranch (Ramco Enterprises and Buzz Oates
Companies) and the East Mace 100 acre parcel (APN 033 630 09), I have been asked to contact you and pledge our support for the Business Park Land Strategy Planning effort outlined below. We are very encouraged by this effort and believe that there is in fact a very Strong Market for locating knowledge based companies in the Davis Area. Our companies have over fifty years of experience in developing quality Business Parks throughout the region and believe the Davis community can enjoy tremendous economic development benefits because of its proximity to UC Davis and the I 80 corridor. The Mace Ranch owners would like to participate in any way that will be beneficial to the City in these endeavors.
We encourage you to include our Mace East 100 acre parcel referenced above in your discussions. If you need any pertinent information regarding any of our properties – we will gladly provide the information. Thank you for letting us participate – we look forward to the discussions.
Dan
Ramco Enterprises Inc.
1450 Harbor Blvd., Suite B
West Sacramento, CA 95691
I omitted the name because I didn’t want to play the “Ramos” card on your behalf.
Here’s a freebie. As long as you’re fear-mongering, why not mention Buzz Oates as well?
You omitted the name because you are well aware of the long history of Frank Ramos and his interactions with the city of Davis. For those who aren’t, I’d urge they read Chapter 6 of Mike Fitch’s history of Davis on the city web site: [url]http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/cultural/30years/chapt06.cfm[/url]
That’s who we’re dealing with folks. And that is why my “domino theory” is not “absurd.”
Let’s break down your domino theory …
The community approves a Measure R vote for a business park at the Mace interchange. This magically translates into community approval of another Measure R annexation of more land for big box retail elsewhere on the Mace curve. The city staff and council, in collusion with the landowners and developers, allows the construction of uses on this property that would be detrimental to the downtown and the neighborhood centers (and presumably your business as well).
As I said. Absurd.
Yes, absurd.
Just as absurd as the notion that a developer might propose a project in the county, luring the county board of supervisors with the fees it would generate to help their perennially cash-strapped budget. Are there three votes on the BOS for such a project now?
And as absurd as the notion that the city might have little or no say over the nature of that development.
As absurd as the idea that the city council members might then feel compelled to annex the land and negotiate an agreement, with a metaphorical gun to their head, to allow the development to proceed, because the developer threatened to pursue it regardless of the city’s approval.
Totally absurd.
Except that is what Ramos did.
And that is who owns the land in question.
DS: This is starting to sound like the Top 20 Hits of Davis fear-mongering.
If there was another play through the county, it would have been tried long ago. The facts are that the scope of such a project would have to be impossibly large to entice the county to forego the pass-through agreement revenue.
Stop living in the past. These guys aren’t your friends and they aren’t your enemies. They are business people trying to make a buck (just like you). If you’re still pissed off about Mace Ranch, I would suggest directing more of your anger towards the members of the City Council that was presiding at the time. They dropped the ball (in some cases, perhaps intentionally).
There is nothing in the DSIDE agenda that could be construed as a threat to local small retailers. Quite the opposite. There is a very strong consensus among my contacts that we need to preserve the downtown, preserve the city’s college town character, maintain Davis’ uniqueness (which definitely includes independent retailers).
Why not be part of the solution rather than part of the problem?
Don Shor: “You omitted the name because you are well aware of the long history of Frank Ramos and his interactions with the city of Davis. For those who aren’t, I’d urge they read Chapter 6 of Mike Fitch’s history of Davis on the city web site: http://cityofdavis.org/cdd/cul…hapt06.cfm”
Thanks for the cite to the article – it was very illuminating…
Stop living in the past.
“Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” I urge you to look at the development patterns of all communities that have allowed peripheral development, including our nearby cities.
There is nothing in the DSIDE agenda that could be construed as a threat to local small retailers.
Peripheral development is always harmful to small (and medium) local retailers. Take that off the table, and there will be far fewer conflicts during this process.
Why not be part of the solution rather than part of the problem?
The solution, if your goal is a business park, is on university land. Not peripheral annexation and development. I’d be happy to participate in future DSIDE events, assuming they don’t happen during business hours.
Don Shor: “The solution, if your goal is a business park, is on university land. Not peripheral annexation and development. I’d be happy to participate in future DSIDE events, assuming they don’t happen during business hours.”
I hope you do decide to join DSIDE (pun intended) – your business expertise and viewpoints would be very welcome IMHO 🙂
DS: The relevant comparison is the development patterns of cities with growth ordinances like Measure J/R.
Arguing that we will have sprawl if we annex in the 100 acre Mace site is, once again, absurd. And fear-mongering.
But I now get your position. You own a small retail business and believe that … “Peripheral development is always harmful to small (and medium) local retailers.” Fair enough.
But the idea that a 100 acre business park designed for mid-sized high-tech companies is going to be harmful to your business sounds a bit paranoid.