THE EFFECT OF RETAIL DEVELOPMENT:
WOODLAND GATEWAY PHASE 2 MARKET AND URBAN DECAY ANLYSIS
Megan Shauna Quinn
B.S., California State University, Sacramento, 2006
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
(Urban Land Development)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2010
THE EFFECT OF RETAIL DEVELOPMENT:
WOODLAND GATEWAY PHASE 2 MARKET AND URBAN DECAY ANLYSIS
A Project
by
Megan Shauna Quinn
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Sudhir Thakur, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
ii
Student: Megan Shauna Quinn
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format
manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for
the Project.
_________________________________________________
Monica Lam, Ph.D.
Associate Dean for Graduate and External Programs
College of Business Administration
iii
___________
Date
Abstract
of
THE EFFECT OF RETAIL DEVELOPMENT:
WOODLAND GATEWAY PHASE 2 MARKET AND URBAN DECAY ANLYSIS
by
Megan Shauna Quinn
Urban decay is caused when retail shopping centers are abandoned and become blighted.
Urban decay is a problem facing the nation, which is prevalent in California. Environmental
issues need to be examined when development is proposed. Urban decay, as an environmental
issue, has become more prevalent in the last decade. This analysis evaluates the potential for a
proposed retail development in the City of Woodland, California to cause urban decay.
This analysis is based on population growth estimates from the Sacramento Area Council
of Governments (SACOG), California Department of Finance (DOF), and UC Davis.
Information was collected through published books, case law, journal articles, broker reports,
policy documents and other materials from the City of Woodland, and interviews with individuals
and brokers involved with retail development. It is also based partly on an analysis I did for a
contract with the City of Woodland at my place of work, Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
iv
This analysis concluded that in 2015, the first phase of development, there is a slight
potential for urban decay. This analysis concludes that there are ways that this urban decay could
be mitigated. By 2025, the second phase of development, is estimated to be adequate demand to
fully support the project.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Sudhir Thakur, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this paper to my parents, Sean and Jan Quinn. Their support,
encouragement, guidance, love, and assistance has been invaluable to me and is one of the
reasons for my success.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Sudhir Thakur for all of his support and guidance
throughout the years. Dr. Thakur has supported me and helped me grow since I had him as a
professor in my undergraduate program. I deeply appreciate his dedication, assistance, and
encouragement. I would also like to acknowledge him for his support throughout this writing
process. I would also like to thank Mr. Tim Youmans, my boss, for his support over the past few
years.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ................................................................................................................................ vi
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ……………...………………………………………………………...1
Key Project Assumptions............................................................................................. 3
Project Character........................................................................................................... 3
Retail Market Area........................................................................................................ 4
2. CEQA AND URBAN DECAY .......................................................................................... 5
3. GATEWAY PHASE 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................... 8
4. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MARKET TRENDS..................................................... 11
National Retail Performance Trends ........................................................................... 11
Sacramento Region Retail Trends .............................................................................. 12
Trends by Type of Retail Center ................................................................................. 13
Broker Insights and Other Research ........................................................................... 14
5. DEMAND AND SUPPLY ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 15
Taxable Sales Analysis ............................................................................................... 15
Demand Analysis ........................................................................................................ 15
Supply Analysis .......................................................................................................... 17
Demand and Supply Comparison Excluding the Project (Taxable Sales) .................. 18
Demand and Supply Comparison Including the Project ............................................. 19
Adjustment for Non-Taxable Retail Sales .................................................................. 19
Adjustment to Estimated Retail Sales (Supply) .......................................................... 19
Adjustment to Demand for Retail ............................................................................... 21
Demand and Supply Comparison With Approved Retail Projects ............................. 21
6. URBAN DECAY ANALYS............................................................................................. 27
Potential Impact of Project.......................................................................................... 32
Existing Conditions of Retail Centers......................................................................... 32
viii
Davis ........................................................................................................................... 39
Duration and Size of Sales Shift ................................................................................. 39
Recommended Mitigation Measures .......................................................................... 40
Reuse Options ............................................................................................................. 42
Existing City Policies Related to Reuse...................................................................... 42
Appendix A. Population and Employee Estimates ............................................................... 46
Appendix B. Taxable Sales Assumptions ............................................................................. 53
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................... 56
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Gateway Phase 2 Retail Center Project Description ……...……………..…..10
2.
Table 2 Potential Support for Additional Taxable Retail (Taxable Goods Only) Through -2015................................................................................................. 22
3.
Table 3 Potential Support for Additional Taxable Retail (Taxable Goods Only) Buildout…...…………………….………………………………….……….. 23
4.
Table 4 Taxable Sales As a Portion of Total Sales (2007$) ………………………….23
5.
Table 5 Estimated Amount of Retail Supply………………………………………….24
6.
Table 6 Estimated Amount of Retail Demand – All Sales (2007$)…………………..25
7.
Table 7 Potential Support for Additional Retail (All Sales) - Through 2015…….…..26
8.
Table 7 Potential Support for Additional Retail (All Sales) - Buildout……..………..26
9.
Table 9 Estimated Market Absorption Through 2015………………………………...28
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
This analysis is based on a proposed development project located in the City of
Woodland, California. In 2006, the City of Woodland (City) approved development for Phase 1
of the Woodland Gateway Center, which comprises 49 net acres of retail development located
near the intersection of Interstate 5 and Route 102. The master developer of the Phase 1 project,
which is leasing out, is also planning a 2nd phase for the Woodland Gateway Center (Project or
Gateway Phase 2). This analysis evaluates the market demand for the Project and the potential
for urban decay in other areas of the City and region.
To meet the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the urban
decay analysis provides an assessment of the potential for the Project to cause urban decay.
Urban decay generally refers to the physical impacts resulting from prolonged vacancies or
abandonment of retail centers caused by an oversupply in the market. The following findings
pertain to the assessment of the potential for the proposed Project to cause urban decay on retail
centers in the RMA because of the Projects initial phase of development (2015). By 2025 there is
estimated to be adequate demand to fully support the project.
This market analysis and urban decay analysis (cumulatively referred to as the Analysis)
evaluates the level of market support for Gateway Phase 2 and the potential for the Project to
cause urban decay. The market analysis evaluates the overall demand for retail space compared
to the supply of retail space in 2007 for two periods: 2015 and 2025. The base year of the
analysis is 2007 because that was the year that had the most consistent base line data available.
The urban decay analysis assesses the potential that physical decay will occur in other retail areas
as a result of prolonged and severe distress caused by development of the Project.
2
The Analysis evaluates the market support for the Project and the potential for urban decay
caused by the retail component of the project. This analysis is based on the following:

Dollars: All figures shown in the market analysis and urban decay analysis are in 2007
dollars. The figures are shown in 2007 dollars because the analysis is based, in part, on
taxable retail sales from the California Board of Equalization (BOE). As of January
2010, the BOE had not published the 4th quarter 2008 taxable sales. 2007 is the most
recent complete year of taxable sales from the BOE. 2007 was used as the base year in
this analysis because it is neither a peak year (2005/2006) nor a year where retail sales hit
bottom (2009).

City Population Figures: City population figures for 2007 are from DOF.

Population Projections: 2015 and 2025 population projections are from SACOG, DOF,
and the UC Davis 2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR.

Retail Sales Methodologies: The potential retail sales in the Project are analyzed using
two different methods. Market findings are based on the results from both approaches.
o
Method 1—Taxable Sales: This method includes only retail space
supporting taxable sales.
o
Method 2—All Retail Sales and Commercial Services: The method
employed in this methodology adjusts the taxable sales analysis to account
for both taxable and non-taxable sales and resulting space. While taxable
sales data is reported on a regular basis, it does not capture all the retail
business that occurs at retail centers. Many retail goods, particularly many
food items, are not taxable but can account for a significant portion of retail
center sales and space.
3
An evaluation of market support for the office space, three hotels, and two new auto
dealerships proposed in the Project are not included in this Analysis. While these land uses are
small components of the Project, they are important in the overall balance of Project land uses
and should be evaluated further at a later date. These land uses are envisioned to be developed
after the first construction phase of the Project (2015). Further, dynamics in these markets are
subject to major changes over the next several years. Specifically, the automobile industry is
undergoing an overhaul amidst decreased sales. In addition, according to the City, there are
potentially three hotels proposed in the Woodland market area which, if constructed, will
significantly increase the hotel room supply and decrease demand for additional hotels in the
Project. Further, it is uncertain how the expansion of the Sacramento International Airport will
affect the region’s hotel market. Given the distant timeline of constructing these uses and current
economic uncertainties, market support for these uses should be studied closer to the
commencement of constructing these uses.
Key Project Assumptions
The Analysis is based on several key Project assumptions.
Project Character: At buildout, the Project is envisioned as an 840,000-square-foot regional
retail center consisting of a combination of anchors, in-line shops, and pad spaces. In addition,
the Project will contain three hotels, up to 100,000 square feet of office, and room for up to 4 auto
dealerships. Because the specific tenant mix is unknown, the analysis evaluates the retail trade
area’s ability to support the overall amount of retail rather than specific classes of retail goods.
This analysis is divided into two time periods based on projected market demand. The
phasing approach allows for the Project to minimize the potential for urban decay.
4

The first time period is based on estimated market demand in 2015. This phase includes
the first 295,000 square feet of retail development and half of the auto mall (two
dealerships). It is anticipated this first phase will be completed by 2015.

The second time period includes the cumulative project absorption through 2025. The
second phase of development, anticipated to be completed no earlier than 2025, will
include the remaining 545,000 square feet of retail development, 100,000 square feet of
office, hotels, and remaining auto dealership site. It is important to note that this
Analysis evaluates only the proposed retail development.
Retail Market Area: The retail market area (RMA) for the Project includes these areas:

The Cities of Woodland and Davis.

Unincorporated Yolo County (including UC Davis).

The Cities of Dixon, Williams, and Colusa.

Colusa County and its cities.

A portion of residents in North Natomas and the Greenbriar Specific Plan.
The total combined Gateway Project, including both Gateway Phase 1 and Gateway Phase 2,
will include approximately 1.4 million square feet of retail. The RMA for the Project is
substantially larger than the RMA for Phase 1 alone because of the large drawing power of a
retail center greater than 1 million square feet.
5
Chapter 2
CEQA AND URBAN DECAY
CEQA is a California statute aimed at protecting the environment that was passed in
1970, after the United States federal government passed the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). According to the California Natural Resources Agency, CEQA does not directly
regulate land use, the basic goal of CEQA is to develop and maintain a high-quality environment
now and in the future. According to the California Natural Resources Agency, The specific goals
of CEQA are for California’s public agencies to:

“Identify the significant environmental effects of their actions; and, either

avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or

mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible.”
CEQA Applies to projects that require approval by State and local government agencies
(typically a city or county). The agency with the primary responsibility for approving the project
is the lead agency. The lead agency must first complete an initial study to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts. A project can have no environmental impacts, less than significant
impacts, less than significant impacts if mitigated, or potentially significant impacts. While n
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required if the lead agency finds that the project could
have no significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must prepare a Negative Declaration
(Neg Dec) to elucidate the agency’s decision. If the project is found to have the potential for
significant environmental impacts, but the project is revised to mitigate those impacts, an EIR is
not required, but the lead agency must prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If a Neg Dec or
a Mitigated Neg Dec is not adopted, an EIR is required. An EIR analyzes the potential
6
environmental impacts that the project is likely to cause and potential ways to minimize these
impacts .
If a project is considered to cause urban decay, an urban decay analysis is required as a part
of the CEQA process. The EIR and the urban decay analysis are both considered during the
approval process. The most common type of development associated with the urban decay
analysis is “big-box” retail. Consideration of urban decay has increased significantly in recent
years. The increase of considering this environmental issue is the direct result of several
significant court cases. The most significant court case is the Bakersfield Citizens for Local
Control v. City of Bakersfield. The court’s decision for the Bakersfield case was that CEQA
guidelines require the research and analysis. The court stated that “when the economic or social
effects of a project cause physical change, this change is regarded as a significant effect in the
same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project”.
The Bakersfield case centered on a proposal for the development of two shopping centers,
located 3.6 miles apart, both of which included a Wal-Mart Supercenter. According to Morrison
Foester, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected the EIRs for both shopping centers, because,
among other deficiencies, they failed to evaluate the potential urban decay impacts. There was
even a professional report that was done that suggested the shopping centers would trigger the
environmental effect of urban decay. The court held that when there is evidence that a project has
the potential to cause urban decay, an EIR must evaluate the issue.
In the context of CEQA, urban decay is considered an indirect physical impact. The
development of new commercial retail space in a retail market has the potential to result in the
closure of competing business, which, in turn, may result in vacant storefronts that meet the
California Health and Safety Code definition of blight. Physical deterioration is defined as
having one or more of the following attributes:
7

abnormally high business vacancies;

abandoned buildings and commercial sites;

boarded doors and windows;

parked trucks and long-term unauthorized use of properties and parking lots;

extensive gang or offensive graffiti painted on buildings;

dumping on site; and

shrubbery and uncontrolled weed growth or homeless encampments.
This analysis examines the Projects potential for urban decay. Due to the large amount of
retail being added, there was never a doubt that an urban decay analysis would be needed for the
proposed Project. As a part of an urban decay analysis, the market support for the project is done
as well. A demand and supply analysis is typically done. This report includes a demand and
supply analysis, as well as the urban decay analysis.
8
Chapter 3
GATEWATY PHASE 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter provides an overview of the Gateway Center development. It describes
both Phase1 and Phase 2. As stated previously, Phase 1 of the Woodland Gateway development
was approved in 2006. This project, located at the County Road 102 interchange with I-5, is
located approximately 20 miles northwest of Sacramento, and 13 miles west of the Sacramento
International Airport. The Gateway development is located in the City, approximately 10 miles
North of Davis via State Route 113.
Phase 1 comprises of 550,000 square feet of retail. The retail center is anchored by
Costco and Target, both of which opened in 2008. The master developer is working to lease the
remaining available space and anticipates buildout to occur by Fiscal Year (FY) 2011–12. Total
sales are expected to reach approximately $212 million annually at full buildout. Estimated
taxable sales are expected to amount to approximately $181 million at buildout. This is based on
Table A5 and Table A-6 located in Appendix A. The tables show the estimated sales in 2009
dollars. These numbers were deflated to 2007 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) – all
urban consumers for the Western region.
Phase 2, the focus of the Analysis, contains a significant amount of additional development.
As Table 1 shows, at buildout Phase 2 will include nearly 840,000 square feet of regional retail,
including major and minor anchors, in line stores and pad space. At this time, the likely anchor
tenants are unknown. As such, the Analysis evaluates the ability of the RMA to support the
overall additional level of retail proposed by the Project. The synergy created by the presence of
Phase 1 will expand the overall RMA to include not only Woodland, Davis and unincorporated
Yolo County, but also portions of Sacramento County, Colusa County, and Solano County.
9
The Project also proposes to develop three hotels, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 32
acres of auto mall uses for up to 4 car dealerships As previously noted, this analysis is divided
into two time period based on projected market demand. The first time period includes Project
absorption through 2015. The second time period includes the cumulative project absorption
through 2025. Phase 1 includes the first 295,000 square feet of retail development and half of the
auto mall (two dealerships). The second phase of development, anticipated to be complete no
earlier than 2025, will include the remaining 545,000 square feet of retail development, 100,000
square feet of office, hotels, and auto dealership site. In 2015, the retail sales for Phase 2 are
approximately $84 million and taxable sales are approximately $83 million. At buildout, retail
sales for Phase 2 (excluding the auto mall) are anticipated to reach approximately $240 million
annually. Taxable sale are expected to amount to approximately $236 million at buildout.
10
Table 1
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Gateway Phase 2 Retail Center Project Description
Item
Unit
Woodland Gateway Phase 2
2015
2025
Retail
General Retail
Restaurants
Subtotal Retail
bldg. sq. ft.
bldg. sq. ft.
bldg. sq. ft.
275,000
20,000
295,000
808,000
30,500
838,500
Office
bldg. sq. ft.
-
100,000
Auto Mall
Dealerships [1]
bldg. sq. ft.
Dealerships
40,000
2
80,000
4
Hotel Rooms (3 Hotels) [2]
rooms
-
300
Anticipated Opening Date
FY 2012/2013
FY 2022/2023
First Year of Stabilized Sales
FY 2015/2016
FY 2025/2026
"proj_desc_2"
Sources: City of Woodland, Petrovich Development Corporation, and EPS.
[1] According to the project proponent the auto mall will house two existing dealerships
relocating from elsewhere in Woodland and has the potential for two new dealerships.
[2] Timing of the hotel development will be determined by market conditions.
11
Chapter 4
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL MARKET TRENDS
This chapter evaluates performance trends for the retail sector at the national and regional
levels to provide context for the Project-specific analysis. The national and regional trends are
important to consider when doing an urban decay analysis. These trends can contribute to the
potential for urban decay.
National Retail Performance Trends
Current economic conditions across the nation began to make an impact on retail activities
during the second half of 2008. Retail brokerage houses pointed to these trends for 2009:

Ongoing efforts by major retailers to renegotiate the terms of existing leases to cut costs
and possibly prevent store closures, including significant lease-rate reductions for
existing tenants in neighborhood, community, and regional retail centers.

A decline in consumer spending, caused by unemployment levels that are expected to
continue to rise through at least the first quarter of 2010 (Colliers 2009). As a result,
there will be continuing difficulty and struggle for retailers for the next 2 to 3 years.

According to Colliers International Market Research, approximately 7,000 store closures
nationally during 2008. Ongoing store closures and streamlining of retail operations in
2009. Resulting negative net occupancy trends and increasing vacancy rates expected.
National retail forecasts predicted dismal performance levels for 2009. Shopping centers face
steep declines in demand, given the current uncertainty of economic conditions. Going forward,
the overall retail market is likely to contract as consumers reduce their debt levels by cutting back
on retail expenditures beyond their actual means. Existing, well-located strip centers anchored by
12
supermarket chains will likely remain stable, as consumers will probably not curtail groceryrelated expenditures. However, few new centers will be developed, as one of the major sources
of financing for franchise retailers has historically been the home equity line. Big box, off-price,
and discount retail venues will also likely do well and perhaps fare better as they capture a larger
share of spending previously occurring at higher end retail stores.
Sacramento Region Retail Trends
The Sacramento Region retail market faces several challenges, with approximately one
million square feet of negative absorption during the first quarter of 2009 and an average vacancy
rate of 14.6 percent for retail centers during the fourth quarter 2009 (CBRE). Retail in the
Sacramento Region can be characterized by the following trends:

Negative net occupancy caused by major store closures (e.g., Gottschalk’s, Circuit City,
Linens n’ Things, and Mervyn’s) and consolidations, resulting in excess space in many
retail submarkets.

Ongoing rental rate reductions, with new annual leases being achieved for a maximum
of $24 to $27, compared to $36 to $39 per square foot in 2006. Rents in strip centers are
dropping by 35 to 50 percent since 2006 and renegotiations are common (Colliers 2009).

Very little new retail center development. There are only three major new retail center
projects underway, including Woodland Gateway, Elk Grove Promenade, and Folsom
Palladio. The timelines for completion of the latter two is unknown and could be delayed
for quite some time.

Stable or successful performance of discount retailers like Wal-mart, Dollar Tree and
99Cent Only, drug stores, fast food restaurants, and discount retail grocers (e.g., Grocery
13
Outlet). Some new stores, like Aldi’s, are expected to come online and compete with
larger discount retailers, such as Wal-mart.

Mixed performance for home improvement stores and restructuring of the office
supply market. While Home Depot is continuing to open a limited number of new
stores, it also closed it’s Expo concept, and Lowe’s is expected to reduce the number of
new stores opening. Most office supply retailers are closing stores, considering
consolidation options, or creating new, small-format stores of 2,000 to 5,000 square feet.

Poor performance for home furnishings and book stores. Most retail brokerage firms
predict that these trends will continue for the next 2 to 3 years.

The outlook for 2010 is positive compared to the past 2 years. According to the
fourth quarter retail report by CBRE, the vacancy rate is expected to decrease in 2010 as
major retailers enter the Sacramento region, filling vacant big box locations. As
vacancies are filled, small shop space will see a slight rise in activity. Absorption is
expected to trend positively because of the unparalleled affordability in California.
Trends by Type of Retail Center
Retail centers have been impacted differently by the current economy and are anticipated to
struggle, stabilize, or prosper depending on the types of retail goods offered, the trade area in
which they operate, or their location and layout:

Neighborhood Centers have represented the most stable type of retail center over the
last year though vacancy rates have approximately doubled nationally and increased from
9 to 11 percent in the Sacramento Region. This stability owes to the ongoing
performance of its anchors, which are typically grocery, drug, and discounters.
14

Community Centers have been hard hit, particularly in-line stores, which have
historically relied on the home equity line to fund new franchises.

Regional Centers have also undergone severe difficulties in the last year, going from the
strongest retail center to the weakest type of center. The closure of many major and
minor anchors (e.g., Mervyn’s) is causing distress on many power and regional centers.

Urban Retail Areas have typically experienced relatively little impact, predominantly
owing to the lack of available land before the downturn. While still undergoing rent
reductions and increased vacancies, many downtown areas have continued to perform
well, particularly related to restaurants and entertainment venues.
Broker Insights and Other Research
Telephone interviews with real estate professionals specializing in retail, as well as recent
publications by real estate research firms provided additional insight. The retail boom of the last
real estate cycle was fueled largely by leverage associated with the rise in equity of people’s
homes. Consumers were able to use this equity as a source of additional discretionary income to
purchase additional retail goods and services. The economic downturn subsequently removed
this income stream from the market, and in many cases, created additional debt. As a result,
consumers are not expected to have access to additional equity for several years.
15
Chapter 5
DEMAND AND SUPPLY ANALYSIS
This chapter presents an estimate of the current and projected level of demand and supply
in the RMA. As stated previously, a demand and supply analysis is typically done as a part of the
urban decay analysis. Based on the demand and supply analysis, Chapter 6 contains an
evaluation of the potential urban decay impacts that the Project could cause. As stated
previously, this analysis evaluates two time period based on projected market demand. The first
time period is based on market demand in 2015. The second time period includes the cumulative
project absorption through 2025.
Taxable Sales Analysis
All businesses that sell retail goods report their taxable sales to the California Board of
Equalization (BOE) on a quarterly basis. When this analysis was first started (January 2010), the
2008 data was not available from BOE. As stated earlier, 2007 is used as the base year for this
analysis for multiple reasons. This data includes sales in retail center stores and individual retail
stores, business-to-business transactions, and personal services sales. A comparison of taxable
retail centers and individual retail stores sales to potential sales (based on statewide average sales
figures) provides an indication of the potential level of support for additional retail in the RMA.
Demand Analysis
Demand for retail center space will be generated by households, employees, and businesses in
different areas of the RMA. The estimated demand for the first construction phase is generated
by the Adjusted Population in the RMA in 2007 and 2015, which already accounts for some
reduction to reflect locational preference for retail areas outside the RMA. The estimated demand
for buildout is generated by the adjusted population in the RMA in 2007, 2015, and 2025.
Demand is based on these assumptions:
16

Woodland and Davis residents (excluding students). These residents are assigned the
average per-capita taxable retail sales for California (as reported by BOE), which is
expressed in terms of residents but actually includes demand generated by residents,
employees, and businesses.

UC Davis students. The University of California periodically prepares the Student
Expenses and Resources Survey (SEARS), the purpose of which is to determine the
actual costs associated with obtaining a postsecondary education in California. The
report also contains estimates of student expenditures; based on a weighted average of
commuter students (single students with no dependents who live in their parents’ or a
relative’s home) and other students (married students and those living in off-campus
housing units). I estimated the taxable spending power of UC Davis students in the
RMA. Supporting calculations can be found in Appendix A.

North Natomas residents. Residents in North Natomas patronize stores in North
Natomas for their neighborhood, community center, and a portion of their regional retail
needs; to account for this dynamic, only 10 percent of annual retail demand is included in
the RMA.

Greenbriar Specific Plan residents. Located northwest of the North Natomas
Community Plan Area, recently approved Greenbriar, none of which is developed, is both
closer and more accessible to the Project. As such, the market analysis assigns
approximately 25 percent of annual retail demand from these residents to the RMA. This
analysis assumes 40 percent of Greenbriar will be built by 2015 and Greenbriar will be
completely built out by 2025.
17

Colusa County residents. Colusa County residents are expected to patronize local
stores for everyday needs but may opt to purchase a substantial portion of regional retail
goods outside the RMA (i.e., in Yuba City). Therefore, 80 percent of spending is
included in the demand estimate for retail in the RMA.

Dixon and Winters residents. These cities are roughly equal distance between
Davis/Woodland, which are in the RMA, and Vacaville, which is outside of the RMA.
As such, the market analysis assumes that neighborhood shopping purchases will remain
in the RMA, while comparison goods purchases will probably be split between Vacaville
and Woodland/Davis. As a result, the market analysis assumes that approximately 65
percent of retail demand from residents in these cities will remain in the RMA.

Unincorporated County residents. The availability of a variety of retail centers in the
RMA affords a variety of retail options for these residents; therefore 100 percent of their
demand is included in the analysis.
In 2015, the estimated demand is approximately $243.8 million and in 2025 the estimated
demand is approximately $347.7.
Supply Analysis
The estimated retail center supply, based on taxable retail sales information from the California
BOE (from data submitted in 2007) and other sources of information for these areas in the RMA,
as follows:

Woodland and Davis

Other Areas of the RMA, including Colusa County, Dixon, and the Unincorporated
County.
18
The estimated supply in 2007 is approximately $45.4 million and in 2025 it is approximately
$289.3 million. Between 2007 and 2025, there are several major new retail projects that will add
inventory to the RMA.
The approved projects fall into two general categories:

Approved Projects Under Construction/Recently Constructed. This group includes full
buildout of the Woodland Gateway Phase 1, the new Target in Davis which opened in
October 2009, and the recently completed Rite Aid in Woodland across from the Westgate
Shopping Center.

Approved Projects Not Yet Built. This group includes two approved retail projects in
Dixon, as well as another drug store approved on Main Street in Downtown Woodland. None
of these projects has been constructed yet.
Demand and Supply Comparison Excluding the Project (Taxable Sales)
Table 2 summarizes the results of a comparison of demand and supply for taxable retail goods in
2007 and 2015. The taxable sales analysis suggests that in 2015, before the Project, there is some
demand for additional retail.
Table 3 summarizes the results of a comparison of demand and supply for taxable retail goods in
2025. By 2025, approximately $130 million is leaking outside the RMA.
2015
By 2015, the first construction phase of Gateway Phase 2 (plus other approved projects in the
RMA) is estimated to result in a slight oversupply in retail space in the RMA (approximately 3
percent). The tenant mix of the Project (which is uncertain) will influence the amount of direct
competition the Project has with other Woodland retail centers. The extent that Project retailers
19
represent tenants that expand the market instead of compete with existing retailers or users that
offer local/regional goods currently not provided in the RMA, the Project has the potential to
generate net new retail sales. Otherwise, there would likely be a shift in sales from existing
retailers.
Demand and Supply Comparison Including the Project
Table 2 also shows the impact of development of the first construction phase of the
Project in addition to all the approved retail projects. It suggests that the market could be
oversupplied by as much as 3 percent. This level of oversupply can probably be absorbed by the
RMA as a whole, though retail areas in the RMA are likely to be impacted to varying degrees.
The Proposed Project’s location in Woodland, combined with its relative size, has the potential to
cause a disproportionate shift in sales in the City.
Table 3 shows the impact of the project at Buildout. It suggests that the demand exceeds
supply by as much as 6 percent. This level of leakage shows that there is demand for the
Gateway Phase 2 project.
Adjustment for Non-Taxable Retail Sales
While taxable sales data is reported on a regular basis, it does not capture all the retail
business that occurs. Many retail goods, particularly many food items, are not taxable but can
account for a significant portion of retail center sales and space. The second approach employed
in this analysis makes an adjustment to the taxable sales analysis to account for both taxable and
non-taxable sales and resulting space.
Adjustment to Estimated Retail Sales (Supply)
Urban Land Institute (ULI),is a professional organization that monitors trends in the land
development industry. Its annual publication, “Dollars and Cents,” tracks the composition and
performance of retail centers. Based on this information, I have concluded that varying levels of
20
retail center sales, depending on the nature of a retail center, are dedicated to the sale of nontaxable goods and has estimated the portion of sales that are taxable for neighborhood,
community, and retail centers. Each center type tends to contain a different mix of taxable versus
non-taxable goods:

Neighborhood centers usually have a grocery anchor and substantial service-oriented
tenants. Based on national-level information, approximately 44 percent of retail sales in
neighborhood centers are taxable.

Community centers have more taxable goods compared to neighborhood centers, though
their makeup varies by region. In some regions, they tend to be anchored by grocery stores,
and the national average falls in the range of less than 60 percent. However, in California,
community retail centers may have a grocery anchor but also tend to have one or more nonfood anchors. For this reason, I adjusted the taxable amount to 70 percent.

Regional centers have the least amount of non-taxable goods. Relatively few tenants in
regional centers are service or grocery oriented. The national average for taxable sales in
retail centers is 98 percent.
By applying the factors described above to the weighted average of retail space in Woodland,
I derived an estimate that approximately 80 percent of retail sales in the RMA are taxable, as
shown in Table 4. As a result, an adjustment factor of 1.25 (100% / 80% = 1.25) is applied to the
taxable retail sales figure from BOE to account for the sale of non-taxable goods.
Table 5 restates the 2007 taxable retail sales figures in the RMA from the California
BOE, and then applies the factor of 1.25 to estimate the total retail sales in the RMA. In
21
following, all estimated sales for approved retail projects are added to estimate the total retail
sales for 2015 and 2025.
Adjustment to Demand for Retail
I estimated the demand generated by the RMA, based on the average taxable sales per
capita in California. Because the source of this estimate is based on taxable sales information, the
demand must also be adjusted to account for expenditures on non-taxable goods, such as
groceries and professional services that might be found in retail centers. Table 6 shows the
application of the 1.25 factor to taxable demand in 2007, 2015, and 2025 to derive total retail
demand in the RMA.
Demand and Supply Comparison With Approved Retail Projects
Table 7 shows the resulting comparison of demand and supply for all retail in the RMA.
Once again, the analysis indicates that, while leakage exists in 2007, development of all major
approved retail projects result in a slight leakage by 2015. Based on this analysis, about 95,000
square feet of additional retail could be supported in the RMA.
Table 8 shows the resulting comparison of demand and supply for all retail in the RMA
at buildout. Based on this analysis, about 1.6 million square feet of additional retail could be
supported in the RMA.
Table 7 also shows the net impact of development of the Project by 2015 in addition to
development of all major approved retail projects. This table shows that adding the Project will
create an excess retail supply in the market of approximately 2 percent. Table 8 shows that the
net impact of the project at buildout would result in a leakage in the market of approximately 8
percent.
22
The manner in which this level of oversupply affects existing retailers will affect the
potential for Gateway Phase 2 to cause, or not cause, urban decay. The potential impacts of the
Project’s excess retail development on other retail centers in Woodland and Davis, the closest
centers of competition, are evaluated in the next chapter.
Table 2
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Potential Support for Additional Taxable Retail (Taxable Goods Only) - Through 2015
Item
Formula
Amount
A
$1,917,000,000
B
C=B-A
$1,627,800,000
($289,200,000)
2015:
Taxable Goods
2015 - Taxable Sales
Taxable
Surplus/
Sq. Ft.
(Leakage)
Surplus/
% Capture
(Leakage)
[2]
Taxable
Sales/
Sq. Ft.
DEMAND
Annual Demand for Retail Generated by RMA
6,726,000
SUPPLY
Existing Supply
Subtotal Annual Existing Surplus/(Leakage) [1]
Additional Sources of Supply (Excl. Gateway P2)
Approved Projects (Recently Constr./Under Constr.)
Approved Projects (Not Yet Built)
Annual Surplus/(Leakage) (Excl. Gateway P2) [1]
Gateway Phase 2 (Project)
Annual Surplus/(Leakage) With Project [1]
D
E
F=C+D+E
$220,050,000
$50,840,800
($18,309,200)
G
$83,300,000
H=F+G
$64,990,800
(15%)
5,712,000
(1,014,737)
$285
(1%)
603,420
171,784
(64,243)
$365
$296
$285
290,782
$286
228,038
$285
3%
"m1_support"
Sources: California State Board of Equalization, SACOG, City of Woodland, City of Dixon, City of Davis, and EPS.
[1] Assumes sales of $285 per square foot as derived in Table 4.
[2] Reflects the amount of retail surplus/leakage as a percentage of total retail demand.
23
Table 3
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Potential Support for Additional Taxable Retail (Taxable Goods Only) - Buildout
Item
Buildout (2025):
Taxable Sales
2025 - Taxable Sales
Taxable
Surplus/
Sq. Ft.
(Leakage)
Surplus/
% Capture
(Leakage)
[2]
Formula
Amount
A
$2,264,700,000
B
C=B-A
$1,627,800,000
($636,900,000)
D
E
F=C+D+E
$220,050,000
$50,840,800
($366,009,200)
G
$236,200,000
H=F+G
($129,809,200)
Taxable
Sales/
Sq. Ft.
DEMAND
Annual Demand for Retail Generated by RMA
7,946,000
SUPPLY
Existing Supply
Subtotal Annual Existing Surplus/(Leakage) [1]
Additional Sources of Supply (Excl. Gateway P2)
Approved Projects (Recently Constr./Under Constr.)
Approved Projects (Not Yet Built)
Annual Surplus/(Leakage) (Excl. Gateway P2) [1]
Gateway Phase 2 (Project)
Annual Surplus/(Leakage) With Project [1]
(28%)
5,712,000
(2,234,737)
$285
(18%)
603,420
171,784
(1,459,532)
$365
$296
$251
(6%)
826,512
$286
(455,471)
$285
"m1_support_BO"
Sources: California State Board of Equalization, SACOG, City of Woodland, City of Dixon, City of Davis, and EPS.
[1] Assumes sales of $285 per square foot as derived in Table 4.
[2] Reflects the amount of retail surplus/leakage as a percentage of total retail demand.
Table 4
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Taxable Sales As a Portion of Total Sales (2007$)
Item
Total Average
Sales Per
Sq. Ft. [1]
Formula
A
Sales Per Sq. Ft.-- All Goods
Woodland
Weighted
Total
% of
Average Sales
Sq. Ft.
Total
per Sq. Ft.
B
Woodland Weighted Average Sales per Sq. Ft
Neighborhood Retail
$339
352,021
Community Retail
$285
480,074
Regional Retail
$267
1,114,390
Total
1,946,485
C=B /
Total Sq. Ft.
18%
25%
57%
100%
D=A*C
$61
$70
$153
$285
Factor Representing Taxable Sales as a Portion of Total Sales per Sq. Ft.
Weighted Average Sales per Sq. Ft.-- All Goods
Weighted Average Sales per Sq. Ft.-- Taxable Goods Only
Taxable Sales per Sq. Ft. as a Portion of Total Sales per Sq. Ft.
Taxable Sales Only
Taxable
Weighted Avg
Sales % Sales per Sq. Ft.
E
44%
70%
98%
F=D*E
$27
$49
$150
$230
$285
$230
80%
"sales_sqft"
Source: Urban Land Institute, EPS.
[1] Figures from Dollars and Cents, published in 2008 by the Urban Land Institute.
24
Table 5
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Estimated Amount of Retail Supply - All Sales
Item
Existing 2007 Retail Sales
2007 Taxable Retail Sales
Adjustment to Include Non-Taxable Retail Sales
Portion of Sales Typically Dedicated to Taxable Goods
Ratio to Include Non-Taxable Goods [1]
Total Taxable & Non-Taxable Retail Sales
Total 2007 Retail Sales (Rounded)
Supply of
Retail Goods
$1,627,800,000
80%
1.25
$2,034,750,000
$2,034,800,000
2015 Projected Retail Sales Projection - All Sales
2007 Retail Sales and Existing Outlets
Woodland Gateway Phase 1
Woodland Rite Aid - Ashley and Main
Woodland Rite Aid - Downtown
Davis Target
Dixon Major Retail Projects
Total 2015 All Retail Sales (Rounded)
$2,034,800,000
$211,700,000
$1,500,000
$6,000,000
$40,000,000
$75,520,000
$2,369,520,000
Projected Retail Sales Projection - All Sales
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Through 2015 (295,000 Sq. Ft.)
Total 2025 All Retail Sales (Rounded)
$84,400,000
$2,453,920,000
"m2_supply"
Sources: California State Board of Equalization, Petrovich Development Corporation,
Urban Land Institute, and EPS.
[1] Formula: 100% / 80% = 1.25.
25
Table 6
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Estimated Amount of Retail Demand - All Sales (2007$)
Item
2007 Total Retail Demand
2007 Taxable Retail Demand
Adjustment to Include Non-Taxable Retail Sales
Portion of Sales Typically Dedicated to Taxable Goods
Ratio to Include Non-Taxable Goods [2]
Non-Taxable Retail Demand
Total 2007 Retail Demand (Rounded)
2007 - 2015 Additional Retail Demand
Taxable Retail Demand 2007 - 2015
Adjustment to Include Non-Taxable Retail Sales
Portion of Sales Typically Dedicated to Taxable Goods
Ratio to Include Non-Taxable Goods [2]
Total Taxable & Non-Taxable Retail Demand - Rounded (2007-2015)
Total 2015 Retail Demand (Rounded)
2015 - 2025 Additional Retail Demand
Taxable Retail Demand 2015 - 2025
Adjustment to Include Non-Taxable Retail Sales
Portion of Sales Typically Dedicated to Taxable Goods
Ratio to Include Non-Taxable Goods [2]
Total Taxable & Non-Taxable Retail Demand - Rounded (2015-2025)
Total 2025 Retail Demand (Rounded)
Formula
Demand of
Total
Retail Goods [1]
A
$1,673,200,000
B
C=A+B
80%
1.25
$418,300,000
$2,091,500,000
$243,800,000
D
E=C+D
80%
1.25
$304,800,000
$2,396,300,000
$347,700,000
F
G=E+F
80%
1.25
$434,600,000
$2,830,900,000
"total_demand"
[1] Total retail goods includes taxable and non-taxable sales.
[2] Formula: 100% / 80% = 1.25. The 80% represents the portion of sales that is typically dedicated to
taxable goods.
26
Table 7
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Potential Support for Additional Retail (All Sales) - Through 2015
Item
2015:
All Sales
Formula
Amount
A
$2,396,300,000
B
C=B-A
$2,034,800,000
($361,500,000)
2015 - All Sales
Total
Surplus/
Sq. Ft.
(Leakage)
(Surplus)/
% Capture
(Leakage)
[2]
Sales /
Sq. Ft.
DEMAND
Annual Demand for Retail Generated by RMA
8,408,000
SUPPLY
Existing Supply
Subtotal Annual Existing Surplus/(Leakage) [1]
Additional Sources of Supply (Excl. Gateway P2)
Approved Projects (Recently Constr./Under Constr.)
Approved Projects (Not Yet Built)
Annual Surplus/(Leakage) (Excl. Gateway P2) [1]
D
E
F=C+D+E
$253,200,000
$81,520,000
($26,780,000)
G
$84,400,000
H=F+G
$57,620,000
Gateway Phase 2 (Project)
Annual Surplus/(Leakage) With Project [1]
(15%)
7,139,000
(1,268,421)
$285
(1%)
691,431
271,532
(93,965)
$366
$300
$285
295,000
$286
202,175
$285
2%
"m2_capture"
Sources: California State Board of Equalization, SACOG, City of Woodland, City of Dixon, City of Davis, and EPS.
[1] Assumes sales of $285 per square foot as derived in Table 4.
[2] Reflects the amount of retail surplus/leakage as a percentage of total retail demand.
Table 8
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Potential Support for Additional Retail (All Sales) - Buildout
Buildout:
All Sales
2025 - All Sales
Item
Formula
Amount
A
$2,830,900,000
B
C=B-A
$2,034,800,000
($796,100,000)
D
E
F=C+D+E
$253,200,000
$81,520,000
($461,380,000)
G
$239,500,000
H=F+G
($221,880,000)
Surplus/
(Leakage)
% Capture
[2]
Total
Sq. Ft.
(Surplus)/
(Leakage)
Sales /
Sq. Ft.
DEMAND
Annual Demand for Retail Generated by RMA
9,933,000
SUPPLY
Existing Supply
Subtotal Annual Existing Surplus/(Leakage) [1]
Additional Sources of Supply (Excl. Gateway P2)
Approved Projects (Recently Constr./Under Constr.)
Approved Projects (Not Yet Built)
Annual Surplus/(Leakage) (Excl. Gateway P2) [1]
Gateway Phase 2 (Project)
Annual Surplus/(Leakage) With Project [1]
(28%)
7,140,000
(2,793,333)
$285
(16%)
691,431
271,532
(1,618,877)
$366
$300
$285
(8%)
838,500
$286
(778,526)
$285
"m2_capture_BO"
Sources: California State Board of Equalization, SACOG, City of Woodland, City of Dixon, City of Davis, and EPS.
[1] Assumes sales of $285 per square foot as derived in Table 4.
[2] Reflects the amount of retail surplus/leakage as a percentage of total retail demand.
27
Chapter 6
URBAN DECAY ANALYSIS
The analysis in Chapter 5 suggests that development of all the major, approved retail
projects, plus Gateway Phase 2, supply would slightly exceed demand in 2015 and by 2025
supply would not exceed the anticipated demand generated in the RMA. As previously noted,
this analysis is divided into two time period based on anticipated market demand. The first time
period is based on market demand in 2015. The second time period includes the cumulative
project absorption through 2025
Woodland currently has a vacancy rate of approximately 13.1%, or over 250,000 sq. ft. of
vacant retail. Development of the retail portion of Gateway Phase 2 represents approximately
twelve percent of the existing retail supply in the overall RMA,1 and the following proportions of
space to Woodland’s retail market.

At buildout, Gateway Phase 1 would add approximately 28 percent of space to the overall
existing retail market in Woodland.

Gateway Phase 2 in 2015, with 295,000 retail square feet, would add about 11 percent of
space to the existing retail market in Woodland, excluding Gateway Phase 1.

Gateway Phase 2 at buildout, with 838,000 retail square feet, would add about 25 percent
of space to the existing retail market in Woodland, excluding Gateway Phase 1.
Together, Phase 1 and Phase 2 at buildout would add nearly 42 percent of space to the City’s
retail inventory. This is a significant addition in retail space given the existing size of the retail
market.
1
838,000 square feet of retail at Gateway Phase 2 as a percent of an estimated 7.14 million square feet of
existing retail supply.
28
As the market analysis in the prior chapter showed, in 2015 about 60-70 percent of Gateway
Phase 2 represents excess supply in the retail market. As Table 9 shows, it could take
approximately 1.4 years of additional population growth to support the excess supply in the
RMA. This level of oversupply is anticipated to disproportionately impact retailers in the
Woodland, as a significant portion of demand for retail goods is derived from Woodland
residents. The Project, which represents an increase in the City’s current retail inventory, will
compete first with other Woodland retailers, and secondarily with retail centers in the remainder
of the RMA.
Table 9
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Estimated Market Absorption Through 2015
Item
Annual Surplus Supply with Project (2015)
Retail Sales
Square Feet
Average Annual Growth Rate (RMA)
Total Population 2007
Total Population 2015
Average Annual Growth Rate
Average Annual Population Growth
Estimated Absorption of Surplus Retail Space
Retail Sales per Person
Total Population Needed to Support Addition Retail Sales
Number of Years to Absorb Surplus Retail (Rounded)
2015
Formula
A
B
C
D
E = (D/C)^(2015-2007))-1
F = (D - C) / 8
G
H=A/G
I=H/F
Total
$57,620,000
202,175
200,000
232,000
1.9%
4,000
$10,263
5,615
1.4
"absorb"
This chapter evaluates the degree to which the estimated potential market impacts might
result in the physical deterioration of the environment in the RMA. Specifically, it examines
whether the Project has the potential to start an economic chain reaction that leads to physical
29
deterioration and urban decay. This evaluation is designed to comply with the requirements of
CEQA and include and evaluation of economic impacts that may cause a physical change in the
environment, leading to urban decay.
The primary impetus of urban decay often stems from financial conditions faced by the
individual property owners; if a property owner is unable to collect rent on a vacant property with
minimal likelihood that it can be re-leased, s/he may lose the incentive to maintain it. The effect
can spread to adjacent properties and become a self-fulfilling prophecy as customers start to avoid
an area and other property owners or tenants perceive an area as no longer vital or safe. Urban
decay can be reinforced by a reduction in the fiscal resources of local governing entities because
of declining sales and property revenue.
The urban decay process generally takes several years to fully materialize and is
reinforced by declining economic conditions in a broader market area. It is generally not the
result of a single property standing vacant for one or two years in an otherwise vibrant market.
It is worth noting that an abandoned freestanding big box retail/power-center development, also
known as a “ghost box,” or declining regional mall known as a “grayfield,” can pose a
particularly high risk for urban decay if not promptly re-leased. Not only are these facilities
bigger and thus generally more difficult to quickly re-lease or reuse compared to small “infill”
sites, they are also more visually significant and thus provide a more widespread signal of decay
and negative business climate. In contrast, several smaller parcels with varied building types
often have a better chance of being adapted and re-leased.
Given the many-faceted nature of urban decay, its prospects for likelihood can be difficult to
predict or quantify with precision. A sensitivity array that can be used to illustrate the potential
for urban decay based on two factors:
30

The amount of retail oversupply in a market trade area. As the level of retail
oversupply in a given trade area becomes larger, so does the potential for urban decay.
Individual retailers can sustain only a limited, short-term reduction in sales before the
overall viability of their business becomes at risk. If a retail center experiences multiple
tenant losses resulting from an oversupply in the market, it can become difficult to release the space to other users, thereby producing an extended period of vacancy, lost
rents, and the ability to maintain the center.

The concentration of retail categories in an oversupplied market. Typical vacancy
levels in a healthy retail market can reach up to 10 percent to allow for changes in retail
outlets with limited impacts on retail rents.
To the extent that a shift in sales occurs while maintaining a healthy vacancy rate range in the
overall retail market, the potential for urban decay is generally limited. However, the type of
resulting vacancies must also be considered—urban decay in certain retail centers may occur
even if there is not a significant oversupply in the overall retail market. If the oversupply is
concentrated in a few market segments, some retail centers may go out of business without
showing a significant vacancy rate in the entire retail market. These are typical examples of this
market concentration:

An oversupply of grocery outlets that may cause some neighborhood or community retail
centers to go out of business but leave the remainder of the overall market area relatively
intact.
31

Similarly, the addition of a big-box Home Improvement Center could cause smaller
hardware stores and other existing home improvement stores to go out of business, but
not substantially affect the rest of the market.
To determine how a project would impact the market, an urban decay analysis focuses on
three indicators to assess its probability:

Existing Condition of Retail Centers: All other things being equal, a weak or faltering
retail center will be more susceptible to urban decay. Conversely, a new competitive
retail project is less likely to precipitate urban decay if existing market conditions are
relatively strong.
Duration and Size of Sales Shift: Urban decay is more likely if a new competitive project
results in a relatively large and prolonged shift in retail sales away from existing establishments.
For example, a shift in retail sales away from existing establishments of greater than
approximately 10 percent (depending on the characteristics of the existing retail market) and
lasting longer than 3 to 5 years may be large enough to lead to the physical abandonment of
buildings. Most establishments can usually withstand a temporary sales shift of approximately 5
to 10 percent because this is equivalent to a typical business cycle downturn.

Reuse Options of Affected Properties: The type, location, and parcel configuration of
affected properties, as well as the range of potential reuse options, will play a role in their
susceptibility to urban decay. As noted above, an abandoned “ghost box” poses a
particularly strong risk for urban decay because of the difficulty in finding an appropriate
replacement tenant. Given the size and configuration of the big box center, finding viable
replacement uses can be difficult and prolonged.
32
Potential Impact of Project
The supply and demand analysis presented in Chapter 5 suggests that there is not enough
demand in the RMA to support full development of Gateway Phase 2 and all the approved (but
not yet fully built or open) and major retail projects by 2015. This section identifies the retail
centers most vulnerable to the occurrence of such a phenomenon.
In the short term, there is a higher potential for the Project to cause urban decay. In
particular, three areas are most vulnerable to the impacts of urban decay resulting from
development of the Project, including these:

Downtown Woodland (Area 2)

The County Fair Mall (Area 4)

Retail centers located east of I-5 (Area 7)
Detailed findings related to these areas are described further below. In the long term, it is
estimated there will be adequate demand for the entire Project and the potential for urban decay is
decreased. As long as the buildout of the Project is in accordance with market demand, urban
decay should not occur as a direct result of the Project.
Existing Conditions of Retail Centers
Downtown Woodland
Downtown Woodland is continuing to evolve as an entertainment and civic node in the
RMA. Since 2002, retail sales tax revenues (excluding auto sales) in Downtown Woodland have
been flat, if not experiencing a slight decline; the closure of specialty retail stores has been nearly
offset by the opening of a series of restaurants. Interviews suggest that revitalization and
redevelopment of Downtown Woodland continues to be hampered by the lack of implementation
33
of the Downtown Specific Plan. This level of implementation would require a significant level of
public or private investment for needed infrastructure improvements, and would include the
addition of stores that remain open during evening hours, as well as development of the planned
new Courts building, a movie complex, the relocation of the auto dealers, and the addition of
residential units.
Recent historical data and interviews with real estate professionals suggest that
Downtown does not directly compete with Phase 1 of the Woodland Gateway project.
Downtown’s smaller retail floor plates, older buildings with fewer amenities and significantly
lower rents, and proximity to the Opera House, residential neighborhoods, and other civic uses
appeals to a different retail operator than the Gateway project. The Gateway project (both Phase
1 and Phase 2), in contrast, is ideally positioned for larger, national tenants seeking freeway
access and visibility with a much larger market area.
In the short term, the potential overall retail saturation of the RMA may, however, have a
direct effect of delaying investment in Downtown Woodland. With the existence of so much
retail space, there may be relatively little incentive to focus resources on the redevelopment of
Downtown. In the longer term, with the ability of the Project to draw more shoppers from a
larger market area, Downtown Woodland would be presented with the opportunity to capture a
portion of these shoppers to support increased retail activity.
In addition, as described in the February 2010 Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by
Economic and Planning Systems, Inc, (EPS), development of the Project will result in an annual
net fiscal surplus to the City’s General Fund. These additional annual General Fund revenues
could be used to improve municipal services and invest in downtown.
Finally, relocation of the two Main Street auto dealers to the Project could also help spur
redevelopment Downtown by opening those sites up for the development of a Cineplex, multi-
34
story parking facility, and other uses described in the Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown
dealership sites would need to be redeveloped relatively quickly to avoid having prolonged
vacant uses along Main Street.
County Fair Mall
The struggles of the County Fair Mall are longstanding, though past and current owners
continue their efforts to reposition the mall. The current owner of the mall spent approximately
$10 million in mall renovations, only to face the impacts of a major economic downturn that has
disproportionately affected this retail center, national tenants, both anchor and in-line retailers,
have left the mall because of larger economic issues.
Discussions with the mall’s property manager indicate an ongoing effort to retain the
remaining tenants and re-lease the anchor spaces. However, in contrast to previous efforts
conducted in association with Phase 1 of the Gateway Retail Center, the property manager of the
mall has suggested that the new strategy includes the possibility of leasing space to non-retail
users, as well as retail users. Non-retail users could include private or public office or service
providers.
Development of the Project would likely place additional strain on the mall by providing
even more new, amenitized retail space in Woodland. The mall’s new leasing strategy creates a
level of flexibility that may enable the mall to re-lease a portion of its vacant space earlier than
would otherwise occur. The mall’s competitive rent structure and its long-term flexibility
concerning users may insulate it from experiencing long-term vacancies; if this strategy is
successful, the mall’s vulnerability to the potential for urban decay may be more limited.
Should the mall’s re-leasing strategy fail, however, existing retail tenants, as well as potential
new anchor or in-line tenants, may prefer the amenities and location of the Project, particularly if
35
the pricing structure becomes more competitive. Should this occur, the vulnerability to urban
decay would be more significant.
East of Downtown
The Crossroads and Sycamore Point community shopping centers have been relatively
successful centers. They are anchored by national, big box tenants and occupy redeveloped or
new retail space. Should Project users not be direct competitors with the retailers at these centers,
competition between the Project and these centers would not be an issue. However, to the extent
that regional retail users in the Project directly compete with the users at these centers (i.e.,
discount grocery, hardware, office supply), there may not be enough room in the market to
support all of these centers. Because the locations of Crossroads, Sycamore Point, and the Project
are relatively competitive, it is difficult to anticipate whether the market would be split between
the centers or if one or more of the centers would take a relatively stronger hit in sales.
West Woodland
West Woodland has multiple neighborhood and community retail centers. The retail
along this strip is markedly different from what can be expected in the Gateway Retail Center;
retail here is mostly independent retail or standard commercial strip outlet (such as tire outlets,
fast-food restaurants, etc.). Some of these centers, including the West Court Plaza and Westgate
Shopping Center, appear to have successfully repositioned themselves as a neighborhood and
community center, respectively, that appeal to the Latino market or surrounding residential areas.
Anchored by a grocery store and supported by a series of active in-line stores, these centers
continue to exhibit relatively little vacancy.
36
In addition, other centers, including Cottonwood Plaza, are in the process of transitioning
to a new role as a service-oriented center, with office users positioned as the main anchor(s) and
little retail, primarily locally owned and serving restaurants. It is likely that a new user of the
main anchor space at this center will be something other than retail.
However, West Woodland also has four struggling centers with a significant amount of retail
vacancy:

Shade Tree Plaza

Marshalls

Purity Plaza

Woodland Center
These centers are already experiencing difficulties and showing signs of prolonged vacancies
and deferred maintenance. Even before the Project develops, some or all of these centers may no
longer be financially viable. However, should they manage to re-lease enough space to remain
open, development of Gateway Phase 2 could cause one or more of these centers to be
particularly vulnerable to the excess amount of retail in the RMA. Under either scenario, they
would require major reinvestment to be repositioned for alternative uses (e.g., office) or newer
format retail. As a result, these centers are particularly vulnerable to potential urban decay.
East Street Corridor
The Fairgrounds Shopping Center is a small, older, deteriorating neighborhood center
with a significant amount of vacancy. This center would be vulnerable to the excess amount of
newer format retail and could be difficult to re-lease as retail uses. Other centers in this area
appear to be transitioning to office/service uses or have secured a niche clientele. For example,
37
the Olive Tree Plaza is occupied by ethnic retail tenants and would not likely compete with the
Project or other planned new retail centers in the RMA. Implementation of the East Street
Corridor Plan, created in 1998, could help with the re-positioning or re-sizing of the Fairgrounds
Shopping Center.
Gibson Plaza
As is a relatively modern neighborhood center, Gibson Plaza is anchored by a Raley’s grocer
on Gibson Road and Pioneer Avenue and supported by in-line stores occupied by a mix of food
and drink chains and local services. Over time, the residential growth south of the shopping
center is expected to add more than enough localized demand to ensure viability. As a result, it is
unlikely that the excess supply created by the Project would compete with Gibson Plaza.
Currently approximately 25 percent of this shopping center is vacant. This is a result of
numerous tenants relocating to other shopping centers in Woodland and current economic
conditions.
East of I-5
This regional retail area is composed of a Wal-mart, a Home Depot, a junior anchor, and
some supporting fast-food and professional service retailers. Located on the north side of the
freeway between the County Road 102 exit and Downtown Woodland exit, it is not quite as
accessible as the Project.
Additional big box retail at the Project that appeals to the same target market (such as
discount department stores or Home Depot) would compete directly with these existing big box
stores. If the existing stores could not compete with the Project, there could be a significant
potential for one or more of these big box stores to go out of business. For example, a new big-
38
box hardware store and discount general merchandise store could choose to split the market in the
hopes that the Project’s more competitive location would favor the new store. Alternatively, the
existing Wal-mart or Home Depot could be motivated to re locate to the Project to prevent a
competitor from entering the market. In either case, one or more vacant big box stores can be
particularly difficult to re-lease and, therefore, the site would be particularly vulnerable to urban
decay.
As mentioned previously, this regional retail area is composed of a Wal-mart, a Home
Depot, a minor anchor, and some supporting food service retailers. There are three possible
scenarios that would limit this area from the potential impacts of urban decay. The first scenario
is that new Project retailers do not compete with the offerings of Wal-mart or Home Depot. The
second scenario is that a new user is found for an existing big box retailer that either relocates to
the Project or simply leaves the market altogether. The third scenario is that one or more big box
vacancies occur in this area, but because of this area’s remote location relative to residential
neighborhoods and Downtown, vacancy does not translate into particularly offensive conditions
for the City; surrounded by industrial users, vacancies in this area of the City may appear more on
the level of an unused industrial warehouse than an abandoned retail area.
Gateway Phase 1
Phase 1 of the Gateway project is owned by the Project proponent for Phase 2. Because of
the common ownership, similar amenities, and same location, the developer will structure leasing
to minimize competition between retailers in Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 2 development will
likely be delayed if there are substantial vacancies in Phase 1. As such, urban decay is not
expected to occur here.
39
Davis
Retail stores in Downtown Davis primarily serve Davis residents and UC Davis students.
Stores there are occupied by smaller format retailers (with limited representation from national
tenants, like Borders) to meet neighborhood-level and community-level needs. In contrast,
development of the Project is intended to accommodate large-format, big box users. Davis
residents and UC Davis students will continue to prefer to patronize more proximate locations in
Davis for their local needs. In addition, an increasing portion of their regional needs will be met
by the new Target store on Mace Boulevard in Davis.
Duration and Size of Sales Shift
Project sales are estimated to reach $236 million at buildout. Because the RMA will be
in equilibrium with construction of all the approved retail projects, a significant portion of the
retail sales generated by the Project will represent a shift in sales in the RMA if the Project is
fully built out before demand in the RMA increases.
The extent of the shift in sales will depend on three major factors:

The ability of the Project to attract retail users that result in an expansion of the RMA.
For example, a unique regional store with a trade area of 50 to 100 miles would bring new
dollars to the City and cause less of a shift in sales. Examples of this type of user are Orvis
(retail sport equipment and clothing store), Cabella’s (specialty outdoor sportsmen retailer),
or outlet stores.

The extent to which the Project can shift sales from elsewhere in the RMA (Dixon or
Davis). This is probably not a major factor because the Target store in Davis will be exerting
the opposite effect, as will Dixon’s new retail projects.
40

The extent to which the Project can capture regional center shopping dollars from RMA
residents currently leaving the RMA. Many Dixon residents go to Vacaville, Colusa
County residents go to Yuba City, and North Natomas residents stay in Sacramento to meet
their regional shopping needs. If the Project can cause these residents to shift their spending
to the Project instead, it would generate net new sales to the City and consequently decrease
the anticipated shift in sales.
It is estimated is that between 40 to 60 percent of the Project’s sales could represent net new
sales to the City. The remainder of the Project’s sales (60 to 40 percent) would represent a shift
from other retailers in the RMA. This shift would likely last until demand for retail in the RMA
catches up to total supply. If the RMA continues to grow at an average annual rate of about 2
percent, it could take approximately 1 year for demand for retail space to catch up to supply
projected for 2015.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The following recommended mitigation measures are based on the findings from the market
and urban decay analysis.
1.
The City should limit the amount of retail development in each phase of the project.
The City should limit the first phase to approximately 250,000 to 300,000 sq. ft. Before
allowing additional retail development, the City should conduct retail market research to
determine the appropriate size of the next phase so that the additional phase does not lead to
urban decay in the City’s retail areas. The phases need to be large enough to provide an
appropriate retail mix as well as offset the cost of infrastructure and site development.
2.
The City should prepare a Retail Strategic Plan. As a precursor to a General Plan update,
which the City will be updating in the next few years, a retail strategic plan would determine
41
which areas should be preserved as retail and which areas should be developed as other uses.
The Retail Strategic Plan will assist the City in strengthening its viable retail areas and
planning for alternative uses on some of the centers that are in decline.
3.
The City’s Downtown Redevelopment Agency should review the implementation
measures of the Downtown Specific Plan. Over the long term, the proposed Project has the
potential to help accelerate implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan by freeing up land
for redevelopment of key downtown sites through the relocation of auto dealers from
downtown, increasing the number of shoppers to the City through increased capture of
regional sales activity, and providing the City with additional General Fund revenues to
improve services and possibly invest in downtown. These long-term opportunities, coupled
with short-term conditions including a continued economic decline and the Project’s potential
to divert public and private investment from downtown, warrants an evaluation of the
Downtown Specific Plan’s implementation actions.
4.
The City should prepare a strategic land use plan for County Fair Mall to analyze
alternative land uses for the site. This study would determine the viability as a retail center
compared with alternative land use plans, such as mixed use.
Reuse Options
Retail centers most vulnerable to the impact of a significant shift in sales face three general
reuse options:
1. Repositioning as a Continuing Retail Center. Under this option, a retail center can alter its
market image by re-tenanting with different types of retailers or targeting a new or expanded
42
target market clientele. Some centers in Woodland are already accomplishing this by
focusing on a niche market. The Crossroads center is an example of a major repositioning of
a former retail center into a new retail center with different users.
2. Repositioning with Other Allowable Uses. Under this option, a retail center begins to
include or significantly add non-retail uses allowed under the current zoning. Some centers
in Woodland are undergoing this process by adding new space that is not retail or re-leasing
retail space to office or other service users.
3. Rezoning and Redevelopment. Under this option, a retail center undergoes a planning
process to obtain a change in zoning and development of an entirely new set of land uses.
This process requires additional time and expense to undertake.
Existing City Policies Related to Reuse
The City has several policies suited to reuse efforts, most notably the City’s General Plan, last
updated in 2002. It contains the following relevant policies:

Policy 1.E.8 states that the City “shall consider reuse of vacant strip commercial malls with
other uses (e.g., office, housing) to promote infill of commercial areas. This may include
rezoning of properties for other uses.” This repositioning process is already occurring in
some centers (such as Cottonwood Plaza) and could be applied to these other weaker centers.

Policy 1.G.1 states that the City shall encourage improvements and the expansion of
commercial development along East Street.

Policy 1.G.5 states that the promotion of year-round uses at the County Fairgrounds and the
possible reuse of the Fairgrounds site should the Fairgrounds relocate.
43

Policy 1.E.1 states that the City shall strive to avoid creating an oversupply of commercially
designated land to prevent the dilution or deterioration of currently viable commercial areas.

Policy 1.F.1 states that the City and Redevelopment Agency will promote Downtown as the
City’s primary specialty retail and entertainment center.

Policy 1.F.3 states that the City and Redevelopment Agency will promote the use of firstfloor space in new buildings for retail and higher levels for office/residential uses.

Implementation Program 1.17 calls for the creation of a downtown parking strategy.

Implementation Program 1.18 calls for the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan.
In addition to these policies, there are two area-specific policy documents that address re-use.
The East Street Corridor Specific Plan, created in 1998, contains a detailed plan for revitalization
of this area. Secondly, the 2003 Downtown Specific Plan contains a series of implementation
actions to revitalize Woodland’s Downtown.
To the extent that these policies and implementation programs can be executed, the City’s
existing retail centers could be more insulated from any potential impacts associated with
development of the Project. The City may want to develop reuse strategies for several of the
other struggling retail centers. ULI’s publication “Revitalizing Commercial Strip Centers”
provides useful guidance for the conversion of overbuilt retail areas into more productive land
uses.
44
APPENDICES
45
APPENDIX A
Population and Employee Assumptions
Table A-1
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Population Projections Summary
Item
Retail Market Area (RMA)
Woodland Residents
UC Davis Students
Davis Residents
North Natomas
Greenbriar
Colusa County
Dixon and Winters
Unincorporated Yolo County
Total RMA
Existing
(2007)
54,312
16,551
53,479
10,704
0
21,616
24,461
18,463
199,586
Projected
(2015)
62,509
24,037
54,071
14,010
3,070
26,223
29,167
18,718
231,805
Adjusted Population
Growth
Projected
(2007-2015)
(2025)
8,197
7,486
593
3,306
3,070
4,607
4,706
255
32,219
72,518
24,037
58,125
14,010
7,675
33,385
36,344
26,987
273,081
Growth
(2015-2025)
10,009
0
4,053
0
4,605
7,163
7,177
8,269
41,276
"pop_summ"
Source: SACOG MTP 2035 Projections, California Department of Finance (DOF), and EPS.
46
Table A-2
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Urban Decay Study
City of Woodland Population Projections
Projected Population [2]
Item
City of Woodland Population
Existing
Population [1]
54,312
2010
2015
58,093
62,509
2020
67,487
2025
72,518
pop_woodland
Source: City of Woodland; California Department of Finance; and EPS.
[1] Existing Population as of Jan. 1, 2007 -- from California Department of Finance Table E-5.
[2] Projections from the EIR for the Surface water project in April of 2007 prepared by ESA.
47
Table A-3
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
UC Davis Student Projections
Item
Growth
Location Assigned by DOF [1]
2007/2008
2015/2016
Unincorporated Yolo County [2]
4,800
9,800
5,000
11,751
5,036
16,787
14,237
6,102
20,338
2,486
1,065
3,551
Students By Place of Residence
Students Living On Main Campus [2]
Students Living Near Main Campus
Living in Davis (75%)
City of Davis [3]
Living Elsewhere (25%)
Outside of Trade Area [4]
Subtotal Students Living Near Main Campus
Other Students
Outside of Trade Area [5]
1,427
1,992 [4]
565
Total UC Davis Students
23,014
32,130
9,116
Students by Location Relative to RMA
Students in RMA
Main Campus
Living in Davis
Total Students in RMA
4,800
11,751
16,551
9,800
14,237
24,037
5,000
2,486
7,486
6,463
8,093
1,630
Students not in RMA
All Other Students
"pop_UCD"
Source: UC Davis News & Information; UC Davis 2003 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR, Chapter 3.
[1] For purposes of counting population.
[2] Includes only central campus and Neighborhood Master Plan. DOF categorizes on-campus students as population
residing in group quarters in unincorporated Yolo County.
[3] Includes students living near, but not on, the main campus. For purposes of this analysis, all of these students are
assigned to the City of Davis, but they could live elsewhere in the retail trade area.
[4] Accounts for students at downtown Sacramento or other UC Davis campuses outside of the Retail Market Area.
[5] Estimated by EPS based on proportion of Other Students in 2007/2008.
48
Table A-4
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Projected Population-- Select Other Jurisdictions
Item
2007
SACOG Jurisdictions
City of Davis
Unincorporated Yolo County
UC Davis Students [1]
Remaining Uninc. County
Winters
65,230
23,263
4,800
18,463
6,919
Other Jurisdictions
Dixon
Colusa County [2]
Subtotal Remaining RMA
17,542
21,616
39,158
2035
76,655
47,454
n/a
n/a
12,360
2020
23,500
29,588
53,088
Avg. Annual
Growth Rate
(2007-2035)
0.6%
2.6%
n/a
n/a
2.1%
2015
2025
68,308
28,518
9,800
18,718
8,167
72,361
36,787
9,800
26,987
10,047
21,000
26,223
47,223
26,297
33,385
59,682
2007-2020
2.3%
2.4%
2.4%
"pop_SACOG"
Source: SACOG MTP 2035 Projections, California Department of Finance (DOF), and EPS.
[1] This analysis assumes that UC Davis will reach its capacity in 2015.
[2] Based on DOF Population Projections by decade for California Counties, 2000-2050.
49
Table A-5
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Estimated Sales by Type of Store (2009$) - Through 2015
Store/Retail Category
General
Retail [1],[2]
Costco [3]
2015
Target [4]
Restaurant/
Fast Food
Total/
Average
(Rounded)
Gateway Phase 1
Square Feet
Sales per Sq. Ft.
Estimated Sales (Rounded)
Taxable Portion
Taxable Sales (Rounded)
236,000
$350
$82,654,000
99%
$81,472,271
148,000
$600
$88,800,000
68%
$60,384,000
136,842
$280
$38,316,000
95%
$36,400,000
29,254
$320
$9,361,000
100%
$9,361,000
550,096
$398
$219,131,000
PROJECT: Gateway Phase 2
Square Feet
Sales per Sq. Ft. [1]
Estimated Sales (Rounded)
Taxable Portion
Taxable Sales (Rounded)
275,000
$295
$81,180,000
99%
$80,019,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
20,000
$320
$6,400,000
100%
$6,400,000
295,000
$297
$87,580,000
$187,617,000
$86,419,000
"gate_sales_2015"
Sources: Petrovich Development Corporation, Urban Land Institute, and EPS.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Estimated sales per sq. ft. for Phase 1 from Petrovich Development.
See Table 4 for the calculation of the estimated sales per sq. ft. for Phase 2 general retail.
See Table B-3 for the taxable portion calculation.
Based on internal research regarding Costco.
Assumes that the store will not be a Super Target and will sell a limited amount of food. Based on EPS internal research
regarding Target stores and other regional retail stores.
50
Table A-6
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Estimated Sales by Type of Store (2009$) - Buildout
Store/Retail Category
General
Retail [1],[2]
Costco [4]
Buildout
Target [5]
Restaurant/
Fast Food
Total/
Average
(Rounded)
Gateway Phase 1 [1]
Square Feet
Sales per Sq. Ft.
Estimated Sales (Rounded)
Taxable Portion [3]
Taxable Sales (Rounded)
236,000
$350
$82,654,000
99%
$81,472,271
148,000
$600
$88,800,000
68%
$60,384,000
136,842
$280
$38,316,000
95%
$36,400,000
29,254
$320
$9,361,000
100%
$9,361,000
550,096
$398
$219,131,000
PROJECT: Gateway Phase 2
Square Feet
Sales per Sq. Ft. [2]
Estimated Sales (Rounded)
Taxable Portion [3]
Taxable Sales (Rounded)
808,000
$295
$238,522,000
99%
$235,112,000
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
30,500
$320
$9,760,000
100%
$9,760,000
838,500
$296
$248,282,000
$187,617,000
$244,872,000
"gate_sales"
Sources: Petrovich Development Corporation, Urban Land Institute, and EPS.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
Estimated sales per sq. ft. for Phase 1 from Petrovich Development.
See Table 4 for the calculation of the estimated sales per sq. ft. for Phase 2 general retail.
See Table B-3 for the taxable portion calculation.
Based on internal research regarding Costco.
Assumes that the store will not be a Super Target and will sell a limited amount of food. Based on EPS internal research
regarding Target stores and other regional retail stores.
51
Table A-7
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
UC Davis Student Expenses (2007$)
Item
Weighted Average Student Expenses [3]
Travel Expenses [4]
Medical
Transportation [5]
School Supply
Food
Total Weighted Average Student Expenses
All Retail
Expenditures
[1]
$529
$18
$52
$1,183
$194
$1,976
Taxable Portion
%
Amount
[2]
50%
50%
25%
100%
50%
$264
$9
$13
$1,183
$97
$1,566
"student_expenses"
[1] Reflects a weighted average of commuter students and other students. "Commuter" includes
single students with no dependents who live in their parent's or relative's home. "Other" includes
all married students and those living in off-campus housing units.
[2] Estimated by EPS.
[3] From the 2000/01 Student Expenses and Resources Survey (SEARS), inflated to 2007 dollars.
[4] Includes expenses for traveling. Reduced by 60 percent to only account for expenditures in RMA.
[5] Includes expenses for transportation to and from work and school.
52
APPENDIX B
Taxable Sales Assumptions
Table B-1
Woodland Gateway and Auto Center
Woodland and Davis Taxable Sales (2007$)
Business Category
Woodland
2007 Taxable Sales
Davis
Total
Retail Outlets
Apparel
General Merchandise
Food Stores
Eating and Drinking Places
Home Furnishings and Appliances
Building Materials
Auto Dealers and Auto Supplies
Service Stations
Other Retail
Subtotal Retail Outlets
$11,516,000
$111,414,000
$62,654,000
$54,821,000
$11,660,000
$76,516,000
$91,929,000
$58,007,000
$87,511,000
$566,000,000
$8,567,000
$24,086,000
$41,883,000
$82,137,000
$6,790,000
$21,823,000
$168,473,000
$65,901,000
$56,225,000
$475,900,000
$20,083,000
$135,500,000
$104,537,000
$136,958,000
$18,450,000
$244,989,000
$157,830,000
$79,830,000
$143,736,000
$1,041,900,000
Other Outlets (not retail)
$247,571,000
$55,426,000
$302,997,000
Total
$813,600,000
$531,300,000
$1,344,900,000
"taxable_sales"
Sources: California State Board of Equalization and EPS.
Note: All figures rounded to the nearest thousand.
53
Table B-2
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Remainder of RMA Taxable Sales (2007$)
Item
Total
Taxable Sales
(2007)
Remainder of the RMA
Dixon
$202,783,000
Yolo County
Winters
Uninc. Yolo County
Subtotal Yolo County
$23,592,000
$184,590,000
$208,182,000
Colusa County
Williams
Colusa
Uninc. Colusa County
Subtotal Colusa County
$47,696,000
$67,317,000
$59,875,000
$174,888,000
Total
$585,900,000
"rma_taxable_sales"
Sources: California State Board of Equalization and EPS.
Note: All figures rounded to the nearest thousand. Only includes retail sales.
54
Table B-3
Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay Analysis
Estimated National Levels of Taxable Sales
Type of Center/Retailer
Typical
Center
Estimated Typical Center [2]
Total
Taxable
Taxable
Sales
Sales
Sales %
Taxable Space
Amount
%
Total Neighborhood Commercial Center
50,000
Weighted Average Taxable Sales per Sq Ft
$19,759,475
$395
$8,716,729
44%
23,923 48%
$364
Total Community Commercial Center120,000
Weighted Average Taxable Sales per Sq Ft
$46,162,949 $24,746,368
$385
54%
71,859 60%
$344
Total Regional Commercial Center 200,000
Weighted Average Taxable Sales per Sq Ft
$46,215,245 $45,480,723
$231
98%
197,141 99%
$231
"tax_sales"
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AndersonFirst Coalitionv.City of Anderson, 130 Cal. App. 4th 1173 (2005).
BakersfieldCitizens for Local Controlv. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184 (2005).
California Board of Equalization.
California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. January 2010.
<http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/>
California Natural Resources Agency.
CBRE. Market View – Sacramento Retail. First Quarter 2009.
CBRE. Market View – Sacramento Retail. Fourth Quarter 2009.
City of Davis.
City of Dixon.
City of San Rafael. Target Store Draft Environmental Impact Report. Web. September 2008.
City of Woodland Economic Development Department.
City of Woodland Planning Department.
Colliers International Market Research. Sacramento Retail Overview. May 2009.
Colliers International Market Research. Sacramento/Roseville Retail Outlook. February/
March 2009.
Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Fiscal Impact Analysis.
February 2010.
Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. Woodland Gateway Phase 2 Market and Urban Decay
Analysis. February 2010.
Engstrom, Mark. Telephone Interview. 25 August 2009.
Morrow, Shaun .Telephone Interview. 29 September 2009.
Morrison Foerster. Potential for "Urban Decay" Must Be Analyzed Under CEQA. Web.17 July
56
2006.
Petrovich Development Corporation.
Quinn, Sean. Personal Interview. February 2010.
Ruggiero, Janet. Telephone Interview. 25 August 2009.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
Sharp, Don. Telephone Interview. September 2009.
Stallard, Tom. Telephone Interview. 25 August 2009.
Sterleker, Scott. Telephone Interview. 16 September 2009.
UC Davis. 2003 Long Range Development Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Web.
October 2003.
ULI – the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers. Dollars &
Cents of Shopping Centers / The Score 2008. Washington, D.C.: ULI – the Urban Land
Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers, Inc., 2008. Print.
Wilkinson, David. Telephone Interview. 28 August 2009.