It is a rare event when I agree with former Davis Mayor Jerry Adler, but in this case I think his reading was right on.
One of the top recommendations of the Business Park Land Strategy as cited by Jerry Adler is to “Preserve existing Business Park, Office, and Industrial land by discouraging conversion to uses such as housing, institutional, and commercial recreation.”
It continued, “The Housing Element update recently completed considers residential development for eight sites on over 101 commercially zoned acres (including ConAgra property). If these sites are approved for housing, Davis’ commercial land supply is further reduced.”
Mayor Pro Tem Rochelle Swanson made the strong argument that the business community believes that this is not an appropriate place to locate a business park, that they want freeway access.
She argued that the company Mori Seiki, that is moving to Davis as a big coup for the city, would not be interested in this location because they have to bring in numerous trucks to load supplies each day and it is not close enough to freeway access.
While I commend the Mayor Pro Tem for seeking out and speaking to people who do this sort of business, I think their comments to her needed to be heard in a broader framework.
What I think the council has failed to do is examine the Cannery within the broader context of its overall vision for Davis. I understand fully that the present owners are reluctant (probably too weak a term) to pursue a business park strategy.
I know many are excited about the possibility of an innovative mixed-use development.
But I fear these people – well-intentioned as they are – are putting the cart before the horse.
I believe that the city council to a person is absolutely committed to the idea of economic development, and they along with the university see Davis as ideally situated for high tech and the next wave of green technology. I agree with that vision.
But there are more practical considerations that have to come first. On Tuesday, it was Councilmember Greenwald who argued forcefully for keeping the business park option alive. She argued that alternative sites were unsuitable for business parks.
On this issue, Councilmember Sue Greenwald is right. We can go down the line, as Ms. Greenwald did on Tuesday, explaining why each alternative property suffers from the same problems as the Cannery site.
But I think, for the sake of simplicity, her closing statement is a good starting point. Councilmember Greenwald said, “My crystal ball says rezone this now, and we have no business park sites.”
Let us back it off half a step here. There are three other properties that the city could consider for high tech. However, as Sue Greenwald pointed out, there are huge problems with Nishi in terms of its location. Richards Blvd. is impacted. And it is nestled against the railroad tracks which would require a below-grade crossing in order to connect with UC Davis.
That is an expensive undertaking. Moreover, even if feasible – it is small. It is an alluring site, given its closeness to the downtown and to campus, but there is a reason it has not been developed yet and that reason is that it is a logistical nightmare.
That pushes us out to NW Quadrant and Mace and I-80. The problem with those locations is that they are intruding on prime agricultural land. And they require a Measure J vote.
Do you think council can get a Measure J vote passed by the voters for those two properties? I think it is very questionable. It might be possible IF you had a company committed to coming in and they had an innovative design. But this is a risk.
And that is really the bottom line. A Measure J vote would be a huge roll of the dice by council. Now they could mitigate the roll by holding off on the rezoning of Cannery until they could get approval to go ahead with the business park at a Measure J location, but if they proceed as they are, they are essentially trying to draw an inside straight.
I do not think the cannery site is as bad as the Council thinks. It is only about three or four minutes from the 113 off-ramp. It is a divided four-lane road. You may have to do some upgrades on Covell. You probably have to put in a lot of incentives to business, but if the council and the land owners at ConAgra were committed they could make it work.
City Staff was quick to write off Cannery as a business park, but other studies do not.
Included in the packet on October 26, was this one, “Among the major site issues are its location, constrained site access, unknown, speculative improvement requirements (I.e., infrastructure, amenities, mitigations, etc.), and other potential uses (such as residential),” they write, but add, “These issues are potentially challenging but solvable and are not considered fatal flaws with respect to the overall feasibility of business park development at Cannery Park.”
They added, “The Davis area’s limited land supply and noncommodity market orientation help mitigate less than optimal site attributes.” And they conclude, “In summary, the Cannery Park site is a viable and competitive location for business park development.”
I agree there are challenges, but the problem is these challenges are far smaller and much less uncertain than the challenges of getting a Measure J vote to approve development on the NW Quadrant or East of Mace.
I will tell you right now, I am opposed to development in those locations. I think many others are as well.
From a practical and pragmatic standpoint, particularly given the housing market and the number of approved units, it seems that a council committed to a business park should not be gambling in this manner. It costs the city nothing to hold off on rezoning Cannery until it can actually build and implement a business park at an alternative location.
From my standpoint, the city should be figuring out what incentives to give in order to make a business park viable at ConAgra.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Building a business Park on the periphery near Mace and I-80 will inevitably lead to more sprawl in Davis. And the type of business park development on second street out towards the Target is boring. I’m not saying I oppose such development–it serves a need, but it can hardly be called innovative–just a bunch of big cheap box-like buildings.
THere is a chance for something different at the Cannery–a real campus like development. Will it ever happen? I don’t know. I think the City will have to push a bit and try and recruit high-tech business–and I don’t see that happening.
If the business park development idea doesn’t work out we can eventually build houses there (or mixed use which strikes me as splitting the baby). However if we rezone now we have lost the business park option and for what? To build houses that voters have said they don’t want in a down housing market ?
The correct way to think about this we have a free option (like a stock option) on a business park. We do not have to exercise this option. Rezoning gives ConAgra that option (to build housing). ConAgra’s gain is essentially our loss–and we lose bargaining power down the road by rezoning.
I am concerned that our Council is bending to pressure from a very small minority in our community. The vast majority of folks don’t want housing at the Cannery now or in the near future. What’s the rush?
David, I totally agree.
We need to do what’s best for Davis, not for the developer’s wallet.
The question I have is why is BEDC supporting the Cannery being rezoned residential, which seems to be the case. Jerry Adler had it exactly right – to consider housing on the Cannery site right now is putting the cart before the horse. The issue of economic development and where will it go if not on the Cannery site should be first and foremost.
David: You’re engaged in the same conduct as Sue … presenting a small piece of the story in a rather transparent effort to manipulate and mislead.
You’ve all but ignored the the deliberations and actions of the HESC, BEDC, PC, CoC, and City Council over the last several years.
Instead, you’ve taken a quote out of context from a Katherine Hess staff report and used it to try and further divide the community on this issue.
Promoting a high tech business park on the ConAgra property is code for “do nothing.” You know it and the elected officials know it (including Sue).
“Promoting a high tech business park on the ConAgra property is code for “do nothing.”
Frank, I don’t agree with this statement. Bringing in high-tech jobs and new businesses is the best use of that land at this time. If it ends up as a “do nothing” that is still much better than building uneeded housing.
Frank: “You’ve all but ignored the the deliberations and actions of the HESC, BEDC, PC, CoC, and City Council over the last several years.”
Why is BEDC opposed to a high tech business park at the Cannery? At the DSIDE meeting (and I was there as a participant), it was stated that the Cannery site was the only large parcel left for economic development. Not one word was said at that meeting indicating BEDC was in favor of having the Cannery parcel rezoned residential. Then after the fact and what seemed behind the scenes, BEDC seemed to make a 180 degree turn, and appears to be pushing to have the Cannery site zoned residential. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Can you explain BEDC’s about face?
Secondly, to zone the Cannery residential pushes economic development to the periphery of Davis, where the city will realize far less tax revenue. How is that in the best interests for economic development or the city of Davis? Not only that, peripheral growth would have to go up against a Measure J vote, a hurdle that could be insurmountable. Something just does not add up here about BEDC’s position.
Can someone from BEDC help here?
In the rush to rezone for more un-needed housing, has anybody taken into consideration that the Con Agra property is the last railroad accesable property available in Davis?
To build housing you need to mitigate for the noise level of the California Northern switching operations that take place nightly. If this land is used for commercial/industrial purposes, you at least get to take advantage of the tax generating sales that go along with the annoyance of having a railroad operation in the middle of our town.
To roger bockrath: Very good point…
The council has prioritized bringing in new business. If that is a true desire, then Cannery is the only property that can go on with any reliability. For those here who want housing at Cannery: where do you see a business park going and how will you get around the Measure J process?
Trust the free market.
The proprty is industrial land held by an owner convinced that they can get the rubes of Davis to change the zoning to housing, a higher value. As long as ConAgra clings to this belief, the property will sit vacant. If the rest of the council had the same position as Sue, ConAgra would recognize that the property has a much lower value. They would put it on the market as an industrial property and that price would attract a buyer. Guaranteed. The idiots at Lewis Homes paid too much for the property because they also believed they could convince the council to give them what they want.
Keep the property industrial and let ConAgra make a business decision without being misled.
The ConAgra high tech business park proposal is a fantasy that will never happen. The proposal is being used by Sue and David to promote agendas unrelated to business development.
And talking about all the great things we’re going to do in the future is not a substitute for execution. This is Sue’s favorite strategy. Propose something infeasible that has a built-in scape goat. We would have a great business park if only ConAgra would listen to me. We would have great high density housing near the core on the PG&E site if only the staff would negotiate effectively with the property owner.
“… how will you get around the Measure J process?”
David: We may fail. You’re obviously doing your absolute best to destroy any hope of community consensus. But in the end the voters will decide. And UCD will take appropriate action in the best interests of the campus.
“The ConAgra high tech business park proposal is a fantasy that will never happen. The proposal is being used by Sue and David to promote agendas unrelated to business development.”
Says who? You? Who are you anyway? What makes you such an authority?
You talk about Sue and David’s agenda, what’s your agenda?
You earlier stated that if you told me I wouldn’t believe you anyway.
Well try me?
Sorry but I can’t say I agree with a large business park at this Con Agra location. It makes no sense with all the housing nearby and it has no highway near it to bring traffic in and out. The obvious use for this site is for housing.
Con Agra has highway 113 about 2 miles to the west and highway 80 at Mace about 2 miles to the east. If they want access to highway 5 it’s 8 miles down 102 to the north. There are three different routes for commuters in and out of the Con Agra location. If a high-tech company wants a campus like setting this site would be ideal.
I didn’t know that Sue and David Greenwald had a secrest agenda but I love conspiracy theories! The often disagree.
Does Frank have an agenda? Who does she/he work for?
[quote]“The Cannery park site is a viable and competitive site for business park development.– ESG business park feasibility study p. 64” [/quote] The ESG study said that if the entire parcel were built as a standard Davis business park (such as Mace Ranch not including the Target shopping center) with no residential at all, it would be built out in 16 years. This was based only on historical absorption rates. It could be a little bit faster now that we might have something approaching a critical mass of high-tech industries, and given our University emphasis on green tech research. And faster still if we include a much smaller residential component.
Most high tech companies do not demand freeway access. This is especially true if they are oriented toward university-related research. Such companies are attracted to locations in university towns.
At the last council meeting, I presented a map of Cambridge Massachusetts which showed major high tech companies as well as smaller ones scattered around this city with its old traditional streets far from any major freeway or highway.
About 200 high tech companies are listed that are scattered within the city of Cambridge. These companies have not hurt property values or quality of life in Cambridge. They have enhanced both. There is a link to the list of these companies: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/cdd/ed/pubs/ed_company_list.pdf
As I said at the meeting, at this point in time I am inclined to focus on how to design a development with a large high tech business park component in such a way that it enhances the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods.
bottom line is to ignore the current proposal- ConAgra doesn’t “get it” and never will. Leave the zoning intact and they will sell the property for fair value and someone else will develop it. ps- I know several who have tried but ConAgra is convinced about their property’s value as potential residential development so no deals have occurred. Get them out of here and let someone who recognizes the value for what it is take over.
This is really simple. Do nothing and everything will happen. Quit thrashing around wasting time and effort!
If we rezone the Con-Agra site from its current neighborhood-compatible high-tech business park, there will be no land left in Davis that can accommodate medium-sized high tech companies.
Two peripheral sites are currently under consideration. (I am not counting the Nishi due to the extraordinarily high cost of adequate access.)
1)The ag land adjacent to Mace Ranch on I-80.
2)The ag land adjacent to Evergreen and Aspen north of Covell.
It would be a long, involved process and uncertain process to annex these lands. There is no reason to believe that a business park would be more “feasible” at these sites than at the Con-Agra site, or that the build-out period would be shorter. The infrastructure costs would be greater. (As a historically industrial site, the Con-Agra has the infrastructure already stubbed in.)
The city would receive less revenue at these peripheral sites because the property tax split with the county leaves the city with a very high 25% on the Con-Agra, while our tax share on newly annexed land is much less. For example, our property tax share at the most recently annexed land (Wildhorse) is only 6%.
[quote]It makes no sense with all the housing nearby and it has no highway near it to bring traffic in and out. The obvious use for this site is for housing. [/quote]As I discussed at the council meeting, with the right zoning a high-tech business park is an asset to the surrounding neighborhood. It would be aesthetically attractive, quiet and it would provide the day business that is needed to sustain nice restaurants, coffee shops and other amenities. Because it is near so much housing, many people would be able to walk and bike to work.
With reasonable zoning, a high-tech business park would have fewer traffic trips a day than high density housing.
A high tech park in the middle of neighborhoods does not seem like an asset to me. Young families would not want to deal with the impacts of 100 acres of high tech park. There is bound to be plenty of truck traffic which would be dangerous to children.
On the tax issue it would seem that the 25% tax works better for the city if residential is built at the Con Agra site rather than commercial.
Actually, Becky, there are businesses along with residential in Mace Ranch. A business park could be integrated with residential quite readily. I also wonder how many young families there are that make $100,000 a year.
[i]”A high tech park in the middle of neighborhoods does not seem like an asset to me.”[/i]
This might be an interesting argument if ConAgra were in fact “in the middle of (residential) neighborhoods.”
In truth, it has farmland to its north and to its east, a railroad line to its west, and a major, heavily trafficked thoroughfare to its south.
The nearest actual housing which is accessible to ConAgra is the Cranbrook Court Apartments, and none of those units faces Covell Boulevard or ConAgra’s site. There just are no residential properties which would suffer from industry returning to that location.
Moreover, it’s irrational to argue that an industrial use does not work well there because of the proximate housing, given that 100% of that housing was built AFTER the cannery opened in 1960. AFAIK, the only extant house within a half mile of the cannery site which predates the cannery is the Mello House on Claremont Drive. (It is 3/10ths of a mile away, according to Google Maps.)
I think the best argument against the ConAgra site for industry is equal to the best argument for any development there: Covell Boulevard is already heavily trafficked and it will become worse if anything is developed on the ConAgra site, given that there is no other place for ingress or egress.
[i]”Con Agra has highway 113 about 2 miles to the west …”[/i]
Google Maps says 1.8 miles.
[i]”… and highway 80 at Mace about 2 miles to the east.”[/i]
Google Maps says 3.2 miles.
CORRECTION: “I think the best argument against the ConAgra site for industry is equal to the best argument [s]for[/s] AGAINST any development there:”
Mace Ranch housing is a good distance from the commercial area which is right along Second Street and adjacent to I-80 (which is why it made sense to place a business park there).
On the neighborhoods surrounding the site there are many houses and apartments all along F St. and along Covell across from the Con Agra site.
Sorry, but I am just noticing that the majority of the folks posting on this blog are the same folks over and over again with the same opinions as the blog. What a coincidence. Pardon me for disagreeing with the Vanguard.
“Sorry, but I am just noticing that the majority of the folks posting on this blog are the same folks over and over again with the same opinions as the blog.”
Well Becky, then maybe it should occur to you that the Vanguard has it right and that’s why most here are agreeing with David. Believe me, I normally hardly ever agree with David, just ask him.
What occurs to me is that the Vanguard has a short list of no-growther’s that consistently post to oppose any new housing. I am new to posting on this blog and it certainly does not feel like a “discussion”, but more of a gang up and “pile on” anyone who dares to have a different opinion.
Everyone I have spoken to about this issue feels that Con Agra site is a great infill site for housing and the project proposed is great.
Sorry but we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
[i]”On the neighborhoods surrounding the site there are many houses and apartments all along F St. and along Covell across from the Con Agra site.”[/i]
Those apartments and houses were built when the cannery site already had … A CANNERY! And in between there already was …. a railroad!
You just cannot plausibly argue that a high tech business park would be a worse neighbor to the houses and apartments than the cannery was.
In fact, there is absolutely no reason to think housing on the cannery site would be better neighbors to the Cranbrook Court Apartments or a house on Faro Avenue than a bio-tech company or a GMO research corporation would be. Outside of traffic on Covell, neither one would make much of a difference.
“Everyone I have spoken to about this issue feels that Con Agra site is a great infill site for housing and the project proposed is great.”
That’s funny, everyone that I’ve spoken to says they would like to see a business park at Con Agra. In my opinion the Wildhorse Ranch developement was a better project than the Con Agra plan and it lost by an overwhelming 75% of the vote. So what makes you think that now has changed?
[quote]“The council has prioritized bringing in new business. If that is a true desire, then Cannery is the only property that can go on with any reliability. For those here who want housing at Cannery: where do you see a business park going and how will you get around the Measure J process?[/quote]“You’ve probably hit on the key issue here, David. Davis has pretty much sent signals that we’ll fight ANY development using the Measure J process. It really doesn’t matter whether it’s an industrial, light-industrial, shopping center, auto dealers, housing, etc. proposal. That’s makes the cannery site the only large property that can be targeted for any development here, hence the battle.
Everyone wants their own cannery dream to come true there. But the landowner and associated developers are the ones with the money to develop; the rest of us only can finance our dreams with other people’s money through the land-use political process. The “don’t do anything for five years” position is based on the hope that someone will come long SOMETIME wanting to develop a neighborhood-friendly business park.
It’s interesting that the “facts” advanced here in support of various positions cannot all be true.
I read the Vanguard from time to time and the subject of the Con Agra site has caught my attention. The concept of a business park at that location is something that I can not even imagine at the Con Agra site! Why endanger existing neighborhoods, especially the children, with a busy 100-acre commercial park with truck traffic?
As a parent and grandparent, I see one of the most obvious needs right now in Davis is to support the next generation of parents to keep our Davis schools open. Housing at the Con Agra site is an obvious WIN:WIN. I have been to the recent public meetings regarding Con Agra and was impressed with their design concepts. So let’s move forward with a housing development at Con Agra that is thoughtful and even progressive in its design.
The current design offers features represent the Davis living, substantial green belt and walking distance to shopping. The feature of universal design allows people of any age to live any of the housing units.
We need to help the future of our schools and provide housing for our next generation or Davis will become a retirement community with no younger generation coming along.
Gee Rusty, since 75% of the Davis voters disagreed with you and the Vangard on the Wildhorse Ranch project, what make you think that you and the Vanguard have it right on Con Agra?
Maybe the council should just put the zoning change on the ballot for an advisory vote.
“Gee Rusty, since 75% of the Davis voters disagreed with you and the Vangard on the Wildhorse Ranch project”
I was against Wildhorse too, my point was I felt it was a better project than Con Agra and it still was voted down by 75% of the voters. So why should we turn around now and accept this new project?
Becky and AllanSr.
I completely agree with your desire to promote the well being of Davis children and families. I am especially interested in supporting the well being of the less affluent members of our community? I do not see the ConAgra proposal as currently presented as meeting those needs.
While the ConAgra representative was honest about not having the ability to make accurate estimates about what the single family residences might cost, the number he floated at the second information session was around $450,000 to 650,000.
Frank stated in an earlier post that these numbers did nit jibe with what he had been told. It would be interesting to here what those alternative numbers were and to attempt to ascertain which would be closer to reality. If these numbers are close, then I feel that the last thing that the northern part of Davis needs is another upscale, unaffordable suburban neighborhood distant from downtown and requiring significant driving along already crowded streets to reach any freeway.
If on the other hand, these numbers are grossly inflated and the project truly provided affordable housing, then, if the city fiscal impact were neutral, if there really were advanced ecologically sound design principles and not just window dressing, if the safety concerns regarding there being only one feasible entrance/exit from the development for this proposed population, and if alternative means of transportation could be ensured to limit the number of automobile trips necessitated by location, then, I would be willing to rethink my current opposition to this project.
Rusty,
Your position is clearly that you will reject this proposal no matter what. My position is that this project has so many attractive features and is in a great location for infill for housing. This is why I support the Con Agra proposal. We simply do not agree on this issue.
Medwoman,
My impression is that this project will provide the housing that Davis needs to give people like myself and my husband a chance to purchase a home and raise our kids here. Davis is currently importing kids from surrounding cities to keep the Davis schools that we now have open. We need to give Davis a chance to have a future (as Allan Sr. pointed out) for its young families and kids. I think until you have more information to answer your questions you may want to be more open minded, but that of course is up to you.
Becky: ” I think until you have more information to answer your questions you may want to be more open minded, but that of course is up to you.”
I don’t mean this to sound “snarky” and it isn’t meant to be, but I think you need to keep an open mind. I don’t want you to necessarily answer this question, it is more rhetorical, but can you afford a $500,000 – $600,000 home? How many families can? The bottom line is most middle class working people cannot afford this kind of a steep price tag… so it won’t be young families w children buying homes in this proposed project by ConAgra. In fact, the argument by some proponents of housing at ConAgra is that senior citizens will suddenly all decide to downsize, leave their homes elsewhere in Davis so young families can buy them, in order for seniors to move into ConAgra. But the fallacy there is that there are already plenty of houses on the market for young families to buy already that are not getting sold…
Becky,
Twenty years ago, I was in your situation of being the main bread winner for a young family with two young children.
I was in the very fortunate position of being very highly compensated for that time with a personal income of over $200,000.
This allowed us to buy a home in a very family friendly, albeit not ecologically sound neighborhood. I would stress that my greatest housing concern is not for those as fortunate as I have been, but for those who are less economically advantaged.
So I understand your interest in this proposal. However, I also believe that the proof must always be on the positive. The answers that I received to my direct questions to the ConAgra representative with regard to affordability , public transportation and ” walkability” , and to questions posed by others regarding safety and fiscal impact were not addressed to my satisfaction. Many concerns were also not addressed fully at the last CCM meeting which I was unable to attend, but did watch from home. I would be very interested to hear facts that would address my concerns.
For example, Frank has posted that he received conflicting information about the postulated cost of housing from ConAgra. If he , you, or anyone else has such numbers, I would be happy to look at them and reconsider my position accordingly. I do not consider however mere assertions such as “anyone driving by can see…” to be either objective or particularly open minded. Major zoning, economic, societal and ecologic decisions need to be based on a reasoned consideration of all of the pertinent facts, not individual preferences based on personal circumstances whether they be those of developers, young families, seniors or any other specific group.
The Con Agra site should remain zoned as it is. Lewis Homes and now Con Agra sought a rezone for residential to increase the value of the property. Neither the City nor Lewis Homes ever seriously marketed the site for a business park, so it is not surprising that we have had few interested in the site.
What we need in Davis now is business, not housing, and it is clear from the last two votes on proposed housing projects by the citizens of Davis that we do not want more housing. That to me is the community consensus, Frank. We overwhelming defeated a project less than a third the size of the proposed Con Agra project and infinitely more sustainable, so why are we even considering the Con Agra proposal?
There are other business parks in Davis that are right in or adjacent to residential neighborhoods–in south Davis and Mace Ranch–that present no problems with trucks or other issues. I invite those of you who question business parks near residential neighborhoods to visit them.
Until our council gets serious about truly affordable housing, we are not going to see any proposed by the developers. Truly affordable single-family housing would be homes built on a much smaller scale, similar to the homes that Stanley Davis built here in Davis years ago, though much more dense. No one is proposing homes like that now, but that is what we are going to have to demand in future developments.