“ConAgra is proposing a project that picks up where Lewis Planned Communities left off”
“ConAgra is proposing a project that picks up where Lewis Planned Communities left off” In December of 2008, the Davis City Council heard a proposal on this property from the previous applicant, Lewis Planned Communities. Council voted at that time to support an equal-weight EIR, looking into the planning for both a mixed-use housing-commercial project, as well as a business park proposal for which the site is currently zoned.
The city staff reports that property owner, ConAgra, now wishes to reinitiate an application for development of the Cannery Park project.
According their report, “ConAgra is proposing a project that picks up where Lewis Planned Communities left off.”
The proposal remains a mixed-use project of just under 100 acres, including 600 housing units during a time of a deep economic downturn, a housing market collapse, and a citizenry not inclined to seek new residential growth, and certainly not of this magnitude.
This housing development would not be subject to a Measure R/ Measure J vote.
According to the staff report, on December 2, 2008, the City Council, by a vote of 4 to 1, directed staff to process the Cannery Park Project proposal, submitted by Lewis Planned Communities.
Specifically, the council directed staff to undertake six specific steps.
First, they were asked to undertake evaluation, refinement and processing of the mixed-use project concept proposed by Lewis, or some variation thereof.
Second they directed city staff to prepare a full business park alternative plan for the site.
Third, they directed the city to initiate city-sponsored public outreach efforts, with focus on the immediate neighborhood; and to have discussions with UCD and representatives in the tech sector, regarding future business park land needs.
Fourth, they authorized staff to conduct an equal-weight EIR analysis that evaluates the impacts of both the Cannery Park mixed-use and Business Park concepts, with specific land use designation of non-residential uses.
Fifth, they asked staff to conduct a more detailed analysis of options and strategies for meeting future business park land needs in light of current build-out rates, including but not limited to retaining the current zoning and the potential use of the Lewis site for other uses.
Sixth and finally, they directed staff to prepare a detailed timeline for completing this work; to return to Council to adopt the timeline; and to make a strong commitment that the city will adhere to the timeline, which would be a one-year period.
In October 2008, the Business and Economic Development Commission recommended the following action, “Given [that] a mixed-use concept for the Cannery Park site aligns with BEDC business attraction and community enhancement goals and merits further consideration, the BEDC recommends the Planning Commission and City Council continue processing the application. BEDC also requests continued involvement in further project reviews throughout the application process.”
At that time, they based their recommendation on four conclusions. The project merits further consideration and it is understood that the project is still in process; it is aligned with business attraction; the viability study does show that a business park is
viable; and housing for workers near jobs and neighborhood shopping, reflecting “green” development policies, align with community-enhancement goals.
In July of this year, BEDC considered the conclusions of the Business Park Land Needs analysis and voted to “reaffirm that a mixed-use concept for the ConAgra site aligns with BEDC business attraction and community-enhancement goals.”
Staff is recommending that, given the time elapsed since the withdrawal of the application, it is prudent to seek renewed direction on the processing of the ConAgra proposal.
According to the staff report, “Staff is recommending proceeding with the course to process the application that was previously set by the City Council with modifications to the approach of evaluating the application. While the proposed project title and land use plan is identical to the previous application, staff believes it is prudent to consider reassessing our approach as to how an application would be reviewed.”
It continues, “The approach recommended by staff does not necessarily pick up where the prior application left off; nor does it completely “reset” the process. Specifically, staff proposes emphasizing the establishment of key principles that will form the cornerstones of our review efforts and building of consensus amongst city departments, commissions, and the community for how this site should be developed.”
Finally, “Efforts that were made to evaluate the previous application would not be wasted, but would be revisited and amended as necessary to ensure consistency with current policy direction.”
At some future point in time, it is probably worth revisiting the debate over the best use for this property. Adherents to the business park will argue that this is the largest existing property currently zoned for that use. Adherents to the mixed-use model made a number of arguments, including the professed desire of the neighbors and the idea of precluding the development of the adjacent Covell Village property, among a number of other reasons.
We have not touched on the third rail issue, that of joint planning of Cannery and Covell, wrought with political and logistical difficulties.
However, at this time, a 600-unit project, more than three times the size of the recently voted down Wildhorse Ranch property, is far too large and inappropriate. Other than the fact that WHR happened to be a Measure J vote and Cannery will not be, it is hard to foresee why at this point the public would be more inclined to support this project than the WHR project.
We will also point out that efforts to develop the adjacent property at Covell Village have also gone nowhere. At best, let’s revisit the issue in 2015 when perhaps the economy will have changed and the housing market and growth needs of this community will be more clear.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
dmg: “However, at this time, a 600-unit project, more than three times the size of the recently voted down Wildhorse Ranch property, is far too large and inappropriate. Other than the fact that WHR happened to be a Measure J vote and Cannery will not be, it is hard to foresee why at this point the public would be more inclined to support this project than the WHR project.”
Because this is within city limits, and not subject to a Measure J vote, what the public thinks is going to be less of a concern to the City Council. I am a bit surprised BEDC is behind the mixed use idea, since this site is the only large site for a tech business park the city has inside the city limits. But I also recongnize it takes long term planning to bring projects to fruition, so I am keeping an open mind on this one.
My initial reaction is this site should be a business park only, bc that is what it is zoned for, and it is the only large infill property suitable for a business park. But I am not necessarily opposed to the mixed use idea either. I am for long range planning, whenever possible. This site has sat dormant for too many years, but there is no question that the current state of the economy makes the current development of this site a tricky one.
I will be interested to see what both EIRs reveal…
ERM: This site will never be a business park. Whether it is zoned for business park or not is irrelevant. (1) The city doesn’t have the money to bring it on line, and (2) the private sector will not touch it for this use because it is nonviable from a business perspective (40-year build-out assuming no new competition along the I-80 corridor).
I think keeping an open mind is wise.
local: “ERM: This site will never be a business park. Whether it is zoned for business park or not is irrelevant. (1) The city doesn’t have the money to bring it on line, and (2) the private sector will not touch it for this use because it is nonviable from a business perspective (40-year build-out assuming no new competition along the I-80 corridor).”
It may not be ON the I-80 corridor, but it is not very far from I-5. And it sounds like the city wants to at least make it part business park…
I have an open mind on this but I also have a few observations:
1. I am concerned that the same staff that screwed up zip-car is going to be entrusted to do this far more ambitious undertaking. Of course, they will hire consultants to do the EIR and I hope they hire some competent and honest ones, but staff also needs to be competent here and I have seen little evidence lately that they are up to the task. We need an accurate assessment of the options and one that can withstand the scrutiny that it will get from this community.
2. Now is a bad time to bring on any real estate development, especially commercial real estate, but it is possible that the City could attract a company since we have a world class university.
3. THis is not WHR or CV though I suspect many people will oppose any development at all at this time, with some good reasons. THe horrific process leading to WHR was certainly one of the issues in the debate and the City and developer for this project would be wise not to repeat the mistakes that were made there.
4. A mixed use project could potentially be “really green” if it was setup to reduce driving and other GHG. On the other hand a business park could be an economic boom to the City if there is a demand for such a park–I think that would require some appropriately sized and financed sized companies to commit to move to Davis, which seems unlikely to me.
If the city council allows even one house to be built on that property they should be recalled.
This is light industrial property, it is essential we retain that option. Getting rid of the idiots from Lewis HOMES will be the best thing that happened to the city in a very long time. Take their plans out and burn them…
There is absolutely no such thing on this site as “mixed use” it is simply the nose of the camel, they will set aside a few acres for commerical/industrial, continue with a half-hearted effort to sell or lease and then come back to the council and say “sadly it didn’t work, can we now pave it over with more tacky little houses?”
It will just like back with Sweetwater Development, “oh we LOVE low cost housing in our developments” then coming back saying “ummm we need to waive that element now that we are 90% into the project” and the city council had no cojones to say no.
The property is light industrial and must remain so.
“At best, let’s revisit the issue in 2015 when perhaps the economy will have changed and the housing market and growth needs of this community will be more clear.”
I agree here with David but would be open to developing sooner if the land was used for industrial use only.
What is “light industrial” property and is it feasible today in Davis or in California?
Specifically what firm would potentially come in? If we could bring in a firm that would create jobs and generate taxes that would be fine with me, but there is a glut of commercial property out there and we also have to compete with Texas, China and many other folks. I’m not advocating housing–I’d rather see business there, but I am wondering if anyone has any specifics.
Who really knows until it’s put out there? Being a great place to live with a world class university churning out much needed talent I’d bet there would be much interest.
The land is zoned for a high-tech industrial park that is limited to uses compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The zoning allows for a range of conditional uses which are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
When I talked with the person who did the study, he said that the 40 year build-out figure was just looking at historical new high-tech business rates in Davis, and he would have applied that for any purely high-tech zoned land in Davis, whether it was on I-80 or not. He was not assuming that more high-tech could come if the land were available.
He suggested that we allow some other conditional uses. When I asked him if he knew that other conditional uses were already incorporated in the existing high-tech business park zoning, he said “no”. In other words, he really didn’t know how the Hunt-Wesson was actually zoned when he wrote his report. He was assuming absolutely nothing but high-tech.
When I asked him if he would have given a shorter “build-out” figure if he knew that conditional uses were allowed, he said “yes”.
@ Sue Greenwald “… he really didn’t know how the Hunt-Wesson was actually zoned when he wrote his report. He was assuming absolutely nothing but high-tech.”
If you have to rely on other uses to drive the time-to-buildout into the feasible range … then it really isn’t a “high tech business park” (more on this point later).
What the report actually said (page 82):[quote]Scenario 4 – High Tech Business Park/No Residential
This scenario assumes that Cannery Park is entirely developed as a high tech business park. This scenario assumes that the site is entitled to compete for about 40 percent of the market demand for Davis business park space. The business park program would specifically emphasize high tech uses while limiting most other uses. This scenario is considered infeasible given its projected 39 year build out period.[/quote]
Build more housing, yes! Make Davis affordable by adding to supply. The new houses at Mace Ranch park are priced at $700,000 so this is the last place where developers can still make a buck. building more homes is the only way to add supply and make Davis affordable for working people.
“working people” ahhh, my favorite kind. Not like those other ones!
If we build more housing in Davis it should be on a 1:1 replacement basis; you build a house, you have to tear one down to keep things in balance.
Ditto to Gunrock. The population of Davis is about 65,000. Just right. As for the poor “working people,” why would they want to live here when there is no work? Put in the high tech business park; then there will be work, and we can talk about housing for the workers–near Davis.
local 1:04P.M.: Nothing in this quotation refutes what I wrote.
To follow-up on the viability issue from my previous post …
The time-to-buildout is directly correlated with the breadth of allowed uses. The less restrictive the uses, the faster the buildout. That being said, under the ESG scenario with no restrictions on allowed uses the time to buildout was 16 years [u]assuming 10 acres (~85,000 sq ft) of commercial (retail, support services, etc.).[/u]
In other words, a ConAgra business park is “viable” if (1) it is not restricted to high-tech, (2) it has a neighborhood center-sized retail/service component tacked on, and (3) you accept the premise that a 16-year-buildout is economically feasible in the post-great recession economy.
Local: There are a lot of neighborhood-compatible conditional uses which would speed build-out. Any argument based on slow-buildout would apply equally to any other piece of land being considered for a business park either by annexation or by the University. Unless you feel that there is no need at all for more high-tech zoned land, you have not made a case against Con-Agra.
“… would apply equally to any other piece of land …”
Not true. Location affects rate-of-buildout. This is basic real estate 101.
Paying for business park infrastructure (especially at a bad location with incompatible adjacent uses) by building additional retail just down the street from the Nugget center is a terrible idea.
“If we build more housing in Davis it should be on a 1:1 replacement basis; you build a house, you have to tear one down to keep things in balance.”
Why?
Is retail an approved conditional use for this site?
“Is retail an approved conditional use for this site?”
I don’t think so. Retail becomes an issue because the ESG study assumes 10% of the site is devoted to commercial (retail/support services).
No commercial or residential – no mechanism to finance the business park infrastructure – no project.
That’s why 100% business park isn’t viable.
Local: You are making an assumption that a peripheral site on I-80 would build out faster with high-tech then the old cannery site. However, everyone I have talked with, from the guy who did the business park study to a major high-tech real estate agent who worked with a major local high-tech firm, to many of our local high-tech business entrepreneurs, have all said that the Con-Agra would be a great site as far as they are concerned.
Despite the spin, high-tech parks are not necessarily on freeways. In fact, many prefer a quiet, campus-like atmosphere.
Don,
I haven’t looked at it in a few years, but I think the existing Con-Agra zoning allows some limited restaurant use to serve the business park employees on site.
Sue: You are wrong. Location is very important to most (1) high-tech real estate agents, (2) high-tech firms, and (3) high-tech entrepreneurs. On the point about your special insight (because of your many conversations with these sorts of individuals), I have also talked to many of these same people. If anyone is trying to spin the dialog, it’s you.
Don: The existing ConAgra zoning allows for over 850,000 sq ft. of industrial. It is in some sort of weird PD industrial zone that is (as far as I can tell) not in the Municipal Code or articulated in the General Plan. To find out what specific uses are currently allowed one would probably have to get a copy of the old staff report from 2000 when the zoning was changed from I to PD-I.
Just for perspective, 850,000 sq ft is (1) more than 10 buildings the size of the DTL building on 2nd Street, (2) more than 20 full-size grocery store anchors, or (3) roughly the size of the Arden Fair Mall (and the city is in the process of raising the allowed density for business park land).
The broker for the Genentech facility in Dixon (who I guess would now also qualify as a “major high-tech real estate agent who worked with a major local high-tech firm”) has stated that the ConAgra site was rejected out-of-hand early in the process because of the proximity to residential.
It is crazy to continue to contemplate building our 25-year economic development strategy around a ConAgra centerpiece.
It’s time to move on.
Again, according to the very knowledgeable the people I have spoken with, Con Agra is a desirable site for neighborhood-compatible high-tech; more desirable to some than the Mace Ranch industrial land along I-80.
[quote]Don: The existing Con Agra zoning allows for over 850,000 sq ft. of industrial. It is in some sort of weird PD industrial zone that is (as far as I can tell) not in the Municipal Code or articulated in the General Plan. To find out what specific uses are currently allowed one would probably have to get a copy of the old staff report from 2000 when the zoning was changed from I to PD-I.– Local[/quote]This is beginning to sound like parcel slander. Okay, so you want to annex new land. That doesn’t make the ConAgra a poor site for neighborhood-compatible high tech, represents the vast majority of the high-tech that we would want attract.
As I have discussed many times at council and during our goal-setting sessions, we get to retain around 25% of the property tax on the Con Agra site compared to about 18% city-wide average, and only 6% on the recently annexed Wildhorse and Wildhorse Ranch sites.
If we place high-tech on the Con Agra site, we will keep far, far more of the property tax dollars for the expensive high-tech buildings than we will if we annex new land. Additionally, we will keep all of the point-if-sales tax (if there is any), whereas that is not likely to be true if we annex land from the county.
If the purpose of economic development is to help the city’s fiscal situation, then we have to take such factors into consideration.
Sue: The tax issue is a red herring of the first magnitude.
25% of nothing doesn’t help the city’s fiscal situation.
The Cannary Park proposal is a real tax revenue generating project that is ready to go today. The Greenwald Business Park is a fantasy that will never happen, no matter how much you want it. It was a bad idea 10 years ago, it is a worse idea today.
The private sector will simply not make the necessary investment. That is the cold hard economic reality that you have to come to grips with.
@ Sue Greenwald: “That doesn’t make the ConAgra a poor site for neighborhood-compatible high tech, represents the vast majority of the high-tech that we would want attract.”
The ConAgra site has a projected time-to-buildout of 16 years with no restrictions on uses, and a time-to-buildout of 40 years if restricted to high-tech uses.
If the additional restriction of “neighborhood-compatible high-tech” is added it will further erode the time-to-buildout.
The idea that the private sector will make the enormous investment in infrastructure necessary to make the land shovel-ready on a project with a projected 40+ year time-to-buildout is just silly.
Not going to happen. Sorry.
[quote]The Cannary Park proposal is a real tax revenue generating project that is ready to go today. Local[/quote]Likely to be revenue neutral at best.
[quote]The idea that the private sector will make the enormous investment in infrastructure necessary to make the land shovel-ready on a project with a projected 40+ year time-to-buildout is just silly. [/quote]How would this be different with a peripheral annexed site? Way more infrastructure is already in place at Con Agra than at a peripheral site in the county. Way, way more. And build-out would be no faster.
local: “The Cannary Park proposal is a real tax revenue generating project that is ready to go today.”
It is? Where can I see the plans?
The Mace site has more infrastructure in place than ConAgra because of the water tank and the other adjacent commercial development along 2nd Street. With respect to the NW quadrant and probably Nishi, I agree with you. With respect to potential sites on campus, we don’t know because they haven’t disclosed what they are thinking (at least not to the business community at-large). There is some credible speculation that infrastructure problems planned a significant role in bringing down their latest business park plan south of I-80 and west of Old Davis Road.
High-tech buildout along I-80 would be significantly faster than ConAgra, that’s not even debatable.
[quote]The Mace site has more infrastructure in place than ConAgra because of the water tank and the other adjacent commercial development along 2nd Street. [/quote]This makes no sense at all.[quote]High-tech buildout along I-80 would be significantly faster than ConAgra, that’s not even debatable. [/quote]Only if we allow big box retail.
Don: The documents are online under Cannery Park and available from the city staff. You know the drill.
Developers want to build housing at the Con Agra site. Housing would in fact make more money for the developers than neighborhood a compatible high-tech business park. Housing always does make more money for the developers; that is a given.
Sue: This is getting silly. Now you are trying to play the big box retail card? There was no mention of anchoring the business park with retail at the DSIDE event, and I have not heard anyone mention it mentioned privately. That’s just fear-mongering.
Speaking for myself, I won’t support a business park anchored by big box retail.
I have just been attempting to report on the facts and the myths as I laid them out during the recent goal-setting session.
The rest of this discussion will have to wait until Tuesday night.
@ Sue Greenwald: “I have just been attempting to report on the facts and the myths as I laid them out during the recent goal-setting session.”
This is a perfect illustration of the problem, and a good note on which to end the debate.
Specifically, Sue is not the authority on facts and myths in this matter.
The community has waited for over twenty years for a business park at ConAgra to materialize. It has not. It will not. End of story.
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.
– Abraham Lincoln
From the agenda packet:
“the applicant has requested that the project proposal proceed without the preparation
of an equal weight EIR alternative for a 100% business park on the property. The applicant has
stated to staff that they, as property owner, have no interest in ever pursuing or developing such
an alternative project. This topic is addressed further below.”
“On March 20, 2008 the General Plan Update Steering Committee presented their
recommendations for potential housing sites in Davis to the City Council. The committee ranked
the Lewis site as Alternative Site 21. Alternative sites are sites to be considered for housing only
if needed prior to 2013; they are considered “Yellow Light” sites.”
So why is housing being considered for this site at this time? What was the purpose of the Housing Element Steering Committee if yellow-light sites are going to move forward?
It isn’t on the list for housing, and they don’t want to develop a business park. They want to build housing.
I believe this is what is called a stand-off.
I guess my previous comment falls into the category of a standard politician’s campaign promise. I will add one more thing:
As I explained at the goal-setting session, as long as the council gives the developer hope that they can change the zoning to housing, of course the developers will hold out. Our council has usually signaled that they would entertain a change of zoning to housing. So of course the developers will have held out.
Local government everywhere deals with this problem: Do you remain firm about your industrial zoning, in which case the property value will eventually fall to that of its true zoned value rather than its speculative value, or do you continue to hold out hope for a zoning change, in which case the property will be valued higher than that for high-tech zoned land, and nothing will be built.
The council will have to deal with this issue on Tuesday night as other councils all over the country have had to deal with it.
We’ve tried Sue’s approach for more than 20 years.
To paraphrase Dr. Phil … How’s that working out for us?
Just curious, local: do you believe the Housing Element committee’s rankings should be adhered to?
Just curious, Don: do you believe City Council Resolutions should be adhered to?
RESOLUTION NO. 08-158, SERIES 2008
Direction #1 – Manage the 1% growth cap in development application processing using site rankings.
a. Site rankings and development processing approach.. Use the site rankings in the “green light”, “yellow light”, “red light” categories to consider development applications (see table of site rankings in Exhibit C).
“Green light” sites. As a transition to the initiation and adoption of the next General Plan update, process development applications for the list of “green light” sites.
“Yellow light” sites. In addition to the “green light” sites described above, the current applications for two “yellow light” sites, [u]Lewis Cannery[/u] and Wildhorse Horse Ranch, shall continue to be processed unless otherwise directed by City Council.
After January 1, 2010, consider processing applications for additional “yellow light” sites for reasons such as housing needs, housing mix, or provision of extraordinary infrastructure improvements. Consideration of “yellow light” sites should proceed with caution. The 1% growth cap, however, will not be exceeded if the status of developments is monitored and the timing of development is controlled by conditions of approval and /or development agreements, if needed.
In considering “green light” or “yellow light” sites, the City Council retains full ability to ensure high quality development which meets community needs and provides community benefits.
“Red light” sites. The “red light” sites will generally not be considered until the adoption of the next comprehensive General Plan update is adopted although City Council may consider projects with special features or unique characteristics.
Certainly, although personally I believe the findings of the HE site rankings carry more weight than a council resolution. So in the spirit of the previous council finding, ConAgra should be more than willing to
“Conduct an equal weight EIR analysis that evaluates the impacts of both the Cannery Park mixed use and Business Park concept with specific land use designation of non-residential uses.”
But remember: they want to build houses. Not a business park.
Council members may wish to ask the applicants to provide support for the resolution conditions: “housing needs, housing mix, or provision of extraordinary infrastructure improvements….” especially in light of local stats:
Median home price in Yolo County has dropped 13% from Sept ‘09 to ’10.
Total new home sales in Yolo County September 2010: 10.
There are 96 homes in foreclosure in Davis, 435 in Woodland.
I definitely agree with the following:
Consideration of “yellow light” sites should proceed with caution.
ConAgra is an infill site not subject to Measure R. It continues to poison the community’s dialog on economic development.
It’s time to make a decision and move on.
[quote]Mr. Toad: …building more homes is the only way to add supply and make Davis affordable for working people.
[/quote]
There are foreclosed and short-sale homes on the local real estate market that are much more “affordable” than anything any developer has proposed in recent memory. Covell Village homes were going to be $400-something and up. Wildhorse Ranch prices were proposed to be similar.
Right now, today, you can buy homes (including condos) in Davis for under $300K, and the market may drop further. A quick search revealed 18 residences with asking prices below $300K, and many will sell for below asking. It is very unlikely that any new development will offer homes at similar price points (except possibly the required “affordable” component that must be part of any new development).