For weeks the Vanguard had heard rumblings that, if the Davis City Council approves Cannery Park to go forward as development by ConAgra, the matter would be put to a vote of the people one way or another.
The Vanguard was told directly by an individual in town that if the Davis City Council approves the Cannery Park project, the matter will be put on the ballot by the individual if no one else steps forward to do it first. The question is what form it would take.
The simplest way for it to get on the ballot is that the Davis City Council simply put it on the ballot through a process similar to Measure J and Measure R, which would be a referendum that asks the questions: shall the project be approved or shall the land use designation be changed from industrial to housing? This would be similar to Target in that it would be an up or down vote.
If the council does not put the matter on the ballot themselves, the next option would be for opponents of the project to launch a petition drive for a referendum. This was would be a difficult process. Like the water referendum that was launched in October of 2011, it would allow only a month of time to gain the signatures.
For the water referendum, it was required that there be 3705 signatures. Through a paid petition process, the group headed by Michael Harrington got 3866 valid signatures within the time period. We have heard that for non-water issues, the barrier may be higher, perhaps as high as 5000 signatures in a month.
However, a referendum ,which would simply be an up or down vote, might not be the way that opponents to the project choose to go.
On the Vanguard yesterday, Mike Hart suggested a possible path. He wrote, “The correct response to the proposal is to seek an initiative that would take it out of the council’s hands for good. If the property ever seeks to be changed to residential it would be subject to a vote of the public (Measure R).”
He continues, “The advantage of this approach is to ensure that the current property owner has no incentive to sit on the sidelines and hope for a favorable set of councilmembers. They either convince the community that they have the requisite number of low-flow toilets, community free-range gardens and solar panels to justify changing the zoning – or get the hell out of town once and for all.”
The feeling here is that if the council is involved in the decision-making, the developers only have to convince three people in the community of the value of their project. That means they find the pet projects that three people want and give them enough until they are willing to support the project.
We saw this process at work by the Covell Village developers who offered things like a fourth fire station, Trader Joe’s, nursery schools and other enticements in exchange for support. Without a Measure R vote, that approach would have worked, as they had four votes in their pocket.
However, had Measure X passed, it would have been a disaster for all involved. The housing market would have collapsed leaving huge swaths of the project unbuilt, and many of the built units uninhabited. A fourth fire station would have been a drain on city resources. And those who did move into the units available would have tied up traffic on Covell Blvd. and Pole Line.
It is ironic, but the citizens of Davis probably saved the developers from fiscal ruin on the project.
The landowners are completely unwilling to sell the parcel for industrial park use. Most recently, George Phillips indicated this at the Chamber of Commerce lunch last week. However, that calculation may be due to the fact that they believe they can make somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million on the project, so they simply can sit on the project until they get the right council.
By making this a de facto Measure J site, that would take that calculation out of the equation.
As we noted yesterday, there are those that believe that industrial uses are incompatible with the rest of the adjacent neighborhoods.
One concern about the current zoning is that it would produce more vehicle trips than the proposed mixed-used project. When Rob White did the calculations yesterday afternoon, citing the traffic models from the February 2013 Public Draft EIR, he noted that the current zoning “would allow for about 2.14 million square feet of light industrial and generate an estimated 15,884 trips by vehicles, based on the current transportation model.”
The mixed-use housing unit plan would generate about 12,040 additional trips. Thus, Mr. White concludes, “The current zoning is 1.3 times more traffic than the proposed housing/mixed-use development based on this info.”
But there may be problems with this figure. For example, Robb Davis notes, “The DEIR notes that Davis has a 27% bike mode rate but uses 15% rate and then calls it ‘conservative.’ The only problem is, the bike mode share in the rest of town is made possible because ALL neighborhoods (except Olive Drive) have reasonable and safe access to other parts of town. As it stands now, the Cannery project does not have this.”
Given the current plan, he argues that “it is quite possible… that an assumed 15% bike mode share is too high for this project.”
That could produce higher traffic impacts.
On the other end of the analysis, the people the Vanguard spoke with on Monday suggested that the city is overcomplicating the business park model. They suggested a reasonable subdividing of the land could remove the long-expected build out time and also the huge amount of density they forecast for the site.
These people familiar with business and development believe that there may be a number of opportunities to develop business under the current zoning – that the city’s focus and the landowner’s insistence on housing have precluded.
Ultimately, we believe that one way or another that this matter will go to the voters.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The feeling here is that if the council is involved in the decision-making, the developers only have to convince three people in the community of the value of their project. That means they find the pet projects that three people want and give them enough until they are willing to support the project.”
What a cynical view of representative democracy! Maybe we should double the size of the city council torequire that those Nasty Developers have to come up with pet projects aimed at a half dozen people. But, what if those six include would fall for free ice cream on Fridays? Better that we eliminate the council in favor of direct voting on everything. But, then the Nasty Developers might switch to free frozen yogurt on Fridays and, thus, co-opt thousands of Davis voters.
“However, had Measure X have passed, it would have been a disaster for all involved….It is ironic but the citizens of Davis probably saved the developers from fiscal ruin on the project.”
…Leaving Davis with a large supply of quality, truly affordable, energy-efficient, water-conserving housing, a new fire station, neighborhood parks and bike trails, fully funded infrastructure including traffic solutions, an athletic park, and Free Ice Cream Fridays. What burdens Measure X avoided, and how considerate we were to the Nasty Developers.
Can a referendum do all that or is it simply a repeal of an action taken by a government body?
A referendum is only a yes or no, an initiative would be needed to do more.
David, you say gathering the number of signatures will be challenging but then say it will go to the voters…..can you explain OR do you think the CC will backtrack and bring it to the voters? Your statements seem contradictory….
The voters saved the developers from certain financial ruin. I would vote for a project with free ice cream but not pizza. I think we should vote on whether or not we should vote. Let the people decide if they want to vote.
Getting enough referendum signatures should be fairly easy for this housing project being that the community is 75% against buildout. The last referendum got enough signatures even though the community was fairly even split on the water.
Wow. I’ve lived in many places around the country but never where folks were so afraid of change. People here seem to feel the essence of democracy is to vote on everything thereby undermining representative government. Studies on voting behavior over the past 60 or 70 years confirm that people vote their perceptions even when fact contradict long held beliefs. Further, voters “Opposed” come out in far larger numbers than voters who “Favor” an issue. So putting everything to a vote by default skews the decision toward a “No” vote. That is perhaps what many folks want. no change ever in Davis. If so get ready to pay a lot more to live here and say goodbye to your k-12 school system.
“Getting enough referendum signatures should be fairly easy for this housing project being that the community is 75% against buildout. The last referendum got enough signatures even though the community was fairly even split on the water. “
i think people like the idea of being able to vote on the issue of growth, that doesn’t mean they will vote no. the last measure r vote was during the heart of the downturn, things are changing. i don’t think you can count on 75%. on the other hand, if the project is made a lot better by the developers, it will go down.
“I’ve lived in many places around the country but never where folks were so afraid of change.”
i don’t think people are afraid of change, i think people have seen enough bad developments over the years that they are not going to support just any.
” People here seem to feel the essence of democracy is to vote on everything thereby undermining representative government. “
that’s just hyperbole, i think david counted like three votes over the last seven years that weren’t required by law.
“Further, voters “Opposed” come out in far larger numbers than voters who “Favor” an issue.”
water project
“So putting everything to a vote by default skews the decision toward a “No” vote. “
water project. wildhorse.
” If so get ready to pay a lot more to live here and say goodbye to your k-12 school system. “
this kind of talk isn’t that helpful in my view. it’s a reverse scare-tactic.
“…I think people have seen enough bad developments over the years that they are not going to support just any….”
Please enlighten. Which developments do the majority of Davis residents rate as “bad developments”?
start with wildhorse and mace ranch.
The Davis city staff and various commissions all start with a false assumption:
“How can we make this housing project better?” The focus is then on biking, water, power, trees and other amenities without any concern for the more fundamental issue which is really what the city council should have voted on first:
“Should we consider getting rid of 100 acres of light industrial in exchange for still more housing?”
I think that the city council did a genuine disservice to the community, its staff and the various commissions by sending them off on this wild goose chase.
ConAgra now claims to have participated in all kinds of community hearings etc. when that really isn’t the case- they have listened to input about what kind of a housing project to develop, not if they should build one at all…
The city council can fix this. They can take the initiative (literally) and put this to a vote of the citizens before they take any further consideration of this hopelessly flawed concept.
Those are some pretty sour grapes.
Put it on the ballot for a city-wide vote.
“Those are some pretty sour grapes.”
what are you referring to?
“Please enlighten. Which developments do the majority of Davis residents rate as “bad developments’ “?
“start with wildhorse and mace ranch.”
So where would all the nice, productive, highly skilled, taxpaying, family people who chose to live there and enrich our society be without these subdivisions?
the same place that the people who didn’t move into covell village and wildhorse ranch are.
So you are saying you would prefer all those people didn’t live here? Why?
Newsflash, Mike Hart. The Cannery project process is precisely the process the CC directed staff to implement. They specifically directed staff to encourage ConAgra to submit a MIXED-USE development project application. I’m pretty sure it was a 4-1 vote with Greenwald dissenting. The “fundamental issue” you felt the CC should have addressed first…was indeed addressed first. You just don’t like the direction the CC gave staff. Furthermore, the CC has directed staff to continue the process every time staff has “checked-in” with the CC.
Mike, you seem real late to the party. Why the sudden, passionate interest when the project has been winding its way through the process for at least the last 2 years? Why not jump in with both feet during the last CC election when it potentially would have made a difference? More importantly, why didn’t you and your 9 development partners not purchase the land cheaply when you had the opportunity? You could have spared all parties the effort and debate.
For whatever it’s worth, my position is the CC should exercise their judgement and vote the project up or down. That’s why council elections matter. Indeed, The Cannery project was publicly debated during the last council election. But if the CC vote doesn’t sit well with the voters, they can attempt to put the matter on the ballot either through a referendum or an initiative. That’s the process we have in place and it’s a process that works for me.
-Michael Bisch
Newsflash: Mike Hart has a lot of supporters who agree with his comments above.
If I were the CC, I would put it on the ballot, so the City controls the message.
If the residents have to do it, the City looks spiteful, rude, and the residents control the message.
Also, collection of the signatures for the referendum means that the “NO” group has a ready-made data base of “he__ no” voters, ready to oppose it.
I am just giving our CC some friendly advice so the messy process of collection of signatures can be avoided. But if the CC does not put it on the ballot, I am 99% certain that others will. And they will be successful.
No, make the opponents gather the signatures or spend their own money hiring signature gatherers. Don’t make it easy for those opposed to everything to remain obstructionists.
[quote]”So putting everything to a vote by default skews the decision toward a “No” vote. ”
water project. wildhorse.
[/quote] You know what I looooooove? Seeing some of the last homes built in Wildhorse with no-growth signs in their yard. It tickles me on so many levels.
[quote]Mr.Toad
So where would all the nice, productive, highly skilled, taxpaying, family people who chose to live there and enrich our society be without these subdivisions?
Davis Progressive
…
the same place that the people who didn’t move into covell village and wildhorse ranch are.[/quote] Code for not in Davis. Keep the undesirables out. We know who they are. 😉
Mr. Bisch… I can’t tell if you are being deliberately confused to make a point or not.
“The Cannery project process is precisely the process the CC directed staff to implement” Which is exactly my point. A simple majority of the council ignored the will of the public and got the ConAgra housing proponents off down the wrong track… Now everyone has wasted several years of blather and it has to all be undone. What a waste and it is the city council’s fault. They have a chance to fix this and allow the public a chance to vote on this. If they fail to do this, they will have not only wasted the developers time, but essentially violated the public trust when the citizens have to fix their mistake. I have faith that the current council can fix this problem now.
In answer to the rest of your comment I have commented during the city process saying this was a bad idea. I just hadn’t gotten involved on the Vanguard.
Finally- if ConAgra would simply put the property on the market with its current zoning I am sure that there would be a lot of interest. But it hasn’t been on the market publicly since 2004 and then only briefly.
“Code for not in Davis. Keep the undesirables out. We know who they are. 😉 “
while it’s difficult to know, i don’t think we know each other. that suggests to me that you have no idea anything about me, my life what i’ve done. i don’t know you either. you are free to disagree agree with me, but don’t presume to know my motivations.
Mike Hart: “A simple majority of the council ignored the will of the public”
When did the public express their will? When we elected the current council perhaps?
“When did the public express their will?”
exactly
” When we elected the current council perhaps? “
by that logic no elected body could defy the public will on anything, except we know that’s not true…
Davis Progressive
“start with wildhorse and mace ranch.”
DP, serious question, what is it about the design or execution of either Wildhorse or Mace ranch that you believe make the majority of Davis residents rate them as “bad developments”?
i think it was the process rather than the design per se.
Interesting, how did the process make either of those developments “bad”? Said a different way, how would a better process have made either of those developments “better”?
Do you think that both the Wildhorse process was just as flawed as the Mace Ranch process?
Personal Disclaimer . . . I moved to Davis in 1998, so missed both these processes.
well matt, the process for mace ranch was so corrupt, dave rosenberg created the passthrough agreement, the wildhorse process was so brutal that measure j was a natural offshoot.
Matt- respectfully, I have to point out that the city has shown an absolute aversion to residential development and I doubt anyone honestly though that they would consider rezoning 100 acres or light industrail to more houses! Anyone with any political knowledge at all would know better!
[quote]Interesting, how did the process make either of those developments “bad”? [/quote]
Mace Ranch? Wow. Get Mike Fitch’s book, Growing Pains: Thirty Years in the History of Davis. Mace Ranch was basically forced on the city by Ramos.
I see Mike’s book is no longer linked on the city website. Here is some of the history, explaining how the Davis RDA came to be along with the pass-through agreement and its connection to Ramos and the Mace Ranch development:
[quote]The Davis RDA was founded as part of the development agreement process that led to Mace Ranch.
From Mike Fitch’s history:
“Now that it had an accord on how to handle the Ramos project, Davis needed a strategy for avoiding similar predicaments in the future. Its solution was an historic accord with the county reached in November 1987. Known as the Davis-Yolo Pass-Through Agreement, the accord is based on a simple principle: the county can approve urban development near Davis if it wants to, but it’s going to take a big hit financially if it does. County officials kept their legal authority to decide whether unincorporated lands near Davis should be developed or not, but the practical impact has been to give the city control of a planning area that stretches from County Road 27 on the north, the Yolo Bypass on the east, County Road 35 and the Interstate 80 interchange at Pedrick Road on the south and County Road 97D on the west. The planning area covers about 84 square miles of territory, including the seven square miles of land located within the city limits at the time.
The city’s ace up its sleeve was its plans for setting up a redevelopment agency for the downtown area and South Davis to raise revenue for a host of major traffic projects, including construction of a new freeway overpass across Interstate 80 and widening of the Mace Boulevard interchange. Typically, a city’s redevelopment agency gets money by claiming a large share of property tax revenue created by new developments in redevelopment areas, siphoning off funds that otherwise would go to the city general fund, county and other local government agencies. In the agreement with Yolo County, Davis agreed to pass along to the county and a local library district tax revenue that normally could be claimed by the city’s redevelopment agency. Rosenberg emphasized the county retained its authority to determine whether projects proposed for land located outside the city’s sphere of influence should be approved or not. The pass-through deal would last, however, only as long as the county did not approve urban development over any city objections. Informal procedures were worked out for the county to notify the city when projects were proposed for unincorporated lands located within the Davis planning area and for the city to notify the county whether the projects are considered to be urban development.” [/quote]
Simple synopsis.
Frank Ramos wanted to develop Mace Ranch. He came to the city, which said no. He went to the county. County was intrigued due to constant revenue shortage. He came back to the city and said, well? Rosenberg, Corbett et al. made a deal, creating the RDA to generate funds for the pass-through agreement to return development revenues to the county after annexation and development. They put that before the voters, who, faced with the likelihood that Ramos would simply return to the county and develop anyway, approved the project.
To augment what Don said, the council also allowed the Mace Ranch developer to create an assessment district to pay for the infrastructure, so home buyers got hit with big assessment payments on top of their mortgage and tax payments.
With regard to what’s “bad” about both Mace Ranch and Wildhorse, both are more of the same Sacramento-style car-oriented low-density sprawl, big houses (downright gaudy in the case of Lake Alhambra) on small lots, with bike lanes tacked on for show. They’re were designed and function as commuter communities, poorly integrated into the rest of the city. (Literally walled-off, in the case of Mace Ranch. The 5th Street and Alhambra corridors present an abysmal viewscape to travelers.) And Wildhorse was actively marketed to Bay Area refugees, hardly serving the internal needs of Davis.
Disclosure: I worked extensively on Mace Ranch, from the initial boundary survey to construction staking. I left the big-construction end of the business behind when I hung out my own shingle in 1993.
[quote]start with wildhorse and mace ranch.[/quote]
Although I make no claim about what anyone other than myself believes. I would add the last two sections of North Star to this list of dubious developments. There is no innovation here. Only outrageously priced mini mansions with a few “affordable housing” duplexes tossed in. These are totally car dependent bedroom communities with a low walkability index and really outstanding other than the bird view area and green belt to commend them in any way. I remain adamantly opposed to adding more of these types of developments and do not see the Cannery as being any better and possibly worse because of the transportation and safety issues.
And yes, I do stand to economically benefit because I was emotionally stampeded into buying there years ago. I was, and am opposed to similar future projects given what I perceive as their inherently unhealthy lifestyle which I experienced during the 20 years I lived there.
” the council also allowed the Mace Ranch developer to create an assessment district to pay for the infrastructure, so home buyers got hit with big assessment payments on top of their mortgage and tax payments.”
You mean Mello-Roos assessments something that are pretty standard funding for infrastructure as a result of prop 13. Although they are special there is nothing special about them at Mace Ranch.
“I don’t think some folks get it… simple as that. I didn’t make up these numbers. This is what ConAgra sold the property for in 2004 (420 acres for $12,500,000) that is recorded. It is what Lewis Homes dumped the property for in 2009 (420 acres for roughly $8.75M or less). It is a recorded fact that the 320 acres was sold from the property in June for $2.4M… The property is just not worth what you seem to think its worth.” -Mike Hart yesterday
“Finally- if ConAgra would simply put the property on the market with its current zoning I am sure that there would be a lot of interest. But it hasn’t been on the market publicly since 2004 and then only briefly.” -Mike Hart today
Mike, you’re right, I don’t get it…simple as that. No wonder you’ve won an ally in Mike Harrington with your goofy, contradictory statements. Why the heck didn’t you purchase the property for $21k an acre in 2009 when you had the chance? Or for $7.5k/acre in June? That’s way less than the $50k/acre you’ve been ranting about these past few days (never mind light industrial land trades for $250k-$400k per acre in Davis).
PS: Why the heck the community would lift a finger to further Mike Hart’s land speculation schemes is beyond me.
-Michael Bisch
The other thing I can’t figure out is why Don says there are any number of entrepreneurs on record supporting keeping the current Cannery zoning. The only entrepreneur I know of that is fighting to keep the current zoning is Hart (who apparently has a strong desire to acquire the property and is using goofy math to convince the community to support his cause). That said, I agree with Don’s density comments regarding Cannery.
-Michael Bisch
Hart, another issue you have failed to respond to is the connectivity and other amenities the community desires from a Cannery development whether residential or light industrial. Does your silence mean you are willing to pay for bus stops, bicycle tunnels, right away acquisitions on adjacent properties, H Street bike tunnel improvements, master planning between the Cannery and Covell Village sites, a fire station, etc.?
-Michael Bisch
So you all seem to be saying if these places were not developed Davis would be better off? That is spectacularly arrogant. I have friends that live in everyone of these areas mentioned. I like my friends. I am glad they are here.
Respectfully Medwoman, if you didn’t move to where ever it was before your current residence are you sure you would be here at all?
The problem is the process, The problem is the design. Come on the people who live in these places seem to be willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to live in each one of those houses so they must place great value upon living there. “Every time a bell rings an angle gets its wings.” Every time a house sells the buyers state the value of living there.
The problem with Cannery isn’t the process. Its been open and transparent going back a decade with numerous hearings and votes by various City Councils. The problem with the Cannery will not be the design this thing is going to have more bells and whistles than anything ever developed in Davis. It will be state of the art. The problem with the access is not the fault of Conagra. Its the fault of the of measure R that doesn’t allow for master planning of the entire area including Covell Village. Conagra didn’t pass measure R or draw the City Limit. They should not be the victim of Davis’ fool hardy and short sited policies.
And of course you’re willing to execute an agreement with the City to put all but the 10 acres you intend on keeping on the market for $50k/acre even after paying for all the infrastructure improvements cited above.
-Michael Bisch
Davis Progressives “but don’t presume to know my motivations.”
I don’t presume anything but you make these outlandish veiled, or as Ginger says “Coded” statements then when you get called on it you play dumb by not responding or feign insult. Your tone deaf and callously flippant remark about these people living in “the same place that the people who didn’t move into covell village and wildhorse ranch are” begs for a fuller explanation that you have failed to supply even after being specifically asked for clarification. So you shouldn’t be surprised when others are left to decode what you are saying and make no mistake people all over town who read your posts decode them rightly or wrongly and the code breakers find a message that is quite ugly.
[quote]this thing is going to have more bells and whistles than anything ever developed in Davis. It will be state of the art.[/quote]
At this point I’m going to assume Mr. Toad is a pseudonym for someone on retainer with ConAgra.
Do you realize how many apartments could be put on this site?
Here’s one of the bigger apartment complexes, twenty buildings, next to the ConAgra site, at the same scale:
[img]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/ConAgraorApartments.png[/img]
[url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/ConAgraorApartments.png[/url]
Toad on retainer with ConAgra? That’s silly. He’s a majority shareholder in Weyerhauser.
-Michael Bisch
I wish I was either on the Conagra payroll or a majority shareholder in Weyerhauser. Sadly my only interest in either is through my total stock market index mutual fund in my IRA. i have no idea how many shares it works out to but its probably valued at less than a cup of coffee at Mishka’s.
No, the reason I speak up, as i have for years, is because of the indifference of those who have homes towards those that don’t have homes but would like to get one and find themselves priced out by policies with unintended consequences. I find it pretty disgusting and believe it has a class and race element to it that is shameful or that it is based on flawed and superficial understanding of population dynamics that can be traced back to some pretty ugly foundations such as eugenics.
By the way Don, I don’t have a problem with more apartments. The problem is 30 years of pent up demand for all types of housing. My view is you build a lot of housing eventually you get to a market for senior housing and apartments but first you need to take the steam out of the kettle.
toad: process matters. davis would have been better off with a better process. ironically these processes led to measure j and the pass through, two things you abhor. with better process, it’s possible that davis wouldn’t be so knee-jerk anti-development at this point.
Don you want a zillion apartments there. i guess you too are an outlier because i don’t hear anyone else asking for apartments. What i hear are remarks about traffic congestion. Your plan would only lead to even worse traffic.
I’m not sure why Don wants so many apartments. I talked to John Meyer at UCD, he told me that they think they have enough apartments coming online to house the new student influx. I want extra capacity at the university so that the students move from off campus to on campus apartments freeing up spots in town for older residents.
D.P. Oh please. What would have been a better process for Ramos? What would have been a better process for Wildhorse that went to the voters and passed? What would have been a better process for Covell Village? The only reason Cannery is on the table is because of the process put in place by Measure J. The only reason we aren’t master planning Covell Village with Cannery is because of the process. We could be addressing the total needs of the community; single family, senior and apartments, we could be addressing the access problems but because of the process we end up with a haphazard, balkanized, every property owner for themselves, development schemes that get picked apart by every Tom, Dick and Harry with a keyboard in town.
yeah, your comment tells me that you’re not being serious and are just trying to yank my chain
[quote]You mean Mello-Roos assessments something that are pretty standard funding for infrastructure as a result of prop 13. Although they are special there is nothing special about them at Mace Ranch. [/quote]
They’re special enough at Mace Ranch that the City Council bought down the principal in response to an onslaught of complaints from the residents, and special enough that Susie Boyd said from the dais that we’ll never do another one. That seems pretty special to me.
[quote]The problem is 30 years of pent up demand for all types of housing.[/quote]
That doesn’t square with the fact that the Wildhorse developer had to mount a substantial marketing campaign in the Bay Area because they couldn’t sell the houses locally in the early days. Demand ebbs and flows, but it certainly hasn’t been pent up for 30 years in Davis.
I don’t agree with Toad on substance, but on process, not only is he serious, he’s 100% accurate, DP.
-Michael Bisch
If i am anything I am completely serious.
Fair enough 30 years is perhaps too long because as each of those new developments came on line it took the steam out of the kettle for a period of time
sorry, hard to take seriously a defense of the process on mace ranch.
30 years is also ridiculous. not only do you ignore the massive growth in the 90s, but you ignore that housing demand fell to nearly zero from 2008 until really the last year. you also seem to forget that there are several housing developments that are just now being built and most of those units are not online. you’ll also have the west village houses which have yet to be built because the developer there didn’t want houses on the market, even in a limited equity sense during the housing collapse. so instead of 30 years of pent up demand, you have less than one.
[quote]I talked to John Meyer at UCD, he told me that they think they have enough apartments coming online to house the new student influx.[/quote]
Huh? Complete nonsense. Seriously. I can’t believe you or he said that. Nowhere near. Not even close.
If in fact John Meyer believes that, then our housing problem is far, far worse than I thought. UCD and the city of Davis need to provide 5000 beds by 2020. That is above and beyond West Village. West Village only covered the lack of housing provided by UCD in the past decade (or so). West Village doesn’t really even count toward the influx expected with the Chancellor’s plan. If UCD were to achieve the general goal of 40% of housing — which they have never achieved to my knowledge — and build out West Village, we would still have a rental vacancy rate well below 5%. As it has been, basically, forever.
If John Meyer doesn’t believe they have to provide more than the build-out of West Village, then the rental vacancy rate will drop back down to 1% or less, as it’s been at many times in the past.
Even under the best scenario, the city needs to provide 3000 beds. That’s about 1000 units or so. Which is why I believe that I (and my kids and their friends and my staff and the many 20-somethings in this town, above and beyond those attending UCD) want so many apartments.
[quote]What would have been a better process for Ramos?[/quote]
Follow the general plan, go through the commissions, apply for it in smaller increments, make sure it paid its own way as it was built, and do the whole thing more gradually. Mace Ranch and Wildhorse together caused a very high growth rate for Davis. At that time it was the fastest growing city in Yolo County by far. And it caused serious spikes in enrollment in the schools, causing the district to overbuild capacity, leading to the problems we have today. It caused an expansion of greenbelt and park maintenance that has stretched the city’s resources. Had it been phased in, we could have absorbed and planned it much better.
Basically, I can’t think of a worse manner of development than what was done.
“At that time it was the fastest growing city in Yolo County by far.”
Why Davis was popin faster than Mayberry and Mount Pilot combined!
These numbers were sent to me in 2009 by someone who painstakingly compiled them from state data:
1980 36640 2.17%
1981 36700 1.11%
1982 37700 1.64%
1983 38100 1.31%
1984 38900 1.96%
1985 40450 2.37%
1986 40650 2.18%
1987 41200 1.93%
1988 42500 1.66%
1989 44650 3.18%
1990 45850 3.63%
1991 47055 3.45%
1992 48876 3.06%
1993 50124 3.02%
1994 51071 2.77%
1995 52523 2.43%
1996 53543 2.22%
1997 54451 2.16%
1998 55920 2.11%
1999 57256 2.26%
2000 59796 3.17%
2001 61935 3.46%
2002 63482 3.50%
2003 64020 2.30%
2004 64744 1.49%
2005 64553 0.56%
2006 64830 0.42%
2007 65230 0.25%
2008 65568 0.52%
2009 66005 0.60%
” but you ignore that housing demand fell to nearly zero from 2008 until really the last year.”
It was the financing that fell to zero not the demand. There was a healthier housing market in Davis throughout the bust than anywhere else around. Prices decreased less than in surrounding communities, why because we had restricted supply. Now the demand has shot the moon. every house for sale seems to have a sold sign on it within days. Prices are back up. Rising prices, quick sales, low number of listings all say one thing, pent up demand.
The answer from the City to Ramos would have been the same no matter what he had done. Its no wonder he went for the whole hog.
Davis Progressive said . . .
[i]”Well matt, the process for mace ranch was so corrupt, dave rosenberg created the passthrough agreement, the wildhorse process was so brutal that measure j was a natural offshoot.”[/i]
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Mace Ranch? Wow. Get Mike Fitch’s book, Growing Pains: Thirty Years in the History of Davis. Mace Ranch was basically forced on the city by Ramos.”[/i]
Emerson Junior High School is a “bad” building. Candlestick Park is a “bad” building. What is it about Mace Ranch that rises to the level of “bad”? Are the neighborhoods disfunctional? Do the furnaces and/or air conditioners malfunction?
All of you are confusing what a development is with the human behavior that causes a development to exist. That confusion helps me understand the criteria that The Cannery is being judged with . . . criteria where the form of the political dialogue trumps the form andf function of the living accommodations.
Do you think there is a single homeowner in Mace Ranch who believes their home has a lower market value because of the personal struggles between Frank Ramos and the Davis City Council? Do any real estate appraisers include a “Ramos behavior discount” in any appraisal of a Mace Ranch home? I would be very surprised if there is even one “yes” answer to those two questions.
JMHO
Matt, I have described some of the problems Mace Ranch created for the city and the school district. With respect to those, your questions are irrelevant. It is the impact on the community and the city as a whole that is usually at issue in a development discussion, not whether the homeowners are happy with their choices retrospectively.
David:
[quote]Announcement: Student Housing conducts 37th annual City of Davis Vacancy and Rental Rate Survey.
The survey findings for this year report that the vacancy rate is at 1.7%. Last year the updated vacancy rate was 2.5% resulting in a 0.8% decrease in vacancy over last year.
Economists and urban planners consider a vacancy rate of 5 percent to be the ideal balance between the interests of the landlord and tenant. During the last 10 years, the apartment vacancy rate in Davis has varied from a low of 0.2 percent in 2002 to as high as 4.2 percent in 2005.[/quote]
[url]http://www.housing.ucdavis.edu/_pdownloads/2012_vacancy_report.pdf[/url]
Please note, as you continue to talk to John Meyer, the section titled Changes in Housing Stock:
[quote]Changes in housing stock
In fall 2012, UC Davis made available about 500 beds for incoming freshman in Primero Grove (third party owned and operated apartments on campus). This was done to compensate for lost beds at Pierce and Thille halls, which closed in June 2011 (800 beds). Castilian Hall was also closed with a loss of 495 beds. Construction began in 2012 for a 1,200-bed housing project to open in the fall of 2014. The Castilian buildings have been demolished and Real Estate Services is negotiating a ground lease to repurpose the location for single graduate student housing.[/quote]
Let’s see:
500
-800
-495
+1200
= a net gain of 405 beds.
Long way to go.
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”With regard to what’s “bad” about both Mace Ranch and Wildhorse, both are more of the same Sacramento-style car-oriented low-density sprawl, big houses (downright gaudy in the case of Lake Alhambra) on small lots, with bike lanes tacked on for show. They’re were designed and function as commuter communities, poorly integrated into the rest of the city. (Literally walled-off, in the case of Mace Ranch. The 5th Street and Alhambra corridors present an abysmal viewscape to travelers.) And Wildhorse was actively marketed to Bay Area refugees, hardly serving the internal needs of Davis.”[/i]
Jim, thank you for articulating your thoughts clearly and effectively. That helps a lot, and prompts some questions.
First, aren’t the problems you describe inherently part of virtually all development projects that have the critical mass (acreage) that Mace Ranch and Wildhorse had?
First, isn’t the problem you describe far more universally pervasive then “Sacramento-style”? Couldn’t you just as easily have said “Phoenix-style” or “Tucson style” or “Denver-style” or “Orlando-style” or “Atlanta-style” or “Plano-style” or “Chicago-style” or “Long Island-style”?
Second, what do you propose that Ramos could have done or should have done in coming up with a design for the size property they were developing at Mace Ranch?
Third, aren’t the problems you describe inherently part of virtually all development projects that have the critical mass (acreage) that Mace Ranch and Wildhorse had? Said another way, is the only way to achieve the results you are looking for by limiting the parcel size of any and all development to a small number of acres?
Jim Frame said . . .
[i]”That doesn’t square with the fact that the Wildhorse developer had to mount a substantial marketing campaign in the Bay Area because they couldn’t sell the houses locally in the early days. Demand ebbs and flows, but it certainly hasn’t been pent up for 30 years in Davis.”[/i]
Jim, one of the realities of the real estate market in Davis is that while the housing supply is local, the demand for that housing is regional. The reason for that is pretty simple. Four years spent in Davis brings out the latent salmon genes in all the UCD grads. They want to return to this idyllic little hamlet of their youth. I feel the same way about Ithaca, New York (although I can do without the snow). Dartmouth grads want to return to Hanover. Wisconsin grads want to return to Madison. Duke grads want to return to Durham. Davis’ magnetism for the myriad of UCD grads spread throughout Northern California is a fact of life that none of us can change. All the Wildhorse developer was doing was matching the local supply with the regional demand. That is simple capitalism at work.
With the above said, I would much rather see any new Davis housing benefit people who have current ties to davis, with either those already residing in Davis or those who have a job here in Davis. The 1% Growth Cap was an important way to ensure that temporary spikes in local supply don’t outstrip the ability of local demand to gobble up that supply. But even with tools like the 1% Growth Cap, and Measure J/R, and the Pass-Through Agreement in place, we can not change the basic local supply and regional demand housing reality in the davis market.
Davis Progressive said . . .
[i]”30 years is also ridiculous. not only do you ignore the massive growth in the 90s, but [b]you ignore that housing demand fell to nearly zero from 2008 until really the last year[/b]. you also seem to forget that there are several housing developments that are just now being built and most of those units are not online. you’ll also have the west village houses which have yet to be built because the developer there didn’t want houses on the market, even in a limited equity sense during the housing collapse. so instead of 30 years of pent up demand, you have less than one.”[/i]
While I agree with you that Toad’s comment was hyperbole, I think your bolded statement is a significant oversimplification of how the Davis housing market acted in the 2008 through 2013 time period. Housing demand for existing housing in Davis plummeted during that time period, but judging by how quickly any new houses that came on the market sold, and the highly inflated prices that they sold for (see Willowbank Park and Willowbank 10 as examples), the demand for new housing did not follow the same pattern as the resale housing.
I’m curious about your assessment of what the developer wanted in West Village. Did you get that information from the developer? … from UCD? Its an interesting perspective that I would like to know more about.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Follow the general plan, go through the commissions, apply for it in smaller increments, make sure it paid its own way as it was built, and do the whole thing more gradually. Mace Ranch and Wildhorse together caused a very high growth rate for Davis. At that time it was the fastest growing city in Yolo County by far. And it caused serious spikes in enrollment in the schools, causing the district to overbuild capacity, leading to the problems we have today. It caused an expansion of greenbelt and park maintenance that has stretched the city’s resources.
Had it been phased in, we could have absorbed and planned it much better.
Basically, I can’t think of a worse manner of development than what was done.”[/i]
Don, I could be wrong but it is my understanding that the development agreement with Ramos included the kind of gradual build out you desire. If that is correct, then the problem wasn’t so much with the process that defined and approved the development, but rather with the City’s failure to enforce the build-out provisions of the development agreement.
Translating that to the process that has been followed with respect to The Cannery. has the process to date gone through the commissions? To the best of my knowledge, the following commissions have conducted hearings on The Cannery in 2013, some of them multiple hearings.
Senior Citizen Commission,
Natural Resources Commission,
Open Space and Habitat Commission,
Bicycle Advisory Commission,
Safety and Traffic Commission,
Social Services Commission,
Park and Recreation Commission,
Business and Economic Development Commission,
Tree Commission, and
Planning Commission
In addition there have been non-commission workshops conducted by
Valley Climate Action Center, and
The Cool Davis Foundation
Hopefully, when and if a development agreement is completed, the City will do a better job of enforcing its build-out terms than the City did with Mace Ranch and Wildhorse.
.
[quote]Don, I could be wrong but it is my understanding that the development agreement with Ramos included the kind of gradual build out you desire.[/quote]
On what do you base that understanding?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Matt, I have described some of the problems Mace Ranch created for the city and the school district. With respect to those, your questions are irrelevant. It is the impact on the community and the city as a whole that is usually at issue in a development discussion, not whether the homeowners are happy with their choices retrospectively.”[/i]
I don’t disagree with the points you are making Don, but those points are reflective of “bad planning” not a “bad development.” The statement that has been made here (I believe by others, not by you) is that Mace Ranch was a “bad” development and that Wildhorse was a “bad” development. Neither of those two statements bear up under scrutiny. If they were “bad” then the market value of the houses would be low and the housing repar business in those neighborhoods would be booming. Neither of those situations is the case. Further, as I pointed out above, I believe that there wasn’t even “bad planning” involved in coming up with the development agreements for either/both of those developments. The failure was in the ex post facto enforcement of the terms of the development agreements.
Jim Frame mad the point that the Wildhorse developer tapped into the regional demand for Davis housing by advertising in the Bay Area. They then used that identified increased demand to justify an accelerated build-out schedule, and the City didn’t have the cojones to say “no.”
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”On what do you base that understanding?”[/i]
Personal homework done during both the City of Davis Housing Element Steering Committee process and the Youl County General Plan Update process, as well as personal conversations with Dan Ramos during the time when the ramos/Pomeroy partnership was attempting to get [i]The Vineyards At El Macero[/i] development approved by the County.
Are you questioning whether I do my homework?
More on apartments:
Based on data from UCD housing and their own surveys:
Enrollment 1997: 24,299
Enrollment 2012: 32,354
Increase in enrollment: 8,055
Total Apartments 1997: 7,591 Vacancy rate: 1.4%
Total Apartments 2012: 8,032 Vacancy rate: 1.7%
Increase number of apartments: 441
So with all the new buildings added, and all the units torn down, UCD and the city of Davis have added less than 500 units in 15 years. The vacancy rate has varied, but only once has it exceeded 4%. During 11 of the 15 years it has been less than 2%.
Please put these numbers in front of John Meyer. 8,000 new students, 441 net increase in apartments. Do you see why I say West Village barely covers the past insufficiency in housing for previous enrollment increases? In fact, it doesn’t even do that. And it certainly won’t cover the need for 5,000 more beds.
[quote]I don’t disagree with the points you are making Don, but those points are reflective of “bad planning” not a “bad development.”[/quote]
I agree. Mace Ranch was bad planning.
[quote] Further, as I pointed out above, I believe that there wasn’t even “bad planning” involved in coming up with the development agreements for either/both of those developments.[/quote]
If you limit the size of the development in the first place, you don’t have to worry about how staff will manage the pace of development.
As you know Don, I support (agree with) your comments about apartments being the #1 housing issue in Davis . . . by a mile.
I advocated for the possibility of a 100% apartment plan for The Cannery, but that got no traction (other than from you). The biggest objection was the location on the periphery of the City given that the primary market for apartments is students and the distance to the UCD campus from The Cannery is significant.
Apartments on the Nishi site would appear to be a much better siting decision.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”If you limit the size of the development in the first place, you don’t have to worry about how staff will manage the pace of development.”[/i]
In the world of supply/demand, if the demand is there, why should a business not capitalize on that demand? Limiting the size of any development i[u]s not[/u] something that is a natural outcome of the capitalistic economic model. Limiting the size of any development [u]is[/u] something that is indeed a natural outcome that often comes as a result of a city’s planning efforts.
According to the numbers Don provides Davis 30 year growth 62.89% or about an annual rate of 1.64% annually. California growth from 1980 to 2010 57.4%
So our area has grown at a slightly faster rate than California but Yolo County has grown slower than the rest of the region along the I-80 corridor by about 0.5% annually.
Given the fact that Davis is the home of the University of California campus with the most room for expansion these numbers should be higher. If the attitude of the community wasn’t that we want the benefits of hosting a UC campus without bearing the responsibility of hosting a UC campus we should have grown faster to provide more opportunity to the young people of California and the world for whom California serves as a magnet of opportunity.
And the piece you’re missing Mr. Toad is that UC Davis has really until West Village not provided for their own growth over that time.
UC Davis annual student growth rate 1997-2012 was 1.92% or .28% annually more than the City. I assume the numbers above Don provides are for the City. Of course the University staff has been growing faster than the students as administration has grown at an even faster pace than the student body. So where have all these people gone? They have gone to surrounding communities, especially Woodland, a community that houses a large cohort of UCD employees. So if Davis hadn’t been so opposed to growth we could have absorbed more of that growth and been a more vibrant community with shorter commute times and a healthier more environmentally sound life style.
One of the big complaints you hear is that we should not provide housing for commuters but the reality is that we haven’t provided housing for the people who commute to Davis to work by restricting supply to less than natural demand we drive out those who then must drive in to work because they can’t afford the expanded premium that resulted from restricting supply.
Yes David, UCD for many years let local developers profit from the student housing market and would have continued doing so had the no growth majority not taken over. When Greenwald, Harrington and Wagstaff said no UC hired Meyer to do it themselves. Of course this transition could have happened faster had the residents of West Davis not opposed West Village. The funny part is that West Village is a public peripheral growth project so the outcome was essentially the same although Spring Lake represents an even worse outcome, de facto leap frog development, for Davis workers.
I do think that much antipathy is aimed at a resentment of developers who get rich providing infrastructure for UC something UC allowed to happen in Davis until the City said no. However in Davis, while the families of those who were here early have done well, we aren’t as bad as some other campuses such as UC Irvine that made Donald Bren of the Irvine Ranch fabulously wealthy and politically powerful. Bren, who supported both Pete Wilson and Arnold Schwarzenegger, is a political king maker whose impact on policy in this state is under appreciated. I don’t think you can say that about local developer who has profited from UC. Here it has simply been about money and much of the anti-growth opposition is a 99% campaign with different rhetoric and a lack of self reflection.
Remember the scene with the Covell Village developers singing “We Shall Overcome.” Sort of says it all. The poor oppressed 1%. Davis anti-growth people have been fighting a class war against developers for decades. Its shrouded in limits to growth rhetoric but its there under the surface just as are the race and class issues. Yet it pops up in arguments with rhetoric that goes something like “We don’t need to give up our quality of life so a bunch of developers can get rich.” i just made that line up but it does reflect the tenor of many in the opposition to growth.
Mr. Toad
[quote]The poor oppressed 1%. Davis anti-growth people have been fighting a class war against developers for decades. Its shrouded in limits to growth rhetoric but its there under the surface just as are the race and class issues.[/quote]
This is a confusing statement to me. It would seem to me that the “race and class” of those opposing rapid development and the developers are the same. So how is it that you are putting them on opposite sides of this imaginary class war that you see occurring ? I see this, as often stated, not as a race or class war, but as competing visions of preservation of a community of a certain ambience vs those who would prefer to profit personally from development. There is no doubt that each side is acting in what they perceive as their own best interest. So why try to portray this as some cosmic moral battle ?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”And the piece you’re missing Mr. Toad is that UC Davis has really until West Village not provided for their own growth over that time.”[/i]
And that missing piece David explains exactly why Davis has grown at a rate as high the State-wide average. Absent that UCD decision to offload its housing onto the city, the growth rate would be significantly below the average . . . probably much the same as Yol County’s low average was/is.
Yes Medwoman its a balancing selection kind of thing. Anti-growth advocates don’t want those evil, greedy, rich developers bringing the unwashed masses that aren’t like us and who will degrade our quality of life, our schools and our safety. ‘Put ’em together and what have you got bippity, boppity, BOO!”
Based on data from UCD housing and their own surveys:
Enrollment 1997: 24,299
Enrollment 2012: 32,354
Increase in enrollment: 8,055
Total Apartments 1997: 7,591 Vacancy rate: 1.4%
Total Apartments 2012: 8,032 Vacancy rate: 1.7%
Increase number of apartments: 441
So with all the new buildings added, and all the units torn down, UCD and the city of Davis have added less than 500 units in 15 years. The vacancy rate has varied, but only once has it exceeded 4%. During 11 of the 15 years it has been less than 2%.
Recap: 8,000 new students, 441 net increase in apartments. Do you see why I say West Village barely covers the past insufficiency in housing for previous enrollment increases? In fact, it doesn’t even do that. And it certainly won’t cover the need for 5,000 more beds.
What does West Village provide?
“A home for 3,000 students, faculty and staff. At build-out, the project will include 662 apartments, 343 single-family homes, 42,500 square feet of commercial space, a recreation center and study facilities. The development also includes a site for a preschool/day care center.”
So UCD is adding 5000 students by 2020, 300+ faculty, probably at least 300+ staff, large numbers of graduate students.
We have a deficit of 7500 beds already.
They are adding a need for 5000 beds just for the student enrollment increase.
Total need: 12,500 beds.
They’re adding 3000 beds.
[quote]Mike, you’re right, I don’t get it…simple as that. No wonder you’ve won an ally in Mike Harrington with your goofy, contradictory statements. Why the heck didn’t you purchase the property for $21k an acre in 2009 when you had the chance? Or for $7.5k/acre in June? That’s way less than the $50k/acre you’ve been ranting about these past few days (never mind light industrial land trades for $250k-$400k per acre in Davis). PS: Why the heck the community would lift a finger to further Mike Hart’s land speculation schemes is beyond me.[/quote]- Michael Bisch
There is a concept called “On the market”. What that means is a seller actually putting the property out as being available for sale. Usually that involves listing the property and letting people know its for sale. I know you are probably visualizing a sign, balloons etc. But it doesn’t always work that way. For the ConAgra site for example in 2009, Lewis Homes gave the property back to ConAgra. It didn’t go on the market- it simply gave the property back to the note-holder. In June, again, the property wasn’t “on the market” when the county payed $2.6M. I suggest you find a friend here in town who works in real estate and I am sure they can explain this all to you. Your continued efforts to explain commercial real estate values, while ignoring the price the property we are actually talking about is just kinda weird.
You ask in a later post what about infrastructure? That isn’t a factor in the prices I am suggesting, I would suggest that the eventual buyers of the industrial land put together a Business Improvement District to provide the funding and infrastructure.
Finally, your rather peculiar comment about my “land speculation schemes” was I suppose meant to be insulting? I don’t have an interest in the property, I have already bought land for my business in West Sacramento last year. I am trying to find a way to preserve the opportunity for other businesses to locate in Davis and keep the jobs here.
Mike Hart said . . .
[i]”There is a concept called “On the market”. What that means is a seller actually putting the property out as being available for sale. Usually that involves listing the property and letting people know its for sale.
I suggest you find a friend here in town who works in real estate and I am sure they can explain this all to you. Your continued efforts to explain commercial real estate values, while ignoring the price the property we are actually talking about is just kinda weird.” [/i]
Mike, when you use the term “On the market” it is important to look at the listing and determine the components of the listing.
The 420 acre ConAgra listing consists of two parts, a 100 acre “commercial real estate” parcel and a 320 acre “agriculture-only” parcel. The 100 acre parcel is developable and lies within the Davis City Limits. The 320 acre parcel is not developable and lies outside the Davis City Limits adjacent to the Yolo County Landfill. You couldn’t ask for two less similar parcels.
Further, the 320 acre parcel is highly restricted in its possible use. The Appraisers Report dated April 25, 2013 analyzes the parcel as follows, [quote]”The subject property is zoned for agricultural use. The surrounding area is devoted to agricultural uses, and is sparsely improved with some residences and farm headquarters. There is no development other than either residences or improvements relating to agricultural use. Soils in the immediate area of the subject property are very good for the growing of row crops. The subject property is located within of the sphere of influence of the City of Davis, but is in an area designated open space for public health and safety, as it is within one mile of the Yolo County Central Landfill. Thus, it cannot be developed to a higher and better use than agriculture. There are some properties in the area being restored to their natural state for use as mitigation for development in Davis. However, our research indicates that with the limited amount of development in Davis, as well as the low demand for residential land due to the current economic climate, prices paid for mitigation in this area do not exceed the prices paid for good agricultural land. Therefore, it is the appraiser’s opinion that the highest and best use of the subject property is for agricultural purposes, primarily row crop.”[/quote]The Appraiser’s Report values the 320 acres at a total of $1,440,000 ($4,500 an acre, which is consistent with the price for row crop agricultural land in Yolo County). and when you subtract $1,440,000 from $12,500,000 you are left with just over $11 million for the 100 acres within the City Limits, which works out to $110,000 per unimproved acre.
Matt-
I am not really clear of your point here. I wholeheartedly agree with your assesment of the two parcels and the very big differences between them. I have visited both properties with the owners and have detailed plans of both including the deeds etc. At no point have I ever considered the 420 acres to be “one parcel” etc. (they are miles apart and connected by a waste water line). When I have done my assesments of the property I have been very clear that the value captured from the 320 acre parcel sold to the county for $2.6M should be deducted from the remaining value of the property. Reasonably, you would also deduct the value of over 400,000 square feet of buildings that were destroyed after the 2004 sale as well. The net value is far lower.