An amazing thing happened this spring during the election. Other than the comical attempts by Choices for Healthy Aging (CHA) to bait council candidates into supporting their senior housing site at Covell Village, there was almost no land use discussion during the last council campaign.
Instead, people were focused on the looming threat that is fiscal insolvency for the city. In the now nearly five months that have passed since the election, we have not had one substantive discussion on that threat.
But at least we have returned to our core, with a heated land use discussion. The question facing us now is what to do with the vacant site that ConAgra owns and is zoned industrial. And the collateral problem is that if you take that out of industrial use, where does the city then put its business park, which it is prioritizing (and really as it should)?
There has been a lot of discussion on this site in the last few days, most of which I have not had time to address. I used to be able to write an article and then hang around to discuss the issues afterwards, but I cannot do that anymore. That is one of the trade-offs I have had to make in order to launch the new court watch project, and also the most important project which is raising my nearly 11-month-old foster daughter and school-age niece and nephew.
Back to the issue at hand, the problem I see here is that there is and has been a fundamental tension between community desires on development and who they vote for when it comes time for them to elect councilmembers. And so people will elect more pro-growth councilmembers like Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, Ruth Asmundson, and now perhaps we can also put Rochelle Swanson into that category.
At the same time, people will vote against Covell Village, Wildhorse Ranch, and probably any other peripheral development in the next five to ten years.
Those who argue that perhaps the ConAgra site is not the best location for a business park will get no argument from me. However, that is not the only issue at stake here. Because we really do have an opportunity to improve our business landscape and to take advantage of UC Davis’ proximity and to focus on attracting startups and spinoffs.
But where do we put them? Unfortunately, I think we are going to see them end up either on or south of the campus, which will mean that Davis may not directly benefit from any of the millions that are being pumped into research at UC Davis.
Part of my concern here is that I still see the looming fiscal problem, and we are not focusing on it. It does not matter how much of these kinds of businesses that we bring in, as most of them are not going to directly generate revenue for the city. And even if they do, they are not going to bridge our fiscal gap.
I use Target as an example to show how large an enterprise you have to run to generate a relatively small amount of revenue. Target is said to produce about $600,000 in sales tax. That is a large chunk of cash. It would certainly rival some of the auto dealerships as a revenue source.
The problem is that is very small in terms of making a dent in our fiscal problems. We are talking in the millions, if not over ten million, that may come due in 2015 if things continue to progress as they have.
In other words, even bringing in jobs and high-tech industry is not going to produce enough revenue for the city to shrink this gap.
That is fine and there are other reasons to develop a business park that make it worthy of continuing our efforts, but there seems to be a mistaken impression that somehow this is going to fix the fiscal problem and it won’t.
Another point that I think needs to be brought back here is community versus developer-driven models. Mayor Pro Tem Joe Krovoza made this point on Tuesday night.
“It feels here, for such an important site for our city, that is zoned industrial currently, that we’re driving our decision by a proposal that comes in that is proposing housing where we’ve carved out 20 acres maximum if we’re going with the developer’s preference for a business park,” Councilmember Krovoza said Tuesday during his comments.
He argued that he would prefer that the city figure out zoning that makes sense, and then make that be known to the developers.
“I think putting this out to the City of Davis and responding to what the developer has put here is to some extent almost disrespecting our own ability to think about this fresh and right direction,” he said.
At the same time, we have the landowners arguing that they can leave the land vacant if they want. “You can’t force landowners to do what they ultimately do not want to do,” ConAgra representative George Phillips told the council.
Now, that is not necessarily true. You basically have blight at the ConAgra site. The city actually has authority to compel the owners to remove blight. They can cite the owners under existing statutes.
This is what eventually happened at Westlake Shopping Center. The owners had allowed the property to degrade, they refused community efforts to bring in merchants, and allowed the property to lie vacant for three and a half years.
What changed? Photos on this site embarrassed the city’s Community Development Department into starting to use city ordinances to fine the owners, and that eventually convinced them that they needed to bring in business.
So, the developers here do not hold as many cards as they think. The community needs to be the one to determine the best use. I do not believe most people in this community want to see a 600-unit housing project right now that will likely morph into something closer to 1000 units once all is said and done.
We need to determine our needs, and give the developers the direction. And if they do not wish to take that direction, we have things that we can do. We are not powerless in this fight, as Mr. Souza suggested on Tuesday night. But council needs to actually take leadership here.
I want to make one final point. One of the commentators wrote this week, “Some of the participants are so paranoid about a house being built somewhere in the city that they actually favor a massive commercial development on the ConAgra site to block home building.”
I do not see things that way. I see two distinct issues: the lack of need for housing and the need for economic development likely in a business park. The complicating factor is the location for that business park.
We just do not have great options. I agree with those who would like to see the focus stay in the core. If we could produce a strategy that would generate the business needs in the core and preserve the peripheral lands, I would likely favor that and just allow the ConAgra site to lay as it is.
However, short of that, I oppose 600 units of housing at ConAgra and I oppose developing either Mace or the Northwest Quadrant for a business park. I also, in general, oppose developing the Nishi project at all, unless we have a really good solution to the extremes of congested traffic on Richards versus making the University the only exit point, effectively land-locking the Nishi site out of the city.
And my biggest alarm is that it is now November, we still have not touched the fiscal issues that were the biggest concern during the election, and we are now moving perilously down a path that will lead to sprawl and destruction of farmland.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“And so people will elect more pro-growth councilmembers like Don Saylor, Stephen Souza, Ruth Asmundson, and now perhaps we can put Rochelle Swanson into that category.”
Rochell voted no on Measure X and was for Measure R. I didn’t think Rochelle was a pro growth candidate, that’s why I voted for her.
Did I get tricked?
We’ll have to see how this goes. I was concerned though listening to her rationale for supporting housing at ConAgra.
[quote]Now, that is not necessarily true. You basically have blight at the ConAgra site. The city actually has authority to compel the owners to remove blight. They can cite the owners under existing statutes.[/quote]
David: I made a very similar comment yesterday (perhaps you read it). We’ve had a lot of discussion lately about legal issues and even some about the Holiday Inn. Most cities have statutes against blight or blight like issues and the courts have recognized “urban decay” (which has a lower threshold than blight) is an environmental factor that can be considered. If this City was so inclined this could be explored but I doubt our CC wants to go that route.
[quote]Rochell voted no on Measure X and was for Measure R. I didn’t think Rochelle was a pro growth candidate, that’s why I voted for her.
Did I get tricked? [/quote]
Rusty: You and I both got tricked–and people wonder why we are skeptics.
Everyone who voted for Rochelle because they thought she wasn’t a
“pro growth” candidate should let Rochelle know how they feel about her Cannery vote. Obviously she puts alot of merit (too much?) into testimony at the CC meetings and what she hears on the street. Let her know how 75% of Davis really feel.
Hi David,
I have read your last three commentaries where you have said pretty much everything that I already said during the meeting, without any aknowledgement. I am happy to see that we agree on some land use issues.
I won’t have the time to report on everything that transpired during the meeting, but I encourage people to watch the meeting themselves from beginning to end because it did represent a sea change in plannig direction for the city.
With regard to comments on the Con Agra site during the last few days, I will repeat some observations that I have made in the past:
Concerning asseertions that Con Agra is a poor location for a business park: This myth is spread by people who either don’t want a high-tech park at that particular location, or by people who want a high-tech park at a peripheral site. A number of Davis high-tech business owners have said in the past that they consider it a good site. Many high-tech business owners want quiet, campus like environments. Some want to be on freeways, and some would prefer not to be on freeways. There are many high-tech parks that are not on freeways. High-tech companies will locate in a variety of places. Con-Agra is a fine site.
Concerning comments that Con-Agra says they have absolutely no interest in a business park and will sit on it forever if they can’t turn it into housig: I don’t believe that for a minute.
If I owned that land, I would rather build houses than a business park because houses always produce more profit. So of course I would say I have “absolutely no interest” in selling it for business park development. Particularly if I felt I could convince the officials responsible zoning of that fact.
In reality, the city council has always indicated that they would consider changing the zoning. As long as the city council held out hope that the zonig could be changed from high-tech to housing, Con Agra would never sell the land for the lower high-tech zoned prices that it is “really” worth.
My suggestion at the council meeting was to keep the land zoned high-tech, with 30% houses as a conditional use, but to specify that the housing could only be built when a high-tech anchor had been found and the business park underway.
Con Agra is a big company. They would not sit on that land, tying up their capitol, and paying property taxes and assuming liability forever. They would do the rational thing and sell it for what the property was worth as mostly high-tech zoned land.
The Con Agra is the only land where the city gets a high-enough share of the property tax to actually make some net revenue from high-tech. We will not get anywhere near the property tax if we annex peripheral land from the county.
[quote]If I owned that land, I would rather build houses than a business park because houses always produce more profit. So of course I would say I have “absolutely no interest” in selling it for business park development. Particularly if I felt I could convince the officials responsible zoning of that fact. [/quote]
Sue: You make a good point here–ConAgra will make more money on housing so one should be skeptical about any claims made by its spokespeople. I think a business park would be challenging in this climate but I am not convinced it could not be done.
[quote]Con Agra is a big company. They would not sit on that land, tying up their capitol, and paying property taxes and assuming liability forever. They would do the rational thing and sell it for what the property was worth as mostly high-tech zoned land[/quote]
ConAgra is not in the business of developing land. They will sell this land regardless. Obviously they know its worth more if it is rezoned. It will be worth even more if this project goes forward and the City Council does not require that the project be fiscally sound.
“We just do not have great options. I agree with those who would like to see the focus stay in the core. If we could produce a strategy that would generate the business needs in the core and preserve the peripheral lands, I would likely favor that and just allow the ConAgra site to lay as it is.”
This statement is key to a sustainable future for our community, David. Keep your eye on the ball. There are many members of our community who preach sustainability, but then engage in irrational rhetoric and counterproductive decisionmaking. They talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. Sue Greenwald is one of them. Two plus two equals 5. Two Plus Two Equals Five. TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FIVE. Becoming more shrill doesn’t make an argument more compelling.
dmg: “Part of my concern here is that I still see the looming fiscal problem, and we are not focusing on it. It does not matter how much of these kinds of businesses that we bring in, as most of them are not going to directly generate revenue for the city. And even if they do, they are not going to bridge our fiscal gap.”
I don’t think anyone is arguing that business development will somehow take care of all our city’s fiscal problems. The city’s fiscal problems is a whole other issue. But unfortunately our lame duck mayor has decided to push through his own agenda, come hell our high water. Business development seems to be one of things on his agenda. Since business development is front and center, we have no choice but to discuss it and make our views known.
What I see is a lame duck mayor on his way out, trying to arrange things so that ConAgra is taken off the list of available sites for a business park. This will force peripheral development on Nishi, I-80 and the Northwest Quadrant, for commercial uses, a sort of “dead hand control” from a mayor who will be long gone to the Board of Supervisors who will not have to take responsibility for any havoc he has wrought. The city should not cave in to ConAgra’s bluster, but make sure to do what is in the best interests of the city.
I am not necessarily opposed to peripheral commercial business development, nor mixed use at ConAgra. I’m not sure, bc I haven’t had enough information put in front of me to make what I would consider a reasoned decision. But at the moment I am dead set against changing the zoning on the Cannery site until an equal weight EIR for a business park is done. Nor is this the time to be building housing, when it clearly is not needed, and will not amount to “affordable workforce housing” for a nonexistent business park. It is putting the cart before the horse. Build the business first, which will then generate a need for workforce housing. My guess is if ConAgra is allowed to build houses, the entire site will be almost all houses in the ultimate analysis.
Jo and Ro are now on the task force w BEDC to “decide details”, whatever the heck that means. My hope is they both push hard for some real ConAgra accountability, but my fear is they will step into land mines set for them by the development community that has its own hidden agenda. Don Shor’s referral to the Ramos debacle is a prime example of what can happen if the city is not careful about what it is doing…
Sue Greenwald: “Concerning asseertions that Con Agra is a poor location for a business park: This myth is spread by people who either don’t want a high-tech park at that particular location, or by people who want a high-tech park at a peripheral site. A number of Davis high-tech business owners have said in the past that they consider it a good site. Many high-tech business owners want quiet, campus like environments. Some want to be on freeways, and some would prefer not to be on freeways. There are many high-tech parks that are not on freeways. High-tech companies will locate in a variety of places. Con-Agra is a fine site.”
I have never understood why the ConAgra site is considered less than ideal. It is not very far away from I-5. And it is not that far from Highway 113, which takes a commuter right out to I-80. Perhaps the difference is I come from the Washington, D.C. area, where commuting a fair distance to work is an accepted practice. I used to communte 1.25 hrs one way every day to get to work via the Metro (subway). I didn’t see it as a big deal. Some would commute by train 2 and 3 hrs. The time it would take someone to get from the ConAgra site to either I-80 or I-5 is not more than 15 minutes for Pete’s sake…
The nearest neighborhood resistance to a business park I really don’t understand, bc a high-tech park would be better than a tomato cannery, which is what it used to be. A high-tech park is not heavy industrial, would be quiet and restful. Additional traffic would be the biggest problem, but I suspect with proper access, that problem could be considerabley mitigaged. In fact one way to mitigate traffic problems is to allow workers flex-time, which is what I used to have. Everyone comes in and leaves at their chosen preferred time, to cut down on ingress and egress all at the same time. It can be worked out…
“Rusty: You and I both got tricked–and people wonder why we are skeptics.”
Rochelle Swanson is now on our council not because she presented herself primarily as a “slow-growth” candidate but rather that she was a more acceptable than Asmundson’s protege and would-be Saylor proxy. Rochelle appeared to have little political ambitions beyond the borders of Davis and could more likely be trusted not to sell out Davis’ interests(as she perceived them) for personal political advantage. Swanson was always primarily the candidate of local business, most especially local real estate interests and there should be no overwhelming sense of betrayal here. In her sense of fairness along with organizing a citizen-launched initiative network to be activated when necessary lies our best hope.
network
Here in a nutshell are the major distortions in DMG’s article:
(1) Distortion #1 – The 600 unit project will morph into something much bigger
This is basic fear-mongering. If anything, the density will decrease. Less traffic impacts. Higher profit margins for the developer. Higher tax revenues to the city.
(2) Distortion #2 – The property is blighted and the city can use this as a big stick to force the property owner to submit a business park application.
First, the basic premise is untrue. Second, this particular landowner is not going take fiscally irresponsible action because of chest thumping by GGN.
(3) Distortion #3 – Approval of a peripheral business park will lead to sprawl.
This was discussed at length on a previous thread. It is foolish to suggest that if the voters approve the annexation of land for a business park then that will somehow magically blow up Measure R or change the community’s voting trends on residential proposals.
My hope is that Rochelle supports Sue Greenwald along with Joe Krovoza as part of the Council team that will directly participate in the proposal negotiations before any rezoning or entitlement. Significantly increasing the 20% mixed-use number, realistic impact fees to mitigate traffic issues and business build-out prior to residential construction are just three issues that could move this proposal to a more Davis community consensus-driven position.
“I have never understood why the ConAgra site is considered less than ideal.”
ERM: The property is zoned for approximately 850,000 sq ft. This is roughly the size of Arden Fair Mall … or more than a dozen buildings the size of the large DTL building near Target.
Do you support this much commercial development on this site?
Local:
What you are calling distortions, are disagreements.
First, “Distortion #1 – The 600 unit project will morph into something much bigger: This is basic fear-mongering. If anything, the density will decrease. Less traffic impacts. Higher profit margins for the developer. Higher tax revenues to the city.”
It is of course a matter of opinion as to whether or not the 600 unit project will morph into something bigger than that. My view is based on the fact that these are housing developers and housing is the big profit motive here. I could be wrong, but that’s not a distortion its an opinion.
On the other hand, you argue that that the density will decrease, that is your opinion. However, if the density decreases it is factually in accurate to argue that there would be either higher profit margins for the developer or higher tax revenues to the city. Both need greater, not lesser density to increase OR they need larger units, which would also increase both.
Second, “(2) Distortion #2 – The property is blighted and the city can use this as a big stick to force the property owner to submit a business park application: First, the basic premise is untrue. Second, this particular landowner is not going take fiscally irresponsible action because of chest thumping by GGN.”
The basic premise is not untrue, I checked this carefully before I wrote it and the area could be considered blight and the city has legal tools to deal with blight and those who allow property to fall into blight. Look at the Municipal Code and also look at blight laws at the state level if you fail to believe me. Not sure what GGN means, but the council does have considerably more power than they are wielding.
Third, “(3) Distortion #3 – Approval of a peripheral business park will lead to sprawl: This was discussed at length on a previous thread. It is foolish to suggest that if the voters approve the annexation of land for a business park then that will somehow magically blow up Measure R or change the community’s voting trends on residential proposals.”
This is my opinion versus yours. I’m arguing that adding a business park to either the Mace Curve or Northwest Quadrant will lead to sprawl pressures. I never said it would blow up Measure R, but when there are large amounts of money to be raised, the incentives will be to bring forth housing to supply the new workers and the citizens only a shoe string budget are simply not going to have the energy or resources to defeat a Measure R on a repeated basis. Think about how much citizen effort went into defeating X or P, now imagine something on the ballot every six months, sorry but I think you are overestimating the ability of Davis residents to organize. But again, this is my opinion, this was a commentary, not a distortion. You may disagree with it. I may even be wrong.
[quote]”Some of the participants are so paranoid about a house being built somewhere in the city that they actually favor a massive commercial development on the ConAgra site to block home building.”[/quote]Somebody obviously touched a nerve.
This really sums things up quite nicely. Slow growth vs no growth.
I would also add – Economic development vs no growth.
Among all the efforts to distract from the key issue, ERM,I appreciate you bringing it front and center. You don’t have an issue with cummuting a fair distance to work, neither does Sue Greenwald, neither does most of California. This is why we have sprawl all over the state and region. But this community for decades has declared it has a serious issue with sprawl and unsustainable development. That is exactly why ALL our planning documents, going back DECADES, call for a dense urban core surrounded by open area. That allows one to live within walking and biking distance of where one works and recreates. Now if you and Sue wish to bring on a community debate about revising the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint, let’s bring it on.
“You don’t have an issue with cummuting a fair distance to work, neither does Sue Greenwald, neither does most of California.”
DT: Your sentence structure is a bit ambiguous here, so I am not completely certain if you mean that Sue and Elaine don’t have to commute to work or whether you mean that Sue and Elaine don’t have a problem with people having to commute a fair distance to work?
Yikes! I’ve been followed to Davis by my Jr. H.S. English teacher. 🙂 Thanks for the clarification request, David. I meant to say that Sue and Elaine don’t have a problem with people having to commute a fair distance to work. Elaine specifically stated so in her 9:17AM post and I have personally heard Sue make similar statements in policy discussion. Furthermore, what I have heard each of them advocate likely results in unsustainable community development and a reduced quality of life. With Elaine, it is entirely likely that she doesn’t realize the potential repercussions of some of the things that she is advocating for. But with Sue, there is no excuse. She is in a leadership position where she has ready access to a great deal of information that can guide her in sensible decision making. She simply chooses not to listen; it’s unforgiveable. That’s one of the key characteristics seperating great community leaders from the not so great.
“Both need greater, not lesser density to increase OR they need larger units, which would also increase both.”
DMG: From a planning perspective density is tied to number of dwelling units, not house size. Hence my suggestion that the pressure will be to decrease density, not raise it.
Bigger house. Higher profit margin for the developers. More property tax revenue to the city. Less traffic.
davisite2: “My hope is that Rochelle supports Sue Greenwald along with Joe Krovoza as part of the Council team that will directly participate in the proposal negotiations before any rezoning or entitlement. Significantly increasing the 20% mixed-use number, realistic impact fees to mitigate traffic issues and business build-out prior to residential construction are just three issues that could move this proposal to a more Davis community consensus-driven position.”
Nicely said.
local: “Do you support this much commercial development on this site?”
Not sure until an equal weight EIR is done…
DTB: “Among all the efforts to distract from the key issue, ERM,I appreciate you bringing it front and center. You don’t have an issue with cummuting a fair distance to work, neither does Sue Greenwald, neither does most of California. This is why we have sprawl all over the state and region.”
You will also have sprawl if you force commercial peripheral development outside the city limits. So I have to assume your position is to leave ConAgra forever vacant, no commercial peripheral development outside the city limits, and stick to just beefing up the downtown? Understandable position from a downtown business person who doesn’t want any competition, but perhaps not realistic from land use planning perspective where some growth (smart growth/accommodating UCD startups) is desirable…
DTB: It was an honest clarification request, I thought at first it meant that Sue and Elaine personally don’t have to commute, and then I thought it might be the alternative which it was.
So Local, if you decrease density, that will raise the price of housing, how will that then accommodate the professed need for workforce housing?
[quote]local: “Do you support this much commercial development on this site?”
Not sure until an equal weight EIR is done…
[/quote]ERM: You’re dodging the question.
The facts are that you have plenty of opinions in areas where you are clearly misinformed or have not done your homework.
So what is it? Do you support 850,000 sq ft of commercial on this site?
local: “Distortion #3 – Approval of a peripheral business park will lead to sprawl.”
Peripheral development — development of rural land next to a city — is the definition of sprawl. But now I can add “distortion” to the long and growing list of pejoratives you like to employ. Here is the pro-annexation playbook folks. These are all direct quotes.
Discussing the problems of growth are:
fear-mongering
cheap tactics
by a
virulent vocal minority
pitting neighborhood against neighborthood
using
false and inflammatory rhetoric or self-serving political rhetoric
which is
absurd
paranoid
foolish
unbelievably naïve
Those who disagree with local:
I’m having a very hard time believing that you are truly this misinformed.
You don’t have the appropriate professional experience. You don’t have the facts. You don’t understand many of the facts that you do have. And you routinely spin…
It’s about petty Davis power politics and payback for WHR.
What should we do?
Stop living in the past
What are you afraid of? Let the process work.
And finally, the absolute conclusion by an anonymous expert:
A business park will never be built on this site.
local: “ERM: You’re dodging the question.”
Excuse me? I am not going to allow you to put words in my mouth that I don’t wish to say…
local: “The facts are that you have plenty of opinions in areas where you are clearly misinformed or have not done your homework.”
Why the personal attack? Attack the opinion, not the person…
Secondly, anyone has a right to express an opinion, the last time I looked at our U.S. Constitution and the terms of this blog. Why must your opinion be so much better than the rest of ours? Who died and made you the Arbiter of All Things Right and Relevant? I have no problem with you arguing your position vigorously, but don’t appreciate the dismissal of opinions as not worthy of consideration bc you say so. If you have special expertise that the rest of us don’t, please explain…
local: “So what is it? Do you support 850,000 sq ft of commercial on this site?”
I may or may not support a business park on this site, depending on what an equal weight EIR would show. My initial instinct, which I have stated clearly before, is to be in favor of a business park only. However, I am trying to keep an open mind on the mixed use possibility. As davisite2 pointed out, if the percentage that was business park were increased, if the business park were built before the residential part, and realistic impact fees to mitigate ill effects of the project were instituted, it would go a long way to possibly change my mind.
But what we have now is ConAgra bullying their way to getting what they want for profit motives, which may not be in the best interests of the city if it results in unacceptable commercial peripheral development. Some are in favor of a mixed use at the ConAgra site bc they live near the ConAgra site, and want it all residential if possible. Downtown businesses don’t want a business park bc it might breed competition/consumer traffic away from downtown. Biases in this discussion abound, but it doesn’t make any one opinion right or wrong. It is a point of view. People should be able to agree to disagree; and should be able to hold off taking a definite position until they have learned more.
It is ironic that you would accuse me of being ill informed/not doing my homework, then criticize me for not taking a definite position even though I choose not to until I’ve learned more. You can’t have it both ways…
ERM, you clearly have not been reading my previous posts or intentionally ignoring them. I agree with staff’s recommendation in the BPLSU, which also jives with the University’s desires. Focus growth in the Downtown, the Gateway/Olive Drive area, and Nishi. Once these areas have been saturated, the community can look elsewhere. However, it could be many, many years before the community has to make very hard choices elsewhere. There are many communities around the world who have generated tremendous economic growth without sacrificing there open areas. We need to stay true to our urban planning prinipals as outlined in the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint. And we need to be smart about it.
ERM, your assumption that I’m a Downtown businessperson “who doesn’t want any competition” is an unfounded cheap shot. Artificial barriers to competition is the exact opposite of what I have advocated for in public. My advocacy has been for fair, open competition. I also advocate for directing growth in and around the Downtown because that is what the stated desire of the community has been for decades as stated in ALL our planning documents. I actually make more money if we follow your peripheral growth advocacy. But I’m not willing to sacrifice my family’s quality of life for a few more shekels.
dmg: “So Local, if you decrease density, that will raise the price of housing, how will that then accommodate the professed need for workforce housing?”
Good point…
When it comes to land use planning and commercial development, there are many competing interests. It is difficult to come to a consensus bc of those competing interests, but I think with proper process and without backroom dealing/hidden agendas/bullying, it can be done. But there has to be a collective effort to remain open-minded and civil in the ensuing discussions.
[quote]DS: The relevant comparison is the development patterns of cities with growth ordinances like Measure J/R.
Arguing that we will have sprawl if we annex in the 100 acre Mace site is, once again, absurd. And fear-mongering.
But I now get your position. You own a small retail business and believe that … “Peripheral development is always harmful to small (and medium) local retailers.” Fair enough.
But the idea that a 100 acre business park designed for mid-sized high-tech companies is going to be harmful to your business sounds a bit paranoid.[/quote]This is why Don is mad at me. Go read the 10/28 thread if you want to see his attacks in context.
Don is mad at me
And now we have the characterizations of my emotional state. If you want to have a discussion about the issues, you might wish to avoid the personal characterizations.
[quote]”My hope is that Rochelle supports Sue Greenwald along with Joe Krovoza as part of the Council team that will directly participate in the proposal negotiations before any rezoning or entitlement. Significantly increasing the 20% mixed-use number, realistic impact fees to mitigate traffic issues and business build-out prior to residential construction are just three issues that could move this proposal to a more Davis community consensus-driven position.” [/quote]
Once again I agree with davisite2 (and apparently ERM). If this does go through the City needs to get a good deal. Housing is very profitable for developers but not necessarily for cities.
I’d like to know what it’s going to take get the policy makers and policy advocates to keep our community’s planning principals front and center when considering various projects and policies. Nowhere is it stated in the GP that no more living units are to be built within the community. Nowhere is it stated that more business parks are to be built on the periphery or not built on the periphery. Nowhere is it stated that housing prices are to be kept artificially high or low by restricting or promoting further residential construction. What is stated is that the community desires a compact, walkable/bikeable, community surrounded by greenbelt. Yet one would never know it by following this blog or listening to policy debates. How hard is it to keep this principal in mind when discussing individual projects or policies, or when developing economic development strategies? Do I need to tattoo this principal on everyone’s forehead?
“So Local, if you decrease density, that will raise the price of housing, how will that then accommodate the professed need for workforce housing?”
DMG: That is the art of planning … and effective leadership. You have to balance competing unmet needs/wants with available resources. This is where Rochelle shines (and why she is being vilified on your blog).
It’s not all black and white, and leaders have to make choices. Housing needs, school enrollments, business park land inventory needs, economic development, property tax revenue, etc, etc, etc all need to be considered.
I would be very surprised if the project did not have a workforce housing component.
“It is ironic that you would accuse me of being ill informed/not doing my homework, then criticize me for not taking a definite position even though I choose not to until I’ve learned more. You can’t have it both ways… “
ERM: Your position is quite clear. You are opposed to the ConAgra mixed use proposal based largely on a process argument, and you refuse to make a statement regarding whether or not you think North Davis should adsorb the impacts of Sue Greenwald’s 100% business park proposal.
Am I not understanding what you wrote?
local: “The property is zoned for approximately 850,000 sq ft. This is roughly the size of Arden Fair Mall…”
Actually, Arden Fair Mall is over a million square feet. 1.1 million, to be precise.
“…you refuse to make a statement regarding whether or not you think North Davis should adsorb the impacts of Sue Greenwald’s 100% business park proposal.”
Actually, that isn’t what you asked. But isn’t this pitting neighborhood against neighborhood?
davisite2: Your proposal to “negotiate” an increase the amount of business park and accelerate it’s build-out are at odds with the goals of (1) downtown preservation and (2) minimizing neighborhood impacts.
What you’ve essentially done is laid out a roadmap for no project. Is that your position?
As we all know, the tactic of forcing a move to the middle under the ruse of “compromise” was what killed the last application.
DS: Nope … and you know it isn’t. This is a conflict between mixed use vs industrial vs no project. You framed it as North Davis vs East Davis on the last thread. And I rejected the domino theory argument that you used to support the neighborhood vs neighborhood frame.
and you know it isn’t.
There you go again.
I addressed a number of the issues raised here at the meeting.
Regarding neighborhood impacts, I believe that a well designed high-tech park with carefully chosen ancillary uses would help and not hurt the surrounding neighborhood. it would be smart growth, because it would bring jobs to an area where housing exists, so that more people could walk and bike to work. It would provide a market for the neighbhorhood shopping, and hence improve the neighborhood-serving retail. It would be attractive and well-landscraped, because high-tech businesses demand that, and so would the city.
As a rule of thumb, traffic studies show that business parks produce about the same amount of traffic that housing does, so any mix of business park and housing should be about equal from a traffic perspective. High-tech industry does not bring major truck traffic, and our zoning specifies that the uses MUST be neighborhood compatible.
I hesititate to say this, given our concern with housing affordability, but but a fact is that a well-designed high-tech business park will increase housing prices in the neighborhood, just as housing prices are higher in the core area. Modern housing preferences show a huge value placed on proximity to work and neighborhood shopping.
Concerning the arguments that a business park could not succeed in this development climate: Neither could a business park at a peripheral site such as the Northwest Quadrant or jumping the Mace Curve on I-80. In fact, if we zoned for a business park at these sites, the land owner and/or the developer would immediately start arguing that a business park does not pencil out, and would start demanding zoning changes to allow housing or freeway retail.
What seems to be lost in this discussion is that concurrent with the vote to start rezoning Con Agra to housing, the council voted 4-1 to start pursuing the annexaton of a large parcel of peripheral land across the Mace Curve or the Northwest Quadrant. These sites have far more infrastructure costs than Con Agra, the difficulty of making a high tech park work would be just as great, and it would be big-time sprawl-inducing to offer these new parcels a small amount of housing to help make them pencil out.
I am afraid that if we rezone the Con Agra site to housing, we will end up with no high tech and conventional suburban sprawl.
As I said at the meetin, there are conditions under which I would consider a peripheral high tech site, but only in conjunction with the University and an agreement with the University annex West village and to refrain from growing on our borders in Solano County, which is what I see as the biggest threat to our downtown and to our ability to have any control in order to maintain good planning.
Concerning the Nishi, I was very concerned that the council voted 4/1 to adopt the BDSE work plan, which included developing the Nishi specifically stating that Richards Boulevard would be the entrance.
As I stated at the meeting, I assume they specified this because they knew that the property was land locked between the railroad tracks and I-80, and that a business park wouldn’t pencil out on the Nishi if the develper had to build an automobile underpass to access the UCD/Davis I-80 interchange.
Clearly, Richard and Olive Drive cannot handle that much more traffic, nor the expensive of widening the Richards tunnel, regardless of the desirability or lack thereof of such a widening.
Finally, as I stated at the meeting, I am very concerned about council priorities. Council voted to embark on three contentious, time-consuming development projects which will absorb most of staff and council time and energy, in a period when development is slow, the projects flawed or greatly premature, and staff and council should be involved in dealing with our major fiscal challenges, such as controlling our astronimically increasing costs of our future water water/sewer projects and dealing with our unfunded liabilities.
Some councilmember have other jobs, our city manager’s time is limited, and I know how much time it takes to really tackle any major issues. We can’t do it all and we should be dealing with our highest-priority issues.
I don’t believe that our highest priority issues are chasing unwise or premature development projects that will probably never pass voter scrutiny anyway.
@ Sue Greenwald: “In fact, if we zoned for a business park at these sites, the land owner and/or the developer would immediately start arguing that a business park does not pencil out, and would start demanding zoning changes to allow housing or freeway retail.”
If the community votes to annex the land at Mace and I80 for high tech business park, the property will still remain under Measure R control for any other land use. The domino theory that annexation for business park would increase the risk of big box retail and sprawl is false.
The land is already under tremendous growth pressure. Measure J/R is doing its job. It has and will continue to prevent further residential or retail growth east of Mace.
“As we all know, the tactic of forcing a move to the middle under the ruse of “compromise” was what killed the last application.”
Local: As can be said of many of your responses on this thread, you appear again to be blinded by your advocacy. I DO NOT agree with your “as we all know” lead-in to your proposed statement of fact. The synergy of former City Manager Emlen’s dogged crusade to only plan and develop the Cannery property in conjunction with Whitcombe’s Covell Village property and Whitcombe’s proxies on the Council(Saylor/Asmundson and Souza) made a stand-alone development of the Cannery property appear to be a non-starter and is likely what prompted Lewis Properties to “throw in the towel”. One can only speculate why Lewis Properties chose to have ConAgra foreclose on the property rather than allow Whitcombe to buy it from them as was rumored to be in negotiation.
I think that Nishi is a natural site to develop, and if the Chancellor is indeed feeling urgent about finding a site for business-related development then perhaps she can help facilitate resolution of the traffic problems through the campus. It seems to me that the council needs to prioritize the different growth projects that it is facing. I would urge them to focus on Nishi by beginning a collaborative process with the Chancellor’s office, put ConAgra on the back burner for 1 – 2 years (i.e., take no action now), and take all peripheral development proposals off the table completely for at least 3 – 5 years. Stick to the site rankings of the housing task force and wait until green light sites are built before giving consideration to yellow light sites.
Nishi meets city planning goals and has no natural opposition. It is a Measure J project that IMO is likely to succeed with the voters. I realize it has problems, but it seems the city has a motivated partner in the UCD administration. It would be a feather in Chancellor Katehi’s cap if the project came to fruition quickly.
“….nor the expensive of widening the Richards tunnel….”
I thought that the Historic status given to the railroad over-crossing precluded any widening of the Richards Tunnel.
[quote]”The basic premise is not untrue, I checked this carefully before I wrote it and the area could be considered blight…”[/quote] As you suggest, [quote]David[/quote], this is just your opinion. You’ve had two opportunities to provide some reasoning that the city somehow can pressure owners of vacant and well kept parcels to develop the way “we” want them to by slapping up a “blight!” sign.
Maybe you’ve seen more examples than I have, but it seems as though owners just move unsightly piles of junk or equipment, mow weeds and otherwise tidy up their property when the city calls.
But, let’s just assume that ConAgra for some incomprehensible reason is unable to correct whatever blight designation is issued. What legal or logical rationale do you use to get to: “the city can use this as a big stick to force the property owner to submit a business park application,” or any other development application for that matter?
But, let’s just assume that it were possible to misuse the power of the government in the way you suggest.
Where do you see the political will to undertake such a weird approach?
“Where do you see the political will to undertake such a weird approach?”
I don’t know why it’s a weird approach, the city basically did it with the grocery store.
But you are correct, there is no political will to do it, that’s precisely my criticism, we would rather allow the developer to dictate the terms rather than make them adhere to our vision.
davisite2: C’mon. Why pick a fight? I’m no more blinded by my advocacy than you are by your biases on growth. And your proposed statement of fact doesn’t square with the record. Lewis threw in the towel when Ruth locked in on 50/50 and Steve proposed an equal weight EIR. This was the point at which it became clear that the project would be economically unfeasible because it was being overburdened with business park.
The reason for my question was that I am sincerely curious if you are in the no project camp or in the 100% business park proposed by Sue Greenwald camp. I can’t tell by your comments (i.e. it wasn’t a rhetorical question).
DMG: Pushing around the owner of a failing shopping center is a much easier task than a Fortune 500 company that owns the last large piece of land inside the city limits. Collaboration is a better approach than confrontation IMO.
“Pushing around the owner of a failing shopping center is a much easier task than a Fortune 500 company”
No doubt.
It gets curiouser and curiouser: That dang turncoat! She got me to vote for her by claiming she was a liberal, anti-business, environmentalist, no-growth lefty–and I believed her.
Now, I find out her “top 5 goals” dealt with city finances, improving and promoting downtown, supporting schools, working with the county on stewardship of resources, and enhancing public safety by strengthening police and fire services.
If I’d known those things–and also that she’s a business person, lawyer, land use consultant, high school fund-raiser and possibly a Republican in an earlier life–I wouldn’t have been so surprised when she voted to evaluate mixed use rather than insisting on pursuing a 100-acre business park that has little chance of success in our lifetimes.
David, David, why didn’t you care enough to tell us about Rochelle [u]before[/u] the election?
Sue Greenwald “I am afraid that if we rezone the Con Agra site to housing, we will end up with no high tech and conventional suburban sprawl. “
Why would it be sprawl? It is closer to downtown than much of Davis?
local said . . . Bigger house. Higher profit margin for the developers. More property tax revenue to the city. Less traffic.
. . . and a perpetuation of Davis as an insensitive, overly expensive place to live.
[quote]”You’ve had two opportunities to provide some reasoning that the city somehow can pressure owners of vacant and well kept parcels to develop the way “we” want them to by slapping up a “blight!” sign.”[/quote] Now, it’s three. What did you uncover in your careful research that even remotely suggests how the city can use our anti-blight ordinance “as a big stick to force the property owner to submit a business park application.” Please be specific. [quote]”I don’t know why it’s a weird approach, the city basically did it with the grocery store.”[/quote] We agree that an already zoned, completely constructed small grocery store development that “owners had allowed…to degrade” could rightfully be designated “blighted.” We just disagree on what can be forced on the offending landowner beyond correcting the blight conditions.
We didn’t “basically” do what you’re suggesting for ConAgra. We didn’t force them to file an application to build, say, a park where the developer-driven decision was to have a shopping center. And, I’ll bet, the city did not threaten the developer under some kind of continuing blight designation threat to rent out the store space for grocery shopping. There are other ways than illegal municipal bullying to encourage “the right thing” with businesses.
Since we agree no one is going to pursue such a route anyway, maybe explaining your theory will put this weird concept behind us for good.
So your argument then is that what is required at ConAgra is more extensive than what was required at Westlake. I agree.
It is not illegal to compel ownership to improve their property.
You can google: “options to compel owners to improve blight” and find some interesting stuff. Obviously I’m not a lawyer, but there are options out there.
Here are some excerpts from the Oakland City code–not the same as Davis (Oakland has a lot more experience with blight!). On the other hand if this new proposal is to go froward, I don’t think now would be a good time to get into a dispute with ConAgra. But I dislike the developer saying that since its not viable as a business park we have to build housing. I don’t except either premise, though, as I have said I think a full business park would be a tricky proposition–we’d have to negotiate with a high-tech company. I’d like to see us at least try before consigning this property to housing.
[quote][quote]Blighted property defined.
Any property on which there exists any one or more of the following conditions or activities is a blighted property for the purpose of this chapter:
A.Abandoned Building or Structure.
1.A building or structure which is not occupied, inhabited, used, or secured. For purposes of this chapter, a building or structure is unsecured when it is unlocked or the public can gain entry without the consent of the owner,
2.Any partially constructed, reconstructed or demolished building or structure upon which work is abandoned. Work is deemed abandoned when there is no valid and current building or demolition permit or when there has not been any substantial work on the project for six months;…
…
C.A Building or Structure Which is in a State of Disrepair.
…
D.Property Inadequately Maintained.
1.Property which is not kept clean and sanitary and free from all accumulations of offensive matter or odor including, but not limited to, overgrown or dead or decayed trees, weeds or other vegetation, rank growth, dead organic matter, rubbish, junk, garbage, animal intestinal waste and urine, and toxic or otherwise hazardous liquids and substances and material. For the purposes of this section the term “rubbish” shall include combustible and noncombustible waste materials, except garbage; and the term shall also include the residue from the burning of wood, coal, coke, and other combustible material; and the term shall also include paper, rags, cartons, boxes, wood, excelsior, rubber, leather, tree branches, yard trimmings, hay, straw, tin cans, metal, mineral matter, glass, crockery, and dust; and the term shall also include animal feed and the products of and residue from animal quarters. For the purposes of this section, the terms “animal” and “animal quarters” shall be as set forth in Chapter 6.04, Animal Control Regulations Generally, of this code,
2.Property which constitutes a fire hazard or a condition considered dangerous to the public health, safety, and general welfare,
3.Property which is likely to or does harbor rats or other vectors, vermin, feral pets, or other non-domesticated animal nuisances,
4.Property which substantially detracts from the aesthetic and economic values of neighboring properties including, but not limited to, personal property and wares and foodstuffs, premises garbage and refuse receptacles, and commercial and industrial business activities which are inadequately buffered from any street, sidewalk, or other publicly trafficked area or such buffering which is inadequately maintained. For the purposes of this section, “buffered” shall apply to the provisions set forth in Chapter 17.110 of the Oakland Planning Code,
5.Landscaping which is inadequately maintained or which is not installed as required by city codes or any permit issued in accordance with such codes,
6.Matter including, but not limited to, smoke, odors, dust, dirt, debris, fumes, and sprays which is permitted to be transported by wind or otherwise upon any street, course, alley, sidewalk, yard, park, or other public or private property and which is determined to be a violation of federal, state, regional, or local air quality regulations,
E.Property Which Creates a Dangerous Condition.
1.Property having a topography, geology, or configuration which, as a result of grading operations, erosion control, sedimentation control work, or other improvements to said property, causes erosion, subsidence, unstable soil conditions, or surface or subsurface drainage problems as to harm or pose a risk of harm to adjacent properties,
2.Property whereon any condition or object obscures the visibility of public street intersections to the public so as to constitute a hazard, including but not limited to, landscaping, fencing, signs, posts, or equipment,
3.Conditions which due to their accessibility to the public pose a hazard including, but not limited to, unused and broken equipment, abandoned wells, shafts, or basements, hazardous or unprotected pools, ponds, or excavations, structurally unsound fences or structures, machinery which is inadequately secured or protected, lumber, trash, fences or debris that may pose a hazard to the public, storage of chemicals, gas, oil, or toxic or flammable liquids;
[/quote]
I have not been on this site but did look on Google Maps and from what I saw there don’t appear to be any egregious violations of the above blight statute (not our City’s anyway) but it would require a closer inspection and someone familiar with the relevant laws. I am not a lawyer, though I have stayed at the Holiday Inn on many occasions.
To me the property is an eyesore and fits my layman’s definition of blight, especially given Davis’ community standards, which I assume are higher than most cities (at least I hope so). Our RDA in S. Davis had to be declared blighted by law and this site is far worse–again to my untrained unschooled eye.
The important sections of the Municipal Code for this are section 23.01.01 and 23.02.030.
I need to get out more; no doubt I am beating a dead horse, but here are the relevant passages from Davis City code (imho). The fact that this property has been in more or less the same condition for years w/o any enforcement of this statute probably gives ConAgra a decent case in court (too bad cause I think it’s blight):
[quote](7) Any vacant, unoccupied or abandoned building or structure that is not reasonably secured against uninvited entry or that constitutes a fire hazard, or is in a state of unsightly or dangerous condition so as to constitute a blighted condition detrimental to property values in the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public;
(8) Any condition that constitutes an attractive nuisance; those objects or conditions that, by their nature may attract children or other curious individuals including, but not limited to, unprotected hazardous or unfilled pools, ponds, including pools or ponds that have not been properly barricaded as specified in Chapter 8, ice boxes, refrigerators or excavations;
Printed Oct. 31, 2010 :: http://www.cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/ :: Page 2 of 4property.
City of Davis California Municipal Code :: 23.01.0
(9) Any condition that constitutes a visual blight. For purposes of this Code, visual blight is any unreasonable, non permitted or unlawful condition or use of real property, premises or of building exteriors which by reason of its appearance as viewed from the public right-of-way, is detrimental to the property of others or to the value of property of others, offensive to the senses, or reduces the aesthetic appearance of the neighborhood. Visual blight includes, but is not limited to, the keeping, storing, depositing, scattering over or accumulation on the premises any of the following:
(A) Lumber, junk, trash, debris, scrap metal, rubbish, packing materials, building materials.
(B) Abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment such as furniture, stoves, appliances, refrigerators, freezers, cans or containers, automotive parts and equipment.
(C) Abandoned, wrecked, disabled, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof except inoperative vehicles that are not abandoned and are in an active state of renovation or restoration. For purposes of this article, “active state of renovation or restoration” means that the vehicle is actively being restored or renovated in a manner intended to make the vehicle operational, and shall not include restoration or renovation that solely improves the interior or exterior appearance, but not the operation, of the vehicle. A vehicle shall only be permitted to be in an active state of renovation or restoration for a period that shall not exceed ninety (90) days, whether consecutive or non-secutive, out of any twelve (12) month period.
23.01.040 Responsibility for property maintenance. (5)
(a)Every owner of real property within the City is required to maintain such property in a manner so as not to violate the provisions of this Chapter and such owner remains liable for violations thereof regardless of any contract or agreement with any third party regarding such
Printed Oct. 31, 2010 :: http://www.cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/ :: Page 3 of 4City of Davis California Municipal Code :: 23.01.0
property.
(b) Every occupant, lessee, tenant or holder of any interest in property, other than as owner thereof, is required to maintain such property in the same manner as is required of the owner thereof, and the duty imposed on the owner thereof shall in no instance relieve those persons referred to from the similar duty.
(Ord. No. 2219; Ord. No. 1769, § 1(part).)
[/quote]
Sue Greenwald: “What seems to be lost in this discussion is that concurrent with the vote to start rezoning Con Agra to housing, the council voted 4-1 to start pursuing the annexaton of a large parcel of peripheral land across the Mace Curve or the Northwest Quadrant. These sites have far more infrastructure costs than Con Agra, the difficulty of making a high tech park work would be just as great, and it would be big-time sprawl-inducing to offer these new parcels a small amount of housing to help make them pencil out. I am afraid that if we rezone the Con Agra site to housing, we will end up with no high tech and conventional suburban sprawl…
Finally, as I stated at the meeting, I am very concerned about council priorities. Council voted to embark on three contentious, time-consuming development projects which will absorb most of staff and council time and energy, in a period when development is slow, the projects flawed or greatly premature, and staff and council should be involved in dealing with our major fiscal challenges, such as controlling our astronimically increasing costs of our future water water/sewer projects and dealing with our unfunded liabilities.”
Nicely said.
Don Shor: “Stick to the site rankings of the housing task force and wait until green light sites are built before giving consideration to yellow light sites.”
This makes sense to me too.
Dr. Wu: “But I dislike the developer saying that since its not viable as a business park we have to build housing. I don’t except either premise, though, as I have said I think a full business park would be a tricky proposition–we’d have to negotiate with a high-tech company. I’d like to see us at least try before consigning this property to housing.”
My sentiments exactly.
“I can’t tell by your comments (i.e. it wasn’t a rhetorical question).
I believe that having Joe Krovoza,whose position IMO is to move more slowly and critically on ConAgra’s proposal with an emphasis on community input and transparency, should head up any Council negotiating team along with Sue Greenwald who would bring the level of knowledge, experience, ,work/energy/commitment and,most importantly,political”backbone” nesessary to get the best project and “deal” possible for the city. I am now neither for or against developing the Cannery property as a mixed use development. A deliberate process,whatever the outcome, lead by these two Council members will most likely have my support.
local: “ERM: Your position is quite clear. You are opposed to the ConAgra mixed use proposal based largely on a process argument, and you refuse to make a statement regarding whether or not you think North Davis should adsorb the impacts of Sue Greenwald’s 100% business park proposal. Am I not understanding what you wrote?”
I don’t know why you persist on putting words in my mouth I did not say…
The Santa Monica,CA city council has a history of successfully aggressively squeezing the last nickel out of developers in development agreements. Granted that Santa Monica, CA is a somewhat “different” animal than Davis, in the present economic and Davis local political environment,IMO, Davis has the ability to be more like Santa Monica.
davisite2: “I believe that having Joe Krovoza,whose position IMO is to move more slowly and critically on ConAgra’s proposal with an emphasis on community input and transparency, should head up any Council negotiating team along with Sue Greenwald who would bring the level of knowledge, experience, ,work/energy/commitment and,most importantly,political”backbone” nesessary to get the best project and “deal” possible for the city. I am now neither for or against developing the Cannery property as a mixed use development. A deliberate process,whatever the outcome, lead by these two Council members will most likely have my support.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
@ Sue Greenwald (3:20 pm): “As a rule of thumb, traffic studies show that business parks produce about the same amount of traffic that housing does, so any mix of business park and housing should be about equal from a traffic perspective.”
Using the trip generation rates for residential and office from the Covell Village EIR traffic model, 100% residential would generate 7814 trips and 100% office park would generate 14,875 trips.
Now one could mount a credible equivalency argument between office and business park, but not housing and business park. That dog doesn’t hunt.
Most of the councilmember’s arguments are just as weak, unsubstantiated, and contrary to both common sense and conventional wisdom.
(1) Traffic impacts will be significantly lower if ConAgra is developed as a mixed use project rather than a business park
(2) ConAgra has much higher infrastructure costs than the Mace site
(3) The property is not blighted
(4) The property owners have not attempted to increase the visual impacts to pressure the city into accepting Sue Greenwald’s proposal
(5) Most neighbors would not like 850,000 sq ft of commercial in this residential area
(6) All things being equal, the business community would prefer a site on I-80 rather than at ConAgra
(7) The land has been diligently marketed for commercial use
(8) A ConAgra business park is not economically feasible and will never happen
“local: “ERM: Your position is quite clear. You are opposed to the ConAgra mixed use proposal based largely on a process argument, and you refuse to make a statement regarding whether or not you think North Davis should adsorb the impacts of Sue Greenwald’s 100% business park proposal. Am I not understanding what you wrote?”
I don’t know why you persist on putting words in my mouth I did not say…”
I’m summarizing my understanding of your comments on this issue. Not quoting you (obviously).
Once again, am I not understanding what you wrote?
Sue Greenwald, I’m missing intellectual honesty in your arguments. You are advocating for significant commercial development on the periphery in direct contravention of the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint. And you have previously argued against densification of the Core, again in direct contravention of the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint. It is imcumbent upon a leader to lead a community toward its objectives, not away from them. If you feel the objectives stated in the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint, it is incumbent upon you to lead an intellectually honest debate to revise the objectives stated in the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint. Instead, you choose to undermine the community’s stated objectives. Where’s the leadership?
Matt Williams, in another current thread, you asked for examples of “distractions” from productive policy debate. The “blight” discussion going on here is a “distraction” in my view (this is an opinion/prediction not a fact). It distracts from determining whether the Council’s land use decisions this past week are conducive to meeting community objectives set forth in our planning documents. Our planning documents should be the measure by which we weigh policy and projects, not the other way around. The other way around leads to schizophrenic decision making, hodgepodge development, and a failure to meet community objectives.
The other way around characterizes Sue Greenwald’s decision making and advocacy in my view. She repeatedly refers during Council meetings and policy discussions to the mysterious majority of the community who share her views. What are those views? Are those views reflected in the GP and the CASP? If the mysterious majority disagrees with the objectives set forth in the GP and the CASP, why don’t they simply change the objectives? It’s as if a football coach says we’re going to primarily run the ball this upcoming game (the GP and CASP), but instead, the quarterback (Sue Greenwald) calls a passing play every single down. It is likely that such a team will be riven by dissent and loose the game. That is exactly what is happening in our community.
davisite2: Any process driven by Councilmember Greenwald on this issue would be doomed before it started. She’s already had 10 years to demonstrate effective leadership on economic development and failed.
Whoops! in my previous post, I meant to say, “If you feel the objectives stated in the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint are no longer relevant our unworthy, it is incumbent upon you to lead an intellectually honest debate to revise the objectives stated in the GP, the CASP, and the SACOG Blueprint.”
DT Businessman said . . . “Matt Williams, in another current thread, you asked for examples of “distractions” from productive policy debate. The “blight” discussion going on here is a “distraction” in my view (this is an opinion/prediction not a fact). It distracts from determining whether the Council’s land use decisions this past week are conducive to meeting community objectives set forth in our planning documents.”
I completely agree. The blight discussion IMHO isn’t about a solution. The discussion should focus on solutions.
Our planning documents should be the measure by which we weigh policy and projects, not the other way around. The other way around leads to schizophrenic decision making, hodgepodge development, and a failure to meet community objectives.
Here are the Principles, Process and Timeline I supported and voted for last Tuesday.
Principles
In addition to the established City Policy documents, such as the Municipal Code and General Plan, staff recommends establishment of several key fundamental principles from which the project will be formed.
1. Address Community Needs
a. Housing (numbers, type/size, price)
b. Business development (recognizing appropriate scale, certainty of build-out, downtown and neighborhood center impacts)
c. Infrastructure to support the project and its role in the community
2. Community Character / Context
a. Design for a sense of place and neighborhood character
b. Walkability/bikeability
c. Quality public and private spaces
d. High architectural standards
e. Recognize and consider the site surroundings. Connectivity to and compatibility with the surrounding community. Plan for, and ensure long term visioning within this context, especially for infrastructure and land uses at the project edges and potential future connectivity/interaction with adjacent lands
f. Honor the history of the site and its role in the Davis community
3. Sustainability / Low Impact Development
a. Ensure minimal GHG impacts at the project level
b. Explore opportunities for reducing the carbon footprint of the existing community
c. Apply Low Impact Development Principles
d. Overall aesthetic quality of the built and natural environment
4. Fiscal Responsibility
a. Ensure project as a whole, as well as components of the project (residential, business park, affordable housing), adhere to City Council fiscal goals and contributes to the city’s short and long-term fiscal stability
b. Recognize that the Development Agreement requires mutual considerations and agreement by both the City and applicant
5. Transparency of Process
a. Ensure ready access to proposal documents, reports, and upcoming meetings
b. Community input at appropriate junctures
c. City Council review of project scope prior to embarking on the EIR
d. Clear direction and process
Review Process and Timeline
Staff has outlined the following approach for application processing. This approach presents an achievable means of arriving at final review and action by the City Council, while ensuring appropriate opportunities for community, commission, and city department feedback, as well as opportunities for project revisions by the applicant.
1. Direction from Council on processing (October, 2010)
2. Proposal Feedback (Completion beginning of February, 2011)
a. City Department Feedback (comprehensive review vis-a-vis city policies, standards, and fiscal analysis)
b. Commissions (see discussion below)
c. Community at large
3. Plan Adjustments by applicant based on feedback (Completion February, 2011)
4. City Council check in (March, 2011)
a. verification of preferred project
b. identify scope of project alternatives to be evaluated
c. authorization to proceed with EIR contract and EIR preparation
5. EIR Preparation (March, 2011 – December, 2011)
6. Commissions review and recommendations (January/February, 2012)
7. Council review and action (February, 2012)
Commission Review
Under 2a above, city commissions will be engaged in areas where policy clarification is needed or if there is a specific charge for commission review:
Open Space and Habitat Commission (treatment of ag buffers/project edges)
Social Services Commission (affordable housing plan) Finance and Budget Commission (financial analysis)
[quote]’So your argument then is that what is required at ConAgra is more extensive than what was required at Westlake….It is not illegal to compel ownership to improve their property.”[/quote] No, that’s not my argument at all. I believe that the city cannot force CoonAgra or any landowner to apply for a 100-acre, multimillion dollar development of any type (let along a specific type) using our blight ordinance. You’re stretching a legal compelling of a landowner to un-blight a blighted property into an illegal course of action. My question to you (since this is your proposal) was: [quote]”What did you uncover in your careful research that even remotely suggests how the city can use our anti-blight ordinance ‘as a big stick to force the property owner to submit a business park application’?”[/quote] To make it easier to be specific, I’ll break it into parts:
1. What conditions exist at ConAgra that you’re claiming violate our blight ordinance?
2. What is your next big stick after ConAgra corrects the cited blight?
3. How does this call ConAgra’s “bluff” or get you closer to a business park?
davisite2 said . . . I believe that having Joe Krovoza,whose position IMO is to move more slowly and critically on ConAgra’s proposal with an emphasis on community input and transparency, should head up any Council negotiating team.”
I respectfully disagree d2. ConAgra’s proposal as constitutes is a net negative for Davis. No amount of tweaking it will change that fiscal reality. The only way that ConAgra can make their proposal a fiscal positive for Davis is for them to focus on bringing revenue-generating jobs to Davis.
Some of you may be saying, “yeah right, fat chance” but we aren’t talking about John Whitcombe or Bill Streng or Masud Monfarad here. ConAgra is one of the biggest agricultural corporations in the World. UC Davis is one of the best Agricultural Universities in the World. ConAgra should be seeking out synergies with UCD, and look to locate some of its agricultural research and development jobs here in Davis. If ConAgra’s major competitors can do that, then Con Agra certainly can as well. Further, ConAgra is in a very good position to know about new green companies that could locate near UCD as well.
Call it a quid pro quo. You want to build houses on the Cannery site, then get to work finding jobs for Davis. Otherwise, the fiscal realities of any proposal, tweaked or not, will be bad for Davis.
[quote]”Here are the Principles, Process and Timeline I supported and voted for last Tuesday….”[/quote] Well put, Councilman. It’ll be interesting to see what we can find to disagree about in this list. My major concern is that our community has morphed into an anti-any-development city, in spite of claims that “Oh, I’d be for [u]that[/u] development scheme or [u]that[/u] one, but certainly not [u]this[/u] one.” We now so distrust any developers and the City government’s decisions on planning, the fights are staked out from the get-go.
That suggests developers eventually will propose improvements only on sites that don’t qualify for public votes, like our park lands for example. (Oh, sorry, that’s the Council’s ballparks proposal, not a developer’s idea. Any developer introducing that idea would be strung up.)
[quote]1. What conditions exist at ConAgra that you’re claiming violate our blight ordinance? [/quote]
1. As I understand it, blight is like porn –its subject to community standards. However the fact that the City has done nothing for the last 10 plus years makes the case a very very weak one.
[quote]2. What is your next big stick after ConAgra corrects the cited blight? [/quote]
Not much but maybe it could make the site more attractive. Why do we have to do anything there right now?
[quote]3. How does this call ConAgra’s “bluff” or get you closer to a business park?[/quote]
It doesn’t really IMHO.
One other thing I’d like to point out. Sue’s conception of a business park seems different from many others. She has referred to a “campus” setup which might work better slightly removed from downtown and may have lower traffic impacts. Is this feasible? I don’t know, but has the City really looked into it? If a hi-tech company wanted to move a substantial part of its business to Davis this may well be a nicer site than somewhere off I-80.
[quote]”As I understand it, blight is like porn–it’s subject to community standards.”[/quote] I love it. Now, I’ll carry your analogy further………well, maybe not. In order to make his case, David needs identify the blightiness he contends is there–zoning violations, unoccupied buildings, piles of junk or trash, weeds growing, full swimming pools, unsecured attractive nuisance. He should explain why ConAgra wouldn’t just fix up the place instead of rushing down to the planning department with a 100-acre business park application, as he suggests we could force them to do?
Actually, the site has gone through major renovations since the cannery closed. In recent years, gigantic buildings and other concrete structures have been razed and the area is secured with locked, high fencing. If the City had no influence on these property improvements, then more credit to the landowner’s good intentions.
I agree that the blight bullying discussion is a distraction from the bigger issues here, so I’m through with it. But, I believe David did his research and hope he’ll explain how it supports his strategy to force ConAgra’s hand on business park development.
[quote]Otherwise, the fiscal realities of any proposal, tweaked or not, will be bad for Davis. [/quote]
Interesting comment from someone who lives in the county and whose CSA doesn’t want to pay their fair share (and have withheld funds) for the excrement they send to our treatment plant for processing… not personal, goes to credibility of arguments…
[quote]Truthiness is a “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.[1][/quote]
I am not sure what blightiness is and a google search did not yield much, though I am sure one can easily assemble one’s one definition based on the above definition of truthiness.
My own inspection on Google Maps did appear to confirm that the owners of the property have endeavored to eliminate the obvious forms of blight and I have not heard of children coming on the property or seen signs of graffiti. So ConAgra and its predecessors appear to have been reasonably responsible here.
[quote]Having said that I still find this site an eyesore and I would give this site a blightiness score of 5/10 on my own highly subjective scale.[/quote]
Before local and others jump in here, consider that this is an argument IN FAVOR of developing this property somehow.
[quote]My major concern is that our community has morphed into an anti-any-development city, in spite of claims that “Oh, I’d be for that development scheme or that one, but certainly not this one.” We now so distrust any developers and the City government’s decisions on planning, the fights are staked out from the get-go. [/quote]
I agree many in the community are anti any development.
You also have a division in the community between those who want more apartments and affordable housing and those who do not. I believe that latter group is less politically active but far more numerous. AS a practical matter if this project is to be “fiscally responsible” it will either need to have a reasonable number of expensive homes, catering to the upper end of the “workforce” scale, or large developer fees up front to compensate for the fact that lower priced housing costs the City more in services tan it generates in revenues.
“Before local and others jump in here, consider that this is an argument IN FAVOR of developing this property somehow.”
We are in complete agreement on this point.
I also think the site is ugly, but not blight. IMO the landowners have done an excellent job of screening the site with vegetation (hardwood trees and oleander bushes). I have driven past the site thousands of times and believe that Sue Greenwald’s accusation in the public hearing (that the landowner’s had tampered with the vegetation to increase visual impacts) is absolutely false.
BTW … what happened to the post from hpierce?