The Davis Enterprise on Sunday ran the first of what will be a six-part series on Cannery, and it was a very thorough and well-done piece. And while it is perhaps unfair to judge before it is complete, particularly when part six is scheduled to be “Business Park versus Residential,” today I will use this piece as a starting point for what I consider to be the most critical discussion.
The article notes in the preclude, “As the site falls within city limits, the development is not subject to a Measure J/R vote.” The article begins, “After almost a decade of visioning, public outreach, delay, withdrawal, revival, planning and fine-tuning, The Cannery project and the ConAgra team behind the proposal appear only months away from leaping over their final hurdle in developing the housing project.”
The article continues, “If the final design receives the blessing from a majority of the City Council in October, it would allow the food corporation to build its long-pursued neighborhood in North Davis.”
But the Enterprise either misses or has not yet covered one critical possibility, something that we believe to be more likely than not – that the community will pressure the council to put this to a vote similar to a Measure J vote or, if it does not, members of the community will put the matter on the ballot themselves as a referendum or an initiative.
The result of that is that the timeline laid out here is incomplete, that we will see several other steps to the process, and the large out-of-town corporation will have to sell a relatively large and conventional development to a public that has been reluctant to add large new housing projects both in 2005 and 2009.
The problem right now is that there is a clash of visions for Davis. Many residents see the large vacant parcel, that relatively recently housed a tomato cannery, as a natural location for a business park and economic development.
At the same time, the landowners are completely unwilling to sell the parcel for industrial park use. Most recently, George Phillips indicated this at the Chamber of Commerce lunch last week.
As we have noted in previous installments, community members have expressed concern about the necessity of the large number of high-density houses on the periphery, in a location that has restricted vehicle access. There are concerns about the lack of accessibility to bicycle traffic and even busing, as the development extends nearly half a mile north of Covell, with at least earlier iterations having the bus pick up near Covell.
There are those who lament that UC Davis’ West Village is far more innovative, sustainability-wise, and those who are concerned that the site design is fairly conventional and standard and lacks any innovative or “wow” factor concepts.
As one developer noted to me, it’s been 35 years since Village Homes was developed, and in the time since, Davis has yet to produce one innovative and noteworthy development and Cannery would be more of the same.
However, the biggest hurdle that the Cannery probably faces is the community’s perception that we are switching the use from business and industrial, which the city claims it lacks, to housing – which many in the community do not see as a great need.
There are some who believe we need a different mix of housing – more apartments, more affordable. There are others who simply see this as the wrong project, in the wrong location and at the wrong time.
As we noted in yesterday’s Sunday Commentary, Davis faces losing another large business if it cannot find the space to accommodate their expressed needs. They want to stay in Davis, but Cannery is not an option for them.
In addition to the unwillingness for the owner to pursue an industrial park, there are some other problems that consistently come up with regard to simply building a business park at the Cannery site.
As the city’s CIO Rob White noted in a comment last week, “Many industrial uses are incompatible with residential… Noise, dust, traffic, and light can all be drivers that create hostilities within neighborhoods.”
He notes that accessibility is a challenge for the site even as a housing development. However, the general belief is that with 650 housing units, we could expect about 1200 residents in the housing development.
The business park would attract perhaps 3000 employees, which would generate about 2.5 times the amount of round trips as the housing development.
“That’s about 2.5 times the amount of round trips Monday to Friday, and most of them occur during about 1.5 hours in the morning and 1.5 hours in the evening,” Rob White calculates, and he notes that “that doesn’t include trucks for deliveries.”
Covell Blvd., he reasons, cannot accommodate that level of traffic, but we wonder if it can reasonably accommodate the housing traffic on a daily basis, either. That has led some to wonder about joint planning with Covell Village – however, remember that in 2005, traffic impacts were a huge concern for the Covell Village development and Pole Line/Road 102 has even more traffic impacts now than it did eight years ago.
There are cost issues, as well. Mr. White notes, “Infrastructure takes money, and financing in the commercial world rarely takes big risks. The formulas are pretty straightforward and can be looked up online, but the approximately $25 million for infrastructure for a business park is unlikely to be found in the market.”
That, of course, leads us to wonder where we are going to get funding for other sites that have been proposed.
Finally, he notes, as we have heard a number of times, “Maybe most importantly, the businesses we have talked to have stated they have no interest in the Cannery.”
“It is commonly known in the brokerage community, and for many of the reasons above. I specifically asked (three) users this last week if they would consider that site (working not to sway the discussion), and they said very adamantly that if that is their option, they will look in other towns,” Rob White wrote. “These three businesses represent about 50 acres of total need, so I take what they are saying with some element of truth.”
Our view is that Rob White has accurately reflected what he is hearing in the business community, just as we are accurately communicating the feelings in the broader community.
The bottom line is we believe that the Cannery site will have to go to the voters and we believe that the site plan, as of right now, is sufficiently lacking to overcome the reluctance of many in the community toward large new housing developments.
Moreover, ConAgra is the wrong messenger here. Davis is a community that prides itself on locally-based land use decisions, and the idea of a multinational corporation that is agricultural in nature coming in to sell a development will not go over well with the public.
I’m hearing this not just from tree-hugging progressives, but also from the locally-based development community itself.
This is the wrong project, in the wrong place, at the wrong time and by the wrong company to have a reasonable chance of getting voter approval.
In our view, it will not matter how many times the issue is communicated from the developers, the council or city staff. As long as a business park is a need, the public will be very reluctant to convert business park-zoned land into residential.
The bottom line is that we are on a collision course that will likely lead to no project happening at the Cannery site. We could be wrong here, but that is where the tea leaves are blowing right now.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, I sensed the same from the Enterprise, almost done with last hurdle, etc…..
so am surprised by your article especially since it seems the CC is in the ‘pro’ column with this….you didn’t mention CC in your article; what do you think?
And if not econ development, and if not housing, then what for the Cannery???
Right now I think it’s a 3-2 vote to go ahead with the project. But putting it on the ballot is a wild card.
I think ConAgra is willing to let the land lie if they don’t get what they want.
If CC votes yes, what would the timeline for vote be, referendum would be the way to get it on the ballot?
Who is spearheading this?
[quote]I think ConAgra is willing to let the land lie if they don’t get what they want. [/quote]
I think ConAgra has to make it look like they will let the land lie in order to persuade the cc to change the zoning. If the cc would come out with a strong proclamation that the land is and will stay industrial zoned then ConAgra would have to reassess their plans.
It is not the job of the council to place it on the ballot when they are not required to so. Their job is to hold hearings, define the zoning, negotiate the design and infrastructure and mitigate the impacts. If the usual suspects demand a vote or sue over the EIR they should be willing to force it themselves by raising the money, hiring the lawyers and collecting the signatures. Why should the council make it easy for people who oppose everything to continue their obstruction?
The demand for an election before there is any final plan is premature but what else would you expect in Davis.
I haven’t gotten even a third of the way through this article and it is prompting some very good questions. The first of which revolves around the statement,[quote]As one developer noted to me, it’s been 35 years since Village Homes was developed, in the time since, Davis has yet to produce one innovative and noteworthy development and Cannery would be more of the same.[/quote]The question is, “What would that developer need to see for a development to be innovative and noteworthy?”
The broad consensus on the CBFR rate structure is that it is both innovative and noteworthy, but if you ask Bob Dunning and many others that does not make CBFR good. I happen to disagree with Bob (no surprise), but that doesn’t change the fact that our difference of opinion exists.
David, can you do an extended interview with the developer who provided you the comment, and get him/her to describe what an innovative and noteworthy development would be?
In my opinion, the proposed housing tract is not only bad for our community, it is toxic to the future of doing business in Davis. The correct response to the proposal is to seek an initiative that would take it out of the council’s hands for good. If the property ever seeks to be changed to residential it would be subject to a vote of the public (Measure R).
The advantage of this approach is to ensure that the current property owner has no incentive to sit on the sidelines and hope for a favorable set of councilmembers. They either convince the community that they have the requisite number of low-flow toilets, community free-range gardens and solar panels to justify changing the zoning- or get the hell out of town once and for all.
My second question/observation revolves around the statement,[quote]There are those who lament that UC Davis’ West Village is far more innovative sustainability wise.[/quote]As a newly minted member of the NRC, the first meeting contained a review of the Cannery EIR, with particular emphasis on sustainability. One of the key points that the applicant made in the question and answer portion of the meeting was that West Village, as a government project, had access to substantial funding sources that The Cannery doesn’t have access to. They also pointed out that some of the sustainability features in West Village are there as part of the research activities of the UCD Energy Efficiency Center. Their bottom-line was that on a like-to-like basis, the sustainability features of The Cannery are on a par with West Village.
My colleagues on the NRC were quick to say “Wait, wait, wait. West Village is generating all its electricity via solar. Why isn’t The Cannery doing the same?” Truthfully, I had the same question. The answer to that question centers around the fact that all of West Village’s units are owned by a single entity. All are rental units, and as a result there is only one purchaser of electrical power in West Village. The units of The Cannery will be owned by literally hundreds of different entities/families. Each of those individual owners will have their own meter. They will all be responsible for the sustainability of their personal energy consumption. They will all be individually bought into sustainability. Compare that to the individual residents of West Village. None of them have a meter for their unit. None of them will have any sense of how much energy that they are consuming. None of them will be responsible for the sustainability of their personal energy consumption.
Some people argue that when you scratch below the surface West Village isn’t as good a sustainability story as it could be. Why don’t the individual West Village units have their own meters? Why don’t they have responsibility for the sustainability of their personal energy consumption? The answer is that California State Law doesn’t allow it. For a single ownership solar project that provides the electricity to many units “sub-metering” those individual units is not allowed. So it is not West Village’s fault that it is not as sustainable as it could be, but that doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t.
Has The Cannery fallen into the “sub-metering trap”? No. For the 295 single-family homes, each one will have its own 1.5 kw solar unit and its own meter. So it will be sustainable [u]both[/u] in power generation [u]and[/u] in power usage responsibility.
As of now The Cannery has a minimum of 442.5 kw of solar generation for the residences and another 45 kw for the public site lighting. 487.5kw is not a trivial amount of sustainability. Are there opportunities to do even better at The Cannery? Yes, and they are working on doing just that.
“But the Enterprise either misses or has not yet covered one critical possibility, something that we believe to be more likely than not – that the community will pressure the council to put this to a vote similar to a Measure J vote or, if it does not, members of the community will put the matter on the ballot themselves as a referendum or an initiative.”
How can the Enterprise have missed this important factor? It’s been being promoted and threatened by The Vanguard for many, many months as a means of stopping housing development.
I wonder how Davis has gotten the reputation of being a anti-growth, anti-business, anti-development community….
So much cart before the horse.
I have spent my adult life pursuing my career and leaving community planning and development to others owning that role as their career. But, for a number of reasons, over the last several years I have been become more interested and involved.
And what I have learned is that the process of community planning and development is totally dysfunctional.
Of all communities, Davis, the most educated little city in the world, would seem to know better. You would think we would have copious skills for dialed-in, best-practice, SMART processes… and that ALL development projects roll up to a stakeholder-vetted vision-plan for what we want to be when we grow up.
But, what we do instead is wait for the next parcel that comes up for development and we all fight about what we EACH THINK we should do with it.
It is madness.
As I have mentioned to Rob White, he and others in a leadership position with the city need to go grass-roots. The core area old-guard in this town needs to have the decision/blocking keys taken away and we need more input from the average resident. We need a new progressive grand vision for what Davis can and should be in 2025, 2040 and beyond. And then we need to evaluate and direct each and every new development to fit into that grand vision.
What should the future Davis be? Village Homes is not a vision, it is a housing development. We can certainly make it part of the grand vision – for example, have a goal that a percentage of our residential housing be similar in utility and attributes.
Related to a grand vision, the following relates to me:
[quote]Becoming a smart community is not so much about technology as it is about understanding the basic shift in the structure of the economy and society. While technology plays a vital role as a catalyst in transforming life and work in this new economy, jobs, dollars and quality of life are the real benefits. In undertaking the task of becoming a smart community, therefore, everyone needs to know this is really a process of “reinventing” community for a new age of information.[/quote]
The economy as we know it has drastically shifted as a result of technology, and as a result of the crash of debt-financed lifestyle enhancements. Local retail has been pummeled by the Internet and it will continue to be challenged. And, more technologically-enabled changes are coming with respect to the business of education delivery services. UCD will have to change. It will likely shrink in size as a result of completion for students having new less-expensive alternatives for completing their undergraduate and graduate studies.
Davis is already straining under city budget well in the red. Our city worker pensions will continue to heap more strain and this will impact our ability to maintain our parks, roads and other city services.
Economic and residential development decisions should be made under this grand vision umbrella.
We don’t have a grand vision. All we have is conflict over our individual selfish interests.
What we need is leadership… leaders that are paid to do the job of creating a grand vision and then constantly reminding and educating the population of that grand vision and how each new decision fits into it.
Please note that my traffic illustration was to be just that… illustrative… not as a reflection of the actual traffic model. As you can see, just the basics are that a biz park generates 2x or more traffic over housing. I will work with city staff to get the actual traffic model numbers and will post them in the next day or so.
“The Cannery has a minimum of 442.5 kw of solar generation for the residences and another 45 kw for the public site lighting….”
Thanks for the sub-metering education. Why the state law; who benefits from it?
Do you know how much solar generation Village Homes (albeit a subsidized rental situation) includes, compared the The Cannery’s 487.5 kw?
Frankly, we don’t give a damn.
There is no Golden Mean allowed in Davis.
Most people see, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” as wise counsel. Many folks in Davis view it, instead, as a strategy to stop any development. As soon as a proposal pops up, yell about how imperfect it is and set up a rolling list of increasingly unreachable demands for perfection.
Follow this with threats of lawsuits, public votes and initiatives to take authority away from the leaders we elect to make such decisions on our behalf considering all factors. As a no-growth tactic, it’s been very effective in recent years. But, eventually, as you suggest, this short-sighted and selfish approach leads to a dysfunctional community and economic development planning processes.
There are a number of people who comment on this site about development and I suspect that they don’t really understand what development means…
It means enriching a landowner to the tunes of tens of millions of dollars if you give them what they want. What the city typically gets is a collection of long-term financial obligations (schools, fire, police etc.) that sometimes are covered by the revenue from the developement. What the existing property owners in the city get is an incremental reduction in the value of their houses. This is a zero-sum game, the developer pockets a fortune and the rest of us pay for it.
The reason why the proposed tract-home sprawl at the ConAgra site is so egregious is that it is a triple-whammy.
1) We first lost the jobs when the property owner closed the place. Why are we rewarding them for firing hundreds of Davis citizens?
2) We lost a decade worth of jobs as they squatted on the property and kept it off the market for other businesses to step-in and reuse the property. They allowed the buildings to be torn-down thus even futher devaluing it.
3) They now propose yet another sprawl of houses which Davis truly doesn’t need. This prevents any companies from locating here and creates hundreds of more commuter homes… lame.
Its interesting that certain anonymous people here keep commenting that Davis is one of the most educated cities in America and they shake their head not understanding why it is also so anti-sprawl. Perhaps its not a coincidence folks…
JS – Yes, I agree with you on this. Unfortunately. Direct-democracy really does not work unless we do what the Democrats have done to national politics and build a robust ground-game.
I see this as the reality in Davis. We will not be able to demand that our leaders go do what we elect them and pay them to do when we have guys like Mike Harrington having the time, money and motivation to stir up conflict and trouble so that Davis remains in a state that matches only his own selfish vision. We cannot win with a strategy to simply shame people like Mike to become more giving and accepting of the larger vision of a greater good. What we need instead is to end-around folks like Mike to build grass-roots consensus and then use the initiative process to make decisions.
I think this is what Mike Hart is suggesting as a Measure R vote to block residential development at the Cannery site, but it is in the vein of transactional opportunistic development… and not something that is part of a grand plan.
In general, this “taking it to the people” approach is an asinine way to do business, but once some of the patients learn that they can direct the asylum, there is no going back.
“As one developer noted to me, it’s been 35 years since Village Homes was developed, in the time since, Davis has yet to produce one innovative and noteworthy development and Cannery would be more of the same.”
What about West Village or Aggie Village. The whole way Davis has been developed with greenbelts, bike paths, parks and densely packed houses has been innovative. Not all innovation is a plus by the way. As for Village Homes, aren’t they building a well because the costs of maintaining their infrastructure is too expensive? i saw a figure of home owners association fees in the $50,000/year range. I was shocked and still question that number. Maybe someone could verify it. One of the problems is that when you get all these extraneous demands from people who have no economic interest in a project through a measure R type process is you make the houses more expensive perpetuating and exacerbating the class stratification that is already too pronounced in Davis.
“What about West Village or Aggie Village”
both developed by UC Davis.
[i]1) We first lost the jobs when the property owner closed the place. Why are we rewarding them for firing hundreds of Davis citizens?[/I]
As a business owner, I hope you are not suggesting that we demonize business owners for failing. As I understand, the canning business across the country has shrunk due to foreign competition. In CA, some of the reason was increased regulatory costs.
[I]2) We lost a decade worth of jobs as they squatted on the property and kept it off the market for other businesses to step-in and reuse the property. They allowed the buildings to be torn-down thus even futher devaluing it.[/I]
Property owners should have some rights related to the use of their property, don’t you think?
[I]3) They now propose yet another sprawl of houses which Davis truly doesn’t need. This prevents any companies from locating here and creates hundreds of more commuter homes… lame.[/i]
I think there is great conflict in this city related to your first sentence. But there is no question that a 100% residential development would not help us in the economic development front, and it would create more commuters. However, I do think a percentage of UC employees might end up living in Davis rather than Woodland, Dixon and West Sacramento if there was a greater supply of affordable housing in Davis.
This is why I would reference any development decision to a grand plan that is the de-facto development “law of the land”. We need more business in the town, and we will need more housing to support it. In my view housing development and business economic development should be done in concert.
There are those that will block all new housing except for minor infill. There are those that will block all new business development except for minor infill. What we are lacking are shared development goals based on a grand vision and the decision-controls that derive from it. There are land-owners and developers that leverage this… seeing Davis as a place they can play politics in to extract greater profit because of our no-growth-inflated property values.
In the well-managed large organizations I have worked for, significant investment decisions all had to roll up to the strategic plan that supported the vision of the future-state for the company. How do we cut out this practice of land-owners exploiting us for their gain? We simply make all development subject to a voter-approved grand plan that supports a voter-approved grand vision for where Davis should be heading. Unless and until we take that step, land-owners will play us like chumps.
[i]As the city’s CIO Rob White noted in a comment last week, “Many industrial uses are incompatible with residential… Noise, dust, traffic, and light can all be drivers that create hostilities within neighborhoods.”
He notes that accessibility is a challenge for the site even as a housing development. However, the general belief is that with 650 housing units, we could expect about 1200 residents in the housing development[/i].
The City planners have unfortunately placed Harper Junior High School on the south side of Mace curve to the east of the proposed Cannery Project. As a result, there is a major traffic conflict between future Project residents commuting to and from the Sacramento area during the early morning and late afternoon hours. These are the same hours that parents and students currently arrive and leave Harper. This conflict is especially acute during the fall and spring of the school year when the sun is on or close to the horizon.
[i]As the city’s CIO Rob White noted in a comment last week, “Many industrial uses are incompatible with residential… Noise, dust, traffic, and light can all be drivers that create hostilities within neighborhoods.”
He notes that accessibility is a challenge for the site even as a housing development. However, the general belief is that with 650 housing units, we could expect about 1200 residents in the housing development[/i].
The City planners have unfortunately placed Harper Junior High School on the south side of Mace curve to the east of the proposed Cannery Project. As a result, there is a major traffic conflict between future Project residents commuting to and from the Sacramento area during the early morning and late afternoon hours. These are the same hours that parents and students currently arrive and leave Harper. This conflict is especially acute during the fall and spring of the school year when the sun is on or close to the horizon.
“They now propose yet another sprawl of houses which Davis truly doesn’t need. “
Why is it sprwl? The houses are pretty densely packed in. 547 units on 54 acres, more than 10 units per acre. How is that considered sprawl?
[quote]We simply make all development subject to a voter-approved grand plan that supports a voter-approved grand vision for where Davis should be heading.[/quote]
Usually that is the General Plan, which I believe is overdue for an update.
We ceded power to the land owner/developer when we gave them a monopoly on develop-able land. ConAgra has the only significant piece of property that can be developed inside the current City limits. That fact alone makes their property much more valuable. If we had five or six similar pieces of property that could be developed, we would be in a position to pick and choose among competing projects, and make demands on the property owners to provide what the City needs, not what the developer wants. If you want to understand why ConAgra will become a continuation of our single family sprawl development, all you have to do is look at our failed no-growth philosophy.
Cannery is neither sprawl or peripheral development. It is dense, it is inside the city limits. It is on the north side of town but doesn’t reach farther north than developments both to the east and to the west. The only thing true is that it is housing so I return to the question the anti-housing advocates keep refusing to answer. What is it about housing that makes you all so negative?
“ConAgra has the only significant piece of property that can be developed inside the current City limits. “
last week, rob white listed three properties within the city limits that can be developed.
[i]What is it about housing that makes you all so negative?[/i]
I’m not negative, but I would prefer that we build housing to support new jobs and not continue to expand Davis’s bedroom community status.
[i]Usually that is the General Plan, which I believe is overdue for an update[/I]
Yes, long overdue. It is obsolete… no longer viable… therefore we don’t really have a general plan.
Me: “What about West Village or Aggie Village”
You “both developed by UC Davis.”
So what? Are they not innovative? Aren’t solar photovotaics innovative?
What about Dos Pinos or even the failed Twin Pines? What about all the building that has gone on at Wildhorse or Mace Ranch using best materials, insulation, and state of the art technology. There has been plenty of innovation and Cannery will provide more. The problem is that it is all housing so those that oppose more housing always object claiming each project is not good enough for some reason, not innovative enough, not dense enough, on the periphery, needs a zoning change, outside the city limits, or best of all, we don’t need more housing. Covell and Parlin would have been innovative if they hadn’t been blocked. What about projects by Corbett or Bourne. What about URC. What about Hillel. What about those houses by the Farmers market or the Roe building. What about Nortstar…
“So what? Are they not innovative? Aren’t solar photovotaics innovative?”
my guess is the comment was the city of Davis developed not uc davis.
are they innovative? somewhat. photovoltaics by themselves are not innovative. west village is not a very attractive development, but it is sustainable. i think we should be able to get the sustainability with a better layout and design.
DG, I’m pretty sure Chuck Roe and Mark Rutheiser were the Aggie Village developers under UCD auspices. I’m unsure of the details of the contractual relationship.
Mike Hart, your over-the-top developer comments are not helpful to a healthy debate. According to your demogoguery, Chuck Roe, Mike Corbett and numerous others have saddled the community with horrible developments creating nothing but never ending community financial obligations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where would we all live and work in the absence of developers? Your over-the-top comments together with your goofy math, wherein commercial RE trades 6-10 times under current market prices, undermines your entire argument.
-Michael Bisch
Frankly said “I’m not negative, but I would prefer that we build housing to support new jobs and not continue to expand Davis’s bedroom community status.”
You’re plenty negative just not about housing. As for controlling where people work relative to where they live this is another shibboleth. Many people who live in Davis commute out to work while many who live outside of Davis commute in to work. If we built lots more housing we might be able to alter this dynamic to some degree but the idea that we should only build housing for those that work here is just another reason to do nothing.
It’s so fascinating to see how many different ways we can think up to vicariously spend other people’s money, use their resources and initiative and, finally, tell them, “No.”
[i]You’re plenty negative just not about housing.[/i]
Ha! Well there is a black-pot calling kettle if I ever heard one old grumpy one.
There is no “controlling”. I’m just saying from a perspective of a grand plan, we should be providing housing to support the need for jobs.
Davis does not owe the outside world a place to live. But we do have a responsibility to do our fair share supporting the economy and creating jobs, and subordinate to that we have a responsibility to provide a reasonable supply of housing for those people. If those people choose to live somewhere else and commute, that is their choice. But if we don’t build enough homes to meet the needs of the people that work here, then we are, in fact, making a decision for them.
“last week, rob white listed three properties within the city limits that can be developed.”
Please recap. What are the three, their acreages and their current zoning. Thank you.
it was in friday’s long article by david. he didn’t go into details but it was basically i think nishi, fifth street, and pg&e.
“Davis does not owe the outside world a place to live. But we do have a responsibility to do our fair share supporting the economy and creating jobs and subordinate to that we have a responsibility to provide a reasonable supply of housing for those people.”
Frankly, we already make our contribution to the Regional United Fund by providing small offices and homes for start-ups so they can succeed and, then, have to move to nearby cities–all by refusing to provide the business space and housing that businesses need and want.
Why do you keep wanting more from our expensive, quirky, going-bankrupt community? We know that “development” is just a codeword for siphoning our precious bodily fluids to selfish money-grubbers.
JS – LOL! Right you are. And I thought I was just a pragmatist!?
Davis reminds me of Al Gore living in a 28-room Tennessee Mansion while demonizing the rest of us for using too many natural resources… but he buys carbon offset credits so it is okay.
So here is the actual modeled trip generation information based on the traffic models in the Feb 2013 Public Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (pages 3.14-17 and 5.0-11):
Industrial Business Park (current zoning) – would allow for about 2.14 million square feet of light industrial and generate an estimated 15,884 trips by vehicles, based on the current transportation model.
Housing, Mixed-Use – breaks down as follows:
Residential (336 Single Family, 314 apartments/condos) – 6,179 trips
Retail (79,000 square feet) – 4,280 trips
Office (157,000 square feet) – 2,753 trips
Park/community center – 144 trips
Total Gross trips – 13,354
Total Net trips (minus internal traffic to community, i.e homes to retail, park, etc) – 12,040 Trips (13,354 gross trips – 1,314 internal trips).
The current zoning is 1.3 times more traffic than the proposed housing/mixed-use development based on this info.
[quote]”Your over-the-top comments together with your goofy math, wherein commercial RE trades 6-10 times under current market prices, undermines your entire argument”[/quote] -Michael Bisch
I once tried to teach my dog how to play poker, I don’t think he ever really got it. I feel kind of the same way trying to explain this to some folks…
I don’t think some folks get it… simple as that. I didn’t make up these numbers. This is what ConAgra sold the property for in 2004 (420 acres for $12,500,000) that is recorded. It is what Lewis Homes dumped the property for in 2009 (420 acres for roughly $8.75M or less). It is a recorded fact that the 320 acres was sold from the property in June for $2.4M… The property is just not worth what you seem to think its worth.
Your baffling spinning in circles is odd- you seem to argue that the property is far more valuable than what the facts indicate- but ConAgra dumped it for less, Lewis dumped it for less… this seems to make you sad. Yet at the same time, you seem to think that it makes no sense for commercial because it is too valuable. Reality seems to dislike your argument.
More baffling still- aren’t you the same Micahel Bisch who went ballistic becasue the CC’s rezoning of Target didn’t go to a vote of the people on this very Vanguard? Do you only like democracy when it suits you?
David wrote:
> As one developer noted to me, it’s been 35 years since
> Village Homes was developed, in the time since, Davis has
> yet to produce one innovative and noteworthy development
> and Cannery would be more of the same.
Then Matt wrote:
> The question is, “What would that developer need to
> see for a development to be innovative and noteworthy?”
I read an interview with Mike Corbett (the developer of Village Homes) a and he mentioned that he would do a lot of things different if he had to build Village Homes again including adding garages.
I met a guy who was a member of the Sunwise Co-Op in Village homes a few years ago I was thinking it is cool that he found a home with a shared backyard where he can live with other vegans and garden in the nude.
The problem for developers is that most people (almost all people with real jobs who can afford to buy a new home) want “more of the same” with a garage and a private back yard (and don’t want to park on the street and share a back yard with naked pot smoking vegans)….
Matt wrote:
> My colleagues on the NRC were quick to say “Wait,
> wait, wait. West Village is generating all its
> electricity via solar.
If this were true why is West Village connected to PG&E? I would be interested if anyone has done any kind of energy audit of if we just let them say “we are GREEN generate all our electricity via solar” (I’m pretty sure they are NOT generating all their electricity with solar)…
In 2012 “The Ramble” in West Village was charging $1,800+ for a two bedroom apartment that included utilities. I talked to some kids that lived there and they said they didn’t worry about ever turning anything off since the utilities were “FREE” (and as most people know whenever something is free people will waste it)…
“If this were true why is West Village connected to PG&E? “
Because of when the earth spins around and West Village is not facing the sun. Its called night. I have panels they produce extra in the day and run the meter backwards. At night i get energy from PGE. At the end of the year we reconcile. PGE likes it because they get extra electrons during peak hours.
Mike Hart, why didn’t you or one of your fellow entrepreneurs purchase the ConAgra property when it came up for sale both times since you feel the prices were so cheap back then? I’m neither sad nor baffled by The Cannery project; frankly, I’m indifferent to the matter. What I know is that light industrial zoned finished lots generally sell for $250k-$400k in Davis, not $50k.
I noticed you failed to respond to my description of your developer comments as being over-the-top.
“Ballistic”? You have me confused with someone else. Satirical, mocking, perhaps at times sarcastic would be more apt.
-Michael Bisch
Rob White: Thanks for the trip data. The DEIR notes that Davis has a 27% bike mode rate but uses 15% rate and then calls it “conservative”. The only problem is, the bike mode share in the rest of town is made possible because ALL neighborhoods (except Olive Drive) have reasonable and safe access to other parts of town. As it stands now, the Cannery project does not have this.
The current plan (different from the preferred option in the DEIR) calls for a single grade-separated crossing out of the area that crosses under Covell at the rail line then heads due east up an embankment and onto the current Class 1 path on Covell’s south side. The BAC and SPAC made it clear that this option is not acceptable AND called for a second grade-separated crossing of Covell to the east. Con Agra is still saying the options recommended by the BAC/SPAC are not possible.
Given this, I think it is quite possible (though I cannot prove it and only time will tell) that an assumed 15% bike mode share is too high for this project. This could turn into another “Olive Drive” without significant improvements to the plan.
[i]15% bike mode share is too high for this project. This could turn into another “Olive Drive” without significant improvements to the plan.[/i]
I don’t understand. Why is this any different than the housing area to the east (Oak Grove and Wildhorse)?
[quote]Con Agra is still saying the options recommended by the BAC/SPAC are not possible.[/quote]
[quote] the landowners are completely unwilling to sell the parcel for industrial park use. Most recently, George Phillips indicated this at the Chamber of Commerce lunch last week.[/quote]
At some point, the word [i]blight[/i] comes into the discussion.
Frankly two reasons:
1) Those other developments have multiple entry/exit points some with very low traffic flows into/out of the neighborhoods (including one crossing that is signalized with an entry directly onto a bike path).
2) Those neighborhoods have a high quality grade separated crossing to two major parks and 3 schools to the east under Covell.
Don, sorry you lost me. Can you elaborate?
Mr. Bisch- you should read the reams of guest columns and quotes of yours regarding your battle to get the Davis City Council to NOT change the zoning of Target and thats just on this forum. I am just reading what you wrote and agreeing with you-this should go to the citizens.
And as to my comments about development being over the top- hardly. It is a well established fact that development rarely pays the entire cost of the project and more often it is borne by the existing population. Moreover, it is simple economics that new housing stock lowers the property value of existing homes. The fact you don’t like these facts doesn’t make them “over the top”. It simply means that I recognize that giving a developer whatever they wish is not always a good idea.
As to the property sales, Lewis Homes chose to not put it on the market and walked away from it. You have LoopNet, take a look and tell me how long its been since its been on the market. Anytime anyone representing the developer or the city tells you “it won’t sell” but its not on LoopNet, you know they are full of it…
“Moreover, it is simple economics that new housing stock lowers the property value of existing homes.”
So why is it fair for us to protect high home values? Values that make it harder and more expensive for people to move here. Its amazing to me that opponents of home building argue that adding supply won’t lower prices while other opponents argue that we shouldn’t build because it will lower home values. By the way i think we have a hot market right now so adding homes at a rate that meets demand for new housing will stabilize prices or lower prices marginally. It will take much more housing than 500 units to crash the Davis market and lower prices substantially.
Mr. Toad- Remember in the movie Office Space? The plan to steal a little money from everyone to get rich? Thats kind of the way a development like this works. A developer adds 500 units to the inventory and the 20,000 homeowners (just a guess) divide the $50 million profit to the developer at a paltry $2,500 each… It doesn’t hurt much, and won’t crash the market, so you argue, why should we care?
Rather than argue the point with you- I guess I am just saying that it would be better to let the people in Davis decide if that is the right decision or not. Perhaps people won’t mind…
[quote]Don, sorry you lost me. Can you elaborate?[/quote]
I’m just tired of the things ConAgra says they refuse to do, won’t do, can’t do, whatever. Maybe the city should consider buying the property. A vacant, abandoned industrial site meets the definition of blight. If the zoning isn’t going to change, and they’re not going to do anything with it if the zoning doesn’t change, the city should consider other options.
[i]I’m just tired of the things ConAgra says they refuse to do, won’t do, can’t do, whatever. Maybe the city should consider buying the property. A vacant, abandoned industrial site meets the definition of blight. If the zoning isn’t going to change, and they’re not going to do anything with it if the zoning doesn’t change, the city should consider other options.[/i]
Hear, hear.
Robb, Thanks. Got it.
Do I understand there is no plan for a tunnel under the RR to F street?
Otherwise is appears that J street is the path. Cranbrook Ct. Apartments were the first place I lived in Davis. Seems that they represent quite a defensive block for alternative crossings.
Looking at a Google Maps satellite image, it seems that there might be a solution tunneling under Covell at the south-west corner of the property and then again under the RR to exit on H Street just like the tunnel between the Pinecrest and J Street apartment complexes. However, the H street bike path already goes under Covell adjacent to the RR tracks, so why not just tunnel to H street north of Covell, and then people have the choice to take H Street or F Street and then take the pedestrian-bike overpass going to Community Park. Also, at the very south-east corner it would seem feasible to tunnel to the path that parallels Covell between J and L Streets.
Seems like there are plenty of options…
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscfrank/canpath.jpg[/img]
Mike Hart wrote:
> I guess I am just saying that it would be better
> to let the people in Davis decide if that is the
> right decision or not.
Should the people of Davis also get to vote on every new sandwich shop, hair salon and energy firm that wants to open in town?
Remember every time a new sandwich shop, hair salon or energy firm comes to town it will take a little business from other firms in town.
SouthofDavis- I guess you would have to ask Michael Bisch on that one- the DDBA seems to have thought so about Target… For me, I guess I would say that 100 acres of densely packed houses on the edge of town strikes me as hitting my personal “trip-wire”.
Oh yeah, eminent domain condemnation because Davis nimby’s won’t approve a zoning change and then do what? Go ahead Don take that idea to the Yolo Land Trust, Farm Bureau, Dwayne Chamberlain and the Supervisors, the city council, the Con Agra legal department and the courts. You will have the biggest back lash ever. The only thing the anti-growth Land Trust types hate more than development is someone taking land under eminent domain. Remember when the county tried that with Conaway Ranch they got their heads handed to them.
I’m not sure you could get one vote on the council for condemnation. Who do you think would vote for it. Besides I’m not sure it would qualify as blighted since the site has had all the structures removed.
We have left Tomarrow Land and are now entering Fantasy Land.
Mike Hart: [quote]It means enriching a landowner to the tunes of tens of millions of dollars if you give them what they want. What the city typically gets is a collection of long-term financial obligations (schools, fire, police etc.) that sometimes are covered by the revenue from the developement. What the existing property owners in the city get is an incremental reduction in the value of their houses. This is a zero-sum game, the developer pockets a fortune and the rest of us pay for it.
The reason why the proposed tract-home sprawl at the ConAgra site is so egregious is that it is a triple-whammy.[/quote] Sooooo…you don’t want “landowners” to be further enriched by selling their property, but you’re also concerned that “existing property owners” [i]might[/i] lose some value in their homes. Certain entities profiting are good, others not good? Is that how we want to structure a society?
Especially not for a “track home,” a term you’ve used a few times disparagingly here. What’s wrong with a track home? Not custom enough? If super high end homes (nothing the teeming masses could afford) were going to be built that could guarantee current homeowners wouldn’t lose any value in their homes, would that be okay?
“Remember in the movie Office Space? The plan to steal a little money from everyone to get rich? Thats kind of the way a development like this works.”
Never saw it but isn’t that how a railroad works? Extract exorbitant rates from easements that are passed along to end users as slight increases in utility rates?
I didn’t say they should condemn it. I said they should consider buying it. At undeveloped industrial land prices.
It doesn’t seem, from what I’m reading, that ConAgra is a very cooperative applicant. The last time I compared the Lewis Homes proposal to the current ConAgra proposal, there wasn’t much difference.
Here’s a thought:
The council should condition any rezoning on strict requirements about the crossing, increase the housing density and/or increase the percentage retained for business usage. Should housing be approved, add on the NRC conditions about energy use. Project to be submitted to the voters.
If all of those conditions aren’t acceptable, the zoning doesn’t change. At which point, the city should make an offer on the property and just plan to subdivide it itself.
On your right you see Cinderella and on your left Dumbo the flying elephant.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Thanks for the sub-metering education. Why the state law; who benefits from it?”[/i]
The desires of the public utilities are the reason for the double whammy that currently exists. The first whammy is that no user can be paid anything in excess of their actual electricity consumption. If they generate more than they use, then the utility gets that power for free. The second whammy is no sub-metering.
My sense is that the reason the public utilities have advocated for the status quo is that if a customer is no longer purchasing any net power from PG&E, PG&E still has to cover the fixed costs that were incurred for the construction and maintenance of the distribution grid. If customers were fully detaching from the grid then modeling the spreading of the fixed costs would be simpler. However, since there will be times when solar customers need to draw power from the grid because their solar installation isn’t creating sufficient supply to meet the customer’s demand. In many ways this is the same problem water jurisdictions throughout California are dealing with currently. Perhaps there is an opportunity for using a CBFR-type rate structure to address these same fiscal issues.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”Do you know how much solar generation Village Homes (albeit a subsidized rental situation) includes, compared the The Cannery’s 487.5 kw?”[/i]
I will look into that.
[quote]On your right you see Cinderella and on your left Dumbo the flying elephant.[/quote]
There’s only one participant playing hardball in the negotiations right now, Mr. Toad, and it isn’t the city.
“I didn’t say they should condemn it. I said they should consider buying it. At undeveloped industrial land prices.”
But force a sale because its blight. I don’t think they would be interested in selling it under those conditions so the City can become land speculators and reap the windfall from rezoning. So you are left with only one option if they are unwilling sellers, eminent domain.
I didn’t say they should “force a sale because it’s blight.” But I think it’s time to use that term for a parcel that has been undeveloped under its long-standing zoning for over a decade.
Ginger you are fabulous!
You assume that the city doesn’t want housing there when all indications, including votes by a majority of the council members, are saying build housing there. It is pretty flippant the way people think the city should reverse course after having Conagra spend all this money on planning for housing. If you wanted a business park you should have demanded a different plan when the council was deciding whether or not to plan for housing there. Now the only way to stop it would be by petitioning a vote.
“There’s only one participant playing hardball in the negotiations right now, Mr. Toad, and it isn’t the city.”
How do you know? My guess is that Steve Pinkerton knows how to get as much as possible out of these guys and that the final proposal will be a pretty nice project. That isn’t to say it will be perfect, nothing ever is perfect especially in Davis where there is all this high minded talk about the community but when you scratch beneath the surface you find all these petty economic interests where the lack of goodwill detracts from the greater good. As an example look no further than the access issues.
Aha! I see I was too preoccupied with other matters and did not discern the thrust of your argument, Mike. You’re arguing that because I was going “ballistic” for a popular vote on the Target Pad rezone, I should be going “ballistic for a Cannery rezone. Two problems with your argument:
1) I’m pretty sure I did not demand a Target Pad popular vote. What I did do is question why it took a popular vote to create the Target Pad zoning in the first place, but not a vote to revise the zoning. That seems like a fairly straightforward, reasonable question. The Cannery did not require a popular vote in the first place, so there’s no logical requirement for a popular vote to rezone. Furthermore, I am most definitely, repeatedly on record for not supporting popular votes where none is required by ordinance. We vote for individual council members for them to make such decisions for us. If we don’t agree with the way they exercise their judgement, we resort to referendums and initiatives. D. Greenwald and I have a long running disagreement on direct vs. representative democracy.
2) On the Target Pad thing, I was representing the Davis Downtown board, not my own views. On The Cannery project, I’m relaying my own views. No way, no how are you creating a light industrial subdivision for $50k an acre. By the time you add Robb’s bicycle crossings, the CC’s fire station, impact fees and other infrastructure, you’re at $300k an acre or more. No way, no how are developers raping and pillaging our community. +90% of us are living and working in homes and workplaces developed by developers. Should we now all vacate because we’ve come to the realization that we live and work in the product of evildoers? The argument is simplistic.
PS: I’d like to point out once again that I don’t have a horse in this race.
-Michael Bisch
Mike Hart said . . .
[i]”I don’t think some folks get it… simple as that. I didn’t make up these numbers. This is what ConAgra sold the property for in 2004 (420 acres for $12,500,000) that is recorded. It is what Lewis Homes dumped the property for in 2009 (420 acres for roughly $8.75M or less). It is a recorded fact that the 320 acres was sold from the property in June for $2.4M… The property is just not worth what you seem to think its worth.”[/i]
Mike, there is a problem with your numbers that is illuminated when you drill down into them.
First, the 420 acres isn’t a homogenous whole. It is A) a 100 acre developable parcel within the Davis City Limits, and B) a 320 acre non-developable parcel outside the Davis City Limits.
Second, the 320 acre parcel is highly restricted in its possible use. The Appraisers Report dated April 25, 2013 analyzes the parcel as follows, [i]”The subject property is zoned for agricultural use. The surrounding area is devoted to agricultural uses, and is sparsely improved with some residences and farm headquarters. There is no development other than either residences or improvements relating to agricultural use. [b]Soils in the immediate area of the subject property are very good for the growing of row crops.[/b] The subject property is located within of the sphere of influence of the City of Davis, but i[b]s in an area designated open space for public health and safety, as it is within one mile of the Yolo County Central Landfill.[/b] [b][u]Thus, it cannot be developed to a higher and better use than agriculture[/u][/b]. There are some properties in the area being restored to their natural state for use as mitigation for development in Davis. However, our research indicates that with the limited amount of development in Davis, as well as the low demand for residential land due to the current economic climate, [u][b]prices paid for mitigation in this area do not exceed the prices paid for good agricultural land. [/b][/u]Therefore, it is the appraiser’s opinion that the highest and best use of the subject property is for agricultural purposes, primarily row crop.[/i]
Third, the Appraiser’s Report values the 320 acres at a total of $1,440,000 ($4,500 an acre, which is consistent with the price for row crop agricultural land in Yolo County).
Fourth, subtracting $1,440,000 from $12,500,000 leaves just over $11 million for the 100 acres within the City Limits, which works out to $110,000 per [u]unimproved[/u] acre.
I agree you [i]”didn’t make up these numbers,”[/i] but you really didn’t look at them very closely either.
Thanks for making part of my point, Matt. The rest of the point is, what does it cost to go from an unimproved acre to an improved acre in a 10 parcel subdivision? It requires CC action and a boatload of money. Mike Hart’s $50k/acre is flying side-by-side with Cinderella and Dumbo.
Mike, why your sudden interest in the ConAgra property? I don’t recall you posting on the VG when the Saylor council directed staff to have ConAgra resubmit a proposal.
-Michael Bisch
Frankly:
[quote]Do I understand there is no plan for a tunnel under the RR to F street?
[/quote]
That’s correct. I attended meetings with the developers, and pointed out that such a connection would be absolutely essential for this project, and was told no way would they pay for it. My own opinion is that these people are bargaining in very bad faith for a project in Davis, since they don’t give a damn about bicycle/ped connectivity, much less motorized traffic congestion.
As for property values, I’m all for more intelligent, especially affordable housing in Davis. I really don’t care what my house is worth, since I’m staying here until I die, and bought my first house in Concord for $39K. I’d rather see the City thrive. But I, like many others, do not want to see the sprawl model of housing. Ultimately, it’s unsustainable.
“Maybe the city should consider buying the property. A vacant, abandoned industrial site meets the definition of blight. If the zoning isn’t going to change, and they’re not going to do anything with it if the zoning doesn’t change, the city should consider other options.”
Wow, Don, you’re coming a little unglued about this discussion, aren’t you?
First, I can’t imagine the city has the interest or wherewithal to pursue “other options” that attempt to impose a “blight” designation on a property as protected as this one. While one could argue that it initially offered up an attractive nuisance, the owners leveled anything that could be dangerous to trespassers, secured the entire area and planted visual barriers.
From what viewpoints do you contend there’s visual blight that invites city intervention, much less action to make the property public?
Second, where do you intend to find the money considering that we couldn’t even afford to keep our arborist staff?
Third, the owner would have the opportunity to correct your ill-will-imposed blight designation. Additional concrete removal, a little tillage, a bunch of tomato and corn plants and, voila, you’ve got lively ag land just waiting for development.
You were joking, right?
“Do I understand there is no plan for a tunnel under the RR to F street? “
How do you know they are bargaining in bad faith? How do you know that it is not people they are negotiating with for the easement who are being unreasonable. How much should such an easement cost? What did UP get for the bicycle crossing downtown and what is Conagra being asked to spend for this easement. How much did that bike tunnel and what is this one going to cost? There is much we don’t know so before you blame Conagra we all need more information. By the way, I have no idea what the sticking point is on this issue but from the tenor of remarks made here by people with an economic interest in that easement my guess is its not as simple as you make it seem.
[quote]Now the only way to stop it would be by petitioning a vote. [/quote]
Not a problem.
jrberg said . . .
[i]”Do I understand there is no plan for a tunnel under the RR to F street?
That’s correct. I attended meetings with the developers, and pointed out that such a connection would be absolutely essential for this project, and was told no way would they pay for it. My own opinion is that these people are bargaining in very bad faith for a project in Davis, since they don’t give a damn about bicycle/ped connectivity, much less motorized traffic congestion.
As for property values, I’m all for more intelligent, especially affordable housing in Davis. I really don’t care what my house is worth, since I’m staying here until I die, and bought my first house in Concord for $39K. I’d rather see the City thrive. But I, like many others, do not want to see the sprawl model of housing. Ultimately, it’s unsustainable.”[/i]
I heard a very different story from one of the members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee members. If I understood him correctly the problem isn’t with The Cannery, who are willing to enhance the existing F Street underpass to handle bicycle traffic. The problem is with the owners of Cranbrook Apartments who are unwilling to allow an easement for a bicycle path to connect from the F Street underpass to the existing H Street to J Street Tunnel near Drexel Drive. I did a Google search on Cranbrook Apartments and Davis Wiki has the following information on them [url]http://daviswiki.org/cranbrook_apartments[/url]. They appear to be managed by Tandem Properties.
So my question is, when you say, “. . . these people are bargaining in very bad faith for a project in Davis” are you referring to The Cannery team or the Cranbrook team?
And once the petitions are signed, remember that the last housing project vote (Wildhorse Ranch) got shot down 75% to 25%. I’m sure the Davis populace don’t want this project either.
Sadly you may be right but the facts of this situation might lead to a different outcome.
What facts? It’s another uneeded track housing project. What makes you think anything is different?
GI, serious question . . . what power of law will the petitions have? The referendum/initiative process regarding the water rates is grounded in the legal provisions of Proposition 218. Is there similar grounding for what you propose?
Wildhorse was a referendum that failed. It could be that a referendum is harder than a Measure R. There could also be voter fatigue with anti-growth people filing lawsuits and demanding expensive elections on every decision. The timing of such a vote and the economic conditions may cause a different outcome. Who knows. That is why we count the votes.
Frog
75% to 25% and not that long ago…..things haven’t changed that much in this town in that short of time.
Grammar Alert . . .
“Tract Housing” is a type of housing development in which multiple similar homes are built on a tract of land which is subdivided into individual small lots.
“Track Housing” is the activity associated with gathering all sorts of information about home values, such as prices paid for homes, mortgage amounts, square footage, numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms, asking prices, and even which direction houses face.
Don’t you always love it when the besserwissers correct you.
Matt we had a referendum on Wildhorse in the 90’s. It would probably be a referendum on the zoning change.
Its been almost 4 years. You may be right but first you must get the signatures then the votes. On Wildhorse Ranch i think the proponents had to get the signatures. Isn’t that how it works?
Toad, did the referendum ever actually happen?
[quote]II. BACKGROUND ALLEGATIONS
9. The Wildhorse Property at the center of this dispute is a 425 acre parcel of land formerly adjacent to the City of Davis. Prior to 1994, the Wildhorse Property was zoned for agricultural use and was used as a horse ranch and as open space.
10. In 1994, the Davis City Council adopted a number of Ordinances to allow development of the Wildhorse Property, including Ordinance No. 1772, a prezoning/ preliminary planned development Ordinance, and Ordinance No. 1773, a development agreement ordinance (collectively “Ordinances”).
11. In response, a group of individual Davis citizens opposed to uncontrolled growth, including the development of the Wildhorse Property, organized as WHOA and began circulating referendum petitions against the Ordinances. Due in large part to the efforts of plaintiffs WHOA and its supporters, a sufficient number of signatures were gathered to qualify the referenda for submission to the people of Davis in the May 9, 1995 election.
12. In December of 1994, the Davis City Council filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County of Yolo, styled City Council of the City of Davis v. Racki, Case No. 72792 (“Action”). By the Action, the City petitioned the Court for a Writ of Mandate and sought Declaratory Relief to challenge the validity of the referenda concerning the Ordinances. The City of Davis contended that the referenda were invalid and that the Court should order that they be removed from the May 1995 ballot. In paragraph 14 of the City’s Petition, it alleged on information and belief “that Real-Party-in-Interest Wildhorse Opposition Association (“WHOA”) is an unincorporated association that is organized to support the referendum petitions. In paragraph 15, the City alleged on information and belief “that the named Real-Parties-in-Interest set forth in this paragraph (which included Defendant herein Rodney Robinson) will adequately represent all proponents and signatories to the referendum petition and will protect their interests.”
13. The Court issued a Peremptory Writ of Mandate in the Action on January 27, 1995. As a result, the referenda on the Ordinances were deleted from the May, 1995 ballot.[/quote]
Mr.Toad said . .
[i]”Its been almost 4 years. You may be right but first you must get the signatures then the votes. On Wildhorse Ranch i think the proponents had to get the signatures. Isn’t that how it works?”[/i]
Toad, wasn’t the Wildhorse Ranch vote (Measure P) simply a straightforward Measure J conversion of agriculturally zoned land to urban use?
i think measure i and the water lawsuit might also be a problem for no growth because it showed how craven the anti-growth people are in this town. Of course there is Ginger who forth rightly and eloquently is pointing out how anti-growth policies negatively impact her family as opposed to a big galoot like myself who pounds incessantly on my keyboard doing the same.
Yes the Wildhorse vote happened and Whoa lost the vote.
Toad, I chased that election down
Measure R: WILDHORSE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. May 1995 Election[b]Passed: 58.9% in favor, 41.1% opposed[/b]
Shall Ordinance No. 1773, an ordinance adopting a development agreement by and between the City of Davis and Duffel Financial and Construction Company, et al., for the development of property known as Wildhorse, generally northeast of Covell Boulevard and Pole Line Road, be adopted?
One other thing when didn’t the City housing task force give Cannery a higher rating for a housing project than Nishi or Wildhorse ranch.
[quote]From what viewpoints do you contend there’s visual blight that invites city intervention, much less action to make the property public? [/quote]
I didn’t say visual blight. Blight is much more broadly defined than that.
[quote]You were joking, right?[/quote]
Only a little.
I’m sick of this company. Tired of their intransigence.Tired of anonymous posters coming on here to inform us of their firm, but unsubstantiated, opinions — stated as fact — that the site couldn’t be a business park. Yet people who are willing to come and post here under their own names, business people, can directly contradict what is presented as the unassailable position that this must only be residential, could never be a business park. Even Rob White has cited anonymous sources as his evidence that it can never be a business park:
[quote] “Maybe most importantly, the businesses we have talked to have stated they have no interest in the Cannery.”[/quote]
When Sue Greenwald referenced people she ‘had talked to’ she was routinely disparaged on the Vanguard.
ConAgra knew when Rochelle and Dan got elected that they had the votes they needed. As far as anyone (except apparently Mr. Toad) can tell, all negotiation and all concession on their part ended there. Grade crossing? Can’t do it. Is anyone pressing them for greater density? No. Why bother? They have the votes they need.
And thus we lose the last remaining site in city limits for a business park, in order to provide a bunch of houses that don’t resolve our greatest housing shortage. Renters will continue to pay through the nose — but they have zero representation on the city council. Our rental housing shortage will get worse, we will have protracted battles about annexation for business development. And the city council will have given ConAgra a huge windfall profit from rezoning, which they will then pocket and promptly sell off the property for someone else to develop.
“Is anyone pressing them for greater density?”
How dense do you want it? its already 10 units per acre on 50 acres.
“Renters will continue to pay through the nose — but they have zero representation on the city council.”
Why not? Do they vote? If they voted they would have more representation. With 2/3 of the residences in Davis rentals they could demand representation if they voted. By the way when Mayor Kravoza ran in 2010 he talked about re-writing the Davis Model Lease. It would be nice to see him follow through on that before moving up or out next year.
“As far as anyone (except apparently Mr. Toad) can tell”
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong. As they put their final draft proposal together I’m sure there are lots of negotiations going on between the developers, the city and the neighbors. Just because the public is not privy to these negotiations doesn’t mean they aren’t happening.
Our rental housing shortage will get worse, we will have protracted battles about annexation for business development.
I know an easy fix for both problems annex a big piece of land specifically to address these issues.
“And the city council will have given ConAgra a huge windfall profit from rezoning,”
Of course housing has been planned for that site since they closed the factory so there is nothing new here. See the City of Davis Housing Element Steering Committee report.
Mr. Toad – Thank you SO much for your kind words. I appreciate it! 🙂