Tonight the Planning Commission will hear an application by developer Dan Ramos to revise the Development Agreement to allow for TJ Maxx to move into one of the four adjacent building pads at the Target site.
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward to the City Council the revision “to the Development Agreement, Preliminary Planned Development, and Design Review approval for the four pad buildings at the Second Street Crossing (Target) development, to reduce the minimum sizes of some retail uses and make minor adjustments to the site plan and elevation, based on the findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval contained in this staff report.”
When voters approved the zoning changes to allow Target into the site, it also created four pad buildings, a total of 46,000 square feet. “The zoning for the pad buildings lists specific allowable retail and ancillary uses, many with minimum store size or maximum aggregate square footage,” staff reports.
According to staff, about the use of the 25,000 square foot pad by TJ Maxx, “This community retail use is consistent with the current Planned Development and does not require any amendments to the allowed uses.”
However, remaining modifications which would reduce the size of minimum allowable stores would require modifications.
Writes staff: “The requested modifications would reduce the size of the minimum allowable store for several uses, such as reducing the size of an apparel store from 10,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet. It would increase the cap on allowable amount of neighborhood retail from 10 percent of the pad space (4,600 sf) to 25 percent (11,500 square feet), and aggregate the allowable square footage for quick-serve and sit-down restaurants. Because this request requires a Planned Development Amendment affecting the size and types of uses, an amendment to the Development Agreement is also required. The Design Review application reflects minor adjustments to the pad buildings and site plan.”
Staff argues that the construction of the pads would generate additional property and sales tax to the city. “The amount of sales tax that is generated depends on the success of the business that locate in the center, and the extent to which the sales are net new sales to Davis.”
In late June, there was a well-attended meeting in downtown Davis where business owners discussed the impact on individual businesses.
Dan Ramos of Ramco was reported by the Davis Enterprise to indicate “the reason the sites haven’t attracted occupants is because – aside from a stagnant economy and exorbitant fees – the square-foot limitations the city’s planning team originally built into the pads are hindering its prospects.”
Mr. Ramos told the Enterprise in June: “Not only is (T.J. Maxx) an economic development player, but it also will serve as an anchor for the rest of the pads on the site.”
However, because of the size of TJ Maxx, it would have made it difficult under existing zoning to fill the remainder of the sites.
Reported the Enterprise: “Troy Estacio, of Buzz Oates Construction, who has partnered with Ramco on the project, said Wednesday that the restrictions would create a problem should T.J. Maxx decide to drop anchor in East Davis.”
“Apparel is 8,000 square feet and above,” Mr. Estacio said. “Well, we don’t even have an 8,000-square-foot building lot left (assuming T.J. Maxx takes the 25,000 pad).”
The city’s staff report notes: “At the time the Second Street Crossing project was being considered, the major significant issue that was identified was impact on the downtown.”
“The EIR for Second Street Crossing analyzed the potential for physical blight as a result of the project, and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. This did not mean that the project, and particularly the Target store, would not have impacts on individual stores or the downtown as a whole – just that physical blight would not occur to a significant level,” staff argued.
They note that since Target has opened, many downtown merchants have struggled and a number have closed.
“Stores have been affected by Target and other competitors elsewhere in the region, internet shopping, and the downtown in the economy. Overall, downtown has continued to thrive and most vacant spaces have been filled or leased,” staff argues, though many disagree, noting the lack of retail in the downtown area.
Staff argues that the requested change will not have a significant effect on the health of the downtown.
However, back in June there were concerns that small pad stores would take away from the business that the downtown might normally attract.
For instance, at the meeting Chuck noted that in other locations, similar type stores near big boxes have produced a negative impact on the city’s downtown.
“This is kind of the thing that has really messed up some downtowns, a lot of downtowns across the country. It’s not the big box, it’s the little guys all around the big box that are the problem,” he said.
The Davis Enterprise article also quoted Beth Annon-Lovering of B&L Bike Shop. She argued that they wanted a community shopping center, not a regional one. She argued, “If the spaces get too small out there it takes businesses from the downtown.”
She added, “We’re having a hard enough time to fill the spaces that go vacant downtown and to open up a bunch of small spaces out along the freeway it will decimate our downtown.”
Unfortunately, the Planning Commission staff report did not include correspondence with the city on this issue. The critical question would seem to be who is right – the planning staff, including Katherine Hess, who believe that the impact of the zoning changes will be minimal, or downtown business interests who are concerned that small stores will take away from the downtown.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Please clarify: Plannung Commusion didn’t get correspondence from residents/businesses?
Another K Hess blunder? Sorry if this is considered a personal attack but I am amazed she has lasted.
Is it just me, or are Commission staff reports unavailable from the City website? I found a link that purports to get it, but nothing…
Try this: link ([url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/commissions/planning-commission/agenda—september-12-2012[/url])
That’s the one I used… got nothing but white screen… if you can see it, but I can’t, I’ll have my in-house IT guy (oldest son) see if he can figure out what my hangup is.
I can see it. But it may not be you. There are a lot of problems with the website right now.
The response from Davis Downtown, c/o Facebook: [url]http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=05492d3801a43653ffb491876&id=8385a9e0ef[/url]
Don: what do you think about this proposed change? I know you took the lead years ago for many smaller Davis retail merchants on the zoning.
As to process, I haven’t looked into this, but the zoning out there was approved by the voters. Unless that legislation had an “out” for allowed changes by CC authority, don’t the voters get to vote on changes? For example, I know that the Measure J/R was written tightly so developer-friendly staff and CC could not change a word and gut the voter intent. What about the Second Street Crossing initiative?
Woodland’s downtown was gutted years ago by the south Woodland shopping center, and the spear was driven in deeper and harder with the Petrovich development at Poleline/Road 102.
Long term, unless the CC does something soon, I see our downtown turning into mostly a student bar dive and restaurants. I’ve lived and worked here 24/7 since 1995, and seen the conversion happening. The Second Street Crossing seems to be accelerating the conversion.
It is not always easy for me to separate my various roles and responsibilities; nevertheless, I’m going to attempt to put some distance between my Davis Downtown co-prez duties and my comments here. I’ve been wrestling with three aspects of this planning application:
1) Rezoning the subject parcels to a community shopping center several years ago required a community-wide discussion and a community vote. Yet rezoning from a community shopping center to a neighborhood shopping center, in essence, apparently doesn’t require a community vote. And a community-wide discussion hasn’t occurred to date either (although it’s not too late). I’m not known to be a process guy, but this process doesn’t seem right. Perhaps the community favors another neighborhood shopping center at this location, perhaps it doesn’t, but when does the community get to weigh in on revising what it has already decided?
2) The staff report and David’s piece focus on the impact on Downtown, yet there is no analysis of the impact on existing neighborhood shopping centers. According to a study published earlier this year by the UCD Institute of Transportation Studies, monthly shopping trips to Downtown have declined 9.09% since Target opened and monthly shopping trips to neighborhood shopping centers have declined 21%! What will the impact be on existing neighborhood shopping centers should the Planning Commission approve the application? Staff says no blight will result. Is that possible when shopping trips dive 21%? What will the impact be on the already approved Alhambra shopping center? What will the impact be on the primary community planning objective of fostering a compact community with greenbelts surrounded by open space? What will the impact be on our efforts to foster a sustainable community?
3) The original Target shopping center project was always a tricky proposition. It was an attempt to reduce sales tax leakage to other communities without cannibalizing the sales of existing Davis businesses. The project was also intended to be an opportunity to provide Davisites a selection of merchandise that was not then being offered locally. I’m fairly confident that the project proponents have partially achieved their aim in capturing sales tax that would otherwise have benefitted other communities. But I’m also fairly confident that the project has cannibalized sales of existing Davis businesses. The issue is that no analysis has been done that I’m aware of to determine how much the community has gained from reduced sales tax leakage vs. the harm of cannibalized sales. And now the Planning Commission is considering an application that will undoubtedly result in further cannibalization of existing sales?
I’m looking forward to the Planning Commission addressing these issues tonight.
-Michael Bisch (dirty, rotten, commercial real estate broker)
Two issues here: I think the staff report focuses on a narrow definition of blight, and (as Michael notes) only focuses on the impact on downtown. Blight, defined by vacancies, is occurring in our neighborhood shopping centers. And this will likely aggravate that.
If Ramos actually has some specific tenants interested who would benefit from a rezoning, he should divulge that. I think we are working with insufficient information for the Planning Commission and the City Council to allow this rezoning. I don’t, in principle, oppose some flexibility on getting more retail into Second Street Crossing. But the rezone of that site was a major community decision, so simply changing the zoning because the developer wants to do so isn’t sufficient reason for me.
I think TJ Maxx would be a great addition to the site and to Davis. But that doesn’t appear to be at issue here.
Now that I’ve read through the staff report, I find it is the usual degree of micro-management while it skims over the larger issues.
For example, they have a specific requirement that a site be reserved for a “coffee restaurant” in the rezoning. And we have this design review nugget: “3. Trees on the northern edge of the property shall be 24-inch box.”
I can say as an expert on that one topic: requiring larger trees be installed is a waste of money and is not sound horticultural practice. 15 gallon trees establish better and outgrow 24-inch trees. Why city staff mandates to this level of specificity, when (as far as I know) city staff has no nursery or landscape background, is beyond me.
And why are they so concerned about the coffee access of far-East Davis residents?
The report shows the small retail center on Fifth Street (5th Street Shopping Center) and notes that is has a vacant market space. But doesn’t address any impact this change might have on that site.
No approval is needed for TJ Maxx. The design review changes proposed may have some merit; I kind of glazed over as I read them. Except for the tree size requirement. The parcel size changes don’t seem merited to me.
I always enjoy this kind of thing:
“[i][b]Public Notice and Outreach[/b]
Staff and the applicant presented the proposal at a Downtown Davis brown bag lunch on June
27, 2012. The meeting was very well-attended. [b]Business owners discussed potential impacts[/b] on
individual businesses and the downtown as a whole, community expectations for development of
the center, demands of national chain merchants, and comparisons between neighborhood and
community shopping.[/i]”
Emphasis added.
Yes. They were discussed. Were any of those discussions noted, recorded, and were they in any way reflected in changes made to the application? Does public outreach actually involve listening and acting on concerns expressed by stakeholders? Or is it just [i]pro forma[/i]?
Thanks to DT and Don for comments.
I dont really know how it happened, but it did. When Measure K and Target were happening, the DDBA stepped back and let it happen, if not endorsed it. I was not involved and off the CC. I heard there was a dust up with membership, and leadership changed. I dont know anything else.
But here we are, in the predictable place that all of us No on K people saw from Day One: Ramos is coming back to re-arrange the rest of the property to make it friendly to smaller stores. In other words, drain what life is left in our downtown.
I think if the CC wants to change a word on the plan out there, they had better put it all on the ballot. And the DDBA should strongly oppose it, and lead the charge. If the CC won’t put it on the ballot, the small business owners should organize a referendum. I volunteer to teach them how to do it, and I have the forms. But it’s their thing to run.
Don and Michael – I too thank you for your analysis here. Don, one question. I am not sure I understand this comment: “I think TJ Maxx would be a great addition to the site and to Davis. But that doesn’t appear to be at issue here.”
Isn’t TJ Maxx the “issue”? What am I missing? Thanks. If you have time to explain I would appreciate it.
Robb
No, they don’t need the changes in order to build a TJ Maxx. It will take up 25,000 square feet which is one of the pads and is permitted by the current agreement. The developer wants to change the part of the Development Agreement that restricts the [i]other[/i] pads from having store sizes [i]below[/i] a certain square footage.
Specifically:
[quote]
“The list of permitted uses would be amended as follows:
1. Minimum size of community retail stores reduced from 10,000 to 4,000 square feet.
2. Minimum size of optical retail or telecommunications stores reduced from 10,000 to
2,000 square feet.
3. Minimum size of apparel stores reduced from 8,000 to 4,000 square feet.
4. Maximum amount of neighborhood retail and personal services increased from 10
percent (or 4,600 square feet) to 25 percent (or 11,500 square feet).
5. Restaurant square footage aggregated to a maximum of 10,000 square feet for either sitdown
or quick-serve, with an increase from three to four total.”[/quote]
Thanks Don. I had misunderstood that point. Appreciate it.
Does anyone know if Target has kept to the requirement that food items would only account for a certain % of floor space?
Who monitors that? It seems Target’s food sq footage has expanded and I see folks doing their whole grocery shopping there.
Michael wrote:
> I’ve lived and worked here 24/7 since 1995,and
> seen the conversion happening. The Second Street
> Crossing seems to be accelerating the conversion.
I don’t think that it is fair to blame all of downtown’s problems on Second Street Crossing. For years now other than food, drink and things I need to try on I’ve purchased most of it over the internet.
Today I think of something that I need I’ll just pull out my iPhone and buy it, no note to myself, no looking for parking, no hunting through multiple stores (and for most purchases) no sales tax.
With most college age kids more tech savvy than I am (and the new bigger iPhone 5 that will make shopping while walking to class easier) it is not going to be a great time to be a retailer (or a retail landlord).
SODA: I’m sure the 10% grocery floor-space requirement is unenforced. It struck me at the time as unenforceable. Staff isn’t going to monitor it, and the definition of ‘grocery’ is so broad that they could probably claim it is still in place. So I suppose if someone filed a complaint, city staff might look into it. But I’m doubtful. The fact is that groceries have been the profit centers for the big-box retailers like Target and WalMart for the last few years and are an increasing share of their retail model.
Regarding the zoning change: I frankly don’t know if this is even an issue worth fighting about.
My question for staff and the DDBA would be which retailers are likely to see adverse impacts.
My question for the developer would be whether he actually has prospective tenants and, if so, what retail categories they are in.
It seems to me that the design review changes pertaining to Pad C (TJMaxx) could be passed immediately, and the other changes could be deferred pending more information.
I would also like to see someone contact the owners of the other neighborhood shopping centers to see what their concerns are about this. The South Davis center is finally getting a couple of new tenants. But things are still pretty empty there. There is a tendency to focus on the impact on downtown, and to ignore the neighborhood centers, when analyzing retail issues in Davis. But my impression is the neighborhood centers are hurting worse than the downtown in terms of vacancies and sales leakage to Target.
Quite the turn around for Ms. Annon. When we were trying to get support from the downtown merchants for the No on K campaign, Ms. Annon was PRO-K. She said to me personally that she wanted the Target in town so that people would buy crappy bikes at Target and then she could make money fixing them up. I hope she’s happy with the result that she helped create.
She was the only merchant, along with her husband Tom Lovering, that we are aware of who supported Target.
Target opened during the final quarter of 2009 so these pads have remained unfilled for three years. One could argue that the developer has not looked hard enough, or waited long enough, to find appropriate tenants that fit within the existing zoning requirements. That argument however leads to the question of how long should we wait before reconsidering the original plan? I for one think three years is long enough and reconsideration now is appropriate. I don’t have a strong opinion about the specific changes requested, however I believe the City Staff needs to stop micromanaging the process by trying to dictate what types of businesses are allowed, or for that matter, required.
I view the focus on the potential impact on downtown businesses, with the built in assumption that we need to protect those businesses from competition, to be an unhealthy obsession. Instead of protectionist practices, we should be thinking about how to make the shopping experience downtown more satisfying, both in terms of ease of access and increased shopping options. Protectionism simply reduces the shopping options for all residents in town while at the same time, removing an incentive for downtown land owners to invest in their properties to make them more attractive. There have been a number of good ideas floated for addressing the issue of improving the downtown shopping experience, so maybe it is time to stop talking and start doing. The biggest issue by far is parking, so it should be on the forefront of anything we do. Again though I think we need to think outside the ‘Davis Box’ and entertain some new approaches, perhaps including ‘smart’ (i.e. demand adjusting) parking meters for all on-street and street level parking spaces, while maintaining free parking in the multilevel lots.
The more important concern about the proposed changes at Second Street Crossing are the potential negative impacts on nearby neighborhood shopping centers. Again, I don’t think we need to protect these centers from competition, rather we need to increase the options for retail in them. It is a fairly safe assumption that the City has similar sorts of requirements and restrictions on the type and size of businesses that may be found at our neighborhood centers. We can instantly make these centers more attractive to potential tenants by removing most, if not all, of those restrictions. It will take time, but the end result should be more shopping options for all consumers, and healthier neighborhood centers all around town.
Mark, the Downtown has plenty of competition from shopping centers, the internet, and other shopping/dining/activity destinations. The Downtown has a number of strengths and a number of weaknesses. One of the weaknesses is parking/access/circulation. Another is fragmented ownership preventing decisive action to address weaknesses.
Second Street Crossing has a number of weaknesses, one of them apparently is they constructed pad sizes that are the wrong sizes. Instead of re-constructing the pad sizes, they are applying for a zoning amendment. It must be nice to be able to simply file an application with the City to solve your weakness. Where does the Downtown file an application to solve the parking/access/circulation weakness? It sure as shit ain’t with the City Council.
-Michael Bisch
Wasn’t there going to be a parking/bicycle/something report after action on the parking garage was deferred by the last council?
[i]”It is a fairly safe assumption that the City has similar sorts of requirements and restrictions on the type and size of businesses that may be found at our neighborhood centers. We can instantly make these centers more attractive to potential tenants by removing most, if not all, of those restrictions.”[/i]
I think Mark is really on to something here. On previous threads about economic development we discussed relaxing zoning standards in various places. Allowing more options for properties in or near the downtown, for example. Rather than do this piecemeal, by responding to developer applications, my preference would be for the city council to address economic development with respect to retail in a broader fashion:
— smaller pad sizes at Second Street Crossing
— reduced impediments at neighborhood centers
— flexible zoning near downtown
— action on parking issues.
If you just take action on one, you’re giving a competitive advantage to one area while the others are held back by existing constraints.