This week a prominent supporter of Covell Village told me that he did not see that parcel being built in the next twenty years. The efforts to mobilize the senior community through the creation of the Astroturf group, Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA), has appeared to have failed. It would appear that over six years after the public resoundingly defeated Measure X, in a pre-foreclosure era vote, that the prospects for development of that parcel are dead for the foreseeable future.That turns the focus to the Cannery property, on which the council gave the go-ahead to begin an environmental impact report, which is expected to take a year to complete.
The Cannery property becomes the new battleground, and perhaps the last battleground, for development. But it is a different battle than the one that occurred for Covell Village.
Covell Village was the last sprawl project proposal Davis is going to see for the next few decades. While its proponents saw it as an innovative project, for its detractors it could never get past the limitations of the existing road network and other infrastructure problems.
Measure J was first passed in 2000 and represented an epic battle that was ultimately narrowly won against the giant sprawl projects that expanded the city greatly in the previous decade.
By 2010, even as Davis City Councils were loaded with pro-development forces, the battle had been won. Measure R was renewed with nary a shot being fired.
Is it possible to get a project approved under Measure J/R? Probably, under the right circumstance. After all, while Wildhorse did not require a Measure J vote in the pre-Measure J era, it ended up being approved after voters approved a referendum.
In the Measure J era, only two projects have come forward – the sprawling 2000-unit Covell Village and the relatively small Wildhorse Ranch. Both went down resoundingly, with Measure P occurring during the heart of the real estate meltdown, Covell Village a few years before it.
That leaves us with one large parcel that requires no vote of the people – at least under Measure J, and that is the former Cannery site. The site is currently zoned for industrial uses, but the owners, ConAgra, wish to develop it as a mixed-use neighborhood.
This time the debate is over two city needs – the need for residential development suitable for young families and senior citizens against the need for Davis to develop commercially through high-tech business parks that can utilize the proximity of the university.
On Tuesday the battle lines were drawn. Councilmember Sue Greenwald has long argued for business park development on the site.
On Tuesday she argued: “”If we are as business-friendly as we say we are, then we would preserve more of this land than is in this plan for neighborhood-compatible mixed use, business park, offices and high-tech.”
She added: “We need that land and anybody who says that there’s no market for it doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”
Councilmember Dan Wolk has governed in his first year with an eye toward his own demographic group – young families, a declining resource in Davis.
“I think we do need to plan for housing and we need to plan for it in a very smart and measured and environmentally sound way,” Councilmember Wolk said. “What I like about this project is that it’s oriented toward two demographic groups whom I think … we need to be concerned about.”
It turns out the property may not be ideal for either use. ConAgra is serious about developing this parcel as mixed-use, and has admittedly spent considerable time and energy improving the project.
The ConAgra dilemma is just this one – if we give the property for one use, we deprive the other use. There is but one property and while we can call it mixed-use, mixed-use does not fully split the proverbial baby.
I have consistently questioned the need for housing development, during a time when the housing market is flat and all we have are hopes that at a later point in time things will improve.
The property is not ideal for a business park – detractors can point toward the lack of proximity to the highway and other problems.
But where else do you go? Any other large parcel of land requires a Measure J vote.
The ideas on alternative sites are not alluring to those who have fought to protect farmland and open space.
Nishi is an inviting target, but it is a problem as well. First, even if you do develop it, it is a small property. Second, you have serious access issues. Richards Blvd is already impacted by traffic concerns and because it is nestled against the railroad tracks, there are access issues even if it spills onto campus.
But even if it does get developed – which would take some innovation and a Measure J vote – it does not solve the city’s problem for lack of contiguous business park space.
The other ideas are probably non-starters – the northwest quadrant and east of Mace, both which would be seen by many to be sprawl-inducing development.
So, developing Cannery as a mixed-use project would create a lack of business park space and everyone, on all sides of the Davis political divide, probably agrees on one thing – Davis should focus on becoming a high-tech, university spin-off destination.
So would it not be ironic if the first step toward doing that involves taking 100 acres that are currently zoned for industrial uses and building a mixed-use housing development?
And yet that is where we are headed.
At least one issue is off the table – no one needs to worry about Covell Village being developed any time soon. You do not need to support the Cannery Project because you think it will reduce the need for Covell Village and you conversely do not need to oppose the Cannery Project because it will hasten the development of Covell Village.
Covell Village is dead, to paraphrase an earlier conversation; it is a corpse that will likely lie vacant for decades. The new battle is whether Cannery should become a business park or a housing development.
There will be unintended consequences no matter what is decided, but it will have more to do with the direction of high-tech development in Davis, rather than any housing development at Covell.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Davis should focus on becoming a high-tech, university spin-off destination.”
You are so right David. The whole Cannery site should stay zoned for business. The best thing you can do for a city is to bring in good paying jobs and what better community than one with a world class university. First import high tech businesses with good jobs which will create the need for more housing then the new developments will happen.
Why the City Council is primarily headed in the direction of housing for this site is beyond me. We don’t need more housing; but what we do need is land for a business park and economic development. Or is this really about the needs of Davis residents at all? Is the idea more about “build it and they shall come”?
I tend to agree with Matt Williams outlook, which is economic development and jobs in Davis first, then will come the rationale for building new houses…
Spoken with a smile…..it is a cold day in Davis when rusty49 and I agree on anything. We are together on this one. I am reluctantly in opposition to the current ConAgre plan for several reasons.
1) I believe that the need for projects that will provide jobs which dovetail with the mission of the university outweighs the need for the type of single family housing that is prominent in this proposal.
2) The project as most recently proposed is still too heavily weighted towards the more affluent members of our community.
3) I have a safety concern about the current design of the project which has effectively only one means of rapid exit from the development should there be a catastrophic event
4) Despite reassurances about easy access to public transportation,and bike and car sharing, I still see this as a primarily private car dependent development which I do not believe our city needs.
“The whole Cannery site should stay zoned for business.” Rusty49, I attend 1-2 business policy meetings, conferences, workshops per week. I have not heard a single business owner, commercial real estate developer, commercial broker, university hightech related-official share this view, not one.
“We need that land and anybody who says that there’s no market for it doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” Of course Sue has many years of commercial development, leasing, sales, and business ownership experience to rely upon. She also probably has a long list of buyers with security deposits in her brokerage account which gives her so much confidence in her assertions.
If ConAgra had reasonable confidence in the commercial demand and absorption rate, there wouldn’t be nearly as much tension with staff over the size of the commercial component. Staff is clearly holding out hope sufficient demand will somehow materialize over the next 10 or 15 years. Perhaps it will, perhaps it won’t.
Based on my knowledge of the market, projected hightech demand is pretty soft for that location, the site limitations, and at Davis development prices. Perhaps I have it wrong, but as I’ve said previously, I have yet to hear a contrary position from buyers (who ultimately have the final say).
My guess is there would be moderate demand for small and mid-sized retail, neighborhood support service providers, and small office users. Such a development would theoretically put pressure on existing neighborhood shopping centers, the downtown, and other office projects.
There would no doubt be strong demand for the residential component.
Disclaimer: I have no direct stake in the ConAgra project although I’d likely benefit professionally if all or part of the project were developed commercially.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties owner, DDBA Co-Prez re-elected for another term)
“There would no doubt be strong demand for the residential component.”
Not what I’ve been hearing from my sources.
Perhaps the correct course of action would be to re-zone the property to Ag, de-annex it from the city, and hope that the Covell Village parcel and the Cannery parcel become one. This would open up the resulting land to some future project that could have access at J, L, Picasso & Donner (after appropriate discussions re: land use, annexation, etc.). With the opportunity to develop a more grid-like transportation system, all transportation modes (ped, bike, auto, transit) would become more feasible.
“Not what I’ve been hearing from my sources.” Then what’s the concern? Let ConAgra entitle the property and watch it lay fallow for lack of a homebuilder AND lender stupid enough to build/lend on a project with no buyer demand. At some point, the market will figure it out and attempt to rezone it to hightech.
So Rusty, your sources are telling you there’s strong hightech demand? If so, please contact me because I need buyers for a small project one of my clients currently has underway on Cantrill.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties owner, DDBA Co-Prez re-elected for another term)
Furthermore, Rusty, with the residential rental vacancy rate at or below 2%, the market is screaming that demand is strong.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties owner, DDBA Co-Prez re-elected for another term)
[quote]There would no doubt be strong demand for the residential component. [/quote]
Strong demand from Davis residents, or from folks outside Davis? If mostly the latter, then who is being served by this development? Certainly not the citizens of Davis. And note that staff admits this development will be fiscally net neutral to net negative. If this project is at all net negative, we have an added fiscal problem the city doesn’t need right now…
[quote]I attend 1-2 business policy meetings, conferences, workshops per week. I have not heard a single business owner, commercial real estate developer, commercial broker, university hightech related-official share this view, not one. [/quote]
Perhaps businessmen in Davis see this potential business park as competition, and is the real reason they don’t think it is “viable” as a business park? On the other hand I cannot ignore the fact that there is lots of commercial space in Davis that is vacant. So if this is to be a business park, city staff would have to really get cracking on making it an attractive prospect. My feeling, which is admittedly from a layperson’s perspective, is that not that much concerted an effort has been made to market this parcel as a business park, whereas lots of effort is being made to market it as residential, bc that will make the developer in this case a lot more money. Where am I going wrong in my thinking, if you do not agree, from a business perspective?
“Perhaps businessmen in Davis see this potential business park as competition, and is the real reason they don’t think it is “viable” as a business park?” About the only forums I hear the subject come up at are council meetings or the Vanguard. It does not come-up much at all in meetings I attend. Trust me, if there were demand, we’d be hearing about it. The reverse of course is true of Nishi where there is non-stop discussion and buzz. It’s astoundingly ironic that the market is abuzz about Nishi, muted on ConAgra, and our fearless councilwoman takes a contrarian view.
But again, develop ConAgra, don’t develop ConAgra, I don’t really care. I’m not a residential guy.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties owner, DDBA Co-Prez re-elected for another term)
“But again, develop ConAgra, don’t develop ConAgra, I don’t really care. I’m not a residential guy.”
Boy, you wouldn’t know it from all the posts you put up whenever the Vanguard has an article about it.
[quote]rust me, if there were demand, we’d be hearing about it. The reverse of course is true of Nishi where there is non-stop discussion and buzz.[/quote]
Perhaps the reason you don’t hear much about Conagra at business meetings is bc city staff is really marketing this parcel as residential, whereas the Nishi parcel is being marketed as a great place for UCD start-ups…
Rusty49, my concern is a wider one. How does one go about making sound public policy based on incorrect facts? Two aspects of the ConAgra project are glaring. 1) We know there is a massive undersupply of rental housing based on the current and projected vacancy rate. 2) We know that current and projected hightech demand and absorption rates are fraught with uncertainty given what the market is signaling (again the opposite is true at Nishi). How often can one simply stand silently by as a number of individuals insist on making public policy based on the sun setting in the east?
By the way, Rusty, you failed to respond to my point that the market is signaling strong residential rental demand with a 2% vacancy rate. This is a direct counter to a claim you made earlier.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties owner, DDBA Co-Prez re-elected for another term)
“…while Wildhorse did not require a Measure J vote in the pre-Measure J era, it ended up being approved after voters approved a referendum.”
The Wildhorse referendum was put to the voters in order to cancel the development agreement and address serious problems that it contained. The referendum was not approved.Then-Mayor Lois Wolk(mother of current candidate Dan Wolk) declared, under the authority of her office right before the balloting, that if the referendum was approved, the Wildhorse developers would be able to build whatever kind of project they wanted WITHOUT city input/control. This “mushroom cloud misinformation” was quickly determined to be bogus but not before the voters cast their votes. FWIW,the local political cadre of then-Mayor Wolk appears to now reside in the political camp of her son, Dan Wolk.
[i]Perhaps businessmen in Davis see this potential business park as competition, and is the real reason they don’t think it is “viable” as a business park?[/i]
ERM – I think you are on to something here, but I’m not sure it applies to local businessmen. If the site is appealing to prospective companies which wish to own or lease space at rates that make sense, then the project will get built, and soon. Most developer owners would take a dollar today instead of two dollars 20 or 30 years from now.
I think the more accurate way to make your point would be with the following statement “Perhaps HOMEOWNERS in Davis see this potential RESIDENTTIAL DEVELOPMENT as competition with THEIR HOMES, and is the real reason they don’t think it SHOULD BE DEVELOPED as HOUSING.
If Cannery could be developed and homes sold with prices 5% below comparably sized homes in Davis, there would be significant demand. But then, that wouldn’t make Davis homeowner equivalent of the landed gentry too happy, now would it?
Finally, can anyone refute DT Businessman’s point about rental properties? It would seem that multifamily housing is the most clearly out of balance sector in Davis. Why not build it there?
“….is that not that much concerted an effort has been made to market this parcel as a business park, whereas lots of effort is being made to market it as residential”
Even without factual confirmation, one can assume that this is true based upon the fact that marketing the site for a business park takes a lot of time, energy, creativity and effort whereas Davis residential development does not. Residential development also brings in more short-term gain to the city coffers which helps reduce pressures on city budget staffing considerations.
The housing for which there is demand (rental) is not the housing that is proposed for ConAgra. As to the demand for any sort of business property right now or in the near future, I urge readers to consider Jim Gray’s report to the Peripheral Task Force, May 12, 2011:
City staff introduced Jim Gray and Nahz Anvary, Commercial Brokers with Cassidy Turley BT,
Commercial. Mr. Gray with over 30 years and Ms. Anvary with over 10 years experience assisting
commercial businesses and technology companies in Davis and Sacramento Region. Mr. Gray
and Ms. Anvary provided background about the current context for regional office space and
shared following points, with Task Force members and public members present contributing
questions and comments:
[b]80 million square feet of office space in entire Sacramento region, 85 million sf with Solano
County, with 20 percent vacancy rate.
There is also shadow space to be absorbed, vacant space not on market or fully utilized.
Existing warehouse space built to support construction sector deeply depressed.
80% of housing sold in Sacramento region sold as distressed.
Result is decimation of local economy.
Need to find economic engine to renew our economy.
Talking about new business park now is questionable, especially if existing property owners
are looking at relocation.
Discussion about absorption rates of Mace Ranch and Vacaville business park. Vacaville
still 50% vacant to day.
Difficult to forecast absorption rates that make sense, infrastructure will not be driven
speculatively for 15-20 yrs.[/b]
For Davis to compete need to be strategic about what leads to success, think intermediate
and short term, id infill sites available (e.g. area north of Sutter Hospital, contact Sutter CEO
to discuss) and increase incentives to enhance and be creative: waive fees, defer fees,
defer impact fees, do creative investments and long term low interest loans.
Achieve public recognition of need to create environment where we can create jobs.
Need to make bold community statements “if you are user of ______technologies, bring it
on.”
Still need for space to keep people here.
Innovation cannot wait, need strong leadership and champions to make community
understand to get approval of Measure R
Leverage smart people in Davis who believe and can contribute to this effort (local CEOs),
Land doesn’t create growth, need to do business with those with right knowledge and
experience
Need to identify all infrastructure issues (major sewer & water).
Effort needs to be development driven, need “right” skilled team, has capital and will to take
risk.
Traditional developers are gone; now need wealthy individuals willing to tie up capital for a
long time.
Avoid retail – need job creating, R & D and office space and minimal design review.
City needs to be more collaborative in marketing and branding, there is no consistent
database of information – need to look at how communities brand themselves and say “we
are open” – What is the welcome mat for Davis?
Get testimonials on website – People want to be in Davis but it has horrible reputation,
despite many who think city has best city staff and city council.
“If Cannery could be developed and homes sold with prices 5% below comparably sized homes in Davis, there would be significant demand”
On what do you base this? Woodland and Dixon have provided home buyers with a flood of homes waaaaay more than 5% below Davis pricing. Try nearly 50% below at this point. You want a cheap house? Five minutes up Road 102, Spring Lake has many, many, many homes available. And what makes you think the home developers who eventually build on this site would price them 5% below comparably sized homes?
There is zero reason to rezone this land for ConAgra. The only benficiaries would be the landowners. Not the city, not the school district, not the 50%+ of Davis residents who pay a premium for their rental housing because of the historically low vacancy rates.
ConAgra’s owners aren’t homebuilders. If the city wants to approve residential and simultaneously deal with the issues of rental housing shortage and affordable housing in Davis, they can rezone a portion of the site to the two highest density housing categories only, and tell ConAgra that is the only type of housing they can build there. Then they could get their 600+ units on the site and still have half left over for a business park, which someday somebody might build.
Dan Wolk: “[i]What I like about this project is that it’s oriented toward two demographic groups whom I think … we need to be concerned about.”[/i]
Dan, you realize that the homes in this subdivision will require annual income well over $100K to buy? That isn’t the demographic I’m most concerned about in terms of housing availability.
davisite2, why the heck would any broker or developer spend a lot of effort and money marketing a product where initial outreach is indicating a lack of enthusiam? If there was significant pent-up or projected demand, brokers would be all over the project. Contrary to a popular assumption on this blog, time really is money. A broker is going to invest his/her time in endeavors that likely lead to a payday. We’re not entirely stupid (perhaps a little stupid, but not entirely stupid). You can go on insisting the sun sets in the east, but your assertion alone doesn’t make it so.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties owner, DDBA Co-Prez re-elected for another term)
Michael:
While I appreciate your perspective, if Cannery goes for mixed use, how and where are you planning to get a major business park in Davis?
A couple of years ago, during another discussion on housing, I did a quick calculation and concluded that Davis would need about 1000 – 2000 beds (500 – 1000 housing units) of rental housing beyond what West Village provides in order to accommodate the backlog of increased enrollment and the projected UCD increase in enrollment for the next decade. Since then we’ve learned that UCD plans to increase enrollment by 5000 more students. If they were to achieve the UC’s stated goal of housing 40% of those, we still would need another couple of thousand beds for that enrollment increase. Round numbers: we need at least a thousand, probably more like 2 – 3 thousand more rental housing units.
When was the last time an apartment building was built?
I will say again: the way for the city to provide affordable housing is not through affordable housing projects. It is by changing the density zonings on residential properties to reflect the urgent priority of building more rental housing. Davis is over 50% rental population. [i]At least [/i]50% of any housing built should be high-density rental units.
Brian: [i]”if Cannery goes for mixed use, how and where are you planning to get a major business park in Davis?”[/i]
You should be aware that there is a task force charged with assessing the peripheral sites suitable for such development, and that property on Mace, and (I believe) west of Stonegate have been discussed in the past, among others. Among the concerns, of course, is the Measure J/R requirement. You will find discussion in the minutes of possibly getting Measure J/R amended so a vote is not required for “job-creating” projects. That should all be considered as the city council reviews rezoning of the last large business site that is within city limits.
You can read minutes of the Peripheral Innovation Park Task Force online at the city web site.
Brian, I’ve been struggling with your question for 4 years. The traditional business park in Davis is problematic for a variety of reasons, so much so that I suspect that’s not our future. Low density sprawl is not the way to go. We need to develop a Davis-style model, small footprint / high economic output in close proximity and/or mixed with high-density residential. What is being considered for Nishi and Solano Park is on the right track.
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties owner, DDBA Co-Prez re-elected for another term)
Don: The Measure J/R requirement is exactly where I was going with the question.
Michael: That’s at least the first honest assessment and answer I have seen on this. I’m intrigued. Though I tend to agree with those who question Nishi’s viability, I agree that’s ultimately the way we need to go.