Defenders of such developments will inevitably point out that the city is reimbursed by the developer for staff time. And while that may be true, the marginal impact of having six city staffer attend a full meeting, with numerous planners involved, means that they cannot work on other projects and contributes to the indefensibly large staff in the Community Development Department.
The result of that feedback was a delay in the next public outreach and according to city staff, a massive revise of the project.
While we believe at least some of the specific concerns of the project – lack of senior housing options, lack of universal design incorporation and lack of sustainability features, among others – can be addressed in subsequent revises, the main difficulties may be insurmountable.
Unfortunately, we do not have the proposal to review in advance of the meeting. The city is keeping any revisions to the design of the property under wraps, with the City’s Community Development Director Ken Hiatt declining to show the Vanguard an advanced look at the project.
ConAgra has thus far declined to meet with the Vanguard about the project. Jeanne Jones, who is apparently playing a much smaller role in the current project, informed the Vanguard in mid-December that our request for a meeting was directed to the ConAgra representative who is responsible for processing of the application.
Now over two months later, we have had no response from ConAgra.
It is the core concerns about the project that cause us to question whether this entire effort is not a waste of city staff and community time.
The problem that any large development, and this is fairly large by Davis standards at 600 units, faces is whether the community is willing to support that large a project at this time.
First, we are in a huge slow-down in the market. And while it is true that Davis home values have held up better than in other communities, it is also true that homes just are not selling. There are several hundred homes on the market and they have largely been there for some time.
Second, 75% of the voters opposed a project, at least in part based on a mantra that 2000 homes are enough. While that number is probably too high, as it includes entitled but probably never-to-be-built units, and student dwellings at West Village, the fact remains that the council has approved a number of housing developments in the last two years that have yet to be built.
Moreover, UC Davis is currently constructing student and faculty housing south of Russell Blvd. and west of campus.
Supporters for more housing continue to push the idea of the imbalance between housing demand and supply in Davis. But the problem with that view is that, given the idyllic nature of Davis, the high standard of living and the quality of schools, there might always be that imbalance.
Moreover, even with this supposed imbalance, houses are not selling. The idea that we are going to reduce the cost of housing through building of homes runs into numerous practical problems.
Finally, it appears that this argument is largely a minority position in the population. The last two housing developments put on the ballot were soundly defeated, and the last one was only two hundred units.
The real question is whether this project is not dead on arrival.
That is a tricky question to assess at this time. This is not a Measure J project. The application to this project was submitted to council based on a 3-2 vote in which Joe Krovoza voted to oppose and Rochelle Swanson voted to accept. However, she expressed serious doubts about the project at the time and since.
Since that time, the most pro-development member of the council, Don Saylor, has left the council and he is replaced by a more moderate Dan Wolk. The first wild card is Dan Wolk and where he stands on this project.
The second wild card is whether there is a huge neighborhood-based organization ready to oppose this project. This was crucial in the defeat of Wildhorse Ranch because the neighborhood itself led the charge against the project.
Even though this is not a Measure J vote, there is nothing to stop community members from putting the project on the ballot. But that requires there to be a core group that is strongly enough opposed to the project to put forth the energy to oppose it.
Right now, while there does not seem to be a lot of support for the project, I am not sensing a core group of neighbors ready to oppose this.
One group that might emerge may be the Choices for Healthy Aging group, ironically enough. CHA has been pushing for senior housing, particularly at Covell Village, but just about everyone with a political sense recognizes that Covell Village is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. CHA might sense the ConAgra site as an opportunity to both flex its muscles and push for senior housing.
The problem with the ConAgra site, at least in the first iterations, are that there is a lack of senior housing options, and there is no incorporation of the senior housing guidelines for concepts of universal design.
In short, the majority of homes will not be build to be accessible, visitable, or even adaptable to senior housing needs.
As we mentioned, some of these issues might be addressable and fixable in subsequent proposals, but the sense we are getting is that CHA wants amenities and services that the developers of ConAgra will not be willing or able to provide, and therefore they are likely to believe that their objectives will not be met in any proposal that is not a seniors-only proposal.
If that holds, the question really is whether CHA would oppose and attempt to kill a project that is not for seniors only. That would be a remarkable position to take, and probably one that would not serve them well in the broader community.
Other than CHA, is there a group of individuals with the numbers and energy to oppose a housing development? We have examples that are twenty years old, but the people involved in opposing, for instance Wildhorse, are the same people that would have to be counted on to oppose ConAgra, and those people are now twenty years older.
So the calculations come down to this, can ConAgra develop a design that is good enough to get two votes from Dan Wolk, Rochelle Swanson and Joe Krovoza (in addition to the one expected from Stephen Souza)? That is a remarkable change from a few years ago when the council majority would virtually rubber stamp lousy housing developments.
And if it does gain the support of three councilmembers, will a community group emerge to put it on the ballot?
ConAgra is going to be betting millions of dollars that they can get three council votes and avoid a ballot challenge, but given the times and the lack of apparent need for housing, I am not sure that is a good bet. From the city’s perspective, it would seem to be better that city staff focus on something else.
Cannery Park: Land Use Planning Update Meeting #2; Monday, February 28, 2011, 6:30 – 9:30 PM; Doors Open at 6:00 for sign-in; City and Applicant-ConAgra Foods Presentation begins at 6:30 PM; Updated Plan Presentation, Public Feedback, Q&A; North Davis Elementary School Multi-Purpose Room; 555 E. 14th Street, Davis, CA 95616
—David M. Greenwald reporting
This is going to be a good test of the new council to see if it’s going to be with the community which is definately against growth at this time or another pro growth, don’t care what the people want council.
[quote]This was crucial in the defeat of Wildhorse Ranch because the neighborhood itself led the charge against the project. [/quote]
This statement is only partially true. The coalition against WHR was quite broad-based and the vote speaks for itself. I think it is fair to say that the WHR developer failed to deal with neighbors’ concerns and that ultimately led to a stampede against the project.
Most voters do not want more housing now and ConAgra has an uphill fight, though at least one prominent opponent of CV and WHR strongly supports ConAgra.
In many ways this is a distraction from the key issue, which is unfunded pension liabilities. Dan Walters has an excellent column in the SacBee today arguing for more modest assumptions about future returns–something I have been blogging about for a while–but when Walters talks people listen. He points out that Canada and other countries tend to use a 4-6% return. This is much more realistic for a pension fund (which has stocks and bonds traditionally) than CALPERS 7.75% assumption, which is frankly dishonest and disingenuous. Of course if CALPERS and others used realistic rates, our unfunded liabilities would rise dramatically–and they are already high.
These issue are not unrelated either. Ultimately, the only way to make housing pay for itself is to charge large fees up front or build relatively expensive homes. THe former will be resisted tooth and nail by any developer. The latter is unpopular with many people in Davis who want “workforce” housing.
The major problem w building this housing complex of 600 homes is how it will impact those who live here now. If ConAgra’s proposal would be in any way a net negative to the city, it should be DOA. The city cannot even provide for the services it is supposed to provide for now. If another 600 houses are built, more city services will be required. How are current citizens in Davis supposed to pay for additional services? The only answer is to raise fees/taxes. We are already facing a 35% increase in our city services bill (see discussion for Tuesday night’s City Council meeting on water/sewer/garbage collection rate increases). People are going to be laid off – 450 proposed to be laid off at UCD alone (see article in Sunday’s Davis Enterprise); some 45-60 teachers will be pink-slipped in Davis K-12 public schools.
So one has to ask, exactly who would this new housing be built for? Certainly not for the citizens of Davis who currently live here…
[i]”So one has to ask, exactly whom would this new housing be built for? Certainly not for the citizens of Davis who currently live here …”[/i]
New housing is rarely ever built for current residents. Even if some of the units are occupied by people who now live in Davis, the homes or apartments they leave will be filled by others moving into town.
It seems clear to me that this proposal is not really about building any new housing on that sight for a long time. The ConAgra people surely understand the realities in Davis:
1) That there is insufficient demand for the homes currently for sale;
2) That the recent vote on WHR suggests most people in Davis are opposed to any new peripheral housing projects; and
3) That as long as the university and other government entities in Davis are facing cutbacks and not growing, there is no reason to think the people (or the council) will approve any new peripheral housing.
So why are they pressing this issue?
Zoning.
ConAgra is hoping that they can get the council to approve a zoning change from industrial to residential. Doing so greatly increases the value of their land.
At that point, they will sell the property to a developer who will sit on it until market conditions markedly change in Davis. (Some argued this was exactly the scenario the WHR developers were engaged in. The difference, there, in my mind at least, was that the proponents were actual developers, not food canners.)
[i]”ConAgra is going to be betting millions of dollars that they can get three council votes and avoid a ballot challenge, but given the times and the lack of apparent need for housing, I am not sure that is a good bet.”[/i]
Two things:
One, they are not betting millions of dollars. They are betting very little at all. And if they get the zoning change approved, that will be worth millions of dollars to them; and
Two, it’s probably not a bad bet. Say they are spending $100,000 to try to get the zoning change. Say doing so makes the land worth $10 million more. That’s a 100:1 payoff. So if they have a better than 1% chance of winning a zoning change vote, it’s not a bad bet.
Do I think they will get their zoning change? No. But their chance of success is not zero. I’d say it’s probably 50:1 against (unless a couple of current council members are driving shiny new Chevrolet Volts next week).
Rich’s assessment above is generally consistent with ConAgra’s behavior. In fact they have not put a full court press on here but instead have mounted a modest effort.
The danger for them if that this effort could also serve as a catalyst for opposition. But if they get the land rezoned, even if no development occurs for a decade, its a huge win for them.
Its likely that at that point they would unload the property to a developer who would mount a more serious campaign in 5-10 years.
“The danger for them if that this effort could also serve as a catalyst for opposition. But if they get the land rezoned, even if no development occurs for a decade, its a huge win for them.”
Were the City budget not in such a dismal state, the ConAgra attempt for a zoning change might slip through relatively unnoticed. However, the economic realities of adding housing to Davis have been clearly stated in 1) the Housing Element Steering Committee meetings and 2) the active debates during the Measure P vote. Bottom-line, unless the sale price is well above the level of “affordable” the City will expend more money providing services than it takes in in tax revenues. All five Council members have to know that that only makes a bad budget situation worse, and is therefore Fiscally irresponsible.
ConAgra is in a unique position to redefine the fiscal realities of a housing proposal on the Cannery site. They are in a very good position to bring high quality, permanent, agricultural research jobs to Davis/Yolo County in collaboration with UC Davis. Those jobs do not have to be located on the Cannery site. They can be located almost anywhere in Davis . . . 2nd Street or anywhere identified by the (to be created) DSIDE/UCDavis Task Force outlined in the January 24th BEDC Packet.
The fiscal impact of bringing additional agricultural research jobs to Davis (like Monsanto and AgriQuest and others have done) would be significantly positive for the City’s budget. Therefore, the combined impact of housing at Cannery combined with the new ConAgra research jobs would make sense fiscally.
If a zoning change is granted to ConAgra, their “barriers to exit” will effectively be removed because a zoned parcel will be salable on the open market. So the path is very clear IMHO . . . no further discussions about housing or zoning on the Cannery site until there is tangible progress in discussions between ConAgra, UCD, the City and Yolo County.
In a personal discussion with a ConAgra representative, I was told that “ConAgra already contributes to UCD to the tune of six-figures each year.” That certainly sounds like a foundation that can be built on.
“… no further discussions about housing or zoning on the Cannery site until …”
Matt: That sounds like blackmail to me. Not much of a foundation to build on.
I would suspect that the UCD people that already work with and/or have received donations from ConAgra (from the Chancellor on down to the researchers) would be very distressed with your position.
Davis Boomer, not blackmail at all. There is no question that the fiscal realities of the housing ConAgra is proposing will consume more City dollars than they will produce. It is very simple and truthful to say to ConAgra that it is fiscally irresponsible for the City to continue discussions on a project that will increase the current Budget deficit.
Why would UCD be distressed at the opportunity to partner with ConAgra in adding an agricultural research facility to Davis/Yolo County?
Matt: There is a big difference between the type of quid pro quo you are promoting and partnering.
It equates to blackmail because you are proposing that the city suspend processing and/or reject the ConAgra application in order to try and compel them into entering into a separate agreement involving an agricultural research facility.
ConAgra is already one of UCD’s major donors, and this type of coercion is not the way you go about building productive long term relationships in the real world. It doesn’t work and, more importantly, it would send a very bad signal to anyone else that is considering economic development in Davis.
Yes, the city is wasting time on this. There is no need to change the zoning at this time, or likely within the next 5+ years.
1) I have read many different version of “I don’t want more housing” on this blog. That is a preference, not a fact. I have yet to read a coherent counter argument to the notion that there is an “imbalance between housing demand and supply in Davis.” One can wish all they want for the the sun not to rise in the east, nevertheless, it does rise in the east.
2)I do not support greenfield development until infill opportunities have been more fully taken advantage of.
3) The ConAgra site is not a greenfield site; it is a disturbed site. Comparisons to Wildhorse and Covell Village are therefore not entirely on the mark.
4) MW’s proposal is an example of creative, constructive negotiating; it’s certainly not blackmail. The city has no duty to rezone the property. It can choose to do so if ConAgra submits a compelling proposal.
DT Businessman: If you’re a fan of Matt’s proposed tactic, then why stop at ConAgra? Mori Seiki would now like to build a manufacturing facility on 2nd Street. Maybe the city should try to shake them down as well.
Davis Boomer, lets decompose my proposal into its components. The first component is the fiscal impact of the ConAgra proposal on the City’s Budget.
1) How should the City handle any development application that will push the City Budget further into the red?
2) Does the Staff and Council have a fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of Davis to not increase the current Budget deficit through discretionary decisions?
My answer to the first question is that the applicant should be clearly told that the project is a non-starter as early in the process as possible.
Further, I firmly believe that the ConAgra proposal as currently configured is in fact just such a losing proposition for the City of Davis’s finances. I am completely open to ConAgra’s showing (through appropriately detailed financials) that the development does have a net positive impact on the City’s coffers. ConAgra simply needs to take the steps necessary to do that. Of course to do so would require them to be a whole lot more specific about both the physical configuration and projected revenue streams of their project than they have been willing to be to date.
My answer to the second question is that they absolutely have that fiduciary responsibility.
Do you agree or disagree?
DT Businessman: If you’re a fan of Matt’s proposed tactic, then why stop at ConAgra? Mori Seiki would now like to build a manufacturing facility on 2nd Street. Maybe the city should try to shake them down as well.
Adam, correct me if I am wrong, but Mori Seiki is looking to join the community rather than exit it.
Further, Mori Seiki isn’t asking the citizens of Davis to assume the fiscal responsibility for winding down and exiting one of their failed business initiatives.
Davis Boomer, is your question serious or are you just venting? The City actively recruited Mori Seiki. The City waived fees. Why would they then turnaround and make the project more expensiv? Mori Seiki has the negotiating leverage, not the other way around. Plus, I’m pretty sure the Mori Seiki property is zoned for the intended use. None of the foregoing applies to the ConAgra negotiations. ConAgra is asking the City to increase their property by rezoning it. The City has every right to negotiate how the increased value is to be shared. That is what takes place in any business or financial transaction. And that is why MW’s proposal is not blackmail.
EDIT
I started my last post with “Adam,” that should have read “Davis Boomer,”
DT: regarding the imbalance between demand and supply in Davis. There has always been a difference between Davis housing values and the surrounding communities. It has become much more severe since the housing bubble burst in 2006, but one could argue just as readily that there is an oversupply of houses in Woodland, Dixon, and West Sac. The number of homes in foreclosure as a percentage of the homes on the market in each of those communities is very high. For example:
Woodland–for sale, 604; foreclosure, 469. Dixon and West Sac have similar percentages.
Davis–for sale, 239; foreclosure 98.
Loss of housing value in Davis is more comparable to other college towns than it is to other valley towns. Median price drop since early 2007:
California 51%
Davis 25%
Woodland 46%
Dixon 53%
Berkeley 11%
Palo Alto 3% (slump occurred, but ended earlier)
Irvine 14%
Santa Cruz 28%
So the question is: how many homes would have to be built in or near Davis for the median price, or the change in median price, to be comparable (assuming one considers that a desirable end-goal) to nearby Valley communities? And since there is already an ample supply of housing, not selling, in those nearby communities, what exactly would it accomplish to approve any new housing units in Davis at this time?
Matt: I agree that the city has a fiduciary responsibility to insure that the project is revenue neutral/positive before granting entitlements. I disagree that the applicant should be told the project is a non-starter because of unsubstantiated claims from you or anyone else. I have tremendous respect for both Paul Navazio and Ken Hiatt; and sincerely believe that they are acting in good faith and in the best interests of the community.
Davis Boomer, I never questioned the good faith (or good judgment) of either Ken or Paul. As I stated earlier, Paul is the direct source for one of the foundations of the thoughts I’ve shared. It wasn’t a private conversation. It was a formal presentation by him to the Housing Element Steering Committee. Paul’s fiscal analysis of Wild Horse Ranch is a second foundation . . . again formally presented by Paul to the public.
So, exactly what is the provenance of your thought process that leads you to use the term “unsubstantiated claims”?
MW: “If a zoning change is granted to ConAgra, their “barriers to exit” will effectively be removed because a zoned parcel will be salable on the open market. So the path is very clear IMHO . . . no further discussions about housing or zoning on the Cannery site until there is tangible progress in discussions between ConAgra, UCD, the City and Yolo County.”
DTB: “4) MW’s proposal is an example of creative, constructive negotiating; it’s certainly not blackmail. The city has no duty to rezone the property. It can choose to do so if ConAgra submits a compelling proposal.”
MW: “Further, I firmly believe that the ConAgra proposal as currently configured is in fact just such a losing proposition for the City of Davis’s finances. I am completely open to ConAgra’s showing (through appropriately detailed financials) that the development does have a net positive impact on the City’s coffers. ConAgra simply needs to take the steps necessary to do that. Of course to do so would require them to be a whole lot more specific about both the physical configuration and projected revenue streams of their project than they have been willing to be to date.”
DS: “And since there is already an ample supply of housing, not selling, in those nearby communities, what exactly would it accomplish to approve any new housing units in Davis at this time?”
To all of the above, nicely said. Now why can’t city staff/ConAgra see this as clearly as we do? I would urge city staff to take a tougher stance in pointing out to ConAgra the glaring problems w their proposal as it is currently configured…