And really, there should be four against it, as Stephen Souza criticized the Lewis Proposal back in December of 2008.
From the city’s perspective, this is part and parcel to the preapplication process, in which public input and input from the commissions will offer the developers insight into the changes that are needed.
It was explained to me that the desire was to start with the Lewis Plan as it was influenced by the public input they received at that time – recognizing that many factors have changed since then and there is always room for improvement.
The problem with this view is evident once one looks at the timeline. The normal planning process encompasses several years of planning. Right now we are looking at final action in just 14 months – in February of 2012.
We are not talking about minor changes in the project – the entire project needs to be re-worked. It is simply not an interesting project.
They are paying lip-service to the business park and economic development concerns by the city.
George Philips, a self-described land use attorney, did the presentatiton here. He argued that the 20-acre business park is the gateway to the project, as it sits on the road and would have to attract people to live there who have to drive through a business park to get to their neighborhood.
He touted their 260,000 square feet of office and professional buildings along with neighborhood-serving retail, with the opportunity for live-work residential housing units.
Furthermore, the commissions are not even going to get to have input until January and February – of 2012. That means a month or two before the project goes to a final vote, the commissions will weigh in.
Why not have the commissions hear this proposal now and provide input? But no, that is not how the city’s planning process operates.
There is a huge 800-pound elephant in the room right now, and that is whether we even need 610 homes built during this slow down in the real estate market. Right now, that is the single biggest issue. But forget that point for a moment and let us look at the actual proposal.
Not only is ConAgra breaking out a very similar proposal to Lewis, they are using the the same sketches, graphics and talking points that Lewis did.
There are no specifics here – just guiding principles which seem more like talking points and platitude. This is 14 months out from the time the project is expected to be approved.
They were particularly non-responsive on questions from the public on sustainability, fiscal neutrality, affordability, and concerns about needed mitigations such as traffic.
Unlike the recent Wildhorse Ranch proposal or the West Village proposal, the sustainability component lacked anything specific.
George Philips presented their proposal to the public. He basically said that no one piece makes this a sustainable project, but put all together it forms a bigger picture. This sounds a lot like he is acknowledging that if we examine the sustainability components and the greenhouse gas reductions, we will be unimpressed.
There were no specifics on GHG reduction or a pledge to 100% elimination of GHG, like with Wildhorse Ranch or West Village.
There was no mention of how they would make this project pay for itself.
There was no pledge or details on affordability, though they did use the term “workforce housing,” but failed to provide specifics.
The CHA (Choices for Healthy Again) folks, and everyone knows what I think of that group, came out against the project. They noted in the ConAgra presentation only five or six words were mentioned regarding senior housing or that there will be senior housing opportunities without any details.
As much as I believe they are a front for Covell Village, in their memo that they sent out they showed every indication of wanting to work with ConAgra to produce some senior housing. I cannot blame them for being disconcerted over the utter lack of any kind of priority that senior housing was given here.
The city has spent a huge amount of time and energy creating a Senior Housing Guideline, but there was zero mention of that. The Wildhorse Ranch Project had vowed to create full accessibility to its affordable units. We have talked for years about universal design concepts – there was no talk of this.
The city does not need 610 housing units built right now, but the project would be more palatable if it were a better project. This is a project that could have been built ten years ago, it is not a project to be built now.
We also have to talk about the context. People argue that this is not the site for a business park. I understand the point and the arguments. I’m not sure I completely buy into them, but I do understand them.
But this is not a static model, it is an interactive one. That means if we take away business park from one location, we are plugging in a business park elsewhere.
This is almost a law of unintended consequences.
The impact of this project would be to take away around 100 acres currently zoned light industrial. This is coming at a time when the city has made it a priority to bring in high-tech and green business to the city and at a time when the city lacks land in its borders to provide the acreage needed for this type of economic development.
The byproduct of developing this property as 20 acres of business park and the rest as 610 units of housing will be to put pressure on other peripheral sites such as Nishi, Northwest Quadrant and the Mace-Signature Curve.
The thinking here is that if the public will not support housing in a Measure R vote, maybe it will support a business park in such a vote. So there is a shift of 100 acres to housing and a hope that the voters will later approve a business park.
It is fairly clear that the business park here is an afterthought and ConAgra is simply trying to mitigate the complaints of those who believe that the entire nearly hundred-acre site should remain zoned for light industrial, and that the city should be actively and aggressively seeking companies to come here.
I do not get the sense, talking to members of the council, that this is any sort of done deal, but if the project does not markedly improve over the next few months, it is likely that the citizens will have to put a referendum on the ballot and turn this into a psuedo-Measure J vote. That is probably the last thing that ConAgra wants and they had better heed this warning quickly.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The site is problematic for ANY use… there were issues, once the city grew, relating to it being a tomato processing facility (Hunt-Wesson started operations in the late 60’s, but Davis was MUCH smaller, then… Covell crossed the tracks at-grade, and it “worked”)… access to the transportation system is the biggest issue…
[quote]But this is not a static model, it is an interactive one. That means if we take away business park from one location, we are plugging in a business park elsewhere.
[/quote]This is NOT SimCity… just because we zone land a certain way, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. It is just less likely to happen if we zone property as Highway-Commercial if there is no freeway within a quarter mile of the site. It will be definitely interesting how this proposal plays out. I think ConAgra is just looking to dispose of one of its non-producing “assets”, and cut any holding cost losses…
[i]”there were issues, once the city grew, relating to it being a tomato processing facility (Hunt-Wesson started operations in the late ’60s …”[/i]
Correction: It was in 1960, not “the late’60s,” when the cannery opened. That was the same year that the new Davis High campus opened. Planning for the canning facility, including approval by our city council, began in 1957.
(Note: I just looked at the Davis Wiki for this, and it says “around 1963.” The Wiki has it wrong.)
“That was the same year that the new Davis High campus opened.”
I just looked at Davis Wiki for that, and it says 1961. Wiki might be correct in that regard. It’s possible that 1960 was the last year that the current City Hall facility housed Davis High School.
dmg: “The impact of this project would be to take away around 100 acres currently zoned light industrial. This is coming at a time when the city has made it a priority to bring in high-tech and green business to the city and at a time when the city lacks land in its borders to provide the acreage needed for this type of economic development.”
Nice summary of all the problems with this project. I think my biggest perplexity is why the city would agree to remove its most attractive in-fill site for high-tech business which they say is a top priority, and put there unneeded residential housing at a time when there is a huge intractable housing slump. What is the impetus to fast track this? Something just doesn’t smell right…
David, was there ever any reality to considering all 100 acres of the Cannery site as inventory of light industrial land? Absent an exit (or exits) for the property other than onto Covell, the commercial vehicular traffic that light industrial usage would be seen as a deal killer for any potential light industrial occupant IMHO.
Some time in the last 12 months the idea of relocating the north-south railroad line and its connection was discussed. IIRC it was Steve Souza who was pursuing this idea. Specifically, the current downtown junction would move east to an area near the Yolo Fruit Stand, and then the northbound tracks would cross the City-owned Howatt Ranch, go just south of the Land Fill and then join up with the existing tracks well north of the City Limits. Elimination of all the north-south tracks in town and all along F Street could be a major improvement for Davis. It would also change the whole ballgame with respect to accessing the Cannery property from F Street.
MW: “David, was there ever any reality to considering all 100 acres of the Cannery site as inventory of light industrial land?”
At the recent DSIDE meeting, there was certainly talk about bringing high-tech business to Davis; and that The Cannery was the only large infill site left to house such research facilities. That is why I was so surprised at this most recent about face by the city…
Mori Seiko to bring two hundred jobs to town. Where will they live?
The problem with the argument about weak housing demand is that many posters here were arguing that building supply was not the answer when real estate was hot. Now you are arguing against building because real estate is cold. So this begs the question when will it ever be a good time to build?
Of course the free market answer is when the developers can make money building, which, in my estimation, is still possible in Davis, especially if you have owned the land for 50 years.
You may be correct in your critique of the design. The smart goal for the city would be to figure out how to reduce the margin for profit while reducing the price to buyers. I don’t know if those two goals are compatible or possible but since the mark up on the land for Conagra will be so large there should be room for negotiation.
All this nonsense about business park is just a red herring by those who are opposed to building houses.Mori Seilo proves it. Why do we a business park there when there is no problem finding space for high tech industry willing to come here? At least the seniors who you claim are shills for the developers have a position that amounts to a if you can’t beat them join them strategy.
Correction: Why do we need a business park there…
TOAD: [i]”Mori Seiko to bring two hundred jobs to town. Where will they live?”[/i]
Don Shor answered this in another thread:
DON: [i]”Woodland homes on the market right now: 444 in foreclosure, out of 617 on the market. Not a single one of them is new construction. Davis: 103 in foreclosure, out of 319 on the market. 4 are new construction. Dixon: 206 in foreclosure, out of 255 on the market. Not a single one is new construction.”[/i]
I’m not against the notion of allowing developers to build more market-rate houses in Davis. However, it’s pretty hard to argue that we now have a market for new homes; and I don’t see any reason to think we will have much of a new market any time soon.
Mori Seiko’s facility will not change the fact that all of the most important employers* in Davis are cutting jobs, reducing wages, reducing benefits or (in the case of the City of Davis) soon going bankrupt.
*The cutbacks are obviously going on at UCD, where their funding from the state is declining and student enrollment is stagnant; the state government itself is likely going to be laying off a very large percentage of its workforce which is not in public safety; the school district is suffering endless shrinking budgets; and the same is true for Yolo County. I don’t see any reason to think any of this will change direction for the next 5 years. It very well could be a decade before California’ economy grows enough, so that all of these public sector jobs are back to normal times*.
Here is a quote about California’s economy in the next few years from a recent LA Times article. [quote]Chapman predicts the unemployment rate will fall to 8.8% in the third quarter of 2011, and drop to 8.6% by the end of that year. UCLA says the nation’s unemployment rate will remain above 9% through most of 2012, slipping to 8.9% only in the fourth quarter of 2012. The U.S. unemployment rate is now 9.8% and the California rate is 12.4%.[/quote] I’d say a full-employment economy in California would have an unemployment rate under 5%, probably under 4%. We are still quite a long way from that, though things sometimes turn around faster than you expect.
Rich corrects my info…by logic, all of my post is suspect… there was no at-grade crossing of Covell (Co. Road 31), and there were traffic problems in the 60’s due to the plant’s operation. Thanks for clarifying that…
TOAD: [i]”Why do we need a business park there when there is no problem finding space for high tech industry willing to come here?”[/i]
There is a fairly good argument in favor of leaving the zoning exactly as it is, though I fully agree with you that the anti-growth faction in Davis will oppose any growth, no matter the facts.
Here are in my opinion the three best reasons to leave Con Agra’s zoning as is:
1. It’s a big parcel, 98.4 acres. All of the other available industrial land sites are 20 acres or less. So if we can attract a large company to build its facilities on a campus here, the only place they could go is the Con Agra site;
2. In Davis, we have 227.9 acres zoned for industrial uses which are not yet developed. So the cannery site is 43.2% of our city’s entire industrial-land inventory. In other words, if the cannery location becomes another housing subdivision, we will have lost a large portion of our possible places to place new industry and our only site to place a large new industry; and
3. The way equipment is taxed and the way we shoehorn in “affordable” housing, industrial development generates far more in property taxes to the City of Davis than housing does, and (I would guess that) it likely demands less in city services.
There are a few other less convincing reasons to not want housing there:
4. It’s smack up against the rail line, and that (as Olive Drive knows) makes it not a great location for houses;
5. It has ingress + egress problems, which make it next to impossible to get in or out in any direction but south; and room for entering + exiting Covell there is tight. This will be true for housing or for industry, though presumably the light industrial traffic onto Covell will be less intense than housing would, do to having moms and kids and so on coming and going throughout the day; and
6. Insofar as housing results in more car trips in and out per day than industry would–please correct me if you know this is not true–then housing would cause more problems for the people along J Street and for Covell Blvd.
[i]” there was no at-grade crossing of Covell (Co. Road 31), and there were traffic problems in the 60’s due to the plant’s operation. Thanks for clarifying that… “[/i]
I’m not really sure what year the Covell Blvd overpass was built, but I would guess around 1969 or 1970 or so. When I first started playing Little League (in 1972), it was already there. However, when my older brother played, it wasn’t.
“1. It’s a big parcel, 98.4 acres. All of the other available industrial land sites are 20 acres or less. So if we can attract a large company to build its facilities on a campus here, the only place they could go is the Con Agra site; “
There is no shortage of land for development of every sort. There is only a lack of political will and of course measure R. As a result the land and houses in town are overvalued. If you take out the value of the land because of the fact that Conagra has owned it for half a century the mark up on the construction costs are astronomical. What makes the project pencil out are our self imposed restrictions on annexation and the quality of our schools. The comps you cite are irrelevant under current conditions.
Rifkin… you missed one other piece… the parcel is PERFECT for Industrial, because of the rails next door… ConAgra got rid of their spur lines during “cleanup”, but these can be re-installed… for transport of large materials, rail is more efficient… only a short distance to the main east-west line…
To Rich Rifkin: Nice summation of why the site should remain industrial.
To hpierce: Another good point in regard to rail access.
Let’s ask the community what they want to see on the site.
keithvb: “Let’s ask the community what they want to see on the site.”
The communtiy is being asked what they want at two community forums. One was held a few nights ago, the next one will be in January.
keith: “Let’s ask the community what they want to see on the site.”
keith, the one problem with that scenario, and it may be an Achilles Heel type problem, is that what the community wants may be substantially removed from the realities of this economy. It is one thing to want to bring a company to the site that can use the rail line, it is entirely more difficult to actually identify and successfully bring in such a company.
DSIDE is also a “community wants” scenario. That is why I think we need to establish a quid-quo-pro with ConAgra. Specifically, if you don’t bring a unit of your company to Davis [u]in a DSIDE-consistent location[/u], then forget about getting any entitlements for the Cannery site.