It is the end of another week in Davis and this fall, which officially gets underway either last Tuesday through the resumption of the Davis City Council meetings or on Monday through the annual Labor Day celebrations, figures to be big.
This week, we had a two-part interview with the spokesperson for the Cannery Development George Phillips (Part One, Part Two), as well as a statement of clarification from the North Davis Land Company (aka the Covell Partners) on their view of senior housing.
The question, after all of this, is where people stand on Cannery, which will be coming before the Planning Commission and then council in the next several weeks.
Do you support the project as it stands today? Do you oppose any housing project on the site and believe it should be used only for industrial business use, as it is currently zoned? Or do you believe that it should be put on the ballot and that the people should decide?
There is, of course, a middle ground here and that is that you may have some concerns about the current project.
One of the biggest purposes for the two-part story was to allow George Phillips to explain the project, in their view.
The property is unusual in its shape. It is also limited in its access. In part, that is natural, due to the railroad tracks running the length of the western edge. There has been some talk of moving the tracks, but that is not a short term possibility. Because of the tracks, there are access and connectivity issues through the west of the project.
It is also unusual in that there was a tomato cannery plant on the site first, and then neighborhoods grew up around it. Because of the changes in the surrounding environment, Mr. Phillips argued, “It didn’t and doesn’t make sense to us that it’s a business park site. Neighborhoods grew up around this industrial site. So if you chose a site today for an industrial or business park, you wouldn’t say this is the place to put it because of the residential neighborhoods around it.”
It seems to us, at this time, that there are four major areas where there could be criticism.
First, on the connectivity issue.
As Mr. Phillips explained, the objective of some of the critics is “to really maximize the connectivity” and to make the bike and pedestrian facilities the best that they can be. The critics would like the connection to be better and some prefer the connection to be down at the H Street Tunnel rather than one that would just connect back into the existing trail on the south side of East Covell.
“We’re okay with that. There are challenges that we have laid out, but that’s a council decision and they’ll decide,” Mr. Phillips said. “I think that that issue gets worked out as it relates to that particular connection.”
So the first question is whether the solution that ConAgra seems to offer, allowing the city to determine the points of connection on the southern end and how the site hooks up with the H Street Tunnel – whether there needs to be eminent domain to take an easement from the Cranbrook Apartments site, and whether there need to be improvements to the H Street Tunnel itself.
Eastern access is still problematic, although the $8 to $9 million figure cited in the paper two weeks ago seems to refer to access to the south, west, and east, rather than just the east.
Mr. Phillips also relies on the Covell Corridor study, which has not been completed, as a way to solve the remaining problems. Again, the question is whether this is enough.
Next we have the issue of sustainability. West Village hangs its hat on a net-zero development. Mr. Phillips seems to question whether they can get there and said, “Obviously they have set a very aggressive goal. I think there are a lot of people that are still wondering when it’s all measured have they really accomplished net zero. But clearly that’s been the goal.”
He makes the argument that the private versus public funding sources issue makes comparing West Village to Cannery very difficult.
And while the Cannery was pushed to accommodate a 1.5 kw solar system for the detached units, they seem to hang their hat on efficiency, arguing that their project is 40 percent more efficient than Title 24, while the city’s standard is only 15 percent better.
“We’re starting from a standpoint where these homes are incredibly efficient,” he said, noting that this gets to things like windows, insulation, framing of the homes themselves, and the walls. “We found out that (other) homes have a solar component but they’re not as efficient to begin with.”
“I think it’s a package and we think we’re doing well on the sustainability,” he concluded.
The question, obviously, is whether the community and council believes that this is sufficient.
The Cannery Project has taken on the senior issue by incorporating universal design features that allow residents to age in place. Hallways become wider to accommodate the need at some point for wheelchairs or other mobility devices, entryways do not have steps for ease of entry, and bedrooms will be on the bottom floor as well as the second floor.
This is the multigenerational approach that developments like the Cannery have attempted to incorporate into their design.
Mary Jo Bryan from CHA (Choices for Healthy Aging) criticizes the Cannery project for not including “enough single-story, for-sale houses, the very type of housing she says seniors most prefer.”
Only 19 of the 463 ownership units are single-family, single-story homes.
“That’s all we’re asking for – single-story homes, with a livable design, which they’re doing anyway,” Ms. Bryan told the Enterprise. “A different variety of sizes; they don’t have to be 2,200 square feet. They can be anywhere from 950 to 1,500 to 2,000 (square feet).”
The Enterprise reports, “Rather than targeting seniors for the stacked flats, which would include elevators, CHA has proposed carving out a block of parcels in the northeast corner of the development where a micro-neighborhood with smaller homes could be built for seniors, similar to the Glacier Circle development in West Davis.”
NDLC (North Davis Land Company) sent us their letter to Elaine Roberts Musser of the Senior Citizens Commission and they argued they would like to see the applicant required to provide more single-story home options.
They argue, “While livable design features will be provided in many of the two story homes, which are laudable and desirable, it does not make a two story home fully equivalent to a single story home.”
They push for their “micro-neighborhood plan,” which “offers a variety of home types, styles and square footages, in addition to providing a common greenway and gathering area outside your front door. The concept evolved from Glacier Circle, a very popular and well-known project in Davis. The micro-neighborhood floor plans are primarily single-story with some two-story models.”
They add, “The concept is meant to serve young and old alike – we are not supporting or proposing a senior only neighborhood. Continued reference to this is not accurate and demonstrates the unwillingness to be open to creative solutions that will meet many of our housing needs.”
This leads us to two questions: which approach is preferred by the community and are people accepting of ConAgra’s approach, which incorporates a universal design concept into a multi-story dwelling?
Finally, we have the affordable housing issue. Back on July 9, by a 3-2 vote, the Davis City Council made critical changes to its Affordable Housing Requirements that would allow credit for Accessory Dwelling Units (Granny Flats or ADUs) to count toward inclusionary requirements on a 50 percent basis.
In the wake of the loss of RDA funding, the city has limited options, given Measure R’s limitations for new large housing projects on Davis’ periphery, as city officials successfully argued.
Critics charge that there is no guarantee ADUs would be rented or would end up as affordable units. Moreover, ADUs may work well for college-age students and possibly other populations without families, but will not work well for family units.
The biggest impact of the affordable housing policy will be the upcoming Cannery Project. According to information from the city, the requirements move from 50 for-sale affordable and 50 on the project’s land dedication parcel, to 40 to 60 permanently affordable apartments and 28-40 accessory dwelling units.
Critics look at these changes and believe that the ordinance allows developers to ignore the for-sale, affordable housing components that they previously had to require. Instead, there are a smaller number of apartments that become affordable rental units and the rest of the requirement is filled up with 28 to 40 ADUs, which may or may not become rental units, but do not serve the families.
The city defends the design, arguing that, as a whole, this is one of the most affordable projects that the community has done. It has a range of choices in housing and moves away from the large, single family homes, on large lots of land.
So, the question again is whether the current design offered by ConAgra is sufficient.
Have I missed other concerns about the Cannery Project that need to be addressed?
Bottom line, what would it take for the average resident to support a housing project at Cannery, or is there no amount of change that will allow for it – or is it acceptable as currently proposed?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The project is well-conceived and complies with SMART development principles. It addresses all the compromises that any reasonable citizen would hope to achieve. It does not satisfy many of the selfish special interests; but then those people cannot be satisfied without others having their demands diminished or ignored.
David Greenwald asked . . .
[i]”Do you support the project as it stands today?”[/i]
One of the challenges in answering that question is that The Cannery as a project continues to evolve and get better.
When the draft EIR for The Cannery was presented to the NRC on March 25th, rooftop solar for the single family residences was an option. Based on input from the NRC and the Valley Climate Action Center and Cool Davis, rooftop solar moved from option to standard on all of the detached single family homes, with a base capacity of 1.5 kw per residence . . . 442.5 kw total for the 295 homes. So, if “today” were defined as March 25, 2013 I would have answered David’s question with “maybe, but leaning to no.”
On March 25th I also had significant concerns about the commercial portion of the project, but it was right about that time that Rob White was beginning his series of articles about some of the technology spinoff companies here in Davis who had grown enough that they were looking to move out of their currently rented space into expanded space that they could own rather than rent. The Cannery presented those companies with an opportunity to do just that. The information Rob shared with us all was that the alternative for those companies was to move away from Davis. Armed with that additional information, my fears that the commercial space at the Cannery site would stay vacant for an extended period of time was substantially reduced.
As a result of the changes in both the energy sustainability and innovative companies support, if “today” were defined as a date in early August my answer to David’s question would have changed to “leaning to yes.”
This week New Homes announced that the 72 single family attached residences will also come with 1.5 kw standard. That adds another 108 kw to the 442.5 kw, bringing the total to 550.5 kw for the residences plus an additional 45kW for their Zero Net Energy Public Site Lighting, where the energy demand for lighting of public spaces at will offset by a 45 kW PV system.
So, if “today” is defined as September 1, 2013 I’m not sure I personally am even in a leaning posture.
With the above said, energy sustainability and local jobs sustainability are not the only criteria for answering David’s question, but through the diligent work of Robb Davis and others, transportation issues are getting the serious, focused attention that they deserve. By the time we get to defining “today” in late September, we may well be acknowledging other positive steps. I certainly hope we will. Good people are working to get to that point both from within the Cannery team, and from all of us.
I’m guessing a 3 – 2 council vote, it goes on the ballot, and probably loses. The reasons have been described on the various Vanguard threads over the last couple of weeks. The concerns are perfectly reasonable, and nobody is being selfish by putting forth objections to the present proposal. But supporters of the project appear prepared to shut off discussion by denigrating those with whom they disagree.
This proposal is a missed opportunity. It sets back the likelihood of a large business site anytime soon, and does nothing to solve our most pressing housing needs. So there is no compelling reason for the council to grant the rezoning request.
[quote]The Cannery as a project continues to evolve and get better. [/quote]
It appears to have lost 50+ units since 2011. Any explanation as to why?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”But supporters of the project appear prepared to shut off discussion by denigrating those with whom they disagree.”[/i]
Don, your statement above confuses me. Many of the energy sustainability improvements I’ve described in my comment above have happened because the project applicant has come to the discussion table and listened.
Matt, meet Frankly. See post above.
Mr. Phillips appears to be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic…
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”It appears to have lost 50+ units since 2011. Any explanation as to why?”[/i]
None Don. Do you have any?
The moment the referendum qualifies is the moment the steel hull hits the iceberg
Come on Joe, move to put it on the.ballot.
Don Shor siad . . .
[i]”Matt, meet Frankly. See post above.”[/i]
How is Frankly’s comment suppressing discussion?
[quote]Good people are working to get to that point both from within the Cannery team, and from all of us. [/quote]
It sounds as though you are at the table, negotiating somehow on this project. Are you? In what capacity? Where are these discussions taking place? Is it open to the public?
[quote]Don Shor said . . .
“It appears to have lost 50+ units since 2011. Any explanation as to why?”
None Don. Do you have any?[/quote]
No. In 2011 the project had over 600 units. Now it has about 550.
“…it sets back the likelihood of a large business site anytime soon and does nothing to solve our most pressing housing needs .”
I don’t understand this comment any more than Matt gets your one about denigrating and shutting off discussion (which I haven’t observed from the applicants at all)?
Nothing makes development of a large business site at the cannery property at all likely soon. Nothing. Not public demand, not property owner desire, not city initiative or financial support, not suitable business interest. Nothing. There is no movement to build a light industrial project there “soon,” if ever, only an unfinanced opinion on the part of folks who don’t have any ability to make it happen.
Any new housing will do something “to solve our most pressing housing needs.” The only development that would do nothing for housing needs (or for the nearby neighborhoods) is a light industrial park.
Did you mean to say that it won’t do much for a student housing need you think is the most pressing one?
[quote]It appears to have lost 50+ units since 2011. Any explanation as to why?[/quote]
Complaints about insufficient common area space along with reworking of the layout to provide more?
[quote]Nothing makes development of a large business site at the cannery property at all likely soon. Nothing.[/quote]
If the zoning is not going to be changed, ConAgra has two choices. They can sell the land, or they can let it sit vacant.
[quote]Many of the energy sustainability improvements I’ve described in my comment above have happened because the project applicant has come to the discussion table and listened.[/quote]
Matt
As previously discussed, I have no doubt that the project applicant has been willing to listen and adjust in terms of a number of minor modifications.
This however, fails to address several issues.
1) Do we need this particular project ?
2) Do we need it now?
3) Have the safely concerns of having only one entrance and one exit onto the same roadway separated by only a few yards been adequately addressed ?
4) Does this project fit with the overall stated community objectives of decreasing CO2 emissions, promoting non automobile transportation, leading to less congestion in the downtown area, the need for student and other low cost housing ?
I have no financial interest in this project one way or the other. I do have concerns that I do not feel are being adequately addressed. Does that make me selfish ? Only if you are willing to say that anyone who has concerns that you do not share is selfish.
Medwoman: well stated
DS: “”…it sets back the likelihood of a large business site anytime soon….”
JS: “Nothing makes development of a large business site at the cannery property at all likely soon. Nothing.”
DS: “If the zoning is not going to be changed, ConAgra has two choices. They can sell the land, or they can let it sit vacant.”
So, we agree on one of my points. What about the other five?
Of course, building houses precludes any other use. But, why do you think there is any chance that the property would be developed soon if the present owner gave up on housing and offered it for sale with its own tomato processing plant zoning?
“But, why do you think there is any chance that the property would be developed soon (as a business park) if the present owner gave up on housing and offered it for sale with its own tomato processing plant zoning?”
[quote]DS: “”…it sets back the likelihood of a large business site anytime soon….”
JS: “Nothing makes development of a large business site at the cannery property at all likely soon. Nothing.”
DS: “If the zoning is not going to be changed, ConAgra has two choices. They can sell the land, or they can let it sit vacant.”
So, we agree on one of my points.[/quote]
No. [b]They can sell the site[/b] so somebody else can develop it (in that instance, the city could change to allow commercial zoning as well, with conditions). But ConAgra won’t do that if they think they can convert the zoning to residential.
[quote]Any new housing will do something “to solve our most pressing housing needs.” …
Did you mean to say that it won’t do much for a student housing need you think is the most pressing one?[/quote]
Our most pressing housing need is high-density rental units. The increasing student population is creating the greatest demand. But it is, in fact, the non-student young adults in the housing market who are most squeezed by the current situation.
[quote] tomato processing plant zoning?”[/quote]
It’s zoned industrial, not specific to agricultural uses. That could, presumably, include various forms of manufacturing. It could also include agricultural businesses. Somebody who knows zoning law better could tell us whether that would include ag-related tech businesses. I’d guess yes.
[quote]”But, why do you think there is any chance that the property would be developed soon (as a business park) if the present owner gave up on housing and offered it for sale with its own tomato processing plant zoning?”[/quote]
The site would not require a vote for a commercial or industrial project. The only other sites that are as big or bigger would require a Measure R vote. I believe Nishi will get to the ballot fairly soon, but it is smaller.
Sorry for confusing things. I was just trying to point out that the light industrial designationwas the zoning applied many years ago for the tomato factory. This was long before housing, shopping areas, parks, etc., grew out well past (and around on two sides) the property. It makes little sense not to rezone this property to be compatible with what’s since grown up in the area.
As I remember, Sue Greenwald wasn’t proposing ANY zoning change back when she was promoting a “neighborhood friendly” business park. I also presume that the present zoning would allow a wide variety of light industrial manufacturing and other uses. Again, my point is that there’s nothing on the horizon that suggests, as you have, that housing would stop anything that’s coming “soon.”
And, also, that housing is a better use with all the change that has happened in that part of town since the cannery started years ago. Wow, I miss that aroma wafting–maybe we could permit a tiny ketchup plant in one corner of the housing development.
It would be an excellent site for a tomato museum. Probably draw people from all over the world! Ag tourism, and all that.
“Fiscal Analysis: The project will contribute property taxes to the City’s General Fund based on the value of the property. The development will also generate one-time construction tax (approximately $75,000), development impact fees (approximately $100,000), and parkland dedication (Quimby) fees.”
And this is just from one single, 50-foot-tall building. My gawd, let’s just take the money and run!
Maybe, the city should turn over the Mission Residence floorplans to Cannery Development and make them densify a little more.
Don
[quote]It would be an excellent site for a tomato museum. Probably draw people from all over the world! Ag tourism, and all that.[/quote]
Great idea ! Maybe we could place a replica of the Heffernon tomato at the entrance. What could be in better alignment with traditional Davis values.
[i]Our most pressing housing need is high-density rental units.[/i]
This is only Don’s opinion. I believe commercial property is a bigger pressing need. Mr. Toad makes a case that more single-family homes are a pressing need. Other’s make the case that multiple, level bike paths are the most pressing need. Still other’s claim that preserving ALL peripheral farm land is our most pressing need.
So, instead of having to accept the gospel of Don, this development checks every box as a compromise.
I’m fine supporting some delay to get more from the developers, but not at the expense of reductions in other needs being met.
I put myself in ConAgra’s shoes… believing that I have come to the table with a very strong comprehensive development design that attempts to hit the sweet spot for the myriad demands that are classic Davis. The key here is to not let those with myopic self interest to gain any additional influence while we demand that the city council should give it an up or down vote.
[quote]This is only Don’s opinion. I believe commercial property is a bigger pressing need. Mr. Toad makes a case that more single-family homes are a pressing need. Other’s make the case that multiple, level bike paths are the most pressing need. Still other’s claim that preserving ALL peripheral farm land is our most pressing need. [/quote]
I believe commercial property on that site would be a better use than housing. My preference for housing, if it is to be rezoned for that, is for high-density rental housing. I’ve been quite clear and consistent about that for years now.
My statements regarding the need for high-density rental housing are based on statistical evidence that I have provided repeatedly. I have saved them, not in a very organized fashion, on a document here: [url]http://davismerchants.org/vanguard/UCDhousingandapartmentshortage.pdf[/url]
If someone wishes to make a case that other uses, particularly those proposed by the developer, have a sound statistical basis comparable to what I have laid out, then please provide that. Otherwise you’re just proposing an equivalency that isn’t there.
[quote]myopic self interest[/quote]
Who has “myopic self-interest?” The developer, for sure. Who else?
[quote] the gospel of Don,[/quote]
Any particular reason for this gratuitous comment?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”It sounds as though you are at the table, negotiating somehow on this project. Are you? In what capacity? Where are these discussions taking place? Is it open to the public?”[/i]
No I am not at any negotiating table.
My appointed role as a NRC member caused me (on March 25, 2013) to have an official role in assessing the draft EIR in collaboration with fellow commissioners in a publicly noticed NRC meeting.
I was then invited by Mark Braly and Gene Wilson to attend the Valley Climate Action Center’s (VCAC) workshop at Blue Oak Energy that focused on The Cannery’s energy sustainability features.
As follow-up to that meeting in response to comments made by VCAC board member Jennifer Segar about energy efficient mortgages (aka “green mortgages”). Being the hard core numbers cruncher that I am, I dug into the details behind Jennifer’s idea and provided what I found to all the interested parties. Rochelle Swanson would call this a “carrots rather than sticks” approach. After carefully weighing my fiscal analysis of the potential of green mortgages, ConAgra and New Homes decided that changing solar from an option to a base feature was a Win for the home buyers, a Win for themselves and a Win for the City of Davis.
As a byproduct of my independent green mortgage efforts the VCAC board asked me if I would be willing to join the board. Based on what I’ve seen of their meetings as a guest, I would say that the VCAC meetings are definitely open to the public.
I hope that answers all your questions.
I view this as i do the new water rates. at some point you have to trust your elected officials, much as they at every level often let us down, and the cannery project is NOT o/s the limits requiring a public vote. so if the council thinks it fits we should support that. when i stopped by jim leonard’s stand at the farmer’s market he was proposing a vote on water rates. as i told my old high school buddy, that almost seems silly and again fails to defer to the council at least at first. one hopes they’ll impose on both business and residences the lowest rates that will get us the water in the way we voted. if not, unlike the cannery, we can vote the council out or put rates on the ballot. thats democracy. frankly, governing by initiative is often a really bad idea.
[quote]I hope that answers all your questions. [/quote]
It does.
I don’t want to disparage the VCAC; it’s a great project, and can fill a useful role in these instances. But it is not a commission of the city of Davis. It is not an appointed body with any advisory role for the city. As such, the process you engaged in there does not meet the criteria of a deliberative body meeting ‘open to the public’. I seriously doubt most people are aware of the VCAC (though they should be; lots of great resource: [url]http://climateactioncenter.org[/url]).
So no, this is not the developer ‘at the table’ in a public forum.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”As previously discussed, I have no doubt that the project applicant has been willing to listen and adjust in terms of a number of minor modifications.
This however, fails to address several issues.
1) Do we need this particular project ?
2) Do we need it now?
3) Have the safely concerns of having only one entrance and one exit onto the same roadway separated by only a few yards been adequately addressed ?
4) Does this project fit with the overall stated community objectives of decreasing CO2 emissions, promoting non automobile transportation, leading to less congestion in the downtown area, the need for student and other low cost housing ?
I have no financial interest in this project one way or the other. I do have concerns that I do not feel are being adequately addressed. Does that make me selfish ? Only if you are willing to say that anyone who has concerns that you do not share is selfish.”[/i]
I agree with Mike Harrington, this comment by medwoman is very well stated . . . and resonant. For me, the problems we have with the ConAgra site is that regardless of what alternative for the site is discussed (and planned for) there are significant flaws, and further every one of the alternatives will fail the “fails to address several issues” standard.
With that said, let’s engage your four points
1) The answer to your first question varies quite a bit depending who you are talking to. It also varies quite a bit depending on what criteria are included in the determination of need. As I noted in my earlier comment I was really concerned about the viability of the commercial component of the project, but am less negative now that I know that there are good Davis companies that will leave Davis and take their jobs with them if they can’t find space that they can own rather than rent. Those companies are examples of a way that we need this project.
2) Here too the answer varies quite a bit depending who you are talking to. But with that said, isn’t your question a bit of a chicken/egg question? I can’t help but wonder if we ever need any project [u]now[/u].
3) You and I have talked about this issue quite a bit in the past, and the simple answer to your question is that unless and until the site can have connection to the north and/or to the east to the Covell Village site [u]or[/u] to the west across the Union Pacific owned right of way, the answer to your question will forever be “no.” With that said, doesn’t your question effectively mean that this parcel can never be developed until the Davis citizenry is willing to joint plan the Cannery site and the Covell Village site?
4) The answer to that question is, “much better now than it was six months ago.” Is it all the way there yet? No, but as of this week it is 108 Kw of solar power generation closer. If we can work to ensure that the use of electrical cars is maximized through a proliferation of readily accessible charging stations powerd by solar generation. If we can work to ensure that the public spaces are used for solar gardens. If Robb Davis can continue to maximize the bicycle connectivity. Then the answer to your question will be almost surely a resounding “yes.”
With the above said, how does West Village fare in answering your question 4)?
The Cannery presented those companies with an opportunity to do just that. The information Rob shared with us all was that the alternative for those companies was to move away from Davis. Armed with that additional information, my fears that the commercial space at the Cannery site would stay vacant for an extended period of time was substantially reduced.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”No. [b]They can sell the site[/b] so somebody else can develop it (in that instance, the city could change to allow commercial zoning as well, with conditions). But ConAgra won’t do that if they think they can convert the zoning to residential.”[/i]
Don, do you know anyone who has a spare $10-20 million to purchase the site with the express intent of making it into a 100% industrial park?
Do you know a large company that would make the irrational decision to sit on a piece of property for decades without getting any income from it?
[quote]With the above said, how does West Village fare in answering your question 4)? [/quote]
How do you think West Village addresses her question?
“No. They can sell the site so somebody else can develop it (in that instance, the city could change to allow commercial zoning as well, with conditions). But ConAgra won’t do that if they think they can convert the zoning to residential.”
So then there is a third option, that we change the zoning, the exact option that you suggest is exactly what Conagra is proposing.
“It would be an excellent site for a tomato museum. Probably draw people from all over the world! Ag tourism, and all that.”
This is the dumbest thing you have ever said among many dumb things. Even if its a joke it demonstrates a lack of seriousness.
[quote]So then there is a third option, that we change the zoning, the exact option that you suggest is exactly what Conagra is proposing.[/quote]
How do you figure? The zoning can be expanded from its current industrial to similar commercial zoning. Residential is rather different from that.
The exact option that I suggest is nothing like what ConAgra is proposing. So I really don’t get your point. Just in case you’d missed it: they want to build houses on the site. Were you trying to be cute? Are all the proponents of this project getting snarky now?
“Don, do you know anyone who has a spare $10-20 million to purchase the site with the express intent of making it into a 100% industrial park?”
Don never wants to deal with these questions, but I’ve asked them several times. There are a few people proposing an industrial park at this spot, led in the past by Sue Greenwald, but no one with any public or private money to take the first step to make it happen. There is no line of businesses ready to move in.
There are no nearby residences with families begging for a “neighborhood friendly” business park to move in; my guess is that they’ll be ready to fight it in the unlikely event it gets underway.
With respect to Don’s question about the wisdom of a company making “the irrational decision” of sitting on property taxed as vacant light-industrial land (yet whose highest and best use obviously is housing)–seriously? And, who would pay the going rate for land with that potential, then build low-return business park buildings on spec? Think of what they’d face other that lower returns: a lengthy battle with Davis’ vocal anti-growth faction and a city council being threatened with a referendum by that group as well as nearby residents.
“My preference for housing, if it is to be rezoned for that, is for high-density rental housing. I’ve been quite clear and consistent about that for years now. “
As Ralph Waldo Emerson said “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”
The problem is that you have never demonstrated that doing so is economically feasible or acceptable to the community.
[quote]Don never wants to deal with these questions, but I’ve asked them several times.[/quote]
As long as there is not a willing seller, nobody is going to look at it. If ConAgra knows they will never, ever be able to build houses there, they might become a willing seller. If they become a willing seller, then there are loads of companies that build things like that.
You know that. It’s patently obvious. So stop pretending I “never deal with these questions.”
[quote]There are no nearby residences with families begging for a “neighborhood friendly” business park to move in; my guess is that they’ll be ready to fight it in the unlikely event it gets underway. [/quote]
The neighboring properties, which aren’t that nearby, are probably no more or less happy about housing, either. In fact, you have no idea what the neighbors want or don’t want. As with so many issues here, you’re guessing.
[quote]yet whose highest and best use obviously is housing[/quote]
The most profitable use to the land developer is housing. It is not necessarily, certainly not ‘obviously’, the use that is of greatest benefit to the community.
[quote]And, who would pay the going rate for land with that potential, then build low-return business park buildings on spec?[/quote]
The price for that land will depend on its current, and most especially on its future, zoning. The only thing keeping ConAgra in the housing development game is that they think they can get 3 votes on the city council to proceed with houses. As Mike Hart said (paraphrasing): disabuse them of that notion, now and forevermore, and the value of the land will be determined by its industrial zoning.
[quote]a lengthy battle with Davis’ vocal anti-growth faction and a city council being threatened with a referendum by that group as well as nearby residents. [/quote]
Which, it seems, have equal likelihood regardless of the project proposed for the site.
[quote]The problem is that you have never demonstrated that doing so is economically feasible or acceptable to the community.[/quote]
It’s not the preference of the landowner. We won’t get any housing proposal other than what is before the city right now. So I urge the city to deny the zoning change and leave the property zoned industrial, and make it clear the current housing project doesn’t meet the city’s needs.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]It does.
I don’t want to disparage the VCAC; it’s a great project, and can fill a useful role in these instances. But it is not a commission of the city of Davis. It is not an appointed body with any advisory role for the city. As such, the process you engaged in there does not meet the criteria of a deliberative body meeting ‘open to the public’. I seriously doubt most people are aware of the VCAC (though they should be; lots of great resources: http://climateactioncenter.org).
So no, this is not the developer ‘at the table’ in a public forum.[/i]
One of the interesting things I have learned about energy sustainability issues is that they can be self funding. The changes that the cannery has implemented to add 560 Kw of solar generation to their project has not come at the expense of a single dollar of public funds. The dialogue on these issues has sustained its own energy, and the reason that ConAgra/New Homes has made the decisions they have made regarding energy sustainability is because they pencil out as a Win-Win-Win. If a self-sustaining Win-Win-Win can be achieved, why is it necessary for there to be any involvement by an appointed body with any advisory role for the city?
Given that there really isn’t any energy sustainability commission in Davis, are you advocating for the creation of a new one?
When VCAC approached Ken Hiatt about hosting the April 24th Cannery Workshop, Ken brought considerable City resources to bear to ensure that the meeting was the best that it could be. City employees were amongst the presenters and the participants. CoolDavis was broadly represented. One might even say that the event was an AdHoc event with any advisory role for the City.
Can you think of an alternative where in spirit and fact transparency and public participation would have been more strongly served?
“It would be an excellent site for a tomato museum. Probably draw people from all over the world! Ag tourism, and all that.”
There is nothing else to say about this remark except that it is dumb. Even if its a joke if all you can come up with to support your desire for not changing the zoning is a joke you really have no case. As a proponent for a position about the disposition of someone else’s property you must offer more than silly ideas or dumb jokes as an alternative.
“It’s not the preference of the landowner. We won’t get any housing proposal other than what is before the city right now. So I urge the city to deny the zoning change and leave the property zoned industrial, and make it clear the current housing project doesn’t meet the city’s needs.”
Someone told me something similar about Covell Village that we will get a better project by saying no and waiting. Seven years later I’m still waiting.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”As long as there is not a willing seller, nobody is going to look at it. If ConAgra knows they will never, ever be able to build houses there, they might become a willing seller. If they become a willing seller, then there are loads of companies that build things like that.”[/i]
Don, that is a chicken/egg argument. If your last name were Corleone, you would know that the buyer always has the option of giving them an offer that they can’t refuse.
ConAgra is simply acting like a normal capitalist with an asset with an imputed value. I can’t imagine that if an offer came to them that gave them their imputed value in full that they wouldn’t take the money and run.
Toad:
[quote]As a proponent for a position about the disposition of someone else’s property you must offer more than silly ideas or dumb jokes as an alternative. [/quote]
Are you talking about someone else’s property that’s zoned for industry and they knew it when they bought it and now they want it changed?
[quote]”It would be an excellent site for a tomato museum. Probably draw people from all over the world! Ag tourism, and all that.”
There is nothing else to say about this remark except that it is dumb. Even if its a joke if all you can come up with to support your desire for not changing the zoning is a joke you really have no case. As a proponent for a position about the disposition of someone else’s property you must offer more than silly ideas or dumb jokes as an alternative.[/quote]
Let us know when your sense of humor has returned.
[quote]ConAgra is simply acting like a normal capitalist with an asset with an imputed value. I can’t imagine that if an offer came to them that gave them their imputed value in full that they wouldn’t take the money and run.[/quote]
As you know, the value of the property as a potential residential development is higher than the value of the property as a potential industrial or commercial development.
Toad:
[quote]As Ralph Waldo Emerson said “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” [/quote]
I think the same can be said for your “consistency” that you want more housing at every turn.
Toad
[quote]The problem is that you have never demonstrated that doing so is economically feasible or acceptable to the community. [/quote]
Thank you, you also haven’t demonstrated that the Cannery Project as planned is acceptable to the community. That’s why it must go to a vote.
At least i don’t ask for pie in the sky projects that nobody is proposing without any economic analysis that they would pencil out.
The City Council, popularly elected representatives of the community have determined that this project is in the best interest of the community and therefore directed staff to work with the owners to come up with a plan.
[quote]ConAgra is simply acting like a normal capitalist with an asset with an imputed value. I can’t imagine that if an offer came to them that gave them their imputed value in full that they wouldn’t take the money and run.[/quote]
“Normal capitalist”, aka,” myopic self interest”.
So where is the dispute. Should those who believe that this is not their best interest just roll over and accept it.
Why is ConAgra’s myopic self interest superior to anyone else’s ?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Let us know when your sense of humor has returned.”[/i]
Agreed
You let him off too easy Matt. He is the one arguing for not changing the zoning but that’s all he can come up with is a bad post industrial joke as if we were building a car museum in Detroit. In Detroit they did it as an act of desperation because nobody had any idea what to do about competition from Japan. Conagra has an alternative for their property here.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”As you know, the value of the property as a potential residential development is higher than the value of the property as a potential industrial or commercial development.”[/i]
Agreed, and in moments like the one you describe patience is a virtue.
Given that ConAgra has net annual sales totaling approximately $18 billion, with total assets of over $20 billion, having patience is easy. The Cannery site isn’t even a rounding error for them.
Growth Izzue said . . .
[i]”Thank you, you also haven’t demonstrated that the Cannery Project as planned is acceptable to the community. That’s why it must go to a vote.”[/i]
GI, serious question . . . Edgar Wai asked in a prior thread what the threshold was that warranted the expenditure of the incremental citizens’ money needed to conduct a vote. His post came late enough in the thread that most everyone missed it, but it is a really good question. How do we determine if a vote will give us enough democratic payback to warrant the cost?
medwoman said . . .
[i]”Normal capitalist”, aka,” myopic self interest”.
So where is the dispute. Should those who believe that this is not their best interest just roll over and accept it.
Why is ConAgra’s myopic self interest superior to anyone else’s?[/i]
No, those who believe that this is not their best interest should definitely not roll over. The question isn’t whether that sentiment exists or doesn’t exist. The question is how much critcal mass that sentiment has in the community.
By the way everyone, even though it’s in its very initial stages of getting local community input, there’s a new Wildhorse Ranch Project being presented to nearby residents. One of the presenters says he has already put $100,000 into the project and from what I gathered they want to sell approx. 50 ten thousand sq. ft. lots for custom homes to be built on. The small community also plans to have farming in different areas of the 25 acres.
[quote]Agreed, and in moments like the one you describe patience is a virtue.
Given that ConAgra has net annual sales totaling approximately $18 billion, with total assets of over $20 billion, having patience is easy. The Cannery site isn’t even a rounding error for them.[/quote]
You’ve probably met and worked with Mr. Phillips. Do you get the sense, if this project is rejected by the council or the voters, that they’re going to expend any more effort on a housing development proposal for the site?
[quote]He is the one arguing for not changing the zoning but that’s all he can come up with is a bad post industrial joke as if we were building a car museum in Detroit. In Detroit they did it as an act of desperation because nobody had any idea what to do about competition from Japan. Conagra has an alternative for their property here.[/quote]
It is my assumption that any alternative development proposal for the site will be by someone other than ConAgra.
Matt:
[quote]How do we determine if a vote will give us enough democratic payback to warrant the cost? [/quote]
How much does a vote really cost if it is added to one of our general election ballots?
I don’t know GI I’ve heard $100,000 kicked around as the cost of past ballots, but I’m woefully underinformed on that subject.
How many people do you know who would sign a referendum petition demanding a vote on Cannery?
Here is one of Edgar’s posts
[quote]Edgar Wai
08/26/13 – 10:00 PM
…
Regarding the logical and monetary justification of a ballot:
The need to have a vote implies an unresolved conflict. The justification to spend money just to have a vote implies a threat that has the potential to cost the deciding entity more in compensation, either required by law or by ethics.
Putting a decision on a ballot is a method for an entity (that would normally makes decision) to insure itself against uncertainties that it cannot financially absorb.
A King may make decision on his own if he has enough money personally to compensate the victims of his decision.
A council member may make decision on his own if he has enough money from his personal account to compensate the victims of his decision.
A King may not make decision on his own if he has not enough personal wealth to compensate the victims, but expects to tax its people to pay for the victims created by his own decision. For the King to make such decision, the King must get consent from its people that they collectively would pay for the victims of his decision.
Similarly, a council or its council members may not ethically make a decision that they are not personally accountable for unless they have the consent from the people that the people will shoulder that burden.
Therefore, to evaluate whether an issue should be on the ballot, two of the necessary pieces of information are:
1. Who is the victim if the decider decides one way or another? (There is no reason to vote if there is no victim either way.)
2. How much is the damage if the decider decides one way or another? (There is no monetary justification to have a vote if the vote itself costs more than the projected damage.)
When I look at the cannery project I don’t see myself as a victim, and I don’t claim that it is causing me any damage. Therefore I have no reason to ask for a vote. Someone can convince me that a vote is needed if they can identify the victims and a damage greater than the cost of the ballot. [/quote]
Conagra’s proposal is an alternative proposal.
“It would be an excellent site for a tomato museum. Probably draw people from all over the world! Ag tourism, and all that.”
“There is nothing else to say about this remark except that it is dumb. Even if its a joke if all you can come up with to support your desire for not changing the zoning is a joke you really have no case. As a proponent for a position about the disposition of someone else’s property you must offer more than silly ideas or dumb jokes as an alternative.”
Geez, Mr.Toad, don’t be so testy. I think his joke was better than mine, and we were just trying to lighten up the conversation a little after repeatedly providing more alternatives than anyone really cares to read much more.
Matt
[quote]I don’t know GI I’ve heard $100,000 kicked around as the cost of past ballots, but I’m woefully underinformed on that subject.
How many people do you know who would sign a referendum petition demanding a vote on Cannery? [/quote]
Matt, I don’t know either but I think your $100,000 is way too high. How much does it cost to add some extra printing to a general election ballot and count the votes. I’ll bet not much.
Personally I know many of my neighbors that I would have no problem getting them to sign a referendum. Remember, Wildhorse Ranch lost 75% to 25% so there are many out there who I’m sure will be more than happy to sign.
If you are thinking an add on you are probably right, but recent history says that Davis is inclined to have stand alone elections, and their cost is much greater.
Regarding the example of your neighbors is reasonable. The question is are there 3,800 such neighbors spread throughout Davis? Rumor has it that North davis land Company and Mike Hart have ponied up the money to hire Mike Harrington to run their signature gathering campaign, and if that is true then we will know pretty soon whether 3,800 is achievable.