If the ConAgra developers were looking for direction, they probably got more confusion than anything else, as council was all over the map in terms of their comments and direction.
In the end, there seemed to be at least three council members wanting to revisit the issue of zoning. The problem that the city faces on the zoning issue is that no one seems to agree on the ideal land use of the site.
She argued that the company Mori Seiki, that is moving to Davis as a big coup for the city, would not be interested in this location because they have to bring in numerous trucks to load supplies each day and it is not close enough to freeway access.
On the other hand, it seems that the site is only about four minutes from the freeway and by removing the site as a business park alternative, you are pushing development to the NW Quadrant and east of Mace.
Along with Nishi, these are all problematic sites from the perspective of Councilmember Sue Greenwald. Not only do they require a Measure J vote which is always a dilemma, but it is not clear these sites are better suited for development than the Cannery site.
It was Councilmember Greenwald who argued forcefully for keeping the business park option alive. She argued that alternative sites were unsuitable for business parks.
Nishi, she argued, would be an excellent site if it were not for the the railroad tracks that separate it from campus, requiring an expensive below-grade crossing. Moreover, any other plan would clog up Richards Blvd. And finally, it would require a Measure J vote, which she thinks most of South Davis would oppose due to impacts to Richards Blvd.
Moving the park to Mace and I-80 would have problems, as well. She pointed out that annexed land would have a bad tax split, since it would have to share with the county. For instance Wildhorse development has only a 6% tax split while the average land in Davis is 16% and the highest is 22%.
One by one, she attempted to debunk the arguments against a business park at the ConAgra site. She argued that, while infrastructure at Cannery might be expensive, it would actually be worse at any other site that would have to develop infrastructure from scratch.
Moreover, she argued that business parks do not need to be next to the freeway, pointing to the extensive high tech business in Cambridge, Massachusets.
“My crystal ball says rezone this now, and we have no business park sites,” she said in closing.
Councilmember Stephen Souza also made the argument that we need answer a fundamental question and that is, if we do make a fundamental change in the General Plan zoning of this project, we need to ask where we will have a high tech park. We have not answered that question and while he really wants to see jobs created in this community and the vision laid forth by Mayor Pro Tem Swanson, he believes this is the fundamental question we must address.
As Former Mayor Jerry Adler put it, this process is running in reverse. He argued that this project only flies with a general plan. On October 26, the Council made the decision to allow the project to be processed by staff, while at the same time they passed a policy to preserve business park and office land by discouraging conversion to housing. He feels that these policies are at odds with each other, and need to be reconciled before they can go forward.
The business park was not the only issue of concern this night. Two seemingly organized groups of members of the public came forward to push for senior housing and also housing at the site.
One group, led by Choices for Helathy Aging, argued for an 80-20 mix of senior housing to housing on the site. Mary Jo Bryan asked for senior housing “primarily but not exclusively serving the unmet needs of seniors.” She said this housing would not be “restrictive, we are looking for an integrated neighborhood.”
Don Villarejo once again argued for the changing demographics and the need to put up an alternative version for the cannery that meets the needs for seniors. He argued that he does not want to exclude anyone from this community, however, his preference is an 80-20 split of housing.
Curtis Houston also spoke in favor of the proposal designed by CHA. He argued that there were not plenty of places to downsize into a unit with his age group. He wishes to age in place but not in the houses that seniors are in now. He argued that his home could provide a very nice place to live for a younger family, while he would move into a more age-appropriate home with the types of amenities he is seeking.
On the other hand, there was a group of individuals arguing for more housing, arguing in favor of this project, arguing against the 80-20 split, and some even argued that the idea of using 20 acres to produce a business park on the land produces a “terrible imbalance.”
One person argued that, while the gentleman [Houston] said he would turn over his house, but young people can’t afford his house. Like others, she argued the best split was multigenerational and that the housing must be available to all age groups.
Finally, there were issues raised over the need for housing now and making this project an innovative project.
Sue Greenwald argued that we do not need more housing. West Village provides houses for 5000 people. We have already entitled 500 to 600 units. There is a large pent-up supply of housing. And once the economy improves, there will be a flood of existing houses on the market for sale.
Mayor Pro Tem Swanson asked Mike Webb from the Community Development Project about our housing stock. There is a variety of housing that has been approved according to him, much is not ready to be built, and that 500 to 600 units includes properties like New Harmony (69 affordable units) and Carlton Plaza (assisted living/ 89 units).
The developer argued that there is a universal design component throughout the project, and that this component will constitute a fairly high percentage, and will be much higher than anywhere else in the town.
Staff also pointed out that the West Village build out will not be a rapid as first thought. They are looking at 250 student units this fall, 175 next fall and 175 the following year. That is just phase I. Faculty units would come on line in the spring of 2012 but the build out rate will be strongly market-dependent. According to Ken Hiatt, it is hard to say how that faculty staff housing will build out.
Councilmember Dan Wolk raised the question as to whether this is the time to be entitling 610 units.
Finally the issue of sustainability was a big one. Stephen Souza argued that he really wants to see wow-squared on this parcel, what he called the Zeta-factor. He wants to see what has never been proposed. He sees something beyond Wildhorse Ranch and beyond even West Village which he felt comes the closest. Some ideas that he mentioned were conservation, xeriscaping, urban farms with fresh vegetables right at your door step, zero waste, solar augmented with new turbans, affordable housing using new tools, and a phase three electrical charger station to charge electric vehicles in 30 minutes.
Joe Krovoza also laid out a vision of sorts, for what he called a challenging site to develop, with three sides cut off for various reasons and a challenging circulation.
He argued that it is also challenging because of where the economy is, which makes it hard to make the finances work and add some amenities.
He said he has a hard time envisioning this project without non-grade crossing in the southeast and southwest. He sees it, from a transportation standpoint, as a standard dilemma where you have the tranquil sea of neighborhoods which are pedestrian and bicycle friendly bisected by arterials that stop people from walking and biking.
He urged his colleagues and staff to think about performance standards for this development on things such as sustainability, fiscal impact, vehicle miles traveled and goals for housing.
At the end of the day, it is hard to know where we are. It appears that the council is favorably inclined to develop, but they also want to reexamine the zoning issues. They may ultimately support housing here, but they are not going to merely settle for the existing project.
In the end, the developers are going to have to think long and hard about how to meet the goals and demands of council, and perhaps that is all we can really ask for at this time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Two seemingly organized groups of members of the public came forward to push for senior housing and also housing at the site.”
I never give much credibility to the speakers because I feel their supposed interest is all too easily set up by some of the parties involved. I hope our council members also are skeptical and see this for what it is.
“I never give to much credibility to the speakers because …”
Like, for interest, David Greenwwald.
And wasn’t it interesting that the two paid political consultants for Parlin Development — Bill Ritter and Maynard Skinner — showed up together late in the meeting. I’m sure the reason they didn’t speak is because it would have been painfully obvious that their “supposed interest” in the outcome was set up by a developer with competing interests.
As long term readers of this blog will remember, Ritter, (David) Greenwald, and Skinner were the political team that tried to shepherd the Wild Horse Ranch project through the entitlement process.
The consensus seems to be that now is not the time for more housing–certainly the WHR and CV vote indicate concern.
Is there any advantage to rezoning now and moving forward tentatively on this project?
I believe the answer is NO for several reasons:
1. By rezoning now we lose bargaining power and though the site is not ideal for a business involving shipping items in/out by truck it could be suitable for other more research oriented ventures.
2. As many have commented the housing market is weak now. A sustainable project that also pays for itself fiscally will be expensive (and frankly unaffordable to many) and this is not the market climate for such a project. We don’t know how long it will take housing to recover and guessing about the future is not a particularly good idea.
3. This whole debate pulls people away from the central issue we face–pension and benefit reform.
medwoman posted this on the last thread: [i]From the response, not contradicted by the city representative, I got the impression that much of the development would be in the $ 450,000 to $650,000 range, hardly what I would call affordable.[/i]
So by my rough estimate, these homes would be for people making annual income of at least $100K. Somebody with a mortgage calculator could double check this. And it would be useful to know if this is, in fact, the range of housing being proposed.
“… not contradicted by the city representative …”
Why not ask the applicant? I did. The numbers posted by medwoman don’t square with what I was told.
Don, If you don’t cease and desist, I will start cross-posting my deleted Vanguard posts on the Davis Voice so that everyone in the community can see what you are doing.
If you have any questions or concerns about moderation decisions, you can contact me at donshor@gmail.com
Don: No thanks. I will just start cross-posting my deleted comments on the Davis Voice. They obviously need some traffic.
Other than affordable homes the houses will go for whatever the market will bear–and none of us know what the market will be or when these homes will go on sale. However one could compare the comps (sq.ft., # bedrooms, other amenities) with similar homes in Davis now and get an idea.
Right now in Davis it’s hard to find single family type houses in good shape with adequate space for a family for less than $400k so for a new house the $450k-$650k numbers sounds in the ballpark for the range of homes likely to be offered.
As Don points out above you are talking about a six figure income to buy such homes. Even at $400 k with tighter lending standards you need to be close to $100k and mortgage rates will likely rise in the next few years making it harder for those with lower incomes to qualify.
That is the reality in Davis today whether one likes it or not. If you want more “workforce housing” you can build more apartments. Or Davis “workers” who make less than six figures can buy in Natomas (really cheap right now–mid 100’s gets you something very nice and almost new though with no lot) and send your kids to Davis schools.
Please no one attack me for stating the facts here. If we are going to have a debate let’s be honest about the reality. This is not a blue collar town any more, like it or not.
“I never give too much credibility to the speakers because ….”
Like, for example, David Greenwald.
And wasn’t it interesting that the paid political consultants for Parlin Development, *censored*, showed up together late in the [u]public[/u] hearing. It’s appropriate to note the presence of *censored*, because *censored* publically attacked the proposal at the first [u]public[/u] outreach meeting.
Long term readers of the Vanguard (available online and part of the [u]public[/u] record) will remember that David Greenwald was a strong supporter of Parlin’s Wild Horse Ranch proposal and has close personal ties to *censored*.
Hmmmm. Sour grapes? Payback? Competing development interests?
[quote]”Sue Greenwald argued that we do not need more housing. West Village provides houses for 5000 people. We have already entitled 500 to 600 units. There is a large pent-up supply of housing. And once the economy improves, there will be a flood of existing houses on the market for sale.”[/quote]Why couldn’t Sue have put her prognostication skills to work before the crash; She could’ve saved all of us lots of lost equity. Also, we’ve been claiming we haven’t needed more housing developments for many years. Is it possibly the city could have reduced the need for West Village if we’d permitted some larger developments within the city?
[b]Dr. Wu[/b]: Still, no one comes forward to claim pride in any past Davis “affordable housing” initiatives. How many affordable houses today are in the mix that averages out at $500,000 or whatever per house? What programs have resulted in something other than one-time windfalls, misuse of funds, improper participation or other fraud?
Yolo County people without $100,000+ incomes will be buying in Sacramento, Woodland, Winters and Dixon. Spending more tax money on illusive “affordable housing” goals is silly. Your observations need some serious discussion.
[quote]She (Rochelle) argued that the company Mori Seiki, that is moving to Davis as a big coup for the city, would not be interested in this location because they have to bring in numerous trucks to load supplies each day and it is not close enough to freeway access.[/quote]Mori Seiki has two units, one recently built for research and one planned for light industrial.
In terms of the large research facility, I talked with Mori Seiki’s commercial real estate agent at the time (a man from LA who specializes in high tech real estate location), and he said that Mori Seiki was not very happy with the choices that they had at the time, because [b]they were too close to the freeway.
[/b]He said that they wanted a quiet, serene, campus-like atmosphere. (The building is exquisite with incredible decor and detailing inside and a large Japanese atrium garden). I asked him about the Con-Agra site. He said he was familiar with the Con Agra site and that it would have been a great site for Mori Seiki. As an agent who specialized in business park and high tech, he said that he thought that the Con Agra would be a great site for a high-tech business park.
In terms of the manufacturing facility, I know that Mori Seiki was worried about vibrations from the frequent daytime trains at the Mace location, but they decided they could deal with it.
In terms of the potential Davis market, there are many more research facilities that do not have heavy truck traffic than there are high tech manufacturing companies with heavy truck traffic. The Mouri Seiki manufacturing facility is unique; it makes large precision machines.
Truck traffic is heavier at a neighborhood shopping center than it would be for most high tech. Have you ever looked at the number of trucks that come in and out of Safeway every day?
One thing that I emphasized at the last meeting is that a large high-tech oriented component of a development at Con Agra would be very nice for the neighborhood. I would love to have one at Nishi which is a few blocks from my house, but unfortunately I don’t think it would pencil out due to the expense of the needed automobile underpass at the Mondavi end of the project that could access I-80.
High-tech and related business development brings the daytime traffic that supports better restaurants, coffee shops and other amenities.
High tech businesses are scattered in great profusion around the center of downtown Cambridge, Massachusetts (they are a large city that had a lot of large old underused buildings) far from freeway or even highway access. Residential property values in the vicinity are higher than those of comparable units in Davis.
The great high tech companies of Cambridge are choosing central locations in mixed use areas far from freeways and highways over the abundant peripheral business park sites that ring Route 128 (the peripheral sites used to be the sites of choice, but no longer).
Please check out this map of high-tech companies in Cambridge, most of them recently established. http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/ed/pubs/ed_company_map.pdf
There are start up companies and many of the most prestigious established names such as Amgen and Novartis.
[quote]Why couldn’t Sue have put her prognostication skills to work before the crash; She could’ve saved all of us lots of lost equity.– Just Saying[/quote]Just Saying: Are you new to Davis? I predicted the housing crash since about 2004. I argued against enhancing the retirement benefit formula for miscellaneous employees based on the fact that our budget only appeared balanced due to a housing bubble.
I voted against approving the Covell Village project that the voters eventually defeated, explaining that we were facing a housing bubble collapse. I voted against most of those subdivisions that contribute to the 500 to 500 units after explaining that we have a slow housing market with a large pent-up supply.
I was quite vocal about my predictions since about 2004 (actually, I think it was even earlier). I have always been keenly aware of historical housing price cycles and their relation to average annual income.
Sue Greenwald: “In terms of the large research facility, I talked with Mori Seiki’s commercial real estate agent at the time (a man from LA who specializes in high tech real estate location), and he said that Mori Seiki was not very happy with the choices that they had at the time, because they were too close to the freeway.”
If Mori Seiki liked the Cannery site so much, then why didn’t they choose to locate there? My guess is they wanted to locate next to their sister facilty DTI (I think that is the acronym). Correct me if I am wrong here Sue…
There was a lot of thoughtful discussion last night. Each Council member came at the discussion from different persepectives. But clearly Council members were taking their time and listening to the public, which was refreshing.
For the life of me, I could not understand why the city had a recent forum to push for economic development, then seems to be completely reversing itself by possibly taking out of commission the largest parcel for a business park in Davis – the Cannery. Then Jerry Adler spoke, and it all came into focus for me – and explains what has been unsettling me about this entire process.
The city is putting the cart before the horse, as he put it. A zoning change requires an amendment to the General Plan, which is what needs to happen before any discussion of residential housing takes place. Steve Souza picked up on this, and strongly pushed for a reconsideration of whether the zoning should be changed. So Sue Greenwald and Steve Souza, in a rare moment, actually both agreed, and wisely pushed hard for reviewing the zoning issue.
Sue Greenwald knowledgeably pointed out if not at the Cannery, then where will economic development go? What are the problems w the other sites? Souza was right w her on this one. These two raised the right questions, the crucial questions, the questions that need to be answered FIRST AND FOREMOST.
Dan Wolk quickly picked up on my deep concern with respect to fiscal impact, as did other members of the City Council. It seems pretty apparent this project has to be an NFI development – NO FISCAL IMPACT. The city cannnot afford to provide current city services, so certainly cannot be fiscally responsible for any new city services caused by additional residential development. The developer needs to pick up ALL THOSE COSTS. Dan clearly recognized this, and other City Council members in their turn pointed at this problem as well.
Rochelle Swanson and others hit at another extremely important issue – the glut of homes already in the pipeline, and whether we really need any more housing.
Then Joe Krovoza stepped in, and w a masterful stroke, spoke of concerns with fiscal impact and lack of access – and made it clear to the developer that THE CITY WOULD BE CALLING THE SHOTS. If the developer could not come up with a development that would pencil out fiscally, or address access issues, then the discussion was over. Mayor Krovoza also added into the mix the contingency of revisiting the zoning issue, which should prove to be an enlightening discussion.
If the city, as part of its General Plan, has a goal of establishing economic development, but then turns around and takes out of commission the only parcel left for economic development by changing the zoning from industrial to residential – then what? What happens to that goal of establishing economic development? How can the city facilitate it? FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE CITY NEEDS TO WRESTLE WITH THIS PROBLEM ABOVE ALL OTHERS BEFORE IT GOES ANY FARTHER IN PLANNING THE CANNERY PROJECT AS IT IS NOW ENVISIONED.
Assuming that the decision is to change the zoning (and I don’t concede that point necessarily), the next thing that has to be decided is the fiscal analysis of the Cannery. Will there be a negative fiscal impact to the city? If yes, the project is DOA. And is there a NEED for this housing? And if so, by whom?
Many went away last night very frustrated. I suspect many citizens are looking at the Cannery to fulfull their particular needs. But it is important that the City Council get this right. What good is it if the Cannery is approved, if it places a heavy tax burden on citizens? If it detroys all hope of a high-tech business park in Davis? If it does not meet the needs of Davis citizens? I think the current City Council has chosen a wise course of action, to take the time to do this process the right way.
Perhaps if the council is considering proceeding with a plan for the ConAgra site, there could be a compromise between residential and commercial outcomes. Split the difference. The goal is to provide housing at lower prices, provide neighborhood shopping for those residents, and retain a site for smaller tech businesses.
Zone half the property for residential. The city can’t control the type or price of home directly, but they can control the density. Establish average high-density zoning. The land developer can build some bigger, more profitable units if those are balanced by a larger number of apartments, duplexes, or cottages. A senior component can be included based on the cottage style, but also require that all units be built to allow seniors to age in place.
Commercial should have an upper limit on retail, perhaps 20% total, to allow for the type of neighborhood mall that residents would use. The remainder should be kept as one unit for commercial development, with the land developer to provide all access and infrastructure before housing is developed.
The zoning change would be to the specific types, including residential density, and percentages of the site allotted to each. Before they make those changes, it would be important to know if the landowner is even willing to work with half the residential area they were asking for. I suspect not; residential, at low density, is where the profit is.
Elaine:[i] If the city, as part of its General Plan, has a goal of establishing economic development, but then turns around and takes out of commission the only parcel left for economic development by changing the zoning from industrial to residential – then what?[/i]
Then the pressure is on to annex and develop peripheral property in East or far West Davis for commercial purposes. Spend some time reading the minutes of the BEDC and you will see where this is going.
[quote]If Mori Seiki liked the Cannery site so much, then why didn’t they choose to locate there?–E.Roberts Musser[/quote]As I explained at the meeting last night, no company can “choose to locate” at the Cannery because it isn’t on the market.
It isn’t on the market because the owners are holding out for the higher profits from an upzone. That will probably be the case at any present or future site in Davis zoned high/tech, business park or industrial, because profits from housing in Davis are so high — unless the council takes a firm stand and signals that we are determined to retain our high/tech zoned land. Every time the council buckles further guarantees that the next developer will try the same approach.
As I said last night, if we annex a peripheral site as the council subcommittee of Joe and Rochelle are looking at, we are likely to face the same scenario. After being annexed, the owners are likely to come to council and say: “There is no market for high tech now, it will take 40 years to build out the site, so I need an upzone to housing or freeway retail”.
Don Shor: I suggested something similar last night. But I explained that in order to achieve a reasonable mix as you have suggested, we need to keep the current zoning in place until we have some assurances (such as a specific plan phased in such a way to guarantee that the high tech/business component will be built).
Our current zoning is assures that everything is neighborhood-compatible, oder, noise and nuisance free, and has high quality architecture and landscaping.
I mean “odor free”, of course.
Don Shor: “Then the pressure is on to annex and develop peripheral property in East or far West Davis for commercial purposes. Spend some time reading the minutes of the BEDC and you will see where this is going.”
I argued that last night – to take the Cannery parcel out of commission for economic development forces peripheral development on the Northwest Quadrant and I-80. But what I cannot quite understand is why BEDC would be for peripheral development? The city will not gain as much tax revenue – so how is that a good thing for the city? Can you explain why BEDC might be in favor of peripheral development? I’m at a loss on this one…
However, I wouldn’t think the downtown businesses would want the Cannery to be half business w a lot of retail, bc I think they would see it as direct competition – the creation of essentially another “downtown”, drawing business away from the already existing downtown.
Sue Greenwald: “Don Shor: I suggested something similar last night. But I explained that in order to achieve a reasonable mix as you have suggested, we need to keep the current zoning in place until we have some assurances (such as a specific plan phased in such a way to guarantee that the high tech/business component will be built).”
That is key – the city needs to keep control of this project by maintaining the zoning until the city gets what it wants…
Sue Greenwald: “As I explained at the meeting last night, no company can “choose to locate” at the Cannery because it isn’t on the market.
It isn’t on the market because the owners are holding out for the higher profits from an upzone.”
In other words, ConAgra is holding out for a greater windfall profit, by engineering the idea that this parcel is not good for a business park? Sounded to me like the city’s own reports indicated otherwise – unless for some reason they were biased? This is an issue that really needs to be fleshed out first and foremost…
Sue: A business park at ConAgra is not economically viable. In recognition of this fact, the property owner has made it clear in writing that they are not interested in pursuing this non-economic use on the property. Three other property owners with more favorable sites have come forward and expressed their willingness to work with the city to try and craft a solution on the periphery.
As you well know, the Council (by majority vote) adopted the Business Park Land Strategy which is now being executed. This entails the selection of a peripheral site by a city council subcommittee, ratification of this selection by the full council, and a Measure R vote of the electorate. If it passes we’ll have a business park. If it doesn’t, we won’t.
What I can’t figure out is if you really believe the nonsense you’ve been spouting, or if your true agenda is to stop all growth and progress of any kind unless you’re the one at the front of the parade.
“As I said last night, if we annex a peripheral site as the council subcommittee of Joe and Rochelle are looking at, we are likely to face the same scenario. After being annexed, the owners are likely to come to council and say: “There is no market for high tech now, it will take 40 years to build out the site, so I need an upzone to housing or freeway retail”.”
Sue: Do you think we’re stupid enough to buy this argument? Any change in the base line project description would require a second Measure R vote. They would need to make their appeal to the voters, not the city council. Trying this kind of bait and switch would probably lead to a very bad outcome for the developers on the second Measure R vote should they be lucky enough to win business park entitlements in the first place.
[quote]A business park at ConAgra is not economically viable.[/quote]
I’m sorry but I don’t put much stock in what a developer says especially when they are trying to get something our of the City.
My interest is the City of Davis, not the developer. If the property is rezoned it will immediately be worth MUCH more and ConAgra will likely sell the property for millions more.
What does the City get out of the rezoning? Why now?
And fiscal responsibility, affordability and sustainability are all trade-offs here. I don’t think we can have all three. We’d be lucky to get two our of three. (I choose fiscal responsibility first, sustainability second.)
“As you well know, the Council (by majority vote) adopted the Business Park Land Strategy which is now being executed. This entails the selection of a peripheral site by a city council subcommittee, ratification of this selection by the full council, and a Measure R vote of the electorate. If it passes we’ll have a business park. If it doesn’t, we won’t.”
In my opinion this is just a well concocted end around in order to try and bring in more housing which isn’t needed. They know getting Measure R housing passed on the periphery isn’t possible at this time, and rightfully so, so the game is to hopefully get the public to okay a business park on farmland so the powers that be can get that uneeded housing pushed through at the Cannery through a zone change. It ends up being a win win for the developers, Con Agra gets their new zoning and the owners of the periphery property get to have a business park built on their farmland. But I know all of you already know this so are we just going to sit back and be complacent? Thank Sue for being on top of it.
Frank: The baseline project features are not specific enough to protect us from tactics to get an upzoning. The developer can make the site ugly and say that there is no market for high tech. The developer can find something undesirable that is allowed by the general baseline project features and threaten to bring it in unless there is a zoning change. More likely, the developer will say that they can bring in a small amount of high-tech in exchange for a baseline project feature change that allows a freeway mall or a lot of houses.
[quote]Sue: A business park at ConAgra is not economically viable.[/quote]There is no evidence for this statement.
Frank
I was not clear in my comments. The $450,000 to $ 650,000 estimate came directly from the ConAgra representative at the second public information hearing. My statement about not contradicted by the city representative was meant to indicate that the city did not contradict the ConAgra representative. I do want to emphasize however that he did state that he did not know the answer and that this was just a rough estimate. At the time, I got the feeling that this was not a question that he had been anticipating and therefore had not prepared for.
It may well be that more consideration was given to this question after the meeting leading to a different estimate. Alternatively, it could be that the applicant recognized that this was not a desirable answer and modified accordingly.
Elaine: “[i] I wouldn’t think the downtown businesses would want the Cannery to be half business w a lot of retail, bc I think they would see it as direct competition”
[/i]
Neighborhood shopping centers fit within the goals of the general plan. Downtown merchants would have no particular reason to oppose a small mall next to a new neighborhood. There is a similar small shopping center on Fifth Street, near the entrance to Mace Ranch.
“The baseline project features are not …”
Sue: Once again, do you really think we’re stupid enough to buy this argument? The voters are not likely to support an up-zone after a Measure R annexation. This would appropriately be viewed as bait and switch.
If the baseline project features are not specific enough it will be because the City Council dropped the ball, and the voters were duped into passing a Measure R annexation with inadequate specificity. Both highly unlikely.
[u]First question[/u]: How many houses will a developer build if we don’t need any and nobody wants them?
[quote]Sue: A business park at ConAgra is not economically viable.
There is no evidence for this statement.[/quote]A guy that really knows a lot told me after some meeting.
Dr. Wu: The conclusion that the property is not economically viable comes from many sources, and is not propaganda from the developer. The most publicly accessible source I know about is the ESG report (39 year build-out unless a significant retail component is included). The property was marketed for commercial use for many years and Sue’s claim that it was held off the market is false. She also claims any number of private conversations with unnamed experts that, according to Rochelle in open public hearing, do not square with the much broader outreach that she has had in the context of her efforts on DSIDE, the peripheral site selection task force, and the city’s UCD request for ideas response.
JustSaying: LOL! That pretty much sums up all the BS.
I might have found a source of some councilmembers’ confusion about the findings of the ESG feasibility report:
[b]Sept. 4, 2008
[/b]
The Sept. 4, 2008 ESG report states that: . “ In summary, the Cannery park site is a viable and competitive site for business park development.” (p.64)
[b]Dec. 2, 2008[/b]
The December 2, 2008 city council minutes quote Don Saylor as saying he “couldn’t support the original motion because the ESG report did not show a business park to be viable in many respects.”
http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/council/12-02-08.pdf
Sue: So you’re taking the position now that … it’s Don’s fault? This makes zero sense.
From the ESG report ….
Scenario 4 – High Tech Business Park/No Residential
The business park program would specifically emphasize high tech uses while limiting most other uses. [b][u]This scenario is considered infeasible[/b][/u] given its projected 39 year build out period.
The source of the confusion Sue is that you are taking the ESG report conclusion out of context and applying it inappropriately to your vision for the property.
The conclusion you keep quoting was for a business park with unrestricted uses. This model would have a 16 year build out assuming 10% retail services (~85,000 sq ft) and no significant new competition (such as from an innovation hub at Nishi).
Even this completely unrestricted, pre-recession, competition-free business park model had borderline feasibility.
From the ESG report …
A 14 to 17 year build out period (equivalent to two real estate cycles) is generally considered to be the feasibility limit for a moderately sized business park such as Cannery Park. Build outs that exceed this period are generally considered not feasible based on industry requirements for project financing and typically reflect mismatches between: 1) entitlements and market demand and 2) development costs and revenue streams.
But this is not what you are trying to promote. You talk about neighborhood compatible high tech uses in a park-like setting. Fine. We get your vision for a ConAgra high tech business park.
The problem arises when you inappropriately apply the ESG study conclusion for an unrestricted business park to your vision for a neighborhood-friendly high tech business park. By restricting the uses to high tech the time-to-buildout increases to 39 years (nonviable). By also restricting the uses to “neighborhood-compatible, odor, noise and nuisance free, and high quality architecture and landscaping” the time-to-buildout would increase further.
So, Sue, your vision is a non-starter on purely economic grounds without even getting into the issues of neighborhood compatibility, traffic impacts, competitive positioning of the community, landowner cooperation, high tech business owner preferences, common sense, etc.
“First question: How many houses will a developer build if we don’t need any and nobody wants them?”
As many as the market allows until the cost of production is greater than the price plus the rate of return that doing something else with the property would generate. Since it is the last large parcel not needing an election the owners will have the market almost all to themselves. Growth restrictions make building more lucrative.
A developer representative named Jeannie Jones once tried to convince us that we had a market to fill up a far, far larger business park down by the causeway. This same Jeannie Jones then went to work for developers that wanted to turn the Cannery into housing, and suddenly there were a thousand reasons why a business park was infeasible.
Sue: Trying to change the subject?
You’ve made a long series of inaccurate and misleading statements from the dais and on this blog. The two I’ve discussed in this thread are:
(1) Your misleading statements about the risk of an up-zone if the voters approve the annexation of land for a peripheral high tech business park.
(2) Your misleading statements about the economic viability of a high tech business park on the ConAgra property based in part on a misrepresentation of the results of the ESG study.
This kind of conduct does a great disservice to our community. The City of Davis desperately needs a rational and feasible economic development strategy … and we need to stop blowing smoke and execute. Your proposal is a non-starter and it’s time to move on.
Sue:
Isn’t it funny how developers can change their mind vis a vis the feasibility of a project depending upon who is paying them?
Except for Frank/JustSayin the consensus here seems to be that we don’t need a housing project at this time. So again I ask–why change the zoning? All we do is give ConAgra millions of dollars and we get nada.
Dr. Wu: “Except for Frank/JustSayin the consensus here seems to be that we don’t need a housing project at this time. So again I ask–why change the zoning? All we do is give ConAgra millions of dollars and we get nada.”
Nicely said. The one bargaining chip the city has to force ConAgra to do what is in the best interests of the city is its zoning designation. For the city to give that bargaining chip away before it gets what it wants and needs makes no sense whatsoever…
I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t ConAgra buy the cannery site with the full knowledge that it was zoned industrial? If so, then they were fully aware that they would not be allowed to develop it for residential use without a zoning change. They are certainly not entitled to a zoning change simply because a residential development would be more profitable. They gambled; they may lose. That happens sometimes in gambling.
It has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating that if ConAgra manages to politic their way into the zoning change they desire, they will almost certainly NOT develop it themselves, but rather sell the parcel for a handsome profit to the developer who offers the highest bid.
[quote]Why couldn’t Sue have put her prognostication skills to work before the crash?[/quote]
She did. I remember very clearly Sue explaining how the real price of housing (% of median income or other similar measure) had spiked and arguing that it would have to return to historical means at some point.