I have been waiting for a long time for someone to bring up Wild Horse Ranch in conjunction with the current ConAgra project. I supported Wild Horse Ranch for two primary reasons. First it was relatively small. Second, I wanted it to set a new benchmark for development in terms of a number of issues such as sustainability and accessibility.
Unfortunately, it was really the wrong time to bring forward a housing development. The voters quickly rejected it and it is time to move on. I have no sour grapes over that as one reader wrote yesterday. I also do not see much of a contradiction in my supporting that project while opposing ConAgra.
The key differences for me between the two projects are as follows. First, ConAgra proposes 610 units, more than three times the size of Wild Horse Ranch. Second, by building housing on ConAgra there is a domino effect of displacing business park potential to the periphery. And third, all of the features that I have been saying that ConAgra lacks – sustainability, transportation and senior housing were included, at least in part, in the Wild Horse Ranch proposal.
But that is now long since over. The reality now is that we have a 600-unit proposal before us. Whether there is a good reason to support housing at that site should be the question.
The same commenter, who goes by the name, “Frank” writes, “We need the housing. If you haven’t noticed, the city is slowly dying. Children and young/middle age wage earners are disappearing, with all the downstream economic and quality of life consequences.”
That is pretty much the standard argument offered up by those supporting additional growth.
But frankly, I do not see the need for housing right now.
As I wrote yesterday, we already have over 500 units that have been approved in the city but not built yet. So what is the need to have 610 additional housing units if the economy does not even support building the first 500?
Second, we have UC Davis constructing West Village. What will be the impact of West Village and its housing units on the Davis housing market?
As I see it, in 2005 the council majority, with the exception of Sue Greenwald, supported Covell Village. The voters voted that down. When they did, the council did not have a back-up plan and had no further housing proposals until 2008.
After 2008, the housing market collapsed, which further dried up the application process.
However, at the same time, since 2008, the council has passed sizable developments at places like Verona and Simmons Ranch. They have also backed smaller housing developments like Grande and Willowbank. As a result, we have a good number of units already entitled but not built.
The problem is not supply, it is demand. And without demand there is less of an economic incentive to build.
There is more to this. We keep hearing about the impact on the schools. If you look at enrollment projections they are fairly steady for the next ten to twenty years with only a very slight decline, which could probably be mitigated with a modest change in the structure of housing that we develop in the coming decades.
The idea that Davis is dying falls under the weight of its own hyperbole. There is little evidence of that and what evidence there is, is probably more attributable to the current economy coupled with housing policies of the past two decades when we were growing by building single family homes that young families cannot afford.
Frank continues by arguing that “we need to start the process now because the homes will not begin to come on-line for at least three years.”
The problem is, as several people have pointed out with me, that starting now means we are still operating in a weak economy, which will reduce what might be feasible in the project in terms of design features or amenities to the community.
Given the number of houses that are already entitled, and given that we are limited in the number of permits that can be issued in a given year, it actually makes much more sense to wait, even if you believe the rest of the arguments Frank is pushing.
Frank would be on much stronger ground if this were a better project, but as I said yesterday, that is simply untrue. Right now, this project may have at most one vote to go forward, and even that is questionable.
Personally, I think this is better put off for five years, but we still have the business park problem that we need to grapple with. If Davis wants to become the high tech hub that it sees itself as, we need land for business parks, and putting a business park in the Northwest Quadrant or east of Mace is problematic from my perspective.
Hopefully, we will get a better sense tonight about where we are going. But right now, this project is best off shelved if not killed altogether.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[i]The same commenter, who goes by the name, “Frank” writes, “We need the housing. If you haven’t noticed, the city is slowly dying. Children and young/middle age wage earners are disappearing, with all the downstream economic and quality of life consequences.”[/i]
When I see comments like that, I have to wonder, are there places in California where this is not happening? Where the number of children and young/middle age wage earners is increasing? I don’t know of any such place. The way I see it, this is demographics. The echo boom has passed through the grade school system and we’re slowly coming out of a recession. There hasn’t been much economic incentive for couples to have babies, recently.
I would add that Davis’ decreases are not as dramatic as other places.
1) We don’t need more residential housing at the moment or in the foreseeable future. There are hundreds of homes approved and in the pipeline NOT being built bc the market for new housing just isn’t there and isn’t likely to be for years to come. If there was ever a time for slow growth, this is it.
2) We do need economic development (which will drive the need for new homes). To change the zoning of the one large parcel left to the city for economic developement takes it out of commission for that use. That forces economic development onto the periphery of Davis on county property – so the county will gain any and all tax benefits, not the city. Why would the city do this – it makes no economic sense?
3) ConAgra will be the only winner here, reaping millions in profit just by a zoning change from industrial to residential. They will then sell the property off to various developers, and the city will begin to lose control of the project. Why give ConAgra a windfall at the city’s expense?
4) Nowhere in the city staff report is the fiscal impact of the project discussed. That is the 610 ton elephant in the room. How can the city build a huge residential development, that will require more city services, at a time when the city cannot even pay for services for its current citizens? The only answer will be to raise taxes and fees of citizens who already live here, and are already facing huge hits in water/sewer rate increases. This project should be a “no go” unless and until it is shown to be net fiscally neutral, which has never been the case before that I know of for any residential development.
How is a zoning change on this parcel from industral to residential in the best interests of the city/current citizens?
Agreed that the project should be cancelled as non-conforming to the zoning. And in addition to the reasons in your commentary and comments by others, the design is fundamentally flawed.
[quote]This project should be a “no go” unless and until it is shown to be net fiscally neutral, …[/quote][quote]How is a zoning change on this parcel from industral to residential in the best interests of the city/current citizens? [/quote]I get the “neutral” part, and [b]agree with it[/b]. The second quote, translated by me as “what’s in it for me?”, is quite frankly, arrogant. The good citizens of Davis do not own the land, nor pay for it’s carrying costs. Should a citizen have to prove net benefit to the city and/or go to the vote of the people to seek a modification for the zoning of their SF residential property to allow a ‘granny flat’ to take care of aging parent(s)?
[quote]the city build a huge residential development[/quote]The City does not (accept possibly for affordable/senior/both housing) build any residential development.
[quote]at a time when the city cannot even pay for services for its current citizens? The only answer will be to raise taxes and fees of citizens who already live here, and are already facing huge hits in water/sewer rate increases.[/quote]Ok… new development should pay it’s fair share, and buy into existing infrastructure that they will use. Are you looking for a city “profit”, or social engineering where a new project (that might accommodate seniors) should protect current residents from increases that would have occurred absent the development?
I have no dog in this fight. Cannery Park may well be not the right project at this time, at this place, in this land configuration. But some folks are arguably wanting to tweak our Constitution to want a confiscatory power over a land owner.
hpierce: “I get the “neutral” part, and agree with it. The second quote, translated by me as “what’s in it for me?”, is quite frankly, arrogant. The good citizens of Davis do not own the land, nor pay for it’s carrying costs. Should a citizen have to prove net benefit to the city and/or go to the vote of the people to seek a modification for the zoning of their SF residential property to allow a ‘granny flat’ to take care of aging parent(s)?”
What I am saying, inarticulately obviously, is that the City Council’s responsibility is to do what is in the best interests of its citizens.
hpierce: “I have no dog in this fight. Cannery Park may well be not the right project at this time, at this place, in this land configuration. But some folks are arguably wanting to tweak our Constitution to want a confiscatory power over a land owner.”
No, I am arguing that developers need to pay for ALL the costs of development, since they are reaping all the profits – and not saddle current citizens of Davis with some of the costs of the development. At this particular time, citizens living in Davis cannot afford any new taxes/fees to cover the costs of any additional services/other costs required for a huge new housing development. There is nothing “confiscatory” about that position. Here, ConAgra just wants to have the zoning changed from industrial to residential, to reap a huge windfall profit at the expense of the city/citizens. And doing so cuts off all possibility of putting economic development on that parcel, which could have raised tax revenue for the city at a time when the city desperately needs it.
“I supported Wild Horse Ranch for two primary reasons.”
David, that’s funny. If I remember right you “claimed” to be neutral on WHR but we knew better.
[quote]”I supported Wild Horse Ranch for two primary reasons.”
David, that’s funny. If I remember right you “claimed” to be neutral on WHR but we knew better.[/quote]Rusty: You remembered right. There was, and continues to be, a question of “journalistic” integrity.
[quote]I supported Wild Horse ranch for two primary reasons …[/quote]David: You left out the part about how your BFF was a Parlin consultant. This raised any number of serious questions given your extraordinary efforts to promote the project – particularly in light of your self-proclaimed status as a “journalist.” This, in turn, led to concerns that the Vanguard had been co-opted as an astroturfing operation for Parlin (a change that you are more than willing to level against your fellow davisites involved in CHA).
Now that there is another development project on the table that could negatively impact the interests of Parlin, your aggressive posturing at the front of the parade attacking the application also raises serious questions.
Sour grapes? Absolutely. Posturing for some future Parlin application? Time will tell.
David:
What transportation was included in WHR?
From a transportation perspective ConAgra makes more sense–its much closer to downtown and other facilities. Frank-ly your position does seem a little bit inconsistent.
Dr. Wu: [i]From a transportation perspective ConAgra makes more sense . . .[/i]
Look closely at the map and explain to me how the intersection @ J Street doesn’t receive an ‘F’. Likewise F Street. Unless you suppose those 610 units are populated by singles with a preference for biking, the transportation portion of the project will fail.
Neutral:
I don’t support the project but just pointing out that the ConAgra site is a lot closer.
“Davis’ decreases are …”
wdf: Davis’ 0-18 and 25-55 demographics are declining faster than the state or the surrounding communities. Were holding our own on school enrollments because we’re importing large numbers of students from out-of-district (this practice adds in excess of two million dollars to the DJUSD coffers annually). In my opinion, our deficit of intra-district students puts us at great risk going forward. Davis property values are clearly propped up by the perceived quality of our schools.
Frank, do you have skin in the game?
Developer?
City planner?
Real Estate agent?
Loan consultant?
Etc.
Now be honest…………………………..
“David, that’s funny. If I remember right you “claimed” to be neutral on WHR but we knew better.”
On the Vanguard, because of its non-profit status, I was unable to take a position on the ballot measure.
“From a transportation perspective ConAgra makes more sense–its much closer to downtown and other facilities. Frank-ly your position does seem a little bit inconsistent. “
All that is true. But there problems I have with transportion on the new site is as follows:
1. The nearest bus stops will be on Covell which is a problem given that the northern portion of the project is half a mile away.
2. There will be not a below grade bike/ ped crossings, which means that from a bike and pedestrian perspective, the project will be cut off from the core of town.
Rusty: I’m a paid Vanguard astroturfer. I take a contrarian position to create the illusion of balanced debate. It drives traffic (revenue) to the site.
Neutral: Have you seen a traffic study? This is typically done during the EIR, which hasn’t started yet.
Rusty: The Vanguard censors deleted my response to your question. It was apparently too snarky for their delicate sensitivities. You’re going to assume the worst anyway, so my answer doesn’t matter.
Frank, I don’t support the project. I was responding to – and missing the point of – Dr. Wu’s comment.
Anyone who drives by this Con Agra site has to admit that it has come obvious that this site is a great for infill. It uses an underutilized site and spares agricultural land. Also, I am part of a population of young couples who can not afford a $500,000 house but this site is perfect for a residential project with a variety of housing. My husband and I want to raise our family here and the schools are in need of more kids. We would love to own a home in this area.
After seeing the plan in the Enterprise this weekend I was really impressed by the layout. In the past I have heard that the city had a desire for workforce housing and this site is perfect for workforce housing and housing for young families. This Con Agra project is just what Davis needs.
Becky,
I don”t know if you were at the second of the community information presentations on this project. At that meeting I asked the question about what price range they anticipated for the single family components of the project. While I understand it would not yet be possible to make a firm estimate of the range at this time, I did not find the answer very reassuring for those of us who favor truly affordable housing. From the response, not contradicted by the city representative, I got the impression that much of the development would be in the $ 450,000 to $650,000 range, hardly what I would call affordable. I made the point that I felt this was essentially just another expensive suburban neighborhood and that statement was left to stand uncontradicted also. I am not at all sure that this is the workforce and young family project you are hoping for.
[quote]No, I am arguing that developers need to pay for ALL the costs of development, since they are reaping all the profits – and not saddle current citizens of Davis with some of the costs of the development. At this particular time, citizens living in Davis cannot afford any new taxes/fees to cover the costs of any additional services/other costs required for a huge new housing development. There is nothing “confiscatory” about that position.[/quote]I say it three times… I agree that new development needs to be revenue neutral.. I thought I said that… however, there are those, and I did not mean to imply you, who would have new development IMPROVE (not just mitigate) the situation for existing residents, oft for their own sacred cows, prior to approving new development. I stand by my thoughts that [u][b]that[/b][/u] would be beyond the constitutional rights. I’m not a gifted attorney, as you obviously are, so I apologize if my words are not clear.
To hpierce: No apologies necessary, and thank you for making your point clear. I can assure you I make my share of mistakes on this blog – not always making my point perfectly lucid!
[quote]A business park at ConAgra is not economically viable.[/quote]According to the ESG report: “In summary, the Cannery park site is a viable and competitive site for business park development.” p.64
Cross-post from the 4/6 thread debunking Sue’s argument that a high tech business park is feasible on the ConAgra property.
———-
From the ESG report ….
Scenario 4 – High Tech Business Park/No Residential
The business park program would specifically emphasize high tech uses while limiting most other uses. [b][u]This scenario is considered infeasible[/b][/u] given its projected 39 year build out period.
The source of the confusion Sue is that you are taking the ESG report conclusion out of context and applying it inappropriately to your vision for the property.
The conclusion you keep quoting was for a business park with unrestricted uses. This model would have a 16 year build out assuming 10% retail services (~85,000 sq ft) and no significant new competition (such as from an innovation hub at Nishi).
Even this completely unrestricted, pre-recession, competition-free business park model had borderline feasibility.
From the ESG report …
A 14 to 17 year build out period (equivalent to two real estate cycles) is generally considered to be the feasibility limit for a moderately sized business park such as Cannery Park. Build outs that exceed this period are generally considered not feasible based on industry requirements for project financing and typically reflect mismatches between: 1) entitlements and market demand and 2) development costs and revenue streams.
But this is not what you are trying to promote. You talk about neighborhood compatible high tech uses in a park-like setting. Fine. We get your vision for a ConAgra high tech business park.
The problem arises when you inappropriately apply the ESG study conclusion for an unrestricted business park to your vision for a neighborhood-friendly high tech business park. By restricting the uses to high tech the time-to-buildout increases to 39 years (nonviable). By also restricting the uses to “neighborhood-compatible, odor, noise and nuisance free, and high quality architecture and landscaping” the time-to-buildout would increase further.
So, Sue, your vision is a non-starter on purely economic grounds without even getting into the issues of neighborhood compatibility, traffic impacts, competitive positioning of the community, landowner cooperation, high tech business owner preferences, common sense, etc.
Becky,
I have driven past this site every work day for the past twenty years and do not see it as the perfect site for 610 new housing units. My reasons are as referenced on another of the threads in what is fairly becoming a very confusing web of points and counter points.
For my specific objections, note today’s new post by EMR on new thread and my previous post on yet another with regard to the likely range of home prices as put forward by the ConAgra representative at the second information meeting.
In brief, I do not feel that the currently proposed project meets city housing, financial, industrial, environmental, or safety needs let alone the zoning issue. Until I can see that all of these needs are addressed, I remain opposed to this project.